New Year's Eve Springsteen

Gonna wait till the midnight hour?

Resolved

Type up more random thoughts here in the coming year.

Taking My Own Advice

I read and commented on a post by Steven Hart at The Opinion Mill which was about, among other things, how difficult it is to have a dialogue in this country about Israel's response right now to the Hamas rocket fire. It's not a situation which simply started within the last few days, and I think that a response which ignores that fact is neither useful nor wise. And by something that is "useful" and "wise" I mean, "Which will secure a peaceful future for Israel and her people." It's difficult to be heard among the shouting, to say that an argument for peace is an argument for Israel, but that's just the way it is. Some peace-loving folks in my little corner of New Jersey work with Americans for Peace Now to keep trying, though.

Mr. Hart is running a Palestinian flag on his post, as his gesture of protest. In my comment, I suggested that he run with the flags of Palestine and Israel side-by-side, because the only possible way that the cycle of violence will end is by having a majority of the Palestinians and Israelis accept the fact that the two nations have to exist side-by-side. Neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis can bomb their way to peace. Unfortunately, when some extremists with rockets can provoke the kind of response which we are seeing, the day of peaceful coexistence seems further away.

So, to take my own advice, this is my response:


[Flag image found courtesy of the Louisville Committee for Israeli/Palestinian States(Two States Committee).]

Christmas Eve Springsteen

From this past weekend, Mr. Springsteen made a surprise stop at an annual charity concert in Red Bank, New Jersey, the Hope Concert. As reported by Backstreets.com, he came out to back up Jon Bon Jovi on guitar, and then closed the show with a number of songs, including "Santa Claus Is Coming To Town", joined by Southside Johnny, with "La Bamba" jumping in on vocals.

The whole thing sounds like some sort of Christmas Dream for someone like me, who has been listening to Bruce, Southside Johnny and the Asbury Jukes, and their musician friends since he was a "yoot".

What Christmas Is All About

I managed to manage the run-up to Christmas (the going out to get stuff part), so that it won't interfere with Christmas itself. In the last week, I could have posted about things that bothered me, such as people who get their knickers in a twist because not every store clerk is going to say "Merry Christmas" to everyone, or the fact that for some inexplicable reason Mr. Springsteen allowed the sale of a "Wal-Mart Exclusive" CD with "greatest hits" of the E Street Band (which I consider to be a sign of the End of Days, if you must know).

However, I decided that I wasn't going to let all that commercialism ruin my Christmas, in the words of our favorite philosopher, Charlie Brown.



Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to all.

Sunday Night (Not)Springsteen

I couldn't think of anything from Mr. Springsteen's oeuvre that was appropriate for this ...



... so we are going with the Beatles, and "Revolution"

So you say you want a revolution, shoe-be-do-be ...

Blame It On The Truth

So imagine our surprise, to read the following in the New York Times -

A report released Thursday by leaders of the Senate Armed Services Committee said top Bush administration officials, including Donald H. Rumsfeld, the former defense secretary, bore major responsibility for the abuses committed by American troops in interrogations at Abu Ghraib in Iraq; Guantánamo Bay, Cuba; and other military detention centers.

The report was issued jointly by Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the Democratic chairman of the panel, and Senator John McCain of Arizona, the top Republican. It represents the most thorough review by Congress to date of the origins of the abuse of prisoners in American military custody, and it explicitly rejects the Bush administration’s contention that tough interrogation methods have helped keep the country and its troops safe.

The report also rejected previous claims by Mr. Rumsfeld and others that Defense Department policies played no role in the harsh treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib in late 2003 and in other episodes of abuse.

The abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, the report says, “was not simply the result of a few soldiers acting on their own” but grew out of interrogation policies approved by Mr. Rumsfeld and other top officials, who “conveyed the message that physical pressures and degradation were appropriate treatment for detainees.”

Please note that Senator John McCain has joined as an issuer of the Senator report - thank goodness he is there, letting his conscience be his guide.

Now, if I may, we're not terribly surpised about the report's conclusions, because this was obvious in the case of the unlawful detention and humiliation in 2003 of Captain James Yee, the Muslim chaplain at Guantanamo. This is what seemed to be up, four years ago, with respect to Captain Yee's case and allegations (at the time) of torture at Guantanamo and in Iraq:

General Miller's visit to Iraq in August of 2003 resulted in some changes there:

So Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the Coalition commander in Iraq, and his top intel officer, Maj. Gen. Barbara Fast, asked for a fixer. They got one in Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, the commandant at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where the U.S. military had held more than 600 detainees for more than two years without charges. A Texan with a jutting jaw and thinning hair, Miller was nothing if not self-assured, much like his ultimate superior, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. According to a subsequent inquiry by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba, Miller's task was "to review current Iraqi Theater ability to rapidly exploit internees for actionable intelligence." Translated into English, that meant to beef up interrogation techniques so as to break prisoners more quickly. Or as Karpinski puts it, Miller's plan was to "Gitmo-ize" the place, to teach the soldiers manning Abu Ghraib his best psychological and physical techniques for squeezing information out of detainees. That included using Karpinski's MPs to "enhance the intelligence effort." At a meeting of top military-intelligence and MP commanders last September, Miller bluntly told Karpinski: "You're going to see. We have control, and [the prisoners] know it."

(Emphasis added) We now know more about the techniques which were authorized at Guantanamo, under the "Torture, what torture?" approach:

United States Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld personally approved four special interrogation techniques used on two al-Qaeda operatives held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who then talked about the terrorist network and its plans, the commander of US forces in Latin America said today.

Army General James Hill, who heads the US Southern Command, declined to describe the techniques. He said other detainees might "figure out a way to resist those techniques" if they were disclosed.

But Hill specifically denied that police dogs have been used to intimidate detainees during interrogations at Guantanamo, contrary to a sworn statement by an Army intelligence officer under investigation in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal in Iraq.

In the statement, as reported May 26 by The Washington Post, Col. Thomas Pappas, commander at Abu Ghraib when abuses of detainees occurred, said the use of dogs was urged by Major General Geoffrey Miller in a 2003 visit to Iraq.

We are also learning now that other new "techniques" were approved, for use at Guantanamo - which General Miller could also have brought over to Iraq on his 2003 visit:

According to people who have seen the interrogation matrix, according to the official statements of the Pentagon spokesman, the 24 or so techniques that Secretary Rumsfeld approved fall far short of anything that they would consider to be torture. Now of course we have to take their word for it because they haven't revealed what those techniques are. But according to the Pentagon spokesman, 17 of those techniques are ones that already are used in the army. They're part of the army's field manual on interrogation that's been in place for years. Seven of them are not... four of them require Rumsfeld's personal authorization before they can be used.

There are more details of the Rumsfeld approval issue, in a PBS NewsHour interview at this link (along with some enlightening transcripts of Attorney General Ashcroft's grilling in the Senate yesterday).

