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.

Attack Iraq? No!

I was asked by a friend from work today about my bumper sticker. With some degree of friendly disappointment, they asked what I meant, and were somewhat unhappy with my response that it meant what it said, we shouldn't have attacked Iraq.

So, I thought I'd take a moment and expound upon that. There were really three reasons cited for going to war in Iraq. I'll explain my arguments against them.

First up is the argument that Saddam Hussein was in league with Al-Qaeda or that he was responsible for the September 11 terrorist attacks. This argument has been pretty effectively countered by none other than our President (registration required for article).

The second argument is that Saddam Hussein had a weapons of mass destruction program that was active and that he was planning to attack the United States imminently or that he was planning to sell these weapons to terrorists who would attack. There is a latin phrase, usually used in legal arguments that is applicable: res ipse loquitur. That means "the thing speaks for itself". There are no such weapons, there was no such program. They could have used them against us in March and they did not. Terrorists could have used them now as revenge and they have not. We have scoured the country and the best we could come up with was vial of botulinum toxin in some scientist's fridge. Since botulism bacteria is what causes food poisoning, there's a few frat house refrigerators that qualify as weapons labs, I'm sure.

With the failure of these two arguments, pro-war advocates usually fall back on the fact that Saddam Hussein was evil and that he needed to be removed from power for the good of Iraq. Well, that's fine - I do not argue that Saddam Hussein was a bad man. He was about as bad as a human can get, and his vile sons were worse. He is pretty much as evil a man as there is. But it is not United States policy to invade countries and right wrongs. Yes, the fact that Hussein is out of power is good, but that end does not justify our invasion of a sovereign nation.

If we have decided on a new policy of forcible removal of bad leaders, let's hear the announcement from the President. He can tell us when Uzbekistan, North Korea, Iran, Syria and a host of other nations are due for their invasion. We're not going to invade those nations, of course. It is not now, nor has it ever been in the 227 years since this nation was founded, American policy to violate the sovereignty of other nations because we do not approve of their leader or his actions. We are not the world's policeman, nor do I think we want to be.

So that is why I say No! to the attack on Iraq. There was no reason for it, unless you accept the premise that the United States should pass muster on all world leaders and forcibly remove those we do not approve of. I'm glad Saddam is captured - the world is a better place with him in prison. But that end does not justify the means. Ends can never justify means in a moral society.

Why Electoral Reform?

If you watch enough cop/lawyer dramas on TV, you will eventually hear some lawyer (defense lawyer) use the phrase "fruit of the poisoned tree". What this means is that once some part of the evidence is tainted by misconduct, not only is that evidence disallowed, but all the evidence discovered as a result of the disallowed evidence is also disallowed.

I tend to view election reform in much the same manner. From gerrymandering to what amounts to bribery to voting machines that are, from an IT perspective alone, poorly designed (no paper trail?!? Who are they kidding?) the political process has been terribly tainted at its wellspring, the participatory election. Thus, just about anything that flows from that (i.e. all federal, state and local government) is tainted.

Before any changes can be made that will address the growing issues of the day - healthcare, jobs, education, trade and so on - we have to remove the effects of the corrupted system of elections that now exists. To me that means two things - first, real, meaningful campaign finance reform and second, enticing a wider array of political views into the fray.

Campaign finance reform is crucial to changing the political landscape. Even if campain money isn't a quid pro quo directly, there is influence exerted by those who donate large sums of money. So, even if dollar x doesn't translate into vote y the elected official recognizes that the money he needs to return to office hangs by the thread of the donor's goodwill. In jeopardizing that goodwill, he jeopardizes his re-election. In effect, rather than being responsive to the concerns of his constituents, he becomes responsive to the concerns of his donors.

I am sensitive, though, to the rights of free speech given in the Constitution. As a sometime fan, sometime member of the ACLU, it is vital that we do not cause legitimate political opinion to be silenced. Funny thing is, we start getting into my least favorite thing, trying to quantify human motivation. If Bill Gates gives $200 to the Dubya for President fund, well, that's pretty obviously a political gesture of speech - he's offering support. If Bill Gates gives $250,000 to the RNC's Don't Vote For Anyone that Opposes This Platform (a front for a RNC Dubya support group), then there is the whiff of trying to buy something. So, by my VERY crude calculation, $200 donations are good and $250,000 are bad. Well, as long as I don't leave a gray area the size of Rhode Island, I reckon I've made my point.

