6 Laws That Were Great On Paper (And Insane Everywhere Else)

The Endangered Species Act is a law passed by the United States Congress in 1973, whose main purpose is to prevent the extinction of like, four animals you've heard of, and then 800 types of skink. If your family was constantly under siege by the sinister dusky gopher frog or the malevolent dark-tumped petrel, then you were shit outta luck after '73 when it became illegal to ask them to dance with Big Betty (Big Betty being your shotgun in this strange, strange analogy). The ESA also made provisions to protect the habitats of these imperiled species by imposing restrictions on the land where they lived. This is an important point, as you will see in a moment.

Don't worry, this man is only hunting crickets.
How Did it Backfire?
As luck would have it, an estimated 90 percent of all endangered species in the United States can be found on privately owned land. When an animal on the endangered species list is found living somewhere, the surrounding habitat is automatically protected right along with it, and any activity that might harm the animal must cease. If the Fish and Wildlife Agency identifies a particular area as home to a giant kangaroo rat, for example, then farmers are restricted from tilling the soil there. Timber companies can't harvest trees. Swinger clubs have to put the kibosh on their druid-themed outdoor orgies, and somewhere the U.S. Government has to cut George Orwell a royalty check. And these restrictions stay in place until that animal is removed from the endangered species list, a proposal that can take years, decades or eternity depending on how much they like hanging out on roads, and don't like humpin'.

And animals love humping.
Obviously the farmers weren't exactly content to let the government put the needs of a rat, no matter how giant or kangaroo-like, above their livelihoods. If their land seemed like a suitable habitat for an endangered species, then the solution was obvious: Wreck the ever-loving shit out of the property to make it as unattractive to that animal as possible, kind of like keeping the refrigerator empty and never washing towels until your dickhead roommate moves out. Alternately, if they found an endangered species living on their property before the government did, then it was time to shoot, shovel and shut up. Kill the animal, bury it and never say a word to anyone. The endangered species list basically became a hit list for any animal that was on it.

Several recent environmental studies have shown that both of these unforeseen tactics have actually done more harm to many animal species than just leaving them off the endangered list in the first place.

We love boxing here at Cracked: It brought us marvelous things such as Punch-Out!!, Super Punch-Out!!, "Eye of the Tiger" and it single-handedly brought down the Soviet Union. But damn is it ever dangerous. Like any fighting sport, it's hard to make boxing safer without ruining the entire appeal of watching two dudes punch each other into the short bus. But rules did have to be introduced, otherwise the end of every boxing match would simply be "the balls."

So in 1867, the Marquess of Queensberry Rules introduced a few sensible codes of conduct, including the mandatory wearing of gloves and the ban on hugging. Gone were the days of bare-knuckle fighting followed promptly by long, emotionally intense snuggling sessions. But surely that's a reasonable price to pay for a safer sport, right?
How Did it Backfire?
The only thing boxing gloves have reduced are the number of cuts and bruises, while significantly increasing the risk of brain damage and number of deaths. Now, call us crazy, but we like to think brain damage and death sound a lot worse than cuts and bruises, unless we're opening up that whole ball area again (we'll take "forgetting multiplication" over "extensive testicle lacerations" any day, thanks).

There go the state capitols.
Yes, it turns out boxing gloves have only made it easier to punch a guy square in the face with full force. While the glove protects the hand against injury, your opponent's brain still has to deal with the full force of the blow, actually made worse by the added weight of the glove.
For all the modern boxers who don't die in the ring, there's the 15 percent chance they'll develop some kind of brain damage, while bare-knuckle fighters, on the other hand, prefer to avoid the head altogether: The skull is the hardest part of the body. The likeliness of breaking a hand against the head meant that fighters often chose to hit the body, thus saving their hands for more important things.

Gotta protect these babies for the next hand modeling gig.
If that was too subtle an entendre, we meant masturbating. That was a masturbation joke.
Go us!

When the government tries to regulate itself by simplifying processes and cutting down on waste, that's usually a good time to pop some popcorn, pull up a chair and watch the hilarity ensue. Passed by Congress in 1980 (and then amended in 1995), the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) was intended to, shockingly, reduce the paperwork burden on federal employees. It was also supposed to eliminate much of the paperwork that all us common folk have to put up with when dealing with the Man, who won't even accept a "Notice of Intent Informing You to Go Fuck Yourself" without a notary public present.

How Did it Backfire?
This act was spawned somewhere within the unholy Office of Management and Budget (OMB). That's the same office that routinely authorizes $600 toilet seats and infamous earmarks like the Bridge to Nowhere, so buckle up for some righteous bureaucratic gangbangin': If a particular government agency wants to collect data from more than nine people (NO LESS THAN NINE!) they must apply for an Information Collection Requirement (ICR) from the almighty OMB. These ICR numbers have to be renewed every three years or, you guessed it, there are reams (that's government-speak for "fucktons") of reports to that have to be filed in order to update them.

For a huge entity like the Environmental Protection Agency that has to maintain thousands of ICRs, this means a constant paper typhoon exploding comically out of their building, no doubt devastating the mighty forests of the endangered tree skink in the process. Private companies being sued by the EPA have even been able to avoid litigation simply by pointing out at their ICRs were expired, and that the EPA was not in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act.

