The Catholic Church is about to pick a new pope, and with that in mind
a fallen Catholic (that's me) has a suggestion for the Cardinals about
the papacy and about a new direction the Church might take. Given that
I am a virtual heathen in the eyes of every church on earth and that
every believer out there, I feel qualified to offer this impartial
opinion. Often out of the mouth of idiots there is a trace of reason,
even when the idiot is me.
About the new pope....well, I hope that he (Oh, and maybe after the new
pope is finished "poping" the succeeding pope can be a woman, as that
would be a significant signal that the Catholic faith sees women as the
equal of men, even though you and I both know women are really the
superior sex) is a more liberal pope as to recognizing how humans have
changed since the now antediluvian practices the church now holds were
created. Moving from the middle ages mentality it still clings to and
replacing that with a 21st century one can't hurt the Church. We need
what is sometimes referred to as a "modern pope" and "modern direction
in the Church". For a start, that would mean the Cardinals would hold
a 'Church Council on Sexual Equality' to make women equal in the
church, to give the church's blessing to gay life styles, and one that
would make it acceptable for all priests and nuns and other clerics to
marry (either same sex or opposite sex partners) and procreate.
This would bring more men and women into the clergy, and that would
relieve the church of some of the sex scandals committed by its
currently frustrated group of clergy. Also some of the Catholics who
left the Church because of its irrelevance might decide return to it.
Hmmm Maybe the new pope would even strut in those red shoes that popes
wear (isn't their entire costume a bit foppish!) and announce that he
himself is gay. I suspect that quite a few of the past popes have been
closet gays anyway, so why not go for it. Most Catholics are also aware
of this and probably would not leave the Church because it is led by a
guy who walks funny and says mass with a lisp...
There also has to be a no tolerance policy for sexual abuse by members
of the clergy. It would be a practical goal for the Church to achieve,
given that clergy members could now have a sex life and not have to
take on a predator mode of behavior. I know that there would be a
precipitous rise in the number of parents who would allow their sons to
become altar boys because they would think that Father Bruce is openly
doing the nasty with adults instead of behind Church walls with their
sons..
Yes, a Church Council on Sexual Equality would be a daring first reform
movement for a Church that has become less and less relevant. Surely,
some older conservative members would be upset and might leave the
Church. But a dying entity like the Catholic Church should risk being
relevant if it truly wishes to survive in the 21st century.
Saturday, March 9, 2013
Thursday, March 7, 2013
Is Older Better
The accepted truth (or stereotype) that the
older we are the less we
like the present culture and the more we embrace the past is hitting me
right in my big mouth. I find myself more out of touch with current
music, fashion, art, literature, TV, movies etc. If you asked me to
identify current culture people or things I am probably going to give
you a blank stare and a shrugged shoulder. But ask me about the those
things associated with the 50's , 60's and 70's I'll never shut up when
answering.
Right now I am reading book about great events in sports since W.W.II and ending in the early 90's.
And I just finished a book of reflections by the late broadcaster/write David Brinkley. I don't read what is currently the rage in books, nor do I listen to contemporary music or watch current TV programs. Lives lived in past excite me and the present seems a bore and vacuous in many ways. But why? Why is it that so many people tend to lose touch with the current and more dearly embrace the past as they age?
I write this now as I sit before my computer dressed in one of my typical 60's outfit. I'm surely not going to wear a pair of those pants that fall to the knees and reveal my butt crack. I have too much respect for society to traumatize it that way. Strange though, I think the young today look better in their current fashionable outfits than they would if they dressed in my old style. Conversely, it should go without saying that anyone over 40 looks ridiculous if dressing in the current style.
Maybe we get stuck in our past because it feels comfortable and we understand that one as we struggle to figure out the Lady Gaga, over the top communication devices or why that kid down the street wears his baseball cap backwards. We might like the Beatles because we have wonderful memories of our own lives when we first heard them or saw them perform live. We idealize the past in order to give us a reason to flee the discomfort of the present.
I can't contend that the past culture is superior to the present. Whatever is currently most popular must be the best for that society since the majority embrace it. But I can say what is more comfortable to me, and it isn't today's world. Humans often choose not on what is "best" but what makes them feel "best". Problem is, the oldies can't seem to understand why the younger folks like their world, and the younger person also is clue less as to why the oldies are stuck in the past. When I was young that used to be called the "generation gap". It is a real phenomenon that makes complete understanding between the two cultures a very difficult ideal to achieve.
I think it might be a good thing that we age this way, that we have a refuge to hold on to that the youngest and most hip can't understand. Otherwise....I would type this while wearing spandex and listening to hip hop or rap music. And that wouldn't be a pleasant site for the world to see.
Right now I am reading book about great events in sports since W.W.II and ending in the early 90's.
And I just finished a book of reflections by the late broadcaster/write David Brinkley. I don't read what is currently the rage in books, nor do I listen to contemporary music or watch current TV programs. Lives lived in past excite me and the present seems a bore and vacuous in many ways. But why? Why is it that so many people tend to lose touch with the current and more dearly embrace the past as they age?
I write this now as I sit before my computer dressed in one of my typical 60's outfit. I'm surely not going to wear a pair of those pants that fall to the knees and reveal my butt crack. I have too much respect for society to traumatize it that way. Strange though, I think the young today look better in their current fashionable outfits than they would if they dressed in my old style. Conversely, it should go without saying that anyone over 40 looks ridiculous if dressing in the current style.
Maybe we get stuck in our past because it feels comfortable and we understand that one as we struggle to figure out the Lady Gaga, over the top communication devices or why that kid down the street wears his baseball cap backwards. We might like the Beatles because we have wonderful memories of our own lives when we first heard them or saw them perform live. We idealize the past in order to give us a reason to flee the discomfort of the present.
I can't contend that the past culture is superior to the present. Whatever is currently most popular must be the best for that society since the majority embrace it. But I can say what is more comfortable to me, and it isn't today's world. Humans often choose not on what is "best" but what makes them feel "best". Problem is, the oldies can't seem to understand why the younger folks like their world, and the younger person also is clue less as to why the oldies are stuck in the past. When I was young that used to be called the "generation gap". It is a real phenomenon that makes complete understanding between the two cultures a very difficult ideal to achieve.
I think it might be a good thing that we age this way, that we have a refuge to hold on to that the youngest and most hip can't understand. Otherwise....I would type this while wearing spandex and listening to hip hop or rap music. And that wouldn't be a pleasant site for the world to see.
No Ability To Discriminate
Did you read about British Queen Elizabeth II having a
stomach
virus? I
don't know how you could avoid not reading or hearing about it. I
suspect if a nuclear bomb exploded in London it would receive about
equal attention to the Queen's tummy ache. So much ado about the
insignificant today is annoying. It seems to me that people today have
no ability to discriminate between real news that affects their lives
and the unimportant or trivial. In this age the important is often lost
to the inconsequential. I suspect it is because of the information
overload that makes it difficult for many to tell the difference
between what they should know and what is merely amusement. What do you
think?
A look at news papers of the day, of the TV schedule, of street talk and there seems to be much less substance than in earlier eras. People tend to find more importance to what their favorite reality TV person does in a given day than to what goes on in the school in which their child attends. It's harder to have meaningful conversations with others unless one becomes a storehouse of the insignificant people, places and things of the day. Too a person tends to ignore what is important because, "I don't have time for that."
What worries me is that kids are the worst offenders of the "I don't care about the important because the trivial is more interesting to me", mentality. This makes sense, given kids are the biggest users of the endless electronic communications that puts everything disseminated on an equal footing. It explains, for example, why a local newspaper's headline about a Hollywood celebrity meltdown is front page news and news of their child's school being closed is buried in back section of the paper.
