Nobrainer’s Think Tank

… and even the detractors.

From Fark, Firefox extensions for the technologically inept.

If the hinge of your hot dog bun breaks, you’re just eating a really narrow sandwich.

I present the latest video demonstrating Clemson’s dominance over South Carolina.

In April 25th National Review, Stephen Moore takes a brief look at the impact of national speed limits. Since highway death toll data was first collected in 1966, the number of highway deaths per mile have been decreasing. Interestingly, stagnation occurred from ‘75 to ‘80 during the days of the infamous “double nickel” speed limit.

Since the 55 and subsequently the federal 65 maximum were abolished, death rates have continued to decline.

He goes on with information from the Cato Institute. The data from 2003 shows that states with a 75 MPH limit had some of the sharpest declines in fatality rates. For example, Utah, Nevada, and Arizona each saw decreases of more than 20%. Cato also estimates that “between $3 and $6 billion a year” are saved by reducing lost man hours by about 250 million per year.

If I notice the article on NRO, I’ll be sure to provide a link.

I certainly don’t consider Moore’s piece to be extensive. There are certainly a multitude of factors that affect the statistics. Certainly vehicle safety is a major factor. Unfortunately, 56% of those killed were not wearing seat belts. So where is the trade-off? At what point to we accept the fatality rate and go for increased time and money savings?

From Say Anything:

Can you blame him? Really?

Ah yes, JFK enjoying the old “if my boobs are big enough they won’t look at my face” ploy. Not that anyone is complaining.

Of course, this leads me to a question. If you got to hang out and be pals with any major politician, who would it be?

I would immediately cross off my list Teddy Kennedy, Al Gore, and Jimmy Carter. Gore has his moments of levity, just not enough. If it were possible to include deceased leaders, I’d pick Churchill. Otherwise, I’d give serious thought to putting Bill Clinton at the top of the list.

Updtate: And just because I like the picture so much…

From Reuters:

An organization opposed to Wal-Mart Stores Inc. took out a full-page newspaper advertisement on Wednesday that accuses the world’s biggest retailer of costing U.S. taxpayers some $1.6 billion a year.

The advertisement in The New York Times says Wal-Mart’s low pay and benefits forced tens of thousands of employees to seek government aid in the form of Medicaid, food stamps and housing assistance.

Whatever Wal-Mart’s pay and benefits are, it has forced no one to work for them. If Wal-Mart’s woeful salaries are a person’s best option, is that Wal-Mart’s fault? I don’t see how it is.

Further, consider this $1.6 billion annual cost to the tax-payers. By dividing that by the current US Population, this costs costs each American a whopping $5.42 each year. Of course, anyone so tormented by that astronomical amount, could easily recoup their losses in a single trip to Wally World.

Rabble! Rabble! Rabble!