Overreacting

In Washington State, they have a wiretap law which says that every party to a telephone conversation has to consent, before the call is intercepted or recorded. In a recent case, a mother whose daughter was friends with a robbery suspect, was asked by the local police to keep an eye out for any evidence against the suspect. When the suspect called the daughter, the mother listened in on the conversation, and provided testimony at the suspect's trial which helped to convict him. The appeals court ruled that the mother's testimony could not be used. As reported in the press:

Attorneys for the state argued that minors should have a reduced expectation of privacy because parents have an absolute right to monitor phone calls coming into the family home. The attorneys cited provisions in federal wiretap law which are less restrictive than Washington's law and allow parents to tape and listen to their children's conversations.

"The Washington act, with its all-party consent requirement, contains no such parental exception and no Washington court has ever implied such an exception. We decline to do so now," wrote Justice Tom Chambers in the court's opinion.

The local sheriff, Bill Cumming, was quoted as stating that the decision was only about trial evidence based on listening in on a child's telephone call: "The ruling will likely not result in parents being prosecuted for snooping, Cumming said. But it prohibits courts and law enforcement from using the fruits of such snooping."

Sounds fairly reasonable, with the court applying the law as written, on the issue of the admission of evidence in a criminal case. Well, it's not so simple if you're Bill O'Reilly and his Talking Points:

So let's get this straight. If you suspect your child is dealing with a criminal, a dope dealer, a mugger, a molester, you can't eavesdrop on that child's conversations. That's now the law in Washington state, which has become a model for progressive activism.

~ snip ~

So don't try to find out what your kids are up to on the computer or on the telephone. Children must have privacy in these matters, so 14-year- old girls can deal with 17-year-old criminals.

Now why is this happening? As with the Christmas controversy, which I explain in my column this week on billoreilly.com, there's much more to this than just a legal decision. If you study all [the] state dominated societies from the Soviet Union, to Nazi Germany, to Red China to Cuba, you will see those governments try to diminish parental power because it's easier to mold young minds when state-sanctioned values don't compete with traditional parenting.

Public schooling in America is now devoid of any moralizing or spiritual emphasis. The Pledge of Allegiance being the last holdout. So if the progressives can succeed in eroding parental influence at home, it becomes much easier to influence American children to embrace a secular point of view. That's what's going on here.

And once again, the courts are helping the Progressives. It is simply chilling to realize that you cannot monitor behavior of your children. Judges in Washington state have decided that even if your kid is dealing with a criminal, you have no right to be pro-active.— Incredible and dangerous.

Now, anybody who spends any time actually finding out about what happened, knows that this entire tirade is a lot of hot air. Unfortunately, there are too many people who do not get the facts, only the tirades. Mr. O'Reilly makes his living by scaring his viewers about the vast conspiracy between the public schools and the courts, in order to prepare young minds to be more compliant with secular state domination (or something like that).

Of course, one could argue that lack of accurate information is more likely to harm our citizens, young and old, but people don't give you shows on Fox in order to talk like that.

Like A Cool Romeo

It's been a bad week for that dapper man-about-New York, who entertained multiple paramours in his Manhattan love nest.

No, not Bernie Kerik - I'm talking about Pale Male, the evicted red-tailed hawk.

Say Goodbye To Hollywood

Found through Dr. Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo, William Donohue of the Catholic "League" on the Scarborough show, going into a full meltdown:

Who really cares what Hollywood thinks? All these hacks come out there. Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It‘s not a secret, OK? And I‘m not afraid to say it. That‘s why they hate this movie. It‘s about Jesus Christ, and it‘s about truth. It‘s about the messiah.

Hollywood likes anal sex. They like to see the public square without nativity scenes. I like families. I like children. They like abortions. I believe in traditional values and restraint. They believe in libertinism. We have nothing in common. But you know what? The culture war has been ongoing for a long time. Their side has lost.

You have got secular Jews. You have got embittered ex-Catholics, including a lot of ex-Catholic priests who hate the Catholic Church, wacko Protestants in the same group, and these people are in the margins. Frankly, Michael Moore represents a cult movie. Mel Gibson represents the mainstream of America.

This was an obscene outburst. Honestly, who voted to let this guy market himself all over as the voice of the Catholic "League", as if he had any sort of right to speak on behalf of people who call themselves Catholics. Seriously, this guy should just crawl back under his rock - he's worse than an embarrassment.

The truth is, as I have noted here before, you don't have to be Jewish, or a non-Catholic, or even anti-Catholic, to not love that movie (although the movie's marketing efforts did seem to rely on arguments to the contrary). For what it's worth, while I have my doubts as to whether Mr. Gibsons's film has any real value, I think that the themes treated in Michael Moore's films (worker rights, rights of the oppressed, alienated youth in a violent culture, the human costs of war which we too often forget, to name a few) are very consistent with what some consider to be a religious viewpoint.

Along these lines, I have this other thought. It's not fully developed yet, but it goes like this. While Mr. Gibson may be a "Catholic" film-maker in some people's eyes (although there can be an argument about that), there's a good argument that Mr. Moore (raised a Catholic, still attends Mass), with the social justice theme that pervades his movies, has a better claim to that designation than Mr. Gibson.

(I know, I should give this last point more thought, and make this clearer. I'll get back to you.)

So this is ChristmasAnd what have you done?

We just passed the anniversary of the murder of John Lennon, twenty-four years ago. We are also well-underway in the season during which we hear him, in his song, asking us: "And what have you done?" Our answer this year has to be, "Not enough, it turns out." Oh sure, there's a lot of blame going around, and the talk about "values" as a big issue in the recent election. The solution proposed by some is that people who disagree with the current Administration have to "get religion".

Personally, I think the whole thing is a problem of perception, more than anything else. I fail to see any lack of "values" in questioning a broad range of the government's domestic and foreign policies – to the contrary, whether it's the neglect of the needy or the environment at home, or the violations of our country's principles in the mistreatment of prisoners or false justifications for pre-emptive war, one is justified in questioning the "morality" of the path we're being led down. So, I don't think that any new "values" need to be adopted by those who want to change what's happening. Just the opposite, actually – there are perfectly good and fine values which need to be re-stressed and re-emphasized over the next four years, perhaps even more than they were in the election.

As we also hear this time of year, in that same song, "War is over, if you want it." I think that's what everyone wants, but they have to overcome the fear that is encouraged by those who think war is the way to solve our problems. I guess we need to encourage people to take a little "leap of faith"?

Sinterklaas Is Coming To Town

For everybody who wishes that the whole gift-giving frenzy could somehow be separated from the more spiritual aspects of Christmas - Happy St. Nicholas Day.

Upcoming alternative gift-giving days include Boxing Day and Three Kings Day. Or, we can deal as best we can with the Americanization/commercialization of "Xmas".

Got My Facts Learned Real Good Right Now

Thanks to the editorial board at the Wall Street Journal, I'm finally clear about what is a "good" leak, and what is a "bad" leak.

Want to reveal the name of someone with the CIA, who has worked undercover in the past, even if that reveals confidential information about the people she dealt with? That's a good leak:

Mr. Wilson had been denying any involvement at all on Ms. Plame's part, in order to suggest that her identity was disclosed by a still-unknown Administration official out of pure malice. If instead an Administration official cited nepotism truthfully in order to explain the oddity of Mr. Wilson's selection for the Niger mission, then there was no underlying crime. Motive is crucial under the controlling statute.

The 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act was written in the wake of the Philip Agee scandal to protect the CIA from deliberate subversion, not to protect the identities of agents and their spouses who choose to enter into a national political debate.

Got that? Leaking the name of the agent in order to change the subject, from what Mr. Wilson found to why he may have been there to find it, is okay. After all, by trying to get this information out, he chose to "enter a national political debate". So, that's a "good" leak, see?

Now, from yesterday's WSJ, we've learned what a "bad" leak is:

But now the ICRC has thrown confidentiality aside to attack the U.S., of all countries. And it matters little that the original leaker in this case might have been in the U.S. government. Officials at ICRC headquarters were only too happy to confirm the document's authenticity, and they quickly issued a statement complaining that "significant problems regarding conditions and treatment at Guantanamo Bay have not yet been adequately addressed."

