Satirical Essays of Colin Cohen

2009-01-01T19:27:00.000-08:00

Increasing Collateral Damage; or, Genocide for Fun and Profit (2003)

Flags, Flags, and Even More Flags (2003)

No Death Penalty, No Easter Bunny (2003)

Sending Grandma to the Ovens (2003)

Encouraging Police Brutality; or, Making "Pig" a Term of Endearment (2003)

A Somewhat Modest Proposal (2002)

Ode to Credit Card Debt (2002)

Only Little People Pay Taxes (2002)

Why Golf Is Great (2002)

WHY GOLF IS GREAT (2002)

2009-01-01T19:14:00.002-08:00

WHY GOLF IS GREAT (2002)

What is the best sport? It's one of the great debates in our country, one which you can hear argued at your local bastion of culture we commonly call the "sports bar." Some contend it's football, some baseball, and others, even basketball. But nothing compares with golf.

It's a beautiful Saturday morning. You find the last spot amongst the BMWs, the Cadillacs, that rebellious desert-green Grand Cherokee. You step out and smell the grass, freshly cut by some enterprising young minority. And then, it's off to the course . . . where you swing, followed by that immaculate sound, and watch as the bright, pockmarked ball races toward its destiny . . . inspired by God! O the poetry!

And the only thing better than playing golf is watching it on television. Imagine this scene: it's late at night and you're following highlights of the 1997 San Bernardino Open on the Golf Channel, sipping a tasty micro brew -- perhaps one with a fruity additive -- a smiling female companion quietly at your side. Your thoughts become the ball as you drift into a beautiful abyss.

For years, golf had the stigma of being something racist and exclusive. But no more. Now, you can see people of color at every course Tiger Woods plays. And golf is no longer only for doctors, lawyers, and captains of industry. Now, plumbers, carpenters, and other proletariats can also play. Just as long as they keep to their public courses.

The turmoil that has racked Afghanistan for decades may be directly related to their lack of golf courses. If they could only experience a driving iron, a sand trap, a double eagle, they would forget all about hunger, injustice, and inhumanity. Golf could be their first step toward attaining the American way of life, with its promise of true happiness and bliss.

ONLY LITTLE PEOPLE PAY TAXES (2002)

2009-01-01T19:14:00.001-08:00

ONLY LITTLE PEOPLE PAY TAXES (2002)

Leona Helmsley is to have once said, "Only little people pay taxes." We took umbrage at this statement -- it probably in no small way led to her imprisonment -- but was she really wrong?

If you are like most people, you probably work for a company or an institution as an employee and make a decent income. You have a few deductions and will receive a small tax cut -- that is, if you make more than $27,050 as a single person or $45,200 as a married couple. And because the government withholds more taxes than they should, you'll receive a nice refund, which makes you feel happy and content.

But if you were wealthy, with large sources of income coming from non-employment earnings, you'd really be able to enjoy the good life. For starters, you would've gotten a much larger tax cut. While a couple earning $50,000 receives a cut of $250, one earning $3,000,000 receives $15,000. Why, that's almost enough money to cover yachting expenses this summer. More importantly, though, you could've taken a slew of deductions available only to the Big People.

First, you would've rented part of your home to the corporation you set up to funnel your profit. Not only could you've deducted expenses relating to this service, but you could've also partly written off the depreciation of your very expensive home. Next, you would've established a Keough account to offset some more of your good-gotten gain. While ordinary schmucks can only deduct a few thousand dollars with their IRA, Big People can deduct up to $35,000 -- with tax-deferred interest, of course! Finally, you would've freely given to charities -- remembering that it begins at home. As long as you don't "give" more than $250 to each "charity," you could've deducted as many "gifts" as you wanted without any documentation.

Yes, it's a damn good thing we don't have a flat-rate tax system. Just think -- Big People actually paying taxes. O the horror!

ODE TO CREDIT CARD DEBT (2002)

2009-01-01T19:13:00.002-08:00

ODE TO CREDIT CARD DEBT (2002)

Nothing matches the excitement of finding a credit card application in the mail, its majestic, postage-paid envelop neatly tucked inside. I already have many cards -- ten or twenty or fifty, of all flavors and colors: Visas, Mastercards, American Expresses, and Dinner's Clubs -- but why not one more? Perhaps this new one will send me some "convenience" checks, so I can conveniently start paying interest as soon as I write a check.

True, my debt already exceeds my yearly income, the equity in my home, and the value of my children in the Asian slave markets, but being in debt is our obligation as citizens. It's good for the economy. It's good for America. Come on -- buy, spend, consume! You don't have to pay for it now.

One of the great evils of communism was that people who lived under it were forbidden credit cards. Before long though, every citizen of Eastern Europe will experience the joy and the freedom of eternal credit card debt -- we'll issue them just as soon as we've raised consumer demand by saturating their new markets with our magazines, television, and music.

And along with the freedom debt grants us, it also keeps us responsible. Why, if I didn't have all those bills, I might just quit my exciting middle entry-level job and the beautifully sterile three-square-foot cubicle that comes with it. I might become a bohemian, I might ask questions, I might think. I might vote.

And, as good as credit card debt is now, it'll only get better. The larger credit card companies, like Citibank, are buying the smaller ones. This will soon lead to monopolies, which can only be good for consumers, because once they no longer have competition, they'll be sure to lower rates and have friendlier policies. And if they bring back annual fees, it'll only add to the value of the card.

Michael Douglas' character in the film Wall Street famously said, "Greed is good." Added to this truism should be consumption, debt, and perhaps even bankruptcy.

A SOMEWHAT MODEST PROPOSAL (2002)

2009-01-01T19:13:00.001-08:00

A SOMEWHAT MODEST PROPOSAL (2002)

Polls strongly suggest that most Americans favor abortion rights, but there's great disagreement over how to limit the procedure. While some people believe a woman should have the right to terminate her fetus at any point until birth, others think the operation should be forbidden after a certain term -- the sixth month being one of the most common opinions. But it's far more logical and practical to allow a mother (or father/guardian) to terminate a fetus until adulthood.

Proponents of time limitations propose a wholly illogical viewpoint. How is a fetus more of a human being at six months than at five months and thirty-one days? Of course, depending on the actual fifth month this time will vary. If the fifth month is an April, a fetus will become human a day earlier; if it's a February, it will become human two or three days earlier (depending on leap year.)

Proponents of unrestricted abortions also suffer from logical inconsistencies. They argue a fetus becomes human at birth because only then is it independent of the mother. But how is it independent if it still must be fed, clothed, and sheltered by the mother (or father/guardian)? Until it's an adult it's as dependent for parental support as when it was in the womb. That's why it's a tax deduction.

Until adulthood, fetuses are so subhuman, they're denied basic rights and liberties: they can't vote, drink alcohol, or kill (as a member of the armed forces.) In some states, they can't even visit a comedy club.

By allowing abortion until adulthood, parents will be able to weed out wayward fetuses. The threat alone should be enough to set a fetus on the right course: "Either you clean up your act, young man, or we're taking the clothes hanger to you!" Sure, a few parents may drown their fetuses in bathtubs simply to protect them from Satan. But who are we to judge? After all, morality is relative. The Nazis proved that.

