Author Pamela McColl has self-published an expurgated version of Clement Moore's "The Visit from St. Nicholas" ("'Twas the Night Before Christmas") in which Santa doesn't smoke: The lines, "The stump of a pipe he held tight in his teeth / And the smoke it encircled his head like a wreath" have been deleted from McColl's version. The cost for publishing this special smoke-free edition of "St. Nick"? $200,000. A spokesman for the American Cancer Society said, "Yeah, that was probably the best use of the money."
Seriously, though, if this keeps even ONE child from taking up pipe-smoking, it will be well worth it. But rather than just remove the lines, I think McColl should have reinforced her anti-moking message:
"When asked where his pipe was, the fat man did answer,
'I just gave it up, Kid! Don't want to get cancer!'
'Wow, that's awesome, Santa! I'm proud of you! Still,
If smoking don't get you, obesity will.'"
Saturday, October 27, 2012
Friday, October 26, 2012
FWP
A bill under consideration in the Pennsylvania legislature would reduce food-stamp benefits for women who become pregnant while on public assistance. Not that these legislators are completely heartless: They would allow for exceptions if the woman in question became pregnant as a result of rape. Sounds suspiciously liberal to me! But I guess if you carry your rapist's baby to term, you've earned that extra $150 a month!
Let's set aside for the moment the more disturbing rape-related aspects of this proposed legislation. I would like to address those members of the benighted right who presumably consider this bill a good idea.
You there? OK. Ahem.
Why?
Look, as a taxpayer, I get it. I understand your indignation. If I heard of a woman intentionally getting pregnant in order to game the system, I, too, would be incensed: How dare she! But here's the thing: I've heard of no such woman.
Oh, I'm sure women do become pregnant while receiving public assistance. But I doubt they become strategically pregnant to suck more money from the public teat. And in this case, we're not even talking about "real" money; we're talking about food stamps. Not much of a "net benefit" to have more children in order to get more food stamps: Those additional kids'll eat all the profits. At any rate, unless some significant number of women IS getting knocked up for the privilege of more food stamps, then this legislation is ONLY a mean-spirited cost-cutting measure that will not save much money but that WILL cause women and children to go hungry.
Ultimately, I suspect this legislation is just so much red meat that arch conservatives want to toss to their base, much like the seemingly ubiquitous laws that have cropped up recently to combat the supposed epidemic of voter fraud. While legislators (for some inexplicable reason almost exclusively Republicans) claim voter fraud to be a veritable cancer on the body politic, statistics suggest that less than one ten-thousandth of one percent of votes are cast fraudulently. I suspect a similar percentage of women get pregnant as part of a nefarious scheme to drain public coffers.
Don't legislators have better things to do than to criminalize Fucking While Poor?
Let's set aside for the moment the more disturbing rape-related aspects of this proposed legislation. I would like to address those members of the benighted right who presumably consider this bill a good idea.
You there? OK. Ahem.
Why?
Look, as a taxpayer, I get it. I understand your indignation. If I heard of a woman intentionally getting pregnant in order to game the system, I, too, would be incensed: How dare she! But here's the thing: I've heard of no such woman.
Oh, I'm sure women do become pregnant while receiving public assistance. But I doubt they become strategically pregnant to suck more money from the public teat. And in this case, we're not even talking about "real" money; we're talking about food stamps. Not much of a "net benefit" to have more children in order to get more food stamps: Those additional kids'll eat all the profits. At any rate, unless some significant number of women IS getting knocked up for the privilege of more food stamps, then this legislation is ONLY a mean-spirited cost-cutting measure that will not save much money but that WILL cause women and children to go hungry.
Ultimately, I suspect this legislation is just so much red meat that arch conservatives want to toss to their base, much like the seemingly ubiquitous laws that have cropped up recently to combat the supposed epidemic of voter fraud. While legislators (for some inexplicable reason almost exclusively Republicans) claim voter fraud to be a veritable cancer on the body politic, statistics suggest that less than one ten-thousandth of one percent of votes are cast fraudulently. I suspect a similar percentage of women get pregnant as part of a nefarious scheme to drain public coffers.
Don't legislators have better things to do than to criminalize Fucking While Poor?
Thursday, October 25, 2012
More Miscellaneous Musings
Congratulations to Indiana on its WNBA championship! The Indiana franchise is the Fever, and Indianapolis locals are going NUTS over the team. I guess you could say they have Fever. . . something.
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Free Advice for Mittens
Try though I might to avoid it, I find myself thinking about Mitt Romney. As we approach the can't-come-soon-enough end of this interminable election season, I maintain fervent hope and cautious optimism that Barack Obama will prevail on November 6th. I can't help but wonder, though, what a dreaded Romney victory would mean.
My gut tells me this would be disastrous: Romney displays little sense of the desperate need of people who depend on government services for their basic survival, and little sympathy for those who comprise this group (See: 47%). One of the major knocks on Romney, though, from Democrats and Republicans alike, is that the man stands for nothing so much as his own ambition, that he will say anything to get elected, that he has no convictions whatsoever. But if that's the case, how sure can we be that he'd be terrible?
