Salad Is Slaughter

I think this is the last “Missy Enformed” that I wrote back in 2004.

EPA: 6 Billion Breathing Nitrogen

The Environmental Protection Agency said Tuesday that all fifty U.S. states are being put on notice that their air contains tons of nitrogen.  State officials will have to develop plans aimed at cutting the amount of nitrogen in the air by 2010 or 2015, depending on the severity of the problem, or face sanctions, including possible loss of highway funds.

“People need oxygen to live,” EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt told reporters, “and the presence of nitrogen in a single breath of air limits the amount of oxygen that a person can take into their lungs.  Removing nitrogen from the atmosphere is the single most important action we can take to make our air healthier.”

The EPA expanded their study to include the rest of the globe, and found that as many as 6,000,000,000 people may be inhaling nitrogen into their lungs with every breath they take.

“The need to address the problem of inert gasses in the air is clear,” Leavitt said.  “Nitrogen makes up 78 percent of the air we breathe, while oxygen is only 21 percent.  Clearly we need to reduce the amount of nitrogen and increase the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere in order to improve people’s health.”

Physicians have been fighting the EPA standards.  “The amount of oxygen in the atmosphere that the EPA proposes would poison everyone on earth,” said Dr. Henric Sedin.  “Oxygen can form free radicals in the body. These oxygen atoms such as in superoxide, hydroxyl, peroxyl, alkoxyl, hydroperoxyl, have one or more unpaired electrons and are highly reactive, often attacking enzymes and substrates.”

“If the EPA’s plan goes forward, there will be an increase in atherosclerosis, diabetes, arthritis, lung damage, cancer, and blindness,” stated Dr. Sedin. 

But environmentalists said the EPA’s findings demonstrate the urgent need to improve air quality.  It “underscores the urgency not only to clean up the atmosphere but to begin getting all inert gasses our of the air we breathe,” said Frank O’Donnell, executive director of Clean Air Trust, an advocacy group.  “Obviously humans need oxygen in order to live, and just as obviously more is better.  I applaud the EPA’s ignoring the scientific community and listening to environmental activists.  Now maybe we can get some things done.”

 Posted by: Missy Enformed on 7/6/2004 7:28:11 AM

This is the last article I wrote as Mike Perative.

DEA Identifies New “Gateway Drug”

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, or DEA announced this week that they have identified a new substance as a “gateway drug.”  “Gateway drugs” is a term for drugs that supposedly lead to abuse of other substances. Marijuana, for instance, was considered by many to be a gateway to harder drugs.

“We used to think that marijuana was a gateway drug for harder drugs like heroin and cocaine,” said DEA spokesman Dr. John Koop.  “Then we realized that even though users of hard drugs did often use pot, marijuana users often use alcohol.  We felt we were on to something.”

“Further analysis showed that people who use alcohol, marijuana, and harder drugs also drank milk as children,” revealed Koop.  “Since hard drug users often drank milk when they were growing up, it became obvious to us that milk was the gateway drug that we had been looking for.  Stop the consumption of milk, and you stop the terrible chain that leads to a life of drug abuse.”

Farmers in Wisconsin were stunned by the news.  “I was shocked, I have to tell you,” said Fred Douglas, a Wisconsin dairy farmer.  “I never knew that we were contributing to the nation’s drug problem.  But when I sat down and really looked at Dr. Koop’s analysis I had to admit that he was on to something.”

“This study is going to have far-reaching implications,” said Arnold Ziffle of Madison Wisconsin.  “Some of the milk can be converted to cheese and ice cream but if we eliminate the sale of milk we’re going to have too many dairy cows.  Most of those are probably going to be sent to abattoirs and turned into hamburger.  Expect the price of beef to fall dramatically.

Attorney General John Ashcroft is expected to recommend that the minimum penalty for possessing milk be 10 years at hard labor.  Transporting milk with the intent to sell is expected to be 25 years to life in prison.

Posted by: Mike Perative on 7/6/2004 7:30:33 AM

Food Protesters Arrested

Dozens of demonstrators at an organic foods conference in Baltimore, Maryland were jailed last week when they insisted that conference attendees would not be allowed to leave until they responded to the protester’s concerns.  Police on horseback forced their way through the crowd and allowed the delegates’ limousines to leave.

“Those organic food fanatics are living in a dream world,” said organizer Jill Teller.  “Organic farming methods don’t produce nearly the quality or, more importantly the quantity of food that conventional farming methods do.  We want the organic farmers to tell us how they intend to feed the world using their techniques.”

