A billion here, a trillion there...

... pretty soon you're talking about real money!

You should spend the next six minutes watching this.

Inaugural Notes

Just a couple of personal notes from a rather historic day:

I was working from home and I got my problematic wireless network back up and running for my work laptop. So I curled up in front of the TV machine and settled in for the ceremony. When a certain pastor stepped up to the podium, I snapped this picture:


Yes, that's me turning my back upon Pastor Rick Warren. Hey, it's the least I could do, right? And I didn't even boo or raise my fist in anger when the former administration was introduced. I was too happy to protest any harder.

When it came time for Obama to take the oath of office, I decided to test something. I noticed that I could hear the Fourth of July fireworks on the Mall from my porch. Faint little pops instead of the sonic booms, but the sound was unmistakable. So I stepped onto my porch and listened. And there came a low rumble, more vibration than sound, punctuated by the artillery fire right after he completed the oath.

Hope never sounded so good!

Inauguration Day

By the time this post reaches your retinas, it will be Inauguration Day. I spent the eve of this day by watching the latest film to arrive via Netflix: a documentary on the Iraq war and occupation called "No End in Sight". I almost didn't watch it, didn't want to bum myself out. But then I thought it important to review what had come before as I welcome what is to come.

So I made dinner and watched it.

And I did get angry all over again. 

In particular, the looting of the museums and libraries made my blood pressure rise. An entire country's history and culture snatched away in the lawlessness that we condoned. "Stuff happens," to quote Secretary Rumsfeld.

But I'm still hopeful, despite the grim assessment of the people who tried to get things right and were thwarted by an administration focused on politics instead of results. Perhaps after eight years of living in fear fomented by the Bush administration, we can believe again in our collective capacity to do the right thing.

Happy Inauguration day, everybody!

Pastor Rick Warren

Speaking as one of those non-religious types, I have to ask a question: Why do we need a religious figure to be included in the Inauguration of the President of the United States? I don't care about Rick Warren. He doesn't speak for me -- but then again, the Reverend Barry Lynn doesn't speak for me either (at least from a religious standpoint).

But if I were the leader of the LGBT band from San Francisco that is scheduled to perform in the Inaugural Parade, I might be tempted to inform Obama that they might be busy that day. You know, for a parade in South Dakota, perhaps.

I do think that Obama's response is pretty good, FWIW:

On Thrown Shoes

This may get me kicked out of the super-secret-commie-pinko-bleeding-heart-liberal-elitist club, but I didn't find the shoe-throwing incident funny. In fact, I found it rather sad. Sad for our country, sad for Iraq, sad for the troubled journalist, and sad for the President. Maybe I'm still feeling a bit melancholy over the death of a friend but I couldn't enjoy any schadenfreude from it at all.

Truth is, I just want GWB to go away. I don't want to waste any energy (emotional or otherwise) on him. That's not to say I don't want every single one of his crimes investigated to the fullest extent possible. But that's for the incoming administration to deal with. For now, we have to deal with this sad little man who doesn't seem to understand the enormity of the insult that those shoes represent. Either that, or he just doesn't care.

And that may be the saddest thing of all.

***UPDATE***

OK, this may be the saddest thing of all:

Hope

"In the unlikely story that is America there has never been anything false about hope." -- Senator Barack Obama

The first time I heard Senator Obama utter that line, I wept. I wept for many reasons: the state of my beloved country, the state of our political discourse, even the state of my own beloved Commonwealth. But the main reason I wept was for myself.

Because when I first heard that line, I was hopeless.

The divorce was bearing down on me like a runaway semi with no brakes. I had made some costly mistakes at work and what was once a refuge from the turmoil in my life had become an uncomfortable place to be. I drank too much. I felt overwhelmed by everyone and everything.

And then I heard that line.

I know this sounds corny as hell, but I'll swear on any book you want me to swear on that this was the moment that the clouds began to part for me. Just a little bit. It took weeks of trying to believe those words and then to commit them to action in my own life.

And now, life is so different.

The divorce is in my rear view mirror, no longer a dominant presence in my life. Yes, it has informed who I am now, but I have not let it define me. Work is better. My social life has improved. I've even lost almost ten pounds on Weight Watchers in the last month.

