Where peace is not a pie ...Rick's Cafe Americain

Despite getting knocked out in 93d, Coach had a pretty cool tournament.  He knocked out two players that he didn’t recognize, and peaked at T3,700 during level 3. Everything in the boxes is in Coach’s own words. 

One of the people he knocked out happened on what a lot of people mistakenly call a bad beat:

I had Ax against an all-in player with Kx.  The flop was 2-3-K, and amazingly, I caught runner, runner for a wheel straight to knock him out.

Yes, the runner-runner is dramatic, but if I understood Coach’s report, the money went in before the flop, so Ax was the better hand at the time. It doesn’t matter what order the cards come down.

It all turned very quickly, though.

On consecutive hands, I lost to

1) J9o with AA, when a 9 fell on both the flop and the turn

2) K10s (clubs) with AQs (clubs) when a K fell on the flop to Wil Wheaton

3) QQ in early position to tp’s KK in the next seat over, when nothing fell on the board.

As Coach noted to me, he got knocked out on a similar hand to the hand I knocked him out on at the Blue Parrot tournament. But the reraise-push with queens here is obviously better than the same push with tens there.

asphnxma said that he was having too much fun chatting to keep good notes. It sounds from Coach like this was true.

After Wil beat me with the K10s, I typed, as I normally would, Nice hand but instead of finishing it off with “, Wil” I slipped and mistakenly said , Wes as in Wesley Crusher.  Realizing my slip, I immediately typed oops, I mean Wil.

After I got eliminated on the next hand (the QQ-KK heads up) he typed something to the effect of, Dude, that was total karmic payback for calling me Wes

He was right, of course, so I responded with, I’m sorry.  It was an honor to play with you. I would never say anything bad about a guy who got to kiss Ashley Judd before she was ‘hot.’ (That occuring in an ST:NG episode fairly early on, when both actor and actress were in their late teens/early 20’s).

Very important scare-quotes, Coach, as Ashley Judd has always been HOT.

A majority of Bush supporters believe that

A majority of Bush supporters also believe, however, that if Iraq did not have WMD’s or was not providing support to al Qaeda, the U.S. should not have gone to war with Iraq.

In other words, if Bush supporters knew the facts, a majority of them would not be Bush supporters.

Here are some other things a majority of Bush’s supporters incorrectly believe:

The Bush supporters support all these things, but the President does not.

Some of this can be blamed on the administration itself (particularly the Saddam/al Qaeda connection), and on the mainstream media, but most of this goes way beyond that.  It would appear that Bush supporters simply want to believe that Bush stands for the things they support, even though he does not.

This willingness to suspend disbelief, to be willfully ignorant, to “drink the Kool-Aid”, is truly astonishing, and—for reasons that go way beyond my dislike of President Bush and his policies—deeply troubling.

Hat-tip to The Al Franken Show

As you can see, Kerry’s momentum from the debates has reversed, and Bush is trending back upwards.  The reason for this is obvious.  Kerry, while qualified to be president, is a terrible campaigner.  Bush, while a terrible president, is a brilliant campaigner.  Oh, and of course, Mary Cheney is a lesbian.

Seriously, though, one way to read the above chart is to note that Bush’s line rises every time the people are inundated with pro-Bush or anti-Kerry propaganda (association with the Sainted Father Reagan, the RNC, the Swift Boat ads), or when the country gets a chance to see him in an even moderately unscripted uncontrolled environment (debates); whereas Kerry’s line rises with anti-Bush propaganda (Fahrenheit 9/11) or when the country gets to see him in action, instead of in campaign mode.

The answer?  I propose that for the next two weeks the parties cease campaigning.  Kerry will go back to being a Senator, and Bush will go back to . . . um . . . Crawford, probably.  The two will be followed by camera crews 24-hours a day, so the American people can see them actually doing their jobs.  Hell, follow Kerry, don’t follow Kerry.  I’d wager 24 hours of Bush outside of his bubble would be enough to turn most voters into Kerry supporters in a second.

...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.