So I see that al-Qaeda has designated the “replacement” for Zarqawi, some guy named Hamza al-Muhajer. Wouldn’t you like to be a fly on the wall for that selection process?
HR rep: I see here that you’ve been a lieutenant in the fight against the non-believers. How do you feel that prepared you for this position?
Hamza: Well, I had extensive experience torturing kidnapped civilians, as well as some work organizing roadside bombings against the American occupation forces. In my last position, I also developed a system for connecting spider holes for easy access and easy escape.
HR rep: I see. I notice that there is a gap on your resume of a few months last year. Can you explain that?
Hamza: Well, I was detained by the American aggressors briefly. Once I was released, I immediately sought out new work as an explosives distributor. I felt it was important to add to my sales and finance skills to better run a large terrorist organization.
HR rep: That sounds great. Can you tell me about a time where you faced some resistance to one of your ideas, and how you handled it?
Hamza: Oh, I ran into that all the time in smaller terrorist cells. Everyone was trying to suggest good targets for suicide bombings, and even though I had more strategic locations in mind, I let them go ahead with their targets. After all, after their ideas were accepted and they got to attack their targets, they were dead anyway and couldn’t argue with me anymore. I’ve always found that leading a terrorist organization often means allowing internal opposition to blow themselves up. Eventually, you’ll be in charge. It’s all about patience, really.
HR rep: Would you mind if we contacted some of your previous organizations?
Hamza: Most are dead. I suppose you could, if you could find their spider holes. Like I said, I designed a pretty elaborate network.
HR rep: Before we finish, do you have any questions for me about the position?
Hamza: Well, I heard about what happened to Zarqawi… what changes are you expecting to make internally? I mean, I don’t want to take the job just before you decide to have layoffs, or, excuse me, “downsizing”. [chuckle]
HR rep: As you can imagine, I can’t discuss our future plans. Suffice to say, we will have a need for a manager as long as the imperialist dogs from America soil our land.
Hamza: [rising from seat] I’m glad to hear that. I’m still very interested in the position, and I’m anxious to hear back from you soon.
HR rep: Thanks for coming in on such short notice, and I’ll be back in touch with you in a couple of days. [standing and extending hand]. Oh, and death to America.
Hamza: [shaking hands with HR rep] Thank you for the opportunity. And death to America.
Monday, June 12, 2006
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Choose your own adventure...
We’re gonna play a little hypothetical game now… You’ve just been elected the leader of a country; let’s call it “Capitalistia” Now, Capitalistia is a nice country filled with good people who mind their own business and, for the most part, just want to be left alone. As a country, Capitalistiacs tend to think that their way of doing things is the best way, and strive to teach other countries the Capitalistiac ways.
After some threats from a much smaller country of religious fanatics; let’s call it “Terroristia”, a group of Terroristiacs blow up some big buildings in Capitalistia, killing thousands.
What do you do?
A. Immediately declare war on all Terroristiacs, whether or not they participated in the bombing. After all, it’s their fault for allowing Terroristiacs to flourish in their country.
B. Immediately call for an international peace conference, at which the Terroristiacs control the agenda by threatening other countries with similar violence, all the while trying to build more bombs to blow up more Capitalistiac buildings and people.
C. Immediately target ONE loudmouthed Terroristiac leader, who may or may not have had any prior knowledge of the bombing plans. After all, it’ll show the Terroristiacs that we mean business when we depose the biggest bully on the block, especially if he’s the same bully who threatened your dad.
D. Immediately call for an international military action, ignoring the fact that the Terroristiacs will scare the other countries by threatening them with similar violence, and it won’t stop the Terroristiacs from doing it again to you.
E. Immediately target the PRECISE Terroristiac leader who ordered the bombing and warn other Terroristiacs that they’ll be targeted if they don’t help.
If there are other options, I’m not sure what they are. If you chose A, C, and D, congratulations, you’re George W. Bush and you’re stuck in a no-win, military quagmire in a remote land and no allies. If you chose B and D, congratulations, you’re John Kerry and the international coalition you hoped to build never materialized due to the spinelessness of most of Europe, Israel is basically blown to oblivion, and Iraq/Iran have nuclear weapons.
If you said E, congratulations, you’re a reasonably logical person with 20/20 hindsight, and we have NFI whether that would have been the best solution. All we know is that Bush made the wrong choice, Kerry advocated the wrong choice, and Congress/Europe is too partisan and pissy to help.
In other words, what would you have done? Bonus points for using the terms “bomb them back to the Stone Age” and/or “middle eastern nuclear winter”
After some threats from a much smaller country of religious fanatics; let’s call it “Terroristia”, a group of Terroristiacs blow up some big buildings in Capitalistia, killing thousands.
