IKEA Monkey

Authorities in Florida are investigating after a disturbing picture was posted to Facebook.

Read more...

Forget a slow news day—summer is the slow news season. Politicians, celebs and bigwigs aren't doing anything but chilling at their second and third homes. Coverage thins to two categories: sudden catastrophes (plane crash, plane crash, plane crash) and "hell, just go with it." Here is the ultimate example of the latter: A cat in Sarasota, Florida, dialed 911.

Read more...

Should a home seller be obliged to reveal that the lovely 4-bedroom with a 2-car garage on half acre just also happened to be the place where previous tenants were brutally murdered? Not if that house is here in Pennsylvania.

Earlier this week, the highest court in the Keystone State ruled [PDF] against a homeowner who was apparently not terribly pleased to find out — after she’d moved in — that the Delaware County house she’d paid $610,000 for had recently been the site of a murder/suicide.

The tragic event occurred in Feb. 2006, when the then-homeowner killed his wife before taking his own life. In September of that year, a couple purchased the property at auction for $450,000. They then put additional money into renovations with the intention of reselling.

The sellers checked with several people who should know about these things — their attorney, their real estate agent, the Pennsylvania Real Estate Commission — to learn whether the murder/suicide was a material defect requiring disclosure pursuant to the Real Estate Seller Disclosure Law. Everyone they talked to told them the same thing — no, they did not have to disclose the horrible incident.

So when the house went up for sale again in June 2007, there was no mention of the tragedy in the disclosures.

A buyer who was moving from out of state snapped up the property, but began to suspect something was up while she waited for the closing date to arrive. The biggest tip-off was the $160,000 price difference between what she’d agreed to pay and what the sellers had paid for it less than a year earlier.

Her real estate agent suggested that it might have been a foreclosure sale, but the buyer ““intuitively thought there was something more to it.”

Had she Googled the names of the previous owners, she would have turned up numerous headlines about the murder/suicide, but she apparently did not, as it wasn’t until after she’d moved into her new home that she learned what had once happened there.

And so she sued the sellers and real estate company Re/Max, alleging common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and a violation of the state’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.

The trial court agreed with the defendants and granted summary judgment, finding as a matter of law the murder/suicide was not a material defect required to be disclosed by state or common law.

In appealing the case, the home buyer argued that the sellers used a “broad” disclosure form that goes beyond what state law requires but still did not include the disclosure of the murder/suicide.

But the Supreme Court found that just because the sellers revealed some things they weren’t required to disclose doesn’t mean they must then disclose everything that they knew about the home.

“Voluntarily revealing more than is required does not create additional involuntary requirements,” reads the court’s opinion.

The buyer also contended that the sellers’ decision to ask all those experts about whether or not they needed to disclose the murder/suicide was sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the murder/suicide was a material defect.

The court disagreed, saying that, “The implications of holding that non-disclosure of psychological stigma can form the basis of a common law claim for fraud or negligent misrepresentation, or a violation of the UTPCPL’s catch-all… are palpable, and the varieties of traumatizing events that could occur on a property are endless.”

The problem, explains the court, is that it’s impossible to quantify the psychological impact of the various forms of fatal tragedies that could occur.

“[D]oes a bloodless death by poisoning or overdose create a less significant ‘defect’ than a bloody one from a stabbing or shooting?” asks the court. “How would one treat other violent crimes such as rape, assault, home invasion, or child abuse? What if the killings were elsewhere, but the sadistic serial killer lived there? What if satanic rituals were performed in the house?”

The court described the effort of trying to answer these questions as “a Sisyphean task.”

“Regardless of the potential impact a psychological stigma may have on the value of property, we are not ready to accept that such constitutes a material defect,” reads the opinion. “We hold that purely psychological stigmas are not material defects of property that sellers must disclose to buyers.”

As we’ve pointed out before, New York state requires that sellers of “haunted” houses — not merely houses that someone believes to be haunted, but homes that have been previously publicized or listed as being plagued with poltergeists — must disclose this fact.

[via Philly.com]

Someone's either playing a cruel trick or issuing some kind of cryptic warning to the children of San Clemente, California. Police report that an unidentified person is leaving porcelain dolls in front of homes where 10-year-old girls live. And what's even creepier is that the dolls resemble the children.

Read more...