This follows a similar leak in May regarding the Abu Ghraib prison, as well as the ICRC's unprecedented decision to publicly challenge the Bush Administration's original designation of the Gitmo detainees as unlawful combatants rather than prisoners of war. What's more, the leaked ICRC documents themselves reveal interpretations of the laws of war so contrary to what the Geneva Conventions actually say that it's hard to read them as other than products of anti-American animus.

Getting out information to the citizens of a democracy, about what their government is doing in their name, is clearly a "bad" leak.

Now, let's sum up. If you leak the name of a CIA operative, even though that might make future family members of CIA operatives reluctant to "enter a national political debate", you deserve a reward. If you leak (or confirm) information about abuse of detainees, such that the public might demand accountability, you deserve to be labeled as one of the "bad kids", and punished:

No longer careful, scrupulous and neutral, the ICRC has become just another politicized pressure group like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. ICRC President Jakob Kellenberger is reportedly planning to visit Washington soon to press the U.S. government on Guantanamo and other issues. We hope he is told that he is leading his organization toward the loss of its $100 million-plus annual subsidy from U.S. taxpayers, as well as its special status come future revisions of the Geneva Conventions.

I hope this clears things up for all of you.

He Was Just Blinded By The Light

Last night on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, the guest was Christopher Hitchens talking about his new book. From the description, it seems to be a collection of previously published essays. Anyway, the interview was less about the book, and more about Mr. Hitchens appearing as, well, almost a caricature of himself (sort of a cross between William F. Buckley and Foster Brooks). He ambled onto the stage and over to his seat, clutching a paper cup (from which he continued to sip). Jon Stewart seemed amused by him (and he was amusing, sort of), as he slurred his way through some of his top themes, especially his continued defense of the Iraq invasion.

As best as I can tell, Mr. Hitchens has arrived at his pro-Iraq war stance via his trademark anti-everything involving religion. The 9/11 attackers were just another set of religious fanatics, a term he uses to describe anybody from a suicide bomber to Mahatma Gandhi or Mother Teresa. His new book appears to be an attempt to collect his various essays in support of his position. Listening to him last night, however, it occurred to me that his obsessive embrace of the Administration's choice to use warfare, is keeping him from appreciating the value of different approaches.

He made one good point last night, that we are not "at war with Islam". Instead, there is a struggle going on among various political and social movements in parts of the world with large Muslim populations. We are allied with some of those factions, such as the Kurds (of whom Mr. Hitchens often writes). He noted that our great task is to find, and ally ourselves with, those Muslims who reject the Osama Bin Laden view of where Islam should be going. And, that's why I think that he has prevented himself from recognizing the downside of the Iraq invasion – Iraq was not really a Bin Laden ally, and invading Iraq earned us the enmity of many people who never really cared for Bin Laden. So, the invasion effectively took us further from the goal of finding more allies in the Muslim world.

As I said, he mentioned the Kurds, and how they had been an insurgency against Saddam Hussein for a long time. But, one has to contrast the present situation, after our invasion, with the Kurds in Iraq as described by Mr. Hitchens before that invasion:

What would the lifting of the no-fly zones mean for the people who live under them? I recently sat down with my old friend Dr. Barham Salih, who is the elected prime minister of one sector of Iraqi Kurdistan. Neither he nor his electorate could be mentioned if it were not for the no-fly zones imposed--as a result of democratic protest in the West--at the end of the last Gulf War. In his area of Iraq, "regime change" has already occurred. There are dozens of newspapers, numerous radio and TV channels, satellite dishes, Internet cafes. Four female judges have been appointed. Almost half the students at the University of Sulaimaniya are women. And a pro al Qaeda group, recently transferred from Afghanistan, is trying to assassinate the Kurdish leadership and nearly killed my dear friend Barham just the other day.... Now, why would this gang want to make that particular murder its first priority?

Before you face that question, consider this. Dr. Salih has been through some tough moments in his time. Most of the massacres and betrayals of the Kurdish people of Iraq took place with American support or connivance. But the Kurds have pressed ahead with regime change in any case. Surely a "peace movement" with any principles should be demanding that the United States not abandon them again.

Under the circumstances, with a stable Kurdish north in Iraq, and Saddam Hussein pinned down with inspectors in the country, why would Mr. Hitchens have thought that rolling the tanks into Baghdad was the best approach? I think he put a little too much faith, as it were, in the Bush Administration, simply because they had already bombed some of those fanatics (and a lot of other people) in Afghanistan. Now, he's a "true believer", no matter how much damage this war has inflicted, even in places that had previously been relatively stable.

"Al Qaeda couldn’t kill Christian Engeldrum, but his own government’s dishonesty and incompetence could"

From Eric Alterman, something which should make you angry upon learning of it -

Christian Engeldrum of Ladder Company 61 in Co-op City in the Bronx, was killed while serving with the New York National Guard on Monday when a roadside bomb exploded near his convoy outside Baghdad. He lived through the attacks of 9/11 that took the lives of many of his friends and comrades, which took place even though his government was repeatedly warned to be on the alert for just such an attack but took no measures whatever for the protection of the nation. (He even helped raise the first flag over Ground Zero after the attack.) He lived through the still-unknown health effects on his respiratory system, after breathing the air at Ground Zero when his government lied to him about its safety. What he didn’t live through, however, was a war, which his government lied to try to tie to the attacks, in order to win the support of people like Christian, who had every right to be furious at America’s assailants, but whose duty and courage was exploited to attack people who had nothing whatever to do with it. Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda couldn’t kill Christian Engledrum, but his own government’s dishonesty and incompetence could. His two sons have lost a father, his wife, a husband, his parents a son, and for what? Yes Saddam Hussein is in prison, but is anyone really better off for the unending chaos and catastrophe this bunch has unleashed in Iraq? Most Iraqis certainly don’t think they are and the rest of the world hates us more than ever. Isn’t it about time we had an anti-war movement in this country to honor the deaths of exploited heroes like Christian Engeldrum and do our damnedest to minimize the number of brave mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters, husbands and wives, must follow in his footsteps?

(Emphasis added) I would just add that the results of the last election did not make opposition to the Administration's approach to war and foreign relations irrelevant; instead, it makes it necessary.

A Forgotten War?

In case you were wondering - yes, American soldiers are still dying in Afghanistan. Details and updated information are available at this link.

And, according to a news report about the latest casualties, our efforts in Iraq have enabled the still-active Taliban to learn new ways to strike at our troops and disrupt efforts to stabilize the country:

The toll exacted by Taliban and al-Qaida holdouts defying a U.S. force currently numbering about 18,000 pales next to the more than 1,200 Americans killed in Iraq.

But there is concern Afghan militants are copying their Iraqi counterparts from the already widespread use of roadside bombs to the Oct. 28 kidnapping of three foreign election workers which sent shudders through Kabul's expatriate community.

Just another "mission accomplished", I guess.

That Execution Line

There's an interesting confluence of events up here in the "blue" corner of the country, regarding the issue of capital punishment. In Connecticut, the prospect of the first execution in over 40 years has prompted some lawmakers to contemplate eliminating the death penalty there. In New York (where the death penalty law was struck down by the state's highest court), there seems to be some difficulty in enacting a new death penalty law to fix the flaws found by the court. And, in my home state of New Jersey, the new acting governor, Richard Codey, was a co-sponsor of a death penalty study bill that former governor McGreevey vetoed earlier this year.

When I saw Steve Earle perform in New York, just before the election, he noted that maybe a nation without the death penalty, would not have rushed to war. That's an interesting perspective. I know that religion, "values", etc. have been cited as a factor in the "conservative" results of the recent election. Well, the death penalty is one of the topics where religious and progressive values coincide (there are a lot more, of course, but we've got the next four years to talk about those). It will be interesting to see how this debate develops.

The Times

Two memorable columns in the NY Times yesterday (If you click the links, you can log in as "Cautiousman", with the password "Cautious", if you don't want to register with the NYT). The first, by Maureen Dowd, discussed the indignities of travel, before addressing the issue of whether the government is really keeping us safe:

First you have to strip, unzipping your boots, unbuckling your belt and unbuttoning your suit jacket while any guys standing around watch. Then you have to walk around in some flimsy top and stocking or bare feet. Then you have to assume the spread-eagled position. Then a beefy female security agent runs her hands all the way around your breasts, in between, underneath - again with guys standing around staring.

Flying on business, I've gone through this embarrassing tableau two dozen times in airports all over the country in the last couple of months. I've been searched more than Martha Stewart.

That column will no doubt find its way into Zell Miller's personal erotica collection.

