Do You Believe in Mutation Magic?

An [unmetered] parody of "Do You Believe in Magic."

Do you believe in magic in a young cell’s heart?
Phyletic gradualism or punctuated equilibrium, whichever it starts,
And it's magic, if the mutation is groovy,
It makes you feel happy like a PBS documentary,
I'll tell you about the magic, and it'll free your soul,
Just know that spontaneous balanced polymorphism is the goal.

If you believe in magic, no need to research,
Just go and read 200 year old books from the experts,
No need for evidence, we’ll find it eventually,
All the missing links, mutations, and random anomalies,
Don’t bother looking, you’ll never pragmatically find,
How we got here, it’ll just hurt your mind.

If you believe in magic, come along with me,
We'll write lots of unsubstantiated hypothesis,
And maybe, if lazy be our foes,
We will sneak in some lies about embryos,
Just get some guy with a really long name,
To pen some long papers, no one will think he’s insane,
To think the magic's in the mutation’s and the mutation’s in me.

Yeah, do you believe in magic,
Yeah, believe in the magic of a young cell's soul,
Believe in the magic of divergent, convergent, parallel and coevolution,
Believe in the magic that can set you free,
Ohh, talking 'bout magic,

Do you believe like I believe Do you believe in magic
Do you believe like I believe Do you believe, believer
Do you believe like I believe Do you believe in magic
[Fade]

Deconstructing the Electoral Process

Over the past couple of weeks, a number of friends have expressed confusion over our nation’s complicated election system: Some states vote while others don’t. Of the states that do vote, there is some pretty blatant favoritism, as some regions boast more “delegates,” whatever those are.

Other friends are addled by the number of candidates. The ballot says John Edwards is still running, but the newspapers say he dropped out. The ballot has the official “Great Seal of the State of ‘Kahlifoania.’” The TV has George Stephanopoulos. Who to believe?

Here at FCN, I dragged my sweet tush over to the library and uncovered the following:

The foundation of our election system is the television news media.

When all the “damn voters,” as Mitt “drops-out” Romney once affectionately titled America’s electorate, have taken a short paid vacation to go vote (as long as two hours by law in California) or waited outside their polling place for equipment to show up (as long as four hours in some parts of Los Angeles), the real “experts” decide the election.

All of the major networks assemble a group of crack (addicted) analysts to make sense of the incoming data. These highly paid TV personas are the real stars of the election process, often upstaging the candidates themselves.

CBS News even ran a house promotion for its election coverage “starring Katie Couric” and boasting “Obama and Clinton in minor supporting roles.” Who is the first major female presidential candidate now, Billary?

First CoWOmander-In-Chief, my airbrushed TV anchor!

The networks claim any and all advantages to create a competitive edge. Fox News uses flashier bar graphs, CNN calls state outcomes earlier but with less accuracy than NBC, CBS shows file clips of Obama Girl who we all secretly thought was hot and ABC doesn’t preempt its regularly scheduled Boston Legal episode, Robert Iger be praised.

The media then fabricate results to create a compelling and interesting storyline. It’s kind of like Reality TV, except it’s not real. Wait, it’s exactly like Reality TV.

To keep savvy viewers from catching on, both parties have consented to the creation of an immensely complicated “nomination process” which utilizes big, unwieldy words like primary, convention, delegate, caucus and super delegate, none of which exist outside television studios.

Except super delegates are real. I think.

Whenever a commentator is stuck for a term, they just make them up. How do you think we got the word “Gerrymandering?”

The golden rule of media driven election shows is that every major development gets credited to the network that made the call. Barack Obama doesn’t win Connecticut, CNN “calls it” for him and all the other networks cut away from a John McCain speech to acknowledge that fact.

Big win for CNN. And that Obama guy didn’t do too badly either.

Losing The 'F' In 'FCN'

As some of you may have surmised from the not-so-subtle reference in the latest episode of Desperate Student, one of the three authors of Funny Class Notes is leaving for a period of weeks to partake in a summer project. The departing author has requested that the exact nature of his behavior be kept in the dark from you, the faithful few. I know, have a Kleenex. We can, however, tell you that he will be in no way productive. That much is assured de facto.

With the temporary loss of one of our three authors, FCN is now a triangle with two sides; a tri-union without one of the parties. We have gone from Lithium to Helium. Boy that was nerdy. We're the two stooges, Peter, Paul and nobody, or Nickelback without the bass player.

