"Your dresses are too tight," he screamed. "You look like a tramp!"
"Oh," she replied, "You want to see me in something long and flowing?!?"
So he pushed her into the river.
I just realized capslock can be an anagram for cockslap. Which makes me wonder if that's how should feel after getting "yelled" at on the internet.
Are Kinder Egg toy-pods yellow to represent the yolk of an egg?
Why is popcorn the only present tense food? Shouldn't it be called popped corn?
If you take a piece of bread and put it in between another two pieces of bread is it a bread sandwich or a loaf of bread?
I was trying to get my seventh-grade history class to understand how the Indians must have felt when they first encountered the Spanish explorers. "How would you feel," I asked, "if someone showed up on your doorstep who looked very different, spoke a strange language and wore unusual clothes? Wouldn't you be a bit scared?"
"Nah," one boy answered, "I'd just figure it was my sister's date."
Coast Guard Under Fire For Saving Too Many Straight White Males
PORTSMOUTH, N.H. — For some people, it looked like the Coast Guard was having a good year: 200 lives saved, more than 3,800 lives assisted and roughly $5.3 million in property saved. That is until independent blogger Caden Dakota pointed out the Coast Guard’s fatal flaw: The service mostly saved straight white males.
Dakota, a social activist and professional tweeter, launched his critique on Twitter by pointing out that he was triggered by a recent report showing that that there weren’t enough LGBTQ rescues.
“The Coast Guard didn’t save a single gay person in 2016 #WhiteGuard,” he tweeted. He also mentioned that the Coast Guard’s use of the phrase “man overboard” was extremely sexist.
The man’s critique came after the Coast Guard released its annual report on lives saved and property assisted, highlighting a number of times when guardsmen have put themselves in grave danger to assist the public in times of desperate need.
Dakota was troubled by the report, however, in which he found some startling trends.
“So no transgendered Asians were saved while fishing for lobster in New England?” Dakota wrote on Twitter. “Sorry this doesn’t sound like our modern society. #equality #gaylobsters.”
According to the Coast Guard’s report, multiple women and Hispanic males have been saved throughout the year. However they’re in the minority and are not millennials, Dakota explained.
Still, Dakota isn’t the first to criticize the Coast Guard. The website Jezebel also complained recently that white male culture is to blame for the service’s problems. Even after a Coast Guard spokesman pointed out that the service had little control over what gender or sexual orientation could be saved, the website called it a typical “mansplaining response.”
When asked for comment, Coast Guard spokeswoman Cmdr. Jennifer Robinson explained that the main demographic for search and rescue cases is “get me the fuck out of this job.”
I'll bet the first thing some pets
do when they arrive at animal heaven
is ask for their testicles back.
Issue of the Times;
Why Sanctuary Cities Encourage Illegal Immigration by James W. Lucas
Numerous cities have declared themselves to be “sanctuary cities,” where local police are forbidden to cooperate with federal immigration authorities in enforcing our national immigration laws. Legislation is now moving through the California legislature to implement such a policy throughout that entire state. Why this energy to protect violators of our laws? Oddly, the answer goes back to the founding. Due to a residue of the notorious three-fifth compromise, sanctuary cities encourage illegal immigration because undocumented residents (to use the politically correct term) are counted in determining representation in the House of Representatives and state legislatures. The more undocumented a city has, the more seats it gets.
When the Framers were deciding how to apportion the House of Representatives, the southern states wanted to count slaves and the northern states wanted to only count free citizen residents. They compromised by counting three-fifths of the non-free population. To implement this, the House is apportioned on the basis of the gross total population rather than the citizen population. As illegal immigration was not a great issue in 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment simply carried forward this practice. As a result, the Census Bureau explicitly includes both legal non-citizen and undocumented residents in the census.
In our era of historically high immigration, this has a major impact on legislative apportionment because these immigrants are very unevenly distributed. The Census Bureau estimates that the proportion of non-citizen population in the states varies from 14% in California to less than 1% in West Virginia. This has a direct impact on the states’ political power. California, on its way to becoming the first sanctuary state, has five or six more members of the House (and consequently Electoral College votes) counting its non-citizen population than if House seats and Electoral College votes were based on only citizen population. No wonder California politicians favor illegal immigration.
This disparity can be even more pronounced within states. In my new book Fifty States, Not Six I show how New York City has ten or more seats in the 150 member Assembly (the lower house of the New York State legislature) counting non-citizens than it would if apportionment were based on the citizen population. This is true across the Nation, where immigrants tend to concentrate in urban areas, which generally are the areas which have declared themselves sanctuary cities.
For example, according to the Census Bureau estimates 7.4% of Illinois residents overall are non-citizens. However, in Cook County (Chicago) non-citizens are 11% of the population, which is 61.5% of Illinois’ total non-citizen population. Without Cook County, Illinois’ non-citizen population would be only 4.8%. This difference corresponds to about five seats in the Illinois House of Representatives, which would go to other parts of the state if apportionment was based on the citizen population. On a national level, this also means that Cook County probably has one more seat in the federal House of Representatives than it would if only citizens were counted. That is a seat which would otherwise go to downstate Illinois or to suburban areas.
If you ask what difference one seat in Congress could make, consider Representative Luis Gutierrez’ grotesquely gerrymandered Illinois 4th district. Congressman Gutierrez’ core constituency appears to be undocumented aliens. If you ever wondered how a member of Congress could be elected when his prime constituency supposedly cannot vote, now you understand. If apportionment were based on the citizen population, it is doubtful that the 4th district would survive, and Congressman Gutierrez would have to face a constituency of native-born African-American citizens for whom amnesty for undocumented aliens is not the highest priority.
Of course, sanctuary city politicians claim that their policies are based on compassion for the stranger. However, if they really cared about poor people, one wonders why they promote flooding our Nation with low-skilled workers who deprive the native-born poor of all races of wages and opportunities. The more logical explanation is the desire to increase the size of the low-skilled, welfare-dependent electorate. Many believe that these non-citizens are being allowed to vote right now. However, even if this is not true, it is undeniable that non-citizen residents are increasing the representation of sanctuary cities in Congress and state legislatures.
So, what do we do about this? The surest solution is to amend the Constitution to apportion on the basis of the citizen population rather than the gross population. I propose such an amendment in Fifty States, Not Six. (By allocating electoral votes proportionately, the amendment would also permanently eliminate the Democrat ‘blue wall.’)
However, our Constitution is the most difficult to amend in the world. A fallback position relates to the Census. Although the federal constitution is an impediment for the federal House of Representatives, states arguably could apportion their legislatures based on citizen rather than gross population. However, states rely on the federal census to do their apportionment, and the federal census only counts the gross population. The 2020 census is not so far away. Congress should pass a law providing that the 2020 census count the citizen population as well as the gross population. This way states wishing to apportion based on the citizen population would have the information to do so. In addition, the results of these parallel counts would illuminate the selfish motives of sanctuary cities, and build support for a constitutional solution.
Our country should be governed equally by all of its citizens. However, by encouraging illegal immigration, sanctuary cities are showing yet again their belief in the old leftist principle that some are more equal than others.
Quote of the Times;
“If others don’t see the pink elephant in the room, and you do, the elephant isn’t there. Look for that pattern. Once you see it, you’re awake.”
Link of the Times;
Subscribe or Submit to the Internet's elite source;
Send E-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org
to complement The Field!
If you like what you see,
Witness the Archives;
An Images & Ideas, Inc. Service.
}; - >