Daily Pics, My Comic, and The Times
the Daily
the Comic
the Blog
A farmer lived on a quiet rural highway. But, as time went by, the traffic slowly built up at an alarming rate. The traffic was so heavy and so fast that his chickens were being run over at a rate of three to six a day. So one day he called the sheriff's office and said, You've got to do something about all of these people driving so fast and killing all of my chickens." "What do you want me to do?" asked the sheriff.

"I don't care, just do something about those drivers."

So the next day he had the county go out and put up a sign that said: SLOW: SCHOOL CROSSING.

Three days later the farmer called the sheriff and said, "You've got to do something about these drivers. The 'school crossing' sign seems to make them go faster." So, again, the sheriff sends out the county and they put up a new sign: SLOW: CHILDREN AT PLAY.

And that really sped them up. So the farmer called and called and called every day for three weeks. Finally, he asked the sheriff, "Your signs are doing no good. Is it all right for me to put up my own sign?"

The sheriff told him, "Sure thing, put up your own sign." He was going to let the farmer do just about anything in order to have him stop calling. Well, the sheriff got no more calls from the farmer.

Three weeks after the farmers last call, the sheriff decided to call him. "How's the problem with those drivers. Did you put up your sign?"

"Oh, I sure did. And not one chicken has been killed since then. I've got to go. I'm very busy." And he hung up the phone. The sheriff thought to himself, "I'd better go to that farmer's house and look at that sign... There might be something there that WE could use to slow down drivers..."

So the sheriff drove out to the farmer's house, and he saw the sign. It was a whole sheet of plywood. And written in large yellow letters were the words:



Unbelievable Facts

More Photos Were Taken in the Last 2 Minutes than in the Entire 19th Century

Betty White Is Literally Older than Sliced Bread

Your iPhone Has More Computing Power than NASA Used for the Moon Landing

There Are Whales Alive Who Are Older than the Book Moby Dick

The Nursery Rhyme Never Says Humpty Dumpty Was an Egg

Pluto Was Made and Unmade a Planet Before It Completed One Orbit of the Sun

Neil Armstrong Had to Go Through U.S. Customs after Returning from the Moon

Mankind Put a Man on the Moon Before We Put Wheels on Suitcases

Will Smith Is Now Older than Uncle Phil in the 1st Fresh Prince Episode

You're Twice as Likely to Be Killed by a Vending Machine as by a Shark

France Was Still Using the Guillotine for Executions When Star Wars Hit Theaters

Harvard Was Founded Before the Invention of Calculus

Shakespeare Created the Name Jessica in The Merchant of Venice

Oxford University Was Founded Before Aztec Civilization Began

Nintendo Was Founded in 1889 as a Trading Card Company

There Are More Plastic Pink Flamingos than Real Ones in the U.S.

Saudi Arabia Imports Camels from Australia

Alaska Is Simultaneously the Most Northern, Western, and Eastern State in the U.S.

If Cars Drove Upwards You Could Drive to Space in an Hour

The T-Rex Lived Closer in Time to Us than to the Stegosaurus

Cleopatra Lived Closer to the Moon Landing than the Building of the Great Pyramid of Giza

Bananas Are Actually Berries and Strawberries Are Not

William Howard Taft Was the Last U.S. President with Facial Hair

The Current U.S. Flag Was Designed by a 17-Year-Old for a School Project. He Got a B-

There Are Actually Two North Poles: Magnetic and Terrestrial

Tiffany & Co. Was Founded Before the Country of Italy

The YKK on Zippers Stands for “Yoshida Kogyo Kabushikigaisha”

The Ottoman Empire Still Existed the Last Time the Cubs Won the World Series


They say that ninety percent of life is just showing up.

Unfortunately, for me the other ten percent is usually drinking all the sherry marinade, punching out the band leader, and trying to have sex with the bride's grandmother.


Strange Beauty Standards from History

Renaissance Women Wanted Receding Hairlines

If you've ever looked at Renaissance paintings and wondered why the women seem to look so strange, it's not just you. Large, curved foreheads were an important indicator of beauty, and women would pluck or shave their hairlines to increase the size of their forehead. Basically, creating a receding hairline on purpose.

Painted Legs Were The Look During World War Two

Thanks to nylon shortages during the second World War, women's pantyhose were lacking. However, the tan appearance of stockinged legs was still considered necessary, so dozens of paint products meant to mimic the look of nylon hit the market. According to a 1942 edition of LIFE Magazine, "When they are properly applied the most scrutinizing pair of masculine eyes cannot distinguish between legs thus covered and legs in sheer hose." However, some women would just go for what was around and use gravy to paint their legs to get that stunning nylon look.

Incredibly Small Feet Were All the Rage in China

Although foot binding is perhaps one of the most infamous forms of body modification, its origins in China are unknown, though we know it was prevalent among the wives and daughters of nobles by the thirteenth century. It eventually spread until the practice was commonplace. Foot binding usually began when a girl was five to seven years old, and consisted of her feet being bandaged tightly while she was growing, causing the bones in her foot to break, the sole to bend down to meet the toes, and the toes to bend under the foot. This painful and crippling practice was based on the sexual and aesthetic appeal of small feet.

Skull Shaping Was Standard Child Rearing for the Ancient Maya

Starting around 1000 BC, the ancient Maya started modifying the skulls of their infants. A child's head was kept strapped to a board or bound with various implements, forcing the skull to become malformed. This was done to both males and females, and it is believed to not have been related to social standing, but a sign of ornamental beauty. Many other groups all over the world had similar practices, including the Germanic tribes like the Huns, Hawaiians, Tahitians, Incas, and the Chinook and Choctaw tribes in North America.

Long Fingernails Were No Game in China

The Chinese have a long history of long nails. Both men and women of the Qing Dynasty grew nails that were 8 to 10 inches long, and some women wore gold nail-guards in order to protect their rather inconvenient manicures. This was to indicate that they were wealthy enough that they didn't need to labor with their hands. Instead, they had to rely on servants to do things like dress or feed them.

Men's Calves Were the Abs of the Middle Ages

Women's legs are highly admired these days, but back in the Middle Ages and well through the 18th century, men's calves were what it was all about. Men wore stockings like women in order to show off their well-shaped calves, and some even wore padding inside their stockings to improve their unsatisfactory gams. King Henry VIII, for example, was renowned for his excellent calves.

Eyelashes Were So Out During the Renaissance

For European women during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, the plucking did not stop at the forehead. Eyelashes became symbols of oversexuality, and the fresh face was in. Thus, women of means would often remove their eyelashes entirely, which sounds way too painful to begin thinking about.

Japanese Women Actually Wanted Black Teeth

If you ever get tired of brushing your teeth, this is a good alternative. For thousands of years, Japanese women would blacken their teeth permanently after marriage. This continued through the 19th century, and was a symbol of beauty and marital commitment.

Beauty Patches Were Super Classy

In the 18th century, the previous standard of bare-faced women disappeared, and women began wearing heavy makeup. They also started wearing beauty patches, small pieces of fabric that were adhered to the face. They came in many shapes, such as stars, circles, and squares, and their placement on the face had specific meaning. For example, one by the mouth implied flirtatiousness, and one on the right cheek meant that the woman was married.

Veiny Cleavage Was a 17th-Century Must-Have

Seventeenth-century England saw an increase of cleavage in fashion. Necklines plunged and breasts became one of the most prominent features that women attempted to display. At the same time, extreme paleness was in style, as it suggested wealth and an ability to stay out of the sun, unlike laborers. In order to extend the paleness achieved by powders on the face to the cleavage, women would draw blue veins on their breasts to mimic translucent skin.