We put this question to conference attendee Rainbow Mandella.  “Chemicals are like all icky and stuff,” said Mandella.  “There should be a law that like we don’t allow any chemicals at all on the earth.  I know I just couldn’t eat any food that had any contact with atoms or molecules and stuff.”

“We also object to the organic food industry’s objection to genetically modified food,” said Teller.  “Enhanced crops produce more and healthier food in poor growing conditions than organic schemes ever could.  And, genetically modified crops have to undergo rigorous testing and certification by the FDA and the EPA.  They’re the most widely tested food products in the world, so they’re perfectly safe.  The widespread use of organic farming will doom millions of people in the third world to starvation.  How do they answer that?”

“Eeewweee, frankenfood!  Yuck,” stated Mandella.  “I couldn’t possibly eat something with a name like that.  It makes me think of monster movies and stuff.”

Judge Harold Penn released the protesters with a warning that they shouldn’t have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

 Posted by: Missy Enformed on 6/28/2004 7:13:37 AM

Actor Charged under the Patriot Act

An actor is being prosecuted under the Patriot Act in what legal experts are calling a surprising - and to some, troubling - application of the new anti-terrorism law.  Attorney General John Ashcroft invoked the Patriot Act to assert jurisdiction in the case of Hugh Grant, the actor who starred in such movies as Bridget Jones Diary, Love Actually, Nine Months, and Two Weeks Notice for starring in sappy, un-watchable movies.

Grant’s lawyer David Brovlovski said the Justice Department might be going too far.  “In my view, any time the federal government is expanding its jurisdiction and reach to include conduct that occurs in movies, that is startling,” Brovlovski said.

But in announcing the indictment Thursday, Ashcroft said the government had few alternatives.  “This case would have been more difficult to investigate and prosecute were it not for the Patriot Act,” Ashcroft said. “The act expanded U.S. law enforcement jurisdiction over bad movies.”

Congress hurriedly passed the Patriot Act in the weeks following the 2001 terror attacks, and the measure broadly expanded the government’s wiretapping and surveillance authority. Its primary purpose was to prevent terrorist acts inside the United States.  In this case, it is being invoked not to protect Americans against foreigners, but to protect American men from chick flicks.

“Women watch this junk and think that there really are men like that out there,” said Ashcroft.  “Movies commonly known as chick flicks are brainwashing American women.  They become dissatisfied with their husbands or boyfriends because they don’t look like or behave like Hugh Grant.  And these films make women think that there’s always going to be a happy ending.

“But the real crime is that women make their husbands or boyfriends watch these films.  They have no explosions, car chases, spaceships, or zany humor, ” said Ashcroft.  “Males who are forced to watch these movies report that it’s the longest 90 minutes of their lives.  They would rather die then sit through these things.  It is perfectly reasonable to prosecute people like Hugh Grant who are harming large numbers of American men.”

“This strikes me as sensible,” Ashcroft said. “I don’t find this controversial. Indeed, you can argue that we have a duty to provide meaningful legal remedies to make sure that American males are protected.  Besides, what kind of brain-damaged, emotional cripples can sit through a Hugh Grant movie?”

Posted by: Mike Perative on 6/28/2004 7:15:36 AM

My final Dear Dick column:

What’s With The Net?

Dear Mr. Normus,

I’ve noticed that sports teams, particularly baseball and hockey teams put up a net that separates the fans from the playing field. It really interferes with trying to catch a baseball or a hockey puck that might fly into the stands. What’s the deal?

Carl Fisk
White Plains, New York

Dear Carl,

These are what are known technically as “lawyer nets.” They protect the sports teams from unscrupulous lawyers. Let me give you an example. Suppose a fan is sitting at a hockey game talking on their cell phone, not really paying attention to what is happening on the ice. Now suppose that a puck flies into the stands and hits them on the head. Any reasonable person would know that they are supposed to pay attention to the action and that flying objects are part of the risk that you accept when you buy a ticket.

Enter the greedy lawyer. They will attempt to sue the sports team for millions of dollars because they will claim that the person who was hit didn’t know that objects can fly into the stands even though that fact is announced before every game. The “lawyer nets” are put in place to stop the spread of frivolous lawsuits against the team even though they obstruct the fans’ view and prevents the real fans from catching a souvenir.

Enjoy the game.

Posted by: Richard E. Normus on 7/6/2004 7:24:13