The World O' Crap Archive

Welcome to the Collected World O' Crap, a comprehensive library of posts from the original Salon Blog, and our successor site, (2006 to 2010).

Current posts can be found here.

Saturday, December 25, 2010

September 14, 2003 by s.z.

From Reuters:
A new Washington Post/ABC News poll released on Sunday showed that a majority of Americans disapprove of Bush's request to Congress for an additional $87 billion to fund military and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan over the next year. Six in 10 of those polled said they did not support the proposal, the Post said.
A sense that the United States does not have a firm command over the situation in postwar Iraq is adding to Republican concerns, with daily guerrilla attacks on U.S. troops, and Bush's failure to get more international help for Iraq after alienating some members of the U.N. Security Council during the bitter pre-war debate
[snip] Some Republicans are concerned Bush seems to be spending an inordinate amount of time raising money for his 2004 re-election campaign race, lowering his profile from commander in chief to solicitor in chief and leaving him more open to Democratic assault.Bush has been to 20 fund-raising events in 12 states and Washington since mid-June and has raised more than $60 million, on his way to a goal of $170 million for a Republican primary campaign for which he has no challengers.  
Personally, I don't care about the $87 billion costs -- that's about what my cable TV provider charges for a year of basic cable, which helps put things into perspective.  And while I find "Green Acres" reruns and "Surprise by Design" more entertaining than the Iraq situation, we signed up for this, and so by Cable Law we have to finish paying for it, even though we now realize it wasn't a good deal (I think Mr Haney had something to do with setting it up) and we're not even getting what was advertised.  ("You say you agreed to the 'Take Out  the 9/11 Terrorists" package, and then when it was no longer available, you settled for the 'Destroying Weapons of Mass Destruction' network, but instead you're getting the 'Taking the War to Our Enemies in Iraq Who Only Became Our Enemies When We Took the War to Them' channel?  Well, it's also a very popular choice, and I'm sure you'll like it once you give it a try.") 

Still, now that I think about what $87 billion will get you on cable TV, I think maybe we could learn a thing or two from them.  For example, I bet the "Surprise by Design" team could clean up Iraq, reconstruct it, AND give it a nice At Deco mural in the bedroom, for a lot less than $87 billion.  While this plan might not get any NATO backing, I bet Sherwin-Williams and Home Depot would help to underwrite it.

And I am not concerned that Bush is spending more time fund-raising that Presidenting.  Actually, I feel more secure this way.  In fact, if he spends the next year or so just going to church bazaars, Bingo nights, and bake sales (when he's not chopping wood on his ranch and reading books to first graders), I think we'll all be better off.

But I do agree that it doesn't seem like the U.S. has a firm command of the post-war Iraq situation.  And I think I know what would help: baking power.  Yes, I was leafing through a very nice 1933 cook booklet ("The Cook's Book") put out by KC Baking Powder, when I noticed this proudly-displayed certificate:
In case you can't read it, the certificate, signed by Mnnnnnn (or something like that), Secretary of War (the job title I aspire to) and Ruuuuue (I guess these guys signed a lot of certificates, to the detriment of their handwriting), Assistant Secretary of War and Director of Munitions, testify that Jaques Manufactoring Company "aided materially in obtaining victory for the Arms of the United States of America." 

The cookbook further explains, "The Distinguised Service Award was given to the Jaques Manufactoring Company for Loyalty, Energy, and Efficiency in rendering service to the United States of America during the World War."  The booklet further states that "MILLIONS OF POUNDS of K.C. baking power shipped for use of OUR TROOPS overseas." 

I think the above is pretty convincing proof that baking powder was the secret to our military success in the World War.  Since I can't imagine that our troops would need millions of pounds of baking powder to bake with (I've been baking with the same 12-ounce can for about 4 years now), if one reads between the lines it becomes apparent that the War Department was using baking powder (probably mixed with vinegar, but I don't have a Heinz cookbook to prove this) to power their submarine fleet and to neutralize German chemical weapons (mustard gas, chlorine, refrigerator odors, etc.).  Why else would the "Director of Munitions" be commending baking power for "aiding materially" in the U.S. victory?  But since this was a victory for U.S. "Arms," presumably baking powder was also used offensively -- I suspect that it is a high explosive.  In small doses, it makes your cake rise, but in larger quantities, it can be used to level German cities and blow up Zeppelins.  (The War Department says that these files are still classified, and so refuses to comment on my theory.)  

And if the baking powder saturation bombing doesn't work, "The Cook Book" (obviously the operation code name) proposes building a giant fruit cake replica of the Tower of London, and placing it outside Baghdad.
The evil doers, who've always wanted to take the Tower of London tour but couldn't afford to visit England, realize this must be that "Taking the Tour To Our Enemies" program mentioned in Bush's speech last week.  So, they go inside to look around and a wicked witch eats them.  Or, conversely, we just shut the door, forcing the bad guys to eat their way out, and so they subcome to fruit cake poisoning.  Of course, if it rains and the fruit cake melts, you're taking about a MAJOR morass situation.

