How to Make a Heffalump Jack-O-Lantern

Halloween is fast approaching, and we all know what that means: Jack-O-Lantern carving! Choosing a design is perhaps the most difficult part of the process. When a scary face is too humdrum for your discriminating tastes, the solution is simple: carve your pumpkin into a likeness of Lumpy the Heffalump, just like the one from 2005's Pooh's Heffalump Halloween Movie.


Materials
- 1 medium sized pumpkin
- 2 green leaves
- Several blades of grass
- 1 big knife
- 1 dry erase marker
- 1 spoon
- Scotch tape
- 1 miniature saw (available in even the most basic pumpkin carving kit, for sale in any supermarket or drugstore this time of the year)


Step One - Get Them Guts Out

Since the stem is going to be Lumpy's trunk, we can't cut the top off to get all the gooey guts out like we normally would with any other Jack-O-Lantern. Instead, cut a square out of the bottom with a big old knife.

Now stick your handy dandy spoon in the newly-carved hole and start scraping. Get all of that stringy orange mess into the trash, but make sure to save the seeds for later roasting...

Yummy!

Step Two - Draw, Draw, and Draw Some More


It's time to get out your dry erase marker (just in case you mess up) and draw Lumpy's eyes and eyebrows.


Step Three - Cut That Baby Up

Get your trusty miniature saw and follow your lines. Careful, precision is key!


Step Four - Leaves, Grass, and Scotch Tape

Tape the leaves to each side of your pumpkin to give Lumpy some ears.

Then tape the grass to the top to give him some hair.


Step Five - Show Off Your Lumpy Pumpy!


Put a candle into Lumpy through the opening in the back and place him in a location that will allow for maximum exposure. Enjoy!

The Harry Burns Theorem of Atrraction

UPDATE 3/15/2014 - I've seen When Harry Met Sally since coming up with this theory and publishing this article. Since Billy Crystal's character already said everything I wrote 21 years before I wrote it, the title of the theorem has been changed to reflect this.

After years of observing subjects in non-laboratory environments (and unwillingly becoming a subject myself) I have arrived at a conclusion regarding interpersonal attraction:

No two people of opposite sex can endure being "just friends" for an extended period of time. Never.
I'll expand this theory with extensive examples to prove that any contradictory inclination is impossible. But first allow me to preface these findings by saying that they only apply to heterosexual couples. This isn't out of any desire to discriminate against or exclude homosexual couples, but simply because I am not and don't personally know and therefore haven't observed enough gay individuals to reach any meaningful conclusions regarding the crossover between platonic and romantic relationships among them. That aside, let's delve into the proof, shall we?

Boy 1 and Girl 1 meet and discover that they share an uncommon interest or hobby (model airplane construction? the plays of Ben Jonson?). Naturally, the two form a kinship and bond over their airplane building or their lengthy discussion regarding the drama of the English Renaissance. Strictly platonic, of course. But here's the rub: what does one look for in a romantic partner?

-Enjoyment of time spent together
-Level of physical attraction

This list excludes more selfish and shallow motives to date, like monetary gain and access to higher social circles, but these are irrelevant to our thesis. Now, these two factors can serve to influence one and other, but the level of mutual exclusion varies depending on which of the two you first notice in your potential mate. Boy 2 may notice that Girl 2 is unbelievably attractive when he first lays eyes on her, but in getting to know her he discovers that she is an insipid, slovenly, unmotivated girl with political and religious views that contradict his own. No matter how attractive Boy 2 finds Girl 2, he isn't going to enjoy their time together very much (sure, it won't be a complete loss as he will certainly enjoy their time spent macking, but on the whole the benefits of her physical appearance will not outweigh their clashing personalities).

However, if Girl 1 either does not look the way Boy 1 has been conditioned by society to be considered his "type" or if Boy 1 was simply not looking for a girlfriend at the time of their meeting and therefore took no particular interest in Girl 1's appearance, then his first inclination that they would make a good pair will be how much he enjoys spending time with her. And as every man who has ever seen the curious and baffling sight of a slob of a man dating a stunner of a woman far beyond his league, the enjoyment factor is far likelier to influence the attraction factor than vice-versa.

So there are 7 different outcomes for our Boy 1 and Girl 1 scenario:

1. Boy 1 falls in love with Girl 1. This is unrequited, as Girl 1 never develops a physical attraction to Boy 1. He reveals his feelings and she terminates the friendship because, frankly, you can't remain such close friends after such a revelation if the feelings are not mutual

2. The reverse of the previous, with Girl 1 falling in love with Boy 1.

3. Boy 1 falls in love with Girl 1, but it is unrequited. He reveals his feelings, she lets him down easy, but they resolve to remain friends nonetheless. However, it is impossible for the relationship to remain unchanged in light of this information, so their friendship either suffers or eventually dissolves entirely as a result.