In the second, Tom Friedman unburdens himself of some less-than-kind thoughts about some of his fellow men, as he goes through a litany of who it would be "great" to be:

I at least want to be the owner of a Hummer - with American flag decals all over the back bumper, because Hummer owners are, on average, a little more patriotic than you and me.

Yes, I want to drive the mother of all gas-guzzlers that gets so little mileage you have to drive from gas station to gas station. Yes, I want to drive my Hummer and never have to think that by consuming so much oil, I am making transfer payments to the worst Arab regimes that transfer money to Islamic charities that transfer money to madrassas that teach children intolerance, antipluralism and how to hate the infidels.

And when one day one of those madrassa graduates goes off and joins the jihad in Falluja and kills my neighbor's son, who is in the U.S. Army Rangers, I want to drive to his funeral in my Hummer. Yes, I want to curse his killers in front of his mother and wail aloud, "If there was only something I could do ..." And then I want to drive home in my Hummer, stopping at two gas stations along the way.

Although Mr. Friedman still hasn't redeemed himself, for sitting idly by while the country blundered into war, there's still hope for him.

Something About Going Home

We had a great Thanksgiving, with several generations of the Cautious Family gathered at the ancestral home (well, Mom and Dad's house). It may be trite to say this, but nowadays Thanksgiving is the last perfect American holiday. It really is about just going home, wherever and whatever that home may be. Sometimes we find ourselves home with the extended family, sometimes with a parent or a relative or two, sometimes just with some friends, and sometimes by finding a way to help someone else. No matter how it turns out, Thanksgiving gives us a day when the whole country can finally agree on one thing - that EVERYTHING can be put aside that doesn't involve family, neighbors, and what's REALLY important about life. I hope everyone was able to find a way home, and to give thanks in their own way.

Oh, and thanks for dropping by and listening to me carry on about stuff.

Every Fool’s Got A Reason for Feeling Sorry For Himself

For over a week now, some folks who are unhappy with the result of the Presidential election have been expending a lot of anger against those they hold responsible. That's led to a lot of insulting remarks about people in the suburbs, people in the South, people who go to church, people who work at Wal-mart, etc. etc. etc. I suppose that's been cathartic for some people - but it's hardly useful, is it? As I mentioned last week, there are two ways to go. Anybody who wants to wallow in self pity, or carry on with some stereotyping hate-festing, just hurry up and get it over with. Were hatred, and lies, and emphasis on irrelevant issues used to obtain the margin of victory for the President? Of course they were, but that doesn't mean that his opponents should join in a race to the bottom. That's not good for the long-term health of America.

I'm sure it will not be a surprise to anyone that elections are won with votes, votes are cast by voters, and voters are people - the side with the most people wins (okay, so that didn't happen in 2000, but once again Get over it!). People who are unhappy with this year's election should focus on, not joining the tactics which were successful, but beating them. And that, in my humble opinion, means that you don't use hate to fight hate, lies to fight lies, or other irrelevant issues to counter the Karl Roves of the world. Instead, you look out at the upcoming four years and look for ways to point out, to those voters who were swayed by hatred, lies, and irrelevancies, how they can make a better choice.

As Steve Gilliard points out, those folks who can be persuaded that they made a poor choice this year, will be out there:

I wouldn't worry too much about the people who bought Bush's lies. The ones who want to will come around. Someone posted a story about a 20-something Bush voter who was glad her husband was too old to be drafted. When asked, she said he was 25. When told she was wrong, she turned white as a ghost and stammered...."I thought they only drafted up to 23". Well, missy, no. They can draft up to 36, but they usually stop at 26. The skills draft could go up to 34.

Or when the college Republican goes down to the local Walgreens and asks for her birth control pills only to be told that the pharmacist refuses to fill the prescription because she's opposed to birth control.

The question you need to ask is this: what do we offer them when they wake up? What do we tell them? Who do we offer for them to vote for. We need to pick the fights closest to home and be credible. We should go after the liberterians and fiscal conservatives and tell them the GOP is leaving them. The Vets, who are being betrayed by them. We need to welcome these people and explain what the GOP is really turning into.

We need to oppose them, not just in Washington, but at City Hall and the school board. We end the free ride we gave them. We oppose them at every turn.

It's like Teddy Roosevelt, Jr. said on Utah Beach "well, we might as start the war from right here, the supplies will have to catch up to us no matter where we are."

In other words, don't wallow in resentment and might have beens. Only your own attitudes will determine whether the recent election was a defeat, or merely a set-back. There's a lot than can be done. As someone once said, "The country we carry in our hearts is waiting."

Ten Years Twenty Years Burning Down The Road

George Will has been waiting a long time to write these words:

In 2000, Americans were reminded that electoral votes select presidents. In 2004, Democrats were reminded that Bruce Springsteen does not.

Now, of all the 55,949,407 voters who supported Senator Kerry, why did Mr. Will single out Mr. Springsteen to accuse of being the one who tried to "select" a President? It may be due to the part Mr. Will played twenty years ago, when Mr. Springsteen was first observed on the national political scene (albeit as part of a now classic blunder). As recounted by Jim Cullen in his book Born in the U.S.A.: Bruce Springsteen and the American Tradition:

September 19, 1984, was a typical day on the campaign trail for Ronald Reagan. The president spent the morning in the Democratic stronghold of Waterbury, Connecticut. There, as elsewhere, he read prepared remarks, but added some local color--in this case, invoking the spirit of John F. Kennedy, who had visited Waterbury in 1960. … The president then proceeded to the affluent suburban town of Hammonton, New Jersey, in the southern part of the state. There, he praised Italian-American voters. "You are what America is all about," he told them. "You didn't come here seeking streets paved with gold. You didn't come here asking for welfare or special treatment." And as in Waterbury, Reagan also cited a local favorite. "America's future rests in a thousand dreams inside our hearts. It rests in the message of hope so many young people admire: New Jersey's own Bruce Springsteen. And helping you make those dreams come true is what this job of mine is all about."

Actually, the Reagan camp had hoped to have Springsteen by the President's side in Hammonton. Though attempts to recruit rock stars Billy Joel and John Cougar Mellencamp failed, Michael Jackson had recently appeared with Reagan at the White House in an anti-drunk-driving campaign. And six days earlier, after attending a Springsteen concert, conservative columnist George Will had written a glowing review that echoed dominant Republican campaign themes. "I have not got a clue about Springsteen's politics, if any," Will wrote, "but flags get waved at his concerts while he sings songs about hard times. He is no whiner, and the recitation of closed factories and other problems always seems punctuated by a grand, cheerful, affirmation: 'Born in the U.S.A.!'"

~ snip ~

Many people, even those with only a passing familiarity with Springsteen's music, regarded this effort to capture Springsteen as, at best, misguided. More committed fans reacted with outrage. Springsteen's biographer Dave Marsh later wrote that Will's column "was such a perversion of what Springsteen was trying to communicate that it constituted an obscenity." Few in the years since would have reason to disagree.

Or maybe Mr. Will was still upset about the bow tie remark in the recent Rolling Stone interview. Anyway, after exacting his small measure of revenge, Mr. Will proceeds to explain that all the votes against same-sex marriage or civil unions had nothing to do with politicians stirring up any animus against gay people – all those voters were just outraged by the "disdain for democratic due process" of Massachusetts judges and the Mayor of San Francisco. The latter comes in for some especially vile snarkiness, as Will labels Mayor Newsome "liberalism's George Wallace, apostle of 'progressive' lawlessness".

Mr. Will is still musically, politically and historically tone-deaf, after all these years. Whether you agree or disagree with Mayor Newsome's actions, he undertook them to expand the rights of some people. He challenged a law, did so in a civil manner, and complied with judicial rulings once they were issued. The late Governor Wallace defied court orders in an effort to stand in the way (literally) of the exercise of a basic right.

Will's analogy is basically the same as claiming that Rosa Parks or Dr. King were "African-American George Wallaces". In all likelihood, twenty years from now people will still be wondering what Will thought he was listening to.

