Category Archives: Satire

President Announces Controversial New Educational Initiative

LOS ANGELES (APUPI) June 20, 2004

Standing in front of the Los Angeles Times building on Spring Street and surrounded by aides, President Bush put forth a new and long-overdue proposal today, to the cheers of thousands of long-suffering readers of that paper, to start to repair the tragic situation with the American journalism system. He called it “No Reporter Left Behind.”

“For too many years have we seen the sad evidence accumulating that our nation’s media outlets and journalism schools simply aren’t achieving what they must for our nation to maintain its first-place ranking in freedom of speech and a properly informed public,” he declared. “Compared to journalists of a few decades ago, today’s reporters show an increasing inability to comprehend simple English or basic statistics, to exercise logic, or to even recognize that they’re Americans.”

“Now, many accuse the media of bias against my administration, but I don’t believe that. I’m here to change the tone in Washington and the nation, and I refuse to engage in such accusations. I’m sure that journalists are well meaning. As a compassionate conservative, it’s clear to me that they simply haven’t been given the education and training that they so desperately need, and we need to help them and their hardworking editors.”

The president went on to illustrate the growing problem.

“Certainly, we’re all familiar with the examples of journalistic incompetence that seem to be increasing almost daily.”

“Even after a great number of speeches and explanations, many reporters still don’t seem to understand why we are at war, or are able to even comprehend the fact that we are at war. There’s a concept in logical argument, called a ‘straw man,’ in which the debater sets up a weak argument that was never made, but pretends that his opponent did, and then knocks it down, pretending to have somehow won the argument.”

“The press, many of whom seem to suffer from attention-deficit disorder, seem to have trouble focusing on my stated reasons for this war, instead being easily distracted by these kinds of strawman arguments.”

“For instance, many of the slower journalists continue to mistakenly claim that, because we haven’t yet found stockpiles of WMD in Iraq, the threat from Saddam wasn’t imminent, and that the war therefore wasn’t justified. This despite the fact that I never used imminence as a justification for the war, and in fact clearly said that the threat wasn’t imminent, but that we couldn’t wait until it was.”

“They then claim that I somehow implied that the threat was imminent, even though I explicitly denied it. They clearly lack the ability to comprehend not just written English, but spoken English as well.”

“Had these slow journalists been held back until they understood logic and basic reading and listening comprehension, instead of simply being promoted up to some other assignment, some of the mistakes of the past few days might have been avoided. For example, just last week, this newspaper and many others reported that the 911 Commission had shown that there were no ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda, and that, again, this had somehow taken away a justification for liberating the Iraqi people from Saddam’s tyranny.”

“The facts, of course, are that the 911 commission only stated that there was no involvement of Saddam with 911, and the commission members themselves have said that there’s little distance between our position and theirs. This is, of course, irrelevant to justification for removing Saddam, since we have never claimed that Saddam was involved with 911, and in fact we’ve taken pains to make clear that we had no evidence to that effect, and we’ve never used that as a justification for removal.”

“These are just a couple examples of a much larger and broader problem.”

“We’ve all seen the damage that policies of social promotion do to promising young people like Jayson Blair, who was simply passed along from assignment to assignment without having to demonstrate the ability to meet the most basic standards of ethics.”

“We’ve seen too, the damage caused to journalists by award inflation, in which they get gold stars, or Oscars, or Runyons and Pulitzers for sub-par work. It gives them a false sense of achievement, and inhibits their ability to truly progress. We do them no favors by falsely boosting their self esteem, to the point that they are given honors of which they can’t even comprehend the significance.”

“We can no longer afford to sweep such tragic incompetencies under the carpet. This ongoing deterioration of reportage is having seriously debilitating effects on our nation’s health, on its economy, and its national security. In many important, and frightening, ways, our reporters are our future. If a foreign power had somehow foisted upon us such a system of news reporting, in the same way that we’ve somehow done it to ourselves voluntarily, we would justly consider it an act of war.”

Turning around and pointing at the building behind him, he intoned, “On this day, I stand here in front of one of the foremost symbols of that failure, a poster child for shoddy journalism, to announce a major new federal program to start to address this looming crisis. For details, I’d like to introduce Rod Paige, my Secretary of Education.”

Secretary Paige stepped up to the microphone, and after thanking the president, laid out a new proposal of federal assistance to journalism outlets and schools of journalism.

