Well done D's!

Nice to see the D's letting Hugo Chavez know what is what.

He can't do that to our President...only WE can do that to our President!!

Jon Stewart - 9/16/06 - Merriweather Post Pavilion

Rob, Carolyn (Rob's cousin), and I saw Jon Stewart in concert on Saturday night at Merriweather Post Pavilion. Here's some thoughts about the experience.

It had rained on-and-off all day on Saturday and we were lucky it cleared up in the late afternoon. In fact, on the drive up I-95 to Columbia, MD, we saw a huge rainbow off to our right. A Good Omen, we remarked.

Before the show we tailgated in the parking area. Interestingly, we were the only group *really* tailgating. Others were standing around drinking near their vehicles, but we were sitting in camp chairs, drinking Dogfish Head 60 Minute IPA and Hoegaarden White, grilling burgers and brats on a portable gas grill, and jamming to Beastie Boys' 1992 masterpiece Check Your Head. Good times.

Eventually we moseyed into the ampitheater area. We arrived as the opening comedian was finishing up. He was funny. I didn't catch his name...

Jon Stewart was relaxed, charismatic, and in a very impish mood. He started out the show talking about politics (not surprisingly, about Bush and Cheney -- who he characterized as "bizarrely evil" and impersonated with a quacking sound) and moved from there to race relations to religion to gay marriage to sex with pinatas. Seriously, sex with pinatas.

He also showed a private side of himself that you don't see on the Daily Show: dog owner, middle aged father of a 2-year-old and a 7-month-old, PC gamer, Mac owner but not necessarily Mac fan, cultural Jew but not observant, etc.

He was totally in control of the show, self-assured, confident. A man, and a comedian, aware of where he is and what his role in the national and popular conversation has become. To many in the audience, he's just a step or two below deity status. To me, he's just really cool, and really, really funny.

Why I'm an atheist, and why I wish The President was one too

As a child, I attended a Lutheran private school for several years, congregating in chapel every Friday morning and reciting a prayer before each class began. This same school doubled as my church of worship, wherein I spent every Sunday singing in the choir, tending to the church candelabra as an acolyte, walking the crucifix through the congregation as a crucifer, and later in my adolescence, studying the good book for my confirmation. These activities were not forced upon me by a set of god fearing parents, nor were they performed under the pretense of duty to my creator. Rather, I was involved in the church because it meant something to me personally. Around my late teens, through no fault of the church or god or anyone else, I found myself more interested in the secular concerns of man than the ethereal ideals and boundaries offered by the church. Why should this little background story of my once pious life matter to anyone on this blog or even society as a whole? It does not, and it should not.
As my knowledge of world history expanded, I began to realize a frightening pattern in the long line of world conflicts. While nationalism, states of oppression and a wantonness for freedom, simple misunderstanding, and expansionism are all ascribable foundations for many of these conflicts, no motive for conflict has been invoked as often as the will of god(s) http://www.geocities.com/athens/rhodes/3991/GodWars.html . For me, it seems like a perfect justification for any conflict; after all, what man would dare oppose the will of god? I suppose the man who believes in a different god would present a viable opponent to such divine action. Thus, throughout history we have seen people challenge their neighbor based on their differences of faith, men of power maintain that power through the Divine Right of Kings, less established religions paganized by the well established, and so on and so forth.
Being a secularist (which is how I will describe myself in this thread to remove any religious undertone from my personal position) has allowed me to look at historic events and current events without the opaque lenses of religious presupposition. I don't claim to be more informed than my religious counterparts. What I do claim; however, is that I can look at the laws of man without the laws of god as my yardstick. I am an American. Not a Catholic American, Muslim American, Jewish American, Protestant American, etc; rather, a simple, uncodified American of indeterminate European ancestry, and that is the way I expect to be governed and represented by those in office. With my vote, I have entrusted the government with the duty to represent all of America, not just those who share their religious beliefs. When Bush invokes god at the podium, I immediately question whose laws he is upholding, man's or god's, because all too often, they are not one in the same. Opposition to stem cell research, anti-abortion legislation, gay marriage prohibition, prayer in school, creationism revisited, the Iraqi War, and the such all on the basis of "what god would want us to do" is an irresponsible position for a man whose sole responsibility is to uphold The Constitution and the laws that have been enacted under that precedent. When organizations and individuals attempt to combine the laws of man and god, such as displaying the Ten Commandments in court houses, the weight of the laws of man are in effect undermined. I believe the laws as listed in the Ten Commandments are well represented in the American legal system, the system we are all bound, as Americans, to govern ourselves and to be governed. But to display the two in unison takes away the established validation of our laws, as if to say that we are bound to a higher authority, outside of this court, to follow these Commandments. I don't find it particularly offensive personally, just belittling to the rules of law that have been set forth to govern our society.
If religion has helped to shape a person into who he or she is today, giving them a basis for self governing morality and a relationship to a higher power, I say, "good for them." But when this religious foundation permeates into how they govern, particularly when the good book takes precedent over The Constitution, I feel that I am being misrepresented, just as every Jew, Muslim, Pagan, etc. Must also feel misrepresented. I didn't cast my vote at church. I don't think of god when I think about what makes me an American. And it is my preference, and frankly, the duty of the office, that when President Bush addresses the nation behind the great presidential seal of the White House podium, he does not mistake it for a preacher's pulpit.

