Random Thoughts on
Love and Fear
(and anything in between)

December 24, 2006

Sunday Night Springsteen

Christmas Eve edition, so it's posted a little early.

Christmas is a time to get the family together, maybe to gather everyone around the piano.

This video is from a performance we attended in November of last year, the last night of the solo tour.

I've Got Contacts Deep in Mexico ...

... and lots of other stuff, as well. The Cautious Family is doing something different for Christmas this year. We're traveling to the Yucatan - first, a few days on a little island off of Cancun, to celebrate Christmas in a little Mexican village by the beach. Then, a few days in the interior touring the Mayan ruins - we thought of this even before we heard about Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Mayan", or whatever it is he calls his new movie.

We thought we would be there by now, but there was a slight problem at the airport yesterday - simply put, not getting on the plane. There was a lot of that going on, as it was crowded, planes were over-booked, etc. Then we tried a stand-by (why, I don't know) later that day. We did not get on the plane, but apparently our bags did.

We're heading down later today. We'll get there late, but we'll get there. In the meantime, everything we packed (shirts, shorts, shoes, beach reading and the Cautious Daughter's contact lenses) are, with any luck, waiting for us at the Cancun airport.

Feliz Navidad!

December 20, 2006

So This Is Christmas
And What Have You Done?

Well, I have done not much in the way of posting.

I'd like to say that I've been hip-deep in political activity as part of the Great Wave of 2006 - but that would not be true. I had some little involvement, and a lot of that was with local issues.

Luckily, things came out not too bad, nonetheless.

As I've read back over my occasional thoughts here, I realize that my hopes for what people should do, have exceeded my own contributions. I don't know if that will change, or if posting more here would actually be the best way to change that.

But, what the heck, as I wrote in the first post here, it beats just shouting at the television.

While not posting, I have been house-cleaning over in the "People I'm Reading", in the sidebar. It's a representation of the things I'm interested in looking over on the web.

I'll see how things go in the new year.

October 22, 2006

Sunday Night Springsteen

Okay, so we are not even on a regular "Sunday Night Springsteen" schedule, never mind on an actual regular posting schedule.

My bad.

Be that as it may, the following is a performance from August 31, 2003. That happened to be my birthday. That happened to be a concert I attended. That happened to be a great day of tailgaiting, followed by the closing night of a ten-night stand at Giants Stadium. It was a good day. You can hear the crowd sing along in this clip, which makes the song.

The song is "Jersey Girl", by Tom Waits. The original may have been ironic, but the Springsteen version is a simple tribute, and an expression of hopeful, perhaps desperate love.

October 08, 2006

Sunday Night Springsteen

A "Bring 'Em Home" from the Conan O'Brien show, since the performance linked to below appears to be unavailable any more.

Sunday Night Springsteen Olbermann

I was catching up on my reading this weekend, and found this from "Countdown" last Thursday. Some of the best parts -
And lastly tonight, a special comment about lying.

While the leadership in Congress has self-destructed over the revelations of an unmatched, and unrelieved, march through a cesspool...

While the leadership inside the White House has self-destructed over the revelations of a book with a glowing red cover...

The president of the United States—unbowed, undeterred and unconnected to reality—has continued his extraordinary trek through our country rooting out the enemies of freedom: The Democrats.

Yesterday at a fundraiser for an Arizona congressman, Mr. Bush claimed, “177 of the opposition party said, ‘You know, we don‘t think we ought to be listening to the conversations of terrorists.‘”

The hell they did.

A hundred seventy-seven Democrats opposed the president‘s seizure of yet another part of the Constitution.

Not even the White House press office could actually name a single Democrat who had ever said the government shouldn‘t be listening to the conversations of terrorists.

President Bush hears what he wants.

Tuesday, at another fundraiser in California, he had said that, “Democrats take a law enforcement approach to terrorism. That means America will wait until we‘re attacked again before we respond.”

Mr. Bush fabricated that, too.

And evidently he has begun to fancy himself as a mind reader.

“If you listen closely to some of the leaders of the Democratic Party,” the president said at yet another fundraiser, Monday in Nevada, “it sounds like they think the best way to protect the American people is, wait until we‘re attacked again.”

