Sunday, April 26, 2009

Poor Dick

THE ABSURD TIMES
Illustration: Maybe this is what is going on in his mind?

Of late, a tireless public servant has been subject to a plethora of attacks from what can only be described as spiteful and malignant critics of his dedication to, and faithful execution of, his awesome and demanding duties as the former Vice-President of the United States of America. The most recent attacks come as a response to his appearance on the F* News Channel as part of his promotion of both himself and his book, both of which are titled DICK. His interviews were conducted by a male with a low forehead with an Irish sounding name, best known as H*. This Dick had remained secreted for most of the past eight years in "Secret" locations and, both to his credit as eminently self-effacing and humble, said very little in public. To be sure, ever since his appearance at the inauguration in a wheel chair, it has been difficult to see him or hear him without thinking of the Stanley Kubrick film, Dr. Strangelove.

Much of this criticism is a result of his defense of "enhanced interrogation," a procedure that many critics call "torture," and we know quite well that ex-President George W. Bush said that we "do not torture." The problem the critics have is in understanding the definition of torture and this definition depends greatly upon ones point of view, or who is involved. For example, if Mr. Cheney were flogged and had needles stuck under his fingernails and other pain inflicted upon him until he confessed, I am sure he would consider that torture. However, if it is done to someone else, he would not consider it torture. Since Mr. Cheney was never waterboarded, nor was Mr. Bush for that matter, no torture was practiced by the United States. His critics simply miss that very obvious point.

He is also providing another service to his country gratis: he is carefully and thoughtfully, at no charge to us, letting us know how Mr. Obama has jeapordized national security. It may not have been clear to those watching our President's visit to the southern regions of the continent, but he actually shook hands with Mr. Chavez. While Mr. Cheney was not specific about the particular dangers this posed to us and our loved ones, he has at least warned us to that when the impending doom descends upon us, we were prepared. To compound matters, Mr. Obama actually accepted a book from him. There seems to be no end to the perfidity of our President's lack of vigilance, but we at least have DICK looking over us.

Another tremendous threat to our national security and completely incomprehensible failing, Mr. DICK points out to us is the absurdity of Mr. Eric Holder, the current Attorney General, in adhering to the law as is required by that most evil of documents, the United State's Consitituion. Of course one swears on a bible to uphold the Constitution, that is expected, but to actually be so naieve as to attempt to do it leaves him at a complete loss. He was never once quilty of defending that document and its outdated ideas – why he even was industrious enough to help defeat its purpose.

Yet with all his virtues and stature, there is a dark, forboding force that shrouds his good name, a force that he was able to avoid and ignore while he retained the powers of office, but seems all but certain to doom him to eternal condemnation in the eyes of the cilivized world, the wretched evil called "the facts." For example, it has been well-known that "torture" (for that is what everyone else other than he and F* news calls it, produces nothing of value and that all the useful information obtained from any Al-Qaeda types was obtained before any torture was employed on them. So what possible reason could there be to torture some of them as much as six times a day?

Well, these techniques were borrowed by us from the Korean/Chinese who used them to obtain false confessions – in fact, that is the only possible use for torture (other than a sadistic pleasure – actually, Ms. England, the short female with the leash in the Abu Garahib photos was probably punished not because of committing torture, but for enjoying it). It was quite important for Mr. Cheney to establish a connection between Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden.

Now, nothing could be more far-fetched than that. From what is obvious concerning Saddam's personality and beliefs, some upstart fundamentalist Wahabbi could hardly be anything but anathema to him, especially if that fundamentalist had thoughts of grandeur. After all, all grandeur belong to Saddam, the Saladin of the modern world. Bin Ladin, indeed.

However, we could try to torture some of his followers to confess to many ties. Unfortunately, even under torture they found the thought too ridiculous to take seriously.

And that, dear world, is why the DICK will never be known as anything more than the DICK.

