Page 4
Letterman and
flaming underwear
Today's consumer topic
If you want to know what real
pressure is, just try using a Barbie
doll to set underwear on fire on
national television. I did this on
Dec. 21, on the David Letterman
show. Technically, I was on this
show to promote a book, but unless
you’re an extremely deep thinker
such as Madonna, the Letterman
people don’t like you to just sit there
and talk. They want you to have
what is known in the TV business as
a Strong Visual Element, to keep
things moving along. To give you
an idea of what I mean, here’s how
the Letterman show would rate two
hypothetical guest spots:
WEAK GUEST SPOT: Nobel
Prize-winning research scientist
explains revolutionary new and easy
way to prevent cancer.
STRONG GUEST
SPOT: Nobel Prize
winning research scientist
plays badminton against
a cow.
So when a Letterman
show producer named
Dan Kellison called me
up to find out if I had
any visual elements, I
told him about my
Rollerblade
experiment. Rollerblade
Baibie is a type of Barbie
doll-no longer available
in stores, for reasons that
will soon become apparent-that
comes with little booties equipped
with cigarette-lighter-type flint
wheels; when you roll Rollerblade
Barbie along a flat surface, her
booties shoot out sparks. A while
back, after reading a newspaper
account of an accident involving a
Rollerblade Barbie and some kids
who were playing “beauty shop,” I
conducted a scientific experiment in
my driveway. This experiment
proved that if you spray hair spray
on a set of underwear, then roll
Barbie across it, the underwear will
burst into flames.
Dan instantly realized that this
experiment would have great visual
potential as a way to educate the
Letterman audience concerning the
importance of not applying hair
spray to their underwear and then
running sparking doll booties over
it But he wanted to make sure it
would work, so on the day of my
scheduled TV appearance, I went to
the theater several hours early for a
rehearsal.
Backstage, besides Dan, were
maybe a dozen Letterman show
personnel, as well as a representative
of the New York City Fire
Department The ambience was a lot
less casual than it had been in my
driveway. Everybody was concerned
about the fire danger, everybody was
also VERY concerned about how
Letterman would react. One guy
kept saying things like, “Is this OK
with Dave? Maybe we should run
this by Dave again."
Many eyes were watching me
closely as I spread a pair of men’s
cotton briefs on a table, then sprayed
them with hair spray. Then I picked
up a Rollerblade Barbie, put her on
Barbie
the briefs and scooted her forward,
sparks flying, and suddenly...
...and suddenly nothing happened.
“Ha ha!" I said, to add levity to
the moment But it was not a light
moment It was moment only hours
before the taping of a hit national
show that was supposed to feature
flaming underpants, and here we had
a set of what is known in the TV
business as Stone Cold Briefs.
So I sprayed more hair spray and
tried again. Nothing. I tried a
different kind of hair spray.
Nothing. I tried a different set of
briefs. Nothing. I tried a
Rollerblade Ken (which we had on
hand as a backup). Nothing.
Pretty soon all the observers had
changed from being-concemed
about-too-much-fire mode to being
concemed-that-there-would-not-be-
any fire mode.
As I furiously swiped
Barbie and Ken across
various sets of
underwear, people
crowded around,
offering helpful
suggestions, including:
“Maybe we should
PREHEAT the
underwear." At one
point, the Fire
Department represen
tative, on hand to insure
the public safety, said to
me (I swear): “You
should use Ken. You're
getting more sparks with
Ken.”
Finally, just as we were about to
give up, we got it to woik (the secret,
discovered by Dan, was to use an
ENORMOUS amount of hair spray).
As the blue flames flickered on the
underwear, Dan and I gave each
other triumphant high-fives. I was
elated, until suddenly the thought hit
me: What if it didn’t work on the
show?
So I was a nervous wreck when,
two hours later, I found myself in
front to TV cameras and a live studio
audience, placing underwear on
David Letterman’s desk, spraying it
with hair spray, and picking up
Rollerblade Barbie. In my entire
life, except for during a couple of
crucial free throws in the 1983 NBA
playoffs, I have never asked for the
help of a Higher Power, but I was
definitely thinking in those terms as,
with Letterman watching me closely,
I positioned Barbie on the briefs, and
rolled her forward, and...
once again nothing
...and
happened.
