This way progress lies

One of the better pieces I've read at the Weekly Standard in a long time. A remarkably humane portrait of former D.C. Mayor Marion Barry from Weekly Standard columnist Matt Labash. One of the leading conservative publications brings some humanity to one of America's most notorious liberal political figures. Now that's something original.

A Rake's Progress

"When I ask a Barry staffer if her boss is spooked by the new attention, she says, 'No. He never gets spooked. We get spooked.' By the lights of longtime Barry aficionados, this latest doesn't rank very high on his scandal Richter Scale. A ward boss throwing sketchy patronage jobs to friends? It could make a Barry connoisseur very sleepy. Plus, some Barry-watchers think he might be losing a step. There wasn't even any cocaine involved.

Yet the scandal wasn't my reason for visiting hizzoner. Barry-bashing has been a near ubiquitous sport, and approaching him in order to find holes in his stories is about as sporting as taking candy from a quadriplegic preemie. Rather, I was curious to take his measure as a human being, which many forget he still is, despite the caricatures and self-parodies. For 73 years, over 40 of them in public life, Barry has kept rearing up like a plastic varmint in a Whac-a-Mole game. No matter how many times he's batted about the head with a mallet, he relentlessly reappears."

In an era obsessed with its own presumed capacity to prevent wrong-doing by withholding forgiveness and greater humanity, it is refreshing to note that some people still take the high road seriously. Even for members of the other team.

This way progress lies.

Those who think nice guys finish last are not paying very close attention

It's so funny to watch people dance around this question of power politics and force as a governing philosophy as if everything is working out just all hunky dory.

The next 100 years

Some people just can't quite get straight when the writing is on the wall.

Once we face the bullshit - most notably, for all the proponents of force as a governing philosophy and that raw power finally triumphs, that they were just wrong and that the writing is clear as day on the wall except for folks still confusing their excuses with something more honest - I think it will become clear that our future is one of devolved, decentralized power that frees up the energies of democratic citizens, inititally, and the citizens of illiberal societies, over time, to do what they do best.

To use their freedom to make the world better in a million ways never predicted by anyone, especially, with all due respect, the likes of Mr. George Friedman, here.

Those who think nice guys finish last are not paying very close attention. Sometimes we just so full of shit we can't even see past our own stink.

Liberal democracies are the strongest nations in the world for a reason, when we're not being dumbasses about it. Because they're liberal, obviously. When we're not suckin' on our thumbs out of cowardice and self-pity and whatever else passes for real strength, these days. And we are free to do that, as well. Until we figure out what a road to nowhere that is.

And that's what's great about liberal societies. We can choose whatever we want. And live with the consequences. Until we choose something different, that is.

We are a species of lovable dipshits, sometimes, I think. Forgivable dipshits, to be sure. Because what else you gonna do with us. After laughing at us falling on our asses yet one more time, that is.

Facing the bullshit

I really do think America's debates have gotten about this stupid and senseless.


Is Using A Minotaur To Gore Detainees A Form Of Torture?

Our political discussions make almost absolutely no sense, at all, anymore, these days. America has become a pale, sad, pitiful version of her former self. With everyone tripping over themselves proclaiming how small and unworthy we should be.

All in the name of progress, I suppose.

It's kind of a pathetic point in what has become a somewhat bizarre story of cowardice and self-pity masquerading as something less humiliatingly sad and weak than it is.

And the real question we need to ask ourselves is at what point are going to face the bullshit?

Because this is fucking embarrassing, at this point.

One of those days

After a rough day like today, I need a reminder that this job is worth it.

My favorite teacher film by far. And some solace that teachers have been dealing with shitheads since time immemorial. And, through it all, most of 'em turn out to be decent people. Even as we all still have a long way to go.



Some days we all need to be reminded of our better angels.

When progressives block progress (or why progress often and generally happens despite those in power)

The Washington Post has excellent advice for the President around one of his more regressive policies, to this point: his decision to end the District of Columbia's program to provide school vouchers to Washington D.C.'s students.

Beach Reading for Mr. Obama: Useful literature on school vouchers

"President Obama reportedly has a hefty reading list while vacationing this week, but we would like to offer two additions, both hot off the presses. One is an article by the education expert who studied the D.C. voucher program; the second is a study on school safety in the city's public and private schools. Read together, they might cause the president to rethink his administration's wrong-headed decision to shut down the voucher program to new students.

He should start with Patrick J. Wolf's article in the new issue of Education Next. Mr. Wolf, a professor of education reform at the University of Arkansas, is the principal investigator of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, which allows low-income children to attend private schools. He was unequivocal in his findings: "The D.C. voucher program has proven to be the most effective education policy evaluated by the federal government's official education research arm so far." Equally adamant was his opinion that vouchers paid off for the students lucky enough to win them: "On average, participating low-income students are performing better in reading because the federal government decided to launch an experimental school choice program in our nation's capital.

Mr. Obama, along with Education Secretary Arne Duncan, has repeatedly promised to support "what works," so we figure he should be interested in Mr. Wolf's findings. Also instructive is a new report by the Heritage Foundation, in conjunction with the Lexington Institute, on violence and criminal activity in D.C. schools. The report pays particular attention to the plight of the 216 students who had planned to attend private school before the administration rescinded their scholarship offers while Congress debates the future of the program. The study looks at the 70 public schools to which these students have now been assigned and finds there were 2,379 crime-related incidents, including 666 violent incidents (one of which was a homicide), for the 2007-08 school year. No wonder many parents cite school safety when explaining why they want choice in where their child goes to school...

...As we've said before, vouchers aren't the answer to Washington's school troubles; we enthusiastically support public school reform and quality charter schools, too. But vouchers are an answer for some children whose options otherwise are bleak. In Washington, they also are part of a carefully designed social-science experiment that may provide useful evidence for all schools on helping low-income children learn. Why would a Democratic administration and Congress want to cut such an experiment short?"

Progress is not blocking efforts which offer people more freedom to make better choices for their lives. That is called power. It is not at all the same thing. In fact, for most of human history, they have often been at odds, as they clearly are in this case.

Condescending people by making choices for them is not progress. Progress is when people have the freedom to make choices, good and bad, to learn how to make better choices for their own lives and to benefit from their own learning, not to be pitied and patronized by others.

Since making those opportunities available to children, especially to lower-income children, was my original purpose in becoming a teacher, I will be a little harder to fool about what constitutes progress just because someone says so.

Let's hope that's true for the rest of the country and the liberal democratic world.

Rest in peace, Teddy

The kids and I watched the news of Teddy Kennedy's death, today. And I showed them the speech that Teddy made in his lifetime that most moved me. It was his eulogy for his brother, Bobby Kennedy, and one of the my most profound political heroes. It is one of the more beautiful speeches that all the Kennedy brothers came to be known for. And with Teddy's passing is also the passing of a generation of high-minded purpose in politics that the Kennedy family embodied.



I grew up a liberal, very much appreciating the passion and commitment of Teddy Kennedy and his brothers to higher aims of humanity. I am independent, today, more concerned about finding better and more honest means to those aims than at odds with the aims themselves. And speeches like this one represent Teddy as his best. And the best kinds of commitments of the liberalism that he committed himself to.

Governance and people are at their best when they are committed to these more high-minded purposes, liberal and conservative. Our debates and discussions, at their best, are ones of many committed and good people trying to figure out what ideas might offer us a better future.

Teddy Kennedy was one of such person and one that I have admired, even when I have, often, disagreed with him. And his failings inspired my humanity rather than my baser, pettier impulses. And it is that kind of humanity that should guide us, today, and not our base, petty impulses masquerading as something better.

We have had quite enough of the latter in the last 10 years and really over the entirety of human history. May we all be inspired by Teddy's words and deeds to be something better.

Honesty pays

This is why I teach him to my kids.



So they know. Honesty pays. Integrity is an important corollary. And, as Warren would tell you, nice guys finish first. And doesn't hurt to know what the hell you're doin'. Honesty, integrity, thoughtfulness, and compassion pay.

