Daily Pics, My Comic, and The Times
the Daily
the Comic
the Blog
A farmer in Rhode Island just grew the largest pumpkin in North America, weighing over 2,200 pounds.

The only downside, the man’s wife no longer thinks it’s cute when he calls her “pumpkin.”


Mr. Bigger and Mrs. Bigger have a baby.

Who’s the biggest in the family?

The baby of course; because he’s a little Bigger.



At this point, if I get abducted by aliens, it's no longer considered an abduction, it's a rescue mission.

Sometimes, late at night, I dig a hole in the backyard to keep the nosey neighbors guessing.

After my funeral, I want one of my friends to take my phone and text all of my contacts, "Thanks for coming."

It's just a theory on my part, but I don't Marjorie Taylor Greene will ever be an official Crayola color.

I've reached the age where my mind says, "You can do that!" but my body says, "Try it and you'll be sorry."

If you have anxiety, the first two drinks don't count because they just make you a normal person.

Prince Andrew has been stripped of another royal title, wasn't happy about it, but he did enjoy the stripping part.

Your Kentucky Derby horse name is a symptom of one of your mental illnesses and the last thing you ate.

You can't change the people around you, but you can change the people around you.

I wonder what the part of my brain that used to store phone numbers is doing these days?


SHE: I thought you said you had a Porsche.

ME: No, I said I was poor. Shhhh.


People have always named their children after expensive things: Mercedes, Dior, Chardonnay.

Next year, watch for kids named Electricity, Regular and Supreme.

Quote of the Times;
In cases of an abuse of the delegated powers the members of the general government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy; but, where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy. - Thomas Jefferson, Fair Copy for the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798

Link of the Times;

Issue of the Times;
Why is Canada Euthanizing the Poor? by Yuan Yi Zhu

There is an endlessly repeated witticism by the poet Anatole France that ‘the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.’ What France certainly did not foresee is that an entire country – and an ostentatiously progressive one at that – has decided to take his sarcasm at face value and to its natural conclusion.

Since last year, Canadian law, in all its majesty, has allowed both the rich as well as the poor to kill themselves if they are too poor to continue living with dignity. In fact, the ever-generous Canadian state will even pay for their deaths. What it will not do is spend money to allow them to live instead of killing themselves.

As with most slippery slopes, it all began with a strongly worded denial that it exists. In 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada reversed 22 years of its own jurisprudence by striking down the country’s ban on assisted suicide as unconstitutional, blithely dismissing fears that the ruling would ‘initiate a descent down a slippery slope into homicide’ against the vulnerable as founded on ‘anecdotal examples’. The next year, Parliament duly enacted legislation allowing euthanasia, but only for those who suffer from a terminal illness whose natural death was ‘reasonably foreseeable’.

It only took five years for the proverbial slope to come into view, when the Canadian parliament enacted Bill C-7, a sweeping euthanasia law which repealed the ‘reasonably foreseeable’ requirement – and the requirement that the condition should be ‘terminal’. Now, as long as someone is suffering from an illness or disability which ‘cannot be relieved under conditions that you consider acceptable’, they can take advantage of what is now known euphemistically as ‘medical assistance in dying’ (MAID for short) for free.

Soon enough, Canadians from across the country discovered that although they would otherwise prefer to live, they were too poor to improve their conditions to a degree which was acceptable.

Not coincidentally, Canada has some of the lowest social care spending of any industrialized country, palliative care is only accessible to a minority, and waiting times in the public healthcare sector can be unbearable, to the point where the same Supreme Court which legalized euthanasia declared those waiting times to be a violation of the right to life back in 2005.

Many in the healthcare sector came to the same conclusion. Even before Bill C-7 was enacted, reports of abuse were rife. A man with a neurodegenerative disease testified to Parliament that nurses and a medical ethicist at a hospital tried to coerce him into killing himself by threatening to bankrupt him with extra costs or by kicking him out of the hospital, and by withholding water from him for 20 days. Virtually every disability rights group in the country opposed the new law. To no effect: for once, the government found it convenient to ignore these otherwise impeccably progressive groups.

