Tiger Given the Axe

It's a tough time to be a Tiger Woods sponsor these days. Just one week after the world's top golfer became the center of the sex scandal universe, his commercial backers are scurrying to find a way out of the spotlight. Most companies have simply refused to comment, while others have issued the typical dodge and deflect statements. One company however is headed in the other direction. Enter Axe Body Spray.

Axe is claiming full responsibility for the growing list of mistresses coming out of the woodwork. This could be an exciting new development for Tiger. As the number of women claiming to have seen his penis grows, people are clamoring for an answer to the all important question: Why? Axe provides Tiger with an easy-out to his current predicament. Everyone already knows about the all-powerful and mystical properties of Axe's complete line of body sprays. This is exactly the opportunity Tiger needs to drive straight-up the fairway.

To highlight how big an opportunity this is for Tiger, one of his largest sponsors, Accenture, dropped him as a pitch-man today. The big danger here is that Accenture's departure could mark the first in a series of lost endorsements. That could spell financial Armageddon, especially if Nike jumps onto that train.

Tiger needs to reverse this river of negative media coverage. If he embraces Axe as a corporate partner he can actually combat his two biggest challenges. The first is that pesky wife of his. The second is his voracious sex drive. By placing responsibility for his sexual escapades in Axe's hands he not only gives them the street cred that they crave, but he also exonerates himself from any form of responsibility. Tiger can arrange to sue Axe for causing women to be chemically attracted to him, and then quietly withdraw the lawsuit after this whole thing blows over. That would allow Tiger to avoid an expensive divorce, and will also allow his current sponsors to save face. This is truly a win-win situation.

Tiger represents the flagship in Axe's new media strategy. Axe is trying to corner the market on fornication, and is actively harnessing the power of promiscuity to sell its wares. To accomplish this vision the company is offering other big contracts to celebrities who know how to hammer the proverbial nail. Just last week Wilt Chamberlin and Kobe Bryant became the official NBA spokesmen for the company. Charlie Sheen has been booked for a January ad campaign, and Axe is also making waves by buying the official rights to Hugh Hefner's genitals when he passes away. This is just the kind of inside the box thinking that has the company on the verge of greatness.....pun intended.

We Don't Need No Stinking Invitations!

Feel sorry for us.

That is the most recent message that has been projected from the camp of White House party crashers Tareq and Michaele Salahi as government prosecutors join forces to publicly destroy them. My answer to that plea should be heard equally as loud: No! I refuse to feel sorry for people who pursue a goal that they know is wrong. People can make an argument for just about anything, but what can not be argued is that two people tried to do something really stupid for the purposes of being famous. Congratulations, with the help of the media machine, you are now famous.......and potentially under arrest.

Was it worth it? That is always the question. While the Salahis try to dig themselves out of a very deep legal hole, we have the luxury of analyzing a true national phenonmenon. What phenonmenon? I believe that I have discovered a new medical condition. This medical condition is a direct result celebrity becoming the new American Dream. I call it: Destined for Infamy and Celebrity if it Kills me Syndrome (DICKS). DICKS is rampant in the US, and the Salahis are prime examples of the condition.

Similar to the 5 stages of grief, there is a 5 stage hierarchy for people who are infected with DICKS. The real interesting thing about this disease is that people who have DICKS do not necessarily know that they are DICKS carriers. The only real way to diagnose DICKS is unfortunately through behavioral observation. The good news is that our national media outlets have a firm grasp on DICKS. As a result they give us DICKS media coverage non-stop. It is precisely this unending DICKS footage that allowed me to identify the 5 stages of DICKS. The following list outlines the normal behaviors and attitudes of DICKS:

(note links to the actual media articles for these stages are also provided)

1) Look what we did! (link)

This is the stage where DICKS sufferers tell the world about what they did. Typically a media frenzy ensues and we are flooded with coverage of the event. Examples include kids trapped in hot air balloons, women with 8+ children, etc. Please read previous blog postings for more information on this stage of DICKS.

2) What is the big deal? (link)

This is the DICKS fallout stage. Typically, people begin to really take a look at all the implications and problems associated with DICKS. Some have referred to stage 2 as the "end of the honeymoon phase". This is due to the fact that when DICKS is exposed people generally begin to see all the problems associated with it.

3) It's not our fault! (link)

A classic DICKS behavior is one in which the people infected with DICKS try to justify their inappropriate behavior. The justifications can take many forms, but it is important not to underestimate DICKS. Often people with this disease offer compelling pleas of innocence. Never take the symptoms of DICKS lightly.

4) We are being attacked! (link)

People with DICKS become more defensive as their actions come under more scrutiny. Often times uninfected people become angry at DICKS for the pain that it has caused. This is normal. This stage is highlighted with DICKS related lawsuits and other legal challenges.

5) Feel sorry for me! (link)

People with DICKS ultimately will acknowledge that their lives have been ruined by the disease. The real problem at this point is getting DICKS sufferers to admit that it was their own actions that led to their demise. However, for most this argument falls on deaf ears. People with DICKS see the world stacked against them, and tend to suffer DICKS related relapses. It is important to realize that DICKS is like a time bomb waiting to explode. The only treatment is constant vigilance.

Now that you know the 5 stages of DICKS you can appreciate that there is a fine line between celebrity and infamy. I doubt that I have to recount stories of OJ, Zsa Zsa Gabor, or Pee Wee Herman to prove my point. DICKS is a disease that we all need to combat. This means that DICKS related behavior should never be condoned or encouraged. We should be thankful to the media for providing us all with endless archives of DICKS footage so that we will be better prepared for our fight. I know that I will do my part, the only question is will you do yours?

Soap Oprah

I found out last week that the world was ending. Although the media outlets made me believe that the Armageddon was already in process, mercifully I discovered that I will be able to continue living my life until September of 2011. What happens in September 2011? Is it a far-off asteroid threatening to turn our planet into dust? Did a virus just mutate into the death spore of the 21st century? No, worse! Oprah Winfrey will go off the air.......and then immediately come back on the air.

Hold on a second, why is the world's rotation going to come to a halt again? Are you telling me that my life will never be the same because Oprah is finally getting off her couch? I am supposed to feel 2 years of sorrow and foreboding because a talk show is switching from network TV to cable TV? I am at a loss for words on this one. Not only am I confident that my life will continue unphased by this non-event in human history, but also I am mildly hopeful that the rest of humanity will survive as well.

Although tragic that people with basic cable will have to buy all new cable packages, I must ask this most basic of questions: Why is this news? I am sure some people will tell me that the Oprah Winfrey show is an iconic piece of America. Although sad to admit, this is in some way true. Others will say that Oprah has done so much for communities around the world that whatever she does is news. I agree with the first part of that statement. However, I would argue that a change in TV programming, even the Oprah Winfrey show, should not receive national news coverage for a week. Oprah is not retiring. Oprah did not die. Oprah simply wants you to pay her more money to watch 24 hours of re-runs. Although Oprah will no doubt spend some of that money on philanthropy, I again will state that this is not national news.

This whole thing is indicative of a larger, more troubling dynamic. The problem is that the news has been transformed from a source of unbiased information into a glorified marketing machine. Originally commercials were the vehicle for marketing messages, but now people can skip right over those. In order to make up the ground that commercials lost the programs have become the commercials. I am not simply talking about product placement or celebrity endorsements (which are everywhere). I am talking about the "experts" who cover everything from finances to marriages. I am talking about the stories covered and the people interviewed. Everyone is trying to sell you something.

Think about it for one minute. Our national economy has been converted from one of manufacturing to one of consumption. The government doesn't want you to spend money, it needs you to spend money. America is built on you spending money. When you don't, we have a financial meltdown (i.e. like now). Therefore, it makes perfect sense that all forms of media slowly have been turned into one big commercial.

