the great debate continues

back when HM was but a wee tiny force of nature, we went to the dinosaur floor of the Museum of Natural History and then bought stuffed dinosaurs in the gift shop. Specifically, Tyrone O'Saurus, St. Egbert "Slug" O'Saurus, Tracy Teratops, Theresa Dactyl and Brian T. O'Saurus.

Unfortunately, we then found out that Brian T. was a cuckoo in the O'Saurus nest. We changed his name to Anthony Patrick O'Saurus.

Unfortunately, at this point uncle Procrustes, who is a big honking troublemaker, got involved. He told HM that Anthony Patrick was, in fact, a female by the name of Emily Bronte Saurus.

Of course, we protested against this iniquity, but since uncle Procrustes (he is the procrustiest, after all) is the most bestest thing in the whole world and we mere biological parents are as poo, our young friend is now an Emilista.

Her godfather Uncle Mike, on the other hand, is an Anthony Patrickite. They have extended discussions on this issue.

Uncle Mike: Anthony Patrick

HM: Emily

(repeat ad infinitum)

Uncle Mike's christmas present just came in the mail yesterday. HM wanted to know what the implications of this were for the question of Santa (she doesn't really believe in him, but she has a whole Voltaire and God thing going on with the issue).

I told her, of course, that as Santa is an Anthony Patrickite he naturally dropped her present off at Uncle Mike's.

She is, of course, irate that I would suggest such a counter-revolutionary thing.

So, here goes. Santa: Anthony Patrickite or Emilista?

For that matter, Anthony Patrick or Emily?

Inquiring minds want to know.

edit: Here, I'll make it easier.

[Poll #222591]

if the checkboxes don't show up, you may have to hit the poll link to vote, which you should of course do early and often, unless you're an Emilista, which early returns tend to suggest that some of you are, in this sad fallen world.

well, at least we know where this guy is

but, of course, Saddam gassed his own people, right? That's why we went in?

Donald H. Rumsfeld went to Baghdad in March 1984 with instructions to deliver a private message about weapons of mass destruction: that the United States' public criticism of Iraq for using chemical weapons would not derail Washington's attempts to forge a better relationship, according to newly declassified documents.

Rumsfeld, then President Ronald Reagan's special Middle East envoy, was urged to tell Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz that the U.S. statement on chemical weapons, or CW, "was made strictly out of our strong opposition to the use of lethal and incapacitating CW, wherever it occurs," according to a cable to Rumsfeld from then-Secretary of State George P. Shultz.

The statement, the cable said, was not intended to imply a shift in policy, and the U.S. desire "to improve bilateral relations, at a pace of Iraq's choosing," remained "undiminished." "This message bears reinforcing during your discussions."

The documents, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the nonprofit National Security Archive, provide new, behind-the-scenes details of U.S. efforts to court Iraq as an ally even as it used chemical weapons in its war with Iran.

An earlier trip by Rumsfeld to Baghdad, in December 1983, has been widely reported as having helped persuade Iraq to resume diplomatic ties with the United States. An explicit purpose of Rumsfeld's return trip in March 1984, the once-secret documents reveal for the first time, was to ease the strain created by a U.S. condemnation of chemical weapons.

The documents do not show what Rumsfeld said in his meetings with Aziz, only what he was instructed to say. It would be highly unusual for a presidential envoy to have ignored direct instructions from Shultz.

When details of Rumsfeld's December trip came to light last year, the defense secretary told CNN that he had "cautioned" Saddam Hussein about the use of chemical weapons, an account that was at odds with the declassified State Department notes of his 90-minute meeting...

briefly noted

So you know when you're using all those bookmarks from yesterday that you kept so you'd know what to post about and your brother changed the settings on your e-mail program so the computer crashed while you were doing it and the last backup of your bookmarks was from yesterday afternoon? Yeah, I hate it when that happens.

Now, without further ado, ( longness. )

oh, dear.

the new design for the WTC building is here.



View the slide show.