What's a boy from South Carolina doing in the middle of Nebraska?

Very good point VoodooV. I agree 100%.

>> ^VoodooV:

>> ^MonkeySpank:
Although this segment might be going down the right path, $150,000/year does not make you rich. It's barely upper middle class. Barely. They should have reported a few miles north (Potomac) or west (Great Falls) of Georgetown where the average home price is comfortably around $2.7M

I live in Nebraska where the cost of living is amongst the lowest in the US so that's always blown me away how someone can make over 100K and still not be incredibly well off since it costs so much to live where they live.
IMO, it's almost to the point where it doesn't matter how much you make, it just matters where you live. To me it almost seems like that's a bigger problem...why can't the cost of living be more level regardless of where you live. Obviously there are going to be some exceptions, but if we could even out the disparity in the cost of living in where you live, wouldn't that make it easier to determine how progressive the tax should be?

>> ^MonkeySpank:

Although this segment might be going down the right path, $150,000/year does not make you rich. It's barely upper middle class. Barely. They should have reported a few miles north (Potomac) or west (Great Falls) of Georgetown where the average home price is comfortably around $2.7M


I live in Nebraska where the cost of living is amongst the lowest in the US so that's always blown me away how someone can make over 100K and still not be incredibly well off since it costs so much to live where they live.

IMO, it's almost to the point where it doesn't matter how much you make, it just matters where you live. To me it almost seems like that's a bigger problem...why can't the cost of living be more level regardless of where you live. Obviously there are going to be some exceptions, but if we could even out the disparity in the cost of living in where you live, wouldn't that make it easier to determine how progressive the tax should be?

I'm very glad the video makes the distinction between grunts who are just doing what they're paid to do. Even the direct supervisor was given instructions on how to do this stuff.

corruption starts at the top, and they put those at the bottom in your way to act as a buffer.

This is what makes me glad that I live in Nebraska. We may be a red state, but we don't do fucked up shit like this. I will have to go ask my friend who is an election inspector how a homeless person goes about voting.

The problem with shit like this is not that it's hard to overcome these things. for the vast majority of people, providing these forms of id is not difficult...it's just the fact that they throw up these delaying tactics and hidden gotchas like that "special box" at all.

Voting is supposed to be easy and it's a right short of being in prison or judged mentally incompetent by a court of law

>> ^shinyblurry:

This video is complete fantasy. Take the evolutionary animation for instance..none of that is supported in the fossil record. All of those transitions are completely inference, especially ape to man. If you believe that, you are thick..do your own investigation. There isn't any conclusive evidence for ape to man evolution what so ever.
And you don't think they're looking for true transitionals? Why do you think evolutionists trotted out piltdown man and nebraska man as proof of evolution for over 50 years, and why today the desperate search is still on to find the missing link. They thought it was neanderthal man but it turned out to be a guy with arthritus and rickets. The fossil record isn't just incomplete, it is ludicrously so..with hundreds of millions of them uncovered yet no true transitionals. I'll let real palentologists explain it to you:
Our museums now contain hundreds of millions of fossil specimens (40 million alone are contained in the Smithsonian Natural History Museum). If Darwin's theory were true, we should see at least tens of millions of unquestionable transitional forms. We see none. Even the late Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology at Harvard University and the leading spokesman for evolutionary theory prior to his recent death, confessed "the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology."
He continues:
The history of most fossil species includes two features inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Statis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear… 2. Sudden Appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'. 6 The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. 7
The British Museum of Natural History boasts the largest collection of fossils in the world. Among the five respected museum officials, Sunderland interviewed Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum and editor of a prestigious scientific journal. Patterson is a well known expert having an intimate knowledge of the fossil record. He was unable to give a single example of Macro-Evolutionary transition. In fact, Patterson wrote a book for the British Museum of Natural History entitled, "Evolution". When asked why he had not included a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book, Patterson responded:
...I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader? I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin's authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least "show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived." I will lay it on the line - there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. 2
David B. Kitts. PhD (Zoology) is Head Curator of the Department of Geology at the Stoval Museum. In an evolutionary trade journal, he wrote:
Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of "seeing" evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of "gaps" in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them… 3
N. Heribert Nilsson, a famous botanist, evolutionist and professor at Lund University in Sweden, continues:
My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed… The fossil material is now so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes, and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled. 4
Even the popular press is catching on. This is from an article in Newsweek magazine:
The missing link between man and apes, whose absence has comforted religious fundamentalists since the days of Darwin, is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures … The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms that lie between species, the more they have been frustrated. 5
Wake up people..your belief in evolution is purely metaphysical and requires faith. I suppose if you don't think about it too hard it makes sense. It's the same thing with abiogenesis..pure metaphysics.
Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums are filled with over 100 million fossils of 250,000 different species.
The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track. What is the picture which the fossils have given us?… The gaps between major groups of organisms have been growing even wider and more undeniable. They can no longer be ignored or rationalized away with appeals to imperfection of the fossil record. 2
You've been had..be intellectually honest enough to admit it and seek out the truth. Science does not support evolution.


