Conservatives: Let's Legally Euthanize the Queers

We Conservatives know the score. This nation is going to hell in a handbasket. I don't even recognize the place anymore. We're being overrun by the blacks. And the queers. And the panty-waist liberals who cherish them. Did you grow up in an America where people could be openly queer? Or openly liberal? Or openly black? I, for one, did not.

Fortunately, there are some simple steps we can make to help fix the problem and bring back our America, the America we love. They may look like "compromises" on our ideals, but I assure you they're nothing of the sort. They are things we can do to completely and legally rectify the situation. With just a little bit of legislation and patience, we can begin to cull the numbers of the non-Whites and the gays. And here's the best part: we don't even have to kill them, we help them kill themselves!

Create and support social programs that make birth control widely available and cheap. I know what you're thinking: birth control is a sin against God and we can't let the liberals spread around their condoms and baby-killing pills. It's exactly that kind of thinking that led us into this mess. You're not seeing the Big Picture. Here's the facts: the undesirables are gonna fornicate. They're gonna fornicate a lot. They're gonna do it out of wedlock and just for the joy of sinning. And let me tell you something, they're gonna do it whether or not they've got birth control.

Think for a moment about what this means. We teach our children how to live properly. They don't fornicate until their wedding nights, and then they do it to create babies who will be blessed by God. Not so for the undesirables. They don't have the moral character to restrain themselves. Which means babies, lots of babies. Who will grow up to be just like them.

When we stand in the way of programs that constrain sexual education or limit birth control, we're really just shooting ourselves in the foot. We already taught our kids how to live proper. But they haven't. They don't know anything about the right way to live. So all we're really doing is keeping birth control away from them. Which is why they keep having all those kids and why they're starting to outnumber decent real Americans like us!

Write and fax your Congressman today. Let him in on the plan. Let him know that we want quality sex education at a young age and we want birth control pills and condoms to be cheap and available everywhere. This won't hurt us any--but think about thirty years from now. Think about all the undesirable children that we can keep out of this world.

Make abortion legal and cheap everywhere. Now, don't get me wrong: there is nothing more repugnant than condoning the murder of innocent babies. But think again about the Big Picture and the Greater Good. And think for a moment about how innocent a baby can possibly be if it's gonna grow up black. Or queer. Or liberal.

Just like with birth control, we're shooting ourselves in the foot when we stand against abortion. Our kids don't get abortions because our kids don't need them. They live proper. But when we make abortions hard to get to, when we make them expensive or inconvenient or illegal, what we're really doing is forcing the undesirables to have more undesirable children. Why do you think they're all starting to outnumber us?

Now, we know that there's an awful lot of overlap between the undesirables and the poor. If black people were White, they'd all be making an honest living wage instead of going to prison all the time and ruining our property values. If liberal people had money, they'd be Conservatives. It stands to reason. So what happens when abortion is too expensive? The poor people can't afford abortions, of course. Which means that they're just gonna make more babies.

Now, abortion's a pickle, no two ways about it. This is a hard pill to swallow. But we all know that the apple never falls far from the tree. If people are willing to damn themselves to Hell for killing their babies, then do you think their babies are gonna grow up to be good people? I don't think so.

Stand up for abortion. Make it cheap and easy to get. It won't hurt us because we're better people. But imagine if abortions were cheap and legal decades ago. Imagine all the liberals and blacks and queers who wouldn't be walking around right now. If we had thought just a little bit about it all back in the '70s, maybe we would never have lost so much of this great country to them.

What's funny is, we're the only ones standing in the way of sex education and birth control and abortions. Just us. Which means we're spending all this time and energy freely supporting the Undesirable Breeding Program. And you'll say that if we let the pills and the abortions legal and cheap and easy to get, we'll be opening up the floodgates. Everyone will be getting them. And I'm telling you: Good. Because then they will stop having babies! And maybe in thirty years or so, this country will start to look like America again!

Repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell. This is one that I just don't understand how we keep missing it. We're gonna keep having wars. And our soldiers are gonna keep dying in these wars. Until the Rapture. So why in Heaven would we stand against letting the queers die for this country? There are thousands--thousands!--of the homos who want to go into the military and fight overseas. But they don't, because they wanna serve in the Army while they openly celebrate their damnation. And we just haven't thought it through: why wouldn't we let them? Would you rather all the gays were over here? Living in our neighborhoods? Having their faggot test-tube babies? Or would you rather they were out in the desert, getting their asses shot dead by the rag heads? Think!

I'm begging you, from one God-fearing Conservative White to another, stand up and yell at your Congressmen and your Senators and your governors. Let the gays fight and die overseas and away from our homes. Let the blacks and the liberals get their condoms and abortions. Teach them young how babies are made so they can avoid it when they do all their inevitable fornications. Stop fighting against your own self. And maybe in due time this country will be great again. Maybe America will be overrun with real Americans!

Or persist. Stay blind to the facts. Fight to make abortions illegal everywhere. Deny birth control prescriptions. Keep the queers out of the Army. And they'll all stay here and mass produce their abomination babies. And your grandkids' grandkids will live in some nigger country that is run by the blacks and gays and liberals. And they'll go to schools where they're the only God-fearing White people. And where America once stood will be a Godless nation of sinning communist Nazis who are brown and have no shame and don't even remember the name Ronald Reagan, God rest His soul, because the pinko fascists will be writing Him out of all the history books.

It's up to you.

Do it for The Gipper!
NFK

Question Regarding Sausage Making

Question: Why is everyone talking about the need for the US Senate to have 60 votes to pass any bill?

