Point Counterpoint: Der Bush vs. der Mistfink
I realize that this may seem to you to be a battle of David and Goliath - an elementary-school aged kid with bad hygiene in a battle of wits with the most important figure in the modern world - but I promise you: der Mistfink has some pretty darn convincing idears too, and he's gonna stay the course, explaining them in the plainest English possible so all you folks out there can understand them too. Can the lowly sling defeat the might of neo-conservative reason, or has Bush finally learned that he has to hit the
nail on the head, finally giving his melon a much-needed rest? You, my dear reader, be the judge.
Herr Moderator: Today's battle royale will be on the much-talked-about topic of Iraq. We all know that Iraq is less than safe to be wandering the streets, but the burning question is, can and is the United States armed forces winning the battle against Isla--....evil? We will begin the discussion by talking about the recent elections, hailed as a great success by almost every single Republican. Mr. Bush, you have the floor...
Mr. Bush: "This election will not mean the end of violence. But it is the beginning of something new: constitutional democracy at the heart of the Middle East. And this vote -- 6,000 miles away, in a vital region of the world -- means that America has an ally of growing strength in the fight against terror."
Der Mistfink: "Well, Mr. Bush, it's comforting that the Iraqis are going to be blessed with something new. It's just a damn shame its not even close to what they wanted. And all of this right before Christmas. They were probably sitting there getting their hopes up, thinking that the Christians would have some charity and give them the sweet gift of getting the hell out of their country (some 74% of Iraqis think the American troops should leave immediately). Instead we bring a form of government that 1. is completely incompatible with cultural norms in Iraq, 2. is probably the most inefficient form of organization for a country with little or no infrastructure, and 3. was brought to them by a regime that, shall we say, can't seem to figure out for itself what democracy is. Surely 'jubilation' about these elections will have broken out in the streets already. You just better wear your hard hat and a flak jacket. And Mr. Bush, until you can walk the streets of Bagdhad without being 'rendered' by Iraqis in a New York minute, you're officially banned from calling Iraq an ally."
Mr. Bush: "All who had a part in this achievement -- Iraqis, Americans, and coalition partners -- can be proud. Yet our work is not done. There is more testing and sacrifice before us. I know many Americans have questions about the cost and direction of this war. So tonight I want to talk to you about how far we have come in Iraq, and the path that lies ahead."
Der Mistfink: "Coalition partners? Are we still playing this 'we-didn't-go-it-alone' card? Honestly, Goliath, I thought you had some brains under that huge brush-topped helmet of yours. But at least you've made clear that you will be asking for another 200 billion clams and a couple thousand American lives in the near future. It would be a shame to receive that news on short notice. But I'm all ears on the direction thing. This oughta be good..."
Mr. Bush: "Since the removal of Saddam, this war -- like other wars in our history -- has been difficult. The mission of American troops in urban raids and desert patrols -- fighting Saddam loyalists and foreign terrorists -- has brought danger and suffering and loss. This loss has caused sorrow for our whole nation -- and it has led some to ask if we are creating more problems than we are solving.
That is an important question, and the answer depends on your view of the war on terror. If you think the terrorists would become peaceful if only America would stop provoking them, then it might make sense to leave them alone."
Der Mistfink: "Ahh...now you're speaking my language..."
Mr. Bush: "This is not the threat I see. I see a global terrorist movement that exploits Islam in the service of radical political aims -- a vision in which books are burned, and women are oppressed, and all dissent is crushed. Terrorist operatives conduct their campaign of murder with a set of declared and specific goals -- to demoralize free nations, to drive us out of the Middle East, to spread an empire of fear across that region and to wage a perpetual war against America and our friends."
Der Mistfink: "...shit, somehow I knew that was coming...let's perform a little experiment: a new word here, an adjustment there, and, Presto! : "I see a global terrorist movement that exploits
Christianity in the service of radical political aims -- a vision in which
the constitution is shat upon, and
minorities are oppressed, and all dissent is crushed (I didn't have to change that part). Terrorist governments conduct their campaign of murder with a set of declared and specific goals -- to demoralize nations of
strategic importance, to drive
any alternative form of government out of the Middle East, to spread an empire of fear across that region and to wage a perpetual war
against Islam and their friends (I barely had to change that one either).""