So, where are we? It seems that General Miller was authorized, directly by the Secretary of Defense, to use additional "techniques" on the Guantanamo prisoners. He is then dispatched to Iraq in August of 2003; we have seen what they did at Abu Ghraib, after General Miller's "visitation". That would warrant a further investigation at Guantanamo. As for Chaplain Yee, when he was arrested in September of 2003 it was reported that "the 'highest levels' of government made the decision to arrest Capt. Yee, who had counseled suspected al-Qaeda terrorists at Guantanamo for a lengthy period." He was detained for carrying out "classified material", but his case was dismissed when the government could not state what that classified material was.

Maybe Chaplain Yee was carrying sensitive information out of Guantanamo - in his head, based on what he saw, and was told by the detainees. Maybe Chaplain Yee has been silenced (for now) as a result of the Army's prosecution (including allegations of adultery and having pornography). Maybe other people know what was going on, and have seen what they did to Chaplain Yee. Maybe someone with some authority should look into this.

And now, it seems, someone with authority will be looking into this. Good.

(Further background on Captain Yee's case can be found here, from the posts on this blog. Scroll past the top one, which is the one you're now reading.)

"A Change Is Gonna Come"

In the wake of the release of the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission report, which concluded that (surprise!) a "civil union" is just not "as good as" a marriage, here in the Great State of New Jersey we have a governor who wants to move ahead, based on the recommendations -

Gov. Jon Corzine said today New Jersey's civil unions law "hasn't done enough to narrow the gap" and same-sex marriage should be established in New Jersey "sooner rather than later."

He urged the Legislature to "seriously review" a report released today by the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission that said civil unions have failed to grant full rights to same-sex couples and urged the state to quickly enact same-sex marriage.

- but legislative leaders who, while both supportive and expecting equal marriage to arrive eventually, have not shown an interest in moving as fast –

But while Corzine pledged to sign a gay marriage bill if it reaches his desk, it's unclear whether the Legislature will take up the issue, with Senate President Richard Codey (D-Essex) saying equality must come in "incremental steps."

"I believe that society's view of this issue is coming around in favor of same-sex marriage and this report, underscoring the many inequalities that still exist, will further advance that belief," Codey said.

Assembly Speaker Joseph Roberts (D-Camden) said the report "should spark a renewed sense of purpose and urgency to overcoming one of society's last remaining barriers to full equality for all residents. As I have said many times before, same-sex marriage in New Jersey is only a matter of 'when,' not 'if.'"

The key fact which might lead some of these guys to hold off for now, is in this sentence from the article –

Corzine faces re-election in 2009, as do all 80 members of the Assembly.

I think that it would be an error to wait, for next year's "lame duck" session or otherwise. Following are five suggested reasons for addressing the issue "sooner rather than later".

First, those who disagree know that it's coming. Waiting for a "lame duck" session after the 2009 gubernatorial and legislative election will not keep the issue from being discussed in that election. So, you don't gain anything there.

Second, as a corollary to the first, I don't buy the "they'll support us after the election" theory, if anyone is arguing that. If there are any legislators who need to "keep quiet" about their eventual support, until they get through the election, why should we assume that they'd get a free pass from opponents? If the issue is going to be raised during the 2009 election anyway, why put the fence-sitters in a position where they decide to state their opposition to any "lame duck" passage, if not any change in the law at all? And if they decide to state their support anyway, the delay hasn't really helped (and possibly has hurt, for reason Number Three).

Third, if it has to be part of the 2009 election, let it be as passed and implemented legislation, and not as some not-yet-there, it-may-happen hypothetical. Thanks to the failure of the opposition to Proposition 8 in California, people inclined to support equal marriage now know that it is possible that legal rights could be reversed. I'm not so naive as to think that this alone could make a difference, between supporters coming out to defend passed legislation vs. supporters of possible legislation, but it couldn't hurt. Besides, if the New Jersey election is seen as a forum to defend legislatively-approved marriage equality, one would hope that some of the after-the-fact enthusiasm that California inspired could be used to support legislation that could be a national model.

Fourth, a purely partisan reason is that Democrats shouldn't let presumptive Republican frontrunner Chris Christie get a free ride on the issue. As the recently-former U.S. Attorney for New Jersey, he's going to run on a "good government" (can't argue against that), lower-taxes and pro-business platform. Classic Republican, in other words. If there's an undercurrent of opposition to the considering of marriage equality legislation as part of a "lame duck" session, he can waive it off with some platitudes like, "I want to look at the civil unions issue a little more", or "I agree with those who say that we're not at that stage, yet." He would get the votes of the opponents of marriage equality, anyway, and be less likely to lose the votes of those who favor it, but who are focused on other issues in the election. If the Democrats push the issue to after the election, in other words, he gets the best of both worlds.

Now, before we get to Reason Number Five, follow along with me for a moment, and assume what may happen if the issue is addressed by the Legislature at the start of the New Year. Will it be a political issue going into the 2009 election? Certainly, but that's unavoidable. Would some legislators balk at committing before the election? Sure, but as noted above there's no guarantee of their support post-election; better to "smoke 'em out" now, before the primaries in June. And speaking of the primaries, just imagine if marriage equality was passed and scheduled for implementation by the time the June primaries roll around? Presumptive Republican front-runner Chris Christie may not be able to hide from the issue, but he may have to address it head-on. I have no idea where he comes down on this issue, but consider the choices. If he says he opposes the legislation, and would support repeal, that gets him on record and potentially reduces his support (from centrists inclined towards him because of his "good government" and fiscal arguments). If, on the other hand, he says that he also supports marriage equality, then he either wins in the primary (and the legislation is saved), or he loses in the primary (in which case the top of the Republican ticket is an extreme, less popular right-winger). So, on balance, there are a lot of good reasons for "sooner rather than later".

There's a fifth and final reason, in my humble opinion. The design and drafting of this legislation should take place away from, and not as part of, a partisan political fight, either during or just after a contentious election. In a calmer atmosphere, the fact that the world has not come to an end in Massachusetts and Connecticut can be pointed out. Just as important, the legislation can make it clear that this is a legal change to civil marriage – not a mandate to any religious or other group regarding the performing of any marriage ceremony that is not consistent with their tenets. Although some proponents may not like hearing it put this way, the fact is that there may not be a majority which is completely for marriage equality; so it might be best to use the fact that there's also not a majority that is completely against it, either. So, don't make it something to choose sides on, during election season.

Live In Peace Some Day

From reading today, I realized that this is the 40th anniversary of the death of Thomas Merton, certainly one of the best-known cloistered monks of all time. A Catholic convert who eventually became a Trappist Monk, the writings he issued from his monastery made him world-famous. As part of his output, he was a strong commentator on issues of social justice. As a sketch of his life published today in National Catholic Reporter puts it -

Throughout the 1960s, he wrote about the hot issues: social justice, civil rights, nuclear arms, the war in Vietnam. “I am on the side of the people who are being burned, cut to pieces, tortured, held as hostages, gassed, ruined, destroyed. They are the victims of both sides. To take sides with massive power is to take sides against the innocent.”

Ironically enough, he died accidentally while on a rare trip away from his monastery, to Asia to pursue his interests in the study of other religions and of peace.

Some words of his, on what real peace is, versus what our leaders sometimes tell us it is:

I have learned that an age in which politicians talk about peace is an age in which everybody expects war: the great men of the earth would not talk of peace so much if they did not secretly believe it possible, with one more war, to annihilate their enemies forever. Always, "after just one more war" it will dawn, the new era of love: but first everybody who is hated must be eliminated. For hate, you see, is the mother of their kind of love.

