This image from a surveillance video at an adult video store on Airport Boulevard shows a burglar holding an inflatable sex doll after he broke into the business.

Let me count the ways this wingnut fails:

• First - he’s on video, so he will likely be caught, and we’ll get to put a name to that face.
• Second - While going to a store to buy your porn might be a little embarrassing to some folks in south Alabama, it’s probably not nearly as embarrassing as stealing your porn and having your picture plastered on the front page of the local paper. It would probably have been less embarrassing if Jesus, The Pope, and this guy’s mom all walked in the store and caught him in the act.
• Third - the burglar took no money, just, “an inflatable doll, a bottle of lubricant and a pocket-sized sexual stimulation device called “Devin’s Private Pleasures.”" WTF?
• Fourth - apparently inflatable dolls are not sold pre-inflated. The burglar is alleged to have inflated this one himself. Once again … WTF?
• Fifth - we think that stealing an inflatable doll should count as kidnapping, especially if you’re creepy enough to inflate it while you’re stealing it.

Stay tuned as this story blows up develops.

The other day I was thinking how awesome it would be if everything revolved around me. Seriously, if I were the center of the universe, then all problems - worldly and otherworldly - would take a back seat to my own. When I moved, I would move the universe. When I shake, I would shake the universe. Each time I would fart, a new brown nebula would be born.

Early humans had a similar desire - to not only matter, but to be VERY IMPORTANT. Indeed, some went so far as to codify our self importance into our religious beliefs. For example, it was a matter of Christian faith for over a thousand years that the Earth stood at the center of God’s universe. We had that special place, because we we mattered to god. Earth was His creation and therefore VERY IMPORTANT, and being His children, we were also VERY IMPORTANT.

But then some uppity know-it-alls had to mess up that pretty picture. They used mathematics, and careful measurement and upset a common assumption that had been in place long before the world was declared round. And that, according to an astounding flyer I recently received in the mail, is where western society began to break down.

Yes, I just got a serious-looking pamphlet about the Geocentric Bible, which claims that scientists have been wrong for 400 years, and that the Earth is really still at the center of the universe. By still, I mean “continues to be” although you could take that to mean “motionless” and that would, um, still be correct.

The change from the geocentric theory to the heliocentric theory damaged our viewpoint of the Bible. Genesis 1:1 is literal, and so is Psalm 50:1 “the Lord … Called the earth from the rising of the sun”. Both the earth and the sun are in the same sentence and it is the sun that is moving around a stationary earth

I think there’s some truth in that quote, but not what the purveyors of the Geocentric Bible claim. By adopting the heliocentric view, our view of the bible changed - and whether this is “damage” remains to be seen. Rather than interpreting the bible literally, most people interpret it allegorically, or thematically. Indeed, the bible is literary work that has profound scope and scale, and interesting characters that lived in ancient times. It may be the source of your faith - but it is clearly not 100% factually accurate.

One of the subjects that the bible fails us is in astronomy, since, if biblical claims of geocentrism were accurate, not only would our understanding of the universe be false, any sort of space program based on such faulty understanding would be impossible. That would mean - no weather or communication satellites, no moon landings, no probes to mars or the other planets. Nothing. All of these technological feats are only made possible in a universe in which planetary bodies move in predictable elliptical orbits, and gravity works as we think it does, and the planets and asteroids are where we expect them to be when our space probes get there. Since our universe has a successful space program, then our universe is incompatible with a literal interpretation of every verse in the ancient text of the Bible. Maybe we need to reconsider the veracity of the text rather than our lying eyes.

The earth has not rotated since the day of creation nor will it rotate until midway through the tribulation period.
The firmament carries the sun around the earth faster than the moon because the moon is closer to the earth, the center of the universe. “If I beheld the sun when it shined, or the moon walking in brightness” (Job 31:26). The sun never walks, but runs; “…the sun. Which…rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race” (Psalm 19:4,5).