Fortunately this turned out to be
just a little Higher Power prank,
because when I quickly rolled Barbie
a second time, the briefs burst into
flames. I don’t remember much
after that. Letterman picked up a
fire extinguisher and blasted the
briefs, then the camera person, then
the audience, which was thrilled. So
it turned out to be a highly
educational guest spot after all, and
I’m sure that you, the viewing
public, learned a lot
You don’t have to thank me. I’m
just trying to avoid getting a real job.
by Dave Barry
syndicated columnist
Op/Ed
Gun control is not
the answer to this
country’s problems
Imagine, for a moment, if
Congress and the President were to
stop the printing of The New York
Times because a writer spoke out
against government waste.
It is not hard to figure out that this
is a violation of the First
Amendment; specifically the
freedom of the press. Why was it
possible for the Federal
Government to ban the sale and
manufacture of 19 semi-automatic
firearms and ammunition magazines
that hold ten or more rounds?
This number “19” is actually
deceiving because it does not
include “copy cat” versions of the
banned guns. When these models
are added in, the total number of
banned firearms exceeds 184. This
is a direct violation of the Second
Amendment which states; “A well
regulated militia, being necessary to
the security of a free state, the right
of the people to keep and bear arms,
shall not be infringed.”
This ban was part of the
Democrat’s Crime Bill which past
last summer in Congress and was
signed by President Clinton. One
can assume that the purpose of this
ban is to reduce crime.
President Clinton, in his drawn
out State of the Union Address last
month, said something to the effect
that banning these weapons will
reduce crime and stop police
officers from being killed in the line
of duty.
Will this piece of legislation
reduce crime? Statistics show that
one-half of one percent of all
firearms used in violent crimes fall
under the guns banned in the crime
bill. Is this any reason to forbid the
manufacture and sale of these guns,
just because a very small percentage
of them are being misused?
The fact of the matter is that most
criminals committing crimes
involving weapons do not use
assault weapons. They generally
use handguns such as .38’s and
.357 magnum revolvers. Most
criminals don’t obtain their guns
legally, so what is the purpose of
denying the sale of firearms to law
abiding citizens who want to protect
themselves?
In 1989 a survey by the National
Association of Chiefs of Police of
command officers revealed that 90
percent of them agreed that
criminals obtain their “weapons
from illegal sources.”
An argument used by gun control
advocates against semi-automatic
assault weapons is that nobody
needs one, and they have no
sporting purpose. These weapons
can be used for protection.
In a riot situation, when looting
and destruction of private property
The key here is to punish
people, not auns.
Thursday, February 9,1995
is apparent, citizens whose
businesses are being attacked have
used military style assault rifles to
protect themselves and their
merchandise.
There are hundreds of sanctioned
high-power tournaments each year
in which assault rifles are used in
shooting competitions.
President Clinton was wrong
when he said that the only purpose
of these guns is to kill people. My
greatest fear is that this ban on
assault weapons will be a “stepping
stone” to the future ban on other
firearms.
The act of denying firearms to
citizens has had disastrous effects in
the past. In 1938, Adolf Hitler
announced his “Weapons Law.” It
stated that a license to manufacture
guns “must not be issued if the
applicant - or if one of the persons
proposed for the commercial or
technical management of the
business - is a Jew.”
There were a few rebellions by
the Jews during the years of the
Holocaust, but denying their rights
to firearms left them virtually
defenseless against the Nazis.
Gun control was effectively used
in the Soviet Union under Stalin,
where 20,000,000 lives were
killed, without a means of defense.
I’m not insinuating that this fate is
in store for the United States. I
think it is worth mentioning,
however, that those who advocate
gun control join the ranks of Adolf
Hitler, Josef Stalin, and Mao Tse
tung.
The Republicans have promised
to overturn the assault weapon ban
portion of the crime bill. I feel that
it is imperative that they do this, but
it would be impractical to do it now
because President Clinton would
veto the repeal. I feel that the real
solution to crime lies in tougher
punishments.
If someone is convicted of killing
another person, that person should
be made to pay with his or her life.
Tougher sentences should be placed
on the individuals who commit
crimes with guns.
The key here is to punish people,
not guns. Guns are only objects.
They do not kill people. People kill
people.
The Crime Bill and other gun
control schemes are no more titan
proposals that make liberals and
moderates “feel good” about what
their doing, without solving any of
the problems at hand.
by Brad Park
2nd semester
Turf Grass Science