Mr. Bush: "These terrorists view the world as a giant battlefield -- and they seek to attack us wherever they can. This has attracted al Qaeda to Iraq, where they are attempting to frighten and intimidate America into a policy of retreat."
Der Mistfink: "I'm not even going to justify that with a response. I'll let you plug in the words."
Mr. Bush: "September 11th, 2001 required us to take every emerging threat to our country seriously, and it shattered the illusion that terrorists attack us only after we provoke them. On that day, we were not in Iraq, we were not in Afghanistan, but the terrorists attacked us anyway -- and killed nearly 3,000 men, women, and children in our own country."
Der Mistfink: "So obviously, the logical response is to go there, rape, pillage and burn, and then say they started it. And shame on them for bringing the war to someone else's country. It's much more polite to invite them to your country first, then kill them."
Herr Moderator: "Well, Herr Mistfink, I see that you have a sharp tongue in addition to that abhorrent stench eminating from your person. But now I would like to hear some closing statements. What do we do with the clusterfuck that is Iraq?"
Mr. Bush: "...now there are only two options before our country -- victory or defeat. And the need for victory is larger than any president or political party, because the security of our people is in the balance. I do not expect you to support everything I do, but tonight I have a request: do not give in to despair, and do not give up on this fight for freedom.
Next week, Americans will gather to celebrate Christmas and Hanukkah. Many families will be praying for loved ones spending this season far from home -- in Iraq, Afghanistan, or other dangerous places. Our nation joins in those prayers. We pray for the safety and strength of our troops. We trust, with them, in a love that conquers all fear, and a light that reaches the darkest corners of the Earth.
And we remember the words of the Christmas carol, written during the Civil War: "God is not dead, nor [does] He sleep; the Wrong shall fail, the Right prevail, with peace on Earth, good-will to men."
Thank you, and good night."
Der Mistfink: "Iraq has been in some form of antogonism to the western world for decades, but this is a conflict that never should have ballooned into a war of this magnitude, and the current and persistent unrest in the entire country (and the parallel disgust that is present in surrounding countries) is proof that this 'clash of cultures' runs perhaps deeper than most expected. I think we need to stop looking at things in black and white, right and wrong, and think about why the 'terrorists' are fighting us, why many Muslims are breaking off into anti-American, anti-Western sects. You can use loaded words all day long and incite people to be perversely patriotic for your side all day long, but is this really all that different from those 'cowards'? With such a philosophy, the conflict remains, and the war will remain. The 'war' in Iraq will not be won until we begin to address these questions.
Wisdom is not projecting your thoughts, stereotypes, and biases onto others, but being able to observe your own actions in relation to those going on around you. Until the dichotomy of 'us and them' can be overcome by politicians like you, Mr. Bush, we will continue to fear those on the other side, and we will continue to have to sacrifice innocent people in the name of ignorance. And by the way, Christmas? Hannukah? What about Kwanzaa?!"
A Battle of Wits with the Unarmed
It is a curious feature of modern American culture that one no longer needs any semblance of rationality to put forth an argument that will enjoy widespread support. There are many examples of this and we have touched on a few in the annals of this blog. Intelligent Design is one, but the death penalty is a better one. This is a piece of policy so devoid of reason that it makes the missile defense shield look like universal healthcare, and yet it is supported by a majority of Americans. 65% to be exact. Guess what? I'm
not making this up either, 75% of Americans think that "God helps those who help themselves" is from the bible. Worse yet, 12% of americans think that Joan of Arc was Noah's wife. Funny at first, sad when you let it sink in. I have a feeling it's the same people answering both surveys.
