Satirical Columns of Colin Cohen

Turkey Stands Against Tyranny

2010-07-05T13:09:00.000-07:00

Turkey's foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, just announced that their country will break ties with Israel if it refuses to apologize for the flotilla incident. This should come as no surprise to anyone who knows Turkey's long history of supporting freedom. A history that stands in direct opposition to Israel's, whose aggression goes back to when it was referred to as the Ottoman Empire.

It was under the guise of this empire that the thieving Zionist entity spread its tentacles across the Middle East and well into southern Europe and northern Africa, which it controlled for centuries with an iron fist -- ruthlessly smothering even the most benign forms of nationalistic sentiment, while Judaizing everything it touched.

Even at the dissolution of their empire in the period surrounding World War I, the savagery of the Zionists wouldn't abate. This was manifested in the slaughter of over a million Armenians. A butchery that, to this day, Israel refuses to even acknowledge. It even uses its American propaganda arm, AIPAC, to prevent the truth from being recognized here in the United States.

Modern Israel has fared no better. On July 20, 1974, without justification, they invaded northern Cyprus, and enslaved half the nation -- isolating it from their brethren and from the rest of the world. And what's more, the Zionists cleansed the area -- forcing a third of the island's ethnic Greeks from their homes (while denying these people's inalienable "right of return") -- and replaced them with "settlers."

And despite condemnation from the United Nations and many human rights organizations, the Zionists continue their brutal occupation of this hapless island.

Finally, there are the Kurds, whom Israel endlessly persecutes -- refusing these woebegone people the universal right of self-determination -- while claiming land on which the Kurds have lived for two millennia. To add further to the insult, the Zionists actually have the gall to call these people's legitimate resistance efforts "terrorism."

Turkey should be applauded for taking this brave stand for liberty. If only other countries would follow their lead, the Zionists just might be compelled to retreat and give back all the land that is not theirs. Who knows -- perhaps with enough international pressure -- they could even be forced to return Constantinople.

Just imagine the joy when the first flotillas reach one of its ports.

Afghanistan is All Obama's Fault

2010-07-02T15:47:00.000-07:00

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele said yesterday that the Afghanistan War was of "Obama's choosing" and that the president should've known from history that a war there was unwinnable.

Of course, he couldn't be more correct.

It was early in his -2nd term as president, on October 7, 2001, that President Obama -- who seemingly learned nothing from his mistakes in executing the Vietnam War -- recklessly launched this war that -- according to Steele -- "was not something that the United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in."

If only a Republican president had been in power at the time, he or she would've certainly known what Steele knows; that is, "the one thing you don't do, is engage in a land war in Afghanistan."

If only President Obama had been a student of history like Steele he would've known that no foreign power had ever successfully subdued that region -- not the Ancient Greeks, nor the Mongols, nor the British Empire.

Not even the Soviets could pull it off.

Why was Obama so arrogant to think we could succeed where so many before us failed?

Was it his misguided belief in American Exceptionalism? The absurd notion that we as a country can accomplish anything. Or was it his Wilsonian quest to reshape the world in America's image? A quest that any child who's ever tried to push a square peg into a round hole will tell you is nothing but folly.

Or was it that he just listened far too much to the neoconservatives in his party? Such as his warmongering vice-president.

Whatever the reason, we know it will be up to Steele's Republicans to fix this Democratic mess, by bringing our troops home as soon as they take control. After all, they are the party of peace, and limited government, and have often called for what George W. Bush once famously termed, "a humble foreign policy."

And under the leadership and wisdom of people like Steele, we can be certain they will prevail and end our long national nightmare.

Would a Drilling Agency by Another Name Smell as Bad?

2010-06-23T08:40:00.000-07:00

The Department of the Interior -- in the wake of the tragic Gulf oil spill -- has created a new government agency to oversee offshore drilling.

Sorta.

Actually, what it did is rename an old agency. An agency that has been cited for its utter incompetence and corruptness.

For those keeping track at home, this stands as the Obama administration's most proactive action yet taken in regards to the spill. Yes, never again can they say that the federal government isn't doing anything about it.

From now on, the Minerals Management Service will be called the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. A move which is sure to send a shiver down the spine of all oil companies. For they know -- all too well -- that with a name like that they can't possibly get away with another spill.

Not with the words "regulation" and "enforcement" in the title.

Especially when those two words are right next to each other.

What's more, the employees of the agency must surely understand that because of this name change, no longer will they be able to watch porn at work, like they did under the old name.

If they want to do that, they'll have to take jobs at the SEC, which is keeping its current name.

Helen Thomas's New Job

2010-06-08T11:49:00.000-07:00

Dramatis Personae
Helen Thomas, former columnist
Jan Brewer, Governor of Arizona
Reporters

BREWER: It's with great honor that I introduce this woman -- who, as I'm sure you all know -- has been a victim of Washington PC gone amok. A woman who won't have to worry about political correctness here in Arizona. Or any correctness. A woman, who, in the last few days, has shown herself to be an expert on immigration. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Arizona's new immigration minister, Helen Thomas.

(APPLAUSE)

THOMAS: Thank you, Governor. And thank you, my former colleagues. I just have a few short remarks and then I'll take some of your questions. . . . Mexicans, get the hell out of Arizona. This is not your land. Go back to Mexico, or Spain, or Portugal -- or wherever.

REPORTER 1: How do you plan to tackle our state's immigration problem?

THOMAS: I plan to use the tactics of Hamas and Hezbollah -- whom I've always admired -- and fire rockets indiscriminately into Mexican neighborhoods. That should get them moving.

REPORTER 2: What do you say to those who insist that the Mexicans are the original inhabitants of Arizona -- that they were dispersed by the American invasion in the 19th century?

THOMAS: Are you Jewish? You certainly look Jewish. Next question.

REPORTER 3: What do you think about Maricopa Sheriff Joe Arpaio?

THOMAS: I don't know much about the man, but I can tell you that he's much revered by the Muslim Brotherhood. In fact, they see him as a role model.

The Government Takes Control of the Oil Crisis

2010-06-07T11:52:00.000-07:00

Federal officials have finally gotten a handle on the oil catastrophe. No, not the catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico, but an apparently much more important catastrophe -- the olive oil catastrophe.

Yes, while the government does nothing as millions of barrels of crude oil empty into what's steadily becoming La Brea South, the US Department of Agriculture is setting regulations regarding what constitutes olive oil. And say they will strictly enforce these regulations.

Lucky thing for BP that they're not in the olive oil business.

And adherents of the Mediterranean Diet can now breathe easier knowing that the extra-virgin olive oil they put on their salad isn't in fact just plain ordinary virgin olive oil.

Many may even sing Hosannas.

So, all those who claim that the federal government is nothing more than an inept bureaucracy that accomplishes nothing of any import will have to eat their hearts out.

With a little olive oil on top.

Extra-virgin olive oil.

Government-approved extra-virgin olive oil.

Truth and Consequences

2010-05-18T20:32:00.000-07:00

Dramatis Personae
Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General of Connecticut
Reporters

REPORTER 1: Mr. Blumenthal, is it true you lied about serving in Vietnam?

BLUMENTHAL: Everyone has a slip of the tongue now and then. I remember Alan Shepard told me -- while we were walking on the surface of the moon together -- that he was a full admiral; when, of course, he was only a rear one.

REPORTER 2: You're saying you were on the moon?

BLUMENTHAL: In fact it was the inspiration for my famous dance.

REPORTER 3: So, you do admit you weren't in Vietnam?

BLUMENTHAL: It depends on what your definition of "in" is.

REPORTER 4: You want to be the next senator of this state. Don't you think it's important that elected officials be truthful?

BLUMENTHAL: Yes. And I've been as truthful as any politician. That's a fact. That's why I was the one who exposed the Watergate cover-up.

REPORTER 5: It's also being reported that you lied about being captain of the Harvard swim team. It seems you weren't even on the Harvard swim team.

BLUMENTHAL: Next you'll tell me I didn't win those seven gold medals at the '72 Olympics.

REPORTER 6: Is there anything you haven't done?

BLUMENTHAL: I haven't been elected senator. Nor is it likely will I.

YouCut Me Up

2010-05-14T10:48:00.000-07:00

The Republican Party is ingeniously allowing ordinary people like you and me to vote on the government expenses we want them to cut. They're calling it "YouCut."

Get it? It's like "youTube."

Only dumber.

There's only a few minor problems with this gimmick -- much in the way Lawrence Taylor has only a few minor problems.

First, the Republicans don't have the votes in Congress to even call for a coffee break -- let alone to actually cut something.

Second, even if you added up every item on their ballot, it would still only amount to 0.16% of the $3.8 trillion-dollar federal budget.

How stupid do the Republicans think we are?

Don't answer that. It's a trick question.

As there seems to be a few items left off their ballot, perhaps we should add a few programs; or, should I say, cut a few programs:

Wars
$130 billion

Department of Homeland Security
$42.7 billion

DEA
$2.3 billion

YouCut
priceless
And this is just a start. We could add Fannie Mae, the FCC, and about half the federal departments; and if you keep adding, suddenly we're approaching a balanced budget. With maybe even a little left over to help some people.

How's that for a gimmick?

Never Let a Crisis Go to Waste

2010-05-05T12:14:00.000-07:00

White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel once famously said, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." And politicians from both parties are taking that advice to heart by trying to get Congress -- in the wake of the Times Square bomb scare -- to ban gun sales to those on the terrorist watch list.

That is, they want to strip the constitutional rights of citizens without due process.

Of course, if the government puts you on a watch list you must be guilty of something. The government never makes mistakes. Apart from the time they put a four-year-old boy on the terrorist watch list.

But he was a really scary four year old.

No more guns, for you, son. Not even a water pistol.

The question is, can the government get away with this?

Well, we're already talking about removing Miranda rights from American terrorist suspects; and in Arizona, the Forth Amendment will soon have as much force as a slushy in the middle of the Mojave. So, what's one more infringement?

Especially as not even liberals will complain about this infringement. And I guess I shouldn't complain, either. After all, I don't like guns. In fact, they scare me. I should probably only complain when they take away rights that I personally enjoy.

Assuming that I'll still have the right to complain.

Not even the ACLU will likely complain about this. They think the only one who has a right to guns is the state; who, of course, would never commit any acts of terror.

While we're at it, why don't we just put everyone on the terrorist watch list. That way we can get rid of all guns. And then later maybe we can ban gay sex for those on the watch list, and medical marijuana, and anything else that makes people uncomfortable.

And then finally we can be safe and happy, all the time.

First They Came for the Bath Water

2010-04-29T09:06:00.000-07:00

Congressdude James Oberstar, whose last name in German I think means either "superstar" or "cow dung" is trying to amend the Clean Water Act, which allows the EPA to regulate navigable waterways; that is, places through which boats can pass. Oberstar wants to get rid of that inconvenient "navigable" part, which will allow the EPA to regulate any and all bodies of water.

Which would include pools. And bath water. And perhaps even that perspiration forming underneath your arms.

Of course, expanded government regulation of water is necessary. What if Junior were to pee-pee in his kiddie pool? That could be hazardous! The federal government must take action -- even if it means studying that pool water for a year a two. Even if it means confiscating Junior.

Which will be pretty easy if Junior happens to live in Arizona and is without his citizenship papers.

But I'm getting a little off-topic.

The federal government could soon have -- if not ownership -- than effective control over just about everything.

Yes, the government could soon come and check your water. In more ways than one. And they can tell you what to do with it. And they can even take it away from you.

By the way, guess what's 62% water? I'll give you a little hint: it's you.

No need to worry, though. The government would never do anything bad. They'd never abuse their power.

Say it: "The government would never abuse their power."

Go ahead, I'll wait . . .

Couldn't say it with a straight face, could you?

But I suggest you try when you say it to the EPA when they come knock-knock-knocking on your front door.

The End of Privately-Held Medicine

2010-04-27T15:07:00.001-07:00

Democratic senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey is calling for the FDA to ban dissolvable tobacco products. These products, which include pellets, sticks, and strips, are marketed as an alternative to smoking.

And lung cancer. And certain death.

But Senator Lautenberg, that great defender of small children and furry animals (or is it furry children and small animals?), finds something nefarious about this. He argues that if young children were to see these concoctions as candy, and swallow a whole bottle of them, they could get sick.

However, when told that any pill or medication could be misconstrued as candy, the senator decided to take the ban to its logical conclusion, by calling for the end of all privately-owned medicine.

"Sure, an aspirin seems innocuous," the senator bravely spoke. "But what if a child were to swallow lots of them? He or she could die. People will just have to live with their headaches. Perhaps if they just turned off the news, their headaches would go away on their own.

"Even that ulcer medicine that recently saved my life," he continued, "could've been mistaken for candy. Better that I die. And I have lots of constituents who would heartily agree.

"There's no enumerated right in the Constitution to bear medicine," he concluded. "And even if there were, it would be a public right, not a private one."

