The Jaden and Willow Smith Poetry Generator

Let the famous Hollywood siblings be your inspiration

He is a 16-year-old actor and musician. She is a 14-year-old musician with one big hit under her belt already. Together, they are Hollywood royalty and apparently vessels for some extraterrestrial wisdom, if judged by this interview published by T Magazine Monday. To celebrate the uncanny insight of Jaden and Willow Smith, son and daughter of Will and Jada Pinkett Smith, we present you with this poetry generator using their own words from the new interview.

Read next: The 5 Weirdest Things Willow and Jaden Smith Said In That T Interview


How Liberal is Your Burger?

See the political leanings of the places Johnny Rockets, White Castle and other fast food restaurants call home

No matter how avowedly nonpartisan they claim to be, every major retailer has a political identity ingrained in the locations of its stores. Six in 10 Johnny Rockets can be found in Democratic congressional districts, while eight in 10 Sonics are in districts that will send a Republican to Washington in 2015. (Fifty-eight percent of Congressional districts will be held by Republicans come January.) TIME recently explored these dynamics in an interactive chart that is reprinted at the bottom of this post.

To further plumb the mysteries of burger politics, here are a few lists of the chains that are most often found in only Democratic or only Republican districts.

We also ran the numbers for clothing, grocery stores and auto dealerships. Fancy an Arby’s sandwich? Odds are you’ll be driving there in your Buick.

The Most Liberal Burgers in America

Franchise Dem. Rep. Total locations
Johnny Rockets 61% 39% 195
White Castle 58% 42% 409
Jack in the Box 53% 47% 2106
Checkers Drive-In Restaurants 53% 47% 494
In-N-Out Burger 52% 48% 264

The Most Conservative Burgers in America

Franchise Rep. Dem. Total locations
Jack’s Family Restaurants 95% 5% 127
Hardee’s 83% 17% 1741
Sonic 82% 18% 3435
HWY 55 78% 22% 112
Arby’s 76% 24% 3188

The Most Liberal Car Dealerships in America

Franchise Dem. Rep. Total locations
Tesla Motors 66% 34% 101
MINI 56% 44% 113
Land Rover 49% 51% 156
Audi 49% 51% 273
Acura 49% 51% 263

The Most Conservative Car Dealerships in America

Franchise Rep. Dem. Total locations
Lincoln 77% 23% 786
Pontiac 77% 23% 2021
Buick 76% 24% 2025
Chevrolet 74% 26% 2973
Ford Motor Company 74% 26% 3015

The Most Liberal Clothing in America

Franchise Dem. Rep. Total locations
American Apparel 84% 16% 134
Simply Fashion 77% 23% 228
Rainbow Shops 72% 28% 980
H & M 62% 38% 298
7 For All Mankind 62% 38% 732

The Most Conservative Clothing in America

Franchise Rep. Dem. Total locations
Factory Connection 95% 5% 282
Cato Fashions 83% 17% 1052
maurices 83% 17% 887
Vanity 81% 19% 148
Buckle 78% 22% 452

The Most Liberal Grocery Stores in America

Franchise Dem. Rep. Total locations
Stop & Shop 83% 17% 395
Whole Foods Market 67% 33% 293
Trader Joe’s 65% 35% 418
Safeway 64% 36% 865
A&P 63% 37% 300

The Most Conservative Grocery Stores in America

Franchise Rep. Dem. Total locations
Weis Markets 83% 17% 321
Kroger 78% 22% 1297
IGA 77% 23% 1081
Food Lion 76% 24% 1113
Winn-Dixie 73% 27% 628


TIME interactive

Are You a J. Crew Democrat or a Pizza Hut Republican?

Check out this chart and search tool to see the political leanings of the places that Starbucks, Walmart, and 2,700 other companies call home

If you live near a Ben & Jerry’s or a few Dunkin’ Donuts outposts, odds are good that your Congressional district elected a Democrat on Tuesday. More familiar with the inside of a Pizza Hut or a Long John Silver’s? Chances are you’ll be represented next year by a Republican.