Sic transit glorius mundi

Finally, remember Obama's senate race? His original opponent had to drop out because his wife complained that he was subjecting, or trying to subject, her to lewd and lascivious behavior. It is not clear what that behavior was, but I came across a photo of her and her situation in that photo is NOT what she was complaining about – she was complaining about more. So, out of deference to those on the mailing list who might have a problem with her "objectification," I have posted the photo on the site itself and refrained sending it through the e-mail. However, if you want to see it and then speculate what he was after, just click on the link, below. He, by the way, was replaced by the insane Alan Keyes (not as husband, but a Republican opponent).

Saturday, April 18, 2009

Teabagging Defined -- Transitive Verb

THE ABSURD TIMES
I have been patiently hoping that the media would stop making such a big deal of the "protest" on Tax Day orchestrated by the remnants of the Republican party and Fox News. I relied on my remote so I would not be subjected to further images of that absurd old lady with a hat full of teabags or the group of morons demonstrating against the new tax code (which works in their favor). It is quite clear that the protests have more to do with the fact that we have an African American President than any political idea. How many of the protestors even knew what the Boston tea Party was? And of those who had a faint glimmer of memory from elementary school, how many realized that they did not have teabags in those days.
At any rate, I finally took the advice of another Ph.D. and looked the word up in the "Urban Drictionary" online. The following is a definition of "Teabagging":
1. teabagging 2462 up, 343 down love ithate it
To have a man insert his scrotum into another person's mouth in the fashion of a teabag into a mug with an up/down (in/out) motion.
Man: Let's teabag!
Your Daughter: Okay!
by anonymous Nov 6, 2002 share this
2. teabagging 966 up, 256 down love ithate it
v. To lower one's scrotum into another's mouth.
Person 1: I want to try teabagging.
Person 2: You mean, you want ME to try teabagging...
by The Grammar Nazi Dec 19, 2001 share this
3. teabagging 6149 up, 947 down love ithate it
the insertion of one man's sack into another person's mouth. Used a practical joke or prank, when performed on someone who is asleep, or as a sexual act.
At the frat house last night, when Tim was wasted an down on the floor, he got teabagged by, like, ten guys!

Me and Jen were teabagging last night when her mom walked in. Awkward.
This part of the demonstration was not carried by the networks.

Monday, April 13, 2009

Easter, Miracles, and Pirates


THE ABSURD TIMES

Easter has just come and gone. Easter is a religious holiday celebrating Jesus' rising from the dead. If he sees his shadow, there are 6 more centuries of colonialism to come.

The release of the Captain of a cargoe ship was seen as an Easter miracle. This show how supersititious people really are. It is as clear as daylight that it was the hanging of yellow ribbons that saved the captain. this is based on a logical proposition called, in Latin, POST HOC, ERGO PROMPTER HOC. First the yellow ribbons, then the release of the captain.

Clear as can be.

It is confusing why the crewmembers of the ship had to be debriefed by the FBI, however. No one explained how the removal of their underwear helped one iota in this situation other than to satisfy the perverted inclinations of the agents.

Watching carefully on Fox News, we were told that National Mariners' Day is coming up in May. This is important information we ignore at our peril.

Often we were told that the ship had been surrounded by United States' warships to "send a message." Now this is an interesting concept. We also piled tons of Warship material in the straits of Hormuz to "send a message" to Iran a couple of years ago. The projected missles to be aimed at Russia from Poland is supposed to "send a message" to either Russia or Iran (it has never been clear which). Tell me, if we are having such budget problems, why don't we use e-mail to send our messages? It's cheaper by far and less likely to be misunderstood.
I didn't mean to stray: We were also told that the Captain voluntered to be a hostage because he was like a good shepherd (in keeping with the Easter spirit, I suppose).

National security also was mentioned, and that leads to the following issue:
I am still wondering why no one has brought up Dick Cheney's assertion to John King on CNN that the Oklahoma City bombing was done by Al-Quada. I guess Timothy McVeigh was secretly a Moslem?

