Why I am a Moderate

Note: A HUGE thanks to Genghis Conn for submitting this post and for linking my blog to Connecticut Local Politics. I know that he's been quite busy moving Connecticut Local Politics from one provider to another in the past couple of weeks. Readers, please be sure to check out Connecticut Local Politics to get the latest. An A+ to Genghis for the allusion to Shakespeare.

WHY I AM A MODERATE
By Genghis Conn

I have had a lot of people ask just what, exactly, is wrong with me. My friends on the left tell me that they understand Republicans and hardcore conservatives, but they don't understand me. Their ideological enemies have, after all, made up their freakin' minds. I apparently have not.

If only it were that simple. However, there's a lot more to moderation than just paralyzing indecision. In fact, moderation is the ultimate freedom--which can be, in the way that freedom is, both exhilarating and scary.

Since a lot of references to Shakespeare appear on this site, I think I'll draw one to illustrate my point. Romeo and Juliet is a play about, in part, a society torn between two poles. It is only Friar Laurence, the wise old priest, who can move freely in both worlds. Here is, perhaps, a guiding philosophy:

For nought so vile that on the earth doth live
But to the earth some special good doth give,
Nor aught so good but strain'd from that fair use
Revolts from true birth, stumbling on abuse:
Virtue itself turns vice, being misapplied;
And vice sometimes by action dignified. (II.ii)

He's speaking about plants, but rightly compares them to men a few lines later. The world, for Friar Laurence, is not light and dark, good and evil, absolute right and wrong, but a complex mix of all of these things. Romeo and Juliet, when they speak, give us images of light and dark, while Laurence speaks of mixes, grays. Perhaps a better way of summing up this philosophy is what Laurence says to Romeo a few moments later:

Wisely and slow; they stumble that run fast.

And so I live my life, and practice my politics. Terrible things can happen when we try to move too quickly, without first considering the merits of what we're doing or the possible consequences. Neither those on the far left nor the far right believe me when I say that we can't force social change, and that real, substantial change is generational and not instantaneous. But it's true.

The period we live in now is a conservative one, and a deeply conservative one at that. We may have just found the bottom of it now, with this past election. However, this conservative trend didn't come from nowhere--it was born partly because of the social and fiscal excesses of the 1960s and 1970s--which in turn came from the deep repression of the 1950s, and so on. History can sometimes seem like Newton's laws--there can be no action without an equal and opposite reaction.

If you're interested in philosophy, I think Hegel was essentially correct when he proposed the idea of the dialectic (although that term and idea was later warped by Marxists). Thesis, antithesis, synthesis. If the social revolutions of the 1960s and later were the thesis, the period we are in now is antithesis.

I work for synthesis--the combination of the two into something new and better. I believe we're starting to come into that future now, although we may not really get there until all those who bear the scars of those old social revolutions are out of power. This is why I like Barack Obama. He was too young for Vietnam.

We, too, are a sharply divided society. We segregate ourselves--associating with fewer and fewer people who have different perspectives and ideas. The internet is a good example of this. The most popular and influential sites subscribe to one ideology or the other--and they are obsessed, as is often the case with radicals, with orthodoxy within the ideology.

This is pointless. What progress is really made, except among the members of the group? Intelligent governance requires compromise and thoughtful consideration, not ideology and orthodoxy.

That's what moderation is about. Compromise and discussion. A moderate like Friar Laurence can see that everything is a mix of good and bad, and that neither ideological pole is absolutely right or absolutely wrong. I, for example, embrace a smart fiscal conservatism while at the same time championing a cautious social liberalism.

Yet a word of caution for moderates can be seen in Romeo and Juliet: Friar Laurence, when confronted with Romeo's exile, cooks up a perfectly dreadful plan that will theoretically end with no one being angry or finding out about Romeo and Juliet's marriage. He's going to have Juliet drink something that makes her appear dead, then spirit her out of Verona after the funeral. This is a dumb idea, but it's all Friar Laurence can think of. It's very complexity invites something to go wrong, which of course it does (the message never gets to Romeo). Then, worst of all, when Romeo lies dead and Juliet awakes in the tomb, Laurence is so paralyzed that he can do nothing except walk away, leaving Juliet alone with a convenient knife.

