Georgia On My Mind

Apologies for two political entries in a single week, but I need a forum to sort through my confusion in regards to the Georgia / Russia conflict.

Maybe I'm not following the timeline properly, but I'm pretty sure last week Georgia tried to deny South Ossetia (by force) the independence it's been vying for since the breakup of the Soviet Union, and Russia (by force) told Georgia to leave South Ossetia alone.

And then President Bush steps in to tell Russia to end its Georgian aggression, asserting our allegiance with Georgia and calling Russia all sorts of dirty names.

Seriously, Bush? Seriously?

Is it just me, or wasn't Georgia the initial aggressor here? Or to rephrase the pop-lingo: "Georgia shouldn't write checks its military brass can't cash."

Essentially, the skinny kid punched the much-bigger-kid's little friend, and now the skinny kid is crying foul.

I mean, I'm as concerned about Russia as the next person. After all, the new Russian president was essentially appointed by the former Russian president, and the former Russian president is the new prime minister.

If that doesn't wig you out, allow me to rephrase:

Something is rotten in the state of the Kremlin, and it ain't the old potatoes outside the vodka distillery.

Even still: does that give the United States the right to tell Russia to leave Georgia alone when, in fact, Georgia "started it"?

Or is this all a microcosm for what we've done in Iraq?

Yeah, Bush, that's just what we want. As though our military isn't spread too thin already, let's add Russia to the playing field. And once this whole Olympics thing is over (oh, what ironic timing!), surely we can continue the international competition by inviting China to join in.

And, oh — oh! I hope North Korea wants to play too.

Now here's an idea: let's do the democratic thing and take a vote: all in favor of using our words to diplomatically (rather than offensively) tell both sides to chill, say "I."

And if that doesn't work — and Bush continues with the heated name-calling — here's a tip for Russia.

Say it with me.

I'm rubber, and you're glue...

Thought Police: Concerning the Beijing Olympics

"Most of the people see the fog, they say it is pollution. But we know here it's not pollution. It's mist, a fact of the nature."

---

I'll be the first to admit that our government is corrupt — the current regime; those before it; and all of those to come.

That's perhaps the darkest secret of human nature: even with the best of intentions, our secret thoughts and actions often undermine the very best of ourselves.

Which is to say: we're far from perfect. And, in large numbers, we're actually quite dangerous.

But I maintain that democracy (in various forms) is the best of all possible governments. Don't believe me? Just pay attention to the Beijing Olympics.

If what you see doesn't make you burst into the chorus from "I'm Proud to be an American," then you're not looking closely enough.

Most of what we've seen in Beijing so far is benign on the surface. But like that proverbial tip of the iceberg, it's something I'd prefer to never run into.

A fireworks display so impressive that even the live audience thought it was real (it wasn't). A six-year-old girl told she wasn't cute enough to appear on stage, though she was asked to sing while another, "cuter" girl lip-synched. Or even better? That China rationalized this decision as being a matter of "national interest."

Just imagine if the U.S. didn't allow the unattractive to perform — what then would come of the Steven Tylers and Clay Aikens of the world?

(OK, so maybe this one little quirk isn't such a bad thing.)

And let us not forget the stone-faced police terrifying tourists; the underage gymnasts; China nearly reneging on its promise to allow uncensored media coverage; the thick smog and how offended the Chinese government became when some American athletes wore masks; or the alarming lack of protesters since the torch relay (particularly when you consider China's reputation for killing and imprisoning dissidents)?

And this is on an international stage, with the whole world watching. Just imagine what they do when we're not paying attention.

Tibet, anyone? Anyone?


I understand that "when in Rome" it's wise to follow protocol. But does that mean if the Olympics were held in Sudan, we'd be free to kill by the thousands, and then tell the international media that the population drop was due to climate change?

Or, excuse me, isn't this why some places aren't selected to host the Olympics?

But far be it for me to tell the IOC how to do their job.


I realize the United States is far from perfect; we're a bully in our own right. Our current administration has manipulated information, misinformed the public, and started unjust wars with unprepared (and under-supplied) soldiers, many of them fresh out of Folsum.

And we didn't just vote in this administration once... we did it twice.

So we're culpable, in a way.

But there's a reason organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union — who I never in a million years thought I'd jump to defend — make such a stink when the government starts tapping our phone calls or holding people without due process.

Because the loss of civil liberties is a slippery slope — one it's best to not start treading.

So... say what you will about the United States.

You're allowed.

(The CIA will just be sure to add it to your file.)


Photo by Paula Bronstein / Getty Images

Political Question of the Day

Do superdelegates get to wear capes?

News Snooze

I realize Martin Luther King Jr. Day was Monday, but it's never too late to poke fun of our shining political stars and the manner in which they observed the occasion.

Take, for example, former President Clinton's (and possibly our future First Man) response to a related sermon (I'm including the link in case the embed video below doesn't work).