In all seriousness, I try to understand how to work this out. I mean, should I view this by percent of net income, where for most folks $200 is a large sum and for The Bill a quarter million is bubble gum money? That is sort of silly, regardless of the income of the giver(s) the cost of a political campaign is pretty much static. To put it another way, the costs of running a campaign doesn't change just because your contributors are less affluent. So, trying to work out some sliding scale of appropriateness seems wrong.

Ultimately when anyone gives money to a political campaign, it is in the expectation that something will be given in return. For most folks that means they expect policies that mirror their own beliefs. For others, especially affluent others, this means more specific quids pro quo. The issue boils down to this - if money is the best way for voters to communicate with their elected officials, then those with the most money have the loudest megaphone. And folks, that ain't right.

Perhaps I am approaching this the wrong way. I would like to look at the option of having no campaign contributions at all. What if we decided to publicly fund all elections? What if we mandated public funding of all political campaigns? What if we took advantage of the fact that the broadcast spectrum is leased from the public and require all broadcast media to donate a certain amount of airtime, which would be disbursed equally among all contenders for whatever office?

I'm not certain it would work, and I'm not certain it is consistent with the idea of free speech. But I want to think about it, and I'd like my voluminous readership to think about it too. And not just the "Wouldn't it be great if" thing, but a real, rubber meets the road kind of thinking.

The Oldest Argument in America

There are three levels of government: local, state and federal. Perhaps the single longest running political argument in the United States is the struggle between folks who believe that the central seat of authority should lie in any one of those places. This debate was present at the Constitutional Convention in Philadephia, and it continues to dominate, in various ways, the debates this country has had over the past many years. Slavery as an issue was also framed as one of states' rights: should the federal government have the power to determine the slave or free status of a new state? It continues now - whenever the canard about having "some Washington bureaucrat" involved in the education/medical care/morality standards of a group of people, this is an argument for states rights.

There is a certain logic to the idea that the smaller the area being governed, the more responsive the government can be. On the flip side, the smaller the area governed, the more likely it is that the entities that are to be governed will be outside the jurisdiction or will move to be so if doing so will rid them of regulation. Thus, the broader area of government, the more likely it is that the regulation will have sufficient reach. Thus it can be said that the struggle can be thought of in terms of degree of scope.

Perhaps to give a more down to earth example, let's say I am a clothing manufacturer. If I make clothes for one family I can easily tailor the clothes to fit each member of the family. But, if I am the only manufacturer of clothing, then all the other folks in the community are going naked. So, I am very responsive, but the breadth of my coverage is very small. If I expand my operations to a whole community, I cannot take the time to tailor to each person, so I will make a set of clothing for a range of sizes. These will fit some people perfectly, some less so. There may even be those for whom I make no clothes that fit. My responsiveness has decreased, but my ability to cover more people has increased. As I increase the size of my operation, so do I decrease my ability to be responsive to individuals.

Obviously, there is some medium to be reached. There is some point on every issue where the balance is struck. Defense matters, for example, are a good example of a policy that is best enacted at the broadest possible level - we all want to be defended. On the other hand (in very simplistic terms) what does Nebraska need with a destroyer or submarine? In order to protect the oceans and coastal areas (again, I'm being simplistic) people who are in non-coastal areas have to pay for a navy. So it isn't a perfect fit, but in terms of the overall goal, defense, this misfit is not such a big deal. On the other hand, when it comes to issues of zoning, for example, it makes little sense to approach this on a federal basis. The national government simply does not have the resources to examine how every acre of land in the USA is zoned. The issues of zoning vary on a nearly neighborhood basis, and as such are handled locally. It is the issues that are not clearly under the aegis of local, state and federal governments that cause the problems.

