Slashdot Mirror
Political Affiliation Can Be Differentiated By Appearance
quaith writes "It's not the way they dress, but the appearance of their face. A study published in PLoS One by Nicholas O. Rule and Nalini Ambady of Tufts University used closely cropped greyscale photos of people's faces, standardized for size. Undergrads were asked to categorize each person as either a Democrat or Republican. In the first study, students were able to differentiate Republican from Democrat senate candidates. In the second, students were able to differentiate the political affiliation of other college students. Accuracy in both studies was about 60% — not perfect, but way better than chance."
I'd to see Rush squeeze into one of those bad boys.
This should be easy enough. Hipsters are liberal, hicks are conservative. Pretty easy to identify them from facial hair amongst other cues.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Factor 1 (46% of variance explained) consisted of high loadings on likeability (.94) and trustworthiness (.97) and low loadings on dominance (.11) and facial maturity (.14). Factor 2 (42% of variance explained) consisted of high loadings on dominance (.92) and facial maturity
My grandmother used to tell me something along the lines of what is often misattributed to Churchill:
If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
And I would also like to point out for the college students that society (especially high school) often pigeonholes people and defines who they are on how they look. The individual sometimes has no choice and sometimes just accepts it and goes with it in order to belong. If you look older when you're young and people might instinctively treat you like a cold Republican. Always looked young and innocent? Then a warm Democrat.
Would be an explanation that agrees with the correlation the research drew to define the deviation from random guessing but nothing conclusive.
My work here is dung.
What a dumb study. Of course you can pick a party affiliation by appearance. First off, if you always say a black guy is a Democrat, you'd be right 90% of the time, based on voting records. That would give you 60% overall correct, even if everything else was 50,50, assuming a sample set that roughly mirrors the population.
This is my sig.
When I work the polls each year I try to pass the time by guessing the party affiliations of my voters.
"Hmm, large SUV and business suit. Republican."
"Large breasted college age chick. Democrat."
"Subaru Outback and peacenik bumper stickers. Green Party."
"Pick-up truck and AR-15. Libertarian."
It's amazing how bored you get working a 15 hour day when you only get 40 voters.... ;)
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Lets play a game someone's driving a clunker and they have 80 bumper stickers on it, which way to they lean?
60% versus 50%? How is that WAY better?
I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
There are two things Liberals hate!!!!!
1) Red-necks, and
2) Stereotyping
Politicians are all the same, regardless of their affiliated party.
I'm a registered Independant you insensitive clod (well, I was when I was in a state that required you to claim a group to vote in primaries). I don't pick a candidate based on part affiliation.
More CHOICE than ever before!
http://tinyurl.com/democratface
http://tinyurl.com/republicanface
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
Are you kidding? This isn't ten coin flips with a 4:6 result... this was 118, and ALL the results point to an increase in probability of a successful guess. If it were up to chance, none of those samples would point in the right direction, however they all *do*.
My thoughts exactly. Especially when you factor in the fact, which others are posting about, that you can often tell by the way a person dresses/carries themselves whether they are mostly liberal or conservative. That fact alone should more than make up for the above-chance positive rate that this study observed. This sounds suspiciously like a researcher trying to make a big deal out of something that is fundamentally common sense.
The Churchill quote only demonstrates how clever rhetoric does not an argument make.
I am often amazed at how powerful a beautiful but specious assertion can be. Sometimes it is a compelling analogy that has no actual bearing on the topic at hand. Other times (as in this Churchill case) it is a clever dichotomy that begs the question. This particular quote is a wonderful example of begging the question. It is no more possible to support conservatism with it than it is possible to literally pull yourself up by your bootstraps.
That was an analogy, wasn't it? I hope you didn't find it too beguiling.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
And I have invented a method for telling if someone is a criminal by taking various measurements of their head! I think I will call this "phrenology".
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Where's the "correlation is not causation" tag?
It's not there for a reason. This is a study about correlation, doesn't speak to causation. "Correlation != causation" would be redundant, if you RTFO.
Sure, the Republican candidate is usually the one with a blue suit jacket with American Flag pin, white shirt and tie. Often they have the jacket slung over their shoulder and their sleeves rolled up.
The Democratic candidate, of course, is the one with a blue suit jacket with American Flag pin, white shirt and tie. Look for them carrying their jacket slung over their shoulder with their sleeves rolled up.
Then there's hair. Republicans either have naturally good hair, or they overcompensate so much that their hair looks like a mutated doughboy helmet. They never have beards. The Democrats on the other hand either have obviously elaborate and expensive haircuts, although many of them just have naturally good hair. Key point: they're always clean shaven.
