The Dave Barry Thread

[twoheadedragon]

This is the new, official Dave Barry thread, where you can post comedic articles from the semi-legendary figure himself! Have fun!

[twoheadedragon]

High-tech Twinkie war will be no picnic
By Dave Barry, Miami Herald
I'll tell you when I start to worry. I start to worry when "officials" tell me not to worry. This is why I am very concerned about the following Associated Press report, which was sent to me by a number of alert readers:
"RICHLAND, WASH. -- Radioactive ants, flies and gnats have been found at the Hanford nuclear complex, bringing to mind those Cold-War-era 'B' horror movies in which giant mutant insects are the awful price paid for Mankind's entry into the Atomic Age.
"Officials at the nation's most contaminated nuclear site insist there is no danger of Hanford becoming the setting for a '90s version of Them!, the 1954 movie starring James Arness and James Whitmore in which huge, marauding ants are spawned by nuclear experiments in the desert."
Should we trust these "officials?" I'll let you decide for yourself what the answer is (NO). But consider:
For years, "officials" insisted that our cars needed air bags for safety; then, when we GOT air bags, "officials" started warning us how dangerous they are, the result being that many concerned parents now strap their children to the car roof.
Every year, "officials" tell us to turn all our clocks ahead one hour, only to turn around a few months later and tell us to turn them BACK. Make up your minds, "officials!"
My point is that we cannot trust "officials" any farther than we can throw them by the leg. This is especially true when it comes to the Hanford nuclear complex. When this complex was built, "officials" said it was safe; now the whole area glows like a Budweiser sign. So when "officials" tell us that the radioactive Hanford insects are NOT going to mutate into giant monsters like the ants depicted in the 1954 movie Them!, it clearly is time to study this movie and see what happened, because it is about to happen again.
I did not see Them!, but I do have a plot summary from a book called Guide for the Film Fanatic. It states that after James Whitmore and James Arness discover the giant mutant ants marauding around the New Mexico desert, they kill most of them by burning their nest; however, some ants escape, and the heroes "trace them to Los Angeles." The book doesn't say why the heroes would have to "trace" the ants; you'd think that if marauding insects the size of houses showed up in a heavily populated area, it would be mentioned prominently in the news media, but Guide for the Film Fanatic makes it sound as though Arness and Whitmore had to track the ants down via detective techniques:
JAMES ARNESS (showing a photograph to a storekeeper): Have you seen this ant? It's 23 feet tall.
STOREKEEPER (frowning at the photograph): We did have a 40-foot praying mantis in here last week, but I don't recall any ants.
But the point is this: If, as now seems likely, the radioactive insects at the Hanford complex mutate and start marauding, they will almost certainly head for Los Angeles. This is a terrifying prospect, and why we need to do take action NOW. Instead of frittering away billions on this Star Wars missile-defense system, we need to use that money to construct, in the desert outside of Los Angeles, a 100-foot-high, 500-foot-long, fully functional Hostess Twinkie. The giant insects would be attracted to the Twinkie, and while they were munching on it, an earth-orbiting manned space station would launch a rocket-propelled, laser-guided, nine-story-high, 18,000-pound man's shoe, which would, by the time it reached the Twinkie, be traveling at over 6,000 miles per hour, resulting in a Stomp of Doom that would hurl globs of cream filling as far as St. Louis.
Of course building a weapons system this size would not be easy. There would be political considerations: Powerful members of Congress would insist on having giant Twinkies built in their states, too. But that is a small price to pay for national security.

[Glance A'Lot]

Read Michael Chrichton's 'The Andromeda Strain' - a piece of hard science fiction, possible since 50 years, to worry about other very possible and dangerous issues than nuclear ones - the 'Government' issue is there also, though...