Or this little girl's reaction to a pep talk by our current fearless leader.

I feel the same way, kid. I really do.

And as if that weren't enough, Huck Norris has put out a hit on John McCain. And by that I mean, if John McCain dies of natural causes, we'll know that the "natural cause" is a Chuck-style judo chop.





And what, pray tell, do you think Obama was referring to in Monday night's debates when asked about Bill Clinton's status as our first black president (so-called by author Tony Morrison). Here's the exchange between Obama and Hillary, as quoted on Dallas News:

When asked whether Bill Clinton was the nation's first black president, as some African-Americans contend, Mr. Obama said he would have to study the evidence.

"I would have to, you know, investigate more of Bill's dancing abilities and some other stuff before I accurately judge whether he was in fact a brother," Mr. Obama said.

Mrs. Clinton added: "Well, I'm sure that can be arranged."

---

"Other stuff," Barack? Methinks a "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" was in order.

And lastly, for those of you still searching for the one, true religion, your prayers have been answered.

Psych!

OK, so thanks to everyone for your comments and e-mails expressing concern that perhaps I've taken this "Cat Lady" thing a bit too far.

In which case I feel compelled to tell you that I was (mostly) just playing around. I mean, sure, many of those bullets applied to me. And, yeah, maybe I need to get out a little more. But, c'mon, if there's one coping mechanism I've learned from life, it's that it's best to make fun of yourself before someone else does.

Even if you have to exaggerate and self-deprecate a little.

Speaking of hyperbole and self-defecation: the 2008 primaries are in full swing, and if you haven't been paying attention you're, like, the only one.

Here's a nifty little tool that helps you figure out at-a-glance which candidate's beliefs are most aligned with your own. Consider it the Cliffs Notes version of doing your political homework. Oh, and if that doesn't work for you... click on this cheat-sheet:

It's a little outdated — some of those candidates have long since dropped out — but you get the idea.

I Can't Stop Thinking About It

Easily the most insightful political commentary I've seen so far this year.

And if you don't think that about covers it, try this hard-hitting story.

Still not enough? Tune back in later, when I'll have an animated GIF of a Chinese Dwarf Hamster eating broccoli.

What a strange world we live in. A strange, beautiful world.

I [Heart] Huckabee

So I heard on some crazy news program Sunday morning that this guy named Mike Huckabee is leading the Republican primary polls in Iowa.

And I think I speak for much of America when I say: Who the heck if Mike Huckabee?!

I had scarcely heard of him prior to this weekend, and now he's leading the polls?

Romney and Guilliani must've really ticked off the Iowans.

Criminey. I mean, I'm not saying I vote Republican, but a sad majority (sort of) managed to do just that the last two presidential elections — and since we all know how important those Iowa polls are — I figure it's my civic duty to learn a thing or two about our next possible Commander in Chief.

So I did a little research on Mr. Huckabee and found out there was a film made about his family a couple years ago, staring Dustin Hoffman, Lily Tomlin, Jude Law, Mark Whalberg (the brother of 80s heartthrob, Donnie), and other people. I can't say for certain, but I'm pretty sure Mike Huckabee has a cameo appearance as himself in that film.

Anyway. The movie got so-so reviews and most people don't even realize it exists, which I guess is how America felt about Huckabee (the politician) at first, too. Turns out he's a devout Southern Baptist from the town of Hope, Arkansas. A two-term governor of that state, too, where he's known for dropping 110 pounds, living in a mobile home while the governor's "mansion" underwent repairs; and being a "liberal in disguise."

Oh, and, also: he's being endorsed by Chuck Norris. No kidding.

I'm not telling you what to think about him. I've hardly decided myself. But, man, if a vote for Mike Huckabee is a vote for Chuck Norris, I'm in.

Anyway. If you want to learn more, you can go here. Or here. Or maybe... here.

Jimmy Carter Man from Plains (Movie Review)

Say what you will about Jimmy Carter's stint as president — he's done some amazing things since leaving office, and his work with Habitat for Humanity is really just a fraction of his good deeds.

At 83, he's still nailing away with his hammer, working as a diplomat, writing controversial books, and exercising daily. And, wouldn't you know it, but he still holds hands with his wife and you can sense a genuine tingle of excitement in his voice whenever he speaks to her?

OK, OK. So I admit it: I may be a bit bias. I had a fair amount of respect for Carter even before I watched the 2007 documentary Jimmy Carter: Man from Plains, but I mean how could you not like a man who started life as a peanut and cotton farmer, and then rose to the ranks of nuclear physicist, only to later become president?

But what I like most about him — and much of what this film showcases — is what he's done since then: for the U.S. and the world at large.

And while this film does borrow from old footage and news reels, it does so in the context of the 2006. In other words, the director essentially followed Carter around all of last year, and then flashes back to previous Carter exploits only when it's pertinent to do so. By this design, the film doesn't so much aspire to biograph a former president, as it does to capture his psychology.

