30 December, 2021

For me, one of the most valuable parts of joining the POWER study was having a forum to navigate hair care questions with other Black women. When researchers asked participants how we discover new product recommendations, we pointed to social media, friends, and family. How many people cross-reference those word-of-mouth recommendations with a scientific database? That’s now a core step in my discovery process.

Some companies are better at avoiding chemicals of concern than others. When I’m in doubt, I look to the Environmental Working Group’s Skin Deep database, which gives a complete profile of chemical ingredients of concern in skin and hair products.

Reviewing the Toxic-Free Beauty pocket guide, tailored for products commonly used by Black women, helped me get familiar with the chemical names I might see on product labels. Keeping tabs on the FDA’s product safety alert page informs me of product recalls and FDA consumer warnings. Apps like Think Dirty will do the research for you; simply use your phone to scan a product’s barcode, and it displays a clear overview of health impacts associated with its ingredients.

Of course, these apps are only as good as the product label itself. Since new products enter the market constantly, Detox Me, developed by the Silent Spring Institute, shares practical tips for more conscious purchasing. Tools like these draw on years of scientific evidence to help you decode product labels and steer clear of potentially harmful chemicals.

Avoid unspecified fragrances

“Secret, unlabeled fragrance chemicals are hiding in personal care products, without the public’s knowledge or consent,” says Janet Nudelman, policy and program director at the advocacy group Breast Cancer Prevention Partners. “These chemicals are often linked to both environmental and public health harms, but people don’t know because companies don’t have to disclose them.”

While the FDA requires cosmetics to list other kinds of ingredients, many fragrance chemicals are protected as trade secrets and may appear as simply “perfume” or “aroma” on product labels. Fragrances are often mixed with aldehydes, which may increase cancer risks in some people, and benzophenone derivatives, which may be endocrine disruptors, according to the advocacy coalition Campaign for Safe Cosmetics.

When the campaign tested 17 of the most popular perfumes in 2010, in partnership with the Environmental Working Group, it found 14 undisclosed ingredients in the average product, among them chemicals associated with hormone disruption.

Even “unscented” products may contain fragrance ingredients to mask unpleasant smells without giving the product a notable odor.

States like California are starting to close this “fragrance loophole” with stricter product labeling laws. In the meantime, you can do your own research to avoid products with vague fragrance labeling and other undisclosed ingredients.

Understand your body and what it needs

After 10 years of relaxing my hair, I wanted to assert my newfound independence and went natural, but was soon overwhelmed by the array of creams, gels, lotions, and oils intended to smooth my curls. Trying a new hair product from the “ethnic” aisle of my local drug store became my weekend ritual. Black consumers spend nine times more on hair care than their white counterparts, and I was beginning to understand why.

Looking back, I tried too many products, including low-quality ones that actually damaged my hair, and potentially exposed myself to more harmful chemicals in the process. Instead, I wish I took the time upfront to understand what my hair needed.

Learn about your hair porosity, density, and texture (yes, even straight hair has a texture), and tailor solutions to your needs. As a type-four, low-porosity queen myself, what my hair really needed — more than it needed three different kinds of styling creams — was moisture. That’s right, plain water! Understanding your hair’s natural attributes will save you time and money on wasted products.

When researchers from the Battelle Memorial Institute tested the hair products that Black women use most frequently, a long list of chemicals turned up: cyclosiloxane, fragrances, diethyl phthalate (DEP), and parabens, all of which are known to affect the endocrine system. Chemical straighteners, also known as “relaxers,” sometimes contain carcinogens like formaldehyde and might even lead to an increased risk of breast cancer in Black women (there’s still no scientific consensus on this one). Relaxer usage among Black consumers has declined in recent years, but some women are returning to them out of convenience.

Don’t be afraid to DIY

The science of hair care may be simpler than you think. Shampoos contain surfactants that help wash away dirt, oil, and products that build up in our hair. They also balance pH and close the hair cuticle, the protective outer layer of your hair. Most hair creams and butters help to lock in moisture between washes and prevent split ends. Commercial conditioners work to seal moisture into the hair cuticle, but may rely on chemical preservatives.

