Sorry, but this custom is just nuts. Seems self evident. Hundreds injured in Muslim animal sacrifice.

Rick at Brutally Honest has viewed the viral (but genuine) video of Saddam’s “short drop and sudden stop” and is not altogether easy with what happened. But he also seems uneasy about being uneasy. A thoughtful, concise posting.

Kevin at Dean’s World discusses what happened to old-style socialists - they became environmentalists. Citing Ilana Mercer’s observation that “environmentalism is socialism reborn,”

The Reds argued that “the individual could not be left free because the result would be such things as ‘exploitation,’ ‘monopoly’ and depressions. The Greens claimed that the individual could not be left free because the result would be such things as the destruction of the ozone layer, acid rain and global warming. Both claim that centralized government control over economic activity is essential. The Reds wanted it for the alleged sake of achieving human prosperity”; the Greens for the alleged sake of avoiding environmental damage.”

A good discussion follows; as Kevin says, “I can’t really see where she, or he, is wrong.” Oh, and did you know that in the last 100 years, the news media have “reported on four seperate climate changes in the last 100 years. Cooling, then warming, then cooling again and now warming again.”

See also Michael Crichton’s in-depth analyses about environmentalism as fundamentalist religion and how “global warming” is a marketing and ideological phenomenon, but not a scientific conclusion.

Headline: “Woman Charged With Malicious Castration.”

Many links at Jules Crittenden’s post of the execution, “Drink Up,” including a link to Sky News’ video of the moments immediately preceding Saddam’s last drop.

Just over a year ago I posted an essay on this site regarding the execution of Tookie Williams. I treated that execution from the perspective of a military man and an ordained Catholic deacon. While acknowledging that there are times when the death penalty may be morally justifiable based on traditional and contemporary Catholic theology, I found that the execution of Tookie Williams could not be justified.

Today I experience the same struggle regarding the execution of Saddam Hussein. Today, using the same theological methodology, I find his execution morally justified.

The Church has traditionally left the question of capital punishment as a moral decision - that is, there is not an absolutist position as there is with, for example, abortion. Even as the contemporary Church has been “tightening the noose” on the moral justification of the death penalty (pardon the analogy) it has still not declared an authoritative absolutist position (I realize this matters not to many non-Catholics, but it is important to Catholics and it does carry a certain amount of weight politically in the world). Cardinal Renato Martino, a former Vatican envoy to the UN and top prelate for justice issues, has condemned the execution of Saddam; that’s his opinion and perhaps he accurately reflects the opinion of others in the Vatican, perhaps the Pope himself. Martino has also been known to make past ridiculous and irresponsible positions particularly with regard to Iraq.

But a case for the morality of Saddam’s execution can be made. As I wrote before:

For Catholics, we turn to the Catechism of the Catholic Church which is a summary of how we apply the teachings of Christ through His revelation - Scripture and Tradition - to our modern world today. It is indeed faith seeking understanding. In the current edition of the Catechism, promulgated in the 1980s, the Church states in paragraph 2266 “…the traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty.”

The Catholic Church has taught for centuries that humans have a right for legitimate defense. That is the basis for just war, self-defense as well as for capital punishment. War, self-defense and the death penalty are justified when they are the only reasonable means left for security - be it the security of the individual in the case of the home invader, the security of the community from the murderer or the security of the nation from terrorists. One may kill in order to protect, which is distinct from murder.

And yet the late Pope John Paul II is well known for his preaching against capital punishment. For his reasoning we have only to look at paragraph 2267 of the Catechism “If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.”

That paragraph is the basis for the Catholic Church’s well documented and forceful current teaching against capital punishment in the world and particularly in the West today - that indeed we do not need capital punishment to protect ourselves since we have the capacity to secure society from the worst human threats among us once we have captured them. Herein lies the true argument: do we have that capacity?

I would argue that many societies do not, particularly in the Third World. We cannot self-righteously take away a critical means for their self-defense when they lack the sophistication of a proper and secure penal system. This was the condition throughout the world not long ago and still in many parts of the world today. It is very likely the condition for countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq as they must secure themselves from terrorists still at large and even from those captured. Some argue it is still the condition today in the West and even here in the US with the unlimited opportunities for appeals and technicalities in having proper convictions overturned. Some would argue then that we have not developed a mature and secure enough system and environment to render capital punishment unnecessary.

