Plants are sluts

I don't know who is going at it at the moment but they should get a room instead of spreading their sperm all over kingdom come.

I thought I had finally kicked the seasonal allergies that I developed only upon moving to PhD City. I survived Oak Orgy 2010 with only a few sniffles. Went out of town for a weekend and inhaled the local treesperm and I'm right back to snot-skulled and stupid from the drugs.

At least I'm not alone - I can hear grad student sneezing in the office next door.




On a completely unrelated note - my external hard drive seems to have eaten all my archived data. Motherfuck! I need that shit!

A follow-up to family planning

Context.

I have been soliciting effective STFU responses to one particular angle that's been grating on me: the Moral Imperative to Reproduce imposed upon those of us with a pair of X chromosomes and a terminal degree. You know, the "educated women are reproducing at lower rates than uneducated people!" exclamation followed by an accusatory eyebrow waggle in your direction. (Is it just me? Does this happen with alarming regularity to other women out there?)

First of all, who the fuck cares? Is this really a problem on a planet facing overpopulation in the very near future? Is it possibly symptomatic of the fact that some educated women might wonder if bringing more bodies into the world is not a long term solution?

Secondly, even if we assume that it is a problem and that it is apocalypse-smashing-critical that more educated women start popping out sprogs, is it specifically MY job to save the world? 'Cause you know, I'm pretty sure superhero savior is not in my job description. I didn't sign up for this.

Thirdly, if children of educated parents really are some kind of panacea for all the world's ills, why are you going on and on about how educated WOMEN have some unique responsibility to reproduce? Are you telling educated men the same thing? Why not? I mean, I'm a pretty good biologist, but even I have not yet developed parthenogenetic abilities yet.

So in response to this particular uterus-hijacking tactic I propose a couple of smackdown retorts:

1. Oh, and how many children do you have? Only two!?!? Well, that's only replacement rate for you and your spouse! You have not increased the proportion of educated people in the world, only maintained the status quo. You're an educated woman; you should have MORE children. And while you're at it, maybe you could have a few for me, since I'm kind of busy with other things.
2. Oh, and how many children do you have? Only one!?!?! Gosh, that's below average. I think the average number of children per couple is now 2.3. You'll need at least two more to be better than average. Where does that put you on the curve? If C is average, this earns you, what?, a D in Reproduction? tsk tsk. As for me, I can't fail a class I'm not registered for.
3. I also like Zuska's method.

Any other good comebacks readers?

(To be clear, I am not stridently opposed to women reproducing, whether educated or not, as it suits their fancy. By necessity, I am also not stridently opposed to men reproducing, again regardless of their educational status. I am merely stridently opposed to people gettin' all up in my uterus - or anyone else's - because my fancy re: reproduction doesn't suit them. I'm actually stridently opposed to people gettin' all up in my uterus for any reason whatsoever, fancies and suits aside. So there.)

Secret Reagent Man

A pox on people who publish papers without telling you what the reagents are!

Alphabet soup acronyms are only OK if they are so commonly used in the field that you can be reasonably sure that a) everyone knows what you're talking about, AND b) the actual description of the reagent is easily Googleable from the acronym.

Hint: if you feel the need to define "4% PFA" in the methods section, you're not going to get away with an antibody against "F5y34g.2b" without telling us what protein you're actually detecting. Jerks.

A Word to the Wise

This post will describe a recently discovered phenomenon (at least recently discovered by me).

I have learned that certain characteristics of writing assignments (in this category I include various and sundry things-which-need-to-be-written, such as applications for courses/fellowships, manuscripts, letters of recommendation, experimental outlines, lab notebook updates, blog posts, you get the idea) bear a striking resemblance to certain characteristics of rodents and other vermin.

Namely, if you leave two or more of them together, unattended, overnight, they will invariable spawn and produce hordes of little baby sprog things-which-need-to-be-written.

Also, they appear to be r species, and if not culled quickly there numbers will increase exponentially.

I recommend never leaving more than one thing-which-needs-to-be-written on your to-do list unattended.

You have been warned. Now pardon me, but I need to call the exterminator.

Family Planning

I have had it up to fucking here with random people, coworkers, parents, etc. feeling free to inquire as the to the current status and future plans of my uterus.*

The next person who makes such presumptions will be "answered" with inquiries as to the to the current contents and future plans of their colon.

Specifically, whether or not my foot will be in it.

That is all.


*(If my uterus has plans of its own, it ain't sayin', 'cause it ain't none of your damned business.)

The Creative Processs

a.k.a. AA's How to Write [fellowship application/experimental design/manuscript/clever blogpost/anything] Guide



Yeah, that really is about how it breaks down.

h/t Murray the Nut via 49 percent

Nomenclature

When you are giving a talk on your detailed scientific methods, it is important to keep in mind the distinction between "tweezers" and "forceps".

"Tweezers" are for plucking your eyebrows or removing splinters from your fingers.

"Forceps" are for doing some bad-ass science stuff.

If you confuse them, people will laugh at you.

Figure 1: Tweezers.

Figure 2: Forceps.

They are totally different, obviously.

WHAAAAAAA????????

Geez, I wish I found this yesterday. Be careful, the island of Guam might capsize if the military puts more people on it!! Apparently, he is not joking about this concern.




From Wonkette.

ETA: The representative from Georgia (Hank Johnson -D) apparently has Hepatitis-C. This is a debilitating disease which can cause cognitive impairment (hepatic encephalopathy) and that's likely what is going on in this clip. Which is unspeakably sad and tragic, however, one must wonder if he is in a fit state to lead at this point. Perhaps he should take medical leave.

That being said, the straight answers from the military dude to his misguided questions are still fucking HIGH-larious! "No sir, we do not anticipate this happening."

Soldiering on

I've got a writing to-do list as long as my arm and though my fellowship proposal is really coming together the deadline is fast approaching and there's still a lot of work to be done.

My brain is mush, and my eyes are about to fall out of their sockets from staring a computer screen for too long. I really though that the new computer with the spiffy new monitor would help, but to no avail.

Am tempted to walk to the coffee shop across the quad for a change of scenery and a pick-me-up but I'm afraid this will break my concentration.

PI spends far more of his time writing than I do...I don't know how he manages. Not sure that the PI gig is looking all that attractive at the moment.