Unfortunately, the one place that should fall outside the advertising blitzkrieg, the news, has succumb to the same woes. We now have news channels that advance political agendas, sell memoirs, hawk beauty products, and stoke our feeling of entitlement. This truly is a sad day indeed. I am waiting for the day when I can sit down and watch the news without feeling as though I need my wallet and a voting ballot next to me. I may be waiting a for a very long time.

Fee'd Up Already

There have been several media stories lately about the financial services industry. Nothing new there. Newspapers have been running the typical mix of stories: corporate greed, regulatory oversight, industry losses, etc. However, recently there has been a lot of coverage dedicated to the realm of fees, and specifically, how bank/credit card fees are at the center of all that is evil in the world.

Consumer "Watchdog" groups are now lobbying Capitol Hill to introduce legislation that is meant to slash banks' abilities to levy unfair fees against consumers, and as a result everyone will live in complete economic harmony. First, let me say that some of this legislation is good. The way banks have been changing interest rates on prior transactions is simply unfair, and modification of this practice is a good thing. However, attempting to curtail fees that banks collect will make banking more expensive for everybody. This is a fact. If people could take an emotional step back they would see that this is the only possible outcome.

Let us for a moment consider just one of the fees that is receiving attention: Overdraft fees. I will pause here to give a cursory explanation of the product. Overdraft protection was created to protect people from having their charges, checks, or debit purchases rejected for insufficient funds. In other words, banks allow people to spend money they do not have so they won't have to be embarrassed when their payment gets rejected because they have no money.

Overdraft protection is a product that people lobbied banks for years to have, and millions of people currently depend on it. Logically, the bank charges you a fee to use it. Why? Because this program is expensive to run. Banks make money in two very simple ways: Fees and interest. These accounts typically do not collect any interest, so that leaves fees.

Let me be incredibly clear at this point: without fees there will be no overdraft protection. Now you may ask why are the fees "ridiculously" high. There is a simple reason for that as well. Hundreds of thousands of people who overdraft their account (people who borrowed money interest free) never pay back what they borrowed. Banks lose money on every single one of these people. Somewhere between 5 and 10% of customers walk out on their bills right now, and that number is rising. That means a lot of fees need to be collected to keep this service viable. Want to get mad? Stop blaming banks, go kick your neighbor in the shin for being a dirt-bag, and tell him to pay his bills.

Now we know why fees are charged and why those fees are so high. However, there are a few more points commonly made in the media that should be discussed. First, there is a lot of grumbling over how transactions are processed. The claim often made is that banks process payments in a way that maximizes the fees it can charge clients. One such way is that banks process larger dollar payments first, and therefore can charge fees on a bunch of smaller transactions if the large dollar payment drains the account. The process is technically correct, but the rationale is completely flawed. When overdraft accounts were first created payments were processed more or less chronologically. Consumers were the ones who demanded this process change since their $3 milk purchase trumped their $1000 mortgage payment. The banks switched, and now are chastised for doing so. The bottom line is if people want to bounce payments on items that can repossessed, the banks will do it. Only please don't complain when a payment for something important gets rejected. You have your milk, do drink it.

Another popular argument is that people don't know about these fees until they are charged. This is simply ludicrous at this point in the digital age. The first thing people ask when they open an account with a financial institution is, "What are the fees?" When you buy anything you ask this question. To prove my point, if you go to any major bank website and type "Fees" into the search bar you will get a list of them. In case you are too lazy to check, I typed "Overdraft Fee" into the Bank of America search engine and got this: click me. This link takes you to a page where you can choose to see more details on a product and it has a huge button that says "Rates & Fees". These are not hidden fees. There is no small print. Forget for a second that the news has run story after story on bank fees, consumer awareness, predatory lending and so on for the past couple of years. The real issue is that people want to blame someone else for the fact that they do not want to spend 2 seconds to read about what they are buying. Stop complaining and start reading.

The last thing major point being made in the news is that overdraft protection is an opt-out type of product. This means that everyone gets it unless they specifically state that they do not want it. For some banks this is true, and for others it is not. This is a no-win argument for banks. If this was an opt-in product, clients who did not have overdraft protection would call the bank (and thousands do every day) to complain that the bank did not clear their purchase. You are all familiar with sentences that start. "I have been a loyal customer for over XX years...." or "I have over XXXX dollars in my other account why would you not cover a check for XXX...." or "I get paid every XX days and I would have paid you back....". Have you ever made a call like that? I bet some of you have. If you haven't you would if you bounced a check for $40 when you simply forgot to transfer funds from another account to cover the payment. Overdraft protection is primarily an opt-out product for this exact reason. It does benefit people when they really need it, and you only really realize when you need it until after you use it.

I don't like paying fees just as much as you don't. In fact, I would be happy to never pay another fee in my life. However, does that mean that I believe Congress should pass national legislation over what a bank can charge for a service it provides? No. If overdraft fees are restricted or capped this lost revenue will be will be subsidized by people who are responsible with their money in the form of other fees.

If I had a dollar for every time I heard someone say, "Where is my bailout" I could have retired 50 times over. The answer to that is, "In your neighbor's pocket." Those bailout funds go towards paying for every person who does not pay their bills. In turn, banks can keep their doors open to you. How does that help you? That allows you to avoid living in a place where you need to buy everything with cash that you keep under your matress (including houses, cars, etc). That allows you to collect interest on your money (when the government actually raises interest rates). That allows you to not bury money in your backyard to keep from worrying about robbers. In other words, you can continue to live a civilized life. There is your bailout. Don't like it, thank your neighbor and give 'em a kick in the shin for me.

National Media Still Full of Hot Air

Investigative journalism is a profession long dead in America. Once the cornerstone of all news outlets, it is now something reserved for British periodicals and newspapers with deteriorating circulation. Why has investigative journalism died? The plain and simple truth is that real journalism requires three things that mainstream America does not want:



1) It requires time to fully understand the story (i.e. does not fit into a convenient sound byte)
2) It typically involves some level of higher reasoning on the part of the reader
3) It is educational vs. sensational

This last point is certainly the most salient one. The proof of this came last week when the national media was mobilized to report on a boy from Colorado who was allegedly stuck in a home-made balloon and lifted thousands of feet in the air. After the balloon crashed and the wreckage was searched, the was boy found over 50 miles away in an attic. Ever since, media outlets have flooded the airwaves with slanderous stories about the family who tricked us all into believing that their baby was huffing atmosphere.

This story clearly demonstrates how journalism is indeed dead. First, the story obviously does not fit any of the three journalistic conditions listed above, and hence automatically qualifies for today's news. Second, instead of recanting the story on the basis of being farcical the media chose to provide additional coverage to the story. Third, why is the media still talking about this when the whole thing is a monumental waste of time? Why? Because the media does not want to look foolish for spending a ton of money tracking an empty tin foil balloon during prime time.

What I am really curious to know is whether this story would have been weeded out prior to national coverage had a real journalist worked the story? I don't know about you, but before I retrain my national satellite grid on a helium-filled flying piece of Reynold's Wrap, I actually would want to think about the feasibility of the story first. If investigative journalism was practiced in this case, here are some things that would have come to light within the first five minutes:

1) There was no gondola/basket on the balloon, so how could the boy be inside?
2) The balloon was sealed (presumably to keep the helium inside), so how could the boy be inside?
3) If the balloon was sealed and the boy was inside, the boy would be dead since the balloon was filled with helium
4) The balloon was too small to provide enough lift. The balloon would have had to be over 900 cubic feet in size (a 12 foot diameter sphere) to be able to lift the weight of an average 6 year old boy (about 56 pounds) --- This was actually a simple calculation based on very publicly available information on the properties of helium
5) The balloon was paper thin and if a boy was trapped inside we all would have been able to see him moving around - do you see him moving here...click here?
6) The kid's parents are clearly crazy and thus are not a highly credible news source

These six things came to my mind almost instantly, so why were these questions not asked? If they were asked, why did this story make headlines? What disappoints me most is that the media is missing the real story here. The real story is that the news has become a virtual extension of the reality TV culture that has taken hold of America. Media outlets could have used this event as a platform to reform their fact checking, lead verifying, and question asking standards. They could have changed the way things were done. Instead, they simply reworked the same old repugnant story from a different angle and put a new stamp on it.

