Exceptionalism as Foreign Policy

Let me offer a (probably) simplistic view of the differences in foreign policy between conservatives and liberals.

Conservative voters, I think, tend to view America as an exceptional land. As such, the foreign policy of our country must perforce be, if not perfect, at least the best attempt at it. The view of liberal voters is that it is only due to the actions of our country that we are exceptional, as because of that, we need to be sure that we take actions that make our exceptionalism a positive, and that it is way too easy to "go to the dark side" and use our exceptionalism as a borm of bullying.

To put it even simpler, a conservative believes that because it is our foreign policy then we need to support it. A liberal believes that because it is our foreign policy it is crucial to turn the most critical eye upon it.

Next Moves

Okay, I have spent the best part of a week revising and reviewing what has happened. I've also read a number of the "What do we do next?" articles. And, there are some good ideas, some crap ideas and a lot of shirt rending and hair pulling. I've thought and thought some more. There are a lot of good thoughts about what the Democratic Party stands for. I think this sort of introspection is useful, whether in victory or defeat. But, while we sit and think, events are moving forward. And while it would be useful to develop a complete ideological framework and then place world events into that framework, the pace of world events is not going to give us the leisure to do that.

So, I have thought some more and come up with a list of soon to be coming issues that we should be preparing to confront as well as my thoughts on how to go after them. I'm not going to bother with the minutiae of various policy moves afoot by the Republicans. There's precious little that can be done to stop/change any bills the Republicans come up with, and I think the nuclear option of filibuster should be held back unless the issue at stake is a judicial nomination. No, the things I think Democrats and Progressives (hereafter referred to as the opposition) should focus on are broad sweep sorts of issues, nothing that has yet got a bill attached to it, but rather longer term issues that are clearly upcoming on the agenda, if not quite enunciated yet. Enough prevarication - here is my list.

• War in Iran - Maybe the Iranians will decide to play ball, maybe not. If not, I think it safe to assume we will find the government issuing ultimatums to Tehran. Once those ultimatums are issued, the government will feel obliged to act on them. So, I think that the opposition should begin now to sow seeds of doubt about a third war in the mideast. We must hammer at this on all fronts: is war the right course? where will troops come from (draft)? what will a third anti-Muslim war do to our world standing? We must marshal connections with our erstwhile foreign allies to put pressure on the government. We must marshal our forces in this country by recognizing the long-term effects of this widening conflict. We must present alternatives to this conflict. We must make the case that not only is war bad, but that our ideas are better and safer.



• Gay Marriage Amendment - It is time, I think, for Democrats to embrace the gay community fully. If we do stand for equality in all ways, then we must stand by the LBGT community now. I still maintain that religious denominations may choose to discriminate as they wish (if they wish) as to whom they will marry, but as long as the government is in the business of sanctioning unions between two people, then we must insist that the government allow such unions between any two consenting adults, be they same sex or different. It is no longer right (as if it ever was) that we do a little do-si-do around our support for gays. They are deserving of full, unconditional support as members of our party and our nation. If we think that much of the country will not tolerate homosexuals, we must do all we can not only to recognize gays, but to make it clear that we are not ashamed of them but proud to have them as members of our party. It was very telling that most of the country saw John Kerry's acknowledgement of the Cheney's gay daughter as a serious breach of ettiquette. We have to be in the vanguard of the movement that doesn't quietly acknowledge that gay people exist, but celebrates the right of people to love other people. We have to make people see that being gay isn't something to be ashamed of or to keep only in the family. Gay people make good parents - make that very clear. Gay people can be moral paragons as much as any breeder. Damn it, gay people are people just like any of us. We need to make it clear that we aren't ashamed of our gay friends. This "nod and wink" disregard is teaching people that despite what we advocate, we Democrats aren't comfortable with gay people. Small wonder our positions are rejected. We lack even the nerve to stand proudly for a vibrant part of our party.



• Social Security Privatization - Social Security was not instituted as a reward for making it to retirement, nor is it an acceptable substitute for adequate retirement planning. It was, however, a reaction to the fact of thousands on thousands of homeless or utterly impoverished older adults during the Depression. It was decided that as a country, we had a solemn duty to make sure that our older citizens never faced their later years without some sort of safety net. It was the one thing, if all else failed, would be there for older Americans. That mission has remained unchanged despite the intervening years. As Democrats, we must point out and make VERY clear the fact that any plan that puts even the smallest risk into that safety net is not acceptable. Social Security is one of the lasting legacies of FDR, one of the heroes of the Democratic Party. There should be an unquestioned commitment to ensure the covenant made between the government and its citizens is never abrogated.

These are three of the larger issues for the Bush presidency. I think our national die has been cast in Iraq. I think the desire of the citizenry for more panacea tax cuts is clear. Between holding the line on the radical judciary and stating a strong moral case for the above three items, I think the Democratic party will have an effective battle order for the next two years. In 2006 we try again to make our case. With a strong vision on the above issues, we can make ourselves Democrats, not anti-Republicans.

Okay, Now What

Good question, really.

There's a part of me that wants to blow town. Go to France and become a cheese eating (supposed) surrender monkey. I want to run away to a place that has the beliefs I have. I want to be a part of a nation that believes in fundamental fairness. I want to be somewhere that believes that families shouldn't have to have two wage earners going 45+ hours a week just to barely make it. I want to be in a country where . . . where this election didn't happen.

But it did, and running away is the worst idea. If what I think America is about is at all dear to me, it is up to me not to run off in search of some simulacrum of it in a different country, but rather to stay here and do what I can to make it the country I think it is.

Frankly, though, I'm tapped for ideas. I cannot conceive of a more cohesive Democratic party than the one we saw the last six months. From MoveOn to ACT to CommonCause to the Deaniacs to Rock the Vote . . . I thought we had the soul of the party. And we not only lost, but we lost devastatingly.

I don't know the solution. Really, I do not. First of all, we have a fundamental schism in our party. There is the social justice crowd, with pro gay, pro gun control, pro abortion and pro environment positions. Then there is the economic justice crowd with issues like fair pay, overtime regulations, affordable healthcare and pro union power. The problem is that people are more strongly opposed to the social justice issues than they are motivated by the economic justice issues. Part of the reason is the unmitigated crap we are fed about how tax cuts give us more money to spend. Part of it is that many believe the life of a tycoon is only a lottery ticket/Survivor appearance/American Idol appearance away. On the other side of that equation, the social justice issues are not just issues of pragmatism, they are issues of fundamental belief. Abortion and homosexuality are not just political issues, not just matters of life and death, but matters that can save or damn a soul for eternity (not my belief). So, these social issues are of much greater relevance to these voters.

