I was just wondering.   If it were possible to extend the longevity of our pets, let’s say dogs and cats, beyond our own life expectancy through some miracle form of genetic breakthrough non-applicable to primates, would this make pet owners happy or sad?  If your new pet kitten was likely not only to outlive you but your new-born son or daughter, too, would its presence serve as a constant reminder of your more tenuous human transience?  Does not having a chronological series of shorter-lived pets, whom we can dearly love, in some ways confer to us a grander sense of our own resilience to personal  biological demise?  Or would a cat that could live, say 150 years, give you comfort in speculating that your unborn never-to-be-seen great-grandchildren might share the love long after your estate bequeathed the family feline?

I was just wondering.   When in the future, the world is riddled with cloning, would not the discoverer/inventor of ACF—the Anti-Cloning Factor become the instant trillionaire hero of uniqueness? 

Imagine a world where to preserve your uniqueness, especially, let’s say, if you were a beautiful model or cherished celebrity, you needed to absolutely control or at least track every dissemination of your DNA.  Any hair cut could not be swept away but would need to be either collected or incinerated on the spot.  Toilets would either have to chemically destroy all biologics or puree your waste along with a befuddled concoction of anonymous pre-mixed DNA.  You got the idea.

The most innocent activities would become suspect.  Let’s say a guy walks into a dance bar, picks out a ravenous babe, buys her a drink, talks a bit, starts rubbing and then scratching her back.  It happens.  But in Cloneworld she’s forced to think: "Are my skin cells that he’s collecting under his fingernails with that scratch going to be used to clone me for the purpose of turning my clone into his own homegrown Woody Allen-type Soon-Yi??"

Enter the discoverer/inventor of ACF—the Anti-Cloning Factor, a ubiquitously-generalized activatable binding traducer which shadows all DNA innocuously in the source organism but becomes activated and anti-biologic if separated from the organismic hologram for an unnatural period of time.  He or she who would gift the world this would instantly become the saint of singularity, the demigod of distinctiveness, the maven of matchlessness.  Ah—the future: what an exciting place!

I was just wondering.  Are the people who play Ronald McDonald clowns real athletes?  The stature and physique of Ronald when studied suggests a fine definition of fitness—as if Ronald could be a stage dancer or an individual capable of playing Kwai Chang Caine (David Carradine) in Kung Fu. 

But did you know that it wasn’t always so?  The original “Ronald” was actually Willard Scott (the weatherman!).  He invented the clown in 1963 and even came up with the name of Ronald McDonald.  But he was dumped soon thereafter because he was considered by McDonald’s PR to be too overweight! 

Hello??? I wonder how he got that way—maybe eating a slightly-upsized course of the company food?!  I mean, people, what’s been happening to the average American’s girth ever since we began eating billions and billions of Big Macs and fries and shakes??!!  So are we now supposed to believe that by the conspicuous consumption of fast food that we’ll become as slim and fit as the role-model Ronald clown-mascot?  LOL

I was just wondering.