Saddam Hussein's Dead

Undead Undead Undead.

This is going to be an annoying week coming up. We are going to get a bunch of articles by Conservatives congratulating themselves on ridding the world of this murderous tyrant and castigating Liberals for not wanting to rid the world of the murderous tyrant. So that will be fun.

Juan Cole has an interesting article on the death over at Salon, in which he talks about how the Bush Administration and the new Iraqi administration may have bungled this (at least from the point of view that it would be better to avoid sectarian violence).

The tribunal also had a unique sense of timing when choosing the day for Saddam's hanging. It was a slap in the face to Sunni Arabs. This weekend marks Eid al-Adha, the Holy Day of Sacrifice, on which Muslims commemorate the willingness of Abraham to sacrifice his son for God. Shiites celebrate it Sunday. Sunnis celebrate it Saturday –- and Iraqi law forbids executing the condemned on a major holiday. Hanging Saddam on Saturday was perceived by Sunni Arabs as the act of a Shiite government that had accepted the Shiite ritual calendar.

The timing also allowed Saddam, in his farewell address to Iraq, to pose as a “sacrifice” for his nation, an explicit reference to Eid al-Adha.

So that's nice. Of course some people in this process might be in favor of sectarian violence (at least until their side wins) and others, presumably, just don't care.

David Limbaugh Condemns the Democrats for Being Right

No, seriously. He's upset that Democrats were apparently correct in the run up to the Iraq war, and their accuracy during the run up to the Iraq war proves that they don't have what it takes to deal with Iran.

Remember that Democrats were the last to believe (and probably never did believe) we should take action against Saddam Hussein. They opposed the war until the last minute, when they were coerced, through public opinion, to support the war resolution.

It's easy to dismiss their appeasement mindset now since we haven't confirmed Saddam had new stockpiles of WMD and because we've had so much difficulty in the post-regime-change phase of the war. But don't forget that Democrats were initially opposed to the war even when they were thoroughly convinced Saddam had WMD and was pursuing more .

Let's see do we have any lies? Yes. Democrats obviously favored taking action against Saddam Hussein, they just felt that that action didn't need to be a mindless rush to war. Distortions? We've had the country and scoured it for several years now - if there were stockpiles of WMD we would have found them, dimwit.

Finally how many Americans today believe that Bush made the right call on Iraq? Does Limbaugh really want to hold up Iraq as an example of how we need to trust Republicans on how to handle Iran?

Website Update

This is been a more difficult than normal holiday season because I have found out that I am being moved across town work wise. Also I made a mistake in publishing this blog and lost a lot of my format. Hence all the madness last week, and the very mild design today (and the total lack of update over at Seventy Sketches).

All that is behind me (well sort of). This weekend I will be updating this websites look, and if you have any recommendations, by all means put them in the comments section. And hopefully we can enter the new year meeting all of your blogging needs. Or at least a certain percentage of them.

Godless

That's the song I happen to be listening too, off of The Dandy Warhols' "Thirteen Tales from Urban Bohemia." Good song. Eclipsed by "Bohemian Like You," of course, but still a nice album opening.

I suppose it could tie into the subject of this post, one of the more bombastic "War on Christmas" articles I've had the Misfortune to read, by Emmett Tyrell.

Ah, the Christmas season is about over, and soon I shall be liberated from the alarm I experience every time some benevolent authoritarians accosts me with the line "have a happy holiday." . . . These are the moralists who somehow always manage simultaneously to identify iniquity of one sort or another in conventional behavior and stamp it out good and hard. Some years ago they discovered cruelty and intolerance laden in the term "Merry Christmas," and now the term is gone or nearly gone.

It has been replaced with "happy holiday," and anyone who stands by the term "Merry Christmas" is immediately marked down as a provocateur, probably a bigot and possibly a cigarette smoker. At this time of year the use of the term "Merry Christmas" is viewed by the politically correct as a rude and aggressive act. Oddly enough it just might be by now. The politically correct have an inordinate influence over our language and manners. They have lured enough politically innocent Americans to their view that "Merry Christmas" is indeed a term of controversy and a consensus has probably formed. "Merry Christmas" is at least bad manners.

