de libertate

A study called Women’s Bust Size and Men’s Courtship Solicitation, published in the journal Body Image, describes how Gueguen tested “the effect of a woman’s breast size on approaches made by males. We hypothesised that an increase in breast size would be associated with an increase in approaches by men.” The study ends with an 827-word ode on the topic sentence: “Our hypothesis was confirmed.”

A related experiment produced a study called Women’s Bust Size and Men’s Courtship Solicitation, published in the journal Perceptual and Motor Skills. There Gueguen reports that “1,200 male and female French motorists were tested in a hitchhiking situation. A 20-year-old female confederate wore a bra which permitted variation in the size of cup to vary her breast size. She stood by the side of a road frequented by hitchhikers and held out her thumb to catch a ride.

“Increasing the bra-size of the female-hitchhiker was significantly associated with an increase in number of male drivers, but not female drivers, who stopped to offer a ride.” [The Guardian]

You might not agree, but a study has revealed that a large number of British men prefer women with smaller breasts.

According to the study, one in three British men find a woman’s big assets too much to handle — while nine per cent of men find large breasts a turn-off, 22 per cent will hardly consider dating anyone with larger baps. [Express India]

Richard Larmer, chief executive of RLM Public Relations in New York, said he threw out his PC after it became infected by Koobface [the new Facebook virus], which downloaded malicious software onto his PC. It was really bad. It destroyed my computer,” he said. [Reuters]

is Alberta’s economy collapsing.

U.S. stocks fell for the first time in three days, pushed down by concern General Motors Corp. may file for bankruptcy and a plunge in energy shares following Merrill Lynch & Co.’s prediction that oil will hit $25 a barrel. [Bloomberg]

Nor, apparently, does he read the articles he links to.

For the record, the Queen didn’t take any action whatsoever.

A Tri-State woman is in critical condition Wednesday after police say her husband shot her while they were having sex. [WLWT]

You know what makes blogs better? Making them invitation only!

I’ve always found the idea of adopting babies abroad a little unsettling, but I usually accepted the practice under the idea that children are being removed from a bad situation. I no longer think so.

Westerners have been sold the myth of a world orphan crisis. We are told that millions of children are waiting for their “forever families” to rescue them from lives of abandonment and abuse. But many of the infants and toddlers being adopted by Western parents today are not orphans at all. Yes, hundreds of thousands of children around the world do need loving homes. But more often than not, the neediest children are sick, disabled, traumatized, or older than 5. They are not the healthy babies that, quite understandably, most Westerners hope to adopt. There are simply not enough healthy, adoptable infants to meet Western demand—and there’s too much Western money in search of children. As a result, many international adoption agencies work not to find homes for needy children but to find children for Western homes.  

Do read the whole thing.

This just reinforces my belief that we need more open immigration.

Next to the wholly offensive video by the loathsome Naomi Klein and unscrupulous Alfonso Cuarón, Annie Leonard’s The Story of Stuff is the dumbest anti-business, anti-corporate, anti-market web video in existence.She starts her video with a simplistic account of the economy, consumer products, or as she calls it, “stuff”. She breaks it down into 5 parts, Extraction, Production, Distribution, Consumption and Disposal which she labels the “materials economy”. She then proceeds to explain how this “linear system” is a failure because it doesn’t account for all the variations and people in evolved. This is supposed to be a critique of the standard capitalist economy, but instead it is merely a straw man. No reputable economist would pretend that the market breaks down into such neat little categories. Indeed, the standard market-oriented economist, and indeed any economist to the right of Mao would emphasize the incredibly complex system that the international markets have become.

In the second section on production Leonard argues that world has already used one third of the world’s resources. This is nonsense for a couple of reasons. First, what defines a resource? What man considers a resource depends upon the time and technology available. Prior to the late 19^th century most discoveries of oil were a nuisance because they contaminated the land for agricultural use. Second, world market price determines the amount of exploration and extraction. With the rapid increase in oil-prices (ignoring the recent plummet of the past few months) oil companies ‘discovered’ a vast amount of new oil reserves. As such the resource base estimates have to adjust to the new discoveries. Likewise, it is possible that a resource will find a new use or an entirely new resource could be found. Thus to say that a third of the worlds resources have been irrevocably used ignores reality. If she had argued that one third of recognized reserves of products X,Y & Z had been used she would have had a point, at least to some degree.

