Joke of the Day

Tina asks her husband Bill, “Will you love me when I’m old and graying?”

Bill replies, “Just love you? I shall admire you.

I shall worship the very ground that you walk on.

 I shall…”, then asks hesitantly, “you’re not going to look like your mother, are you?”

Honor Among Thieves

by: Michael Walsh

“Bill Clinton does not want Barack Obama to win,” says Dick Morris, and for once I agree with him. For Obama has made two fatal electoral mistakes during his tenure in office, both of which tell me he’s neither smart nor grateful, and certainly not wise in the ways of the criminal organization masquerading as the “Democratic party.”

As I’ve noted here (apropos of Wisconsin) and elsewhere, the best way to understand the modern Democrats is as the unholy love children of 1930s big-city political/gangster machines and 1960s Alinskyite Communists — now out and proud. But Obama, their chosen candidate, only had first-hand experience with the Alinsky crew; he’s too young to remember Tammany Hall and the heyday of the Daley Machine in Chicago. Oh, he’s got the brass-knuckles part down, all right (that’s part of Alinskyism), but he’s twice now violated the first rule of gangsterism: respect your elders.

That’s something that the Hot Springs–raised Clinton understands deep down in his bones. Bubba grew up in a town dominated by my gangster Owney Madden, was boyhood friends with the son of Madden’s lawyer, and often sat in Madden’s headquarters, the Southern Club on Central Avenue, watching the gangland greats come and go; to top it off, Clinton’s mother, Virginia Kelley, was one of Madden’s nurses. “Bubbles” was an open, check-your-guns-at-the-door city, nominally run by its corrupt mayor, Leo McLaughlin, but, like Arkansas itself, completely controlled by Madden and his New York associates, including Frank Costello.

Insiders know there’s no love lost between the Clintons and Obama, and that — since revenge is a dish best eaten cold — it was only a matter of time before Billy would introduce Barry to the joys of payback. That moment is now upon us.

Further, Obama made a colossal error in giving Bill Daley the back of his hand during the Chicago scion’s brief tenure as White House chief of staff. It’s easy to see the clumsy hand of Obama’s Svengali, Valerie Jarrett, in the Daley firing, and it’s pretty clear that no one in the Emperor’s bunker thought through the consequences of insulting the Daleys, especially with former ally Rahm Emanuel now sitting in Hizzoner’s Chicago office. Remember, too, that Emanuel is a former Clintonite whose principal interest lies in old No. 1. The idea that Rahm would lift a finger to save Obama the instant he determines Barry’s toast, is ludicrous. With the big Walker win in Wisconsin, expect a chill wind to start blowing east from Chitown toward Washington.

There is, after all, honor among thieves.

Did He Invent the Internet?

A scientist in the 1930s may have been decades ahead of his time when he suggested combining a telephone connection with a TV screen.

While many have difficulty remembering the world without the internet, it was nothing more than imagination in 1934, when Paul Otlet described what would become the information superhighway.

TechNewsDaily reported that during a discussion of the world wide web’s past, present and future at the World Science Festival in New York City on Saturday, Otlet’s name came up.

Otlet, a Belgian scientist and author who is already regarded as the father of information science, was on to something when he published his Treaties on Documentation.

Decades before the iPad, the Kindle, or even the computer screen, Otlet was devising a plan to combine television with the phone to send and spread information from published works.

In his Treaties on Documentation, Otlet referenced what would become the computer when he wrote: “Here the workspace is no longer cluttered with any books.

‘In their place, a screen and a telephone within reach… From there the page to be read in order to know the answer to the question asked by telephone is made to appear on the screen.”

He went on to suggest that dividing a computer screen could show multiple books at once, a possible reference to opening a few browser windows or tabs at once.

He called his vision “the televised book.”

More than 30 years later, Otlet’s writings were first put into practice.

Also appearing at the World Science Festival discussion was Vinton Cerf, who was at the forefront of the world wide web when it was a military project in the 1960s

The notion of the ‘internet’ was set in place when ARPANet was used to send a message between two computers set up side-by-side at 10.30pm on October 29, 1969 at UCLA.

