Relay For Life and the moral compass

I posted the note below in April 2009, after a successful Relay For Life. We'll be doing the Relay again next month, this time not at the behest of the kids, though some of them will be joining us. This time we adults have some personal drive to Relay, as many people we love have been touched or taken by cancer this year.

When I read the story at LifeNews calling for a boycott of Relay For Life and likening participation to supporting Nazi  experiments at Dachau, I decided to revisit this issue.

We can have a conversation on stem cell research, sure.  I will insist that you understand 1) we are not talking about embryos but about cells that are destined for destruction, and 2)  someone close to me has been benefiting from all that research lately so my opinion is more hardened now.

What I won't do is offer respect to or "tolerance" to the idea that a community coming together to raise precious funds for research, education, and care can be compared in any way to Nazis, or the suggestion that any compassionate God would tell a kid or their parent to stand down when given the opportunity to be of help. 

When I write below about the baggage that comes with the word "religion", this is what I mean. I have come to terms with the fact that a large minority of "Christians" have hijacked the very concept in order to construct a world in their own image. They make me terribly angry, but I can hold the concept of religion apart from them.  I don't wonder why other people, especially young people, can't, however.

Anyway, my note below. It was popular a couple of years ago. I still feel pretty good about it.

 April 27, 2009

So yes, this weekend was all about Relay for Life. And in addition to the tired and the proud and the giggles I brought home with me, I brought some thoughts that keep swirling through my brain.

 First, I should make clear: we relay because some of our kids feel very strongly about this cause. One of them has been relaying every year since he lost his mom to cancer. A couple more wanted to get involved when their grandmother was diagnosed. So we relay as a team because they asked: not because the grown ups thought it was a swell idea.

 But that's not what my note is about. My note is about who my community is, who our kids are, and how sick I am of being told by mainstream so-called moral leaders that religious or political liberalism means the death of a moral society.

 The Relay kicks off with a ceremony. The Boy Scouts raise the flag, followed by the pledge of allegiance and the singing of the national anthem. Then there's a prayer.

 My kids are in a church group, yes. But some of them (most, maybe) have difficulty with identifying themselves as "religious", for many of the same reasons that liberal adults do. "Religion", unfortunately, is a word with baggage. It carries with it notions of dogma and conformity and unreason. It brings visions of group-think and bigotry and mob mentality. It carries an idea of "God" that many are uncomfortable with.

 So we try to talk a lot about what it means to be us- to be a part of a liberal religion, where we are encouraged to figure it all out according to our own conscience, and to support each other on our paths. We talk of religion as a joining together, rather than as a school of thought.

 So a local minister offered a prayer on Saturday morning.

 He began rather beautifully. He asked for God to be with us as we recall the people we've lost, as we celebrate the people who're still fighting, to recognize and be with us in our pain. I'm a Universalist at heart, and so it's reflexive for me to translate certain words so that they work for my own spirituality. I don't have to picture or to speak to that minister's idea of God, and I don't ask for direct intercession while I hear and internalize his words. That's not part of my world.

 And this is the kind of prayer I am comfortable discussing with the kids. How we can take the prayer and make it meaningful to ourselves, appreciate the love that the minister is trying to communicate, respect the fact that he has a very different path than we do.

 Ah, but then he went on.

 He began to speak to his God about the sins of our society, the things we do, the policies we embrace, which are against God and which doom us to things like cancer.

 He went on to decry the removal of prayer from schools, and how we're raising successive generations of Americans without a moral compass.

 At that point, I checked out. Literally. I left the stands and went on a supply run, thinking all the way out, speak for yourself, asshole.

 Because my kids- and especially my son- do not lack a "moral compass". They somehow do not need engraved tablets to tell them how to behave in a civilized society. They somehow have developed empathy and compassion and respect without prayer in school, or, for that matter, in church.

