If I were the pope, I would wear one of those padded suits under my robes.
Then, if I ever got attacked by vicious dogs, I would jump up without a scratch and say, "It's a miracle!"
It would probably get kind of hot waiting around for the dogs, though.
*.*
What do you call two men fighting over a slut?
Tug-of-whore.
*.*
Oneliners:
Between the coffee and the cocaine, it looks like the mission of Colombia is to wake up the world.
Car horns should only be allowed to be in pitches C, E, and G, so whenever two people honk at the same time it will be in harmony and traffic jams will sound like symphonies.
My resume is really just a list of things I hope I never have to do again.
Anyone who starts a sentence "With all due respect..." is about to insult you.
Don't judge, you idiot.
*.*
The 22 Worst Town Names In The World
22. Cockburn, Western Australia
Although this name is often pronounced “Coburn” by those who stand to lose from its awfulness, who actually reads that when they see this word? Oh, how it burns.
21. Twatt, Orkney, Shetland Islands, Scotland
The Shetland Islands, pronounced “Shitland Islands” if you have an accent like mine, make up a happy little area north of Scotland where it’s too cold for trees to grow. I am related to approximately half the population of the Shetland Islands, share a last name with a quarter of them, and can probably trace my ancestry back to Twatt if I try hard enough. The pride!
20. Taumatawhakatangihangakoauauotamateapokaiwhenuakitanatahu, New Zealand
Locals call this hill in Hawke’s Bay “Taumata” because… Well. Just because.
19. Muff, Ireland
We here at Drivl love puerile humour. They have a town called Muff.
18. Looneyville, Texas, United States
Little Looneyville was named for storekeeper John Looney in the early 1870s. But who gives a shit. This is a hilarious name for a town in the state that brought us Dallas, the Bush Twins and Waco. How awkward must that be when you go to college? “Hey guys, my name’s Sue and I’m from Looneyville!”
17. Titty Hill, Sussex, England
Falling squarely into the extensive Stupid Place Names From England category, Titty Hill is probably located just north of…
16. Thong, Kent, England
Which actually is south-east of…
15. Gravesend, Kent, England
Oh, come on, England. Graves End? What a nasty, depressing little name. You could have at least gone all the way with this one and called it Corpse Feet.
14. Wetwang, Yorkshire… yep! England again!
Okay, so I’ll cut England some slack. It’s an old country. You know, if the United States is Google, then England is IBM. Their country is older than fucking dirt. They can’t be blamed for having names that sound funny in 2007. But this is kind of ridiculous. Wetwang? I’m surprised they don’t have towns called Squishy Vagina or Infected Scrotum.
13. Spread Eagle, Wisconsin
If I were mayor of Spread Eagle, I’d be making diplomatic advances towards the city leaders over in Wetwang to form a Sister-City relationship. Or maybe more of a Platonic-Friends-City relationship. After that, we’d just take thing slow and see what happened.
12. Bald Knob, Arkansas, United States
Well, I guess it’s better than Hairy Knob. I assume England already has that one covered.
11. Cockup, Cumbria, England
Cumbria is a county in the very north-west of England. What the backwoods of Alabama are to America is what Cumbria is to Britain. They talk funny up there. Thus, it isn’t thoroughly surprising that they have a town called Cockup. What do you call someone from this place? A Cockupper? Cockupeleite? Cockuppian? Cockupican? I suppose it’s mildly better than Wetwangger.
10. Whiskey Dick Mountain, Washington State, United States
As hard as America tries, it can’t compete with Britain’s high standards. This was a good effort, though. Well done, Washington.
9. Hookersville, West Virginia
Undoubtedly named before “hooker” meant “prostitute who picks men up on street corners,” Hookersville combines two crimes of place-naming. One, a dirty sounding adjective (they couldn’t have chosen “Pleasant”? “Sunny”? “Happy”?) And two, they added “ville” to the end of the town’s name. Affixing “ville” to the end of a town’s name is like dressing your silly little dog in a cardigan and letting him carry his leash around in his mouth. It just makes the poor animal look fucking stupid.