Unfortunately the love that is to be born out of hate will never be born. Hatred is sterile; it breeds nothing but the image of its own empty fury, its own nothingness. Love cannot come of emptiness. It is full of reality. Hatred destroys the real being of man in fighting the fiction which it calls "the enemy." For man is concrete and alive, but "the enemy" is a subjective abstraction. A society that kills real men in order to deliver itself from the phantasm of a paranoid delusion is already possessed by the demon of destructiveness because it has made itself incapable of love. It refuses, a priori, to love. It is dedicated not to concrete relations of man with man, but only to abstractions about politics, economics, psychology, and even, sometimes, religion.

One can only hope that our new administration could strive for a real peace, and not for what has been our nation's agenda these last few years.

Two Kids Get Married, Same Old Thing ...

... or, not.

Here in the Great State of New Jersey, we have had a "civil unions" law which was intended to provide a "just as good as marriage" status for same-sex couples. Since there was, and is, some disagreement about whether "just as good as" is good enough, that law also provided for something called the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission. The Commission was to examine whether, in fact, a civil union was "just as good as ...", etc.

Well the report came out today (link here is a PDF), and as you may have guessed - "just as good as" is really, "not so much":

We, the thirteen members of the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission, unanimously issue this final report, containing a set of recommendations to the Governor and the Legislature of the State of New Jersey. After eighteen public meetings, 26 hours of oral testimony and hundreds of pages of written submission from more than 150 witnesses, this Commission finds that the separate categorization established by the Civil Union Act invites and encourages unequal treatment of same-sex couples and their children. In a number of cases, the negative effect of the Civil Union Act on the physical and mental health of same-sex couples and their children is striking, largely because a number of employers and hospitals do not recognize the rights and benefits of marriage for civil union couples.

…

As a result of the overwhelming evidence presented to the Commission,
we unanimously recommend that:

The Legislature and Governor amend the law to allow same-sex couples to marry;

The law be enacted expeditiously because any delay in marriage equality will harm all the people of New Jersey ...

See the link for details.

I only hope that the discussion going forward, on equal marriage in New Jersey, is conducted in a respectful, reasonable and above-all honest fashion - on all sides. No bashing of religious people, which only alienates lots of people who could be persuaded to support equal marriage. And, on the other hand, definitely no arguments such as were raised in favor of Proposition 8 in California, that "they're going to teach your children to be gay".

Blame It On The Lies

President Bush was interviewed by "What respect Charlie" Gibson, and that was broadcast/released today. The whole thing is somewhat infuriating, in my humble opinion, because President Bush remains deceptive right to the end. Or, maybe he's deceived even himself, and convinced himself that Iraq never let the U.N. weapons inspectors in, as he continues to claim -

GIBSON: You've always said there's no do-overs as President. If you had one?

BUSH: I don't know -- the biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq. A lot of people put their reputations on the line and said the weapons of mass destruction is a reason to remove Saddam Hussein. It wasn't just people in my administration; a lot of members in Congress, prior to my arrival in Washington D.C., during the debate on Iraq, a lot of leaders of nations around the world were all looking at the same intelligence. And, you know, that's not a do-over, but I wish the intelligence had been different, I guess.

GIBSON: If the intelligence had been right, would there have been an Iraq war?

BUSH: Yes, because Saddam Hussein was unwilling to let the inspectors go in to determine whether or not the U.N. resolutions were being upheld. In other words, if he had had weapons of mass destruction, would there have been a war? Absolutely.

GIBSON: No, if you had known he didn't.

BUSH: Oh, I see what you're saying. You know, that's an interesting question. That is a do-over that I can't do. It's hard for me to speculate.

"A do-over I can't do"? Why doesn't he just say, "Whoops, my bad!", because what he is saying is just as insulting.

As we've pointed out here before, it was President Bush who told the weapons inspectors to leave Iraq, not Saddam Hussein -

U.N. weapons inspectors climbed aboard a plane and pulled out of Iraq on Tuesday after President Bush issued a final ultimatum for Saddam Hussein to step down or face war. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Monday ordered all U.N. inspectors and support staff, humanitarian workers and U.N. observers along the Iraq-Kuwait border to evacuate Iraq after U.S. threats to launch war.

After failing to secure U.N. authorization to use force to disarm Iraq, Bush gave Saddam 48 hours to step down or face war in a speech Monday night.
…

U.N. weapons inspectors arrived in Baghdad for the first time in four years on Nov. 27, 2002, and resumed inspections two days later. During four months of inspections, arms experts traveled the length of the country hunting for banned weapons of mass destruction.

Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix has said that during those inspections, inspectors never found any "smoking gun."

Of course, Mr. Bush was deceiving us shortly after that, as he "reinvented" the past in his interview with Tim Russert almost one year after the war was started -

You remember U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 clearly stated “show us your arms and destroy them, or your programs and destroy them.” And we said, “There are serious consequences if you don't” and that was a unanimous verdict. In other words, the worlds of the U.N. Security Council said we're unanimous and you're a danger. So, it wasn't just me and the United States. The world thought he was dangerous and needed to be disarmed.
And, of course, he defied the world once again.

So that's how this dangerous, damaging, and derelict Presidency is ending, with more and more lies being piled up in a pitiful attempt to rehabilitate his record. Or, maybe just to tell himself that he couldn't have been that wrong, could he?

Monday Night Springsteen

Okay, so we missed Sunday. But, it's all good - Mr. S dropped off a new video today, with "My Lucky Day" from the new album. It starts with some shots of the band in the studio, working through the arrangement of the song, and then the song itself illustrated with more views of them recording it. Enjoy!



In the room where fortune falls
On a day when chance is all
In the dark of fierce exile
I felt the grace of your smile

Honey, you're my lucky day
Baby, you're my lucky day
Well I lost all the other bets I made
Honey, you're my lucky day

When I see strong hearts give way
To the burdens of the day
To the weary hands of time
Where fortune is not kind

Honey, you're my lucky day
Baby, you're my lucky day
Well I lost all the other bets I made
Honey, you're my lucky day

Whoa!

[guitar solo]
[sax solo]

I've waited at your side
I've carried the tears you've cried
But to win, darlin' we must play
So don't hide your heart away

Honey, you're my lucky day
Baby, you're my lucky day
Well I lost all the other bets I made
Honey, you're my lucky day

Something About Going Home

I've written this here before, but it applies again this year, so we're saying it again. This year, my parents had all their kids (with their kids) home for Thanksgiving.

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.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Various people are making lists of things to be thankful for.

I'm thankful that we've all been well this past year, despite changes (people moving, graduating, getting new jobs) and incidents (injuries that turned out okay, etc.).

And I'm thankful that we're only responsible for bringing dessert, to another house, instead of doing everything here this year.

Apple pie means another opportunity to use the "apple peeler and corer", or what I like to call the "implement of destruction". The Cautious Wife demonstrates (with public radio playing in the background):



And you thought that Sarah Palin turkey video was graphic!