What is inevitable is that as people begin to more clearly see the link between news and entertainment, the more of these stories we can expect. This should be the real takeaway. Instead, the news is choosing to sensationalize the already sensational. We will have weeks worth of morning talk shows, legal experts, court proceedings, child services visits, etc. We will get to know this family inside and out. We will be given every little piece of familial information that can possibly be found. Meanwhile there will be a person hundreds of miles away trying to figure out what he can do to shift the spotlight on himself. News today does not happen, it is made. As a result, there is no need for investigative questions. There is no need for research. There is no need for rational thought. In the end we will be left with a future of nothing but empty headlines and no sight of real journalism.

Going, Going, Rogue

Going Rogue. The title of Sarah Palin’s new book conjures up images of an individual that has thrown off the shackles of an ungrateful institution, and against all odds has taken the dark and dangerous path into the shadows towards an unknown destination. There is a real strength and beauty to the title, and then you see the picture on the cover and the whole thing dissolves into something incredibly painful and mind-numbing......reality.

There are three things that really stagger me about a book that could just as easily be named The Chronicles of an Inept Alaskan Governor and Socially Divisive Conservative Beauty Queen. In actuality, there are more than three things that bother me, but in the essence of time we will stick to the truncated list of concerns.

First and foremost, how does this book wind up on the New York Times Best Seller list? Not only does it top the list, but it tops the list before it is even in stores. What am I missing? What could possibly be the allure of this book? Is there some incredibly interesting back-story to the Presidential campaign that was not covered in sickening detail during the 14-months of non-stop political coverage during election season? Are we going to be told about the thousands of hours that were spent by Palin’s staff trying to cover up for her lack of social, geographical, economic, and political knowledge? Could there possibly be a 250-page account of how she is so roguish (and mavericky) that she is neither ultra conservative nor Republican, but still somehow manages to pull the conservative Republican party line at all times? Of course, this all begs the question: How can one be a rogue when someone else dictates your agenda? Something tells me that the liberal media will be blamed for that.

The liberal media can also be blamed (according to Palin) for another thing: her departure from office. Now that is truly rogue behavior. This is the second thing that gets to me. Why am I supporting a person who doesn’t support her voting base? Is the media giving you a hard time? No problem. Take your office and use it against the very people who you want to hurt most….Alaskans. Nothing shows more true grit than leaving your constituency in the lurch, your state finances in shambles, and your local government in a power vacuum. Rogues don’t play by the rules. Rogues don’t do interviews. Rogues don’t put up with media BS. Rogues face their problems head on; they quit. The only thing more roguish is to quit, then write a book about it.

Being rogue is hard work. No one likes a maverick, especially that liberal media. However, the liberal media label is a little confusing. Palin cited the media and its intrusion into her personal life as one of the primary reasons for her leaving office. Forget for a moment that she was in public office, or that there is no doubt that she will run for another public office. What I could never figure out is why she was surprised that she received so much media attention. She was the one who brought the media into her home to show the country how American she and Todd were. She was the one who literally paraded her pregnant daughter around the Republican National Convention to make a political statement on family values. She was the one who wanted the world to know about her kids’ hockey practices, learning disabilities, wardrobes, travel plans, etc. Is there any surprise that the media gave her what she wanted? Now, just to keep from stoking the fire too much, she publishes a book further intruding on her own privacy. Damn that media.

The point that this article is trying to make is that this book is as much of a political stunt as anything Sarah Palin has done in the past. The bottom line is that she is using this book, and all the media attention that goes with it, as a platform to run for an office that she is unqualified to hold. You can make all the arguments you want about other politicians who hold offices with equally little experience (political or otherwise). Those people are just as bad. Sarah Palin is good at one thing, and that is making people believe that she is some independent force in the political universe, unencumbered by the political morass that is Washington. Nothing could be further from the truth. She is a creation of the GOP and will always function in line with its goals. Therefore, the title of her book is oddly fitting. A rogue is not just a person who acts outside of the normal standard. A rogue also is typically defined as an unprincipled, deceitful, and unreliable person. Great, just what American politics needs.

Terrorists Go Into Hiding....Under New Noun

The world can breathe a sigh of relief. Terrorists have infiltrated a new proper noun, Freedom Fighter. Two of the worlds forerunners of human rights Hugo Chavez and Moammar Gadhafi have redefined terrorism so that the world is now a safer place. Last week the two leaders came together to issue a statement that Venezuela and Libya, "reject intentions to link the legitimate struggle of the people for liberty and self-determination" with terrorism, but also adds that they "reiterate the importance of countering terrorism in all its forms." Under the new terrorism guidelines people will no longer be considered terrorists as long as they kill innocent bystanders under the veil of religious freedom or political insurrection.

This is especially good news for the former Libyan leader. Luckily for Gadhafi his 40 years as a terrorist and state sponsor of terrorism are now considered past the statute of limitations under the new definition. The timing of the announcement has been questioned by some internal factions as incredibly self-serving, but most of the protestors were liquidated well before the new mandate was put in place.

Hugo Chavez knows first hand how to define legitimate struggles for liberty and self-determination. When asked how to make the distinction between terrorism and the pursuit of freedom Chavez smiled and reponded, "That is easy." When probed a little further he elaborated by saying, "It is easy in the sense that I make the rules." That is in fact true in Venezuela where Chavez used money he siphoned off from expropriated Western companies, the national treasury, and oil contracts with Russia to buy votes within Venezuela for the purpose of passing an amendment to the Venezuelan constitution to remain in power forever while simultaneously killing, exiling, or imprisoning all of his political opponents. When questioned as to whether he was one of the world's biggest hyppocrites Chavez laughed and said, "Under me Venezuela is free, and anyone who does not agree with that is obviously a terrorist."

Gadhafi echoed those sentiments days later in a dynomite factory outside of Tripoli. "I for one am simply trying to rid the world of people who do not share my beliefs. There is nothing wrong with that. It is the people who want to keep you from blowing up buildings and civilians that are the real terrorists. Who are they to prevent anyone from pursuing their goals? What happened to freedom?"

Some people do not share Mr. Gadhafi's unique perspective. In a recent BBC poll, 99.9% of responders, excluding residents of Libya and Venezuela, agreed that nothing Mr. Chavez or Mr. Gadhafi says carries any credibility. The remaining .1% abstained. Only time will tell how terrorism will react to its new name. At least for now, according to two ruthless world leaders, the world is a safer place.

Not So Well Endowed

Read this article, then read below:

Reuters: 9/10/09

In case you did not read the article that I just told you to read, here is a summary:

"Harvard and Yale, America's two richest universities, said on Thursday their endowments lost roughly 30 percent of their value last year, showing how severely the financial crisis battered even the world's best managers."

Does anything seem wrong with this statement? Let me assist. There is no way an endowment fund should lose 30% of its portfolio in any given year. Let me say this again, an endowment fund (think similar thoughts for pension funds, retirement funds, college trusts, or any other fiduciary account) should never lose 30% in any given year. If this does happen, the people managing the fund should be fired and they should be investigated for dereliction of fiduciary duties. What is a fiduciary relationship? According to the legal definition, a fiduciary obligation exists whenever the relationship with the client involves a special trust, confidence, and reliance on ithe fiduciary to exercise his discretion or expertise in acting for the client. In this case the university, and ultimately the students, are the clients. Why should this matter? Because what I am indirectly saying is that they are gambling your money. Sound familiar?

