Sunday, July 31, 2005
Suspects
It took me by surprise when I first heard that the British authorities were looking for suspects in the recent suicide bombings. I mean, aren't most suspects in a suicide bombing already dead? And what do you do with such a person if you capture him/her? Put them on "life-row"?
You see, that's why the sun set on the British Empire. Somebody blows up something over there, and they look for suspects. But someone blows up something over here, and we don't mess around with the small fry. We invade countries. The problem with the Brits is that they just don't think big enough.
You know, I think I have an idea on how to deal with this terrorist thing. Obviously Britain is crawling with terrorists, and they do have weapons of mass destruction. If we just invade them, that should solve our problems. After all, didn't they burn Washington a couple of years ago, anyway?
You see, that's why the sun set on the British Empire. Somebody blows up something over there, and they look for suspects. But someone blows up something over here, and we don't mess around with the small fry. We invade countries. The problem with the Brits is that they just don't think big enough.
You know, I think I have an idea on how to deal with this terrorist thing. Obviously Britain is crawling with terrorists, and they do have weapons of mass destruction. If we just invade them, that should solve our problems. After all, didn't they burn Washington a couple of years ago, anyway?
Sunday, July 24, 2005
Say Nay, Jay!
OK, I'm feeeeling the power here -- and I'm going after THE BIG GUY! No, I don't mean God -- no, not even Tom Cruise. I'm talking 'bout THE BIG GUY here! I'm talkin' 'bout Jay Leno!
A couple of postings ago, I suggested that we appoint Tom Cruise to the Supreme Court. But, if we really wanted to reform and simplify the judicial system, we could get rid of all the juries and substitute Jay Leno. After all, every night Jay gets up there and decides who's innocent and guilty. Who needs juries?
Michael Jackson? Guilty! Robert Blake? Off with his head. O.J. Simpson? Pull-ease. Now, it doesn't matter that real live juries listened to days of testimony and decided that these guys weren't guilty. Even Geraldo said that Michael Jackson wasn't guilty -- so there! It must be true! Jay found, and still finds, them guilty -- and only the fact that they're public figures protects Jay from being guilty himself -- of slander.
But, what about Bill Cosby? Wasn't the Sainted Cosby accused of-- what was it? I honestly don't remember. You never heard any jokes about it on the Tonight Show. And how about Tom Cruise? No, I haven't heard that he's been accused of any crimes -- unless acting like a screwball is a crime. (But isn't that Michael Jackson's main crime? Acting like a screwball?) But Bill Cosby is a hero of Jay's -- Tom Cruise is a friend of Jay's. Tom can come on the show and talk cars and motorcycles -- they're buds. So Tom can make a total ass out of himself -- and nary a quip. Total free pass. Time for another joke about Dick Cheney's heart condition, right? That's a real scream, right? Get it, "scream?" But I respect Jay for that -- he has the courage to take on the difficult, professional comedic challenge of turning someone's heart condition into something funny.
Arnold is another friend of Jay. Every time his polls slip, Arnold comes on the Tonight Show so that Jay can lob easy, predetermined political questions to him. Not exactly Chris Matthews' stuff. Maybe you could have a new show and call it "Softball". Arnold is . . . you guessed it -- a Friend of Jay.
When you think about it, Arnold is the big long-term winner here. After all, Jay will eventually be replaced by Conan. With a name like Conan, you can be sure that Arnold will be his friend, too.
A couple of postings ago, I suggested that we appoint Tom Cruise to the Supreme Court. But, if we really wanted to reform and simplify the judicial system, we could get rid of all the juries and substitute Jay Leno. After all, every night Jay gets up there and decides who's innocent and guilty. Who needs juries?
Michael Jackson? Guilty! Robert Blake? Off with his head. O.J. Simpson? Pull-ease. Now, it doesn't matter that real live juries listened to days of testimony and decided that these guys weren't guilty. Even Geraldo said that Michael Jackson wasn't guilty -- so there! It must be true! Jay found, and still finds, them guilty -- and only the fact that they're public figures protects Jay from being guilty himself -- of slander.
But, what about Bill Cosby? Wasn't the Sainted Cosby accused of-- what was it? I honestly don't remember. You never heard any jokes about it on the Tonight Show. And how about Tom Cruise? No, I haven't heard that he's been accused of any crimes -- unless acting like a screwball is a crime. (But isn't that Michael Jackson's main crime? Acting like a screwball?) But Bill Cosby is a hero of Jay's -- Tom Cruise is a friend of Jay's. Tom can come on the show and talk cars and motorcycles -- they're buds. So Tom can make a total ass out of himself -- and nary a quip. Total free pass. Time for another joke about Dick Cheney's heart condition, right? That's a real scream, right? Get it, "scream?" But I respect Jay for that -- he has the courage to take on the difficult, professional comedic challenge of turning someone's heart condition into something funny.