 They have these things because they are each brilliant and deep and they are encouraged to think about what they believe, about what responsible action means, about what they want the world to look like and what their place is in that world. They have these inherent qualities because they are surrounded with family and community who care about them and who model right behavior, and who demand the same from them.

My kids weren't tramping around making noise and talking loudly during the Luminaria ceremony and the reading of the names. My kids weren't stealing food and making disgusting messes that no one cleaned up. My kids weren't yelling "GIMME THAT, YOU QUEER!" at each other in the middle of the night. My kids are silly and passionate, and held forth on neuroscience and male/female differences and ageism and a host of other topics all night, challenging the adults when they didn't agree with us. 

My kids weren't unchaperoned. While the majority of the teen teams were completely without responsible traditional Christian adults all night, my kids had crazy liberal grown ups sitting with them in camp, and they put up with my nagging (and usually reassure me that it's ok when I nag like the middle aged mom that I am).

My kids, in short, rock. And they're the people that I want to create society as they grow. They're the ones who give me hope that the world will not only go on, but will become a better place, in small ways and large, as they take charge.

So stop telling me that liberalism is the scourge of morality.

And no, my son doesn't need your prayer in his school. He'd only question it afterward, anyway, and I doubt the faculties of the local middle and high schools posses the background in theology you'd need to argue with him or answer his questions.

Apparently, Wall Street does have a suitcase bomb

Because what else could drag John McCain back to the Senate at breakneck speed (after a Couric interview and a stump speech, that is), when we know because President Bush has told us repeatedly that really, really important work can be done from almost anywhere?

I'm looking forward to Obama showing up for the debate, and telling the assembled press, "I don't know, I've been on the phone with Republican Senator Coburn and Harry Reid and Speaker Pelosi and Hank Paulson, and they tell me they have it under control, so I really don't know what John's doing."

Hi, I'm a member of the "Hateful Left"

Over the course of the Bush administration, I've repeatedly started and repeatedly stopped an essay or a letter on a theme that feels so huge to me, I can't ever get it concisely into words. I'm not sure I can today, but speeches at the Republican National Convention have picked scab after scab, and so I think I'll try to get this theme out, let it be my summation of two weeks of conventions.

My theme has always started with the words George Bush doesn't want to be my president. This week I have come to the conclusion that John McCain doesn't, either. Once I would have thought that, as different as we are, he'd at least assume that "willing patriots" included people like me. At the end of a full week of speeches by his surrogates and supporters, I am left with the inescapable conclusion that that John McCain, if he existed, is now too beholden to the radical community organizers who get out the ideological vote. The rest of us, you moderates and faithful liberals, you whiners, you 70% of the American public, have been cast aside.

Once the campaign of 2000 ended, when George W Bush took the White House still promising to be "a uniter, not a divider", his method for unity was creative: all citizens who disagreed with anything he said or did simply ceased to exist. All decisions were explained with The American People want..., any challenge to a decision was met with, The American People want.... Each time he made a decision, he chose the path guaranteed to be met with the greatest controversy and opposition, and then sneered at any opposition for not trusting his judgement for the sake of The American People.

(Except in his first stem cell decision, summer of 2001. This time, he made a wishy-washy 50-50 call, because The American People had to include both Nancy Reagan and James Dobson.)

When the March For Women's Lives brought over a million people to the National Mall in support of a vast array of policies: comprehensive sex-ed, access to contraception, canceling the deadly global gag rule, and yes: protecting Roe v Wade, We didn't expect the president to acknowledge us, really. He was up at Camp David, anyway, and even though he always acknowledges the comparatively tiny annual anti-abortion demonstrations in DC, it would have been a stretch to think he'd give us a wave.

What we didn't expect was that the media would for the most part ignore the sheer massiveness of the March, or that Karen Hughes would be trotted out to respond. The American People, she said, understand since 9/11 that the US is different from terrorists because we value a Culture of Life.

When challenged her words later, she said she had never compared pro-choice citizens to terrorists- which is true, strictly and carefully speaking. What she did, and what she was not challenged on, was sweep our very citizenship out from under us by excluding us from The American People.

