January 2009 Archives

Much ado right now about this former Gitmo detainee who is now an Al Qaeda chieftain. He was released under Bush, but if you listen to some of the commentators at Fox and on conservative radio (like Mike Gallagher, who I listened to a while this morning), you'd think Obama released the guy. The right-wing detractors are out in force.

On Fox's morning "Fox and Friends" show, Squirly, Gomer, and Legs were fussing about how Obama was going to put all these Gitmo terrorists "in your back yard." Meaning, in prisons on US soil. Well, those max-security prisons already contain hundreds of mass murderers and psychopaths. That's what prisons are for. It's not like Obama is going to turn these terrorists loose, and give them C4 as a going-away present. It's just obsurd what I'm hearing.

We've heard that 60 Guantanamo detainees have returned to terrorism. My question, when I hear stats like that, is always, "Where did that number come from?"

The Bush Administration, particularly the Cheney wing, has consistently massaged numbers and facts to buttress their agenda. So I've wondered, how do they define someone who has "returned to the battlefield"?

TV news shows are pretty much useless, even the ones (like Olberman) that you would think would want to debunk fact-manipulating. For any real light and context, you need to get away from TV and read in-depth features--the New Yorker, the Atlantic, Slate...in fact, practically anything beyond MSNBC, FOXNews, and CNN, whose shows are designed as three-minute blocks of shouting matches.

So, how many detainees have returned to fighting?

Slate magazine offers an explanation in "Bad Men: How Many Terrorists are Really Left at Guantanamo, Anyway?"

The Bush Administration set a number over 40 times, and it's gone back and forth. A 2007 Department of Defense report actually downgraded the number from 30 to 5. But the number jumps back up when the Defense Department defines "returning to the fight" as talking to reporters or publishing something critical of Gitmo. So when a guy is released from Gitmo, and then talks to a reporter about his treatment at Gitmo--he is now one of those 60-some folks who have returned to terrorism.

It's all in the definition. Always is.

A more realistic number seems to be 12. That's what I've concluded, after sorting through much nonsense.

There are, indeed, some really evil dudes there. We all know that. But there are other sub-groups within the Gitmo population. For a number of them, it's simply a matter that they've been cleared of being "enemy combatants," but no country will take them. So they sit incarcerated in limbo.

It's all complicated, particularly legally (thanks to the torture). Obama inherited a dismal mess, and now he's being criticized for trying to fix it. Welcome to the Presidency.

This is such a fascinating time in politics. Lots of interesting stuff has been coming across my radar.

The NY Times says Caroline Kennedy's quest for Senatorhood was derailed by issues involving taxes and a household employee. Time reporter Karen Tumulty, on Swampland, quipped, "Good news: she can still be Treasury Secretary."

Abraham Lincoln was sworn in by Chief Justice Roger Traney, who championed the Dred Scott decision, which basically said blacks were inferior and unworthy of citizenship. Lincoln didn't like Traney.

Obama voted against confirming John Roberts as chief justice. Their hands were on the same Bible as Lincoln's and Traney's. (Twice?) Interesting.

The left wing features all kinds of nutso groups crying for government action for their causes, and hopeful that Obama will heed their cries. Like the organic food people, who wanted Obama to hire an organic food expert as White House Chef, who would grow the family's food in the White House garden and even publish the family menu as an example to the American people. But Obama decided to keep George Bush's chef. Wouldn't he have been a steak and potatoes kind of Texan? Nope. Turns out the current chef has been preparing organic food meals for years.

But all kinds of fringe interests will be yelping for attention in the years ahead. Republicans have their fringe groups, too, but mostly their attitude toward government is, "Leave us alone."

Last night, Sean Hannity interviewed Rush Limbaugh. I watched it while treadmilling at the Y. It just made me laugh. Two totally-partisan guys discussing why they shouldn't be criticized for criticizing Obama.

For a while, any criticism of Obama will be met by cries of racism. So while many reporters shamelessly fawn over Obama, others, who would be more of a mind to be objective and pointed, pull their punches because they don't want to get the Don Imus treatment.

But soon, Obama will be rightfully critiqued for his decisions. And in the process, we'll have a national discussion about why it's okay--and not racist--to criticize a black President. I predict we'll have that discussion soon. And I suspect Obama will be glad to have that discussion out of the way, and to be treated like anyone else in that office.

It's just an interesting time in American politics.

According to a Macworld article, there are no Macs in the White House--only a fleet of six-year-old PCs. Obama's campaign ran on Macs, and Obama himself uses a Mac.

So, REAL change may be coming.

The most important office in the country, the White House, is a technological vacuum. No Facebook. No outside email access. No instant messaging. And, for the President, no Blackberry.

The word was that Obama would need to give up his beloved Blackberry, for national security and privacy reasons. It was an important management tool for him, but now, in the most important management position in the world, he wouldn't be able to use it.

But now, the National Security Agency has approved the $3400 Sectera Edge (right), from General Dynamics. No, it's not a Blackberry. I imagine it'll be like downgrading from a Mac to a PC. But it's something. And it can encrypt top-secret voice conversations and handle classified documents. We hope.

George Bush showed incredible grace in how he left office. He set the standard for turning over the presidency to a new person. I read that the Bushes, last summer, began moving belongings to Texas to eliminate the spectacle of moving vans backing up to the White House as new moving vans arrived. All they had left was suitcases, basically.

Bush took some shots during Obama's speech, but afterwards, showed only cordiality and respect for his successor.

The transition is something Bush could control.

He gets a lot of blame for Katrina, but only deserves some; the local and state governments in Louisiana deserve the lion's share of the blame.

The economic collapse--I'm not sure who to blame for that, though we always want to assign blame to someone. The whole "American way of life" perhaps deserves the blame there, for our greed, lack of discipline, lax regulation, and spirit of "I want it all now." So, though the collapse happened on Bush's watch, and his policies contributed to it, this thing was a long time coming, and circumstances beyond our borders contributed mightily to it.

But Bush could control the transition. And what we saw was extraordinary class.

As opposed to the left-wing nuts who lined the route with "Arrest Bush" signs. On Morning Joe this morning, Mike Barnacle said, "The left doesn't do graciousness well." That was really an interesting observation.

(But lest you mistake me: there are still plenty of things for which George Bush deserves blame. And he did, indeed, occupy the office where the buck stops.)

This CNN article tells about the enormous influx of people into Washington DC and how it is affecting transportation, security, restaurants, lodging, etc. Very interesting. Must be a mess.

Another article tells about the brisk business by DC tattoo parlors, as people want a tattoo of the Obama logo, the word "hope," or the red-and-blue Obama hope poster. The article adds, "None of the shop owners reported any history of George W. Bush tattoos." Imagine that.

The two million people expected to come to Washington DC for the inauguration compares to:

• 1.2 million who came to JFK's LBJ's inauguration in 1964 1965 (the current record).
• 800,000 who came to Clinton's inauguration.
• 300,000 who came to George Bush's inauguration.

So today is, indeed, a day of success for our country, in that it shows how far we've come in racial matters. That makes me proud as an American and as a Christian. But in terms of the Obama presidency and actually governing, it is a day of mere hope and promise, of unrealized potential.

Now the fun begins.

Barack Obama will find ways to disappoint and upset me, I'm sure. But right now, I'm very excited about a new administration taking over (I would have been excited about McCain taking over). Here are some of the reasons I have high hopes for an Obama administration.

• For the US to elect a black man as president--what an incredible example to the rest of the world. I'll bet it produces all kinds of shamed introspection in ingrown countries like England, France, Italy, and other nations with large but disenfranchised non-Caucasian populations.
• We're gonna get serious about alternative energy. That would never happen under Republicans, I'm sad to admit.
• We'll have an exemplary family in the White House (though most Presidential families are admirable, for the most part).
• The rest of the world is excited about Obama. This is not a bad thing. Our unilateral, bullying actions during the last eight years have disappointed people in other countries, because they expected better of us. They need us to provide moral leadership. Under Obama, I am hopeful--and people around the world are hopeful--that we can provide that again. The world needs us.
• There is a general spirit of optimism across the country. Obama-mania is a bit extreme, but it's good to see people optimistic--and proud--of our country once again.
• We'll start abiding by international agreements again. Like the Geneva Conventions.
• It'll be nice having an orator in the White House--the first since Kennedy.
• Obama is tech-savvy. He uses and understands the internet and new media. That'll go a long way in wise problem-solving in the world of 2009.
• Obama will, I trust, restore the proper balance of power in government. The Bush administration, following the lead of Dick Cheney and his chief of staff, David Addington (the most powerful man you've never heard of), focused a great deal of power in the Executive Branch and placed themselves above the law. (Read Jane Mayer's incredible book, "The Dark Side." It's chilling, the way Cheney and Addington set the agenda and ran roughshod over Bush's own staff of naieve Texans.)
• I think Obama has the ability to rally the American people.
• My country simply needs a fresh start.

First of all, I'm amazed that nobody died when that plane crashed into the Hudson River. Everyone was rescued.

Secondly, I'm amazed at the coverage. I received an iChat instant message telling me about it. I went to CNN.com and watched live TV coverage on my computer.

And now, at Yahoo! News, I find a 46-picture slideshow which pulls good photos from a variety of sources (mostly the Associated Press and Reuters). As if this is something that happened yesterday, rather than a couple hours ago.

Amazing is our world.

After the President gives his State of the Union Address, someone from the other party gives a response. I've never liked that, whether it's coming from a Republican or a Democrat. Not because these responses tend to be tedious and contentious, but because they promote a divided country.

When the President speaks to the country--well, that should be enough. He's our leader. Let him speak without requiring a counter-speech which says why the President is wrong. I just don't like that. Plus, the opposition speech is clearly tacked on, an anti-climax. Can't we just skip it altogether?

President Obama will be the first president with a Facebook and Myspace page, and with his own YouTube channel. These are new avenues of communication with the American people, none of which existed when George Bush was elected just 8 years ago. Obama has 3.7 million Facebook "supporters" and 1 million Myspace "friends."

I'm wondering. Will the Republicans demand, in the name of "equal time" and "equal access"--

• That they be given their own YouTube channel?
• That whenever the President's Facebook page is mentioned, that their own Facebook page be mentioned?
• That they be able to directly contact the same "supporters" and "friends" on Facebook and Myspace?

According to CNN, China is now the world's top user of the internet. The number of Chinese using the internet grew by 42% to 298 million people. And that's only one-fourth of the population, so there's plenty of room for growth.

The Chinese government wants broadband access in every village by 2010. Of course, the government also heavily censors what websites people can access, claiming it's for "state security."

The United States jumped to an early lead in all things related to computers. We basically started the computer revolution, and our dot-com startups shaped the current internet world. The early profits have come our way.

But with China's burgeoning population of computer users (not to mention India, Brazil, Russia, and other places) comes an army of computer geeks with their own innovations. We'll still lead to a large extent, mostly because we built such an early lead. But the world's changing. In the future, the US will be just one of several key players, not The Main player.

US business practices have ranged from benevolent to cut-throat. Depends on the company and who's in charge. We've exploited foreign peoples, and we've been a blessing.

America has a foundation of judeo-Christian values. In the business world, those values might be lurking way beneath the surface (companies like Exxon and Haliburton), but that foundation is there. And this has been a good thing for the world.

What values can we expect when world business is dominated by the Chinese? Respect for human life? For free speech? For public accountability? Probably not so much. It's a different world. And while US dominance has led to much exploitation, if any single country is to be dominant, I'd vote for us. And I suspect a good share of other countries would, too.

I just received this email:

Steve are you the same Steve that use to work in radio in the Bay Area in the 80's and was the mc for Elvis the Worlds Largest Tribute to the King. If so this is Charlie please contact me at...

Read a number of good novels over the holidays. Started with two Henning Mankell novels over the Christmas weekend. I've now read seven Mankell books (starring detective Kurt Wallander), and have just two more Wallander books to go. He has intricate plots, and Wallander is kind of an anti-hero. He grows on you, slowly. It's the great plots that keep bringing me back to Mankell. These books are set in southern Sweden.

Then I read my third Jack Reacher novel by Lee Child. Reacher is a tough, tough guy. The villain was about as evil as they come. No fun streak to him, ala Hannibal Lecter or any James Bond nemesis. Just pure human carnage.

Threw in a Robert Littell spy novel called "Walking Back the Cat." It's a post-Cold War book, a major character being a KGB assassin who is a sleeper agent, and has been awakened. Good, but the weakest of these five books.

