It's The Weekend, Right?

The past week has been bad for tens of millions of Americans.  The next week, with the pending national election and the inevitable nonsense that will follow, regardless of who wins (and the odds keep going up for a second Obama term; that's probably why Romney has decided to resort to blackmail for his "closing argument"; a candidate only does this kind of thing if they know they're going to lose) will be a freak-fest of epic proportions.

It's Saturday.  My daughter is in her high school production of The Music Man.  We went last night, and I must say the music and arts program at Burlington Central High School continues to impress me with its ability to offer the public fantastic performances from students who are dedicated, talented, and work very hard.  The school managed to find these marvelous checked sport jackets and bow ties for some of the young male characters that I just have to have.  Not that any of the ladies in my household would ever allow me to wear them in public, mind you.

There's football on Sunday.  There's no hockey, but there are some college football games today.  Me, I've got praise team rehearsal at 10:30 - yes, our church has a praise team, and yes, I play acoustic guitar with them; there's a part of me that weeps at the thought, as I would much prefer to worship in a medieval cathedral, complete with castrati choir than some auditorium with a rock band on stage, but I serve as I can - then it's off to get a long-overdue haircut.

I do have some interesting things to read and ponder over the next couple days.  One is that Congressional Research Service study on taxes and the economy (.pdf) the Senate Republican leadership demanded be withdrawn because all that math hurt their feelings.  I downloaded it so it's mine forever!  Then there's Steven Pinker's The Better Angles of our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined.  He's been taking some heat from people at various places on the political spectrum, which is always fun.  As I have to read what he says, I have no idea what to think about what he has to say.  The work has received quite a bit of attention, in particular during an election year when both major party candidates seem to believe our world is teeming with danger, danger it is incumbent upon America and America alone to face down.  That Peter Singer likes it makes me wary; Singer is the ethicist who believes in euthanasia for the elderly and infirm, all the while spending vast sums of money to keep his Alzheimer's-effected mother comfortable contrary to every claim he's ever made about what the best thing to do in such cases renders anything he has to say irrelevant.  All the same, it is important to take some things on the merits.

Relax.  Enjoy.  Here's a variety of stuff that helps me relax while I sit and peruse the variety the internet provides.

I discovered a whole new sub-genre.  It's called "Djent", which is the onomatopoeiadic for the sound made by a kind of palm-muting guitar-playing technique preferred by some guitarists.  Some of the most interesting stuff is done by one-man bands, such as by the Polish performer known as "Gru":

And whose weekend would be complete without an extended psychedelic jam?  I sometimes wonder if people think I'm sitting around tripping on 'shrooms because I enjoy contemporary psychedelic music.  I don't need any chemicals, though.  The music is enough to alter my consciousness; I slip on the headphones, turn up the volume, and close my eyes, and I'm gone.

This last track is a half-hour long jam.  I dare you listen to all of it.

Enjoy the day.  That's an order.

The Complaint Department

It's all I can't stands, I can't stands no more! - Popeye

I'm sure you've encountered the whining.  Whether it's on Facebook or in person, some variant of, "Why should I have to press '1' for English when I make a phone call?"  Of all the things to get on my last nerve, it's this.  The answer is simple: Because not everyone speaks English.  Businesses get more business when they accommodate as many people as possible.  There are millions of Americans for whom English is not even a third language.  Since you don't have to listen to menus or instructions in any other language, press "1" and shut the hell up.

The same goes for people I hear complaining about laws requiring election ballots in Spanish.  Or signage in Spanish.  Or anything in Spanish.  Last time I checked, the United States didn't have an official language.  If you don't read Spanish, you don't need to pick up a ballot in Spanish or do anything in Spanish.  Having our public institutions function to serve the millions of Americans who are far more comfortable using Spanish than English is a good thing; it demonstrates that we can be a bit more broad-minded than the "If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me!" crowd.

Sure, English is the de facto  language for getting along in the United States.  That doesn't mean either that it should be or always will be.  And there's nothing wrong with that.  Of all the things wrong with our country, moving toward including non-English speakers more fully in our common life doesn't even come close to being on the list.

In the tradition of complaining about complainers, and with the holidays rushing toward us, may I just put in a word to every single person who bitches about people saying "Happy Holidays"?

Shut.

Up.

I worked for Walmart for five years, until just about a year ago, in fact.  I was never instructed how to speak to customers during the holidays.  I never saw a memo.  No manager came to me and told me what to say and what not to say.  Yet, from just before Thanksgiving until after the first of the year, I always said, "Happy Holidays" to customers.  Because I'm polite.  Looking at someone, I have no idea if they celebrate any of the holidays, let alone which ones they might celebrate while others they pass over in silence.  For some reason, being rude, insisting others accept our demand they have a merry Christmas, even if they don't celebrate it, somehow makes us more Christian or something?  Really?  Because, see, I always figured being polite, not pushy, respecting other people were all things that we should do.  You want me to wish you a merry Christmas, well, for crying out loud, "Happy Holidays!" kind of includes that, last time I checked the English language.  If some folks say, "Merry Christmas!" that's OK, too.  It just isn't anything to get upset about.

Which brings me to another thing.  Before Hurricane Sandy arrived in New Jersey, it passed over Haiti.  Now, Haiti has some experience with natural disasters.  There are still hundreds of thousands of Haitians who have no homes as a result of the earthquake over two years ago.  After the earthquake, and partly a result of the Haitians forced to live in squalid camps because rebuilding and recovery efforts have been slow, cholera ran rampant through the country, and still lingers.  On top of the AIDS pandemic that still lingers.  Sandy managed to take what rickety structures were still there and destroy them.  54 people died.

If I read people complaining because they had to wait two days or three days for their electricity and - horrors! - internet connections to return, I think I'll have a brain hemorrhage.  For all the death and destruction Sandy left in its wake, in no small part thanks to the wisdom of various Congresses and Administrations we have an emergency management infrastructure that can respond.  Before the storm hit, we had public officials making clear what steps needed to be taken to prepare.  We had various agencies putting the pieces in place so that once the storm passed, they could get to work rebuilding.  It isn't so much that Haiti doesn't have the desire to create such things; ravaged by neo-colonialism and the kleptocracy of pirate governments, it doesn't have the basic resources to build such institutions.  Combined with a history of corruption, and despite the best efforts of various NGOs, it is difficult to create the kind of institutions capable of responding to a crisis if there just isn't the money and Administrative competence present to do so.  So, you know, when you toss a buck or two in the kitty for relief efforts here in the States, why not give up that second latte from Starbucks and give to relief efforts in Haiti, too.

Finally, for reporters out there who moan about the internet and what it's done to newspapers, journalism, and the professional prerogatives of an entire group: I have no tissues for you.  Considering the largest news outlet in the United States is almost pathologically dedicated to presenting falsehoods, why should I have sympathy for a profession willing to tolerate fundamental incompetence and professional failure?  While some shed a tear or two when newspapers shut their doors, either completely or switch to online services, one would think by now it's obvious that all that "market" stuff that so many in this country seem to love is working quite well.  When the public editor at what is arguably America's national newspaper can chastise one of her employees for "making the paper look bad", all the while carrying the preposterous fraud David Brooks' columns two days a week says everything anyone needs to know about what's wrong with journalism in America today.

I feel so much better getting this off my chest.  Thanks.

It Isn't About The Church, Either

N.B.: If you aren't a United Methodist, you might want to skip over this one.  Then again, it does have importance beyond our denomination, as the title suggests.