Now as to actual policies -- don't get me started on that.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Oh the sweet irony of that quote with the current popularity of Fox "News" :-)
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
The probability of accidentally getting it right at least 60% of the time with 118 trials is 2.6%, assuming an equal distribution of Republicans and Democrats. Not likely, but certainly not outside the realm of possibility. If I remember correctly, statisticians typically use 2.5% in a two-sided hypothesis test. I didn't RTFA, but it seems it could be too close to be able to declare statistical significance with just 118 trials. Then again, I might be butchering statistics, given it's been a few years.
Right next to the "I don't understand statistics and won't bother to read their methodology" tag.
Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
Admittedly, i've only been browsing through the text and images, but i haven't seen anything to warrant a statement like the following:
In sum, the finding that political affiliation can be accurately judged from targets' faces extends our knowledge of the power of facial cues in forming accurate impressions of others.
And looking at the results of study 3: Standard deviations that are consistently about twice the size of the difference of means are telling me only one thing: don't bother.
Next time, click both links before you post.
I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
10% == way better! RTFS!
THL phish sticks
Out in the tag dorms, taking a nap and waiting for a story where it might actually be relevant.
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
There's also the neurological differences between left and right leaning people. If your neurology might lead one toward one direction it might be that trait also carried some... *gasp* physiognomic traits.
Might be neat to do this experiment again by having all the people in the pics clean shaven, wearing a plain white T, and having a neutral facial expression.
Then run it again with the people smiling. Would a smiling face skew the results?
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
You can get much better than 60% simply by differentiating male and female faces, and improve that more by distinguishing age.
I wouldn't expect you to have read the article, but at least read the summary.
A study published in PLoS One by Nicholas O. Rule and Nalini Ambady of Tufts University used closely cropped greyscale photos of people's faces, standardized for size.
The article explained further:
Each photo was cropped to the extremes of the targets' heads (top of head, bottom of chin, sides of hair or ears), converted to grayscale, and standardized for size. To avoid race-based stereotypes, racial minority candidates were excluded from the study.
In the first study, they took photos from politicians websites and eliminated any responses that recognized said politicians. In the second study, they took random photos of college seniors from 2000-2008 and no participants recognized any of the photos.
So no, the way in which individuals carried themselves or their dress should not have had much affect, if any, on the way the photos were categorized. Certainly it should not have accounted for a 10% increase in accuracy over random assignment, especially in a study with such a large sample size.
But then I realized the cable was blue, so I only gave it one star. I hate blue.
Republicans = Blue Ties
Democrats = Red Ties
I never did get that.
I'm not going to state my party affiliation. I'll just say that when I saw that this pointless study was funded by OUR TAX DOLLARS via an NSF grant, I thought, "God help us!"
Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
Especially since, as has already been pointed out, the quote comes from England where "Liberal" and "Conservative" mean the opposite parties than they do in the US.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
When I think of the libertarians, one of two images usually come to mind:
1. An overweight wife-swapping gun nut with lots of unkept facial hair chomping on a large turkey leg (and getting large pieces of meat stuck in the beard/mustache). In other words, someone who sort of resembles ESR.
2. A rail thin wife-swapping gun nut who's shaved off all his body hair except what's on his head and who gets all his nutrients from a liquid diet that's supposed to make him live 140 years. In other words, picture someone who sort of resembles poo-master and Dual-Action Cleanse spokesperson Klee Irwin.
My Iguana has better liberal and conservative recognition chances than that.
Well, I always heard those Germans were sticklers for paperwork. (I'm about one quarter German, by descent.) I've always imagined that the Ethnicity was pretty well documented and substantiated. Probably correlating fairly well to our current conviction/execution : factual guilt ratio. Basically just a wild-ass guess, of course.
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
True, correlation does not imply causation. However, lack of correlation does imply lack of causation. Therefore, correlation implies that causation hasn't been ruled out. So either A causes B, B causes A, A and B have a common cause, or it was a fluke and the null hypothesis is true. Further investigation distinguishes these cases.
Psychologist Jonathan Haidt has an interesting discussion on TED (<a href="/talks/lang/eng/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html">http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html</a>) about 5 distinct moral values and the different ways liberals and conservatives score on each of them. I can see where those mental differences/preferences might expose themselves physically in dress or emotionally in facial expressions. Speculation yes, but it seems plausible given that there are so many subtle visual clues we each give off that we are very much unaware of.
(helps to preview) Here's the fixed link: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html/
Damn, I wish I hadn't posted in this thread before reading this. +1 Insightful!