Case in point.

You think those quotes are made up? All you have to do is plug those names into google to find out who they are and what their reputation is. They're not made up and have nothing to do with the site itself other than being a collection of evidence which shows even evolutionists know their theory is completely flawed.

>> ^Maze:
I'd have trouble taking anything you've copied from a religious website seriously. It's hardly unbiased, is it?
http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/problems-with-the-fossil-record.htm
>> ^shinyblurry:
This video is complete fantasy. Take the evolutionary animation for instance..none of that is supported in the fossil record. All of those transitions are completely inference, especially ape to man. If you believe that, you are thick..do your own investigation. There isn't any conclusive evidence for ape to man evolution what so ever.
And you don't think they're looking for true transitionals? Why do you think evolutionists trotted out piltdown man and nebraska man as proof of evolution for over 50 years, and why today the desperate search is still on to find the missing link. They thought it was neanderthal man but it turned out to be a guy with arthritus and rickets. The fossil record isn't just incomplete, it is ludicrously so..with hundreds of millions of them uncovered yet no true transitionals. I'll let real palentologists explain it to you:
Our museums now contain hundreds of millions of fossil specimens (40 million alone are contained in the Smithsonian Natural History Museum). If Darwin's theory were true, we should see at least tens of millions of unquestionable transitional forms. We see none. Even the late Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology at Harvard University and the leading spokesman for evolutionary theory prior to his recent death, confessed "the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology."
He continues:
The history of most fossil species includes two features inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Statis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear… 2. Sudden Appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'. 6 The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. 7... etc, etc..

I'd have trouble taking anything you've copied from a religious website seriously. It's hardly unbiased, is it?

http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/problems-with-the-fossil-record.htm
>> ^shinyblurry:

This video is complete fantasy. Take the evolutionary animation for instance..none of that is supported in the fossil record. All of those transitions are completely inference, especially ape to man. If you believe that, you are thick..do your own investigation. There isn't any conclusive evidence for ape to man evolution what so ever.
And you don't think they're looking for true transitionals? Why do you think evolutionists trotted out piltdown man and nebraska man as proof of evolution for over 50 years, and why today the desperate search is still on to find the missing link. They thought it was neanderthal man but it turned out to be a guy with arthritus and rickets. The fossil record isn't just incomplete, it is ludicrously so..with hundreds of millions of them uncovered yet no true transitionals. I'll let real palentologists explain it to you:
Our museums now contain hundreds of millions of fossil specimens (40 million alone are contained in the Smithsonian Natural History Museum). If Darwin's theory were true, we should see at least tens of millions of unquestionable transitional forms. We see none. Even the late Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology at Harvard University and the leading spokesman for evolutionary theory prior to his recent death, confessed "the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology."
He continues:
The history of most fossil species includes two features inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Statis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear… 2. Sudden Appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'. 6 The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. 7... etc, etc..

This video is complete fantasy. Take the evolutionary animation for instance..none of that is supported in the fossil record. All of those transitions are completely inference, especially ape to man. If you believe that, you are thick..do your own investigation. There isn't any conclusive evidence for ape to man evolution what so ever.

And you don't think they're looking for true transitionals? Why do you think evolutionists trotted out piltdown man and nebraska man as proof of evolution for over 50 years, and why today the desperate search is still on to find the missing link. They thought it was neanderthal man but it turned out to be a guy with arthritus and rickets. The fossil record isn't just incomplete, it is ludicrously so..with hundreds of millions of them uncovered yet no true transitionals. I'll let real palentologists explain it to you:

Our museums now contain hundreds of millions of fossil specimens (40 million alone are contained in the Smithsonian Natural History Museum). If Darwin's theory were true, we should see at least tens of millions of unquestionable transitional forms. We see none. Even the late Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology at Harvard University and the leading spokesman for evolutionary theory prior to his recent death, confessed "the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology."

