I guess if I had to eat a person I would want them to be a vegetarian. I like irony and prefer grass fed beef.
*.*
A Psychic Buying Clothes
Employee: How about this one?
Psychic: That shirt is too small.
Employee: You didn't even try it on.
Psychic: I'm a medium.
*.*
New ‘Gender Neutral’ Latrines Will Require Troops To Sit While They Pee
WASHINGTON — In an effort to pave the way for gender integration in infantry combat roles, Pentagon officials announced the acquisition of new gender neutral porta-potties specifically designed to only be used while in a seated position.
With deadlines looming, the military’s top brass have struggled to eliminate gender restrictions ever since former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s stunning decision to change the longstanding rule excluding women from serving in combat roles.
Gender equity has also been the signature issue of Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, who has long insisted that neutral policies across the board are necessary to truly integrate women in the armed forces.
“We are ending the way we segregate urination,” Mabus said. “Rather than highlighting differences in our ranks or ‘equipment,’ we will incorporate our troops in a safe, non-binary method of relieving themselves, which will not highlight or give an advantage to any specific gender.”
Military engineers began by shortening the standard 88-inch height of porta-potties to 55 inches, requiring the occupant to sit in order use the restroom. The new design also includes decorative finger tip towels and fancy soap.
“In the Navy and Marine Corps, we are moving towards sanitary conditions that don’t divide us as male or female,” said Mabus. “This will unite us as sailors and Marines whose crap pretty much stinks the same.”
Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Miley insists the new porta-potties will not lower standards. “We still expect soldiers to get their piss in the pot and not all over the floor,” said Miley. “Besides, this makes it a lot easier to text when I take a leak.”
The Air Force had no comment on the proposed change, according to a spokesman, who told reporters everyone in the service “already squats to pee.”
Reaction from the ranks has not been as positive as from the top leadership.
“What do mean I’m not supposed to use the decorative soap?” said Marine Gunnery Sgt. Bob Reynolds. “Screw this, I’m just going to piss in the tree line.”
*.*
During one of my recent magic shows, a woman asks me, "Sir how do you do that trick?"
I responded, "If I told you I would have to kill you"
She said, "OK then...tell my husband!"
*.*
Interesting Facts About English Language
1. Understanding English actually hurts professional players of English scrabble. Some of the world’s best Scrabble players are Thai and can’t speak English.
2. The English words moose, opossum, pecan, raccoon, skunk, and squash all originated from the now-extinct language of the Algonquian people, the native tribe inhabiting the site of the earliest English colony in what is now the US at Roanoke Island.
3. In English, multiple adjectives are supposed to be listed in the following order: Quantity, Opinion, Size, Age, Shape, Color, Origin, Material and Purpose.
4. Many English words used to be spelled phonetically (e.g. debt was ‘det’) until some scholars purposely added silent letters to make them look more like Greek or Latin words, sometimes erroneously.
5. The word “electrocute” is a combination of the words electro and execute, meaning killed by electricity. So if you don’t die, you were not electrocuted, you were shocked.
6. Before the English speaking world was exposed to the fruit, the color orange was referred to as “geoluhread” which is Old English for red-yellow.
7. In addition to the word “lord” evolving from a word literally meaning “keeper of bread”, “lady” evolved from a word literally meaning “kneader of bread.”
8. If you write any number in words (English), count the number of letters, write this new number in words and so on, you’ll always end with number 4.
9. English words for livestock (cow, sheep, chicken) are Germanic-based and the words for meats (beef, mutton, poultry) are French-based. This is because the people who raised the animals were Anglo-Saxon peasants and the people who ate them were Norman aristocrats.
10. The word “set” has 464 definitions, making it the word with the most variety.
11. The word “dude” was first used in the late 1800s as an insult towards young men who were overly concerned with keeping up with the latest fashions.
12. There is a word that is the opposite of sparkle and it is “darkle.”
13. The word “minute” comes from “the first MINUTE (small) division of an hour.” The word “Second” comes from “the SECOND minute division of an hour.”
14. The word “legend” originally meant “things to be read.” In the pre-Medieval period, reading and writing were very rare, and so anything worthy of being written down was something very noteworthy, and thus “legendary”; worthy of being written down and read.
15. The word “camel” in “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God” may be an incorrect translation of the word for rope.
16. The English word ‘infant’ comes from the Latin word ‘infans’, meaning “unable to speak” or “speechless.”
17. “Bookkeeper” is the only word in English language with three consecutive Double letters.
18. The word “retarded” came into popular use during the 1960’s because it was considered far less offensive and more politically correct than labeling someone a moron, idiot or imbecile.
19. The word cereal comes from the Roman goddess Ceres, and her association with edible grains.
20. The word “barbecue” has been around since 1650, and it has meant “outdoor meal of roasted meat or fish as a social entertainment” since 1733.
21. The Mayan god of wind and storms was called Jun Raqan, pronounced “Huracan”, hence the English word “Hurricane.”
22. The word “Aibohphobia” meaning “fear of palindromes”, is a joke word deliberately constructed to be one.
23. The word “liberal” in liberal arts means worthy of a free person (as opposed to a slave), and such an education isn’t meant to get you a job but rather to make you useful in a free society.
24. Acronyms are said like words, while initialisms are individual letters. For example, NATO is an acronym and FBI is an initialism.
25. Old English used the word ‘dore’ for male bees. Dumbledore means bumblebee.
Issue of the Times;
Muslim Demographics
The Trojan Pig of Islam:
The fascist ideology of Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other components.
Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges. When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well.
The following analysis of Islamic influence and Muslim demographics around the world is adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond’s book, “Slavery, Terrorism & Islam: Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat”.
Here’s how it works:
Muslim Immigration And The Prolonged Effect On The Political And Social Net Of Society
Islam’s Effect On Society At 0%-2%
United States — Muslim 0.6%
Australia — Muslim 1.5%
Canada — Muslim 1.9%
China — Muslim 1.8%
Denmark — Muslim 2%
Italy — Muslim 1.5%
Ireland — Muslim 2%
Norway — Muslim 1.8%
1.8% Muslim population in Norway: In 2011 Norwegian authorities reported that 100% of all rapes in the entire capital Oslo, were committed by immigrants of which roughly 90% were committed by Muslim immigrants.
Islam’s Effect On Society At 2%-5%
At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in:
.
Germany — Muslim 3.7% (now 5.4% since this report was made)
United Kingdom — Muslim 2.7% (now 3.3% since this report was made)
Spain — Muslim 4%
Thailand — Muslim 4.6%
Islam’s Effect On Society At 5%-9%
From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:
France — Muslim 8%
Philippines — Muslim 5%
Sweden — Muslim 5%
Australia — Muslim 6%
Belgium — Muslim 6%
Switzerland — Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands — Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago — Muslim 5.8%
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.
Muslim population 5%: In Sweden nearly all of 77.6% of total rapes in the country, are committed by Muslim migrants. In 2012 the capital experienced a 69% surge in the Muslim rape wave of its women. What will be the violence and assault report when the Muslim population doubles, and triples, and quadruples?
Islam’s Effect On Society At 10%-19%
When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris, we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam, with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in:
Guyana — Muslim 10%
Bulgaria — Muslim 10%
Central Africa — Muslim 15%
India — Muslim 14.6%
Israel — Muslim 16%
Kenya — Muslim 10%
Russia — Muslim 15%
Islam’s Effect On Society At 20%-39%
After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:
Ethiopia — Muslim 32.8%
Suriname — Muslim 19.6%
Thailand — Muslim 35%
Togo — Muslim 20%
Islam’s Effect On Society At 40%-60%
At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, non-stop church destruction, Boko Haram, etc., such as in:
Albania — Muslim 38.8%-85%
Bosnia — Muslim 40%
Chad — Muslim 53.1%
Guinea Bissau — Muslim 50%
Ivory Coast — Muslim 40%
Lebanon — Muslim 59.7%
Nigeria – Muslim 50%
Islam’s Effect On Society At 60%-80%
From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:
Albania — Muslim 70%
Kazakhstan — 65%
Malaysia — Muslim 60.4%
Qatar — Muslim 77.5%
Sudan — Muslim 70%
Note: Slavery was reintroduced into Sudan under increased Muslim political rule and establishment of Sharia law. In 1995, Human Rights Watch first reported on slavery in Sudan in the context of the Second Sudanese Civil War. In 1996, two more reports emerged, one by a United Nations representative and another by reporters from the Baltimore Sun.
Islam’s Effect On Society At 80%-99%
After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:
Bangladesh — Muslim 83%
Egypt — Muslim 90%
Indonesia — Muslim 86.1%
Iran — Muslim 98%
Iraq — Muslim 97%
Jordan — Muslim 92%
Pakistan — Muslim 97%
Palestine — Muslim 99%
Syria — Muslim 90%
Turkey — Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates — Muslim 96%
Islam’s Effect On Society
100% will usher in the peace of ‘Dar-es-Salaam’ — the Islamic House of Peace. Here there’s supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:
Afghanistan — Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia — Muslim 100%
Somalia — Muslim 100%
Yemen — Muslim 100%
Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.
“Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe against the world, and all of us against the infidel.” — Leon Uris, “The Haj”.
Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.
Conclusion and Footnote
It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts nor schools nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrasses. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death. Therefore, in some areas of certain nations, Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the national average would indicate.
Quote of the Times;
Nothing Gold Can Stay by Robert Frost
Nature's first green is gold,
Her hardest hue to hold.
Her early leaf's a flower;
But only so an hour.
Then leaf subsides to leaf,
So Eden sank to grief,
So dawn goes down to day
Nothing gold can stay.
Link of the Times;
http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_Mass_Murder
Pig?
Why?
Oneliners:
Old music sounds better than today's music because nobody remembers the shitty ones.
Birthday sex is celebrating exiting a vagina by entering one.
"Pay to win" gaming isn't new. In the 80s it was called "Insert coin(s) to continue"
We bake cookies and cook bacon.
In professional poker, is Botox considered a performance enhancing drug?
If I were a cop, I'd drive an unmarked car with a "honk if you're drunk" bumper sticker.
I'm sure my phone vibrates every now and then with no notification just to make me think I'm going crazy
Computers should allow an alternative password that unlocks your computer but also closes all open windows.
Artists parodied by Weird Al should make a tribute album consisting of their covers of his songs
*.*
When Mahatma Gandhi was studying law at the University College of London, a professor by the name of Peters disliked him intensely and always displayed animosity towards him. And because Gandhi never lowered his head when addressing him, as he expected, there were always "arguments" and confrontations.
One day Mr Peters was having lunch at the University dining room when Gandhi came along with his tray and sat next to him. The professor said,"Mr Gandhi, you do not understand. A pig and a bird do not sit together to eat. "Gandhi looked at him as a parent would a rude child and calmly replied, "You do not worry, professor. I'll fly away," and he went and sat at another table.
Peters, red with rage, decided to take revenge on the next test paper, but Gandhi responded brilliantly to all questions. Unhappy and frustrated, Mr Peters asked him the following question: "Mr Gandhi, if you were walking down the street and found a package, and within was a bag of wisdom and another bag with a lot of money, which one would you take?"
Without hesitating, Gandhi responded, "The one with the money, of course." Mr Peters, smiling sarcastically, said, "I, in your place, would have taken the wisdom." Gandhi shrugged indifferently and responded, "Each one takes what he doesn't have."
Mr Peters, by this time, was fit to be tied. So great was his anger that he wrote on Gandhi's exam sheet the word "idiot" and handed it back to him. Gandhi took the exam sheet and sat down at his desk, trying hard to remain calm while he contemplated his next move. A few minutes later, Gandhi got up, went to the professor and said to him in a dignified but sarcastically polite tone, "Mr Peters, you autographed the sheet, but you did not give me the grade."
*.*
One day at a trial, an eminent psychologist was called to testify. A severe no nonsense professional, she sat down in the witness chair unaware that it's rear legs were set precariously on the back of the raised platform.
"Will you state your name?" asked the district attorney.
Tilting back in her chair she opened her mouth to answer, but instead catapulted head-over-heels backward and landed in a stack of exhibits and recording equipment.
Everyone watched in stunned silence as she extricated herself, rearranged her dishevelled dress and hair and was reseated on the witness stand. The glare she directed at onlookers dared anyone to so much as smirk.
"Well, doctor," continued the district attorney without changing expression, "we could start with an easier question."
*.*
Paddy and mick are passengers on a plane
Mick turns to paddy and says, "if this plane turns upside down will we fall out?"
Paddy turns and says, "No, of course not. We'll stay the best of friends!"
*.*
Jake was on his deathbed. His wife, Susan, was maintaining a vigil by his side. As she held his fragile hand, tears ran down her face. Her praying roused him from his slumber. He looked up and his pale lips began to move slightly.
"My darling Susan," he whispered. "Hush, my love," she said.