How do we overcome this? I wish I knew. I know I believe that neither half of the party can win by itself. And, I'm having a hard time working out how to reconcile these two halves of the party. So, for the moment, I am lost.

A Time To Vent

Ahh damn it.

In some ways I look at this as a referendum on Evangelical Christian morality than anything else. That and fear.

Fear first. I know that the events of September 11, 2001 were devastating. As I noted before, I lost a family member and was scared nearly out of my mind about a dear friend that day. I've got a handle on how scary the idea of terrorists are. I also understand the desire to strike back and fight them, both as a need for vengeance and to offer some semblance of security. And, I support the war in Afghanistan - the Taliban were well warned by two presidents that one more alQaeda linked attack would mean their asses were on the line (per Richard Clarke's book). But somewhere along the way, the fight we are fighting has ceased to be a war on terror and has become something else. I think facts have adequately established that the war in Iraq bore no relevance to the war on terror. I do not want to play a guessing game as to the motives the administration had in going into Iraq - it is irrelevant. We are there. Moreover, there is a large part of the populace that has not accepted these facts: Iraq had no part in 9/11, Iraq had no relationship with alQaeda, Iraq had no WMDs, and Iraq had no extant WMD programs for the last ten years. These are facts, but they are facts that a large part of the country has not accepted and maybe never will. As such, I'm not sure it matters if they ever do. Worse than all that, we have allowed the situation in Israel to deteriorate and we have created a lot of angry people with our adventure in Iraq. That does not bode well for a war on terror. So, to me, there is more reason to fear now than there was four years ago (or, perhaps more relevant, three years ago).

Now morality. I'm not an Evangelical Christian, nor do I ever plan on becoming one. As I have grown older, particularly since I have gotten married and had kids, I have found in myself a developing relationship with a spiritual higher power. I note that I do some serious semantic gymnastics to not say "God" there. It's not that I do not think God is the thing that I am becoming close to. It is much more that saying I have a developing relationship with God makes me feel that I am placing myself in the company of people whose beliefs I reject as wholeheartedly as I possibly can. My God does not believe in intolerance, manifest destiny or the various ways that many Christians have developed a sense of insularity - that everyone else is "them". Here is what I believe and I think my God wants the world to believe.

I think that gay people deserve every single right that straight people do. I think that Muslims and Jews deserve the same respect that Christians do (as do Hindus, Buddhists and so on. I mention those two specifically because to some extent American antipathy is focused to an extent on these groups). I believe that one can regulate guns without taking away the right to hunt or protect oneself adequately. I believe that the phrase "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" is one of the most dangerous ideas in history. I believe that a corporate based economy is a very bad thing, and that the benefits of large corporations to workers are due to inefficiencies in the corporate structure and as these inefficiencies are corrected, the workers get less and less (more on this another time). I believe that there is a delusion out there that there is a strong flow of people from lower to middle class and from middle class to upper class. In reality, the flow is nothing like that - the flow is from middle to lower and upper to really upper. I believe that peace not war is the solution to terror. I belive terror cannot possibly be solved by violence, only by removing the causes of hatred.

So here we are. In my next post, I will go over what next.

Civil Discourse

Well, I suppose it was inevitable that our Kerry/Edwards sign was stolen from our lawn this weekend. I suppose I should be more upset about it, but I can't muster up much more than a despairing sigh. To whomever took the sign Saturday night (early morning actually), you've gone and confirmed my worst suspicions about current political supporters on either side of the debate. Disagreement is not permissible in our country, apparently, because both sides seem to view those who differ from them as misguided at best and deliberately destructive at worst. So much for an open market of ideas.

Futility

I just finished readin Nicholson Baker's Checkpoint. It wasn't much, just 128 pages, and frankly I wasn't all that impressed. It was, for the most part, a long rant without any corroboration or supporting reference. I'm pretty familiar with the "butcher's bill" levied against this administration, so there wasn't anything new or shocking. Moreover, whatever shock value might have been derived from the one character's stated intent to kill the president came across more as the raving of someone who was a beer short of a six-pack, rather than someone who was genuinely brought to that depth by something resembling despair. In such a short time, it was hard to draw any conclusion from the character other than he was just fundamentally bat-shit crazy. Honestly, I feel termendous futility regarding the administration. The premise of the novel, that this futility leads to thoughts of violence is sort of silly, or, at least, ridiculous enough that it sort of causes the particulars of the novel to pale in comparison. So, the premise of the novel makes the content of the text, the list of offenses done by this administration, fade into the background.

And oh what a list it is. I honestly cannot think of anything that was done by this administration that produced a positive result. In some ways it is impressive, George W. Bush has invalidated the idea that even a blind squirrel will occasionally find nuts. This squirrel has found nothing and is proudly touting the fact.

But I've moved beyond anger and despair at the actions and arrogance of this administration. For nine months I viewed them with bemused contempt. After 9/11 I was prepared to give them a chance to lead, but they managed to even more arrogantly bungle everything they touched. Bemused contempt changed to angry contempt. The particulars were there for all to see. An economy, that regardless of the numbers, was not serving anyone with less than $100K per year income. A "war on terror" that was abandoned in Afghanistan before it was concluded. A second "war on terror" that was begun on evidence that was either specious or manufactured, and likely was known to be so. This second war resulted in an objective positive, the removal of a very bad guy, but at the cost of 1000 American lives and uncounted Iraqi ones. Furthermore, the ultimate price tag of that war will not be wholly known for years. The scandals of Enron, Adelphia and MCI. The utterly corrupt Medicare bill, corrupt in debate (muzzled evidence), corrupt in passing (strongarm tactics against fellow Republicans). Nothing, nothing at all has been done with even marginal competence by this administration.

But, you know what? I've ceased being angry. You know why? Because no one is listening. Because a good 40% of the electorate will vote for this man regardless of the circumstances. That means that Kerry has to collect around five of every six available votes, and that's simply too tall an order. I genuinely believe Bush's base will vote for him no matter what happens, and I think I have good reason. He's abandoned all the precepts of conservatism, as least as I know it. Our government has bloated, not shrunk. He has spoken words about securing the nation but has committed neither time nor political capital to causing real reform (unless bloating the government by creating the mostly impotent Homeland Security Department counts). He has carried out ill-conceived war plans that have killed American soldiers needlessly. He has impugned the patriotism of good, brave men like Max Cleland and John Kerry His credentials as a conservative are arguably worse than Bill Clinton's, yet his base is still rock solid. This fact is prima facie evidence that Bush's conservative base will not leave him. If they haven't by now, they ain't gonna.