Another small issue with the geocentric theory is that it posits that the entire “firmament” of the universe revolves around the earth once per day. In this quote, from the Geocentric Bible Foundation, we see that celestial objects closer to the earth move more slowly than those that are farther away (the moon walks while the sun runs). What about objects that are farther away than the sun? Since we know that many stars and galaxies are at least 12 billion light years from the earth, they would have to travel at least 74 billion light years per day (assuming a circular orbit around the earth with a radius 12Bly). To accomplish this, these object would have to be traveling just north of 856000 light years per second. That’s around 20 trillion times the speed of light, which according to the known laws of physics, is about 20 trillion times impossible. Somebody’s wrong by … well … an astonishingly colossal margin.

Could it be that the theory that has distant galaxies whizzing about at 20 trillion times the speed of light be wrong? Is that possible? It certainly conflicts with direct observation and established physical principles - of this universe. Yeah - that could the problem right there. Modern physics allows for the possibility of alternate realities - different universes that are similar to our own, yet differ in some critical way. For example, in another universe, this blog has quite a fan base. It’s also possible, that is some corner of the multiverse, there is a universe in which the sun and stars rotate around a stationary Earth. Yes - quite possibly in some other universe. In ours, however, those galaxies don’t revolve around little, old, but still VERY IMPORTANT, us.

The recent murders of an American doctor in his church, and of an American security guard at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC stand out as two examples, although depending on who you listen to, they’re seen as examples of different things.

One camp says that these are tragic examples of crazed and depraved lone gunmen. In this line of argument, the murders are acts of violence that could not have been prevented since there’s no way to fathom the depths of the mind of someone bent on murder. In this view, the killings were isolated instances, each occurring because of the design of a single perpetrator, in the absence of any broader social or political context save for that which each of these murderers made up to justify their horrific acts.

The other camp claims that these are tragic examples of domestic terrorism. In this line of argument, the murders are acts of politically-motivated violence that could possibly have been prevented since the social forces that allow some fringe groups to justify murder are reasonably well understood. In this view, the killings are connected to a broader social context in which the election of the nations first African American president, and a broader acceptance of more socially liberal policies and norms is threatening to some of our American brothers and sisters - and with adequate provocation - some of them will act out in order to make a political statement.

I wonder if just one of these lines of argument is correct, or even if there are alternative ways to view these violent acts. More than that, I wonder if our description of them would be different if these were not examples of American on American violence, or if we didn’t have a double standard when it comes to blaming the victim. If James von Brunn, the white supremacist who is accused of murdering Stephen Tyrone Johns at the Holocaust Museum had been a Saudi, Iranian, or Palestinian, headlines across the country would have been splashed with the word “Terrorism” in bold type and accompanying exclamation points. It doesn’t matter that Scott Roeder believed that his murder of Dr. George Tiller was justified because doctor Tiller performed abortions - because Roeder’s goal wasn’t just to kill Tiller - it was to send a message to all Americans that people like him will try to kill you if you have the misfortune to require or provide legal abortions - so you better stop.

Daniel D. Novotny said, “An act is terrorist if and only if (1) it is committed by an individual or group of individuals privately, i.e. without the legitimate authority of a recognized state; (2) it is directed indiscriminately against non-combatants; (3) the goal of it is to achieve something politically relevant; (4) this goal is pursued by means of fear-provoking violence.”

I think we have to look very closely at ourselves in the mirror - because I suspect some of us will see terrorists staring back.

The Guardian reported the interesting story of self-proclaimed psychic, Patricia Putt, and her attempt to take home 1 million dollars from the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF). While many “psychics” have tried to take home the top prize, which would be a scientific stamp of approval to their claims of esp or other super powers, not a single one has ever passed the preliminary round of testing.

The same can be said of Ms. Putt:

Did we make history last week? Is Mrs Putt now preparing to face that final challenge? The chosen readings were compared with the actual readings by Richard Wiseman and Mrs Putt together, with several observers present and the whole procedure recorded. The first volunteer did not choose the reading that had been produced for her. Neither did the second. Or the third. By chance alone, the most likely outcome was for one hit out of ten. Unfortunately for Mrs Putt, every single volunteer chose a reading that had not been written for them. It looks like JREF’s million dollars are safe for the time being.