Iraq does not have the capacity to protect itself from Saddam for the long term. Yes, the Baathists are likely rendered ineffective, yes the Sunnis are now a minority that is for the most part currently not a threat; yes the US has effectively jailed Saddam with little to no risk of his escape. But one day we might leave. Even if we don’t leave, one day he would be turned over to Iraqis. A life sentence in the third world is far more meaningless than many would argue it is even in America. Bribes can do things in the Middle East that are often not possible here (for example no one can seriously contemplate a release of the Unabomber or Eric Rudolph due to a bribe - or any reason for that matter).

However small, there is the chance Saddam Hussein could go free. The weight of that possibility has continued to weigh heavy on the minds of Iraqis who still fear him even while incarcerated. The psychological impact of his continued existence and the three ring circus of his court case can arguably be said to have harmed our credibility and that of the various Iraqi governments of the last three years (interim and elected) resulting in more deaths during the current fight. For the long term bloodless means are insufficient for legitimate defense from Saddam. For the good of Iraq and for the good of the cause of freedom and peace in the Middle East, Saddam’s execution has had to happen. As the only reliable recourse available, for their protection - and for ours - the moral case for the execution of Saddam Hussein can legitimately be made.

On March 3, 1977, I took a girl on our first date to see Rocky, or Rocky One as it would later be known after a few sequels. I was a senior in college, she was a freshman. We’d just met the week before at a party at my school. It had been a fairly dull party, as such mixers go, and at 10 p.m. I headed for the door. I saw a pal, Chip (who is now a senior official in the FBI) and stopped to say hello. He was speaking with three or four young ladies and was kind enough to introduce me to them. I rather perfunctorily acknowledged their greetings, said, “See ya” and turned for the door. I took a step and a half when I heard one of the girls say, “I like your beard.”

(This was 1977, mind you, when ROTC recruitment was so low that even a soon-to-be-commissioned senior, an ROTC scholarship student at that, could sport a full beard and long hair. I had both; my beard really wasn’t all that impressive but my hair was magnificent, flowing all the way to my shoulders all around. And it wasn’t yet gray. Or thin. Ah, lost youth!)

So I rear marched, smiled at the sweet young thang and said in my very best Hollywood-leading-man voice, “Wunna dance?” She did, we did. We wound up partying until long after midnight. I drove her back to her dorm at another school (heck, in another city, Greensboro, 30 miles away!) and promised to call her. She gave me her number and I got back to my room in time to see the sunrise, which I would have seen had I not gone to bed.

My close buddy, Charles (now a US Marine colonel), and I had a running contest that we’d kept up since early our junior year. It was simply to see which of us could graduate with the most refusals from girls for dates. Our scores were in the low hundreds each. My best score (or non-score, depending on your point of view) was with a girl named Ann, who declination of my invitation was so nice, so sweet, so doggone Southern cultured that I thought several times later about asking her out again just so I could be refused so beautifully. (I didn’t know when I called her that she had just gotten engaged.) But Charles and I had a rule that we could not pile up points by repetitively asking the same girl over and over.

Charles was slightly ahead, so I figured I’d call sweet young thang up, get verbally thrown under the bus, and make an easy point. Now get this straight: I wasn’t joking about the date, but I seriously expected to be rejected. Say la vee, or whatever the Frogs say about romance. So a couple of nights after the party I dialed her number.

“Hi, I was thinking of you and wondering whether you’d like to go out this weekend.”

Everything went exactly according to script: “Oh, it’s so good to hear from you, but I won’t be here this weekend. It’s the start of our spring break and I’ll be leaving for home midday Friday.”

“Well, sorry to hear that. Some other time, perhaps?” (Maybe I could get a twofer in one phone call…)

“That would be great. How about Thursday?”

Silence. I’ve never fielded curve balls well. Finally, “You mean this Thursday?”

“Yes, I’ll still be here that night.”

Silence. I’ve never fielded curve balls well. Wait, you already know that. “Okay, that would be fine.” Think furiously about what to do, where to go and when. Wait, there was a little Italian restaurant in Greensboro I’d been to called Cellar Anton’s. Nice place and it’s right across the street from a multiplex with three screens. (In 1977, three screens qualified as a multiplex.) “I’ll pick you up at five-thirty, okay?”

“Okay! See you then!”

There was only one thing better than calling Charles to tell him I had scored another rejection, and that was calling Charles to tell him that he could sit at home if he wanted, but I was going out. With a girl. Yeah, I know it makes no sense, but we were college students.

So the young lady and I had dinner and crossed to street to see Rocky, which was just getting buzz about that time. (It went on to win Oscars for Best Picture, Best Directing and for Film Editing. The film also garnered nominations of Sylvester Stallone for Best Actor, Talia Shire for Best Actress, both Burt Young and Burgess Meredith for Best Supporting Actor, Stallone again for Best Original Screenplay, and nominations for Best Sound and Best Original Song, “Gonna Fly Now.”)

