Saturday, November 04, 2006

Spin Cycle

Dear Indigna,

The Mufti of Australia, Sheik Taj Aldin al-Hilali, said in a sermon that women who don't wear headscarves are essentially inviting sexual attack, saying "If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat?" He later said his comments were meant only "to protect women's honour."

Isn't this a little bit like Dick Cheney saying that water-boarding (simulated drowning) is not torture and, later, that he never endorsed water-boarding in the first place (transcript to the contrary)? Or George W. Bush saying his policy has "never been to stay the course" (video to the contrary)?

When I was a child, this was called "lying." Has "lying" now been redefined as "spinning" and "denying"?

Straight, OK

Dear Disgusted,

You should be "Disgusted." At yourself. Clearly, you have never learned the art of paying close attention! When the Mufti of Australia referred to non-shrouded women as "uncovered meat," he meant only to warn them of the possibility of "cats," a common slang term for flies, mosquitoes and yellow-jackets, being attracted to their meaty scalps and faces, especially because the otherwise continuous wearing of close headcoverings in excessive heat like Australia's is likely to impart a particularly pungent, vermin-attractive aroma to one's hair. The Mufti was only trying to protect these ladies from unwelcome "penetration" by these pests.

As for Dick Cheney, the actual words to which he agreed were not "water-boarding" but "a dunk in water." He was referring to the widely accepted practice, seen at every local carnival and county fair, of the "dunk tank." Terrorist suspects are placed on a seat suspended over a tank of water, and CIA interrogators are given an unlimited supply of baseballs with which to attempt to hit a target. Hit the target and BINGO! the terror suspect is dropped into the water like the principal of a junior high. The fear of this humiliation has garnered the U.S. intelligence community much extremely valuable intel, primarily the identities of panty-wetting terrorists who then become potential blackmail targets.

As for the President Bush allegation -- well, the guy's just a liar.

Monday, October 30, 2006


Dear Readers,

I received an interesting and rather literate comment on my post, "Emigrados," that focussed, oddly, on the ersatz petitioner (an Austrian immigrant) rather than the subject of the post (a Vietnamese immigrant). This comment ended, however, in calling me a "crazy red." As the entire post revolved around the concept of linguistic polyvalence, I am at a loss as to whether the commentator (a Mr. or Ms. "Anonymous") is accusing me of being a "red" (i.e., Republican) or a "red" (i.e., Communist), or, most intriguingly, both at once. I thought this closing note distilled the problem faced by Mr. Nguyen quite succinctly.

Readers, which am I--red or red? Or better yet, "read"?


P.S. What's up with the "Anonymous" crap?????