The local bar was so sure that its bartender was the strongest man around that they offered a standing $1000 bet.

The bartender would squeeze a lemon until all the juice ran into a glass, and hand the lemon to a patron. Anyone who could squeeze one more drop of juice out would win the money.

Many people had tried over time (weightlifters, longshoremen, etc.) but nobody could do it.

One day this scrawny little man came in, wearing thick glasses and a polyester suit, and said in a tiny, squeaky voice, “I’d like to try the bet.”

After the laughter had died down, the bartender said OK, grabbed a lemon, and squeezed away. Then he handed the wrinkled remains of the rind to the little man.

But the crowd’s laughter turned to total silence as the man clenched his fist around the lemon and six drops fell into the glass.

As the crowd cheered, the bartender payed the $1000, and asked the little man, “what do you do for a living? Are you a lumberjack, a weightlifter, or what?”

The man replied, “I work for the IRS.”

What’s the difference between Anarchists and Libertarians??

Libertarians are anarchists with money.

Anarchists believe property is theft. Libertarians believe everything is property.

Libertarians are bosses; anarchists work for them when they run out of other options. Libertarians buy more guns, but anarchists use more ammo.

Libertarians ride in stretch limos; anarchists throw bricks through their windshields.

Libertarians go shopping; anarchists go shoplifting.

Libertarians go to the police after they’ve been mugged; anarchists get mugged by the police.

A libertarian wants to marry another libertarian, but only after sleeping with enough anarchists.

Anarchists ignore the IRS; Libertarians hire accountants and attorneys to fight them.

Libertarians think the government is trying steal the property they rightfully own; anarchists think the government is trying to defend property that nobody rightfully owns.

Libertarians are organized in a political party; anarchists aren’t organized in anything.

Anarchists ignore elections; Libertarians run for office, vote and lose.

Libertarians think anarchists are naive and unrealistic; anarchists don’t care what libertarians think.

Definitions of A Diplomat:

Always knows what to talk about, but doesn’t always talk about what he knows. Always tries to settle problems created by other diplomats. Can always make himself misunderstood. Can bring home the bacon without spilling the beans. Can convince his wife not to hide her nice body under a floor-length sable. Can convince his wife to show off her new coat in a bus rather than in a taxi. Can juggle a hot potato long enough for it to become a cold issue. Can keep his shirt on while getting something off his chest. Can look happy when he has unexpected dinner guests. Can make his wife believe she will look fat in a mink coat. Can make nothing sound like something. Can put his best foot forward when he doesn’t have a leg to stand on. Can put his foot down without stepping on someone’s toes. Can say the nastiest things in the nicest way. Can tell a man he’s open-minded when he means he has a hole in his head. Can tell you to go to hell so tactfully that you look forward to the trip. Comes right out and says what he thinks when he agrees with you. Divides his time between running for office and running for cover. Has a straightforward way of dodging issues. Knows how far to go before he goes too far. Lets you do all the talking while he gets what he wants. Never tells a woman how nice she looks in a gown. He tells her how nice the gown looks on her. Puts his cards on the table, but still has some up each sleeve. Straddles an issue whenever he isn’t dodging one. Will approach every question with an open mouth. Will lay down your life for his country. Will refuse to answer any question on the ground it might eliminate him.

A Press Release -

WASHINGTON D.C. The House Appropriations subcommittee on NASA oversight, in another effort to reduce the NASA budget, passed a resolution today to downsize the solar system. According to an unnamed congressional staffer, House Republicans felt there has been “too much redundancy in the solar system” and that streamlining the 4.5 billion year old planetary system is long overdue. Such action would give NASA fewer places to go and this would allow the agency to carry out its space exploration goals within the funding profile that the House proposed earlier this summer.

“Look, we have three terrestrial planets” said Congressman Rip U. Apart (R, Del.), “and only one of them really works! So why not get rid of the other two and clean up the neighborhood?” Most subcommittee members felt that while downsizing was definitely in the cards, eliminating both Mars and Venus was going too far. “We have too many international commitments to Mars.” said Rush N. Hater (R, Calif.). “So I think we should keep Mars and dump Venus. Its too hot to live on, and liberal Democrats keep using it as an example of what global warming can do. So from a political and practical point of view, Venus has got to go.”

