You have probably heard the apocryphal story of four teenagers that get back home hours after their curfews. They agree to tell their parents the same alibi: they got a flat tire. The first person to get dropped off at his home is Willie. Willie is 16, has a sinewy body inherited from his rail-thin dad and thick, chubby cheeks from his Metro rail-thin Mom. The back-up quarterback for the football team, an ape-like beast with a mirthless laugh that can best be described as a drunk impersonating Elmer Fudd on karaoke night, enjoys calling Willie "Blowfish Head" when Willie passes him in the halls. The quarterback, Slate, read a book on blowfishes last year. He is in the 11th grade.
But all of this is irrelevant. When his friends arrived at Willie's house, Willie's parents were there to meet them. "Where were you kids?" cried Willie's mother, who was in her bathrobe and punctuated each word with the wave of a rolling pin. Willie found it unusual that his Mom was waving a rolling pin at them, because neither of his parents can cook and they don't own a rolling pin, but he had to admit it was quite effective. His father stood with his arms crossed and did nothing but stare.
"We had a flat tire!" blurted James. Willie clenched his toes and wiped the back of his neck. He hoped that his parents didn't know James spits when he lies. "Sorry, Mom," said Willie, "we changed it as fast as we good."
His father spoke. "Are you guys telling the truth?"
"Of courpthh weppth are." said James. Willie and his friends nodded.
"Well, there is one question I would like to ask each of you. In private, if you don't mind."
His father lead each of the teens out of earshot for a few moments. When he finished, he said to Willie, "You're grounded. And we're telling each of your parents you lied and were out late."
How did Willie's father know that the teenagers were lying? Encyclopedia Brown makes you turn the book upside down for the answer, but I won't. Willie's father asked each of the kids a simple question: "What the fuck is up with this bullshit, man?"
Well, that is the question his father wanted to ask. But the one he did ask was this: which tire was flat?
I tell this story because some may find it relevant today.
March 31, 2004
The Modestly-Titled "Newsmap"
Newsmap is a media watcher's dream. Using Google News, the program tallies the number of news outlets reporting on one story, like Condoleeza Rice's decision to testify to the 9-11 commission. It then displays the headlines of the most popular stories in boxes whose sizes are determined by each story's relative popularity to other stories.
My explanation doesn't justify its elegance. It's a wonderful mix of content and design.
My explanation doesn't justify its elegance. It's a wonderful mix of content and design.
March 30, 2004
The O'Franken Factor
Al Franken's radio show starts tomorrow at 12:00 noon. You can listen to a web stream of the broadcast.
In other news, Condi will be testifying in public and under oath to the 9-11 commission. I still don't understand why she (as well as Bush and Cheney) resisted testifying in the first place. I doubt she has anything to hide, but her argument about executive privilege is so ludicrous that it can't be the main reason. Perhaps their unwillingness in general to share information comes more out of instinct than decision, and they stonewalled the commission before asking, "Wait a minute. Why are we stonewalling?"
I love being generous to Bush. It makes me feel so big.
In other news, Condi will be testifying in public and under oath to the 9-11 commission. I still don't understand why she (as well as Bush and Cheney) resisted testifying in the first place. I doubt she has anything to hide, but her argument about executive privilege is so ludicrous that it can't be the main reason. Perhaps their unwillingness in general to share information comes more out of instinct than decision, and they stonewalled the commission before asking, "Wait a minute. Why are we stonewalling?"
I love being generous to Bush. It makes me feel so big.
I'm Sssssick and Tired of This Discrimination
Snake people pop up often in fantasy literature, TV shows and movies. And it's always the same snake people: slits for eyes, a hissing sound when they talk, and a strange desire to conquer whatever planet they are on.
Bird people get Sesame Street. Mice people get Maus. Snake people get relegated to stereotypical, two-dimension bit parts that require them to curse our warm blood and rail against our vertebrae. "Look at them, hunched over their computerssssss, lifting heavy objects with their backsssss. They get to have spines, and they don't even take of them. Ssssssss. Soon, we will have our revenge…once we destroy the Joes. COBRA!
