Sunday, July 26, 2009

Why I like Obama

If I had to sum it up in one sentence, this would be it.

Gates says it's time to 'move on' from his arrest


"After a phone call from President Barack Obama urging calm in the aftermath of his arrest last week, Gates said he would accept Obama's invitation to the White House for a beer with him and Cambridge police Sgt. James Crowley."

That is what I want in a President. Someone who can chill out a situation and discuss it more maturely over a beer. President Bush had so much promise in this vein. I'd still love to have a beer with our last Commander in Chief, honestly. But President Obama delivers on this commitment better, is the truth. And I really like it about him.

Most of our conflicts in America and in the free-and-not-so-free world need to be resolved like this, really. Far too much heat and way too little light in our discussions, these days. And no amount of rise in temperature will please the assholes who capitalize on and manipulate the heat index because they have so little light to offer. No use in caving to such shitheads. Left, right, or any variation on dick that occupies the political world.

I don't like Obama because I agree with him on everything. I don't agree with anyone about everything. Who does? Nevertheless with any President or Presidential candidate.

What I like about Obama is that he seems like the kind of guy I could sit down and have a beer with and bullshit a little bit about how we saw the world and hopefully learn something from one another.

That's what I want from a leader of any kind. I want someone I can talk with who will listen and who has a substantial amount of wisdom to offer himself. And, in the end, more humility than wisdom. Because noone, no matter how wise, has all the answers. And that is the most important bit of wisdom in the world, as far as I'm concerned, at least.

Love to pick Barack's brain about that.

Thursday, July 23, 2009

Geopolitics

What a nice sum-up of geopolitics, generally, sadly.

Didactic Empire

"You get the sense here that geopolitics is a very elaborate episode of Jon and Kate Plus 8 in which one lucky nation will get mommy’s undivided attention for a few minutes, briefly quenching some long-held craving for parental affection. That a U.S. Secretary of State can be deaf to how ignorantly hubristic this kind of thing sounds would be surprising if chauvinistic rhetoric weren’t part of the job description."

Perhaps we can take a more mature route.

My favorite liberal

This is why he is my favorite columnist.

1959: A Year of Slipping the Leash

Because he remembers from whence we come. And because he is committed to liberal values like no other. Not even a close contender from those who call themselves by that name.

Nice to know that some people remember why freedom matters.

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Power and progress

You know what the best thing about being a much more thoughtful, non-partisan, independent thinker, these days?

AP-GfK Poll: Great hopes for Obama fade to reality

Polls like these strengthen my faith in the American people rather than weaken it. Because I'm not trying to defend anyone, any party, or any agenda, anymore. It's amazing how stepping out of the game will improve your perspective, by my lights.

The fact is that I think the American people were right when they thought that America under George Bush was moving in the wrong direction, on balance, particularly in national and international security affairs post-9/11. And I think the American people are right, today, that America under Barack Obama is moving in the wrong direction, on balance, particularly in economic affairs.

How can that be?

Because the conventional wisdom in Beltway circles that Republicans are strongest on national security and Democrats are strongest on economic matters is exactly backwards, I think. And the reason they are backwards, I believe, is because it is in those areas where both parties romanticize power most is exactly where they are more prone and generally do abuse power most seriously.

And this is a period like none that I've witnessed, personally - though there have been many, many much worse periods in the past, tragically - where power has been romanticized and abused by both parties. Meaning, until either or both parties choose to stop romanticizing and abusing power, the instincts by most Americans that each party is taking us in bad directions is dead-on correct.

Many Americans may not know why. And they may not know what will make things better.

But they know when things are bad. And they know when to call bullshit on partisans when they claim that they, of course and always, have nothing to do with any negative consequences, whatsoever.

It's amazing what superheroes in both parties are responsible for only good things in the world and yet all the bad things that we have experienced and will keep experiencing, isn't it?

Actually, it's not so amazing. What it is is a function of a hypercompetitive, hyperaggressive, all-too-dishonest process that makes it more difficult for partisans, independent observers, and average Americans alike to understand the world, sort through our mistakes, develop better ideas and solutions.