Laughable, really. I mean there's barely any point to refuting this, because if you believe this is what is happening, you are so deluded as to make rational discourse pointless. I might as well call you an artichoke and be done with it.

But I will point out one niggling point. The War on Christmas is not being fought by the hated mavans of political correctness; it's being fought by right wing pundits, who want to convince Christians that they are being persecuted because it suits their political ambitions (and cause writing articles of this strip is dead easy, and many of them are very lazy).

Beware of Republicans Bearing Gifts

The recent election indicated, to those with brains, that America may not be as rock ribbed conservative as some of our friends on the right would like us to believe. This revelation has cracked the worldview of many conservatives. Some paint fantastical mythologies in which right wing militias take over. Others, of a more practical bent, want to give advice to the Democratic Party.

One such advice giver is Donald Lambro. His advice? Remember that America is Rock-Ribbed conservative.

Yeah, apparently he slept through the last election.

He also apparently thinks that Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama are far leftists. It's hard to tell what Obama is exactly, but certainly there's just as much evidence that he's a centrist as there is that he's a liberal. With Hillary Clinton though, the evidence is clear - she's a moderate liberal at best. I think Mr. Lambro's confusion comes from where he stands on the left right spectrum. The further right one moves on that spectrum, the more even moderate liberals look like crazed extremists.

I remember Rush Limbaugh saying being a proud Democrat was equal to being a liberal extremist. I guess a moderate liberal would have to be an ashamed Democrat.

Anyway I'd look for a lot of these articles over the next two years; Republicans love to give the Democrats advice. But when evaluating that advice, I'd advise you to consider the source.

Now for something completely different

Here's an article at Townhall that's not about war. Well it is about war. But not the war on Liberals. It's on the Iraq war and the Vietnam war.

Rich Lowry points out that one of the big lessons conservatives have taken from the Vietnam war may not be accurate. Specifically he references that the civilian leaders over managed the Vietnam war and should have left things up to the Generals.

The true lesson of Vietnam is that the civilian leadership should exercise close supervision of the military and ensure that, when fighting an insurgency, it acts in ways that don't come naturally to a U.S. Army that is most comfortable when smashing a conventional enemy.

He makes a pretty convincing argument - but of course it helps that this war is pretty much entirely a Conservative war. It's hard for them to blame this war on the civilian leadership when they are the civilian leadership.

That said the article is pretty good and worth reading, even if I totally disagree with Lowry's conclusions (we should send a bunch more troops to Iraq).

Black Hole Sun

Dennis Prager also sees a war brewing between Conservatives and Liberals, although he sees it as a culture war. Culture war is conservative slang for "We wish we could start a real war over this, but we're cowards, so we are going to stick to a war of words." In this case, Dennis Prager believes that the war is over the divinity of the Bible; specifically the Torah.

The Torah is the first five books of the Bible, i.e. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Carl. No just kidding. The last book in that set is Deutoronomy. Leviticus is the most boring, and the one that calls for you to kill your kids if they are disrespectful. Genesis is the one that most people get to because it contains a lot of the classic bible stories. Exodus has the Ten Commandments and the Plagues.

I just wrote that bit because of course Mr. Prager believes that you can't be a Liberal and reverence or even know about the Torah.

What matters is not whether people believe in God but what text, if any, they believe to be divine. Those who believe that He has spoken through a given text will generally think differently from those who believe that no text is divine. Such people will usually get their values from other texts, or more likely from their conscience and heart.

Of course this implies that Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Atheists, and other believers who don't happen to follow the Torah line up automatically on the wrong side of the Cultural war. But of course I believe in the Torah (although I think you have to read it through the lens of the New Testament (for example, considering the Prodigal Son as more important than the suggestion that you off your disobedient children)), but I'm also on the opposite side of the cultural divide. So I guess it's not so much that you believe it is divine, you also have to believe a specific interpretation of it.