Why do snake people always get the shaft? They deserve our compassion. They have the worst of both worlds. They can't slither in small places and they have to pay taxes. Yet we hate them. For all we know, kind snake people from space wanted to visit our world and share their knowledge, but they were disgusted by our intense ophidiophobia. We even have a patron saint for the fear of snakes, St. Patrick of Ireland.
How deep does our hatred run that we need to embody it in a Catholic saint? Do we have a patron saint for murderers? For open sores? For television writers?
Actually, we do. The Catholics did some crazy shit. But that is no justification for narrow-mindedness. It is time we have a fair portray of snake people, one that shows them as sensitive souls and suspends the superstitions and stereotypes suggested about them that some have sought to spread in this sworld.
If the thought of snake justice still makes you uncomfortable, just remember this: the initials for snake people make up the first two letters of special.
Bird people get Sesame Street. Mice people get Maus. Snake people get relegated to stereotypical, two-dimension bit parts that require them to curse our warm blood and rail against our vertebrae. "Look at them, hunched over their computerssssss, lifting heavy objects with their backsssss. They get to have spines, and they don't even take of them. Ssssssss. Soon, we will have our revenge…once we destroy the Joes. COBRA!
Why do snake people always get the shaft? They deserve our compassion. They have the worst of both worlds. They can't slither in small places and they have to pay taxes. Yet we hate them. For all we know, kind snake people from space wanted to visit our world and share their knowledge, but they were disgusted by our intense ophidiophobia. We even have a patron saint for the fear of snakes, St. Patrick of Ireland.
How deep does our hatred run that we need to embody it in a Catholic saint? Do we have a patron saint for murderers? For open sores? For television writers?
Actually, we do. The Catholics did some crazy shit. But that is no justification for narrow-mindedness. It is time we have a fair portray of snake people, one that shows them as sensitive souls and suspends the superstitions and stereotypes suggested about them that some have sought to spread in this sworld.
If the thought of snake justice still makes you uncomfortable, just remember this: the initials for snake people make up the first two letters of special.
March 29, 2004
About the lack of comedy recently
Perhaps if I publicly declare I will write something humorous soon, the shame of reneging on my pledge will motivate me to write.
I will write something humorous soon.
Monkey balls cock.
There you go.
I will write something humorous soon.
Monkey balls cock.
There you go.
Dear Mr. Chumbucket
Most of you will want to skip this. It's my response to a comment someone left about my post on Clarke that is way, way too long to fit in the comments section (1000 character limit).
[original comment]
Clarke is a liar pal. Here's a link to an interview transcript from 2002.... [Jason here: I suggest reading the interview so you can understand the poster's position. He has a reasonable point. ]
I especially like the part where Clarke says the Bush administration did NOT stop anything put in place by the Clinton administration to fight Al Qaeda, and in fact increased the funding to covert ops for that function by 5 times. He said that. What do you say to this?
ChumBucket | Email | Homepage | 03.28.04 - 10:18 pm | #
[my response]
James R. Thompson, one of the members of the 9-11 commission and no friend of Clarke, asked him about this 2002 interview. I included the exchange below. You can decide for yourself whether Clarke adequately addresses the purported discrepancies between his comments now and his comments in the background interview for the press.
Before I get to that though, a few comments.
Let's say someone accuses you of not having a chum bucket. He is lying, but even the suggestion that you don't have a chum bucket is so damaging that you have to prove this guy is lying. Do you:
a) Call him a liar.
b) Show people your chum bucket.
c) Both a and b.
I would argue that either b or c is the strongest way to refute this person's claims. If all you did is call him a liar, it would be your word against his, and people would wonder, "Why doesn't he just end this issue by showing people his chum bucket?"
Even if you think Clarke's claims are untrue, one would have to admit that the Bush administration's response has been almost all option 'a'. The evidence refuting his claims have been scanty and weak (e.g. this press briefing, in my opinion). Which is unusual, because Clarke's main claims are very easy to disprove, if the evidence exists. And there should be a lot of it, in the form of meeting minutes, policy papers, and classified material that can safely be declassified for the good of the country (e.g. Clarke's formerly classified press briefing).