Not convinced that they were gambling college funds?

"In recent years Harvard and Yale invested heavily in hedge funds, private equity funds and timber, relying on these alternative asset classes to add billions to their endowments."

or

"Additionally, Harvard is reducing its exposure to real assets, such as real estate, timber and commodities, and is investing its future commitments in private equity funds and other investment funds. Harvard will also have a bigger cash buffer, keeping roughly 2 percent of the portfolio, instead of having it fully invested."

Think about the fact that none of the endowment fund was being held in cash or ultra short-term securities. Also, consider the sheer size of the investments held in private equities, real estate, and other illiquid assets. These kinds of investments can not be bought and sold on short notice, nor is there a daily market price. Essentially what those "smart people" at Harvard and Yale were doing were acting like they were Wall St. investment bankers rather than professionals hired to safeguard university assets. There is no other way to put it; they were in breach of their fiduciary responsibilities. That is criminal, literally.

What is most disturbing about reading an article like this is that the article is completely missing the point. In fact, the article actually gives some support to the fund managers' behavior by citing how the funds' performance have historically been above market average. These funds should never have above market average returns since that implies that they are riskier than the markets themselves. These funds should be boring in their approach to investments and should focus on preservation of principal.

The role of journalism is to ask why things are the way they are and not to roll over and say, "Those smart guys lost money, so I don't feel so bad about losing mine." Does anyone perhaps think that we as a country should start actually taking a step back from our most basic assumptions and think, "Wait a second, are these people really that smart after all?" Probably, the more pertinent question is how do my incentives align with the incentives of the people managing my money? This is especially relevant here, since in reality these people were criminally negligent, but were rewarded for taking huge risks. The scary thing is that the same can be said about virtually every pension fund in America, government or otherwise.

The bottom line is that the only thing that should be shocking about this article is that nothing is being done to prevent this exact behavior in the future. When this does happen again, please just read this article again.

Texas' Least Favorite Class: Social Studies

Last week most Texas schools decided that they would not allow President Obama's speech to be aired in their schools. Why not? The most predominant answer out of Texas: I don't want my child brainwashed by a Socialist. Of course, there were other excuses. Personally, my favorite was, "I don't want my child wasting class time." Now we all know that the first day of school is a universal waste of time, but a valid point could have been made if these same parents didn't elect to keep their children at home in order to evade the President's speech.

In my opinion this is a new low point in our society, and especially for Texas. Forget that the President of the United States is the President of the United States for a minute. Politics is clouding the bigger issue here. Instead, consider the fact that the lesson being taught here is: If you do not agree with someone's opinion, don't listen to anything that they have to say.

So, let me address the main Texan argument (since I listened to what they said).............Socialism. Of course, we all know that Socialism is the root of all evil and as un-American as South America, or is it? I hate lowering myself to defining things as a way to make an argument, but here it goes.

Socialism: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state.

In other words, the state (i.e. the government) controls the entire show from A to Z. We all know that there is a backlash right now against a national healthcare system. Why? Because allegedly that would be a socialist idea. This is not exactly true since what is being proposed would neither eliminate private health care companies, nor would it centralize medicine in the US. If people think a national healthcare option is a socialist idea, why then is there a national requirement that part of every paycheck in America goes towards Medicare and Medicaid? How has this flown under the radar? These programs already exist, and certainly are closer to the definition of socialism.

Other government programs could also be compared to the definition of socialism. Social security is an obvious one. After all, the program has "social" in the name. Here are some others:

Oil Subsidies
Energy Pricing Controls
Farm Subsidies
INS / Border Patrol
Military
Public Schools

Since this whole article started with schools in mind, let's come full circle on this whole socialism thing. Do any of us remember the crown jewel of domestic programs by our former Texan Republican President? No Child Left Behind. Under this program public schools have their federal funding cut if they fail to meet state mandated standards. Just to review our handy definition of socialism:

A system or condition of society (No Child Left Behind) in which the means of production (federal funding) are owned and controlled by the state (state test standards).

This program is socialist in concept at its very core. Therefore, if it was logical to keep your child home from school in order to avoid the President's socialist brainwashing speech, why would you ever send them back to socialist boot camp for the next 12 years? I guess we can all look forward to a generation of non-socialist dropouts. What a relief! Take that France. What are you looking at Canada? Any questions Britain?

I think it would be naive of me to think that I will be spared from more inaccurate and inflammatory rhetoric in the coming weeks and months. What I do sincerely hope is that people will take the fingers out of their ears and listen. If they don't you can count on a new national program: All People Left Behind.

Alcohol Charged with 2,437,017 Counts of Abuse

Alcohol may finally need to sober up. A judge in New York's federal superior court held a formal arraignment hearing for Ethanol (alcohol's real name) during a special court proceeding on Labor Day. Ethanol has been accused of physically abusing millions of people worldwide, and the sheer size of the indictment that has been handed down is an indication of just how extensive the alleged abuse was. Witnesses are still being vetted, but over 400,000 testimonials have been collected so far, and that number is bound to increase. No one really knows just how much abuse may have happened. Additional indictments may be handed down if more people continue to come forward.

For some, the abuse has lasted for years. Court documents indicate that police believe that Ethanol managed to hide the alleged abuse by convincing its victims to consume itself. Once inside the helpless target Ethanol would use its unique chemical properties to torment its host. Due to the fact that Ethanol was hidden within an individual, there were virtually no external signs of abuse. Any slurred speech or random acts of stupidly were generally considered to be the fault of the individual. Typically, to avoid detection after the abuse took place, Ethanol would convince the abused to help it escape through their mouth while hiding itself in piles of late night burritos or onion rings. Ethanol has also been accused of sneaking out of its victims' urethras while the victims were distracted in the bathroom or while they were sleeping.

How did this kind of abuse go on for so long? "The problem is that we always blamed the people, and not the ethanol itself," says medical expert Joseph Snider. "Ethanol's real social coup was that it convinced us to think that it was being abused and not the other way around." If these allegations prove to be true, Ethanol could be looking at over 20,000,000 million years in prison.

The federal prosecution team has a difficult job even though it literally has tens of thousands of witnesses. The main problem is that Ethanol is technically a chemical compound, and its defense attorney Ima Blitzed will inevitably argue that hier client lacks the cognitive powers to be responsible for any abuse that may have happened. Disputing these claims could prove difficult. Ethanol does lack a brain, and clearly is incapable of operating any kind of machinery. Therefore, some of the more serious claims of vehicular misconduct will be especially hard to prove.

Federal officials are also concerned that if convicted, the current prison system will be incapable of effectively containing Ethanol. Federal penal code 237.44.r21 explicitly states that federal inmates must be allowed a minimum of 25 square feet of space while incarcerated. As a result, it would be illegal to restrain Ethanol using a bottle or other container while in prison. This could prove to be a very unwelcome distraction for the government as the defense will no doubt try to have the case dismissed on the grounds of inhumanity. That in itself is ironic since Ethanol is not human.

This case has certainly been groundbreaking on several different levels. Undoubtably more questions will surface over the next few weeks as federal prosecutors lay out their case against Ethanol. To be certain, the thousands, if not millions, of victims around the world will be following this case. For them, the scars of abuse will remain forever. A small golden lining is that most of them can not remember much about it.

California Fired Up Over New Proposition

In an unorthodox move, California has announced today that it will set fire to all flammable objects in the state. Proposition XXV has drawn significant backlash by environmental activists in recent days. However, support is growing for the bill as governor Schwarzenegger positions it as a preemptive move to avoid next year's inevitable wildfires.