To her credit, Ms. Putt declined to make any excuses for her failure, at least not until a day later. Many of her predecessors have done the same before her, complaining that the JREF tests are unfair, rigged, or influenced by James Randi’s own powers. As with all JREF challenges, Ms. Putt agreed beforehand to the testing procedures as outlined by JREF staff, and she certified that they were a fair way to demonstrate her psychic powers to the world.

Later, in an email to JREF, Ms. Putt explained her failure:

“With them [the volunteers] being bound from head to foot like black mummies, they themselves felt tied so were not really free to link with Spirit making my work a great deal more difficult.”

Of course, Ms. Putt never spoke with any of the volunteers in her test, and the guardian reporter was correct to point out that she must have picked up on their sense of “being tied” using her extrasensory gifts.

Or not.

Now, Bristol Palin is back, doing the talk show circuit with her new baby in tow. She’s still and unwed teen mother, and that’s nothing to praise or condemn. Teen pregnancy is certainly an important social issue. Bristol is speaking out as a teen mother about the importance of the GOP solution to teen pregnancy: abstinence.

Never mind the fact that, as public health and education policy, abstinence-only education is a demonstrable failure. Teens that participate in such programs are sexually active at about the same rates as teens who participate in sex education classes that also include information about condom use. The problems appear when you examine pregnancy and STD rates among teens in abstinence only programs. Many teens in these programs don’t abstain, and they don’t use condoms effectively either. This actually puts them at increased risk of pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

Just like Bristol Palin, who gave birth on Dec 29, 2008 at the age of 18.

Regardless of the epic failure of abstinence-only education, I have to question the wisdom of selecting someone who rejected abstinence as the GOP Abstinence Ambassador. No - Bristol Palin isn’t the right person to tout the benefits of abstinence since she has no verified abstinence experience.

That would be equivalent to selecting this person as the GOP Fashion and Fitness Ambassador:

I’m on my way back from Phoenix as I write this and with all the great southwestern fare, it still would have been nice to have had some of this salsa. It’s simple to make and the flavor is amazing.

Prep Time: 15 minutes, cooking time: 30 minutes

Ingredients

1 to 2 pound fresh tomatillo with husks removed
6 cloves garlic, unpeeled
4-8 dried chipotle peppers depending on how much heat you want
Sea salt

Procedure

1. Make a small incision in each tomatillo and spread on a large baking sheet. Broil in 375 degree oven until collapsed and slightly charred - about 15 min. Allow tomatillos to cool for about 15 minutes.

2. Meamwhile, heat a cast iron skillet or griddle over medium high flame. Put unpeeled garlic cloves and dried peppers on the hot, dry surface and allow them to char slightly and smoke a little before turning. Turn and continue to cook like this until all sides are a little black.

3. Remove garlic and peppers from pan and place cooked peppers in a bowl of hot water and soak for at least 15 minutes. Remove from water and drain excess. Allow garlic to cool before peeling.

4. Place cooled tomatillo, peeled garlic, and softened chipotle in a blender or food processor and pulse until almost smooth. Add sea salt to taste.

You can substitute 1-2 pounds of tomatoes for the tomatillos, and the result will still be very good. I like the tartness of the tomatillos with the smoky heat of the chipotles myself. If you use tomatoes, feel free to add a small bit of cilantro and lime juice to liven it up a bit.

And as always, enjoy!

First of all - there are several different definitions of the word niche. Most commonly, marketers use one that goes something like this:

A niche is nothing more than a small specialized segment of a larger market
-conventional wisdom

If you use that definition, you may well become successful, but I think you may be missing some opportunities. In the conventional sense a niche is a subset of a larger market - a smaller, more narrowly-focused group of potential customers for your product. In this sense, what’s important about the “nicheyness” of your niche is its relationship within the larger market - not the people who occupy the niche (the ones you want to sell to) - and certainly not why they occupy this particular segment. Maybe it’s the psychologist in me, but I like to focus on people.

For this reason, I tend to think about niches using something more along the lines of a biological definition:

A biological niche is a habitat in which an organism finds its necessary conditions for living, including food, air, thermal control, and breeding.