4. The reverse of the previous, with Girl 1 falling in love with Boy 1

5. Boy 1 and Girl 1 both fall for one and other. They reveal their feelings, begin a monogamous relationship and live happily ever after (until they breakup eventually for whatever reason).

6. Boy 1 and Girl 1 fall in love. However, they refrain from revealing their feelings for fear that it is unrequited and will the ruin the friendship. It ruins the friendship regardless because it is impossible to continue palling around under the circumstances. The situation is too stressful for both so they grow apart.

7. The same as above, except they individually resolve to suffer through their infatuation and end up getting over it. They ultimately remain friends.

The first 6 scenarios support my thesis. The 7th does not, as the friendship survives. The 7th, however, is actually a near impossibility. It is an idealized situation. While both may be of strong enough will to decide to suffer in silence but remain friends, the odds that their love will fade at the same rate are astronomically small. Therefore, at any given time in the process, one will still be in love while the other is not and it has become one of the first 4 scenarios and friendship does not survive. Or the love does not fade away (it likely won't, because they are spending so much time together), and it become either scenario 5 or 6. While scenario 7 is theoretically possible, it is so highly unlikely that it can and will be ignored the in final analysis.

Addendum
Our thesis is proven, so I'll now address the exemptions.

Age gaps play a major role. It has a significant influence on physical attraction, and makes it less likely for the enjoyment of time spent together to improve one's perception of attractiveness of their potential partner. If Boy 1 were 18 years old and Girl 1 60, all of the above theoretics would be void. For clarification's sake, we must assume at the the subjects at hand are within a reasonable age window.

Current relationship status can be considered a third variable in the "what does one look for in a romantic partner?" equation. It often can override both the enjoyment and attraction factors. For example, Boy 1 and Girl 1 may be in monogamous relationships with Girl 3 and Boy 3, respectively. Boy 1 and Girl 3 go on a double date with Girl 1 and Boy 3. Boy 1 and Girl 1 meet for the first time on the aforementioned double date. Boy 1 discovers that Girl 1 is a classic beauty, shares his interest in identifying minerals, and he has a wonderful time in her company on the double date. He is both attracted to her physically and he knows that he enjoys spending time with her. However, the thought of dating Girl 1 never enters Boy 1's mind. Why? Because he is committed to his fidelity with Girl 3.

On the other hand, let's assume all of the above is true except that Boy 1 does desire a romantic relationship with his new friend Girl 1, despite his concurrent romantic relationship with Girl 3. Both of these scenarios are frequent real-life occurrences.

To further expand, let's change the playing field and say that Boy 1 is single and Girl 1 is dating Boy 3. Boy 1 and Boy 3 are friends so Boy 1 meets Girl 1 through this mutual acquaintance. Assuming that Boy 1 enjoys the company of Girl 1, one of two things will happen: either Boy 1 will not consider Girl 1 as a potential mate because of his loyalty to his friend Boy 3 (and his respect for the fact that she is simply "off the market") or Boy 1 will develop an infatuation for her and follow one of the original 7 scenarios. The same would be true for Girl 1 if the situation were reversed (Boy 1 is dating Girl 3, who introduced Girl 1 to him).

Because of these contradicting outcomes, we can draw no concrete conclusions about the effect of current individual romantic relationship status on the likelihood of two friends falling in love with one and other. However, we most certainly can conclude that such a factor can not be included our thesis. Therefore, we must revise it to account for this and the age exemption. So our revised conclusion is thus:

No two people of opposite sex, similar age, who are single can endure being "just friends" for an extended period of time. Never.

The Physics of Star Trek

“Not to mention the most important reason for climbing a mountain…”

“And that is?”

”Because it’s there.”

James T. Kirk versus El Capitan

For the purpose of examining physics (good or bad) in popular cinema, there could be no better choice than the worst of the ‘Trek films (until Nemesis, at least), Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (aka The One Where Kirk Was Going to Fight Giant Rock Monsters But Didn’t Because They Ran Out of Money). I’ll be examining a scene at the beginning of the film and assessing whether or not the events that occur therein are or are not physically viable using the basic Newtonian physics.