Director Jonathan Demme also has a clear fondness for Carter, but that's not to say the film doesn't offer fair representation of Carter's critics. In fact, when Carter's last book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid was published — and Carter was deemed an "anti-semite" in some circles purely on the basis of him laying some of the blame on the Israeli government for conflicts over the West Bank — you get to hear from folks who took issue with Carter's controversial stance.

And that gives way to another facet of the film: it's not just a movie about Carter. Rather, it seems to touch rather poignantly on two other topics: ongoing conflicts in the Mid-East, and how the American media (not to mention, political circles) react to people who take unpopular — albeit educated — stances on controversial topics.

Whatever you think of Carter, there's no denying the way he's looked at by people who know him: whether he's at a church function mingling with fellow parishioners; riding his bike with his wife; or sitting in a car with his publicist in the backseat... the people he knows all seem to look at him with this undeniable hint of affection in their eyes.

Not the sort of "look" that comes from being in the presence of the rich and famous, so much as the awe that comes with realizing genuinely good people can and do exist.

That's not to say he's perfect; just that he should serve as an inspiration to the rest of us to stop sitting on our butts and bemoaning the shape of the world.

See the film, and you'll know what I mean.

FINAL GRADE: B+

Because You Deserve to Know What Your Tax Dollars Aren't Paying For

The last time I posted first hand encounters regarding the way in which our troops were treated in Afghanistan, my sitemeter registered a fair few hits by U.S. Government officials — including the Department of Information (no idea why they don't even bother to cover up where they visit on the 'net).

Shortly thereafter, I saw that people at an undisclosed military facility in Colorado were viewing that particular entry after they were e-mailed the link.

(Scary how much these sitemeters tell you, isn't it?)

Hoping those visits were just a bizarre coincidence — but fearing I could get my "source" in some sort of trouble — I removed the post. Though, yes, I realized it may have been too late.

That was more than a year ago. Suffice it to say that in the meantime I've had a difficult time holding my tongue about similar concerns.

Like last night, learning the demographics of platoons we are "training" for deployment to Iraq.

One non-commissioned officer and a couple dozen boys, 18-19 years old, fresh out of boot camp.

That's it. One low-ranking sergeant leading a group of kids. One person who's there because he wants to be, and countless others because they needed the money offered by a sign-on bonus. I mean, let's be realistic: look at all the incentives the Army now offers kids who sign up; look at the number of soldiers with decent test records and passable grades (and compare that to past records — it's sickening how the Army has lowered its standards); and tell me it's safe to send a group of those boys and girls into the desert.

I hate to say it, folks, but if that's not treating soldiers like slabs of meat, I don't know what is.

Or as one co-worker put it: "It's like they're looking for bodies to stop the bullets while they build their embassy."

And so: yes, I think this is a bogus war. And save that initial invasion into Afghanistan (which we botched terribly), I've never supported this.

But, please, if you're going to send Americans into Iraq by the thousands... make sure our soldiers are qualified. Make sure they're there because they want to serve their country, and not because they needed the money. Make sure they have their diploma and please — whatever you do — stop waiving criminal records (rumor has it "soldiers" are stealing equipment from members of their squad). Make sure they're well-trained, and have all the supplies they need.

And while you're at it: change your strategy or get the heck out. Because increasing our head count isn't doing a damn thing.

Lower Your Oil Costs! No Money Down!

So apparently North Korea was awarded large amounts of oil in exchange for shutting down its nuclear reactors.

Now I'm not suggesting anyone out there do anything rash, but when you consider the price of gas these days ($3.52/gal here), desperate times call for desperate measures.

I'm just sorry Kim Yong-il thought of it first.




PS - If you don't hear from me for awhile, search for me either in a North Korean prison, one of those secret CIA detention facilities, or the closet where Trey Parker stores bloggers who infringe on his copyrighted material.

My Sentiments Exactly

...on both counts.

A Non-Binding Postulate

I have lived on the lip
of insanity, wanting to understand,
knocking on a door. It opens.

I've been knocking from the inside. —Jelaluddin Rumi

In the months that joined my freshman year to my sophomore, I faced a fairly typical crisis: I didn't know what on earth I wanted to do with my life, and my major (pre-med) didn't seem to hold my attention.

All I knew, really, was that I spent a good portion of chemistry class writing poems about the study of chemistry in the margins of my notebook. I'd already changed my major from pre-med to psychology once (and then back again, at my parents prodding), and I was especially entralled by a required writing class.

And then, later, I signed up for a literature class as an elective. That was it for me. I switched majors without telling my folks (they would've been crushed!), and I went from majoring in pre-med and taking humanities electives to doing the reverse.

Shortly after I filed the necessary paperwork, my chemistry professor asked me to meet him in his office after class.