Arnold is another friend of Jay. Every time his polls slip, Arnold comes on the Tonight Show so that Jay can lob easy, predetermined political questions to him. Not exactly Chris Matthews' stuff. Maybe you could have a new show and call it "Softball". Arnold is . . . you guessed it -- a Friend of Jay.
When you think about it, Arnold is the big long-term winner here. After all, Jay will eventually be replaced by Conan. With a name like Conan, you can be sure that Arnold will be his friend, too.
Saturday, July 23, 2005
Manga and More
Well, I had myself quite a week. On Wednesday night I saw a quilt exhibit at the Museum of Fine Arts. The quilts were hung on these white walls, complete with spotlights, A-V commentary, and wealthy personages from the suburbs to admire them. Of course, the quilts themselves were created 70 years ago by poor blacks from Alabama who, at best, might have been hired to trim these personages' lawns, but what the heck. On the way out of the building, I noticed that the Museum's posted occupancy license had expired months ago.
The next night was the Manga and Anime presentation at the local library. This seems to be the primary past-time of individuals who, in a previous generation, might have devoted their lives to compiling Esperanto-Klingon dictionaries. The kind of people who could tell you Nichelle Nichols' cup size, then giggle hysterically for 5 minutes after they said it.
At the very least, I now know who owns all of the black t-shirts in Quincy.
After 70 minutes of Managa and Anime, I rushed home to catch the last 90 minutes of WWE SmackDown. JBL hyping his Great American Bash match against the Beast, Batista. Batista is this dude who's more juiced than Anita Bryant. His varicose veins are larger than my muscles.
I don't know -- the world of entertainment rocks, I think I need something new and stimulating. When does Classic Regis come out on DVD?
The next night was the Manga and Anime presentation at the local library. This seems to be the primary past-time of individuals who, in a previous generation, might have devoted their lives to compiling Esperanto-Klingon dictionaries. The kind of people who could tell you Nichelle Nichols' cup size, then giggle hysterically for 5 minutes after they said it.
At the very least, I now know who owns all of the black t-shirts in Quincy.
After 70 minutes of Managa and Anime, I rushed home to catch the last 90 minutes of WWE SmackDown. JBL hyping his Great American Bash match against the Beast, Batista. Batista is this dude who's more juiced than Anita Bryant. His varicose veins are larger than my muscles.
I don't know -- the world of entertainment rocks, I think I need something new and stimulating. When does Classic Regis come out on DVD?
Sunday, July 10, 2005
Terrorism for Dummies
Ok -- this blog is usually noted for its wit and wisdom, but I'm going to dispense with the wit part today and deal with global terrorism and Iraq.
Q: Why are we in Iraq?
A: Two reasons:
1) a stable, pro-Western Iraq could be the keystone of a more permanent, pro-U.S. era in the Middle East.
2) George Bush hated Saddam.
Q: Are there any positive aspects to the Iraqi invasion and subsequent occupation?
A: Definitely. Many Iraquis, given the choice, obviously favor Western-style democracy. Besides the Prime Directive is a concept derived from Star Trek, not international law.
In addition, if you believe that American military personnel in Iraq are more expendable than American civilians in New York City, it was a good idea. After all, it made those soldiers into human lightning rods.
Q: Can we defeat the terrorists?
A: Probably not. It is difficult to intimidate, deter, capture or prosecute adversaries who commit suicide while committing their crimes. I mean, what are you going to do to them? In the meantime, U.S. policy, apparently derived from reruns of "Walker, Texas Ranger", will ensure a steady stream of fresh recruits for the bad guys.
Q: Can we blame the Republicans for this mess?
A: Sure, it's fun -- but it isn't entirely fair. Lyndon Johnson would have done the same thing. We should simply amend the Constitution to bar Texans from the Presidency.
Q: If we simply "cut and run", will that mean that all of those Americans will have died in vain?
A: Yes. Of course, that will not be different from the Americans in Vietnam who died in vain. As a matter of fact, our President recently welcomed the Vietnamese head honcho like he was some kind of hero. The "died in vain" argument apparently only applies to current wars.
You know, it would be good if everyone could stop glorifying death for just a few minutes anyway. Most people die meaningless deaths. A neoplastic cell transformation here, a drunk driver there -- where is the meaning?
The point is not whether we die in vain -- the point is whether we lived in vain. Looking for meaning in death is like seeking evidence of color in a black hole.
Q: Is there any end to the terrorism in sight?
A: Yes, if the avian flu migrates across species. It may occur to people on both sides of this conflict that we are all humans and that the flu is doing a sufficiently good job of killing people without their help.
Q: Is that likely?
A: The flu migration? That's what they say. The realization about shared humanity, etc? Don't bet on it.
Q: Why are we in Iraq?
A: Two reasons:
1) a stable, pro-Western Iraq could be the keystone of a more permanent, pro-U.S. era in the Middle East.
2) George Bush hated Saddam.
Q: Are there any positive aspects to the Iraqi invasion and subsequent occupation?
A: Definitely. Many Iraquis, given the choice, obviously favor Western-style democracy. Besides the Prime Directive is a concept derived from Star Trek, not international law.
In addition, if you believe that American military personnel in Iraq are more expendable than American civilians in New York City, it was a good idea. After all, it made those soldiers into human lightning rods.
Q: Can we defeat the terrorists?
A: Probably not. It is difficult to intimidate, deter, capture or prosecute adversaries who commit suicide while committing their crimes. I mean, what are you going to do to them? In the meantime, U.S. policy, apparently derived from reruns of "Walker, Texas Ranger", will ensure a steady stream of fresh recruits for the bad guys.
Q: Can we blame the Republicans for this mess?
A: Sure, it's fun -- but it isn't entirely fair. Lyndon Johnson would have done the same thing. We should simply amend the Constitution to bar Texans from the Presidency.
Q: If we simply "cut and run", will that mean that all of those Americans will have died in vain?
A: Yes. Of course, that will not be different from the Americans in Vietnam who died in vain. As a matter of fact, our President recently welcomed the Vietnamese head honcho like he was some kind of hero. The "died in vain" argument apparently only applies to current wars.
You know, it would be good if everyone could stop glorifying death for just a few minutes anyway. Most people die meaningless deaths. A neoplastic cell transformation here, a drunk driver there -- where is the meaning?
The point is not whether we die in vain -- the point is whether we lived in vain. Looking for meaning in death is like seeking evidence of color in a black hole.
Q: Is there any end to the terrorism in sight?
A: Yes, if the avian flu migrates across species. It may occur to people on both sides of this conflict that we are all humans and that the flu is doing a sufficiently good job of killing people without their help.
Q: Is that likely?
A: The flu migration? That's what they say. The realization about shared humanity, etc? Don't bet on it.
Friday, July 01, 2005
Debates
Well, Sandra Day O'Connor resigned today, and I have the perfect replacement. Tom Cruise. I mean -- why not? He can fight extraterrestrials, he's a widely recognized expert in human biochemistry, psychology, psychiatry. . . I bet he's an expert on the legal system, too.
Have you noticed that we live in a very strange society? We have experts in everything coming out of our ears. We send these people to school for many years -- they spend their lives attending conferences, writing dissertations, reading papers. But when we need expertise, we turn to actors and celebrities. Mel Gibson teaches us theology, Arnold Schwartzeneggar (how do you spell his name?) runs California, Ronald Reagan ran the country, and now Tom Cruise and Brooke Shields are leading a national debate on the efficacy of psychiatric drugs.
Tom says that there's no such thing as a chemical imbalance. Brooke seems to feel that there is. Is not. Is so. Is not. Is so. Is not. Is so. The intelligence of a debate between these participants would be truly compelling.
It's like when people debate about the existence of God. I mean, how stupid is that? If there is a God, would he/she suddenly vanish if the non-believer made the more convincing argument? And, if there isn't a God, would one spring into existence if the believer prevailed in the debate?
Suppose you don't believe in God. If you're right, then what do you gain by debating the point? Nothing. But what if you're wrong? If there really is this omnipotent entity, do you really want to piss him/her off?
It seems to me that the key to the whole thing is to hold the debate somewhere where even an omniscent God can't find out about it. That way, he/she won't hear the negative arguments and get pissed off.
Now you might think that finding such a place would be difficult, but it isn't. I know the perfect spot. Wrigley Field in Chicago. After all, I've followed the Cubs' fortunes for many years, and I can assure you that God never sets foot there.
Have you noticed that we live in a very strange society? We have experts in everything coming out of our ears. We send these people to school for many years -- they spend their lives attending conferences, writing dissertations, reading papers. But when we need expertise, we turn to actors and celebrities. Mel Gibson teaches us theology, Arnold Schwartzeneggar (how do you spell his name?) runs California, Ronald Reagan ran the country, and now Tom Cruise and Brooke Shields are leading a national debate on the efficacy of psychiatric drugs.
Tom says that there's no such thing as a chemical imbalance. Brooke seems to feel that there is. Is not. Is so. Is not. Is so. Is not. Is so. The intelligence of a debate between these participants would be truly compelling.
It's like when people debate about the existence of God. I mean, how stupid is that? If there is a God, would he/she suddenly vanish if the non-believer made the more convincing argument? And, if there isn't a God, would one spring into existence if the believer prevailed in the debate?
Suppose you don't believe in God. If you're right, then what do you gain by debating the point? Nothing. But what if you're wrong? If there really is this omnipotent entity, do you really want to piss him/her off?
It seems to me that the key to the whole thing is to hold the debate somewhere where even an omniscent God can't find out about it. That way, he/she won't hear the negative arguments and get pissed off.
Now you might think that finding such a place would be difficult, but it isn't. I know the perfect spot. Wrigley Field in Chicago. After all, I've followed the Cubs' fortunes for many years, and I can assure you that God never sets foot there.
