Send in the left fielder

I just read this article on HuffPost, and it made me think of the recent wingnut article (I forget exactly where I saw it mentioned) that accuses "the Left" of simply only wanting to target Bush, and not fight terrorism. Read in a certain light, this article could make you think that it's only "out to get Bush" (as if most guys would think this was a bad thing--the getting bush part, that is).

Hmm. Well, I am not "the Left" or any approximation, thereof. I don't think I'm too conservative, mainly because of having a mother who taught in public education her whole career. I believe strongly in the role and ability of government to do things on a scale that individuals and smaller organizations simply cannot. Educating Americans falls under that category, for me, though we are blowing this social contract big time. NCLB is leaving us all behind. But, regardless of my leanings, I am simply a centrist American, with some of all philosophies rattling around my brain.

I want America to defend itself against terrorism and the terrorists. Vigorously. But the war in Iraq was never about terrorists. It was about oil and Bush's desire to do what daddy did not. The real threat was never Saddam Hussein, in fact, he was a stabilizing influence in the region, though we really didn't like him, at all. He held the hornet's nest in check. With brutal and autocratic methods, but held it he did. Now all we have is chaos and a civil war. There's NO winning that one, folks.

I want America to defend itself against terrorism and the terrorists. But, wasting our time and precious human resources in Iraq only takes away from the real war. It adds nothing, and puts us deeper and deeper in debt. In the words of Magwah: "Bush was the father of that," and as such, he must be held accountable and taken to task. He doesn't get it; never did.

Let's start moving troops out of Iraq so we can begin replenishing our army for the long fight ahead. Let's also stop ignoring our Constitution and the warrantless wiretapping of ordinary Americans. There is no excuse, however carefully worded, for breaking the law so blatantly. Bush must be held accountable for these errors.

But it's not just about getting Bush out. It's about making management changes as a prelude to moving forward in the right direction, and correcting the mistakes of the previous administration. Cheney has retained a lawyer. Rove has such a poor reputation that he couldn't get elected for dogcatcher, as they say. Let's clean house and put someone in office who can start making a real difference. Let's get Osama, and clean the terrorist houses. Let's start doing things not just if they make political sense, but if they make sense for America. I believe firmly that if you do the right thing in leading America, it doesn't matter what party you belong to, they will continue voting you into office. In some respects it's a bad thing we have presidential term limits, because among other things, it would have all but prevented GWBush from being elected the first time.

No, I swear it's not just about getting Bush. We need to make some changes around here, and at the top seems like the best place to start. Then let's work on following the rule of law and regaining some of the respect and admiration of the rest of the world by being the "good guys", again.

Judge rules what we all knew, all along

This is in response to the general wingnut response to the recent ruling on the unconstitutionality of warrantless domestic wiretaps.

My only contribution to this debate is the realization that 1) if the government was only listening in on a few (relatively few) individuals, then they would get warrants, because they can, and because the paperwork wouldn't bury them, and 2) since they aren't getting warrants it means that they're wiretapping everyone.

I know that seems quite a stretch to make the logical leap from "only" listening in on a few international calls to listening in on everyone, but consider how vehemently they are attempting to keep any information about this completely out of the public's eye. If it was really true that only a few individuals were having their international calls monitored, then having that knowledge become public gives absolutely no new information to the enemy. Surely they have figured this out, by now, on their own. However, if you are really eavesdropping on everyone, you really don't want anyone to know, especially not the enemy. Er, make that: especially not the American people. I believe there are enough of us who haven't yet died for the principles of our nation who are willing to stand up to defend those principles.

The ideas in the Constitution (especially since they are so much more than ideas) are extremely important. They are definitely not easy, particularly since they provide rights to individuals whom you would rather see stomped into the ground. But the strength of the nation doesn't come from the defense of the small, easy things, it comes from the defense of the large, really hard things. Americans have fought and died to defend these ideas--these very large things--and I consider it the true mark of patriotism to continue defending these ideas in the face of deadly opposition.

Someone once said: "He who trades liberty for temporary security deserves neither." Look it up. And finally, our enemy considers it an honor to die for their principles (and they often do, quite willingly), why don't we?

Do you have to be dumb to be a man?

The author of this Huffington Post blog entry speculates that men are finding an ever decreasing set of traits to which they can lay claim because of some requirement that a "man" is something/anything that a "woman" isn't. He also surmises that men are still being trained as warriors, while women, of necessity, are left with ... whatever is left. He uses this to explain why women are better negotiators and have better social skills.

