"Hello?? Fly??"

Jesus Christ, I swear there's a well-organized cabal somewhere such that, whenever one inarticulate, badly-educated wingnut finally leaves this site, another one shows up to fill the hole. I'm imagining some kind of Willy Wanker and the Wanker Factory, churning these yahoos out by the score.

The latest contestant in the "How Dumb Can I Look On Someone Else's Blog?" sweepstakes is someone who goes by the nom de blog of "The Fly," and whose talent for critical thought is perhaps even worse than Pete Rempel's, as you can read in the comments section back here.

Rather than eviscerate fly's silliness from top to bottom (which has been done countless times by bloggers far better than I), I'm going to pick on a single sentence to demonstrate fly's lack of anything remotely resembling logic. Examine carefully the following sentence:

[Saddam] had pursued and used weapons of mass destruction.

Notice anything odd about that sentence? Why, yes, yes you do.

There's an awkward redundancy about that claim, isn't there? Why would you accuse someone of both "pursuing" and "using" WMDs? I mean, if you've already accused someone of using WMDs, additionally accusing them of pursuing same is kind of irrelevant, isn't it? After all, if you've used them, it kind of follows that you must have, in some way, pursued them, no? But if you've been following the ever-changing rationales for the invasion of Iraq, suddenly the awkward construction in that sentence makes a lot of sense.

See, in the beginning, the Bushies knew that Saddam had WMDs. Absolutely knew it, even knew just where they were.

When the WMDs annoyingly failed to turn themselves in (and Saddam never used any WMDs during the invasion), then it became a case of Saddam having an active program for WMD development. So, technically, he didn't have actual WMDs, per se, as it were, but he really, really, really wanted some, to the extent of trying to buy yellowcake from Niger. Or somewhere.

When even that accusation fell apart, the story finally morphed into that Saddam had a program to look into the possibility of perhaps considering thinking about pondering maybe the eventuality of developing a strategy to perhaps want to get himself some WMDs and if his neighbours had any lying around they weren't using, could they maybe give him a call or something? Which brings us back to the fly's drooling gibberish.

Now that sentence makes perfect sense since, well, you'd really like to accuse Saddam of "using" WMDs but, because there's absolutely zero evidence of that, you cleverly give yourself a back door and simultaneously accuse him of "pursuing" them as well. That way, you can only be accused of half lying -- he didn't actually have any WMDs, but you can always claim that he "pursued" them, as long as you stretch the definition of "pursue" to include the notion of Saddam lying in a lounge chair, gazing into the distance and thinking, "Man, it sure would be nice if I had me some WMDs." See how that works?

And, being the intellectually stunted wanker that he is, Mr. Fly happily laps this stuff up off of FOX News or the Drudge Report or wherever he gets this crap. Oh, well. Whatever keeps you happy and deluded, I always say.

Gosh, who would have seen THIS coming?

What a thoroughly shocking development, no?

US Jews feel threatened by religious right

U.S. Jewish leaders say they are increasingly worried that Christian conservatives want to turn America politically and culturally into a country that tolerates only their brand of Christianity.

Dear Jewish leaders: You chose to lie down in that particular bed years ago. Now make yourselves comfortable.

Dear David: We'll believe it when we see it.

Yes, it's promising, until you consider the source:

US ambassador hints at lumber dispute resolution with Canada

US ambassador David Wilkins offered an olive branch in a lumber dispute with Canada during a speech at a Toronto luncheon, on the heels of a war of words between Ottawa and Washington.

"I understand and appreciate Canada's position on softwood lumber. You have made legitimate points. I am very encouraged, as you should be, by recent developments in the past six weeks," Wilkins said, after earlier rebuffing Prime Minister Paul Martin's criticisms of US environmental policies.

Wilkins was referring to a decision in November by the US Department of Commerce to comply with a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) panel decision ordering the United States to reduce punishing duties on Canadian softwood lumber imports.

So that's it? It's over? Finally? Whoops, hold on ...

Washington could still make an "extraordinary challenge" to the NAFTA panel ruling under the trade pact that would take additional time.

Gosh, is anyone in a betting mood?

What happens in Fight Club STAYS in Fight Club.

There's a well-known family dynamic that says that no matter how annoying or irritating your siblings might be, the instant there's an assault from outside the family circle, you immediately band together. You might torture your younger brother mercilessly but, if someone else tried it, you would instantly jump to the defense and kick the living crap out of said abuser. The rule is simple: internal squabbling always takes a back seat to defending one's own social structure.

This is a lesson that is sadly lost on one of Canada's most vile human beings: one Kate McMillan who, somehow having been selected to share her narrow-minded, right-wing philosophy through the CBC, refers to the current dust-up involving U.S. Ambassador to Canada David Wilkins in which McMillan, to her everlasting shame (although one doubts McMillan is capable of actual shame) writes:

The opening volleys from the Liberal-left body politic in this election are, as usual, being directed south. If there is a glimmer of hope to be sighted, it is that for the first time, the south is beginning to fire back - and good on them.

That's right -- the United States' official representative to this country has seen fit to stick his nose into our electoral process and McMillan, in a delightful demonstration of classlessness, thinks that's just a terrific idea.

Most of us who actually like Canada (warts and all) prefer to fight this battle amongst ourselves. We'll yell at each other across the ideological divide, and call each other names on our blogs and deride the opposition but, in the end, we'll go to the polls and we'll live with the result. Maybe not happily, but we'll live with it.

McMillan, sadly, has made it clear where her loyalties lie. (What else can you say about a Canadian who titles her column "The UnCanadian" and proudly brags that she is a "group member of the well-known U.S./politics news blog OutsideTheBeltway.com?)

McMillan does, of course, have the right to blog whatever she wants, which includes the right to announce that she clearly prefers the United States to Canada and that she has no problem whatever with foreign meddling in our upcoming elections. But it's a total mystery as to why the CBC decided that someone with that attitude should be granted prime real estate at the CBC web site to pontificate to Canadians when it's clear she doesn't even like the country compared to the U.S.

As I count, the CBC offered blogging space on their site to exactly five people. What a shame that one of those choices was utterly wasted on someone as nationally irrelevant and offensive as McMillan.

Bush. Iraq. WMDs. Flip-flop.

Think Progress has an amusing piece about how (surprise, surprise!) the Bush administration has completely reversed itself on its rationale for invading Iraq (emphasis added):

On day that the United States invaded Iraq, President Bush said that we were doing so “reluctantly” but that “our purpose was clear” — to get rid of Saddam’s “weapons of mass murder.” (Note: Bush did not say “purposes.” According to Bush, there was only one purpose.)

Yesterday on Brit Hume, he said he would have invaded even if he knew there were no weapons of mass destruction. Would have been nice if he’d mentioned this earlier.

Cue numerous wankers harrumphing about supporting the troops, spreading democracy and lots and lots of purple fingers.

OK, you're still not getting this whole "protect and serve" thing.

Somehow, I don't think the newly-installed Iraqi constabulary have quite figured out this whole law enforcement thing:

Policemen guarding a polling place in eastern Baghdad's Zayouna neighbourhood fired shots into the air to celebrate the end of voting there.

All right ... one more time, from the top ...

More on Ralph Reed's good buddy, Jack Abramoff.

Apparently, in Abramoff's world, the concept of "charity" doesn't involve, technically, giving any actual money:

Capital Athletic Foundation, a charity run by disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff now at the center of an influence-peddling investigation on Capitol Hill, told the IRS it gave away more than $330,000 in grants in 2002 to four other charities that say they never received the money.

The largest grant the foundation listed in its 2002 tax filing was for $300,000 to P'TACH of New York, a nonprofit that helps Jewish children with learning disabilities.

"We've never received a $300,000 gift, not in our 28 years," a surprised Rabbi Burton Jaffa, P'TACH's national director, told the Austin American-States- man. "It would have been gone by now. I guess I would have been able to pay some teachers on time.

All of this sleaze should be collected and dumped at the door of these dingbats, who should be forced to explain just what the phrase "Canadian Values" means to them.

(Credit to First Draft.)

"Oh, crap ... NOW you've done it!"

From the "Dumbest Thing You Could Possibly Have Said Under the Circumstances" Department:

"The House and Senate have now spoken loud and clear, with a single message -- the United States will not permit cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. The only way this standard could fail to pass the Congress now is through closed-door negotiations that defy the will of the majority of members of the House," said Elisa Massimino, the Washington director of Human Rights First.

Yeah, and what are the odds of that?

Oh, those fighting neo-con chickenhawks.

Inspired by TBogg, we have this. Then we have this. The prosecution rests.

YARRRRGGHH! Bring it on, dude!!

Courtesy of PB's Scott Tribe, we have this delightful gem from FOX News' whiny-ass titty-baby Neil Cavuto: "Canada: An enemy of the United States of America?"

Now, given the already-overheated international rhetoric flying around these days, I don't think it's doing anyone any good to ratchet this up any further, which is why I have a perfectly simple solution to all of this cross-border sniping.

Steel cage death matches.

That's right -- rather than letting this play out in the media, I propose a series of one-on-one steel cage death matches between Canadian progressives and American right-wing, pansy-ass, loudmouth, chickenhawk, neo-con pundits.

As the first event on the program, your humble scribe would be willing to go mano-a-mano with bloviating blowhard Bill O'Reilly, but I'm betting that the Star's Antonia Zerbisias would want the first crack at the falafel man, so I'll settle for Cavuto.

All of this mayhem would take place at the appropriately-named International Peace Garden, with the proceeds from all admissions going towards covering Kate McMillan's moving expenses.

More of those down-home right-wing family values.

Thank God a blowjob wasn't involved. That we know of.

The Bushian kiss of death.

Let the death watch begin:

HUME: Is [Rumsfeld] here to stay as far as you are concerned?

BUSH: Yes. End of my term is a long time, but I tell you, he is doing a heckuva good job. I have no intention of changing him.

Note how carefully Bush chose his words: "I have no intention of changing him." Which, of course, leaves it wide open for Rumsfeld to "voluntarily" step down:

White House officials are telling associates they expect Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to quit early next year, once a new government is formed in Iraq, sources said yesterday.

God, I love semantics.

The intellectual level of the wankersphere.

Is there anything so jaw-droppingly stupid that Bill O'Reilly won't say it on TV?

And the GOP meltdown begins.

Oh. My.

Dear America: Let me solve that nagging recruitment problem for you.

(Oops. According to my commenter, the U.S. already offers citizenship for military service, which makes most of this posting kind of redundant. Well, what the hell are you wankers waiting for, given the isle of earthly delights that is Iraq? At least, according to your descriptions.)

In the comments section back here, "the fly" snarkily refers to an article that suggests a good 20 per cent of Canadians support being annexed by the United States. And, oh, the fun we can have with that article.

Following that link to here, we first read that:

Should Canada become the 51st American state? Four out of 10 Americans answered "sure" in a recent poll conducted by Leger Marketing of Montreal.

Well, gee, and isn't that a shocking observation? Given that Americans are constantly looking north with wistful longing at our natural resources like oil, water and timber, I would think it's surprising that that figure isn't higher. But that's not the fun part.

On the question of annexation by the United States, 19.9 per cent of Canadians said at that time that they would be in favour, ...

which leads me to propose the following.

I suggest that the United States offer permanent and irrevocable American citizenship to any able-bodied person who agrees to sign up for American military service for, say, three years, which would involve being posted to wherever the U.S. decides to send them. The citizenship would be effective at the end of that three-year period -- if you bail early, all you get is a bus ticket home. As I see it, this program would solve a couple sizable problems.

First, this would instantly solve the U.S. military recruiting shortfall. Heck, Canada alone might fix it. If even a small fraction of that 20 per cent who want to be Americans decide to invest three years to get there, that would pretty much solve the recruiting shortfall for years to come.

And the second problem it would solve would be, if we were lucky, to get rid of all of those whiny conservatives who keep telling us how much they adore the U.S. and, in particular, George Bush, and who can't stop telling us how swimmingly the invasion of Iraq is going, what with democracy being on the march and everyone walking around with purple fingers and all.

You like America? You think things in Iraq are just peachy keen? Terrific. You could enlist and spend three years over there sucking back pina coladas or whatever it is you think they're doing, and you'd have your citizenship and we wouldn't have to listen to your infantile complaining any more. Hey, I got your first eight Bush-worshipping volunteers right here.

How about it? What will it take to jump start Operation Get the Fuck Out of Here Already? Is there a web page?

Paul Martin to U.S.: Sit on it, buddy.

Ooooooh ... this is a good sign:

Canada shrugs off U.S. warning to back off

British Columbia (Reuters) - The United States made an unprecedented foray into Canada's election campaign on Tuesday, warning politicians not to bash Washington in their bid to win the January 23 election.

But an unapologetic Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin responded immediately by saying "c'est la vie" -- that's life -- if the United States did not like his remarks, and he would not accept anyone telling him he cannot defend his country.

Mr. Martin then went on to translate the expression "c'est la vie" for Mr. Wilkins.

The sorry state of American media.

More goodies on l'affaire Froomkin. It's a good thing that that can never happen up here -- that whiny Canadian right-wingers have no power to silence those of us on the Left who

When bad movie reviewers attack.

Over here, TBogg smacks around an alleged movie reviewer who seems to have got himself in way over his head. In particular, reviewer Richard Cohen gets all moralistic when he writes about the move "Syriana":

You will not be surprised to learn that the locus for all this "oil, terrorism, money and power" is the United States, which is up to no good. With the exception of the Clooney character, everyone is corrupt, including, of course, the CIA. The agency not only sets up one of its own, Clooney, but it assassinates a perfectly nice Middle Eastern potentate to ensure that his oil remains in friendly hands. This sort of thing is distinctly against the law, a true career-ender at the CIA and elsewhere, but never mind. A movie does not have to stick to the facts.

Well, apparently, just snuffing undesirables as part of your CIA job description isn't quite the career-ender it used to be.

Speaking of that Ambassador Wilkins dickwad ...

Given that U.S. ambassador to Canada David Wilkins has made such a sorry spectacle of himself lately, it behooves us to do a careful investigation into the etymological origins of the word "behooves." No, wait ... wrong column.

Actually, it behooves us to try to understand how it is that such ignorant, classless buffoons end up as ambassadors in that administration. Well, it's no secret -- money. Lots of money. And, as you can read there, seeing your appointment as a sign from God. Or George Bush, who these days seems to have difficulty telling the difference.

And what kind of ignorant dick ... uh, gentleman is our Mr. Wilkins? Well, he certainly seems to have been picked with the maximum irritation potential in mind. Let's check the historical record (scroll to near bottom):

The Bush administration has nominated a right-wing, fundamentalist, pro-war, pro-military Southern Republican, David Wilkins, as new US ambassador to Canada. Indeed, Wilkins reminds historians of John Calhoun, the South Carolina politician who was one of the main advocates for invading Canada in 1812.

Wilkins is Speaker of the South Carolina legislature. He is a religious conservative known for opposition to women's rights, abortion, the environment, gay rights, marijuana, pacifism, and the Canadian softwood lumber industry.

In 2001, he engineered a South Carolina legislative resolution that asked the US government to enforce trade sanctions against Canada.

Well, isn't that special? Given the contentious and long-running softwood lumber dispute, what better choice for the position of ambassador than someone who's already made up his mind on the issue?

Anything else we should know about Wilkins while we're here?

During the South Carolina primary in the 2000 presidential campaign, Wilkins helped orchestrate a vicious, racist smear campaign against Bush rival Senator John McCain.

Good, good ... so he's a Bushie in the truest "Swift Boat" mode. Is there more? Whoa, how about this?

Wilkins was personally responsible for increasing the severity of South Carolina's marijuana laws. He crusaded for harsher sentencing for simple marijuana possession, and has encouraged law enforcement officers to arrest and jail bona fide medical marijuana users.

During his term as Speaker of the South Carolina House of Representatives, Wilkins pushed hard to increase prison sentences for non-violent drug offenders, a move that cost taxpayers millions of extra dollars building new prisons and hiring more prison guards.

Most nonviolent offenders served an average 53 percent of their sentences, but Wilkins' proposal upped that to 85 percent.

Wilkins responded to criticism of his proposal by saying South Carolinians wanted tougher prison sentences, and that they'd be happy to pay for them. South Carolina already has a higher incarceration rate than most other states.

Gee, one wonders if Wilkins had anything to do with this whole Marc Emery thing. And Wilkins' qualifications for being his country's rep to Canada? Well, it certainly didn't have anything to do with actually knowing anything about it:

Shortly after his appointment as America's new ambassador to
Canada, David Wilkins, former South Carolina legislator, was
asked during a CBC interview if he had been to Canada
before. "Many years ago, when I was in the Army stationed in
Indiana, my wife and I visited Canada," he replied.

"Oh yes, where did you go?" asked the interviewer,
pleasantly surprised that Wilkins had ventured that far
North.

"Well ... uh ... it was ... uh ... round the ... uh ... the
Falls area ... uh ... Niagara Falls, back up in there around
that area, as well as ... uh ... going I guess back West
toward Indiana. But obviously above Indiana. But I'd have to
get out a map to tell you all."

Wilkins, who had been a major fundraiser for President Bush
in South Carolina, apparently couldn't name any Canadian
provinces. But give the new ambassador credit. He did manage
to say "Niagara Falls."

Amusingly, if you read the above carefully, Wilkins never did refer to a single place in Canada by its actual name, did he? (What's west of Niagara Falls and "above Indiana" is Michigan.)

Is it too late to start missing Paul Cellucci?

WHY DO THEY HATE CANADA? And you just had to know that, while those of us who actually like Canada would be incensed over Wilkins' ham-handed bullying and lecturing, those patriotic folks over at Proud to be Canadian (Motto: "Canada sucks.") would of course be defending Wilkins. I am so not surprised.

POGGE WEIGHS IN: A good piece, but I'm a bit worried about the profanity. Tsk tsk.

Dear Ambassador Wilkins: Just bite me, OK?

This article is so teeth-grindingly irritating, I'm going to reproduce it in full. Feel free to identify the inanities, idiocies and hypocrisies from south of the border. It's not hard.

OTTAWA (CP) - The Bush administration issued a sharp, public rebuke Tuesday to Prime Minister Paul Martin for dragging the Canadian-U.S. relationship into the federal election campaign.

Ambassador David Wilkins said Canada risks damaging one of the world's best relationships by focusing on short-term political gain. "It may be smart election-year politics to thump your chest and criticize your friend and your No. 1 trading partner constantly," Wilkins said in a speech to the Canadian Club at the historic Chateau Laurier Hotel, next door to Parliament Hill.

"But it is a slippery slope, and all of us should hope that it doesn't have a long-term impact on the relationship."

America may be an easy target, said Wilkins, "but the United States should not be on your ballot."

Wilkins did not name the prime minister directly but it was clear from the context of the remarks that he was referring to Martin.

Martin, who touted a more mature relationship with the United States as one his priorities when he became prime minister in 2003, has been talking a hard line against Washington throughout this autumn's heated election run-up.

The prime minister has been particularly critical of the U.S. position on softwood lumber duties and failure to ratify the Kyoto accord on greenhouse gas emissions.

Wilkins, a long-time supporter and confidant of President George W. Bush, did not mention Martin by name in the speech, but left absolutely no doubt who he was targeting.

Less than a week after Martin raised hackles in Washington by specifically naming the United States for lacking a global conscience on climate change, Wilkins threw the words back at the prime minister.

He pointed out that America's record is far superior to Canada's on curbing greenhouse gas emissions

"I would respectfully submit to you that when it comes to a 'global conscience,' the United States is walking the walk," said the ambassador.

Liberals have denied they are using anti-American rhetoric as election fodder. But a senior Liberal campaign organizer was clearly delighted at news coverage last week that suggested Canada's ambassador in Washington, Frank McKenna, had been called on the carpet by the Americans over Martin's undiplomatic climate change talk.

Wilkins also mentioned the softwood dispute, noting that the U.S. Commerce Dept. cut the contentious tariffs on Canadian lumber in half last week.

He defended the continuing American occupation in Iraq, saying "freedom is on the march."

And on looming passport requirements for Canada-U.S. travellers, Wilkins said the two countries can work together to mitigate the impact but that Canadians have to appreciate the new American mentality.

"Bottom line: Canada should understand that 9-11 forever changed my country," Wilkins said of the September 2001 terrorist attacks.

What a freakin' jackass.

WHAT THE HELL: I'll give you the first example of typical Republican dishonesty from the above. There's Wilkins' lying bullshit here:

Wilkins also mentioned the softwood dispute, noting that the U.S. Commerce Dept. cut the contentious tariffs on Canadian lumber in half last week.

What a shame that I've already blogged on that back here:

In a decision that will save Canadian lumber companies roughly $600-million a year, the U.S. Commerce Department said yesterday it was nearly halving its 20-per-cent duty...

The U.S. lumber industry was quick to point out the new lower rate was due almost entirely to the stronger loonie, which lessens the impact of the alleged Canadian subsidies, and not a sudden change of heart by the Bush administration about whether Canada illegally props up its lumber industry.

Nor does the decision affect the highly contentious issue of who pockets the roughly $5-billion in duties collected by the United States since the dispute began in May of 2002.

Jesus, is every single member of that administration nothing but a lying con artist?

The lone bright spot at the Washington Post.

Over at First Draft, athenae nails it nicely. Sometimes, I swear Dan Froomkin is the only person that makes the Post worth reading.

THERE'S A PATTERN HERE: Note how there seems to be a real war against anything resembling liberal or left-wing journalism in the U.S. Remember Robert Scheer? It's pretty depressing when newspapers are turning on their own.

UH OH ... I'm betting this recent piece by Froomkin isn't going to get him invited to the White House Christmas ... whoops, "holiday" party.

Well, as long as you believe in SOME pathological delusion.

Over at Pharyngula, PZ links to Kevin Drum discussing how, even if a distressing number of Americans might think of Islam as a bogus religion based on violence, hatred and all that stuff, those same Americans think even less of those folks who simply have no religious beliefs whatsoever.

Apparently, it doesn't matter if you violently disagree with your neighbour's religion -- just the fact that both of you embrace some kind of meaningless, superstitious rubbish is enough of a common bond for you to get together to revile those Godless unbelievers.

Well, whatever gets you talking to each other, I suppose. Glad to be of assistance.

Pete Rempel open thread.

Awwwwww ... isn't Pete adorable when he links to my site from a piece that has absolutely nothing to do with me? (And, no, I'm not going to supply a link -- you can't possibly want to read anything of Pete's that badly.)

But to you new Rempelvillians, do come in, sit a spell, take a look around, leave a comment. Back here, Pete opined that he had a slice of pizza and that it was pineapply. So it's not like the bar for you folks is all that high, intellectually speaking.

About that Ralph Reed guy ...

I'm wondering whether Canada's right-wing nutjobs really want to be taking advice from this guy.

AT NO EXTRA CHARGE: Damn right you should be apologizing for that guy. And it just doesn't end.

I guess it all depends on what you mean by "better off."

Why, of course the Iraqis are better off now than they were under Saddam. Well, except for the ones who are being tortured to death. But they were probably just incorrigible whiners, anyway.

"Black card, Lister! Black card!"

In an early episode of the British comedy show "Red Dwarf," Lister is trying to convince Rimmer to give him Christine Kochansky's hologram disc just so he (Lister) can have a virtual date with someone he still has a crush on (Lister being the only human being left in the universe and therefore having a pretty quiet social life, as it were).

After some discussion, Rimmer finally tires of the argument and holds up his hand, exclaiming, "Black card!", which is his way of saying -- End of discussion. That's it. It's over. Once the black card is played, the debate is finished.

I'm thinking of coming up with a list of my own "black card" moments when someone wants to get into an argument about evolution, creationism and Intelligent Design, based on this article over at Pharyngula.

One black card moment in that piece can be found here:

Sparked by her son's interest in dinosaurs, Rogers read several books casting doubt on evolution science, ...

Now, I'm not sure who actually used the phrase "evolution science" but I can guarantee that, the instant someone used those words in my vicinity, I would immediately write them off as way too freaking stupid to waste any more oxygen on. If they want to debate, they can use the correct terminology -- "evolution", "biological evolution", "evolutionary biology" -- all perfectly acceptable. But "evolution science" or possibly "Darwinism"? This is a moron who can be summarily dismissed as a total idiot.

Other possible black card moments:

• "Well, they call it the 'theory of evolution' so it's just a 'theory', isn't it?"


• "They date fossils by the strata they're found in, and they date the strata by the fossils it contains, so evolution is just a circular argument."


• "All those dating techniques are unreliable."


• "Evolution is just another worldview, like creationism."


• "The probability of an amino acid forming completely at random is the same as if a tornado swept through a junkyard and spontaneously created ... URRRRKKK!"

(That last entry represents me choking the living shit out of the speaker before they can finish their asinine statistical comparison.)

I mean, I like a healthy debate just as much as the next yokel but, really, I've just lost the interest in getting into it with someone who is appallingly, abysmally, embarrassingly, screamingly ignorant of even the most rudimentary aspects of science. Which is why I plan on having my black card close at hand from now on.

Any other black card moments you'd like to add to the list?

ANOTHER BLACK CARD: "Well, it says in the Bible ... URRRRRRKK!!!"

War's a bitch, but you have to make sacrifices.

I swear, you couldn't make the American neo-con movement look any more hypocritical or sanctimonious if you tried. Jesus.

The U.S. "no-fly" list. A real success story, yes sir.

Remember that delightful "no-fly" list that the U.S. is using to (allegedly) make air travel safer. Apparently, it's getting a mite out of hand:

There are now 80,000 names on the U.S. government’s secret terror (”no-fly”) watchlist, according to a new report. Before 9/11, just 16 names were on the list, and by the end of the year the number jumped to 1,000. By 2002, the list had 40,000 names.

Note in that article how even prominent U.S. politicians end up on the list, and note the difficulty even they have getting themselves removed. How easy do you think it would be for Joe Average to have his name cleared once he's been added?

And why should we Canadians care? Don't forget that the U.S., just this year, wanted to impose its no-fly list on all Canadian domestic flights if they happened to pass through U.S. airspace. One suspects it would be awfully tempting for U.S. authorities to add the names of Canadian "troublemakers" to that list just to make their lives miserable, even if those Canadians had no intention of entering the United States.

Oh, come now, you think, would the Bush administration really be that childish, petty and vindictive? (Pregnant pause.) You didn't really just ask that question, did you?

I'LL JUST BET this guy would have something to say about that no-fly list.

Republicans: The party of sleaze.

Yeah, yeah, the party of morals and values and all that. It's nice to see Stephen Harper has such an admirable role model.

Yes, payback can be a real bitch, can't it?

SERIOUSLY, THOUGH, I'm thinking about the various demonstrations of U.S. support for Stephen Harper and thinking how the other parties can use that to their advantage.

If I was in a pissy mood (hey, it happens) and responsible for creating TV ads for the Liberals, I might have a rapid-fire sequence of Bush administration and neo-con sleaze and corruption, followed by the article in which Stephen Harper is described as such an admirer of George Bush, and an ominous voice-over: "If you like what George Bush has done to America, you'll love Stephen Harper." Or something like that.

Unless Harper explicitly and publicly denounces American interference in the upcoming election, I think ripping him with guilt by association is just fine.

There's good days, and there's not so good days.

Start here, and make sure to follow the "oops" link at the bottom. Suddenly, my failed souffle doesn't seem like such a big deal.

For once, I agree with the Pope.

Ya think?

Pope Benedict said Sunday that Christmas festivities have been polluted by consumerism and suggested that assembling the Nativity scene in the home is an effective way of teaching the faith to children.

Yeah, that'd be nice -- keep your annoying nativity scenes to yourself and spare the rest of us yet another year of them. It's not like we don't know what they look like by now, if you catch my drift.

And about that crass commercialism?

"In today's consumer society, this time (of the year) is unfortunately subjected to a sort of commercial 'pollution' that is in danger of altering its true spirit, which is characterized by meditation, sobriety and by a joy that is not exterior but intimate," the Pope said in his traditional Sunday blessing.

Yeah, it really is irritating when total assholes turn Christmas into an exercise in marketing, isn't it?

Everything you need to know about C. S. Lewis and Narnia.

I think Philip Hensher nails it nicely.

Commander Chimpy: "Um ... about that whole New Orleans thing ..."

Apparently, when Commander Chimpy promised that New Orleans would be rebuilt, well, he was just pulling your leg. Must be a Texas humour kind of thing.

UPDATE: Apparently, Katrina is just so last month.

Pedantry gone wild!

It's not like there's much challenge in dissecting the right-wing swill over at the not-so-Canadian "Proud to be Canadian" blog (Official motto: "Eight Canadian members and growing all the time!"), but you can get a good idea of the quality of the scholarship by reading here the infantile pot-shot at Liberal "Ann" McLellan.

Dear Joel: If you're going to slag someone on a national blog, at least take the time to spell their name right. It's "Anne." How hard can that be? Oh. Peter "McKay". Harder than I would have guessed.

Go. Dook.

I was a bit worried early in the season but now that Duke is rolling and members of the CPC are officially mentally disturbed, all is well with the world.

Asking the question: How do you define "victory" in Iraq?

Well, it took a while but CNN finally came around to my way of thinking. Over here, they actually asked viewers the question of how those viewers would define victory in Iraq. It's amazing how many of those viewers hate America. Really.

It all depends on what you mean by "predicted."

You all remember, once upon a time, how no one could have predicted 9/11, right? How no one could have imagined that terrorists would actually use jet airliners as weapons, right? It was just inconceivable, right?

Well ... funny story. But don't worry -- it's not like anyone lied or anything.

BONUS ENTERTAINMENT: Oh, dear. This is what happens when you're dumb as a sack of hammers. The first anonymous commenter below figures to lay the blame for all of this at Bill Clinton's doorstep:

Hmm... 3 years before 9/11/01. June of 1998 (according to the article). That would be during Clinton's term. Did he do anything about the warning? Of course not. For TWO AND A HALF YEARS, he sat on this warning and did nothing to make air travel more secure. Just think, had he actually gotten off his bloated butt, 9/11 might never have happened.

Ah, but of course 9/11 is President Bush's fault, right? He had all of those 8 months between his inauguration and 9/11 to do what Clinton failed to do in TWO AND A HALF YEARS.

Thanks, liberals. Real fricking great.

Yeah, doggone it. It's not like the Clinton administration could have done anything useful like, say, warn the incoming Bush administration about this. Oh, wait:

Clarke, who is to testify today before the independent commission looking into the attacks, said in a telephone interview that CIA Director George J. Tenet used his morning briefings to warn Bush "over and over" beginning in June 2001 that al Qaeda would "almost certainly" stage a major attack. Clarke said the CIA believed it was "most likely" to occur overseas. "Virtually every day, George Tenet said to him: There's an impending al Qaeda attack," Clarke said. "You know the old Shakespearean line -- I think they doth protest too much. They're guilty of not having done enough."

Or perhaps there's this little gem:

When the Bush administration took over in 2001 and decided to reduce Clarke’s power, Coll writes what Clarke this week told the 9/11 committee: He tried to warn Bush officials that terrorism was a major threat, but they ignored his pleas.

And, of course, it was Bush's own National Security Advisor Condi Rice who dismissed a memo entitled "Bin Laden determined to strike inside US" as not a warning but just a "historical document." So you see? It really is all Bill Clinton's fault.

You know what I want for Christmas? A dumbfuck filter for my comments section. That would be so cool. But I'll probably just get socks again.

CPC member? Opposed to same-sex marriage? Get help.

Oh, man, doesn't this explain a whole lot (emphasis added):

Psychiatry Ponders Whether Extreme Bias Can Be an Illness

The 48-year-old man turned down a job because he feared that a co-worker would be gay. He was upset that gay culture was becoming mainstream and blamed most of his personal, professional and emotional problems on the gay and lesbian movement.

These fixations preoccupied him every day. Articles in magazines about gays made him agitated. He confessed that his fears had left him socially isolated and unemployed for years: A recovering alcoholic, the man even avoided 12-step meetings out of fear he might encounter a gay person.

"He had a fixed delusion about the world," said Sondra E. Solomon, a psychologist at the University of Vermont who treated the man for two years. "He felt under attack, he felt threatened."

Mental health practitioners say they regularly confront extreme forms of racism, homophobia and other prejudice in the course of therapy, and that some patients are disabled by these beliefs. As doctors increasingly weigh the effects of race and culture on mental illness, some are asking whether pathological bias ought to be an official psychiatric diagnosis.

Gee, does the above sound like anyone you know? So we're not being snarky; they really are all just fucking nuts after all.

"Man, he's dumb." "How dumb IS he?"

It's at the point where stuff like this doesn't even faze me any more. Apparently, the reason why U.S. Sec Def Donald Rumsfeld is still Sec Def is that he's done such a stunningly incompetent job that to have let him go before now would have been to admit having made a (gasp!) mistake.

Seriously:

"... the president as we all know, is a very loyal guy. With rare exceptions, he doesn’t like to get rid of people when they’re under duress. And I think had Rumsfeld not been under such criticism a year or so ago, if the Abu Ghraib prison scandal had not broken, I think Rumsfeld would have been gone long ago. But I think now it appears that he’s on the glide path waiting for a graceful retirement after the first of the year..."

"... What is happening here is they’re hoping for an improvement, an uptick, in Iraq. That’s the sort of thing that could allow Rumsfeld to get out gracefully."

In short, pray desperately for a quick shot of good news, at which point la Donald can ride off into the sunset to the huzzahs and accolades of the 101st Fighting Keyboarders. And pay no attention to all those dead soldiers behind the curtain.

AFTERSNARK: There's a certain irony to the above, given that this was supposed to be the "MBA administration," which would run the White House like a well-oiled company. One has to wonder just what MBA program would recommend keeping on someone this abysmally incompetent until you can let them leave under their own steam gracefully.

Certainly doesn't sound like any MBA program I've ever heard of.

All the wrong people are dying in Iraq.

Well, isn't this special? Via Atrios, we have 43-year-old single mother Patricia Arndt being called back to active duty in Iraq, while worthless, fat neo-con pricks like this get to keep typing swill for the op-ed pages for major newspapers.

I think that pretty much settles the question as to whether there is a God or not. Yeah, those fighting young Republicans -- kick-ass warriors, every one of them.

Stay the course! No, wait!

When it comes to Iraq, it's important to "stay the course." Unless, of course, the course changes, they you have to change course, all the while staying the changing course. Or something.

"I think [the President has] just gone into greater detail about how our strategy - which is the strategy for victory which has been in place since the beginning - has adapted to changing realities on the ground. And that is one of the key ingredients for victory, is you've got to be able to adapt and to improvise and to overcome when you have a challenge like we're facing in Iraq.

Dear God, nobody ask him what the "mission" is, OK?

You can take the diplomat out of the playground ...

It really has to be embarrassing when your international diplomats act like whiny little 12 year olds.

In a sign of its growing isolation on climate issues, the Bush administration had come under sharp criticism for walking out of informal discussions on finding new ways to reduce emissions under the United Nations' 1992 treaty on climate change.

The walkout, by Harlan L. Watson, the chief American negotiator here, came Friday, shortly after midnight, on what was to have been the last day of the talks, during which the administration has been repeatedly assailed by the leaders of other wealthy industrialized nations for refusing to negotiate to advance the goals of that treaty, and in which former President Bill Clinton chided both sides for lack of flexibility.

At a closed session of about 50 delegates, Dr. Watson objected to the proposed title of a statement calling for long-term international cooperation to carry out the 1992 climate treaty, participants said. He then got up from the table and departed.

On the other hand, it's not like he'd stand out in a crowd of senior Bush administration officials, is it?

Why I wouldn't piss on the Washington Post if it was on fire.

It's a real eye-opener when one of the mainstays of the American print media doesn't even try to pretend it's being fair and objective.

Oh, that Jonah. Always the cut-up.

And the LA Times op-ed page continues to swirl around the bowl with Doughy Pantload's latest gift-wrapped piece of excrement. How's this for an opening?

How we should judge torture

WHAT DOES Hollywood think about torture?

The answer isn't as obvious as you think. Sure, as a political force, Hollywood is against torture, which ranks somewhere in the parade of horribles ahead of SUV ownership and perhaps even voting Republican. No doubt Barbra Streisand and Alec Baldwin have delivered many a dinner table stemwinder against the Bush administration's defense of "coercive measures" in extreme circumstances.

Deep stuff from a man whose idea of actual combat is wrestling with his keyboard.