Method
By Mitch Berg
SCENE. Avery LIBRELLE is wandering the aisles at Barnes and Noble in Maplewood, when h…er, sh…er, Avery notices Mitch BERG poring over the German book aisle. LIBRELLE pounces.
LIBRELLE: Merg!
BERG: Uh, Schoiße…, er, I mean, hey Avery…
LIBRELLE: Shut up. Why is Trump obsessed with taking over Canada, Greenland and Panama?
BERG: What do you mean?
LIBRELLE: I’ll turn it over to the world’s most courageous person to explain:
BERG: Oh, yeah. That. Well, for starters, did you catch McBride’s last quote…
LIBRELLE: Miss McBride’s quote.
BERG: Representative McBride’s quote…: “If this president is serious about an America first agenda, he should be focused on domestic economic issues, not some weird obsession with invading Greenland or Panama”
LIBRELLE: Yeah. So?
BERG: So the Representative is talking about “Putting America First”, even if only sarcastically.
LIBRELLE: Cheap shot!
BERG: Uh, right. But tell me – what’s the latest news about Pete Hegseth?
LIBRELLE: Who?
BERG: Kash Patel? RFK Junior?
LIBRELLE: What did they have to do with invading Greenland.
BERG: Huh. RIght. I think it’s on The View right now.
LIBRELLE: Oooh! The View! (Abruptly turns and scampers eagerly away).
BERG: Huh. Where what that trick when I needed it?
And SCENE
January 8th, 2025 at 8:26 am
Very astute, Mitch. Nice.
Even more amusing regarding Greenland is that many Danes are OK with giving up Greenland. It costs too much with too little return. We saw an interview with the Prime Minister on Danish TV yesterday who exhibited none of the bravado and indignation from the last go round; she was thoughtful and respectful and “let’s all discuss this” (even tho’ the TDS-affected journalist kept phrasing the questions in the most anti-Trump manner possible).
Short of the long is that even tho’ it might be intended as a distraction for the DemoCommies, Greenland may also end up being a “win”.
January 8th, 2025 at 8:28 am
Oh, and btw, using that Xweet with McBride was a fun bonus.
January 8th, 2025 at 10:50 am
Both are strategic real estate where the US doesn’t have the influence it used to. We’re about to have to be reminded of the Geography good and hard again.
January 8th, 2025 at 6:02 pm
I can see how control of the Panama Canal is important to the consumers in the United States – cheaper shipping – and to our national defense – faster fleet movement between coasts. Okay, go after the canal.
I’m not seeing how controlling Greenland benefits consumers or enhances our borders. To the extent controlling Greenland makes it easier to engage in moral hazard in Europe by further subsidizing their provocations of Russia, I’d see that as a negative. What’s in it for me?