8. Hell, Michigan, United States
The people in this town at least seem to have a good sense of humour about their home’s unfortunate name. Although, I’m sure there’s some midwestern idiots in Hell who get all offended and defensive when the town shows up on lists like this. I’m looking forward to reading their insightful emails and comments.
7. Toad Suck, Arkansas, United States
So that’s what they do down in the big AR.
6. Middelfart, Denmark
I guess it’s not so funny to them, but how do we know that “Seattle” doesn’t mean “Big Fat Stinking Turd” in Danish? That’s right, we don’t. And it probably does.
5. Horneytown, North Carolina, United States
Its proximity to Hookersville, West Virginia is no coincidence. I also assume that, like Hookersville, the naming of Horneytown took place before “horney” meant “aching for a hot piece of ass” with an extra “e”. But I’m starting to wonder why, pride and tradition aside, the townspeople in these little places never saw it fit to change their homes’ names? Do they enjoy being ridiculed by the entire English-speaking world?
4. Shitterton, Dorset, England
I wonder if they bleep out the first part of Shitterton’s name if it’s mentioned on TV in America?
3. Disappointment, Kentucky, United States
Le sigh. Never mind. You live in a small town in Kentucky. At least it was appropriately named.
2. Fucking, Austria
The idiots who live in Fucking, Austria had a vote in 2004 to determine whether or not they should change the town’s name, and you know what they did? They voted against it, preferring instead to put up with international ridicule, numerous stolen road-signs and horrific Google results.
1. Whakapapa
Why is this the worst place name in the world? In Maori, the native language of New Zealand, the “wh” sound is pronounced “f”. Say it aloud in your office and see what happens.
*.*
What do you call someone who refuses to fart in public?
A private tutor.
Issue of the Times;
The Subtle Art of Not Giving a Fuck by Mark Manson
In my life, I have given a fuck about many people and many things. I have also not given a fuck about many people and many things. And those fucks I have not given have made all the difference.
People often say the key to confidence and success in life is to simply “not give a fuck.” Indeed, we often refer to the strongest, most admirable people we know in terms of their lack of fucks given. Like “Oh, look at Susie working weekends again, she doesn’t give a fuck.” Or “Did you hear that Tom called the company president an asshole and still got a raise anyway? Holy shit, that dude does not give a fuck.” Or “Jason got up and ended his date with Cindy after 20 minutes. He said he wasn’t going to listen to her bullshit anymore. Man, that guy does not give a fuck.”
Chances are you know somebody in your life who, at one time or another, did not give a fuck and went on to accomplish amazing feats. Perhaps there was a time in your life where you simply did not give a fuck and excelled to some extraordinary heights. I know for myself, quitting my day job in finance after only six weeks and telling my boss that I was going to start selling dating advice online ranks pretty high up there in my own “didn’t give a fuck” hall of fame. Same with deciding to sell most of my possessions and move to South America. Fucks given? None. Just went and did it.
Everybody just wants to be liked and accepted. Except for Tim. Tim doesn't give a fuck.
Now, while not giving a fuck may seem simple on the surface, it’s a whole new bag of burritos under the hood. I don’t even know what that sentence means, but I don’t give a fuck. A bag of burritos sounds awesome, so let’s just go with it.
The point is, most of us struggle throughout our lives by giving too many fucks in situations where fucks do not deserve to be given. We give a fuck about the rude gas station attendant who gave us too many nickels. We give a fuck when a show we liked was canceled on TV. We give a fuck when our coworkers don’t bother asking us about our awesome weekend. We give a fuck when it’s raining and we were supposed to go jogging in the morning.
Fucks given everywhere. Strewn about like seeds in mother-fucking spring time. And for what purpose? For what reason? Convenience? Easy comforts? A pat on the fucking back maybe?
This is the problem, my friend.
Because when we give too many fucks, when we choose to give a fuck about everything, then we feel as though we are perpetually entitled to feel comfortable and happy at all times, that’s when life fucks us.
Indeed, the ability to reserve our fucks for only the most fuckworthy of situations would surely make life a hell of a lot easier. Failure would be less terrifying. Rejection less painful. Unpleasant necessities more pleasant and the unsavory shit sandwiches a little bit more savory. I mean, if we could only give a few less fucks, or a few more consciously-directed fucks, then life would feel pretty fucking easy.
