Even though most of you probably still eat eggs, I wanted to thank all the humans who patronize this site. As a gift, you will receive my scientific insight into the human mating ritual and how you can harness this power to trick someone into liking you.

I’ve done months of research at the natural courting areas of Homo Sapiens (drinking bars). After reviewing the data, the human coupling process can be summarized as follows:

1. The male of the species attempts to get a female’s attention with a pathetic “pick-up line”.
2. The female rejects the male with an equivalently implausible excuse.
3. A couple is created only after a sufficient amount of alcohol is consumed by both parties.

It’s rumored that if the male is Derek Jeter or George Clooney, step 2 does not take place. Unfortunately, neither of them showed up during my studies to verify this.

So if you want to meet someone special, you need to be prepared. Here’s four introductions that can work for you. Now if you successfully coupled readers want to share your own lines, that’s cool. But for beginners, I’d recommend sticking with one of my recommendations.

Males can open with one of the following lines:

1. My toupee is less fake than Donald Trump’s. Can you tell?
2. Yo, babe, I don’t have any STD’s.
3. Ah eat zee French fries and zee French toast, because Ah am zee romantique French man!
4. We go together like dirty dishes and handwashing soap.

Females can respond with the following shoot-downs:

1. Sorry, I have to scrub my cheese grater tonight.
2. Wow, this sex change operation is even more convincing than I thought!
3. You know that guy Michael Jordan? Yeah, well, I’m waiting for him.
4. Call me! My number is 911-290-2328.*

* If you’re not in the U.S., substitute the “911″ with whatever your country’s emergency service number is.

First of all, is anyone really fooled that a modern chemist sloshes mysteriously colored liquids back and forth in test tubes all day? Did the Times’ photographers say, “Hey, look, we have some orange and purple Kool-Aid here, could you pour some into those beakers so you fit our readers’ stereotype of a chemist?”

Hervé This, the founder of molecular gastronomy, has created a completely synthetic meal. It sounds weird, but this is a great hope for the future once we get used to it. Think about it: If these guys can make fake eggs out of chemicals, people might stop killing real eggs. It would be a major step in our quest for equal rights and justice.

But those scientists are probably going to use real eggs for their experiments. In the picture, you can see that chemist apparently shelled a couple eggs alive, and is brazenly torturing the one on the right by crushing him between his fingers. It’s almost like Mr. This doesn’t even believe his test subject is alive.

How can I possibly support such yolk-wrenching treatment of my fellow egg?

(Note: if there are a bunch of unresponded-to comments, I’m not ignoring you; this post was pre-set to show today.)

Yes, we will do that ESPN March Madness bracket again this year and see if something dethrones Tom. But we’ve also decided to do our own version (”Egg Madness”, I guess?).

This is going to be such a disaster, mainly because of the sheer number of matchups. The idea is that the readership will vote for whoever they want to see “win”. No criteria. No rationale. Just raw popularity. (Of course, everyone’s going to be bracketed-out by the end of the month, but no one said we at LEP were the most considerate people.)

We’re still deciding on the brackets, but we’ll give you a sneak peek at one that’s almost finished. If there’s anyone you want to see in Egg Madness–or even ideas for other brackets–let us know and we might just get them in!

Or if this idea is completely fail, warn us before we look even more foolish.

So BDK references some study that shows women and men have equal chess skill…ok, fine, but who really cares about that?

If I played chess, here’s what I’d be thinking: we do know that there exist some hot female chess players. I’d be much more interested in that percentage than anything.

So if we can compile pictures of female, legal (18 and over) rated chess players, maybe we can do some sort of scientific study and publish it. And if the women want to evaluate the men, well, maybe we can throw that in too. But I can’t help with that part b/c I don’t lean that way. Although I hear some guy Viktor Korchnoi is quite the catch now.

There are 3 major “species” of humans. We don’t call them different species for political reasons, but they ARE different species….