Still, I think the War Department should call once more upon the the proven loyalty, energy, and efficiency of the baking power industry -- and since baking powder is only .89 a can, I think they would prove an affordable alternative to Halliburton.

10:42:19 PM    

Who's Looking Out For America's Lovelorn?  Bill O'Reilly, That's Who!

Per Bill's wepbage, we have a treat in store for us on the 21st: Bill O'Reilly in Parade Magazine.  Yes, Bill will be featured on the cover of that supplement that comes with the Sunday paper.  And the copy on that cover promises:
HOW TO SPOT THE GOOD GUYS: Do the people in your life let you down?  The author of the new book "Who's Looking Out For You" offers some advice on picking reliable friends.
Wow, it's like a dream come true: Bill O'Reilly helping me pick my friends and giving me advice on how to spot good guys! 

You know, now that Ann Landers is dead and the aging Dear Abby's gig has been usurped by her daughter, I've been wondering who could possibly fill their niche, doling out home-spun guidance about deadbeat boyfriends, hanging toilet paper, and not enjoying sex.  And now I have the answer: Dear Billy!  (After all, he is "the new pope of TV Journalism," as it says in his Fox bio.)  I think his column might go something like this:
Dear Billy,
I'm a 15-year-old girl who's never had a boyfriend, but there's this guy at school named Phillippe, and he kind of seems to like me, and I think he might ask me out on a date.  But how do I know if he's a good guy or not?
Signed, Tiffi

Dear Tiffi,
This "Phillipe" is undoubtedly French, and therefore, part of a craven, appeasing, snotty culture that is failing to follow the moral imperative of doing what our President tells them to.  What the French have done to hurt America is unconscionable.  Therefore, you must boycott this cheese-eating surrender monkey.  This also applies if happens to be Canadian, because they're getting pretty uppity too.  And don't date any actors either, because they're all liberal jerks who don't know anything about the issues, but who still bloviate about Iraq and peace and Tibet whenever they get the chance.  Why do they imagine that we give a crap about anything they have to say?.  Oh, except for Arnold Schwartnegger; we care about his views because he's a Republican.  So, you can date him if you want -- but don't let the media find out, because it would hurt him in the polls.
Dear Billy,
Do you think it's possible to ever recover from the betrayal of having your husband cheat on you?  My husband confessed that he had a one-night stand with a colleague while on a business trip.  He said that it was just an alcohol-fueled indiscretion, but it tears me up inside every time I imagine them together.  I still love him, and believe in the sanctity of marriage, but my heart is broken and I hurt all the time.  Can a marriage survive something like this?  I read a study about adultery in the New York Times that said that . . .
Dear Loser,
Hold it right there!  The New York Times is leading the charge to turn America into a secular nation and return political power to the left wing of the Democratic Party.  They employ journalistic terrorism designed to destroy anyone who dares stand up to them.  And they hurt my feelings!  If you read their rag, then you obviously subscribe to their traitorous, godless agenda, so you don't deserve to call yourself an American.  You make me sick, you leftist heathen!
Dear Billy,
I am 8-years old.  When I grow up, I want to be just like you.  How do I do this?