There’s some meat in that definition. First and foremost - we’re talking about “necessary conditions for living.” In the true biological sense, yes this is about survival. All species require physical safety, a non-lethal environment, access to a food/nutrient supply, etc.

But what about when you apply this to people; what happens when you’re a consumer that has already met these basic survival needs? Guess what, you still have necessary conditions for living - but they’re aligned with your hopes, your esteem, your goals, your plans for your future, your plans to provide for yourself, or your family. According to the psychologist Abraham Maslow, there is a hierarchy of needs from the very basic to the most enlightened. In a practical sense - almost all of us live our lives somewhere in the middle levels of this hierarchy - in relative safety and comfort, with many of our concerns revolving around maintaining our esteem among fiends and families.

In these levels of Maslow’s hierarchy of need, each of us still has “necessary conditions” - if not for survival, then at least for comfort, or satisfaction. Many of us find various hobbies and activities provide this sort of comfort. Depending on our tastes, we gravitate toward activities that make us feel good - and as we do this, we tend to find others with similar interests. People start clustering together in groups, and clubs, online and off - discussing and sharing their interests. In western societies, a large fraction of these people buy goods and services that allow them to continue seeking their best, or most satisfying interests. Because golf and skiing, and fly fishing can be so much fun, there are golf nuts, snow bunnies, and fly fishing bums born every day.

If you can connect with why people are motivated to choose to be in the niche you’re market to, you’ll probably find that actually selling to them won’t be that hard. The trick to finding your marketing niche - if it is a trick - is to consider what you like. What are you passionate about? Once you know that - explore where that interest comes from. Find out what is it about the things that you’re passionate about that make you passionate about them. If you do that, you’ll have a good idea about why others would be passionate about the same thing.

And THAT will make you a better marketer.

p.s. If you’re wondering, yes, the iDuck wireless speaker is a real product for people who like to play their iPods in the bath or shower.

I drone on and on sometimes about how important critical thinking skills are, so I thought that I’d try something new this time around. Let’s take a look at some common mistakes people make in their thinking, and you decide if I’m holding a mirror up to you.

1. When you fail at something, do you blame the same person that you credit when you succeed?

It’s common for most of us to take personal credit for our success, but look for someone else to blame when we fail. By only taking responsibility for our success, we tend to feel better about ourselves. The cost of this self-serving bias, however, is that we can start to believe the myth we’re creating about ourselves. Taken to extremes, some people self-handicap by going out of their way to promote external factors that can lead to their own failures in an effort to avoid taking personal responsibility.

2. Do you think events like school shootings or terrorist attacks are fairly common?

Upsetting events like attacks at schools or overseas are actually very rare, but when they do occur, they can become more accessible in your memory, making it easier for us to misjudge how often or likely such events are to recur. This is known as the “availability heuristic”, and it’s a common source of biased or distorted judgement. One way out of this trap is to consider the influence of information sources on your actions and decisions. Are you acting based on information you recently received? If so - consider the source and how reliable it is before you proceed.

3. Do you lean on your stereotypes too heavily?

Stereotyping is pretty common since everyone uses stereotyping to some degree. Stereotypes are a sort of mental shorthand where we attribute the features or characteristics of a class to individuals we see as class members. For example, Pit Bull terriers are stereotyped as aggressive dogs, and if someone comes across my pit bull, they may conclude that he’s aggressive before getting to know him better.

Sometimes stereotypes are useful. For example, relying on a stereotype for aggressive animals might keep us from inadvertently hugging grizzly bears. Relying on stereotypes to make decisions about specific people, however, can be particularly harmful. Remember that stereotypes are there to help us think more efficiently. Sometime, however, you have to think a lot (which can be inefficient) - and in those cases, your stereotypes won’t help.

4. You knew that Obama would win the election, and the Steelers would win the Superbowl.

No you didn’t.

Neither of these instances were a sure bet, and you could argue that at least one was improbable. So why do you think you knew? Because you learned the outcome afterwards, and now you’re misjudging how probable these events really were before hand. This is known as hindsight bias, and it tricks us into the belief that we have some special knowledge of future events. In fact, we don’t - we have regular knowledge of past events.