The scene at hand begins with Captain Kirk free-climbing the Yosemite mountain El Capitan (because, of course, with Shatner behind the director’s chair and story development, even the mountain’s name has to remind us of his character). Bones is on the ground in the park watching through a pair of 23^rd century binoculars and mumbling angrily to himself (as he often does) as Spock flies over to Kirk via a nifty pair of rocket boots. The crew of the USS Enterprise NC-1701-B is on shore leave, and this is apparently how our three favorite heroes spend their downtime. Kirk is stuck in a spot where he can’t find a higher foothold and, while receiving some unwanted climbing advice from his first officer, slips and begins to plummet towards the ground. Thanks to some horrendous, out-dated-even-in-1989 rear-projection shots, we witness Spock invert himself and use his jet boots to propel towards the falling Kirk. The son of Sarek grabs his Captain’s leg, stopping Kirk with his face mere inches from the ground below.

What does this have to do with physics, you ask? I’ll tell you: a little thing called ‘momentum’ (you may have heard of it) would normally make such a heroic feat an impossibility. Linear momentum (referred to simply as ‘motion’ by Newton and mathematically known as the variable ‘P’) is an easy concept to understand. It’s simply the property of an object in motion calculated by multiplying said object’s mass and its velocity (that is to say that P=mv). That’s all well and good, but the aforementioned scene begins to appear incredulous when we take into account Sir Isaac Newton’s third law of motion: the law of reciprocal actions. That is, for any force there is always an equal and opposite reaction. From this, the law of conservation of momentum is derived, which states that the total momentum in a system is always conserved. Like matter, you cannot simply create or destroy momentum. This means that Spock could not simply catch Captain Kirk inches from the ground and effectively stop his fall. Kirk has momentum (a very large one at that), as does Spock. Both of their momentums are in the same direction, so unless an outside force is acting on Spock to give him a momentum in the upward direction that is equal in magnitude to Kirk’s, they would both face a grim, splattered demise.

So let’s delve into the math behind this bad boy, shall we?

What this boils down to is a simple total momentum equation for this closed system (which provides a truly perfect example of an inelastic collision because the two objects will, for all intensive purposes, become “one” afterwards [and I don’t mean Spock will bestow his katra upon Kirk]): Kirk’s momentum and Spock’s momentum should, when added, equal zero if we are to truly believe that Spock could have saved Jim.

ΣP = P_Kirk + P_Spock

which, when transformed slightly becomes

0 = m_Kirkv_Kirk + m_Spockv_Spock

To solve this, we’ll need the masses of both William Alan Shatner and Leonard Simon Nimoy and both characters’ velocities at the moment Spock grabs Kirk’s ankle. Shatner measures in at 5’9.5” or 1.77m and Nimoy at an impressive 6’1” or 1.85m. A quick glance at a Body Mass Index chart estimates Nimoy’s mass at approximately 70.5kg (assuming he is right in the middle of the “healthy weight” category) and Shatner’s at 77.3kg (assuming he is on the better side of the “overweight” category because this is, after all, 1989, though he probably weighs about as much as he did on the Original Series due to the increase in his gut’s mass being countered by the decrease in his hair’s mass). As for the velocities, Kirk’s is 186.2m/s because he is partaking in a freefall and therefore is experiencing the average acceleration of gravity (9.8 m/s², which I then multiplied by 19s because that is how long Kirk has been accelerating when Spock catches up to him). Spock, on the other hand, has to accelerate to catch up to Kirk as he doesn’t begin his descent until 4 seconds after Kirk falls and it takes him 15 seconds to reach the good Captain’s ankle. Based on this, Kirk is already 39.2m below Spock’s position when Spock begins his descent. Based on the 19 seconds it took Kirk to reach the bottom (or one inch from the bottom, rather) at his velocity, Spock is 186.2m up El Capitan (a mere fraction of the mountain’s 910m height, which is misleading because it certainly appeared that Kirk was at least halfway to the peak when he fell) when he starts propelling downwards. Since it would be impossible to determine the rate at which Spock would be accelerating to reach Kirk in time, I’ll just calculate his average velocity (hey, this is starting to sound like one of those “a man is being chased by a bear” problems we used to do).

Since v=d/t, Spock’s average velocity ends up being 186.2m/15s or 12.41m/s.

Now we can take all of this and plug it back into our handy equation we figured out earlier:

0 = m_Kirkv_Kirk + m_Spockv_Spock

0 = 77.3kg*186.2m/s + 70.5kg*12.41m/s

which, when solved looks like this:

0 = 14393.26kgm/s + 874.9kgm/s

or

0 = 15268.16kgm/s

which, as we should realize, is not a true statement.

