Dr Jess Tyrrell, of the University of Exeter Medical School, said: ‘Our genetic analysis concludes that the psychological impact of being obese is likely to cause depression.
‘This is important to help target efforts to reduce depression, which makes it much harder for people to adopt healthy lifestyle habits.’
Dr. Idiot is getting it backwards. People are much more likely to be fat because they were depressed first and not the other way ’round. Then the lard-ass-ness can make the depression worse. There are plenty of people who are fat and not depressed, just as there are also plenty of people who are depressed but not fat. How does he explain that? Where the fuck do the “genes” come in? Shitty article, and most likely shitty science.
Treating the depression is much more likely to help resolve the obesity, than trying to get a depressed person to lose weight (good luck with that) is to resolve depression.
Owen is pretty squishy on some things, but he dead-on here:
See Trump come out from behind the podium and Acosta sit the fuck down.
Also, fuck you, Peter.
Think about it. Functionally both groups will/wish to achieve the same end. If you can count to 20 without having to take your shoes off you’ll see that it can’t be logically argued otherwise. In his podcast this week: https://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=15528, the Zman states that the opposite of the Open Society (Soros, et al) so many on the left are pushing for is not a closed society for an orderly society. I agree completely. However to maintain an orderly society you must be able to control who enters, and who is a citizen, and that means a non-porous border and sound immigration policy. At this point, zero is the number of immigrants we need, and frankly we need to deport the 30 million illegal aliens already squatting here and the tens (hundreds?) of thousands of “asylum seekers” currently feeding at the welfare trough.
– Image stolen from Boxer’s site
Gutless commie punk Jim Acosta got his White House press pass pulled for being the biggest asshole on the planet yesterday. The best part though is when you see him cough up the mic immediately the second President Trump steps out from behind the podium.
I hope to see Acosta’s head on a spike in front of the WH before Christmas. What a great present for the whole country that would be.
via Jim Acosta — v5k2c2.com
“The sticker price of my Syracuse University education was $1,400 in 1971, my senior year. That is $8,600 in today’s dollars. The current sticker price at Syracuse is $43,000.” – from a blog post responding to this article:
So a college “education” today costs 5x of what it did back in the early seventies in adjusted dollars? That is fucking nuts. Do people in college learn 5x as much as back then? The obvious answer is a resounding “No.” Actually, a “Fuck, No” would be more accurate. It’s more likely they learn about a fifth as much instead.
And just what are the arguments that colleges make to justify these ludicrous tuition prices? Well, if you listen closely you can just make out that there are practically none. Colleges and Universities are simply acting as rational participants in the marketplaces would. They keep raising prices because people keep paying them even if they don’t believe that they’re getting good value for the money. In today’s world of credentials over ability, a college education has become the new high school diploma and the current belief in most of society is that you won’t be able to get a “good job” without a degree. Sadly, a college education provides no real guarantee of getting a “good job”:
Students who graduated into the Great Recession have struggled to find work that fits their learning. But according to research released on Monday, millions of college graduates over all—not just recent ones—suffer a mismatch between education and employment, holding jobs that don’t require a costly college degree.
The study, from the Center for College Affordability and Productivity, says that nearly half of all American college graduates in 2010—some three years after the recession began—were underemployed, holding relatively low-paying and low-skilled jobs.
According to a report on the study, “Why Are Recent College Graduates Underemployed? University Enrollments and Labor Market Realities,” out of 41.7 million working college graduates in 2010, 48 percent—more than 20 million people—held jobs that required less than a bachelor’s degree. Thirty-seven percent held jobs that required no more than a high-school diploma.
This bubble will pop, but probably not before another Great Depression sized financial disaster hits the U.S. that resets the entire economy, and maybe leads to the possible break-up of the country.
It’s one thing to find the ring your boyfriend’s going to propose with and share it online before he gets down on one knee, but to shame his choice of bling in the process is something else.
A woman is being slammed online after she complained about the quality of the ring she believes her partner was going to give her when asking for her hand in marriage.
“Ewwwww. Self shame Friday here I come. Found this in the BF’s nightstand. Not a fan,” she wrote in a Facebook group next to the photo of the sparkly rock.
“Please roast and then tell me how to tactfully say no you need to go get something different,” she added.
So there is a Facebook group for women to complain about how disappointed they are with their engagement rings? Women sure are fucking oppressed these days. The horror. The horror.
Here is a picture of Gene Tierney, who makes the manly heart sing.
