And yet, supposedly, this makes no difference as regards intelligence. Or basic intelligence -- "we are just differently-intelligent," the article says, in an Up With People! sort of happyscience way.

Women have ten times the "white matter" that men do... but then, I've never heard anyone's smarts being attributed to his "white matter."

Men and women do think differently, at least where the anatomy of the brain is concerned, according to a new study.

The brain is made primarily of two different types of tissue, called gray matter and white matter. This new research reveals that men think more with their gray matter, and women think more with white. Researchers stressed that just because the two sexes think differently, this does not affect intellectual performance.

Psychology professor Richard Haier of the University of California, Irvine led the research along with colleagues from the University of New Mexico. Their findings show that in general, men have nearly 6.5 times the amount of gray matter related to general intelligence compared with women, whereas women have nearly 10 times the amount of white matter related to intelligence compared to men.

"These findings suggest that human evolution has created two different types of brains designed for equally intelligent behavior," said Haier, adding that, "by pinpointing these gender-based intelligence areas, the study has the potential to aid research on dementia and other cognitive-impairment diseases in the brain."

The results are detailed in the online version of the journal NeuroImage.

In human brains, gray matter represents information processing centers, whereas white matter works to network these processing centers.

The results from this study may help explain why men and women excel at different types of tasks, said co-author and neuropsychologist Rex Jung of the University of New Mexico. For example, men tend to do better with tasks requiring more localized processing, such as mathematics, Jung said, while women are better at integrating and assimilating information from distributed gray-matter regions of the brain, which aids language skills.

Scientists find it very interesting that while men and women use two very different activity centers and neurological pathways, men and women perform equally well on broad measures of cognitive ability, such as intelligence tests.

Okay, I'd do the "Shoe Cortex" jand "Cute Handbag Lobe" jokes for the thousandth time, but they were hack the first time I did them.

Thanks to The Shadow.

Posted by: Ace at 08:05 AM | Comments (19)
Post contains 416 words, total size 3 kb.

Check it out.

Second item-- CDC: Diabetes epidemic blamed on... diabetes.

Science, baby.

Thanks to Axolotl.

Posted by: Ace at 07:54 AM | Comments (8)
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.

I can't imagine any problems whatsoever flowing from this:

So colourful and exotic is the list of substances that have been claimed to heighten sexual appetite that it is hard not to feel a twinge of disappointment on first beholding the latest entry - a small, white plastic nasal inhaler containing an odourless, colourless synthetic chemical called PT-141. Plain as it is, however, there is one thing that distinguishes PT-141 from the 4,000 years' worth of recorded medicinal aphrodisiacs that precede it: this one actually works.
And it could reach the market in as little as three years. The full range of possible risks and side effects has yet to be determined, but already this much is known: a dose of PT-141 results, in most cases, in a stirring in the loins in as little as 15 minutes. Women, according to one set of results, feel 'genital warmth, tingling and throbbing', not to mention 'a strong desire to have sex'.

Among men who have been tested with the drug more extensively, the data set is richer: 'With PT-141, you feel good,' reported anonymous patient 007: 'not only sexually aroused, you feel younger and more energetic.' According to another patient, 'It helped the libido. So you have the urge and the desire...' Tales of pharmaceutically induced sexual prowess among 58-year-olds are common enough in the age of the Little Blue Pill, but they don't typically involve quite so urgent a repertoire. Or, as patient 128 put it: 'My wife knows. She can tell the difference between Viagra and PT-141.'

The precise mechanisms by which PT-141 does its job remain unclear, but the rough idea is this: where Viagra acts on the circulatory system, helping blood flow into the penis, PT-141 goes to the brain itself. 'It's not merely allowing a sexual response to take place more easily,' explains Michael A Perelman, co-director of the Human Sexuality Program at New York Presbyterian Hospital and a sexual-medicine adviser on the PT-141 trials. 'It may be having an effect, literally, on we think and feel.'

The article warns we may be on the verge of a new age of emotionally-empty and debased sexual behaviors, where sex becomes quick and cheap like fast food, era of loveless, debasing pleasure-seeking similar to the anonymous, dehumanized trysts depicted in Logan's Run.

But, as with any new and untested drug, there could be negative side effects as well.

Thanks to Craig.

