So, just for fun, I wrote the following satire news story and submitted it to www.demockeracy.com for their weekly contest. I'm guessing my humor is maybe too "local" but I enjoyed myself...that's what counts, right?
The Good News About Global Warming
Dire predictions of apocalyptic heat, wide-spread drought, and other assorted bad stuff have propelled governments and commoners to clamor for global warming initiatives; aimed at reducing the human contribution to this terrifying climate change.
However, some scrappy Oregonians are eager to embrace the benefits.
Blane Blank, rookie meteorologist for News Channel 8 in Western Oregon, crosses his fingers for the predicted strong storms and potential devastation. "I mean, around here, you know…it's kinda dull. Oh sure, we get the occasional little windstorm or a local stream floods some guy's condo. Last winter we had a dusting of sleet. Wah hoo."
Blank is excited about the possible increase in extreme weather. "I can't help it. I ache to report on massive storms and destruction. I'm so freakin' bored right now and if I have to forecast another 'sunbreak' I'm going to…" At this point, Blank's producer beckoned him away for studio business.
Jen Mercer runs the local "Surf & Dive" shop in the small dilapidated town of Sesquoinicakotohmehoho, on the Oregon Coast. Mercer's hair whacked around and her eyes squinted against a rush of chilly drizzle as she discussed her perspectives. "Yeah, this sucks. I mean, it's just like this pretty much all the time. Oh, did you feel the water? It's numbingly cold. Some fools come here to surf and dive but they have to rent dry suits…not wet suits…dry suits. Otherwise, they'll die. Do I hope for global warming? Lord, yes."
Mercer said the Oregon Coast tourism industry would thrive in a warmer climate by a temperate ocean; as she cinched down the hood grommet on her high-tech rain gear. "Yeah, warmth seems to work for San Diego, Hawaii, and Jamaica. Imagine actually enjoying the coast without the plague of hypothermia. Global Warming? Bring it on!"
Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski admits, "Nobody talks about it, but warmer weather has its perks. Besides, the media is blowing the whole thing out of proportion anyway. What, we're looking at a one degree change per year?" He grins, "That's just more golf days."
Friday, February 02, 2007
Thursday, February 01, 2007
On Birthin' and Workin'...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070201/ap_on_bi_ge/workplace_families_3
So, Harvard and McGill University researchers came out with a study that suggested the US is behind on the mandatory provision of family benefits to workers.
Apparently, many more enlightened and progressive countries force employers to offer a plethora of benefits, including paid maternity and paternity leave, thus relegating the US to the Uncaring Bastards Category yet again.
The thing is, I’m a family woman myself. I produced a grade schooler (scholar…schooler….hmmm….whatever), acquired a husband, and adopted a cat. (not necessarily in that order). I, and they, experience sickness and medical appointments and I’m sure at some point we’ll undergo a death in the family. So I’m not entirely unsympathetic to family issues and, of course, would benefit from pro-family workplace policies.
The thing is, though, it is my choice to have those responsibilities. My employers—past, present and future—had nothing to do with my reproduction. Why would I have the expectation that they’d pay me for 6 weeks whilst I’m off birthin’ babies? How can anyone justify legislating such a benefit?
I’ve heard the argument that these sorts of policies encourage healthier children and stronger families, thus improving society in general and benefiting everyone—in the end. Maybe, but where does that leave those who opt out of breeding?
Let’s say I go off for 6 weeks of paid maternity leave. During that time (while I’m romping with my newborn, reading books, watching Oprah and doing nothing to contribute to my workplace) my co-workers are covering for me and also doing their normal work activities. One could say, well it all evens out because you’ll cover for them when it’s “their time,” but many people will not go off and have a baby, or will have 1 when others have 2, 3, 4 babies… Or had their babies decades ago when nobody got maternity leave. Or are male and would never burden their company by staying home and getting paid for 6 weeks…
I’m just sayin’.
Maybe the only real answer is to give each employee 6 weeks of paid discretionary time-off per year. That way, they can use it for breeding, gardening, funerals, trips to Belize, naps, the flu, trying out for American Idol…whatever. Otherwise, rewarding childbirth and overburdening other workers just rubs me the wrong way…
Am I wrong?
So, Harvard and McGill University researchers came out with a study that suggested the US is behind on the mandatory provision of family benefits to workers.
Apparently, many more enlightened and progressive countries force employers to offer a plethora of benefits, including paid maternity and paternity leave, thus relegating the US to the Uncaring Bastards Category yet again.
The thing is, I’m a family woman myself. I produced a grade schooler (scholar…schooler….hmmm….whatever), acquired a husband, and adopted a cat. (not necessarily in that order). I, and they, experience sickness and medical appointments and I’m sure at some point we’ll undergo a death in the family. So I’m not entirely unsympathetic to family issues and, of course, would benefit from pro-family workplace policies.
The thing is, though, it is my choice to have those responsibilities. My employers—past, present and future—had nothing to do with my reproduction. Why would I have the expectation that they’d pay me for 6 weeks whilst I’m off birthin’ babies? How can anyone justify legislating such a benefit?
I’ve heard the argument that these sorts of policies encourage healthier children and stronger families, thus improving society in general and benefiting everyone—in the end. Maybe, but where does that leave those who opt out of breeding?
Let’s say I go off for 6 weeks of paid maternity leave. During that time (while I’m romping with my newborn, reading books, watching Oprah and doing nothing to contribute to my workplace) my co-workers are covering for me and also doing their normal work activities. One could say, well it all evens out because you’ll cover for them when it’s “their time,” but many people will not go off and have a baby, or will have 1 when others have 2, 3, 4 babies… Or had their babies decades ago when nobody got maternity leave. Or are male and would never burden their company by staying home and getting paid for 6 weeks…
I’m just sayin’.
Maybe the only real answer is to give each employee 6 weeks of paid discretionary time-off per year. That way, they can use it for breeding, gardening, funerals, trips to Belize, naps, the flu, trying out for American Idol…whatever. Otherwise, rewarding childbirth and overburdening other workers just rubs me the wrong way…
Am I wrong?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)