But all of those things would have been impossible without believing in the audacity of hope.

I proudly cast my ballot today for Senator Obama for many reasons. But the biggest one is the hope that his words gave me. They are a gift that I will always be thankful for.

Saint John McCain

TRP has an excellent post explaining why he may support John McCain if he earns the GOP nomination. Allow me to present a counterpoint: why I used to support McCain and why I can no longer do so.

Let me take you back to 2000 and allow me to make a confession: I wasn't all that thrilled with Al Gore. I thought that his rejection of Clinton's offer to campaign for him was a petty move (not to mention tactically stupid). And, let's face it, this was the Al Gore before "An Inconvenient Truth": kinda bland, kinda nerdy (and not in a good way), and kinda entitled. He seemed to me to be approaching the campaign as if he had earned the presidency because he put up with Bill Clinton's shenanigans for 8 years. Perhaps my malaise was caused by other life events (my Mom dying of cancer, me engaged and undergoing a major career change), perhaps not. I was still prepared to vote for Al Gore come November (and did end up doing so) but I was keeping my eyes open for another option.

So along comes Senator John McCain. I had never heard of him before and was intrigued by this former Naval Aviator and POW. "Straight Talk Express"? Calling out the fundie freaks as "agents of intolerance"? Talking economic populism? And a Republican to boot? Wow, I was impressed. I disagreed with him a more than a few things, but I learned a long time ago that you are never going to find a candidate that matches you perfectly. I monitored his progress with great interest.

And then came the South Carolina push polling: "... the "pollsters" asked McCain supporters if they would be more or less likely to vote for McCain if they knew he had fathered an illegitimate child who was black." (McCain adopted a child from Indonesia.) I was incensed. I understood (and still understand) that politics can be a blood sport, but going after a candidate's family is really beyond the pale. I was anticipating a heavy response from McCain; I even had one crafted in my head:

"The people who are responsible for these phone calls are cowards. They are too scared to come after me so they come after my family instead. I am calling them out for the sniveling cowards that they are; I am asking the good people of the Palmetto State to prove these cowards wrong. The United States of America is not a country of cowards -- it is a country of heroes! Heroes like the people of the great state of South Carolina!"

But that stirring response never came. Bush won South Carolina and went on to secure the nomination and the election (with a dubious assist from the Supreme Court).

Over four years later, I saw this picture:



This was taken at a Bush campaign rally. McCain hugging Bush. Disgusting.

I apologize for the language I'm about to use but I can find no other words that adequately express how I feel: John McCain is a pussy.

Anyone who embraces someone whose agents have attacked their family is not much of a man, in my opinion. Gone was the "Straight Talk Express" and in its place was "Politics as Usual". To me, McCain can no longer claim the "Straight Talk" mandate ever again.

My Christian friends will remind me that it is better to turn the other cheek. And while I agree with that sentiment, there are limits to any virtue and attacking you through your family is one of those limits for me.

I'm also certain that there is much more to the story than what I have observed. But I don't care. McCain has proven himself to be nothing more than an average conservative politician. He'll probably get the nomination this time because the other GOP candidates are too freaky for a mass audience. John McCain is just another man who wants to be president, and a lesser man at that.

Religion and Politics

My friend TRP has an interesting post up about playing campaign manager for Obama. As a political junkie, I think his idea is brilliant and should be implemented immediately.

As a non-religious American I only have one thought: "Ewwwww. Gross."

Seriously, can we just cut this crap? Let me put this as plainly as I can: I don't give a Flying Spaghetti Monster about your religious preferences. I think it's rude to parade your religion in public like that.

Think I'm a bit hyper-sensitive? OK, imagine if TRP's fictional statement reads like this:

"We have a long, spirited campaign ahead of us. I'd like to lead it off by inviting Governor Huckabee to join me [in a 3-way with my Wife]. He can ["cum" up here and do it] in Chicago, or else I'd be honored to [do him and his Wife in] Arkansas if he'd like. No cameras, no press there...just my family and his [getting it on all night long with various toys, lubes, and restraints -- if that's what he prefers], starting off the campaign by thinking about one thing we share in spite of all our differences: our [strap-ons]."