If you’re only able to swap out one or two products in your rotation, consider the ones that are in contact with your body for long periods of time. “From an exposure point of view, you’ll want to reduce usage of commercial products that you leave on your hair for a longer period of time, like scalp treatments, leave-in conditioners, hair dyes, and chemical straighteners,” says Dodson.

Early on, I internalized the myth that my hair was too difficult for me to care for without the use of chemical straighteners. But I’ve realized that most of what my own hair needs — moisture retention — can be achieved with ingredients from my own kitchen.

I spent months recreating the best parts of my favorite storebought products: banana and avocado are now core ingredients in my DIY conditioner. You could consider using honey, which has emollient (hair smoothing) and humectant (water bonding) properties. Coconut oil is another great alternative, and its lauric acid delivers moisture deep into the hair shaft. Any of these natural conditioners can be used on their own or together in a hair mask, or a deep conditioning treatment for the hair.

The US needs stronger regulation of cosmetics and personal care products

In the early 1900s, cosmetics and drugs were dangerously unregulated: Lead and arsenic found their way into skin creams, and mercury brightened makeup products. As more women suffered scarring, poisonings, and in some cases death, scientists sounded the alarm about harsh chemicals in consumer goods. In 1937, elixir sulfanilamide — an untested, but heavily marketed antibiotic — killed more than 100 Americans.

Public outrage over untested pharmaceuticals and adulterated consumer goods boiled over, and Congress passed the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act a year later, which allowed the FDA to regulate medical devices, cosmetics, and set standards for foods.

But medicines are regulated more closely than cosmetics, and the FDA does not order companies to recall cosmetic products that may be unsafe. “Neither the law nor FDA regulations require specific tests to demonstrate the safety of individual [cosmetic] products or ingredients,” the FDA explains on its website. “The law also does not require cosmetic companies to share their safety information with the FDA.”

While some chemicals have been outlawed (DDT, DES, lead acetate hair dyes, and BPA in baby products), the FDA has failed to prohibit many endocrine-disrupting chemicals that are still widely used in personal care products.

Politics and big business play a role in keeping regulations to a minimum, according to the experts I talked to. “The $100 billion-dollar US cosmetics industry is very invested in maintaining the status quo, and is powerfully incentivized to fight regulation,” Nudelman says. Major industry trade groups, like the Personal Care Products Council, representing 600 beauty companies, heavily promote self-regulation, through the Cosmetic Ingredient Review program (CIR).

“Industry self-regulation lacks the safeguards provided by FDA reviews. The Cosmetics Ingredient Review is financed by cosmetics manufacturers and housed inside the industry’s trade association. Many CIR findings are inconsistent with the findings by other regulatory authorities or experts,” Scott Faber, vice president of government affairs at the Environmental Working Group, testified to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Opponents of stricter cosmetics regulation continue to muddy the link between hormone-driven disease rates and risky environmental chemicals. While some research gaps remain, an ever-growing body of evidence shows that the chemicals we absorb from our environments matter, and may be compounding existing racial disparities in health outcomes.

When Vox contacted the FDA’s Office of Cosmetics and Colors for comment, a spokesperson said that “a change in the FDA’s legal authority over cosmetics would require Congress to change the law.”

Congress has had some historical interest in better regulating cosmetics — Sens. Thomas Eagleton and Ted Kennedy tried to get traction on bills in the ’70s and ’90s, respectively, and current Rep. Ron Wyden (D-OR) has been an advocate, as well.

More recently, Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) introduced a package of four Safer Beauty bills this summer. One bill would ban 11 chemicals of concern currently outlawed for use in the EU, California, and Maryland. While Schakowsky has been trying to pass versions of the package since 2009, Nudelman of the Breast Cancer Prevention Partners believes they now have a fighting chance.

