Thursday, January 8, 1998
Please boycott (and/or smash!) our loyal anti-sponsors:

Wings Accidentally Left Off Planes; Flight NOT Over

LV, NV - (Jan 8) - Due to blatant mis- and dis-information from The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, Time, Newsweek, and Geraldo, this column has recently mistakenly concluded that flight, itself, was, you know, OVER! O - V - E - R!

Well, it turns out, according to The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, Time, Newsweek, and Geraldo, that flight, itself, really isn't, you know, like, OVER, one fucking bit!!! O - N - E - - F - U - C - K - I - N - G - - B - I - T!

Apparently, the reason that every plane that's taken off in the past 9 months has either crashed into a mountainside or exploded in mid-air, or landed safely but killed all the passengers anyway, -- the reason is that flight, F - L - I - G - H - T, hasn't stopped working at all.

Nooooooooooo! What's really stopped, instead, is that, apparently, airplane manufacturers, in their haste to better serve, you know, you, the public an' all, have, you know, like, just stopped bothering to PUT THE FUCKING WINGS ON.

According to Rebecca Kramer, director of quality assurance at Boeing Airplane Company, "Hey, you know, now that you mention it, when those planes came rolling off the line, they did look like maybe they were missing a wing or two. But, like, sales are up, so who's counting?"

Lawrence Kudchew, Chief economist for Bull-Siemens Investments, was utterly fucking, you know, sanguine about the whole thing saying that "No one really has to worry about anything, and everyone should just shut the fuck up and mind their own fucking business, as it were, and the market, you know, THE MARKET, will sort everything out on its own. -- Like your bones from the rubble, for example."

"Yes," said a spokesman for McDonald's-Douglas Planes and Burgers Corporation, "Any goon should realize that all those planes without wings are, you know, for SELLING, and RE-selling, and maintaining. NOT for flying. N - O - T!"

"I mean," said a spokesperson for speaking itself, "Airplanes that don't crash are not only pretty boring, and just so yesterday, but -- in an age of disposable diapers, disposable cameras, and disposable superconducting supercolliders -- it just makes good economic sense to build the kind of planes where you can 'take off once, then throw it away.'"

"Of course," somebody else chimed in, "All this is predicated on modern advances in molecular biology, which allow the average citizen, rather than going through the hassle of personally flying somewhere, himself, to just send his clone instead. So if the plane crashes, it's no big deal. Just knock off another clone and send that one. And if that plane crashes, just send another clone. And another. And so on, until one finally makes it."

"And, once the clone is there," said the author of the hit Broadway musical, Bring on the Clones, "She can just, like, STAY there. So you don't have to waste all that money and hassle on a flight back which, of course, wouldn't make it anyway, and, so, why have even considered, you know, fucking bothering?"

[ PREVIOUS  |   ARCHIVES   |   C3F ]

Copyright (c) 1997 by C3F