"Well Don't Just Sit There"

If there's something you need
That you just don't have
Well just don't sit there
Feeling bad
Come on now get up
Try and understand …

Democratic Party Chair Terry McAuliffe sent out a last "thank you" letter to contributors, and solicited comments. My friend Curmudgeon at Mapleberry Blog has a few things to tell him:

It may be sufficient for the DNC's Washington insiders to lick their wounds and slink quietly out of sight for a while, to emerge after the Electoral College vote is certified on Jan. 6, the furor has died down, and the election is a fait accompli. For us regular folks, though, such acquiescence is completely unacceptable. We are hurting, politically, emotionally, and economically, and it's only going to get much worse. Even if nothing can be done to roll back the apparent Kerry defeat, not to fight it out on the ground, today, is to give up entirely on the great American experiment - Democracy. That's it, finis.

~ snip ~

So, Terry, I don't want your thanks for a fight well fought, and I'm not yet ready to give you suggestions for next time - it's still this time. We need you today - not in 2005, not 2006, not 2008 - NOW. Get off your asses. Follow the advice of that Warren Zevon song - "I'll Sleep When I'm Dead" - because to rest now will mean that the Democratic Party, and American democracy itself, are indeed dead.

I would only add that this would be a good way to start playing by "Republican rules" --- for example, if anybody claims that demanding a proper count is being a "sore loser", just say, "Our party stands for counting every single vote, no matter what the result, in contrast to those who don't want to hear the will of the American people." Or something like that.

"We're All Republicans Now!"

For over a year, Garrison Keillor has been preparing us for this moment – when some despair over the results of the election. In a twist on Barack Obama's "there's only one America" theme, the proprietor of A Prairie Home Companion provides a way out:

So many people have asked me, How are you coming along in your struggle to become a Republican? And the answer is: it's not easy. But then so many worthwhile things are not easy.

It's easy to become a Republican when times are good. It's harder to do it when the economy is in the third year of recession and we have to pony up $87 billion to rebuild Iraq where we still can't find their nuclear weapons program and a good chunk of the money is going through the company that the Vice-President used to run -- but I take these things as a challenge.

Why become a Republican? Because the best way to rid oneself of anger and frustration at what is happening in this country is to get on the side of the people who are doing it. And also you save a lot of money on gifts for same-sex weddings.

But I'm a Republican to find peace. I don't even read the news anymore. It doesn't concern me: I've got a president who is taking care of that stuff. And once you don't read the news, it's even easier to be a Republican.

Okay, so maybe some people aren't ready to let go and move on. To those people, I say, "Shut up and sing!" Join in the chorus:

We're all Republicans now,
We've all come around somehow
We're all wearing flight suits
With big parachutes.
We're all Republicans now.
We'll defend this land everywhere
From the comfort of our armchair.
We're proud to be patriots, glad to be hawks.
We salivate whenever Rush talks.
We're smarter and nicer and better than you.
We're chosen to lead, and God says so too.
He's a Republican
He's a Republican
He's a Republican now.

We're all Republicans now,
We've all come around somehow
Even old Democrats
Can change their hats.
We're all Republicans now.
Affirmative action must go
Unless it's somebody we know.
We'll put conservative judges back on the bench,
More executions, let's start with the French,
No more free lunch, everybody must pay,
If you want health care, Canada is that way
We're all Republicans
All Republicans
All Republicans now.

(Hey, you take this too seriously, you'll ruin your health.)

Capital Offense

Now we hear that the President will reach out across the aisle, as he implements his program. That may be so, but there's the chance that he may do les reaching out, than he did in his first term. As he stated during his news conference yesterday:

Something refreshing about coming off an election, even more refreshing since we all got some sleep last night, but there's -- you go out and you make your case, and you tell the people this is what I intend to do. And after hundreds of speeches and three debates and interviews and the whole process, where you keep basically saying the same thing over and over again, that when you win, there is a feeling that the people have spoken and embraced your point of view, and that's what I intend to tell the Congress, that I made it clear what I intend to do as the President, now let's work to -- and the people made it clear what they wanted, now let's work together.

And it's one of the wonderful -- it's like earning capital. You asked, do I feel free. Let me put it to you this way: I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style. That's what happened in the -- after the 2000 election, I earned some capital. I've earned capital in this election -- and I'm going to spend it for what I told the people I'd spend it on, which is -- you've heard the agenda: Social Security and tax reform, moving this economy forward, education, fighting and winning the war on terror.

He "earned capital" in the 2000 election? If that's what he thinks, then why does anybody think that he'd be more accommodating to alternative viewpoints during the next four years?

Someday We'll Look Back On This ...

Okay, so there are some of us who are not exactly thrilled with the result of the election. We have to ask, "What does it mean?" Right now, I think the answer is "I don't know." We know that it means the George W. Bush will be President for four more years, that he has more control in the Senate and the House of Representatives, and that he will be making numerous appointments to the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts. But, his control of the levers of power, while significant, is not the only determinant of where the country goes. With that in mind, I went through my reading list to see if anybody there could cheer me up. I looked in on Charles at The Fulcrum, since he is kind enough to visit here from time to time. Well, he was no help, since he really needs cheering up:

Today, more than ever, the title of my blog describes the country. We are poised on a point - a fulcrum - centered in Ohio, and the smallest touch could send us tottering in one of two directions. On one side is hope for a better future. On the other is fear and a never-ending "war on terror." I don't understand what happened to get us here and I don't understand what can be done to keep us from falling to the side of fear. I don't know how to reduce the dangers of that path forward.

He has every reason to feel discouraged, and he's identified one of the most significant concerns. On the other hand, Professor Balkin has some advice about picking ourselves up:

Now it's time for all of those who supported Kerry and opposed Bush to lick our wounds and contemplate the country's future. This is a loss, and a bitter loss at that. But it is not the end. It is the beginning of the future, and we have to have faith that things will eventually get better and that the things we believe in and the values that we stand for will ultimately win the day.

And Fred Clark at Slacktivist points out another important fact:

They won most of the battles, but we had all the good songs.

Well, maybe having the good songs is not enough, but it couldn't hurt. There are two ways to go – retreat in resignation, or move forward with determination. I suggest moving forward (if cautiously).

Chasing Something in the Night

I confess, I did not stay up late waiting for election returns. I watched the Daily Show's live election special, flipped around the cable news stations, checked the updated count from Ohio's official election returns website, and went to bed. Our alarm went off almost precisely as CBS radio news was reporting that the Bush campaign was claiming that they had an "insurmountable" lead in Ohio. Well, that may be, but I hope that the proper validation and counting of ballots (provisional and otherwise) continues. I can't imagine any legitimate argument against doing that.

Other than that, I guess one of my first thoughts on contemplating a win by the President was: "Dang, I guess we'll have to wait at least another four years before Bruce Springsteen gets one of those 'Kennedy Center Honors' tribute nights."

On a more serious note, while perusing my reading list to the right I saw Bill Cork's reference to Psalm 146, which seems to be something to keep in mind no matter how you feel about the election result:

Put no trust in princes, in mere mortals powerless to save.
When they breathe their last, they return to the earth; that day all their planning comes to nothing.
Happy those whose help is Jacob's God, whose hope is in the LORD, their God,
The maker of heaven and earth, the seas and all that is in them, Who keeps faith forever,
secures justice for the oppressed, gives food to the hungry. The LORD sets prisoners free;
the LORD gives sight to the blind. The LORD raises up those who are bowed down; the LORD loves the righteous.
The LORD protects the stranger, sustains the orphan and the widow, but thwarts the way of the wicked.

Of course, I have my own opinion about who should be the next President, if that were used as a voting guide.

Better Ask Questions Before You Shoot

Sometimes the comment just writes itself. According to the White House website, this is what the President said earlier today:

Our military is now investigating a number of possible scenarios, including that the explosives may have been moved before our troops even arrived at the site. This investigation is important and it's ongoing. And a political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your Commander-in-Chief.

Yes, sir, have to be careful about jumping to conclusions before the investigation is over. It's kind of like telling the inspectors to get out, because the invasion is going in whether or not they've found anything.

So far, the best come-back has been from Gen. Wes Clark:

Today George W. Bush made a very compelling and thoughtful argument for why he should not be reelected. In his own words, he told the American people that “…a political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your Commander in Chief.

President Bush couldn’t be more right. He jumped to conclusions about any connection between Saddam Hussein and 911. He jumped to conclusions about weapons of mass destruction. He jumped to conclusions about the mission being accomplished. He jumped to conclusions about how we had enough troops on the ground to win the peace. And because he jumped to conclusions, terrorists and insurgents in Iraq may very well have their hands on powerful explosives to attack our troops, we are stuck in Iraq without a plan to win the peace, and Americans are less safe both at home and abroad.

