The End of the Beginning

"This is not the end.
Nor is this the beginning of the end.
But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."
-Winston Churchill, 1942

Winston Churchill was a racist butcher of the highest order, but he did have some great quotes. Perhaps my favorite is Churchill's comment about a rival politician who was praised by the press as exhibiting great modesty. Said the British Bulldog, "Well, he has so much to be modest about."

The above quote about beginning and end was Churchill's summation of Hitler's cancellation of an amphibious invasion of Britain during World War II. It also sums up my reaction to the news that Barack Obama's campaign asked that Muslim women in hijabs be removed from the camera's range during a recent campaign appearance.

This is the first thing attributable to Mr. Obama that has genuinely disgusted me. It exhibits a surrender of the parameters of the campaign to the worst instincts in us, and it paints Obama in the most negative light imaginable. I have been pleasantly surprised at Obama's willingness and ability to defend himself against the predictable right-wing diatribes, but why would he fold here?

This clearly stems from the incessant implications that Obama may be a closet Muslim. Obama's first failure was the way in which he denied being a Muslim. He professed his Christianity, but he never attacked the implication that being called a Muslim was somehow a slur.

Being candid, we can acknowledge that no Muslim could be elected president of this country any time soon. That is a fact of which Obama is obviously cognizant, and he has a clear imperative to make it clear to voters that he is not a Muslim, but he must always add the stipulation which he has so far failed to do.

"Everyone's got a big but." Those are the immortal words from Pee-Wee's Big Adventure. Obama's big but should read as follows: "I am not a Muslim. I am a Christian. BUT, I reject the insinuation that, if I were a Muslim, I would be any less qualified to hold the office I seek. Muslims, as monotheists and brothers in Abraham and human beings, are my brothers and are an integral part of the American citizenry." Obama didn't do that, to his discredit.

Having failed to do that, he has gone even further, running scared in a cravenly cynical and bigoted way. Ask yourself this: what would the reaction have been had Mr. McCain shooed the Muslims off the stage? Don't we all know he would have been figuratively crucified for this? Of course. Obama should not be allowed to use the bigotry of certain opponents as a rationale to justify his own manifested bigotry.

I fear that Obama may have just irreversibly undermined one of what I consider one of the most compelling reasons for his presidency, namely improving relations with the Muslim world. That has been seriously undermined by this transgression, which is Bushian in its own way.

By Bushian, I mean the willingness to violate the convictions you claim to defend with the rationale that violating said convictions are necessary to protect those very same principles from unprincipled and underhanded adversaries.

Is that not what Obama has done? Has he not said, "I can not afford to be seen with Muslims, because that will provide fodder to the worst among us"? The whole logic of Obama's campaign to this point was that he had refrained from doing just that. What's next? Will he start going by "Barry"?

What if Lyndon Johnson had done the same? What if Lyndon Johnson had refused to be seen with black people, afraid of being called a Nigger-lover? To his credit, Lyndon Johnson sacrificed the dominance of his party for 40 years for what he knew to be right, and he met with Martin Luther King at the White House, who his own FBI director considered a communist, an uppity coon, and "the most dangerous man in America."

Obama says he'll meet with Ahmedinejad, but he won't be filmed in front of American Muslim women? Why would this man, who has already achieved greatness, choose to play by the rules of those who he has so thoroughly whipped thus far?

This is not the end of my love affair with what Barack Obama represents. Nor is it the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.

7/3 vs. 9/10

The recent Supreme Court ruling regarding premier Bush's authority over enemy combatants elicited a flurry of absurdly hyperbolic hand-wringing from Mr. Bush's supporters. The Supreme Court found that...hold your breath...the president of the United States does not have the authority to arrest and detain human beings indefinitely without notifying their families, allowing them to see a lawyer, or even charging them with a crime.

Mr. Bush's sycophants, which is to say the handmaidens of tyranny, have taken this ruling, which simply reaffirms that Bush isn't Stalin, and implied that it amounts to a get out of jail free card for Osama bin Laden, a ridiculous assertion that would only be marginally less ridiculous if these blowhards actually managed to catch Osama bin Laden in the first place.

It is paramount to keep in mind how limited this ruling was; the Court, that same liberal horde who gave George W. Bush the presidency by turning a blind eye to every good and reasonable impulse and precedent in our nation's history, simply found that the president is not an emperor. He is not Josip Disaronavich Djugashvili, a.k.a. Josef Stalin, a.k.a. Joe Steel, whose whispered word was legality enough to deprive folks of their freedom and often their lives.

Nobody's letting any detainees go free because of this ruling, nobody's shutting down our illegal prisons, nobody's charging the President with kidnapping. The Supreme Court simply said that, after several years, detainees should at least be charged with a crime. That's all. And that, it seems, is too much for Bush's minions.