When 40% of the electorate are willing to compromise their own stated beliefs about what government is and how it works, then the burden of blame shifts from the betrayers to the betrayed. The electorate have abandoned reasoned, responsible voting in favor of knee-jerk selection of a man because he was put forth as a standard bearer for his party. It is as near a cult of personality as has been seen in this country in its history. Bush's base have ceased being good citizens and have become nothing more than easily led sheep.

In channel surfing this weekend, I caught a moment of "Meet the Press" where Tim Russert's guest stated that the anger and disbelief that Democrats are feeling is the mirror image of what the Republicans were feeling during the Clinton years. I beg to differ. The anger the Republicans felt was based in part on Clinton's infidelity, in part on his being a member of the baby boom sixties generation and in part on his dissembling about Monica Lewinsky. There were even some who believed him to be a rapist and perhaps a murderer. These latter allegations are baseless of course, but even if they were true, let us be clear. These would be crimes committed by a man against another human. The crimes of this administration have been lies and dissembling writ large, crimes against the nation as a whole. And do not feed me some crap about Clinton's lies eroding the nation's moral fiber - the lies of Dubya were at least as noxious to the shared belief that is our country as anything Clinton even allegedly did.

Despite all this, despite every little thing, despite the utter failure of this presidency, 40% of th electorate will vote for him. It is an act of wilful blindness that may be the most criminal act of all.

Sicker and Tireder

Reading Paul Glastris take on Democratic tactics against Nader, I noted Glastris' desire to fight the political fight based on the issues. I thought I'd take a moment to clarify my take on the issues.

• Economy This seems obvious to me. For most folks, the past four years have not been good. Clearly the economy was headed downhill when Clinton left office, and 9/11 did nothing to help the economy. However, it is four years post Clinton and three years post 9/11. What is the direction of the economy? Well, I think if you are in a position where corporate upswings make a measurable difference in your earning power, then you are pretty happy. White collar types who are in a position to really benefit from corporate profit expansion are doing pretty good. Of course, these guys are vice-presidents of companies and so on, and they make up a small subset of the populace at large. For folks who are struggling to pay for college, struggling to set aside savings for retirement, struggling to get beyond a check to check existence, this has not been a recovery. Jobs that were once considered upper middle class (by that I mean jobs that make somewhere between $50,000 and $100,000) seem to be evaporating. I'd like to back that up with statistics, but honestly, I cannot find anything that measures it - this is a feeling, based in no small part on my wife's experiences job hunting and my experiences, as well as the experiences of other people in the same range of income. Our out of pocket healthcare costs are rising rapidly, the copays for a doctor visit are going from $10 to $30 over the space of about five years. The price of milk, perhaps the ultimate staple in a family with young kids, has risen to four dollars a gallon. Gasoline to drive ourselves to work and our kids to school has reached $1.75 a gallon for regular unleaded (like any of us can afford high test). The job market is squeezing and squeezing - sure there are plenty of jobs out there, but for the most part, they require me to take a pay cut of at least 10% to 15%. There's also the small fact that companies are hesitant to offer jobs that represent pay cuts to people. They believe that these people will bolt as soon as they can get a better gig - and probably they are right. Oh no, I think for almost anyone making under $100K/year, this economy has gone from bad to worse. For these people, there simply is no recovery happening. This is a strong negative for the president



• Foreign Policy Okay, this is clearly a very tetchy issue, one on which reasonable people can disagree. For myself, I think the foreign policy is a set of nested objectives. The first and most crucial is this: make America safe from foreign enemies. Second, secure the resources external to America that are required for economic growth. This, however, must only be done in such a way as to not compromise objective one. Third, promote humanitarian and democratic ideals. This, however, must not compromise objectives one and two. So . . . how has Team Bush done? Overall, I think America is safer from alQaeda now than it was on 9/11, and perhaps even when he came to office. The work that has been done to disrupt the financial networks and the elimination of the Taliban has been a good thing. However, I think that the overall terrorist threat has increased. We have engendered so much ill will with our Iraqi adventure that I'd be surprised if there were not more anti-American terrorists now than prior to Bush. So are we safer from terrorism in general? No. Are we safer from North Korea? No. Are we safer from Iran? No.

My TiVo Season Passes

This is useless information, apropos of nothing, really. I just thought I'd share it as background information about me.

1. West Wing
2. CSI
3. Law and Order
4. Law and Order: Special Victims Unit
5. Cold Case
6. Without a Trace
7. Navy NCIS
8. The Daily Show
9. Cowboy Bebop
10. Celebrity Poker Showdown
11. World Poker Tour
12. Star Wars: Clone Wars
13. MythBusters
14. Rescue Me

When football season starts, I'll add NFL Primetime, cause I worship before the altar of Tom Jackson, the only mainstream commentator to say that the Carolina Panthers could win their games against St. Louis, Philly or New England. Though he was sadly wrong on the last, give the man props for backing the Panthers here. When the new TV season starts, I'll also add CSI: New York to the roster.

As with the iPod playlist, I can't tell you what this means. But, there you go.

Something I Have Lost

I had a girlfriend - my first really, truly, meet-the-parents, make plans for our future girlfriend - who once said that her best feature was her "childlike sense of wonder" and that this was something that everyone should have. She was right about that - she definitely had that sense of wonder and it was one of the things about her I loved. At some point I lost my sense of wonder. I'm mostly a cynic, though occasionally I have moments of optimism and hope. I wonder where I lost that sense of wonder. There are still flashes of that wonder. I recall holding each of my girls for the first time. I recall the feeling when they'd fall asleep on me; one of life's truly great moments, and one of the first things kids stop doing as they grow up, sadly. Truly amazing things still make my breath catch. But there is no sense of wonder in the more prosaic. Perhaps that is as it should be, but I do not gawk at sunsets any more. I do not gasp at the sight of a truly beautiful horse galloping. The pedestrian beauty of a pretty stretch of road. All these things seem to pass me by these days. Wonder how I get that back?

On Writing and Self

It's funny; when I began this blog, I had so much to say and so much to put out there. Now, almost 9 months later, it's been pretty slow, especially for the last six months. I'm having a hard time conceptualizing what I want to say. Moreover, I'm having a hard time finding a path for myself. I'm mired in a sort of existential funk - unable to do anything or make any changes.

