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?

The Meaning of Tri{athlon}: The Hearts and Minds Behind the Swim, Bike & Run

This anthology of 15 essays, written by every day triathletes, is about humans doing what they were meant to do. In these pages, you’ll read why these triathletes love their sport. They are the men and women you meet every day. Some of the authors have regular jobs and some are retired. Some of them are barely out of school and some are grandparents. They are the fast one and they are the not-so-fast one but they all compete from start to finish just the same. You’ll read stories of triumph and defeat, of finding oneself and leaving one’s old self behind. They write about meeting new love on the course and leaving love-gone-wrong in the dust. For these athletes, triathlon is more than a sport, it's a way of life. And, that’s the way it should be.

Excerpt from "Triathlon as Evolution" written by yours truly:

It was August 1997, and I was rapidly approaching that time of life when many guys might consider getting a Porsche or a cute blond girlfriend or some other flashy distraction. On one Saturday morning I happened to read in the paper about something called a triathlon being held the next day. I was intrigued.

I didn’t know anything about the sport. In fact, I hadn’t participated in competitive sports since I was on a swim team at age nine or ten. But, as a mild-mannered, geeky, relatively active but noncompetitive kind of guy, I thought I could finish the race.

With my experience on a childhood swim team I figured the swim would be easy. As an occasional bike commuter, on weekends I often enjoyed riding up into the foothills, so the cycling wouldn’t be a problem. And, even though I’d never done it before, how hard could a bit of running be? If worse came to worst, I could always walk.

So, my wife, Caron, and I peddled our mountain bikes to Boulder High School to register me for the Boulder Peak Triathlon. It’s an Olympic-distance race, although I didn’t know what that meant at the time. A newbie in the worst way, I asked all the dumbest questions: What do you wear? What is a wet suit? Can I ride my mountain bike? Somehow I missed the crucial ones: Why am I doing this? What should I have done to prepare?

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

Torture Me, Br'er Judge, But Don't Fling Me in that Virgin Patch

The man known as KSM and four of his good buddies all want to die. No, they're not depressed, they're giddy. They are not suicidal. Rather, they want to be rewarded for pulling a fast one over on all us evil Americans, and sent directly on the fast train to heaven.

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and his cohorts are responsible for plotting the 9/11 mass murders. They are still greatly pleased with how that turned out. They will never be repentant. They are the picture of evil, and given the chance would do as much additional damage as they could. If convicted of their crimes, shouldn't they be put to death?

Think of it this way. In their belief system, as warriors for their evil cause there is no greater reward that to become a martyr. Giving them death penalty would be rewarding them for their actions. Not only that, we would be sending the message to potential recruits to their cause that even if they are captured they could become martyrs. What greater recruiting tool could there be?

So, if giving them the death penalty would reward them for their actions, would help recruit people to their cause, and would cause many people in the civilized world to feel more sympathetic towards them, what should we do to them instead if they are convicted?

Simple. Lock each one of them up in a small, dark room and don't let them out. Give them each a mattress to sleep on, a Koran, and a daily kosher meal. That's it. If there is particularly good news in the fight against their buddies, slip them a copy of the news, but nothing else. No other news would flow in or out. Make sure they get good health care, so they live long, unproductive lives. And give the Red Cross access to make sure they are not being tortured or otherwise mistreated. Let them fade away and out of everybody's mind. But make sure recent pictures are always available, so that the world knows what a man in permanent, earned solitary confinement looks like.

Speaking of torture, it's pretty clear that KSM and his gang were interrogated using "enhanced" techniques. What's up with that? Even if they got a confession (which they did), and even if it was legitimate, the judge (along with the rest of the world) is going to have to consider the validity of that confession, throwing the entire prosecution into question. What if we can't convict these evil people because their confessions were coerced illegally? Do we then let them go? Or continue to hold them without convicting them? This leads to some very bad options. Even if they are successfully convicted, many will not accept it because of the torture allegations. Why does our government insist on putting the punishment and imprisonment of these horrible people at risk? Why must they take a positive thing (capturing known terrorists) into a negative (we had to torture a so-called confession out of these people) with our own allies?

These actions are unconscionable and we should demand more responsible behavior from the people we trust to keep us safe.

McCain Plays to his Base and Tortures Constitution

I wrote earlier about the positions that the Democratic Presidential candidates had taken in support of requiring the Commander in Chief to follow the dictates of the U.S. Constitution. Although I haven't seen a specific response from Senator McCain, his recent statements give a sense of where he stands on some of the issues.

