Ring around the rosie

Pocket full of posie
Husha
Husha
Delay fall down
He must be guilty as sin. By next week, all the Republicans in Washington will be saying "Tom who? Nope, sorry -- never met the fellow." Thus joining Jack Abramhoff as the Republicans Nobody Knew.

The bestest photo ever

Havril at [insert something clever] titles this post of Bush with Harper We'll always have Cancun.
I found it referenced at Canadian Cynic:

God of War

Great line of the day

From Michael Berube, International Professor of Danger:

If you want to make wingnuts' heads explode this week, just propose an illegal immigrant amnesty program in which immigrants become naturalized citizens if they agree to take jobs away from liberal professors.

Emphasis his!

I'll drink to that

So I guess the original researchers were three sheets to the wind when they concluded that drinking prevents heart disease.
Darn.

Overstaying your welcome

So Ralph is shocked! SHOCKED! that almost half of his party wants him to leave now.
But after all, Ralph, its been 14 years. Not surprising that people don't want to make it 15 -- party leadership is not an endurance contest.
When you start throwing books at 17-year-old girls, maybe its time to say buh-bye.
There's a little ditty which Paul Martin remembered clearly -- and it would behoove other party leaders to remember as well -- the one that goes like this: "Got along without you before I met you; Gonna get along without you now."

Great line of the day

Steve Gilliard critiques both the Democrat's new security plan and the Republican's old security plan:

. . . there is no plan to actually make an Army which can fight guerrillas, aid and protect NGO's and mobilize quickly. Instead, we're converting artillery and engineers into ad hoc infantry and MP's and sending people out to die in hillbilly armored vehicles.

Can I copyright this idea?

How's this for the newest reality TV show idea -- Wal-Mart endurance contests. Each team would consist of a parent and a teenager, with the parent committed to spending at least one-third of their time in the home and garden departments, while the teenager would be in the electronics and game departments.
I know its no trick, really, to shop at Wal-Mart unnoticed by their staff, but in this game the team that goes the longest without needing to find a staff member to ask for help wins.

On the lighter side

With all the uproar over immigration, I thought everyone might take a break for the joke now circulating around my husband's company:

It is the first day of school and a new East Indian student named Surinder enters the fourth grade. The teacher says: Let's begin by reviewing some American history. Who said "Give me Liberty or give me Death"?
She sees a sea of blank faces, except for Surinder, who has his hand up: Patrick Henry, 1775.
The teacher says: Very good. Who said "Government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from the earth?
Again, no response except from Surinder: Abraham Lincoln, 1863.
The teacher snaps at the rest of the class: Class, you should be ashamed. Surinder knows our history better than you do.
She heards a loud whisper: Fuck the Indians.
Who said that? she demands.
Surinder puts up his hand: General Custer, 1862.
At that point, a student in the back says: I'm gonna puke.
The teacher glares and says: All right! Now who said that?
Surinder immediately says: George H.W. Bush to the Japanese Prime Minister, 1991.
Now furious, another student yells: Oh yeah? Suck this!
Surinder jumps out of his chair waving his hand: Bill Clinton to Monica Lewinsky, 1997.
Now almost at mob hysteria, another student yells: You little shit. If you say anything else, I'll kill you.
Surinder frantically screams: Gary Condit to Chandra Levy, 2001.
The teacher faints. As the class gathers around her on the floor, someone says: Oh shit! We're fucked!
Surinder says quietly: George W. Bush, Iraq, 2006.

"I paid my money to see the high-diving act!"

Our government in action

Our Fearless Leader Stephen Harper is so afraid of exposing the incompetence of his cabinet ministers that he is now holding his Cabinet meetings in secret so reporters cannot buttonhole ministers in the hallway afterward and ask questions.
Well, I guess he knows these guys better than we do.
But as Yosemite Sam said, "I paid my money to see the high diving act! So I'm agonna SEE the high diving act!"

