Revenge of the Chipmunk
Now I don't feel so guilty for bashing the brains out of Alvin the menace of a chipmunk that eluded my manhunt for a couple of months. He reached number one on my most wanted list just I closed in on him like Dillinger at the Biograph theater. I kept telling people, "I feel a little guilty" but not anymore. From his plastic bag of a grave he is laughing now that one of his kin has decided to test my hunting skills. Yes, another chipmunk has taken up residence under my patio already dislocating a brick, and he too will soon reach chipmunk heaven. And when he does the Earth will be that much lighter.
He brazenly dug a tunnel on the other side of the walkway where Alvin dug his burrow and where he met his end. Since I had an unused shipment of chemical weapons of chipmunk destruction I used it. Intelligence (Cranky's wife) told me the high value target was in his spider hole. I ran into the house and prepared my WMDs. Intelligence (again Cranky's wife) left her post so she was not able to confirm that the target was in its lair. I made a command decision and authorized the use of chemical weapons. I love the smell of sulfur gas in a chipmunk's burrow. Smells like victory. The after action report does not allow me to confirm the death of the high value target but any escape will be shortlived. I will not outsource this problem to Afghani warlords or Orkin. Simon will be brought to justice or justice will brought to Simon, but justice will be done.
Labels: chemical weapons, chipmunk, justice, wmd
posted by Crankyboy at 11:37 AM
36 Comments:
Alvin is not dead, infidel. He is in hiding and will return on that day when when your house collapses and the unbelievers will cry out "Oh that I were dust."
You can build walls, you can make patios with brick and concrete, but walls can be undermined, bricks dug up and concrete cracked.
Even now, the furry insurgents are crossing your lot lines, from vacant lots, from woods and from gardens. They will fight you under the porches and in the flower beds; they will fight you from house to house. They will never surrender.
This comment has been removed by the author.
http://theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/024nesep.asp
Some people never learn.
Poisoning chipmunks is not funny.
Theodore is plotting.
Nice Apocalypse Now quote.
And nice Churchill paraphrase by Capt. Fogg
I'm still deciding if killing chipmunks is funny.
You are either St. Patrick or Michael Vick. Or a little of both.
Cranky tried the humane route - special traps, etc. Nothing worked. It's them or us. I wonder how some of you would feel if you had spent a crapload of money to build a patio and had to watch it being systematically destroyed.
Like I said earlier - this is coming from a vegetarian. I doubt you chipmunk supporters think twice about eating slaughtered cow or chicken (and by the way I have yet to meet anyone whose house was threatened by a cow or chicken).
"crapload?" I taught you to talk like that?
Actually we once did have a house threatened by cattle, but that's a long story.
And how come nobody noticed the Koran quote?
Anyway, in the natural world things like chipmunks do not die of old age but by being ripped to pieces by other animals we have eliminated. Nature is hardly a peaceable kingdom and life on earth would not have survived if animals did not live by eating other animals in the most unkind fashion. If the lion did not eat the lamb, it would be the end of both.
This whole Larry Craig business is showing how intolerant the Republicans are. I'm not trying to defend his breaking the law, but it seems typical that the Republicans would want to throw "the fag" out of the Senate. Similar illegal acts by Gerry Studds and alleged acts by Barney Frank did not result in their ouster from the House by the Democratic leadership.
Studds was censured, but that was in 1983. A little bit too long ago for anyone to use to characterize Congress or either party.
I think the most you can say about Barney Frank is that he's openly gay and that he once had a friend who secretly ran an escort service. He certainly never made a career out of trying to ruin other people's careers because of their sexuality.
Neither comparison is particularly apt, but I'd like to know how we got from rodents to Republicans - or maybe I've just answered my own question. . .
Yeah, I feel bad for Larry Craig. He was set up and just wanted a facial. But don't you think Barney Fag knew about the escort service?
Who cares - he didn't make a career out of making life miserable for gay people. His constituents support him and Craig's don't.
I sort of like Democracy, don't you?
You mean if 4 out of 5 people decide to give you the death penalty Fogg because they don`t like you, you would welcome the decision ?
Democracy is another name for slavery and special interest.
You are either part of the problem or part of the solution.
Does your Democracy legislate morality ? Yes. Ha ha.
Argument by assertion, contrived definitions, references to authority, empty slogans and insults. Why not just hang around the airport with yellow robes and a tambourine?
Should I take your advice and refuse to argue with a clown?
Or hang around an airport men's room with toes a-tapping and palm up with a wide stance.