Scumbag

Sorry for the title of this post. But, it's appropriate since Ahmed Chalabi was allowed to have his essay published in today's NY Times -

The Iraq war is over.

It ends five years too late and at far too terrible a cost in lives, money and idealism. The difficult and tortuous negotiations over the American withdrawal now coming to an end in Baghdad offer a distorted glimpse of what might have been.

Thanks, chief. If only you had been a little more "open" before we sent our brothers and sisters to die for your dreams of glory. Face it, our Iraq "adventure" was caused by Mr. Chalabi's desire to have our country install him in some high office there.

I can think of at least one person who gave his life because of Mr. Chalabi's dreams of glory.

So "scumbag" is the mildest word to use for Mr. Chalabi.

Sunday Night Springsteen

As noted below, there's a new album on the way.

So, to be contrary, here's a song that is really old, and really not on any album, and really not going to be on any album. "If I Was The Priest".

Born in the USA

Garrison Keillor wrote a column last week about an unexpected side benefit of the election of Barack Obama as President. America is "cool" again -

The world expects us to elect pompous yahoos and instead we have us a 47-year-old prince from the prairie who cheerfully ran the race, and when his opponents threw sand at him, he just smiled back. He'll be the first president in history to look really good making a jump shot. He loves his classy wife and his sweet little daughters. He looks good in the kitchen. He can cook Indian or Chinese but for his girls he will do mac and cheese. At the same time, he knows pop music, American lit and constitutional law. I just can't imagine anybody cooler. Look at a photo of the latest pooh-bah conference -- the hausfrau Merkel, the big glum Scotsman, that goofball Berlusconi, Putin with his B-movie bad-boy scowl, and Sarkozy, who looks like a district manager for Avis -- you put Barack in that bunch and he will shine.

It feels good to be cool and all of us can share in that, even sour old right-wingers and embittered blottoheads. Next time you fly to Heathrow and hand your passport to the man with the badge, he's going to see "United States of America" and look up and grin. Even if you worship in the church of Fox, everyone you meet overseas is going to ask you about Obama and you may as well say you voted for him because, my friends, he is your line of credit over there. No need anymore to try to look Canadian.

One must never underestimate how far we can go in making the world a better place, if America has its "cool" back.

Talk About A Dream

This news snuck up on me. A new source for post titles is coming out on January 27, 2009 -

Bruce Springsteen's 'Working On A Dream' Set For January 27 Release On Columbia Records

Bruce Springsteen's new album 'Working on a Dream' has been set for January 27 release on Columbia Records. 'Working on a Dream' was recorded with the E Street Band and features twelve new Springsteen compositions plus two bonus tracks. It is the fourth collaboration between Springsteen and Brendan O'Brien, who produced and mixed the album.

'Working on a Dream' Song Titles:

1. Outlaw Pete
2. My Lucky Day
3. Working On a Dream
4. Queen of the Supermarket
5. What Love Can Do
6. This Life
7. Good Eye
8. Tomorrow Never Knows
9. Life Itself
10. Kingdom of Days
11. Surprise, Surprise
12. The Last Carnival

Bonus tracks:
The Wrestler
A Night with the Jersey Devil

Bruce Springsteen said, "Towards the end of recording 'Magic,' excited by the return to pop production sounds, I continued writing. When my friend producer Brendan O'Brien heard the new songs, he said, 'Let's keep going.' Over the course of the next year, that's just what we did, recording with the E Street Band during the breaks on last year's tour. I hope 'Working on a Dream' has caught the energy of the band fresh off the road from some of the most exciting shows we've ever done. All the songs were written quickly, we usually used one of our first few takes, and we all had a blast making this one from beginning to end."

'Working on a Dream' is Bruce Springsteen's twenty-fourth album and was recorded and mixed at Southern Tracks in Atlanta, GA with additional recording in New York City, Los Angeles, and New Jersey.

From the press release, via Backstreets.com. That will be just a few days before the "Super Bowl show", where there will be a football game before and after the Springsteen concert.

"A Night with the Jersey Devil" was the "Halloween treat" we previously noted here.

And, of course, that means ticket frenzy time is probably not too far away. What would you like Santa to bring you this year?

Sunday Night Springsteen

Staying with a theme, I guess -

"Two Hearts Are Better Than One" -

Veterans Day

Take a moment (or more) to reflect upon these individuals who have served our country in the most recent military actions.

Two Hearts Are Better Than One

Nice "special comment" from Mr. Olbermann last night, about California's Proposition 8 and the "definition" of marriage.

Some parameters, as preface. This isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics, and this isn't really just about Prop-8. And I don't have a personal investment in this: I'm not gay, I had to strain to think of one member of even my very extended family who is, I have no personal stories of close friends or colleagues fighting the prejudice that still pervades their lives.

And yet to me this vote is horrible. Horrible. Because this isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics. This is about the human heart, and if that sounds corny, so be it.

If you voted for this Proposition or support those who did or the sentiment they expressed, I have some questions, because, truly, I do not understand. Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? In a time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don't want to deny you yours. They don't want to take anything away from you. They want what you want—a chance to be a little less alone in the world.

...

With your knowledge that life, with endless vigor, seems to tilt the playing field on which we all live, in favor of unhappiness and hate... this is what your heart tells you to do? You want to sanctify marriage? You want to honor your God and the universal love you believe he represents? Then Spread happiness—this tiny, symbolic, semantical grain of happiness—share it with all those who seek it. Quote me anything from your religious leader or book of choice telling you to stand against this. And then tell me how you can believe both that statement and another statement, another one which reads only "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Well The Dogs On Main Street Howl ...

...'cause they understand
If I could take one moment into my hands
Mister I ain't a boy, no I'm a man
And I believe in a promised land

- B. Springsteen, Promised Land

How can you not like this guy? President-elect Obama was asked today about what kind of dog his daughters will be getting -

REPORTER: Here's my question. I'm wondering what you're doing to get ready, have you spoke to any living ex-presidents, what books you might be reading, everyone wants to know what kind of dog are you giving to be for your girls, have you decided on a private or public school for your daughters.

OBAMA: Uh, let me list those off. ... With respect to the dog. This is a major issue. I think it's generated more interest on our web site than just about anything. We have two criteria that have to be reconciled. One is that Malia is allergic, so it has to be hypoallergenic. There are a number of breeds that are hypoallergenic, on the other hand our preference would be to get a shelter dog. But obviously a lot of shelter dogs are mutts like me. So whether we're going to be able to balance those two things I think is a pressing issue on the Obama household.

Michelle, My Belle

As you may have noticed, we have a special place in our heart for Ms. Malkin, the right-wing commentator who always keeps the outrage dial turned to eleven. She had a post yesterday that, well, I just had to comment on. "My President is Black" is one of her usual selective readings from wire service reports and bloggers, to make an argument that the election of Barack Obama is a racially-divisive event.

Of course, it's exactly the opposite. Sure, there are African-American kids saying, with a smile on their faces, "My President is Black". There are also really-really white kids, like my daughter who registered voters in Pennsylvania where she attends college, and my son who is now a teacher in a racially-diverse school in central New Jersey, who are smililng and saying, "My President is Black". There are Hispanic people, Asian people, every-possible-location-and-combination people, who are saying, "My President is Black". There are even rich old white guys (Warren Buffett, anyone?) saying that with a smile.