I think it is clear that each issue needs to be individually scrutinized for the "best fit" with regards to the level of government that should help it. I think there also needs to be long looks at hybrid plans - plans that require a national standard (say some sort of educational proficiency) but have the implementation take place at a local level with funding coming from all three levels to ensure that there is the proverbial "level playing field" for poorer and richer districts. It is important not to approach these issues dogmatically (i.e. "Federal gummint is bad" or "only strong central government can be trusted to do what needs to be done").

I know this is sort of a toothless post - mostly I'm exploring my own thinking. Still, it is useful to look at this issue afresh. Perhaps the differences between states rights and federal authority aren't as far apart as we seem. I think the ends are the same, it is the means we are trying to work out.

Confirmation Wars

I watch the unfolding confirmation wars with mixed feelings. First of all, I have to give a little back history. When the Florida election debacle ended, I decided that I would make the best of it. Bush claimed to be a consensus builder and a man who could work both sides of the aisle. At first blush, there seemed little difference between Bush and Gore - on a political continuum, they seemed more alike than not. So maybe Bush was anti-abortion - I doubted that the Senate would let him get away with much, closely divided as it was (IIRC, once all was done, it was 50-50 with Cheney available to break ties). Finally, after eight increasingly shrill years of Clinton-bashing, I would trade a little conservatism for some peace and quiet. I figured if Gore were elected, it would be four or eight more years worth of manufactured scandals, increasingly noisy partisanship and little forward progress. So, I looked at Bush as a "not good thing", but certainly livable. I mean, what did I think would happen? Well, things happened all right, and I feel somewhat betrayed by Bush. Not just for the various injustices and downright untruths he's foisted off on me, but because he said he wanted to heal the divisions, bridge the ideological chasms and bring us together as one nation. Instead, I see us further divided than we were in November 2000 - and that is after the tragically unifying events of September 11, 2001. So, I'm bitter about being hoodwinked.

So, when Bush attempts to pack the court with like minded idealogues, I'm pretty unhappy about it. After seeing the amount of obstructionism that the Clinton White House fought the last six years of his presidency, I'm feeling like a scorched earth campaign is in order. Bush seems to like Old Testament justice, so let's eye for an eye him on these four most egregiously ideological choices. It feels satisfying to give 'em a taste of their own medicine.

On the other hand, I really want that peace and quiet. I would like to see people debate the issues without stooping to insult slinging. I'd like to find a place where folks with different ideas than mine discuss the pros and cons of their theories without starting to act like my kids. I'd like to find a really cogent argument for/against states rights. I'd like to hear from some folks who studied economics to talk about theories of economic stimulation. I'd like to see a site discussing the ups and downs of various legal arguments. Intelligent debate by intelligent people. Doggone it, I'd genuinely like to learn the ins and outs of the competing theories of government that separate us. Perhaps there is middle ground. Perhaps we can get together and find ways to make it all work.

So, if I want to restore a tone of civility to politics, it would seem a bad idea to block these four (now three) nominees. Of course, there are those partisans who want to "go nuclear" and use a parliamentary loophole to cut off this (and future) filibusters. And the other side threatens further measures to be even more obstructionist. It's sort of mutually assured destruction, but with Robert's Rules of Order instead of nukes.

When my two eldest girls are acting like this, I generally declare them both losers and neither one gets what they want (I've appropriated SO many Barbie dolls this way). In an earlier time, someone might have spanked them both and sent them to bed.

I was about to say that it is a shame no one is available to give the Democrats and Republicans the spanking they so richly deserve. I'm wrong though. There is someone - that would be us, the voters. Maybe if we got off our either apathetic or spectating behinds and ran against these bozos, their parties and their way of doing business, we might get things changed. I'll run for office, you run for office. Let's get out and vote for new blood, and not just the guy from the other party, but new blood from new parties with new ideas. We are the supreme power in this land - we control the executive and legislative branches, and through those two, we control the judicial. Punt the lot of them back to their homes and jobs and let's get new people in. Instead of politicians, lets get lawyers and teachers and steelworkers and cab drivers and programmers in office. We'll do our thing and go back to our old lives, to be replaced by more folks who serve as an avocation, not a vocation.

If only . . . .

Veteran's Day

I personally view war as the last of all options and generally, war is a hallmark of a failure of policy. This is stand I may discuss further at a later time - today it is not the topic I want to address.

