June 04, 2003
JOKES. VERY OLD. REVISITED
Q: How do you confuse a blonde?
A: Tell her that the same people who predicted hundreds of thousands of casualties and a massive refugee crisis are now condemning US intelligence for supplying inaccurate information about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
Yo mamma's so fat that when she sits around the house, she crushes dissent against the war on terrorism.
Q: How many New York Times writers does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: Ten. Nine to change the bulb, and one to claim the byline.
You might be a redneck if ... that area of your neck below the hairline has been exposed to sunlight as you’ve attempted to collect copies of Stupid White Men lying discarded in the street.
Q: Did you hear the one about the United Nations taking action against Robert Mugabe’s systematic destruction of his country?
A: Me neither.
Three human shields walk into a bar. And stay there until the war in Iraq is over.
Q: Why did the chicken cross the road?
A: To wave its anti-war banner in front of television cameras.
UPDATE. Dan Meijer, a note from whom inspired these gaglets, gets his evil views published in the SMH:
Posted by Tim Blair at June 4, 2003 03:37 AMJeremy Gilling (Letters, June 3) wrote that the Government "should be required to admit that the ... protesters were right and they were wrong".
Would they be the protesters whose intelligence told us there would be a long protracted war, with tens of thousands of casualties on both sides, bloody street battles, and so on? No intelligence is perfect, neither the Government's nor its opponents'.
Knock knock
Who's there?
BUSH STOLE THE ELECTION!!!
Knock knock.
Who's there?
BUSH STOLE THE ELECTION!!!
Re: light bulb changing at the NY Times,
-- If we are seaking of Rick Bragg, wouldn't it be the byeline?
-- Or if we are talking about paid stringers, wouldn't it be the buyline?
As for the Knock Knock Knock Knock joke, it sounded so nice he posted it twice. Or like Beetlejuice in reference to The Exorcist, I've heard heard it 479 times and it just keeps getting funnier every time!
Posted by: charles austin at June 4, 2003 at 05:11 AMQ: How many dead Iraqi's are there in the multiple mass graves found since the war?
A: All of them.
Q: Did you hear about the polish Democrat in Congress that wanted to give "tax cuts" to people who don't pay any income tax?
A: No, but isn't that true of all of the Democrats in Congress?
How did Eric Rudolph survive on squirel meat while hiding in the NC mountains all this time? He would lie on the ground and act like a nut.
Frog: Princess, kiss me and I will turn into a handsome, unbathed Prince.
Princess: How do I know you are telling me the truth.
Frog: (Little Frog arms in the air) I GIVE UP!
A cowboy, a jew, and a muslim find a genie in a bottle. The genie informs them that for freeing him from his prison, they will each be granted one wish.
The jew goes first and says, "I wish that the land of Israel were surrounded by a wall 100 feet high and 100 feet thick of solid steel, so that the terrorists can never enter and my people can live in peace."
The genie snaps his fingers, and a wall shoots up around Israel.
The muslim goes next, and he says "I wish those damned jews were cast out, and that my Palestinian brothers were returned to our home in Israel, which will be forever known as Palestine!"
The genie snaps his fingers, and the jew and the muslim disappear.
So the cowboy looks at the genie and asks, "Let me get this straight. Theres a wall around Israel, 100 feet high and 100 feet wide. All the jews have been kicked out, and now its filled with Palestinians?"
The genie says, "That is correct. Now make your wish!"
The cowboy looks at the genie for a long moment, and then says, "Fill it with water."
Posted by: Collins at June 4, 2003 at 05:52 AMKnock Knock Knock!
I know who's there ... Robert Byrd.
Q. How many Palestinians does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A. KILL THE JEWS!!!
Knock knock.
Who's there?
John Ashcroft.
Liar. If you were Ashcroft, you wouldn't have knocked first.
On a deserted island, the following people are stranded:
Two Italian men and an Italian woman.
Two French men and a French woman.
Two German men and a German woman.
Two Greek men and a Greek woman.
Two English men and an English woman.
Two Bulgarian men and a Bulgarian woman.
Two Japanese men and a Japanese woman.
Two Chinese men and a Chinese woman.
Two Australian men and an Australian woman.
Two American men and an American woman.
Two Scotsmen and a Scots woman.
A month later:
One Italian man has killed the other Italian man for the Italian woman.
The two French men and the French woman are living happily together in menage-a-trois.
The two German men have a strict weekly schedule of alternating visits with the German woman.