What we don’t realize is that there is a fine art of non-fuck-giving. People aren’t just born not giving a fuck. In fact, we’re born giving way too many fucks. Ever watch a kid cry his eyes out because his hat is the wrong shade of blue? Exactly. Fuck that kid.
Developing the ability to control and manage the fucks you give is the essence of strength and integrity. We must craft and hone our lack of fuckery over the course of years and decades. Like a fine wine, our fucks must age into a fine vintage, only uncorked and given on the most special fucking occasions.
This may sound easy. But it is not. Most of us, most of the time, get sucked in by life’s mean trivialities, steamrolled by its unimportant dramas; we live and die by the sidenotes and distractions and vicissitudes that suck the fucks out of us like Sasha Grey in the middle of a gangbang.
This is no way to live, man. So stop fucking around. Get your fucks together. And here, allow me to fucking show you.
SUBTLETY #1: NOT GIVING A FUCK DOES NOT MEAN BEING INDIFFERENT; IT MEANS BEING COMFORTABLE WITH BEING DIFFERENT
When most people envision giving no fucks whatsoever, they envision a kind of perfect and serene indifference to everything, a calm that weathers all storms.
This is misguided. There’s absolutely nothing admirable or confident about indifference. People who are indifferent are lame and scared. They’re couch potatoes and internet trolls. In fact, indifferent people often attempt to be indifferent because in reality they actually give too many fucks. They are afraid of the world and the repercussions of their own choices. Therefore, they make none. They hide in a grey emotionless pit of their own making, self-absorbed and self-pitied, perpetually distracting themselves from this unfortunate thing demanding their time and energy called life.
My mother was recently screwed out of a large chunk of money by a close friend of hers. Had I been indifferent, I would have shrugged my shoulders, sipped some mocha and downloaded another season of The Wire. Sorry mom.
But instead, I was indignant. I was pissed off. I said, “No, screw that mom, we’re going to lawyer the fuck up and go after this asshole. Why? Because I don’t give a fuck. I will ruin this guy’s life if I have to.”
This illustrates the first subtlety about not giving a fuck. When we say, “Damn, watch out, Mark Manson just don’t give a fuck,” we don’t mean that Mark Manson doesn’t care about anything; on the contrary, what we mean is that Mark Manson doesn’t care about adversity in the face of his goals, he doesn’t care about pissing some people off to do what he feels is right or important or noble. What we mean is that Mark Manson is the type of guy who would write about himself in third person and use the word ‘fuck’ in an article 177 different times just because he thought it was the right thing to do. He just doesn’t give a fuck.
This is what is so admirable — no, not me, dumbass — the overcoming adversity stuff. The staring failure in the face and shoving your middle finger back at it. The people who don’t give a fuck about adversity or failure or embarrassing themselves or shitting the bed a few times. The people who just laugh and then do it anyway. Because they know it’s right. They know it’s more important than them and their own feelings and their own pride and their own needs. They say “Fuck it,” not to everything in life, but rather they say “Fuck it” to everything unimportant in life. They reserve their fucks for what truly fucking matters. Friends. Family. Purpose. Burritos. And an occasional lawsuit or two. And because of that, because they reserve their fucks for only the big things, the important things, people give a fuck about them in return.
SUBTLETY #2: TO NOT GIVE A FUCK ABOUT ADVERSITY, YOU MUST FIRST GIVE A FUCK ABOUT SOMETHING MORE IMPORTANT THAN ADVERSITY
Eric Hoffer once wrote: “A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding. When it is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other people’s business.”
The problem with people who hand out fucks like ice cream at a goddamn summer camp is that they don’t have anything more fuckworthy to dedicate their fucks to.
Think for a second. You’re at a grocery store. And there’s an elderly lady screaming at the cashier, berating him for not accepting her 30-cent coupon. Why does this lady give a fuck? It’s just 30 cents.