President Bush uses Little Richard as translator

This is pretty funny... Rob and I are looking forward to seeing Jon Stewart in concert this Saturday night, at Merriweather Post Pavilion. We'll be sure to log a trip report!

So which is it?

You have the President talking about a Third Great Awakening, and now you have the Family Research Council (and friends) saying religion is under attack. Which is it? Facing imminent demise, or flowering in a manner unseen since the Age of Jacksonian Democracy?

It must be frightening to live in a country where your only protection from persecution is having a majority of the House, Senate, and the entire Executive Branch (not to mention an ever-growing portion of the Judicial Branch) in your hip pocket. Must be like Europe in the early '40s for these guys. Maybe they should organize...

Did I write that?

Wow, apparently President Bush's fan base has sunk to the point where a piece by a Republican satirist could, with certain exceptions, be mistaken for something I'd write.

Except, of course, for the better writing, satirical talent, insight, etc. in this piece.

10 Ways to Avoid the Next 9/11

The New York Times has a great series of op-eds up entitled "10 Ways to Avoid the Next 9/11". They put the question to 10 experts in security, terrorism, and public policy. Here is one of my favourites, by Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton (chairman and vice-chairman of the 9/11 Commission and co-authors of "Without Precedent":

Our most important long-term recommendations involve foreign policy. First, preventing terrorists from gaining access to nuclear weapons, especially by stepping up efforts to secure loose nuclear materials abroad, must be our highest priority.

Second, the long-term challenge is for America to stop the radicalization of young Muslims from Jakarta to London by serving as a source of opportunity, not despair. Too many young Muslims are without jobs or hope, are angry with their governments, and don’t like the war in Iraq or American foreign policy.

And here is one of my least favourites:

OFFENSIVE action abroad has protected the homeland. Our military presence in Afghanistan and our aggressive policies around the globe have seriously disrupted the enemy. Through a mix of military and paramilitary action, pre-emptive strikes, deterrent threats and surveillance we have captured many terrorist leaders, destroyed training camps and structures of communication and control, and uncovered valuable intelligence troves.

[...]

Going forward, we should more vigorously embrace technology as a tool for taking the fight to the Islamic terrorists. The same technological changes that help terrorists plot to deliver weapons of mass destruction, including low-cost information and communication over the Internet, also make it easier for the government to monitor and pre-empt terrorist plots. Libertarians overreact to the new technology, stoking fears of an Orwellian surveillance state. But properly designed programs can produce large gains in security in return for small losses of privacy and liberty.

