Something horrible, something interesting, and something Alex

Something horrible: my friend Dan, a government researcher, told me several times of his despair over the fact that people simply do not comprehend large numbers of dollars, especially if they don’t come out of our personal checking accounts. Well, this bailout abomination is perhaps the best example of that, ever. Our bailout (now a multitrillion-dollar stupidicity) is the most expensive thing, EVER¹. Consider this shamelessly ganked pie chart:

Something interesting: the recent discovery of a blond-haired, blue-eyed shaman buried 2,700 years ago in China with nearly a kilo of weed could also be mined for humorous purposes. But it got me thinking: could psychoactive properties be naturally selected in some symbiotic way? That is, if you’re a plant species, the crazymaking² would eventually become a turn-off for certain animals³. However, if humans used the plant for medicinal, recreational, or religious purposes, then they would protect and cultivate the plants. This would provide both natural and directed selection pressure for the species to get more psychoactive over time. I’m sure this comes under the heading of “things someone else already thought of a long time ago.”

Something Alex: I have to admit defeat (or at least detente) in a disagreement with Alex. Apparently, “Worcestershire” — as in sauce⁴ — though usually pronounced as a 3-syllable word (e.g., “wuhstuhshr”), is also sometimes reduced to two syllables (“wuster” or something), and this was historically common.

My wife's secret sideline

1. I’m sure there’s an Imelda Marcos or Donald Trump joke in here, but it’s not going to be funny. [↩]
2. especially in the case of marijuana, which is not very physiologically addictive [↩]
3. Consider this historically accurate dialogue between a stoned gazelle and his buddy: “Hank! It’s a tiger!” “Oh, maaaan, his stripes are, like, sooo, soooo, soooo…” chomp. [↩]
4. What percentage of humanity will ever have occasion to utter that word without also saying “sauce?” Not very many. [↩]