The following chart places 49 common brands on a political spectrum based on the percentage of their brick-and-mortar stores that are located in Democratic or Republican districts. To do this, TIME matched nearly 2 million store locations provided by the research company AggData to their corresponding Congressional district and then tallied them by that district’s vote in 2014 midterms. Of the 139 American Apparel stores, for example, 83 percent are in blue districts. Nearly nine in 10 Belk department stores, meanwhile, can be found in red districts. All the other brands on the chart fall somewhere in between. You can look for any store you like in the search tool below the graphic.

There is no evidence, of course, that a regular infusion of banana ice cream and fudge chunks inspires a person toward liberalism. Because two-thirds of the Ben & Jerry’s in the United States are found in Democratic districts, however, the mere presence of a store in a district raises the statistical odds that its residents are people who vote for Democrats.

While stores like Whole Foods or Hobby Lobby might already conjure partisan stereotypes, the vast majority of America’s brands do not. Even so, where these stores are located tells us a tremendous amount about who their shoppers are sending to Washington.


The list of retail locations was provided by AggData. Stores were matched to Congressional district by comparing their longitude and latitude to the Census definitions of districts. The results do not include the 14 Congressional races that have yet to be resolved as of 6:00 AM on Nov. 6, 2014.

Read next: How the World Sees America Now

Correction: The interactive chart originally linked the incorrect record for Armani Exchange when the user clicked the icon in the chart. It has since been updated.


These 9 Slides Show the Surprisingly Low Impact of Libertarian Candidates

Despite growing numbers of candidates, they almost never even succeed as spoilers by throwing the race to one candidate or another.

Almost no one seriously thinks that Sean Haugh will be the next senator from North Carolina. But political observers in both major parties are worried that the pizza deliveryman and Libertarian candidate could siphon enough votes to sway the election, likely to be one of the closest in the country on Tuesday. And stakes couldn’t be higher: any one election could determine control of the Senate in 2015.

But which party has more to fear from Haugh? Kentucky Senator Rand Paul campaigned for Republican nominee Thom Tillis in early October, a move seen as an attempt to shore up Libertarian-leaning Republican voters. More recently, the American Future Fund, a conservative outside spending group, bet $225,000 that Haugh could flip the election in the Republicans’ with an ad campaign focused on his unembarrassed enthusiasm for marijuana, aimed to draw away younger supporters of Democratic incumbent Kay Hagan.

Though Haugh is currently polling at around 5 percent—more than the margin between Tillis and Hagan—he is very unlikely to spoil anything other than the hopes of a few misled pot smokers. While the threat of spoiler candidates makes for breathless headlines and titillating front-page reads, the real odds of this happening are extremely slim.

For starters, it is very rare for a Congressional contest to be decided by a margin small enough for a third-party candidate to make a difference. Of the 1,873 elections that TIME examined—every House and Senate race going back to 2006, not including special elections and runoffs—only 70 were won with less than 50 percent of the vote. A Libertarian candidate ran in 46 of them.

The threat of a spoiler candidate is further exaggerated by the common assumption that third-party voters would otherwise turn up at the polls at all.

“That’s the old style to think about voting,” says Stanford professor Jon Krosnick, a social psychologist and polling expert. “We’ve now come to recognize that the candidates influence turnout. The presence of the third-party candidate can lure people to vote who otherwise wouldn’t have voted at all.”

It’s impossible to know with any precision how people would have behaved without the presence of a third-party candidate. Even asking them in polls is unreliable, given that pollsters typically report unrealistically high turnout figures when they ask people if they voted.

The picture is confounded yet further by the fact that a distaste for the major parties is often the motivation that draw a person to a third-party candidate in the first place.