As long as it's just the two of us, we don't see a need to have a three letter acronym to describe this blog. “FCN” implies three people, and corresponds to the letters we have tattooed on our rear ends. The author who is leaving is taking with him the “F” on his rump with him (he couldn't very well leave it behind), leaving the C (my tush) and N here for your entertainment. So from now until he returns (the other writer not, you know, Him), this blog will be known simply by the acronym “CN.”

According to Acronym Finder, an excellent webpage that helped us determine that FCN actually stands for Funny Class Notes, “CN” means The People's Republic of China, Connecticut, Consultant, Cyanide, Communications Network, Cranial Nerve, Chloroacetophenone, Congenital Nystagmus, Common Name, Corporate Network, Canadian National, Cellular Number, Cherokee Nation and, our personal favorite, Chuck Norris. What the Acronym Finder hasn't found, however, is that CN really stands for Class Notes, which is what we will continue to write no matter what (with a few obvious exceptions like acid rain and a sticky female incident, but you get the picture).

What this means to you, or at least those who are spending their summers at more pedestrian pursuits, is that you need to take some counter measures to ensure that CN doesn't lose one third of its brilliance. In order to stay on the cutting corner of cultural commentary and comedy, we need you guys to send in any Class Notes you've been holding back. If you had a weird incident at the dentist's office a few weeks back and want to vent a little toothy frustration, send us your tome. If you twisted your littlest toe in a way that was so painful that you actually started laughing while the nurse fidgeted with it, write it down and tell us about it, as Chris says. If you were in Zimbabwe recently and had a noteworthy adventure there, you know what to do. Just email your material to us at FunnyClassNotes@gmail.com.

As for us, we'll put together a week of classics starting maybe next week or the week after that, or the week after that one, using the suggestions you came up with while we were all on vacation. We'll also be adding a little water to the soup, cutting posts shorter, making the graphics grainier and the page load more slowly so that we can make what content we do have go further.

Further, we aren't telling you which one of us is leaving. Our posts will retain their anonymous quality that destroys your ability to specify names in your hatemail or otherwise target a specific CN author. I know, we can be pretty devious.

So that's the plan for the next few weeks. If you have a problem with it, leave a nasty comment that the departing author will read when he returns or email us and we'll give you his personal email address so you can spam him to pieces.

Have a great get away, bro!

Why all the bad blood against Scooter?

It is always painful, even a tad Socratic, when a decent man stands up against the mob and tries to demonstrate his innocence. That's what Scooter Libby, a formerly well respected issues advocate and Patron Saint of Politics who now does political dog duty, has done over the last few months as he arduously fought to prove his innocence to a blood-hungry, finger-pointing, culpability-seeking jury.

Yesterday, Scooter lost his battle and was convicted of four out of five felony counts. Ignored by the jury were this man's stellar record on Capital Hill, exceptional history as a career lawyer and immaculate facial features whose innocence only a blind man could doubt.

Maybe some of the jury members were blind.

Based solely on the evidence of a newspaper columnist, the testimony of his back-stabbing colleagues and a US Ambassador, a “recorded” telephone conversation and some circumstantial data, an otherwise innocent man has been convicted of obstruction of justice, perjury and making false statements.

(The distinction between “perjury” and “making false statements” is, of course, a very important one.)

It’s not just that Scooter has been convicted of some crimes; he has been emasculated and castrated, yes castrated, to the bone by those he once thought were his friends. The high ranking people who used to have offices next to his are pretending Scooter never existed that his contribution to this nation never happened. Scooter has been vaporized. His name has been dragged, like Messala, through the mud behind a chariot. He has been trampled underfoot like so many lions and cobras and left behind to rot. His political math turned negative and his “friends” gave him the boot.

The eminently qualified news media inform us that Scooter has the dubious honor of being the highest ranking government official to be convicted of a felony since the Iran-Contra days, which were, if you are a teenager, a long time ago. And the scape-goats back then weren’t as pretty as Scooter. Pity.

After some appeals and related rigmarole, most of which could bore Justice Ginsburg to tears, Scooter will scoot (get it?) down to the Big House and serve out the penalty for his “crimes.”

When he is released, some two or three years from now, he will write a book that purportedly accepts the blame for his actions but actually subtly points some fingers. The book will become a New York Times bestseller and Scooter will use the money to campaign against prison violence. Like Bill Clinton before him, Scooter will no longer have any political significance.

Scooter may feel some amount of self-centered commiseration at the predicament in which his actions have left him hanging. But he shouldn’t feel too bad about his plight: in the old days, a politically unpopular or inconvenient person was taken into the woods and shot (we still haven’t found Jimmy Hoffa’s remains).

Today we have a very organized and civil method of disposing of our unpopular personas. Its supporters call it Justice; it’s antagonists, passing the buck. This time round Scooter was left holding the cheese and he’ll be the one taking the flak and fulfilling the obligations of this modern Justice. But by the time he has served his sentence, Scooter may be wishing for the old days.

Washington Seminar

The results of our “Did George Washington Really Exist” poll were very mixed. Apparently some of our readers saw the intellectual light and were persuaded to at least doubt the existence of our so-called “First President.” Others were, to use a Christian word, unconvinced. According to FCN's eminently respected survey, 48% believe everything about Washington is true, while 9% felt that he was never president but he did chop down the cherry tree. Still more, 18%, felt that he will “always live as an ideal in our hearts.”

Given the nebulous results and that we here at FCN are obsessed with truth, we have decided to put together a counsel of political, philosophical and intellectual leaders of varied ethnic, religious and socioeconomic backgrounds to investigate the allegations about this man’s “amazing” life to determine their veracity.

This counsel won’t interview original sources or read documents from the period of Washington’s life. Neither will it conduct a traditional historical inquest. No, that would be too obvious, too clichéd. Instead we will, as society has done for another great man, make colored beads that reflect our attitudes and feelings about Washington and lift them en mass as statements and life “facts” are read from the First President.

Each person will offer his opinion on a fact of Washington’s life by raising an appropriate colored bead, as follows:

Red: George undoubtedly did or said this or did or said something very like it.

Pink: George probably or might have done or said something like this.

Gray: George did not do or say this, but it is really close to something that he might have done or said.

Black: George did not do or say this; this action represents something that has been attributed to him after the fact, a later tradition.

An unbiased arbiter will act as the chair of this Washington Seminar and make a notation recording the color response to every statement read. The results will then be bound up and published in a seminal work titled The Cherry Tree: The Search for the Authentic George.

Given that it is impossible to actually know for sure what Washington did, said or even meant by is statements and actions, we can only measure our feelings about him. George is dead; his sole survivor is his legacy which lives on as his memory. Why give ourselves a hernia figuring out the arcane details of his life when we need only weigh our non-palpable emotions to determine the truth?

It is a lot of work to dig through letters, speech transcripts and personal statements. A lot of work for nothing, if you ask us.

The media and the general public tend to be gullible and naive about the actions of George Washington, but the faithful FCN few need not be intimidated. We can, via the Washington Seminar, divine a workable reality with which we can operate sans confusion and finger-pointing.

No longer will questions about Mount Vernon or Washington’s fatal battle with pneumonia haunt historians. No longer must we worry about the silly cherry tree or question the motives of a man who turns down the biggest promotion imaginable. The mythical Delaware crossing, the famed Martha and the dog (he did have a dog, didn't he?) will all be put to rest. Washington will once again be life size, not the legend that dodged Indian bullets and survived the brutal Valley Forge winter. And, as a human, he can be respected.

I don’t want to live my life in the dark anymore. I want to know what really happened, or at least come to some kind of consensus. The division is tearing me apart and the solution is so close. So who wants to start a Washington Seminar? Who is with me?

Did George Washington really exist?

Hang on one cotton picking moment, or at least enough time for you to read through this post before continuing your President's Day festivities. The above question is a perfectly serious one and, although many have been indoctrinated by our “history, “government” and “civic” teachers to unflinchingly believe the opposite, there really isn't that much evidence for the so-called “First President's” existence.

I know, that was a lot of quotation marks for one paragraph, but keep tracking with me.

George Washington is a very popular man in today's economy. His Google rating is 168 million (168 million and one once this page gets indexed), which is more than Jesus Christ and Muslim prophet Mohammed combined. If old George were still alive today he would have trademarked his name and would be making a mint on sponsorships. His name recognition would be so strong and his heroism so unquestioned that he could be elected to any political office without even lifting a finger.

