Feature #148:

Been a bit busy, so sorry for the late update. I've got another Salon.com piece in the works, which hopefully will be finished within a week or two. Should get some interesting responses, to say the least.

Anyway, I've got an onslaught of political rants for you this week. Agree or disagree, please don't hesitate to spout off on the HappyScrappy message board.

Thanks, and enjoy.

1. Why liberal television will fail
2. Who takes one for the team?
3. How anyone started caring about health.

*****************************************************************************

1.
Why liberal television will fail
By Jason Feifer

In the wake of conservative ratings splashes such as Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, liberals have been scrambling to get a strong personality with liberal viewpoints in front of the largely brain-dead television viewing audience. These days, public opinion is swayed in front of the blue haze, and everyone knows it. So far, though, the only liberal voice in the stew — Phil Donahue — drowned in his own hokey schtick.

Networks know that conservative talking heads are a sure way to win ratings, and they’re swallowing them up with reckless abandon. MSNBC was so desperate that, despite the warnings of multiple gay-rights groups, it hired Michael Savage — a truly angry man who finally bloomed this week when he told a male caller to “get AIDS and die.” The flailing cable network knew Savage was capable of such hate, but they went with him anyway, most likely because he’s conservative. If nothing else, this episode proves that there are no viable doors open to liberal talking heads.

And so, with Al Gore quietly at the helm, liberals are trying to start their own network. Little has been said about what the network would feature, although Gore has reportedly been making his way through the liberal Hollywood scene, trying to gain interest and perhaps a few players. According to TIME Magazine, a source close to Gore would only reveal this cryptic description: the network will be “something totally different in concept and format.” Al Gore the visionary? Who knew.

There’s only one problem, though. Nobody is going to watch it.

Conservative pundits are successful because they’re sensational. They scream, they insult, they accuse people of going against the moral grain of society. Their arguments are based on “family values” and moralistic judgments — and unlike laws and regulations, those concepts are so abstract that they’re easily manipulated for the most outrageous arguments. Liberals can argue about environmental policies and the dangers of large corporate conglomeration, but Bill O’Reilly can lure an Atlanta radio talk host onto his show and then call him “a vicious son of a bitch” for objecting to O’Reilly’s jokes about inner-city kids. O’Reilly gets 3.1 million viewers. Donahue gets canceled. Who makes for better TV?

If a liberal station is designed, it will be stamped with the immediate stigma of choir-preaching. For what it’s worth, other channels have been able to avoid this label by transitioning into bias, not starting with it. While a station like FOX News has an obvious conservative slant, it has always purported itself as a legitimate news network, and did not begin with a stated political agenda. Of course, its objective is made crystal clear — from its outrageous choice of stories, its obsession with character assassination and its decision to hire George W. Bush’s first cousin, John Ellis, as the head of Fox’s projection team for Election 2000 coverage.

Fox pulls such staggering ratings because it pretends like it’s telling the absolute truth, and that the right-wing views of its talking heads are nothing more than standard political talking points. People watch Fox News and think they’re tapping into a legitimate source. If liberal television were to rise, people would feel as if they’re plugging into a propaganda machine, or joining a mindless choir only comfortable listening to arguments for what they already believe. Granted, this is a fine, practically invisible line between liberal television’s intentions and what Fox News already does, but it’s not imaginary.

Then, there are the more practical stumbling blocks: too much splintering in the liberal viewpoint, an audience that may be too vague (or well-educated) for advertising interests, and painfully slow distribution due to a television industry that will consider liberal television a specialty product, and not a philosophical rival to something mainstream.

As much as I hate the dumbed-down format of most political television, I think the only way liberal television may survive is if it learns from the success of formats like Fox News. A co-worker and I were talking about this yesterday, and we devised a perfect, sensational, completely sound-bite-focused show for the liberal network. Here’s what it would be called: “You People Are Insane!”

Picture it: every week, the producers would compile clips and readings of the week’s most extreme right-wing rantings. This week, the show could feature segments of Savage’s horrific MSNBC comments, as well as his decision to blame MSNBC for ruining his reputation. (“They didn’t have to make a comment which in any way injured me. They put the leper bells around me. I’m dead in the water on television," Savage cried to the San Francisco Chronicle about MSNBC’s swift firing, in which a spokesman said his cancellation was an easy decision.) It could also feature dramatic readings of Ann Coulter’s new book “Treason,” in which she actually praises Senator Joseph McCarthy, blames the liberals for destroying his reputation, and uses the word “pinko” with no sense of irony.

If liberal media is to do anything, it must acknowledge its current position. Liberals are quiet, beaten down and completely unable to properly respond to something as absurdly vulnerable as Coulter’s revisionist, practically psychotic history lesson. So, with shows like “You People Are Insane!”, right-wingers would be hung by their own words. Conservatism would become synonymous with out-of-touch extremists, much the same way that liberalism has become associated with idealist college students and one-note, face-painted protesters. That’s the game we’re playing here.

Television isn’t fair. It’s a one-direction medium posing as a accessible platform, and if liberal television is to survive, it must operate the same way. If liberals want to steer this bandwagon, building another wagon won’t do. They need to grab the wheel of the first one.

*****************************************************************************

2.
In Bush’s game, who takes one for the team?
By Jason Feifer

This is how it all came down in Watergate.

One man takes the fall. Then another. Then before you know it, everyone took one for the team and there’s no team left.

In sports, it happens the same way. The players start screwing up, and suddenly the coach is out of a job. The management expresses its regret, says it believed in the coach and wishes him well. The shake-up satisfies fans, who had grown frustrated by the failing team’s inertia, and it reminds the team members that its the men in suits they’re really playing for.

Rarely, of course, does it get so bad that the team folds. At all costs — even selling off players like the Florida Marlins did after their World Series win, for instance — the management will stay protected. That’s the real name of the game. George W. Bush knows this well. After all, he owned part of the Texas Rangers.

And so, it was as if on cue when CIA Director George Tenet jumped up from his smokescreen last week, distracting an increasingly persistent media away from his boss. America has finally caught on to what the British public has been angry about for months: the two governments justified a war partially based on faulty intelligence, including a claim that Iraq purchased uranium from Niger, which came from a forged document. Blair pushed that information as hard as he could. Bush even included it in his State of the Union address.

The fall-out feels uncomfortably scripted, and practically predictable. First come the talking heads, all contradicting each other. Then, someone admits fault without taking fault: Tenet says he hadn’t personally approved the State of the Union speech, but will take responsibility because he’s the head of an organization that had. Bush quickly follows it up by expressing full faith in Tenet, and it’s topped off by Ari Fleischer telling the press that “The president has moved on. And I think, frankly, much of the country has moved on as well.”

Think again, Ari.

Funny enough, he did. As the Washington Post reported, Ari was one of many mouthpieces that couldn’t seem to get the story straight, even on something as simple as Bush’s mood. First, he told us Bush has moved on. Then, as he told the press earlier this week, Bush “is not pleased. ... The president, of course, would not be pleased if he said something in the State of the Union that may or may not have been true and should not have risen to his level.”

What else can’t the administration get straight? As it turns out, a lot. The Post reported that the higher-ups have even been unable to explain what happened when the Iraq-Niger connection was reviewed. Last week, Bush’s communication director Dan Bartlett said of the forged documents’ inclusion in the speech, “there was no debate or questions with regard to that line when it was signed off on.” Then on Friday, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said there was "discussion on that specific sentence, so that it reflected better what the CIA thought” and that “some specifics about amount and place were taken out.”

Those are two very different situations. Either the sentence was changed, or it wasn’t. Either the CIA knew something was wrong, or they didn’t. Chances are, though, they did. The government sent four-star Marine Gen. Carlton Fulford Jr. to Niger to investigate the claim, and he told the Post that his research left him “assured” that uranium never passed from Niger to Iraq. Fulford passed his findings on to Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, whose spokesman just told the Post that Myers has “no recollection of the information.”