General William Tecumseh Sherman said "War is hell." I do not know the context in which he made that remark - certainly the torching of Atlanta and his scorched earth campaign was hellish enough. I do know that various tough guys (real and fictional) have used the quote to cavalierly describe the difficulties that they faced in doing some heroic act.

I view the quote somewhat more literally - war is an eternity of torment for people who fight in it. The fear, the unimaginable violence and the ease with which humans can become sub-human are sights no person should have to see. Those who fight in war see the worst that humanity has to offer. I wonder if any veteran has returned from war wholly unscarred by the experience. I believe that most veterans continue to bear the burden of what they witnessed in wartime until their death.

I also view those who have had to take up arms for our country as heroes. I may not agree with the policies that put us in war - in fact, I generally do not agree with them. That has no bearing on my regard for the men and women who must be the executors of the policy of war. These people, in my name, in your name, in the name of generations passed and generations yet to come set aside their plans, their hopes, their dreams, their very lives to take up arms and fight. That is a sacrifice on my behalf that demands respect.

I do not suggest soldiers are infallible, and I do not suggest that soldiers are paragons of virtue. If My Lai taught us anything, it taught us that the best men can do awful things when confronted by the horror of war. Regardless of that or other crimes American soldiers may have committed, those who go forth and fight on our behalf are deserving of a measure of respect and honor from each of us.

Let's also not forget that this is Veterans Day, not Memorial Day. This day commemorates all those who came home. While there is an air of solemnity here, there should also be an air of celebration. Not because they got out alive (though that is a good reason to be happy), but because of what they contributed after their service. People like Senators Kerrey and McCain, veterans both. People like Jessica Lynch and Shoshanna Johnson, veterans of our latest war, both ready to get on with their lives as citizens. Veterans should be celebrated not just for what they contributed during wartime, but also for what they continue to contribute each day.

Time To Get In the Game

Working on these various entries/essays/rants/whatevers has crystallized a desire in me to run for office. It seems to me that I can rant and rave here in the blogosphere (and I am doing so) but real change will only come if I will it to happen. In other words, change starts with me. And, rather than be a sideline critic, I think I'd be better off joining the fray. My ultimate goal is to be in a position to effect real change. Making an ultimate determination of what that means requires a lot of thinking and deciding. I could say I want to be President or a member of the House or Senate, and if I think the strong Federal system is the best way to help people, then that is my goal. On the other hand, if I think that the best way to affect change is to work on a state level, if I think the rise in states rights is a good idea, then perhaps state legislator or governor is more appropriate. I've not yet decided where I stand on that issue (or at least I'm not convinced of my pro-Federal stance).

I've also made a change in my personal politics. Though my car has been wearing a Green Party bumper sticker for a while now, I'm officially changing my party on my voter registration to unaffiliated. Since the Greens are not recognized in North Carolina this is as close as I can come to officially stating my membership in the party. Basically, despite what I see Howard Dean doing with his campaign, I still see too many fingerprints of the Democratic Leadership Council (i.e. Republican Lite) on the Democratic party. The Democrats have decided to move to the center so as to appeal to the broadest base of support. The problem is, this centrist policy ends up selling out unions, the poor, minorities and the environment all in the name of appealing to the center. There is an argument to be made that the Democrats represent true centrism versus the disguised theocracy/corporatocracy of the Republicans. As long as the electorate does not discriminate between the rhetoric of the Republican party and the reality of their policies, there is a logic to the Democratic position, especially when it comes to the presidency. Still, the needs of those lost by Democrats in their move to the center should be represented, and I think the Green party is best equipped to do that. I also think that for the sort of changes that need to be made in our political process, the two major parties are too entrenched to allow for that change. I'm not talking about armed insurrection, or adoption of a pure Vegan diet as national policy, but rather reform of the election process.

Two concepts I have found that capture my interest are "clean money" reform and Instant Runoff Voting. I think that a combination of these methods could really change the way we elect officials and even persuade more folks like me to run for office. This is ultimately the place we want to be. Atrios has a neat graphic up today. It is interesting to see that Dr. Dean has such great support in the small donation group. I think it imperative that this not be the exception, but rather the rule.

