Ryan Egesdahl

I predict the next big meme on the Internets will be the new name for the H1N1 Influenza virus, AKA the Swine Flu, AKA hamthrax.

May the Gods of the Memes have mercy on my nonexistent soul...

...and neither am I, but at least I have done my homework.

A common thread running across the Internets these days is concern/fear about the size of the deficit the President is proposing to be in the national budget, and of the growing size of the national debt. Also, there is fear (mostly among the rich and middle-class) that increased taxation is going to have a deleterious effect on the economic stimulus plan. Let's talk about these fears, starting with the size of the current budgetary deficit.

Firstly, you have to understand how finances work; it's useless to talk about the size of a number without understanding how that number compares to others around it. To do that, it helps to understand the basic accounting equation:

Assets - Liabilities = Shareholder Equity

That equation is the foundation of all conversations about money from the modest household to the largest government budget. What that equation tells you is how to compare financial numbers to one another, and the fact that all money comes from somewhere. The basic theory behind accounting is that value in any economic system (households, companies, and governments) is added by the work that money does in producing a product, which adds to either shareholder equity or assets.

Applied to a government, this equation tells you that talking about budget deficits and national debt is useless without also talking about where and how the money that is being spent comes from, about where and how the money that is spent goes, and about to whom and what the money that is spent adds value. Companies routinely hold debt that is a percentage of their projected income in order to "grease the gears" of their finances and gain profits over and above what would ordinarily have been possible without having the debt, with the percentage of debt at what is considered a "safe level" of repayment under reasonable conditions. Also, companies routinely practice "deficit spending" in the short term to gain a high return on investment, choosing to "balance the budget" in the long term - usually, in one-year intervals to show a good growth trend.

In the case of the United States government, it's useful to know that the current size of the national debt is only about 20% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP, or the "value" of the economy), and that the deficit spending proposed by the President is only about 13% of the GDP. In any business, that is considered a "safe level" of debt, even when you consider that the national debt is projected to double within the next five years. (For comparison, the highest level of debt and deficit spending this nation has ever sustained, apart from the Revolution, was after World War II; the budget deficit was 30% of GDP and the national debt was 110% of GDP.)

What we are doing right now is exactly what any company would do: borrow money and spend to add value that can be used later on. And for those of you who are still wary of the current level of spending and where it might get us, just remember that it's the creditors and shareholders of a company (for the most part) who ultimately determine whether the company has too much debt; in the case of the United States, its creditors and shareholders are still fairly confident that recovery is possible despite the current debt and spending level. The US Dollar is currently decreasing in price (bad thing) because banks and companies in other countries are converting their currencies into US Dollars (a good thing); in other words, the US Dollar is currently perceived as the safest means of preserving monetary value in the long term. Remember, a large portion of the US national debt is money that people and other countries have put into our system for safekeeping, which only makes it look worse than it actually is. And also remember that the current downtrend in the stock market need be nothing more than panicked investors pricing stocks lower than their intrinsic value - a thing that happens all the time even in a healthy market.

As far as the stimulus plan goes, there is no point in arguing over whether government spending produces an increase in GDP and a decrease in unemployment; both history and the vast majority of economic research [PDF] fairly well seal the matter. It's also worth noting that tax cuts tend to increase savings and retirement of debt rather than spending, and in the case of giving tax cuts to the rich and upper middle-class, all it does is to help people who already have money to keep it. There is only so much spending that any person is capable of or inclined to do, and giving people who already have money even more doesn't encourage spending; giving people who don't have money the ability to have luxury items certainly does.

And besides, we don't have a choice in the matter anyway. Something has to be done, and quickly; whether the current stimulus plan is the best one we can get is not at issue.

I may be wrong about any or all of the above; after all, I am not an expert in accounting, economics, history, nor politics. I'm not one of those people you see all over the Internets who think that Wikipedia and Google make them instant experts in any field. I'm simply capable of doing my homework and thinking about what I read, hear, and learn - just like anyone else should and could be. Don't let FUD and rhetoric get in the way of your understanding of what is happening around you.

I'm working on a new blog right now to which I plan to move later on. By "working" I mean "writing from scratch," and by "later on" I mean "when I am satisfied by my work." People who know me will understand instantly the meaning here: it won't be for quite a while. I'll give details later on as work progresses.

I sure hope all you people out there have been paying attention to what's going on in the news and on the Blogosphere these days. I have. And the world is spinning off its axis right at the moment.

Let's see: economic meltdown, world arms race, religions trying to co-opt free speech, political infighting so bad it's hampering solutions, and on and on. It's like people have forgotten what basic dialog is like. And it's no wonder.

How many of you out there know half of the people on your Facebook or MySpace friend list? How many of you go out somewhere with your friends and just hang out or chat? How many of you would rather see someone in person rather than call him or her on the phone - or even just zing them a text message or IM?

I'm finding that all over the Internets, strength of opinion is the determining factor of decision-making. How something looks is much more important than what we don't know about the event. "Who talking to whom" is a serious matter - talking to your enemies about topics that concern everyone is cause for belief that you are wavering in your principles. Changing your mind after investigating the facts is perceived as "waffling" by even your most ardent supporters. "Rule of Law" is a quaint idea from before the Information Age where it is agreed that what we don't know we can find out from Google. Having a differing opinion on the interpretation of facts means that you are most likely wrong, and - horror of horrors! - if you try to urge caution to others who rush to judge, you are most likely a horrible monster with questionable morals deserving of all the ridicule that the Internets can unleash upon you.

In this get-everything-in-an-instant world we live in, it's very easy to believe that all the knowledge in the world is within reach of an Internet connection and that deciding on a complex issue in less than five minutes is working "at the speed of the world." People who don't know much about a given subject feel free to form a solid opinion "based on the facts" they find in a Google search or from Wikipedia. It's also safe to assume, apparently, that what others profess to know and believe in can be inferred from reading a few paragraphs on a limited subject. What others seem to be arguing must be about something you have read before on a blog, and every opinion on the matter has already been stated publicly on Twitter. And for the sake of Science, don't disagree with the experts on matters unrelated to their area of expertise!

Well, I am (not) sorry to break it to you, but you are probably wrong, ignorant, and very possibly stupid. But look on the bright side: you can now join the ranks of everyone else in the world who is just like you.

In case you have been living under a rock for the past couple of decades, there are groups of people out there who believe that childhood vaccinations can cause autism in children. These people aren't generally scientists or doctors - they're just concerned citizens out to spread the message that vaccines are dangerous.

Oh, and they're also selfish morons.

Despite any attempt to explain the science or the medicine to these people, they cling to their belief that vaccines are dangerous. As a result, the immunity rate of the world population to various diseases is on the decline, due to frightened parents electing not to have their children vaccinated. For instance, the immunity rate amongst adults for the measles virus is about 90% and falling, and we were on the rise only a few years ago. The herd immunity percentage for the measles is 95%, which means we nearly prevented the virus from ever conceivably being an epidemic.

So because parents are afraid a relatively low percentage of children will be autistic as a result of immunization, they have condemned the adult population at large to the possibility of a measles epidemic - a virus that can cause severe complications in an adult - on the basis of a belief unsupported by any factual evidence or scholarly research.

Did I mention that these nutballs got their beliefs as a result of some wacko who falsified his data?

Anti-Vaxxers, please shut up. And if you insist on being such a health risk to the rest of the world human population, please do the responsible thing and isolate yourselves from the rest of us. That would make those of us who are tired of your incessant and nonsensical screed much happier indeed.

If you are a liberal, the idea of a "Republican stimulus" is a frightening double-entendre of fiscal proportions. The problem is, it's not very easy to refute the argument of a Republican on the warpath about money because, let's face it, Republicans really are the party of fiscal responsibility, whether you agree with their policies or not. They constantly remind us that there may be a cheaper way to get the same effect from our money, and that is a good thing for we liberals who like knocking the ball out of the park when we come up with a new government program.

The problem is, not all the time does a cheaper way actually get the same effect. Take, for instance, the argument Rep. Don Manzullo used when he appeared on the Rachel Maddow show last night. In the midst of stating that he and other Republicans would vote for a series of smaller economic stimulus bills that separated long-term investment from short-term "priming of the pump" (ideas that I can agree with), he explained that we should be working to get lost jobs back in the private sector rather than trying to create new jobs in public works with government bureaucrats at the helm (which, again, I can agree with, since there is less overhead and potential for corruption). However, he also suggested giving "vouchers" to consumers and cutting prices on cars to get people working again in the auto industry by, in effect, providing a supply of money to the consumer and driving demand.