That will change, if I have anything to say about it. And I will. Plenty. If you doubt that, ask my friends when the last time was that they ever got me to shut up.

And, in the meantime, what I'm really digging about the American people, right now, is their ability to call bullshit.

Now what we need is the ability to call bullshit translated into stronger understandings of people and policy that address our problems more honestly and responsibly.

We make progress. In baby steps. And generally despite our most powerful, not because of them.

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Forgiveness, pride, and diaper duty

I'm no prude, in the least, or naive about kids and sex. I work with kids who brag regularly about their sexual activity.

But even I think this is bad news.

"Orgasm a Day" Campaign Directed at British Schoolchildren Sparks Controversy

"A National Health Service leaflet is advising school pupils that they have a 'right' to an enjoyable sex life and that regular intercourse can be good for their cardiovascular health...

...Alongside the slogan 'an orgasm a day keeps the doctor away', it says: 'Health promotion experts advocate five portions of fruit and veg a day and 30 minutes' physical activity three times a week. What about sex or masturbation twice a week?'"

Kids are having sex. That is a fact. I work with many kids who are having sex at far too young an age to be responsible for all of its consequences. And a generation of children born to teenage parents is one of the unfortunate consequences from that fact.

But another fact is that kids are not ready for the consequences of sex and need to wait, I believe, until they are adults who can be responsible for their choices. And even then, they should be using reliable protection until they are ready for pregnancy and child rearing in their lives.

I can be wrong on this question, as on any and every question. I frequently am. It's my trademark. I'm beginning to believe it was my given birth name.

But, by my lights, there is nothing mutually exclusive between advocating abstinence for kids as the best option while maintaining some realism that many kids will still have sex and need to know about protection from diseases and pregnancy when that is the case.

The problem in our public discourse is that we polarize questions like this one, and most questions, out of religious, ideological, and whatever sanctimony we can get our hands on and we undermine a more thoughtful, reasonable, realistic, compassionate, good-humored discussion, in my humble, not-so-genius-funny-particularly-dashing-or-otherwise opinion.

We treat our neighbors like our enemies instead of our friends and partners in raising healthy children and in tackling a thousand other priorities because we strangely and inexplicably believe that because we have strong emotions on any particular question that this must signal that we are right and those who disagree are wrong, and that those who agree are our friends and those who disagree are our enemies. It is a bizarre and dysfunctional sanctimony borne of an obsession with power and what we, generally wrongly, believe we can do with it if we only had enough of it. It is now and always has been the most serious weakness in the human race. It is called pride in religious circles. And there is a reason that it is the most deadly sin.

Lord Acton was right. Power does indeed corrupt. All of us. Not some of us. Not theocrats. Not despots. Not totalitarians. Not Nazis. Not Communists. Not kings. Not queens. Not liberals. Not conservatives.

All of us.

Because the context of that bit of wisdom is that power leads people to believe that they can never be wrong - "papal infallibility," in the case of Pope Pius IX and the subject of Acton's criticism with that observation - so proud do they become in its exercise.

We have often just chosen to ignore his advice for much of our history in the democratic world. Thankfully Baron de Montesquieu inspired a separation of powers that has been adopted in one form or another in most liberal democracies that has helped blunt the most serious consequences of this obsession. And thankfully we have chosen to teach our children the more genuinely liberal values inspired by the likes of Voltaire, John Locke, John Stuart Mill, Adam Smith, Mary Wolstonecraft, Mark Twain, Harper Lee, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, and all the rest, that have taught us to trust our consciences and voice our thoughts openly and honestly and engage one another with respect for differences and appreciation for our common humanity. And, in the case of Twain, to laugh at ourselves. As often as possible.

The consequence our pride has on our public discourse is that it breeds cynicism and suspicion among people who should otherwise be neighbors and friends working through difficult matters of the heart and mind as best they can. And giving themselves and one another plenty of slack to screw those matters up while we learn together.

