DECEMBER 2001: AIRLINE SECURITY

On 9/11 you could hijack a plane with a box cutter, now you'd probably fail even with a gun.   Passengers thinking they're being routed to Cuba or held for ransom are not as likely to fight if they think the plane's going to be deliberately crashed.   The rules changed in a matter of hours.   The passengers on Flight 93 suspected what was going to happen and fought the hijackers.

With that in mind I think they're going about airport security all wrong.   They need to take the focus off the passengers and work on securing the cockpit.   If a hijacker can't gain control of the plane he can't do much more damage than he could hijacking a city bus.   Obviously passengers need to be screened but beyond checking ID's, running people through a metal detector and bags through x-ray there's not much point.   A hijacker can hurt or kill individual passengers with a pen, a rolled up magazine or even bare-handed martial arts.   You can't possibly keep everything that can be used as a weapon off the plane.

You want to make flying safe?   Add three features to the planes; a secure cockpit door,a video surveillance system and anesthetic gas dispensers in the passenger compartment.   When Mohamed bin Gotehumper pulls his box cutter and threatens the passengers the pilot releases the gas and lands the plane, end of problem.

Speaking of gassing people, why are we so worried about Taliban and terrorists hiding out in caves?   Stick an industrial sized fan in the cave mouth, pile up a few dozen old tires behind it and set them on fire.   No more problems finding the back exits.   Just look for the black smoke and the gagging bad guys.

I keep seeing news items about protesters in the Middle East that hate America and appluad the terrorist attacks.   I think we're missing an opportunity here.   We need to be actively encourging these people to go to Afghanistan and fight for the Taliban.   Since we know they'll be wiped out there'd be that many fewer back-stabbing fanatics running around.   While we're at it we should open up schools for suicide bombers.   We could teach them exactly how to blow themselves up before setting out to murder innocent people.

NOVEMBER 2001: MONEY

A friend once told me that back when one-cent pieces were twice the size they are now women would use them as makeshift diaphragms.   This supposedly explains why so many girls from that generation were named Penny.   On further reflection it also adds new meaning to other old expressions such as; "stopping on a dime", "passing the buck" and "two-bit whore".   It also explains my Uncle Quarter.

Money is damned peculiar stuff when you think about it.   Not the invisible stuff lurking in your checking account or bouncing around the stock market, I'm talking about actual coins and currency: hard cash.   Why are coins round?   Do they WANT them to roll away from you when you drop them?   Why do dimes and quarters have serrated edges?   Is it so they have better traction if they have to roll away in the snow?   And what the hell do we need dimes for anyway?   You can make any amount of change up to a dollar using only 11 coins without using a single dime.   Think how much money the government could save by not having to make them.   Down with the dime!

And currency, that stuff is just plain weird.   In what sorcerer's handbook did they find the design for the one dollar bill?   I can see the meeting now.   Designer #1:"What should we put on the back?"   Designer #2: "How about a truncated pyramid with an eyeball peering out the top?"   Designer #1: "Perfect, we can balance it out with a spread-eagle eagle holding arrows and a tree branch!"   It makes me wonder what kind of bizarre shit they decided against using.   Somewhere in the National Archives is the prototype for the rejected thirteen dollar bill with a mural on the back that looks like one of Hieronymous Bosch's wet dreams.   If you fold a one the right way you can make George's head look like a mushroom cloud.   Spooky prophecy or was the engraver sniffing his ink?   You decide.

And oh, what a wild, wonderful journey money makes.   Studies show that sixty to ninety percent of American currency is contaminated with trace amounts of cocaine.   Money landing in the collection plate has been used to pay hookers, bribe cops and buy drugs.   It's been stolen, borrowed, spent and hoarded.   It's the grease that makes the machinery of civilization work.   Each bill and coin travels the nation from hand to hand.   Oblivious to race, sex, age or purpose it does its job and tells no tales.

But it still looks weird.   And ban the dime!

OCTOBER 2001: TERRORISTS

The terrorist attack on America has left many unanswered questions.   Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan; just who is this guy Stan and why is he so important to the Arabs?   If Tehran is in Iran why isn't there a Tehraq in Iraq?   What the hell kind of middle name is "bin"?   Why has no one noticed that "Taliban" is an anagram of "anal bit"?   And of course, how many terrorists does it take to change a light bulb?