The president does not just hear what he wants, he hears things that only he can hear.

It defies belief that this president and his administration could continue to find new unexplored political gutters into which they could wallow. Yet they do.

It is startling enough that such things could be said out loud by any president in this nation‘s history.

Rhetorically, it is about an inch short of Mr. Bush accusing Democratic leaders, Democrats, the majority of Americans who disagree with his policies of treason. But it is the context that truly makes the head spin.

Just 25 days ago, on the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, this same man spoke to this nation and insisted, “We must put aside our differences and work together to meet the test that history has given us.”

Mr. Bush, this is a test you have already failed.

If your commitment to “put aside differences and work together” is replaced in the span of merely three weeks by claiming your political opponents prefer to wait to see this country attacked again, and by spewing fabrications about what they‘ve said, then the questions your critics need to be asking are no longer about your policies.

They are, instead, solemn and even terrible questions, about your fitness to fulfill the responsibilities of your office.

No Democrat, sir, has ever said anything approaching the suggestion that the best means of self-defense is to “wait until we‘re attacked again.”

No critic, no commentator, no reluctant Republican in the Senate has ever said anything that any responsible person could even have exaggerated into the slander you spoke in Nevada on Monday night, nor the slander you spoke in California on Tuesday, nor the slander you spoke in Arizona on Wednesday—nor whatever is next.

You have dishonored your party, sir; you have dishonored your supporters; you have dishonored yourself.

But tonight the stark question we must face is—why?

Why has the ferocity of your venom against the Democrats now exceeded the ferocity of your venom against the terrorists?

Why have you chosen to go down in history as the president who made things up?

In less than one month you have gone from a flawed call to unity to this clarion call to hatred of Americans, by Americans.

If this is not simply the most shameless example of the rhetorical of political hackery, then it would have to be the cry of a leader crumbling under the weight of his own lies.

We have, of course, survived all manner of political hackery, of every shape, size and party. We will have to suffer it for as long as the Republic stands. But the premise of a president who comes across as a compulsive liar is nothing less than terrifying.

A president who since 9/11 will not listen, is not listening—and thanks to Bob Woodward‘s most recent account—evidently has never listened.

A president who since 9/11 so hates or fears other Americans that he accuses them of advocating deliberate inaction in the face of the enemy.

A president who since 9/11 has savaged the very freedoms he claims to be protecting from attack - attack by terrorists, or by Democrats, or by both? It‘s now impossible to find a consistent thread of logic as to who Mr. Bush believes the enemy truly is.

But if we know one thing for certain about President Bush, it is this:

This president—in his bullying of the Senate last month and in his slandering of the Democrats this month—has shown us that he believes whoever the enemies actually are, they are hiding themselves inside a dangerous cloak called the Constitution of the United States of America.

~snip~

And the vice president is a chilling figure, still unable, it seems, to accept the conclusions of his own party‘s leaders in the Senate, that the foundations of his public position, are made out of sand.

There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but he still says so.

There was no link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, but he still says so.

And thus, gripping firmly these figments of his own imagination, Mr. Cheney lives on, in defiance, and spreads around him and before him, darkness, like some contagion of fear.

They are never wrong, and they never regret—admirable in a French torch singer, cataclysmic in an American leader.

Thus, the sickening attempt to blame the Foley scandal on the negligence of others or “the Clinton era,” even though the Foley scandal began before the Lewinsky scandal.

Thus, last month‘s enraged attacks on this administration‘s predecessors, about Osama bin Laden, a projection of their own negligence in the immediate months before 9/11.

Thus, the terrifying attempt to hamstring the fundament of our freedom, the Constitution, a triumph for al Qaeda, one the terrorists could not hope to achieve on their own with a hundred 9/11‘s.

And thus, worst of all perhaps, these newest lies by President Bush about Democrats choosing to await another attack and not listen to the conversations of terrorists.

It is the terror and the guilt within your own heart, Mr. Bush, that you redirect at others who simply wish for you to temper your certainty with counsel.