What do you do?
A. Immediately declare war on all Terroristiacs, whether or not they participated in the bombing. After all, it’s their fault for allowing Terroristiacs to flourish in their country.
B. Immediately call for an international peace conference, at which the Terroristiacs control the agenda by threatening other countries with similar violence, all the while trying to build more bombs to blow up more Capitalistiac buildings and people.
C. Immediately target ONE loudmouthed Terroristiac leader, who may or may not have had any prior knowledge of the bombing plans. After all, it’ll show the Terroristiacs that we mean business when we depose the biggest bully on the block, especially if he’s the same bully who threatened your dad.
D. Immediately call for an international military action, ignoring the fact that the Terroristiacs will scare the other countries by threatening them with similar violence, and it won’t stop the Terroristiacs from doing it again to you.
E. Immediately target the PRECISE Terroristiac leader who ordered the bombing and warn other Terroristiacs that they’ll be targeted if they don’t help.
If there are other options, I’m not sure what they are. If you chose A, C, and D, congratulations, you’re George W. Bush and you’re stuck in a no-win, military quagmire in a remote land and no allies. If you chose B and D, congratulations, you’re John Kerry and the international coalition you hoped to build never materialized due to the spinelessness of most of Europe, Israel is basically blown to oblivion, and Iraq/Iran have nuclear weapons.
If you said E, congratulations, you’re a reasonably logical person with 20/20 hindsight, and we have NFI whether that would have been the best solution. All we know is that Bush made the wrong choice, Kerry advocated the wrong choice, and Congress/Europe is too partisan and pissy to help.
In other words, what would you have done? Bonus points for using the terms “bomb them back to the Stone Age” and/or “middle eastern nuclear winter”
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Off with their heads!
After living in California for over forty years, I suppose it shouldn’t surprise me when an activist judge imposes himself upon a voter-mandated penalty. And I have to give this judge props for his ingenuity in at least figuring out a NEW loophole for the bleeding hearts to prolong a pointless life against the public’s wishes and mandates. After all, the whole “cruel and unusual punishment” argument doesn’t hold much pathos when the murderer in question tortured and raped a young girl repeatedly before killing her.
And guess who appointed him to the federal court…? That’s right, Bill Clinton. Is anyone surprised? Considering a judge is supposed to be non-partisan, it seems a bit odd that EVERY single appeal by a death row inmate is heard and actioned by a Clinton appointee. Gee, do you think they deliberately do that? Essentially, it’s a numbers game. If you file enough appeals on various spurious grounds, at least ONE of them will make it to a liberal bench, and you can pretty much firm up those reservations for the rest of your life on the taxpayer’s dime.
OK, so my arena idea is sorta barbaric. Here’s one. Since we’re so fucking concerned about humanely ending this inhumane life, why don’t we make it as fast as possible? Gas chambers are inhumane (boo hoo), electric chairs are inhumane (boo boo hoo), lethal injections are inhumane (boo boo boo hoo)… And to a small extent (very very small), I can see some of the point. We’re not sure how much gas someone needs to inhale to die, we’re not sure how much electricity it takes to kill the whole body, we’re not sure how much pain they might feel from the lethal overdose.
So bring out the guillotine! I can pretty well guarantee that if the guy’s head is rolling around a couple of yards away from his body that he’s dead. Not only that, but a nice sharp heavy blade, and the fucker won’t know what hit him. Problem solved. Quick.
And guess who appointed him to the federal court…? That’s right, Bill Clinton. Is anyone surprised? Considering a judge is supposed to be non-partisan, it seems a bit odd that EVERY single appeal by a death row inmate is heard and actioned by a Clinton appointee. Gee, do you think they deliberately do that? Essentially, it’s a numbers game. If you file enough appeals on various spurious grounds, at least ONE of them will make it to a liberal bench, and you can pretty much firm up those reservations for the rest of your life on the taxpayer’s dime.
OK, so my arena idea is sorta barbaric. Here’s one. Since we’re so fucking concerned about humanely ending this inhumane life, why don’t we make it as fast as possible? Gas chambers are inhumane (boo hoo), electric chairs are inhumane (boo boo hoo), lethal injections are inhumane (boo boo boo hoo)… And to a small extent (very very small), I can see some of the point. We’re not sure how much gas someone needs to inhale to die, we’re not sure how much electricity it takes to kill the whole body, we’re not sure how much pain they might feel from the lethal overdose.
So bring out the guillotine! I can pretty well guarantee that if the guy’s head is rolling around a couple of yards away from his body that he’s dead. Not only that, but a nice sharp heavy blade, and the fucker won’t know what hit him. Problem solved. Quick.
Friday, February 10, 2006
The Great One?