Here's my understanding:

• The US Senate requires a vote on a bill before it is officially passed by that body. In order to pass that bill, it is presented for an up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate, and a simple majority of Yeas from all Senators* is all that is required for the bill to be passed. In our current case, if all 100 US Senators were present for a vote, only 51 Yeas would be required to pass that bill. In the event that there are only 50 Yeas, the Vice President of the United States can cast the 51st vote to pass the bill.
• As a procedural technique, the Senate permits a filibuster under Senate Rule 22. I believe the term "filibuster" is a fancy shorthand for "invoking an indeterminate period of debate in which the Senate may not vote on the bill in question, nor may it adjourn". Basically, "we can't vote while I'm still talking--even if I'm just babbling about the petunias I'm growing in my front yard". Interestingly, the Senate Majority Leader seems to have the power to require a "traditional filibuster", in which the filibuster-ers must speak continuously during their filibuster; gaps in coverage, as it were, permit a vote on the bill to take place.
• The only vote that may occur during a Senate filibuster is a cloture vote. I understand that "cloture" is short for "Okay, you stop talking now and we finish this business". In order for a cloture vote to pass--i.e., in order to stop a filibuster--a 3/5ths majority of the Senate must vote Yea. So, in our current circumstances, 60 Senators** must vote to end a filibuster.
• As a matter of fact, Senators are autonomous lawmakers. They have the right to vote Yea or Nay on any bill as befits their conscience or their perception of their constituents or their current mood or their astrological forecast or whatever. As a matter of practice, Senators vote with their caucus on procedural matters. So if a Senator wanted to vote Nay on a particular bill, but was told by his or her leader to vote Yea on cloture, he or she would indeed vote Yea on the cloture and Nay on the bill.
  

Now here's what I don't understand: barring any factual errors in the above, where O where is there a requirement that 60 Yea votes are required to pass any Senate bill? Or 65? Or 80? Why does a bill have to be constructed to attract 60 or more votes in the Senate?

As an example from the Big Game perspective: if I were the current Senate Majority Leader and I were faced with a bill I wanted passed out of the Senate (wherein I have, say, 55 Yea votes to count on and 59 other Senators caucusing with me), why wouldn't I just do the following:

1. Call the bill to a vote.
2. If the opposition to the bill decides to filibuster, permit it as I must. But require a traditional filibuster.
3. Watch for perhaps half a day as the opposition rants endlessly about "demonic welfare states" or reads aloud "The Joy of Cooking". Perhaps I'd also eat some popcorn, write some important emails, and rest secure in the knowledge that the C-SPAN footage of this spectacle will be used to excoriate these guys in the cable news that evening. Hey, perhaps this overt and ridiculous obstructionism would also win my team a couple of seats in the next two Senate elections.
4. When I'm sufficiently bored and/or tired, call for a cloture vote. The other 59 members of my caucus, of which (recall) I am the leader, have been previously informed of the following:
• Of course, vote however you like on the bill--that's your right. But you vote Yea to end a filibuster if I call for cloture.
• If you decide to vote Nay on cloture, there will be consequences. For example, all that support and PAC money you've enjoyed? Forget about it. You're not caucusing with us anymore if you can't get behind a simple procedural vote. Indeed, we'll be doubling the funding we're denying you and spending it on the person who would have been your most promising primary challenger. What do I mean by "would have been"? You see--you no longer get to use our letter by your name--you're not with us any longer. You may join the other guys if you like, or perhaps start up a third party. Those are really popular and effective, so I hear.
  

Is there a reason this isn't done? I still fail to see why Senate Democrats are currently bending over backwards to work around or obviate the Senate rules here, especially since it appears that they can work right through them to not only get bills passed, but perhaps also make some significant political gains.

My vote's "Yeah, whatever",
NFK
_______

*Is it "all Senators" or "all Senators in attendance"? For example, Senate business may proceed in the event that there is a quorum of 90 Senators present, but would that mean that a vote on a bill only requires 46 Yeas from Senators (or 45 Yeas + VPOTUS)?

**Similar question as in *. Is it a 3/5ths majority of all Senators, or just a 3/5ths majority of all Senators present?

An Observation: On China*

Situation: Nation X, which is a "Brutal Dictatorship"/"Terrorist Regime"/Nation-that-America-Generally-Doesn't-Like-at-the-Moment, does something flashy. Something overtly threatening.

Question: Nation X does extensive trade with China. Indeed, blahblahblah percent of China's import/export trade in yaddayadda comes from/goes to Nation X. If UN sanctions are imposed on Nation X and China doesn't play ball, will those sanctions have any real effect?

Answer: Nope.


*Based on personal observation of years of news discussion.

Top Five Reasons Republicans Hate Health Care Reform

1. Money
2. Money
3. Money
4. Money
5. Power
   

Not in My State!

That other Eden, demi-paradise; that precious stone set in the silver sea: Gitmo. The place hailed as "a loooot of fun!" by Miss Universe is a sun-drenched paradise, where many lucky men from the Middle East and elsewhere were violently disappeared into a life of leisurely hanging around, intramural recreation and water sports.

Immediately upon seizing power, Barack Hussein Obama* decided to shutter this involuntary tourist hot-spot. One question lingers: what do we do with the detainees? A bipartisan consensus is forming in Washington, D.C. that the American justice/prison system is insufficient to hold and process these detainees. Cries of "Not in my state!" resound from that shining city upon a hill.