As Pfarrad has noted, the U.S. performed it's 1000th execution on December 3rd of this year when North Carolina shoved Kenneth Boyd off the mortal coil. In a press release on that day, Bush reaffirmed his support for the death penalty, reasoning that it "ultimately it helps save innocent lives." I am now officially in the business of making arguments, and as arguments go, this one is phenomenally, monumentally, catastrophically, galactically flawed. Here's some news for you, when inmates are paroled, they're given a score based on their likelihood to reoffend. Your average rapist gets a high score if they're still in the "active age group" (between 25-45) because statistically speaking, they're probably going to do it again if they get the chance. (Incidentally, after 45 your standard rapist tends to loose interest, but a pedophile will keep on truckin') But by comparison, you average murderer gets a very low score. Why is this you ask? The reason is because most murderers are murderers because they killed someone they knew. They rarely repeat offend because the person who pissed them off is already dead. There are of course some people who kill strangers, but they are in the extreme minority and if we're dealing with statistics they don't skew the numbers very much. So given the choice between a low risk of somebody dying and an absolute certainty that someone will die, 38 out of 50 states in the U.S. choose the latter, because ultimately it helps save lives. You follow that? Me neither.
Stemming from this first argument and intimately connected with Herr Bush's down-home sense of fair play is the idea that the death penalty is a valid deterrent. Again, while we're critiquing arguments, this one stinks like a burning house made of dogshit and stuffed with dead chickens. Never, in the history of all things ever, has anyone seriously thought to themselves, "I'm gonna kill that fucker...oh no, wait a minute, we have the death penalty in this state, damn." Not only is this straight-up not true, but the trend suggests the opposite. Curiously, death penalty states have higher murder rates than non-death penalty states, and that is not just within the U.S. When the U.S. is compared to other countries that don't even entertain the death penalty, it starts to become obvious how ridiculous the argument for it is.
There are two other common arguments that the pro-death penalty crowd like to throw around, and I will now lay them bare in all their mindlessness. The first is the ubiquitous "if [the victim] was in my family, I'd want the guy to fry too." Pfarrad was confronted with this inspired piece of logic and I'm assuming he feels the same way about it I do. Just what the fuck are you proposing? That society should make its most important decisions by imagining what it would do in a blind emotional rage? Yeah, let's go with that, sounds good. By extension we should draft traffic ordinances by imagining what we'd want them to be if we were driving drunk. The whole point of a "civilized" society is that decisions about justice and equity are delegated to the collective with the idea that cooler heads will prevail. If we have the luxury of making a rational decision based not only on "morality" but upon economics, statistics, precedent and reason, why then would we choose to abandon all of these and pick what we think we'd want if were grieving and incoherent?
Finally, there are those among us who continue to think that the death penalty is somehow a cheaper alternative to life in prison, as I believe Pfarrad already pointed out, this is a patently false. It is far more expensive to execute someone than to keep them in prison for life because of the enormous cost of the appeals process. But then, I guess the same crowd would argue that we should ditch that, I mean if they're not guilty, why are they in prison...
The Executioner Sings
So, I’m sitting at this round table eating crab with chopsticks, waiting for the rice to arrive and the other ‘native English speakers’ are all talking about how if it happened to someone in their family, they’d want the guy to fry too. Yet most executions in the U.S. are carried out via lethal injection (apart from in Nebraska where they still favour ‘the chair’). I think we got onto the topic because I was ‘putting out feelers’ on their political persuasions and dropped in a tid-bit about China’s favoured method of executing their citizens, executions sometimes carried out in the public square. Our Chinese assistant remained mute throughout our debate maybe out of a fear of criticising the government, maybe though because she agreed with the political line on serious crimes, or maybe simply because the topic of death was considered to be taboo in Chinese society. I mean, the number 4 is considered extremely bad luck because when written, it resembles the Chinese word for death and in a predominantly atheist country where the afterlife is simply not an option I can understand the mortifying terror that talk of death induces.