A cornerstone of my own thinking about pretty much everything is that most of the Universe has little to nothing to do with me.  The world doesn't exist for me; other people are not the source either of my misery or happiness; things that occur in the world do so without either my consent or my approval.

I extend this idea to other areas as well.   Speaking as a United Methodist Christian, I cannot help but wonder why it is people seem to insist our Church exists to fulfill their needs.  It doesn't.  The Church is the gathered, called people of God, those who believe the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ has meaning for the world, and want to share that with everyone.  For all its faults and failures, the UMC is still an effective tool used by God to spread the Word that Infinite Love is more powerful than death.

This past April, at our quadrennial General Conference, legislation was approved that removed "security of appointment".  Now, if you're not clergy, or worse, not UMC, this means that, prior to this legislation, once a person went through all the hoops and over the hurdles to reach full clergy membership as an Elder, the Bishop had to appoint you to a church.  Usually referred to as "guaranteed appointment", that system was overturned in Tampa.

Our Supreme Judicial Council has overturned that legislation, saying it violates what are known as "the restrictive rules" of our Constitution.  In other words, they took solace in legalisms, even as they made a clear statement that our denomination understands the many processes that lead to full clergy membership in an Annual Conference are not to be tampered with lightly.

I saw much commentary about this decision, both for and against.  I howled with laughter at the number of people who were outraged, because "something has to be done."  As John Meunier says in the simplest statement of this position, "I do fear that our systems are so dysfunctional that any solution would be impossible to actually implement."

There are many things wrong with the United Methodist Church.  The matter of security of appointment, however, just isn't one of them.  All those folks who carry on about "ineffective clergy" make me wonder - have you read an evaluation of your own ministry lately?  Are you willing, in prayer and humility, to be honest about the many faults and failures in your life of service?  Every single person moaning about "something needing to be done" about "all those other ineffective clergy" should really, really worry because these same sentiments might be harbored about their own ministry, then it's here's your hat what's your hurry.

Also, for John and others like him, what, precisely is "dysfunctional" about the United Methodist Church that could be fixed by some Administrative, Legislative, or Judicial Action (apart from removing the horrid language about "homosexuality", and opening ordination to all God's people)?  Everyone says that, you know: "The UMC is broken!"  All my life, most especially my adult life as a theologically educated clergy spouse, I've been hearing that, and I keep waiting for someone to tell me in what way, exactly.  How's our denomination different than any other, if the criteria is failure of faithfulness and top-heavy, maze-like bureaucracies?  You remove what we have, it won't be too long before it's replaced by something under another name that operates pretty much the same way.

The best argument for security of appointment isn't a practical one.  I've been around clergy for over 20 years and I'm waiting to meet one who became a United Methodist because of it.  I've known clergy who were outstanding, then moved to another appointment and flopped miserably.  I've known clergy who were lazier than my dog, yet still had effective ministries.

BECAUSE IT ISN'T ABOUT US, PEOPLE!  Effectiveness is a horrible word, one of those meaningless terms from management theory that can fit anyone's set of ideas about "what's best".  Except, alas, clergy don't serve "anyone".  They serve God by serving the people of God.  Sometimes they do it really well.  Sometimes they make a dog's breakfast of it.  They keep plugging away, and the denomination keeps sending them forth not because they're ideal.

Because they're called by God.

The things that are wrong with the United Methodist Church do need to be addressed.  We aren't as loving or open as we claim in our ad campaigns.  Our denomination still reeks of racism and sexism even as we struggle to be faithful to our members who are sexual minorities.  Our local churches can become toxic holes of bitterness over petty slights and money and bad interpersonal relationships.  These aren't things that are either unique to us or that can be "fixed".

Stop making it about us.  Stop thinking there's a solution out there.  Be faithful, serve as God calls us all to serve, in the way first set up by John Wesley who got people out in the streets and the mines and in to homes to read the Scriptures and be with one another to uphold one another in the faith.  

By The Numbers

As the pundits attack, the whole climate becomes more and more funny.

If you tell me you think you can quantify an event that is about to happen that you don't expect, like the 47 percent comment or a debate performance, I think you think you are a wizard. That's not possible.

That's New York Times columnist David Brooks,  who earned the nickname "Bobo" for his book of faux-sociology about some group he called "bourgeois bohemians".  Now, Bobo has a reputation among pundits for being smart, for being moderate, and for occasionally calling the crazy in Rightland by its real name.  Now, he has done this last, although all his smarts haven't allowed him to say, "Wow, all this crazy over here must mean something!"  By and large, Brooks is a middling intellect, displaying the kind of ridiculous analysis one should expect from someone who is the butt of jokes because he doesn't know Applebee's doesn't have a salad bar.

Joe Scarborough, like Brooks, trades on his reputation.  What lies at the beating heart of his reputation?  His viscera.

But my gut tells me there are two likely scenarios: (1) President Obama will squeak out a narrow Electoral College victory or (2) Mitt Romney will carry Ohio and be swept into office by a comfortable margin.

After practicing politics for 20 years, I suppose I would rather be in Mitt Romney's shoes than Barack Obama's. Incumbents who are under 50 percent two weeks out usually go down to defeat.

But who knows? Maybe Barack Obama will bend history once again.

While I realize it's difficult to parse, in fact, Scarborough isn't saying anything much different that Silver.  The difference between them is simple - guts versus numbers.

Silver isn't "predicting" anything.  He's only a "wizard" if you don't understand probability.  And Scarborough's competing scenarios, hedged by his, "But who knows?", really are little different from Silver's statistical model that gives Pres. Obama a 74.6% chance of winning in one week.  That isn't a prediction, but a probably outcome based upon analysis of a variety of polling data on a state-by-state basis.

Which is one advantage Silver has over the punditry.  Remembering the Presidency isn't a popularity contest, but determined by Electors from the several states (in the language of the Constitution so many people revere without actually reading, let alone understanding), Silver keeps his eye trained on the polling in the states.

What's really remarkable about Silver's blog at the Times is the way he tracks his analysis.  You don't like what he's saying?  Well, fine, take a look and see where he gets his data, how the different polls in each state vary, how they're weighed, then check them over time.

One of the things Silver's analysis reminds me of is this: Despite the big bounce Romney received from his first debate performance (and Obama's lousy performance in that same debate), the fundamentals of the race remained the same after as before.  Obama's slow and steady recovery after that first beating continue, particularly in the swing states (again, something the polls indicate, and Silver makes clear).

Again, to be clear: Silver's model isn't a prediction.  It is a probability model based upon a wide variety of data, controlled for inherent biases and limitations, and rooted in the reality that the Presidency is decided not by popular opinion but by the Electoral College.

I should note that Silver takes on the whole idea of "momentum" in a piece written last Thursday:

The way the term “momentum” is applied in practice by the news media, however, it usually refers only to the first part of the clause — meaning simply that a candidate has been gaining ground in the polls, whether or not he might continue to do so. (I’ve used this phrasing plenty of times myself, so I have no real basis to complain about it.)

But there are other times when the notion of momentum is behind the curve — as it probably now is if applied to Mitt Romney’s polling.

Mr. Romney clearly gained ground in the polls in the week or two after the Denver debate, putting himself in a much stronger overall position in the race. However, it seems that he is no longer doing so.

Take Wednesday’s national tracking polls, for instance. (There are now eight of them published each day.) Mr. Romney gained ground in just one of the polls, an online poll conducted for Reuters by the polling organization Ipsos. He lost ground in five others, with President Obama improving his standing instead in those surveys. On average, Mr. Obama gained about one point between the eight polls.