At first I found this lack of faith in our prison system disturbing. Have we not spent decades and billions of dollars building the most extensive, pervasive and complete prison system in the world, just by the numbers? But as I listened to the impassioned pleas of the Beltway insiders, I confess I was swayed by their reasoning: 

Reasons Why the American Justice System is Insufficient for Gitmo Detainees

• Gitmo is protected by a powerful charm that prevents Apparation. Having this charm applied to domestic prisons would be a shameful waste of taxpayer money.**
• Detainees will be caught in customs with Cuban stamps in their passports, denied entry into United States.
• One of the detainees was deliberately captured as part of an elaborate scheme to gain entry into Fox River State Penitentiary and free his wrongfully-convicted brother.
• Newly declassified plot revealed from the interrogation of KSM: "We will infiltrate their prisons. We will endure brutal and repeated rape until we have been infected with the scourge they call 'HIV virus'. We shall then escape from these places into the countryside, where we will set about seducing their women and bringing this plague upon them."
• Say what you want about convicted mass-murderers and kids caught with an ounce of pot, but at least they're all good American Christians.
• Detainees determined to be "not black enough".
• Incarceration of detainees in American prisons would be too cruel.

Can I get my phone call?

NFK

-----------------------

*Noted far-left celebrity, totalitarian-socialist-redistributionist-fascist-royalist, terrorist sympathizer and admitted drug user. 

**Under-reported fact: Muslims are all powerful wizards.

Top 10 Successes of the Bush Administration

Okay, I couldn't find 10. So I'm going to do the failures instead. Because it's funnier. And this is Unfair Friday.

Top 10 Failures of the Bush Administration

11. The 2000 Election. A lot of shenanigans if not outright fraud. And the indecisive result followed by the horrific decision of Bush v. Gore reminded us just how democratic our democracy really is. I know, I know...this all technically happened before the Bush administration, which is why I'm putting it up front as the 11th failure. Yes, it's completely unfair. Just like me.

10. The 2004 Election. The only good follow-up to a shenanigans-fraught election? More shenanigans! Forget about the fact that the voting machine industry was in the tank for the Bush administration (it was!) or the voter suppression or all the rest of it. These are all fine by me; I don't actually believe in democracy anyhow. This one's on the list for exactly one reason in approximately three words: Motherfucking Swiftboat Veterans.

9. No Happy Ending for Merkel. In just over 60 years we've gone from this to this. Progress in America always contains a big, fat nugget of stupid.

8. No Childrens Left Behind. Rarely is the question asked, is our children learning? I mean, you teach a child to read and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test.

7. Clear Skies Initiative. You'll remember this as the definitive proof that the Bush administration was tough on polluters and a friend to the environment. Don't read the text of the bill! You don't have to read what it actually says or anything--I mean, how can you oppose something called "Clear Skies"?

6. Mission Accomplished! Break out the flight suit! From the logic of Sun Tzu to the successes of Colin Powell and Daddy Bush, we know the right approach to war: Go in hard and get out fast. Which is exactly what Bush did.*

5. The Iraq....Everything. This war was well-justified. In fact, members of the Bush administration came out with new justifications for it all the time. Sometimes two in a sentence. How can something with so many justifications not be justified? And at long last we have unquestionable proof that Iraq was a huge supporter of al Qaeda: even after years of gloomy detention and/or torture, a lot of people still won't confess to the connection. This just shows what a huge, juicy secret it is.

4. Red Alert! Shields up! We have obtained some specific intelligence: an attack on a major American city may or may not be planned for today. If it does not happen today it may or may not happen at any time during the next month. Also, it may instead be an attack on a suburb or rural area. This potential attack may be enormously devastating. Or not. We urge you: Do not panic.

3. I Would Tap That Wire. From the lovable text of the PATRIOT Act to all that warrantless wiretapping, we know one thing for sure: intercepting phone sex sessions from Americans overseas is a fucking laugh riot and worth every taxpayer dollar. Besides, the most confusing thing about modern American life was all those civil liberties we didn't really need.

2. Operation: Let's Disappear Some Brown People. All brown people are Muslims and all Muslims are insane, suicidal, raving terrorists. Every American can agree with this.** So if we sweep up a bunch of them indiscriminately, hide them away in detention centers for years without trials or even charges, deny some of them sleep, sic dogs on them, force them to see or do things that are humiliating to them, bang them up against walls, periodically drown them, or if some of them just mysteriously disappear...it's all for the greater good: keeping Americans safe.***

1. September 11, 2001. It wasn't their fault. How unfair can I possibly be? It happened on their watch. They couldn't possibly have known about the attacks ahead of time. You know how these things are: your inbox gets full of stuff and you just don't have the time to read every little briefing. Besides, who knows if any of the intel they had available would have been enough to stop the attack? It happened on their watch. You know, I heard a rumor that Clinton had Osama bin Laden "in the crosshairs" but he blinked and missed the opportunity. He could have kept this from ever happening. It happened on their watch. A video of Bush staring at a room full of kids for 7 minutes, slowly realizing that elections have consequences and maybe he'd rather be coaching baseball. It happened on their watch. They didn't have the time or luxury to cooperate fully with the 9/11 Commission. They were fighting a War on Terror! And besides, all that stuff is looking backwards--we need to charge ahead, and getting a full accounting of what missteps may have taken place wouldn't help. Besides, what if some of what they found out turned out to be a little embarrassing? It would just slow them down at a time they needed to act fast. It happened on their watch. They didn't exploit the disaster for political gain. They didn't use 9/11 and fearmongering to win elections. They never used slogans like "A vote for so-and-so is a vote for 9/11", they never used campaign videos or billboard images that conflate 9/11 with their political opponents. But, in all unfairness, I would like to point out that although they may have done everything right before, during and after the attack...it did happen on their watch.