Rep. Manzullo underlines a key problem with Republican fiscal policy when dealing with a financial crisis: there is the assumption that there is a supply of money, an immediate demand for a product waiting for the money to buy it, and the capability of the producer to do business to supply the product - all of which are features of a healthy, active economy. In the case of the economy we are currently suffering in, however, none of those criteria apply. The purchasing value of the dollar (the "supply of money") is on the decline, meaning that anything you buy now will decline in value at a faster rate than in a healthier economy; the average Joe Public isn't worried about buying a new car so much as putting food on the table, so there isn't a demand for product that needs money to enact a purchase; and the businesses that can produce are closing shop because they can't get money needed to do business, which is a completely different problem than not having customers to pay for what they produce - in fact, the reason the companies don't have customers is because the unemployment rate is on the increase, producing a shrinkage of disposable income in the market, which is the primary driver of consumer spending. In fact, the Republican way looks very much like how a smart investor does business: find a demand that needs money, develop the business for it and find ways to get money (via "coupons" or other such means) into the hands of consumers with a need to drive purchases.

Of course, that also means that the Republican way is much more of a long-term investment strategy than, say, creating a new short-term job in the public sector that gets money into the hands of consumers immediately while we try to fix the credit problems our economy is having, or even cutting some business taxes to reduce business overhead and therefore lessen the amount of money needed to produce product with resulting lower prices and increased production, for that matter.

What frightens me most of all in this economic crisis is that Republicans are getting away with stating bogus facts and figures about how much their plans will help our economy, despite how impossible that truly is, and I haven't heard any commentary about it. I've only heard declarations about "failed Republican policies" as if that's supposed to inform the American public. The problem is, Republican policies aren't "failed" so much as they are applied to the wrong situations, just as Democratic policies are. When are we going to refute, once and for all, the notion that politics has a place in American economics?

Can I get a round of applause for the title of this post, my dear readers? If I really have any readers, that is, aside from the friends who may not know to check this blog anymore. Now, I'm not going to make the neophyte blogger's mistake of caring about my audience to that degree - after all, a blog is supposed to be about yourself, not your readers - but I really do have to apologize for the infrequency of my posts here. I suppose I just don't feel like writing much anymore (a true shame), and when I do feel like writing, I don't feel like doing so here, or I simply don't want to make the effort. I really am very busy making a success out of myself and the business I am part of (did I tell you I am the CTO of a company now?), so I end up making a lot of excuses for not expressing myself in a healthy outlet.

Okay, so that's not really an apology in the sense of saying "I'm sorry," but an apology in the sense of arguing for a standpoint. Though I have said "I'm sorry" in the past for not posting very often, that is one thing I resolve not to do this time nor any time in the future. This blog is, after all, not about you but about me; there's simply no reason to be sorry for anyone but myself for making me miserable.

Why am I miserable? For the very reasons I hinted at above: I work too much for too little immediate reward, I go home too tired and emotional to be "with" my husband (in quite a few senses of the word), I don't have a healthy means of expressing myself (by my own choice, I might add), I have stress issues that have been affecting me physically for some time, and I am wrongfully presuming the responsibility for being "the man" in a relationship that needs more communication and intimacy by not adequately expressing my fears and insecurities - and continuing to do so despite realizing this for quite some time.

What's worse is that I really can't promise to either myself or to my largely-fictitious readers that I will do anything to resolve the problem. You may have noticed (if you do indeed exist) that I don't have a problem with either honesty or ruthlessness in dealing with myself and others, but I am quickly learning that a healthy mental state relies on choosing healthy relationships by associating with people who desire your honesty to be expressed to them - and that includes an association with oneself.

And you know what? Nobody really cares who you are. Do you remember that whole piece waaaay back I did on what cracked.com called the monkeysphere? Go look it up if you don't know what I mean. The fact is that you're not in the monkeysphere of that vast majority of people, regardless of whether you are a well-known public figure or not. Even when you are in someone's monkeysphere, most people concern themselves only with an unrealistic image of yourself projected into their subconscious through the filter of their own personalities. Anything you do or say will, in general, be understood by someone's own motives; it's very difficult to be a real person to anyone else out there.

Even more disturbing is the rampant and narcissistic form of solipsism most people seem to engage in. In this form, people assume that the only person of real importance is him- or herself - they are the center of their monkeysphere, and you will be punished for altering their perception of you. It's their mental image of you, not yours, and how dare you challenge it!

