Hello, and welcome to Big Boob Friday.




Lyrics Link


Your model for today was born May 21st, 1966 in Los Angeles, California.  She stands 5′ 7″ and measures 34 – 26 – 35 and 135 lbs.  Please show some respect and offer a drink to Miss Darla Crane (real name Shelly Shelnutt).


Continue reading

In The Spirit Of Today

Somehow, this song seems appropriate (and shut up if you don’t like this version):

I have been waiting for this moment for damn near two years. And I will not be disappointed.

I have more to add, but it shall come in the next day or so. But vote. Tell the left to get fisteryfucked so hard and wide, a goatse could come along and not scrape the sides of their collective anuses for what they have done and want to do. Then celebrate tonight, knowing that the battle renews tomorrow.

Rotorcraft Sunday

Because helicopters, like bumblebees, cannot fly. It’s SCIENCE!

When you have a gun that spits out metric shitloads of lead, what better to put it on than a flying bumblebee?

Oops. Told you they couldn’t fly.

Mornin’ folks. Hope you all have a great day, with great weather and recipes. Especially those of you going to those parties where they are serving tea in the skulls of incumbent congressmen (metaphorically speaking, of course).


Our Impending Economy

Kinda interesting watching our future here and now. I hope the airbags help somewhat.

Oh, and the song in this video makes me have naughty thoughts. Yes it does.

Welcome to The Hostages Drive In Movies


Please note: The concession stand closes at midnight. Also people in cars must be visible from the shoulders up at all times – no exceptions.

First feature film:

Second feature film:

Midnight special film:

Warning: Anyone caught throwing used personal hygiene/protection items into the parking lot will be ejected from the premises. No exceptions.

Binary Sunday 01.10.10

011010 = 


If only this truly happened… Activists Missing After Declaring “War on Leather” at Motorcycle Rally*

“They peed on me!!!” charged one activist. “They grabbed me, said I looked like I was French, started calling me ‘La Trene’, and duct taped me to a tree so they could pee on me all day!”

“I…I was trying to show my outrage at a man with a heavy leather jacket, and he…he didn’t even care. I called him a murderer, and all he said was, ‘You can’t prove that.’ Next thing I know he forced me to ride on the back of his motorcycle all day, and would not let me off, because his girl friend was out of town and I was almost a woman.”

*Yeah, I know clintbird linked it but it was in the poat I made this morn, so I left it in just in case other snausages missed it from the last poat.


Who Knew??


If you have naughty thoughts or actions, watch out for


[UPDATE: Puka]

It’s Blustery & Cold Somewhere

Thanks to Global Warming, some of us are experiencing a chill today.

Speaking of chill, many argue that chili was invented in Mexico in the early 1800s.

Not that Chilly. A writer from San Antonio in an article called San Antonio: An Historical and Pictorial Guide, wrote: “Chili, as we know it in the U.S., cannot be found in Mexico today except in a few spots which cater to tourists. If chili had come from Mexico, it would still be there.” While there is no written evidence, the legend goes that this dispute was how the battle at the Alamo really began.

During the 1880s, brightly dressed Hispanic women known as “chili queens” began to operate around Military Plaza and other public gathering places in downtown San Antonio. They appeared at dusk, when they built charcoal or wood fires to reheat cauldrons of pre-cooked chili. Their aroma was a potent sales pitch. Some chili queens later built semi-permanent stalls in the mercado. This Chili Queen from 2007 lost her crown due to improper stall placement.

Chili is said to be the food of forgiveness and reconciliation. And though the side effects of consuming chili may contribute to the heating of our planet, it makes everyone happy and fills the world with laughter and joy.

Fuck Global Warming.


Can you feel it?

Can you feel it?

According to this story linked at Drudge, the Dems (spit) represent the richest and the poorest districts in the nation. 

The Democratic-controlled House is now an unusual combination of the richest and poorest districts, the best and least educated, and the best and the worst insured. The analysis found that Democrats have attracted educated, affluent whites who had tended previously to vote Republican.

Which begs the question, ” Who do the Reps (diapproving sigh) represent? 

 Republicans have tended to appeal to affluent voters since the Roosevelt era in the 1930s and 1940s but recently have appealed more to Southern and rural voters, who often have lower incomes.

“The story is really education,” says David Wasserman of the non-partisan Cook Political Report.He says “educated, wine-drinking Democrats” and poorer minority voters are an effective coalition because both groups are increasing in numbers. Even so, Wasserman expects Democrats to lose up to two dozen seats in the 2010 congressional elections, especially in poorer, white districts.

So obviously, since 1 plus 1 equals 3, Reps now represent the uneducated racist of the south. 

Silly me, I thought the correct answer would be:

rich + poor = Dems

Americans – Dems = everyone else that matters

everyone else that matters = the Middle Class

the Middle Class = Reps

Math is hard.

Rich’s younger self would like a word with all u h8ters:


So what Laws would The Hostages Like to Break?

So, how is the MOST TRANSPARENT ADMINISTRATION EVAH!!! doing? Impeachment anyone? No?

Well then WE should be able to BREAK SOME LAWS TOO!! Its good enough for them, good enough for us! After they are done paying for our Gasoline and Mortgages, we can have GET OUT OF JAIL FREE cards delivered with the Unicorns and Skittles.

1). Little Timmy Geitner: Tax Cheat.

2). “Good Time” Charlie Rangel: Tax Cheat.

3). Van Jones: Communist and truther.

4). Franklin “Fannie Mae” Raines: Mortgage meltdown for thee, millions of dollars for me.

5). Eric Holder: Gives the okay to voter intimidation in a nation of cowards.

6). Tom Daschle: A free limo and driver is imputed income?  WHA?!?

7). Bill Richardson: Didn’t want major league career interfering with the President’s agenda so withdrew from the nomination for Commerce Sec.

8). Nancy Killefer: The numbers…there are so many of them…so confusing.  Wait…I must report all income?  WHA?!?!

9). Chas Freeman: Couldn’t pass muster after being nominated to the National Intelligence Council.  The reason?  JOOOOOOS.

10). William “Cold Cash” Jefferson: Katrina victimized his freezer.

jennifer_connelly_horse12Somehow, this fits.  Please don’t ask how.  Rosetta added half the list.  Can we haz trollz?

Government and Markets

Why should Rosetta be the only one to rant? I put this in the comments, but thought maybe, just maybe, some retard here might have something to say on topic. Or on tapioca.

Markets are in the long term rational. Not in the short term, but over time, they act in a rational manner. That’s the effect of a large group of people each acting in their own self interest, for their mutual benefit. We must always remember that individuals often act irrationally, and so do groups over short terms, but that groups that choose to act together tend to act rationally over the long term. So, we will posit that markets act rationally. And thus, rational actors like to operate on the basis of information. We have two types of information- empirical, and inferred. Empirical information is always past history. That is, it is something we have measured that has happened in the past. Inferred information can be either past history, or a projection of the future, often based on past trends. Inferred information is imprecise. Call it a SWAG (Scientific Wild Ass Guess), or just a best estimation on the available information. In both cases, the market works better with information, rather than in its absence. Uncertainty breeds unhappiness in the markets. Some level of uncertainty is needed for the markets to work. Investors must have an idea that there is a potential for gain, or they wouldn’t invest. But there must be some risk involved, or there would be no need for rewards (dividends and capital gains). The natural level of risk is inherent to the market, and all the players are cognizant of that. What upsets markets greatly is outside influences on them. Anything that changes the accepted rules of the market had a detrimental influence on the market. Why? Because if the rules can change once, they can change again. It’s like playing baseball and finding out in the 9th inning that your side only gets two outs.

Any and all government intrusion into the markets has the effect of introducing uncertainty into the marketplace. If there is no government intrusion at all, that is a known level of interference, and there is thus no uncertainty introduced. But when the government intrudes in any way into the marketplace, that introduces a level of uncertainty into the market. If government intrusion is rare, the markets will stabilize around the new rule set, but still have a slightly higher level of uncertainty, as the market has seen that there is the potential for government intrusion.  As a hedge against the intrusion of the government into markets, entities will assume government interference in the market, and hence work to influence that interference in ways that benefit them (at least in the short term) and work against their competitors. This is in effect market players working the referees to change the rules in their favor, in the middle of the game. {see Dodd, Christopher; and Frank, Barney}

Eventually, government interference leads to unfairness in the market, where some competitors have an advantage. And where an artificial advantage exists, eventually, the markets will cause a failure that should have been corrected earlier. When a mortgage is defaulted in this environment, we often see that it is a mortgage that was a bad risk from day one. We see the same thing with corporations that influenced the government to skew the market rules in their favor. They were able to operate for a while, but in the end, the fall was that much greater. If the corporation had not been able to change the ruleset to artificially benefit them, they never would have been in a position to have a catastrophic failure. Or rather, if they did fail, such failure would not have been catastrophic to the markets as a whole.

Virtually every single government intervention into a market is done with the intention of promoting fairness. Not just our government, but any intervention at all, throughout history. But make no mistake, the government has its own vested interest, to maximize revenues into its coffers. That’s no sin, in and of itself. I think we can all agree that the government needs some level of revenue to operate. But governments efforts to induce “fairness” into a market, where by definition, there are winners and loser (tho most interactions are actually between winners and winners to a lesser degree), is to artificially remove risk. When you artificially remove risk from a portion of the market, it just doesn’t go away, it is just defered. And worse, it isn’t just defered, it is more widespread.  Pretty soon, the problem becomes systemic. And anyone who has worked on any centralized system will tell you that a problem in any portion of a system soon spreads to the entire system.

And of course, we have an entirely different level of government interference in the markets. Fannie and Freddie. Here, we have Government Sponsored Entities. These are supposedly private companies set up by the federal government that competed in the private sector.There was a polite fiction that they were not guaranteed by the government, but everyone knew that was a lie. As events proved, they government would indeed cover their assets.  Given that they were sponsored by the very government that both set the legal rules of the marketplace, and printed the money, was there any way for a private company to compete with them? Of course not. Not surprisingly, may companies found a modus vivendi with them, either co-opting them, or being co-opted by them. As a final insult to the free market, these government sponsored entities used the fiction that they were not part of the government to actually lobby the government. To put it bluntly, they bribed the members of Congress responsible for their oversight with sums that private companies could not. Is it any wonder that the laws of the marketplace soon benefited Fannie and Freddie in an artificial way?

In a perfect, hypothetical world, there would be absolutely no government interference into the markets. Sadly, we don’t live in a perfect world. But I think I’ve made the case that government intrusion in the markets should be limited to those actions that promote transparency, not fairness.