Here’s the bottom line: there are too many stories coming out of Washington, and none of them are adding up. Clearly, there’s a lack of communication going on in what has typically been an extremely organized and tight-lipped administration, and that seems to suggest there’s a lot of scrambling and tension behind closed doors. These people are nervous. They’re trying to say something, anything, to move this situation along, because they’ve been exposed big time. In one of the president’s keystone speeches, he justified preemptive war with another nation based on information that wasn’t just false — but was, it seems, knowingly false. That’s a black eye big enough to peel paint off the white house.

Tenet has taken the first round of heat, but there will be more. Tenet could resign, and others could follow. If this situation isn’t abated, that almost surely will happen. Just like in sports, when the going gets tough, the coach gets going.

But let’s not forget something here. In sports, the coach is the one sacrificed for the sake of management, and politics, like I said, works the same way. Here’s the kicker, though: Bush isn’t management. He’s the coach. He oversees all the players, and we, the citizens of America, the voting public, are the real management. We determine his fate. We’re the ones not going anywhere, and he’s the one with something to prove. And if the man that America hired had stood at that podium and lied to the American people — had in fact started a war by deliberately misleading the world — then it is extremely clear who needs to step down, and who needs protecting.

The management stays. The coach has to go. That’s how the game works.

*****************************************************************************

3.
Healthy foods in an ailing marketplace
by Jason Feifer

The same company that brought you Lung fan-Cancer-tastic doesn’t want you to know that it also serves up Artery de-Clog-ilicious.

After all, what else can explain the decision by tobacco giant Philip Morris — owner of Kraft — to change its name to the sparkling and ambiguous “Altria” earlier this year? What is an Altria? Who knows! Perhaps that’s why the Philip Morris folks think it’s so effective.

But, their PR bait-and-switch isn’t stopping there. Recently, the company was celebrated in worldwide headlines for its decision to boost the health value of its line of Kraft “foods,” including the remarkable foresight to pull all Kraft marketing from schools.

Does that ring a bell? Wasn’t Philip Morris hammered in court for advertising to children? Is it actually possible that a company as vile and heartless as Philip Morris might actually have learned a lesson?

If it means avoiding another billion-dollar lawsuit, perhaps. And, with McDonalds, Kellogg’s and PepsiCo all vowing to clean up their act, this PR-friendly health craze is a pretty safe one to follow.

I have no faith that the new goals for Kraft are being done for the benefit of the consumer. If that were the case, the junk-food company would have cleaned up years ago, because it easily could have. Want to know what you’re eating when you bite into Kraft foods? For the most part, it’s fatty oil that has been solidified and shoved into your snack, and it’s called “trans fatty acid.” It is a common ingredient in junk food that has been linked to increased bad cholesterol, and although the FDA has promised to be more responsible, it is currently not mandated to be listed on food labels.

But still, every nutritionist knows its dangers, and there’s nothing stopping a company from changing to more healthy, and equally tasty product. Just try a Newman-O, the Oreo knock-off from Paul Newman’s product line. It’s a bit healthier, and tastes far better than the original. (Don’t think it’s possible? Recently, PepsiCo’s Frito-Lay said they will remove trans fatty acids from its products. You think they’d really do that if it threatened to alter the beloved Cheeto?)

I’m not saying we all need to be health nuts, but we should at least know what we’re buying. Kraft has had, up until now, no interest in telling us. And then came the lawsuits — against Oreos, against McDonalds, all claiming that, much like the tobacco suits, the companies in charge know exactly how harmful their products are to the general public.

Now, quite suddenly, the company is pledging smaller servings and healthier products. What a coincidence! Kraft co-chief executive Betsy Holden told the New York Times, "Just as obesity has many causes, it can be solved only if all sectors of society do their part to help. Kraft is committed to product choices and marketing practices that will help encourage healthy lifestyles and make it easier to eat and live better."

Here’s a translation: “Just as lung cancer became a source of extremely costly lawsuits, obesity may do the same thing. We’re afraid of that, and so we’re now begrudgingly going to slow our production of cookie-shaped lard.”

For this, Kraft does not deserve our applause. It deserves our unimpressed faces, our folded arms, our message that it’s about time this company showed an inkling of responsibility. We should also take home this important lesson: companies are not immune to consumer pressure, especially when the public is backed by some savvy lawyers.

It will be a rare day when a lawsuit actually destroys a company as big as Philip Morris, but there’s now plenty of evidence that public and legal pressure will make such a behemoth corporation reevaluate its image in the marketplace. It’s something Ralph Nader has been preaching for decades, and his foresight has been remarkable.

Of course, David can’t always take down Goliath. But with enough angry Davids, Goliath might have to watch his step.

*****************************************************************************

Feature #149:

Fun feature coming your way, but this intro will be woefully unsatisfying. Because, uh, this is it.

1. Best e-mail ever
2. They must be blind
3. Eat up and shut up

*****************************************************************************

1. Prepare yourself for the best e-mail ever written.

About a month ago, Capitol Hill was gleefully passing around an angry break-up e-mail sent from an intern of Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, R-Texas, to another intern. It made it onto the gossip column of the Washington Post and, from what I hear, CNN. I asked a few friends if they had seen the e-mail, and a few weeks later, one finally found it. It was absolutely worth the wait. Read on...

From: Paul Kelly Tripplehorn [mailto:tripplehorny@hotmail.com]

Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 2:11 PM

Subject: you suck

Well, as of this afternoon, I was planning on ruining your career by making phone calls to all of my parents friends and have you blackballed from the workplace as well as every prestigous law school in the country, but then (lucky for you) I decided not to do that because you are a sad sad person and I will just let your life self destruct right before my eyes.

Michele I am sorry, I don't care how big of sadistic fucked up crush you have on me but people like me simple don't date people like you. You are too competitive with me and you just simply will never be better than me. I will always have more friends than you just because I don't care about beating people and lying to get to the top. (You are an absolute hipocrit in everything that you do, I am not going to go into details why you are because that would be a waste of my time and yours but I can assure you if you were to ever meet yourself you would hate your twin) I have told most all of the staff about our situation now and they already knew you were really messed you. They said when you were talking to them about me, they all told me you had 'serious issues' and that every word you said sounded scripted and they knew without a doubt that you were lying. I have noticed that people who you think are your good friends actually really dislike you but unlike me, they will not tell you to your face because they would rather be fake nice to you than be your enemy.

Now talking about how I am obsessed with money, I simply am not. You are. You always are trying to impress me by how much money you have and I don't care. The difference is though I talk about it but it is never about bragging and it is never directly about money, it is always directly about the conversation. For instance, someone will ask, what are you doing for july 4rth. And then I will say I am going to aspen. It is a simple fact that I am but since you don't have a house in aspen, you get offended because of your competitive nature. When you talk about money you will say something like UT's tuition is 5% of your family's income, thus my tuition would be 125,000. Yea, Michele you are right, I brag too much about what I have.

Well I am just going to stop writing because you are just absolutely beneath me. I have heard that you try to undermine people all the time that are better than you and everysingle time it does not work because people can see through such shallowness and that is why as I have heard so many times, Most "everyone at UT absolutely hates you." For instance even the people that you thought were your friends Mellissa Mahaffey or that girl you met at espn, they hate you, they just never say anything.

Everyone knows you are a pathetic social climber who will go to any discusting means to move up the ladder. But guess what Michele, you will never move up the ladder because I am at the top and people like me hate people like you. You might be able to trick people like me for maybe a month or so but your true personality comes through after a while and it is vile, if that. You have sooooo many people that absolutely hate you and you will never know it because they will never say anything to your face. You will not succeed in life and even the staff thinks that also, after I told them about the things that you do. You suck and good luck being miserable for the rest of your life. I do not even know why I wasted my time typing this for suck slime. Everyone tells me that you are so beneath me (which you are) and I should not get worked up over suck trifles. By the end of the day if I wanted to, I could make a phone call and have your life absolutely ruined but there is no need because you are falling fast enough towards failure without me.

