It's getting hot in here!

Are you now thinking "So take off all your clothes"? If not, we may have some time to rest and regroup within written language, while the spoken word consumes itself around us. Is it just me or is it now impossible to use the phrase "It's getting hot in here" to mean what the words are meant to mean when they are placed in that order?

Recently, I was imprisoned in the blast furnace of an iron rod factory with some Chinese peasants by a diabolical robot programmed to behave like a cross between Gengis Khan and Jerry Springer. As I was explaining to the peasants which pieces to extract from the bag of waving-Mao watches that Mei Wei was carrying so that I could assemble a tiny karate-chopping automaton to smash through the wall of the furnace, I decided to motivate these watch dessemblers by observing -- and rightfully so -- "It's getting hot in here."

Chang Yi looks up at me sheepishly and says "So take off all your clothes." He knew it wasn't the time or place for such a joke, indeed he even knew that it wasn't a particularily original or entertaining joke at the best of times, and yet he felt compelled to go through with it. I still needed forty more 5mm springs, 6 gears and a dozen sprockets to complete my 50-armed, chopping mini-mao automaton and yet here is Fung Yu-lan exposing his -- admittedly flawless -- abdominal area. I glared at him and turned back to Chang Yi who was unsure of how to soften the leather wriststraps. Becoming frustrated I raised my voice:
"Shake it! Shake it!"
The idiot cupped the first strap in his fist and started shaking it quite vigorously. Wanting to signify that he ought to hold the end of the watch between his thumb and the tips of his index and middle finger -- I cried out in exasperation "Shake it, shake it like a polaroid picture!" The next thing I know Fung Yu-lan's -- admittedly flawless -- derriere is bouncing up and down like a paint mixer. From there on out I had to give all my instructions in Mandarin. Thank Poseidon all the Chinese pop stars have Cantonese catch phrases -- or I might not be here now sipping 57 year-old cognac as I write this post. But this is no time for me to grow misty-eyed about the tragic beauty of a particularly fine vintage. I must refrain from further mention of fine spirits in this post.

It was bad enough to be forced to suffer through all the office-place chaffe saying "Is that your final answer?" a few years ago -- and, in the case of those most need of seperation from the wheat, to this day -- as though it were a meaningful phrase, occupying some worthwhile position in conversation. But things have reached a new low. "Is that your final answer?" was a catch-phrase invented by some diabolical hollywood execu-bot (who incidentally was also a cross between Gengis Khan and Jerry Springer). It was not a common, practical phrase. It certainly was a burden on our ears and minds, but it did not come into life by vampirizing a genuinely useful sentence. That sentence has actually lost its original meaning, it is now nothing but a prompt for a frustratingly over-used joke. We are marching towards some sort of bizarre twist on the Tower of Babel, where we all speak the same language but are still unable to communicate because our sentences only refer to instances of the same sentence in the media. If it weren't for the Hennessy V.V.V.S.O.P. in my hand, these might not be tears of joy I was crying. Oops, I did it again. Yes, I recognize the irony of my last sentence -- I'm not that innocent.

Satan and Vice-Satan forget their masks

Did you watch the debates? Probably. A lot of Canadians did. Since we're unable to vote, we watch with the same impotent, mesmerized horror with which a bound man watches his family being beaten and executed.

But John Kerry "won!"

If he goes on to actually win it will be considered the turning point in the election. His performance will perhaps cause the apocalypse to be delayed, 4, 8 or 12 years. Don't get me wrong, I'm overjoyed by this possibility. My eyes well up with tears of joy when I imagine the children of this world living out another 4, 8 or 12 years of blissful innocence before everything is destroyed. How did this happen? What did he do right? If we are blessed with these 4, 8 or 12 years of false hope and naive happiness before we are destroyed, it will be for one simple reason; somebody forgot to remind W not to make monkey faces while Kerry was talking. That's it. That's the whole difference.

I also watched the vice-God debate and I'll tell you what I noticed. Cheney won quite convincingly. From my biased (but objectively accurate) position, Cheney was at a huge disadvantaged. Being able to see into people's souls, I can see the heart of darkness that beats in his empty, decaying core, I can see his cold, black brain and his scaley lying tongue. I wouldn't believe the first word out of his mouth. I wouldn't believe him if I heard him say "I'm speaking now." Nonetheless, I felt he argued Edwards to a standstill. He had better command of the issues, he had more facts at his fingertips, he presented his arguments more clearly, he struck decisive blows to the Kerry campaign again and again.

But what did the media decide? The media decided that they tied. The analysis of the American media was; "although Edwards seemed over-eager and kind of bumbling, he sure is cute." Edwards managed to tie Cheney because his attractiveness balanced out Cheney's poise and 'grandfathery comfortingness.' The American media has been reporting on the 'campaigns' like a sporting event, talking about polls and 'get-out-the-vote' efforts without ever once debating the policies of the two candidates. For example, have you ever seen anyone on television explain how John Kerry's health care plan works? Or actually analyze Bush's tax cuts? Or discuss how much influence the President actually has on the war in Iraq after it has started? No. Issues are based on a pre-9/11 mindstate.

In this election there is a massive policy gap between the two candidates. Their 'character' and how 'tough' they are on terrorists is pretty much irrelevant. Both Presidents are fully committed to 'defending America.' Their success at fighting terrorists will, at this point, rely entirely on the CIA, FBI and military's abilities and not on their own 'characters.'

So how did Kerry manage to beat Bush so decisively in a debate without debate. He kept his face look monumental and picturesque even while he wasn't speaking. An important skill for a President. If Bush's demonic henchmen had remembered to coach him about using his 'not-an-idiot-face' even while Kerry was talking, he would still have an unsurmountable lead in the polls and we would be weeks away from re-electing Satan God.

That's how close it was. The forces of Good are weak and flimsy and seem to depend on luck more often than not.

Oh man, we are so totally doomed.