“The president’s new program is two-pronged. We all recognize that early education is key so, modeling Head Start, we’re developing a curriculum for the schools of journalism to emphasize the basics–math, science, logic. In order to encourage the use of our curriculum, we will be issuing federal grants to these institutions, up to ten percent of their annual budget, as long as the student’s test scores show improvement.”

“In addition, we are going to set up a mentoring program with local bloggers, so that these aspiring reporters can learn how to do research and fact check.”

“The second prong of our proposal is to provide grants to media organizations as well. Like the grants for the journalism schools, this will be a ten percent solution, through which, in exchange for providing them with a trifling amount of money, we will dictate reporting standards from Washington. Some of this funding will be earmarked to provide adequate dosages of Ritalin in the water systems, to help the journalists stay focused on the actual justifications for the war, and minimize distractions by red herrings.”

“We’ve had a pilot program for years with PBS and NPR, but it clearly needs to be restructured before we expand it to other press organizations. There have been no strings attached to the taxpayers’ funds, or accountability. This appalling situation has to end.”

In response to a question from the audience as to why a media organization or journalism school would be willing to sacrifice its autonomy for a small amount of its operating budget, he replied, “It’s a mystery, but it seems to work quite well for the public school system, and many of these people are products of that system, so we expect to quickly get most of them on board.”

Reaction to the proposal from the media itself was mixed.

Many members of the press in attendance seemed elated at the thought that their plight had been recognized, and that the government was finally going to help them. All had seen, and many had participated in the many documentaries about the growing problem. They, like much of the public, had viewed the sad images of rooms full of reporters scratching their heads over global warming theories, and the Bill of Rights, struggling to accomplish such seemingly simple tasks as distinguishing an automatic from a semi-automatic weapon.

Others, though, were skeptical. “It’s not a problem that can be solved by just throwing money at it,” said one editor. Another woman in attendance, a professor at the USC School of Journalism, expressed concern that budding reporters would be “taught to the test,” and unable to properly focus on critical areas such as Lacanian metacontexts of transgressive gender oppression.

No reporters from the LA Times seemed to be present, having all been assigned to dig up fresh dirt on Governor Schwarzenegger. In response to a question from the LA Daily News as to whether he thought that this seeming attack on California’s largest newspaper might cause them to further increase their support for Senator Kerry and damage his electoral prospects in the fall, the president replied, “I don’t know. You might want to ask Governor Davis about that.”

(Copyright 2004 by Rand Simberg)

A Breath Of Fresh Air

March 31, 2004

MILWAUKEE (APUPI) Fresh from their victories over smoking in California, New York City, and Ireland, activists in the war for clean public air have opened up the next front, demanding that flatulence be outlawed in restaurants and bars.

“The research results are still coming in, but it’s common sense that second-hand methane is a clear public health hazard,” said Chastity Titeass, a spokeswoman for the most prominent anti-flatulence group.

“Odorless my ass,” chimed in one of the other members of the group, holding her nose, under her breath.

“Despite the unscientific recommendations of the bean and broccoli lobby, it clearly wasn’t sufficient to simply set up farting and no-farting sections in the restaurants. The oppressed waitpersons were almost unable to breath when they had to attend to the customers in the designated flatulence zones.”

In response to this public pressure, the city council passed a new law last week, totally banning flatulence in all Milwaukee public eating and drinking establishments, including the restrooms.

The issue wasn’t confined merely to air quality.

Other concerns were raised to the forefront a couple months ago, in the disastrous explosion at the Guaymas Mexican seafood restaurant on the west side of town, which injured dozens of people. A birthday party had been in progress for hours, with ample helpings of frijoles and Monterey Jack, in the hermetically sealed flatulence area.

When the waitress brought in an octogenarian birthday cake, with the requisite number of candles, it resulted in a sudden explosion. It blew out the walls, and expelled many of the diners out into the alley. Repairs are estimated to be in the tens of thousands of dollars.

As a result, the city council decided that a complete ban of enclosed-area emissions was the only solution that would ultimately satisfy public safety concerns.

In a town renowned for its beer and cheese, the new restrictions have hit the bars particularly hard.

“I don’t care what those environmentalist wackos say,” said Joe Peeusky, a local tavern owner for three decades. His business is down by two thirds since the new law has been passed.

“My customers come here to relax. They want to have a brewski, eat some pretzels, let it hang out, relax. Know what I mean? They’re not going to want to go outside when…things happen.”

