LOL Housecleaning

Cidu Bill on Dec 31st 2012

Going through my mess of a hard drive, I came across a ton of LOLs I might or might not have posted here; so I’m going to just post all of them and then delete them from my computer and start fresh. I figure even if only a third of them are really “new,” that’s still going make a pretty good collection.

2012-05-11-a-picture-is-wor.png

td.jpg

rwo-lmao.gif

foiled.png

2012-05-22-apb-on-the-doa.png

dressing.gif

weakness.gif

shermans_lagoon20120809_large.gif

blue.png

rhymes_with_orange20120114_small.gif

lol-leighrubin-elyrest.gif

dt120202.gif

tp.jpg

gone.gif

granny.jpg

toansweryourquestion.png

3d1.gif

velcro.gif

sleep.gifprinciples.png

blinded.gif

fortuneteller.gif

pest.gif

cow.gif

xx.gif

whoopie1.png

security.gif

royalty.png

popup.gif

gf.png

fist.gif

fartsy.png

dip.gif

tsa.gif

missing.png

lowgear.png

horses.gif

norse.jpg

aviary-comics-ganneff-de-picture-13.png

dilbert779g.gif

rhymes-seer.png

clocks.jpg

bear.gif

Filed in 9 to 5, Adam Huber, Argyle Sweater, B.C., Bill Amend, Bill Bickel, Bill Watterson, Bizarro, Bug Martini, Calvin and Hobbes, Comics That Made Us Laugh Out Loud, Cornered, Cyanide and Happiness, Dan Piraro, Dave Blazek, Dave Coverly, Dilbert, Fox Trot, Greg Evans, Leigh Rubin, Lio, Loose Parts, Luann, Mark Tatulli, Mike Baldwin, Mutt and Jeff, New Yorker, Non Sequitur, Pardon My Planet, Rhymes With Orange, Rina Piccolo, Rubes, Scott Adams, Scott Hilburn, Sherman's Lagoon, Speed Bump, Tina's Groove, Tweety Pie, Vic Lee, Wiley Miller, comic strips, comics, humor, lol, xkcd | 49 responses so far

49 Responses to “LOL Housecleaning”

  1. The Vicar Dec 31st 2012 at 12:57 am 1

    Oddly enough, that Foxtrot strip popped into my head earlier today when I saw the word “Norse” in another context, and I had “A Norse is a Norse” going through my head for about an hour. Weird synchronicity!

  2. James Pollock Dec 31st 2012 at 01:57 am 2

    I’m kind of surprised that these didn’t get doled out in 24 chunks an hour apart.

  3. Usual John Dec 31st 2012 at 02:39 am 3

    The one with Putin is a CIDU for me. Yes, I know that the answer is putting on the Ritz, and obviously “Putin” sounds a little like “putting,” but there’s apparently a step I’m missing.

    (As an aside: The original version of that song is about poor black people dressing up. I prefer the version in which those putting on the Ritz are actually ritzy.)

    While most of these are quite funny and I think only a few have been used before, the Luann one just seems like it’s going for an obvious target because the cartoonist couldn’t think of anything else.

  4. mitch4 Dec 31st 2012 at 03:00 am 4

    Thanks for identifying Putin — that makes it not a CIDU for me anymore. Is “where fashion sits” pulled from the lyrics of the song?

    The “low gear” BC was refreshingly simple and amusing!

    I didn’t recognize the source of the one with the clock-faced people. I guess it makes sense that the guy shows a later time — after all, he’s the one running late. But in a way it could be backwards — he would be late for the date if his clock ran slow.

  5. The Vicar Dec 31st 2012 at 03:13 am 5

    @Usual John:

    Just to make sure: you DO realize that that’s a type of cracker known as a “Ritz Cracker”, right? So that it’s “Putin on the Ritz”? Or do you just not think that’s funny. (Honestly, I really and truly laughed out loud at that one, myself.)

    Ritz crackers are made by Nabisco:
    http://www.nabiscoworld.com/ritz/

    @mitch4:

    The wisdom of the Internet says that the lyrics run:

    Have you seen the well-to-do, up and down Park Avenue
    On that famous thoroughfare, with their noses in the air
    High hats and Arrowed collars, white spats and lots of dollars
    Spending every dime, for a wonderful time
    If you’re blue and you don’t know where to go to
    Why don’t you go where fashion sits,
    Puttin’ on the ritz.
    Different types who wear a daycoat, pants with stripes
    And cut away coat, perfect fits,
    Puttin’ on the ritz.
    Dressed up like a million dollar trouper
    Trying hard to look like Gary Cooper (super duper)
    Come let’s mix where Rockefellers walk with sticks
    Or umbrellas in their mitts
    Puttin’ on the Ritz

    Tips his hat just like an english chappie
    To a lady with a wealthy pappy (very snappy)
    You’ll declare it’s simply topping to be there
    And hear them swapping smart titbits
    Puttin’ on the ritz!

  6. Proginoskes Dec 31st 2012 at 04:29 am 6

    There are two reasons (AFAICT) why suicide is actually against the law: (1) so that insurance companies can refuse to pay the next of kin, (2) the religious reason. (”Life is a great gift that God gave to you, and you threw it away.” Well, your brain more powerful than any computer in the world, and if you don’t use THAT, shouldn’t that be a sin as well? Sorry, end of rant against Born-agains there…)

    And there really are 3-D printers; they can make tools with interlocking parts already put together: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQ-aWFYT_SU

  7. Cidu Bill Dec 31st 2012 at 04:40 am 7

    Insurance companies can also refuse to pay the next of kin simply by having the policy say “You kill yourself, we don’t pay your next of kin.”

  8. Todd Dec 31st 2012 at 05:48 am 8

    Took me a moment to get that it was Putin; I was trying to figure out who they put on the Ritz. And it took me a while to get the Looney Tunes one. Then I realized there was smoke, and figured out what Granny and the dog were holding. and why Tweetie and Sylvester’s eyes were weird.

    Don’t quite get the clock one; if I do get it, it’s certainly not a LOL. Don’t get the Viking Foxtrot or the #3 pencil (but it seems familiar.)

    The touchdown celebration, the fist, the 3d printer, Dogbert’s society, the waitresses talking about the funeral, and toilet paper roll have definitely shown up before.

  9. Lost in A**2 Dec 31st 2012 at 07:45 am 9

    I didn’t recognise the fortune-teller at the bar, at first.

  10. Ian Osmond Dec 31st 2012 at 08:15 am 10

    Todd: if you are an American who went to school from the since the 1970s or so, you’ve taken standardized tests that are read by a machine. Those machines require a reasonably dark mark to be read, and so they usually state that a #2 pencil needs to be used. The #2 pencil is a medium-softness, fairly-black pencil, known as an HB in most of the world. It makes a mark dark enough to be read, and is soft enough to not tear the paper.

    That said, the insistence on the #2 pencil is perhaps a little excessive. A #3 pencil ought to work every bit as well, one would think. But, as this student has learned — there is some sort of darned good reason not to use it. . .

  11. Usual John Dec 31st 2012 at 08:28 am 11

    The Vicar (#5): Thanks, I didn’t realize that the background is a Ritz cracker, although now that you point it out, it’s obvious. Not all that funny, in my opinion, but clearly that’s what the cartoonist intended.

  12. Usual John Dec 31st 2012 at 08:37 am 12

    Proginoskes (#6): In almost every state of the United States, law requires that insurance companies honor life insurance policies that have been in effect for more than two years, even if the insured commits suicide. And, as CIDU Bill points out, the restriction prior to the two-year period’s expiration is contractual and is not dependent on suicide being unlawful.

  13. Mark Dec 31st 2012 at 09:28 am 13

    I read this site every day but rarely comment because stuff that I can explain has already been explained by the time I get here usually.

    Anyway, just wanted to say that I love the site, and this entry was awesome. Every one made me smile, and the FoxTrot strip made me laugh out loud.

    All the best to you in the new year!

  14. George P Dec 31st 2012 at 09:35 am 14

    I think the joke should be interpreted as “Putin on a Ritz”, even though the song is “the Ritz”, both because the cracker is not unique and because there was an ad campaign several years ago that claimed something like “Everything is better when it sits on a Ritz”. I like that the joke wasn’t explained; either one gets it and it is funny, or one does not and it does not. Explained jokes are not funny.

    I liked the “first pet” security question one.

  15. The Bad Seed Dec 31st 2012 at 09:53 am 15

    “Putin on the Ritz” took me a few seconds to get, and I laughed harder at it than at any of the others - although there were close to 90% winners for me, even the ones I’d seen before. As for #2 pencils… when you took a test to be graded by machine, they used to give very strict instructions about filling in the circle/oval/box completely and darkly, while keeping it all inside the lines, and I used to have a load of anxiety about that as a child. And there was nothing worse than changing your mind and trying to erase enough of the wrong answer without ripping the paper.

  16. Kevin A. Dec 31st 2012 at 09:59 am 16

    Putin on the Ritz was one of my favorites of the year. However the original one didn’t have any text on it. So when I did figure it out, it was one of those whole body fit of laughter experiences.

  17. Kamino Neko Dec 31st 2012 at 11:41 am 17

    To explain the Foxtrot.

    ‘Vilbør’ is just Wilbur in a Scandinavian accent.

  18. fj Dec 31st 2012 at 11:43 am 18

    On “Blinded by the Light,” it is the next LINE that is often grossly misconstrued, not the next verse (the line is in the chorus, so the concept of next verse makes little sense).

    And Bruce, circa 1970 was SKINNY.

  19. James Pollock Dec 31st 2012 at 11:50 am 19

    Although it does seem kind of foolish to criminalize a successful suicide, the real reason suicide is criminalized is because attempting to commit a crime is itself a crime, and people who attempt suicide A) may need to be confined/limited to prevent repeated attempts, and making it a crime to attempt suicide gives the civil authorities and third parties authority to act to prevent the suicide (otherwise, grabbing a guy on a ledge and pulling him back through the window would be a battery; taking away his gun would be a theft, etc.) and B) tie up a lot of society’s resources (jump off a building and someone has to clean up the sidewalk, step in front of a train and all the trains get off-schedule, etc.)

  20. padraig Dec 31st 2012 at 11:50 am 20

    So many variations on the “Indian name” joke. But which one is YOUR favorite, little Two Dogs F**king?

  21. Kamino Neko Dec 31st 2012 at 11:54 am 21

    @fj - also, Bruce’s version is actually pretty clear. (Even if it still doesn’t make a lot of sense.) It’s Manfred Mann’s that’s so garbled that nobody knows what he’s singing…

  22. Ooten Aboot Dec 31st 2012 at 12:02 pm 22

    I don’t have a good enough memory to say how many are new, but several are definitely ewww.

    In Canada, suicide per se is not illegal (since it can hardly be punished), although counselling, aiding or abetting suicide are criminal offenses, whether or not suicide ensues. The law on euthanasia is currently in flux due to a recent court decision. Suicide bombing, successful or not, comes within the definition of terrorist activity. Life insurance policies generally include a suicide exclusion (no benefit beyond a return of premiums) for the first two years only.

  23. Wheelman Dec 31st 2012 at 12:24 pm 23

    There’s a recent Bizarro treating the same lmao Mao idea, though more artfully IMO: http://tinyurl.com/bn5×7ot

  24. Swimming Man Burning Dec 31st 2012 at 12:28 pm 24

    Hey Geezers! Thanks for explaining that the verbiage was lyrics from Putting On The Ritz. Had no idea. Didn’t even realize it was a Ritz cracker until I went back and looked.
    I initially thought the joke was some lame red state - blue state gag: blue, Democrats, communists, Russia. Stale upon stale. Still, even with the explanation: not unlame. Could have done a whole lot better.
    Liked the rest of them, mostly. Had seen a few before.
    Happy New Year to everyone out there in CIDU land!

  25. zookeeper Dec 31st 2012 at 12:42 pm 25

    I dunno, all of these at once is so hard on me - no will power, I’m a cartoon junkie. I can keep a bottle of whiskey in the house for months, an unopened box of cookies will sit on the shelf, but I’m stuck here until I finish. Not unlike Wally, perhaps.

  26. J-L Dec 31st 2012 at 01:12 pm 26

    Proginoskes (#6):

    Although it seems like religious zealots are behind a lot of laws, I don’t they’re the only ones to blame in this case.

    There are people who were once firm in the belief that suicide should be legal, but once they have learned that a loved one took their own life, they vehemently switched sides. I believe that these people are a driving force (at least in part) as to why suicide is illegal.

    It’s easy to blame “the Church” when there’s a law you don’t agree with, but believe it or not, most laws have secular reasons (possibly in addition to religious reasons) behind their existence.

  27. Elyrest Dec 31st 2012 at 02:34 pm 27

    Finally some of the LOLs I sent in have appeared - not all, but some here I sent in. I thought they had just disappeared into the ether.

    And although I recognized Putin and the song and lyrics and put it together, for some reason I didn’t notice the Ritz cracker - which would’ve made the joke make actual sense.

  28. fj Dec 31st 2012 at 03:23 pm 28

    @Kamino Neko
    Besides, Bruce’s version had the lyrics on the back of the album…

  29. Lola Dec 31st 2012 at 03:39 pm 29

    LOVED the Putin on the Ritz. It took a couple of ticks and was well worth it and thankfully I wasn’t drinking my tea at that moment. Great collection and a fabulous way to end the year. Thanks CIDU Bill.!

  30. The Vicar Dec 31st 2012 at 04:17 pm 30

    @Swimming Man Burning:

    Actually, I’ve never seen the movie. I only know about the song because it appears in Mel Brooks’ Young Frankenstein. (It’s the song that Gene Wilder’s Frankenstein character and the Monster butcher on stage, with the monster howling “PUTTIN ON DA RIIIITZ” at appropriate intervals.)

    @J-L, #26:

    Which reaction is kind of stupid. Not unlike the person who decides to go out and get a gun, despite knowing all the reasons why that is a bad idea, after being robbed at gunpoint. Okay, your hypothetical loved one was so intolerably miserable that they decided to end it all. You wish that, instead, they had continued to live on in misery and pain for your benefit? Presumably with you either continuing in ignorance or not lifting a finger to help? Not entirely unlike people who put elderly pets through extreme surgery which prevents them from ever leading anything akin to a normal life again, because it would be so sad if poor Fluffy died. Certainly not sad for poor Fluffy!

    Chuang Tzu was on his way to the kingdom of Ch’u, when he saw an empty skull, fleshless but intact. Striking it with his riding whip, he said: “Was it losing your wits in your lust for life that brought you to this? Or were you sent to the block because you ruined your county? Or did you act wrongly and shower shame on your parents, wife, and children? Or was it owing to poverty, cold, and hunger? Or did old age bring you to this pass?” On saying these words, he picked up the skull and used it as a pillow for his sleep.

    At midnight, the skull appeared to him in a dream, and said: “You speak like a Sophist. Everything you say concerns the problems of the living. These things do not exist for the dead. Would you like to hear about the dead?”

    “Gladly,” said Chuang Tzu.

    The skull went on: “Among the dead, there are no such things as lords, vassals, seasons, or tasks. Peaceful as we are, we have no age but that of Heaven and Earth. A king on his throne does not enjoy greater felicity than ours.”

    Incredulous, Chuang Tzu asked: “If I prevailed upon the Governor of Destinites to restore life to your body, together with your bones, flesh, and skin, to bring back your father, mother, wife, children, and childhood friends, would you not be willing?”

    The skull stared at him with its empty eye sockets, frowned, and said: “Why should I give up my kingly felicity and return to human misery?”

  31. Pinny Dec 31st 2012 at 04:25 pm 31

    Don’t get the Cyanide & Happiness one.
    Tired of trying to get it. Probably won’t appreciate the humor because it needs explanation. Just looking for closure.
    Thanks.

  32. Ian Osmond Dec 31st 2012 at 04:33 pm 32

    For anybody who has never heard the song “Puttin’ on the Ritz”, here’s a link to Taco’s version:
    http://youtu.be/OG3PnQ3tgzY

    Irving Berlin was apparently a fan of this cover.

  33. J-L Dec 31st 2012 at 05:26 pm 33

    The Vicar (#30):

    That’s what a lot of people think, too, until a loved one commits suicide. (I haven’t been in the position (yet) where I’ve had a friend take his life, so I have to admit that those were other people’s reactions, not mine. I’m only repeating what I’ve heard other people sincerely say.)

    I have to clarify a point: When a person switches sides (from “suicide should be legal” to “suicide shouldn’t be legal”) due to a loved one taking one’s life, it’s generally a (seemingly) out-of-the-blue event. As in “Oh no, I didn’t know that person was hurting so badly” rather than, “At least he doesn’t have to suffer more physical pain.”

    Part of me is hesitant to discuss this because of associated hidden feelings that often accompany suicide. Perhaps someone had a close friend or family member take his own life, and what I’m saying is hurting that person, if only because I’m bringing up painful memories. That’s not my intention, so if I offend anyone or make anybody sad, please forgive me.

    While I have not had the experience of having a loved one commit suicide, I have known a few people who had almost gone through with it. In those cases, the pain was psychological, and all people involved (that is, the ones who almost died and their loved ones) were glad the suicide didn’t take place.

    But you’re right in saying that not all pain is psychological. However, my point was that there are strong non-religious reasons as to why suicide is illegal. Those who think that religion is the only reason that suicide is illegal are simplifying a tricky issue far too much.

    I wish there were an easy solution to suicide that we could all agree on. Until we find one, our lawmakers have to choose one side, and that one side is strongly supported by many who have lost a loved one to suicide.

  34. Kamino Neko Dec 31st 2012 at 05:51 pm 34

  35. The Vicar Dec 31st 2012 at 06:14 pm 35

    @J-L, #33:

    Actually, my comments were not particularly limited to physical pain.

    I am against nearly any change of decision which comes about as an emotional reaction to an unusual event. These changes are nearly always bad and stupid. (Look at all the people clamoring to put armed guards in schools right now in response to the Newtown shootings, even though (A) there were armed guards at at least one of the school shooting locations in the last decade, and it did no good whatsoever, (B) the schools can barely even afford to pay for teachers right now, and (C) having low-paid, probably-poorly-educated, bored armed guards in classrooms is probably a recipe for disaster. Or look at the rush to go to war after 9/11 because “someone has to suffer for this”, as if it wasn’t already happening. Or if these are too politicized for you, go look at any fight — there’s always a point where someone decides to haul off and attack someone else, even though it is obviously a bad idea, because they have lost their temper or are afraid of looking bad. Stupid, stupid, stupid!) When you are thinking with your heart, or with your guts, you don’t do as good a job as when you are thinking with your actual brain.

    If someone is so miserable that they want to commit suicide, they should be given that facility — with the caveat that we ought to give them a mechanism which is as easy and painless and, er, non-discommoding to those left behind as possible. It’s not as though legislation against suicide is going to stop people from trying to kill themselves; it just guarantees that they will try to use the most final — which often means “the messiest” — means possible.

    It would be nice if we also required that they get some sort of mental health evaluation, so as to weed out the ones who don’t really want to die, but since Reagan killed off most governmental mental health funding and it has never been restored, it would be kind of stupid to spend money on the mental health of people who want to die when we aren’t willing to spend it on people who want to live. Then again, we live in a country where the same people who think abortion is bad because they claim to be “pro-life” refuse to authorize any spending on poor children, condemning them to hunger or homelessness or disease. So this particular bit of cognitive dissonance probably isn’t much of a stretch.

    (For that matter, all the evidence suggests that, if anything, the warnings about global warming have been too lenient. Things are likely to get seriously bad within the lifetime of people who are already alive. Most of the issues involved — both as causes of global warming and as issues which will make the effects harder to cope with — are rooted in overpopulation. Since we have this moronic widespread religious objection to preventing people from being born in the first place, and a moronic idea that penalizing or preventing excessive spawning by law is a worse breach of freedom than guaranteeing the existence of civilization as we know it in the future, we should at least make it easy for people to voluntarily remove themselves, should they so desire.)

  36. furrykef Dec 31st 2012 at 06:14 pm 36

    Don’t get the Cyanide & Happiness one.
    Tired of trying to get it. Probably won’t appreciate the humor because it needs explanation. Just looking for closure.
    Thanks.

    Not much to get, really. It’s a shaggy dog story.

  37. Pinny Dec 31st 2012 at 06:56 pm 37

    So the final line in Cyanide & Happiness is just “your life just sucks, like everyone else’s,” (derived from panels 4 & 5)?

  38. CIDU Bill Dec 31st 2012 at 07:00 pm 38

    In a nutshell, Pinny.

  39. Ian Osmond Dec 31st 2012 at 07:45 pm 39

    The Vicar: I am against nearly any change of decision which comes about as an emotional reaction to an unusual event. These changes are nearly always bad and stupid.

    Totally with you there. My phrasing is, “If a law is named after a dead kid, there’s a 95% chance it’s a bad law.”

    As for the suicide thing, though. . . well.

    Here’s my take on it.

    Fifteen years ago, give or take, I had this friend who was suicidal. I had her hospitalized and put in a locked mental ward. She was NOT happy, and explained that it was HER life, and SHE had a right to end it if she thought so. I couldn’t think of any reason she was wrong, and had her committed anyway.

    Since that time, she’s stabilized, gotten two bachelor’s degrees, a master’s, a PhD — all in different sciences — and an MD. She has a husband, two kids, a house, and part ownership of a pediatrics and family medicine clinic that serves a poor inner city population. She now thinks I did the right thing in having her locked up.

    She also has additional training in medical ethics, and is an instructor in medical ethics.

    So, when there was a ballot question in Massachusetts about physician-assisted suicide, I emailed her to ask how I should vote. And her answer was basically, “I have no freakin’ clue.” On the one hand, well, her. On the other hand, this one kid when she was in residency who had been in the pediatric ICU for a YEAR, was in great pain, and all his organs were failing. He was coding, and they could wake up one of two attending physicians. They woke up the one who did no interventions other than cranking up the kid’s pain medication so high that he died faster. On the third hand, she’s Catholic and has massive theological problems with suicide. On the fourth hand, “do no harm.” On the fifth hand, what the heck does “harm” mean in this context?

    I also asked my mother how I should vote, because she’s a hospital chaplain who specializes in hospice. Her answer was basically, “I have no freakin’ clue.” Because on the sixth hand, she’s a chaplain and wants to allow people a spiritually reasonable death, as “natural” as possible. And on the seventh hand, people deserve self-determination. And on the eighth hand, a death that is done with proper pain support, and proper psychological and spiritual support is not generally traumatic for the dying person. And on the ninth hand, “generally” isn’t “always”. . .

    Basically, once we’re up past “octopus”, I know that I don’t know.

    What I found out is that the more people know about the subject, the less certain they are what is right and wrong about suicide, physician-assisted suicide, euthanasia, and all the rest.

  40. The Vicar Dec 31st 2012 at 08:43 pm 40

    @Ian Osmond:

    (What a wonderful topic for a holiday! Er, Happy New Year’s Eve, everyone, despite all this rather grim stuff.)

    I’m afraid there is a factor you are not considering, and that’s that pesky global warming thing I alluded to above.

    Right now, the person whose predictions about the measurable effects of global warming are turning out to be closest to the actual results is James Lovelock (of Gaia Theory fame; if you ever saw the old game “SimEarth”, that was based on his “DaisyWorld” simulation; he also predicted the existence of the hole in the ozone layer at the south pole, which was subsequently found to exist; it should be no surprise that he’s closest to predicting the actual data, because he’s got the best track record of anyone in the field).

    This is not a good thing. James Lovelock’s long-term outlook is that the post-global warming carrying capacity of the earth, and this takes into account modern technology and science and is somewhat optimistic about the ability of future humanity to coexist, will be somewhere 200 million humans. (That’s 2 x 10^8, or 200000000, just to avoid any ambiguity.) Sounds reasonable enough until you consider that the earth currently has more than 7 billion humans (7 x 10^9, or 7000000000), and that number is accelerating upwards.

    If Lovelock continues to be correct — and there is absolutely no good reason not to think so — then sometime in the next few centuries, the world’s population is going to drop by 97%. Get it? Even if we try to keep everyone alive, straining every nerve and using the best farming practices we can on the land which remains arable, we’re just going to end up with billions of people dying slowly and painfully of starvation and thirst, which is a pretty horrible way to go. And since it’s unlikely that people are going to starve willingly, it’s going to be accompanied by unrest, possibly by unrest which is bad enough to reduce the carrying capacity of the world even more. (Say, for example, a quick global thermonuclear war when India starts going underwater and the huge population starts pushing in on India’s muslim neighbors in higher elevations.)

    (Even ignoring this, most human problems are either caused or exacerbated by population. High unemployment? Famine? Epidemic disease? Pollution? Violence? It’s actually fairly difficult to name a societal problem which is not either directly caused or seriously exacerbated by there just being so darn many of us. So even if you choose to pretend that this problem isn’t urgent and getting moreso every day, it’s still a big problem, and one which we really should be dealing with as fast as we possibly can.)

    Now, if we were actually smart, we would all step back from this and say “whoa, this is some serious stuff, even if Lovelock is off by a factor of 10, which is not likely given his track record, it still means we’re going to face about a 70% dieoff in about the worst way imaginable”. We would be pushing birth control as hard as possible, not just keeping abortion legal but promoting it heavily, legislating very stiff penalties on people who have more than one child, and giving people who want to die every possible facility. And anyone who has been trying to pretend that the problem doesn’t exist would automatically be denied any further voice in government, because they have demonstrated that they are so stupid that they are an active danger to the rest of us.

    Instead, we basically sit around with our fingers in our ears, singing “la la la I can’t hear you”, while our religious leaders — pause to spit — do everything they can to get people to have more kids, and get in the way of most measures which would at least ameliorate some of the damage. When we hit the wall — and it’s coming sooner than most people think is even possible — it’s going to be all the more painful because we are keeping up this deliberate ignorance.

    Grim? Yes. But the thing about the real world, as opposed to religious fantasy (which is shorthand for “what every religion, ever, has said about the world other than what they admit from non-religious sources”), is that it is true even if you try to ignore it. Don’t dip your kids in water, or don’t commit ritual genital mutilation on your son, or fail to point your butt away from some town in the middle east five times a day, or don’t wrap some old tree in special rope, or fail to contort your legs while trying not to think once in a while, and there will be no observable consequences other than the obvious practical ones (such as having extra spare time and often money as well). Fail to feed yourself, or sleep, or breathe, and the consequences are immediate and obvious. We’re going to either have to deal with overpopulation voluntarily, or we’re going to have to cope with a traumatic dieoff which we stand a chance of not surviving at all.

    Terry Pratchett — an author who is not only in favor of euthanasia but is preparing to make use of it in order to escape his early-onset Alzheimer’s — has referred to this as the “dreadful algebra”. It’s dreadful, all right, but that doesn’t mean it will go away if we pretend it doesn’t exist. Every time I see a baby, these days, I honest feel like apologizing to it, or maybe just crying a little, because of the horrors it’s going to have to deal with, and which I will mostly miss, thanks to all the stupid that the world currently contains.

  41. Jeff S. Dec 31st 2012 at 08:47 pm 41

    The correct line from Young Frankenstein is, “UTTIN ON THE ‘IIIIITZ…” The creation couldn’t speak properly yet.

