Where Sam doesn't play anymore ...Rick's Cafe Americain

...that war can be unpredictable and that occupying a country/a populace can be a real bitch—which is exactly why a nation should not initiate war cavalierly.  Further, history has taught us that failure to manage the conquest of an opponent can result in an extended, expensive and counter productive occupation.  Consequently, if the decision is made to initiate war, a wise nation must make that decision committed to do what is necessary to win—otherwise, that nation should not go to war.  If Vietnam taught us anything, it should have taught us this.

The fault of this adminstration, a fault that I do not believe can be excused, was that they were not prepared to do everything necessary.  Specifically, they were not prepared to deal with a very foreeseable post-invasion scenario—chaos.

That is inexcusable.  I will grant, that prior to invasion there were reasons to believe that after defeating Saddam, it might be possible to keep Iraq’s institutions of governance in order, resulting in a relatively peaceful transition.  Banking on that scenario occuring, however, is profoundly stupid and incompetent.  Anyone who has studied human conflict and occupation could have told you, pre-invasion, that Iraq falling into chaos post invasion was a possible option (and an option that might increase in likelihood in inverse proportion to the number of occupying troops).  Nor would it have taken a genius to speculate that foreign fighters/terrorists might spill across porous borders to try and disrupt American forces. 

Now, someone might say in response, “but it would not have politically viable in the U.S. to send a massive invasion force along the lines many experts recommend” (3-400,000 troops).  And there you have it.  If we are not prepared to do what is necessary (or have not built a large enough coalition), we should not be initiating a war, unless we have no other choice in the matter.  And there were plenty of other choices.

This administration took this nation to war either (1) hoping a fairly rosy post invasion scenario would play out; or (2) failing to understand that chaos could result (which, if true, is simply incompetent).  Assuming #1, an adminstration willing to roll those dice does not deserve the opportunity to hold the dice a second time. 

First stop, Fox News.  Here’s the good word for today: Fallujah Talks On Hold; Car Bomb Kills Six.  Kind of a downer, but then I saw that Zarqawi has pledged allegiance to bin Laden.  Wonderful!!  How refreshing to get a fair and balanced view of Iraq!  Also, Fox brought me news of our vaunted coalition and the tremendous international support that George W. Bush has gathered in Iraq!  Yes, you can read all about it in “UK: Troops Not Going to Baghdad".  Oddly, no mention was made of Poland.

Still, maybe today was just a bad day in Iraq.  I searched the archive, but it was just more of the same.  The cops we’re training are getting killed, our own guys are getting killed, and members of the military and their families say the Bush administration underestimated the number of troops needed in Iraq.  Wow, I guess the Liberal Media Borg have finally assimilated Rupert Murdoch!

Undaunted, I went to the one place I knew I could count on to give me the unvarnished truth about Iraq: the White House.

OK, are you done laughing?  Because really, it shouldn’t be funny.

Anyway, it turns out the White House has a whole section of their website devoted to Iraq.  Seeing as how this is the perfect place to disseminate all the good news about Iraq the President claims isn’t being reported by the mainstream media, I was sure I’d hit a goldmine.  I went directly to the “News” section, and was surprised to see nothing more than a list of public statements made by the President (and every once in a while his staff) about Iraq.  Is this meant to indicate that the only “news” of note on Iraq has been that the President talks about it, or are we to believe that all the relevant “news” about Iraq is contained in the President’s statements?  I ask because most of what he says is pretty nonspecific, and a lot of it is just him complaining about the media focusing on the bad stuff.

So where is the good stuff?  Well, I had hardly exhausted the White House’s Iraq page, so I kept looking, clicking on a link to something called the “Iraq Liberation Update", and eagerly clicked on it.  Surely this would be a detailed account of the progress we have made in Iraq, and proof of our unwavering commitment to the Iraqi people and the cause of Iraqi freedom.  What I found was a whole list of quotes, many of which contained positive sentiments, if not exactly good news, and some of which actually contained good news—or at least references to good news.  I was somewhat encouraged, until I realized that the entries stop in December of 2003.  Has there been no good news in the past ten months, or did the White House just stop caring?

