My friends keep chickens in their backyard, right in the middle of the city. This is funny enough in itself, but even better is that the chickens are all named after dictators. Recently, a new chicken became the first to receive the name of a "benevolent" dictator, Hugo Chavez. This has evidently sparked a debate amongst the household residents as to whether Chavez is in fact a benevolent dictator, if a dictator can really be benevolent, or whether he's even a dictator at all. In any case, they now get to eat his (technically, 'her') and Mussolini's babies for breakfast.
It is with this background that I bring you the latest news from the chicken coop: Kim Jong-Il has died. The best part? He was eaten by a dog.
Coincidentally, friends on the other side of town are reporting that their cat is evidently a communist, as surmised by his refusal to "MEE-ow" like a normal cat and instead says, "Mao."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
You know, you really shouldn't tease people with headlines like that. On the other hand, maybe the demise of Kim Jong-Il the Chicken will have some unexplained voodooun effect on Kim Jong-Il the Person -- nightmares of being eaten by a giant dog, perhaps. If the next weird news to come out of North Korea is a nationwide extermination of dogs, we shall know who started it.
As for dictators, let me throw onto the dissection table the proposition that all dictators, in their own minds and in the minds of those who follow them earnestly, are benevolent. Some may be eventually corrupted to the point where even the visions of glorious paradise based on whatever ideology they espouse give way to the sheer joy imparted by the power of life and death. However, they all seem to start with the idea that they know how to fix the world's problems, right wrongs, and rid the People of the Enemy. In their minds, they usually are doing good works -- or are they not?
If this point made it into your debate, then how did it fare?
Post a Comment