By doing all these things, he broke faith with our men and women in uniform. He has let them down. George W. Bush is unfit to be our Commander in Chief.

(Via Atrios)

Some Reality-Based Talk From Above

Courtesy of Terry Jones, from the Guardian:

"George?"
"Yes?"
"This is God here ..."
"Hi, God. What can I do for you?"
"I want you to stop this Iraq thing, George."
"But you told me to do it, God!"
"No I didn't, George ..."
"But you did! You spoke to me through Karl, Rumsey and Dick and all those other really clever guys!"
"How did you know it was me talking, George?"
"Instinct, God. I just knew it!"
"Do you really think I'd want you to unleash all this horror and bloodshed on another lot of human beings?"
"But they're Muslims! They don't believe in You, God!"
"But, George, they do believe in me. Jews, Christians and Moslems all worship the same Me! Didn't you do comparative theology at school, George?"

The rest of George, God here ... is at this link.

(Link from Body and Soul).

Random Thoughts About Posting Random Thoughts

I found out about the Angry Liberal today, and that he's from my hometown.

He also makes a lot of sense, so I put him on my reading list.

Now, I feel like such a slug for not posting anything in a while. Although, I did add a few more sites to my reading list, so doesn't that count for something?

One more thought - this site's subtitle refers to "Love and Fear". So, I was moved to point out what former President Clinton told a rally in Philadelphia yesterday, about how to judge the candidates:

Clinton got right to the heart of the race in what was, for him, a fairly short speech.

"If one candidate is trying to scare you and one is trying to make you think, and if one candidate is appealing to your fears and another candidate is appealing to your hopes, you've got to go with the one who wants you to think and hope," said the man from Hope, Ark.

That's a good way to look at it.

"The Country We Carry In Our Hearts Is Waiting."

I've written before about the fuss that was made, just because some performers went on tour to urge a "Vote for Change". In addition to the idiotic calls to boycott their music, there were also comments along the lines of, "What do they know about politics, they're just musicians?" But, that's not really the point. What they "know" about is words, and music, and about expressing themselves in ways that resonate with people. For example, I posted the following from an Op-Ed in the New York Times, at the top of the page here, not because Bruce Springsteen is the world's foremost wiseman, but because these few words strike a chord (if you will):

"It is through the truthful exercising of the best of human qualities - respect for others, honesty about ourselves, faith in our ideals - that we come to life in God's eyes. It is how our soul, as a nation and as individuals, is revealed. Our American government has strayed too far from American values. It is time to move forward. The country we carry in our hearts is waiting."

During the "Vote for Change" concerts, he had an even more direct statement, concisely setting forth a reason to, well, vote for change:

"We remain a land of great promise. But it's time we need to move America towards the fulfillment of its promises that she's made to her citizens: economic justice, civil rights, protection of the environment, respect for others and humility in exercising our power at home and around the world. These core issues of American identity are what's at stake on November 2."

What's interesting is the fact that this list of concerns is not a list of issues on which the campaigns propose different solutions – to me, these are issues which the incumbent's campaign doesn't even recognize as needing attention. That's a sure sign that the country needs to set out in a different direction, for all our sakes.

Meet Me Out in the Street

Although I have nothing substantive to add to the Cheney/Edwards debate post-mortems ...

CHENEY [to Edwards]: Now, in my capacity as vice president, I am the president of Senate, the presiding officer. I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session.

The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight.

Now, some may say that's not true, but the only thing I could think of on hearing that was:

I guess that means that he never told Edwards to go "intercourse" himself.

In Decent Men's Eyes

There would be no reason to comment on this, if it didn't turn out to be the subject of one of the more obvious (well, obvious if you have the right frame of mind) disinformation efforts in the current Presidential campaign. In the Presidential debate last Thursday, Senator Kerry discussed what a President, and a country, need to do when going into war:

No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.

But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

Here we have our own secretary of state who has had to apologize to the world for the presentation he made to the United Nations.

I mean, we can remember when President Kennedy in the Cuban missile crisis sent his secretary of state to Paris to meet with DeGaulle. And in the middle of the discussion, to tell them about the missiles in Cuba, he said, "Here, let me show you the photos." And DeGaulle waved them off and said, "No, no, no, no. The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me."

How many leaders in the world today would respond to us, as a result of what we've done, in that way? So what is at test here is the credibility of the United States of America and how we lead the world.

(I added the emphasis, because it seems that some people keep missing those words) Now, that seemed fairly obvious and clear to me. Not so to the President:

Let me -- I'm not exactly sure what you mean, "passes the global test," you take preemptive action if you pass a global test.

My attitude is you take preemptive action in order to protect the American people, that you act in order to make this country secure.

The President's momentary failure to comprehend has not only been added to his stump speech (where he calls it the "Kerry Doctrine"), but has actually been turned into a campaign ad (you can watch, but trust me, they basically repeat "global test" over and over again).

The best commentary I've read (provided by Through the Looking Glass) about the President's inability (whether purposeful or not) to understand the meaning of Senator Kerry's position is this:

Worst confusion: Bush wondering what "global test" Kerry was talking about for preemptive action. Kerry said what he meant: that the maintenance of future alliances, and, as someone once said, "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind", requires that you be able to offer a reasonable explanation for what you were doing afterwards. Was Bush just not listening?

I think that's a great way of looking at it - and pointing out that the "Kerry Doctrine" is not new, it's the "American Way".

The controversy which the President is trying to create, is sort of the campaign in a nutshell - taking a couple of words out of context, and relentlessly hammering home a distorted interpretation. Don't we deserve a little better?

Brilliant Disguise

Digby at Hullabaloo has an extended discourse on the President, and on a perceived contrast between his public and private faces. Among the litany of examples in that essay:

He ostentatiously calls himself a committed Christian and yet he rarely attends church unless it’s a campaign stop or a national occasion. The man who claims that Christ is his favorite political philosopher famously and cruelly mocked a condemned prisoner begging for her life. He portrays himself as a man of rectitude yet he pumped his fist and said "feels good!" in the moment before he announced that the Iraq war had begun. (One would have thought that if there was ever a time to utter a prayer it was then.) How many funerals of the fallen has he attended? How many widows has he personally comforted?

Now, I don't think that anybody would be counting days of church attendance, if the President's supporters hadn't made such a big deal about it. It's not just the Kerry "wafer watch", but also those news stories that Republicans are "more religious". And how is that determined? Why, by church attendance! So, they can't have it both ways. If the President can be both religious and an infrequent church attendee, then maybe we can stop hearing about a "religion gap" and claims that Religious=Republican?

Church attendance aside, the other examples in the above passage do seem to show an inconsistency between professed beliefs and visible actions. This personality trait was seen even before the Republican primaries for the 2000 election. An old National Review web page preserves excerpts from Tucker Carlson's Talk magazine interview with Mr. Bush from 1999, including the following:

In the week before [Karla Faye Tucker's] execution, Bush says, Bianca Jagger and a number of other protesters came to Austin to demand clemency for Tucker. "Did you meet with any of them?" I ask.

Bush whips around and stares at me. "No, I didn't meet with any of them," he snaps, as though I've just asked the dumbest, most offensive question ever posed. "I didn't meet with Larry King either when he came down for it. I watched his interview with [Tucker], though. He asked her real difficult questions, like 'What would you say to Governor Bush?' "

"What was her answer?" I wonder.

"Please," Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, "don't kill me."

What's interesting is that the George W. Bush summed up in Digby's essay, appeared evident in the National Review excerpt from 1999:

Carlson's major theme is that Bush is "comfortable with himself" and "doesn't give a damn what you think of him." (Message: I don't care.) He has risen above the obsession with what other people think that marks most politicians. Yet the Bush who emerges from the profile is remarkably thin-skinned. Carlson notes that while "the Larry King–Karla Faye Tucker exchange Bush recounted never took place" on television, "Tucker did imply that Bush was succumbing to election-year pressure from pro-death penalty voters. Apparently Bush never forgot it. He has a long memory for slights." If this is what Bush considers payback, remind us to stay on his compassionate side.

