Stupid is as stupid does

The mark of a stupid person is someone who just won't grow up: "An atheist who has spent four years trying to ban the Pledge of Allegiance from being recited in public schools is now challenging the motto printed on U.S. currency because it refers to God."
There have been too many of these kind of pointless junk lawsuits in the States, and in Canada too -- running to courts to stop harmless things like opening the school day with a prayer or singing a hymn at Christmas. Too often organizations like the ACLU get sucked into defending this kind of tripe. It doesn't do our society any good, and just contributes to giving 'liberals' a bad name.

Someday, Murtha will be proven right

Lawmakers Reject Immediate Iraq Withdrawal
You know what is really dumb about this?
If Republicans HAD used Murtha's motion, THEN the Democrats would really have found themselves in a quandry. But no, the Republicans had to get cute and write their own motion, which the Democrats then had no problem voting against.
Murtha's motion read:

Whereas [etc etc for seven 'whereas' clauses] . . . Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That:
Section 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.
Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines shall be deployed in the region.
Section 3 The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.

The GOP motion read:

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.

Even Murtha himself could and did vote against this.
Sorta backfired, didn't it, especially because the one soundbite which will live in infamy from the debate was Jean Schmidt calling Murtha a coward and then having to retract it.
Of course, personally I wanted to see Murtha's motion pass. And someday it will.
Right after the debate, after all the republican pontificating about how the US has to "stay the course" and "win" in Irag, came this story:

The top U.S. commander in Iraq has submitted a plan to the Pentagon for withdrawing troops in Iraq . . . Gen. George Casey submitted the plan to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. It includes numerous options and recommends that brigades -- usually made up of about 2,000 soldiers each -- begin pulling out of Iraq early next year.

And the US media may finally have jumped the shark. They may not be playing along anymore. Today in a very thoughtful piece on Kos, Hunter wrote:

When the only weapon the White House is capable of using is to impugn the very patriotism and Americanness of their opponents, what happens if the reactions to that attack change? What happens if the press decides that dissent is, after all, patriotic? And is it happening, just the twinges, because of the utter collapse of the poll numbers, because of the Plame indictment(s?), because of the continuing quagmire of the war, because of the 2,000 deaths mark, because of the other Republican investigations and indictments, seemingly raining down like hailstones anywhere Abramoff has brushed up against the woodwork of power, and/or simply because of the continuing Republican political schtick that works so well for dismissing a minority, but considerably less well when you are calling sixty percent of the country traitors for not dancing to the tune? . . . accountability is now a majority position in America. Accusing the American people of treason for demanding it is not simply cowardly -- it is also being met with decidedly more organized hostility than in previous Republican "campaigns" against the American citizenry.

I also think that the media is simply tired of being told that they have to play along to get along. The tipping point may well have been Bob Woodward and his 18 months of lies about the Plame investigation. OK, Judy Miller nobody in the working press had much respect for as a reporter anyway, not after all her discredited WMD 'scoops' and all the queening it around Iraq. But the dream of uncovering another Watergate has been a motivating force for 20-somethings to get into journalism for the last 35 years. So to see Watergate hero Bob Woodward pulling a Miller, destroying his journalistic reputation, ducking and weaving, apologizing and denying, all so that he can continue to help some self-important poohbah in the Bush administration cover up the illegal leak of a CIA agent's identity, well, this may have finally hit the US media's collective gag reflex. Now, when someone in the White House or the Pentagon or the State Department implies they aren't on the right team anymore if they don't spin the coverage, they will remember 'Boob' Woodward and how the mighty have fallen.

Canadian crabs

Yahoo provides this photo of Canadian crabs for sale at Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco, where restaurants are buying Canadian crabs due to a price dispute between American crab fishermen and processors. (AP Photo/Ben Margot)
And I couldn't resist these photos of a few other Canadian crabs:

Bubbles

Want to read something fun?
Here's a story about a toy inventor's 11-year search for a coloured bubble.


From Popular Science magazine, via Crooks and Liars.