Henceforth, all distribution of medication will occur at federal medicating clinics, where patients will be provided with no more than one dose, and must take said dose in the presence of a government employee, who will, of course, have the right to inspect the patient's mouth for verification.

Furthermore -- given the abundance of medicine in private hands -- the DEA will be given "special rights," allowing it to raid any home or person without warrant, temporarily suspending the 4th Amendment until, as Senator Lautenberg says, "Every child is safe."

Not even the ACLU is expected to challenge this, as the 4th Amendment has been pretty much null and void since the Patriot Act.

In fact, no one is expected to dissent.

That is, not if they want to get their medication.

Cap and Trade Immigrants

2010-04-26T18:16:00.000-07:00

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina is upset about the introduction of an immigration bill on the Senate floor. Not because the senator -- who's been affectionately called "Grahamnesty" by his admirers -- is against immigration reform. No, he's angry, he says, because introducing the immigration bill will disrupt deliberation of the energy bill he also planned to introduce.

You see, apparently Senate dudes are unable to do two things at once. Unless, of course, one of those things happens to be war making. Or earmarking.

As a compromise, the Senate is considering merging the two pieces of legislation, by applying the cap-and-trade concept to both carbon emissions and illegal immigration.

The immigration component will work like this: the INS'll set a cap on the number of illegal immigrants residing in the country at any given time. And then issue permits to companies, allowing them to retain a certain number of illegals. Any company needing illegals beyond their allotment will have to buy them from companies that have some to spare.

Like carbon, these "people" will become a commodity traded on the open market, possibly reminding some of the markets that operated in the South years ago. But, of course, this market will be completely different. Here buyers won't check the teeth and gums of the goods in question. Those records will be stored in a computer.

Not surprisingly, immigrant skeptics in Congress are insisting that this solution is in conflict with the 13th Amendment; the one that kinda bans slavery. But, in truth, many congressional bills, including the climate one, flouts the Constitution.

One more won't make a bit of difference.

Equally unsurprising, even proponents of cap-and-trade admit that this system might not have a big effect on illegal immigration.

Or any effect.

But emission trading systems aren't having any effect in Europe, and that's not stopping Congress from trying to implement them here.

Nor should it. For "cap-and-trade" has a cool sounding name -- catchy even, much like "shock-and-awe." Only this one also has a freemarkety feel to it, making it doubleplusgood.

And even if cap-and-trade accomplishes nothing, it's still has worth, as it shows that Congress is at least doing something.

Even if it is only doing it one thing at a time.

Tomfoolery

2010-04-05T09:58:00.001-07:00

That clown prince of the Senate, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma -- where the wind comes sweepin' down the plain -- is up to his old tricks again. Not content to simply rubberstamp unfunded spending like the rest of his esteemed colleagues, Senator Coburn has blocked the extension of federal unemployment benefits. And because of this Easter Scrooge, 200,000 people this week will be without their dole.

Coburn's ignoble defense is that the unemployment fund is only self-solvent when covering those who receive benefits for under 26 weeks. To cover those unemployed beyond that period (and, of course, no congressperson would ever deny we should -- at least, not in an election year) would require the federal government to spend money it doesn't actually have.

Not that this has ever been a problem before.

But for some reason it's a problem with Mr. Coburn. He insists not that we shouldn't pay these people benefits they are not entitled to receive (for he, too, faces an election soon), but says that the new expense should be offset with an equal amount of spending cuts.

Spending cuts? In an election year?

Earth to Coburn. Come in, Coburn. Are you there, Coburn?

Equally ignoble was Coburn's feckless offer to work through the two-week congressional recess to find a solution to this impasse.

Does he not realize that there are yachts to ride, villas to visit -- polo ponies to mount? Does he really expect our representatives to abandon these duties just so a few hundred thousand people can put some food on the table?

Not even in an election year, sirrah!

A Solution for the Teabagging Problem

2010-03-28T08:19:00.000-07:00

The teabaggers have crossed the line.

Just as "free speech" doesn't entitle someone to scream "fire" in a theater, it doesn't entitle them to scream "socialism" by the Capitol. The effusive hatred displayed toward those brave legislators who seized America's health care system must come to an end. For, left unchecked, it can destroy our nation and its newly-interpreted principles. Congress must act -- as the vanguard of the people -- to wipe out this vermin from our body politic. And it can best do this by reestablishing the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HCUA).

At first, these tea party protests were mildly quaint, even amusing. A bunch of false-consciousness-suffering yahoos from flyover country foolishly protesting against things they little understood. For only the truly advanced can comprehend the complexities of governance, such as the need for excessive and unfunded spending and the benefits of nationalization of capital and industry.

Unfortunately, the rabble just won't go away. And their numbers keep growing. Who knows -- if we don't stop them now, perhaps the free market and individual responsibility will become the law of the land.

What would our founders think?

It's not too late, though. Congress can eliminate this red-white-and-blue menace by exposing the traitors who hope to undermine our entire way of exercising authority.

Like the HCUA of old, the Committee would have the power to investigate and subpoena members of subversive groups, and hold public hearings, where these vile haters would be rooted out -- whether they be teachers, businessmen, or even Hollywood producers.

Informal blacklists would soon spread across the country, forcing these dimestore revanchists back into their closets where they belong.

We even have among us a natural leader to head this committee: Representative Alan Grayson of Florida. A congressman with guts. How do we know this? His website says so. In fact, he has so much guts that he tried to federally prosecute a woman who dared parody his site.

And that's exactly the kind of guts we need. Can't you just hear Chairman Grayson utter these magic words?

"Are you now or have you ever been a member of a tea party?"
And can't you just see the witnesses quake in response?

Shakespeare once wrote, "Fear not slander, censure rash." But Shakespeare was never called before the HCUA.

Perhaps we can even get Keith Olbermann -- that modern-day Walter Winchell -- to live blog these wondrous tribunals.

And afterward -- when we have finally expurgated this teabagging sickness from our collective soul -- America will be safe.

For real Americans.

Morning Constitutional

2010-03-03T08:26:00.001-08:00

Dramatis Personae
Barack Obama, President of the United States
Joe Biden, Vice-President of the United States

OBAMA: I have one small concern about our health care proposal.

BIDEN: What's that, boss?

OBAMA: Don't call me "boss."

BIDEN: I'm sorry -- I thought that was the lingo. You know, jive talk.

OBAMA: As you know, I'm a constitutional scholar; and as such, I know Congress' enumerated powers under the Constitution -- in the sphere of economic activity -- are limited to the Commerce Clause, which allows it to regulate interstate commerce.

BIDEN: Yeah, so?

OBAMA: So, if we're not gonna allow health insurance companies to sell policies across state lines, how can our regulations relate to interstate commerce?

BIDEN: It can't.

OBAMA: Then, how can we constitutionally regulate health insurance?

BIDEN: Via the Commerce Clause.

OBAMA: Have you've been listening to me at all?

BIDEN: Listen, boss -- nobody cares what's written in the Constitution. Not the Democrats, not the Republicans -- not the Supreme Court. Basically, if it feels good, do it.

OBAMA: Really?

BIDEN: What are you doing, boss?

OBAMA: Throwing you out the window.

Irreconcilable Differences

2010-02-28T08:33:00.000-08:00

With President Palin and the Republican Congress stubbornly insisting on invading Iran, it has been the proud and seemingly quixotic task of the 44 Democratic senators to prevent cloture on the war resolution. But now Majority Leader McConnell is threatening to use the reconciliation process to pass the bill over the objections of not only Democrats but of the majority of the American public.

This abuse of reconciliation is unprecedented, and is an abuse of not only the rules of the Senate but of minority rights as well. It's an abuse that could only be contemplated by a party as sinister and Machiavellian as the GOP. It's an abuse that cannot stand.

Reconciliation was adapted in 1974 by the Congressional Budget Act -- for the specific purpose of allowing the Senate to reconcile spending, revenues, and the debt-limit with a budget resolution, on a strictly majority vote -- without the threat of a filibuster. But this process was only intended for deficit reduction, not to pass major changes in public policy. Such has been confirmed by none other than that grand historian of the Senate, 100-year-old Robert Byrd.

That the Republicans would attempt to call their war resolution a reconciliation matter simply because expenditures for this operation affect the federal budget is outrageous. You would never see the Democrats attempt to make such a dubious link just to pass sweeping legislation that's without bipartisan support.

No, the Democrats have always understood the importance of properly adhering to rules and procedures. And they've also always understood the importance of minority rights. They know full well that it was the filibuster (and the threat thereof) that prevented President George W. Bush from appointing far-right-wing judges, and prevented him from implementing his dark plan of Social Security reform.

And who knows? Perhaps this is what President Palin and her acolytes in Congress have in store for us next.

We are a democracy. And the American public, by measure of every publicly available poll, is steadfastly against invading Iran. But are the Republicans listening?

No.

They say that it's the right thing to do. They call Democrats obstructionists, and say that they are the party of No.

And they say that they are willing to accept the political consequences of their actions. But are we? By the time the next elections occur, it will be too late. The die will be cast. And as former President Obama learned all too well, it's much easier to start a war than to end one.

The Democrats must stop this so-called "reconciliation" measure. By any means -- including by offering unlimited amendments to it, which is their right.

And responsibility.

Pluto Is a Harsh Mistress

2010-02-18T08:49:00.000-08:00

Dramatis Personae
Barack Obama, President of the United States
Al Gore, Former Vice-President of the United States

GORE: Mr. President, we must send a manned mission to Pluto at once. And I graciously volunteer to head it.

OBAMA: Pluto? Why Pluto?

GORE: Have you not read? There's global warming on Pluto!

OBAMA: Oh, my God.

GORE: We must convince the people of Pluto to destroy their economy before it's too late. I'm even translating An Inconvenient Truth into Plutian as we speak.

OBAMA: But . . . but what if the warming is simply occurring naturally?

GORE: Denier! You're a denier!

OBAMA: Who, me? No.

GORE: So you'll commit the funds for the mission?

OBAMA: Just how long will you be gone?

GORE: Hundreds of light years. At least.

OBAMA: You know, I think I can scrap up the money. Something tells me even Republicans will support the idea.

Marvel's New Villainess

2010-02-12T08:43:00.000-08:00

Dramatis Personae
Joe Quesada, Marvel Comics editor-in-chief
Ed Brubaker, writer of Captain America

QUESADA: The wingnuts are all over me for tying-in the teabaggers with those white supremacists. What were you thinking? Don't you realize these people read comic books? My God, that's probably all they read.

BRUBAKER: I'm sorry -- I didn't think they were smart enough to figure it out.

QUESADA: Well, even a blind frog can catch a dead fly once in a while. From now on, no politics. Agreed?

BRUBAKER: Agreed.

QUESADA: So, what do you got going for the next issue?

BRUBAKER: I'm introducing a new villainess: the wicked Queen Nilap.

QUESADA: Nilap?

BRUBAKER: Yeah, she's part-Siren, part-Medusa, and controls the supremacists through code in her speech and through secret words written on her palm.

QUESADA: Wow. She sure sounds menacing.

BRUBAKER: You betcha!

QUESADA: How can Captain America possibly combat such evil?

BRUBAKER: By ruthlessly mocking her.

Protocols of the Elders of Palin

2010-02-11T07:18:00.001-08:00

Dramatis Personae
Elder I, political fundraiser
Elder II, lobbyist
Sarah Palin, sancta simplicitas

ELDER I: Sarah, we're very disappointed in you.

PALIN: Why?

ELDER II: You endorsed Rand Paul. Don't you realize he's against the War on Terror?

PALIN: But he's so cute.

ELDER II: Sarah, you need to understand this: you can't become president without the support of the military-industrial complex.

PALIN: Is that like vitamin B complex? Because it just does wonders for my hair, don't you think?

ELDER I: Why don't we switch to economics.

PALIN: Oh, I took that way back in junior high. They taught us how to bake a cake.

ELDER II: That's home economics.

ELDER I: We've told you over and over that you need to study public policy.

PALIN: I was gonna do it last night, but then American Idol came on. Did you guys see it? Simon was so mean.

ELDER I: I give up!

ELDER II: Me, too!

(The elders storm out; Palin dials a number on her BlackBerry.)

PALIN: Hi, Todd. . . . The meeting went very well. Everything's working to plan. Hey, I need the latest M2 numbers. And make sure you run them through the regression model I developed last night.

The Constitutional Option Returns

2010-02-10T08:41:00.000-08:00

Dramatis Personae
Joe Biden, Vice-President of the United States
Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader
Tom Udall, Senator from New Mexico

UDALL: I'm offering a resolution to end the filibuster.

BIDEN: Sounds good to me.

UDALL: I'm calling it . . . the Constitutional Option.

BIDEN: Strange how that sounds so familiar.

REID: That's what the Republicans called it when they tried the same nonsense a few years ago.

BIDEN: But this is different, Dick -- we're the good guys.

REID: My name is Harry.

BIDEN: Oh, I'm sorry -- I must be confusing you with your brother.

REID: I don't have a brother.

