The Blame Society

I just read this report on the horrific shootings at Virginia Tech earlier in the year, and what struck me about the article was how it was played: "Report faults Virginia Tech response." I couldn't help thinking of a couple of things simultaneously:

• An episode of Star Trek (the original series), "The Conscience of the King," where Kirk discovers that a Shakespearean actor is actually a cover for an old mass murderer from years ago. Kirk wants to bring him to justice--the implication is that he wants to kill him, and McCoy asks him: "What if you decide he is Kodos [the mass murder]? What then? Do you play God, carry his head through the corridors in triumph? That won't bring back the dead, Jim!"
• In Michael Crichton's Rising Sun, Detective John Connor is explaining one of the differences between the Japanese and American ways of dealing with problems to Detective Webb Smith. Connor explains: "The Japanese have a saying: fix the problem, not the blame. In American organizations it's all about who fucked up. Whose head will roll. In Japanese organizations it's all about what's fucked up and how to fix it. Nobody gets blamed."
  

Now believe me, it's not that I don't believe that killers shouldn't be brought to justice; I do. And it's not that I don't believe that the Japanese don't point fingers; I think they do. But this was a horrible tragedy, and the knee-jerk tendency to apportion blame, rather than fix the systemic problems, strikes me as, well, insane.

Another good example of this is the recent Utah mining disaster. There is absolutely no question in my mind that both mine owner Bob Murray, Bush Administration head of mine safety Dick Stickler, and probably some others have a major hand in this disaster for doing everything they could to maximize profits at the expense of safety. It's clear, and they should obviously pay.

But the much more important issue here is, what is the systemic problem that should be addressed? Clearly, the cronyism of the Bush Administration--the tendencies that gave us "Brownie" and "Fredo" Gonzales and all the other "loyal Bushies" who are in high positions for reasons of loyalty and cronyism rather than competence--is the problem here, much more so than the rank criminal negligence of a couple of people. And that is the problem that needs to be addressed, much more than apportioning blame. Because once the perpetrators have been removed, don't we want to make sure that this sort of thing never happens again? And you can't do that just by laying blame and slapping a few assholes in jail.

And that's what I kept thinking about the Virginia Tech newspaper report. They are laying blame at the feet of the Tech officials. People who are probably getting up every morning taking Paxil and Prozac to get through the day, feeling horrific guilt at their mistakes already. What good is done by an official report that points a finger at them? Does that bring the people back to life? Does that make the people who made the mistakes feel better, or perform better? Does it make Virginia Tech's safety situation improved?

Fix the problem, not the blame. That way, maybe it won't happen again.

Bush's View of Iran (Yes, Iran)

Yesterday, in front of yet another military audience, President Bush gave a speech about Iran that can only be described as extreme sabre rattling.

(And let me just say as a personal aside that, as the son of a Naval officer, it offends the heck out of me that Bush continues to use military audiences as a prop for his speeches. Bush's family used its political connections to get him into the Texas Air National Guard to avoid active duty service in Vietnam, and then he skipped out on even completing that. His Administration has presided over one of the worst-run wars in our nation's history, a war that we most assuredly didn't need to fight. His Administration has treated its wounded veterans poorly. He is forcing his reserve and national guard personnel to serve second, third, fourth, and deployments without sufficient time between each. Desertions and suicides among active duty personnel are up at 50 year highs. And this man has the temerity to use our brave veterans as back-drops for his desperate efforts to continue his disastrous policies? To say that this enrages me exposes the inadequacies of the language.)

Can anyone listen to this speech--or even read excerpts of it--and not think that Bush and Cheney are absolutely determined to fight yet another war, this time with Iran? We have had reports that Cheney believes that war with Iran is necessary, and that he doesn't "trust" a future Administration to "deal with it," and that he has been maneuvering Bush to begin one. With this speech, it is clear that Cheney is winning his bureaucratic battle. And I can't say strongly enough how much this terrifies me.

