Boobs are awesome. But why?

One day while lying in bed with some nude nubile nannies, I was asked the following question: "Why do guys like boobs so much?" I opened my mouth to speak and found I had no answer. This bevy of beautiful babes had stumped me. What is it about breasts that are so enticing? I decided to launch a straight-up sexy assault to find out. And yes, part of the reason I'm writing this is to post several pictures of ladies' puppy-pillows. Is that a slang-term for breasts? I'll be honest, I'm a little out of the loop on colloquialisms these days.

These don't look like breasts at all...

In order to begin my research I decided to head to Facebook to find out what the common people thought. Because I'm so popular and have millions upon millions of friends and admirers I decided to post the following as a status update via Twitter:

Research Question: why do most men seem to love boobs? Leave your answers/theories/anecdotes in the comments below please...

Most of my friends and admirers must have been busy that day, as I received only three responses. The first response was as follows: "Because they don't have their own. Greedy bastards."

Fair enough. The second response said, "Ask anthony.. Ugh". Anthony, as any loyal reader of this blog knows, is my co-author. Apparently I'm writing this in vain because Anthony already knows the answer. And whomever he's shared this answer with was disgusted by it. However, Anthony rarely knows what he's talking about so I am going to trudge forth with this study anyway.

The final response was this: "Because they are awesome?" This is also the only response from a male. Note the question mark at the end of what should have been the statement. For one, I believe that is indicative of why I only received three responses; As much as men love soft cannons, they're afraid and unsure of them at the same time.

Google image search is really letting me down today...

I stuck with Facebook for one last try as I saw a good friend of mine on Facebook chat and remembered that I had to talk to her about her birthday goings on that day, but also she has breasts. I asked her as scientifically as I could about them and their almost magnetic properties, and she said, "Because they (guys) don't have them." Ah... confirming what an earlier poster said. Playing devil's advocate I asked about fat guys. They have boobs, don't they? "Fat men don't have perky breasts. And it's different on females... They're a completely different shape." Touche my friend. She continued, "Women love breasts too... It's a fact actually. They are just fun to play with." True! Very true! They are fun to play with. I got hung up on this fact while she continued, "I also think it has to do with your attachment to them from childbirth bla bla bla." At this point I was still thinking about how much fun boobs are to play with and signed off.

After some more, uh... research, on a few websites that shall remain anonymous at this point, I found that some of the claims being made by the commoners on Facebook had some validity to them. That is, if you hate peer-reviewed articles. It seems that most scientists focus their energies elsewhere, and not on finding out why fatty bulls-eyes are so intoxicating.

At least that has a woman in the picture...

Instead of respectable, peer-reviewed articles, I decided to settle on more-or-less the first two sites with answers Google gave me. The first one, authored by some dude named Josh Johnson, basically restates the things those Facebookers said. When confronted with the question that stumped me, Josh is ready with a retort, "Actually, the answer to this question is almost unbelievably simple; We like them because they are there, and we don't have them."

As much as I thought Occam's design was the bomb diggity, that might be simplifying the matter a bit too much. What else you got, Josh? "It's hardwired into our brains as infants, men and women alike, that breasts are an important part of our survival. Most of us lived off the damned things at one point in our life, so it's only understandable that we carry a certain fondness for them as grow older."

Well... that was much better actually. However, I can't help but think there's more to it than the facts that evolutionarily we're hardwired to love fleshy balloons and we don't have them. Just those two things don't seem to explain the downright obsessiveness that men, and even our culture, has with them.

THESE ARE FLESHY BALLOONS?! THESE?! OH GOD WHY?!

Moving to a possibly more reputable website, but probably not, I checked out something that was authored by Askmen.com. They break down their reasons quite well, actually. One of the first points that are made is some subconscious psychological reasoning that doesn't have to do with Oedipus. "Breasts hint at a woman's ability to nurture and sustain life. They also point to a woman's capacity to breed, as they signal the onset of puberty." Very true. Despite what my asshole friends like to joke around about, men aren't attracted to pre-pubescent girls. Darwin was even a firm believer in this line of thought, or so I've heard. I mean, it seems like something he would agree with. He loved titties.

The article goes on to state that, biologically, men know that breasts are sensitive and can turn a woman on. "Any good lover knows that a woman's breasts are closely connected to her libidinal zone." I once read in Playboy (yes, I got Playboy for the articles, despite popular belief) that a very small percentage of women can orgasm just from playing with her nipples in the right way. This proves nothing, but sometimes I like to tell anecdotal stories with only tenuous connections to whatever the conversation is about.

Finally, the article argues that men are stimulated visually, while women tend to be stimulated more intellectually. While I don't wholly believe in this statement, their next statement I can agree with: "It's hardly surprising then that breasts, raised and perky as they often are, receive our obsessive attention. After all, apart from genitalia, breasts are a woman's most well-defined physical feature." Basically, boobs stand out. The more they stand out, the more attention men are likely to lavish on a particularly well-bosomed lady.

So there you have it, men like breasts for a variety of reasons. Breasts represent many things to a man, whether that be some unconscious safety-net for the warmth and security of a mother's bosom (not to mention the nutrition), or the fact that they're different from what men are naturally equipped with, or as a sign of fertility, or because they're fun to play with, or simply because on most women breasts stand out, men just kinda like them.

And that, ladies, will never change. Viva la Boobies!

Oh sonofabitch.

Mustache Rides: Not Just for Humans Anymore

If you have ever wondered why you are undoubtedly drawn to the prowess of Tom Selleck, wonder no more: The Mustache. It is a scientifically proven fact that women, and some men, are sexually predisposed to the tractor beam that is The Mustache. Now, well a few months ago actually, scientists have found that a fish uses the same power that Magnum P.I. uses to seduce young women. The Mexican Molly found in, you guessed it, Mexico has been shown to utilize a little "Mustache like structure" atop its upper lip to attract females of the same species. So there you go, start growing that lip patch of goodness. The fish babes will dig it.

Happy Meal, Sans Pleasure: Let Them Have Toys!

Cracker Jacks were once incredible boxes of sugar, love, baseball, and a free "surprise inside". They are still important in the baseball world, mainly thanks to the song that nudged it into the realm of necessary snack at a ball game. The difference between the new jacks and the original: the "surprise". Maybe I just have assumptions based on stories told through movies, but weren't rings, whistles, or some other three dimensional practical object those wonderful surprises awaiting the purchaser of the sacred ball park delicacy? Well, Cracker Jack has been kinda slacking on the whole toy thing. My recent visit to a baseball game left me unsatisfied in the toy department upon purchase of my box of Cracker Jacks; my "surprise" was a piece of paper that was to be folded in the shape of Benjamin Franklin. It was a surprise, and I guess Cracker Jack is going for disappointing shock value now. I felt betrayed, duped, completely empty inside. I purchased a sugary product in hopes that the surprise inside would be just as unnecessary and lacking in any sort of nutritional and/or educational value. Well, thanks Cracker Jacks, I learned something.

Cracker Jacks, you used to be cool

Bribing by Means of Joy...or is it Vice Versa?

Cracker Jacks, name brand cereals, fast food children's meals, banking accounts, credit cards, and even some candies have one thing in common: bribery. These products may or may not be good enough to live on their own consumption, but in fact need some sort of incentive for the consumer in order to purchase the product. It's not just toys in sugary items, it's also ipods with the set up of a checking account, or 25,000 bonus miles for signing up for a credit card that you are sure to use responsibly. Companies have found ways to convince the consumer, with a sleight of hand, that they need their particular product. The incentive makes all the difference. There has been public outcry for the removal of such "incentives", and McDonalds Happy Meals are the most recent item under public scrutiny.

Don't Pretend you never Ate a McDonalds Happy Meal for the Toy

I get it, toys as an incentive to eat crappy food is probably not the most moral outcome of the past century, but come on, suing McDonalds over it? Of course, this is the same company that was sued for not labeling their coffee "hot" and are now required by law to have a "caution: contents hot" label on each cup containing a hot beverage. I guess there is no such thing as common sense, and it lies in the laps of corporations and business alike to warn and care for the people. So thank you McDonalds for warning me my hot beverage is hot, god forbid I would have to guess the temperature, kind of like when I order a soft drink and the little dimple isn't pushed down and I subsequently have no idea what I'm drinking.

Times are tough, apparently, and it is no different for non profit organizations like The Center for Science in the Public Interest who are heading the lawsuit against McDonalds. They must need some serious dough to try and go after McDonalds. They probably lost funding because some grant writer fudged and missed a deadline. Believe me, I love nothing better than a public interest group helping out in the pursuit of greater good, but taking toys away from the children is absolutely disastrous. Just think, these kids will grow up without the wonderful pleasures of toys made by other children for sub-par wages in far off countries. What ever will they do?!

