THE RIGHT THING.
I've stayed away and stayed away from this subject, well aware
that the mere mention of the word is enough to propel otherwise
hyperactive minds into a coma. Even Ann Coulter was moved, after
typing the ten most soporific letters in the American political
lexicon, to implement the writer's "nuclear option" of an all-caps
plea: "DON'T STOP READING! I AM NOT GOING TO DISCUSS THE HISTORY OF THE
But the U.S. Senate is staggering ever closer to a showdown between
spineless Republicans and ruthless Democrats on the question of whether
Senate rules should allow the use of f****u**ers in the 'advise and
consent' process for judicial nominees. Because of this, InstaPunk has
felt the call of his political conscience: he must, somehow, weigh in
on a matter that is as crucial as it is potentially fatal to reader
So here are my thoughts. WAKE UP! (Not trying to be rude, just to
postpone the inevitable...) The Republicans act as if what they do now
will affect what Democrats do when they regain the White House and/or
control of the Congress. It won't. As soon as the Democrats regain the
presidency and congressional control, they will do everything they can
think of, bar nothing, to
humiliate, castrate, and otherwise destroy the Republican minority,
regardless of any temporizing the Republicans engage in now. Why?
Because while the congressional Republicans were majoring in agriculture
and religion at cow colleges in the Red states, the congressional Democrats were
Prince" at Yale and Harvard. Democrats know about the uses of power
even if they have no ideas at all about how to serve their
constituents. Does this mean that Republicans must exercise the so-called
"Nuclear Option"? No.
There's no need whatever to overturn 214
years of Senate tradition. If Senator Bill Frist had a backbone, a
brain, and a single ounce of personality in addition to his
hundredweight of Christian virtue, he could defeat the Democrats on
this tedious rules debate with just three simple measures.
First, he could remind the American people and the press that the
f****u**er may be a longstanding American tradition, but it has not
always been used for the best possible purposes. In fact, it was a
Republican senator who played the key role in defeating the most
important and nefarious f****u**er in our history (N.B., Senator Robert
Byrd, K.K.K. emeritus). InstaPunk readers
can get the whole story here, and it is
worth reading all of it, but in this entry the denouement will suffice:
The gallery was packed on June 10,
1964, as all one hundred senators were present for the climactic moment
of the longest f****u**er in Senate history. Late in the morning
Everett Dirksen rose from his seat to address the Senate. In poor
health, drained from working fourteen-, fifteen-, and sixteen-hour
days, his words came quietly. "There are many reasons why cloture
should be invoked and a good civil rights measure enacted. It is said
that on the night he died, Victor Hugo wrote in his diary substantially
this sentiment, 'Stronger than all the armies is an idea whose time has
come.' The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing of
government, in education, and in employment. It must not be stayed or
denied." After Dirksen spoke for fifteen minutes the motion for a roll
call vote for cloture was heard. As each name was read, members of the
press and spectators in the gallery kept tally. At 11:15 a.m., Senator
John Williams of Delaware replied "aye" to the question. It was the
sixty-seventh vote; cloture had passed, opening the way for the Civil
Rights bill to be passed. After successfully defeating the
eighty-three-day f****u**er, Dirksen, when asked how he had become a
crusader in this cause, replied, "I am involved in mankind, and
whatever the skin, we are all included in mankind."
It's important to note, too, that Senator Dirksen defeated a f****u**er
back in the days when a f****u**er was a genuine test of resolve,
fortitude and physical stamina. Those who opposed the Civil Rights Act
had to be prepared to speak for hours, even days, to forestall cloture,
and they kept the debate open by reading aloud from the Congressional
Record, the Bible, the telephone book, and anything else made of words
that went on practically forever.