Folks, the military is now so close to collapse that even the Joint Chiefs are saying that we have to draw down the forces in Iraq starting next year at the latest, like it or not. Almost all the experts believe that any military action against Iran would only make the situation there worse, not better. The terrorists that we really need to go after are in Afghanistan, not Iraq or Iran. Bush and Cheney have proved over and over again that they are utterly incompetent at running a war. And now they want to begin another one? I am petrified, to be honest.

And any commentators and other folks who are trying to comfort themselves by thinking that Congress will stop these war mongers are fooling themselves. First of all, the Democrats have proven again and again that they are craven cowards when it comes to stopping Bush from his insane war mongering. But second of all, Bush and Cheney believe--and have put forth their various theories to bolster their beliefs--that the "War on Terror" means that they can fight "the enemy" wherever that enemy is, even on U.S. soil (hence the arrest of Jose Padilla without charges, a U.S. Citizen on U.S. soil, who was slapped in a military prison).

So bear this in mind: Bush believes that as Commander in Chief, it is his duty to go after terrorist wherever they are. His speech yesterday makes it clear that he believes that they are in Iran. He has also made it clear that he believes that Congress' 2002 vote to "authorize the use of military force" (AUMF) gives him the authority to use military force for the entirety of the "War on Terror." Congress telling him otherwise now is not going to stop him. The only thing I can imagine stopping him is a huge public outcry, or the military command flatly telling him no. And I frankly can't imagine either of those two things occurring.

So I'm terrified that sometime in the next 12 months, we're going to be at war in Iran. I wish I were wrong. But I honestly don't think so.

Can no one stop these insane maniacs?

The Sad Story of Senator Craig

As I've said before here, I'm completely baffled by homophobia. You're a guy who wants to marry another guy, or a woman who wants to marry another woman, hey, be my guest. I just don't understand what all the hubub is about, and I never will.

Another thing that confuses me, though, are people like Senator Larry Craig. I'm not confused by him being in the closet; I understand that. There are times when, as a Jew, I find it mighty uncomfortable to tell people that I'm Jewish (e.g., around Christmas). I get that. If a gay man or woman wants to remain in the closet, I'm content to let them.

But when a gay or lesbian gets married to a member of the opposite sex, then I start getting a little confused. I definitely understand the impulse to have children. And for men and women of Sen. Craig's generation, it was definitely much harder to be in a committed same-sex relationship. I get that. (Although I have a lot of problems with gays and lesbians who marry, have kids, and then leave their partners because--sorry, wife (or husband) and kids!--I have to follow my same-sex bliss now! Hey, after the kids are raised and gone, knock yourself out. But up until then, the partner and kids should pay the price for your confusion? That just seems wrong to me, not to mention selfish.)

But Sen. Craig didn't just marry, he then became a Republican politician who not only voted for, but actively supported, anti-gay legislation. And that's most assuredly not okay. It's not even hypocritical; it's actively wrong. Quisling, back-stabbing; apply whatever epithet here you want, it's just plain wrong, bordering on evil. "I--a rich, powerful man protected by my position--will outlaw this behavior, knowing full well I can engage in it in secret because of my wealth and position." (It reminds me of wealthy, vehemently"pro life" Republicans who--I have no doubt whatsoever--would secretly take their daughters to a doctor for an abortion should they become pregnant at the age of 15 even if it meant they had to fly her from Tupelo to Boston. But I digress.)

Aside from being plain wrong, it confuses me. Why is he doing it? I can understand him voting for these positions--he's a Republican from a deeply Red state. But to actively support them? Is it some kind of weird denial thing? Does he make his fiery anti-gay floor speeches immediately after one of his bathroom trites in a fit of remorse? Is he like an adulterer who immediately goes to the confession booth seeking absolution from a priest, or an alcoholic who, severely hung-over the next morning, begs the lord for forgiveness and swears to never, ever drink again? I don't know, but it baffles me.

Supporting the Troops

Yesterday--in a stunning display of audacity for a man who used the National Guard to hide from his own service in the Vietnam War, and then skipped out on even that--President Bush said, among other profoundly unbelievable things:

Our troops are seeing this progress that is being made on the ground. And as they take the initiative from the enemy, they have a question: Will their elected leaders in Washington pull the rug out from under them just as they're gaining momentum and changing the dynamic on the ground in Iraq? Here's my answer is clear: We'll support our troops, we'll support our commanders, and we will give them everything they need to succeed.