So there I was, sitting with my fellow ‘high-income, pro-democratic-process country’ compatriots (one American, two Aussies and a Northern-Irelander) feeling alienated, any residue of camaraderie between us due to our common ‘background’ and our correspondingly common vision of a perfect society painfully exposed as misplaced, ill-founded and simply untrue. I knew that 70% of British people supported capital punishment but I for some reason did not. Maybe I had ‘gone European’ after spending years on the continent but then again, I too had been brought up in the U.K. so maybe this wasn’t about cultural background. I hurled my best arguments against capital punishment out onto the rice laden table, waving my chopsticks indignantly at their abrupt dismissal of anything I had to offer, their closed-mindedness like a wall off which my persuasive arguments bounced and fell limply to the floor flapping there like suffocating fish. So I put myself in their ‘hypothetical’ situation to try and understand how such vicious, compassionless attitudes could possibly be defended by seemingly intelligent, ‘civilised’ men (one of them was a Doctor, originally from India, another was a Masters student, the others also university educated).
So my mother is raped, garrotted, drawn, quartered and then eaten by a vicious subhuman ‘criminal’ who is sent to prison but after 15 years is released on good behaviour. What would you do to the culprit?
Interesting quandary. Well, the conviction would have been ‘closure’ enough for me and I would hope that while in prison the ‘homicidal maniac’ would reflect on his actions and hopefully in some meaningful sense come to realise his wrongdoing after which he would repent and spend the rest of his life being tortured by his own conscience, being furthermore a pariah from society unable to ever have a real job, always a suspect, plagued by thoughts of his hideous crime. If this did not happen and he (or she – you never know with women these days – ) did not repent then I would try at least to forgive him and try to understand how our paradisial, hedonistic, fun-loving consumer society could lead someone to commit such hideous crimes. This is not to say that the murderer is a victim – everyone should be responsible for their own actions – but I see a society built on contrition and forgiveness as more utopian than a society built on revenge and hatred which demonises its murderers instead of trying to understand them in order to prevent such events happening again.
Wait, I hear you say, the best way to prevent people from murdering is to provide them with a real deterrent: well, if that was the case then when Canada abolished the death penalty there should have been a marked increase in the number of murders occurring there: there wasn’t. Nor was there in the U.K. when the death penalty was abolished there (incidentally, the last person to be ‘hanged’ in the U.K. was disabled and has since been absolved of the murder to which he was ‘accomplice’).
Which brings us to the U.S. After the milestone 1000th execution in America (over 150 of which occurred in Texas during George W’s term as governor there) last month since the reintroduction of the death penalty questions were again raised about the ‘effectiveness’ of capital punishment. Furthermore it costs more to execute a criminal than to keep him in jail his whole life so the ‘expediency’ argument is out the window. Moreover, 80% of all those executed were black. To all you racists out there this no doubt proves that blacks are sub-human which therefore, paradoxically, justifies further extermination of this bestial race.
Which brings us to the convicted murderer Stanley ‘Tookie’ Williams. If only he had been convicted in one of those 12 states where the death penalty is outlawed then he would still be with us. Of course being nominated for both the literature and peace Nobel Prizes shouldn’t get you off the hook, but 6 years in solitary confinement is surely suffering enough on top of all those years incarcerated. I mean it’s not like in China where the legal process is far swifter. In America the ‘suffering’ of the ‘victim’ is prolonged needlessly for a quarter of a century. In China at least they give you a bullet in the neck and it’s over instantly but in California it takes at least 10 minutes for the heart attack to be induced ‘by lethal injection.’ To me the guillotine seems to be one of the best methods of disposing of the dregs of society and it’s what the Enlightenment was built on so you can’t argue with that. I’m sure if you feel a burning rage deep down in your soul which can only be assuaged by the blood of another then you will at least agree that this blood should be let swiftly and relatively painlessly.
The Chinese though had no Enlightenment and also have no religion so there is therefore no moral law forbidding the death penalty which helps to explain why 90% of all executions in the world take place in China (but then again, one fifth of the world’s population is Chinese). America however is a supposedly Christian country founded on high ideals and the morality of the Holy Book. Or maybe not. ‘In God we trust’ obviously does not mean ‘we trust in God’ as this would mean that surely only God can give life and take it away, or maybe I misread the Decalogue. Or is there a parentheses after ‘Thou shalt not kill’ which states ‘except in the following cases…’? How can the U.S.A. be a bastion of Freedom, if the most basic human right – the right to live – can be taken away? Maybe this is all about interpretation: I obviously misread the 8th amendment or maybe I simply don’t have a good enough ‘handle’ on American history and the way of life there to criticise this aspect of it so vociferously.