And they were technically correct: The best kind of correct!
To put things in perspective, look at these numbers released by U.S. News & World Report: Americans spent 9.9 billion hours on government paperwork in 2009. Compare that to one billion hours spent on government forms in 1981 and you can see that the PRA isn't just backfiring, it's passionately suckling at the teat of complete failure. The solution to actually eliminating all this comically inept paperwork clutter from the Paperwork Reduction Act? Why, simply fill out Standard Form 152: The official government form to eliminate other forms. So it basically creates an eternal cycle of form-filing that we're pretty sure is one of the ironic punishments in Dante's Hell.
Thanks, government!
Find more from Robin at Gunaxin and Beyondhollywood. Read more from Dave Easton at idontgiveadamn.org.
Do you have an idea in mind that would make a great article? Then sign up for our writers workshop! Know way too much about a random topic? Create a topic page and you could be on the front page of Cracked.com tomorrow!
For more programs that did more harm than good, check out 5 Government Programs That Backfired Horrifically and 5 Retarded Health Campaigns That Backfired (Hilariously).
And stop by our Top Picks (Updated Today!) to see what happened when no drinking ban was instituted at the office.
And don't forget to follow us on Facebook and Twitter to get sexy, sexy jokes sent straight to your news feed.








why not just execute the kiddy-diddlers and be done with it?
ReplySomething tells me you're a right-winger.
The story about Iowa makes me want to slump down in my chair (I live there). And lock my doors.
ReplyHere's a novel idea regarding child molesters: If we think they're still enough of a threat that we need to warn the public of their existence, maybe that's a sign they shouldn't be getting released back out into society in the first place! Rather, they should probably be staying in jail, where they rightly belong, for the rest of their lives.
One thing I don't get about this article: What's wrong with the name Chester?
ReplyIt's either a reference to something, or it just sounds kind of molestery. Which it kinda does.
Chester the Molester. Someone never read Hustler.
Snorted coffee through my nose @ "...two dudes punch each other into the short bus." Thanks!
ReplyOne of the best articles ever written on the law of unintended consequences.
ReplyCome on, Big Betty... Dance with me!
Replythe problem with #4 is that when you net a fuckton of fish, you don't pick through and throw back the small ones- basically every fish that ends up netted is going to die, and the holes in those nets are pretty small. Controlling fishing is about keeping the volume of fish in the water higher. That study is not an accurate representation of the fishing industry. The decrease in average cod size isn't because we're only getting rid of the large ones, it's because we're getting rid of all the large and medium and small size ones.
Reply"passionately suckling at the teat of complete failure"... can't wait until I can use that in a sentence
Replyme too!
actually boxing gloves to not increase your punching power at all a slight increase in weight is pointless since its only a few ounces at best which wont even regester on force aswell as since the gloves are soft the glove itself absorbes force one documentary i watched a few years ago showed that a boxers punch decreased around about 5% when wearing gloves
ReplyWhat is being said here is that people actually punch harder as the gloves don't hurt their hands as much.
How many times were you punched in the head before you wrote this?
Actually, the biggest misnomer about the Endangered Species Act is that the government will come into your home and set up an electric fence around an endangered fly and make you its personal servants. The ESA actually only legally applies to FEDERAL LAND and land impacted by federal money (most state land). If the last bald eagle on the planet lands on your wood chipper, you can legally just fire up that puppy and make some pillows. Bloody, beaky, feather pillows. Which actually makes one wonder what everyone is so upset about since if 90% of endangered species are on private land, it appears to be the most toothless law on the planet.
ReplyI think you mean misunderstanding or misconception, misnomer means 'incorrectly named'. That would be if the endangered species act protected gray squirrels, sparrows, feral cats, and other things that are extremely common.
Ask a handicapwd women who cant build her house becuase if sone damn bird who it effects you moron. Also more then once its been admited that eoa crap was started to broaden emanate domain.
Am I the only one who doesn't buy into the "saving trees" argument? As long as people keep felling trees for construction material, fuel, paper, etc. they'll have to plant new ones if for no reason other than to stay in business.
ReplyThat is a fairly valid point until you realize how long it takes trees to reach a decent harvisting size, how many nutrients are leeched out of the soil due to poor re-planting, the toxins released during the production of many wood-based products like paper, and the millions of cubic feet of wasted paper festering (and NOT biodegrading I might add, mostly due to things like bleaching proccesses) in landfills all over the place. I'm not a person that thinks we shouldn't have ANY paper, I just think there are intelligent ways of reducing the amount of paper WASTE we all contribute to every day. By the way if you print this reply there will be a second page with "This page intentionally left blank" in the middle of it.
People have been known to use up so many trees that once-forested places only have the trees that someone planted in their yard left, you have to be thinking ahead by 50 years if you want to plant your way into continued livelihood. Most of history, people just figured that, after we cut down these trees here, our kids can go somewhere else and cut down those trees, there.
See also, Easter Island.