A few days ago the Senator from Arizona, who himself was tortured as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, urged President Bush to veto a bill that would have made it clear that waterboarding and other torture techniques can't be used by the CIA. So, the presumptive Republican candidate thinks it important enough to play up the conservative base that he is willing to compromise his own principles and make this statement, claiming at the same time that it is consistent with his previous positions.

I'm sorry, John, but this doesn't bode well for your ability to convince independents that you truly think outside the Bush bubble.

So, how in the world did we get to the situation that the right to torture has become a liberal vs. conservative question? Isn't it obviously a question of common sense along with the guiding principles of the Constitution?

Well, one point in Sen. McCain's favor. He has promised not to follow the Bush lead of issuing signing statements on legislation he disagrees with and usurping the Constitutionally-granted powers of the legislative branch.

So now we know McCain's position on two of the ten issues on the Constitution-protection hot list. He's against torture but doesn't think that should be written into law. And he is against signing statements. Let's see if we can find out where he stands on the other eight points.

An Oath and a Pledge

When our next Commander in Chief is sworn in, he or she will make the same oath as George Washington:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Yes, our founding fathers thought it so important that they made it explicit in this oath. Protecting the Constitution is more important than protecting the Flag, protecting the Citizens, and protecting the national interest.

And yet, not all Presidents have taken this oath seriously. Our current President, George W. Bush, has taken abuses against the Constitution to new lows. Yes, you can argue that he is doing the same things as his predecessors. No doubt that is true, although he has gone much further than any in recent memory.

That is why, to me, the most important issue in the Presidential race this year is the candidates' stands on protecting the Constitution. If a candidate can only keep us safe from terrorists by locking us all up, then I say, don't bother we'll take our chances with the bad guys. If the only way to maintain a healthy economy is by scrapping freedom, then we'll scrounge for bread crumbs. Remember, our founding fathers were willing to give up their security and risk dying to create this institution. We shouldn't be so ready to give it up to keep the securities we have collected over the years.

And that is why it's not surprising that a liberal group and a conservative group with very similar names have taken on this very issue. The right-wing American Freedom Agenda and the left-wing American Freedom Campaign have both created 10-point pledges for the candidates, outlining specifically how they will undo the damage done to our founding document by the current administration.

Rep. Ron Paul, whose campaign has gotten lots of interest but few votes, was the first to sign on. He even introduced a version of the pledge as a bill on the House floor. None of the other Republican candidates (neither McCain nor Huckabee) has followed. However, all of the Democratic candidates have signed the pledge (Obama) or issued similar statements (Clinton).

Here's the bottom line, and why the founding fathers felt so strongly about this. When it's your guy (or gal) in the White House, then abuses of power are all for a good cause. No harm, no foul. But beware. The other team is bound to get a turn in control. And when that happens, they are sure to use all of the same new powers, and are likely to push them even further.

So, if you trust George Bush to decide who is an enemy combatant, would you also trust Hillary Clinton to make the same determination?

Here's the list from the conservative group. See if there's anything on here that's not a no-brainer:

• Prohibit military commissions whose verdicts are suspect except in places of active hostilities where a battlefield tribunal is necessary to obtain fresh testimony or to prevent anarchy;
• Prohibit the use of secret evidence or evidence obtained by torture or coercion in military or civilian tribunals;
• Prohibit the detention of American citizens as unlawful enemy combatants without proof of criminal activity on the President’s say-so;
• Restore habeas corpus for alleged alien enemy combatants, i.e., non-citizens who have allegedly participated in active hostilities against the United States, to protect the innocent;
• Prohibit the National Security Agency from intercepting phone conversations or emails or breaking and entering homes on the President’s say-so in violation of federal law;
• Empower the House of Representatives and the Senate collectively to challenge in the Supreme Court the constitutionality of signing statements that declare the intent of the President to disregard duly enacted provisions of bills he has signed into law because he maintains they are unconstitutional;
• Prohibit the executive from invoking the state secrets privilege to deny justice to victims of constitutional violations perpetrated by government officers or agents; and, establish legislative-executive committees in the House and Senate to adjudicate the withholding of information from Congress based on executive privilege that obstructs oversight and government in the sunshine;
• Prohibit the President from kidnapping, detaining, and torturing persons abroad in collaboration with foreign governments;
• Amend the Espionage Act to permit journalists to report on classified national security matters without fear of prosecution; and;
• Prohibit the listing of individuals or organizations with a presence in the United States as global terrorists or global terrorist organizations based on secret evidence.

