Talking Pointers: Steps to Speaking Good

One of my first blog posts was my seminal piece on the art of small talk. Although no one will admit it, I believe that it has shaped a generation’s approach to mindless nattering with total strangers. Likewise, my tome on the keys to success  swept the nation in the same sort of low-key manner.  As the voice of my generation, I now offer simple steps to effective speaking.

As a lawyer, I speak in public. It neither thrills nor frightens me. It’s just what I have to do on occasion. Sometimes, I speak in court hearings and trials. Occasionally I deliver talks to attorneys or other unfortunates on such topics as legalizing child labor and the law of Internet pornography. Of course, I’m joking–those topics might actually fascinate some people. My topics are more obscure–even arcane. As a result, am I forced to spice up my presentations with such things as this clip for the classic film Road House. You might think that would be difficult to work in to a talk about coal mine safety, but I did it.

You may not have a good speaker voice.  Don’t worry.  I don’t, either.  It’s not necessary to sound like Morgan Freeman.  But, if you do, you don’t need any of these pointers.  People will listen to you just to hear your voice.  The rest of us need help.

What makes a good speaker? I’m not sure that I qualify as one, but I’ve heard some good ones in my time. Beyond my earlier observations on chit-chat, speaking takes many forms–both public and private. Over the years, I have become at least competent in my communication skills. Thus, I want to offer my suggestions and observations.

SPEAK CLEARLY

My wife accuses me of mumbling. I grew up in Eastern Kentucky where mumbling is an accepted form of communication, and I make no apologies for that. I would note that I believe my wife has significant hearing loss, perhaps from stress fractures to the delicate bones in her ears caused by cranial vibration induced by her own shrill screaming. That debate is best left for another forum. However, my father–who was almost completely deaf–always accused my mother of mumbling. So there. Where was I?

You want to speak with a loud, clear voice. If possible, speak louder than everyone else. In this way, you will be authoritative and sound like you are “in the know.” Here is an example:

THEM: I heard that [INSERT NAME OF POLITICIAN].

YOU: HE’S A COMPLETE IDIOT!!!

By subtly insinuating yourself into the discussion, you have commandeered the conversation. Also, your insight will persuade others to join your “side” of the discussion. You come away looking knowledgeable while your unfortunate friend is branded a gadfly or even a simpleton.

This tip is vitally important if you encounter someone who doesn’t speak English. This can happen with no warning–unless you are a bigot engaged in racial profiling. Recently, at a fast food restaurant, I was approached by a young man who addressed me in a language that no sane person could understand. He may have been asking me a question. He could have been cursing God for all I know. I offered this response: “Do you speak English?” He misunderstood and prattled on. I then took control of the conversation by fairly yelling: “DO…YOU…SPEAK…ENGLISH?” He said “No” and walked away. There are two important lessons here: 1) It’s possible that people who don’t speak your native tongue may understand it if your scream it slowly; and 2) No one likes being yelled at, even in a foreign language.

Note, too, that yelling may even work with the deaf. Once, a man handed me a card which read: “I AM DEAF. NEED MONEY FOR FOOD.” I yelled: “SORRY. I CAN’T HELP YOU.” He pointed at his ears and walked away. See, it works.

Most importantly, you might know my wife. She doesn’t like mumbling. You know how she is.

CURSING

Whether it’s called cursing, swearing or potty mouth, foul language has long been condemned by skilled speakers. I once read that repeated cursing chops up one’s message rendering it nothing but a series of short, disconnected thoughts. Your larger message is lost.

To this advice, I say BULLSHIT! Many times, such language is all that can adequately deliver your message. More often, it can set the tone for your entire oratory. Here is an example. Let us suppose that you are asked to give a talk at your church. Naturally, you lack formal religious training. At best, you will make a fool of yourself. At worst, you will offend both the parishioners and God Himself. One approach would be to memorize a few scriptures and meditate upon them in prayer, asking for the right words. Good luck with that. Another approach is to immediately grab your listeners with an opening salvo along these lines:

LISTEN UP, YOU BUNCH OF MOTHER—-ERS!!

The congregation will be rocked by this forceful opening. They will immediately think “There must be a strong message from the Lord to follow.” You can then launch into a recklessly inaccurate sermon peppered with occasional obscenities that will hold the listener’s attention.

This approach works in casual conversation as well. Nothing will impress your friends more than your adroit use of all manner of filth. Let’s say you are in a conversation with someone far more educated than you. You make a casual comment about, say, the invention of the linotype machine, which you foolishly attribute to Grover Cleveland. Your friend says “Well, the linotype was actually invented by Ottmar Mergenthaler.” What do you do now? You could stare at your feet and excuse yourself from the conversation. Here is the better approach: Lock eyes with your friend and declare: “YOU, SIR, ARE GODDAMNED LIAR!!” (be sure to speak loudly as advised above). You have turned the tables on Mr. Know-It-All. Not only have you challenged his assertion, you have done so in a way that calls into question his credibility in general. Bystanders, unconcerned as they might be with the inanity of the topic, will view you as man with whom to be reckoned. You can bet that no one will take exception to you again in a public setting.

KNOW YOUR TOPIC

I can’t stress this one enough. No manner of loud swearing is an adequate substitute for knowing your subject matter. This is especially so if, like me, there are people who actually believe you know about certain things. If you have been in that unenviable position, you know it almost impossible to know enough about anything to intelligently speak for more than 5 minutes or so.

One approach is to research and carefully study your topic. Okay, that will work if you have no life and want to waste what precious time you have on the planet on such endeavors. Another approach is to pay someone who does know about the topic to prepare a PowerPoint presentation for you. Then, you can simply babble from slide to slide until your allotted time has been used up.

Another approach is to simply make up your talk from whole cloth. In the legal profession, this is especially effective. Usually, I speak at continuing legal education seminars where no one listens anyway. I can say anything! Almost no one listens, and the few who do don’t know anymore than I do. If someone asks me a question, I can either make up something or simply fire back “SHUT THE F— UP!”

The same pointers work in casual conversation.  Ignorance has never shut anyone up as far as I know.  As long as you talk incessantly, loudly and obscenely, you’re bound to say something close to accurate.  Again, remember:  Few people listen to you anyway.  Thus, it’s never what you say that matters.  It’s how you say it.

USE AN ACCENT

I have an accent. It’s Eastern Kentucky. Sadly, no matter what I say, to many people it sounds dumb. That’s because they think Eastern Kentuckians are dumb. You probably have an accent, too, unless you are from Nebraska or Kansas or some other accent-less part of the country. If you are a foreigner, you almost certainly have an accent, and it may be a really good one.