"Rest. Shhh. Don't talk." He was insistent.
"Susan," he said in his tired voice. "I have something I must confess to you."
"There's nothing to confess," replied the weeping Susan. "Everything's all right, go to sleep."
"No, no. I must die in peace, Susan. I slept with your sister, your best friend, and your mother."
"I know," she replied. "That's why I poisoned you."
Issue of the Times;
Why They Hate Us by Fred Reed
A frequent theme nowadays is “Why do they hate us?” meaning why does so much of the world detest the United States. The reasons given are usually absurd: They hate our freedom or democracy. They hate us for our cultural superiority. They hate us because we are wonderful.
No. Actually the reason is simple if unpalatable. They hate us because we meddle, and have meddled. They hate us because we are the most murderous nation on the planet. They hate our insufferable smugness.
People remember slights. They may not remember them as they actually happened, but they remember them. The Civil War ended in 1865, the Federal occupation in 1877. Yet today many Southerners are still bitter, to the point that their emotional loyalty is to the South, not to Washington.
Silly? Yes, if you are from the North. Grievances matter more to those aggrieved than to the aggrievers.
In Guadalajara, near my home in Mexico, a towering monument in a traffic circle honors Los Niños Héroes, the Heroic Children. These are the little boys who, when the invading American armies attacked Chapultepec in 1847, went out to fight for their country. Avenues are named Niños Héroes all over Mexico. Few Americans even know that there was a war.
Wounds to national pride gall people, and endure. Exactly why, I don’t know, but it happens. Consider China. How many have heard of the Opium Wars of 1839 and 1856? Or understand that the United States and the European powers simply occupied such parts of China as they chose, forced opium sales on China, imposed extraterritoriality, and bloodily suppressed the Boxers? How many people have even heard of the Boxers?
Over a billion Chinese.
My point is not that China is morally superior to the United States. It isn’t. However, if you want to understand why so many countries loathe us, you have to understand how they see us. Whether you agree is irrelevant. Nor does it matter whether their grievances are factual. For example, many South Americans believe their countries to be poor because of exploitation by America. This isn’t true, which doesn’t matter at all.
A few years back I was in Laos and chatted with a young Lao woman. She mentioned in passing the death of her father. What happened to him, I asked? Oh, she said, he died fighting the Americans. A war that many Americans saw as a meritorious crusade against communism was, to the countries involved, an inexplicable attack that killed their fathers and brothers and children. They didn’t see why the internal affairs of their country were America’s business.
Agree with them or don’t, but that’s why they hate us.
Countries usually see their own virtues and the warts of others. Americans, perhaps because they do not much travel, carry this to an extreme and regard their country as superior to all others. The attitude is highly annoying. Consider the US from the point of view of others:
America is both a rogue state and a bully, constantly attacking countries hopelessly inferior in military strength — Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Panama, Cuba, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, etc. Civil rights? The US has more people in prison than any other country. Many of our cities are festering slums. The world saw the victims of Katrina. Morality? The country is rife with drugs, crime, sex. Culture? In education, American students are annually shown to be inferior to those of Thailand, Hungary, Singapore, and so on. America is tasteless and sordid. Look at the movies….
Yes, yes, some of that isn’t fair, and an American might ask, for example, how an Arab country, practicing female circumcision and not allowing girls to study, can lecture anyone on morality. I agree. But how they see things determines their attitudes.
In Google Images, search on “Abu Ghraib.” You will see American Army women grinning as they torture and humiliate Arab men. They are having a wonderful time, and the whole world can see those pictures. This was American policy — low-ranking girl soldiers do not undertake this kind of thing without approval from command. The general in charge was a woman. Torture is still American policy.
Stalin did this sort of thing. So did Adolf. So did Pol Pot. And so does the United States. Other countries know it. (Google recently pulled its ads from Antiwar.com because the site posted an Abu Ghraib photo. Does Google support torture, or did the Feds threaten….? Nah. Impossible. Not our government.) When I think how other countries react, I cringe.
Below the Rio Bravo? The first rule of American hemispheric diplomacy south of Texas should be “Don’t get into Latin faces unless you have to.” The US has a long history, of which most Americans aren’t aware, of meddling to the south. At least three invasions of Mexico depending on whether Veracruz counts as an invasion or just a bombardment), at least one of Panama, the installation of Pinochet in Chile and of support for various Central American dictators, United Fruit, the Canal Zone, the Bay of Pigs, on and on and on. These things are remembered.
A couple of examples of abjectly stupid, obnoxious meddling: First, many decades back, Mexico had a comic-book character called Memin Pinguin, a caricature black kid with exaggerated lips and so on who had adventures with white friends. In 2005, Mexico issued postage stamps with Memin’s picture, as we might of Elvis. To Mexicans it was innocent nostalgia. Yet in America outrage erupted. Jesse Jackson attacked the Mexican government and George Bush denounced the stamps as racism. People here were furious: Mexico couldn’t even issue postage stamps without approval from Washington.
Second: In 2006 , some Cuban businessmen took a room in the Sheraton in Mexico City. Washington got wind of it and forced Sheraton, an American company, to eject them. Childish, pointless, it enraged Mexicans who see Cuba as yet another small country being bullied by the US, and regarded the ejection as meddling with national sovereignty. The effect of course was to fan sympathy for Cuba.
Further, we tend to see things through lenses of moralistic abstractions: Democracy is good, and freedom is good, and therefore if we bomb Iraq and kill many thousands of soldiers who are someone’s husbands, brothers, children, and fathers, the survivors will throw flowers and turn into Fifth Century Athens. It’s all right to destroy cities because we say we have good intentions.
People detest condescension. Yet we lecture Russia and China condescendingly on human rights, and speak openly of committing “regime change” in various countries as if we had a divine right to determine their form of government. It smells of armed mommyism, which no one can stand.
It is even worth reflecting that our “democracy” and “freedom” do not look as resplendent as we might think to the people of a more collective-minded and well-run country. Try Singapore. Neither democratic nor free in our sense, it is prosperous, free of crime, without a drug problem (a country that executes drug dealers has few of them), enjoys schools far better than ours; lacks graffiti, vandalism, and trash in the streets, and has a high degree of technological advancement. Its people quietly regard themselves as civilizationally superior to a degraded America in decline. (Humility is not a besetting sin of the Chinese.)
Why do we not behave more sensibly? Americans obviously are not stupid people. Dummies don’t build Mars rovers. Yet we seem to have a wanton, almost genetic non-grasp of how others think — which means that we can’t predict what they will do. Often Americans just don’t care what others think. This of course plays into the hands of Hugo Chavez and bin Laden.
That’s why they hate us. We meddle.
Quote of the Times;
To refrain from imitation is the best revenge. – Aurelius
Link of the Times;
http://ninite.com/
Old music sounds better than today's music because nobody remembers the shitty ones.
Birthday sex is celebrating exiting a vagina by entering one.
"Pay to win" gaming isn't new. In the 80s it was called "Insert coin(s) to continue"
We bake cookies and cook bacon.
In professional poker, is Botox considered a performance enhancing drug?
If I were a cop, I'd drive an unmarked car with a "honk if you're drunk" bumper sticker.
I'm sure my phone vibrates every now and then with no notification just to make me think I'm going crazy
Computers should allow an alternative password that unlocks your computer but also closes all open windows.
Artists parodied by Weird Al should make a tribute album consisting of their covers of his songs
*.*
When Mahatma Gandhi was studying law at the University College of London, a professor by the name of Peters disliked him intensely and always displayed animosity towards him. And because Gandhi never lowered his head when addressing him, as he expected, there were always "arguments" and confrontations.
One day Mr Peters was having lunch at the University dining room when Gandhi came along with his tray and sat next to him. The professor said,"Mr Gandhi, you do not understand. A pig and a bird do not sit together to eat. "Gandhi looked at him as a parent would a rude child and calmly replied, "You do not worry, professor. I'll fly away," and he went and sat at another table.
Peters, red with rage, decided to take revenge on the next test paper, but Gandhi responded brilliantly to all questions. Unhappy and frustrated, Mr Peters asked him the following question: "Mr Gandhi, if you were walking down the street and found a package, and within was a bag of wisdom and another bag with a lot of money, which one would you take?"
Without hesitating, Gandhi responded, "The one with the money, of course." Mr Peters, smiling sarcastically, said, "I, in your place, would have taken the wisdom." Gandhi shrugged indifferently and responded, "Each one takes what he doesn't have."
Mr Peters, by this time, was fit to be tied. So great was his anger that he wrote on Gandhi's exam sheet the word "idiot" and handed it back to him. Gandhi took the exam sheet and sat down at his desk, trying hard to remain calm while he contemplated his next move. A few minutes later, Gandhi got up, went to the professor and said to him in a dignified but sarcastically polite tone, "Mr Peters, you autographed the sheet, but you did not give me the grade."
*.*
One day at a trial, an eminent psychologist was called to testify. A severe no nonsense professional, she sat down in the witness chair unaware that it's rear legs were set precariously on the back of the raised platform.
"Will you state your name?" asked the district attorney.
Tilting back in her chair she opened her mouth to answer, but instead catapulted head-over-heels backward and landed in a stack of exhibits and recording equipment.
Everyone watched in stunned silence as she extricated herself, rearranged her dishevelled dress and hair and was reseated on the witness stand. The glare she directed at onlookers dared anyone to so much as smirk.
"Well, doctor," continued the district attorney without changing expression, "we could start with an easier question."
*.*
Paddy and mick are passengers on a plane
Mick turns to paddy and says, "if this plane turns upside down will we fall out?"
Paddy turns and says, "No, of course not. We'll stay the best of friends!"
*.*
Jake was on his deathbed. His wife, Susan, was maintaining a vigil by his side. As she held his fragile hand, tears ran down her face. Her praying roused him from his slumber. He looked up and his pale lips began to move slightly.
"My darling Susan," he whispered. "Hush, my love," she said.
"Rest. Shhh. Don't talk." He was insistent.
"Susan," he said in his tired voice. "I have something I must confess to you."
"There's nothing to confess," replied the weeping Susan. "Everything's all right, go to sleep."
"No, no. I must die in peace, Susan. I slept with your sister, your best friend, and your mother."
"I know," she replied. "That's why I poisoned you."
Issue of the Times;
Why They Hate Us by Fred Reed
A frequent theme nowadays is “Why do they hate us?” meaning why does so much of the world detest the United States. The reasons given are usually absurd: They hate our freedom or democracy. They hate us for our cultural superiority. They hate us because we are wonderful.
No. Actually the reason is simple if unpalatable. They hate us because we meddle, and have meddled. They hate us because we are the most murderous nation on the planet. They hate our insufferable smugness.
People remember slights. They may not remember them as they actually happened, but they remember them. The Civil War ended in 1865, the Federal occupation in 1877. Yet today many Southerners are still bitter, to the point that their emotional loyalty is to the South, not to Washington.
Silly? Yes, if you are from the North. Grievances matter more to those aggrieved than to the aggrievers.
In Guadalajara, near my home in Mexico, a towering monument in a traffic circle honors Los Niños Héroes, the Heroic Children. These are the little boys who, when the invading American armies attacked Chapultepec in 1847, went out to fight for their country. Avenues are named Niños Héroes all over Mexico. Few Americans even know that there was a war.
Wounds to national pride gall people, and endure. Exactly why, I don’t know, but it happens. Consider China. How many have heard of the Opium Wars of 1839 and 1856? Or understand that the United States and the European powers simply occupied such parts of China as they chose, forced opium sales on China, imposed extraterritoriality, and bloodily suppressed the Boxers? How many people have even heard of the Boxers?
Over a billion Chinese.
My point is not that China is morally superior to the United States. It isn’t. However, if you want to understand why so many countries loathe us, you have to understand how they see us. Whether you agree is irrelevant. Nor does it matter whether their grievances are factual. For example, many South Americans believe their countries to be poor because of exploitation by America. This isn’t true, which doesn’t matter at all.
A few years back I was in Laos and chatted with a young Lao woman. She mentioned in passing the death of her father. What happened to him, I asked? Oh, she said, he died fighting the Americans. A war that many Americans saw as a meritorious crusade against communism was, to the countries involved, an inexplicable attack that killed their fathers and brothers and children. They didn’t see why the internal affairs of their country were America’s business.
Agree with them or don’t, but that’s why they hate us.
Countries usually see their own virtues and the warts of others. Americans, perhaps because they do not much travel, carry this to an extreme and regard their country as superior to all others. The attitude is highly annoying. Consider the US from the point of view of others:
America is both a rogue state and a bully, constantly attacking countries hopelessly inferior in military strength — Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Panama, Cuba, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, etc. Civil rights? The US has more people in prison than any other country. Many of our cities are festering slums. The world saw the victims of Katrina. Morality? The country is rife with drugs, crime, sex. Culture? In education, American students are annually shown to be inferior to those of Thailand, Hungary, Singapore, and so on. America is tasteless and sordid. Look at the movies….
