Impenetrable Forests of 10-feet-high Marijuana Plants

OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canadian troops fighting Taliban militants in Afghanistan have stumbled across an unexpected and potent enemy -- almost impenetrable forests of 10-feet-high marijuana plants.

General Rick Hillier, chief of the Canadian defense staff, said on Thursday that Taliban fighters were using the forests as cover. In response, the crew of at least one armored car had camouflaged their vehicle with marijuana.

"The challenge is that marijuana plants absorb energy, heat very readily. It's very difficult to penetrate with thermal devices ... and as a result you really have to be careful that the Taliban don't dodge in and out of those marijuana forests," he said in a speech in Ottawa.

"We tried burning them with white phosphorous -- it didn't work. We tried burning them with diesel -- it didn't work. The plants are so full of water right now ... that we simply couldn't burn them," he said.

Even successful incineration had its drawbacks. "A couple of brown plants on the edges of some of those (forests) did catch on fire. But a section of soldiers that was downwind from that had some ill effects and decided that was probably not the right course of action," Hillier said dryly.

One soldier told him later: "Sir, three years ago before I joined the army, I never thought I'd say 'That damn marijuana'."

---

Damn! Now there's a plant that sounds like it could have a wide variety of industrial (and not so industrial) uses, doesn't it?

France's War Against Denialism

Denialism is a funny thing. It embodies freedom of speech and thought, allowing people to hold ideas contrary to what the vast majority of people believe. It embodies the stubborn sense of faith that allows people to reject a mountain of evidence in favor of a preconceived notion. Denialism is irrational, ignorant, and quintessentially human.

Denialism is all around us, and in fact powers many of the structures of our modern world. Religion is a form of denialism, a rejection of empiricism in favor of supernaturalism and unsubstantiated faith. Our political system requires a measure of denialism, for if people really, truly took in the level of corruption, cronyism and hopelessness that accompanies our 'democracy' there would be nothing but anarchy. Ultimately - and this becomes more true as we become more well informed - we must be in a constant state of denial about the state of the world today to even function.

I was going to write a humorous and insightful take on how France's new law banning the denial of the Armenian genocide in the early 20th century should be extended to other forms of denialism. Global warming, the Holocaust, the Bush administration's gutting of constitutional rights, the fact that country music really, really sucks - we could make a thousand laws condemning the willful ignorance of facts in the public conversation. And part of me thinks that this would be a good idea. If you've ever read about the Armenian genocide, you're probably already familiar with the sinking sense of doom that comes with learning of horrific acts committed by humans. The fact that people - and in this case, an entire country - would shrug off the slaughter of 1.5 million people is beyond the pale. And as the world warms and the seas rise and ecosystems begin to collapse, climate change denialists will be held in the same regard as Mel Gibson's father.

Unfortunately, the more I read about France's new law the less I like it. I agree that 'debates' over nonsense like Intelligent Design are a waste of time and poisonous to the creation of a well-informed public. But I cannot agree that government imposed fines are the best way to end the debate. It may be the fastest route to generating consensus, but it is also the least empowering and the most open to abuse.

This is being left intentionally open to the question: what do you think about this issue? Is France right, wrong or somwhere in that vast sea of gray?

Over 650,000 Dead Iraqis and Counting

In an update of a two-year-old survey that sparked wide disagreement, Johns Hopkins researchers now estimate that more than a half-million Iraqis have died as a result of the U.S.-led invasion and its bloody aftermath.

Reporting this week in the online edition of The Lancet, a leading British medical journal, the researchers estimated that 654,000 more Iraqis died of various causes after the invasion than would have died in a comparable period before.

The scientists attributed 600,000 of those deaths to acts of violence.

It's important to point out that this number was arrived at not by counting actual severed heads and charred corpses, but is an estimate based on interviews with various living Iraqis. Does that make the number complete bullshit? Of course, the 'stay-the-course'rs say so, but let's look at the facts.

IraqBodyCount.net has been tallying civilian deaths since the war started. Currently their tally is at around 45,000 civilians killed since the invasion began. Trouble with that number is that it's based exclusively on media reports, and it's no secret that there are wide swaths of Iraq that journalists simply will not venture into. The "Green" Zone is dangerous enough. Hell, I'll bet you my left nut that reporters can't even keep an accurate tally of deaths in Baghdad alone.

You can't get accurate numbers by counting bodies delivered to morgues, either. Iraq is so dangerous that some people have resorted to burying their dead on their own property, out of fears that the trip to the morgue could claim more of them.

The only other way a count could be made would be if the actual murderers are keeping score, and I seriously doubt that Interior Ministry death squads or Sunni and Shia militias are putting notches in their bandoliers. Even more doubtful is the notion that an American soldier would give a complete report to his superiors after shooting a six-month-old baby and its grandma.

So who's to say 650k+ is way off the mark? A previous study published in Lancet claimed that over 100,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed, and given what I've explained about the IraqBodyCount.net numbers, that seems much too low. Since there's no way to know what an accurate number would be, 650k certainly seems well within the realm of possibility. If you dispute it, then what's your guess? A mere 400,000? Only 250,000?

No doubt Henry Kissinger, who's been advising the Bush Administration on the Iraq War, would look at this number and feel like he's over the hill, or that Junior must be a big pussy. Back in the 'good old days', 600k would be one good day of carpet-bombing Cambodia with his buddy Tricky Dick.

Remember when, not so long ago, a favorite retort of warmongering Republicans was "I'll bet you'd prefer that Saddam Hussein was still in power, wouldn't you, you yellow-bellied pinko little faggot?" Don't hear them using that line much anymore, do you?

Army Strong ... Must Enlist ... More Fodder

In a colossal waste of money typical of the Bush Administration's proclivity to deficit spend like a drunken teenager with a gold card, the Army is paying McCann Worldgroup $1 billion (with a 'b', as in 'bullshit') to do their marketing magic. I'm sure they've eaten up at least a quarter of that billion dollars by getting together all of their big brains and coming up with a new Army slogan: "Army Strong". I guess "An Army of One" is too confusing to the targeted demographic, what with an article and a preposition in there, gumming up the works. And "Army One" just doesn't convey the strength they'd like the slogan to capture. So "Army Strong" it is.

You weak. Army strong. Join army. Get strong. Sign here. Drug Test? Not necessary. Low IQ? That's ok. Sign here. Criminal record? No problem. No diploma? Get GED. We'll pay! Just sign. Sign here. Right here. And here. . . . and here. Welcome aboard!

Interesting to note that our troops in Iraq are still slapping scrap metal on their vehicles to protect themselves against IEDs while the Army somehow sees fit to spend $1B on marketing. Maybe -- and I'm no military expert here, mind you, but -- just maybe it'd be easier to get new recruits if they knew they weren't being sent into an elective war based on big fat lies, and they had good reason to believe they and their families would be well cared for if injured or killed. Among other things. But again -- I'm no freakin' expert on such matters. Maybe flashy new commercials will work just as well.

The Cover-up's as Wide as Hastert!

Much like news about the climate crisis, every new discovery about the Foley story (which should rightfully be called The Impending Fall of the Corrupt Republican Party story, but brevity demands otherwise) reveals that things are actually worse than previously surmised.

Now we learn that Melanie Sloan, president of CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington), sent some of Foley's emails to three separate FBI offices back in July. The response she received is between the following parentheses: ( nada ). When Sloan learned that the FBI had begun a 'preliminary' investigation last week, she thought to herself, "preliminary, huh? I guess that means they've done NO investigating until now!"

The silver lining here is that apparently there is now more data-sharing going on between the FBI and the CIA, because the FBI responded by lying about what Sloan sent them, claiming that some of the information was redacted before they received it, and therefore they had insufficient reason to investigate.

So you really have to wonder: did anybody from any of the three FBI offices Sloan contacted even make a call to the hill? Was the decision to ignore this evidence of a possible crime committed by a congressman made by the DoJ chain of command, or by the House leadership? How many members of the Republican crime family in on this thing, anyway?

There's a video from CNN in the linked article, and it does have a moment of comedy gold. The reporter mentions that CREW (again -- Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington) has come under fire for being "anti-Republican". Ha ha ha ha haaa! Oh, it is to laugh! Isn't that like saying Mr. Clean is anti-grime? Shame on you, Mr. Clean! You're just attacking my toilet because you have a partisan, anti-germ agenda! Apparently Republicans are so accustomed to organizations having such completely ironic and cynical names, that they were surprised to learn that CREW was actually for responsibility and ethics. Who'd've thunk?

Ring any Bells?

BERLIN (Reuters) - An 80-year-old German motorist obediently following his navigation system ignored a motorway "closed for construction" sign and crashed his Mercedes into a pile of sand further down the road, police said Monday.

"The driver was following the orders from his navigation system and even though there was a sufficient number of warnings and barricades, he continued his journey into the construction site," a police spokeswoman told Reuters.

"His trip finally ended when he wound up crashing into a pile of sand," she added.

Something about this story struck me as familiar, and then I finally realized: if you substitute "an 80-year-old German motorist" with "President Bush", "navigation system" with "gut", and "pile of sand" with "catastrophe", then what you've got is a story about Bush's approach to the Iraq war, haven't you?

Ain't No 'mentum Like Joementum

Lieberman claims he's been guaranteed seniority if he returns to congress. Harry Reid denies it. Hmmm...

Considering the fact that most of Lieberman's support comes from Republicans, could it be those assurances came from that party? If Lieberman wins and the Kicking-Squealing-Gucci-Little-Piggie Party retains control of the Senate, I guess we'll find out, won't we?

Ugh.