Well, I’ll tell you why. That old lady probably doesn’t have anything better to do with her days than to sit at home cutting out coupons all morning. She’s old and lonely. Her kids are dickheads and never visit. She hasn’t had sex in over 30 years. Her pension is on its last legs and she’s probably going to die in a diaper thinking she’s in Candyland. She can’t fart without extreme lower back pain. She can’t even watch TV for more than 17 minutes without falling asleep or forgetting the main plotline.
So she snips coupons. That’s all she’s got. It’s her and her damn coupons. All day, every day. It’s all she can give a fuck about because there is nothing else to give a fuck about. And so when that pimply-faced 17-year-old cashier refuses to accept one of them, when he defends his cash register’s purity the way knights used to defend maidens’ virginities, you can damn well bet granny is going to erupt and verbally hulk smash his fucking face in. Eighty years of fucks will rain down all at once, like a fiery hailstorm of “Back in my day” and “People used to show more respect” stories, boring the world around her to tears in her creaking and wobbly voice.
If you find yourself consistently giving too many fucks about trivial shit that bothers you — your ex-girlfriend’s new Facebook picture, how quickly the batteries die in the TV remote, missing out on yet another 2-for-1 sale on hand sanitizer — chances are you don’t have much going on in your life to give a legitimate fuck about. And that’s your real problem. Not the hand sanitizer.
In life, our fucks must be spent on something. There really is no such thing as not giving a fuck. The question is simply how we each choose to allot our fucks. You only get a limited number of fucks to give over your lifetime, so you must spend them with care. As my father used to say, “Fucks don’t grow on trees, Mark.” OK, he never actually said that. But fuck it, pretend like he did. The point is that fucks have to be earned and then invested wisely. Fucks are cultivated like a beautiful fucking garden, where if you fuck shit up and the fucks get fucked, then you’ve fucking fucked your fucks all the fuck up.
SUBTLETY #3: WE ALL HAVE A LIMITED NUMBER OF FUCKS TO GIVE; PAY ATTENTION TO WHERE AND WHO YOU GIVE THEM TO
When we’re young, we have tons of energy. Everything is new and exciting. And everything seems to matter so much. Therefore, we give tons of fucks. We give a fuck about everything and everyone — about what people are saying about us, about whether that cute boy/girl called us back or not, about whether our socks match or not or what color our birthday balloon is.
As we get older, we gain experience and begin to notice that most of these things have little lasting impact on our lives. Those people’s opinions we cared about so much before have long been removed from our lives. We’ve found the love we need and so those embarrassing romantic rejections cease to mean much anymore. We realize how little people pay attention to the superficial details about us and we focus on doing things more for ourselves rather than for others.
Essentially, we become more selective about the fucks we’re willing to give. This is something called ‘maturity.’ It’s nice, you should try it sometime. Maturity is what happens when one learns to only give a fuck about what’s truly fuckworthy. As Bunk Moreland said in The Wire (which, fuck you, I still downloaded it) to his partner Detective McNulty: “That’s what you get for giving a fuck when it wasn’t your turn to give a fuck.”
Then, as we grow older and enter middle age, something else begins to change. Our energy levels drop. Our identities solidify. We know who we are and we no longer have a desire to change what now seems inevitable in our lives.
And in a strange way, this is liberating. We no longer need to give a fuck about everything. Life is just what it is. We accept it, warts and all. We realize that we’re never going to cure cancer or go to the moon or feel Jennifer Aniston’s tits. And that’s OK. Life fucking goes on. We now reserve our ever-dwindling fucks only for the most truly fuckworthy parts of our lives: our families, our best friends, our golf swing. And to our astonishment, this is enough. This simplification actually makes us really fucking happy.
Then somehow, one day, much later, we wake up and we’re old. And along with our gum lines and our sex drive, our ability to give a fuck has receded to the point of non-existence. In the twilight of our days, we carry out a paradoxical existence where we no longer have the energy to give a fuck about the big things in life, and instead we must dedicate the few fucks we have left to the simple and mundane yet increasingly difficult aspects of our lives: where to eat lunch, doctors appointments for our creaky joints, 30-cent discounts at the supermarket, and driving without drifting to sleep and killing a parking lot full of orphans. You know, practical concerns.
Then one day, on our deathbed, (hopefully) surrounded by the people we gave the majority of our fucks to throughout our life, and those few who still give a fuck about us, with a silent gasp we will gently let our last fuck go. Through the tears and the gently fading beeps of the heart monitor and the ever-dimming fluorescence encapsulating us in its divine hospital halo, we drift into some unknowable and unfuckable place.
Quote of the Times;
“The only time goodbye is painful is when you know you will never say hello again.”
Link of the Times;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-gfxjAaZg0
Manson?
Sanctuary?
Mr. Clemens was vacationing on a riverboat casino on the Mississippi with his wife. By the second day, they were already fighting.
"Your dresses are too tight," he screamed. "You look like a tramp!"
"Oh," she replied, "You want to see me in something long and flowing?!?"
So he pushed her into the river.
*.*
Oneliners:
I just realized capslock can be an anagram for cockslap. Which makes me wonder if that's how should feel after getting "yelled" at on the internet.
Are Kinder Egg toy-pods yellow to represent the yolk of an egg?
Why is popcorn the only present tense food? Shouldn't it be called popped corn?
If you take a piece of bread and put it in between another two pieces of bread is it a bread sandwich or a loaf of bread?
*.*
I was trying to get my seventh-grade history class to understand how the Indians must have felt when they first encountered the Spanish explorers. "How would you feel," I asked, "if someone showed up on your doorstep who looked very different, spoke a strange language and wore unusual clothes? Wouldn't you be a bit scared?"
"Nah," one boy answered, "I'd just figure it was my sister's date."
*.*
Coast Guard Under Fire For Saving Too Many Straight White Males
PORTSMOUTH, N.H. — For some people, it looked like the Coast Guard was having a good year: 200 lives saved, more than 3,800 lives assisted and roughly $5.3 million in property saved. That is until independent blogger Caden Dakota pointed out the Coast Guard’s fatal flaw: The service mostly saved straight white males.
Dakota, a social activist and professional tweeter, launched his critique on Twitter by pointing out that he was triggered by a recent report showing that that there weren’t enough LGBTQ rescues.
“The Coast Guard didn’t save a single gay person in 2016 #WhiteGuard,” he tweeted. He also mentioned that the Coast Guard’s use of the phrase “man overboard” was extremely sexist.
The man’s critique came after the Coast Guard released its annual report on lives saved and property assisted, highlighting a number of times when guardsmen have put themselves in grave danger to assist the public in times of desperate need.
Dakota was troubled by the report, however, in which he found some startling trends.
“So no transgendered Asians were saved while fishing for lobster in New England?” Dakota wrote on Twitter. “Sorry this doesn’t sound like our modern society. #equality #gaylobsters.”
According to the Coast Guard’s report, multiple women and Hispanic males have been saved throughout the year. However they’re in the minority and are not millennials, Dakota explained.
Still, Dakota isn’t the first to criticize the Coast Guard. The website Jezebel also complained recently that white male culture is to blame for the service’s problems. Even after a Coast Guard spokesman pointed out that the service had little control over what gender or sexual orientation could be saved, the website called it a typical “mansplaining response.”
When asked for comment, Coast Guard spokeswoman Cmdr. Jennifer Robinson explained that the main demographic for search and rescue cases is “get me the fuck out of this job.”
*.*
I'll bet the first thing some pets
do when they arrive at animal heaven
is ask for their testicles back.
Issue of the Times;
Why Sanctuary Cities Encourage Illegal Immigration by James W. Lucas
Numerous cities have declared themselves to be “sanctuary cities,” where local police are forbidden to cooperate with federal immigration authorities in enforcing our national immigration laws. Legislation is now moving through the California legislature to implement such a policy throughout that entire state. Why this energy to protect violators of our laws? Oddly, the answer goes back to the founding. Due to a residue of the notorious three-fifth compromise, sanctuary cities encourage illegal immigration because undocumented residents (to use the politically correct term) are counted in determining representation in the House of Representatives and state legislatures. The more undocumented a city has, the more seats it gets.
