A Modest Proposal: Overturning Roe v Wade edition

The reason conservatives want the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v Wade and ban abortion (and those conservatives make no effort to make policies to help children) is simple: They want more babies born so they can eat the babies.

Not all conservatives, of course. Only the wealthy ones can afford baby meat.

Protecting Americans

There's a greater chance you'll be killed by a driver who's texting behind the wheel than by a terrorist. So when do the drone attacks against distracted motorists begin?

A special offer for next New Year's Eve

Do you have a friend or loved one who spent all of December 31st remarking about how every mundane activity he/she did was the "last time in 2011" and it started making you hope that Mayan apocalypse would strike just to get him/her to shut up about it? Well, reserve your spot for next New Year's Eve now with a new service that will take that person on or around December 30 and put him/her into a completely safe medically induced coma for the entirety of the 24 hours preceding 2013, thereby preventing that person from annoying you and others with their inane prattling about how "This is the last time I'll brush my teeth in 2012" (and the like). The person will be revived on January 1, 2013, believing he or she merely over indulged at a pre-New Year's celebration.

If you are concerned the tendency merely will be transferred into commentary about how, post-awakening, the person will note everything is the "first of 2013" (or make silly quips such as "Look at all this laundry left over from last year"), for a modest additional fee we will maintain the coma for the entire first week of January. (Note: This option requires that the person wake up in the hospital, with the cover story involving an accident at the hypothetical celebration. Please be prepared to play along.)

And if you wish that person to remain indefinitely incapacitated, just testify that he/she is suspected of terrorist activities. (Requires recurring monthly fees.)

Merely leave a comment. We'll be monitoring them and will contact you.

Your friends at Halliburton Industries. Your American government (thanks to that bill the president signed). Never mind who we are. Just know: We have the power to make next year better for you. Unless you are quipping about the every stupid little thing you do on the last day of the year.

Christmas carols (sort of)

"...Now bring us some figgy pudding
Now bring us some figgy pudding
Now bring us some figgy pudding before we pound your head into pudding!"

- Carolers whose anger management classes aren't proving effective

~

"I saw mommy kissing Santa Claus--"
"And I saw daddy file for divorce..."

- Caroler with some unresolved issues

~

Happy Christmas.

GOP gaffes: What the Perry and Cain moments taught us

Let's touch briefly on the "gaffes" by Rick Perry during the Republican debate last week and by Herman Cain two days ago during an interview.

That was no fodder for obvious mockery, nor for everyone had a good laugh about it. Let's acknowledge the reality of the situation: Everyone who was on the Perry bandwagon or the Cain bandwagon must be dissuaded by the lapse of memory or long pause; everyone who has dismissed Perry or Cain because of the incidents previously really considered them viable.

By no means was the only effect on the race to be the GOP nominee it might have had was allowing those who didn't consciously realize they didn't think Perry or Cain was the one to grasp that was how they actually thought.

Secret Muslim eats lunch

President Obama is such a secret Muslim that he's not fasting for Ramadan, because then it would tip us off about his clandenstine Islamic leanings. He's too clever for that--I mean, he fooled everyone well enough to get into the White House...

Sure, I'll wait while you go look up Ramadan...

Chestnuts roasted

If you live to be 93, Mel Tormé doesn't want you to have a Merry Christmas.

In one of the most covered songs of all time, his "The Christmas Song" the "simple phrase" of wishing the aforementioned Merry Christmas only extends "to kids from one to ninety-two." If you happen to live to see a 93rd year the writer of the song apparently thinks you've had enough merry Christmases.

Come December... well, it seems "the Velvet Fog" is offering another simple phrase for kids who are over 92: It hasn't been said but distinctly implied, it truly sucks to be you.

Go sit quietly for another seven years and maybe you'll get a mention on the Today Show.

~

Personally, I think you 93+ folks deserve as good a holiday as all those young whipper-snappers, but that's just me.

Same

Some acquaintances at work only found out about me even having a fiancée when they read the LA Times article about my cover-winning photo and saw the allusion to that in the text. (It's true. Long story. Not interesting. Moving on.) And while not every one of them actually asked me about that, and the ones who brought it up had slightly different approaches, there was one aspect of their investigation (of sorts) that was the same. In referring to my fiancée, they all used the term "her."

Now, this was entirely accurate; my fiancée is, in fact, female, and thus the pronoun is applicable for what it is representing. Why does that matter, you are undoubtedly wondering.

