STUDY: FunnyClassNotes.com is easier to type than FunnyClassNotes.BlogSpot.Com

A recent study by researchers at the FCN lab found that typing FunnyClassNotes.com takes less time than entering funnyclassnotes.blogspot.com.

Three participants, who were required to type FunnyClassNotes.com dozens of times, discovered that it only took 7 seconds to type the shorter web address. Under the same controlled conditions, it was found that it required 12 seconds to type funnyclassnotes.blogspot.com. In the end, the analysts of the research were confident that there is a substantial difference in typing time.

Much thought and energy were put into the tests. In an interview with FCN, Daniel, the principle investigator stated, "We planed to have a control group, but we realized that it would just be too strange if we asked people to type FunnyClassNotes.com over and over again."

FCN readers will have a much easier time logging into the #1 Californian conservative student group humor and class notes blog with fewer than ten readers. Considering that most of the readers view FCN daily, it is estimated that the five seconds saved every day will allow the regular FCN reader to conserve 1825 seconds (or thirty minutes and 41.6 seconds) a year.

Travis, one of the three participants, became quite animated during an in-depth interview after the results of the study were released. "Think about it - by saving people all of this typing time, we can more than balance out the $7.20 is cost to get the name FunnyClassNotes.com registered. If we save the daily FCN reader thirty minutes a year and there are almost five daily readers, [assuming minimum wage is $7.50] we are actually saving FCN readers a grand total of $225 a year! That's almost enough to buy the Pink 4GB Nano Ipod I want - and an Idog to match! Of course, this is all assuming time is money."

All in all, the switch to FunnyClassNotes.com is a change for the better.

Now Gavin Newsom can be the President of the French Republic!

Have you noticed all the bad blood being spurted at Gay Area politician and general morality advocate Gavin Newsom? Apparently the good Major broke the solemn vows he made his stunningly beautiful wife and did something really “inappropriate” with his (former) best friend's wife. Except the inappropriate behavior lasted a long time and Newsom didn't look apologetic about the situation until all the cameras where shining their red lights on him and reporters stopped throwing him softball questions.

Fair enough, we say, but so what? Indiscretions, even sordid, ugly and incomprehensible discretions, are no stranger to politics. Big names like Bill Clinton, Gary Hart and Barney Frank have long paved the way for today's generation of carnal politics and, we must not forget, Newsom is the mayor of modern day Sodom. This episode should actually end up helping is political career as he is lauded as a hero. We here at FCN think its amazing that a man like that can keep two women happy at the same time. His name should be hoisted in lights above all the not-so-single bars all across that great city and this great land.

Here's the problem, at least as we've been able to interpret it from various news sources: Gavin has higher political “aspirations” (a fancy word for greed) that may be interrupted by this revelation. From our limited understanding of America's political process, this concern is a complete quack. Why will the American people will accept a pot smoking Senator but not The Act (granted, times seven months) with the campaign manager's wife. How are the President of the United State's indescretions with an intern thirty-something years his junior less repulsive than Newsom's fling with someone his own age. Why can a Congressman run a prostitution ring run from his own home and yet be better than a man who confessed his sins?

Given his office, the stress of the job and the inordinate amount of national media attention the whole gay marriage licenses thing created, this sort of behavior can only be expected. Even Abbé Piere broke his vow of chastity.

Even if we accept the mainstream media's concerns, which no doubt, reflect the heartland values America has long rejected, FCN has an easy solution: Why not run for French political office?

The longest lasting President of the French Republic is a gentleman named François Mitterrand (pronounced nasally). He served for 14 years as head of the world's littlest roaring mouse all the while keeping a Mistress and his Wife in opposite wings of the Élysée Palace. That's right. On one end of the French equivalent to the White House he kept his gorgeous wife while on the other wing he kept his gorgeous mistress, Anne Pingoet, with whom he had a daughter. Mitterrand was also notorious for his extramarital affairs, a fact that puzzles history today given his abject ugliness. But here's the point: the public knew about Mitterrand's odd personal choices but elected him to two seven year terms nonetheless.

Newsom can learn quite a bit about political salvagery from Mitterrand. San Francisco is about as close culturally to Europe as any city the United States can muster, so the switch should be pretty easy for Gavin.

The only mistake Newsom has made is in appearing apologetic about the whole episode. He's lost his best friend, that's a subtraction in the political math, but he has put himself among the elite of his occupation who have gone beyond the call outside their marriage. He needs to embrace that as an opportunity, leave his morality behind and, like Lot's wife, not look back.

