Sunday, February 12, 2006

Cheney Shoots Hunting Companion; Transcript Tells Real Story

News item:

Cheney Accidentally Shoots Fellow Hunter

WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney accidentally shot and wounded a companion during a weekend quail hunting trip in Texas, spraying the fellow hunter in the face and chest with shotgun pellets.

Harry Whittington, a millionaire attorney from Austin, was "alert and doing fine" in a Corpus Christi hospital Sunday after he was shot by Cheney on a ranch in south Texas, said Katharine Armstrong, the property's owner.


The shooting was first reported by the Corpus Christi Caller-Times. The vice president's office did not disclose the accident until the day after it happened.

As many of you know, I have a number of sources in this administration, including within the Secret Service. I just received this transcript of the conversation that occurred between Cheney and Whittington just before the "accidental" shooting took place:

Whittington: You know, Dick, I have to say I disagree with you on this NSA thing.

Cheney: I'm protecting you from terrorists, Harry.

Whittington: Yeah, but from what I've read, you haven't caught anyone because of this. Not a single person.

Cheney: Okay. That's--

Whittington: And it's operating beyond the law.

Cheney: You've had your say. Okay?

Whittington: Okay, but the damn thing is unconstitutional, Dick.

Cheney: Quail!


Whittington: (Grunting and moaning)

Cheney: Now, go fuck yourself, Harry... Get him the hell outta' here.


That Dick Cheney is angry and unhinged, isn't he?

Saturday, February 11, 2006

I support profiling and torture to protect Americans from threats

Yes, I know some of you are shocked to read that headline from me.

I can hear your responses now, as though I was sitting in a chair next to you while you stare, mouth agape, at your computer screen...

"Bob, what the fuck?! Have you lost your marbles?"

No, I have my marbles right here in my pocket where I always keep them. (And to answer those who are wondering, yes, my pants DO have pockets in them, and I AM, in fact, rolling my marbles around down there.)

Anyway, I've given this subject a lot of thought and I have decided that when it comes to serious threats to Americans, I am in favor of profiling and torture.

Now, bear with me for a moment as I align facts and figures to bolster my newly-held position...

According to this report more than 43,000 Americans were killed in 2003... by vehicles!

I had no idea vehicles were killing that many Americans every year! This is insanity! Why do vehicles hate us?

I realize, of course, that we can't round up every vehicle and send them all to Uzbekistan or Egypt or Libya for torture until they cough up blood details on how and why they are killing Americans, and their plans for killing more Americans in the future, but we CAN profile vehicles to find the most dangerous among them!

Yeah, yeah, I know, you namby-pamby, liberal hand-wringers will start shouting, "But, Bob, what about the civil rights of SUVs (or motorcycles or whatever)?" But I am saying that we know some of these vehicles are plotting to kill Americans as I write this and it is only reasonable and rational that we ferret out these threats using any means possible before they strike!

Or maybe you just don't care about America or your fellow citizens... Maybe you're just anti-American!

So let's start NOW with SUVs. Profile every single one of them. Yes, we have to give up a little of our freedom in these times to ensure our nation's safety and security. But that is a small price to pay.

Anyone who disagrees with me will have to counter this truth:

If we round up every SUV in the United States, and at least interrogate these SUVs, and, then, send the ones that may be plotting to kill innocent American men, women and children to secret jails in countries that permit torture, or to humane (and, yes, they ARE humane!) detention camps built by a division of Halliburton, the number of American killed by SUVs will decline, and, thus, we will have saved the lives of perhaps thousands of Americans! (Just like our esteemed Vice President, Dick Cheney, has said.)

So, go ahead, you liberal whiners, and name-call (as is your wont). Sure, I'm a "fascist" because I want to ferret out threats to Americans before they strike. I don't care anymore.

Next on my list is hot dogs, the most serious choking threat in America today. I have already detailed an algorithm for profiling the most threatening hotdogs. "Coney Island Foot Longs" top the list. Am I wrong to suggest that these threats to our safety and security be placed in boiling water until they reveal their nefarious plots?

What you label "fascism," I call "common sense."

Kiss my ass, liberals!

Monday, February 06, 2006

Once again, The Onion predicts the future (and other miscellania)

I was thumbing through the paper this morning when I came across a startling, full-page, 4-color ad for the Gillette Fusion five-bladed razor.

And I said to my wife, "Who the hell needs five blades?"

Well, we know who needs five blades, don't we? Gillette, of course! An eight-pack of five-bladed Fusion replacement cartridges will run you a steep $24.99 at

Meanwhile, my old Trac II shaves just fine with only two blades and I can snag a ten-pack of replacement cartridges for just $10.99.

