And the Downside Is?

I can't sleep well and my doctor gave me some new pills. Usually just the psychological lift of pill popping renders positive outcomes, as I am a sucker for placebo, espcially when mixed with copious amounts of booze.

My new medicine has the usual list of warnings as long as your pud. But the list offers marginal downside. The worst that can happen is "This product may intensify the affect of alcohol" and "cause prolonged, inappropriate or painful erections".

This isn't sleeping medication, this is a prescription for life!

The obvious test is to see what will happen in a whiskey-dick scenario... If alcohol makes it extra flimsy but the drug makes it sturdy as a tight wire then this could be the physiological battle royale in my drawers.

Time to start the experiment. Wiser's deluxe at the ready.

Schmootzie= A-hole

Not more than 30 minutes after shots were fired in Cole Hall at the Northern Illinois University campus, some asshole clown in Florida named the tragedy the "Cole Slaughter", a moniker borne years before when he stumbled drunk and big footed around that campus.

I hate these sons of bitches. These pussies inflict tragedy to families, pain to many, that saw their vibrant friend/child/employee alive one day and gone the next.

Damn. This is why we need to keep trying to change things one student at a time. If we do that, they'll never win.

"Answers Journal" Article- Write with ME!

Would anyone be interested in submitting a paper with me?

"The Flintstones as Evidence of Dinosaur-Homo sapiens Co-Habitation".

First we have to explain that "Homo sapiens" doesn't mean Fred was gay. I don't know about Barney.

Any takers?

Answers in Genesis Peer Reviewed Journal

Here's a fun one! Answers in Genesis is now launching a peer-reviewed journal. The idea is to circumvent that claim that the evidence they present for creation, biblical stuff, etc does not endure rigorous peer-reviewed scrutiny.

In being both service oriented and pretty sharp, I am frequently sought for scholarly peer review. I thought I owed it to science to throw my hat into the ring and volunteer as an Associate Editor or perhaps reviewer.

In reading the Instructions to Authors I read the following:

By working closely with your editor you will better ensure final acceptance of your paper and help the ARJ editorial staff in ensuring accurate publication of your paper. Working with your editor builds an effective partnership whose goal is to ensure that the Creation and Flood model is given the best possible development by all concerned.

So there you have it. Your papers are acceptable as long as they fit the conclusions. Anti-science.

These groups continue to subvert the scientific process, starting with a conclusion and working back to evidence to support it. That is exactly the opposite of how it really works. This is anti-scientific, anti-logic, and the scientifically illiterate Americans will eat it up as legitimate validation of their beliefs.

I wonder what they will cite for references?