Who's Stupider?

It's time again for America's favorite game show:

Who's Stupider?!?!?!?

With your host Art Clip!


On today's episode - who can be the stupidest when discussing Jeb Bush's foreign policy team?

First up, she's a columnist from the New York Times where she enjoys ingesting way too much pot and then passing judgement on everything, please welcome  Maureen Dowd!


Maureen, the challenge is, how stupid a thing can you say about JEB's foreign policy team. . . and. . . GO!

 WASHINGTON — I had been keeping an open mind on Jeb Bush. 

Ooh, off to a good start already! JEB has enough of a public record that there is no need to keep an open mind about him anymore. We know who he is. Points to Maureen! What else?

I mean, sure, as Florida governor, he helped his brother snatch the 2000 election. And that led to two decade-long botched wars that cost tens of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars. The nation will be dealing for a long time with struggling veterans and the loss of American prestige. Not to mention that W. let Wall Street gamble away the economy, which is only now finally creeping back.

But, all that aside, shouldn’t John Ellis Bush have the right to make the case that he is his own man?

Oh! Excellent first round, Maureen! That is an amazing amount of stupidity for one paragraph. Your challenger is going to have a hard time keeping up with you today! 

 

And speaking of your challenger, let's meet him. He is also a columnist for the New York Times who enjoys being wrong about everything and inexplicably being asked for his opinion on television, it's David Brooks!

David, what do you have to say about JEB's surrounding himself with  idiotic war-mongers like Paul Wolfowitz?

I think what’s heartening is that — we can have different views about Paul Wolfowitz. I think he’s a much more complicated character than sometimes he’s portrayed. But most of the people that Bush went to are people like Bob Zoellick, Richard Haass of the Council on Foreign Relations. It was pretty much the A-team on the Republican side.

Oh,well played, David! The judges were totally unfamiliar with Zoellick and Haass, so on the surface it sounded like you might be saying something reasonable. So we did a little Googling and found that Zoellick was a member of PNAC and a signatory to the open letter to Bill Clinton urging the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. So, how is he any different than Wolfowitz? Then we found  statements like these from Richard Haass:

The serious threat posed by North Korea far transcends cyberspace. Only one approach is commensurate with the challenge: ending North Korea’s existence as an independent entity and reunifying the Korean Peninsula.(source)

The first concerns the Iraq war initiated in 2003. It is true that my opposition to this second Iraq war was not fundamental, largely because I assumed (along with virtually everyone else) that Iraq possessed at least some weapons of mass destruction. But even so, and as I note more than once in the book, I was “60/40” against the decision to go to war. (I go on to say that had I known then what is known now, that Iraq no longer possessed weapons of mass destruction, my stance would have been 90/10 against.) (source)

So, he assumed that Iraq had WMD's? And he thinks it's okay that he was completely wrong because "virtually everyone else" thought the same thing? Because that's just not true. The UN weapons inspectors, the people who were in the best position to know, did not believe that.  Hell, I didn't, and I'm just some guy.

So these guys are both reality-challenged morons with war-boners. But we're going to deduct a point, David, because sadly, this might actually be the "A-team on the Republican side."

Back to you, Maureen.

Like the Clintons, the Bushes drag the country through national traumas that spring from their convoluted family dynamic and then disingenuously wonder why we concern ourselves with their family dynamic.

Wow! Bonus false equivalency points!

The Clintons "drag[ged] the country through national traumas?" Like what?
Sure, the Bushes. No one argues that. No one argues that 3 pointless wars, recessions, letting a major city drown,etc. were national traumas that the Bushes dragged us through. No question. But the Clintons?
Do you think that the farcical circus of the Clinton impeachment was somehow the Clintons' fault? Even if you do the necessary mental gymnastics to conclude that it was Bill's fault because if he wasn't just so darn hateable, they wouldn't have hated him so much and the asinine spectacle needn't have happened, you certainly can't blame Hilary for any of it. She was the aggrieved party in this if anything.

David, you're going to have to go all in if you want a chance to win this one!
One final impression of JEB's foreign policy gurus?

They’re very responsible. And we would feel safe with men and women like that at the helm.

Oklahoma hates History

Oklahoma bill would make AP U.S. History history

By Kevin Conlon, CNN

Updated 9:00 AM ET, Wed February 18, 2015

Why?
Why would anyone think that it was a good idea to get rid of Advanced Placement History courses?

What's their beef? The course, which was redesigned by the College Board and implemented in high school classrooms last year, isn't quite pro-America enough. 

Ohhhhh, of course! They have no idea what the purpose of History is!
They think that the purpose of History is to make you feel good about the past.
Oh, and also to implant right-wing ideology, of course.

"In essence, we have a new emphasis on what is bad about America," said state representative Dan Fisher, the measure's chief sponsor.

"(The new framework) trades an emphasis on America's founding principles of Constitutional government in favor of robust analyses of gender and racial oppression and class ethnicity and the lives of marginalized people, where the emphasis on instruction is of America as a nation of oppressors and exploiters," Fisher lamented at a legislative committee hearing Tuesday.

Right, we can't have History classes that talk about all the history. We have to skip over the few minor little bad things that America might have done, if you believe the nay-sayers. You know, minor missteps like slavery, genocide, not letting women vote, lynchings, Vietnam, etc.

For instance, the bill to replace AP History with whatever they're going to call the "pro-America" class would require the reading of:

Founding documents of the United States that contributed to

the foundation or maintenance of the representative form of limited

government, the free-market economic system and American exceptionalism

Oh, fer fuck sake. . . .

"American Exceptionalism" isn't really a thing. It's a fallacy, like the maturation of odds, or "if you're a cop, you have to tell me."

Up until the rise of the Tea Party and the elevation of ignorance to a virtue, if someone said that you believe in American exceptionalism, they were making fun of you.

The bill would also mandate the inclusion of

the sermon known as

"A Model of Christian Charity" by John Winthrop

the sermon known as

"Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" by Jonathan Edwards

Seriously?
In a public school, you want them reading sermons?

We had to read "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" in high school, but I went to a fundamentalist Lutheran high school, and even we were appalled by "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." The whole point of this sermon is that God may, at any time just decide to fling you into eternal hellfire because he has serious anger management issues. It's pretty horrifying.

And oddly, since the bill's sponsors object to "robust analyses of gender and racial oppression and class ethnicity and the lives of marginalized people," the new curricula would include:

the letter known as the "Letter from Birmingham Jail"

written by Martin Luther King, Jr.

the I Have a Dream speech made by Martin Luther King,

Jr.

the Ballot or the Bullet speech made by Malcolm X

Which won't make a lot of sense when you're pretending that America has never done anything bad like segregation or Jim Crow or whatever. But then again, what does make sense in Oklahoma anymore?

When the cat's away

The Missus is out of town on business for a couple days.



Got the house to myself.


I think you know what this means. . .











And, to be honest. . .

A little of this:

Why is this lady in my newspaper?

Who Benefits from Our Inaction Abroad?

By Mona Charen

Why does an actual professional newspaper spend money on ink and syndication rights to let this looney re-write history?

Let’s consider the origins of the Islamic State. The radical Sunni offshoot of al-Qaeda was hatched in an environment made possible by President Obama’s nonfeasance or malfeasance.

 

Is that really what happened? Really?

Was it Barack Obama who destabilized the region? Really?

Also, "malfeasance?" You're coming awfully close to libel there. You're implying. fairly overtly, that the ugly situation in the Middle East was created intentionally by the President.

The first policy was President Obama’s determination not to provide aid to the rebels seeking to topple Bashar Assad. His own ambassador, Robert Ford, resigned in protest of Obama’s denial of aid to the Free Syrian Army (the non-radical forces opposing Assad).

Oh, the "non-radical" forces? Interesting. According to the BBC report of Dec.13, 2013,

The opposition National Coalition describes Gen Idris as the commander of the FSA [Free Syrian Army], however observers have said the FSA is simply a loose network of brigades rather than a unified fighting force. Brigades supposedly report through the chain of command to Gen Idris, but he is yet to assert operational control and serves more as a spokesman and conduit for foreign funding and arms shipments. SMC-aligned brigades retain separate identities, agendas and commands. Some work with hardline Islamist groups that alarm the West, such as Ahrar al-Sham, and al-Qaeda-linked jihadists.

 Those are the "moderate forces" you would have had us support?

Does no one realize that every time we interfere in that part of the world, we make things worse?
Last time we supported a rag-tag group of Muslim rebels against a powerful foe, we ended up arming the guys who went on to become al Queda and the Taliban. Thanks, President Reagen! No blow-back from that operation at all!

Today, the Islamic State rampages through a lawless Mesopotamia threatening millions of people and committing atrocities that shock the world.

Hmm, I seem to remember a time when Mesopotamia was anything but lawless. . .
Whatever happened to that Saddam guy who used to keep these Islamic radicals out?
Probably Barack Obama must've got rid of him!

How is this even possible?

This has just gotten insane!

Alabama Minister Arrested for Disorderly Conduct After Trying to Officiate Gay Marriage

It's not bad enough that troglodyte chief justice Roy Moore has decided that Alabamans don't have to obey the law if they don't want to, now they can arrest someone who does obey the law?

Same-sex couples married in some Alabama courthouses today, but many counties refused to allow the unions despite rulings on Monday from a federal judge and the U.S. Supreme Court to permit them.

Jeezus Christ! Haven't we been over this already? Didn't you assholes already try try this shit with segregation? And you're still just going to pretend that the Supremacy Clause doesn't exist?

As of Friday, the Autauga County Probate Office ceased all marriages inside the office. Probate Judge Al Booth told the Montgomery Advertiser newspaper that the decision to stop performing the ceremonies was related to work flow, not the recent federal court order lifting the state’s ban on same-sex marriages. 

Oh, of course. Of course. There are just so darn many people trying to have their weddings at the Astauga County courthouse, you just can't possibly accommodate all of them!  The only way to be fair is to just not do your fucking job for any loving couples. gay or breeder. Of course!

Autauga County Sheriff Joe Sedinger tells ABC News that Diprizio's attempt to perform a marriage was the only reason she was arrested for disorderly conduct and not with the fact it was a same-sex marriage.

Of course. It's weddings in general to which you object.
Obviously.


How many times do you slack-jawed yokels want to re-fight the Civil War? The Supreme Court of the United States is, as the name implies, the supreme court of the United States. If they say same-sex marriage is legal, guess what, moron? It's legal. Do you never tire of being on the wrong side of history?

You're just lucky Ike isn't president anymore, or he'd have the National Guard down there enforcing the goddamm law.