Their favorite rhetorical device is to imply that such soft-headedness is indicative of a "September 10th, 2001 mindset". You know, like the mindset that President Bush and all the President's men still had when they woke up on September 11th, 2001? The common rejoinder from the targets of this slander is that their adversaries are evincing a "July 3rd, 1776 mindset."

This is a clever rhetorical ploy, although it would be more aptly called a 1786 mindset, since the issue at hand here is whether our constitution has any actual meaning anymore, and that hallowed document was written not in 1776, but in 1787. That footnote aside, what was the mindset that led to the framing of the constitution?

Mr. Bush's position is that the constitution is applicable only until following it could theoretically make Americans less safe. This is the moral equivalent of saying that marital monogamy is sacrosanct unless and until one is confronted with a blend of alcohol and lust and opportunity which makes it clear that the prior constrictions have been rendered "quaint" by such unique and unforeseeable circumstance.

The 1786 mindset was that some precepts, some rights, and some restrictions on the power of government were worth added dangers. Our founding fathers were so principled in this matter that they brought the full punitive wrath of the British Empire upon their heads to defend what to them were inalienable rights. They knowingly put themselves and their nation at risk for that principle.

How far have we fallen? Where the founders accepted danger as the price to pay for their freedoms, our "leaders" now cite danger as the altar upon which our freedoms must be sacrificed in the name of protecting them. It is as if, in the hypothetical above, a man commits adultery with the stated rationale being that he had to do so to protect the virtue of his marriage.

Our founders were confronted with this choice: if they insisted on the freedoms which they felt were God's gift to us, they would be confronted with violent opposition from the most powerful empire the world had ever known. They soberly accepted this danger, which is far out of proportion from anything al-Qaeda could muster.

Our current leaders are confronted with this choice: if they respect the constitution, it is theoretically possible that a terrorist attack will occur that would not occur in a police state. They have made their choice clear, and in doing so have exposed to us all a hollow and decrepit shaft where their spines once were, if they ever had them.

If democracy and limited governmental authority cannot survive the treachery of 19 young Arab men, how was it that it once withstood the full wrath of the British Empire? And, if the Manhattan massacre leads to a place where Premier Bush presumes to disappear people he personally deems evil, where will the next attack take us?

If the liberation and reconstruction of Iraq lends any precedence, surely Halliburton could build gulags for undesirables at the rate of 400 cents on the dollar.

The Senior Moment

I still don't have that feeling yet, that inscrutable chemical transfer in my brain that tells my mouth it's time to say, "I know what will happen." I'm not there yet, but I can say that, if Barack Obama is alive on November 4th, he will absolutely humiliate John McCain in the presidential election.

I just had an epiphany today of how unappealing Senator McCain is as a speaker, a thinker, and a leader. The tripwire was his comment about when American soldiers may begin withdrawing from Iraq. Senator McCain intoned that "it doesn't matter". What matters, he said, is that Americans stop being killed.

But if you tug at the strand trailing this thought, at its unspoken interpretation, it is quite striking how quickly it unravels into a pathetic iteration of circular logic in which every inch of the circle is glistening with blood.

Firstly, voters must understand that John McCain is an imperialist through and through. He has absolutely no intention of withdrawing American soldiers from Iraq. He views permanent military bases in this oil-soaked cauldron as the rightful American spoils of war.

This is evidenced by the fact that McCain routinely asserts that Americans would accept a Korea-like, Germany-like, or Japan-like American imperial outpost in Iraq, just as long as the locals stayed friendly.

Personally, I think the American presence in Korea, Japan, and Germany is absolutely something we should be debating. One of the reasons we find ourselves at this God-forsaken crossroads is precisely because we have never actively questioned the premise of American military garrisons in a large majority of the world's 200 "sovereign" nations.

That aside, who among us really thinks that the Iraqis will ever look at us as the Germans or Japanese do, which is to say with contempt, but not the sort that expresses itself via RPG or IED?

Since the occupation of Germany and Japan began in 1945, no American soldiers have been killed by local insurgent groups. The same can be said for South Korea, where Americans have been since 1953. During the 5-year occupation of Iraq, 4,000 Americans have been killed by local insurgents. If an equivalently lethal insurgency had taken hold in Germany or Japan in 1945, we would now have approximately 58,000 dead Americans on our hands.

And, speaking of 58,00 American dead, where on earth has American militarism been violently driven back? Vietnam. No American bases in Vietnam. Why? Because Americans were killed for the sin of being there. Just as in Iraq. When the locals kill our soldiers every day for years, the message is that the cost of permanent bases is losing soldiers every day for years. Simple, right?

McCain has not learned this lesson, however. His circular view holds that the only burden imposed on anybody by this war is the violent death of American soldiers, every 10 hours, every day, every week, every month, for the last 5 years. Consider for a moment how many ofter burdens this view excludes. Dead Arabs, for example? McCain is truly looking through the wrong end of the telescope.

