I just received a letter in the mail from the U.S. Department of Commerce notifying me that I would be receiving a 2010 Census form in the mail. Now, I'm not one to second guess the U.S. government, but why am I receiving a letter telling me that I will be receiving a letter? Why don't they just send me the damn Census form once and be done with it? Isn't the 2010 Census-sponsored NASCAR enough of a reminder? The answer: the first letter is like a subpoena, requiring me to respond to the second.

The US Commerce Department admits that mailing these advance letters is an "important reminder" to people that they need to participate. Fun fact: According to United States Code Title 13, Chapter 7, Subchapter II, Section 221, anyone who refuses to respond to a census request could be fined up to $100. The same section of the US Code also states that anyone who "willfully gives an answer that is false" could be fined up to $500. And there's more! Section 222 stipulates that if anyone makes "any suggestion, advice, information or assistance of any kind, with the intent or purpose of causing an inaccurate enumeration of population to be made, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both." But that's not all! Section 224 warns than anyone intentionally lying about his business or other organization "shall be fined not more than $10,000." Ouch.

So remember kids, don't ignore or lie to Big Brother, especially if he already knows where you live. And don't even think of trying to escape: his car is faster than yours.

It was recently brought to my attention that England is considering legislation requiring all potential dog owners to pass a test, microchip their dog, and buy insurance in case their dog attacked someone. In theory, this plan would prevent the implementation of mobile collection and euthanasia vehicles such as have been recently employed in parts of Japan in order to restrain out-of-control wild and dangerous dog populations. After all, who could imagine a scenario where someone would abandon their animal after having paid a substantial sum to acquire it, even if that someone had lost their job in a shrinking economy after having overpaid for a vastly overvalued animal in the first place? Come on, it's not like a dog is a house.

How to solve the problem of wild, dangerous dogs is the sort of problem that would only face a government that had already banned gun ownership. Now that guns don't kill people, dogs kill people. With no threat of weapons to keep them in check, the loose dogs have formed nature's equivalent of motorcycle gangs, resorting to wandering from town to town fighting other gangs tooth-and-claw over territory, eating from trashcans, and raping all the uptight bitches. In America, we'd shoot our beloved Old Yeller if he looked at us cross-eyed, but the Brits are searching for a gentler way.

I for one applaud the idea. Owning a dog is like owning a car, and users must be qualified lest they plow through a crowd of innocent pedestrians. Better yet, using the tried-and-true, infallible "slippery slope" argument, it is clear that this action will inevitably lead to the obvious conclusion: qualifying people for parenthood. For far too long, society has allowed the bumper sticker slogan "anyone can be a father" to dictate public policy. I say that it's about time that government qualified what, exactly, that "special" quality is that makes someone a "daddy."

I suggest we follow the format of the British dog law: all prospective parents should pass a written test and buy "child insurance" in case the child one day gets lose from its restraints and bites someone. Once a child is born, we'll microchip them, mainly to prevent child insurance fraud. After all, if it's good enough for dogs, it's good enough for people.

The results are in:

Surprisingly, football received multiple votes, twice as many as comic books did. No one voted for hearing exclusively more about my personal life. (Everyone must already know how boring it is.) Though news reports were the big vote-getter, I consider poodles to be the winner for garnering a vote when they weren't even a candidate. Good girls!

So what did we learn from this exercise? Only that I have lost a reader. At last count, I was sure that I had 11 readers, but the poll only received 10 votes. One of you better have died.

[UPDATE]: As you can see from the comments below, Randy fessed up. As a result, I've updated the table above. Eleven readers, eleven votes. Everything is now right with the world.

The American Academy of Pediatrics wants legislation to label foods that may prevent choking hazards to children. But rather than stop simply putting a label on all phallic foods that may clog a toddler's airway, they go so far as to ask for "a recall of food products that pose a significant choking hazard," the Twinkies and Beanie-Weenies in your pantry included. As crazy as this proposal sounds, it certainly seems like this has a better chance to pass Congress as "health care reform" than any other "public option."

I've been dog sitting for my father's poodle puppy, Rambo, and it turns out that his puppy is better behaved than mine. Victoria, my full grown poodle, is determined to catch one of dad's cats or hens, which makes every trip into the yard a struggle. So far, the score is Victoria 2, Hens 0 -- that's hens caught, not hens killed (Victoria has a poodle's typically soft mouth) -- before I could separate the combatants. Meanwhile, Victoria has her own cheering section as Rambo patiently stands at the top of the deck and barks his gleeful approval. He may be better behaved, but that doesn't mean that he's helping.

[UPDATE]: This blog post requires that I include the following picture of Rambo to illustrate just how vicious he is. You may want to shield the eyes of your impressionable children before scrolling down.

I've had a few people tell me in recent weeks that they read my blog, but they don't care for the comic book parts. That made me curious: what do you guys prefer to read about? Let me know by using the simple poll below. (I'll let you kno what the results were at the beginning of March.)

[SUBMISSIONS DEACTIVATED 03/01/10]

Disclaimer: I'm asking for what you like here at wriphe.com/blog, nothing else, so don't get too cute. This poll does not constitute a promise to cater to your whims. In fact, if anything, I'll try harder to keep what you like from you. But if you've been coming here long enough to have an opinion about what you like, you probably already knew that.