Assholes and opinions, or why believing you can't be wrong means you most assuredly are

The older I get, the less I care how various partisans of any persuasion justify their self-centered circular self-glorifying, except insofar as they have the stronger reasoning to support their thoughts.

Outside of that, people are, generally, assholes with opinions. And on the biggest questions, the weaker the opinion, the bigger the asshole, generally.

If you're wondering why some friends of yours are such unshakeable assholes on this or that question it might have something to do with the fact that they lack real confidence in their own thoughts. People with honest confidence engage people who disagree with them humbly. Like they might be wrong. Because anyone honest knows that's the only honest assessment of anyone and what they know and what they don't.

Assholes with unshakeable opinions are assholes because they just can't even consider that might be wrong. And the reason why they can't consider it, generally, is because it's never even occurred to them that it might be a possibility.

Meaning, they're arrogants sons a' bitches. Arrogant meaning scared. And leaning on ego to compensate.

The Greeks call it hubris. But arrogant sons a' bitches will do just fine by me.

I know. I've been one too many times to count. Wonder if I can do anything else, sometimes.

But if there is one thing I've learned it's that to spend one's life trying to prove to the world that you are right, all the time, and that you couldn't possibly be wrong, about anything, no less, is a sad waste of life.

Because it's the surest sign that you're wrong. And about substantially more than just that, too, likely.

Passionate conviction in anything is not the same thing as being right. And noone cares how stridently you assert otherwise. It's not personal. It just ain't. And the truth just doesn't give a shit how strongly you assert something else.

Neither do I. I never really have. But the more I watch so many of the damn fools that make up this fine world - the ones who run it, the ones who wish they did, and then all the rest of us, too - the less seriously I take peoples' opinions. About anything, really. Except as yet one more possibility in a world of possibilities. And a world that just is and doesn't care what any of us think on the matter.

This damn fool race and it's propensity to call it's chauvinism and cruelty and its general wrongheadedness something better than it is. I just got no patience for it anymore.

Except when people really are trying to learn something new, that is.

That's why young people look so full of hope and promise to their elder, stubborn, bitter, meaner fellowtravelers in this world.

Because, luckily, so many of them are still willing to learn a thing or two in this world. Rather than foolishly hitch their wagon to an ego going nowhere.

It's the only honest way to live. Everything else is one long excuse for why we lack the courage to ever admit we might be wrong about anything in this world.

And what a sad fear that is. The fear that I might be wrong.

Because in the end, the one guarantee we have in life is that we most assuredly are. Wrong, that is. On many more questions than we are right.

And that's the beauty. That we have still have so much to learn in this world.

And what a wasted life it is to stop learning in the vain attempt to futily make that fear go away.

And what foolish tragedy is wasted on such stupid pride.

That's the reason why it's the deadliest sin. For those of us obsessed with the ravages of sin on this world. Pride. It's the deadliest sin because it kills so many of us. For no good goddamned reason, to boot.

Perhaps we can work up something better. Because, with certainty, if we don't, we deserve whatever else we choose.

Why partisanship makes fools of us

Can this guy get anymore hysterical and foolish?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Here's a test I bet Keith could handle.

How about you stake your credibility on, 5 years out, checking up on how many of those predictions actually come true. And then be willing to give up policy commitments that flow from that logic.

I got a better challenge for you, Keith.

I'll put my own record against yours and you pay me the proportion of your salary comparable to the difference between the proportion of my predictions that come to pass and the proportion of your predictions that come to pass.

Something tells me your salary would take a serious hit, Keith. I bet I'd take the majority of your salary, Keith.

And it has not a bit to do with what party I vote for or even when.

It has to do with having a more honest heart and mind and knowing what you are doing better.

Partisanship leaves its proponents perpetually defending outlooks that are either wrong, unrealistic, counterproductive, base, mean-spirited, or bad policy, without ever having to be accountable to whether they are ever even right. Because of course they always are. Even when they aren't. Always. Without exception. No matter how much they get it wrong.

Partisanship is foolish, is the truth. It's one long assertion that I'm right every time because all my buddies agree. It's the worst distortion of honest reasoning. And it means literally zero. Any more than any religious partisan claim of spiritual superiority.

It's one long excuse for bullying for a political cause. And, thankfully, it is on the ropes.

What is the alternative?

Thinking for ourselves. And engaging honestly the consciences of those who agree and disagree.

That is the essence of liberal values, liberal education, and liberal democracy. Everything else is distortion. And we are very, very slowly working our way out of that distortion of our most honest values and our humanity.

Liberty is valued in liberal democracies for a reason. Because it best respects the consciences of its citizens.

And political partisanship, like religious partisanship, is one long excuse for why we confuse our ugliest impulses with our strongest values and pretend that they are what we want them to be so we can get our way.

The last 10 years has been one long experiment in illiberalism in the name of liberalism. And it is, thankfully, beginning to unravel itself. Despite ourselves. Exactly how so much of our growth and learning happen, much of the time.

And it is the love and the learning that is the heart of liberal values and liberal education. And what makes liberal democracies more genuinely strong.

Give us this day

Bill Maxwell has an excellent reflection on the King holiday and what it means for blacks and whites and the future of all Americans. It is a similar feeling I have about the legacy of Jesus of Nazareth and so many of my great heroes, and a sentiment that would serve us when honoring any man or woman of greatness.

To honor King, live up to him

Too often people of all backgrounds and beliefs, myself included, prefer the easy way to the harder but better way. And, every time, it has consequences. King stood for something different during a time of great injustice in this country. Our words in his memory or in the memory of any of our great leaders mean little if they are not backed by deeds that take their legacies seriously.

The challenge of humanity is to live up to those legacies that show us a better way to improve ourselves and our lot together. There is and never will be any amount of force or power that will compensate for our failures, in this regard. At best, aggression and force are necessary to defend ourselves or others when no other options really do exist. At worst, aggression is the product of lazy and self-centered impulses at moments when we are unwilling to be better and more genuinely responsible to one another, as someone who has given way to those impulses more times than I can remember.

The challenge of humanity is to be bigger than our more rash, impatient, and self-centered impulses might otherwise offer. Dr. King called on all Americans and all people, black, white, and every other hue that humanity has to offer, to be bigger than our bitterness might call us to be. It was the same message of Jesus of Nazareth, the Buddha, Mohandas Gandhi, and so many of our greatest men and women. Love in the face of hate. Self-sacrafice in the face of avarice and greed. And thoughtful reflection in the face of recklessness and easy answers.

It is the sage advice of those who have paved paths of success and opportunity as much as decency and justice for humanity.

Those who follow it reap its rewards. Those who fail to miss its opportunities.

And no amount of force will ever make that not so.

And, more than most, this man's legacy reminds us of how an important wrong was righted by that wisdom.

Even as our self-centered impulses suggest otherwise.

May we have the wisdom to know the difference.

The legacy of Dr. King

Is is possible, I wonder, that we can spend one day, this year, not pretending that vengeance, spite, pettiness, and the like are our best, our most liberal or our most conservative, our greatest, our strongest of values and legacies?

Is it possible that we could honor this man who committed his life to the love of his fellow man without pretending that our lesser commitments are somehow as good as this good man?

Is is possible for us to be honest, if only for just one day?

And maybe then we could learn to be honest about what constitutes our strongest values as a matter of our lives.

Perhaps, then, we can, in fact, be better, for which pretending can be no substitute.

In service to all, in servitude to none

Ideas, like ideologies and governments, should serve people. Not the other way around.

Anyone who tells you different is seeking to master you. Not serve you.

And any idea, or ideology, or government, or person, or anything, for that matter, that does not serve you is in no position to expect your loyalty or your trust.

No matter how much they demand it.

There's the rub

David Boaz alerts me to Bart Hinkle's column at the Richmond Times-Dispatch which gets underneath many of the troubling contradictions of contemporary progressive politics that make their agenda, as well as the neoconservatives they so loathe, largely incomprehensible.

Neocons, Progressives, and the Impulse to Bully

How About a Little Domestic Soft Power

"There are few things as mystifying as the dissonance of modern American progressivism. And nowhere is that dissonance more apparent than on the bright line dividing foreign and domestic policy.

For the past eight years, the dominant strain of progressive thought railed against neoconservative foreign interventionism. It abhorred the use of coercive hard power -- military might -- to achieve ostensibly desirable goals such as the spread of democracy. Progressives found the promotion of American values through brute force arrogant and even cruel.