 --snip--

 What isn’t very likely, however, is for one candidate to lose ground in five of six polls if the race is still moving toward him. In other words, we can debate whether Mr. Obama has a pinch of momentum or whether the race is instead flat, but it’s improbable that Mr. Romney would have a day like this if he still had momentum.

Saying, "My gut tells me," and insisting one or another candidate has "momentum" without any reference to what's actually happening is about as relevant as looking at chicken entrails.  If a candidate isn't actually gaining ground against an opponent, a bunch of people standing around talking about how that candidate has "momentum" is just as accurate as looking out at the clear blue sky and complaining about the rain.

None of this is to say Silver is "calling" the election, or "predicting" an Obama win.  Again, this is about probability; Romney has about a one in four chance of winning, which really aren't shabby odds when you think about it.  It should certainly be more than enough to keep both men campaigning right up until the very last moment.

I'm far more fascinated by all the attention Silver's been getting from people who, by their words, demonstrate they have no idea what Silver's doing, or how he's doing it.  Of course, as with all internet phenomenon, the comment section, especially on the Media Matters piece, is comedy gold.

All That Science I Can't Understand

At Balloon Juice, DougJ notes that New York Times columnist David Brooks recently poo-pooed Nate Silver's now-infamous breakdown of the polls that included a prediction for a second Obama term.  One of the things he writes is important, and got me thinking, beyond the snark at some mainstream pundits:

It’s natural that establishment pundits would dislike Silver, of course. He deals in numbers, whereas they are quantitative illiterates. He made his bones in the grimy world of sports statistics, they made theirs doing respectable things like blowing Marty Peretz (Lane) or writing comedic books about yuppies (Brooks). So they come from different places than he does.

Two words jumped out at me - "quantitative illiterates".  In an election years where polls are popping up like mold in a junior high boys locker room, everyone and their brother can point to a poll that backs up their own treasured ideas of what's going on.  It's one of the things about Talking Points Memo I find annoying; at some point, someone needs to tell Josh Marshall that these polls are about as meaningful, in and for themselves, as reading tea leaves or goat entrails.  Since most of the people writing about the polls know as much about statistics as I do about metallurgy, I think it's fair to say we can chuckle and ignore them.

I think the same phenomenon is part of the problem we have talking about any scientific topic.  Consider global warming.  The whole idea makes sense.  The data both created and accord with the theory, both in the broad sense and in its particulars.  Yet, the theory, like all scientific theories, offers what seem to be contradictory ideas.  For example, while the global temperature will rise, this will also create far larger and more dangerous winter weather conditions in temperate regions.  Why?  Because winter weather systems, like those huge blizzards, require big masses of hot air meeting big masses of cold air to create all that snow. While temperatures in the temperate zones of the planet will continue to trend higher through traditionally colder months of the year, actual winter weather events will be more intense.  Because of global warming.

You know the argument that a fertilized egg cell, as the bearer of a unique DNA sequence, is alive and therefore deserving of legal protection? The average person sheds about 340,000,000 skin cells every single day.  Each of those has a unique DNA sequence.  Are they deserving of protection?

Consider all the talk about DNA and the relationship between genetics and certain diseases and character traits.  While it's true enough there are genetic determinants for things like eye color and hair color, and there are other genetic markers for things that range from diabetes to alcoholism, these tend to be more correlation that causation relationships.  The difference between causation and correlation is lost on most people.  For example, there is a correlation between smoking and diseases like lung cancer and heart disease.  Only about a third of smokers will develop lung cancer; about 60% will develop some kind of cardiac disease or weakness.  On the other hand, the vast majority of people who have lung cancer were smokers; the percentage of people who are diagnosed with particular types of coronary disease who were smokers is close to 90%.  That's correlation.  It's actually a simple concept.

Science is a marvelous tool.  Like all tools, however, it needs to be used properly; learning how to use it, though, is actually really easy.  Since we teach kids in elementary school about it, I don't know why educated adults suddenly become unable to understand it.

None of this is to argue that I agree with Silver's math.  Rather, it is to say that we need to be better educated about what science is and isn't, how it does what it does, so that when a nincompoop comes along and dismisses someone who actually knows what they're talking about, we can recognize the nincompoopery for what it is.

My Prediction

Last night in a class at church, I predicted that while the popular vote will be close, probably no more than four percentage points, President Obama will win every state he won in 2008 except North Carolina, which will make the election look more lopsided than it was.

An Old Mountain

I was trying to embed a video, but it just didn't want to work, so click here to watch Jon Stewart describe the mountain upon which too many in our country live.

So I was checking out my posts from four years ago. Four years ago today was an interesting moment in the Obama-McCain campaign.

If you aren't old enough to know the name, click here. She managed to sucker not only the Rev. Al Sharpton, but Bill Cosby as well as other famous names, black and white. Unfortunately, like her body, her story was covered in feces from the very beginning. And, like her body, she did it to herself. Well, it seems that a young, white volunteer in Pittsburgh for the McCain campaign is skipping over the whole "tragedy" thing that happens when history repeats itself, and is going straight to farce. Unlike Duncan, I will admit that I thought the story a crock from the very beginning. The friggin' "B" was backwards, which told me she did it to herself in a friggin' mirror! C'mon people. . .

Four years ago yesterday, we had the drunken matron of Madison backtracking on her claim that, during a debate with McCain, candidate Obama was wearing an earpiece through which he was receiving information. When it became clear she was as wrong as she always is, she tried to salvage something for the sake of her poor, tattered ego:

You know, just because the thing I saw wasn't there doesn't mean there wasn't something there that I didn't see.

That's the nice thing about blog archives. It's so easy to go back and realize that the faces and names have changed, but not the style. No one should be surprised that Mitt Romney would run a campaign in which truth and reality were optional. No one should be surprised that Romney came out in the second debate and claimed the President never did something that he actually did. No one should be surprised that Mitt Romney insists Pres. Obama "apologized for America", then insisted his Administration would be different from the President, listing a series of actions and policies already implemented by Pres. Obama.

Because, you see, even before Pres. Obama was elected, there was this mythology building up around him thanks to the right. He was a socialist, a foreign born Muslim, a buddy with former Weather Underground member Bill Ayers. Obama was going to make us all socialist, set up re-education camps, even (if you watched the video you'll get the reference) outlaw cars. The dedication to absolute nonsense and Pure Grade "A" bullshit among the right in this country runs so deep and wide, extracting even "Moderate Mitt" from it would be well-nigh impossible.

That campaign manager John Sununu made clear they weren't interested in allowing "fact-checkers" run their campaign made clear the on-going belief that facts are irrelevant, reality is pliable, and it may yet be possible to carry along enough people who accept an alternate Universe where Pres. Obama is a clear and present danger to all things American. It won't end with the President's re-election, anymore than it ended with his election four years ago. In fact, it will probably intensify.

At some point, we are going to have to awake from our fever-dream and face the real consequences of allowing this to go on for so long. The Affordable Care Act didn't "take over" health insurance, let alone health care. The President respects the military. The President is a non-practicing Christian. Had he lived forty years ago, Pres. Obama would have been considered a moderate Republican for his policies. These things just are, whether anyone believes them or not. They aren't claims that are debatable, or things I'm saying without any substance. Denying them, the way both campaigns have denied global warming, won't make them any less real.

We need to come down off that mountain and face some reality, folks.  The results of doing otherwise will be far more harsh than any of the paranoid fantasies the right continually spews.

Surrealism, Part 2

The great disappearing issue of this campaign has been global warming.  I haven't heard either candidate utter a syllable one way or another about it.  Which is too bad, really, because some people think it's an issue about which we need to be concerned on a global level.  It's already causing increased tension between India and Bangladesh.  Right here in the United States, the town of Shishmaref, Alaska is looking to relocate as the Arctic Ocean claims it in chunks.

Of course, everyone seems to think there's "controversy" about global warming, in the same way there's "controversy" over which date the Declaration of Independence was signed and ratified, or controversy concerning the Holocaust.  Because "some people" refuse to recognize the reality doesn't mean there's controversy; it means these people, for whatever reason, deny reality.  That isn't controversial.  It might be insane.  It might be delusional.  It might be a whole lot of things.  Controversial isn't one of them.

So, yet again . . . the debate on foreign policy didn't touch on many actual issues except who would blow up more stuff and more people, or whether blowing up certain people was a good thing now or later.  All in all, it was just surreal.  Arguing over who our number one national security threat is at a time when it would take at least fifteen countries to field the kind of military the United States currently has strikes me as just odd.

Surrealism, Part 1

Last night's final debate between Pres. Obama and Gov. Romney was an odd affair, to say the least.  As I wrote in a comment elsewhere, Romney has been everywhere telling the world what a failure the President has been.  He's insisted, like much the rest of the American Right, that Pres. Obama goes around the world apologizing for the United States.  Last night, he agreed with much of the President's approach to foreign policy (with some notable exception that I'll get to), which makes me wonder: Is he going to be an apologetic failure, too?

While some of the debate certainly concerned itself with important matters of foreign policy, I was struck by a few things.  In response to Pres. Obama's answer to the first question, Romney said that "we can't kill our way" out of various foreign policy problems.  I pictured John Bolton, Romney's top foreign policy adviser, with his mustache catching on fire.  Considering Bolton's seemingly bottomless desire to go war any- and everywhere, having Romney sit on that stage and say that we can't kill our way out of problems must have been like kryptonite or something.

Also early in the debate, the matter of sequestration arose.  President Obama was categorical: Sequestration will not happen.  For those not paying attention, sequestration is the name given to legally binding automatic cuts in all federally funded departments, the result of Congress' failure to arrive at some kind of agreement on spending cuts and revenue increases after the debt ceiling increase vote in late summer last year.  While reassured somewhat by the President's statement, color me unimpressed with the whole matter.  To pretend this isn't a worry for those whose job it is actually to oversee how military appropriations are spent is to ignore reality in a very dangerous way.  It may well be the case that any across-the-board spending cuts won't pass, or the President will veto them and they'll die an ignominious death; all the same, it seems a very dangerous game, to say the least, while we still have thousands of American troops in battle in Afghanistan.

I have to admit I was more than a little saddened by Romney approving Pres. Obama's UAV air war in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and elsewhere.  It might have been nice to hear someone stick up for the Constitution and say, you know, it's Congress's job to decide when we're at war and how to go about fighting that war.  Even if he didn't mean it, which I'm sure he wouldn't, such a bow in the general direction of Constitutional government would be nice.

Isn't it odd that at a debate that was supposed to be about foreign policy, most of the talk seemed to be about blowing stuff up, or buying more stuff to blow stuff up, or which weapon platform blows stuff up better?  And some folks wonder why the rest of the world is nervous.

While Romney certainly came across very poorly last night, it might have been nice to have a more thorough discussion of things like sequestration, the DoD budget in realistic terms, our real relations with countries rather than the paranoid fantasies of an Iranian threat or a Chinese threat or a Russian threat or some other threat (a Belgian threat, maybe?  Would certainly be original).  There wasn't a single word about Africa, the creation of an African Command and what role our troops on the ground are playing on that continent.  Shoot, the President didn't even tease Gov. Romney for failing to mention our troops in Afghanistan during his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention.

All in all, it was an odd event.  Saying President Obama "won" is a bit like saying that at least one of the clocks in Dali's famous painting has the correct time.

The Much Needed Threat

So the last Presidential debate is tonight.  The topic is foreign policy.  Since the Truman Administration, Republican politicians have tried to paint Democrats as weak-kneed defeatists who hate the American military and can't wait to turn the country over to whatever evil power exists outside our borders, whether it's the Soviet Union or Islam.  One of the most militant anti-Communist American officials, Dean Acheson, was called a traitor by Joe McCarthy.  For some reason, both the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations, for all they dragged us ass-backwards in to war in Southeast Asia, were considered weak.  Don't even get me started on Jimmy Carter.

Pres. Obama's record on foreign policy is, by and large, fair to partly cloudy.  Waging a quiet war using special operations troops and UAVs in distant places, while simultaneously going on the offensive in Afghanistan in a more conventional ground war (without any actual strategy or way of determining victory), Obama has also made clear our continued, and wrong-headed, support for Israel in the Middle East, a kind of multigenerational myopia that actually hurts us in the Middle East.  We have stood aloof, by and large, as Europe's "crisis" has dragged on for a couple years (here's a hint; if an event last longer than a few weeks, it isn't a crisis), while switching our larger strategic attention to "the Pacific Rim", which, really isn't much of a change.  For a hundred years, Administrations of both parties have insisted the future of American foreign policy lies in Asia.

Of course, there's the death of Osama bin Laden.  There was the raid, early in his term, on a group of Somali pirates holding Americans hostage.  The two of these events demonstrated Obama's commitment to a couple things.  First, he is quite willing to use American force to protect American lives and interests.  Second, he is committed to doing so in a way that's quiet, yet deadly to whomever the American military machine is pointing.

This hasn't deterred the fantasists among some on the political right to continue the drumbeat, year after year, of claims that Obama is soft on terrorism (which is little different than the claim that previous Democratic Administrations were soft on communism).  There are claims he goes around the world "apologizing for our values", yet I have never heard or seen any actual evidence of this.  There's the ludicrous, and more than slightly unhinged, claim that "the Muslim Brotherhood" has "infiltrated" the State Department because a high-ranking official is . . . a Muslim woman.

Individually, each of the above is hysterically funny.  Taken as a whole, it makes me wonder how people who insist these things are true do simple things like stand erect, or get food from their plate to their mouths.

Just to make clear how long people in positions of power and authority in the United States have been claiming we exist with the imminent threat of a nuclear-armed Iran, just waiting for the opportune moment to strike, I typed "iran" in the search box at the top of my blog.  The results you can scroll through by clicking here.  I first wrote about the "Iranian threat" in February, 2007.  That's over five years ago.  In all that time, the rhetoric has been the same: At any moment, Iran will have a nuclear weapon they can use against Israel or some other country, and we have to stop them.

At some point, you'd think people would realize that the wolf really isn't there.

Look, I've said it before and I'll say it again.  I'm no fan of the Iranian regime.  That doesn't mean we should base our relations with them on the bloody fantasies created by people who have been demonstrably wrong about pretty much everything.  Just because we in the US don't support the form of government in Iran doesn't mean we have either the duty or the right to attack them, kill their people (which we've been doing, by the way, quite well over the past few years), attack their electronic infrastructure (that Stuxnet attack on Iranian computers wasn't carried out by the Mongolians), and threaten invasion and massive bombardment.  Whether we like it or not, whether anyone wants to admit it or not, Iran isn't doing anything that France, Britain, Israel, India, Pakistan, Brazil, and Argentina haven't done: they are researching atomic energy and possibly the ways to build thermonuclear weapons.  Of the countries listed previously, only Brazil and Argentina haven't gone all the way.  I for one am far more frightened by the existence of nuclear weapons in Pakistan and India than I am by a nuclear-armed Iran.  Even if it were to happen tomorrow, there would be no real danger to Israel posed by a nuclear armed Iran.

The real danger are the war-mongers who create the thing they think we Americans need in order to have coherence in our foreign policy - a threat.  I neither know nor care whether all the people screeching about the horrors a nuclear-armed Iran believe the things they say.  If they do believe them, they're a whole lot less smart than anyone gives them credit for.  If they don't really believe them, which is far more likely, they are drumming up this threat . . . because they can?  I really don't know the reason.

For all I'm no fan of the Obama Administration's foreign policy, I am such for the exact opposite reason of his most vocal critics in the Republican Party: bellicose, too willing to use deadly force, too blase about the restraints allegedly imposed by the Constitution and International Law, and continuing the never-ending dream of America somehow magically a force in eastern Asia.  The ongoing nonsense about Iran is one of those things, in a slightly better world, that would just vanish like smoke.  Too many people with too loud voices, however, seem to have invested far too much in creating a threat where none exists.

That Romney has signed on to this fantasy should worry people who are paying attention.

The Improbable Monument

Of all the men that have run for president in the twentieth century, only George McGovern truly understood what a monument America could be to the human race. - Hunter S. Thompson

I read the news today.  Oh, boy.  Five years ago, I wrote the following:

I believe that the failed 1972 campaign of South Dakota Senator George McGovern was as pivotal for the liberal, Democratic wing of the Democratic Party as the equally disastrous campaign of Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater was for the conservative wing of the Republican Party. More than the campaign, however, I believe the committee McGovern chaired, with its rules changes for the primary process and delegate selection and voting process were even more important than his campaign. I think it, like its mirror image eight years before in the Republican Party, laid the foundation for the direction the Democratic Party is moving, for the issues and policies they are highlighting, and, I think, for its success despite overwhelming odds in the previous election.

A decorated veteran of the Second World War - McGovern was a bomber pilot - McGovern would be reviled as someone who hate the military.  An elected public servant, serving in the US House of Representatives and US Senate from 1956-1980, McGovern was called anti-American.

While there have been many autopsies, both popular and academic, that have been definitive in their conclusions that it was McGovern that sidelined the Democratic Party to decades in the political wilderness, I think McGovern's legacy has won out.  While some prominent former Democrats, most notably former UN Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick, made clear it was McGovern's work overhauling the Party's nomination process that destroyed the New Deal Coalition, I think that work has paid dividends down the years.  While there are many who still consider McGovern's candidacy the worst thing to happen to the Democratic Party, I think it transformed the base of the Democratic Party.

In a column written on October 16, Charlie Pierce included long sections from McGovern's acceptance speech before the 1972 Democratic National Convention.  The closing section offers a vision of America that should resonate with those who have listened to Barack Obama over the past five years.  In order to make that clear, first, again from Pierce, are some words about the stakes in this election.

But who's out there now, spouting off about all he'll make the government do for us if we just put him and his zombie-eyed, granny-starving running buddy in charge of it? Who's talking about Five Point Plans and North American Energy Independence and all the things he'll do for us? And who's out there talking about the hard work we've already done, and the hard work we will have to do, together, over the next four years? Who's talking about freedom and independence the way they really were defined in Philadelphia, first in 1776 and then a decade or so later? Who's talking about pledging to ourselves, in mutual support, our lives and fortunes and sacred honor? Who is expressing in real, if occasionally stumbling terms, a real faith in our ability to build a political commonwealth?

Now, George McGovern:

From secrecy and deception in high places; come home, America. From military spending so wasteful that it weakens our nation; come home, America. From the entrenchment of special privileges in tax favoritism; from the waste of idle lands to the joy of useful labor; from the prejudice based on race and sex; from the loneliness of the aging poor and the despair of  the neglected sick — come home, America. Come home to the affirmation that we have a dream. Come home to the conviction that we can move our country forward. Come home to the belief that we can seek a newer world, and let us be joyful in that homecoming, for this "is your land, this land is my land — from California to New York island, from the redwood forest to the gulf stream waters — this land was made for you and me." So let us close on this note: May God grant each one of us the wisdom to cherish this good land and to meet the great challenge that beckons us home.

After the 1972 election, McGovern was treated with disdain by the party that had made him its candidate for President.  As the ensuing year and a half revealed the depth of corruption in the Nixon White House, there was no one who came forward to apologize.  As the Republican Party emulated Nixon in so many ways, from the Southern Strategy (Ronald Reagan began his Presidential campaign in Stone Mountain, GA, the birthplace of the Ku Klux Klan) to a pattern of corruption that repeatedly dogs Republican Administrations (at least they tend to keep it in their pants), no one who ignored McGovern in the wake of his loss has made a public statement admitting McGovern was right.

Thing is, though, McGovern was right.  He was right that the Republican Party in 1972 was a seething cauldron of corruption.  He was right that, at that time, we needed to come home, to work together to make our land, our nation, a great place again.  All we get from the opposition are empty promises and even more empty public treasuries.  We get division and rancor.  I'm not saying McGovern was the best candidate ever to lose the Presidency.  I am saying, however, that he was right and Nixon and his evil, twisted step-children that continue to wreak havoc and may yet have a chance to do so again was so very, very wrong.  That so many serious people in positions of influence cannot bring themselves to acknowledge this reality is very sad.

Rest in peace, Senator McGovern.  You have left a legacy that is worth remembering.  If there were enough people with both the will and courage to do so, the tattered banner of your vision of America being its best self could still be lifted up.

"Whats Left Of Me Now": Slut Shaming And The Need For Grace

If you haven't heard the story of Amanda Todd, the teenager from Port Coquitlam, British Columbia who committed suicide recently, a video she posted just prior to her death tells her side of the story:

There is nothing good about this story.  A young girl makes a stupid mistake - she admits as much - and, suddenly, her life is turned upside down.  The down side to our tiny connected world is millions of people with nothing better to do than make sure everyone who ever did anything wrong never forgets their mistakes.  This doesn't just include Bill Clinton or Newt Gingrich, poster children for extra-marital fellatio (bi-partisanship!).  A girl, a girl  God Damn it, has to pay for a stupid mistake.

When I made the point last summer of giving vocal support for SlutWalks, it was because some people think there's something noble about telling people they are not just making mistakes, but somehow morally vicious and beyond redemption because of choices they make.  It's one thing to acknowledge that an underage girl flashing her chest to a stranger on the internet might not be the best thing in the world.  It's quite another thing to have this same girl trapped because too many people think it's OK to make sure she never forgets she's a horrible, evil slut.

A guy takes advantage of a combination of emotional vulnerability and weakness, sleeps with her because he knows she's willing, then does what every young man who has sex does: He brags about it, which, of course, leads to the inevitable confrontation with the guy's girlfriend.

This is why I'm no fan of slut-shaming.  This is what it looks like in extremis.  Turning a lapse in judgment (and how many teenagers have that particular virtue, anyway?) in to a life-ending indicator of essential moral lassitude.  That is what slut-shaming can do.