This means that the total momentum in this system consisting of Kirk and Spock would actually be equal to 15268.16kgm/s the moment before they hit the ground, which would certainly not stop either of them but, instead, result in a horrific splattering that even the on-looking Bone’s couldn’t cure (after all, he’s a doctor, not a sanguine-fluid-collecting-bucket).

From all of this, it is safe to conclude that Spock could not have stopped Kirk’s freefall by simply catching hold of his leg. However, this position neglects the fact that Spock is wearing boots with thrusters attached to them (futuristic thrusters, to boot [pun intended]). Perhaps he caught Kirk and then activated the thrusters in the upward direction, giving himself a velocity that, when multiplied (quicker than a tribble, even) by his mass, would result in a momentum for Spock that is equal and opposite to Kirk’s own momentum (although this is absolutely not the case because we see that Spock is still upside down until long after Kirk stops falling, and his boots could not propel him upward from this position because the thrusters are shown to only shoot outwards from the bottoms of the boots, but let’s for a moment ignore this fact). So what kind of acceleration are we talking here? Exactly at what rate must the boots accelerate for Spock to safely bring Kirk to a stop? Well, it’s a simple question really. If the boots are giving Spock and equal and opposite momentum to Kirk, than our equation from earlier will now be true:

0 = m_Kirkv_Kirk + m_Spockv_Spock

and since we know that Kirk is still freefalling,

0 = 14393.26kgm/s + -14393.26kgm/s (she’s negative because we made the distinction earlier that down is the positive direction)

Some quick algebra tells us that Spock’s new velocity must be –204.16m/s, if he is to save Kirk. This means that the force of those thrusters will have to be so great as to instantaneously change Spock’s velocity from the 12.41m/s necessary for him to catch up to Kirk to the –204.6m/s necessary for him to cancel out Kirk’s momentum (an amazing change of 217m/s)! Now we simply bust out one of the legendary, handy-dandy big four equations and solve. The only problem is that each of the big four requires either the elapsed time (t) or the distance traveled (y, since we’re dealing with a strictly vertical space). So, even though the stop appears instantaneous, let’s give Spock the benefit of the doubt and say that this thruster propulsion occurred in .01s

v_f = v_i + at

and since we’ve got everything we need save acceleration:

-204.16m/s = 12.41m/s + a*.01s

This results in an a value of –21657m/s². I don’t know about you, but I think that’s awesome. While there’s no way any propulsion system could ever function so ridiculously powerfully (even nuclear wessels couldn’t achieve such a speed), maybe we won’t discover it until the 23^rd century (unless Mr. Scott travels back in time and tells us about it sooner).

Now, this isn’t all fun and games here. These calculations aren’t without error. For one, air resistance isn’t taken into effect. This would surely slow both Kirk and Spock’s respective velocities and therefore lessen the magnitudes of their momentums. Furthermore, by using the average gravity of Earth, I’m miscalculating Kirk’s true velocity. In reality, he wouldn’t continue to accelerate indefinitely, but instead reach his terminal velocity. This of course throws off his momentum’s magnitude. The same goes for my foregoing of determining Spock’s acceleration as he catches up with Kirk (which cannot be determined with the information available) and using his average velocity in its stead. Spock would likely be traveling even faster when he reaches Kirk (although that just means that the impulse he feels when he hits the ground will be greater, as he will still not be able to stop the fall). But despite these errors, the conclusion remains the same.

To wrap this up, this scene is not physically viable in the least. If the scene were to end in the way it would in real life, Kirk and Spock would surely end up in Pike Boxes. As filmed, Spock simply grabs his Captain’s leg (albeit off-screen) and the two suddenly stop falling (with Kirk dangling mere inches from the ground). Physics says this can’t happen, because each of their momentums would simply be added, resulting in the two of them continuing to fall (until they hit the ground, which would become part of the system, absorbing much of their momentum and turning this collision from elastic to inelastic). Unless another force acts on Spock to propel him upwards the moment he grab’s Jim’s leg (like his jet boots), there’s no way for this to happen. And even so, the tendon’s in the human leg would certainly rip, resulting in Kirk still liquefying on impact while Spock rocket’s upwards with his late Captain’s leg in hand: “Your leg is, and always shall be, my friend.”

Captain, I do not think you realize the gravity of your situation.

”On the contrary, gravity is foremost on my mind.”

References

"BMI Chart." Boston Medical Center. 19 May 2009.