Yes, yes, some of that isn’t fair, and an American might ask, for example, how an Arab country, practicing female circumcision and not allowing girls to study, can lecture anyone on morality. I agree. But how they see things determines their attitudes.
In Google Images, search on “Abu Ghraib.” You will see American Army women grinning as they torture and humiliate Arab men. They are having a wonderful time, and the whole world can see those pictures. This was American policy — low-ranking girl soldiers do not undertake this kind of thing without approval from command. The general in charge was a woman. Torture is still American policy.
Stalin did this sort of thing. So did Adolf. So did Pol Pot. And so does the United States. Other countries know it. (Google recently pulled its ads from Antiwar.com because the site posted an Abu Ghraib photo. Does Google support torture, or did the Feds threaten….? Nah. Impossible. Not our government.) When I think how other countries react, I cringe.
Below the Rio Bravo? The first rule of American hemispheric diplomacy south of Texas should be “Don’t get into Latin faces unless you have to.” The US has a long history, of which most Americans aren’t aware, of meddling to the south. At least three invasions of Mexico depending on whether Veracruz counts as an invasion or just a bombardment), at least one of Panama, the installation of Pinochet in Chile and of support for various Central American dictators, United Fruit, the Canal Zone, the Bay of Pigs, on and on and on. These things are remembered.
A couple of examples of abjectly stupid, obnoxious meddling: First, many decades back, Mexico had a comic-book character called Memin Pinguin, a caricature black kid with exaggerated lips and so on who had adventures with white friends. In 2005, Mexico issued postage stamps with Memin’s picture, as we might of Elvis. To Mexicans it was innocent nostalgia. Yet in America outrage erupted. Jesse Jackson attacked the Mexican government and George Bush denounced the stamps as racism. People here were furious: Mexico couldn’t even issue postage stamps without approval from Washington.
Second: In 2006 , some Cuban businessmen took a room in the Sheraton in Mexico City. Washington got wind of it and forced Sheraton, an American company, to eject them. Childish, pointless, it enraged Mexicans who see Cuba as yet another small country being bullied by the US, and regarded the ejection as meddling with national sovereignty. The effect of course was to fan sympathy for Cuba.
Further, we tend to see things through lenses of moralistic abstractions: Democracy is good, and freedom is good, and therefore if we bomb Iraq and kill many thousands of soldiers who are someone’s husbands, brothers, children, and fathers, the survivors will throw flowers and turn into Fifth Century Athens. It’s all right to destroy cities because we say we have good intentions.
People detest condescension. Yet we lecture Russia and China condescendingly on human rights, and speak openly of committing “regime change” in various countries as if we had a divine right to determine their form of government. It smells of armed mommyism, which no one can stand.
It is even worth reflecting that our “democracy” and “freedom” do not look as resplendent as we might think to the people of a more collective-minded and well-run country. Try Singapore. Neither democratic nor free in our sense, it is prosperous, free of crime, without a drug problem (a country that executes drug dealers has few of them), enjoys schools far better than ours; lacks graffiti, vandalism, and trash in the streets, and has a high degree of technological advancement. Its people quietly regard themselves as civilizationally superior to a degraded America in decline. (Humility is not a besetting sin of the Chinese.)
Why do we not behave more sensibly? Americans obviously are not stupid people. Dummies don’t build Mars rovers. Yet we seem to have a wanton, almost genetic non-grasp of how others think — which means that we can’t predict what they will do. Often Americans just don’t care what others think. This of course plays into the hands of Hugo Chavez and bin Laden.
That’s why they hate us. We meddle.
Quote of the Times;
To refrain from imitation is the best revenge. – Aurelius
Link of the Times;
http://ninite.com/
Socialism?
Smith goes to see his supervisor in the front office. "Boss," he says, "we're doing some heavy house-cleaning at home tomorrow, and my wife needs me to help with the attic and the garage, moving and hauling stuff."
"We're short-handed, Smith," the boss replies. "I can't give you the day off."
"Thanks, boss," says Smith, "I knew I could count on you!"
*.*
Kristen gave Sally 3 flowers and 2 stuffed animals. Todd gave Sally 5 flowers and 3 stuffed animals. What does Sally have?
Cancer.
*.*
True story.
MAY 25 - A woman wearing a “Stop Domestic Violence” t-shirt was arrested on domestic violence charges after firing a gun during an argument with her husband inside the couple’s Maine home, police report.
Emily Wilson, 38, was collared last week following a confrontation with her spouse Kyle over whether he was having an affair. During the argument, investigators allege, Wilson waved a handgun and fired a shot into the couple’s bed.
Wilson, a high school teacher, was subsequently arrested when police responded to a 911 call placed by her husband.
*.*
FORT EUSTIS, Va. — The Army’s Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) announced today plans to offer a two-mile Walmart scooter ride as an alternate event for the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT).
“We’ve been seeking to make the APFT more closely approximate the physical demands required of soldiers in today’s combat environment,” said TRADOC Command Sgt. Maj. David Davenport. “The Walmart scooter ride puts to the test one’s ability to walk minimal distances, transition to and from a seated position, and exercise a modicum of fine motor control, which is all that is required of a majority of soldiers nowadays.”
The event will entail parking in a handicap parking space at a local Walmart, walking approximately thirty yards to the entrance, boarding a mobility scooter, navigating a two mile course that winds up and down the aisles, then returning to the parking space.
TRADOC has not yet decided which APFT component the scooter ride will replace, though Davenport speculated that the 800-yard swim was the most likely candidate.
“I consider the swim to be an inadequate test of preparedness for the modern combat zone, as I can’t remember the last time we deployed to a country that wasn’t parched desert,” said Davenport.
*.*
At the Battle of Monmouth in June 1778 the weather was hot, over 100 degrees Fahrenheit. Sometime during the battle, William Hays collapsed. As her husband was carried off the battlefield, Mary Hays took his place at the cannon. For the rest of the day, in the heat of battle, Mary continued to "swab and load" the cannon using her husband's ramrod. At one point, a British musket ball or cannonball flew between her legs and tore off the bottom of her skirt. Mary said something to the effect of, "Well, that could have been worse," and went back to loading the cannon.
Issue of the Times;
Why Socialism Failed by Mark J. Perry
Collectivism Is Based on Faulty Principles
Socialism is the Big Lie of the twentieth century. While it promised prosperity, equality, and security, it delivered poverty, misery, and tyranny. Equality was achieved only in the sense that everyone was equal in his or her misery.
In the same way that a Ponzi scheme or chain letter initially succeeds but eventually collapses, socialism may show early signs of success. But any accomplishments quickly fade as the fundamental deficiencies of central planning emerge. It is the initial illusion of success that gives government intervention its pernicious, seductive appeal. In the long run, socialism has always proven to be a formula for tyranny and misery.
A pyramid scheme is ultimately unsustainable because it is based on faulty principles. Likewise, collectivism is unsustainable in the long run because it is a flawed theory. Socialism does not work because it is not consistent with fundamental principles of human behavior. The failure of socialism in countries around the world can be traced to one critical defect: it is a system that ignores incentives.
In a capitalist economy, incentives are of the utmost importance. Market prices, the profit-and-loss system of accounting, and private property rights provide an efficient, interrelated system of incentives to guide and direct economic behavior. Capitalism is based on the theory that incentives matter!
Under socialism, incentives either play a minimal role or are ignored totally. A centrally planned economy without market prices or profits, where property is owned by the state, is a system without an effective incentive mechanism to direct economic activity. By failing to emphasize incentives, socialism is a theory inconsistent with human nature and is therefore doomed to fail. Socialism is based on the theory that incentives don’t matter!
In a radio debate several months ago with a Marxist professor from the University of Minnesota, I pointed out the obvious failures of socialism around the world in Cuba, Eastern Europe, and China. At the time of our debate, Haitian refugees were risking their lives trying to get to Florida in homemade boats. Why was it, I asked him, that people were fleeing Haiti and traveling almost 500 miles by ocean to get to the “evil capitalist empire” when they were only 50 miles from the “workers’ paradise” of Cuba?
The Marxist admitted that many “socialist” countries around the world were failing. However, according to him, the reason for failure is not that socialism is deficient, but that the socialist economies are not practicing “pure” socialism. The perfect version of socialism would work; it is just the imperfect socialism that doesn’t work. Marxists like to compare a theoretically perfect version of socialism with practical, imperfect capitalism which allows them to claim that socialism is superior to capitalism.
If perfection really were an available option, the choice of economic and political systems would be irrelevant. In a world with perfect beings and infinite abundance, any economic or political system–socialism, capitalism, fascism, or communism–would work perfectly.
However, the choice of economic and political institutions is crucial in an imperfect universe with imperfect beings and limited resources. In a world of scarcity it is essential for an economic system to be based on a clear incentive structure to promote economic efficiency. The real choice we face is between imperfect capitalism and imperfect socialism. Given that choice, the evidence of history overwhelmingly favors capitalism as the greatest wealth-producing economic system available.
The strength of capitalism can be attributed to an incentive structure based upon the three Ps: (1) prices determined by market forces, (2) a profit-and-loss system of accounting and (3) private property rights. The failure of socialism can be traced to its neglect of these three incentive-enhancing components.
Prices
The price system in a market economy guides economic activity so flawlessly that most people don’t appreciate its importance. Market prices transmit information about relative scarcity and then efficiently coordinate economic activity. The economic content of prices provides incentives that promote economic efficiency.
For example, when the OPEC cartel restricted the supply of oil in the 1970s, oil prices rose dramatically. The higher prices for oil and gasoline transmitted valuable information to both buyers and sellers. Consumers received a strong, clear message about the scarcity of oil by the higher prices at the pump and were forced to change their behavior dramatically. People reacted to the scarcity by driving less, carpooling more, taking public transportation, and buying smaller cars. Producers reacted to the higher price by increasing their efforts at exploration for more oil. In addition, higher oil prices gave producers an incentive to explore and develop alternative fuel and energy sources.
The information transmitted by higher oil prices provided the appropriate incentive structure to both buyers and sellers. Buyers increased their effort to conserve a now more precious resource and sellers increased their effort to find more of this now scarcer resource.
The only alternative to a market price is a controlled or fixed price which always transmits misleading information about relative scarcity. Inappropriate behavior results from a controlled price because false information has been transmitted by an artificial, non-market price.
Look at what happened during the 1970s when U.S. gas prices were controlled. Long lines developed at service stations all over the country because the price for gasoline was kept artificially low by government fiat. The full impact of scarcity was not accurately conveyed. As Milton Friedman pointed out at the time, we could have eliminated the lines at the pump in one day by allowing the price to rise to clear the market.
From our experience with price controls on gasoline and the long lines at the pump and general inconvenience, we get an insight into what happens under socialism where every price in the economy is controlled. The collapse of socialism is due in part to the chaos and inefficiency that result from artificial prices. The information content of a controlled price is always distorted. This in turn distorts the incentives mechanism of prices under socialism. Administered prices are always either too high or too low, which then creates constant shortages and surpluses. Market prices are the only way to transmit information that will create the incentives to ensure economic efficiency.
Profits and Losses
Socialism also collapsed because of its failure to operate under a competitive, profit-and-loss system of accounting. A profit system is an effective monitoring mechanism which continually evaluates the economic performance of every business enterprise. The firms that are the most efficient and most successful at serving the public interest are rewarded with profits. Firms that operate inefficiently and fail to serve the public interest are penalized with losses.
By rewarding success and penalizing failure, the profit system provides a strong disciplinary mechanism which continually redirects resources away from weak, failing, and inefficient firms toward those firms which are the most efficient and successful at serving the public. A competitive profit system ensures a constant reoptimization of resources and moves the economy toward greater levels of efficiency. Unsuccessful firms cannot escape the strong discipline of the marketplace under a profit/loss system. Competition forces companies to serve the public interest or suffer the consequences.
Under central planning, there is no profit-and-loss system of accounting to accurately measure the success or failure of various programs. Without profits, there is no way to discipline firms that fail to serve the public interest and no way to reward firms that do. There is no efficient way to determine which programs should be expanded and which ones should be contracted or terminated.
Without competition, centrally planned economies do not have an effective incentive structure to coordinate economic activity. Without incentives the results are a spiraling cycle of poverty and misery. Instead of continually reallocating resources towards greater efficiency, socialism falls into a vortex of inefficiency and failure.
Private Property Rights
A third fatal defect of socialism is its blatant disregard for the role of private property rights in creating incentives that foster economic growth and development. The failure of socialism around the world is a “tragedy of commons” on a global scale.
The “tragedy of the commons” refers to the British experience of the sixteenth century when certain grazing lands were communally owned by villages and were made available for public use. The land was quickly overgrazed and eventually became worthless as villagers exploited the communally owned resource.