"Californians are sick and tired of having to worry if their houses or their forests are going to burn down. They want to know that their state and their government are taking steps to avoid these kinds of disasters in the future," said the governor from the steps of City Hall on Friday. Some say that the governor is bowing down to pressure from Washington to reduce what some say is waste of taxpayer dollars and local resources battling wildfires each and every summer.

Recent years have seen a flurry of forest fires spread across the hillsides of southern California. Most of these fires have ultimately been attributed to arsonists, campers, or smokers. As a result, Proposition XXV tackles the human element of the problem by beating other humans to the punch.

"You have to admit it, if there is nothing to burn, there can't be a fire, said Schwarzenegger. "It is time for Californians to take back its state from the careless, the reckless, and the flammable."

Although incredibly naive, and totally reckless, the governor's proposition is at the same time ingeniously simple, and support is growing in national polls. A recent survey of people living outside of California support Proposition XXV 4 to 1. Asked why he supported the new legislation one man responded, "I would burn Oregon too if I didn't have to watch the same thing play out year after year without end. "

In fact, Oregonians are both nervous and excited. "I am scared as hell they are going to burn down everything West of the Rockies," said Ted Williamson an owner of a small hotel near the northern border of California. "However, burning down California should be good for business." Good for business is right if all goes according to plan. Estimates of tourism revenues range from 3 to 5 billion for states surrounding California.

For those wondering what is in it for California; how about 20 billion in reconstruction dollars saved each year. That is a hefty price tag to keep a couple of acres of trees and a few thousand homes in the hills. If Proposition XXV passes through the state government all people within California will temporarily moved to Las Vegas for the duration of the inferno as a symbolic gesture towards the huge risk the state is undertaking. Once the state is made safe from future fires, people will be allowed to move back to their patch of scorched earth to start again. Some parts of the state are projected to fare better than others. Los Angeles is predicted to survive the fire relatively unharmed. This is due to the fact that the level of smog hovering over the city drives down oxygen levels too far for the fire to sustain itself.

What will not be in short supply is media coverage for the next couple of weeks as the bill is finalized by the governor and his staff. Only time will tell if Propisition XXV will go up in smoke or not. We will all have to stay tuned.

Liar, Liar, Healthcare on Fire

We have all been assaulted lately with dramatic scenes from “Town Hall Meetings” across the country. What stands out to me more than the violence, finger-pointing, shouting, tears, utter despair, sweaty politicians, and foul language is the sheer volume of lies being spread by the Republican Party. Why am I blaming the Republicans and not the Democrats for rumor mongering? Ahh, it probably has something to do with the fact that Democrats would not start a rumor that their own healthcare initiative would euthanize the elderly. That was the first tip-off. If you need more proof (you shouldn’t) try to find one article that has a Democrat saying that a public healthcare system will:

1. Eliminate healthcare for the disabled (and subsequently kill old people)
2. Cover healthcare for illegal immigrants (FYI this already happens under the current system)
   
3. Pay for abortions
   
4. Steal money from programs used to equip our troops overseas
   
5. Socialize America (aka make us France or Canada or UK or Russia or _____)
   
6. Give government control over everyone’s personal bank accounts (huh?)
   
7. Allow the government to spy on you
   
8. Destroy all small businesses
   
9. Raise taxes
10. Bankrupt private healthcare

Does anyone see a pattern in this list? Does this list seem to reflect the value set of a certain political party (i.e. anti big-government, religiously conservative, domestically-centered, non-immigrant friendly, etc.)? Just as a side-note here, pretty much every item on this list (except for 10 and 3) have been happening for years under Republican administrations. However, I have to give credit where credit is due, and Republicans you deserve some credit. It was an ingenious strategy to basically use lobbying groups as rumor mills to forward your non-progressive agenda. And why not? The US has a collective educational level of a 9th grader, so why wouldn’t high school antics succeed in the “adult” world. Diabolically brilliant.

The truth of the matter is that I would never have started this article if the national healthcare debate had not been reduced to a bullshitting match. In fact, I support rigorous national debates on all the issues. However, the issues have been so intentionally clouded that I am afraid that the Republicans have willingly sacrificed any form of meaningful healthcare reform. That in itself is shameful. Enriching the lives of Americans through proper healthcare should be the real goal, not enriching the profitability of healthcare companies through politics. Maintaining the status quo due to unfounded rumors and meaningless innuendos is downright pitiful.

Of course, spreading rumors to start a public panic is nothing new. We are all intimately familiar with Swine flu, Ebola, Bird flu, SARS, shoe bombs, pirates, John & Kate, oil, TARP, the words Depression and Recession, Pokemon, etc. And of course we all remember when Al-Queda was lurking behind every corner laden with dirty bombs demanding that we invade Iraq. That one worked out well, so why not go back to the old stand-by? Republicans know something that the rest of us just can not come to terms with: most people are simply too lazy, too stupid, or too biased to ever educate themselves on the issues (i.e. read, question, analyze). If people actually did this, these types of rumors would never work on either side of a debate. People would stop themselves and say, “You know something, let me look into your claim that a national healthcare system would turn all doctors into patient eating cannibals.” That day will sadly never come.

Therefore, it is with extreme loathing that I will now lower myself to the depths of the GOP. It occurred to me the other day that an effective way to stop Republicans from planting people in the audiences of Town Hall meetings (or any forum really) in the future was to fight fire with fire. The idea is simple: Spread outrageous lies about what people have to do in order to register as a Republican. The implication here is that if the lies are effective, people will never again want to raise their hand and say, "Yes, I am a Republican, and those are my values."

There are some ground rules to this new fight. First, any claim has to incite anger so as to veil the real issue in a cloud of ambiguity. Second, be the first one to point the finger. Latecomers to the party are always put on the defensive. Third, never stop lying. Never admitting to lying is just as important, but feel free to lie about that too. In fact, when cornered on an issue, tell another more inflammatory lie.

The strategy for such a social coup should use the bedrock political items of the GOP and twist them into some warped sense of patriotism. This way the strategy will have roots in reality that will make our claims more believable. For example, most Republicans want all illegal immigrants physically removed from our country. Therefore, one rumor we could spread is that all Republicans must go through an initiation process in which they literally kill an illegal alien. Imagine the quandry Rush Limbaugh would find himself in when people started calling his show to find out how many immigrants he killed to be a Republican.

Here is a list of rumors that might serve as a good starting point for this new campaign. The list is by no means exhaustive, but it should touch on enough salient points to flatline incoming membership figures and to pulverize public opinion polls:

1) One fifth of all Republican campaign funds go to the KKK

2) John Edwards was really a Republican plant meant to divide public favor amongst Democrats

3) Half of all Republican Senators own sweatshops overseas

4) Republican membership hazing features an annual trip to Alaska for seal clubbing and whale harpooning paid for with taxpayer money

5) The Republican National Convention is always staffed by prostitutes (both male and female)

6) A leaked Republican membership oath will reveal the phrase, "I will view the Republican Party as a religion, and consider all other forms of worship irrelvant and gay."

7) Membership requires gene testing to verify that new applicants have both X and Y chromosomes. Women must have either XXY chromosomes or a hairiness index factor of 7, and must never express an original thought to qualify for membership.

8) All members must carry guns at all times regardless of age

9) Members can not travel to foreign countries ever, for any reason, unless travel is for the expressed purpose of killing terrorists or destroying terrorist training camps

10) Membership to the Republican Party comes with a guidebook on how to evade taxes using overseas bank accounts and shell corporations (a copy of this guidebook should be created and circulated)

If all the steps and lies are implemented as outlined, there is no reason that Republicans can not be marginalized for certainly the foreseeable future. My real hope is that these lies serve a higher purpose; one that will once again allow the country to engage in real discussions on change without the need for lies. That would be an accomplishment all by itself. That being said, the Democrats will probably find a way to screw that up as well. Let me just say that my hopes are not really high.