Then I clicked on a link called “100 Days of Progress in Iraq", but this turned out to be a series of Top Ten lists from August of 2003.  Maybe the President was going to be guest-hosting for Letterman?  A bit exasperated, I clicked on the Iraqi Fact of The Day.  Apparently the last day the Iraqis had facts was June 29, 2004.  Which is when I realized what the problem was—I was still thinking in terms of “facts”, and “reality”!!!  How anachronistic!

As the White House website clearly shows, the true liberation of the Iraqi people came on or about June 30, 2004—the first day on which they were able to exist entirely free from the oppressive burden of facts!  As the last four years have shown us, what many of us liberals still think of as “Democracy” is merely the larval stage of true freedom: liberation from the shackles of “fact” and the burdens of “reality”—the transendence of Empire.  As one of George W. Bush’s senior advisors put it:

We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.’

Frère Jacques, dormez vous?

Paul Begala’s apparent inability to understand Stewart’s criticism was vexing. He (and to a lesser extent, Tucker Carlson) seemed to think that Stewart thought that they were too “tough” on their guests.  Stewart’s criticism is precisely the opposite.

The “tough questions” aren’t meant to be answered; the entire premise is a charade. The point of a show like Crossfire is to watch the shouting, not to resolve issues. Begala and Carlson spoke of “debate,” but shouting “Yes” and “No” isn’t a debate. Begala defended “spin” as an attempt by sincere people to convince people of their views, but Stewart promptly called bullshit on that also.  Sincere belief is “We need to bring democracy to Iraq to stabilize the Middle East and protect America.” Spin is “We have organized an international coalition to do so.” Begala has spent so much time as a spin coordinator that he doesn’t know the difference.

Tucker Carlson is even worse.  I happen to be in the middle of reading his autobiography, which is intermittently amusing, and it almost predisposes me to liking him. Not anymore. His version of “tough questions” is to ask the host of a parody talk show why he didn’t grill Kerry.

Jon Stewart didn’t grill Ralph Reed, Bill O’Reilly, some official high in the Bush campaign food chain who’s name I don’t know, Pat Buchanan or Vin Diesel. Grilling guests just isn’t what the Daily Show is about. Maybe it should be when political guests are on, but it isn’t. The Daily Show is simply a place for guests to speak to a specific audience. Maybe Martha Stewart should have given up her Today show spot when she was indicted for securities fraud, but the only thing more ridiculous than Martha “focusing on her salad” was the idea that Matt Lauer or Katie Couric would do a hard hitting interview. Expecting hard hitting journalism from a Daily Show interview is a similar offense.

Carlson’s frustration boiled over when he criticised Stewart for not being “funny” enough. Stewart said “I’m not going to be your monkey,” which was an almost perfect answer. He could have perfectly summed up his point if he had said “When you come on my show, we can be funny. This is a news show on CNN. Treat your audience with respect and apologize to them for wasting their time and rotting their minds.”

It warmed my heart when Stewart called Carlson a dick.

Today I have received (so far) no less than four identical e-mails from a company calling itself “ALL-IN” and offering their product—a dinky rubber bracelet that says “ALL-IN” on it.  This ordinarily would just be some really annoying spam from people with an incredibly lame product.  Except that they are seeking to capitalize on Lance Armstrong’s efforts to raise money and awareness in the fight against cancer.  Their marketing gimmick? “Just Like The Lance Armstrong “LIVESTRONG” Bracelets, only for POKER PLAYERS!!!”.  and Oh, and all the money goes into our crass, cynical, greedy little pockets.  Here’s another one that made me cringe: “Made famouse by lance Armstrong’s “WEAR YELLOW” campaine and the “LIVESTRONG” bracelet, the “ALL-IN” Bracelet is sweeping the Poker World!”

Help strike a blow against spam, stupid products, greedy bastards, and cancer, all at the same time.  These “ALL-IN” bracelets are going for $3.  Please, go to Lance Armstrong’s site and donate $3 (or more!) to the Livestrong foundation.  Then, send an e-mail to info@allinbracelets.com telling them to stop harrassing poker bloggers while exploiting charitable endeavors for personal gain.  You might also mention what a stupid idea their product is in the first place.