When assets are publicly owned, there are no incentives in place to encourage wise stewardship. While private property creates incentives for conservation and the responsible use of property, public property encourages irresponsibility and waste. If everyone owns an asset, people act as if no one owns it. And when no one owns it, no one really takes care of it. Public ownership encourages neglect and mismanagement.
Since socialism, by definition, is a system marked by the “common ownership of the means of production,” the failure of socialism is a “tragedy of the commons” on a national scale. Much of the economic stagnation of socialism can be traced to the failure to establish and promote private property rights.
As Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto remarked, you can travel in rural communities around the world and you will hear dogs barking, because even dogs understand property rights. It is only statist governments that have failed to understand property rights. Socialist countries are just now starting to recognize the importance of private property as they privatize assets and property in Eastern Europe.
Incentives Matter
Without the incentives of market prices, profit-and-loss accounting, and well-defined property rights, socialist economies stagnate and wither. The economic atrophy that occurs under socialism is a direct consequence of its neglect of economic incentives.
No bounty of natural resources can ever compensate a country for its lack of an efficient system of incentives. Russia, for example, is one of the world’s wealthiest countries in terms of natural resources; it has some of the world’s largest reserves of oil, natural gas, diamonds, and gold. Its valuable farm land, lakes, rivers, and streams stretch across a land area that encompasses 11 time zones. Yet Russia remains poor. Natural resources are helpful, but the ultimate resources of any country are the unlimited resources of its people–human resources.
By their failure to foster, promote, and nurture the potential of their people through incentive-enhancing institutions, centrally planned economies deprive the human spirit of full development. Socialism fails because it kills and destroys the human spirit–just ask the people leaving Cuba in homemade rafts and boats.
As the former centrally planned economies move toward free markets, capitalism, and democracy, they look to the United States for guidance and support during the transition. With an unparalleled 250-year tradition of open markets and limited government, the United States is uniquely qualified to be the guiding light in the worldwide transition to freedom and liberty.
We have an obligation to continue to provide a framework of free markets and democracy for the global transition to freedom. Our responsibility to the rest of the world is to continue to fight the seductiveness of statism around the world and here at home. The seductive nature of statism continues to tempt and lure us into the Barmecidal illusion that the government can create wealth.
The temptress of socialism is constantly luring us with the offer: “give up a little of your freedom and I will give you a little more security.” As the experience of this century has demonstrated, the bargain is tempting but never pays off. We end up losing both our freedom and our security.
Programs like socialized medicine, welfare, Social Security, and minimum wage laws will continue to entice us because on the surface they appear to be expedient and beneficial. Those programs, like all socialist programs, will fail in the long run regardless of initial appearances. These programs are part of the Big Lie of socialism because they ignore the important role of incentives.
Socialism will remain a constant temptation. We must be vigilant in our fight against socialism not only around the globe but also here in the United States.
The failure of socialism inspired a worldwide renaissance of freedom and liberty. For the first time in the history of the world, the day is coming very soon when a majority of the people in the world will live in free societies or societies rapidly moving toward freedom.
Capitalism will play a major role in the global revival of liberty and prosperity because it nurtures the human spirit, inspires human creativity, and promotes the spirit of enterprise. By providing a powerful system of incentives that promote thrift, hard work, and efficiency, capitalism creates wealth.
The main difference between capitalism and socialism is this: Capitalism works.
Mark J. Perry is a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a professor of economics and finance at the University of Michigan’s Flint campus.
Quote of the Times;
Wow, USA Today did todays cover story on my record in lawsuits. Verdict: 450 wins, 38 losses. Isn’t that what you want for your president? – Trump
"We're short-handed, Smith," the boss replies. "I can't give you the day off."
"Thanks, boss," says Smith, "I knew I could count on you!"
*.*
Kristen gave Sally 3 flowers and 2 stuffed animals. Todd gave Sally 5 flowers and 3 stuffed animals. What does Sally have?
Cancer.
*.*
True story.
MAY 25 - A woman wearing a “Stop Domestic Violence” t-shirt was arrested on domestic violence charges after firing a gun during an argument with her husband inside the couple’s Maine home, police report.
Emily Wilson, 38, was collared last week following a confrontation with her spouse Kyle over whether he was having an affair. During the argument, investigators allege, Wilson waved a handgun and fired a shot into the couple’s bed.
Wilson, a high school teacher, was subsequently arrested when police responded to a 911 call placed by her husband.
*.*
FORT EUSTIS, Va. — The Army’s Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) announced today plans to offer a two-mile Walmart scooter ride as an alternate event for the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT).
“We’ve been seeking to make the APFT more closely approximate the physical demands required of soldiers in today’s combat environment,” said TRADOC Command Sgt. Maj. David Davenport. “The Walmart scooter ride puts to the test one’s ability to walk minimal distances, transition to and from a seated position, and exercise a modicum of fine motor control, which is all that is required of a majority of soldiers nowadays.”
The event will entail parking in a handicap parking space at a local Walmart, walking approximately thirty yards to the entrance, boarding a mobility scooter, navigating a two mile course that winds up and down the aisles, then returning to the parking space.
TRADOC has not yet decided which APFT component the scooter ride will replace, though Davenport speculated that the 800-yard swim was the most likely candidate.
“I consider the swim to be an inadequate test of preparedness for the modern combat zone, as I can’t remember the last time we deployed to a country that wasn’t parched desert,” said Davenport.
*.*
At the Battle of Monmouth in June 1778 the weather was hot, over 100 degrees Fahrenheit. Sometime during the battle, William Hays collapsed. As her husband was carried off the battlefield, Mary Hays took his place at the cannon. For the rest of the day, in the heat of battle, Mary continued to "swab and load" the cannon using her husband's ramrod. At one point, a British musket ball or cannonball flew between her legs and tore off the bottom of her skirt. Mary said something to the effect of, "Well, that could have been worse," and went back to loading the cannon.
Issue of the Times;
Why Socialism Failed by Mark J. Perry
Collectivism Is Based on Faulty Principles
Socialism is the Big Lie of the twentieth century. While it promised prosperity, equality, and security, it delivered poverty, misery, and tyranny. Equality was achieved only in the sense that everyone was equal in his or her misery.
In the same way that a Ponzi scheme or chain letter initially succeeds but eventually collapses, socialism may show early signs of success. But any accomplishments quickly fade as the fundamental deficiencies of central planning emerge. It is the initial illusion of success that gives government intervention its pernicious, seductive appeal. In the long run, socialism has always proven to be a formula for tyranny and misery.
A pyramid scheme is ultimately unsustainable because it is based on faulty principles. Likewise, collectivism is unsustainable in the long run because it is a flawed theory. Socialism does not work because it is not consistent with fundamental principles of human behavior. The failure of socialism in countries around the world can be traced to one critical defect: it is a system that ignores incentives.
In a capitalist economy, incentives are of the utmost importance. Market prices, the profit-and-loss system of accounting, and private property rights provide an efficient, interrelated system of incentives to guide and direct economic behavior. Capitalism is based on the theory that incentives matter!
Under socialism, incentives either play a minimal role or are ignored totally. A centrally planned economy without market prices or profits, where property is owned by the state, is a system without an effective incentive mechanism to direct economic activity. By failing to emphasize incentives, socialism is a theory inconsistent with human nature and is therefore doomed to fail. Socialism is based on the theory that incentives don’t matter!
In a radio debate several months ago with a Marxist professor from the University of Minnesota, I pointed out the obvious failures of socialism around the world in Cuba, Eastern Europe, and China. At the time of our debate, Haitian refugees were risking their lives trying to get to Florida in homemade boats. Why was it, I asked him, that people were fleeing Haiti and traveling almost 500 miles by ocean to get to the “evil capitalist empire” when they were only 50 miles from the “workers’ paradise” of Cuba?
The Marxist admitted that many “socialist” countries around the world were failing. However, according to him, the reason for failure is not that socialism is deficient, but that the socialist economies are not practicing “pure” socialism. The perfect version of socialism would work; it is just the imperfect socialism that doesn’t work. Marxists like to compare a theoretically perfect version of socialism with practical, imperfect capitalism which allows them to claim that socialism is superior to capitalism.
If perfection really were an available option, the choice of economic and political systems would be irrelevant. In a world with perfect beings and infinite abundance, any economic or political system–socialism, capitalism, fascism, or communism–would work perfectly.
However, the choice of economic and political institutions is crucial in an imperfect universe with imperfect beings and limited resources. In a world of scarcity it is essential for an economic system to be based on a clear incentive structure to promote economic efficiency. The real choice we face is between imperfect capitalism and imperfect socialism. Given that choice, the evidence of history overwhelmingly favors capitalism as the greatest wealth-producing economic system available.
The strength of capitalism can be attributed to an incentive structure based upon the three Ps: (1) prices determined by market forces, (2) a profit-and-loss system of accounting and (3) private property rights. The failure of socialism can be traced to its neglect of these three incentive-enhancing components.
Prices
The price system in a market economy guides economic activity so flawlessly that most people don’t appreciate its importance. Market prices transmit information about relative scarcity and then efficiently coordinate economic activity. The economic content of prices provides incentives that promote economic efficiency.
For example, when the OPEC cartel restricted the supply of oil in the 1970s, oil prices rose dramatically. The higher prices for oil and gasoline transmitted valuable information to both buyers and sellers. Consumers received a strong, clear message about the scarcity of oil by the higher prices at the pump and were forced to change their behavior dramatically. People reacted to the scarcity by driving less, carpooling more, taking public transportation, and buying smaller cars. Producers reacted to the higher price by increasing their efforts at exploration for more oil. In addition, higher oil prices gave producers an incentive to explore and develop alternative fuel and energy sources.
The information transmitted by higher oil prices provided the appropriate incentive structure to both buyers and sellers. Buyers increased their effort to conserve a now more precious resource and sellers increased their effort to find more of this now scarcer resource.
The only alternative to a market price is a controlled or fixed price which always transmits misleading information about relative scarcity. Inappropriate behavior results from a controlled price because false information has been transmitted by an artificial, non-market price.
Look at what happened during the 1970s when U.S. gas prices were controlled. Long lines developed at service stations all over the country because the price for gasoline was kept artificially low by government fiat. The full impact of scarcity was not accurately conveyed. As Milton Friedman pointed out at the time, we could have eliminated the lines at the pump in one day by allowing the price to rise to clear the market.
From our experience with price controls on gasoline and the long lines at the pump and general inconvenience, we get an insight into what happens under socialism where every price in the economy is controlled. The collapse of socialism is due in part to the chaos and inefficiency that result from artificial prices. The information content of a controlled price is always distorted. This in turn distorts the incentives mechanism of prices under socialism. Administered prices are always either too high or too low, which then creates constant shortages and surpluses. Market prices are the only way to transmit information that will create the incentives to ensure economic efficiency.
Profits and Losses
Socialism also collapsed because of its failure to operate under a competitive, profit-and-loss system of accounting. A profit system is an effective monitoring mechanism which continually evaluates the economic performance of every business enterprise. The firms that are the most efficient and most successful at serving the public interest are rewarded with profits. Firms that operate inefficiently and fail to serve the public interest are penalized with losses.
By rewarding success and penalizing failure, the profit system provides a strong disciplinary mechanism which continually redirects resources away from weak, failing, and inefficient firms toward those firms which are the most efficient and successful at serving the public. A competitive profit system ensures a constant reoptimization of resources and moves the economy toward greater levels of efficiency. Unsuccessful firms cannot escape the strong discipline of the marketplace under a profit/loss system. Competition forces companies to serve the public interest or suffer the consequences.
Under central planning, there is no profit-and-loss system of accounting to accurately measure the success or failure of various programs. Without profits, there is no way to discipline firms that fail to serve the public interest and no way to reward firms that do. There is no efficient way to determine which programs should be expanded and which ones should be contracted or terminated.
Without competition, centrally planned economies do not have an effective incentive structure to coordinate economic activity. Without incentives the results are a spiraling cycle of poverty and misery. Instead of continually reallocating resources towards greater efficiency, socialism falls into a vortex of inefficiency and failure.
Private Property Rights
A third fatal defect of socialism is its blatant disregard for the role of private property rights in creating incentives that foster economic growth and development. The failure of socialism around the world is a “tragedy of commons” on a global scale.
The “tragedy of the commons” refers to the British experience of the sixteenth century when certain grazing lands were communally owned by villages and were made available for public use. The land was quickly overgrazed and eventually became worthless as villagers exploited the communally owned resource.
When assets are publicly owned, there are no incentives in place to encourage wise stewardship. While private property creates incentives for conservation and the responsible use of property, public property encourages irresponsibility and waste. If everyone owns an asset, people act as if no one owns it. And when no one owns it, no one really takes care of it. Public ownership encourages neglect and mismanagement.