Well, no doubt I am in the minority on this issue (65% of Americans support the death penalty so the executions are not ‘undemocratic’ at least) and I’m all argued out so enough of these idle words, an end to this rant.
Power surge, lights dimming momentarily. Blackout.
Too many blogs spoil the broth?
Noun
blog (plural blogs)
- Personal or corporate website in which the author writes, as their reflexion on a given subject evolves, their opinions, impressions, etc., so as to make them public and receive reactions and comments about them.
So there it is, even though my spell check objects vociferously by placing a wiggly red-line under the apparent abomination, it is confirmed: the word ‘blog’ is now officially a part of the English language. The abbreviated form of ‘weblog’ has given its name to this website and in a self-reflexive way I intend to hold up a mirror to all you bloggers out there and show you the black-heads under the make-up, the circuits behind the circuit-board, the blog-consciousness that lies beneath.
One might say that our desire to comment on a rapidly changing televisualnetscaped world has found its vent in the blogosphere. One might also say that we few, we happy few, we band of bloggers, have accumulated our musings here like the scum on a sewage worker’s bath tub after a particularly dirty day down the drains. Yes, maybe that is all we have done. Yes, maybe we are the pigs, maybe we are the swine. We are all typing away at our little masterpieces in our cosy swivel chairs feeling smug about our ability to join our words together into nice neat witty rows of sense, our pearled blogs of wisdom shining out at fellow bloggers, reinforcing our sense of self, bolstering our flagging egos, yes! With the mere insertion of a couple of long words we can conceal our dilletantism and with that too can call ourselves ‘journalists,’ ‘social commentators,’ or ‘intelligentsia.’
One might well say a lot of things given the time, the freedom and the creativity, one might even end a sentence with the word ‘yes’ if one were so inclined but all of the above things were blogged by a sceptical blogger blogging away alone in the privacy of his own fourteenth century chateau replete with wine cellar, avocado orchard, Yorkshire terrier, snake pit, delivery room (including operating table and stirrups) and fitted kitchen amongst fine red-soiled fields about 30km west (as the crow flies) of Orange in the South of France overlooking a wilting patch of sunflowers at the bottom of which sits a hunchbacked old man sharpening his scythe, a bestubbled, half-blind fellow who lost both his children in a fire and who is rumoured to have the ability to foresee the future, his name muttered in hushed tones by the locals in the village café alongside an ominous portent about the ‘ides of March’ or whether the rains will come early next spring.
I hope I have made my point. The point, dear reader, is that these blogs are anonymous and so you can blog along without shame, without identity: enjoy the freedom of (relative) anonymity but remember, nobody really cares about you, the blogger, (aside from a select few of dedicated friends and ‘mitbloggers’ – by the way the German word for ‘blog’ is, get this, ‘blog’) they rather care about the content of your blog so do not aim to disappoint. As for myself, I can only apologise for wasting your time like this, blogging away like there’s no tomorrow but now you know: blog is officially a word, both a noun and verb, just please somebody, for the love of Blog tell me, what is the third form of the verb ‘to blog’? I have blogged? What about passive? ‘A blog is written’? or ‘a blog is blogged’? What about ‘a blog is blogged by a blogger?’ My brain hurts: probably something to do with looking at my low-definition computer screen, oh roll on the plasma revolution (so long as no-one gets hurt and the technology is free for all)!
I am gradually running out of steam. One might even say I am ‘blogged out’ if one were so inclined. So I’ll leave you with a few more Shakespeare quotes (updated for the new twenty-first century blogging bard):
Once more into the blog dear friends!
My blog, my blog, my kingdom for a blog!
Friends, bloggers, countrymen, lend me your internet cable
To blog or not to blog, that is the question, whether tis nobler on the net to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous power surges or to take up arms against a sea of bloggers and in opposing, blog them.
Et tu Bloge?