A patron agrees.

“I know it’s a disgusting habit, but what are you gonna do? I just can’t go that long without it.”

“I’ve been passing gas as long as I can remember. We all did it, ever since we were young. There was a lot of peer pressure when I was a kid–we used to have contests, for decibels and stench, and sometimes, flame length and duration. You get together after school, and the word is, you know, ‘light ’em up.’ Now I’m really hooked.”

He continued, “I tried quitting once. I got really agitated. I was really hard to live with.”

“I also gained a lot of weight. Yeah, I know, you can’t see it on the scales, but I swelled up like the Goodyear blimp on steroids. I just couldn’t kick the habit.”

He’s not alone.

It’s a tragically pitiful and, at the same time, repugnant sight to see groups of customers huddled outside the doors of the city’s bars and restaurants, indulging in their repellent and seemingly unnatural urges. The sounds of their gaseous expellations resonate across the ancient brick fronts of the buildings, and the pungent, almost suffocating aroma slowly drifts down the windless street, a testament to a vile and uncontrollable addiction.

“They don’t have to go through this,” says Ron Blowhardt, the local head of Flatulaholics Anonymous. “A combination of Beano and our twelve-step program can allow them to eat a full meal in a restaurant, without the need to duck outside. The important thing is to acknowledge that you have no power, to submit yourself to a higher authority, which is to say, eensy weensy bacteria in your guts, so small you can barely see them with a microscope.”

In the meantime, Ms. Titeass is excited about the next battles in this new front in the war for public air quality.

“We’re going after the airlines,” she said. “People have to sit in a small confined volume for hours with this. They found out that no smoking sections didn’t work there, and no farting sections won’t either. In fact, I’ll bet that once they see the reduction in maintenance costs on their air filters, they’ll adopt it even without legislation. Sure, people might have to step outside occasionally at thirty-five thousand feet, but that’s their choice. No one’s holding a gun to their head to make them…do this.”

Her ultimate goal?

“I think that it’s outrageous that NASA thinks that astronauts on their way to Mars for many months should have to put up with such disgusting habits. We’ll make sure that they won’t go until they’ve solved the problem. Anyway, from what I hear, there’s already enough methane up there.”

(Copyright 2004, by Rand Simberg)

Local Democrats Stunned By Buchanan Upset

Since I’m down here in Pompano Beach, and Glenn says we should do some local reporting, I thought I’d pass on the following.

March 10, 2004

BOCA RATON, FL (APUPI) Democrat officials in south Florida are still trying to understand the unexpected defeat of Democrat front-runner John Kerry by the former Republican and Reform Party candidate Patrick J. Buchanan in yesterday’s Florida primary. Validating what some had seen as an early trend in the 2000 presidential election, Mr. Buchanan came in first in Palm Beach, Broward and Dade counties.

One Palm Beach County party official’s perplexity was typical.

“At least the last time, the voters had the excuse that Pat was on that confusing butterfly ballot. But we got rid of that ballot design for this election, and he wasn’t even on it for the primary. He’s been a presidential candidate of lots of political parties, but I don’t think he’s ever been a Democrat. We’re really scratching our heads till they’re bloody and infected here.”

Some, however, point out that, while the dislike of local Democrats for the president (the governor’s brother) is even more visceral than in the rest of the country due to the controversy of the 2000 election, there is no fervor among Florida Democrats for John Kerry. “Anyone who looked more attractive than Kerry, but could still beat Bush had a good shot, even as a write-in,” explained one analyst. “It doesn’t surprise me at all.”

“In fact,” he continued, “if Buchanan can’t beat Kerry, I think we ought to run a dead guy, like we did in Missouri for Senator. He’d be more exciting than Kerry, and his positions would be more consistent. Dead people of all parties have been voting Democrat for years–I say that it’s about time that we made one president.”

A more typical voter who apparently prefers his candidates above room temperature, Herb Flannery of Deerfield Beach enthused, “Buchanan was opposed to globalization before it was cool, he opposed the war in Iraq, he’s always criticizing Bush. He stands up for the little guy, he’s got charisma, and you know where he stands. He gives great speeches, too.”

“He’s kind of like Jesse Jackson, except not as black. Or as corrupt.”

“Let’s face it, once people start to really get to know John Effing Kerry, he’s really charred toast. But Pat Buchanan is a dream nominee for Democrats this year.”