Star Trek V: The Final Frontier. Dir. William A. Shatner. Perf. William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, and DeForest Kelley. DVD. Paramount Pictures, 1989.

Lose Your Lunch: A Play

Lose Your Lunch
a semi-biographical short play

CHARACTERS
MIKE
SERRA
IAN
LITTLE GIRL
LOUDSPEAKER

(A table outside of Johnny Rockets restaurant in Six Flags amusement park. A trashcan sits far stage right. MIKE and SERRA are seated.)

MIKE. Do you see that?
SERRA. What?
MIKE. Over there. (Gesturing stage left) The table with the little girl and her grandma.
SERRA. So?
MIKE. The girl’s mom is coming back, and she’s got an entire pizza from Johnny Rockets in tow.

(He gives SERRA an ecstatic glance, but she is unimpressed and confused.)

MIKE. Don’t you get it? There’s no way that feebly-stomached trio can possibly have the appetite necessary to take down that whole pizza!
SERRA. First – take it from me: you underestimate the eating capability of a small girl. And second – what do you care if that estrogen-saturated family can’t finish their dinner?
MIKE. Do I have to spell it out for you? I’m hungry, they have a pizza, and there will be leftovers. I swear to you right now, I’m going to get a slice of that pizza if it’s the last thing I do.
SERRA. Did I ever tell you you’re a lunatic?
MIKE. Look! Mom just got up and she’s walking away. One less mouth to feed and one more slice for me.

(IAN enters with a good pound of food in tow. He joins MIKE and SERRA at their table.)

IAN. I love Johnny Rockets, and I love food.
SERRA. How much did you get?
IAN. Burger. French Fries. Onion Rings. Hot dog. Milkshake.
SERRA. (to MIKE) No pizza.
IAN. Pizza?
SERRA. This kid’s got it into his crazy head that he’s going to take some of the pizza from that table over there, with the grandma and the girl.
IAN. Why don’t you two just go buy some food for yourselves?
SERRA. I ate before we came.
MIKE. I didn’t bring any money.
IAN. Don’t worry about it. I’ll spot you.
MIKE. No thank you!
IAN. Alright, alright. No need to get upset. If you’re tight on cash right now, I’ll tell ya what – you don’t have to pay me back.
MIKE. You simpleton. It’s not the money; it’s the principle! I paid my fifty dollars to get into this godforsaken park, and for what? To ride a rollercoaster? To see a tiger from twenty feet away behind a fence? To come to Johnny Rockets and pay another ten, twenty – how much did you pay for all of that?
IAN. Thirty-five bucks.
MIKE. – Thirty-five bucks to get the sustenance which, by the way, I need to live long enough to shell out even more money to the Six Flag Corporation! For God’s sake, man, I’m not going to let them squeeze another cent out of me!
SERRA. I didn’t know you felt so strongly about it.
MIKE. (cooling down, to IAN) Why are you eating so much, anyways?
IAN. Ever since I first came here as a nipper, it’s been my dream to throw up on Kingda Ka. During the biggest drop, right when they take your picture. Can you imagine?
SERRA. Unfortunately, yes. Ugh, why do I spend my time with men?
IAN. (to MIKE) Speaking of men, did you get a beat on that tall drink of water pulling a chair up to your pizza?
MIKE. Oh no. I was afraid of this. Looks like mommy is also wifey, and dear hubby’s got his hungry eyes all over my meal.
SERRA. Yeah, but look at all the accoutrements – they’ve got 64 ounce sodas, bread sticks, and a big old Cesar salad.
IAN. Y’know, I think you’re actually starting to enjoy this stupid little operation. You just ridiculed me a minute ago for my dumb dream, and here you are reconnoitering to help this sucker realize his equally dumb dream.
SERRA. The point is, maybe they’ll fill up on those appetizers and there’ll still be a leftover piece.
MIKE. I’m counting on it.
IAN. What are we doing next, if you don’t mind my asking a non-pizza-related question?
SERRA. I’m not sure. Let’s check the itinerary.

(SERRA whips out a map of the park.)