Folks who read here see the word "grace" tossed about a whole lot.  I suppose it's my mistake that I haven't, not really, defined it or explained the concept.  The thing is, it's a simple enough concept.  More than forgiveness but embracing it as well as judgment; more than acceptance but embracing it as well as rejection; grace is the idea that even as we acknowledge that we are error-prone and sin-prone creatures, there is no error or crime or sin or act that can separate us from God.  The Church should be the place where we live that out; we should be people who let the world know we can let go of shame and guilt because God's love for us is bigger than the Universe in which we live.  The Church is the place where Amanda Todd could have discovered, contrary to a line on one of her cards, that things do, indeed stop.

Amanda Todd's death, for all the other things it says about human cruelty and frailty, about the way bullying and harassment, guilt- and slut-shaming now know no borders, about the need for better intervention processes for vulnerable youth; for all that, Amanda Todd's death tells us Christians that we have failed, again, to reach out and let someone know that grace exists.  That grace is more powerful than the hatred and anger and self-righteousness of those who told her she should die.  There were no Catholics or Methodists or anyone else who showed Amanda Todd that, because God's love for us reaches us when we are furthest away from God, we can reach in to the darkest corners of human life and, by shining a tiny light, chase away the demons who fear light more than anything.

A quick postscript: Anonymous, that cybergroup of anarchists, has posted the name of Amanda Todd's alleged harasser.  The thing is, according to a story posted on the Canadian Broadcasting Network website, law enforcement believes the person responsible isn't even Canadian.  The story also reports that a man has lost his job after posting online: "It's about time this bitch died."  Despicable, indeed.  All the same, the only way this whole thing stops, the only way we show the world that shaming people for being stupid and hateful is as wrong as shaming people for acting without thought or judgment is if someone reaches out to this stupid, thoughtless jerk and let him know it's OK.  After all, we're all stupid thoughtless jerks at times, aren't we?

This postscript wouldn't be complete without this teaching moment for some among us who prattle on about morality and right and wrong and how that has to do with what God wants from us.  When I insist, "No!", to that crap, this is exactly what I mean.  God's grace, as we are supposed to live it out as Christians, confounds any acceptable understanding of right and wrong, good and bad.  We don't just mean grace is offered to those who are so lost they have given up looking for a way out; grace is offered to those who stole their maps.  If we don't, it isn't grace.

The Assault On Voting Rights

If there's a theme to this election year, the title of this post says it all: The Republican Party has been waging an on-going, multi-pronged attack on the right of American citizens to vote.  Republican legislatures have passed voter ID laws.  The governor of Florida ordered a voter-roll purge that even Republican county officials have found too extreme and probably illegal.  We read articles that insist that voting is not a right; that voting should be restricted to "stake-holders".  One of the lower moments occurred over the summer when the state of Ohio, implementing a law passed by the Republican-dominated legislature, restricted the rights of active duty military personnel to vote early and the Obama Administration sued; the right and Gov. Romney turned this entire episode in to an instance of Pres. Obama trying to restrict military voting when the exact opposite was the case.

Just the past couple days have brought more evidence the right's attack on voting continues.  Mitt Romney is caught on tape telling employers they should tell their employees how to vote.  The egregiously horrible Rep. Joe Walsh has done the same thing.  An employee of a company hired by the Republican Party in Virginia has been arrested for destroying voter registration forms.  In Maricopa County, Arizona, home to notorious Sheriff Joe Arpaio, notices about the election specifically sent to Spanish speakers were mailed with the wrong date on them.

If you're noticing a theme here, it should be apparent.  One of America's two major parties would prefer we have fewer people voting.  People who support that party are all over the place insisting that these various shenanigans and rule changes are fine because voting is a privilege not a right.  Like pretty much every other thing the right has done over the past generation, it is a relentless, tireless assault any- and everywhere that not least has the effect of wearing down opposition.  Couching anti-democratic rhetoric in the tired logic of sensibleness is perhaps the most offensive; after all, how dare anyone claim someone who begins their argument saying, "What is the matter with . . ." is attacking something at the heart of practical American politics?

Unlike most of the other advanced polities with democratic practices, the United States does not require voting.  Many countries have such high voter turnouts because people will be fined if they don't show up at the polls.  Not here.  As a right, like free speech or assembly, we in the United States let people exercise or not exercise this basic right and duty at their own discretion.  Freedom, in other words, includes the freedom not to participate.

I was in a discussion group over the summer and someone insisted we should do much the same as countries where voting is a legal obligation.  Sounds sensible, doesn't it?  Perhaps even logical!  All the same, it runs contrary to a basic tenet of the whole concept of political freedom, US style.  Part of the burden of freedom is the weight we all carry from those who prefer not to participate.  Part of being a free society includes the freedom to make choices others would not make, choices that effect other people's lives.  The most we can do is insist that people vote.  We can hector them, plead with them, offer them rides to the polls.  We cannot, nor should we, compel by legal means, any single vote.

I, for one, have always thought more voting is better.  Big voter turnouts mean more people are engaged, feel they have a stake, a voice, are a part of the process.  I honestly don't care for whom anyone might cast their ballot on November 6.  If a bunch of folks who were all wearing Romney pins couldn't find a ride to their polling place, I would be the first in line to offer them a ride.  Because it's about participating.

Before I hit "Publish", I actually have a rule for this post, should anyone care to comment.  Any comment that attempts to argue the idea that restricting access to the polls is somehow legal, or at least should be; any comment that attempts to argue that employers either do or should attempt to coerce a vote from their employees; any comment that denies the reality that voting is a right all citizens over the age of 18 (with the exceptions, of course, of those who have surrendered that right for reasons of felony conviction); any of these, or variations on them, will be deleted.  Period.  My Give-a-Shit button for nonsense is now permanently broken.

Just a warning.

Debate Number Two

So it's binders full of women, "Please proceed, Governor," and Candy Crowley.  And Josh at TPM has a favorite picture that, he insists, speaks volumes.

There was much joy in Liberalville on Wednesday morning because the President did the one thing he should have been doing for four years: He stood up for his record, calling out crap when crap was dumped in front of him.

To be honest, I think the cheers from the left side of the aisle are as overwrought as the hand-wringing (mine included) from the days after the first debate.  There are certain fundamentals in this race that should keep it tight; there are also certain factors that could, given enough time and attention, create a big win for either candidate.  One thing to be said for last night's debate, however; it's difficult to argue there are few differences between the candidates' positions on issues of fundamental interest to the American people.

While I still think there would be, in practical terms, few differences between a second Obama term and a Romney Presidency - unless one or the other party sweeps Congress, giving the President a working majority in the First Branch of our government - there is little doubt last night demonstrated a deep ideological rift.  When asked about equal pay for women, Pres. Obama talked about the Lilly Ledbetter Equal Pay Act while Gov. Romney talked about binders full of women (in a story that turns out to be as false as pretty much every other major claim he makes).  When asked about tax plans, Pres. Obama talked about fairness while Gov. Romney insisted that his $5 trillion tax cut isn't, but if it was it was paid for, and he just didn't feel like saying how.  When asked about the differences between a potential Romney Administration and the Bush years, Romney wandered around looking under rocks while Pres. Obama made the point that, in some respects, a Romney Administration would be worse.

Romney was rude.  Romney was curt with the President of the United States.  Romney kept talking after Candy Crowley made it clear it was time for him to shut his mouth.  Romney got huffy when it was pointed out that he had, yet again, not spoken the truth.  Apparently, being called a liar when one lies gets one's children in a huff.