The Bush administration, with back up from the press, did this consistently throughout his first term. There was no thoughtful opposition to the invasion of Iraq: there were Anti-War groups and Pro-America groups. Meaning that my position was, by default, Anti-American. Dixie Chicks CD burning rallies? Pro-America! Get a camera out there! March on the White House by veteran's groups? Never happened, as far as the administration and the media were concerned. A recent analysis of guests on the major news outlets during this period found that opposition to the invasion was consistently presented by foreigners. That is, Americans presented to us by the news media almost uniformly supported the invasion.

It's like being in a dream, where you keep trying to scream, but no sound comes out. Is it any wonder so many of us took to the streets?

This rhetorical exclusion continued apace until finally, Bush redefined the terms. After the election of 2004, rather than attempting to pretend that The American People wanted anything in unanimity, he said he would work with everyone, if they supported his goals. Which meant not Goals, like dealing with Social Security in such a way that the government meets its responsibilities, but specific policies: private accounts for all.

At least this time he was honest.

After the summer of 2005 (Camp Casey, Katrina, and falling poll numbers- trifecta!) surrogates like Mary Matalin, rather than ignoring us entirely, went on the air to offer cheap analysis and faux pity. It's just so sad, these people. They're so angry. Bush began to at least acknowledge that some of The American People disagree with him, on a lot. But that does not mean his style of governing changed, nor has the rhetorical exile for most of us. The press continues to court the fiction that opposing Bush on anything is "leftist" or "extreme", even when poll data belies that.

The party George Bush leads enjoys this kind of with us/ against us bravado, and has no desire to change it. In fact, the party's strength has always been in hardening that rhetorical divide- there is no political gain, for them, in respect for differences, in bipartisanship, in synthesis of ideas.

The mythology of John McCain lies in his perceived rejection of such division. Working across the aisle, all of that. This week, however, a week when he presumably needed to both fire up the Base and make an appeal to moderates and independents, the convention has been about nothing except defining, once again, the The American People who attended his convention and debasing the rest of us.

President Bush, confined to a few minutes from a remote location, still managed to remind the delegates why the campaign mattered: The Hateful Left is obviously still a threat, and John McCain won't let them win.

(Which is interesting, because on what may be described as McCain's two signature issues over the past 4 years- immigration and torture- he capitulated not to any Hateful Left, but to the nationalist right and President Bush, respectively.)

Romney sneered at us. Guiliani made fun of us. Sarah Palin skinned us like a recent kill. The Senator from Arizona? He made some noise about respecting Obama for what he's accomplished, but it rang empty when followed up with the willing patriots line. Let's face it: Patriot means, to them, whatever they've decided it to mean this week. Willing Patriot means supporting whatever it is they want to do this week. If they win, we are headed straight to rhetorical and practical exile, once again.

McCain does not have the Rove-built get out the vote organization that Bush did. He's counting on those red meat delegates and the Focus on the Family email list to win this thing. They do not want to hear that the other side has a rightful seat at the table, nor will they work to elect anyone who won't harden the divide.

I look forward to packing away my giant Sharpies and giving up the need to march in the streets. I'm hoping that we can have an administration for all Americans, one that won't pretend that faithful opposition and valid counter arguments don't exist, that won't seek to define everything outside of their preferences as "fringe", "left", "hateful", "angry". I am hoping that under such a presidency, I would lose the scream stuck in my throat feeling, and actual work could be done in the federal government, for the betterment of our country.

John McCain, like George Bush before him, does not seek to be my president. To my way of thinking, he doesn't deserve the office.

It is the economy; now let's ditch the stupid

I had a very interesting task assigned me a couple of months ago, by our friend Mack. He was preparing a paper for a Senate hearing on the futures trading market and whether speculation was driving up prices. He asked me to read the paper and make sure it was in English, essentially. That a reasonably smart person uninvolved with the markets could actually read the thing.