Oh well, now over 200 mariners are safe and sound due, don't forget, to the hanging of yellow ribbons.

Finally, will someone tell the FBI to return the mariners' underwear?

Unfortunately, since the "rescue," a congressman's plane was mortared, about 4 other ships captured, and the crew is still waiting unification with its captain, currently considered a "hero," right up there with Achilles and Hector.

Meanwhile, Blagojevitch appeared in court and tricked the media so they couldn't get photos of him. This is further proof of how corrupt he is, but he said "not-guilty," and threatened that now the "truth will come out." Fitzgerald had better be careful -- there may be a few Republican involved.


Israel Again

THE ABSURD TIMES



Thanks to Norm Finklestein for posting the following:


EXCELLENT ANALYSIS

January 23, 2009

Israel’s Lies

01.29.2009 | The London Review of Books
By Henry Siegman

Western governments and most of the Western media have accepted a number of Israeli claims justifying the military assault on Gaza: that Hamas consistently violated the six-month truce that Israel observed and then refused to extend it; that Israel therefore had no choice but to destroy Hamas’s capacity to launch missiles into Israeli towns; that Hamas is a terrorist organisation, part of a global jihadi network; and that Israel has acted not only in its own defence but on behalf of an international struggle by Western democracies against this network.

I am not aware of a single major American newspaper, radio station or TV channel whose coverage of the assault on Gaza questions this version of events. Criticism of Israel’s actions, if any (and there has been none from the Bush administration), has focused instead on whether the IDF’s carnage is proportional to the threat it sought to counter, and whether it is taking adequate measures to prevent civilian casualties.

Middle East peacemaking has been smothered in deceptive euphemisms, so let me state bluntly that each of these claims is a lie. Israel, not Hamas, violated the truce: Hamas undertook to stop firing rockets into Israel; in return, Israel was to ease its throttlehold on Gaza. In fact, during the truce, it tightened it further. This was confirmed not only by every neutral international observer and NGO on the scene but by Brigadier General (Res.) Shmuel Zakai, a former commander of the IDF’s Gaza Division. In an interview in Ha’aretz on 22 December, he accused Israel’s government of having made a ‘central error’ during the tahdiyeh, the six-month period of relative truce, by failing ‘to take advantage of the calm to improve, rather than markedly worsen, the economic plight of the Palestinians of the Strip . . . When you create a tahdiyeh, and the economic pressure on the Strip continues,’ General Zakai said, ‘it is obvious that Hamas will try to reach an improved tahdiyeh, and that their way to achieve this is resumed Qassam fire . . . You cannot just land blows, leave the Palestinians in Gaza in the economic distress they’re in, and expect that Hamas will just sit around and do nothing.’

The truce, which began in June last year and was due for renewal in December, required both parties to refrain from violent action against the other. Hamas had to cease its rocket assaults and prevent the firing of rockets by other groups such as Islamic Jihad (even Israel’s intelligence agencies acknowledged this had been implemented with surprising effectiveness), and Israel had to put a stop to its targeted assassinations and military incursions. This understanding was seriously violated on 4 November, when the IDF entered Gaza and killed six members of Hamas. Hamas responded by launching Qassam rockets and Grad missiles. Even so, it offered to extend the truce, but only on condition that Israel ended its blockade. Israel refused. It could have met its obligation to protect its citizens by agreeing to ease the blockade, but it didn’t even try. It cannot be said that Israel launched its assault to protect its citizens from rockets. It did so to protect its right to continue the strangulation of Gaza’s population.