[twoheadedragon]

In a battle of wits with kitchen appliances, I'm toast
By Dave Barry, Miami Herald
Recently The Washington Post printed an article explaining how the appliance manufacturers plan to drive consumers insane.
Of course they don't say they want to drive us insane. What they say they want to do is have us live in homes where "all appliances are on the Internet, sharing information" and appliances will be "smarter than most of their owners." For example, the article states, you would have a home where the dishwasher "can be turned on from the office" and the refrigerator "knows when it's out of milk."
I frankly wonder whether the appliance manufacturers, with all due respect, have been smoking crack. I mean, did they ever stop to ask themselves why a consumer, after load­ing a dishwasher, would go to the office to start it? Would there be some kind of career benefit?
Your Boss: What are you doing?
You (tapping computer keyboard): I'm starting my dishwasher!
Your Boss: That's the kind of productivity we need around here!
You: Now I'm flushing the upstairs toilet!
Listen, appliance manufacturers: We don't need a dishwasher that we can communi­cate with from afar. If you want to improve our dishwashers, give us one that senses when people leave dirty dishes on the kitchen counter, and shouts at them: "Put those dishes in the dishwasher right now or I'll leak all over your shoes!"
Likewise, we don't need a refrigerator that knows when it's out of milk. We already have a foolproof system for determining if we're out of milk: We ask our wife. What we could use is a refrigerator that refuses to let us open its door when it senses that we are about to consume our fourth snack in two hours.
But here is what really concerns me about these new "smart" appliances: Even if we like the features, we won't be able to use them. We can't use the appliance features we have now. I have a feature-packed telephone with 43 buttons, at least 20 of which I am afraid to touch. This phone probably can communicate with the dead, but I don't know how to operate it, just as I don't know how to operate my TV, which has features out the wazooty and requires THREE remote controls. One control (44 buttons) came with the TV; a second (39 buttons) came with the VCR; the third (37 buttons) was brought here by the cable-TV man, who apparently felt that I did not have enough buttons.
So when I want to watch TV, I'm confronted with a total of 120 buttons, identified by such helpful labels as PIP, MTS, DBS, F2, JUMP and BLANK. There are three buttons labeled POWER, but there are times--especially if my son and his friends, who are not afraid of features, have changed the settings--when I honestly cannot figure out how to turn the TV on. I stand there, holding three remote controls, pressing buttons at random, until eventually I give up and go turn on the dishwasher. It has been, literally, years since I have successfully recorded a TV show. That is how "smart" my appliances have become.
And now the appliance manufacturers want to give us even more features. Do you know what this means? It means that some night you'll open the door of your "smart" refrigerator, looking for a beer, and you'll hear a pleasant, cheerful voice--recorded by the same woman who informs you that Your Call Is Important when you call a business that does not wish to speak with you personally--telling you: "Your celery is limp." You will not know how your refrigerator knows this, and, what is worse, you will not know who else your refrigerator is telling about it ("Hey Bob! I hear your celery is limp!"). And if you want to try to make the refrigerator stop, you'll have to decipher Owner's Manual instructions written by and for nuclear physicists ("To disable the Produce Crispness Monitoring feature, enter the Command Mode, then select the Edit function, then select Change Vegetable Defaults, then assume that Train A leaves Chicago traveling westbound at 47 miles per hour, while Train B…").
Is this the kind of future you want, consumers? Do you want appliances that are smarter than you? Of course not. Your appliances should be dumber than you, just like your furniture, your pets and your representatives in Congress. So I am urging you to let the appliance industry know, by phone, letter, fax and e-mail, that when it comes to "smart" appliances, you vote NO. You need to act quickly. Because while you're reading this, your microwave oven is voting YES.

[twoheadedragon]

Genes cleaned and starched, while you wait
By Dave Barry, Miami Herald
Recently, an organization called “The Human Genome Project” announced that it had deciphered the human genetic code. Scientists reacted with joy.
Cracking the genetic code was a big deal for the scientific community. But what does it mean to you, the nonscientist who still secretly believes that radio works by magic? To answer that question, we need to review basic biology.
I studied biology under Mrs. Wright at Pleasantville (N.Y.) High School in 1963. It was an intensive course, including a laboratory segment in which each student was issued a jar containing a dead worm, a dead frog, a dead grasshopper and a dead perch. From these specimens we learned a key scientific principle that unites all living creatures: If you put them in a jar, they die. We also learned that if you cut them open, you found that all of them (except the worm) contained internal organs, without which certain pranks would not have been possible.
But the question is: What makes these creatures different? When frogs reproduce, how come they produce another frog, instead of, say, a perch?
We do not yet have the answers to these questions, but we know that the key lies in the science of genetics. According to Mrs. Wright, genetics was discovered in the 19th Century by an Austrian monk named Mendel, who spent many years in his garden observing the reproduction of pea plants (in those days there was no TV). Mendel noticed that the baby pea plants would often inherit certain characteristics of the mommy and daddy pea plants, such as height, eye color and personality. Mendel found that, by mating a certain pea plant with a certain other pea plant, he could cause a third pea plant to go into a violent jealous rage, resulting in injuries to vegetables as far away as the zucchini section.
What can we learn from these experiments? I have no idea, and Mendel refuses to return my phone calls. What we do know is that scientists eventually discovered that every living organism contains genes, which are tiny things that scientists call “the blueprints of life” because they are found inside tiny filing cabinets in tiny architect’s offices. Inside these genes are molecules made out of a substance called “DNA.” From the start, scientists suspected that “DNA” was actually an acronym that stood for longer words, but they couldn’t figure out what, because it was in some kind of genetic code.
And that is where the “Human Genome Project” came into the picture. For decades, researchers with a powerful magnifying glass and a background in crossword puzzles worked on decoding a DNA molecule. It was not easy. There were many disappointments, such as the time, after six years of intensive work, when they discovered that the molecule was in fact a nose hair.
But finally they finished their historic task and were able to announce to the world the message contained in the human genetic code (it begins: “To Whom It May Concern”). And although much work remains to be done, we have--in the stirring words of Al Gore, who revealed that he did most of the work-”found the combination to the padlock of understanding on the gym locker of human life.”
But what does this mean, in practical terms? It means that some day, doctors will be able to isolate, and then yank out with tiny scientific tweezers, the genes that cause certain humans to have certain genetic defects that until now have been incurable, such as putting a huge pile of groceries on the supermarket checkout counter, then informing the people behind you that you have to go back and get “just a few more things.”
Yes, we are heading toward a day when, thanks to genetics, the entire human race will be completely free of defects--a day when everybody, and not just the fortunate few, will be a professional humor columnist.

[twoheadedragon]

Road to romantic ruin is paved with practical gifts
By Dave Barry, Miami Herald
The other day my son and I were talking, and the subject of women came up, and I realized that it was time he and I had a Serious Talk. It's a talk every father should have with his son; and yet, far too often, we fathers avoid the subject, because it's so awkward.
The subject I am referring to is: buying gifts for women.
This is an area where many men do not have a clue. Exhibit A was my father, who was a very thoughtful man, but who once gave my mother, on their anniversary, the following token of his love, his commitment, and--yes--his passion for her: an electric blanket. He honestly could not understand why, when she opened the box, she gave him that look (you veteran men know the look I mean). After all, this was the deluxe model electric blanket! With an automatic thermostat! What more could any woman WANT?
Another example: I once worked with a guy named George who, for Christmas, gave his wife--and I am not making this gift up--a chain saw. (As he later explained: "Hey, we NEEDED a chain saw.") Fortunately, the saw was not operational when his wife unwrapped it.
The mistake that George and my dad made, and that many guys make, was thinking that when you choose a gift for a woman, it should do something useful. Wrong! The first rule of buying gifts for women is: The gift should not do anything, or, if it does, it should do it badly.
For example, let's consider two possible gifts, both of which, theoretically, perform the same function:
GIFT ONE: A state-of-the-art gasoline-powered lantern, with electronic ignition and dual mantles capable of generating 1,200 lumens of light for 10 hours on a single tank of fuel.
GIFT TWO: A scented beeswax candle, containing visible particles of bee poop and providing roughly the same illumination as a lukewarm corn dog.
Now to a guy, Gift One is clearly superior, because you could use it to see in the dark. Whereas to a woman, Gift Two is MUCH better, because women love to sit around in the gloom with reeking, sputtering candles, and don't ask ME why.
The second rule of buying gifts for women is: You Are Never Finished. This is the scary part, the part that my son and his friends are just discovering. If you have a girlfriend, she will give you, at MINIMUM, a birthday gift, an anniversary gift, a Christmas/ Chanukah/ Kwanzaa gift, and a Valentine's Day gift, and every one of these gifts will be nicely wrapped AND accompanied by a thoughtful card. When she gives you this gift, YOU HAVE TO GIVE HER ONE BACK. You can't just open your wallet and say, "Here's, let's see … 17 dollars!" You can't win.
Some day, when my son is older and stronger, we'll tackle an even more difficult issue, namely, what to do when a woman asks: "Do these pants make me look fat?" (Answer: Flee the country.)