First it was cereal dismantling the additions of toys in their boxes. No more would there be nondescript pieces of plastic made out to be a character of whatever was famous at the time. I feel the cereal companies failed us when they let that law take over. Mcdonalds, don't let the same fate happen to you. Stand up, fight for your right as Americans to include a tantalizing gift that will almost surely guarantee the purchase of your greastrap. If the Happy Meal is so bad for kids, surely parents wouldn't let their kids eat it, right? I mean, all parents have complete control over what their kids eat anyway, why do we need some good-for-nothing organization come in and tell us we can't have toys. After all, have you looked on eBay recently, those old McDonalds toys are going for some serious cash. Thank God I ate there as often as I did, because I can make a comfortable living selling my accumulated treasures to lonely, possibly obese, men trying to live out the glory days of their parents feigning interest and purchasing Happy Meals in lieu of actually cooking. <---Run-on sentence? Yes. Wholly Judgmental? Yes.

I apologize.

But seriously, I collected those beanie babies like they were meth...not that I enjoy doing meth, but rather I need to support the habit...get it?

LET THEM HAVE TOYS!

Smoking some Ciggs

Youtube gets a ton of flack from various outlets, especially slamming it for productivity loss. Let's face it, Youtube is really just an all access, global America's Funniest Home Videos. Or is it?

Recently, a video was posted to Youtube and quickly gained momentum around the interworld that showed a two year old child chain smoking cigarettes. To be honest, I had not seen it until it was featured on CBS, but was still as interested in the follow-up story that was being done on the two year old addict. The kid smokes like James Dean---the epitome of cool. It is humorous to watch at first, until the real story was expelled. If you aren't familiar with the story take a quick visit here and come right back to finish up my rant. In all seriousness, it IS a sad story. Although this poor kid has been exploited and laughed at by all the world, he has also garnered attention by people who truly think this is atrocious. This little video of a two year old chain smoking has led to a government funded rehabilitation program for the child, as well as blasting the spotlight on the mishaps of the Indonesian Government. Smoking is such a large aspect of the culture, and as Americans we can not sit at our computers 5,000 miles away and judge an entire culture. However, a two year old smoking is a little ridiculous.

Do a Google images search for "smoking babies".

I dare you

Because of the exposure of the story, the "Indonesian Ministry of Health is prepared to exceed and ratify the framework convention of tobacco control..." says a reporter for CBS news, "...the Indonesian government acknowledges tobacco use as an epidemic, they do want to get rid of it..."

So, thanks to youtube, this kid got some help, his family understands the dangers, and an entire country has been saved....

or, has it? Does it really need to be saved? And who they hell are we to save it? Oh, how important big media thinks it really is...

Is the smoking culture one that is deeply ingrained in the history of Indonesia, or is it simply a lack of regulations for advertisers and a kickback from tobacco companies to make a huge profit? Or is it really not that big of a difference when compared to other countries? When compared to the rest of the world, Indonesia is number eight in number of tonnes of tobacco imported into the country....hmmm, some quick math...

-170,000 tonnes of tobacco per year consumed

-2000 pounds per tonne

---soo 340,000,000 pounds of tobacco consumed per year

-Population=229,965,000

---sooo...roughly 1.5 pounds of tobacco per person

-----which equals about 54.4 packs of cigarettes per person (there are only 12.5 grams of tobacco in each pack of cigarette...ouch, kinda makes you hurt when you spend nearly $10 per pack of that crap...also makes you wonder what makes up the other 50 or so odd grams, not counting the filters...)

THAT IS A LOT OF CIGGS!

BUT WAIT...

The USA is even worse. Not considering the countries listed higher in the top ten list of Top Ten Tobacco countries (because they have over one billion people) The USA has an even worse number than Indonesia! Sure, there aren't any 2 year old smokers in the USA, at least none that have been filmed and posted to youtube, but we have much more tobacco per person in this country than Indonesia, and only second to Russia.

The United States of Gotdamn Amurica consumes 430,000 tonnes of tobacco every year, which averages to about 103 packs per person per year. That's just stupid.

This was the best picture I found when I typed in "Amurica",

and I think it sums it up pretty well

America, STOP SMOKING! That includes you Uncle Angelo.