Erotic Piercings Were Somehow Huge During the Victorian Era

The Victorian Era is generally associated with starched clothing, lots of black, and showing as little skin as possible. Probably the last thing you would think of is a sexual piercing, but life is full of surprises. During a brief period in Victorian England, wealthy women would pierce their nipples, often connecting them with a chain. As for men, they would pierce the head of their penis, supposedly making it easier to comfortably wear the increasingly tight pants of the era. This piercing is known as the "Prince Albert," and it is said that the Victorian prince himself sported the look.

Native American Tribes Plucked Their Pubic Hair

When colonialists arrived in the Americas, they were shocked by a painful beauty standard for native women: plucking off all of their pubic hair. Thomas Jefferson said of this foreign tradition that "with them it is disgraceful to be hairy in the body. They say it likens them to hogs. They therefore pluck the hair as fast as it appears." When it's put like that, I guess it might be worth the trouble.

A Desire for Separated Breasts Created the "Divorce Corset"

The corset is one of the most famous examples of body modification, designed to create a small waist and lifted breasts. From the 16th through the 19th century, women wore a variety of corset styles, some tied so tight that they had trouble breathing. However, in the 19th century, corsets evolved in order to support the new beauty trend: separated breasts. Instead of the high and tight cleavage of the past, women wanted to have a distinct gap between their breasts. Cue the arrival of the "divorce corset," so named for its function in separating the breasts and creating distinctly broader cleavage.

Ancient Chinese Women Constantly Updated Their Colorful Eyebrows

Ancient Chinese women had a chance to get very creative with their eyebrows. They would paint their eyebrows with black, blue, or green grease, and shape them according to the trend at the time; at one point in the Han Dynasty, sharply pointed eyebrows were the style. At another time, women were expected to have short and high eyebrows, and one style was called the "sorrow brow," where the brows were arched upward in the middle in an expression of sadness.

The Greeks Loved a Good Unibrow

The Greeks had a very different idea of "power brows." In Ancient Greece, women's unibrows were considered a sign of intelligence and purity. If they didn't have one naturally, women would use kohl pigment to draw one on, for that bold and beautiful look.

Short Teeth Were Essential During the Renaissance

During the Renaissance, the essential "beauties" of women were well-known. This list eventually climbed to 30 different (very specific) traits. Many of them are familiar to us: long legs, wide hips, and a narrow waist, for example. However, one of them was short teeth. They just loved gummy smiles.

The Tang Dynasty Loved Big Cheeks

It's easy to imagine slender bodies and angular faces as always being the beauty ideal, but this was not always the case. In fact, sometimes it was the opposite. During the Chinese Tang Dynasty (618-907 AD), women with plump figures, round faces, big cheeks, and wide foreheads were considered the most beautiful.


"Hey, Judi, how'd your ski weekend go?" Monika asked.

"The good news was I shared the cabin with these two drop dead gorgeous men!"

"Oooo! That must have been wonderful! What's the bad news?"

"They were engaged to each other."

Issue of the Times;
Smartphones are the new Cigarettes by Mark Manson

I go to this boot camp-style class sometimes at a gym near my apartment. It’s one of

those classes where a coach stands there and yells at you to do more pushups and squats

until you think you’re going to puke. Then you go home and struggle to sit on a toilet

for the next three days.

It’s great. I love it. I never miss a week.

Today, as happens many mornings, a couple of people, in between exercises, ran over to

the wall to pick up their phones and check… well, I don’t know what the fuck they could

have been checking. Email? Instagram? Snapchatting their sweat beads so everyone could

see? I don’t know.

The point is they were on their phones.

And the coach got pissed, yelled at them to put their fucking phones away, and we all

stood around awkwardly.

This proceeded to happen two or three times in the class, as it does in pretty much

every class, and for whatever reason, today I decided to speak my mind to the women

glued to her phone while the rest of us were working out:

“Is there really nothing in your life that can’t wait 30 minutes? Or are you curing

cancer or something?”

Note to readers: this is a bad way to make friends.

I was pissed. But fuck them. I felt like I was in the right, that I was saying what

pretty much everyone else in the room was silently thinking.

Later that day, once we’d all gone home, while painfully sitting on a toilet seat, I was

going over the incident in my head. And I asked myself, “Why does that bother me so

much? Why do phones, in general, seem to bug me so much? Why does it bother me when my

wife pulls out her phone when we’re walking down the street together? Why do I fervently

hate with a passion people who hold up their phones and record half a concert? What’s

the deal?”

Am I the screwed up one here?

I know I’m not though. We all have this weird love/hate relationship with our phones

these days. Every year, we become more glued to them than ever before. Yet, every year,

we seem to resent that we’re glued to them. Why is that?


If you think about it, our attention is the only thing we truly own in our lives. Our

possessions can go away. Our bodies can be compromised. Our relationships can fall

apart. Even our memories and intellectual capacity fade away.

But the simple ability to choose what to focus on — that will always be ours.

Unfortunately, with today’s technology, our attention is being pulled in more directions

than ever before, which makes this optioning of our own attention more difficult — and

more important — than ever before.

In his book Deep Work, Cal Newport argues that the ability to focus deeply on a single

project, idea or task for long periods of time is not only one of the most important

skills for succeeding in the information age, but it’s also an ability that appears to

be dwindling among the population.

But I would go even further. I would say that our ability to focus and hone our

attention on what we need is a core component of living a happy, healthy life. We’ve all

had those days or weeks (or months or years) where we’ve felt scatterbrained — out of

control of our own reality, constantly sucked down rabbit holes of pointless information

and drama comprised of endless clicks and notifications.

To be happy and healthy, we need to feel as though we are in control of ourselves and we

are utilizing our abilities and talents effectively. To do that, we must be in control

of our attention.

And I think this is why the cell phone thing at the gym pissed me off. Those workouts

are fucking hard. They require me to focus and exert not only physical discipline but

mental discipline as well. And to stop every 10 minutes because somebody needs to email

their boss or text their boyfriend yanks me out of that. And worse, it yanks me out

against my will.

It’s attention pollution when somebody else’s inability to focus or control themselves

then interferes with the attention and focus of those around them.

And with the explosion in smart devices and internet available pretty much everywhere

from Timbuktu to your mother’s ass crack, attention pollution is infiltrating our daily

lives more and more without us realizing it.

It’s why we get annoyed at dinner when someone starts texting in front of us. It’s why

we get pissed off when someone pulls their phone out in a movie theater. It’s why we

become irritated when someone is checking their email instead of watching the ballgame.

Their inability to focus interferes with our (already-fragile) ability to focus. The

same way second-hand smoke harms the lungs of people around the smoker, smartphones harm

the attention and focus of people around the smartphone user. It hijacks our senses. It

forces us to pause our conversations and redouble our thoughts unnecessarily. It causes

us to lose our train of thought and forget that important point we were constructing in

our head. It erodes at our ability to connect and simply be present with one another,

destroying intimacy in the process.

But the smoking comparison doesn’t end there. There’s evidence that suggests that we are

doing long-term harm to our memories and attention spans. The same way smoking

cigarettes fucks over our long-term health in the name of a series of short-term bursts

of highs, the dopamine kicks we get from our phones are harming our brain’s ability to

function over the long-term, all in the name of getting a bunch of likes on that really

cool new photo of our food we just took.

Now, it may sound like I’m overreacting here. Like I had a shitty gym session and am

taking it out on hundreds of thousands of readers on the internet.

But I’m serious. I think this is fucking us up more than we realize.