Bonus Filth: Sex is good for you. No, seriously. Like eat-your-vegetables good:

cientists are now beginning to understand that the perceived feel-good effects of sexual intercourse are merely the tip of the iceberg. Sex, they are discovering, can offer protection from depression, colds, heart disease and even cancer.

The latest addition to the body of evidence came last month when Professor Stuart Brody of the University of Paisley published a study showing sex can lower blood pressure.

"We're not just talking about the immediate effects of having had nice sex. The beneficial effects could last at least a week," says Professor Brody.

One theory is that intercourse stimulates a variety of nerves, most notably the "vagas" nerve, which is directly involved in soothing and calming. But you have to go the whole heterosexual hog. According to Professor Brody, studies show "penile-vaginal intercourse is the only sexual behaviour consistently associated with better psychological and physiological health".

Such sex has been linked, in women, to a heightened emotional awareness, possibly because the "love hormone" oxytocin is released. One study even found that semen is a mood-enhancing ingredient.

Ummm... isn't that kind of obvious? Has semen ever not been associated with a mood, whether bliss, shame, or (in my case) disgust?

Doctors speculate that this is because semen contains several other mood-altering hormones — including testosterone, oestrogen, prolactin and several different prostaglandins — which can pass into the woman's bloodstream.

You know there have been jokes along these lines forever. Now it's actually proven to be true.

I love science.

This explanation, says Dr David Hicks, sexology specialist and consultant in GU medicine at the Royal Hallamshire Hospital in Sheffield, "is certainly feasible".

Of course it's a guy coming to these findings.

Condom-free sex has its drawbacks, of course: contracting a sexually transmitted disease or becoming pregnant unintentionally.

If you are dogged by the sniffles at this time of year, regular love-ins could work wonders for your immunity — condoms and all. Psychologists have found that people who have sex once or twice a week have levels of immunoglobulin A (IgA) that are up to a third higher than their more restrained peers. IgA is an antibody that boosts the immune system and is the first line of defence against colds and flu.

In related news, I've had a mild case of the sniffles for -- what is it now, the end of April? -- the past thirty-three years.

Thanks to Allah.

Posted by: Ace at 11:56 AM | Comments (52)
Post contains 838 words, total size 5 kb.

I apologize for over-speculating yesterday. My speculations outpaced my factual grounding.

McCarthy almost certainly did not "send" Wilson to Niger, in the sense of her being someone with that authority at the time.

For one thing, the 9/11 report says the decision was made by a CIA officer in the Operations division, and McCarthy wasn't, I'm pretty damn sure. She was an analyst, in the Intelligence division, not in Operations. Her posting as National Intelligence Official for Warning is similarly an analyst/intelligence type position (and I'm not sure you're technically in the CIA anymore when you have that position).

Furthermore, McCarthy was eased out of her high position in 2001, and the decision to send Wilson to Niger wasn't made until early 2002 (February, I think, according to Allah's research). It's possible that McCarthy was still in her NIO/W position at the beginning of the process of sending Wilson to Niger, but it seems less likely.

This still leaves open the possibility that she was informally consulted about this. It still seems to me that, whether this was an Operations mission or not, you'd want to have input from the NIO/W; or, if McCarthy was already out of that position at that time, her replacement might want to know what the former holder of the position thought.

She still most likely knew Joe Wilson, and almost certainly knew of him, as they were in the NSC together with the same area-of-the-world portfolio (Africa).

And I still suspect that this cadre of liberal leakers, fighting the CIA's consensus and the Bush Administration, were frequently talking to each other. That's how things work. People seek the counsel of like-minded people, particularly when they feel marginalized, ignored, or compelled to take shady or outright illegal actions. People join groups for camraderie, after all.

But the initial strong-form of my speculation -- that she was formally consulted in her capacity as NIO/W on the mission -- is probably wrong, and the notion that she was actually the decision-maker who signed off on the mission and ordered it to occur is definitely wrong.

Again, I still think it is a worthy question to ask whether or not McCarthy was in the mix of people suggesting names for the Niger mission, whether she endorsed Plame's suggestion of her own husband (or even suggested to Plame she put Joe Wilson's name forward). But I do have to retract the stronger form of the speculation as, errr, inconveniently misaligning with the facts and timeline of the decision.

Posted by: Ace at 07:23 AM | Comments (57)
Post contains 445 words, total size 3 kb.