We'll probably never know the answers to these questions but maybe some day we'll know the answer to another one.   Why?   What did these animals hope to accomplish by murdering almost 7,000 of our citizens?   Did they think the rest of the world would rally around their cause?   Since they're too cowardly to admit to their crimes we don't even know what their cause is.   They've earned the anger and disgust of the world at large.   Their people face increased hardships and even military action because of their deeds.   This must have been a hate crime.   No other motive makes sense.

Speaking of hate crimes I suppose it was inevitable that attacks would be made on American mosques and Muslims.   To the idiots behind these attacks I ask, "did you go around beating up Irishmen when we found out that ass-wipe McVeigh was the Oklahoma City bomber?"   It makes just as much sense.   Obviously Muslims were behind the recent attack, but only a handful of them.   The rest are just as horrified as everybody else.   It's easy to blame the entire Islamic world for the actions of these cowards.   But we need to focus our wrath on the ones behind this atrocity and anyone who aids them.   How do you fight terrorism?   By making it clear that anyone who commits an act of terrorism or aids anyone in the act will be exterminated.   This may not scare the terrorists but it'll make help and refuge hard to come by.

I'd like to steal a quote from the editor of a local weekly newspaper.   "So far we've shown that although we have the biggest hammer, we don't think everyone else is a nail."  A blind military attack would be stooping to the level of the terrorists, we're better than that.  But when we do identify our enemy...they're toast.

I can answer one question.   It takes two terrorists to change a light bulb.   One to change the bulb and one to molest the camel he's standing on.

SEPTEMBER 2001: LITTERBUGS

Steve Martin once said that a wise man had told him "Always carry a litterbag in your car.  It doesn't take up much room and if it gets full you can just throw it out the window."  Unfortunately this kind of thinking makes sense to a lot of people.  How many times have you pulled into a parking lot and seen a big pile of ashes and cigarette butts dumped next to one of the spots?  Why the hell do these morons bother with an ashtray?   At least the slobs that throw each butt out the window are scattering their litter around so it doesn't look so bad.

The sad truth is that humans are filthy animals.  The reason we know so much about primitive cultures is that the trash and garbage they left lying around was buried and preserved by the trash and garbage of succeeding cultures.  You can't go anywhere without seeing the leavings of pigs and slobs.  People throw things from their cars or drop them as they walk.  Once they empty a can or bottle or cigarette pack it gets tossed with no thought or concern.  They believe that all the world is a giant trash can for their personal use.  They believe it's someone else's responsibility to clean up after them.

I learned to hate littering at an early age.  I grew up in a house on a street corner, people stopping at the intersection continuously mistook our yard for the city dump.  One of my chores was to keep the trash picked up.  There's something about picking up other people's garbage that really leaves an impression.  Every time I see some waste of human protien throw something out of their car I want to go retrieve it and throw it back in their face.  Is it too much to ask that they show a little respect for those of us who unfortunately have to share a planet with them?

The penalty for littering shouldn't be a fine.  I think litterbugs should be put to work cleaning up our roadways and parks.  A few weeks of that should make them think twice about using the planet as a dumpster.  Repeat offenders?  Re-route one of the community's garbage truck to their front lawn and have them dump their load there.  For apartment dwellers they could just bury the offenders car in trash.  That's actually kinder than my first choice, throw them out the window of a car.  Poetic justice.

AUGUST 2001: FOREIGN POLICY

A comment on the back of America's report card:   "Does not play well with others."   Thanks to our illustrious leader America's role in international affairs has become that of a stubborn self-centered child.   Somehow we've convinced ourselves that we're calling the shots and the rest of the world can just deal with it.   We may be the most powerful nation on Earth but we would do well to remember that we're just a small piece of the planet.

