RichWatch.net

Actually it just showed that Smokers Have Lower IQs Than Non-Smokers, but I’m going with the words “proof” and “stupid”, cuz duh.

Cigarettes are the only drug type substance people get hooked on that starts with a horrible experience. You do heroine or wine coolers and anything in between and you’re like “dude, this is AWESOME” or at least “ya, this is giving me what I want enough to keep doing this”, but with smoking it’s horrible for everyone. You cough, it hurts – everyone reports bad first try’s, yet they are stupid enough to force themselves to get hooked and dependent on this expensive life shortening and quality-of-life decreasing product. Good one…idiots.

According to the investigators, 28 percent of the study participants smoked at least one cigarette a day, around 3 percent said they were ex-smokers, and 68 percent had never smoked.

The smokers had significantly lower intelligence test scores than non-smokers, and this remained true even after the researchers accounted for socioeconomic status as measured by how many years of formal education a recruit’s father had completed.

The average IQ for non-smokers was about 101, while it was 94 for men who had started smoking before entering the military. IQ steadily dropped as the number of cigarettes smoked increased, from 98 for people who smoked one to five cigarettes daily to 90 for those who smoked more than a pack a day. IQ scores from 84 to 116 are considered to indicate average intelligence.

Recruits aren’t allowed to smoke while intelligence tests are administered, the researchers note, so it’s possible that withdrawal symptoms might affect smokers’ scores. To address this issue, they also looked at IQ scores for men who were non-smokers when they were 18 but started smoking during their military service. These men also scored lower than never-smokers (97 points, on average), “indicating that nicotine withdrawal was probably not the cause of the difference,” the researchers say.

The researchers also compared IQs for 70 pairs of brothers in the group in which one brother smoked and the other did not. Again, average IQs for the non-smoking sibling were higher than for the smokers.

This French anti-smoking ad campaign (whats next? German anti-bratwurst commercials?) says the message nicely.. (more…)

Dennis Prager, best-selling author and nationally syndicated radio talk show host, begins his discussion on male/female differences. The male preoccupation with the visual is the first topic raised.

The video reiterates a point I have been trying to cram into dumb girls dense skulls since 8th grade: What you think is “looking pretty” is in fact, to a guy, “advertising your sex”. When you wear short, low cut, tight things, no male is looking at you and thinking “gosh, she sure is pretty” and more than he thinks “gosh, that sure is an artistically looking cut of beef” when he see’s a thick medium-rare Ribeye being sliced on a commercial for Outback Steakhouse. Dennis says this effect on men is impossible for women to understand. He’s probably right.

He also briefly mentions strip clubs vs male strip clubs, which is the biggest “duh” ever, that it shows how illogical a females thinking is when I hear the two compared as if they were equal. Please… Male strip clubs are for gay guys and bachelorette party jokes. It’s hilarious for young women to see men strip for their entertainment and its mentally satisfying for middle aged (and older) women to see the younger men that used to be chasing them strip – neither goes out with the girls to see dudes dance as a turn-on and no female goes to these places alone because, like i said, its a gag. It’s the reason Girls Gone Wild is a billion dollar industry and Guys Gone Wild is a one-tape humor-based parody. Open your eyes people… The only reason anyone is dumb enough to equate male and female sexual nature is that college professors are dumb enough to believe it, and America has a hard time understanding how educated people can believe stupidly obvious untruths.

Prager has many more of these 5 minute condensed semesters over at PragerU.com

Deep in the jungles, 2 BBC nature reporters find the rare kakapo, which you’ll all recognize as of course “the old night parrot of New Zealand”, whatever the hell that means. At first I read that as the “only night parrot” and that appeared to make sense. but. nope. its the “old” one.

Old or not, the dude likes rough sex, complete with clawing and face slapping. hot.

Fry and zoologist Mark Carwardine have been tracking down some of the most endangered animals on the planet in a six-part series.

Men and Women alike often have a hard time understanding that females are not visually stimulated, sexually. I blame this mostly on the brainwash of college and culture that lies to kids and tells them there are no differences between the sexes and teaches them a black-and-white idiotic philosophy against generalizations (things that are generally true).

The David Letterman “I know you had sex with employee’s” blackmail attempt illustrates this as one of the girls, a former intern named
Holly Hester comes forward about her affair with the Late Nite host.

“I was madly in love with him at the time,” said Hester. “I would have married him. He was hilarious.” It all started in 1990 when Letterman asked her out on a date to see a movie and the secret romance (/affair? he’s been with the mother of his child since 1989. no word on if they had gone on a “break” the year of 1990), until the funnyman called it off because of their age difference (chicks half your age are only good for one thing, and that thing isn’t “long term relationship that ends in marriage”).

So she was “madly in love” with him… because “he was hilarious”… Can you imagine for a second a man saying that about a woman? of course not, Captain Rhetorical. Not in a comparable circumstance (obviously). If the woman is Sarah Silverman, then that’s not quite the same as a 62 year old David Letterman, now is it.

30 something years ago, a Hollywood director named after an Italian empire allegedly started having sex with a 13 year old girl he was hot for. Some time after that, he drugged her and then had sex with her at Jack Nichelsons house while Jack was away on vacation or something – he got prosecuted for it somehow and he plead guilty to rape. This was supposed to be not THAT big a deal since she allegedly had the consensual sex with him before the rape, and also because he directed Chinatown, which was a good movie, so he should probably not get a heavy sentence. He got 40something days in prison and then fled the country before serving (or even officially receiving) his sentence and has been living abroad all this time. When he arrived in Switzerland to receive an award, the Swiss police, armed with cheese and army knives, seized him at the airport at American authority’s request and now theres a big clusterfuck on what to do with him.

