Archive for October 17th, 2007

Wednesday Why-I-Love-The-Weekly-World-News Blogging

“Champagne music”= DEATH:

(By Cliff Lindecker)

Beloved bandleader Lawrence Welk was murdered by wild-eyed anti-alcohol fanatics who were convinced his “champagne music” was encouraging young people to drink, claims a former band member.

“It’s ironic that a man who was deeply committed to the nation’s young and determined to provide them with clean, wholesome entertainment, should be targeted for assassination by a bunch of wacko zealots,” the ex band member confided to a fan magazine, Champagne Dreams.


The hit was believed to have been carried out by a group called MOB – Mothers Opposed to Booze, a shadowy organization of modern-day Carrie Nations who are dedicated to reenacting national Prohibition laws and promoting prune juice as the new drink of choice at campus keg parties and other social occasions.

When Welk, 89, died at his home in Santa Monica, Calif., on Sunday night, May 17, 1992, pneumonia was officially ruled as the cause of death.

But his longtime colleague said private investigators confirmed that a MOB woman had slipped a slow acting poison into his champagne months earlier that led to a slow, lingering death.

“Anyone who gets in MOB’s way is ruthlessly rubbed out,” he said.

The musician told the reporter, “Poor Lawrence was planning a concert tour of Berkeley and other major college campuses when he was snuffed out.”

I shudder to think how many more lives this monster might have ruined if he had not been stopped.

(Also, I’m loving the photo caption that reads: “Bandleader Lawrence Welk is shown here playing an accordion, an instrument that was as hot in the 1950s as electric guitars are today!”)

1 comment October 17th, 2007 at 10:08pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Weekly World News

A Scientific Explanation For Republican Success

Drew Westen was right!

People are influenced by gossip about others, even when it contradicts what they see with their own eyes, suggests a new study.


In the study, 126 undergraduate biology students played a computer-based game in which each student was paired up with another student (via their computers) and had to decide whether to give a certain amount of their starting money to the partner. By dishing out 1.25 Euros, the receiver got 2 Euros, so being on the receiving end was a must. The assumption was that in later rounds, your generosity would be rewarded with generosity toward you.

Over a series of rounds, students switched their partners and received that partner’s track record – how many times the person had given money and not given money. Students were more likely to give money to cooperative partners who had previously given money to others.

Then, they had to write a snippet of gossip about the other players they had virtually-interacted with. Sommerfeld noted some gossip examples: “He’s a generous player” or “He’s a Scrooge, watch out.”

No surprise: Players who read a positive comment about another individual, having no knowledge of that person’s past generosity record, were more likely to hand over cash to that individual. The opposite was true for negative gossip, where players held tight to their money.

In another set of rounds, it got more interesting: Players received information on each partner’s track record (how often they said “yes” and “no” to doling out money) as well as the gossip blurb.

Without any added gossip information, students cooperated 62 percent of the time. That number increased to 75 percent when students had positive gossip in addition to the partner’s track record. Even in instances where the partner had a track record of no giving, positive gossip won out and the other individual handed over money to their partner.

The weirder outcome is that negative gossip decreased cooperation to just 50 percent, regardless of the players’ track records.


Gossip also showed this persuasive power in light of any information marring the reputation of the actual gossip monger. For instance, participants acted on gossip even when a blurb (also considered gossip) described the actual source as a “nasty miser” or other uncooperative description.

So… not only is an emotional narrative more important than actual fact, but it doesn’t even matter if everyone knows that the person spinning the narrative is a complete asshole.

My considered scientific opinion is that we’re all screwed.

October 17th, 2007 at 08:08pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Blogosphere,Bush,Media,Politics,Republicans,Science

Eli’s Obsession With The Google

Currently the #3 search result for the neurobiology of krumping.

Really makes you think, doesn’t it.

2 comments October 17th, 2007 at 11:17am Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Eli's Obsession With The Google

Again With The Salk Institute Photoblogging

I still have plenty more where this came from…

* WPG2 Plugin Not Validated *

* WPG2 Plugin Not Validated *

* WPG2 Plugin Not Validated *

1 comment October 17th, 2007 at 07:31am Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: La Jolla/San Diego,Photoblogging

Contact Eli



Most Recent Posts




October 2007
« Sep   Nov »

Thinking Blogger

Pittsburgh Webloggers

Site Meter

View My Stats *