It is the failure and the incompetence within your own memory, Mr. Bush, that leads you to demonize those who might merely quote to you the pleadings of Oliver Cromwell: “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.”

It is not the Democrats whose inaction in the face of the enemy you fear, Sir. It is your own — before 9/11, and — and you alone know this - perhaps afterwards.

Mr. President, these new lies go to the heart of what it is that you truly wish to preserve.

It is not our freedom, nor our country — your actions against the Constitution give irrefutable proof of that.

You want to preserve a political party‘s power. And obviously you will sell this country out, to do it.

These are lies about the Democrats—piled atop lies about Iraq—piled atop lies about your preparations for al Qaeda.

To you, perhaps, they feel like the weight of a million centuries—as crushing, as immovable. But they are not.

If you add more lies to them, you cannot free yourself, and us, from them.

But if you stop—if you stop fabricating quotes, and stop building straw-men, and stop inspiring those around you to do the same—you may yet liberate yourself and this nation.

Please, sir, do not throw this country‘s principles away because your lies have made it such that you can no longer differentiate between the terrorists and the critics.

Goodnight and good luck.

It needed to be said - especially that part that's emphasized above.

October 01, 2006

Sunday Night Springsteen

Maybe it’s self-explanatory. We have a disagreement here, among those of us who are citizens of the United States.

Look – I know, and we all know, that there are people out there who think that the greatest thing in the world would be that they kill some of us.

But, does that mean that we have to throw out everything that our Constitution means?

The old line about “History will judge” is not reassuring. I am disappointed that we have to actually confront our own government, and point out that they are acting like a “third world” regime. This video is a performance that, well, was from a time when we assumed that our own government could not be accused of imprisoning or holding people without any basic rights, a time when we thought that those who did that were the “others”, in those other, repressive and distrusted countries.

That having been said, this is a performance of Bob Dylan's “Chimes of Freedom”, with Tracy Chapman, Sting, Peter Gabriel and Youssou n'Dour, from the Amnesty International concert tour, 1988

September 28, 2006

And When You Realize How They Tricked You This Time

Well, earlier this evening the "Military Commission" (a.k.a. Torture-and-no-Habeas-Corpus Act of 2006) passed the Senate. As reported here -
All Republicans but one (Chafee) voted in favor. Democrats voting in favor included Carper, Johnson, Landrieu, Lautenberg, Lieberman, Menendez, Nelson (Fla.), Nelson (Neb.), Pryor, Rockefeller, Salazar and Stabenow.
Look at all the Democrats going along with this. As Professor Balkin wrote, when noting that the Democrats had given up the chance to filibuster the bill:
So let me get this straight: The Democrats give up the chance at filibustering one of the worst bills in recent memory because they were afraid that the President would paint them as soft on terrorism.

After the bill passes, the President plans to paint them as soft on terrorism.

What a spineless, worthless lot the Democrats in the Senate are. They deserve every lost Senate and House seat that comes from this.
I wouldn't go that far, but it's discouraging when we thought the whole point was to take a principled stand. This bill gives the President "discretion" to decide what's permissible - gee, four years ago they gave him "discretion" to decide whether it was necessary to invade Iraq, and that worked out just great. This year, they actually have a legitimate point, which they should have tried to make. Now, what can they say? As Professor Balkin wrote the day before:
The Democrats may think that if they let this pass, they are guaranteed to pick up more seats in the House and Senate. But they will actually win less seats this way. For they will have proved to the American people that they are spineless and opportunistic-- that, when faced with a genuine choice and a genuine challenge, they can keep neither our country nor our values safe.

The current bill, if passed, will give the Executive far more dictatorial powers to detain, prosecute, judge and punish than it ever enjoyed before. Over the last 48 hours, it has been modified in a hundred different ways to increase executive power at the expense of judicial review, due process, and oversight. And what is more, the bill's most outrageous provisions on torture, definition of enemy combatants, secret procedures, and habeas stripping, are completely unnecessary to keep Americans safe. Rather, they are the work of an Executive branch that has proven itself as untrustworthy as it is greedy: always pushing the legal and constitutional envelope, always seeking more power and less accountability.
As a voter in New Jersey, I'm particularly disappointed in Senators Lautenberg and Menendez. I honestly thought that we didn't have to keep an eye on these guys, and that they wouldn't knuckle under to the political threats. Instead, they joined with the Bushists to vote for a bill that was posted purely for political reasons. The Bushistas cared less about whether the bill was sound, constitutional, or responsible - they clearly just wanted something that would allow them to attack Democrats as being "soft" on terrorism. And who cares what they have to authorize, in order to be able to do that.