"What's this I hear about you changing your major?" he asked through his thick Egyptian accent. "You want to study English?"

He stressed the word English with a bemused glimmer in his eye.

"You're my best student," he said. "Why would you want to do that?"

I was taken back, first of all, by his assertion that I was his "best" student, and I assume to this day that he was using flattery strictly in an attempt to keep me aligned with the sciences.

What he didn't know was that, prior to college, I was terrified of chemistry (in high school, after a lecture on how important it was to keep tabs on our lab keys, I dropped mine into a beaker of hydrochloric acid). Not to mention, I'd spent two entire weeks of this guy's class thinking he was talking about some chick named "Lynn" every time he'd refer to the natural log (ln) of something.

But that's besides the point. He told me how rewarding his profession was, how highly paid chemists were who worked "in the field," and how I'd make a "great doctor" too, if I'd only stick with it.

And I have to admit, his arguments were much better than mine. I have to imagine I sounded like quite the pansy when I said I wanted to switch majors because I wanted to read all of Shakespeare's plays, but in medicine I'd never have the time.

"You think there's not time?" he said, quoting something from the bard I've since forgotten. "You have to make time. I read Shakespeare. I read Rumi — you know Rumi?" he asked.

Rumi is a 13th century Sufi mystic whose poetry had grabbed my attention just a few months previous. My professor was Muslim, but I was nevertheless surprised to hear him so quickly refer to one of my favorite poets, even if they did share the same fundamental religion.

"You think about it," he continued, offering a few more words of disapproval. "Just be sure you make the right decision."
***
A few days later, there was a poetry jam on campus. The aforementioned professor showed up and read passages of old Arabic poems in their original Persian language. He scarely had to look at the pages, as he had so much of it memorized.

The central poet was, as you may have guessed, Jelaluddin Rumi.
***
So he'd proven his point. And though I stuck with English after all, I truly appreciated his efforts to keep me from straying to the "dark side" of the Arts & Sciences building. He'd shown more than modicum of interest in my future, something my own pre-med advisor (a biologist) failed to do.

***

I mention this chemistry professor not only because his interest in my future meant something to me... but also because I was never concerned with our religious differences — even when I did a class presentation on Sarin nerve gas, and threw in a quote or two regarding an Islamic faction. I mean, I knew he celebrated Ramadan, and I knew he had a white Christian wife. That was it. He was my chemistry professor; I was there to learn, and he was there to teach. Religion had nothing to do with it.
***Years prior to that, during the first Gulf war, it never occured to me that the conflict was a battle between Western Judeo-Christian ideology and Islam. For me, it was the U.S. against Iraq (two nations, not two religions), and it had something to do with Hussein invading Kuwait (to reduce it to its simplest apolitical factor).

And for as long as I can remember, I found news of ongoing conflicts in the Middle East between the Palestinians and Israelis — and the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland — to be, for lack of a better word, disheartening.

I understood the differences between these various faiths, but I also understood their similarities. But in my teenage naivete, I didn't understand why they couldn't made progressive use of their shared ideologies. And that, even as I studied the political conflict underlying their mutual struggles.

But the fact remains that — even as the news frustrated me — I was still somehow removed from it. I felt badly for the people caught in the middle, but I was — and this is where I have cause to blush — I was primarily just so glad it wasn't happening where I lived.
***
Even with the bombings in Oklahoma... and the unabomber... threats to our daily way of life seemed to be primarily (though not entirely) domestic. Of course there was always the fear of that proverbial "other" (a la the Cuban missle crisis, the Cold War, etc.)... but for the most part we've had it relatively easy the past few decades — and I do mean relatively.

And then, of course, the events of September 11 serve as a rather profound interruption.

But if we can all agree that history is rife with sundry turning points, I'd argue that 9/11 was rather seismic, to say the least.
***
As though the significant loss of lives wasn't enough, the attacks also showed the American people that its government had a big gaping hole in its lines of defense. And our government, in an ego-maniacal knee-jerk, exploited this tragedy as an opportunity to strip away our civil liberties, one by one. But we were OK with this at first, right?

"If taking off my shoes at the airport will help us catch terrorists, then by-golly I'll do it!"

Right?

Right?!

This, my friends, is that "slippery slope" we studied in high school.

And as for Iraq, well... the expression "red herring" comes to mind. Or did we find bin Laden when I wasn't looking?

But this, too, is besides the point.
***I don't know if it's because I'm older and wiser (stop snickering!), or if it's just a reflection of the impact September 11 had on me... but I find it increasingly difficult to distance myself from the daily news.

And even as I would say my faith in man is at an all-time low — even as I note just how terrible people are to each other even in the comfort of our comparably "peaceful" environs. Even as my blood pressure rises at the mere thought of daily traffic jams, middle fingers, crowded resaurants, threatening neighbors and my 53F apartment — I cannot help but feel a profound drop in my stomach (empathy) when I read stories such as this.