I am a gay man, but most people meet will never know it. This is not because my homosexuality isn't obvious (and it really isn't) but because of the pervasive heterosexism in our society. Most people assume upon meeting me that I am heterosexual and I choose not to correct their perception of me because I don't want to make our relationship more difficult. By my own choice I engage lying to that person, and in the process I secretly tell myself that I'm not worthy of their acceptance. After all, if I were worthy of knowing that person, wouldn't my honesty have no impact on our relationship? Wouldn't my perception of myself be more important than theirs?

The few people who do know I am homosexual were generally prepared to accept that fact in the first place. I never accomplished anything by telling John I was into him (other than having him as my husband, of course), since he was willing to accept my sexuality before I met him. My family has always been somewhat uncaring of a person's sexuality (with the exception of my brother), and telling them about it merely confirmed what they had always suspected. All of my friends and boyfriends and would-be lovers were confronted by my sexuality before I had ever met them, so it doesn't matter to my position in their world that I ever told them about it (again, with the exception of having John as my husband).

Have you ever seen House? If you don't know what that TV show is - are you living under a rock? - the main anti-hero protagonist is Dr. House, a cantankerous drug and puzzle addict who inefficiently and dramatically diagnoses difficult medical cases. There are two concepts that Dr. House believes fervently in, and I am inclined to agree with him. The first concept is that everyone lies. If you don't understand the utter truth of that idea, I suggest you pull your head out of your ass and really look at people.

The second idea Dr. House espouses is more of a life philosophy. Dr. House is honest to the point of cruelty because he believes that telling his patients a white lie to make them feel better is worse than doing nothing about their problem because hope accomplishes nothing other than a sense of false security; eventually the hope fades and they are worse of for having been lied to. In one episode of the series, House witnessed what he considered one of the most beautiful things he had ever seen: a girl told her mother the truth about her condition and removed any shred of hope she may have had simply for the reason that to do otherwise would have been a lie - something she never did to her mother.

What would happen if we told that kind of truth to other people? Exactly what happens to Dr. House in the series, of course: people become upset when the white lie they wanted is replaced by the truth and house ends up disliked and avoided. As House puts it, where Vicodin and medical puzzles are his addiction, hope seems to be everyone else's. I am inclined to agree with him on this point.

So the real reason I am miserable is the fact that I lie to people and I give myself excuses I don't believe in to do so. I end up exactly as House predicts and end up worse for having the hope that someone will like me, even though I maintain the usual distance and never become an actual person to them. I subordinate myself to their perception of me and tell myself that I am not worthy of being appreciated for who I am, continuing the heterosexist myth I hate for the purpose of having a tepid relationship with someone I don't really care about in the first place. And I keep doing this because the lie is useful, since business is much more about politics than it is about relationships. Then, I take this home and lie to myself and my husband about how it makes me feel, don't express it at all and in so doing allow the problem to fester, then give myself excuses I don't really believe for not making it better.

What's worse is that I would bet a large amount of money that nearly everyone who reads this post has a similar problem with self-honesty. Everyone lies.

Yesterday, I had to suffer through the sound of Sarah Palin spouting her vapid nonsense to a crowd in Florida, and I almost lost my appetite. Honestly, I can't stand the woman - she has no business even being governor of a state, let alone vice president. True enough, there isn't a single thing she says I agree with, but there really isn't that much to disagree with. The woman can't even form a coherent thought long enough to state what she believes! I mean, what the Hell did she mean by "Joe Six-Pack?"

This morning, I had to move my breakfast back into my room because CNN decided to explore the idea of who Joe Six-Pack was. For those of you who didn't see it, apparently Joe Six-Pack is someone with poor hygiene that likes to wear an American flag as a shirt and speak in a near-unintelligible Ozarks dialect about fishin' and huntin'. Thank you, some of my friends (and even some of my family) are rather much like the "Joe Six-Pack" guys CNN propped up in front of the American people as shills for Sarah Palin, and I wonder if they were as truly offended as I was about the display.

Shame on you, CNN!

What disturbed me about Victor Davis Hanson's "Modest Dissent" to Barack Obama's speech in Berlin was his complete failure to grasp simple points - namely that the United States of America needs to stop being the world's sheriff if it is to be a citizen of the world. Like Obama, I think we all should be speaking as if we are "a fellow citizen of the world" because that is exactly what we are. We do not merely live in the United States but share a world with other countries and peoples. That anyone is proud of having an "American identity" is not in question, nor is it relevant to the topic, nor did you apparently grasp the point at which Barack Obama clearly stated that he loved his country and was very proud to be a citizen of it.