So, Senators Menendez and Lautenberg, as well as the other Yes-voting Democrats, have linked arms with their equally feckless colleagues across the aisle to sing their little ditty about committing unspeakable acts on the Constitution (not to mention the detainees) -
Rape!
R-a-a-a-pe!
Raa-aa-aa-pe!

A pretty rape!
A literary rape!

Just try to see it.
And you will soon agree, señors,
Why
Invite regret,
When you can get the sort of rape
You'll never ever forget.

You understand?
I understand.
It's very grand.
It's very grand.
It's done with drums and a great big brass band!
Yeah!

Just try to see it.
I see it!
I see it!
And you will soon si,si señors,
Why
Invite regret,
When you can get the sort of rape
You'll never ever forget.

So why be stingy?
It depends on what you pay!
The kids will love it.
It depends on what you

Ra-aa-aa-pe!
Ole
(Lyrics from The Fantasticks)

September 24, 2006

Sunday Night Springsteen

It's the latest thing with all the cool bloggers, so why not "YouTube" if one can.

This is a performance from the 2004 "Vote for Change" tour. Yes, we were young and naive then, but what the heck.

John Fogerty, backed by the E Street Band, performed his song about finding an uncomfortable parallel between today's war, and the one in Viet Nam. I think the term "Deja Vu" also applies to the current fixation with attacking Iran - which is as if they fixed the spell-checker on the White House computers, and realized they wanted to attack a different country all along.

Summer's Gone, and the Time is Right ...

Yes, this is a poor excuse for a blog, isn't it?

I said I'd try to do better (several times this year, you can see them not too far down in the posts), and did not follow through. That's something that I was going to do for myself, and did not do. So, now that our leisurely summer is over, and some serious stuff is starting up for fall, maybe we'll try to do a little better.

When we started these little random thoughts, there was a reason for this: "Anyway, now I have someplace to carry on, in hopefully a more healthy manner as opposed to just frowning at the monitor or shouting at the TV, when I see some nonsense that is just begging for someone like me to respond to."

By the way, looking at what was written here at the start of this thing three years ago, it all holds up pretty well, if I do say so myself. That's actually kind of depressing, if you think about it.

Anyway, today the "Big Dog" did something that all of us wannabes would love to be able to do - he called "bullsh*t" on his Fox News interlocutor, told the truth about what the questioner was up to, and cut him a new one as he went point-by-point refuting the "Faux News" alternate/fake history of the world. It was a beautiful thing.

So as I tell myself, if we are silent we are acquiescing. So we should not be silent.

June 22, 2006

"Bring 'Em Home", Part 3

Two individuals who have been mentioned here, became part of one story last week.

One is the late Marine Lance Corporal Edward "Augie" Schroeder, who graduated from our local high school, and who died last summer in Iraq. He and his family moved out to Ohio after his graduation, but his loss was profoundly felt here in our New Jersey community.

The other is a songwriter and performer, Bruce Springsteen - who is currently touring with an unconventional band, performing traditional folk songs and interesting re-workings of some of his own songs.

On June 16, 2006 (as reported here, scroll down to the date), Mr. Springsteen made a dedication, at his show in Cleveland, Ohio -
The other debut was the first solo performance of the tour, Springsteen on 12-string for "Into the Fire," as the band stood behind him on stage. He dedicated the song, honoring a request he received by letter, to Lance Cpl. Edward August Schroeder and the 3rd battalion, 25th Marine Regiment of Brook Park, Ohio, from Linda Herbkersman. That Battalion suffered major casualties last year -- including "Augie" Schroeder, 20 died in Iraq in a matter of days. "You can forget the names, you can forget the faces," Bruce said, "But when it's your son or daughter, you never forget the loss."
In his current tour, Mr. Springsteen has borrowed a song from Pete Seeger, has modified the lyrics a little, and is sending it out as a powerful statement about the current occupation of Iraq -
If you love this land of the free
Bring 'em home, bring 'em home
Bring them back from overseas
Bring 'em home, bring 'em home