Imagine, if you will, how you felt on September 11. Now imagine if every building you went into, every bus you rode on, every school your children went to... carried with it the very real threat of an attack.

That, it seems, is the state of affairs in Iraq.
***There's been a lot of talk lately about throwing more U.S. troops into Iraq and Afghanistan... and then seeing whether or not the U.S. Senate exercises its "power of the purse" in an act of protest. That could mean, in a word, sending more troops but giving them less equipment.

But here's what I want to know: didn't our meddling in Iraq significantly exacerbate the political unrest that has since thrust the Shiites and Sunnis into a civil war? Haven't thousands upon thousands of Iraqi civilians been killed in the resultant blasts? Aren't we the least bit responsible for that?

And here's the kicker: is washing our hands of the situation really the best thing we can do?

A majority of the American public agrees that we shouldn't have gone there in the first place. And a majority of the American public agrees that we weren't aggressive enough in Afghanistan from the onset (if we had been, wouldn't we be gone by now?).

But no matter how strongly we feel about these Promethean conundrums, we're all left holding our head in our hands when confronted with the next question:

What do we do from here?
***After I read the aforementioned story yesterday afternoon, my thoughts turned to Rumi, and then my professor (just in case you wondered about the madness behind this tangential monster).

Rumi — like Christ, like Buddha, like Mohammed — was a purveyor of peace. His poetry focused on love of life, fear of death, human psychology, spirituality and his frustration with the often ruthless state of the world:

you have set up
a colorful table
calling it life and
asked me to your feast
but punish me if
i enjoy myself

what tyranny is this

Eight hundred years have passed since Rumi, but so little has changed.

What tyranny is this — indeed.

New Government Agency to be Modeled after '24'

It's official.

Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff announced Tuesday that he's spearheading a new terrorism division that will work in conjunction with the Department of Defense.

The new division, termed the United States "Anti-Terrorism Unit," will be modeled after the Counter-Terrorism Unit as seen on the Fox bombshell, 24.

"Between all of those cool gadgets they use to intercept phone calls, and the way they can unscramble information sent over a secure internet connection, we think a similar organization could really prove useful in our ongoing War on Terror," Chertoff said.

"Plus," Chertoff added, "That Jack Bauer guy is really hot."

Skeptics of this proposed Anti-Terrorism Unit were quick to remind Gates and Chertoff of a disastrous attempt in the mid-90's to model yet another agency after a blockbuster hit.

Both chiefs were quick to wave off any concerns.

"In no way, shape or form does the ATU resemble the senior [President] Bush's Impossible Mission Force or 'IMF'," said Chertoff.

"Besides, we're dealing with an entirely new enemy now," Gates chimed in.

The news of the ATU arrives as the debate continues to heat up regarding the efficacy of pre-existing government agencies.

"Call me crazy," said one concerned American. "But isn't that what the CIA, the FBI, the NSA and the Secret Service are supposed to be doing?"

The CIA was under fire by the 9/11 Commission for its failure to detect and/or prevent the 9/11 attacks. Additionally, it was "bad information" from the CIA that led to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

"That's what's so great about the ATU," said Defense Secretary Robert Gates. "Even when they receive bad information, Jack Bauer is determined to get to the bottom of the situation — and in less than a day!"

"Certainly, we're hoping our new Anti-Terrorism Unit won't involve as many deaths and personal tragedies as what you see on 24," Gates continued. "But that's a risk we're willing to take."

"Also, we'd like to avoid any presidential assassinations or nuclear explosions in metropolitan areas [as seen on 24]. But otherwise, we think the folks at CTU really know what they're doing," added Chertoff.

Actor Kiefer Sutherland has been tapped as a potential candidate to head up this new division.

"The experience he's garnered by playing Jack Bauer could prove invaluable to the success of ATU," said Gates. "If nothing else, we'd like for him to serve as a consultant."

Sutherland was unavailable for comment.

Yeah, I Can Dig That

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." — H.L. Mencken

See also:

• Brazil
• V for Vendetta
• War on Terror
• Bird flu
• Mattress tags that read DO NOT REMOVE

Thoughts Concerning an Execution

So they say Saddam will be shuffling off this mortal coil sometime today or tomorrow.

Is it just me, or does anyone else feel a tad disillusioned at the prospect?

I mean, yes, he commited some terrible atrocities against Iraqi Kurds in the 80s. But the retribution should've come then... not 20 years later under the guise of something else — particularly false pretense.

We went into Iraq looking for supposed weapons of mass destruction. We didn't find any. Turns out we started an entire war, in fact, on bad intelligence and a CIA faux pas (oppps!). But Saddam had already been ousted by the time the American public knew any better, so we had to charge him with something.

But we didn't invade Iraq to punish Hussein for the ethnic genocide his minions carried out when I was still in grade school. We just happened to charge him with that when our other excuses didn't pan out.