That's the second measure Frist could take: Restore the requirement
that f****u**ers be real, that if the Slime Party has enough votes to
keep the debate going, then they must actually keep the debate going, for hours,
days, weeks, months... It's really not supposed to be easy for the
minority to prevail, even in a republic. They have to earn it by
working harder, talking longer, and staying awake on the floor of the
U.S. Senate(!). The current situation, in which the mere threat of a
f****u**er forestalls a cloture vote (i.e., a vote to end debate and
vote on the nominee), is ridiculous. It's like watching a heavyweight
title fight in which a boxer can play a card labeled "Knockout Punch"
without actually having to deliver the blow or a tennis match in which
a player throws down an "Ace" card whenever he gets behind on his
serve. It's time to stop the nonsense. That's the American Way.
But, of course, we live in an age of short attention spans. Watching
Robert Byrd read the Book of Leviticus out loud for a day and a half
isn't something the Me Generation has much stomach for. That's why
Senator Frist can achieve checkmate by the simple expedient of
introducing one new rule rather than repealing one very old rule.
Here's the wording of the new rule:
senators who speak on the floor of the U.S. Senate Chamber will do so
while walking on a motorized treadmill operating at not less than three
miles per hour.
The measure will pass by a simple majority. The average age of Democrat
senators is 61. The average age of Republican senators is 55. If polls
are taken, a majority of sporting Americans will be anxious to watch
the treadmill performance of Democrat titans like Robert Byrd, Teddy
Biden, and Hillary
Clinton. It's even possible that the
conduct of business in the Senate will become a media attraction.
C-Span's ratings could skyrocket. But one thing is for sure.
F****u**ers are not going to last as long as they used to, and We the
People will learn very speedily who is as tough as his rhetoric and who
is as weak as his character.
Speaking of weak characters, I can't wait to see Harry Reid in action.
On his treadmill. It seems fitting somehow.
Yeah, I know it's a pipedream. As I
said, Frist would need a backbone, a brain, and a single ounce of
personality. Oh well. At least I kept you out of a coma, didn't I?
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Ungrateful Followers -- Part II -- Readers Write
The comment sections seem to be policing themselves quite nicely. Don't miss out on
all the fun. Remember we put up special pages for the Buchanan
and Keillor posts for your convenience.
Take a look and be sure you've seen the latest comments.
It is sad to see someone use the phrase, "whatever," in support of their position.
TEH COMANT SECTIONS SEM 2 B POLICNG THEMS3LVES QUIET NIECLY111!!11 WTF DONT MIS OUT ON AL DA
FUN!!111 WTF RAM3MBR W3 PUT UP SP3CIAL PAEGS FOR DA BUCHANAN AND K3ILOR POSTS FOR UR CONVENEINCE11!11!! OMG
TAEK A LOK AND B SURA U SEN DA LAETST COM3NTS
IT11111 OMG IS SAD 2 SE SOM3ON3 USE TEH PHRAES WUT IN SUPORT OF THERE POSITION11!!1!!1 LOL
Which seems related, somehow.
Bird(brain)'s Eye View
Could somebody please help me out here? I'm trying hard to
understand what happened last week over Washington, DC. Two guys jump
into a plane in Smoketown, PA, start flying to North Carolina, and land
a few hours later in headlines all over the world. How did it happen?
The Washington Post says:
Two lost aviators flying with outdated
maps from a rural Pennsylvania airstrip triggered a red alert at the
White House yesterday, along with the frantic evacuation of the Capitol
and the Supreme Court, before they were intercepted by Air Force jets
lobbing warning flares.
The 15-minute aerial encounter, watched by rapt workers in downtown
Washington office buildings, turned out to be a blunder by confused
fliers in a small plane, but it illustrated how easily potential danger
can trip the capital's tightly wired alert systems.
Outdated maps. I see. Those would be flight maps dating back to the
18th century, I guess, before there was a Washington, DC. But never
mind that for the time being. In the days since, we have seen
additional headlines: "Intruding pilots
released without charges" (CNN.com) and
most recently, "Lasers to warn pilots away from D.C." (Chicago-Sun
Times). The latter story tells us:
From 1,500 feet above Washington on a
hazy Tuesday, you didn't have to look hard to notice a red-and-green
flashing light among the clutter of rooftops, the Washington Monument
and the Capitol.
That's the idea: When pilots see the light, it means they've flown into
restricted airspace. They are to fly away from the light -- fast -- and
contact air traffic control.
Am I the only one whose head is moving slowly side to side, side to
side, side to side in astounded disbelief? Let's review. Here's the
journey our flyboys had in mind:
Let's see. Somewhere in between
North Carolina, there definitely is a patch of geography, a city if you
will, where the
President lives and the U.S. Congress has meetings at the Capitol. What
do we know about that city? Oh, yes. It's where a plane flew
deliberately into the Pentagon a few years ago, never mind the exact
Now what mode of transportation are our
travellers -- Jim Sheaffer and Troy Martin -- employing for their
journey? That's right, an airplane. One of these, in fact:
Note the tremendous altitude at which the Cessna 150 flies. Then take a
look at the photo at the beginning of this entry. (You can see a
grander view here.)
This is where I'm really looking for some help. Confronted by this
particular view while flying from Pennsylvania to North Carolina, how
could any member of the species homo
sapiens sapiens possessed of a U.S. pilot's license be so "lost"
as to fail to recognize Washington, DC? And how he could be so obtuse
and ignorant as to overlook the possibility that he was flying into the
most forbidden air space on the planet?
Lost? LOST? LOST? Give me a break.
And perhaps worst of all, how do our national protectors propose to
prevent this kind of slapstick behavior in future? By arranging
lasers(!) around the boundaries of our capital city! I submit that a
pilot who is flying down the eastern seaboard without the slightest
idea that he might encounter Washington, DC, is also likely to
interpret red and green lasers as a light show being put on for his
amusement -- "let's go in for a closer look, Troy, waddya say?"
Wouldn't it be more useful to erect giant neon signs that flash the
words "Get the hell out of here, you idiot" in every color of the
On the other hand, who are they spending all this money to save here?
This is what happens to a Cessna 150 that mixes it up with a good-sized
I believe it would be a considerably cheaper solution for Cessna to put
a warning label on its 150 models, sort of like what we can read on
Forget about the lasers. And forget about the small-plane pilots who
are so damn dumb they can't recognize the Washington Monument from a
couple miles away. They deserve what they get. Don't they?
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
You heard it here
of these magazines is going to be in the news again soon.
. I don't know why, but I've always had a hard time telling
these two magazines apart. Even back in 2000, when they were still sort
of in the news business, I tended to get them confused. That's why the Year 2000 Who's Who in Shuteye Nation
didn't do the best possible job of identifying their star performers,
as the following excerpt demonstrates:
Auger. See Howard Findmore.
Howard Findmore. See Michael
Michael Iznotizhe. The hotshot
political° journalist° in spectacles who dug through every
White House trashcan looking for salacious details of the Lewiski
Scandal° while soberly reporting the Hillery charge of a right wing
conspiracy°, the Carvall charge of a runaway independent
counsel° indulging his private° sexual fantasies at public
expense, and the Divots/Boogaloo charge of a partisan°
Republian° “coup” designed to repeal the vote of the Amerian
people. And acting faintly superior to the whole circus at the same
Thay's why I can't tell for sure if these guys are still on the job. I
really hope they are, though, because I've got a great story they can
use, and so I sent emails to all three of them last night:
Dear Jonathan or Howard or Michael,
Yesterday, my cleaning lady (who has
never stolen from me once) told me that her brother is the gardener for
the man who hired the guy who delivers booze, snacks, and miscellaneous
packages to the secret location where Dick Cheney hangs out waiting for
his turn in the Oval Office. Last week, the gardener told my cleaning
lady's brother that he overheard the driver tell his boss that once a
week Cheney gets a fresh prisoner delivered to him from Guantanamo
(disguised as one of the regular boxes of cash from Halliburton) so
that the Veep can while away the hours humiliating him. Sometimes he
makes the prisoner dress up in women's lingerie. Other times, he forces
him to play solitaire and makes fun of how he shuffles the cards, you
know, getting off all kinds of cutting remarks and such. And once he
invited George Bush over for dinner, and the two of them took turns
giving him wedgies and shaking his hand with some kind of buzzer thing.