Honing her craft under extreme conditions – she brooked the tempers of such autocratic émigrés as Fritz Lang, Ernst Lubitsch and Otto Preminger – Tierney emerged as a leading lady of equal beauty and depth. Gliding seamlessly from smoldering sensuality in Preminger’s “Laura” (1944), to sang froid psychopathy in John M. Stahl’s “Leave Her to Heaven” (1945), to a maturity and grace far beyond her years in Joseph L. Mankiewicz’s “The Ghost and Mrs. Muir” (1947), Tierney attained a strata of celebrity that put her on par with fellow sirens Rita Hayworth, Lana Turner and Ava Gardner.
Rita Hayworth, Lana Tuner, Ava Gardner:
I will now sadly deface this page with the following:
Here is Hailey Baldwin, who is the “face” of a something or other fashion line:
She’s the face of PrettyLittleThing‘s Diamond holiday collection.
And on Monday, Hailey Baldwin appeared in a cheerful mood as she kicked off the launch party of her apparel line at Catch in West Hollywood, California.
The 21-year-old looked sensational as she made her arrival to the red carpet wearing a glittery low-cut sequin blazer with matching pants of the same kind.
This person of gender is just weird looking. “She” is also married to entity called Justin Bieber, which I get from context is supposed to be of some importance.
Are there women who really wished they looked like that?!?! Really?!?!
Just more evidence that civilization continues to decline at an ever-increasing pace.
(Occupational) Licensing directly affects more workers today than union membership and the minimum wage combined, but it wasn’t always this way. Some government restrictions on who can perform what job have been around for decades. In the 1950s, 1 in 20 workers needed government permission in the form of a license to work. Today licensing has ballooned to ensnare 1 in 4 workers. Most of that expansion is new license regulations for previously unlicensed occupations and the broadening scope of existing licenses.
But a tiny ray of hope:
THE FUTURE IS BRIGHT Gueye did not seek out a cosmetology license. She did not find a different job. She refused to stay underground. Instead, Gueye fought the government’s stifling regulations. She fought alongside other braiders in Kentucky to defend their right to earn an honest living performing their cultural trade. In a win for Kentucky’s hair braiders, Governor Matt Bevin signed a bill in 2016 exempting them from the state’s cosmetology regulations.
Way to much government involvement for things that are none of their business. License to install home entertainment centers? Fucking nuts.
Anarcho-tyranny is a paleoconservative concept used in critiquing modern “social democracy.” Samuel Francis argued that the problems of managerial state extend to issues of crime and justice. In 1992, he introduced the word “anarcho-tyranny” into the paleocon vocabulary.He once defined it this way: “we refuse to control real criminals (that’s the anarchy) so we control the innocent (that’s the tyranny).”
In one of his last essays, he explained the concept:
- What we have in this country today, then, is both anarchy (the failure of the state to enforce the laws) and, at the same time, tyranny—the enforcement of laws by the state for oppressive purposes; the criminalization of the law-abiding and innocent through exorbitant taxation, bureaucratic regulation, the invasion of privacy, and the engineering of social institutions, such as the family and local schools; the imposition of thought control through “sensitivity training” and multiculturalist curricula, “hate crime” laws, gun-control laws that punish or disarm otherwise law-abiding citizens but have no impact on violent criminals who get guns illegally, and a vast labyrinth of other measures. In a word, anarcho-tyranny.
Francis argues that this situation extends across the U.S. and Europe. While the government functions normally, violent crime remains a constant, creating a climate of fear (anarchy). He says that “laws that are supposed to protect ordinary citizens against ordinary criminals” routinely go unenforced, even though the state is “perfectly capable” of doing so. While this problem rages on, government elites concentrate their interests on law-abiding citizens. In fact, Middle America winds up on the receiving end of both anarchy and tyranny.
- The laws that are enforced are either those that extend or entrench the power of the state and its allies and internal elites … or else they are the laws that directly punish those recalcitrant and “pathological” elements in society who insist on behaving according to traditional norms—people who do not like to pay taxes, wear seat belts, or deliver their children to the mind-bending therapists who run the public schools; or the people who own and keep firearms, display or even wear the Confederate flag, put up Christmas trees, spank their children, and quote the Constitution or the Bible—not to mention dissident political figures who actually run for office and try to do something about mass immigration by Third World populations.
Francis argued that anarcho-tyranny is built into the managerial system and cannot be solved simply by fighting corruption or voting out incumbents. In fact, he says that the system generates a false “conservatism” that encourages people to act passively in the face of perpetual revolution. He concludes that only by devolving power back toward law-abiding citizens can sanity be restored.
I’m glad to listen to anyone who’d like to argue that most people in the West don’t live under anarcho-tyrannic regimes.