Well, I have to have faith in something, right?
Honestly, though, I don't see why people jump all over Mittens for ostensibly "saying anything" to get elected. Why would anyone expect anything else? Presumably, Mitt Romney wants to be president. Presumably, he thinks he'd be good at it. Presumably, he considers the American presidency important. So, if all this is true, wouldn't Romney--or any serious candidate--be remiss if he DIDN'T say anything to get elected? Wouldn't that constitute some sort of political malpractice?
I have no intention of ever running for President--or for any political office. But if I ever DO run for office, I swear to you all here and now that I will, in fact, say anything to get elected. Tax cuts for the wealthy? Why not! Privatize Medicare? About time those mooching grannies learned to live within their means! You want abortion outlawed? Me too, Brother!
If I think I can do some real good in office, and if saying horrific things will help me get into office, shouldn't I--morally? ethically?--do everything legal (and perhaps some things not so legal) to get there?
When people confront Romney with accusations of blatant pandering and a willingness to say whatever he thinks people want to hear in order to to secure their votes, I would advise the candidate to look the accuser right in the eye and say, "You're gosh-darn tootin' I'm pandering." It's true, of course, that this would still leave the electorate in the dark as to what Mittens would do if elected. But such refreshing candor might put a few more undecideds in his column.
My gut tells me this would be disastrous: Romney displays little sense of the desperate need of people who depend on government services for their basic survival, and little sympathy for those who comprise this group (See: 47%). One of the major knocks on Romney, though, from Democrats and Republicans alike, is that the man stands for nothing so much as his own ambition, that he will say anything to get elected, that he has no convictions whatsoever. But if that's the case, how sure can we be that he'd be terrible?
Well, I have to have faith in something, right?
Honestly, though, I don't see why people jump all over Mittens for ostensibly "saying anything" to get elected. Why would anyone expect anything else? Presumably, Mitt Romney wants to be president. Presumably, he thinks he'd be good at it. Presumably, he considers the American presidency important. So, if all this is true, wouldn't Romney--or any serious candidate--be remiss if he DIDN'T say anything to get elected? Wouldn't that constitute some sort of political malpractice?
I have no intention of ever running for President--or for any political office. But if I ever DO run for office, I swear to you all here and now that I will, in fact, say anything to get elected. Tax cuts for the wealthy? Why not! Privatize Medicare? About time those mooching grannies learned to live within their means! You want abortion outlawed? Me too, Brother!
If I think I can do some real good in office, and if saying horrific things will help me get into office, shouldn't I--morally? ethically?--do everything legal (and perhaps some things not so legal) to get there?
When people confront Romney with accusations of blatant pandering and a willingness to say whatever he thinks people want to hear in order to to secure their votes, I would advise the candidate to look the accuser right in the eye and say, "You're gosh-darn tootin' I'm pandering." It's true, of course, that this would still leave the electorate in the dark as to what Mittens would do if elected. But such refreshing candor might put a few more undecideds in his column.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Black Cups for Anarchy!
7-11 has been doing this promotion for a few weeks now: "7-Election." When you buy coffee at a 7-11, you can choose either a blue cup or a red one. Every blue cup sold will be "counted" as a vote for Obama, every red a vote for Romney. I suppose the winner will be revealed sometime after the polls close on the West Coast on November 6th.
Anyway, a few weeks back, I posted the following tweet (or tweeted the following post; I still haven't figured the whole "Twitter" thing out yet):
Couple of things: Does this mean that the coffee you pour into an Obama or a Romney cup will lack "deliciousness"? Frankly, I assumed mediocre taste to be an unalterable feature of 7-11 coffee, regardless of political affiliation.
More to the point: I suppose this is shrewd marketing, meant to show the convenience store's commitment to serving all segments of the American electorate: Democrat, Republican, or non-aligned/undecided. At the same time, I couldn't help wondering if this was really an issue for 7-11's customers. Was some significant portion of their clientele offended at having to express a political preference in order merely to buy a coffee? Worse yet, were there people stranded at nationwide 7-11's, desperate for caffeine, but paralyzed by political doubt?
Honestly, if 7-11 wanted to represent the undecided's, they should have gone with purple cups. "Green" has certain Eurocentric or Naderite associations.
Anyway, a few weeks back, I posted the following tweet (or tweeted the following post; I still haven't figured the whole "Twitter" thing out yet):
I thought the whole #7election thing was idiotic. Then I learned the results are binding! Who will win 7-11's 14 electoral votes?!?At the time, I thought I was kidding. This morning, I heard a radio commercial for 7-11, in which the announcer clarified that you could vote for Obama or Romney, or, "if you just want a delicious cup of coffee, you could choose a green cup."
Couple of things: Does this mean that the coffee you pour into an Obama or a Romney cup will lack "deliciousness"? Frankly, I assumed mediocre taste to be an unalterable feature of 7-11 coffee, regardless of political affiliation.
More to the point: I suppose this is shrewd marketing, meant to show the convenience store's commitment to serving all segments of the American electorate: Democrat, Republican, or non-aligned/undecided. At the same time, I couldn't help wondering if this was really an issue for 7-11's customers. Was some significant portion of their clientele offended at having to express a political preference in order merely to buy a coffee? Worse yet, were there people stranded at nationwide 7-11's, desperate for caffeine, but paralyzed by political doubt?
Honestly, if 7-11 wanted to represent the undecided's, they should have gone with purple cups. "Green" has certain Eurocentric or Naderite associations.
Monday, October 22, 2012
So Much for My Good Citizenship Award
Tonight, I face a difficult choice. Watch two bitter rivals square off for the final time as they near the end of an epic campaign? Or watch the presidential debate?
The other option, of course, is game seven of the National League Championship Series between the St. Louis Cardinals and the San Franisco Giants. As a New Yorker transplanted to the Bay Area, I feel a certain fondness for the boys in orange and black. Not to the extent that I feel for the Mets, but I unreservedly want the Giants to win.
Obviously, the baseball game offers more entertainment value. Political debates CAN entertain, in much the same way that NASCAR races can entertain: Though overwhelmingly repetitive and predictable, you can pretty much rely on at least one spectacular crash. I still regret that I missed the seminal moment when Mitt "Bluebeard" Romney first referred to his "binders full of women." Who knows what Mittens will let slip tonight as he and President Obama square off over foreign policy? Over the summer, Romney nearly got us into a war with England; perhaps tonight he'll advocate a pre-emptive strike on Canada's syrup-industrial complex.
(Actually, that could get him my vote. . . .But I digress.)
I know that as a citizen, as a teacher, as an ostensible role model to impressionable youth, I should probably set an example by watching the debate. And I admit a certain guilt over the fact that I am currently watching the game (Giants are up 2-0!) and will probably keep it on even when the debate gets underway. But let's face it: I've decided whom I'm voting for (OK, given my family background, I had basically decided that pre-natally). Unless Obama stands at the lectern and advocates random carpet-bombing of Western Europe, nothing that happens at the debate will change my mind. And even then. . . .
So who gets my vote? The Giants!
The other option, of course, is game seven of the National League Championship Series between the St. Louis Cardinals and the San Franisco Giants. As a New Yorker transplanted to the Bay Area, I feel a certain fondness for the boys in orange and black. Not to the extent that I feel for the Mets, but I unreservedly want the Giants to win.
Obviously, the baseball game offers more entertainment value. Political debates CAN entertain, in much the same way that NASCAR races can entertain: Though overwhelmingly repetitive and predictable, you can pretty much rely on at least one spectacular crash. I still regret that I missed the seminal moment when Mitt "Bluebeard" Romney first referred to his "binders full of women." Who knows what Mittens will let slip tonight as he and President Obama square off over foreign policy? Over the summer, Romney nearly got us into a war with England; perhaps tonight he'll advocate a pre-emptive strike on Canada's syrup-industrial complex.
(Actually, that could get him my vote. . . .But I digress.)
I know that as a citizen, as a teacher, as an ostensible role model to impressionable youth, I should probably set an example by watching the debate. And I admit a certain guilt over the fact that I am currently watching the game (Giants are up 2-0!) and will probably keep it on even when the debate gets underway. But let's face it: I've decided whom I'm voting for (OK, given my family background, I had basically decided that pre-natally). Unless Obama stands at the lectern and advocates random carpet-bombing of Western Europe, nothing that happens at the debate will change my mind. And even then. . . .
So who gets my vote? The Giants!
Sunday, October 21, 2012
I've Always Wanted to Play Iago
The other night, we watched "The Forbidden Kingdom," a reasonably entertaining martial arts-fantasy, if you're into that sort of thing. It's no "Kung Fu Hustle"--which, if you HAVEN'T seen, go out and watch immediately; you'll thank me later--but it passes the time well enough. Anyway, the movie stars Jackie Chan AND Jet Li as rivalrous Kung Fu masters who team up to train a novice who must, of course, free the Monkey King, win the girl, save the kingdom--the usual stuff.
As I watched, though, I couldn't help wishing I had worked on this movie. In any capacity. If I had, I would have gone up to Jackie Chan and said, "Hey, Jackie, you know Jet Li just said your Mom was a bitch!" And then I would have gone up to Jet Li and said, "Hey, Jet--is that really your name? Anyway, Jackie Chan just called your sister a whore!"
And then I would have just sat back and watched.
As I watched, though, I couldn't help wishing I had worked on this movie. In any capacity. If I had, I would have gone up to Jackie Chan and said, "Hey, Jackie, you know Jet Li just said your Mom was a bitch!" And then I would have gone up to Jet Li and said, "Hey, Jet--is that really your name? Anyway, Jackie Chan just called your sister a whore!"
And then I would have just sat back and watched.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)