I’ve noticed that as the years go on, it’s becoming harder for me to sit down and write

an article like this than it was three or four years ago. And it’s not just that the

amount of available distractions have compounded over the years, it’s that my ability to

resist those distractions seems to have worn down to the point where I often don’t feel

in control of my own attention anymore.

And this kind of freaks me out. It’s not that I resent the woman at the gym who can’t go

10 minutes without checking her messages. I resent that I am becoming that person at the

gym who can’t go 10 minutes without checking his messages.

And I’m pretty sure that I’m not the only one.

I’ve met people the last few years who get incredibly anxious if they can’t check their

phone in social situations. They carry their phones into conversations the way some

people carry dogs on airplanes. It’s a constant outlet if the necessity to interface

with another person’s thoughts and feelings ever becomes too intense.

I’ve started to notice people who feel like they need to always be checking email or

their messages to feel as though they’re being a good, productive employee. Doesn’t

matter if it’s their kid’s violin recital, or in the car at stop lights, or in bed at

midnight on a Saturday. They feel like they have to always be caught up on every piece

of information that is flung their way, otherwise they’re somehow failing.

I’ve noticed friends who can no longer sit through entire movies (or even episodes of a

TV show) without pulling out their phones multiple times in the middle of it. People who

can’t make it through a meal without putting the phone next to their plate.

It’s happening everywhere, and it’s therefore becoming the social norm. The eroded

attention is becoming the normal, socially acceptable attention, and we are all paying

for it.


I have a dream, friends. I have a dream of a world where people can sit through long,

dull conversations, without feeling the need to douse themselves with instant-

gratification delivered through glowing plastic screens.

I have a dream of a world where people are cognizant of not only their own limited

attention, but the precious attention of others and some numb-nuts won’t start texting

in the movie theatre, totally killing the mood of a dramatic scene.

I have a dream where our devices will be comfortably allotted as the occasional

supplement to our lives, and not used as a poor replacement for them. Where people will

recognize that the constant and instantaneous delivery of information has subtle costs

associated with it, as well as its more obvious benefits.

I have a dream of a world where people become aware of their own attention as an

important resource, something to be cultivated and renewed, to be built and cherished,

the same way they take care of their bodies or their education. And this new cultivation

of their own attention will oddly set them free. Not just free from the screens, but

free from their own unconscious impulses.

I have a dream where that respect for attention would extend to the world around them,

to their friends and family and the acknowledgment that the inability to focus is not

only harmful to oneself, but harmful to one’s relationships and ability to hold and

maintain intimacy with someone.

I have a dream that these women won’t check their fucking phones when I’m doing burpee

#327 next Wednesday. For God’s sake, if you’re going to the gym, go to the fucking gym.

And when this happens, and when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every

village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up

that day when all of God’s children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles,

Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old

Negro spiritual: “Free at last! Free at last! Thank God almighty, we’re free at last

(from our smartphones)!”

Quote of the Times;
“A thing is not beautiful because it lasts.”

Link of the Times;
Shortly after take-off on an outbound evening Aer Lingus flight from Dublin to Boston, the lead flight attendant nervously made the following painful announcement:

"Ladies and gentlemen, I'm so very sorry, but it appears that there has been a terrible mix-up by our catering service. I don't know how this has happened but we have 103 passengers on board and, unfortunately, we received only 40 dinner meals. I truly apologize for this mistake and inconvenience."

When the muttering of the passengers had died down, she continued, "Anyone who is kind enough to give up their meal so that someone else can eat will receive free and unlimited drinks for the duration of our 10-hour flight.

Her next announcement came about 2 hours later:

“If anyone is hungry, we still have 40 dinners available.”


A first grade teacher collected well-known proverbs. She gave each child in her class the first half of a proverb, and had them come up with the rest. Their insight may surprise you...

Better to be safe than ....Punch a 5th grader.

Strike while the.....Bug is close.

It's always darkest before....Daylight Savings time.

Never underestimate the power of.....Termites.

Don't bite the hand that ....looks dirty.

No news is....impossible.

If you lie down with dogs, you....stink in the morning.

Love all, trust

The pen is mightier than the....pigs.

An idle mind is....the best way to relax

Where there's smoke there's ....Pollution.

A penny saved is....not much

Two's company, three's....the Musketeers.

Don't put off till tomorrow put on to go to bed.

None are so blind as....Helen Keller.

Children should be seen and not....spanked or grounded.

If at first you don't succeed....get new batteries.

You get out of something what you....see pictured on the box

When the blind leadeth the blind....get out of the way.


Always on the look-out for a bargain, I was dining out and came across a menu entree "T-Bone $ 4.25 *".

I followed the asterisk to the bottom of the menu where it said, "* With meat, $29.95".


Pentagon Awards Contract To United Airlines To Forcibly Remove Assad

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon announced Tuesday it had awarded a sole-source contract to United Airlines for work related to the forcible removal of President Bashar al-Assad from Syria.

The contract, worth $2.1 billion, tasks the airline company with locating Assad, grabbing him from his seat in the presidential palace, and “dragging him out of Damascus by his arms.” The contract also notes that Assad should be “asked several times, politely” to give up his seat of power, though if he refuses, United workers should bloody his nose up a bit.

The award comes after President Donald Trump authorized the launch of cruise missiles at a Syrian air base, in response to Assad’s use of chemical weapons. Two Navy ships launched 59 Tomahawk missiles into Syria, which destroyed roughly 20% of its operational aircraft and a Green Beans Coffee shop being used by the Russian army.

Soon after the strikes, some in the Trump White House began calling for regime change in Syria. Nikki Haley, the US ambassador to the United Nations, told reporters that peace in Syria “could not be achieved” with Assad remaining in power.

It’s not yet clear whether United employees will actually carry out the forcible removal of Assad. One source said it’s possible the company may subcontract that portion of the work requirement to the Chicago Police Department, Wells Fargo, or Comcast.


Over the weekend, the wife and kids went away for hours, so I indulged myself in some VH-1 "50 Most Awesomely Bad Songs Ever."

Now, here I am at work with "Ice Ice Baby" stuck in my head.

Why couldn't I just spank it to some Internet girl-on-girl action like a normal guy?

Issue of the Times;
The 5 Most Popular Safety Laws (That Don't Work) By Robert Evans

Really, is it ever possible to be too safe? Especially when it's our children at stake?

Actually, yes. Especially when the rule or law intended to make us safe is so poorly thought-out that it either does nothing but suck up public money, or creates a ripple effect of unintended side effects. We're talking about things like...

#5.Speed Limits

The Idea:

Speeding is a major cause behind many fatal accidents, so it must also be true that mandating lower speed limits will make us all safer, right? Like how after marijuana was made illegal, you could hardly find anybody smoking the stuff.

It was back in 1974 that the federal government passed the National Maximum Speed Limit Law in the USA, slowing America down to a creeping 55 miles per hour. The main reason behind the law was to lower gas consumption, but President Nixon promised us it would make our streets safer as well.

Partially thanks to anti-speed limit activists like Sammy Hagar, in 1995 it was repealed. But not everyone was happy about that. Some states and many cities still have their highway speed limits set at or near the '74 lows, and a lot of people support bringing the '74 law back into effect before every man, woman and child in the country finds themselves living in the horrifying universe of 2 Fast 2 Furious.

But There's a Problem...

After the National speed limit was repealed, the state of Montana removed all non-urban speed limits in their state. A few years later, engineers working with the state decided to venture out to see just what kind of post-apocalyptic Death Race wasteland their lawless state had produced. What they found was that, you guessed it, on the roads where they removed the speed limits, fatalities didn't go up at all.

