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.

From Corpus Callosum:

Point one: when sanctions were imposed upon Iraq after the first Gulf War, Iraqi children began starving.  But we did not blame ourselves.  After all, it was Mr. Saddam Hussein who chose to spend money on more palaces, rather than on feeding the children….

If funding [for the surge] is cut, the Commander in Chief has a choice to make.  He can leave the troops in harms way, without adequate supplies, or he can bring them home.  

A vote to cut funding for the war is not a vote against the troops, any more than the sanctions against Iraq were a vote against the children of Iraq.

An interesting point, but given what we already know about George W. Bush, isn’t it akin to criminal negligence to trust him to choose wisely?

A little perspective, via A Blog Around The Clock:

From Boing Boing: Nemo has been found.

One more reason not to eat sushi.

I was rolling merrily along, believing I was reasonably healthy for a guy my age. Hah!

I’m sick, sick, sick. I’m sick in ways that didn’t even exist just a few months ago. It’s called scientific progress.

The pharmaceutical companies have set me straight. Every few months, they tell me about another formerly unsuspected way that I might be seriously ill. And fortunately, there’s always a pill for it.

At the end of a long day of hard work, do you sometimes come home tired? Talk to your doctor.

When you’re sitting or lying down, do you ever feel like getting up? There’s a pill for that. When you’re up and about, have you ever wanted to sit or lie down? Pill for that, too. Disappointed that you haven’t done more with your life? Pill.

Now, via Molecule of the Day and Justine Cooper, there’s Havidol, for “When More is Not Enough.”

There are potential side effects, of course. From the FAQ:

It may decrease the patient’s sense of moral responsibility or social conscience. There is little documentation to support this claim other than the observations of those not undertaking treatment with HAVIDOL.

Yeah, there’s always somebody whining about scientific progress. Fortunately, there’s a pill for that. From The Onion:

The Food and Drug Administration today approved the sale of the drug PharmAmorin, a prescription tablet developed by Pfizer to treat chronic distrust of large prescription-drug manufacturers.

Pfizer executives characterized the FDA’s approval as a “godsend” for sufferers of independent-thinking-related mental-health disorders.

Update: Okay, it turns out Justine Cooper is an artist, not a scientist, and Havidol is really a parody of “lifestyle drug” advertising. And it turns out The Onion is not, as they claim, “America’s Finest News Source,” but a satirical fake newspaper.

Now, I like to laugh as much as the next person, but I’ll take my humor in time-release capsule form, please.

You know what’s missing from the iPod and the iTunes downloadable music store? Pure dumb luck, that’s what.

Listen: one day in 1986 I was in a brick-and-mortar record store, browsing in search of some perfectly ordinary music. Playing in the background was something odd and interesting with an African chorus. Then I recognized Paul Simon’s voice, and I wondered whose record this was, that Simon would lend his voice to it. The more I heard, the more completely the music hooked me, and when I got to the checkout counter, I asked, “What is that?”

It was Graceland, of course — and it wouldn’t be available for sale until the following Tuesday. The next Tuesday I was back at the record store to buy one of the greatest albums of all time.

That wasn’t the only time I found music I love through pure dumb luck, or kismet, or the “x factor.” I discovered Aimee Mann’s solo album Whatever in the same way. And in 1982, that’s how I first heard The Roches. They were singing The Hallelujah Chorus, a capella, in breath-taking three-part harmony. It was a remarkable feat, but I don’t think I was truly hooked until the next song, “Losing True.” I guess I’ve been hooked for about twenty-five years now.

Last night The Roches were here in Columbus, Ohio performing and promoting their new CD, Moonswept, which will not be officially released until March 13th. Their harmonies are still breath-taking. Their songs are witty. Some are funny; some are sad, and some are funny and sad at the same time.

Highly, highly recommended. Lots of free online videos at their website. Music samples on their myspace page.

Three cheers for pure dumb luck.

GrrlScientist asks What’s Wrong with Bush?

Is Bush suffering from presenile dementia? Is this the result of Alzheimer’s Disease or is it the result of brain damage due to excessive drug and alcohol use?

The second video is funny. The first video is scary.

I’m very skeptical about the recent “discovery” of the “tomb of Jesus”. The evidence seems worse than thin — more a fantasy than a discovery. The Christian Science Monitor reports:

The makers of a new TV documentary claim to have uncovered the biggest archaeological story of the century – the tomb of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. But several archaeologists and biblical scholars challenge the evidence. One calls it “much ado about nothing much.” …

If the evidence proved convincing, it would represent a challenge to the New Testament and the foundations of Christianity.

Really?

Catholic League President William Donohue thinks the claims are an assault on Christianity:

Not a Lenten season goes by without some author or TV program seeking to cast doubt on the divinity of Jesus and/or the Resurrection.

Brent Bozell’s conservative CNS News writes:

For Christians around the world, the claims in the documentary threaten the foundation of their faith system. If the documentary’s claims are true, the evidence undermines the core tenets of Christian faith, most notably that Jesus was resurrected three days after his crucifixion and later ascended into Heaven.

“As a born-again Christian, the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead is an immovable foundation of what I know is true,” Randy Thomasson, president of the Campaign for Children and Families, said in a statement.

Does he really mean to say that the foundation of his faith is so feeble that the discovery an ancient tomb might cause the whole thing to collapse?

Please, take a few moments and read the Sermon on the Mount. Or take a little longer, and read all four Gospels.

Do the fundamentalists really believe the Sermon and all the teachings in the Gospels are worthless unless Jesus bodily ascended into the heavens? Is their faith truly so fragile?

Via Stranger Fruit: It seems to me you’d have to kinda know what you were doing to navigate this flight path.