BIDEN: I thought all you Mormons had big families. By the way, just how many mothers do you have?

REID: Mr. Vice-President!

BIDEN: Where?

REID: This resolution is a bad idea. One day soon the Republicans will control the Senate again, and then they'll be able to do anything they want. Anything.

BIDEN: Never gonna happen, Dick. Why, the next thing you'll tell me is that the Saints will one day win the Super Bowl.

Bonfire of the Vanities Part II

2010-02-06T08:51:00.000-08:00

Dramatis Personae
Mike McGuinn, Secret Service agent
James O'Keefe, conservative enfant terrible
Sean Medlock, a/k/a Jim Treacher

O'KEEFE: Are you sure you can get me into the White House?

MCGUINN: You're not gonna bug their phones, are you?

O'KEEFE: No, I just want to see if they're working.

MCGUINN: We better hurry, Obama will be back soon.

TREACHER: Aaahhhhh!

MCGUINN: What the hell was that?

O'KEEFE: Did you hit someone?

MCGUINN: It must've been a tire.

TREACHER: Aaahhhhh!

O'KEEFE: Oh my God -- it was Jim Treacher!

MCGUINN: Who?

O'KEEFE: A blogger at a competing muckraker. Quick -- hit him again.

MCGUINN: I can't do that!

O'KEEFE: Sure you can. You guys are above the law.

MCGUINN: That's true. But what if someone's filming this? I know -- let's leave the scene of the crime, and have some cop give him a jaywalking ticket.

O'KEEFE: That'll work.

TREACHER: Aaahhhhh!

NOW's Super Bowl Ad

2010-02-03T17:54:00.000-08:00

Dramatis Personae
Terry O’Neill, President of NOW
Rahm Emanuel, White House Chief of Staff

O'NEILL: Hello. We in the pro-choice community feel -- in light of Pam and Tim Tebow's horrific and offensive Super Bowl ad, where they ignorantly glorify the choice of life -- that we must respond, by encouraging all pregnant women in crisis to make the one and only correct choice.

EMANUEL: Death.

O'NEILL: While it's true that children born under difficult circumstances can grow up to become a star quarterback or even the president of the United States, they can just as likely grow up to be Glenn Beck. Or some teabagger.

EMANUEL: And just think, if Pam Tebow had made the right choice, Florida just might've prevailed in the SEC Championship game.

O'NEILL: So, if you're expecting a baby in a less than ideal situation, please do the responsible thing and kill it. Especially if you're a Republican.

EMANUEL: Or a f------ retard.

O'NEILL: Now, back to the game.

Apology

2010-01-09T16:53:00.001-08:00

Dramatis Personae
Barack Obama, President of the United States
Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader

REID: Mr. President, I want to sincerely apologize for that "Negro dialect" remark of mine.

OBAMA: Apology accepted.

REID: I certainly never would've said it if I knew it would one day be published.

OBAMA: Maybe you should quit while you're behind.

REID: No, I'm not giving up my senate race -- I don't care how far I'm behind. And after today, it'll be plenty.

OBAMA: I meant your apology.

REID: You know I love the Negro. I have ever since my days of bashing their skulls in as a member of the Capitol Police.

OBAMA: Is there anything else you wanted to speak to me about? Because I'm pretty busy. At least, I hope I'm busy. You have no idea how I hope.

REID: You think we should have a beer summit?

OBAMA: A beer summit? With whom?

REID: Just you and me.

OBAMA: That won't be necessary. Just be thankful you didn't praise Strom Thurmond.

REID: I have, you know. Just not publicly. At least, I hope I haven't.

OBAMA: Senator, are there any further embarrassing incidents I should know about?

REID: Well, there was that white sheet. But there's no way they could identify me.

Golfing Buddies

2010-01-07T18:01:00.001-08:00

Dramatis Personae
Barack Obama, President of the United States
Dick Cheney, Former Vice-President of the United States

OBAMA: Dick, you've been really tough on me of late.

CHENEY: Oh, that's just politics, as Tip O'Neill told Reagan. It's nothing personal -- I just have to throw some red meat at the yahoos now and then.

OBAMA: So, you don't dislike my foreign policy?

CHENEY: Dislike? Why, you've continued the endless, borderless wars, bombed innocent men, women, and children, and at the same time have somehow completely muzzled the anti-war movement. I love you.

OBAMA: I like you, too. I've really enjoyed our secret golfing outings. I'm finally beginning to appreciate hitting those little balls into holes, over and over and over again.

CHENEY: Kinda like hitting Muslims -- only they're white. He-he-he.

OBAMA: That's what I wanted to talk to you about. You don't think this underwear bomber is blowback for all our recent raids?

CHENEY: Blowback? Where'd you learn that word? Have you been speaking to Ron Paul?

OBAMA: Actually, it was the CIA.

CHENEY: Even worse. I'll get you into contact with my friends at Haliburton -- they'll give you the real scoop about these Islamists and what has to be done with them.

OBAMA: All-righty.

CHENEY: You and I, Barry, we're lucky. Having no firsthand knowledge of war, we can completely separate ourselves from the carnage and the human misery associated with it. We can treat these wars like a video game. Speaking of which, how you doing with Gears of War?

OBAMA: Still stuck on the first level.

CHENEY: Don't worry -- after eight years, you'll be a pro just like me. In fact, the guys at Epic have to make special levels just for me.

OBAMA: Well, I gotta run. We're just about to bomb some village or whatnot.

CHENEY: That's my boy.

OBAMA: Are we still on for golf this Tuesday?

CHENEY: Why not? It's not like I've got anything better to do. Hell, Junior won't even return my calls anymore.

OBAMA: Maybe one day we could play out in the open, at your club.

CHENNEY: Absolutely. As soon as they let coloreds in, you'll be the first one I invite. We could even go shooting afterward.

Making Sausage

2010-01-06T18:01:00.000-08:00

Dramatis Personae
Barack Obama, President of the United States
Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader
Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House

OBAMA: Guys, what's this I hear about you conferencing my health care bill in secret?

REID: Well, Mr. President, like they say, legislation of this type is a lot like sausage. It's better if the people don't know how it's made.

OBAMA: But I promised during the campaign that all negotiations surrounding this bill would be public.

PELOSI: Darling, that was such a long time ago. I wouldn't worry, Americans have short attention spans -- they can't even remember what they had for breakfast.

OBAMA: Still, this could make me look bad.

REID: Mr. President, with all due respect, there's a video floating around the Internet of me denouncing the Republicans for making secret deals back when we were in the minority in 2006. So, believe me, you don't look nearly as bad as me.

OBAMA: I must say that I don't like this at all.

REID: Yeah, but you don't have to face reelection for almost three years. I've got an election this year, and this bill has made me less popular in Nevada than that whore from Leaving Las Vegas. In fact, many of my constituents say I'm looking like her more and more each day.

PELOSI: Harry, dear, I've been telling you for years you should move to San Francisco. My constituents simply adore you. In fact, some fellows have just been begging me to give them your number.

OBAMA: What about this guy from CSPAN who's demanding to televise the negotiations?

REID: Tell him to shut up or we'll cut off their access in some middle-of-the-night rule change.

OBAMA: I can't do that.

PELOSI: If you want, darling, I can have one of my union thugs put a dead fish in his bed. That should deliver the message.

OBAMA: No -- I promised this administration would be different!

PELOSI: Listen, do you want to pass this POS or not?

OBAMA: Of course. But wait -- what do you mean, POS? I thought this bill would help people.

REID: And it will. All three of us.

PELOSI: Please, let's not forget all the little people this bill will help, by providing them quality government health care. Now, if you boys will excuse me, I have to catch a plane to Zurich, or I'll be late for my gynecologist.

Tax Santa

2009-12-18T06:30:00.000-08:00

In this era of massive federal spending and even larger deficits no revenue-generating option can be taken off the table. And none can have any greater potential than taxing that nefarious scoundrel named Kris Kringle, alias Santa Claus. Quite fortunately, a myriad of upcoming legislation will enable us to do just that and much more.

In his enclave far off in the North Pole, Mr. Kringle's operation has always eluded the jurisdiction of federal authorities. But when the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act becomes law, we will likely be able to treat his concern as a domestic entity, and thus be able to tax and regulate it just as we do any other company.

Where will we begin?

Well, President Obama -- in his 2010 budget -- has proposed severely limiting the deductibility of charitable contributions. Just think -- Santa won't be able to claim those gifts he gives as deductions at their full value. And as he gives hundreds of millions of these gifts every year, his tax liability could be enormous. Of course, Santa (and other individuals) will be forced to give less. But who cares? Fairness is all that matters.

Next, like other small businesses, the new health care reform legislation will tax Santa's enterprise so that the state can provide his elves with quality government health care. And if production is delayed while the elves wait in lines for their doctor appointments, then Christmas will just have to be delayed.

Additionally, when card check passes, we will also unionize those elves, including that pesky individualist who insists on being a dentist.

If you are environmentally conscious, you probably have wondered just how much carbon Santa emits when he crisscrosses the nation. The government should wonder, too -- and have the good folks at the Hadley Climatic Research Unit objectively determine his carbon footprint, which we can tax through the upcoming cap and trade legislation. Furthermore, the EPA should commission a study to determine whether Rudolph's bright nose contains any potentially harmful substances. And until the study is completed, we should force Santa to replace Rudolph with fluorescent bulbs, much the way we are forcing ordinary Americans to replace their incandescent lighting.

Finally, if Santa persists in delivering gifts only to those who celebrate Christmas, we will have no choice but to charge him with a federal hate crime. Which will be minor in comparison to all the civil suits filed against him.

Many years ago, a little girl named Virginia famously asked, "Is there a Santa Claus?" Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. But after the federal government gets through with him, he'll surely wish that there weren't.

Let's Have an Inquisition

2009-12-11T18:23:00.000-08:00

Al Gore and others declared long ago that the debate over global warming was over -- that it was accepted science, and that all those ignorant enough to defy them were "deniers," akin to those who doubt the existence of the Holocaust. Unfortunately -- despite the nifty ad hominems -- the flatearthers refuse to adhere to dogma, especially in light of the so-called "Climategate" scandal. Society must deal with these people in the same manner society in the past dealt with those who challenged science: through an inquisition.

Like today, in the early seventeenth century there was an inconvenient truth -- the truth of geocentricism -- the belief that the earth is the center of the universe. It was accepted science since the days of Ptolemy and was beyond debate. That is, until a denier named Galileo Galilei advanced Copernicus' heliocentricism -- the belief that the sun is actually the center of the universe -- through his book, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems.

This could not stand. Nor did it.

Pope Urban VIII -- the Al Gore of his day, whose truths were infallible and irrefutable, and who should also be admired by progressives of today for his ban on smoking -- ordered Galileo in front of the Inquisition, where he admitted that the earth can't move (notwithstanding the rumor that he muttered "And yet it moves" under his breath as he did.)

The same mechanism that shut up the heliocentrics can also shut up their modern-day equivalents.

Man-made global warming is true. In spite of the more than 700 scientists who doubt it, and in spite of Climategate, where the Hadley Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia courageously falsified data, lied, and suppressed facts in the name of truth.

And everyone must believe this truth, or there will never be the consensus necessary to save the world by destroying its economy. That is why those who refuse to accept the truth should forthwith be brought in front of an inquisitional tribunal, comprised of the New York Times editorial board and under the jurisdiction of one of the countless United Nations judicial bodies.

Like with the tribunals of old, trials will be swift, and justice merciful. Those heretics convicted of crimes against environmental thought will be given ample opportunity to recant their errors (with careful monitoring of their testimony to ensure that no one mutters "And yet it cools" under their breath.)

But if anyone persists in denial of what is so obviously true, they must, unfortunately, be consigned to the flames. Of course, such immolation will be conducted in an air tight chamber, so as to not allow any of the miscreants' carbons to enter the atmosphere. For, even in death, they cannot be allowed to contribute to the earth's warming.

And then soon the truth of global warming shall prevail. Just as the truth of geocentricism did.

Kill Khalid

2009-12-09T09:22:00.000-08:00

Americans are deeply conflicted over whether alleged 9-11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed should be tried in a civilian court. But the one thing we can all agree on is that -- in reprisal for his orchestration of the cold-blooded murder of those killed in the World Trade Center attack -- we should . . . murder him in cold blood.

Last month, Attorney General Holder controversially announced that he will try Mohammed in a New York federal court -- instead of in front of the military tribunal most conservatives demand. Uncontroversially, though, he also announced that he will seek the death penalty.

It was so uncontroversial that even President Obama predicted that Mohammed will be executed. And since Obama's progressive credentials cannot even be questioned, we must believe Mohammed's execution will be just -- despite what some far-out radicals might profess, like that particularly annoying one who once uttered:

"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."

Fortunately, almost no one listens to that nutjob anymore.

Of course, even without Obama's endorsement, the death penalty would be appropriate, as it's the only punishment that will bring back the lives of the 3,000 who died.

How do we know their lives would be restored?