Everyone seems to have forgotten that Hamas declared an end to suicide bombings and rocket fire when it decided to join the Palestinian political process, and largely stuck to it for more than a year. Bush publicly welcomed that decision, citing it as an example of the success of his campaign for democracy in the Middle East. (He had no other success to point to.) When Hamas unexpectedly won the election, Israel and the US immediately sought to delegitimise the result and embraced Mahmoud Abbas, the head of Fatah, who until then had been dismissed by Israel’s leaders as a ‘plucked chicken’. They armed and trained his security forces to overthrow Hamas; and when Hamas – brutally, to be sure – pre-empted this violent attempt to reverse the result of the first honest democratic election in the modern Middle East, Israel and the Bush administration imposed the blockade.

Israel seeks to counter these indisputable facts by maintaining that in withdrawing Israeli settlements from Gaza in 2005, Ariel Sharon gave Hamas the chance to set out on the path to statehood, a chance it refused to take; instead, it transformed Gaza into a launching-pad for firing missiles at Israel’s civilian population. The charge is a lie twice over. First, for all its failings, Hamas brought to Gaza a level of law and order unknown in recent years, and did so without the large sums of money that donors showered on the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority. It eliminated the violent gangs and warlords who terrorised Gaza under Fatah’s rule. Non-observant Muslims, Christians and other minorities have more religious freedom under Hamas rule than they would have in Saudi Arabia, for example, or under many other Arab regimes.

The greater lie is that Sharon’s withdrawal from Gaza was intended as a prelude to further withdrawals and a peace agreement. This is how Sharon’s senior adviser Dov Weisglass, who was also his chief negotiator with the Americans, described the withdrawal from Gaza, in an interview with Ha’aretz in August 2004:

What I effectively agreed to with the Americans was that part of the settlements [i.e. the major settlement blocks on the West Bank] would not be dealt with at all, and the rest will not be dealt with until the Palestinians turn into Finns . . . The significance [of the agreement with the US] is the freezing of the political process. And when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state and you prevent a discussion about the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package that is called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed from our agenda indefinitely. And all this with [President Bush’s] authority and permission . . . and the ratification of both houses of Congress.

Do the Israelis and Americans think that Palestinians don’t read the Israeli papers, or that when they saw what was happening on the West Bank they couldn’t figure out for themselves what Sharon was up to?

Israel’s government would like the world to believe that Hamas launched its Qassam rockets because that is what terrorists do and Hamas is a generic terrorist group. In fact, Hamas is no more a ‘terror organisation’ (Israel’s preferred term) than the Zionist movement was during its struggle for a Jewish homeland. In the late 1930s and 1940s, parties within the Zionist movement resorted to terrorist activities for strategic reasons. According to Benny Morris, it was the Irgun that first targeted civilians. He writes in Righteous Victims that an upsurge of Arab terrorism in 1937 ‘triggered a wave of Irgun bombings against Arab crowds and buses, introducing a new dimension to the conflict’. He also documents atrocities committed during the 1948-49 war by the IDF, admitting in a 2004 interview, published in Ha’aretz, that material released by Israel’s Ministry of Defence showed that ‘there were far more Israeli acts of massacre than I had previously thought . . . In the months of April-May 1948, units of the Haganah were given operational orders that stated explicitly that they were to uproot the villagers, expel them, and destroy the villages themselves.’ In a number of Palestinian villages and towns the IDF carried out organised executions of civilians. Asked by Ha’aretz whether he condemned the ethnic cleansing, Morris replied that he did not:

A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population. It was necessary to cleanse the hinterland and cleanse the border areas and cleanse the main roads. It was necessary to cleanse the villages from which our convoys and our settlements were fired on.

In other words, when Jews target and kill innocent civilians to advance their national struggle, they are patriots. When their adversaries do so, they are terrorists.

It is too easy to describe Hamas simply as a ‘terror organisation’. It is a religious nationalist movement that resorts to terrorism, as the Zionist movement did during its struggle for statehood, in the mistaken belief that it is the only way to end an oppressive occupation and bring about a Palestinian state. While Hamas’s ideology formally calls for that state to be established on the ruins of the state of Israel, this doesn’t determine Hamas’s actual policies today any more than the same declaration in the PLO charter determined Fatah’s actions.

