Loose Floss

Cidu Bill on Aug 25th 2017


Filed in Bil Bickel, CIDU, Dave Blazek, Loose Parts, comic strips, comics, humor | 24 responses so far

24 Responses to “Loose Floss”

  1. Kilby Aug 25th 2017 at 12:18 am 1

    The intention was to equate “cheap” with “non-functional” or “defective”, but it just doesn’t work, because the “cheap” item should have been scrimping on material, rather than providing too much of it. On the other hand, a complaint about ultra-thin floss that is so razor-sharp that it saws into the gums would have been more logical, but just as un-funny.

  2. James Pollock Aug 25th 2017 at 03:31 am 2

    “the “cheap” item should have been scrimping on material,”

    Not necessarily. cheap means inexpensively-made (among other things) While what you describe is certainly ONE way to be cheap, it isn’t the only way. Maybe materials are inexpensive, and they’re cutting corners on workmanship. The result would still be cheap, even with lots of material.

  3. furrykef Aug 25th 2017 at 03:57 am 3

    I think if you have to think that much about a gag to figure out if it works, it’s already failed.

  4. James Pollock Aug 25th 2017 at 05:01 am 4

    “I think if you have to think that much about a gag to figure out if it works, it’s already failed.”

    I tend to disagree. Some of the best ones don’t hit you until you’ve had a chance to think about them for a moment. (see, e.g., Larson, Gary)

  5. Ignatz Aug 25th 2017 at 07:42 am 5

    The joke doesn’t work for me because the discount floss and the regular floss are exactly the same. It’s floss.

  6. larK Aug 25th 2017 at 10:44 am 6

    Maybe he was going for the bulk Costco idea: to get discount cereal, for example, you have to buy Cheerios in this box that a homeless person could live in; similarly (thinks the cartoonist) bulk floss is so big it looks like rope…

  7. Bill Clay Aug 25th 2017 at 11:40 am 7

    I could see two possible jokes:
    1) The floss is ridiculously large and she is commenting on it being overly waxy.
    2) The wax around the string is so thick it is now completely unusable, and she is saying it is just a little over waxed.

  8. James Pollock Aug 25th 2017 at 12:06 pm 8

    It’s number 2.

  9. Brian in STL Aug 25th 2017 at 12:15 pm 9

    “The joke doesn’t work for me because the discount floss and the regular floss are exactly the same. It’s floss.”

    I disagree with that. I have noted substantial difference in brands and types. My favorite is J&J Clean Burst, which they seemed to have stopped making. I bought a bunch online. Some types are, as noted above, much thinner. I not only have problems cutting my gums but occasionally my fingers.

  10. James Pollock Aug 25th 2017 at 12:39 pm 10

    re: realID

    rant follows.

    Here’s the thing. The point of a driver’s license is to prove that a person is qualified to operate a motor vehicle on the public roadways. This question can be complicated (what kind of vehicle? What kind of cargo? How many passengers?) but still works out to a fairly limited range of possibilities.
    A driver’s license is NOT intended to prove citizenship.

    One of the challenges of enforcing immigration law is that the Constitution limits immigration enforcement to the federal government. States may not enforce or attempt to enforce immigration law, no matter how much they might want to, and when Sheriff Joe does it anyway, he gets successfully sued for it.
    Since we do not have any kind of national ID law, and are extremely unlikely to get one, government agencies who must enforce immigration are left with trying to handle the two problems… identification and citizenship. Anybody who’s gotten a job in the last couple of decades remembering having to prove citizenship (or lawful status) to get a job. realID is an attempt to end-run the lack of a national identification card by requiring states to implement all the features the federal government WOULD put into a national ID card, if they could.
    The problem, however, is that if you say “nope… driver’s licenses are no longer about proving you’re qualified to drive on public roadways. Now they’re about citizenship”, the illegals, who can’t get driver’s licenses any more, just start driving and may or may not be qualified to do so. And it gets worse… if you don’t have a license, you can’t get insurance. So the illegals are driving on the roads, some of them unqualified, none of them insured. That makes things better for me… how, exactly? But the people of my state prefer it that way, they overwhelmingly voted to overturn the “here’s a driver’s license that proves a person knows how to drive, but doesn’t require proof of citizenship or lawful status, so the illegals can get insured” plan the legislature came up with.

  11. James Pollock Aug 25th 2017 at 12:42 pm 11

    “I disagree with that. I have noted substantial difference in brands and types.”

    None of which matters a bit to someone who finds the very idea of floss distasteful.
    I’m sure there are differences between different brands of steer manure available in the nation’s gardening stores. But regardless of the exact nature of the stuff that’s in the bags, it’s all still cow poop. (Yes, I know, steers are not “cows”. Doesn’t change anything.)

  12. Cidu Bill Aug 25th 2017 at 02:32 pm 12

    James (10), this site is certainly no stranger to thread drift, but I strongly suspect this comment was intended for elsewhere.

  13. fleabane Aug 25th 2017 at 03:16 pm 13

    I think the joke works if it’s a common observation that the cheap flosses tend to be overwaxed, and that as a result they tend to not work as well.

    However, I don’t think that is all that common an observation.

  14. Kilby Aug 25th 2017 at 05:33 pm 14

    @ James Pollock (4) - “I tend to disagree.
    Now there is a statement with which I can wholeheartedly agree.

  15. Minor Annoyance Aug 25th 2017 at 07:18 pm 15

    I believe “Giant-Sized Floss” would have saved this one.

  16. Mark in Boston Aug 25th 2017 at 07:42 pm 16

    For the Costco / Cheerios idea, that’s like if you bought a box of Tastee-O’s (a cheap generic cardboard-flavored Cheerios substitute) and you poured out the box into your bowl and each piece was the size of a doughnut.

    That’s not funny either.

  17. Scott Aug 25th 2017 at 08:07 pm 17

    The first clue should have been when they brought the floss home on a 10 foot diameter reel.

  18. Kilby Aug 26th 2017 at 03:49 am 18

    @ MiB (16) - I always thought of those things as “doughnut seeds”. Planting them in the ground seems like a better idea than eating them, even if they don’t sprout.

  19. larK Aug 26th 2017 at 10:22 am 19

    Kilby @ 14: LOL!

  20. The Bad Seed Aug 26th 2017 at 11:51 am 20

    Life is too short to save a few pennies on discount dental floss. Live a little, people!

  21. James Pollock Aug 27th 2017 at 12:38 am 21

    “Now there is a statement with which I can wholeheartedly agree.”

    You, too?

  22. Meryl A Aug 29th 2017 at 03:05 am 22

    Oh, that kind of floss. My first thought went to embroidery floss that was not DMC brand. Too much embroidery on the brain.

  23. Meryl A Aug 29th 2017 at 03:13 am 23

    I was under the impression that one had to show that one was here legally to obtain a driver’s license (or the alternate ID that states, at least NYS, issue for non-drivers to have ID). When we went to the Social Security office to sign up Robert and had not realized that one had to get an appointment something like 6 months in advance (okay, maybe 3 months) we went in without same to wait until they could take us. The space we found to wait away from the crowd (or I would go crazy from the crowd) was near the employee work windows. The particular window we were next to seemed to specialize in helping with people applying for Medicare (and telling them that they had to buy the part D from an insurance company - not them) and people coming in to get paperwork for their child to get a learner’s permit to drive as they were not citizens and had to get papers that showed they were here legally and the child was eligible to get the learner’s permit.

    On the other hand - Robert’s mom was housebound toward the end of her life. Her driver’s license came up for renewal and she needed an eye exam - but could not get out easily (SIL would have to hire an ambulance to get her there - we could have done it with our car, but we were mostly ignored about this.) so an eye exam seemed impossible. I contacted the DMV about changing her license to an non-driver ID. She had to come in to get it - there was no way to change the driver’s license to same by mail. In the end it turned out easier to get an eye doctor who makes house calls (how, I have no idea - but SIL found one) than to change her license over to the non-driver’s ID - makes one wonder how many people keep their license for ID who should no longer have one.

  24. James Pollock Aug 29th 2017 at 05:07 am 24

    “I was under the impression that one had to show that one was here legally to obtain a driver’s license”
    True, generally, though not necessarily.

    I’m going to take an extensive detour through immigration policy, which touches on the political and for some people is a touchy subject. Proceed at your own blood-pressure’s risk.

    OK. The Constitution assigns the federal government the job of setting immigration policy, and flatly prohibits the states from encroaching on that area. The founders never envisaged a situation like we have now, where the Congress willing accepts millions of unlawful entrants to remain largely undisturbed. (A quick summary: The holdup is NOT locating illegals. They’re easy to find. But… the Constitution says everybody gets due process, and due process means a hearing at which a person who is to be removed from the country gets a chance to show that there is some aspect of the immigration law that permits them to stay, even if all their paperwork is not currently in order. These hearings are held in front of administrative law judges, who hear about as many cases as they possibly can, which, for people who like story problems, about 5 per day on every workday, or about 1250 per year per ALJ. Congress caps the number of ALJs the government can hire. The number of ALJs authorized can hear between 400,000 and 450,000 hearings, total, per year, meaning that the Congress has capped the number of deportations that can happen at between 400 to 450 thousand per year. That gives the President a problem: There are between 10 and 12 million estimated illegals; some estimates are as high as 20 million, and Congress only allows 450,000 deportation hearings per year. So if the border wall goes up, and works perfectly, cutting off the ingress of any more illegals, we can process the illegals we already have in somewhere between 20 and 40 years. Since Congress hasn’t seen fit to substantially increase the number of ALJs to hear deportation cases, the President must choose which 400,000 of the 10 to 12 million illegals get deportation hearings this year. The President chooses to prioritize some illegals over others… recent arrivals, repeat deportees, and those convicted of major crimes get shown to the front of the line for deportation hearings. Everybody else stays in line, but remember, only the first 400,000 get deportation hearings… the other 9.5 million + illegals won’t get a deportation hearing, and thus cannot be deported. This description refers to “the President” rather than to any specific President because they have all made the same decision about how to run the enforcement system since Reagan. Whether the President is D or R brand, they make the same decision about how to handle the limited number of deportation hearings. That brings us to our current situation, wherein the federal government is well aware that there are a very large number of people who have entered the country unlawfully, but they effectively permit most of them to stay if they keep quiet and don’t get convicted of crimes. They aren’t supposed to be here, they aren’t supposed to work here.)
    OK, now the states manage most law-enforcement, but they can’t do immigration or anything like immigration, and sorry, no, Arizona, you can’t just make it a state crime to be in Arizona contrary to federal law. The illegals are here, and they, like all the citizens and lawful noncitizen residents, they need transportation and that means driving a car. Driving a car means registering it and maintaining it in a safe condition, it means passing the licensing tests before operating on public roadways, and it means carrying insurance in case of accident.
    What happens when the state says “we will give driving licenses only to lawful residents, in the imaginations of the anti-illegal-immigrant peoples’ minds, is that they say “What’s that? You say I can’t legally obtain driving privileges in your state? Well, then, I guess I’ll just ignore (reason they left their home country) and be heading right back there to die in the civil war happening there, or die from malnutrition because the climate changed and the crops failed, or just die because there are no economic opportunities in the place where I left.”
    And in the real world, what happens is they drive without a license. And, since you need a license to get insurance, they drive without that, either. So who pays when one of these illegals, driving unlicensed with no insurance, gets into an accident and someone is injured and needs medical treatment? Mexico will pay for it! Ha ha ha. No, actually, YOU pay for it, Mr., Ms. or Mrs. lawful responsible driver, because those costs are built into YOUR insurance.
    Like many other issues of the day, it is fairly common for people to believe that the problems of immigration could easily be solved, if only (disfavored party) would get out of the way and let (favored party) solve the problem. But it’s NOT easy. Here’s how you can tell. Both parties have had periods when they controlled the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the Presidency. If there was an easy solution, one of the parties would have implemented it, and taken all the credit.

    There is SO MUCH misinformation and people with strong opinions (two things that don’t go together well, however frequently they occur simultaneously).

Comments RSS

Leave a Reply