For sheer ugliness, nothing else in the article matches Bush's remarks on the death penalty. (When he sees Carlson's horrified reaction, Bush "immediately stops smirking": " 'It's tough stuff,' Bush says, suddenly somber, 'but my job is to enforce the law.'") But the section other Republicans in the race are likely to seize on comes when Carlson asks "whether the number of abortions has gone up or down since he's been governor. 'I don't know,' he shrugs. . . . 'Probably down. Not because of anything we've done, though. We haven't passed any laws.'" Where Carlson sees a refreshing reluctance to exaggerate accomplishments, others -- including a lot of pro-lifers who have been giving Bush the benefit of the doubt -- are likely to see a breezy indifference to what Bush says he considers to be the taking of innocent human life.

Does any of this really matter? Well, yes, since religiosity is a theme for the President's supporters (his own as a positive, and an implied lack in Kerry, as a negative). I don't think the press should "tear down" anybody, but I also don't think that the President should get a "free pass", with his supporters using religion as a way to lift him up, and push down Senator Kerry.

Deja Vu (All Over Again)

One by one I see the old ghosts rising
Stumblin' 'cross Big Muddy
Where the light gets dim
Day after day another Momma's crying
She's lost her precious child
To a war that has no end

Did you hear 'em talkin' 'bout it on the radio
Did you stop to read the writing at The Wall
Did that voice inside you say
I've seen this all before
It's like Deja Vu all over again
It's like Deja Vu all over again

- John Fogerty, Deja Vu (All Over Again)

There was a moment during the Bush/Kerry debate last night, when it seemed to me that the President was actually arguing that it didn't matter whether it was right to invade or not - now that there are troops in the field, nobody should criticize his decisions.

I don't see how you can lead this country to succeed in Iraq if you say wrong war, wrong time, wrong place. What message does that send our troops? What message does that send to our allies? What message does that send the Iraqis?

No, the way to win this is to be steadfast and resolved and to follow through on the plan that I've just outlined.

Isn't that outrageous? "I'm terribly sorry your child was killed in the war, but the fact that he died protects me from all blame."

Mr. Fogerty is right. We've seen this before - and now the role of Lyndon Johnson is being played by the latest President from Texas.

(On a lighter note, did I mention that I'll get to see Mr. Fogerty perform that song, backed up by the E Street Band, at the Vote for Change concert in Philadelphia this evening?)

Sad Eyes Never Lie

The gang at Fox News did not look happy after the Kerry/Bush debate.














That's about all the analysis you need, IMHO.

That Feeling of Safety You Prize

I was thinking about a variation of the old Ronald Reagan debate question, "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?"

In the Bush/Kerry debate, which one should look at the camera and say, "Do you feel safer now, than you did on September 12, 2001?"

Personally, I don't think the President should use that line.

"I get up in the evening,and I ain't got nothing to say ..."

So if your candidate is Senator John Kerry, do you have this fear that he'll get up at the first Presidential debate (the one on foreign policy), and just stand there while being accused of "flip-flopping" on Iraq? Me, too.

Now, if I were giving him advice (not that I have the opportunity to do so), I would suggest that he cut that attack off before it begins. His opening statement should be:

"Good evening. Nearly two years ago, on October 9, 2002, I addressed the Senate before we voted to give President Bush the authority to use force, if necessary, in Iraq. And what I said that day, is what I have continued to say ever since -

By beginning its public discourse with talk of invasion and regime change, the administration raised doubts about their bona fides on the most legitimate justification for war--that in the post-September 11 world the unrestrained threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein is unacceptable, and his refusal to allow U.N. inspectors to return was in blatant violation of the 1991 cease-fire agreement that left him in power. By casting about in an unfocused, undisciplined, overly public, internal debate for a rationale for war, the administration complicated their case, confused the American public, and compromised America's credibility in the eyes of the world community. By engaging in hasty war talk rather than focusing on the central issue of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, the administration placed doubts in the minds of potential allies, particularly in the Middle East, where managing the Arab street is difficult at best.
...

The reason for going to war, if we must fight, is not because Saddam Hussein has failed to deliver gulf war prisoners or Kuwaiti property. As much as we decry the way he has treated his people, regime change alone is not a sufficient reason for going to war, as desirable as it is to change the regime.

Regime change has been an American policy under the Clinton administration, and it is the current policy. I support the policy. But regime change in and of itself is not sufficient justification for going to war--particularly unilaterally--unless regime change is the only way to disarm Iraq of the weapons of mass destruction pursuant to the United Nations resolution.
…

"And when I voted to give the President that authority, I did so with the understanding that he would not use it unless the threat was imminent, unless there was no other option, and unless he built a real coalition, including the Arab states, so that we would be able to win the peace -

And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.

As the President made clear earlier this week, "Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable." It means "America speaks with one voice."

Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.
…

If we do wind up going to war with Iraq , it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent--and I emphasize "imminent" -- threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs.
…

Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.

"We know now that, after that vote, and action by the United Nations, the inspectors did return to Iraq, and were undertaking the difficult job of hunting for weapons of mass destruction, until the day President Bush told them to leave."

And, more stuff like that.

Rolling Stone Preacher

Do you see these Vote for Change concerts reaching undecided voters, or are they more to rally the energy of people who have made up their minds?

I always felt that the musician's job, as I experienced it growing up, was to provide an alternative source of information, a spiritual and social rallying place, somewhere you went to have a communal experience.

I don't know if someone is going to run to the front of the stage and shout, "I'm saved" or "I'm switching," but I'm going to try. I will be calling anyone in a bow tie to come to the front of the stage, and I'll see what I can do.

Mr. Springsteen has an interview in the latest edition of Rolling Stone, about his current outlook on politics and the Vote for Change tour coming up. Another, more serious thought from that article:

This has obviously been on your mind for a while. How did you come to this decision?

I knew after we invaded Iraq that I was going to be involved in the election. It made me angry. We started to talk about it onstage. I take my three minutes a night for what I call my public-service announcement. We talked about it almost every night on our summer tour.

I felt we had been misled. I felt they had been fundamentally dishonest and had frightened and manipulated the American people into war. And as the saying goes, "The first casualty of war is truth." I felt that the Bush doctrine of pre-emption was dangerous foreign policy. I don't think it has made America safer.

Look at what is going on now: We are quickly closing in on what looks an awful lot like the Vietnamization of the Iraq war. John McCain is saying we could be there for ten or twenty years, and John Kerry says four years. How many of our best young people are going to die between now and that time, and what exactly for? Initially I thought I was going to take my acoustic guitar and play in some theaters, find some organizations to work for and do what I could. I was going to lend my voice for a change in the administration and a change in the direction of the country.

Sitting on the sidelines would be a betrayal of the ideas I'd written about for a long time. Not getting involved, just sort of maintaining my silence or being coy about it in some way, just wasn't going to work this time out. I felt that it was a very clear historical moment.

A lot of people are feeling the frustration, of wanting to somehow make a difference this time. A lot of others seem to think that it doesn't matter. It's great to see that people who can do something in a big way, are out there saying, "This time it's really important."

I'll be at the Philadelphia show with the whole Cautious Family, including our first-time voter, the Cautious Son.

Into the Fire

May your strength give us strength
May your faith give us faith
May your hope give us hope
May your love give us love

On September 11, I think of the morning of September 12. In my New Jersey community, about a dozen miles from, and within view of, lower Manhattan, we had spent the 11th not only viewing those terrible images, but worried about the fate of friends and neighbors who worked in the towers. Some eventually made it home, and some did not.

But on the 12th, as I woke to the radio, I heard a report that a New York City Fire Department chaplain was among the dead. Somehow, I knew immediately that it was Father Mychal Judge, a Franciscan priest who had served in my parish in the town where I grew up. Although that was when I was just a kid, Father Mychal kept in contact with many, many families from the places he had served. He had baptized one of my brother's children, just a few years before. On the morning of September 11, my parents' home had two small photos of him on the side of the refrigerator, which they had received just a few months earlier. In each photo, he was wearing one of his "uniforms" – in one, his Franciscan habit, and in the other his Fire Department dress uniform. In both, he had the same wide grin and bright, excited look in his eyes.

On the 12th, there was another photo of Father Mychal, in the New York Times. In my edition, he wasn't even identified yet, he was just a man, a body slumped over being carried away from the destruction. But you could see his face, the mouth turned down and the eyes closed. He had rushed to the scene from his residence, the Franciscan friary on Thirty-First Street. He was killed as he stood ministering to the dead, the injured and the frightened, as the South Tower collapsed. Symbolically, the medical examiner designated Father Mychal as the first registered victim of the attacks, with death certificate number 1.