SERRA. Hm… well, Kingda Ka’s the closest ride.
IAN. Nope. Not yet. You can’t rush perfection – I need this food to be half digested when we rock the Ka so I have the most noxious, visceral puke I can muster for that souvenir photograph. Besides, Kingda Ka is by far the best thing this park has to offer; nothing can compete. We should save the best for last, no?
MIKE. What if it rains before we get a chance to ride it because you put it off for so long?
IAN. It won’t. Besides, you can’t live your life in constant fear that it might rain. Shouldn’t you be watching your pizza?
MIKE. I’ve been.
IAN. So you’re just ignoring your friends over here?
MIKE. I can talk to you two and scope out this family at the same time. What do you take me for? Things are looking good. Do you want an update on what’s gone down since you last checked in?
SERRA. Like we have a choice.
MIKE. Everybody ate one slice, but their copious side dishes have slowed their eating to a crawl. There are three slices left and Pa’s going for one of them. Yep. And… nobody else is making a move on the other two. Looks like there’ll be two sets of vomit in our Kingda Ka photo.
SERRA. Make that three. When you two start throwing up I’m going to get so disgusted that I’ll throw up.
IAN. This is going to be the greatest picture of all time.
SERRA. Assuming they don’t delete it. You do know there’s somebody scanning all of those pictures so as to remove any offensive shots, right?
IAN. Jeez! You’re just as bad as him! First we’re supposed to plan our whole day around a chance of rain, and now you want us to hold in our puke just in case we get censored. You two really need to stop worrying and just live your lives on your own terms. It’s not going to rain and we will be leaving today with a giant, overpriced print of us hurling all over that drop!
MIKE. Our puke will probably blend in – Kingda Ka is made of green steel.
SERRA. Y’know, you guys are reminding me of when I first started running on a regular basis. For weeks prior I kept saying to myself, “Hey Serra, we’re going to start running real soon.” But then I’d just sit around and eat Teriyaki chicken and get fatter and more out of shape. Then one day, I tried to pick up my guinea pig so I could clean his cage – when I put him down, I was out of breath I was so out of shape. That’s when I realized that it was time to start exercising. I’ve been running everyday since. But what if I never tried to clean that cage? Would I have ever realized how lazy and slovenly I’d grown? I would probably be sitting at home eating a fiesta meatloaf all by myself this very –
MIKE. NO!
IAN. What happened?
MIKE. Mom and Grams are looking at the remaining two slices, with intention. I’m done for. I never thought they’d be able to eat all that salad and still be hungry.

(MIKE covers his eyes. IAN and SERRA watch the pizza table in silence for a tense moment)

IAN. You’re never going to believe this, but they’re cutting one slice down the middle!
MIKE. If you’re lying to me, I’m going to punch you as hard as I can in the collarbone.
IAN. This is legit, I swear.

(MIKE uncovers his eyes to check on the pizza table.)

MIKE. Oh, thank God! Those two are sure to be full after this, Dad would be eating the other slice right now if he wanted it, and the little girl is currently playing with her six dollar Wonder Woman cape. That slice has my name written all over it. (To SERRA) So, what were you saying again?
IAN. Yeah, could you recap that? I wasn’t really paying attention either.
SERRA. Never mind.
MIKE. Oh yes. They’re done. Everybody is done eating, and they’re playing Eat It Air Hockey.
SERRA. “Eat It Air Hockey?”
MIKE. It’s when nobody wants anymore to eat, but they all feel bad about letting it go to waste. So everybody at the dinner table shoots a glance at their meal compatriots and then down at the leftovers. It’s a win-win: nobody has to eat past being full, and yet everybody can see your disapproval at the inevitable trashing of the food. It’s dinner’s conclusion in every household that lacks a glutton but possesses an overzealous cook. Eat It Air Hockey.
SERRA. Of course.
MIKE. It’s just a matter of time until they get up to throw that slice out. Now we play the waiting game.
SERRA. What exactly do you plan to do?
MIKE. My plan is quite elementary, really. The nearest trashcan is right over there. Ergo, whoever gets stuck with trash duty will be forced to walk directly past us to dispatch the garbage. En route, I just happen to notice that there’s some pizza left, and I offer to take it off their hands, effectively shortening their trip by eliminating the need to walk the remaining six steps to the trash. Everybody wins!
IAN. Why don’t you just walk over there and ask if you can have it?
MIKE. You buffoon! Then they’ll know I’ve been watching them this whole time. I don’t want to creep them out.
SERRA. Why not? You’ve already creeped me out with this whole ordeal.
MIKE. Wait. Oh no. No. No. No!

(MIKE smashes his head down onto the table and lays it there, face down.)

SERRA. Huh?
IAN. It looks as if the little girl just took the pizza, cardboard tray and all, and smashed it up into a ball.

(Enter LITTLE GIRL stage left. She walks past, approaching trashcan.)