“We believe this bill package to be different from past legislative attempts,” she says. “It addresses four discrete issues that are already at the forefront of people’s minds: banning toxic chemicals, increased labeling transparency, protections for women of color, and closing the fragrance loophole.”

Occasionally, I’ll see “Just for Me” — a hair relaxer containing hormonally active ingredients and marketed specifically for children — at my local drugstore. It’s the same relaxer I used up until college and my eventual diagnosis with fibroadenoma. I’m hopeful that one day, consumers won’t have to wonder whether toxins are hiding in the products that are supposed to make us feel beautiful. But until then, research can help us look out for our own health.

Paige Curtis is a Boston-based writer covering the intersection of climate, arts, and culture in such publications as Yes! Magazine and Boston Art Review. Formally trained in environmental management from the Yale School of Environment, she’s most excited by community-based solutions to the climate crisis.

Biden is leaning on US companies to convince migrants from El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala to stay home.

The Biden administration announced another round of private investment in Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador earlier this month.

It’s a significant step in addressing the lack of economic opportunity that is a factor driving people to migrate from the region to the US border, where they make up about 40 percent of migrants encountered by immigration authorities. But results won’t be immediate, and there’s a chance they won’t help as much as the US hopes.

As part of a partnership with the US government, American companies pledged to inject $750 million in the three countries, which are collectively known as Central America’s Northern Triangle. These latest commitments, part of a Biden administration effort launched in May, bring the partnership’s total investments to more than $1.2 billion over a multi-year horizon. Those funds will go towards supporting entrepreneurs and coffee farmers; creating new manufacturing jobs; making Northern Triangle economies more resilient to climate change; and giving millions access to the digital economy and the internet.

That kind of direct foreign investment is striking. New US investment in the region will come close to global foreign investment in 2020, when countries invested a combined $1.5 billion, according to data from the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.

Though a lack of foreign investment is far from the only factor pushing people to make the journey to the US border, the Biden administration hopes that improving economic conditions will keep people in the Northern Triangle by contributing to overall stability in the region, which has long suffered from persistent corruption, weak government institutions, and high levels of violent crime.

US immigration authorities encountered about 700,000 people from the Northern Triangle at the southern border over the last fiscal year, up from about 623,000 in 2019. The administration hopes that increased stability might discourage people from making the perilous journey north in the first place as a key step in managing the border.

The US’s latest investments aim to address economic hardship in the region in three ways: By bringing more workers into the formal economy, by setting higher wage and labor standards, and by using corporate influence to fight corruption.

That won’t happen overnight. But there is reason to hope that US companies could meaningfully improve living conditions over time and give people a reason to stay.

US investment can have a positive influence on domestic industry

The potential impact of the new private sector investment goes beyond the specific economic challenges it seeks to address. It also hopes to lay a foundation that will incentivize long-term foreign investment.

The region needs sustained investment before its residents will see any meaningful improvement in quality of life that might dissuade them from making the choice to migrate. In the past, US government aid has proved an unreliable source of that kind of investment. Former President Donald Trump decided to slash US aid to the region by a third, turning the clock back on the Obama administration’s efforts. Honduras saw homicides surge thereafter, and funding for social welfare programs ranging from job training for at-risk youths to grants for women entrepreneurs was cut.

The Biden administration hopes that because private companies are behind these latest investments, profit might motivate them to continue investing in the region, regardless of how US policy evolves, creating a more reliable stream of funding for Northern Triangle residents. The danger of this approach, of course, is that these companies could also suddenly pull their investments if they’re found to hurt the bottom line.

“Businesses are not development organizations, nor should they be development organizations,” Jason Marczak, director of the Atlantic Council’s Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center, said. “In the end, the sustainability of those investments in the long term is going to be about whether these investments actually proved successful.”

Some of the companies partnering with the US government, including PepsiCo and Cargill, already have a longstanding presence in the region, which suggests that they see growth potential. Other companies have latched on to the opportunity to source new products, such as Honduran and Salvadoran coffee for Nespresso, or to bolster their supply chains, as is the case with Parkdale Mills’s new yarn spinning factory in Honduras.