If you have a bad one, try another. British always works. Have you ever heard the BBC News? Everything sounds important. The moment the word “schedule” (SHED-yule) slides across your tongue, everything you say will sound authoritative. Consider Madonna. She is from Michigan but speaks with a British accent. How about eccentric actor Johnny Depp? Like me, he is from Kentucky, yet he has a vague, non-specific Euro accent. Neither of these marvelous entertainers is well-educated, but both sound erudite and informed. Isn’t that the whole point of speaking aloud?

There are many other accents available. Spanish, for example, sounds worldly and sophisticated. A word of caution–unless you master it, you may sound like Tony Montana and terrify the listener. This isn’t good unless that’s your goal. There are pluses and minuses of other accents:

Scottish: Kinda British but less understandable. You’ll sound friendly, if a tad odd.

Canadian:  You’ll sound like a plain, white American, except you’ll say “aboot” instead of “about.”  I’m not sure how that will help you.

Irish: Also possibly incomprehensible, plus the listener may believe you to be under the influence of strong drink. Has the plus side of being sort of funny.

German: You will sound commanding and more than a little frightening. Especially effective with curse words. If you actually speak the German language, everything sounds like cursing.

Russian: Extra terrifying. Great if you like to pretend to be spy.

Swedish: Goofy, but good if you don’t want the listener to understand you.

Australian: A rougher form of the British accent. You’ll sound less intelligent but considerably more dangerous.

Asian: Just avoid this one. The prospect of speaking stereotypical pidgin English is too great. Also, if you’re not, in fact, Asian, the listener will simply believe you are odd.

My accent is not always a drawback. The Eastern Kentucky accent adds just the right tone to such rejoinders as “I’ll whip your ass” or “What the hell are you looking at?” No Brit can deliver such messages with the same force.

GRAMMAR

Good grammar is good and important, at least according to my late mother. I don’t really know nothing about that, so I’ll move on.

USE THE RIGHT WORD

Some suggest using simple words. I guess this is good advice if you spend your time speaking to morons who are unlikely to understand anything you say anyway. I suggest using poorly understood words like sardonic, disaffected, nonplussed and irregardless. That way, you appear superior to the listener. Even if you don’t know what these words mean, use them anyway. No one else understands them, either.

You might say of an acquaintance:  “Carl just don’t give a shit about nothing.”  Admittedly, that’s an effective use of an expletive; however, consider this alternative:  “Carl has a disaffected attitude about everything.”  Have you praised or insulted Carl?  It’s hard to say, isn’t it?  The listener can be the judge.

Call someone obsequious or an opsimath. You can refer to this post as an amphigory.  Accuse someone of being an irresponsible jackanapes. I like to call people wastrels, slugabeds and layabouts.  Don’t bother looking up the definitions.  Just use them.

The use of indecipherable language might seem counterintuitive.  It is true that such use is unwise in the rare event that you want to be understood.  If you want to make an impression, though, there is no better way than to talk like you’re smarter than everyone else.  Do you want to be understood by complete idiots or by smart people?

CONCLUSION

Most of us have much to say but lack the skills to say it.  Honing your verbal skills is the key to making yourself heard, if not understood.  Now, go out there and talk to someone.

You may have found my advice inconsistent and even useless.  If so, so be it.  Better yet, JUST SHUT THE… .  You get it.

©thetrivialtroll.wordpress.com 2013

An Updated Review of Rain Man

In light of recent events, the media has focused on autism, particularly Asperger’s Syndrome. In the haste to break the latest “news,” accuracy has been sacrificed for speed. Asperger’s is being portrayed as an excuse for the inexcusable. In truth, the unspeakable crimes of recent days have nothing to do with this condition. This misinformation has made me wonder how one of my favorite films, Rain Man, would be viewed through today’s prism. If Rain Man were released today, I think the review would read like this:

RAIN MAN: A STUDY IN MADNESS

Rain Man is the latest film from Barry Levinson, known for such diverse output as Diner, Good Morning Vietnam and The Natural. This time, he takes on the difficult subject of mental illness with decidedly mixed results. Dustin Hoffman is excellent in the role of Raymond Babbitt, a psychotic middle-aged man. Tom Cruise, best known for Risky Business and Top Gun, is Hoffman’s equal as Charlie, Raymond’s brother. Unfortunately, these stellar performances are weighted down by Levinson’s unrealistic take on a serious subject and a script best described as a work of pure fantasy.

Charlie is the Narcissistic son of the recently deceased Sanford Babbitt who leaves his $3,000,000 estate to a Cincinnati mental institution while Charlie receives only a vintage Buick Roadmaster and some prize rose bushes. Charlie immediately travels to the hospital to get to the bottom of his father’s inexplicable largesse. At the hospital, which is clearly a hospital for the criminally insane, Charlie discovers his long-lost brother Raymond. Raymond, he learns, has been in the hospital for many years. The horrific crime committed by Raymond is never fully explained.

Outraged that his father has left millions to care for his homicidal brother, Charlie kidnaps Raymond and sets out for Los Angeles. In a particularly disturbing scene where Raymond has a dangerous psychotic episode, Charlie decides not to fly to LA, no doubt realizing that Raymond poses a grave threat to the safety of the passengers. Thus, Charlie, his girl friend (the lovely Valeria Golino from Big Top Pee Wee) and the unhinged Raymond set out cross-country in Charlie’s Buick.

After a series of misadventures, Charlie learns that Raymond is an autistic savant with amazing abilities to recall dates and make complex mathematical calculations. During a chilling scene where Raymond flies into a rage of violent insanity, Charlie learns that Raymond was actually hospitalized for attempting to murder him when Charlie was an infant.

Early in the film, Levinson builds a tense story reminiscent of Psycho. Then, he loses his nerve and Rain Man becomes little more than a modern-day Road Movie where the audience must suspend disbelief for such diversions as a trip to Las Vegas. The thought that a shallow character like Charlie could keep a raging maniac like Raymond at bay is at best laughable. In one particularly inane scene, Raymond actually visits the home of complete strangers. Does he strangle the family or perhaps hack them to pieces, as the story to that point would dictate? No. He watches TV with them. Imagine Leatherface from Texas Chainsaw Massacre attending a church fish fry and you get the idea of the grotesque and inappropriate imagery.

By the end of the film, Levinson abandons any effort to bring realism to the film The penultimate scene involves a show down over the inheritance, pitting Charlie against the hospital. I won’t give away the ending other than to note that it was a crushing disappointment. Raymond, having been led across the country like a mad dog on a VERY short leash, sits passively while the action takes place around him. Just at the moment when logic and the story itself dictate a hail of gun fire, the directors cops out for saccharine sweet ending. I have no respect for film makers who won’t stay true to their own story. The only reason I don’t give away the ending is that it is so ridiculous no one would believe it. Just as Levinson did with The Natural–by tacking on a Hollywood ending and rendering his source material unrecognizable–he does the same here turning homicidal psychopathy into little more than a series of parlor tricks.

Every so often, a director has a chance to explore the inner workings of the mind of a psychotic without exploiting the story (Richard Brooks’ In Cold Blood). Rather than take that bold leap, Levinson settles for a cheap story of a lovable misanthrope played for laughs and manipulated for false sentimentality. It’s a shame that Hoffman’s and Cruise’s fine performances end up obliterated by the nonsense of the story.

Not since Hogan’s Heroes treated Nazism as sitcom material has the public been subjected to such baffling artistic judgment. Levinson has made fine films and may well do so again. If Rain Man interests you, I suggest you search for a copy of the Jerry Lewis’s lost classic, The Day The Clown Cried, about a clown in a Nazi concentration camp. I guarantee it is more believable.

Unfortunately, today’s news is just as inane and inaccurate as this review.
©thetrivialtroll.wordpress.com 2012

Are You Conservative or Liberal? Take the Test

I paid more attention to this election cycle than I usually do. Why? I don’t know. Maybe it’s because everyone on social media spewed about the election. That’s probably a good thing. I was able to deduce to things: (1) Liberals hate Mitt Romney; and (2) Conservatives hate Barack Obama. Pretty simple.

What isn’t so simple these days is to figure out if you’re a liberal or a conservative. My archly conservative friends think I’m liberal. My liberal friends think I’m conservative. My staunchly political friends of both stripes can’t believe that any sane person wouldn’t vote a straight ticket in an election. Alas, I am an Independent. For me, a straight ticket is a list of perennial candidates, crackpots and unelectable do-gooders.

Honestly, I’ve tried to figure out where I fall on the political spectrum. Some folks tell me I’m a Libertarian. When I read about Libertarians, I tend to agree; however, when I listen to Libertarians, I vehemently disagree. I often refer to myself as a conservative, but then some real conservative says something insane, and I change my mind.

So, I decided to come up with a simple quiz to help answer this question. As a public service, I have reproduced it below:

I. FOREIGN POLICY:

1. Which statement best describes your views on the anger toward the West in the Middle East?

a) The West is a bunch of capitalist pigs. I am angry toward it, too.

b) They aren’t as angry as I am toward them.

c) Nuke ’em, except Israel.

2. Which group of countries do you consider the greatest threat to world peace?

a) The United States, Great Britain and Israel

b) Canada, Mexico and Greenland

c) North Korea, France and any country where the leaders wear robes.

3. Which statement best describes your views toward China?

a) We must stop all human rights violations in China, even if they don’t want our help

b) We should try not to make them mad since they make all our stuff

c) Nuke ’em

4. What do you think the US role in foreign affairs should be?

a) Become friends with everyone

b) Stay the hell away from foreigners

c) Try to build strong relationships with friendly governments. Nuke the rest of ’em.

5. The biggest risk to America’s security is:

a) American imperialism

b) The federal deficit

c) Everyone who answered “a” to this question.

II. SOCIAL ISSUES

1. Which statement best describes your views on a woman’s right to choose?

a) Women have the unfettered right to choose anything, up to and including the euthanasia of their children under 18 and husbands.

b) Frankly, I haven’t given it much thought. I’m a man.

c) When did this happen?

2. What best describes your reaction to the term “homo-queer?”

a) That’s just another pejorative term for our gay friends and indicative of the hate-mongering on the right.

b) That’s a word my mother once said when she was trying to say “homosexual.”

c) That’s just another example of “political correctness” run wild.

3. What best describes your position on “traditional” marriage?

a) Marriage is loving relationship which should be allowed between or among any two or more people, regardless of sex, age or species.

b) I’m divorced. Don’t get me started.

c) Marriage is a holy union between a man and woman until one gets caught cheating on the other.

4. What best describes your position on immigration?

a) Everyone who sets foot in the US should automatically become a citizen.

b) I don’t care. I’m a foreigner.

c) I’m okay with it, as long as you speak English and look like me.

5. What best describes your religious views?

a) There is no God. And if there is one, he’s a woman.

b) I am God

c) My God is the only god. And he’s a Christian.

III. FISCAL ISSUES

1. Taxes should be increased on:

a) The rich, which is anyone making more money than I do.

b) Anyone except me

c) No one, except the people who don’t make enough money to pay taxes

2. The best way to reform welfare would be to:

a) Make it available to everyone except rich

b) Make it available to me and no one else

c) Eliminate it, except if it is provided to job creators

3. The best way to balance the federal budget would be to:

a) Raise the tax rate on the rich to 120%

b) Suspend Congressional pay until the budget is balanced.

c) Start two wars and then lower taxes.

4. The biggest area of waste in the federal budget is:

a) Subsidies to the rich

b) Congressional pay

c) The food stamps used by those answering “a” to this question

IV. IMAGE ASSOCIATION

1. What is your reaction to this photo?

a) Tingling in various body parts

b) Who is that?

c) AAARRRGGHHH! The Devil!

2. What is your reaction to this photo?

a) AAARRRGGHHH! The Devil!

b) I never could figure out how his hair stayed so dark.

c) Drop to your knees, followed by uncontrollable crying

3. What is your reaction to this photo:

a) Vomit in mouth. Rinse. Repeat.

b) When did Gregg Allman shave?

c) Ooooh. Hootchie Mama!

4. What is your reaction to this photo?

a) More tingling

b) Matt LeBlanc has really let himself go.

c) Vomit in mouth. Swallow. Repeat.

5. What is your reaction to this photo?

a) Another pathetic example of the exploitation of women.

b) Damnation. Sweet.

c) Is that Ann Coulter?

V. TRUE/FALSE

The following are true/false questions

1. President Obama is Kenyan. T or F?

2. President Obama is a Muslim. T or F?

3. President Obama is a terrorist. T or F?

4. Karl Rove is a genius. T or F?

5. Sarah Palin is smokin’ hot. T or F?

For every question you answered “true,” add 10 points. If each you answered false, subtract 5 points.

VI. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

1. Something is unconstitutional if:

a) I don’t like it

b) I don’t like it

c) I don’t like it

2. Which statement best describes your view of gun control:

a) Guns are evil and should be outlawed regardless of the Constitution

b) I can’t control my guns. That’s why I prefer sleeveless shirts.

c) I firmly believe that all citizens have the right to bear arms and shoot other citizens when necessary or convenient.

3. Which statement best describes your view of states rights:

a) The states have no rights

b) My state is run by idiots. Why would they do any better?

c) States have the right to screw up anything that the federal government hasn’t reserved to its own incompetence.

4. Who wrote the United States Constitution?

a) White bigots

b) Abraham Lincoln

c) God

5. Which statement best describes your view of freedom of religion?

a) Religion should be illegal, unless it’s worshiping something like a tree or the President.

b) Leave me alone

c) You are free to worship as you see fit as long as it is an acceptable form of Christianity

VI. ESSAY

In 1000 words or less, describe the effects of global warming on our climate and the changes you believe must be implemented to save the planet from imminent destruction. Attach your answer on separate sheets.

(If you knew enough to write anything, subtract 25 points. If you laughed out loud after reading this, add 25 points. Any other reaction gives you no points).

SCORING

For each multiple choice question you answered “a,” add 5 points. For each you answered “b,” add 10 points. For each you answered “c,” add 15 points. Then take your score from True/False and Essay questions and add to the total. If any question outraged you to the point that you couldn’t go on, adjust your medication and try again.

Once you’ve added up your total, here is how to interpret the result:

100-150 points: Flaming commie, pinko, socialist Leftist. Kim Jong il is your ideal president.

150-200 points: Dangerous, left-leaning weirdo. Gus Hall is your ideal president.

200-300 points: Disenfranchised everyman. Franklin Pierce is your ideal president.

300-375 points: Dangerous, bloodless, right-wing radical. Joseph McCarthy is your ideal president.

375+ points: Ultra right-wing reactionary. George Lincoln Rockwell is your ideal president.

If you somehow managed to score less than 100 or more than 425, please leave the country immediately.

Now you know what you are. Don’t you feel better? I know I do. Even better, you’ll know how to vote next time around. If you don’t, someone will tell you.

©thetrivaltroll.wordpress.com 2012

If Elected….One Man’s Dream

The New Great Seal of the United States

What if I were President?  I’ve thought about that.  Not much, but I have.  Mostly when something doesn’t go to suit me–which is fairly often.  “If I were in charge…”  I guess I don’t so much want to be President as I want to be a dictator, benevolent or otherwise.  But, what if I became President through some Electoral College snafu?

Despite what Rush Limbaugh and others in the Mainstream Media would have you believe, Obama and Romney are not the only candidates.  The Reform Party, The Green Party, The Constitution Party, The Objectivist Party, The Socialist USA Party and many others have candidates.  It’s not so crazy to think that an Everyman like me could pull this off.

Now, I would never want to run for President.  If you want to read about something like that, look no further than Al Franken’s book Why Not Me?  Okay, for my conservative friends:  Don’t start sending me comments about Franken being a left-wing, liberal Communist.  He might be, but he’s also a funny guy.  Read the book.  You’ll laugh.

I wouldn’t be a good campaigner.  I don’t like a lot of travel, and I am famously impatient.  I would do poorly in interviews.  Here is how it would go:

  • INTERVIEWER:  “You’ve taken a pledge to eliminate income taxes.  What do you say to your critics who describe this as foolhardy and completely impossible?”
  • ME:  “I say they can kiss my ass. “

End of interview.  End of campaign.  Likewise, I would be a poor debater:

  • OPPONENT:  My opponent would have you believe that he has the background and experience to lead this country.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  He will only lead this country to the precipice of disaster.
  • ME:  “Hmmm.  How about I kick your ass?”

End of campaign.  There would be many other ways my campaign would end.  Someone would come forward with tales of a drunken debauch or mention that I fought a girl one time.  Women I dated in my youth would be glad to come forward and derail my ambitions.  That doesn’t even touch on the many photographs that may exist.  So, no, I would not run for President.  This doesn’t stop me from pondering the possibilities of actually being President.

Many of you have wondered what would I do as President?  I’m not saying you’d waste your time wondering what you would do, but I know you want to know what I would do.  Here’s how it would work:

VICE-PRESIDENT

Since I don’t belong to a political party, I’d probably be bombarded with suggestions from both sides. I’d go against conventional wisdom and go with Kim Jong Nam, estranged brother of North Korean Dictator Kim Jong Un.  Okay, there’s probably some rule that the VP has to be an American.  Surely, we can work around that for the good of the country.  Nam seems like a fun-loving guy plus he could give us insight into the goings on in North Korea.  Also, like his little brother, I’m sure he’s been trained to look at things.  That would save me a lot of time and travel.

My affable VP, Kim Jong Nam

Nam was banished by his late father, Kim Jong il, for trying to enter Japan on a fake passport.  His explanation?  He wanted to see Disneyland.  What could be more American than that?

FOREIGN POLICY

The first thing I’d do is announce that our new official policy would be a bitter hatred of foreigners.  I don’t really feel that way, but it would be for the good of the country.  Here’s how we’d deal with the problem spots around the globe:

  • Canada:  I’ve already written extensively about this Hell hole.
  • Iran:  Nuke ’em.
  • Afghanistan:  I would consider killing everyone in Afghanistan (except the Americans, of course).  Since I don’t drink, it’s unlikely that I would really do that.  Unlikely.  Not out of the question.
  • The Middle East:  I wouldn’t waste any more time on peace efforts.  I would unilaterally declare a state of perpetual war and wish them luck.
  • North Korea:  I would announce that it’s the 51st state.  That should make them loonier than usual.
  • Pakistan:  Fire bomb the Hell out of it.

I would do all this my first week in office.  I would call it the Michael Corleone Doctrine. That should take care of most of our problems.

HEALTHCARE

I’d outlaw it.  Plain and simple.  If you’re so sickly that you are going to be a drain on our economy, go somewhere else.  REAL AMERICANS DON’T GET SICK would be our slogan.  It would be on every pick-up truck bumper in the country.  My approach would be the same as with sick kids going to school.  If your kid is sick, he or she should stay home.  If you’re sick, we’ll deport you, maybe to Canada.  No need to get the rest of us sick.

SOCIAL SECURITY

I’ll just tell people what they want to hear.  That seems to have worked for every other President.  I’ll craft my message to my audience:

  • If I’m talking to old people, I’ll say “Don’t worry.  We’re not cutting your benefits.”
  • If I’m talking to young people, I’ll say:  “Don’t worry.  Social Security will be there for you.”
  • If I’m talking to people who don’t need it, I’ll call it an “entitlement” and promise to keep it from killing our country.
  • If I’m talking to people who need it, I’ll call it a “benefit” and swear to defend it.

Mostly, I’ll just hope it fixes itself.

DEFENSE

We already spend almost as much as the rest of the world combined on our military, but THAT’S NOT ENOUGH!  Within my first 100 days in office, I’ll declare such obscure countries as Seychelles, Tuvala and Benin to be part of a Polygon of Evil.  I’ll also convince the public that we’ve angered the Martians and an attack is imminent.  It might also be possible to play off the popularity of zombie movies and plant that hideous scenario as a possibility.  The Amish and Hutterites will be tagged as domestic terror groups.  Personally, I will carry a pistol and brandish it wildly before Congress during the State of the Union Address.  My indiscriminate use of nuclear weapons will create a continuing need to restock our arsenal.  Don’t worry, there will be no defense cuts.

IMMIGRATION

I’ll randomly pick a day and declare that everyone on U.S. soil is now a citizen.  In this way, we won’t have any more foreigners roaming around.  Then, I will construct a massive wall, but it won’t be on the Mexican border.  Instead, it will randomly zig-zag across the country.  There will be no point to it.

THE ECONOMY

If it’s as big a mess as it is now, I probably won’t do anything.  If I do something, it will come down to two words:  Tax and welfare reform (that’s four words, I guess).

Lower taxes create more jobs and generate more money for the government.  It only follows that no taxes will do even more good.  We’ll probably have to repeal one of the amendments to the Constitution, but how hard can that be?  If my No Tax Plan won’t fly, I’ll issue an executive order that I won’t pay taxes.  The President is the No. 1 job creator.   Less taxes, the more jobs I’ll create.  Simple.

Welfare is a bit stickier, but I have a good plan:

  1. If you’re on welfare, you have to work building bridges and other public works.  Since we don’t have much–or any–tax money, we’ll need all the help we can get.  You’re probably thinking, “Would a bunch of welfare recipients–especially kids–be skilled workers?”  Myself, I believe in American Exceptionalism, pinko.  Under my plan, if you’re on welfare, no one will ever be able to say “You didn’t build that,” because, by God, you did.
  2. Everyone will qualify for food stamps, but here’s the rub:  You can only use them to eat food prepared by other food stamp recipients from government-supplied foodstuffs (we’ll call it Soylent Green).  It won’t take long for people to get tired of that crap. I know that kinda sounds like Communism.  Hey, the Commies weren’t wrong about everything.  If you can look past the 100 million people they killed, they had some decent ideas.

PRESIDENTIAL STYLE

Every President has his own style.  Ronald Reagan was the conservative icon.  Bill Clinton was “Slick Willy.”  There were Honest Abe, Old Hickory, Give ’em Hell Harry.  The list goes on and on.  I hope to be known as “Old Powder Keg.”  Here are some of the things I’ll do to leave my imprint:

  • I will hold frequent (maybe even daily) press conferences and answer every question with either “I’ll get back to you on that” or “I don’t give a rat’s ass.”
  • I will be the first President to address Congress wearing a John Deere hat.
  • I will chain smoke anytime I addressed the nation.

Our President missed his chance to make this the new look of the White House.

  • I will frequently quote Franklin Pierce, as the “Greatest of all our Presidents.”

Franklin Pierce, our seediest President, will be my role model.

  • I will also frequently quote Jimmy Carter, but I’ll refer to him as “History’s Greatest Monster.”
  • At least once, I will punch the Speaker of the House in the face just before the State of the Union Address.
  • I will appoint Gallagher, Manny Ramirez and Brooklyn Decker to the Supreme Court.
  • At least once, I will address the nation shirtless.
  • I will close every speech with “So, what the hell are you gonna do about it, anyway?”

Unlike LBJ, I won’t wait until I’m out of office to sport a mullet

  • Finally, if my popularity wanes, I will execute someone on TV.  With my bare hands.

THE FINAL DAYS

Although I fully intend to declare myself President-for-Life, I realize that my time in office will likely be brief.  My finals days will, no doubt, be weighed down by impeachment proceedings and assassination attempts.  There is also a strong possibility of emotional and/or mental breakdowns which go largely unnoticed by the public because of my volatile personality.  When it becomes apparent that I will not stay in office, I will abruptly quit without even giving a two-week notice.

After my resignation, I will immediately check into rehab for a dangerous addiction to bath salts and barely-legal Asian amputee pornography.  I will emerge a new man and spend the rest of my life giving speeches for 500K a pop.  Sweet.

©thetrivialtroll.wordpress.com

Canada: The Slumbering Menace

We live in the shadow of the Maple Leaf.

North Korea is in the news a lot these days, yet I find myself pondering larger issues, instead of my usual concerns about whether I’ll miss the latest episode of Here Comes Honey Boo Boo or when I’ll get my nap.  I offer this as a warning of which I hope our leaders, whomever they might be, will take heed.

I’ll confess that I don’t keep abreast of geopolitical issues.  One might say that I don’t have a “world view” of things.  One might also say that I don’t pay much “attention.”  Both are true.  I am hamstrung by an ignorance of geography which is a result of my poor sense of direction.  I have never been able to readily tell left from right, for example.  When I think of the world, I sense the U.S. in the middle with lots of Spanish-speaking people to the south, Europe to the right; somewhere south of that is the dreaded Middle East; Africa is below that; way to the right is Russia; Asia is somewhere WAY out there;  there is nothing to the left but Hawaii.

I also can’t keep track of all the countries.  I’ve never heard of most of the countries in Africa.  Don’t get me started on the sundry island countries scattered about.

I watch quite a bit of TV, though.  As result, I do know some things.  Ronald Reagan spoke of the Axis of Evil:  The Soviet Union, Iran and North Korea.  John Bolton listed Cuba, Libya and Syria as Beyond the Axis of Evil.  George W. Bush taught me about The Evil Doers–Iran, North Korea, Iraq and random freelance terrorists.  Condoleeza Rice added the Outposts of Tyranny:  Belarus, Zimbabwe and Myanmar.  There are a LOT of threats out there.

Since we overthrew the government of Iraq, I guess they’re not evil anymore.  An example of my ignorance is that I have no idea who the President/Prime Minister/King/Dictator of Iraq is.  Oh, you don’t either?  I feel slightly better.

You can probably also surmise that I have trouble focusing on one topic.  This, too, keeps me from dwelling very long on world events.  Where was I?

While many Americans wring their hands over such mundane topics as health care, deficits, random shootings, war and what not, I have focused on a much insidious threat to our security–our so-called neighbors to the North.

Most Americans fear the Mexicans.  Well, maybe not most, but a goodly number do anyway.  Why?  They look different. They sound different.  Like my German ancestors, they don’t have the common courtesy to learn English before the come here.  Here’s how Americans historically thought of foreigners:

If the Japanese really looked like this, we would have lost World War II out of sheer terror.

So fearful were we of the Japanese, that we sent Japanese-Americans off to fight for the US, while we housed their families in concentration camps.  With a history like that, one would think we would be prepared against any foreign threat.  Think again.

Canadians, of course, strike no such fear in us.  Why not?  They look like us, more or less–except perhaps a bit duller.  They also speak English, except for the ones who–for reasons still obscure–speak French, for God’s sake. Plus, I can’t remember them ever winning a war.

I, for one, am not fooled.  I’m quite confident that our border with Canada is every bit as porous as the one with Mexico.  I offer this warning to all right-thinking Americans.  Why be concerned?  Read on.

O! Canada!

Have you ever heard their national anthem?  It’s beautiful.  It makes you swell with Canadian pride.  Ours, on the other hand, is an unsingable poem set to music.  The Canadians know this.  That’s why theirs is so much better.  If you hear it, you want to be one of them, even if just for a moment.  That momentary weakness is all it takes to begin the slide down the slippery slope to Canadianism.

Hockey

We all know they play hockey in Canada.  We play it, too, but mostly with Canadians.  It was once observed that Canadians taught the French to play hockey, which Europeans have never been able to do.  They haven’t had the same success with Americans.  At one time, US hockey was confined to places like New York, Philadelphia, Detroit and Chicago, places so far north that they are practically part of Canada anyway.  Now, we have hockey in California, Tennessee, North Carolina, Florida–everywhere.  What better way to infiltrate our country than by distributing their toothless, hockey-playing goons around our great nation.  Plus, this gives them ample opportunity to indoctrinate more Americans with their entrancing national anthem.  Well played.

Their Culture

What do we really know of the Canadian culture?  Oh, we’ve all eaten their bacon, which really isn’t bacon at all.  Ice-fishing is probably popular.  I’ll grant them the contributions of Steve Nash, Alex Trebek, Geddy Lee and Pamela Anderson to our culture.  Beyond those minor accomplishments, what do they offer us?

Here’s food for thought:  I read somewhere that they embrace multiculturalism.  I don’t even know what that means, but Glenn Beck says it’s really bad.  It sure sounds bad.

First off, although they speak English, it’s not really English, is it?  Do you want your kids going around saying “aboot” instead of “about?”  How about sprinkling your conversations with “eh?”  It will render our language incomprehensible.  Your kid will no longer be in the 3rd grade.  No, he’ll be in “Grade 3.”  You’ll soon be wearing a tuque on your head.  Welcome to the Great White North, my friends.

They don’t even speak English everywhere, either.  Part of the country speaks French.  Not just any French, but some kind of weird-sounding French that could be spoken on Pluto for all I know.   I had a trial once where a witness was a French-speaking Canadian.  His ridiculous French-like accent combined with my Eastern Kentucky mumble left the jury baffled.  Wouldn’t that be nice to deal with every day?

The Canadians keep their culture under wraps for the most part.  Beyond the greatness of Rush, what do we know of their music?  Their cinema?  William Shatner is, of course, their greatest actor, but he made his bones in the good old U.S. of A.

Canada’s idea of entertainment. A typical Canadian woman attempts to corrupt the morals of our youth.

The number one occupation in Canada is lumberjack, followed closely by illiterate fisherman.  Their policemen dress in Fancy Dan garb that would embarrass Siegfried and Roy.

I know nothing of their religion and don’t want to.  Suffice to say that it likely involves snow gods.

Canada boasts a much a lower violent crime rate than the U.S., even though they own a hell of a lot of guns.  This just proves that they lack the wherewithal to be a major player on the world stage.  They didn’t even wipe out all their Indians like we did.  Americans are hot-headed and prone to violence.  Look at our respective records on serial killers.  The U.S. is a veritable serial killing playground.  As far as I know, Canada has had own notorious serial killer, Robert Pickton, and they called him the “Pig Farm Killer.”  Seriously.  Oooh, scary.

THEIR “GOVERNMENT”

Like most people, I don’t know what form of government they have, other than some form of socialism.  They seem to swear allegiance to the Queen of England, so maybe they’re a British territory or part of the Commonwealth of Nations, whatever the hell that is.  They’re probably Communists.

Lest you think I’m exaggerating, the Queen is on some of their money.  Bet you thought it Wayne Gretzky or Alan Thicke.  Obviously, they’ve sworn some sort of allegiance to the Crown.  I don’t need to remind you that we fought a little war back in 1776 to get away from that kind of thing.  Speaking of their money, check this out:

Inexplicably, Jimmy Hoffa adorns the Canadian $50 bill.

It doesn’t even look like money.  It looks like a napkin or a bus pass.  Have you ever gotten one of their quarters and tried to use it in a Coke machine?  Surprise!!  NO COKE FOR YOU!! I say keep your money in Canada.

But, don’t they have a great healthcare system? According a bunch of emails I’ve gotten, you can get prescription drugs really cheap in Canada over the Internet.  Great.  Now, we can assure that our entire country is drug-addled or in some constant state of arousal further eroding our moral foundation.  Just what we need.

They also have universal healthcare.  Think about that.  “Universal?”  What kind of crazy “one-world” bunch of fellow travelers are these people? If you go to the doctor in Canada, you have to wait 10-12 hours just to get weighed and then they give your weight in kilos or stones or some other incomprehensible measure than no civilized person would understand.  No thank you, Commissar.

A SIMPLE SOLUTION

For years, I’ve written the Pentagon urging a preemptive strike on Canada.  Other than a few uncomfortable interviews with the FBI, I’ve never gotten a response.  Thus, I’m left with presenting a modest proposal to stop the Northern Horde in its tracks before it’s too late:

  • Outlaw hockey in the Continental United States.  I believe this can be done under the auspices of the Patriot Act.
  • Once hockey is outlawed, most Canadians will leave the U.S.  Those who don’t can be sent to Gitmo.
  • Dig a moat on the Canadian border (except the Great Lakes which will serve as their own moat).  It should be 50 feet wide and 20 feet deep.  I know what you’re thinking.  Won’t the Canadians just swim across like they do in Mexico?  No.  It will be too damn cold.  Plus, they all wear flannel and would surely get weighted down and drown.
  • Once the moat is in place, launch a series of surgical drone strikes knocking out their breweries and skating rinks.  In the ensuing turmoil, declare Canada to be part of the United States.

Once we’ve declared victory, redraw the Canadian map as follows:

New Canada, a safe place for all Americans, except the part where we’ll be testing our chemical weaponry.

By dividing New Canada into five distinct zones, I have eliminated the threat:

ZONE 1:  Gulag:  This will be used as detention facility for those native Canadians unwillingly to embrace the American way of life.

ZONE 2: Chemical Test Area:  This will be reserved for testing America’s impressive chemical weapons cache.  It will also be used for storage and disposal of our massive pile of nuclear waste.

ZONE 3: Reservation:  This will be the home of those Canadians willing to embrace American ideals.

ZONE 4: Hockey:  This is where the hockey will be played.

ZONE 5:  French:  We really don’t want to fool with the French whom Bart Simpson aptly described as “rifle-dropping surrender monkeys.”  Those who can’t move to France will live here.  That way, if we have a war we want to lose, they’ll be close by.

Too radical you say?  Neville Chamberlain would have been well-advised to have been so radical when dealing with Hitler.  Just don’t blame me if you wake up one day and lumberjacks are chopping down your door looking for house pets to chain to their sleds.  You might as well get fitted for a pair of mukluks, my friend.

Don’t expect to hear either of our so-called American leaders address these issues.  Note that in the 2012 Presidential election neither candidate produced a shred of proof to show that he wasn’t born in Canada.  By their silence, they sow the seeds of our destruction.  Oh, well, God save the Queen. Eh?

©thetrivialtroll.wordpress.com 2012

Wordsmithery

As a lawyer, I deal in language.  I read, write and speak quite a bit.  I’ve learned that how I say things can be just as important as what I say.  I have to write and speak persuasively.  My job is to persuade or influence someone, be it a judge, jury or opponent, to see my side of things.  To believe me.  I get paid to do this, and try my best.

I am but a mere piker compared to the rest of the world. Some call it spin or wordsmithing.  Regardless, there is one point–everyone wants me to think like they do, believe what they believe.  Most things aren’t really subject to “belief.”   For example, whether I believe that the sun is a giant star is irrelevant.  It is, whether I believe it or not.  I heard a guy say the other day that he doesn’t “believe in food stamps.”  Well, that’s unfortunate, because they exist.

We take language and twist it for our own ends. Over the years, I’ve identified several of these tricks most of which bombard me every day.

WHAT’S THE GOOD WORD?

Sometimes, we can change a few words and change the import of what we say.  Here are a few examples:

Entitlements:  This term is used, mostly by politicians, to describe anything to which the speaker believes folks are not entitled.  It’s a handout.  It’s a pejorative term implying that the recipient believes he or she is entitled to it, like a spoiled child.  On the other hand, the word “benefits” connotes something provided as bonus.  You might deserve a bonus.  You never deserve an entitlement, even if it’s like Social Security which you pay for.

Rain Forest:  I never heard this term when I was young, although I’m sure there were rain forests.  I think they were called jungles back then.  Who in their right mind would want to SAVE THE JUNGLES?  Jungles are dark and scary and filled with dangerous animals, maybe even cannibals.  Rain forests are nice and rainy and full of beautiful foliage and kind woodland creatures.  One can imagine strolling through a rain forest and being in awe of nature.  A jungle, by contrast, could be certain death by deadly insects, natives or wild animals.  Crazed tree monkeys, tigers, tse tse flies–you name it–stand ready to take you down.  None of that could happen in a rain forest.

Undocumented Workers vs. Illegal Aliens:  An undocumented worker isn’t a bad guy.  First, he works, which is always good.  He sounds industrious.  Second, he’s the victim of some paperwork snafu.  That’s happened to all of us at some point.  An illegal alien, by contrast, is bad, maybe even dangerous.  He’s illegal, which means he’s a criminal.  He’s also an alien which is just spooky.  Hard to believe they’re the same thing, huh?  Just this week I heard a new one:  U.S. Born Children of Illegal Aliens.  That’s a mouthful, but it sounds awful.  The translation:  Natural born U.S. citizens.

Climate Change:  This used to be known as Global Warming.  Global Warming just isn’t ominous enough sounding.  Everyone likes warm weather, right?  Plus, when it gets super cold or snows a lot, Global Warming doesn’t make much sense.  Climate Change, on the other hand, could mean anything.  500 degree Winters.  Tornadoes in New York.   You name it, it fits.

Mental Illness:  There was a time when medical professionals used terms such as moron, imbecile and idiot to describe people with various afflictions.  People like my father co-opted these terms and freely applied them to people like me.  Thus, they fell out of favor.  We had lunatic asylums.  Imagine someone directing you to a Lunatic Asylum full of morons, imbeciles and idiots.  Not a very pretty picture.  A hospital for the mentally ill is much better.  We don’t have much patience with idiots, but we do with people who are ill.  That’s a good thing.

Homeless: I’d be willing to bet that if you look at contemporary writings from 40-50 years ago, it would appear that there were no homeless people.  The world had plenty of deadbeats, bums, hobos, drifters and vagrants, though.  Homeless is a better–and more accurate–term.  I know people who have been homeless.  Some of them, no doubt, were bums.  Some weren’t.

Disabled:  Here’s another example of the language adapting to improve.  Remember when people were cripples?  We had hospitals for “crippled children.”  It’s not surprising that folks didn’t like that.  Now, some folks don’t like “disabled.”  I understand, but I can’t think of a better term.  Someone will.

Learning Disability:  Now, this one is interesting for a couple of reasons.  First, it uses “disability” but it’s okay.  In this context, it’s not out of favor, yet.  Second, there is no doubt that we’ve learned that some people have real, identifiable learning disorders which can be treated or at the very least addressed.  I believe that stupidity remains the number 1 learning disorder; however, we no longer accept that.  I once read of a football player in a prominent college whose “disability” was the inability to understand the written word.  He had to have pictures to understand things.  This brings to mind the old adage “I’ll draw you a picture.”  One might suggest that this unfortunate fellow was actually illiterate, which sounds harsh and judgmental.  He was disabled.

The above examples are either politically correct or propaganda, depending on one’s view.   Both are considered bad, of course.  Political correctness denotes simple-minded vacuity, while propaganda is evil conjuring up images of jack-booted Hitler Youth.

Besides trying influence the listener, words are sometimes changed for the most obvious of reasons–to obscure or misrepresent the true meaning.  Here are a few:

WORD OR PHRASE: REAL MEANING:

Visually impaired:  Blind

Scrappy ballplayer:  White ballplayer

Alternative Energy:  Energy which won’t work

Collateral damage:  Dead people

Exotic dancer:  Stripper

Adult cinema:  Porn

Limited potential:  Loser

White trash:  White trash

THE DUBIOUS ATTRIBUTION

An otherwise unimpressive statement can be prefaced or qualified to sound plausible or even authoritative.  Let’s say I make this  inane statement:  “Anthony Weiner should run for President.”  You laugh, as well you should.  Now, let’s put a little different spin on it:

“Many political observers believe that Anthony Weiner could be a viable third party candidate for President.”