(I should disclaim before I go further that the analysis below is from my brain, not Mack's. He may or may not agree with what I have taken from this experience.)

I think the single most surprising part of this exercise for me was learning how much of the market is unregulated- the parts of the market that have brought the most staggering returns for a few people at the tops of their pyramids. The few people whom Alan Greenspan lauded for the "creative" products they packaged and sold, the very products which now are the most threatening to the stability of our economy. As explained on today's NYT opinion page:

Today, regulatory authority is divided among the Federal Reserve, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of Thrift Supervision, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, state banking regulators and state insurance regulators. That’s too many players.
What’s more, this balkanized system supervises only half of the relevant financial universe. It neglects investment banks, hedge funds and institutions like mortgage companies that issue asset-backed securities. The assets of these unregulated entities total about $10 trillion — which is the same amount we see on the regulated side.
The unregulated institutions pose particular risks because they are highly leveraged and financed primarily through short-term money markets rather than customer deposits. And unlike big banks, many of them do not disclose their finances to the public.

This is something I didn't understand until I delved into Mack's paper, and I'll wager that most Americans don't, either.
The second most impressive thing that I took from reading this paper was not a surprise, but an illumination. The markets don't hold my interest the way, say, politics does, so I hadn't ever thought about it, but securities markets and commodities markets do not operate on the same principles.

Duh, says you. Well, sure. But the reason I hadn't thought much about it is that I'm not a commodities investor. My family is the typical passive investor model: 401ks that are diversified according to our choices, and if we buy anything else it's with a sort of Motley Fool philosophy: the market always, eventually goes up, so buy what you know and don't be afraid to hold, etc.
What I failed to realize is that the market doesn't just mean traditional securities anymore, it also includes securitized risks and futures, packaged and moved over from the commodities market.
And make no mistake: the passive investor doesn't belong in commodities. The futures market is not a hold and wait game, it is not a place for long term investment. It is not a place for Motley Fool readers. Mack likens it to a Nascar track, and the new investors (large funds that end up in, say, my 401k) are like little Ford Focuses with untrained drivers, jumping into the race without regard for the danger they're causing.

Many pundits have noted that in this election season the GOP is, in effect, asking Americans to just give their failed policies another chance. Forget accountability, they mean well, and if you can just ignore the past few years and our current realities and remember that they're the party of pragmatic no-waste government and personal responsibility, you'll see the very need to continue down their broken and debris-strewn path. Nowhere do they make this case louder than on the broad and complex topic of the economy.

They continue to broadcast that rewarding entrepreneurship (and what is Andrew Mozillo, if not an entrepreneur of the highest order) and trusting the "free" market will mean that we all can get rich- just watch the money flow and the trades grow. They toss around the threat of socialism. What they want you to fear is a country where government takes care of, and controls, the decisions of every citizen- which isn't socialism, they're actually invoking communism, but whatever.

What they want you to forget is that in this country, right now, industry's major losses are socialized for the greater good, and almost no responsibility assigned to the major players whose wealth is almost unimaginable to most of us, and whose decisions lead directly to the loss and collapse you and I pay for.

And they fail to point out that almost none of us know the rules of the game, and that once our playing dollars are gone to the guys who invented the rules and benefit most from them, we will also have to bail out their failures. In this game of Monopoly, our losing turns replenish the bank, which buys up the properties that the winners ditch after they take the Free Parking money. If we pass Go again, we try to buy up the bank's properties again. But the Free Parking guys always return, buy us out according to rules we still don't understand, and erect a bunch of hotels.

Again: many eminently more qualified than me have explained this very clearly, over and over again. It's time for all of us to start talking about the costs to the country and society, and to what sensible reform might look like. Which is why this NYT editorial today caught my eye.