Oh man, I was just sitting here feeling all despairing about how the only thing I could find for a lede was that Snooki had a Great Gatsby-themed bridal/baby shower and I was trying to think of some jokes about, like, a ball pit only instead of balls it's shirts and a champagne fountain shaped like a wet diaper and a swimming pool with a lifesize marzipan Pauly D floating in it and then at the end they eat the Pauly D and it was all stupid. But then Tara Reid went and said that SHE'S PRETTY SURE SHARKNADOS ARE REAL, GUYS, and Dirt Bag was saved!!! It's a Sharkmas miracle! (Sharkmas is when a shark comes down Tara Reid's chimney and tells her erroneous marine biology facts.)

Read more...

At a recent lunch with her family, Toronto-based editor and coder Lyndsay Kirkham was essentially seated next to the forces of patriarchy itself wedged into a couple of meat-suits.

Read more...

Philip Seymour Hoffman didn't want his children to become "trust fund kids" so he left his fortune to his girlfriend, a court document said.

Jack White is more famous than the average Chicago Cubs fan, so to blend in at Wrigley Field, he looked like the average Cubs fan: miserable. “The Party of the Century” was no match for White’s scowl, a common sight among the Bleacher Bums, which would actually be a good Jack White album name. It could be the followup to I’m Finding It Harder to Be a Baseball Fan (Is Football Back Yet?).

SOON.

Via Deadspin

Filed under: Music, Sports Tagged: CHICAGO CUBS, jack white, THE WHITE STRIPES

And by "some people" I mean me. Why is it that an evening stroll leaves me feeling eaten alive while my companions are left blissfully un-bitten?

First of all, it's probably not all in my head (although it could be — most people are bad sources about their own mosquito attractiveness). Studies suggest that about 20 percent of people are "high attractor types" who are especially appealing to the female mosquitoes seeking out blood for the extra protein they need to lay eggs. Of course, not all mosquitoes are the same. There are 150 different species in the United States, each with their own blood-sucking proclivities. But since you probably won't know — or care — if the bugger biting you is Culex pipiens or Aedes aegypti, let's consider some of the more general properties that affect your mosquito appeal.

Clothing Color

It's true, mosquitoes have discerning fashion taste. Or at least, they're more likely to spot you as a target if you stand out from your environment. Dark colors, especially, will attract more of the insect.

Movement

Similarly, the more you move, the easier you are to identify as a living, breathing, vessel full of delicious blood.

Body Heat

Visual clues allow the mosquito to locate you from relatively far away, but as she approaches, it's your body heat that draws her in. This puts pregnant women, who average about 1.26 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than others, at a particular risk — a fact which has been substantiated by a number of studies.

Carbon Dioxide

This is another reason pregnant women are at a disadvantage. Mosquitoes can detect carbon dioxide using a special organ called a maxillary palp from as far as 164 feet away. Since everyone emits CO2 simply by exhaling, it comes down to relative amounts. Unfortunately for mothers-to-be, pregnancy causes women to emit 21 percent more CO2. This is also why kids are often safe from bites, when bigger, more CO2-emitting adults are around.

Alcohol Intake

On the flip side, pregnant women are (presumably) avoiding another mosquito attractor: alcohol. Although it's unclear how mosquitoes go about detecting the presence of ethanol, studies show that drinking even just 12 ounces of beer will significantly increase the attention you receive from the pests.

The Properties of Your Skin and Sweat

Up to 85 percent of your susceptibility to mosquito bites has nothing to do with what you're drinking or wearing — it's just genetic. Specifically, the composition of your skin bacteria — the kind that naturally and healthily exists there — can serve as an attractor. As can the levels of lactic acid, uric acid, ammonia, and other substances present in your sweat.

Blood Type

Another factor you can't control? Your blood type. And it stands to reason that, if the mosquito is there to suck your blood, she cares what kind she's getting. People with blood type O are more prone to mosquito bites than those with type B, with type A folks bringing up the rear.

Just like how an older sibling might act out when a new baby joins the family, a new study from PLOS ONE suggests dogs get jealous when they perceive there is a rival for their owners' attention.

When you’re in a steady relationship, communication is clear. Because when mom says to do one thing, and dad says another, the kids get really confused. Such is the case in California, where the state has issued rules for homeowners to conserve water in the midst of extreme drought, with fines of $500 per day or violating those guidelines, but one city is threatening to fine a couple $500 — unless they water their lawn.

In the epitome of a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation, Laura and Mark received notice from Glendora, Calif. that they’d get a $500 penalty for not watering their brown lawn… on the same day the state approved mandatory outdoor watering restrictions with the same fine for violating that attached, $500.

Why is the lawn brown? Because they’re conserving water. Why are they conserving water? Because California asked them to — the state water board chairman even called brown lawns in Cali a “badge of honor.”

But Mom and dad aren’t communicating effectively, it seems.

