Daily Pics, My Comic, and The Times
the Daily
the Comic
the Blog
A golfer hit his drive on the first hole 300 yards right down the middle.

When it came down, however, it hit a sprinkler and the ball went sideways into the woods. He was angry, but he went into the woods and hit a very hard 2 iron which hit a tree and bounced back straight at him. It hit him in the temple and killed him.

He was at the Pearly Gates and St. Peter looked at the big book and said, "I see you were a golfer, is that correct?"

"Yes, I am," he replied.

St Peter then said, "Do you hit the ball a long way?"

The golfer replied, "You bet. After all, I got here in 2, didn't I?"


A man approached a local in a village he was visiting. "What's the quickest way to York?"

The local scratched his head.

"Are you walking or driving?" he asked the stranger.

"I'm driving."

"That's the quickest way!"


BOSTON, MA—A local university professor began his World History class in earnest this week with a trigger warning for his socialist students, in case any of them might get an anxiety attack at socialism’s bleak, deadly record.

The professor warned students that the conception of socialism they gained through social media is a far cry from the death and destruction wreaked by the economic system throughout the globe in the 20th century.

“Now, just in case there are any socialists in here, I warn you: socialism’s history isn’t pretty,” he said calmly. “If you need to excuse yourselves from class while we talk about socialism’s low standards of living, rampant starvation, and high mortality rate, please feel free.”

“This might get uncomfortable,” he added.

The professor also offered alternate make-up work students could perform instead of learning about socialism’s high failure rate, such as drawing pictures of unicorns and playing with puppies. “If it helps ease your mind and calm you to do something like play with a yo-yo, hacky-sack, or whatever else you kids are into these days, knock yourselves out.”

All but two of his students excused themselves, according to sources.


While redecorating, I realized my wife and I have drastically different tastes in furniture.

She wanted to keep only the pieces that reflected the French provincial theme she was creating.

I wanted to keep all the stuff we'd had sex on.


I was going to sue my neurosurgeon.

But he changed my mind.

Issue of the Times;
That'll Be Enough by Karl Denninger

Let me make a few observations.

First, eight years ago, and again four years ago, America elected a President. Fully half, give or take a couple of percent, disagreed with the outcome.

There were exactly zero riots, fires, "mass protests" and similar following that outcome despite the fact that half the population vehemently disagreed with it.

This time around, not so much.

Now I want you think very carefully about the following.

Most of the land mass of this nation is owned and resided upon by people who are in "red" (that is, the winner this time) areas of the country. With the exception of certain urban centers and right along the Mexican/Texas border there are very few "solid" blue areas.

Those urban centers consume roughly 90% of the energy and food in this country yet they comprise 5-10% of the land mass. The "red" areas produce 95% of the food and energy this nation consumes and occupies 90-95% of the land mass.

Do you really think that doing something like eliminating the last pieces of the structure our founding fathers put in place to prevent tyranny of the majority from being able to take hold is a good idea?

A little history lesson: Prior to the 17th Amendment ratified in 1913 it was impossible for the Federal Government to shove any program down the throats of the 50 states. That's because the state legislatures had effective control of the Senate and could recall their Senators.

The House was elected by the people, the Senate was elected by The State Legislatures (and could be recalled by same) and The President was elected by the Electors, which were voted for in the popular vote.

The latter provides a modest but real increase in the representation of "flyover" states; that is, those with lower population counts. In other words it is a check and balance in the ultimate tyranny of democracy.

Yes, I said democracy is ultimately tyrannical - because it is.

America is not a Democracy. It is a Constitutional Republic. This is very important; in a democracy 50%+1 can render the 50%-1 slaves by mere vote. Those who are in the minority in a democracy have no rights at all. Democracy is best represented by two wolves and a
sheep voting on what's for dinner.

We are all minorities in some form or fashion. If you're gay, black, yellow, male, female, whatever -- all it takes is some other set of groups to get together and decide to oppress you, and in a democracy you're ****ed.

America's founding fathers put in place two systems to prevent this. The first was the bicameral legislature; a House elected by the people at large and a Senate elected by the State legislators. This structure guaranteed that a landmass that amassed 50%+1 of the
population (not even in the same state or states!) could not band together and shove down the throat of the States any policy measure because you needed the concurrence of more than half the state legislatures, where each were delegated but two votes to their Senators who were accountable to said legislature, to pass anything at all.

This evaporated with the passage of the 17th Amendment. Now you only needed 50%+1 of the people in a given state to pass anything you wanted and they could all live in a tiny percentage of the land mass -- such as is the case with Illinois where more than half the population lives in the immediate area of Chicago.

What came right after that? Prohibition, shoved down the throat of the States, less than 7 years later!

What also came after it was an unbridled expansion of the Federal Government into state affairs. Indeed, virtually everything became a "legitimate" federal matter. Why? Because it was impossible for the States to prevent it.

Do you think the founders were wrong to do what they did, and the 17th Amendment corrected that?

If you believe so then please consider this.

Ever drive through small town America?

Hell, how about "not-so-small-town" America?

Many of these towns look like something out of a WWI or WWII European war movie. There was one factory or maybe two, but now it sits empty, weeds growing out of the parking lot as high as your head, all the windows are broken out and the roof has caved in. Over on the outskirts there's a Walmart that pays $9/hour, but only offers 20 hours/week. The factory paid $30/hour, full-time, plus benefits and food, power, medicine and beer cost half of what it does now. 90% of what formerly were little diners and shops in the "center" of the town, which might have one actual traffic light, are gone -- boarded up and often literally falling apart. There might be one bank left, a branch of a big national chain, and maybe an antique store. Maybe. All the factory jobs left for China and Mexico and everything else died when the middle-class incomes to support them disappeared. We did that as a nation with our "progressive" and "global" agenda driven by the 50%+1 that live in the closest big city 200 miles away.

The locals who used to work in the fields within 10 or 20 miles from that town are all unemployed too. Why? Because the illegal Mexicans came and we refused to throw them out. They work for a few bucks a day in cash, no taxes, no unemployment, no nothing. No
American can live on that; the embedded cost of just trying to stay alive would leave you with zero. But the Mexicans work hard and then sleep 10 to a single-room apartment, which incidentally is a total ****hole as you'd expect given that density of occupation. They don't care; it's better than what they had in Mexico, you see, and they can Western Union home some of the money. This is the face of "immigration", mostly illegal, that really exists in this country. They brought their third-world ****hole here and while it's a little bit better than what they had in the process of doing it they dragged us into the gutter with them.

The people who lived in that town did and most who are still there do go to church every weekend, and some go again during the week, usually on Wednesday. There's usually one, sometimes two churches. Every one of them has the word "God" or "Christ" in the name on
the front. They mean it when it comes to their faith and in addition that's where all the local people shake hands, exchange chit-chat on the last week and, for younger people, it's where they meet one another. You know, girls and boys. Yeah. Faith is real there, you see, and it's Christian. But from your point of view that's deplorable and that "those people" don't like the idea of making a wedding cake for a gay marriage is deserving of a federal lawsuit and loss of the bakery (which is, as a result, now closed -- putting yet more people out of work.) The people who live in these towns don't see your point of view as a civil rights matter but rather as attacking God.

What was left after the factory was displaced isn't enough to run a "service economy", which is why it never showed up there and the old business buildings are all boarded up. Nobody can afford $8 lattes on a $9/hour wage for 20 hours a week and nobody would want them if they could. There's probably a McDonalds on the outskirts, and a couple of self-serve gas stations with a convenience store. It sells cheap beer and lots of it to the locals who have nothing to do but drink and then go to church and pray for forgiveness for last night's 12 pack. None of the jobs at any of these places, except maybe the store manager, makes more than $9/hour and Obamacare has forced all the regular workers down to 20 hours a week on top of it. Try living on $180/week gross sometime -- before FICA and Medicare is taken out, never mind gas for the car and the rapidly-escalating car insurance bill -- and you might understand. Yes, I know the car is 15 years old and runs like crap. What do you expect on under $1,000/month of income?