If the only problem is the American dead, McCain holds, the solution is simply to stay there, doing essentially the same thing, until Americans stop dying. At that point, the war will be won, and American soldiers can come home. They can simultaneously stay in Iraq permanently since, with the lack of violent deaths, there would be no reason not to.

So, one day the insurgents will roll out of bed and decided to stop killing Americans. Then, the Americans can both come home in victory and also stay in their permanent bases, which the insurgents have suddenly agreed to live with. Exactly how many laws of physics and logic does this defy?

We can't leave because they're killing us. We can only leave when we've won, which is to say, after they've stopped killing us. But, when they stop killing us, there will be no reason to leave. This lobotomized drivel, of course, leaves insurgent groups in Iraq with absolutely no incentive to negotiate, since Mr. McCain has informed them that a cease-fire will lead to a permanent American occupation.

So, the insurgents are driven to attempt what the Vietnamese achieved. Kill Americans every day for years, induce them to hemorrhage their wealth, their credibility, and their domestic tranquility, and they will have no choice but to withdraw.

I have no illusions that this single manifestation of idiocy means that McCain can not be elected. Far less intelligent and selfless men have been, and are currently, president. But McCain has a perfect storm of unappealing qualities.

He's old, he's creepy, he has a painfully awkward sense of humor, he says "my friends" so often that you just know he doesn't have many friends, he says "straight talk" so often that you just know he's full of shit and, on top of all that, he just doesn't get it about Iraq.

So what does he have going for him? He was a POW. That's it. Speaking candidly, I am in awe of the fortitude of any person who survived what he did. But we must separate empathy from endorsement. John McCain's anguish 40 years ago does not make him qualified to lead our country. If personal deprivation a president makes, then how exactly did Boy George best McCain in 2000?

I have serious trepidations about Barack Obama, but I feel that America's primary priority in the short term is to avoid further expansion of imperial wars. And I simply cannot imagine a McCain presidency without a new war.

McCain's drawn lessons from Vietnam and Iraq is that there wasn't enough war. With a man so constitutionally incapable of learning lessons from old wars, we are guaranteed new ones.

The Impossible Debate

I know the stories
I read the papers
I see the anger
I feel it too
But, when I see the wonder
In the smiles of my children
It reminds me of dreams
Worth comin' true

-Kris Kristofferson



I took a class at Boston University years ago taught by Dr. Robert Dallek, a historian of the American presidency. He's published books on Johnson and Kennedy, and appears regularly on cable "news" shows. So, for whatever it's worth, this guy understands some things about America.

The one statement he made in the rather anodyne course he taught that has stuck with me is what he said about abortion. He told us that he thought America would have a pseudo-civil war in the next 20 years, and that the casus belli would be the issue of abortion.

Granted, this statement was made in an America closer to David Koresh, Timothy McVeigh and Ken Starr than Osama bin Laden, George W. Bush, and Pervez Musharraf. Still, his words retain their weight, if not their immediacy.

I can't off the top of my head, or even from the middle of it, name a single issue that is more morally and legally intractable than abortion. Is it premeditated murder, or is it no different than cutting one's toenails? As with everything in life, the truth lies in the chasm in between.

I can not think of another instance in which I have ceded any of the weight of my words to the altar of identity politics. For example, I have no time for folks who imply that the weight of one's opinion on the war is in any way swayed by whether or not he or she has served in the military.

Abortion is unique in this sense, as in so many others; I openly cede a portion of my credibility or authority on this subject on account of the fact that I have a Y chromosome. That being said, let us delve.

First, for the pro-life perspective. It is vital to all pro-choice folks to acknowledge the legitimacy of this position. The pro-life position holds that life begins at the moment of conception.

From a certain point of view, this is absurd, since a newly-fertilized egg has no consciousness, no breath, no will to live, no fear of death, no heartbeat, and no brain stem, nor any of the other things that we think of as human, except for potential, which we ignore at our collective risk.

From another point of view, however, the newly-fertilized egg is on a pre-ordained, a biologically ordained, perhaps a God-ordained course towards its actualization as a living, breathing, loving, bleeding human being, and any action knowingly taken to sabotage or terminate this course is an act of pre-meditated murder.

I say to the pro-choice folks: Empathize! Imagine if you truly, madly, deeply believed that a newly-fertilized egg was a life. It is by no means an untenable position. Now imagine that you live in a country where the termination of tens of millions of these "lives" was protected and sometimes funded by the government. Now imagine yourself not being up in arms about this holocaust.

The pro-choice position, in my mind, carries more weight. First, we must account for the handicap I cede due to my Y chromosome. Then, we must address the issue through the prism of the only viable and theoretically perpetual political system, which is libertarianism.