Two years later I had returned from the 2d US Infantry Division in Korea, reassigned to Ft. Jackson, SC. The young lady, Cathy, and I were engaged. Rocky II came out. I drove to Greensboro a couple of times per month and we went to see it. This was the movie in which Rocky and Adrian got married.

Cathy liked Adrian’s wedding gown so much she ordered it for her own gown.

I go through all this to advise you that I am not an objective reviewer of the capstone of the Rocky saga, Rocky Balboa. I agree that the series was badly in need of a better ending than the rather poor Rocky V gave it. So Cathy and I went to see Balboa last night.

How was it? Perfect. Just plain perfect. If you didn’t like the other Rocky movies much, even the first three, then you won’t like Balboa. But we loved it, every minute. I have no nits to pick.

But I do have some comments. It was good to see Burt Young reprise his role as Adrian’s brother, Paulie. And while his screen time is short, Tony Burton is back as Duke. He began the series as Apollo Creed’s trainer, then had a major role in Rocky III, when Rocky faced Mr. T as Clubber Lang.

Talia Shire is listed in the cast credits, but only because her photograph appears several times, along with a couple of flashbacks. Adrian is not in the movie, having died. This is no spoiler, since the audience learns this fact very early. Rocky’s inner demons torment him not only on the poor ending of his boxing careeer, but on her absence from his life (hence, his inability to set things right with her) and their son’s. Rocky, Jr. is played by Milo Ventimiglia. His performance is unimpressive.

In Adrian’s absence, Geraldine Hughes plays Marie, whom Rocky recollects knowing from years before, when Marie was just a little girl. (Hughes does not appear in any previous installments.) He re-befriends her (no romance), thus ensuring that a woman is in the fight’s audience, gasping with each blow Rocky takes. Think of her part as an Adrian stand in for the fight scenes.

So why no Adrian? The only work Talia Shire has going on right now seems to be as the therapist in the Geico ad where the caveman is upset that his intelligence is insulted. Access Hollywood reports that Ms. Shire told the mag,

“You know Sylvester and I talked about it over a year ago and I think he was correct in wanting to design Rocky as a widower so he comes back with this kind of great longing and loss. I think Adrian is actually a presence in so many ways she is still there. She’s a part of his heart, so I’m very anxious to see it. I read it, I thought it was great, again great on the page because he is a great writer. So I’m kind of excited about seeing it. I am in his corner always.”

Okay, I see what Stallone was trying to accomplish and why, but I still wish Adrian had been there.

I give Rocky Balboa nine out of 10 boxing gloves. I hold one glove back because Adrian isn’t there, but otherwise, it’s perfect.

I have spent most of the day reformating my computer’s main drive and reinstalling everything. The OS was dumping device drivers and the thing booted somewhat irregularly. Every other fix failed to fix, so I finally had to go with the nuclear option. Yes, I did have everything backed up, which I have auto-set to do every night. So that’s why I haven’t blogged today until now.

This caught my eye this morning. Today’s Tennessean has a front-page piece called, “Liquor stores close doors for New Year’s Eve Sunday.”

Tennessee still has “blue laws,” which regulate Sunday alcohol sales. Liquor and wine cannot be sold in stores but can be bought by the drink in bars or clubs. Regulations on beer sales are set by local jurisdictions and vary from county to county.

After a brief discussion of the blue laws and their history, we come to this startling revelation:

According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, states that repealed blue laws and allowed open commerce on Sundays saw a drop in church attendance and an increase in drug and alcohol use.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what is known as a blinding glimpse of the obvious.

In, “Are sheiks the key to success in Iraq?” I summarized some arguments for and against using the tribal sheiks in Iraq to defeat the various insurgencies. Now Time magazine snapshots the successes - and the concerns - of the alliance between a US Marine commander in al Anbar and a powerful sheik there.

“Turning Iraq’s Tribes Against Al-Qaeda,” tells of one, “Sheikh Abdel Sittar Baziya, head of the Abu Risha tribe and a founder of the movement the Sahawat Al Anbar, or Awakening Council, an alliance pledged to fighting Al_Qaeda in Al Anbar province.” Sittar made his bones after the invasion as the head of a highway-banditry ring. He was arrested three times by American forces. He allied with al Qaeda for a time but turned against them when they tried to horn in on his highway-robbery rackets. He says he now opposes al Qaeda for religious and ideological reasons. But he’s also, for now anyway, a valuable ally of US forces in returning law and order to al Anbar. But, says US Col. Sean Mcfarland, “”Tribes are like countries . They don’t have friends, they have interests. Right now we’re both to them. Down the road, would they fight us if we overstayed out welcome? They might very well.”