Take that to the bank.

The problem is us

And not just with the health care debate. With virtually all political discussions.

Health care debate based on lack of logic

"Heated partisan debate over President Obama's health care plan, erupting at town hall meetings and in the blogosphere, has more to do with our illogical thought processes than reality, sociologists are finding.

The problem: People on both sides of the political aisle often work backward from a firm conclusion to find supporting facts, rather than letting evidence inform their views.

The result: A survey out this week finds voters split strongly along party lines regarding their beliefs about key parts of the plan. Example: About 91 percent of Republicans think the proposal would increase wait times for surgeries and other health services, while only 37 percent of Democrats think so.

Irrational thinking

A totally rational person would lay out - and evaluate objectively - the pros and cons of a health care overhaul before choosing to support or oppose a plan. But we humans are not so rational, according to Steve Hoffman, a visiting professor of sociology at the University of Buffalo.

'People get deeply attached to their beliefs,' Hoffman said. 'We form emotional attachments that get wrapped up in our personal identity and sense of morality, irrespective of the facts of the matter.'

And to keep our sense of personal and social identity, Hoffman said, we tend to use a backward type of reasoning in order to justify such beliefs.

Similarly, past research by Dolores Albarracin, a psychology professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, has shown in particular that people who are less confident in their beliefs are more reluctant than others to seek out opposing perspectives. So these people avoid counter evidence all together. The same could apply to the health care debate, Albarracin said.

'Even if you have free press, freedom of speech, it doesn't make people listen to all points of view,' she said.

Just about everybody is vulnerable to the phenomenon of holding onto our beliefs even in the face of iron-clad evidence to the contrary, Hoffman said. Why? Because it's hard to do otherwise. 'It's an amazing challenge to constantly break out the Nietzschean hammer and destroy your world view and belief system and evaluate others,' Hoffman said."

The truth is that most political discussions and debates are often seriously flawed and irrational and undermined by both this tendency of thought and, more importantly, our propensity to aggression in lieu of stronger thinking.

It is the heart of my work. And it is a tendency that once we and future generations recognize our failures, on this count, we will look back at such behavior as enormously foolish and counterproductive, very much as we look back at ancestors past engage in similar behavior, especially our most aggressive and least thoughtful and compassionate ancestors, and wonder why on earth we could create so much tragedy in the name of not a damn thing.

Much ado about nothing, as Shakespeare would say.

Or as he would say in Macbeth, and just as well could have said of the great bulk of humanity's more aggressive history "It is a tale...full of sound and fury signifying nothing."

And that is just as good a description as any of our current health care debate and so many our policy discussions that try to substitute aggression for reason, free will, and compassion, the three qualities that are more honestly resonsible for the long length of human progress. Often despite those in power, not because of them. Though that, too, is a complicated and useful tale to study.

Perhaps it is about time we all started studying and engaging it more honestly.

Wherefore happiness

A man cannot be comfortable without his own approval. - Mark Twain

And that is the end of that story.

The most serious mistake is never being wrong

As usual, these days, Paul Krugman is learning the wrong lesson.

All the President's Zombies

The lesson that Paul really needs to grapple with is, "Why is it that people seem to embrace Adam Smith's logic more than my own?"

And the answer is fairly straightforward.

Because Adam Smith was more on target.

And Paul, on this question and so many questions of the economy, is less on target. And though Americans may not understand that, completely, in the abstract, they do know what that means for their lives. Which is exactly why Smith believed that the free market allowed us to better account for both our successes, and, as we are facing this recession, our failures as well. Because, as Smith argued wisely, I believe, fundamentally, the people closest to their own economic choices are the ones in the best position to know what choices will or will not benefit their financial situations and their lives.

Not always, obviously. Noone, not even the great Paul Krugman, can possibly be right all the time (in fact, the truth is that I trust Paul less, frankly, in this respect, to get questions right, more often, than, say, Warren Buffet or others, because he lacks the humility to acknowledge when he is or might be wrong that stronger thinkers and actors must have to be stronger thinkers and actors).

