Wednesday, March 21, 2012

GOP Unites Behind Women's Euthanization Bill

Representatives from all three major GOP candidates have confirmed each party has thrown his full support behind a new bill that would require the euthanizing of all women over the age of thirty who are childless. Monica Whitters, spokesperson for the Santorum campaign, says "Mr. Santorum can understand the value of a woman who is of child-bearing age, but he also recognizes the waste of precious resources they consume if they pass their prime and just 'take up space.'"

Spokespeople for both Romeny and Gingrich echoed those sentiments, as did Justice Clarence Thomas. "If a woman hasn't popped a few out by the time she's thirty, her only function is to make you miserable and ruin your confirmation hearing," said Thomas.

Others feel differently. "Maybe give 'em 'til they're thirty-five," says Mike Tedesco, an unemployed truck driver from Georgia. "You know, because that whole forty-is-the-new-thirty thing."

"It's ridiculous." said Carmine Vacca, a New Jersey plumber. "Who would I call to fix me and my friends snacks on Sundays?"

Steven Cochrane, spokesperson for Newt's Nuts, the Gingrich PAC, offered, ""Gas and food prices are higher than they've ever been. Do we, as Americans, really want, or need, women driving around and eating, while shunning their duties under the eyes of God? Not to mention, how many accidents do they cause sitting in traffic putting on makeup?"

The new legislation, initiated by House Oversight chairman, Darrell Issa, has women's groups up-in-arms. "This is preposterous," states Kathy Thornton, chairman of KWA -Keep Women Alive. "There are plenty of women over thirty who don't have children, are contributing members of society, and who don't wear makeup. I don't have my facts in front of me, but I can get them for you."

One part of the bill the candidates can't seem to agree on, is women who've reached their 30th birthday and who are eligible for termination, but are pregnant. This one area threatens to divide even the staunchest pro-lifers into two sides. "Governor Romney believes, if a woman is over thirty and pregnant, she should at least be allowed to have the baby," states David Shapero, a Romney insider. "Once the baby is born, the state is free to remove her."

Speaking to a packed room of supporters at Bellevue this morning, Rick Santorum said, "The law is the law. As much as I hate to see the taking of an unborn life, if a woman hasn't procreated by thirty, she's obviously a whore, and her offspring will, no doubt, posses the same genes. Thus, in this case, I would make an exception."

Republicans say that, if passed, in five years time, they will move toward an amendment striking the over-thirty clause and eliminating all females in the womb. "Science is very close to being able to replicate the human birth cycle," states Congressman Issa. "My son almost did it with his chemistry set, thus, once we can effectively mass-produce a fetus from a test tube, there won't be any reason at all for women to exist. Except to shop."

The bill has already garnered the support of the Vatican, the Dept. of Motor Vehicles, and men with credit card debt. Detractors include: Bloomingdales, United Chocolate Makers of America, and women.

A spokesperson for Ron Paul said he supported the bill, too, but nobody cared.

Monday, March 19, 2012

If We Were Keeping Score, Would Al-Qaeda Be Winning?

If the War on Terror was a baseball game, what inning would it be? Maybe, around the top of the seventh. The score? Probably, 10-8 in their favor.

Here's how it breaks down:

Opening Day Sept. 11, 2001.

Top of the First:
Al Qaeda hits a grand slam to open the game. Immediate meeting on the mound. Pitcher says he's fine. They just made him mad.
4-0

Bottom of the First:
We're shocked by the fact they rocked our pitcher in the first inning, but, in true form, we answer right back. A flurry of singles and stolen bases in the bottom of the inning displace the Taliban from their stronghold in Afghanistan and sends Bin Laden on the run.
4-1

Top of the Second:
With two men on, they pinch hit with a shoe-bomber and a he lines one up the middle, scoring two and causing airport screenings to be changed forever.
6-1

Bottom of the Second:
Bin Laden's reportedly somewhere in the stadium, but security can't find him. Meanwhile, they strike out the side, as the cost of the war - in both dollars and lives - begins to take its toll.
6-1

Top of the Third:
They rejoice at home plate, as our now considerably-rattled pitcher and catcher screw up a senseless pick-off play they'll be talking about for years: We accuse Saddam Hussein of having weapons of mass destruction, and don't want to let him get to second base. Everyone at home knows Saddam is too slow to steal second, nonetheless, the catcher, forgetting the real danger at third, calls for the pick-off, anyway, and the pitcher throws wild - sending the ball into the stands and the runner from third, home. (On the very next play, Saddam would be hit in the head by the pitcher - in yet another pick-off attempt - and taken out of the game.)
7-1

Bottom of the Third:
Our pitcher mistakenly thinks the end of the second inning is the end of the game, and declares victory. His teammates tell him it's not the end, and we're losing. In spite of that blunder, we manage to score a pair of hard-earned, diplomatic runs, by sending drones into Pakistan and turning the once anti-U.S. nation into an ally.
7-3

Top of the Fourth:
Al-Qaeda sneakily pulls a squeeze play and kills fifty-two in London while injuring seven hundred more. That's it. Meeting on the mound. You can tell our pitcher's tired. Finally, after what seems like an eternity, we bring in a new, hotshot, rookie pitcher -and catcher, as well. They quickly get us out of the inning.
8-3

