Skip to main content

tickling your fancy?

i came across this article on the bbc yesterday, which you can read, or i can summarise thusly:

it's about scientists in england tickling animals as research.

ostensibly, they're researching how laughter evolved and while i'm sure that in some cases, laughter is indeed the best medicine, i have a feeling that this will not help them cure cancer any time soon. i'm trying not to be judgmental, because damn, the videos are cute, but it does raise some questions for me.

first of all, i don't need scientists to tell me that animals are ticklish, because i have arthur and the few times i was daft enough to try to brush his belly fur, he demonstrated in no uncertain terms that he was not into it. he used to play this horrible prank of rolling on his back and showing said belly as a temptation to touch him, but it was actually just a horrible trap that resulted in the loss of a few friends. [meaning they stopped visiting, not that he killed them. as far as you know.] it was several years before i mastered the technique of rubbing him with enough force that it didn't tickle and from there, things were much better. so yes, animals can be ticklish and, like a lot of humans whose name starts with kate, they aren't particularly fond of being tickled.

second, i'm not sure where i should stand on this issue with regards to animal research. after all, i'm opposed to animal testing and i try to advocate for alternatives wherever possible. and technically, this research involves little except animal testing. but when i think of the sort of things i oppose, giving hugs and tickles isn't really what i had in mind. i mean, the whole point is to study the evolution of something that indicates happiness. well, laughter can also indicate nervousness, i guess and maybe there's a second study involving placing a rat and a new mate in an enclosure with his previous mate and twelve of their babies where they see if he starts to titter, but i haven't read about that one yet. so i'm not sure if this really meets the definition i had in mind for animal cruelty.

third, i get the feeling that people who went into the sciences are just constantly thumbing their noses at those artsy fops who decided to do things like comparative literature or philosophy degrees, the ones who didn't want to be restricted by the regimens of science. now, all of a sudden, all those guys who were rushing to their labs in university, while we snickered at the fact that we had half the class work that they did are getting back at us by demonstrating that they can come up with jobs that are cooler than we ever dreamed of. "you ended up working in an office? haha, biatch, i tickle animals for a living!"

i'm never going to have a job that cool.

Comments

as long as you're here, why not read more?

fun-raising

no, i am not dead, nor have i been lying incapacitated in a ditch somewhere. i've mostly been preparing for our imminent, epic move, which is actually not so terribly epic, because we found a place quite close to where we are now. in addition, i've been the beneficiary of an inordinately large amount of paying work, which does, sadly, take precedence over blogging, even though you know i'd always rather be with you.

indeed, with moving expenses and medical expenses looming on the horizon, more than can be accounted for even with the deepest cuts in the lipstick budget, dom and i recently did something that we've not done before: we asked for help. last week, we launched a fundraising campaign on go fund me. it can be difficult to admit that you need a helping hand, but what's been overwhelming for both of us is how quick to respond so many people we know have been once we asked. it's also shocking to see how quickly things added up.

most of all, though, the ex…

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …