Go ahead, say it. You'll be doing us all a favor.
We were about to start the tagging and tracking program. But identification remained a dilemma. "Where to start?" the interns said. "And what if, in our haste, we tag the wrong person?"
Judging human potential is as morally wrong as it is mathematically unsound. Hence the tracking that follows the tagging. We assume that at some future point you might well have something to contribute. But we can't have you fooling people into giving anything you have to offer any credence. You must be tagged, if only to warn potential listeners. The identification was to be based on a combination of factors: your musical tastes; your blind acceptance of dogmatic jargon from any source; your susceptibility to propaganda from either side; your bumper stickers; ETC.
It was a complex social algorithm that involved hundreds of hours before we could even tranquilize you and attach the tracking tag to your ear. The Operation was on the verge of becoming prohibitively expensive.
But you just saved us the trouble.
By suggesting that America caused or allowed populated areas to flood on the basis of race, by shooting off charges of racism in a time when people should be coming together, you have labeled yourself officially "Irrelevant to the Public Discourse." If you have recently used a natural disaster to make political hay of any kind, you can expect a brief reprieve while a minor jurisdictional dispute is settled. Just bear in mind: it is highly probable that the "Loathsome Mass of Putrid Sludge Where Your Soul Should Be" tagging study will get to you first.
We appreciate your assistance in this matter. The tagging teams have been dispatched. Enjoy your time in the cellar beneath the Arena of Ideas. We look forward to your reinstatement in what is most likely the very distant future.
dimanche, septembre 18, 2005
vendredi, août 26, 2005
Learn a new word everyday.
The word of the day is PIMPNOTIZE.
It refers to the mental effect a dope-ass pimp has on his humble employees. When a ho can't say no, even when she know he a bad man. She been pimpnotized.
By extension, if a non pimp has mesmerized you in any way, and you have, against your better judgment, complied with his wishes in any way--you may have been pimpnotized.
You might hear it pronounced with an M. Pimp-mo-tized. This is accepted, and in some places may even be the predominant usage, but it is, technically, an linguistical error. Pay close attention, whereas in some areas it may behoove you to adopt the local pronunciation.
It is considered poor decorum for a man to refer to himself as a pimpnotizer. This title should only be conferred by the pimpnotized, and to claim the title on one's own can only mean that one is, as it were, compensating.
The word can be particularly effective when attempting to warn a friend of her imminent descension into an unhealthy relation, or relationship. As in, "Baby, don't let yourself be pimpnotized by this loser! He flash alotta bling, but he ain't no good!"
Immediate implementation is encouraged.
Word.
It refers to the mental effect a dope-ass pimp has on his humble employees. When a ho can't say no, even when she know he a bad man. She been pimpnotized.
By extension, if a non pimp has mesmerized you in any way, and you have, against your better judgment, complied with his wishes in any way--you may have been pimpnotized.
You might hear it pronounced with an M. Pimp-mo-tized. This is accepted, and in some places may even be the predominant usage, but it is, technically, an linguistical error. Pay close attention, whereas in some areas it may behoove you to adopt the local pronunciation.
It is considered poor decorum for a man to refer to himself as a pimpnotizer. This title should only be conferred by the pimpnotized, and to claim the title on one's own can only mean that one is, as it were, compensating.
The word can be particularly effective when attempting to warn a friend of her imminent descension into an unhealthy relation, or relationship. As in, "Baby, don't let yourself be pimpnotized by this loser! He flash alotta bling, but he ain't no good!"
Immediate implementation is encouraged.
Word.
vendredi, juillet 29, 2005
The President is Dumb
Guess what? The President is dumb!
(In this place, I would traditionally insert some attempt at comedy, or insight, or some combination of the two. But given the genius--the originality--of the opening line, I see fit to pause, and bask in the white hot light of my discovery.)
This president is so dumb . . .