Dennis Prager has already made it clear what he's looking for with his article on the Second Civil War. We'll have to see if he gets his way. But Republicans have believed they were dominent for a long time, and now that the recent midterms have hinted that they may not be, they are getting a little angry. And a little violent, at least in their rhetoric.

The Revolution

Some conservatives fantasize about revolution as much as far leftists these days. Douglas MacKinnon has written a book called America's Last Days fictionalizing this fantasy, and Townhall gave him room to write about his book. He's surprised that anybody would be critical of a book in which a conservative militia takes over America (yeah, who could have seen that reaction coming). But he says that his book explains why such a revolution is plausible and quotes two passages from his book. Here's a bit of one of them.

"How did we get this way, John? Why are they forcing us to do this terrible thing?"

"Why did the Roman Empire crumble, sir? Complacency, ignorance and lack of a moral compass. They lost it all because they took the things that really count for granted. They became fat, lazy, and sinful. They were overcome by lust, greed and a gradual lowering of standards. The United States of today is exactly the same. We have lost our moral compass. Our country has become more classist, elitist and separatist. Political correctness prevents us from targeting the enemy within our own borders who harbor the very Al Qaida terrorists who attacked us. We can’t protect our own borders with Mexico and Canada. In a country that is over eighty-five percent Christian, those very same Christians can no longer say 'Merry Christmas,' and can barely celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ. We’re on the verge of a race war, our inner-cities are on the brink of collapse, our educational system is a joke, teachers are not held accountable, affirmative action has destroyed trust and self-esteem, the growing rich are walling themselves off from the ninety-five percent of other Americans, our politicians are all corrupt, stupid, taking bribes, or shunned by the few honest ones.

The Second American Civil War indeed. Let's start stringing up liberals, that'll solve America's problems.

While the author claims that this is simply a work of fiction, he ends by saying that those few who care about America (i.e. have his opinion on political matters) are running out of options and ends with "Beware the Revolution."

Part of me wants to be amused at the fantasy (and at the idea that our politicians are "corrupt, stupid, taking bribes, or shunned by the few honest ones." I think what the author meant to say is "corrupt, stupid, taking bribes, or shunned for being one of the few honest ones." But what do I know?). Mostly it just depresses me. Because the fact that such sentiment exists and the fact that it's encouraged by Townhall, makes the possibility of violence plausible. I doubt there will be a successful revolution, but some nutcases might well read this sort of fantasy and decide to pitch in.

My Platform

Mike S. Adams is considering a run for the presidency, and has written an article about a big new entitlement program he's proposing.

So, clearly, if elected president, I must wage my war on liberalism with the goal of somehow getting these liberals to listen to what I'm saying. That is why I plan to provide (at government expense) an unlimited supply of Murine Ear Wax Removal Drops. This Carbamide Peroxide Ear Wax Removal Aid will be given to every man, woman, and child in America upon request. We will even give them to illegal aliens if our budget permits.

I predict that when these stubborn liberals get the wax out of their ears, they will subsequently be able to pull the corn cobs out of their (backsides).

. . . Whoever came up with such a grand idea clearly deserves to be President. I thank you in advance for your vote.

Well first of all I think it's nice for a man wanting to be President of the United States to describe himself as at war with half of us. But let that slide, because I hav even more visionary program. How is it more visionary? It's much cheaper for one.

Let's give Mike S. Adams a hug.

It's clear that poor Mr. Adams feels picked on for his conservative opinions - he feels persecuted like he doesn't have any friends. Well we need to change that! A daily hug will help poor Mr. Adams feel more secure and be less inclined to see enemies everywhere. And the price of paying a designated hugger to hug Mr. Adams would be far less than his ear drop solution.

Oh and I'm not interested in the presidency, although I can see why you might think I'd be a good candidate.

Everything changed and then it changed again

This is what we will be using for the next week, as I work up the new format.

Hillary in '08

I'm not keen on Hillary in '08. I think her candidency will galvanize the Republicans and discourage Liberals, who see her (rightly) as a moderate Democrat at best who's done little to deserve her reputation as a far-leftist. That said I'm not sure how to take this article over at Townhall, by Donald Lambro.