Washington has attained a position of virtuous prominence so puissant that students are marched through his etiquette guide as if it were scripture and told of his many luminary deeds, like being shot six times during a fight with Indians. His size is described as unnaturally large, several heads above anyone else and his strength, as the history books tell it, is paralleled only by today's juicing weight lifters. His physical characteristics are impeccable; the man is flawless.

But what if we are being scammed? What if, for the last two hundred odd years of American existence, the noble Washington of Valley Forge lore was just a legend intended to inspire weary colonists when it looked as if the war was a lost cause? What if history has been fooled by an elaborate hoax and we now celebrate a man who never existed and whose birthday, in remembrance of which federal employees take today off from work, is a total fabrication?

Let's start with the “Cherry Tree” episode, in which young George chopped down his father's prize Prunus Avium and then refused to lie about his actions. Despite the fact that young George held a (little) hatchet and his father was unarmed, Washington supposedly repented his sin veraciously. Now how likely is that? How many six year olds would own up to their mistakes immediately in front of a steamed parent? How many six year olds have the strength to cut down a large cherry tree? How many six year olds have a little hatchet?

And then there is Martha the supposed wife of George Washington. Despite the fact that we have no photographic evidence of her existence and the paintings that claim to portray her always vary in some key feature (compare this, this and this), we insist on believing in her existence. Anyone could have written the letters she allegedly shared with her contemporaries and her children could easily have been mothered by another. History paints Martha as a quiet saint, but so much of her life must be assumed and pieced together from Washington's “writings” that there is no way we can really know anything about her. If anything, Martha Dandridge Custis Washington is an argument for the hoax theory.

The testimonial evidence collected by historical clubs in Virginia is some of the strongest evidence cited by Washington believers. But these letters and census papers are so easy to fake and usually contain more hearsay than actual testimony.

If Dan Rather could fake Bush's National Guard documents, than Washington's contemporaries could fake those letters.

Consider Mount Vernon, arguably the only physical evidence of Washington's existence. The 5,000 acre estate has been well maintained since Washington's supposed “death” in 1799, but the property has brought the federal government significant revenues as millions of visitors, guided by the hoaxed life of a fake hero, make pilgrimage to the rustic property. Each year, through entry fees and concession stand revenues, Mount Vernon ushers financial resources to the equivalent of 1,257 taxpayers (FCN guesstimate) into treasury coffers.

The Washington scam is very profitable, indeed.

Mount Vernon, as a place, does nothing to support the existence of George Washington. No where did he make a distinctive mark or do something with the land that no other man could have done. Sure, the walls are a disgusting green and blue color, but the First President doesn't have a corner on eccentricity. Anyway, saying that a man's home is proof of his existence is paramount to saying that his used toothbrush proves he once had teeth. Anyone can make a home; anyone can use a toothbrush.

As far as testimonial evidence is concerned, to date, no live person has stepped forward claiming to have actually met George Washington. If someone actually knew the guy and could recount a conversation with him, don't you think he would be doing a perpetual talk show circuit?

Have any of you ever seen George Washington? Maybe a member of the faithful FCN few has first person proof of the man's life. Have you ever touched the man or do you blindly believe the word of your history textbook without really pursuing the truth? Have you actually researched the claims of those who believe in George or do you take their assertions for granted?

As Americans, we are given two options: 1) Believe that Washington really existed without sufficient evidence to prove that as fact or 2) Refuse to believe he really exists until the evidence satisfies the burden of proof.

Here at FCN, we are in the latter camp. You guys can go on gnostically believing in the “American Hero” who did the impossible during the Revolutionary War and was so humble that he rejected a position as king of America or you can see the light and reject baseless stories until they are proven true. You can allow yourself to wear the blinders of revisionist history or step out into the light and realize the truth.

Some folks need a Washington story, a tale of a strong political leader who valiantly beat the odds, in order to survive and face their own challenges. To even get up in the morning they must believe in the nonsense their culture feeds them. They believe that the moon is made of green cheese, they believe that gullible is not in the dictionary and they believe that George Washington really lived.

As sensitive Americans, we are, and ought to be, extremely sensitive to those who believe in Washington. The belief is made understandable by a culture that accepts it and we should be tolerant and sympathetic of the hoaxed, even if the data are overwhelmingly against them.