Whether you are a Christian or not, there is no mistake that the heart of the wisdom of Jesus of Nazareth was love, compassion, and forgiveness. Many of his followers try to wrap his teachings around their own uglier impulses, as do the adherents of almost any religion, ideology, or belief system. It is the most common and most self-deceptive of religious and ideological practices. It happens in almost every circle of the like-minded. It is also responsible for most of the harm we do to one another. I'm fairly confident that Jesus would be proud of how far we've come. And disappointed at how often we still fail to practice that very simple and central virtue in working through our most difficult problems. Twain would just think we're fools. Nice to always be right.

But that message had a very clear practical purpose. We cannot live together and support one another as well as each of us needs without plenty of room to learn how to be worthy of each others' trust. And we cannot learn to do so - noone, not even the best among us - without plenty of space for the learning and the mistakes that are its inseparable companion, with plenty of love and forgiveness for our trespasses, in the meantime.

And we cannot work through questions like this one, in our public discourse, with one another, with our spouses and families, or with our children without that kind of commitment transcending our pride and the suspicion and power obsession it breeds.

The great irony of this era on which generations down the line will comment, undoubtedly, is that for a generation that so denigrated compassion and forgiveness, it will be all of us who will need to be forgiven. For our foolishness as much as our pride.

Hopefully they will do it in good humor.

Cause, if not, we're all gonna need it changin' all those diapers.

Friday, July 10, 2009

Bitter much?

Is this insniping really the best that the Republican party has to offer?

Victor Davis Hanson: Why the Elitist Hatred Toward Palin?

Peggy Noonan: A Farewell to Harms

A lot of good thought in both of these pieces. But what they also reflect is the degree to which bitterness over matters of power and privilege drive too much of the thought, in all quarters really, about matters that are too grave to be driven by anything other than more serious and reflective consideration of policies that keep us safer, freer, more prosperous, and, in the end, reflect our best efforts and our better, more decent, more thoughtful selves.

Isn't it about time we had more honest, humble, open-hearted, open-minded discussions about serious policy matters?

Or is bitter the soil of some greater wisdom, these days?

I have my doubts.

Friday, July 03, 2009

Recommitting ourselves to our liberal values

Peggie Noonan offers a fine commemoration of the Founding Fathers who made our independence possible and to David McCullough, one of the America's finest historians, paying tribute to their memory.

Making History

"Monday, July 1, was heavy and hot, and a full-scale summer storm passed through the city late in the morning. John Dickinson of Pennsylvania rose to speak. He knew he was endangering the respect in which he was broadly held, his 'popularity,' but he once again counseled caution: Slow down, separation from Britain is 'premature,' to declare independence now would be 'to brave the storm in a skiff made of paper.' When he sat down, 'all was silent except for the rain that had begun spattering against the widows.'

Then John Adams rose. He wished he had the power of the ancient orators of Greece and Rome, he said; surely they had never faced a question of greater human import.

He made, again, the case for independence. Now is the time, the facts are inescapable, the people are for it, we are not so much declaring as acknowledging reality. 'Looking into the future [he] saw a new nation, a new time, all much in the spirit of lines he had written in a recent letter to a friend: '. . . We are in the very midst of revolution, the most complete, unexpected, and remarkable of any in the history of the world.' ' Outside the wind picked up and the storm struck hard with thunder and lightning. Storms had in the past unnerved Adams, but he spoke steadily, logically and compellingly for two hours.

After nine hours of debate, the voting commenced. The yeses were in the majority, but there were more noes than expected. Someone moved a final vote be taken the next morning. Adams and the rest hastily agreed.

That night word reached Philadelphia that the British fleet, a hundred ships, had been sighted off New York.