Restless Senator syndrome?
Any more Larry Craig jokes?
One more, Larry Craig is a joke.
Would Larry Craig be a joke if he were a Democrat? There are those who say that Republicans have to be held to a higher moral standard because they preach them. Since Democrats don't preach the, should illegal and abnormal behavior be ojay for them? Actually, I think so. As with President Clinton, I have no problem if Democrats are child molesters, but I really don't think Republicans should be.
any politician caught under these circumstances would be a joke.
Anyone who's public persona is a heavy handed high and mighty sort, deserves what's coming to them, when they prove to be living a lie.
I believe in live and let live in general. We are all human, and have weaknesses.
However, Republicans have not endorsed the "live and let live" platform. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
We expect all Public officials to follow the law, and not be above the law. They may be guilty of moral indiscretions, but if they live within the law, then fine. Outside of the law, take a hike.
What about, if like Clinton, the politician is guilty of moral indiscretions (within the law) but later lies about them under oath (i.e. perjury - outside the law). By your logic, impeachment by the House was correct, but acquittal by the Seante was wrong.
Tough one to answer, isn't it.
Yes, indeed, fellow Anon, very tough, but Clinton goes appling mr. sleep's logic. Sorry liberals - you've hoisted yourself on your own petard with this one!
Anyone familiar with Jane Hamsher? I like her stuff. Cranky? Capt. Fogg? Mr. Sleep? Anyone?
What, more flatulence from the fringe element?
Now if I'm under oath and on trial for stealing a car and they ask me did I scratch my ass with my right had or left on June 23rd 1987 and I answer wrongly because I didn't want to discuss scratching my ass, is it lying under oath? I'm sure you wish that was a definition of perjury, but I'm sure y'all wish for a lot of things up there at the institute, but you can't have it your way.
Please try to recall that Clinton was being investigated for the illegality of legally propositioning an adult for oral sex and that that person wore braces, making the story somewhat implausible, and that that person was paid considerable money for her contrived and discredited testimony that was written for her by a Republican who publicly confessed to doing it. Her contention was that he did not send her flowers for secretary's day and that this constituted retribution. It's a really big straw to grasp at even for Republican wankers festering at the fringes of society like dogs at the city dump, but none of it is part of the same universe as soliciting underage boys in the cloak room. Only in your wet, sticky dreams.
It really doesn't matter what the meaning of is is and it really doesn't matter what he did with Monica. 6 years and 60 million and they couldn't get him on a library fine much less a crime because he didn't commit one. If you can't get over the grief of living with the truth, then there are many ways to end it and improve the world with your absence.
I don't think you're going to convince too many people with your slimy little solecisms that we should let perverts run our country and lecture us on God and morality and ethics because we didn't throw out Clinton for having a legal affair whether we like him for it or not or that somewhere, some Democrat did something wrong.
Grow up.
But why argue with the pustulent priests of Clintonhate - or any sneering, sex obsessed, Republican masturbatory polemicist? It's a religious argument having little to do with law or truth or logic or common decency and it uses its own unique and flexible terminology and system of logic where anything is anything, right is wrong and wrong is meaningless as long as you use the world Liberal.
And of course the public is entitled to hold any of their employees to any standard, double or triple, since they serve at the pleasure of the public. Nobody owes Craig or Bush or Foley a free job. They work for us and if we think they're stealing or fondling the pages or groveling on their knees in some bus-station toilet or just being obnoxious hypocrites and liars, we can fire them without consulting you to see if you think it's fair.
So if all you troglodytes twiddling your twinkies under some rock think you're making some clever little argument that's going to embarrass anyone who doesn't think Clinton is the devil, forget it. It doesn't matter what anyone else did at any time. It's no defense and never was - and nobody over the age of four and three digits in their IQ tries to get away with that excuse.
Well said! But what do you think of Jane Hamsher? I'm a liberal "anon" who just hasn't bithered to give myself a name yet? I love her blog, firedoglake.com.
I'm with you Fogg, but boy, don't pop a blood vessel with this jerk! Just ignore it, although I know it's easier said than done.
Of course, Capt. Fogg, I agree - why argue with the pustulent priests of . . . . . . . . . . . .
BUSHHATE!
And no, I don't think Larry Craig or Mark Foley can defend themselves by saying "So-an-so did it," but I was asking Mr. Sleep if, IN THEORY, and using HIS LOGIC, should Clinton have been impeached AND convicted. I'm not arguing over the definition of perjury. Let's just pretend (if you can stop screaming long enough) that Clinton really committed perjury about, for example, his bombing of the aspirin factory in the Sudan: by Mr. Sleep's logic he would NEED TO GO?!