So, I am thinking of running for office here in Charlotte. It is a starting point, and as Molly Ivins put it to The Terminator - if you really want to help out and perform public service, run for school board or town council and learn how things work on the ground. By the way, I'm paraphrasing Ms. Ivins and not linking because her Creators.com website has no archive beyond the past three columns (about a week and a half). I will run as a Green when I run. I will set up a website and blog to talk about what I'm doing and why. I will stand for electoral reform, jobs, education and infrastructure. It should be an instructive experience for me.

Gaily We Move Along

Now, I'll state from the outset that I am a supporter of civil rights for gay couples. This means I believe that any rights and responsibilities I have gained by being a citizen and a married man should also accrue to gay individuals and couples. This does not mean special rights - it just means the same rights as me. As far as individual rights are concerned (with the notable exception of military service) the rights of homosexuals are fairly well protected by the fourteenth amendment. There may be issues with enforcing access to these rights, but the rights are pretty well defined. The rights that are not as well defined are the rights associated with gay couples. Heterosexual couples have long had a set of rights that accrues to them when they become married. These include things like joint filing of tax returns, rights of survivorship and the right to jointly carry insurance. These rights are denied gay couples. I have heard two arguments behind this. The first is a moral argument, based in literal interpretation of biblical text. The second is a question of legal process.

I am no biblical scholar. I believe my essay on Christian Fundamentalism makes that clear. I think that essay also makes it pretty clear that literal interpretations of what constitutes a sin does not fly with me. So, when I hear the outcry over various homosexuality related issues is primarily based on biblical injunctions against the behavior, I tend to tune out pretty quickly. For my reasoning along those lines, please refer to my earlier posting. I'll say that if someone is willing to accept every biblical decree at face value and without question, then they need to review the legal standing of women and the modern abolition of slavery as examples of how this literal interpretation has fallen to the social evolution of man. Regardless of my belief in social evolution and the rightness of my belief in equal protection and rights, I do recognize that churches are separate entities from government, a fact I am very grateful for. Recognizing that the church should not meddle in affairs of the state comes with the acceptance that the state should not meddle in affairs of the church whenever possible. Thus, if the various religions wish to prohibit the marriage of gays, there is little the state can (or should) do to force them to do so.

As for the second argument, the debate pretty much comes down to probabilities and "drawing a line somewhere" as a good friend and member of the bar told me. The reasoning is that every set of two people who live together is not necessarily a couple deserving of joint rights under law. For example, two people who are roommates should not have rights of inheritance, rights to visit in the hospital, the ability to be jointly insured and so on. These are rights reserved for people who are couples. The issue comes in when we try to define what is a "couple". In an effort to solve that problem, we have created the concept of marriage, which is the religious blessing of a couple. Among its other benefits, marriage bestows the rights attached to being a legally recognized couple. In addition to the religious acknowledgment of this status, there are rules regarding common law marriage, which basically recognizes that a man and woman who have spent a certain time together are granted the legal rights associated with marriage. Since I have earlier accepted the notion that the state cannot force religions to perform marriages of gays, I then turn to the ideal of some sort of civil partnership law. Here is where it gets sticky, according to my (former) lawyer friend (former lawyer that is, always my friend). Basically, the argument is that if two people are living together and they are opposite sexes, the odds are better that they are couple (as legally defined for purposes of various joint rights) than if they are two members of the same sex. This difference in probability is what causes the problem. In the absence of any objective test of "couplehood" the state has to use what objective tests it can to limit those seeking these joint rights.

Here is my objection to that test. As it stands now, marriage for heterosexual couples is little bar if any to those seeking to exploit the joint rights available to married couples. From the drive-up wedding chapels in Las Vegas, to quickie no-fault divorces, a man and woman can become a legally recognized couple pretty much at a whim, and dissolve that couple without much more effort. Thus, it is difficult for me to accept the idea that somehow these joinings are somehow more legally valid than just about anything else. I'm not saying that marriage isn't a special and sacred thing to those who enter it with good intentions, love and strength. I am saying that it is so ridiculously easy to marry and divorce in this country that to confer some special status on marriage is an ill-considered belief that all those who marry are doing so with the best of intentions.