So what do I do? I find myself to a large extent hemmed in by a set of constants that cannot be changed, the largest of which is the fact that as a family, we need almost $4500 per month to live on. Now, with some debt reduction and some (more) belt tightening, we could likely get that figure down to $4000. With a bit of luck, we could get it down to $3500 per month, or approximately $900 per week. That's still pretty steep. So what, then? Writing is never a pursuit designed to make scads of money. I've got a wife and three kids, and between the two of us, we have to make, as it stands now, approximately $82,000 per year combined. If we got that down to the $3500 per month then we'd be talking about $63,500 per year. That's not a great thing either, though it is better.

What's more, the desire to write on my part is an intensely selfish one. It is utterly unimaginable that I could make any money at this (at least any amount that is reasonable) for the first year. That means my writing would be fulfilling to me, but offer little to my family. There's more, though. We have to talk about healthcare. Okay, does anyone think there is an adult couple where neither is hypertensive, depressed, anxious, ulcer ridden, stressed, arthritic or otherwise saddled with a chronic illness? How about also adding in that you can have neither weight nor cholesterol problems? Yeah, I don't think so either. Still, it seems that for one to get private health insurance, these are requirements. Now in my family, I have high blood pressure and anxiety/depression. My wife, better yet, is HIV positive. Reckon there's any way in the world we can get private insurance without paying something like $2000 per month with deductibles approximately equal to the cost of my house? Yeah, me neither. For those concerned, by the way, my wife has likely been positive since Reagan was president and has never shown the slightest sign of illness. She's what is referred to as a "long-term non-progressor", a relatively recent designation that has been applied to a phenomenon no one understands. There are a number of people like my wife out there, and for rather obvious reasons, many are deeply interested in the why's of her lack of illness. Anyway, back to the show. For these reasons, healthcare as guaranteed by work in a corporate world, is crucial. Problem is, neither of us is particularly enthralled by corporate work. My wife is running a nascent but successful online toy store, Fun For Thought Toys, and she's in no mood to work in the corporate world, though she does so to help make ends meet. If I were to take up writing, this would place the burden on my wife to work the corporate thing more intensely, releasing me to write. That's a pretty big sacrifice and one I'm not sure I'm willing to ask for.

Which brings me to the crux of my problem. Why am I unwilling to ask for such a sacrifice to chase my vision of happiness? Simple - my vision of happiness changes roughly quarterly. That's usually the amount of time it takes for me to dig into whatever it is that I want to do and realize that it isn't going to fall into my lap. Like all things, one's path in life takes work. I'm generally unwilling to do that work. About the only things that I have ever put a tremendous amount of effort into are reading and my marriage, and the latter is still, arguably, suffering from my lack of attention (not suffering badly, but it could use more effort from me, no doubt). Even my kids, who I love almost beyond reason, get short shrift from me at times. I don't make the effort to take kids to soccer, or dance or Brownies or whatever. I do not spend enough time reading to my kids. I do not spend enough time teaching them to fish or play baseball or whatever. I have my own agenda and I tend to promote that over theirs a lot of the time. Basically, I'm a seriously selfish person a lot of the time. It's a flaw. Anyway, to get back to where I was, I tend to pick up and drop new "life paths" fairly frequently, though to be fair, they generally are the same set of things: programmer, writer, teacher or "happy idiot" corporate drone. Is this time the real thing? I usually think so . . . so that's no gauge. Or should I make the commitment and use the sacrifice others make for me the goad to keep me at it?

I wish I understood what motivates me. I wish I understood more about myself. I've been told I'm very self-aware, and I think that is true. But my deepest motivations are elusive to me. Why am I lazy? Why can I not commit and discipline myself? Why am I so selfish?

Oh hell, I'm sure no one out there is interested in my navel gazing. Be well, all, and perhaps I will spew forth something soon that is more in line with the ideas that I started this with.

Bunch of Damn Children

I was reading Tacitus today. While I am a liberal, I enjoy what Tacitus has to say. He usually presents himself as an independent thinker and someone who, while conservative, looks past the blather to understand what the core issues are. He's not one (usually) for vitriol or hype. Others amongst his crew are not so even-handed.

At any rate, Bird Dog sallies forth today with a lot of blather about the Sandy Berger thing. He links to a Hugh Hewitt piece that basically claims the 9/11 commission is a dodge to keep Clinton from getting into trouble over the attack. I try to ignore Bird Dog when I read Tacitus - he has precisely the sort of talking point and vitriol laden screeds that help no one but a partisan with deaf ears. This one really grates though.

Hey, Bird Dog, you want to know who is to blame for 9/11? Here's a very small portion of the list:

• Osama bin Laden - for planning and financing


• 19 hijackers - for doing it


• Bill Clinton - for not doing more to break this cycle earlier


• George W. Bush - for being so obsessed with Iraq and Star Wars


• The National Intelligence Apparatus - For being so f***ing turfy about their stuff that they can't coordinate a drinking binge in a distillery


• Congress - for being too damn cheap to invest in proper security


• Flying Public - for being in such a hurry that a five minute delay for screening was unacceptable to begin with

The list goes on - poorly thought policy by Israel, coddling governments in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, the Sudan and Pakistan. Oh it goes on and on. Ultimately we all have a part to play in the blame game for this. We are all accountable - we played politics with everything from school lunches to security and that got us there. We are so focused on our American exceptionalism that we refused to believe that someone might not see things the way we do and that got us there.

Grow up all of you. It is a collective guilt we bear for this tragedy. We all blew it in one way or another. And as far as I'm concerned, I could give a rat's ass less whose fault it is. I want it fixed. I watched my wife suffer the loss of her mother in the World Trade Center under awful, public circumstances while the pundits blathered (and still blather) on. I don't want more widows and orphans made while we look for ways to make each other look bad. I don't want another tragedy to come about because Hugh Hewitt is so busy making Bill Clinton look bad that he can't bring some of his will to bear on making us all safer. I don't want more deaths because Atrios is so busy making Dubya look like a fool or criminal that he can't bring his soapbox to bear in making us safer.

We are all in this together. I'm sick and tired of partisan ranting taking the place of reasonable dialogue and I am tired of people who are so puffed up on their own self-importance (myself included) that they cannot see beyond their own politics to a way for everyone to gain. This divisiveness is utter arrogance and stupidity in equal amounts.

What is American?

