BY IAN SHOALES

Our columnist ponders over-the-counter pain medications, shoes on wires,
the proliferation of Tupacs and ethics violations.

i once spent the better part of a day trying to understand the Martinizing and Simonizing processes. Right around dinnertime, however, I lost interest and forgot everything I'd learned. Today, I still know that one relates to dry cleaning and the other to car waxing, but as to which is which I can no longer say. What's the point? Well, combine a brief attention span with an obsessive personality, and what do you get? You get, well, me. But apparently I'm not alone. I was in Walgreen's the other day, hoping to get enough information to weigh in on one side or the other regarding the ongoing Tylenol vs. Advil controversy. As I was peering closely at various generic medicines, losing major increments of interest with each passing nanosecond, I heard a noise behind me. I turned to see a middle-aged Chinese man chuckling at a battery display. As I watched, he picked up a package of Duracells — they appeared to be AAs — and began peering closely at the label. I really don't know what was behind this bland spectacle. I'd never seen anybody chuckle at batteries before. Maybe he was having fond memories of some bunny commercial and just plain forgot the difference between Duracell and Energizer. Again, I am not here to mock this stranger. After all, who am I to mock? I don't know the differences between various pain relievers, hair products, foot care systems and long distance services. I suspect, as well, that under the labels, all batteries are the same. I don't necessarily find my confusion amusing, but on the other hand, if I were to be discovered having a good laugh over a cereal box disclaimer, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. There are many mysteries in my life which have not yet induced insomnia (knock on wood). For instance ... Where did these Tupacs (Amaru, Shakur) come from? Why do they all have guns? Does Deepak Chopra have anything to do with this? Should he be stopped? I've noticed that some radio stations have replaced the word "point" with "dot." That is, what once was, "ninety eight point seven on your radio dial," is now "Ninety eight dot seven on your radio dial." Are they trying to make people think a radio station is a Web site? Why? Why did it take cannibalistic hair-eating Cabbage Patch Dolls to alert the public to the insidious nature of these horrible little creatures? When will we take the coins from our eyes? Cabbage Patch Dolls are evil! I've been shouting this from the rooftops for years (when it occurs to me to do so, of course). Ebonics, e coli, ebola, e-mail — connection? Hmm? And speaking of foot-care systems and rooftops, have you noticed a sudden proliferation of sneakers dangling from telephone wires? Every other street has at least one pair of shoes wafting gently in the urban breeze. I've been told that this phenomenon is gang-related. But why? If one is going to mark one's territory, what's wrong with urinating on a public corner? Maybe Crips and Bloods just enjoy standing under the footwear and chuckling. A minor puzzlement: How did 555 come to be the prefix of choice for fictitious phone numbers in movies and television shows? I can see why it's not 666, that being the "mark of the beast" and all, but why not 999, 444 or even 111? Did some R&D team come up with this? Was there market research? If tax dollars were involved, frankly, I think there ought to be some accountability. Well, all right, as long as it's a new paragraph and everything, let's segue gracefully into the murky waters of accountability itself. I'm no fan of Newt Gingrich (what an asshole!), but I haven't quite figured out what his ethical lapse is yet. Can anybody help on this? Near as I can figure, he took some money from one tax-free account and put it into another tax-free account, one with an ideology. Big woo. There was a certain amount of glee to be had listening to conservatives on talk radio. Here their guy was, caught red-handed transfering cookies from one jar into another, and all they could do was fume about how many cookie jars Clinton has in his closet. Of course now the scandal has escalated. After promising not to "spin" the ethics charges into something more favorable to himself, Gingrich and his fellows — according to some police-scanner-monitoring snoopers in Florida, who stumbled upon one of their cell phone conference calls — discussed how to spin the ethics charges into something more favorable to himself. The snoopers sent a tape of the conversation to the Democrats, unleashing new controversies. The Democrats accused Gingrich and company of further unethical behavior. Republicans accused Democrats of illegal wiretapping. And the beat goes on. Bottom line? People who have teleconferences on cell phones deserve every bad thing that happens to them. Another bottom line: People who use police scanners for personal amusement deserve anything that happens to them. I say scandal schmandal. Republicans, Democrats? They're all the same battery. Let's just chuckle at the display, throw our shoes in the air and get with our lives. NOTE: A few columns back I used the phrase "behind the Beltway." I have been informed that the proper phrase is "inside the Beltway. Why won't you people leave me alone? I mean, "Thanks for the feedback!" Mr. Shoales regrets the error.

---

Last 5 columns:46 | 45 | 43 | 41 | 39 | Ill Humor archive
Bookmark: http://www.salon1999.com/weekly/shoales.html