The Dilbert Blog

Proof of God’s Existence

Readers have complained that I keep posting on stories involving penises. Apparently that is not highbrow enough for some of you. Well, unlike some authors, I listen to my readers. So today I am elevating the discussion.

Did you hear that scientists discovered a new use for men’s balls? Apparently they are loaded with stem cells.

http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/09/20/2039030.htm?section=world

This is great news because stem cells have potential to help against many health problems. For example, men’s balls might someday help with their strokes.

If you have balls, you have probably looked at them and wondered aloud “What else can I do with them?” Until now, their utility was limited to the following:

1. Producing sperm and male hormones
2. Target for projectiles
3. Sexual stimulation
4. Impersonating Alan Greenspan

Now it turns out that if you have balls, they might save your life. And this is proof of God’s existence. Allow me to explain.

If it can be shown that our existence is clearly an intentional joke, I think we can rule out evolution. The evidence was already starting to tilt in that direction, but this news about balls clearly pushes things over the line.

Which of these statements sounds the most like an intentional joke on humans?

1. You can cure diseases using your toenail clippings.
2. You can cure diseases using your hair.
3. Hey goober, here’s your life-saving stem cells. They’re in your balls!

Do you seriously think we got to this place by random mutations?

900-pound man

In the news, firefighters in Lansing, Michigan used a forklift to remove a 900-pound man from his home.

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/14147898/detail.html

First, let me say I have a policy against making fun of overweight people. I am not superstitious, and do not believe in will power. Every moist robot has a different program. This particular 900-pound man has Prader-Willi Syndrome, and that makes him feel hungry all the time. I give him a pass.

Still, there is plenty of humor to be found in this story.

My favorite part is the nurse who called firefighters because, in her professional opinion, the 900-pound man “needed medical help.” Kudos to her. A lesser nurse might have missed the signs.

The man’s brother believes the 900-pound man used his credit card to have food delivered. I wonder how the delivery guy felt. I don’t mean to be cruel, but in that situation, is there any way to NOT feel like Han Solo visiting Jabba the Hut? And how do you hand a pizza to a 900-pound guy? I’m no hero; I think I’d toss the food in his general direction, scream like a little girl, and jump out the second-story window. That’s how I roll.

And what is up with the pizza place that presumably delivered to him five times a day? Did it ever concern them that their Customer of the Month was two pizzas away from forming a black hole? Maybe it all happened gradually and it snuck up on them.

One of the neighbors was interviewed by the press. Her name is Cresha Outlaw. That’s right, her name is Outlaw. WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH LANSING, MICHIGAN????? I’m not finding anything in this story that is making me want to visit.

This is the sort of publicity that makes it hard to recruit firemen. It’s a noble profession, but there’s nothing good that happens after your boss says, “Kenny, get the forklift and a tarp.”

Movies and Dilbert

Did you ever wonder why movies are too long? I’ve heard the theory that it’s because directors have too much power compared to the past, when the studio could order them to edit a movie. A top director these days has the contractual right to final edit, and the director isn’t likely to lop off the 30 minutes of boredom that took him a month to create. Brains don’t work that way. He’ll convince himself that every minute of his work is essential. If the studio wants him to make another blockbuster for them, they will agree.

And why is there so much violence in movies? A study done in 2005 showed that G-rated movies are 11 times more profitable than R-rated movies, yet the industry cranks out 12-times more R-rated movies.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/07/news/newsmakers/dove_movies/index.htm

Why is that? It’s obviously not because the public wants more R-rated movies. A theory I’ve heard is that directors are trying to win Academy Awards, and G-rated movies rarely win. Screw the public.

For the past 18 months, my syndication company, United Media, and I had been negotiating with a major movie studio to do a Dilbert movie. They wanted to do it. We wanted to do it. A top director wanted to do it. We even agreed on price. But that wasn’t enough to get it done, for reasons that have already appeared in a Dilbert comic. (I can’t tell you which one.)

