Three If By Satellite Transmission
British television has something of an overblown reputation for quality here in the US. I think our perception of it is skewed because we usually only get the good stuff over here--your Monty Python, The Office, Prime Suspect, Black Adder, etc.

Now that we have BBC America, we know that they are capable of a lot more Benny Hill-quality crap than they have been getting credit for. Their high-quality stuff is, for my money, a way in so that they might infect our culture with I'm A Celebrity, Get Me Out Of Here or stupefy us all into complacence and--ultimately--oblivion with Big Brother.

Then will come the invasion. They want us back, make no mistake. My prescription? Nonstop reruns of Bonanza. Any country fortified by that strong milk is unconquerable. Every Little Joe can be a Hoss.

You think I sound paranoid, don't you? But television is how they're laying out their plan already. Look, they're coming out with this movie about the assassination of George W. Bush. Fictional drama or blueprint for action? You decide.

Or let me decide for you: it's a bald-faced incitement to action. "Look how easy it would be..." they seem to be saying. The smug Brits and their awful subterfuge. You can see them sitting back in their musty old chairs made from the bones of Indian children, swilling that brackish leech-water they call "tea" and waiting for America to tear itself apart so they can step in with no resistance. All they need is for their target audience to do some actual targeting.

We know who they're talking to as well. But I say they misunderestimate those they would convince. Democrats, foreigners and terrorists--and let's be honest, they're really the same thing--aren't so foolish as to actually entertain ideas of bringing any kind of harm to George W. Bush. The British would do well to give them--OK, us--some credit for being geopolitically savvy enough to consider the outcome of such a rash and short-sighted action: President Richard Bruce Cheney.

On top of all that a Cheney administration would imply--invasion of... well, everywhere, legalized hunting of homeless people, Vice President Rumsfeld--could you also stand a president whose middle name was Bruce? I couldn't. I can barely stand the "Walker" we have now, which is only marginally saved by possible expansion into "Texas Ranger". "Bruce" is just... gay. It's like some kind of weird combination of "Butch" and "Lance" and we all know what happens when Butch and Lance get together. That's right: you get Mary Cheney. Can America survive with that kind of selfish hedonism run rampant? I don't think so.

We need George W. Bush. We didn't need him so much in 2000 and 2004, but we got him anyway. Here we are in 2006, two years from any kind of electoral reprieve, and now he is the levee that holds back the oily Cheney flood. Even this disturbs me, though, because we know what his track record is with the levees.

But at least he ain't English, wot?



This post on the Narcissus Scale: 7.6



Pops
- posted by Pops @ 9:27 AM