Friday, September 08, 2006


Dear Indigna,

Apparently some pantywaist liberals are all PMSing about ABC's completely true documentary about how the Clinton administration is totally responsible for 9/11 and everything that has happened since then unless it was a victory or a "mission accomplished." Apparently the so-called "miniseries" documents the complicity of people like former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and other Jews in the overt protection of Osama bin Laden so that he could effectively carry out the 9/11 attacks! Aren't these (not to put too fine a point upon it) godless Democrats trying to keep the nation from knowing what the good Christian Republicans of this country have known all along? Thank goodness Rush Limbaugh is publicizing the product of his good friend Robert Iger, CEO of ABC's daddy, Disney. And thank God Disney hired David Cunningham to direct this new gospel. Cunningham's (terrestrial) daddy is an evangelical minister whose Son (the director in question) graduated from "the University of Nations, which teaches filmmaking as a way to spread the gospel." Now, what could be more authoritative than that?

Christian Couch Potato
Hallelujah Junction, America ("states" are the Devil's work)

Dear Cough (excuse me) Couth (oops) I mean Coach (um)
Oh fuck it,

Thank you for alerting me to this important piece of Republican history. I will record it and keep it in my archive alongside Colin Powell's testimony before Congress and my growing collection of pronouncements by President Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld linking Saddam Hussein, Iraq, and the Democrats to 9/11.

Cost Is No Object

Dear Indigna,

President Bush recently reiterated that "if you harbor terrorists, you are just as guilty as the terrorists; you're an enemy of the United States, and you will be held to account." What kind of action should we look forward to seeing as a result of this bold confirmation?

Armchair Battalion Leader
Little Hope, TX

Dear Armhair,

The initial invasions will be opened on multiple fronts. We all know that terrorists are living in England, Spain, and the tourist paradise of Bali, not to mention Israel proper. Rumsfeld plans to re-use his brilliant "show and tell"--wait a minute, that's not--oh yeah, "shock and awe" strategy, carpet-bombing South London, Buckinghamshire, Leeds, Madrid and most of the Indonesian tourist areas, as well as Tel Aviv and anyplace in Israel that has been hit by suicide bombers in the last twelve months. Of course, almost all of Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Lebanon, as well as Sudan, are considered lost causes and will be left alone.

The second phase will open with a full aerial assault on residential areas around Minnesota and Florida commercial pilot schools, alleged Oregon terrorist training camps, as well as Montana survivalist communities (just for good measure). Parts of Canada, such as Toronto and anyplace else Bush thinks might "harbor terrorists," like that suspiciously French-speaking province of "Qu├ębec," will likewise be eliminated.

All Right-thinking people who are completely confident that there are no terrorist-minded types living anywhere near their home should be greatly comforted to know that the Bush Administration has a plan to "bring the pain" to anywhere terrorists or their Leftist sympathizers are to be found (like San Francisco, Los Angeles, Vermont and parts of Manhattan) -- no matter what the cost.

Monday, September 04, 2006

"Don't Blame; Ask What You Can Do"

Dear Indigna,

I am outraged that American victims of recent natural events, like the hurricanes and such, expect the government to come riding in like some kind of knight in shining armor and bail them out of their own stupid decision to live in a flood plain! As I said in a local letter to the editor, "We need to accept that if levees are unsafe, then local residents must do what is necessary to fix them. We need to recognize that communities with high rates of crime are not victims of someone else's disproportional prosperity; they are victims of their own unwillingness to confront the issue on a local level. We need to come to grips with the fact that helping our children succeed in school requires more parental involvement, not more money."

Why don't people take individual responsibility for their own problems??

Jack Weixel
Walnut Creek, CA

Dear Mr. Weixel,

I was so happy to read your letter in the local paper! Among other opinions, you stated that locals ought to take personal responsibility for infrastructure, like levees. This brings me joy because I have just about had it with paving your goddamn road! Like, every ten years or so my tax dollars go to making sure you can drive your frigging automobile to work and back, not to mention the automobile of your wife, who is no doubt working such long hours that she is failing miserably at "helping our children succeed in school." And then that time your house caught fire, my tax dollars had to freaking pay the fire department to put the fire out! Thank God you are stepping up to the plate and taking responsibility for such services, even if it means that your house burns to the ground while you are on vacation (I assume you will also take responsibility for the damages to the neighbors' houses and civic buildings caused by your untended house fire).

I am also sick and tired of paying for police services. Thank goodness you are finally standing up and saying that we don't want to pay for the investigation into the neighbor's murder! I mean, if the family wants to know who did it, they can darn well figure it out for themselves; why should we have to subsidize it? BTW, I heard about your daughter; sorry, man.

Not to repeat myself, but what about those parents who are not "helping our children succeed in school"? Point out the constitutional provision that gives those slackers a right to a public-paid education. If folks want their children to know how to read, they should teach them themselves or provide them with a private school education. If you just don't love your children enough, there are plenty of seasonal produce-harvesting jobs for low-skilled laborers. And remember: if you wanted your child to do better, you should have paid for an education, instead of expecting the state to provide free schooling.

In your immortal words, dear Mr. Weixel, "those who have been successful owe it to society to somehow contribute to the social welfare on a private level, through some form of charitable work or contribution" although you admit that "some will choose not to exercise that power, and some will fail for reasons that are not their own," (although, of course, people are victims of crime for reasons that are in fact their own, and children underperform in inner-city schools for reasons that are in fact their parents' own . . . right?)