These are not the conclusions of an apologist for Hamas but the opinions of the former head of Mossad and Sharon’s national security adviser, Ephraim Halevy. The Hamas leadership has undergone a change ‘right under our very noses’, Halevy wrote recently in Yedioth Ahronoth, by recognising that ‘its ideological goal is not attainable and will not be in the foreseeable future.’ It is now ready and willing to see the establishment of a Palestinian state within the temporary borders of 1967. Halevy noted that while Hamas has not said how ‘temporary’ those borders would be, ‘they know that the moment a Palestinian state is established with their co-operation, they will be obligated to change the rules of the game: they will have to adopt a path that could lead them far from their original ideological goals.’ In an earlier article, Halevy also pointed out the absurdity of linking Hamas to al-Qaida.

In the eyes of al-Qaida, the members of Hamas are perceived as heretics due to their stated desire to participate, even indirectly, in processes of any understandings or agreements with Israel. [The Hamas political bureau chief, Khaled] Mashal’s declaration diametrically contradicts al-Qaida’s approach, and provides Israel with an opportunity, perhaps a historic one, to leverage it for the better.

Why then are Israel’s leaders so determined to destroy Hamas? Because they believe that its leadership, unlike that of Fatah, cannot be intimidated into accepting a peace accord that establishes a Palestinian ‘state’ made up of territorially disconnected entities over which Israel would be able to retain permanent control. Control of the West Bank has been the unwavering objective of Israel’s military, intelligence and political elites since the end of the Six-Day War.[*] They believe that Hamas would not permit such a cantonisation of Palestinian territory, no matter how long the occupation continues. They may be wrong about Abbas and his superannuated cohorts, but they are entirely right about Hamas.

Middle East observers wonder whether Israel’s assault on Hamas will succeed in destroying the organisation or expelling it from Gaza. This is an irrelevant question. If Israel plans to keep control over any future Palestinian entity, it will never find a Palestinian partner, and even if it succeeds in dismantling Hamas, the movement will in time be replaced by a far more radical Palestinian opposition.

If Barack Obama picks a seasoned Middle East envoy who clings to the idea that outsiders should not present their own proposals for a just and sustainable peace agreement, much less press the parties to accept it, but instead leave them to work out their differences, he will assure a future Palestinian resistance far more extreme than Hamas – one likely to be allied with al-Qaida. For the US, Europe and most of the rest of the world, this would be the worst possible outcome. Perhaps some Israelis, including the settler leadership, believe it would serve their purposes, since it would provide the government with a compelling pretext to hold on to all of Palestine. But this is a delusion that would bring about the end of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.

Anthony Cordesman, one of the most reliable military analysts of the Middle East, and a friend of Israel, argued in a 9 January report for the Center for Strategic and International Studies that the tactical advantages of continuing the operation in Gaza were outweighed by the strategic cost – and were probably no greater than any gains Israel may have made early in the war in selective strikes on key Hamas facilities. ‘Has Israel somehow blundered into a steadily escalating war without a clear strategic goal, or at least one it can credibly achieve?’ he asks. ‘Will Israel end in empowering an enemy in political terms that it defeated in tactical terms? Will Israel’s actions seriously damage the US position in the region, any hope of peace, as well as moderate Arab regimes and voices in the process? To be blunt, the answer so far seems to be yes.’ Cordesman concludes that ‘any leader can take a tough stand and claim that tactical gains are a meaningful victory. If this is all that Olmert, Livni and Barak have for an answer, then they have disgraced themselves and damaged their country and their friends.’