Somehow, I sincerely doubt that the first question on the minds of "the troops," many of whom are on their third or fourth deployment, is "Will my elected leaders in Washington pull the rug out from under me?" No, I'm guessing that the question at the forefront of most troopers minds is, "When the hell can I go home from this insane war?"

And frankly, I wonder why the Democrats don't pound on exactly that point more often. (Ans.: they're cowards.) I mean, who supports the troops more? President Bush and his war-mongering compatriots, who want to continue throwing them into the middle of this endless civil war indefinitely with no clear plan for "victory," or even an end? Or the folks who want to bring them home?

If I was on the ground in Iraq, I know how I'd feel.

So don't listen to all this hoo-ha about how trying to wind down the war through cutting the funding means that you "don't support the troops." It's garbage. The only way the Congress can bring the troops home is through the "power of the purse." That's their only option. Bush, like it or not, is the Commander in Chief. Congress controls the money; Bush controls the command structure. So when they try to cut off his funding, it's not because they "don't support the troops," it's because they want to bring them home.

So ask yourself who is more supportive of the troops: the folks who keep voting to endless fund this boneheaded war, or the folks who are trying--through the only means available to them--to bring the troops home. And then call ol' Rush Limbaugh and tell him.

I apologize for the rant, but it infuriates me when folks on the right insist that if you don't give Bush all the money he wants with no conditions, it means you "don't support the troops." I wouldn't trust this group to run a game of Clue correctly, let alone prosecute a war; why on Earth should we give them a blank check with the lives of our sons and daughters? Good grief.

Here We Go Again

Two months ago, the craven Democrats completely caved and gave George W. Bush--Mr. 30% Approval Rating--yet another blank check for the war. The commentariat at the time said that Gen. Petraeus promised September report on "the surge" would be the make-or-break point, when--if "progress" wasn't shown in Iraq--Republicans would start peeling away from Bush.

I, on the other hand, was a lot more cynical.

And now we see that everyone is maneuvering for the September game. First of all, we find that the good General isn't even writing the report himself, the White House is. (Of course, they say that they were always planning on writing it, and anything you believed otherwise was your own misinterpretation!) Second, the report is going to be delivered on . . . wait for it . . . September 11! Yes sir! Just a coincidence, though! Nothing nefarious about that, sirree! And of course, Bush has already started giving speeches decrying anyone who doesn't write him another blank check as "pulling the rug out from under the troops."

And of course the cowardly, craven Democrats are buying it. Senators Levin and Warner, after a two-day trip to Iraq where they were given what Sen. Jim Webb so accurately termed the "Dog and Pony show," are talking about "progress" in Iraq. Let us bear in mind two things:

1. Levin and Warner were Iraq two days. Two days isn't long enough to tour the Smithsonian Museum, let alone get even the remotest idea as to how the situation is in a war zone. Hell, you can't even get through more than a couple of wings of the Smithsonian in that time.
2. Levin and Warner got all their information from military sources. What are military sources going to say? "Yes, Senator; we're getting our asses kicked over here."

Make no mistake, this trip was about one thing only: political tail-covering for when Warner, Levin, and other Democratic Senators make their next craven vote in support of Bush's disastrous war. "Well, we went to Iraq and saw enough progress to justify continuing to try!"

And Republicans, of course (as I again suspected quite a while ago) are most assuredly not peeling away from Bush.

The lack of political courage on the left simply sickens me. While these politicians bicker and squabble and refuse to stand up to an incredibly unpopular president prosecuting an unbelievably unpopular war in which American soldiers are dying to prop up a government that a lot of Iraqis don't want (and a lot of Iraqis would like us to leave, I might add), Osama bin Laden is rebuilding his organization over in a completely different country.

The insanity of this absolutely boggles my mind.