Proponents of the national law still argue that traffic fatalities nationwide did drop during the national speed limit's lifetime. Buzz-killing critics of the law point out that no, no they didn't.

Why Doesn't it Work?

Because, and this surprised the hell out of us, people aren't completely retarded. As it turns out, people tend to drive at speeds they feel comfortable driving. Yes, there are reckless madmen out there, but they're not going to obey a couple of digits on a sign anyway. It just becomes a make-work project for traffic cops.

By the way, even worse than speed limits are speed bumps, the irritating, jarring humps they put in parking lots and such, intended to physically force drivers to slow down and make their CD players skip. Not only do those things not prevent accidents, but they keep ambulances from getting to emergencies, which is exactly the sort of thing you don't want happening when years of bacon sundaes and cookie-dough sandwiches finally catch up with you.

The above link references a study in Boulder, Colorado that found speed bumps kill as many as 85 people for every one life they save. Holy shit! We think landmines have a better ratio.

#4.Three Strikes Laws

The Idea:

Psychologists have found that criminals who have committed three felonies are likely to continue committing felonies for the majority of their non-jailed lives. After wiping their feet with the whole "make the punishment fit the crime" thing, they decided to institute a new law, based on that theory and the rules of Baseball.

These "Three Strike" laws mandate very long prison terms--up to life--for criminals who have commit their third felony, regardless of what that felony was. Surprisingly the law did not originate from the home of western-style, retard-executing justice (Texas). California instituted the first Three Strike law in 1994.

The law was very popular at first, and a number of states adopted it shortly thereafter. California's crime rate, which had peaked shortly before the law's implementation, dipped significantly in the years after. This was seen as proof of the law's success.

But There's a Problem...

First, correlation does not equal causation. We have a grand history of ignoring this fact when it is politically expedient to do so. So while California's crime rate did decline, so did the rest of the country's. In fact, violent crime dropped more in states without Three Strike laws (4.6 percent) than in the states that had them (1.7 percent).

Why Doesn't it Work?

Three Strike laws punish petty criminals as often as the violent ones everybody has in mind when talking about "getting tough on crime." Men have been put away for life for shoplifting cookies, video tapes and golf clubs, essentially equating those crimes with violent assault or attempted murder.

As a result, California's prisons and jails have been flooded with hundreds of thousands of new occupants. That, combined with many of their facilities being condemned as unfit to live in, has led to a prison overcrowding crisis.

Gosh, it's almost like we shouldn't rely on sports analogies to build a criminal justice system.

#3.The Amber Alert

The Idea:

The Amber Alert, created in response to the highly-publicized abduction and murder of nine-year-old Amber Hagerman, is a system put in place to help find lost and abducted children by instantly flooding the highways, radio and television stations of the area with information about the missing kid.

The Amber Alert is based upon the logical principle that, deep down, we all want to be like Batman. An alert is a chance for any regular Joe to be a masked vigilante, rescuing terrified youngsters from prancing, sex-starved pedophiles.

But There's a Problem...

Like covering up a hole in the wall with a poster, the Amber Alert system made everyone feel better without actually costing the government a dime.

From 2003 to 2006 independent researcher Timothy Griffith conducted the first third-party investigation of the Amber Alert system. He found that, while state and local governments were claiming huge numbers of children "rescued," they were actually full of shit.

Most of the children "saved" by the Amber alert hadn't been in any danger in the first place (in most cases they'd been taken by legal guardians arguing over custody rights). The few children who WERE abducted by psychopaths usually died before the Amber Alert could even go online.

Why Doesn't it Work?

There's a reason Batman works alone. Griffith and others came to the realization that, while the Amber Alerts weren't really helpful in saving children, they were great at drowning the surrounding community in a tsunami of irrational fear and paranoia. The chance of a child being abducted by a stranger is far lower than of the child, say, dying from drinking the bottle of floor wax you have in the cabinet because it has pictures of lemons on it. The latter just doesn't become a media event.

The heightened level of fear might have something to do with the fact that more and more Amber Alerts are being called in with greater frequency every year, and with less cause. Fully half of the alerts in 2004 were issued on children who were in no danger whatsoever, and 48 of the 233 alerts that year were issued for children who hadn't been abducted at all.

While Amber Alerts aren't expensive, they tie up virtually every law enforcement resource in the area. Policemen and 911 operators that could be out saving lives are instead diverted to fielding calls and chasing leads on children who often aren't in any danger.

And while someone, probably in our very comment section, will cry that if even one child's life was saved by the system then it was all worth it. But in the case of every "feel good" solution that doesn't actually solve the problem, you have to ask if the time and energy devoted to it couldn't be spent on something that actually works.

You know, like sex offender registries. Oh, wait...

#2. Sex Offender Registries

The Idea:

In theory, these registries are comprehensive lists of every sex offender in your state, updated regularly with the offender's home location and other pertinent facts to help parents and employers avoid exposing their children to kiddie diddlers.

Megan's Law requires sex offenders to register and update law enforcement every time they change location. The law's namesake was murdered by a pedophile in 1994.

But There's a Problem...

Nobody wants to be the one to stand up for sex offenders, but you've got to have pretty damned good cause to make a person face what is basically a life-long punishment, served even after their jail term is over. Which sounds fine if we're talking about a serial rapist murderer, but not when something like public urination can land you on the registry right alongside him.

That would be just one reason studies show Megan's Law hasn't done a damned thing to stop child molesters.

Why Doesn't it Work?

So you take a guy who's committed a crime. Now you put him on a registry that may keep him from getting a job, or making friends, generally just totally isolating him for the rest of his life and giving him lots of free time. Do you think that makes him less likely to commit another crime?

And how does knowing there's a sex offender in your neighborhood help?

Unless he's wearing some kind of clanging Sex Offender bell around his neck to let you and your child know he's approaching, it doesn't protect you from a guy looking to do it again. And then you've got the fact that 95 percent of sexual assault victims are victimized by somebody they already know anyway.

So what's the point? Deterrence? As it turns out, someone who is willing to abduct, rape and murder a child often isn't stopped by the fact that he'll get put on a "registry" if he's caught.

#1.Zero Tolerance Policies at School

The Idea:

When talking about crime, you may hear some refer to the "Broken Windows" theory. This goes back to an article in the Atlantic Monthly that made the case that petty crime, if not dealt with, would soon metastasize into serious ones:

"Consider a building with a few broken windows. If the windows are not repaired, the tendency is for vandals to break a few more windows. Eventually, they may even break into the building, and if it's unoccupied, perhaps become squatters or light fires inside.

Or consider a sidewalk. Some litter accumulates. Soon, more litter accumulates. Eventually, people even start leaving bags of trash from take-out restaurants there or breaking into cars."

There you have it, folks. One moment you throw your empty Snicker's wrapper on the pavement and the next, some crackhead is breaking windows and stealing cars.

In an effort to save our children, which by the way seems to be the motivation for half of the stupid things society does, in the 1980s they decided to introduce "Zero Tolerance" policies in schools. When it came to drugs or weapons, they would come down on any little offense like it was an act of terrorism. And, if that means strip-searching a 13-year-old girl because she was caught with a couple of Advils, well, it's worth it to avoid that slippery slope toward chaos.

But There's a Problem...

As you can see, and as they should have seen five seconds after it was suggested, "Zero Tolerance" removes basically all elements of judgment or proportionate punishment from the process, making it a somehow even more retarded version of Three Strikes. Which leads to things like a child getting suspended for bringing in a keychain eraser shaped like a toy gun.

Also, it doesn't do anything about the problem it was created to solve.

Why Doesn't it Work?

