Chaos ensues as Doubleman continues to raise Hell. It can be assumed at this point that he’s almost forgotten why he was mad in the first place. He’s just enjoying the thrill of shaking things up (really hard). Meanwhile, a T.V. is on nearby set to the channel of the live interview. Of course, things went awry, so the “technical difficulties” message has been up for a couple minutes. The broadcast switches back to the news station and an anchorman caught off-guard.
Anchor: Um… It appears there were some technical difficulties at the hospital. Everyone here offers the Poppycock family our congratulations and hopes everything work out for the family. Since we have some extra time now, we’ll be speaking to some figures about their feeling on this unique child. First up is Fox News pundit Bill O’Reilly.
The broadcast sets the anchor in a frame to the left and O’Reilly in a frame to the right.
Anchor: Hello, Bill. How are you doing today?
Bill O’Reilly: Confused and slightly offended.
Anchor: Oh?
O’Reilly: Yes. I’m not quite sure where this child stands legally, but I don’t like him.
Anchor: Elaborate?
O’Reilly: Well first of all, genetically speaking, Michael is not a normal child. In fact, he’s completely different than every other human being. My question is should he even be treated as as a normal human. I mean, sure, he takes on the form of any other man, but he’s clearly not on the inside. So legally, should he regarded as a human? I think not. Should he be regarded as an animal? Not quite, but I think until we figure out what he is exactly, we should side towards that.
Anchor: Are you sure? Michael is still technically a human, born from human parents. I don’t really see a need to place him in the same class as my dog.
O’Reilly: And I might have agreed with that sentiment, until he started throwing a rampage during the interview 10 minutes ago. He’s uncontrollable, unpredictable. He may be more dangerous than we initially thought.
Anchor: Dangerous to whom?
O’Reilly: Everybody. His family, his friends, his environment. Heck, even himself!
Anchor: So are you saying that as an uncertain figure who has displayed a destructive attitude, Michael should be considered to be in a “grey zone” until he’s older or proven himself as an average citizen?
O’Reilly: Essentially. And if that day even comes, I’m still not sure I’d trust him. He seems more like a monster in disguise to me.
???: You shut your face!
A third frame appears on screen in the middle of the other two (leaving the anchor to the left and O’Reilly on the right). An image comes in to identify the voice. It’s none other than Chuck Norris.
O’Reilly: Excuse me!?
Norris: You heard me. You’re full of it and need to stop talking now.
O’Reilly: What is this? Who do you think you are?
Norris: I’m a man. And so is Michael. There’s no denying that. He’s just as human as you or I, if not more so. You’re just putting him down because you can’t understand him. Instead of learning about him and actually getting to know him, you’d rather just make up stuff about his illegitimacy. You may speak passionately about you’re ignorant fears, but that doesn’t make them right.
O’Reilly: That’s outrageous! For you’re information, I’ve been doing this for years. I know what I’m talking about. And you are… an actor? What credentials do you have to be speaking about this with me?
Norris: My fist.
Chuck punches off-frame to the right. Somehow the punch goes through to O’Reilly’s frame and knocks him out.
Norris: My work here is done.
Norris cuts out of the broadcast.
Anchor: We thank both of our guest speakers for their views on the issue. We just about out of time here, but we have one more figure here to weigh in on the topic. He is a reverend from Alabama who is simply called “Creationist” by his followers due to of his deep devotion to the Catholic religion.
Creationist: [appearing in a frame to the right of the anchor] Hello.
Anchor: Hi. So how do you feel about our controversial child?
Creationist: I differ not too greatly from Mr. O’Reilly.
Anchor: Is that so?
Creationist: Indeed. However, my concern is not the legality of the child in the government’s eyes, but in the eyes of our Lord.
Anchor: Does Michael defy the word of God as well?
Creationist: Without a doubt. Michael is a blight in the eyes of God. He is not a true human, nor is he quite like any other creature. He’s an anomaly; a mutant; an abomination!
Anchor: I see. Does the Bible specifically state anything to back that up?
Creationist: Absolutely. God stated that He made man in his image. Michael is not in his image. Besides, just look at what the demon has done. In less than a month, Michael has gone on a rampage in a hospital. Imagine the pain and destruction he is causing in such a delicate place!
Anchor: So what will you do? Levy political litigation?
Creationist: No. Nothing will get done if we wait for Congress to address the issue. I must take this matter into my own hands, with or without assistance.
Anchor: Personally?
Creationist: The child Michael must be destroyed. I will carry out God’s will and see to it that this blight be purged from our Earthly plane… forever!
Fade to black. Cliffhanger ending.
Doubleman!! 