This is what 40 years of sending jobs overseas with "trade deals" did. It's what Amazon did. It's what Walmart and its Chinese supply line did. It's what "progressive America" did, and then to add insult to injury the teachers in the public schools tell all the kids that Mommy and Daddy are bad people and hate both the planet and their own kids because they don't drive a $30,000 Prius or a $60,000 Tesla.

This is everywhere in rural America. Get in your car and out of your comfort zone some time and you'll see it. It's not far from wherever you are. I've driven through dozens of these formerly-alive places in the last six months -- every one of them dead today, but full of real people. I never met one such person that was a racist, xenophobic *******, but they're not very happy, and the people they're unhappy with are those very same folks you wanted to keep in office in Washington DC.

If you think the destruction of small town America is confined to farms you forget the other half -- energy. Would you like your lights to work? Many of those small towns are dead because of the insanity of our energy policy -- or lack thereof, tied to left-wing whackjob nonsense.

Now you want to add insult to injury when they show up to vote, exactly as civics tells them we have a right to do, and a large number of you in the cities did not show up.

They bought into the message of bringing American jobs back to America and ejecting those who have no right to be here. You call them xenophobic, racist and small-minded -- they call it a shot at decent employment for the first time in 30 years.

They believe in the Henry Ford model of American business, and they're not wrong to do so. Make the product here, pay the people well enough to be able to afford it, and you'll do just fine.

They win the election, in short, and you lose.

Then you decide to be a sore loser and loot, burn, beat people, issue threats, cry, whine on social media and try to obstruct everything by any means possible -- legal or not. You bus people in to "protest" and riot, you "petition", you raise hell in short - oh, and all this after you implored the other side to "respect the outcome of the election" and lambasted them for suggesting they
might want to merely count the ballots twice!

Note again, as I pointed out above, that eight years ago, and four years ago, these very same people were on the losing end of your stick exactly as they had been for the previous three decades yet they did none of the above. They understand duplicity and your double-standard quite well, seeing as they did the honorable thing and respected the outcome twice in a row despite getting screwed sequentially both times. The only thing your brand of government offered them in the end was Medicaid or worthless "health insurance" through the exchange; the former has no doctors that accept it within 20 miles and the latter has a $5,000 deductible before it pays anything, which is utterly laughable when you consider these folks have a gross wage of under $1,000 a month.

Now the question: Are you prepared for the possibility they might decide en-masse that they're done with this crap - and with you?

That they're not going to take it any more?

What if the people who live in the "red" areas, that is, those who produce the food and energy that are consumed to the 90th percentile in the "blue" areas, decide they're not going to do that for the blue areas any more? What if their middle finger goes up, in short?

Remember, we allegedly do not permit slavery in this country any more -- which means that which someone owns they have the right to sell - or not sell. They have the right to produce - or, more to the point, not produce.

What if the people who peacefully conceded the result of two elections over the last eight years despite vehemently opposing the outcome decide that if the "blue" folks can riot, loot, beat people who vote the "wrong way" and similar they will not accept any further election result that doesn't go their way, and instead of rioting or burning things they will simply shut off the flow of food and energy to said "blue" areas? After all, you don't value them at all -- you consider them subhuman, racist, xenophobic, deplorable and irredeemable -- all at once.

I'll tell you what happens if they take that decision: Every major city in the country would go feral within hours.

Within days those cities would not be blue, they'd be blackened and reduced to ash as those very same "protesters" you like so much loot, burn and shoot at each other trying to get the last scraps of food and fuel remaining. They would then probably try to come out of the cities and take by force what had been denied them, only to run into a major problem - the "red guys" have more guns, they know the land because they live there, and more importantly they actually hit what they aim at, having had plenty of practice feeding their families with deer, wild boar and similar. Mr. Gang Banger against Mr. Deer Hunter isn't a very fair fight, when you get down to it.

Oh by the way there's a phrase for what this would mean, if you haven't figured it out by now: Civil War.

Is that what you want?

It's where your actions are headed, if you keep doing what you're doing -- and nobody knows exactly where the tipping point is.

Better think long and hard, those of you in the "blue" places who are running this crap. You do not have a snowball's chance in Hell of being able to grow enough in the way of crops on the landmass you control to feed a tenth of your population and every squirrel in your trees would be shot dead and eaten within an hour after this began. Silent spring indeed. Never mind the fact that most of you "wonderful snowflakes" couldn't shoot, skin, butcher and cook a deer -- or even a squirrel -- if you had to. Never mind that a good 80% of you couldn't manage to run one mile if you were being chased by someone interested in eating you.

The day that cellophane-wrapped chicken stops showing up in the grocery store is literally the day 90% of Blue America starves.

Nobody in their right mind wants such an outcome. But where do you think this all goes if you keep it up, eh?

Every bit of it has been enabled by the 17th Amendment and tyranny of the majority - a tyranny you wish to increase by doing things such as abolishing the Electoral College.

There's a very good reason our founding fathers designed a Constitutional Republic instead of a Democracy. They understand the problem with democracy: It doesn't work. Democracy always ends up leading to riots and civil war, because exactly what the blue folks are doing now escalates until everyone starts shooting everyone.

A Constitutional Republic avoids this outcome because even a very large majority cannot infringe the rights of everyone else - even when the majority lives in big, concentrated places like cities.

That was the magic sauce of the original design in our legislature and Presidency. It's why we have an Electoral College -- to provide a bit of "overweighting" to those places that are utterly crucial to the cohesiveness and survival of the nation as a functional republic -- that is, a bit more balance against tyranny of the majority of 50%+1.

We got rid of the biggest check and balance with the 17th Amendment and I have, for decades, maintained that whenever America finally is declared dead and done, and the book is closed, that will be written in as the reason our nation's political system failed. It's the only Amendment we cannot reasonably repeal, because to do so would require the sitting Senate to vote itself out of a job. I'm sure you can figure out how likely that is.

But we can avoid doing more violence to our Constitution -- and we had better, or the outcome, given the annals of history available to anyone who cares to look, is quite certain. If you want to see how this turns out should you keep pressing the issue go have a look at the map of how many states Trump won .vs. Clinton, or how the county-by-county map looks. You'll see a lot more red of various shades
than you will blue.

The bottom line? Go ahead and be a sore loser. Go ahead and whine. Go ahead and try to change what our representative process led to. Go ahead and decide to loot, burn and beat. Refuse to accept the result of the election, if you insist. Hell, go ahead and try to threaten or even bribe the electors! Make sure you tear down the last little bit of foundation and structure inherent in the design of the legislature and executive of the United States. Who needs it; it's all in the name of being "progressive", right -- even if when counted by landmass, counties or states the election was a landslide for Trump.

Just don't be surprised, if you keep it up, that at some point, given that you're utterly reliant on those you're abusing for the basics of life -- the loaf of bread, the gallon of gasoline, the electricity that powers your lights -- they decide they've had enough. That day your supply of cellophane-wrapped meat and plastic bag full of bread disappears like a fart in the wind. There comes a time when those who you've put the boot to for so long, and then try to deny the ability to change things peacefully through the representative process our founding fathers gave us, decide that despite their religious beliefs and good manners they're not going to service you on their knees any more.

Don't be dumb enough to think you can keep doing what you've been doing forever because you can't and if you go too far there will be no warning, no second chances and no saying you're sorry. It'll just happen starting with one final stupid act -- and then we all lose.

Quote of the Times;
Giving offense is a viewpoint. - Alito

Link of the Times;
I don't think I would ever steal bread, even if my family were starving.

Not for any moral reason.

Simply because I wouldn't want to risk having to admit on any future job applications that I was once arrested for pinching a loaf.


Every time the man next door headed toward Robert's house, Robert knew he was coming to borrow something.

"He won't get away with it this time," muttered Robert to his wife. "Watch this."

"Er, I wonder if you'd be using your power-saw this morning," the neighbor began.

"Gee, I'm awfully sorry," said Robert with a smug look, "but the fact of the matter is, I'll be using it all day."

"In that case," said the neighbor, "you won't be using your golf clubs, mind if I borrow them?"


The new Apple watch has a function that detects when the wearer has fallen.

Which has the folks over at First Alert shaking in their walkers.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Air Force has been acting out at school recently, Duffel Blog has learned.

“I think the little tyke is just anxious about the arrival of the newest little bundle of death and destruction,” said a radiant Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, referring to the U.S. Space Force. “It’s normal for kids their age to be jealous when they have to share dominance of the aerial battle space.”

The service allegedly broke several of its airplanes in a tantrum after hearing President Trump’s announcement last month. Reports indicate that the organization has also begun a phase of emotional regression, marked by a fixation on strategic bombing theory and intercepting Soviet missiles.

Historical records show that a postwar Army struggled similarly when Air Force was born.

“I felt threatened at first,” said Army, “But there are those moments that make you proud to be an older brother, like his first home run in a foreign air war or when he tries to act like you by dressing in OCP ACUs.”

Mattis says that he plans to heavily involve Air Force in making preparations for its baby brother like picking out uniforms, setting up the bases, and maybe even sharing an enlisted rank structure.

“You’ve got to be honest with them,” Mattis continued, “Let them know that you just can’t give them the attention and funding you used to, but that doesn’t mean you’ll love them any less.”


In Tacoma, a man shot himself in the leg at a Chuck E. Cheese restaurant.

What some people won't do to get out of a kid's party.

Issue of the Times;
The Heroic Benedict Arnold by Andrew S. Fischer

The most important element in the triumph of the American colonies in their attempt to break free from Britain was their alliance with France. Britain’s historic enemy, France provided men, matériel and a distraction far more immediate and important than the annoying, insolent colonists across the Atlantic Ocean. This indispensable alliance with France can be traced back to the delaying actions on Lake Champlain in 1776 and the stunning victory over the British at Saratoga in 1777, and these military successes can be traced back to one man—Benedict Arnold.

These and Arnold’s earlier efforts at Fort Ticonderoga, his March to Quebec and various other patriotic deeds reveal nothing so much as a willing, sincere, gung-ho warrior for liberty willing to risk everything for his nascent country. He went beyond the call of duty to engage the British at Ridgefield and cleverly scared away the British besieging Fort Stanwix, not to mention his other, less significant actions and his talent for recruiting and inspiring citizens to gamble their very lives for liberty.

When viewed in total, Benedict Arnold’s accomplishments are nothing short of remarkable. It is this writer’s opinion that no single man save Washington did more for the rebellion, or was a more important factor in its success.

Why, then, is his name so instantly reviled, even today? “Because he turned traitor!” most people will knee-jerkingly say. More educated folks might add that “he tried to turn West Point over to the British—and for money!” While those might be the facts, they demand the question: why? Why did Arnold—idolized by the men under his various commands and venerated by the public as a hero in 1777—why did he switch sides and become the most hated man in the colonies by the autumn of 1780?

The answer is not as simple as “he did it for money” or “he wanted to be on (he thought) the winning side” or “he had no character.” That is the stuff of grade school teachers who lack the knowledge or time to explore the subject. No, the reasons for Arnold’s betrayal are not so facile.

A Difficult Childhood

Here was a man who had a somewhat traumatic childhood. Born in 1741 to a respectable and prosperous Norwich, Connecticut family, Arnold would lose four of five siblings to disease by his early teens, and both parents by the time he reached twenty years of age. His father (also named Benedict), a prosperous seafaring merchant, undoubtedly became depressed over the losses; his business dealings fell on bad times, as well, and he soon become the town drunk and laughingstock. The family homestead was sold to satisfy some of the family’s many debts, and the young Benedict felt humiliated by what he perceived as unfair and unwarranted treatment by his neighbors and the townsfolk. Thus, throughout his life Arnold was quick to take offense at any aspersions cast against his family and his own character (insult him and you’d risk being challenged to a duel on the spot) as well as feel outrage against injustice of any sort.

Forced to forgo his planned college education, Arnold was sent to live with industrious and successful relatives. He apprenticed and became an apothecary, occasionally sailing to the West Indies and England to purchase various inventory items. He later opened his own shop in New Haven, selling medications, books and other various and sundry items.

Later, he co-owned a few merchant ships and expanded his business ventures by trading goods between the Caribbean, American colonies and Canada. In the process, he became familiar with the rivers and lakes of New York and New England, which served him well during his later military activities in the northern theater of war. Within a decade he would build himself into one of the most prosperous men in New Haven.

Political Naiveté

By May, 1775, then-colonel Arnold had already made political enemies, starting with Ethan Allen and his cronies during the seizure of Fort Ticonderoga, prevaricators with axes to grind who ran to Congress to tell their distorted versions of events long before Arnold had his chance.

Unfortunately, Arnold had few allies in the Continental Congress, whose members often believed his adversaries’ mendacious tales. Eventually, Arnold became fed up with it. He also attempted to resign his military commission on two occasions due to being unjustly passed over for promotion and the repudiation of his rightful seniority. On top of this, Arnold had to practically beg Congress to reimburse him for money paid out of pocket for supplies and other expenses which were duly owed to him. During his time in the military, Arnold had lost practically everything he owned in the service of the revolution, and he was never even close to being fully compensated by Congress (or later, by the British). Injustice piled upon injustice.

No Kudos and a Ruined Leg

After his stirring performance at Saratoga, he got no credit whatsoever from General Gates, who somehow became the “hero” of the battles despite staying in his tent the whole time and doing nothing of importance. Then Arnold spent five painful months on his back, recuperating from his shattered (almost amputated) leg, doubtless brooding over the many abuses he’d endured. The wounded limb ended up two inches shorter than its companion, and Arnold walked with a pronounced limp the rest of his life.

Disillusioned by all of the above, Arnold sent a letter to George Washington in March, 1778, implying that from then on he would be “looking out for Number One”—placing himself and his personal matters at the top of his list. In June of that year Washington, eager to keep his best fighting general in the war, even if he wasn’t yet fit for combat, appointed Arnold the military governor of Philadelphia, the most populous city in the colonies and their unofficial capital. Clashes with Congress as well as Pennsylvania state government officials soon followed. A major source of conflict was that the latter group wanted to punish loyalists who had consorted with the British while they were in control of the city, whereas Arnold felt that no such vendetta was warranted and he would not allow it.

By the time of his appointment to Philadelphia, Arnold had become seriously unhappy with the war effort. Aside from his concerns of a personal nature, he was distressed by the waning support of the general public, the colonies’ deteriorating currency, dissatisfaction within the army, and above all a Congress of petty, selfish and tyrannical Radical Patriots who had lost sight of the revolution’s very principles and goals. A year later, he concluded that living under an American government would have worse consequences for liberty than under the British, which many believe was his major reason for renouncing the patriot cause.

In May, 1779, Arnold wrote in another letter to Washington, “Having made every sacrifice of fortune and blood, and become a cripple in the service of my country, I little expected to meet the ungrateful returns I have received of my countrymen; but, as Congress have stamped ingratitude as a current coin, I must take it. I wish your Excellency, for your long and eminent services, may not be paid in the same coin.” Arnold sent feelers to the British, offering his services, a few days later. His strong conviction was that the colonies were not yet ready for independence, and that Congress would grant considerably less freedom than the British crown. Negotiations went back and forth for over a year.

I suspect the ultimate blow for Arnold occurred after his court-martial for largely trumped-up and spiteful “transgressions” brought by Pennsylvania’s quasi-governor Joseph Reed. He was cleared of all the accusations except for two minor charges, and Congress instructed George Washington to reprimand Arnold. Washington put off the chastisement for three months, and made it as insignificant as he could, but he issued this statement in April, 1780:

Washington’s Rebuke: the Last Straw?

“The Commander-in-Chief would have been much happier in an occasion of bestowing commendations on an officer who had rendered such distinguished services to his country as Major General Arnold; but in the present case, a sense of duty and a regard to candor oblige him to declare that he considers his conduct [in the convicted actions] as imprudent and improper.”

It was a slap on the wrist, but it is easy to understand Arnold’s dismay. One of the few major players who had always stood by him and appreciated him, who had valued all the efforts and sacrifices he’d made, who had always extolled his accomplishments and contributions—the commander-in-chief himself—even Washington had abandoned him. To Arnold, it was an “Et tu, Brute?” event….

Modern research indicates that about twenty percent of the population at the time was loyalist—faithful to Britain and opposed to the revolution. Certainly many others switched their allegiance back and forth, depending upon which side was currently in power locally. Philadelphia residents were prime examples of this, with many leaning toward the British when they occupied the city and toward the Americans when they were in charge. The country was simply in a state of flux, and one’s loyalties were often modified to help ensure survival. It was a tenuous time.

So why is Benedict Arnold alone remembered so stubbornly as the traitor to the revolutionary cause when there were countless others, including every loyalist? (By the way, every patriot was, ipso facto, a traitor to mother country England. If the revolution had failed, Washington, his high command and the most active founders would certainly have been hanged.)

The Answer

The answer is that Arnold had achieved a towering degree of fame fighting for the patriot cause, second only to Washington. If someone of his military stature and dedication could switch his loyalty to the British, who knew how many ordinary people might follow his example? To nullify the shock and sadness of Arnold’s defection and prevent a massive loss of support for the revolution, Arnold had to be vilified. So he was burned in effigy. Absurd stories were invented about him: he tortured animals as a child, was dangerously reckless and a bully in his youth, considered money his god, consorted with the devil, etc. The proof of this pudding is that the emotions which would have made sense at the time are anxiety and sorrow. In fact, this is what Washington expressed when he learned of Arnold’s defection. “Whom can we trust now?” he cried out.

Yes, Arnold betrayed the revolution (although technically not his country, since it didn’t exist until the Articles of Confederation were ratified in March, 1781). Yes, his plan to turn over the critical fort at West Point, New York (named Fort Arnold until his betrayal, by the way) to the British was worse than merely switching sides.

However, considering all that Arnold accomplished as a patriot during the revolution, considering all the slights, insinuations, accusations and hardships he endured, and considering everything he had honestly earned prior to the conflict which he sacrificed in the service of liberty, I wonder how many of his contemporaries—and how many of us living today—would do other than what Arnold chose to do, which was to reject the rebellion against, and once again pledge allegiance to, his mother country.

(By the way, Arnold the so-called “characterless traitor” published a newspaper piece on October 11th, 1780, explaining his decision, entitled “To the Inhabitants of America.” Also, as a brigadier general in the field for the British, he knew he would be hanged if captured in battle. This was not a man who lacked the courage of his convictions.)

The Most Brilliant Soldier

At the Saratoga National Historical Park in New York, there is a small stone monument behind an iron fence. On its front is a boot, symbolizing Arnold’s left leg which was crushed during the battle. The other side reads, in part:

In Memory of the “most brilliant soldier” of the Continental Army, who was desperately wounded on this spot, the sally port of Burgoyne’s Great Western Redoubt, 7th October, 1777 winning for his countrymen the Decisive Battle of the American Revolution….

Arnold was indeed the most brilliant soldier of the Continental Army. If he hadn’t been injured at Saratoga, he would have likely defeated Burgoyne’s army right then and there, instantly attaining heroic status (no matter what lies Gates might have spun). If he had died at Saratoga, his legacy would have been legendary. In either case, today cities, counties and perhaps even a state would be named after him. Statues of Arnold would be standing in parks nationwide and his monument would be visited by throngs of people in the District of Columbia every day. Paintings of his exploits would be hanging in museums, parents would still be naming their sons Benedict, and tales of his bravery would be told as object lessons to young children. Arnold would be remembered as the second most important and revered figure of the American Revolution. Without him, it would not have succeeded.

Quote of the Times;
There is no such thing as bad weather, only bad equipment.

Link of the Times;
A policeman noticed an old lady standing on a street corner during a sudden windstorm. She was bracing herself by holding a light post with one hand, and she was holding her hat snugly against her head with her other hand.

Unfortunately, a strong gust blew her dress upward, and it continued to flap in the wind, exposing her privates for everyone to see.

The policeman asked, "Hey Lady, everybody is taking a look at what you've got. Don't you think that pulling your dress down is more important than worrying about your hat?"

"Look, sonny,.... What these people are looking at is 85 years old...But this friggin hat is BRAND NEW!"


If you love something, set it free.

If it comes back, it was, and always will be yours.

If it never returns, it was never yours to begin with.

If it just sits in your living room, messes up your stuff, eats your food, takes your money, and never behaves as if you actually set it free in the first place, you either married it or gave birth to it.


WASHINGTON — A new report released by the Department of Veterans Affairs has revealed that some troops who have been shot in the head may suffer mild to severe brain injury in certain cases.

The comprehensive study took chief researcher Dr. Rich Meecham and his team decades to perform, and Meecham says there is a chance the results may impact the disability ratings of a small number of qualified veterans.

“We looked at the data from those troops who have suffered gunshot wounds to the head in the past, and we determined there is at least a moderate chance of those patients suffering some sort of cranial injury,” said Meecham. “This is especially true in those without proper diet and exercise.”

Meecham added that tobacco use and violation of grooming regulations greatly increased the risk of suffering an injury after receiving a bullet in the skull. He and his team pored over hundreds of files and X-ray images to determine just what the side effects of such an injury could be. Their ultimate goal is to establish a set of guidelines for diagnosing and treating gunshot wounds to the head, but they say the project could take decades.

Currently, the only VA-approved treatment is Motrin and hydration.

The study has also looked at previous research that certain at-risk populations of service members who step on IEDs may face potential trauma to their lower extremities.

“The results are inconclusive, but it does appear that stepping on IEDs may lead to foot and leg injuries, and even death,” he added. “Especially if you don’t blouse your boots.”


6:30 is the best time on a clock...

...hands down.


Things that you can trust more than a liberal or their ilk:

• Mexican tap water
• A wolverine with a 'pet me' sign
• A mixed drink made by Bill Cosby
• A straight edge shave from Jodi Arias
• An elevator ride with Ray Rice
• Pete Carroll coaching decisions
• Loch Ness monster sightings
• OJ Simpson showing me his knife collection
• A North Korea "Satellite" launch
• Hilary Clinton's investigation into Benghazi
• Prayers for peace from Al Sharpton
• Gas station Sushi
• Casey Anthony babysitting ads on craigslist
• Bill Clinton's claim he never had inappropriate relationships
• Michael Jackson's Doctor
• DNC's IT department
• A Jeffery Dahmer dinner invitation
• A factory packed parachute
• A Federal Reserve audit
• An Afghan wearing a backpack
• A North Korea trial by jury
• Democrat Congressman Hank Johnson's warning that the island of Guam will capsize.
• A Chinese newspaper
• Electronic Voting Machines
• A business proposition from the Nigerian Minister of Finance
• A week old tuna fish sandwich found on a city bus

Issue of the Times;
He Fights. by Evan Sayet

My Leftist friends (as well as many ardent #Never Trumpers) constantly ask me if I'm not bothered by Donald Trump's lack of decorum.

They ask if I don't think his tweets are "beneath the dignity of the office." Here's my answer: We Right-thinking people have tried dignity. There could not have been a man of more quiet dignity than George W. Bush as he suffered the outrageous lies and politically motivated hatreds that undermined his presidency. We tried statesmanship.

Could there be another human being on this earth who so desperately prized "collegiality" as John McCain? We tried propriety has there been a nicer human being ever than Mitt Romney? And the results were always the same.

This is because, while we were playing by the rules of dignity, collegiality and propriety, the Left has been, for the past 60 years, engaged in a knife fight where the only rules are those of Saul Alinsky and the Chicago mob.

I don't find anything "dignified," "collegial" or "proper" about Barack Obama's lying about what went down on the streets of Ferguson in order to ramp up racial hatreds because racial hatreds serve the Democratic Party.

I don't see anything "dignified" in lying about the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi and imprisoning an innocent filmmaker to cover your tracks. I don't see anything "statesman-like" in weaponizing the IRS to be used to destroy your political opponents and any dissent. Yes, Obama was "articulate" and "polished" but in no way was he in the least bit "dignified," "collegial" or "proper."

The Left has been engaged in a war against America since the rise of the Children of the '60s. To them, it has been an all-out war where nothing is held sacred and nothing is seen as beyond the pale. It has been a war they've fought with violence, the threat of violence, demagoguery and lies from day one the violent take-over of the universities till today.

The problem is that, through these years, the Left has been the only side fighting this war. While the Left has been taking a knife to anyone who stands in their way, the Right has continued to act with dignity, collegiality and propriety. With Donald Trump, this all has come to an end. Donald Trump is America 's first wartime president in the Culture War.

During wartime, things like "dignity" and "collegiality" simply aren't the most essential qualities one looks for in their warriors. Ulysses Grant was a drunk whose behavior in peacetime might well have seen him drummed out of the Army for conduct unbecoming.

Had Abraham Lincoln applied the peacetime rules of propriety and booted Grant, the Democrats might well still be holding their slaves today. Lincoln rightly recognized that, "I cannot spare this man. He fights..."

General George Patton was a vulgar-talking, son-of-a-bitch. In peacetime, this might have seen him stripped of rank. But, had Franklin Roosevelt applied the normal rules of decorum then, Hitler and the Socialists would be five decades into their thousand-year Reich.

Trump is fighting. And what's particularly delicious is that, like Patton standing over the battlefield as his tanks obliterated Rommel's, he's shouting, "You magnificent bastard, I read your book!" That is just the icing on the cake, but it's wonderful to see that not only is Trump fighting, he's defeating the Left using their own tactics.

That book is Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals a book so essential to the Liberals' war against America that it is and was the playbook for the entire Obama administration and the subject of Hillary Clinton's senior thesis. It is a book of such pure evil, that, just as the rest of us would dedicate our book to those we most love or those to whom we are most indebted, Alinsky dedicated his book to Lucifer.

Trump's tweets may seem rash and unconsidered but, in reality, he is doing exactly what Alinsky suggested his followers do. First, instead of going after "the fake media" and they are so fake that they have literally gotten every single significant story of the past 60 years not just wrong, but diametrically opposed to the truth, from the Tet Offensive to Benghazi, to what really happened on the streets of Ferguson, Missouri Trump isolated CNN. He made it personal.

Then, just as Alinsky suggests, he employs ridicule which Alinsky described as "the most powerful weapon of all." ... Most importantly, Trump's tweets have put CNN in an untenable and unwinnable position. ... They need to respond. This leaves them with only two choices. They can either "go high" (as Hillary would disingenuously declare of herself and the fake news would disingenuously report as the truth) and begin to honestly and accurately report the news or they can double-down on their usual tactics and hope to defeat Trump with twice their usual hysteria and demagoguery. The problem for CNN (et al.) with the former is that, if they were to start honestly reporting the news, that would be the end of the Democratic Party they serve.

It is nothing but the incessant use of fake news (read: propaganda) that keeps the Left alive... Imagine, for example, if CNN had honestly and accurately reported then-candidate Barack Obama's close ties to foreign terrorists (Rashid Khalidi), domestic terrorists (William Ayers), the mafia (Tony Rezko) or the true evils of his spiritual mentor, Jeremiah Wright's church. Imagine if they had honestly and accurately conveyed the evils of the Obama administration's weaponizing of the IRS to be used against their political opponents or his running of guns to the Mexican cartels or the truth about the murder of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and the Obama administration's cover-up.

So, to my friends on the Left and the #Never Trumpers as well do I wish we lived in a time when our president could be "collegial" and "dignified" and "proper"? Of course I do. These aren't those times. This is war. And it's a war that the Left has been fighting without opposition for the past 50 years.

So, say anything you want about this president - I get it - he can be vulgar, he can be crude, he can be undignified at times. I don't care. I can't spare this man. He fights for America!

Quote of the Times;
"There is no left and right. There is only tyranny and freedom." – Trump

Link of the Times;
In times of medical crisis you learn to make lifestyle adjustments.

For example, when my hernia prevented me from doing heavy lifting, I switched from cat burglaring to stealing intellectual property.


Ocasio-Cortez Praises Venezuela For Making Everyone A Millionaire Through Hyperinflation

NEW YORK, NY—In an interview on Meet the Press Sunday, Democratic congressional candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez scolded American leaders for not setting the minimum wage as high as Venezuela, whose hyper-inflated currency is forcing minimum wage increases all year long.

Ocasio-Cortez then pointed out that if we would just raise the minimum wage to somewhere in the millions like the socialist South American country did, everyone will be a millionaire.

“Venezuela’s minimum wage is, like, millions per month, and ours isn’t even close to that,” she said. “Our minimum wage is, like, seven bucks or something. We call ourselves a developed country, but we don’t even just like print nearly as much money as Venezuela and give it out for free, because of businesses and corporations and things like that.”

She also called Venezuela’s leaders “really smart” for overloading the economy with more currency, and called on America’s leadership to do the same. “It just goes to show that socialism is better because you can inflate the currency to a lot more, and more is better than less, obviously.”

“It’s just common sense, and you know, like, human rights and stuff,” she added.



A cow with no lips.


New statistics say that the U.S. divorce rate is at its lowest level since 1970, when officials first started tracking Larry King.

Paris Hilton might end up serving only half of her prison sentence, because she's a first-time offender and the over-crowded prisons. Paris has always been a fan of short sentences: "That's hot!", "Whatever!", etc.

You know Jared Fogel as "the Subway guy"... but a web site claims that back in his college days at Indiana University, Jared ran a porn video rental biz out of his bedroom. Back then, "Subway Sandwich" had an entirely different meaning.

Sting's wife, Trudie, is really upset that she was recently portrayed in a wrongful firing suit as a "monstrous tyrant." In fact, she was so mad, she stormed through the downtown area, destroying buildings and flipping over cars.

The big controversy in Milan, Italy, these days is a giant 70-foot floating statue of a naked man. The artist says the biggest challenges with the artwork is maintaining the proper balance of helium and keeping George Michael off of it.

John Lattimer, a world-renowned urologist, has pissed away. I'm sorry, that should be "passed away."

Sylvester Stallone has pled guilty to importing a banned substance into Australia, but he's still denying any involvement with "Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot!"

An environmental group says that we now have only five years left to save the earth. I just financed a new car for six years, so that means I'll save a whole year in car payments.


What did the drummer call his two daughters?

Anna One, Anna two.

Issue of the Times;
The Great Betrayal of Rhodesia by Kiron Solari

To modern generations, Rhodesia is just a name. Few know what it was, even fewer can find it on the map. Those who caught the Cold War might recall bits and pieces of information, little of it true or trustworthy. And yet, history of this country’s birth, struggle and demise contains a lesson that is, now more than ever, extremely valuable – especially to those still enamored with modern political games.

Humble beginnings

In 1890, a column of 380 rugged men crossed the Limpopo River and marched northwards. Their leader, a British mining tycoon Cecil Rhodes, had just received a Queen’s charter for his British South African Company to explore and govern these wild lands. Eventually, the Union Jack was planted into the ground, marking the foundation of Fort Salisbury. It took some time and plenty of fighting, negotiations and quelled uprisings, but ultimately the two local tribes – Matabele and Shona – were forced to cease their endless wars and coexist in grudging peace, while whites acquired land for farming and raising cattle.

Unlike other territories governed by the British Crown, this one was not a colony but rather private property of Cecil Rhodes and his company. Likewise, unlike British colonies, this one attracted serious, determined and hardy people rather than lowlifes, criminals and fortune-seekers. After Rhodes’ death, the territory was named in his honor. Northern and northeastern parts of it were at one point handed over to the Crown as protectorates, while Southern Rhodesia, as it became known, remained nominally independent.

Despite considering themselves to be “The Great White Tribe” and a separate people, Rhodesians, being mostly of Anglo-Saxon stock, retained fierce loyalty to Britain. When WWI broke out, 5000 men – approximately 25% of their population – volunteered to fight under the British flag.

After the war, Southern Rhodesia flourished. Its economy was well-developed and racial troubles, despite past conflicts, were nearly nonexistent. London, heartened by Rhodesians’ wartime contributions, gave them a choice: join the South African Union as its fifth province or become a self-governing territory with a “responsible government” (full privileges except for foreign policy). The referendum held in 1922 revealed that Rhodesians would rather live separately.

Dark clouds on the horizon

After World War II, when nationalist movements began to gain strength in Africa, London attempted to create a new public entity – the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. This experiment disintegrated miserably in 1963, and Southern Rhodesia got its status of a special dominion back. The federation’s former constituents were hastily given independence – all except one. Rhodesians were instead admonished for failing to sustain the stillborn state. Such was Britain’s gratitude for over 25,000 capable Rhodies volunteering to fight on its side in WWII.

In the 1950s, the process of decolonization was launched. The West’s combination of fatigue from two world wars, general lack of political will and reluctance to deal with external issues led to declarations of independence getting distributed to African colonies like hot cakes. Transition from colony to state sometimes happened in less than a month. The world welcomed the “liberation” while timidly avoiding the resulting chaos, mass murder and civil wars.

Simply put, African countries could not handle the gift of independence. In addition, the very notion of races being different was deemed unacceptable in the West. A man labeled a racist could not count on a good public career, etc. Of course, this applied only to whites – tribal warfare and genocides in nascent African countries were politely ignored.

While the West was busy prostrating itself before cannibalistic tyrants and warlords, USSR and China wasted no time in making them dance to their tune. Communist agents and ideologues actively formented uprisings and wars in Africa, exchanging arms for access to natural resources. Most African “leaders” never realized their countries’ transformation back into colonies, albeit under a different owner.

Rhodesians, who lived in a peaceful, quiet and largely problem-free country, could only look upon the unfolding events in horror. Since the end of the 19th century and until 1962, Rhodesian policemen were unarmed. Self-government was carried out with the help of tribal leaders and local administrations. Unemployment was minimal, skilled immigration high, and in terms of living standards Southern Rhodesia outpaced nearly all of Africa. Rhodesian agricultural products were highly valued worldwide – marbled beef was considered a delicacy, wines competed with South Africa’s own, and neighboring countries were supplied in abundance with maize, tea and tobacco.

Apartheid, the world’s boogeyman, never existed in Southern Rhodesia, and neither did acute racial tensions – the vast majority of blacks simply did not care that they were ruled by Whites, as long as the latter kept building schools, hospitals and providing them with work and housing. However, the so-called civilized world was not happy with this, and Britain especially so.

The fracture

Hatred that British diplomats David Owen and Harold Wilson had for the small African state bordered on pathological. To an average Rhodesian, these two were no better than Mugabe and Nkomo.

Under pressure from the Organization of African Unity (a club of cannibals if there ever was one), Britain took back its promise of independence to Rhodesia, on the grounds that it should be ruled by the black majority rather than the white minority. Rhodesia’s 40-year experience of sensible self-government, regular free elections and peaceful coexistence between races was callously ignored.

To pacify the “polite society” and the OAU, Britain was prepared to surrender Rhodesia to African dictators’ tender mercies. What it was not prepared for was the tiny country itself deciding to take the bull by the horns. In 1964, the Rhodesian Front party, led by a WWII hero Ian Smith, was elected into power. On November 11, 1965, after lengthy and unsuccessful negotiations aimed at finding a solution that suited everyone, Ian Smith unilaterally declared Rhodesia’s independence.

This move caught the West completely off-guard, and was immediately branded a “racist revolt”. British political opossums did all in their power to impose an international economic embargo on Rhodesia and fight its recognition. However, South Africa (itself a pariah state) and Portugal expressed their support for the new country and resumed their already well-established trade relations with it.

Britain’s tantrums and whining gave the communist bloc a perfect excuse to start openly funding and arming black terrorist organizations aimed at overthrowing the Rhodesian government. Robert Mugabe’s ZANU received help from China and North Korea, while Joshua Nkomo’s ZAPU was assisted and advised by USSR. The two movements, being comprised respectively of Shona and Matabele peoples, were bitter enemies, with a common goal the only thing uniting them.

The West itself had cold feet about direct military intervention against the upstart state, for two good reasons. Firstly, the Rhodesians were well-known for their fighting prowess and relentlessness – during WWII, they formed the backbone of British commandos in North Africa. Secondly, there was a threat of rebellion in Britain’s own armed forces, as family ties between Brits and Rhodesians were extremely close. Therefore, the West confined itself to denouncements, resolutions, political trickery and supplying terrorists with food and gear.

Against overwhelming odds

At first the conflict was limited to sporadic attacks, armed robberies and murders, but due to generous support from both East and West, it quickly evolved into full-scale war. Mozambique, Botswana, and Zambia eagerly provided terrorists with staging grounds for their raids on Rhodesian farms and border villages. With the help of sympathizing mass media, terrorists tried to inform everyone that a new Chimurenga was on – a war of liberation similar to the one their ancestors waged at the end of the 19th century against the “white invaders”.

Naturally, nobody cared that these same invaders had turned a barren territory into a developed land, that it was thanks to them the vast majority of local blacks had jobs, and that the main victims of this “liberation” were primarily blacks themselves – ordinary farmers, herdboys, priests and doctors.

To combat the terrorist threat, the Rhodesian Security Forces had to develop a unique fighting method, eventually becoming the most efficient military force of all that ever appeared south of the Sahara Desert. For all intents and purposes, they set an impossible standard – sometimes Rhodesian Light Infantry paratroopers flew three combat sorties a day, while the Selous Scouts managed to exterminate 70% of all who ever took up arms against Rhodesia over the 7 years of the unit’s existence.

But despite the wonders worked by its soldiers, fighting against what amounted to the entire world was extremely difficult for an unrecognized country with very limited resources. Contrary to media portrayals of him, Ian Smith was no rogue autocrat; he was open both to negotiation and the idea of reconciliation, but only on terms favorable to Rhodesia. In the endless talks that served as a backdrop to the 15-year war, his opponents never failed to take advantage of his honesty.

British diplomats’ favorite trick was to sign an agreement with Smith, ensure he kept his side of the bargain and then conveniently forget about theirs. American President Jimmy Carter was no better, refusing to acknowledge Smith at all but eagerly providing political platforms and assistance to both Mugabe and Nkomo.

Western media spared no expense in demonizing Rhodesia, either: journalists would photograph blacks sleeping in Salisbury parks during siesta and then claim they had been shot by Rhodesian soldiers. A particularly despicable bunch of presstitutes once tossed a few coins into a garbage bin in front of some black kids, who, upon attempting to retrieve them, made the world’s headlines as “children starved by the Smith regime”.

As for layers of filth heaped upon Rhodesia by humanitarian and religious organizations, they are too numerous to even begin to describe. The UN and the World Council of Churches united the entire West’s charity workers and do-gooders in an effort to feed and clothe the terrorists, who returned the favor by massacring as many Rhodesian priests, charity workers and do-gooders as they could.

Last drops of blood

Embittered by constant betrayals from those they once viewed as friends and allies, Rhodesians grimly fought on until they no longer could. With the country’s oil reserves depleted, Ian Smith had no choice but to cave to international pressure and negotiate formation of a new government. The 1979 election resulted in Abel Muzorewa, a black bishop, becoming the new prime minister, and the country renamed to Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. Theoretically, black majority rule – the condition for lifting the economic embargo – was achieved.

The Organization of African Unity, however, was not so easily pleased, as neither Mugabe nor Nkomo were allowed to participate in the election, for the obvious reason of being terrorists. All it took was a promise to sway black American voters in Jimmy Carter’s favor and a threat of halting Nigerian oil shipments to Britain for the two superpowers to immediately come to heel. The embargo remained in place. With the “assistance” of the British government, new negotiations began, as a result of which Muzorewa’s government resigned, and at the beginning of 1980 a new election was scheduled.

The election campaign’s motto was simple – vote Mugabe or die along with your family. Terrorists ran rampant across the country, spreading the message at gunpoint. Voter intimidation was ubiquitous, but London declared the elections to be the most transparent and honest of all conducted on the African continent.

In the meantime, “international observers” from the British Commonwealth were making sure the Rhodesian army was disarmed, while politely ignoring Mugabe’s gun-toting goons. Immediately after a landslide victory, Mugabe rallied his forces and began exterminating the rival Matabele tribe, killing over 25,000 and turning many more into refugees. London let it slide.

Terminus est

The rest is history: it took the creature hailed by the entire world as a freedom fighter less than a decade to turn the Breadbasket of Africa into a basket case. White Rhodesians fled “Zimbabwe” in their entirety; of course, not a single British or American politician deigned to as much as apologize to them for what had been done to their country. The West simply carries on, fiercely proud of its policies and laws being democratic, impartial and fair… until they’re not.

Quote of the Times;
A tribe's greatness is figured on how mighty its enemies are.

Link of the Times;
On a beautiful sunny Saturday afternoon, Amanpreet stood on the first tee at his country club.

He's just pulled out his driver when Judi, wearing a wedding dress, came running up to him, crying.

"You BASTARD!" she screamed in his face. "You lousy, no-good God damned BASTARD!"

Amanpreet calmly replied. "Judi, hon, what's the problem? I distinctly told you *only* if it rained . . . "


“My dad is a union painter, he always used to tell a joke that goes “Do you know why women love painters?

Because we know it’s 90% prep, 10% finishing with long smooth strokes.”.


My girlfriend borrowed $100 from me. After three years, when we broke up, she returned exactly $100. I lost interest in that relationship.

I asked my wife if I was the only one she’s been with. She said, “Yes, the others were at least sevens or eights.”

Nobody ever asks how Coca-Cola is doing. It’s always, “Is Pepsi okay?”

A man was arrested and taken to an interrogation room. He said to the police officer, “I’m not saying a word without my lawyer present.” The policeman said, “You are the lawyer. ” The man replied: “Exactly. So where’s my present?”

The word “nothing” is a palindrome. “Nothing” reversed is “Gnihton,” which also means nothing.

How many “friend-zoned” guys does it take to change a light bulb? None. They’ll just compliment the bulb and get pissed when it won’t screw.

I called in sick this morning on account of diarrhea. My boss told me to get my shit together.

How do you say “‘Sup, dawg?” in Japanese? “Konichihuahua.”

My wife hates it when our hot next-door neighbor sunbathes topless in her yard. Personally, I’m on the fence.

All of my friends told me that “icy” is the easiest word to spell. And after looking at it, I see why.

What do you call a spider with 20 eyes? Spiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiider.


SAN FRANCISCO — Silicon Valley technology giants Apple, Facebook and Google, in a rare joint statement, condemned the National Security Agency and other government organizations for mining internet users’ private data on Thursday.
The media titans called the agency “un-American” and vowed not to cooperate with federal agencies and authorities unless directed by a lawful court order or warrant.
“We are appalled that the federal government would spy on its own citizens, who have not been accused of any crime or infraction,” said Alexandra Forrest, a Google spokeswoman.
“We are shocked that the NSA and other government bodies, such as the FBI and ATF, use their processing power to ‘crack’ phones of people who aren’t there to defend themselves — a complete violation of our citizens’ confidence,” she added, before pausing to read notifications on her Android phone informing her of lawyers in her area and an interesting movie that just came on Netflix called “Confidence.”

Apple also sharply criticized the signals intelligence agency.
“We at Apple are also shocked that the National Security Agency would use its unassailable might to conceivably pressure private citizens and organizations to do things they wouldn’t otherwise do,” a spokesman told reporters in a statement written on an iPhone, which was assembled in Senegal by an orphan child dying of nickel poisoning making an entire two farthings a day.
“At Facebook, we’ve taken steps to ensure that none of our employees are working on projects for the Department of Defense, which could theoretically be used to kill innocent people in foreign lands,” said Facebook spokeswoman Irani Rael. “We’re also happy to announce that we’ve added a ‘fake’ descriptor sticker to the Facebook feeds of anybody who’s ever voted for a Republican or Libertarian candidate, which we are able to determine by looking at your bank accounts.”
“How are you enjoying those anal beads and the Daniel Craig pillowslip you purchased at 11:35 PM on the night of May 6th?” Rael then asked a reporter in attendance.
At press time, journalists and stock analysts were hailing the tech companies’ stance, calling it a big step forward for privacy, especially after they were all anonymously emailed an Excel spreadsheet of everything they’ve ever posted online, even in Incognito mode.

One time I applied for a job, the form clearly asked, "Age of Father, if living," and the same question for my mom.

I wrote down "117" and "115" respectively.

The interviewer asked me if my parents were truly that old.

"No," I said, "but they would be if they were still living."

Issue of the Times;
Why the Best Things in Life are all Backwards by Mark Manson

There’s a part of Navy SEAL training called “drown-proofing” where they bind your hands behind your back, tie your feet together, and dump you into a 9-foot-deep pool.

Your job is to survive for five minutes.

Like most of SEAL training, the vast majority of cadets who attempt drown-proofing fail. Upon being tossed into the water, many of them panic and scream to be lifted back out. Some struggle until they slip underwater where they proceed to lose consciousness and have to be fished out and resuscitated. Over the years, a number of trainees have even died during the exercise.

But some people make it. And they do so because they understand two counterintuitive lessons.

The first lesson of drown-proofing is paradoxical: the more you struggle to keep your head above water, the more likely you are to sink.

With your arms and legs bound, it’s impossible to maintain yourself at the surface for the full five minutes. Even worse, your limited attempts to keep your body afloat will only cause you to sink faster. The trick to drown-proofing is to actually let yourself sink to the bottom of the pool. From there, you lightly push yourself off the pool floor and let your momentum carry you back to the surface. Once there, you can grab a quick breath of air and start the whole process over again.

Strangely, surviving drown-proofing requires no superhuman strength or endurance. It doesn’t even require that you know how to swim. On the contrary, it requires the ability to not swim. Instead of resisting the physics that would normally kill you, you must surrender to them and use them to save your own life.

The second lesson of drown-proofing is a bit more obvious, but also paradoxical: the more you panic, the more oxygen you will burn and the more likely you are to fall unconscious and drown. In a sick and twisted way, the exercise turns your survival instinct against you: the more intense your desire to breathe, the less you will able to breathe. The more intense your will to live, the greater the chance you will die.