The two Greek men are sleeping with each other and the Greek woman is cleaning and cooking for them.
The two English men are waiting for someone to introduce them to the English woman.
The two Bulgarian men have taken one look at the endless ocean and another at the Bulgarian woman and started swimming.
The two Japanese have faxed Tokyo and are awaiting instructions.
The two Chinese men have set up a pharmacy/liquor store/restaurant/laundry, and have got the woman pregnant in order to supply employees for their store.
The two Australia men are surfing and the Australian woman is sitting on the beach cheering them.
The two American men are contemplating suicide, because the American woman keeps on complaining about her body, the true nature of feminism, how she can do everything they can do, the necessity of fulfilment, the equal division of household chores, how sand and palm trees make her look fat, how her last boyfriend respected her opinion and treated her nicer than they do and how her relationship with her mother is improving.
Meanwhile, the two Scotsmen have set up a distillery. They don’t remember if sex is in the picture because it gets sort of foggy after the first few litres of coconut whisky. But they're satisfied because at least the English aren't having any fun.
Posted by: ilibcc at June 4, 2003 at 06:10 PMQ: Did you hear the one about the United Nations taking action against Robert Mugabe?s systematic destruction of his country?
A: Me neither.
Good thing the United States, UK and Australia are so committed to human rights we're about to charge in there now, guns ablaze.
Posted by: mark at June 5, 2003 at 12:10 AMKnock knock!
Who's there?
Richard Milhaus
Richard Milhaus Who?
You mean, you've forgotten already?
Posted by: Eye Opener at June 5, 2003 at 01:03 AMSo'm I, Tim, believe it or not. But let's see the COW put its money where its mouth is, and campaign for human rights in places -- yes, I'm really going to say it -- that *aren't* famous for their oil before we start getting too smug and self-righteous, eh?
Posted by: mark at June 5, 2003 at 01:25 AMEverybody is eagerly awaiting details contained in the new book "authored" by Hillary Clinton. Even Hillary looks forward to seeing what it has to say.
Posted by: Greg at June 5, 2003 at 01:25 AMMark,
John Howard has led international condemnation of Mugabe. What has the UN done? Voted to ignore him, essentially.
Posted by: tim at June 5, 2003 at 01:47 AMSaddam Husseins Doctor arranges a meeting of all the Saddam look alikes.
He says, I have some good news and some bad news.
The good news is Saddam is still alive.
The bad news is he's lost an arm.
Posted by: Jonny at June 5, 2003 at 04:58 AMSo he's called him a bad man, Tim? I seem to recall a number of non-COW members doing the same thing, and getting roundly abused because they still weren't supporting military intervention.
Posted by: mark at June 5, 2003 at 11:26 AMMark,
"...campaign for human rights in places -- yes, I'm really going to say it -- that *aren't* famous for their oil before we start getting too smug and self-righteous, eh?"
Well, for starters for the US, Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, Haiti (didn't work, never rely on a Marxist to observe human rights), and going further back in time Nicaragua, Panama, Grenada, Afghanistan when the USSR was murdering thousands there while trying to conquer the country, and...you get the message. By and large Australia has done good for the world as well when it has participated in interventions or wars. Having much less power than the US, Australia must be even more judicious about where and when to commit itself.
The enemies of the US in the last century have been, great (e.g. Nazi Germany) and small (Ba'athist Iraq), among the worst tyrannies in history, including the very worst. Not even the US has the power to put everything to rights, one reason there is not now an attack being made on Myanmar, which keeps a low profile and does not threaten anybody outside its own borders. We must evaluate where we intervene according to what security threats we perceive, and what our capabilities are, and whether or not we feel free to do a little pro bono intervention, as in Somalia, Bosnia, and Kosovo.
Posted by: Michael Lonie at June 5, 2003 at 01:36 PMd, quite.
Michael, sorry: I wasn't clear. I meant the Bush government, the Blair government, the Howard government, not just the histories of the respecive countries. The warbloggers and the right-wing columnists have been screaming about how pro-human rights Bush is compared to Clinton, completely unlike those damn Saddam-supporting lefties.
But without that unfortunately left-out qualification of mine, yes, I totally agree. But I hope we aren't about to start thinking the US hasn't done it's share of Bad Acts, like...
"The enemies of the US in the last century have been, great (e.g. Nazi Germany) and small (Ba'athist Iraq), among the worst tyrannies in history, including the very worst."
And of course there's that damn Chilean democracy they decided they didn't like much back in the 70s.