There are a lot of stupid people saying really stupid things in response to this, but the most important cliffnotes of this story are: 1) passage of time doesn’t negate a crime 2) the crime was not just a technicality (unless the victim was really hot. which im gonna say, no. she wasnt) and was pretty wrong 3) prosecution is appropriate and 4) that prosecution should be reasonable since attacking this too hard just isn’t a good investment of law enforcement recourses.

The common Hollywood sentiment is Polanski’s crime is inexcusable but let me make excuses for him anyway. lame. especially since its so unnecessary. There are legit reasons why Polanski shouldn’t be drilled into the ground no matter what the expense and spectacle; there are no legit reasons (including his age, the gap since the crime or fact that his mother died in Auschwitz – wtf?) to just leave him alone completely.

I think we call agree that the real and most heinous  and unforgivable sin Polanski committed was the tarnishing the record of male sexual nature, setting the jailbait movement back countless years (well, not TOO many years cuz then you circle back to it being moral, legal and all around hunky dorey) with his “Everyone wants to f*ck young girls!” (Polanski 1979) declaration – which is true – and then going way TOO young, and living the dream via rape for Christ sake. ug.

Closing item for consideration: I guess this girl at the end is the victim(?)

This Shake Weight exercise for women infomercial has gone viral because there are apparently thousands of morons and 13 year olds that see literally any clasped hand gesture to have a clear association with jerking off. I don’t get it at all. At no point in this video do any of the girls make a single motion that resembles penis stimulation in the slightest way, yet that exact imagery is obvious enough to a lot of people.

What? No one handles a penis like this. Not dudes, not girls, not your doctor or uncle when they tell you to keep it your little secret – no one. I dont understand it… It’s like how people call the Washington monument a phallic symbol. Huh? Whose dick is a cube with a pyramid head? Why are there supposed penises in everything these days?

In the recent episode of South Park, titled The Ring, Kenny takes his new girlfriend to a Jonas Brothers’ concert where they each get purity rings. Somehow this turns into harsh criticism of Disney that went completely over my head, which makes me think it was bullshit since not much goes over my head besides hats and maybe a fez on a Sunday afternoon.

I thought the episode was misplaced satire, even though I don’t know very much about the band. The thesis appeared to be that Disney is a big hypocritical fraud by promoting a band whose members don’t have sex, yet are sexually appealing. Huh? Where exactly is the hypocrisy beef? Did I miss something? They don’t prance around without a shirt (like I do) or have suggestive lyrics in their songs and I’ve never seen the brothers hump the air or pump around suggestively like the South Park versions of them did.

So wtf? The South Park guys seem to just really hate the idea of teenagers not having sex whenever they feel like it. I’d get it if the Band appealed primarily to 17-23 year olds cuz then I’d be all duh – screw the purity ring and screw me. But aren’t the Jonas Bros 10 to 14 year old territory primarily? And eh… Isn’t this a group that maybe should probably not be encouraged to banging? Why is role modeling a no-sex policy to kids and young teens such a bad thing to deserve scorn and ridicule? The South Park kids are in 4th grade.

Combined with what I said earlier about the secondary charge against the Disney Corporation who peddles these sexy no-sex boyzes not making any more sense to me than targeting kids who aren’t having sex – wtf was with this episode? If it was all just an excuse to show Mickey Mouse beating the fuck out of someone and cursing then okay, fine, but we’ve come to expect a little more depth and meaning behind the crudeness of South Park gags.

This episode seemed 8 years too late and should have been about Britney Spears. She was much more obviously marketed on a foundation of sex from her outfits to her music videos to her orgasm moans in every other song. But the Jonas Brothers? really? It seemed like South Park was just attacking them simply because young girls like them. Therefore something sinister is going on behind the scenes? Maybe I’m missing something but it didn’t make any sense to me.

Or conversely: “why I dumped my girlfriend”…

All babies want to get borned. I am the Kraken from the sea. Pie junk. – best scene of the movie?…

Like most, I too think its not appropriate for a 15 year old girl to be doing a topless photoshoot of any kind. The argument that it doesn’t show a lot of skin is one that misses the point by a mile. Yes, you can see more skin at the beach and yes Cyrus herself has shown more hot hot back-shoulder-and-arm action in award ceremony dresses – aren’t you clever for thinking of that. No. You’re not. The issue is about the context of such things. It’s the same reason its inappropriate for a girl to walk around in a bra and panties but notsomuch if she reveals even more skin in a bathing suit. Adults understand this.

So its by the same token that this Hannah Montana nude on a magazine cover should have been an obvious “are you fugging kidding me?” to any one of her 18million minders, handlers, agents, publicists and oh ya – parents. But whatever – the Cyrus’s say they were misled by the magazine into what the final product would actually be and are shocked and embarrassed now – okay, whatever. That’s not the point for me.

The thing I want to know why the media isn’t making a big deal about is that it’s not just that the photo is under an inappropriately sexy atmosphere, its that she looks like a thrice banged and discarded French whore.

What.. the hell… is with the pale skin, muted makeup and messy sexed hair on a gray background?? This is Tim Burton porn. I don’t get it at all.