For the companies, success is largely about profit; for the countries they’ll be investing in, it’s about improving their citizens’ economic situation. If all goes well, those two factors won’t be in tension. If it doesn’t, future foreign investment could dry up, along with economic opportunities for the people of the Northern Triangle.

If the investments succeed, they won’t just change individual economic fortunes, but could have a positive impact on the greater social safety net. In theory, that could lessen people’s need to leave and go north.

At the moment, governments in the region have so far been unable to provide a significant social safety net because they haven’t had the money to do so. In part, that’s because countries in the Northern Triangle have among the lowest effective tax rates in the world. Workers with informal jobs don’t typically pay taxes and local corporations often try to evade them.

Guatemala’s 2019 tax revenue, for instance, was just 13.1 percent of its GDP — the lowest among Latin America and Caribbean countries, which brought in nearly 23 percent of their GDP on average. For comparison, taxation brings in an average of about a third of GDP across high-income countries that are members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

In Honduras, that has resulted in a sparse welfare system. There are no government- provided unemployment benefits. Though it has a social security program, only formal workers can pay into it and benefit from it. Public health care services are for the most part only available in large cities, leaving people in rural areas without access to physicians. That lack of support, coupled with pervasive violence and corruption, has left many migrants with no choice but to seek safety and opportunity elsewhere.

Private investment isn’t a perfect solution for this problem. US companies might try to get out of paying their fair share of taxes. And they have also perpetuated exploitative business practices in the region at times: for example, preventing workplaces from unionizing by simply taking their business to another country to assure themselves cheap labor.

But they are also subject to US law, which requires them to pay local taxes, and to International Labor Organization standards for multinational companies. Those include prohibitions on slavery, child labor, and discrimination against women and requirements to maintain the high health and safety standards and provide stable employment, among other protections for workers. US companies also typically pay above-market wages and have to answer to American consumers, who demand a certain level of corporate responsibility.

Given the standards to which US companies are held, domestic industries may face pressure to compete for workers by raising their own wages and improving working conditions.

“By leaning on US multinational companies, it helps formalize the labor market in ways that create jobs and protect rights and boost sustainability. In the long run, that will help generate the kind of hope that prevents people from making the decision to pick up and migrate,” said Paul Angelo, a Latin American studies fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who previously worked at the US embassy in Honduras.

Corruption remains a major obstacle, but Honduras could be ripe for change

Corruption has historically been a deterrent to private investment across the region, and in Honduras in particular. For instance, Juan Orlando Hernández, the current president of Honduras, has not only admitted to stealing funds from the country’s public health system to finance his first presidential campaign, but also has been named as a co-conspirator in his brother’s drug crimes by US prosecutors. He remains under investigation by the Department of Justice. And his policies have protected the interests of economic elites, many of whom bribe politicians to enable illicit and anti-competitive business practices.

But the tide might be turning in Honduras, which recently elected Xiomara Castro, a member of the leftist Libre party, as its first female president. Castro is the wife of the former Honduran president Manuel Zelaya, who was ousted in a 2009 coup d’état orchestrated by Hernández’s National Party with the backing of the Obama administration.

She has vowed to institute an anti-corruption commission backed by the United Nations similar one that was shut down in Guatemala in 2019. And she has promised a “new economic model” that would reduce inequality and the cost of living, though has offered few specifics on how she would implement it. It’s not clear whether bringing in more foreign investment is part of that plan.

For the US, Castro’s election poses new opportunities for cooperation on anti-corruption measures and growing Honduras’s economy. Vice President Kamala Harris (who is the Biden official in charge of reducing Northern Triangle immigration) didn’t communicate directly with Hernández. But she has already spoken with Castro, and US officials have indicated that they are eager to work with the new president-elect on those issues.

“I think the Biden administration rightly sees this as an opportunity, but it is not an opportunity without potential pitfalls,” Angelo said.

