As IF Times

link Canada warns not to buy fresh semen online.

As we all know, Amazon started this whole process years ago when they pioneered the idea of buying things online, initially books.  Buying books seems so quaint these days as the availability of buying things online has exploded to include, well,  everything.  That’s just new stuff.  If you really want to plumb the depths of what people will buy online, you’d have to check Ebay or perhaps Craig’s list. The world has become a gigantic garage sale accessible from your computer chair.  Just by doing a quick search, we can find such treasures as canned silkworms, belly button fluff and hair clippings from celebrities.  You can go the other way and buy army surplus tanks.

But Semen?

Really?  Assuming that people would want it for its intended use, why would anyone want to procreate a human being via semen bought through the Internet?  How difficult would it be to get local, fresh product? Can someone really be that ugly that they can only get insemination by mail?  Most people won’t eat day old fish, but flash frozen man juice is ok?

The proliferation of web based stores has forced many retail stores to adjust to the new cost reality since web based ones don’t require the quantity of staff found in real brick and mortar shops.  But this has taken the concept of cutting out the middle man too far…literally.  It’s easy to project where this is all going.  Obviously it’s a long term plan to get rid of men.  Makes sense.  Society has been harping on the uselessness of men for much of the past 30 years.  They smell, they drink copiously, they leave messes wherever they go, they’re insensitive to women’s needs, etc etc.  Popular culture has even played down the idea of masculine men since the modern ideals are Justin Bieber, Ashton Kutcher and other girly-men.  Clearly, it would be easier to extract all the product from these types and do away with the rest of pesky men.

The only problem is, who will kill the spiders?

link Paintings Worth Millions Stolen from Paris Museum – WSJ.com.

As if.  I think what they mean is, paintings insured for millions stolen.  As may be obvious to readers, I am skeptical of valuations placed on “priceless” works of art by long dead artists.  With assets worldwide going into the tank from real estate, to stock, to bonds, to perhaps even hard metals, the ability for anyone to sell and receive value for “priceless” works of art are few.  The better way to recoup value for these pieces is from the insurance companies.  That may be a cynical accusation on my part, but when you think of the logic of it, there’s more validity than insanity. 

If the pieces were stolen, then the thieves can only realize value in one of a few ways.  One, they can resell to a collector for some discounted price.  Presumably, this collector has the money and power to thumb their nose at laws against stealing such things and in fact, perhaps even hired the thieves in the first place.  Two, they can strike a deal with the insurance companies to return the pieces for a “small” reward.  Most likely, the thieves will try to capture value for the pieces right away, like Goldman Sachs doing an arb trade.  Presumably, lots of money was spent to set this up, to pay off people and for logistics.  That money has to be retrieved in order to offset these costs.  And there had to be costs involved.  Anyone who has seen the movie, The Thomas Crown Affair would have an idea of the planning that’s involved with a heist like this.  One doesn’t just hire some unibrow thugs to lift the pieces off the wall and saunter out of the museum with them under their arms. 

I’m sure the insurance companies have their crack sleuths on this right away. It’s not as if they didn’t know where to look.  How many people could have pulled this off anyway? Groups that would be in a position to move or receive hundreds of millions of dollars worth of art are likely a small fraternity. 

Here is my suggestion for catching or at least annoying the thieves.  If there is a ransom demand of some kind, try this approach:

Ring ring.  “Hello, Lloyd’s of London, how may I help you?”

” I’m calling about the recent art heist.  We’re willing to return the art for a reward”

“Hmm, yes, well about that, we’ve decided to just let it be.”

“Pardon me?”

“Yes, we’ve decided it’s more trouble than it’s worth to look for them, so we’ll just write it off and find something else to replace them”

“What!! You can’t do that!   These are timeless works by the great masters!  You have to get them back!”

“Actually, they weren’t that great anyway and they cost way too much to insure.  The premiums we received weren’t worth it.  We think we’ll go with some newer stuff, you can keep the pieces”

“But we don’t want them, we want money!”

“Sorry”

“We’ll give you a discount!”

“Again, sorry”

“We’ll throw in frames”

“Look, we really don’t care.  They really weren’t worth that much in the first place, we just used them to collect insurance premiums from the idiots who were willing to pay them.  Over the years, we’ve got our money out of them, Sotheby’s got their cut and now it’s time to move on”.

“Hey, that’s dishonest and not fair!”

“It’s just business”

“What are we supposed to do with these things then?!!”

“Try Ebay.  Have a nice day”