In the end, all I can say is that people love me and people hate you. You should observe me and take a few notes on how to make real friends. Other than you tieing this one other person, I have never had such little respect for a human being in my life. I don't even have to tell you why because in my very accurate analysis that most everyone else agrees with, if you were to agree with my analyis about your character than my whole entire analysis would be wrong. Your inflamed ego has left you so blind and so impotent that you can nto even recognize the most obvious flaws in yourself. All your old roommates absolutely hated you and you still think the problem is with them, not you. Well I talked to your roommates and I thought they nice normal girls. So naturally, you would not fit in with them because you are so intellectually above them all. Right? You suck at life and you need to figure out why or you will be miserable for the rest of your life.

Once again from your intellectual, moral, social, and emotional superior,

Paul Kelly Tripplehorn, Jr.

...and for added enjoyment, check out the Paul Kelley Tripplehorn is better than you website.

*****************************************************************************

2. When guests go unnoticed. This little story was sent in by a reader named Spakle.

We have a door in our kitchen, and we go through it quite regularly (as is the purpose of most doors) but we have found a new purpose for this door: making and raising babies. Strange, huh? Well, let me explain.

One day, I'm wandering around the kitchen, preparing to go through said door to face an unpleasant task (cleaning out the litter box, I believe) when I hear a strange buzzing sound, rather like that of one of those wind up toys you get in a cereal box. Curious, I open the door. There is a wasp floating around outside (and I profoundly despise wasps, but thats another story) so I run back to the kitchen to grab a swatter. Going back out to the door, there is no wasp, but the buzzing sound has failed to follow the wasp to wherever. I look around to see what could have produced this mysterious noise, then my eyes practically jump out of their sockets...there is a wasp nest as big as Cleveland (or at least the size of a large exaggeration) on the back of our innocent door (that we go through several times a day and have failed to notice anything odd...or dangerous).

I fetch my brother and ask him if he notices anything and he is also shocked (perhaps more because wasps tend to build their crud on more stable objects...maybe the wasps are a dumb as we are). We were so intrigued by our unwanted guest that we took this picture:

*****************************************************************************

3. Political rant of the week. This time: America's favorite grim reaper, Monsanto.

The lawsuit that says ‘eat up and shut up’
By Jason Feifer

Responsibility and knowledge are the enemies of deception. Sounds simple, doesn’t it?

Now, try this on for size: A small dairy producer in Maine, which labels its products with a pledge not to infect its cows with artificial growth hormones, is the enemy of corporate giant Monsanto, the leading maker of those hormones and a staunch opponent of labeled products. Now, with unrestrained fire and brimstone, Monsanto is letting its pack of foaming-mouth lawyers loose on that producer — Oakhurst Dairy, Inc. — claiming that its labeling practices unfairly demonizes hormone-influenced milk.

The lawsuit rests upon the legitimacy of seven words, which are featured on all Oakhurst products: “Our farmers’ pledge: no artificial growth hormones.” It seems simple enough. For milk-buyers who are concerned about the potential health affects of drinking hormone-induced milk, the seal provides a rare moment of product clarity. And for customers who are indifferent to growth hormones, the seal will have no influence whatsoever. It is a harmless disclosure, highlighting an increasingly rare farming practice and appealing to a small portion of skeptical consumers who shop for sustinance as much as for political and moral expression.

Companies like Monsanto have long opposed efforts to require products containing hormones or genetically modified organisms to be labeled, claiming there is no scientific evidence that consumers are at any danger due to the alterations of food at a cellular level. As such, they say, labeling would unnecessarily hurt sales and stigmatize what has been deemed a legitimate and safe method of producing food.

Indeed, the scientific community seems split on the issue, and contradictory conclusions alternately label the modified food as entirely safe or unpredictable and cancer-causing. But environmental groups have long deplored the modifications, claiming that modified crops can and will inadvertantly spread and overtake previously untarnished crops in the wild — and that the introduction of new species of plants and animals could disrupt the food chain, creating an unpredictable ripple effect that could capsize entire communities. For instance, if a vegetable is altered to repel a species of bug that normally feeds on it, and that bug finds no alternate food source and dies off, then the lizard that eats the bug will eventually die, then the bird that eats the lizard, and so on.

The U.S. Government is unwaveringly against mandatory labeling, even to the point of pressuring the European Union to stop developing its own labeling program. And so, with consumers intentionally left unable to determine the origins of their food, organic producers began willingly labeling their own products. There’s no uniform label, but most include some mention of GMOs with a slash through the letters, or in the case of the Oakhurst products, a simple sentence pledging not to use hormones.

Monsanto considers this small effort to inform consumers as an assault on its empire. In a statement released after the suit was filed, the company described the labels as “misleading representations” that “directly disparage Monsanto's Posilac bovine somatotropin product and the milk from cows supplemented with bovine somatotropin,” according to the New York Times.

Mmm, bovine somatotropin. Makes you thirsty, doesn’t it?

Monsanto is saying that consumers do not deserve to know what they’re eating, because their ability to make choices could damage its profits. This is akin to a company that makes lard suing another company that makes fat-free cookies, claiming the fat-free labels appeal to people on diets and imply there’s something unhealthy or wrong about eating fat. It may sound absurd, but food giants have long opposed any Food & Drug Administration efforts to mandate more nutrition labeling on products, and they furiously fought the recent FDA regulation that trans-fatty acids be added to the label.

Monsanto is also no stranger to ripping into small business, either. In 2000, it sued an organic Canadian farmer, claiming that the man had stolen its product. In fact, a few of Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” canola seeds had blown from a truck onto farmer Percy Schmeiser’s fields, and they quickly grew and started destroying his GMO-free crop. He considered the Roundup Ready product a weed — after all, what else do you call an uninvited plant? — but Monsanto considered him an illegal profiteer.

It seems Monsanto simply cannot accept that people distrust its product, and so it is hellbent on destroying even the smallest of competition. Its mission is to censor the marketplace until consumers have no choice but to ignorantly consume potentially dangerous versions of mother nature. Already, most people have no idea what they’re eating, even though the majority of supermarket shelves are packed with GMOs and hormone-influenced food.

But hey, what’s not to trust? This is the same Monsanto that, out of the kindness of its heart, refused to take responsibility for giving cancer to an entire town. For years, a legal battle has been raging over the fate of the residents of Anniston, Ala., who were exposed to the chemical pollutants given off by a Monsanto factory that had been there for decades. Monsanto maintains it has nothing to do with the town’s staggering illness rate, but the entire families with cancer and persistent skin rashes might disagree. If Monsanto’s scientists can’t see the truth in such an overwhelming public health crisis, I can’t imagine how we trust them to alter our food.

These days, the only companies that seem to care about the consumer are the small ones, where customer complaints are still heard and every little bit of profit helps. It is only these companies that listen to the small-but-loud portion of America that continues to demand information about what they put in their mouths, and it is only these companies that seem willing to serve them.

Because of that, perhaps Monsanto really should consider these companies a threat. After all, responsibility and knowledge could destroy deception.

*****************************************************************************

Feature #150:

Two extraneous notes to share before the feature:

1. I started a new section called Crowd Pleasers, which makes some of the more memorable past features easily accessible. It's a short list now, but I'll expand it soon.

2. I just have to be self-indulgent and offer another link to my newest Salon article, What do women want? So, there we are. Thanks for indulging me.

Ok! On with the feature.

1. Chocolate for the soul -- the rotten soul
2. A correction
3. Political rant of the week

*****************************************************************************

1. I recently came across a few excerpts from a Vosges chocolate press release, which was promoting its new Vincent Gallo-themed chocolate. Gallo is an artsy-fartsy independent filmmaker whose most notable accomplishment was the surreal and slightly pretentious “Buffalo 66,” and Vosges is not the company for a quick chocolate fix. It’s the company for people who think that eating Hersheys is slumming it. It’s the type of company that charges a small fortune for a nickel-sized piece of chocolate with a hand-painted portrait of Princess Diana on it. It is “chic chocolate” — that is, candy for people who burn money as fast as they eat it — and it’s just crying out for mockery.