Others have done this more exhaustively elsewhere, sure. But I thought of just a shit-ton of them on my commute home today and figured it would be fun to talk about my most favoritist 10.

So, what are your favorite moments from the Bush administration?

History will vindicate me,
NFK

-----------------------

*Do you really need any text in this footnote?

**Possible exceptions: Americans who are brown, Muslims and/or have brains.

***Safe from moral standing, respect from other nations, relations with the billion+ Muslims in the world, and, ultimately, safe from the end of the War on Terror. It keeps our soldiers safe from the prospect of running out of enemy combatants to fight. For the Americans who were detained, it keeps them safe from the pursuit of happiness, liberty and/or life.

An Evening with Mr. bin Laden

Terrorism enthusiasts were in for a treat this week as two of the leading figures in the field--Mr. Dick Cheney (R-WY) and Mr. Osama bin Laden (aQ-?)--emerged once more from their undisclosed locations to make demands of and exhortations to the American people. Mr. Cheney sat for a candid tell-all with Bob Schieffer of The View and shared some very saucy advice with his immediate successor: Joe Biden (D-PA/DE). Dick's ever-labored breathing during the chat was a persistent reminder of his hilarious yarns about coming of age as a young Sith Lord from Wyoming.

Due to a significant delay in customs, however, America's sweetheart couldn't show up as planned for his spot on The Tyra Banks Show. Of course I'm talking about Osama bin Laden. Word on the street is that Mr. bin Laden really regrets missing the opportunity to meet Ms. Banks, but we all know it's no accident he's been at the top of People magazine's "100 Hardest People to Schedule an Interview With" since 2002.

While no substitute for Ms. Banks, I decided to conduct* a discussion with Mr. bin Laden myself. Although he wasn't available for a face-to-face, I've taken the liberty of channeling Osama through a synopsis/synthesis of some of his thoughts and feelings that he posted on his blog in 2002**. As you'll recall, that blog post contained excerpts from a legal memo penned by political appointees of the al Qaeda party*** as well as from his New York Times bestselling book.****

Here is the transcript of our discussion.

NFK: Mr. bin Laden...

ObL: Please, infidel, call me Osama.

NFK: ...Osama, welcome back to the States. Now that I think about it, it's a funny thing to say, since as far as I know you've never been here but in a very real way you've never left.

ObL: Thank you, dog, but I am not pleased to be here. I despise your country. You have perpetrated great crimes against Muslims in all places for half a century. You have attacked us in Palestine and in Somalia. You have supported attacks on us in Chechnya, Kashmir and Lebanon. Your trade policies have starved over a million Iraqi children. You have established puppet governments in the Middle East that oppress and humiliate us and sell our collective wealth to you for next to nothing. You have--

NFK: Whoa whoa whoa there bucko, you're pointing a long skinny finger at me here but I haven't done any of this stuff. For starters, I was drunk when--

ObL: But, heathen swine, you will agree that the government of the United States has done these things?

NFK: Well, I wasn't there personally and don't really know--

ObL: Scum! Speak truth or be silent! Did your government do these things?

NFK: Well, okay, it's a bit embarrassing, really, but....

ObL: Did your government do these things?

NFK: Yes! All right? Probably! I mean, it's possible. Some of the news I read would suggest....

ObL: And, devil, are your people not in control of your government? Is your country not the shining jewel of democracy that you claim to be?

NFK: Okay, chill on that point a sec, I see where this is going. You see, our form of democracy isn't particularly democratic per se. We, the people of the United States don't actually have much direct input over our laws or actions. We just have some influence over our elected lawyers and actors. Which, to be fair, any of us can become as long as we have sufficiently clean histories and enough fundraising potential. Sorta. We practice a kind of back-door democracy here, where we have dollars that proxy for actual votes through a complicated campaign contribution chain--

ObL: But--

NFK: Hey! Buddy! I'm talking here! Did I interrupt you? What I'm saying is...is that I in particular have no real direct control over my government. Its actors or its actions. So the US may well have done all the things you've said, fine, but I sure as hell didn't. Nor did most of the rest of us. Nor would we have if given the option. In fact, if we knew a bit more about these things as they were happening, and we had the time to make it all a priority, and a thousand other things lined up, we'd have taken the single strongest basic action available to us: writing very stern letters to our elected representatives.

ObL: Do you not believe in your democracy, heretic? Is it not your government that seeks to spread your democracy the world over? Do you not laud yourselves for your democracy and inflict it upon other states?

NFK: Okay, look. We do have a strange need to spread democracy. I'll try to explain. You're a big guy. Probably when you were in high school your dad wanted you to go out for the varsity basketball team and become a star center or something. And you thought this was weird, and you had trouble understanding it because it wasn't what you wanted at all, but you respected him and wanted to make him proud. And probably he didn't care about what you actually wanted either, because when he was your age he wanted to be a star center or something himself, but let's say for sake of argument that he was 5'6". This is what we call "living vicariously".

ObL: Be that as it may, whoreson, but why then does your government also topple democratically-elected governments in other nations and install your own petty dictators instead? Take for example Algeria?

NFK: Um...maybe we're jealous?

ObL: My point stands! Your government created by your people and funded with your wealth has visited a million, million atrocities upon my people! Any righteous attacks we visit upon you are merely payment in kind!

NFK: Hold up hold up. I can't argue that our government hasn't done some rotten things. And they were very, desperately wrong. But I have to mention a couple of things here. First off, attacking us is also just wrong. Beyond that, it's horribly naive. Like, if your central message is, "play nice or there's more where that came from", the net result will not be us playing nicer. We've seen it. People in our government will take it all as a sign of and justification for giving themselves a freer hand to act--just in general, really, but they'll say it's all about you. For us here at home, that means they're going to go after our civil liberties for our "enhanced safety". They're going to funnel more of our money into their war efforts, not less. And then they're going to take it all out on people like you--or maybe just near you. Doesn't matter. They'll let the hammer fall and dispense some indiscriminant "justice"*****. I don't want that and I don't think you do either. Secondly, none of us have any real right to go after civilians. And, yes, the people in the Towers were civilians. They were in fact the worst civilians to hit from your perspective. When did it all happen--maybe nine AM or so? Yeah, last I checked the real power brokers in Manhattan aren't the at-work-on-time folks or even the at-work-at-all-on-a-sunny-day folks. I get the feeling you mostly killed secretaries, firefighters and the people who otherwise clean up after wealthier people. These guys have no real power or representation whatsoever. And the tax dollars they all pay combined probably don't cover a fresh coat of paint on a damn bomber. At least, certainly not in a government that has the occasional "$8,000 toilet seat" scandal. Thirdly....I forgot thirdly. Got a little caught up in all that. Um, killing people is wrong. Okay?

ObL: Are you quite finished?

NFK: Sorry, shit like this just makes me crazy. I don't have any good answers for your plight or any real power to fix it. But I know that your approach is the absolute wrong one. Let's try a different tack, here. What can we do to make it all better? How can we fix this?

ObL: You must stop destroying nature. Stop being racists. Respect the international laws and treaties you sign--and so fervently hold others to, yet do not abide by yourselves when they seem inconvenient to you.

NFK: Er, we're kinda on the same page on that one, man.

ObL: You must stop your oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery.

NFK: So...cancel both FOX News and FOX Entertainment?

ObL: You must join us in the shared goal of mercy, honor, defending the oppressed and persecuted. You must work with us for total equality between all people regardless of their color, sex or language.

NFK: See, I'm with you here, but I warn you I won't follow the Greatful Dead around.

ObL: And the only way you can achieve this unity of purpose and stay our further wrath is to convert to the One True Religion. Which is Islaam.

NFK: Hold the fucking phone!

ObL: Demon, you must reject your false laws and accept the True Laws of God! We are appalled by your fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling and usury!

NFK: Waitwaitwait. You hate us because we write laws, have fun and...bank?

ObL: You must reject all theories and false religions and accept only the Law and Truth of the most Holy and Divine book--

NFK: Mason & Dixon?

ObL: --the Quran.

NFK: Okay, okay, stop right there.

ObL: The Quran is a miracle until the Day of Judgment. No man can even compose ten verses like it.

NFK: Dear God, protect me from your followers. Look, I get this shit nonstop from Americans in domestic news, I don't need to hear the rest. I know it by rote. Seriously. "There is absolute Right and wrong. What we say is Absolute Right and all else is absolutely wrong. We know this because we have a Book that says so. A Magic Book written thousands of years ago by the One True God. A Magic Book so Magical that it contains all the knowledge you will ever need for all time. A Magic Book that contains all the unchanging True Laws you must follow to Live Right. A Magic Book with such strong Magical God Magic that we can translate and revise it over millennia and still know beyond doubt that we are interpreting its messages exactly correctly. A Magic Book so wise that reading it sneakily gives us the knowledge about which of its Magic Words are Correct and True and which verses are safe to ignore." For real, this is the biggest most divisive thing in our discourse any more. One side of every issue has a copy of God's Magic Manual For Modern Life and everything they argue goes back to that somehow. Sure they're serpent-subtle about it these days, they don't usually drag out the Magic Book to win arguments because it loses them political points with the kiddies. Instead they build all sorts of flimsy rationalizations to support their perspective. They fund slanted research just to add an air of legitimacy to their side. People like me are just stuck. I mean, we don't have a Magic Book. It's probably "unfair" to say this--whatever the hell "unfair" means--but I instead try to think critically about issues and error on the side of credible data. I don't always succeed, but I definitely try. By comparison, from my perspective at least, it seems like the first of the True Laws in every version of the Magic Book goes something like "Thou Shalt Not Ask Too Many Questions or Think for Thyself (see Listing of Approved Thoughts, Section III.C.xxxvi)". It seems like the one thing every religion can agree on is the unquestionable sinfulness of critical thought. ....Actually, wait, I'm not sure, but that might not be true with Judaism--

ObL: The Jews! Of course you would side with them, bastard child of two mothers, for they are the most evil people of all!

NFK: ...and now we move on to the other thing all religions seem to agree on, which I'll summarize as: "Ours is the One Truth, all other religions are false, and by the way especially fuck the Jews."

ObL: The Jews are behind every serious crime in history! They have taken over your government and you are their servent! You do not act but by their bidding!

NFK: But seriously folks, what is it with people hating on the Jews? I mean, I wasn't hanging out 3,000 years ago, but they must have done something pretty fucking serious to just piss off everybody.

ObL: It is you, fellator of Taghut, who have supported and enforced the false claim of the Jews to the land of Palestine! This is the greatest sin of all time! It is known to all that it was the Muslims who recaptured Palestine from the Romans and this land belongs rightfully to us!