But, over the long haul, the free market offers people better opportunities to learn better choices, even and especially from their mistakes, in a way that govermment power and regulation will never, ever be able to achieve, no matter the hubris of those clamoring for that power. Because it assumes that actors are in a position to know so unmistakably that they can impose their thinking, good and bad, and frequently bad, on a population more generally, even when it does great harm. And almost never do they admit that they were wrong.

At heart, that is what separates Paul from stronger thinkers. He just isn't willing to ever consider that he is wrong.

And how on earth could anyone ever become a stronger in their thinking if they are constantly defending how they are right without consideration of when and where they are or might be wrong? That kind of hubris belongs to many lesser thinkers. Which are exactly the sorts of folks who tend to run for office. But the most important insights come from those who seek to understand what they did not understand before. Which cannot happen when we are only looking to confirm our own thinking rather than considering ways it might be disconfirmed.

Disconfirmation is the heart of scientific and empirical knowledge. There is no science when everything is right. And, yet, not everything is right, no matter how loudly or consistently one argues it. There really are things that are and things that are not in the world. And, as a consequence, all of us, no matter how smart we are, are wrong, often. Probably more often than we are right, frankly. And the problem with politics, in the bigger picture, is that almost noone ever thinks they can be wrong. Which is a sure sign they are, for anyone who knows the difference.

The truth is that greater freedom, in general, and free markets among those freedoms, is exactly what has been the truest sign of progress in both liberal societies and illiberal societies, which is why we call them liberal societies. Because their liberty has made possible their progress. To say that less freedom makes for progress in a liberal society is very much like saying greater illiteracy makes for progress in a literate society. It is logically inconsistent and demonstrably wrong. Except when people are trying to defend their mistakes. Which is exactly why Paul cannot see his error, here. But his error exists quite apart from his judgment of his error. Nobel prize and all.

The historical legacy of 20th century progressive ideology is a complicated and mixed legacy of commitments to good purpose and freedoms that have improved the lives of many people, compromises that have improved lives temporarily, even when they are poor policies for the longer term, and, as with conservativism and most ideologies of power, a darker and more arrogant legacy of manipulation, bullying, distortion and dishonesty that can only honestly be called abuse of power.

Lord Acton was right. Power corrupts. No matter the ideology. And the reason it corrupts, as the context of that statement demonstrates - Acton was criticizing Pope Pius IX for his doctrine of "papal infallibility" - is because people who are afraid to admit their failures, in their use of power distort, and manipulate, like anyone else, to avoid acknowledging them, generally, for the same reason, which is to avoid consequences or the harsh or hurtful treatment of others. Except they do so with the power of coercion or other means of manipulation - say, controlling both Houses of Congress and the Executive Branch or the prestige of a Nobel Prize - over and with others to maintain the dishonesty.

It's ugly, this game. This game with high stakes where noone ever acknowledges responsibility or that they are wrong. And where doing so is equated with weakness to cover for the cowardice that defends it. Hitler told that same lie - that admitting mistakes or vulnerabilities was weakness and that tough and aggressive policies were strength - his entire career. And he, like its proponents today, lost that gamble. He lost the war and, ultimately, his life. He lost everything by the end. No matter how aggressive he became.

It is a game played by power players since the beginning of time. It was why Hitler argued in quite serious and extensive terms why he would never admit if he was wrong. And it was the rationalization that propped up Soviet and other forms of Communism for so many years. And it is the basis for despotism, terrorists, and other power-consumed players on today's stage, as well. And always has been.

And illiberal folks in liberal democracies have gambled that they can engage in the same distortions in a free society and be successful.

And they are losing. In spades. Left and right. And it serves them right.

And that is the lesson that Paul Krugman is missing, right now. Because he is too invested in defending the mistakes of his ideology and ideological brethren. Even when doing so serves neither him nor any of us.

It is a foolish, foolish game that we play with ideology. And worst of all, it is all for naught.

Because the notion that any ideology or group or even any individual could ever have all the right answers on all of our most important questions is not just wrong, it is a logical and empirical impossibility. It is a fantasy with not one cintilla of historical or empirical evidence to support it. And the aggression involved with seeking and defending power in this discussion undermines a more honest, empirical discussion of what policies do and do not attain the goals we seek and do and do not serve us. It takes a serious discussion of a reality that clearly exists quite apart of our opinions of it and turns it into a spectator sport based on nothing more than defending a team whose premises are half-true, at best. And probably less, given how much more there is to know about the world than what any partisan or even any nonpartisan could ever know in a lifetime. And sometimes, in the case of Nazis and Communists, it is a high-stakes and terribly tragic game premised almost wholly on lies and the pursuit of power at all costs.

Warren Buffet is wrong about much, he would readily acknowledge. But the reason I trust him, more, is because he knows and admits that, readily, and does not pretend to have answers he does not (or at least he makes a better attempt to avoid doing so).

Buffet is in good faith.

Paul Krugman is not. Which is why I trust him so little. Because he has earned my mistrust. Because his dishonesty and manipulation are embedded in his ideological outlook. And are the reason why Paul cannot see his mistake here. Because Paul will, likely, never - save for some serious rethinking - acknowledge any serious mistakes of any kind in an ideology that he accepts without any critical consideration.

Warren is more honest. Paul is not.

And that, like much of what Paul writes these days, is why Paul cannot see his mistake no matter how clearly the writing on the wall is.

It's not personal. It's just a mistake. But, in Paul's case, it's a very serious mistake borne of a stubborn refusal to ever admit error.

And no matter how smart someone aspires to be, that, really, is the most important mistake that one can make in a lifetime.

Fumbling forward despite ourselves

Despite some hyperbole, this psychiatrist actually talks a lot of sense. It would be nice if we could have a conversation where everyone was talking more sense.



Maybe we're not capable of mature discussion. Maybe sanctimony is all we can ever expect of ourselves. Maybe all politics will ever be is a spectator sport with tragic stakes.

If so, does it really matter what happens on this debate or any debate?

Because, really, what it means is that we gave up on what really matters long before we got what we wanted. And what a sad, unworthy example we set for anyone we would have the hubris to thus compel their will.

What a sad little species we are, much of the time. What a small and petty thing we thus aspire to be.

May we at least fumble forward.

American liberalism in retreat

Leave it to the world's most liberal periodical to critique some of our most illiberal practices.

Illiberal politics: America's unjust sex laws

Sex laws: Unjust and ineffective

The fear that launched Hitler's career was that Germany had grown too soft, too weak, too liberal. It was a criticism from both the Left and the Right. Nazis rule was the result. We might reconsider our direction, at this point.

So hot up in here, can't see the light

It is dumb, in the extreme, to persistently turn up the heat and then wonder why it's so hot up in this place.

Man carrying assault weapon attends Obama protest

And the dumbest part of all?

Not a single bit of this heat sheds light on a goddamn thing.

The left will blame the right. The right will blame the left. And, as usual, noone will take responsibility. All in the name of forcing people to do so.

Helluva brilliant species we've become, isn't it? God's favorite. So they say.

Perhaps he has some ideas on how we might learn to use the brains he gave us a bit more effectively.

I have a suggestion. Perhaps we might talk and think. With just a touch more humility. And, perhaps, genuinely listen. Rather than continue on our stupid route to nowhere.

Perhaps we're not bright enough to see the dead end. Not a problem. Because seeing it is the only real way forward.

Sometimes we just have to fuck up long enough to finally come square about our failures.

If we ever really want to succeed, at anything, that is.

The Many Faces of Bitches Ain't Shit

I might like this version better. Something about an all-girl version that's just kinda sexy, really.



And the original Ben Folds Five cover.



And the sexiest sign language interpretation I have ever seen in my life.



Note to those who are offended: the fact that you are offended is what makes it so goddamn funny. The more offended you get, the more fun you make it for the rest of us. So sorry if that makes you wet your panties, bitches.

Put down the hammer

The President and liberals in Washington ignore this message at their own risk, at this point. If they do, expect to lose that next election. And deservedly.

