This Ad Isn't Helping Israel, Guys

‘Killing Jews is Worship’ posters will soon appear on NYC subways and buses

So first off, I don't understand the judge's decision. Must the MTA accept all advertising? So if I want to create an ad featuring a naked woman straddling an armadillo with the message, "Time to ride the horny armadillo," the MTA can't say no? They've just got to roll with it?

I'm all for free speech, but there's nothing in the 1st Amendment that says a publisher HAS TO publish anything it receives. Otherwise, my very convincing article about how we actually evolved from Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles who were warped back in time (as alluded to in the classic video game, "Turtles in Time") would have been published in the New York Times.

Secondly, Washington Post reporter Michael Miller writes, "Making the case all the stranger is that the posters are not the work of an Islamist group, but rather a pro-Israel organization." But is the "American Freedom Defense Initiative" even pro-Israel? Because this ad does nothing to convince anyone to support Israel. It does the exact opposite.

The most convincing argument among liberals inclined against Israel is that "the country is not a place of freedom and justice, but a place where Arabs and Muslims are subjugated, segregated and subjected to discrimination and prejudice." All this ad does is, well, reveal that this supposedly pro-Israel group believes "all Muslims are terrorists." Which plays into the hands of Israel's critics. If critics call you a country founded on prejudice... maybe don't launch an ad campaign that highlights your prejudicial viewpoint?

If you want to place an ad convincing people to support Israel, then why not create an ad like this:

That took me all of 2 seconds, so excuse the clunky language. My ad team will refine it in our brainstorming sessions. But hell, it makes a much better point. It's easy to say Israel shouldn't exist, that Israel is an apartheid state. But what do you want instead? Gaza?

What other country in the Middle East would you hold up as an example of equal human rights? What other place could an Arab and a Jew even consider having a friendship? That's the best argument for Israel-- its government may be a right-wing nut factory, its rights record sometimes spotty, its military sometimes overzealous (sounds kinda like a country closer to home) but Israel is the only functional democracy in the Middle East that doesn't punish its people with Sharia law and allows freedom of expression (Israel is the only country in the region to have a free press, according to freedomhouse.org). It's not an evil country, hanging gay people, stoning women, arresting and torturing dissenters. It's an imperfect country, but so is the United States.

And yet the American Freedom Defense Initiative's ad plays up the viewpoint of the far-right-wingers, the messianic settlers, many of whom--just like the far-right-wingers in America---are xenophobic, racist, bigots. There are some people in Israel who believe all Muslims are terrorists, just like a lot of people in Texas do. But they're not representative of Israel. As much as the American Freedom Defense Initiative's ad makes them out to be.

I looked into this group (again, something that took me 2 seconds) and I have to disagree with reporter Michael Miller's characterization of the AFDI as a "pro-Israel group." Up until recently, the organization was actually called "Stop Islamization of America," which, as the name suggests, had little to do with supporting Israel and everything to do with spreading anti-Islamic rhetoric. Knowing this, it's clear the ad isn't aimed at convincing anyone to support Israel. It's aimed at spreading anti-Islamic hatred. Something the judge in this case should have realized.

If I were the MTA, I'd defy the judge's order. But since I'm not, I can only urge this. Deface every one of these stupid ads you see. Tear them, write over them in permanent marker, cover them in stickers. Because this ad is not how to support Israel. Not if our desire is for peace and prosperity for both Israelis and Palestinians.

Hate may grab attention. But love wins hearts.

From The Department Of Bad Ideas: Strangers At A Bachelor Party

How 'bout it ladies? Anyone want to hop into this rape suite?

Look, I get it. You're throwing your first bachelor party, and the idea of 10-15 guys crammed in a small hotel room just sounds... er... "gay" to you. Nevermind that you should all be secure enough in your sexuality to cope with a sausagefest. I get that your buddy is getting hitched while most of the other guys are single and ready to mingle. "Let's invite random girls on the internet" might sound like a reasonable solution.

It is not.

First, think of how this looks to a woman. A woman who doesn't know you at all, who has never met you or any of your friends. We know what's expected at bachelor parties--drinking, strippers, some lighthearted debauchery before the groom settles down. Will a woman who doesn't know you and doesn't prostitute herself for a living jump at this opportunity? Even the boldest chick has got to have a moment of doubt when she reads the words, "huge bachelor party" and "hotel suite."

Second, think about who might show up. Sure, you can "background check," but lets face it, there's only so much you can tell about someone from Google. A woman who would accept this invitation is probably not someone with solid critical thinking skills, and therefore, is likely to have a whole host of problems you definitely don't want at a bachelor party. Even if your crew is a bunch of choir boys, what's going to happen when this stranger starts shooting heroin in the bathroom or goes ballistic on somebody?

Third, think of the bride, and any associated girlfriends. Strippers are par for the course, they're not unexpected, and generally, a lot of women don't have a problem with them because there are presumed boundaries. Everyone understands it's a performance, it's entertainment. No one's putting their salchichón where it doesn't belong. A professional stripper is accustomed to these parties and knows how to handle them. Now imagine the bride or any of your crew's girlfriends learns about random strangers being invited up to a hotel suite with alcohol. The only precedent for this behavior is a single guy searching "F4M no strings" on Craigslist. Which is essentially what you're doing.

According to the guy who made the post, he already has strippers coming, along with some girls who he actually knows. "WE ARE ALL AVERAGE JOES, MID 20s, WE HAVE ALL THE ADULT ENTERTAINMENT TAKEN CARE OF, WE JUST DONT WANT A SUITE FULL OF DUDES, A NICE EVEN CROWD! FREE DRINKS AND ENTERTAINMENT!"

Well okay, Mr. All Caps. I'm no sage, but if you already have strippers and you already have some other girls coming... then why go to the internet to further even out your ridiculous female-to-male-ratio requirement? Why not... you know, ask the girls that are already coming if they have any friends who might like to party? Answering my own question... because nearly every girl they asked can see that this is not an ideal situation.

I've never had a bad time at a bachelor party. Not all of them had strippers. Not all of them even had alcohol. If you want to find some ladies for the single guys, then bring the group out to a bar. Pick up women the old-fashioned way. Or, and here's an idea-- do a joint bachelor/bachelorette party.

But inviting strangers to an alcohol-and-testosterone-filled hotel suite? Save an idea like that for your Law & Order SVU spec script.

Feds Reverse Approval Of Alcoholic Cocaine

Last week, Palcohol, a powdered form of everybody's favorite legal way to get crunked up and destroy lives, was approved by the FDA. Until somebody found the company's website and noticed that it contained a page enumerating every conceivable way this could go horribly wrong:

What's worse than going to a concert, sporting event, etc. and having to pay $10, $15, $20 for a mixed drink... Take Palcohol into the venue and enjoy a mixed drink for a fraction of the cost.

We have found adding Palcohol to food is so much fun. Sprinkle Palcohol on almost any dish and give it an extra kick. Some of our favorites are the Kamikaze in guacamole, Rum on a BBQ sandwich, Cosmo on a salad and Vodka on eggs in the morning to start your day off right. Experiment. Palcohol is great on so many foods. Remember, you have to add Palcohol AFTER a dish is cooked as the alcohol will burn off if you cook with it...and that defeats the whole purpose.

Let's talk about the elephant in the room….snorting Palcohol. Yes, you can snort it. And you'll get drunk almost instantly because the alcohol will be absorbed so quickly in your nose. Good idea? No. It will mess you up. Use Palcohol responsibly.

Kinda makes Four Loko sound like Aquafina, doesn't it?

Now the FDA has reversed their decision. Don't be too hard on them. They were drunk off some really strong guacamole at the time.

UPDATE 3/12/15: And it's back. FDA now satisfied that powdered alcohol won't bring the ruin of mankind.

Florida: A Fine Place To Get Shot And Killed

In Florida, a man shot and killed a teenager because he thought the kid looked suspicious. The boy was guilty of buying skittles and iced tea, and walking on the sidewalk in the gated community where his father lives.

The national media has picked up the story and run with it. "The guy was a racist," seems to be the prevailing opinion.

But the race of the boy (or the shooter, a hispanic man), is immaterial. The biggest issue is the law that let the shooter get away with murder.

In Florida, it's perfectly legal to shoot someone and kill them. You will not be charged with a crime. All you need to do is claim self-defense. And that's it. You're off, scot-free.

According to a state website explaining the law:

Q. When can I use my handgun to protect myself? A. Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are: Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm; Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.

The problem is... this is all pretty vague. "Serious bodily harm?" What is that?

The page cites an example of an altercation where Florida law wouldn't allow you to shoot someone dead:

Example of the kind of attack that will not justify defending yourself with deadly force: Two neighbors got into a fight, and one of them tried to hit the other by swinging a garden hose. The neighbor who was being attacked with the hose shot the other in the chest. The court upheld his conviction for aggravated battery with a firearm, because an attack with a garden hose is not the kind of violent assault that justifies responding with deadly force.

Now, Trayvon Martin didn't have a garden hose. He had a pack of skittles. Iced tea. The only weapon he had were his hands. The man who shot him outweighed him by several pounds and was much older.

We don't know for sure who physically attacked who first. What is clear is that George Zimmerman, the shooter, was following the boy with the intention of confronting him. If it hadn't been for Zimmerman's actions, no altercation would have taken place.

What we have then is a scenario quite different from the one imagined on Florida's government website. This is not two neighbors fighting with garden hoses. In this scenario, a man started a confrontation with a boy, and when the argument turned violent, that man whipped out a pistol and shot the boy in the chest.

If this is allowed to happen, with no charges filed, no arrests made, then what precedent does it set?? If this is the way the police interpret Florida's self-defense law, then is anything preventing any of these scenarios:

1. Man decides he wants to kill somebody, anybody. Walks down the street, deliberately goads a stranger into a fight. Purposely loses the upper hand, whips out his pistol, fires. Stranger is dead.

2. Man decides he wants to kill his wife. He shoots her. Puts a kitchen knife in her hand. "It was her or me, officers," he says.

3. Man sees suspicious-looking youths loitering in front of his store. He calls them a derogatory cuss word, tells them to leave the sidewalk. The kids yell back. One youth approaches. The man whips out his pistol, shoots him, claiming he feared the boy had a gun.

In the first scenario, the guy is a deranged lunatic. But none of that matters, according to Florida's self-defense laws. There is no way to prove the man's intentions to kill. All the evidence we have is the encounter on the street. Witnesses who arrive late to the scene may never see what started to altercation. They only see a man being attacked. The killer walks.

In the second scenario, the guy is a calculated killer. But where is the evidence of his intentions? Maybe the wife confided in friends and relatives that she feared her husband. But if she didn't? All you have is a guy trying to protect himself from his knife-wielding wife. The killer walks.

In the third scenario, the guy is paranoid. He sees youths, possibly of a different race, and he assumes they're there to rob his store. He initiates the entire conflict with his paranoia and racism. But he was, after all, outnumbered, and its perfectly understandable that he thought he was going to be attacked. Does he walk?

My point is, the Florida law creates an enormous gray area, where the difference between murder and self-defense comes down to unknowable intentions and differing points-of-view. The law shouldn't be something that rests upon the nuances of a crime. It should rest on the facts. A sure sign that a law is no good is when it's seemingly applied at random.

Trayvon Martin is dead because of George Zimmerman. This is a fact. But the law that allows Zimmerman to remain free? That's based on nothing more than assumptions. What kind of legal system treats the facts of the case with contempt while giving priority to the paranoid feelings of a narcissistic neighborhood watch captain?

Well, the Florida legal system.

It's bad enough the state is known as a place where old people come to die. If shootings like this keep happening, it'll be known as a place where the young come to die as well.

UPDATE (3/20): Slate basically agrees with everything I wrote, in their article, which I read this morning. They provide a few real world examples beyond the Martin case.

UPDATE 2: The FBI and DOJ are now investigating the matter.

SOPA Is What Happens When Old People Are In Charge

You may have noticed some of your favorite sites are down today. No Reddit. No Wikipedia. The Google Logo looks like this:

SOPA stands for the Stop Online Piracy Act. So does this mean that Reddit, Wikipedia, and Google are all for online pirates? Hardy har har and a bottle o' rum, lets download episodes of Glee illegally!

Actually, no. The thing is, SOPA is a noble pursuit. It's an attempt by the government to prevent people from stealing and distributing copyrighted material for free. If you're a writer, and actor, a singer, a painter, or basically anyone who has ever created any unique work, you have an interest in making sure you control the distribution of that work-- especially if it's a multimillion-dollar movie.

There is already a process by which content creators can get copyrighted material removed: they submit a request to a site to take down the copyrighted material, and if the order is refused, only then do the courts get involved. Owners of websites that feature user-generated content are not forced to keep track of the hundreds of uploads that people make to their sites everyday. Only when a request is filed do they need to find and remove that content.

SOPA defenders say this different from how copyright protection works in the real world. Those found knocking off Louis Vuttons in Chinatown don't get to withdraw their merchandise for sale and avoid prosecution. People found selling pirated DVDs on the street or filming new movies in theaters are put in jail.

SOPA seeks to even that playing field. It's treating websites the same as those guys.

The problem is, it's the wrong analogy. Website owners aren't that guy selling fake Jean Paul Gautlier cologne on the street... they are the street. SOPA is essentially threatening to close down Times Square because there's a guy with a suitcase full of fake Rolexes walking around there. That's what makes no sense.

Sites like Reddit, Wikipedia, YouTube, Facebook, thousands of others are merely virtual streets on which strangers and friends exchange information. If you hold the street responsible for the actions of a few of those people, we're all being punished. Can you imagine Facebook being shut down because one guy in Florida posted a video of The Little Mermaid? That's what SOPA will allow to happen.

If this page goes dark, this image will be why.

Meanwhile, what happens to that mermaid-loving Floridian? Absolutely nothing. The street is shut down, and the criminal simply goes distributing his wares on another street.

The thing is, the folks on the hill have no clue. They don't understand what the big deal is. This is because 100% of them were born before the internet as we knew it existed. This is because the majority of them have assistants do all their web research and emailing. This is because most of them think the internet is a connected series of tubes.

To these people, each website is a person, responsible for what appears on it. And every one of these websites is exactly the same. They can all easily filter out any copyrighted material without affecting their performance.

Is it easy to filter out that stuff? Go on YouTube. They've been employing copyright filters for years, and stuff stiff slips by. People reverse the image. They film off a TV. They recut a longer piece into shorter segments. YouTube can ban people, they can ban whole IP addresses, but they can't keep the ship airtight. In trying to do so, they may inadvertently ban parody videos, tributes, other things legally broadcasted under copyright law's the "fair use" exemption. Is it really fair to shut YouTube down if a My Little Pony episode sneaks through their filters? And keep in mind, YouTube is one of the largest sites out there, with tons of employees. What chance does a little website have?

The RIAA went after thousands of individuals for sharing their music over sites like Napster, Kazaa and Limewire-- which was boneheaded and fruitless, but at least legally defensible. SOPA makes criminals out of innocent people.

SOPA would make website owners deathly afraid of their users... in some cases, it could cause them to shutter their pages entirely, rather than face jail time at the hands of overzealous prosecutors. That's what SOPA critics are calling censorship. And I'm inclined to agree.

Love Of Deep Dish Pizza May Have Killed CIA Agents, Informants In Iran, Lebanon

This is not a funny story: CIA Spies Caught, Fear Execution

If these agents are executed, it's a tragedy of epic proportions. If the government of Iran can somehow put a kibosh on the killings (perhaps in exchange for recent sanctions against Iran being reconsidered), it's still a major blow to American intelligence operations in the Middle East.

The craziest part is that the spies may have been compromised due to the location where they repeatedly (and seemingly without deviation) chose to meet:

In Beirut, two Hezbollah double agents pretended to go to work for the CIA. Hezbollah then learned of the restaurant where multiple CIA officers were meeting with several agents, according to the four current and former officials briefed on the case. The CIA used the codeword "PIZZA" when discussing where to meet with the agents, according to U.S. officials. Two former officials describe the location as a Beirut Pizza Hut. A current US official denied that CIA officers met their agents at Pizza Hut.

From there, Hezbollah's internal security arm identified at least a dozen informants, and the identities of several CIA case officers...

One former senior intelligence official told ABC News that CIA officers ignored warnings that the operation could be compromised by using the same location for meetings with multiple assets.

"We were lazy and the CIA is now flying blind against Hezbollah," the former official said.

Lazy? Or just in love with deep dish... or stuffed crust? It's not something to laugh about, but something that just makes you shake your head and wonder. Isn't it common sense not to always meet in the same place?

After all, the pizza's not even that good.

This never would have happened if they just ordered in Domino's.

Who's Searching For You On Facebook?

Ever want to know who's looking you up on Facebook but not requesting you as a friend? Just click on "People You May Know" on your Facebook's homepage.

Facebook draws these "People You May Know" from several different sources, not just your email contacts or address book.

"People You May Know helps you find people you are likely to know. We show you people based on mutual friends, work and education information, networks you’re part of, contacts you’ve imported using friend finder and many other factors."

The most obvious of these other sources, and least controversial, is people with whom you have mutual friends. Some kid who has 45 friends in common with you is most likely someone you know.

Then of course, Facebook knows who works at the same company, or goes to the same school as you, from the info that appears in your profile.

Perhaps less obvious, they also know your IP address, so people using the same internet connection as you may pop up (now you know who's stealing your WiFi.)

However, you may notice suggested people with whom you have no mutual friends. People who aren't in your address book. People who share no school or affiliation that you've listed on your profile. People who have never used your internet connection. You may notice, though, that some of these people do, in fact, look familiar. They may be an acquaintance, a waiter at a restaurant you like, your landlord. You don't even know their last name! How the heck did Facebook know they might know you?

Does Zuckerberg have a zeppelin in the sky from which he watches and records our every human interaction?

Possibly. But that's not how they come to suggest these people. They suggest them because that person has searched for your name on Facebook. According to the internet message board chatter.

Take a moment for that to sink in. Now recall all the people you may have looked up on Facebook, including ex-girlfriends, the hot barista down at the Starbucks, that guy who lives in apartment 12 B. If you typed their name into Facebook's search box, you will pop up on their "People You May Know" list.

Just remember, when you search on Facebook, you're not searching anonymously. You're tipping off whoever you're searching for. You're letting them know you've been looking for their profile.

Rumors are circulating that Facebook is even sending emails to these people, saying that you'd like them to join Facebook. While not confirmed, this is pretty alarming.

Up until now, most of the warnings surrounding Facebook have centered around the information you choose to reveal. This however, goes much deeper-- Facebook using information you had no idea was being revealed at all... and giving you no choice to protect your privacy.

Apparently The Federal Government Has Never Heard Of Photoshop



Proving that government incompetence exists no matter which party is in charge, Obama officials terrified countless New Yorkers earlier this week when they authorized a photo shoot involving a 747 and two fighter jets flying low over downtown Manhattan.

Initially said to be a military drill, officials later admitted the flyby was done to update their photo records of Air Force One:

Air Force officials estimate that the mission and the photo shoot for the 747 and an accompanying F-16 fighter jet cost $328,835. But they said "the hours would have been flown regardless, and the expenses would have been accrued on a different mission."

An Air Force source told CNN on Tuesday that the White House Military Office planned a photo shoot over various Washington monuments next week, but the shoot has now been canceled.

No word on whether the flight was scheduled to fly low across the Pentagon.

This could have all been avoided had anyone working in the government heard of Adobe Photoshop. Take a photo of Air Force One, then take a photo of the Statue of Liberty. Use Photoshop to meld them together. I did this in 2 minutes, and I didn't even use Photoshop, I used the Paint application included with Windows:


The Government Owes Me $328,835

See, wasn't that cheaper? And less panic-inducing?

Obama's done less than I've hoped for so far (no world peace yet) but he can impress by doing what the Bush administration should have done when someone makes an idiotic decision... fire them.

No one who heard this idea thought, "Gee, I wonder if this will terrify thousands of people and cost a lot of unnecessary money?" Wouldn't that naturally be your first thought when the words, plane, lower Manhattan, flying low, and photo shoot are in the same sentence?

Bush didn't fire the idiots. Obama should. Or at least school these guys on Photoshop.

Tropicana To Nation: "Whoops! We Goofed!"

After perplexing consumers for months with an ill-advised packaging switch that made their orange juice look crappy, Tropicana has reversed course and vowed to return to their original "orange and straw" carton.

Neil Campbell, president at Tropicana North America in Chicago said the company was responding to complaints from a loyal group of customers. "We underestimated the deep emotional bond" they had with the original packaging, he told the New York Times. "Those consumers are very important to us, so we responded."

As The New York Times pointed out:

Among those who underestimated that bond was Mr. Campbell himself. In an interview last month to discuss the new packaging, he said, “The straw and orange have been there for a long time, but people have not necessarily had a huge connection to them.”

Ooh, someone's got egg on their face!

You be the judge. Which screams "fresh squeezed orange juice not from concentrate?" A straw sticking into a whole, ripe, juicy orange? Or a glass filled with a pale yellowish liquid?


"Hey, I've Got A Great Idea! Let's Change An Iconic, Beloved Product!!!!"

Fortunately, Tropicana had the wisdom to recognize their horrendous error and fix it before much damage was done. But the whole gaffe raises an issue I've been thinking a lot about recently. The utter uselessness of focus groups and traditional "market testing" for new products in this Internet age.

The thinking behind Tropicana's "need for change" was boneheaded from the start. I wasn't there at the PepsiCo offices that day, but I can imagine the conversation went something like this:

Clueless CEO: In these tough times, we need to set ourselves apart from the other orange juice manufacturers out there. How do we do it?

Stooge #1: We need an O.J. spokesperson. Too bad there's no celebrity with the initials, O.J.

Stooge #2: When people hear "juice," they think "sticky and weird." What if we called it, "Orange Essence?"

Stooge #3: A new ad campaign! How about, "Orange you glad it's Tropicana?"

Clueless CEO: Good ideas, but I was thinking about making our juice stand out in the supermarket.

Stooge #4: Well, every orange juice out there has an orange on the front of the carton. What if we didn't have an orange on the front. What if we had a naked chick with oranges for boobs?

Clueless CEO: I love it, but our research shows more women than men buy orange juice.

Stooge #4: So put oranges instead of a guy's...

Stooge #1: How about just a glass of orange juice.

Clueless CEO: Just a glass?

Stooge #1: Like, who sticks a straw into an orange and takes a drink? I drink my orange juice from a glass.

Stooge #2: Me too!!

Stooge #4: I drink my orange juice from an Indian skull I dug up... but I like the idea.

Clueless CEO: It's settled then. Instead of our iconic, universally recognized orange and straw symbol, we'll go with a generic looking glass filled with a vague yellow-orange liquid.

All: Huzzah!!!! Huzzah!!!

Bad ideas start in corporate groupthink meetings, and they often get worse in focus groups, compiled of people who have the time to attend focus groups, who need the $20 or so stipend these focus groups pay, and who like the sound of their own voices.

Focus Group Leader: So, what do you think of the new carton?

Focus Group Guy: This is so awesome!

Focus Group Leader: The new package?

Focus Group Guy: No, the fact that I don't have a job that requires me to work during the day, and I can earn $20 making a bunch of corporate suits who hang on my every word do exactly what I say, even though I'm a complete idiot!

Focus Group Leader: So the carton?

Focus Group Guy: Can they make it a curvy glass, like a wine glass? That's classy!

Clueless CEO (behind one-way mirror): Brilliant!!!

In this Internet age, there's no reason for a focus group. If Coca-Cola had announced on the internet that it was considering dropping Coke and instead, making "New Coke," the internet would have put them in their place. All Tropicana needed to do was send a press release, or survey, out to the web (via bloggers or their own website), and they would have had instant feedback in minutes from people who cared enough to voice their opinions without being paid. They would have known that a glass of a vague yellow liquid is about the lamest brand symbol anyone's come up with since the logo design for the New York Mets CitiField:


Were They Even Trying?

The Internet provides instant access to millions of consumers, something that just about everybody has figured out by now. Why not use that medium as a testing ground for new ideas, BEFORE you waste time and money on an idea dreamed up by some guy who wouldn't know what creativity was even if they were roommates with Picasso, Woody Allen and Beck?

With that in mind, I've come up with a new logo for Adam's Life. I present it to you now for your opinion. If you guys like it, consider it this blog's new avatar:



I worked reeeeaaally hard on it.

Guns For Everyone

Should Students Be Able To Carry Guns On Campus?

Armed and Ridiculous
A short play by Adam

Scene: A classroom. Students mulling around, TEACHER prepares, writes some notes on the blackboard.

(bell rings)

TEACHER
Alright class, everyone take your seats.

They don’t respond. MICHAEL faces the teacher.

MICHAEL
Why don’t you take your seat?

TEACHER
Why I…
(is about to scold, thinks better of it)
Quite right, Michael. I must lead by example.
(sits in chair)

MICHAEL
Very good. Gold star for you!

The class laughs.

TEACHER
Well, if it’s okay with all of you… I’d like to begin class.

WILLIAM
Go ahead.
(sits at desk)

TEACHER
Good. Well, where were we? I believe we were on chapter six in your textbooks. Polynomials.

BRIDGET
Can we skip that?

SCOTT
Yeah I don’t want to do that.

MICHAEL
Me neither.

TEACHER
(laughs nervously)Who needs Polynomials anyway?
(tosses lesson plan aside)
Perhaps chapter seven? Combining complex equations?

MARY
Let’s watch a movie!

SCOTT
Night of the Living Dead!

BRIDGET
We watched that last week, Scott.

SCOTT
So?

BRIDGET
It’s a stupid movie.

SCOTT
You’re stupid, Bridget.

BRIDGET
Oh yeah?

They simultaneously reach down towards their sides. Teacher quickly stands up.

TEACHER
(tense)
Okay! Okay, everybody, settle down, settle down. There’s no need for that. Scott, I think Night of the Living Dead is an excellent, excellent film. But perhaps you’d be gracious enough to let one of your classmates suggest an alternative today?

SCOTT
(glaring at Bridget, removes hand from side)
I guess.

TEACHER
Good. Bridget?

BRIDGET
Legally Blonde.

SCOTT
I’d rather be shot in the head.

BRIDGET
Be careful what you wish for.

TEACHER
(nervous)Okay, okay. None of that talk. Nobody’s shooting anybody. Not today, no sir. How about this. Today, Legally Blonde, tomorrow, Enter the Dragon.

MICHAEL
Cool.

SCOTT
Fine by me.

BRIDGET
Okay.

Rest of class assents.

TEACHER
See what happens when we negotiate with words? Everyone can get along.

A gunshot is heard. Everyone takes out their guns. Teacher is terrified.

TEACHER
Class, please, calm down, probably just an accidental discharge, happens all the time.

MICHAEL
(moving towards stage right, the door)I’ll take point, Mary, you cover me.

MARY
You got it.

SCOTT
I’ll set up a flanking maneuver.

BRIDGET
Ooh! I finally get to use my new pink pistol!

TEACHER
Class, please, everyone, stay where you are!

More gunshots are heard.

MICHAEL
(points out a few of his classmates)
You, you and you. I want standard triangle assault formation. We engage on my count.

THREE STUDENTS
Got it. Sure. No problem.

TEACHER
Everybody. The police will handle this!

MICHAEL
(approaches stage right, the door, grabs handle)
Ready?

Michael's assault team nods.

MICHAEL
Go! Go!

Michael leads Mary, Scott, Bridget, and the three other students off stage right, out the door. More gunshots are heard.

TEACHER
(runs over, closes door, turns to face class)
Please, everybody, put the guns away. We’ll be safe in here.

STUDENT #1
Like those kids at Columbine?

STUDENT #2
Or those kids at Virginia Tech?

TEACHER
Those were two, isolated incidents. And the vast majority stayed safe by simply staying put.

STUDENT #3
My Dad says people who stay put are easy targets.

STUDENT #4
My brother said if you’re going to die, you might as well die fighting.

TEACHER
No one is going to die! It’s probably just… a car backfiring. Or a stack of books got knocked down. No one is going to die!

More gunshots. Suddenly, STUDENT #5 shoots STUDENT #1. He falls to the floor. Other students turn towards him.

STUDENT #5
I… I… didn’t mean to… I was nervous… My finger slipped.

TEACHER
Everybody… everybody.. it was just an accident…

The students fire in unison, killing Student #5. Teacher throws up his arms.

STUDENT #6
(turns angrily at student #4)
Ow! You shot me!

STUDENT #4
Did not, it was him!
(points at another student)

TEACHER
Please! The police will be here any minute and they’ll sort this out.

STUDENT #3
What if the school shooter isn’t out there… what if he’s in here?

TEACHER
That doesn’t make any sense.

STUDENT #4
Sure it does. Don’t you see? There’s two of them. Like Harris and Klebold. One of them is out there, shooting the people in the hall. And that guy over there is the other one, pretending to be one of us.

STUDENT #7
It wasn’t me! My gun isn’t even loaded.
My mom won’t let me buy any bullets.

The class laughs at him. He puts his head down, ashamed.

STUDENT #4
If he didn’t shoot him, then who did?

The students all train their guns on one another, eyeing each other suspiciously.

TEACHER
No one shot anyone. It’s all just a big misunderstanding.
The police will be here soon. I think I even hear the sirens.

The class strains to hear. The teacher covers his mouth, desperately tries to make a siren sound.

STUDENT #4
Enough of this. There’s only one way to find out who the shooter is.

STUDENT #3
How?

STUDENT #4
We all close our eyes, and fire. God will guide the bullets towards the killer.

STUDENT #7
Of course! God!

STUDENT #3
God!

STUDENT #6
(dying)
God...

TEACHER
Oh God… Please, don’t do this.

The class closes their eyes.

STUDENT #4
On my count. Five…

TEACHER
(gets down to the floor)
God help us!

STUDENT #4
Four… Three…

The door opens, everyone opens their eyes. BRIDGET limps in, holding her pink gun. Her leg is bleeding.

TEACHER
Bridget, are you alright? What happened out there?

BRIDGET
Oh, it was terrible. There was blood and guts everywhere.
It was like… Night of the Living Dead.

STUDENT #3
Did you get the shooter?

BRIDGET
There was no shooter. Just a car backfiring in the driveway outside. But Michael thought someone was shooting at us, so he shot at the car. And then the man in the car shot back. And then Mary went down. Some kids from the other class thought we were attacking the school, so they started shooting at us. Timmy, Jimmy and Kimmy all went down. And then Scott got mad at William because he started the whole thing, so he shot William. And then I shot Scott.

TEACHER
Why’d you shoot Scott?

BRIDGET
Well… everyone was shooting.

STUDENT #3
So there never was no school shooter?

TEACHER
(attempts to correct him)
“Never was any…”
(Student points gun at teacher, he zips his lips)

BRIDGET
No, I guess not.

STUDENT #4
No shooter out there. But somebody shot our friend. Someone in here.

STUDENT #6
I’m… dying…Please, someone…call a hospital.

STUDENT #4
We’re kind of in the middle of something.
(Student #6 dies)
Now where were we?

STUDENT #2
At three.

STUDENT #4
Right. Ready?

Teacher crawls behind desk.

TEACHER
Just like last semester…

STUDENT #4
Three… two… one…

The stage lights die as a fusillade of bullets and screams are heard.

To Catch A Terrorist

The U.S. Military, apparently growing tired of the "hard work" involved in finding insurgents, are attempting to lure curious Iraqis into sniper traps.

Well, when you put it that way, it sounds like the military is doing something wrong...

Crafty soldiers place a box of ammunition, or explosives, in plain sight, along a road or in a park. Then, when an Iraqi sees it, and goes to check it out, they shoot him. Becuase obviously, that person is a terrorist, and not just some Iraqi who's wondering why explosives are just lying around.

"Well, it's the Iraqi's fault. He shouldn't have picked the box up. He should have called the authorities."

Call the authorities? What authorities? The Iraqi police cover their faces because they fear terrorist reprisals.

No trial. No questions. That box gets picked up, BLAM-O! Dead. Then they set the trap and wait for the next one to come by.

Am I the only one who thinks this is counter-productive?

It's the whole, "We can't solve real crimes, so lets make fake ones and arrest those stupid enough to fall for it."

Like "To Catch A Predator." Lack of reporting, scant evidence, and reluctant witnesses mean police can't prosecute many statutory rape cases. Rather than spend the time, effort and money to truly combat the problem through educational programs, stiffer penalities for offenders and the creation of support programs for victims, the police create fake, "sting" operations which entrap stupid and lazy people... many of which wouldn't have committed any crime because in actuality, it would have been very difficult.

The typical horny pervert can't attract an underage teen. You've seen "To Catch A Predator," undoubtedly. How many underage girls are going to want to meet an old guy who sends them a picture of their small penis and says things like "I want to watch you masturbate while I pee on you." Not many. However, the decoys readily agree... creating a fake crime which had little to no chance of happening. Therefore, a person with weak moral fiber who would otherwise jack off alone at home is arrested. While the truly dangerous (statistics say statutory rapists and sexual abusers are usually a family member of the victim) go unpunished.

Now, the typical Iraqi probably can't easily procure explosives (I'm assuming). And the typical terrorist is not going to see a box of explosives and think, "Hey! Free Explosives!" So what the U.S. trap does is ensnare a) really stupid wannabe terrorists, and b) curious, innocent Iraqis who probably want to get a box of explosives off the streets.

Just like "To Catch A Predator," "To Catch A Terrorist" does nothing to actually fight the crime it claims to. It sets up a crime, and then solves it. The result is a pretty picture, but ultimately, a false one. You can hit a homerun pretty easily off a tee... but that's not going to help when someone's throwing you curveballs.

Ok, enough analogies. This is just one more example of why the U.S. is not succeeding in Iraq. The leadership is too focused on appearances and not focused enough on actual progress.

This is not a knock against our soldiers. It's not their fault. It's the fault of a leadership in Washington seeking to placate Congress and right-wing radio. But whatever talking points the Bush Administration may have wrung from the mess of Iraq, they've come at the cost of real success.

It's time to stop setting up stings and time to start doing some real investigation. Where are the explosives coming from? Is there some mystical genie who provides them? Who is carrying out these attacks? Ghosts? Investigate, determine, and then act. A basic, basic rule in law enforcement, which is severely lacking in Iraq.

Then again, the army has never been all that good when it comes to investigating. If we trusted their investigations, we'd still believe Pat Tillman died from a skiing accident in Norway.

[UPDATE 10/3] Speaking of investigations...

Obama Bomba



Is Barack Obama crazier than Bush? No. But he does have a crazy idea: Send troops into Pakistan to hunt terrorists without Pakistani permission.

Sure. Invade a Muslim country that has never attacked us in order to stop terrorism. Why does that some vaguely familiar? The bonus is, Pakistan is a nuclear power. And it's about one presidential assassination away from becoming an insane warlord-led terror state like neighboring Afghanistan.

Obama's statement may have just pushed me toward Hillary and Edwards. At least they haven't been so bold to suggest initiating a nuclear war. Yet.