According to Ellen Schmuel Levi at the B’Nai B’rith in Boynton Beach, there had been many support rallies outside synagogues up and down the coast. Many of the local residents had reportedly decided to show their support for “Pitchfork Pat” by driving their Cadillacs and Towncars up and down the A1A highway very slowly, with a single turn signal perpetually on, all through election day. It wasn’t clear how effective the demonstration had been, however, because long-time residents were hard pressed to distinguish it from normal traffic.

The support from the local Jewish community seemed at first particularly shocking to many, given Buchanan’s history of veiled anti-semitic comments, but the enthusiasm seemed just as high at Nate’s, a busy deli in Lauderdale By The Sea.

“Israel, schmizrael,” one patron exclaimed. “So he doesn’t support Israel. Our party hasn’t supported Israel in years–we’re used to it. The important thing is, we’re Democrats.”

Questioned about Mr. Buchanan’s hints about the Jewish cabal that secretly pulls the strings in the government, Hollywood and the media, local beach metal-detector prospector Saul Weinstein was nonchalant, between sips of his egg cream.

“At least he gives us our due. And since when has being anti-semitic been a problem for Democrats? I should laugh till I pee my pants.”

“Remember Jesse ‘Hymietown’ Jackson? And how about that guy that Hillary screamed at and called ‘a schtupping Jew bastard.’ Well, she didn’t say ‘schtupping.’ She used a shiksa word for it.”

“Anyway, who’s perfect? You want I should vote on such narrow issues when we have Hitler in the White House? Hey, pro-semitic, anti-semitic, it’s all good.”

In an interview by telephone, Mr. Buchanan was pleasantly surprised to hear the unexpected news.

“I am always prepared to serve when my nation calls,” he said. “If we can sustain the excitement I sense in ‘hanging chad country,’ we can carry this insurgent campaign on to Texas and other states, and try to catch up with Mr. Kerry before it’s too late.”

“I have experience in being the nominee of a troubled, fractious and confused political party. Sadly, that party is no more, so I welcome the opportunity to do so again, in hopes of better results.”

“I call on my newfound fellow Democrats to take up the pitchforks and torches, and lock and load for America.”

Victims’ Relatives Upset By Presidential Campaign Ad

July 8, 1944

WASHINGTON DC (Routers)

Several relatives of those lost in the tragic attack on Pearl Harbor, two and a half years ago, have expressed shock and outrage over use of attack footage in a presidential campaign newsreel.

Just released to movie theatres in the wake of the recent nomination of New York Governor Thomas Dewey to run against President Roosevelt this fall, the ads were clearly intended to have a “morning in America” theme, playing up the Roosevelt administration’s accomplishments. These include ongoing success in the “war on Nazi terror” and against Shinto extremism.

The newsreels seemed designed to capitalize on the recent Normandy invasion, which has provided an allied foothold in France, and in the recent air/naval victory in the Phillippine Sea, which allowed the US to break the Japanese inner defenses with the capture of the Marianas. The administration believes that these events, along with the news that the Japanese are starting to retreat from Burma, provide an opportunity to frame a positive message before the Dewey campaign has time to define itself.

But not all view the newsreels positively.

“I lost a son on the Arizona,” said Lucille Whinehardt, in town from Sioux Falls to protest. “I was sitting in the theatre, waiting to see ‘The Song of Bernadette,’ when the campaign reel came on, and I had to relive his loss.”

“I go to the movies to escape, not to watch his ship sinking and burning over and over again.”

“It’s absolutely inappropriate,” said Marian Davis, who lost her brother, Ned Flewelling, and leads Never Again, a group for victims’ families. “There are certain memories and certain images that I consider sacred.”

Doris Kelly, of Bakersfield, CA, whose husband, John, died in the attack, said Roosevelt should not use the tragedy as “political propaganda.”

“Hundreds of innocent soldiers were murdered on President Roosevelt’s watch,” she said.

Media critics agree that the newsreel campaign is very insensitive to the feelings of the victims. In addition, the US Chamber of Commerce, which has endorsed Mr. Dewey, has passed a resolution demanding that the Roosevelt administration pull the newsreels immediately.

The Roosevelt campaign is defending the ads, however.

“December 7th changed the equation in our public policy. It forever changed the world,” said the White House press secretary. “The president’s steady leadership is vital to how we wage war on Japan and Germany.”