Since socialism, by definition, is a system marked by the “common ownership of the means of production,” the failure of socialism is a “tragedy of the commons” on a national scale. Much of the economic stagnation of socialism can be traced to the failure to establish and promote private property rights.
As Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto remarked, you can travel in rural communities around the world and you will hear dogs barking, because even dogs understand property rights. It is only statist governments that have failed to understand property rights. Socialist countries are just now starting to recognize the importance of private property as they privatize assets and property in Eastern Europe.
Incentives Matter
Without the incentives of market prices, profit-and-loss accounting, and well-defined property rights, socialist economies stagnate and wither. The economic atrophy that occurs under socialism is a direct consequence of its neglect of economic incentives.
No bounty of natural resources can ever compensate a country for its lack of an efficient system of incentives. Russia, for example, is one of the world’s wealthiest countries in terms of natural resources; it has some of the world’s largest reserves of oil, natural gas, diamonds, and gold. Its valuable farm land, lakes, rivers, and streams stretch across a land area that encompasses 11 time zones. Yet Russia remains poor. Natural resources are helpful, but the ultimate resources of any country are the unlimited resources of its people–human resources.
By their failure to foster, promote, and nurture the potential of their people through incentive-enhancing institutions, centrally planned economies deprive the human spirit of full development. Socialism fails because it kills and destroys the human spirit–just ask the people leaving Cuba in homemade rafts and boats.
As the former centrally planned economies move toward free markets, capitalism, and democracy, they look to the United States for guidance and support during the transition. With an unparalleled 250-year tradition of open markets and limited government, the United States is uniquely qualified to be the guiding light in the worldwide transition to freedom and liberty.
We have an obligation to continue to provide a framework of free markets and democracy for the global transition to freedom. Our responsibility to the rest of the world is to continue to fight the seductiveness of statism around the world and here at home. The seductive nature of statism continues to tempt and lure us into the Barmecidal illusion that the government can create wealth.
The temptress of socialism is constantly luring us with the offer: “give up a little of your freedom and I will give you a little more security.” As the experience of this century has demonstrated, the bargain is tempting but never pays off. We end up losing both our freedom and our security.
Programs like socialized medicine, welfare, Social Security, and minimum wage laws will continue to entice us because on the surface they appear to be expedient and beneficial. Those programs, like all socialist programs, will fail in the long run regardless of initial appearances. These programs are part of the Big Lie of socialism because they ignore the important role of incentives.
Socialism will remain a constant temptation. We must be vigilant in our fight against socialism not only around the globe but also here in the United States.
The failure of socialism inspired a worldwide renaissance of freedom and liberty. For the first time in the history of the world, the day is coming very soon when a majority of the people in the world will live in free societies or societies rapidly moving toward freedom.
Capitalism will play a major role in the global revival of liberty and prosperity because it nurtures the human spirit, inspires human creativity, and promotes the spirit of enterprise. By providing a powerful system of incentives that promote thrift, hard work, and efficiency, capitalism creates wealth.
The main difference between capitalism and socialism is this: Capitalism works.
Mark J. Perry is a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a professor of economics and finance at the University of Michigan’s Flint campus.
Quote of the Times;
Wow, USA Today did todays cover story on my record in lawsuits. Verdict: 450 wins, 38 losses. Isn’t that what you want for your president? – Trump
Gold?
The thing I remember most about Grandma's old Bible, with its leathery cover, tattered spine and frayed edges, was that it looked a lot like Grandma.
*.*
"My stomach has been bothering me, Doctor," complained the patient.
"What have you been eating?" asked the doctor.
"Pool balls."
"Pool balls?!" said the astonished doctor. "Maybe that's the trouble. What kind do you eat?"
"All kinds," replied the man, "Red ones for breakfast, yellow and orange ones for lunch, blue ones for afternoon snacks, and purple and black for dinner."
"I see your problem," said the doctor. "You haven't been getting any greens!"
*.*
A new report says that one in four Americans between 25 and 45 are not working.
And that's just among those with jobs!
*.*
A wife asks her husband, "Could you please go shopping for me and buy one carton of milk, And if they have eggs, get 6."
A short time later the husband comes back with 6 cartons of milk.
The wife asks him, "Why did you buy 6 cartons of milk?"
He replied, "They had eggs."
(Read it again…)
*.*
After 50 years of wondering why he didn't look like
his younger sister or brother, the man finally got up the
nerve to ask his mother if he was adopted.
"Yes, you were, son," his mother said as she started
to cry softly, "but it didn't work out and they brought
you back."
Issue of the Times;
What your high school chemistry teacher never taught you about gold by Simon Black
One of the more unfortunate developments in human civilization over the last century is the devolution of money.
In fact, the word ‘money’ has now become synonymous with those funny pieces of paper that are conjured out of thin air by unelected central bankers.
Or even more ridiculous, ‘money’ has become the electronic representation of that paper.
Think about your bank account balance; it’s not like the bank has all that paper currency sitting in its vault.
The ‘money’ in your account doesn’t even really exist. There’s just enough of a thin layer of confidence in the system (at the moment) that this is a widely accepted practice.
It seems rather strange when you think about it. Though for thousands of years, early civilizations had some pretty wild ideas about money.
There are examples from history of our ancestors using everything from animals skins, to salt, to giant stones, as their form of ‘money’.
Though I suppose these weren’t any more ridiculous than our version of money - pieces of paper that don’t even really exist, controlled by unelected central bankers.
Of course, over the last 5,000 years, there was at least one form of money that did make sense. And it stuck. I’m talking, of course, about gold.
It’s no accident that gold has become the most consistent form of money in world history.
The metal is uniquely suited to serve as currency, not only amongst precious metals, but compared against nearly everything else on the planet.
You can see for yourself by taking a look at the periodic table of elements, the scientist’s catalog of everything the world has to offer.
Many of the entries on the periodic table are immediately disqualified. Many elements are radioactive. Others are gasses that would be impossible to transport.
Still others are colorless, and hence indistinguishable from air.
Taking these out eliminates most of the list, and you’re left with just a few dozen metals.
Most of these, however, like copper or iron, can be easily eliminated as well. They’re simply too common. And a form of money is useless if it’s in too much abundance… a lesson that modern central bankers have completely forgotten.
Others (like cesium) are highly reactive and explode on contact with water, or at least corrode easily.
Clearly a currency that kills its holder, or can’t even maintain its physical state without debasing itself, is rather useless.
Even silver, which nearly passes every single test falters at the last point, because it tarnishes slightly in reaction to sulfur in the air.
So out of all the elements we’re left with just one that’s just right: gold.
Gold is inert and non-reactive. It’s stable. It holds its form over the long-term. It’s malleable and easily divisible. And it’s rare. But not too rare.
Judging by its chemical properties, it’s no accident that gold became the most widely-used currency in history.
Of course, defenders of the paper money concept call gold a “barbarous relic”, suggesting that it has no place in modern civilization. (Curiously, paper is also relic from long ago, dating back to the 2nd century AD in China...)
Yes it’s true that gold is a very old concept. But so is the wheel. Language. Arithmetic. And many other ideas passed down from the ages.
Just because something is ancient doesn’t mean it’s not RIGHT.
Empires rise and fall. Governments and central bankers come and go. Paper currencies lose their dominance.
But gold lasts.
And if you hold a long-term view, and believe that the path to prosperity is not paved in debt and money printing it makes sense to consider holding at least a small portion of your savings in the metal.
Quote of the Times;
In many modern novels there is portrayed a type of cold, selfish, sexless woman who plumes herself on being “respectable,” but who is really a rather less desirable member of society than a prostitute. Unfortunately the portrayal is true to life. The woman who shrinks from motherhood is as low a creature as a man of the professional pacificist, or poltroon, type, who shirks his duty as a soldier. - Roosevelt
Link of the Times;
http://pjmedia.com/
*.*
"My stomach has been bothering me, Doctor," complained the patient.
"What have you been eating?" asked the doctor.
"Pool balls."
"Pool balls?!" said the astonished doctor. "Maybe that's the trouble. What kind do you eat?"
"All kinds," replied the man, "Red ones for breakfast, yellow and orange ones for lunch, blue ones for afternoon snacks, and purple and black for dinner."
"I see your problem," said the doctor. "You haven't been getting any greens!"
*.*
A new report says that one in four Americans between 25 and 45 are not working.
And that's just among those with jobs!
*.*
A wife asks her husband, "Could you please go shopping for me and buy one carton of milk, And if they have eggs, get 6."
A short time later the husband comes back with 6 cartons of milk.
The wife asks him, "Why did you buy 6 cartons of milk?"
He replied, "They had eggs."
(Read it again…)
*.*
After 50 years of wondering why he didn't look like
his younger sister or brother, the man finally got up the
nerve to ask his mother if he was adopted.
"Yes, you were, son," his mother said as she started
to cry softly, "but it didn't work out and they brought
you back."
Issue of the Times;
What your high school chemistry teacher never taught you about gold by Simon Black
One of the more unfortunate developments in human civilization over the last century is the devolution of money.
In fact, the word ‘money’ has now become synonymous with those funny pieces of paper that are conjured out of thin air by unelected central bankers.
Or even more ridiculous, ‘money’ has become the electronic representation of that paper.
Think about your bank account balance; it’s not like the bank has all that paper currency sitting in its vault.
The ‘money’ in your account doesn’t even really exist. There’s just enough of a thin layer of confidence in the system (at the moment) that this is a widely accepted practice.
It seems rather strange when you think about it. Though for thousands of years, early civilizations had some pretty wild ideas about money.
There are examples from history of our ancestors using everything from animals skins, to salt, to giant stones, as their form of ‘money’.
Though I suppose these weren’t any more ridiculous than our version of money - pieces of paper that don’t even really exist, controlled by unelected central bankers.
Of course, over the last 5,000 years, there was at least one form of money that did make sense. And it stuck. I’m talking, of course, about gold.
It’s no accident that gold has become the most consistent form of money in world history.
The metal is uniquely suited to serve as currency, not only amongst precious metals, but compared against nearly everything else on the planet.
You can see for yourself by taking a look at the periodic table of elements, the scientist’s catalog of everything the world has to offer.
Many of the entries on the periodic table are immediately disqualified. Many elements are radioactive. Others are gasses that would be impossible to transport.
Still others are colorless, and hence indistinguishable from air.
Taking these out eliminates most of the list, and you’re left with just a few dozen metals.
Most of these, however, like copper or iron, can be easily eliminated as well. They’re simply too common. And a form of money is useless if it’s in too much abundance… a lesson that modern central bankers have completely forgotten.
Others (like cesium) are highly reactive and explode on contact with water, or at least corrode easily.
Clearly a currency that kills its holder, or can’t even maintain its physical state without debasing itself, is rather useless.
Even silver, which nearly passes every single test falters at the last point, because it tarnishes slightly in reaction to sulfur in the air.
So out of all the elements we’re left with just one that’s just right: gold.
Gold is inert and non-reactive. It’s stable. It holds its form over the long-term. It’s malleable and easily divisible. And it’s rare. But not too rare.
Judging by its chemical properties, it’s no accident that gold became the most widely-used currency in history.
Of course, defenders of the paper money concept call gold a “barbarous relic”, suggesting that it has no place in modern civilization. (Curiously, paper is also relic from long ago, dating back to the 2nd century AD in China...)
Yes it’s true that gold is a very old concept. But so is the wheel. Language. Arithmetic. And many other ideas passed down from the ages.
Just because something is ancient doesn’t mean it’s not RIGHT.
Empires rise and fall. Governments and central bankers come and go. Paper currencies lose their dominance.
But gold lasts.
And if you hold a long-term view, and believe that the path to prosperity is not paved in debt and money printing it makes sense to consider holding at least a small portion of your savings in the metal.
Quote of the Times;
In many modern novels there is portrayed a type of cold, selfish, sexless woman who plumes herself on being “respectable,” but who is really a rather less desirable member of society than a prostitute. Unfortunately the portrayal is true to life. The woman who shrinks from motherhood is as low a creature as a man of the professional pacificist, or poltroon, type, who shirks his duty as a soldier. - Roosevelt
Link of the Times;
http://pjmedia.com/
Luke?
Best Fan Theories, Part 2
Doc was suicidal
The doc is ready to kill himself along with Marty in that parking lot during the first time travel scene. Not only has he never tested the time machine, but he claims that many of his inventions have been failures. So during the moment when he’s about to find out if his life’s work was a huge success, or a complete waste, he not only drives the Delorian towards himself, but grabs onto Marty when
he tries to run away. If that first time travel test was a failure, they both would have been killed, which is exactly what Doc wanted had the experiment been a failure.
Forest Gump was lied to
In the end, he isn’t Forrest’s son. Jenny just takes advantage of him after she learns that he’s a shrimp tycoon.