We know it because what other purpose could there be for his execution? Surely we can't fear that Mohammed would commit further crimes from his life-long confinement in a high-security prison. Deterrence cannot be the reason, either -- as it's well known that these extremists actually want to be martyred, so that they can inspire future terrorists and receive their virgins early. And the goal of the execution also can't be revenge. After all, this is a Christian nation.

Of course, even without the resurrection of the dead, the death penalty would be appropriate, as it would help reinforce the belief in the eyes of the public that the state is omnipotent -- that it can take your life, just like it can take anything else from you. All it needs is a reason.

Perhaps this is why progressives have suddenly found an appreciation of the death penalty.

And who knows, when we coolly and unemotionally take Mohammed's life at some glorious date in the future, maybe these same people can experience -- even if it's just for a fleeting moment -- that stupendous thrill he himself must've experienced on that fateful day more than eight years ago.

Coverage Through Incarceration

2009-12-02T06:19:00.001-08:00

Many unprogressives stubbornly insist that the health care reform legislation making its way through Congress will do little or nothing to provide coverage for the estimated 46 million people in America without health insurance. But these deniers and haters have simply failed to recognize the mechanism that will surely provide coverage for all; that is, the provision that will mandate, under penalty of law, that all individuals purchase insurance.

For those who are poor, the spiffily titled The Affordable Health Care for America Act passed in the House of Representatives will provide insurance free of charge. And well it should. After all, a compassionate society must take care of those who live off others and contribute nothing.

For those middle-class individuals with incomes above the federal poverty level, though, the bill will require the payment of health insurance premiums ranging from 1.5% to 12% of their adjusted gross income. But what if these individuals -- in this era of tight budgets, even among relatively high earners -- cannot afford these payments?

This is where the fun begins, as the bill will force payment from these deadbeats -- those who, instead of becoming wards of the state, have stupidly tried to earn their keep -- by threatening them with a 2.5% penalty tax -- a tax, by the way, that won't provide them with any insurance in return whatsoever.

But if these people can't afford the premiums, how can they afford the tax?

No problem. The government will then provide them with a special form of health coverage -- the kind of coverage reserved for those who can't pay their taxes -- coverage provided through the federal prison system -- coverage that is free of charge and includes all sorts of extras, such as repairing the odd anal tear.

By putting all these people in prison we can make the rolls of the uninsured disappear overnight. Literally. Furthermore, as an added bonus, we won't have to listen to anymore sob stories on MSNBC.

Of course, housing the millions of newly insured will require a large increase in the number of prisons. But that's just the type of shovel-ready project for which the federal stimulus bill was enacted. In fact, members of Congress are already doing lots of shoveling in preparation.

And just think of all the new jobs created from this boom in construction, and how the GDP, which includes government spending as a component, will swell -- just in time for the next election, an election whose turnout should be markedly lower than ever before.

So, next time you hear a hater talk disparagingly about the wonder that is ObamaCare, just smile knowingly. For, with any luck, it may be the last time you'll have to see him or her for a long time.

Who Will Fire the Watchers?

2009-06-29T09:07:00.001-07:00

Second-century Roman poet Juvenal once asked the famous question, "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" That is, Who will watch the watchers? But today a far more important question is, Who will fire them?

The answer seems to be the Obama administration, who recently terminated an inspector general without any real cause. This is a good thing. For President Obama is so great and powerful that he alone should be watching all of us.

Recently, Gerald Walpin — Inspector General of the Corporation for National and Community Service — was dismissed by the President and given only one hour to clean out his office.

His offense? The President had lost confidence in him. And well he should have — for Mr. Walpin had the audacity to investigate Democratic Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, who is both a supporter and friend of the President. What's more, Mayor Johnson is a former basketball star, loved by fans across the country — and that alone should've kept him free from scrutiny.

Who cares that KJ (as Mr. Johnson was adoringly known in his playing days) stole taxpayer money and forced AmeriCorp volunteers to perform political and personal duties for his own benefit. Mr. Walpin should've just kept his mouth shut and started investigating Republicans. Doesn't he know who his boss is?

He certainly does now.

This situation, though, begs the question of whether we even need independent inspector generals. President Obama, unlike Bush, has our best interests in mind. We can all therefore close our collective eyes and trust him to do what's right. Instead of independent inspectors, we should just have the inspectors report directly to the President. Taken from the ranks of ACORN — whom Obama once promised a significant role in his administration — their role would be to make certain that Obama's will was being done and to ferret out all those who get in the way.

And why just stop with inspectors? Why not remove all the so-called "checks and balances" that hinder President Obama from leading the nation toward progress?

First, we can get the President's lackeys in Congress to impeach all the conservative Supreme Court justices. Obama can use the same excuse he used with Walpin. We can even leak the same rumors reported about the former Inspector General — that they are "confused and disoriented." Come to think of it — why not impeach all the justices? After all, Obama is so righteous that he can judge everything for us.

And second, Obama can "temporarily" revoke habeas corpus, which is on pretty thin ice anyway, and quietly terminate the entire Congress. In the dead of night.

Then, we'll get the change we so desired. Boy, will we.

If only Juvenal were alive to witness it.

Feminism Through Misogyny

2009-06-22T07:44:00.000-07:00

The women's rights movement has come a long way from its humble beginnings to where it is today. But to fully accomplish its goals of true equality and the elimination of sexism, it must purge itself of those so-called women who dissent, even slightly, from accepted dicta and dogmata. And the way to achieve this is through misogyny.

Over time, feminists have developed a set of core principles that all women must share in their entirety if they want to be considered feminists, or even women. They must be supportive of baby killing, loose sexual mores, and large, intrusive government. These principles are no longer debatable or negotiable, and must be agreed upon by all women, especially those who choose to enter the public square.

Unfortunately, many "women" who have entered this square have callously disregarded these inviolable truths. They — not unlike those people currently protesting the election results in Iran — must be put in their places, lest they come to believe that they actually have rights.

These "nonmen" (as they should henceforth be called) must be destroyed through all means available. The ends are just too important.

But how should we destroy them? Clearly the best method is by using the same techniques that have long kept real women down and oppressed. We must destroy them by being as misogynistic as possible.

This has already begun. Ever since Sarah Palin entered the spotlight late last year our side has applied every trick to make her look like the dumb slut she must be if she insists on thinking for herself. We've mocked her good looks — called her a "flight attendant" and a "waitress" — and filled our attacks with sexual innuendo and smears. And it's worked: she's become the stereotype smart, attractive women have fought against for generations.

More recently, Playboy scribe Guy Cimbalo penned an hilarious article listing the conservative nonmen he'd like to hate f---; that is, violently and painfully rape — to punish them for not believing in the same exact things he believes.

All this is good. But words have their limitations. All the nonmen we've attacked are still spewing their filth. We need action. We need to show these nonmen that they can never challenge us or our doctrines ever again.

We need to hate f--- them. Literally. That's right — we need to follow Guy's brilliant words and do what the Iranian authorities have long done to their uppity nonmen. If a conservative nonman dares to speak out, we must hate f--- her. Over and over until she shuts up for good.

That'll show them who the real feminists are.

And then all authentic women may finally attain real equality — equality free of hate.

Free-Speech Ghettos

2009-06-15T08:37:00.001-07:00

The horrific murder of late-term abortion doctor George Tiller shocked America. So much so that perhaps the people will finally be willing to take the drastic steps necessary to prevent such a tragedy from occurring again. For this tawdry act of violence against a man who never hurt anyone except defenseless little babies was surely incited by hate speech — speech that perhaps cannot be outlawed but can certainly be quarantined in the ghettos it belongs.

In the aftermath of Tiller's slaughter, a bereaved nation asked why. Why would anyone hate this man so much as to kill him? It certainly can't be because he made a fortune sticking catheter tubes into the heads of living, breathing babies — in order to suck out their brains, so that their skulls would collapse. Certainly no one of a sound and rationale mind could possibly object to this activity. Therefore, someone must've driven the killer to act. It must've been Bill O'Reilly and others of his ilk, who constantly referred to the great doctor as "Tiller the Killer" and other ugly ad hominems. They are as guilty as the shooter himself, if not more so.

But what can we do? That ever-irritating First Amendment protects these hatemongers just as much as it protects our deified speech.

Fortunately, that paragon of goodness Keith Olbermann stumbled upon the solution to our problem when he said that we should "quarantine" such ugly speech. And we can. We can quarantine this type of filth to where it belongs: in ghettos — ghettos like the ones where we quarantined the Japanese during World War II — ghettos like the ones where the Nazis quarantined their undesirables.

We can create confinements in the few remaining red states, where these reactionaries and revanchists can congregate to freely spew their hate — where they can also have access to all forms of media: print, Internet, and television. However, such access will be limited to these backward regions that none of us would ever visit anyway.

Perhaps at the gates of these new ghettos — because there is always hope that these waifs will one day see the truth and the light of our way — we can even put up a sign that states:

Gut Gedanken Macht Frei
Good Thoughts Will Set You Free.
Of course, these restrictions will not apply to those of us on the Left who have been falsely accused of inspiring violence, such as the murder of military recruiter William Long. For, as we all know, only conservatives are stupid enough to be incited to violence by speech. And where George Tiller's murder was unjustified on all levels, Long's murder was the necessary and justifiable consequence of the previous administration's foreign policy.

For years now the conservative media has been a metaphorical ghetto of slime, hate, and intolerance. It's about time we turned it into a literal one.

Intimidation Is Good

2009-06-08T08:55:00.000-07:00

This country has made tremendous progress in the first few months of the new federal government. But it can only continue this advance if our forces remain in power; that is, if we win elections. Fortunately, demeaning and banal tasks as these became far easier when the Justice Department this past week ruled that voter intimidation is acceptable behavior — behavior that can and should become part of the modus operandi of all future progressive campaigns.

Last Election Day, a group of three New Black Panthers wearing military uniforms stood in front of a Philadelphia polling center with nightsticks — hurling racial insults and threats to any who may have stood athwart to progress. These proceedings were captured and broadcast live over national television, and the so-called "malfeasants" were charged and convicted in what witness Bartle Bull, a civil rights attorney during the Jim Crow era, called "the most blatant form of voter discrimination I have encountered in my life."

Justice, though, prevailed when the Obama administration — overruling the career lawyers at the Justice Department — dismissed all charges — in spite of the Voting Rights Act, which supposedly forbids this type of activity — and in spite of the defendants not even attempting to fight the charges. In fact, the Justice Department even used this lack of defense as a rationale for dismissal.

Therefore, we can reasonably conclude that intimidating voters is not only good and tolerable, but that it is a tactic we can freely use going forward — especially in the backward areas of the country, where people are unfortunately disinclined to see the lefteousness of our cause.

There is only one small problem.

The New Black Panthers are far too small a group to make an indelible effect on nationwide elections. For this strategy to be truly successful in future elections, such as 2010 midterms, we will need thugs stationed at tens of thousands of precincts across America.

This is where ACORN comes in — a group that was particularly adept at voter registration fraud during the last election cycle. It stands to reason that they'd be equally adept at voter intimidation. But if not, perhaps we can have the New Black Panthers train them. Best of all, as almost none of them have real jobs, they'll surely be available to cause delightful and just havoc.

If we still need more soldiers — thanks to Congress passing the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act, which will soon create a mandatory voluntary service requirement for young people — we can also add millions of screaming youngsters to the fray. That should keep out the riffraff.

And let no one doubt that our tactics will be successful. We know this because similar tactics were so successful in the past. In fact, for a hundred years they worked to near perfection in the South.

With any luck, these tactics will work for a hundred more. Or even a thousand.

Universal Credit Card Access

2009-06-01T09:18:00.001-07:00

Congress recently passed legislation that will put severe restrictions on the credit card industry and the fees they charge. Some have called this unfortunate, as the bill will likely lead to a severe constriction of credit — especially for those who need it most. But in truth it's actually quite fortunate — as it will provide the federal government with an opportunity to take over yet another aspect of our economic lives, by providing the people with yet another entitlement: credit.

The Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act signed into law by President Obama will reign in credit card companies, by forbidding such practices as "double-cycle billing," retroactive rate increases, and sundry fees. By doing so, though, it will also remove the profitability of serving subprime borrowers, which will not only cause a large swath of these people to lose their access to credit, but will also force many issuers out of business — possibly affecting millions of other borrowers.

We simply cannot allow this kind of credit hindrance. Just as the federal government must be able to spend beyond their means, so must individual citizens. Just as everyone has a fundamental and unconditional right to health care services, so must everyone have the same exact right to credit.

And just as Congress will soon allow the uninsured to participate in the same health insurance program hereto available only to the members of Congress, so can it allow the uncredited to participate in the Congressional Federal Credit Union, which until now has been available only to the members of the House and their families.

When implemented, every citizen (or resident — legal or otherwise) who, for whatever reason, is unable to obtain a credit card through a private issuer, will receive a government-issued credit card. The card will have no fees and will come with the same unlimited credit line available to Congress; and with the same liberal repayment terms.