See? Icky, right? That's what I hear whenever I hear any candidate speak about their religion. I feel uncomfortable, like I've been invited into their living room to hear them discuss how they had sex with their partner last night and oh by the way wouldn't you like to join us?

Just please stop it, OK? I'm not interested in your sex life -- I mean religion. Seriously.

Edwards is My Guy

And this quote is why:

And I think the notion that you can sit at the table and negotiate and compromise, and these powerful interests will give away their power, I think is a fantasy. If it were true, it would have been working over the last few decades. And it does not.

-- "This Week", 12/16/07

A Response for TRP

TRP and I have been engaging in a dialogue about civility and politics. And before I get into my reply I want all readers to know a few things:

• I share TRP's desire for a more civil, thoughtful political discourse.
  
  
• Not only do we disagree on how to get there, but I am afraid that his approach is dangerous not only for the Democratic party, but for all of us who believe in social justice and other progressive ideas.
  
  
• I consider both of our majority parties to be pretty much one and the same. They are both heavily funded by big business and, as such, are not generally beholden to the people of this country. So this is not a Blue/Red, Dem/Rep, Liberal/Conservative issue for me.
  
  
• It is, however, about winning. Because only by winning can you change the rules of the game and change the cultural climate. This isn't NCAA Division I College Football where the champion is determined by some sophisticated algorithm. This isn't baseball, where the rules are elegant and can be interpreted many different ways and there is poetry and grace in every pitch, swing, hit and catch. This is old school smash mouth football. You must advance the ball to score points. Quoth Herman Edwards: "We play to win the game."
  
  
• TRP and I are very close friends. This response may raise the color in his cheeks, but we'd probably go out and have a beer anyway. (Probably a Mudslide for him and a single-malt for me, but to each his own.)

"Just win, baby."

(Point of order: I hate Al Davis. I love that quote. Kinda sums me up in a nutshell.)

Our mutual friend Joe made the comment that groups of people cannot have "morals". I'll go one step further: politics isn't about morals. Politics has to do with winning and losing to see who gets to make the laws. Now, those laws can have a particular "moral" bent one way or the other. And certainly those who participate in the political process can hold a particular moral point of view. I don't find the "moral" issue particularly helpful when it comes to discussing politics; thus I was tempted to reject TRP's argument en mass. I was going to say that we were talking past each other speaking different languages and that the whole debate is rendered pointless as a result. Besides, I'm not a very good debater; TRP coaches debate. This is the equivalent of me stepping into the ring with Mike Tyson, for goodness sakes!

But the more I thought about his argument, the more I agreed with it. I just vehemently disagree on his approach. As I said in my opening, I think it's dangerous to the causes of social justice that we both care so much about. So this is why I'm responding to TRP. I don't suspect I'll change his mind, but I hope to make him see why I disagree with him.

TRP wants to raise the level of political discourse. But his way to get there is fraught with disappointment and defeat. He wants Charlie Brown to reason with Lucy and ask her to hold the football so he can kick it. And the fact that she takes it away time after time doesn't seem to trouble him. Well, it pisses me off. I'm tired of playing politics like it was the 1970s. It is now 2007: times have changed. They call for different strategies. This "suffering in silence" routine is getting old and getting us nowhere.

I sent this cartoon to TRP last week to preface this response. While I think it's funny, it also happens to be the best summation of the current political climate. Reasoning with the current GOP is like trying to reason with a drug addict: it's impossible. The only thing to do with an addict is to inform her that if she does not clean up her act then there will be consequences. The only thing that the current GOP will respect is their own downfall. They must know that their tactics will not work anymore. I believe the only way to do that is to give back to them in full measure. If we can beat them at their own game then they may think twice about playing it in the future.

I once had a Republican strategist tell me that the only way that the American people will rally around the Democratic party is if they won something. "It took us over 20 years of winning to pull the country our way," he said, "it will take the same kind of effort to pull the country back your way."

As I see it, the only way to raise the discourse is to win. Win back the Congress so we can tone down the rhetoric and restore some sense of balance, comity and cooperation. Because make no mistake, all of that has disappeared from the Capitol building. The GOP is mainly to blame, but Democrats such as Joe Lieberman and others have played the role of enabler. The time for hand-wringing and nuanced debate is over. The Democrats must play to win so we can bring an end to our role in Iraq, so we can expand SCHIP, so we can bring about civil rights to everyone in this country. There are so many reasons to "get up" for this game. It's time we got up, got out and won something!