NFK: Fuck, dude! Now you're telling me this is all about...about a real estate dispute??

ObL: As long as your hands are dirty with this crime, ten-titted concubine of the Great Satan, you must pay for it with your blood!

NFK: ...a real estate dispute?? There's probably something I'm missing here. Has to be. I mean, it's not even particularly good land, is it? We can settle this one easily I'm sure. Can we sell you a bit of Alaska? It's got crazy resources, fish and game, you name it. And there's just a ton of it to go around. Or Texas? We could probably get you a decent price on Texas, but we'll probably ask that you also keep the rural Texans. Or, Christ I dunno, half the interior of Austrailia? I mean, if you're into land without much going for it, you might as well be fighting for a fuckton of the stuff, right?

ObL: Cease your sacriligious rambling, monosyllabic-word-that-means-shit-wiping-implement. Your people have done great harm and will not accept the True Law of God--there can be no forgiveness until after you have paid heavily for your crimes.

NFK: Hey! Wait a damn minute! You sneaky bastard, how can American civilians be "fair" targets if our government is secretly controlled by the Jews? By your "you are your government" rationale?

ObL: I mentioned that some time ago.

NFK: But I just thought of it now!

ObL: You are immune to reason, diabolic ass-kitten.

NFK: And.....we're going to have to leave it there for now. But many thanks as always to Mr. bin Laden for stopping by. Have a safe flight back!

ObL: Fuck you, asshole.

---------------------------------------------------

Hugz 'n' kittenz,
NFK

*viz. construct

**our more literate readers will note the abundance of misspellings and other grammatical errors in his post. These are almost certainly artifacts of the decryption process employed by the Observer and the fact that they've none of them been fixed in over 6 years is, I'm certain, purely coincidental.

*** "Memorandum for Osama b. Laden, Strong Right Hand of Allah; Standards of Conduct for Mass Slaughter of Infidel Civilians under Sharia Law"

****Osama bin Writin': The Top 10 Demands America Must Meet to Avoid the Further Wrath of Well-Funded, Well-Coordinated and Committed Men with Box-Cutters

*****Many tanks to Blizzard for that one.

Censorship is Antithetical to Freedom

This extends to both the display of uncovered nipples AND ALSO the use of the fuck word.

EIT3: Was it Necessary?

Fact: since September 11, 2001, the United States government has engaged in the capture, detention (without charge) and/or interrogation of hundreds of people--including at least one citizen of the United States. Some of the "enhanced interrogation techniques" employed on these detainees are believed by many people to constitute torture. Let's assume for the moment that the "is it torture?" question--with all the consequences attached--is settled somehow and the answer doesn't bear upon this discussion. Let's also assume for sake of argument that these methods did result in intel that saved American lives. Disable your morality plug-ins and just answer:

Was it Necessary?

• Yes, for at least two reasons. The first is: we were faced with real life ticking time-bomb scenarios. There were imminent attacks planned on the citizens of the US and we had to secure intel as quickly as possible to stop them. Without use of these techniques, we would have had no other way to prevent another 9/11. The real tragedy in all of this is that there were no successful attacks since 9/11 that we could have prevented--but decided not to, because we wanted to be "soft" on the terrorists we've captured, maybe read them Miranda rights and offer them tea and cookies. This is how Obama wants to treat the terrorists, and he'll reap the whirlwind when a dirty bomb goes off in, say, Chicago. Secondly, we had to let the entire world know that we mean it when we say "any means necessary". We mean business and the terrorists need to know that. Do you think our enemies will treat us kindly when they capture us? Or will they brutally torture us before our inevitable beheadings?
  
• No, we have it on great authority that there were far more productive interrogation methods available that do not in any way compromise our princples. Primary among them: relationship-building. Develop a rapport with the detainees and treat them with respect as human beings. The long-term effects of this approach not only have tactical advantages (such as reliable, actionable intelligence) but also operate strategically (by invalidating the fundamental beliefs and rationalizations of our would-be enemies). We have a body of discussion in this area that comes directly from the mouths of former interrogators. We can also point out that the FBI is really well-equipped with non-compromising interrogation techniques--but they left the building, and in their place the CIA and independent contractors took over, using these Bush administration-sanctioned techniqes without first exhausting all other options. Can you really believe that these methods were truly the option of last resort? That is, can you tell me that the most powerful and sophiticated military and intelligence organizations in the history of our species have their hands completely tied if they can't use the waterboard?
  

This question is meaningless: at least, as stated. Of course it can't be "necessary" in the sense that "there was no other set of methods available in all the imaginings of God and Man that could possibly be employed to achieve any result." That's horseshit. A "fairer" restatement of this question might be more along the lines of "Were these the only techniques that were practically available that produced actionable intelligence in a timely manner that prevented lethal attacks on US citizens?" That is, were all other methods that could be productive and timely completely impractical? Or were all other productive and practical methods insufficient to get the necessary intel in time? And so on.

Imbalanced and Unfair: I give the "Yes" position short shrift on this one. The simple reason is: I have yet to hear any (cogent) arguments behind that position. In fact, most of the "Yes" arguments I've heard are actually answers to the "Was it Effective?" question. When asked if something was necessary and your answer is essentially, "Yes, because it worked", then you're simply not answering the damn question. Example: triggering a global nuclear holocaust may also "work" as a method for preventing future terrorist attacks on the US--in the sense that several people who are in fact planning attacks will become shadows on a few walls--but you're a fucking idiot if you claim that it's "necessary". To scale back, I'll only give you "necessary" if you can argue that there simply were no other options--that this was indeed a last resort.