Lineage Index

As you may know the underprivileged are very important to me. Those who have a rougher lot in life or just can't make it for themselves need others to step up for them and I have devoted great swathes of satirical and song writing toward victim's advocacy. The victims of persecution need to be comforted and protected by society. The descendants of victims should receive similar compensation, to make them whole again and repay the ancestral debt their fathers incurred.

One of the policy objectives that, if enacted, might help achieve lineage equality is the Lineage Index. The Lineage Index allows society to determine the victim-hood of particular individuals (while including calculations of parental suffering) and deliver compensation in the most American way possible: hard cash.

An index should have a way to punish (or give a disincentive for particular behavior) and reward (give reparations). But more on that later...

We can divide up the world's current population and the history of human beings into four broad categories, broken down below for your convenience:

1. Those who have contributed mightily to the advancement of their species.

Examples: Thomas Edison, Gertrude Stein, Moses, John Hancock, Alfred Kinsey, Isaac Newton and Ludwig van Beethoven.

Rule of Thumb: They are “good guys” who can be described accurately with one name (Edison, Newton, Beethoven, etc).

Verdict: The descendants of these men can be proud of their heritage and may bear their name proudly.

2. Those who have proven themselves utter scoundrels, undeserving of societal recognition and praise.

Examples: Adolf Hitler, Hissène Habré, Charles Taylor, Charles Manson and Michael “Cosmo Kramer” Richards.

Rule of Thumb: They are “bad guys” who can be described accurately with one name (Hitler, Mansen, Kramer, etc).

Verdict: The descendants of these people deserve to live, but the law should recognize the total social depravity of their ancestors and make life hard for them.

3. Those who have shown their virtue in the midst of adversity and have endured persecution from some of the mightiest oppressors.

Examples: Oliver Brown, Dred Scott, Rosa Parks, Oliver Twist, Martin Luther King Jr. and Tupac Shakur.

Rule of Thumb: “Good guys” whose deeds are even more amazing in light of the circumstances in which they were performed.

Verdict: This category is highly subjective and its determination is best left to the experts.

4. Life was too easy

Examples: John D. Rockefeller, Bill Gates, George Soros, Warren Buffet and Martha Stewart.

Rule of Thumb: CEOs of the biggest companies and those who inherited their wealth.

Verdict: If they make Fortune's list of richest people, they are so filthy rich anyway that their children won't need any help from the Lineage Index.

Lineage experts will, no doubt, create many smaller, more specific, divisions that better represent the complexity of human decision making. Some probable categories include “should have known better, but didn't,” “welfare king/queen,” “tried hard,” “didn't try hard,” “rough draw,” “single mother,” and “wanted to do better, really tried to do better, but freak circumstances turned person into total victim.”

The Lineage Index will be calculated by social, economic, religious, historical and cultural experts who will be charged with evaluating the merit of individual candidates. These experts will be placed on a committee where they can work full-time conducting historical research and making value judgments of others. These factors will all contribute to a person's Legacy Rating.

Rather than making toothless decisions, the committee's index will be linked to national tax rates and those with greater redeeming social value (a higher number on the index) will be given preferential treatment. For example, a single black mother of fifteen who is a direct descendant of Rosa Parks and who watches Oprah on TV will not only not pay taxes, but will probably be eligible for an Earned Tax Credit (ETC), which will compliment her income. By the same token, a married white male with an SEB goatee and shaved head who a distant cousin of Stalin and whose grandfather is was a Klan member will not only pay the normal tax rate, but have to pay the taxes of the single mother in the first example as well.

The ETC would function as a great social equalizer, providing an incentive for appropriate behavior. Not only will an offender's descendants be taxed heavily if the patriarch misbehaves, but they will lose the opportunity to access a wealth of funding in the ETC. This system has the added benefit of promoting morality. People would need to think of the impact of their actions because their decisions will impact not only on themselves, but all of posterity. Imagine: If Adolf Hitler had had children and he knew that the invasion of Poland would have turned his offspring into social outcasts, would he have signed the secret Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact? Would Hissène Habré have committed the atrocities against the Hadjerai and the Zaghawa? I thought not.

Punishments for ancestral sins will become less severe as the generations propagate and the impact of misdeeds will be lessoned as more time goes on, if those that follow can demonstrate a change. For example, Cosmo Kramer's children will be hurt more by his racist rant than his grandchildren.

The Lineage Index would be exclusively responsible for determining tax and subsidy rates. No political tinkering or kickback allowances would be permitted and the system would be based solely on ancestral, family and personal benefits to society.

