Provoking Thoughts...

If I Was Rich, You'd Have Sex With Me! Part 2 the Hottie Quotient.

…See Part 1 from earlier today…

Wow! I love this topic. It seems to get at some deep-rooted idea for males (and females). Basically, that us males are being judged on some productivity/security standard that is reminiscent of caveman times. Except, instead of animal parts being the proof of one’s success, it is now measured with money and the display of that money through conspicuous consumption, a concept first described by Thorstien Veblen in the late 19th century.

Wealth and sex, they do seem to go together but a “better” sex life involves much more than being rich. Such a complex psychological and physical process involves a lot more than a simple “They rich. Me shag,” input and response.

So, as a way to further condense the complexities of human sexuality, I want to propose the Hottie Quotient. That’s right. The Hottie Quotient is a handy equation that can be kept in your BlackBerry, Treo, or, if you’re truly cool, your iPhone for simple calculations of how lucky one might get or how much to lust after your drunk co-worker.

It’s a simple calculation based on my rich fantasy life and limited actual experience. The Hottie Quotient says that how much a person will want to jump your bones is a product of how attractive you are and how famous you are, with attractiveness being a sum of physical beauty and confidence.

The Hottie Quotient then, looks like this:

Hq = F^2 * (C+B), [note: F is squared for those wondering]

Where Hq is the Hottie Quotient or the Lust Factor, F is Fame or notoriety, C is Confidence, and B is Beauty.

Some things to consider:

(1) You can compensate for Beauty with increased Confidence.

(2) Fame is a powerful hotness multiplier. A little bit goes a long way, hence the ability of relatively minor celebrities, such as local weathermen, to get laid.

Further investigation shows that the Confidence factor (C) is a product of your Abilities (A) and Successes (S) based on those abilities, along with Luck (L) and (for some) Insanity (I),

C = (A + S + L)^I. [Yup. I'm raising it to the power of I]

What this equation means is that some people’s Confidence is due to their Abilities (and a little Luck) leading to Success, however, Luck could be the main driving force behind their Confidence.

Then, there are those people who are just nuts. They have an amazing level of Confidence that is founded on very little Ability or Success. That is taken into account by the power of Insanity.

An important point is:

(1) If you have few skills or successes, a narcissistic insanity can still make you very appealing to others (see David Koresh).

Ms Grove’s survey said that wealth leads to “better” sex and, for males, “better” means more partners. However, as I’ve shown with the Hottie Quotient and the Confidence factor, men can get laid by just having cool skills, a mild amount of success, and a small amount of local notoriety. Or, if those fail, being crazy helps.

-SWL

If I Was Rich You'd Have Sex With Me!

Mo' money, mo' problems... or is it more nookie? A survey conducted by Hannah Grove, a business consultant, which I found in an article by Thomas Kostigan, looked at high net worth individuals (average net worth of $89 million) and surprisingly found that being rich and having better sex seems to be more true for women than for men.

According to the survey,"Some 84% of rich women and 63% of rich men say having money means having better sex."

There were two other points Mr. Kostigan discussed, which were even more interesting. The first related to a recent book, "The Monogamy Myth," which said that 60% of men and 40% of women have extramarital affairs. Grove's survey found that rich men had affairs at a similar incidence (53%), but rich women had affairs at almost twice the general population's rate (73%). Why? Hard to tell. Is money empowering women or do you have to posess an unconventional, out-of-the-box approach to life in order to become a wealthy woman? The survey doesn't address that question.

The second point of interest is what defines "better sex." The men surveyed equated "better" with a greater number of partners, including the holy grail of male sexual fantasy, the "threesome." Basically, being rich allowed them to swipe their platinum (or titanium) American Express cards between women's thighs and...PRESTO..they open.

For women it was the opposite, "better" meant a higher quality of sex with fewer partners. It makes me wonder if confidence in one's sexual self is the main determinant for the level of sexual quality and money is simply a quantitative way to reaffirm one's confidence.

The survey piqued my interest, but it did not not actually determine whether wealth causes better sex. Ms. Grove is a consultant interested in helping companies target high net worth individuals; she is not a scientist. As such, she doesn't need to determine whether wealth causes better sex, only that the two are associated, so such knowledge can be used for targeted marketing toward rich people.

I tried to access the actual survey on Ms. Grove's site, but couldn't. I think a copy is being emailed to me, along with (I'm certain) a lifetime subscription to more spam. I'd like to know how many poor, middle-class, and upper-class-but-not-super-wealthy people were surveyed to determine that the wealthy have better sex. Were the wealthy just expected to think back to what sex was like before they became rich and make a comparison? What if they were born into wealth?