Their manifesto. These people are forever writing manifestos. But this one's a little different than most:

A. Preamble

We are democrats and progressives. We propose here a fresh political alignment. Many of us belong to the Left, but the principles that we set out are not exclusive. We reach out, rather, beyond the socialist Left towards egalitarian liberals and others of unambiguous democratic commitment. Indeed, the reconfiguration of progressive opinion that we aim for involves drawing a line between the forces of the Left that remain true to its authentic values, and currents that have lately shown themselves rather too flexible about these values. It involves making common cause with genuine democrats, whether socialist or not.

The present initiative has its roots in and has found a constituency through the Internet, especially the "blogosphere". It is our perception, however, that this constituency is under-represented elsewhere — in much of the media and the other forums of contemporary political life.

...

B. Statement of principles

1) For democracy.

We are committed to democratic norms, procedures and structures — freedom of opinion and assembly, free elections, the separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers, and the separation of state and religion. We value the traditions and institutions, the legacy of good governance, of those countries in which liberal, pluralist democracies have taken hold.

2) No apology for tyranny.

We decline to make excuses for, to indulgently "understand", reactionary regimes and movements for which democracy is a hated enemy — regimes that oppress their own peoples and movements that aspire to do so. We draw a firm line between ourselves and those left-liberal voices today quick to offer an apologetic explanation for such political forces.

3) Human rights for all.

We hold the fundamental human rights codified in the Universal Declaration to be precisely universal, and binding on all states and political movements, indeed on everyone. Violations of these rights are equally to be condemned whoever is responsible for them and regardless of cultural context. We reject the double standards with which much self-proclaimed progressive opinion now operates, finding lesser (though all too real) violations of human rights which are closer to home, or are the responsibility of certain disfavoured governments, more deplorable than other violations that are flagrantly worse. We reject, also, the cultural relativist view according to which these basic human rights are not appropriate for certain nations or peoples.

Quixotic and unlikely to have any greater effect than allowing the 600 signees to blow off steam, but it's always a good thing when men and women stand on good principle.

This Guardian writer, presumably a socialist himself, engages in the typical Bush, Blair, and Rumsfeld bashing, but actually seems to comprehend that there is a difference between democratic civilization and tyranical barbarism:

You can sympathise with the Euston group's frustration, along with its condemnation of reflex anti-Americanism. Again, studying Asia has influenced my thinking. In March 1947, Truman reversed the policy of ruralising defeated Japan and, instead, decided to build it up as a liberal capitalist democracy, along with others in Asia, against communism. There have been disasters and fiascos along the way (Vietnam), but in 2006, not many would say the strategic policy was wrong. My hunch is that in 60 years' time, we may make the same judgment about trying to promote democracy in the Middle East.

Via Memeorandum.

Posted by: Ace at 07:12 AM | Comments (33)
Post contains 585 words, total size 4 kb.

...because Allah hates to see children laughing. It is unislamic.

FOR the crime of staging a childrenÂ’s show, Faud Radi and Haidar Jawad were executed by the new moral guardians of Baghdad.

The actors were part of the Happy Family Team, a troupe adored by millions of Iraqi children from its frequent appearances on television. The theatrical group and a dozen others were planning an 11-day festival to help youngsters to forget momentarily the curfews, bombings and other dangers of daily life in this city.

Armed militias, which pass for the law in many neighbourhoods these days, had other ideas and set out to sabotage the event.

Safaa Eadi, 31, a founding member of the Happy Family Team, told how the group had been threatened by gunmen, who objected to them giving drama classes to children of all faiths and ethnic backgrounds. A handwritten note had been left on the windscreen of the groupÂ’s van, the usual method that the militias employ to warn a target.

“We didn’t take them seriously, so we carried on,” Mr Eadi said. “The next day the building was burnt down.” Then, on the eve of the festival, Mr Radi, 20, and Mr Jawad, 25, were returning to their homes in the Amirayah district of western Baghdad, the heartland of Sunni insurgents.

...

Sifting through photographs of the murdered men, Mr Eadi said: “What has Baghdad come to when actors are seen as the enemy? We are not politicians. We don’t care what a child’s religion is. Our goal is to bring joy. Whoever did this cannot have a family of their own, or how could they murder someone who just wanted to make people laugh? This is the start of a mini Taleban in Baghdad if the gunmen decide what we can and cannot do as entertainers.” He buried his head in his hands.

But the surviving members have decided to keep performing anyway. They won't be openly advertising their performances, though.