Of course, you may ask: how will we pay for this new entitlement when the government is already buried underneath a mountain of debt?

The answer is simple: we'll pay for it the same exact way we'll pay for the new universal health care system we cannot afford, by raising taxes. In fact, we can use the same exact carbon tax that'll fund the heath entitlement. All we have to do is double it.

So, instead of consumers paying an extra $3,000 per year in additional energy costs, they'll pay an extra $6,000. What's the big deal? And if, for some reason, it is a big deal for someone, no worries — all they have to do is put this expense on their brand new government credit card.

What could go wrong?

Thought Pageants

2009-05-25T08:32:00.001-07:00

The scandal surrounding the thought crime of Miss California, Carrie Prejean, has brought to light the pressing need to bring greater government control over beauty pageants. For never again should such malfeasance and utter disregard for accepted dogma ever be allowed to disgrace our beloved television screens.

Miss Prejan (who, being so backward, would probably prefer to be thus called) disgraced the entire country recently at the Miss Universe competition when — in response to a question regarding the permissibility of gay marriage — incorrectly replied that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

What's worse, unlike President Obama, who consistently answers this question in the same exact way, this woman wasn't trying to placate the festering yahoos in flyover country, but instead was trying to demonstrate her command of facts to a group of highly correct judges who know the answer to everything.

And even after losing the crown because of this error — even after her error was explained to her — even after we disparaged and humiliated her on MSNBC nearly twenty-four hours a day, she still refused to capitulate and renounce her malformed thoughts. On the contrary, she, in fact, became even more brazen in her support of the unsupportable.

To avoid such infamy in the future, there is but one answer: the government.

Henceforth, every beauty pageant — regardless of the level of competition — must be regulated by the federal government, to ensure that all contestants meet the proper thought standards prior to competing. This will be accomplished by having the newly established Department of Beauty (under the direction of Secretary Perez Hilton) give each potential beauty queen a test, in which they must illustrate the following beliefs:

* All things gay: good
* All things religious: bad
* Democrats and Greens: good
* Republicans and Libertarians: bad
* Environmental Controls: good
* Free Enterprise: bad
* Welfare: good
* Military: bad
* Abortion: good
* Meat: bad

To help the contestants, we will provide the correct answers on index cards beforehand so that they can memorize them. But if — in spite of this — they still provide even one incorrect answer, they must be disqualified not only from their particular contest but from all such contests. For life.

For tolerance of all is so important that intolerance simply cannot be tolerated.

Of course, this means that the "question and answer" portion of these pageants will be pretty dull. But dull is good. Provocative is bad. And all future beauty contestants need do is to repeat this to themselves, over and over and over.

Salvation Through Condemnation

2009-05-18T08:32:00.000-07:00

A few weeks ago, the federal government ingeniously stumbled upon the solution to all our woes when they announced that — in order to erect a 9/11 memorial — they will confiscate hundreds of acres of private property in Pennsylvania by condemning the land. For through condemnation, the government can nationalize vital industries and rescue delinquent borrowers without so much as a vote or due process, and we can finally make our dream of a truly collectivist society a reality.

This country, quite lamentably, was founded on the principles of personal liberty — principles that allowed each citizen the freedom to pursue their own happiness. Our bitter forefathers even had the gall to enshrine these backward principles into the Constitution — what legal scholar Barack Obama once called "negative rights"; that is, rights that prevent the government from acting against individuals, as opposed to "positive rights" that require the government to act in the interest of the whole.

Fortunately for us, though, these rights criminals sowed the seeds of their own destruction by including the so-called "Takings Clause" in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which reads: "[N]or shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." For if no private property can be taken without just compensation, it also must be true that all private property can be taken with just compensation. And over the years the Supreme Court has constantly upheld this cherished belief — most recently in the Kelo v. New London decision.

It stands to reason that if the government can swoop down and steal land just to put up some cheap monument — and do so without any restrictions or public outrage — it can act in similar ways to solve our real problems.

We'll start with the banking crisis. Instead of bailouts and other backdoor methods of nationalizing banks, we can simply cut to the chase and condemn them — both their physical property and their assets. All we have to do is pay a fair price for what they're worth, which, of course, isn't very much. And while we're at it, we might as well rescue all those swimming in debt from bank-issued credit cards, by condemning all privately held consumer goods. As the average American owes more than what these used products are worth in the open market, the government could even charge for this service.

Then, we'll tackle the mortgage problem by condemning every home in America. As with justly compensating the banks, paying fair prices for these properties would not cost us much. And just imagine: no longer would there be loan defaults or foreclosure or even payments — every home would belong to the government, and our country could become one large housing project — with all the wonderful side effects associated with it.

We could even condemn our own citizens, too. After all, we've already determined that life has little or no inherent value. So, how much could it possibly cost?

Little, in comparison to our salvation.

A Place for Hate

2009-05-11T08:53:00.000-07:00

The House of Representatives recently passed a new federal hate crimes bill, taking us one step closer to finally making thought a criminal offense — a worthy goal that would surely be attained if not for the bill's few incidental violations of the Constitution.

But this need not deter us from this most noble of causes. For as the Obama administration has backed down from its previous commitment to end the tribunals at Guantanamo Bay, we can incarcerate these dreaded haters there — without charges or trial.

The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, when enacted, will upgrade certain violent crimes to federal offenses if — in addition to some federal nexus, which we will certainly make up out of thin air — the perpetrators' motives are perceived to be related to the victims' sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. In effect, they will be punished for their thoughts. This is a good thing, because hate is always bad — except, of course, when we do it — and therefore must be eradicated from society.

Unfortunately, the bitter revanchists on the Right will likely challenge this law in the courts — on grounds that it not only violates the First Amendment, but possibly also the Fourteenth, which guarantees equal application of laws. And as long as the so-called "Big Five" remain in the Supreme Court — those blind and antiquated jurists who stubbornly cling to their Constitution — they could very well prevail.

We cannot allow this to happen. The solution is quite obvious: Guantanamo Bay.

As is well known, the previous administration used this base in Cuba as a means to circumvent the Fourth Amendment; that is, as a place to imprison enemy combatants indefinitely, without charges. While we progressives and candidate Obama chided them for this, and called for it to end, President Obama has recently found this type of detainment acceptable and wishes to continue it — so therefore it must've been hunky-dory all along.

And if placing prisoners there was good enough reason to avoid enforcement of the Fourth Amendment, it should certainly be good enough reason to avoid the First and Fourteenth as well.

Once this policy is established, any accused individual even suspected of having prejudice during the commission of an allegedly violent act will be sent to Guantanamo, where all means short of torture will be used to bring these malefactors to justice, including waterboarding. There they will be denied all habeas corpus rights, and thus can be kept under chains indefinitely — or until they learn to love gays, women, and cripples as much as we do.

The fear alone of this type of punishment should be sufficient to remove even a scintilla of bias from any potential perpetrator. Just think what this will mean. At last we’ll all be free to enjoy the type of open society we aspire to have.

Well, at least some of us will be free to enjoy it.

A Trabant in Every Garage

2009-05-04T08:48:00.001-07:00

When the federal government completes its nationalization of General Motors, it will have a golden opportunity to reshape not only the company, but the entire American auto industry. To do so, it should look to the past — when another struggling nation took over its automobile production and created what would become a legendary vehicle, the Trabant.

And it needn't just look at what the East Germans did a half-century ago — it can replicate it, by reintroducing this same fine car.

In 1958, the German Democratic Republic — like contemporary America — was on the path toward socialism, and needed a car that reflected the ideals of the country. As the government controlled the means of production, it was able to turn this need into reality when it introduced the humble and inexpensive Trabant — a car of and for the people.

True, it wasn't pretty or fast or reliable, but it didn't matter — no one had any real choice. And because of this, there was market stability. They knew exactly how many cars they'd sell every year. The vehicle didn't need to change or improve during its entire thirty years of existence.

Unfortunately, when the dream of the people died in Eastern Europe in the late eighties and early nineties, so did the people's car. But just as with Frankenstein's invention, the Trabant, too, can be resurrected. The plans still exist. In fact, in the past decades a number of advanced countries, such as Uzbekistan, have considered reviving the vehicle. We could probably obtain the rights from HQM Sachsenring GmbH — the current owner — for very little. Why, they'd probably even pay us to take them.

Establishing the Trabant here would be simple. If the current proposal for restructuring GM comes to fruition, a cartel of the federal government and the United Auto Workers would control nearly 90% of the company — and hence would be able to do anything they want, including switching all production to this little Wunderwagen.

And not only could they restore the car, they could also restore all the wonderful policies, methods, and standards of the former East German company. Employees would be given a job for life, without fearing any consequence of their action; or lack thereof. Cars would no longer be rushed, even if it means consumers must wait fifteen years to receive one (we could even recreate the Avenue of Winners in Detroit for the lucky few that do.) And no longer would the company be controlled by the whims of the marketplace — the company would control the marketplace, just as in the glory days of old.

The only problem might be getting people to buy these cars. But this really won't be much of a problem at all. The remaining American car companies are collapsing. Either they join this new government concern or die. And the foreign car companies? We can just smother them in tariffs to the extent that even the Trabant will be a good deal.

If we are going to return to the ideals of the past, we might as well return to the car from this long-lost era as well. And then, we can drive off into the sunset with style.

Ban Tea

2009-04-27T09:30:00.001-07:00

As government has a responsibility to prohibit anything that is harmful (or even potentially harmful) to its citizens, ours should forthwith ban the sale, the distribution, and the possession of tea. Just as we desire to forbid such vice as drugs, guns, and trans fat for the sake of not only the health of individuals, but the health of our society as a whole, so should we desire to bar this evil concoction — one that's being used to stir divisiveness and bitterness among those of us who have not sufficiently advanced as to appreciate high taxation and prodigious government spending.

All across America on tax day an estimated 750,000 people took part in so-called "tea parties" — apparently emulating the one held long ago in Boston, where some right-wing domestic terrorists had the gall to protest a patriotic tax on tea by dumping the product in the city's pristine harbor. In the modern version of this party, these rabblerousing reactionaries symbolically used tea to complain about bailouts, the federal stimulus, and other such good deeds.

It was indeed frightful to witness these anti-government activities. For who ever heard of taking to the streets to protest against the government? Certainly no one on the Left would ever participate in such an insidious act. The government is our friend. It is always our friend. And we are always supportive of it, regardless of who's in power or what their particular policies may be.

As presidential advisor David Axelrod astutely said, these protests are "unhealthy." And as such, they must be prohibited.

Of course, to do this directly would violate that pesky constitutional right. However, nothing in the Constitution prevents banning the symbol of these protests; that is, tea. Nothing allows it, either. But just as the federal government prohibits drugs without any constitutional mandate, so could it prohibit tea.

As the two federal agencies (the Federal Drug Administration and the Drug Enforcement Agency) that determine which substances are added to the classifications of the Controlled Substances Act are both managed by political appointees of the administration, there should be no great problem adding tea to the list. And as with the prohibition of hemp, they won't even need a reason.

Once enacted, the Justice Department will then be free to confiscate all tea, and put all those caught distributing or possessing such contraband in prison. Sure, it'll cost a lot of money — at a time when we don't particularly have a lot. But it'll be worth it.

Just think. No more tea parties, and with the lack of it, no more dissent from these deadenders who stubbornly refuse to accept the defeat of limited government. Also, there will be no more legislators receiving teabags, which interrupts them from their all-important duty to spend as much taxpayer money as possible.

Of course, many millions of Americans actually enjoy drinking tea. But as President Obama has repeatedly said, we all need to make sacrifices for the common good. These people will just have to switch to coffee.

That is, until some revanchist decides to hold a coffee party.

Rewriting History

2009-04-20T10:04:00.000-07:00

In the short time Barack Obama has been president, he has stridently followed the previous administration's policy toward those detained in the war on terror — believing that they have no right to due process. As President Obama is both necessarily good and honorable, he must've always believed so. And evidence contrary to this must be corrected.

As a candidate for president, Obama reportedly spoke out against the treatment of those "enemy combatants" detained indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay without trial, by saying the following: "By giving suspects a chance — even one chance — to challenge the terms of their detention in court — to have a judge confirm that the Government has detained the right person for the right suspicions, we could solve this problem without harming our efforts in the war on terror one bit."

He later supposedly praised the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Boumediene v. Bush — where the Court found that the denial of habeas corpus rights of those detained in Guantanamo Bay was unconstitutional — saying: "This is an important step toward reestablishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law, and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus."

But we must come to the conclusion that these statements are lies — falsifications of what Obama actually said. We must come to this conclusion based on the very actions of the president.

In late February, the Obama administration filed a brief in a federal district court, arguing that detainees in Afghanistan had no right to sue for their release — contending, just as the Bush administration had done, that the Boumediene ruling only affected those detained in Guantanamo Bay. This is obviously true, as everyone knows that Supreme Court decisions are applicable only to a specific American jurisdiction. For example, who among us would argue that Lawrence v. Texas applies to sodomy outside of Texas?

