by Chris Cannon
Einstein’s musing about the clock tower is what’s known as a “thought experiment,” a mental parkour adventure in which one imagines hypothetical scenarios to work through a complex problem. Thought experiments have guided the greatest minds in history to explore dimensions of their fields that are simply unimaginable through conventional testing.
Long before being elected to office, our politicians find themselves on the mat just as Einstein did, wrestling with the one thing in the universe that moves faster than the speed of light—a moral indoctrination by their political party. The candidates don’t stand a chance, and their imaginations succumb to a chokehold before the opening bell ceases its echo. This lack of imagination in public office is death for a democracy, as every debate is painted in two dimensions: black or white, liberal or conservative, patriot or terrorist. Our leaders are masters of the long and wide argument, but suffer paralyzing vertigo if asked to plumb the depths of compromise.
Which is why, once elected, we will appoint Canadian director James Cameron to bring a much-needed third dimension to the sinking Titanic that is our political universe. As our Director of Time and Space, Cameron will take control on all issues Congress and the Senate cannot solve within thirty days. He will be given broad powers to steer the conversation onto dimensional planes the parties had never considered possible.
A conversation in a Cameron-led legislature may go something like this:
Republicans: Abortion bad! Women bad for hurting babies!
Democrats: Choice good! Men bad for controlling women!
Cameron: Okay, both of you just shut the fuck up for a minute.
Republicans, you believe life begins at conception, and a woman’s right to control her body does not supersede the right of the child to be born. That’s a valid point, and I applaud your commitment to the sanctity of what you perceive to be an innocent life, even though you support sending teenagers to the electric chair. But that’s another conversation.
Democrats, you believe the fetus is a part of the woman and not a separate entity until it is born, and the government does not have the right to tell you what to do with your body. That’s a valid point, and I applaud your commitment to personal liberty, even though you won’t acknowledge your opponent’s confusion when you reserve your sanctity-of-life speeches for murderers on death row. But that’s another conversation.
You might notice that you have named your positions “Pro-Choice” and “Anti-Abortion,” rather than “Pro-Abortion” and “Anti-Choice.” That should tell you something—you are both in favor of an individual’s right to make their own choices, and neither of you want abortion to be so rampant it’s offered at concierge desks and drive-through windows. But such shrill and endless debate has cost women their preventive health care and cost us all more than one million abortions a year. You’re both losing far more than you’re gaining.
So let me offer you a third option. First—and forgive me if I’m repeating myself—shut the fuck up. Second, let’s talk to our scientists and see if they can find a way for people to have sex without getting pregnant. Perhaps with a little research we can develop some sort of “control of birth” pill, or something else contrary to conception. I know an F/X guy who’s a wiz with this stuff. Let me give him a call.
With a little science and an inexpensive public information campaign, we can take a break from the stalemate and dramatically reduce abortions immediately, then get back to fighting over the moral issue in about a year or so after we’ve made it a far lesser problem. This will free us up to handle other issues like immigration, where I can help you understand the immigrant’s point of view by becoming—forgive me—an alien avatar.
I apologize—I really wanted to direct comedies.
1.7 How to Say You’re Sorry without Looking like a Total Pussy
The following is an actual transcript from the March 17, 2009, episode of the Fox News program Red Eye, featuring Fox larvae Greg Gutfeld, Doug Benson, Bill Schulz, and Monica Crowley:
Greg Gutfeld: Due to personnel and equipment shortages, Canada’s Lieutenant General Andrew Leslie—an unusual name for a man—told the Senate defense committee last week, quote, “We will have to explore the possibility of taking a short operational break, that is synchronized of at least one year.” Meaning the Canadian military wants to take a breather, to do some yoga, paint landscapes, run on the beach in gorgeous white Capri pants. Leslie added that there is no one to repair the tanks, nor are there any ready tanks for soldiers to train on, so a hiatus is needed to get their armored act together. Doug, I go to you first, because this is a very important question, I want you to take it seriously. Isn’t this the perfect time to invade this ridiculous country? They have no army.
Doug Benson: I didn’t even know that they were in the war. I thought that’s where you go if you don’t want to fight, go chill in Canada.
Gutfeld: Exactly! Exactly!
Benson: So I guess they’ll have... that will be their tourism, that will be their selling point. “We’re not in the war for a year. Come on by while we nap!”
Gutfeld: Exactly! It’s amazing! I don’t know any country that’s done this! Phil, would Canada be able to get away with this if they didn’t share a border with the most powerful country in the universe?
Bill Schulz: No, they probably wouldn’t. I mean, does this surprise any of us?
Gutfeld: It surprises me.
Schulz: Well, you’re stupid. We have police officers, and they have Mounties. Our cops ride heavily armored cars, they ride horses. We have bulletproof vests, they have wonderful little red jackets that can be seen a mile away. This is not a smart culture, Greg.
Monica Crowley: So they’re getting manicures, they’re getting pedicures, everybody needs a little time off.
Gutfeld: Isn’t Canada doing, Monica, what most of Europe does anyway, which is just rely on USA in case anything bad happens?
Crowley: Of course, they couldn’t take a year off from their military if they didn’t have the security backdrop of the United States.
Schulz: But the other thing you should be worried about, Greg, is: Canada starts this, who’s our other border, Mexico, they’re gonna start relying on our army too. Remember, it’s not Canada, it’s Mexico that likes the siestas. It’s happening.
This was, of course, horribly offensive to Canadians, who enjoy a good siesta as much as the next nation-state. The other stuff was pretty bad too, and once the YouTube video was translated into Canadian [We really don’t understand a lot of your accents.], outrage was had. In the passive tense. Because we’re Canada.
In short, we asked for an apology, because it turned out Canadian soldiers were dying in Afghanistan at a rate of up to four times that of British and American soldiers. Following thousands of complaints, as well as a demand from the Canadian defense minister, Gutfeld issued an “apology” that included the standard phrase that mother weasels teach their young: “I realize that my words may have been misunderstood.” [There may have been other apologies out there, but we didn’t find them. In our defense, we didn’t look very hard.]
So, on behalf of Canada, we’d like to take this opportunity to apologize for misunderstanding you.
See how easy that was? We didn’t say, “We apologize that you misunderstood our misunderstanding.” We just apologized. Didn’t even mean it. Doesn’t matter.
If there is one thing Canada can bring to the presidency, a single element of northern culture that can restore America’s former reputation as the cowboy with the white hat, it is the concept of humility. Although Canada’s best-known exports are cannabis and morally questionable oil, the country dominates the world’s apology trade, its citizens issuing more “sorrys” per capita than the next three most docile countries combined.
The most common misunderstanding about apologies is that they weaken your position because it
seems, on the surface, that you are admitting you’re wrong. But we of the sophisticated atonement are here to tell you that you are wrong, whether you are right or wrong. So just be wrong and get it over with. Bam. You have cleared yourself to be a complete douchebag again at a later date. Do you now see the power of the apology? It is a weapon of unimaginable modesty. This is how you conquer.
We would like to introduce you to the standardized, fill-in-the-blank apology form we issue to our fourth graders to prepare them for a life of being a Canadian. This simple tool will get you started on your journey toward becoming a better, meeker nation. Only then may you inherit the earth.
Dear (injured party),
On (date), I made an ass of myself. I did not misspeak. I was not misunderstood. I was not drinking or on drugs, and even if I were, it would not excuse my behavior.
If I had claimed something was true that wasn’t, I have since informed myself and am better for the experience.
If I was insensitive or judgmental, I have put myself in your place and am better for the experience.
If I destroyed your property with vomit or bodily fluids, I will replace the affected items and any beer I drank. [The legal drinking age in Canada is eight.]
In any event, I let my pride get the best of me, and I apologize. I am a work-in-progress. Let’s go get drunk. My treat.
Drama complete. No need to explain your intent, no helping people “get the joke,” no accusing your audience of being an enabler. Again, this is a child’s model. Over time, you will learn to personalize your apologies and craft your own sincerity. An adult apology might look something like this:
Dear Fox viewers and other affected parties,
We, the hosts and guests of the Fox News program Red Eye, apologize for the comments on our March 17 program.
We will not blame it on you, the viewer, for misunderstanding us. We were clearly being assholes.
We will not claim we were just doing comedy, as we realize the word “News” is actually in our network’s title.
We have done some research, and have discovered the following facts:
· Leslie is a common, gender-neutral name, and in this context a last name. We apologize for our immature sexism and for making fun of a decorated veteran of the Afghanistan War, which we started.
· Canada is actually our closest ally, and thus not prime invading material. Further, they hold the tragic distinction of losing the most soldiers per capita of any participating nation in the Afghanistan coalition, and our comments were poorly timed to the deadliest month of the war for Canadian soldiers. We apologize for dishonoring these servicemen, particularly since none of us have served in the military ourselves.
· Despite the fact that their Mounties ride horses and wear red jackets, Canada has one-third the murder rate of the United States, with less than half the police per capita. We assume this is because they apologize a lot.
· Canadians like siestas.
We are sorry, and better for the experience. We promise that every morning from now on, we will wake up, brush our teeth, look ourselves in the mirror, and say, “Good morning. Don’t be a dick today.”
Now let’s go get drunk. Our treat.
* * *
It’s a Promise!
Unaccepted apologies will be recycled at the Department of My Bad to encourage sustainable communities.
Canafact
Canada’s Radio Act forbids lying on broadcast news. Coincidentally, there are no Fox affiliates in Canada.
* * *
It’s a Small World
(Unless You’re Liechtenstein)
2.1 American Exceptionalism, or How to Make Other Countries Feel Bad about Their Bodies
A word served as comfort food to those who swallow the concept of manifest destiny, “exceptionalism” promotes the idea that the United States is... well... really, really awesome. Not just awesome, but Empire Strikes Back awesome, if Star Wars was the foundational Greek democracy and Return of the Jedi was the expansion of American ideals across the globe. [If you haven’t seen the Star Wars movies, please move on to the next chapter, because it’s just going to get worse.]