It’s still not clear how reliable of a partner Castro might be. Though she won a legitimate election with high levels of voter participation, Castro will be under pressure to moderate her positions once she takes office in January 2022. In a speech late last month, she said that she would “form a government of reconciliation,” suggesting that she is planning to make concessions to more conservative opposition parties to help the Libre party gain a majority coalition in the Honduran Congress. That could force her to temper her anti-corruption agenda.

And the other Northern Triangle countries provide examples of how good faith anti-corruption efforts can falter. Guatemala’s then-President Jimmy Morales shut down a UN-backed anti-corruption commission in 2019 that had successfully prosecuted top government officials, and his successor Alejandro Giammattei fired the country’s top anti-corruption prosecutor earlier this year, spurring mass protests. Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele, who has developed a reputation as a “millennial dictator,” withdrew from an agreement with the Organization of American States to create a similar anti-corruption commission.

So long as those corruption challenges persist, foreign investors might not see the Northern Triangle as a smart bet. But the arrival of US companies could help change that calculus.

“Reid is a Mormon, and differs with most of his Democratic colleagues on social issues,” Elsa Walsh reported for the New Yorker in 2005. “He is opposed to abortion, gay marriage, and gun control, and supports the death penalty.”

But placed in the leader’s chair, Reid swiftly proved to be a gritty, effective fighter. His political team was one of the first to try to actively court online “netroots” activists, and he joined with Nancy Pelosi in the House to craft a strategy of root-and-branch opposition to Bush’s plan to privatize Social Security.

All Social Security legislation is subject to filibuster, so if Senate Democrats held together in opposition, nothing could pass. This made House Republicans gun-shy about taking unpopular votes on bills that would be DOA in the Senate, which eventually led to the entire privatization effort collapsing in a burst of infighting with no actual bills ever voted on in either house of the legislature.

Reid quietly encouraged Barack Obama to challenge Hillary Clinton in the 2008 primary, calculating both that Clinton was likely to be a relatively weak election performer and that a charismatic African American who’d voted against the Iraq War was perfectly positioned to take down a daunting frontrunner.

He spearheaded Obama’s first-term legislative efforts, somehow along the way stopped being pro-gun rights and anti-abortion, and distinguished himself as a down-and-dirty street fighter in a legislative body traditionally known to prize decorum and tradition.

Mastering the Senate

Reid, along with his GOP counterpart Mitch McConnell, presided over a dramatic shift in Senate norms during a period where the partisan polarization that characterizes American society writ large came with full force into a legislative body whose rules really weren’t designed to accommodate it.

The decision to simply pre-commit to filibustering a Social Security bill rather than use the potential of a filibuster as leverage to start a negotiating process was unexpected at the time. And deeper into 2005, Reid-led Democrats took the then-unprecedented step of filibustering some of the Bush administration’s most extreme judicial nominees.

Republicans, outraged by this use of obstruction tactics, threatened to change the rules of the Senate to prevent judicial filibusters. Some of us argued at the time that Democrats should take the opportunity to make a high-minded deal to eliminate filibusters altogether, but instead a compromise was reached in which the filibuster remained, a couple of Bush’s nominees were withdrawn, and Democrats implicitly agreed to be sparing with blocks of future nominees.

Then, after Democrats swept into the majority in the 2006 midterms, Republicans began routinely filibustering every piece of legislation, making it tough for Democrats to pass popular message bills that Bush would veto. And early in 2009, McConnell made it clear that no piece of legislation, no matter how pressing, was going to move forward without 60 votes. Reid responded to this by routinely deploying a previously rare legislative tactic known as “filling the tree” (don’t ask) to curtail senators’ ability to offer amendments to legislation.

The upshot of this tit-for-tat was to turn the Senate into a House-like, leadership-driven body that isn’t much fun for back-bench members but that also featured a supermajority requirement for getting things done.