I thin that as information that is truly important for society to know and discuss has become less discernible it might be a good time for schools to specifically teach news discrimination skills. If not we may have a future society that is too informed about the Snookie or Kardashian crowd and too little about people who really matter and impact our lives.
A look at news papers of the day, of the TV schedule, of street talk and there seems to be much less substance than in earlier eras. People tend to find more importance to what their favorite reality TV person does in a given day than to what goes on in the school in which their child attends. It's harder to have meaningful conversations with others unless one becomes a storehouse of the insignificant people, places and things of the day. Too a person tends to ignore what is important because, "I don't have time for that."
What worries me is that kids are the worst offenders of the "I don't care about the important because the trivial is more interesting to me", mentality. This makes sense, given kids are the biggest users of the endless electronic communications that puts everything disseminated on an equal footing. It explains, for example, why a local newspaper's headline about a Hollywood celebrity meltdown is front page news and news of their child's school being closed is buried in back section of the paper.
I thin that as information that is truly important for society to know and discuss has become less discernible it might be a good time for schools to specifically teach news discrimination skills. If not we may have a future society that is too informed about the Snookie or Kardashian crowd and too little about people who really matter and impact our lives.
Which Bathroom To Use
There 's more strangeness happening in Colorado since
the state
legalized marijuana. Haha Who said Mary Jane won't alter the brain and
cause a parent to behave irrationally. Ok, the pot isn't the reason 6
year old first grader Coy Mathis has been banned from using the girls’
bathroom at her Fountain, Colorado elementary school. It's because she
feels she is transgender and her parents support the notion. How odd
is it to let a 6 year old child change sex? Hmmmm Maybe Coy and family
should move to Thailand where unisex bathrooms abound.
Since Coy has been "expressing her gender identity as female" since she was 18 months old, and living openly as a girl since age four he/she had been using the girls’ rest room until December 2012, when school administrators informed her parents that she would now have to use the boys’ bathroom, a staff bathroom or the nurse's bathroom instead. Here's the story in full from Coy's crazy mom if you wish to click the link. http://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/nation/2013/02/27/1951661/
So Coy's family has filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division, the first claim to test the state’s Anti Discrimination Act, which includes protections based on gender identity, this being contrary to the school's belief that letting Coy use the girls’ bathroom would be “damaging” to other students. Most 6 year olds have many wild fantasies, but few parents encourage them to not only act them out but to believe they are real. I doubt that an 18 month old child or even a 6 year old can decide he is a female. When he goes through puberty it might be a better time for Coy to think about that. At age six gender is cultural, not biological.
I'm on the school's side on this one. Though it's fair that the alleged transgender Coy should not be forced to use the boy's bathroom. The school is clearly aware of this and has offered an alternative with the nurse's bathroom. Transgendered at six years old? Are you kidding me? To Coy's parents I suggest guiding Coy be a little boy until he is old enough to understand which sex he is or wants to be.
Since Coy has been "expressing her gender identity as female" since she was 18 months old, and living openly as a girl since age four he/she had been using the girls’ rest room until December 2012, when school administrators informed her parents that she would now have to use the boys’ bathroom, a staff bathroom or the nurse's bathroom instead. Here's the story in full from Coy's crazy mom if you wish to click the link. http://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/nation/2013/02/27/1951661/
So Coy's family has filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division, the first claim to test the state’s Anti Discrimination Act, which includes protections based on gender identity, this being contrary to the school's belief that letting Coy use the girls’ bathroom would be “damaging” to other students. Most 6 year olds have many wild fantasies, but few parents encourage them to not only act them out but to believe they are real. I doubt that an 18 month old child or even a 6 year old can decide he is a female. When he goes through puberty it might be a better time for Coy to think about that. At age six gender is cultural, not biological.
I'm on the school's side on this one. Though it's fair that the alleged transgender Coy should not be forced to use the boy's bathroom. The school is clearly aware of this and has offered an alternative with the nurse's bathroom. Transgendered at six years old? Are you kidding me? To Coy's parents I suggest guiding Coy be a little boy until he is old enough to understand which sex he is or wants to be.
Modern Addictions
I was thinking about change in the world, or
at least changes that I
have seen in my own lifetime. One of the changes is that there seem to
be many more new addictions today than ever before existed. But that
makes sense, given the way change comes and goes so quickly today.
People tend to latch on to something that is new more often with a
clenched fist that is hard to break. Some addictions never change.
There is the addiction to alcohol, drugs, sex etc. Those things are
universal and unaffected by new influences in the world.
But the biggest new addiction today seems to me to be to electronic communication devices. Just go outside and walk awhile in a crowd and you'll see humans that behave rationally in most instances behaving irrationally with their cell phones and other devices. I wonder if electronic communication devices are inherently addictive. Surely, anyone who was a parent in the 50's or 60's would say yes as they remember their teenage children chattering endlessly on the land line phones of the day. But cell phones attract even more time wasting than the old line line calls. I guess the convenience and ease of use of electronic devices today makes them more likely to addict us. Too, they are devices that allow us to escape reality.
There are other modern addictions besides electronic ones. How about shopping? As societies have become wealthier more and more members are shopping way more often. Look at closets in houses built 50 years ago and those houses that are built today. Most modern ones have far more of the walk-in closets or at least far more closet space overall, space needed to fit all the junk we buy due to our shopping addiction. Anyone who "shops for fun" too much must be addicted to shopping.
Another modern addiction is the food addiction. Look around and see how many obese people are out there. Never before in history have so many been so overweight. This also seems to be caused to a great degree by having so much more affluence everywhere in the world. We have more free time and more money to eat, so we do it. If one looks at what we eat it also shows that we are addicted to food. We eat plenty of empty calories because it is an attempt to find some satisfaction with life that we think the food addiction will bring to our lives.
One more of the modern addictions might be an addiction to the trivial in favor of the important. People today are less informed and interested in what they should know than ever before because they are so fascinated by stupidity. Maybe we try to escape what we see as an unpleasant reality by focusing on triviality. The problem is that with every stupidity we embrace there is less opportunity to spend time on the real. No wonder most people can name their favorite reality TV performer but can not identify their government officials or their child's teacher.
Worse than all the new addictions we are finding in our society is the fact that humans seem satisfied with the addicted behavior, to almost prefer to be addicted than not. I wonder, is the world today that unpleasant?
But the biggest new addiction today seems to me to be to electronic communication devices. Just go outside and walk awhile in a crowd and you'll see humans that behave rationally in most instances behaving irrationally with their cell phones and other devices. I wonder if electronic communication devices are inherently addictive. Surely, anyone who was a parent in the 50's or 60's would say yes as they remember their teenage children chattering endlessly on the land line phones of the day. But cell phones attract even more time wasting than the old line line calls. I guess the convenience and ease of use of electronic devices today makes them more likely to addict us. Too, they are devices that allow us to escape reality.
There are other modern addictions besides electronic ones. How about shopping? As societies have become wealthier more and more members are shopping way more often. Look at closets in houses built 50 years ago and those houses that are built today. Most modern ones have far more of the walk-in closets or at least far more closet space overall, space needed to fit all the junk we buy due to our shopping addiction. Anyone who "shops for fun" too much must be addicted to shopping.
Another modern addiction is the food addiction. Look around and see how many obese people are out there. Never before in history have so many been so overweight. This also seems to be caused to a great degree by having so much more affluence everywhere in the world. We have more free time and more money to eat, so we do it. If one looks at what we eat it also shows that we are addicted to food. We eat plenty of empty calories because it is an attempt to find some satisfaction with life that we think the food addiction will bring to our lives.
One more of the modern addictions might be an addiction to the trivial in favor of the important. People today are less informed and interested in what they should know than ever before because they are so fascinated by stupidity. Maybe we try to escape what we see as an unpleasant reality by focusing on triviality. The problem is that with every stupidity we embrace there is less opportunity to spend time on the real. No wonder most people can name their favorite reality TV performer but can not identify their government officials or their child's teacher.