Also at risk is the planet Mercury which lacks support because of its small size and poor visibility from Earth. “Who needs it?” asked Congressman Newt Onian (R, N.C.). “Have you ever seen it? I haven’t. So what good is it? We just don’t need useless planets. And speaking of useless planets, what about the asteroids? If you’ve seen one, you’ve seen them all. So I say we ought to get rid of the little boogers once and for all.”

However, the downsizing recommendations do not stop with the terrestrial planets. The resolution also calls for a reduction in the number of gas giants which contain most of the planetary mass in the solar system. Most subcommittee members favor retaining Jupiter and Saturn, and eliminating Uranus and Neptune. “Jupiter employs the most molecules, and Saturn has those pretty little rings everyone likes.” said Rep. Con Mann (R, Fla.). “On the other hand, Uranus is a bore and its rings are dirty. And Neptune, for God’s sake, is just too far away. So begone with those ugly bruisers.”

But the influential Wright I.M. Fornow from South Carolina has publicly announced he will fight to eliminate Saturn. Fornow is especially miffed by NASA’s success thus far in keeping Cassini, the next mission to Saturn, alive which he feels is waste of taxpayers money. “If there ain’t no Saturn, then there ain’t no Cassini” he exclaimed. The congressman also expressed concern about sending back-to-back spacecraft bearing Italian surnames to the outer planets (The Galileo spacecraft arrives at Jupiter this December).

The subcommittee was unanimous in its views towards Pluto which they deemed a moral misfit. “Now here’s a planet we can definitely do without.” continued Fornow. “A few years ago, it was farthest from the sun. Now its not. Its just too confusing. And now they tell me its really two planets instead of one. What the hell is going on here?”

The resolution must now be presented to the entire House, where it is expected to pass easily since only a minority of Representatives have constituents on the affected planets. NASA Administrator Golden has vowed to resist any further reductions to the solar system, saying that “NASA has expended considerable effort to make the planets cheaper, faster, and better. Much of this work would be wasted if the solar system were downsized” stated Golden.

Critics say, however, that reducing the number of planets will not produce the expected savings to taxpayers. Textbooks, they note, would have to be revised to reflect the new arrangement, and facilities would need to be constructed to remove the planets themselves. The resolution is also likely to draw strong opposition from religious fundamentalists who have long opposed the elimination of any of the biblical planets. Thus, the matter is far from resolved.

New Official Politically Correct Terms for the 90′s

OLD—————NEW

conservative–reactionary

the establishment–white power elite

hearing person–temporarily aurally abled

sighted person–temporarily visually abled

blind–visually challenged

mute–vocally challenged

deaf–aurally challenged

dead–metabolically different

alive–temporarily metabolically abled

ugly–aesthetically challenged

fat–gravitationally challenged

heavy-set–people of mass

rude–politically correct

psychopath–socially misaligned

crooked–ethically challenged

klutzy–kinesthetically challenged

bald–follicularly challenged

short–differently statured

non-white, non-male oppressed–white melanin impoverished / genetically oppressive

white male–oppressor

black–african-american

asian–asian-american

afro-american–african-american

minority group–numerically challenged group; under-represented population

black–person of color

Chicano–person of color

weird green freak–person of color

female–person of gender

drooling drunk idiot–person on floor

group of blacks–Under-Represented population of persons of color

Group of Whites–L.A.P.D.

woman–womyn

women–wymin

girl–pre-womyn

man–oppressor

boy–oppressor-to-be

pregnancy–parasitic oppression

janitor–sanitation engineer

disabled car-mechanically challenged car

dish washer–utensil sanitizer

dairy–where cows are raped

ranch–where cattle are murdered

egg ranch–where hens are raped

biology department–where animals are tortured and then murdered to fulfill the sadistic fantasies of white male scientist lackeys of theimperialist drug companies

fishing–raping the oceans

farming– exploiting mother earth

nhl hockey–uniformed fascists vying for superiority

paper bag– processed tree carcass

Many of the labels from the 80′s are now passe. Here is a partial list of the denotations that are now acceptable (all labels are subject to change without notice).

old 80′s/90′s

deaf/hearing impaired/aurally challenged

blind /sight impaired/visually challenged

retarded/mentally handicapped/mentally challenged

queer/gay/homosexual/queer (strange but true)

fat/big boned/alternative body image