The state has no way of determining who are deserving of status as a couple, either for heterosexual or homosexual partners. It is merely playing the odds when it says that couples of opposite sexes are more likely to be legitimate than couples of the same sex. It is playing those odds, it says, to avoid fraudulent claims of couplehood. Yet it accepts a claim of couplehood from two people who coughed up a few bucks in Vegas to have an overweight Elvis impersonator declare them husband and wife. If that is considered legitimate, I fail to see why some other legally binding status cannot be conferred to gay couples without stretching concerns over fraud any further than they are already stretched.

Such a plethora of topics. I wanted to address the new icon I added to my sidebar - my pro-gay marriage graphic. Actually, at some point I wanted to address my feelings on homosexuality in general. Today, though, events bring me to a topic that I hadn't considered lately.

I've linked to Riverbend's blog before, so you can probably guess that I have a great deal of compassion for Iraqis who are just folks like most of us. I also have a great deal of sympathy for the soldiers and their families, some of whom are paying a tremendous price for this war in Iraq. I also feel a lot of pain for the workers from the U.N. and Red Cross. They are there to try and help - no more - and are getting blown up for their efforts.

So what do we do? I was anti-war before we went in. Now that we are there, what do we do? We went in, without any sort of international help (at least nothing substantive outside the U.K.), without any agreement from the international community. We blew the holy Hell out of their country from the air. Then we rolled across the desert in our tanks, APCs and Humvees, looking like some sort of latter-day cavalry charge. Of course, when we reached the beleaguered settlers (read: Baghdad and its citizenry) what did we do? Did we immediately set out to restore all the infrastructure we built? Did we work to secure the priceless historical artifacts from the "Cradle of Civilization"? No, but we showed our true intentions immediately. We secured the Ministry of Oil complex and set up security enough there to hold against an attack from some sort of mass army we expected to see, but which never materialized. So now we have a country which, despite having lost a vicious dictator and his even more evil sons, is perhaps even more dysfunctional than before. We went in and ruined their functional country. Regardless of who their leader was or what he did, is the current situation better? Is it going to become better anytime soon (I mean within the next five years)? We wrecked the joint, so it should be incumbent upon us to fix it, at least partially.

But what's the cost of that? Blood first of all. More blood every day. Soldiers from our volunteer army, not guys like President Bush the Younger or his ilk. Not guys like me who have jobs in cubicles. The guys for whom the military was a way to make something of themselves when no other opportunities were available. These guys made a personal commitment to themselves and to the country, and we should be very proud of them. But their blood keeps spilling onto the sand, and I do not see how to stop it, short of getting them out of there. But to get them out, we either have to complete the task (at a cost of billions of dollars and much more blood), somehow get the U.N. to come in and take over or just abandon Iraq. None of these is a good option. How about the stresses that the combat troops are under? Looking at Atrios today, I see that our returning soldiers have the same sorts of memories as the kids in Vietnam did. Small wonder - I'm sure the great majority of Iraqis are good people who do not, in general, wish harm upon our soldiers. Still, if you are over there, how do you deal with the fact that every man, woman and child may be an innocent or may be about to kill you? How do you make snap life or death decisions like that? What happens if you guess wrong and an innocent dies? If you have your own family at home that you are responsible for, can you afford to have anything less than a hair trigger? What happens when your best efforts to save yourself and your family kill another and tear someone else's family apart? I feel for anyone who has to make such a decision - I do not know how I could and keep my sanity intact.

Our best option would seem to be to get out and let the U.N. take over. Given the events of today why would the U.N. or anyone else want this job? I know there is a lot of anger and hate toward Americans in Iraq, but, for the love of God, why is it being taken out on people working for the U.N. or the Red Cross? They are not there to plunder or kill, they want to help!

All I feel is sadness and frustration. Innocent people such as aid workers, American soldiers and Iraqi civilians are all dying for this war. More innocent are going to die, because the United States will not leave Iraq until the oil wells and the production facilities are pumping dollars into the pockets of the war profiteers.

There's really no truth here, just unanswered and maybe unanswerable questions. That and death.