The question for the libertarian reads as follows: Should the government have a right to dictate who is born or is not born? The answer for the libertarian reads as follows: No. On what logic could the government assume this right?

The only grounds would be based fully and wholly upon the premise that a newly-fertilized egg is the moral and legal and constitutional equivalent of a living American adult. That is a leap of faith and science that is not merited by research or jurisprudence or regular prudence.

The aspect of abortion that rankles most consciences, including my own, is that it is perceived as a casual procedure. I sincerely doubt that many woman who have aborted their children would describe their decision, or their resultant emotional burden, as "casual".

One of the few good things that came out of 1968 was the birth of my sister Julia. Jules told me tonight of a friend of hers who was pregnant with twins. Both babies died in the womb, and my sister's friend was left with choices that ranged from impossible to devastating.

Would she abort her dead fetuses? Or, would she wait until her body decided to expel the dead fetuses, and take her chances? If she were a Catholic, perhaps she would have chosen the latter, which would have been well within her prerogative. But my sister's friend chose to have an "abortion".

This woman carried her two dead children inside of her, and the "pro-life" position would have it that she had no right to save her own life by having them extracted from her womb.

Responsible citizens do well to avoid justifying certain "rights" by defending their most extreme iterations. Some folks of the ACLU vein purport to defend freedom of speech by defending child pornography, for example. This is the lobotomy of logic, and it must be rejected as such, but abortion is an issue in which the most extreme is often the most mundane.

Abortion is an impossible issue to cage or qualify, and when we are confronted with such a situation, we do best to defer to those most intimately impacted. In the case of abortion, the government has no role. It's about the women. And, if we don't trust the women, why bother having babies at all?

Distinctions Without Differences

Son, do you know why I'm stoppin' you fo'?
'Cuz I'm young and I'm black, and my hat's real low?
Or do I look like a mob leader, sir? I don't know
Well, you was doin' 55 in a 54
License and registration, and step out of the car
You carryin' a weapon on you? I know alot of you are
I ain't steppin' out of shit, all my paper's legit
Well, do you mind if I look around the car a lil' bit?
Well, the glove compartment's locked, and so's the trunk and the back
And I know my rights, so you're gonna need a warrant for that
Well, aren't you sharp as a tack, what, you somebody important or something?
Some type of lawyer or something?
I ain't passed the bar, but I know a little bit
Enough that you won't illegally search my shit


License, registration
I ain't got none, but I got a clear conscience 'bout the things that I done
Mr. state trooper, please don't stop me
Maybe you got a kid and a pretty little wife
The only thing that I got's been killing me my whole life

Thank the Maker

Hillary Clinton today gave what was described as a concession speech. I have not seen the speech, so I do not know whether she actually said the words "I concede". I assume that she did not. I assume that she "suspended" her campaign, which carries the implicit possibility of a return. I can foresee a circumstance for such an eventuality, but apparently the conventional "wisdom" now holds that her campaign is over.

Thank the maker. Madame Clinton's campaign was a top-down affair, centered around the acceptance of her endorsement of a blatantly illegal war of aggression, a crime that was endorsed for the sake of "electability". And thank the maker that it didn't work. Let me put it this way: If Hillary Clinton had voted against the Iraq War, her nomination would have been as easy as it would have been if Barack Obama hadn't run.

And why did Madame Clinton vote "aye" for the Mesopotamian abattoir? Does anyone really think that she truly believed in the mission, the threat, the premise, the cost? Personally, I have not a shred of a doubt that that vote, which has thus far cost 1 million human lives and 2 trillion American dollars, was cast solely in the name of "credibility", "toughness", or some other such tripe.

This woman, this mother, endorsed the wholesale slaughter of countless human beings in the name of "electability". I say thank the maker that this ploy has backfired. Thank the maker that Winning At Any Cost, a.k.a. Clintonism, has failed.

And there is the impetus for Mr. Obama to make the clean break, to reject any thought of putting Madame Clinton on his ticket. A refusal to do so may weaken Obama's chances in November, but this is the break with "winning at any cost" that we need.

There is little glory in losing, but I would argue that there is even less glory in winning at any cost. We've tried that approach for the last sixteen years, and look at where we are. The hour is late in America, and half measures, as embodied by John Kerry, are hopelessly inadequate.

So here's for Obama sticking to his guns. Shake off the Clintons. Obama should choose a running mate that is on record as having opposed the invasion of Iraq from its inception. Perhaps this candidate will have military experience, but, either way, the message must be that military experience is not indicative of inherent legitimacy.

It's time to go for broke. It's time for a radical change. That is the only logic of Obama's candidacy. If he rejects Madame Clinton as his vice-president, the die will be cast, and Americans lucky enough to live in "swing" states will be lucky enough to have their votes count in a truly monumental election in American history.

Obama may well be blown out. I really can't call it. But at long last, let us at least roll the dice.