At the most pedantic and technical level, all citizens are Americans. But that is not what I am thinking about. I am thinking about the quintessential spirit of America.

I admit, I was put onto this path by reading Manuel Garcia, Jr.'s essay about being American. I've read it once and I will need to read it a few more times to absorb what he is saying. There is some truth there, but neither he nor I can clearly put it together. But, for my part, I want to talk about what is American. And please, though I get no comments anyway, please do not pass along comments about how x, y or z REALLY originated here or there and was hijacked by America. These are my thoughts of what is American, so whether they are technically right or wrong, by definition, they are right. Also, I am not writing the negative or cynical - this is a celebration.

• Baseball, during the day, on grass in the summertime. Either in person, or on a radio while puttering about.


• Elvis, Bruce, James Taylor, Jimmy Buffet, The Eagles, Don McLean, The Ramones


• The National Air and Space Museum


• Sousa marches


• The Simpsons


• 1960s Era Ford Mustangs


• The Western, in books or movies


• The National Air and Space Museum


• Amber Waves of Grain


• Motown


• The Music Man, but only with Robert Preston


• Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck and the rest of their ilk


• Johnny Cash


• Star Trek and Star Wars


• Beaches, the Beach Boys, Surfing and Dick Dale


• Apple Computer


• Big game day on a college campus


• Johnny Appleseed


• Comic books


• Kevin Smith


• Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell


• Langston Hughes


• The oratorical greatness of Martin Luther King, Jr.

I wish I could identify a unifying theme (except that this list is VERY white male, note that the last two items were added after I realized this). Perhaps it is just me. There is definitely a whiff of the little guy, a taste of the mythical. I don't honestly know. But, to me, these are all quintessentially part of the American thing.

Ronald Reagan

Look, I didn't like the man as president. I thought of him in much the same way I think of Dubya - a buffoon surrounded by very competent people, whose ideas and ideology are abhorrent to me. I was glad to see him leave office.

I also am glad he has died. The idea of losing one's mind is frightening to me, perhaps the most frightening thing I can imagine happening to me. Furthermore, the thought of being the family member of one with Alzheimer's is also frightening and saddening. It is, perhaps, the most horrible way to die, death of the mind, death of the self, but with the horrible addition of leaving a shell of a stranger in your skin for your family to take care of. In my mind, I think when Ronald Reagan reached heaven, the first thing he met was his mind again, and that comforts me.

There is a lot of glowing talk about the man on the occasion of his death. Conservatives are serving up the icon of St. Ronald, champion of freedom and the everyman. Liberals, while saying the want not to speak ill of the dead, contend they must counter this hagiography and proceed to speak ill of the dead.

Me, I want to let it go. For one week, let whoever say whatever about the man. He has died, he was president, and he deserves respect enough that we should let the bickering cease for seven damn days. If the conservative side wants to make him their Roosevelt, so be it. If they want to try to get the luster (and teflon) of President Reagan to rub off on the clearly inferior Dubya, go for it, though I think it is in very bad taste to do so, at least during this period of mourning. To the liberals, of which I count myself one, let it be. There is time enough for partisanship in the next six months. I think any attempt to make Dubya the next Reagan will work to our advantage, since, to paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen, "He is no Ronald Reagan."

Let's take a week off from this bitter wrangling. Remember Reagan as you wish, fondly or with enmity. On the occasion of his death, I am finding a place in my heart to forgive him the bad things he did and recall the things that made me laugh or feel better about my country. He was president from my 12th year through to my 20th year - truly my politically formative years. In some ways, I am politically what he helped make me.

Finally, remember, this is the guy who called out James Watt on the single most preposterous thing a government official has ever said, that the Beach Boys are un-American.

If you are liberal and feel the need to do something in memory of Reagan, donate to Alzheimer's research, or to one of the stem cell research advocacy groups. But please, no more bickering this week.

Why We Should Care

In the late nineties, I lived in Battle Creek, Michigan. It is a fairly nice town, a (former?) company town. One of the local referenda that came up during my time of residence there was a millage increase to pay for school improvements, new schools and various other school related upgrades. It was defeated, though the need was clearly there. One of the reasons for the defeat was a concerted "no" effort by those who did not have school age children. Their argument was that they should not have to pay for schools when they did not have children in the schools.

I won't get into a discussion of that specifically, but I want to use it as a highlight to demonstrate what I do want to talk about. America is the world capital of individualism, in all the good and bad ways that can be taken. This country is, though, a community, dedicated to the ideal that "all men are created equal". We are a community because we care about our neighbors. We hold open doors, we help people struggling with too many parcels, we do a lot of little things, simply because we care or we like to believe that our good deeds are repaid in kind by others when we need a good deed done for ourselves. I've been on both the giving and receiving end of funeral casseroles - kind gifts of food from neighbors and friends during a time of grief.

I want to write some well reasoned and eloquent post about how we of this country are no better than the least of us. But, honestly, I am suffering from some variety of writer's block or verbal constipation or something. I think the latter is closer to the truth - for the past six months I have been bingeing on political information - books I read, news I read, websites I visit and so on. I think it has all formed into some gelatinous/fibrous mass in my head that has blocked out my ability to think or reason verbally.

So, I am going to sum this up and try to write about some other things for a while and think about some other things for a while, so maybe I can get back on track. Ultimately, we are, as a nation, what we make of ourselves. If we feel that we owe nothing to the community, unless there is tangible, direct benefit to us, then that is a powerful statement about who we are. We are no longer America the nation, but rather America the collection of individuals, and down that path lies only darkness.

A Veritable Plethora

A good friend of mine in college made up a sixties/seventies mix tape and title it "A Veritable Plethora". It is interesting because I feel the same way about blog topics - there are so many to choose from that I have a hard time figuring out where to go.

There's Abu Ghraib. Oh dear, what to say about that, which hasn't already been said, rehashed and said again. I found myself nearly on the verge of tears when I described to my wife the details from Seymour Hersh's first New Yorker article. As time goes on, it keeps getting worse and worse. Where will it all end, and will anyone have to take responsibility with more than hollow words?

There's the 9/11 Commission. What to make of this? What to make of the attempt to use Jamie Gorelick as the poster child for Democratic politicization of a supposedly non-partisan commission?

There's the economy. I have nothing but my gut to back me up, but I really think that the economic recovery is being felt only by those in the upper tier of the economy. The rise in the market is nothing to me as I have no money to invest. Other economic indicators mean nothing to me - I am worried only about my job and my ability to put food on the table and keep the family's prescriptions filled.