Ugarte’s addendum

If you are interested in other liveblogging of the debates, check out On The Third Hand, which has a list of livebloggers including our friend and nemesis Karol.

I added Karol’s site, Alarming News, to the Usual Suspects blogroll.  She will be placed in her proper alphabetic place in the blogroll on November 3, when she can do no more harm.

Or when she gives Rick’s double links because of our bi-coastal nature.   I apologize for the emoticon.

There were two comics tonight that the crowd really liked.  Mike Worthington has been doing comedy for a while and is a lawyer at Allstate for his day job. He has a tight set. His jokes are rapid fire without feeling rushed. The crowd loved his routine. That’s not really a surprise: he taped a segment for BET’s Comic View (which appears not to have a website) that is going to air in November.

I was the other one.

I had a great set tonight.  I did new material about the debates, some reworked material about the Democratic and Republican conventions (the jokes as originally written aren’t fresh anymore) and a bit on Spider-Man that I’ll still be able to tell even after Spider-Man 5 comes out.  The crowd ate it up.  More than I have in a while, I killed tonight.

I had a lot of strangers come up to me while I was standing in the wings to tell me that they thought I should win. Nixma came out to the show and he was in my corner also. Still, I expected Mike to win.

They essentially held the audience hostage for the professional show that followed the Funny Lawyer contest before they gave us the results.  Coming in third place was a woman who competed in both of my preliminary rounds.  Both times I was horrified that she moved on to the next round. She did the exact same set tonight and was no better.  Second place was a guy who was decent enough, but really just not very inspiring.  I was shocked.  I figured that Mike may have been disqualified for going over time (he did) because there was no other explanation for… First place: Mike Worthington.

I was shocked. Shocked, stunned, outraged. I know that I shouldn’t get worked up. I know that it doesn’t reflect well on me that I am being a very poor loser. Still, I know that there were only two comics in the room tonight. One of them came in first place, and the other didn’t place at all.

Zinester told me that the contest doesn’t matter. What matters is all of the people - friends and strangers - that thought I got deserved to win. What matters is that I know how well the set went. What matters is that I know that my material is strong enough to make a room full of strangers laugh. What matters is that when I perform the same material in a non-contest situation and get the same response, I will feel great - and I won’t need to look for validation from a judge.

She’s right. Is anyone surprised that I’m in love?

Thanks to everyone that came out last night.  Tonight I’ll be at Teabag, a booked open mic in Chinatown.

I don’t know what happened to Ugarte.  Hopefully, he will be TiVo-blogging and you’ll get his unvarnished impressions in just a few minutes.

Rick’s Final Thoughts

Without going back and thinking about it, I have to say I think Bush won this one by a smidge.  Couldn’t say why, but that’s what my gut says. 

-- UPDATE—Having given it some thought, I’ve decided that Bush “won” because (a) these were some of the worst questions ever; (b) Kerry repeated a lot of stuff he’s already said before, whereas Bush, while saying little substantive, at least was saying some new things; (c) when Kerry wasn’t repeateing stuff he said before, he was pulling a Gore—boring the American people with the facts and figures that prove he’s a better choice for president; and (d) whatever George was on made him less of a cranky, defensive bastard than he usually is.  I seriously think he was on something.  Probably Canadian.

Ugarte’s final thoughts

My scorecard says 10-4, with 6 questions and the closings too close to award to either candidate.  That would seem like a Kerry blowout, but I wouldn’t say that was true.  This was a very close debate.  Bush was sharp.  He exhibited a strong command of the stage and his opinions.  He recognized the value in a short answer.  Kerry wins so many questions in my book because Bush is hamstrung by bad facts.  Unfortunately, for facts to matter, you need to come to the debates with an understanding of the issues discussed (which most voters don’t have) or the ability to listen as Kerry rambles on (which most people with hearing don’t have).

I think both candidates were at their best last night. And it was still excrutiatingly boring.  I predict that fewer people watched this debate than any debate going back to Carter.  So while I think this was a modest Kerry victory (sweep!), the impact won’t be as significant.  Of course, with the election in a dead heat, a small impact can be the difference between the White House and 365-day-a-year broom hockey with the family on the Heinz estate.