He continues:

The history of most fossil species includes two features inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Statis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear… 2. Sudden Appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'. 6 The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. 7

The British Museum of Natural History boasts the largest collection of fossils in the world. Among the five respected museum officials, Sunderland interviewed Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum and editor of a prestigious scientific journal. Patterson is a well known expert having an intimate knowledge of the fossil record. He was unable to give a single example of Macro-Evolutionary transition. In fact, Patterson wrote a book for the British Museum of Natural History entitled, "Evolution". When asked why he had not included a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book, Patterson responded:

...I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader? I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin's authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least "show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived." I will lay it on the line - there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. 2

David B. Kitts. PhD (Zoology) is Head Curator of the Department of Geology at the Stoval Museum. In an evolutionary trade journal, he wrote:

Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of "seeing" evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of "gaps" in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them… 3

N. Heribert Nilsson, a famous botanist, evolutionist and professor at Lund University in Sweden, continues:

My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed… The fossil material is now so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes, and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled. 4

Even the popular press is catching on. This is from an article in Newsweek magazine:

The missing link between man and apes, whose absence has comforted religious fundamentalists since the days of Darwin, is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures … The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms that lie between species, the more they have been frustrated. 5

Wake up people..your belief in evolution is purely metaphysical and requires faith. I suppose if you don't think about it too hard it makes sense. It's the same thing with abiogenesis..pure metaphysics.

Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums are filled with over 100 million fossils of 250,000 different species.

The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track. What is the picture which the fossils have given us?… The gaps between major groups of organisms have been growing even wider and more undeniable. They can no longer be ignored or rationalized away with appeals to imperfection of the fossil record. 2

You've been had..be intellectually honest enough to admit it and seek out the truth. Science does not support evolution.

Rank↓ State↓ 2009↓ 2008↓ 2007↓ 2004-2006↓
1 Maryland $79,272 $78,454 $78,725 $77,985
2 New Jersey $68,342 $70,378 $67,035 $64,169
3 Connecticut $67,034 $68,595 $65,967 $59,972
4 Alaska $66,953 $68,460 $64,333 $57,639
5 Hawaii $64,098 $67,214 $63,746 $60,681
6 Massachusetts $64,081 $65,401 $62,365 $56,236
7 New Hampshire $60,567 $63,731 $62,369 $60,489
8 Virginia $59,330 $61,233 $59,562 $55,108
District of Columbia $59,290 $57,936 $54,317 $47,221 (2005)[3]PDF
9 California $58,931 $61,021 $59,948 $53,770
10 Delaware $56,860 $57,989 $54,610 $52,214
11 Washington $56,548 $58,078 $55,591 $53,439
12 Minnesota $55,616 $57,288 $55,082 $57,363
13 Colorado $55,430 $56,993 $55,212 $54,039
14 Utah $55,117 $56,633 $55,109 $55,179
15 New York $54,659 $56,033 $53,514 $48,201
16 Rhode Island $54,119 $55,701 $53,568 $52,003
17 Illinois $53,966 $56,235 $54,124 $49,280
18 Nevada $53,341 $56,361 $55,062 $50,819
19 Wyoming $52,664 $53,207 $51,731 $47,227
20 Vermont $51,618 $52,104 $49,907 $51,622
United States $50,221 $52,029 $50,740 $46,242 (2005) [4]PDF
21 Wisconsin $49,993 $52,094 $50,578 $48,874
22 Pennsylvania $49,520 $50,713 $48,576 $47,791
23 Arizona $48,745 $50,958 $49,889 $46,729
24 Oregon $48,457 $50,169 $48,730 $45,485
25 Texas $48,259 $50,043 $47,548 $43,425
26 Iowa $48,044 $48,980 $47,292 $47,489
27 North Dakota $47,827 $45,685 $43,753 $43,753
28 Kansas $47,817 $50,177 $47,451 $44,264
29 Georgia $47,590 $50,861 $49,136 $46,841
30 Nebraska $47,357 $49,693 $47,085 $48,126
31 Maine $45,734 $46,581 $45,888 $45,040
32 Indiana $45,424 $47,966 $47,448 $44,806
33 Ohio $45,395 $47,988 $46,597 $45,837
34 Michigan $45,255 $48,591 $47,950 $47,064
35 Missouri $45,229 $46,867 $45,114 $44,651
36 South Dakota $45,043 $46,032 $43,424 $44,624
37 Idaho $44,926 $47,576 $46,253 $46,395
38 Florida $44,736 $47,778 $47,804 $44,448
39 North Carolina $43,674 $46,549 $44,670 $42,061
40 New Mexico $43,028 $43,508 $41,452 $40,827
41 Louisiana $42,492 $43,733 $40,926 $37,943
42 South Carolina $42,442 $44,625 $43,329 $40,822
43 Montana $42,322 $43,654 $43,531 $38,629
44 Tennessee $41,725 $43,614 $42,367 $40,676
45 Oklahoma $41,664 $42,822 $41,567 $40,001
46 Alabama $40,489 $42,666 $40,554 $38,473
47 Kentucky $40,072 $41,538 $40,267 $38,466
48 Arkansas $37,823 $38,815 $38,134 $37,420
49 West Virginia $37,435 $37,989 $37,060 $37,227
50 Mississippi $36,646 $37,790 $36,338 $35,261
Puerto Rico $17,500 $17,000