Her example of the $4.99 radio is a prime illustration of her economic ignorance. The fact that a radio-an exemplar of modern technology if there ever was one-could cost less than $5 completely confounds her. She does, however, recognize the disparate nature of technology with various products coming from international locations, as the famous I, Pencil article by Leonard Read (and the subsequent explanation by Milton Friedman) showed. Yet, this doesn’t enlighten her to the complexity of a modern industrial economy, it instead it convinces her of a nefarious plot by multi-national corporations. To account for the seemingly impossible price of $4.99 Leonard invokes the idea of “cost externalizing”. What she means here is that the ‘true’ costs a product are dumped upon others: the environment, the workers and any other so-called victims she can invent. It appears to me that this idea is merely a bastardized version of the concept of externalities, or indirect costs placed on others (which can be both positive and negative). There is a legitimate critique here, but instead she sticks to anti-market buzzwords.

More to the point of the $5 price tag, she is woefully ignorant about the concepts of advantage (both competitive and absolute), division of labor, and productivity. The reason a radio can be sold for $5 dollars is because its cost to produce, market and sell is lower than $5. The raw materials can be extracted and sold in bulk, refined in bulk and assembled quickly in low-cost factories on a mass scale. Due to the invention of container shipping the products can be transported for very low cost and sold to consumers at stores who determine amount of shelf-space by the amount of profit that can be made. There is nothing especially difficult about understanding this. If she had wanted to say that the $5 radio is too low because it doesn’t pay for the environmental damage and low wages she’s free to do so. She’s all free to boycott radios or send money directly to affected areas.

Leonard is also bewildered-and mistaken-about computers. She claims that she opened up her desktop computer to learn about them, yet somehow she came back with the most ludicrous notions I’ve ever heard. She claims that the only than changes on a computer from year-to-year is “one little thing in the corner.” I’m going to be generous and assume that she is referring to the processor. She claims that this cannot be replaced because they deliberately-due to planned obsolescence-change the connection style. I’ll admit that Intel and AMD (the two most popular chip makers) have changed their socket design over time, but it’s just not true that you can’t upgrade.

Processors can and are upgraded. The current Intel Socket 775 has a variety of options available. But even moving beyond the processor, Leonard claims are mistaken. Much more on a computer is changed as technology is developed. The motherboard of a computer contains a number sockets, slots, chipsets and connectors. These, like all technology, are subjection to revision. Importantly many of the functions on a computer, like the chipset (Northbridge and Southbridge), are not upgradable, thus computers don’t change by “one little thing in the corner.” RAM, Hard drives, and a whole host of other things all need changing as the needs of computers and their users change. Computer makers aren’t changing things just to force people to buy new ones (though I’m sure they would like that), but they are also constrained by the need to innovate. Her ignorance about computer serves as another illustration of her dishonesty.

Leonard also likes to play fast and loose with the facts. She claims that happiness has declined in American since the 1950s citing one source. She connects this fact with the rise of consumerism as defined by Victor Lebow, ignoring any context of his article. She also claims that Americans have less leisure time than since the Feudal Era, as though the backbreaking agricultural and industrial labor provided immense free time and holiday pay. She claims that dioxins are the most toxic chemicals known to science despite the fact that dioxins are broad classification of toxins. Most of all she romanticizes the past, arguing that our relatives in the 1950s new about environmental stewardship and sustainability. No Annie, people just didn’t have money back in the day. Otherwise they were busy polluting the earth unwittingly.

Overall this “documentary” is a piece of garbage. It is a slick, sophisticated mix of lefty buzzwords and ignorant pontification. It presents a case to return the world to harshness our descendants worked so hard to get their children out of. There is plenty of room for criticism of corporations, government and of pollution, but this video only continues to spread ignorance of economics and reality.

Russia’s Communists expect the global financial crisis will cause social unrest and help them challenge for power, the party’s leader said on Saturday.

Gennady Zyuganov told the party’s annual congress the Communists should make maximum use of the growing public discontent caused by the economic downturn to try to restore their political strength. [Reuters]

I might be the only person in Canada, but I really, really, really want them to call an election. It would be the funniest political event of my, or even Canada’s, lifetime.

So, GG Jean, do it!

Ok, it’s not that bad, but most of the defenders come up with the worst reasons to promote Regina.