Who is worse, Gretzky or Rose?
If you had asked me this three days ago, I would’ve stared blankly at you, like Tara Reid deciphering a slide rule. Gretzky was the most prolific scorer in hockey history, and widely considered to be one of the nicest guys around, cleaner than AC Green’s bedsheets. Rose was the most prolific hitter in baseball history, and widely considered to be one of the most arrogant pricks around, dirtier than Wilt Chamberlain’s bedsheets.
My, my, how times have changed.
So I ask you now, who is worse, a compulsive gambler or a bookie? Certainly, Pete Rose’s personality hurts him here. He’s not just a compulsive (and bad) gambler. He’s an ass and a greedy one at that, so he can hardly be painted as a wronged victim. He felt his gambling addiction (by the way, apparently still in full bloom) was above the rules of the game, certainly he felt that he was above Bowie Kuhn. The funny thing is that I think people would have gotten past the gambling-on-baseball issue long ago if Rose hadn’t been so pugnacious and obstinate about his “innocence”.
But a bookie is essentially a parasite, feeding off of the addictions of others. So who is the bad guy, the organized crime boss who controls the media and runs the numbers game, or the asshole scumbag who gambles away his money and his career? While Gretzky may not have actually booked the bets, he certainly seems to have known about the bookmaking activity and tacitly condoned it. And then lied about it. Multiple times. Hell, his wife was the biggest customer. Wouldn’t it be ironic if we found out that Pete Rose booked bets through Rick Tocchet? Whose side would you be on then?
And enough about Janet Jones being “hot”. That train left the station years ago. In fact, check out “A Chorus Line” again. (Yeah, I own it. Charlie “I can do that” McGowan lived around the corner from me when I was a kid. I’m not gay. Honest.) She had a nice body, but her face was heavily lined twenty-five years ago. And she was a terrible actress. Apparently, she’s just as good at gambling.
Gretzky’s fall will be much more precipitous because he HAD our trust. We believed him. It’ll be interesting to see how long it takes Tocchet to roll over on him and tag “The Great One” as the Puckfather, the great and powerful Gretz. Pay no attention to the 99 behind the curtain. All those Lady Byng trophies for sportsmanship and gentlemanly behavior (or behaviour)? On Ebay.
And Pete Rose still doesn’t belong in the Hall of Fame. Just because some other guy proves to be a scumbag too doesn’t diminish the dirt on Pete.
If you had asked me this three days ago, I would’ve stared blankly at you, like Tara Reid deciphering a slide rule. Gretzky was the most prolific scorer in hockey history, and widely considered to be one of the nicest guys around, cleaner than AC Green’s bedsheets. Rose was the most prolific hitter in baseball history, and widely considered to be one of the most arrogant pricks around, dirtier than Wilt Chamberlain’s bedsheets.
My, my, how times have changed.
So I ask you now, who is worse, a compulsive gambler or a bookie? Certainly, Pete Rose’s personality hurts him here. He’s not just a compulsive (and bad) gambler. He’s an ass and a greedy one at that, so he can hardly be painted as a wronged victim. He felt his gambling addiction (by the way, apparently still in full bloom) was above the rules of the game, certainly he felt that he was above Bowie Kuhn. The funny thing is that I think people would have gotten past the gambling-on-baseball issue long ago if Rose hadn’t been so pugnacious and obstinate about his “innocence”.
But a bookie is essentially a parasite, feeding off of the addictions of others. So who is the bad guy, the organized crime boss who controls the media and runs the numbers game, or the asshole scumbag who gambles away his money and his career? While Gretzky may not have actually booked the bets, he certainly seems to have known about the bookmaking activity and tacitly condoned it. And then lied about it. Multiple times. Hell, his wife was the biggest customer. Wouldn’t it be ironic if we found out that Pete Rose booked bets through Rick Tocchet? Whose side would you be on then?
And enough about Janet Jones being “hot”. That train left the station years ago. In fact, check out “A Chorus Line” again. (Yeah, I own it. Charlie “I can do that” McGowan lived around the corner from me when I was a kid. I’m not gay. Honest.) She had a nice body, but her face was heavily lined twenty-five years ago. And she was a terrible actress. Apparently, she’s just as good at gambling.
Gretzky’s fall will be much more precipitous because he HAD our trust. We believed him. It’ll be interesting to see how long it takes Tocchet to roll over on him and tag “The Great One” as the Puckfather, the great and powerful Gretz. Pay no attention to the 99 behind the curtain. All those Lady Byng trophies for sportsmanship and gentlemanly behavior (or behaviour)? On Ebay.
And Pete Rose still doesn’t belong in the Hall of Fame. Just because some other guy proves to be a scumbag too doesn’t diminish the dirt on Pete.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)