So, how does one eat chic chocolate? How does one actually justify swallowing something that might cost $10 a bite? How does one appreciate the freedom to practically chew money? Apparently, like this.

But first, a warning: when I read this, I felt physically ill. I don’t know why, but reading these next few words made me feel like I just drank arsenic and then jumped into a blender. But it is my duty, dear reader, to share these words with you.

From the Vosges press release:

A guided tasting of Vincent Gallo version chocolat

1. Close your eyes.

2. Take three deep, deep breaths.

3. Start from the top. Bite into the crowning tip of the chocolate. Hold the chocolate on your tongue and press it to the top of your mouth. Feel it melt bittersweetly around your tongue. Begin to eat and you will sense a touch of Taleggio and a nuance for vanilla. Flirt with your newfound acquaintance.

4. Intrigue follows with the 2nd bite, it brings you deeper into the parfums, a heavy and rich texture dotted with toasted walnuts, the aroma steeped with a thousand complexities, yet there is harmony. As the salt hits the palatte it meets the sweetness of chocolate, one constantly begging for the other to be complete.

5. The 3rd bite is met with clarity. The profusion of flavors wrapped and intertwined come together to make sense. You are submerged deeply in a moment of 'now.' With this last bite, all you crave is just one more.”

So, I just read it again, and felt sick again. How was it for you?

Can you believe that people eat anything, let along chocolate, like this? Can you believe we share a planet with these people? Is there a film anywhere of people actually eating like this? I want to see it — barfbag in hand.

But wait, there’s more! Just for laughs, here are a few more excerpts from the release:

Inspiration comes to Chic Chocolatier Katrina Markoff through many mediums...this inspiration came to her from an experience with art, or rather, an artist, Vincent Gallo.

If you have had the opportunity to see a Vincent Gallo film, to listen to his music or to see his art you would know his measure...

Though, how does one go about translating Vincent Gallo into a chocolate? An artist such as he is quite difficult to simplify into any one element or ingredient. With Gallo, it was sure to be a complex undertaking. The chocolate piece must be quite contradictory, a piece that may not be understood by all palates, as well it should not...

...I adore that last question, and it’s truly something to ponder. Can you imagine this lady pacing around her high-rise New York City apartment, repeating, "How does one go about translating Vincent Gallo into a chocolate?" Yes, indeed, how DOES one go about that?

I wonder what she would create for, say, Tim Meadows or Yahoo Serious. "Yes, but how does one go about translating Tom Hanks's performance in Joe Versus the Volcano into a chocolate?" she might say. Or what about Eminem? (Well, that's easy: just a big block of white chocolate would do.)

Can this solve world problems? Imagine if George W. Bush paces around the Oval Office saying, "How does one go about translating Kim Jong Il into chocolate?" — and then, voila! His cook whips up a skinny hollow chocolate egg with whipped cream on top, lays it on a few lady fingers, and lets Bush eat it voodoo-style. The nuclear standoff would be over faster than that chic chocolate could travel through the presidential intestinal track.

This lady might be on to something. Bon appetite.

*****************************************************************************

2. This is easily the funniest mistake i've ever made in a news story, and the best correction i've ever written:

Last week, I wrote a story about a local professional bowler who just received a long-lost ring. When you're a member of the American Bowling Congress, any 298-, 299- or 300-point game you bowl earns you a ring, which appropriately go by the names, for instance, "299 ring" or "300 ring." This guy gave his first ever 299 ring to his nephew as a graduation present, telling him it's a lesson that not everything in life is perfect. The newphew took it with him when he moved to Texas, and then lost it. Now, 10 years later, someone finds it under a porch and sends it back to the guy. Nice story.

Anyway, here's the correction that ran:

"Due to a reporting error, a story in Thursday’s paper gave the wrong number of rings won by a local professional bowler. David Umbrello has won 23 “300 rings,” not 2,300 rings."

When he said it, it sounded like a lot, and i must have repeated it to him three or four times. Unfortunately, we weren't typing our conversation out. "You have 2,300 rings?" "Yeah, I have 20 300-rings." Oh man.

*****************************************************************************

3. Political rant of the week! This was originally written two weeks ago, so the news story it references isn't exactly a spring chicken. But, the point still stands, as does the Springfield policy, so i think it's still worth posting. Here we go.

The road to medicine goes through Springfield
By Jason Feifer

In Canada, the sick get healthy. In America, they go broke.

Canadian hospitals are open to those in need, thanks to a universal health care system that recognizes the dangers of mixing human need with human greed. Ditto for the price of their medicine.

Slowly, America has been catching on — not on Capitol Hill, but in individual homes and, now, in an individual city. The elderly have been ordering their drugs online for years now, taking advantage of easy access to affordable Canadian pharmacies, which provide them with the drugs they need at a mere fraction of the cost they’d have to pay in America.

Now, Springfield, Mass. is joining the great shift to Canada. As the Boston Globe reported on August 4, the city has become the first in America to offer its retired and current city employees a program to fill prescription drugs in Canada. The legality of the operation has been questioned, but city officials maintain that since the drugs are mailed directly to the patients, the city does not come in contact with the drugs and is therefore not in violation of the law.

In short, this is brilliant. Drug costs are skyrocketing, eating away at everything from municipal to family budgets, and there’s no reason for this trend to continue. Springfield Mayor Michael Albano told the Globe that the city expects to save at least $4 million with the plan, which it will use to hire police and firefighters.

More and more, people are rearranging their priorities. Buy medicine in America and line some CEO’s pockets, or buy drugs from Canada and have enough money left over to buy food? Or buy drugs from Canada and keep the streets safe? The choice seems pretty obvious.

So obvious, in fact, that Congress might actually be tagging along. By a 243-186 vote last Friday, the House approved a bill that would allow Americans to buy prescription drugs from foreign suppliers. The Senate is now debating the bill, and drug companies have launched extensive lobbying and advertising efforts to defeat it. One such ad, which I heard on the radio, praised the FDA for ensuring that only safe drugs come into the American market, and warned that this bill would allow dangerous, untested foreign drugs to skirt FDA approval and land in American homes. Of course, this is absurd. Americans want the same drugs they get here but at a fraction of the cost, not some scandalous collection of random, overseas pills.

The drug industry will claim that, as it did to Newsday, “opening access to imported drugs, which can be half or even a tenth the cost of an identical product sold in America, could cost the pharmaceutical industry billions that it says it needs to research new treatments.” Again, absurd. The industry makes a habit of patenting every discovery and procedure, right down to the map of our very chromosomes, making American medical research less of a fertile garden of discovery and more of a minefield of legal showdowns. Research is expensive because these companies are greedy, and they refuse to share information or collaborate efforts. They’re never working for the greater good. They’re only working for their own profit.

Drugs are also expensive because the industry has such a stronghold on American politics. Drug companies are routine campaign contributors, and the money they pour into lobbying power is staggering.

Take, for instance, the case of South Africa vs. Al Gore. In 1997, according to Mother Jones Magazine, South Africa modified its laws to allow it to purchase much-needed AIDS drugs from other countries, since they were far too expensive in South Africa. This was completely legal, as the Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights agreement of the World Trade Organization allows such importation for countries faced with a national emergency — which, with the rapid spread of AIDS, South Africa was indeed facing. But, the pharmaceutical industry did not want countries to start purchasing drugs from each other, thus skirting the prices imposed upon each country, and so they went clamoring to the American government.

Al Gore, vice-president at the time, was surrounded by drug money — and he was co-chairman of the U.S./South Africa Binational Commission, which discusses trade issues between the two countries. The drug industry had contributed substantially to the Clinton-Gore campaigns, and some of his staff came from a drug industry lobbying background. So, in return, according to Mother Jones, Gore did everything he could to block South Africa from accessing cheap AIDS drugs, including cutting some financial aid from America.