“Despite the water conservation efforts, we wish to remind you that limited watering is still required to keep landscaping looking healthy and green,” says the letter, according to the Associated Press, setting a 60-day deadline to get the brown green again.

They’re not alone in the confusion, Laura adds.

“My friends in Los Angeles got these letters warning they could be fined if they water, and I got a letter warning that I could be fined for not watering,” she explains. “I felt like I was in an alternate universe.”

While there’s nothing on the books that says local governments can’t fine citizens for brown lawns, Gov. Jerry Brown’s office isn’t a fan of those fees, either.

“These efforts to conserve should not be undermined by the short-sighted actions of a few local jurisdictions, who chose to ignore the statewide crisis we face, the farmers and farmworkers losing their livelihoods, the communities facing drinking water shortages and the state’s shrinking reservoirs,” said Amy Norris, a spokeswoman for the California Environmental Protection Agency, in a written statement.

But local officials say you shouldn’t have to choose between nice landscaping and being drought-conscious — just because there’s a dearth of water doesn’t mean you have the right to drive down property values, by way of drought-resistant landscaping or turf removal programs.

“During a drought or non-drought, residents have the right to maintain their landscaping the way they want to, so long as it’s aesthetically pleasing and it’s not blighted,” said Al Baker, president of the California Association of Code Enforcement Officers.

Another resident who received violation notices in Orange County says she spent $600 installing such drought-resistant landscaping, and still thinks the whole thing is nuts, especially when she sees signs urging residents to conserve water.

“It’s almost crazy because one agency is telling you one thing and another is forcing you to do the opposite,” she said.

California cities issue warnings about brown lawns even while state encourages saving water [Associated Press]

A couple weeks back, Buzzfeed posted photos of its employees explaining why they used birth control. It’s a lot of the old, tired “I deserve a say in what happens to my body and my life,” and “I take birth control for my endometriosis” blah-blah-blah we’ve come to expect from the man-hatin’ pro-abortion left.

Well, the mommy bloggers at Catholic Sistas weren’t going to take this Buzzfeed thing lying down, if you catch our drift, and we think you do. They posted their own “Why I Don’t Use Birth Control” piece, and it is just a barrel full of monkeys.

As Catholics, we should know and understand that any form of contraception is against our faith teaching. It not only interferes with being open to life but it interferes with our openness to our spouse and to God. [...] Several of us have decided to write a response to [the aforementioned Buzzfeed article], sharing some of the health risks associated with the use of birth control as well as other reasons we opt not to use it.

Let’s sexxxplore, shall we?

At least one of the bloggers at Catholic Sistas seems to believe not only in the Holy Ghost but also in other magical forces (all bolded text in original).

“Because my fertility is my superpower.”

Yr Wonkette assumes that Catholic Sistas endorses swift Bible-based justice for this sorceress, lest she turn us into a newt. No word yet on whether Professor Charles Xavier’s School for Gifted Youngsters will offer her refuge.

Other Catholic Sistas prefer the Jenny McCarthy approach to peer-reviewed science.

“For the same reasons I don’t expose myself to formaldehyde, asbestos, arsenic, radon, phosphorus and other such things…. because they are class 1 Carcinogens- poison.”

“Because I spend too much time and money on organic, non-GMO and hormone free foods to fill my body with hormonal birth control.”

“Because it’s preposterous to complain about large pharmaceutical corporations and hormones in your meat and then pump yourself full of chemicals to take yourself out of the gene pool because they told you you’d have fewer period cramps.”

CHEMICALS!!!1! Watch out for those chemicals, ladies, who knows what they’ll do? Certainly not scientists or doctors, that’s for sure.

Still other Catholic Sistas chose to co-opt the language of feminism, so who’s laughing now, third-wavers?

“Because it perpetuates the objectification of women as worthless sexual objects, constantly at the disposal of men in our commodity driven culture.”

“Because I don’t need to turn off my womanhood in order to be a feminist.”

“Because ‘I am woman, hear me roar!’”

That last one came with a photo, as did a few others.

Catholic Sistas in numbers too big to ignore.

The original Buzzfeed list limited each female employee to a single reason in a single photo, but Catholic Sistas doesn’t believe in restricting a woman’s autonomy like that. Here’s one Catholic Sista who submitted a holy trinity of images explaining why she doesn’t use birth control.

We agree! Okay then? Glad to hear your life and career are in a good place.

There were also strong indications that while the Catholic Sistas don’t have the strongest grasp of statistics, they are among the leading innovators in the field of post hoc reasoning.

“Because of the NFP [Natural Family Planning] divorce rate stats (less than 2%).”