So the movie rights for Dilbert are available. And I got to wondering how an investor – either a studio or a private movie investment company – would view the prospects of a Dilbert movie. Maybe you can help.

Keep in mind that most movies don’t make money. The prospects for any particular movie are worse than the odds of, for example, a technology startup company.

Still, did anyone think the first Spiderman movie would lose money? There are some movie ideas that are clearly exceptions. You know in advance that moviegoers young and old will enjoy watching Spidey jump around. With a top director and a good script, it was a relatively safe bet.

It’s the same with X-men, Batman, Superman, The Fantastic Four, The Simpsons Movie, Southpark: Bigger, Longer and Uncut, and even Garfield. I’ve fairly sure they all made money, and it didn’t take a genius to predict they would. They are clearly exceptions.

Does Dilbert fall into that category?

First, Dilbert has the potential to appeal to all ages. It has workplace themes for adults, and talking animals for the kids. And the rating could be G or PG, the most profitable type.

Second, Dilbert has lots of name recognition, which seems to have a huge impact on success. Personally, I would have watched Spiderman even if the reviews hadn’t been excellent. The Garfield movie got terrible reviews, and I’ve watched it twice, because it’s rated G and the kids love it. I haven’t watched The Simpsons Movie, but I will, despite tepid reviews. The brand gets me there.

Third, imagine the product placement potential for a Dilbert movie. That’s becoming a larger part of the overall profitability of a film. What better way is there for a technology company to introduce a new gadget than to have Dilbert use it first in a movie? Viewers wouldn’t find it too obnoxious because you expect Dilbert to have the latest gadgets.

Then there’s the curiosity factor. If you knew the theme of the movie involved Dilbert finding a girlfriend, for example, wouldn’t you automatically wonder how that would work out? Or how about a theme where we see the origins of Dogbert? Did you ever wonder how he got the way he is? When you know the characters, those sorts of stories make you curious even if you aren’t a huge Dilbert fan.

Best of all, comedies are generally shorter than dramas. A Dilbert movie would probably be about 90 minutes. That’s totally bladder friendly. I’d be lying if I said I didn’t make movie theater decisions on that basis.

One big question is whether a Dilbert movie would be traditional animation, CGI, or live actors. I think live actors is the way to go, with CGI for Dogbert, Catbert, and other talking creatures. That allows you to have star power for the main characters, and it differentiates it from the old animated Dilbert TV show.

The plot I imagine involves an origin of Dogbert as a talking dog. It’s Dilbert’s first day of work, after college, and he causes an accident in the technology lab that releases something into the water supply. The pollutant starts to change regular dogs and cats into talking animals over the course of the movie. So Dogbert would be a regular dog in the beginning, with no glasses, but be walking upright before long. From there on, talking animals would just have jobs like regular people, and none of the human characters would give it much thought.

Tell me you wouldn’t watch that.

If you know any wealthy people who want to invest in a Dilbert movie, e-mail me at [email protected].

[Correction: It has been pointed out to me that The Simpsons Movie got good reviews.]

[Clarification: The Dogbert origin story would be a "B" story, meaning it's not the plot of the movie. It's something that develops at the same time and "interferes" with the main plot. And it would only make sense with a movie that used live actors, because it allows you to go from the normal to the extraordinary in a gradual way and take the audience on the ride. For a fully animated movie, I wouldn't do a Dogbert origin B story.]

[Counterpoint: Some say the Dilbert movie has "already been done," and it's called Office Space. Quick, name a movie that hasn't already been done. How about a movie with fighting? How about a love story? Maybe a sports movie? Monsters? Cowboys? They've all been done.]

Suing God

Did you read about the Nebraska state senator who is suing God to make a point about frivolous lawsuits?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20827350/

Your first reaction might be that God has infinite resources and could mount a perfect defense. But I think God would stay out of the details, as usual, and end up with a public defender. This presents the very real possibility that God could lose the case.