The Accelerated Primary Season

I know I'm probably alone in this, but I have a simple solution to what the blovacracy calls the "accelerated primary season" (that is, the attempt by other, more populous and diverse states to have some actual, honest-to-God say in the Presidential primaries, rather than just leaving it all up to Iowa and New Hampshire).

Lately, a lot of states have been moving their primaries up to February and even January, in an attempt to give their states some relevance, rather than having so much influence being held by the predominantly-white, small population states of Iowa and New Hampshire. Which seems reasonable to me; as I carped in an earlier post, I got tired of living in California and having no say in picking my party's Presidential candidate. Iowa and New Hampshire are responding to this effrontery by moving their primaries and caucuses even earlier, to the point where Iowa may end up having their caucus in December of 2007 (believe it if you can). I get the impression that Iowa would move their caucus to the first Wednesday in November the day after the election if that's what it took to keep their "first caucus" status.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I've got nothing against Iowa or New Hampshire. Nothing. I just think it's absurd that these two highly-unrepresentative states have so much say over who gets to be President. We can see where this has gotten us the last several times around (Dukakis! Mondale! Bush! Kerry!), and I think it's high time we made some changes. And given that Iowa has a law that requires they have the first caucus in the nation, there only one obvious way to do it:

Pass a law.

Yup. Time for those Congressmen and women and Senators who spend time grubbing for money for bridges to nowhere, who hide bricks of money in their fridge, who pass resolutions to rename french fries "freedom fries" and try to pass idiotic amendments to the constitution to outlaw flag burning (yeah, that's a huge issue that keeps me up at night) to get off their duffs and tell the good folks from Iowa and New Hampshire that enough's enough, and that it's someone else's turn now. I don't care who; make it a rotation, or something. Start in Minnesota or New Mexico for all I care. But Iowa and New Hampshire have had it long enough, and someone else should have a turn.

I'm not holding my breath, though. And my Uncle John (resident of Derry) is going to kill me.

Lies About Torture

I've been holding this one in for a while, because I keep waiting for someone else to write about it--mainstream media (Dan Froomkin of the Post, Dan Savage of the Boston Globe; somebody), bloggers (Glenn Greenwald or Andrew Sullivan both seemed like good candidates), but no one has. Neither have I heard Keith Olbermann address it, either.

Not this issue of torture and the U.S. policy towards it. We've all heard and read plenty about that. No; I'm talking about the absolutely Orwellian approach to defining and talking about torture that the Bush Administration has taken. And I don't know about y'all, but it absolutely outrages me. (And while I don't know about anyone else, it is clear as crystal to me that Cheney, Rumsfeld, and a lot of other members of this Administration--Yoo, Gonzales, and others--are clearly guilty of war crimes.)

Let me 'splain.

I've been wondering when the mainstream media (MSM) was going to call Bush and Cheney on their obvious B.S. when they stand up there and say, flat-out, "We do not torture." Bush does it any time he is asked about it, and Cheney just did it a couple of week ago on Larry King. How on God's green Earth can they do this when we know that the U.S. military at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo has been using waterboarding, hypothermia, stress positions, sleep deprivation, and other techniques that were used by (for example) Stalin, the Khmer Rouge, the Gestapo, and others?

It's simple, folks: through the assistance of spineless lawyers like John Yoo, Alberto Gonzales, and Steven Hadley, the Administration has redefined torture to not include those actions. Torture, for these folks, only includes activities up to and including death and organ failure. Other than that, all bets are off (or as Cheney says, we went to "the dark side"). So when they say, "We don't torture," or "We abide by all legal obligations," make sure to add in your mind, "and of course, we don't consider waterboarding, stress positions, forced hypothermia, or sleep deprevation 'torture'."

How do we know this is true? Because any time one of these folks is asked about a specific (let's not mince words here) torture like waterboarding, they always dodge the question. "We don't reveal specific methods," Cheney likes to say. This is a huge pile of hooey. They know that if they "reveal specific methods," they will be admitting that they do torture, and won't be able to lie in front of the American people any more. So they duck and weave and dodge, and don't admit to the obvious, which is that they've redefined these horrible acts so that they don't consider them legal torture, even though any civilized human being would.

I know that I am out there by the lights of some folks, but I truly believe that these folks are war criminals. They have approved--and continue to approve--the torture of human beings. They secretly violated the fourth Amendment to the Constitution (illegal search and seizure), and once caught, insisted that they have a right to violate it. They violated and continue to violate the FISA law. They are criminals, pure and simple, and they are getting away with it. They have broken their sacred oaths of office ("preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution," remember?). And they are torturing our fellow human beings, who have been convicted of no crimes, and in most case not even accused of any crimes.

These are the people in charge of our country today. I can't decide what boggles my mind more; that we live under the rule of such people, or that there are actually people out there (Steven Hayes of the Wall Street Journal, for example) who continue to defend their behavior. I am constantly torn between sadness and overwhelming rage.

A Few Words on Gay Marriage

Last night the Democratic candidates for President had a talk about their stances on gay marriage, civil unions, and related issues. It almost goes without saying--these days, anyway--that they danced around the issue, talked a lot about "civil unions," and basically did everything they could to not say they were in favor of gay marriage while implying that they were, so as to cover all the bases without opening themselves up to "traditional values" attacks later in the campaign.

I understand their fear, but I think they're cowardly. Of course, as they demonstrated last weekend when they caved to President Bush, Democrats are pretty consistently cowardly these days, so I shouldn't be all that surprised.

(It almost goes without saying that this is not the kind of forum the Republicans will have any time soon. The Republicans have made a pact with their social-conservative wing to oppose things like stem cell research, abortion, gay marriage, and things of that nature, and so bloviate endlessly on those topics. Which is incredibly ironic, because almost any individual Republican--of a certain monetary class--is completely open about any social issue. If an upper-class Republican teenage daughter got pregnant, there would be an abortion. If an upper-class Republican son or daughter were gay, they would be accepted (witness Cheney's daughter). If an upper-class Republican needed the research and treatment that can only be provided by stem cells, they would want it. And so on. But they've made their Faustian bargain, and so publicly they maintain their absurd hypocritical stances.)

In any event, I find this whole business to be a lot of hooey, honestly. It breaks down into two pieces:

Religion: If you are gay and want to get married in your religious tradition, that's something you have to work out with your priest/pastor/rabbi/imam/whatever. Not an issue for the state.

State: Here's the rub, eh? A married couple has rights that a non-married couple does not. My wife can inherit, can take responsibility for our children, our finances if I am incapacitated, and a whole host of other things. If I'm sick and in the hospital, she can visit me. We can file federal income taxes jointly. And on and on.

Some folks say let's create a "civil partnership" law, that marriage is "sacred," that we don't want to "dilute" marriage by "allowing" gays to marry, that having gays marry would be a "threat" to "traditional marriage," and other such nonsense. What a crock.

Let me take this one piece at a time:

Civil partnerships: Can you say "separate but equal?" Didn't we try this before and have it not work? It's just a cop-out. Either go whole-hog and let folks get legally married, or admit the truth: you don't want gays happy and committed to each other.

Marriage is "sacred": That's not for the state to decide, it's for religious leaders. Go talk to them. Otherwise, shut up.

Threat to "traditional marriage": This is the silliest of all. First of all, there's no such thing as "traditional marriage." How many wives did Solomon have? Was that "traditional?" Second, how on Earth is two guys getting married a threat to my marriage? Or anyone's marriage? If your marriage is so shaky that reading about Bruce and Steve getting hitched down at Zilker park this Sunday causes your wife to leave you, pal, your have a lot more problems than outlawing gay marriage is going to cure.

I have been around gays and lesbians my whole life. Literally. When my parents went on a second honeymoon to the Virgin Islands when I was 10, they left my siblings and I in the care of a gay man. We've all had gay and lesbian friends since we were children. And here's the thing, homophobes: all three of us are married with children, and none of us have been divorced. I've been involved with the same women in a monogamous relationship for 14 years now. There were gay and lesbian couples at our wedding. I've been to gay and lesbian weddings myself. And wow, gee, my marriage is spectacularly unthreatened! Imagine!