“Because I cannot imagine one of my children not existing.”

“Because I don’t want my children to ever think I didn’t want them.”

Are there moral scolds among the Catholic Sistas? Do they adopt the passive-aggressive tone that so often typifies modern American Catholicism? Does the Pope wear a…well, you know.

“Because I am responsible and make mindful decisions, accepting the consequences to every action I make.”

“Because I don’t need anything to control me, I can control myself.”

“Because immediate gratification without consequence is not the highest good.”

There’s more. There’s so much more. You should read them for yourself, and say hi for us while you’re there.

[Catholic Sistas]

Follow Dan on Twitter. He tweets with a golden cup in his hand, filled with abominable things and the filth of his adulteries.

Photos and images via Women Against Feminism

The Women Against Feminism Tumblr has been getting a mild amount of attention. Women Against Feminism is a blog that collects stories from women who are “against feminism” for one reason or another, presumably in response to the blog Who Needs Feminism? This Tumblr asks its readers to submit photos of themselves holding a sign that explains why they don’t need feminism. You get the idea.

The women on the blog have a variety of reasons. Some of them don’t believe in hating men (a basic pillar of feminist theory). Some of them think feminists are sluts (their words). A disquieting number of them simply need help opening jars. One woman does not need feminism for unstated reasons (but I think we can safely assume it’s related to jars). The jar problem is rampant enough that I'm a little worried these women have severe, undiagnosed muscular problems. Guys, please see a doctor. It can be a male doctor!

A common theme in these user-submitted signs is that the women don’t need feminism because they believe in living traditionally. Some specifically state that they are stay-at-home moms. One woman does not need feminism because she likes to cook for her family. On its surface, it’s pretty easy to understand where they’re coming from—you don’t hear a lot about feminists fighting for a woman’s right to cook for her family. But that’s because the option to cook for your family was always on the table (so to speak). Our feminist predecessors had that option, and they wanted more options—like to have job opportunities and to vote. You don’t give up one right when you gain another. The option to be a stay-at-home mom has always been there (if you can afford to live on one income and so forth). You’ve heard about suffragettes fighting for the right to vote because it was a big deal. You haven’t heard about suffragettes fighting for the right to be stay-at-home mothers, not because it’s frowned upon but because there wasn’t a need to vocalize support for the status quo. If someone tells you “your only meal option is beans,” you don’t need to stand up and demand beans. The beans are right there, beaning around in front of you. 

However, if you want to talk about a group that has historically voiced support for families, and specifically mothers, of all types—including, yes, stay-at-home moms—we must, I’m sorry to say, talk about feminists. Here’s an incomplete list of mother or family-related issues that feminists have fought for: maternity leave, incarcerated women’s right to give birth without being in shackles, and basic rights for domestic workers. Women Against Feminism would point out that feminists don’t work toward the same rights for men, so what gives? Feminists do actually work toward things like paid paternity leave, for one thing. But similar to the point made by my incredibly insightful bean metaphor, men already, uh, have a lot of rights. That’s why you don’t hear about feminists pursuing them. Maybe if feminists do eventually start fighting harder for the rights of men, there could be a highly paid male executive, or hell, even a male president!

Women Against Feminism appears to confuse second-wave feminism with third-wave feminism, plus stuff they think they might have read on the internet somewhere. The site purports to be against “modern feminism,” which is not a term people actually use, but I think they mean third-wave feminism. That’s the feminism we’re used to today, the feminism that works toward stuff like gender equality, gay rights, trans rights, and so forth. These are the things that first- and second-wave feminism did not cover—earlier feminists laid the groundwork for us by securing us the right to vote, and standing up for women’s rights in the workplace.

This movement takes a lot of that early feminist work for granted, claiming that “there is no patriarchy because a real patriarchy would not allow women to vote, divorce, go to college, have a career, live single, get abortions, etc.” Right. We have all that because feminists worked for it. The right to vote was a hard-won battle. The right to “get abortions” (we’re all familiar with Roe v. Getting Abortions) was arduous, long-lasting, and continues to this day.

At its core, Women Against Feminism takes feminism as a given by claiming not to need it. Most of their arguments boil down to “every battle has already been won,” which is an easy thing to say when all those battles were fought before you ever had a chance to know what was being fought for.

I neither hate nor am especially discouraged by their blog. Like the men’s rights movement, it seems like a lot of these problems these women have with feminism would be solved with a five-minute conversation. I would, however, suggest changing their blog name to Women Who Would Really Benefit From Learning What Feminism Is. Some of them have also come out against dictionaries, but that's not an insurmountable obstacle either.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I haven’t eaten in weeks, as all my food is in jars and is thus inaccessible to me. Please send help.

