I don't think this is the kind of stuff we should turn to scientists to learn

Scientists say -- and let's face it, we trust these guys, because science, right? -- that this is the catchiest song of all time:



I'm not sure who is asking scientists this shit, because those guys are not exactly noted for their social skills and musical taste, so what the fuck would they know about catchy songs? Frankly, I'm getting a little tired of the "because science" horseshit, because most people are misrepresenting the science when they say that, and they don't understand the science anyway. As for the scientists, could we please quit pretending that many of them are not a bunch of grant-grubbing dickwads who are perfectly willing to link anything to anything if it gets them grants? And most so-called public interest groups that claim to represent "science" are just liberal shills who will sell you a membership for 20 bucks a year even if you can't spell "science." They certainly don't conduct actual research. If you think Science in the Public Interest or Union of Concerned Scientists are groups made up of scientists or that they are interested in science at all, please kill yourself before you reproduce, because science says that would be good for the gene pool, just like chlorine is good for a swimming pool. No, really, research proves it.

But I digress. We were talking about catchy songs. This Spice Girls song is catchy, but I'm not giving it any "of all time" awards. It's actually not a bad song, as pop songs go. To be the catchiest song of all time, a song must command your attention and have an unforgettable hook despite being God-fucking-awful. Like this:

Or maybe this:

Seriously, I could do this all night, but I'm tired. There are a lot of catchy songs out their catchier than the Spice Girls because they are catchy despite the fact that they suck. Further proof that scientists don't know everything. Hat tip to Hot Air for the original link.

I guess the shoe really is on the other foot with this one

From New Zealand, we have a story that I find to be simply fucking hilarious. Oddly enough, gay marriage supporters do not:

Travis McIntosh and Matt McCormick will get married tomorrow, yet the matrimonial union has horrified gay rights groups.
Heterosexual best mates McIntosh and McCormick, who have known each other since the age of six, are getting married as winners of a competition run by The Edge radio station in New Zealand.

The two best friends won an expenses-paid trip to the 2015 Rugby World Cup in England. The catch is, they have to get married. Same-sex marriage recently became legal in New Zealand. Naturally, the groups that fought for that change in the law are pissed about this development:

Same-sex marriage became legal in New Zealand in August last year, yet gay groups have condemned the marriage of McIntosh and McCormick.
Otago University Students’ Association Queer Support co-ordinator Neill Ballantyne told theOtago Daily Times that the wedding was an “insult” as marriage equality was a “hard fought” battle for gay people.
“Something like this trivialises what we fought for,” he said.
The competition promoted the marriage of two men as something negative, “as something outrageous that you’d never consider”, Ballantyne said.
LegaliseLove Aotearoa Wellington co-chairman Joseph Habgood told the Otago Daily Times that the competition attacked the legitimacy of same-sex marriages.

I find it interesting that gay rights groups who fought for  the "right" to get married -- never once realizing that marriage is not a right -- completely failed to understand that they were fighting for the "right" for anyone to marry anyone. They argued successfully that to limit the definition of marriage to one man and one woman was discriminatory. Now they don't want to live with their victory. If a marriage of two men is legitimate, why is a marriage of two men who are best friends but have no desire to have sex with each other -- or any other man, for that matter -- an insult? Interesting that they want to say this "trivialises" gay marriage. How hard would they argue that gay marriage does nothing to "trivialise" traditional marriage? Fuck them -- they can't even spell "trivialize."

They llok like nice guys. I don't know why anyone would be uupset at what they're going:

They seem to be into the spirit of the occasion, after all:

These guys are willing to get "married" so they can go to the Rugby World Cup on somebody else's dime. That is probably a more legitimate reason than many other couples -- same sex or otherwise -- can put forward. The reason is not rooted in something as nebulous as "love." It certainly isn't a political statement. These guys want to go to the Rugby World Cup for free, and this is what they have to do to reach that goal. Given that the New Zealand Blacks -- only a matter of time before the politically correct crowd goes after them the way they are going after the Redskins -- are pretty fucking good, I can see why the boys might not consider this too much of a sacrifice for a chance to see their team win it all.

I don't have a problem with gay marriage. I really don't care who marries who. I care very much that the state is still involved. The original justification for state regulation of marriage was to make people get married in order to give birth to new taxpayers and, because the state made divorce difficult and expensive, to encourage two-parent families to stay together so that those new taxpayers would be supported by their still-married parents until they actually became taxpayers.

Once California fucked up that arrangement by creating no-fault divorce in the 1960s, thus enabling anybody to get divorced easily and relatively cheaply for pretty much any reason, the rationale for state involvement in marriage disappeared. The state no longer has an interest to defend, so why should they care who gets married. The act has been reduced to a simple religiious ceremony, with no need for state involvement. As it is, if you can find clery to marry you, boom, you're married.

If the Packers go to the Super Bowl and I could go to the game if I marry my best friend, I would -- even though we both would be committing bigamy. Fortunately, we now have a winning legal argument that trying to prohibit us from marrying is discriminatory. If marriage can't be limited by gender, why can it be limited by numbers? This is going to get really funky. Believe it.