He basically argues that there are some real questions about how far Hillary can go. Sure she's got quite a war chest, but that doesn't always translate into victory in the primaries. Another question is how interesting her story is really going to be. She's a well known public figure and she's been on the public stage for years.

"I think the question is, as Clinton continues to grow her support, has she already topped off? Has she already reached her maximum level of support in the Democratic primaries?" said Bud Jackson, a Democratic media consultant. Jackson, who produced a TV video touting Sen. Barack Obama's possible candidacy for the "Draft Obama" committee, said that, although Obama "is far less known than Hillary, he still has room to grow his support."

It's a fair question. I'd say both Obama and Edwards have room to grow - but does Hillary? Hard to say.

At any rate we have some two years to hash this out, so that gives us something to look forward to.

The Hulk

In Defenders 22 Hulk made some trenchant comments about racism in America, which I think resonate even today.





I chose to omit the bit where Dr. Strange says "You know, maybe it would be better if I moved out of Greenwich Village and into a gated community." I'm a fair-minded person.

Reality is what Reality does

There do seem to be a run of Conservatives complaining about how stupid we all are. Tony Blankley's latest article is about the democratization of information and how this is a bad thing.

How different, functionally, is the man or woman of 2006 who mentally checks out from the chaos of the world's events and news to that European villager of 1400 who isn't sure who his king is, what he looks like, or what he is doing?

Well, one difference is that today, the people -- whether ignorant or informed, whether wise or foolish -- can strongly influence the state actions of their country. In the 14th Century, kings and princes were free to act unhindered by a public opinion that didn't exist -- although the contingency of riots, rebellions, and revolutions usually hovered at the back of kingly minds.

Of course the sovereignty of the people has -- and I hope will continue to be -- the benefactor of their happiness and dignity. But in the technologically driven growing chaos of public information overload and distortion, the leader must -- by force of mind, word, image and personality -- define for the public some semblance of objective reality. As never before, the leader who fails in that mission will fail in his office.

This is an interesting complaint because Mr. Blankley has been largely supportive of President Bush who, at first glance, would seem to have failed at this task.

President Bush and his advisors claimed we would find Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. That proved not to be the case.

President Bush and his advisors claimed that we would find operational ties between Sadddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. Again that didn't pan out.

President Bush and his advisors claimed we'd be welcomed as liberators. 0 for 3 so far.

OF course I don't want to make it seem like President Bush is wrong all the time. Just when he speaks.

Anyway I tend to agree with Tony Blankley that we do need to focus on objective reality, but I don't think the way to do that is by supporting an administration that believes it can define the objective reality as it sees fit.

Your Number #1

Time's person of the year is, well, everybody. And Ben Shapiro is annoyed at that. He's so angry that people he doesn't like get the nod. People like drunk girls with webcams and, well, me.

Congratulations, rambling drunk college girl with a Webcam. You're changing the world with your profile on MySpace. Sure, those photos will come back to haunt you when you go job-searching, let alone when your future children Google you. But revel in the fact that you are Time's Person of the Year.

. . . Three cheers for Democratic Underground posters, shaking things up with your regular psychotic breakdowns. Without you, we'd never know about the threat of President-select Smirky Chimp Bushitler.

Psychotic breakdowns eh? I think saying mean things about President Bush doesn't quite qualify as a psychotic breakdown. But perhaps those charming lads at Free Republic, one of whom turned out to be guilty of causing the Anthrax scare, would know better than me.

If you are wondering who Make me a Commentator!!!'s person of the year is, once again it's me. I've won four years in a row, which is pretty impressive, you have to admit.

Did you know?

If you click on the recent posts along the right there you can see the recent types of templates we've used.

Only You Can Prevent Forest Fires

But why would you want to?

Actually years ago I came up with a simple foolproof way to keep myself from setting forest fires. I rarely if ever go to the forest. Because of this I have not set a forest fire since 1987.

Yeah me.