And so I say again: Hussein is responsible for some terrible atrocities, and he should've been punished. But when the news of Hussein's demise hits the airwaves post mortem, consider this:

• Prior to the U.S. invasion, Iraq was one of the most stable countries in the Mid-East
• Prior to the U.S. invasion, Iraq was one of the most progressive countries in the Mid-East (both financially, commercially, and in its treatment of women)
• Prior to the U.S. invasion, al Qaida terrorists attacked on American soil, claiming some 2,973 lives in New York, Pennsylvania and Washington D.C.
• Efforts to connect Hussein to al Qaida have proven fruitless
• Since the U.S. invasion in Iraq, nearly 3,000 American soliders have been killed there; about 47,000 have been wounded; and anywhere from 50,000 to 100,000 civilian Iraqis have lost their lives in the crossfire
• These totals don't include lives lost in Afghanistan
• WWI lasted just over four years; the U.S. was involved for two (from 1917 until the Treaty of Versailles in 1919)
• WWII lasted less than six years; the U.S. was involved for almost four (from December 1941 until the war's end in 1945)
• We've been in Afghanistan since October 2001; in Iraq since March 2003

For those of you keeping count, these numbers mean the U.S. has been involved in the so-called "War On Terror" longer than we were involved in either World War. And not only do we have no proof — not even the smallest firecracker — to link Hussein to al Qaida or bin Laden, but we've also lost more American lives in Iraq alone than we did in the September 11 attacks.

I don't know if it makes me a bad American, a bad human... or what. But I get no pleasure out of Saddam's imminent execution. That doesn't necessarily mean I think he deserves to live, either. Just that everything feels... wrong.

Something to chew on the next time you see his face in the news.

Bacterial Election

Election day is here, and I couldn't be more thrilled.

And, no, it's not because this will be my first time voting in this state.

Nor is it because I'm one of millions out there hoping for a House flipping that will transform our Commander-in-Chief into a lame duck.

Rather, my excitement is powered more so by my desire to have those wretched advertisements (television and otherwise) put to a halt. The attack ads have been so vicious this year, I've found myself rolling my eyes to the tune of every political party. In short: with so much mud being slung around, even I feel dirty.

In many of the races here, voters only know of the candidates what their opponents have said. In which case, we're literally choosing the lesser of two evils because we haven't heard a single good thing about anyone.

For the first time in my life, I'm going to vote for the "little guys" who don't have a chance in at least two races, just to contest all of the negative energy I've had to endure at the hands of big money yarn spinners.

Does that mean the little guys wouldn't have turned up the productivity on the "NEGATIVE AD" machine if they had the money?

They probably would have. But at this point... I don't really care.

Here's what we're dealing with: the two "main" gubernatorial candidates both have very low approval ratings (think "President Bush" low). And yet the incumbent has a 14-point lead over his opponent.

He was asked what he thought about his low approval rating, and he said something to the effect of: "What do I have to be offended about? I'm ahead 14 points. And, to me, that's great news."

OK, sure. It's great news for you. And, yeah, you're likely that proverbial lesser of two evils. But don't you even care that we don't want you, either?

I'm so tired of that dude talking about all the "negative ads" his opponent put out when, in fact, he turned on the heat months ago. In other words: HE STARTED IT!

[Could you tell I was using my best "angry young kid fighting with sibling" voice? Because I was.]

At one point last week, I saw my very first (and only) "THIS AD IS ABOUT ME AND ONLY ME" commercial.

"Holy smokes!" I thought. "I don't care what she stands for... I'm voting for her!"

Turns out she wasn't in my district.

Eh. Who cares. I'm writing her in for Governor.

Potty Till the Cows Come Home

Senator Lincoln Chafee won the Republican primary in Rhode Island, which has some folks very excited. You see, Chafee has a history of not supporting President Bush, which generally upsets his fellow Republicans.

But I mention this not to continue the string of politically petty posts I've added to this blog in the last week or so. But, rather, because I first heard about this news on NPR this morning, when a Chafee supporter slipped into his thick Rhode Island accent and — I swear — said something to the effect of "Chafee cuts through the potty lines."

Now, I realize he actually said "party," and it's very un-p.c. (not to mention juvenile) of me to find humor in someone's accent.

...But I'm doing it anyway. It made me laugh. I can't help that.

Pavlov's Political Doggerel

It doesn't take a genius to figure out what topic will ripple throughout the blogosphere today...

• Where were you when it happened?
• How were you impacted?
• Are we safer now than we were five years ago?
• What does Iraq have to do with 9/11?

And so on. And so on. And so on...

For now, I'm only interested in addressing those questions insofar as they relate to my experience yesterday morning. I was driving Washington to the airport — he was flying out of one of the biggest cities in the U.S. and into our nation's capitol. Suffice it to say he was originally set to fly into D.C. on the 11th, but opted to go a day early... in part to avoid the unease that comes with travel on that day. In part because he has friends in D.C. that afforded him a reasonable excuse to go a day early.

