The United States State Department has offered a $7 million bounty for Abubakar Shekau. He is the leader of the notorius Boko Haram.
I have to ask, “is this guy not bad enough for us to cough up the bounty voluntarilly?” It seems to be the same old story. We are all in favor if someone else pays. The ramp up to the bank door is necessary as long as we force the bank to pay for it. Ask Kent. The cost is passed on to customers and we then complain about draconian fees.
But the idea the money comes from the mouths of starving children doesn’t register as part of this universe. Immediate gratification isn’t exclusive to baby birds.
The money does come from the mouths of starving children, I explain. There is $7 million, if anyone has the guts to claim it, that will not be spent by people of free will. It will not pass the test of necessity for the individuals who earned it.
The waste created by such third party transactions will ultimately cause a child to go hungry.
After nearly a month, Nigerian troops are stationed at the edge of the forest, where the girls are held captive, in the “strategic planning” stage. Actually, if you read about Abubakar Shekau, those troops are not in strategic planning at all, they are scared to death.
You know how you might watch a movie and wonder why the bad guys didn’t off the witnesses so they couldn’t be identified later on? Boko Haram loves live witnesses because they are not a bunch of G.W. Bushes saying, “bring ’em on” while protected by the most expensive (though not most effective, unfortunately) security force on earth. These people are truly bad. I’m watching my language.
They have to make an effort to preserve witnesses and can’t seem to get it done because they are religious homicidal maniacs. Instead, they make videos. There are videos of hundreds of young men marching in support of Shekau and his mission to cleanse the world of westernized Islam (that is to blame for their miserable poverty).
To effectively deal with Boko Haram I propose Michael Medved and David Horowitz lead a group of the other religious fanatics into Nigeria and do away with Shekau once and for all. They understand these things better than the rest of us.
Tarzan, however, has a balanced view of the world and minds his own business,
alternativebyfritz 
Sorry Fritz, but I haven’t the foggiest idea as to where you intended to go with this screed (aka, “diatribe”). It appears to be an effort at recording stream of consciousness expressions or a practice exercise in using a narrative technique that gives the impression of a mind at work, jumping from one observation, sensation, or reflection to the next. You’ve managed to express these varied elements in a flow of words without conventional transitions, a bunch of phrases that appear as mostly nonsense. Was there a point to be made here? Clearly, I missed it.
Why does an issue in far-off Nigeria, a type of situation that has been ongoing in one shape or another since about 620 C.E., suddenly deserve the interest of the United States government? Is this just a practice exercise to see if modern day Islamic barbarians can be Tweeted to death? Contrary to the Tweet hashtag, these are not “our girls.” From a libertarian point of view, why would you want to stick your nose into the culture, the morality and the behaviorist traditions of another ethnic group in a distant country?
Tweeted to death is the coolest thing ever!
And I’m proposing Medved and Horowitz do it, not you, me or anyone else who has better things to do.