Our solitary rejection of the Kyoto Protocol speaks volumes.   Our official position is that the bottom line is more important than the environment.   Apparently we're too stupid to realize that the bottom line depends on the environment.   Plus we're not convinced of the reality and dangers of global warming, even though we know that the greenhouse effect makes our climate 50 degrees warmer than it would otherwise be and that we are steadily increasing the greenhouse effect.   And America is responsible for a disproportionately large chunk of the increase.   Is global warming a problem?   Only if you have a problem with droughts, floods and killer storms.   But by all means let's be cautious.   Obviously the only prudent course of action is to continue to increase our dependence on fossil fuels until we actually experience a climate shift and then spend decades trying to shift it back.   What happens to our economy when all the prime corn, wheat and cattle country shifts up to Canada?

Since we don't want to spend money on the environment there's plenty to spare on a missile defense system.   I've already spouted off about why it's not needed and why it won't work (February 2001), but in the meantime it's going to kick off a whole new arms race.   What was the Soviet Union thinking by signing a treaty with us?   Didn't they know what we did to the Native Americans?   History shows that a treaty with the United States is only good as long as it serves our purposes.   Bush's reason for violating the ABM treaty: "That was then, this is now. Things change."   Wouldn't you love to conduct business like that?   "Hey, I signed those mortgage papers ten years ago!   You can't hold me to that!"   Of course the defense system wouldn't just rely on missiles, now they want to mount a laser beam on a 747 to strike down attacking warheads.   I hear the chief scientist on the project is Wiley Coyote and the contractor is ACME.

So we listen politely to the rest of the world's opinions and then do whatever the hell we want.   We're America, we're the most powerful nation on Earth.   But look ahead twenty years to the flooded coastal cities, the desert that used to be our croplands, the bankrupt government that spent everything on missile defense and tax cuts.   Look at the new sign on the Statue of Liberty:   "Welcome to South Canada."

JULY 2001: THE TEN COMMANDMENTS

My State Representative wants to post the Ten Commandments at the courthouse.   He thinks it's a good idea.   I don't know who he thinks he's representing but it sure as hell isn't me.   Proponents of this lunacy say it's not about religion, it's about moral values.   Bullshit.   Why the Ten Commandments then?   Why not something Buddhist?   Or Islam?   Or Pagan?   Better yet why not a generic moral code?   Because it IS about religion.   Because the Christian majority wants their particular worldview to be the one endorsed by the government.

So what do I have against the Ten Commandments?   Nothing, most of them anyway.   For the most part they're pretty good stuff.   "Thou shalt not kill".   Great rule.   "Thou shalt not steal".   Makes sense.   "Honor thy father and thy mother".   Good advice.   "I am the lord thy god, thou shalt have no other gods before me".   Oops, problem!   This thing says I have to worship the god of Israel, and the government wants to post it in the courthouse!   "Freedom of religion?   Oh that old thing!   That just means you can choose which Christian church to worship in."   The next few commandments tell you how to go about worshipping.   Keep holy the lord's day, no graven images, wipe your butt with the Bill of Rights.

A guy I used to work with didn't see any problem with this.   I asked him "What if they wanted to post something from Buddhist scriptures?"   He looked puzzled "I guess that'd be OK".   "How about the Satanic Bible?", I asked.   The result was almost comical.   He looked like I'd just popped him between the eyes with a hammer.   I guess it's different when it's not YOUR religion they want to endorse.

Another thing I don't like is the "Cut and Paste" aspect of the whole thing.   The Bible contains three quarters of a million words and they've picked out less than a hundred to tack up on the wall.   Isn't it all the "Word of God"?   Let's post Jewish dietary rules and outlaw ham sandwiches and cheeseburgers.   Post the rules on tithing and we can finally have a flat tax of 10%, no more confusing forms!

I just have three words for my state representative: "Thou Shalt Not"!

JUNE 2001: LAW SUITES

The other day I was at the drive-thru waiting for my favorite fast-food sandwich.   Two beef patties, two slices of cheese, four strips of bacon.   You know, "a heart attack on a bun".   I looked up and saw a decal in the window.   "Warning: coffee and tea served very hot."   We all know why it's there, back in 1994 some Bozo in New Mexico dumped hot coffee in her lap and successfully sued McDonald's for $2.7 million.   The decal in the window may just as well read "Do not pour hot liquids in your lap you stupid m****r f****rs!"   A woman in Knoxville burned her chin on a pickle in 1999 and sued McDonald's for $110,000.   Her husband sued for $15,000 for "losing the services and consortium of his wife".   I can just hear the testimony now.   Husband: "Your honor, I can't have sex with her, just look at that horrible pickle scar on her chin!"   Judge: "I can see your point, but can't you just put a Happy Meal bag over her head?"   I presume he'll use the money to hire hookers without pickle burns.

