he thing that makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous sip. That's right. Go. Oh, that's so good. So good.

All right, people, let's see what's in the news today besides Valentine's Day. Everybody got big plans for Valentine's Day? Yeah, me neither. You know, it's not optimal to not be in a relationship, but at the same time it does save a lot of effort on Valentine's Day. It's hard to get Valentine's Day wrong. But given this Valentine's Day, you might be interested that Gwyneth Paltrow's company, it's called Goop, that's the name of her company, Goop, they're selling a sex pillow. Two hundred dollars for a sex pillow. Now, I think the pillow is meant to give you extra control during sex with another person. However, there's no prohibition against having sex with the pillow itself if you don't have a partner. So partner, no partner, the pillow can fill in. The only question I have is how do you get the goop off the pillow? Sorry, that whole thing was just a setup for that bad joke. That's all it was. But it was on my mind. You can't sell a sex pillow and call your company Goop and then let me just ignore that. I'm not going to ignore that. No, no, that's a responsibility. As a professional humorist, I have to comment on that.

Well, there's a fascinating new study in PsyPost. Eric Dolan is writing. You'll never guess this, but thanks to science we know this now. There's a study that suggests that the afterglow of sex can boost your relationship satisfaction for at least 24 hours, while, and here's the surprising part, while sexual rejection creates negative effects for several days. Huh. I wonder how many people they had to survey to get that answer. Because if it was more than one guy, they worked a little too hard. Just go to any guy. Do you feel better about your partner after you've just had sex? Yes. How do you feel when your partner rejects you for sex? Terrible. And we're done here. If you can find even one man who says, you know, I kind of like it when she rejects me for sex and it's kind of creepy when we have good sex. No, never happened. Next time just ask me. I can save you a lot of time.

Well, according to the Federalist, and John Lott Jr. is writing, he says that the FBI doesn't just have a transparency problem. They're actually distorting data. Now what kind of data would the FBI want to distort? It's weird, isn't it? Why would they distort data? Well, here's an example. The data about how many situations are solved by citizens who have guns. Very political. If it turns out that it's rare that a citizen could stop a crime or save any lives with their own personal handgun, if it's rare, well, that would be maybe a strong argument for not having guns. Some would say. I wouldn't say that. But if the number of people or the percentage of time that people with a handgun kept a crime or a murder from happening, if that was a big percentage, well, that would really change everything, wouldn't it?

Well, it turns out that the FBI was reporting that only about 4% of the time the person with the handgun makes a difference. The real number according to the CPRC is closer to 35 to 40%. Thirty-five to 40% of the time if somebody has a personal handgun, it stops a crime or prevents somebody from getting killed. Except maybe the person. Remember what I told you. I told you something that is really hard for anybody to accept the first time they hear it, and it goes like this. All data that matters, and the matters part is important, all data that matters is fake. And it has to be. It's not an accident. It's because the people who control the data always have an interest. Always. And so they just shave the data and change the assumptions and decide what source to use and which one not to use until they get the right answer. It's always the foxes counting the chickens. If you're going to have the foxes count the chickens, don't tell me that it's accurate. Who trusts the foxes to count the chickens? No, it's never accurate. The only stuff that's accurate is when nobody really cares one way or the other. Then it might be accurate. Even that's probably sketchy.

So a perfect example of that, even the FBI faking data or at least choosing the data they like. Well, according to an Irish study, the Irish Examiner, Sean Murray is reporting that the methods that they tested to reduce people's belief in conspiracy theories have no