A bunch of us went out this evening to wish farewell to our friend Chad, who is moving to Atlanta on Thursday. So begins the winnowing (or at least seeding into the wind) of our little circle of friends.

I may or may not blather on more about this later at Signifying Even Less, where I’m trying to move my more personal crud (saving this place for the political and work-related things I post). First, however, I have to watch House on TiVo delay.

The New York Times today attempts to get to the bottom of the question of the evolutionary purpose [or lack thereof] of the female orgasm:

[Lloyd’s preferred] theory holds that female orgasms are simply artifacts – a byproduct of the parallel development of male and female embryos in the first eight or nine weeks of life.

In that early period, the nerve and tissue pathways are laid down for various reflexes, including the orgasm, Dr. Lloyd said. As development progresses, male hormones saturate the embryo, and sexuality is defined.

In boys, the penis develops, along with the potential to have orgasms and ejaculate, while “females get the nerve pathways for orgasm by initially having the same body plan.” ...

The female orgasm, she said, “is for fun.”

Or not, as the case may be. (þ: memeorandum)

Steven Taylor links a story that says Fox blames the furor over his recent comments about Mexican immigrants doing jobs that “even” African-Americans won’t do on a misinterpretation. Political scientist Michelle Dion, who is in Mexico City and read the original remarks in Spanish, notes that Mexicans were also outraged by the remarks—but for different reasons. She also has more on the retraction/apology.

Mike Munger and Stephen Karlson are having a bit of a back-and-forth over the evolving nature of work habits in the academy. I don’t have anything in particular to add, although I will say that being passed over for tenure-track opportunities does have some minor advantages in terms of the time commitment (outweighted, of course, by the iterant lifestyle).

Now to dig out those R&Rs and rejects and get some work done on them by June 1st (when students will want to be educated again)...

Update: Additional thoughts from Michelle Dion on the additional problems faced by junior comparativists.

James Joyner links a MarketWatch piece that claims the New York Times is going to put its op-ed columnists behind a subscription wall; the Times has confirmed this in its own article. While comparisons to New Coke may be premature, I have to wonder who’s really going to pay $50 a year to read Paul Krugman, David Brooks, and MoDo.

One also has to wonder why the Times would want to abandon the mindshare that comes from getting linked from the blogosphere; PaidContent.org has an interview that indicates that some sort of “affiliate program” is in the works, but I don’t think the opportunity for right-wingers to make fun of Paul Krugman’s continuing descent into moonbattery—or for leftists to mock John Tierney and David Brooks—is really worth the subscription fee in the first place (presumably some of which would be kicked back to referrers through the affiliate program). Indeed, the point of having an op-ed page is to influence public opinion; the idea that the Times would curtail its ability to influence local and regional elites, and thus shape public debate over the issues, runs directly counter to that goal.

There are other thoughts from Erik Kennedy of Ars Technica, Steven Taylor, and Julian Sanchez.

Eszter Hargittai and Brendan Nyhan point out (as I noticed sometime in the past few days when surfing eJobs) that the American Political Science Association has condemned the AUT boycott of Israeli universities. I’m glad to see the $77 I sent the association last year (not to mention the hundreds of dollars I have spent in the past) has finally produced something of even minor value.

Of course, the complete uselessness of the APSA has been a recurring theme on this weblog…

Well, that explains all the German spam messages that have been flooding my Gmail account; I swear I had more spam than real messages in my Inbox today when I checked. (þ: Steven Taylor)

Interesting discovery here. I was prompted to look it up by an econ text that was making a point about world development, though most people might be interested to see it. The actual data is downloadable here for the statistics geeks among us.

