Google - what nonsense...

I haven't logged in a while... So when I do I suddenly have to have a "google account"...

Then, just like all the other big companies I go through a painful, stupid, non-deterministic process to "transfer" my account to a "new" google account. I have to bail out and re-log in after spending five minutes trying to log in during the transfer... and then "ta da" - magically my account works - after it tells me five times my password is bad...

[Sigh]

What can I say...

I titled this image "No Room (even at the Inn)". Lots of heavy symbolism here, lots of metaphors, and so on....

Why is society failing? Why is there no respect? What is the PC crowed doing to our society....

Well, here you go - all summed up in a single image.

Criminal Acts Admitted by Utah Attorney General

I recently sent the following email to friends@foxnews.com. I think it speaks for itself. Let's see if we get an answer.

I was extremely troubled by a segment on your show Wednesday, August 30th.

Your guest, the attorney general of Utah, admitted that his office had known for 5 1/2 years about polygamists under his jurisdiction and only now had chosen to act against them (trggered by a recently arrested polygamist from Utah in Nevada).

An attorney general is sworn to uphold the law. Is he not breaking the law by failing to act on this information?

The subject of preventing the abused of women is an important issue in our home. Don't you think that for the taxpayer's prosecutorial dollars we would do much better by forcing this criminal (the attorney general) out of office through prosecution and replacing him with someone who will actually enforce the existing polygamy laws?

Wouldn't far fewer girls and women be abused at the hands of the polygamists with an attorney general who actually enforced the laws regarding polygamy?

It seems like this attorney general is making a showcase of prosecuting the "polygamist of the day" rather that doing his job on a regular basis.

Sincerely
todd@just-got-lucky.com

Engineering Leadership

An article from volume twelve, issue six, August 2006 of the Pittsburgh TEQ magazine titled "America Need not Cede Engineering Leadership". The author? Pradeep K. Khosla.

Gender Incompetence

My wife's friend thinks that today's twenty-somethings and thirty-somethings are gender confused. By this she of course means that society tells them through the marketing of gay activism, equality of the sexes, etc. that concept of gender is all in their minds and that they are whatever gender (or combination thereof) they imagine they might want to be. She reasons that these messages are confusing them.

Evidence of this can be seen today on virtually any social web site where there are much larger collections than expected of bisexual, androgynous and gay youths.

I respectfully disagree with my wife's friend. Instead, it seems to me that these youths suffer from gender incompetence. I define gender incompetence as "the act of functioning against ones biological gender." A simple example of this would be someone that sees a television story or reads a story or visits a web site glorifying some alternate gender choice and subsequently acts as if they themselves are now a person of that alternate gender.

(Note that I do not attempt to define "biological gender" and that one first has to have determined their biological gender in order to act against it.)

Confusion vs. Incompetence

The definitions of incompetence, according to Merriam-Webster is 1) not legally qualified, 2) inadequate or unsuitable for a particular purpose, 3) lacking qualities needed for effective action, and 4) unable to function properly. Confusion, on the other hand, is a mental state where one fails to make appropriate distinctions or differentiations (see Merriam-Webster here). So I argue that being confused about anything, much less gender, is a common human occurrence but that choosing to act in a confused manner regarding gender renders one incompetent.

Your biological gender is what you are. You may not like it but it is what you were endowed with by your creator.

Teaching Your Child

I participated in a remarkable conversion a few days ago. An experienced teacher had recently participated in a workshop on the differences between boys and girls (the instructor is supposedly to appear on a John Stossel 20/20 episode on September 15, 2006). The instructor was not identified, but it may have been Michael Gurian or his logical equivalent.

The teacher was shocked to learn there are differences in how the two sexes learn. Apparently this workshop struck a chord because many common problem classroom situations, with boys in particular, where elucidated.

From the conversation I gathered that since the 1970's teachers have been instructed that boys and girls are "the same" relative to how they learn (supposedly due to "woman's lib"). The teacher was beside herself because it was completely clear that whatever had been going on in his classroom was highly stilted toward favoring the "female" learning model. He realized that the boys were being "made into girls".

(As an example: Little Johnny scribbles outside the lines. Little Suzy colors neatly inside the lines. Little Suzy is praised for doing a good job while little Johnny is chastised for his coloring ineptness. Johnny subsequently tries to emulate little Suzy. As time goes by little Johnny realizes he is inferior to Suzy as a boy and hence works to emulate her due is native male competitiveness. The point being that little Johnny learns coloring differently and coloring outside the lines may not (no pun intended) outside the lines of Johnny's ability relative to little Suzy and their respectively equal numerical ages.)