Why is this the opposite of racial divisiveness? Because if "My President is Black", then we finally know that (a) our President can be ANYBODY, and (b) it really is true, ANYBODY can achieve anything in America. While there was always other evidence for (b), and (a) remained untested, we now have the ultimate argument to counter anybody, anywhere who thinks otherwise. Or, as a certain recently-elected President of the United States put it on Tuesday night -

If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible, who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time, who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.

There's a diary on DailyKos with some pictures from an election night rally, and this says everything I just said, but better -



So, to sum up, this week there is no better way I can think of, to unify people of diverse backgrounds, than to smile at one another and say, "Hey, our President is Black".

And, just for fun, this is another picture from earlier this week, that I think helps carry the message that there can be no more of the old barriers between people, if everyone reaches out -

Listening To Myself

I realized today that I should listen to myself more often. For some reason, I revisited something I'd written here after the last Presidential election.

[T]here 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.

Seriously, I had forgotten that I wrote that. So, when I wrote a week ago that I was impressed with how Senator Obama "talked about reasons to vote for him, and did not engage in any attacks on (and certainly no distortions of the record of) Senator McCain", and that "he has made the case that he has the right intentions, the right proposals, the right people behind him, and the right message to spread through the United States, and to the rest of the world", that was the same "advice" that four years ago I thought should be followed.

Of course, if I had listened to myself I would have been making that point in a little more timely fashion, such as during the primaries and in the run-up to the election. I could have looked like a punditting genius!

Oh well, at least it did work!

Yes We Can

And, what the heck, one more time -



Be honest - gets you a little teary, doesn't it?

Meet Me In A Land Of Hope And Dreams

It’s going to be a long day of voting, from all the signs. I’d like to salute the unsung heroes of today’s election, the poll workers and volunteers who are going to help everybody through the voting process today.

I live in a very “blue” town in a very “blue” state (the Great State of New Jersey). We are a net “exporter” of campaign volunteers this year, mainly to points west in Pennsylvania. But, I still knew that it would be a good idea to get down to my polling place early. The polls opened at 6:00 a.m., so I left my house at about 6:15 and walked down the hill to the Municipal Building.

I “misunderestimated” how early to get there. There was a line out the door for my voting district, to sign in and get my “golden ticket” that would get me into the voting booth. Then, another line out the door to get to vote. The whole process took about an hour, so I really didn’t go through the kind of hardship that some people in the early voting states have gone through. And, it was fun to see all the neighbors happy to be out there, waiting to vote.

But the real heroes were the workers and volunteers, like my friend the Curmudgeon at Mapleberry Blog. He was there first thing this morning, to work as a party volunteer checking names on the voting lists. But, he quickly realized that sitting at a table wasn’t going to help move the voting along, and he jumped up to help his neighbors vote. There are three districts voting at our Municipal Building, and Curmudgeon and others got everybody organized into intricately snaking lines, crossing back-and-forth in the hall where the sign-in tables and voting machines are, and extending out the various doors.

If they had stopped to think about it, it was an impossible task. But, it was made possible by their community spirit, and the cooperation of all of the voters who happily followed their directions, and helped new arrivals to navigate the tangle of lines that developed.

I know that there are other places in the United States where, unfortunately, people will encounter greater difficulties in voting, and get less cooperation and assistance in trying to do so. I am so happy and blessed to live in a place where we have people like Curmudgeon and my other neighbors, who know that the act of voting is a precious gift that we share with all of our fellow citizens today.

Sunday Night Springsteen

Two quick videos. The first is Rush Limbaugh, carrying on about endorsements, and trashing Mr. Springsteen for daring to have a different point of view.

Rush is such a pathetic clown in this, imho.



The second uses a live recording, of "Land of Hope and Dreams". It's kind of inspirational, and hopefully makes you go out and do something.

Modern Day Know-Nothings

First, a little history:

Know-Nothing Movement, a nativist political movement in the United States in the 1850s. It was organized to oppose the great wave of immigrants who entered the United States after 1846. Know-Nothings claimed that the immigrants—who were principally Irish and Roman Catholic—threatened to destroy the American experiment. The Roman Catholic church, they charged, was subservient to a foreign prince (the pope), it was growing in power, and it potentially could exert political control over a large group of people. Such nativist sentiments had long existed among many Americans, but they had never before been expressed in such powerful form.

The McCain campaign seems to be based on resentment and fear-mongering. There is an unhealthy dose of the same kind of racial/religious hatred that was a staple of the original Know-Nothings. When Sarah Palin launches into her routine about "yet another radical professor from [Obama's] neighborhood", Professor Rashid Khalidi, she does so with an emphasis on, gosh darn it, the foreignness of his name -



She manages to mangle his name, and spread discredited talking points, but what struck me was how this chorus of "boos" starts just as she stumbles through his name. Were these folks really all up-to-date on who she was trying (albeit incorrectly) to name? Or did the mere mention of someone named "Rashid" trigger a Two Minutes Hate type of reaction from a fully-primed Palin/McCain crowd? I think it's the latter.

A piece in today's New York Times notes that the religious hatred being stirred up by Obama's opponents is similar to that used by the twentieth century's heirs to the Know-Nothings - those who attacked Al Smith, the first Catholic to run as a majjor party nominee for President. In an essay entitled "In Untruths About Obama, Echoes of a Distant Time", Samuel Freedman gives reasons why that we cannot dismiss that type of fear-mongering as simply an "artifact of a benighted past":

The first is that the climate of anti-Catholic bigotry, which ran from the refined arena of The Atlantic magazine to the cross burnings of the Ku Klux Klan, not only contributed to Smith’s crushing defeat by Herbert Hoover but also helped keep any other Catholic from mounting a serious run for the presidency until John F. Kennedy in 1960. The hate campaign, in other words, worked.

As for the second point, scholars of Smith’s career and of American Catholicism say nothing in presidential history since 1928 more closely resembles the smearing of Al Smith than the aura of anti-Muslim agitation that has swirled around Barack Obama these past two years.

The insinuations of disloyalty to America, the caricature of the candidate as less than genuinely American — these tactics could have come from the playbook of Smith’s basest opponents, the scholars say.

As Colin Powell wisely condemned in endorsing Senator Obama a few weeks ago, the modern "Know Nothings" start with stoking fear of Muslims, before moving on to then label Senator Obama as one:

The biggest single difference may be the postmodern aspect of the attacks against Mr. Obama. He is vilified not for the religion he follows but for the one he doesn’t, and much of his campaign’s energy has gone into reiterating that he is a Christian. Either way, the underlying premise of the rumors remains that a Muslim is unfit to be president.

“What is similar in Smith’s time is that there was a widespread belief there was something dangerous about electing a Catholic as president,” said Allan J. Lichtman, an American University historian who is the author of “Prejudice and the Old Politics: The Presidential Election of 1928.” “You couldn’t be a good American and serve American interests if you were a Catholic, because you were beholden to a foreign potentate called the pope and Catholicism held autocratic tenets.