I sure hope it goes to trial. Imagine how interesting that would be. First, how do you select a jury of God’s peers? Compared to the Almighty, even Buddha is just a guy who should use the stairs more often. The entire jury would end up being doctors who sometimes play God, and arborists, who can, sort of, make a tree, if they have acorns. That’s the best you can do.

What happens when you call God to the stand? Does he have to take an oath and promise to tell the truth “so help me me”? I don’t see how that could be anything but awkward.

I think the judge would hold God in contempt because all of his answers would seem to be smart alecky.

Lawyer: “Where were you on the night of the tornado?”

God: “Um, everywhere. Same as always. Go to Hell. Seriously.”

God doesn’t use money, so you’d have to sue him for a small portion of his infinite powers. I’d take the power to heal and only use it on myself, so sick people aren’t always pestering me. That would be great during cold season. I’d never wash my hands again.

Me: “Cough, cough, COLD BE GONE! Aaaah, better.”

God’s public defender wouldn’t be able to claim his client didn’t perform the acts of God for which he is accused. I mean, they’re acts of God, ferchrissake. And the defender can’t prove his client wasn’t there. He’s everywhere. God has a well-documented history of smiting humans, the motive, and the opportunity. That’s a strong case.

The only defense that could work is insanity. The public defender would have to prove God is inconsistent in his thinking. You might think that argument is easy to make, but God would be good under cross-examination.

Lawyer: “Do you love people.”

God: “Yes.”

Lawyer: “Then why am I hung like a frozen caterpillar?”

God: “Well, I’m not wild about lawyers. But you said ‘people.’”

Freshly Squeezed O.J.

In the news, O.J. Simpson is in jail for trying to reclaim some items in Las Vegas that an alleged thief stole from him. If O.J. is found guilty of asking a thief to return his belongings, he could go to jail for 30 years.

I assume O.J. is kicking himself for not killing everyone in the room, covering himself in their DNA, and going golfing. You have to stick with what works. What the Hell was he thinking?

This incident should be good for the reputation of Las Vegas. They pride themselves on being a place where activities that are normally immoral or illegal are encouraged. In Las Vegas, you can gamble all day, have sex with a stranger, and, apparently, steal her watch. In Las Vegas, it’s illegal for her to ask you to return it.

Unfortunately for O.J., his old attorney Johnny Cochrane has passed away. He’s the one who coined the phrase “If the glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit.” In my opinion, that rhyme freed O.J. I recall reading a study that says people perceive things that rhyme to be more persuasive than things that don’t. Who will create the new rhyme that sets O.J. free? I have a few suggestions.

“If he reclaimed his own shit, you must acquit!”

“If he didn’t get rough, you must uncuff!”

“If he has a bad knee, you must set him free!”

That’s why I’m not a lawyer. Do you have anything better?

Kabbalah

A number of celebrities, notably Madonna, are embracing a religion called Kabbalah. Celebrities I say! That is all the endorsement I need. I decided it was time to look into it.

I started with Wikipedia. Here’s what I learned about Kabbalah:

1. It’s all very confusing.
2. No one is quite sure what it is, including the people doing it.
3. Old dead people are somehow to blame.
4. Mastering Kabbalah gives you insight into God, as far as you know.

To master Kabbalah, first you must learn to understand a special language called gobbledygook. For example, in Kabbalah-talk, the definition of tzimtzum goes like this:

“The act whereby God contracted his infinite light, leaving a void into which the light of existence was poured. The primal emanation became Azilut, the World of Light, from which the three lower worlds, Beriah, Yetzirah and Assiyah, descended.”

I’m sure you had the same reaction I did when I read about tzimtzum: “I must renounce my current beliefs and dedicate my life to Kabbalah!”

You and I have a lot of work to do. Personally, I don’t know my Assiyah from my elbow. But I figure it won’t be hard to learn because most of it is just common sense. For example, the Neshamah Yeseira is the “supplemental soul” that a Jew can experience on Shabbat. In other words, “duh.” I knew that.