Throughout the Bush years, America-the-bully was a leitmotif. 'American Bully Strikes Back,' was the headline on an October 2001 piece in Salon about the war in Afghanistan. 'Leaders who can persuade and convince fare better than those who bully and abuse," wrote H.D.S. Greenway in a 2005 review of Taming American Power, in which he denounced "neoconservative theories of social engineering.' Likewise, The New York Times denounced 'threat and brute force' in the 2007editorial, 'Bullying Iran.'

In a 2008 piece in The Nation about candidate Barack Obama's foreign policy, Robert Dreyfuss observed that 'U.S. involvement abroad, even when well-intentioned, is perceived on the receiving end as heavy-handed meddling.' He even found cause for alarm in the fact that some of Obama's advisers 'are strong advocates of using U.S. military force to intervene in cases of severe violations of human rights, including genocide.'

The progressive notion that American power projection is problematic on moral grounds and dubious on empirical ones remains strong today. In a pre-Christmas piece on The Huffington Post, Tom Englehardt recalls that in 2001 the Bush administration 'had expansive dreams and gargantuan plans. The neocons were 'desperately in love with the U.S. military and complete romantics about what it could do.' Alas, 'in the biggest dreams' we find 'the largest miscalculations.' In a same-day piece for The American Prospect, Ann Friedman despairs at the idea that American firepower can be a force for good in the world: 'To me, the answer is tragically apparent: It doesn't matter whether U.S. military intervention can be a force for humanitarianism because, in Afghanistan, it never has been and won't become one.'

Beyond American shores, progressives much prefer Joseph Nye's doctrine of 'soft power' -- which Foreign Affairs recently summed up as "one country's ability to get other countries to do want what it wants, in contrast to ordering or forcing others to do what it wants.'

Yet turn the subject to domestic policy, and what happens? Progressives eagerly embrace the use of coercive hard power to achieve their aims. Force industry to adopt a cumbersome cap-and-trade policy to reduce carbon emissions? Check. Force the country to adopt a health care 'public option'? Check. Threaten people with fines and even prison to impose an individual mandate? Check.

So much for the concern about 'social engineering' and well-intentioned but 'heavy-handed meddling.' When it comes to domestic policy, progressives are just as eager as neocons are to embrace 'expansive dreams' and 'gargantuan plans.' Just as hopelessly romantic about what the threat of force can achieve. And just as arrogant about the rightness of wielding it. (Writing on the Web site Open Left, for example, Adam Bink defends the individual insurance mandate thusly: 'I don't care if people don't want health insurance . . . .Pay up, folks.')...

...Of course, everything that has just been said about progressives could be turned with equal validity against conservatives of the talk-radio right -- many of whom think Americans should push the rest of the world around, but leave one another the heck alone.

Good luck trying to figure them out, too.

If we could read the secret history of our enemies, we should find in each man's life sorrow and suffering enough to disarm all hostility. --Henry Wadsworth Longfellow"

Hinkle, of course, is right. Good luck getting progressives, or neoconservatives, who have their own troubling dissonances to account for, to own up to the contradiction.

Most people, I've come to conclude, will do almost anything to justify their uses and abuses of power. No matter the depths of hypocrisy they must go to to justify them.

Except for people over whom power is exercised.

And there, as always, is the rub that makes the difference.

All I want for Christmas (is for us to be better, for real)

With so much animus animating the world, not to mention the greed, the envy, the vanity, the wrath, and especially the pride, I have to wonder, sometimes, who the good guys really are.

They are each of us, I hope. And they can only be those among us who can find it within themselves to forgive such a wretched little species. Who else, after all, will help us pick ourselves up after we've torn one another apart?

So self-important, this sad little breed. So full of its own bitterness for the world that, for the most part, it alone has wrought.

Hatred and piety are the strange old standbies of our important differences. But, surely, they are not all that we have to offer. And, just as surely, they are not some blind path we will take for good. Or confuse, for long, as some wave of the future.

I guess I'm disappointed with the world today. A world a significant portion of which will celebrate in a few days the birth and life of a man who offered us a better example.

Even if we do not follow it. And even, thus, if his life and death occurred in vain.

Perhaps he was wrong. Perhaps we can't be better. Because the world is such a dark and dangerous place and we find it just too tempting to use it as an excuse to be as ugly as we see fit, as well.

What a sad and hopeless punctuation mark that would be to our existence. And, perhaps, if that is the path we are choosing we should get about the business of choosing it and be done with it. No sense in lolligagging on our way to self-righteous self-immolation and mutually assured self-destruction.

Seems like such a stupid path for us to take. Given how little good is done. And how many people have and will always be destroyed in its wake.

But maybe that's all we have to offer.

Because it's so much easier than living with an open heart. And the last thing we could expect ourselves to do is the hard thing. Even if it happens to be the only thing that will ever do any real good.

I don't think that's true, personally. And history is both one long record of our inhumanity and serious failures and our propensity towards greater humanity and to be better over time.

I don't know why, exactly, we have this tendency to celebrate our worst impulses before we give way to our better angels. Why empires defend their bloodshed. Why slaveowners defend their holdings. Why Nazis and Communists indulge their power to destroy. Why all of us mock the compassion and decency that recognizes the evil in all of these. Other than the defense we feel for our own touch of evil.

I'm not sure why, exactly, humanity perpetually defends its inhumanity as wiser counsel. Other than to defend itself from honest challenge we feel too weak to accept.

All I know is that it is human. And that respecting and accepting, better, our humanity is more honest than pretending that its frailties only affect those few who failed in this moment.

And all I know is that I am tired of wondering who the good guys are because their animus and destructiveness looks so much like the bad guys.

It's time we put this ugly legacy behind us. So we can all learn to be better. For real. Just like the man said.

Keeping us honest

The most honest and even-handed coverage of the climate debate I've read to date.

When Science Becomes a Casuality of Politics

Be nice if we could learn to stop being such dicks when there are important matters to attend to.

In the meantime, someone's got to keep us honest, at least.

Change you can believe in (or else)

As good a description of the health care bill as I have seen.

Change Nobody Believes In

"And tidings of comfort and joy from Harry Reid too. The Senate Majority Leader has decided that the last few days before Christmas are the opportune moment for a narrow majority of Democrats to stuff ObamaCare through the Senate to meet an arbitrary White House deadline. Barring some extraordinary reversal, it now seems as if they have the 60 votes they need to jump off this cliff, with one-seventh of the economy in tow.

Mr. Obama promised a new era of transparent good government, yet on Saturday morning Mr. Reid threw out the 2,100-page bill that the world's greatest deliberative body spent just 17 days debating and replaced it with a new 'manager's amendment' that was stapled together in covert partisan negotiations. Democrats are barely even bothering to pretend to care what's in it, not that any Senator had the chance to digest it in the 38 hours before the first cloture vote at 1 a.m. this morning. After procedural motions that allow for no amendments, the final vote could come at 9 p.m. on December 24.

Even in World War I there was a Christmas truce.

The rushed, secretive way that a bill this destructive and unpopular is being forced on the country shows that 'reform' has devolved into the raw exercise of political power for the single purpose of permanently expanding the American entitlement state. An increasing roll of leaders in health care and business are looking on aghast at a bill that is so large and convoluted that no one can truly understand it, as Finance Chairman Max Baucus admitted on the floor last week. The only goal is to ram it into law while the political window is still open, and clean up the mess later.

***
Health costs. From the outset, the White House's core claim was that reform would reduce health costs for individuals and businesses, and they're sticking to that story. 'Anyone who says otherwise simply hasn't read the bills,' Mr. Obama said over the weekend. This is so utterly disingenuous that we doubt the President really believes it.

The best and most rigorous cost analysis was recently released by the insurer WellPoint, which mined its actuarial data in various regional markets to model the Senate bill. WellPoint found that a healthy 25-year-old in Milwaukee buying coverage on the individual market will see his costs rise by 178%. A small business based in Richmond with eight employees in average health will see a 23% increase. Insurance costs for a 40-year-old family with two kids living in Indianapolis will pay 106% more. And on and on.

These increases are solely the result of ObamaCare—above and far beyond the status quo—because its strict restrictions on underwriting and risk-pooling would distort insurance markets. All but a handful of states have rejected regulations like 'community rating' because they encourage younger and healthier buyers to wait until they need expensive care, increasing costs for everyone. Benefits and pricing will now be determined by politics.

As for the White House's line about cutting costs by eliminating supposed 'waste,' even Victor Fuchs, an eminent economist generally supportive of ObamaCare, warned last week that these political theories are overly simplistic. 'The oft-heard promise 'we will find out what works and what does not' scarcely does justice to the complexity of medical practice,' the Stanford professor wrote."