He relented two years later, when his run for president seemed imminent and word of the dirty arrangement started to leak. By that time, though, an estimated 300,000 South Africans had died from AIDS, according to the magazine.

It’s encouraging to see that the bill currently in Congress is gaining some momentum, but if the Gore episode is any indication, Americans would be wise not to hold their breath. Cash is Congress’s medicine, and the pharmaceutical industry is the one holding the bottle. If America is going to break free of these outrageous, insulting and ultimately dangerously high drug costs, it will have to do it by sheer force and determination. In essence, it will have to follow the lead of Springfield.

The pharmaceutical industry can survive without America bowing to its high price tag. Its costs are dictated more by its own greed than scientific need, and that is a price we should not need to pay.

*****************************************************************************

Feature #151:

Hi. Welcome to this week's feature. This one's a bit more rambling than usual, so be prepared.

1. Holy moley, batman!
2. Grape-smuggling?
3. My very own stalker
4. Political rant of the week: Wal-Mart sucks!

*****************************************************************************

1. Let me take you back to last week. My girlfriend lisa and i are half-asleep, the lamp is still on, and i hear something flutter to the ground, like a piece of paper falling off a desk. This isn't all that unusual, since i'm a professional collector of random pieces of paper, most of which is piled on my desk, directly in the line of fire from our air conditioner. So, paper falls. No problem.

a minute later, i hear it again. still, no problem.

a minute later, again. i open my eyes. i see nothing. no problem.

a minute later, again. i open my eyes. i see nothing. maybe there's a problem.

i close my eyes. i open them in anticipation of hearing the noise. i see -- "ohmygod. lisa. lisa! ohmygod." -- a bat, flying in a circle around our room. every time it comes near me, i unconsciously make the noise my father does when he's afraid -- a sort of "whOooOa" but more gutteral and not surfer-like -- and pull the sheets over my face. i don't want a bat dive-bombing into my face. lisa finds this annoying. she's seen a bat before. i haven't.

then, it crashes into the corner of the room, and makes the noise i had been hearing. that's why, when i opened my eyes, i saw no bat. it was recovering in the corner.

anyway, this process continues for a few minutes, and no plan has been formed. the thing is revolving around our room every three or four seconds, which leaves no time to hop out of bed and somehow catch it or run or do much of anything. and again, the goal here is to not have the bat dive-bomb my face. that's the goal.

the bat makes the first move. it lands on the window blinds, crawls between them, and appears to go out what we thought was a closed window. after some discussion, lisa throws a bottle at the window, because if the bat is still there, i'd prefer it to be started while we're across the room, and not when we're in front of the window (see: dive-bomb). she throws, there's no response. good.

i get up, and open the window to make sure it's... it's still there! AHHH! I jump back. the bat, which is curled up in the middle bottom of the window, wedged between the window and the screen, flaps its wings as if to say, "i'm sleeping. go away." i close the window. we regroup. we form a plan: she'll open the window, and i'll throw a t-shirt over the bat, and then she'll press the two little buttons that open the screen door, and the bat will be released. ok. good. plan in action. here we go. she opens the window and...

...and i do nothing, because i've never seen a bat before, and i'm mesmorized. "do it!" she says, and i do. bat is covered. she goes for the screen and...

...and it's hopelessly stuck. stuck as in, not moving. at all. not even budging. we try the screens of another window, and they open with ease. there is clearly a problem.

we try thinking of other options, many of which involve me picking the bat up with the t-shirt. i hate this idea for three reasons: 1) i could crush the bat unintentionally, 2) how would i ever know if the bat is in there? would i feel it through the t-shirt? would i want to?, and 3) it could escape and dive-bomb my face.

i advocate for popping the screen out, and letting the bat go. lisa doesn't like that idea. we both keep trying the screen, all the while waiting for the bat, which has been remarkably calm -- dead? -- under that t-shirt, to start freaking out. and then, magically, lisa tries one side of the screen and it pops with a jarring and unexpected snap, and half the screen opens and her hand goes flying, hitting the t-shirt and scrunching it up to the size of, well, the bat. luckily, the animal stayed far calmer than we did, but it would have no trouble escaping.

but, before it can make a decision, we force open the other side of the screen, and the bat makes a little noise like a faint, dry motor, and flies off into the night. i'd like to think it said, "fuck you." and i return the sentiment.

*****************************************************************************

2. This comes from the police log of a weekly paper in eastern massachusetts, where my friend is a reporter.

· At 6:34 p.m., police received a report from a woman on River Street regarding a man wearing tight running shorts. She said he did not say anything to her and kept jogging, but she could view his genitalia through his shorts. Police believe there was no crime committed -- just a jogger wearing ill-fitting shorts.

*****************************************************************************

3. I always thought it sounded somewhat glamorous to have a stalker -- well, i mean, a non-violent stalker. But after last week, i'm not so sure.

Last week, a story i wrote about my job was published on The Morning News. It drew a pretty rewarding amount of e-mail, mostly from reporters who felt my pain. But this was absolutely the weirdest e-mail i got, and perhaps one of the most uncomfortable things i've ever been sent. Here are three e-mails, each sent within an hour of each other:

1. Subject: "hi you seem like nice reporer which paper you write for? dan bloom in taiwan"

Body: "hi you seem like nice reporer which paper you writefor? dan bloom in taiwan"

I assume this is someone just trying to screw with me, since i didn't include the name of my employer in the article. So, i don't respond. Then, this comes:

2. Subject: "Jason is 20 years old and was born in Coral Springs, Florida, goes to Clark University in Worcester."

Body: "fyi
dan
i was born in springfield mass and went to tufts.small world.
dan

Jason is 20 years old and was born in Coral Springs,
Florida, goes to Clark University in Worcester.
Hobbies: plays bass and loves writing "

This information, which is rather outdated, came from a website made by Nick Feifer in the Czech Republic. Three years ago, Nick wrote me and said he wanted to make a page devoted to all the Feifers of the world. I thought this was sort of noble, if not a bit silly, so i did what he asked: i wrote a sentance or two about every member of my family with the last name of Feifer. Nick has since tracked down many other Feifers, and they're all sort of streamlined on his geocities site.

It's not really creepy that this guy found this information, because i know it's out there, and i'm not a very secretive person. But, it is creepy that he went looking. Anyway, then this came:

3. Subject: "aha, the gardner news. i found you!!! SMILE"

Body: "By Jason Feifer The Gardner News PAULSBORO, NJ"

This information is also partially wrong. He got the name of the paper right, but placed it in the wrong city and state. My best guess is that he got this from newsaskew.com, where an article of mine was once posted. (and if for some reason you follow that link, be sure to check out the comments at the end. i don't know those people, but they sure were angry!)

Anyway, I show all this to a co-worker, who suggests that i google this guy because he did it to me. So, i did, and found a vast amount of information about him, all revolving around one subject: he's a kooky american who moved to taiwan, LOVES it, and wrote a book about how much he loves it. He's quoted in many newspapers saying things like "You've got a great little country here!"

Granted, this guy isn't really stalking me, and it's my own fault that so much information about me is floating around on the web. But, i guess i never really thought that anyone would care enough to actually go look me up. I wonder if this is a bad thing.

What a weird, weird world.

*****************************************************************************

4. Political rant of the week!

Wal-Mart huffing and puffing, but it still just blows
by Jason Feifer

As Tom Waits once growled to the crackle of finger-snapping jazz, “The large print giveth, and the small print taketh away.”

And isn’t it true. With every sale, with every contract, with every promise, the most auspicious parts are broadcast louder than the reality. The “how” never matches the “what.” Just listen. Bush: “I’M GOING TO FIX THE ECONOMY AND CREATE MORE JOBS by giving tax cuts to the rich.” Ashcroft: “I’M GOING TO MAKE AMERICA SAFE FROM TERRORISTS by taking away the civil liberties that make this land great.” Mitt Romney: “I WILL NOT RAISE TAXES because instead I’ll raise every single fee in the state.”

