Overreacting

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

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

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

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

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

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

~ snip ~

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

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

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

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

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

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

Like A Cool Romeo

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

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

Say Goodbye To Hollywood

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So this is ChristmasAnd what have you done?

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

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

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

Sinterklaas Is Coming To Town

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

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

Got My Facts Learned Real Good Right Now

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope this clears things up for all of you.

He Was Just Blinded By The Light

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Forgotten War?

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

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

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

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

Just another "mission accomplished", I guess.

That Execution Line

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

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

The Times

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Something About Going Home

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ten Years Twenty Years Burning Down The Road

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

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

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

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

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

~ snip ~

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

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

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

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

"Well Don't Just Sit There"

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

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

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

~ snip ~

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

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

"We're All Republicans Now!"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Capital Offense

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

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

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

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

Someday We'll Look Back On This ...

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

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

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

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

And Fred Clark at Slacktivist points out another important fact:

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

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

Chasing Something in the Night

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

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

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

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

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

Better Ask Questions Before You Shoot

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Via Atrios)

Some Reality-Based Talk From Above

Courtesy of Terry Jones, from the Guardian:

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

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

(Link from Body and Soul).

Random Thoughts About Posting Random Thoughts

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's a good way to look at it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meet Me Out in the Street

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

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

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

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

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

In Decent Men's Eyes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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