The conversation expanded into how much this teacher was expected to do in the classroom already and that making up for the lack of teaching skills shown by the younger teachers was now also becoming a problem. An example of this was a situation where newly graduated teachers were unsuccessful at teaching junior high school grammar and spelling - apparently because they (the newly graduated teachers) themselves did not have a good grasp of these subjects.

This combination of revelations lead the teacher to lament his future survival - particularly in retirement.

Well, its about time! Sadly no connection was made relating the product of the educational system and the skill levels of newly graduated teachers - nor was a connection evident between the "sissifying" of boys and the educational system.

I suspect its too late for hope....

TSA Fun

According to today's Wall Street Journal gel-filled bras will no longer be allowed on airplanes. We do we go from here? Certainly lubricated condoms cannot be far behind (no pun intended); no doubt to be followed by breasts or penises containing liquid implants - though removing those prior to boarding might be a problem.

I suppose that one could conceivably have to remove one's blood as it might actually be a concoction of explosive and artificial hemoglobin. Hmmm... You could probably make a sub-critical mix of uranium or plutonium and artificial hemoglobin and transfuse enough into two children so that when they came into proximity to each other a critical mass would be created - so blood has to be out.

(Note: Yes the +Enlarge tag at the bottom of the image is really there.)

So to, probably with artificial bones, limbs metal plates - same problem.

But wait! Singling out the handicapped (or large breasted women or well-hung men) for special searches just because the prosthetic parts just might be considered profiling or discriminating.

So, soon everyone will have to line up next to the giant portable atom-smasher that bombards your body with "special" radiation to illuminate your insides - lest someone be lying about the nature of your underwear or your breast or penis implant.

Global Dimming

Below is an excerpt from a BBC programme called Horizon (link here). It discusses the effect of having all US airplanes (as well as airplanes from other countries as well, I suppose) grounded for three days right after 9/11. They discuss some unquantified temperature measurements from 48 states (about 5,000 measuring stations) from areas "that was[sic] most dominantly affected by the grounding".

Excerpted from the previous link

DR DAVID TRAVIS (University of Wisconsin, Whitewater) We found that the change in temperature range during those three days was just over one degrees C. And you have to realise that from a layman's perspective that doesn't sound like much, but from a climate perspective that is huge.

BCC NARRATOR One degree in just three days no one had ever seen such a big climatic change happen so fast. This was a new kind of climate change. Scientists call it Global Dimming.

Follow the link for a complete context to the comments below.

Hmmmm..... this sounds like a very subjective measurement (areas dominantly affected by the grounding). Though it seems obvious that fewer jets means less pollution and contrails; hence more sunlight reaches the earth's surface; hence more of the sun's energy reaches the earth. Particulates (like coulds) help keep the heat absorbed by the earths surface from radiating back into the sky (this is why, all things being equal, cloudy winter days are usually much warmer that days without clouds). So without the layer of particulates, the earth heats and cools more quickly.

There are several troubling aspects to this. First, its hard to imaging the "global warming" scientists missing out on something this important (see previous posts). Second, what does this do to the "standard" climate models, i.e., is it accounted for?? Third, maybe carbon dioxide is keeping the planet habitable while the climate is really being destroyed (thrown into an ice age) by aircraft contrails.

Another troubling aspect is that somehow these local effects are thought of by scientists as "climatic". What is described in the BBC article is an extremely temporary, local effect which affects the "temperature" of the earth by a degree or more C (temporary because things go back to "normal" when air traffic returns). This effect can be generated by flying a few thousand (not sure on the exact number) airplanes at high altitude for a few hours each day. This means that someone could easily control the amount of energy reaching the earth's surface.

Over all, this seems to create a "hole" in the "climate models".

Global Dimming!?!

Apparently its a surprise to scientists that as the amount of pollution (particulates in particular (no pun intended)) increases less sunlight reaches the surface of the earth. This remarkable fact is now called "global dimming". Global dimming means less solar energy is reaching the surface of the earth. Where does it go if not to the surface? Why, its reflected back into space.

Maybe the fact that since the 1970's the amount of particulates has decreased (due, for example, to the clean air act) - hence the dramatic increases "global warming".