The next day, July 2, the final voting began. It went quickly. This was a pivotal moment in the political history of man. A creative, imaginative, historically conscious person in the middle of a thing so huge and full of consequence will try to notice things, to keep them forever in his eyes and pass them on. Here is a thing John Adams would never forget:

At 9 in the morning, just as the doors to the Congress were to be closed, "Caesar Rodney, mud spattered, 'booted and spurred,' made his dramatic entrance. The tall, thin Rodney—the 'oddest-looking man in the world,' Adams once described him—had been made to appear stranger still, and more to be pitied, by a skin cancer on one side of his face that he kept hidden behind a scarf of green silk. But, as Adams had also recognized, Rodney was a man of spirit, of 'fire.' Almost unimaginably, he had ridden eighty miles through the night, changing horses several times, to be there in time to cast his vote.'

All of these quotes are from David McCullough's 'John Adams.' More on Mr. McCullough in a moment.

The vote was completed: 12 for independence, New York abstaining, no one opposing. 'The break was made, in words at least: on July 2, 1776, in Philadelphia, the American colonies declared independence. If not all 13 clocks had struck as one, twelve had, and with the others silent the effect was the same.'

On July 3, Congress argued over the wording and exact content of the formal Declaration. An indictment of the slave trade was dropped. In all, Thomas Jefferson saw roughly 25% of what he'd written wind up on the floor.

On July 4, discussion ended, debate was closed, a vote on the final draft of the Declaration of Independence was called, and the results were as on July 2. Congress ordered the document be printed. They'd sign it in a month. For now, John Hancock and one other, Charles Thompson, fixed their signatures.

Those present thought the great day had been July 2—the vote for independence itself. John Adams, who'd emoted over the 2nd in letters to Abigail, didn't even mention the 4th, and Thomas Jefferson famously went shopping that afternoon for ladies' gloves.

But on the morning of July 5, the people of Philadelphia started getting their hands on independently printed copies of the Declaration, and the impact was electric: My God, look what they said yesterday—'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.' And on the 6th, a local newspaper carried the text of what had been agreed upon on the 4th. And so the celebration of the Fourth of July as one of the signal moments in the history of human freedom, was born. And so we mark it still.'"

Read the rest of the column for a glimpse of Peggie honoring David McCullough and his contributions to American history.

It is a nice moment, this Independence Day, for us to remember and appreciate better the risks, sacrafices and wise efforts that went into founding our democracy and making our liberty possible.

If there is anything this period has taught me, it is how easily we take that freedom, and all of our most cherished values, for granted, in the wake of our fears about what liberty and our free will make possible in this world, good and bad.

It is a shame that we take the courage of these men and women for granted as we do. It is a greater shame that we attribute that courage to their use of force rather than to their much more powerful consciences and the limitations that they proscribed for the use of force to preserve our liberty and its fruits.

July 4th, this year, should be a solemn reflection on the liberal values and liberty that make this day and this country great and how and why we have so readily taken those values for granted. Especially, at the end of a century that, more than any other, demonstrated the genuine power of liberty in the face of the ugly and destructive consequences of force as a governing philosophy.

May this year mark a turning point in our recommitment to the liberal society they founded, to the liberal world they have inspired, and to the liberal and democratic century that lies ahead.

Thursday, July 02, 2009

Why I voted for President Obama

John Bolton reminds me, today, why I voted for President Obama.

Time for an Israeli Strike?

Iran is definitely a serious flawed and corrupt democracy. But it is a democracy, nonetheless. The kind of regime change he is talking about is exactly the kind of regime change that got us the current regime in Iran, in the first place. It was this kind of machination in our support of the Shah that created the mess of Iranian theocracy, long before the current standoff. And aggressive efforts with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have not only clearly accelerated his nuclear ambitions, ambitions that he was not pursuing as vigorously as he was until after the Administration began threatening him, they have clearly played right in his hands, as it has repeatedly rallied Iranians to his defense against the Great Satans of Israel and Iran. Not to mention that they have utterly and unequivocally failed and taken us backwards, not forwards, in our desire to stem nuclear proliferation and Iran's pursuit of the bomb, by any empirical standard.

