VIDEO: Carly Fiorina chosen by Cruz, breaks into song!

Never before in the history of WWW -- over six years now and counting -- have we reposted one of Stephen Colbert's bits, but this one is just too good. Really it doesn't even need the set-up.


Ted Cruz Announces His Losing Mate by lateshowwithstephencolbert

Is it possible that Carly Fiorina could ever have been taken seriously by anyone as a candidate for the presidensity? Or as CEO of a multi-billion dollar multinational corporation for that matter. But hey, as Canuck PM Justin Trudeau said when he apportioned his cabinet equally between women and men, "It's 2015!"

Having gender parity in a cabinet. What an idea! Isn't that what Hellery Clinton is proposing, as if she thought of it all by herself? Maybe she could make Ms Fiorina Secretary of... errr... well... errr...

VIDEO: Advice on moving to Canada (in case Trump wins)

Poor Len Canayen passed this along. For sure he likes the guy's toque, eh!

Gavin McInnes of TheRebel.media has some advice for Americans threatening to move to Canada if Donald Trump is elected president

Origin of the Texas Longhorns logo

Agent 6 feels that Walt is neglecting his mission to teach readers something new every day. He has passed along a photo to show the origin of the Texas Longhorns logo.

For readers in the half of the world that isn't Texas, the Longhorns are the extramural and intramural sports teams of the University of Texas at Austin. These teams are referred to as the Texas Longhorns (or variously as Longhorns or 'Horns), taking their name from the Longhorn cattle that were an important part of the development of Texas, and are now the official "large animal" of the Great State of Texas. The women's teams are sometimes called the Lady Longhorns, but generally both the men's and women's teams are referred to as the Longhorns, and the mascot is a Texas Longhorn steer named Bevo.

But where (I hear you ask) did the inspiration for the logo really come from? Here's the answer.

Educational mission accomplished!

Which presidential candidate is "unloved and unstoppable"?

Did you really have to look? The description comes a briefing in the current issue of The Economist. [Why does The Economist call itself a "newspaper" when it's obviously a magazine? Just wonderin'. Ed.] The cartoon of Hellery heading towards her inevitable coronation is the work of the Globe and Mail's estimable Brian Gable.

The Economist's characterization of Ms Clinton as "unloved and unstoppable" is mild compared with some of the things being said about her by fellow Democrats. The Economist quotes a certain Dr Paul Song: "Medicare-for-all will never happen if we continue to elect corporate Democratic whores who are beholden to big pharma and the private insurance industry instead of us." Indeed. Dr Song is obviously a Sanders supporter.

The Economist had some unkind words for Donald Trump too, calling him a "foul-mouthed celebrity builder". But, they concede, the breadth of the Donald's victory in the New York primary was "impressive". Moreover, their analysis gives the lie to "the idea that it is mostly poorer, less educated voters who are attracted to Mr Trump..." They interpret exit polling from other state primaries as showing "that better-paid and better-educated voters have always formed as big a part of Mr Trump's base as those at the lower end of the scale..."

Today Republicans vote in primaries in Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. The Economist expects Mr Trump to win all five. Walt concurs. Lifetime pct .988.

Escalating the war in Syria: Has Obama learned nothing?

CNN politics reports today that President 0 is going to send another 250 American special ops forces to Syria in the coming weeks, in an effort to stem the influence and spread of ISIS. "Stem the influence and spread"? What happened to "degrade and destroy"? Even that got downgraded pretty quickly to "degrade and defeat". Now it's just "stem the influence and spread".

Here, according to CNN politics, are POTUS's actual words. "Just as I approved additional support for Iraqi forces against ISIL, I've decided to increase U.S. support for local forces fighting ISIL in Syria, a small number of special operations forces are already on the ground in Syria and their expertise has been critical as local forces have driven ISIL out of key areas. So given their success I've approved the deployment of up to 250 additional U.S. personnel in Syria including special forces to keep up this momentum."

"Given their success..." Pardon me while I fall down laughing. Whatever success the anti-ISIS forces have had lately has come largely through the efforts of Kurdish fighters and those of our once-but-no-longer enemy Basher Assad, ably assisted by the Russian Air Force. But don't worry. The Paranoid States of America is going to step up the fight against the murderous Muslims. Really. Obama means it, this time.

Yes indeed. If more American boots on the ground don't do the trick, the USAF will win the war from the air. At the end of February, Air Force Gen. Herbert Carlisle, head of Air Combat Command, announced at the Air Force Association’s annual Air Warfare Symposium that they're going to send in the B52s! And Lt.-Gen. Charles Brown, in charge of the flying branch’s top headquarters for the Middle East, said he would help "bring B-52s to town", according to Air Force Magazine, quoted on The National Interest blogsite.

Send in the B52s to bomb whatever rubble is left. What an amazing idea. But hang on! Haven't we seen this movie before? Back in the early 70s? Didn't USAF B52s engage in carpet-bombing of not just Vietnam but Laos and Cambodia? How did that work out? [That was in a movie -- The Killing Fields. It didn't really happen! Ed.]

Sorry, Ed., but it did happen! It was part of the Johnson-Nixon grand strategy to end the war! Remember? Anyway, here's a quote from Rick Perlstein's Nixonland (Scribner 2008), recommended here a few days ago. "On April 16 [1972], five behemoth B-52s pounded Hanoi and North Vietnam's lifeline port, Haiphong Harbor....

"Then, the night of April 26, [Nixon] went on TV to make his latest Vietnam pitch: "...we have offered the most generous peace terms.... The South Vietnamese are fighting courageously and well in their self-defense.
'...I say to you tonight, let us bring our men home from Vietnam; let us end the war in Vietnam. But let us end it in such a way that the younger brothers and the sons of the brave men who have fought in Vietnam will not have to fight again in some other Vietnam at some time in the future....
'My fellow Americans, let us therefore unite as a nation in a firm and wise policy of real peace -- not the peace of surrender, but peace with honor, not just peace in our time, but peace for generations to come.'"

And how did that work out? Walt asks... again... how it can be that the leaders of the USA have learned nothing, nothing from the American experience in Vietnam, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Libya, and (so far) in Syria? How can it be?!

Footnote regarding Nixonland: A reader has confessed to some puzzlement over Walt's recommendation of Nixonland. Isn't that book [he asks] nothing more than a hatchet job on RMN, published to discredit the Republicans ahead of the 2008 presidential election? Well, yes. Mr. Perlstein paints a picture of President Nixon as a scurrilous bounder and then some. But that the picture is unflattering doesn't make it unreal. And Mr. Perlstein shows no love for the Democrats or President Johnson either. About the only pols who come off at all well in the book are Messrs McCarthy and McGovern.

But that's beside the point. The main point of Nixonland, as far as I'm concerned, is that the liberal consensus of the 60s evaporated or was destroyed in 1968, and that the polarization of politics of the Nixon years is even more acute today. To paraphrase Mr. Perlstein, the majority of Americans are embittered, cynical, and resentful of the Establishment. They are ready to vote for anyone who can credibly pledge to tear down the Washington power structure. And that, dear readers, explains the popularity of Messrs Sanders, Cruz, and... of course... Trump.

Further reading:
Can America ever be united again?, WWW 12/4/16.
"Donald Trump taps into anger about U.S. misadventures in the world", CBC News 28/4/16

A wise farmer's creative math solution

Thanks to Agent 6 for sending along this example of solving a problem by the creative use of simple arithmetic. It's called "Farmer's Math", and it's proof positive that the "old math" which we geezers learned in grade school is better than the "new math" they teach today.

A farmer died leaving his 17 horses to his three sons. When they read the will they found the bequest set out as follows:

* My eldest son should get 1/2 (half) of my horses;

* My middle son should be given 1/3rd (one-third) of my horses;

* My youngest son should be given 1/9th (one-ninth) of my horses.

As it's impossible to divide 17 into half or 17 by 3 or 17 by 9, the three sons started to fight with each other. Finally they decided to go to a farmer friend who they considered quite smart, to see if he could work it out for them.

The farmer friend read the will patiently. After giving the problem due thought, he brought one of his own horses over and added it to the 17. That increased the total to 18 horses. Then he divided the horses according to their father's will.

* Half of 18 = 9. So he gave the eldest son 9 horses.

* 1/3rd of 18 = 6. So he gave the middle son 6 horses.

* 1/9th of 18 = 2. So he gave the youngest son 2 horses.

Adding up how many horses the sons now had, it appears that:

* Eldest son has 9.

* Middle son has 6.

* Youngest son has 2.

TOTAL number of horses = 17!

This left one horse over, so the farmer friend took his horse back to his farm. Problem solved!

Moral of the story: The secret to successful negotiation and problem-solving is to find the "18th horse", that is "the common ground". Once a person is able to find the 18th horse, the issue is resolved. At time it is difficult, but to reach a solution, the first step is to believe that there is a solution. If we think that there is no solution, we won't be able to find any! Wouldn't it be a good idea if all our politicians learned to do "farmer math"?!

Senator Duffy found not guilty, but is he "Honourable"?

It took over a year to do it, but a thick coat of whitewash has now been applied to the "Honourable" Michael Dennis Duffy, the Senator from Kanata [Prince Edward Island, according to the judge. Ed.], following his acquittal yesterday on 31 -- count `em, 31! -- charges of claiming expenses as a senator from Prince Edward Island on "travel status" in the national capital region, where he's actually lived for decades; claiming travel expenses as a parliamentarian while gallivanting around the country on personal or partisan business; funneling Senate money through private companies owned by a friend, and thereby avoiding Senate scrutiny in his dispersals; and accepting a bribe to repay his bad expenses once they came to light.

Mr. Justice Charles Vaillancourt astounded millions of Canadians yesterday by calling Senator Puffy an "honest man" whose conduct was "honest and reasonable". In a 308-page ruling which took the judge nearly six hours to read out, he gave the porcine solon as complete and thorough an exoneration as the Ol' Duff could have imagined in his wildest dreams.

Canucks sick of unelected party hacks gorging themselves at the Senate trough can be forgiven for wondering if the Duffy they came to know and despise was the same one Judge Vaillancourt saw in the courtroom, the one he described as a credible, hard-working senator (as former Prime Minister Steve Harper wrote on a photo introduced as an exhibit) who never padded expense claims, never ran away from questions about his residency, and sought the advice of Senate leaders and PM Harpoon himself, who all told him he was doing no wrong.

The judge's characterization of the obese sycophant was, in the words of Agent 17, enough to gag a maggot. The 31 charges were stripped of all credibility and dismissed in a complete (and sometime mocking) deconstruction of an incomplete and inept Crown case. The Senator broke no rules, Judge Vaillancourt said, because there were not rules to be broken. Some of his contracts were "unorthodox" and perhaps some of his travel could raise eyebrows, but the judge could not find Mr. Duffy was evading Senate oversight because there was no oversight in the first place.

If public money was spent foolishly or carelessly or on travel and other benefits of a personal nature, that was OK as long as Mr. Duffy included a bit of "Senate work" -- like fundraising for his party -- on his junkets. Besides, he never received any of the money personally. And, bottom line, Senator Duffy was (and still is) entitled to his entitlements.

Speaking on CBC-TV's "At Issue" panel last night, Chantal Hébert said that just because someone is not a criminal doesn't mean he is an ethical or honourable person. Just so. Having been convicted of exactly nothing, Mr. Duffy is entitled to take his extra-wide seat in the Senate once again, and be called -- or call himself -- "Honourable". But that doesn't mean anyone has to believe he is any of those nice things the judge called him. The honourable thing for him to do would be to retire to his "principal residence" in PEI. But will Mr. Duffy, who has the nerve of a canal horse, give up his place at the trough? Hah!

Note from Ed.: Full credit and a tip of the hat for the cartoon to Malcolm Mayes, whose fine work can be found in the Edmonton Journal.