Your beard is dirty as a toilet
Don’t read any further if you love your whiskers.
Despite those who take great pride in their facial hair, no amount of grooming can overcome the dirty truth of science. Your beard may contain the same bacteria found in poop, according to a recent study.
Local news station KOAT 7 put facial hair hygiene to the test in a study performed by Quest Diagnostics in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The laboratory took swabs of a handful of volunteer beards and tested them for cleanliness. The results did not bode well for our bearded brethren.
Though some of the samples contained a lot of bacteria that’s considered normal, the others were comparable to toilets. John Golobic, a microbiologist for Quest Diagnostics, told KOAT 7 that the lab results revealed the same kind of bacteria “you’d find in (fecal matter).” However, a much larger sample size would be necessary to confirm that the average beard is as dirty as a toilet.
The bacteria revealed won’t cause any illnesses, unless you count the kind where you fall ill from locking lips with a toilet. Regardless, it will certainly make potential kissers think twice before smooching some stubble.
No One Murdered Because Of This Image
WASHINGTON—Following the publication of the image above, in which the most cherished figures from multiple religious faiths were depicted engaging in a lascivious sex act of considerable depravity, no one was murdered, beaten, or had their lives threatened, sources reported Thursday. The image of the Hebrew prophet Moses high-fiving Jesus Christ as both are having their erect penises vigorously masturbated by Ganesha, all while the Hindu deity anally penetrates Buddha with his fist, reportedly went online at 6:45 p.m. EDT, after which not a single bomb threat was made against the organization responsible, nor did the person who created the cartoon go home fearing for his life in any way. Though some members of the Jewish, Christian, Hindu, and Buddhist faiths were reportedly offended by the image, sources confirmed that upon seeing it, they simply shook their heads, rolled their eyes, and continued on with their day.
“Mayor Bill de Blasio has tried to be cautious when it comes to policing. He worries that a crime spike will produce an angry citywide reaction that would threaten his political career. But when it comes to welfare reform, the other great advance of the Giuliani/Bloomberg years, de Blasio shows no such caution. He has turned the city’s massive Human Resources Administration over to former Legal Aid Society attorney Steven Banks, a leading “welfare rights” advocate, whose principal contribution over the years has been to tie up the city in litigation.”
…De Blasio can be more aggressively liberal on welfare because most New Yorkers are barely aware of the policies that reduced the welfare rolls from 1.1 million, when Giuliani took over from de Blasio mentor David Dinkins, to the current 350,000. Giuliani’s reforms, devoted to getting people back to work, were so successful that 75 percent of those placed into jobs remained off welfare a year later…
…Now de Blasio proposes to replace these proven successes with policies that have already failed in the past. Reviving the hoary notion that entry-level work represents “dead-end jobs,” de Blasio suggests that people on welfare are owed more than an opportunity to work. Job training and “seat time” in a classroom will displace the current system of “rapid placement” into a job. The newly created Mayor’s Office of Workforce Development proposes a vast new program of job training and enhanced “education,” on the theory that a new version of the old failure will reduce inequality in New York. —City Journal
FCC commissioner: Political content on internet in danger from regulators
If the FEC and FCC ever team up to stifle political speech on the internet, never let it be said that we didn’t have fair warning.
FCC commissioner Ajit Pai, one of two Republicans on the 5-member commission, told the Right Online conference in Washington, D.C. that regulators see political speech on the internet as inherently dangerous and will probably seek to severely restrict it and regulate it in the near future.
Talking about the new regulations governing the internet, Pai issued his warning about what’s afoot in Washington:
However, Pai said it was only the beginning. In the future, he said, “I could easily see this migrating over to the direction of content… What you’re seeing now is an impulse not just to regulate the roads over which traffic goes, but the traffic itself.”
Continuing, he said, “It is conceivable to me to see the government saying, ‘We think the Drudge Report is having a disproportionate effect on our political discourse. He doesn’t have to file anything with the FEC. The FCC doesn’t have the ability to regulate anything he says, and we want to start tamping down on websites like that.’”
In February, Pai co-authored an editorial with former FEC Chairman Lee Goodman that warned of efforts by those agencies to regulate content online.
“Is it unthinkable that some government agency would say the marketplace of ideas is too fraught with dissonance? That everything from the Drudge Report to Fox News… is playing unfairly in the online political speech sandbox? I don’t think so,” Pai said.
“The First Amendment means not just the cold parchment that’s in the Constitution. It’s an ongoing cultural commitment, and I sense that among a substantial number of Americans and a disturbing number of regulators here in Washington that online speech is [considered] a dangerous brave new world that needs to be regulated,” he concluded.
How might such regulation take shape? The FEC has been pining for years to go after websites that contain partisan political content who get monies from political groups, nonprofits, and political campaigns and parties. So if you own a blog, and you run a political campaign tower ad in the sidebar, the FEC will want you to fill out a lot of paperwork and otherwise harass you. And your content will be scutinized to make sure you’re not violating any other FEC regs.
It’s an insidious form of control, because in addition to coming down on and regulating actual political speech, it discourages individuals and companies from posting on some issues and personalities lest they be seen as too partisan.
We’ve heard too much from regulators over the past few years – including the IRS, who also wants to regulate political speech – to ignore Mr. Pai’s warnings. But in addition to vigilance, nothing less than an overturning of the established order in Washington will protect our free speech rights.
Found the above HERE.