Josh ([info]joshdahl) wrote,
@ 2003-12-14 18:25:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Political humor from Bazooka Joe!
Joe: Why is it that Saddam Hussein is always in the last place you look for him?

Norm: Because when you find him...you stop looking?
******

Joe: What do Saddam Husssein and a 13 year old Malaysian transvestite hooker's butt-plug have in common?

Norm: Gee, I don't know?

Joe: They both get pulled out of dirty holes by US soldiers.
********

Joe: How can you tell when Saddam Hussein has been visiting the little covered hole you have dug in your field near Tekrit?

Norm: I don't know?

Joe: Either by the smell or the 300 US tropps milling around and already making up stories they are goimng to tell back home about how it was them who just happened to notice a little whisp of beard hair poking up between the rows of Iraqi corn.

Norm: You're a funny guy Bazooka Joe.

*********

US troops: Knock knock

Saddam: Who's there?

US troops: Saddam Loyalists (hee-hee)

Saddam: Oh welcome my brothers! Please tell me you brought Norelco products and...OH SHIT! US TROOPS!

US Troops: Gotcha!

*******
Joe: Why did Saddam look so filthy? Was it because he was hiding in a dirty hole?

Norm: No, he was trying to show solidarity with his french allies.

Ok ok, enough Saddam jokes. So, it look like I am the first in my LJ loop to break the news. They caught Saddam Hussein. So those of you who had checked him off of your Christmas list...sorry, he's back. Ha ha asshole! Think you're so great, but they found your dirty ass hiding in a hole!
So, what does this mean? Well, for one thing, other middle east ditators have had their illusions of a romantic life on tha lamb harshly dispelled. Also, it surely breaks up the chain of command in Iraqi resistance cells. Orders whih could have previously been said to be coming straight from The Man himself are now clearly just coming from whichever general-come-lately is issuing them.
But here's the big one. This guy gets tried in Iraq by a tribunal of Iraqis. Sure he's gonna take the stance of the victim....the martyr...but who's gonna buy it. His fellow dictators might buy it for a few seconds. See him all proud and noble and stuff....but the message they will get even more clearly is that his own people are trying him and putting him to death. Uh-oh, this is bad news. It'll take a pretty severe media black out to keep the people in other countries to see what has been going on in Iraq.
Sure, lots of fucked up stuff, but when the villian finally goes down, neighboring villians start checking the papers to see who is cast to appear in the sequel. And neighboring down-troddens start to harbor hollywood dreams of making it big in a straight-to-video knock-off of the original.
So, good luck with that.
Friday was the last day for yet another of my co-workers and another new guy has come in. Turnover.
I went to the "Bazaar Bizarre" last night with roomie-Rachel. It was pretty cool. Lots of punk rock stuff for sale. You know, art students making stuff, and then selling it for christmas. There were some interesting things, but nothing quite worth it. I did get a few ideas.
You know those tall candles with pictures of saints on them that they have in the Mexican section of the grocery store? Well, they had some of those for punk-rockers. They were the same tall, colored candles, but with cool draings of punk-rockers on the glass. They had ones with Joey Ramone (whose street in NYC was recently christened) and Joe Strummer, and Iggy Pop.
Hey, says Iggy Pop, I'm not dead! I just really, really, look like I am.
Then we went to see Intollerable Cruelty. Very funny. George Clooney is a great movie star.
And toady, like Gretchen, I did laundry. It started snowing around 3 and has been going non-stop. If my students didn't live at the school...I'd probably have tomorrow off/

(Post a new comment)

Snort.
[info]gretchencb
2003-12-14 04:33 pm UTC (link)
We fell asleep with the TV on last night, and I woke up to a "Special Report". I woke Sean up and the first thing he said upon waking was, "Wow, what a coincidence. What with an election coming up and all. Great. Now we're going to be stuck with Bush for another four years."

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Well...
[info]micahfaulkner75
2003-12-14 11:51 pm UTC (link)
Could be worse. So far it seems that Dean, Lieberman, and Sharpton were pulling up the lead. Sad sad.

BTW: I actually had the first posting in this ring about the capture, but it didn't take apparently. Sad sad.

I'm curious to see how the trials work out. Should be entertaining at least.

Love,
Micah

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Re: Snort.
[info]mcentellas
2003-12-15 03:26 pm UTC (link)
I agree that Bush has his flaws. And he's certainly NOT my first choice for president. But. If our opposition to him is built entirely on the premise that A) he's ruining the economy and B) Iraq is a quagmire. Well. We might have to re-evaluate those. If our opposition is something else, somethign deeper, then we'd better focus on THAT. I'm tired of Dems gleefully denouncing the Iraq "quagmire" every time a poor soldier dies. Or of them hoping the economy keeps sucking ass so that they can get elected. Sorry to say it, but I feel like the Dems only care about getting elected. Few (I put Liberman here in a different light, I LIKE him) Dems seem to really care about this country. I'm tired of having the richest white people in America tell me how they represent me better than the GOP. Question: Why does the GOP get most of its money in less than $100 increments, when the Dems get most of theirs from ten millionaires? Who represents the rich? I wish progressives would stop voting for the party that gave us Southern secession and the inner city projects. Time for a NEW two-party system.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Snort.
(Anonymous)
2003-12-16 04:50 pm UTC (link)
When you state that "few ... Dems seem to really care about the country", do you mean politicians or party members?