It will make the politicians sad, I know
Bring 'em home, bring 'em home
They wanna tangle with their foe
Bring 'em home, bring 'em home

They wanna test their grand theories
Bring 'em home, bring 'em home
With the blood of you and me
Bring 'em home, bring 'em home

We'll give no more brave young lives
Bring 'em home, bring 'em home
For the gleam in some fool's eyes
Bring 'em home, bring 'em home

The men will cheer and the boys will shout
Bring 'em home, bring 'em home
And we will all turn out
Bring 'em home, bring 'em home

The church bells will ring with joy
Bring 'em home, bring 'em home
To welcome out garland girls and boys
Bring 'em home, bring 'em home

Well, with their voice and sound
Bring 'em home, bring 'em home
Yeah, when Johnny comes marching home
Bring 'em home, bring 'em home

Bring 'em home, bring 'em home
Bring 'em home, bring 'em home
Bring 'em home, bring 'em home
Bring 'em home, bring 'em home
And, for as long as AOL Music keeps the video up, you can watch a performance of "Bring 'Em Home" at this link.

June 21, 2006

April 06, 2006

Well It Ain't No Secret

In the news today -
President George W. Bush authorized Vice President Dick Cheney in July 2003 to permit Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby Jr., to leak to a reporter key portions of a classified prewar intelligence estimate on Iraq, according to Libby's grand jury testimony disclosed in court papers.

The court filing late Wednesday provided the first indication that Bush, who has long assailed leaks of classified information as a national security threat, played a direct role in the disclosure of the intelligence report on Iraq and also was involved in the swirl of events leading to the disclosure of the identity of an undercover CIA officer.

This calls for a variation of my favorite movie line -
"I'm shocked, shocked to find that leaking is going on in here!"

April 04, 2006

It's Hard To Be A Saint In The City

Okay, we're back (I think). I could not let the day end without posting a wish for a Happy Saint Isidore's Day to you and yours.

But, Cautious Man, what the blog are you talking about?

Glad you asked. Whilst reading from The Contrarian this evening (who I've finally added to my reading list on the right), I learned that this is the feast of St. Isidore, Patron of the Internet -
An amazingly learned man, he was sometimes called "The Schoolmaster of the Middle Ages" because the encyclopedia he wrote was used as a textbook for nine centuries. He required seminaries to be built in every diocese, wrote a Rule for religious orders and founded schools that taught every branch of learning. Isidore wrote numerous books, including a dictionary, an encyclopedia, a history of Goths and a history of the world—beginning with creation! He completed the Mozarabic liturgy, which is still in use in Toledo, Spain. For all these reasons Isidore (as well as several other saints) has been suggested as patron of the Internet.

Some more "traditional" information on St. Isidore can be found at this link.

A more light-hearted view of St. Isidore (with more links about him and the other "finalists") can be found at this link.

And, an off-the-wall view can be found at this link, which provides the following invocation -
When programs crash and cursors freeze,
with warnings: "fatal error",
our systems drive us to our knees—
can this be cyber-terror,
or mere demoniac possession?
We need some saintly intercession!
Ah, what comfort to implore,
"Pray for us, St. Isidore!"

When files we’ve saved cannot be found
(not even by Outlook),
when viruses and worms abound,
and eat the address book,
when through the Windows data’s flying,
the desperate cyber-slaves are crying,
prostrate on the office floor,
"Pray for us, St. Isidore!"

When "You’ve got mail!" but it’s all spam
(or files that won’t unzip),
when all at once there’s no more RAM,
we start to lose our grip,
and filling with the foulest hates,
we would defenestrate Bill Gates!
"Our charitable hearts restore—
pray for us, St. Isidore!"