Only in America can people be so disfunctional as to not be able to feed themselves without injury and be able to sue someone because of it.   Look at some of the moronic warning labels they have to put on things.   Don't use the hair dryer while bathing.   Don't eat the moisture absorbing packets that came with your stereo.   Do not spray air freshener into an open flame, and avoid getting it in your eyes.   The sad thing is that the reason these warnings are there is that some idiot(s) has done these very things.   The right to sue individuals and corporations is intended to allow people to be compensated for losses suffered as a result of negligence or malice.   More often it's used as a way to get paid for indulging in America's favorite pastime, blaming others.   You can do the most monumentally stupid thing and find a way to blame (and sue) someone else for it.   "Your honor I was shaving my ass with the lawn mower when one of the cinder blocks shifted.   My left cheek is missing and I had to buy special chairs and a toilet seat."   "Right, I order Briggs and Stratton to pay $5 million and to kiss your remaining cheek."   "Thank you your honor.   Now I'll be sueing the cinder block manufacturer, Exxon, my parents and you."

Why do juries keep awarding these fools such huge sums of money?   My guess is it's because they're a jury of peers.   This means they're mental clones of the moron bringing the lawsuit.   Of course you know it's not the corporations that are picking up the tab for this, they just pass the cost on to the consumer.   Big Macs would be a bit cheaper if we weren't chipping in to pay someone who doesn't know that genitalia and hot coffee is a BAD combination.

To help reduce consumer costs here are some warning labels that may avoid future lawsuits:
Black & Decker cordless drill---"Not for internal use."
Evian bottled water---"Frequent inhalation may cause drowning."
Fleet enema---"Do not use while driving."
Bayer aspirin---"Will not prevent pregnancy."
Patriot missile---"This is not a toy."
Irish Spring soap---"Do not drop in prison shower."
..............and finally,
The Bush Administration---"For entertainment purposes only."

MAY 2001: CREDIT CARDS

As much as I hate writing out checks I can deal with it because I'm usually getting something in return.   I don't mind paying for groceries or telephone service or even paying interest on money I've borrowed.   But it pisses me off when I have to shell out $29 to a credit card company for an "overlimit fee".   What the hell is that all about?   What am I getting for my $29?   Nothing.   What has the card company done to earn it?   Nothing.   One of my credit cards just increases the minimum payment to drop you back down under the limit if you should go over.   This other one whacks you with an overlimit fee, and the way they do it is really sneaky.   They wait until the last day of the billing cycle, when you've used the card all month, then they charge the fee if you were over at any time during the cycle.   This puts you back over the limit so they can do the same thing again the next month.     I won't name the company but they have the same name as the makers of enema kits.   Coincidence?   I think not.

There isn't a week goes by that we don't get a handful of credit card offers in the mail.   Most of them are even worse deals than the Enema Card.   Interest rates over %24, annual fees as high as $60.   Even worse are the "secured" cards.   Here's the scam: You send them several hundred dollars of your money, then they let you borrow it back from them at a high interest rate.   And they all act like they're doing you a huge favor by offering you these deals.   I like to do them a favor back.   I take their postage paid reply envelope and mail it back to them, empty.   Let them pay the postage.   Let them pay something for nothing.

Then there's the home equity loan people.   Here you have the one thing in your life that has long term value that you actually own, and they want you to borrow against it.   In my parent's day you borrowed money for only two things, a car and a house.   For anything else you either paid cash or did without.   They were married in 1935 and their "Depression Mentality" served them quite well, thank you very much.   Now Americans are like their government, deep in debt and getting deeper.

Now it's harder than ever for Americans to get out from under overwhelming credit card debt.   The card companies have pressured Congress to change the Bankruptcy laws to make it harder to file.   The reason: too many people are defaulting on them..boo hoo.   Maybe if they stopped offering credit to every organism on the planet they wouldn't have that problem.   They set up booths on college campuses to push their cards.   Could they possibly find a more irresponsible and fiscally unstable group to loan money to?   Well.... yes.   They have been known to mail offers to infants, household pets and dead people.   I think the Enema Card company has a whole division that markets to deceased puppies.

