 |
||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||||
|
||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
I'm not sure you've noticed. For instance, there are people for whom there is no housing. How could this be ? What should we do ?
To some, the obvious solution would be to give those people some housing, as minimal as can be found, paid for by the rest of the people. To others, that's a very stupid, shortsighted solution, and instead cheap suits should be handed out to the homeless, and lavatories be made available, so they may wash up and land a job. And on it goes, in a crescendo of harebrainedness, homelessness sensitivity classes for kindergarteners, so that when they grow up and open their successfull businesses 20 years from now, as they are wont to do, being as they are, real people, they will treat the homeless, or as the case may be the children of the current homeless, who, obviously, are not real people but moreover homeless people, with the kindness the circumstance requires. You know, from the homefull to the homeless. The pinnacle of absurdity is, of course, found at the state and federal level. The governing bureaucracy has an even better plan. To solve the issue of people without homes, they will rename them. Why call people without a home homeless ? It makes it so plain obvious that they don't have a home, and then the public, inclined as it is to hasty conclusions, might even come to the blatantly ludicrously absurdly true conclusion that, hey, if the government taxes us under the guise of solving social problems and then fails to solve them, it's a bankrupt endeavour we should stop financing. And that would be bad. Real bad. It would be so bad, in fact, that it may well end up having the illogical, paradoxical and absolutely unwelcome effect of rendering tens of tousands of uppity Washington DC-nians homeless themselves, and as a result of all the collapse in very important and perfectly useless government regulations, the current homeless may even find themselves all of a sudden in the position to afford basic housing. So then, renaming them. Transients. That's a good one. You see, they don't have a home right there, but then again, if you were just visiting, you wouldn't either. I mean, you'd be staying in a hotel, or with friends, but. You wouldn't have a home, would you ? So then, homelessness in transients is such a natural thing. Why should these stinky people that aren't allowed in public lavatories think they should get some sort of special treatment ? Just because they don't have a home when travelling ? But neither do you. And besides, you're allowed in public lavatories. This fully illustrates the renaming policy. Is there a problem ? Find it a new name. So what if people will think you're idiots ? First of all, they already do. Second of all, you actually are. Third of all, you just work there. Fourth of all That's the beauty of it. Everyone in the office went to the same shitty community college social studies crud. There's actually an inter-office pool of sophomore level pseudo philosophical quasi arguments neatly typed at one and a half lines. There's a ready stock of non sequitur, equivocation and misrepresentation neatly filed away in all those large cabinets. They just/copy paste from their C graded reports. Now, this wouldn't be so much of a problem, after all everybody is entitled to run their country as they please. North Koreans believe Lil Kim Dong cures AIDS by vaginal digitation (only works on females). The Chinese are well aware of the dangers of the Internet. The United Stadians prefer to pay kids that didn't have the brains needed for studying an actual subject to rename problems for them. Thus, there's no homeless problem in the US. Not anymore. There used to be, and pretty badly, about 10% of the population struggling with the realities of no intermediary between sky and head. But not anymore. Thanks to the unrelenting efforts of Zippy the Zit, Debbie Huh ? and Droolpy McNorrhea, along with the entire collective of the Department of Misnomers Pertaining to Social Issues, the problem has been resolved. That's all fine and dandy, except for the little bit of friction that arises when the United Stadians come into contact with actual Earth dwelling people. For instance, when representatives Robert Ney (R - Ohio) and Walter B. Jones (R - North Carolina) proposed that Congress order White House cafeterias to change the name of french fries to freedom fries (something the Congress voted for), Nathalie Loisau, a spokeswoman for the French embassy mentioned in passing that "we are at a very serious moment dealing with very serious issues, and we are not focusing on the name you give to potatoes." Apparently, the French actually don't care. In fact, having found something so trivial as to not interest the French is in itself a grand accomplishment, seeing how the current preocupation of the Sorbonne Humanists range between the semantic implications of tie patterns and the political risks of unassorted socks. Then there's that little mishap of the unspecified objects that got renamed Weapons of Mass Destruction, and the yet unrevealed irrelevant bits of information that got renamed Definitive and Indubitable Proof as to the Existance and Imminent Use of Weapons of Mass Destruction. To continue the trend, the unreasonable stretching of the word "terrorist" to encompass, well, all humanity. If someone farts at the Thanksgiving dinner he's a Thanksgiving Terrorist. If the fart happened at the office the proper term would have been "Odorous Terrorist" instead. Anything and everything, from sending flour through the mail to wearing the wrong style of toupee is TERRORISM. With a capital fuckin T. This alleviates a lot of problems. For instance, petty thieves being now called petty terrorists, a full 100% drop in petty theft has been measured for the previous fiscal year. Certainly, some eternally dissatisfied voices of the opposing party claim an increase of 9,733,565,126,445,000% in petty terrorism can also be observed, but these claims are obvious politicking. First of all, there is no agreed upon criteria to even begin to measure petty terrorism, something our governmental experts will be glad to establish, within a year or so worth of catered events. Also that old hag of a Geneva Convention seems completely mystified and confused by the renaming of enemy soldiers to "unlawful combatants". However, the unlawful combatant, much like the unlawful embezzler, is very easy to spot : he's not white, he's not rich and you don't know him from the Skull and Bones, back in the day. All this dicking around as a state policy is not all bad however. There is reasonable expectation that as soon as all other alternatives have been exhausted (and no sooner), officials will start pretending like they know the fuck they're doing. Hopefully that will happen before this millenium's goths/huns (alien rapists&pillagers) show up. 22157 people care. |