Worse than all the new addictions we are finding in our society is the fact that humans seem satisfied with the addicted behavior, to almost prefer to be addicted than not. I wonder, is the world today that unpleasant?
Most And Least Psychotic Occupations
When you were at work did you ever experience the feeling
that everyone
around you was unstable? Maybe that you were the only level-headed
worker in a workplace
populated by colleagues whose fits and outbursts are unpredictable, or
even psychopathic? Uh, I am not writing about psychopathic people who
write about this kind of stupidity. So wipe your mind clear of my name
and let's stick to the other psychopaths out there.
Well, according to "The Wisdom of Psychopaths" by Oxford psychologist Kevin Dutton, certain fields are more likely to attract actual psychopaths than others. Those fields with the highest number of psychopaths and my impressions are:
1. CEO (We never see nor hear of those CEO 'Guys", so maybe they are behavior like psychopaths in private) 2. Lawyer (Is there any negative personality trait a lawyer doesn't possess?) 3. Media (television/radio and I hope it includes those who are addicted to watching reality TV) 4. Salesperson( making us wait in the check-out line forever is psychopathic) 5. Surgeon (oh, that's not good) 6. Journalist (When they cover a Kardashian meltdown instead of the nuclear one, I agree) 7. Police officer (No need to comment. Just watch those guys in action) 8. Clergy person (When you don't donate enough to the church collection plate those clergy types turn into Joe Pesci) 9. Chef (take away their knives!) 10. Civil servant (I have yet been served by them because they always seem to be playing with their cell phone apps when I need help.)
And not to be undone in our world of insanity are the sane ones. Here are the occupations with the lowest rates of psychopaths: 1. Care aide 2. Nurse 3. Therapist 4. Craftsperson 5. Beautician/stylist 6. Charity worker 7. Teacher 8. Creative artist 9. Doctor 10. Accountant
All those least list occupations seem to me to be of a better ilk. Maybe that Dutton fellow is right about this. Do what you want with this information, but may it help you be a bit more aware of your surroundings as you go about your day looking over your shoulder in fear that one of those psychs on the first list may be watching you.
Well, according to "The Wisdom of Psychopaths" by Oxford psychologist Kevin Dutton, certain fields are more likely to attract actual psychopaths than others. Those fields with the highest number of psychopaths and my impressions are:
1. CEO (We never see nor hear of those CEO 'Guys", so maybe they are behavior like psychopaths in private) 2. Lawyer (Is there any negative personality trait a lawyer doesn't possess?) 3. Media (television/radio and I hope it includes those who are addicted to watching reality TV) 4. Salesperson( making us wait in the check-out line forever is psychopathic) 5. Surgeon (oh, that's not good) 6. Journalist (When they cover a Kardashian meltdown instead of the nuclear one, I agree) 7. Police officer (No need to comment. Just watch those guys in action) 8. Clergy person (When you don't donate enough to the church collection plate those clergy types turn into Joe Pesci) 9. Chef (take away their knives!) 10. Civil servant (I have yet been served by them because they always seem to be playing with their cell phone apps when I need help.)
And not to be undone in our world of insanity are the sane ones. Here are the occupations with the lowest rates of psychopaths: 1. Care aide 2. Nurse 3. Therapist 4. Craftsperson 5. Beautician/stylist 6. Charity worker 7. Teacher 8. Creative artist 9. Doctor 10. Accountant
All those least list occupations seem to me to be of a better ilk. Maybe that Dutton fellow is right about this. Do what you want with this information, but may it help you be a bit more aware of your surroundings as you go about your day looking over your shoulder in fear that one of those psychs on the first list may be watching you.