Assimilation

I gave up on that last skin quick, didn't I?

Henry Edmonson has just written an article entitled "It's all about assimilation." Apparently these Borg chaps have a plan that will make things better for all of us. No actually it's about . . . well a few things. It starts out being about how we should teach those Mexicans to learn English, but then shifts gears and complains about how college students aren't as well informed as they should be.

Thus we have the bizarre situation today in which students are today coached to think "critically" - in the absence of civic and historical knowledge. This means that they have little to think critically about. Anyone who doubts that this is the case need only listen to students-high school or college-debate important current events. They demonstrate plenty of passion, but a dearth of information.

It's fun to be lectured about passion without information by Conservatives. I mean these are the folks who brought us such nuggets as;

We will be greeted as liberators in Iraq.

We can't wait for the smoking gun to appear in the form of a mushroom cloud.

The Social Security Trust Fund doesn't exist.

And so on and so forth. Perhaps it's cynical to assume that Mr. Edmonson only wants a certain type of information taught to America's children, but frankly I'm pretty cynical these days.

Hmmmmmm

This one has no titles either - I guess for certain types of blogs they aren't really necessary - like if this blog were just a review of my life, I suspect I wouldn't bother with them. Every post would be about me and everyone would have about the same point of view. The words might change but the content of the words wouldn't - reading one post of my runon sentance life would be about the same as any of the other posts. Which is why I write about politics and not my life.

This one is less girly, but not by too much.

Cruel and Unusual

Cal Thomas's latest article is about cruel and unusual punishment. Essentially he feels that we should be a little less strict in defining what cruel and unusual means. He references a recent case in California in which it more than 30 minutes for a person to die after receiving a lethal injection. Apparently he's just fine with that. After all who should we as society worry about, murderers or victims?

Cal Thomas does not properly under the concept of spheres of influence. We might wish to prevent all murders and save all victims (I certainly would) but we lack the power to do so (or, to be more specific, in order to accomplish this we would have to abandon most of our ideals, such as they are). We do, on the other hand, have control over how humanely or cruelly we execute those we have decided to put to death. That is within our sphere of influence as a society. And things within our sphere of influence take priority over things that our outside of it. We must tend to our gardens.

Channeling Rush Limbaugh

The current set up won't last long because there are not titles. Anyway I just read an article at Salon about an organization being set up to push for a more nuanced relationship with Israel. In brief, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee is the current big dog representing Israel's interests in Washington. And when I say Israel's interests I mean the interests of Israel Right Wing who are not keen on any compromise (but are fine with blowing the hell out of the Palestinians). However, recent electoral events have shown that American Jews are not as keen on the blow them all up approach. So a new organization is forming to push a more moderate path.

Levy, the former Barak advisor, explained that the movement is "coming from a place where inside the mainstream Jewish community, people are increasingly confused about something that describes itself as pro-Israel, but is so out of sync with what they believe are good politics for the U.S. or Israel."

"The right-wing orientation in the community is losing people by the droves, particularly young people," M.J. Rosenberg of the Israel Policy Forum, one of the main groups involved, added. "Most U.S. Jews support peace in the Middle East, and don't want to shoot down doves anytime they appear."

This is all well and good. Frankly it seems pretty sensible. But even if I didn't agree, I wouldn't criticize people who want to fight for what they think is best for Israel.

I'd leave that to Rush Limbaugh.

I can hear him now. "My fellow Americans, George Soros is organizing a new group of mushy-headed intellectuals an soft headed liberals to push America away from our support of Israel. I'd like to suggest a name for this group. Jews against Israel. Cause that's what they are. They are a bunch of people, most of them Jewish, who want to see Israel wiped off the map. I know that's not what they are saying they want; but that's what the result of them pushing Israel to be kinder and gentler will be. When will people learn that you don't win wars by talking by negotiating. You win wars by winning wars. You get peace by defeating your enemies. If Israel is going to have peace with the Palestinians it needs to defeat them."

Thank goodness Rush's power is pretty much confined to his mind and the poor shlubs who work for him.