There's the overwhelming weirdness of the situation - with Abu Ghraib last week being all the news, what is all over my TV? The end of "Friends". Great show and all, but there's real life issues we as a nation have to deal with and there are fantasy television programs that bear no real meaning on the world we inhabit.

Oh yes, no lack of topics to talk about. But what to say? I am afraid that I have become so accustomed to shock and disgust at the various inanities and atrocities that make up America in 2004 that I've lost my voice to speak.

The Better Way

Over the weekend, I turned over and over in my head the idea that there has to be a better way for this country. A better way to govern, to get along, to cooperate, to reach consensus . . . in short to do all the things a government should do. I just ran into trouble trying to quantify that.

It gets into pretty abstract territory - motivations and desires and so on. Basically, I do believe that for whatever reason, many reasonable bits of legislation are stopped simply because there is some political purpose served in stopping it.

Quick Music List

Songs shuffled up by my iPod this afternoon:

1. I Eat Cannibals - Total Coelo - MTV Class of 1983
2. In the Air Tonight - Phil Collins - No Jacket Required
3. The Bad Touch - Bloodhound Gang - Hooray For Boobies
4. Born To Run - Bruce Springsteen - Born To Run
5. Rockin' the Bronx - Black 47 - Fire of Freedom
6. One True Love - Semisonic - All About Chemistry
7. Goin' Up - Great Big Sea - Road Rage
8. Applehead Man - Trip Shakespeare - Epic Renditions
9. Poetry Club - Various - The Arthur and Friends Almost Live Album
10. Heartbreak Hotel - Elvis Presley - 30 #1 Hits
11. James Connolly - Black 47 - Fire of Freedom
12. She's Got It All Worked Out - Semisonic - Feeling Strangely Fine
13. Everything - Handsome Devil - Love and Kisses from Underground
14. Lady Nina - Marillion - B-Sides Themselves
15. Hurdy-Gurdy Man - Donovan - Unknown
16. Deacon Blues - Steely Dan - Citizen Steely Dan
17. Sweet Home Alabama - Lynyrd Skynyrd - Forrest Gump Soundtrack
18. Battle of Kookamonga - Homer and Jethro - Dr. Demento 20th Anniversary Collection
19. Czechoslovakia - Black 47 - Green Suede Shoes
20. Good Music - Joan Jett - Good Music

Make of this what you will.

Fear Part I

It is one of the more often repeated memes that having children is a life changing experience. In my case, at least, that is certainly true. There are the obvious changes in what you say and do with kids around, as well as the things that you become familiar with (Barney, The Wiggles, Elmo and so on) that you would have been mortified to have to even acknowledged before. You think about colleges and preschools and eating habits and so on . . . all the "normal" things that people think about when they have kids.

There's another shift, though, a deeply emotional one. To be honest, I was unaware of it, until it walloped me in the face. The TV series, Homicide: Life On The Street was in syndication and I got hooked on it. So, I was watching it and the episode A Doll's Eyes came on. As I watched that episode, particularly when the child died, my emotions exploded in my. I didn't just tear up or cry, literally howls of grief came out of me. That's never happened before. As time went on, I became aware that when it comes to images or stories of children suffering, I simply cannot bear to watch. Much as I wanted to see the movie, I knew I could never watch Life is Beautiful - the whole premise of trying to shield horror from the eyes of a beloved child is something I could not watch.

In addition to deep empathy for suffering children, I also discovered I had a deep emotional link with the way my children view me. I'm sensitive to the thought that something I might do will let them down or disappoint them. When my company announced a pretty drastic restructuring, the specter of layoffs loomed over me. I tried to imagine how I might explain this to my three little girls - why daddy wasn't at work or why daddy had to change jobs, and I found that the prospect of this distressed me. I didn't want them to see that their daddy was as powerless as they were sometimes. Since their grandmother died in the World Trade Center, I've had to explain on a couple of occasions about that - and how do you tell children that there are some things mommies and daddies cannot do? These things hurt me - as long as my girls think I am invincible, I think they can feel safe standing with invincible daddy. I'm not ready for them to learn I'm just another person like them, no more or less.

That's why the news on NPR on Thursday that inflation may be on the horizon really dropped me into a funk. Our household is making around $70K per year, we have a $1600 or so mortgage payment (yes, we pay PMI and all that escrow), we have a daughter in day care ($150 per week) and another daughter in a pre-K program ($222 per month). We also have a 5 year note outstanding for approximately $55,000 which comes to a $750 per month payment (and it will balloon soon, as well). This last is the remnants of too much credit card debt incurred in the late nineties. We own our cars outright. I have approximately 5 prescriptions that need filling per month, at $35 a pop (thanks for the slash in bennies, RSA). There are also our various bills. What this boils down to is a budget that has no allowance for saving at all, no retirement funds, no college funds, no 401K, nothing. Even having said that, we find ourselves on the negative side of the ledger as often as not when paycheck time nears. It is a knife-edge situation. My pay raises have amounted to about 2.7% annually - these are the merit raises, reward for good work. Really, they are thinly disguised COLA raises, and really sort of diet COLA since they aren't even quite up to inflation.

A surge in inflation, especially in food, durable goods and gas (the three things all families need) could tip us. I'm terrified of this. I recall one occasion when bad planning and so on left us without baby formula for 24 hours I thought. We simply had no money and would have none until the next day when I got paid. Luckily we had some packets stashed in diaper bags as well as some sample soy formula and we made it. For a bit there, though, my wife and I were talking about approaching our pediatrician for some samples to get us through. While that is humiliating enough for adults, what happens when you have to explain to your kids that you can't feed them because you have no money? Or, perhaps more realistically, when you have to tell them you cannot afford to go get ice cream or some other treat? It all comes back to that sense of failure - of having failed your children.

But, damn it, this one is so preventable. I look at the mess that is the economy, at least the economy for those of us who do not have stock portfolios and Beemers, for those of us who have to work to get by, and it is a sad state. Jobs are scarce, even for a programmer/analyst like me. My wife was laid off in late 2002 by her company and only in January was able to get a job, after a full year and change of being unemployed. That year gap also, in a particularly vicious cycle, makes it hard to get work since she, like me, works in computers and a year out of work and away from this dynamic profession is a Very Bad Thing. Since my company announced it is restructuring in early September last year, I have been seeking work. There's just not much there. Adding to this, summer is coming and my kindergarten and Pre-K daughters will be out of school and we will have to pay for care for them. We simply cannot afford it. We are, right now, unable to find a solution. My wife may have to leave her part time job since the cost of day care would outstrip her earning ability.