Why does John Bolton not see this? Because he doesn't want to. Because to do so would be to admit that perhaps many of his assumptions about power and its use, and abuse, are wrong. And that, perhaps, he is much more like these Iranian mullahs than he wishes to admit. And that is not something that someone like John Bolton does easily, is the truth. Ironic for a Christian, I know. Lots of irony in the world, these days. Makes things more interesting, I suppose. More deadly more often than more secure.

This is exactly why I voted for Barack Obama, for all of my concerns about his tepid commitment to free markets.

Because I knew that Obama was more likely to pause and consider, more, the larger consequences of such rash aggression.

And because Obama's instincts happen to be the right ones here. The problem with the last several years of policy towards Iran has clearly not been that we have been too soft. It has clearly that we have been too aggressive. To anyone not seeking to defend our failures that is. Failures that John Bolton helped craft. And which I have not the least amount of interest in defending.

No matter how difficult it is for John Bolton to face up to his own failures on this one.

A happy life

Margaret Carlson writes a really insightful column for Bloomberg (which I retrieved from my new favorite news site, RealClearPolitics), today, that I found very affirming of the choices I've been making, lately, in life.

Sex, Fame Bring No Joy to Masters of the Universe

"Has there ever been a more vivid example than Bernard Madoff that English tailoring, a lifetime of ease and untold riches can’t save a man?

Standing before the judge on Monday, face gray, swagger gone, in a suit that hung off him as if it were still on the hanger, Madoff told the court, 'I live in a tormented state now knowing all the pain and suffering that I have created.' Turning to face his victims, who came to hear him sentenced, he said: 'I am sorry. I know that doesn’t help you.'

Madoff made his dramatic appearance the day I arrived for the Aspen Ideas Festival to speak about politics and listen to others talk about more important subjects like how to be happy by doing good, not simply doing well.

The Masters of the Universe, political and financial, don’t have time for such reflection, which is too bad. What drives them to live so close to the edge that having to say they’re sorry is a foreseeable event? They have no idea what will lead to a happy life, the prize we are all after.

The Ideas Festival opened with a speech on that subject by David Bradley, whose magazine, the Atlantic, got exclusive access to the archive of one of the most comprehensive longitudinal studies in history on happiness. Researchers at Harvard followed 268 men who entered the university in the late- 1930s (it was an all-male school back then) into their 70s and 80s to find out what was going on in their lives that made some of them “happy-well” into old age.

Just Hard Data

The study didn’t take anyone’s word on whether they were happy. One of the marks of the rich and powerful is boasting about how happy they are (and how little sleep they need). The study relied on intense yearly interviews, medical and psychiatric exams, and hard data. It found that the best predictor of a happy life isn’t power, riches and fame, or intellectual brilliance, the social class you were born into, a loving childhood or popularity at school.

The most reliable predictor turned out to be having warm relationships by at least age 47. A good marriage is important (even if some didn’t get it right until their second or third), but strong relationships based on trust and respect and continuity can also be with relatives, friends or mentors.

Good sibling relationships seem especially powerful: 93 percent of the men who were thriving at age 65 were close to a brother or sister. Also predictive were starting a sport or physical activity while young, and adaptability. Resilience and optimism saw the happy-well through the loss of jobs, fortunes, spouses, children and health...

...I asked Rutgers University anthropologist Helen Fisher, author of 'Anatomy of Love: A Natural History of Mating, Marriage and Why We Stray,' what she made of Sanford. She cited the delirium set off by dopamine, the chemical overproduced in the first throes of love, to explain his behavior. You’ve been living a life of quiet desperation in office and think you deserve happiness. You can’t see the consequences, or you think they can be fixed.

I wonder if capital punishment is called for. Just imagine if the same standard of fidelity were applied to other professions. Journalism, for one, would be decimated.

It looked like Sanford would survive until he followed up a genuine if meandering press conference with a rambling Associated Press interview in which he spoke of 'forbidden' love for his 'soul mate.' He must know his four boys can read the papers. It’s clear Sanford doesn’t want to be forgiven; he wants to be understood, if not admired, for following his heart. What the man needs is his head back.