When the Framers were deciding how to apportion the House of Representatives, the southern states wanted to count slaves and the northern states wanted to only count free citizen residents. They compromised by counting three-fifths of the non-free population. To implement this, the House is apportioned on the basis of the gross total population rather than the citizen population. As illegal immigration was not a great issue in 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment simply carried forward this practice. As a result, the Census Bureau explicitly includes both legal non-citizen and undocumented residents in the census.
In our era of historically high immigration, this has a major impact on legislative apportionment because these immigrants are very unevenly distributed. The Census Bureau estimates that the proportion of non-citizen population in the states varies from 14% in California to less than 1% in West Virginia. This has a direct impact on the states’ political power. California, on its way to becoming the first sanctuary state, has five or six more members of the House (and consequently Electoral College votes) counting its non-citizen population than if House seats and Electoral College votes were based on only citizen population. No wonder California politicians favor illegal immigration.
This disparity can be even more pronounced within states. In my new book Fifty States, Not Six I show how New York City has ten or more seats in the 150 member Assembly (the lower house of the New York State legislature) counting non-citizens than it would if apportionment were based on the citizen population. This is true across the Nation, where immigrants tend to concentrate in urban areas, which generally are the areas which have declared themselves sanctuary cities.
For example, according to the Census Bureau estimates 7.4% of Illinois residents overall are non-citizens. However, in Cook County (Chicago) non-citizens are 11% of the population, which is 61.5% of Illinois’ total non-citizen population. Without Cook County, Illinois’ non-citizen population would be only 4.8%. This difference corresponds to about five seats in the Illinois House of Representatives, which would go to other parts of the state if apportionment was based on the citizen population. On a national level, this also means that Cook County probably has one more seat in the federal House of Representatives than it would if only citizens were counted. That is a seat which would otherwise go to downstate Illinois or to suburban areas.
If you ask what difference one seat in Congress could make, consider Representative Luis Gutierrez’ grotesquely gerrymandered Illinois 4th district. Congressman Gutierrez’ core constituency appears to be undocumented aliens. If you ever wondered how a member of Congress could be elected when his prime constituency supposedly cannot vote, now you understand. If apportionment were based on the citizen population, it is doubtful that the 4th district would survive, and Congressman Gutierrez would have to face a constituency of native-born African-American citizens for whom amnesty for undocumented aliens is not the highest priority.
Of course, sanctuary city politicians claim that their policies are based on compassion for the stranger. However, if they really cared about poor people, one wonders why they promote flooding our Nation with low-skilled workers who deprive the native-born poor of all races of wages and opportunities. The more logical explanation is the desire to increase the size of the low-skilled, welfare-dependent electorate. Many believe that these non-citizens are being allowed to vote right now. However, even if this is not true, it is undeniable that non-citizen residents are increasing the representation of sanctuary cities in Congress and state legislatures.
So, what do we do about this? The surest solution is to amend the Constitution to apportion on the basis of the citizen population rather than the gross population. I propose such an amendment in Fifty States, Not Six. (By allocating electoral votes proportionately, the amendment would also permanently eliminate the Democrat ‘blue wall.’)
However, our Constitution is the most difficult to amend in the world. A fallback position relates to the Census. Although the federal constitution is an impediment for the federal House of Representatives, states arguably could apportion their legislatures based on citizen rather than gross population. However, states rely on the federal census to do their apportionment, and the federal census only counts the gross population. The 2020 census is not so far away. Congress should pass a law providing that the 2020 census count the citizen population as well as the gross population. This way states wishing to apportion based on the citizen population would have the information to do so. In addition, the results of these parallel counts would illuminate the selfish motives of sanctuary cities, and build support for a constitutional solution.
Our country should be governed equally by all of its citizens. However, by encouraging illegal immigration, sanctuary cities are showing yet again their belief in the old leftist principle that some are more equal than others.
Quote of the Times;
“If others don’t see the pink elephant in the room, and you do, the elephant isn’t there. Look for that pattern. Once you see it, you’re awake.”
Link of the Times;
http://fredoneverything.org/notes-for-a-white-kid-in-universityan-introduction-to-the-blindingly-obvious/
"Your dresses are too tight," he screamed. "You look like a tramp!"
"Oh," she replied, "You want to see me in something long and flowing?!?"