As far as today and President's Day celebration goes, maybe we can devote this day to John Adams, the second President. and thus grant the three-day weekend an aura of legitimacy. Although, the evidence for Adam's existence is pretty shaky as well...

The XP Conspiracy

Yet another reason to switch to Vista?

We're all familiar with conspiracy theories about subtle messages in rock music or the Bible. But who would have guessed that these sneakyisms could be hiding under the noses of hundreds of millions of PC users for the last half-decade?

The folks here at the FCN Lab grew suspicious after a tragic but non-lethal spill of lemon juice on the non-glare coating of my not-so-new IBM Thinkpad T42. While carefully wiping it off with the back of my sleeve, I noticed an odd shape in the clouds of the classic Bliss wallpaper that has become a trademark for XP. Without removing any more lemon juice, I rushed my wounded computer to the FCN Lab. After several hours of testing, we managed to pull out the hidden image.

That's right, folks: There is a hidden image in the clouds of the windows XP desktop! What it means exactly is anyone's guess, but we think it's safe to say that Bill Gates has some explaining to do (if he didn't already after evidence of sweatshop cubicle conditions surfaced on the BSOD).

Further testing revealed other images hidden on other popular XP desktops. We would have done them all, but someone found us and kicked us out of the Science building with a warning. We have attached our limited but significant findings below for your objective analysis (click the thumbnails). The questions are many: how did these pictures get here? What do they mean? How could they appear on so many desktops without anyone noticing - until now?

We here at FCN will be lying awake at night cuddling our teddy bears for the rest of the week.

Give Nancy her airplane!

As you may have heard, Nancy Pelosi, the lovely lady liberal from SF with the big eyes, has been seeking justice in the political transportation arena. While President Bush has a sweet pair of wings, to use the vernacular, and Vice President Dick Cheney flies in similar style, the person second in line for the Oval Office has been forced to fly in the puny plane Dennis Hastert used to ride in.

Nancy's current plane is so small it has to actually refuel (putting precious Muslim oil in the tank) during the flight. It's so petite she can't fully extend her Congressional legs to stretch them after a long day of political catering. The flight is so scrunched, the good Congresswoman has to watch the in-flight movies on a twelve inch flatscreen (Bush and Cheney get theirs on a 15 incher). The craft is so tiny, she can't fit Ron Artest's dogs in the no-feeding cargo compartment. It's so little, it's a flying bantam.

Since 2001, the White House has fulfilled the constitutional right of all big impact politicians to have their transportation subsidized in the name of security. This is, incidentally, the only constitutional right that terrorists have forced to be recognized. But, while Hastert was able to bunny hop from Washington to Illinois, the small commuter craft the former Speaker used must refuel (a very dangerous and terror attack prone behavior) in order to get from DC to Pelosi's home district.

Pelosi wants to be allowed to fly a C-32, the luxurious and specially configured version of the Boeing 757-200 commercial intercontinental airliner that seats 45 passengers with leather seats and has mechanical backrubs for the honored guests. The plane has a crew of up to 16, including her award winning dental hygienist and plastic surgeon. She also wants her friends to be able to fly free, a perfectly reasonable request given Pelosi's social status and position in Congress.

Think about how sagacious this request is for a minute. The top two most powerful political personas in America have their own personal chartered crafts. President Bush has Air Force One. Dick Cheney gets to ride in Air Force Two. Given her importance and the impact she will undoubtedly have on this country's undertrodden, shouldn't Pelosi have Air Force Zero?

Critics point out that the cost of operating the C-32 will run into almost $22,000 an hour (or $192,720,000 a year), a figure that is seriously overplayed given the size and misuse of the federal budget. I mean, how can we spend $640 on a toilet seat for a soft tushed General but hesitate to acquiesce to the request of Madam Speaker?

Frankly, we see this hesitance by the Pentagon to provide the craft to which Pelosi is entitled as discrimination against all left coast states(wo)men who must refuel between home and work. I bet Hastert, in his wicked anti-California bias, even had the controversy in mind when he first requested the smaller plane.

One other thing, as far as accommodations go on The Hill, if Pelosi wants to move into the White House and take advantage of her political position to get some nicer digs, we see no reason why she shouldn't.