Archive for September, 2009
6 items.
Does it bother anyone else that legal language is archaic? I understand the need for precise language, but I can’t remember the last time I saw “Be it heretofore resolved” in a technical document. I really do feel like legal professionals subscribe to the theory that if they could find enough monkeys banging away at enough typewriters, some day the monkey room will turn out a document that will go down in legal history. I hear there are capuchin monkeys in South America that routinely use tools to dig for roots and break open nuts: These nut-busting simians would be perfect for the job.
I thought it would be funny to take a few humorous jabs at the men and women who serve us in Congress. Don’t worry too much about making jokes at their expense: They’ll simply expense it to the tax payer, which may very well be you. Really, this series of strips indirectly pokes fun at most U.S. citizens, and indirectly indirectly (indirectly squared?) pokes fun at many citizens of other countries who do business with (or fail trying to do business with) U.S. companies. I hope you enjoy.
I’m curious as to Mr. Fuzzybuns’ history: This is clearly not his first victory over humanity, even for his young age. I don’t imagine his previous victories relied on allergies, either, at least not all of them. I doubt we’ll ever visit his history because his future has much more potential.
I have at times portrayed the two animals in this strip (the lobster and Mr. Fuzzybuns, the kitten) as spiteful, malicious beings. I find it humorous when someone says that humans are the only animals who are malicious, or kill for fun. One merely needs to watch a housecat stalk its prey, or jilt a devoted dog and come home late to find a remote corner of the house sprayed to see otherwise. Perhaps it’s less prevalent in non-humans, but if that’s true I believe that’s more due to the fact that so much energy has to be put into surviving that so little is left over to hold grudges.
I once watched a hummingbird feed from a feeder outside a store. There were easily a dozen feeders, all of different shapes and sizes, all full of food. When another hummingbird came along, the first hummingbird left his perch and chased off the newcomer. This dance went on for a good five minutes before the second hummingbird gave up and left for good. I also remember, growing up, when some fledglings fell from a blue jay’s nest outside our house. My cat, being cuirous as her kind are, went to inspect the ground dwellers. I have no doubt in my mind that she was going to determine their tastiness in as thorough a fashion as possible, and the mother blue jay apparently had no doubt as well. She not only chased my cat away, she dive-bombed anyone who came out of that house for two months. My cat was a hunter who ate what she came across, and the blue jay was of course defending her children as any mother would do. Classifying her two-month reign of terror over the whole household, however, can only be seen as spiteful. I can’t say I blame her for being spitfeul, of course; rather, I see it as only natural that animals are just as capable of being jerks as humans are in their own ways.
I also wish to point out that the animals represented in this strip also have their redeeming traits and moments. They’re not always jerks.
Currently in the United States of America there is a huge debate on health care reform. I don’t know what the solution is, but I do know it’s not giving everyone the health insurance the majority of citizens currently enjoy. As much as I enjoy having coverage, I wouldn’t wish Blue Cross insurance on my worst enemy. Amongst other things, they can give you a quote on what they will cover which has no bearing on what they will actually cover, they can say they will cover things and then not cover them, and they can decide to charge you for conditions based on medications you take, even if you don’t have the condition. Basically, they can diagnose you without any expert knowledge for billing purposes. This makes it extremely unreasonable to go the individual insurance route.
Of course, we brought this on ourselves. Employer-based insurance was a benefit that really gained traction as a result of the price and wage freezes after World War 2. It was a really progressive thing, relatively speaking, it’s just outdated. Remember, that was 60 years ago. Think of the things you’ve had in your family for 60 years, and think of all the things you currently have. Most things don’t last 60 years. Now, this is a policy, not an object, but it’s a policy based on consumption (medical service, medicine, use of / depreciation of expensive medical equipment). In addition, while you might argue the United States have been around over 230 years, take snapshots of it every 50 years. Notice the dramatic changes in Federal vs. State powers, of laws, of policies, of Constitutional amendments. It may be the same government, but it has evolved dramatically. While health insurance has evolved, it hasn’t kept pace.
I don’t know what the answer is, and frankly I don’t think that something that can be managed like a cat allergy really needs full coverage, but I welcome well-considered change.
Of course, I’ll be pleasantly surprised if we get that. We’ll probably get some miserably considered compromise that lines the pockets of politicians and those who line their pockets.