Now, Wal-Mart is playing the game. In an Aug. 14 New York Times article, the world’s biggest company (by revenue) said it is concerned about its sinking image, and has devoted time and resources to fixing it. At first glance, this is terrific news. Wal-Mart is a behemoth company mired in public relations nightmares. It is the corporate Godzilla, so large and unrivaled that its every move is bound to destroy something smaller.

Every new Wal-Mart in a community means the closing of some mom-and-pop stores — you know, the ones where the owner knows the customer, and every dollar spent is directly appreciated. Then, when Wal-Mart decides to close its store in a community and open a SuperStore nearby, it leaves in its wake an empty building that is so big that it borders on useless. If the community does want to do something with the monumental waste of space — and really, it’s the community’s burden, since Wal-Mart can easily afford to leave the building empty — then Wal-Mart will gladly act as a landlord. According to the USA Today, former Wal-Mart stores around the country are now leased as schools, medical centers, auto dealers, fitness centers, banks, call centers and even churches.

Of course, Wal-Mart isn’t just a victim of its own success. It could have solved some of its largest problems with even a sprinkle of moral decency. It has been taken to court for its sub par treatment of female workers, including what appears to be a conscious reluctance to promote them. It makes a habit of hiring part-time workers to avoid paying benefits, and it has consistently fought any of its 1.4 million employees’ efforts to unionize. Indeed, as Barbara Ehrenreich’s brilliant book “Nickel and Dimed” exposed, Wal-Mart shows new employees a video that demonizes unions, and works to ensure that employees have nary a moment to discuss such an option with one another.

These egregious decisions are baffling. Some smaller employers wonder if its humble sales can support the payment of employee benefits or raises, but Wal-Mart has no such problem. The Wal-Mart stores division recently posted an operating profit of $3.32 billion, with sales of $42.57 billion, according to Reuters. All that money means one thing: Wal-Mart can afford to pay its workers more than minimum wage. It can afford to bring more on as full-time employees and begrudgingly help them with health insurance. It can afford a lot of things. It just chooses not to.

And so, when I saw this New York Times article, I was impressed, if not a little shocked. It seemed that the Wal-Mart executives had finally taken the money out of their ears, and noticed that public opinion was getting louder and angrier. After conducting two years of “reputation research,” Wal-Mart had discovered that, for instance, people “didn’t see us as involved in the community as they might like,” a company spokesman told the Times. To me, it’s unbelievable that Wal-Mart would even care. It’s somewhat endearing, too.

But, here’s the quick reality check: Wal-Mart’s solution to fixing their reputation has nothing to do with helping employees. It doesn’t plan on promoting more women, on listening to organized labor groups, on even hiring more full-time workers. No, its solution gels much more with its original style: it plans on running advertisements. It wants to improve its reputation by polishing its image, not its ethics.

You may have already seen these ads. They unabashedly feature women in Wal-Mart uniforms talking about the excellent “opportunity to advance” in the company. “It’s not easy to have a career and a family, but my job makes it a lot easier to do both,” a female district manager cheerily tells a camera.

How shallow. How unfortunate. How completely Wal-Mart. I thought it was so promising, so completely brave and chivalrous, that a company as large as Wal-Mart would listen to the people it steps on. Of course, at Wal-Mart’s size, it really doesn’t need to, since it often positions itself as the only major retailer in a community. Whether they like it or not, people are forced to shop there. But maybe this company has another side to it, I thought. I thought wrong.

The Times article ends with a curious quote from a Wal-Mart spokesman. It’s unclear exactly what he’s talking about, but I think it was supposed to be positive. Perhaps he was talking about how, even if Wal-Mart changes itself to improve its reputation, it will still offer low prices. Perhaps he was saying the stores will continue to expand, to profit, to employ another million people. Whatever he meant to say, though, this is what he said: “We need to do these things. At the same time, we can’t change who we are. We can’t change what makes Wal-Mart Wal-Mart.”

But what does make Wal-Mart Wal-Mart? The low prices? The airport-sized parking lots? The minimum wage jobs? What is it? Wal-Mart has offered the world a new contrast of large-print/small-print, and it goes like this: “WE WILL MAKE OURSELVES A BETTER COMPANY by pouring money into advertising, not employees.”

It seems they can’t change what makes Wal-Mart Wal-Mart. We should have known better.

*****************************************************************************

Feature #152:

I'd say this sets a new record for a late feature. One month. Jeez. I really am sorry about that. Between quitting my job and feeling out freelance writing, i sort of neglected this part of the site for far too long. I'm a big jerk. I know.

This is something of a mishmash feature -- just a gathering of small things, like a vegetarian going to eat at Boston Market and thus having to order a plate-full of side dishes. (That just about sums up many a weekend during high school, i'm afraid.)

Ok! Here we go:

1. NYC blues
2. The Return of the Worst Man Alive!
3. raed it wouthit porbelm
4. Satan funnies
5. Political rant of the week

*****************************************************************************

1. Here's a really quick story about something that happened to me in new york city a few months ago:

Two slices of french toast for $9.50 is nothing I'd paid for myself. But, since I was with my family and the tab was someone else's, they were delightful.

That is, until my next-to-last bite, when I clenched down on a rusty staple.

I was mostly amused, but the waitress was mortified. I tried handing her the staple, but she asked me to put it on the plate, which she whisked away. Seconds later, an equally mortified manager appeared and offered a free drink, a free desert, a free something, anything, please forgive us. I didn't really want anything, but let them talk me in to a mimosa and a plate of cookies, because I was starting to feel bad about the whole thing.

"They're lucky you got the staple," my father said. "If it was me, I'd be part-owner of the place by now."

*****************************************************************************

2. It's back!

I made two strips of Adventures of the Worst Man Alive at least two years ago (both can be found by scrolling around here), and then feared that people wouldn't get the joke -- mainly, because there is no joke, but if there is a joke, it's that men like this really exist, and that putting them in a comic strip sort of makes them a joke, even though they're not... well, damn, what is the joke? I don't know. But anyway, i thought they were funny, and decided to do three more. Here they are:

*****************************************************************************

3. This spread around the internet about a month ago like diarrhea at a day care center. But, for the two of you that haven't seen it yet, here's this:

Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a total mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.

Neat, isn't it? As a sidenote, though, the e-mail wasn't actually spawned by any Cambridge University study. As per typical e-mail forwards, the attribution is either totally wrong or confused. Read more about that here.

*****************************************************************************

4. My dad forwarded me this very short e-mail. I think it would make a great 'i can't draw' cartoon, but i just haven't done it yet. A typical story, isn't it?

Anyway, here's the short e-mail:

If Satan goes bald, there will be hell toupee.

See? Short. Kind of funny, though.

*****************************************************************************

5. Ok, so this is a very late political rant. Just like this update is late. In fact, the rant was written on time, so don't blame the rant for the late update. Ok? Got that? It's the update's fault, not the rant. Don't go taking your frustration out on the rant. The rant is just ranting. Just doing its thing. Got that?

Bad examples and even worse explanations
By Jason Feifer

Let’s say I was raising money for something insane. Let’s say I was going door-to-door, begging and pleading, standing on streetcorners, all the time seeking cash to develop proper plans to buy homeless shelters and convert them into expensive restaurants. Let’s say I was running a campaign called “The Homeless Have Too Much To Eat.”

Now, let’s say I approach you, faithful reader, and ask you to contribute to my cause. Chances are, you might say something vulgar. But, let’s assume you are going to be quoted in a family newspaper. Then, you might say something like, “I’ll be damned if my money is going towards converting homeless shelters into expensive resaurants.”

To which I would sigh and explain, as I had explained to everyone with your piddling concern, that I am not actually buying homeless shelters. I am only raising money to study the possibility of buying them, because, of course, you never know. One day, homelessness may be a thing of the past, and everyone will have enough money to eat whatever they want. And by God, we need enough fancy restaurants to feed these people!