Anyway, I'm not going to get too distraught. I can see money and sex as associated, but not necessarily causally linked. I continue to believe that "better sex" (both quantity and quality) has more to do with one's confidence in and comfort with one's self, rather than the size of one's bank roll. Having money may help, but in the end confidence is sexy...and free.

Just to be safe, though, I'm gonna keep working...hard.

-SWL

America Doesn't Want Capitalism in Iraq?

Iran continues to amaze me. Or, more accurately, the United States continues to amaze me with how inept we are about predicting and countering Iran. The New York Times reports that Iran has now started to use capitalism against us by planning to open an Iranian national bank branch in the heart of Baghdad, further binding the two countries and strengthening Iran’s influence.

Mr. Qumi, Iran’s ambassador to Iraq, said

“We have experience of reconstruction after war,” referring to the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. “We are ready to transfer this experience in terms of reconstruction to the Iraqis.”

It seems the Iranians have a much more fundamental understanding of the concept of winning “hearts and minds” than we do. What would be an equivalent move for the U.S., finding a couple pro-American Islamic clerics, and building them mosques in Baghdad?

Of course, pro-American clerics in Baghdad would be completely transparent puppets and, although Iranian bankers may also be puppets, it is much more difficult to arrest and deport bankers than spies. Proving that difference just became more difficult for the United States.

With this announcement, the Iranians have created a situation where we will have to sit down and ask them, “please don’t help capitalism flourish in Iraq.”

Amazing.

-SWL

Bush's Bad Dreams

I hope President Bush is having a hard time sleeping at night because I sure am. His “nightmare scenario,” which he described so vividly during his State of the Union address, is more worrisome than Freddy Kruger at a convention for narcoleptics.

That is unless he doesn’t actually believe his own rhetoric. It does sounds a little reminiscent of how he was able to garner such bipartisan support for starting the Iraq War: his “You’re-either-with-us-or-against-us” sales pitch. By creating a false choice between two options, Bush focused support for the option he preferred. Initially, what he wanted was a war against Iraq, now he wants an escalation in the number of troops actively trying to stabilize Iraq three years after the invasion.

However, the “more troops, or failure” option is a false choice. This situation is frighteningly complicated and can’t be boiled down to a simple binary option. Bush’s spin-doctors are trying to scare us with the false impression that we have two choices – his way or calamity and we don’t want calamity, do we? For something this important, all the options deserve to be considered. Even the one’s he has condescendingly brushed aside as “ways that lead to defeat.”

Which brings up another point, one where the President is absolutely right. This war is important. We should be trying everything we can to stabilize the situation in Iraq. Unfortunately, we are not.

It seems as if the planning for this war was done by a bunch of Gen-X “slackers” who wanted to see if they could get away with the least amount possible. We didn’t follow the Powell Doctrine and send in an overwhelming number of troops as General Shinseki recommended, instead we tried the least number of troops we could. In addition, except for military families, as Jim Lehrer pointed out during his interview with President Bush, the American public has been asked to make no sacrifices. Instead, we’ve been encouraged to go shopping. Now, we are finally asked to get behind a plan to add more American troops to Baghdad and Anbar Province, but again, not so many more that it is uncomfortable.

At this point America shouldn’t be holding anything back. There won’t be a second chance for this clean up operation. The situation in Iraq has gotten so bad that the White House has even stopped chiding the media for not reporting on all the “good things” that are happening in Iraq. If this escalation doesn’t work, by the time we realize it has failed, it will be difficult to ever put the pieces back together again.

So why are we continuing to approach this in some half-baked manner? If the President truly believes that his nightmares could come true and we are in a “struggle for civilization…the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century”, why are we still trying do “just enough?” Why aren’t we mobilizing civilians for volunteer work and starting a draft to bolster our military strength? Because making those moves would enflame the country’s smoldering distrust and dislike for this current President, very likely leading to impeachment. So, although Bush says he wants to win this war, it evidently isn’t important enough to win at ALL costs.

We do need a plan to change the course of developments in Iraq. However, that plan needs to take into account the entire strength of America, civilians and military, in order to work. Trying to get Congress and the public to buy into that idea may be President Bush’s real nightmare.

Sweet dreams.

-SWL

Who's Afraid of the Globalization Wolf?

Ah, globalization. It seems that the bitter taste of outsourcing isn’t the only byproduct of globalization that some countries find hard to swallow. Andrew Leonard comments in How The World Works that the military led Thai government, which recently took control during a gentle coup, is now attacking foreign intellectual property rights and capital investment within Thailand:

“In November, Thailand's Ministry of Public Health announced its approval of a compulsory license allowing the Governmental Pharmaceutical Organization to break the patent on the AIDS retroviral drug, Efavirenz. Then this week, the news broke that the government would issue two more licenses for two more drugs, one for treating AIDS and one for treating heart disease.

At the same time, the Ministry of Finance has engaged in a series of moves aimed at restricting the flow of investor capital, in part to bolster the value of the Thai baht, and in part to limit the ability of foreigners to control Thai companies through proxies.”

These developments are on the heels of Hugo Chavez’s announcement that the United States ambassador to Venezuela, William Brownfield, may get the boot for comments demanding “fair compensation” for the private owners of a telephone company slated for nationalization by Chavez’s government.

Is every one scared of globalization? America is concerned that developing countries could chip away at our economic strength by outsourcing and shifting manufacturing plants, while those same countries have a similar fear that a completely porous economic border will let them be financially bullied by the US and others.

Right now, world leaders are treating globalization like a restaurant menu, trying to pick an al la carte selection of the most economically tasty treats. We’ll see how this goes. Currently oil rich states, such as Venzuela, have a short term advantage, the world still needs their product. How long they may be able to effectively dangle that carrot is up for some debate.

Other countries, such as Thailand, who didn’t win the natural resource lottery may be in for a surprise. Annoying and isolating themselves from the rest of the world may mean that come dinner time, no one saved a place for them at the table.

-SWL

Fun With Kitchen Science.

Here's a handy article about how NOT to sterilize your kitchen sponges.

-SWL

Is This What Dodge Means by "Ram Tough?"

Gay sheep?

Today's New York Times has a revealing article about publicity gone awry. Dr. Roselli, a researcher at Oregon Health and Science University, studies why approximately 8% of male sheep have sex exclusively with other male sheep. Unfortunately, the recent announcement of Dr. Roselli's research in the mainstream media struck the emotionally synergistic nexus of animal rights and gay rights, triggering a storm of worldwide protest that is innundating him. It seems Dr. Roselli has been...well...rammed by bad publicity. Although the protesters may have some valid concerns, I think they are fighting the wrong battle, scientifically, historically, and socially.

From the scientific standpoint, despite the Law of Unintended Consequences, studying gay sheep does not automatically lead to the altering of a human’s sexuality. The protestors and scientists have an assumption that sheep sexuality will be similar enough to human sexuality that one will help to explain the other. Although a convenient idea for getting grants funded, the causes for those two species' sexual orientations are not necessarily similar.

Also, just because we decide to pursue some of the scientific questions associated with gay rams does not mean that all possible questions need to be pursued. For instance, perhaps it is morally acceptable to learn the “whys” of sheep sexuality and human sexuality, but it is not acceptable to alter the sexual development of either.

From the historical standpoint, this is a struggle that has been replayed for millennia: the value of Knowledge versus the value of Security, ie. the status quo. Galileo struggled with it, Copernicus struggled with it, and scientists continue to struggle with it today. Comparing Dr. Roselli to Galileo and Copernicus may be an arguable one, but the fact that people have always wanted to stop the scientific investigation, and explanation, of certain questions is consistent. No matter how this issue is pursued, history is on the side of discovery.

Finally, gays may actually socially benefit from this research. The human mind seeks to answer all questions and, whether we like it or not, we are already coming up with answers for why people are gay. However, because science hasn’t investigated this question the answers are based on superstition: that homosexuality is a “sickness,” a malfunction on the part of the gay person, or a form of evil. I’d rather deal with scientifically proven causes, whatever they may be, than with these notions. It's possible that a better comprehension of the causes of sexual orientation could actually reduce the misunderstandings that trigger strife between some gay and straight people.

Pandora couldn’t help opening the box. She was told not to, but fundamentally humans are explorers: of geography, of ideas, and of knowledge. The solution to this dilemma is thus not found in the restriction of humanity’s curiosity for the sake of security, but instead within a different value – the tolerance of others.

-SWL

Do They Hate Us For Our Freedom?

Thankfully, yesterday President Bush gave a State of the Union address that sounded more like a speech and less like a toothless hobo sputtering through something he doesn’t quite understand. However, disappointingly, there were some of the old non sequitur catch phrases. Those sayings that don’t make any sense when they are examined, but are still used to ignite an emotional response from the public, such as, “We fight them over there, so we don’t have to fight them here,” and “They hate us for our Freedom.”

They hate us for our Freedom. Do they really? It is a nice, concise phrase that paints a picture of Islamists (a word I don’t care for…sounds too similar to“Islamic”) as people who are against having choices. Certainly, like all spiritually over-confident people, Islamists think they have the answer to humanity’s problems. However, I don’t think they hate America for our “freedoms.” Islamic extremists just hate being inconsequential.