When downloads fail, when disks erase,
when life-work’s lost in cyberspace,
remind us in our dire frustration:
The goal here is communication.
"Oh, heed our pleas (but don’t keep score)—
pray for us, St. Isidore!"

March 12, 2006

It's Been A Long Time Coming

Okay, so I have not exactly been living up to my New Year's Resolution.

If anyone is interested in what I have to say here, I know I have to say something more often.

Sorry about that, I'll try harder.

"Bring ‘Em Home", Part 2

During the last month, as I have been driving to work in Newark, NJ, I've seen this billboard stretched across the road.



This message is the work of the folks at the NJ Coalition to Bring the Troops Home Now. It's a simple message, and one that's hard to argue with.

Check them out.

February 09, 2006

"Bring ‘Em Home"

Last night, there were two versions of that plea.

Version I – The short version -

At the Grammy Awards last night, Bruce Springsteen performed “Devils and Dust”. As recounted in a story in the Boston Globe -
Is Bruce Springsteen ever not riveting? His performance of "Devils and Dust" was classic, and very early Bob Dylan. Without so much as moving his hips, he generated intensity and spark, spitting out his lyrics so that we just had to hang on each line. ''And tonight faith just ain't enough," he sang, ending the song with a sober call: ''Bring 'em home."
Version II – The long version –

Some very dedicated individuals in my community hosted a forum last night, entitled “A Responsible Withdrawal from Iraq”. Among the speakers were the parents of a young man who has been mentioned here before – Edward August “Augie” Schroeder. His parents are taking a stand, and they are to be admired for that. The forum last night discussed the many plans out there to bring our troops home.

We should hope and pray that these pleas (the short and the long) are answered soon.

January 25, 2006

"Jumping The Shark"

That's the first thought that came to mind about "Wonkette.com", after reading this -
Hi. It’s Glenn Reynolds. I’m Wonkette for the day ...
No comment.

January 08, 2006

"We Keep Pretending That There's Nothing Wrong
But There's A Code Of Silence And It Can't Go On"

It's been on my mind for a while, which you may have gathered from the things I've posted here. I guess it started a couple of months ago, after I attended a talk by Scott Ritter. As I wrote at the time -
When asked what people should do, his answer was very simple - do something. Get out there. Make a statement. Don't wait for the Republicans, for the Democrats, for the New York Times, or for anyone else to talk straight. If more people did that, who knows what could happen?

Anyway, I bought a couple of copies of his new book (to read and to pass on), and took his admonition to heart. We all need to get out and make our voices heard - and no matter how many people we may reach, it helps to keep passing it on.
It continued when I reflected on the 30th anniversary of the death of John Lennon, and I had this thought -
We can let a performer (or any person) inspire us, but we can't let them be a replacement for us. If we just sit around remembering someone, who once sang "War is over, if you want it", and do nothing else, we're really not keeping him alive, are we?
Just the other day, I was moved by the words written by Mr. Paul Schroeder, who used to live, and who raised his late son (a Marine who died in Iraq), here in my community. He wrote at the conclusion of his essay:
But their deaths will not be in vain if Americans stop hiding behind flag-draped hero masks and stop whispering their opposition to this war. Until then, the lives of other sons, daughters, husbands, wives, fathers and mothers may be wasted as well.
In short, silence is not neutral, now. If you are not heard, you may as well be endorsing what is happening. I was reminded of that yet again today, reading a transcript of Howard Dean on CNN -
BLITZER: About a month ago, Senator Joe Lieberman, the former Democratic vice presidential nominee spoke out, urging his fellow Democrats, including yourself, to restrain themselves in criticizing the president's position on Iraq. Listen to what Lieberman said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN (D), CONNECTICUT: It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander-in-chief for three more critical years, and that, in matters of war, we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: What do you think? Is that advice good advice from Senator Lieberman?

DEAN: No. This president has lacked credibility almost from the day he took office because of the way he took office.

He's not reached out to other people. He's shown he's willing to abuse his power. He's not consulted others. And he's not interested in consulting any others.