So, even when a district court judge ruled against the administration, they refused to capitulate — and are currently appealing the decision. And while waiting, they asked yet another district court judge not to proceed with a habeas corpus case of three men held in an Air Force base outside Kabul.

As actions always speak louder than words, we know that the policy the administration is pursuing must be how Obama truly feels, and therefore we must correct the inaccurate statements of the past — so as to avoid a false consciousness developing in the minds of the people — one that might even lead some to believe that President Obama is a hypocrite.

We must ask our friends in the media to change their previous stories about candidate Obama. Just a few simple edits is all that is needed to make clear that Obama always supported this policy. And while they're at it, they should make clear how just this policy must be. For "Obama" and "good" are synonyms.

Actually, not just good. Doubleplusgood.

Smoking in Big Government

2009-04-13T09:28:00.000-07:00

For many years, we have used the federal government as a means for reducing cigarette smoking in this country — for the sake of our citizens' health. And with great success. But now we must reverse this trend. We must reverse it for the sake of something far more important than people's well-being: big government.

President Obama and his adherents in Congress recently made good on their pledge to tax the rich — and only the rich — when they raised the federal sales tax on a pack of cigarettes from $0.39 to $1.00. This more-than-250% increase has the potential to create a massive influx of revenue that could be used for all sorts of necessary expenditures — such as pork projects, bailouts, and sinecures. That is, if there were a sufficient number of smokers.

Since 1965 — when the government first began regulating smoking by instituting warning labels on cigarette packs — the number of cigarettes consumed in the United States has dropped significantly — from the 26.5 billion packs sold at that time to the 17.5 billion packs sold in 2007. A staggering reduction, especially when you consider our population has increased by nearly a hundred million people during that period.

So, if — by eliminating the federal government's obstruction of smoking — we could increase the number of cigarette packs sold to the level of 1965, the government would generate an additional $9 billion in tax revenue annually. But, if we could increase the per-capita rate of cigarette smoking back to 1965 levels, the government would generate an additional $22.5 billion per year, from the more than 40 billion packs sold.

But just imagine if, in addition to this, the government actively promoted cigarette smoking. If the government's discouragement of smoking effectively reduced it in half, the government's encouragement of it should increase it two-fold — possibly generating as much as $80 billion in revenues each year.

In support of this illustrious goal, we should forthwith change the warning label on cigarette packs to the following:

COMPTROLLER GENERAL'S WARNING:
Cigarette Smoking Causes Significant Government Revenues.
The Lack of Which Would Be Detrimental to the Health of the Country.

That should get people smoking again!

And it's just a start. Not only should we allow cigarette television advertisements once again, but we should also create government-endorsed PSAs — praising the benefits of smoking — and force broadcasters to air them. Finally, we could hold periodic Smoke Bombs — special days where everyone in the country smokes as much as possible.

Perhaps we can even get President Obama involved — by having him do his smoking in public — as his tens of millions of adoring admirers would surely follow his lead.

Smoking may indeed be bad for your individual health. But in the new collective society we're building, people must think beyond themselves and look toward the good of the whole. And in this sense, smoking can only be considered beneficial, and must be advanced — regardless of the potential physical cost.

Drinking the Green Kool-Aid

2009-04-06T09:02:00.000-07:00

Reports indicate that as many as a billion people turned off their lights last week during Earth Hour — a truly amazing display of obedience to our cause, and one that shows that people will blindly follow any dictate, just as long as they think it will lead to lower carbon emissions. And this gives us great hope that they'll be willing to accept the final solution to the global warming problem.

While there have been many proposed solutions to the problem of climate change, none so far have attacked the root cause of the problem: humans. They are the ones who run the machines and enjoy the bounty they bequeath, they are the ones who eat the cows and drink their milk, and they are the ones who drive the vehicles and heat their homes.

According to statistics from the National Resources Defense Council, the average citizen of the world produces over 7,000 pounds of carbon emissions per year — when you combine their individual contribution with their share of industrial emissions. Of course, those in the developed nations of the West — who just happen to be the most green conscious — have far higher contributions. For example, the average American produces approximately 40,000 pounds of carbon emissions per year.

We cannot significantly reduce these emissions unless we significantly reduce the number of humans. And the only practical way to do that is to kill ourselves.

This is where our culture of death comes in awfully handy. Because, if life has little or no inherent value, who could honestly complain about such a proposal? And if they do, we'll simply have Al Gore make another documentary — as no one of any merit would ever challenge his assertions. After all, he's got a Nobel Prize.

So, next year when Earth Hour comes around again — instead of having everyone turn off their lights for one hour — we should have them drink green-colored Kool-Aid laced with potassium chloride, which just happens to be not only the poison Jim Jones gave to his followers, but also the one many abortionists use to terminate those dreaded unbabies.

If the billion people who participated in this previous Earth Hour participate in our new and improved version, we will eliminate more than 7 trillion pounds of carbon emissions per year. And that's assuming an even distribution of participants around the world. As participation would likely be higher in the nations that emit the most, the actual number of savings may be two or even three times as much.

And if we could get a billion people to participate each year, the planet would be saved in a very short amount of time indeed.

Or maybe not. Maybe the temperature of the planet would still rise even without the carbon emissions, as no one has conclusively proved a relation between the two.

But what does it hurt to try?

A Time to GIVE

2009-03-30T09:31:00.000-07:00

It's time to admit that not everything the Nazis did was bad. We must come to this conclusion after Congress overwhelmingly passed the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act (GIVE), which will create a commission to study the feasibility of establishing "a workable, fair and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people" that "would strengthen the social fabric of the nation" — much like one once conceived by another force of change.

While we progressives took every opportunity imaginable to link former President Bush's policies to those of the Führer und Reichskanzler, none of them compare quite so neatly as this plan does with the famed Hitler-Jugend. Only this organization will be used as a force for good, and therefore cannot be considered bad.

Just imagine the wonderful activities these youngsters would engage in.

First, after putting on their organic, hypoallergenic uniforms, they could start off with organized calisthenics, so that their bodies become as hard as their minds — followed by singing songs of peace, love, understanding, and Obama, such as this ditty (please forgive the mixed metaphor):

There is a supreme being
He is Obama — savior, Caesar, and tribune.
Legislators, let us save ourselves
Decree the common welfare.
That the hedge-fund manager return his plunder,
That the murderer be pulled from his prison.
Let us fan the forge ourselves
Strike the iron while it is hot.
This is the final struggle.
Let us stand together, and tomorrow
The Obamanale
Will lift the human race.

The sound of these songs will surely echo throughout the land — to the extent that many adults will likely stop whatever they're doing and join in. Even if they have to be strongly encouraged to do so.

Following song time, it'll be off to the rallies and marches — where our youth will help weed out regressive elements in society, whether such elements are among their neighbors, or even within their own family. One day they might protest in front of the home of an executive who had the audacity to collect a bonus. The next day they might target a church and its backward beliefs. And who knows whom they'll come for the day after that.

We can even have them help both conduct the census and register voters, assuring in the future that every vote is counted. At least once.

Children are indeed our future, and it's high time we finally give them the opportunity to light our new tomorrow. Especially as it's likely to be plenty dark.

Judge Not

2009-03-23T09:42:00.001-07:00

Much has been made over the assortment of gaffes Barack Obama has made in the short time he's been president. Some of the worst revanchists among his detractors have even had the audacity to use these mishaps to impugn the intellect of this obviously great man. This only shows the moral bankruptcy of the Right — for who among us progressives would ever attempt to correlate the verbal acuity of our leaders with their intelligence or competence?

Just imagine if we had mocked President George W. Bush (or Eisenhower, Ford, or Reagan) because he said some silly thing, or if we tried to say he was stupid because of it. It would be outrageous. As advanced as we are intellectually, we would never stoop to such a sophomoric form of argument.

Besides, there's nothing wrong with a minor verbal slip. Why, our beloved leader made many of them during the campaign and no one seemed to care.

Most famously, he said that there were 57 states. Of course, this is far from atrocious. For who can remember such an odd a number as fifty? And then there was the time he called "Russia" the "Soviet Union" and stated that they spoke Arabic in Afghanistan. But if nine out of ten high-school students can't find Mexico on a map, how could anyone expect better knowledge of geography from a president? Finally, he said that he'd be in power ten years from now. But who can remember everything stated in that wacky constitution of ours? Not even a professor of constitutional law.

So, it's a bit strange that people are taking exception to his misspeaking now, especially when they are so trivial.

Sure, Obama recently made fun of the mentally-disabled, implying that such people are so stupid they can't even roll a ball down a lane. But so what? Since when has everyone become so politically correct? We certainly would never attack anyone for making an insensitive remark. If someone from the other side made a joke, for example, about a minority, do you think we'd complain?

And then there was this whole teleprompter nonsense. But just because Obama knew the teleprompter was not working properly and continued to use it anyway — and hence thanked himself for hosting Irish Prime Minister Cowan — doesn't in anyway infer some mental deficiency. It, in fact, displays the great courage we need in this time of crisis — the courage to continue on a path despite knowing the inherent defectiveness of such course.

Finally, there's the other sundry miscues, including not knowing the difference between windows and doors, misstating the history of the railroad and the automobile in an address to the nation, and giving the prime minister of Great Britain a collection of North-American-playable-only DVDs. But surely these kind of gaffes and the number of them would've happened to anyone during the extensive period of time he's been in office.

Surely.

It's time to end this madness. And for all those rightwingers who insist on mocking President Obama, just remember one thing: judge not, lest ye be judged.

Harvesting Fetuses

2009-03-16T09:28:00.000-07:00

President Obama's reversal of the federal ban against government handouts for embryonic stem cell research is a testament to what we can do when we place science above all else, including results. But if we could take this type of research just one logical step further, there's no telling what miracles we could create and what federal money we could spend.

While embryonic stem cell therapies theoretically may hold great potential for the creation of an assortment of regenerative treatments — due to an assortment of potentially unsolvable problems — such treatments have never been realized, in spite of exhaustive amounts of research and funding.

But failure should never stop progress. It should, in fact, spur it further. So, why not allow these scientists — free from all moral and financial restraints — to experiment on a far more advanced form of quasi-humanity? Why not allow them to experiment on fetuses?

All we need do is freeze the fetuses once they're unceremoniously scooped out of the womb, and store them — much the way we do now with embryos. As there are more than 1.3 million of these "things" produced every year, there likely will never be a shortage of supply. But if there is, we could just import some of the 40 million others that are created from around the world.

As we've already determined that fetuses are worthless and unhuman, and hence may be terminated with extreme prejudice at any time, and without due process, we should have no problem allowing scientists to use these carcasses as playgrounds for all sorts of happy research.

Just imagine what advances might be possible if scientists could infect these bodies with the full array of hideous diseases and experiment with cures directly upon them, just like the Nazis did. Perhaps there will be none. But why not try? It's not like we have anything better to do with our time and money.

And this is only the beginning. As a by-product, we could also use many of the fetal organs as spare parts for those in need — something that has already been proposed by Oxford professor Richard Gardner. Even better, we could finally do away with that cruel and inhuman practice of using animals to test consumer products, by using fetuses instead.

There is only one small problem with all this. Private institutions and corporations will likely demur from funding or even participating in such practices, backwardly thinking it morbid or macabre, just because it violates a few minor precepts of morality.

This is where the federal government comes in, as it clearly has no moral qualms whatsoever, and has shown that it doesn't care if an investment can actually deliver a return, financial or otherwise. It can fund the entire process, from vacuum to vivisection. And if anyone complains, we'll simply trot out some sick celebrities and call these bitter misanthropes bad names.

The harvest is upon us, people. It's time we finally reap what we've sown.

Dewalmartification

2009-03-09T10:40:00.001-07:00

President Obama this past week made clear his intention to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, which will allow unions to organize workers without a vote. The bill's prime target is large retailers, who for too long have withstood unionization merely for the ridiculous reason that their employees never wanted it; and is the first step in the long awaited dewalmartification of America.

As most large retail operations are not unionized, they can keep larger amounts of people employed due to lower costs — but at the expense of union dues, such as those that financed that wonderful AFL-CIO junket in South Beach, Florida last week. By keeping costs low, these retailers can then keep the prices of consumer goods low, horrifically allowing poor people to survive without government assistance. Finally, this "value" provided to the consumer results in growth for the retailers, which in turn leads to these mammoth stores that blight the landscapes of our pastoral suburbs and exurbs.

But we can end this long national nightmare.

By doing away with the requirement of secret ballots, unions can take control of any large enterprise simply by getting 50% of the non-managerial workforce to sign away their bargaining rights. And freedom of expression. Instead of depending on unreliable elections, unions can personally persuade these workers to join. In their homes, if necessary. By nice men named Bruno and Rocko.

Combine this with registration support from organizations like ACORN, and getting even 150% of employees to sign up is far from impossible.

With unionization, the workers at these companies will finally be treated fairly — as not only will they receive a few dollars extra in their paycheck, but will also receive the generous benefit of having to do whatever the union bosses tell them. Also, no longer will they fear termination because of such trivial infractions as insubordination. No longer will they have to worry about their advancement being tied to job performance. And no longer will they have to be individuals. This is a good thing. For, in spite of what E. E. Cummings once wrote, most of us surely would like to be one of those ten thousand stars taught how not to dance.

Of course, due to increase expenses there will be far less stores and far fewer employees. But so what? Those without work will receive a welfare check — one likely far larger than the one they once earned.

Prices of goods in these stores will rise dramatically, too. But with it, so will wages for everyone. They will rise because the unions, in coordination with the government, will mandate they rise. We'll worry about the resulting inflation another day.

And even if these new unionized shops don't succeed, good will still come. For then we'll bulldoze these eyesores, leaving the rubble as a reminder of our decadent past.

Capping Trade

2009-03-02T08:54:00.001-08:00

Our progress as a society cannot be complete without cooling our dear planet earth, whose revival is worth any price, including civilization itself. For prosperity, jobs, and human comfort mean nothing if even one carbon escapes into the atmosphere.

Global warming deniers argue that the temperature of earth has actually risen only a small amount (0.74°C) over the past 100 years, and that there have been significant warming and cooling trends throughout history. Some insidious individuals have even had the gall to suggest that even if global warming does exist and is man-made, there is nothing that can be done about it.

But we know that these claims are false. We know it because Al Gore says so. And that cannot be denied.

That is why we should all be heartened by President Obama's proposed cap-and-trade program, which attempts to reduce warming by creating what is, in affect, a $646 billion tax on those who emit carbons — cleverly including the word "trade" to make it look as if some form of market economics is in play, and hence removing even the hint of socialism.

Of course, there are a few minor problems with this miraculous plan.

First, not only will the price of energy skyrocket, as emitters pass the tax onto consumers, but — according to Charles River Associates — millions of jobs will be lost. But no worry — we'll send all those affected a big, fat check. Instead of working, they can spend their days in the comfort of their cold homes watching talk shows and soap operas. They'll fall happily into a life of government dependence, where they only have to get off their sofas to vote.

Then, there's the annoying problem of convincing the emerging nations of the world — specifically, China, Russia, and India — of the horrific threat of global warming. At alarming rates, these impertinent countries are expanding their carbon-emitting industries as well as their energy use, despite the ever-increasing numbers of An Inconvenient Truth DVDs we distribute to them. As we shut down our dirty industries, they will likely grow theirs many times over, especially when our polluters move their companies over there. Regrettably, it simply won't matter how much we reduce our emissions if they increase theirs by an equal, or an even larger amount.

We must convince these selfish nations to destroy their economies the same way we will destroy our own. And we'll do it through song. Yes, song. We'll get Springsteen and Bono and Madonna and Sir Bob Geldof, and we'll have a live, worldwide concert — just like the ones that ended famine and AIDS. When the leaders of these bitter countries hear the beautiful music and see those tearful youngsters singing along with it, they will have no choice but to open their hearts to our unfalsifiable truth.

A third problem with cap-and-trade programs is that they've never proven successful. Europe has had such a system for three years without reducing emissions at all. But we progressives have never allowed the failure of past policies prevent us from proposing the same ones again.

And even if it doesn't cap emissions, it'll certainly cap trade, which just happens to be another of our long-cherished goals.

We'll Be Watching You

2009-02-23T09:45:00.000-08:00

Nothing advances innovation like the possibility of a new tax stream. Such is the case with the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) tax, which will provide not only an additional source of confiscation, but the technology to progress the behavior of all personkind.

This past week, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, a former Republican congressman who's accepted our dogma in near record time, announced his consideration of a VMT tax, which would tax drivers based upon the amount of miles they drive.

While White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was quick to demur at the idea, a blue ribbon transportation commission is reportedly set this week to recommend the tax; and with many leading states already preparing plans to implement it, such as the bellwether state of Massachusetts, the White House — true to its courageous and bold nature — is unlikely to demur for long.

The system, which will require motorists to install a GPS chip in their vehicles, will transmit mileage information to a satellite, which in turn will transmit a tax bill to a gasoline station during the driver's next fill-up.

Ingenious. And to think they still call 1984 and Brazil science fiction.

Just imagine the wonderful implications of such a system, especially with only a little tweaking. We'll be able to track how fast people drive, where they eat and shop, and with whom they associate. And with this information, we'll be able to improve their behavior by taxing ill — knowing full well that if you tax something, you're sure to get less of it.

Using a GPS-coordinated speed-limit database, a few of which are already available, we can determine if a vehicle's speed is even slightly excessive. So when these violations occur, we can simply add the price of a federal speeding ticket on top of the VMT tax — and automatically deliver the information to the pertinent police department, DMV, and insurance company, as to not deny localities of their much needed revenues. No one should complain. After all, they don't seem to mind when their income is taxed by multiple authorities.

Through similar types of databases, we'll also know when a vehicle stops in front of a fast-food restaurant or a tobacco shop — for which we'll add on a health tax. Likewise, if someone stops at a arms dealer or show, we'll add a gun-nut tax; and we'll also notify the FBI and local law enforcement, so as to put this person on the appropriate watchlists.

Even more importantly, we can track if a vehicle parks in front of a known purveyor of terror and hate, such as a church, and add a tolerance tax. Unitarians, of course, will be exempt.

Government surveillance — like war, torture, and censorship — is only bad when not furthering our ends. When done for good, it must be embraced as a necessary evil.

Remember that when you are driving down some lonely road in the all-too-near future. For with every step you take, every move you make, we'll be watching you.

More than Fair

2009-02-16T09:27:00.000-08:00

Being progressive, we must accept the premise that the average American is vacuous and ignorant, often willfully so.

The majority of the public won't act in their own best interests — and certainly not in ours; and are easily duped to do otherwise. They are blind children who require government supervision. It's the government's responsibility to make sure these poor waifs are not only well-fed, well-clothed, and well-sheltered, but also well-thought.

Just as a parent must prevent one child from hoarding toys from another, so must the government prevent people having too much of any particular thing, whether that thing is tangible or not. The government must redistribute speech the same way it redistributes income.

As such, one of the more crucial items on our agenda at the commencement of the age of Obama is the return of the Fairness Doctrine — that wonderful policy that takes our constitutional right to speak one step further, by forcing others to listen.

As it was when it was established in 1949, until its undeserved revocation in 1987, the appropriately-named Fairness Doctrine is a useful tool in ensuring that the public airwaves, at least in part, promote our ideals — as most people otherwise would simply fail to appreciate the enlightenment of such great paragons of probity as Air America, Pacifica Radio, and NPR; and would instead listen only to the banal hatred of the far right, who, admittedly, are far more entertaining.

But why settle for just fair?

We must hold this truth as self-evident: we cannot fully unite as one indivisible people until we wipe the stinking corpse of divisive radio off the airwaves. Right-wing radio is a cancer spread over the wasteland between the two coasts, infecting all who come in contact with its poisonous individualism and its belligerency in standing athwart to progress.

The Doctrine's reestablishment will force radio stations to air unpopular and boring opposing views, which will likely deter many provincial stations from even airing talk radio. The result of which will be that people will have no choice but to receive their news and commentary from the intellectually-reliable mainstream media.

And if the FCC won't reenact the Fairness Doctrine — along with its close cousin, localism, which requires stations to provide local content; that is, something other than Rush Limbaugh — then it must be codified into law by our brave congressional postpartisans. Even if it has to be passed in the middle of the night, hidden under the verbiage of some transportation bill.

Conservative and libertarian media, of course, will likely moan and bitterly complain; but if a tree falls in the forest but no one can tune in to listen to it, does it make a sound? If they want to get their message out, they'd better learn Morse code.

Like, right now.

Save the Wolves

2009-02-09T09:53:00.001-08:00

The world owes many thanks to Ashley Judd, who so bravely stood up against that evil Governor Palin and her barbarous slaughter of innocent and kindly wolves. But as progressives we must do more than just expose badness, we must also propose solutions to the problems that cause such ill.

The rationale behind this butchery is the pursuit of food. The miscreants in this dark hinterland called Alaska claim that the wolves — who have yet to realize that a vegetarian diet would be far better for them and their environment — eat moose and caribou to such an extent that there is not enough of them to feed the rural population — in particularly, the Native Americans.

The easiest solution to the problem is to alternatively feed this population. The federal government — through the largess of its current spending spree — should subsidize a chain of D'agostino and Whole Foods supermarkets throughout rural Alaska, so that these poor wretches can have access to the same tofu and arugula we all enjoy. And since the government is funding them, it won't even matter how much money these stores lose.

Afterward, we'll be free to ban wolf hunting entirely, which can be best accomplished through the Endangered Species Act. For as recent history has shown, we can place species on the protected list without them even being endangered.

The ban on wolf hunting, though, will create another problem. Left unchecked, the wolves would decimate the moose and caribou population, likely to the point of extinction. The solution to this requires creative, multifaceted thinking — the kind we on the Left are justifiably famous.

First, in coordination with groups like PETA, we will reeducate the wolves to not eat their neighbors. They must sufficiently advance as to become happy herbivores, just like the most forward thinking of us. We'll accomplish this through counseling, training, and possibly some witty advertising. Perhaps Ms. Judd would even be willing to donate some of her valuable time to personally teach these creatures that violence is never the answer.

But as such a program may take many generations, and the moose and caribou may not survive its completion, we must enact a more drastic short-term solution. Just as the slaughtering of human unborn is quite acceptable to us, so should the slaughtering of wolf unborn.

In coordination with groups like Planned Parenthood, we will collect pregnant wolves and thrust catheters into the skulls of their young, so as to suck out their brains, just as we do with humans. Perhaps Ms. Judd, who has long been supportive of this type of killing, could even perform the ceremonial first thrust.

Through our concerted efforts, we can treat wolves as humanely as we treat ourselves. It's the only way to save them from Palin's savagery.

To Each According to Their Ailment

2009-02-04T14:44:00.001-08:00

It was truly sad that Tom Daschle was forced to withdraw his nomination as Health and Human Services Secretary over such a minor indiscretion as tax evasion. But just because he's gone, doesn't mean we can't implement his cherished goal of healthcare rationing, which will surely improve our health system the same way it improved the British one.

As Daschle described in his book, Critical: What We Can Do About the Health Crisis, we must create a Federal Health Board, modeled on Britain's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, which has long determined what and how much care a citizen in that country receives — irrespective of what they actually need.

However, before we ration health care we must first nationalize it. For how can you ration something you don't control absolutely?

Every hospital — whether public or private — must be taken over by the federal government — especially those heinous religious hospitals, which, while providing care to those who otherwise would receive none, stubbornly refuse to slaughter fetuses. And every health care worker — whether a doctor, a nurse, or a technician — must become federal employees and accept civil-servant pay, which will make them just as caring and efficient as any other government bureaucrat.

From this point forward, the Federal Health Board will approve every request for medical assistance, whether it be an office visit or brain surgery. Because the government is so proficient, these requests will be handled expeditiously — some even within six months. And those approved will have to wait no longer than one full day in queue before receiving treatment.

Unfortunately, not every request can or will be approved. Our limited resources must be applied as to facilitate the best good of society; that is, the most productive citizens (or non-citizens) must receive priority. Those who are old and sickly will just have to wait, and be content with the great sacrifice they're making for their country. But they won't have to wait in pain, as we'll give them all the narcotics they want (or don't want) — whatever makes them happy and docile.

Of course, what's the point of rationing health care if you don't ration the things that cause ill health? Therefore, the Board must also ration alcohol, tobacco, and fatty foods.

Private liquor stores will be closed, replaced by government facilities that'll provide no more than one bottle of alcohol per week for every man, woman, and child. Bars will institute a one-drink maximum, to be enforced by undercover healthiness police.

Likewise, smokers will be restricted to one pack of cigarettes per week from government tobacco shops; or equivalently, one cigar or one pouch of chew. Moreover, smoking will be banned in nearly all places — both public and private. Smokers will have to do their ugliness in specially-marked containers, segregated from the rest of the population, where they will be properly ostracized by community organizers.

And just wait until you try the delicacies at the government-run fast-food monopoly. Yum-yum.

Yes, with sufficient will, we can power a system that will provide quality health care to all. Just not that much of it.

Our Own Public Zimbabwe

2009-01-29T09:10:00.000-08:00

The Obama administration wasn't a week old before members of it began uttering the "N" word.

That's right — "Nationalization."

The great new economic team — headed by the man who proudly believes fiscal responsibility begins at home — is strongly considering nationalizing the entire banking sector, realizing that the only way to truly "rescue" something is to swallow it, much like a lion rescues a starving doe.

And just as a lion is also compelled to rescue a not-so-starving doe, the government must nationalize healthy banks in addition to the unhealthy ones. And they'll have no right to complain, as who asked them to act responsibly? Certainly not the government. We must take the good with the bad, especially when their good assets will offset the other banks' bad ones.

Of course, the government can't and won't confiscate anyone's property. That would be un-American. That would be stealing. But just as the colonialists voluntarily gave up their lands in Zimbabwe, and as the kulaks before them gave up theirs in the former Soviet Union, for the betterment of all, so will the banks willingly give up their property. Even if we must organize mass protests to make these moneyed interests see right; or should I say, left. Even if we have to picket their workplaces and homes and houses of worship. Even if we have to rehabilitate them.

Once we've rescued the banking system, we'll soon face another problem. There's too many banks — all competing with each other for no good reason. As with health care, it is always better to have one source for everything, as competition causes stress and hurt feelings, and makes people work too hard. We must, therefore, establish a single-payer bank.

This bank will be a different and a better kind of bank. Money henceforth will be given to those who need it, in any quantity requested, without the need for collateral of any kind. We'll simply trust them to pay it back. And they'll do it. They'll do it not because they are coerced to do so — they'll do it for the good of society. And if for some odd reason they're unable to pay the money back, no worry. We'll just print some more.

To that end, we must also nationalize the Federal Reserve, just as we nationalized those other quasi-independent entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. No one complained then and no one will complain now.

We elected Obama and his merry band of postpartisans to fix our economy. They can't do this if they don't control the means of creating money. Do you think Dr. Mugabe allows the Bank of Zimbabwe to tell him when to print money and how much to print? Of course, not. And neither should the Federal Reserve tell Obama.

If you want economic stimulation, just wait until those dollars come off the presses. Money will flow through the economy like never before, and the price of everything will stimulate.

And our own public Zimbabwe will come one step closer to reality.

Smile and Wave

2009-01-25T11:28:00.001-08:00

Barrack Obama, that mother of all tribunes, has finally come to our rescue, ending our long national nightmare. Now he must give himself the greatest possible chance of success. And he can best accomplish this by doing what he does best: being there for America in its times of need, but not actually doing anything.

Obama's meteoric rise from obscurity can largely be attributed not only to his silver tongue, but to his uncanny ability to eschew unpopular or controversial stands. Just imagine if he actually voted up or down on those nearly 130 bills in the Illinois senate where he bravely voted "present." Just imagine if he ever voted against his party leadership while in the US Senate, or had even voted more often. Just imagine if he had taken clear stands on contentious issues. He would've certainly upset one of his many diverse constituencies and possibly would've lost somewhere along the road to glory.

And he will most certainly lose support as president if he ever does anything remotely bold; that is, if he ever shows leadership. For then, how could he mean everything to everyone?

This can't and needn't happen.

It's no secret that Obama hasn't the necessary experiences to be chief executive. He's never managed anything. Not once has he solved even the simplest of problems. This, though, is not a drawback — it's an asset, as why would anyone expect he'd magically be able to do any of this now that he's become president?

All he has to do is give flowery speeches, peppered liberally with "hope" and "change," and sign whatever bills our great Democratic lawgivers bestow upon him. And if a bill (or bills) turns out to be controversial or even disastrous, it won't be his fault, as he can honestly say that only Congress makes laws.

The same applies to whatever policy those wondrous apparatchiks implement. If something goes awry, simply throw the most expedient person under the bus — just like he did with his minister.

Plausible denial — that's the ticket to electoral success.

And if a major international crisis occurs, he should do exactly as he's done before: he should encourage the belligerents to seek a peaceful, diplomatic solution. And if they don't, it certainly won't be his fault. He, at least, tried.

This applies even if the crisis directly involves us — even if we are attacked. He should just give speeches at the UN, cast blame upon everyone but him, and sue for justice. And if that doesn't work, he can always hope that Americans will soon forget, as they usually do.

But never, never should he risk popularity as the previous president did, regardless of the consequences.

When confronted with a problem, he should simply close his eyes, take a deep breath, and remember the immortal words of Skipper the Penguin: "Just smile and wave. Smile and wave."

Tomorrow Belongs to Us

2009-01-19T09:27:00.000-08:00

The people clamored for change. A charismatic leader offered them hope and a new way, one free of divisiveness — where everyone would work together, for the good of all. And this man won an election decidedly.

The year was 1946, the leader was Klement Gottwald, and the country was Czechoslovakia. A few years later, when the communists consolidated power in what was gloriously called "Victory February," the country was so unified that it didn't need another election for more than forty years.

Philosopher George Santayana once famously said, "Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it." And we progressives — on the eve of Barack Obama's historic inauguration — can only hope for such condemnation. For tomorrow, when Gabriel swoops down and flies over the White House in culmination of our national amnesia, we will hopefully set a course as equally dramatic as the one the Czechs and the Slovaks took sixty years earlier.

Just as Gottwald eliminated partisan rancor, so will Obama. Just as Gottwald sublimated his country's national interests to those of a broader international community, so will Obama. And just as Gottwald imposed economic and social fairness, so will Obama.

Tribune Obama, like Gottwald and many other forward-thinking (and some not-so-forward-thinking) leaders this past century, is a man who, through the force of his personality, can make believers of everyone — even when they themselves don't know what exactly they are believing. So much so that people create great-sized artworks in his honor. Young children joyfully sing in his praise. Cities even rename streets and schools after him. And while some bitter folk may call this force a "cult," one person's cult is another person's church.

So tomorrow, turn on your TV and watch the conception of our new reality. It will be such a spectacle that even ESPN will cover it.

Better yet, go to one of the many movie theaters where that great objective news organization, MSNBC, will broadcast it.

If only Leni Riefenstahl were alive to film it.

Victory January is upon us. "We can change the world," is no longer a cliché. We control the presidency, we control the legislature, and we are just a little attrition short of controlling the judiciary as well. And with proper policy, education (or reeducation), and cooperation from the media, we can one day also control the people — for their own benefit, of course. In time, perhaps we too will no longer need the inherent divisiveness of elections.

As a sweet young man once sang:

The babe in his cradle is closing his eyes
The blossom embraces the bee.
But soon, says a whisper;
"Arise, arise!"
For tomorrow belongs to us.

In Support of a UN Commission on Proportionality

2009-01-09T10:07:00.001-08:00

Israel's recent unfair attack on Gaza highlights the need not only of greater proportionality in military responses but also the need for the world community to enforce such measures. Just as we restrict individuals from acting in their own self-interests, we must likewise restrict individual nations, especially when their interests are petty, such as self-survival.

The disproportionality of Israel's response to Hamas has shocked the world; at least the advanced parts of the world where morality remains forever relative. So, Hamas has fired a few thousand missiles at it, destroying property and killing people. Is this any reason to get upset? Why not compromise and meet them halfway — that is, give them half of Israel? Surely that would satiate them; at least, for a little while.

But if Israel must respond, they should at least have the decency to respond exactly in kind. No more, but hopefully less.

For the betterment of war, it should be conducted rationally and humanely, regardless of its irrational causes or its potentially beneficial aims. It should be conducted as if playing a game of chess or Battleship — with rules, such as "everyone gets a turn."

And if Israel and other belligerents won't follow the rules, the rules must be enforced upon them. They must be enforced by the grand world-government-in-waiting, the United Nations, which should forthwith establish the Commission on Proportionality.

This commission — hopefully chaired by that distinguished proponent of proportionality, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who has long understood that the way to confront evil is to placate it into submission — will regulate all conflicts with full legal authority. When a nation or an unrecognized foreign entity attacks another, the commission solely will determine the appropriate response, to which both parties must abide.

So, if Georgia lobs a missile into an Abkhazian school and kills a dozen children, the comission will allow Russia to bomb a Georgian school and kill exactly a dozen of their enemy's children. And if the Russian bomb inflicts less or more casualties, the numbers will be reconciled by UN forces, which will be sent in to adjust the numbers manually.

Likewise, if the Hutu goes on a rampage and rapes a hundred Tutsi, the commission will make certain that the Hutu provide a hundred of their women for the appropriate proportional response.

Finally, if Iran detonates a single nuclear bomb in Tel Aviv, the commission will let Isreal drop one — and only one — nuclear bomb on Tehran. That is, if it still exists. And if it doesn't, well, then Sarah Silverman can organize the Great Schlep Part Two, where she and other famous Jews can carry the charred remains of their people back to America, where they will be properly feted for acting proportionally.

Of course, enforcing proportionality won't likely decrease the amount of conflicts or their deadliness. In fact, it may even increase both, as the ability to deter future acts will surely decrease. But this doesn't matter. Only fairness does.

The Curious Case of Nat Hentoff

2009-01-05T11:16:00.000-08:00

While the half-emptiness of our economy has caused many to despair, we progressives tend to look at the proverbial glass as half-full — especially when we have the power to tax or confiscate it. Never has this been more apropos than in the curious case of Nat Hentoff.

Hentoff, the iconic columnist who worked for the Village Voice since 1958, stood in the forefront of just about every liberal cause since that time. He was a lion — a man respected by almost everyone regardless of political perspective, but especially by those of us who matter. That is, until he lost his purity.

For Hentoff came to the beguiling and divisive conclusion that life actually means something — that an unborn is more than a choice — that it is not a thing to destroy at will; that it is, well, human.

Just imagine — if this were accepted — what the implications would be for those of us who consider ourselves humanists.

What's worse, he came to this epiphany well after we in the know definitively decided this issue and hence closed all debate, and he refused to renounce his error even when confronted by the wisdom of his unassailable peers.

So when Mr. Hentoff was laid off last week, as if he were a mailroom attendant, there was no great outcry from the Left. There were neither protests, nor rallies in his support. Many of us were probably happy, knowing that in times like these unity and conformity of thought must be the rule — a rule that can have no exceptions.

In many ways Hentoff is a modern-day Malcolm Muggeridge — who for some odd reason felt inclined to expose the so-called "Ukrainian famine" — when today's world requires journalists like Walter Duranty, who when reporting on the same event — in the great tradition of the New York Times — decided that progress was far more important than a few million dead kulaks, and kept his eyes and his mouth shut.

What was true then is even more true now when it comes to the tens of millions of dead unbabies. They are nothing but a statistic — as Duranty's idol would've termed them — an inconvenience that can be ignored if we just will it so — an inconvenience that gets in the way of much more important issues, such as who's giving an invocation at the inauguration.

The economic downturn, then, can be seen as fortuitous. Under the guise of cutbacks, perhaps more unreliable journalists can be "laid off," as there's no place for the Nat Hentoffs, the Camille Paglias, and the Mickey Kauses in our bold new world. Instead of lamenting the downfall of the press perhaps we should embrace it as necessary pruning of the body journalistic.

And this is only the beginning. Just wait until the government inevitably "rescues" the media, and journalists become de facto government employees. Just wait until the Employee Free Choice Act passes, and reporters, columnists, and bloggers are unionized without so much as a vote, and become answerable to those most enlightened bosses.

Just wait until the curious case of Nat Hentoff is of a type that exists only in history books.

Qualified, Unquestionably

2009-01-01T11:28:00.000-08:00

Much ado has been made about the qualifications of sweet Caroline Kennedy to ascend to the throne of Hillary Rodham Clinton's New York senate seat — even in the mainstream media, who until just recently seemed to understand their proper role as one that only questions the other side.

Ms. Kennedy is clearly qualified.

First and most importantly, she's qualified because the Constitution says she's qualified. According to Article I, Section 3, a senator must be 30 years of age, a citizen of the United States for 9 years, and must reside in the state he or she represents at the time of election. It would not be fair to apply any arbitrary set of qualifications for high federal office beyond these.

But critics and malcontents do.

They claim she lacks experience for the job. And why? Just because she's never actually held what they call "a job." But people — especially women — can have valuable experiences apart from the traditional workplace. Life experiences. Caroline has had the toughest job of them all — raising a family — even if she did have quite a bit of help. And no female politician should ever be criticized for choosing to raise a family, especially a large one.

They say she lacks policy knowledge. Well, so what? The woman was unexpectedly thrust into the national spotlight. Who would be so unfair as to judge the erudition of a person under such circumstances? And what does this even matter when we know she'll surely vote the correct way all the time; that is, the way of good Uncle Teddy.

And there's at least one area of policy she's quite versed: public education. In fact, she knows and loves the public education system so well that she wants that no child shall ever be educated outside of it. Except her children, of course.

Some in the media have even stooped as low as to declare her unfit to serve because of her poor spoken English. You know, don't they realize that not everyone's a gifted speaker? After all, we elect leaders not actors. We don't want politicians who glibly talk as if reading from some virtual teleprompter in their head. How they speak should be of little concern, especially when average people — whom we want our politicians to emulate — have the same or similar speaking flaws. We progressives would never mock or belittle a politician because of her speech, and we should not tolerate others when they do it.

Finally, she is qualified ex cathedra of her name. The Kennedy name is the political Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. We know innately that any person from this family has the best interests of Americans in mind; apart from when they're sympathizing with Nazis, hating Jews, working for Joseph McCarthy, spying on Martin Luther King, or engaging in sundry acts of public intoxication and wantonness.

Caroline Kennedy is qualified. Period. And should be anointed in due haste. Our great democratic tradition and future demands it.