Pardon the Interruption
Sorry to break the radio silence we've all been enjoying so much here at the Stusie, but I've got five minutes to spare so I figured I'd rap at ya. New developments include two new bloggers from whom we expect big things. Kajenje Ubije has already popped her Stusie cherry and came out swinging with a bunch of rich-girl tripe. Is it just me or are Hummers starting to look more and more like Jeeps with thyroid problems? For the edification of all: Kajenje Ubije does mean "smoking kills" in Slovenian, but in an ironic twist, appears to mean "regretting kills" in Serbian.
Also brand spankin' new to the Stusie is Pfarrad, who sports a
wiki page as well as the world's finest "dance edition"
Fiat Panda. There is apparently a brand new Panda available after a 2 year production hiatus. This was news to me, since none of you Euro-types give a damn about keeping me up to date on the latest offerings from Italy's struggling auto giant.
Finally, as I'm sure everyone has already heard,
a sparrow was killed in die Niederlände for almost knocking over some dominoes. Now as it turns out, it was quite a fuckin' few dominoes, but all the same, I mean, fair play, he almost knocked them. It seems to me that preemption is being applied all across the board these days. Give a sparrow a break, he might've missed 'em. Every cloud has a silver lining however, and by "cloud" I mean "sparrow story" and by "silver lining" I of course mean "ending involving a museum." Everyone can sleep a little sounder tonight knowing that the sparrow in question, (apparently an endangered species) will be displayed at Rotterdam's Natural History Museum.
Der Krampus kämt!!
The time is 18 Uhr and its the fourth day of Advent. The Krampuslauf is a tradition that goes back centuries, but that has only in recent decades enjoyed a resurgence in popularity. The roots of the Krampus can be found in the tradition of St. Nikolaus. Nikolaus' tradition has also been modified by American Christmas tradition into the übergewichtig, red-suit wearing, slave-elf-driving Weihnachtsmann, or Santa Claus. As with most things, we Americans have managed to pervert the hell out of something.
Anyway, St. Nikolaus is the traditional giver of gifts, and is always accompanied by a sort of train of servants. Among those are angels on the side of god, and Knecht Ruprecht on the side of Lucifer/Beelzebub/Satan/der Teufel. In a way the angels and Ruprecht are meant to symbolize the dichotomy of good and evil.
This tradition in Austria has evolved into a sort of early Advent parade where Nikolaus and his comrades first go to all of the villages' houses. While most European countries have depicted Knecht Ruprecht as a diminutive character with a black face from slaving away in the chimney (maybe loosely connected to our elves), the Austrians have decided that the representation of evil should be a bit more convincing. You see, the idea is that the little kidlets will be much more apt to behave properly if you threaten them with something a bit more frightening than a skinny chap covered in soot. The result is the mighty Krampus, who looks more like a hobgoblin or demigod or demon than a servant. So these much larger, scarier, hairier beasts go from house to house to give ill-behaved children heart palpatations at a very young age. The funny part is, grateful for keeping their little devils in order, the parents of these children award the Krampusse with a shot or three of delicious Birnenbrand or Zirbenschnapps. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that these alcohol-hungry, pubescent males cram as many houses and shots into one evening as humanly possible. As you may already have surmised, this method is a lot more effective than the American 'threat' of coal (which as you can see also comes from the Knecht Ruprecht tradition).
After doing their deed at individual houses, there is then a Krampusspiel, where Nikolaus talks about the importance of being a subserviant and god-fearing child. Then the Krampusse come out again and talk all about how they will decapitate, dismember, disembowel any child that so much as utters a discernable whine or complaint (actually they all have whips made of horse hair or small but painful twigs and they leave cute little purple welts on the kiddies tiny underdeveloped extremities). So after that, they go out into the crowd and whip people indiscriminately, young and old, because they've all been drinking heinous amounts of Schnaps before the festivities and somehow feel obligated as giant, hideous, warty beasts to release some pubescent angst on their parents. The Krampusse are accompanied this time by parade floats from hell: old-timer tractors pulling carts of fire-breathers and cauldrons of hellfire. Bells are ringing, and we here the snapping mouth of the Hobagoaß (see photo rechts). It's almost comical how this event is actually connected to Catholocism, because to me its pretty much the picture of Paganism.