And I think, frankly, that Joe is absolutely wrong, that it is incumbent on every American who is patriotic and cares about their country to stand up for what's right and not go along with the president, who is leading us in a wrong direction.
And, finally, this evening I found myself reading an address by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., delivered April 4, 1967 at a meeting of Clergy and Laity Concerned at Riverside Church in New York City, entitled "A Time to Break Silence". He was discussing the war in Vietnam, but his words are as applicable to our present times -
I come to this magnificent house of worship tonight because my conscience leaves me no other choice. I join you in this meeting because I am in deepest agreement with the aims and work of the organization which has brought us together: Clergy and Laymen Concerned about Vietnam. The recent statements of your executive committee are the sentiments of my own heart, and I found myself in full accord when I read its opening lines: "A time comes when silence is betrayal." And that time has come for us in relation to Vietnam.

The truth of these words is beyond doubt, but the mission to which they call us is a most difficult one. Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing their government's policy, especially in time of war. Nor does the human spirit move without great difficulty against all the apathy of conformist thought within one's own bosom and in the surrounding world. Moreover, when the issues at hand seem as perplexed as they often do in the case of this dreadful conflict, we are always on the verge of being mesmerized by uncertainty; but we must move on.

And some of us who have already begun to break the silence of the night have found that the calling to speak is often a vocation of agony, but we must speak. We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak. And we must rejoice as well, for surely this is the first time in our nation's history that a significant number of its religious leaders have chosen to move beyond the prophesying of smooth patriotism to the high grounds of a firm dissent based upon the mandates of conscience and the reading of history. Perhaps a new spirit is rising among us. If it is, let us trace its movements and pray that our own inner being may be sensitive to its guidance, for we are deeply in need of a new way beyond the darkness that seems so close around us.
(By the way, you can listen to that address at this link.)

So, to sum up - I feel that there are so many reminders out there that to be silent is to aquiesce. As I've said before, if you approve of what is happening, that is your right. If you do not, then you can't just sit there. Learn about what is going on, make a statement in some way, and contribute to the growing clamor.

You know what to do, so just go and do it.

January 07, 2006

"Well Brunettes Are Fine Man
And Blondes Are Fun ..."

We don't tell a lot of jokes around here, but this one (courtesy of The Lesser of Two Weevils), is clearly the funniest blonde joke ever.

(Apologies to the golden-haired among you, but sometimes I can't help myself)

January 03, 2006

A Prayer For The Souls Of The Departed

I've written here before about Edward August "Augie" Schroeder. He grew up in my community in New Jersey. He graduated from our high school in 2000; my own son graduated from that same school last year. I did not know him or his parents personally, but many of my friends and neighbors did. Like my own son, he was a Scout, a town pool lifeguard, took part in assorted extracurricular activities, and was active in his church's youth group. In his yearbook portrait (which you can see in the story at this link), he looks just like a lot of the kids of our friends, and like our childrens' classmates. Heck, my son has a similar haircut in his yearbook picture. A lot of us see our own children, when we look at his picture.

He died while riding in a lightly armored, amphibious vehicle in the middle of the desert.

At the time, we saw that his parents were very strong people, who were not afraid to make their feelings known - His father had asked a friend to pass this on to the community through a local internet message board: "Also, we want them to know that the question is not why, but what next."

Cpl. Schroeder's father has continued making his feelings known, and did so today in an essay published in the Washington Post (which you may have read already, since it's all over the web today):
Life, Wasted
Let's Stop This War Before More Heroes Are Killed

By Paul E. Schroeder

Tuesday, January 3, 2006; Page A17

Early on Aug. 3, 2005, we heard that 14 Marines had been killed in Haditha, Iraq. Our son, Lance Cpl. Edward "Augie" Schroeder II, was stationed there. At 10:45 a.m. two Marines showed up at our door. After collecting himself for what was clearly painful duty, the lieutenant colonel said, "Your son is a true American hero."

Since then, two reactions to Augie's death have compounded the sadness.

At times like this, people say, "He died a hero." I know this is meant with great sincerity. We appreciate the many condolences we have received and how helpful they have been. But when heard repeatedly, the phrases "he died a hero" or "he died a patriot" or "he died for his country" rub raw.

