Column: The tube according to Osama

Fox News “falls into the abyss as you know, and lacks neutrality too.” CNN “seems to be in cooperation with the government more than others.” That was how Al Qaeda … rated several American TV news outlets, according to documents made public today.

– Los Angeles Times, May 3

***

To: The Joint Chiefs of Staff
From: Combating Terrorism Center
Regarding: Osama bin Laden’s journals

Gentlemen:

Although reports have attributed critiques of American news networks to an Al Qaeda operative, Osama bin Laden’s personal journals — confiscated following the raid on his compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan — would seem to indicate that the criticisms may actually have come from bin Laden, who apparently spent several years in his bunker doing nothing but watching American television.

Following are 10 of bin Laden’s journal excerpts that bolster this opinion, for your eyes only:
 1) “Fox and Friends is as lacking in neutrality as the rest of the network’s programming, which is emblematic of the American arrogance and hubris. And who is doing the picking of Brian Kilmeade’s neckties? That person should be beheaded and his body defiled.”

 2) “Two and a Half Men: Ashton Kutcher, bah! I have a mind to order a fatwa against him, because of his conceit in believing he could take the place of Charlie Sheen, and also because I feel that eventually he will hurt Demi, whom I loved in ‘Striptease’ and would gladly make one of my many wives.”

3) “The Big Bang Theory: These wispy faux men would not last for a day in my ranks. Also, the one who argues that Superman is mightier than Green Lantern is foolish beyond all folly. Death to him!”
4) “House: I find this surly physician appealing! Also, he made me realize that I may have hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia. (Although my wives have thought I was a hypochondriac ever since I got obsessively neat after watching that Monk marathon last year. Curse them … Demi would believe in my ailments!)”

 5) “Glee: This show is so gay. In fact, these are some of the happiest people I’ve ever seen on television. Praise be to Glee!”

6) “The O’Reilly Factor: What is this No-Spin Zone he speaks of endlessly? I am beginning to think it is not a real place.”

7) “Undercover Boss: I once did this with my new recruits — masqueraded as one of them so I could see how truly dedicated they were to our glorious cause. Until one of the lieutenants tried to strap a bomb on me, and I was like ‘Hey, Osama here! Undercover boss! Good job, carry on everybody!’”

8) “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno: “It is not fair that Americans should enjoy quality late-night humor while our brothers around the world are experiencing comedy of the most miserable level. Based on this, with the permission of God, we will continue to inflict Jay Leno upon you until the suffering of our people abates.”

9) “Deadliest Catch: Sadly about fishing.”

10) “The Voice: Terrible — these people have the voices of a hundred spitting camels being mauled to death by a Caspian tiger. Except for Dia Frampton, whose tones are like a blessed emissary of Allah and whom I would like to be one of my virgins when I arrive in paradise, many, many years from now. Oops, hold on, someone’s at the door.”

A version of this column originally appeared at CAP News. Check out other satire from me and CAP in “Net's Best Satire, Vol. 1,” available at Amazon and BN.com.

COLUMN: Have you hugged a detainee today?

As you know, President Obama’s first year in office has been considered a tremendous success, especially for the people who make “Don’t Blame Me, I Voted for Hillary” bumper stickers. So I’m sure his plan to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center will go perfectly fine, and any detainees who are released will immediately become productive (i.e., not homicidal) members of society.

This is presumably the thinking of some aldermen in Newton, Mass., where they proposed an official resolution to welcome such former detainees with open arms. (The phrase “it’s my privilege to extend to you a laurel and hearty handshake” comes to mind.) Others argue that local aldermen shouldn’t be getting involved in “international issues,” because it’s just a small step from welcoming detainees to bombing North Korea. I’m paraphrasing.

Fortunately, the debate on the proposal has been civil, with most residents attending a public hearing on the matter with either a torch or a pitchfork, but not both. Declared one Newtonian (Newtonite?) of the detainees, “They want to behead and explode our children, grandchildren, friends and parents and us!” That’s right: behead and explode. (Not necessarily in that order.)