(Listen as the audience thirstily laps up the cavalcade. "How dumb is he?" you ask, bursting at the seems. The expectation is palpable. Nowhere have you seen such incisive wit. You've heard him flub lines. You saw him holding the book upside down. But no one thought to make a joke out of it! The combination of surprise and thanks turns the masses into mush. I don't even need to make the chimp comparisons, not that it would be redundant--certainly it wouldn't! It would sparkle fresh like the opening zinger, but I need to move on to something with even more show stopping glitter on it.)
INSERT *EVIL RICH WHITE GUY JOKE OR REFERENCE*
(Go ahead, faint. Take a breath. It's OK. I know you didn't see it coming. I don't even need to state the joke. The deft originality of the framework is enough. So many people--certainly the idiots who have met him or spent any time with him--forget that he is, in very fact, an evil rich white guy. At this point you'll forgive a brief pat on my own back. I could have directed my trenchant tongue to some easy target, some rampaged comedic territory so well traveled by others. But no: I took the hard, insightful road. The high road. You know, it isn't easy breaking ground. PS: You're Welcome!)
Bill Clinton was an overweight womanizer!
(Didn't know that either, did you! For eight years of the previous administration you sat back, and, while you couldn't elucidate your thoughts, deep down, your silent self wondered quietly "Why is no one making fun of the President's weight, or his penchant for turning every woman within the reach of his greasy hilbilly fingers into a sexual object?" And then here I come out of nowhere, busting loose with a dirty/fat joke--in the same sentence! I'll wait a moment while you to regain your composure. I don't even have time for my Pakistani-QuickyMart-Owner impression--we'll have to take on the threat of global terrorism later)
If only we could combine the best qualities of the last two presidents. Think of the Evil-Rich-Fat-Womanizing-Dumbass jokes that could be told!
Alas, I would be the only one telling them.
(In this place, I would traditionally insert some attempt at comedy, or insight, or some combination of the two. But given the genius--the originality--of the opening line, I see fit to pause, and bask in the white hot light of my discovery.)
This president is so dumb . . .
(Listen as the audience thirstily laps up the cavalcade. "How dumb is he?" you ask, bursting at the seems. The expectation is palpable. Nowhere have you seen such incisive wit. You've heard him flub lines. You saw him holding the book upside down. But no one thought to make a joke out of it! The combination of surprise and thanks turns the masses into mush. I don't even need to make the chimp comparisons, not that it would be redundant--certainly it wouldn't! It would sparkle fresh like the opening zinger, but I need to move on to something with even more show stopping glitter on it.)
INSERT *EVIL RICH WHITE GUY JOKE OR REFERENCE*
(Go ahead, faint. Take a breath. It's OK. I know you didn't see it coming. I don't even need to state the joke. The deft originality of the framework is enough. So many people--certainly the idiots who have met him or spent any time with him--forget that he is, in very fact, an evil rich white guy. At this point you'll forgive a brief pat on my own back. I could have directed my trenchant tongue to some easy target, some rampaged comedic territory so well traveled by others. But no: I took the hard, insightful road. The high road. You know, it isn't easy breaking ground. PS: You're Welcome!)
Bill Clinton was an overweight womanizer!
(Didn't know that either, did you! For eight years of the previous administration you sat back, and, while you couldn't elucidate your thoughts, deep down, your silent self wondered quietly "Why is no one making fun of the President's weight, or his penchant for turning every woman within the reach of his greasy hilbilly fingers into a sexual object?" And then here I come out of nowhere, busting loose with a dirty/fat joke--in the same sentence! I'll wait a moment while you to regain your composure. I don't even have time for my Pakistani-QuickyMart-Owner impression--we'll have to take on the threat of global terrorism later)
If only we could combine the best qualities of the last two presidents. Think of the Evil-Rich-Fat-Womanizing-Dumbass jokes that could be told!
Alas, I would be the only one telling them.
vendredi, juillet 08, 2005
Fawlty Towers
The Supreme Court just put every house in America up for sale.