Since then, things have only gotten worse. A woman in Ontario was forced into euthanasia because her housing benefits did not allow her to get better housing which didn’t aggravate her crippling allergies. Another disabled woman applied to die because she ‘simply cannot afford to keep on living’. Another sought euthanasia because Covid-related debt left her unable to pay for the treatment which kept her chronic pain bearable – under the present government, disabled Canadians got $600 in additional financial assistance during Covid; university students got $5,000.

When the family of a 35-year-old disabled man who resorted to euthanasia arrived at the care home where he lived, they encountered ‘urine on the floor… spots where there was feces on the floor… spots where your feet were just sticking. Like, if you stood at his bedside and when you went to walk away, your foot was literally stuck.’ According to the Canadian government, the assisted suicide law is about ‘prioritis[ing] the individual autonomy of Canadians’; one may wonder how much autonomy a disabled man lying in his own filth had in weighing death over life.

Despite the Canadian government’s insistence that assisted suicide is all about individual autonomy, it has also kept an eye on its fiscal advantages. Even before Bill C-7 entered into force, the country’s Parliamentary Budget Officer published a report about the cost savings it would create: whereas the old MAID regime saved $86.9 million per year – a ‘net cost reduction’, in the sterile words of the report – Bill C-7 would create additional net savings of $62 million per year. Healthcare, particular for those suffering from chronic conditions, is expensive; but assisted suicide only costs the taxpayer $2,327 per ‘case’. And, of course, those who have to rely wholly on government-provided Medicare pose a far greater burden on the exchequer than those who have savings or private insurance.

And yet Canada’s lavishly subsidised media, with some honorable exceptions, has expressed remarkably little curiosity about the open social murder of citizens in one of the world’s wealthiest countries. Perhaps, like many doctors, journalists are afraid of being accused of being ‘unprogressive’ for questioning the new culture of death, a fatal accusation in polite circles. Canada’s public broadcaster, which in 2020 reassured Canadians that there was ‘no link between poverty, choosing medically assisted death’, has had little to say about any of the subsequent developments.

Next year, the floodgates will open even further when those suffering from mental illness – another disproportionately poor group – become eligible for assisted suicide, although enthusiastic doctors and nurses have already pre-empted the law. There is already talk of allowing ‘mature minors’ access to euthanasia too – just think of the lifetime savings. But remember, slippery slopes are always a fallacy.

News of the Times;
What word becomes shorter when you add two letters to it?



My wife's cooking is so bad...

How bad?

So bad the flies are taking up a collection to get the screen door fixed.


How many mystery writers does it take to screw in a lightbulb?


One to screw it in most of the way and the other to give it a surprise twist at the end.


GENIE: I grant you 10 wishes.

ME: Isn't it usually just 3?

GENIE: Yes, but you've got a lot of issues going on here.


I accidentally sat on my phone.

Siri suggested several local gyms.

Quote of the Times;
"The Democrat party is the party of weak men and unhappy women." - Tucker Carlson

Link of the Times;

Issue of the Times;
The New Normal Is Failure by Kurt Schlichter

Look around and all you see is failure.

A bunch of kids are being murdered by some semi-human, so what do you do? Draw your weapon and put him down or die trying? Or do you sit there, doing nothing?

The same government we’re supposed to give up our guns to because they have it all under control chose Option B. It chose failure.

Tell me more about how the real problem is that we have the capacity to defend ourselves.

But the real problem, to our enemies, is not that murderers murder. The real problem, to our enemies, is the very fact that we can defend ourselves. The objective of our trash elite is not to have a country that runs well, where people are secure, and where rights are respected. The objective is to rule. And if a bunch of kids die for that, they’re fine with it. They can live with failure, but not accountability.

The clusterfark in Uvalde is just a symptom of a much bigger pathology. It is a symbol of the failure of every institution in our society. And the solution is never to revamp the institutions and eject the parasites heading them. It’s always – always – to take power from us and give it to the people who screwed up in the first place.

Show of hands – who was shocked to hear that this creep was on law enforcement’s radar before his killing spree?

I see a distinct lack of hands.