“Likewise today, there is a widespread belief that somehow you cannot be a good American and be a Muslim at the same time, that being a Muslim means you have loyalties outside the United States — and, like Catholics in the 1920s, they are dangerous loyalties to militant groups seeking to do harm. There’s no truth to the allegations, then or now, but they are tenaciously held.”
. . .

Smith’s opponents conflated his Catholic faith with his Irish heritage, urban roots and even New York accent to cast him outside the Anglo-Saxon, Protestant, small-town norms of America. Mr. Obama, of course, is of mixed race and has a Muslim middle name, Hussein, which has been flourished by some Republicans as proof of his foreignness.

“The most remarkable parallel to 1928 has to do with the idea that Smith was one of ‘those people,’ that the people he represented weren’t real Americans,” said Mr. Slayton, a professor of American history at Chapman University in Orange, Calif. “And when Sarah Palin talks about the ‘real America’ now, I hear an echo of that.”

At the end, there is advice from Al Smith himself, on how to deal with this. It's advice that I wish more news organizations would follow, because I get the sense that it's impolite to point out the nastiness of the attacks on the "otherness" of people who don't meet the demographic that the Palin/McCain campaign is targeting.

If there is a lesson from Al Smith about all this, then it came during a speech he delivered on Sept. 20, 1928, in Oklahoma City.

“This country, to my way of thinking, cannot be successful if it ever divides on sectarian lines,” he declared. “If there are any considerable number of our people that are going to listen to appeals to their passion and to their prejudice, if bigotry and intolerance and their sister vices are going to succeed, it is dangerous for the future life of the Republic. And the best way to kill anything un-American is to drag it out into the open, because anything un-American cannot live in the sunlight.”

Halloween Night Springsteen

Currently up at BruceSpringsteen.net -

A NIGHT WITH THE JERSEY DEVIL
Dear Friends and Fans,

If you grew up in central or south Jersey, you grew up with the "Jersey Devil." Here's a little musical Halloween treat. Have fun!

A "high resolution" version is there. A "no time to wait, I got candy to collect" version is here -



Lyrics:

A Night With The Jersey Devil
by Bruce Springsteen/Robert Jones/Gene Vincent

Hear me now!
I was born 13th child, 'neath the 13th moon
Spit out hungry and born anew
Daddy drag me to the river tie me in rocks
Throw me in where it's deep and wide
I go down, I don't die
Hole in the river bottom, I crawl through
Come back kill six brothers and sisters, kill papa too
Sway down Mama, sway down low
They gonna know me wherever I go

Into my bed with her kerosene my mama creep
Set my flesh to burning, whilst I sleep
I burn, burn, burn, till my soul burn black
Black rains fall, I come back, I come back
Get down Mama, get down low
They gonna know me wherever I go

16 witches, cast 16 spells
Make me guitar outta skin and human skull
Sing you a song like the wind in the sandy loam
Bring you baby out'cha your happy home

Ram's head, forked tail, clove hoof, love's my trail
I sup on your body, sip on your blood like wine
Out world theirs, this world mine
So kiss me baby till it hurts
God lost in heaven, we lost on earth
Sway down Mama, sway down low
They gonna know me wherever I go
Wherever I go, wherever I go

Well I got a brand new lover
I love her yes I do,
She's my one and only and her name is Baby Blue...

For more on the Jersey Devil, visit the folks at Weird NJ.

Tougher Than The Rest

It’s a little late in the game to be thinking about this, but what the heck. Given everything we now know, and have seen in this campaign, can we say that Senator Obama was the best choice as the Democratic nominee for President? In my humble opinion, “yes we can” say that. The main reason, I believe, is his consistent message and approach, and adherence to the positive aspects of his campaign.

Senator McCain and his supporters, whether politicians or right-wing pundits, have engaged in all sorts of nasty attacks. Would there have been as much attacking if the nominee was, say, Senator Clinton? I don’t see why there would not have been. All of the same old nonsense would have been recycled, for one. Remember, these are the people who managed to paint a decorated Vietnam veteran, John Kerry, as a phony if not a coward. Although it might not have been a big consideration during the primaries, the ability of the Democratic nominee to stand up to those tactics, to weather those attacks, is clearly an important qualification for being the standard-bearer. Senator Obama has shown that he has that ability.

In addition, we’ve seen that it doesn’t matter what the Democratic nominee actually says or believes – the right-wing attack machine is always ready to take a phrase or half of a position, and reinterpret it into a completely baseless attack. The “socialism” chant that’s become the basis for Senator McCain’s campaign is evidence of that. Senator Obama may suffer from a tendency to assume that he is having an adult conversation with reasonable people, forgetting that what he says will be sliced-and-diced and repackaged by the hate machine, but the same thing would have happened to whomever was heading the ticket. What may not have been the same, would be the presence of mind to push forward in a positive way, rebutting the attack machine not with similar nastiness, but showing a clear resolve and strength of character as a counterargument.

It’s only recently that I realized (maybe late in the game, but so what) that Senator Obama has been following the same steady course throughout his campaign. What some people have called his “No drama Obama” persona is really a consistent, certain attitude that he has presented, without veering off into new approaches or scrambling based on whatever happened to come up in the news. Look at last spring, when he declined to jump on the “suspend the gas tax” bandwagon, or the recent financial crisis. Compare this with Senator McCain, who has veered from issue to issue, and jumped on the most inane of talking points (see “Joe the Plumber”, or whoever or whatever he is). The contrast could not have been more stark, and this has only served to show Senator Obama in an even more positive light, imho.

And it’s not just the recent campaign. The brilliant and effective rejoinders to the offensive “real vs. fake” America arguments have their roots in Senator Obama’s introduction to the national stage, four years ago (as mentioned here previously). Senator Obama started on his road to this point by rejecting that sort of divisiveness, and by staying on that road he may have (one can only hope) helped to turn a page in our politics.

The greatest virtue of Senator Obama and his campaign is that he is offering himself as someone to vote for. All of the joking about the “Obamatic” infomercial last night aside, it is the case that he talked about reasons to vote for him, and did not engage in any attacks on (and certainly no distortions of the record of) Senator McCain. Throughout the long campaign, I think he has made the case that he has the right intentions, the right proposals, the right people behind him, and the right message to spread through the United States, and to the rest of the world.

That’s a reason for (can I say it?) “hope”.

57 Channels And ...

Obama's on every damn one of them (to paraphrase Keith Olbermann from last night).

And as Rachel Maddow noted, the Big BrOadcast of 2OO8 starts with an image of wheat stalks waving in the wind - Americans always love to see stalks waving in the wind, apparently.

That having been said, it was probably necessary. There are a lot of people who (I know this will shock you) do not surf through the internet for points of view outside of what comes through their television screen or (worse) through the speaker blaring out right-wind talkradio. A well-done presentation of Senator Obama's biography, values, and general proposals, coupled with a respected and respectable "cloud of witnesses"¹ (Governors, Senators, a General, a former President a cross-section of ordinary people and a live, cheering throng) made for a powerful statement. Hey, if you haven't seen it, take a look²:



And for pure comedy gold, check out Michelle Malkin's "Liveblogging" of the presentation. Don't be too bitter, there, ma'am.³

Sure, that commercial cost the campaign serious bucks. But, coming down to the wire, with a healthy warchest, what else are they going to spend that money on - clothes?⁴

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
¹ "Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us rid ourselves of every burden and sin that clings to us and persevere in running the race that lies before us" (Hebrews 12:1)

² And if you did watch it, for gosh sakes, don't waste time sitting around and watching it again - do something constructive!