You would, I hope, not give me a penny. And if you did that, you would be a good and noble soul, and much wiser than the Senate of the United States of America.

Pretend time is over. Now, let’s talk about the Bush Administration, a group of mysterious figures that has appointed itself the litmus test of nuclear worthiness, and that claims to champion an international level of nuclear responsibility. But oh, woe is the world! Woe is the leader who does not lead by example! Woe is the country that condemns countries for beefing up nuclear weapons and violating nuclear treaties, while simultaneously testing and developing larger and more horrific weapons. Yes, woe are we.

Last month, the Bush Administration asked the Senate to approve $16 million to, as the Los Angeles Times reported, “research new battlefield uses for nuclear weapons and improve the nation's capacity to make and test them.”

Perhaps, America might think spending money to develop new weapons is a bad idea — especially in such a tight economy, and in an unstable world where peace hinges on communication and mutual understanding. Unfortunately, the Senate doesn’t agree with this. On Tuesday, they passed the funding by a vote of 53-41.

And when opponents of the plan voiced concerns about America’s thirst for weapons, supporters of nuclear war merely shrugged. “There's nothing in this bill that produces a single new nuclear weapon,” said New Mexico Republican Senator Pete V. Domenici.

That’s right. The money is only going towards studying, not producing! Silly us. It’s like studying the possibility of converting homeless shelters into high-end restaurants. You know, just in case.

I can’t decide which is worse. If our elected officials are truly this ignorant, and if they actually believe that studying nuclear weapons is somehow different from producing them, then I have no confidence in their decision-making ability. But, if they do know what this money is going towards, and if they’re just lying to the public with an excuse as laughably false as “there’s nothing in this bill that produces a single new nuclear weapon,” then I have no confidence in their leadership ability.

Either way, things are looking bad. Our elected officials set no healthy example for us to follow, and in doing so, they’ve eliminated America’s ability to set an example for the world. Do they want another nuclear arms race? It would seem so.

"This is the beginning," California Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein said during debate over this issue. "This money will go to field a new generation of nuclear weapons. We should not do this."

But we did. Nuclear treaties be damned.

*****************************************************************************

Feature #153:

Nothing extremely exciting to report here, so we'll just get to the feature.

1. sperm II men
2. Tips and trips
3. Out of this world!

*****************************************************************************

1. This month, studies revealed that sperm respond to two drugs the same way men do: after a man has something with caffeine, his sperm moves faster and more frantically; and after he smokes pot, his sperm experiences a short burst of energy and then burns out, swimming idly with no ability to fertilize an egg. I wondered: if men and sperm act alike, what other influences might the two share?

• Man drinks one beer: His sperm's tails are loose, and they've never felt more ready to meet the egg.

• Man drinks eight beers. His sperm stumbles towards the egg -- not because that's its goal in life, but because it sort of look like a breast.

• Man takes ecstasy: Sperm goes nowhere. Too busy feeling its tail.

• Man eats a hot dog: His sperm argue over who has to swim near the bottom, up against those uncomfortable plastic ballpark seats.

• Man watches movie with Jenna Jamison: sperm ready for action, and then stumble, terrified and confused, into the cold darkness.

• Man takes steroids: sperm thinks it's employed by Major League Baseball, starts hitting the heads of other sperm with its tail, and believes it's swimming in the "balls park."

*****************************************************************************

2. I bought this book "Writer's Market," which has been invaluable in trying to set up freelance gigs. It has all the relevant information for thousands of magazines -- how much content is freelance-written, what they're looking for, who to contact, how much they pay, etc.

A fair amount of the listings also contain tips, which are usually in quotes, therefore implying to me that the publishers of this book got in touch with someone at the publication and got a hold of a few good tips for freelancers. Most tips are somewhat useless or obvious things like "Read our writer's guidelines", others are instructive like "Our readers are between 25-36 and have a college education", and some are directive like "Query first, don't send a full manuscript."

What i really love about the tips, though, is how much they betray what other freelancers do. A lot of them say things like "Make sure the article is relevant to our publication," which tells me that most freelancers are just randomly sending off pitches without doing any research. And so on.

I know this has been a lengthy wind-up for what is essentially a quick punchline, but i needed to offer that background. And so, now, i offer you the tip from the Dog Fancy Magazine listing:

"No stores written from a dog's point of view."

Hah! Is that not excellent or what? Dog Fancy Magazine gets so many stories from a dog's point of view that it warranted a tip. Why hello there, you sexy thing. Do you come here often? Are you lonely? You're so strong and sturdy, and I do love that upholstery you're wearing. Hey, are those new pillows on top of you? Yes, yes, they are, aren't they? Oh, darling, that just makes my little tail wag and wag.

Yikes.

*****************************************************************************

3. On my second-to-last day at my reporting job, two co-workers and I got this very strange e-mail. Take a read...

Subject: My experience

Most of you do not know me but I would like for all of you to read this.

My name is Jessica, I do not want to use my full name because I know people will just say I'm crazy. I'm 20 years old and work in a convenience store and gas station I would like to work in a business like this for the rest of my life, I like what I do. I've completed High School but have yet to complete college even though I want to so I can get a degree and which will help me to advance to being a manager of a convenience store. I'm single now but I've started to see someone who has been really helpful during this time.

Over the Friday of the Labor Day weekend I went to a late night movie at Gardner Cinemas while driving home I noticed that the gate to Dunn Pond State Park was open. Even though it was close to midnight I couldn't resist turning into the park. I went for a walk along the beach area of the park and walked along the edge of the pond. I passed the ranger station and I stood looking toward the little island in the middle of the pond.

I suddenly heard a very loud hum one that was so loud that I could feel the vibration through my body. I looked up directly above me toward where I was hearing the hum and a bright light suddenly went on from directly overhead. I was looking right at it when it went on and I was blinded from it and it really hurt my eyes. I turned away to the ground. I felt really dizzy almost like I was going to faint I felt like I was falling at first and then like I was floating in very warm water.

The next thing I knew I was laying on the concrete of the parking lot next to my car. I was real dizzy and had trouble getting up when I did and got into my car and checked the clock I realized that it was past 5 in the morning and that somehow I had missed over 5 hours of time.

When I got home and undressed to take a shower and I realized my panties were on inside out. I don't think it was like this when left home in the evening. While showering I found traces of blood in my hair near the base of my neck and there is this very small lump right at the base where my neck connects to my head. I had a friend go through my hair and there is no mark only a small bump like half the size of a dime.

Since this incident I've had a lot of problems with anxiety and depression two things I've never had to deal with in the past. I find it hard to work at nights when before I enjoyed this. I now have nightmares sometimes I even wake up screaming. A few times I have seen pictures of "Greys" a supposed alien type and had a fear reaction to it, but I don't know why. I don't know what is wrong with me and I don't know where to turn for help. I mean what do I say "Hi my name is Jesse and I'm not sure but I think I was abducted by aliens"?

I never believed in aliens or alien abductions but I know what people say they are like.

My Yahoo! profile used to contain my full name and a real sexy picture of me I've deleted all that I've even made it so my e-mails only contain the name Jessica H. the reason that I am doing all this is because know people will think I'm crazy and I don't need the drama. I know I need help with all this but I really do not know where to turn.

This e-mail is going out to as many UFO groups as I can find and several people who were listed in the yahoo directory as living in Gardner or who are interested in UFOs.

Have there been any other incidents like this in or near Gardner, MA? In particular the Dunn Park area?

A friend of mine said the real story here is that someone is actually enthusiastic to work in a convienence store, but I was hoping for a good ol' alien abduction news story. I called up Dunn Park, where the park supervisor told me that the gates are regularly left open, and that "There is no evidence of alien abductions here." I wrote this girl back anyway, and told her I was interested in her story -- although, I could only write about her if she found at least one or two more people claiming to be abducted in the area. Sadly, she never wrote back.

Anyway, I don't have anything enlightening to add to this. I just thought it was sort of interesting. I did, however, find this funny comic about aliens:

(from Tom Chalk.com)

*****************************************************************************

Feature #154:

I was flying from Minneapolis to Chicago last week when my plane took a sudden dip. It wasn't much to worry about -- enough to give my stomach a funny sensation, but not much more than that. There were two flight attendants handing out drinks next to me when it happened, and one said to the other, "We're divebombing."

"Yeah," the other replied.

Then they kept handing out drinks.

That seemed a bit inappropriate, considering the fear that airplanes can strike into the hearts of their begrudging passengers. It's like a parent who, before turning the light off in the room of a fretful six-year-old, says, "Most people either die in their sleep, or in the dark. Here come both. Goodnight!" The in-flight magazine wouldn't run an article called "10 coolest plane crashes!" Although, that would be a remarkable social experiment.

Anyway. Here's a short feature.

1. Science Gone Wild!
2. Cows Gone Satirical!

*****************************************************************************

1. What? You want science satire? Well, ok.

The reputable professor accepts a sponsorship
By Jason Feifer

Good evening. I’m glad to be back on campus after working within the delightful facilities of Charmin, a company that has graciously donated its money and resources to my latest research. Colleagues, let’s simplify for a moment. The history of mankind can be broken into two distinct and unique movements: the times in which we were hunched over and hairy, and the times in which we work to discover why we are no longer hunched over and hairy. We’ve seen many theories come and go, of course. Creationism felt a little empty, although Darwinism has proven to be particularly enticing. I can see Professor Overvold nodding his head at that one. You like Darwin, professor? Yes, yes, don’t we all.

But good people of science, I believe you may reconsider Mr. Darwin’s theory after reflecting on two questions. Are you prepared for this? I will warn you, it may change your life. Dare I say, it may change your whole weltanschauung.

First question: have you ever failed to wipe properly after using the toilet? It’s ok, Professor, you can nod at this one, too. Second question: what would our ancestors have made toilet paper out of?

I recognize the twitches in your faces. They are the signs of recognition. You’re all bubbling to what I like to call “the ah-hah moment.” Let me help you along.

Friends, when we do not properly wipe ourselves, we itch. It is an awful itch, becoming only more invasive with every step we take, and it is lodged in a place we cannot scratch in public. To address this problem, we instinctively tweak our posture, trying to find a position that minimizes the friction in between our buttocks. Finally, we settle on something resembling a putting stance on the golf course -- and this, dear friends, is after we’ve wiped ourselves with modern toilet paper!

I have been developing this theory for quite some time, and have had the pleasure of testing many different toilet papers. Some, I’m happy to report, are quite fluffy. Technology has brought us to a place in which the elimination of bodily waste and subsequent clean-up can be done in maximum comfort -- and, it should be noted, with style and little floral imprints -- and yet we still manage to miss a spot or two.

Imagine, for a moment, trying to reproduce this process with fig leaves! Or tree bark! Even our good friend Darwin would agree that this is less than ideal. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that tree bark is 100 times less effective than, oh, Charmin Ultra. Now, reflect upon that itch I described earlier, and multiply it by 100. I think we all know how we’d be walking. Yes, when our ancestors came down from their trees and diversified their banana diet, they remained hunched over because an erect standing position would have been unbearable to maintain.

Ladies and gentlemen, the evolution of homo erectus is directly and indisputably tied to the evolution of toilet paper. The better the wiping tool, the more erect we could bare to stand. Tree bark, hunched. Fig leaves, slouched. Do you see the pattern? By the time humanity got to papyrus, well, take a look at the postures in those ancient Egyptian paintings, and you tell me how they were standing. And we’re evolving still, anchored to the increasing fluffiness of today’s brands. Just look: first Charmin, then Charmin Plus, now Charmin Ultra. We just keep getting better, and more erect.

Our devotion to science placed humanity on this great path, and we have much to look forward to. Stand tall, my fellow professors, and do it with pride and comfort. We’ve earned it.

*****************************************************************************

2. This was forwarded to me, and serves me well for two reasons: 1) it makes for good content when i don't have anything else original to post this week, and 2) it's funny. So, enjoy!

Two Cows

DEMOCRAT

You have two cows.
Your neighbor has none.
You feel guilty for being successful.
Barbara Streisand sings for you.

REPUBLICAN

You have two cows.
Your neighbor has none.
So?

SOCIALIST

You have two cows.
The government takes one and gives it to your neighbor.
You form a cooperative to tell him how to manage his cow.

COMMUNIST

You have two cows.
The government seizes both and provides you with milk.
You wait in line for hours to get it.
It is expensive and sour.

CAPITALISM, AMERICAN STYLE

You have two cows.
You sell one, buy a bull, and create a herd of cows.

DEMOCRACY, AMERICAN STYLE

You have two cows.
The government taxes you to the point you have to sell both to support a man in a foreign country who has only one cow, which was a gift from your government.

BUREAUCRACY, AMERICAN STYLE

You have two cows.
The government takes them both, shoots one, milks the other, pays you for the milk, and then pours the milk down the drain.

AMERICAN CORPORATION

You have two cows.
You sell one, lease it back to yourself and do an IPO on the 2nd one.
You force the two cows to produce the milk of four cows. You are surprised when one cow drops dead.
You spin an announcement to the analysts stating you have downsized and are reducing expenses.
Your stock goes up.

FRENCH CORPORATION

You have two cows.
You go on strike because you want three cows.
You go to lunch and drink wine.
Life is good.

JAPANESE CORPORATION

You have two cows.
You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk.
They learn to travel on unbelievably crowded trains.
Most are at the top of their class at cow school.

GERMAN CORPORATION

You have two cows.
You engineer them so they are all blond, drink lots of beer, give excellent quality milk, and run a hundred miles an hour.
Unfortunately they also demand 13 weeks of vacation per year.

ITALIAN CORPORATION

You have two cows but you don't know where they are.
While ambling around, you see a beautiful woman.
You break for lunch.
Life is good.

RUSSIAN CORPORATION

You have two cows.
You have some vodka.
You count them and learn you have five cows.
You have some more vodka.
You count them again and learn you have 42 cows.
The Mafia shows up and takes over however many cows you really have.

TALIBAN CORPORATION

You have all the cows in Afghanistan, which are two.
You don't milk them because you cannot touch any creature's private parts.
Then you kill them and claim a US bomb blew them up while they were in the hospital.

IRAQI CORPORATION

You have two cows.
They go in hiding.
They send radio tapes of their mooing.

FLORIDA CORPORATION

You have a black cow and a brown cow.
Everyone votes for the best looking one.
Some of the people who like the brown one best, vote for the black one.
Some people vote for both. Some people vote for neither.
Some people can't figure out how to vote at all.
Finally, a bunch of guys from out-of-state tell you which is the best-looking cow.

CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

You have millions of cows.
Most are illegals.
Arnold likes the ones with the big tits

...speaking of cows, by the way: as a school project, my friend Sara designed something for a milk company, which included a reference to a program it runs called "Moola for School." I wondered, why did nobody realize that this program name is one step away from a much more engaging name -- that of "Moola for Schoola." Really, consider this for a moment. Yes, the use of "moola" is a double entendre, since it means "money" and contains a cowish "moo," but dare i say, that isn't enough. This gets so close to a goofy rhyme, that it either needs to, as they say, shit or get off the can. It's like when someone says, "Hey, I've got a great secret," but then won't tell you what it is. All or nothing, baby. Companies can't be half-assed when they're trying to be clever. Imagine if "Dumb and Dumber" was called "Dumb and More Dumb." Or if NOFX's "Punk in Drublic" was called, um, "Drunk in Public." (Alright, maybe that's a stupid example.) What's the point here? All or nothing, baby. Moola for Schoola. Moola for Schoola!

*****************************************************************************