Mr. Obama, Put Down the Hammer

Wielding power against the will of democratic citizens is not progress. It never will be. No matter how much progressives and conservatives, alike, bullshit themselves and the rest of us on this point.

And the great thing about a democracy, is that when you try, we can always go find someone else.

Been that kinda day

Why did I choose a field with so many leftists, I have to wonder? I used to feel a part of them. Now I'm just sick of being bullied by them. And now they can all eat a dick.

That's a real conversation for your ass.

America's health care discussion and ordinary people

This was my first glimpse, believe it or not, today, of the ruckus at the nation's town hall discussions of health care policy (I barely watch television, at all, these days, except when others are watching).



As I watched this video, I thought a lot of the John Legend song I fell in love with this summer.



I highly recommend you watch the all white and black official video to see the human interactions John is singing about in this song.

I think this is a really hard thing for most people to come to terms with.

We are not gods. None of us. We aren't omniscient. We don't have all the right understanding. We don't have all the right positions. We aren't on the right side all of the time.

We're just ordinary people. Trying to sort out the hard stuff.

But, for whatever reasons, like all ordinary people, we get angry and frustrated and impatient with one another and with discussions of the things that matter most to all of us in life.

And we lose our patience, almost always, in my experience, myself included, at just the moment when we need, most, to open our hearts and minds and just listen to one another.

We all would be better for that, I think. Just listening.

I say that as someone who spent 7 years talking as a primary commitment. But if all that time in speech and debate competition has taught me anything, at the end of all of it, it is that I always have much more to learn than I have already figured out, at any particular moment.

And most of the more profound learning I've done in my life has happened when I'm listening rather than when I'm talking.

We have a lot of Americans and people in the world, generally, who would be better off listening to one another more and demonizing each other less. Power is often the culprit. Forcing others' hands only enflames our differences, it doesn't resolve them. And most of those differences have honest grounding in reality. When we are honest enough to sit down with all of them. The clamor for power certainly makes the discussion harder rather than easier. It blinds us with aggression and defense, and anger and frustration with one another, rather than resolving much of anything, for real. That's why I'm so committed to people learning to deal with one another more honestly and maturely, as a matter of course, rather than romanticizing that if we just had enough power we could force everyone to see things or do things our way. It is that impulse that has undone us since the beginning of time, whether we acknowledge that or not. And it is that impulse that is undoing this discussion and debate, today.

Watching these town hall meetings, I am reminded why I so appreciate honest, thoughtful, civil discussion - with, perhaps, more room to talk more honestly and be ourselves a little more; though it would be nice if we could learn to do that in a way that was genuinely respectful with one another.

As boring as my kids and most people seem to find such discussion, the truth is that it is where our more thoughtful and responsible ideas and engagement are likely to come.

These last 10 years have been one long romantic fantasy that with enough power and enough leverage to circumvent such discussion and thought, only then will our problems be forced out of existence.

It is the same fantasy that animated Nazi Germany. The same one that animated Soviet Russia. It is the same fantasy that animates Kim Jong Il's North Korean regime. It is the same one that animates Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's less-that-genuinely-democratic regime in Iran. And the same one that animates all illiberal regimes, from Cuba and China to Zimbabwe and Myanmar.

That fantasy - that enough power will finally rid ourselves of our woes and usher in a new era of right-minded people to finally solve our problems - is the fantasy that has riddled humanity since its origination, nevertheless since the beginning of civilization.

It is strange and ironic, as the kids and I study early hominid evolution, that the very kind of compassion, thoughtfulness, and intelligence that were clearly responsible for the great leaps in evolution for homo erectus and early hominids to learn to cooperate with one another to accomplish shared goals are persistently denigrated in favor of the fantasy that it is our aggression, our basest predatory impulse, that is responsible for our progress and will produce solutions we seek.

It is ironic because it very clearly has been our steps beyond that more aggressive, predatory legacy and toward more a compassionate, thoughtful future that so enabled all of our most serious and significant progress as a species and as cultural groupings within that species.

We fail to see it because we do not like to admit our failings. Largely out of our fear and insecurity that those failings mean more about us than they do really.