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

So blankie, a hypothetical.
In an alternate volunteerist universe, you own a farm in Nebraska. Because of some nearby drilling for natural gas, your well water becomes completely contaminated and unusable. You raise your concerns with the owner of the drilling company, P. Toone Bickins, but he tells you 'tough, I'm drilling on my own land and minding my own business'.
Upon going to town you discover that P. Toone Bickins has also bought up the water supply for a 200 mile radius and all of the land surrounding the town, including all of the roads. The voluntary fee for water is $4.39 a gallon. The voluntary toll for the roads is $40 for residents, $300 for non-residents. All competing water suppliers stop servicing the town because the tolls are too expensive. P. Toone tells you that if you are unhappy, that he will generously buy your property from you at half the price you paid for it.
Some of your neighbors have sold their farms to Bickins. Some are staying put and talking about armed rebellion, but there are concerns about Bickins' large, highly trained, highly armed security squad. You contact your local minarchist magistrate, Pon Raul, to see if any legal action can be taken, but he lectures you for an hour about the evils of regulation, and how wrong it would be to coerce P. Toone Bickins into doing something he against his will.
You need water for your family, crops and farm animals, but with these new expenses, you are not sure you will have enough income to pay the bills.
What do you do?


That scenario is needlessly specific and extreme. Every argument a statist makes against a voluntary society seems to be some extreme work of fiction involving a rogue and crazy Bill Gates doing terrible things to a defenseless group of people.

The answer to your question, I don't know what I'd do. Who could plan for that? You want a system that guarantees something that's unlikely, and that's looking at it the wrong way. There's also no known protections against an alien invasion.

So blankie, a hypothetical.

In an alternate volunteerist universe, you own a farm in Nebraska. Because of some nearby drilling for natural gas, your well water becomes completely contaminated and unusable. You raise your concerns with the owner of the drilling company, P. Toone Bickins, but he tells you 'tough, I'm drilling on my own land and minding my own business'.

Upon going to town you discover that P. Toone Bickins has also bought up the water supply for a 200 mile radius and all of the land surrounding the town, including all of the roads. The voluntary fee for water is $4.39 a gallon. The voluntary toll for the roads is $40 for residents, $300 for non-residents. All competing water suppliers stop servicing the town because the tolls are too expensive. P. Toone tells you that if you are unhappy, that he will generously buy your property from you at half the price you paid for it.

Some of your neighbors have sold their farms to Bickins. Some are staying put and talking about armed rebellion, but there are concerns about Bickins' large, highly trained, highly armed security squad. You contact your local minarchist magistrate, Pon Raul, to see if any legal action can be taken, but he lectures you for an hour about the evils of regulation, and how wrong it would be to coerce P. Toone Bickins into doing something he against his will.

You need water for your family, crops and farm animals, but with these new expenses, you are not sure you will have enough income to pay the bills.

What do you do?

Sheeeeeeeeeit.

>> ^Ornthoron:

So this is the roast? Sorry I'm late, but it doesn't seem like I missed much. @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://wtf.videosift.com/member/thinker247" title="member since September 15th, 2007" class="profilelink">thinker247 tried to give us some material with that interview, but it seems he botched it thoroughly since nobody uses it. And MrFish didn't exactly help out with his uninspired answers. The only funny comment I've seen here was @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://troll.videosift.com" title="member since July 4th, 2007" class="profilelink"><strong style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">blankfist's (You have no idea how much it pains me to admit that), and he had to go back as far as a siftquisition almost 3 years back to find worthwhile material.
But I'm not one to shirk from responsibility, so I'll try to wring some lemming juice out of this brothel floor cleaning rag of an interview:
"4. What is your profession?
I’m a non-traditional student. Non-traditional means older (I put Van Wilder to shame). I will graduate with a bachelor’s degree in journalism from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln at the end of the year. I plan to write good stuff somewhere, although I may go into public relations first.
I’m also a bartender, although I was laid off last month. I’ve worked in a dance club and a nice hotel.
I used to be a cook."
I've seen MrFish's type at my university. There are basically two types who pursue bachelor degrees after they've turned 30. One type is the eternal slacker, who gets too distracted by alcohol, drugs or video games to pass any courses, and the other type is the men and women with a mid-life crisis. This latter group typically choose some useless subject that "expands their horizon", like art history or philosophy.
I'm torn as to what group MrFish might belong to. His history of being laid off from low-tier jobs suggests the former, but journalism is a field that reeks of pretentiousness, so I think I have to go with the latter category. I know of no other people that overvalue there own importance as much as journalists. You really think you can do a difference in the world from Nebraska? With merely a bachelor degree? You could at least have chosen something useful for the children of tomorrow, like molecular biology or condensed matter physics. But of course, achieving even a bachelor degree in those subjects requires both hard work and intelligence.
You'll likely now try to prove you have both these qualities by using unnecessary long time to write a long and poignant retort to all the half-insults in this roast. This, you tell yourself, will show everyone how good you are with words and why you were destined from the start to become a Daily Nebraskan contributor. What you don't realize is that nobody else really cares, and that what you will come to consider the epitome of your oevre will likely only be read by yourself.

MrFisk certainly has put an indelible mark on VideoSift. Fortunately he did not use urine.

He’s never shy about patting himself on the back. At the rate he’s going he’ll break something besides his spine.

Did that two-week boner cause some brain damage? There’s some money riding on MrFisk’s answer.

Developing a Tolerance for Porn . . . Now, there’s a book title!

Nebraska is easy, cheap, obese and family friendly. Um, public relations might not be for MrFisk. Or did he mispell “pubic”?

I’m not quite sure where “write what you know” would get him.

Not one of MrFisk’s addictions has killed him, maimed him, incarcerated him or tied him down. He’s free to be free. He’s a survivor.

Some of MrFisk’s detractors would gladly BANksy him again or ask him to exit through the (VideoSift) gift shop.

So this is the roast? Sorry I'm late, but it doesn't seem like I missed much. @thinker247 tried to give us some material with that interview, but it seems he botched it thoroughly since nobody uses it. And MrFish didn't exactly help out with his uninspired answers. The only funny comment I've seen here was @blankfist's (You have no idea how much it pains me to admit that), and he had to go back as far as a siftquisition almost 3 years back to find worthwhile material.

But I'm not one to shirk from responsibility, so I'll try to wring some lemming juice out of this brothel floor cleaning rag of an interview:

"4. What is your profession?
I’m a non-traditional student. Non-traditional means older (I put Van Wilder to shame). I will graduate with a bachelor’s degree in journalism from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln at the end of the year. I plan to write good stuff somewhere, although I may go into public relations first.
I’m also a bartender, although I was laid off last month. I’ve worked in a dance club and a nice hotel.
I used to be a cook."

I've seen MrFish's type at my university. There are basically two types who pursue bachelor degrees after they've turned 30. One type is the eternal slacker, who gets too distracted by alcohol, drugs or video games to pass any courses, and the other type is the men and women with a mid-life crisis. This latter group typically choose some useless subject that "expands their horizon", like art history or philosophy.

I'm torn as to what group MrFish might belong to. His history of being laid off from low-tier jobs suggests the former, but journalism is a field that reeks of pretentiousness, so I think I have to go with the latter category. I know of no other people that overvalue there own importance as much as journalists. You really think you can do a difference in the world from Nebraska? With merely a bachelor degree? You could at least have chosen something useful for the children of tomorrow, like molecular biology or condensed matter physics. But of course, achieving even a bachelor degree in those subjects requires both hard work and intelligence.

You'll likely now try to prove you have both these qualities by using unnecessary long time to write a long and poignant retort to all the half-insults in this roast. This, you tell yourself, will show everyone how good you are with words and why you were destined from the start to become a Daily Nebraskan contributor. What you don't realize is that nobody else really cares, and that what you will come to consider the epitome of your oevre will likely only be read by yourself.

I can't be bothered to work this into a joke but, in Nebraska it's illegal for someone with venereal disease to marry. Apparently everyone is tired of them pushing their syphilitic agenda.

Is NE still fighting WW2? Don't they know all the other backwoods flyover states have moved on to fighting the homosexual threat?