The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air is dead
Will actually died in the fight on the basketball court in West Philly. The taxi driver is actually God, who drives a “rare” cab. He takes Will to heaven, where he works out all his issues with his wealthy Aunt and Uncle. Will only sees his mother and father on special occasions, because that’s when they come to visit his grave.
Dr. Claw is not so bad
The Inspector we know is actually the second Inspector, built as a completely-robotic replacement after the first was lost in action. He was loaded with his old memories, and nobody would have been the wiser, except that the original Inspector Gadget didn’t actually die. Upon returning from whatever disaster caused his bosses to give up on him as KIA, and now horribly disfigured, he discovers this replacement living his life, even with his dog and raising his niece. The original Inspector snaps, and vows to devote the rest of his life to the destruction of the ungodly replacement. He disavows everything he once knew and loved, even going so far as to take a new name… DOCTOR CLAW!!
Friday and JFK
The song is about the JFK assassination. The driver of the car he was assassinated in’s name was Samuel Kickin (Kickin in the front seat, sittin in the back seat…). The assassination occurred on a Friday and when he was shot the Secret Service yelled at Jackie Kennedy to “get down” (got to get down on Friday). Parts about the cold war and the spread of Communism are referenced (everybody’s Russian) and to top it all off, in the hotel that morning JFK declined a breakfast of sausage, eggs and toast for a bowl of Bran Flakes instead (got to have my bowl- got to have cereal). Also, the following Monday JFK was supposed to sign a bill into law requiring all public schools to provide bus transportation for their students (got to catch my bus…).
Jon Snow
Game of Thrones fan. In the books it’s believed by everyone that Jon Snow is Eddard Stark’s son by some unknown woman. The fan theory states that he’s actually the son of Lyanna Stark and Rhaegar Targaryen (Rhaegar’s abduction of Lyanna sparked the overthrow of the Targaryens). That means that he’s Daenerys’s nephew, an acceptable spouse for her in Targaryen terms, and possibly the legitimate heir to the Iron Throne.
JK Rowling is Rita Skeeter
Harry Potter: There’s a theory that JK Rowling is actually Rita Skeeter who was exiled from the magic world for reporting lies. She is so angry about being exiled that she decides to write books revealing the entirety of the magic world to the muggle world. To her dismay, the muggle world believes her stories to be fiction, but she becomes rich and famous anyway.
*.*
Just when I think I've finally met the perfect woman,
I discover she's too tall to fit into any of my mom's old clothes.
*.*
Fresh Unicode emoticons list:
Copy and paste for flavor.
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
( ͡°╭͜ʖ╮͡° )
(V)(;,;)(V) Why Not Zoidberg?
(>^.^)>(^*o*)^ Surprise butt sex
▄︻̷̿┻̿═━一
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ
(ง ͠° ͟ل͜ ͡°)ง
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
(づ｡◕‿‿◕｡)づ
( ͡°╭͜ʖ╮͡° )
[̲̅$̲̅(̲̅5̲̅)̲̅$̲̅]
[̲̅$̲̅(̲̅ ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°̲̅)̲̅$̲̅]
(ﾉ◕ヮ◕)ﾉ*:･ﾟ✧ ✧ﾟ･: *ヽ(◕ヮ◕ヽ)
(ಠ_ಠ)
(ಥ﹏ಥ)
(づ￣ ³￣)づ
| (• ◡•)| (❍ᴥ❍ʋ)
(ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻
﴾͡๏̯͡๏﴿ O'RLY?
٩(͡๏̯͡๏)۶
ಠ_ಠ
(☞ﾟヮﾟ)☞ ☜(ﾟヮﾟ☜)
(╯°□°)╯︵ ʞooqǝɔɐɟ
(╯°□°)╯︵ ɐǝʇ
( ͡ᵔ ͜ʖ ͡ᵔ )
(☞ﾟヮﾟ)☞
ヾ(⌐■_■)ノ♪
ヽ༼ຈل͜ຈ༽ﾉ
༼ つ ಥ_ಥ ༽つ
(ง'̀-'́)ง
(•_•) ( •_•)>⌐■-■ (⌐■_■)
(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻
ᕦ(ò_óˇ)ᕤ
(ﾉ◕ヮ◕)ﾉ*:･ﾟ✧
┻━┻ ︵ヽ(`Д´)ﾉ︵ ┻━┻
(☞ﾟ∀ﾟ)☞
(._.) ( l: ) ( .-. ) ( :l ) (._.)
┬┴┬┴┤(･_├┬┴┬┴
┬┴┬┴┤ ͜ʖ ͡°) ├┬┴┬┴
ᕙ(⇀‸↼‶)ᕗ
(~˘▾˘)~ (◕‿◕)
(｡◕‿‿◕｡)
(｡◕‿◕｡)
~(˘▾˘~)
(°ロ°)☝
⌐╦╦═─
(☞ຈل͜ຈ)☞
(ง°ل͜°)ง
┌( ಠ_ಠ)┘
◉_◉
(╯°□°）╯︵( .o.)
┬──┬ ノ( ゜-゜ノ)
☜(˚▽˚)☞
(─‿‿─)
ლ(´ڡ`ლ)
(ಥ_ಥ)
ᄽὁȍ ̪ őὀᄿ
\ (•◡•) /
(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °)
☜(⌒▽⌒)☞
+1 ☜(⌒▽⌒)☞ +1
｡◕‿‿◕｡
╚(ಠ_ಠ)=┐
(ಠ‿ಠ)
(ʘᗩʘ')
(✿´‿`)
ಥ_ಥ
(ღ˘⌣˘ღ)
(；一_一)
¯\(°_o)/¯
(¬‿¬)
͠° ͟ل͜ ͡°
(>ლ)
(｡◕‿◕｡)
┬─┬ノ( º _ ºノ)
凸(-_-)凸
̿ ̿ ̿'̿'\̵͇̿̿\з=(•_•)=ε/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿ ̿
̿̿ ̿̿ ̿̿ ̿'̿'\̵͇̿̿\з= ( ▀ ͜͞ʖ▀) =ε/̵͇̿̿/’̿’̿ ̿ ̿̿ ̿̿ ̿̿
̿'̿'\̵͇̿̿\з=( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)=ε/̵͇̿̿/'̿̿ ̿ ̿ ̿ ̿ ̿
•_•)
( •_•)>⌐■-■
(⌐■_■)
o()xxxx[{::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
O===|_________________/
¦̵̱ ̵̱ ̵̱ ̵̱ ̵̱(̢ ̡͇̅└͇̅┘͇̅ (▤8כ−◦ What about Bender?
༼ つ ಥ_ಥ ༽つ PRAISE HELIX ༼ つ ಥ_ಥ ༽つ
| (• ◡•)|WHAT TIME IS IT? (❍ᴥ❍ʋ)
t(-.-)t
(☞ﾟヮﾟ)☞
(;´༎ຶД༎ຶ`) Why is it only Monday?
<:::::[]=¤༼ຈل͜ຈ༽ﾉ
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ▄︻̷̿┻̿═━一 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ
ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)
(⌐■_■)>¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸ ᑭOᑕKET ᔕᗩᑎᗪ
( ͝סּ ͜ʖ͡סּ)
( x_x)@~(-_-Q ) K.O.!!
(ﾉ◕ヮ◕)ﾉ*:･ﾟ✧(ﾉ◕ヮ◕)ﾉ*: ･ﾟ✧ Sooo fabulous!!!!
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ▄︻̷̿┻̿═━一 (ʘᗩʘ')
ζ༼Ɵ͆ل͜Ɵ͆༽ᶘ
ლ(ಠ‿ಠლ) You dense Mother Fucker
*.*
Oneliners:
Nobody has seen all of a movie, due to blinking.
School is just "Desk Job Training".
At birth, we were all technically the world's youngest person for an extremely brief period.
When an animal dies, the soil gets fertilized so a vegetarian can eat.
Jump scares are the fart jokes of horror movies
In twenty years manbuns will be in the same category of societal shame as mullets.
I like to think that most of the ocean is unexplored because scientists decided we'd probably all sleep a lot better at night if we didn't know what the hell is down there.
Would an extremely empathetic masochist be a sadist?
Someone should do a garfieldminusgarfield for the movie.
I always wear 2 pairs of socks on a night out just in case I get caught short with no toilet paper.
*.*
The policeman was walking his beat when he saw two men fighting and a little boy standing alongside them crying, "Daddy, Daddy!"
The officer pulled the two men apart and, turning to the boy, asked, "Which one is your father, lad?"
"I don't know," the boy said, rubbing tears from his eyes. "That's what they're fighting about!"
Issue of the Times;
This Luke Skywalker Theory Destroys Everything You Thought You Knew About 'Star Wars'
One evening, while geeking out with my daughters I decided to share a theory I had with them about Star Wars -- specifically Return of the Jedi: Luke Skywalker turned to the Dark Side at the end of the trilogy. I shared this story with them because I think my theory is reinforced by trailer for the new movie.
It's pretty exciting stuff, and to me, rather telling. Especially after you watch the first preview again. There's been a lot of speculation on Kylo Ren and the bad guys in general -- if you haven't heard any of it you surely will. As my friend Mike Moore put it:
This, for me, is righting something that has never sat well with me: the oddball and underwhelming ending of Return of the Jedi.
Luke Turned
I've had this argument with friends so many times. Some think as I do; others remain convinced that Luke ended the original trilogy as a good guy.
I say he, in fact, had turned to the dark side and we watched it happen in blissful ignorance, choosing to believe that he would always be the good guy. Lucas wanted it this way so he could sell more toys. But there's way more to this story.
Seeing these previews I think my theory might be correct: Luke gave in to the dark side to save his friends and defeat Vader and the emperor. We don't know what will happen after that, and hopefully we'll find out in December and we'll see if I'm right.
Here are my arguments, in no particular order...
"The Cave... Remember Your Failure at the Cave..."
Yoda knew the whole time that Luke was on the same path as his Anakin. He was reluctant to train him and said flatly that Luke would give in to the dark side if he left Dagobah to save his friends. The most striking part of this whole sequence (Luke's training with Yoda) is the cave.
Many people (my friends included) put it off as foreshadowing Luke's discovery that Vader is his father. I think it's foreshadowing that Luke will become his father. Of course, you don't know Vader's his dad at this point -- but at the end of the film, when I thought back to the cave... it made perfect sense. It's good, solid plot juice. Becoming your parents (or trying not to) is a huge motivator.
And Luke failed, according to Yoda. More than that -- Yoda issued this warning which Luke completely ignored:
Only a fully trained Jedi Knight, with the Force as his ally, will conquer Vader and his emperor. If you end your training now... if you choose the quick and easy path as Vader did... you will become an agent of evil.
There it is: Yoda said it point blank. How many times has Yoda been wrong in the first six films? It's almost like he can see the future sometimes! He knew Luke was on a path to become his father and, by leaving, he failed at preventing it.
Told you I did, reckless is he... now... matters are worse.
This is the start of Luke's slide.
The Original Ending
The original ending of Return of the Jedi is incredibly hokey, but there is a poignant scene where Luke burns his dad's body and you could feel his tension and anger. None of this was supposed to happen according to this 2010 LA Times article (emphasis mine):
"We had an outline and George changed everything in it," Kurtz said. "Instead of bittersweet and poignant he wanted a euphoric ending with everybody happy...
The discussed ending of the film that Kurtz favored presented the rebel forces in tatters, Leia grappling with her new duties as queen and Luke walking off alone "like Clint Eastwood in the spaghetti westerns," as Kurtz put it.
This is where story and solid plot development separate from building a franchise designed to sell toys. It's widely known that Lucas favored toy sales over character and storyline. Again, from Kurtz:
I could see where things were headed," Kurtz said. "The toy business began to drive the [Lucasfilm] empire. It's a shame. They make three times as much on toys as they do on films. It's natural to make decisions that protect the toy business, but that's not the best thing for making quality films.
The first film and Empire were about story and character, but I could see that George's priorities were changing.
I so wish I saw the Return of the Jedi that Kurtz wanted. It would have made so much more sense. Empire built on the mythological core of Star Wars and worked on the natural tension that exists in the way we perceive good and evil. Luke thought he was doing good by racing to rescue his friends. Anakin thought he was doing good by confronting the Jedi Council and destroying the Order itself. A very blurred matter of perspective: trying to do good can be incredibly destructive.
Mark Hamill himself thought that Luke as a dark jedi was the natural turn of events:
As an actor that would be more fun to play. I just thought that's the way it was going from when we finished [Empire]. I figured that's what will be the pivotal moment. I'll have to come back, but it will be I have Han Solo in my crosshairs and I'll be about to kill him or about to kill the Princess or about to kill somebody that we care about. It's an old cornball movie, like World War II movies.