I sometimes think it's the outcasts who are the lucky ones. We aren't quite as tempted as others into seeing things the way the rest of society does. And so, when the rest of society believes a lie, the outcasts have the more painstaking and painful task of finding the truth and then trying to convince everyone else of it. Read your history books and note that nearly every major change in any society has been made by someone before or since cast out by society. Sometimes, we even acknowledge their contributions to our progress - and then we go right on ignoring the next outcast who is pulling at our sleeve and shouting that the emperor does not, in fact, have any clothes on.

People ask me sometimes if I wished I hadn't turned out gay. They ask me to imagine a life with a cozy house, a picket fence, a doting wife, two-point-five children and a car. The problem is that I can't. I've certainly wondered what it would have been like to be "normal" - to be the outgoing athletic type who is popular with all the ladies and a friend to all men - with perhaps a little more fondness for cars than for computers, but I've never actually wished for it. And I really can't imagine what it would have been like, anyway. Liking women the way I like men is simply a foreign concept to me, and trying to describe it is like explaining the color "red" to a blind man. Even so, I don't think I would want it.

Truth is, I am glad I'm gay. Yes, it hurts, but I also get to help drive our world society into a new era. I get to be part of a team of engineers working to bring about a paradigm shift in how the people of our small world think and believe. It might have been nice to be that outgoing jock (and is he ever gorgeous to my imagination), but life would also be easier if I just put a gun to my head and shot myself, too. The only thing I absolutely must do in this life is die, so anything else I do is an adventure.

Do yourself a favor and cut free from your need to be like everyone else. You aren't as good as, better, or worse than anyone else for trying so hard to be like someone you don't even know. Honestly. It will hurt at first to realize you're so different from and yet so similar to everyone around you, but it will awaken a love for yourself and your fellow people you only thought you had found in church. And if everyone did this - well, maybe world peace really does have a chance.

Ripped from Natalie Dee:

Now that he is safely dead

Let us praise him

build moments to his glory

sing hosannas to his name.

Dead men make

such convenient heroes: They

                   cannot rise

          to challenge the images

we would fashion from their lives

And besides,

it is easier to build momuments

     than to make a better world

So, now that he is safely dead

we, with eased consciences

will teach our children

     that he was a great man…knowing

that the cause for which he lived

Is still a cause

and the dream for which he died

is still a dream,

a dead man’s dream

--Carl Wendell Himes, Jr.

There's something appearing on blogs across the world - something very strange...



Whoops! Now it's appeared on my blog. Oh, whatever shall I do? Will those big, mean Muslim extremists come after me and prove their religion is a cover for their violent tendencies? Am I going to be like the artist now, who faces assassination attempts? Will those really great Muslims who actually practice their religion somehow manage to give credence to the violent extremists while simultaneously calling for peace? Oh me oh my, whatever shall I do?

Oh, why not do what I always do - mock stupid people? Yeah, I suppose that would work.

Thanks, PZ.

I've explained this before to people, but I think my intellectual method might be turning people off what I say. Luckily for me, I have a friend in a political cartoonist:



Thank you, D.C. Simpson. Thank you.

One of my really old habits was to use mysticism to explain the world around me. Yeah, I know it doesn't really sound like me, but there was a time when, for me, magic was a very real and tangible thing.

Needless to say, I don't do that anymore.

However, I have lately been finding myself drawn back into those old habits for some reason. This time, though, I am taking my rational mind along for the ride. Because "things" are known to really happen, I already know I can't dismiss an event outright as "impossible" because it does not fit in with my worldview. If I did, then I would not be much of a scientist. So that means there has to be a real, rational, and testable explanation for all these events people attribute to "magical energies" and the like.

For example, take Spoon Bending. If you haven't seen it, you might find the idea that a normal person can bend a spoon using the power of his or her mind to be fascinating. In fact, you might want to believe that the power of the mind in some way contributes to the event. Here's a video showing the event (ignore the froo-froo at the beginning):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSfJjdnqfOo&feature=related

Amazed? You should be. It's actually not all that easy to bend a spoon just by picking one up and trying to twist it. Based on the fact that this not-so-strong woman has managed to perform a feat I find difficult with relative ease, I find myself drawn to the idea that she has some special knowledge or gift that allows her to perform the feat. Here's her explanation as to how it's done (and a how-to for you as well!):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-e_45BIbsg

In that video, she talks about the power of intention and a deep focus giving her the ability to perform such a feat. She even offers to teach you (for free) how to do it yourself. Naturally, she's selling something, but the feat comes for free.