If you want to actually sift through some of the lies current being spread visit: http://www.healthcarereformmyths.org/HealthcareReformMyths.php

Assholdinejad Sworn In, Again. Awesome.

Have you ever held total control over all forms of media in your country? Have you ever had people publicly executed for "religious reasons"? Have you ever rigged a Presidential election? No? Meet the man who has: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Jealous? You should be.

52 year old Ahmadinejad was sworn in yesterday at the Iranian Parliment building for what promises to be another obnoxious and tirade-laden couple of years in office. It seems that only now Iranians are becoming wise to this old fox's tricks. Although relatively more aware of Ahmadinejad's bullshit, Iranians have yet to convince the military police of his illegitimate status, and thus, essentially can not do squat.

How has Ahmadinejad done it? Were his domestic policies his strength? Were educational programs central to his theme? Yes and no. He has created policies that are both vile as well as genious. The underlying principle that he adheres to that made this whole thing possible is quite simply this: Be an asshole all the time. What has been brilliant about Ahmadinejad's career is that he has played the asshole card to perfection. His winning combination is as follows:

1) Hate America - Always a big vote getter in Iran

2) Make People Think Everyone but Me is Lying Even When it is Obvious That They Are Not - This way you can play the everyone is out to get me card down the road and gain any residual sympathy vote.

3) Threaten to Cut Off the World From Iranian Oil - A tactic Iranian ally Russia has used as well since the world's leaders always lose their balls when oil is on the line.

4) Kill People In Public - Don't like what people are saying about you because it could hurt you in the polls? Kill 'em and then say that you were just adhering to the strict Islamic rule of law because you are such a religious person. Being the right religion is a big vote getter in any society, just look at what happened to that Mormon guy from Massachusetts who ran for President. Who? Exactly.

5) Get Nuclear Weapons and Threaten to Destroy Another Civilization - This dovetails well with #6 and also lets your people know that you will not be pushed around and that their voices will be heard. Afterall, you have already done step #3, so what are they going to do anyway?

6) Promise to Destroy Israel - This type of thing usually makes people mad and your neighbors crazy, but in the Arabian Penninsula this is not a leftist statement, it is a right-wing fundamental. In an area of vitually all right-wing conservatives, this is pure gold.

7) When Things Start To Turn Against You Tell the People, "That is What They Want You to Think" - Losing in the polls? Tell the people that the Americans and the Jews are making you feel that way. Cue rioter in the street: "Oops, sorry, let me change my picketting sign to....wait a minute....just a couple of changes here....sorry about this......Ahmadinejad 4 Eva!!!"

8) Ensure Prolonged UN Sanctions - Can't get food, supplies, or water? Blame the UN, not me. They don't want you to have it. Forget the fact that the sanctions would be lifted if I simply promised not to build and weild nuclear weapons. We have rights and clearly we would be responsible if we were to acquire them. Everyone will suffer until we can make other people suffer, is that clear! Somehow this line of thinking works.

9) Always Say the Opposite of Your Enemies - You want to make sure no one can say that you have any common ground. He says it is sunny, nope I think it is cloudy. She says she is happy, ah, actually you look kind of sad. He said that strapping bombs to children is inhumane and atrocious, but I say we all have the right to raise our children according to our own religious beliefs.

10) When in Doubt, Do Something Assholish - Feeling like you haven't done anything to gain the international TV spotlight lately? Kidnap a foreign journalist and sentence them to death by stoning. The point here is to do something really vile so as to show that you are always relevant to the conversation. Now where did I put those oil pipeline shutdown codes.........

Strangely enough, anyone can live by these simply rules and find themselves in a position of power. These rules are time tested and have been refined and adjusted over many a despotic campaign. However, today we must tip our cap for President Ahmadinejad for he once again has proven that he is a supreme asshole amongst all mankind.

To Your Health

Healthcare, should people get it or not? If so, who should that be? Should they pay for it or should they not pay for it? How much should they pay? Blah, blah, blah.

Before I really get rolling let me get most of today's biggest catch-words out of the way so they don't distract us from the issue at hand:

.......what's best for all Americans.
.......trillion dollar deficits.
.......bankrupting our economy.
.......the end of private healthcare as we know it.

Wait. Wait. Wait. Enough of this crap already. Let's first dismiss these stupid phrases in the order in which they came. They all quite literally are emotional arguments that when reasoned out just a little equate to a huge, steaming pile of bullshit. What is best for all Americans? Over 18% of Americans under 65 do not have healthcare at all, not to mention the 40% or so that are not covered under employer plans. So it would seem to me that holding the status quo would not necessarily be in the best interest of all Americans.

Trillion dollar deficits. Now this is a really good one. More than $800 billion has been spent on war since 2001 and we are worried about spending money on healthcare reform. There is so much doom and gloom being thrown around with spending estimates by our friends over in the GOP, but let us not forget their incredible estimation skills with how much the Iraq War Part II would cost. Answer: 50-60 billion. Oops, only off by a factor of 10.

For those who believe that our financial system is not bankrupt, think again. It already is. We just issue debt in this country and hope the Chinese will keep buying it. This country runs on deficit spending, and if no one buys our country debt, we will collapse like a house of cards. True story. What is really amazing is the millions of ways that we find to squander the money that we do collect. A surtax on the rich is plain old stupid. Whoever thinks that rich will simply put up their hands and say, "Hold on, there is more money over here you can have," please step off a cliff. Your naivity is no longer needed in this country. Countries like Switzerland, Cayman Islands, Bermuda, etc. make their economies function with the illegal tax shelters rich people in America use to avoid stupid 8% surtaxes. Don't believe me? Ask yourselves why Switzerland won't turn over the 52,000 names of tax evaders it has to the US? Answer: Everyone with a tax haven that isn't caught will leave, and the ones who were caught will sue. That is a lose, lose situation. My point is, the rich surtax is stupid because no one will pay it.

That leaves the crap about the end of private healthcare......GOOD! Is anyone really happy with their healthcare provider? The GOP will make really interesting quotes like, "65% of Americans are happy with their current healthcare provider." This is one of the most useless statistics I have seen. First, who is polling those without healthcare. I bet they would say 100% are pissed off. How about the 35% who hate their healthcare. Furthermore, of the 65% who do like their insurance how many of them have tried to get any specialized treatment or needed to do anything "non-medically necessary"? I have to believe any responder with gynomastoplacia (bitch tits) is one of the unhappy 35% since he technically can survive life with man boobs. Hyper-elongated eyelids? Cosmetic. Achne that scars your skin for life? Not covered. Got hit with a crossbow dart on your Transylvanian vacation? Out of network, proceed to pay your life savings. The current system has passed on one cost after another while at the same time marginalizing the care it gives. This is the very definition of a broken system. America is the country with the best doctors, the best equipment, and yet not the best healthcare. There is a disconnect, and private insurers are square in the middle of that void.

Now you all must be wondering what do we do. I am smart enough to point out the flaws, but am I smart enough to come up with any meaningful solutions? Yes, but the problem is that none of them will ever be politically popular or personally lucrative for those lawmakers who sponsor them. The result, nothing. That is the problem. However, I will throw these ideas out there and will watch in sorrow as the DC sun takes its toll and rots them away on the tree.

Ideas:

Cap Malpractice Suits: One of the main costs of healthcare comes from the cost of having doctors covering their asses. A $400 million dollar lawsuit for accidently cutting off the top of my finger? Huh. Doctors in New York pay almost $100,000 a year, EACH, on malpractice insurance. If you do not think that this would free healthcare from some real odious costs, you are a lawyer.

