Decision 2008: Thinking the Unthinkable

HOST: Good evening and welcome to this special edition of Larry King Live. Tonight we're going where no presidential candidates have gone before. Our presentation is a co-production of CNN and the Sci-Fi Channel. We've invited the top three Democratic presidential contenders to tell us how they would respond to a variety of potential threats. Most of these scenarios may seem highly unlikely, if not downright fantastic, but that's what people used to say about putting a man on the moon. Today's fable could be tomorrow's terrifying reality, and require immediate presidential action.

The first question is for Hillary Clinton. Senator, suppose a crew drilling for oil somewhere in the continental US accidentally wakes up a giant prehistoric creature buried underground. The beast claws its way to the surface and runs amok, attacking nearby cities and leaving a path of destruction behind. How would your administration deal with such a crisis?

CLINTON: Larry, as I've said repeatedly during this campaign, the next president must be someone who can view any unexpected threat in perspective as it relates to our long term security, and not rush to a judgement that will only make things worse. Experience is what counts, whether you're dealing with a hurricane like Katrina, or a giant, angry reptile that is impervious to bullets, missiles or other conventional weapons, and I have that experience.

LK: Would you go nuclear on the beast? Is that on the table?

CLINTON: I would be very, very leery of that option before we had more information. If the creature feeds on energy, a nuclear bomb could make it double or perhaps even triple in size, or possibly split into hundreds of duplicate creatures. Patience isn¹t a popular policy, but a true leader knows when it's the RIGHT policy.

OBAMA: Let me just jump in here. Senator Clinton makes some good points, but she's reacting to a situation that could have been avoided. The fact is, more drilling for oil is not the answer to our energy needs, and never will be. It degrades the environment and risks potential confrontation with unknown life forms, reptile or otherwise. We need to change how we think about energy requirements. When it comes to oil, coal, and other non-renewable resources, we should abandon policies that have outlived their usefulness and develop a framework for the future that emphasizes cooperation not competition. That approach will keep us from ever getting into a life-or-death struggle with hibernating dinosaurs, or any other strange beings who have to share this planet with us.

EDWARDS: Hold on, both of you. Regardless of how you feel about dealing with the rampaging monster, or trying to avoid the confrontation, I'm looking at the consequences, okay? As usual, it's going to be the little guy who gets hit the worst. His home could be destroyed, he may end up seriously hurt, the town factory is probably wiped out so there's no job for him even if he recovers. Who's looking out for that guy? If the federal government doesn't care about him, we are no different from the giant reptile. That's a reality that I intend to change when I'm president.

LK: All right, we have lots more ground to cover so stay with us. After the break, we'll ask the candidates how they'd deal with an asteroid collision, collapse of the ozone layer, mutant virus epidemic, and an invasion of flesh-eating zombies. Keep in mind that some topics may not be suitable for all audiences. Voter discretion is advised.

Comments

[jeskiley]

I'd like to know how they're going to deal with the upcoming "unvaccinated child" problem. I've been blessed to receive vaccinations for all of my children free of charge, up until, oh..., January 1st of this year.

Now, I have to pay. One round of shots for my baby is $400.

[pithymaxim]

This is a funny metaphor; however, I wouldn't be surprised if it is used as a fear and xenophobia inducing allegory to present a dystopia where the reptile(s) equal Muslims, illegal immigrants, ie the villain of the day in a televised political ad, overtly or subliminally, inducing further paranoia, hypervigilance, heightened fight - or-flight response, and ultimately a brainstem reaction - vote devoid of higher cortical involvement. What gets the ratings also gets the vote, especially since most voters are not aware their cognitive biases are being exploited by social engineers. Indeed, they facilitate and abet the fine tuning of their own eventual manipulation by participating in focus groups, etc. , thus providing all necessary psychometrics.

[DemandTruth]

Lovely little breather, thanks!