So he pushed her into the river.
*.*
Oneliners:
I just realized capslock can be an anagram for cockslap. Which makes me wonder if that's how should feel after getting "yelled" at on the internet.
Are Kinder Egg toy-pods yellow to represent the yolk of an egg?
Why is popcorn the only present tense food? Shouldn't it be called popped corn?
If you take a piece of bread and put it in between another two pieces of bread is it a bread sandwich or a loaf of bread?
*.*
I was trying to get my seventh-grade history class to understand how the Indians must have felt when they first encountered the Spanish explorers. "How would you feel," I asked, "if someone showed up on your doorstep who looked very different, spoke a strange language and wore unusual clothes? Wouldn't you be a bit scared?"
"Nah," one boy answered, "I'd just figure it was my sister's date."
*.*
Coast Guard Under Fire For Saving Too Many Straight White Males
PORTSMOUTH, N.H. — For some people, it looked like the Coast Guard was having a good year: 200 lives saved, more than 3,800 lives assisted and roughly $5.3 million in property saved. That is until independent blogger Caden Dakota pointed out the Coast Guard’s fatal flaw: The service mostly saved straight white males.
Dakota, a social activist and professional tweeter, launched his critique on Twitter by pointing out that he was triggered by a recent report showing that that there weren’t enough LGBTQ rescues.
“The Coast Guard didn’t save a single gay person in 2016 #WhiteGuard,” he tweeted. He also mentioned that the Coast Guard’s use of the phrase “man overboard” was extremely sexist.
The man’s critique came after the Coast Guard released its annual report on lives saved and property assisted, highlighting a number of times when guardsmen have put themselves in grave danger to assist the public in times of desperate need.
Dakota was troubled by the report, however, in which he found some startling trends.
“So no transgendered Asians were saved while fishing for lobster in New England?” Dakota wrote on Twitter. “Sorry this doesn’t sound like our modern society. #equality #gaylobsters.”
According to the Coast Guard’s report, multiple women and Hispanic males have been saved throughout the year. However they’re in the minority and are not millennials, Dakota explained.
Still, Dakota isn’t the first to criticize the Coast Guard. The website Jezebel also complained recently that white male culture is to blame for the service’s problems. Even after a Coast Guard spokesman pointed out that the service had little control over what gender or sexual orientation could be saved, the website called it a typical “mansplaining response.”
When asked for comment, Coast Guard spokeswoman Cmdr. Jennifer Robinson explained that the main demographic for search and rescue cases is “get me the fuck out of this job.”
*.*
I'll bet the first thing some pets
do when they arrive at animal heaven
is ask for their testicles back.
Issue of the Times;
Why Sanctuary Cities Encourage Illegal Immigration by James W. Lucas
Numerous cities have declared themselves to be “sanctuary cities,” where local police are forbidden to cooperate with federal immigration authorities in enforcing our national immigration laws. Legislation is now moving through the California legislature to implement such a policy throughout that entire state. Why this energy to protect violators of our laws? Oddly, the answer goes back to the founding. Due to a residue of the notorious three-fifth compromise, sanctuary cities encourage illegal immigration because undocumented residents (to use the politically correct term) are counted in determining representation in the House of Representatives and state legislatures. The more undocumented a city has, the more seats it gets.
When the Framers were deciding how to apportion the House of Representatives, the southern states wanted to count slaves and the northern states wanted to only count free citizen residents. They compromised by counting three-fifths of the non-free population. To implement this, the House is apportioned on the basis of the gross total population rather than the citizen population. As illegal immigration was not a great issue in 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment simply carried forward this practice. As a result, the Census Bureau explicitly includes both legal non-citizen and undocumented residents in the census.
In our era of historically high immigration, this has a major impact on legislative apportionment because these immigrants are very unevenly distributed. The Census Bureau estimates that the proportion of non-citizen population in the states varies from 14% in California to less than 1% in West Virginia. This has a direct impact on the states’ political power. California, on its way to becoming the first sanctuary state, has five or six more members of the House (and consequently Electoral College votes) counting its non-citizen population than if House seats and Electoral College votes were based on only citizen population. No wonder California politicians favor illegal immigration.
