Monty Python is 40

So many choices, and just about all of it stands up.

The kitten whisperer strikes again

Like Alison, I thought Harper's musical performance was cute.
But a political master stroke? No, not even close.
For one thing, its pretty tough to rag Ignatieff for being an elitist when there's our Steve playing a grand piano on stage with to Yo Yo Ma.
And the Conservative brain trust probably won't be using any clips in the commercials during the next campaign -- "I need somebody to love" isn't likely to be a Con catchphrase.
Now, if he had been playing The Sting . . .

Shoe shine

My husband was talking today about shining his shoes and now I can't get this great song out of my head


Fred Astaire with Leroy Daniels, a "real-life Los Angeles shoe shiner and sometime actor whose rhythmic shining technique made him the inspiration for the song Chattanoogie Shoe Shine Boy."

Good, bad, ugly

Good: It's always good when Lance Mannion talks about movies.
Bad: These people are nuts!
Ugly: Even these athletes don't look good wearing this. Canada's ballyhooed Olympic gear looks like the shapeless stuff you find on the sale racks at Zellers ... oh, wait...

Two kinds of people

Emily Yoffe (Dear Prudence) on the difference between phoning and texting:

I think the world is beginning to divide into two groups of people. Those who love to shout into the cell phone that there was too much mayo on the turkey sandwich they had for lunch, and those who prefer to text this crucial information.

Mr. President, we cannot allow a mine-shaft gap!

Right-wing anti-Obama journalist John Perry says if Obama doesn't give the generals more troops for Afghanistan, he should be afraid of a military coup:

There is a remote, although gaining, possibility America’s military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the “Obama problem.” Don’t dismiss it as unrealistic. . . . Military intervention is what Obama’s exponentially accelerating agenda for “fundamental change” toward a Marxist state is inviting upon America. A coup is not an ideal option, but Obama’s radical ideal is not acceptable or reversible.

These people are nuts.

Great line of the day

Nancy Nall says Roman Polanski is guilty, guilty, guilty.

The older I get, the more com­fort­able I am with sit­u­a­tions that are muddy, com­pli­cated, filled with icky peo­ple on both sides but still have a clear right/wrong dis­tinc­tion, and this is one of them. . . . No real prac­ti­cal pur­pose will be served by lock­ing up Polan­ski at this point, but (shrug).

UPDATE: Sorry, I should have included more of Nall's text to explain her view more fully, which is that irregardless of Polanski's record of artistic accomplishments, he should still have to serve out whatever jail term he is given.

All of the above

Rabble is running a poll:

What was the most disturbing thing that came out of the G20 meetings in Pittsburgh last week?
--The heavy-handed police repression of protesters
--The news that Canada would co-host the G20 in 2010
--PM Harper's assertion that Canada 'has no history of colonialism'

Too bad they don't have a button for "all of the above".

What Juan Cole says

Whenever Iran or the Middle East are in the news, I go to Juan Cole to see what he is saying about it. In his piece about Iran's Qom Enrichment Facility he provides a useful summary of the problem:

Julian Borger and Patrick Wintour of the Guardian report that Iran was forced to acknowledge the site because Western intelligence had picked it up in satellite photographs and then gathered information on it by other means. Ahmadinejad is correct in saying that by the letter of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has not done anything illegal, insofar as the site has not gone operational and Iran is giving 6 months notice. However, the Iranian government had additionally pledged to the International Atomic Energy Agency in 2006 that it would alert the UN to any new new nuclear facility immediately. So Iran may not have broken the law but it has broken its word.
For Iran to break its word on this matter is, moreover, as serious as for it to break the law. (This self-destructive and overly cocky way of proceeding in Tehran was the subject of my column for Salon this week, asking if Ahmadinejad is intent on turning his country into an international pariah.) Iran's enemies, who want it put under severe economic sanctions of the sort that turned Iraq into a fourth-world country, and ideally would like to see the regime in Tehran overthrown-- if necessary by military means-- will point to the secret development of a new enrichment site as a sign of Tehran's essential deviousness.
. . .the law and the facts of the matter are less important than the determination of Europe and the US that Iran not develop even the Japan option. And this Qom facility and the delay in notification are powerful political arrows in the sanctions quiver.

And here's his conclusion:

I am personally opposed to further sanctions on Iran unless they are very carefully targeted so as not to harm ordinary people. Regimes running oil states are not very vulnerable to sanctions. Moreover, sanctions against Iran are deeply unfair if Israel, India and Pakistan are held harmless for ignoring the NPT altogether and for developing their bombs. In fact, the way the UNSC is proceeding against Iran is such as to destroy the NPT, because any country in its right mind would prefer to withdraw from it and just do as it pleases, a la Israel, than to submit to it and have that submission be a pretext for sanctions, even where the signatory country had done nothing contrary to the letter of the law.
Finally, I leave readers with a caveat. There may be less to the Qom plant than meets the eye. Beware the Hype.

There they go again

Huffington Post has as its headline today "THE NUKES OF SEPTEMBER along with a photo of a bomb being launched.
Glenn Greenwald points out how trite and dangerous this kind of hysteria is:

here we have, yet again, inflammatory (and, in many eyes, war-justifying) accusations made against an American Enemy, and the American establishment media seems capable of nothing other than mindlessly repeating it, asking no real questions, and doing little other than fueling the fire. . . . everyone agrees that -- despite all the rhetoric about Iran getting caught red-handed -- it was Iran itself which notified the IAEA of this facility; the facility is far from operational; and there's no evidence that it contains or even can produce weapons-grade material. Until there's an IAEA inspection -- which Iran said it would permit -- it's impossible to know the true purpose and capabilities of this facility, which is the cause for the Chinese's skepticism and should cause skepticism among every thinking person, beginning with the American media. Can anyone point to any such skepticism anywhere? Listening to the media coverage, one would think that Iran just got caught sitting on a secret atomic bomb.

Torture prosecutions, at last

Well, we don't have to wait any longer to see someone from the Bush administration prosecuted for torture -- it was on tonight's Law and Order.
And my husband and I agreed this might well be the only prosecution we will ever see for these crimes.

Fashionably late

When I was a teenager, it was conventional wisdom that Canada was always several years behind the States in terms of things like fashions and hairstyles and movies.
But I didn't realize this was still going on -- now our Conservative government is imitating the anti-intellectualism of the Bush era.

New links

So I have some new links on the blogroll - to the right, under (you guessed it) New Links.
Here's why I like Nancy Nall -- she begins one recent post with this immortal line:

My search for the ideal stim­u­lant con­tin­ues.

Ah, a woman after my own heart!

Great line of the day

Digby describes what differentiates the American right wingers:

...the Religious Right operates out of fear of sex, while the Populist Right operates out of fear of race.

Calling Firedoglake out

Firedoglake is off my blogroll.
Sadly, I have reached my limit of tolerance with the Obama-trashing commenters on this site.
Want examples? Commenters to this Jan Hamsher post say:

“eletist asshole who is really put out by having to get in the weeds about the peasants health care problems” and a “dispicable, lying, deplorable human being and …a “fraud” from day one” and “Obama NEVER intended to do one thing about healthcare for the American People going in. He’s the one responsible for this charade that’s happening now”

Today Hamsher herself says:

We were trying to think of how health care would be different if Mitt Romney had been elected, and really couldn’t think of how it would be.

Really? REALLY? You actually see no difference between Mitt Romney and Barak Obama?
Finally, these comments at this post

"Nearly everything Obama says these days pisses me off but his repeated smackdowns of progressives is too much to take. Go to Hell, Mr. President." and "stop it, Obama. Just stop it. We get it, you don’t like us much. Surprise! It’s mutual."

Well, I guess I agree with Obama, then -- I don't like these people much either.
Buh-bye.