But the failure is not limited to being unable to stop murderers. It’s not even the only failure involving schools. The schools are churning out a generation of quasi-literates and have been turned into a Grindr for perverted weirdos to use for grooming their prey. We got a good view of the failure during another epic failure, the COVID response.

This is systemic.

Everything is failing.

Go try to get baby formula.

See if you can afford gas. Hell, roll up to a Mickey D’s drive-thru and try to roll away with lunch for four under $30.

The courts don’t work, the Congress doesn’t work, and our alleged president is a borderline clinical moron who is lying when he’s not merely stupid. This human sex toy got up at Annapolis and told the Naval Academy grads that he had been accepted there. It was a lie – of course, he’s senile so maybe he believed it – and the regime media skipped over it like they skip over everything else that offends the official narrative.

Failure, failure, failure.

What is one institution that works? Just one.

Our military? Oh please. Just last week the military demonstrated its real priorities when it released a list of proposed new names for various forts and bases that are currently labeled with insufficiently PC monikers. Now, here’s a meaningful list challenge for them: Provide a list of names of real wars these people have won since 1991.

Here it is: ___________________________.

We’re getting tired of nothing but disasters, debacles, and decline. And that’s when things get dangerous. What cannot go on will not go on, and we Americans are not going to accept muddling through forever, lurching from crisis to crisis created by our garbage ruling class and that cannot be solved by our garbage ruling class. Jimmy Carter was like that – President Peanut tried to tell us to embrace the suck. We told him to suck on his malaise. We turned to Ronald Reagan, and Carter was in a funk for forty years until Grandpa Badfinger finally relieved him of the title of “Worst President of the Last Century.”

We will turn to someone, because this is unsustainable. The question is “Who?” And that is not precisely a question of individuals. It might be Trump, it might be DeSantis, it might be someone else. The question is what kind of person. Will it be a positive American leader in the vein of a Ronald Reagan, or will it be an American Caesar?

I write about the authoritarian temptation in my upcoming nonfiction book We’ll Be Back: The Fall and Rise of America:

“His rise would come as the result of a backlash against the left, and it would be propelled by a sense that the institutions, left to their own devices, would frustrate the true intent of the Framers and the people. He would call himself the restorer of American democracy (which sounds better to American ears than “restorer of the Republic” even if not technically correct). He would observe the rituals and symbols of the old United States, yet his reign would be distinguished by the unbridled use of his power. He would ignore the norms and unofficial rules of American politics that have so far restrained the conservatives but, to their mind, not the left. Checks and balances? Nah, it’s an emergency. We’ll get back to having those later.

And later never comes. His supporters would see him as cutting through the obstacles to enact the necessary reforms to restore America to greatness. His opponents would call him an authoritarian. And they might have a point.”

The danger of systemic institutional failure is not merely the damage from the fallout, though as we saw in Uvalde, it can be monstrously horrific. The danger is that the failure is so pervasive and the ruling caste behind it so committed to retaining its own power at the expense of anything else that people may confuse this perversion of our constitutional system with the real thing and simply give up on the Founder’s vision. They might embrace a strongman who is empowered sufficiently to break the hold of our garbage ruling class – at the price of our republic. The failure we are seeing is so complete, so comprehensive, that maybe Americans will come to think that this harsh cure is not worse than the disease. But, of course, it will be. Maybe not with the first dictator, or the second, but it will. Augustus was okay, unless you crossed him. But a Caligula is eventually going to come along.

News of the Times;
Me in 2019: If I could just have a week with nowhere to go and nothing to do, I could get my whole house in order.

Me in 2022: Nope, that wasn't the problem.


A new survey shows that 60% of men under the age of 30 don't own a suit.

Then again, those of us over 30 that have a suit don't know if they still fit.


At this week's family history and tradition class, the teacher asked the young class how to describe old folks.

Olivia raised her hand and answered, "Over the Hill."

"Yes, good answer," said the teacher.

"Yes, Johnny, do you have another nickname?"

"Long in the Toot," Johnny responded.

The teacher corrected him. "You meant Long in the Tooth, didn't you?"

"Not at all, have you ever been behind my Grandpa?


A little girl was watching her daddy repair his tractor.

She asked her mother, "What happens to old tractors when they finally stop working?"

Sighing, her mother answered: "Someone sells them to your father, dear."


Jet Blue is making a bid for a hostile takeover of Spirit Airlines.

That's what I want, being flown around by disgruntled employees.

Quote of the Times;
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. - H.L. Menken

Link of the Times;

Issue of the Times;
Here Are The Nutcases Who Believe In “Replacement” - They're Democrats by Ann Coulter

The “Great Replacement Theory” (GRT) has taken the media by storm! It seems that the white racist who shot up a grocery store full of black people last weekend cited GRT in his 180-page “manifesto.”

First of all, journalists need to understand that GRT is only a theory taught in advanced law school seminars. It is not something designed for indoctrination of mass audiences of young people.

So what is GRT? The New York Times describes it thus:

“[T]he notion that Western elites, sometimes manipulated by Jews, want to ‘replace’ and disempower white Americans.”

(You want a conspiracy theory about a secretive cabal of Jews? Check out the Times’ series of articles on “neoconservatives” back in the early 2000s.)

But then—just as every argument about abortion suddenly becomes an argument about contraception—a few paragraphs later, the crackpot theory jumps from a Jewish cabal replacing whites with blacks…to the idea that Democrats are using immigration “for electoral gains.”

Wow, that is nuts! Where’d anybody get that idea?

Oh yeah—from liberals.

Here’s Democratic consultant Patrick Reddy in 1998:

“The 1965 Immigration Reform Act promoted by President Kennedy, drafted by Attorney General Robert Kennedy, and pushed through the Senate by Ted Kennedy has resulted in a wave of immigration from the Third World that should shift the nation in a more liberal direction within a generation. It will go down as the Kennedy family’s greatest gift to the Democratic Party.”

(Well, sure, if you want to totally overlook skirt-chasing and pill-popping.)

Then in 2002, Democrats Ruy Teixeira and John Judis wrote The Emerging Democratic Majority, arguing that demographic changes, mostly by immigration, were putting Democrats on a glide path to an insuperable majority. After Obama’s reelection in 2012, Teixeira crowed in The Atlantic (which was then a magazine that people read, as opposed to a billionaire widow’s charity) that “ten years farther down this road,” Obama lost the white vote outright, but won the election with the minority vote—African-Americans (93-6), Hispanics (71-27) and Asian-Americans (73-26).

A year later, the National Journal’s Ron Brownstein began touting the “Coalition of the Ascendant,” gloating that Democrats didn’t need blue-collar whites anymore. Woo hoo! Obama “lost more than three-fifths of noncollege whites and whites older than 45.” But who cares? He crushed with “minorities (a combined 80%).”

“Adios, Reagan Democrats,” he says gleefully.

Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg’s 2019 book, RIP GOP, explains the coming death of the Republican Party as a result of…sucking up to Wall Street? Pushing pointless wars? Endlessly cutting taxes? NO! The GOP’s demise would come from the fact that “our country is hurtling toward a New America that is ever more racially and culturally diverse…more immigrant and foreign born.”

And these were the genteel, nonthreatening descriptions of how immigration was consigning white voters to the Aztec graveyard of history.

On MSNBC, they’re constantly sneering about “old white men” and celebrating the “browning of America.” A group called Battleground Texas boasts about flipping that deep red state to the Democrats—simply by getting more Hispanics to vote. Blogs are giddily titled, “The Irrelevant South” (“the traditional white South—socially and economically conservative—is no longer relevant in national politics”). MSNBC’s Joy Ann Reid tweets that she is “giddy” watching “all the bitter old white guys” as Ketanji Brown Jackson “makes history.”

This week, the media’s leading expert on the crazies who believe in replacement theory is Tim Wise, popping up on both MSNBC and CNN to psychoanalyze the white “racists.” He’s been quoted, cited or praised dozens of times in the New York Times. This isn’t some fringe character, despite appearances.

In 2010, Wise wrote an “Open Letter to the White Right” that began:

“For all y’all rich folks, enjoy that champagne, or whatever fancy ass Scotch you drink.

“And for y’all a bit lower on the economic scale, enjoy your Pabst Blue Ribbon, or whatever shitty ass beer you favor …

“Because your time is limited.

“Real damned limited.”

Guess why! Wise explained:

“It is math.”

Wait, isn’t math racist? But moving on…

“Because you’re on the endangered list.

“And unlike, say, the bald eagle or some exotic species of muskrat, you are not worth saving.

“In 40 years or so, maybe fewer, there won’t be any more white people around who actually remember that Leave It to Beaver …”

Have you ever noticed how obsessed liberals are with Leave It to Beaver?

“It’s OK. Because in about 40 years, half the country will be black or brown. And there is nothing you can do about it.

“Nothing, Senor Tancredo.”

After several more paragraphs of mocking white people, Wise ended with this stirring conclusion:

“We just have to be patient.

“And wait for you to pass into that good night, first politically, and then, well …

“Do you hear it?

“The sound of your empire dying? Your nation, as you knew it, ending, permanently?

“Because I do, and the sound of its demise is beautiful.”

To Wise, the best way to kill the anti-Semitic trope of Jewish elites waging war against whites is to be a Jewish elite waging war against whites.

I don’t know about the Jewish cabal version of GRT, but as for liberals using immigration to bring in more Democratic voters, as Maya Angelou said, “When people show you who they are, believe them.”

Speaking of theories involving Jewish cabals…

The New York Times on neoconservatives, August 4, 2003:

For the past few weeks, US President George W. Bush has been surrounded by a secretive circle of advisors and public relations experts, giving rise to all kinds of conspiracy theories and debates. It's been said that the group's idol is German Jewish philosopher Leo Strauss.

News of the Times;
Why do sheep get really anxious and nervous at night?

Because so many people are counting on them.


Little kid #1: "What does your mother do for a headache?"

Little kid #2: "She sends me out to play."


Finland is looking to join NATO for no money down, and its first month free, by referring Sweden through the alliance’s refer-a-friend program.

Speaking at a joint news conference at NATO Headquarters, Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin begged Swedish counterpart Magdalena Andersson to sign up so Finland could get a free month of membership.

“Hey, Maggie, this is a great deal. One month free and they waive the membership fee. That’s a lot of money,” Marin said. “Please. Just join for a month and then quit. You don’t even have to do one training exercise or any Article 5 stuff. C’mon.”
Marin told Andersson she had asked Serbia first, but the Balkan nation told her to “go eat a great big bag of dicks.”

The alliance introduced its popular “NATO Rewards Program” with the fall of the Iron Curtain in the early 1990s, which saw membership double from 16 to 30. Poland’s referral of the Czech Republic, Hungary and Bulgaria won it six months free, a complimentary body mass analysis, a $50 gift card to GNC, and a one-on-one personal training session with the United States.

Not to be outdone, the Russian Federation created its short-lived Comrades Club program to woo former Soviet republics and Warsaw Pact members, but its offer of a free T-54 tank failed to get any takers.


The cop asked, "Whose car is this? Where are you headed? What do you do?"

The miner replied, "Mine."


On the Internet, you can be anything you want.

It's amazing how many people choose to be stupid.

Quote of the Times;
“A nation can unite. A multicultural economic zone cannot.” - Daniel Concannon

Link of the Times;

Issue of the Times;
FDR’s policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate by Meg Sullivan

Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

After scrutinizing Roosevelt’s record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.

“Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump,” said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA’s Department of Economics. “We found that a relapse isn’t likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies.”

In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy, Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933.

“President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was responsible for the Depression by reducing prices and wages, and by extension reducing employment and demand for goods and services,” said Cole, also a UCLA professor of economics. “So he came up with a recovery package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been, given market forces. The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies.”

Using data collected in 1929 by the Conference Board and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Cole and Ohanian were able to establish average wages and prices across a range of industries just prior to the Depression. By adjusting for annual increases in productivity, they were able to use the 1929 benchmark to figure out what prices and wages would have been during every year of the Depression had Roosevelt’s policies not gone into effect. They then compared those figures with actual prices and wages as reflected in the Conference Board data.

In the three years following the implementation of Roosevelt’s policies, wages in 11 key industries averaged 25 percent higher than they otherwise would have done, the economists calculate. But unemployment was also 25 percent higher than it should have been, given gains in productivity.