Follow Allegra Ringo on Twitter.

Have you ever eaten squash blossoms? The thought of preparing them always seemed a little daunting to me, until a friend made some for me for a traditional Mexican quesadilla (Quesadilla de Flor de Calabazas). They’re so easy! You just roughly chop them and sauté them with onions and garlic. The flavor is lovely, like zucchini but more delicate, and perfect in a quesadilla with cheese and corn tortillas.

Continue reading "Squash Blossom Quesadillas" »

WASHINGTON—In what is being called a crucial step forward in solar exploration, NASA officials announced Wednesday a new mission to launch a chimpanzee directly into the sun.

Residents of an Orange County community still cannot believe what landed on their doorsteps: a recruiting flier for the Ku Klux Klan.

Standing out like a sore thumb among the accounts of corruption and inefficiency within city government was the revelation of a long-simmering feud between Chicago Police and parking enforcement aides employed by the city Finance Department. [ more › ]

Four-year-old Annabelle really, really wanted to be someone's flower girl. But she didn't know anybody planning a wedding. So she and her mom staked out the Manhattan City Clerk's office. Dreams do come true! (If you're willing to wait around a municipal building propositioning randoms.)

Read more...

The Malaysian plane that was shot down over the Ukraine yesterday by a group that has yet to take responsibility contained over 100 of the world's leading AIDS researchers en route to a conference in Melbourne, Australia. Someone may literally have shot the cure for AIDS out of the sky. Great fucking job, humanity.

Read more...

Yesterday, four little Palestinian boys from the same family playing on a Gaza beach were killed by an Israeli missile. Today, a plane full of people was shot down while flying over the Ukraine.

Read more...

Wedding season is in full swing, so we're taking a look at some of the happy couples today in Around Town. [ more › ]

Over the past century, adult per capita cigarette consumption in the US rose from nearly nothing in 1900 to a peak of more than 4000 cigarettes per year in the early 60s and then fell to the current rate of around 1000/yr. Currently, smoking in the US correlates highly with level of education and poverty.

Smoking, as it happens, also appears to be highly correlated with both poverty and education levels in the United States: 27.9 percent of American adults living below the poverty line are smokers, while just 17 percent of those living above it are, according to the CDC; 24.7 percent of American adults without a high school diploma are smokers, while 23.1 percent of those with one are. Only 9.1 percent of those with an undergraduate degree, and 5.9 percent of those with a graduate degree are smokers.

According to Wikipedia, the US is 51st among nations in annual smoking rates. Eastern Europe and Russia hold all the top spots, but their per capita rates (~2800/yr) are all lower than the rate in the US in the 60s. But that's nothing compared to Scotland...their rate was once 7000 cigarettes per year. (via @dens)

Tags: smoking   USA

Kacy Cantazaro is five foot nothin', one hundred nothin', and just became the first woman to compete a physical obstacle course so challenging that it hobbles many athletic male gym rats who attempt it.

Read more...

If you are on a Windows laptop, you might want to shut your Chrome and use Firefox or Internet Explorer in case you need to conserve juice. Chrome has a core problem that causes it to consume more battery than other browsers, Forbes says.

Read more...

When you turn on the hose outside to wash your car or set up the sprinkler so the kids can run through it on a hot day, what kind of price tag would you put on that water use? If you’re living in some parts of California, there might be a price tag of $500 floating in front of your eyes as residents face hefty potential fines for violating new water restrictions in the drought-stricken state.

Regulators approved fines yesterday for washing cars, watering lawns and spraying sidewalks after numbers came in showing that residents have been using more water despite the call for reducing water use during California’s drought.

According to USA Today (warning: link has video that autoplays), this is the first emergency conservation measure the state has used to try to force its residents to take the three-year dry spell seriously.

Last week the State Water Resources Control Board proposed a ban on watering lawns, washing cars/sidewalks/driveways and running fountains. Violate those rules and you’ll face fines of $500 per day. The board officially adopted those measures last night.

“Not everybody in California understands how bad this drought is … and how bad it could be,” Board Chairwoman Felicia Marcus said before the vote. “There are communities in danger of running out of water all over the state.”

And if the hit to the wallet doesn’t work, the state might have to put even stricter rules in place, like requiring residents to fix leaking pipes.

Up to 80% of the state is in the midst of “exceptional drought conditions,” the board says, with about 50 communities facing serious water shortages. The drought is expected to last into next year.

Calif. OKs $500 fines for wasting water [USA Today]