So but while all this is happening I am reminded of the analogy of high school in America: you arrive as a 9th grader, young, inexperienced, and a bit intimidated. The seniors greet you at the door with malevolent anticipating smirks on their faces. They know how things transpire: after years of waiting and enduring the same sort of pain and punishment, it's their turn to denigrate and maltreat the young freshman. Much like the seniors, Austrian adults who have suffered under the hand of the Krampus zealously bring their children to the Lauf, knowing that this little bit of suffering is worth two years of reprimanding and 'corner-time'. It's all part of the beautiful Christmas tradition in Austria. Now let's all go to Vienna and spend all our money, because without our insatiable appetite for consumer goods, everything would promptly come tumbling down.
Red Square?
Some people are never happy. I wasn't really aware of this, but apparently there's an ideologically fueled international argument about the Red Cross. If you had asked me, I would have had a tough time to come up with a less controversial organization. The problem, as it turns out, is not the organization itself, which everybody seems to think is A-OK, but rather its symbol. That's right folks, the cross is deemed inappropriate in certain areas of the world, and so the Red Cross also operates under the "red crescent." Israel however, well known for it's easy-going, "no problem mon" attitude, has long had a problem with both the cross AND the crescent, and so the Magen David Adom Society uses the red star of David. This has never been officially recognized by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and so the Israeli society is still not a full member of the Red Cross movement. Now, to finally put everything to rest, the ICRC is meeting to talk about instituting a third official symbol, the red crystal, a stupid hollow red square shape turned kinda sideways. Honestly, does this strike anybody else as lunacy? It's a fucking symbol. The idea is that it's recognizable, and so if you're working to scrape people off the ground, the fuckers who put them there will leave you alone.
And it's not even like the original red cross was supposed to be religious in the first place - it's the Swiss flag inverted, and it's supposed to be a symbol of neutrality. Dumbasses.
Tales of the Inexplicable
I can't decide if the media is just getting more desperate in their attempts to keep our minds off topics of substance, or if things really are getting stranger, or if I'm just loosing my grip on reality. I know for sure that I've used up all my eloquence for the immediate future on a persuasive brief that is now, thankfully, out of my hands. With that in mind, I'll let the evidence speak for itself by referring to the following stories:
- A 15-year-old kid in Nepal is being hailed as the buddha reincarnate what with his not
having eaten anything in 6 months. He's been meditating under a tree, and he's not eating or drinking, although he has been bitten by a couple snakes. I once skipped dinner entirely, but I don't see anyone knocking down my door for a blessing. - In far eastern Russia,
squirrels are apparently so hungry they've started eating dogs. Now, I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure that people in China have been eating dogs for quite a while, and they don't seem to mind, plus, dog's gotta be better than nuts, so I don't see the problem here. If I was a squirrel, I'd have switched to dog on principal, so it's probably not fair to assume they're starving. We can now add squirrels to the "killer" list that includes bees, whales, birds, spiders, apes, clowns, robots, aliens, dolls, tomatoes and 50-foot women. Steven King is stoked.
- Dubai, in the UAE, has decided that what they really need is a ski resort, so they've built a
giant refrigerated building with a slope inside where people can get their ski on. I don't want to be the voice of dissent, especially when skiing is involved, but given that an indoor ski hill is likely to be totally shit, it seems like they could've used the money for something else.
- India, not to be outdone by Nepal's prepubesent buddha/hungry kid have a couple of underage celebrities of its own:
- There's a 5 year old policeman, forced to carry on the work of his father despite the fact that his main concern should be not going poopy on the floor.
- Then, and I'm not making this up, there's a 3 year old marathon runner who runs distances of over 30 miles on a regular basis and has a trainer and has been in
commercials and everything. Makes me feel pretty damn lazy, but then again I suppose the same charge could be leveled at Herr Buddha (above) since he's so apathetic he doesn't even eat. Officials are worried that the toddler/long distance runner kid is being exploited and that his antics might be bad for him. Hmm, I don't know about that, Indian Officials! I mean, if it was bad for him, why would he do it? I think decisions like this are best left to the individual infant, don't you?