Meanwhile, prices across 19 industries averaged 23 percent above where they should have been, given the state of the economy. With goods and services that much harder for consumers to afford, demand stalled and the gross national product floundered at 27 percent below where it otherwise might have been.

“High wages and high prices in an economic slump run contrary to everything we know about market forces in economic downturns,” Ohanian said. “As we’ve seen in the past several years, salaries and prices fall when unemployment is high. By artificially inflating both, the New Deal policies short-circuited the market’s self-correcting forces.”

The policies were contained in the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which exempted industries from antitrust prosecution if they agreed to enter into collective bargaining agreements that significantly raised wages. Because protection from antitrust prosecution all but ensured higher prices for goods and services, a wide range of industries took the bait, Cole and Ohanian found. By 1934 more than 500 industries, which accounted for nearly 80 percent of private, non-agricultural employment, had entered into the collective bargaining agreements called for under NIRA.

Cole and Ohanian calculate that NIRA and its aftermath account for 60 percent of the weak recovery. Without the policies, they contend that the Depression would have ended in 1936 instead of the year when they believe the slump actually ended: 1943.

Roosevelt’s role in lifting the nation out of the Great Depression has been so revered that Time magazine readers cited it in 1999 when naming him the 20th century’s second-most influential figure.

“This is exciting and valuable research,” said Robert E. Lucas Jr., the 1995 Nobel Laureate in economics, and the John Dewey Distinguished Service Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago. “The prevention and cure of depressions is a central mission of macroeconomics, and if we can’t understand what happened in the 1930s, how can we be sure it won’t happen again?”

NIRA’s role in prolonging the Depression has not been more closely scrutinized because the Supreme Court declared the act unconstitutional within two years of its passage.

“Historians have assumed that the policies didn’t have an impact because they were too short-lived, but the proof is in the pudding,” Ohanian said. “We show that they really did artificially inflate wages and prices.”

Even after being deemed unconstitutional, Roosevelt’s anti-competition policies persisted - albeit under a different guise, the scholars found. Ohanian and Cole painstakingly documented the extent to which the Roosevelt administration looked the other way as industries once protected by NIRA continued to engage in price-fixing practices for four more years.

The number of antitrust cases brought by the Department of Justice fell from an average of 12.5 cases per year during the 1920s to an average of 6.5 cases per year from 1935 to 1938, the scholars found. Collusion had become so widespread that one Department of Interior official complained of receiving identical bids from a protected industry (steel) on 257 different occasions between mid-1935 and mid-1936. The bids were not only identical but also 50 percent higher than foreign steel prices. Without competition, wholesale prices remained inflated, averaging 14 percent higher than they would have been without the troublesome practices, the UCLA economists calculate.

NIRA’s labor provisions, meanwhile, were strengthened in the National Relations Act, signed into law in 1935. As union membership doubled, so did labor’s bargaining power, rising from 14 million strike days in 1936 to about 28 million in 1937. By 1939 wages in protected industries remained 24 percent to 33 percent above where they should have been, based on 1929 figures, Cole and Ohanian calculate. Unemployment persisted. By 1939 the U.S. unemployment rate was 17.2 percent, down somewhat from its 1933 peak of 24.9 percent but still remarkably high. By comparison, in May 2003, the unemployment rate of 6.1 percent was the highest in nine years.

Recovery came only after the Department of Justice dramatically stepped up enforcement of antitrust cases nearly four-fold and organized labor suffered a string of setbacks, the economists found.

“The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes,” Cole said. “Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened.”

News of the Times;
My wife asked if she could have a little peace and quiet while she cooked dinner.

So I took the battery out of the smoke detector.


I was just on the phone with a company that said I won my choice of either $500 or tickets to see an Elvis Presley tribute band...

I had to press 1 for the money or 2 for the show!


"Did you give the prisoner the third degree?" the police captain asked the detective.

"Yeah, we browbeat him pretty good," nodded the other. "Asked him every question and made every threat we could think of."

"And did you get a confession?" asked the sergeant.