The worst offender in this category is the horrid Regina in Pictures blog. Here “Guy D” posts a new picture of Regina everyday. Unfortunately it’s a big scam. To be sure Monsieur D has a certain eye for taking photos, the only problem is that they’re aritificial. His photos are highly selective, overexposed and overly post-processed. I too could make all of my photos look edgy if turned up the contrast and saturation on all of them. Additionally he peddles false information such as the Albert Memorial Bridge holding a “record” or “Guiness Book of World Records” for the longest bridge over the shortest body of water. In reality the bridge has never been recognized for any such award.

Then there are his commenters who say stupid things like that the SaskPower building looks like it were designed by Ludwig Mies van der Rohe.

Overall the site is a con job. It a perfect example polishing a turd with a computer. The truth is that Regina is ugly, very, very ugly. Of course there are a couple nice buildings and a few places with nice scenery in the city, but overall, not so much. The Albert Memorial Bridge is not only a symbol of government waste during the Depression, but it’s ugly as hell and not properly maintained. Victoria Park, while large, is ugly and full of rapists. The Legislative Building is fine, but nothing special. Perhaps the most interesting building in town is the Art Deco Dominion Government Building on Scarth St. But if you look at the city as a whole it’s ugly and full of crime.

If I had enough free time I’d make a rival site called “Real Regina in Pictures” and walk around North Central and take some pretty pictures. Next I’d go to the stucco jungle we call “East Regina”. Then perhaps I take some pictures of the failure that is the SGI Building, the modernist mess that Minoru Yamasaki made at the University of Regina, and the ugly-as-shit design of Arthur Erickson at the RCMP.

Kerry Howley point towards this excellent New Yorker article. Check it out.

There’s also evidence to suggest that the religious people who live the longest are the ones who attend services most frequently rather than feel their beliefs most deeply. (It’s not faith that keeps them alive, in other words, but people.)

French President Nicolas Sarkozy voodoo dolls can still be sold by a publisher as long as they come with a warning that sticking pins in the toy is an affront to his dignity, a Paris court ruled today.  [Bloomberg]

In doing some reading, I found this opening paragraph in an article defending the legacy of World War I flying ace, Billy Bishop: 

In 1989, seven years after the debut of “The Kid Who Couldn’t Miss”, an article appeared in a publication called The Canadian Historical Review, Vol. LXX, No. 2, by Brereton Greenhous, of the Directorate of History, Department of National Defence. This article was titled, “The Sad Case of Billy Bishop, VC.” [Link]

It amuses me because of the way he states “in a publication called The Canadian Historical Review”.

The Canadian Historical Review is the flagship journal of Canadian history. To own the domain “billybishop.net” and attempt to rebut a professional historian should require at least having heard of the CHR.

Today on delibertate.com we are launching a new feature, the Commenter of the Month. This feature recognizes the best commenter over the last 30 days.

So please welcome Dana, the inaugural Commenter of the Month.

If Obama really did offer and Clinton did accept the position of Secretary of State, then Barack is dead to me.

Here is a brilliant discussion of multiculturalism and immigration.

Passchendaele is Canada’s attempt at a movie. It failed.

The movie centers on the story of Michael Dunne (Paul Gross), a member of the 10th Battalion of the Canadian Expeditionary Force. We are introduced to him as he murders a German soldier by sticking his bayonet through his skull and is then injured in Europe and transported back to a Canadian hospital. Here he is subsequently diagnosed with shell-shock and falls in love with his heavenly nurse, Sarah Mann, played by Caroline Dhavernas.

As luck would have it, Dunn also meets David Mann, Sarah’s brother. David is a weak, asthmatic boy, desperate to join the Army so that he can a) continue to fuck his girlfriend [yes there are nipples!] and b) avenge his father, who, inconveniently, joined the war on the wrong side! Dunne attempts to persuade the boy not to join the army while attempting to get in Sarah’s pants.

Through his attempt to sleep with Sarah, Dunne helps her detox from her random morphine addiction. Once cleared of the drug, there is a poignant scene were Sarah sits in the window seat of Dunne’s hotel room, basked in the sunlight. This makes her into angel that Dunne first sees waking up in the hospital.

To set up the final act, David uses his girlfriend’s father to allow him to join the Army. Upon hearing this Sarah flies into a rage, because she believes that Dunne allowed him to join up the army, even though he had not. In a ridiculous scene, Sarah bursts into David’s girlfriend’s house, accusing Dunne of signing her brother up. Instead of saying “I didn’t do that” he reenlists in the army so that he can protect David in battle.

So both David and Dunne are now in Belgium, near Ypres, awaiting battle. To make the plot even more ludicrous, while they wait Sarah shows up in France as a nurse. In a beautiful scene, Dunne and Sarah fuck in the open with bombs exploding in the background. Truly heartwarming.

In the concluding moments of the film, the most ludicrous scene in film history is shown. During the assault on the German lines, David becomes enraged and charges the enemy. He manages to reach the lines and falls into the trench and a kind German officer spares his life, but then a shell explodes tossing David’s body into the air. For some reason the body happens to end up on a cross like section of wood. (Through the movie there are constant references to the German’s having crucified a Canadian solider)

Noticing this, Dunne immediately runs towards David getting shot a couple of times. Seeing that he was unarmed, the kindly German officer instructs his men to ceasefire. Dunne then goes up to the cross and pulls it out of the ground. He then-wait for it-puts the cross on his back and carries the body back towards the Canadian lines. So yes, Gross wrote himself into the movie as Jesus.

Ultimately, David is saved and Dunne dies of his wounds in Sarah’s arms. This is where I was the only person in the theatre cheering.

In looking at the themes of this movie, it’s basically anti-war. There is no real glorification of the war. Yet the movie was still terrible. The symbolism was overwrought and transparent. At one point when there is an ominous scene, the camera quickly moves to show a flock of evil birds. In a happier moment (as described above) Sarah is made to be an angel.

From the first shots of the movie, the tone is just off. You can immediately tell that the production values are limited. It just feels amateurish the shots are clunky and unrefined. At one point there is a shot where David is using a telescope, but the focus of the shot leaves it blurry and filling the entire screen. The acting of Paul Gross is laughable, and the even worse by the actor who played David. Dhavernas is better, but by no means convincing.

At the beginning I thought the movie could be a plausible, low-budget Canadian war film. By the end it was clear it was a low-budget, pandering, plodding love story, written by an inexperienced writer, directed by a man with no sense of the physical space and acted by an actor who doesn’t understand drama. F-

Addendum:

I forgot to mention that Passchendaele uses much from the Saving Private Ryan playbook. From the shot of the soliders walking past water to the injured soldier yelling “momma” it’s all there. It’s just done really poorly.

I am continuing my boycott of Utah.

In today’s Leader-Post,

I would like to contest the inane protests by the writers of the letters “Feist review makes her feisty” (Leader-Post, Oct. 28) and “Criticism not OK,” Leader-Post, Oct. 30) in regards to the Leader-Post’s criticism.

Both seem to completely misunderstand the purpose and meaning of criticism. “Criticism”, by definition, is a critical evaluation of a work or event.

Contrastingly, the writers appear to be under the misconception the Leader-Post’s criticism should ignore any evaluation and instead consist of merely of kind words and cheerleading.

The fact Leslie Feist was a “onetime resident of Regina” is inconsequential to the substance of the review. Geography does not dictate quality.

More concerning is the assertion that “local artists and Canadian talent” including films like Passchendaele, should get a free ride and not be critiqued simply because the creators were born in a certain geographical area.

These types of ideas are the exemplars of an uncritical nationalism that pervades a large subsection of the Canadian population.

Perhaps the reason why Canadian talent is perceived to be poorly reviewed is because it is coddled and prevented from competing on an even playing field with the international community.

Robert S. Porter
Regina

Seeing as how my prediction for the Canadian election was pretty far off, I figured I’d give the American election a shot.

Obama: 349 - McCain: 189
Obama: 53% - McCain: 46%

They’re pretty much randomly chosen, though delibertately lower than many other predictions.

See here for Daniel Drezner’s prediction post.

There is one thing that Radley Balko loses his logic over: football. Whenever his beloved Colts play he loses his head. In particular, he is unreasonably biased when talking about the Patriots. Like those in the baseball world who turn stupid with their hatred of the Yankees, Balko sees nothing but evil oozing from Bill Belichick’s pores.

However, one more thing can be added to the list of Radley’s foibles: Strong Bad.

On Sunday, Radley posted pictures of his Halloween costume, which was a homemade Strong Bad outfit. Predictably the first few comments were complimentary. Will Grigg commented that it was a “Sweet costume!” and Lucy explained that Balko “just became even cooler”.

Having read his comments, I knew I had to counter the spate pro-Strong Bad sentiment. Homestar Runner, in my opinion, is patently unfunny. Since the first instance that I heard that gravelly voice I absolutely abhorred it. My friends will backup my Strong Bad hatred.

As such, in the 9^th comment I said “I’ll probably be the only one and I’ll probably get a negative rating, but this actually takes Radley down a notch in my book.” Now obviously this comment doesn’t articulate a whole lot, but, to my mind, it is clearly explains that I’m attempting to be contrary to the comments. This is why I prefaced it, noting the negative rating I would receive. I fully expected that people would disagree.

Later when someone asked who the character was supposed to be I explained “It’s Strong Bad of Homestar Runner, one the…least funny schticks in the history of the internet.” Again, this is a pretty simple statement. As you see, however, there is nothing personal about my comment. No attack on Radley. I simply stated that I don’t find the character funny, at all.

In response Radley called me out for saying I made “two needlessly nasty comments” which “had no real-world value whatsoever”. Additionally he called my comments “bitchy”.

I’m not sure why my comments angered him so much. I recognized this post ”was meant to be in fun” thus my comments were “in fun”. By his logic he should delete his own post. Also, if those comments are “nasty” then he must be extremely thin skinned. But, in my opinion, this reflects negatively on him. Had I made a person attack on him or called him names, then I might expect such a response. But to get upset because I took a couple seconds to disagree with him is very odd.

But just to take the high road, I’ll point out the things I didn’t say, but was thinking at the time:

• 1) Halloween is for losers. Yes, absolutely everyone who dresses up for Halloween is dumb, including 33 year old professionals from Washington, DC.
• 2) His costume is shit. Even for Strong Bad it is shit. A simple Google search shows much better examples.
• 3) Even if one accepts the Strong Bad is or was funny, its heyday was circa 2003. As commenter Radley Jr. says, “Homestar Runner jumped the shark a long time ago.

Oh well, I’ll just reevaluate ever donating to Balko again. This doesn’t negate the amazing work he has done, but I think give my money directly to the organizations completing the work instead of the oversensitive journalist behind the black paint.

Drudge is today reporting that John McCain has the NASCAR vote.

We’re fucked!

Ilya Somin,

If Obama wins, he will have a strong Democratic majority in both houses of Congress to work with. This state of affairs is likely to lead to a significant expansion of government even in the best of times. However, now is clearly not the best of times. It is a time of economic crisis. And economic crises are also excellent opportunities to expand the powers of government - opportunities that politicians rarely let slip.

Obama’s ideological orientation also plays a role in my thinking. While I believe that his foremost objective is to get elected and reelected, I think he’s also an ideological big government liberal. His record in Congress and in Illinois reflect that. Obama might be willing to set aside ideology for the sake of political self-interest if the two conflict. But if he takes office at a time of crisis with large Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, there won’t be any such conflict between political self-interest and his big government instincts. The two will in fact be mutually reinforcing. [The Volokh Conspiracy]

In nurseries, and boarding schools, I fear, girls are first spoiled; particularly in the latter.  A number of girls sleep in the same room, and wash together.  And, though I should be sorry to contaminate an innocent creature’s mind by instilling false delicacy, or those indecent prudish notions, which early cautions respecting the other sex naturally engender, I should be very anxious to prevent their acquiring indelicate, or immodest habits; and as many girls have learned very indelicate tricks, from ignorant servants, the mixing them thus indiscriminately together, is very improper.

To say the truth, women are, in general, too familiar with each other, which leads to that gross degree of familiarity that so frequently renders the marriage state unhappy.  Why in the name of decency are sisters, female intimates, or ladies and their waiting women, to be so grossly familiar as to forget the respect which one human creature owes to another?  That squeamish delicacy which shrinks from the most disgusting offices when affection or humanity lead us to watch at a sick pillow, is despicable.  But, why women in health should be more familiar with each other than men are, when they boast of their superiour delicacy, is a solecism in manners which I could never solve.

In order to preserve health and beauty, I should earnestly recommend frequent ablutions, to dignify my advice that it may not offend the fastidious ear; and, by example, girls ought to be taught to wash and dress alone, without any distinction of rank; and if custom should make them require some little assistance, let them not require it till that part of the business is over which ought never to be done before a fellow-creature; because it is an insult to the majesty of human nature.  Not on the score of modesty, but decency; for the care which some modest women take, making at the same time a display of that care, not to let their legs be seen, is as childish as immodest.

Mary Wollstonecraft, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman