Ripped Off: Part Three

An alert facebook friend noticed a similarity between my Halloween Tax routine, and a segment from a recent episode of the hit NBC series: Parks and Recreation. While I'm willing to concede that eating a portion of child's school lunch is much different from eating a child's Halloween candy, the part where Ron Swanson snags the sandwich back for one more bite is almost a direct quote:

Parks and Recreation - Ron on the government from Shoaib Akhtar on Vimeo.

Here's the original, the point in question occurs at 1:37:

This blog has moved

This blog is now located at http://timslagle.blogspot.com/.
You will be automatically redirected in 30 seconds, or you may click here.

For feed subscribers, please update your feed subscriptions to
http://timslagle.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default.

President Busted

A few months ago, I speculated that the President was trying very hard not to do what came natural to any red blooded American male, that he knew he was being watched, and he knew what would happen if he snuck in a glance.

Well this photo popped up on the Drudge Report today:





And if my speculations are correct there are going to be some lamps flying around the Presidential Suite in L'Aquila tonight

New Contest

Here's a video of one of my older classic bits.



It was recorded way back in 1998, but I think it is still as relevant today, as it was a decade ago. Since then, I've been told that another comic has picked up on it, and did something really similar on a cable special.

That's one of the reasons why I chose to submit it to the "Open Mic Challenge" on the new Comedy Central website. I want to show everyone which comic was doing the bit first.

I have been doing the bit since 1991, and I stopped doing it live after it was released on my cd "Europa" in 2006. Fifteen years is long enough to do any bit, so I thought I would put it away for a while.

I did the bit for my second MTV audition sometime around 1993, and I'm pretty sure it's the reason why I didn't get the gig.

You see, back then there was this little thing called Political Correctness that was sweeping the college campuses. Students were told that there are no First Amendment rights for offensive speech, and if you feel offended, the speaker is guilty of a hate crime. New graduates took that notion out into the real world, and enforced it rigorously. Back then, this bit was considered hateful and mysogynist, and inside sources have informed me, that this bit probably lost me that MTV (Viacom) spot.

Political correctness is still around, but politically INcorrect comedy is extremely popular. Comedy clubs are popular today because you can laugh at things you can't say at school or work. Stuff like this bit is common now in clubs, on YouTube, and even on Comedy Central (also Viacom).

So I thought the world should take a second look at the routine. It would be delicious irony if this was the one that finally pushed me onto Comedy Central (which is the prize for this contest). And you, my dear blog reader can help me with that.

Click on the link, watch the video (you can even turn the sound down if you're at work, the website won't notice if the sound is muted, and will score it as a view) then forward it to everyone you can think of. If you have the time to sign up, give the video a thumbs up, and leave a comment, that would be cool as well.

FCC Advisory

Michelle Wears the Pants

I saw this photo on the internet today, and I think it proves what I've always been saying about the Obamas. Michelle is no Hillary. There is absolutely no way that this man is going to to be ever caught with an intern. He might be a Fearless Leader, but there is one woman who keeps him in unholy terror.





"Okay...I can do this...eyes staight ahead...no sideways glances, there's cameras all over this place, fool! You can do it, just pretend you're reading the teleprompter..."

Lets call it Untraditional Marriage

I wrote the following for Big Hollywood. Unfortunately, concerns over some of the more controversial remarks, required editing that took most of the humor out of the piece. So I have reposted it here:

Sean Penn scolded opponents of something he called “Gay Marriage.” Apparently, he thinks gay marriage was made illegal in California. Certainly Sean, a lifelong resident of Hollywood, should recognize that gay marriage is perfectly legal and has roots all the way back to Cole Porter and Rock Hudson, both of whom are gay men who married (and wasn’t Penn married to Madonna?).


What is not legal, is Same-Sex Marriage. There is no State test for gayness. In the States where Same-Sex Marriage has been legalized, there is no assurance that the applicants are indeed homosexual. In fact there is a good chance that the ban on Same-Sex marriage was contrived to protect heterosexuals. Possibly it was meant to prevent straight men, in the midst of an "I Love You" drunk, from waking up in Vegas, with rings on their fingers. And how many readers would be comfortable with a pair of "married" heterosexual men adopting teenage Asian girls? But I digress.

Personally, I don't see how the state COULD test for homosexuality. Perhaps by asking questions on fashion designers and Broadway trivia, although such a test would be considered a homophobic stereotype (and a  terribly hack joke).  Should there be a Brazilian government position, like Comptroller of Homosexual Tendancies, who would evaluate couples for homosexuality, and scrutinize video rental records? But then such an office could not limit itself to Same-Sex Marriage without violating the equal protection clause. The same office would be responsible for determining whether gay men were trying to marry women. Those of us, who have brought home more than one Aline Brosh McKenna film, might be put under suspicion.  Certainly, a requirement for actual proof of homosexual intimacy would be a violation of privacy, that few courts would let stand (or care to watch). 

Currently, we recognize the ability for states to define the restrictions on people applying for marriage licenses.  Right now in America the standard state requirements for marriage are almost universally the following:

1. Two
2. Unmarried
3. Unrelated
4. Consenting
5. Adult
6. Humans
7. Of Different Genders

Please note that five of the seven requirements have not always been mandatory. At certain points in history the top five (maybe six) traditional marriage requirements were not in place. (I’m having a hard time verifying number six– my Google just won’t go there without leaving a history trail I don’t want on my permanent record.) I also suggest that very few proponents of same-sex marriage would allow the other six requirements to be waived as nonchalantly as number seven.

Also note that love is not among the requirements. The idea pitched around lately is that the State has no right to keep people who love each other apart. Well, yes they do. Cousin lovers have been denied the right to marry almost everywhere outside of royalty and separatist religious sects. And as many married couples (and divorced people paying alimony) will attest, the State also has the power to keep two people together long after the love has evaporated.

I think we may need a different term. “Same-Sex Marriage” does not roll smoothly off the tongue. I propose we call it something more in line with reality. Perhaps an “Untraditional Marriage,” something I don’t have a problem with. If a State agrees that the traditional restrictions placed on marriages do not fit into modern society (as it did in the past when it banned polygamy and incest), I believe it is within the Constitutional power of the State to change those restrictions.

I also believe that more traditional citizens have a right to relocate to another State, where the institution of marriage isn't treated lightly; for instance: as something to do after a drunken drive to Vegas, a mechanism to cloak the homosexuality of a movie star, or a means to the White House.

But that’s the big beef I have with proponents of Untraditional Marriage. In every state where it was put on to the ballot, it was soundly defeated. It was only legalized by judges willing to subvert election results.

The side of the aisle whose very name claims to cherish democracy turns against it in droves when the “will of the people” is directed against them.

Maybe that’s why Sean likes Hugo and Fidel so much: they’re all staunch proponents of Untraditional Democracy.