Bottom line - no one really knows....

MRSA (Mer SaH)

Troubling medical news - not for what the story says (see story here), but for what the story implies, particularly about parents and doctors and how they care for children.

MRSA is a serious staph infection. This article describes research into how common MRSA is becoming in the community. MRSA had generally been a problem only in nursing homes and hospitals, but now community acquired MRSA (acquired outside of these places) is becoming more common. This particular article covers staph skin infections (which can be serious should the infection enter the blood stream). For older folks, this is the old "watch for red streaks around an infection".

Over prescription of antibiotics, i.e., prescribing antibiotics when an non-antibiotic treatment will work just as well or better, has created drug resistant strains of staph that can cause "flesh eating" wounds and pneumonia... (but I paraphrase the article here).

Now for the troubling part. Parents apparently bring their children to hospitals with what they describe as "a spider bite that's not getting better or a pimple that's not getting better.” What do doctors do (and apparently have been doing) - prescribe antibiotics.

Why is this troubling? Because its unnecessary, as the article goes on to point out. Simply cleaning out the area (and draining the pus) offers the cure most of the time.

(For those to young to know - what this (cleaning out the area) means is opening an infected area, e.g., breaking open a pimple and picking off a scab, and flushing the area thoroughly with something like over-the-counter hydrogen peroxide. Usually several treatments are required. Other "home remedy" style treatments can include soaking the infected area in boric acid water or using something like iodine in place of peroxide.

Why is this not done? Well, for one thing it hurts. So little Suzy or Johnny will cry and all the adults will feel bad - and we can't have that. Much better to prescribe a fruity tasting pill.

Another reason is that things like boric acid are harder to buy than they used to be. Why? Because they are dangerous or, in this case, poisionous. So little Suzy or Johnny will eat the stuff and die. So the medical community has replaced a $.02 cure (a 1/4 pound of boric acid costs are around $5.00 US and will last a decade) with expensive prescription drugs.)

You have to ask yourself:

1) Why don't the parents clean out the area themselves (using iodine, mercurochrome, peroxide, boric acid, etc.)?

2) Why don't the doctors (or nurses) clean it out at the hospital?

3) Are the doctors simply prescribing antibiotics to do their (or the parents) job for them?

I have personally noticed that simple cuts don't heal quickly unless their cleaned thoroughly as described above. In the past I did not notice this - it could be because the pesky bacteria are more stubborn now or it could be because I am older and don't heal as quickly. In any case, these treatments have so far not failed me.

Creative Outlets...

For those that are interested (and there are few) some of my music can be heard at here and here and my photography can be seen at here.

Global Warming Science...

Someone in the global warming research department forgot something... the sun! Yes, its true. Current global warming models apparently consider the global warming contribution of the sun's as constant over time (centuries). Apparently some people have a problem with this at www.space.com.

The reflectivity of the planet's surface (a thank's to my friend Rob for the heads up on this) is also not part of the model. Some things, like clouds, reflect more or less light than others.

As for the sun, well, suprise, its measurable output is increasing (a good reason to ignore it, I think). The apropo comment from the previous www.space.com link is Sun's possible influence has been largely ignored because it is so difficult to quantify over long periods. Hmmm...

Discipline, the Other White Meat

What is an IED? Apparently its a new mental disorder (seems like the three letter acronym space is getting crowded) - not an Improvised Explosive Device.

The state is characterized by "a mental state marked by anger, violent outbursts and abuse of spouses" known in medical parlance as intermittent explosive disorder (IED).

Here's the surprising conclusion - "Experts think the treatment should be a combination of talk therapy and medication" - at least according to the article. The proposed drugs (Zoloft and Prosiac, of course) "in 70 percent of cases [the] drugs give patients a longer fuse before they blow up".

"IED can happen in childhood and it is a challenge to detect it and treat it in children, says Kessler." - Ronald Kessler, the author of the study on which this is based is, surprise, a professor of health-care policy at Harvard Medical School.

Now, this is scary. This guy every spend time with two-year-olds? IED is the standard currency of every and any tired two-year-old.

Throwing toys on the floor, throwing themselves onto the floor in a fits of crying rage, etc. Hmm... Has he ever heard of discipline? The cure for this "disorder" is simple - discipline - and its never too late to start (even into adulthood).