Some of the victims’ families agree.

“These images honor those whose lives were lost,” said Mildred Farnsworth, whose brother, James, died on the battleship Oklahoma. Proudly wearing her “Remember Pearl Harbor” button, she continued, “I guess some people just don’t want to be reminded that we are at war.”

Copyright 2004 by Rand Simberg

Victims’ Relatives Upset By Presidential Campaign Ad

July 8, 1944

WASHINGTON DC (Routers)

Several relatives of those lost in the tragic attack on Pearl Harbor, two and a half years ago, have expressed shock and outrage over use of attack footage in a presidential campaign newsreel.

Just released to movie theatres in the wake of the recent nomination of New York Governor Thomas Dewey to run against President Roosevelt this fall, the ads were clearly intended to have a “morning in America” theme, playing up the Roosevelt administration’s accomplishments. These include ongoing success in the “war on Nazi terror” and against Shinto extremism.

The newsreels seemed designed to capitalize on the recent Normandy invasion, which has provided an allied foothold in France, and in the recent air/naval victory in the Phillippine Sea, which allowed the US to break the Japanese inner defenses with the capture of the Marianas. The administration believes that these events, along with the news that the Japanese are starting to retreat from Burma, provide an opportunity to frame a positive message before the Dewey campaign has time to define itself.

But not all view the newsreels positively.

“I lost a son on the Arizona,” said Lucille Whinehardt, in town from Sioux Falls to protest. “I was sitting in the theatre, waiting to see ‘The Song of Bernadette,’ when the campaign reel came on, and I had to relive his loss.”

“I go to the movies to escape, not to watch his ship sinking and burning over and over again.”

“It’s absolutely inappropriate,” said Marian Davis, who lost her brother, Ned Flewelling, and leads Never Again, a group for victims’ families. “There are certain memories and certain images that I consider sacred.”

Doris Kelly, of Bakersfield, CA, whose husband, John, died in the attack, said Roosevelt should not use the tragedy as “political propaganda.”

“Hundreds of innocent soldiers were murdered on President Roosevelt’s watch,” she said.

Media critics agree that the newsreel campaign is very insensitive to the feelings of the victims. In addition, the US Chamber of Commerce, which has endorsed Mr. Dewey, has passed a resolution demanding that the Roosevelt administration pull the newsreels immediately.

The Roosevelt campaign is defending the ads, however.

“December 7th changed the equation in our public policy. It forever changed the world,” said the White House press secretary. “The president’s steady leadership is vital to how we wage war on Japan and Germany.”

Some of the victims’ families agree.

“These images honor those whose lives were lost,” said Mildred Farnsworth, whose brother, James, died on the battleship Oklahoma. Proudly wearing her “Remember Pearl Harbor” button, she continued, “I guess some people just don’t want to be reminded that we are at war.”

Copyright 2004 by Rand Simberg

Victims’ Relatives Upset By Presidential Campaign Ad

July 8, 1944

WASHINGTON DC (Routers)

Several relatives of those lost in the tragic attack on Pearl Harbor, two and a half years ago, have expressed shock and outrage over use of attack footage in a presidential campaign newsreel.

Just released to movie theatres in the wake of the recent nomination of New York Governor Thomas Dewey to run against President Roosevelt this fall, the ads were clearly intended to have a “morning in America” theme, playing up the Roosevelt administration’s accomplishments. These include ongoing success in the “war on Nazi terror” and against Shinto extremism.

The newsreels seemed designed to capitalize on the recent Normandy invasion, which has provided an allied foothold in France, and in the recent air/naval victory in the Phillippine Sea, which allowed the US to break the Japanese inner defenses with the capture of the Marianas. The administration believes that these events, along with the news that the Japanese are starting to retreat from Burma, provide an opportunity to frame a positive message before the Dewey campaign has time to define itself.

But not all view the newsreels positively.

“I lost a son on the Arizona,” said Lucille Whinehardt, in town from Sioux Falls to protest. “I was sitting in the theatre, waiting to see ‘The Song of Bernadette,’ when the campaign reel came on, and I had to relive his loss.”

“I go to the movies to escape, not to watch his ship sinking and burning over and over again.”

“It’s absolutely inappropriate,” said Marian Davis, who lost her brother, Ned Flewelling, and leads Never Again, a group for victims’ families. “There are certain memories and certain images that I consider sacred.”

