An article in The Atlantic by Jordan Weissmann reveals that automakers are struggling to connect their products to teens and twenty-somethings. The problem isn’t the cars, or even the economy, but driving in general. Fewer young people are getting drivers licenses. In 1998 nearly two-thirds of potential drivers age 19 or younger had a license. In 2008 it was less then half. It’s hard to believe, but trends indicate young people in the 21st century no longer view a car as the symbol of adolescent independence. As one Toyota executive noted, “Many young people care more about buying the latest smart phone or gaming console than getting their driver’s license.”
Two California men on a gay cruise of the Caribbean were arrested Wednesday in Dominica, where sex between two men is illegal.
Police Constable John George said police boarded the cruise ship and arrested the two men on suspicion of indecent exposure and “buggery,” a term equivalent to sodomy on the island. He identified the men as John Robert Hart, 41, and Dennis Jay Mayer, 43, but did not provide their hometowns.
George said the men were seen having sex on the Celebrity Summit cruise ship by someone on the dock.
The two were later charged with indecent exposure and are scheduled to appear before a magistrate Thursday morning. If found guilty, they could be fined $370 each and face up to six months in jail.
What a joke.
This is why I don’t travel or go on cruises.
Fuck that noise.
Why does a gay cruise pull in to port where buggery is illegal. That’s just asking for trouble.
If Republican presidential candidates were a wine list
Waiter:What would you like?
Me:Well, I was in the mood for some internal misogyny.
Waiter:We have a fine Bachmann 2012. Not as spicy as the Palin '08 but...
Me:Well actually, do you have anything with really strong tinges of racism?
Waiter:Well the Paul '88 was, of course, legendary. The racism in the Paul '12 is much more subtle but make no mistake, it's still there. The Paul doesn't really work without at least a hint of racism on the nose. I also hear the Perry is...
Me:You know, I haven't had anything with a strong misplaced family values base since the Bush '04.
Waiter:Oh well then, sir, you'll want to sample both the Romney and the Gingrich. Although, while they both say 'contains family values' on the label, you really have to hold it back in the throat and inhale to even find a trace of it.
Me:What if I just want something kind of different but vaguely familiar at the same time, that will leave me somewhat confused or possibly disturbed?
Waiter:The Cain is new but I doubt it'll stay in stock long.
DAY ONE 8:15 a.m.: Snooze for an hour, then up. Still logged on to manhunt.com and adam4adam.com from last night. Check if any responses. One e-mail. Some potential. 8:45 a.m.: While walking dog, notice a guy no more than 20 years old. Cute, but not my scene. I am currently — and perpetually — single. I have had relationships, but none for more than a year, and my last was [gulp!] four years ago. The older I get, the more rigid I get in terms of my daily flow and how I operate and my focus on myself. 8:50 a.m.: Salt-and-pepper guy checks out 20-year-old guy, who’s walking in front of me. Then checks me out. Definitely my scene.
2 p.m.: Run into old hookup buddy, Q., on the subway. Apparently he has a blog of some acclaim. Trade stories about our dogs. He says he looks forward to comments on his blog. 6 p.m.: Friend bails on dinner. Go for a swim. More than one cute guy in a Speedo at the pool. Share a lane with a hottie. We finish at same time and hit the gang-bang showers together. He, along with the other gorgeous guy showering, are curiously devoid of any body hair. Makes me wonder if I should groom more. 9:30 p.m.: E-mail Q. Tell him blog is nice, but needs some cock shots. Will see if he takes the bait. 10 p.m.: He responds with something cute, but doesn’t take bait. Whatever. Log on to Manhunt. Exchange e-mails with a French guy, R., who I’ve e-mailed with multiple times, but never met. Make tentative plans for Thursday. 12:20 a.m.: Horny. Internet porn, wishing I could take a big one like that. Jerk off. Bed.
DAY TWO 10:30 a.m.: Wake up from dream where Martha Stewart told me my dog is well behaved and that I should do a segment on her show. Does it get any better? Log on to Manhunt. E-mail from a bi dude living the str8 life. Not sure what that means, but it sounds sort of hot. 12:45 p.m.: Sit down to do some certification coursework. Peruse Manhunt. Get e-mail that there’s an appointment available to get my tattoo touched up. May limit my activity for awhile. Hmmm … decide to get the tattoo worked on anyway. Wonder if I should hook up pre-tattoo. 12:50 p.m.: Remember friend was trying to get a little group together tonight to mess around. Not sure if I should partake. Will see if he follows through. 1 p.m.: Horny, thinking about group. Watch some porn promos online. Trying not to jerk off. 1:20 p.m.: Make plans for a quickie with S., guy I’ve chatted with but never met, after pool, before tattoo. 3 p.m.: Swim. No hotties. 4 p.m.: Meet up with S. His hairyness makes me think I’m comfortably in the middle of the grooming curve. Hook up. Probably won’t see him again, but nice to meet before tattoo. 8:10 p.m.: Dinner at friend’s place. Receive texts inquiring about availability for tonight’s group action. Decline given fresh tattoo status. 12:20 a.m.: S. e-mails saying that he had a good time. Sweet.
DAY THREE 12:15 p.m.: E-mail on Manhunt from a Kiwi. Yum. Keep him in the hopper and will see. Work tonight and studying to do, not sure if there’s time. Masturbate in shower. 2:25 p.m.: Invited to a different group by a buddy on Manhunt. I have to work, though. 4:15 p.m.: Shopping, run into an exec at L.L. Bean that I dated a bit (of course, I’m wearing the only shirt from L.L. Bean that I own: ugh). Go to shake his hand, and he goes for the hug. D’oh. Idle chitchat ensues. 7:30 p.m.: Work, night shift. Boo.
DAY FOUR 9 a.m.: Exhausted and feeling incredibly unsexy. Bedtime. 6 p.m.: GLBT fund-raiser. Should totally be my demo. 7:30 p.m.: Lotsa cuties, some eye contact, talk to no one. My usual M.O. 10:30 p.m.: Online bud hits me up for quickie. I’m wavering. Coursework, and I have to work again tomorrow night. 10:40 p.m.: Says he cut himself grooming (yet another reason I don’t get too aggressive in that category) and would only want to suck me off. Not my preference. Reschedule for time when no one is injured.
DAY FIVE 8:30 a.m.: Up. Walk dog. Realized last night at 11 p.m. that I have something due at 4 p.m. 12:40 p.m.: Run out to grab salad. A regular hookup texts me saying he’s horny. I demur given looming deadline. 12:41 p.m.: He says he’s REALLY horny and will be quick. 12:42 p.m.: After much thought, relent. I reply: “But only if it’s quick!” 1:10 p.m.: He has his way with me. I do love that. True to his word: quick. 1:30 p.m.: Back to paper. Boo. 8 p.m.: Work (a.k.a. the absence of sex).
DAY SIX 9 a.m.: Home from work. Zero thoughts of sex. 5:15 p.m.: Gym. Some cute guys, all straight. Nice-looking uncut guy in the locker room with a Jack Spade bag. Potential, but throwing off straight vibes. On to the Stairmaster. 10:10 p.m.: E-mail from R. about tomorrow night. Some playful banter. He suggests a bar. I up the stakes to somewhere slightly fancy. He’s French. He’s used to it. 11:15 p.m.: Horny thinking about R. Jerk off to some online porn.
DAY SEVEN 6:30 a.m.: Working day today. Not used to it. Looking forward to meeting R. tonight 9:10 a.m.: Hot surgeon walks through unit. Like to think that I don’t think him any hotter because he’s a surgeon, but I might. 9 p.m.: Meet R. at bar. He’s quite handsome and true to his pics. Outlook good. 9:05 p.m.: Turns out he’s Belgian and not French. Sorta weird that he said French online, when he’s Belgian. He says it’s easier. Still seems odd. Midnight: Good chatter. After three drinks, he’s now VERY hot. Back to his, despite my speech about not being able to leave dog for extended periods. The dog can hold it. 2:30 a.m.: Exhausted. Satisfied. Home. Intend to e-mail him tomorrow (don’t want to seem TOO eager) for second meeting. Genuinely enjoyed his entire package. Potential for more than just sex, which I haven’t had in some time. We’ll see.
TOTALS: Four acts of masturbation; three acts of sex with three partners; two aborted hookups, one owing to shaving injury.
The democratic process relies on the assumption that citizens (the majority of them, at least) can recognize the best political candidate, or best policy idea, when they see it. But a growing body of research has revealed an unfortunate aspect of the human psyche that would seem to disprove this notion, and imply instead that democratic elections produce mediocre leadership and policies.
The research, led by David Dunning, a psychologist at Cornell University, shows that incompetent people are inherently unable to judge the competence of other people, or the quality of those people’s ideas. For example, if people lack expertise on tax reform, it is very difficult for them to identify the candidates who are actual experts. They simply lack the mental tools needed to make meaningful judgments.
As a result, no amount of information or facts about political candidates can override the inherent inability of many voters to accurately evaluate them. On top of that, “very smart ideas are going to be hard for people to adopt, because most people don’t have the sophistication to recognize how good an idea is,” Dunning told Life’s Little Mysteries.
He and colleague Justin Kruger, formerly of Cornell and now of New York University, have demonstrated again and again that people are self-delusional when it comes to their own intellectual skills. Whether the researchers are testing people’s ability to rate the funniness of jokes, the correctness of grammar, or even their own performance in a game of chess, the duo has found that people always assess their own performance as “above average” — even people who, when tested, actually perform at the very bottom of the pile. [Incompetent People Too Ignorant to Know It]
We’re just as undiscerning about the skills of others as about ourselves. “To the extent that you are incompetent, you are a worse judge of incompetence in other people,” Dunning said. In one study, the researchers asked students to grade quizzes that tested for grammar skill. “We found that students who had done worse on the test itself gave more inaccurate grades to other students.” Essentially, they didn’t recognize the correct answer even when they saw it.
The reason for this disconnect is simple: “If you have gaps in your knowledge in a given area, then you’re not in a position to assess your own gaps or the gaps of others,” Dunning said. Strangely though, in these experiments, people tend to readily and accurately agree on who the worst performers are, while failing to recognize the best performers.