The study from the American Psychological Association, who found the policies didn't distinguish between the kids behaving badly and the ones who were simply confused or showing poor judgment. You even got bizarre cases where a kid has been kicked out of school for possession of "... Midol, Tylenol, Alka Seltzer, cough drops and Scope mouthwash."

Obviously deterrents don't work if there is no attempt to understand the behaviors they're punishing. Oh, and also this supposed plan to clamp down on ALL offenses equally still somehow delivers more serious punishments to minorities. The potential for abuse is huge, because if there's a kid you want gone, hell, most people reading this article probably didn't go three days in high school without violating some interpretation of Zero Tolerance.

Is this any way to prepare our children for the adult world? By making them believe that authority figures often rely on unfair and arbitrary rules not based on any kind of logic or...

Wait, that actually may be a pretty good way to prepare them for the adult world.

Quote of the Times;
Our schools and colleges are laying a guilt trip on those young people whose parents are productive, and who are raising them to become productive. What is amazing is how easily this has been done, largely just by replacing the word “achievement” with the word “privilege.”

Link of the Times;
SPAM is the word used to describe a message sent to you via E-mail that are basically junk mail. The official meaning of SPAM in terms of the Internet is "Self-Promotional Advertising Message"

The real meaning of SPAM:

Single Posting Addressed Multiple times

Stupid People Are Mandatory

Some People Are Morons

Stupid Person At Machine

Sexual Perverts And Moneygrabbers

Sad Person After Money

Stupid Pricks Are Annoying Me

Sales Person Attacking Me

Stupid People Asking for Money



I bet Germans are like "Great, another WWII movie.”

The Bill of Rights passing in 1791 was the post-launch patch for the Constitution people waited four years to get.

When Glinda the Good Witch asks Dorothy if she's a good witch or a bad witch, then immediately tells her that only bad witches are ugly, she's pretty much implying that Dorothy is kind of fugly.

Samwell Tarly becomes the ultimate maester, learning the secret of immortality. Now he lives under the name George R.R. Martin and is writing the story of his youth.

Nick is a nickname.


VA Tests ‘Service Shark Therapy’ With Mixed Results

EVERGLADES CITY, Fla. — The Department of Veterans Affairs is scheduled to release a study evaluating the use of large sharks as therapy animals, and the official outcome is “inconclusive” regarding their effectiveness supporting veterans emotionally and physically, sources say.

The results are disappointing for the VA, which is eager to regain the trust of veterans after nearly a decade of scandal, incompetence, and mismanagement. They reportedly researched several obscure “avant garde” therapies and a VA spokesman confirmed, officials are “leaving no stone unturned.”

"We are exploring all of our options, no matter the cost or possibility of personal injury," said Noller. "Whether it is 'Squids For Squids,' 'Falcons For Blue Falcons,' or 'Seals for SEALS,' honestly, we don't care. Our goal is to show progress, and to keep veterans distracted until we find a way out of the monumental hole we dug for ourselves."

The charity chosen for this particular study, "Great Whites For Warriors," is the only service animal organization that employs Carcharodon carcharias as therapy animals. Helmed by Florida alligator farm entrepreneur and Chief Executive Officer William "Big Willie" Fallgren, the organization seeks to pair qualified veterans with their gentle "sociopaths of the deep."

Study participants, however, had mixed reviews about how much healing actually went on. In fact, a small sample of respondents were split down the middle, especially when left alone, unsupervised, and within striking distance. But those who survived raved at how the therapy, while unorthodox, changed their lives in a positive way.

"I remember when I was just a single amputee, looking for answers," said double amputee retired Staff Sgt. Barry Goodall. He was paired with his therapy shark, Linda, nearly two years ago, after he lost his leg in Afghanistan.

"I'll never forget that feeling I got when I first saw her — eyes rolled back in her head, jaws extended," said Goodall stroking the shark tank with his prosthetic hook. "The love of an apex predator is a special thing, a once in a lifetime encounter."


Sure, companies say they're sensitive to their employees' cultural heritages, but show up on casual Friday wearing a necklace made from the ears of your vanquished enemies and all hell breaks loose.


One man's hobby was fishing, he spent all his weekends near the river or lake, paying no attention to weather.

One Sunday, early in the morning, he went to the river, as usual. It was cold and raining, so he decided to return back to his house. He came in, went to his bedroom, undressed and laid near his wife.

"What terrible weather today honey," he said to her. "Yes. And my idiot husband went fishing!"

Issue of the Times;
Love is Not Enough by Mark Manson

In 1967, John Lennon wrote a song called, “All You Need is Love.” He also beat both of his wives, abandoned one of his children, verbally abused his gay Jewish manager with homophobic and anti-semitic slurs, and once had a camera crew film him lying naked in his bed for an entire day.

Thirty-five years later, Trent Reznor from Nine Inch Nails wrote a song called “Love is Not Enough.” Reznor, despite being famous for his shocking stage performances and his grotesque and disturbing videos, got clean from all drugs and alcohol, married one woman, had two children with her, and then cancelled entire albums and tours so that he could stay home and be a good husband and father.

One of these two men had a clear and realistic understanding of love. One of them did not. One of these men idealized love as the solution to all of his problems. One of them did not. One of these men was probably a narcissistic asshole. One of them was not.

In our culture, many of us idealize love. We see it as some lofty cure-all for all of life’s problems. Our movies and our stories and our history all celebrate it as life’s ultimate goal, the final solution for all of our pain and struggle. And because we idealize love, we overestimate it. As a result, our relationships pay a price.

When we believe that “all we need is love,” then like Lennon, we’re more likely to ignore fundamental values such as respect, humility and commitment towards the people we care about. After all, if love solves everything, then why bother with all the other stuff — all of the hard stuff?

But if, like Reznor, we believe that “love is not enough,” then we understand that healthy relationships require more than pure emotion or lofty passions. We understand that there are things more important in our lives and our relationships than simply being in love. And the success of our relationships hinges on these deeper and more important values.


The problem with idealizing love is that it causes us to develop unrealistic expectations about what love actually is and what it can do for us. These unrealistic expectations then sabotage the very relationships we hold dear in the first place. Allow me to illustrate:

1. Love does not equal compatibility. Just because you fall in love with someone doesn’t necessarily mean they’re a good partner for you to be with over the long term. Love is an emotional process; compatibility is a logical process. And the two don’t bleed into one another very well.

It’s possible to fall in love with somebody who doesn’t treat us well, who makes us feel worse about ourselves, who doesn’t hold the same respect for us as we do for them, or who has such a dysfunctional life themselves that they threaten to bring us down with them.

It’s possible to fall in love with somebody who has different ambitions or life goals that are contradictory to our own, who holds different philosophical beliefs or worldviews that clash with our own sense of reality.

It’s possible to fall in love with somebody who sucks for us and our happiness.

That may sound paradoxical, but it’s true.

When I think of all of the disastrous relationships I’ve seen or people have emailed me about, many (or most) of them were entered into on the basis of emotion — they felt that “spark” and so they just dove in head first. Forget that he was a born-again Christian alcoholic and she was an acid-dropping bisexual necrophiliac. It just felt right.

And then six months later, when she’s throwing his shit out onto the lawn and he’s praying to Jesus twelve times a day for her salvation, they look around and wonder, “Gee, where did it go wrong?”

The truth is, it went wrong before it even began.

When dating and looking for a partner, you must use not only your heart, but your mind. Yes, you want to find someone who makes your heart flutter and your farts smell like cherry popsicles. But you also need to evaluate a person’s values, how they treat themselves, how they treat those close to them, their ambitions and their worldviews in general. Because if you fall in love with someone who is incompatible with you…well, as the ski instructor from South Park once said, you’re going to have a bad time.