For all that, though, there are things that will continue to keep the race tight.  The economy works against the President, as does his preference to shade the differences between himself and his political opponents in search of a working compromise.  While Romney demonstrated he either doesn't know or doesn't care what positions he actually takes on some matters - the lines about contraception and Pell Grants are directly contradicted by his own campaign and previous statements, for crying out loud - and gets indignant when other people actually question the things he says, he does have a history and a record to which he can point (belied by his own hard-right tacking over the previous twelve months in search of the Republican nomination) that could sway those who might be willing to bet he won't govern as crazy as he's talked.

While the attacks on the American consulate in Benghazi have been seized by Republicans to be used as some kind of game-changer, by lying about the President's reaction (and that was, truly, a brilliant moment as Pres. Obama allowed Gov. Romney to wind his own tongue around his neck and squeeze; that the right is all upset that Candy Crowley had the nerve to tell Romney he was wrong is perhaps the worst thing a journalist has done since Walter Cronkite told the American people that America was losing the war in Vietnam) they have effectively disarmed the issue, removing any substantive criticism that could be made because it's stapled to the crazy.  On the other hand, Romney displayed a talent for coming very close to melting down under pressure; as manic as his first performance was, Tuesday night that mania was tinged with something else, a refusal to concede to rules and a quick anger when questioned too much that are not good traits in a President.

I wasn't too confident of the polls when they showed the President had a lead outside the margin of error.  I continue to doubt polls that show Romney up ever-so-slightly.  The only thing I do think is correct is the race is still up for grabs.  For now.  There is one debate left, and it may well be that, depending upon which version of each candidate shows up at that debate, the race could very well hinge on the outcome (as well as the TV commercials that flow from them).  While not happy with Pres. Obama's performance in office, a Romney Presidency would be a disaster; if the debates have demonstrated anything, his unwillingness to brook any questions about his truthfulness or those things about which he prefers to remain silent, if nothing else, show a disdain for the practicalities of governance.

Without overcompensating and celebrating too much, I think the race is still on, in no small part to Barack Obama's discovery of a spine.

Never Going Back To My Old School

I was surprised to see a story about my hometown on CNN's "ireport" site.  I was shocked and angry and more than a little embarrassed by the story.  The accompanying photo?  Well, let's just say you have to see it for yourself.

Someone thought it would be . . . what?  Funny?  Some kind of rallying cry? . . . to enhance school spirit by putting black face on a couple kids and have them act out Chris Brown beating the crap out of Rihanna.

I know.  I know.  What the hell does any of this have to do with a pep rally, right?  There are so many questions about this story, its ugliness, its mindlessness, and the even more ugly and mindless people from my hometown defending the event in comments on the story (scrolling through them, I'm figuring none of the people who think this harmless fun know any more about what happened than the people who are decrying it; that they would consider acting out domestic violence and celebrating racist attitudes and actions appropriate in any setting, most especially a high school pep rally, makes me wonder if they actually finished attending classes at the school) that I'm not sure where to begin.

Where were the school administrators and teachers in all this?  The photo showing the kids sitting there - far too white and comfortable as they watch a racist display re-enacting domestic violence - shows they, apparently, had no idea what they were seeing was "wrong".  Not a single teacher stepped up and said, "You know, putting black face on white kids is wrong.  Having them act out a man beating a woman is wrong.  Celebrating this by using it to rally students before a football game is wrong."

The local newspaper has a story (subscription required; I don't have one) in which Superintendent Joseph Yelich responds with the kind of general platitude that makes me wonder if he went to the same schools as Mitt Romney:  “I want to assure everyone that our Waverly School District is committed to creating a positive atmosphere through all of our activities.”  Really, Mr. Yelich?  Really?  You can't even come out and say, "Clearly, the public response to the skit at the homecoming pep rally ignores the broader context in which it occurred."?  The best response might have been, "Unaware of what the skit was going to be, the school administration is investigating and will respond with appropriate measures to all involved."  Because merely mouthing nonsensical platitudes that are belied by an abundance of evidence doesn't exactly create confidence among those of us who have to live with the fact that we went to this school.  Hell, my father taught in this district for 24 years.  What do you think this does for his reputation?

I'm guessing at some point, someone involved in this, whether a student or someone else, is going to be quoted in the paper saying something that begins, "We didn't think . . ."  Which is precisely the problem.  Schools are places where young people are taught to think.  This pep rally "skit" clearly demonstrates multiple failures of thought all across the board.

So glad I live in Illinois now.

Tired

I have become so disgusted by the Presidential election, the Congressional elections, and the stupid things we all seem to be talking about - whether it's where Pres. Obama was born or Mitt Romney's tax returns; Joe Biden's chuckles or Paul Ryan's biceps - I had an inkling to give it up for good.  It isn't like anyone reads what I write anyway; how could I possibly cut through the crap, make a difference, make the point that the entire exercise is so far removed from actual things that effect actual people's lives that even its entertainment value has disappeared?

Maybe I can't.  Probably I can't.

All I can do is talk about real stuff, and let folks check it out, and then compare it to the nonsense that passes for our electioneering.

A young woman whose blog I read talks about a documentary she watched recently:

This incredibly somber documentary follows a group of homeless children who live in the subways of Romania. Decades ago, the Romanian government was concerned about the population decline and the subsequent effects of this upon the work force. They decided to outlaw all methods of contraception, and countless unwanted children were abandoned and left in orphanages as a result.

I didn't know how to process everything that I saw in this film. Your sorrow for these children feels meaningless as their lives are deemed utterly worthless by society. People pass them by like they are invisible. Few give them money if they choose to beg. They spend their days hooked on inhaling glue in order to fight off the pains of hunger. I even watched one girl get beaten by a total stranger because she wouldn't stop crying in the subway from being so hungry. 

Parts of the city of Chicago look like they've moved back in time, back when violence seemed not only without cause but without an end:

Here’s a badge of shame: Chicago’s murder total for the month has already surpassed August 2011’s total and with 10 days left.

Thirty-eight people have been killed through Aug. 19, compared to 35 for all of August 2011 and 22 homicides through Aug. 19, 2011. Last Saturday there were six homicides in Chicago, which tied Feb. 19 for the day with the most murders this year. The numbers come on the heels on a July that Police Supt. Garry McCarthy touted asthe least violent month in Chicago in a quarter century and credited to a new gang auditing strategy he implemented last year.

The Chicago Tribune noted that most of the homicides this month have occurred in neighborhoods where, coincidentally, McCarthy first implemented his gang audits.

 You know how you're supposed to train a dog not to shit in the house by shoving its nose in a pile, swatting it and saying, "No!", then tossing it outside?  I feel like doing that to people who carry on about the great global warming hoax.  The pile we've created, and to which their denial is blind, is the small town of Shishmaref, Alaska.

"The land is going away," said Shelton Kokeok, 65, whose home is on the tip of a bluff that's been melting in part because of climate change. "I think it's going to vanish one of these days."

Coastal erosion has been an issue for decades here, but rising global temperatures have started to thaw the permafrost that once helped anchor this village in place. Sea ice that protects Shishmaref's coast from erosion melts earlier in the spring and forms later in the fall. As a result, the increasingly mushy and exposed soil along Shishmaref's shore is falling into the water in snowmobile-sized chunks.

The town even has a webpage designed to raise funds to relocate its residents.

These are a sample of the things real people face.  These are a sample of the things we could address if anyone thought them of any importance.  Instead, we continue to hear from birthers and morons like Todd Akin and some people think it matters whether or not the Romney's release their tax returns.  We discuss, the tones measured and words oh-so-careful, whether the Affordable Care Act is or is not socialism.