En route to searching for a picture to post of this brilliant new technology that shaves you so close, you actually end up shaving the inside of your skin, I stumbled across an article from The Onion from nearly two years ago that predicted this exact product.

Once again, The Onion proves Nostradamus-like in its satire.

Here's a snippet. (Go read the entire piece. It's a hoot.)

Fuck Everything, We're Doing Five Blades

By James M. Kilts
CEO and President,
The Gillette Company

February 18, 2004

Would someone tell me how this happened? We were the fucking vanguard of shaving in this country. The Gillette Mach3 was the razor to own. Then the other guy came out with a three-blade razor. Were we scared? Hell, no. Because we hit back with a little thing called the Mach3Turbo. That's three blades and an aloe strip. For moisture. But you know what happened next? Shut up, I'm telling you what happened—the bastards went to four blades. Now we're standing around with our cocks in our hands, selling three blades and a strip. Moisture or no, suddenly we're the chumps. Well, fuck it. We're going to five blades.

Sure, we could go to four blades next, like the competition. That seems like the logical thing to do. After all, three worked out pretty well, and four is the next number after three. So let's play it safe. Let's make a thicker aloe strip and call it the Mach3SuperTurbo. Why innovate when we can follow? Oh, I know why: Because we're a business, that's why!

You think it's crazy? It is crazy. But I don't give a shit. From now on, we're the ones who have the edge in the multi-blade game. Are they the best a man can get? Fuck, no. Gillette is the best a man can get.

What part of this don't you understand? If two blades is good, and three blades is better, obviously five blades would make us the best fucking razor that ever existed. Comprende? We didn't claw our way to the top of the razor game by clinging to the two-blade industry standard. We got here by taking chances. Well, five blades is the biggest chance of all.

Wonderful, eh? And scary that the insanity of the real world eventually catches up to their satire. (And, yes, the famous headline and story after the first GW Bush coronation inauguration remains their most frighteningly accurate Nostradamus moment.)

A few pages further on in the paper, I found this startling piece of news:

Postage Is Due for Companies Sending E-Mail

Published: February 5, 2006

Companies will soon have to buy the electronic equivalent of a postage stamp if they want to be certain that their e-mail will be delivered to many of their customers.

America Online and Yahoo, two of the world's largest providers of e-mail accounts, are about to start using a system that gives preferential treatment to messages from companies that pay from 1/4 of a cent to a penny each to have them delivered. The senders must promise to contact only people who have agreed to receive their messages, or risk being blocked entirely.

The company providing these "tollbooth" services is Goodmail.

So, okay, I get mail in a Yahoo account from a few businesses I buy from on a regular basis, including specialty outfits like that sells cycling gear. These companies inform me of things like sales, travel bargains and other information I find useful. But as the article points out:

Matt Blumberg, the chief executive of Return Path, the New York company that runs Bonded Sender, said there was no need for the Goodmail price to be so high.

"From AOL's perspective, this is an opportunity to earn a significant amount of money from the sale of stamps," he said. "But it's bad for the industry and bad for consumers. A lot of e-mailers won't be able to afford it."

Will e-mailers who sell specialty items with smaller audiences be shut out of reaching their customers through AOL and Yahoo mail accounts because they won't be able to afford the fees? Quite possible.

But I was struck by the Goodmail's CEO use of "protecting consumers" as a justification for his company's service:

"The e-mail in-box is a potentially dangerous place," said Richard Gingras, the chief executive of Goodmail. "There is a tremendous need for a class of certified e-mail that can convey to consumers that a message is authentic."

Mr. Gingras argued that companies will be glad to pay the postage fee because their customers will have more trust in their e-mail and thus will buy more from them.

Yeah, right. Sound familiar? Reminded me of the scare tactics the Bushies employ to justify illegal spying and torture. "It's a dangerous world out there and we have to do these things to keep America safe."

Well, I call bullshit, Mr. Gingras.

As the article points out earlier:

But in recent years the volume of spam has leveled off, in part because of a new federal law that imposes penalties for many deceptive e-mail practices. Moreover, most major e-mail providers have built sophisticated filters that divert much of the spam. AOL says that spam complaints from its members are down 75 percent since their peak in 2003.

So why do they need this service, again?

Between a new five-bladed razor, and trumped up scare tactics designed to make AOL and Yahoo millions off of e-mail, I rated this a bad day for capitalism.

As I told my wife, some days I'm embarrassed to be in the marketing and advertising business.

She reminded me that it pays the bills.

Always the pragmatist.