I have not posted in a few days because, well, here is a sentence:
"We must now take Newt Gingrich seriously."
This is possibly true, in some cockeyed sense, but it is hardly an inducement to avoid booze.
Which begs the question, in the correct and incorrect usage of the term, WHO IS SMARTER, Chuck Norris or Tom Friedman?
This is rarely asked, but it touches on one of the most pressing Issues of Our Day, namely, Why Do Semi-Literate Dinks with Creepy Moustaches Get to Bother Us with Their Nonsense?
I have no answers. I merely Probe.
Here is Tom Friedman:
I can save both parties a lot of money. I am one of those voters, and I can tell you exactly for whom I want to vote — and I don’t think I’m alone.
Here is Chuck Norris:
As important as it is, now is not the time to be mincing through minutiae and infighting via typical partisan battles. Rome is burning, and we need to appoint the best firemen possible to rush in and put out her fury.
Tom Friedman wins here only in the sense that he speaks a recognizable, if irritatingly dipshit, dialect of imaginary taxi-driver English. Chuck Norris thinks minutiae-mincing is a thing that exists because of alliteration, and also that Rome is an angry girl who is on fire.
Here is Tom Friedman:
I want to vote for a candidate who advocates an immediate investment in infrastructure that will create jobs and upgrade America for the 21st century — ultrafast bandwidth, highways, airports, public schools, mass transit — and combines that with a long-term plan to fix our fiscal imbalances at the real scale of the problem, a plan that could be phased in as the economy recovers.
I want to stop being humiliated by having my shit published next to Krugman. A pony would be nice also. The problem of course is partisanship.
Here is Chuck Norris.
No man or candidate is perfect. We all have skeletons in our closet. If buried bones became unforgivable bones of contention, the world would never know or will never know another Benjamin Franklin, King David and others like them. We must remember that we’re electing a president, not a pastor or pope. And with the mainstream media and a billion-dollar Obama campaign coffer on the president’s side, we need a veteran of political war who has already fought Goliath, because he will be facing Goliath’s bigger brother.
So I can bang an intern half my age if I'm running for president, and that's cool with Jesus, if the other guy has a lot of cash? Alert my wife!
Friedman wins here, though. Neither acknowledges anything approaching 21st century political realities, but Friedman at minimum would let me get quicker and more brutal porn.
On the latter point, I am talking about the Bowles-Simpson bipartisan deficit reduction plan — or something equally serious and with a chance of bipartisan support.
That is so fucking stupid.
We agree with our friend and governor of the great state of Texas, Rick Perry, when he suspended his campaign and endorsed Gingrich, that Newt “has the heart of a conservative reformer.” We believe Newt’s experience, leadership, knowledge, wisdom, faith and even humility to learn from his failures (personal and public) can return America to her glory days. And he is the best man left on the battlefield who is able to outwit, outplay and outlast Obama and his campaign machine.
That is also pretty fucking stupid.
I am compelled by honest analysis to conclude that Tom Friedman is marginally more intelligent than Chuck Norris. In fairness, though, Tom Friedman has not been hit in the head nearly as often. Science demands a more level playing field.