Again: solid plot juice. One has to wonder if Hamill played Luke this way despite what Lucas wanted, recognizing the need for Luke to have a clearer bit of motivation. I think he did just that.
Indeed, there is a clear change of character as we move from Empire to Return of the Jedi. Luke becomes more serious, a little more sinister, and rocks the uniform pretty well.
Nevertheless, I'm taking Captain Solo and his friends. You can either profit by this or be destroyed. It's your choice, but I warn you not to underestimate my power.
Was that a threat? A touch of arrogance perhaps? No -- Luke would never!
As a token of my gratitude, I present to you these two droids. Both are hard working, and will serve you well...
One second. Hold on here -- was that a lie? Why yes, it was. Luke is giving in, he's drawn to the dark side. Wow... Luke lies. Keep that in mind.
You might be thinking nah, no way. Why would he do that? The answer is that he is destructively trying to do good and his training is not enough to allow him to see this. As Yoda warned, he is becoming an agent of evil.
Which actually comes in handy later on, because the only way he could beat his dad in a fight is ...
Luke Turned, We All Watched It
The emperor was working Luke pretty hard, and croaked in his guttural monotone
Take your weapon. Strike me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete.
And guess what? Luke tried.
Later in the sequence Luke loses it completely when Vader finds his soft spot (caring about his friends) and squeezes hard...
Saving friends, and now family. Vader has just threatened his sister and Luke gives in. This doesn't make sense if Luke has been a good guy the whole time. It makes perfect sense if he has indeed failed his training (which he did) and doesn't have the ability to withstand his dad. Whom he idolized and wanted to be just like, all of his life.
Easy to see. Easy to believe.
When I first saw this scene as a kid I remember being completely confused. I thought that of course Luke turned -- but only a little bit. After all, he needed the power from the dark side to beat his dad... right? And he acted like a complete maniac but it was only temporary and phew! he came back from the edge!
This, people, is a plot hole. It doesn't make any sense in terms of the story and also Luke's character. It doesn't follow Luke's motivation at all because he quite clearly doesn't have any motivation to stay a good guy. He's just seen what he could do with his dark powers (defeat the bad guys, save people).
"Your Hate Has Made You Powerful"
Luke confronted and defeated his father only by giving in to his fear and hatred -- driven by a desire to protect his sister, whom he loved dearly and who (basically) set him on this whole damn deal to begin with (help me Obi Wan Kenobi...). You can see this clearly as he swings away at Vader violently, beating on him with all the fear and rage that is swelling up in him... fired by a desire to protect his sister and friends.
This next scene is one of the most telling. When I first saw it I thought that Luke was realizing that he gave in and that's bad. What I think really happened was that Luke was filled with blood lust and a surge of satisfaction at his victory. Staring at his fist... marveling at his power. And why wouldn't he be? He just kicked Vader's ass. Come on, tell me you wouldn't feel that too!
The emperor sees this as well. He thinks he has won Luke over -- he even gloats a bit:
Good.... Now, fulfill your destiny... and take your father's place at my side.
From the emperor's perspective it seems like this is all wrapped up, no? Vader is lying there on the floor, Luke just turned, let's close the deal! But...
You can watch what happens next in two very different ways. The first, most obvious, is that Luke looks at his mechanical fist and then at his dad's severed hand and realizes what could happen -- oh no! Let's make sure we come back from this ledge and stay on the Good side. This makes no sense in terms of Luke's motivations.
Or, what I think, is that Luke looked at his fist and realized the effectiveness of his new power. Soaked in the revenge (the movie was entitled Revenge of the Jedi originally, I think this is why) and let the hatred indeed fill him... indeed make him powerful.
Now, watch as he turns, rises, and faces the emperor full of arrogance and brimming with dark power. I think Hamill played this scene brilliantly:
Never. I'll never turn to the dark side. You've failed your highness, I am a Jedi, like my father before me...
This would seemingly blow a hole in my story. Luke just flatly said he would never turn. He monologs for a bit about why he'll be a Good Guy, always. He's also lying through his teeth (like he did to Jabba, above). But why would he lie? Because he has to take out the emperor, and he knows his dad (Vader) is weak and vulnerable.
What happens next is a bit of deja vu. The emperor has realized that he has created just a little bit more than an apprentice -- he's created a rival. Why else would the emperor stop with the taunts right then? The emperor has Luke exactly where he wants him -- it doesn't make any sense to stop now!
Unless the emperor fears Luke. As he should -- he just took Vader out of the equation.
The emperor tries to destroy him with the old shock treatment in the same way we saw in Revenge of the Sith (facing off against Mace Windu). In that scene, Palpatine played on the sympathies of Anakin to cut Windu's hands off so he could toss Windu out the window.
In this scene, Luke plays his dad in the exact same way to toss the emperor into the abyss. Ahh symbolism.
That shock treatment? He basically brushed it off. Luke is a badass. It's the only way this whole scene makes any sense at all.
Watch Those Scenes Again
Watch Luke's eyes as he watches Vader die. Now, rather than the obvious thing (that Luke is thinking about a lost relationship with his dad) -- consider that Luke is upset about not being able to rule the galaxy as father and son.
It might not seem plausible, but it's the only thing that ties up this gaping plot hole.
Consider Luke's primary motivation at the very beginning: to find out more about his father, and to be a great pilot and jedi just like him. Is it so unreasonable to think he did just that? He was betrayed by the person he trusted most (Obiwan not telling him about his dad) and Yoda warned him about his failure. The motivation is clear.
Watch Return of the Jedi again, but this time with the idea that Luke is actually drawn to his dad's power and doesn't have the ability/training to resist using it to destructively do Good. His demeanor is a little more serious throughout and he has a very palpable dark edge.
Jabba the Hutt found out what happens when you cross Luke... which reminds me of something...
I...I killed them. I killed them all. They're dead, every single one of them. And not just the men, but the women and the children, too.
Quote of the Times;
“A little government involvement is just as dangerous as a lot because the first leads inevitably to the second.” – Brown
Link of the Times;
http://www.looper.com/
Doc was suicidal
The doc is ready to kill himself along with Marty in that parking lot during the first time travel scene. Not only has he never tested the time machine, but he claims that many of his inventions have been failures. So during the moment when he’s about to find out if his life’s work was a huge success, or a complete waste, he not only drives the Delorian towards himself, but grabs onto Marty when
he tries to run away. If that first time travel test was a failure, they both would have been killed, which is exactly what Doc wanted had the experiment been a failure.
Forest Gump was lied to
In the end, he isn’t Forrest’s son. Jenny just takes advantage of him after she learns that he’s a shrimp tycoon.
The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air is dead
Will actually died in the fight on the basketball court in West Philly. The taxi driver is actually God, who drives a “rare” cab. He takes Will to heaven, where he works out all his issues with his wealthy Aunt and Uncle. Will only sees his mother and father on special occasions, because that’s when they come to visit his grave.
Dr. Claw is not so bad
The Inspector we know is actually the second Inspector, built as a completely-robotic replacement after the first was lost in action. He was loaded with his old memories, and nobody would have been the wiser, except that the original Inspector Gadget didn’t actually die. Upon returning from whatever disaster caused his bosses to give up on him as KIA, and now horribly disfigured, he discovers this replacement living his life, even with his dog and raising his niece. The original Inspector snaps, and vows to devote the rest of his life to the destruction of the ungodly replacement. He disavows everything he once knew and loved, even going so far as to take a new name… DOCTOR CLAW!!
Friday and JFK
The song is about the JFK assassination. The driver of the car he was assassinated in’s name was Samuel Kickin (Kickin in the front seat, sittin in the back seat…). The assassination occurred on a Friday and when he was shot the Secret Service yelled at Jackie Kennedy to “get down” (got to get down on Friday). Parts about the cold war and the spread of Communism are referenced (everybody’s Russian) and to top it all off, in the hotel that morning JFK declined a breakfast of sausage, eggs and toast for a bowl of Bran Flakes instead (got to have my bowl- got to have cereal). Also, the following Monday JFK was supposed to sign a bill into law requiring all public schools to provide bus transportation for their students (got to catch my bus…).
Jon Snow
Game of Thrones fan. In the books it’s believed by everyone that Jon Snow is Eddard Stark’s son by some unknown woman. The fan theory states that he’s actually the son of Lyanna Stark and Rhaegar Targaryen (Rhaegar’s abduction of Lyanna sparked the overthrow of the Targaryens). That means that he’s Daenerys’s nephew, an acceptable spouse for her in Targaryen terms, and possibly the legitimate heir to the Iron Throne.
JK Rowling is Rita Skeeter
Harry Potter: There’s a theory that JK Rowling is actually Rita Skeeter who was exiled from the magic world for reporting lies. She is so angry about being exiled that she decides to write books revealing the entirety of the magic world to the muggle world. To her dismay, the muggle world believes her stories to be fiction, but she becomes rich and famous anyway.
*.*
Just when I think I've finally met the perfect woman,
I discover she's too tall to fit into any of my mom's old clothes.
*.*
Fresh Unicode emoticons list:
Copy and paste for flavor.
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
( ͡°╭͜ʖ╮͡° )
(V)(;,;)(V) Why Not Zoidberg?
(>^.^)>(^*o*)^ Surprise butt sex
▄︻̷̿┻̿═━一
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ
(ง ͠° ͟ل͜ ͡°)ง
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
(づ｡◕‿‿◕｡)づ
( ͡°╭͜ʖ╮͡° )
[̲̅$̲̅(̲̅5̲̅)̲̅$̲̅]
[̲̅$̲̅(̲̅ ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°̲̅)̲̅$̲̅]
(ﾉ◕ヮ◕)ﾉ*:･ﾟ✧ ✧ﾟ･: *ヽ(◕ヮ◕ヽ)
(ಠ_ಠ)
(ಥ﹏ಥ)
(づ￣ ³￣)づ
| (• ◡•)| (❍ᴥ❍ʋ)
(ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻
﴾͡๏̯͡๏﴿ O'RLY?
٩(͡๏̯͡๏)۶
ಠ_ಠ
(☞ﾟヮﾟ)☞ ☜(ﾟヮﾟ☜)
(╯°□°)╯︵ ʞooqǝɔɐɟ
(╯°□°)╯︵ ɐǝʇ
( ͡ᵔ ͜ʖ ͡ᵔ )
(☞ﾟヮﾟ)☞
ヾ(⌐■_■)ノ♪
ヽ༼ຈل͜ຈ༽ﾉ
༼ つ ಥ_ಥ ༽つ
(ง'̀-'́)ง
(•_•) ( •_•)>⌐■-■ (⌐■_■)
(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻
ᕦ(ò_óˇ)ᕤ
(ﾉ◕ヮ◕)ﾉ*:･ﾟ✧
┻━┻ ︵ヽ(`Д´)ﾉ︵ ┻━┻
(☞ﾟ∀ﾟ)☞
(._.) ( l: ) ( .-. ) ( :l ) (._.)
┬┴┬┴┤(･_├┬┴┬┴
┬┴┬┴┤ ͜ʖ ͡°) ├┬┴┬┴
ᕙ(⇀‸↼‶)ᕗ
(~˘▾˘)~ (◕‿◕)
(｡◕‿‿◕｡)
(｡◕‿◕｡)
~(˘▾˘~)
(°ロ°)☝
⌐╦╦═─
(☞ຈل͜ຈ)☞
(ง°ل͜°)ง
┌( ಠ_ಠ)┘
◉_◉
(╯°□°）╯︵( .o.)
┬──┬ ノ( ゜-゜ノ)
☜(˚▽˚)☞
(─‿‿─)
ლ(´ڡ`ლ)
(ಥ_ಥ)
ᄽὁȍ ̪ őὀᄿ
\ (•◡•) /
(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °)
☜(⌒▽⌒)☞
+1 ☜(⌒▽⌒)☞ +1
｡◕‿‿◕｡
╚(ಠ_ಠ)=┐
(ಠ‿ಠ)
(ʘᗩʘ')
(✿´‿`)
ಥ_ಥ
(ღ˘⌣˘ღ)
(；一_一)
¯\(°_o)/¯
(¬‿¬)
͠° ͟ل͜ ͡°
(>ლ)
(｡◕‿◕｡)
┬─┬ノ( º _ ºノ)
凸(-_-)凸
̿ ̿ ̿'̿'\̵͇̿̿\з=(•_•)=ε/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿ ̿
̿̿ ̿̿ ̿̿ ̿'̿'\̵͇̿̿\з= ( ▀ ͜͞ʖ▀) =ε/̵͇̿̿/’̿’̿ ̿ ̿̿ ̿̿ ̿̿
̿'̿'\̵͇̿̿\з=( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)=ε/̵͇̿̿/'̿̿ ̿ ̿ ̿ ̿ ̿
•_•)
( •_•)>⌐■-■
(⌐■_■)
o()xxxx[{::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
O===|_________________/
¦̵̱ ̵̱ ̵̱ ̵̱ ̵̱(̢ ̡͇̅└͇̅┘͇̅ (▤8כ−◦ What about Bender?