Around the house we often say an adult with this problem is "not grown up." But this guy thinks that rather than concern ourselves with discipline or making some one "grow up" we should drug them - then it just takes longer for us to piss them off.

I personally have cured individuals with this problem by "getting them to grow up." Its easy, really, simply, as they say, let them "twist in the wind" whenever an IED situation comes up. Someone beating their spouse - call the police - time in the slammer will help them out. Someone acting like an ass in your car - put them out at the side of the road and let them walk. Someone breaking things - make them pay to fix them.

Another effective solution is "shame" and "embarrassment". Put the person in a situation where people they respect can observe the IED in action. Publicize the consequences of the IED - "oh look grandma, there's little Johnny being hauled away in the paddy wagon."



Finally, of course, there is, for small children, the spanking. Having grown up with a generation of "spanked" children, why, there is no more to say...

But wait, anyone who tries these "cures" must be "mean" or "intolerant", or, god forbid, a child abuser. But then again, there were far fewer problems in the olden days - I mean, after all, if you ran out into the street from between parked cars you died - and it was your fault.

The full links to the quoted articles can be found here and here.

New Posion Ivy Risks...

It was reported today in this weeks Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that posion ivy will be getting "meaner" as the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases over the next forty or fifty years. Why is this? Apparently because when you provide the plant more nutrients (such as CO2) it grows larger. (Of course, this will be caused by global warming. Of course, the "amount" of CO2 added is based on "estimated" increases in CO2 related to man descruction of the environment. Hmmm... Seems like we're doing poison ivy a favor.)

The lead author of the study, one Jacqueline E. Mohan, a post-doctoral scientist at the Ecosystems Center, Marine Biological Laboratory, at Woods Hole, Mass. said "It makes the forest an even scarier place, but not just forest -- backyards too. Poison ivy is a remarkable plant. It can grow just about anywhere." (Hmmm, just like weeds...)

(Just in case you were interested, the oil (urushiol - from the Japanese word "urushi" for lacquer) produced by the various related poison plants such as poison ivy and sumac is composed of a saturated and unsaturated component. The saturated component causing more irritation than the unsaturated component. Apparently the larger plant produces more of the staturated component than today's varieties.)

I bet the Poison Ivy pictured above would also get larger (and perhaps meaner as well) if her nutrition were significantly increased over the same six year study.

I recall solving problems similar to this in third grade as part of my "politically incorrect" education.

Question: Given more food a plant will (1) grow larger, (2) stay the same, or (3) not grow as large.

Answer: (1)

I distinctly recall the sarcasim of the nuns when students would not correctly answer questions such as this.

More troubling, however, is that this passes for science in today's world. (And Google found 245 related articles - all which more or less reprint the basic press release.)

Thoughts on myspace.com...

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Live!

Playing live music for the last half year or so has been a great experience.

Special thanks to Fran, Marcy, the Genuine Pub, Tex, Gil, the Witches and of course, Donna, for all the support along the way.

Its easy to see how this plays with your head - you start playing, look up and hours have passed.

It's really not as scary as it might seem - at least for me. The only stage fright I experience is soloing on things I don't know...

Perspective is important, too. There are always incredible players out there - but who cares. You do your thing and they do theirs... Learn what you can from them.

How Big Companies Profit from Illegal Drugs...

In case you haven't noticed, there are ever more penalties, restrictions and service fees on bank accounts, cell phones, and any other personal service that can be turned into quick cash.

For example, someone I know (let's call her Cindy) has a relative (let's call him Bob) involved in drugs. Cindy ordered a second phone (in her name) for Bob, who was to pay the bill. Unfortunately, the Bob fell off the wagon and began using the cell phone to get drugs - calling in for pick ups, loaning it to the dealer for quick cash, etc. When Cindy tried to have the phone provided to Bob "shut off" the cell phone company declined - even though the phone was in Cindy's name.

Another example, Joe has a teenage daugher Melinda. Joe trusts Melinda and provides her ready access to cash and bank cards for trips to the mall. Melinda's friend Tina, a drug user, discovers Joe's bank card in Melinda's purse, "borrow's" theh cards and overdraw's Joe's account. The bank is happy to profit from this by dinging Joe for each overdrawn check. Joe, embarrased by what's happened, end's up paying for Tina's drug use because he can't prove what actually happened.

