Today is Wednesday, which means I don't have class until 4:30 in the afternoon. I find Wednesdays to be pretty awkward schedule-wise, mostly because the free time creates conflict inside of me. Do I sleep in and recharge? Do I use this opportunity to do errands? To do work? Or do I say "Fuck it!" and watch a The Office marathon on my computer?

Well, today I feel ambitious: I'm going to try to do all of those things.

First order of business: sleep for about an hour more. Then, I'll have me some breakfast, go to the store to pick up some stuff, come back home and do some research on the internet while watching The Office, go to class, and finally, go to the Claremont Colleges Worldwide Young Alumni Happy Hour with Jo for an evening of relaxation. (But hopefully not so much relaxation that I can't drive myself home...)

Comment! (3) | Recommend!

As an aspiring scientist, you'd think that most far-fetched ideas in science fiction television would not at all appeal to me at all, but the truth is that I can suspend my disbelief in stuff like that because, hey, it's fiction.

So went my experience with the premiere of Fringe, the latest J.J. Abrams vehicle. The one thing that I could NOT suspend my disbelief in, however, had nothing at all to do with any of the "science" in the episode. Rather, the part that was difficult for me to swallow was where Pacey Joshua Jackson's character reportedly forged some credentials and was hired as a professor of chemistry at a major university. Apparently, he kept the charade up for long enough that he was able to publish several papers while there.

The reason I can't wrap my mind around this is that major universities--probably even the less reputable ones as well--wouldn't offer a professorship to someone with just a Ph.D. (real or not). He probably would have had to have published somewhat extensively before taking up this position at the university in order to be even considered for the professorship in the first place. I don't know--all of the "fringe science" stuff I can deal with, but when it comes to setting up the background stories of characters (especially those with science backgrounds), all bets are off.

Comment! (0) | Recommend!

So say you're in a grand ballroom, and out on the ballroom floor, there are a number of couples dancing the rumba. As you glance at the different couples tracking across the floor and making the most of their Cuban hip action, a couple things strike you:

1) In same sex couples, the female-female pair--with one lead and one follow as is traditional--does not seem nearly as out of the ordinary as the male-male pair, and

2) In male-female pares, the couples where the female is the lead and the male is the follow is COMPLETELY strange.

What does this observation say about how we were enculturated to think about maleness or femaleness? And why, in this day and age, should this continue to even matter?

Comment! (2) | Recommend!

I've had a fruit fly infestation as of late. Having some experience with Drosophila in the laboratory, I have been taking a look at many of the flies up close and noting whether they are male or female, wild-type or mutant--right before I suck them into the vacuum cleaner of doom.

I was in the bathroom today when I noticed a fly with a mutation I had only read about. The geneticist in me smiled broadly as I laid my eyes on a sepia-eyed ebony-bodied female. Then the apartment lessee in me took over and smashed the fucker.

Comment! (5) | Recommend!

Comment! (5) | Recommend! (1)

A whole fucking lot. :(

Comment! (0) | Recommend!

Reason #164749 why I love (and possibly am in love with) Neil Patrick Harris:



Apologies for the shitty quality. It was the only one I could find online.

Comment! (3) | Recommend!

I'm going to cook myself a pancake brunch with bacon and eggs and juice and there are no time constraints to stop me dammit! Mwahahaha!

Then I guess I'll get on with my life.

Comment! (3) | Recommend!