2. Love does not solve your relationship problems. My first girlfriend and I were madly in love with each other. We also lived in different cities, had no money to see each other, had families who hated each other, and went through weekly bouts of meaningless drama and fighting.

And every time we fought, we’d come back to each other the next day and make up and remind each other how crazy we were about one another and that none of those little things matter because we’re omg sooooooo in love and we’ll find a way to work it out and everything will be great, just you wait and see. Our love made us feel like we were overcoming our issues, when on a practical level, absolutely nothing had changed.

As you can imagine, none of our problems got resolved. The fights repeated themselves. The arguments got worse. Our inability to ever see each other hung around our necks like an albatross. We were both self-absorbed to the point where we couldn’t even communicate that effectively. Hours and hours talking on the phone with nothing actually said. Looking back, there was no hope that it was going to last. Yet we kept it up for three fucking years!

After all, love conquers all, right?

Unsurprisingly, that relationship burst into flames and crashed like the Hindenburg being doused in jet fuel. The break up was ugly. And the big lesson I took away from it was this: while love may make you feel better about your relationship problems, it doesn’t actually solve any of your relationship problems.

The roller coaster of emotions can be intoxicating, each high feeling even more important and more valid than the one before, but unless there’s a stable and practical foundation beneath your feet, that rising tide of emotion will eventually come and wash it all away.

3. Love is not always worth sacrificing yourself. One of the defining characteristics of loving someone is that you are able to think outside of yourself and your own needs to help care for another person and their needs as well.

But the question that doesn’t get asked often enough is exactly what are you sacrificing, and is it worth it?

In loving relationships, it’s normal for both people to occasionally sacrifice their own desires, their own needs, and their own time for one another. I would argue that this is normal and healthy and a big part of what makes a relationship so great.

But when it comes to sacrificing one’s self-respect, one’s dignity, one’s physical body, one’s ambitions and life purpose, just to be with someone, then that same love becomes problematic. A loving relationship is supposed to supplement our individual identity, not damage it or replace it. If we find ourselves in situations where we’re tolerating disrespectful or abusive behavior, then that’s essentially what we’re doing: we’re allowing our love to consume us and negate us, and if we’re not careful, it will leave us as a shell of the person we once were.


One of the oldest pieces of relationship advice in the book is, “You and your partner should be best friends.” Most people look at that piece of advice in the positive: I should spend time with my partner like I do my best friend; I should communicate openly with my partner like I do with my best friend; I should have fun with my partner like I do with my best friend.

But people should also look at it in the negative: Would you tolerate your partner’s negative behaviors in your best friend?

Amazingly, when we ask ourselves this question honestly, in most unhealthy and codependent relationships, the answer is “no.”

I know a young woman who just got married. She was madly in love with her husband. And despite the fact that he had been “between jobs” for more than a year, showed no interest in planning the wedding, often ditched her to take surfing trips with his friends, and her friends and family raised not-so-subtle concerns about him, she happily married him anyway.

But once the emotional high of the wedding wore off, reality set in. A year into their marriage, he’s still “between jobs,” he trashes the house while she’s at work, gets angry if she doesn’t cook dinner for him, and any time she complains he tells her that she’s “spoiled” and “arrogant.” Oh, and he still ditches her to take surfing trips with his friends.

And she got into this situation because she ignored all three of the harsh truths above. She idealized love. Despite being slapped in the face by all of the red flags he raised while dating him, she believed that their love signaled relationship compatibility. It didn’t. When her friends and family raised concerns leading up to the wedding, she believed that their love would solve their problems eventually. It didn’t. And now that everything had fallen into a steaming shit heap, she approached her friends for advice on how she could sacrifice herself even more to make it work.

And the truth is, it won’t.

Why do we tolerate behavior in our romantic relationships that we would never ever, ever tolerate in our friendships?

Imagine if your best friend moved in with you, trashed your place, refused to get a job or pay rent, demanded you cook dinner for them, and got angry and yelled at you any time you complained. That friendship would be over faster than Paris Hilton’s acting career.

Or another situation: a man’s girlfriend who was so jealous that she demanded passwords to all of his accounts and insisted on accompanying him on his business trips to make sure he wasn’t tempted by other women. His life was practically under 24/7 surveillance and you could see it wearing on his self-esteem. His self-worth dropped to nothing. She didn’t trust him to do anything. So he quit trusting himself to do anything.

Yet he stays with her! Why? Because he’s in love!

Remember this: The only way you can fully enjoy the love in your life is to choose to make something else more important in your life than love.

You can fall in love with a wide variety of people throughout the course of your life. You can fall in love with people who are good for you and people who are bad for you. You can fall in love in healthy ways and unhealthy ways. You can fall in love when you’re young and when you’re old. Love is not unique. Love is not special. Love is not scarce.

But your self-respect is. So is your dignity. So is your ability to trust. There can potentially be many loves throughout your life, but once you lose your self-respect, your dignity or your ability to trust, they are very hard to get back.

Love is a wonderful experience. It’s one of the greatest experiences life has to offer. And it is something everyone should aspire to feel and enjoy.

But like any other experience, it can be healthy or unhealthy. Like any other experience, it cannot be allowed to define us, our identities or our life purpose. We cannot let it consume us. We cannot sacrifice our identities and self-worth to it. Because the moment we do that, we lose love and we lose ourselves.

Because you need more in life than love. Love is great. Love is necessary. Love is beautiful. But love is not enough.

Quote of the Times;
Flocking is one of those fascinating phenomena that seem to defy explanation. How do hundreds of these small birds manage to fly in formation so well? For pigeons, there appears to be quite a bit of democracy involved.With the technology available today, we can put GPS trackers on pigeons and use computers to study their precise movements. Researchers learned that each member has a vote in the flock’s movements. Birds closer to the front of the flock have votes that carry more weight, although even the lowliest bird has some influence.Scientists call it a “democratic hierarchy.” Since the pigeons have an almost 360-degree range of vision, they can all see each other and react quickly. Even the lead bird can keep track of his followers without turning his head.The most influential pigeons are determined by raw speed. The bird who can get from point A to point B the fastest is usually in the lead.

Link of the Times;
A Love Story

A man and a woman who had never met before, but who were both married to other people, found themselves assigned to the same sleeping room on a Trans-continental train.

Though initially embarrassed and uneasy over sharing a room, they were both very tired and fell asleep quickly, he in the upper berth and she in the lower.

At 1:00 AM, the man leaned down and gently woke the woman saying,...........

'Ma'am, I'm sorry to bother you, but would you be willing to reach into the closet to get me a second blanket? I'm awfully cold.'

'I have a better idea,' she replied 'Just for tonight, let's pretend that we're married.'

'Wow! That's a great idea!', he exclaimed.

'Good,' she replied, 'Get your own fucking blanket.'

After a moment of silence, he farted.

The End


I was in Ft. Myers, Florida, the other day and I saw a bumper sticker on a parked car that read: "I miss Detroit".

So, I broke the window, stole the radio, shot out two tires, added an Obama bumper sticker and left a note that read, "I hope this helps!"


The difference between mowing my yard and mowing my neighbor's yard: The neighbor is a hot single lady who presses her big boobs against the window every time I go by, whereas the woman at my house is married and couldn't care less.


A man in Scotland calls his son in London the day before Easter and says, “I hate to ruin your day but I have to tell you that your mother and I are divorcing; forty-five years of misery is enough.”

“Dad, what are you talking about?' the son screams.