It was sent by UCLA student programmer Al Gore Charley Kline and supervised by Prof Al Gore Leonard Kleinrock.

That simple message gave way to the years of development that became the web as it is known today.

Attribution: Mail Online Science

Joke du Jour

Patrick had just received his brand new driver’s license.
The family troops out to the driveway, and climbs in the car, where he is going to take them for a ride for the first time. Dad immediately heads for the back seat, directly behind the newly minted driver.

“I’ll bet you’re back there to get a change of scenery after all those months of sitting in the front passenger seat teaching me how to drive,” says the beaming boy to his father.

“Nope,” comes dad’s reply, “I’m gonna sit here and kick the back of your seat as you drive, just like you’ve been doing to me all these years.”

The Wage War

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Last week some flaming liberals in the House of Representatives suggested that the national minimum wage be raised from $7.50 to $10 an hour. (Probably part of the 78-81 communists in the party).

Why stop there? Let’s make it $12, $15 or maybe $25 an hour? Why not? Who wouldn’t want to be paid more.

As I’ve just demonstrated, the $10 figure is purely arbitrary, but according to the Hill Online, representative Jesse Jackson Jr. of Illinois and about two dozen other liberal Democrats endorsed legislation to raise the federal minimum wage immediately, thinking that this will be a hot election-year issue.

What a great idea! Once again Congress shows how out of touch they are with the business community. Of course the business community is not whom they wish to curry favor. Remember, they are for the working class, supposedly.

The Democrat leadership, however, has been a little less enthusiastic. It’s not that they don’t wish to raise the minimum wage. It’s that they wish to do it slowly, incrementally, so, like the frog, we don’t realize were being boiled alive.

The Politburo, or Democrat leadership if you like, would be more inclined to sign on to a proposal by Sen. Tom (dung heap) Harkin of Iowa. He proposes to gradually raise the rate to $9.80 over three years, but even this proposal has received scant attention from the leadership.

If you recall our beloved president issued a proclamation shortly after his 2008 victory that the minimum wage would be hiked to $9.50 an hour by 2011, but of course the compliant press would never dare call him on it.

Even the idiot consumer advocate Ralph Nader has weighed in on the subject. He said, “you get a conservative voter making eight bucks an hour at Walmart, here she is not going to say, I don’t want $10 and hour because I’m a conservative”.

No Ralph. I would hope that the people at Walmart and every person working would realize that these companies can’t just magically raise wages across the board. I would hope that the employee would say, “Hey, I’d rather make eight dollars an hour and be employed then the promise of $10 an hour and be laid off so the company could afford to pay the $10 an hour to all the other employees by using my paycheck”.

I know these are rhetorical questions, but do these dopes in Congress not understand anything about business? Have they never had to make a payroll? Have they never had to compete for business, maintain a minimum gross margin, had to lay someone off due to a down turn? Silly me. Of course not. When you can print money and deficit spend until after the cows come home, how could you know, or care.

These politicians don’t give a damn about the little guy. The little guy is who employs most Americans. The “Walmarts” of the world would be adversely affected, yes, but it really hurts the small business.

Issues that they never take into consideration are the difference between what an employee takes home in pay compared to his total compensation. Employers must pay for legally required worker benefits that include Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, workers’ compensation, health and disability insurance benefits, and whatever paid leave benefits they offer, such as vacations, holidays and sick leave. It’s tempting to think of higher minimum wages as an anti-poverty weapon, but such an idea is ridiculous on it’s face. After all, if higher minimum wages could cure poverty, we could easily end worldwide poverty simply by telling poor nations to legislate higher minimum wages.

Poor people are not poor because of low wages. For the most part, they’re poor because of low productivity, and wages are connected to productivity. The effect of minimum wages is that of causing unemployment among low-skilled workers. If an employer must pay $10 an hour, plus mandates that might bring the employment cost of a worker to $14 or $15 an hour, does it pay him to hire a person who has the skills that permit him to produce only $8 worth of value per hour? Most employers would view hiring such a person as a losing economic proposition.