My only concern is that Kabbalah might give me insight into God and I’ll find out some things I really didn’t want to know. I mean, what if I find out God likes squirrels more than he likes me? Sooner or later I’m going to hit a squirrel with my car and I’ll never again feel comfortable going outside unless I have a lightning rod strapped to my hat.

What would be the most disturbing thing you could find out about God?

Hornier Than a…

Did you see the story about the German guy with two penises? He lost his original equipment in an accident, so doctors built him a new one. Later, he decided to upgrade, but doctors left the previous one until the new one took root, so to speak.

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1315211.html

When his wife saw the new one, she packed her bags and left him. This raises many questions about what made the wife so mad. There are many possibilities.

I’ll always remember a conversation I overheard at the gym years ago. An unhappy wife was bitterly complaining to a friend that her husband bought a boat without talking to her first. Apparently wives need to be told everything. So I guess one possibility is that the husband didn’t consult his wife before spending their retirement savings on a third pecker that looks like Frankenstein’s month-old banana.

Another possibility is that the man said something inappropriate when he showed his wife his two penises. One can imagine many wrong things to say. Here is a partial list.

1. So, anyhoo, when is your sister coming out to visit?

2. The little one is for you.

3. I’m already a two-fisted drinker, so this just seemed right.

4. I bought the deluxe unicorn option. The next one goes on my head.

5. No more rest breaks for you, beeatch.

6. Maybe the doctors can give you two headaches so we’re even.

7. Now it will feel like throwing TWO pencils down a hallway.

Another possibility is that the man created his own penis design and it had some features that didn’t please his wife. Again, one can imagine many wrong design choices:

1. Bottle opener option

2. Anything with a face

3. A tattoo that says, “Hello Kitty!”

My point is that there were many ways to handle this situation wrong. You can see how a guy with one big head and two little ones might make the wrong choice.

Dilbert and Chess

The other day I was pre-autographing a box of squeezable Dilbert characters at my restaurant. We buy them with the restaurant information printed on their backs, as promotional items for potential banquet customers. (Yes, I pay for the squeeze toys.)

Anyway, as customers and employees were lusting after them, I lined them up for optimal viewing and noticed something interesting: They map perfectly into chess pieces. Check out this picture.

Imagine Asok the Intern instead of Catbert.

Here's how I see it mapping:

Alice = Queen. The most powerful and capable piece.

Boss = King. He’s in charge, but largely helpless.

Dilbert = Rook. He moves in a straight path. Dilbert’s head shape and bumpy hairline even resemble a rook.

Bishop = Wally. He always has an angle, and he has a little bald head.

Dogbert = Knight. It’s the sneakiest chess piece. You never see it coming. And it’s the only animal.

Pawn = Asok the interns. He’s small and powerless and expendable.

I played some chess as a kid. When I created Dilbert, was I subconsciously influenced by the chess characters? Would any random group of six characters have a good chance of mapping to chess pieces? Is this just a routine coincidence? Is it more evidence I am a hologram programmed by my past self, and I reused code? Are the chess pieces based on some sort of universal archetype that I instinctively tapped into?

Beats me. I just think it’s freaky.

Since I know you’ll ask, the squeezable Dilbert characters are just about the coolest Dilbert-related items ever. They have that inexplicable x-factor thing where you can’t keep your hands off them. You can get them at Amazon.com, without printing on their backs.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/104-9918651-8252729?%5Fencoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=toys&field-keywords=Parle

Or order direct from the company, Parle, if you want your company name on the back.

http://parle.com/frameset.html

Or book a banquet at my restaurant and get a signed one for free. Just ask. www.eatatstaceys.com. (The web site will be redesigned in a few weeks. We’re working on it.)