The ideology of information

This falls into a Great Line of the Day category though its a little long. On TPM Cafe, Mark Schmitt explains the deeper issues regarding what the Bush Administration did or did not know about WMD before the Iraq war began:

We're asking very traditional questions: Was information withheld? Was there deceit about the information? Those are the familiar Watergate/Iran-contra questions. But they overlook the Ideology of Information that the administration created. By this I mean the whole practice of evaluating all information going into the war not for its truth value, but for whether it promoted or hindered the administration's goal of being free to go to war. The President could have been given every bit of intelligence information available, and he and/or Cheney would have reached the same decision because they would have discarded, discounted, or disregarded most of it. Information that was Useful to that goal was put in one box, Not Useful put in another. Entire categories of information were assigned to the Not Useful box because their source was deemed an opponent of U.S. military action, or assumed to have some other motive. All information from the UN inspectors went into the Not Useful box because they were deemed war opponents, or because it was believed that giving any credence to the inspectors would lead back into the mid-1990s cycle of inspections and evasions of inspections. Any information from the CIA was considered Not Useful because they were deemed to have overlooked Saddam's arsenal in the 1990s . . . just a couple of stories that slipped through the cracks of The Ideology of Information: the yellowcake-from-Niger fraud, which had been debunked everywhere, and the question of the aluminum tubes not suitable for centrifuges . . . The White House didn't so much deceive itself or deceive others as close its eyes to the very possibility that there were any questions at issue, regarding not only WMD but also post-invasion planning. They did so in the name of preserving their freedom to act when and how they wished, and as a result got us trapped in a situation in which we no longer have any freedom of action.
It is important to call attention to the Ideology of Information promoted during that period because it is very much alive. It is inherent in the Plame leak and to this day in the criticisms of Wilson -- the argument that he was the one who revealed information in his op-ed. It is inherent in the Bush and Cheney speeches: criticism and second thoughts, reminders of alternative information are all deemed simply Not Useful. It's something much deeper and sicker than just withholding or manipulating information.

Emphasis mine. And of course this approach is still being taken today, to continue to insist that "progress" is being made in Iraq as long as the US continues to "stay the course" regardless of what anyone who has actually been there says. It also applies to Guantanamo and the secret prisons and all of the other illegal and immoral claptrap from the Bush administration.

I habe a code

I habe a code in the nose (and throat and etc) so I haven't been blogging -- and also, things are just too stupid to blog about.
Here's a story about the possible election -- which everyone has settled on calling on Nov 28 except maybe it will be earlier or maybe later or either or neither or both.
Now I ask you, how in the world am I supposed to pontificate about what would be best for the country, when apparently neither Harper nor Layton have a clue and Martin is sticking to his April date while the Bloc doesn't care about the country at all?

Deja vu all over again

So there's this new tag thing going around, and I got mine from Scott of Montreal, whereby you take a little stroll down Memory Lane and repost the fifth sentence of your 23rd blog post.
So here is mine, from March 9, 2004 -- and just to show that the Republicans are STILL recycling the SAME OLD talking points (or else how I am still writing about the same old stuff) this was a post about how some democratic politicians like John Kerry could have voted to support Bush going to war with Iraq and yet be opposed to the war itself.
As I said then -- and keep saying now -- ". . . what I remember is hearing Bush and everyone around him say repeatedly that they hadn't decided to go to war yet and they wouldn't go to war unless it was "necessary" -- they said it over and over, and, way back then, most people actually believed them (amazing, isn't it!)" and now here's my fifth sentence "But that's why millions of people around the world marched against the war, in the belief that their actions could make a difference, that Bush would listen to them and would consider their views when he made his decision -- more fools they, of course!"

Bush jokes

In the comments to the previous post, Flootsnooty tells this Bush joke:

A driver is stuck in a traffic jam on the highway. Nothing is moving. Suddenly a man knocks on the window. The driver rolls down his window and asks, "What happened?"
"Terrorists kidnapped President Bush and are asking for a $10 million ransom. Otherwise they are going to douse him with gasoline and set him on fire. We are going from car to car to take up a collection."
The driver asks, "How much is everyone giving on average?"
"About a gallon."

So I tell this to my husband and he immediately counters with this joke:

After Katrina a photographer was in New Orleans taking photos of the devastation when suddenly he sees President Bush floating past him. The photographer realizes he can either save Bush, or take a Pulitzer-prize-winning photo. So the question he has to answer is: colour film or black-and-white?

So I went on a search for more Bush jokes. Found some bad ones and some good ones:

In the light of all the criticism that George Bush is an idiot, the Republicans decide to hold a "George Bush Is Not Stupid" convention. Eighty thousand Republicans meet in the Kansas City Chiefs Stadium.
Trent Lott says, "We are all here today to prove to the world that George Bush is not stupid. So ladies and gentlemen, let me introduce President George Bush."
After the cheers die down. Lott says "Mr. President, we're going to prove to the world once and for all that you are not stupid. So tell us, what is 15 plus 15?"
Bush, after scrunching up his face and concentrating real hard for a moment, declares, "Eighteen!"
Obviously everyone is a little disappointed. Then the 80,000 Republicans start cheering, "Give Bush another chance! Give Bush another chance!"
Trent Lott says, "Well since we've gone to the trouble of getting 80,000 of you in one place, I guess we can do that." So he asks, "What is 5 plus 5?"
After nearly 30 seconds of chin-rubbing and grimacing, Bush meekly asks "Ninety?"
Trent Lott is quite perplexed, looks down and just lets out a dejected sigh -- everyone is disheartened.
But then Bush starts pouting, and suddenly the 80,000 Republicans begin to yell and wave their hands, shouting again "Give Bush another chance! Give Bush another chance!"
Lott, unsure whether he's doing more harm than good, eventually says, "Ok! Ok! Just one more chance -- What is 2 plus 2?"
Bush looks down, counts on his fingers, and after a whole minute, proudly announces "Four."
A moment of total silence, then an electric charge surges through the stadium as pandemonium breaks out.
All 80,000 Republicans jump to their feet.
These GOP partisans start to wave their arms, stomp their feet and create a deafening roar:
"GIVE BUSH ANOTHER CHANCE! GIVE BUSH ANOTHER CHANCE!"

And from Letterman

President Bush is on his Asian tour now. He'll visit Japan, China, South Korea, Mongolia. Once again, he's skipping Vietnam.

Great line of the day

John at Americablog gets it right:

. . . Bill Clinton and the Democratic Congress never declared war on Iraq. The Democrats saw the SAME evidence as Bush, or so Bush says, yet the Dems decided to use sanctions, the UN, targeted military operations, and diplomacy to contain Iraq, and it worked. Until Bush invaded, that is. So what Bush and Rummy are now admitting is that they had the same information that Clinton had, yet Clinton decided that invading Iraq was a dumb idea, while Bush deciced that invading Iraq was going to be a 'cake walk.' Remember that phrase? Yes, Mr. President, keep using this argument. Bill Clinton had the same information Bush had, yet Clinton didn't launch a poorly planned and executed war that has now turned into a quagmire and a money-hole, threatening to destabilize the entire region and fanning the flames of anti-American hatred and terror. So you're telling us you're an idiot. I feel better already.

Emphasis mine.

Great line of the day

In Vino Veritas says this in the Americablog comments: "Bush reminds me of what they used to say about Warren Hardings speeches: 'An army of pompous phrases moving over the landscape in search of an idea.' "

Stars and bars now

James Wolcott writes about the Senate decision on Friday to deny habeus corpus to the Guantanamo and Secret Prison inmates: "Torture, black sites, indefinite detention and deprival of due process--the United States has forfeited its right to lecture other nations about freedom and democracy. Red, white, and blue are no longer the true colors of this country's flag; the flags that fly in the Capital should be henceforth be prison gray."

Which Monty Python character are you?

Dazzlin' Dino has found another great quiz -- which Monty Python character are you?
Me? Why, I'm a lumberjack and I'm OK, I sleep all night and I work all day...
though apparently I have issues, too.


"You are a Lumberjack...with definite issues..."

What Monty Python Sketch Character are you?
brought to you by Quizilla

Hope springs eternal

Analysis: Bush Slump May Hobble World Role
Well, we can always hope . . .

Turning your back on Canada

This was an insult to the office of the Governor General and to Canada as a whole: "a small number of veterans chose Friday's Remembrance Day ceremony in Ottawa to launch their protest against Canada's new Governor General. As Michaelle Jean laid a memorial wreath on the War Memorial, the words 'Turn, turn,' were called out, and about 25 people, led by veterans, turned their backs on the Governor General."
The organizer of this protest, a veteran named Frank Laverty, expected hundreds of people to show -- in the end, only about 25 did. The Royal Canadian Legion wasn't happy about this protest either:

The Legion issued a strongly-worded statement against a Remembrance Day protest, saying: 'Such action would be a disgrace and an offence to Her Majesty as well as to the memory of our fallen veterans.' . . . spokesman Bob Butts said: "We think it's the wrong time and the wrong place."

So I hope these veterans felt stupid as they shuffled around during the wreath-laying ceremony -- because they looked it:

Great line of the day

Brad Blog writes about the Bush speech:

Here was 'the message' [from Bush]: "While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began." In other words, after years of questioning the patriotism of those who criticized his decision or the conduct of the war, he'll give up on that battle as long as we all stay away from the one point that is likely to bring the entire house of cards crumbling down, namely; How the war began. Or more aptly, how he began it.

Something like six out of ten Americans now believe Bush lied to get the Iraq War started.