³ But we love Ms. Malkin, here. We really love her!

⁴ Yes, I learned a new html code today. ^{Can you guess which one?} Sorry, we're slow learners here at Cautious Man HQ.

"I’ve been Ayn Randed, nearly branded a Communist ’cause I’m left handed ..."

The drumbeat from the McCain campaign and media enablers ("share the wealth" "redistribution" "SOCIALIST!!!") goes on. As provided by the Talking Points Memo website, Senator McCain's remarks yesterday continued and expanded his attack, taking in the whole Civil Rights movement in the process:

After months of campaign trail eloquence, we've finally learned what Senator Obama's economic goal is: to spread the wealth. In a radio interview revealed this week, he said the same thing -- that one of the quote, "tragedies" of the civil rights movement is that it didn't bring about "redistributive change."

ThinkProgress provides a compilation of some of his media sidekicks:



Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Senator McCain still pushing his plan to use our tax dollars to buy up lousy mortgages - at full price - and then settle for less than their value. That may be a break to some homeowners, but it's also a huge break for the banks. I guess "redistribution" is only bad if it goes to other people.

Finally, also courtesy of TPM, Senator Obama responded today -



Obama: "By the end of the week, he'll be accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten. ... I shared my peanut butter and jelly sandwich."

Sunday Night Springsteen

Tonight it's not Springsteen himself, but there's still a connection.

The Hold Steady. We'd never really heard of them before seeing them as part of a tribute show in April of 2007, honoring Bruce Springsteen as a fundraiser for the "Music for Youth Foundation". The Hold Steady was the last act (before Mr. Springsteen strode onto the stage), and they did a great reading of "Atlantic City". I've since gotten into their music, and can highly recommend them, especially their most recent album, "Stay Positive".

In this first video, frontman Craig Finn talks about his rock heroes, and says his biggest hero musically is – Bruce Springsteen.



I like this quote, about when he finally met one of his musical heroes: "Meeting your heroes, there’s such an opportunity for them to disappoint you because they can’t live up to all the things that you’ve hung on them. The good news is, if your hero’s Bruce Springsteen, he doesn’t disappoint."

And this is a video with a song about heroes, and trying to be heroes. There are numerous versions of this song on the youTubes, and this live version from Late Night is a good one (albeit the picture is a little odd).



Raise a toast to St. Joe Strummer
I think he might’ve been our only decent teacher
Getting older makes it harder to remember…
We are our only saviors …

And, what the heck, let's roll the "Rosalita" from the "Music for Youth" finale. Mr. Finn starts it off, and as I wrote at the time: "But, the honoree made a point of letting the other artists do most of the lead singing. They acted like they were kids again, singing along to the record. It was kind of sloppy, but well ..."

Living In The Future

Regarding that whole "real America vs. fake America" argument from the McCain campaign, discussed below, who knew that the real answer to that nonsense was already given four years ago, by that up-and-coming guy who gave the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic Convention, which we noted here at the time -

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.

Whatever happened to him? Oh, yeah, he's still at it. Which is a good thing, because he still has to fight against that kind of divisiveness:

At a defining moment like this, we don't have the luxury of relying on the same political games, the same political tactics, that we've become accustomed to. This slash-and-burn politics that divides us from one another... which the challenges and crises we face right now, we can't afford to divide this country. By race, by class, by region, by who we are, by what policies we support. Let me tell you something, because I know you've been hearing a lot of stuff lately. There are no real parts of the country and fake parts of the country. There are no pro-America parts of the country and anti-America parts of the country. We all love this country. No matter where we live. Or where we come from.
...

Black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, young, old, rich, poor, gay, straight, city dwellers, farm dwellers, it doesn't matter, we're all together [...] The men and women from Virginia and all across this country who serve on our battlefields. Some are Democrats, some are Republicans, some are independents. But they fought together, and bled together, and some of them died together under the same flag. They didn't serve a blue America, or a red America, they served the United States of America. Nobody should forget that.

If only this could be the last time that someone has to remind everyone of that.

"Blood Brothers In The Stormy Night ..."

From the "I didn't know that" department, this fact from an article in yesterday's NY Times "Science Times" section, about creatures with a "taste for blood":

Professional blood feeding may not be for the faint of heart, but nature abounds in amateurs and opportunists. The vampire finches of the Galápagos live mostly on seeds, nectar and eggs, but they supplement their diet with occasional high iron snacks, by persistently pecking at the wings and tail region of one of the islands’ well-named blue-footed boobies. Once the finch draws blood, said Dr. Schutt, “you’ll see five finches waiting behind it like customers at a deli counter.”

I just liked that name, "vampire finches". Sounds like "killer quail", or something like that. They even had a picture of "Count Finchula" in action -

In the American Land

What is this land America so many travel there
I'm going now while I'm still young my darling meet me there
Wish me luck my lovely I'll send for you when I can
And we'll make our home in the American land

- Bruce Springsteen, American Land

Someone has to ask Mayor Rudy Giuliani a question: "Is New York City part of the 'real America'?" This question came to me after watching Jon Stewart's devastating take on last evening's "Daily Show", regarding Governor Palin's statement about what constitutes the "real America", as she put it the other day:

“We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard working very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-America areas of this great nation. This is where we find the kindness and the goodness and the courage of everyday Americans.”

The best part in the piece below was his pointed rebuttal to the assertion that America's cities aren't part of the "real America":

So that means that cities like New York and Washington are the capitals of fake America, the epicenter of fake America, the - what's the word I'm looking for - the "Ground Zero", if you will, of anti-America. I bet bin Laden feels like a real @sshole now. "What? I bombed the wrong America?"

The whole thing:



This leads to my question at the start of this post. Will someone ask Rudy Giuliani if New York is part of the "real America"? Is New York City a place with hard-working, pro-patriotic Americans? Is there kindness and goodness and (especially) courage in New York, also?

Will someone ask Rudy these questions? Gosh, I wish they would.

Colin Powell Takes On The Haters

I have no special insight about General Colin Powell's endorsement yesterday of Barack Obama, but there's one part I'd like to highlight.

I'm also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say. And it is permitted to be said such things as, "Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he's a Christian. He's always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, "He's a Muslim and he might be associated terrorists." This is not the way we should be doing it in America.

I feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo essay about troops who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery, and she had her head on the headstone of her son's grave. And as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards--Purple Heart, Bronze Star--showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death. He was 20 years old. And then, at the very top of the headstone, it didn't have a Christian cross, it didn't have the Star of David, it had crescent and a star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, and he was an American. He was born in New Jersey. He was 14 years old at the time of 9/11, and he waited until he can go serve his country, and he gave his life. Now, we have got to stop polarizing ourself in this way. And John McCain is as nondiscriminatory as anyone I know. But I'm troubled about the fact that, within the party, we have these kinds of expressions.

