Isabella Rossellini is responsible for this hilarious and fascinating series of short films on the sex lives of insects. Kudos to Rossellini for not succumbing to the Hollywood plastic surgery gods.

(Thanks, BuzzFeed!)

Dear Internet:

Thank you for making things like this possible.

Love,
Jeffrey

Man, am I tired of reading article upon article by people analyzing poll results and telling us their thoughts about why people voted for so and so or why people will definitely be doing such and such in the future. “I think, I think, I think.” Seems to me like these people need to do less thinkin’ and more drinkin’!*

* Note: this is among the coolest things I’ve ever said.

I don’t care that it’s an ad; Will It Blend? is the pinnacle of human achievement.

I’m watching Raising Arizona right now, which I haven’t seen in years. It really holds up. Here’s a hilarious exchange, from H.I.’s (Nicholas Cage) final appearance before the parole board at the beginning of the film:

Parole Board Member 1: They got a name for people like you H.I. That name is called “recidivism.”
Parole Board Member 2: Repeat offender!
Parole Board Member 1: Not a pretty name, is it H.I.?
H.I.: No sir, that’s one bonehead name, but that ain’t me any mo’.
Parole Board Member 1: You’re not just telling us what we want to hear?
H.I.: No sir, no way.
Parole Board Member 2: ‘Cause we just want to hear the truth.
H.I.: Well, then I guess I am telling you what you want to hear.
Parole Board Member 1: Boy, didn’t we just tell you not to do that?

Photograph by William Hundley. (Thanks, Matt!)

Hillary on Sunday:

When asked to name a credible economist who backed her idea to use a windfall profit tax against oil companies to fund the suspension of a tax on gasoline, Clinton responded, “I’m not going to put my lot in with economists”… Clinton added that the tax holiday would work “if we actually did it right.”

She continued the line of attack, criticizing more generally “this mindset where elite opinion is always on the side of doing things that really disadvantage the vast majority of Americans.”

I know lots of people who are smart. I know a few people who are pretentious. I know people from all over the economic spectrum who think their opinions are always correct. I even know a couple of rich people. But I don’t know anyone I’d consider “elite.” When I hear the word “elite,” I think of someone who looks like this:

Is this what others picture when they hear the word “elite”? And is there a percentage of Americans who believe this guy is controlling the government? And that he is nefariously working to “disadvantage the vast majority of Americans” by burdening them with high gas prices?

By using the word “elite,” Hillary is pandering to the uneducated, and I don’t see how one could argue otherwise. You could argue that it’s just politics, you could even argue that it’s a smart strategy, but I don’t know anyone dumb enough to believe that Hillary Clinton really hates the rich, the educated, or economists. For my part, I find it sad and depressing that the person who is ostensibly running to represent my ideals as president of the United States (a person who, I might remind you, has a better education than anyone reading this blog), feels comfortable appealing to anti-intellectual hatred to get a few votes.

I know, I know, it was supposed to be a secret slam on Obama. Because he’s the elitist, snooty, nose-in-the-air rich kid fighting against the scrappy, streetwise Clintons. I don’t even want to begin to analyze how that meme found its way into the public consciousness.

It’s not elitists who are the problem, and by pretending they are, Hillary is falling into the perpetual Democratic trap of allowing Republican, Fox News-created language to dominate the political debate. And now I finally get what Obama means when he says he wants to change the terms of the debate. Because we can’t win on these terms. We’re not going to win by setting up a contest between the intelligent and the stupid, because Republicans handily win the stupid vote. I don’t believe the best course of action is to trick the stupid into believing that we’re just as stupid. After all, they may be stupid, but they’re not that stupid. I think the best thing for our country is to convince the stupid that it’s not so bad to be smart.

I think about this cartoon probably four times a day.

(Thanks, Asher!)

This is not a joke:

(Thanks, Matt!)

This one might take a little bit of explaining. So there’s this woman named Lurita Doan who was the head of the government’s General Services Administration (GSA). The GSA is responsible for all of the government’s contracted goods and services, from choosing what toilet paper brand to use in the White House bathrooms to buying new computers for diplomats. It’s a huge agency that we know nothing about. I don’t pretend to understand how our government works, but essentially it seems like she’s the office manager for the entire United States.

Awhile back, Henry Waxman, the baddest man in Congress with the most awesome display of nose hair, started investigating Lurita Doan, in his new job as chairman of the House oversight committee. What he found was that this woman was an enormous, obvious thief, who had repeatedly given away government contracts to friends and business associates in a most egregious manner. Not surprisingly, the White House went to the mat for her, and the battle continued to percolate quietly behind the scenes, far away from the prying eyes of Our Intrepid Media. (There’s another one for you, DailyKos, you thieving bastards!)

Well, I’m proud to report that today, Lurita Doan resigned. And I tell you all this information, only because I want you to understand this super-inside, super-nerdy jab at Our Intrepid Media(TM) from Atrios today:

Simple Answers to Simple Questions

Regarding the resignation of Lurita Doan, Karen Tumulty asks:

     What took so long?

Answer here.