Personally, I believe that banks want people with drug problems turning their credit cards over to drug dealers for quick cash. Why? Because everyone profits. I loan my dealer my credit card. The dealer runs out and buys a thousand dollars worth of fencible goods - TV's, DVD players, etc. The dealer then provides drugs. The merchant sells goods. The bank makes money on the merchant fees, and, if its a debit card, the overdraft fees. (Why, if I owned a bank and was unscrupulous, I would make sure every dealer in town suggest this use of a bank card to all their clients.) And, if its a responsible persons bank card - so much the better.

More Wisdom...

To quote my father-inlaw - "A sober man's thoughts are a drunken man's words."

Made up myself - "Watch out what you say - the microphone might still be on."

Contrary Thoughts on Health

First, Caffine, Vitamins, Exercise. Exercise first thing in the morning every day burning about 350 calories and working up a good sweat. Take your vitamins right after exercise and don't eat for several of hours. Finish up with your only cup of coffee for the day.

Second, if its not obvious what it started life as, don't put it in your mouth.

Third, if the food will be the by-product of a one-culinary-night stand with the cook - don't eat there.

Fourth, wash your hands before you eat.

Fifth, an apple a day.

Since I started following these rules over a year ago I have suffered from vastly improved health.

If you don't have the discipline to consistently do this - don't bother.

Responsibility, Liability and Stupidity

It seems that Pennsylvania has passed legislation pertaining to "up skirt" and "down blouse" photography of "intimate parts," specifically the "new act makes it illegal to take pictures of someone's 'intimate parts' without their knowledge or approval in a place where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy."

Background

Where to begin? I guess first with some background grounded in the moral philosphy of the pre-hippie sixties...

First, as a male child of perhaps six or seven, I was taught (by parents, nuns, teachers and the girls themselves) the basic rule that anything placed between a girls legs without her permission (which included a semi-cylinder from the hem of the skirt to the ground on which the girl stood) is fair game to cause the one placing the object in such a position total, complete abject misery - from the girl, from local adult authority figures, and from parents (the girls parents as well as your own). Note that in this archaic definition "rules" the semi-cylinder would not "collapse" with the skirt, when, for example, the girl sat down.

Similarly, male children were also taught that the mere act of looking down a girls blouse or shirt without the girls permission also placed one in a position to receive the abject misery.

Girls were taught these same rules well before the boys would start to test them (both girls and rules). Girls were also taught that any girl who relaxed these rules "got what they asked for." Girls were also taught a strong sense of privacy for the secrets of being girls - secrets which were never revealed to a boy until a certain level of intimacy was reached.

These rules worked well until about the age of twelve or thirteen. At that age opportunities arose where girls would publicly allow situational relaxations of these rules, for example, a girl would willing ride on a boy's shoulders at a pool party or allow the boy to sit in her lap. Any relaxation of rules was, of course, controlled by the girl - though there was always the fear that an overstepping of the rules on either side could result in any number of embarrassing or miserable consequences.

All this worked well as a preparation for the final learning phase of life - the fear of pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease phase - which took hold along with the age of cars and high school. Boys and girls, now young men and women, would be allowed more and more responsibility - going to the dance, the game, riding in cars, riding in cars with boys, and so forth - until they reached the age of responsibility (eighteen in those days).

Rules often had corollaries such as "Never where a top (shirt/blouse/etc.) that allowed anyone to see more than you wanted them to" and "Never get into a car with alone a boy you couldn't handle." Note that the rules allowed some latitude in deciding what you wanted someone to see or do with you and that those actions were balanced against the consequences to you and your reputation.

Failures to respect the rules could always be overcome with the right attitude, hard work and taking personal responsibility.

By the time I left high school, everyone knew where they stood relative to the opposite sex - some left to get married, others to school or work, others had babies.

The upshot of all this is, of course, you were responsible for what you did - male or female - with a larger burden of responsibility being placed on the girl.

The rules were obvious and well understood by everyone - as obvious as knowing how to wash your own hands.

Unfortunately, from the late sixties on feminism began steadily eroding these rules. And, as the rules eroded, so did the protection they afforded women. Fast forward to today - the rules have eroded away to nothing.

In their place a miraculous thing called a "right to privacy" has emerged. What is this right to privacy?

Apparently by Pennsylvania law it now means that anyone who might, for some sexual purpose such as publishing the picture on a web site, take a picture of your publicly exposed cleavage or breasts - its not your (the exposer) fault and the law (society) should punish the evil-doer. Apparently, by Pennsylvania law, it also means that even if you allow someone to stick a camera (or cell phone) under your skirt (or, I suppose lift your skirt for the camera or cell phone) its not your fault and the law (society) should punish the evil-doer.

The Discussion

Someone in the office brought up the passing of this legislation in casual conversation.

I took immediate offense. Why? Not because I run lurid web sites. But because such laws limit liberty and restrict freedom to which I am entitled (as explicitly provided for me in the Constitution of the United States).

After expressing my outrage I made it clear that I believe that "everyone is responsible for what happens to them." And let me be completely clear here. If I step outside my front door and I get shot - I am responsible - for I, not the shooter, stepped outside. If I get drunk at a party and get into bed naked with several other naked, horny and drunken friends and I am mistreated sexually - I am responsible - not my friends - for I got drunk and I got into bed. If I go to a restaurant and eat bad food, I am responsible for making myself sick - I ate the food.

Do I mean to imply that the shooter, my friends, or the chief are not responsible for their own actions? Of course not. But neither are they responsible for my actions.

Others expressed grave concern for me and my views regarding my horny friends. "Do you mean that 'no' doesn't mean no!" they cried. "In that particular situation neither no or yes mean a damn thing," I replied. Why? Because why should my party friends take responsibility for my lack of judgement; after all I got drunk, I took my clothes off, I got in bed with them.

Then someone pointed out the fact that there are "hundreds" of "up skirt how-to" web sites showing you "how to convert your gym bag to an up skirt imaging platform". (Hmmm? How would someone know about this? Perhaps this is actually part of the problem.)

I personally don't know any women or girls that would allow a cell phone, camera, gym bag, or anything else to be stuck between their legs in public (certainly not my wife, my daughters, daughters friends, son's girl friend, son's girl friend's friends, my daughters children, friends wives, friends children, and so on ad infinitum; why, in fact, I won't let someone do that either).

Perhaps I don't travel in the right circles? Hmmm? Loose women wearing skirts so large as to allow strangers access under them with gym bags or cell phones? Women of virtue unknowingly but publicly exposing their cleavage?

As my old business partner would say - I might have been born yesterday, but it wasn't at night.

Someone said, "Well, most definitions of responsibility include liability..." Hmmm? I am only responsible for what I am liable for? While that may be an convenient ruse to your mind free of guilt I think that it doesn't work in the real world. Folks often take responsibility for things they aren't liable for, e.g., someone elses child.

But back to "no means no" at the drunken party. "Well," I say, "would you teach your child that in this situation 'saying no' would be sufficient?" Howls erupt! "No, not my child," someone replies. "I would teach my child this is a bad situation and to avoid it in the first place," someone says.

I persue this further: "What about HIV and STDs?" I ask. "Oh," comes the reply, "if you're asked if you have one of these you must tell your partner!" Let's see. If your not responsible and you don't tell me and I get sick - ah ha - its your fault. Never mind my participation.

"Would you teach your child that his or her partner's answer would be the right amount of information on which to make a decision?" I ask. More howls erupt! "No, I would teach my child to know better than that..." is the reply.

Hmmm? Let's examine this model. You teach your child common sense, but push to have stupid, obvious privacy laws passed which make common sense unnecessary?

I think there is a problem. If cars are provided with safety devices (like air bags), people will come to rely on their presence. Similarly, if laws are passed to "protect people's privacy" then people will tend to rely on them (and not on common sense).

Closing The Loop

In the olden days (the early sixties) and before (to the time of the constitution) people were taught simple rules of self responsibility. The rules (and the laws created at that time) relied on personal responsibility. Girls knew where the trouble was - they stayed out of it. Now, trouble is everywhere and girls are no longer special (they are treated like boys).

We're stuck with stupid laws (like public health notices pasted up in bathrooms on how to wash your hands).

Had someone pasted something like that up when I was a kid, it would have been a complete joke...

The Shit That Sticks...

New law: The shit that sticks first sticks best.

This law is important in business when dealing with lawsuits and form employees. The truth doesn't matter. What matters is who gets their shit to stick first.

For example, you can steal all you want from a company so long as you sue them before they sue you. Through the magic of this law any amount of theft is trumped by the fact your employer was so evil you had to sue them (your shit stuck first). Then you settle for an additional profit.