Less than 24 hours before his death, Father Mychal participated in the rededication of a fire house in the Bronx. As recounted in the book, Father Mychal Judge: An Authentic Ameican Hero by Michael Ford, as he addressed his fellow members of the FDNY, "Those who were present felt, in retrospect, that his words were valedictory":

We come to this house this morning to celebrate renewal, rejuvenation, new life. We come to thank God for the blessings of all the years that the good work has been done here and especially the last few days. … Keep supporting each other. Be kind to each other. Love each other. Work together … and from this house, God's blessings go forth to this community. It's fantastic but very painful. We love the job, and God calls you to it and indeed he gives you a love for it so that a difficult job will be well done. Isn't he a wonderful guy? Isn't he good to you, to each one of you, and to me? Turn to him each day, put your faith and your trust and your hope and your life into his hands. And he'll take care of you.

That picture I mentioned, of Father Mychal smiling in his Franciscan habit, can be seen on the memorial page located at this link, along with a short biography.

And that's what I think of on September 11.

"Singing Our Birthday Song ..."

Well, a whole year's gone by since the first Cautious Man random thought hit the ether. And what was my first brilliant insight? "Going forward, I'm sure we'll be hearing a lot about the approval, by the House and Senate, of resolutions authorizing military action in Iraq." Other than the fact that the resolutions are being used against Senator Kerry, and not President Bush in this election, I couldn't have been more wrong.

I just don't understand why more attention is not being paid to the fact that the Iraq invasion did not meet the criteria set by Congress. Remember, the President was authorized to use force ONLY if not doing so "will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq". Since then, we've learned that the alleged weapons of mass destruction, which we were imminently threatened with, were not there; and, that Colin Powell was given a completely phony set of arguments, to present to the U.N. Security Council in February of 2003. As I noted at the time, the sad and tragic fact is that Secretary Powell surely believed it when he said, in that February speech: "My colleagues, we have an obligation to our citizens. We have an obligation to this body to see that our resolutions are complied with. We wrote [Resolution] 1441 not in order to go to war. We wrote 1441 to try to preserve the peace. We wrote 1441 to give Iraq one last chance."

The other criterion in the authorization to use force was that an invasion would be "consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." Despite the many recent efforts of the Administration to conflate Iraq and Al Qaeda, the 9/11 Commission established and the fact remains that there clearly was no connection between Saddam Hussein and September 11.

So, this time last year I was annoyed that the President could not support either justification for the course of action he chose in Iraq. And one year later, we're up to over 1000 soldiers dead, in a war which everybody can see was launched without any proper authorization.

WarWhat Is It Good For?

War
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
War is something that I despise
For it means destruction
Of innocent lives
For it means tears in thousands
Of mothers' eyes
When their sons go out to fight
To give their lives

("War", Barret Strong, Norman Whitfield)

As of right now, Iraq Coalition Casualty Count indicates that the one thousandth American soldier has died in the Iraq war.

Just a Look and a Whisper, and He's GoneThese Are Better Days

Noooooooooooo!

[Edited to add] Curmudgeon at Mapleberry Blog was kind enough to inform me that Mr. Theogeny may still be around to help us through these troubled times.

He's Back in Town!

Like a Deus ex machina, Hesiod has re-appeared, ready to come to our aid. He reminds us that, once upon a time, George H W Bush was attacked as John Kerry is being attacked now:

Compare, for example, the way George W. Bush refuses to do the right thing and denounce these liars with the way Michael Dukakis, in 1988, responded to a very similar attack on the President's father.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the story, a tailgunner from then Vice President Bush's old Naval Air Squadron was an eye witness of the infamous occasion when Bush was shot down by the Japanese. Accord to this witness, Chester Mierzejewski, Pilot Bush prematurely bailed out, thus dooming the two crewmen in the rear part of his plane. Ironically, the allegation is detailed by none other than the despicable POW/MIA exploiter Ted Sampley in a widely quoted article circulating on the internet.
...

In 1988, however, other than the New York Post article and an Associated Press report, the whole controversy quickly died. The reason it died, despite the credibility of the accuser, was partly because the media were gutless. But mostly because Michael Dukakis, honorable to a fault, refused to make it an issue.

As reported by the New York Times:

"Gov. Michael S. Dukakis, questioned about a World War II gunner's challenge to Vice President Bush's account of being shot down over the Pacific, said, 'I don't think that kind of thing has any place in the campaign.' The Democratic Presidential nominee said the challenge to Mr. Bush's war record was 'unfair' and 'unfortunate.' Mr. Bush 'served this country,' Mr. Dukakis said. 'He served it well and with tremendous courage, and you don't fly 58 missions without enormous courage and tremendous patriotism.' The New York Times, August 14, 1988

A pretty stark difference. Not just with George W. Bush, but also between Dukakis and Bill Clinton who fought back.

And he also reminds us of an old speech of Zell Miller's - his speech to the 1992 Democratic Convention. In addition to the part he reprints, in the whole speech (via the link he provided) there's a portion which could well be part of a 2004 Democratic speech.

Americans cannot understand why the rich can buy the best health care in the world, but all the rest of us get is rising costs and cuts in coverage, or no health insurance at all.

And George Bush doesn't get it?

Americans cannot walk our streets in safety, because our "tough-on-crime" president has waged a phony war on drugs, posing for pictures while cutting police, prosecutors and prisons.

And George Bush doesn't get it?

Americans have seen plants closed down, jobs shipped overseas and our hopes fade away as our economic position collapses right before our very eyes.

And George Bush does not get it!

It's really good to see Hesiod back and better than ever.

(Edited to add) I checked back, and with some trimming Hesiod has turned it into a terrific 2004 Democratic campaign speech.

Higher Ground

Last evening, I didn't tune in to see the closing ceremonies at the Olympics, or even whatever dreadful pre-convention coverage the cable news outlets were providing. No, I'm a person with a child in high school, and in order to keep up with current trends I did what I had to do - watched some of the MTV Video Music Awards. Actually, I sort of drifted in and out of the room, catching pieces of the mostly vapid spectacle.

But, in the middle of the lip synching and bling-bling, there suddenly appeared Alicia Keys, who was joined by Stevie Wonder in performing his once-again timely song from 1973, "Higher Ground":

People keep on learnin'
Soldiers keep on warrin'
World keep on turnin'
Cause it won't be too long

Powers keep on lyin'
While your people keep on dyin'
World keep on turnin'
Cause it won't be too long

Who'd have thought that MTV would have the most powerful political statement on cable TV last night?

"Give My Love to Rose Rove ..."

I heard on the radio today that one of the celebrations related to the Republican National Convention will be a tribute to Johnny Cash. Now, I never thought of Johnny Cash as a Republican, so you can imagine what I thought his reaction would have been. Reading the news later, I found a story about someone who thought the same thing, but she decided to do something about it:

"A lot of his political songs really represented issues the Republicans don't really seem to care about very much," Erin Siegal said in an interview with The Associated Press. "I find this really offensive, for his name or his memory to be used like this."

The 22-year-old art student from Brooklyn, N.Y., launched a Web site dedicated to her cause and says she expects at least 500 people to protest at Tuesday's events. All have been asked to dress in black, Cash's signature color, and bring musical instruments and their singing voices.

It's on August 31, if you're going to be there. More information (and detailed instructions on how to dress) is available at www.defendjohnnycash.org.

"The Revolution Starts ... Now"

The revolution starts now
When you rise above your fear
And tear the walls around you down
The revolution starts here
Where you work and where you play
Where you lay your money down
What you do and what you say
The revolution starts now
Yeah the revolution starts now

Steve Earle's new album, "The Revolution Starts ... Now" comes out on August 24. As his record company says, it is "extremely political" (you can read the lyrics here, and listen to some of the songs here). For people who don't want to hear the political views of a writer or a performing artist, that's your right. But, Mr. Earle does have some thoughtful things to say, as in the liner notes for the new album:

The Constitution of The United States of America is a REVOLUTIONARY document in every sense of the word. It was designed to evolve, to live, and to breathe like the people that it governs. It is, ingeniously, and perhaps conversely, resilient enough to change with the times in order to meet the challenges of its third century and rigid enough to preserve the ideals that inspired its original articles and amendments. As long as we are willing to put in the work required to defend and nurture this remarkable invention of our forefathers, then I believe with all my heart that it will continue to thrive for generations to come. Without our active participation, however, the future is far from certain. For without the lifeblood of the human spirit even the greatest documents produced by humankind are only words on paper or parchment, destined to yellow and crack and eventually crumble to dust.