Maybe I thought of this Bugs Bunny Show comparison when I read Canadian Press quoting commenter Coyote at Small Dead Animals "I think that the government should announce to the media any topics of concern to Canadians when they come up."
Now THERE'S democracy in action, isn't it?
All us good little Canadians shouldn't have any topics of concern unless the government announces them first.
So we just won't worry about anything unless our Stevie tells us to.
To their credit, some of the other commenters on the SDA thread weren't taking Stevie's instructions to wear their Winston Smith hats just yet.
And as my son just reminded me -- wasn't this the guy that ran on the platform of accountability and transparency?

Great line of the day

In regard to this CP story Bush extends olive branch to Canada in runup to meeting with Harper , our very own Canadian Cynic riposts "We give them billions of dollars in illegal softwood lumber duties and, in return, we get ... a branch? I'm pretty sure that's not going to cover it."

Slushfund

So the Firearms Centre was already $500 million over budget, so what's another $75,000 anyway. And besides, doing things the right way by actually asking Parliament for the necessary funds "would have taken too much time."
Doing things right -- SUCH a bother, isn't it?

Chris Matthews edges closer to the truth

Bit by bit, the American media is realizing the moral quagmire that is entangling the US in Iraq.
Here is MSNBC's Chris Matthews last week:

. . . There's a difference between chasing terrorists around the world --which we all agree we should do; in fact, the world believes we should be doing -- and going into a country to bring down a government, and then . . . to try to build the government of our liking, a Democratic government where the majority rules. But in this case, the majority simply means one faction overrules the other faction. The faction that's being overruled is fighting the majority faction . . . How do you give the orders to a young American service person, "your job is to make sure that the Shia run the show over there and that the Sunnis buckle under and take their minority role, and that’s your job, to risk your life, maybe lose your life for that purpose" . . . That’s saying we think there should be a certain kind of country here where majority rules, minority takes orders and maybe gets a piece of the action. And if they don’t accept their little minority piece of the action and start to fight the majority, we take the side of the majority and start shooting to kill them. Is that a moral right of America to be doing that?

No, its not, not unless the UN asks you to.
He's getting closer and closer to endorsing Murtha's pullout plan, though he's not quite there yet.
And of course this is why Chretien spoke out against "regime change" before the war, and why he kept us out of Iraq. Thanks, Jean. Canada has had enough of its own moral quagmires over the years, we don't need this one too.

But they wouldn't have been kidnapped in the first place...

This is the cartoon from today's Star Phoenix -- it tries to make some kind of point about how the Christian Peacekeepers want the "bloocthirsty pig dogs of the illegal occupying force" to leave Iraq even though it was the military which rescued them from kidnappers. Ho, ho, ho-- those ungrateful lefties, they're learned their lesson now, blah, blah, blah.
The stupid thing about it is this:
the four Peacemakers would not have been in Iraq, and would not have been kidnapped, if the American military hadn't been there first.

Great line of the day

At Daily Kos, Hunter writes about what the Domenech affair says about the Washington Post:

. . . so long as your paper continues to report facts they don't like . . . those conservatives are still going to attack the paper itself as being hopelessly 'liberal.' Journalism is the liberal part. From Horowitz to Hewitt to Limbaugh, these people hate you. You can't appease them, because there's no such thing as an acceptable 'level' of partisan hackery that will offset actual journalism or inconvenient facts. They'll only be happy when you kill the journalism -- or at least stop reporting the facts surrounding the more inconvenient stories . . . By all means, stand by your decision to balance someone accused of being liberal with a professionally partisan conservative; to balance those with excellent credentials with someone with none; to balance facts with spin; to balance journalism with hackery. It sounds like you've got the glimmer of understanding on just how bad an idea that was, but it doesn't sound like, even now, you understand the basis of the conservative attacks against you. They're playing you for chumps. And you're taking it . . .

Emphasis mine.