IAN. (whisper, to MIKE) What are you waiting for?! Make your move! It’s just a little smushed, it tastes the same.
MIKE. (whisper, to IAN) Of course it’s still delicious! You don’t think I know that?! But one thing I do know is that, nine times out of ten, young parents frown upon teenage boys approaching their preadolescent daughters in the middle of amusement parks! I can’t do it!

(LITTLE GIRL throws the trash away and exits stage left. MIKE just sits and stares blankly.)

SERRA. Are you going to be okay?
IAN. Bud? (Snaps in front of MIKE’s face, to no avail.)
SERRA. Who knew one slice of pizza could be so devastating.
MIKE. You know? I think there’s a lesson in all of this.
SERRA. Oh yeah? And what’s that? Don’t eat before you ride Kingda Ka?
IAN. Bring money to a theme park?
SERRA. Ask the little girl for the pizza next time?
IAN. Disguise yourself as a tiger to get a free steak at the drive-through safari?
SERRA. Eating out of the trash isn’t without dignity?
MIKE. No. No. None of that. Something about… not letting life pass you by. Acting before it’s too late. And that you’re responsible for your own happiness – or misery, in my case.

(beat)

IAN. It’s just a pizza! I’ll give you the money; go order your own!
MIKE. And undermine the beautiful life lesson we’ve learned here today? Not a chance.
IAN. You’re insane.
SERRA. Let’s go ride Kingda Ka, huh?
IAN. What’s the rush? We’ve got all day.
MIKE. Did anybody else feel that? I think it’s starting to rain.

(It starts to rain.)

LOUDSPEAKER. (offstage) Attention all Six Flags visitors. We’re sorry to report that Kingda Ka, the largest roller coaster in the tri-state area, will be closed for the remainder of the day due to unforeseen weather complications. Please come back to ride it soon.
SERRA. Don’t fret. They’ll probably give us a refund or a rain check or something.
LOUDSPEAKER. (offstage) There will be neither refunds nor rain checks issued. Thank you for your continued patronage and enjoy the rest of your Six Flags day!
IAN. Why didn’t you guys rush?!
MIKE. See? This is what I’m talking about.
IAN. Oh God. It feels like those onion rings aren’t getting along too well with my stomach.
SERRA. Don’t tell me –
IAN. I’m going to puke! (Runs off stage right and vomits.)
SERRA. I can’t say I feel bad for him.
IAN. (offstage, sickly) Someone get a camera! If you frame it right, we can get Kingda Ka in the background!
MIKE. Now there’s one guy who knows how to make his own happiness. I envy him.
SERRA. I need new friends.

(Exeunt)

Why Infantile Circumcision is Dirty and Wrong

If there's one thing I hate, it's the damn near customary American practice of circumcising newborns. If we can skip the formalities and go straight ahead and watch a newborn being cicrumcized I think you'll get all the convincing you need without having to read a word that I'm about to say.

Right off the bat, here are two disclaimers:
1) I was circumcised as an infant, so what follows are not the ramblings of an upset uncircumcised fellow who wishes he fit in with the majority of American males. And no, I'm not writing this because I'm bitter at my parents for deciding to have me cut; I have no ill will about the fact that I've been circumcised. The reason that I am so adamant about the subject can be equated thusly: My stock broker convinced me to buy some shares in CIRC INC., but it turned out that they're a hopeless corporation and I lost all my money. So even though there's nothing that I can do to get my money back, I'll do my best to warn all other investors not to buy CIRC shares and maybe, once everyone finally understands that this corporation serves no purpose, they'll go out of business.
2) Let's ignore ritual religious circumcision. I've got no specific beef with the Jewish faith (although I don't always see eye-to-eye with any organized religion, but that's another blog post for another time), and for the sake of simplicity I'm going to exclude Bris circumcisions from my rant.

The only reason we still circumcise our babies is because of rampant misinformation and shallow (not to mention illogical) cosmetic motives. The advocates of infantile circumcision base their stance on the claim that a circumcised penis is cleaner and less prone to infection and/or that it "looks nicer."

To address the former, we'll analyze the major health detriments that the pro-circumcision camp claims will befall the uncircumcised masses. It is true that there are a variety of foreskin problems that can plague a child in his first year of life (non-retracted foreskin, acute balanoposthitis, to name a few) that can in fact be cured via circumcision. However, many children under the age of 10 will encounter a problem with their tonsils ("kissing" tonsils, tonsiloliths, tonsillitis) but do doctors remove every newborn's tonsils at birth just in-case one of the problems eventually arises? Of course not. Unnecessary surgery is not performed to remove any other body parts that may one day be troublesome. And for good reason: when a problem does arise, the organ can simply be severed at that time and the less surgery one undergoes the better as all surgery comes with the risk of complications and infection.

