Dear John McCain...

You ain't president yet. And after seeing your incredibly shortsighted response to the crisis in Georgia, I hope more than ever that you never will be.

Read This. (h/t LGM)

I must confess that McCain has crept into an elite group of assholes who cause me to turn the radio volume down when they are on NPR. Most of this campaign season, I've had no problem with listening, but after the third replay of his asinine declaration that "I know I speak for all Americans, when I say we are all Georgians now" or something of that ilk (I know both clauses there came out of his mouth, but I'm not sure which order, so don't kill me), I can't take it anymore.

Anyone who supported or supports now the Iraq war has precisely zero moral high ground to discuss the territorial integrity of sovereign nations. Absolutely none. And the fact that McCain's attempt to look tough (and against Russia, too, to add to his salivating dream of becoming the Second Coming of Reagan) appears, as noted in the linked post, to actually be affecting Bush's policy...well, let's hope that Condi has more sense than her bosses, shall we?

Because I mean really, if we're bound and determined that the "international community" should be doing something to "punish" Russia, well, what should the international community do to us?

And I think I'd rather, if I'm going to be unilaterally assumed by a presidential candidate to be in solidarity with another nation I've never been to and that most people couldn't find on a map, that it be Afghanistan. Or Iraq. Or Sudan. Y'know, places we might actually be able to help.

But, well, they're WHITE people in Georgia, right? And not Muslims? (Please excuse my sarcasm. It's early and I have a vicious head cold.)

But can you imagine how McCain would react if Obama perhaps declared his solidarity with Iraqis, or Sudanese?

Natalia has more.

And hilzoy has video.

(cross-posted. and I'm going to try to be more on top of politics, I promise.)

A Ratings System for Children's Books - Dumbing Down Literacy

Apparently, national and international publishers in England are preparing an age-based ratings system for books, similar to ratings systems for movies, to let children and parents know if the books is "appropriate" for them.

This is, quite simply, one of the stupidest things I've heard of all year (and that's saying plenty). And while all of the arguments against this system mentioned in the article (death of local bookstores, or establishing a precedent for some kind of moral code that can and will be easily hijacked by overzealous parents) are strong, the dumbest part of this to me is the presumption that there are easily-classifiable "age ranges" for books. Some kids can't even read at 5 years old, while others are pounding through novels intended for children 10 or older. I remember reading Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game in 3rd grade (probably an appropriate age-level for Card's stuff, given how terrible it's gotten), while other kids were struggling with picture books (and I'm certain I'm not, nor ever was, some kind of prodigy). It's hard enough to get kids to read anyways these days; to try to predict if a kid is at the "appropriate" age level is just tilting against windmills.

And if parents and adults don't know how to pick an "age-appropriate" book for a child (one of the major reasons companies are trying to justify this system), let me offer a few suggestions, such as: look at what the kid is reading and go from there; open the book to see if it looks right for the kid who's X-years old (I'm pretty sure the entire Harry Potter collection isn't for a 4 year old, nor is a picture book for a 10 year old; go from there); and, if you're still really not sure, then get a gift-card for a bookstore, and let the kid pick out their own damn book.

I really hope authors' efforts to quash this ridiculous idea are successful, and that parents (and even non-parent adults) and teachers hop on board to end this silliness.

Because Joseph Stalin Died, We Should Maintain Our Current Health Care System

Mike Huckabee is arguing that we need to close the border because of the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.

What do these things have in common? Oh yes, absolutely nothing at all.

Allow me to propose some other non-sequitur Huckabee-esque policy proposals:

Because Fidel Castro took over Cuba in 1959, we should ban tobacco.

Because that tiger killed that kid in San Francisco, we should overturn the Endangered Species Act.

Because recent snow storms have delayed air traffic around the nation, we should ensure continued low mileage per gallon standards on vehicles

Because Adolf Hitler managed to survive World War I, we should engage in more wars in order to kill future, unknown dictators.

With policy positions like these, I could be a leading Republican presidential candidate!

"State socialism in defense of Mad Cow"

Via dailyKos, this is just one of the stupidest things I've ever heard (and that's saying a lot, what with the past 7 years).

Apparently, the Bush administration is going to keep meatpacking companies from voluntarily testing all their animals for mad cow disease, because some up-and-coming, small meatpacking company in Kansas wants to test all its animals. Of course, the larger companies don't like this, fearing they'll have to test all their larger herds, too, and that will cut into profit! So the USDA is quashing the small company from voluntarily testing its herds. And free-market competition? Sorry, can't allow that - that will piss off some of the corporate sponsors who pay for us to get elected! So the public won't know if it's meat is free of mad-cow, because the bigger meatpacking companies fear the threat to their profits from a small company that wants to act freely in a "free" market. Awesome.

Quite possibly the stupidest anti-terrorism strategy ever

How do you want to show the terrorists you mean business? Well, why not bomb a place like South America? That will show them Al-Qaeda-types we mean business!!!

Unfortunately, I'm not making this up. This was on the television here in Brazil today, and it was apparently a story last year that didn't get much attention (maybe we were paying attention to Anna Nicole Smith's weight at the time). Just when I can't think things are any more absurd, it turns out somebody suggested bombing a continent that had NOTHING to do with 9/11, or even with TERRORISM for that matter (or at least, no terrorism since the U.S.-supported, state-sponsored terrorism in Chile, Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Colombia, Guatemala, El Salvador, Uruguay, etc. from the 1950s through the 1980s).

Richard puts it best: "How crazy do you have to be for Dick Cheney to think you're nuts?"

[Via ATRIOS]