In related news, George Clooney was quoted as saying, "These artists should be commended for their courage in the face of death, unafraid to create art even when threatened by terrorist murderers. I had one guy drop out of financing Good Night and Good Luck due to concerns that the script was too 'political,' so I too have stood my ground against the killers. I believe we owe it to these valliant entertainers to immediately abandon them to the murderers, so they can continue showing valor without our interfering protection."

Thanks to Craig.

Posted by: Ace at 06:28 AM | Comments (13)
Post contains 431 words, total size 3 kb.

Soooooo. F'n'. Predictable.

[The article isn't up now, but AOL's headline was "Did Condi Rice Leak Secrets?"]

Thanks to LauraW.

More Media Pushback... The media is very determined to fight this. They like certain leakers. Democratic leakers, obviously.

Here, an AP story on McCarthy's illegal leaking runs with a picture of.... SCOOTER LIBBY.

Just in case you had forgotten about that. "They do it to! Neener-neener! They do it too!" should have been their sub-hed.

Thanks to Slublog, via Jonah at The Corner.

More Molegate: And that's what she was. A mole. So let's call her that.

Neo-Neocon has a roundup of reactions I missed, plus her own thoughts on lefties'/liberals' belief that "national security secrets" is always a smokescreen for nefarious doings, and should never be honored as a genuine restraint on the disclosure of information.

Unless, of course, the disclosure reflects poorly on a Bush critic. In that case, state secrets must be zealously guarded and people who out them must be frog-marched to prison, preferably without the time-waste energy-suck of a formal trial.

It's A Small Liberal Bureacratic/Liberal Media World After All: Dana Priest's husband works at a lefty anti-war outfit that books speaking gigs for Joe Wilson.

Tight as ticks, aren't they?

Do any of these people not have copies of each other's house keys?

Hillary!'s infamous "a vast right wing conspiracy conspiring against my husband" line was built on fewer connections than this. Lucianne Goldberg knew Linda Tripp; Ann Coulter knew people working for Ken Starr, etc.

Based on those know-someone-who-knows-someone connections, Hillary! made her famous declaration, and -- this is important -- the press actually treated the accusation os possibly accurate.

Well.

Is it time?

DC's mob of liberal Heathers, Cool Girls Who Rule the School, seems to be a very tight little clacque. Clarke. Berger. Clinton. Zinni. Wilson. Plame. Simon. Beers. Priest. McCarthy.

Almost all of them know each other; some of them are even BFF's (Best Friends Forever!).

So--

A vast left wing conspiracy, anyone? At least here we'd have an actual conspiracy-- that is, something with a genuine crime at its heart.

Posted by: Ace at 12:49 PM | Comments (46)
Post contains 367 words, total size 3 kb.

It certainly is interesting who the NYT has on its speed-dial-- and who it doesn't have.

One of the defenders of McCarthy, Rand Beers, is already known to be a strong Kerry partisan, pal of Richard Clarke's, anti-Bush peacenick liberal agitator.

Riehl World View already told us that.

Another quoted defender of hers, Steven Simon, wrote a book called The Next Attack: The Failure of the War on Terror and a Strategy for Getting It Right. And co-wrote or co-edited another book with, shock of all shocks!, Richard Fucking Clarke.

A bosom chum of Rand Beers and, geeze, what are the odds?, Mary McCarthy as well.

The New York Times fails to mention this in its article. A passionate Kerry contributor, donating the MAXIMUM amount to Kerry despite the fact she's just on a government salary, is being defended by OTHER strong Gore & Kerry partisans?

That would have seemed interesting to have noted, no? So I imagine the New York Times -- with their crack journalistic cadre and multiple layers of painstaking editorial oversight -- must have just plum missed that.

Apparently the biggest difference between the MSM and bloggers is that bloggers have learned how to use the obscure technology called a "free web-based search engine."

As Marion Ravenwood said (again), cigarette bobbing snidely in her mouth, "I guess it must have just slipped his mind."

Thanks to Slublog for finding that.

(Note: I said BLOGGERS could use a search engine. I didn't say specific bloggers, like myself, could.)

Posted by: Ace at 12:45 PM | Comments (11)
Post contains 265 words, total size 2 kb.

Now this is getting re-goddamned-diculous:

: Reader Topsecretk9 has links to many of the Plame players to McCarthy through in the WAPO love letter bio story and then viola — he was on the NSC with Wilson And McCArthy, and well a member of CSIS with Mcarthy and on the NYU Security [symposium/debate] with McCarthy AND DANA PRIEST (and Hersh).

Okay, let's not lose plot. A lot of people know a lot of other people in government, and in DC, and especially in the same area of government.

But still... interesting.

And: A few weeks ago the Washington Post unexpectedly came down against Joe Wilson, and in defense of the President, in calling the President's leaking of information about Iraq's nuke program a good leak.

I believe it was Just One Minute who first questioned the WaPo's motives for this welcome, but very surprising, stance.

Did the WaPo take this strange position because they knew in a few weeks they'd have to defend another leak, and didn't want to be seen as blatantly inconsistent on leaks?

Perhaps. If so, at least give the WaPo credit for attempting consistency. That doesn't seem to bother the "Paper of Record," the NYT, which has no problems at all demanding that Lewis Libby be thrown in jail for his fake ticky-tack leak but Mary McCarthy be awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom for her REAL leak.

Oh, I know, the NYT's editorial page hasn't actually declared that yet. But what do you think tomorrow's lead editorial will be?

After a lot of throat-clearning crap like "Of course our nation's secrecy laws must be respected" will come the cowardly, dishonest liberal's favorite conjunction -- but -- and a demand that McCarthy be spared further investigation because she acted, doncha know, in the country's best interests.

Jeff Goldstein, meanwhile, thinks I've implied the press will "bury" this story, and he thinks it's too big to bury.

Well, I don't think they'll bury it outright; it is too big for an outright embargo. And of course they're all reporting on it... somewhat, even though the crack investigative staff at the NYT has a lot of trouble tracking down the full amount that Ms. McCarthy has donated to Democrats over the years.

I believe they will minimize the importance of the story and maximize the mitigating factors; I think Jeff agrees with that. Just like they did during Monicagate-- you can't exactly ignore the story, but you sure can defend Clinton by attacking the people prosecuting him, and noting that lying is in fact a very common and very human action (indeed-- it is our lies that make us uniquely human!), and run stories about Jefferson banging the help, and all that.

So, an anti-war official leaked anti-war type stuff. Isn't it true, they'll say, that pro-war officials have leaked pro-war stuff? Isn't it no different than the President legally declassifying information? Really, why should Bush be allowed to decide what the public will know, and a really super-smart and super-ethical CIA officer not be so permitted?

I think they will go full-out to rescue Wilson, Plame, and McCarthy; Jeff seems to believe they may not dare go as far as they could.

In fact-- he thinks they might actually PURSUE the story as if they were ACTUAL REPORTERS, rather than unofficial DNC communications staffers:

And if this story breaks like I’m starting to sense it will (for instance, McCarthy was Larry Johnson’s boss, and the connections between familiar players favored by the anti-war left are starting to pile up1), the press calculus could play out in such a way that they see tough coverage of this scandal—an ACTUAL SCANDAL this time, mind you—as a way to rehabilitate themselves with the American public. That is, they could recognize that now is the best time to bury their ideological allegiances and attempt to show their bona fides as “objective” and “neutral” agents of information dissemination—knowing full well that if they do not, they will get swept away by the flood.

Sadly, Jeff had to type the rest of this interesting post with his nose, as he had badly burned his fingertips on his crack-pipe and smack-spoon.

Vengeance For Jeff "The Once And Future King" Gannon: JPod at National Review's The Corner suggests that "getting McCarthy" is a bigger story than the left taking down Jeff Gannon.

Absurd. Let us not let our partisanship blind us. Losing a male escort/stringer for Men's News Daily was a crippling blow for the entire conservative movement, whereas the present case is merely about a high-ranking Clinton-appointed CIA officer committing actions that border on treason.

So yes, it's all well and good that we've outed a major security risk at the CIA, but let's not sit here and pretend that this will bring Jeff Gannon back to us.

Nothing will.

And it's about time that some of us came to terms with that.

Posted by: Ace at 11:56 AM | Comments (22)
Post contains 836 words, total size 6 kb.

A researcher has found most instances of "mobbing" -- animalistic pack mentality to drive out a noncomforming or otherwise troublesome member -- in the academy.

Children do it. And so do pampered adult children.

I'd like to see this guy do some more investigating in this area in the media.

Via Instapundit. Really worth a read.

Posted by: Ace at 11:31 AM | Comments (10)
Post contains 68 words, total size 1 kb.