I know Americans for the most part don't enjoy wonkiness. I know that sloganeering is employed throughout campaigns because it largely works. But the fact is, we are going to have to ignore the slogans of both parties and understand what a pickle we've found ourselves in, and demand some real reform in the regulation of the markets. Again, from the Times:

The next president must first create a single framework for the major financial borrowers, administered by the Federal Reserve alone. This wider regulatory umbrella should be more conservative. In particular, the minimum levels of capital and liquidity that financial institutions are required to maintain should be higher than they have been in recent years. And the institutions should put in place better and more detailed systems for reporting — internally as well as to regulators and the public — on all the risks they are taking.
These steps, as they make institutions more stable, will also reduce their financial leverage and thus their ability to generate earnings. Their managements won’t like it, but the institutions — and, indeed, the entire financial system and the Fed itself — will be less exposed when severe turbulence hits the financial markets again.
For its part, the S.E.C. should require that publicly owned financial institutions provide more data in their quarterly reports. Any risks that the institutions retain, whether on or off their balance sheets, should be disclosed. And they should better explain the methods they use to determine the values of their own assets.
To fulfill its wider supervisory role, the Fed should also be given the authority to collect data from firms that are not publicly owned, including hedge funds and commodities trading firms.
Finally, much stronger restrictions should be imposed on the kinds of predatory mortgage-lending practices that preceded this crisis. The Fed recently proposed new rules for banks that would, for example, require better verification of borrowers’ income and reduce onerous prepayment penalties. These rules should be applied to all mortgage lenders. For those institutions not managed by the Fed, the rules should be enforced by other federal agencies or state banking regulators.

A key political factor is in the 2nd paragraph above. Tightening up regulation will mean that management at the top of these institutions will have a tougher time generating earnings. They will fight hard, should any reform package be placed on the table. We will be told that the proposed regulation "inhibits entrepreneurship" and is therefore Anti-American.

But we're going to need to ask ourselves, when we talk about entrepreneurship and the American Dream, are we talking about imagination and creativity and earned rewards, or carpet bagging?

It seems to me that any system that enriches the very, very few and then corrects their failures with public money is an example of the latter. And I hope this country is grown-up enough to ditch the slogans and face that.

End note: Mack was, ultimately, depressed by the results of the Senate hearing. The results, he said, were just shallow talking points and didn't address complex market realities at all. So if the hearing was any indication of our readiness to ditch the fluff and pursue reform, it didn't bode well.

Unsurprisingly, the hearing was chaired by neo-Republican hero, Joe Lieberman.

Experience, judgement

Salon has a new blog, Open Salon, and I'm becoming enamored of a poster named Leigh, who writes as a deep insider in the DC game. I want to draw attention to his post today.

