[Newspoetry] Scary Stories Algorithm: N <-- N + 1.

[Donald L Emerick]

New York Times story of 23 Feb reports

(a) 24 yr old woman
(b) arrested for FHA burglary
(c) which theft would ordinarily fall under radar of national news,
(d) receives special attention because site of theft also has "sensitive"
info in it:
t'wit
(d1) sensitive info pertains to Hoover Dam
(d2) said sensitive info was once public domain
(d3) nobody much noticed that
(d4) so terrorists probably didn't plan ahead
(d5) and now are discovering that it can be harder to get sensitive info.
(e) Police confirm, though, that yes, indeed, this was just an ordinary
theft.
(f)  A special smear-speaking-agent (DEA task force) is curiously on scene
(g) says, "Well, folks, gee whiz, this 24 year old has an extensive crime
record...:"

I probably have just violated the NYT's copyright,
maybe just by repeating story with only them as source --
or, gee, if you can't repeat the news, what's the use of it --
is it for personal consumption only -- a single user license?

I can see it coming:
NYT Disclosure Statement
This copy of the New York Times is for personal use only.
Do not discuss its contents (ie the news) with anyone else,
other than another qualified purchaser of the NYT news or
our sales representatives and, maybe, news team staffers.
Violators will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law,
as indicated under the revised Copyright Etc Property Laws.

(The disclosure would read like the one
on the back of your ticket to a sporting
or other entertainment "performance".
(Indeed, instead of raising taxes fairly
(wouldn't be popular, doncha know),
the government will start charging, soon,
for any information that it hands out to
news agencies, many of which suck up
handouts now, rather than do "field research."
These costs will pass along to consumers
of the news (news junkies and info addicts,
who will pay any price to feed their habit).))

but, that is not my complaint, but an errant opinion,
that just kind of leaks from my mouth, like drool
( I prefer not to repress segues, doncha know).

Anyway, I'm tired of this crap,
this constant barrage of fakes:
scare stories,
scare headlines,
scare warnings,
scare this and that.
It really does deserve
a condemning rebuke.

But, every one is too scared to say this in writing --
because, if just one of the scare stories ever occurs,
as in threat materialization, then the person who
denies that any of the stories is worth printing,
will seem to have been a fool.  The condemnation
would be purely post-hoc and quite undeserved.

But, as every gambler knows beyond doubting,
the fact that one gambler someplace sometime
won the big kahuna-immense whopper fortune
means that it is rational to believe in gambling
as a way to get filthy stinking, money-to-burn rich.
(And, indeed, is perfectly rational if you are not
born rather rich or (more rarely) highly talented
in skills of conning small money into big money --
because you damned well know that working for
the man never will make you rich, that's for sure --
and it's so very hard to believe that being happy
is not a function of being able to command others
to give you anything that your undisciplined self
ever could imagine, any time that it has an urge).

So, we have this drivel of news that is not news:
scare me this and scare me that... post-091101.

If we treated all the warnings of the Government,
that were confirmed by the event that was predicted,
and all of those bad things that they failed to predict,
then I would now venture to say that Bush and Co.
appear to be on the verge of setting a USA Record
for an apparent absolute inability to forecast news.
As WC says: "Never before has so little that is news
been given to so many as news, with so few results."
(Well, I transobliterate his English, doncha know.)

(I could also say something about the barrage of
"Where is Osama bin Laden now stories" which
are even less amusing than "where is Waldo now.")

Yeah, I know.  It's Sunday night
and I'm just bitching around
because the work week resumes
tomorrow morning, so they say.
(It never quite pauses for me.)
But, still, I'm glad to puke this out
even if you'd rather I did it elsewhen.
And I bitch because I'm wanting
to start tomorrow's job tonight,
because it looks like it'll be fun,
but I know that I haven't time left
tonight for that much fun tonight
and will have to wait until tomorrow.
(Any gratification-delay is a bitch
-- and -- for gender neutrality --
were I else-sexed, "a bastard" --
but my son would say, "Don't be
an idiot practicing confusing links.")

(None of this is newspoetic,
and maybe it's just me
talking, explaining away
the whys of a mental block,
as if there'd be an obstruction
for "thoughts" like unto that
for a gastro-intestinal tract,
a constipation, anal-retentive.)

I'd suppose that I could always
go to bed, rather than journal(ize).

But, what If I died in my sleep,
as children who prayed once said?
Think of those might-have-beens.
If I had said this (which I have),
then maybe this or quack-quack that.
So, I'd rather take a dump for/on you.

Pretentious, vain, arrogant, proud fool,
I have dubious honor of being yours truly,
Sincerely and thanks for listening,
Donald L Emerick

PS (And I sometimes prefer to PS,
even though I could stick this comment in
as if it had really occurred in the stream,
thereby telling you a little (more of a?) lie):
<and what was I going to say, anyway?>
Unlike Bush & Co, my writings are perfect-
ly predictable, even boring and pedantic,
once you know what thematic seeds,
as fore-planted in my behavior patterns,
will be watered and heated (irradiated?),
today (or this time), for I am Robot, too
(dare to resist r2d2 gravitational forces).
(And, maybe this writing would exemplar
why my dear Freud always prefers
not to have any live studio audience
for his psychotherapeutic sessions --
only an edited transcript would hold up
an audience before the abyss of sleep.)