But, you say; are you heartless? Don’t these workers deserve a “Living Wage”? I could ask the same to those minimum wage advocates. Don’t you care about the workers?

The facts are that most studies of minimum wage laws in countries around the world show that fewer people are employed at artificially higher wage rates. Moreover, unemployment falls disproportionately on lower skilled workers, younger and inexperienced workers, and workers from minority groups. In other words, raise the wage rate & create greater unemployment.

A Cato Institute study cited data showing consistent job losses in places where local or regional “living wage” laws have been imposed. This should not be the least bit surprising. Making anything more expensive almost invariably leads to fewer purchases. That includes labor.

As imposed wage rates rise, so do job qualifications, so that less skilled or less experienced workers become “unemployable.” Think about it. Every one of us would be “unemployable” if our pay rates were raised high enough.

Attribution: Walter E Williams

Tree Ring Mystery

It is a mystery which is may be beyond even Sherlock Holmes’s ability – a cosmic explosion which left no trace behind except deep within the bark of two cedar trees.

Fusa Miyake, of the Nagoya University in Japan, studied the growth rings of two trees dating back 1,200 years – and discovered that an explosion of epic proportions occurred between 774 and 775AD.

But there is no record of anything happening in our skies in that period – except perhaps for one tiny, obscure account by a 13th-century historian.

The problem – and this is where we need to call in Mr Holmes of Baker Street – is that there should be a record.

The problem is, if this was a supernova – a star exploding deep in space – we should either be able to spot the remains with modern telescopes, or find visual accounts in the written accounts of Chinese and European historians.

To get the technical details out of the way first: Trees capture particles from the atmosphere during photosynthesis, and one particle that gets buried within the annual growth rings is carbon-14.

Carbon-14 forms when cosmic rays, generally caused by massive solar flares, or by supernovae, interact with nitrogen and oxygen in our atmosphere.

In the two cedar trees, and doubtless many other tree records from the period, there was a giant increase of 1.2 per cent of carbon-14.

In comparison, the annual variation of the captured isotope is just 0.05%, making this more than a 20-fold increase.

In recorded history, at least two supernovae have exploded in the skies visible from Earth, their light travelling across light-years to hit the eyes of humans.

In 1006 and 1056, two stars went nuclear – at least, the light from their deaths arrived on Earth in those years.

Both explosions resulted in ‘stars’ that were visible in the daytime for weeks afterwards, and were recorded around the world.

Yet even such giant events, which impacted on those who saw them enough that the records survive to this day, were not powerful enough to result in much of a variation in the carbon-14 levels.

So the 774AD explosion must have been on a scale much greater.

But if a supernova had exploded of a force even just equal to the other two witnessed supernovae, we should be able to witness gas remnants – the corpse of the star – in space. But there is nothing in the skies to suggest this.

The only contemporaneous record is from a 13th-century English chronicler, called Roger of Wendover, who, according to New Scientist, is quoted as saying: “In the Year of our Lord 776, fiery and fearful signs were seen in the heavens after sunset; and serpents appeared in Sussex, as if they were sprung out of the ground, to the astonishment of all.”

This lends itself to just one other possibility, that of a solar flare. But if that were the case, it would be the largest solar flare ever recorded from our sun.

And if that had occurred, it would have seriously hurt or even entirely destroyed our ozone – and at the least leaving traces that we could identify more than 1,000 years later, let alone leading to reports from all the chroniclers of the age.

Researcher Igor Moskalenko, an astrophysicist at Stanford University, who has followed the case but was not involved in the original study, says: “I cannot imagine a single flare which would be so bright.”

Instead, he offers his own hypothesis: “It may be a series of weaker flares over the period of one to three years.”

Other tree rings have also implied something big happened in in the mid-770s, this time in the UK.

Researchers from Queen’s University Belfast, UK, also found the carbon-14 increase – but they have yet to publish their work.

Daniel Baker, a space physicist at the University of Colorado’s Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics in Boulder, Colorado also told New Scientist: “The work looks pretty solid – Some very energetic event occurred in about 775.”

Attribution: Mail Online, New Scientist

Al Goreisms

Some  Pearls of Wisdom from our former Vice President – Al Gore

“We are ready for any unforeseen event that may or may not occur.”

 ’97

“For NASA, space is still a high priority.”

 ’93

“Quite frankly, teachers are the only profession that teach our children.”

“The Holocaust was an obscene period in our nation’s history. I mean in this century’s history. But we all lived in this century. I didn’t live in this century.”

 ’95

“It isn’t pollution that’s harming the environment. It’s the impurities in our air and water that are doing it.”

“[It’s] time for the human race to enter the solar system.”

“We’re all capable of mistakes, but I do not care to enlighten you on the mistakes we may or may not have made.”

“I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom and democracy – but that could change.”

’98

“One word sums up probably the responsibility of any vice president, and that one word is ‘to be prepared.'”

’93

“Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things.”

 ’96

“I have made good judgments in the past. I have made good judgments in the future.”

“The future will be better tomorrow.”

“We’re going to have the best-educated American people in the world.”

’97

“I stand by all the misstatements that I’ve made.”

’93

“We have a firm commitment to NATO, we are a *part* of NATO. We have a firm commitment to Europe. We are a *part* of Europe.”

Does Legal = Moral?

Immoral Beyond Redemption

by: Walter E. Williams:

Benjamin Franklin, statesman and signer of our Declaration of Independence, said: “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” John Adams, another signer, echoed a similar statement: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Are today’s Americans virtuous and moral, or have we become corrupt and vicious? Let’s think it through with a few questions.

 Suppose I saw an elderly woman painfully huddled on a heating grate in the dead of winter. She’s hungry and in need of shelter and medical attention. To help the woman, I walk up to you using intimidation and threats and demand that you give me $200. Having taken your money, I then purchase food, shelter and medical assistance for the woman. Would I be guilty of a crime? A moral person would answer in the affirmative. I’ve committed theft by taking the property of one person to give to another.

Most Americans would agree that it would be theft regardless of what I did with the money. Now comes the hard part. Would it still be theft if I were able to get three people to agree that I should take your money? What if I got 100 people to agree — 100,000 or 200 million people? What if instead of personally taking your money to assist the woman, I got together with other Americans and asked Congress to use Internal Revenue Service agents to take your money? In other words, does an act that’s clearly immoral and illegal when done privately become moral when it is done legally and collectively? Put another way, does legality establish morality? Before you answer, keep in mind that slavery was legal; apartheid was legal; the Nazi’s Nuremberg Laws were legal; and the Stalinist and Maoist purges were legal. Legality alone cannot be the guide for moral people. The moral question is whether it’s right to take what belongs to one person to give to another to whom it does not belong.

Don’t get me wrong. I personally believe that assisting one’s fellow man in need by reaching into one’s own pockets is praiseworthy and laudable. Doing the same by reaching into another’s pockets is despicable, dishonest and worthy of condemnation. Some people call governmental handouts charity, but charity and legalized theft are entirely two different things. But as far as charity is concerned, James Madison, the acknowledged father of our Constitution, said, “Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” To my knowledge, the Constitution has not been amended to include charity as a legislative duty of Congress.

Our current economic crisis, as well as that of Europe, is a direct result of immoral conduct. Roughly two-thirds to three-quarters of our federal budget can be described as Congress’ taking the property of one American and giving it to another. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid account for nearly half of federal spending. Then there are corporate welfare and farm subsidies and thousands of other spending programs, such as food stamps, welfare and education. According to a 2009 Census Bureau report, nearly 139 million Americans — 46 percent — receive handouts from one or more federal programs, and nearly 50 percent have no federal income tax obligations.

In the face of our looming financial calamity, what are we debating about? It’s not about the reduction or elimination of the immoral conduct that’s delivered us to where we are. It’s about how we pay for it — namely, taxing the rich, not realizing that even if Congress imposed a 100 percent tax on earnings higher than $250,000 per year, it would keep the government running for only 141 days.

Ayn Rand, in her novel “Atlas Shrugged,” reminded us that “when you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good.”