Clarke may be wrong and Bush may have nothing to hide. But considering that Bush originally opposed the formation of the 9-11 commission, then opposed giving the commission a two-month extension, the administration is attacking Clarke's character instead of the meat of his argument, Condolezza Rice still refuses to testify under oath, and Clarke wants all his private testimony and e-mail exchanges with his former boss made public, Bush is at least creating the appearance of trying to cover up something.
The exchange with Thompson and Clarke:
THOMPSON: Mr. Clarke, in this background briefing, as Senator Kerrey has now described it, for the press in August of 2002, you intended to mislead the press, did you not?
CLARKE: No. I think there is a very fine line that anyone who's been in the White House, in any administration, can tell you about. And that is when you are special assistant to the president and you're asked to explain something that is potentially embarrassing to the administration, because the administration didn't do enough or didn't do it in a timely manner and is taking political heat for it, as was the case there, you have a choice. Actually, I think you have three choices. You can resign rather than do it. I chose not to do that. Second choice is...
THOMPSON: Why was that, Mr. Clarke? You finally resigned because you were frustrated.
CLARKE: I was, at that time, at the request of the president, preparing a national strategy to defend America's cyberspace, something which I thought then and think now is vitally important. I thought that completing that strategy was a lot more important than whether or not I had to provide emphasis in one place or other while discussing the facts on this particular news story. The second choice one has, Governor, is whether or not to say things that are untruthful. And no one in the Bush White House asked me to say things that were untruthful, and I would not have said them. In any event, the third choice that one has is to put the best face you can for the administration on the facts as they were, and that is what I did. I think that is what most people in the White House in any administration do when they're asked to explain something that is embarrassing to the administration.
THOMPSON: But you will admit that what you said in August of 2002 is inconsistent with what you say in your book?
CLARKE: No, I don't think it's inconsistent at all. I think, as I said in your last round of questioning, Governor, that it's really a matter here of emphasis and tone. I mean, what you're suggesting, perhaps, is that as special assistant to the president of the United States when asked to give a press backgrounder I should spend my time in that press backgrounder criticizing him. I think that's somewhat of an unrealistic thing to expect.
THOMPSON: Well, what it suggests to me is that there is one standard of candor and morality for White House special assistants and another standard of candor and morality for the rest of America. I don't get that.
CLARKE: I don't think it's a question of morality at all. I think it's a question of politics.
THOMPSON: Well, I... (APPLAUSE)
THOMPSON: I'm not a Washington insider. I've never been a special assistant in the White House. I'm from the Midwest. So I think I'll leave it there.
[original comment]
Clarke is a liar pal. Here's a link to an interview transcript from 2002.... [Jason here: I suggest reading the interview so you can understand the poster's position. He has a reasonable point. ]
I especially like the part where Clarke says the Bush administration did NOT stop anything put in place by the Clinton administration to fight Al Qaeda, and in fact increased the funding to covert ops for that function by 5 times. He said that. What do you say to this?
ChumBucket | Email | Homepage | 03.28.04 - 10:18 pm | #
[my response]
James R. Thompson, one of the members of the 9-11 commission and no friend of Clarke, asked him about this 2002 interview. I included the exchange below. You can decide for yourself whether Clarke adequately addresses the purported discrepancies between his comments now and his comments in the background interview for the press.
Before I get to that though, a few comments.
Let's say someone accuses you of not having a chum bucket. He is lying, but even the suggestion that you don't have a chum bucket is so damaging that you have to prove this guy is lying. Do you:
a) Call him a liar.
b) Show people your chum bucket.
c) Both a and b.
I would argue that either b or c is the strongest way to refute this person's claims. If all you did is call him a liar, it would be your word against his, and people would wonder, "Why doesn't he just end this issue by showing people his chum bucket?"
Even if you think Clarke's claims are untrue, one would have to admit that the Bush administration's response has been almost all option 'a'. The evidence refuting his claims have been scanty and weak (e.g. this press briefing, in my opinion). Which is unusual, because Clarke's main claims are very easy to disprove, if the evidence exists. And there should be a lot of it, in the form of meeting minutes, policy papers, and classified material that can safely be declassified for the good of the country (e.g. Clarke's formerly classified press briefing).
Clarke may be wrong and Bush may have nothing to hide. But considering that Bush originally opposed the formation of the 9-11 commission, then opposed giving the commission a two-month extension, the administration is attacking Clarke's character instead of the meat of his argument, Condolezza Rice still refuses to testify under oath, and Clarke wants all his private testimony and e-mail exchanges with his former boss made public, Bush is at least creating the appearance of trying to cover up something.
The exchange with Thompson and Clarke:
THOMPSON: Mr. Clarke, in this background briefing, as Senator Kerrey has now described it, for the press in August of 2002, you intended to mislead the press, did you not?
CLARKE: No. I think there is a very fine line that anyone who's been in the White House, in any administration, can tell you about. And that is when you are special assistant to the president and you're asked to explain something that is potentially embarrassing to the administration, because the administration didn't do enough or didn't do it in a timely manner and is taking political heat for it, as was the case there, you have a choice. Actually, I think you have three choices. You can resign rather than do it. I chose not to do that. Second choice is...
THOMPSON: Why was that, Mr. Clarke? You finally resigned because you were frustrated.
CLARKE: I was, at that time, at the request of the president, preparing a national strategy to defend America's cyberspace, something which I thought then and think now is vitally important. I thought that completing that strategy was a lot more important than whether or not I had to provide emphasis in one place or other while discussing the facts on this particular news story. The second choice one has, Governor, is whether or not to say things that are untruthful. And no one in the Bush White House asked me to say things that were untruthful, and I would not have said them. In any event, the third choice that one has is to put the best face you can for the administration on the facts as they were, and that is what I did. I think that is what most people in the White House in any administration do when they're asked to explain something that is embarrassing to the administration.
THOMPSON: But you will admit that what you said in August of 2002 is inconsistent with what you say in your book?
CLARKE: No, I don't think it's inconsistent at all. I think, as I said in your last round of questioning, Governor, that it's really a matter here of emphasis and tone. I mean, what you're suggesting, perhaps, is that as special assistant to the president of the United States when asked to give a press backgrounder I should spend my time in that press backgrounder criticizing him. I think that's somewhat of an unrealistic thing to expect.
THOMPSON: Well, what it suggests to me is that there is one standard of candor and morality for White House special assistants and another standard of candor and morality for the rest of America. I don't get that.
CLARKE: I don't think it's a question of morality at all. I think it's a question of politics.
THOMPSON: Well, I... (APPLAUSE)
THOMPSON: I'm not a Washington insider. I've never been a special assistant in the White House. I'm from the Midwest. So I think I'll leave it there.
March 27, 2004
Richard Clarke...EVIL SPACE ALIEN!
The Bush administration and fellow conservatives' attempts to discredit Richard Clarke are alternatively funny and sickening. He wasn't in the loop (Dick Cheney). As head loop person, everything bad that happened is his fault. (Condolezza Rice). He's a racist (Robert "Valerie Plume. P-L-U-M-E" Novak, Ann Coulter). He didn't trash Bush's terrorism record in his resignation letter. Why is he trashing it now? Also, for old time's sake: it's Clinton's fault. Ahhh. That cookie jar will never be empty.
What's remarkable is that while the White House is attacking Clarke's character and motives, they have yet to refute almost all of his claims. One would think this would be the fastest way to quell this embarrasment.
There are so many claims and attacks being made every day that it is easy to get overwhelmed by the details. It's worth knowing about though. What is already a significant moment in politics may grow in importance in the next week, depending if Clarke's claims end up resonating with the public. TPM is the best site to go to catch up on this. The WP is doing a decent job too.
What's remarkable is that while the White House is attacking Clarke's character and motives, they have yet to refute almost all of his claims. One would think this would be the fastest way to quell this embarrasment.
There are so many claims and attacks being made every day that it is easy to get overwhelmed by the details. It's worth knowing about though. What is already a significant moment in politics may grow in importance in the next week, depending if Clarke's claims end up resonating with the public. TPM is the best site to go to catch up on this. The WP is doing a decent job too.