This balanced system could even be used in personal interactions between people. Boyfriend and girlfriend could analyze the socio-economic and moral implications of their union prior to marriage and thereby choose only the mate that is best for society as a whole. Business dealings could be simplified by having all parties announce their lineage rating prior to a major deal to reduce the risk of anything underhanded. Even law enforcement could be made more effective if, instead of profiling suspects based on race and economic demographics, a more holistic measure were deployed. By weighing their interactions with others by the lineage rating, true social homeostasis would be maintained.

Another key benefit to the lineage index is the assurance that people with moral genes will have money. Rather than depending on derelicts for financial donations, charities will be ensured of financial stability as philanthropic humans who give generously will probably have a better lineage rating. The system could even be set up to encourage donations, by allowing for rating improvement through charity giving. The scale would, of course, have to be adjusted to give greater preference to minorities, but that's a problem for the lineage committee.

If effective on the national level, the index might even be implemented globally. New experts with diverse opinions could be invited to the lineage committee and the entire index could be updated to reflect world-wide standards of ethics and decency.

The Lineage Index has the potential to radically change the way governments and societies function. Rather than assuming all rich are socially destructive miscreants whose very financial existence must be punished, the Index taxes and rewards based on meaningful factors like parental morality. And, if implemented fairly, it has the potential to significantly reduce the number of victims worldwide.

Life Tip #8

If someone "steals" your parking spot, just move on and find another.

If someone "steals" your parking spot and you get really mad, don't pull out a gun and shoot the man who stole your spot.

Even if a really irate woman is egging you on and shouting at you to "put a cap in his [gluteus maximus]," don't pull the trigger.

If you do succumb to an irate woman's shouts to "put a cap in his [gluteus maximus]," don't fire seven shots.

New study finds cell phone use actually hurts communication

TUSCEGEE AL – Researchers at Tuscegee University in Alabama have discovered that regular cell phone use actually harms a teenager’s ability to communicate. Instead of assisting them in expressing their views to others, the communication miracle may be holding the entertainment generation back.

“They spend so much time talking to the thing by their ear that they never stop to talk to each other,” explains Newport Washington, the study’s lead scientist. “They talk alright, but they never communicate.”

Not all members of the Tuscegee community agree. Some of the students at the very university that sponsored the study disagreed vehemently when asked their opinion. “I dunno what they’se talkin’ ‘bout, man!” A young white student exclaimed, shaking a loose fitting skull cap and exposing grill when he spoke. “We’se able to…to…to…yeah…we’se able to.” We tried to get the student’s name, but we weren't confident enough in our interpretation of the ubonical sounds to publish it here.

Washington’s colleague and adjunct researcher for the university, Crocker Samuels, tempers the study’s findings with his own interpretation. “It isn’t so much that the youth of America can’t talk, it’s that they can’t talk face to face,” he said told us by cellular phone.

Maybe he has a point. We caught up with Tom Anderson, a popular social networker and a man who seems to be everyone’s friend, not in person, but over Former Vice President Al Gore's biggest technological innovation, the Internet. Here’s what he told us over the latest in chat technology (please keep in mind that if we were the kind of arrogant journalists that usually write these stories, the following would be laden with “[SIC]”):

TOM: r u ther?

FCN: Yes, we are right here, Mr. Anderson, are you ready to do the interview we discussed?

TOM: tom, plz, sur, jas

FCN: Is that a yes? :-)

[5 MINUTES LATER]

TOM: ok, wwt?

FCN: Yes, we are wondering your views on the Tuscegee U. study that finds cell phones hurt teenager’s ability to communicate. Do you feel this assessment is accurate?

TOM: its cool; its cool.

FCN: So you think teenagers should spend less time on their mobile devices?

TOM: man, tech’s the futur...that’s wwb in…you know…now...it’s big stuff

FCN: What part should parents play, if any, in limiting their kids cell phone use?

TOM: look: my thing is soc nets, not nannying, DYGWIS?

Unfortunately, our connection broke off and we weren’t able to able to further develop Anderson’s position on this controversial subject.

Most youths do seem to cling to their cellulars, making them personal extensions their own souls, adding crude ring tones or inappropriate desktop images. From to the Razr to the Crazr, America's kids have an infatuation with their portables that may very well be unhealthy.

Further research definitely must be conducted to verifiable ascertain the real communication deficit imposed by modern cellular phones. As Washington explains, “this study is just the first in what I hope is a long string of empirical examinations of the effects of cell phones on the teen generation.” In pursuit of this goal, Washington has already filed a request for more grant money.