Those Old Comedy Records
I like old comedy albums. In the days of more limited
technology,
comics used to release their best bits on LP albums, the height of that
popularity being in the 50's and 60's. And there were other styles of
humor on record too. The records that replayed famous errors made on
live broadcasts were extremely popular in the 50's and 60's. One might
think he or she would tire easily of listening to the same comedy cuts
on a record that was played over and over, but just as in hearing a
music record again and again, listening to good comedy is a pleasure
even when you know what is coming. One begins to admire the skill of
the artists or the weirdness of the comment as the record is played
over and over.
Because I have an old "record player" and I seek out those I sometimes run across old comedy albums at thrift stores. One I recently found is entitled, 'All Time Great Bloopers' (from radio programs in the 30's, 40's, 50's and 60's). "A collection of unintended indiscretions made before microphone and camera" the record introduction says. The bloopers were mistakes made by people who were on those live radio programs as host, announcers, news persons, guests etc. Today we call those things "out-takes", but they are not shocking or as funny given the non limits on what one can say or do publicly in our age of excess. In the old days of live radio one's mistakes went out onto the air immediately as well as to recording tapes. There was no delay on what was said by the radio speaker in such primitive technological times (another reason I prefer the old technology to the pristine new).
I have heard blooper records before but not in some time, so this one made me think again about them. What surprises me about this one is how raw, some sexual innuendoes included, these bloopers were. We tend to think of those earlier days as being more controlled and less risqué, but when speaking accidentally they were not always so. Any profanity ot sexual misstatement said were mistakes that elicited instant embarrassment from the speaker, not gratuitous vulgarity for cheap laughs. That makes them all the more amusing to hear. The blunder was only acceptable and funny to listeners because they were given to the audience only mistakenly. In my view that is what "reality communication" is, not the contrived mess of reality TV shows that dull the brain for viewers today.
Something this record reminds me of is how a culture can be defined by the simplest elements of it, as in a comedy record that illustrates what people were thinking and saying 50 years or more ago. What we laugh at can tell us about what our attitudes and manners are. Most of the entries on this record are innocent ones, and surely that age was far more innocent than what our age is today. Too, one can learn the historic events of the time, even from the silliness of it, as in selections on the record of British Royalty from an event in which the announcer made an embarrassing but funny reference to a forbidden part of Queen's body, or some of the entries on the record that showed how politicians, performers and simple men on the street have thoughts then seen as inappropriately but now routinely expressed and uncensored.
As the record begins, an announcer in opening a National Broadcasting Company (NBC) radio show says, "This is the Nation Broad castrating Company". Another very serious host speaking of a very serious matter begins laughing hysterically and can't stop, even as he reads the obituary notice in hand. A contestant on a quiz program gives what she thinks is the correct answer to the host's question, which is supposed to be "Alexander Dummies". Instead she blurts, "Alexander Dumbness". Another woman guest in a morning show whose content is about bad rumors being unkindly spread or castigated keeps saying the neighbor man "castrates" her husband. A commercial advertisement about cigars breaks down when the speaker starts choking after a drag on the sponsor's product.
When a lady is interviewed on a quiz show and the host finds out she has 7 brothers and 7 sisters, he asks her, "And how many children do you have?" She replies, "One. "Only one", says the host in surprised tone. "Damn! Give me some time, I have only been married one month", she answers. When the laxative sponsor of a mystery hour, 'Phillip's Milk of Magnesia', says, "And now Philip's Milk of Magnesia presents 'Women on the Run', the audience becomes hysterical. When a man on the street reporter attempts to interview a sweet looking lady on the street it breaks down instantly.
"Ma'am may we ask you a few questions,' the interviewer says. "Hell No!, replies the fleeing lady. A football player named Peters injuries his leg during a game broadcast and the announcer says, "Looks like the team will have to play with their peters out." A county fair show host says, "Ladies, today Mr. Robbers will have his nuts on display on aisle nine". At a golf tournament broadcast the announcer presents U.S. Open Champion Arnold Palmer as, "Arnold Palmer, U.S. Opium Champion." "How large is your family", a quiz show hosts asks a lady. "Two boys, three girls, one adult and one adulteress" she says.
There's plenty more on the record but I am ending it here before I start writing like they sound. Enjoy a laugh today, intended or unintended.
Because I have an old "record player" and I seek out those I sometimes run across old comedy albums at thrift stores. One I recently found is entitled, 'All Time Great Bloopers' (from radio programs in the 30's, 40's, 50's and 60's). "A collection of unintended indiscretions made before microphone and camera" the record introduction says. The bloopers were mistakes made by people who were on those live radio programs as host, announcers, news persons, guests etc. Today we call those things "out-takes", but they are not shocking or as funny given the non limits on what one can say or do publicly in our age of excess. In the old days of live radio one's mistakes went out onto the air immediately as well as to recording tapes. There was no delay on what was said by the radio speaker in such primitive technological times (another reason I prefer the old technology to the pristine new).
I have heard blooper records before but not in some time, so this one made me think again about them. What surprises me about this one is how raw, some sexual innuendoes included, these bloopers were. We tend to think of those earlier days as being more controlled and less risqué, but when speaking accidentally they were not always so. Any profanity ot sexual misstatement said were mistakes that elicited instant embarrassment from the speaker, not gratuitous vulgarity for cheap laughs. That makes them all the more amusing to hear. The blunder was only acceptable and funny to listeners because they were given to the audience only mistakenly. In my view that is what "reality communication" is, not the contrived mess of reality TV shows that dull the brain for viewers today.
Something this record reminds me of is how a culture can be defined by the simplest elements of it, as in a comedy record that illustrates what people were thinking and saying 50 years or more ago. What we laugh at can tell us about what our attitudes and manners are. Most of the entries on this record are innocent ones, and surely that age was far more innocent than what our age is today. Too, one can learn the historic events of the time, even from the silliness of it, as in selections on the record of British Royalty from an event in which the announcer made an embarrassing but funny reference to a forbidden part of Queen's body, or some of the entries on the record that showed how politicians, performers and simple men on the street have thoughts then seen as inappropriately but now routinely expressed and uncensored.
As the record begins, an announcer in opening a National Broadcasting Company (NBC) radio show says, "This is the Nation Broad castrating Company". Another very serious host speaking of a very serious matter begins laughing hysterically and can't stop, even as he reads the obituary notice in hand. A contestant on a quiz program gives what she thinks is the correct answer to the host's question, which is supposed to be "Alexander Dummies". Instead she blurts, "Alexander Dumbness". Another woman guest in a morning show whose content is about bad rumors being unkindly spread or castigated keeps saying the neighbor man "castrates" her husband. A commercial advertisement about cigars breaks down when the speaker starts choking after a drag on the sponsor's product.
When a lady is interviewed on a quiz show and the host finds out she has 7 brothers and 7 sisters, he asks her, "And how many children do you have?" She replies, "One. "Only one", says the host in surprised tone. "Damn! Give me some time, I have only been married one month", she answers. When the laxative sponsor of a mystery hour, 'Phillip's Milk of Magnesia', says, "And now Philip's Milk of Magnesia presents 'Women on the Run', the audience becomes hysterical. When a man on the street reporter attempts to interview a sweet looking lady on the street it breaks down instantly.
"Ma'am may we ask you a few questions,' the interviewer says. "Hell No!, replies the fleeing lady. A football player named Peters injuries his leg during a game broadcast and the announcer says, "Looks like the team will have to play with their peters out." A county fair show host says, "Ladies, today Mr. Robbers will have his nuts on display on aisle nine". At a golf tournament broadcast the announcer presents U.S. Open Champion Arnold Palmer as, "Arnold Palmer, U.S. Opium Champion." "How large is your family", a quiz show hosts asks a lady. "Two boys, three girls, one adult and one adulteress" she says.
There's plenty more on the record but I am ending it here before I start writing like they sound. Enjoy a laugh today, intended or unintended.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)