“We can't stand the sight of each other any longer” the father says. “We're sick of each other and I'm sick of talking about this, so you call your sister in Leeds and tell her.”

Frantically, the son calls his sister, who explodes on the phone. “Like hell they're getting divorced!” she shouts, “I'll take care of this!”

She calls Scotland immediately, and screams at her father “You are NOT getting divorced. Don't do a single thing until I get there. I'm calling my brother back, and we'll both be there tomorrow. Until then, don't do a thing, DO YOU HEAR ME?” and hangs up.

The old man hangs up his phone and turns to his wife. 'Sorted! They're coming for Easter - and they're paying their own way.'


A friend hosted a dinner party for people from work, and everyone was encouraged to bring their children.

All during the sit-down dinner one co-worker's three-year-old girl stared at the man sitting across from her. The girl could hardly eat her food from staring. The man checked his tie, felt his face for food, patted his hair in place, but nothing stopped her from staring at him. He tried his best to just ignore her but finally it was too much for him. He asked her, "Why are you staring at me?"

Everyone at the table had noticed her behavior and the table went quiet for her response.

The little girl said, "I just want to see how you drink like a fish!"

Issue of the Times;
What Every Man Needs To Know About Capitalism And Economics

First, understand that capitalism is NOT an option. It’s not an “opinion.” It’s not a “belief.” It’s not a “theory.”
It’s a law.
You have no choice but to abide by it just as you have no choice to abide by gravity.
You may not “like” that statement. You may not agree with it, but none of that changes the fact that the economic phenomenon known as “capitalism” or “free markets” has naturally formed within humanity throughout it’s entire history. To understand this “human nature” aspect of capitalism, consider gold. Doesn’t matter if you look to the ancient Aztecs, the far-removed Hindus river valley, sub-Saharan Africa, or prehistoric Europe, gold ended up becoming the default currency in nearly all ancient civilizations.
The reason why is that gold had the characteristics and traits that made it valuable to all humans and human nature. And like gold, so too did markets and the free exchange of goods, services, and labor become a naturally-forming, universal phenomenon of both ancient civilizations and our tight-knit global community today. Ergo, capitalism is not some kind of fanciful political theory concocted by a delusional, pontificating trust-fund baby elitist (that would be Karl Marx). It’s merely the economic manifestation of human nature.
If this does not convince you about capitalism being an undeniable law of human nature, then consider proving it in reverse - communism.
The whole concept of communism is that there are no free markets, there is no free trade. Prices are fixed, as is production and nearly all business and investment decisions. Naturally, the bureaucrats in charge of making production decisions fail miserably at predicting what an entire people want. So what forms in response to this controlled market?
Black markets. AKA “underground economies.”
You must understand what the existence of black markets in communist economies proves about capitalism being the default-state law of humanity. Doesn’t matter how many laws you pass, doesn’t matter how much punishment you mete out, doesn’t matter if the entire government’s resources are dedicated to banning it, in the end all that matters is that people demand something and other people are willing to supply it. Thus, underground economies were not only prevalent in ALL communist “economies,” but continue to exist today in our schools and other “drug free zones” with the “illegal” $60-billion-per-year US drug trade.
If Stalin, Mao, Kim Jong Il, and Nancy Reagan couldn’t stop black markets from forming, don’t you think it’s about time to admit capitalism isn’t optional? And furthermore, since that is the default state nature of humanity, shouldn’t governments and economies be built upon this reality instead of trying to change it?
Government as a means of protection rather than production
All economic success derives from the protection and enforcement or private property. Understand that governments do not produce anything of economic value. The only thing that can produce something of economic value is people. Without a people, there is no point or purpose to have a government. But how do you incentivize the people to produce?
Well, in the olden days you captured them and made them slaves, threatening them with torture, beatings, starvation, and death. Today, obviously, we need a new incentive. Enter private property.
If I’m not a slave, I’m allowed to keep the majority of the fruits of my labor. This income will go to pay for necessary things like food, clothing, and shelter, but any excess earnings can be saved up and used to buy assets. These assets are also called “wealth,” and if I build up enough “wealth” then I can become “rich” and never labor again.
This is a huge and VITAL cornerstone of capitalism because it provides not just one person, but all people with the key to their own freedom. They are allowed to work as much and as hard as they want, become as rich as they can, all of which invigorates and mobilizes billions of people to produce (resulting in the economic powerhouses of yesteryear western civilization). However, it was all contingent on the legal guarantee that their property would be their own and not confiscated for political purposes.
However, some people are going to be better, luckier, or just harder-working than others and as a consequence will have more wealth than others. And this creates jealousy. And jealousy is all fine and good as long as you have a republic that protects a constitution, meritocracy, and property rights. But if society devolves into a democracy, the temptation has proven too tempting to the masses to merely vote for “other people’s wealth,” thus undermining private property.
The argument shouldn’t be about whether that’s “fair” or not. The argument should be “do they have the right to do what they want with their own private property?”
You may not like the current day employment prospects our current economy offers. You may not like the part-time job becoming the default economic reality of the labor market. But the adult, male, “time-to-put-on-your-big-boy-pants” truth is that:
If you don’t like what employers are paying, then quit being a whiny, simpering bitch and start your own damn company. Because the slippery slope that ensues when you start to make claim to property that is not yours is you get something much worse than “part-time jobs” or “low pay.” You get capital flight which results in no jobs.
Capitalism has empirically outperformed every other economic system
If you are one for empiricism, just look at history. By nearly all accounts we can admit communism has failed. The USSR could only provide its people a third of what the US did. And when you compare countries with the same people, but two different economic systems, the comparison could not be more stark. Specifically the Koreas (North and South) and the Germanys (pre-unification).
However, post-Soviet collapse arguments typically fall into the grey area of “socialism” or “mixed economies,” with people on the left nearly stampeding over themselves to point out the Scandinavian countries as proof socialism can work. It is here that three minor problems come into play.
One, Norway (the darling favorite of the left) derives a goodly fourth of its economic production from oil and is better analyzed as a mideast oil emirate than a Scandinavian country. Two, the relative homogeneity of Scandinavia’s population means there’s less incentive for groups to “get theirs” by taking advantage of the welfare state, providing a rare cooperation amongst humans (but give it time). Three, population-wise compared to the rest of “socialist” Europe, they are not very relevant. Whatever may be working in Finland today isn’t working thrice over in Italy, France, Germany, and for the remaining other 500 million Europeans.
But if you want numbers, the best I’ve calculated was the correlation between long term tax rates (as measured by spending as a % GDP) and economic growth (and this included the Scandinavian countries), which resulted in a -.28 correlation coefficient. And that data, mind you, is post-1991 and therefore does not include the dismal performance of the former Soviet bloc countries.
Regardless, the point is that barring economic eccentricities and statistical outliers, capitalism has outperformed socialism and communism hands down. It really isn’t up for debate unless you want to resort to technicalities, exceptions, etc., to protect your political ego or erroneous world-view.
The US is NOT a capitalist economy
If you are an American you have got to understand that you do not live in a capitalist economy, but rather a mixed or “socialist” one. Oh, people will laugh. Oh, people will accuse me of “sensationalism,” but I have no opinion on this matter, just mere fact. We simply do not live in a capitalist economy.
As it stands right now the state, federal and local governments combined spend about 38% of our economy. Of that 38%, 85% of it is spent on “social spending.” Not the military. This is set to increase dramatically as the baby boomers retire and a whole host of other social expenses come into play which (depending on whose estimates you want to use) means spending will increase to around 45% GDP.
Additionally, you throw in things like a progressive income tax, a 40% statutory corporate tax rate (arguments of the effective tax rate duly noted), corporate lobbying, crony capitalists, bailouts, Obamacare, and the level of government regulation and intervention into the private economy, and we are anything but a capitalist economy.
The alternative to capitalism is far, far worse
Hate capitalism and free markets and people richer than you all you want. The alternative is far worse. And some of this is striking rather close to home.
If you look at the political affiliation of the people launching their assault on men and male culture you’ll quickly realize they aren’t “feminists” as much as they are socialists using their sex organs or “gender” as a means to play victim and get more money out of you. You may also be somewhat familiar with women voting for the state to replace men in their traditional roles.
You are no longer a man, a husband, a father or a head of household. You are a sperm donor, a trial husband, or an alimony check. And even if you think you’ll be clever, avoiding these fates by being a bachelor, understand you disproportionately pay taxes to subsidize millions of “empowered, independent women’s” tuition in worthless degrees, while paying even more taxes so they can have make-work government jobs and a surrogate husband in the form of a government check. So before you go running to the state to complain about “minimum wage” or “part time work” you may want to look at what happens when the state gets more power.
But this cultural Marxism and replacement of men is nothing compared to what happens when people start tinkering with the economy, replacing free markets with socialism. At best you can hope for is what is currently plaguing Europe. Government debts equivalent to 200% GDP. Stagnant economic growth. Youth unemployment rates of around 40%. Bank accounts being confiscated. And political correctness being shoved down your throat.
The worst you can expect is the track record of Chairman Mao and Josef Stalin. 100 million dead during peacetime due to starvation. Even Nazis during war couldn’t kill that much that fast. Alas, this is the slope you risk going down when you start contemplating granting the state more power to make things “fair” in your naive, idealistic, rookie economist mind.
Finally, because this is not a dictatorship you have a responsibility to society to educate yourself about economics.

Quote of the Times;
Vision without action is daydream. Action without vision is nightmare.

Link of the Times;

Now that I’m older, I realize the joke isn’t that Squidward hates his job, but that SpongeBob loves it.

Porn is the one industry where segregating races, genders, and sexual preference is completely acceptable.

Marriage is one of the few things where we consider someone an expert if they’ve only successfully done it once.

I wonder if my cat thinks the delivery guy is my owner because he gives me food.

Whenever I hear the word “Egyptians” I never think of it referring to the people who currently live in Egypt.

I feel like a pimp taking my son around trick or treating, because I expect to get a percentage of that candy.


"Do you believe in life after death?" The Boss asked one of his employees.

"Yes, sir." The new employee replied.

"Well, then, that makes everything just fine," the Boss went on. "After you left early yesterday to go to your grandmother's funeral, she stopped in to see you!"


When my son was graduated from high school, he had to give a speech.

He began by reading from his prepared text. "I want to talk about my mother and the wonderful influence she has had on my life. She is a shining example of parenthood and I love her more than words could ever do her justice."

At this point he seemed to struggle for words. Looking up and with a sly grin he said, "It's really hard to read my mom's handwriting."


The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has approved a claim from a veteran of the United States Civil War in one of its longest running cases to date.

Pvt. Horace Bottomsley, who served in the Chickamauga Campaign, first filed a claim in 1864 for a case of scurvy he caught the previous year, which he claims was brought on by the Union Army’s insufficient rations. According to Bottomsley, the standard diet of hardtack and grain liquor should have been supplemented by molasses and salt pork to provide essential nutrients.

VA Secretary David Shulkin says a backlog of claims from the Mexican-American War, among other factors, may have led to “slight delays” in processing Bottomsley’s claim.

“He submitted the original claim via telegraph to a local veterans home, which was almost approved in 1892,” said Shulkin. “But they switched from telegraph to telephone around that time, and unfortunately they fired everyone that knew how to translate Morse code, rather than retrain them to answer telephones.”

Bottomsley's claim will be paid out to his next-of-kin, his great-great-grandson and World War II veteran Jim Bottomsley, who fought in the Battle of the Bulge and has been waiting on his own claim to be approved since 1947.

“The VA can choke on my bulge,” said the younger Bottomsley, which was his only comment on the matter.

Shulkin says Bottomsley is entitled to receive his ancestor's backdated disability payments, which when adjusted for the 1863 pay scale amount to $14.07. He can also pick up a free six-month supply of vitamin-C supplements, which would have been able to treat his great-great-grandfather's scurvy had he not died during the Taft administration.


Some people want to be cryogenically frozen and then brought back in the future when their disease can be cured.

I want to be frozen now, while I'm still healthy, so I can be thawed out later when robot wives are cheap and effective.

Issue of the Times;
How Trump Can Save the Middle Class by Jerome Corsi

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Next week, on Friday, March 31, President Trump has a unique opportunity to do the right thing to benefit the middle class throughout America, for this generation as well as for future generations.

Next Friday, the Treasury Department is scheduled to make the next Net Worth Sweep, from the two government-backed mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

All President Trump must do is instruct Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchen to inform Federal Housing Agency Director Mel Watt that the Net Worth Sweep is finished.

If Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do not make their sweep payment to the Treasury on March 31, the two mortgage giants can begin rebuilding their capital base which protects taxpayers from ever having to bail them out in case of an economic downturn.

In the same executive order that President Trump signs to end the Net Worth Sweep on March 31, he can also remove the “executive privilege” President Obama placed on some 11,000 documents the Obama administration fought desperately in the courts to keep the American people from seeing.

As has reported, the Obama administration confiscated all earnings from these two Government Sponsored Entities (GSEs) in an unlawful and unconstitutional criminal scheme that has stripped Fannie and Freddie of the capital needed to continue operating safely, while depriving all private and institutional investors of the dividends due to them as stockholder owners.

In what now amounts to the largest theft of corporate dividends in U.S. corporate history, the Obama administration Treasury Department has confiscated over $260 billion from Fannie and Freddie since August 2012.

Why did Obama steal $260 billion from Fannie and Freddie?

First, in 2012, Obamacare was at risk going bankrupt after Congress refused to appropriate funds to pay the required subsidies to insurance companies to provide the low-income health insurance upon which Obamacare depended.

This left the Obama administration scrambling to find a spare $130 billion somewhere in the federal budget that could be diverted to pay the insurance subsidies for that purpose, even though it was illegal and unconstitutional for the Obama administration to do so.

Second, as reported from leaked documents from Sec. Geithner’s Treasury Department, the Obama administration was prepared to “wind down” Freddie and Fannie, knowing that taking all earnings from the two mortgage giants inevitably would leave the GSEs without sufficient capital to operate.

This effectively would have ended the middle-class American Dream of home ownership because without Fannie and Freddie, no U.S. underwriter has been willing to offer the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage that millions of first-time home-buyers need to be able to both make the required down payment and afford the subsequent required monthly mortgage payments.

The leaked Treasury Department documents reveal that Sec. Geithner had planned that after Fannie and Freddie were closed, the mortgage market would be turned over to Wall Street and big banks – two of the Democratic Party’s largest sources of campaign contributions.

The result of the Obama plan would be to transform middle-class America from a nation of home owners to a “well-housed” nation of renters, on the model of major cities throughout the European Union.

Quote of the Times;
He who dares not offend cannot be honest. – Paine

Link of the Times;
Older Newer
Several animals were savagely beaten in the making of this page, including but not limited to; kittens, rabbits, zebu, skunks, puppies, and platypus. Also several monkeys where force fed crack to improve their typing skills.

And someone shot a duck.

An Images & Ideas, Inc. Service.

No Vegans were harmed in the making of this site. We're looking for a new provider.