stuff

[jazzfish]

Ow my head. I feel much better about my writing now.

Why does George W. Bush still have an approval rating around 40%? Because about 40% of the American people are ignorant dumbasses:

"Do you think Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq was DIRECTLY involved in planning, financing, or carrying out the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, or not?" Taken Sept. 2-4 [2004 -ed].

"Yes"=42%

"No"=44%

"Unsure"=14%

(This is without even getting into Gallup's unrelated polling wackiness.)

And, beating out the Hon. Alex Kozinski's "The parties are advised to chill" (Aqua vs. Mattel Corp, aka "the 'Barbie Girl' case") in the category of Coolest Judicial Statement Ever, we have the following, sadly anonymous, trademark opinion:

When the undersigned accepted the appointment from the President of the United States of the position now held, he was ready to face the daily practice of law in federal courts with presumably competent lawyers. No one warned the undersigned that in many instances his responsibility would be the same as a person who supervised kindergarten. Frankly, the undersigned would guess the lawyers in this case did not attend kindergarten as they never learned how to get along well with others. . . .

The Court simply wants to scream to these lawyers, 'Get a life' or 'Do you have any other cases?' or 'When is the last time you registered for anger management classes?' . . . In the event it is not clear from the above discussion, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED."

---

Semester eating me alive, as expected. I have (most of) a cast for my directing scene, and I think I'm actually no more than a week behind in all my classes now. Saw the rain and decided not to bother leaving the house yesterday, which I think was a good call.

Lord, I can use this weekend. At least I'll have Donkey Konga to chill with. And maybe I can finally finish Strange & Norrell. And get the booklog caught up. And do some work on my second playwriting play. And and and.

Comments

[jonny-law.livejournal.com]

There's so much wrong with defense that it short-circuits my brain.

Let's look at the facts.

1) In 2004, one mustard gas artillery shell was used as an IED by insurgents/terrorists against US forces. Thankfully the weapon had been stored incorrectly and the mustard gas was not longer effective. This was the first use of chemical weapons in the current Iraq War.

2) In 2004, one unlabeled sarin gas artillery shell was used as an IED by insurgents/terrorists against US forces. Apparently even the insurgents/terrorists did not know it was anything other than a conventional explosive shell, as it was used in that manner and not in a way that would effectively spread the gas. This was the second use of chemical weapons in the current Iraq War, and the first loudly trumpeted by the media.

In 2003, had chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons been found in Iraq? 67% of the responsdents answered the question correctly. 33% answered incorrectly.

In 2003, had chemical or biological weapons been used against our troops?
78% of the respondents answered the question correctly. 22% answered incorrectly.

This does not even address the other argument you are making, which is that two shells, one of which was not stored in a manner that would allow it to be used as a chemical weapon and one of which was not identifiable by its users as a chemical weapon, thought to be pre-date the 1991 Gulf War have been used. This is not the the 80 tons of chemical and biological weapons that US officials claim could possibly maybe have been created by Iraq after 1991, cited as the justification for this war.

[cxi162.livejournal.com]

So I misread the date on your post. Sue me. As for the point I am making, how much exactly does someone have to lay in front of you for it to be "real"? Oh, two shells aren't enough, are ten, thirteen? Come on, the weapons are there and the insurgents have stumbled across some of them. The rest are buried in the desert somewhere according to the Iraqi's themselves.

[narquelion.livejournal.com]

As a stickler for honesty, I'd like to point out: There's the truth and then there's the whole truth so help me God. Substituting the former for the latter might not be lying, but it's "encouraging misinterpretation," which is pretty much the same damn thing. Well, except for the liars acting self-righteous and outraged about it.

Okay, there's chemical weapons in Iraq. In the same vein, is there lead paint in my house? Almost definitely. In fact, there's probably even chemical weapons. I don't know where the chemical weapons are, nor do I intend to use them as such. The lead paint I'm speculating exists is on some sort of decorative vase or antique in a box somewhere, not on the walls or anywhere a small child could ingest. So, the answer to the questions people generally mean to ask is no, even if the literal answer is yes, or probably, or I don't know.

Presumably, the majority of the people polled interpreted that question as "Did we ever find the WMD the US claimed knowledge of?" (The original is not the clearest poll question in the world, but it's hard to be literally complete but not leading. I'd say my replacement encourages more biased answers, even if it is literally more accurate.)

It is possible that some of those polled didn't interpret the question in that manner. However, assuming that a third of the population is very intelligent, as literal as a computer or a legal team, and very well informed is probably less reasonable than jazzfish's original explanation that a third of the population is stupid and ignorant. Unfortunate but true.

On a more random note, I notice we've dropped the stupid 'WMD' designation for purposes of this thread. This is a good thing for you, I must say, because I don't see how "mass" applies here. :)

[jonny-law.livejournal.com]

Certainly a single chemical or biological weapon could be a national tragedy, if it were delivered on U.S. soil. Certainly the vast quantities of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons that Hussein was actively acquiring, and the weapon delivery systems that Colin Powell presented before the U.N. would pose a national security threat to the U.S.

But the fact is that the vast quantities of weapons and the weapon delivery systems that were claimed either haven't been found or the claims were found to be as fake as balsawood. What may exist are the weapons that were unaccounted for after the 1991 Gulf War, which may have been, as you say, "buried in the desert somewhere" decomposing until they are no longer dangerous, or unlabeled and stored with other conventional weapons.

You say that the terrorists have "stumbled across some of them," with the implied meaning that eventually they will come across any others out there. This is where I agree with you completely. The danger is that in a destabilized Iraq, where Islamic terrorists can flood across the border without fear of a paranoid Saddam afraid they will overthrow his secular dictatorship, these weapons will fall into the hands of terrorists and eventually be carried to the U.S.

While you may think that I said that the two chemical weapons used were not "real," what I actually said was that this was not the amount officials cited as justification for war. So yeah, two chemical weapon artillery shells are no more of a national security threat than two explosives-filled artillery shells. Two chemical weapon artillery shells in the hands of terrorists are as much of a national security threat as, well, knives, boxcutters, and bomb threats.