And while I find us both to be rational people (hold your snickering, please) — the sort who engage in that veritable contradiction of being anti-Bush, anti-war and yet simultaneously supportive of troops — I found it interesting that neither of us were thrilled with the idea of a 9/11 travel date. Did I think there'd be another terrorist attack on the five-year anniversary? Not really. Do I think the next terrorist attack will be a repeat of the last one? Not really. Not to mention, D.C. is possibly even one of the safest places to be today.

But to understand and rationalize these things doesn't necessarily negate inscrutable human response. The expression "fight or flight" comes to mind. I've determined that, as much as we may hate to admit it, the biomechanics of human nature tell us to get the heck out of Dodge long after the dust settles.

It's like that proverbial stove we're told, as children, to never touch.

"That's HOT" our parents say to deter any physical impulse. "Don't TOUCH" And what should happen if curiosity ever gets the best of us, and our little fingers make their way onto the heated surface?

We know to never touch it again. And not so much because our parents told us not to, but because we understand what happens when we do.

So that's what "hot" means...

And while I don't intend to downplay the horrific events of five years ago with such a silly, poorly-composed analogy... I do mean to say that somewhere inside of us, those old parental caveats (nurture) have intermingled with innate response (nature) to create a sensory overload of sorts.

Somehow the wires have crossed. And even as our rational mind determines the stove is turned off... somewhere inside of us, a synapse fires and we wonder: "What if..."

We keep our hands, then, safely at our sides.

But it's also unfair of me to rest all of the blame on unadulterated human nature. From Milgram's experiments to Pavlov's, to Skinner's... human nature is swayed — whether consciously or unconsciously — by external influences.

And these "influences" (television commercials, billboards, political rallies, news programs, etc.) somehow condition us to respond to stimuli in ways that often defy what we think about ourselves.

That's what bothered me yesterday: not the electronic readerboard itself, but rather my immediate response to it.

ORANGE ALERT

it said

EXTRA SECURITY IN PLACE. EXPECT DELAYS.

"Orange Alert," I said. "That's just one level below red."

That's when it hit me: I've often mocked and satirized that frivolous alert system and yet, suddenly, it meant something to me. And I was ashamed.

"Is that Bert or Ernie?" Washington asked, referring to the icon on my blog.

"I can never remember which is orange, and which is yellow. I know Elmo is red."

• He then slurped down the rest of his coffee, which he couldn't take on the plane.
• He then grabbed his carry-on (free of toiletries) from the trunk, and then his check-in.
• I looked at his shoes, and thought to tell him he should've worn disposable socks.

And then I wondered when on earth all of this would end. The terror alerts. The security increases. The liquid ban, the shoeless scans, the wire taps.

And then I remembered, a month or two ago, driving past a billboard that read "ARE YOU READY?"

It was a disaster preparedness message, catered specifically towards terrorist activity. Suddenly I felt like I was a character in Brazil (1985) or even V for Vendetta (2005). Here I have a government telling me to "be prepared" (i.e. Be afraid. Be very afraid.) all the while recommending I put on a pretty face and go about my business.

Talk about a mixed message. I heard yesterday afternoon that the federal government has spent considerably more money advertising and stumping airport security and this color coded "THREAT LEVEL" system than it has spent actually improving airport security (I've got to imagine it's considerably less for other potential targets... trains, busses, water supplies, etc).

Which then brings us back to the very beginning. Where was I five years ago today? Do I think we're safer now then we were before?

Five years ago today, I had just moved to the city where two of the planes left. And when I boarded public transportation to make the commute home — some six hours earlier than expected — all of the city was stuffed on to the train with me. Some families. Some students. But mostly business men with their heads down, and their laptops at their side. It was 10 a.m.; everyone was on their way home... and no one said a word. I didn't think I'd ever again experience something as surreal as that.

But as I saw that readerboard at the airport — as I mumbled the words "That's just one level below red" — I realized...

I was wrong.

A Pseudo-Political Rant about the War (Not-So-Cleverly Disguised as a Review of Syriana)

For the first 45 minutes or so of watching this, we couldn't get the subtitles to work. That meant countless "huh's" and "what'd he say's" that most assuredly frustrated my movie-watching companion.

When we continued the film later on a different DVD player, the feature started working and, at long last, I realized that we'd been watching one heckuva good film.

Essentially, Syriana (2006) is a movie about all of those things we don't want to believe. It's a "fictional" account of the goings-on in the Middle East: the makings of terrorists... the oil wars... and the American politics behind it all. It paints a picture of what we all "suspect" is going on... but that few of us are willing to believe.