Posted by: mark at June 5, 2003 at 02:34 PMInteresting point, but I think you're setting up a false choice here. I'd love to see someone stick it to Mugabe, but not every situation is properly addressed by immediately charging in with guns ablaze.
In Iraq, the hideous nature of the Hussein regime, PLUS the unknown spectre of WMD, PLUS the regime's support for terrorism, PLUS the US interest in not allowing Iraq to become a weapons breadbasket to further poison the region, PLUS the UN's farcical inability to move against Hussein, gave the war effort an impetus that Mugabe doesn't quite provide. Not yet, anyway.
Besides, I'd like to see the US concentrate on rehabbing Afghanistan and Iraq before we overextend our forces on another fight. It would truly suck to have to go back in ten years and do all this again.
Posted by: Ofc. Krupke at June 7, 2003 at 12:55 AMHow many reporters does it take to screw in a light bulb.
Just Robert Fisk. He stands there holding the bulb and the whole world turns around him.
Hey mark, how long do you think it would take before the lefties started carping about the evils of colonialism in Africa, were the US/UK to go in and bust up Mugabe's government? Five seconds? Ten?
Posted by: the beast that shouted "ugh" at the heart of the world at June 7, 2003 at 01:35 AMWhat's the difference between a cup of yogurt and an American?
A. After 100 years, the cup of yogurt grows culture.
Posted by: Edwina at June 7, 2003 at 03:09 AMYes, too bad we can't be more like "Mold Europe". Heh, heh.
Ow! Who threw that?!?
Posted by: Ofc. Krupke at June 7, 2003 at 09:35 PMbeast, that depends. Is Zimbabwe of any value to the US?
There are people who will carp anyway. Now, before you start chanting "yay, one of us!" and agreeing about how evil anti-Americanism in, hear the rest of it. Some people honestly believe that, as Krupke puts it, "not every situation is properly addressed by immediately charging in with guns ablaze", and that Zimbabwe -- and, indeed, Iraq and North Korea and Afghanistan -- is not one of those situatinos. Some honestly believe we should concentrate on doing one thing well, rather than severaly things poorly (as those who said "concentrate on Afghanistan before Iraq" do). Some honestly believe that, in the interests of lasting peace, military action, where sadly necessary, should only take place when consisting of a broad international alliance (more like the UN than the Axis, so no, a tiny -- but violent -- COW doesn't count). Some honestly believe that all war is wrong, and that idiotic cowboys like Dubya shouldn't be pushing it as a panacea when it just plain doesn't work.
I *respect* such people, even though I may disagree with some points. Most of the pro-war crowd in evidence in the 'blogging world (also known as "those fucking brain-dead warbloggers") *don't* respect them.
Now, these people will whinge every time the US -- or the COW -- invades another country and so violates "international law". There's nothing you can do about it. If you insist on a certain course of action, these people -- and of course the anti-Americans -- will bitch. But there's others.
Those who think it's very convenient that a plausible link between America's involvement and the profit margin of American companies linked to this Administration exists in both cases where America has invaded another country. Those who wonder at the curious lack of consistency between America's dealings with Zimbabwe (also known as the "three blind monkeys" routine) and its dealings with Iraq (the "vengeance" thing). Those who agree that the humanitarian reasons to invade Iraq were sufficient, but want to know why similar problems aren't sufficient to invade other countries. Want to shut them up?
Posted by: mark at June 9, 2003 at 10:06 PMWhat profit motive was there in Afghanistan again? I remember hearing some vague rumblings about a planned pipeline, but like much conspiracy-mongering, it has since been quietly discarded in favor of pointing out how the US (and the UK, and France, and Germany, and the UN, and Bill Clinton) totally framed poor innocent Saddam, who never had any WMDs at all. Seriously.
As for Iraq, well, if Bush were really going to launch a war for cockamamie profit reasons, he would have gone after Saudi Arabia. Economists estimate that it would take ten years and a hundred billion dollars to get Iraq's daily oil output to half of Saudi Arabia's. And almost all the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi, right?
Anyway, I remain unconvinced that because you can't right all the wrongs in the world, you shouldn't right any. If Zimbabwe shows up in a higher profile on the national security threat radar, there might be strikes in the offing, but, really, it's going to have to take a number and wait in line behind North Korea. Could be a long summer.
Posted by: Ofc. Krupke at June 10, 2003 at 10:19 AMQ.What do anti-war protestors look like when they're admitting they were wrong about how the war would kill millions of innocent children or devastate the country or etc.?
A. Nobody knows.