The Ticking Time-Bomb: Fuck Jack Bauer. There is some strange "24" fantasy that bleeds from the Fox channel to the Fox News Network. Maybe a reallocation of personnel after the writers' strike or something. We are being told (implicitly) that there was a nuke in L.A. and the only way we could disarm it by 8am the following day was to tie some guy to a chair and hit him repeatedly with wall current. I might add here--off the topic of this particular question--that torture in "24" developed a history of misapplication as well. I noticed a theme by season three or so:

Bauer negotiating with an actual terrorist: "Give us the information we need. I can get the President on the phone and give you a full pardon."

Bauer negotiating with someone who becomes suspect but doesn't actually know anything: "Everybody else: leave the room."

End notes: This is mostly a lead up to the real elephants in the room.

Sincerely,
Jack "NFK" Bauer, a real American hero

EIT2: Was it Effective?

Fact: since September 11, 2001, the United States government has engaged in the capture, detention (without charge) and/or interrogation of hundreds of people--including at least one citizen of the United States. Some of the "enhanced interrogation techniques" employed on these detainees are believed by many people--myself included--to constitute torture. Look past this. Forget about whether it was technically torture, whether it was necessary or just or even right. Don't even consider the actual vs. alleged severity of these methods. Just put on your cold, rational thinking caps and answer:

Was it Effective?

• Yes, this interrogation program is the very reason that we have not seen terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11. Dick Cheney and former Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen have told us that there are specific cases (such as the attack planned on the Library Tower in L.A.) where these interrogations led to critical information--information that ultimately saved American lives. In fact, we know that these techniques work from a captured al-Qaeda member, Abu Zubaydah, who told us that members are premitted to tell interrogators everything once they reach the limits of their endurance. And--perhaps most importantly--these techniques send a message to would-be terrorists: If you would be our enemy and seek to harm us, expect the gloves to come off once we grab you.
• No, for starters because we can point to numerous studies and reports explaining that we really don't gain much by getting information via duress. It doesn't follow that people who really have the information we seek will give it up due to these techniques. Moreover, if the incentive is to keep talking, both those who do and those who do not have valuable intel are likely to...well, just keep talking. Which will yield a lot of extraneous information and false leads, with no way to determine which items are worth pursuing. The CIA has wasted plenty of time and money chasing its tail in foreign countries due to the "intel" garnered from this program. We also have trouble believing that these techniques were effective every time they were used--if they were even effective in the first place. How "effective" can your 81st waterboarding be, seriously? Or even your 20th? We can go so far as to say that torture (even the appearance of it) is indeed effective--at making Americans less safe. Our treatment of detainees has been the top al-Qaeda recruiting tool for years, and our standing on the world stage has been eroded. This is a huge foreign policy black-eye for us. Our allies are now less likely to help us protect our interests. Do we really want to go it alone?

This question is not clear: It asks if torture (or "torture-like" or "enhanced non-torture techniques, because we have a good lawyer") techniques are effective. It's up to the respondent to determine what "effective" means--effective at what? There are in fact at least two "whats" that I deliberately confound in the above; I use "Was it effective?" to mean:

1. "Was it effective in procuring timely and accurate intelligence that directly saved the lives of American citizens?", as well as the more general
2. "Was it effective at reducing the risk of lethal attacks against Americans?"
   

This lack of clarity about an apparently simply question illustrates a recurring and critical fault of most contemporary political debate.

End notes: We still lack the information we need to really make an assessment of the efficacy of these techniques. Again, I'm talking about this as a subject divorced from the other questions--whether it was "right" or not, whether the ends justify the means, and so on. I'm not aware of any declassified info right now about specific cases where these techniques gave us actionable information that directly resulted in American lives saved. However, I do think that any claim in the family of "this is why we haven't been attacked since 9/11" is outrageous on its face. How can you possibly know that for certain? Did you visit the parallel universes where Gore won in 2000, the 9/11 attacks still happened, we failed to drown intel out of some guys, AND we were attacked again and again? Okay, sure, maybe you did, but can you honestly tell me--really--that you check on all of those parallel universes?

As a side note, the Thiessen/Cheney claims feel incredibly disingenuous. At least one of them may have had access to the details of real-life "ticking time-bomb" scenarios that were defused with the aid of "enhanced interrogation". But we've yet to get any real reporting on this--we simply don't know. And because their credibility and biases are known quantities, I feel it's reasonable to suspect that may have been no such situations. The classified "memos" that support their argument may not even exist. Or the rest of the intel in these documents may actually be incredibly sensitive--so that it really would be a security risk for the Obama administration to declassify them. Basically, I don't feel these guys should be allowed to defend a position based on information that no one else published (or perhaps even possesses) for the exact same reason that they were allowed to proceed without public scrutiny in the first place: the shroud of secrecy surrounding the Bush administration.

I do generally have trouble with this one. I know in my heart of hearts that if I found myself tied to a chair in some CIA black site, my first words would be something like: "Please list any topic of interest and I will rattle off every damn thing I know about it. You can put the pliers away." But this situation is different. I have no information worth even tying me up for; also, I am a coward.

Not the face!
NFK

Was is Torture?

Fact: since September 11, 2001, the United States government (including intelligence and military agencies, with express top-level permission from the Bush administration) has engaged in the capture, detention (without legal charges) and/or interrogation of hundreds of people--including at least one citizen of the United States. There are still many questions regarding the nature of the so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" employed. This is one of them.