Then they hit him on the behind with fraternity paddles that said "I
hate Osama" on them.
How soon do you think you can get this story into print? My cleaning
lady's brother is willing to remember everything the gardener told him
on tape, as well as anything else that would make it a hotter story. He
even thinks he could remember something about Lynn Cheney and Laura
Bush. Please answer me back because otherwise I'll have to go to 60
Minutes II before they get cancelled and see if Dan Rather is
interested. And you know what that means.
P.S. I even worked up covers for your
magazines, which you can use if you pay me a small honorarium -- not
for the story, of course, but for the artwork. Let me know.
I don't know about you guys, but I can't wait to see the story in print.
Dick and George are really going to squirm this time, and maybe Michael
and Howard and Jonathan will get another Pulitzer Prize. Or if not a
Pulitzer, maybe a big wet kiss from Al Jazeera. That would please them
no end, wouldn't it?
UPDATE II: Many thanks to Hugh Hewitt for
noticing -- welcome to HughHewitt.com visitors. We would like you to take a look
around -- we're pretty sure most of you have never been here before.
UPDATE III: We're suckers for being called "smart, funny, and clever," which we were
by the folks at Stand
in the Trenches. Stand in the Trenches visitors are also encouraged to take a look
around this place.
Monday, May 16, 2005
Ungrateful Followers -- Readers Write
You may or may not have noticed InstaPunk created quite a stir with his recent
Pat Buchanan and his article, Was World War II worth it?.
We wanted to call your attention to the comments that were posted so we created a special
page where you can see them in their entirety in the order we received them.
We just have to say something.
We like Pat Buchanan (though InstaPunk himself does not). Some of us voted for him many years ago. Many of us didn't vote for Bob Dole
because of the way he treated Pat and his supporters in 1992.
But, man, let's make something really clear -- Pat Buchanan doesn't need help like the help
he is getting from this comment section.
First of all -- the picture is funny. Why? Because
it isn't a real picture. If it were a real picture, then it would just be disturbing or worth
even more money than we get paid to look at the current culture and publish our thoughts - if that were possible.
As it is, it's just funny.
Secondly, neo-Nazis have to know that their support is not going to help whatever it is they are
in favor of -- didn't they recently air a South Park episode that had the Ku-Klux-Klan members realizing
that if they wanted to keep the South Park flag the way it was, the most logical thing to do
was support its revision? That way, the people of South Park would vote to keep the flag the way it
was, in opposition to the KKK. Neo-Nazis might think about a similar approach. Support Earth Day or something.
And, finally, if you're going to call InstaPunk 'stoopid,' or 'unsofisticated,' why not grab that old
dusty dictionary and look up one or two of the really hard words in your post. Then, if you're not horribly
busy, you could grab a little grammar primer -- just for review.
For Mr. Buchanan -- Aakash does his
level best to demonstrate that you are not
completely out of your mind, but why force people to do it?
WWII is over. We, in fact, won. Stalin and Hitler have both been defeated. If there were people helping
the USSR inside the U.S. Government, they didn't help enough. So, what's the point?
Let people in 2205 perform the analysis -- we haven't quite buried all the veterans of WWII yet, so
you'll just have to look elsewhere for a case study . . . in? We're not sure.
Okay. Okay. We get it. Everybody's not a Nazi that's been writing comments the
past few days. We had to put up another special
page so you can see all the fun going on over at the Garrison Keillor post's comment section.
Tom Ames has taken the time to post his comments, which we appreciate and do not take lightly. Others
have written similar email to our feedback email address -- Punk@InstaPunk.com.
