Still fearful after all these years

Raise your hand if you remember where you were 10 years ago today.

I'll bet almost all of you remember it like yesterday. I sure do. Watching thousands of people murdered on live television is not something you can easily forget.

It was a time of strong emotion: confusion, fear, grief, anger. We mourned together as one country, and we plotted our revenge together.

But it has not been satisfying, nor have we obtained closure. We attacked two countries, but saw mostly quagmire. The economy has never regained its pre-attack strength. The unity after the attack was quickly replaced by the bitterest partisan bickering this country has seen in a long time. Even the taking down of the 9/11 mastermind, Osama bin Laden, didn't generate more than a momentary sense of satisfaction.

Thirty-two years ago, a President gave a speech in which he talked about our country's malaise. The voters hated him for it, choosing to fire Carter and bring in the optimist Reagan. But today, politicians are competing not to deny the malaise but to pin it on the other guy.

What happened to us 10 years ago? Why can't we get out of this funk? Did we take a bite of the apple, lose our innocence, and get tossed out of the garden? Or are we suffering from PTSD and showing symptoms of depression that just won't disappear?

A Third of Americans Still Like Him?

[Iraq] not having weapons of mass destruction was a significant disappointment. I don't know if you want to call those mistakes or not, but they were -- things didn't go according to plan, let's put it that way.
- George W. Bush, Jan. 12, 2009

This man is our President. And here he is admitting that he is disappointed Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction.

He wishes, no he planned, that Saddam would have massive weapons. It was a mistake that the weapons weren't there.

Why?

He didn't say why he's disappointed. I hope it's not because it would have made the war more exciting, or that it would have made it more of a fair fight.

I hope it's not because he sold those weapons to Saddam and can't figure out where they went.

I assume he's disappointed there were no WMDs because he sold the war based on them and he's being judged.

But consider this. Which is the better outcome? You go to war because you think Saddam has WMDs and he doesn't have them, or you go to war because you think Saddam has WMDs and he really does? Isn't the former preferable? Wouldn't the latter have led to many more deaths on all sides?

One more week.

Your Flag Lapel Pin Won't Keep You in Office Anymore

While digesting Congressional Digest
In the airport bathroom stall,
With a tap a flag with a pin on the back
was kicked under the wall.
I peeled that flag up off the floor
And stuck on my lapel,
And if I could have old Betsy Ross
I'd tell 'em all to go to Hell!

But your flag lapel pin won't keep you in office anymore.
They're already overcrowded with liars, cheats and whores.
Now Jesus don't like hypocrisy, no matter what the reasons for,
And your flag lapel pin won't keep you in office any more.

I popped in the Senate this morning
And the lobbyist said to me:
Said, if you vote for my silly bridge
I'll give you ten of them flags for free (plus a boat).
Well, I didn't hestitate a bit,
I took him up on what he said.
And I stuck those flags all over my suit
And one on my wife's forehead.

But your flag lapel pin won't keep you in office anymore.
They're already overflowing with lyin', cheatin' whores.
Now Jesus don't like thievin', no matter what the reasons for,
And your flag lapel pin won't keep you in office any more.

Well, I got my suit lapel so filled
With flags I could not breathe.
So when I wiped my nose upon my shirt
I poked my eye out with my sleeve.
By the time they calmed the doctor down
I was already dead.
And I'll never understand why the man
Standin' at the Pearly Gate said:

That your flag lapel pin won't get you in heaven anymore.
We're already overcrowded from your 100-year-long war.
Now Jesus don't like killin', no matter what the reasons for.
And your flag lapel pin won't get you in heaven any more.

And your flag lapel pin won't keep you in office any more.

Any your flag lapel pin won't get out of China
Any
More

On Being Pro-Life

I consider myself to be pro-life. What does that mean? Simply put, I'm in favor of life. I think life's a good thing. All other things being equal, I'll support something that's alive over something that isn't.

I also believe in respecting the beliefs of others. So, for example, being pro-life I am also a vegetarian. However, when I go out to eat with friends who aren't I have no urge to try to convert them, and I expect the same respect.

Being pro-life, I also would never get an abortion. Of course, I'm a member of the approximately 50% of our population who will never be given the opportunity to test that resolve. I can't guarantee that, if things were different and I were able to have an unwanted pregnancy, I'd make the same decision. So, I consider it none of my business when someone else makes that decision, one way or the other.

Being a pacifist has been pretty easy for me. I'm at exactly the right age to have missed the draft for Vietnam, and I'm too old to ever have had to even register for the draft. So, I haven't been tested on that one. But it's hard for me to come up with many circumstances in which I war is the best answer. Iraq certainly doesn't raise itself over that bar. If someone wants to volunteer to go fight in a war I can't stop them. But if they are doing it for the wrong reasons (my country, my religion, my people are more important/better than others) they have lost my respect (for whatever that's worth).

Capital punishment is another problem for me. Besides the idea that we are almost certainly killing innocent people, there is the fact that it does not deter any crime and the fact that it costs more to kill a criminal than it does to lock him away.

Pro-life also means that I believe in supporting the other living entities on this planet, as well as the systems in which they thrive. Yes, just because they are there and they are alive. I believe we, as the dominant life form on this planet with the capability to destroy so much so easily, have a duty to protect the other life forms. I believe that, to the extent that the people and businesses on this planet don't do this, the governments on this planet have a duty to provide a voice to protect the planet and enforce that protection.

So, there you have it. I'm pro-life, and I refuse to let someone else co-opt a perfectly good phrase and make it mean something else, just to make their cause sound better. I'm pro-life, but you won't find me at any anti-abortion rally (on either side). I'm pro-life, but not because some religious leader told me to be but rather because I believe it's the right way to be.

Now, who's willing to take a stand and claim to be anti-life?

Local Issue?

Last week, the Boulder City Council declined to move forward on a MoveOn.org resolution calling for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq within six months. Although declining to pass this resolution, they are planning to hold a town hall meeting in the next couple of months to allow the public to weigh in on the issue.

This comes on the heels of a resolution that was passed by the City Council in January, 2003, opposing the forthcoming invasion of Iraq.

Also last week, the Nederland Board of Trustees failed to pass a resolution calling for the impeachment of President Bush.

Do local governments have any business weighing in on national and international issues like these? Or should they focus on local issues, like keeping the prairie dogs safe?

I believe that this type of thing is legitimate if and only if the big issue can be made into a local issue (or, of course, if the electorate votes for it.) For example, in the arguments for impeachment, it was pointed out that President Bush is trying to sell National Forest land, land that is part of the Nederland natural and cultural heritage and legacy, in order to pay for his budgetary mismanagement and war. That is bringing it home, and I think makes it legitimate local legislative fodder.

What about the Boulder issue? I've read the proposed resolution. Lots of great points. But, consider that:

• The Boulder City Council has no expertise in this area.


• The MoveOn resolution is just one plan out of many possible plans, even if you agree that something needs to be done. Why should the Council adopt this plan? Just because it was presented first or most loudly?


• The resolution does not make the case that this is a local issue.


• Who is going to take Boulder seriously, anyway? I mean, many folks will be surprised that we didn't pass this, and disappointed that they won't have another reason to belittle our city.

The backers of this proposal may believe strongly in their cause, but for our council members to act on it would just be pointless political posturing, or it would be legislating based on emotion. And that would be a shame.