TRPs Questions

Q: In Congress, would you rather have a thinking person who sometimes disagree with you? Or a non-thinking me-too party lackey who usually agrees with you?

A (TRP): My answer is found in my priorities: Conscience first, country second, party not even in the top ten.

A (tommyspoon): Depends. Right now I want a Congress who is completely committed to getting us out of Iraq. If I'm not mistaken, I believe that's what Mr. Baird's constituents want as well. I consider nuance and intellectual parsing of the Iraq issue to be a complete waste of time. The only questions worth asking are:

1. What is the timetable for withdrawal of US forces from Iraq?
   
   
2. What kind of help do the Iraqis want from us and how can we best provide that assistance?
   
   
3. What is our long-term foreign policy in the Middle East? More of the same? Or something different?

I believe that we can only answer questions 2 and 3 after we answer question 1. Questions 2 and 3 require nuance and thought and rumination. Question number 1 requires committed, resolute action. After the Democrats have veto-proof majorities in the House and Senate, then we can bring nuance and intellectual rigor back to the floors of the House and Senate.

Q: ... why crucify Rep. Baird for what is clearly a thought-out stand? We both disagree with him, but does that make him a bad guy or even a bad Democrat?

A (tommyspoon): I believe that Rep. Baird got played like a piano. Read this statement from Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) and ask yourself why there is such a disconnect between Baird's positive outlook and Schakowsky's observations. While I don't approve of Baird's constituents calling him names, I share their frustration. I'll give him props for holding the forum and explaining himself, but he's not doing what his constituents want him to do. That's not the kind of representation I want, TRP.

Shouldn't the Congressman represent the views of his constituents as well as his own? I admit that this is a hard line to straddle, but in the case of Iraq both you and I think the answer is pretty clear. So do Rep. Baird's constituents. We get it. I don't think he does. While I don't want a lapdog, I also don't want someone who disregards my wishes. That's not the kind of representation I want in Congress.

A Conclusion?

If I don't think that my reasoning will change TRP's mind, then why did I take the time to write it all down? Because I believe in the conversation. Despite all that I've said in this post, I believe that all conversations are valuable and necessary to our intellectual health. Conversations don't have to have winners and losers. TRP and I are (hopefully) big enough to know that there is room for all kinds of points of view int his world. TRP always gives me something to think about; I just hope I returned the favor.

A Postscript

One of the points that TRP made in his subsequent post was a comparison of MoveOn.org to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth: "...and I'd argue that, unless and until the candidates disavow their tactics, MoveOn represents the Democrats in the same way that Swift Boat Veterans for Truth represented the Republicans..."

This may be nit-picking on both of our parts, but I don't think that this is a fair comparison. I offer into evidence these summations of both MoveOn.org and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

TRP may still disagree with me, but he has challenged me on my assertions before so I thought it only fair to challenge him on one of his.

Democrats, Take Note

We need much more of this!

Demeaning?!?

I challenge anyone out there to explain this to me:



Have I mentioned tonight how much I hate these people?

3 Commercials

You won't see these on TV.

Just In Case You Didn't Know This...

... the Republican Party hearts the Ayatollahs.

Can we finally drop the pretense that these are reasonable people and call them what they are: theocratic fascists?

Why say this anymore?

Yeah, Karl Rove is resigning his position to "spend more time with his family."

To quote Bill the Cat: "Pffffttt!"

Noted Sans Comment

Rep. Virgil Goode's District Office Vandalized








OK, two comments:

1. Vandalism's not cool, 'nkay?
2. Rock on!

38

President Gerald Ford passed away this week and that's very sad for his family and admirers. I don't hold any bad feelings toward the former president, but I find the laudatory overload in the media a bit much. By most accounts, President Ford was an affable and intelligent man who served his country when his country needed him. But I got two rather large problems with this man's legacy:

1. The pardoning of President Nixon was not the best thing for the country, despite what the great wise men of Washington (Broder, Woodward, et. al.) say. It may have calmed things down inside the Beltway, but it brought no closure for the rest of the country. Over thirty years after Nixon left the White House, we are still debating Nixon's conduct. By contrast, consider the OJ trial: other than the occasional celebrity sighting of OJ in some bar or shopping mall, we don't talk about that mess anymore. Why? Because there was a trial and a verdict. No matter how you felt about the outcome of that trial, our legal process was allowed to operate as intended. This allowed the country to move on. President Ford circumvented this process and set one man above the law. That's as un-american as it gets, IMHO. In this light, I don't think it's a stretch to say that Nixon's pardon encouraged and enabled the conduct of the current occupant of the White House.
   
