Burning down the legislature building has worked well in the past. Blowing up railroads is good too.
What I think this country needs is more hookers and pizza!
Can you sing that to the tune of ‘It’s a small world’?
I don’t know about that, but I think we could maybe work it to the tune of “Oh What a Beautiful Morning”
We need more hookers and pizzaaaaa…
Who needs singing when you have hookers and pizza?
I’ll take a crack at it.
it’s a disk of sauce, a disk of cheese
its a lady of s&m, its a hell of a deal
for the asian male prostitute that we share
the oven time we’re aware
its a large pizza after all
CHORUS:
its a male transvestite after all
its a male transvestite after all
its a male transvestite after all
its a male transvestite after all
There is just slices and one hooker for everyone
And wet means anal to everyone.
Though the law derides
And the surprise package we find
its a male transvestite after all
Yes, I remember, as an atheist, feeling very loved and included by that display. No, wait, what are the words I’m looking for? Oh yeah, reviled and excluded. Warm and fuzzy, I tells ya.
And clearly this guy is all for a constant state of such “solidarity,” with the white, god fearing citizens of Rock Ridge, er, the US banding together in a cleansing hatred of everyone who disagrees with them, whether they be ragheads, hippies, or Satanists.
When Congress sang God Bless America I thought it was a cheap and sleazy stunt then and I still do today. If being united means that we need to be bigoted and kill innocent people and commit acts of torture and eliminate civil liberties, then I’ll gladly opt for remaining divided. What 9/11 should teach us is how dangerous patriotism is and how it can lead to nations becoming outlaw states.
I went home from school and was sick for the rest of the day during 9/11, and I flinched every time the P.A. system turned on afterwards. No warm fuzzies for me.
(Also, I got pissed that Bush forgot to mention Canada in his thank-you-for-helping-us speech afterwards–oh, whoops. But that’s besides the point.)
I remember wishing we could all have a voluntary blackout–note the emphasis–after the big August 2005 blackout on the East Coast, because I remember people going outside to watch the stars and block barbecues and street parties. That doesn’t mean I want an actual blackout to happen again, because hey, people’s lives were actually at risk in hospitals and the police were working overtime to make sure nobody was looted.
Same principle here, I imagine.
No. No, we didn’t feel like that. Everyone forgets 9/11 was the second attempt at the WTC.
And everyone forgets what happened after 9/11. Anthrax in the mail.
I remember the politicians singing. Every political event requires a Live Aid now. It was mildly embarassing, and I wished to hell they’d get to work instead.
Do you remember how you felt after 9/11, with anthrax everywhere? Do you remember people panicking about the mail? Do you remember looking at every van as you went over a bridge, wondering if it was going to go off next?
Sod your fuzzy feelings, Cap. You want it to happen again, you go blow something up.
Oh, yes. And the blackout. I was proud of the city that day. We helped each other… but that still meant I was directing traffic on the Boulevard of Death for a few hours.
Damn hamster ate my post.
Anyway…
Mr. Byofsky’s basic point is valid: a big new terrorist attack would refocus the country. However, it can’t be translated into a plan of action. If it did, it would be treason. As written, the idea comes across as a sadistic pipe dream for the sake of unity. That “unity” is rightly translated by critics to compliant masses ready to be exploited by our Fearless Leader.
Don’t bash Captain Amazing for not seeing the pro-Bush slant that the rest of you are inferring. Byofsky even says “Bush II did everything wrong.” Mr. Byofsky may think that way, but I can’t see it explicitly in that article. Either way, Stu doesn’t seem to see how easily exploitable such an event would be, just like the last attack.
All this is in addition to the fact that the global war on terrorism is intended to prevent such an attack. Why would anyone want to see an attack like that so the war can get back on track? It’s just stupid.
righteous rage? Isn’t that an oxymoron? When I think of rage, I think of blind fury that is beyond rational justification. When I think of righteousness - well, when I think of righteousness I think of bigotry, but I suppose the intent is to think of moral rationality. I don’t think rage can be rational.
BTW, I am one who never felt any of the warm fuzzies of 9/11. I was reading Noam Chomsky at the time (specifically, Rogue States: The Rule of Force in World Affairs), and the book was describing precisely why we were likely to be attacked (in fact, even saying that an attack on America was predicted by many scholars). My reaction was one of anger, frustration, and despondency. And when politicians used those raw emotions to encourage bloodlust in the name of unity, I was completely sickened. All those american flags reminded me of the jingoism of Nazi Germany, and the singing of God Bless America by the politicians was an embarassing spectacle. Pride was definitely not what I was feeling.
Eh. We get another 9/11 every year. Right after 9/10 and just before 9/12.
HeeehHeee! 
What this country needs is fewer people who say “What this country needs is…”
Well, Marley, there are two kinds of people. Those who divide people into two groups, and those who don’t. Which one are you?
Ah, but we don’t actually need a terrorist attack; we just need the appearance or “credible threat” of an threat. Paging David Mamet…paging David Mamet…
Stranger
I’m the kind that can’t add.
“That’s what Stu Bykofsky thinks:”
Hmmmm looks like he doesn’t think too much about anything at all.
They had to get Afghanistan out of the way. Iraq was always the neocon’s & Bush’s goal. They’ve never cared about Afghanistan, 9-11, or terrorism.
No, I felt disgusted. What I saw was shallow patriotism, indiscriminate bloodlust, and the Democrats caving in to every Republican demand. There was NEVER any “bipartisanship”. There was the cave ins and silence of the Democrats, and the Republicans relentlessly taking advantage of 9-11 to screw America and the world over.
As for fear, I was never afraid of terrorists, only of the Republicans.
I’m quite certain the Republican leadership DOES want another disaster like 9-11, preferable worse. If terrorists set off nukes in LA, San Francisco and New York they’d have a collective orgasm. Both over the Christian Corporate dictatorship they could set up in the resulting panic, and all the dead left wingers.