Now, this is just as imbecilic as the first statement.   You want to dismiss it out of hand, but you think:  Hmm. What is it about Weiner that makes him a viable candidate? What do these observers know that I don’t?  Of course, this improved statement says nothing of substance.  What does “many” mean?  More than one?  What is an “observer?”  Probably anyone.

My brother had a friend who liked to preface outlandish comments with “Experts has proven…”  That way, he could say something like “Experts has proven that Big Foot lives in Harlan County.”  That sounds plausible.

People say things like “Many economists believe that a 0% tax rate would actually increase government revenue” or “Many economists believe that huge government deficits will result in a strong U.S. economy for years to come.”  They want me to agree with them and their many authorities.  Surely that many economists can’t ALL be wrong?

You might wonder if this isn’t actually a cleaned up version of lying.  Good question.  Perhaps, but no more so than when we cite “they” for some proposition.  They say that dog is man’s best friend.  They say that you can’t serve two masters.  They say that we’re going to have a bad winter.  They say all kinds of things.  They have credibility.

There are many variations of this technique. If you ever want to bolster an otherwise baseless opinion preface it with “Research has shown…”; “Studies reveal…”; “Leading scientists agree…”; or even “Experts has proven…”  Few will dare argue with such authoritative sources.  When desperate, you can even use “According to scripture…” or “I believe it was Paul who said….”  You can think of many more.

WHAT’S IN A NAME?

One of the best ways to win folks over to your side is to be sure you or your cause aren’t threatening.  Say that you belong to a group dedicated to the violent overthrow of the government.  Do not name your group something like The Anti-American Anarchy Society.  You’ll be so busy dealing with search warrants that you won’t get anything done.  Try something like The American Society for the Protection of Liberty.  That’s perfect.

The Patriot Act is a great example.  How could anyone oppose an act–regardless of how heinous it might be–that promotes patriotism?  What are you, a communist?  The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act sounds much better than The Government Health Care Act (which is really what it is).  Some groups come up names that make little sense like The Tea Party, evidently named after the Boston Tea Party which dealt with taxation without representation which isn’t a problem now….but I digress.

As a rule of thumb, be suspicious of any group, cause or law which includes one or more of the following in its name:

  • Family
  • Freedom
  • Liberty
  • American
  • Children
  • Patriot

These are but a few examples of the way words fool us.  There are many other tricks out there, such as misquoting, quoting out of context, embellishment and outright lying.  Lying, in particular, can be effective but requires great skill.  It is best left to politicians.

The next time you listen to a talking head on radio or TV or read an article in the paper or on the Internet, remember:  They might be trying to fool you.  Research has shown that as much as 90% of all information we receive is deceptive.  See how easy it is?

©thetrivialtroll.wordpress.com 2012

Raising Cane’s Courts Controversy

In a stunning development, this reporter has learned that Raising Cane’s Chicken Fingers has become embroiled (or emfried) in its own marriage controversy.  Raising Cane’s reclusive President, Kane (possibly pictured below), has been investing in several well-known anti-straight marriage organizations for a number of years now.  These groups include Ashley Madison.com, the NFL Network, Playboy Magazine and Ted Haggard Ministries.  When reached for comment, Kane stated:  “Guilty as charged!  Heterosexuals present the greatest threat on Earth to the sanctity of marriage.  I’m proud to say that I stand by my principles in opposing these hellish unions.”

Kane notes that “One day you wake up and your spouse looks like me. Who in their right mind wouldn’t oppose that?”

This foray into such controversy might be a PR mine field, but Kane disagrees:  “Half of all married people get divorced anyway.  I’m certain that the other half want to.  That makes everyone on the planet welcome at our restaurants.”  When asked if his open prejudice applied to same-sex marriage, Kane responded:  “Not yet, but give it some time.  They haven’t had enough time to make a mockery of their wedding vows.  I’m confident that they will.”

When reached for comment, Herman Cain said: “I don’t have anything to do with that place, but they might be on to something!”

Raising Cane’s actually derives its name from the original Cane whose parents were, according to many, the first married couple.  Kane notes that he–and everyone else–is a direct descendant of the murderous offspring of Adam and Eve.  “Look at the facts.  The first married couple and–BOOM!–they produce a homicidal maniac. Let’s face it.  It’s gone downhill from there.  Paul said it was better to marry than to burn.  All I can say is that that sounds like something you’d say if you’d never been married.”

There are over two million marriages a year in the United States.  Raising Cane’s would seem to be courting trouble, but Kane is steadfast.  “We’re inviting God’s judgment on us with every one of those marriages.  Better or worse; richer or poorer; sick and in health–give me a break!  There’s only one thing for certain:  People like fried chicken.  That’s it.”

Dr. Timothy Vanderboosen of a well-known think-tank believes that such prejudice is more widespread than the public realizes.  “Okay. Half of the married people get divorced, right?  Then, they get married again.  I’d call that crazy. My own wife is a complete pain in the ass.  She gained about 50 pounds within 5 years of our wedding and just lies around the house all day watching Oprah.  Oh, and she has a goddamn mustache, too.  I mean, she’d have to do that on purpose, don’t you think? You’d think I could get a decent meal every now and then, but noooo…I’m sorry, what was your question?”

Famed Muppets Ernie and his long-time companion Bert are encouraged by Cane’s stance.  “We may not be welcome at Chik Fil A, but we can still gorge ourselves at Raising Cane’s.  Bert and I don’t give a shit if they’re heterophobic.”  For his part, Kane said:  “Hey, those two little fruit baskets are always welcome at our restaurant.”

Several anti-straight marriage groups have already rallied to support Cane’s.  Rumors are rampant that the thrice-married Newt Gingrich and four-times-married Rush Limbaugh are organizing a “Support Raising Cane’s Day” encouraging everyone who hates marriage to patronize the restaurant.  As part of a promotion, Cane’s is considering giving a house to a lucky male customer for him to give to a woman who hates him.

(Disclaimer:  This is a work of fiction.  Any resemblance between the characters and story and any person living or dead is purely coincidental, except for Kane and Herman Cain, because I used their real pictures. This doesn’t mean that Kane  or Cain said any of things attributed them, which they didn’t as far as I know.  Kane, in particular, should take no offense.  I saw him in a movie called See No Evil where he tore out people’s eyes, which I don’t want to happen to me.  Kane is not really the President of Raising Cane’s nor does Raising Cane’s engage in any such outlandish behavior.  That doesn’t keep me from wishing it were all true.)

©thetrivialtroll.wordpress.com 2012