Sacre Bleu!
Let's see....he's a war hero so we can't attack him on defense. He's rich, but we're rich too, so scratch that. There's only one logical course of action: let's call him French.
March 22, 2004
Yay! It's Dying Time.
There have been a few stories lately suggesting that rebels in the mountains of western Pakistan are protecting an important al Qaeda leader. The rationale is that there must be an important figure there because over the past few days, the rebels have put up "unexpectedly stiff resistance" against the army.
I'm not a military tactician, but I have a hunch--and please keep in mind, this is just a hunch--about why the rebels are fighting so hard: BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO DIE. Based on the latest medical evidence, my conjecture is that the human body does not respond well to bullets fired at a high velocity towards it. Furthermore, to avoid unwanted conversations between bullets and brains, most humans will try to eliminate the threat, either by fleeing or firing similar bullets at the bullet-firing machines.
What else do people expect?
REBEL SOLIDER1: "Sir! Al-Zawahiri is safe. He escaped through the tunnel last night under the cover of darkness.
REBEL CAPTAIN: Excellent. Everybody! Put down your arms. Our mission is over. Two extra virgins in heaven for the person to get shot!
REBEL SOLDIER2: "When we run out to our death, can I sit on Ibul's shoulders? We have a long cloak so it will look like we are a giant person."
REBEL SOLDIER3 (Ibul): "And I'm going to scream "YA YA YA YA YA," but Sansha's lips won't be moving. He will be sucking on a lollipop. They will be so confused."
REBEL CAPTAIN: "Of course you can. It is a free country. [everyone laughs] I kid, I kid. Of course you can't."
I'm not a military tactician, but I have a hunch--and please keep in mind, this is just a hunch--about why the rebels are fighting so hard: BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO DIE. Based on the latest medical evidence, my conjecture is that the human body does not respond well to bullets fired at a high velocity towards it. Furthermore, to avoid unwanted conversations between bullets and brains, most humans will try to eliminate the threat, either by fleeing or firing similar bullets at the bullet-firing machines.
What else do people expect?
REBEL SOLIDER1: "Sir! Al-Zawahiri is safe. He escaped through the tunnel last night under the cover of darkness.
REBEL CAPTAIN: Excellent. Everybody! Put down your arms. Our mission is over. Two extra virgins in heaven for the person to get shot!
REBEL SOLDIER2: "When we run out to our death, can I sit on Ibul's shoulders? We have a long cloak so it will look like we are a giant person."
REBEL SOLDIER3 (Ibul): "And I'm going to scream "YA YA YA YA YA," but Sansha's lips won't be moving. He will be sucking on a lollipop. They will be so confused."
REBEL CAPTAIN: "Of course you can. It is a free country. [everyone laughs] I kid, I kid. Of course you can't."
What's the name of that word that means 'particularly appropriate name'?
It comes up in most of Gene Weingarten's chats. This author is one fine example of the word.
Random trivia: having difficulty recalling the name of a word is not aphasia. It's anomia, a characteristic of aphasia.
Random trivia: having difficulty recalling the name of a word is not aphasia. It's anomia, a characteristic of aphasia.
I Taught Her Everything She Knows
Perhaps the wisest thing I have done in my life was not pay money to enter a NCAA pool this year. For some people, betting on the tournament makes it more exciting. For me, it makes the first Thursday more exciting, where the possibility of winning a bundle of cash and admiration from my analytically-inferior peers fills my dreams during my 6:10 - 7:20 p.m. nap.
My shining bracket moment was picking Maryland to win the championship two years ago, but that was when 50% of the country, 70% of people in Maryland, and 80% of people in my pool mined this nugget as well. Picking Maryland that year was like picking President Bush to come into work with a nosebleed in the late 70s.
So this year, I entered ESPN's pool and was quite content with being in the 60 percentile after the first round. With over 1.8 million brackets entered, being better than a million people felt good.