People are in peril.  Lives quite literally hang in the balance, each and every day.  While not the only solution to the problem, politics is one way we decide how we will address these and uncountable other matters that confront all of us.  We treat it like a bad game show.  That the race is close demonstrates so many failures in the system as to leave me wondering if we even deserve moderately competent governance.

I'm tired.  I'm exhausted from trying to make the point there's a real world with real problems that are sometimes desperate, sometimes horrific, all wearing a human face.  I'm tired of the prevalent belief that the divisiveness of our politics is a result of all sides playing some game, rather than the result of a very clearly documented strategy from only one party.  That one Presidential candidate this time around is very proud and public with his disdain for any commitment to any understanding of truth should mean something.

Alas, the race is tied, and the very real specter that a candidate singularly unsuited for any office of trust may well be our next President looms ahead of us.

And the silence about the lives that hang in the balance?

No Exit

Each of the past two days, a friend of mine on Facebook sent me two articles relating to Afghanistan.  I'll leave it to the reader to click the links and check them out.  For now, I would like us all to think about our presence in Afghanistan.

We entered Afghanistan over ten years ago, in pursuit of the criminals who attacked us.  In the process, we ended a brutal regime and created conditions in which the Afghan people could begin the process of remaking their country.  Over the ensuing years of war and occupation, which has seen the American military commitment wax and wane, domestic attention vary from keen interest to a kind of benign amnesia - "Oh, that's right!  We have troops there, don't we!" - the drastic increase in American combat troops since the beginning of the Obama Administration has accompanied a commitment to "victory" that wasn't defined.  Consequently, any action could be used to justify our presence; any advancement that looked good could be hailed as a "victory".

How much has Afghanistan changed?  The second article seems to indicate, "Not much", as the likely answer.  The first article, describing just one of many murders of American military personnel trying to shape an Afghan military, also shows that, whatever faults Afghan society might have, they would much rather be left to sort out those problems on their own.

Which is not to say that I take the Afghan's side in these matters.  It is only to say that entering Afghanistan a decade ago without any real plan for getting out, and having that particular end-game postponed for what are by and large domestic political reasons rather than strategic, military, and diplomatic reasons, has created the situation in which we are, alas, ensnared.

Responsibility for this situation does not lie with the United States military, who only carry out orders.  From the first Bush Administration through the Obama Administration, there has been the simple refusal to deal with some historical realities related to Afghanistan, compounded by a false sense of responsibility for the fate of Afghanistan, compounded again by an overwillingness to militarize what should be civilian duties in regards our relationship with Afghanistan.

The training and support for a new Afghan Army should have been carried out differently.  Our troops should not put their lives at risk to carry out a task that, really, isn't their responsibility.  If a real, independent Afghan government had requested assistance, we should have been willing to give assistance that most definitely did not include putting our soldiers in the field with troops that are not at all trustworthy.

As for the social and cultural problems indicated by the murder of a young woman advocating for education, what can I say?  It's horrible, of course; it also shows that a decade of engagement has not lessened the risk to some segments of the Afghan people from fanatics.  Does anyone with a lick of sense think the American presence could change that?  Who really believed the Taliban and like-minded groups could be "defeated", since there is no metric that could be created to measure such an outcome.  If policy-makers believe we should stay until such conditions no longer exist in Afghanistan, we should make sure those policy-makers don't get anywhere near decision-making; that's a recipe for staying in Afghanistan forever, watching more of our troops die, all the while the police and military we're trying to train stand by and do nothing as radicals kill civilians who have the temerity to speak out.

I do not know what "the solution" in Afghanistan is, outside getting our troops out as soon as possible, letting whatever happens happen, and standing giving help when asked as long as that help doesn't put American citizens, including our military personnel, at risk.  That there are segments of Afghan society who still want to see the Taliban rule their land is a condition that no amount of time or effort on our part is ever going to change.  That the Taliban are brutal extremists is both true and irrelevant.

Like Jean-Paul Sartre's play, as long as continue with the status quo, including pretending there is progress being made in Afghanistan, there is no way out of the hell of our own creation.

A Tossed Word Salad

For the life of me, I have no idea what the Romney campaign means when they say he will have a foreign policy like Truman and Reagan.  He's going to restart the Korean War (OK, I stole that from comments at TPM)?  He's going to give money to Greece to fight rebels there?  He's going to reform NATO?  Or, is he, maybe going to pull our troops out after a single terrorist attack that kills some of them?  Is he going to invade a Caribbean island that hired a bunch of foreigners to build a couple roads and hospitals?

He's not going to bomb Qaddafi's grave, is he?

What, exactly, would a Trumaneseque, or Reaganesque, foreign policy look like?  Will Iran suddenly become the greatest existential threat not only to the United States, but the entire planet?  Will the budget for the Department of Defense, already one half all federal outlays, increase?  Will the dream of a six-hundred ship navy suddenly re-emerge from the ashes of the Cold War to whisper in the ear of defense contractors everywhere?

What about what Obama has done, and continues to do?  Do you think the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of dead Pakistanis, Afghans, Yemeni, and others thanks to the expanded UAV air wars in these countries think he's vascillating and weak?  What about the pirates killed and captured off Somalia when they threatened the lives of Americans and a commando raid took them down?

How, precisely, does Gov. Romney think Americans have any influence in Egypt right now?  While most Americans, including me, cheered with joy when Hosni Mubarak resigned, the policy of the American government was relentless, unyielding support for three decades for a regime that was corrupt, morally and financially bankrupt, and repressive.  The Egyptian people understand this; they hold no animus against Americans, just our government and our attempts to dictate their country's actions through what amounts to extortion.  Since the average Egyptian lives in poverty we in the US cannot even begin to understand; since a system of universal education provided a well-educated workforce, but a system of systemic corruption did not provide employment opportunities, the tinder-box of frustrated, well-educated young men and women is still sitting there; since the current government has limited ability to act against groups that are hostile to minority religious groups, including Copts and Jews, and since they've already verbally committed themselves to inclusion, what else, precisely can the government there do that Gov. Romney insists they "must" do to curry favor with a Romney Administration?

Since the Israelis have neither the interest nor energy to work on a final settlement with the Palestinians, the status quo serving them quite well for a very long time, how does Romney's stated commitment to a two-state solution mean anything different from Pres. Obama's commitment?

I guess I'm just wondering what Romney could possibly say that means something other than just dumping a bunch of words in a bowl, tossing them around, adding some dressing and a garnish, and hoping no one will notice.

Shut Up And Dance!

So I've been wasting the past couple hours reading stuff on the internet in search of something about which to write.  An article by Josh Barkey about what he calls "poopstain pulpit-monkeys" (my challenge, should you choose to accept it, is to use the clues in this sentence in Google to discover if I'm making up what I'm writing about; I have at least one reader who just doesn't seem to understand how Teh Googlebox works, so I want to see if he can answer this simple test) was interesting, but all I did was link to it on Facebook for folks on my friend's list to read.

Then there was the article from The Guardian about the Central Park Jogger case, which seems still to trouble the waters of New York City.  I checked, and I've written everything I wanted to say about it; one of the perils of doing this blogging thing for so long is you tend to cover the same ground.  Since I have no interest in repeating myself, I decided to just let it be.  Again, if you're interested, you can put "central park jogger" in the search box at the top left and read what I said.

It's Saturday.  The weekend.  Get up off your couch and do stuff.  Have some fun, for crying out loud.


If house music doesn't do it for you, maybe this will . . .

If you're feeling romantic, and want to dance slow and close to someone special, well . . .

So quit your belly-achin' and get out there and dance.