Why has the government forsaken all of us who live from check to check? Do we not pay enough in taxes? Is it because we cannot afford to contribute much to political campaigns? Is it because we cannot afford to invest? What is the reason? And, if my wife and I, both holding bachelor's degrees from great schools (Duke for me and Northwestern for my wife), both trained and employed for years in programmer/analyst positions cannot make it, what of all those with no college degree or a manufacturing job that is leaving the country? What do they do?

I'm scared I'll have to explain why we don't have food for the girls. I'm scared we might lose the house and have to move in with relatives. I'm scared that despite my best efforts, I will be found wanting by the economy and I'll have to explain that to three girls who believe I am invincible.

Tactics and Strategy

It was interesting listening to Dr. Rice last week draw a distinction between tactical and strategic engagement of terrorists. This is something I have long thought the most appropriate tactic to take. Oddly, though, she spoke as though the two were mutually exclusive, when, in fact, they complement one another when done properly.

The way I see it, those who perpetrate terrorist acts must be caught and brought to justice. In addition, those who provided "aid and comfort" should be brought to justice as well. These are tactical acts, reacting to the on the spot changes in dynamics. Strategically speaking, we want to do several things. First, we want to reduce the level of hatred in the world aimed at us. This is, to my mind, a sine qua non of reducing the threat of terror. Second, we want to aim to make it harder to support terror, and I think the government is doing a decent job at this.

Not My Meme

It's a pretty well used statement "9/11 Changed Everything". It was certainly a seminal event, but what did it change? In my mind, not much. It was pretty much just a very large scale proof of something I've come to grips with a while ago - we are vulnerable to people who want to kill us for whatever reason.

Did we not know that the United States was vulnerable to terror? Certainly the World Trade Center attack of 1993 showed us that we are vulnerable. Oklahoma City also showed it. We always relied on the seas to protect us from "furriners" bent on attacking us. Problem is, that is only effective when you talk about invasion forces and national armies and so on. In these days of easy overseas travel, stopping a handful of people from entering the United States is more or less a pipe dream. Even if we locked down the airports and ports, there's still untold miles of border with Canada and Mexico that we'd need to cover, as well as the even greater amount of open coastline. No, we can't lock down our borders to those we do not want, at least not completely. If you doubt that, as the agency formerly known as the INS or ask the DEA. They'll tell you.

Did we not know that we were so hated? How could we have missed it? Innumerable terror attacks on Americans in Europe, especially military targets. Perhaps the Iranian Hostage Crisis should have showed us? Khobar Towers? Marine barracks in Lebanon? PanAm 103? Or the pretty much limitless demonstrations against the U.S. that have been a fixture of world events for a few decades now? Did we think that was all just name-calling with no real oomph behind it? That's kind of silly.

I just fail to grasp this meme. What changed? Thousands died, include my wife's mother. Several buildings in Manhattan were destroyed and one building in Washington was damaged. A large crater in Pennsylvania, testimony to heroism by passengers or second thoughts by the pilot. But my outlook on the world? Not a bit changed. Millions of people hate what America stands for, sometimes with good reason, sometimes not. Some of those millions are angry enough and desperate enough to kill and die to show their anger. It's been that way for a very long time.

Things did change - I can't hear an airplane without almost involuntarily looking up. Much to my dismay, I cannot see Middle Eastern men without having some concern flit through my head. And, I do worry about future terrorist acts more than before. But I think that terror can only be addressed with peace, not with violence. Violence begets terror, as sure as the sun rises. We built the machines that make it possible for one man to kill thousands. Now we must reap that bitter harvest.

Maybe everything did change . . . just not like many would have it be. Maybe we were given a lesson that we must treat with fairness and dignity all people, or risk more terror. Maybe we were taught that letting the almighty dollar run rampant over the world will create the sort of hate that causes terror. The attacks of 9/11 were awful and so far beyond the pale of "right" that there is no factor of redemption great enough to ameliorate the act. I do not suggest and will not suggest that this or any other terrorist act was right. But, even in the most awful of things, lessons can be learned, and should be learned.

Are we the chosen ones?

There is (and has been) a sense of American destiny. The sense that this country is the one and only model for enlightened government, culture and all else. Whether it is the "Shining City on a Hill", "Manifest Destiny" or the more current scents of American imperialism, there is a deeply held belief among much of the American population that we are the example for the rest of the world to follow.

I'm not going to enumerate the ways that world culture can influence this country for the better. Frankly, to me, when it comes to matters of culture, the more the better. Be it music, food, movies or other forms of art, I think the mixing different cultures inevitably create more than the sums of their parts. So, let me put paid to American cultural imperialism once and for all. It is in our best interest to revel in the various world cultures that reach our shores, not to try and override them with mass produced generic Americana.

Now, as for political and economic destiny . . . there is a question. Is corporate capitalism the best economic model for everyone? Is representative democracy the best governmental model for everyone? These are tough questions made tougher still by my lack of in-depth understanding of various world cultures where these questions are more open for debate than others.

As for me, here is what I think. Corporate capitalism is not the best economic model for everyone. In fact, I would go so far as to say it the not the best model for much of anyone. In purer forms of capitalism, the markets exert power over the various entities participating in them. When all forces on the markets are more or less equal, the "invisible hand" works its magic and things tend to work out according to the preferences of consumers as expressed by their buying decisions. I think, though, that large corporations warp that. Perhaps the best analogue I can offer is one of gravitational theory. All bodies exert some gravitational pull. The larger the body, the greater the pull. Thus the Sun has a greater pull than Jupiter which has a greater pull than Earth and so on. Scientists demonstrate this using the idea of bends in the space-time continuum. Imagine empty space as a flat plane. Every celestial body that exists on that plane dimples it to some extent. I might make a barely noticeable dent while the Sun makes a huge one. I think enormous sums of money act in much the same way on the fabrics of markets. Mega-corporations deform the evenhandedness of markets in many ways. Examples of this are purchasing political influence, using their capital as leverage against competitors, using their money to buy prime locations and so on. When these large sums of money are used to overwhelm market obstacles, the invisible hand is tied.