So before any one of you do-gooders decide you need to go and tell Indonesia what's up...don't, because first of all they don't care about a better-than-everyone American and second, America uses more tobacco anyway...so suck it.

Population Data

Tobacco Data

Love: An Analysis Part II: The Evolutionary and Psychological Stance

Last time, on the Science Liaisons:

Intrigue! Drama! Humor! Sex! Drugs (Mentioned)! Hormones! Hot Girls! In his discussion on the biological processes behind love, Craig? delved deep into the brain and its related hormones to find out just what exactly causes those feelings we call "love" and "emotions". There he found oxytocin, dopamine, vasopressin and other amphetamines. As he shifts his focus to the evolutionary advantages and psychological reasoning behind love will he learn anything about himself? Will he open a door that can never be closed? Will you, his loyal reader, buy him a chicken finger sub for all of the hard work he puts into entertaining and informing you? All of these questions have answers, and to find them all you have to do is keep reading...

Being a dork for the majority of my life, I've had my fair share of ups and downs. I've seen success in love, but mostly failure. I've rebelled against my best instincts, swearing myself to a life as a bachelor. I've embraced my basest needs and chased multiple partners. I've overcome those same needs and dedicated myself to monogamy. I've analyzed what I want in a partner, and I've analyzed why someone would or wouldn't want me. In conclusion, I've spent a lot of time thinking about what love means, where it comes from, and how it affects us. This is obviously because of how lonely I actually am.

I had just sat down...

The Evolutionary Advantages of Monogamous Love

If there is one indisputable truth about the world we live in it's this: People are awesome creatures. It's not because God made us that way, because God didn't seem to give us any advantages over most types of other animals. If anything, He stacked the deck against us. What makes people so special, to me anyhow, is at how well we exploit the advantages we were given, such as opposable thumbs and the intellect to use tools. We've used this simple advantage to become the most adaptable creatures to ever walk the Earth, physically changing habitats to suit our needs. We've evolved so far we've overcome nature, to a point.

That being said, we're still weak creatures. If an average person were to physically go up against almost any other animal, insect, or plant in the wild, even with a weapon, they'd be dead within minutes. It's because of this weakness that we've evolved to love.

In David Funder's The Personality Puzzle he details how the English psychoanalyst John Bowlby theorized that love had it's origins in staking a claim on survival. Whenever we feel alone or are sick and/or injured we have an almost unexplainable innate desire to have someone who loves us by our side. Mr. Bowlby believes this is for protection; We want someone who is invested in us to help protect us and increase our chances of survival.

Children are in an even worse position. The worst kept secret in the history of the universe is that children suck, mostly because they smell bad and they're selfish. Here's another reason children are a plague to humanity: They're useless and take up valuable resources. So why bother taking care of them? The reason for maternal and (sometimes - definitely not in my case though...) paternal love is so the child can survive and continue the species. Steven Johnson wrote the following quote summing up what I just said in the article Addicted to Love from Discover Magazine: "The biological capacity for love is one way the brain prepares us for offspring who are born young and helpless and need tending to have the slightest hope of survival." For homo sapiens, any hope of survival depends on relying on others. Following this logic, the best way to know you can rely on someone is to be sure they love you. Which is exactly why women can never rely on me.

Whoops, I broke your heart again.

It's unclear what sort of evolutionary processes resulted in the necessity for people to love, but according to Helen Fisher there are "three basically different brain systems that evolved for mating and reproduction". First, there is the sex drive, or lust. This helps us find a partner; Why we choose who we choose is a psychological thing (maybe). When we initially find someone we're physically attracted to hormones are released and we've already narrowed down the field from 3.4 billion to one. The second brain system is romantic love, or focus. This is what old timey people from the middle ages may have called "courting". It conserves mating energy by allowing one to focus on an individual in order to decide whether or not it would be good to get all up in their genes (see what I did there?). The final brain system is the attachment phase. Helen Fisher describes it as "tolerating (your mate) long enough to raise a child".

Between this stage and the romantic love phase is usually when people find themselves becoming possessive of their mate - another evolutionary advantage. There are several evolutionary advantages to this, such as that whole protection and caring for thing I talked about earlier. However, before DNA testing became such a popular way of figuring out who your parents were, this possessiveness was also one of the only ways for men to know the child was theirs and they had successfully passed on their genes.