It would have been perfect if the doctrine of American exceptionalism had ended there, but its popularity led us to a string of self-indulgent prequels with fabricated storylines that favored sappiness and explosions over meaningful content. (WMDs in Iraq = The Phantom Menace, Fox News = Attack of the Clones, and the War on Terror = Revenge of the Sith.) Add a little CGI to the digital rerelease of the “reason we invaded Iraq” storyline, and suddenly we believe Jabba the Hutt was running the country, and Iraqi civilians actually start to look like Sand People.
Not that America isn’t awesome. As your continental BFF, we’re here to tell you that you are, in so many ways, for so many reasons. We love the smell of your hair, which is where we live because we are right on top of you. We love the way you look at us across the tar sands, flirty and hungry. We know it’s just the oil, but we like to pretend it’s... a little more. Just look at our terror alert system:
Canadian Terror Alert System
The point is, we all know you’re the world’s quarterback. We all know you won State three years in a row, and speaking for the rest of the team, we’re grateful, and even still somewhat impressed. Taiwan still has your picture taped to her locker—seriously, everyone has a crush on you.
So stop milking it. Do you know how it hurts the world’s feelings every time you call yourself the “greatest country in the universe” and “God’s chosen nation”? How would you like it if aliens beamed down to earth every few days just to remind humans what an inferior species we are? Or if God revealed that he was actually pointing at the country behind you?
The international community once bought into your invincibility, but now when we hear the phrase “American exceptionalism,” we focus on the “exception” part, as in, liberty and justice for all, except gays, women, minorities, immigrants, whistle-blowers, documentary filmmakers, prisoners, activists, pacifists, atheists, environmentalists, occupiers, soldiers, veterans, the homeless, the uninsured with preexisting conditions, and anyone standing in line at an airport.
In other words, the very people who make you exceptional.
What this really boils down to is a self-esteem issue. It’s nothing to be embarrassed about—we all get down on ourselves from time to time and feel like we have to lash out at our friends. Just look at North Korea, so heartbroken by South Korea’s rejection that he’s spent the past sixty years locked in his room writing creepy stalker hate mail.
You are better than this, America. You are exceptional, but there is an important difference between patriotism (loving who you are) and nationalism (hating what is not you). Practicing nationalism under the guise of patriotism is kind of like saying you don’t hate homosexuals because they’re gay, you hate them because they’re not straight.
But there is hope in humility, a genetic variant all Canadians carry, and that we would be happy to share with our new nation-mates. Humility enables us to openly admit our shortcomings and seek ways to better ourselves. It is not the concentration of power that makes a country great, it is the humble use of that power to bring out the greatness in others. America needs to be exceptional where it counts—swooping in on the Millennium Falcon to save Luke rather than manning the controls of the Death Star. For America to be great again, it must remember what it means to be good. To paraphrase a certain bun-headed princess, Help us, America. You’re our only hope.
* * *
Canafact
The term “American exceptionalism” was first coined by Joseph Stalin as an insult to the United States (true). Stalin also claimed he could see Canada from his house, but he did not pretend that it counted as foreign policy experience (should be true).
It’s a Promise!
&nb
sp; The creepy cyclopean pyramid on American money will be replaced with a universal symbol of exceptionalism and enterprise: William Shatner, winking.
* * *
Follow this link to a video message from Canada
2.2 Killing with Kindness, Torturing with Tenderness
Over the past decade, Western intelligence agencies have replaced actual intelligence-gathering with airport fondling, shoe fetishes, and a snippy demeanor that would make a Frenchman bathe in disgust. Canadian intelligence-gathering techniques can lend a certain passive-aggressive style that American agencies sometimes lack (except, of course, the aggressive part).
To illustrate this point, we propose to revise the CIA interrogation manual to reflect a more modern approach and helpful attitude.
Introduction to the CIA Interrogation Manual
Revision: JULY 4, 2013
Welcome to the exciting world of torture! The United States has a rich and noble history of promoting “enhanced cooperation” from our enemies. From the Boston Knee-Cap Party of the American Revolution to the Tokyo Titty Twister of World War II, the U.S. has always been on the forefront of information-gathering techniques. You are now a part of this great tradition, and due to recent developments on the world stage (thank you, Al Qaeda!), you have more weapons at your disposal than ever before. We know you’re eager to begin your journey, so let’s review our most recent torture updates.
The modern enemy combatant is more educated and worldly than his predecessors, and this manual includes new interrogation techniques to keep pace with the sophisticated terrorist. For example, while there is always room for a classic like bamboo shoots under the fingernails, it’s equally agonizing to force prisoners to watch YouTube videos with a 56k dial-up connection. You can also weaken the resistance of detainees by overloading their Facebook status posts—frequent updates on the weather and the consistency of the bean salad you’re having for lunch are particularly grating on the nerves, and can produce valuable information from your captive.