And in case you're concerned this is all a right-wing conspiracy, Robert Samuelson from the Washington Post adds his two cents.

Yes, it's all about Obama

"Despite Obama's eloquence and command of the airwaves, public suspicions are rising. In April, 57 percent of Americans approved of his 'handling of health care' and 29 percent disapproved, reports the Post-ABC News poll; in the latest survey, 44 percent approved and 53 percent disapproved. About half worried that their care would deteriorate and that health costs would rise.

These fears are well-grounded. The various health-care proposals represent atrocious legislation. To be sure, they would provide insurance to 30 million or more Americans by 2019. People would enjoy more security. But even these gains must be qualified. Some of the newly insured will get healthier, but how many and by how much is unclear. The uninsured now receive 50 to 70 percent as much care as the insured. The administration argues that today's system has massive waste. If so, greater participation in the waste by the newly insured may not make them much better off.

The remaining uninsured may also exceed estimates. Under the Senate bill, they would total 24 million in 2019, reckons Richard Foster, chief actuary of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. But a wild card is immigration. From 1999 to 2008, about 60 percent of the increase in the uninsured occurred among Hispanics. That was related to immigrants and their children (many American-born). Most illegal immigrants aren't covered by Obama's proposal. If we don't curb immigration of the poor and unskilled -- people who can't afford insurance -- Obama's program will be less effective and more expensive than estimated. Hardly anyone mentions immigrants' impact, because it seems insensitive.

Meanwhile, the health-care proposals would impose substantial costs. Remember: The country already faces huge increases in federal spending and taxes or deficits because an aging population will receive more Social Security and Medicare. Projections the Congressional Budget Office made in 2007 suggested that federal spending might rise almost 50 percent by 2030 as a share of the economy (gross domestic product). Since that estimate, the recession and massive deficits have further bloated the national debt.

Obama's plan might add almost an additional $1 trillion in spending over a decade -- and more later. Even if this is fully covered, as Obama contends, by higher taxes and cuts in Medicare reimbursements, this revenue could have been used to cut the existing deficits. But the odds are that the new spending isn't fully covered, because Congress might reverse some Medicare reductions before they take effect. Projected savings seem 'unrealistic,' says Foster. Similarly, the legislation creates a voluntary long-term care insurance program that's supposedly paid by private premiums. Foster suspects it's 'unsustainable,' suggesting a need for big federal subsidies.

Obama's overhaul would also change how private firms insure workers. Perhaps 18 million workers could lose coverage and 16 million gain it, as companies adapt to new regulations and subsidies, estimates the Lewin Group, a consulting firm. Private insurers argue that premiums in the individual and small-group markets, where many workers would end up, might rise an extra 25 to 50 percent over a decade. The administration and the CBO disagree. The dispute underlines the bills' immense uncertainties. As for cost control, even generous estimates have health spending growing faster than the economy. Changing that is the first imperative of sensible policy.

So Obama's plan amounts to this: partial coverage of the uninsured; modest improvements (possibly) in their health; sizable budgetary costs worsening a bleak outlook; significant, unpredictable changes in insurance markets; weak spending control. This is a bad bargain. Health benefits are overstated, long-term economic costs understated. The country would be the worse for this legislation's passage. What it's become is an exercise in political symbolism: Obama's self-indulgent crusade to seize the liberal holy grail of 'universal coverage.' What it's not is leadership."

There's more in both pieces worth reading. But the most important problem, frankly, with the bill is Democrats' attempt to force Americans to trust legislation that they don't trust to resolve our problems with health care. Without even really listening to the concerns.

The advantage for opponents by this manner of governing is that it makes it all the easier to just kill this thing entirely with a new majority and start completely fresh.

Like Republicans before them, Democrats are about to learn a very serious lesson in governance. If you think that assertions of overwhelming power can trump substantive concerns in a democratic discussion and debate with voters who can elect otherwise, you got another think coming. And voters will throw your asses right out of office until your party gets the message.

Republicans got their message, in part. It will take several cycles.

But illiberal forces who think they can turn the clock backwards on genuine liberal progress, meaning progress that promotes greater liberty and responsibility, are in for a very rude awakening.

Because, as it turns out, Americans like their freedom. When they can finally see more up close and personal what the alternative looks like.

And they like it for good reason. Because for all of our bumbling and failures and, frankly, their creation of most of the problems in the current health care system, Americans are in a better position to make better choices about their health care and how to correct them than the Federal government ever was. And, ultimately, most of the problems in the system will need the kind of changes that only individual Americans can offer for their own lives, and not ones that can be coerced by anyone else.

Americans may not know what will work. But they can get a sense of what won't work. And Americans are right, by my lights, with so many variations of market distortion in this legislation, that this bill will make our health care woes worse, not better.

And what Democrats need to get clear about, right now, is that change you are forced to believe in is not change you will ever really believe in at all.

Big America

Matt Welch says the obvious when he calls out Paul Krugman for the open, unabashed, inconsistently reasoning hypocrit that he is and just happens to make the most promising suggestion for health care reform I have heard to date.

Paul Krugman's Selective Effigies

First on Paul:

"The New York Times columnist on Aug. 7:

Some commentators have tried to play down the mob aspect of these scenes, likening the campaign against health reform to the campaign against Social Security privatization back in 2005. But there's no comparison. I've gone through many news reports from 2005, and while anti-privatization activists were sometimes raucous and rude, I can't find any examples of congressmen shouted down, congressmen hanged in effigy, congressmen surrounded and followed by taunting crowds. [...]

So this is something new and ugly.

Krugman today:

A message to progressives: By all means, hang Senator Joe Lieberman in effigy."

In debate, that's called a double-turn. In life it's called "you really don't know what the fuck you think, do you, except for who you hate?"

Then on the substance of the health care bill:

"Here's a cost-saving reform I've heard of, that's not in there, because the president rejected it at the very beginning of this process: Place individuals on equal tax footing as employers when it comes to purchasing health insurance plans, so that we can transition from the post-WWII Company Man artifact of health-insurance-as-reward-for-employment, to a competition-spurring, cost-reducing model of individuals owning and shopping around for their own policies. In other words, markets, not mandates.

As Peter Suderman keeps pointing out, this plan doubles down on most everything that's bad with the current system. Pretending in the face of mounting evidence that this limping husk of a bill contains every bold reform idea there is might just be one reason why it's not very popular. At some point, people just stop believing you."

That last part is what hits home. It's the part that progressives just can't seem to get clear about, yet. Everyone knows that this bill has no bold new ideas and noone believes that it will fix the problems in the system. Because it is the same old New Deal-era ideas that voters grew skeptical of a long time ago when America first started unraveling the legacy of unintended consequences from both that era of legislation and the experiments of the Great Society back in the 80's and 90's.

And because Americans know in their hearts, for good reason, that it is more freedom, and the responsibility that comes with it, and not more government that are America's most enduring values.

What the political class is having a hard time accepting, right now, is that Americans have confidence in themselves even when their politicians do not.

For good reason. Because it really is the American people and not the American political class that are the source of America's and all liberal democratic peoples' most honest and sustaining progress. Always has been. Always will be.

And no amount of bullshit out of Washington will ever undermine that confidence.

And that's a good thing. Not something to be forced out of existence.

The only people who think different are those who lack the confidence necessary for America to tackle it's difficult health care problems most effectively and honestly.

And who in the world would want those people in charge of the process?

Not Americans, as it turns out. To the chagrin of leftists everywhere. And that is a damned shame.

When it's not a sign of an America bigger than the smaller visions of its political masters.

And I'll take a bigger America over smaller would-be-masters any day of the week.

Making a difference

Had a kid request this Cranberries song, the other day. An era when songs like this one really did make a difference in the world.



This kid's going through a serious Cranberries phase, right now. Can't tell you how much that touches me given how much I loved the Cranberries growing up. Songs like this one and U2's Sunday Bloody Sunday helped create the political climate necessary to end the violence in Northern Ireland. And it moves me, a lot, actually, that a kid at a school for kids not terribly moved by much, except for their own egos, too often, was moved by Dolores and her motley crew on this song and all of their gorgeous music.

And after a long conversation with this kid, I felt like maybe I was making a difference in this job that I haven't felt in quite awhile, actually.

Maybe I am the sum of more than just all my mistakes. Which have been plentiful in my life. And felt mighty weighty this semester.

Perhaps I have something to offer. Perhaps he does. Perhaps we all do.

We shall see.