Ditch high fructose corn syrup: This has led to a national epidemic of obesity and one of the roots of the staggering growth of healthcare costs. Corn growers will never let this happen because corn = America in most peoples' minds. Not to mention that half the Senators on Capital Hill take in huge contributions every year from corn lobbyists and have no interest in pissiing off this support base. Ditch the syrup, watch people get less fat. Really that simple.

Allow Personal Investment of Social Security Funds: There is no transparency in the social security process. In other words, what I put in probably does not equal what I get out. Someone else spends it. Either the money is lost by the people who run the fund, or it is swallowed up by those who are older than I am. Whatever the answer, I will never see anything close to a benefit equal to my contributions. How about I invest my own contributions? WHAT ABOUT THE MARKET! LOOK WHAT JUST HAPPENED! First, that market probably destroyed a good portion of the social security fund. That would be because there is no accountability for the returns on the social security fund, and because the people running it know that it is vastly underfunded. Since it is underfunded they have to take huge risks to make bigger returns. Epilogue, the fund probably got its teeth kicked in. We will not find out for a while, but probably. If the government forced everyone to contribute the same amount of the social security witholdings into an account that they would not have access to until age 55 and they limited your investment options to 1) government bonds 2) money markets and 3) a total stock index fund we would all be much better off. No derivitives. No difficult choices. Plus, at the end of the day you know exactly how much money you have. The real good news. The government does not have to pay trillions of dollars to keep this stupid system alive. Money that could be used towards.....................healthcare.

Stop Fighting: End the wars, close up shop, and save around $50 billion a month on domestic programs that have been left out to dry for the past nine years.

Institute a Flat Tax: Time to make life easy. Take a flat tax and stop trying to finance the lunacy of this country with surtaxes on the rich. The only people who pay those taxes are people who were not rich enough to hide their assets overseas. No one is their right mind would pay 56% tax per year when they could move to tax oppressed France and pay 50%. Trust me, these people would jump ship at 55%. We would save a whole lot of money on limiting the size of the tax force needed to handle our system, plus more people would actually be paying tax. Collecting more money each year would be good, but what would we do with the extra loot? Hmmmm.........Healthcare.

Unemployment Benefits Restrictions: Wow, talk about a tough one to deal with right now. People would carry off the sponsor of this bill and throw him in a lava pit. What am I talking about? Look, I am not saying get rid of unemployment. I am saying make people actually go look for jobs. Take California for example (as in most states really). Californians must prove that they are looking for jobs to be eligible for unemployment benefits. How is this done? Interview sheets, centralized employment management systems, etc? Nope. A check box on a form. Yup, I looked, money please. Absolutely crazy. As a result, seasonal laborers make money during the in-season, and take 6 months of the year "off" by "getting by" on unemployment. These people are sucking the system dry across the country and should be cut out. All I am saying is make people look for work. Is this such a terrible suggestion? It would also help if these changes were put in place alongside some incentive program for small business owners (read tax breaks). That would help both sides of the equation. Again, unemployment benefits are not directly related to healthcare in the normal sense of things, but it is directly related to the problem of funding it.

What should a national health plan entail? That is the subject of another blog. This one was created for the sole purpose of blowing the whistle on the stupidity that is regurgitated to me via all forms of national media on a daily basis. Funding shouldn't be the problem. Current healthcare plans should not be the problem. The problem is that Americans do not always understand the finer points of finance and healthcare, and people in Congress have no incentive to fill them in. After all, Congressmen and women collect lifetime pensions and full health benefits after 4 years in office. If they had the same interests as you and me then maybe we wouldn't have to wait in perpetuity for any real systemic change in America.

Michael Jackson Death a Thriller of a Medical Mystery

News reports have been pouring in all week following the death of the King of Pop, Michael Jackson. Most recently, initial findings (from what will ultimately be the first of many autopsies) showed that Jackson was a meager 112 pounds when he died; not to mention covered in needle tracks. The autopsy also revealed that his stomach was filled with pain killers, his face was caved in, and half of his ribs were broken due to failed CPR attempts by paramedics. Jackson's family for some reason wants a second opinion, possibly thinking that the next doctor will be blind and miss half of this stuff so they don't look like total money-grubbing, derelict parents.

All this aside, the media has inexplicably overlooked coverage on an angle of this story that really should cause readers nationwide to scratch their heads. How did Michael Jackson die? Seriously, how did he actually die, as in how was it physically possible? What was not disclosed in the original autopsy report, according to an insider not allowed to speak with the media, was that Jackson's body was 99% artificial. The remaining 1% of living tissue consisted mainly of fingernails, or in other words, non-critical organs. Therefore, the question remains, how did Michael Jackson die?

Ironically, Jackson had planned on having the remainder of his living tissue replaced by his 51st birthday. Sources close to the singer indicated that Jackson was technically defined as a cyborg due to the fact that he still maintained living tissue; a distinction he wanted erased. The idea supposedly came to Jackson over 20 years ago while filming Thriller; his epic music video featuring dozens of dancing zombies. Jackson became enamored with the idea of being an undead dancer, but wanted a better complexion than his former zombie counterparts. Although questions remain as to whether he achieved a better complexion, Jackson was successful at replacing his organs and living tissue.

In fact, he may have been too successful. In a bizarre turn of events, funeral homes in the greater Los Angeles area have told the Jackson clan that burying Michael's body would violate over a dozen EPA laws. Initial reports have shown that the polymers and plastics that made up Jackson's endoskeleton is 100% non-biodegradable. Cremation is also not an option since Michael's body was designed to be non-flammable following his near death experience during the filming of a pyrotechnic laden 1985 Pepsi commercial. Launching the body into space would have been an option had Jackson not been technically bankrupt at the time of his death.

The most logical solution that has been suggested involves recycling Jackson's body. Local recycling plants have been contacted to see if their recycling combines would be compatible with the silicone-based resins used to build Jackson's head. Early indications have been that Jackson's body is indeed recyclable. Specifically, his skin was formed out of easily recycled low density polyethylene while the majority of his organs were constructed using a common form of polystyrene. Doctors were shocked to find that Jackson's organs were actually stamped with SPI recycling codes.

The sad truth is that none of this was supposed to happen. Jackson had designed his body to be able to adapt to any environment. He was virtually impervious to the normal needs of the human body. We as fans were supposed to have an endless source of entertainment and controversy. Alas, the mystery of his death will live on, possibly forever. The next time you hear a Michael Jackson song or see one of his videos you should be thinking to yourself, this story really is a Thriller.

Hung-Yu: The Legend Continues

Oh David Carradine (sigh). What happened to you? Once a world famous Shaolin monk wondering the world giving sage advice through his elegantly cryptic words and his lethal roundhouse kicks. Now his voice is silenced forever; the sad result of genital suffocation. The man who gave us quotes like, “If you cannot be a poet, be the poem" probably ended his life with less flowery language.

What has the world come to when such a kind, gentle, and........eccentric person can be left to die in a Thai hotel closet? I personally am pretty annoyed at David. Why? Because unfortunately, his legend, so to speak, will continue in the media for the next month. We have already had the delightful opportunity to hear from his ex-wife that "he was a sexual deviant." Glad we got the heads up on that one before he was found with his Johnson hogtied. Maybe we will be able to get increasingly insightful reporting in the future. Maybe we will be told that he always liked Thailand or that he was considering taking a role in the upcoming thriller The Secret Bond. Unfortunately for all of us, that one fell through.

What is for certain is that we will have weeks worth of his family saying that he was involved in foul play. The Thai authorities will stick to their story and simply label his a super freak who only got to f-himself in the end. The needle will move back and forth in the entertainment pages of America for weeks. Great. I can only hold my breath and wait for other celebrities will weigh in on why he is not a sexual deviant (think David Duchovney or someone similar). For those of you who like dirt, there will be plenty of it. We will get to find out from Thai police that he had enslaved a village. Former partners will tell about his crayon fetish. Just when you are ready to label him a total sicko, a documentary of fallen celebrities will come out and remind you how awesome he was in Kung Fu. And just like that the legend continues. Damn you David!

