Heeeeeeeeere's Johnny!
No, not that one, but an incredible simulation. John Flub Kerry's new joke:
"CAIRO (Reuters) - U.S. Senator John Kerry, the Democratic candidate for the presidency in 2004, said on Thursday the U.S. administration should talk to Syria and Iran."
Can you believe that? No, not that he wants to talk to the best terrorist regimes in the world, but that he was the Democratic candidate for President.
More:
"Kerry also told reporters in Cairo he believed U.S. policy in the Middle East was in trouble, partly because the United States had failed to listen to people in the region."
Coincidentally, I agree with that. We ought to be listening carefully to how they intend to destroy us and Israel and act accordingly, like telling Iran that we're going to pull out of Iraq - through Iran!
It's very important for countries to talk to each other, even when you disagree. We have serious differences with Syria right now, we have serious differences with Iran, but you can't begin to resolve those differences if you're not willing to try to understand," said Kerry*.
Now I'm no Senator, but I think John Boy's wrong: I believe that overwhelming force can also resolve differences?
*The Massachusetts Senator who also served 120 days in Vietnam, arranged for some Purple Hearts, and devoted his life to denigrating the troops.
As you know if you've read any of my writing, I am a staunch conservative. There are about a gross (look it up) of us. The rest of those who call themselves conservatives, are Pavlov conservatives. And of course, all liberals are of that strain.
Anyway, what you may not know is that I am also a vegetarian. "But Ted, you ask, how can you be a conservative and a vegetarian? Isn't vegetarianism incompatible with the hunting, environment rampaging image that any good conservative not only embraces. but proclaims proudly?"
Au contraire! Your problem may lie in those who identify themselves as vegetarians, i.e. those who don't eat meat out of sympathy for animals which are on the same cognitive level as they are, and who hug trees - and swear the trees hug back.
I'm not like that. While I don't eat meat because neither I nor (I'm guessing) most of you would, for example, chew on a chicken leg if it were still attached to the walking, clucking bird, I don't have any particular sympathy for animals since my last dog died. No, I don't hold any other animal responsible for that, I just don't like them because they are dirty, take up space, make a mess, and in the case of the eating variety, they are probably uneconomical and hazardous to your health - although I'm not much concerned about that either. At least not where you're concerned.
So I was particularly pleased to see that the UN thinks cows are way more responsible for global warming than people are. Of course, the idea that the UN thinks global warming is a pressing problem or that any living thing is responsible is an issue for far smaller thinkers than I.
What's important is that the UN thinks cows are a problem, and so do I - a rare agreement. So what does this esteemed terrorist haven recommend? Cow catalytic converters (CCC)? How about we do my idea - get rid of them?!?
Now you ask, "But Ted, what about the milk?" Well, now that they've pretty much perfected soy ice cream, who cares?
As you see, I'm a pragmatic conservative. That's one who believes that the best way to stop the senseless slaughter of animals is to remove them from the planet. What do we need them for, anyway? They're cute? What, we don't have enough on film?
You'll miss the birds chirping? Then you've never been asleep beside an open window and have birds wake you at 5am. Maybe your birds chirp. Mine squawk, squeal, and shriek. Then they move to the tree on the other side of the window and do it some more.
Some people argue that some bugs clean up waste, and others catch and kill stuff that destroy crops. They miss the point. OK, keep the petting zoos, everything else goes. DDT their ass!
Yes, I know that means we'll have healthier Africans, but we'll deal with that problem as the need arises. Perhaps I should note here that while I don't want to go on killing animals, people are another story entirely. Let's do a don't-ask-don't tell on that for now.
But I'm not stupid. by all means, preserve the animals' DNA so we can reconstitute them if we find they're useful for something in a couple of hundred years or so. By that time, if we do bring them back, the decision to do it won't be an emotional one like, "My daughter wants a pony." By that time, she'll be jet skiing around the universe, so she probably won't be wanting to clean up road apples.
By the way, I bet Noah would be pissed as hell at God if he knew that if God had only waited a few thousand years to flood the place, all Noah would have had to do today is gather cells instead of whole animals. Not to mention that it would have been somebody else's problem entirely
To recap, I feel the most humane thing, the best thing for the environment, the best thing to stem disease, and the best thing for such disparate peoples such as loggers, dam builders, and property developers, not to mention wilderness joggers is to do the right thing and rid this planet of lesser life forms immediately.
I know that's sounds like a bad idea to liberals, but at least they can take a test to definitively determine if they are a lower life form before we shoot 'em. You put that test in front of a mosquito, and all you'll get is buzzing. The sounds liberals will make may not be any more intelligible, but that's why we'll have a test.