According to a British outfit called the Oxford Hair Foundation, the recessive gene that causes people to be natural redheads may disappear from the population by 2100, although other scientists dispute this timetable, but not the genetics behind it. (þ: Radley Balko)

The City of Chicago managed to lose 16,800 tons of asphalt last summer, apparently due to theft by paving contractors or the companies contracted to haul the asphalt to job sites. The weird part is that asphalt really isn’t worth that much; according to the article, a ton can be had for around $10. (þ: Dean Jens)

I am in general agreement with Steven Taylor’s assessment of the final two episodes of Star Trek: Enterprise; indeed, I think “Terra Prime” probably would have functioned just as well if it had been the finale. Plus, I really liked the fact they actually found something useful to do with Travis Mayweather—I think he had more lines in the “Demons/Terra Prime” two-parter than he’d had in whole seasons; he certainly had more useful things to do. I still have to wonder what bizarre fashion trend made everyone on Earth abandon normal clothing in favor of jumpsuits between 216x and the TOS era, however.

As for the finale itself, I can’t agree more with this statement:

Unfortunately These are the Voyages underscores Berman’s lack of understanding of what should have been done with Enterprise–here is the chance to focus on the founding of the Federation and instead we get a side-story about Shran’s kidnapped daughter and the ramifications of that event, including the poorly written, poorly acted, gratuitous death of Trip. One tunes in assuming that the story would be about the decommissioning of Enterprise and the signing of the Federation Charter, and yet we don’t actually get to see any of it (save a few minutes in the final act).

The surrounding story on the Enterprise-D made little sense, didn’t fit in with the events it supposedly was a part of, and was really quite unsatisfactory—and I actually like Riker and Troi, unlike a goodly portion of the fan base. About the only good thing about the episode was its showcasing of Connor Trinneer—and the D/TP two-parter did a better job of that too.

In other sci-fi news, Friday also saw Andromeda finally put out of its (and my) misery. The scary thing is that the best sci-fi on Friday night was probably the damn rerun of Battlestar Galactica’s “Litmus,” and it was barely sci-fi at all. I also learned about the Monty Hall Dilemma on Numb3ers, which you’d think I’d have known as an applied stats guy but it somehow never came up.

Of course, I didn’t see any of this live since I was actually in Pearl at the time watching the Mississippi Braves at Trustmark Park, courtesy of friends-of-friends Michelle and David.

Triangle-area readers (or ex-Triangle folks): any advice on neighborhoods and areas to look at or avoid as I prepare for the Big Move would be appreciated. My vague preferences are for an apartment or townhouse that is a reasonably short commute to Duke’s West Campus, about 1000 square feet of living space, and an area where I won’t be the only semi-responsible adult in my building. I’ve seen a few promising possibilities on Rent.com and the Duke Community Housing website, but additional thoughts would be helpful too.

Thanks to Backcountry Conservative Jeff Quinton for name-dropping our humble blog during his appearance on MSNBC’s “Connected: Coast to Coast” yesterday; he specifically referred to my posts on the BRAC list’s impact on Mississippi. If you didn’t see it live or on TiVo delay, Jeff’s link above has the streaming video; I think the Signifying Nothing mention is in response to the first question from Ron Reagan.

Not Magnolia, but very good.*

I nearly busted a gut when Michael Wilbon suggested the name “Golden Whizzinators” on PTI Thursday for the embattled Marquette Gold. Classic, simply classic.

The stupid question in all this is why the Marquette folks can’t just go back to “Warriors” and design a modern, non-Indian mascot, like a white dude wielding an M-16 or something. I mean, it’s hard to divorce yourself from the confederate sympathy brigade with a name like “Rebels” (Colonel Reb or no Colonel Reb), but you’d think “Warriors” would be generic enough that if they changed the logo everyone’d go, “OK, it has nothing to do with Indians now.”

You know, I’d be stunned by this lead graf—at least, if it were written about the CIA:

Seven months before the invasion of Iraq, the head of British foreign intelligence reported to Prime Minister Tony Blair that President Bush wanted to topple Saddam Hussein by military action and warned that in Washington intelligence was “being fixed around the policy,” according to notes of a July 23, 2002, meeting with Blair at No. 10 Downing Street.

Accurate intelligence about something everyone in the whole world already knew at the time delivered by a Western intelligence service? Who’d have thunk it? Give them a cookie. (þ: memeorandum)

Long-lost blogger Jacob Levy returns to The New Republic Online with a strong defense of President Bush’s condemnation of the Yalta agreement (and, I suppose, by extension, the Tehran agreement that preceded it) between Britain, the Soviets, and the United States during World War II. Money quote:

Yalta may not be a reference that excites many Americans but it's hardly a forgotten word in Eastern Europe or the Baltics. The historical chords struck by the word "Yalta"—in a week that was, after all, mainly about striking 60-year-old historical chords—continue to evoke for many in Eastern Europe the West's betrayal of their freedom. Twenty years ago, Zbigniew Brzezinski, hardly a right-wing nutcase, wrote in Foreign Affairs that the symbolic, as opposed to the historical, meaning of Yalta had come to serve as "the synonym for betrayal." This may be an obscure thought in America. It is certainly not in Poland or the Baltics.

Levy’s argument strikes me as rather more convincing than the dopey “coded slam at FDR” nonsense peddled by David Greenburg and others. Then again, one wonders how Levy managed to write the phrase “Bush’s skillful diplomacy” with a straight face—even I got a chuckle out of that one, although in this case he’s right.

(þ: Will Baude and Pejman Yousefzadeh)

I spent all of five minutes on an elliptical trainer yesterday and my calves still hurt today. Not fun. I guess I’ll stick with the bike and treadmill.

I had lunch today with fellow Jackson blogger Shawn Lea at Char… the food was excellent (very good fried catfish and pecan pie) and the company delightful. We shall have to do it again sometime.

If you’re a college president who doesn’t like your public image, there’s always the solution of getting your PR flacks to come up with a 32-page puff piece about your “leadership” at taxpayer expense. Download it here in all its glory.

James Joyner and Jeff Quinton have links to the real BRAC list, which wasn’t quite as sweeping as anticipated here. The only meaningful casualty in Mississippi is NS Pascagoula, which co-blogger Robert Prather points out is little more than a 20-year-old Trent Lott pork project.

Columbus AFB will actually gain jobs, Keesler will lose about 400 positions (about half contractor positions), and NAS Meridian only loses 16 jobs total.

Sarah Hempel wonders why many people classify “committed relationships” as something other than being “single”:

I am not sure what this means exactly. I understand dating exclusively, but since you are not yet married or betrothed, serious dating relationships are still comprised of two single people. Plus, I find the word “committed” to be vague and, quite frankly, rediculous. So, you haven’t pledged life-long fidelity to one another, so “committed” means what? Committed until someone better comes along, until we have a huge blow-out and break up, until we tire of one another? Marriage promises “until death do us part;” what does a “committed relationship” imply?

I’m not sure one can fail to draw the distinction between “single” and “betrothed” and not recognize “committed relationship” in the middle; after all, betrothed (or engaged) means “until death do us part unless I come up with a good reason before the marriage ceremony why we shouldn’t stay together,” which doesn’t seem to be very different from the definitions provided for “committed relationship” except there’s now a slightly stronger promise to keep (and more people get annoyed if you break it).

Nor am I really sure “divorced” is a meaningful separate category either. Single, married, and widowed seem to cover all the bases pretty well, and even “widowed” is troublesome and could easily be lumped in with “single.” So, here are the two types of relationship:

Married: I’ve promised to spend the rest of my life with someone else and am still following through on that commitment.
Single: I’ve done no such thing.

Jeff Quinton has a post with a list of military bases allegedly (and I stress allegedly) on the Base Realignment and Closure list to be announced tomorrow. Among the casualties include Mississippi’s Columbus AFB, NAS Meridian, and Pascagoula NS, leaving (by my estimation) just Keesler AFB and the Sea Bee base in Gulfport in service.

Stephen Karlson dressed down today to administer his final exams. I actually got a bit of joshing from the gallery when I showed up to give my intro final a couple of weeks ago in a polo shirt and jeans; apparently it never occurred to them that the main reason I wear a shirt, slacks, and a tie on days I teach is so I look older than they do.

Firefox’s software update feature doesn’t seem to be finding it yet (at least on my box where I’m running a 1.0.4 release candidate), so download it here. (þ: Asa Dotzler)