Newsweek reports that despite the violence there, Iraq’s economy is “booming.” It’s a poor choice of words for the magazine, but an excellent article.

Civil war or not, Iraq has an economy, and—mother of all surprises—it’s doing remarkably well. Real estate is booming. Construction, retail and wholesale trade sectors are healthy, too, according to a report by Global Insight in London. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce reports 34,000 registered companies in Iraq, up from 8,000 three years ago. Sales of secondhand cars, televisions and mobile phones have all risen sharply. Estimates vary, but one from Global Insight puts GDP growth at 17 percent last year and projects 13 percent for 2006. The World Bank has it lower: at 4 percent this year. But, given all the attention paid to deteriorating security, the startling fact is that Iraq is growing at all.

Much of the blogosphere complains that the MSM do not cover the good news from Iraq, so this article deserves widespread attention. Its punchline: “The withdrawal of a certain great power could drastically reduce the foreign money flow, and knock the crippled economy flat.” Yep.

Jules Crittenden reports that American generals in Iraq, recently reported to be against having more US troops, actually think it’s a topping idea.

Fact is, no one in the MSM actually knows what the generals are telling the president. Because the generals are telling the president, not the MSM.

… you become more like yourself than you ever were.

Having lived long enough - and having relatives who’ve lived much longer - to see a lot of people I know well reach far beyond middle aged (on both sides of our families, sweetheart), that was a conclusion I came to awhile back: that age intensifies primary personality traits.

Hence this caught my eye: “Is Carter an anti-Semite?” by Shmuel Rosner, Haaretz’s Chief U.S. Correspondent

Last Friday, at the reception for Natan Sharanski in the Israeli Embassy, I was surprised to hear the same argument from some people - Americans - who attended and debated Carter’s motivations. One of them said that he “never thought Carter was anti-Semitic,” but that now he feels that Carter is “trying to rally Christians against Jews.” Somebody else told me that he thought “the true Carter is coming out now” and explained this by hinting that people “when they get older, tend to reveal what they really think.”

Seems right to me.

Boy, I hope Jimmy Carter and Mel Gibson never knock back a few together.

OTOH, I’d like to hear Shuel explain this saga of a pregnant Bethlehem woman:

They stopped to collect her sister and mother and set out for the Hussein Hospital, 20 minutes away. But the road had been blocked by Israeli soldiers, who said nobody was allowed to pass until morning. “Obviously, we told them we couldn’t wait until the morning. I was bleeding very heavily on the back seat. One of the soldiers looked down at the blood and laughed. I still wake up in the night hearing that laugh. It was such a shock to me. I couldn’t understand.”

Her family begged the soldiers to let them through, but they would not relent. So at 1am, on the back seat next to a chilly checkpoint with no doctors and no nurses, Fadia delivered a tiny boy called Mahmoud and a tiny girl called Mariam. “I don’t remember anything else until I woke up in the hospital,” she says now. For two days, her family hid it from her that Mahmoud had died, and doctors said they could “certainly” have saved his life by getting him to an incubator.

… In the years since, she has been pregnant four times, but she keeps miscarrying. “I couldn’t bear to make another baby. I was convinced the same thing would happen to me again,” she explains. “When I see the [Israeli] soldiers I keep thinking - what did my baby do to Israel?”

Since Fadia’s delivery, in 2002, the United Nations confirms that a total of 36 babies have died because their mothers were detained during labour at Israeli checkpoints. All across Bethlehem - all across the West Bank - there are women whose pregnancies are being disturbed, or worse, by the military occupation of their land.

BlogsofWar cites London’s Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair (link):

“It is a far graver threat in terms of civilians than either the Cold War or the Second World War. It’s a much graver threat than that posed by Irish Republican terrorism.”

The blog also cites an ABC News site,

British intelligence and law enforcement officials have passed on a grim assessment to their U.S. counterparts, “It will be a miracle if there isn’t a terror attack over the holidays in London,” a senior American law enforcement official tells ABCNews.com.

That Islamist terrorists want to do ahrm to Britain is indisputable. And for sure the Queen’s officers know immeasurably more about the threat there than I. But I’m guessing the attacks, if they do come, will take place not long after New Years Day rather than between now and then.

I’m sure you will agree that this little factoid will just be all over the MSM this weekend.