]]>I've said over and over that there's no one on the planet who hates Bush more than I, but I have to give the man credit where it's due. Early in the 2000 campaign he told us that he was a uniter, not a divider, and he has finally made good on his claim. I mean, if you live in on the planet and you don't hate him, let's just say you're not of this Earth, because the other alternatives are that you're either insane or a fool, and I think I know you well enough to say you're neither of those.
Join with me... "Reunited, and it feels so good ..."
]]>Researchers have found a major trigger for Tourette's Syndrome - George Whatsaborder© Bush.
I know myself, from the instant I see his face or hear his voice, I can't stop screaming obscenities, and I only stop when I'm completely exhausted.
Long before the first Muslim violence came to our shores, being a renowned neighborhood philosopher, I was educating the woman whom I would eventually marry on the First Rule of Life: Don't marry a Muslim!
And yes, I aways included the exclamation point.
So when the movie, Not Without My Daughter came out, we were both disappointed that Sally Field (and the woman she was playing) hadn't gotten all that was coming to her. As Judge Judy always says, "Hey, you picked him."
Now don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are a lot of good Muslims, maybe even the vast majority, but there are probably a lot of perfectly nice bushmen too, and well, would you marry one? And if you did, would you be surprised if he reverted to hunting and gathering?
But OK, let's say you've met a lovely Muslim (Ignoring that oxymoron), and you're weak and you marry him. DON'T VISIT THE FAMILY IN ISLAMISTAN! Some stupidity really deserves to be terminal, don't you think? By the way, this problem, for all you feminists and fem-males doesn't exist in the reverse - you know, when normal men marry Muslim women (now there's a book title if ever I heard one). The Muslim wife probably wants to keep the hubby from visiting the Middle East so he doesn't get any ideas.
Just for fun, I gave my wife a call at work before writing this because I needed to ask her a very important question... one that I hadn't asked in fifteen years...
Wife: Ted's wife speaking (OK, she said her name, but I'm not going to tell it to you. Besides, she doesn't want people to know she's married to me, but it has nothing to do with Sharia Law)
Me: Hi, how are things today?
Wife: OK... I'm right in the middle of something...
Me: So make it fast?
Wife: Yeah
Me: What's the number one rule?
Wife <whispering> Don't marry...
Me: Muslims?
Wife: Yeah.
Me: OK, bye
Wife: Bye
So you see guys, it IS possible to get through to some women.
But while we are all aware of the many problems women have in even the most advanced Muslim countries (again excuse the oxymoron), leftists don't decry the persecution of homosexuals in these countries. Why is that? It's not because they're still in the closet, it's because they're in a trunk in a hidden compartment in that closet.
But since there's always no method to my madness, I mention this because I recently read something on this service in which someone was actually defending the six Imams on the plane in Minneapolis, Mini-Muslims if you will, and he was actually chastising the passengers for being too jumpy (Fortunately, none of those passengers were around to see it, but all are still around to see it, if you get my drift).
It seems to me that most of those who defend Muslims always do so on some perceived principle, and often ignore the bigger principles like - the right to life. Additionally, these people are often ill-informed and/or they have tunnel vision, and thus they focus on the narrowest of alleged transgressions and attempt to magnify them into some grand rights violation. Even worse, more often than not, the defenders can't even write a decent sentence, but I'll save that for another time.
Ignoring the fact that it was Muslims who were responsible for bringing about the current environment and the very real nuisance caused by all the security checks, and aside from the fact that Muslims have done virtually nothing to reassure us that they want their more militant faction destroyed, we have these blind left-wingnuts-with-an-apparent-death-wish defending them - defending the very people who, even in their most benign state, would make their clueless defenders less free. It's like:
"We're not free if you're not free, even if we'll be less free if you actually are free."
]]>Here's today's math problem:
Six Imams board a plane in Minneapolis at 5pm. If two sit in the back, two sit in the middle, and two sit in front, how long will it take them to get to Phoenix? (answer at bottom)
Should six priests get on your flight, would you be alarmed? How about six Rabbis? OK, sure the Rabbis would be some cause for concern, but mainly because of the slight possibility that Muslims would want to blow up the plane just to take out six Jews.
But now take six Imams... please....
If you were one of their number, and you were getting on a flight all together, praying aloud, making some questionable comments, asking for belt extensions, and ultimately splitting up and sitting in various parts of the plane, do you think it's the slightest bit conceivable that your appearance, your demeanor, and your actions might be upsetting to some people?