Alex Berenson's "The Faithful Spy" stars a CIA agent who has infiltrated Al Qaeda. Definitely a spy novel for the post-9/11 world. It was really good.

This weekend I finished "Crazy Love," a wonderful book by Francis Chan. It's a non-nonsense book about serious Christian living, and it stretched me. It'll stretch, and convict, you, too.

In one chapter, Chan asks, "Are you in love with God, or just His stuff?" There's a question worth pondering. Do I stick with God and this Christian life thing because I know that in a pinch, I might really need God's help? Do I tithe because I know I'll come out better in the end? Do I do any number of things as a Christian, mainly because I want to stay in God's good graces and have access to his benefits?

Or do I do these things because I truly love God...not because he'll do good things for me? Can I say, "God, you can keep all your stuff, because it's not important to me. All I want is you."

If there were no tangible benefits to living the Christian life, no promise of an "abundant life," would I still do it, simply because God is God, and because Jesus died for me?

Chan draws the comparison of a child who says, "I don't really love you or want your love, but I would like my allowance, please." Do we, so to speak, "marry God for his money"?

Chan writes, "Do you love this God who is everything, or do you just love everything He gives you?"

"It's not about you," is how Rick Warren begins "The Purpose-Filled Life." But so many Christians live as if it IS about them--about their problems and how God can come to their rescue. And if things don't go the way they like, they get upset with God. But that is SO missing the point of what it means to be a Christ-follower.

Henry Waxman's Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has, in its wisdom, conducted an extensive investigation into steroid use in professional wrestling, which means Vince McMahon's WWE. It gives people a full view of what's behind the wizard's curtain. The revelations include:

• The WWE employs 10 writers to develop story lines for wrestlers.
• A group of producers travel with the performers to choreograph each match.
• Each match is written with three acts--a beginning, middle, and end.

I'm shocked. Just shocked.

Adolf Merckle, a German billionaire, committed suicide by placing himself in front of a train. He had been the 44th richest person in the world, but the economic crisis knocked him to 94th. His fortune had declined from $12.8 billion to a paltry $9.2 billion.

It was too much to take.

Using some Christmas money, I got two new bayonets tonight. Picked them up from a local collector who always has a booth at the Gun & Knife Show. I picked out these two bayonets on Saturday at the show, but then realized I forgot to take any money. Silly me. So we just arranged to meet tonight.

The top bayonet is a French Lebel, from 1886. I have a shortened version of the Lebel, but hadn't had this long version. The other is a Swiss Mauser bayonet from 1889.

That brings my collection to 49 bayonets, all proudly displayed in the cabinet Dad made for me.

Al Franken has always been an idealist, albeit an idealist of the far left kind. So, deep down, I hope he feels terrible about stealing the Senate election.

To an extent, it was beyond his control. The race was close, and a recount was justified. But I suspect it was more the Democratic engine in Minnesota that engineered this victory for Franken by gradually taking votes away from Coleman and giving votes to Franken.

But I said "to an extent." A true idealist would insist, "Hey, 650 citizens submitted absentee ballots in good faith, and we can't just discount them."

So, Al--congratulations. Welcome to the world of dirty politics. Now go take a shower.

(It's not actually official until the governor--Republican Tim Pawlenty--cosigns the election certificate. So I'm wondering what he'll do.)

I just finished my first book of 2009, Raymond Chandler's "The Little Sister." It's my sixth Chandler book, which leaves just three to go, all of the waiting their turn on my bookcase.

I liked "The Little Sister" less than his other books. You read Chandler for his amazing turns of phrase. He seemed to be off his game in this book. But toward the end, PI Philip Marlowe enters a courthouse and describes the woman at the information desk this way:

"..one of those ageless women you see around municipal offices everywhere in the world. They were never young and will never be old. They have no beauty, no charm, no style. They don't have to please anybody. They are safe. They are civil without ever quite being polite and intelligent and knowledgeable without any real interest in anything. They are what human beings turn into when they trade life for existence and ambition for security."

Isn't that amazing writing?

The book was published in 1949. Unlike private eyes in contemporary books, Philip Marlowe got through all 250 pages without having sex with anybody.