When, really, our failures are just part of the learning that makes our more honest and genuine progress possible. It is our learning, obviously to any honest observer, and not our aggression that has persistently signalled our most certain progress. Aggression is now and will always be a part of our nature and a needed response, with thougtful consideration of its use and more patient reflection on our responses, in times of danger. But, generally, even in this realm, in our use of aggression, it is still our more thoughtful reflections on its wise use that best guide our efforts.

I haven't learned this as some wise sage with the purity of distance. I've learned this is a flawed actor in a world of people who has far too often made mistakes with this instinct to aggression. It is my mistakes and my failures, the school of hard knocks, that have taught me as much as my education or my more abstract reflections.

But it is that reflection that guides me in a better direction. In a direction of more genuine progress.

And it is that kind of calm, serious, honest reflection and engagement that should animate this discussion and all serious policy choices that we face.

If we are going to make wiser decisions that is.

Our question is will we take a path of greater wisdom or will we take a path of fantasy and aggressive instinct?

It's not looking well for us, right now. But, then again, it never does. Until we follow a more honest wisdom.

Progress is not determined by every choice we make moving forward. That is the path of hubris. Progress is the lessons learned from the failed logic of past choices. But before we make progress, we have to learn the lessons.

And we can't do that on health care or any other issue without a more honest, cool-headed, open-minded, open-hearted democratic discussion.

Until then, we fumble. Sometimes forward. Often backwards.

As John says, "We're just ordinary people. We don't know which way to go. We're just ordinary people. Maybe we should take it slow."

Progressives are about to learn a really valuable, if unexpected, history lesson in what actually constitutes progress, I think. We all are, probably.

Lots of lessons to learn. Much time will be needed to learn them. Maybe we should take the time to learn them rather than try to substitute hubris for learning.

Because if there is one lesson history teaches without fail, it is that hubris never substitutes for learning. No matter how determinedly we try to avoid all that learning.

What courage looks like

For those who still confuse the posing and posturing in politics with courage, this is a reminder of what it really looks like.

France Mourns the Death of Its "Mother Courage"

"Few people would have pegged Marie-Laure Picat as a likely heroine. The portly, plain-looking 37-year-old lived quietly in a village in central France, shunned attention, and said her only real quirk was an adoration of the cartoon character SpongeBob SquarePants. But on Aug. 10, when it was revealed that Picat had died the previous day, most of France spared a thought - and shed a tear - for the mother who spent what she knew would be the last year of her life fighting to guarantee that her four children would remain together once she had gone.

'After Astonishing France, Marie-Laure Dies Of Cancer,' read the headline of daily le Parisien's story about Picat's Aug. 9 passing. "The Death of Mother Courage,' echoed France Soir. 'Marie-Laure Picat: The End Of a Battle,' observed the website agoravox.fr. (See pictures of cancer survivors' inspirational stories.)

But while Picat's death marked her lost fight with cancer, it also signaled the end of her victorious war to ensure her children would grow up together as a family after she died. After learning that the liver cancer doctors had detected in July 2008 had become incurable, and knowing that her husband, from whom she was divorced, was unable to care for their children, Picat immediately began the search for a foster family. At first, her quest was seemingly impossible: to find a family with a home close to hers, in her Loiret village of Puiseaux, that would welcome all four of her kids as its own.

'When I found out I was terminal, I knew there was one thing I had to do: protect my children,' Picat said in a March interview with TV channel TF1. 'I needed to be sure they'd be able to live normally.'

Incredibly, Picat found the right family less than a kilometer from her house. However, authorities told her that the final choice of who took care of her children wasn't hers - French social services would have to handle their placement. They also noted even if social workers approved the foster home Picat selected, it could only take in three children maximum, meaning one of her children would have to live somewhere else. (Read: 'Why American Cancer Deaths are Rising.')

So Picat decided to do something she later admitted bothered her: she took her story to the media. The press descended in droves upon the tiny village and, before long, news of Picat's struggle had made her a national heroine.