Hey buddy,
We've turned -another- century since then, so what did Germany do with their Healthcare in the 2000s?
When the progressives nationalized healthcare system started going up in smoke I assumed eugenics wouldn't stand a chance of coming back, because if you can't force "healthcare" on people then what good is sorting them out by appearance. I'm not sure where this is going unless they truly feel they can get the socialized healthcare (circa germany turn of the century) fully implemented.
Appearance for political stance
Head bumps for intelligence
eyebrows for demeanor
nose shape for whether you should be humanely euthanized.
We've seen this movie before.
Completely wrong conclusion. This study would be an indicator of facial expression, tension, stress level, and other subtle cues. My guess from experience is that the Reps were more likely to have tension/anger lines, and the Dems were more likely to have silly smiles.
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
Same socialized healthcare system since 1889, mediocre care after you get old enough you can't afford private healthcare anymore. However I wasn't commenting so much on the healthcare system pro and cons, but that eugenics really can't go anywhere without it, and eugenics really belongs a hundred years behind us. I should have phrased that the turn of last century. It doesn't matter if your black, asian, have a meat face, or are pretty, there's really no reason to categorize anyone based on appearances, or to spend any money studies on it unless your planning on performing some sort of action upon that data.
It's like the stupid story I hear on the news every fricking year at one point or another that tall good looking people are more successful than short ugly people. Who really cares unless we are going to act as a society on that as a grave injustice. There's really limited options on any of these stupid physical characteristic stories as far as actions that can be taken to correct the "problem", and of those options redistribution, abortions, and euthanization have proven to have serious problems.
That's why I support the Unix Sysadmin Party.
Did you know that after Lincoln worked through Euclid's elements on his own? After his electoral defeat for the House of Representatives, he decided his thinking needed sharpening. Clearly, the USP is the true heir to this man.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Of course every party thinks the other party is angrier. Truth is when you get to the ends of both parties there is a lot of anger. I would however say that discontentment is more on the democrats side, because conservatism is more about staying the same, or returning to better times whereas liberalism is about correcting grave injustices right?
Who would be more discontent, the person who wants to change things, or the person who wants them to stay the same? I guess it depends on if things are changing or staying the same :).
Either way, these studies are still BS in my opinion, and the fact that the conclusions are only 60 percent is almost nothing if you have any range of inaccuracy (most polls is what, 3 or 4 percent?).
lol, this study reminds me of something my pediatrics professor said during a lecture: "If you look stupid, chances are, you are!"
(reffering to deformed facial features of retarded kids)
Now, it's up to whoever reads this to choose which side looks more stupid :)
No, it's a troll.
http://dilbert.com/2010-12-13
If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
Give me a real conservative to vote for, someone who stays out of both my pocket book and my bedroom, someone who restores free markets, someone who slashes corporate subsidies, and someone who restores the principle of personal responsibility in areas such as drugs and medical care and I will vote for him.
Sadly, the closest to a conservative in US politics are Democrats; while far from perfect conservatives, they do better in terms of liberties and fiscal responsibility. Republicans, on the other hand, restrict liberties, want a nanny state, are fiscally irresponsible, and waste even more money than the Democrats on their corporate buddies; Republicans, sadly, are even less conservative than Democrats.
Well, statisical significance depends a lot on sample size. You can't just say 60% isn't significant relative to the 50% chance of random guessing without knowing how many tests they did.
A 1% deviation from random can be significant if the number of data points measured are absurdly large. ie: if 10 million coin flips come up 51% heads, you have a statistically significant difference, because that 1% still represents a LOT of extra tests that came up heads. However, getting 51% heads in 100 tests isn't significant, because it's only 1 extra head. For that matter, 100% of 2 tests is also insignificant, despite the huge deviation from the norm, the sample size is too small to mean anything.
Looking at the study they do appear to have p values in the statistics in the study.
For "study 2" they quote: .62, SD = .12; t(23) = 4.91, p.001, r = .72] a
[M =
With that p, it seems pretty significant. (unless they fudged the p.. I couldn't find their sample size.).
Do you see anything in those numbers to suggest otherwise?
-Matt
Study says it compared first senators and then college students. There's likely not enough of an age disparity among college students to make age a factor in political affiliation, nor would the average person have sufficient skill at guessing age to reliably distinguish a 19-year-old from a 22-year-old.
And politicians are an edge case - the youngest current senator is a 40-year old Republican and the oldest senator is a 92-year-old Democrat. Senators (and indeed all national politicians) as a class are too different from the mainstream population to make those sorts of generalizations.