And you know what? She's right! That's exactly how it's done.

But it's not so special or supernatural at all. In fact, you can completely ignore all the "energy" lingo and just follow what she says to do it.

Here's why:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPxEA_cCm0o&NR=1

So, yeah, sorry to burst your bubble if you're particularly new-age. It's not really all that special an ability. It's just uncommon and unpracticed for most people. If you pay attention to Carol-Anne Roland in her how-to video, you'll note she's saying exactly what Michael Shermer is saying in his skeptical video, but with a lot more nonsense thrown in to get your mind off the rational track - which is necessary for people who believe they cannot do it. As Michael Shermer says, it actually requires some focus to perform spoon bending; it doesn't really matter how you attain it.

There are another two videos where Michael Shermer demonstrates his method:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOwF_f1KL7w&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBRFxQDRf0k&feature=related

Note that Michael Shermer is a skeptic, and yet he is able to perform exactly the same feat Carol-Anne Roland is capable of. Without any energy visualization, he is still bending the spoon, but he uses the "power of his mind" to understand what he is doing rather than provide froo-froo explanations.

This casts a whole new light on things like Psychokinesis, Telekinesis, Clairvoyance, Telepathy, etc. for me. The fact is, there aren't any reliable studies that show these events truly occur. But if they do occur, they do not appear to be verifiable anyway. What that means is that there is a rational and perfectly mundane explanation for these extraordinary occurrences. We may simply be tapping into abilities we are not aware we possess - and that's not so weird after all.

So, the laptop I have been using for the past few months has died. It appears that the hard drive has committed a MONDO-FAIL error, which in non-technical terms means its best use now is as a coaster. What makes all this worse is the fact that the laptop isn't even mine - it's my friend Steve's. It's not like he was using it, but I don't like even unintentionally returning an item in a worse state than when I initially borrowed it. Also, I am acquiring a reputation as a laptop killer - I sure hope it's not true since I will be getting my own this Friday (I hope). Well, at least I managed to get the vast majority of the important files before the hard drive crapped out - a thing I did last night.

And now I turn your attention to these pertinent anecdotes and adages:

Murphy's Law: Anything that can go wrong, will.
Finagle's Law: The perversity of the universe tends towards a maximum.
Heinlein's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
Clark's Law: Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
Sturgeon's Law: Nothing is always absolutely so.
Sturgeon's Revelation: Ninety percent of everything is crud.
Pareto Principle: 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes.

"Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain." - Freidrich von Schiller

"Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped." - Elbert Hubbard

"I divide my officers into four classes; the clever, the lazy, the industrious, and the stupid. Each officer possesses at least two of these qualities. Those who are clever and industrious are fitted for the highest staff appointments. Use can be made of those who are stupid and lazy. The man who is clever and lazy, however, is for the very highest command; he has the temperament and nerves to deal with all situations. But whoever is stupid and industrious is a menace and must be removed immediately!" - General Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord

So I have just seen the season three finale of Battlestar Galactica. I have one thing to say:

SWEET MOTHER OF GOD MARY, JOSEPH, AND JESUS!

That is all.

Finally, I think I have the solution to all human strife and suffering. Are you ready for it?
( Read more... )
Anybody want some lemonade?

Where I work, we have a single email account we check for issues or complaints with our service. Not surprisingly, we also get a whole Hell of a lot of spam in that mailbox, which we read sometimes for sheer amusement. MegaDik is one of the more regular violators of our inbox, and they have a history of making us laugh. This spam, however, simply takes the cake:

Subject: Sail down the love canal more confidently.

At last you've found a babe that's hot
You wanna nail her juicy twat.
She's full of passion, she's so nice!
But would your penile size suffice?
Not sure she will ask for more?
You need a dong she would adore!
But how to grow it long and thick?
Your only hope is MegaDik!
You'll get so wanted super-size
And see great pleasure in her eyes!
Your shaft will bang her pink so deep,
Tonight you'll hardly fall asleep!

Bill Maher goes apeshit on religion. I can't say I disagree with him.