I was distressed about this. But buns cradled gently in stretchy black corduroy cannot long clench, nor quiver. Soon enough, a little voice whispered: "You do not live on prime, hotel ready property."
If only we could amend the law to stipulate that any hotel built on eminent domain property be run by a Basil Fawlty kind of character, with a documented minimum for wacky antics and subtle class commentary, I would have no problem whatsoever with the Court's decision.
The problem is that there really is only one John Cleese (as John Laroquette so unfortunately proved), and such a wealth of eminently seizable hotel-ready property. I don't think Mr. Cleese is up to running a hotel any more. He is currently enjoying pretty sweet retirement, living off royalties and occasionally posting a blog about how stupid Americans are. He might be induced to invest in the Supreme Court Inn & Resort hotel chain, but if he's not personally running the hotel, then count me out.
I just keep wondering: Was the seized house an eyesore? Seriously, because there are some real dumps behind my house in our otherwise charming little Colfax neighborhood. I'm quite sure that a lovely Bed & Breakfast with a quaint garden fountain would be in the best interests of our town. But then the little voice returns, and reminds me that, sadly, the Supreme Court hotel chain will most like not have my town on their acquisition list.
If we're lucky, this new interpretation of the Constitution might someday result in the seizing of ugly houses that are detrimental to property values.
That's my problem. I want freedom for everyone except the low income white trash shack dwellers and their unsightly TV antennae that sully my view of the canyon.
Maybe if Ben Franklin had left Jefferson's original "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of PROPERTY" line alone, we wouldn't be having to fret about this.
I was distressed about this. But buns cradled gently in stretchy black corduroy cannot long clench, nor quiver. Soon enough, a little voice whispered: "You do not live on prime, hotel ready property."
If only we could amend the law to stipulate that any hotel built on eminent domain property be run by a Basil Fawlty kind of character, with a documented minimum for wacky antics and subtle class commentary, I would have no problem whatsoever with the Court's decision.
The problem is that there really is only one John Cleese (as John Laroquette so unfortunately proved), and such a wealth of eminently seizable hotel-ready property. I don't think Mr. Cleese is up to running a hotel any more. He is currently enjoying pretty sweet retirement, living off royalties and occasionally posting a blog about how stupid Americans are. He might be induced to invest in the Supreme Court Inn & Resort hotel chain, but if he's not personally running the hotel, then count me out.
I just keep wondering: Was the seized house an eyesore? Seriously, because there are some real dumps behind my house in our otherwise charming little Colfax neighborhood. I'm quite sure that a lovely Bed & Breakfast with a quaint garden fountain would be in the best interests of our town. But then the little voice returns, and reminds me that, sadly, the Supreme Court hotel chain will most like not have my town on their acquisition list.
If we're lucky, this new interpretation of the Constitution might someday result in the seizing of ugly houses that are detrimental to property values.
That's my problem. I want freedom for everyone except the low income white trash shack dwellers and their unsightly TV antennae that sully my view of the canyon.
Maybe if Ben Franklin had left Jefferson's original "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of PROPERTY" line alone, we wouldn't be having to fret about this.
samedi, juin 18, 2005
This Time I'm Not Wearing ANY Pants
Finish these sentences.
1) If everyone who disagrees with you has been "duped," or "fooled," or otherwise misled, then . . .
2) People who automatically assume that everyone who disagrees with them is their enemy are . . .
3) When someone has a positive view about a politician I happen to despise, I can safely assume they are . . .
4) A knee jerk reaction of any sort proves that an invividual is . . .
You are being graded.
I took a recent Bill Moyers speech, and switched around two or three of his repeated points and catch phrases. Read it again and you have a classic Rush Limbaugh monologue. The fact that both men--not to mention their many devotees--would be offended by this little excercise is baffling. Don't blame me. I don't write their stuff.
You might hear people railing against the news, judging others by where they get theirs. One group will trash another for watching Fox News, or listening to AM Radio. Ask them: Where do you get your news? The Daily Show. It's like a monkey looking in a mirror.
ASIDE:
News was, ostensibly, facts, right?. How can there be two sides to facts? Since when do we need a network,a radio host, or a comedian, interpreting for us? I like the competition between the networks, but I wonder exactly what they're competing for? Ratings is the most obvious answer, but that doesn't seem to cover it. An event unrolls the same no matter whose camera is on it. Why should they frame it for us? Trusting any of them makes you a fool. John Stewart might be a very intelligent man, and one of the finest comedic minds of the new millenium, but, like Limbaugh, he still says one thing with his mouth, and quite another with his ass. "Don't take me for the news, this is comedy! Oh, by the way, all the news networks are screwed up, so, between you and me . . ."
Political affiliations bloomed so that one person could say to another: "We have a fundamentally different philosophy." Then the two would shake hands and hope that whichever philosophy was implemented by the majority would achieve thier fundamentally identical goals for the common good, as the two working together kept each other in check. (I know this is an oversimplification, but anyone looking at the roots is bound to say they are an oversimplification of the tree.) Modern partisanship exists only to allow its denizens to formulate and verbalize a boat load of ridiculous, irresponsible assumptions and stereotypes. That is the full extent of your political affiliations in the year 2005. Sorry.
My brother tells me "Air America gives quotes, they let people crucify themselves. Listen to right wing radio, they only give their interpretation, they rarely use actual soundbites." So I took a day off from belting out Keane songs at the top of my lungs and took a listen. It took less than half an hour before the righties had played 4 or 5 soundbites from their "enemies" in their entirety, and quoted several more. My brother is an intelligent person. One of the most intelligent I know. I'm sure he wouldn't let himself fall into the category of people who constantly, openly berate and despise entities like Fox News--until you embarass them by asking how much Fox News they actually watch. (I don't watch it either, but when you bore me with how evil you think it is, you give me the right to ask if your opinion is based on anything.)
Truly, there are unfortunate results when humble, searching intelligence takes a back seat to ideology.
For instance, you might assume that Republicans are racist, forgetting that African Americans were predominantly republican until Nixon. You might assume that Democrats want your tax money, forgetting that Kennedy was one of the bigger tax cutting presidents of all time. Republicans are anti environment? A republican gave us the EPA. The list goes on and on.
The advantage of the two party system was that there was a party of increased government, and a party of limited government. (Peripheral social issues were to be relegated, for the most part, to non government.) That reasonable and necessary dichotomy no longer exists. If you still think there are dynamic differences in the political modus of either party, just wait.
One side of your mind can't stay on vacation forever.
At some point the social splinter issues you have permitted to define your political affiliation will switch sides, and you will open both eyes, and hear yourself saying:
"Wait a minute! Politics is supposed to be about GOVERNMENT."
Or you might open the other ear, and hear honest people saying what they earnestly believe, and realize they are not evil, or even ignorant, but searching, like you, for the greater good. You'll find that a republican doesn't hate Mother Earth. That democrats don't necessarily want to go around ripping the fetuses out of pregnant women. That no one is really Pro-war. Or pro-abortion. Or anti-woman. Or anti-environment. Surely, there are evil people on both sides. And there is trash on both sides. But the selfishness and blindness of such people make them historically irrelevant (not to mention mean spirited, loud, ridiculous, and very often fashionable).
It should make them politically irrelevant as well, but it doesn't.
Because we keep falling for their tripe.
1) If everyone who disagrees with you has been "duped," or "fooled," or otherwise misled, then . . .
2) People who automatically assume that everyone who disagrees with them is their enemy are . . .
3) When someone has a positive view about a politician I happen to despise, I can safely assume they are . . .
4) A knee jerk reaction of any sort proves that an invividual is . . .
You are being graded.
I took a recent Bill Moyers speech, and switched around two or three of his repeated points and catch phrases. Read it again and you have a classic Rush Limbaugh monologue. The fact that both men--not to mention their many devotees--would be offended by this little excercise is baffling. Don't blame me. I don't write their stuff.
You might hear people railing against the news, judging others by where they get theirs. One group will trash another for watching Fox News, or listening to AM Radio. Ask them: Where do you get your news? The Daily Show. It's like a monkey looking in a mirror.
ASIDE:
News was, ostensibly, facts, right?. How can there be two sides to facts? Since when do we need a network,a radio host, or a comedian, interpreting for us? I like the competition between the networks, but I wonder exactly what they're competing for? Ratings is the most obvious answer, but that doesn't seem to cover it. An event unrolls the same no matter whose camera is on it. Why should they frame it for us? Trusting any of them makes you a fool. John Stewart might be a very intelligent man, and one of the finest comedic minds of the new millenium, but, like Limbaugh, he still says one thing with his mouth, and quite another with his ass. "Don't take me for the news, this is comedy! Oh, by the way, all the news networks are screwed up, so, between you and me . . ."
Political affiliations bloomed so that one person could say to another: "We have a fundamentally different philosophy." Then the two would shake hands and hope that whichever philosophy was implemented by the majority would achieve thier fundamentally identical goals for the common good, as the two working together kept each other in check. (I know this is an oversimplification, but anyone looking at the roots is bound to say they are an oversimplification of the tree.) Modern partisanship exists only to allow its denizens to formulate and verbalize a boat load of ridiculous, irresponsible assumptions and stereotypes. That is the full extent of your political affiliations in the year 2005. Sorry.
My brother tells me "Air America gives quotes, they let people crucify themselves. Listen to right wing radio, they only give their interpretation, they rarely use actual soundbites." So I took a day off from belting out Keane songs at the top of my lungs and took a listen. It took less than half an hour before the righties had played 4 or 5 soundbites from their "enemies" in their entirety, and quoted several more. My brother is an intelligent person. One of the most intelligent I know. I'm sure he wouldn't let himself fall into the category of people who constantly, openly berate and despise entities like Fox News--until you embarass them by asking how much Fox News they actually watch. (I don't watch it either, but when you bore me with how evil you think it is, you give me the right to ask if your opinion is based on anything.)
Truly, there are unfortunate results when humble, searching intelligence takes a back seat to ideology.
For instance, you might assume that Republicans are racist, forgetting that African Americans were predominantly republican until Nixon. You might assume that Democrats want your tax money, forgetting that Kennedy was one of the bigger tax cutting presidents of all time. Republicans are anti environment? A republican gave us the EPA. The list goes on and on.
The advantage of the two party system was that there was a party of increased government, and a party of limited government. (Peripheral social issues were to be relegated, for the most part, to non government.) That reasonable and necessary dichotomy no longer exists. If you still think there are dynamic differences in the political modus of either party, just wait.
One side of your mind can't stay on vacation forever.
At some point the social splinter issues you have permitted to define your political affiliation will switch sides, and you will open both eyes, and hear yourself saying:
"Wait a minute! Politics is supposed to be about GOVERNMENT."
Or you might open the other ear, and hear honest people saying what they earnestly believe, and realize they are not evil, or even ignorant, but searching, like you, for the greater good. You'll find that a republican doesn't hate Mother Earth. That democrats don't necessarily want to go around ripping the fetuses out of pregnant women. That no one is really Pro-war. Or pro-abortion. Or anti-woman. Or anti-environment. Surely, there are evil people on both sides. And there is trash on both sides. But the selfishness and blindness of such people make them historically irrelevant (not to mention mean spirited, loud, ridiculous, and very often fashionable).
It should make them politically irrelevant as well, but it doesn't.
Because we keep falling for their tripe.
dimanche, juin 05, 2005
The Dark Side of the Force
It became apparent that at least two thematic elements of the postings were diametrically opposed. Blogs such as The Apricot Tree are now in better company on another blog, called Leavings.
This dealio is for girl's pants and related sass. Take it or leave it.
But for those who perseverate, there may be a gold sequined G-string in your future. What else do you wear under pants like these?
Has anyone seen that photo being circulated on the "Internet" of two Iraqi children, holding a sign that reads: "Still safer here than at Michael Jackson's house."
There is an American Soldier yukking in the background. I suppose one's take on it depends entirely upon whether you thrice daily crap your pants over who is president, or not. As a public service, we hereby provide sundry captions you can attach to the photo if you are unfortunate enough to have a "friend" who loves you enough to send it to you.
Version 1: Funny--but when Michael is acquitted and his comeback is complete, you'll be eating those words.
Version 2: When Michael releases his groundbreaking Live from Folsom Prison album, you'll jump right back on the bandwagon.
Version 3: Those boys have nothing to worry about, they're too brown for Michael.
Version 4: The military is just trying to innoculate you against the horrific injustice of their upcoming attack on the Neverland Ranch.
Version 5: So the WMD's were hidden in the Neverland Ranch all along?
Version 6: Is that a soldier or a Daily Show correspondent?
Version 7: A recently leaked memo from the Pentagon reveals the depth and scope of this embarrasing cover up. The soldier in the photo is a minute man, and the so-called Iraqi children are actually migrant workers from Mexico.
Version 8: I didn't know we had threatened them with weekends at Michael Jackson's (now THAT's propaganda!).
Version 9: "Dearest Michael, This little picture is the way the Illuminati have chosen to inform you that your application for membership has been officially rejected. Sorry Michael, you're out. No more cuddle parties with W and the rest of the Evil Whities you've tried so desperately to join. You've just got too much baggage, man. And they were starting to wonder if your contact with the Aliens wasn't just a little trumped up on your application. Shouldn't they have ended this trial with fire from above already? If you are indeed acquitted, you can re-apply in 6 months, but the standard 25 million dollar filing fee will again be applied. In the mean time, please cease and desist any and all contact with Saddam Hussein."
I have to get a haircut.
LOVE WINS!
This dealio is for girl's pants and related sass. Take it or leave it.
But for those who perseverate, there may be a gold sequined G-string in your future. What else do you wear under pants like these?
Has anyone seen that photo being circulated on the "Internet" of two Iraqi children, holding a sign that reads: "Still safer here than at Michael Jackson's house."
There is an American Soldier yukking in the background. I suppose one's take on it depends entirely upon whether you thrice daily crap your pants over who is president, or not. As a public service, we hereby provide sundry captions you can attach to the photo if you are unfortunate enough to have a "friend" who loves you enough to send it to you.
Version 1: Funny--but when Michael is acquitted and his comeback is complete, you'll be eating those words.
Version 2: When Michael releases his groundbreaking Live from Folsom Prison album, you'll jump right back on the bandwagon.
Version 3: Those boys have nothing to worry about, they're too brown for Michael.
Version 4: The military is just trying to innoculate you against the horrific injustice of their upcoming attack on the Neverland Ranch.
Version 5: So the WMD's were hidden in the Neverland Ranch all along?
Version 6: Is that a soldier or a Daily Show correspondent?
Version 7: A recently leaked memo from the Pentagon reveals the depth and scope of this embarrasing cover up. The soldier in the photo is a minute man, and the so-called Iraqi children are actually migrant workers from Mexico.
Version 8: I didn't know we had threatened them with weekends at Michael Jackson's (now THAT's propaganda!).
Version 9: "Dearest Michael, This little picture is the way the Illuminati have chosen to inform you that your application for membership has been officially rejected. Sorry Michael, you're out. No more cuddle parties with W and the rest of the Evil Whities you've tried so desperately to join. You've just got too much baggage, man. And they were starting to wonder if your contact with the Aliens wasn't just a little trumped up on your application. Shouldn't they have ended this trial with fire from above already? If you are indeed acquitted, you can re-apply in 6 months, but the standard 25 million dollar filing fee will again be applied. In the mean time, please cease and desist any and all contact with Saddam Hussein."
I have to get a haircut.
LOVE WINS!
S'abonner à :
Messages (Atom)