In about fifteen years I was a skilled and experienced international lawyer for the US government. And even though it is illegal I learned the lobbying trade at the same time because the Executive Branch lobbies Congress every day. (It's called giving technical advice so as not offend the law.) (Despite eight years as President I'm sure "W" doesn't know that arm-twisting on Capitol Hill is a criminal offense for a government employee. But he lacks lots of experience.)
To the best of my knowledge no American President has interpreted treaties, negotiated in 80 countries, worked the delegates at the UN, seen Robert McNamara nude in the Pentagon swimming pool when he had to be briefed in a big hurry and manipulated Congress at the same time. Short of doing that no President has ever had serious experience in international affairs or national security affairs. People will tell you that Roosevelt was an Assistant Secretary of the Navy. By the time an issue got that high in the Navy Department it was already decided. FDR was not an expert in international affairs and national security until he was close to dying. One of our best Presidents succeeded him with no warning, Harry Truman. HST was a haberdasher in Missouri. When he became Vice President under Roosevelt he was given nothing to do and had no briefings of importance. But he had what Obama has, brains, judgement and personality.
[snip]
I want to mention one other thing. "Traveling Senators". They are set up by the State Department. Their appointments are arranged. The people they meet are pre-selected, they are made to feel important and given leather bound briefing books with all the "right" answers and they are taken shopping. Cocktail parties a plenty. They are duped. Except for a spontaneous greeting like the one Obama got in Berlin. Don't imagine the Bush State department helped set that one up for a Democrat.
[snip]
So where did McCain get his foreign affairs and national security experience? He didn't. He went to the movies. Thousands of witnesses paraded before the dais of his committee and carefully guarded the truth to ensure that McCain didn't know it. Sometimes he was given classified briefing books market Top Secret with a cover sheet bordered in red. But the contents of the briefing book only included information the executive branch wanted him to have. He was duped.
I could go on all day but you get the point. Washington is run, arranged and manipulated by the executive branch to dupe the dupeables. McCain was one of those. That's why he doesn't know the difference between Sunni and Shiite. Its hard to remember all those words when you only read five minutes a day. If he read much more he would have graduated higher than the bottom of his Annapolis Naval Academy class.
Obama has no more (or less experience) than McCain. But there is one big difference. He's smart as a whip (and being President of the Harvard Law Review attests to that. If you have that title in your resume today you can work anywhere in the country you want and fresh out of law school you'll be earning $165,000) and he isn't one of the dupeables. He is a quick learner. McCain thought he'd royally screw up his foreign trip and say the wrong word at the wrong time so he goaded him. Then he had to do everything possible to destroy a man who obviously slid right into the role of a wizened chief of state. When the Russians invaded Georgia McCain attacked viciously and immediately. Obama attacked mildly and cautiously. The experienced foreign policy expert would have done what Obama did. The temperamental foolish dupe would do what McCain did. He didn't even have time for his staff to brief him on the importance of Russia's help in settling that minor atomic bomb crisis in Iran before shooting off his mouth. But Obama was thinking. Always thinking. And Obama is a nice man or he knows how to present himself as a nice man. Either one is better than McCain who acts like a son of a bitch. And the media kisses his ass because he's a maverick.
[snip]
No matter what you hear, Presidents do occasionally get that 3:00 AM phone call. I can just hear Obama saying "Tell me more". I hear McCain saying, "Let's go get those fuckers".
Most of you are too young to have lived through the Cuban Missile Crisis with a President Kennedy and his brother Robert both of whom lacked McCain's so called experience. I am quite confident that if McCain had been President during the Cuban Missile Crisis I would be dead now, along with my wife and children and I can't imagine what the rest of the country would have been like. I am certain that Obama could be trusted to guide us through that nightmare. We really did believe we would all die the next day in a nuclear holocaust. Go back and read if you didn't live through it. But we slept better with a smart, personable man of good judgment than we would be entitled to sleep if John McCain were President.

Which goes back to my earlier (outsider) post on Wisdom. A president must listen, and then exercise sound judgement. According to contemporary accounts, the current president refuses new or more complex information than he has already based his decisions on, and either allows the information received through a very filtered single source (the VP's office) or directs the information be changed or created out of whole cloth to support his ideas (Suskind).

And then there comes the question of exercising judgment. Even in cases where he might have had the best information available, I think we can all agree that his judgments tended to result in either total failure (Katrina), opposite outcomes (democratically elected Hamas officoals in Palestine), or a prolonged mess of one step forward, two steps back (the rebuilding of civil society in Iraq and Afghanistan).

John McCain, despite his "maverick" reputation, has voted with Bush administration goals and proposals 95% of Bush's term. And this week, his response to the situation between Russia and Georgia has sounded painfully like our current president, if even more hawkish. Despite the fact that our recent diplomatic efforts in the region have really painted us into a corner and tied our hands in this conflict.

Should the cold war be heating up again, should we face a power over the next 8 years who's actually armed enough to cause us great harm, I want a JFK on that phone. A deep thinker as well as a pragmatist, who projected good will to the harshest of America's critic, who had some diplomatic credibility as well as the brain power to keep that button from being pushed, in the USSR or here in the states.