    These were all well worthy of LOL status. Some even worthy of LMAO status, upon approval of Chairman Mao. :-)

  42. Mark in Boston Dec 31st 2012 at 10:19 pm 42

    The #2 pencil reminded me of an old Sam’s Strip (Mort Walker) gag: Sam, holding a bunch of bananas, says “You’re supposed to never put bananas in the refrigerator but I’m going to do it anyway.” He puts them in the refrigerator, and two policeman appear and drag him off, saying “You were warned!”

    Sam’s Strip … there’s one of my old favorites I had almost forgotten about. It was a comic strip about comic strips. There was a props closet with such things as wiggly stink lines. Happy Hooligan and Krazy Kat made occasional appearances. The strip was revived as “Sam and Silo” but without the comic strip in-jokes and not nearly as much fun.

  43. Meryl A Dec 31st 2012 at 11:17 pm 43

    Recently had to take a continuing ed by mail course. There is a test to fill in & send back to show you read the material for the course (or just followed along in the book to find the answers.) The answer sheet was the old school fill in the circle type. I was going crazy as it did not say to use a No.2 pencil or black pen ink or what. I did it in No. 2 pencil as I figured one had to be able to change an answer if one needed to. (The accountant part of my brain kept saying, but if you do it in pencil, the answers can be changed when you mail it in.)

    My dad, an attorney (as well as an accountant - where it got it from, as well as my sense of humor), used to say that suicide is not illegal. Attempted suicide is illegal, and the sentence is life.

  44. Proginoskes Jan 1st 2013 at 03:46 am 44

    @ Meryl A: “Attempted suicide is illegal, and the sentence is life.”

    Talk about your ironic punishments …

    @ Mark in Boston (42): “You’re supposed to never put bananas in the refrigerator but I’m going to do it anyway.”

    If you do, it slows down their spoiling, but they get hard and crunchy. I tried this one out myself, so I know.

  45. Lola Jan 1st 2013 at 03:04 pm 45

    The best thing to do with bananas when you have too many ripe ones is to peel, cut into 1 inch sections, stick a toothpick in each one, freeze and then eat them like popsicles. When someone told me about this I thought, yeah, right, but they are amazing.

  46. The Vicar Jan 1st 2013 at 05:09 pm 46

    @Lola:

    Have you tried them with that hardening chocolate coating stuff? Apparently the Japanese go in for chocolate-coated frozen bananas in a big way, so maybe it would work. (I can’t stand bananas anyway, so I’ve never tried.)

  47. Lola Jan 1st 2013 at 05:11 pm 47

    ooooo, Vicar, I love it when you talk chocolate.

    Duly noted in my list of things to try.

  48. Mark in Boston Jan 1st 2013 at 06:54 pm 48

    When you have too many ripe bananas, just let them get riper and riper until they are almost black. Then make banana bread! Or buy the Ben & Jerry Ice Cream Book and follow their recipe for banana ice cream!

    What did Ludwig van Beethoven say when he found a banana on his pianna?

    “Ba - na - na - NA!”
    [G G G Eb]

  49. Morris Keesan Jan 1st 2013 at 10:37 pm 49

    The Putin one was my favorite, and I stared at it uncomprehendingly for a few seconds, wondering if the face was a fashionista I should recognize, before noticing the cracker, and realizing that it was Putin.

    Trader Joe’s sells chocolate-covered banana slices, which seem to have replaced their chocolate-dipped half-bananas-on-a-stick. The best thing about them, besides the bananas, is that the chocolate is dark chocolate, not milk.
    Instead of making banana bread with your overripe bananas, add one to the dough when making toll house cookies.

    My wife works in a nursing home, and has seen too many people kept alive long beyond where they wanted to live; “Do Not Resuscitate” orders help, but not for everyone. She and I both thought that there were enough safeguards in the proposed Massachusetts law, and we both voted for it. Interestingly, when we were discussing the issue after services on the Saturday before the election, the one person in our small group who was most against the law has a history of depression, and she was concerned about what the law might enable her to do when depressed.

Comments RSS

Leave a Reply