While I was finishing one of my many years of college (because I'm so smart) I took a personality psychology course. One day our professor (her name escapes me, so I'll call her Professor Womanface) took an impromptu survey of the class. The sampling size was probably around 200. Professor Womanface asked how many people would rather their mate be monogamous over successful. Mostly men raised their hands. She then asked the inverse of the question and mostly women raised their hands. She explained that these gender-dominated answers are because women prefer their men to be able to provide for them and their child since there can be no doubt that the child is theirs - the thing does pass through their vagina-hole after all. Men, on the other hand, have no such security in knowing the child is theirs, so it's much more important that their mate be monogamous. Which is funny considering that according to women, most guys go for sluts anyway.

Especially Corporate Sluts

Speaking of personality, those differences that stand-up comedians like to talk about between men and women? Could be evolutionary differences. Check it: Women like to talk and men like to do things for a reason. When estrogen levels are up in women their verbal ability goes up. Estrogen levels go up during times such as childbirth and breastfeeding. Women talk to their child, it's an attachment thing. Men on the other hand have spent thousands of years sitting side by side in the bush with their friends, hunting or fighting or protecting or watching porn and playing ookie cookie. Men and women simply have different ideas of intimacy; Women's being talking and men's being doing things side by side. Miss Fisher said it best when she said, "... (men have spent) millions of years facing enemies (and) sitting side by side with friends".

The Psychological Reasons for Love

We've all wondered what was going through our partners heads at one point or another. The most true stereotype I've ever come across (outside of white people not being able to jump) is the "she has daddy issues" stereotype. People are affected by what's happened in their past, and that weighs heavily on their present, for better or worse. For example, when I was a child my family was brutally murdered in front of me in an alleyway outside of a theater. It scarred me quite badly psychologically leading to a fear of things with erratic flight patterns, an intense desire to practice martial arts while dressed as something with an erratic flight pattern, and an emotional distance one can only describe as erratic.

That's right... I AM MOTHMAN!

It's pretty well accepted among, well, everyone that a person's personality is outlined by their relationships. In attachment theory (originated with John Bowlby and expounded upon by Mary Ainsworth) different adult behaviors are assigned to things that happened in childhood. Sweet, more theories and lists to remember.

Anxious-Ambivalent attachment means that a person's caregivers growing up were inconsistent in their behaviors. They would reward only some of the time, and discipline only some of the time. Perhaps the caregiver also contradicted themselves in their discipline and reward patterns, sometimes rewarding for one behavior and later disciplining for the same behavior. This can lead to a clingyness that is on par with the gravitational pull of the sun. So perhaps the "daddy issues" in all women's cases stems from this inconsistency.

There is also the avoidant/distant caregiver. This person's caregiver didn't give them enough attention so, being used to that form of independence, this person is now distant themselves. Most men will tell you that they had an avoidant/distant caregiver when they don't want to talk about their feelings. The flip side to this is a general social retardation: anxieties and a complete lack of understanding of others emotions may abound.

The final type of caregiver is the secure caregiver. Generally, this caregiver gave our hypothetical person a good home life, and they've grown up to be respectful, well-adjusted, independent individuals. I've never met anyone in my life that had a secure caregiver, especially any women.

It is interesting to note, however, that in attachment theory there isn't much mentioned about spoiling one's child. This is assumed to be OK and does not lead to such things as inflated ego, trouble identifying with peers, a disproportionate value placed on material things, and a general annoyingness.

I hate him.

This brings us to ORT, or Object Relations Theory. Melanie Klein outlines four principal themes in ORT:

1.) Pleasure/Pain Relationship

2.) Love/Hate Relationship

3.) Distinguishing between "love object" and whole person

4.) Awareness and Disturbance by Contradictory Feelings

The basic principal behind this theory is the idealization of the people around you. Most adults do it still, like when you first meet that hottt grl at the bar and think she's totally cool and smart and you love her only to find out she's actually kind of a bitch and your friends hate her but you keep telling them what a good person she is anyway even though she's clearly not and no this isn't from personal experience stay out of my business you jerk.

As bad as adults can be with things of that sort, children are worse because they lack what us scientists like to call "common sense". There is also the fact that adults tend to hide more things from children (especially their own) than from one another, usually in an effort to protect some sort of innocence which they know will just be brutally ravaged somewhere down the line anyway. Regardless, this theory leads us to a thing called neurotic defense, which is the contradiction of idealizing what you want to destroy. Nobody can live up to an ideal, except me because I am one, and this leads to hard feelings sometimes.