Simple solution to the sex offender problem: Kill them all instead of letting them out. There's almost a 100% certainty that they'll reoffend again and again, anyway. There is no true rehabilitation for them. So they should be culled.
Reply Hide All See All 4 RepliesDo you have any kind of hard scicentific evidence for this 100% reoffence rate??
"Almost 100%" So, not 100% then.
"almost 100%" in the same way I am "almost" a Baboon. A huge chunk of sex offender registries are there for bullshit, non-sex-offendy reasons. The only reason they don't get as much press as innocent people on death row is because no one wants to be they guy that stands up for sex offenders.
The problem is that "sex offender" applies not just to child molesters, but to anyone caught urinating in public, mooning or streaking. "Almost 100%" of everyone who ever went to college has done at least one of those things. So yeah, we should kill...everyone.
nice futurama reference, you get 100 internets
Replyboxing is so f*****g lame... all that needless swinging at the other guy's head teaches nothing about real defensive technique... i like having my opposable thumbs free, so i can do my crazy (steven seagal) aikido shit... my hands are dexterous tactile machines, not bullshit-blunted bludgeons... boxing may require it's own "technique", but when these guys are out of the ring, the rules are a bit slightly different... you can take the marquis of queensbury's rules and shove them straight up your poop-hole.
ReplyIf you keep track of who is filing what, though, it seems like the purpose of the paperwork reduction act is to punish government agencies who require taxpayers to file paperwork by making the government agencies file paperwork to justify it. So really it's kind of a "see how YOU like it" thing. Worse for trees, at least in the short run, but better for responsible government.
ReplyThat's assuming the people responsible for ordering paperwork done are the ones that have to fill out the new stuff. Most of them have secretaries to do the boring work.
that was a masturbation joke. go us! lol, great s**t man. i always wondered that about boxing gloves cause they weigh more than your fist
ReplyI disagree with number 6. Never underestimate the power of an addiction. Smokers will stand outside in the rain, in a storm, in the cold to puff. I've seen them do it. My job has a ban on smoking. People have about a 10 minute walk just to get to a designated smoke area. There is a very heavy and out-of-shape guy that works there. When this guy walks, his breathing is very labored and he sweats profusely. Did I mention both of his knees are shot? Despite his condition, he makes to 10 minute trek each way to go smoke his cigarette.
Reply Hide All See All 5 RepliesI wouldn't have a problem with 'designated' smoking areas if they would give us a f*****g break! ok, you got us 10 metres away from doorways, ok, you got us out of most bars, ok, you got us out of most public areas,, that's fine,, but why the hell don't we get a f*****g roof or even a bus stop booth or something to cover us when it is raining and snowing? I have no problem keeping my habit away from people who don't want to be around it and all that but,, not even a bit of cover? non-smokers who think I deserve this s**t just because i do something you don't like,, can lick my juicy little slit! while I slap you in the face and kick you in the balls :}
Well...you deserve all that and more...enjoy your cigarette
Wow MissBliss... quite a tangent. A sexy, sexy tangent.
I just don't smoke in designated smoking areas. I find the nearest place where people can easily avoid my "death-cloud", and if assholes actually go out of their way to approach me and tell me I shouldn't be smoking there, I tell them to f**k off and I'm not inconveniencing anyone with my location.
First, even as a non-smoker, I'd say MissBliss and her fellow smokers should at least get an awning or shelter or something.
Second, I'd have to say that her names appears to be a misnomer.
In my home state all the smoking bans are work place smoking bans. They're in place to protect non-smoking employees from inhaling poison all day.
Replypassive smoking increases cancer risk by about as much as eating citrus fruit. you also absorb considerably more of each chemical by spending five minutes by a busy road. and companies have always been allowed to ban smoking on an individual basis, and you've always been free to refuse to work in a smoking environment or talk to your union to get it changed on an individual basis but hey.
Even taking the health risks aside you wouldnt expect to have to petition your union to stop people doing something that smells horrific and causes you to cough your guts up.
Can we stop equating "sex offender" with "child molester" or "pedophile" please?
Reply Hide All See All 5 RepliesUnfortunately many people are unaware that you can get placed on the sex offender list for something as innocuous as peeing in an alleyway.
i've checked; we decided no.
1: Especially since it's a f*****g euphemism, 2: Because somehow, people just go to ridiculous f*****g lengths without ANY reason; just further, and further, and further, overly hellfucking (n'or peefucking) simplistic.
How about we just stop committing sex offenses instead? I don't really care what sex offense a person committed, I don't want one within a mile of my family.
You van get put on that list for public urination, having sex in your own house but acvidently leaving the blinds up and someone perks in and sees you. People in college who think its funny to streak ruin their whole future. All cases aren't so black and white. It's swell that you keep such a protective umbrella over your family but the law is flawed.
Your boxing inclusion might make sense, if not for the fact that the gloves weren't meant to protect the person being hit. They're to protect the fists of the person hitting.
Replyand by protecting those fists from whacking skulls, they've encouraged head blows and thus been counter-productive due to fists being less important than brains. which i'm fairly sure was the point the article made, haven't read that far yet.