Maybe we really can do better

How refreshing. Journalism that is moving and big-hearted, rather than petty and small-minded.

Chris Henry, dead at 26, could have been a role model

Be a downright shame, wouldn't it, if everyone aspired to be bigger, like this? World just be a damned mess of violence and mean-spiritedness, pettiness, and narrow-mindedness, and general hard-heartedness if everyone was this soft and compassionate. This decent.

It's a good thing that this generation has finally transcended humanity's long history of indecency and inhumanity. And finally put the compassionate amongst us in their place.

Because the last thing we need is more kids like Chris Henry, and everyone else, for that matter, when we're honest, turning things around. No matter what the cynics, including ourselves, when that's the case, have to say on the matter.

The most important question history offers

When all is said and done, the problem with most of human history is pretty straightforward.

A lot of petty, small-minded people having a hard time facing honestly that it is their smallness and pettiness that has so unhaltingly torn down so many of even their own best intentions. Not to mention their own straightforward self-interest. And, most importantly, everyone else around them.

There is a reason why we study enlightened self-interest in history classes. Looking after others' interests does tend to do good for the person doing the helping as much as for the person being helped.

And much of human history is watching folks who have not figured that out fucking things up for everyone else, including themselves.

And for much of human history that means us, as much as anyone else.

Am I one of those people? Are you?

The most important questions history has to offer that I know of.

The way I am

My second favorite look. Right out of bed. No makeup. Just being herself.



Having an unbelievable voice doesn't hurt either.

Second only to that look of total vulnerability. Love unconditional.

Random reflections on public education and life

I must say, at this point, that there is literally nothing that makes sense to me in public education as it exists today.

So many people making so many decisions for everyone else for so little purpose except to exaggerate their already exaggerated sense of self-importance.

It's strange to me, sometimes, that education, for me, was an opportunity to develop my own sense of independent and critical thought. And that both are so thoroughly discouraged at all levels of education except when it conforms with the predispositions, often ideological and rarely any-other-logical-at-all, of those who have the power to enforce them.

Life, like education, often doesn't make much sense, I think, at this point. Except when the bullshit begins to unravel.

And, then, finally, some real progress can be made.

What progress sounds like

Whether folks know it or not, this is the future.



There are plenty of places in life where we will need to use blunt force because no alternatives really do exist.

But the notion that more force, more recriminiation, more vengeance, more punitiveness, the notion that treating people worse really is the path to progress is just kind of silly and not very serious as a path to genuine progress.

Progress means people getting treated better. Always. Always been so. Will always be so.

And no amount of rationalization otherwise will ever trump that. Ever.

Why? Because treating people like shit has consequences. Consequences we are all dealing with, right now, when we're not bullshitting otherwise.

Political parties, like private citizens, will have to deal with some hard knocks until they get that figured out. But we will definitely be learning those lessons, over time. Why? Because things won't get better until we do.

And, bottom-line, progress means things getting better.

And no amount of the world turning into a shitheap will ever successfully bullshit itself otherwise.

No matter who's shoveling the bullshit.

Progress is people getting treated better. It's people getting more compassionate. Not less. It's people getting more understanding. Not less. It's the world getting better. Not worse.

No matter who bullshits otherwise.

We will be treating one another better. And more responsibility for that and the good things that come with it. Believe that.

Because that's what progress look like.

And this is what progress sounds like.

It's a beautiful future, ain't it?

Yeah, I know. Goddamn gorgeous.

The future is intimidation and fear

The tell-tale line in E.J. Dionne's sloppy and less than honest attempt to synthesize a foreign policy in the Washington Post today.

A Foreign Policy Based on Moral Balance

"But these are the days of European second thoughts: Obama is still interesting, he's still not George W. Bush, but what can he show for his efforts? His Israeli-Palestinian initiative has gone nowhere. The fruits of his new overtures to Iran, Russia and North Korea are far from obvious. Where is the climate change legislation that was supposed to get through Congress?

And why did Obama skip the anniversary celebrations of the Berlin Wall's fall? OK, Europeans say, we understand he sees that the future lies in Asia, but did he have to rub it in? And can't he find at least one European leader to bond with?

In the midst of such complaints and questions, I sat with a group of Americans and Europeans to listen to a live broadcast of Obama's Oslo speech before the opening of a conference organized by the French Institute of International Relations. For me, the address was Obama's answer to his critics, both American and European.

To begin with, the president reminded us why he had seized the imaginations of so many in the first place. The speech was commonly described as a defense of "just war," and it was -- a rigorous, unblinking argument for why violence and the threat of violence can be necessary on behalf of the right and the good."

First of all, if the President thinks that the future lies in Asia, I certainly hope he's referring to Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong and the other genuinely strong economies and liberal democracies in the region. If leftists really think that the future lies in China, they have another think coming. And the world will not only watch that situation unravel until China goes democratic. The world will remember what self-indulgent, self-righteous shitheads in the West rationalized that brutal regime for their own ideological purposes for the rest of our liberal history. If there is anything that leftists could do, right now, to undermine confidence in their ideology, rationalizing the totalitarian impulses of their ideological brethren ranks right up with the list of "what bonehead moves put left-wing ideology in the trash bin of history."

Secondly, and most importantly, if E.J. thinks that violence and the threat of violence are the wave the future, he has a lot of history that he might consult on where that thinking leads us. Because it's been responsible for more bad than good, on balance, by far. And rationalizing that bad in the name of good is exactly what has fucked humanity since it's inception. Might makes right is a line to caution against such thinking, not to reinforce it.

And if E.J. thinks that he has done an endrun around such wisdom because he found the right cause, history will undoubtedly offer a cold shower dose of reality for that kind of arrogance.

In fact, it has.

The unfailingly failing agenda the Obama Administration is exactly the kind of cold shower leftists could use, right now. If they could get honest with themselves, that is.

And the fact that they can't is exactly what Acton meant.

This is why Orwell wrote those books. To help us see through this bullshit.

And we will continue to get the governments we deserve until we do exactly that.

Power and responsibility

If there is anything I have come to realize, sadly, from this period, it is that power, far too often, is an explicit exercise in escaping responsibility, much of the time. It is about blaming someone else for the mistakes of those who have it. It is about the absence of integrity, far too often.

Not always. But too often to count.

That is why Lord Acton was so skeptical of it and those who have it. And he was right. And that kind of corruption does not discriminate based on ideology or party or any other factor other than the independent integrity of those involved. And even that is not too difficult to compromise with enough muscle. Which is why people do it. No matter how much it builds dishonesty - dishonesty, especially, about the effectiveness of governing efforts - into government.

It doesn't have to be that way. But we'd have to get more honest for it to change. And the most important bit of honesty would be admitting the limits of power to improve our lives.

One day, perhaps. Until then. We get the government we vote for.

And thank our lucky stars that we have opposition parties, checks and balances, and all the ways that we can check and challenge power in liberal democracies to make them more liberal and more genuinely democratic, as we move forward more honestly.

In the meantime, we live with the consequences of the lies we tell ourselves and one another in lieu of something more honest.

And we move, hopefully, toward a day when we can be more honest and compassionate, and everything that is entailed with more genuine progress.

Coming to terms

I'm coming to terms, today. With failure. And tragedy.

In my case, it's a bigger picture failure and tragedy. Not mine, personally, necessarily. Although there's plenty of that to face, as well. Just coming to terms with the limits of my efforts.

If there is one overriding concern in my life it is helping people understand just how much people are capable of in their lives. Just how capable humanity is, if we were decide to fulfill that potential.

Most people can have great lives, is the truth. Lives they love. Lives with lots of love and deep fulfillment, and plenty of everything they might need or want.

There are people whose destinies are more genuinely limited by circumstances beyond their control. Iranians or North Koreans who cannot escape the prisons that are their respective countries. People who suffer any multitude of tragedies - AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, cancer - that they have limited ability to halt. People who have life experiences that they cannot predict or control - murder or murder of a family member, accidental death or disease, and losses of every conceivable source - that they are unable, for various reasons to prevent.

There are people who experience tragedy that they cannot do anything about.

But most of us don't.

Most of us have circumstances that can be changed, knowledge that can be discovered, and relationships that can be improved.

Most misery in the world, truth be told, is foolish drama borne of people all too limited in their understanding, of the world and of themselves, and all too prone to aggression and control and any number of all too human, mistaken, foolish reactions to their circumstances that often have unintendended consequences. More often than not, sometimes.

I am one of those people. Too many times to count, in fact. I will be tomorrow, too. And the day after that. And the day after that, as well. All of us are. All of us will be. From here until our funny, tragic little species ends its run on this earth.

Most of our conflicts have reasonable and honest resolutions. If we decide to resolve them, that is. Most of our problems have reasonable and honest solutions. If we decide to seek them out.

Our problem, humanity's problem, generally, is that, far too often, we decide we are too frustrated and impatient, too angry and disillusioned, too self-involved, frankly, to seek such resolutions. That they are unworthy of our effort or commitment or whatever excuse we have today for why we just choose not to do anything real about our concerns and instead opt for momentary feelings of self-satisfaction over real and honest resolution of important concerns over time.

Our most foolish problems, frankly, as far as I'm concerned, are the the ones that involve conflicts between one another that can only be resolved with more understanding, of the people as much as of the problems, that we instead choose to engage in any variation of aggression, manipulation, or attempts to dominate and control of one another so accustomed we are to our more aggressive and less thoughtful natures.

I've come to terms with the fact that there are any number of people in the world that could be more genuinely happy, have their needs more honestly met, even have many of their wants more satisfied while having their deepest needs fulfilled, if only they would learn to treat themselves and one another better and learn more about the world and one another than fight and overpower one another.

But, in the meantime, there is much pointless tragedy. And failure.

We can and likely will get this turned around, at some point. It will take much time. Much failure. Much useless tragedy. Just as it always has. Enough failure eventually creates opportunity for learning, if we will take up that opportunity.

Who knows. We shall see.

In the meantime. Much avoidable failure and tragedy. My own as much as anyone else's.

And so our story goes. Human history. A story of failure and tragedy that finally yields, for some, to learning and progress. And the freedom to translate that learning into real progress.

But, for now. Failure and tragedy. My own included.

Same as it ever was.

Let's hope it leads somewhere more hopeful.

In the meantime, enjoy some Ingrid.

Force as a governing philosophy, the death throws

It's ironic, isn't it?

That it is ordinary students and ordinary people in Iran, a country that really believes in force as a governing philosophy and practices it more brutally and without conscience than most governments and countries in the world that are making the most courageous and open challenges to this ugliness?

Iran cracks down on dissent in universities

That it is Americans and activists, political leaders, and other citizens of freer and more comfortable liberal democracies who are rationalizing force as a governing philosophy most publicly, right now?

Goes to show.

Progress has not a damn thing to do with power. To the contrary, progress is when people find the courage to stand up to overwhelming shows of force for the cause of freedom.

This philosophy needs to die for good. The 20th century, and really most of world history, is one long indictment of this philosophy in all of its variants.

And it is people thousands of miles away in a country unfamiliar with the ways of freedom and more honest democracy who are demonstrating for the rest of us what courage really looks like.

And if we aren't going to lead, the least we can do is have the decency to follow. Or get out of the way.

And offer support to those with that kind of courage, even if we struggle to find it within ourselves.

My favorite look

Am I the only man who thinks that women look most attractive when they feel genuinely loved?



And when they have genuine love to offer?

When they can trust that love? And when they can trust the men who offer it?

I want a woman who can trust me enough to have that look for the rest of her life.

I love seeing a woman at ease with herself and with life.



My number one job in life is to make it real.

For everyone in my life. As much as humanly possible. But especially for the woman in my life.

Because I love that look.

When a woman loves without hesitation.

Because she can trust the man she loves.

And trusts her own heart enough to love him back unconditionally.

My favorite look.

Final sign of the impending apocalypse

It's official. We're all going to hell.



Hope everyone brought their sunscreen.

In political news today

So much ego. So little to show for it.

Story at 11.

Why cynicism is for losers

Why not marry an asshole, if they're pretty or rich enough?

Because who wants to be around an asshole all the time?

Other assholes, that's who.

Enjoy assholes.

It's all yours.

What kind of nation are we gonna be?

A nation of thugs? Or a nation of decent people?

Reading the coverage of the President Obama's commitment to Afghanistan, I am struck by what dicks populate this great country of ours.

At a moment when Afghanis and American soldiers need us to stand behind the brave efforts of folks risking their lives to challenge an Afghan future dominated by Islamist thugs, all Americans can do is snipe.

Why? Because the effort is unworthy? Because President Obama is a socialist determined to make America weak? Because conservatives are warmongers who want more Afghanis dead to appease their lust for American imperial power?

Obviously not. To everyone except the most self-centered and self-righteous.

The reason why we are sniping, the reason why so much of our politics is poisoned and dysfunctional right now is pretty straightforward.

It's because we're a nation of assholes.

Or maybe we're a nation pretending to be assholes. It's hard to keep track, these days. And instead of being honest about that, we've decided to pretend that not giving a shit and indulging our pettiest, ugliest, most self-centered impules really is the future of America and the world.

Simple question.

Since we started down this road - this road of who can be the biggest asshole to make all our problems go way - what's gotten better?

Where? Can you name one place where things have gotten better being a bigger asshole?

I can't. We've become a bunch of sniping, petty, small-minded dicks, is what we've done.

All while pretending that being sniping, petty, small-minded dicks really is the best that humanity has to offer.

It's fuckin' sad is what it is. A bunch of tough characters whining about how the world doesn't share my particular brand of sanctimony. It's goddamn embarrassing, is what it is.

Weak, I believe is the term for it.

Because being an asshole is weak. It's cowardly. It's one long excuse for why someone can't face up to why they're being a dick. And that being a dick in the name of a cause is still being a dick. Largely because it's one long excuse for why I don't have to listen or engage people who disagree with me because I'm right all the time. Caring about others and what they think just weakens my resolve to make them do my bidding whether they fuckin' like it or not. Not because I'm a dick, mind you. Just because I know better than you and everyone else.

In other words, because I'm a dick. Because I'm too weak to admit that none of the above is, ever has been, or ever will be true of anyone. Ever. Not ever. Never has been and never will be. No matter my protestations meant to make it look like I'm that guy or gal to the contrary.

So far, America and the world has been pretending that being a nation or a world of assholes really was what the brighter future held.

It's kind of stupid, really, when you step away and stop defending it. But that's the road we took. To defend our own brand of assholes, obviously. To take down the other guys' assholes. Who defend their assholes, of course, to take down our assholes. And round and round we go.

It's a fucking' joke, is what it is.

Real courage doesn't operate this way.

Real courage defends against aggression, for real. It doesn't rationalize it for ourselves. Real courage gets more compassionate and loving. Including for our tendencies to become bigger assholes. It doesn't adopt assholedom as a philosophy of life or politics.

The only people who do that are assholes.

So the question in front of us is: Are we going be go on being a nation of assholes? Or are we going to be a nation of decent people? Are we going to keep taking up for the assholes? Or are we going to get more honest about what consequences this attitude has had in the world?

I care about assholes, is the truth. As much as anything, because I've been one enough times in my life. And most people I know have been one at one point in their lives. Without exception, really.

But I'm not going to go around pretending that this is the way things are supposed to be.

And I can't feel anything but damned disappointed and embarrassed by a country that would behave otherwise.

So while we choose whether we are going to help Afghanis defend themselves against Islamist goons or not, and defend ourselves against their buddies, in the process, we also need to make another choice.

We're doing this all in the name of what?

So we can look more like them?

Or less like them?

And more like our best selves?

That is the fundamental choice America faces right now.

And I have some confidence, that we have the courage to choose the path of greater understanding, compassion, and decency. And respect for the consciences of those around us. Where real strength lies. And what distinguishes us from the murderous thugs we're fighting.

Because everything else looks fuckin' weak to me.

Little children with big sticks

Constantly fucking up. But never, ever wrong.

The perils of being commander in chief

"In an open letter to Obama on his Web site Monday, liberal activist Michael Moore wrote that by increasing troops in Afghanistan, 'you will do the worst possible thing you could do -- destroy the hopes and dreams so many millions have placed in you.'

'With just one speech tomorrow night,' Moore continued, 'you will turn a multitude of young people who were the backbone of your campaign into disillusioned cynics. You will teach them what they've always heard is true -- that all politicians are alike.'"

Or perhaps some leftists might rethink the idea that they are never wrong ever. About anything, no less.

We are such a stupid and goofy species, most of the time. Little children with big sticks. We beat enough people with them, we begin to believe that our sticks make everything right. And everything is right because of our sticks. And round and round we go with such foolishness like kids in angry bumper cars.

It's so funny to watch my favorite species of special people shirk off greater wisdom for the immediate gratification of egos in desperate need of attention. Might makes right. Revenge best served cold. And my personal favorite.

I always have the right answers.