Beyond this, though, there are cultural considerations to economics. The culture of America is a can-do sort of thing. Be it hardscrabble pioneers, lone cowboys, the Horatio Alger stories, or the modern multi-millionaire, we have always valued independence and self-reliance. Given that cultural motif, it is no wonder that capitalism flourished here. What then of economies not based in such a cultural tradition? Could it be that some cultures are more suited to an economic system that promotes collective effort instead of individualism? Could it be that some cultures are more suited to a more top-down ordering? I do not know - this is the sort of deep cultural knowledge I lack, but my gut tells me that this could be the case. If it is, then economic imperialism on the part of America is the wrong thing to do. It is an interesting thought, and one that I'm not sure I have the requisite cultural background to speak to. I think, though, it is worth keeping in mind as we seek to find our way in this world.

As for political destiny, I think much the same logic applies. As Americans, we are, to a large degree, shaped by our culture. As such, certain ideas are inculcated in us by our very exposure to that culture. If a person is not exposed to that same culture, can we assume that they may have different ways of looking at the world? That their idea of good government might be very different from ours?

I think where I'm going with this is a sort of "Prime Directive" for American foreign policy. Politics, economics and culture are three sides of the same coin if you will (hmm, a three sided coin). Any foreign policy which fails to take in to account all three of these is a policy that is likely bad for the countries on which we apply it, but also it is likely doomed to failure as the backlash from the ignored part (usually the culture) will create tremendous dissatisfaction with the other parts. While it is possible to attempt to force a political system or an economic system onto a nation, trying to force a cultural shift has never gone well. The people of a nation have to realize for themselves what they want. The agents for change in any country must always be the citizens of that country. It is unwise in the extreme to effect change in a country from the outside - ultimately the citizenry MUST decide for themselves what they want. So, a wise foreign policy might be a "Hands Off" policy.

There are two major arguments to that. First of all, the world is a quilt of nations, and to imagine each as an independent entity without any influence on its neighbors (for good or ill) is wrong. If our neighbor starts to play with bombs in his back yard, that must cause us to respond - it would be irresponsible not to. So, at some point, the rule of self protection/preservation must overtake the "hands-off" rule. Second, what about grave violations of human rights? In cases of genocide, ethnic cleansing and so on, do we not have a responsibility to act? Is there some overarching principle that says that we must intervene in cases of grave human suffering?

The answer is, to both parts, yes. I think, though, the burden must be on those who wish to intervene to prove that this intervention is necessary. It should be the policy to stand aside and let a nation's culture, economy and politics evolve under its own terms. That is the essence of freedom, to be freed from someone else's belief of how you should be.

They Were the Breast of Times, They Were the Worst of Times

Long time, no blog, eh? Well, with Christmas, a nascent county commission campaign and the Panther's run to the Superbowl, I kinda lost track of things. But, I'm back.

First topic up? What else, boob/breast/nipple-gate. And, I'll be quick and to the point. Don't we have something better to do with our time?

• There's a presidential primary.


• The new budget, with a deficit of $500 billion (not including Mars missions, funds for Iraq or Afghanistan) is out there.


• Some homegrown terrorists in Texas built a cyanide bomb.


• Ricin, a deadly poison was found in the Senate office building.


• Our vice-president went on a cushy hunting trip with one of the judges (Antonin Scalia) in his upcoming trial about secrecy.


• Serious questions about our president having been derelict in his duty to the National Guard keep popping up.


• The WMD Intel Investigation chair is a judge with ties to the October Surprise scandal, the Iran Contra scandal and was none too impartial in his treatment of Bill Clinton.


• A staffer in the Senate Majority Leader's office allegedly stole hundreds of memos from the Senate Democrats' file server. His defense was that a) they should have patched the hole and b) the evidence that the Dems consulted with outside officials regarding judicial appointments is the end that justified the means.


• The Valerie Plame outing investigation appears to be nearing conclusion with indictments expected soon against a VERY senior staffer in our vice-president's office.


• Another VERY mediocre job growth report from January, which has been trumpeted as the sign from above that the economy is good.

I could go on, but I think my point is clear. We, as a nation, have a lot to think about, and wasting a week on a two second flash of breast on TV is ludicrous.

And let's stop for a second and consider that flash. I was watching (I'm ashamed to admit) the halftime show. Ashamed because that means I was abetting this ridiculous example of flash and style. Anyway, I was watching when the incident happened. It was shown for maybe two seconds. My reaction was, "Huh? What was that?" And it was gone before I could double check to see if I saw what I thought I saw. Now, I was at a party for the game. There were around twenty-five or so folks there, and as far as I could tell, I was one of only two who thought they saw something. Now one must wonder how much damage a two second flash could to to ANYONE, particularly a flash from long range. I find all these accounts of horrifying damage to the fabric of our nation to be a bit (okay, a lot) overwrought.

Secondly, let's stop for a moment and think about this. It's a breast. Half of us come equipped with them, the other half have likely seen them at some point. It's not something that's earth-shattering by any means. What is so all-fired EVIL about a two second, long range, flash of a human breast.

Now, if folks want to complain not so much about the breast, but the general tone of the show, then, perhaps, there is something to talk about. I'm pretty liberal when it comes to the content of entertainment, but I can see that the halftime show was not exactly G-rated fare, and that the halftime show of the Superbowl perhaps should be. That is a discussion worth having. I hope that all the folks out there who are upset by that content recognize that this is, to a large extent, the sort of stuff that is the staple of popular music today. The performances were no real surprise for me - I own Kid Rock's last album, and I've heard enough Nelly and P. Diddy to know what their material is like. Do I think it is suitable for all ages? Nope. Should it have been? Yep - since the Superbowl is, in theory, an all ages affair. Of course, I think the advertisements on sporting events have been bordering on PG for a while anyway, and the fixation on erectile dysfunction remedies certainly wasn't exactly family fare. And, in terms of square inches and close looks, I saw more of the Patriot cheerleaders' cleavage than I did Janet's.

Of course, I am a football fan. To me, all halftime shows should be a couple of marching bands and enough time to get snacks and drinks. Extended halftimes tear up fields, interrupt the flow of the game, and also present problems of staying loose for the athletes. That is, to me, enough reason to stop this sort of thing.

So, if you were offended by the halftime show, speak up. Once you have registered your displeasure, let's drop it and get on with more meaningful topics. Also, take the time to realize that the music and lyrics that so offended you are precisely the sort of thing found on mainstream radio today. That means the country is buying the records and listening to the music. Perhaps a more constructive dialogue would be with our children about why they like this music and why you do not. Maybe we can all learn something from interacting with our children.

Nah - let's run over to the internet and check out the extreme close up of the breast seen round the world again.