That's the aspect of the film that scares me, and for two reasons:

•I generally take issue with any book, film or story that takes a very serious and very "real" issue, and fictionalizes it on a highly influential medium. It's scary what these things can do to sway the masses — sometimes appropriately so, but sometimes... also... blindly, or in the wrong direction
•I don't want to believe that everything I see in Syriana is true. But if this were an all-out documentary (just to clarify... it's not), it confirms my worst suspicions. And that's terrifying.

Here we have a movie that shows how an ordinary Islamic man becomes a terrorist. We see how American politics impact the Middle East. And we see the role oil companies — American and otherwise — play in it all.

And Syriana does this without painting all Americans in a negative light (on the contrary, the CIA agent George Clooney plays is an innocent pawn who tries his darnedest to rectify wrongs committed by his organization). And you don't sympathize with all Arabic men (there are two Saudi princes in this film, for example... one will essentially go to work for American oil companies; the other wants to do what is best for his people but is not necessarily anti-American).

The real beauty of this film: much like Thank You For Smoking (2006) — a movie about smoking in which no one ever lights up — Syriana brings to mind the workings of the Bush administration, and our current role in Iraq — without ever once referencing our current president.

My biggest complaint: with 4-5 story lines unfolding at once, I wasn't always able to follow along... but this may have resulted from the aforementioned "subtitle" issue.

But back to the pseudo-political rant:

Given the recent headline about Prime Minister Blair stepping down, at the bequest of his people, why on earth haven't we accomplished the same here?

I realize Parliament can actually "vote" someone out of office, and that realization likely played a role in Blair's decision. And I know that's not a feat as easily accomplished here. But, goodness, if we could impeach Clinton for his husbandly misgivings... what's missing from the equation here?

A Clear-Cut Case of Huh?!

I read this story on Friday, but only just found the time to discuss it. It's a bit dated now, unfortunately, but that doesn't make its contents any less disconcerting.

“'We did in fact see him alive,'” [Major General Bill] Caldwell said. 'He mumbled a little something but it was indistinguishable and it was very short.'”

A 'little something'? As in "Hey, have you guys seen my car keys?"

"'U.S. and Polish forces arrived intending to provide unspecified medical treatment...'"

If he was assumed dead, what was the treatment for?

“'[Zarqawi] attempted to sort of turn away off the stretcher, everybody reached to insert him back...'"

"Sort of turn away"?! Hey, by any chance did anyone use a gun to "insert him back"?

"[Caldwell said] an initial analysis of Zarqawi’s body was done but he was not certain it constituted a full autopsy."

So, um, what did it constitute? A college admission physical? A spray of "how the heck did you survive that, Damien?!" bullets?

“'[Zarqawi] obviously had some kind of visual recognition of who they were because he attempted to roll off the stretcher, as I am told, and get away, realizing it was U.S. military.'”

'Well, obviously. Like, um, totally duuuh...' I mean, who wouldn't be afraid of the U.S. military?
'Some kind of visual recognition' — now that sounds like an official analysis of the situation. Thanks, Colombo!

"Caldwell said another foreign-born militant was poised to take over the terror network’s operations."

No kidding, huh? So you mean the war isn't over? This reminds me of a story I once heard about fecal matter and a guy named "Sherlock." Incidentally, does the realization that there's always going to be someone new "taking over" make you think y'all might want to reconsider your goals and objectives?

"He said Egyptian-born Abu al-Masri would likely take the reins of al-Qaida in Iraq."

Let's call him "Abu-bu" for kicks. As in, "Do you need a Band-Aid for your Abu-bu?"

"The U.S. military had displayed images of the battered face of al-Zarqawi and reported that he was identified by fingerprints, tattoos and scars. But Caldwell said Friday that authorities made a visual identification of al-Zarqawi at the site of the airstrike."

OK. So was his face battered, or not? And when you're dealing with the #2 terrorist in the world, I'm not sure I want the story of his life or death to hinge on a "visual identification." Shesh. Even I've heard of decoys.

So that's my way of having fun with Maj. Gen. Bill Caldwell and his "astute" analysis of the situation. Sadly, I think the Carmen Sandiago gumshoes could've done a better job.

And here's my beef with the media: when I first read that story on Friday, and then revisited it 20 minutes later to begin writing this piece, the story had already been altered. It initially included questions such as:

Why does Zarqawi's face look so purty if he just had two 500 pound bombs dropped on him? [Caldwell's answer in a nutshell: "we just don't know how an ordinary man could've survived a blast like that"] and

How long was he alive after the blast?
[Answer: "just a few minutes" and "he died shortly after the Polish medics arrived"... the story later changed to have him dying shortly after the U.S. military arrived... and then over this past weekend, we learned he was alive for some 50 minutes after the blast.]

These and other segments were deleted without explanation.

There's comes a time in every person's life when you've got to learn how to tell fact from fiction. As for myself: I'm tired of sorting through the rubbish.