Well. Thank goodness for that. I suppose we can all sleep well, now, that every single one of us, all in contradiction, to boot, have all the right answers. And the sticks to prove it.

What a bunch of dumbasses we all are. Lovable little dumbasses.

Constantly fucking up.

But never, ever wrong.

Come to think of it. Story of my life.

Bound to fail

Sometimes I don't know what's wrong with me or humanity. Often, we seem bound and determined to rationalize all of our ugliest impulses, to create a resigned and tragic fate for ourselves. On the alter of our own pride, of course.

One day back from Thanksgiving and I'm baraged, again, with news of a world determined to fail, I think. Or, more accurately, determined not to take responsibility for its failure.

Nice thing about a free society is that you end up looking like a fool if you persist down that path. Even if you are a major world power.

I think I just need someone to love and to watch the fireworks as we all go down in flames. Either that or watch us take a turn for the better.

Eventually it's got to be the latter.

The question, now, is how long will we fail before we acknowledge it to ourselves honestly.

Not too long, I hope.

Lot of good things to do in the world.

The way forward

The New York Times, of all publications, offers a piece that points us in the direction of more genuine progress. (Anyone who knows me well must realize what an astonishing thing that is to come from my keyboard. Let's just say the Times won't be getting a Christmas card from me this year.)

This is what those liberal democratic values, liberal and conservative, are all about.

Right and Left Join Forces on Criminal Justice

"In the next several months, the Supreme Court will decide at least a half-dozen cases about the rights of people accused of crimes involving drugs, sex and corruption. Civil liberties groups and associations of defense lawyers have lined up on the side of the accused.

Edwin Meese III, a former attorney general, once referred to the American Civil Liberties Union as part of the 'criminals' lobby,' but on this issue, he says, he is willing to work with the group.

But so have conservative, libertarian and business groups. Their briefs and public statements are signs of an emerging consensus on the right that the criminal justice system is an aspect of big government that must be contained.

The development represents a sharp break with tough-on-crime policies associated with the Republican Party since the Nixon administration.

'It’s a remarkable phenomenon,' said Norman L. Reimer, executive director of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. 'The left and the right have bent to the point where they are now in agreement on many issues. In the area of criminal justice, the whole idea of less government, less intrusion, less regulation has taken hold.'

Edwin Meese III, who was known as a fervent supporter of law and order as attorney general in the Reagan administration, now spends much of his time criticizing what he calls the astounding number and vagueness of federal criminal laws.

Mr. Meese once referred to the American Civil Liberties Union as part of the 'criminals’ lobby.' These days, he said, 'in terms of working with the A.C.L.U., if they want to join us, we’re happy to have them.'

Dick Thornburgh, who succeeded Mr. Meese as attorney general under President Ronald Reagan and stayed on under President George Bush, echoed that sentiment in Congressional testimony in July.

'The problem of overcriminalization is truly one of those issues upon which a wide variety of constituencies can agree,' Mr. Thornburgh said. 'Witness the broad and strong support from such varied groups as the Heritage Foundation, the Washington Legal Foundation, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the A.B.A., the Cato Institute, the Federalist Society and the A.C.L.U.'

In an interview at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative research group where he is a fellow, Mr. Meese said the 'liberal ideas of extending the power of the state' were to blame for an out-of-control criminal justice system. 'Our tradition has always been,' he said, 'to construe criminal laws narrowly to protect people from the power of the state.'

There are, the foundation says, more than 4,400 criminal offenses in the federal code, many of them lacking a requirement that prosecutors prove traditional kinds of criminal intent.

'It’s a violation of federal law to give a false weather report,' Mr. Meese said. 'People get put in jail for importing lobsters.'

Such so-called overcriminalization is at the heart of the conservative critique of crime policy. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce made the point in a recent friend-of-the-court brief about a federal law often used to prosecute corporate executives and politicians. The law, which makes it a crime for officials to defraud their employers of 'honest services,' is, the brief said, both 'unintelligible' and 'used to target a staggeringly broad swath of behavior.'

The Supreme Court will hear three cases concerning the honest-services law this term, indicating an exceptional interest in the topic.

Harvey A. Silverglate, a left-wing civil liberties lawyer in Boston, says he has been surprised and delighted by the reception that his new book, 'Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent,' has gotten in conservative circles. (A Heritage Foundation official offered this reporter a copy.)

The book argues that federal criminal law is so comprehensive and vague that all Americans violate it every day, meaning prosecutors can indict anyone at all.

'Libertarians and the civil liberties left have always had some common ground on these issues,' said Radley Balko, a senior editor at Reason, a libertarian magazine. 'The more vocal presence of conservatives on overcriminalization issues is really what’s new.'

Several strands of conservatism have merged in objecting to aspects of the criminal justice system. Some conservatives are suspicious of all government power, while others insist that the federal government has been intruding into matters the Constitution reserves to the states.

In January, for instance, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in United States v. Comstock, about whether Congress has the constitutional power to authorize the continued confinement of people convicted of sex crimes after they have completed their criminal sentences.

Then there are conservatives who worry about government seizure of private property said to have been used to facilitate crimes, an issue raised in Alvarez v. Smith, which was argued in October.

'A joint on a yacht, and the whole thing is forfeited,' said Paul Cassell, a law professor at the University of Utah and a former federal judge appointed by President George W. Bush.

Some religious groups object to prison policies that appear to ignore the possibility of rehabilitation and redemption, and fiscal conservatives are concerned about the cost of maintaining the world’s largest prison population.

'Conservatives now recognize the economic consequences of a criminal justice leviathan,' said Erik Luna, a law professor at Washington and Lee University."

After many dark years of backsliding in America and liberal democracies, this is a sign of the light at the end of the tunnel.

Progress in liberal democracies means we become more liberal, not more repressive. It means we become more committed to our own values. No matter what uglier impulses we betray in the meantime.

Our recriminatory, illiberal impulses are what animate the long record of tragedy that is the history of humanity.

This is what distinguishes us from mobsters, terrorists and despots. This is what makes all of us, liberal and illiberal, better people.

Finally, a beginning of the end to this dark, vengeful path.

May we all be forgiven our trespasses.

True colors

Jonathan Cohn lets slip his true colors in this really revealing piece of the attitudes of too many leftists, and conservatives, and so many folks, sadly.

Should We Laugh? Cry? Both?

"To be sure, Liberals can flex their muscle, too. Bernie Sanders made very clear, in his own statements over the weekend, that he wasn’t guaranteeing to give his vote--particularly if conservative Democrats (and former Democrats) extract even more concessions.

Sanders is right to play hardball like this, but, at the end of the day, it’s hard to imagine he’d cast the vote to kill health care reform. He simply cares too much about the people even a weakened bill would help. The same goes for Sherrod Brown, who’s emerging as a leading voice for progressives. Their interest in helping their fellow man is, in strategic terms, a great weakness."

You see, for too many leftists, as, sadly, with too many conservatives, and just pricks of all stripes, genuine concern for others cannot be interpreted as anything other than weakness.

Why?

Because it helps Jonathan sleep at night knowing that he's such a shithead. Oh, and giving a shit gets in the way, apparently, of the exercise of overwhelming power.

It couldn't possibly be that Jonathan Cohn is a sanctimonious, self-centered prick who can't even imagine that he might be wrong, on this or any other issue. You know. Exactly the type of guy that folks like Baron de Montesquieu, James Madison, and Lord Acton were trying to check and keep away from power.

This guy's got to be a real winner as a husband and father, doesn't he?

"Sorry, honey. I can't make love tonight. It demonstrates weakness."

Or maybe you're just a dumbass, Jonathan, who can't quite face the fact that your poor policies and means are getting your ass beat in the last and next election.

Hmm. What do you call proud dumbasses who keep losing because they don't give a shit about people?

Weak. That's what I fuckin' call them. You know. Folks who whine like a little bitch while they're losing because they can't acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, it's them.

Jonathan doesn't want to look weak. So he whines like a little pussy about how his weak-ass, cowardly efforts to force Americans to take on obligations they think are a bad idea are not persuasive enough to win public support.

In every circle I've ever swam in that is called weak.

Hitler was weak like this.

And that little bitch lost, motherfucker.

You will too, Jonathan.

Except, like every other motherfucker who has espoused force as a governing philosophy, noone will give two shits when you eat dirt.

Because you're such a fuckin' prick, that's why.

And you deserve to eat some topsoil.

Enjoy, Jonathan. From the bottom of my heart. Enjoy.

The heart of the matter

Jim Hoagland finally gets to the heart of the matter.