"Not exactly," explained the officer. "All he'd say was, 'Yes dear' and he'd doze off."


Where did Noah keep the bees on the ark?

In the Ark Hives.


You know what has become a serious problem?

Beehive thefts.

I'd suggest some kind of sting operation.

Quote of the Times;
Isn’t that amazing that we have laws to protect the unborn birds and at the same time we are demanding the right to kill our unborn children. - David Hinsen

Link of the Times;

Issue of the Times;
In Praise of Broken Windows Policing by Christopher DeGroot

For many of us who live in American cities, certain things each year signal the arrival of warm weather: the joyful sounds of children playing in the street, the pleasant sight of pretty women in their dresses and skirts, and more young black men shooting each other.

It stands to reason, of course, that there would be greater incidences of violence and murder among criminal types (of all races) during warm weather. More people on the streets means more trouble to get into, and so it is common in some of our cities for a half-dozen people or more to be shot, or shot and killed, in the span of a weekend’s mischief.

So, what is to be done about this problem? Here, no innovation is necessary, because we already know what works, although, as with so many reasonable things these days, there is formidable moralistic liberal opposition. The solution is prevention, and that means broken windows policing.

Developed by two outstanding social scientists, James Q. Wilson and George Kelling, broken windows policing is a distinctly conservative approach to crime. It eschews the standard liberal fantasy—namely, obfuscating moral abstractions and technocratic social engineering—in favor of the empirical, the concrete, and the commonsensical. For the theory is based on observation of good police work itself. As Heather Mac Donald puts it in her recent essay in City Journal on Kelling,

He had accompanied cops walking foot beats in Newark, N.J., and had documented how they enforced local norms of order, whether keeping panhandlers away from bus shelters, quieting noisy youth, or rousting unknown loiterers. The law-abiding residents of the community backed the officers wholeheartedly, ridiculing norm violators and providing information on who was a “regular” and who a “stranger.”

The effectiveness of broken windows policing has been borne out by science. Mac Donald again:

Academic critics and the press…challenged the idea that allowing disorder to fester invites more lawbreaking. In 2007, sociologists in the Netherlands constructed an elegant series of experiments to test the hypothesis. The social scientists defaced discrete urban locations with graffiti and litter and created other signs of public-norm violation. In every case, passersby were far more likely themselves to litter, trespass, and disregard other social rules in the disorderly environment than in the orderly one. They were twice as likely to steal a stamped envelope visibly containing cash from a mailbox that was covered with graffiti than from a mailbox that was pristine.

Other research also has demonstrated the considerable value of the method. Broken windows policing is the reason for the well-known reductions in crime in New York City in the 1990s and the 2000s. I myself have witnessed its effectiveness in the Philadelphia area. Some years ago, while working as a reporter for a small newspaper in Delaware County, PA, I saw a group of black male high school students fighting on the streets of Upper Darby shortly after school had let out. Such violence is rare in Center City Philadelphia, at least, because every afternoon during the school year, the streets are packed with cops who keep the youngsters in line. Out of curiosity, I have sometimes struck up conversations with these men. “These kids are so bad that they need all of you guys out here?” I half-joked to one a few weeks ago. “Pretty much,” he replied, and I thanked him for his thankless work.

There is ample evidence that, insofar as police do not do or stop doing broken windows policing, crime is high or increases. The most famous example of this phenomenon is the Ferguson effect. According to Wikipedia, “the term was coined by Doyle Sam Dotson III, the chief of the St. Louis police, to account for an increased murder rate in some U.S. cities following the Ferguson unrest.”

Why, then, isn’t broken windows policing the norm in the U.S.? Why is it so controversial for police to clear the streets in neighborhoods where it’s reasonable to believe that not doing so may allow for violent crime, or rather, more of it?

There are many reasons. There are more than a few blacks who, resenting their group’s lesser overall social status, do not want to accept group disparities in crime rates, who do not want to face the consequences of human action. To some extent, that is understandable. Influenced by awareness of the past injustices blacks suffered—slavery, Jim Crow, police brutality—blacks and others think that group disparities in crime rates must be owing to discrimination, to police “targeting” blacks. But though discrimination, and unjust police violence, against blacks still occur, there has been tremendous progress in this area. While it may seem counterintuitive to some, today police are far more likely to be murdered by blacks than vice versa. The politically incorrect reality is that, at only about 4 percent of the population, black men under 40 commit more than half of all homicides, and are disproportionately represented in violent crime generally.