Also, you seem death obsessed, but "threatening" me with it is uncalled for.
As Captain Kirk might say, "FOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Telling me how angry I am makes about as much sense as any other of your bone-headed assertions and bone-headed it is to read a death threat into anything I said. Unless of course you're playing to an audience rather than arguing with me. There are better places to find one, but I know you're here to annoy an individual, not to preach to the multitudes.
Of course I dislike Bush, I think he's dangerous to the world, that he's damaged the economy seriously, diminished liberty dangerously and put us all in jeopardy by his relentless jingoism. He's also caused the deaths of anywhere from half a million to a million people but you know that - you just don't care. Amongst those not either retarded or demented or otherwise dismissable as incapable of argument you probably represent a 5% opinion, so it really isn't surprising that you will run into a wall of sarcasm now and then, is it? And that's what it is, of course.
What did Clinton do to deserve equal opprobrium? Nothing of course. He was popular and for the most part successful and his enemies were in the same minority as they still are, not that they recognize that. His detractors were talking about the failure of his administration in the first week and still can't see the failures of Bush after all these years. You can't see the corruption, the war profiteering, the theft of public property. It's not rational, it's not honest, it's not intelligent and I don't think it's even quite sane to equate disgust with Bush to disgust with Clinton and then use that to counter all the evidence of Bush's perfidy, but hey - Charley Manson doesn't think he's nuts either.
But there's always that residue of incomplete evolution at the fringes of any species. After all, every shitbag from Vlad the Impaler to Pol Pot has his supporters. I have to expect that there are those who will support Bush and would support him as the representative of that atavistic subset of the gene pool they inhabit and regardless of what he did or said.
Nowhere in my post did I call you "angry," but I guess you've just admitted to that.
Also, you didn't answer my hypothetical perjury question. It's axiomatic that you equate Bush with Hitler and Clinton with Mother Theresa.
Oh, and liberty. Yes, mine is in great danger; I quake at the swarming secret service agents sifting through my garbage daily because even I have occasionally voted for a Democrat. You, of course, must be going to jail very soon for all of your deeply "subversive" commentary.
EVEN NEWT THINKS THE DEMS WILL WIN!! YAY! YAY! YAY!
Excerpts:
Linda Douglass: You said fairly recently that the Democrats had a very high likelihood of winning the presidency next year.
Newt Gingrich: I think that the country, after the last couple of years, has a bias in favor of change -- I think probably starting with [Hurricane] Katrina and coming through Baghdad and the whole sense of too much spending. And you sense a lack of enthusiasm in the conservative base, and you sense a stunning level of intensity in the anti-war Left. And so you just look at the dynamics and you have to say the odds are probably 80-20 [in the Democrats' favor].
Douglass: 80-20?
Gingrich: Yeah. That's my guess. Now, it could change. If you had a [Republican] candidate who could break out and who could say, "Obviously, we need to change pretty dramatically, and the party of trial lawyers, public employee unions, [and] left-wing ideologues probably can't change," and could force Hillary [Rodham Clinton] or Barack Obama or whomever to be the defender of failed bureaucracies, then I think you could see a Republican win next year. But I don't think they can win by passively staying within the framework of where we have been.
...
Gingrich: I think that any Republican has to have a core, direct, compelling message of why they would be different than [President] Bush and why they would be different than Clinton. And they have to be able to say it in 30 seconds. And they have to be able to say it so that people in their living room believe it matters to them and their family. None of our candidates have yet found that rhythm.
Douglass: What aren't the Republicans saying that they should be?
Gingrich: We need very bold, dramatic change, change at every level -- from school board to city council to county commission to state legislatures to the presidency. That's what the Republican Party has to stand for. And, frankly, the Republican Party hasn't stood for that.
...
Douglass: You are heading an organization called American Solutions for Winning the Future that is going to have workshops at the end of the month that will affect, you've said, your decision about whether to run for president. Why?
Gingrich: I reached the conclusion over the last five or six years that the scale of change we needed was not achievable in the current partisan political process. I set out to create an organization which would hold workshops, develop solutions, reach out to Americans in both parties, outline dramatically different ways of doing things. And then we are trying to set up a dialogue about the scale of change [that] people should expect. There is nobody out there prepared to say, on the Democratic side, "If we don't win in Iraq, here's how big the mess is going to be," with the exception of Joe Lieberman. There is nobody out there on the Republican side who is prepared to say, "You know, we are going to have to do it differently." I mean, "Stay the course" is not a rational option.
Douglass: What is going to happen at the end of this coming-together?
Gingrich: This is not about 2008. Very large public movements take a while to get off the ground. The only circumstance I can imagine under which [my wife] Callista and I would be faced with a choice about running this year would be if there is a vacuum in October so deep and people began to be so afraid of Senator Clinton winning that you could actually see by the end of October a scale of resources that would let you be genuinely competitive. The odds are, that won't happen. I'm very comfortable with projects that take more than a sprint.
Douglass: You could imagine circumstances in which you might run for president in 2012?
Gingrich: I'd be the same age in '12 [that] Reagan was when he was elected in 1980. The most tempting thought about running next year is the idea of debating Senator Clinton. That would be fun.
...
Douglass: Do you want to run?
Gingrich: Not necessarily. I want to serve my country. I don't want to run as an act of habit. I have no great interest in going out to campaign. I have every interest in finding a generation of solutions. So if you said to me, would I be willing to serve my country, the answer is yes. But it won't bother me to spend all of next year running workshops and developing a new generation of ideas, and trying to be available for every American, not just Republicans.
Oh my! I'm so disappointed! There actually is a leader in the world worse than Bush! I didn't think that was possible! Oh, my world is shattered!
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s seemingly ridiculous claim that "we don’t have homosexuals, like in your country" masks the cruel reality that his government does far worse than ignore gays, human rights groups charge.
"There are criminal laws on the books in Iran that allows for people to be killed for being homosexual," said Paula Ettelbrick, executive director of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission.
Just how many gays may have been killed — some say the figure is more than 400 — is impossible to determine. But Ahmadinejad’s flip follow-up answer to the question posed to him Monday at Columbia University — "We do not have this phenomenon. I don’t know who has told you that we have" — suggests he won’t take the issue seriously.
Human rights groups have long railed against the Iranian government’s persecution of gays, which Ettelbrick calls "a campaign by the government to draw attention to the risks of people expressing their sexuality." Some believe that repression has only worsened since Ahmadinejad became president.
"When I first heard his comments yesterday, I laughed," said Arsham Parsi, founder of the Toronto-based Iranian Queer Organization.
"But after I thought about it, I realized this is really a very strong statement. By denying we exist, he does not even acknowledge that we have human rights."
Iranian gays who try to operate in these circles do so at great peril. In one case widely covered by Western news agencies, Iran allegedly executed in July, 2005, an 18-year-old man and a minor for the "crime" of homosexuality.
The stories and a series of disturbing pictures of the executions were covered by the Iranian Student News Agency (ISNA), and widely distributed on the Internet.
• Click here to see the pictures. Warning: Graphic Content.
Iranian officials insisted the two were guilty of not just homosexuality, but the forcible rape of an underage boy. Gay rights supporters say those charges are often applied to homosexuals who engage in consensual relations.
Parsi said initial Iranian news reports said the two young men were executed because they were gay. But as reports and pictures of the case became more widely disseminated, Iranian officials only later included information about additional criminal charges.
According to Iranian law, consensual gay sex in any form is punishable by death. Violators are reportedly given a choice of four methods of execution: hanging, stoning, halving by sword — or being dropped from the highest perch.
Ironically, Parsi says the truth is that Iranian officials actually know quite a bit about homosexuals in Iran. Gay men in Iran are allowed medical dispensations from mandatory military service, for example, and the country’s secret police constantly monitor gay activities through Internet chat rooms and other electronic methods.
re "chipmunk has taken up residence under my patio already dislocating a brick"
fust o all, a whole family o chipmunks lives in my yard, n i don' blieve they cd dislocate a brick even if they worked 2gether. u sure we talkin bout same animal?
2nd, monica wore braces? geez, clinton really is a masochist, isn' he. my ex wore braces during the last months o our marriage. blieve me, it's painful.
off-topic:
did you attend Stuyvesant High School in the 60's?
WHOA FOOOOGGGGGG! WHAT ABOUT THAT OBAMA SUPPORTER QUOTING NEWT, AND THEN THE NUTTY ANON UPSET THAT THERE'S SOMEONE OUT THERE WORSE THAN BUSH? ARE YOU SURPRISED BUSH DOESN'T HAVE HOMOSEXUALS EXECUTED?
TO TOP IT ALL OFF, D NOVA IS ILLITERATE AND GRAPE IS A RACIST!
Post a Comment
<< Home