I have always used the "biology" argument for why there are differences between the sexes. Historically (and I mean way, way back in the past) it made eminent sense for the species that when sabretooth tigers came to call, it was the males that went out to face them. After all, if the female is killed, the young perish, since males can't breastfeed. If the male is killed, the female simply needs to find another male to fight the tigers. Since the females were behind the "front lines" caring for the young, skinning the latest kills, gathering the fruit, etc., they had an opportunity and a reason to cooperate and collaborate. Put another way, the females were more successful if they were social, while men were more successful if they were strong, stoic, and fearless. You would understand this if you ever had to face a sabretooth tiger.

I don't think either role is more or less important, and I have believed since I have been an adult (i.e., a long time) that the differences between the sexes is really quite miniscule. Females have the courage and determination to face down a tiger if the need arises (you don't want to come between a female and her young!), and the males certainly have the ability to be loving and nurturing, again, when the need arises.

True, men seem to be trained for the warrior role more often than for more ... feminine-inspired roles. They have the aptitude and physical traits that make them a good match. But I would argue that for men to arbitrarily limit themselves to only things that women are not is to be relegated to the role of nonentity. Unless the men out there really think they don't matter much at all, it's apparent that what it means to be a man absolutely must include some traits that women are now adopting.

This doesn't make men more feminine or less important, for the same reason that the change in women's roles don't make women less feminine or more important. We're all equally capable and important. What's most significant is that in most ways, today, it really doesn't matter what you are. Your sex just means that when it comes time to get horizontal you have nicely cooperating anatomies.

So, what is a man? Well, my answer has always been: a man is whatever he wants to be. A man is the freedom to be both strong and vulnerable, because either one has its advantages depending on the situation. A real man doesn't accept limits any more than a real woman does. I figure that if it's good enough for her, it damn well ought to be good enough for me.

Popular culture revels in making men out to be idiots, and if you're weak enough to accept that characterization and further that image, then you deserve what you get. I don't watch TV or movies that extoll the "dumb and dumber" stereotype, and I make mental notes not to purchase products that use numbskull men in their advertising. But seriously, popular culture mistreats women just as much, so in truth we're all losing, all the time.

If men seem more "simple" it's because men tend to be mono-taskers. Multitasking implies complexity, but everything is relative. I may tend to concentrate on one thing at a time, but I have truly killer spatial perception. Women are anecdotally bad with maps precisely because that ability (good spatial perception) wasn't crucial to the species' survival. There's nothing like a rampaging sabretooth to help a guy judge the distance to the other side of the cliff. If you missed, you were history, no matter how much consensus building your mate was performing back at the cave.

Men are also more visual, and we still tend to measure success by the size of our biceps and the distance we can hit a baseball. We are by nature "doers" and judge ourselves based on what we can accomplish, rather than how we make everyone feel. I hate the saying, but "git 'er done" resonates with males because for us--that says it.

So, if you're a man my advice is simple: Decide what you want to be, then git 'er done. Damnit.

Newsflash: American people support Al Qaeda

"And might some argue, as some have, that Lamont is the al Qaeda candidate?"

Funny how suddenly the majority of Democratic voters in Connecticut who voted for Ned Lamont have become supporters (by proxy) of Al Qaeda.

I wonder how many of them knew that?

Here's a tip for those trying to make hay by calling good Americans anti-American: you don't get elected by telling the American people they're wrong. It just doesn't work.

See you all in November. And I know for whom I will vote.

Message to Democrats

Most of the time I don't know who to believe. My suspicion is that it really doesn't matter what party you're from, once you become part of the "beltway buds" you're tainted; you're evil. So I say: throw out the bums. It's time to turn things over and bring in a new crowd of folks. I don't care if they're not "experienced"--they'll learn quickly enough.

Oh, my message? I am tired of no one having the cojones to simply stand up to the administration and say: I disagree. I think you're wrong. The Iraq war was a bad idea, and you're making it worse. It's time to rethink our "strategies".

There's no "cut and run" in those words. It's simply an open disagreement between responsible Americans. There's no weakness in standing up for what you believe, no matter what someone else says. If people aren't listening well enough to hear what you're saying, or not astute enough to recognize reality when they hear it, well then ... you won't influence those people. Give it up, move on, but don't stop talking.

If the majority of Americans favor the war, then you have no chance of winning in November, or the November two years hence, either. But, as many "experts" are saying (and what I suspect) is that the majority of Americans are not in favor of this war. The problem is we don't speak up too often, but we do hear (and will hear) what you're saying. The recent primary election (in Connecticut in particular) should tell you something.

Give me an alternative! Stand for something! For god's sake: do something! Show me you're actually qualified to represent us in government (and by extension, in the White House the next time around). The worst possible thing the Democratic Party could do now would be to continue to quail and quake in the wake of opposition, and do nothing to provide leadership to this country. Because if you don't start talking now, and loudly, then you really are as weak as the Repugnican neo-cons say you are.

And that would indeed be truly sad.