Sunday, October 30, 2011

Privates Sector Growth

S. Shawcross / Oil on hardboard /18 x 24 / $120

Be sure to visit our painting blog:

This weeks feature video: Sometimes it's important just to laugh and nothing else.

The Louis Saga Continues: Bidding on the 1,500 word essay "Tell Me about the Rabbit George." Signed, hand-bound limited edition of 1 continues: $93.17 G.R. Chelsea Monday, October 31, 2011 Bidding closes midnight Friday, December 2, 2011 To bid send an e-mail to To follow the initial story see my July post on the right ----------->

This week's column was published in the West Quebec Post, October 19th, 2011. It's a little bit irreverent but the scientists make me do this. Really they do... I've changed the names to protect the guilty here.


My dear Dr. T.W. of the University of H.,

May I call you Ted? Of course I can. This is because, in having read your research paper published in July entitled "Male organ and economic growth: Does size matter?" I believe I've become more than intimately familiar with you, on a purely academic level of course. Such language used in your paper certainly bridges the distance between strangers wouldn't you say? I imagine you've received many many letters from strangers since your paper was published. One cannot print things such as "The aim of this paper is to fill a scholarly gap with the male organ," without expecting some distinctly interesting feedback.

My letter of course is different. In fact, I have no interest whatsoever in the topic of your research, at least at the economic level and feel instead, that I must help you address some perhaps delicate matters. I sometimes tend to forget that there are indeed people in the world, scientists even, that are actually "not" familiar with my Institute for the Rehabilitation of Misguided Scientists. Of course it's not just for scientists. Just last week I had a real breakthrough with an engineer working for CIMA who had, without any apparent self-awareness, no control over his freudian slips when announcing himself at meetings. "I'm Jean, from semen," he'd say. Poor poor man. He was just disabled with humiliation. I taught him how to macrame. It took many many months but I have to say, the man is changed! He no longer works for Semen but he's on his 134th hanging pot holder. And he's very very happy indeed. But I digress...

My dearest Ted--your nights must be very long indeed. How can you possibly be sleeping well after discovering that "countries that averaged smaller penis sizes grew at a faster rate than their larger counterparts between 1960 and 1985." Oh you poor poor man. Some things, I always say, are not meant to be discovered. Indeed some things are better left to the murkiness of mystery. Imagination after all has a place. But of course it is understandable to some degree that you felt a deeply intense urge to bring some exuberance into the fertile fields of economics. Economics is, after all, acknowledged to be deadly boring and populated by mostly men who never got over their teething experience. Even still, as you say in your paper, "the male organ hypothesis put forward here is quite penetrating an argument."

When I read that "every centimeter increase in penis size accounted for a 5 to 7 percent reduction in economic growth," my heart simply went out to you. How miserable you must be, there alone in your bed with perhaps only your penis to keep you company and naturally, the bags of gold coins under the bed. Am I right about that? Now, there's no need to feel ashamed. I've dealt with many such persons as yourself. It's not like "everyone" would be so observant--I just happen to have a knack for these things. Rest assured, your secret is very much safe with me.

It is interesting how you conclude your study by suggesting that "penile length and income are both factors that contribute to an individual's level of self-esteem, and if a person has more of the former, he'll need less of the latter." As I've often found with many of you scientist types, you are one inch away from diagnosing yourself but have yet to, may I say, make that special thrust to enlightenment.

My dearest Ted, why did you feel such a need to completely discount the entire female gender in your studies? Why, in other words, do you hate your mother?
And how would you account for this sudden economic decline in North America? Surely something like that would be in the news? I mean, millions of men suddenly funding their private hedges?

If you would like to discuss this further, or perhaps make a generous donation to the Institute for the Rehabilitation of Misguided Scientists, please feel free to contact me. Would you agree that even a rich man with a small penis deserves some happiness in this life? I look forward to your reply, S. Shawcross

No comments: