TFIF.
Pull up a virtual stool, Shakers, and name your poison.
What's on your mind tonight?
The Virtual Bar Is Open
TFIF.
Pull up a virtual stool, Shakers, and name your poison.
What's on your mind tonight?
Saddam Will Be Executed Tonight
Supposedly. Witnesses are gathering in the Green Zone and footage of his crimes is being broadcast on television in preparation of the big event.
A top Iraqi official said Saddam will be executed before 10 p.m. EST Friday.Mmm, always good to show how things have changed by using the same accoutrements of death while executing their architect.
The Iraqi government readied all the necessary documents, including a "red card" — an execution order introduced during Saddam's dictatorship.
The physical transfer of Saddam from U.S. to Iraqi authorities was believed to be one of the last steps before he was to be hanged.And the last thing we'd want is to be blamed for causing trouble in the Middle East.
"We have agreed with the Americans that the handover will take place only a few minutes before he is executed," a senior Iraqi government official said on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak to the media.
…"The Americans want him to be hanged respectfully," [Najeeb al-Nueimi, a member of Saddam's legal team] said. If Saddam is humiliated publicly or his corpse ill-treated "that could cause an uprising and the Americans would be blamed," he said.
Make sure to stop by The Dark Wraith's place for another side of what, precisely, we're doing here. The comments thread is rather alarmingly cynical, even considering the usual disposition of its participants.
Texas Tornado
President Bush and first lady Laura Bush were moved to an armored vehicle on their ranch Friday when a tornado warning was issued in central Texas, the White House said.Reached for comment, President Bush was quoted as saying, "Dagnabbit! I was hopin' for a ternadah. Them things leave me all kinds of brush that needs clearing."
The vehicle was driven to a tornado shelter on the ranch, and the president, Mrs. Bush and their two dogs sat inside until the weather cleared, deputy White House press secretary Scott Stanzel said. They were never moved into the shelter, he said.
Also reached for comment, the troops said, "He's got an armored vehicle? What the fuck?"
I am somewhere between a snake and a mongoose…and a panther.
For Crimbo, I received from the residents of Parental Manor the first two seasons of The (American) Office on DVD, which I've spent inordinate amounts of time watching the past few days. I have a massive crush on Jim and Pam, whose love-charged friendship, forged in raging flames of shared silly, feels wonderfully familiar to me. And I am hopelessly mad for Steve Carell, who's the whole reason I tuned in in the first place. Everyone else on the show is fantastic, too—there's not a single character I don't adore—but I have a particular fondness for Dwight K. Schrute, a brilliantly realized archetype whom Rainn Wilson (the actor who plays him) describes so aptly as "a fascist nerd."
Everyone has known a Dwight K. Schrute, whose natural habitats are mid-level corporate administration, paint-ball courses, and condo associations. His bizarre combination of excruciating bombast and naïve ignorance makes him at once a first-class annoyance and a uniquely harassable target if you're up for that sort of thing. If you're not, you avoid him. Either way, you immediately feel sorry for his future children at any hint of his potential to reproduce. And while other coworkers, neighbors, association members, etc. will come and go leaving no lasting imprint upon your memory, you'll never forget your Dwight K. Schrute and will tell stories about him for years—and the only people who will believe he existed in precise measure as you describe are the people who have already met their own.
Or know him from a distance.
Anyhow, in honor of Dwight K. Schrute having brought me much laughter over the past few days, I shall borrow this tribute to his superior magnetism to honor him. Slainte Mhath, Dwight!
Quote of the Day
"You don't have to have a political doctorate in Political Science to realize it's never a good sign when you're outpolled by Lucifer." — Joe Scarborough, commenting on the AP poll in which Bush was named the "Top Villain of 2006."
Saddam Update
A judge has ordered that he is to be hanged by tomorrow.
Odd quote award: "Our respect for human rights requires us to execute him, and there will be no review or delay in carrying out the sentence." — Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
I understand what he means, but it still sounds weird.
Yuck
MSNBC is reporting that Saddam Hussein's sentence—death by hanging—will be carried out as early as today, and television execs are discussing how to cover it "tastefully," and whether that includes broadcasting it. Personally, I think we should have insisted he was put in a den with lions and made it available on pay-per-view. Hanging is so old school, you know? Kind of a ratings dud.
You know what's more worrying than everything George Orwell said coming true? When everything George Carlin said starts coming true.
The Magical Mystery Meme, Mr. Shakes Edition: The Reckoning
1) True. However, I neglected to tell you that the guy was very badly beaten, and had his arm in a cast. Don't fuck with the French police, people. That said, he was still a very big man and the five minutes the detectives were gone felt like a long time.
2) True.
3) False. Strange that everyone chose to place their lie in the third slot. Although alcohol did inspire me to have many weird and wonderful adventures back in the day, this particular debacle actually belongs to a friend of mine.
4) True. The boys and I had quite a summer, that year.
5) True. We asked Fox to put an announcement about the missing ring on their news ticker. They came around and interviewed us instead - it was a slow news day. We almost ended up on the morning chat show, but some big story broke and we were cancelled.
Thanks to everyone who played.
-------------------
Tagged by Tart. Four of these stories are true, and one is false. You have to guess which is false.
1) I was once robbed in my sleep by a homeless Frenchman. After his apprehension, the Gendarmes left me alone in a room with my 6'7" assailant while they went off for a cup of coffee and a croissant. One of the detectives left his sidearm on the table.
2) I once made a living selling goods door to door. Some of which were "hot," some not.
3) Once, after a heroic drunk, I crashed into a roundabout at a major intersection while cycling home at 3 in the morning. I awoke at noon the next day, prostrate on said roundabout, surrounded by traffic and sunburned down one side of my body.
4) Parties unknown once mailed a large shipment of narcotics to me by accident. My friends and I saw that it did not go to waste.
5) I lost Shakes' engagement ring two days before I was to propose to her. As a consequence of this I appeared on Fox News' local affiliate (seems that all the dummies end up there).
Question of the Day
What current elected office-holder, either in D.C. or in a state governorship, would you like to see run for president who probably won't? This could either be someone for whom you'd vote, or someone to run on the opposing ticket that you'd like to see run either because you're convinced they'd lose or because you could live with them if they won.
Uh Huh
Kudos to the AP for actually talking to soldiers in Iraq to get a rough gauge of their opinions on escalating the war. We were recently treated to multiple news reports about Gates meeting with troops who supported escalation without any exploration of whether that opinion was in any way representative or if instead they had been hand-picked for their views for propaganda purposes. It seems more likely it was the latter, so great job all who reported unskeptically!And here it is:
Many of the American soldiers trying to quell sectarian killings in Baghdad don't appear to be looking for reinforcements. They say a surge in troop levels some people are calling for is a bad idea.There's much more at the link.
…In dozens of interviews with soldiers of the Army's 5th Battalion, 20th Infantry Regiment as they patrolled the streets of eastern Baghdad, many said the Iraqi capital is embroiled in civil warfare between majority Shiite Muslims and Sunni Arabs that no number of American troops can stop.
Others insisted current troop levels are sufficient and said any increase in U.S. presence should focus on training Iraqi forces, not combat.
But their more troubling worry was that dispatching a new wave of soldiers would result in more U.S. casualties, and some questioned whether an increasingly muddled American mission in Baghdad is worth putting more lives on the line.
Spc. Don Roberts, who was stationed in Baghdad in 2004, said the situation had gotten worse because of increasing violence between Shiites and Sunnis.
"I don't know what could help at this point," said Roberts, 22, of Paonia, Colo. "What would more guys do? We can't pick sides. It's almost like we have to watch them kill each other, then ask questions."
Call me crazy, but I've always been under the impression that, much like any other large group of people, "the military" is not monolithic, and there's probably a wide spectrum of views. Thusly, I'm suspicious of anyone who purports to speak "for the troops" with a single opinion, but I guess that's a radical notion for the "real journalists" who breathlessly reported the administration's propaganda, as per usual.
They Could Be Contenders
New piece at The Guardian's Comment is Free, which is a "cut-out-and-keep guide to the field" of presidential wannabes at this point. I don't think I've provided much information that most American political junkies around here don't already know, but check out the comments from conservatives who are pissed that I've accused the GOP (and specifically Rudy Giuliani) of exploiting 9/11. Ouch. Looks like I hit a nerve!
Ford Disagreed with Bush on Iraq
Everyone seems to be talking about recently deceased former President Ford's "embargoed interview" with Bob Woodward from July 2004 in which he said the Iraq war was not justified and that he "'very strongly' disagreed with the current president's justifications for invading Iraq and said he would have pushed alternatives, such as sanctions, much more vigorously."
"Rumsfeld and Cheney and the president made a big mistake in justifying going into the war in Iraq. They put the emphasis on weapons of mass destruction," Ford said. "And now, I've never publicly said I thought they made a mistake, but I felt very strongly it was an error in how they should justify what they were going to do."Maybe it would have made absolutely no difference if Ford had said this shit publicly instead of telling Woodward it could only be published upon his death. Then again, maybe it would have. It would have been nice if we'd had the chance to find out. What I'm not sure I understand is why Ford felt compelled to keep his thoughts private. Was he keen to protect himself against criticism, to protect the GOP, to protect Bush? None of the above sound to my sensibilities like justifiable reasons to keep one's mouth shut if there's even the slimmest of chances that speaking up could avert a war—a war which has left hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead or displaced and has seen more soldiers die than the number of people killed on 9/11.
…"Well, I can understand the theory of wanting to free people," Ford said, referring to Bush's assertion that the United States has a "duty to free people." But the former president said he was skeptical "whether you can detach that from the obligation number one, of what's in our national interest." He added: "And I just don't think we should go hellfire damnation around the globe freeing people, unless it is directly related to our own national security."
I've really no understanding nor admiration for anyone who is willing to let other people be courageous and risk death so that they can be cowards and avoid risking anything.
John Edwards for President
Ezra was there for the announcement of his candidacy and covers it here. He says "Edwards seemed more interested in leading a movement," and I hope he does. It's been a long time since someone suggested that service and sacrifice was the patriotic duty of every citizen, not just those in the military. People want something to care about besides themselves, but most are too lazy to find it on their own. They need a leader, who will offer them a direction and inspire them with his or her passion. Maybe Edwards' time has come...
Dennis the Dinosaur
Dennis Prager just can't help himself. First, he went off on one about newly-elected Congressman Keith Ellison being sworn into office on a Quran, claiming the act "undermines American civilization" and accusing Ellison of being unfit to serve in Congress if he would not swear on a Bible. Then, when people had the temerity to criticize him for holding such an absurd position, Prager blamed Ellison for the controversy: "[I]t was Keith Ellison who raised the entire issue of taking an oath on a Koran rather than a Bible. He did not make his announcement in the hopes that it would be ignored but to make a statement. I was responding to that statement. Critics who are unhappy with it becoming an issue should direct their ire at Mr. Ellison."
His latest column goes one step yet further, saying the "Culture War" is about the Bible's authority, and its two sides are delineated by the answer to this question: "Does the person believe in the divinity and authority of the Five Books of Moses, the first five books of the Bible, known as the Torah?"
[Christians and Jews, who do believe in the divinity of the Torah] line up together on virtually every major social/moral issue.It's interesting that Prager used "capital punishment for murder" as an example for his (presumably non-comprehensive) list of "major social/moral issues" instead of, say, "murder." But just saying "murder" would have complicated his point a bit, considering that most secular progressives are, ya know, against murder, too. In fact, on the most basic "social/moral issues," there's not much disagreement among decent people, irrespective of their politics or religiosity—murder, rape, thievery, dishonesty, exploitation, bullying…there's a whole list of social and moral issues that are both far simpler and more immediate to most people's lives than "a willingness to criticize the moral state of Islamic societies." (Which itself references a bullshit dichotomy anyway, and says less about anyone's morality than about Prager and his peeps' contempt for those unwilling to make sweeping generalizations about whole societies.)
Name the issue: same-sex marriage; the morality of medically unnecessary abortions; capital punishment for murder; the willingness to label certain actions, regimes, even people "evil"; skepticism regarding the United Nations and the World Court; strong support for Israel; or a willingness to criticize the moral state of Islamic societies. While there are exceptions -- there are, for example, secular conservatives who share the Bible-believers' social views -- belief in a God-based authority of the Torah is as close to a predictable dividing line as exists.
…This divide explains why the wrath of the Left has fallen on those of us who lament the exclusion of the Bible at a ceremonial swearing-in of an American congressman. The Left wants to see that book dethroned. And that, in a nutshell, is what the present civil war is about.
There are also some "major social/moral issues" Prager doesn't mention at all, like racism, sexism, homophobia (which includes discrimination beyond, simply, "same-sex marriage"), poverty, healthcare, labor rights, and environmental stewardship, just for a start, where you'll find that it's progressives (secular or religious) who seek to lift those suffering out of their torment and provide equality, opportunity, health, and compassion. It's no wonder Prager left those off his list, too. Nowadays it's not as acceptable to overtly defend segregation, the patriarchy, and social Darwinism, so best not to mention those "social/moral issues" at all, unless within an oblique reference to protecting tradition.
In the end, I don't totally disagree with Prager's conclusion that "the present civil war" (my word, conservatives love their hyperbolic warfare imagery, don't they?) centers around a conflict over the use of the Bible—although I certainly wouldn't define it the same way. I don't see progressives' resistance to the idea that everyone should be required to swear on the Bible as hostile to either the Bible or those who believe in it, but the only acceptable position to be held by anyone who claims to support religious freedom. And I don't see Prager et. al.'s insistence on the Bible's use at swearing-in ceremonies as indicative of the reverence he asserts, but instead just another tiresome example of their determination to use it as both sword and shield, as they wield (their interpretation of) its precepts to attack those they dislike and then deflect condemnation by invoking sacred sanction of their institutional discrimination. In the end, progressives are basically assuming the position of our nation's Founders, who saw fit to include in our Constitution a clause stating that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States" (Article VI, Section 3), and Prager is just emitting more of the hallmark petulant whimpering that serves as the calling card of the doomed heirs of undeserved privilege, mourning their slow but inevitable extinction.