If you had 10,000 black marbles and 10,000 white marbles, and I wanted you to separate them into two equally-sized piles, one containing approximately 6,000 black marbles and the rest white and one with 4,000 black marbles and the rest white, then this "60% right guesser" is the right man for the job.
I'm assuming he's right 60% of the time for both black and white marbles.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
They also love sausages, fucking, and jokes about death.
Not cuckoo clocks, tho'. That's a myth. Chocolate and and cuckoo's? That's the Swiss for you!
Now, if I said this about Jews, you'd all call me anti-Semite? Right?
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
Critics of President Obama have called his goals socialist
Those critics are idiots since they dont know what socialist means.
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
In my experience they don't vote. Of course I'm not in a large city where the political bosses hand out "walking around money" to bribe^Wencourage people to vote :)
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Stop slandering the hicks!
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
You are confusing the terms "drug warrior" and "pussy whipped" ;-)
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
A Democrat claims to be helping working-class people while selling to corporate interests, whereas a Republican sells out to corporate interests while claiming to help working-class people...
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
I drive an old, white, stickerless van and the FBI has had me on an Anarchy watch list for years.
So yeah.. you can tell by the vehicle-- the fedz happen to be correct!
My Dad is a classic big city East Coast liberal. In the 1960's he participated in civil rights marches, and in the 1980's I heard him constantly bitching about Reagan's economic policies. For the last forty years, he has given tons to homeless people on the street, with one caveat. Instead of throwing them a buck or two, he offers to buy them whatever they want at a nearby fast food joint. Many don't accept (for obvious reasons), but they do, he goes in with them, buys them whatever they want and eats with them.
He's also been self-employed for his entire life.
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
Where was causation claimed?
A lot of people seem to think that by repeating this particular maxim over and over, they somehow appear knowledgable of statistics and experimental methodology.
A cursory look at TFA indicates that both types of misclassification rates in this study are found to be in the range 40%-50% (approximately in each study). That is piss-poor. For comparison, a typical Bayesian spam filter has both misclassification rates in the 1% range, and people still complain about that.
The correct conclusion should really be that looking only at peoples' faces is a really bad way to gauge political affiliation. Slow news day, eh?
Yet, it still makes sense IN the US, if you read it with the US definitions of Liberal and Conservative.
Interesting world, eh?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
There's two types of conservative, fiscal and social. Fiscal conservatives want to control the budget through less spending or more tax. Social conservatives want to control your body and bedroom.
Fiscal liberals say things like "deficits don't matter" (Rummy), social liberals say things like "I have a dream".
Out of the possible combinations my personal preference is fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Yeah, that usually means more taxes but nobody ever claimed civilization was cheap.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
I suspected this kind of thing when I started noticing those election-day photos of the rally headquarters for the various candidates. "All of the chicks in the Republican audience are always smokin' hot babes", I'd think to myself.
And then it dawned on me. If there is a correlation between appearance and political leanings, how would any causal relationship work? I think the causation of politics determining appearance is the easier one to spot. Most conservatives I know seem to place more of an emphasis on appearance, while the liberals I know place more of an emphasis on ideas; feeling that ideas will stand or fall on their own merit, regardless of the appearance of the messenger. So, liberals don't see as much need for dressing up before trying to pitch their ideas.
Now, the causation from appearance to politics is a little more subtle. My suspicion is that the people who are "less beautiful" are the ones who spend more of their time on the outside of popularity. They're they people who never made the ballot for prom queen, didn't get asked to the school dance, didn't have as many romantic opportunities. They got more of a taste of what it's like to be a "have not" or to be outside of the majority. This experience, I believe, can cause them to have the increased empathy and tendency to "look out for others" that seems to characterize liberal thought.
On the other hand, the people are very attractive or physically gifted had an easier time of things. Athletic success came easier to the "natural born athletes", and the pretty or charismatic people had an easier time getting others to back their ideas or plans. Things just went a little easier for them. Because we can only experience the world through our own eyes, I can see how the "beautiful people" could believe that (as it was for them) one only needs to apply themselves to a goal and it'll work out. This could give rise to the "anybody willing to work hard will find success" mindset that we tend to see in conservatives.
Hmm, from Wikipeida on the UK Lib Dem site:
"They support multilateral foreign policy; they opposed British participation in the War in Iraq and supported the withdrawal of troops from the country, and are the most pro-European Union of the three main parties in the UK. The party has strong environmentalist values - favouring renewable energy and commitments to deeper cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. Since their foundation, Lib Dems have advocated electoral reform to use proportional representation, replacing the House of Lords with an elected chamber, and cutting government departments."
sure sounds like republicans to me.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Apparently you don't know what fascist or communist means. Really, you should get your education from somewhere other than Fox News.
Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
= democrat
Surprisingly, If that woman is white and has a crucifix around her neck, The odds of her being Republican are quite high, and the variety of Republican that calls people like McCain and Schwarzenegger R.I.N.O.s (Republican In Name Only)
Listening to voters explain their voting reasons is enough to make you doubt the general intelligence of the general public.
To keep it fair, Environmentalists voted overwhelmingly for Obama, even though McCain said he would end mountain top removal coal mining, and Obama was only willing to look at mitigating the groundwater contamination. Running political campaigns will make you very cynical.
Work bio at MMWD
No, I'd say that you have a sub-par command of pointless ethnic stereotypes. Everybody knows that Jews love gold and sacrificing babies, not chocolate and cuckoo clocks.
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
"opposed British participation in the War in Iraq"
"sure sounds like republicans to me."
Was Bush a Democrat and nobody told us?
Dilbert RSS feed
Seriously, what's next? Articles on how you can determine how socialist-leaning someone is by reading their scalp?
Odi profanum vulgus et arceo
Actually, I try to watch a broad spectrum of all the news outlets...from the two extremes (Fox vs MSNBC) to everything in between.
I dunno...let's see, under the Obama administration, the federal govt has pretty much taken ownership of multiple banks, and private businesses, and is looking to instill even more laws telling said businesses what they can and can't do..and what they can and cannot pay.
That certainly doesn't sound much like Capitalism to me...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
The quote refers to the old Liberal party, not the Lib Dems. The Liberals were the traditionally party of business interests (and so favoured the Commons) and the urban/suburban middle class. They supported free trade, and had the support of several protestant churches.
For comparison, the Conservatives were the party of old money (and so favoured the Lords), the rural middle and upper class, the aristocracy, and those associated with them. They were protectionist, imperialist, and were closer to the High Church. Labour were the party of the industrial working class, and were generally socialist
1) Banks are taken over by the government every year since the inception of the FDIC. The FDIC promptly sells them off (to some other bank). The ownership by the FDIC is for an extremely short period of time and the sale is usually worked out before they even take control of the failing bank.
2) What are all these other private businesses he's taking over?
3) Capitalism is merely ownership of private property (look it up if you don't believe me). Nothing more. Free markets and everything else is shit that's added on to the concept. You may be thinking of " laissez-faire" capitalism but that's not required to be a "capitalist" nation. In any event, there have never ever been truly free markets. It's not possible to have in the real world, only on paper. I can explain why but think it through and I'm sure you can figure it out.
4) The government telling businesses what they can and can't do has occurred since the inception of the country. It has always been and always will be and has occurred in every country that has existed in all of human history. This will never change. The only difference is to the degree that it occurs. Now, you may think that him telling companies like Goldman Sachs that they are in for new regulations is inappropriate but I don't. They fucked over the country and they are being rewarded for doing it. In other words, they are asking for it.
All the regulations that exist on the books exist for one of two reasons: 1) A lobbying group successfully managed buy enough senators/congressmen to get their way, or 2) a business or particular industry fucked over enough people that congress had to do something about it to keep their jobs.
Finally, neither party gives a flying shit about capitalism, they only care about getting re-elected. The Republicans talk a good game but did you think it was a free market, capitalist idea for Bush to require Medicare by law to NOT negotiate and to pay for drugs at the maximum price while simultaneously massively increasing national debt? Bush also had no problem with oil subsidies. Parties are playing a game and that game is to keep you so confused, you don't know which way is up and they are good at it. In the end, they are in it for themselves. And trust me, they need each other. Neither party could survive a year without the other to blame for everything.
Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
The Tea Party is a conservative movement, and they seem awfully angry to me. The Left is filled with war protesters, Buddhist mindfulness practitioners, hippies, and potheads, so I think their anger is going to be comparatively checked.
On vit, on code et puis on meurt.
'FBI has had me on an Anarchy watch list for years'
Now THAT would be a great bumber sticker!
Here we go again!
...and if anything but a Republican or Democrat was to be observed, the observers head rapidly expanded until skull breach was achieved.
Studies show that people with more bumper stickers have higher levels of road rage.
*Whoosh*
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
Do politicians morph their appearance toward a targeted stereotype?
Birth is the leading cause of death.
And you would be wrong.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
So... you want a tiny url to "/libertarianface" to show a picture of a confused Hitler? Is that your point?
Why do I have a feeling I'm going to walk away from this exchange convinced that you write emails to shows like "The Daily Show" telling them that their jokes are wrong.
I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
from the whole quote you only identified this?
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.