I call them “species” based on the definition that different species won’t try to mate with each other. I find one “species” females…well let’s just stop it at “I wouldn’t touch them with a 10ft pole”. I consider one “races” women to not be “true” women. I find no sexual desire for them. Unless of course crossbred with a LOT of the other races first.

Because there are NO interracial couples in the world. This guy has to be a troll, right? (From same article linked to in prior post.)

“The Bible is not less valid just because some of it isn’t true or factual.”

Found in the comments of the article 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense. Of course, it’s a raging evolution vs. creation debate. LEP will refrain from fruitlessly commenting.

Like fast food, there is a ceiling to the expected quality of most sports articles. But this one made me want to rant.

Some guy Don Borst has a couple beefs with the BCS computer rankings:

1. The computers rank Oklahoma ahead of Texas, despite Texas beating OU earlier in the year.

2. Alabama is no longer ranked #1 by the computers even though they won convincingly last game and are undefeated. (”It’s as if the computers realized that to get their beloved Sooners into the Big 12 title game, they had to push OU past the 12-0 Crimson Tide, too.” lolz QQ moar nub)

He can’t seem to figure out why these situations could happen and blames “ridiculous” computer rankings. Here’s some help for him:

1. He treats the Big 12 tie like it’s a two-way. It’s not. It’s a three-way, including Texas Tech. The reason why humans are discounting TTU is they lost by 40+ to OU. Yet humans are the ones who insisted that the computer rankings not take point differential into account. Mr. Borst does not seem to be aware of this.

2. Most computers give bonuses to teams that beat top 25 teams. Alabama didn’t get moved down because they won 36-0; it’s because Oklahoma beat a highly ranked team, while Alabama beat a scrub. (Texas is also above Alabama due to superior strength of schedule.)

Boise State, Utah, and Ball State are undefeated, yet are not top-ranked because they haven’t played enough good teams. Same as Alabama.

3. The useful thing about computers is that once you determine the formula; the calculations are unbiased. Humans have unreliable memory, cannot take all games into account, are heavily influenced by recent events, and have in-born biases.

This is not to say that’s he’s wrong about Texas being more deserving than OU. The difference in teams’ playing strength is razor-thin, though, and solid arguments can be made for both sides. This is a perfect situation for letting computers determine the outcome.

(Brief background for the non-American readers: tomorrow is a national holiday called Thanksgiving. A turkey feast is the traditional offering.)

Slate has a wonderful article on how they manage to have so many turkeys ready at one time (The Turkey-Industrial Complex). The most popular turkey is the White Broad Breasted Turkey which has been bred for large size. So large, in fact, they are unable to reproduce; the species is kept around by artificial insemination (WARNING: some of you may not enjoy this video very much)

As a bonus, here’s MSNBC mocking Palin during some turkey pardoning event. She’s doing an interview while turkeys are being terminated in full view in the background.

(Uncensored version is here.)

Enjoy your turkey, people.

1,000 thanks to Joe Lee of ROTK for this find: “You know you start to wonder what the age of the biochem researchers demographic is when they start releasing ads like this.”: It’s called EpMotion

So these results are not completely unexpected, and the results surely range far beyond partisanship:

In a study a couple years ago, Democrats and Republicans both had a hard time correctly assessing information contradictory to their points of view. The test involved hearing contradictory statements from John Kerry and George W. Bush. The candidates on the test subjects’ sides could essentially deny their favored candidate’s statements while jumping on the opponent.

Oh, and right now Bush has a 32% approval rating. 65% Republicans approve of Bush. I would like to ask those of you who do give Bush a thumbs-up two things:

1. Why does Bush get your approval?
2. What do you think Bush has done poorly (if anything)?

If you’re wondering what the picture has to do with this, it’s because the weapon the processioneers are carrying is called a “partisan”. It’s a spear-like weapon, but instead of a simple spear point, the sharp end has little “wings” on the side. Presumably this was to aid in catching incoming swordstrokes, but I’m not convinced it made a partisan wielder that much more capable against swordsman than a spear wielder.

Sources: Democrats and Republicans Both Adept at Ignoring Facts, Study Finds

President Bush Job Approval