In any large, multicultural democracy any extreme position is marginalized, it’s influence diluted by the much larger and more moderate majority. America has its examples: the modern day Ku Klux Klan, the Hale Bop comet worshipers, the Montana Freemen. Each of these groups’ views are far outside of the mainstream and as such they get flashes of publicity, but little direct influence on policies and economics in the United States.

For Western democracies, Islamic extremists are just another marginalized group. That is what they hate. The fact that they truly are inconsequential in those systems means that they get very little respect from Western democracies. However, since terrorists have learned how to become effective at using violence, they have been able to change that.

By bombing, kidnapping, torturing and efficiently publicizing their horrific feats, Islamic extremists have used violence and marketing to achieve a level of relevance and respect that would have been impossible using political or economic means. I don’t mean “respect” as in reverence or admiration. What I mean is that after 9/11 Western governments have been forced to respect Islamic extremists’ ability to cause death and destruction, and for some people receiving respect for the wrong reasons is better than no respect at all.

Why does this matter? Who cares whether America is hated for our Freedom or because we disrespect a few Muslims? It matters because until we understand what we are fighting and why we are fighting it, it is impossible to actually devise a plan that can be successful.

When President Bush says “They hate us for our Freedom,” he isn’t trying to explain the situation to us or get to the core of the issue. He is trying to garner support for his War by describing a group of people in broadly derogative terms, which he hopes will trigger a reflexive reaction of support for more troops.

-SWL

American Values Don't Belong Only to Americans

Just like many of the politicians and pundits today, I too feel that values can serve as guiding priciples for decisions.

I think that this article by one of the attorneys defending habeas corpus rights for Guantanamo prisoners is one of the most eloquent explanations of why American values should be defended at all times, not just when it's convenient for those in power.

As a world leader we, as a nation and as a government, should be fighting to secure for everyone the values we ourselves hold so dear. After all, that is one of the purposes of defining and declaring those values, to protect those values for those who can not protect themselves.

-SWL

Prisoners Live Longer Than Free People!

Yesterday, Yahoo News had an article on the mortality rate of United State prisoners held in state prisons from 2001 to 2004 (Yahoo News).

The article was taken from a press release from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, and it made me scratch my head. I was confused as to the point of the article. Is this supposed to make me feel better about people being in prison, or better about how our prisons are run?

According to the USN&WR-Yahoo article, “The deaths over this four-year period constituted an annual mortality rate of 250 deaths per 100,000 inmates, which was 19 percent lower than the adult mortality rate in the U.S. general population.”

It turns out they are right…and wrong. Reading through the appendix of the article, which can be found here, it turns out the authors were comparing an “all causes” death rate for the general population to an “all causes” death rate of prisoners. This included deaths from transportation related incidents. It seems like this is one cause of death that prisoners would not need to worry about.

Removing deaths caused by transportation still had 15 to 64 year old male prisoners dying at a slower rate than the same group in the general population, but at 13 percent less, not 19 percent.

So that, good...right? I don’t know…I’m not feeling much better. Was the report suggesting it was safer to be a prisoner in a state prison than to be free? Hmmm. I wonder…

It went on to say, “From 2001 to 2004, 99% of State prisoners were between ages 15 and 64…[and] White and Hispanic prisoners had death rates slightly above their counter-parts in the resident population, while blacks were 57% less likely to die in State prisons.”

Why would a segment of the population die less frequently in prison than outside? How about because three significant causes of death are greatly reduced inside prisons: accidents, suicide, and homicide. According to the CDC’s data (CDC Injury Prevention and Mortality) the percentage of deaths attributed to “accident, suicide, or homicide”, for males between 15 and 64 years of age, was 27%. For black males the percentage of deaths attributed to such causes was 39%. The BJS report did not break down all the individual causes of death by race, but inside state prisons, 8.7% of the deaths were caused by accidents, suicide, or homicide.

So what does the BJS’ report tell me? Well, I guess if you put people in a rigorously controlled environment with limited (but not eliminated) access to weapons, opportunities to hurt others, or to hurt themselves, then mortality rates will decrease and more people will end up dying from a disease.

Discovering that prisoners, on average, die less often than the general population is hardly heartwarming. The United States still has the highest rate of incarceration in the world (U.S. Incarceration Rate), and prisons still don’t adequately prepare people for life after release. However, evidently prisoners in the U.S. do live longer, because the rigidly controlled environment of modern, large prisons protects the prisoners from getting themselves hurt.

Hooray? I'm not cheering.

-SWL