That in turn came under pressure in 2013 when McConnell began not just filibustering particular nominees but blocking any appointment to fill certain key offices. His hope was to deny the National Labor Relations Board a quorum it needed to conduct business, prevent the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from operating, and prevent Obama from installing a Democratic majority on the DC Circuit Court.

Reid responded to this by changing the rules to bar filibusters of presidential appointees — the very change that’s made Donald Trump such a potent judge-appointer — which many have suggested was perhaps a mistake on Reid’s part, but for which he made no apologies.

The Senate leader who cried wolf

And in a noteworthy turn of the 2012 campaign, he claimed to have sources (intimated to have been obtained through his connections to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) who knew that Mitt Romney had paid no income tax for the past several years. This successfully baited Romney into releasing his actual tax returns, which showed that Reid was wrong, but also illustrated that Romney, as a rich guy able to take advantage of tax preferences for investment income, paid a lower marginal rate than many middle-class people.

Just a short time after that interview, however, the 2016 presidential campaign was upended by then-FBI director James Comey’s decision to announce that new emails relevant to the Hillary Clinton server investigation had been discovered on Anthony Weiner’s laptop. These turned out not to be new emails at all, just additional copies of the same emails that had already been reviewed.

In retrospect, Reid was correct about this. The FBI had an ongoing counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign — information that was clearly more relevant to the campaign than the discovery of new copies of old emails. Had Comey released that information at the time Reid demanded, it’s easy to imagine that Clinton would have won.

But at the time, Reid had a reputation as a guy who made a false statement about a previous GOP presidential candidate to try to win an election, so he wasn’t taken as seriously as, in retrospect, he should have been. It made for a sour endgame for what was overall a very successful career as a party leader.

The “Reid machine”

When Reid retired at the end of 2016, Democrats did not have a great year politically.

One place they did have a good year, however, was Nevada, where Reid’s handpicked successor, Catherine Cortez Masto, won his Senate seat. Her opponent, then-Rep. Joe Heck, vacated a House seat to run against her, and Reid recruited a little-known computer programmer named Jacky Rosen to run for the newly open seat. She won and then two years later beat incumbent Republican Sen. Dean Heller to complete an extraordinarily rapid political ascension.

Democrats also flipped both houses of the Nevada state legislature in 2016. Two years later, Clark County Commissioner Steve Sisolak (Reid’s choice for the nomination, naturally) was elected governor as part of a near-sweep of statewide offices that also saw Democrats take over as lieutenant governor, attorney general, state treasurer, and controller.

The refashioning of Nevada into a blue state has a fair amount to do with demographic changes. But it’s also a considerable organizing achievement that has largely been a partnership between Reid and the Vegas-based Culinary Union, which represents workers at many of the city’s hotels, restaurants, and casinos. The Culinary’s very existence is an organizing triumph as a rare private sector labor union to successfully organize workplaces and grow membership in a right-to-work state.

Details vary from place to place, but the party Reid built in partnership with his state’s Latino community and its largest union (many of whose members are, of course, Latino) is in many ways an important template for the overall trajectory of the Democratic Party — grounded in voters of color and union organizing, and relying on appeals to bread-and-butter economic issues without tilting either to socialism or vacuous “wokeness.”

The deaths of George H.W. Bush and John McCain in recent years reminded Americans mostly of bygone styles and political eras.

Reid, on the other hand, was very much a man of his times, but also a forward-thinking political strategist whose legacy has more to offer as a vision of the future than as merely a nostalgic reminder of the past.

From The Hindu: Sports

From The Hindu: National News

From BBC: Europe

From Ars Technica

From Jokes Subreddit

Netflix: Do you want to watch a 10-hour movie? -

Me: No way! Are you insane?

Netflix: How about I break up the movie into ten 1-hour episodes and you see them all in one sitting?