Was it torture?

• Yes, if you adhere to the definition used in the US-endorsed Geneva Conventions. According to this definition, torture is defined to be anything that the Red Cross proclaims to be torture. You can question the validity of the data used by the Red Cross to render this determination; you can even question the validity of the conclusion itself. However, it does not change the facts that the Red Cross has deemed these activities to be torture and this is the very definition of torture within the Geneva Conventions.
• No, because the laws of the US supercede the clauses of the Geneva Conventions for our purposes. There has been a legal analysis of these interrogation techniques (the memo penned by Jay Bybee) that determines that they are not "torture" under the laws of the US. Moreover, it's not even clear that the US laws and the Geneva Conventions conflict in this matter, because the Geneva Conventions may not even apply.
• Maybe, because there seem to be a lot of opinions advanced--both domestically and abroad--that what was done was either torture or at the very least highly questionable. This question stands unanswered--and will remain unanswered until tried in the US court system (which is, after all, our Constitutionally-mandated interpreter of US laws). If the final determination of the courts is that this was indeed torture, the question is settled. If not, then it raises a bigger question: are we prepared to present to the world the argument that the Geneva Conventions apply to the United States only when we say they do?
  

This question is atomic: It only asks whether we're dealing with actual "torture" or not. The answer does not depend upon opinions as to whether "it was necessary" or "it made us more/less safe"--even though I find a great deal of the discussion confounds this seemingly-simple question with others in that vein.

This question is important: As of this morning, I'm still seeing commentary made and conclusions drawn that presuppose the answer to this question.

End notes: I believe that this exact question is one that must be tried within the US court system. I do not have the legal authority to answer it. Here are a few of the billions of people who also do not have the legal authority to answer this question: the callers to the Washington Journal; the pundits, reporters and other talking heads; any members of any "think-tanks"; anyone within a branch of the US military; any member of any US intelligence or defense agency; the US Congress; any members of the current or prior Justice Departments; the underlings of the current or prior presidential administrations; former Vice President Dick Cheney; former President George W. Bush; President Barack Obama; Judge Jay Bybee. The last member of that list may in fact have the legal authority necessary--in the weird event that a specific case is brought before him and he (spectacularly!) fails to recuse himself from it.

Regardless of the outcome, I am forced to recall a maxim of modern (post-Enron) accounting, which goes something like: "The appearance of impropriety is just as bad as actual impropriety."

Since this is an open question, the concise statement uttered by George W. Bush--"We do not torture."--is particularly intriguing. Did he lie? Did he present a fact as determined by a legal expert? Or was he simply stating a personal legal opinion?

Is that a caterpillar in here?
NFK

Why the Tax Codes Rule

A year and a half ago I dumped a grand into a 7-month CD. Just to see. I had the money kicking around at the time, and I was sick of getting sales pitches from the tellers at my Super Friendly Bank, We Love Your Business *smile*!

At their maturity, I had to go and physically close the CD at a local bank branch. Waiting in line, sitting around. Not allowed to close it out using the Interwebs (or even the telephone) technology. And of course I actually went in a few weeks after their maturity, because who has time? Counter-intuitively, closing a CD out a few weeks late results in a monetary penalty--in fact, to clear things up, this penalty is accounted for as an "early withdrawal fee."

Result

• Interest: +$32
• Fee: -$21
• Net gain: +$11
  

Okay, so that was funny. I laughed. At the banker. And left. End of story. I Love Your Business Too *smile*!

Except of course that interest is taxable. I know, the bank sent me an official-looking form and everything. And I thought it would be fun to deduct the fee. But there wasn't a space for it on the 1040EZ...was there?

Comparison

• 1040EZ: 13 lines. Taxes the interest, won't let you deduct the fee.
• 1040A: 48 lines. Same problem.
• 1040: 76 lines...and the fee is finally deductible.

So I upgrade to the full 1040. 63 extra lines, some additional puzzling over the extra instructions and definitions (I'm thorough. Besides, how else would I know if I have a tier 1 RRTA tax withheld? What's a tier 1 RRTA tax?). But with all those extra lines, one of them let me finally fill in my single extra number. Federal taxes defeated.

Ah but that's not all. My state cares about this interest income as well. Does it have a space for it? Why yes it...doesn't. Turns out my bank is actually based in a nearby state, not this one. So I need an extra schedule to correctly claim my interest income. The schedule is a few dozen cryptic lines big. After some consternation, I determine which lines matter. There are 5. In them each, I fill the exact same number: $32. I believe I'm also directed to a separate worksheet to determine one of these lines. In this worksheet, I enter a bunch of numbers, calculate some adjusted gross income figure that's special for the state, do some other gyrations. Perform some min/max reasoning which I would have instantly deduced in one line with the right placement of carats and parens (but actually took quite a bit of decoding: "If line 6 less than line 5 is greater than line 2, but less than $1500, skip lines 7 and 8 and enter line 3 on line 9...").

So much for claiming my apparently out-of-state interest income. The deduction is less work: An additional schedule, and I only have to fill 3 of its 40 lines with the number: $21.

Result

• Net extra financial numbers (compared to 2007): 2
• Net financial gain from these numbers: $11
• Net extra work: over 60 extra federal lines to figure out to skip, two additional state schedules to enclose, scads of additional instructions to decode enough to determine that I can skip them. And the repeated application of the numbers $32 and $21.
  
• Net tax impact of my CD experiement: $0

Happy fucking Tax Day,
NFK