"People think that if they say that, somehow it makes it okay that he died," our daughter, Amanda, has said. "He was a hero before he died, not just because he went to Iraq. I was proud of him before, and being a patriot doesn't make his death okay. I'm glad he got so much respect at his funeral, but that didn't make it okay either."

The words "hero" and "patriot" focus on the death, not the life. They are a flag-draped mask covering the truth that few want to acknowledge openly: Death in battle is tragic no matter what the reasons for the war. The tragedy is the life that was lost, not the manner of death. Families of dead soldiers on both sides of the battle line know this. Those without family in the war don't appreciate the difference.

...

Two painful questions remain for all of us. Are the lives of Americans being killed in Iraq wasted? Are they dying in vain? President Bush says those who criticize staying the course are not honoring the dead. That is twisted logic: honor the fallen by killing another 2,000 troops in a broken policy?

...

But their deaths will not be in vain if Americans stop hiding behind flag-draped hero masks and stop whispering their opposition to this war. Until then, the lives of other sons, daughters, husbands, wives, fathers and mothers may be wasted as well.

This is very painful to acknowledge, and I have to live with it. So does President Bush.
As always, read the whole thing.

So, what more do we need to hear? It is no longer the case that "your silence passes as honor". If you agree that everything is just as it should be, then that is your right. But, if you do not agree, then you can't just sit there. We've been told what we have to do, so we had best start doing it.

This Pretty Well Sums It Up

An editorial in the current issue of the National Catholic Reporter -
Enough.

Little else is left to say to an administration that:

- Led a country into war on false premises;

- Continues to link the war against terrorism with the war in Iraq when the two had no relationship at the outset;

- Dismisses the Geneva Conventions and holds prisoners incognito for years, without charges or access to legal representation;

- Places detainees on planes bound for foreign countries known for torture and abuse of prisoners;

- Maintains secret CIA prisons on foreign soil;

- Subverts laws guarding the civil liberties of U.S. citizens, including searches of personal records and infiltration of religious and peace groups by the FBI;

- Defers to a vice president who argues for legal exceptions so that U.S. personnel can engage in torture;

- And has, at various times, created mechanisms to plant false news reports domestically and overseas and most recently paid to have stories planted in the Iraqi press.

Where are we headed?

To this deeply disturbing list of human rights abuses and violations of civil liberties add the most recent revelations that President Bush, under the influence of and with the encouragement of Vice President Cheney, personally approved widespread electronic eavesdropping on Americans.

We may not have reached, yet, the “Newspeak” or “telescreens” of 1984, but the level of deception is certainly approaching Orwellian dimensions when a president who casts himself as a champion of global democracy could orchestrate so much that is fundamentally destructive of democracy.

...

Bush tells us that he is protecting us from terrorists. But without even the minimal protection of the secret Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court, how do we know what criteria are used to determine national security threats? Who’s there to protect against the temptation to use the technology for political ends? Exactly what, in these days of secret detentions and rendition flights, makes for an enemy of the state?

At what point do we begin to call what’s happening a dangerous abuse of power and demand accountability?

It is time.
As always, read the rest for yourself.

January 02, 2006

Cautious Man

One of the reasons (and, there are a couple of them) that this collection of random thoughts takes its name from a particular song is the line –
When something caught his eye he'd measure his need
And then very carefully he'd proceed
So, if I have a New Years resolution, it is to be less, well, cautious in that regard. I’ve already started out on the wrong foot, since as you can see this isn’t being posted on January 1 (even though I thought about writing this on that day).

Basically, I have to improve my ratio of doing things to thinking about doing things. I have to remember that anything good that’s ever happened to me has been the result of overcoming my natural hesitation. If I hadn’t, I wouldn’t now be married to the Cautious Wife (yes, readers, “he let his cautiousness slip away”), or have any of the Cautious Kids, or be sitting right now in my nice home in my cool town. Listen, I agonized a long time over DSL vs. cable modem – that’s just the way I am. This whole site would’ve been operating a lot sooner if I hadn’t kept fussing with the color scheme (Hey, what's wrong with those colors? …).

We’ll see how it goes. Maybe if I let go of this obsessive need to try to use song lines for post titles, we might get more done here this year.