And, like everybody else these days, Mr. Earle now has a blog. I'll put it in the list, and check back there from time to time.

It Takes A Red-Headed WomanTo Get A Dirty Job Done

Meet Dr. Marilyn O'Grady, candidate for U.S. Senate for the Conservative Party in New York. Dr. O'Grady faces a tough fight in her attempt to unseat Sen. Charles Schumer (especially since there's also a Republican candidate, but apparently nobody knows much about him). In an effort to boost her candidacy, Dr. O'Grady has hit upon an apparently sure-fire scheme - call for a boycott of Bruce Springsteen. As reported by Fox News:

"He thinks making millions with a song-and-dance routine allows him to tell you how to vote," Marilyn O'Grady says in the 30-second spot. "Here's my vote: Boycott the Boss. If you don't buy his politics, don't buy his music."

In a statement, O'Grady said Springsteen "has a right to say what he thinks, but we have an equal right to speak. Now that he's moved onto the political stage to bash my president, it is entirely fair to respond."

You can view her ad from the site at this link.

As an aside, if you are reading this you may have noticed that a certain (choose one: characteristic/trademark/drawback) of this site is the (choose one: frequent/constant/annoying) use of references to the work of one particular artist, in titles and the like. There's no particular reason for that - it's just something to do while setting down these random thoughts. As a result, more than one individual did ask me why I hadn't commented before on the Vote for Change tour. After all, it has everything I've been writing about here - Springsteen, concerns about the Administration's war policy, right-wing calls for celebrity boycotts, and even some musings from Bill O'Reilly. But, in addition to being lazy the week that news came out, I didn't feel the need to add my two cents. But something about this just bugged me, so ...

Back to Dr. O'Grady, who from the video is a red-headed woman spreading some pretty ugly ideas. Remember, she wants to be a U.S. Senator, and she seems to believe that people who disagree with her should be bullied into silence. It's one thing for radio hot-heads, dime-a-dozen columnists, message board scribes or two-bit proprietors of boycott websites such as Pabaah.com (they still won't let me link from here) to "Dixie-Chick" someone. But, someone who aspires to the position of U.S. Senator, ought to have a little more respect for a basic liberty such as freedom of speech. And I don't buy this "they have to face the consequences of their actions" nonsense. Look, if an artist is giving a show to support a cause you don't support, then don't go. If they release a song with a point of view you disagree with, don't buy it. But this idea that you boycott everything involving a musician, or an actor, whose politics are different from yours, is offensive.

A boycott which is designed to change something (as in the 60's civil rights struggles), is different from this kind of boycott. The purpose of these boycotts isn't to change the political views of an artist, but to make that artist shut up (or worse, to keep someone else from daring to speak out). The only appropriate response, to speech you disagree with, is for you to speak your mind - not to force the other guy into silence.

Folks like Dr. O'Grady need to learn the difference between acting like Dr. King, and acting like Dr. Evil.

Everybody's Got a Secret, Sonny ...

... and the Governor of my state, New Jersey, had one heck of a secret, which he told us about today. The full text is at this link (courtesy of Curmudgeon at Mapleberry Blog, so you don't have to register at the New York Times to read it). It's a personal tragedy, more than anything else - a tragedy not because he's gay, but because he has felt the need to try to live his life being something that he's not. I was particularly struck by two phrases in the Governor's speech (which, love him or hate him, has to be regarded as a powerfully direct statement):

But because of my resolve, and also thinking that I was doing the right thing, I forced what I thought was an acceptable reality onto myself, a reality which is layered and layered with all the, quote, good things, and all the, quote, right things of typical adolescent and adult behavior.
...

It makes little difference that as governor I am gay. In fact, having the ability to truthfully set forth my identity might have enabled me to be more forthright in fulfilling and discharging my constitutional obligations.

That's really the tragic part, isn't it? In both his personal, and professional lives, he felt the need to subordinate who he really was, to present a different face to the world. It's a personal tragedy, because of the effect this will have (especially given the very public nature of this disclosure) on the lives of his wife and daughters. And, it's political tragedy, in light of the fact that he may well have compromised his principles as part of his effort to keep his secret.

And, unfortunately, this is a political tragedy which some may try to exploit, not just in New Jersey but throughout the country. Steve at No More Mister Nice Blog has realized the potential national use (or abuse) in Governor McGreevey's personal tragedy:

First of all, the GOP is about to make him John Kerry's running mate. Not all over the country, mind you -- you won't hear gay-bashing at the faux-moderate convention -- but on talk radio and the Internet, and probably above the radar as well, albeit in code words. And I'm sure they'd love to turn the guy who plans to sue him into the next Paula Jones. If they can make an even barely plausible case that he's truly a wronged gay lover, then all bets are off -- they can play this everywhere; they can play it as outrage at abuse of power for the swing voters while working the homophobia and aren't-Democrats-freaks? angle for everyone else.

They're certainly going to play McGreevey's decision to hang on until November as a sleazy Democratic trick -- and now the various nonsexual scandals of the McGreevey years (scroll down to paragraph 14 in this story for a brief summary) will go national. McGreevey may even bump the Swift boat Kerry haters from their spot at the top of the Fox News charts.

Unfortunately, that's an all-too-plausible scenario. And do you want to know the real funny thing about that?

It's this - I don't think any of the mainstream Republicans would want McGreevey to resign earlier, so that there was a gubernatorial election this November. That's because there's only one guy who's up and ready to go with a campaign on short notice: Bret Schundler, his opponent in the 2001 election, chair of an organization called "Empower the People", and who has been gearing up for the 2005 election. Mr. Schundler is still the favorite of conservative New Jersey Republicans - but, this being New Jersey, a lot of the Republicans (especially those in office) are more moderate. For the Republican establishment, if the choice is a quick election which Mr. Schundler is ready for, or an election next year, I think they'd choose the latter.

So, if it is true that the national Republicans will be using Governor McGreevey's situation to attack the Democrats, I think New Jersey's Republicans have their own little secret - and are happy to wait until next year for the gubernatorial election.

That's Why I'll Keep Searching 'til I FindMy Special One ...

Greetings from NJ, to anybody arriving here from a search for webpages referencing "Kerry" and "Springsteen". You were probably sent here because of the post at this link. Before you go, please leave a comment here, to let me know where you're from.

And I don't care what anybody says - as Kerry and Edwards are waving tonight at the balloon drop, I want to hear "Land of Hope and Dreams".

[UPDATE] Okay, so they went with "No Surrender" with the candidate coming up the aisle. After the speech, U2 was an appropriate selection. But, seriously, following that up with Van Halen? And not even real Van Halen, but Sammy Hagar Van Halen?

And don't even get me started about "Celebration" ("Celebrate good times, come on!"). I am well into my third decade of disliking that song.

Well, there's still the inauguration ...

Where There's a Fight Against the Blood and Hatred in the Air

If you did not catch Barack Obama's speech before the Democratic Convention, I feel sorry for you.

For alongside our famous individualism, there's another ingredient in the American saga.

A belief that we are connected as one people. If there's a child on the south side of Chicago who can't read, that matters to me, even if it's not my child. If there's a senior citizen somewhere who can't pay for her prescription and has to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it's not my grandmother. If there's an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties. It's that fundamental belief - I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper - that makes this country work. It's what allows us to pursue our individual dreams, yet still come together as a single American family. "E pluribus unum." Out of many, one.

Yet even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes. Well, I say to them tonight, there's not a liberal America and a conservative America - there's the United States of America. There's not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America. The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and have gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported it. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.

That's what we've been waiting to hear, isn't it? That all of these elements, these interests, these needs and beliefs reside throughout the U.S., and are not the exclusive province of a few, a few who need to tell the rest of us how "wrong", or "bad", or "un-American" we are. Unfortunately, that's a message that the current Administration is congenitally unable to convey - because it goes against everything that their strategy is built on.

[UPDATE on 7/28] The speech was so good, that Administration apologists are trying to claim that it wasn't a "real" Democratic speech, but was more conservative. It's good to know that the idea of "I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper" is at the heart of the Republican Platform. Be that as it may, there's a comprehensive review of this angle at Daily Kos.