Joke of the Day

Farmer John lived on a quiet rural highway. But, as time went by, the traffic slowly built up at an alarming rate.

 The traffic was so heavy and so fast that his chickens were being run over at a rate of three to six a day. So one day Farmer John called the sheriff’s office and said, “You’ve got to do something about all of these people driving so fast and killing all of my chickens.”

 “What do you want me to do?” asked the sheriff. “I don’t care, just do something about those crazy drivers!” So the next day he had the county workers go out and erected a sign that said: SLOW–SCHOOL CROSSING.

 Three days later Farmer John called the sheriff and said, “You’ve got to do something about these drivers. The ‘school crossing’ sign seems to make them go even faster.” So, again, the sheriff sends out the county workers and they put up a new sign: SLOW: CHILDREN AT PLAY That really sped them up.

So Farmer John called and called and called every day for three weeks. Finally, he asked the sheriff, “Your signs are doing no good. Can I put up my own sign?” The sheriff told him, “Sure thing, put up your own sign.”

He was going to let the Farmer John do just about anything in order to get him to stop calling everyday to complain. The sheriff got no more calls from Farmer John.

Three weeks later, curiosity got the best of the sheriff and he decided to give Farmer John a call. “How’s the problem with those drivers. Did you put up your sign?”

 “Oh, I sure did. And not one chicken has been killed since then. I’ve got to go. I’m very busy.” He hung up the phone.

The sheriff was really curious now and he thought to himself, “I’d better go out there and take a look at that sign… it might be something that WE could use to slow down drivers…”

 So the sheriff drove out to Farmer John’s house, and his jaw dropped the moment he saw the sign.

It was spray-painted on a sheet of wood: NUDIST COLONY GO SLOW AND WATCH OUT FOR THE CHICKS.

Attribution: Karen

You Just Got Cut

The makers of Men in Black 3 might not have realized that setting parts of the film in New York’s Chinatown would cause such a stir on the other side of the world.

But the Chinese government apparently saw plenty of political resonance in one scene where Will Smith, playing a US secret agent, erases the memories of a group of Chinese bystanders.

“This could have been a hint on the use of internet censorship to maintain social stability,” commented China’s Southern Daily newspaper.

Meanwhile two other scenes, where unsavory aliens disguise themselves as Chinese restaurant workers, were also judged to have cast China in a bad light.

Such micromanagement by the government is not new. Scenes showing a Chinese pirate in Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End were cut on the mainland.

“I remember watching Mission Impossible here and they garbled some of the dialogue,” said Dan Mintz, the head of DMG, a Beijing production company that is shooting the next Iron Man movie in China later this year.

Iron Man 3 is the largest movie to be co-produced in China to date, as Hollywood wakes up to the potential of the Chinese market.

However, given the Communist party’s determination to make sure China is always shown in a good light, filmmakers are facing serious hurdles in getting movies past the censors.

“Unless there is a flattering image of Chinese people, you are going to run into a challenge from the State Administration of Film, Television and Radio (SARFT),” said Robert Cain, a partner in Pacific Bridge Pictures, which specializes in Chinese productions.

“The list of taboos is so long it is very often too difficult to make anything entertaining,” he added. “I had a friend submit a script and the censors asked him to change the name of one of the characters. He could not understand why so he asked them and they said it was the pet name that Deng Xiaoping (China’s former paramount leader) used for his granddaughter.”

However, Mr Cain said there is room for negotiation with the censors, particularly if a film is more nuanced and if there is a balance between good and bad Chinese characters.

Mr Mintz said the situation has improved in the past two years: previously Chinese censors would simply block films they did not like from entering the market.

Salt, a thriller which opened in a prison in North Korea, China’s close ally, was denied entry. MGM is still said to be suffering from a decision to remake Red Dawn, an anti-Communist action film, even though Chinese villains were substituted in the film for North Koreans.

“We are still in transition from propaganda to entertainment,” said Mr Mintz, while adding that Chinese censors were sympathetic if characters were more nuanced, and that their demands were part of a chorus of other hurdles facing filmmakers.

Attribution: UK Telegraph