Tuesday, April 07, 2009

International Edition -- Explaining America

THE ABSURD TIMES
The Absurd Times has readers in Israel, Canada, the Netherlands, India, Australia, France, Indonesia, New Zealand, Portugal, Sweden, Slovakia, Turkey, the UK, Jordan, Italy, Switzerland, Finland, Belgium, Columbia, and South Africa. Other extensions, unidentified, are gov, coop, arpa, int, edu, and a large number of visits from "Unknown." I even have the flag images to illustrate it.
Since most of these readers have acquired English as a second or third language, their command of the syntax, grammar, and vocabulary is much stronger than that of the average American. As a result, a good deal of what occurs in this country seems very strange and, at best, puzzling. Other aspects of our behavior and especially the behavior of our leaders appear to them as quite preposterous. For this reason, I am undertaking to explain our country and its politics to people who are not fluent in American culture and colloquialisms. For the sake of convenience, I use the term "American" here to refer to citizens of the United States and do not include Canadians, Native Americans, or those who live in the southern Americas.
One of the most common questions has to do with why the American electorate, since 1976 at least, has insisted on electing either cowboys or people with non-standard, extremely southern sounding, accents or, preferably, both.
To understand this, it is important to look at the cinema (what Americans call "movies" or "the theater") since World War II when the United States became acknowledged as a world power and leader. Many Americans grew up watching westerns where there is a sharply drawn distinction between good and evil. Moreover, lest there be any confusion, the actors representing the "Good" wore white cowboy hats and those wearing black hats represented the forces of evil. Since the United States represents the Good, naturally, a cowboy would be an excellent President. Ronald Reagan had a long career starring the "Death Valley Days," a western television series and, hence, was an ideal candidate for President. Many of his historical allusions, in fact, were to events that never really happened but which were scenes from movies. George Bush, the latter, even walked bowlegged. The southern accent was attractive because it was associated here with "conservative" values. There can be no doubt that the southern states, for the most part, are racist and reactionary and, in fact, once even tried to establish their own country here in order to preserve slavery. Sarah Palin was taken seriously because she often flew in helicopters shooting wildlife, much as did legends of the "old west" such as one Wild Bill Hickock.
Additionally, since the majority of Americans no longer wear hats, they need some way to spot Evil. They were obliged with the image of someone with slightly darker skin wearing a beard.
However, so long as we are referring to movies, the best western to review in order to ascertain the American character is "High Noon" with the title song sung by another cowboy, Tex Ritter, and starring Gary Cooper. It clearly indicates the basic cowardice and instinct for self-interest as more important than any such issues as good and evil. This explains the difference between the speeches of recent American Presidents and their actions. Wars against countries such as Granada are much preferable to those against comparable forces. You will notice that even today the United States is issuing grim warnings about the weaponry of North Korea (which is about as advanced as a Nash Rambler) and we take what comfort we can in our own tens of thousands of nuclear weapons. (Better safe than sorry.)
A key source of confusion to those who speak formal English is the "table". I must admit that I have never seen this table, and that only a select few have ever seen it. It's existence must be taken on faith, and that is one reason for Americans proclaiming their religious ardor. So, when the Democrats finally gained a majority in 2006, the Speaker of the House of Representatives announced that "Impeachment is not on the table." I doubt whether prosecution of the previous administrations for its war crimes is on the table either. This table serves a wide variety of purposes. For example, if some action threatens to benefit anyone other than the top 5% of the population, it is "tabled". Then, someone comes along and brushes it off the table and it is never seen again.
A bit of history as to the origins of so-called "natural-born" citizens may help in understanding the thinking of Americans. Many of our first settlers, ignoring the Vikings, were religious fanatics and zealots and British Royalty was quite glad to be rid of them. Another large portion of early settlers were criminals and, again, quite glad to be rid of them. These two groups eventually interbred to produce self-righteous thieves, murderers, and rapists. All three groups comprised the original populations, then.
Later on, a group of other immigrants came, most of them in slave-ships, and their descendants are now called African Americans. More recently, the French gave us the Statue of Liberty with, in part, the following inscription:
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
As a Brit once stated, "Well, people DID!" I believe they were comprised to a great deal of the "wretched refuse".
However, all of the factors mentioned above do not fully explain Americans. They actually possess a great deal of common sense and some are quite intelligent. For example, about 80% of them do want what should be properly called "Socialized Medicine," but consistently vote against anyone who even uses the phrase except in derision. There are constant complaints about the salaries of unionized workers as compared to those in other countries in the so-called "developed world," but the disparity is largely a result of Socialized Medicine in those countries. Still, moneyed interests lobby against such competitive assets. The United States leads in executions of the death penalty, although it is quite obvious that is not a deterrent. One need only look to Renaissance England where being a pickpocket ("cutpurse") was a capital offense. Where were most of the cutpurses apprehended? At the public executions of other cutpurses. Nothing more than vengeance can explain the popularity of the death penalty, at least that is the only positive explanation of it. The fact that it conflicts with the "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord," is irrelevant. They have religious leaders who talk to God who told them it was ok in this case. Attempts to collaborate these conversations have heretofore proven unsuccessful.
No, the real explanation is to be found in ignorance. Where Americans are knowledgeable, in sports, for example, they show great memories, intelligence, and analytic skills. However, in subjects such as history, social science, and languages, they are retarded, even with public education. It has been generously estimated that an American High School Graduate, on average, is about two academic years behind European counterparts. This is largely a result of the PTA which insists that certain facts be suppressed, such as those relation to contraception, slavery, imperialism, and so forth. Those who do find the educational system lacking and rebel as carefully weeded out of the system so that only the obedient and addle-minded are allowed to proceed.
How then, does one explain the knowledge and high intelligence of some of the graduates? The answer is obvious: those with high intelligence and perception who do manage to continue in education are passive-aggressive rather than anti-social or direct. The rest are failed, held back, and eventually drop out. Only the mediocre, the naive, or passive-aggressive manage to obtain an education.
There is one fact that merits further explaination -- how and why did they elect Barack Hussein Obama, an African American with an IQ at least two standard deviations above the mean and highly educated in Constitutional Law and committed to helping the lower classes? This at first seems a very glaring anomolie. However, one must take two facts into consideration. First, George Bush was so horrible that even an average American wanted him and his political party gone and rid of, even more than British Royality wanted to be rid of religious fanatics. Second, he states himself that he found that white people are not as much afraid of black people if only the black people smile alot. He found that out when he was sixteen years old. That is why he still smiles too much.
These few words may not be enough to completely explain America to you, but they are at least a good starting point for further research.