Look: some folks find homosexuality "yucky." I get it. You don't like it. You don't want to admit it out loud, so you hunt for reasons--religious, legal, what-have-you--to support your feelings of discomfort. But they're all rationalizations. All I'm saying is, keep your yuck feelings to yourself; stop trying to legislate them and force the world to abide by your prejudices. These folks just want to get married, be happy, and have the same rights as everyone else. That's all. They don't want to rape your sons and daughters. They don't want to steal your wives and husbands. They just want to settle down, live their lives, and have the same rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that you enjoy. Why should you let your feelings of yuck stop them? That's just wrong.

A Few Thoughts

Took a few days off with the wife--didn't leave town, but left the kids behind with Granny and got some peace and quiet. Which included no blogging. Not that anyone noticed.

But it's also hard to blog from a place of howling, incipient rage. I'm still so angry about the Democrat's craven cave-in to Bush on domestic spying that I can barely think about it.

But, you know, there have been other things going on.

Barry Bonds broke the all-time home run record for Major League Baseball and, like a lot of folks I suspect, I don't have the slightest idea how to feel about that. Yeah, yeah; he's innocent until proven guilty, I know. But anyone with half a brain knows the guy has been shooting up performance-enhancing drugs of some kind or other. I mean, your head doesn't grow 2-3 sizes after you turn 35 for no reason, you know?

On the other hand, he's not exactly operating in a drug-free vacuum, either. How many of the pitchers that he has been facing are shooting up? How many of the other players who are making circus catches in the field are shooting up? How is that effecting his numbers? Who the hell can say?

One thing for sure: the guy is an incredible player. Would he have broken the record without the drugs? I dunno. Probably not. But we'll never know. Would Babe Ruth have created the record if he had had to face Negro League pitchers, sliders, and modern bullpens? Would Ted Williams have broken it if he hadn't had his career interrupted by two wars? Who the hell knows? Textbook definition of "mixed feelings," anyway. No wonder Obama didn't know how to answer Keith Olbermann in the debate; I didn't know how I'd answer.

Speaking of which, yeah, Obama looked silly saying that Canada has a President. Of course, if that's the worst he can do, he still looks 1000 times better than the Current Occupant. And Joe Biden, for all his sniping, doesn't have the slightest friggin' chance of winning the nomination, so he can just fold up his smirk and go home, as far as I'm concerned.

The thing that scares me was on display over on the Republican side. I mean, it was scary enough who they chose as moderator ("Now, live on stage, boy wonder and callow youth Geoooooorge Stephanopolas!"), but that rogues gallery they have running . . . what if one of them actually, you know, wins? President Authoritarian Guiliana? President Stay-the-Course-in-Iraq McCain? Or "I don't have any convictions whatsoever except that I really really want to be President," Mr. Mitt Romney? (Am I the only one who thinks he looks like Herman Munster?) I understand that the Republicans are unhappy with this crew--I know I would be--but what if one them actually wins? It's a scary thought; enough to make me run for the Klonapin at night.

Sold Down the River Again

Words can barely convey my disgust for how, once again, our civil liberties, the Constitutional guarantees this country was founded on, have been sold down the river under pressure from a President whose approval ratings stand at 28% so that Congress wouldn't be accused of being "weak."

I cannot state this too strongly: no, I don't want to die in a terrorist attack. I don't want my family to die in a terrorist attack. I don't want anyone to die in a terrorist attack. But I would rather die at the hands of terrorist than to have all the principles that our country is founded on chipped away by fear-mongering, small-minded, short-sighted men and women whose goal is the unlimited expansion of executive power.

Our founding fathers fought against this kind of tyranny--against warrantless surveillance, against being held without being charged, against secret courts, against all the things Congress is handing this bunch of criminals currently running the Executive branch--and enshrined those principles in one of the best-written documents in recorded history. And now, our elected representatives are selling it all out for the chimera of "safety." Such is the foundation that every tyranny is built upon throughout history.

Our founders pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor for the principles that we are giving away to Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, and McConnell. We should all be ashamed.