Another claim is that the uncircumcised male is more likely to transmit and receive HIV and other sexually-transmitted infections. This is true. The movable nature of foreskin makes it prone to microscopic tears that make blood-to-blood or blood-to-discharge contact more likely. So if you plan on raising your child to believe that having unprotected sex with a partner who can't be trusted to disclose their sexual history and infection status, then by all means have him circumcised. Furthermore, a man with a larger penis has more surface area of skin that could possibly have unnoticeable tears that increase the probability of HIV transmission. So why not chop a few inches off of your newborn's penis to reduce his risk even more? The fact of the matter is, good parenting and sexual education enough to instill the fact that he should always wear a condom when partaking in casual sex (or sex with a known-infected partner) is all it takes to reduce your son's risk of HIV infection even more than it would be reduced by slicing off his foreskin.

And what of the cosmetic factor? In my experience, this is a circumcision excuse largely supported by women. I have interviewed too many of my peers on the subject, and it is almost always a woman who says that she would certainly have her son circumcised because "it looks nicer" or "uncut is gross" or she "wouldn't want him to be a freak." This continued perpetuation in American culture that uncircumcised males are somehow disgusting or unnatural not only does the uncircumcised population a disservice (and a blow to their self-esteem) but it is completely unfounded. How is it in any way unnatural for a man to not have a portion of the skin on his penis cut off? Isn't it quite the opposite? Furthermore, it is my firm belief that a large percent of the women claiming a cosmetic preference couldn't tell the difference between a circumcised and an uncircumcised penis because they have either never seen an uncircumcised one or were unaware that it was (here's a diagram, to clear up any discrepancies [NSFW]). This kind of discrimination is both unfounded and frustratingly ignorant.

In closing, I'd like to suggest a few simple alternatives to having your child circumcised:
-Wash under his foreskin (as soon as it becomes retractable) just like you wash any other part of his body, and then instill the value of always keeping it clean (again, just like the rest of his body) once he is old enough to wash himself. In America, our access to resources for maintaining good hygiene have done nothing but increase over the last century, and yet statistics show that circumcision rates have increased exponentially. If a dirty (leading to an infected) foreskin was a problem to be solved with circumcision at the turn of the century when fewer Americans had access to toiletries, then shouldn't more babies have been circumcised then? Widespread misinformation has resulted in the opposite. More and more babies are circumcised every year, despite the fact that fewer and fewer will be prone to problems because soap and water is affordable to every American today.
-Teach your child about safe sex. That will do more good to preventing him from getting HIV than having him circumcised with that excuse will.
-Educated yourself and your son about circumcision and the reasons it is performed, so he is prepared to enter a world where many women have an unfounded prejudice against the uncircumcised among us


Addendum

For the Jewish among us, I think it would really just be better to let your sons choose to get circumcised at adulthood. Isn't it more spiritually meaningful for a grown man to accept his faith by voluntarily removing his foreskin than it is to force it on an 8-day-old infant? I know that G~d specifically said that it had to happen 8 days after they're born, but Abraham was 100 when he circumcised himself. Besides, if we're going to stick word-for-word to the text, Genesis also says that you must circumcise all your sons, "including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner." We don't think it's morally just to purchase foreign children anymore, so maybe it's time that we realize that infantile circumcision isn't morally just either.

One big thing I didn't mention is the fact that sex is more pleasurable for an uncircumcised male. There are more nerve endings because there is more skin to contain them. It's cruel and unusual to lessen a man's enjoyment of sex because his mother wants his penis to look "prettier," no?

Circumcision advocates can claim that it is best to perform the procedure when the boy is still an infant because he can't feel it or he won't remember it. If my friends got me drunk and then cut off my left ear (because they thought I would look better without it or because ears get dirty without regular cleaning so I would be better off without it) I definitely felt the pain, but I won't remember it the next day when I come to. But in the end it was still a useless, potentially risky surgery and I'll never get that ear back.

One last thought: something can always go wrong during the procedure. David Reimer, who would go on to become a landmark test subject in the learned gender identification field, had most of his penis accidentally severed when doctors tried to circumcise him at 8 months old. The fact of the matter is that a baby's penis and foreskin is so much smaller than an adult's that the surgery requires much more precision and is therefore safer when performed on an adult male.

References
http://www.jesuswalk.com/abraham/6_circumcision.htm
http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/menshealth/facts/circumcision.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2813gender.html