Gifted or Defective

I was flipping through the channels last night and came across Justin Timberlake giving a concert. He’s a hugely successful artist. People all over the world love him. He’s sold tens of millions of CDs. This presented me with a mystery.

To me, Justin Timberlake sounds like a shockingly untalented guy with a lot of musical training. Why do I perceive him that way when millions of his fans do not?

One explanation is that I have excellent taste in music while the people who buy his albums do not. Yay for me! I am musically gifted and superior despite my inability to play an instrument!

The other explanation is that I am mentally defective. I was born without whatever gene would allow me to take pleasure in this particular type of art. Since so many people have the capacity to enjoy his music, it must be normal to like it. I am nothing but defective and abnormal.

I see this situation every day, but I’m usually on the receiving end. People e-mail or leave comments in various blogs telling me that Dilbert sucks, despite the fact it’s in 2,000 newspapers, in 65 countries, with 20 million Dilbert books and calendars sold. I admire the self-esteem of the people who look at the incompatibility between my commercially successful art and their sense of humor and conclude there’s something terribly wrong with me.

The e-mail I have NEVER received goes like this: “I do not enjoy Dilbert, but since many people do, I assume the problem is on my end. Something is wrong with me and I am just writing to let you know I am defective.”

This is one of those “everything you need to know about human beings” situations. Any incompatibility between a human and the world is seen as proof that the world is screwed up. If a politician wants to give ME a tax break, he’s a visionary. If he wants to give YOU a tax break, he’s a frickin’ thief.

Describe the last time you disagreed with a popular opinion, about anything, and concluded that the problem is with you?

Windmills and Economics

The other day I blogged about an idea for creating farms of Stirling engines to generate power in the desert, and financing them through individual investments in each engine. Predictably, I got a lot of comments that fell into one of these categories.

1. It will never work.

2. Someone is already doing it.

Here’s the best example of someone doing something like it, which I am copying from a comment from Prashanth J.

---- Begin comment ----

Scott,

Well presented but this is exactly what Suzlon, the wind energy firm in India does. This firm operates in Europe and U.S. as well.

http://www.suzlon.com/

This is how it works:

1. The company sets up the wind turbines in places where there is plenty of wind blowing to generate electricity and have them connected to state electricity grids.

2. Individual investors can buy a wind turbine which costs about 200 thousand dollars.

3. Banks finance the investor to buy the turbine.

4. Since the Indian government has a rule that at least 10% of the state electricity consumption has to come from renewable energy resources, state electricity boards buy electricity from Suzlon.

5. The returns which come from this turbine electricity generation is almost 30-40% more than the bank installment the investor has to pay. So the investor starts to make profit from the very first month.

6. The Suzlon owner, Tulsi Tanti, has made a huge fortune in around 10 years. He is one of the richest men in world according to Forbes.
http://www.forbes-global.com/lists/2006/10/QD9Q.html

It's a win-win situation for all and earth.

I am with you. We have a proven idea.

---- End of comment ----

Now all we need is a desert where it gets windy at night, so we can put a windmill on top of a stirling engine and share infrastructure.

This sort of economic model, plus the story about the guy who discovered a way to burn seawater for energy, makes me think our worries about energy are overblown.

Here’s the link for the seawater guy. It’s amazing.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iT1KAi6UEPN8LqZlvLnfsxP7ToKw

Update: The two criticisms I am hearing in the comments to this post are:

1. Windmills and Stirling engines aren't the big answer because you'd need to store their energy for the times when they don't produce.

2. Burning seawater by exposing it to radio waves is nothing but a potentially more efficient way to use electricity to create hydrogen.

Hydrogen can be stored. Problem in #1 is solved.

While I share the skepticism that burning seawater can produce more energy than it takes to create the radio waves, the comparison should be to coal or oil, not a perpetual motion machine. It takes a lot of energy to drill for oil, transport it, and refine it into gasoline. Same with turning coal into liquid fuel. But those aren't perpetual motion inventions.

Is my comparison wrong?