Doris Kelly, of Bakersfield, CA, whose husband, John, died in the attack, said Roosevelt should not use the tragedy as “political propaganda.”

“Hundreds of innocent soldiers were murdered on President Roosevelt’s watch,” she said.

Media critics agree that the newsreel campaign is very insensitive to the feelings of the victims. In addition, the US Chamber of Commerce, which has endorsed Mr. Dewey, has passed a resolution demanding that the Roosevelt administration pull the newsreels immediately.

The Roosevelt campaign is defending the ads, however.

“December 7th changed the equation in our public policy. It forever changed the world,” said the White House press secretary. “The president’s steady leadership is vital to how we wage war on Japan and Germany.”

Some of the victims’ families agree.

“These images honor those whose lives were lost,” said Mildred Farnsworth, whose brother, James, died on the battleship Oklahoma. Proudly wearing her “Remember Pearl Harbor” button, she continued, “I guess some people just don’t want to be reminded that we are at war.”

Copyright 2004 by Rand Simberg

Administration In Crisis Over Burgeoning Quagmire

August 12, 1945

WASHINGTON DC (Routers) President Truman, just a few months into his young presidency, is coming under increasing fire from some Congressional Republicans for what appears to be a deteriorating security situation in occupied Germany, with some calling for his removal from office.

Over three months after a formal declaration of an end to hostilities, the occupation is bogged down. Fanatical elements of the former Nazi regime who, in their zeal to liberate their nation from the foreign occupiers, call themselves members of the Werwolf (werewolves) continue to commit almost-daily acts of sabotage against Germany’s already-ravaged infrastructure, and attack American troops. They have been laying road mines, poisoning food and water supplies, and setting various traps, often lethal, for the occupying forces.

It’s not difficult to find antagonism and anti-Americanism among the population–many complain of the deprivation and lack of security. There are thousands of homeless refugees, and humanitarian efforts seem confused and inadequate.

In the wake of the budding disaster, some have called for more international participation in peacekeeping.

A Red Cross official said that, “…the German people will be more comfortable if their conquerors weren’t now their overlords. It makes it difficult to argue that this wasn’t an imperialistic war when the occupying troops in the western sector are exclusively American, British and French.”

The administration, of course, claims that, given the chaos of the recent war, such a situation is to be expected, and that things will improve with time. As to the suggestion to internationalize the occupying forces, the administration had no official comment, but an unofficial one was a repetition of the quote from General McAuliffe, when asked to surrender in last winter’s Battle of the Bulge–“Nuts.”

In an attempt to minimize the situation, a White House spokesman pointed out that the casualties were extremely light, and militarily inconsequential, particularly when compared to the loss rates prior to VE Day. Also, the attacks seem to be dying down with each passing month. But this statement was leaped upon by some as heartless, trivializing the deaths and injuries of young American men.

Many critics back in Washington seem now to be prescient, with their previous warnings of just such an outcome a little over a year ago.

One congressman said that “…it’s time to ask whether the German people are better off now than they were a few months ago. Yes, a brutal dictator has been deposed, but at least the electricity and water supply were mostly working, and the trains running on time. After years of killing them and destroying their infrastructure with American bombs, it seems to me that the German people have suffered enough without the chaos that our occupation, with its inadequate policing, is bringing.”

It’s not clear how much support the Werwolf has among the populace, who may be afraid to speak their true minds, given the fearfully overwhelming “Allied” presence in the country. But it is possible that, like the guerilla forces themselves, the people have been inspired by Propaganda Minister Josef Goebbels’ pre-victory broadcasts, and those of Radio Werwolf.

“God has given up the protection of the people . . . Satan has taken command.” Goebbels broadcast last spring. “We Werewolves consider it our supreme duty to kill, to kill and to kill, employing every cunning and wile in the darkness of the night, crawling, groping through towns and villages, like wolves, noiselessly, mysteriously.”

While no new broadcasts of Goebbels’ voice have been heard since early May, no one can be certain as to whether he is alive or dead, and continuing to help orchestrate the attacks and boost morale among the forces for German liberation. As long as his fate, and more importantly, that of the former leader Adolf Hitler himself, remains unresolved, the prospects for pacifying the brutally conquered country may be dim.

Although Grand-Admiral Donitz made a radio announcement of Hitler’s brave death in battle to the beleaguered German people on the evening of May 1, some doubt the veracity of that statement, and there has been no evidence to support it, or any body identified as the former Fuehrer’s. Rumors of his whereabouts continue to abound, including reported sightings as far away as South America. Many still believe that he is hiding with the “Edelweiss” organization, with thousands of Wehrmacht troops, in a mountain stronghold near the Swiss border.

Many have criticized flawed intelligence for our failure to find him, causing some, in the runup to next year’s congressional elections, to call for an investigation.

A staffer of one prominent Senator said, “For months, starting last fall, we were told by this administration that Hitler would make a last stand in a ‘National Redoubt’ in Bavaria. General Bradley diverted troops to the south and let the Russians take Berlin on the basis of this knowledge. But now we find out that there was no such place, and that Hitler was in Berlin all along. And now we’re told that we can’t even be sure of where he is, or whether he’s alive or dead.”

For many, marching in the streets with signs of “No Blood For Soviet Socialism,” and “It’s All About The Coal,” this merely confirmed that the administration had other agendas than its stated one, and that the war was unjustified and unjustifiable.

General Bradley’s staff has protested that this is an unfair criticism–that the strategic decision made by General Eisenhower was driven by many factors, of which Hitler’s whereabouts was a minor one, but this hasn’t silenced the critics, some of whom have bravely called for President Truman’s impeachment, despite the fact that most of these decisions were made even before he became president in April.

But some have taken the criticism further, and say that failure to get Hitler means a failed war itself.

“Sure, it’s nice to have released all those people from the concentration camps, but we were told we were going to war against Hitler, even though he’d done nothing to us,” argued one concerned anti-war Senator. “Now they say that we have ‘Victory in Europe,’ but it seems to me that if they can’t produce the man we supposedly went to war against, it’s a pretty hollow victory. Without this man that they told us was such a great threat to America, how can even they claim that this war was justified?”

(Copyright 2003 by Rand Simberg)

Dead Trees And Muscle Cars

The renowned satirist, Iowahawk (aka David Burge) emails:

To honor Earth Day and Al Gore’s latest enviro-gibberish, I dusted off this moldy oldie for you…

Gore Attacked By Angry Muscle Cars

And he further threatens:

BTW, I’m gonna do the blog thing soon; more of an archive of old stuff like this. I’ll let you know when it’s up.

You don’t scare us, Burge.

You will be assimilated. We told you that resistance was futile.

“Allies” Seize Paris–Mass Atrocities Occur

(PONN—Pessimistic Objective News Network) August 26, 1944

Risking civic anarchy and destruction of the ancient fabled and beautiful city by Hitler’s rockets of vengeance, “Allied” forces recklessly entered Paris yesterday, while ravishing French women by the thousands, and slaughtering helpless Germans, often allowing the Parisians to hang or shoot them, without even the semblance of a fair trial.

Led by the Second Armored Division of the “French Army,” commanded by “Major General” Lecleric, the troops marched up the Champs Elysee, reportedly to at least scattered cheers and throwing of flowers. Of course, the Paris natives have had a rough few years, and almost anyone, even the “Allies,” might at first seem preferable to the Germans, against whom there are serious but unsubstantiated allegations of human rights abuses, including “genocide.”

Editor’s note: can we come up with a less judgmental word? One man’s genocide is another’s freedom fighting.

Though General Eisenhower’s spokesmen would never confirm it, there had been much concern over the past few weeks that the “Allied” forces might be bogged down in a northern French quagmire, as the Germans seemed well dug in, and were bringing up reinforcements from their eastern front against the brave and stalwart Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the main US ally. Thus, even if Paris cannot be ultimately held, its seizure represents at least a temporary appearance of an “Allied” “victory.”

Over the past few weeks, as they marched through the French countryside from Normandy, often accompanied by great destruction and civilian casualties, “Allied” troops, particularly Americans, have been engaging in dangerous propaganda tactics. They have been distributing pamphlets urging the helpless French people to rise up against the much better-armed Germans. Also, in an attempt to show that this war is not against the people of Vichy France, they have been handing out chocolate to children, and nylon st0ckings to the women, though they lack enough to feed or clothe the entire French populace.

The “Allies” and the US had been warned that Mr. Hitler would not allow Paris to be taken, and that he would destroy it before he let it happen. However, at the urging of “General” de Gaulle, they decided to go for the quick propaganda victory, instead of waiting for a more orderly French government to form.