Upon realizing this subtle consistency I grasped why there are those who oppose same sex marriage. They may claim it's forbidden in the Bible or abominates the sanctity of marriage or that it serves as a harbinger for unions between humans and other species, but that's just skirting the issue. Really, they seek to avoid the embarrassment of alluding to an unidentified pending (or current) marriage partner and know that they can safely choose the gender-specific pronoun that is the opposite of the gender of the one with whom they are speaking.

As long as the homosexuals must use the term "partner" (rather than "fiancé" or "fiancée") those who don't know better can glean from the word choice that the person they're talking to could be in a long-term relationship with a person of the same sex (one where "boyfriend" or "girlfriend" would not be appropriate any longer).

And of course, eschewing an awkward exchange with someone they didn't realize was gay certainly justifies denying that person the same right to have that person's relationship be acknowledged by the state the same way that theirs is.

I get it now.

It's all a matter of taking the time to think about the other side and what's important to them in a way that relates to one's own experience, so we can see how really we are all the same.

Behind the wheel

To the motorists of Los Angeles:

When stopping at red lights, please continue to pull into the crosswalk. It's not really set aside for pedestrians like the DMV would have you believe; it's just ten extra feet for you to have to bring your vehicle to a full stop at the last possible moment.

We pedestrians don't mind having to walk around your car. We aren't bothered when you nearly run into us even when we have the green light. We grasp when you're behind the wheel you are relieved of paying attention to anyone else.

You certainly shouldn't feel the slightest need to modify your behavior, or even to comply with those silly laws.

We apologize for being in your way. We hope you can find it in your heart to forgive us for inconveniencing you by traveling on foot instead of being in another car.

What were we thinking? We really should learn to be more like you and not think.

Pleasant driving. Now please return to that cell phone call you were making...

Leave a message at the beep

Nothing is more apt to persuade someone who has left an asinine comment on a message board that he was wrong than using the phrase "you are a douche bag" to conclude your counter-argument.

Better still is too make "douchebag" into a single term. That's twisting the rhetorical knife.

XXXpensive

Open letter to the publishers of the LA X…Press newspaper regarding their pricing policies:

Dear sirs/madams/hermaphrodites,

For many years I have passed the boxes of your publication located on the streets of metropolitan Los Angeles and the surrounding environs (especially in the portion of L.A. identified as Hollywood, which I know is where your offices are located, having also passed them). The ubiquity of the boxes certainly makes a statement about the level of dedication you devote to making your product available as much as possible. Although I do not consider myself to be in your target demographic, as I am not inclined to get a massage from someone with a both sets of genitalia, I have long been performing a certain unintentional monitoring your weekly publications. So, to the extent that your efforts have provided a formidable presence in the marketplace (so to speak), you have succeeded in making the public aware of what you offer. Bravo on that count.

However, I couldn't help but notice rather dramatic disparities in the pricing structure of the papers in the boxes, and I fear this is adversely affecting your profit potential. For example, on Sunset Boulevard, not far from your offices, I saw a box where the slot for payment identified the price at 25 cents.
Certainly a reasonable price for a publication with four-color covers at least intermittently featuring women who are not completely unattractive. However, not even 50 feet down the street is another box with an open cover that offers the exact same issue for free.
Not only that, but the free box is in slightly better condition (if you overlook the graffiti); with the graffiti covering the window on the first box and the scuffed paint, it is practically directing potential customers to keep walking and go to the somewhat less off-putting second box to get it free. There you have just lost a quarter, and that's just on one issue.

I think it imprudent to mix the "teaser" free boxes and the pay boxes in such proximity, but if you insist, it seems you should invest the effort to make the pay boxes more attractive. I think the sort of person who would be seeking companionship offered in your pages is probably aesthetically inclined, and thus would be drawn to a more presentable box, and that any costs would be more than recouped down the road.

Farther away, in downtown L.A., the boxes are generally not in much better shape than the aforementioned pay box, but on those the price is listed at 50 cents—and it's written with black permanent marker, which just makes it look unprofessional, and hardly justifies doubling the price. (Even if it is still cheaper than the competition right next to your box.)
I understand it's farther for your delivery personnel to go to stock the boxes, but this is clearly working against your profitability. Your customers who cannot get to Hollywood deserve better if they must pay more, but I think charging more there is casting your policies in a bad light for those who travel to both locations. Surely you must realize that your potential readership is mobile, but they shouldn't have to drive that far to get a fair price.

Speaking of traveling, I will also point out that down in Long Beach your boxes are in similarly poor shape and there the price noted is all the may up to 75 cents (again, in sloppily composed marker).
I'm not sure what message you are trying to send to the denizens of that beach community, but at triple the cost of the same product available elsewhere, I can only conclude you do not think they are not that observant, but do not overestimate the effect of sun screen on their ability to pay attention; you will not sell very many there. I grasp that you must try to make more per copy to compensate, but ultimately you are shooting yourself in the proverbial foot in the customer aggravation caused by not having a more uniform price point.

Certainly, you make some money from the ads for adult entertainers that make up the majority of your pages, but imagine what improvements you could make to the editorial staff if you sold more copies. I don't mean to be overly critical, but on the one issue I actually read, the copy editor really left much to be desired when it came to the grammatically challenged TV reviews and editorial pieces. Clearly you strive to be taken more seriously from a journalistic standpoint, but the only way you'll lure writers who can use punctuation properly is to be able to pay higher than what I presume is the going rate of a free lap dance.

Obviously you are doing well enough that you have continued to publish, week after week, for many years now. However, I cannot help but think you are destined for bigger things, and these shoddy pricing practices are ultimately keeping you stuck in the rut in which you find yourselves. The necessary steps are easy, but you must be willing to take them.

I hope you will consider these suggestions carefully. I believe they could catapult you to the point where non-transvestite strippers would advertise in your publication (although there should always be room for the transvestites; they have been the backbone of your support, at least as far as I could tell from that one issue I read years ago). I trust you will not allow the fact that I have only one set of genitals to cause you to dismiss the recommendations I have made.

Best wishes,

Doug

Hands off

On the walk to the station this evening I saw a bumper sticker on a Cal Trans vehicle that read "There's no excuse for domestic violence."

While I don't disagree with the premise, I have to question the efficacy of such methods of persuasion; it's not like stickers promoting beating the wife are that prevalent (although that message may be implicit in a lot of the decorations on pickup trucks).

I have to conclude that anyone who refrains from smacking the kids from merely seeing a pithy message of disapproval was not really committed to the act in the first place.

That, or the little brats finally got the hint and stopped mouthing off, so it no longer proved necessary.

Open letter to my readers about a ficticious open letter to my co-workers

The following is something I just submitted to McSweeney's on Tuesday for possible inclusion on their site. Today they very kindly told me they're passing on it. (I was impressed to hear from them about a rejection, and so quickly.)

As my standards here are... well, let's just say not as discriminating... I present it here for your boredom alleviation (if not entertainment). I'll even change the font to imitate how it would have looked (sort of) on their site.

That's kind of pathetic, I know.


Open letter to the people at the office regarding my lack of attendance at the holiday party:

First, allow me to express my gratitude to those of you who keep insisting the festivities just weren't the same without me. I suppose I underestimated how much you enjoyed in past years my grand exhibitions on the dance floor, and how the pictures I snapped of all of us out there dancing proved to be the best way to capture the event. It's true: Those posed shots the "professional" photographer took of everyone as they came in, looking so nice, always seemed a hollow representation of the evening's festivities. Only a frozen moment of Sam from accounting doing the Macarena makes it look like anyone had any fun.

Thus, I feel some compulsion to apologize for not attending this year's party. I cannot help but think that in a way I let you down. From the reports I have heard, the party—while pleasant, certainly—was not as good as last year. Of course, with the cutbacks that forced the party to be held in an abandoned warehouse—I mean, "industrial ballroom"—it is perhaps unavoidable that some level of letdown was inevitable. Still, many of you have made it clear that my absence was definitely felt by those who were there. That's very flattering, I assure you.

However, I must get to the matter at hand. It has come to my attention that a rumor has been circulating that the reason I was not at the party was due to a photo I snapped of the boss at last year's party in a pose that, as best anyone could tell, was him attempting to "vogue" (and that it was taken when the DJ was playing "Baby Got Back"), and because of that I was forbidden by management from attending this year. That is a vicious rumor, started by those with a vivid imagination.

The reason I could not be at the party was due to out-of-town relatives visiting the evening of the party, and there was no other time when I would be able to see them during this joyous holiday season. Had the opportunity to reschedule with them been available, I most certainly would have made every effort to come to the party with you hideously dull people and taken more pictures of your drunken exploits so I could blackmail specific individuals, which in past years has allowed me to afford the gifts I purchased for my family and people I actually like.

Missing the party was quite a blow to my holiday budget, let me tell you. The holidays won't be quite so happy around my house this year.

I hope this clears up everything. Happy Holidays.

Doug

P.S. The DJ was actually playing "Dancing Queen" during that shot of the boss last year. Where these ridiculous details find their origin I'll never know.

Classic humor alert

I've added a couple satire pieces I wrote back in college (over a decade ago) to the archives, which you can read by clicking here and here.

Just FYI.

On the off-chance you have any interest in that sort of thing.

If you're desperate for entertainment.

(It's funnier if you attended Long Beach State back then, but you'll still get it even without being an alumnus.)

Grunion: Coming soon to the Student Union

[The following appeared on the Grunion (satire page of the Long Beach Union, student paper at Long Beach State), September 23, 1996]

[click on the image to bring up a somewhat clearer image--if you dare!]

[or maybe click here to see a flickr posting that might be even more legible]

Grunion: CSU trustees to order school uniforms

[The following is from the Grunion (satire page--at least it was at the time--of the Long Beach Union, student newspaper at Long Beach State), published March 4, 1996]

CSU trustees to order school uniforms
By Morty Arthur

Grossly influenced by President Clinton’s remarks during a recent visit to a local school, the California State University Board of Trustees has tentatively approved a plan to require CSU students to wear uniforms while on campus, a spokesperson inadvertently mentioned while drunk at a local pub.

The trustees intend to implement a test run of the plan next semester here at CSULB, envious of the attention bestowed upon Long Beach’s Jackie Robinson Academy for being the first school to mandate student wardrobe.

“We heard Clinton commending them for this uniform thing, and we got this idea,” the spokesperson uttered. “Yeah, we did. Not the UC Regents, us. We’re sick of the UC Regents always making decisions and getting the glory. We can do stuff, too. We didn’t get rid of affirmative action like they did—although that was because we got bribes.”

Addressing the decision behind using CSULB as the experiment, the spokesperson stated, “Obviously, kids in Long Beach will do anything anybody tells ‘em, so we figured the college kids must be equally spineless. Hell, I can’t believe the students at Cal State Long Beach can still enunciate, considering what’s really coming out that power plant they call a water heater.” The spokesperson then laughed maniacally and staggered off to the restroom before he could elaborate.

We he returned (his fly open), I asked him if the Trustees intended to ease racial tension on campus, as were the findings in the lower grades. “Tension-smension, as long as we’re rich,” he replied.

The spokesperson rambled on semi-deliriously, grasping his glass as though it were a jewel. I was forced to threaten him with the wrath of the genie of the lamp to get him to explain. Staring absently at the broken Zima neon sign, he noted that the appeal of the uniforms for the Trustees was the opportunity to sell advertising on the uniforms, much like riders in the Tour de France, from which the Trustees would receive a percentage.

He alluded to the arrangement Sprint has made with a number of universities, including CSULB, whereby they can advertise on the student i.d. cards. Apparently, many large corporations were “very interested” by the idea, seeing the college-aged consumers as a lucrative demographic.

“That’s all they’re good for,” the spokesperson concluded, “so the sooner they accept that fact, the better for the companies.”

I added that it was also better for the trustees. The spokesperson resumed staring at the Zima sign and smiling.

When asked how they intended to get the university students to comply with the plan, the spokesperson fell off his barstool, spilling his drink, and convulsed with laughter on the floor. After I helped him up and he ordered another round, he wiped the tears from his eyes and announced, “We’re the fuckin’ trustees. We can do anything we want. The students have never stopped us from raising tuition. They the losers who couldn’t get into decent schools. What can they do?”

I said they could drop out, thus reducing the revenues from tuition.

“Yeah, sure,” the spokesperson retorted. “We’ve got ‘em all so convinced that the only way to succeed is to get a degree—even though they’ll just end up in some dead-end job anyway—that they’d be too scared to do that. Weren’t you listening? They can’t even coordinate a letter campaign over tuition. They’re not gonna rock the boat.”

When asked if some of the uniform advertising would be used to offset costs and keep tuitions from rising, the spokesperson said, “That’s what we’re gonna tell ‘em.”

The African-American waitress who was serving us overheard part of the conversation and noted she was a CSULB student.

Upon hearing this, the spokesperson mentioned he might be able to help her, if she was willing to “comply with the trustees’ wishes.”

The waitress told him perform an anatomically-impossible act, to which he unadvisedly replied, “Look, if it wasn’t for us keeping Affirmative Action, your kind couldn’t have even gotten into that school!”

The waitress proceeded to strike the spokesperson in the head with her tray. He was knocked unconscious, and as he lay sprawled on the floor, I told the waitress he would cover my tab.

Remember to act surprised when the new uniform policy is unveiled.