Awash in Unintended Consequences

"Israel's long occupation of Palestinian territory has helped produce the cynicism and weak leadership on both sides that confound would-be international shapers of peace and moral rectitude. Outsiders cannot resolve this conflict: Only an Israeli decision to end that occupation in fast order can lead to the security Israelis need and deserve, and the dignity Palestinians seek through a state of their own. That is the broader, more vital decision that Netanyahu needs to make."

It is a bit more complicated than that. Israelis will need a security partner in Palestine who will cooperate in arresting or killing terrorists who will not end their murder of Israelis. Palestinians need a state. The two states will need to develop workable ways to share Jerusalem, religious sites, scarce water resources, etc. Security will be needed for those Israelis who settle in Palestine and Israeli settlers should be put on notice that they settle at their own risk. Israelis will need to address right to return issues for Palestinians with family members murdered and forced from their homes in Israel.

And much time and healing will need to take place. A truth and reconciliation process like the one in South Africa and East Timor might facilitate this better.

But the truth is that the heart of the matter in the Middle East as in most difficult political issues is for people to have the courage to do the hard thing rather than fiddling around the edges of the cowardice of those who posture as tough in lieu of the genuine courage that would end their ugly legacies.

This is the heart of the matter on almost every political issue, is the truth. Various partisans not wanting to face honestly their ugly and abusive legacies and the bitterness and cycles of recrimination they inspire.

And the situation in the Middle East symbolizes the cowardice and failures of the world at large better than any issue we face today.

There is only one way through. A commitment to a resolution. And nothing else will ever, ever, ever end the murderous and tragic legacy that Palestinians and Israelis have heaped on one another until they decide to seek resolution of the pain that a hundred years of murder and tragedy has inflicted on their populations.

And the truth is that doing so takes courage that most people in the world, right now, nevertheless in Israel and Palestine, have rationalized that they just cannot find in their hearts.

While they watch the world burn down around them in consequence.

The only way through is the path of courage. On every issue. From here until the end of humanity.

And the path of courage is one of freedom, of conscience, and of our highest liberal ideals, an end to the legacy of manipulation and intimidation and power as a means of circumventing more honest resolution of each of these very serious matters of the heart.

Until Israelis and Palestinians find the courage to forgive their murderous pasts, their family, friends and neighbors will continue to die on the alter of their cowardice.

The same is true of most very serious matters of the heart in the world today. As Jim's headline alludes to, until we face the very sad and ugly unintended consequences of our legacy of trying to force resolutions that only genuine commitments of the heart can honestly resolve, we will continue to fail on almost every single major and minor issue we confront.

All so we do not have to face our own cowardice.

It is sad. Tragic, in the case of Israel and Palestine.

But it is not hopeless.

Because no matter how long we fail to make the more honest choice, the choice of courage sits in front of us like a child waiting patiently for its mother to claim it.

We just need to decide if we will choose the path of courage or not.

And, until we do, we can expect to reap what we sow and live with the consequences, in the meantime.

That is the heart of the matter.

May we choose wisely.

I'm alive

Be just terrible, wouldn't it, if everyone worked together this way? World just be awful if people treated each other decent, like this.

Thanks, Kenny. Thanks, Dave.

This was what I needed right now.



We definitely needs to tell the cynics to go to hell, to muck things up down there and to leave the rest of us alone.

And we need to give up the cynicism, frankly, that creates so much unnecessary tragedy in the world.

But, in the meantime, this is the sentiment I needed going into Thanksgiving. This is the why we celebrate, after all.

Giving a shit about one another. Even when folks are bound and determined otherwise.

Time to appreciate one another for a bit.

Same as it ever was

I'm taking charge. I'm just not taking responsibility.

The oldest philosophy in the book.

Choose wisely

Which is it gonna be? Freedom? Or repression?

Muslim countries seek international blasphemy ban

Choose wisely.

Christmas Song

My new roommate, an old friend from my speech and debate days, just introduced me to my new favorite Christmas song.

I'm sure I'm the last person on earth to hear it. But if you haven't heard it, you might check it out.



What this season and the legacy of the man it celebrates is all about.

Question

How's all that vengeance and recrimination goin'?

Discuss amongst ya'selves.

And that's all she wrote

I have to say that watching the last 10 years of politics in America and in the world, I have no doubts whatsoever in Lord Acton's wisdom.

He was right. Power corrupts. Period. And that is all she wrote.

Power is one long lie, sadly and typically, for why I cannot even consider admitting that I might be wrong that my efforts to use force, to bully and intimidate my friends and neighbors, except to prevent physical violence and, even then, when no other alternatives literally exist, are foolish and tragic efforts to get my way, no matter how much damage is done to both my and their larger purposes and to my and their sense of dignity and self-respect.

Power generally becomes one long justification for why I can and should impose as much tragedy for whatever purposes I please. No matter how much it hurts the people I impose upon and their efforts to improve their lives and the lives others.

And noone is immune. Period.

And, as with sin, the people to be most concerned about are those who believe they are incapable of its corruption. Especially those who would use power to remove sin, and all inevitable mistakes of life, from human existence.

Those who claim they are immune are not only wrong, their use of power becomes one long justification for their conceit in the matter, almost without exception.

And that's all she wrote.

And you know why I still remain hopeful.

Because every single man, woman, and even children who covets and holds power as inevitably falls. Every single one. Without exception.

As it should be.

And, over time, the romanticism of aggression to resolve human conflicts in lieu of more honest appeals to conscience gives way to a recognition that the ugly reality it imposes is far more dangerous than our fears about the absence of its use.

It is the only honest standard for progress, in fact.

And, deep down, we all know that is true. Because the yearning for freedom is univeral in every man, woman, and child. And it is universal because it is a necessary condition for our learning and growth, which is the only honest measure of our progress. No matter our fears to the contrary.

Lord Acton was right. And all of his contemporary, self-important challengers are wrong. Every one of their protests to the contrary.

Think that ideas are not as powerful as the use of force? Think that power trumps better conceptions of people and the world?

Watch. And learn.

And ask yourself whether it is force of the Roman Empire or the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, the might of the British Empire or the ideas of men like John Stuart Mill, Lord Acton, James Madison, and Baron de Montesquieu, the legacy of American imperialism and unchallenged American power or the wisdom of Mark Twain, Martin Luther King, Mohatma Ghandi, Desmond Tutu, Mohammed Yunus, Shirin Ebadi, and the like that is standing and will stand the tests of time.

Military and legal force can achieve important and limited purposes. But without a respect for those limitations - namely, a respect for the liberty and self-determination of individuals except when engaged in physical violence against others - those purposes are regularly undermined. Including and especially the purpose of encouraging compassionate, moral, and responsible learning and development. And the behemoth that is American power in the 21st century demonstrates that fact of human existence as clearly as any example today.

And the fact that most students of political life know Lord Acton and his wisdom, even if they have not fully internalized or acknowledged its implications for their own adventures with power, demonstrates the much more substantial power of the marketplace of ideas and free thought and action to correct for the very serious mistakes of power that Americans and most peoples of the world commit today.

And there will never be any real progress ever until that legacy is corrected. And a thriving human race will not be fully realized without it being fully corrected. Ever.

As long as that takes.

And that's all she wrote.

We've got work to do.

Fucked up

I've never been the kind of guy who school was something I just had to do but hated. In general, I've been someone who loved school, warts and all. I've had my problems with school, of course. As everyone does. But, when push came to shove, I generally enjoyed studying and learning more than most people. Still do.

When I was a senior in high school, my school won the state basketball championship. So our senior class had a senior gyp day to commemorate the honor. Virtually all of my fellow seniors left school that afternoon, except for me. I was in a child care class, in preparation for a teaching career. And I went and took care of the kids while all my friends took the afternoon off.

I just liked school more than most people.

Until now.

With all the Federal, state, and local legislation. With No Child Left Behind and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and every layer of bureaucracy I face at the local, state, and federal levels, as a teacher. For the first time in my life, I'm really beginning to hate school.

With all the bureaucracy and all the implicit leveraging behind them, I am, for the first time, beginning to hate being somewhere that I have organized my whole life around, I loved it so much.

It's really fucked up is what it is.

To take something someone loves and to fuck it all up. Because you care more about controlling them than just letting them do what they love.

For three weeks, I've been really hating my job, and all the bullshit that goes along with it, for this reason. The more people around me act this like is the way things are supposed to be, the less I want to be a part of it.

And you know what the really fucked up thing is about it? Most of those people never have and likely never will love education the way I have. It's a job for them. Or it was something they had to put up with until it was out of the way.

It was never like that for me.

Until now. Fucked up.

And I've gotten to a point where I don't even care anymore. I just want out. I want to support myself independently and just get away from people until they learn to stop twisting my arm to do something I already love so their egos can feel more secure that they are responsible for my efforts than I am. It's a really fucked up way to think about others, really. And I am tired of being subject to it, is the truth.

And now I just want a life of independent work so I can avoid it all as much as possible.

And let someone else let everyone else bully them into their own warped sense of how education and the world should work.

All so they can avoid the real challenges that come with an honest liberal education. And learning to reason better through life.

Do as I say, not as I do (or go directly to jail)

It's really the most bullshit part of the current health care legislation.

Pelosi: Jail time "very fair" for failing to buy your patriotic Obamacare coverage



Bill Clinton and Michael Moore don't take care of their own health. But they lead the campaign to put people in jail who don't buy insurance to take care of theirs, even if they don't need or want it.

Oh, and these are liberals, by the way. In case you'd lost track. Liberals are the folks who put people in jail who decide they don't want health insurance, or who are homeless, or who otherwise inconvenience them. Or really anything they disagree with these days.

Because that's what liberals are. Liberals are people who put people in jail or who bully and intimidate people who disagree with them. In case you had any questions what it meant to be liberal.

That is, of course, what it means to be a liberal, as anyone who has ever been one knows. It's what the term liberal means.

To put people in jail who disagree with you.

Could be the opposite. I've lost track myself.

George Orwell, I'm pretty sure, would have something to say about this political period. And I'm fairly certain it would not be flattering.

All I know is that liberal kid I was not too terribly far back would not recognize this as liberalism at all.

To be a liberal meant to be compassionate and thoughtful, when I was growing up. It was the reason why I admired such people when I was growing up.

And legislation like this health care proposal demonstrates just how much liberalism has turned away from its original and strongest principles.

So enamoured they've become of power.

Because that's what a liberal is. Someone who covets power. Because too little power to fix our problems is exactly what has ailed the world for most of its history. And liberals were the folks who finally figured that out.

Power enobles, as one famous liberal once said. And absolute power enobles absolutely.

And now, finally, we can make the progress that all that power makes possible.

Attention dicks of the world: Back the fuck up

The worst fate is to not just be repetitive. It's for your endless loop of redundancy to be unendingly wrong.

This is no time to kowtow to China

John Bolton is right that we should stop acting like China's totalitarian Communist regime is stronger than it really is. And that's about where it ends.

What John can't get figured out, right now, is that most people thought he was kind of dick when he was in office for a reason.

Because he is kind of a dick.

And it hasn't quite occurred to John, at this point, that he and his boss were removed for exactly that reason. For being dicks.

So how does John respond to that sequence of events?

"I must not be a big enough dick."

Sound more and more like a leftist every day, Mr. Bolton. In fact, you sound much more like that Chinese Communist leadership than you would ever want to admit. Which is appropriate. Because that's what so many leftists want to sound like, as much as possible, these days. Just so everyone knows they're serious.

Trick is, everyone knows they're serious. We just don't give a shit.

Because Americans don't back down to intimidation easily. That's what makes us Americans, you fuckin' prick.

Dicks is dicks. And they can all eat a dick. And we will take them down, one by one, until they get the fuckin' message.

Or until they aren't a concern, at all. Whether they get the fuckin' message or not.

Intimidating your way to failure

John Judis just doesn't get it.

Anti-Statism in America

"Where the Obama administration has stumbled is in handling the Republicans in Congress. In its eagerness to avoid attacks from business and conservative Republicans, and to win over the few Republican moderates, the White House has appeared willing to ditch significant parts of its reform program, including the public option from its health care bill and strict regulation of derivatives from its financial-reform proposal, even though these kinds of measures have remained popular among the public.

The White House has also mishandled liberal and left-wing movements when they have run ads against wayward Democrats who appeared unwilling to back the administration’s reform agenda. Generally, the White House has tried to discourage them from taking positions independent of the administration’s. And it has thrown its support to Organizing for America, a quasi-political machine that grew out of the campaign and that is united by its loyalty to Obama rather than by its support for liberal reform. That’s a mistake. Obama and the Democrats need active, unruly, and independent pressure from the left to combat Republican conservatives, intimidate Democratic fence-sitters, and persuade business that, if it doesn’t back Obama’s reforms, it could face much more radical measures.

Still, with these exceptions, Obama and the Democratic leadership in Congress have done well under conditions that are not as favorable for reform as they seemed in January. Obama and the Democrats understand not only the opportunity for reform, but also the long-standing ideological obstacles they face in obtaining it, and they have adopted a strategy of dividing business and framing their proposals as market reforms. If they continue to do so, and if they are not scared off by pressure from the right, they should succeed in getting a health care bill and new financial regulations. A climate-change bill will be more difficult but not impossible, as long as they can keep the voting public focused on the specifics of liberal reform rather than the atmospherics of ideological conservatism."

What John Judis just can't get through his thick fuckin' skull is that it is exactly this kind of bullshit and intimidation into trusting government more than it has earned parading around as something more honest that is leading independent voters like myself to vote for Republicans and let Democrats eat some serious fuckin' dirt.

We know you're game, shithead. We're voting against it, moron. You're just too stupid and stubborn to face up. And so be it. So you lose. Boo-fucking-hoo, you fuckin' bully.

"I'm so fuckin' scared that my ideas suck - which they do, as it turns out - that I can't even have an honest discussion and debate about them. Because that might expose how little substance there is to my thinking.

And my ego and my power to bully on this and all such matters is far more important than getting to better ideas.

Because being a shithead for a favored cause is just how things are done. And always have been. And nothing's going to change that."

Except for elections, you stupid arrogant fuck.

Note to John Judis and all leftists:

Maybe it's you.

Either way, you are losing. And for good reason.

Whether you will ever be able to admit that you are wrong about anything, at all, ever in your lives, or not.

In the meantime, the good guys will win. Bank on that.

No matter whether you ever get over yourselves or not.

Americans took care of one arrogant President. We'll take care of you, too.

And every single son-of-a-bitch who doubts that freedom is what America is all about.

Doubt that?

Watch, motherfucker.

Courage or cowardice and the stakes in Afghanistan

Boris Johnson, conservative mayor of London, makes plain the stakes in Afghanistan.

To abandon Afghanistan now would be a betrayal of the fallen

"We are there with the Americans not just because it is our function to be their loyal lieutenant, the fidus Achates of Washington. We are there with the Americans in Afghanistan because the Americans are right to be there. We are there because our forces are doing their level best to improve the lives of the people of that poverty-stricken country. We are there to try our hardest to teach them the value of democracy and of educating women. We are there to do what we can to wean them off the opium crop.

Of course, no one could pretend that things are going well. Yes, it is difficult to promote women's liberation and democracy and drains and habeas corpus when you have a constant risk of attack by a resurgent Taliban. How can our troops hope to deal with the opium crop when the very brother-in-law of President Karzai turns out to be one of the biggest drugs gangsters of the lot? Of course, it is depressing that British soldiers fought and died to ensure that Afghans in Helmand could vote – and yet one in three of the ballots turns out to have been fraudulent. The position is grim.

But what is the alternative? The answer is that the alternative is even grimmer. I have an Afghan sister-in-law, and she remembers the chaos and the carnage when the Russians finally pulled out in 1989. She doesn't want the Taliban to take over the entire country, as they did before. She doesn't want Afghanistan to become a giant version of the Taliban mini-state of Waziristan. Are we really going to follow the advice of the Independent on Sunday, haul up the white flag, bring our troops home, and consign Afghanistan to a bunch of thugs and religious maniacs?"

And I do want to point out the obvious.

At every point, in these two wars, Americans and their allies have done the right thing not because they had to or were compelled to.

But because it was the right thing to do. And we just chose to do it.

And that should be contrasted with the cowardice of those who would compel our will otherwise. And still choose cowardice over that more genuine courage.

Courage is something you either choose to demonstrate. Or not. It cannot be compelled.

And that is a fact of life that only those who demonstrate it know.

Because cowards can do nothing but take that courage for granted. Because they could not possibly know any other way of life.

Because it is those with courage who keep them alive. And keep all of us moving in the right direction.

If we don't want to demonstrate that courage, that is all fine and dandy.

But folks without that kind of courage need to stop pretending to have it when they don't.

And learn to let those of us who do to do our jobs.

And stop being hamstrung by those who can't find it within themselves to offer it up.