Readers are as fed up with politicians who think the rules don’t apply while they pursue a warped idea of happiness as they are with bankers. What the public wants from its leaders is also what could ultimately make them happy: honoring and fostering their relationships with their loved ones and voters, with some impulse control thrown in. Our mothers already knew that without the benefit of Harvard."

Time for me to make good in all those places where I've screwed up. And to cut that bullshit out for good. And to love my friends and family thoroughly. And to live with some confidence in the fact that loving others, thoroughly and completely, and experiencing their love in consequence, really is the secret to a happy life.

Thank God

Someone reputable finally said it.

Robert Kaplan: To Catch a Tiger

"So is there any lesson here? Only a chilling one. The ruthlessness and brutality to which the Sri Lankan government was reduced in order to defeat the Tigers points up just how nasty and intractable the problem of insurgency is. The Sri Lankan government made no progress against the insurgents for nearly a quarter century, until they turned to extreme and unsavory methods. Could they have won without terrorizing the media and killing large numbers of civilians? Perhaps, but probably not without help from the Chinese, who, in addition to their military aid, gave the Sri Lankan government diplomatic cover at the UN Security Council.

These are methods the U.S. should never use. But the fact that this is what it took for the Sri Lankan government to subdue the Tamil Tigers makes clear just what a hard grind lies ahead for the U.S. in Afghanistan."

You really must read the entire article to get a flavor for just how despicable the methods of the Sri Lankan government were. And why it is so important for Westerners not to romanticize those practices as they consider how to deal with their own terrorist threats.

Not to mention that, typically, such methods, in the past, used by imperial and non-imperial governments for much of civilization's history, have generally come back to haunt them. Let's hope that is not the case in Sri Lanka. But I have my serious doubts.

We absolutely can do better. And must. For the sake of the values and the people for whom we fight.

Wednesday, July 01, 2009

Illustrating the point



Dicks would rather you be killed by other dicks than to take responsibility for what dicks they are.

And you know what's really sad about this?

Nothing new under the sun.

Dicks who don't like taking responsibility for being dicks

You know who doesn't care about religious freedom? Dicks. Secular dicks.

Christopher Hitchens: Learn from France - and consider banning the burka

And you know who writes incomprehensible bullshit like this?

"...One cannot be absolutely sure that no woman has ever donned it voluntarily, but one can certainly say that, in countries where women can choose not to wear it, then not wearing it is the choice they generally make.

This disposes right away of the phony argument that religious attire is worn as a matter of 'right.' It is almost exactly the other way around: The imposition of burkas or even head scarfs on women - just like the compulsory growing of beards for men - is the symbol of a denial of rights and the inflicting of a tyrannical code that obliterates personal liberty.

Western masochism about other people's 'culture' often obscures this obvious fact. Think of the things that we all have to do now, like submitting to humiliating searches at airports, or showing our ID to people who have no "probable cause" for demanding it. Can we turn up at airport security wearing a bag over our heads? Can we produce a photograph that shows only our eyes through a slit? Of course not. Nor can anyone in a Muslim country (though of course in Saudi Arabia an unchaperoned women cannot turn up at the airport anyway).

And don't force me to say this, even though I will: One reason we have to undergo such indignities is because of faith-based suicide attacks on our civil aviation, and so far the perpetrators of this nightmare have not been caught wearing crucifixes or Stars of David around their necks."

Dicks who don't want to take responsibility for being dicks. That's what all this "don't force me, while I force you" bullshit has been about. This whole Orwellian mess is about dicks not wanting to take responsibility for what dicks they are.

Christopher is going to rid Muslim women of the subjugation of men by subjugating them to this own presumably benign manly code against the expression of their own religious beliefs.

He's such a sweetheart, isn't he?

Or maybe he's just a dick looking for an excuse to be a dick.

Seems to be a lot of that going around these days.

Believe it or not, I know the feeling. About time we cut this shit out.