ENCOURAGING POLICE BRUTALITY; OR MAKING "PIG" A TERM OF ENDEARMENT (2003)

2009-01-01T19:12:00.001-08:00

ENCOURAGING POLICE BRUTALITY; OR, MAKING "PIG" A TERM OF ENDEARMENT (2003)

Vladimir Lenin once told Maxim Gorky, when the latter complained about the violence associated with the Russian Revolution, that "You cannot fight a revolution wearing white dinner gloves." The same can be said of fighting crime. It's tough work -- work that can only be successfully accomplished through completely abandoning current standards of ethics, morality, and human decency. Policemen, in order to maintain proper order and to protect the private property of our elite, must be above these intangible laws and must be free to dispense brutality as they feel necessary. And we as a society must stop hindering this brutality, and instead encourage it.

In the early days of society, there was anarchy. People did and thought as they liked without the fear of consequences. The powerful and the wealthy lacked the control of the masses they needed to maintain their status. At first, they invented religion, which promised an afterlife for all those who behaved, for all those who didn't question authority, and for all those who respected private property. Still, this was insufficient, as there were too many freethinkers who callously disregarded the laws. There were also others, who, just because they suffered from a little starvation, felt compelled to break the laws. So, society invented the police -- strong and simple men recruited from the lower echelons of the community who sought power and enjoyed violence -- who would serve authority without questioning it. And society gave the police dispensation to commit violence, torture, and even murder in the pursuit of peace and order.

Some of the earliest police forces were organized by the Roman Empire, such as the Praetorian Guard. These forces kept the peace in the Empire by creating an atmosphere of fright and dread, and developed methods for repressing the masses that are still in use today, such as making an example of an individual -- regardless whether the individual was actually guilty -- to dissuade others.

One of the highlights of Roman police brutality were the capture, torture, and execution of Christ, and the subsequent brutality against His followers -- the so-called Golden Age Christians. This policy successfully suppressed "peace, love, and goodwill toward men" for centuries and was in part responsible for the Church abandoning such teachings.

With the fall of Rome, and its police forces, came the commencement of the Dark Ages. With no police to fear, anarchy again reigned, along with a disrespect of proper land ownership and private property in general. With no police, the wealthy lived in fear, unceremoniously forced to hide in the dark with their ill-gotten gain.

As the Middle Ages led into the Renaissance, all things Roman were reborn -- art, science, architecture -- but most notably, police. These fearless constables of the law brought order through violence and intimidation, and guaranteed that the peasants were kept pleasantly destitute, by forcing them to pay the proper tribute to their masters. The rich could now sleep easily again.

And so could the faithful. Under the auspices of various inquisitions, the police sought and gathered heretics; and in cooperation with the Church, used any means necessary to obtain the voluntary confessions of those accused. And after the sinners had fully repented, it was the police that properly consigned them to the flames, to the delightful sounds of eunuchs singing Te Deum.

A few centuries later -- prior, during, and after the French Revolution -- the police took on a new and important role: hunting and abusing political criminals, which culminated in the Reign of Terror -- a truly bright spot in the history of police brutality -- where systems were created to exterminate political opposition, whatever the prevailing opposition was on that particular day. These systems were so effective that were mimicked by the twentieth century police forces of Hitler, Stalin, and Pinochet.

In the mid-nineteenth century, the United States, finally ridding itself of whatever humanism that remained from its founding, began establishing official police forces. Walking not-so-softly and carrying a very big stick, these forces were able to control the threat posed by the increasingly large number of papist immigrants that came from the poorer parts of Europe. And in a act of pure genius, they recruited many of these same immigrants to keep down their own people.

These early American police forces also helped create political stability in the nation by murdering ungrateful communist workers -- who had the gall to demand a living wage and safe working conditions -- in such heroic battles as the Haymarket Square Massacre of 1886, the Lawrence Textile Workers Strike of 1912, and the National Steelworkers Strike of 1919. Stability was even further maintained by using force to control the growing minority populations -- so as to make sure they understood their proper place in society.

Yes, for a few millennia, the system of police brutality, outside a few instances where police slightly overstepped their authority by committing a few unfortunate massacres, worked well. The powerful kept their power, the wealthy their wealth, and the criminal classes -- also known as the poor -- lived in a proper state of fear. This, however all changed; and all because of a few overly-publicized scandals.

One of the first events that unfairly tainted police brutality occurred during the civil rights upheaval of the 1950s and 1960s. The good people of the South at the end of the Civil War developed a system that provided order and racial harmony. The only minor drawback of the system was that a small faction of the population were denied a few insignificant civil, political, and economic rights. When this equanimity was threatened by ignorant do-gooders from the North, the good people responded understandably with police brutality. Of course, they only resorted to fire hoses and billy clubs when peaceful intimidation failed to achieve the desired affect; but this wasn't understood by the general populace, who witnessed the events thanks to the insensitivity of a new media, television.

An unfortunate result of these events was that simpletons in Congress passed laws, such as Miranda, to unnecessarily limit police brutality. With these laws, the populace quickly lost their traditional fear of the police, which led directly to the outbreak of race riots across the country in the late 60s. And when the police reacted very sensibly to these events, by beating the protesters senseless, there was outrage and incriminations. For the first time in history, a policeman had to think twice before delivering proper justice.

At the same time, the police had to face the threat of the anti-war movement, which was becoming more and more unruly. The youth involved in this movement, too educated for their own good, fueled the disrespect of the police. They even had the audacity to call the police a mean name: pigs. The police in turn showed remarkable restraint in dealing with these children, only succumbing during the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago when the protesters undermined the aura and esteem of their great leader, Mayor Richard Daley. Considering the circumstances, the police showed considerable self-control in that they only broke open a few skulls.

The 1970s, though, with its calming influence of disco music, brought an end to these subversive movements -- but the damage to police brutality was irrevocable. The police knew that from then on that they would only be able to perform their rightly duty behind closed doors, or when no one was watching.

This policy was reasonably effective for twenty years, until the unfortunate proliferation of handheld video recorders. On March 3, 1991, the Los Angeles Police pulled over Rodney King, who was driving recklessly, refusing to obey the authority of the police when they signaled him to stop. As per proper police brutality procedure -- and thinking no one was looking -- they delivered 56 blows of the baton to Mr. King and assorted lighthearted kicks. As one police officer said, "It was just like Gorillas in the Mist." Unknown to them, though, a misguided soul named George Holliday was videotaping the incident; and instead of properly delivering the tape to the police, he gave it to the media.

In an unbelievable turn of events, the police officers, not Rodney King, were put on trial. When the jury came to a very reasonable verdict, considering the men -- not unlike German police officers in the thirties and forties -- were just doing their job, the city of Los Angeles went up in flames. And the police, who now knew their cherished practice of brutality was permanently threatened, were blamed and demonized.