Me: I am in!

submitted by /u/proychow1
[link] [comments]

A teacher tells her student to tell a story with a moral in it. -

Little Johnny says, “All right. I got one. There’s a horse and chicken playing in the meadow and the horse falls into the quicksand. He says ‘Hurry up! Go get the farmer! Get me out of here!’ The chicken runs back to the farm, but the farmer is nowhere to be seen.”

“Oh my,” the teacher gasps with a horrified look on her face.

“So the chicken takes the BMW, backs it up near the quicksand, throws a rope to the horse, ties it up to the bumper and pulls the horse out. The horse is so very thankful.”

“What happened next?” the teacher asks, feeling relieved.

“A couple days later… the chicken falls into the same quicksand and says, ‘Hurry up! Hurry up! Go get the farmer!’ So the horse thinks to himself, ‘Well… I could probably stand over this quicksand.’ So, he stands over it and says to the chicken, ‘Grab hold of my penis!’ So the chicken grabs hold of the horse’s penis and gets pulled out.”

The teacher is suddenly weirded out by the direction the story is going and asks, “Umm… Johnny? That’s nice and all, but what’s the moral of the story?”

Without hesitation, Johnny responds with, “The moral of the story is: if you’re hung like a horse, you don’t need a BMW to pick up chicks.”

submitted by /u/DeadlyMaelstrom711
[link] [comments]

The Canadian -

A Canadian a Russian and a French guys are all armed with pistols and sitting around a camp fire. The Russian pulls out a full bottle of Vodka, opens it and drinks about a quarter of it. He then throws it up into the air, draws his gun and shoot it.

The Canadian yells WTF?

The Russian days “In Russia we have so much Vodka we can waste it like that.”

The French guy nods his head, pulls out a bottle of wine…drinks half and throws and shoots the bottle.

Again the Canadian yells WTF.

The French guy says “It’s the same in France with wine.”

The Russian asks “Hey Mr Canadian man…isn’t there something in Canada you have a lot of that you can waste?”

So the Canadian draws his gun and shoots the French guy.

submitted by /u/Blamdudeguy00
[link] [comments]

A young man and his boss have to travel to a city 500 miles away. Due to cost cutting measures put in place by the boss, they take the train instead of the flight which was four hours faster. -

As they entered their train compartment, the young man and the boss found themselves opposite to a gorgeous twenty something girl and her sixty year old looking mother.

Within a few minutes, the young man and the girl start giving quick glances at each other. After twenty minutes or so, the young man gets bolder and starts a flirtatious conversation with her. The mother, who noticed this, gives a stern look at her daughter and the young man. Not wanting to appear too bold and cocky in front of his boss, the young man quietens to the disappointment of the girl.

An hour later, the train enters a tunnel, resulting in no visibility inside the train compartment. All four of them hear the sound of a kiss, followed by the sound of a slap.

As the train comes out the tunnel, all four have sheepish looks on their faces

The girl is thinking, “I am so glad the guy kissed me, but I wish my mother hadn’t slapped him.”

The mother is thinking, “How dare the guy kiss my daughter? Glad that she slapped him. Serves him right.”

The boss is thinking, “The guy was indeed very bold to kiss that girl. But I wish the mother had not accidentally slapped me instead of him.”

The guy is thinking, “This is the luckiest day of my life. I get to kiss a pretty girl and slap my boss at the same time.”

submitted by /u/fermi_paradox112358
[link] [comments]

Man walks into his bedroom and sees his wife packing a suitcase. He asks “what are you doing?”… -

She says, “I’m off to New York. I read that prostitutes can make $500 for doing what I do with you for free”.

As the wife is getting to leave, she walks by the bedroom and sees her husband packing his suitcase. “Excuse me, what are you doing??”

Husband replies - “Coming to New York, I want to see how you’re going to live on $1,000 a year”

submitted by /u/Fairwaydivots
[link] [comments]

Daily-Dose

Contents

From New Yorker

From Vox

Our society makes potentially harmful chemicals hard to avoid

How I purged worrisome chemicals from my beauty care

Avoid unspecified fragrances

Understand your body and what it needs

Don’t be afraid to DIY