Just to revisit a little bit of the history, Guantanamo is a U.S. military prison in Cuba where, since 2002, we’ve been putting suspected terrorists until we could figure out what do to with them. The Justice Department advised the Bush administration that it’s officially outside U.S. legal jurisdiction, meaning we could imprison suspects without the evidence we’d need on American soil, but only, and this is very important, “if they look at us funny.”

But Obama apparently has some kind of a problem with locking up people without any evidence, even if those people aren’t Americans — that’s just the type of Nigerian-born fake president he is. So a lot of people will be released and cleared for entry into the U.S., but would an official resolution to welcome them here be the best approach? Let’s consider the pros:

1. It would show we have no hard feelings after locking them up all those years for no reason.

2. It would add diversity to communities like Newton, which, according to the 2000 census, has almost no terrorists. (Sorry, I meant to say Newton has no “enemy belligerents” … although anyone who was at that public hearing might disagree.)

And now the cons:

1. Maybe these guys weren’t locked up for no reason, and they will set upon planning to annihilate us the minute we present them with their complimentary Prius and the keys to their Newton Highlands condo.

2. See No. 1.

Still, I’m sure these detainees are all perfectly nice people, or at least they were before we locked them up and waterboarded them for seven years. For instance, the particular detainee at the heart of the Newton controversy was alleged to be a member of terrorist group Lashkar al-Tayyibi, but has said he worked in a “legally operated charitable wing” of the organization. See, I bet you didn’t even know terrorist groups had charitable wings. Sort of a “Bombers Without Borders.”

Anyway, I’ll be very curious to see how it all plays out in Newton. I personally can appreciate both sides of the issue, and can only hope that, if nothing else, the situation inspires an NBC sitcom in which a Guantanamo detainee (Wilmer Valderrama) is officially welcomed into a small liberal town, except everywhere he goes (the coffee shop, the DMV, to get his hair cut, etc.), people scream and dive under their desks. Or maybe a Fox sitcom, where he moves into a town where all the women have tremendous bosoms. Either would get better ratings than Jay Leno.

As for the Newton detainee, I wish him the best of luck, and if he winds up moving there I have high hopes for him becoming a vital, contributing member of that community. But if he runs for alderman, I recommend they keep him away from North Korea.

This column appeared originally in North Shore Sunday. Peter Chianca is a managing editor for GateHouse Media New England. Follow him on Twitter at twitter.com/pchianca. To receive At Large by e-mail, write to info@chianca-at-large.com, with the subject line “SUBSCRIBE.”

AT LARGE Fake New Monday: Nation's Perverts Endorse Full-Body Airport Scanners

RENO, Nev. (CAP) - America's largest organized group of perverts and degenerates has released a statement wholeheartedly supporting plans to install full-body scanning equipment in the nation's airports.

"Any device that can prevent terrorism while at the same time allowing you to see through people's clothes is A-OK in our book," said Nigel Friedrichsen, president of the Reno-based National Association of Perverts (NAP). "That's the definition of win-win. Um ... At least our definition."

The scanners have been highly controversial, with some civil libertarians claiming the devices violate travelers' privacy by performing a "virtual strip search."

"Yes, it's true the scans do expose the full bodies of the travelers who pass through them," noted Friedrichsen. "Screeners would be able to see, say, under the brassieres of women age 16 to 35. Or into their underpants ... their frilly, lacey underpants ... Mm ... I'm sorry, what were we talking about?"

He then noted that the public shouldn't be concerned, since only airport screeners would be privy to the scans. He did acknowledge, though, that "almost 90 percent of our membership has already applied, including myself."

Also coming forward in support of the scanners is the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), which is lobbying for the scanning procedure to apply to children as well as adults.

"They younger, the better," said NAMBLA spokesman Bradley "Uncle Brad" White. "You never know what one of those little boys might have hidden in his briefs. No matter how long and hard you may have tried to guess."

[Read the rest at CAP News.]