Things got progressively worse since then, as the media sensationally reports even the mildest forms of police brutality, such as when the New York City police anally raped Abner Louima with the handle of a toilet plunger in order to set him back on the path of honest citizenry. Or when the New York Police discharged 41 shots at Amadou Diallo -- an unarmed innocent man who could very easily have been an armed guilty man -- just to be absolutely certain he was dead. Only the intervention of Rudolph Giuliani, America's Mayor, saved the officers from unjust prosecution.

With this blackening of the image of the police has come the perception that crime is worsening; and while the reality is the opposite, perception is far stronger than reality. The good people are afraid for their lives; and more importantly, for their material possessions. They are afraid of minorities, the poor, and the ACLU.

As you can only fight fear with fear, we must save police brutality before it becomes extinct. I propose an organized effort to encourage police brutality, especially the public display of such brutality, so that all transgressors, and all potential transgressors, fully understand the consequences of their actions. Such a policy is the only means to bring safety and security for all of us with means and wherewithal.

The first thing that must be done is to change our language in order to create an environment more open to police brutality. The use of the word "pig" has long instilled disrespect and dishonor to the good name of the men in blue. But it doesn't have to be this way. A pig is a clean, noble animal, and being called one should no longer be an insult. By turning this word into a term of endearment, the villains will lose one of their chief weapons against the police. As such, society -- through an organized advertising campaign -- should officially change the word "police" to "pigs." The police department should now be called the pigs department and policemen should be addressed not as "officer," but as "officer pig," especially when being beaten by one.

The next thing we must do is establish the Pigs Law. This federal law will override Miranda and any other laws that hinder the pigs from doing their job. It will state categorically that pigs have the right to commit brutality at their own discretion. It will also forbid the criminal and civil prosecution of pigs. Additionally, the law will establish the federal Department of Homeland Pigs, which will promote pig brutality across the country, and create the cabinet-level post of the Secretary of Homeland Pigs. This post will not be political -- the holder of the office shall have a lifetime term. Its initial holder can be none other than Mr. Giuliani, who has valiantly defended the right of pigs to commit arbitrary brutality throughout his glorious career.

Finally, the television show formerly known as "Cops" will be shown 24 hours a day, and every citizen will be required to watch it a few hours a day. To ensure this, devices similar to those used in George Orwell's 1984 will be implanted in every television set.

The effects of these measures will be dramatic. Poor young minorities, knowing they could be beaten or killed for no particular reason whatsoever, will keep a low profile -- meaning, they will keep out of good neighborhoods -- thereby no longer being a threat to rich white Americans. As they will also no longer be outspoken when it comes to demanding their civil rights, our nation will finally return to the harmony it enjoyed in the early 1950s.

The effects of increased brutality, though, will reach far beyond the minority communities. There will be no more peace marches -- in fact, no more demonstrations of any kind. There will be no more union strikes, and no more freedom of speech, press, and religion. Fear will cross all racial, social, and economic boundaries. Fear will make us all better citizens because we will do as we're told and act as an unified collective, a team. And best of all, fear will keep the trains running on time.

Encouraging police brutality will bring us the utopian society we all secretly crave -- a society in which we can finally feel safe -- a society that even Vladimir Lenin would be proud to belong.

SENDING GRANDMA TO THE OVENS (2003)

2009-01-01T19:11:00.002-08:00

SENDING GRANDMA TO THE OVENS (2003)

As our nation gets older and older, we will soon face a major dilemma: what will we do when the vast majority of our citizenry is composed of non-productive senior citizens, who instead of contributing to our country's wealth are draining it of its very sustenance? The answer lies in providing these people a special form of early retirement: extermination. While this may seem a bit harsh, it will create unmatched economic prosperity and will relieve the heavy emotional burden carried by families who must support -- and even occasionally visit -- their elderly members.

Natural law, a law clearly inspired by God that preceded and should supersede all man-made laws, has a special method for dealing with the elderly, a method that applies to all species: either they are to be eaten by younger, stronger, and faster members of other species; or, realizing their innate uselessness, they leave the tribe and go off alone where they can peacefully starve to death and be eaten by vultures. In the beginning, this law applied to humans as well -- it only deviated when man adopted Confucian and Judeo-Christian philosophy, which mistakenly taught reverence for the old.

Still, up until the past century, the burden of this reverence was placed solely on the family; and even then, it was purely voluntary. If a family couldn't afford (or couldn't be troubled) to take care of their elderly, the hardship didn't fall on society. In fact, as these people were forced to work up until their deaths in workhouses or on the street (and ate many tins of cat food), they actually contributed to society, albeit in a small and somewhat unsightly way.

This symbiotic system unfortunately ended with the Marxian-laced policies of the New Deal. Just because of a little depression and a few million hungry old people, Franklin Roosevelt autocratically encumbered future generations with an evil program called Social Security. With Social Security, society was now legally bound to financially support the elderly. And while, in theory, the costs were to be financed by individual contributions, by linking payments made by Social Security -- however small -- to the cost of living, they created the possibility of an endless pit.

Things got much worse in the 1960s when Lyndon Johnson and his Great Society gave us Medicare, which guaranteed medical insurance for the elderly. It was no longer sufficient to help them pay for their cat food, now we would have to pay for some of their medical expenses too. This program, in combination with Social Security, also had the undesirable effect of raising life expectancy dramatically, raising costs even higher.

The situation was even further exasperated with the formation of the American Association of Retired People (AARP), a political action committee created to protect and enhance government-sponsored handouts to the elderly. This group is now one of the strongest and most influential PACs -- all due to the insignificant fact that old people, because they have nothing better to do, actually vote.

The economic consequences of abandoning God's natural law is enormous and will only worsen exponentially. Currently, the cost for Medicare is 220 billion dollars per year. By 2011, this cost is estimated to increase to 491 billion dollars, or 19 percent of the federal budget. The cost will then soon double when the Baby Boom generation begins to retire.

As a much larger percent of the population will be elderly -- the US Census estimates that by 2025 the population over 65 will increase 80 percent while the number of working Americans will increase only 15 percent -- payroll and other federal taxes will have to increase dramatically to meet the costs. And the Congressional Budget Office says that by 2030, the cost of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will consume 75 percent of the federal budget. In the worse case, we could be facing the insolvency of the entire government; and in the very best scenario, it will mean far less money for much more needed government programs, such as building weapons of mass destruction.

Additionally, these costs do not include the many long-term care costs that are not covered by the federal government, such as lengthy nursing homes stays, which in general are paid mostly by families. Today, a year of nursing home costs on average $50,000. In future, as these costs double, triple, or even quadruple, many families will face certain ruin. At the very least, they will be unable to afford satellite television.

The elderly problem has also created a hidden cost: the cost of health care insurance in general. The ever-rising cost of health insurance, which has become unaffordable for many working people, is directly related to the ever-rising cost of providing health care, which the elderly receive at an extremely disproportional rate to the public at large.

Of course, money isn't everything. The care of the elderly carries many emotional costs. For families that can afford external care, they must give up part of their hard-earned weekends and holidays to visit elderly members. Men must forgo time on the golf course, women time at the salon, and children time in front of the TV watching cartoons or playing video games -- all to visit depressing, urine-soaked institutions of impending death. And how many of these old people truly appreciate the minutes their families sacrifice when they come and visit?

An even worse situation is when families can't afford external care or when their elderly relatives selfishly refuse such care. They must then suffer and patronize them in their own homes, cook and clean for them, and listen to their useless babble. And the old people, as they become more and more incoherent with age, soon become an embarrassment -- a consequence of which is that families must curtail dinner and cocktail parties, which could have a major effect on their social standing within the community.

Of course, identifying problems is sometimes much simpler than identifying solutions. One method for determining solutions to problems facing our society, though, is to look toward corporate America. Often solutions developed by large businesses can be applied to government. When companies become bloated and need to reduce costs -- so as to ensure shareholder profits and executive bonuses -- a relatively painless solution is to implement an early retirement program, where employees are encouraged to retire prematurely by offering them financial incentives.

Based on this model, I propose we develop a special early retirement program as a final solution to the problem of the elderly. The program will offer the elderly and their families certain financial incentives in exchange for their extermination. Unlike most corporate early retirement programs, though, this program will not be voluntary.

The program will work as follows: everyone 65 or older will report -- or will be brought forcibly if necessary -- to their local termination center, which will be conveniently located across the country in local shopping malls. At this time -- if they report on their own volition -- they will receive one-half of their total contribution to the Social Security system, which is still far more than what they would have received through the current system. They can either leave this money to their descendants or donate it to charity. The choice is theirs. After completing their paperwork, the elderly will be transported to crematories for further processing.

Undoubtedly, this program will be a little controversial. Some seniors, acting purely out of self-interest, might complain; and as the AARP has a stranglehold on many politicians, it might be difficult to get Congress to approve it. Fortunately, Section 501 of the Defense Security Enhancement Act, also known as Patriot II, provides the executive branch the much needed ability to presumptively denationalize American citizens who support the activities of any organization that it has deemed terrorist. As "terrorism" can be defined as the "systematic use of intimidation to coerce governments," the AARP could easily be branded a terrorist organization by the president; and hence all of its members -- which include almost the entire elderly population -- could be legally expatriated. And if the Supreme Court attempts to overrule this interpretation, it too can be deemed "terrorist."

The families of seniors may also protest, as many mistakenly believe that they actually love their elder members. This can be resolved through a concerted plan of reeducation in combination with television and billboard advertising. If we get a few sport stars and entertainers onboard, the nation's undeniably pliable will will soon change. Especially when the checks for dead relatives start coming in the mail.

Once the early retirement program is in place, the direct economic benefits of it will be staggering. Firstly, those entering the workforce will no longer have to donate a large chunk of their paycheck to Social Security -- allowing them to use the money far more wisely on such things as booze, drugs, sex, and lottery tickets. Secondly, as the federal government will no longer have to prop up Social Security and Medicare, it can channel all these funds to the military, who can then implement early retirement programs across the world. Thirdly, health care costs will plummet, allowing hospitals, physicians, and insurance companies to earn far more money. Fourthly, families will no longer have to bear the economic and emotional costs of long-term care, freeing both disposable income and the opportunity to waste it. Additionally, by ending long-term care, we could convert all the nursing homes into luxury condominiums. Finally, this program will provide thousands of minimum wage jobs to those undereducated minorities who will work in the crematories.

The program can also produce an important indirect economic benefit. As the human body is rich in nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium, the ashes of our seniors will make excellent fertilizer, which we can provide to our farmers at low cost, who in turn will use it to grow tasty grains, fruits, and vegetables for us to enjoy. We can also export the fertilizer to poor Third World nations, through loans provided by the IMF at marginally usurious interest rates, so they too can enjoy our dead elderly. And through USAID and the Peace Corps, we can even teach these wretches how to make their own fertilizer.

Early retirement will also provide a host of side benefits. The roads and supermarket lines will move quicker, children will no longer be indoctrinated with old-fashioned morals and values, and there will be no more Dick Clark specials on TV. We will also need far fewer election workers; for by eliminating senior citizens, we will eliminate the majority of voters. Who knows, perhaps we could even eliminate voting all together.

The extermination of the elderly, true to both natural law and economic order, will provide a plethora of benefits, without any discernible drawbacks. America, send your grandfathers and grandmothers to the ovens -- if not for your greed, than for the greed of the nation.

NO DEATH PENALTY, NO EASTER BUNNY (2003)

2009-01-01T19:11:00.001-08:00

NO DEATH PENALTY, NO EASTER BUNNY (2003)

Arguments against the death penalty are usually based upon the erroneous theory that it is morally wrong to kill a human being, regardless of the crime committed. The basis of this theory is Judeo-Christian ideology, which is mistakenly interpreted by well-intentioned sillies, wholly ignorant of where good intentions necessarily lead. The truth is that the death penalty lies at the foundation of the Christian religion; and without such a policy, we would not only be without Christianity, but we would also be without Easter Bunnies.

In the beginning, during Biblical times, all was good. God took more of an interest in us in those days -- rewarding the pious and punishing the sinners on an almost daily basis. We really didn't need the death penalty, as God took care of it Himself, such as when he passed the sentence of death on both the citizens of Sodom and Gomorra and the first-born sons of Egypt. But God soon became quiet and passed His power to destroy life onto His creations, as expressed in Exodus 21:23-25: "But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise" and somewhat redundantly in Leviticus 24:19-21: "If a man injures his neighbor, just as he has done, so it shall be done to him: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; just as he has injured a man, so it shall be inflicted on him. 'Thus the one who kills an animal shall make it good, but the one who kills a man shall be put to death.'"

Those well-intentioned sillies may answer that God, when passing the Law onto Moses, expressly forbid the killing of people by virtue of the Fifth Commandment: "Thou shall not kill." But if you look closely at this statement, you'll see just how badly it's been misinterpreted. As you can see, God used the nearly-forgotten English word "thou" instead of "you." Whereas the word "you" properly refers to a collective, "thou" refers to a single person. What God was saying was that you as an individual cannot kill, but He does not forbid you as a collective, meaning society, from killing.

At the dawn of the Christian era, Mosaic Law was superseded by a better and hipper New Law. The sillies often use this law as furthering their argument against the death penalty. They are wont to site Matthew 5:38-39: "You have heard that it was said, 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.' But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also." But this rule clearly applies only to slapping; and of course, no one has ever been executed because of a slap.

The life and -- more importantly -- the death of Christ further substantiates the death penalty. After all, Christ received the death penalty. And if God was against it, He would've surely intervened against the execution of His only Son. By allowing the Romans to carry out the sentence, He tacitly approved it.

And what was the result of this act? Christianity. For without the death penalty, Christ would not have died on the Cross; and ipso facto, he could not have been resurrected -- which is, of course, the foundation of the religion. Just think of all the glorious wars and crusades fought in the name of Christ, all the heretics burned at the stake, and all the intolerance and hatred of other faiths. None of these things could have been possible without the death penalty.