Although it concerns me that conservatives have so successfully co-opted love of country and patriotism, your post does remind me that no matter what side one finds oneself on politically, it is easy to see the other side as uncaring (or involved only for personal advancement). It's a good lesson, so I thank you.

I wonder what you mean by "time for a NEW two-party system". You might respond by directing me to read your numerous essays on the subject at your 'blog. But as I don't care about the country enough to do that, perhaps you could give the Cliff's Notes version?

Thanks,
Shannon

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Snort.
[info]joshdahl
2003-12-16 07:02 pm UTC (link)
If I may...
It seems like my esteemed Bolivian colleague was likely referring to Democratic politicians as uncaring...not the people.
I can see what he means. There seems to be a "let's get one of US in there" mentality. I knw there always is, but it seems more pronounced this time around.
Maybe this is always the case with a powerful incumbent.....who knows.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Re: Snort.
(Anonymous)
2003-12-17 06:04 pm UTC (link)
"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office ... to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man."

Thomas Jefferson, 1795


Alas,
Shannon

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Re: Snort.
[info]mcentellas
2003-12-17 06:45 am UTC (link)
Shannon:

Yes, I meant few politicians (and, for the record, there are very few party "members", I doubt you have a Democratic Party membership card). Both sides are bad, of course. They just want power. I don't think the GOP or right-wingers have the market cornered on patriotism. And, for the record, last election I voted Socialist, thankyouverymuch.

What I meant was, that I'm highly distrustful of the Democratic Party as being able to represent me or people like me. Let me explain. I know much of the GOP is rightwing. And there are many crazies out there. At least they're usually pretty honest about it. But the Dems, I see them (the politicians) as mostly very rich white men who pretend to want to represent your average minority. Clinton as the first black woman president? Please. He was a good president, and I think he did a really good job as president (his personal life is a different matter). But he was a rich white guy from a southern state. Not what I'd call a "black woman."

I'm tired of having Dem candidates assume that because I'm a Latino immigrant that I'm supposed to vote for them. Why? What have they done for me? They destroyed the minority middle class when they built the projects housing system (check the data, there was once a vibrant black middle class until those crime-riddled monstrosities were built). They continue to assume that I'm not a good student and need Affirmative Action (which, btw, was instituted by Nixon) in order to get ahead in life. What does that do for me? It means that I'm always doubted for my abilities because of my ethnicity. It also means that I have more opportunities than poor people (white or of color) since I fit the right "color profile", regardless of my socioeconomic status (how fair is that?).

I really hope Lieberman gets the Dem nomination. Why? Because he COULD beat Bush. Dean can't. Not if he keeps up his rhetoric and making crucial public mistakes (such as arguing that the Sovient Union should be our major partner in the Middle East, excuse me ... the USSR died 12 years ago!). If the Dems want to win an election and not hand the GOP 8 straight years of government, they have to get their shit together. That's what I'm saying. Most American voters are in the center (not the right, not the left). And whatever leftist values you have, if you're a democrat (that is, believe in democracy above partisan politics), then you have to realize that only someone in the center will govern America. And that's not Dean. If he loses, it's because the people don't want that. And in a democracy, the people speak (even if through a bizare 18th century electoral system).

That was my point. Got it?

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Re: Snort.
[info]mcentellas
2003-12-17 06:56 am UTC (link)
Lieberman gave a speech a short while ago where he said that his election was a fight for the heart & soul of the Democratic Party. I think he's right. Look at what Hillary Clinton and much of the party's central committee have argued ... that a Dean-like approach to opposing Bush takes the party away from the centrist policies instituted under Clinton (who managed to win TWICE). Hillary's not running in 2004 because she's not sure the party can unseat Bush. She's waiting until 2008 (and I wish her the best of luck). But she and much of the centrist leadership have argued that if Dean is candidate in 2004 and takes the party in a far swing to the left, the party will lose (and lose badly, perhaps a landslide) and make it all that much more difficult to take the presidency in 2008. Lieberman (and also Clark) is their last ditch effort to keep the party in the center-left. Otherwise, not only forget unseating Bush, forget having a Dem president until 2012!