So why didn't you anticipate that and do your best to ally any fears? I ask that because some Rabbis did just that on another flight. The lead Rabbi actually announced who they were and what they would be doing regarding prayers, etc. so as not to make those people nervous who might mistake them for the sort of people who expect average Americans to accommodate their eccentricities in the same sort of conditions in which others of their kind managed to commandeer planes and kill 3000 or so people.
I was thinking about how to characterize Christianity today, and I thought that "Peace on Earth, goodwill toward men" was decent enough for my purposes here. And how would then characterize Islam, "Peace on Earth, goodwill toward infidels?"
Now, regarding our math question: no, it's not a trick question, there is an answer, and oddly enough, Glen Campbell had it - by the time they get to Phoenix, you'll be risin'. But I'm curious, did anyone hear anything about how they got there? Did the airline put them on another flight where everything went OK because praytime was over, or they sat together in the cargo area, or did that flight only have six passengers?
]]>How does that song go: "Lemon tree, very pretty, and the lemon flower is sweet... but the plight of the poor Muslim... it's impossible to weep?"
Ann Coulter points out that the Imi who were removed from a flight this week because some passengers felt they were acting suspiciously have threatened to boycott the airline. Ms. Coulter has requested that they make good on their threat and extend it to ALL airlines so that we can get rid of a whole lot of the tedious airport security procedures.
Can you imagine how powerless Muslims must feel? Where companies go out of their way to accommodate other minorities and groups that have complaints, when Muslims threaten to take their business elsewhere, companies send them letters of appreciation.
Remember the sixties? OK, no one does, but rumors persist that a lot of people experienced various forms of discrimination if their hair barely touched their collars or they dressed in a way that even hinted at their possible familiarity with hippie attire. Still, while people might not have been happy about sitting next to them on a plane, they were never so uncomfortable that they wanted to cancel the whole flight.
I was trying to picture how I'd have reacted if I saw six religious zealots get on my plane and make disparaging remarks about our efforts in Iraq, which mainly consists of trying to kill religious zealots, then pray to Al, and finally break up into smaller groups and sit in various parts of the aircraft. I've come to the conclusion that I would not have complained to a flight attendant. I would have created a Ted-shaped hole in the fuselage.
]]>So what does Michael Richards need to do to rehabilitate himself and his image? As it turns out, nothing.
It seems that the two sympathetic characters who had heckled Richards have now enlisted Gloria Alred's help in an effort to attain some much deserved compensation - thus proving that the label Richards'.pinned on them was, in fact, very insightful.
]]>I felt a blog might be the best way to go now that neither the liberals nor conservatives I've encountered in Internet forums will talk to me. And as with everything else, George Bush is to blame.
I've always had a hate-hate relationship with liberals, but only in recent years has my relationship with conservatives soured. It began to go downhill innocently enough when one fool called me a "collectivist," and all because I had said that if conservatives didn't find a way to get everyone proper healthcare coverage through the private sector, they would have the very thing they hate most, government provided care, thrust upon them.
And from the above, you may have guessed the second thing that increased the nascent animosity between me and "them:" It was my referring to conservatives as "fools." And while I meant that in the nicest sense of the word, you know how easy it is to misconstrue things online.
From there, it was all Bush, all the time. Almost from the outset I hated the way he was conducting the war in Iraq. Don't get me wrong, I fully supported taking out Sadie because he was a vicious murderer, a man who offered a bounty for Jews, and after 9/11, a man who was very likely emboldened to either match or exceed what Binnie & Co. had just done to America. Besides, how can you go wrong when you're killing Muslims?
But my support was also conditional: from the way Bush talked and acted, he seemed to understand that when you wage war, you use overwhelming force to win it, and you regret and compensate for collateral damage later.
Liberals accused Bush of being a maniac. My complaint is that he turned out to be all hat and no cattle - and the hat was too small. Which is saying something considering that his head houses a teeny, tiny brain.
The final break between me and the con-fools came quietly when I declared simply that there's no one on the planet who hated Bush more than I, and if I ever found someone, I would add capacity. Of course, I also said other things like that he may be the only President whose number is also his rank... but that that would change as soon as 44 comes along... and 45, 46, 47... since Bush would remain the lowest ranked President in history for (insert century here).
I hate to be so negative on my first post so I'd like to close with something I actually learned from the people who call themselves conservatives: that if they truly are, I don't want to be one.
Of course, I'm sure I'll change my mind about that long before George Bush stops being the worst President ever.
]]>