Bottom of the Fourth:
We open the frame by banning torture and hit a line drive over the right field wall.
8-4

Top of the Fifth:
Al-Qaeda answers our switch by calling on a slugger from their triple-A team in Uganda. He hits the first pitch he sees over the center field fence, leaving seventy-four dead, and as many injured, at the World Cup in Kampala.
9-4

Bottom of the Fifth:
We load the bases with nobody out, yet, sadly, fail to score. But, our new pitcher has given us revitalized life. The crowd can sense a renewed feeling of hope.
9-4

Top of the Sixth:
It's been years since 9/11 and Bin Laden is still stealing signals from the dugout. This rattles our once-steady pitcher, as he loads the bases and walks in a run. The crowd boos. They want him gone, too.
10-4

Bottom of the Sixth:
With two outs, and the bases loaded, we leave the young, stud pitcher in to hit for himself. You can almost hear every fan at home screaming into their T.V.'s. It's a seemingly ridiculous move even the announcers are questioning. No one can really be sure who's in that house in Pakistan. There could be women, children, no one, etc. But, with two strikes on him, the lanky, humble pitcher from Hawaii, changes the course of history and rockets one into the upper deck that would still be going had it not hit the lights. Grand slam. The place goes bonkers.
10-8

Top of the Seventh:
After their manager is thrown out of the game, Al-Qaeda comes to bat looking nothing like they did the previous six innings, and they go down in order.
10-8

Time for a commercial.

That's where it stands at the moment. No doubt, a real nail-biter.

If and when the troops finally leave Afghanistan, it will be the seventh inning stretch. God only knows what the top of the eighth has in store. But, we have a pretty good bullpen.

Tuesday, March 13, 2012

"What's" The Beef?

Forget, for a moment, the John Walker Lindh's and Timothy McVeigh's of the world. This article is not about that kind of domestic terrorist. Rather, it's about those individuals whose job it is to knowingly look the other way, and contribute to the poisoning of their fellow citizens on a daily basis. Especially when it involves children.

It's no secret, when it comes to food, we, as a nation, have been slowly killing each other for decades with the products that our supermarkets and fast food chains happily stock en masse, and which may contain any number of unpronounceable ingredients, usually ending, ironically enough, in "a-t-e." Yet, even though the Internet has leveled the playing field tremendously when it comes to protesting these types of actions before they take effect, or even forcing them, in some cases, to reverse direction, it's still "business-as-usual" for our government.

For instance, the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture announced it's buying seven million pounds of "Pink Slime" -- the ammonia-treated beef byproduct consisting mostly of connective cow tissue (barf), and deemed a "bad idea" by the likes of McDonald's, Burger King, and Taco Bell. How bad does this stuff have to be to be dropped by the food versions of Gordon Gekko? Granted, celeb chef Jamie Oliver played a big part, but the "slime" was exposed for what it is. Literally, garbage. Nonetheless, this junk is now well on its way to becoming a key ingredient in your child's school lunch. If that doesn't make you 'sick to your stomach,' nothing will. (Already a petition has begun to circulate among parents which has gathered almost 200k signatures in just three days.)

The statements made by the USDA claim "All USDA ground beef purchases for the National School Lunch Program must meet the highest standards for food safety." Highest standards according to whom? The U.S. Meat Council? Just because there's no immediate threat of bacteria making kids sick tomorrow, or the next day, doesn't mean that the chemicals being consumed now, under guise of making the meat "safe," won't lead to all kinds of wonderful ailments ten or twenty years down the line (God only knows what those of us who went to school in the '70s and '80s were consuming -- probably television parts). The capper is, scientists say, even after this "mystery meat" is treated with this possible carcinogen, the meat's still believed to be susceptible to e. coli and salmonella, anyway. And, lest we forget, this stuff has almost no nutritional value at all!

When traces of dozens of pharmaceuticals and pesticides were found in New York City's drinking water, the city's Department of Environmental Protection maintained there was no danger -- as the water met the highest standards allowed by law. The problem was, nowhere in the law did it require limiting the levels of pharmaceuticals of any kind. So, technically, they were right.

And, it just gets worse. The FDA, the organization that's supposed to protect us from eating things that will cause our babies to be born with three heads, doesn't even require labeling products treated with ammonia. Nor will they require labels when they allow salmon to be injected with human growth hormones. Add to that, Obama quietly appointing a former Monsanto CEO to head its Food Safety division, and you can see we're being attacked from all sides. (Although, the hormones-in-salmon thing looks like it could be good, as one salmon reportedly hit 61 home runs.)

Unfortunately, as a society, we don't have each other's backs. We're simply not honest with each other when it comes to the risks surrounding the foods we eat and the chemicals we use to make them. Because, when ya get right down to it, we DON'T know what the risks are. We DON'T know what type of diseases or complications consuming ammonia, or drinking trace amounts of insecticide, will ultimately cause. So, why must we always say, "It's probably fine," when it comes to the health and well-being of our children, as well as ourselves? Why not err on the other side? Why not take the position, "We're not going to allow this until we know -- for certain -- that it's completely safe?" The answer's obvious: money. It takes money to change policy. It takes money to overhaul an industry. And these industries pay better than the environmental groups fighting them. Perhaps, next time you hear someone ask, "Where's the beef?," you should tell them the correct term is, "What's the beef?"