Now, go vote based on your candidate's willingness to follow the Presidential Oath of Office.

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?

Gitmo For Life

Here are some fresh pictures from the prison that just keeps on giving:

The noble terrorist hunt:


There'll be none of this:


Every prisoner has access to his lawyer:


Victim of the shoe bomber (as confessed by Gitmo prisoner Khalid Sheikh Mohammed):


The prisoners are happy:


Professional, friendly prison guards:


Fun stress positions:


Humane interrogation methods:


Cultural sensitivity:

Mr. Castro, Let Our Terrorists Go!

One of the major arguments for denying basic Constitutional rights (such as habeas corpus, due process, ban on cruel and unusual punishment, jury trial, confronting of witnesses, etc.) to the prisoners being held at Guantanamo Bay is that the prisoners are outside sovereign U.S. territory.

Well, if Gitmo isn't part of the U.S., then it must be part of Cuba. That means that we should be turning these prisoners over to the government of Cuba. Or at least we should be looking at Cuban law to determine how to treat these people.

To make it easy for those running Gitmo, I've summarized some of the relevant aspects of the Cuban constitution.

The Cuban constitution claims sovereignty over the entire island of Cuba, and the Cuban government does not recognize the jurisdiction of the U.S. government over the Naval base at Guantanamo Bay. According to the Cuban constitution, foreign residents within Cuba are equal to Cuban citizens in terms of rights provided by the constitution. This implies that Gitmo prisoners are due all of the rights guaranteed by the Cuban constitution.

According to the Cuban constitution, all prisoners are guaranteed inviolable personal integrity. Trials and sentencing must be by competent courts based on existing laws and as guaranteed by law. Every prisoner has the right to a defense.

Also, no violence or pressure of any kind can be used to force people to testify. If such violence or pressure is used, any statements used will be null and void, and those responsible for the violation will be punished.

So, as I see it, we have a few choices with regard to these prisoners. We can bring them to the U.S. and provide them with the guarantees of the U.S. Constitution. Or we can turn them over to the Cubans and them them provide them with Cuban justice. Or we can treat them under the guarantees of the Cuban constitution. Or we can let them all go free.

Mr. Bush, your choice.

Give Peace Activists a Shan't

I know it's been a while since my last post, and I apologize to my regular reader(s). Clearly lots of things are keeping me awake of late, swirling around in my head, never quite coalescing to the point of a coherent thought that is vaguely interesting to anyone but myself. I promised myself that I wouldn't post any essay that I wouldn't want to read myself, and sometimes that's a pretty high bar.

On thing that has been getting under my skin is the local peace activists. Many are affiliated with the Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center, and many of them have been recently willing to go to jail in support of their causes. All very impressive. I'm certainly sympathetic to the cause of peace. I held hands around Rocky Flats nuclear weapon plant years ago, putting pressure on the government to shut it down. Amazingly, whether we had any impact or not, the plant is in fact closed and is being turned into a wildlife preserve.

Recently, some of the local activists (such as Dan Winters and Carolyn Bninski) have been writing letters to the editor concerning the most recent conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. They chastise Israel for its actions, which I can understand, but then go on to say that the Palestinians have the right to attack and invade Israel.

Clearly there are some Middle Eastern leaders on both sides that do not have the best intentions of their own people as their top goal. In addition, some of the actions of the Palestinians are so far out of line with any accepted behavior in a civilized society that to accept it is to reject the concept of peaceful coexistence.

When a group of people believes strongly that they can improve their lot by murdering large numbers of innocent people, those people need to be corrected one way or another. I am not taking sides here, just pointing out that terrorist acts are not only inhuman, but they also generally eventually bring bad things down on the people who do them. This is whether or not they recognize that they have brought their suffering upon themselves.

In the middle east, there are people on both sides who strongly believe in the rightness of their cause and of their methods, while there are others who have co-opted the message for their own personal reasons. Regardless, when people murder to achieve noble or selfish causes, they are still murderers and need to be treated as such. Civilized countries need to say, I don't care who performs these acts or why, we will treat them the same way. If a Palestinian suicide bomber kills civilian Israelis, if the Israeli army kills innocent bystanders, if US soldiers kill civilian Iraqis we must be vigilant and treat them as the criminals that they are.

So, if you are a true peace activist, you cannot in good faith give preference in your opinion to one side of the conflict. Conflict resolution means finding a solution that all sides can (literally) live with. Search your soul and decide if you are taking your your extreme position becaaue it truly is the right thing to do, or because it is in opposition to what George Bush believes.