Often, at least according to D.W. Winnicott, children will put the feelings they have for their "love object" into something inanimate - like a stuffed animal. This comforts the child through the loss of their "love object", whether it be on a literal level like death or a more subtle, emotional and psychological level like realizing their parents are actually meth dealers. Silly parents!

In conclusion, love is a battlefield. Or something like that.

And that concludes Craig?'s two part series on love. There was laughter, tears, epiphanies, and several other things not appropriate for your age level, dear reader. If you've taken anything from this opus of a masterwork, we hope it's been that you're bound by love regardless of whether or not you wish to be. Biologically and psychologically we are destined to need love in our lives. Even evolution got all up in this bitch. And that never happens!

Algae: The Most Green Idea EVER

Disasters seem to be running rampant in the energy industry as of late. Maybe it's all just a sign from God telling us that we should rethink the state of our energy sources. Naw, probably not. I must say, however, that both explosions shined the necessary light on both energy issues. In fact, one of Mr. Obama's* tasks is to figure out the future for off shore drilling. Well, thanks BP for showing the president and the idiots off-shore drilling supporters, that off-shore drilling is one of the most dangerous activities a civilization can inflict upon their surrounding ecosystem. ANYWAY, stepping off of my dendrophiliac-pedestal/soapbox let us shift to some ideas for safe, renewable energy.

Both BP and Massey Energy (the company whose West Virginia mine exploded, due to a methane leak, leaving 25 dead) were both awarded with recognitions of safety before their respective disasters. Unfortunately, employees of BP were celebrating the award the night the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded, leaving 11 families without their loved ones.

These energy sources are dangerous and detrimental to the environment, not to mention the humans who mine them. There has got to be a better way, right?

YES!

The problem with other energy sources is that there is a lack of Big Money, and Big Companies invested in them. Let's get this straight: corn and soy are NOT the renewable energy sources that we, as Americans, should choose for the future. This thought needs to be squashed, quickly. We can NOT use a food source to power our automobiles. I will spare you the reference and analogy of how dumb that is. So why are we still talking about it? Because the Big Companies understand it is a silly endeavor, they understand that if the public is preoccupied with a pipe dream of corn as a combustion agent, then they won't question the lack of advancement in other fields; it is a way to whet the appetite of the public yet still keep them in check.

Right now, the Buffalo Water Authority is using a bacterium that eats poop and farts fuel. Just think of it, an animal that not only gets rid of our, ever increasing, fecal matter but also exhausts a gas that can be used as a combustible. The methane produced by the bacteria is then used to fuel the incinerators that burn off the excess gunk from the water. Not only is the Buffalo Water Authority using its smarts, so is a prison...in Rwanda. This story is absolutely incredible, read it and start creating your own biogas fermenter, I know I will.

If petroleum was the first visit by Christ, then the gas exchange performed by algae is definitely the second coming that we have all been waiting for. As of right now, algae can be manipulated to produce two types of gases, methane and hydrogen. A company called Cereplasthas also been able to substitute algae for petroleum in the development of plastics. Not only that, but algae could also be used as a natural carbon dioxide and nitrous gas scrubber for smokestacks. Since algae respires oxygen in exchange for CO2, the organism can gather up the harmful gas and produce something helpful. Once the algae have sequestered the necessary gas, it could then be harvested and be "stripped" of its biofuel and plastic properties and used accordingly.

Using algae as a biofuel is not as easy as it sounds. We aren't talking about the algae that grow like wildfire in your aquarium because you set your tank near a window. These algae need to be loved and are very sensitive, much like Nathan Lane in the Birdcage. Although it isn't the easiest way to harvest fuel, it is by far one of the safest, and the most, dare I say it, green.

Getting back to the devastation of the Massey and BP accidents, we must keep in mind that the government controls where the funding for the future goes. As terrible as it sounds, both disasters needed to happen. They were both the largest disaster of their kind in the history of the United States. They were the wake-up-call that we all needed, and the president suspending off-shore drilling for the next 6 months is a great start. So, keep exploring options. I understand the impossibility of throwing petroleum and coal by the wayside, but we have got to start thinking a little more reasonably. We are responsible for all future oil and coal disasters if we do not act on the precedents made this past year, and learn from our mistakes.

*isn't it funny that everyone just calls him Obama, like he's Gandhi, Jesus, or Madonna...I mean no other president has been called by his last name alone, right?

Nothing science related, just a great throwback worthy of attention