Official US government organs put out stories of a people happy to be liberated.

Pvt. Howard Katzander, a correspondent for Yank, the Army’s weekly magazine, reported on the “hundreds of thousands of men, women and children who cheered them on their way.”

“There was one GI on a truck who kept pointing toward Germany, and then lifting a finger and slashing his throat,” Katzander wrote. “The crowd loved him.”

Such stories, if true, indicate that the American soldiers were allowed to inflame the passions of the Parisian populace, which no doubt led to many of the atrocities and murders against the unarmed German officials, and also against French who had collaborated with them. Many Vichy French officials were summarily hung or shot with their German counterparts, and the heads of many of the poor French women who had slept with the “enemy” were shaved.

Also, it was reported that many German troops were unfairly shot and strafed by aircraft and French resistance fighters as they escaped the city, even though they were in full retreat, and not firing back.

When American and British troops entered the city today, there was reportedly a great deal of wild and uninhibited sex between them and the French women. It was not clear whether any of it was consensual, as these are a people who have been subjugated by armed troops for years, and may have simply resignedly accepted more rape by the troops as an inevitable part of this long and needless war, to which no end is in sight.

“Allies” Seize Paris–Mass Atrocities Occur

(PONN—Pessimistic Objective News Network) August 26, 1944

Risking civic anarchy and destruction of the ancient fabled and beautiful city by Hitler’s rockets of vengeance, “Allied” forces recklessly entered Paris yesterday, while ravishing French women by the thousands, and slaughtering helpless Germans, often allowing the Parisians to hang or shoot them, without even the semblance of a fair trial.

Led by the Second Armored Division of the “French Army,” commanded by “Major General” Lecleric, the troops marched up the Champs Elysee, reportedly to at least scattered cheers and throwing of flowers. Of course, the Paris natives have had a rough few years, and almost anyone, even the “Allies,” might at first seem preferable to the Germans, against whom there are serious but unsubstantiated allegations of human rights abuses, including “genocide.”

Editor’s note: can we come up with a less judgmental word? One man’s genocide is another’s freedom fighting.

Though General Eisenhower’s spokesmen would never confirm it, there had been much concern over the past few weeks that the “Allied” forces might be bogged down in a northern French quagmire, as the Germans seemed well dug in, and were bringing up reinforcements from their eastern front against the brave and stalwart Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the main US ally. Thus, even if Paris cannot be ultimately held, its seizure represents at least a temporary appearance of an “Allied” “victory.”

Over the past few weeks, as they marched through the French countryside from Normandy, often accompanied by great destruction and civilian casualties, “Allied” troops, particularly Americans, have been engaging in dangerous propaganda tactics. They have been distributing pamphlets urging the helpless French people to rise up against the much better-armed Germans. Also, in an attempt to show that this war is not against the people of Vichy France, they have been handing out chocolate to children, and nylon st0ckings to the women, though they lack enough to feed or clothe the entire French populace.

The “Allies” and the US had been warned that Mr. Hitler would not allow Paris to be taken, and that he would destroy it before he let it happen. However, at the urging of “General” de Gaulle, they decided to go for the quick propaganda victory, instead of waiting for a more orderly French government to form.

Official US government organs put out stories of a people happy to be liberated.

Pvt. Howard Katzander, a correspondent for Yank, the Army’s weekly magazine, reported on the “hundreds of thousands of men, women and children who cheered them on their way.”

“There was one GI on a truck who kept pointing toward Germany, and then lifting a finger and slashing his throat,” Katzander wrote. “The crowd loved him.”

Such stories, if true, indicate that the American soldiers were allowed to inflame the passions of the Parisian populace, which no doubt led to many of the atrocities and murders against the unarmed German officials, and also against French who had collaborated with them. Many Vichy French officials were summarily hung or shot with their German counterparts, and the heads of many of the poor French women who had slept with the “enemy” were shaved.

Also, it was reported that many German troops were unfairly shot and strafed by aircraft and French resistance fighters as they escaped the city, even though they were in full retreat, and not firing back.

When American and British troops entered the city today, there was reportedly a great deal of wild and uninhibited sex between them and the French women. It was not clear whether any of it was consensual, as these are a people who have been subjugated by armed troops for years, and may have simply resignedly accepted more rape by the troops as an inevitable part of this long and needless war, to which no end is in sight.