Keep in mind that the rummor mill's heavy w/ expectation that Bush will nominate Condi Rice (a black woman) for his VP. If that's the case, the Dems will lose the "race card" which they've used so forcefuly since, well, since the Civil War (although they've switched their position on the race issue, race has been a Dem trump card for a century). To beat Bush-Rice, the Dems'll need Lieberman. Nothing else stands a chance.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Re: Snort.
(Anonymous)
2003-12-17 05:16 pm UTC (link)
Wow. What a detailed response to my first question. Thanks. For the record (the livejournal record, anyway) I didn’t ask because of personal Democratic Party membership [sic, apparently]. I’m registered Green, and have been since the party achieved ballot status in California.

Back to my original second question - when you said "time for a NEW two-party system", did you mean a re-working of the current two parties?

Best,
Shannon

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Re: Snort.
[info]mcentellas
2003-12-17 05:51 pm UTC (link)
OK. To your question on what a NEW two party system would mean ... I guess that's up to you (or, rather, all of us voters). But, in my opinion, I think the Dems need to shape up or make way for another party.

Now, I think the US will be a two-party system for a long time. Not just because of that tradition, but because of what's called in political science "Duverger's Law". Duverger was a political scientist who noticed that there was strong correlation (and logical reasons for that correlation) between so-called "first past the post" (FPTP) electoral systems (what we used, also known as a single member plurality system) and two-party systems. Also a correlation between proportional representation (PR) electoral systems and multiparty system. Only one country has ever gone from FPTP to PR (New Zealand), and that country went from a 2 party system to a 3.5 party system. So. Until we change our electoral system, we'll have two parties.

I think the GOP do a pretty good job of representing a certain constituency. Like it or not, the GOP represents a great portion of center-right middle class Americans who want low taxes and small government. The Dems used to represent a weird hodgepodge of rich social elites and the urban poor, people who accept higher taxes and large government. The Dems are losing that fight, because many of the social welfare programs they envisioned were FDR era programs which worked great in the 1930s (and w/ a world war on the horizon), but no longer work in the 21st century. The Dems have failed to become a social democrat or christian democrat party, like the center-left in Europe and the rest of the world.

So. If the Dems don't evolve, they'll lose their place to another party. Perhaps the Greens, perhaps the Libertarians, perhaps a better organized Socialist party (the US Socialist party is actually a social democrat party, not a Marxist socialist party).

A change in the two-party system isn't unheard of. Remember that our first two parties were the Dems (they're one of the world's oldest parties, then called the Democratic Republicans) and the Federalists. Once the slavery issue (and other issues not so well remembered) became key, and the Federalists failed to take any real stance, it was the new GOP that took its place in the two-party system. There's no reason why the Dems couldn't slowly disapear to be replaced by another someday.

And I think that day's coming. The Dems have a long history of corruption (all the urban party machines, like Boss Tweed's, were Dem machines). Lately, it's the party of the rich socialites who want to retain power. Well, there's more middle class people than rich people, so the Dems can't win that game. And the poor (especially the Latino community) are more and more disilusioned w/ the Dems, and moving to the GOP.

But. A party that opposes the GOP must, above all things, have practical solutions to real world problems. I think many people see the Dems as not offering any real alternative to the war on terror (wishing for international peace & cooperation doesn't cut it). And that's the key issue right now. Oddly enough, the center-right GOP has become an internationalist party (I call agressively exporting democracy, however well we do the job is another question, an internationalist position), and the center-left Dems have become an isolationist party. I'm constantly baffled by the change in the Dems rhetoric. People who only 10 years ago wanted us to put pressure on South Africa to end apartheid (and rightly so!) now argue against America imposing its "values" on other countries. When did the American left become nationalist & conservative?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Re: Snort.
[info]mcentellas
2003-12-17 06:07 pm UTC (link)
BTW. I'd like to add that the Dems could learn from two socialist parties that have been in power for many years in Europe. The British Labor Party (the world's oldest socialist party) and the German Social Democrats (the party founded by Marx & Engels). That these two parties today have more in common w/ the GOP than the Dems is extremly odd. It's not the Dems are pinko leftists (they're not), it's just that the current Democratic party has more in common (in terms of rhetoric and organization structure) w/ many Latin American populist parties (something I know more about than I'd like to) like Chavez' MVR.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Re: Re: Snort.
[info]mcentellas
2003-12-18 08:37 am UTC (link)
BTW, here's a story I pulled from an on-line Australian paper:

http://theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,8194430%255E25377,00.html

In it, Bush is quoted as saying that the candidate he fears the most is ... ta da! ... Joe Lieberman. It explains exactly why, and I agree w/ the assessment. Dean can't beat Bush. Lieberman can. The Dems -- if they want to win an election, not just chest thump -- had better wake up to what all the punditry is saying.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]mcentellas
2003-12-15 11:51 am UTC (link)
so hillarious, i had to link to it. kudos, j. edmund!

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]joshdahl
2003-12-15 12:46 pm UTC (link)
Always an honor to show up in "ciao"
Thanks

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…