Without the death penalty, there would also be no Easter; and with it, no Easter parades, no Easter bonnets, no painted Easter eggs, and most catastrophically, no Easter bunnies -- chocolate or otherwise. And let us not forget that millions of people around the world get Easter Monday off as holiday -- all because of the death penalty.

The death penalty also begot almost all the important saints, as without the death penalty, they couldn't have been martyred. Would anyone truly care about Paul's little epiphany on the road to Damascus -- would anyone read his long epistles -- if he hadn't had his head chopped off so spectacularly by Nero? Paul also made Stephan a saint when he passed the sentence of death on him. And of course, Saint Peter owes his eternal position guarding the Pearly Gates almost solely to his crucifixion.

As many of us are named either directly or indirectly after saints, without the death penalty many of us would almost certainly have different names. The music group of Peter, Paul, and Mary would've had a completely different name and may never have reached fame. There would also be no "George," and hence we would lose the name of two of our greatest presidents: George Washington and George W. Bush.

Without the death penalty, Joan of Arc could not have been dramatically burnt at the stake; and as a result, the world would be without a Shakespearean play, a naughty poem by Voltaire, and a major motion picture starring Milla Jovovich. And the French people would also be without one of their few heroes.

The death penalty has also made perpetual heroes of Socrates, Spartacus, William Wallace, Jan Hus, Walter Raleigh, Thomas More, Nathan Hale, Anastasia Romanova, and the Rosenbergs. The injustice of their executions only made them more heroic and more remembered, and made books and films based on their lives more profitable.

Many of our greatest inventions were created solely to serve the death penalty. The guillotine, the electric chair, the gas chamber -- great amounts of intellectual energy were expounded to kill miscreants quicker, cheaper, and more efficiently. Without the death penalty, the minds of these inventors may have lain barren -- or worse yet, they may have wasted their talents on the far less noble task of extending human life.

In addition to creating deities, saints, and heroes, the death penalty has also provided society with a host of benefits.

Firstly, the death penalty acts as a deterrent against crime. Many sillies will argue against this -- stating that statistics do not show any reduction in violent crime in states where the death penalty has been imposed, and in certain cases show an increase in violent crime. But common sense will tell you that if you kill someone, that person is certainly deterred from committing any further crimes.

But what if that person was innocent? Forgetting for a moment that -- due to Original Sin -- none of us are truly innocent, we must acknowledge that it is possible some people are executed for crimes for which they didn't commit. But as the Nazis so eloquently affirmed, it is far better to punish ninety-nine innocent people than to let one guilty one go free. Besides, just because a person didn't commit the crime for which he or she was executed, it doesn't mean that they wouldn't have committed a similar crime sometime in the future.

Secondly, the death penalty makes economic sense. There are approximately two million criminals in United States prisons. The average cost of maintaining a single prisoner is approximately $25,000, not including the cost of cable television. This means that the annual cost of incarceration is fifty million dollars. But killing prisoners cost next to nothing -- that is, outside of the endless appeal processes made by sillies, who have a callous disregard for the taxpayer costs involved.

As an additional economic benefit, executions bring in lots of tourist income to the cities that host them. Not dissimilar to those who attend major sporting events, people who come to joyfully witness capital punishment spend countless dollars at hotels and restaurants, and are also likely buy some souvenirs to commemorate the occasion.

Finally, the death penalty is humane. Ask yourself, do we imprison stray dogs in pounds for life? No -- we put them to sleep, because doing otherwise would be inhumane. As criminals are certainly not much worse than dogs, they should be treated similarly. Additionally, impending mortality makes prisoners more likely to reflect on their sins and truly repent. We might be destroying their physical essence, but we are saving something far more valuable, their eternal souls. Eventually, they will be grateful.

The only problem with the death penalty is that it is rarely used. While federal law and many state laws allow for the murder of villains, bleeding-heart judges and juries only apply it in cases where there is sufficient media scrutiny. We must change this. I propose that the laws be changed so as to enforce the death penalty on any person convicted of a violent crime, without any opportunity for appeal. The law should apply retroactively to all those currently in our prison system.

The list of violent crimes punishable by death will include the old standards such as murder, rape, and armed robbery, but will also include treason, heresy, and protesting against just wars. Also included in the list of capital offenses will be the heinous act of abortion, as no one has the right to take another life.

The question soon arises, how shall we kill all these people en masse? The argument over which means of execution is the best and most efficient has been debated ad nauseum for ages, and no clear choice has been agreed upon. We could revive Zyklon B -- the gas the Nazis used so effectively -- but doing so may also set off some touchy emotions -- some may even have the audacity to call us nasty names. No, the best and the most dramatic means of execution has and will always be crucifixion.

No other form of execution provides the benefits of crucifixion. It's so violent and gruesome that it will surely deter crime, it's cheap -- especially if we make the crosses from laminate, and it creates a spectacle that will draw huge crowds both live and on television. As for being humane, well, "humane" is a relative term. I believe that if it were good enough for the Son of Man, it's humane enough. And finally, crucifixions will almost certainly create many heroes of tomorrow; and if we're lucky, it may even spawn a couple of deities, and with them some tasty chocolate candy.

For further dramatic effect, all crucifixions on television should take place on a hill, in groups of three, with the executioners dressed in Roman garb. We can even create reality shows based on crucifixions. For example, "Who Wants to Crucify a Murderer?" -- in which contestants vie for the opportunity to nail the first spike into the villain's flesh. We'll even provide a water basin for contestants to wash their hands afterward.

Crucifixions will also be a boon for the gambling industry, as casinos can provide odds on how long each prisoner will survive on the cross. To aid gamblers, television shows, magazines, and 1-900 numbers will provide detailed handicapping information.

Of course, we shouldn't forget the bottom line. By killing our prisoners, we will save almost enough money to buy one fighter jet, with which we could kill criminals in other countries. Alternatively, we could use the savings to provide wealthy Americans a tax cut -- so they can meet the ever-increasing cost of maintaining their yachts.

The death penalty is a win-win policy for everyone, criminals included; and when fully implemented, it will solve our social and economic problems and will provide many hours of wholesome, family-friendly television watching.

FLAGS, FLAGS, AND EVEN MORE FLAGS (2003)

2009-01-01T19:10:00.000-08:00

FLAGS, FLAGS, AND EVEN MORE FLAGS (2003)

During the Second Gulf War, when some American patriots bravely hacked the Web site of Al-jazeera -- an evil news organization that unexplainably refused to report the news according to the Pentagon's wishes -- what was the image that the put in its place? An American flag captioned with the bold and creative phrase: "Let Freedom Ring." These American Fedayeen understood what others like them have understood since the foundation of our nation -- that the symbol of the American flag takes precedence over any superfluous civil liberties such as the freedom of expression and the freedom of the press.

The American flag has always stood as a symbol of what makes this country great: unity and subservience to a great common cause. Its symbol is as representative of this nation as motherhood, apple pie, and Chevrolet; and its reverence is only exceeded by the Holy Bible, and then only slightly. It's the ultimate truism to state that the value contained within its precious stars and stripes outweighs any intangible, crypto-communistic ideals contained on decaying scraps of paper, such as the Declaration of Independence or the United States Constitution.

During the Revolutionary War, it was not the elitist, Rousseau-inspired beliefs in democracy and the rights of man that put fear into the hearts of the British soldiers. It was that flag with the big snake on it, hissing: "Don't Tread on Me!" Yes, it was a very big snake. And later, when Betsy Ross, the godmother of this country, designed what was soon called the "Stars and Stripes," the Redcoats must have surely known they were finished.

The flag, from that point on, has played a pivotal role in the history of our country.

In the War of 1812, in one of the most dire moments of the country, our capital lay burning. While the politicians and their gilded Jeffersonian concepts fled, it was "our flag," as Francis Scott Key so beautifully composed in the national anthem, that "was still there." Those words have since put many tears in the eyes of the true believers.

In 1835, when Americans were attempting to liberate Texas as part of our great Manifest Destiny, Mexico, wholly ignorant of God's plan for us, had the audacity to fight -- and all because their people had happened to live there for a few hundred years. Early the following year, during the Battle of the Alamo, our brave mercenaries fought valiantly against superior forces, refusing to lower the flag, and were eventually gloriously martyred for it.

The Civil War has often been described as a conflict over state rights, over slavery, and over the future of liberty. But in fact it was a conflict over who had the prettiest flag. Millions of soldiers, fearlessly butchering their brothers, were not carrying copies of their respective constitutions into battle, but instead were carrying their lovely multicolored flags. And as a testament to the power of flags, descendants of Confederate fighters joyfully need only to display their flag to incite the fear and the loathing of their enemies.

Later in the nineteenth century, when petty heathens -- referred to today as Native Americans -- not unlike the Mexicans before them, wrongfully believed they had the right to their own lands, blissfully unaware of their innate inferiority, it was the flag, leading the charge of the cavalries, that put the proper fear into their hearts. Because of these noble deeds, the flag today flies high over every casino in Indian territory.

It was the same flag decades later, at the dawn of jingoism, that Teddy Roosevelt heroically carried as his men took San Juan Hill -- finally eradicating centuries of evil and decadent Spanish imperialism and replacing it with righteous, true-blue American imperialism. And for the first time, the American flag proudly waved outside our borders, bathing all those sublimated by it in its warm light.

But simply flying over our backwater neighbors was not enough for our grand old flag. It had greater aspirations -- aspirations that were fulfilled in World War I when Woodrow Wilson decided to make the world safe for the Stars and Stripes. America finally shook off all remnants of the inherent pacifism of our founding fathers, and our young men got the privilege of dying for the flag in far-off lands.

The American flag unquestionably reached its zenith during World War II when it flew over ever corner of the world, establishing itself as the preeminent force in the world. It had many memorable moments in this war, such as when those gallant troops sacrificed their lives to raise it over Iwo Jima -- the image of which creates uncontrollable emotion in the minds of all right-thinking Americans. Just think -- if it weren't for this brave act, we wouldn't have that wonderful statue commemorating it.

But if respect and admiration for the flag was at its height in World War II, it fell to its lowest during the Vietnam War. At this time, our spoiled, overeducated youth failed to see the unerring logic of our military establishment when it attempted to block the "domino effect" of communism in Indochina, by propping up the toppling dominoes with the blood of our soldiers. Our young people, so blind to this historical cause, disloyally took to the streets -- doing sick, disgusting things to our flag, such as wrapping it around their unclean bodies. For the first time in our history, our children even selfishly refused to sacrifice themselves -- putting themselves above the flag.

Fortunately, this counterculture movement was short-lived; and the flag regained much of the respect it lost as we became the world's lone superpower -- capable of conquering friend and foe alike. People once again raise the flag in pride when our soldiers kill and maim foreigners who get in our way, and even our politicians were flags on their lapels -- at least those planning to run for reelection.

But while there's cause for a certain amount of optimism, we have a lot more to accomplish. I believe that all our social, political, and moral ills can be alleviated through the involuntary use and promotion of our flag. The flag can be a unifying tool that eliminates dissension, decadence, and depravity; and it will make all of us happy and content.

So, where do we begin? We must begin with our children. We must instill in them the proper reverence of the flag and an irrational obedience to its authority.

For many years, American children have been forced to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. This is a good thing, but the pledge must be updated to reinforce the message. I suggest it should be changed as follows: "I pledge allegiance with my blood to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republicans who courageously protect it, the one nation beloved by God, indivisible and unified in thought, with liberty and justice for all those who prove worthy." And while they are reciting this, their right hand should be placed on their heart and their left hand on the King James version of the Bible, the cover of which should be embossed with an image of the flag . . . just as Jesus would have wanted. And instead of reciting it once a day in the morning, it should be recited every hour -- even at home.

Truly exceptional youths, those who have proven their loyalty to the flag by exposing unbelievers, should be made flag monitors. Flag monitors will have the task to ascertain that all students are reciting the pledge properly -- without sarcasm or cynicism -- and they will also have the power to detain and punish violators, before delivering such malefactors to the appropriate authorities. As with other crimes, parents will be held responsible for the actions of their children.

One of the biggest flaws with the current pledge of allegiance policy is that it is not enforced after high school. It's no small wonder why the instances of social protest and disrespect for our common values dramatically increase in college. The pledge of allegiance should be required at all institutions of higher learning, whether they are public or private. The policy should also be enforced within all dormitories, within fraternity and sorority houses, and within private housing. And no student should be given a degree unless they have spoken a verifiable number of pledges.

The pledge should also be extended to our workforce. What better way to enforce the principles of conformity, teamwork, and thoughtless loyalty -- principles on which every corporation thrives. A flag should also be placed in every office, cubicle, and workspace. And those who work with computers should be required to have a flag screensaver.

This, of course, is only the beginning.

For many years, patriotic Americans have displayed flags outside their homes to prove their loyalty. In fact, the most patriotic American in any given neighborhood is always the one with the largest flag. This display of obedience, though, should no longer be voluntary. If some foreign agent were to visit one of our towns and see that some houses were without flags, they might see this as a sign of weakness, making us more pervious to terrorist attacks. Therefore, we should enact a law requiring flags not only in front of every abode in our country, but on the other three sides as well. In the future we can expand this law by requiring homes to be surrounded by flags, with a distance of no greater than one yard between each flag.

Bumper stickers depicting the flag have been popular for years, and they too should become mandatory. As part of the automobile registration process (and renewals), every car should have a flag bumper sticker carrying the slogan: "THESE COLORS DON'T RUN!" Smaller versions of these stickers should also appear on motorcycles, bicycles, and tricycles.

Once a week, every American should wear a shirt or blouse either depicting the flag; or better yet, made from an actual flag. The perfect day would be on Sundays, so as to show the oneness of the flag with God. However, so as to show that Americans are not religious bigots, Jews may wear their flag garments on Saturday -- just as long as the garments also depict the Star of David. Muslims likewise can wear theirs on Fridays. Muslim women should also be free to wear flag burkas.

Religions should also do their part in promoting the flag. They should convince their flocks that undying love of the flag is the true path to the Afterworld. They should also excommunicate those who deviate from this path. I would even suggest updating some of the prayers. For example, children should be baptized "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and of the American Flag."

Those convicted of flag violations should be sent to special flag prisons. These prisons will be run by our large textile manufacturers, who have years of valuable experience running slave labor operations around the world. In these prisons, convicts will spend most of their time making flags of all shapes, sizes, and varieties. In their free time, though, they will reeducated -- using extremely persuasive means -- in the ways of proper flag worship.

In addition to forcing the love of our flag on our citizenship, there are other means we can use to promote it.

Marshall McLuhan famously once wrote that the "Medium is massage," and we should not overlook the power of the media as a tool for indoctrinating our citizens in the glory of the flag. We should work with Hollywood to make certain that every scene in every movie, television program, and video game contains an image of the flag. These images could and should be mostly subliminal, as these types of images have been proven to be the most effective. The covers of every book, magazine, and music CD should also contain these images, as well as all advertisements -- most of which already contain many subliminal elements.

And finally, let's not forget that we can also eat the flag. Every cake, whether commemorating a birthday, wedding, or some other occasion should use a design incorporating the flag. Using the latest chemical technology, we can also magically convert any food to look like our flag. Even pizza pies can be turned into flags by using marginally semi-toxic red, white, and blue dyes in the cheese.

Our American flag has an illustrious history of representing what is right, good, and wholesome about this country. By taking these necessarily extreme and unconstitutional steps to ensure its future, we can ensure our own future as well.

INCREASING COLLATERAL DAMAGE; OR, GENOCIDE FOR FUN AND PROFIT (2003)

2009-01-01T19:07:00.000-08:00

INCREASING COLLATERAL DAMAGE; OR, GENOCIDE FOR FUN AND PROFIT (2003)

"War," Shakespeare once wrote, "exceeds peace as far as day does night; it's sprightly, waking, audible, and full of vent." And with war comes many glorious side effects -- most notably, collateral damage. This term, a fairly modern one, was developed by our overly-conscientious American military complex to soften public resistance to the justified homicide of non-combatants -- those who are in the way of achieving a desired and just military objective.

The term "collateral damage" came into vogue during the first Gulf War in the early 1990s. This was the first major conflict for the United States military since the Vietnam War, a war many generals believe was lost not on the battlefield, but on television. They believed that if they had only understood marketing and public relations better, the outcome would have been quite different. For example, if only the "Massacre at Mai Lai" could have been called the "Inopportune Kinetic Targeting of the Local Populace at Mai Lai," the American public would have quickly forgiven and forgotten the honest mistake of slaughtering over three hundred innocent men, women, and children.

The first Gulf War proved just how media savvy the military complex had become. Not only did they come up with cute catch phrases such as "collateral damage" and "smart bombs," they also controlled the flow of information to the media establishment by having former military officers appear on television to properly dehumanize mass casualties. And they used the "new media" to anesthetize war -- making it appear as a video game, something the average American could understand, appreciate, and even empathize with.

And what was the outcome of these efforts? Not only did America win the war quickly -- restoring the duly unelected leader of Kuwait, and reestablishing the free and inexpensive flow of oil from the area -- but the military was able to murder an estimated 35,000 civilians without protest from either the American Left or the world community. It didn't even matter that half the dead were children -- they were simply a Stalinian statistic.

Collateral damage in Iraq, of course, didn't end with the conclusion of hostilities. The United States had to punish Saddam Hussein by killing -- according to United Nations estimates -- a half-million of his Iraqi children through the use of sanctions. When told of this number, former US secretary of state Madeline Albright said that it was perfectly acceptable. And she was right. After all, many of these children would eventually grow into soldiers, who would then hamper future military operations, plans of which were being developed as soon as the War ended. By destroying an entire generation of Iraqis, we were simply "decapitating" one of Hussein's greatest "assets."

The 1990s was truly a great time to be an American. The economy was thriving; and with the fall of the Soviet Union, we were able to freely police the world in fun places such as Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo -- inflicting collateral damage whenever we felt the urge -- the right and the privilege of being the lone superpower. But then, something bad happened. Our enemies wrongfully came to the conclusion that they too could inflict collateral damage . . . on us. This conclusion, of course, was wholly illogical, as they had no sharp-talking generals, no fancy vocabulary, and no video games. What was worse was that instead of inflicting collateral damage through the use of smart bombs, their weapon of choice was suicide attackers -- a clear violation of the Geneva Convention, which clearly states that the mass slaughter of human beings must be carried out exclusively through gentlemanly means.

The attacks started out small -- mostly against our proxy in the Middle East, Israel. We condemned the attacks, but mostly ignored them. After all, they weren't killing Christians. But then came September 11, 2001. The day we as Americans finally awoke to our innate superiority. Now we could finally inflict collateral damage without any hesitation due to some misconceived notion of morality.

Afghanistan was our first target. They were superficially indirectly responsible for the attacks on September 11; but more importantly, they were easy to attack. And besides, no one liked them anyway, not even the Iranians -- so there wouldn't be much of a fuss. Also, Americans were so mad, we didn't care whom we killed -- just as long as they were Muslim and sufficiently different from us. Again, we had lots of generals on television showing us all sorts of fun new video games, and we easily crushed the infidels.

However, according to the Boston Globe, we only killed approximately one thousand civilians, and far less than fifty percent of them were children. This was truly a troubling development. How could we possibly teach these people a lesson -- thou shall not challenge the United States -- if we allowed so many of their civilians to remain alive? It's a mistake that has haunted us ever since, as the ungrateful Afghanis have consistently scorned the freedom we imposed on them; and instead of properly bowing to us in the streets, they constantly make petty demands on us for insignificant things such as food, water, and shelter. And that's only when they're not taking potshots at our brave soldiers, those who have graciously sacrificed the comforts of home to teach these people blind subservience to the American flag and to our great Christian god.

Unfortunately or perhaps fortunately, we quickly got bored with Afghanistan; and as the president's poll numbers started to slide when Americans selfishly became focused on mundane issues such as feeding their families, a new enemy had to be found. But who? Why not our old friend Saddam Hussein? He was still in power; and thanks to those crippling sanctions imposed on Iraq since the first Gulf War, they were the perfect enemy. Even though we had already killed much of their population, there were still many left, especially as Muslim populations have a tendency to rabbit-like increases.

Thus began the second Gulf War. However, as opposed to the first one, when the world was united to turn back a ruthless dictator who had unjustly overthrown another ruthless dictator, we didn't have a convincing enough argument. Actually, we didn't have any argument -- despite the best efforts of all the screenwriters working in the White House. So, it was up to us alone to inflict collateral damage. But as the cliché goes, "the more, the merrier."

Preliminary results of the War, though, are quite discouraging. There have been only a few thousand civilian casualties; and again, a far lower percent of dead children. As the occupation progresses, we have seen slight increases of both these numbers, but only slight. We can only come to the conclusion that this great crusade, while done with the best of intentions, has, like in Afghanistan, come up somewhat short.

The heart of the problem, I believe, is that we have a muddled policy regarding collateral damage, a policy which we need to make far more succinct. I propose that instead of making collateral damage a hidden side benefit of our policy, it must become the cornerstone of it; and it must be taken to the next logical level. I call for the mass extermination of enemy populaces, a policy that will enrich us both economically and politically. It is a policy that we should not be ashamed to state openly.

By eliminating populaces, we will not only eliminate current and future enemies, but we will also gain control over their natural resources -- whatever those resources may be -- resources that we should've controlled all along considering we use them the most. We will also get what the Nazis called "Lebensraum" -- living space for us to breathe. Of course, the world may very well protest. But even if they do so sufficiently and with a loud enough voice, we could simply hand control of these resources to our not-so-secret proxies, the multinational corporations.

Unfortunately, when we say "the mass extermination of enemy populaces," this conjures an ugly word in the English language: genocide. It conjures Hitler, Pol Pot, and Edi Amin. These men lamentably took a perfectly acceptable term, something that was practiced by heroic men from Biblical times onward (even God, in His infinite wisdom, practiced it on many occasions to teach us a much needed lesson) and bastardized it through their ignorance of the art of public relations.

Just as we invented the term "collateral damage," we must invent a term for genocide that the average American can accept and embrace. One possibility is "extreme collateral damage." Not only does it signify collateral damage at a much higher level, but the adjective "extreme" has come to be understood by our culture as something "cool." The term conjures not the brutal and senseless butchery of innocent people, but instead properly conjures Arnold Schwarzenegger's next film.

However, this term just doesn't seem creative enough -- it doesn't sound like something that would come from the pen of one of those scribes from Madison Avenue. A better term, I think, is "aggregate disappearance." It sounds scientific enough without sounding too sterile; there's a bit of mystery to it -- and best of all it's accurate without being too accurate. People won't be murdered, there will be neither blood nor cries of agony. People will just conveniently disappear.

So, where do we begin creating aggregate disappearances? One of the nations President Bush singled out when he made his eloquent, Churchillian speech about the "Axis of Evil" was Iran. They are a good choice, because as with Iraq, they have one of the world's largest oil reserves, they are populated by heretics, and their name begins with the letter "I." Iran is the perfect training grounds for our little experiment in disappearing -- the final solution of a problem that's been nagging us for more than twenty years.

The people of Iran, after decades of our unrelenting support for their benevolent tyrant, Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, which included restoring him to power by unselfishly overthrowing the democratically-elected government of Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh, showed their appreciation by taking our embassy hostage, a clear violation of international conduct. And ever since, the Iranians have failed to show us the respect we deserve -- even after we helped Iraq develop chemical weapons that were used so effectively against the Iranian population during their little war in the 1980s.

The plan against Iran should be concluded as follows. As we already have a large military deployment in the Gulf region, it will not be difficult to turn our weapons toward Tehran and begin creating disappearances. This should be done without warning, in classic Blitzkrieg fashion, so as to preclude Western journalists from witnessing it and putting a negative spin on the carnage.

The Second Gulf War conclusively proved our forces can overrun any country with the type of speed that would envy even Hitler. Add to this our new policy of encouraging collateral damage, and it would not be unreasonable to expect that the battle would last days, if not hours. And if the international community complains or protests, we'll just say that it was a necessary preemptive strike against terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. We can manufacture all the evidence they need.

After we've liberated Iran and eliminated most of its enemy populace, we will have control of its vast oil reserves; and in combination with the oil we already control in Iraq, we could easily break the OPEC cartel and soon anticipate the return of ten-cent-a-gallon gasoline prices, which would spur unparalleled growth in our economy.

A question that will arise soon afterward, though, is what will we then do with the few remaining Iranians and the places in Iran that do not contain oil. Using our history with Native Americans as a precedence, we could create reservations for the locals, within which we'll encourage alcoholism so as to keep the population docile. We'll then bus them to work in the oil fields, in the Persian rug factories, in the fast food chains, and in the golf clubs that we'll build across the country. If they behave themselves, we might even let them build and operate a few casinos. Finally, we'll send over our best fundamentalist Christian missionaries to make certain that all these poor souls will be saved.

Once we've fully cleansed Iran, we'll then free other countries. The next logical target would be the third member of the infamous Axis of Evil, North Korea. However, North Korea has almost no natural resources; and unlike the Middle Eastern nations, it might actually put up a fight. As such, it would clearly be better to sublimate North Korea through diplomatic means -- meaning that we'll let the United Nations annoy it with sanctions until it starves to death.

The forth unofficial member of the Axis, Syria, would seem to be a better candidate for disappearing. While it has only modest oil reserves, it has enormous amounts of natural gas deposits, which is perfect for heating American homes cleanly and cheaply.

Our military is so strong that we may even be able to finish Syria and its citizenry at the same time we're finishing Iran. And after Syria, it will be an easy task to wipe out the other oil producing states in the region, such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Qatar. Most of these Gulf nations have so few people that they will hardly be missed.

This purging will leave only a few oil producing nations outside our control, most notably Nigeria and Venezuela. Joyfully, both these nations are extremely unstable, and should acquiesce to their predestined fate without much enmity.

After we've taken control of almost all the world's oil reserves and have eliminated a considerable amount of the world's excess population, you might think that we as Americans will finally be able to rest. But one of the things that have always made us great is our ability to think outside the box. Wealth and world domination is not secured solely through the control of energy. There are nations abundant in gold, diamonds, and rich farmland -- all waiting to be liberated by us.

Yes, the task before us is immense and will require a unity of thought amongst all Americans -- a unity that must be achieved involuntarily if necessary. But, if done correctly and efficiently, our policy of aggregate disappearance will not only be highly profitable, but will also be a whole lot of fun as well.

Satirical Essays of Colin Cohen

Table of Contents

WHY GOLF IS GREAT (2002)

WHY GOLF IS GREAT (2002)

ONLY LITTLE PEOPLE PAY TAXES (2002)

ONLY LITTLE PEOPLE PAY TAXES (2002)

ODE TO CREDIT CARD DEBT (2002)

ODE TO CREDIT CARD DEBT (2002)

A SOMEWHAT MODEST PROPOSAL (2002)

A SOMEWHAT MODEST PROPOSAL (2002)

ENCOURAGING POLICE BRUTALITY; OR MAKING "PIG" A TERM OF ENDEARMENT (2003)

ENCOURAGING POLICE BRUTALITY; OR, MAKING "PIG" A TERM OF ENDEARMENT (2003)

SENDING GRANDMA TO THE OVENS (2003)

SENDING GRANDMA TO THE OVENS (2003)

NO DEATH PENALTY, NO EASTER BUNNY (2003)

NO DEATH PENALTY, NO EASTER BUNNY (2003)

FLAGS, FLAGS, AND EVEN MORE FLAGS (2003)

FLAGS, FLAGS, AND EVEN MORE FLAGS (2003)

INCREASING COLLATERAL DAMAGE; OR, GENOCIDE FOR FUN AND PROFIT (2003)

INCREASING COLLATERAL DAMAGE; OR, GENOCIDE FOR FUN AND PROFIT (2003)