More than a test of physical will, drown-proofing is a test of each cadet’s emotional self-control in situations of extreme danger. Can he control his own impulses? Can he relax in the face of potential death? Can he willingly risk his life in the service of some higher value or goal?

These skills are far more important than any cadet’s ability to swim. They’re more important than his resilience, his physical toughness, or his ambition. They’re more important than how smart he is, what school he went to, or how damn good he looks in a crisp Italian suit.

This skill — the ability to let go of control when one wants it most — is one of the most important skills anyone can develop. And not just for SEAL training. For life.
Most people assume the relationship between effort and reward is one-to-one. We think that working twice as long will produce twice the results. That caring about a relationship twice as much will make everyone feel twice as loved. That yelling your point twice as loud will make you twice as right.

The assumption here is that most of life exists on a linear curve, that there’s a one-to-one ratio between effort and reward with everything:

A linear relationship

But allow me to inform you — as someone who just tried drinking twice the normal amount of Red Bull so he could finish editing this damn thing — this is almost never true. Most of the world does not exist on a linear curve. Linear relationships only exist for mindless, rote, repetitive tasks — driving a car, filling out reams of paperwork, cleaning the bathroom, etc. In all of these cases, doing something for two hours will double the output of doing it for one hour. But that’s simply because they require no thought or ingenuity.

Most activities in life do not operate along the linear effort/reward curve because most activities in life are not basic nor mindless. Most activities are complex, mentally and/or emotionally taxing, and require adaptation.

Therefore, most activities produce a diminishing returns curve:

A diminishing returns curve

Diminishing returns means that the more you experience something, the less rewarding it becomes. The classic example is money. The difference between earning $20,000 and $40,000 is huge and life-changing. The difference between earning $120,000 and $140,000 means your car has slightly nicer seat heaters. The difference between earning $127,020,000 and $127,040,000 is basically a rounding error on your tax return.

The concept of diminishing returns applies to most experiences that are complex and novel. The number of showers you take in a day; the number of chicken wings you inhale during happy hour; the number of trips home to visit your mother in a year — these are all experiences that start out highly valuable at first but then diminish in value the more frequently you do them (sorry, Mom).

Another example: studies on work productivity show that we’re really only productive for the first four to five hours of each day. Everything after that suffers severe diminished returns, to the point where the difference between working for 12 hours and 16 hours is basically nothing (not counting sleep deprivation).

Friendships operate on a diminishing returns curve. Having one friend is vital. Having two is clearly better than one. But having 10 instead of 9 changes little in your life. And having 21 instead of 20 just makes remembering people’s names that much more difficult.

Sex has diminishing returns, as does eating, sleeping, drinking alcohol, working out at the gym, reading books, taking vacations, hiring employees, consuming caffeine, saving for retirement, scheduling business meetings, studying for an exam, masturbating, staying up late to play video games — the examples are endless. All give back less the more you do them, the more you try, or the more you have. All operate on a diminishing returns curve.

But there’s another curve, one that you’ve probably never seen or heard of before — and that’s largely because I make a lot of this shit up. That’s the inverted curve:

Inverted curve

The inverted curve is the bizarro “Twilight Zone” curve, where effort and reward have a negative correlation — that is, the more effort you put into doing something, the more you will fail to do it.

Drown-proofing exists on an inverted curve. The more effort you put into rising to the surface, the more likely you will be to fail at it. Similarly, the more you want to breathe, the more likely you are to choke on a bunch of chlorinated piss water.

But I know you’re thinking, “So what, Mark? I’ve usually had too many piña coladas to even find the deep end of the pool, much less bind my arms and legs and try to survive in it. Who gives a shit about inverted curves?”

It’s true, few things in life function on an inverted curve. But the few things that do are extremely important. In fact, I will argue that the most important experiences and goals in life all exist on an inverted curve.

Effort and reward have a linear relationship when the action is mindless and simple. Effort and reward have a diminishing returns relationship when the action is complex and multivariate.

But when the action becomes purely psychological—an experience that exists solely within our own consciousness—the relationship between effort and reward becomes inverted.

Pursuing happiness takes you further away from it. Attempts at greater emotional control only remove us from it. The desire for greater freedom is often what causes us to feel trapped. The need to be loved and accepted prevents us from loving and accepting ourselves.

Aldous Huxley once wrote, “The harder we try with the conscious will to do something, the less we shall succeed. Proficiency and results come only to those who have learned the paradoxical art of doing and not doing, or combining relaxation with activity.”

The most fundamental components of our psychology are paradoxical. This is because when we consciously try to create a state of mind, the desire for that state of mind creates a different and often opposite state of mind from the one we’re trying to create.

This is “The Backwards Law”, desiring a positive experience is itself a negative experience; accepting a negative experience is a positive experience.

But this extends to most — if not all — aspects of our mental health and relationships:

Control – The more we strive to control our own feelings and impulses, the more powerless we will feel. Our emotional life is unruly and often uncontrollable, and it’s the desire to control it that makes it worse. Conversely, the more we accept our feelings and impulses, the more we’re able to direct them and process them.

Freedom – The constant desire for more freedom ironically limits us in a number of ways. Similarly, it’s only by limiting ourselves — by choosing and committing to certain things in life — that we truly exercise our freedom.

Happiness – Trying to be happy makes us less happy. Accepting unhappiness makes us happy.

Security – Trying to make ourselves feel as secure as possible generates more insecurity. Being comfortable with uncertainty is what allows us to feel secure.

Love – The more we try to make others love and accept us, the less they will, and more importantly, the less we will love and accept ourselves.

Respect – The more we demand respect from others, the less they will respect us. The more we respect others ourselves, the more they will come to respect us.

Trust – The more we try to make people trust us, the less inclined they will be to do so. The more we trust others, the more they will trust us in return.

Confidence – The more we try to feel confident, the more insecurity and anxiety we will create. The more we accept our faults, the more comfortable we will feel in our own skin.

Change – The more we desperately want to change ourselves, the more we will always feel as though we are not enough. Whereas, the more we accept ourselves, the more we will grow and evolve because we’ll be too busy actually doing cool shit to notice.

Meaning – The more we pursue a deeper meaning or purpose to our lives, the more self-obsessed and shallow we will become. The more we try to add meaning to others’ lives, the more profound impact we will feel.

These internal, psychological experiences exist on an inverted curve because they are both the cause and the effect of the same thing: our minds. When you desire happiness, your mind is simultaneously the thing that is desiring and the target of its own desires.

When it comes to these lofty, abstract, existential goals, our minds are like a dog who, after a lifetime of successfully chasing and catching various small creatures, has turned and decided to exact that same strategy on its own tail. To the dog, this seems logical. After all, chasing has led her to catch everything else in her doggy life. Why not her tail, too?

But a dog can never catch her own tail. The more she chases, the more her tail seems to run away. That’s because the dog lacks the perspective to realize that she and the tail are the exact same thing.

The goal is to take your mind — a wonderful thing that has spent its life learning to chase various creatures — and teach it to stop chasing its own tail. To stop chasing meaning and freedom and happiness because those only serve to move it further away from itself. To teach it to achieve what it desires by giving up what it desires. To show it how the only way to reach the surface is by letting itself sink.

And how do we do this? By letting go. By giving up. By surrendering. Not out of weakness. But out of a respect that the world is beyond our grasp. By recognizing that we are fragile and limited and but temporary specks in the infinite reaches of time. You do it by relinquishing control, not because you feel powerless, but because you are powerful. Because you decide to let go of things that are beyond your control. You decide to accept that sometimes, people won’t like you, that often you will fail, that usually you have no fucking clue what you’re doing.

You lean into the fear and uncertainty, and just when you think you’re going to drown, just as you reach the bottom, it will launch you back to your salvation.

Quote of the Times;
There is nothing that stands still in nature: everything is either expanding or contracting.

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

And someone shot a duck.

An Images & Ideas, Inc. Service.

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