So our remarks are meant to be instructive to a wider audience than Tom Ames, but he has made his remarks
public, so must we.
First off, Tom confuses a debate
tactic with a debate result. So, his mocking of the fact that InstaPunk would crush him in a
debate as a sophisticated tactic is a definite disadvantage to him. We would caution Tom that
when it comes to debating -- InstaPunk is the champ. He will take apart your argument bit by bit until
you're either laughing or crying -- your choice. The other item in this regard is that it is incredibly
interesting to watch, so by all means let it begin. We would suggest the Forum.
You'll need a login, but it is FREE and everyone can join right in.
Secondly, and InstaPunk makes the point in his responses, we aren't annoyed by disagreement. We've been
looking for it on the internet for over one-year. What does annoy us is being lumped in with Sean Hannity,
Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, or any other easy categories that jump into the head of one of our readers. Our
archives are available here and any reasonable person could quickly realize that categorizing our
viewpoints is a difficult task for anyone. We've known InstaPunk for years and we walk very carefully
when trying to get him into one of our preconceived notions. Although it may help readers to place a particular
post in one of their over-sized pre-fab bins, it really isn't honest or fair. Take a look around here and
refine your criticism a bit. What, specifically, is bugging you? That might be an interesting conversation.
Thirdly, interact with the text. Simply making a generalized statement that is directly addressed in the post
wastes a tremendous amount of time. For example, InstaPunk made a very specific reference to vicious
comments made by liberals -- HERE.
He further qualified the citation with the words "the most consistently vicious, ad-hominem bile on the Internet,"
and then directed readers to the websites where this kind of stuff is found in abundance. Now, Tom cites
townhall.com and freerepublic in rebuttal, but what is he talking about? No examples? No links? It is hard
to know. We've been to townhall.com and freerepublic and don't remember reading anything about trailer hitches
or brothel's catering to Islamic terrorists. InstaPunk's posts are structured to deal with the typical
objections directly, so if you're going to object, at least make sure that your objection isn't addressed
within the body of the post.
And, finally, about the spelling. It isn't that we are expert spellers -- we've been called on our share
of spelling errors -- but, when an error is pointed out, it is just good form to make a correction. Our
use of common spellings demonstrates that we are all part of a community and although we may differ
on the way the words are arranged, at least we agree on the form of the words themselves. It is all that most
people who read your stuff will ever know about your education and thoughtfulness put into your comments.
Thanks for all the responses. We don't cut out posts because they are not complimentary. We debate whether
to edit out particularly nasty words, but so far we've resisted. Keep the comments coming, but don't
expect it to go unnoticed when you're not making sense.
Sunday, May 15, 2005
Choice -- Want One? -- Abortion Puts Next Baby At Risk Of Course the Current Baby Would Take the Next Baby's Deal in a Heart Beat -- if he only had one.
There is nothing like an informed choice and when it comes to being informed, there is nothing better
than a French study. And, there is no better place to read about a French study than at news.Telegraph of
the U.K., in English. We feel so Continental.
Anyway, Doc Caroline Moreau studied nearly 3,000 births and determined that the next live birth for a woman who has
had an abortion is 1.7 times more likely to be born premature. Of course, being born premature beats being
surgically and/or mechanically evacuated from dear old mom everyday of the week.
Harry -- Having So Much Fun in Church
We're not around here much on the weekends, but we are this weekend and it isPentecost
and it is Sunday so
we thought we'd take a lazy look at the upcoming (5/23) issue of Business Week magazine where the
cover story is about, of all things, church. Not only church, but "Unchurched Harry."
For example, the young fella to the right has sold over 2.5 million copies of his book, Your Best Life
Now (as opposed to . . . when?). His name is Rev. Joel Osteen and every Sunday, 30,000 people go down to
his Lakewood Church
to hear him preach. And -- we'd never have believed it if we hadn't driven by the construction site and
seen it with our own eyes -- he is
converting the former home of the Houston Rockets, the Compaq Center, into a huge church in
downtown Houston, TX where he hopes to be a blessing to 100,000 people a week. And, it is only going
to cost $90,000,000 -- cheap at twice the price. Don't worry, he's got it.
Rev. Osteen, we learned from his website, had to
add a second night to his speaking gig in Philadelphia, PA due to the "tremendous response" -- from
Philadelphians? "Now you can attend An Evening
with Joel Osteen on Thursday, June 30th or Friday, July 1st." You know, if you're not doing anything.
Heck, it's only ten dollars, but you can only buy six tickets at a time so plan accordingly.
Friday, May 13, 2005
We would be remiss if we did not highlight for our readers this particular anniversary -- May
Today marks the 20th anniversary of the bombing of Move Headquarters on Osage Avenue in Philadelphia, PA which resulted
in the destruction of 61 homes in a middle-class neighborhood. The city's first black mayor had dropped a bomb on a black
neighborhood and the City of Philadelphia is still dealing with the
We also need to mention that this particular spectacle is thought, by many, to have been a diversion from
an even more spectacular Federal operation taking place just thirty blocks to the east -- on South
needs a home.
UPDATE. This Sunday, May 15, Greyhound Friends
of NJ is holding its annual spring picnic in Bridgewater, New
Jersey, from 11 am to 3 pm. You can get all the details here, including
will be hundreds of greyhounds in attendance, and the first lot of the Plainfield
greys available for adoption will be there too. If you live
anywhere near Bridgewater, plan on going to this event. It's a
wonderful way to learn about the unique charms of greyhounds (you will
NOT hear lots of barking), and you won't be pressured to do
anything but have a good time.
Thursday, May 12, 2005
Pat Buchanan and friend.
unlikely that anybody cares, but Pat Buchanan has leaped into the
current, already silly Yalta debate with an essay at WorldNet Daily
called Was World War II worth it? Our
old pal Neal Boortz
links to it from his blogsite
and says, "Pat
Buchanan asked a very interesting question, one that is causing quite a
stir. Considering the Soviet domination of Eastern Europe for almost
half a century, was World War II worth it?" That's what prompted us to
reply to rather than ignore Pat's latest outburst. It's embarrassing
that many people still consider Pat a conservative of some sort, even
if they qualify it with such terminology as 'paleoconservative.' He's
NOT a conservative anymore. He's a deranged and intellectually
dishonest demagogue who needs to be rapped on the head every so often
from the right as well as the left. In his article Pat argues:
If Britain endured six years of war and
hundreds of thousands of dead in a war she declared to defend Polish
freedom, and Polish freedom was lost to communism, how can we say
Britain won the war?
If the West went to war to stop Hitler from dominating Eastern and
Central Europe, and Eastern and Central Europe ended up under a tyranny
even more odious, as Bush implies, did Western Civilization win the
In 1938, Churchill wanted Britain to fight for Czechoslovakia.
Chamberlain refused. In 1939, Churchill wanted Britain to fight for
Poland. Chamberlain agreed. At the end of the war Churchill wanted and
got, Czechoslovakia and Poland were in Stalin's empire.
How, then, can men proclaim Churchill "Man of the Century"?
True, U.S. and British troops liberated France, Holland and Belgium
from Nazi occupation. But before Britain declared war on Germany,
France, Holland and Belgium did not need to be liberated. They were
free. They were only invaded and occupied after Britain and France
declared war on Germany – on behalf of Poland.
People who are ignorant of the history might read this and say, like
Boortz, "interesting questions." But these questions aren't
because they're based on deliberately false premises for the low
purpose of propping up Pat's new ideology of isolationism at all costs.
With apologies to those who know at least as much history as Pat surely
does, we'll take this corrupt argument apart for the benefit of those
who can't see what he's misrepresenting here.
Britain did not go to war to defend Polish freedom. She went to war to
defend British freedom, which could not survive a Nazi empire
encompassing all of western Europe. Churchill is the "Man of the
Century" because he was the only major politician at the time who
understood the scope of Hitler's ambitions. Pat now pretends that those
ambitions did not exist. When he blames Britain's declaration of war
for the Nazi conquest of France, Holland, and Belgium, he is standing
the facts on their head. Hitler concluded the Molotov-Ribbentrop
'non-aggression' pact with Stalin in August of 1939 expressly to
protect his eastern flank while he was conquering western Europe. How
can we be so sure of his designs on the west? Because Hitler rose to
power in the first place by fanning the flames of German resentment
about the Treaty of Versailles, whose harsh peace terms ending WWI
originated in Germany's most longstanding European rival, France.
Hitler's western war was a long and deliciously anticipated revenge on
its most implacable WWI foes. These do not include Russia, which bailed
out of the Great War in 1917 at the time of the Russian Revolution.
Note, too, that Pat is forced to use the weaselly generic noun "West"
when he asks whether "Western Civilization" won World War II. He
doesn't dare mention the U.S. by name because that would require him to
acknowledge that his own country
had a very legitimate self-interest in preventing a monolithic
Hitlerian regime including all of Europe and the U.K. Had the U.S.
opted out of the war as he elsewhere argues we should have, we would
have become in short order a continent-sized island of democracy
surrounded by barbarically murderous totalitarian empires in Europe,
Russia, and the Far East.(That's right, Pat. World War II also saved
far eastern civilization.) It's impossible to compute all the
permutations of such a global configuration, but given Hitler's mad
ambitions in the east, what kind of civilized prosperity could possibly
result from a Nazi nuclear war against Stalin, even if no American boys
died in the combat. And given German technology's precocious
development of V2 rockets, how long would it have taken a Nazi empire
300-million strong to have developed a first strike ICBM capability
a supine U.S.? Such missiles needn't ever have been fired to turn this
country into a powerless tribute state.
Was World War II worth fighting even if eastern Europe was always
doomed to a half century of subjugation? Yes indeedy, Pat. What's more,
you knew the right answer to the question before you posed it. So
what's your point? Yes, we get the isolationism motive, but even that
is not sufficient to explain this kind of perversity. It's simply not
necessary to keep revisiting World War II to make the case for your
of American dismissal of the world. It's hard not to suspect that your
obsession with this chapter of history arises from a deep if
subconscious identification with Hitler himself. As a good Catholic(?),
you really should revisit that part of your psyche and ask some hard
questions of yourself. Until
you do, we'll stand by the
characterization we published in the Year
2000 Who's Who of Shuteye Nation, reprinted below. (In Shuteye Nation, the names have all
changed because it was more fun that way.)
Buchenwald. Candidate for Presdent of the United States in the
2000 election. Blessed with the same cute jowls and forced smile as the
famous Presdent for whom he once wrote speeches, Buchenwald has
tirelessly pursued the highest office in the land for almost six years.
In the 1996 election, he defeated Bob Dull in the New Hamshire
Republian primary by introducing the GOP to old-fashioned William
Jennings Brian style populism. When the Republian° voters finally
remembered that Brian was a Democratic°, Buchenwald’s candidacy
plummeted like a rock. This time around, Buchenwald has revised his
platform into an an innovative mix of old-fashioned populism and
old-fashioned national socialism, spelled out in his new book My Plan,
and is seeking the nomination of Ross Pyro’s Reformed Party°.
Unfortunately for his candidacy, some members of the mass media°
have read parts of the book and are pillorying Buchenwald for his novel
suggestion that the U.S. should have struck a deal with Hittler and
stayed out of Wurld War II. Buchenwald adamantly denies being “soft on
Hittler,” claiming that any such intimation is a fabrication of the
international Jewish conspiracy which controls the banks and the mass
media. At Buchenwald’s request, the retired German Fuehrer has issued a
denial of political° ties to any Amerian candidate from his home in
Now, Pat, if you could please go away again, we'd appreciate it.