That good feeling lasted almost a whole day. I am now getting beat by people named "CoinFlippa" and "THIS IS STUPID I HATE BASKETBALL FLORIDA A&M RULZ!" But it doesn't matter. Because my sister Michele is representing.
She's in the 99.5 percentile, or 11,784. It is as close as anyone in our family will come to sports genius. And although I wasn't able to apply my knowledge to my own bracket, I would like to point out that, had I not given her any advice, she wouldn't have know what not to do. As the special Zen episode of G.I. Joe taught us, knowing what not to do is the other half of the battle.
My shining bracket moment was picking Maryland to win the championship two years ago, but that was when 50% of the country, 70% of people in Maryland, and 80% of people in my pool mined this nugget as well. Picking Maryland that year was like picking President Bush to come into work with a nosebleed in the late 70s.
So this year, I entered ESPN's pool and was quite content with being in the 60 percentile after the first round. With over 1.8 million brackets entered, being better than a million people felt good.
That good feeling lasted almost a whole day. I am now getting beat by people named "CoinFlippa" and "THIS IS STUPID I HATE BASKETBALL FLORIDA A&M RULZ!" But it doesn't matter. Because my sister Michele is representing.
She's in the 99.5 percentile, or 11,784. It is as close as anyone in our family will come to sports genius. And although I wasn't able to apply my knowledge to my own bracket, I would like to point out that, had I not given her any advice, she wouldn't have know what not to do. As the special Zen episode of G.I. Joe taught us, knowing what not to do is the other half of the battle.
Al Franken
Quote I never expected to see in an article about Al Franken:
"His butt was like a cut basketball. Which, you know, you don't normally see in comedy writers.''
The New York Times has a lengthy feature on Al Franken. I found the depth of his involvement in politics interesting, such as when he organized a meeting with influential members of the media and John Kerry in his house early in the primary season.
Also, the four-page spread on his dunkable ass didn't hurt.
"His butt was like a cut basketball. Which, you know, you don't normally see in comedy writers.''
The New York Times has a lengthy feature on Al Franken. I found the depth of his involvement in politics interesting, such as when he organized a meeting with influential members of the media and John Kerry in his house early in the primary season.
Also, the four-page spread on his dunkable ass didn't hurt.
March 17, 2004
A Five-Year Conversation in the Pizza Industry, Compressed to a Mere Eighty-Seven Words
PIZZA EMPLOYEE: What do we do with these extra scraps of dough?
PIZZA MANAGER: Turn them into breadsticks, bitch.
[...]
PIZZA EMPLOYEE: What do we do with these extra breadsticks?
PIZZA MANAGER: Bitch, cut them up and pour some cheese on them.
[...]
PIZZA EMPLOYEE: What do we do with this extra cheese?
PIZZA MANAGER: I don't know. What's in the crust?
PIZZA EMPLOYEE: Dough.
PIZZA MANAGER: What the fuck? Stuff some cheese in that bitch.
PIZZA EMPLOYEE: Well, I am a magical talking dog.
PIZZA MANAGER: Damn LSD.
PIZZA MANAGER: Turn them into breadsticks, bitch.
[...]
PIZZA EMPLOYEE: What do we do with these extra breadsticks?
PIZZA MANAGER: Bitch, cut them up and pour some cheese on them.
[...]
PIZZA EMPLOYEE: What do we do with this extra cheese?
PIZZA MANAGER: I don't know. What's in the crust?
PIZZA EMPLOYEE: Dough.
PIZZA MANAGER: What the fuck? Stuff some cheese in that bitch.
PIZZA EMPLOYEE: Well, I am a magical talking dog.
PIZZA MANAGER: Damn LSD.
March 16, 2004
...
I feel like I could write every day for the next week or not write at all for a while. I hope to find the will to make it the former. The only thing I have written in the past week is the following: well, the following and everything before the second "the following." And by "the following," I mean everything after the second "the following," which includes the third, fourth, and fifth "the following"s.
I'm not sure how to label what I wrote, or even what title to give it, if any. It's different from what I usually do. If you enjoy reading it, that is wonderful.
***
A can of Coke was folded into itself like a child punched in the gut. It slumped in the gap between two sections of the concrete barrier erected to keep road drivers as road drivers, and not shoulder drivers. Shoulders are for concrete, and cones, and men who sweat along the ridges of their spines and between their toes. And they're always men, even if they're women, because that is what the "Men At Work" sign says.
Traffic moved slowly. In another gap was a bag of barbecue potato chips, Utz. Empty, of course. Construction workers are not elves, or pixies, or any type of whimsical creature that would leave goodies for hungry, slow-moving commuters to grab as they rolled by. I could tell they were barbecue Utz potato chips because of the large strip of orange on the bag. They use the same color for the chips. That makes it natural.
Then traffic decided to stop moving slowly. Why? Because that is bland and traffic is tired of being bland. What the traffic decided to become, without moving any faster or slower, is this: an obese man climbing a broken escalator.
If you think fat people should be mocked, then traffic is stopping every few steps to bite a jelly doughnut and lick the sticky powder off his hands. He is so fat that no one can squeeze past him. A line of impatient commuters are forced to glower at traffic as he ambles up the steps, smacking his fingers and wiping the saliva on the hand rail.
If you shy away from making fun of the frailties of others, then perhaps traffic is not fat. Perhaps he is overweight, and has diabetes, and the jelly doughnut is filled with insulin, and he is looking for an empty spot where he can escape the loud sighs and muttered remarks and fill the air with sobs that only birds and the boy that lives inside every man can hear.
Or perhaps he is like my Dad, whose cane tapped the ground in the rhythm of a clock. My dad was once thin. In old pictures, before the heart medication, his face is smiling and happy. His body grew bloated before I was born. In pictures where he holds me and my sisters, or sits next to his parents, or watching TV on the couch, his mouth is in a frown, the corners of his lips pushed down by the weight of his cheeks. Yes. It is the weight in his cheeks.
So when I say traffic moved slowly, I mean that it moved like a fat man, or a father, or a road clotted with cars. I mean it moved slow enough for me to imagine a construction worker annoyed that all the gaps are filled with trash. And what's this, a beer bottle? The construction worker glares at Miguel, who is laughing with his friends by bulldozer. Miguel is always happy. And he's always eating mints.
But these musing will soon end. For traffic will ease and these cars, these cells with four wheels, will flow again. Traffic always clears up in the end. It is why, if you remind yourself of this, you can battle the weight of your cheeks and still smile.
I'm not sure how to label what I wrote, or even what title to give it, if any. It's different from what I usually do. If you enjoy reading it, that is wonderful.
***
A can of Coke was folded into itself like a child punched in the gut. It slumped in the gap between two sections of the concrete barrier erected to keep road drivers as road drivers, and not shoulder drivers. Shoulders are for concrete, and cones, and men who sweat along the ridges of their spines and between their toes. And they're always men, even if they're women, because that is what the "Men At Work" sign says.
Traffic moved slowly. In another gap was a bag of barbecue potato chips, Utz. Empty, of course. Construction workers are not elves, or pixies, or any type of whimsical creature that would leave goodies for hungry, slow-moving commuters to grab as they rolled by. I could tell they were barbecue Utz potato chips because of the large strip of orange on the bag. They use the same color for the chips. That makes it natural.
Then traffic decided to stop moving slowly. Why? Because that is bland and traffic is tired of being bland. What the traffic decided to become, without moving any faster or slower, is this: an obese man climbing a broken escalator.
If you think fat people should be mocked, then traffic is stopping every few steps to bite a jelly doughnut and lick the sticky powder off his hands. He is so fat that no one can squeeze past him. A line of impatient commuters are forced to glower at traffic as he ambles up the steps, smacking his fingers and wiping the saliva on the hand rail.
If you shy away from making fun of the frailties of others, then perhaps traffic is not fat. Perhaps he is overweight, and has diabetes, and the jelly doughnut is filled with insulin, and he is looking for an empty spot where he can escape the loud sighs and muttered remarks and fill the air with sobs that only birds and the boy that lives inside every man can hear.
Or perhaps he is like my Dad, whose cane tapped the ground in the rhythm of a clock. My dad was once thin. In old pictures, before the heart medication, his face is smiling and happy. His body grew bloated before I was born. In pictures where he holds me and my sisters, or sits next to his parents, or watching TV on the couch, his mouth is in a frown, the corners of his lips pushed down by the weight of his cheeks. Yes. It is the weight in his cheeks.
So when I say traffic moved slowly, I mean that it moved like a fat man, or a father, or a road clotted with cars. I mean it moved slow enough for me to imagine a construction worker annoyed that all the gaps are filled with trash. And what's this, a beer bottle? The construction worker glares at Miguel, who is laughing with his friends by bulldozer. Miguel is always happy. And he's always eating mints.
But these musing will soon end. For traffic will ease and these cars, these cells with four wheels, will flow again. Traffic always clears up in the end. It is why, if you remind yourself of this, you can battle the weight of your cheeks and still smile.
March 09, 2004
A Few Scenes
Is there a gay porno called "The Passion of Chris"? Because now would be a great time to release it into theaters.
[15 minutes into the movie]
"Daddy, why is Jesus wearing a leather mask?"
"I thought crucifixion was supposed to hurt. So why is Jesus smiling?"
***
DOCTOR: "Mr. Ashcroft, as part of the pre-operation prep, we're going to insert four thin cameras down your throat so we can map out your stomach."
ASHCROFT: "But the problem is with my gallbladder, not my stomach."
DOCTOR: [shoves cameras down throat] Yup. Welcome to Metaphor Hospital."
[15 minutes into the movie]
"Daddy, why is Jesus wearing a leather mask?"
"I thought crucifixion was supposed to hurt. So why is Jesus smiling?"
***
DOCTOR: "Mr. Ashcroft, as part of the pre-operation prep, we're going to insert four thin cameras down your throat so we can map out your stomach."
ASHCROFT: "But the problem is with my gallbladder, not my stomach."
DOCTOR: [shoves cameras down throat] Yup. Welcome to Metaphor Hospital."
March 04, 2004
Coming Soon!
[Pepsi commercial]
[Coke commercial]
[Fandango commercial]
Okay, here we go.
I slept in until 3:00 today, and I don't feel the least bit guilty. I had a little adventure yesterday in the world of trash. Barring my laziness getting drunk at the bar and slugging my motivation when it comes home, I'll finish writing about what happened soon.
[Coke commercial]
[Fandango commercial]
Okay, here we go.
I slept in until 3:00 today, and I don't feel the least bit guilty. I had a little adventure yesterday in the world of trash. Barring my laziness getting drunk at the bar and slugging my motivation when it comes home, I'll finish writing about what happened soon.
No Angels, Few Devils
I think that people with an intensely cynical outlook of politics and people have a warped view of the world. "Blood for oil" made me roll my eyes. Ditto for "The two parties are the same", i.e. it doesn't matter who is President, Senator, or member of Congress. And if someone had suggested that President Bush held off attacking a major terrorist because it would damage his case for war in Iraq, I would have been taken aback by that person's cynicism. But for the last claim, NBC news says this may have happened.
If this is true (and it is an if), I am not going to start assuming that every politician is acting on the worst motives. You remember when Wal-Mart was selling a DVD player for $29.99 and a woman got trampled by the crowd rushing into the store? Well, it didn't happen. The woman who made the claim is a con artist with a long history of personal injury cases against corporations. But it was easy to many people to believe, because aren't people so greedy that they would cripple a person for a cheap DVD player?
My point is that assuming the worst about people often assumes the wrong. But at the same time, not considering the worst is naive.
If this is true (and it is an if), I am not going to start assuming that every politician is acting on the worst motives. You remember when Wal-Mart was selling a DVD player for $29.99 and a woman got trampled by the crowd rushing into the store? Well, it didn't happen. The woman who made the claim is a con artist with a long history of personal injury cases against corporations. But it was easy to many people to believe, because aren't people so greedy that they would cripple a person for a cheap DVD player?
My point is that assuming the worst about people often assumes the wrong. But at the same time, not considering the worst is naive.
March 01, 2004
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)