The New York Times provided some background on Corporal Khan, as well as the picture mentioned by General Powell:


General Powell's strong push-back against the haters who use "Muslim" as an epithet, is one of the most important parts of his endorsement, in my humble opinion.

Sunday Night Springsteen

On Thursday, Mr. Springsteen joined with Mr. Billy Joel in a fundraiser for Senator Obama.

It was a little too pricey for me, but I really, really, really would have liked to have been there. I mean, who wouldn't want to be at this meeting of "power couples".



Anyway, from the performances that night, I guess I'm partial to "Thunder Road". Mr. Joel took a verse, and the whole thing was a unique event. There's a YouTube with the complete song, but it can't be embedded, so after you watch this -



Go here for the full performance. And yes, the saxophone player did sound kind of weak, compared to Clarence.

Sweet Virginia

After graduating from college, I continued my education at the University located in Charlottesville, Virginia. I met a lot of people from that state, and came to learn that there was the stereotype of a "Virginian", and the reality that there are all kinds of people and views there, as anywhere. Although, I did have one acquaintance who grew up in southwestern Virginia who, even after she came north for work, would let slip with the occasional "N word" after a drink or two, as if that was the way one spoke in polite company.

Anyway, I thought of all of this when I saw this interview with McCain campaign spokesperson Nancy "Superfluous P" Pfotenhauer. She was arguing that the "real Virginia" would not be voting for Senator Obama.



Even when the interviewer gave her a chance to clarify, she said: "I mean 'real Virginia' because Northern Virginia is where I've always been, but 'real Virginia' I take to be the -- this part of the state that is more Southern in nature, if you will."

Wow. So, based on my personal experience, Ms. Superfluous P says that the "real Virginia" is the one where people talk about the n*ggers, as opposed to all of the other possible Virginias.

I would venture to suggest that Ms. Superfluous P is incorrect. The "real Virginia" is the one which elected Jim Webb over George "Hey, Macaca Brown Guy!" Allen. It's the one which elected Tim Kaine, a crazy Catholic guy who is opposed to the death penalty. And it's the one in which all of those people I met still live, even though they know that people in other places may still have that stereotype in their minds.

By the way, I went to Google to make sure that I was spelling "Macaca" correctly. I wanted to type in "George Allen Macaca", but when I had just typed "George Allen", the Google feature that suggests alternatives for what you are searching for had already suggested that as the number one choice.



If I lived in Virginia, I would be annoyed that my state was defined by the racist clowns who occupy positions of influence in today's GOP.

In short, I think the "real Virginia" would be upset with Ms. Superfluous P, because they know that they are more than, and better than, her stereotypes.

Have You Heard The News?

Three Catholic writers (Nicholas P. Cafardi, M. Cathleen Kaveny and Douglas W. Kmiec) who describe themselves as prolife, and who support Senator Obama, respond to a column in a recent edition of Newsweek, in which George Weigel argued against the candidacy of Senator Obama, from a religious viewpoint. A sample:

George Weigel and his fellow McCain advisers are growing frustrated at the state of the campaign, and they should be. This election rightly continues to focus on the millions of Americans at risk of losing their jobs and their homes. The issue of abortion, of course, is tied to the nation's economic fortunes. In part, we endorsed Senator Obama because his tax-reduction plan focuses on the betterment of average families and those living at the margins. Center for Disease Control statistics reveal that prosperity directly affects the abortion rate far more significantly than Republican rhetoric pledging to outlaw abortion—a feat John McCain has failed to accomplish with nearly three decades in Congress.
...

In terms of health care, McCain makes no provision for the uninsured and proposes that the insured pay more, in all likelihood dumping people into a private insurance market that is more expensive and less responsive to those with pre-existing conditions.

By contrast, Obama does make provision for universal health care and recognizes abortion for what it is: a tragic moral choice often confronted by a woman in adverse economic and social circumstances (without spouse, without steady income, without employment prospects, and a particularly stigmatic and cumbersome adoption procedure). Obama proposes to reduce the incidence of abortion by helping pregnant women overcome the ill effects of poverty that block a choice of life. A range of new studies–using U.S. rather than Swedish data–affirm this approach.

We're happy to continue to debate abortion, but the well-worn battlefield Mr. Weigel occupies should not distract voters from tangible policies that would actually reduce abortions. Before unwarranted Republican indenture, Catholic thinking gave proportionate consideration to how well a candidate addressed such important matters as a just economy, a living or family wage, access to health care, stewardship of the environment, fair treatment of immigrants and, not to be overlooked, the just or unjust conduct of a war. This is basic Catholic social teaching. It also just happens to be Barack Obama's policy agenda.

Is Obama the perfect pro-life candidate? No. Is he preferable to the self-proclaimed "pro-lifer" McCain? Yes, because promoting life in actuality beats McCain's label and all of Weigel's elegant theorizing and hand-wringing. The Republican alternative familiar to Weigel is simultaneously self-righteous, easy and ineffective. The Democratic path is practical, anything but easy—as no act of bona fide love of neighbor ever is—but inviting of a life-affirming outcome.

The whole thing is here.

(Found via dotCommonweal.)

Politics and Pasta

The explanation for the title will be clear at the end of this post. After reading about Sister Cecilia (see post below), some people may be confused. After all, they've been listening to high profile Republicans and Republican supporters (some of whom are church officials) suggesting that a Catholic couldn't vote for Senator Obama. Douglas Kmiec has been arguing otherwise for nearly a year now, but few in the other camp ever seem to engage his arguments.

Courtesy of dotCommonweal, I read an interview by John Allen of National Catholic Reporter with Archbishop John Onaiyekan of Abuja, Nigeria, who is described as "a past president of the African bishops' conference and is widely considered a leading spokesperson for Catholicism in Africa". Mr. Allen asked the Archbishop about the upcoming election in the United States, and received a thoughtful response:

Do you personally believe the election of Obama would change America’s role in the world in terms of the policies he might pursue?

I’m not a prophet. The idea we have, that we still have, is that there are those who are in office in America, and there are those who in power. Those in power are there permanently, they don’t change, and those who are in office are there to carry out the whims of those in power. No matter who you are, there are certain parameters within which you must operate, and even Obama can’t change that.

If you had a vote, would you vote for Obama?

Obviously, if I had a vote.

Even though he’s pro-choice?

Let me put it this way: The fact that you oppose abortion doesn’t necessarily mean that you are pro-life. You can be anti-abortion and still be killing people by the millions, through war, through poverty, and so on. That’s my own way of looking at it. Of course I believe that abortion is wrong, that it’s killing innocent life. I also believe, however, that those who are against abortion should be consistent. If my choice is between the person who makes room for abortion but who is really pro-life in terms of justice in the world, peace in the world, I will prefer him to somebody who doesn’t support abortion but who is driving millions of people in the world to death.

The choice is not just between a pro-abortion and an anti-abortion person. It’s bigger than that. It’s a whole package, and you never get a politician who will please you in everything. You always have to pick and choose. As they say in Rome, if you don’t take the pasta because of the sauce, then you take the sauce because of the pasta!

You can read the whole thing.