We don't truly know how either candidate would lead until the office tests them. But we can look at their tendancies in the time we've known them and make the best decision.

I'm voting for the guy who has demonstrated the ability to listen, to respond, to allow his plans to evolve and change as new information is made available.

Wisdom?

McCain cancels his only press availability for this week.

Which, given the number of completely bone-headed things he's said over the past week, probably shows a decent amount of wisdom.

Let's talk about "wisdom" then.

McCain's got a new poster up.


So let's talk about wisdom, shall we?

There are a couple of ways to talk about Iraq right now. There are, as Obama has pointed out, tactics, and there is the much broader question of wisdom.

The tactics, pretty much anyone with a brain knows, have been screwed up since the beginning of our Grand Adventure. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and their various "intellectual" sycophants did no adequate planning for the occupation of the country. They put the American military in Iraq to prove an acedemic theory, and were sure that once Saddam was down and we were "greeted as liberators", capitalism and Ahmed Chalabi would pretty much take care of everything else.

Not enough ground forces. Not enough civilian assistance. Young, inexperienced cronies given ridiculous amounts of governmental responsibility. And when stuff went wrong? "Democracy is messy."

None of this should have been suprising. Military brass warned early of the need for a greater troop presence. The administration fired them. The army's counterinsurgency manual was tossed. So were the Geneva Conventions. "A few bad apples". Truckloads of US currency quite literally vanishing- billions of dollars. And as for a country that could, Wolfowitz predicted, "finance its own reconstruction"? It wasn't safe to walk out of doors, so you couldn't really blame them for not hopping up and rebuilding their power grid on our timetable, could you?

So yes, it's been pretty obvious that our tactics have been miserably inadequate. John McCain would like you to know that he would have planned things much better. Thanks for the tip, Senator.

Of course, he's been a very reliable supporter of the president while all of this has been going on, so I'm not sure about his track record.

But let's get back to the question of wisdom. The president is, after all, a civilian commander-in-chief. Tactics will, presumably, be influenced by actual military brass in the next administration (unlike this one, where the president just keeps firing generals until he finds one that makes the right noises). The president has to actually set goals, policy, strategy: the military should probably work on tactics without his help. So let us then recall,

John McCain still thinks our Grand Adventure was a Grand Idea.

Deep breath, and then, all together. Ready?

INVADING IRAQ WAS NOT A GOOD IDEA

John McCain supported the idea then, and he supports it now.

Lest we forget, there was not a unanimous vote for force in congress. There were people who held on to their brains and their principles while the rest of DC (and much of the country) was acting like a bunch of angry bed wetters. There was no humanitarian reason for going: our invasion has killed many times more Iraqis than Saddam could've in the same period. There was no threat, and the intelligence agencies knew it, and so should have congress.

"Preemptive" war is bad policy, and it certainly isn't an accurate reflection of American ideals. John McCain bought into the policy then, and he hasn't changed his mind.

Bush has said that 9/11 changed him, and that's why we had to start bombing people. Personally, that speaks to me of great moral weakness. 9/11 scared me, but the fear subsided. 9/11 hurt me, but we all must live on through pain. 9/11 made me want to do something, but it didn't make we want to start wildly bombing people (the "Suck.On.This." school of foreign policy advocated, at the time, by Thomas Friedman).

So when I listen to men and women who supported this war in the beginning, I hear great moral weakness. If they've come to their senses and realized what morons they were, then I'm pretty forgiving. Bush and McCain will never come to their senses. They will always be weak men in this regard, more concerned about their own definitions of "honor" and "strength" than they are about reality.

What I want in our next president? A compass. I don't know that expecting the Wisdom of Solomon is realistic. I'll settle for a track record of decent judgement.

Barack Obama publicly spoke against the policy of preemption and the invasion of Iraq when it was politically very unpopular to do so.

We've got a fairly messed up global situation right now. I'm hoping for a president who won't be tempted by wild, angry, paranoid, oil-filled goose chases.