Nor can poverty, the common liberal explanation (motivated by blind pity), account for this. There are places around the world where, though people are poorer than anyone in our poorest cities, violent crime rates are still a lot lower than those in Baltimore, Detroit, St. Louis, and other American ghettos. Though poverty is correlated to crime, poverty does not cause crime, because people do have free will and choose to do what they do.

Nevertheless, we are not born as responsible moral agents. We must be socialized and learn to live by virtuous habits. And here many parents, especially among whites, blacks, and Hispanics, are failing. Not that poor parenting alone is to blame—there are plenty of people who repeatedly make bad choices despite having received good parenting. Although much of morality, in all places and times, is just a mask for power and utter hypocrisy, no culture can do without morality, and my friend Amy Wax is right that we require what she calls “the courage to moralize.” Yet such moralizing has to be unflinchingly truthful and sincere, willing to go against the grain. That is what she means by courage.

The problem, though, is that this virtue is hindered by the delusions and class interests of genteel liberals. For rather than realizing that some people just need to change their lives, and to be told to change their lives, these wrongheaded moralists constantly read discrimination into contexts where it does not exist, and condescendingly treat others as nothing but passive victims of poverty, as if to be poor were an intrinsically criminal or degenerate condition. In some cases, this deplorable habit is attributable to ignorance. In others, to fear of appearing racist. In still others, to careerism.

All of these defects are common among social scientists and intellectuals, who have, after all, much to gain by being or appearing to be on the right side of error, so to speak. In a penetrating essay in the summer 2017 issue of City Journal, “What Criminologists Don’t Say, and Why,” criminologists John Paul Wright and Matt DeLisi wrote:

[C]riminologists’ lack of direct contact with subjects, situations, and neighborhoods—their propensity to abstraction—invites misunderstandings about the reality of crime. Most academics have never met with women who have been raped or children who have been molested, or seen the carnage wrought by a bullet that passed through a human skull, or spent a lot of time with police on the street. The gulf between numbers on a spreadsheet and the harsh realities of the world sometimes fosters a romanticized view of criminals as victims, making it easier for criminologists to overlook the damage that lawbreakers cause—and to advocate for more lenient policies and treatment.

Compare these sobering words to what George Orwell said in a letter of October 1938: “What sickens me about left-wing people, especially the intellectuals, is their utter ignorance of the way things actually happen. I was always struck by this when I was in Burma and used to read anti-imperialist stuff.”

To be sure, some of these leftists mean well, but their moral biases, which blind them to the crucial uncomfortable facts, are nonetheless harmful. Perceiving a nonexistent morality play in situations where it is necessary to face “the harsh realities of the world,” including a great many failures of personal responsibility, does not help others—though it does allow you to maintain your weak-willed failure to recognize the truth. Simply throwing money at bad habits—the common “solution” of what John Derbyshire calls “Good Whites” - does nothing to alter them. On the contrary, it merely enables them and effectively justifies the faults and excuses of those who need to change - which only they can do for themselves.

As with incompetent criminologists and other social scientists, so with journalists. Today, much of what passes for journalism is about as intellectually responsible as a game of Whisper Down the Lane. The propaganda of ignorant journalists serves to obscure understanding and to inspire resentment and divisiveness throughout the country. This is particularly true when it comes to reporting on police work. Thus, where people should be trying to live better, they are presented with a cloud of cheap moral confusion in which they can easily take refuge, an option that is certainly preferable to the hard work of self-examination and self-correction.

By giving cops so much discretion, broken windows policing entails huge potential for discrimination and misconduct. So, it must be conducted with the utmost internal scrutiny. Independent of that necessity, however, the complexity of certain situations, and the limitations of human knowledge and judgment, are such that sometimes mistakes are inevitable. Anyway, broken windows policing works and should be the norm everywhere. Whether the U.S. will have the will to implement it as such is another question.

News 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.