༼ つ ಥ_ಥ ༽つ PRAISE HELIX ༼ つ ಥ_ಥ ༽つ
| (• ◡•)|WHAT TIME IS IT? (❍ᴥ❍ʋ)
t(-.-)t
(☞ﾟヮﾟ)☞
(;´༎ຶД༎ຶ`) Why is it only Monday?
<:::::[]=¤༼ຈل͜ຈ༽ﾉ
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ▄︻̷̿┻̿═━一 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ
ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)
(⌐■_■)>¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸ ᑭOᑕKET ᔕᗩᑎᗪ
( ͝סּ ͜ʖ͡סּ)
( x_x)@~(-_-Q ) K.O.!!
(ﾉ◕ヮ◕)ﾉ*:･ﾟ✧(ﾉ◕ヮ◕)ﾉ*: ･ﾟ✧ Sooo fabulous!!!!
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ▄︻̷̿┻̿═━一 (ʘᗩʘ')
ζ༼Ɵ͆ل͜Ɵ͆༽ᶘ
ლ(ಠ‿ಠლ) You dense Mother Fucker
*.*
Oneliners:
Nobody has seen all of a movie, due to blinking.
School is just "Desk Job Training".
At birth, we were all technically the world's youngest person for an extremely brief period.
When an animal dies, the soil gets fertilized so a vegetarian can eat.
Jump scares are the fart jokes of horror movies
In twenty years manbuns will be in the same category of societal shame as mullets.
I like to think that most of the ocean is unexplored because scientists decided we'd probably all sleep a lot better at night if we didn't know what the hell is down there.
Would an extremely empathetic masochist be a sadist?
Someone should do a garfieldminusgarfield for the movie.
I always wear 2 pairs of socks on a night out just in case I get caught short with no toilet paper.
*.*
The policeman was walking his beat when he saw two men fighting and a little boy standing alongside them crying, "Daddy, Daddy!"
The officer pulled the two men apart and, turning to the boy, asked, "Which one is your father, lad?"
"I don't know," the boy said, rubbing tears from his eyes. "That's what they're fighting about!"
Issue of the Times;
This Luke Skywalker Theory Destroys Everything You Thought You Knew About 'Star Wars'
One evening, while geeking out with my daughters I decided to share a theory I had with them about Star Wars -- specifically Return of the Jedi: Luke Skywalker turned to the Dark Side at the end of the trilogy. I shared this story with them because I think my theory is reinforced by trailer for the new movie.
It's pretty exciting stuff, and to me, rather telling. Especially after you watch the first preview again. There's been a lot of speculation on Kylo Ren and the bad guys in general -- if you haven't heard any of it you surely will. As my friend Mike Moore put it:
This, for me, is righting something that has never sat well with me: the oddball and underwhelming ending of Return of the Jedi.
Luke Turned
I've had this argument with friends so many times. Some think as I do; others remain convinced that Luke ended the original trilogy as a good guy.
I say he, in fact, had turned to the dark side and we watched it happen in blissful ignorance, choosing to believe that he would always be the good guy. Lucas wanted it this way so he could sell more toys. But there's way more to this story.
Seeing these previews I think my theory might be correct: Luke gave in to the dark side to save his friends and defeat Vader and the emperor. We don't know what will happen after that, and hopefully we'll find out in December and we'll see if I'm right.
Here are my arguments, in no particular order...
"The Cave... Remember Your Failure at the Cave..."
Yoda knew the whole time that Luke was on the same path as his Anakin. He was reluctant to train him and said flatly that Luke would give in to the dark side if he left Dagobah to save his friends. The most striking part of this whole sequence (Luke's training with Yoda) is the cave.
Many people (my friends included) put it off as foreshadowing Luke's discovery that Vader is his father. I think it's foreshadowing that Luke will become his father. Of course, you don't know Vader's his dad at this point -- but at the end of the film, when I thought back to the cave... it made perfect sense. It's good, solid plot juice. Becoming your parents (or trying not to) is a huge motivator.
And Luke failed, according to Yoda. More than that -- Yoda issued this warning which Luke completely ignored:
Only a fully trained Jedi Knight, with the Force as his ally, will conquer Vader and his emperor. If you end your training now... if you choose the quick and easy path as Vader did... you will become an agent of evil.
There it is: Yoda said it point blank. How many times has Yoda been wrong in the first six films? It's almost like he can see the future sometimes! He knew Luke was on a path to become his father and, by leaving, he failed at preventing it.
Told you I did, reckless is he... now... matters are worse.
This is the start of Luke's slide.
The Original Ending
The original ending of Return of the Jedi is incredibly hokey, but there is a poignant scene where Luke burns his dad's body and you could feel his tension and anger. None of this was supposed to happen according to this 2010 LA Times article (emphasis mine):
"We had an outline and George changed everything in it," Kurtz said. "Instead of bittersweet and poignant he wanted a euphoric ending with everybody happy...
The discussed ending of the film that Kurtz favored presented the rebel forces in tatters, Leia grappling with her new duties as queen and Luke walking off alone "like Clint Eastwood in the spaghetti westerns," as Kurtz put it.
This is where story and solid plot development separate from building a franchise designed to sell toys. It's widely known that Lucas favored toy sales over character and storyline. Again, from Kurtz:
I could see where things were headed," Kurtz said. "The toy business began to drive the [Lucasfilm] empire. It's a shame. They make three times as much on toys as they do on films. It's natural to make decisions that protect the toy business, but that's not the best thing for making quality films.
The first film and Empire were about story and character, but I could see that George's priorities were changing.
I so wish I saw the Return of the Jedi that Kurtz wanted. It would have made so much more sense. Empire built on the mythological core of Star Wars and worked on the natural tension that exists in the way we perceive good and evil. Luke thought he was doing good by racing to rescue his friends. Anakin thought he was doing good by confronting the Jedi Council and destroying the Order itself. A very blurred matter of perspective: trying to do good can be incredibly destructive.
Mark Hamill himself thought that Luke as a dark jedi was the natural turn of events:
As an actor that would be more fun to play. I just thought that's the way it was going from when we finished [Empire]. I figured that's what will be the pivotal moment. I'll have to come back, but it will be I have Han Solo in my crosshairs and I'll be about to kill him or about to kill the Princess or about to kill somebody that we care about. It's an old cornball movie, like World War II movies.
Again: solid plot juice. One has to wonder if Hamill played Luke this way despite what Lucas wanted, recognizing the need for Luke to have a clearer bit of motivation. I think he did just that.
Indeed, there is a clear change of character as we move from Empire to Return of the Jedi. Luke becomes more serious, a little more sinister, and rocks the uniform pretty well.
Nevertheless, I'm taking Captain Solo and his friends. You can either profit by this or be destroyed. It's your choice, but I warn you not to underestimate my power.
Was that a threat? A touch of arrogance perhaps? No -- Luke would never!
As a token of my gratitude, I present to you these two droids. Both are hard working, and will serve you well...
One second. Hold on here -- was that a lie? Why yes, it was. Luke is giving in, he's drawn to the dark side. Wow... Luke lies. Keep that in mind.
You might be thinking nah, no way. Why would he do that? The answer is that he is destructively trying to do good and his training is not enough to allow him to see this. As Yoda warned, he is becoming an agent of evil.
Which actually comes in handy later on, because the only way he could beat his dad in a fight is ...
Luke Turned, We All Watched It
The emperor was working Luke pretty hard, and croaked in his guttural monotone
Take your weapon. Strike me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete.
And guess what? Luke tried.
Later in the sequence Luke loses it completely when Vader finds his soft spot (caring about his friends) and squeezes hard...
Saving friends, and now family. Vader has just threatened his sister and Luke gives in. This doesn't make sense if Luke has been a good guy the whole time. It makes perfect sense if he has indeed failed his training (which he did) and doesn't have the ability to withstand his dad. Whom he idolized and wanted to be just like, all of his life.
Easy to see. Easy to believe.
When I first saw this scene as a kid I remember being completely confused. I thought that of course Luke turned -- but only a little bit. After all, he needed the power from the dark side to beat his dad... right? And he acted like a complete maniac but it was only temporary and phew! he came back from the edge!
This, people, is a plot hole. It doesn't make any sense in terms of the story and also Luke's character. It doesn't follow Luke's motivation at all because he quite clearly doesn't have any motivation to stay a good guy. He's just seen what he could do with his dark powers (defeat the bad guys, save people).
"Your Hate Has Made You Powerful"
Luke confronted and defeated his father only by giving in to his fear and hatred -- driven by a desire to protect his sister, whom he loved dearly and who (basically) set him on this whole damn deal to begin with (help me Obi Wan Kenobi...). You can see this clearly as he swings away at Vader violently, beating on him with all the fear and rage that is swelling up in him... fired by a desire to protect his sister and friends.
This next scene is one of the most telling. When I first saw it I thought that Luke was realizing that he gave in and that's bad. What I think really happened was that Luke was filled with blood lust and a surge of satisfaction at his victory. Staring at his fist... marveling at his power. And why wouldn't he be? He just kicked Vader's ass. Come on, tell me you wouldn't feel that too!
The emperor sees this as well. He thinks he has won Luke over -- he even gloats a bit:
Good.... Now, fulfill your destiny... and take your father's place at my side.
From the emperor's perspective it seems like this is all wrapped up, no? Vader is lying there on the floor, Luke just turned, let's close the deal! But...
You can watch what happens next in two very different ways. The first, most obvious, is that Luke looks at his mechanical fist and then at his dad's severed hand and realizes what could happen -- oh no! Let's make sure we come back from this ledge and stay on the Good side. This makes no sense in terms of Luke's motivations.
Or, what I think, is that Luke looked at his fist and realized the effectiveness of his new power. Soaked in the revenge (the movie was entitled Revenge of the Jedi originally, I think this is why) and let the hatred indeed fill him... indeed make him powerful.
Now, watch as he turns, rises, and faces the emperor full of arrogance and brimming with dark power. I think Hamill played this scene brilliantly:
Never. I'll never turn to the dark side. You've failed your highness, I am a Jedi, like my father before me...
This would seemingly blow a hole in my story. Luke just flatly said he would never turn. He monologs for a bit about why he'll be a Good Guy, always. He's also lying through his teeth (like he did to Jabba, above). But why would he lie? Because he has to take out the emperor, and he knows his dad (Vader) is weak and vulnerable.
What happens next is a bit of deja vu. The emperor has realized that he has created just a little bit more than an apprentice -- he's created a rival. Why else would the emperor stop with the taunts right then? The emperor has Luke exactly where he wants him -- it doesn't make any sense to stop now!
Unless the emperor fears Luke. As he should -- he just took Vader out of the equation.
The emperor tries to destroy him with the old shock treatment in the same way we saw in Revenge of the Sith (facing off against Mace Windu). In that scene, Palpatine played on the sympathies of Anakin to cut Windu's hands off so he could toss Windu out the window.
In this scene, Luke plays his dad in the exact same way to toss the emperor into the abyss. Ahh symbolism.
That shock treatment? He basically brushed it off. Luke is a badass. It's the only way this whole scene makes any sense at all.
Watch Those Scenes Again
Watch Luke's eyes as he watches Vader die. Now, rather than the obvious thing (that Luke is thinking about a lost relationship with his dad) -- consider that Luke is upset about not being able to rule the galaxy as father and son.
It might not seem plausible, but it's the only thing that ties up this gaping plot hole.
Consider Luke's primary motivation at the very beginning: to find out more about his father, and to be a great pilot and jedi just like him. Is it so unreasonable to think he did just that? He was betrayed by the person he trusted most (Obiwan not telling him about his dad) and Yoda warned him about his failure. The motivation is clear.
Watch Return of the Jedi again, but this time with the idea that Luke is actually drawn to his dad's power and doesn't have the ability/training to resist using it to destructively do Good. His demeanor is a little more serious throughout and he has a very palpable dark edge.
Jabba the Hutt found out what happens when you cross Luke... which reminds me of something...
I...I killed them. I killed them all. They're dead, every single one of them. And not just the men, but the women and the children, too.
Quote of the Times;
“A little government involvement is just as dangerous as a lot because the first leads inevitably to the second.” – Brown
Link of the Times;
http://www.looper.com/
Several animals were savagely beaten in the making of this page, including but not limited to; kittens, rabbits, zebu, skunks, puppies, and platypus. Also several monkeys where force fed crack to improve their typing skills.
And someone shot a duck.
An Images & Ideas, Inc. Service.
No Vegans were harmed in the making of this site. We're looking for a new provider.
And someone shot a duck.
An Images & Ideas, Inc. Service.
No Vegans were harmed in the making of this site. We're looking for a new provider.