Wow, I could not disagree more with this. Technology is not a silver bullet, and I do not ever buy the "large gains in security for small losses of privacy and liberty" argument. For a completely different take, Bruce Schneier was also asked to write a piece, but his did not make the final article due to space restrictions. So, as your link to his blog, I present his essay for your reading enjoyment:

Despite what you see in the movies and on television, it’s actually very difficult to execute a major terrorist act. It’s hard to organize, plan, and execute an attack, and it’s all too easy to slip up and get caught. Combine that with our intelligence work tracking terrorist cells and interdicting terrorist funding, and you have a climate where major attacks are rare. In many ways, the success of 9/11 was an anomaly; there were many points where it could have failed. The main reason we haven’t seen another 9/11 is that it isn’t as easy as it looks. Much of our counterterrorist efforts are nothing more than security theater: ineffectual measures that look good. Forget the “war on terror”; the difficulty isn’t killing or arresting the terrorists, it’s finding them. Terrorism is a law enforcement problem, and needs to be treated as such. For example, none of our post-9/11 airline security measures would have stopped the London shampoo bombers. The lesson of London is that our best defense is intelligence and investigation. Rather than spending money on airline security, or sports stadium security -- measures that require us to guess the plot correctly in order to be effective -- we’re better off spending money on measures that are effective regardless of the plot.

Intelligence and investigation have kept us safe from terrorism in the past, and will continue to do so in the future. If the CIA and FBI had done a better job of coordinating and sharing data in 2001, 9/11 would have been another failed attempt. Coordination has gotten better, and those agencies are better funded -- but it’s still not enough. Whenever you read about the billions being spent on national ID cards or massive data mining programs or new airport security measures, think about the number of intelligence agents that the same money could buy. That’s where we’re going to see the greatest return on our security investment.

Is "Redskins" offensive?

The Washington Post editorial board seems to think so. And, the NCAA Executive Committee believes a number of schools have offensive mascots, including my alma mater The College of William & Mary, whose team name is the Tribe. W&M execs disagree with the NCAA on this issue, as do I.

It's a bit like saying we shouldn't use clan as a team name, because it might offend people of Scottish descent...

Missing the Forest for the $%#!@ Trees

From Yahoo! News:

CBS Corp. said on Saturday it would broadcast the documentary "9/11" on the Internet as well as the airwaves after several affiliates said they would delay or forgo the award-winning film because it includes profanity.
[...]
CBS said affiliates that cover about 10 percent of the United States had decided not broadcast the program or would show it late at night, citing concerns they could be fined for airing profanity, primarily by firefighters during the crisis, before 10 p.m.

The American Family Association, which describes itself as a Christian organization promoting traditional values, has called on CBS stations to forgo or delay the "9/11" broadcast.

This is re-got-damned-diculous to me. I mean, come on! We expect our heroic firefighters, salt-of-the-earth types that they are, to sacrifice their lives to save ours, and not let an F-bomb slip from time to time? What is more important, that this excellent film be available on the free airwaves to as many Americans as possible (who are perfectly able to decide that they do not want to watch, or that they do not consider it appropriate for their kids to watch), or that our ears (which, being the good Christians that we are, are not trash cans!) are spared from profanity?

And am I missing something, or why didn't CBS simply bleep the stronger language when they ran the movie before 22:00 or whenever the FCC's magic decency time expires?

Dear Presidnet Bush....

Dear President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby,

I'm sorry I'm such an ass.

Love,
Joe Wilson & the conspiracy theorists

New York Times: Source in C.I.A. Leak Case Voices Remorse

You're Doing a Heckuva Job, Rummy!

OK, so Dubya didn't say that, but I think it is pretty clear that Rummy is, in fact, doing a heckuva job... comparing Iraq War dissenters to Nazi appeasers.

Ugh.

I have noted before on this blog that I don't like people comparing each other to Nazis, terrorists, etc. in political debate. Even if there is a good point to be made, using these emotionally loaded terms pretty much turn a rational debate into a name-calling contest.

Even so, I have to say that the planned resolution demanding Rumsfeld's resignation in the Senate is just a waste of time. Worse yet, it looks like more political grandstanding by the Democrats at a time when American voters need to see the Dems as the party of reason and unity.

If Rummy had an ounce (how the hell is that spelled!?) gram of self-respect, he would resign, both for his gross incompetence and his audacity in comparing 70% of the country (or whatever the latest figure is for those who do not approve of the war) to Nazis, but I don't think this is a battle worth fighting by the Dems, since any resolution they pass would not be binding anyway.