Signed, Joe

Dear Joe,
You should be the recipient of strong parenting and nightly family discussions around the dinner table.  Then, start a teenage business mowing lawns.  I can't stress that enough.  After going to journalism school, get a job at a local TV station, where your hard-hitting reporting style and non-stop work ethic will eventually get you recruited by "Inside Edition."  There, your six years of hard work and outstanding reporting will win you a Peabody award, or will win the show a Polk award a couple of years after you leave--it's all the same thing.  Upon graduating from Harvard with a Masters degree, have Roger Ailes give you a TV show that will become the most powerful force in prime-time TV.  And THEN YOU CAN RULE THE WORLD!  I hope this formula to success helps you as much as it did me.
Sincerely, Bill O'Reilly
For an mega-bestselling guide to becoming a better conversationalist and a more attractive person, order "How to Be Popular The Bill O'Reilly Way." Send a self-addressed envelope, plus check or money order for $5 (U.S. funds only--we don't take none of that Canadian crap and we don't buy Molson Beer either) to: Dear Billy Popularity Booklet, P.O. Box 555, Westbury Section of Levittown, NY 10109 
But now that Dr. Laura is abandoning her "stone the sinners" brand of Judaism and flirting with the kinder, gentler judgementalism of fundamentalist Christianity, somebody needs to fill her niche on our radio dials.  Since Bill already has a radio show, he'd be a natural for the job!  I think his call-in advice program might go a little something like this:
Beth:  Hi, Dr. Bill.  I'm Beth.  I was supposed to get married next month, but I'm just not sure if my fiance is a good guy.  You see, my twin sister just confessed to me that she's three-months pregnant with his baby.  What do you think I should do?
Dr. Bill: Okay, let's recap this: You're engaged, the hall is booked, the minister is hired, and you just found out your fiance slept with your sister and she's three-months pregnant.
Beth: I believe that is what I said.
Dr. Bill: Hey, don't get snippy with me, Missy -- I'm not the one with the slutty sister, and the cheating, lowlife boyfriend.  I bet you and your sister watched a lot of MTV while growing up, didn't you?
Beth: Well, yes, but I don't know what . . .
Dr. Bill: Don't you believe that a steady diet of sleaze, immorality, and decadence would naturally warp your values and lead you to chose a life-partner who would emulate Mick Jagger, bedding a different woman every night; while your sister would be a trampy Madonna-wannabe, kissing Britney Spears on TV where innocent children can watch their lascivious, lesbian writhing, breasts heaving, nipples hardening . ..
Beth:  AHEM!  I believe we were talking about my problem here, which isn't about MTV or pop stars, it's about my fiance knocking up my sister, and whether I should . . .
Dr. Bill: Cut her mike!  All right, sister. Now, you either going listen to me, or you are going to get knocked off the air right now. Ok? That's the deal.  That's the way we do it. You say that your situation does not involve MTV, and the fact that it's responsible for 80 percent of black girls between 15 and 24 who give birth, doing it out of wedlock. That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. But I don't believe that. And I'm as smart as you are.
Beth: Um, . . .sure you are.  But should I go through with the wedding or not?
Dr. Bill: Does your fiance listen to rap music.  Eminem?  And that gansta rapper stuf?  Now let me tell you why you're wrong.  Here's the deal. 10-year-old boys calling 10-year-old girls bitches and hos.  And the NY Times actually called Mel Gibson a 'Jew baiter'!  I mean, MEL GIBSON,  the guy who's going to make a movie out of my novel about a guy whose non-stop work ethic and sexual prowess gets him to the top of the TV news world!  And you have little children, unsupervised children, children I'm sure you care about, who are influenced by this behavior. And that so-called "satirist" Al Franken implying that I am a liar -- it hurts you as a human being, it really does. As a human being.  And do I get recompensed for that?  NO!  Because in this country famous people deserve no protection!  Now is this the kind of society you want to live in?
Beth: Oh, never mind!  I'm just going to marry the guy--you taught me that I am lucky he just sleeps with my sister instead of annoying me to death.
Dr. Bill: I'm glad I could be of service.  Because nothing is more important than a good marriage.
Well, that's one way it might go.  Anyway, I eagerly await Bill's Parade article, and hope he'll pick me some reliable friends, but not my nose.

6:17:54 AM    

An apology:
In the early hours of 8 September I used a quote from a Warren Zevon song; later that day, his death was announced.  On 11 September I posted an image of Jonny Quest; on 12 September we learned of the deaths of both Jonny Cash and John Ritter.  I believe I am responsible for their deaths, and I apologize. 
And these aren't the only instances of my killing celebrites.  A couple of months ago, in another forum, while noting how Charlies Angels always had to go undercover as underwear models or topless stockbrokers, I mentioned that this was a common practice of private detectives of the day, as Barnaby Jones often had to solve cases by prancing about in his Joe Namath Sling Shot Briefs: the next day Buddy Ebson died.  I also killed Gregory Peck by dropping his name into a piece about "Omen 3" (note: Peck wasn't in "Omen 3," but the antichrist-killing knives he bought at Shaper Image were). 

And so on, much to my dismay.  Anyway, if you are a celebrity and you don't want to die, you might consider paying me to never mention your name.

3:26:29 AM    

Economists Predict Gloom and Doom and Roaming Herds of Costners; White House Says, "Don't Listen to Them--They're All Hopped Up On Goofballs."

Remember back in early 2001, when Bush promised us that the national debt would soon be paid off, and there'd be trillions in savings set aside to secure health and retirement plans.  Um, well, there's been a little change in plans: Dizzying Dive to Red Ink Poses Stark Choices for Washington.
The budget was upended by what economists now say were three independent forces gathering in power at once: a steep economic decline, a political consensus to slash taxes and the effects of the 2001 terrorist attacks.
So, it seems that instead of the $353 billion surplus we were supposed to have at the end of this fiscal year, we'll actually have a $401 billion deficit.  The gap for next year will be even worse:
Next year's deficit was projected to be $480 billion, but the new Iraq spending will bring that to $540 billion or higher — close to the 5 percent of the gross domestic product that many experts warn is a serious danger zone for the economy.
Read the rest of the article for more really depressing news, including predictions of a bleak, desolate, wasteland future, right of out of Mad Max or The Postman.  Well, we could stave it off if we either begin to make "draconian cuts" in Government spending (no more farm subsidies, Medicare drug benefits, or invasions) or bite the bullet and not renew the tax cuts (and even . .gasp . . .impose new taxes on the rich).  Or do some of both.  But unless we do something, we face a future where only Mel Gibsons and Kevin Costners can survive.  And that's just not good.

12:15:24 AM    

No comments:

Post a Comment