Sunday, April 05, 2009

Hit Song Goes Viral

THE ABSURD TIMES

This song is flooding the internet, FM stations in major cities, has gone Uranium. It sums up all the the Absurd Times has been telling you during all the economic issues so, if you missed those, or found them boring, this will do as well. It is being sung in Blues Clubs, Coffee Houses, Jazz Joints, Rock Concerts, and Rap Festivals. I managed to obtain the lyrics through permission of the author, provided I didn't mention his name in this publication. Here they are, and use you own tune:

crazed and im gonna let ya know...

(chorus)

Crazed as any body

Crazed as anyone can be

Crazed - I tell ya

Crazed as anybody can be

Crazed little darlin'

kill you and yo' family

Now i was on the northeast side

of kansas city ya know

now i was on the northeast side

of kc don't we know

got a pocket full of greenbacks

in this economy

If i can't count on you

i'll try the FDIC - Oh lord now

(chorus)

people got there jack in hock

blame it on Barack

everybody wanna hush

when we know it was george bush

that's lower case on purpose!

(chorus)

i used to be a big fan

thought i was a big man

checked my accounts

saw it was a bounce

but now i know it was because

i listened to Allen Greenspanyep

(chorus)

wall street hedge fund folk

flying out of their window

now if the working man had an office that high

you know! that tha' sewer run dry!

(chorus)

The End.