This disparity can be even more pronounced within states. In my new book Fifty States, Not Six I show how New York City has ten or more seats in the 150 member Assembly (the lower house of the New York State legislature) counting non-citizens than it would if apportionment were based on the citizen population. This is true across the Nation, where immigrants tend to concentrate in urban areas, which generally are the areas which have declared themselves sanctuary cities.
For example, according to the Census Bureau estimates 7.4% of Illinois residents overall are non-citizens. However, in Cook County (Chicago) non-citizens are 11% of the population, which is 61.5% of Illinois’ total non-citizen population. Without Cook County, Illinois’ non-citizen population would be only 4.8%. This difference corresponds to about five seats in the Illinois House of Representatives, which would go to other parts of the state if apportionment was based on the citizen population. On a national level, this also means that Cook County probably has one more seat in the federal House of Representatives than it would if only citizens were counted. That is a seat which would otherwise go to downstate Illinois or to suburban areas.
If you ask what difference one seat in Congress could make, consider Representative Luis Gutierrez’ grotesquely gerrymandered Illinois 4th district. Congressman Gutierrez’ core constituency appears to be undocumented aliens. If you ever wondered how a member of Congress could be elected when his prime constituency supposedly cannot vote, now you understand. If apportionment were based on the citizen population, it is doubtful that the 4th district would survive, and Congressman Gutierrez would have to face a constituency of native-born African-American citizens for whom amnesty for undocumented aliens is not the highest priority.
Of course, sanctuary city politicians claim that their policies are based on compassion for the stranger. However, if they really cared about poor people, one wonders why they promote flooding our Nation with low-skilled workers who deprive the native-born poor of all races of wages and opportunities. The more logical explanation is the desire to increase the size of the low-skilled, welfare-dependent electorate. Many believe that these non-citizens are being allowed to vote right now. However, even if this is not true, it is undeniable that non-citizen residents are increasing the representation of sanctuary cities in Congress and state legislatures.
So, what do we do about this? The surest solution is to amend the Constitution to apportion on the basis of the citizen population rather than the gross population. I propose such an amendment in Fifty States, Not Six. (By allocating electoral votes proportionately, the amendment would also permanently eliminate the Democrat ‘blue wall.’)
However, our Constitution is the most difficult to amend in the world. A fallback position relates to the Census. Although the federal constitution is an impediment for the federal House of Representatives, states arguably could apportion their legislatures based on citizen rather than gross population. However, states rely on the federal census to do their apportionment, and the federal census only counts the gross population. The 2020 census is not so far away. Congress should pass a law providing that the 2020 census count the citizen population as well as the gross population. This way states wishing to apportion based on the citizen population would have the information to do so. In addition, the results of these parallel counts would illuminate the selfish motives of sanctuary cities, and build support for a constitutional solution.
Our country should be governed equally by all of its citizens. However, by encouraging illegal immigration, sanctuary cities are showing yet again their belief in the old leftist principle that some are more equal than others.
Quote of the Times;
“If others don’t see the pink elephant in the room, and you do, the elephant isn’t there. Look for that pattern. Once you see it, you’re awake.”
Link of the Times;
http://fredoneverything.org/notes-for-a-white-kid-in-universityan-introduction-to-the-blindingly-obvious/
Smartphones?
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:
SLOW: NUDIST COLONY.
*.*
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?
ATTENTION POLLUTION
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.
THE FUTURE
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;
https://boredomtherapy.com/
"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:
SLOW: NUDIST COLONY.
*.*
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?
ATTENTION POLLUTION
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.
THE FUTURE
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;
https://boredomtherapy.com/
Laws?
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 .....me.
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 what....you 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;
http://www.flashgitz.net/
"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 .....me.
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 what....you 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;
http://www.flashgitz.net/
Love?
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
*.*
Oneliners:
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.
THREE HARSH TRUTHS ABOUT LOVE
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.
THE FRIENDSHIP TEST
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;
https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/
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
*.*
Oneliners:
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.
THREE HARSH TRUTHS ABOUT LOVE
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.
THE FRIENDSHIP TEST
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;
https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/
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.
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.