brainrow

Via Omni Brain, an image from a blog called grow-a-brain:

I need this. I’ll build a little fence to keep my brain from running away. Ooop! Slippery devil!

Dispatches from the Culture Wars found a selection of new definitions “for those who appreciate bumper sticker politics”:

Cheney, Dick (n.) The greater of two evils.

Class warfare (n.) Any attempt to raise the minimum wage.

Clear Skies Act (n.) Reduction of the bird population.

Creation science (n.) Pseudo-science that claims George W. Bush’s resemblance to a chimpanzee is totally coincidental.

Extrodinary rendition (n.) Outsourcing torture.

Fact (n.) Liberal spin.

Healthy forests (n.) No tree left behind.

Honesty (n.) Lies told in simple, declarative sentences (e. g. “Freedom is on the march.”)

Patriot Act, The (n.) 1. Pre-emptive strike on American liberties to prevent them the terrorists from destroying them first. 2. The elimination of one of the reasons why they hate us.

Pro-life (adj.) 1. Valuing life up until birth. 2. Valuing human life after being born, only if diagnosed to be in a persistent vegitative state. (See: Punitive pregnancy).

Punitive pregnancy (n.) 1. Fitting puhishment for fornication targeting the feminine gender 2. A chip off the old pillory block.

Voter fraud, (n.) A significant minority turnout.

Woman (n.) 1. Person who can be trusted to raise a child but can’t be trusted to decide whether or not she wishes to have a child. 2. Person who must have all decisions, regarding her reproductive functions made by men.

I hope the many typos are intentional. If so, heh-heh. If not, how embarrassing.

Thoughts from Kansas asks us to compare and contrast:

Bill Clinton tells Kansas Democrats:

“You’re in a party that’s in the solutions business. … Can you prove that what unites us is more important than what we disagree about? Can you prove that America can be about doing again? And that the Democratic party can lead the way? That’s what everybody’s looking to see, and I’m gambling you’ll give them a very good answer.”

Grover Norquist at the Conservative PAC summit:

“Our job is to say ‘no, no, no, no’ for two years.”

Which would you rather be part of?

Hmmm… try to solve problems, or try to prevent problems being solved? Tough call.

Via Pharyngula, Hypnocrites has a look at the future:

The Bush Administration went into Iraq without a Plan B. Before the invasion, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said he’d “fire the next person” who talked about a post-war plan.

Live and learn, right?

Wrong. This administration’s bedrock principle is never, ever learn:

During a White House meeting last week, a group of governors asked President Bush and Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, about their backup plan for Iraq. What would the administration do if its new strategy didn’t work?

The conclusion they took away, the governors later said, was that there is no Plan B. “I’m a Marine,” Pace told them, “and Marines don’t talk about failure. They talk about victory.”

Pace had a simple way of summarizing the administration’s position, Gov. Phil Bredesen (D-Tenn.) recalled. “Plan B was to make Plan A work.”

You know, I’m starting to think impeachment’s too good for Bush and his gang.

I’ve been telling friends that I think the Bush Administration planned to spend about 90 days on Iraq. We’d go in, set up Chalabi as our puppet president, and move on. Then we’d attack Syria and Iran and set up puppet governments there, too.

Jonathan Schwarz says on This Modern World that this would be a good time for the Democratic Congress to break out the subpoena powers. Gen. Wesley Clark says the plan was for seven wars:

About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. … He says, “We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.” This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, “We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?” He said, “I don’t know.” He said, “I guess they don’t know what else to do.” So I said, “Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?” He said, “No, no.” He says, “There’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.” He said, “I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down governments.” And he said, “I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.”

So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” — meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office — “today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.”

And here I thought I was being fairly extreme, saying they were planning three wars. What I suffered was a failure of imagination.