That’s a view shared by Emily Salvette, who drew 10,630 votes as a Libertarian in the 2012 race for Michigan’s 1st District. “I do honestly think that a lot of people wouldn’t have voted,” she says. “They’re not engaged anymore because they don’t like the choice.” The Republican in that contest, Congressman Dan Benishek, edged out his Democratic challenger by 1,881 votes.

Depending whose base you think Salvette drew from, you might call her either a spoiler or nearly one. But Salvette says she saw support from voters with a variety of viewpoints, including people who supported her views on everything from medical marijuana to gun rights.

This is where the spoiler math falls apart: 1,881 votes doesn’t seem like a large share of Salvette’s 10,630. But to tip the election to the Democrat, every single one of the people who voted for Salvette would have had to show up had Salvette not been in the race—very unlikely—and they would have had to break for the Democrat by a sizable margin of 59-41. The fewer voters that show up, the larger that margin needs to be.

Of course, it is typically the Republican candidate who feels more threatened by a Libertarian in the race.

“Republicans think that the Libertarian vote comes out of their column,” says University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato. In fact, there’s evidence from exit polls in the 2013 Virginia governor’s race that Libertarian Robert Sarvis, who garnered 145,762 votes in a race decided by about 55,000, drew more support from winner Terry McAuliffe, the Democrat, than from Republican Ken Cuccinelli. The majority of Sarvis’ supporters said they otherwise would not have voted.

It’s certainly possible to find more compelling cases for spoilers. In 2012, Democrat Jim Matheson beat challenger Mia Love in Utah’s 4th District by 768 votes, while Libertarian Jim Vein received 6,439 votes—and earned some unkind attention from Republicans before the votes were fully counted. Even so, half of Vein’s voters would have needed to show up without him in the race, those supporters would have had to vote for Love over Matheson by at least a 61-39 margin to make a difference.

Even the most famous supposed spoiler in modern history–the 2000 presidential election in Florida–is less clear-cut than most of us recall. One statistical analysis of polls and ballot returns suggests that Nader’s supporters would only have broken for Gore over Bush by a 60-40 margin, if they broke for either candidate. That many of Nader’s supporters would otherwise have turned out and supported either major-party candidate is far from established.

When an election is that close, blaming a third-party candidate is the electoral equivalent of blaming Bill Buckner for spoiling the 1986 World Series for the Boston Red Sox: It is merely the most visible excuse for a loss that could have been reversed if one of a thousand factors had gone just a little better.


The Incredible Rise in Campaign Spending

The cost of running for Congress has increased more than 500 percent since 1984. Here's an interactive look at how campaign expenditures have outrun inflation, health care, and even the rising cost of college

The NBC affiliate in Des Moines, Iowa, added an hour to its nightly newscast this year to profit from all the political ads ahead of the Nov. 4 midterm elections, but demand was still too great. “There is only so much inventory I have,” explains WHO-TV station manager Dale Woods. It is the same in tight races all across the country. Nearly bottomless campaign and super-PAC bank accounts have been unloaded on airtime, mailings and get-out-the-vote efforts. And in recent years, the spending growth has accelerated.

Since the mid-1980s, the amount dumped on elections by campaigns and outside groups, as measured by the Federal Election Commission, has grown 555 percent—faster than even the alarming increases in the costs of health care and private college tuition. The reasons, say political scientists, include growth in the national economy, the razor-thin margin determining congressional control and changes to campaign-finance rules. Expect the trend to continue. Senate races in North Carolina and Kentucky this year could cost more than $100 million, and the estimated spending on TV ads in Alaska and Iowa already tops $11 per eligible voter.


Sources for interactive: Federal Election Commission summary files; Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; U.S. Census Bureau; St. Louis Fed; National Center for Education Statistics. Outside spending data for the years 2006-2012, which are missing from FEC summary reports, are courtesy of the Center for Responsive Politics.

The total value of an election is calculated in two parts: Campaign spending and outside spending. Campaign spending consists of all expenditures except authorized transfers of funds to other committees, as well as party-coordinated spending, and includes primary elections. Outside Spending encompasses third-party expenditures that are made without the knowledge or consent of the candidates, but only includes transactions that are explicitly used to advocate for or against a candidate.


Quiz: How Does Your City Affect Your Happiness?

Answer these 13 questions and find out

Happy CityIn his book Happy City, Charles Montgomery offers evidence that where you live has a powerful effect on how you feel. From our commutes to our neighbors and our daily routines, where we choose to live can influence our feelings in ways most of us never imagine.

mcgill_logoThe following quiz will ask you 13 questions about your life. After answering each one, you’ll see how thousands of others have answered the same question. This survey will help us reveal new insights about the relationship between cities and happiness. All responses are completely anonymous.

The quiz was developed by Montgomery, Chris Barrington-Leigh of McGill University, along with TIME.

The data for average happiness scores will update as more readers take the survey. Current results based on 3,302 respondents. Data may also be used for a future study by Barrington-Leigh on happiness across the United States.

Read next: What Your Zip Code Says About You


Can You Solve J.K. Rowling’s Anagram?

Channel your inner Gryffindor to figure out Rowling's latest puzzle

Speculation is swirling after Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling tweeted a mysterious phrase that appears to be a scrambled message. Hogwarts fans are jumping at the idea that she could be hinting at another novel set in the wizarding world.

Use TIME’s anagram solver to see if you can figure it out. Then share your best guess. The winner gets 50 points for Gryffindor.

Here’s the full Twitter exchange.


How Much Money Does Your Doctor Get From Medical Companies?

Use this search tool to find out

Doctors received $3.5 billion from pharmaceutical companies and device makers over a five month period in 2013, according to figures the federal government released this week. The massive dataset includes 4.2 million individual payments made to physicians (including dentists) for things like meals, consulting fees and royalty payments for devices they have helped invent. The new data includes 360,000 doctors by name.

In the days leading up the release of the information, physician groups mobilized to argue that the data, which the 2010 Affordable Care Act mandates be disclosed, is incomplete and misleading. For their part, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which oversaw the release, states that, “Just because there are financial ties doesn’t mean that anyone is doing anything wrong.” CMS withheld the names of the recipients on 40 percent of the payments over concerns about data quality.

Using the following tool, you can search for any physician in the database by last name and see any gifts, consulting fees, paid travel, or other payment he or she received between August and December of 2013.

Critics of this sort of disclosure are quick to point out that there are many positive benefits to relationships between drug and device companies, which produce new life-saving treatments every year, and the doctors who get those treatments to patients who need them. Meanwhile, some research suggests that even cursory relationships with industry do affect a doctor’s behavior.

Among those doctors who were identified, orthopedic surgeons were by far the most compensated. They account for 11 of the 18 physicians who received over $1 million over the five covered months in the data:

Name Specialty Location Amount
Stephen S Burkhart Orthopaedic Surgery San Antonio, TX $7,356,276
Chitranjan S. Ranawat Counselor New York, NY $3,994,022
Thomas S Thornhill Orthopaedic Surgery Boston, MA $3,921,410
Richard Scott Orthopaedic Surgery Boston, MA $3,849,711
Neal Selim Elattrache Sports Medicine Los Angeles, CA $2,413,281
Lawrence A Lynn Counselor Columbus, OH $2,338,790
Timothy A Chuter Surgical Critical Care San Francisco, CA $2,304,899
Roger P Jackson Orthopaedic Surgery of the Spine North Kansas City, MO $1,764,704
Steven B. Haas Orthopaedic Surgery New York, NY $1,752,797
John Satterfield Fordtran Counselor Dallas, TX $1,715,554
Richard Edward Jones Orthopaedic Surgery Dallas, TX $1,457,517
Regis William Haid JR. Neurological Surgery Atlanta, GA $1,252,971
Amar S. Ranawat Counselor New York, NY $1,216,534
Michael D. Ries Orthopaedic Surgery Carson City, NV $1,185,840
Douglas Edmund Padgett Counselor New York, NY $1,139,670
Carlos Jesus Lavernia Adult Reconstructive Orthopaedic Surgery Miami, FL $1,116,854
Roy W Sanders Orthopaedic Surgery Temple Terrace, FL $1,021,282
Thomas A Russell Orthopaedic Surgery Germantown, TN $1,017,736

While the reason for the prominence of orthopedic surgeons at the top of the list varies for each doctor, orthopedic surgery often involves cutting edge devices for things like knee and hip replacements, many of which are exceedingly expensive. In some cases, doctors are receiving thousands of dollars in royalties for these devices because they have a stake in the intellectual property rights. (This is separate from owning part a stake in the company itself, which is reported separately.)

The picture of which pharmaceutical company pays doctors the most is less clear because payments are often recorded under the name of the subsidiary company making the payment. DePuy Synthes, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson that manufactures orthopedic and neurosurgery devices, tops the list of companies making payments to doctors during the period with $34.5 million. Arthrex, Inc., a manufacturer of orthopedic surgical supplies, came in second with $15.5 million. Astra Zeneca and Pfizer are also among the top 10 with $15.3 million and $10.01 million respectively. This analysis does not include anonymized payments.

Company Total Payments State
DePuy Synthes Sales Inc. $34,542,816 Massachusetts
Arthrex, Inc. $15,506,504 Florida
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP $15,385,817 Deleware
Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc $13,778,926 Pennsylvania
Smith & Nephew, Inc. $12,020,808 Tennessee
Forest Laboratories, Inc. $10,398,208 California
Pfizer Inc. $10,017,632 New York
Allergan Inc. $9,709,723 California
Biomet, Inc. $9,675,365 Florida
Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Inc. $9,238,383 Maryland

Of all payments, $109 million is documented as “compensation for services other than consulting, including serving as faculty or as a speaker at a venue other than a continuing education program.” Consulting fees accounted for $91 million. Food and beverages accounted for $57.4 million, and travel and lodging accounted for $45 million. Because the disclosures require that the location of travel be disclosures, we are able to build a picture of where companies like to fly doctors for conferences, speeches, meetings, and other events:

City No. of Payments Total Payments
Chicago 7098 $2,182,736
New York 5757 $2,100,144
Dallas 5453 $1,333,772
Atlanta 4087 $1,056,913
Miami 3081 $930,366
San Diego 2751 $717,280
San Francisco 2696 $1,022,034
Las Vegas 2503 $750,983
Philadelphia 2478 $597,493
Houston 2368 $623,391

Data that was withheld because of unresolved disputes will be published in future disclosures.


Are You Making as Much Money as Your Friends?

Use this calculator to find out

The latest Census data on American incomes drove home a troubling fact: people aren’t making as much as they once did. The median household income in the United States in 2013 was $51,939, down 8 percent from 2007 when adjusted for inflation. Though the recession technically ended several years ago, large numbers of people continue to suffer from flat wages and rising prices.

But while the middle class continues to suffer, many slices of the population are doing better. Using individual-level Census data for 2008 to 2012—15 million records in total—TIME crunched the numbers for every demographic by gender, age, education and marital status.

The following calculator will tell you how your salary stacks up and how that’s changed over time. (The information you enter is not recorded. In fact, it never leaves your computer.)

These charts show individual personal income—money respondents received from any source—and only include people who worked full-time in a given year. (While unemployment was a tremendous scourge during the recession and its aftermath, including it here would confound an analysis of how income has changed.)

Since 2008, incomes have increased by 5.1 percent among all surveyed, while inflation rate over that time was 6.6 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistic figures. (In other words, if your income increased by less than 6.6 percent, you lost purchasing power over that period.) But not all groups are falling behind. Married women between ages 41-50 with professional degrees saw a 16.6 percent growth in income over the past five years, the largest gain of any subset of the population for which there were at least 1000 respondents in the data. At the opposite end of the spectrum, men between 22 and 25 with some college education but no degree saw their income fall by 16.7 percent.


Women are recovering from the recession slightly faster than men, though men make considerably more overall.

2008 2012 Change
Women $31,000 $32,500 4.8%
Men $43,000 $46,000 4.7%


Americans in their 20s saw the highest cut to their salaries since 2008.

2008 2012 Change
18-21 $12,200 $12,000 -1.6%
22-25 $23,000 $21,000 -8.7%
26-30 $32,000 $32,000 0%
30-35 $38,000 $39,500 3.9%
36-40 $41,000 $42,100 2.7%
41-50 $43,000 $45,000 4.7%
51-64 $45,000 $46,000 2.2%
65+ $41,400 $46,000 11.1%


Those with less education have recovered the slowest, if at all.

2008 2012 Change
Less than high school $23,000 $22,300 -3%
High school or equivalent $30,000 $30,000 0%
Some college, no degree $33,200 $33,000 -0.6%
Associates $40,000 $40,000 0%
Bachelors $50,000 $53,000 6%
Masters $65,000 $69,000 6.2%
Professional degree $100,000 $102,100 2.1%
Doctorate $88,000 $90,000 2.3%

Marital Status

Single Americans are generally younger than other demographics shown here. This is consistent with median income changes by age.

2008 2012 Change
Single (never Married) $26,400 $26,200 -0.8%
Married $43,000 $45,000 4.7%
Separated or Divorced $37,000 $38,300 3.5%
Widowed $34,000 $36,400 7.1%


The inputs for the calculator are determined by Census categories for gender, age, educational attainment, and marital status. The data was extracted from the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series project (full citation below). IPUMS aggregates individual-level responses from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, an annual sampling of 1 percent of the population. The complete codebook for the extract, which can be used to recreate the complete dataset, is available here.

The analysis is limited to those who were at least 18 years old and coded as a “5” or a “6” in the WKSWORK2 column, meaning they worked at least 48 weeks of the previous 12 months. To allow for a sufficient sample size, individual years of age were bucketed into the ranges displayed in the interactive. Some similar educational levels and marital statuses were also combined.

Once the data was bucketed and grouped by unique combinations of demographic traits—married women from 51-64 with an associate’s degree, for example—we took the median of all of their incomes. This involved first accounting for the fact that not every person has equal weight in the sample. IPUMS provides a PERWT variable. After adding each person to the pool a number of times equal to his or her statistical weight, we took the median of the pooled values. In almost all cases, this “weighted median” was very similar to a naïve median calculated by considering each respondent to have equal weight.

Figures were then spot checked by replicating this process from the raw data in two different computational platforms, R and Mathematica. Any subpopulation with fewer than 50 respondents is not included.


Miriam King, Steven Ruggles, J. Trent Alexander, Sarah Flood, Katie Genadek, Matthew B. Schroeder, Brandon Trampe, and Rebecca Vick. Integrated Public Use Microdata Series, Current Population Survey: Version 3.0. [Machine-readable database]. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 2010.


Watch Europe’s Borders Change Over 114 Years

As Scotland votes for independence, a look at the shifting lines that have divided the region's countries since 1900


Voting is now underway in Scotland to determine whether to cut ties with the United Kingdom. Should Scots vote to do so, they would become the last country to bedevil cartographers as the national boundaries in Europe continue to shift at a regular pace. The above map displays Europe’s border changes from the past 114 years, stretching back into the Ottoman Empire.


The years in the timeline were chosen to reflect each major shift in borders after wars or other geopolitical events. Maps prior to 1946 were provided by the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, maps after 1946 provided by The Geography of the International System: The CShapes Dataset.


Your browser is out of date. Please update your browser at http://update.microsoft.com