   
2. In 1975, Indonesia occupied East Timor and killed over 200,000 people in the process. What did President Ford have to do with that? Well, he gave the government of Indonesia permission. You can read the high-level details here. You could argue that Kissinger had more to do with this tragedy than Ford, but Ford was president, not Kissinger. Ford could have persuaded the Indonesian government to go a different way, but he did not. The reasons don't matter much to me; those 200,000 dead people do. That blood stains President Ford's hands; I hope that his God is a forgiving one.
   

So, how will I remember President Ford? Fair to middlin', I guess. He may have been kind and intelligent and civil, but he made some large mistakes that still reverberate today. I guess you can say that about most presidents.

Check Out These Speculations

• Pinochet is dead. Good riddance to bad rubbish. He brought terrorism to my hometown in 1976 with the assassination of Orlando Letelier and his aide by a car bomb in downtown D.C.
  
  
• Big Box Stores scare me. I accompanied my Dad to Costco yesterday to pick up a new microwave and assorted other household items. I hadn't been in one of those kinds of stores in several years. Wow. Scary. Too many people. Too many juxtaposed items (meat not more than thirty feet away from garden hoses). Just too much. Call me old fashioned, but I'll gladly go to the grocery store, the hardware store, and the liquor store separately.
  
  
• Baking is upon us in earnest. This weekend, Sweetie mixed together about 5 batches of cookie dough which is now chilling nicely in the fridge. I experimented with my Mom's cranberry cake recipe by baking it in smaller sizes. After two batches, we figured out how to make "mini-cakes" successfully. Look for these in a holiday gift basket near you.
  

"How's your boy?"

Yet another piece of evidence that our current Commander-in-Chief doesn't deserve the title.

"How's your boy?"

Mr. President, with all due respect, stop playing the folksy card. You should know how Mr. Webb's boy is doing -- you sent him over there!

Stupid or Gullible?

Sweetie and I watched last night's "60 Minutes" piece on the new book, "Tempting Faith" (segment and recap can be reached here).
As I listened to Mr. Kuo's comments, two thoughts went through my mind:

1. Well, duh.
   
2. Nice to see that gullibility is alive and well.

As a long-time secularist (but not a fundie secularist) I have been long-offended by the notion that people of my ilk were busy trashing the Christian religion. I hope this book puts that silly notion to rest. I am certain that some of us secularists view the activities of various organized religions with a measure of disdain and/or humor, but at least we haven't been conning religious folks out of their dollars and votes.

I am certain that many of my fellow secularists may think that these evangelical Christians must be dumber than a sack of hair. I disagree. What you are seeing here is gullibility on a massive scale. And I have to doff my derby to the GOP for carrying this charade on for so long. And, if there is a heaven/hell, I do hope that Ralph Reed has his own personal rack reserved.

I am also certain that some of my fellow secularists may laugh heartily at Mr. Kuo's surprise that the GOP was taking advantage of he and his fellow evangelicals. Mr. Kuo, why do you think so many of us become secularists in the first place? Whenever evangelicals raise the roof about gay marriage, abortion, or the loss of God in the schools, all I ever think about is this: What about the poor? I thought that Jesus spoke often about the poor. What happened to the notion of helping the least among us?

I once told an evangelical Christian who was busy trying to convert me that I would gladly join his congregation if they would stop talking about gay marriage and abortion and instead discuss the poor and the downtrodden. He got kind of a curious look on his face as if he had never considered those issues until that moment. I've never forgotten that encounter.

Now perhaps some of you evangelical Christians may fully understand why church and state should be separated. I think Mr. Kuo's gotten the message, at least for now.