Within three weeks of Picat going public in December, French authorities granted a waiver allowing all four of her children to live under the same roof with the family she'd chosen for them. President Nicolas Sarkozy hosted Picat and her kids - Julie, 12; Thibault, 9; Matthieu 5; and Margot, 3 - at the ElysÉe. The family was invited to Disneyland Paris for Christmas - a longtime dream that had been put on hold due to lack of funds. (See pictures of Sarkozy celebrating Bastille Day.)"

The most powerful courage is having the kind of love that makes one willing to challenge power when it asserts its will without regard to your own self-determined course, not when you exercise your will over others or cower before its use. The latter is called aggression. And cowardice. It is its opposite.

We are just too cowardly, is the truth, to face that fact.

And we are cowardly because we lack the kind of love, for ourselves, for our children, for others, that a woman like Marie-Laure Picat clearly had.

If we are looking for a truer north for what progress looks like, this is the direction to look.

Health care and liberalism

A thoughtful, if still too market-unfriendly discussion in the Wall Street Journal, today.

Health debate isn't about health

But this is encouraging:

"The real point is that there are ways out of this box. One would be to make a public-insurance plan merely a fallback, to be exercised only if private insurers aren't offering enough options in all markets. The other would be to take the suggestion of Senate moderates and replace the public option with nonprofit insurance cooperatives as an alternative that doesn't require the government to be directly in the business. In an environment less charged with arguments about government's proper role in the economy, both might be easier for each side to accept."

That second proposal would be a way forward that is much more genuinely consistent with liberal values. Ironic that "liberals" would likely make the biggest stink about such a proposal. But most of those folks aren't really all that liberal, when it comes down to it, except as a means of getting whatever what they want when they want it. Meaning, not very liberal at all.

The more liberal path takes liberal values - meaning liberty - seriously. It takes seriously a free market, a free democracy, and the need for voluntary commitments from citizens rather than solutions imposed as a matter of government fiat.

The more liberal path recognizes that power that is used to try to manipulate the consciences and actions of citizens will never even come close to the genuine and voluntary commitments of liberal democratic citizens. There's a reason Stalin and Hitler lost. And it wasn't the porn staches.

It is those sincere and voluntary commitments that make liberal democracies more genuinely strong. And it is where we force otherwise as a function of our lack of faith in ourselves and one another where we are weak.

The failure of humanity to recognize this distinction and to romanticize and defend the weakness and cowardice in aggression as a means of bullying others to get our way is responsible for most of the serious avoidable tragedy that human beings have inflicted on one another. It is one of the most serious and persistent mistakes in human history. Tragically, it was responsible for more death and destruction in the 20th century, in terms of total number of people killed, than perhaps any other century in human history. And it was the vindication of its more liberal alternatives that looked to be the surest lesson from that century.

Until liberal peoples decided that they could no longer bear their liberality any more.

Why I love Twain, or evidence that we learn slowly if at all

Force as a governing philosophy, or stoning our problems to death

Just happened upon this article while researching something for class.

The moment a teenage girl was stoned to death for loving the wrong boy

Here's a more honest visual take on our governing fetish of choice, as of late.


See, this is how you use force. If we want health care, climate change, nuclear proliferation, child sexual abuse, or any of a number of issues resolved, this is the way to get it done. We're just a bunch of pussies, is the truth.

Or so the campfire talk among Al Queda operatives goes.

We need to decide.

Are we liberal because it makes us stronger? Or are we liberal because we're too big of pussies to be illiberal and finally stone all our problems to death?

Because if this is the way to get it done, we better go about getting it done and overwith and stop sucking our momma's teets.

Me, personally. I'm pretty clear this kind of thing is the coward's way out. And from its logic, most abuse of power follows. And that every one of those abuses of power are the consequence of our cowardice, not our courage.

Courage challenges this kind of logic.

Cowards let a girl like this girl die because they are too afraid to look at themselves and their use of aggression and its consequences and inhumanity honestly.

Because that's what cowards do. They bully their way through issues that they have no patience for thnking more seriously about and no compassion for someone other than themselves.

Our choice, fundamentally, is between courage and cowardice.

May we choose courage one day.