Watch as he blindsides an (the?) unsuspecting representative of the District of Columbia. It's brutal but I love it.
If you want to know how much I like it, notice that this is the first link on this blog I have intentionally left the target=_blank tag off of. I like Stephen Colbert so much that I let him steal my window.
How Many Writers Does it Take to Screw Up a Blog?
I realize that last post was pretty word and serious. So I'm going to atone for that by posting some "light bulb" jokes. Most of the good ones come from here.
Q: How many software people does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: None. That's a hardware problem.
Q: How many hardware folks does it take to change a light bulb?
A: None. That's a software problem.
Q: How many Marxists does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: None: The light bulb contains the seeds of its own revolution.
Q: How many Russian leaders does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Nobody knows. Russian leaders don't last as long as light bulbs.
Q: How many nuclear engineers does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Seven. One to install the new bulb and six to figure out what to do with the old one for the next 10,000 years.
Q: How many Christians does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Three, but they're really only one.
Q: How many Zen masters does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: A tree in a golden forest.
Q: How many people from New Jersey does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Three. One to change the light bulb, one to be a witness, and the third to shoot the witness.
Q: How many Irishmen does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: 5. One to hold the bulb and the other 4 to drink until the room spins around.
Q: How many authors of the Warren Report does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Just one. Definitely only one. For sure. No doubt. So seriously, please stop asking questions.
And a couple that relate specifically to me:
Q: How many Polish people does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Not many, I'm sure, seeing as the Polish are a very intelligent people (please don't break up with me).
Q: How many theology majors does it take to change a light bulb?
A: No one knows. Our house is chock-full of them and that bulb is still out.
Q: How many software people does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: None. That's a hardware problem.
Q: How many hardware folks does it take to change a light bulb?
A: None. That's a software problem.
Q: How many Marxists does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: None: The light bulb contains the seeds of its own revolution.
Q: How many Russian leaders does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Nobody knows. Russian leaders don't last as long as light bulbs.
Q: How many nuclear engineers does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Seven. One to install the new bulb and six to figure out what to do with the old one for the next 10,000 years.
Q: How many Christians does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Three, but they're really only one.
Q: How many Zen masters does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: A tree in a golden forest.
Q: How many people from New Jersey does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Three. One to change the light bulb, one to be a witness, and the third to shoot the witness.
Q: How many Irishmen does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: 5. One to hold the bulb and the other 4 to drink until the room spins around.
Q: How many authors of the Warren Report does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Just one. Definitely only one. For sure. No doubt. So seriously, please stop asking questions.
And a couple that relate specifically to me:
Q: How many Polish people does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Not many, I'm sure, seeing as the Polish are a very intelligent people (please don't break up with me).
Q: How many theology majors does it take to change a light bulb?
A: No one knows. Our house is chock-full of them and that bulb is still out.
Who-Given Rights?
I was listening to a podcast of Penn Jillette's radio show from a few days ago today and it sparked some thoughts.
Penn announced that last night, he had seen Dennis Miller pronounce "Guantanamo Bay" as "Gitmo" and that Mr. Miller had sounded pretty cool saying it. Wanting to sound cool as well, Penn decided to talk about "Gitmo" on his show. But then he was disappointed to realize that he knows a lot about monkeys and juggling but not much at all about detention camps. So he did something I respect a lot–he admitted he had minimal knowledge of anything at all about the place. He just allowed his listeners to call in to express their knowledge and opinions about the place.
I'm not sure I have a very strong opinion about "Gitmo" except that the prisoners are still people and should be treated like people. Other than that, I just don't know enough to make any kind of judgement. So don't expect this post to express my opinion. It's just a thought that is running around in my head while I try to corner it. Pardon me if I go in circles at some points.
It seems strange to me that an early justification for the war in Iraq was that everyone in every nation has the God-given right to democracy and freedom. Because these rights are for all humanity, it was justifiable to stop people like Saddam Hussein who were denying people those rights.
But now we have these detainees (I'm not sure how many of them are from Iraq and how many from Afghanistan, but for the purpose of this post it doesn't matter). There are arguments about how we should deal with those people. Some argue that they aren't American citizens so the due process clause of the Constitution doesn't apply to them. Others say that they are not actually prisoners of war because they don't wear a uniform or fight for a regular army.
