Mister Pterodactyl
Sunday, February 29, 2004
Random Musings...

Some time ago a Loyal Reader sent me an opinion piece claiming to have a foolproof way to predict the winner of the presidential election. To wit, the winner will be the candidate who people would like to party with. Bush over Gore, Clinton over Dole and Bush I, Bush I over Dukakis, Reagan over Mondale and Carter. It seems to make sense. Kind of breaks down when you get to Carter over Ford (IMO), but no system is ever perfect. So:

Bush would probably be fun to hang out with, though the word 'party' seems inappropriate. He'd make a much better drinking game (One sip of beer every time he makes reference to religion, one shot (your choice) every time he mispronounces a word, smash your glass over your head every time he says ‘activist judge,’ etc).
I'd definitely party with Lieberman (who I'm including only because of my widely publicized, ahem, support for his candidacy), but I'd do it on Friday night, so he'd leave at sundown.
I'd party with Edwards if he offered to pick up the check.
I wouldn't party with Kerry. No way. He's just too plastic, and I mean that literally. You sit down, you have a couple drinks and start to relax and THAT'S when he rips off the mask and reveals himself as the bug-eyed alien monster he really is. And it turns out the working title of his last book was 'How to Serve Humans.' Get it? Adkins diet? No problem. Eat all the tasty earthlings you want!

And what's with presidential candidates all having new (ghost-written) books out, anyway?

One more thing, unrelated. I just finished another book (!), 'The Case For Israel' by Alan Dershowitz. Pretty good, though it read a little like a series of op-ed pieces. Contained a lot of history that I didn't know about. I do wonder if the book was tilted; that is, 'the Israelis accepted the settlement/peace treaty/whatever but the Arabs rejected it on the grounds that a Jewish state would still exist,' over and over. However another source provides this: Asked about recent U.S. vows to maintain a hard line with North Korea, South Korean Unification Minister Jeong Se Hyun responded, "North Korea is a weak state. The U.S. is a superpower. So if the U.S. shows more flexibility, we'll have more possibility of resolving the nuclear issue during the coming talks."
Here's what occurs to me: the strong/rich/successful nation is responsible; the weak/poor/unsuccessful one is not. Think about that the next time you hear international criticism of the USA.

Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger