sayagainover

WASHINGTON D.C. — “Has anyone seen my wallet,” said Russian foreign minister Sergii Lavrov late Wednesday, patting his blazer on the lefthand side above his heart, “I had it right here in my jacket.”

“I’m sure I had it before I met with President Trump, because I took it out to show security outside the Oval Office,” continued Lavrov. “After, I replaced the wallet. Right here in my pocket.”

Russian Foreign Minister fears that he may have been pick-pocketed in the White House Wednesday

“It’s brown, and leather. Kind of weathered. I suppose I should have gotten one of those slimmer metal wallets I see people carrying these days, but I didn’t. If anyone finds it, there’s almost $1500 cash in the billfold. 12 100s and 6 50s. The new style, with modern anti-counterfeit technology. My Russian driver’s license is there too, a document that’s particularly difficult to acquire in Russia. Also, a cherished photo of myself and [Russian President] Vladimir Putin hunting boar in Karelia,” Lavrov said.

The Oval Office is not very large and apart from shaking hands with and then hugging Donald Trump and his retinue, Mr. Lavrov spent most of his time standing on the central rug. This has raised questions about how an item like a wallet could go missing.

“If anyone should find my wallet I would be very grateful,” said Lavrov. “They can keep the money. But I would really like at least the license and the photo. It is an item of great sentimental significance.”

Lavrov “certain” he had wallet before he entered meeting with Trump, equally certain it was gone when he left a scant hour later

Lavrov’s announcement, which came immediately following his meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump, fits into a larger recent pattern of foreign dignitaries losing or misplacing valuable items. Teresa May, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, left the White House without a valuable diamond brooch. And Chinese President Xi Jinping’s gold-plated watch, a family heirloom, went missing at some point during his meeting with President Trump.

Asked for comment, President Trump said that he’d searched his office “high and low, practically tore the place apart with my own hands,” and come up with “nada.” Further questions revealed that both Eric Trump and gadfly Jared Kushner had both been in the meeting.

“Now, I’m not saying Jared or Eric took Mr. Lavrov’s wallet. But where I come from, you flash a big wad like that, you’re taking a risk,” Trump said. “Kushner’s a real hound for petty cash, the wallet chain was practically invented to stop him in New York back in the 1990s. Eric’s a little hustler, too.” Pausing, Trump added that “Come to think of it, Putin’s got one of my close personal friend Bob Kraft’s Super Bowl rings, which is an interesting fact few people comment on these days.”

Raqqa—U.S. forces deployed to Syria recently in order to help another Middle East nation build its insurgency have run into a problem.

“Already have four or five insurgencies here, in Syria” said top General Fred Grizzly. “Two’s what we’re used to creating through ignorance and casual racism… Not sure how much more we can do in this situation.”

Normally, the U.S. follows a familiar foreign policy playbook. It takes a stable dictatorship in North Africa, South America, the Middle East (sometimes Southeast Asia) and invades, deposing the dictator and plunging the formerly-oppressed, authoritarian country deep into sectarian violence. The ashes of the war give rise to bloodshed hitherto unimaginable to civilized society, when different religious, ethnic, or political groups jockey for power and cleanse their rivals.

Syria threatens to upend that tried-and-true formula.

“Normally when we arrive in a dictatorship, the country has been at peace for five or ten years,” said Frank O’Reilly of the Brookings Institute. “It’s only after we capture and execute the dictator that we can get started on fostering the insurgency we need to justify staying.”

Even the Pentagon will have trouble managing and fostering five insurgencies at once in the same country (Wikipedia)

“Syrians have been butchering each other like rabid animals for a variety of reasons since 2011,” O’Reilly said.

Other experts agreed. Rob Whiteman of the conservative Heritage Foundation said “the problem here is that there’s still a dictatorship—the brutal Assad regime. That’s something we can’t abide—need to take it out, replace it with an insurgency. But which one? Nusra, ISIS, the Kurds, the Free Syrian Army, they’re all insurgencies. It’d be perfect, if I weren’t so dang complicated.”
Some say that the number and success of competing insurgencies in Syria should absolve the US of any need to build insurgencies. 2-time veteran of Iraq Staff Sergeant Bertie Ronalds of 1-75 Ranger Regiment said “If they already have these insurgencies, I dunno, maybe we should just stay out and let them just do their thing, right? Like, mission accomplished?”

Others see this as a rare opportunity. “I went into Afghanistan back in 2001 as a Lieutenant,” says Lieutenant Colonel Harold “Hank” Jackson of the 10^th Mountain Division. “There was one insurgency already going, the Northern Alliance. Used that to replace the government, got ourselves a good ol’ insurgency with the Taliban. They been going longer than WWI and WWII combined!”

Given the proliferation of insurgencies already active in Syria, Generals were drawing up plans to quarter the number of combat troops requested by Pentagon planners. “We’ve never faced a situation like this before,” said General Grizzly, “but in our experience, it costs us nothing to go light. Makes the men resilient, adaptive. Every soldier’s a sensor. And every sensor knows, it’s time to build the world another insurgency. Get ‘er done!”

Most people look at Trump and Clinton and feel anger about either or both of them. The two candidates for president are disliked to the point of hatred, historically so. Most people can’t get over the vulgar past or present of either candidate. Their lack of integrity, their history of bad choices, their calamitous behavior even in the present. Hell, there’s been an assassination attempt of Trump. It was clumsy, but it happened, in public. That’s not supposed to be possible.

What’s the antidote to this hatred? Simple: find common ground. For people who dislike Trump, here’s something they may not have considered: Trump is probably afraid of dying.

It’s hard to hate someone who doesn’t want to die, whose motivation for doing things, however misguided, comes down to wanting life over death. And all evidence points to Trump and his supporters preferring living to dying. Of the many ways in which one might die—sickness, old age, accident, murder, war, heart attack, all of them are almost certainly undesirable to Trump and most if not all of his supporters. Chances are, you have that in common with them—you prefer life to death. That’s an opening—take it! Use the bridge. Walk over to the other side. Say: “hey, man, I get it, you don’t want to die. Me neither.”

This happens to be true of Clinton and her supporters as well. I mean, I’m voting for Clinton and I sure don’t want to die. Bitten by a shark so that my blood spills out into the ocean until I sink into the depths? No thanks! Cancer, aneurysm, Ebola? Nope, no thank you, nay. I’m very pleased with being alive, rather than the alternative, and I’m willing to make a dramatic extrapolation from my feelings and guess that Hillary Clinton herself doesn’t want to die, nor do the majority of her supporters. They want, instead, to live.

Remember Hitler? Crazy fuck killed himself. He didn’t care—and it showed. Most people can’t empathize with Hitler. Is it likely that Clinton or Trump are actually Adolph Hitler in disguise? No, that is not likely.

What is likely, as pointed out earlier, is that almost everyone involved in the election would enjoy a pleasant Sunday stroll with no obligations beyond marveling at the scenery around them. And that enjoyment is infinitely preferable to all than getting mauled to death and then eaten by a giant grizzly bear, or crushed by some heavy object such as a piano, or a train. Watching the debates is difficult, but infinitely preferable to getting shanked in the side repeatedly by a stranger, or by a former friend. Garroted by piano wire definitely less desirable than buying a toasted bagel with butter down at the corner store, even for people with lactose intolerance.

And that holds true for Trump supporters and Clinton supporters. Crazy, but true. Beyond the hype and excitement, most of us just really don’t want to die.

Here’s hoping we don’t!

Since 9-11, terror attacks have been on the uptick. Recent credible threats from ISIS have made it more imperative than ever to ensure that one is secure against the possibility of terrorism. Fortunately, if you live in Europe or America, there are a few easy steps one can take to guarantee total security. I should know, I’m a security professional.

1) Trust nobody. How well do you know your neighbors? Chances are, in this modern world, the answer is: Not very. When you think about it, most of their activities that you assume are benign could, instead, be part of a horrifying plan to destroy you and your beloved democratic society. Begin keeping extensive track of all neighbors’ movements. Is that bag of chemical fertilizer really for their lawn or garden? Or have they secretly been hoarding fertilizer for years, in order to build a giant bomb? The only way to be absolutely certain is to break into their house/basement/shed and confirm with your own two eyes. If confirmation isn’t possible, it’s probably because they’ve cleverly deceived you and are hiding their explosive intentions elsewhere. Continue surveillance.

2) People who look like they’re from the Middle East are active threats. They must be neutralized. That’s a euphemism—of course I mean killed. The authorities are powerless, so do the right thing and kill any Arab/Turk/Persian/Afghan/Pakistani American or European citizens one encounters. They might not be terrorists, but then, you can never be sure. And who wants to take that risk?

3) Killing random Middle Easterners will likely make you a target of law enforcement, and if (like me) you live in America, that’s just what the Muslim President Obama wants. The police and FBI will be hunting for you, so you’ll need to take active measures to defend yourself and your family. That will mean bringing the fight to them where and whenever possible.

Yes—you will have to attack the police and the FBI. It’s the only logical thing to do.

4) While killing Middle Eastern foreigners who are citizens of or visitors to your Western country as well as the law enforcement personnel sworn to protect it, don’t forget about things like food, ammunition, and potable water. It’s easy to lose sight of the long-term logistical challenges of securing your security. Have you barricaded your house against marauders? That will require lots of wood, metal, and concrete. All of that stuff is expensive, especially the better-quality material. You’ll need a better job!

5) Higher education is required for a better job, and is expensive in terms of time and money. You’ll need to take out a loan or two to finance this part of your security plan, and return to college. Right now, computer science is hot, as is business. Improving your education will be costly and exhausting, but is critical to your financial independence. Between killing foreigners, ambushing and evading law enforcement, keeping tabs on your neighbors and fortifying your house against reprisals, you’ll need to be very economical with your time. Many universities offer night classes for adults with day jobs.

6) Now you are making enough money to fund your pro-security campaign. Don’t forget to protect your assets from seizure by Muslim federal agents. Get a lawyer (unless you are a lawyer, and that’s how you’ve chosen to make more money), and protect those assets. Many people will want to make cowardly attacks on your possessions—the very possessions you are trying to secure from the terrorists.

7) There’s no way around it—all of your security measures are creating more logistical and social problems to solve. You will need to run for political office, so that you can legislate change from the inside. Only the powers of President will enable you to fight Muslim terrorists, Muslim Obama’s fascist police, barricade and provision your home properly, protect your assets, as well as taking copious notes on your neighbors’ activities.

8) Unfortunately, the people didn’t agree with any of these sensible ideas and called your campaign “the delusions of a paranoiac.” Obama’s tyrannical government seized your assets, and even turned your beautiful wife and children hostile, leaving you with nothing! Don’t despair, victory is still within reach—you must wage an active insurgency against everyone and everything. Begin by procuring fertilizer for a giant bomb to blow up the government. Only then can you be absolutely certain that you have achieved… total security.

By Hillary Clinton

“I didn’t want to go here, but Chelsea’s baby wants us to act.”

My fellow American citizens. In this time of trouble, when the American nation is beset on every side by foes bent on its destruction, it’s more important than ever that we stand together as one. I know some of you were angry when I took President Obama to task for being weak-willed and indecisive earlier. And I’d just like to say that while he hasn’t acted as tough, or been as decisive as I would’ve been had you elected me in 2008, even he has seen the need, now, for us to stand together as a people, and lead a coalition of nations against the Islamic State, or ISIS, or ISIL. He knows that the time has come to do something – anything. He understands, as I have for some time, that if we don’t act, we risk not acting at all.

Let that sink in. Even now, we run the very real risk of continuing to do nothing while this crisis unfolds.

And that’s the worst thing possible. Just ask my husband, Bill, who’s been on record saying that not acting, choosing instead to usher in an unprecedented era of American economic prosperity during the massacre in Rwanda, was his biggest regret. Now, he couldn’t have done much – if you look back at newspapers from the time (as I have instructed my capable staff of non-2016-election-campaign-volunteers to do) you’ll see that we didn’t have half the momentum to intervene there that we do with Syria or Iraq – mostly, I suspect, because Republicans hate black people. Which is neither here nor there. The point is, Bill didn’t act and it haunted him. For example, he may be the only person in the world who watched “Hotel Rwanda” more than once. Can you imagine such a thing? To sit through that example of Oscar-bait trash required an actual, deliberate exertion of my not-unsubstantial will – and he watched it twice. It’s practically an obsession.

Worst of all, when you think about it (as few of us do, ever, let’s be honest), is how that genocide unfolded so quickly, and was really over before we could do anything. The time to act came and went, and life has gone on pretty much as it did before, without any negative consequences for anyone beyond the people living there. About whom, if we’re being frank with ourselves, few people care. Global instability doesn’t really threaten us, although if we were to sustain lengthy involvements in other countries indefinitely, it could destabilize our economy. Whatever, we’ll figure that out later. That’s not the point.

The point is, we have momentum to act now in Syria and we must – before we lose it. Acting – bombing, destroying – will make us feel a lot better. Heck, it’s not going to make things worse, things are already terrible. The ISIS and Islamic State and Al Qaeda legions (or, you know, the units and such) are stronger than ever. Even though in every other war we’ve fought, bombing with the most restrictive rules of engagement seems only to create more civilian casualties and enrage the population being bombed (forcing them closer to their presumably criminal, repressive government and therefore reaffirming that government’s claims of legitimacy), it also creates massive, awesome explosions, which we can see on the news, and use to reassure ourselves that we’ve done some tangible good in the world. That we’ve done something.

I’m not going to lie – it’s great business for America, too. The 47 Tomahawk cruise missiles *alone* cost almost $75 million dollars, to say nothing of the cost of deploying costly and maintenance-heavy jets, the bombs we’re dropping (most precision-guided munitions clock in at $80,000 a pop), the ships needed to launch the cruise missiles, etc. The number is so big, it’s tough to ballpark. Let’s just say that American businesses that dominate this sort of action just hit the lottery, and stand to make a lot more money in the coming days. And hey – that’s good for the economy. You don’t need to subscribe to “trickle-down economics” to see how making business for American employers and employees helps our bottom line as a nation, unless you hate America. And you don’t hate America, do you, my friends? My countrymen and women? Citizens like myself, and Bill, and Chelsea, and her baby? What about Chelsea’s baby?

I didn’t want to go here, but Chelsea’s baby wants us to act. That’s right. A tiny child, barely old enough to perceive the difference in shades of color, incapable of speech, would be disgusted if we were to sit on our hands and miss this golden opportunity to do something magnificently pointless, save for the aforementioned benefits to U.S. industry as well as the fact that it will satisfy some primitive emotional desire to see things done. Chelsea’s baby needs this, America. Don’t deprive an innocent, sweet human child of pleasure, and bring tears of sadness to its squinty, too-perceptive eyes.

Anyway, what do you people have against action, anyway? Would you rather just watch and see which violent, extremist group emerges from the chaos of war, without doing anything? Which hate-filled, ideologically or religiously intolerant group develops while the Middle East burns? I admit, that is certainly the eventual outcome whatever we do, I’m not a fool. No sane or rational human being with even the most superficial understanding of history would dispute that claim. Things are going to be  a lot worse in a couple years, exponentially worse, for our foreign policy and strategic interests in the region, almost incalculably so. Let’s just say I’m not planning on going back there, ever, and leave it at that. So why can’t we have some fun before the lines metastasize, and we can’t fly over Persia or the Greater Arab-Turkic Republic (GATR)?

We’ll never get this opportunity to act again, America. Bombing targets in Syria – who thought we’d do that? Bombing targets in Iraq – twice as fun the second time around. And we might, if we’re really careful about this, end up being able to put more boots on the ground, as well as bombing targets in Libya, and – it’s not too much for an old, increasingly-demented woman to hope – maybe even Egypt, Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar as well. Wouldn’t that be something! Wouldn’t that just be the best!

Please, before it’s too late, America – we must act. And once we’ve started, let’s not stop this time until we’re good and ready.