Is it just me?

I keep wondering how it was that I existed without with using the word "narrative" in nearly every analysis I make. I'm going to have to blame Slate on this one and the way only they are capable of bringing the english lit to political analysis.

world's largest swimming pool

How is it okay to have an enormous swimming pool next to the beach? There has got to be some commentary on the wastefulness of modern society in there somewhere, right? Then again, we tank whales next to the ocean for our amusement...

From a paper by Stephen Pinker, who I'm not pretending to like, but exotic fare for the literature I read:

People often don't blurt out what they mean in so many words but veil their intentions in innuendo, euphemism, or doublespeak. Here are some familiar examples:

• Would you like to come up and see my etchings? [a sexual come-on]
  
• If you could pass the guacamole, that would be awesome. [a polite request]
  
• Nice store you got there. Would be a real shame if something happened to it. [a threat]
  
• We're counting on you to show leadership in our Campaign for the Future. [a solicitation for a donation]
  
• Gee, officer, is there some way we could take care of the ticket here? [a bribe]
  

This phenomenon poses a theoretical puzzle. Indirect speech is inefficient, vulnerable to being misunderstood, and seemingly unnecessary (because only a naïf could fail to see past the literal meaning). Yet politeness and other forms of indirectness in speech appear to be universal or nearly so (1). We all play this game and may be offended at those who don't, setting the stage for the hypocrisy and taboo in social life that are ubiquitously decried, yet ubiquitously obeyed.

...

The plausible-deniability hypothesis predicts that the directness of speakers' wording of a veiled bribe or other overture (assessed on linguistic grounds) is not an arbitrary social ritual, like saying "Please" and "Thank you," but is predictable from strategic factors affecting its expected utility, such as the proportion of honest and dishonest officers in an area, the cost of a bribe, the cost of a ticket, and the cost of a bribery charge.

And finally, my comments don't work, I found out yesterday from Akshay. I'll have to deal with that.

And flush

At the supermarket today, they asked "plastic okay?" which led me to believe plastic must be cheaper for corporate -- and I was going to blog about that until I found this.

Good story.

Now I've seen it all

A match.com for the working scientist.

Took me a good five minutes to figure out it wasn't for professional networking, despite the logo of a mouse wooing another. The language is intentionally vague, as if to reaffirm the moral impropriety of scientists mating...

patent of the day

Yes, for those of you who had this idea first, hate to break it to you, but it's been taken:


"Whirling amusement device and associated method of operation"

Hooray for Executive Compensation!

Who goes to gem museums? Who thinks it makes a great ladydate? Kind of makes me feel dirty just reading it... (an email from the harvard business school association of cocksuckers)...

Take advantage of this HBSAOC exclusive opportunity! Come to a PRIVATE VIEWING of a sensational exhibit of some of the world's most stunning gems. Gentlemen, this is the perfect evening to share with your spouse or significant other!

The PRIVATE VIEWING will be preceded by a RECEPTION and NETWORKING while enjoying exquisite hors-d'oeuvres from The Patina Group's Tangata Restaurant, and an informative presentation about the exhibit from expert docent, Chuck Liebelt.

This superb exhibit in the new and equally superb Anderson-Hsu-Tu Gallery showcases some of the finest known examples in the world of an assortment of gems as wonders of nature and products of human imagination with few rivals in the world outside of the royal families.

Pricing:
Earlybird Registration (before 5 PM Fri., January 18)
Crimson Circle Members $0
Crimson Circle Guests $39
Gold Members & Guests $39
Basic Members & Guests $49
Non-HBSAOC Members $49

(Bold added by me. I kind of like the implication that women need not apply: "Gentelemen, this is perfect...". Here's a visual from their website:)

Yay, google maps

Did you know there was a country called "Central African Republic"? No, you didn't. It's not even new either.

brought to you by the colors red and blue

Wanted to know why the Republicans chose red. Was there a form they filled out? Besides red and an elephant, are there more GOP emblems I'm missing? Apparently not, and it's all Tim Russert's doing. (This was the year Russert went nuts with the electoral whiteboard.)

In 1976, NBC identified states won by Gerald Ford in blue and Jimmy Carter’s states in red. On election night in 1980, ABC News showed Ronald Reagan’s march to the White House as a series of blue lights on a map, with Carter’s states in red. Time magazine assigned red to the Democrats and blue to the Republicans in its election graphics in every election from 1988 to 2000. The Washington Post’s election graphics for the 2000 election were Republican-blue, Democrat-red.

The first reference to “red states” and “blue states,” according to a database search of newspapers, magazines and TV news transcripts since 1980, occurred on NBC’s “Today” show about a week before the 2000 election. Matt Lauer and Tim Russert discussed the projected alignment of the states, using a map and a color scheme that had first shown up a few days earlier on NBC’s sister cable network, MSNBC. “So how does [Bush] get those remaining 61 electoral red states, if you will?” Russert asked at one point.

--WaPo

Finally, in 1976, the TV networks agreed to a formula to avoid any implication of favoritism in color selections. The color of the incumbent party, initially set as blue for Gerald Ford’s Republican ticket in that year, would flip every four years. Consequently, a successful challenger runs again in four years, as the incumbent, under the same color. So in 1992, the challenger Clinton was red on the maps, and in 1996, incumbent Clinton was also red. Challenger Bush, red in 2000, was red again as an incumbent in 2004. But perhaps because the pundits decreed 2000 to be a watershed election, the “red/blue” divide has assumed a broader political significance (at least to pundits), and although the formula dictates that the Republicans should be carrying the blue flag in 2008, it will be interesting to see how the networks color their maps.

Word Detective Annex Blog