Boyling-Over

Susan Boyle. Britain's Got Talent. Swearing. National News. International News. Wow, even I have to say this is pretty close to a new low. This blog entry was originally going to be about John and Kate Plus 8 and the media obsession circling around whether reality TV is real or not (you mean it's not?!?!?). However, the fact that I can not open a newspaper or flip on my computer without having to see an article about an amateur Scottish singer that swore at a police officer is just simply mind-boggling. Maybe it is just the fact that I live in Brooklyn and constantly hear people swearing at each other. Maybe it is the fact that most people I know have lobbed an F bomb or two at the local authorities. Maybe it is the fact that I swear like a drunken sailor. Or maybe it is the fact that people in Great Britain have perfected the art of swearing. I am not sure what it is, but what I do know is that this is certainly not national news, and it is definitely not international news. Just ask Joon Il Kim of South Korea who was recently treated for third degree burns after his skin got torched by the exhaust trail of the ballistic missiles North Korea test fired in his backyard. You would have been able ask about 20,000 more Sri Lankans that question as well, but they died this week. Just think, Susan Boyle's star shines so bright that even an Iranian Presidential assasination attempt can't even come close to one of her "fucks" or "shits". This phenonmenon is leading me to think that the world's problems can actually be solved by Susan Boyle's swears since it appears that nothing else happens in the world when she fires off a couple of explatives. Let's try that theory out in a little role playing exercise. I will be Susan Boyle, and you can be a police officer.

You: Excuse me mum, you will have to move your car.
Me: Fuck you.
Global Impact: World Hunger Ended

Wow, that was awesome. Let's try again.

You: If you don't move that car I will give you a ticket.
Me: Who do you think you are fucking talking to?
Global Impact: All Israelis and Palestinians hug in a loving embrace

This is easy. It really works. Nothing else happens in the world when Susan Boyle (or even a stand-in) swears. If we had only known this just a little earlier we could have prevented the Black Plague or even World War II. Holy Shit (anthrax eliminated)! This is a big-ass discovery (nuclear weapons worldwide disappear). Go on everyone, hit the streets and swear your head off. The world is a better place if we can all just come together, hold hands, and tell one another to fuck off....(Crap journalism ceases to exist).

Meth-ing Around with Nature

Crystal meth, also known as Crank and Super Ice, will be joining millions of Americans nationwide this summer.........in our national parks. Thanks to the passing of S.J.Res19 during today's legislative session on Capital Hill, the so-called Meth Bill could go in front of the President as soon as Thursday. The Meth Bill would allow all Americans to not only carry, conceal, and consume crystal meth in national parks, it would allow anyone over 18 to manufacture crystal meth as long as they get a permit from the National Forest Service.

This news comes as quite a shock to most Americans, and many wonder why this Bill ever made it to a vote since manufacturing and distribution of crystal meth is illegal worldwide. The answer is that no one was supposed to know that the Bill existed. That isn't exactly true, but close. The Meth Bill was originally coined the Save the Babies Bill. The primary purpose of the legislation was to set up a national fund to cover expenses for pre-mature babies without health insurance. However, buried deep in the document was the three sentence paragraph which offered up the national parks as fodder for meth heads.

The controversial legislation was written by Minnesota Republican Senator Norm Coleman. Coleman, a former meth addict himself, said the reason he included the bill was that it was a win-win situation for him. "On the one hand, my term in office has expired. On the other hand most people in my constituency are addicts. What do I have to lose?"

This story may never have been told if it wasn't for the public fervor that built up last week when a similar sub-bill allowing kindergardeners to carry high explosives was buried in the fine print of a wildlife bill meant to protect the manatees. The public backlash was intense and forced the President to veto the bill; sending it back to Congress for revisions.

"When did the public start reading these things?" said Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn. "How am I supposed to serve special interest groups if people are checking these things over?" Indeed. The tides may certainly be changing in Washington DC. However, judging by the historically short attention span of the nation the days of pro-napalm bills, anti-non-Evangelical policies, and deregulatory pork fat are far from over.

That's Just How I Was Raised, No Offense

There are dreams, and then there are wet dreams. Donald Trump is having the latter. His brainchild, the Miss America contest, has been in years past, frankly, as irrelevant as a male nipples. This year was different. This year one of the high-glam, low-IQ contestants let loose a bombshell.................she does not approve of homosexuals getting married, no offense. How shocking! Wait, there is more. She considers herself a conservative Christian! Doubly shocking! I can't believe it.

I for one am glad that this year's Miss America runner-up Carrie Prejean brought this to light. I am extra thankful that the world media was there to help spread the word that conservative Christians do not agree with gay marriage. I simply had no idea. It is nice to see every media outlet, including talk shows, daytime TV, magazines, newspapers, editorial columns, etc chipping in and giving us round the clock coverage on this revelation.

As an added bonus, religious groups are using Ms. Prejean as the voice of reason against the growing clamour of social acceptance toward gay people. The anti-gay movement needed this moment. They needed someone who is smart, beautiful, morally grounded, and a perfect role model (no pun intended). After all, Ms. Prejean's message that marriage, according to her upbringing, only applies to men and women really resonates with people. However, a closer look into this matter gives rise to some concerns that our heroine for the anti-gay movement might bare some luster.

Ms.Prejean credits her upbringing and Christian faith for her moral high ground against gay marriage. First, let us examine her upbringing. If we forget the fact that her parents are divorced (oh the sin of it) and that her mother actually said that all men who have mustaches are gay, we may be able to gain some very interesting insights. Ms. Prejean gives off an air of innocense and righteousness, qualities that are expected of Miss California. As essentially a delegate and dplomat of the state of California, she is assumed to be not only law abiding, but also an extension of the state itself. If that is the case, some of her supporters may be irked by her implicit support of some controversial California state laws. Just take a look at the following California laws still on the books that she, as Miss California, inherently supports:

1) Ice cream may not be eaten while standing on the sidewalk - WHAT! She just lost support from children under 10 and parents alike.

2) It is illegal to wash your car in the street - HUH? Teenage boys and street gangs just called, they are out of Prejean camp.

3) It is illegal to curse on a mini-golf course - F-THAT! Testosterone laden over-competitive males are off the ticket (some of her biggest supporters)

4) It is illegal for a man to beat his wife with a strap wider than 2 inches without her consent - SNAP! Texas is out too along with men wearing shirts with no sleeves.

5) Molesting butterflies can result in a $500 fine. BUZZ OFF! Creepy old guys just hung up the gloves.

6) It is illegal to have more than two cats or dogs. THAT'S RUFF! Fanatical widows with cat and dog menageries won't be joining.

Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. That would pretty much weed out everybody. Well all is not lost. She also has her faith to fall back on. Subsequent interviews with Ms. Prejean has her referring to the Bible and its literal interpretation as support for her anti-gay marriage stance. That is all fine and dandy, however, literally translating the Bible is a slippery slope. She should hope that her Christian brothers and sisters (those who weren't put off from her inherent support of California penal codes) glance over these passages without looking too closely:

"Take and eat; this is my body" (Matthew 26:26) - Support canabalism

"Suffer not a witch to live," (Exodus 22:18, KJV) - Kill witches

"If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity" (Deuteronomy 25:12-13, NIV). - Maim prostitutes and hussies

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ." (Ephesians 6:5, NIV). - Enslave people

"But if ... evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones..." (Deuteronomy 22:20,21) - WAIT!!!!

Now, take a look at this picture that was recently released of Ms. Prejean. Should we load up on stones? I don't want to be a stickler here, but that was the way I was raised, and the Bible clearly states that we should be gathering rocks right now, no offense.