Here's where I have to make an assumption (God made three, but He's three Persons. I think one is fair for me.) I assume the the many of the same people are making both of those arguments. I don't think the opponents of the war are the ones clamoring to keep people locked up in Cuba.
So how does this work? Do human beings have God-given universal rights to freedom and democracy? If they do, how do we justify locking them up indefinitely without being at least allowed some kind of "innocent until proven guilty"?
Or are these Founding Father-given rights guaranteed only to the people under the jursidiction of the Constitution? If so, how does that justify starting a war to bring those non-existent rights to people who aren't affected by the Constitution?
I guess I have kind of an opinion on this. I think all humans have a God-given right to a just society and the best government possible. But I'm not sure that is necessarily American, First Amendment-type rights. It would be awfully hard to argue that every government before the Constitution was absolutely immoral.
Other than that, I'm more interested in hearing people discuss this than in proving myself right. I could be wrong. Let's hear from the people.
Penn announced that last night, he had seen Dennis Miller pronounce "Guantanamo Bay" as "Gitmo" and that Mr. Miller had sounded pretty cool saying it. Wanting to sound cool as well, Penn decided to talk about "Gitmo" on his show. But then he was disappointed to realize that he knows a lot about monkeys and juggling but not much at all about detention camps. So he did something I respect a lot–he admitted he had minimal knowledge of anything at all about the place. He just allowed his listeners to call in to express their knowledge and opinions about the place.
I'm not sure I have a very strong opinion about "Gitmo" except that the prisoners are still people and should be treated like people. Other than that, I just don't know enough to make any kind of judgement. So don't expect this post to express my opinion. It's just a thought that is running around in my head while I try to corner it. Pardon me if I go in circles at some points.
It seems strange to me that an early justification for the war in Iraq was that everyone in every nation has the God-given right to democracy and freedom. Because these rights are for all humanity, it was justifiable to stop people like Saddam Hussein who were denying people those rights.
But now we have these detainees (I'm not sure how many of them are from Iraq and how many from Afghanistan, but for the purpose of this post it doesn't matter). There are arguments about how we should deal with those people. Some argue that they aren't American citizens so the due process clause of the Constitution doesn't apply to them. Others say that they are not actually prisoners of war because they don't wear a uniform or fight for a regular army.
Here's where I have to make an assumption (God made three, but He's three Persons. I think one is fair for me.) I assume the the many of the same people are making both of those arguments. I don't think the opponents of the war are the ones clamoring to keep people locked up in Cuba.
So how does this work? Do human beings have God-given universal rights to freedom and democracy? If they do, how do we justify locking them up indefinitely without being at least allowed some kind of "innocent until proven guilty"?
Or are these Founding Father-given rights guaranteed only to the people under the jursidiction of the Constitution? If so, how does that justify starting a war to bring those non-existent rights to people who aren't affected by the Constitution?
I guess I have kind of an opinion on this. I think all humans have a God-given right to a just society and the best government possible. But I'm not sure that is necessarily American, First Amendment-type rights. It would be awfully hard to argue that every government before the Constitution was absolutely immoral.
Other than that, I'm more interested in hearing people discuss this than in proving myself right. I could be wrong. Let's hear from the people.
Coming Clean
Recently Oprah Winfrey went public and announced what she is not. She, much like Superman, is definitely for sure 100% not, NOT, NOT gay. Seeing as the popular thing now is to stand up for who you aren't, I will jump on the bandwagon.
I am not a homosexual, a bisexual, a pedagogue or a polyglot.
I am not Homer Simpson, Homer Slockenheimer or Winslow Homer.
I did not compose The Iliad.
I am not a believer in homoiousious.
I do not work for Homeland Security.
I don't even own a home.
And, finally, so all of you will stop asking: I am not Oprah Winfrey.
Oprah:
Me:
Any questions?
I am not a homosexual, a bisexual, a pedagogue or a polyglot.
I am not Homer Simpson, Homer Slockenheimer or Winslow Homer.
I did not compose The Iliad.
I am not a believer in homoiousious.
I do not work for Homeland Security.
I don't even own a home.
And, finally, so all of you will stop asking: I am not Oprah Winfrey.
Oprah:
Me:
Any questions?
