Road Apples by Tim Sanders
May 6, 2013

Chronicling the Decline of Personkind

Share |

For the last couple of weeks, parents across America have been worried that in the near future a good percentage of their daughters will, through no fault of their own, run amok and become prostitutes. It will all be due, research tells us, to global warming.

Okay, so maybe I haven't read all the research, but it is cited (seriously) in U.S. House of Representatives Resolution 36, brought to the House floor by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), and sponsored by the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and backed up by the United Nations Human Development Report for 2013. And if you are as intimidated by acronyms as I am, then you should be shaking in your boots when you face the horrible truth that USHR-36, sponsored by the CEC and researched by the UNHDR, sees TS in your daughter's future. TS, by the way (BTW), stands for the new, politically correct euphemism for prostitution, “transactional sex.” And this House bill also states that women are more vulnerable to climate change and its adverse effects than are men.

I was curious as to why women were more affected by global warming, so I did my own research. I spent several valuable seconds looking up statistics about women in the prime prostitution age range (20-40), and found that while most men in that age group have only 8 to 19 percent body fat, most women in the same group are waddling around with 21 to 33 percent body fat. I did some more research, and learned some frightening facts:


1. Lard reaches its “smoking point” at 370 degrees Fahrenheit.

2. Smoking will kill you.

3. In a few years, when global warming raises the earth's average temperature to 370 degrees, somewhere between 21 and 33 percent of women in the prime prostitution age range will start to smoke. Only 8 to 19 percent of men in that same age range will take it up.

4. So, as we all know, one thing leads to another, and smoking leads to loss of brain cells, which leads to other bad habits, which naturally lead to “transactional sex.”

5. Men find the smell of burning lard very appealing. So prostitutes who smell like bacon will do a brisk business.


That's my scientific theory, anyway. Whatever the case, I think the “global warming made me do it” defense will soon be heard in courtrooms throughout the land. “No, your honor, It wasn't with malice aforethought, and I wasn't insane. I was just hot.”

All of which brings us to another really scary trend sweeping the country like a cleaning woman–sorry, make that cleaning person–on steroids. That trend is gender-neutral language. Several examples of gender-neutrality in our legislatures have cropped up across the country. The most recent, I guess, is in Washington state.

According to an April 22 AP article on Seattle's Komonews.com site, “Gov. Jay Inslee on Monday signed off on the final installment of a six-year effort to make language in the state's copious laws gender-neutral.”

Lots of people in Washington state are very sensitive when it comes to gender of any kind, and as far back as 1983 a law was passed to eliminate words like “clergymen,” “night watchmen,” “firemen,” and “policemen” from any state laws. But that wasn't enough for Jeannie Kohl-Welles (D), the new bill's sponsor, who wants to eliminate other words, like “penmanship,” “freshmen.” and “ombudsman” from all of the state's new laws, and replace them with more gender-neutral and very politically correct versions. You know, words like “penpersonship,” “freshpeople,” and “ombudsperson.” I imagine that future transcripts from court proceedings from Maine to California will soon sound like this:


JUDGE: Can you manage to stop rattling your manacles and speak a little more loudly?


DEFENSE LAWYER: Could you please put that in more gender-neutral terms, your honor?


JUDGE: Oh, all right then. Ask if your client can stop rattling his personacles and ... uh, where was I?


COURT CLERK: “Speak a little more loudly,” your honor.


JUDGE: WHERE WAS I?


COURT CLERK: No, you wanted HIM to speak up.


JUDGE: Oh. Then tell the gentleman ... er, gentleperson, to proceed. And by all means advise him to keep his language gender-neutral.


DEFENDANT: Like I was saying, your honor, sir–I mean your honor, Mr. Person–when I left the men's room in the store–sorry, person's room–I seen the, uh, policeperson across the street, and he was ticketing my windshield and, uh, personhandling my wiper very rough. I was already upset because the store manag–personager had asked me to come in early and rearrange the manikins' ... uh, womanikins'... or personikins' heads, and with all that distraction I didn't see the woman–make that woperson–walking past that open man–er–personhole, and I accidentally bumped into her–the person who wasn't a you-know-what–and in she–uh, it went. Then the fire individual showed up and that's all I remember. And that person of the opposite sex should have seen me coming and moved, so it wasn't really man ... er, woman ... er personslaughter. After all, I'm only human, your honor ... I mean part of the family of hupeople ... uh ... oh crap, let's just say global warming made me do it!


JUDGE: Case dismissed.


So beware. That's what we've got to look forward to.