Almost %27 of my household income is spent on payments to credit cards and store cards.   Of that   %49 just goes to pay interest.   I'm as guilty as anyone when it comes to letting these guys hook me and reel me in.   Just bend over and let the Enema people swipe their card.   Cha-ching!

APRIL 2001: GUNS

The most recent wave of school shootings brings to mind some other idiotic things people have done with guns.   A man in Glendale California was explaining gun safety to his wife and killed himself with a shot to the head from what he thought was an unloaded 45.   A 21-year-old died from shrapnel wounds while shooting at 75-millimeter ceremonial military rounds he and two friends found while cleaning out a building.   Another man accidentally shot himself to death when awakening to the sound of a ringing telephone beside his bed.   He reached for the phone but grabbed instead a Smith & Wesson .38 Special, which discharged when he drew it to his ear.

Personally, I've never understood the fascination.   I've had great fun shooting up soda bottles and old TVs (televisions, not transvestites) but I've never had the desire to own a gun myself.   I used to think of a gun as a device for putting holes in things at a distance but on further reflection I've realized that bullets are where the action is.   Guns are just bullet activators.   What's the big deal?   Based on their bumper stickers some folks think guns are the most important things in their lives.   Some of them actually believe in their hearts that the government is just dying to kick down their doors, take their guns and enslave them.   Yeah, that's gonna happen the minute you put down your gun.   Funny, I've never owned one and I still have my freedom.

Gun control is fiercely opposed because we have the right to "keep and bear arms".   I've got two things to say about that.   The first is that "arms" is an awfully vague term.   A person is armed if they're carrying anything from a pointy stick to a nuclear warhead.   There are only three legal uses for a gun: self defense, hunting and target shooting.   You don't need automatic weapons or explosive rounds for that.   Obviously we need to draw a line somewhere and keep certain type of arms out of the hands of private citizens.

My second point is that while we have the right to keep and bear arms we don't have the right to rob liquor stores or shoot enemy gang members.   I think the best gun control is massive penalties for crimes committed with guns and consistent enforcement.   Something along the lines of mandatory life imprisonment for anyone firing a gun at another human being (self defense excepted).   I can't see law abiding gun owners having a problem with that (you ARE law abiding aren't you?).

March 2001: TOBACCO

I'm in line at the convenience store and some old fart in front of me is negotiating the purchase of some snuff.   "Is it fresh?" he asks.   "What's the date on the can?".   "January." says the clerk.   "Ain't you got no February?".   "No.".   "Well I don't want that then.".   Right, if you're going to stick some carcinogenic shredded dried leaves in your mouth you want to make sure they're fresh.   Nothing worse than a mouthful of stale leaves.   Does this guy think there's a monthly tobacco harvest and they rush the stuff straight from the farm to the Copenhagan plant?   One word bozo: WAREHOUSE!

I just don't understand people's priorities.   In England they're panic stricken over mad cow disease.   There have been 90 human cases in the last 5 years, an average of 3 every couple of months.   Smoking, on the other hand, kills about 1 person per minute in Europe.   So they boycott beef while sucking away on their cigarettes.   "Smoking will kill you!".   "Yeah, but I'm gonna die of SOMETHING!".   You're going to die of something so you may as well make it a horrible wasting illness that'll put you and your loved ones through a living hell.   Makes sense to me.

Of course as the tobacco companies will tell you, smoking is not addictive.   Never mind that most smokers would like to quit but can't.   Never mind that people dying of lung diseases can't stop lighting up.   It's not at all unusual to see a parent with children in the car puffing away.   They know they're exposing their kids to poisonous materials, but they just can't stop smoking!

But really, it's OK that the tobacco companies are marketing a deadly addictive product, because they're such good corporate citizens!   Phillip Morris has donated $50 million to various charitable causes.   Then they spent $70 million advertising that fact.   A reporter asked a Phillip Morris spokesperson why they didn't give the $70 million to charity.   "We think it's important that people are aware of what we're doing.".   The fact is they're only doing it to make themselves look better to juries and congressional commities.   They have a commercial that say things are changing, no more billboards or cartoon characters.   I'm sure it's an oversight that they don't mentioned that they had to be dragged into court and FORCED to make the changes.   If they really cared about people they'd shut down their business, voluntarily.

Tobacco: poisonous, addictive, legal.   Alcohol: a health risk, potentially addictive, legal.   Marijuana: No known health risk, non-addictive, illegal.   Does this make sense?   Marijuana is called a gateway drug, most of the users of heroin and cocaine first used marijuana so the assumption is that smoking pot leads to harder drugs.   As George Carlin pointed out, "Mother's milk leads to heroin.".   I'm guessing that the percentage of junkies that tried beer before heroin is pretty damn high.   If they legalised pot they could scale back the DEA, reduce prison crowding, provide American farmers with a new cash crop and add new tax revenue.

So here's my plan: Kill off the mad cows with cigarettes, hook the tabacco company executives on smack and let Betty Crocker market Mississippi Mud Brownies with Cannibis.   The world would be a better place.

February 2001: MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM

      There's a new sheriff in town and he wants to spend billions of our tax dollars for a missile defense system.   I can think of only two problems with this, we don't need it and it won't work.

      Why in the world would another country want to launch a nuclear attack against the United Sates?   The absolute best case scenario for them would be wipe us out without us getting any of our nukes off in retaliation.   So what do they gain?   Millions of people dead, a devastated global environment and the collapse of the world economy.   That's the best case, more likely would be that we would dish out at least as much damage to them.   Then they'd have millions of their own people dead and an even more damaged environment and economy.

      The only possible reasons to build a missile defense system are political.   Convince the people that the government is taking positive steps to ensure our safety and land some healthy defense contracts for campaign contributors.

      Unfortunately it's most likely result is to return us to a Cold War status.   Do they really think Russia and China won't react to our building a bunch of shiny new missiles?

      Taking down a missile with a missile has been compared to "hitting a bullet with a bullet".   We can barely pull it off under carefully controlled and staged test conditions.   Unless we can take down enemy missiles under field conditions with perfect accuracy the system would be useless.   Even if we could get it to that point a non-military geek like myself can think of three ways to get past it.

      Outnumber them.   Look at the economics.   Our missiles have to hit a moving target that is small, fast and can change directions   Translation: EXPENSIVE.   Their missiles just have to get close to a large stationary object, like a city.   Translation: CHEAP.   If they launched one more missile than we did we'd take a hit.   Considering the cost they could afford to make a lot more missiles for the same total price.   To make it even cheaper they could just put warheads in half of them.   Even doing that if they launched just ten more than us there'd only be one chance in a thousand that the survivors would ALL be decoys.   Even cheaper, launch a flock of decoys to exhaust our stockpile, then fire the nukes.

      Kamikaze missiles.   All missiles are on a suicide mission, but these guys would die to save the others.   You build a bunch of missiles with purely mechanical guidance systems.   Hey, all they have to do is fly in a straight line for a given length of time and then fall down and explode.   You launch a few dozen at the U.S.   When the defenders approach two or three of them accelerate a few miles ahead of the rest, then they detonate their warheads.   The nuclear blast fries the electronic guidance systems in the defending missiles.   Your mechanical birds are unaffected as they fly past the out of control defenders to destroy the bastion of democracy.

      Don't fly in the bombs.   This is the easiest of all.   Smuggle the components for a few dozen nukes into the U.S.   Last I heard there where no Plutonium sniffing dogs at the borders.   Build the bombs, rent apartments in major cities, set the timers and leave.   We wouldn't even know who to retaliate against.

      So much for defense.   I think we should just maintain friendly relations with the rest of the world.   But what do I know?

It's May 5,2001 and Bush has formally announced his plans for the missile defense system.  The government says it will cost $50 billion and won't be foolproof.  Translation: It'll cost $100 billion and will be less effective than Colin Powell standing in a life raft brandishing a fly swatter.  Cold War...Arms Race...Ah, the good old days!

January 2001: DRIVERS

      Can someone explain to me how so many of today's drivers can see where they're going with their heads firmly lodged up their sphincter?   I feel like I'm taking my life into my hands every time I get in the car.   If I had a nickle for every time some bone-head cretin has almost killed me on the road I could afford a nice Sherman tank.   Twice I've had people try to park their cars in my glove compartment, one of them was a full sized pickup doing 55.   Apparently these days the only things you need to get a license are a face, a name and $8.   A functioning nervous system is optional.   I'm suprised cars aren't equipped with a cup mounted on the steering wheel to collect the drool from their semi-conscious drivers.

      Now we're taking people with three functioning brain cells and giving them mobile phones.   Two of the cells handle the phone while the remaining one gets to deal with operating the car.   God forbid the driver should have to deal with an additional distraction like tuning the radio or scratching his nose and you may as well have the car being operated by a garden rake.   SHUT UP, HANG UP AND DRIVE!   I've seen people shaving and reading maps while zipping down the freeway at over 70 mph.

      And would it KILL people to use a turn signal?   I know it must be a daunting piece of technology for most of them, but surely they can learn.   They've mastered the gas pedal and steering wheel.   They know about the brake, although usually when there is no perceptable reason for using it.   About the only time I see a turn signal in use is when the driver has absolutely no intention of making a turn until they drive off the edge of the Earth.

      It's even more entertaining when the weather turns bad.   If we get a dusting of snow some drivers think they have to drive at three miles an hour, and they still manage to wrap their cars around the first available tree.   At least these guys can sense that they need to be extra careful in bad weather.   The really dangerous ones are the jerks with the four wheel drives that think the best strategy is to drive twice as fast.   I think the plan is to impress the rest of us but they usually just succeed in having more spectacular wrecks.

      You know who you are.   If you drink, don't drive.   If you don't drink, don't drive anyway.

BACK TO TOP

December 2000: DRUG COMMERCIALS

      So I'm watching TV and I see a man being picked up from his doctor appointment by his significant other.   She asks "How'd it go?".   He turns, looks her square in the eye and in a firm voice says "I ASKED MY DOCTOR ABOUT LIPITOR!".   What the hell kind of an answer is that?   My significant other would have replied with "That's nice...HOW'D IT GO?".   This is about as responsive as another commercial where the guy tells us "My doctor said 'MYLANTA'".   Apparently his doctor hasn't mastered full sentences.   And where do they come up with the names for these drugs anyway?   "Lipitor" sounds like the evil super-villain in a comic book.   I can just see Superman and Lipitor fighting it out over the Daily Planet building while Prilosec waits to take on the winner.   "Nasalcrom" is another one that makes me snicker.   To those of you who haven't read the books or seen the movies, Crom is the god of Conan the Barbarian.   Every Nasalcrom commercial makes me think of someone stuffing a Cimmerian god up their nose to make their breathing easier.   I won't even elaborate on the mental images "Propulsid" conjures up.

      Half of these drug commercials won't even tell you what the stuff is supposed to be for.   We see 30 seconds of a woman prancing around a field in a long wispy dress while giant pills float across the sky.   As the syrupy music fades we're urged to ask our doctors about Psuedotrenchicillin, then comes the list of side effects and people who shouldn't take it.   "Some occurrence of dry mouth, dizziness, nausea, leprosy, cerebral hemorrhage, and polydactylism has been noted in some cases.   Women who are pregnant or who may be pregnant or had pregnant mothers should not take Psuedotrenchicillin.   Do not take Psuedotrenchicillin if you are diabetic, overweight, underweight, a mammal, living in Cleveland or have any cousins named 'Dirk'.   People with Asthma shouldn't even be in the same room with Psuedotrenchicillin.   Do not take Psuedotrenchicillin if you are taking an MAO inhibitor".   And just what the hell is an MAO inhibitor anyway?   It sounds like something you'd use to ward off the Red Chinese.   Whatever it is if you're on it you can't take ANY other drugs.   I heard a rumor that some guy in Detroit took an MAO inhibitor and Claritan at the same time and immediately burst into flames.

      So I went to my doctor, and I asked him about Psuedotrenchicillin.   He looked in my ears, felt my balls and made me cough, then said "Mylanta" and left the room.   Now I'm on 500mg of Psuedotrenchicillin a day.   My mouth is dry, I'm dizzy, nauseous and have three extra toes on my left foot.   I still don't know what the stuff is for.

BACK TO TOP

November 2000: NATIONAL DEBT

       So the government says it has a surplus and they're arguing over whether to give the money back or to spend it.   How in the world can an institution that's over 5.6 trillion dollars in debt possibly have a "surplus"?   They've irresponsibly run up a $22,000 debt for every American and now that they have more money coming in than they are currently spending their response is "Oh look, extra money!".   In the last year they've spent 362 BILLION dollars on nothing more useful or productive than interest on the debt.   For that much money they could save social security, enhance Medicare AND give us a hefty tax cut.   Both parties claim to have plans to pay off the debt but it seems like a low priority afterthought for them.   At this point it's unknown who the next president will be but I for one will be keeping a close watch on their progress.

       Candidates from both parties have been in favor of making Social Security off-limits from government borrowing.   I'll go them one further, I don't think the government should be allowed to borrow money from ANY source.   If they can't make it on the money coming in they'll just have to ask for a tax increase, and we know how politicians hate to do that.   I think they'd be more inclined to make better and more efficient use of the money they have than to risk pissing off their constituents.   Some cities have adopted a "pay as you go" budget and have found that they could accomplish a lot more with their tax dollars when they don't have to pay interest.

       Just how big is a 5.6 trillion-dollar debt?   If there was no interest and you paid a million dollars a day it would take 15,616 years to pay it off.   If you stacked up that many dollar bills they would hit the moon, and then continue for another 100,000 miles.   If each dollar were a drop of water the debt would be about one and a half million gallons.   It would take the fortunes of 156 Bill Gates to match it.   How could these morons possibly have run up such a huge tab?   It amounts to over ten billion dollars for every member of the House and Senate.   Remember, this isn't just how much they've spent, this is how much they've been over budget.   Send these guys to the emergency room, they're hemorrhaging money!

At the time this was written the debt was 5.657 trillion dollars.   Five months later on 4/5/01 it was 5.772 trillion, an increase of 115 billion dollars.

BACK TO TOP

October 2000: ELECTIONS

       It's election time and for the next month we'll be bludgeoned with endless political ads telling us what a scum-sucking pig so-and-so is and how crooked and morally bankrupt they are and that we shouldn't vote for them for dogcatcher and elect me instead because I'm on your side.   Here's a great argument for campaign finance reform: If politicians had less money they wouldn't be able to pay for as many of these damn commercials!   At least they're getting smart and targeting the one group that still bothers to vote..old folks.   I wish I had a nickel for every ad I've seen featuring some tottery but sharp minded senior either bad mouthing Mr. Smith or singing the praises of Mr. Jones.   And what choices we have!   It's no wonder nobody votes, we get to choose between vanilla...or a different vanilla!   Someone came up with the idea of adding "None of the above" to every ballot.   In each race if "None of the above" wins they would have to either come up with a new line of crap or a new set of candidates.   They'd have to keep doing it until they gave us a choice worth voting for.   Of course this will never happen since no politician would support it.   They'd be facing a real ego crusher.   It's bad enough to lose to your opponent but can you imagine being told by the voters that they wouldn't want you even if you were running unopposed?   Politics is a weird gig anyway.   Those of you who have jobs probably were hired as a replacement or for a new position.   Politicians are essentially going to a job interview and saying "Please fire this guy and hire me instead".   Once they succeed at getting someone fired they're faced with another guy trying to boot them out the next time around.

       I am announcing my candidacy for every political office in the United States.   My opponents are all dishonest, incompetent, selfish, disloyal and evil.   They have voted for/against laws that are/aren't in your best interest.   They are bought and paid for by corporations and special interest groups.   Most of them sleep with farm animals.   I promise to balance the budget, eliminate crime, save social security, improve education, protect the environment, cut taxes and restore the moral integrity of the American people.   You can trust me.   I'm on your side.   Now bend over and grab your socks....

BACK TO TOP



Tiki's Pub & Tales From the Backroom © 2000 - 2002 Paul Riley
All rights reserved.