The lesson is clear. Be moderate in all things--moderation itself included. Don't be afraid to act and be bold when the situation requires it, and to seek compromise and caution in other times.

It's the ultimate freedom. I can decide and act as I like--no ideology commands me, and I'm free to make up my own mind. That, above all else, is why I am a moderate.

Why I'm a Liberal

This contribution was submitted by IC who hosts the blog Presidential Politics for America. IC is another colleague of mine, and I think that this entry will certainly encourage our conservative colleague (and blogger in her own right) to fire off a response. Thanks for the contribution, IC. Enjoy.


I was a liberal before I became a Democrat. (For ridiculous reasons, liberal is still a dirty word in politics, and calling oneself a liberal would nearly be political suicide. However, since I’m not running for federal office yet, I’m not holding back.) I’m not proud to be a Democrat as much as I’m proud to be a liberal. Don’t get me wrong; it’s admirable to be a part of the Democratic Party at this crucial juncture in the evolution of the United States. The election of 2006 was enormous, and the election of 2008 will be even more momentous. There is a battle for the soul of America, and one party more than any other has a decent chance of pushing through the liberal agenda. This is why I support, enrolled in, and became an elected official of the Democratic Party. It’s because we represent the best chance to take our country forward in the direction in which I want it to go.

My beliefs formed first and then I chose a political party that most suited that ideology second. Therefore, I am a liberal first and foremost. Being aligned with the Democratic Party is secondary, and I would hope it’s the same for most Democrats. For example, if you were a Democrat and the Democratic Party gradually moved from the left to the center, would you follow? Would you change your beliefs because your political party did? Of course not. Otherwise, your beliefs wouldn’t be yours, but rather a belief of a group that makes up your mind for you. If this is the case, step back and decide what you believe in. Maybe this will help.

Empathy is the barometer of humanity. We care for others; it’s just a matter of how much. Often times, we have no means to make a direct difference in the lives of those less fortunate. That's okay. It’s why we have a government. The good government takes care of its people. But the government can’t do it alone. It needs our help.

Taxes

Taxes are the way you contribute to a better mankind. You don’t have to give to charity, you don’t have to give a bum on the street a twenty, and you don’t have to volunteer at a community event, though all of the above are welcomed and encouraged.
As a liberal, I support the progressive tax policy. Everyone should pay something, and the richer you are, the more you should give for the good of the many. When did it become okay to give big tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans at the expense of schools, health care, welfare, and the rest of publicly funded programs that help out those most in need of help? How did this get through our society? Should we not be ashamed that this tax cut for the wealthy happened on our watch?

What is better for America: That a rich man's son doesn’t have to work a day in his life OR that the gifted child of a cleaning lady gets the opportunity for a free, top-notch education? You tell me. Which improves society?

Education

The conservative ideology promotes sink or swim. It’s as if they adhere to the belief that everyone has been given an equal chance in this world, or at least this country. “It’s America, where you can pull yourself up by your bootstraps if you just work hard enough” and all that nonsense. Well, conservatives, guess how they make something of themselves. They need an education, and the better their education the better their chances for success. But, oh shoot, education is expensive. Towns with control over their school budgets are lowering these budgets at an alarming rate. There are conservative taxpayers who wonder why they have to pay into the schools if their children have already graduated. Of all the ignorance in the world…

I mean, it’s our kids we’re talking about – the future of mankind and the future of American society. I always wondered why town pride doesn’t kick in during these school budget fights. Don’t we want our kids to be the smartest? Don’t we want to give them the best chance at life, at getting wealthy, at being successful? Don’t we want these children, especially our own, to have better lives than we did when growing up? This is why I can never understand the ignoramus who grins from ear to ear because he just bought a brand new $7,000 riding lawnmower but will fight tooth and nail before giving an extra $150 in taxes to get his children and his community's children a better education.

And shouldn’t teachers be among the most respected occupations? And with this respect, should not their salaries be the envy of most other workers? The best salaries attract the best minds. To be against teachers earning more money is to be against the improvement of public education. To be against the improvement of public education is to be against a better tomorrow. The antagonists to public education tear apart the fabric of society. The town could crumble around them and they won’t bat an eyelash because they won and didn’t have a tax increase. These people are more than conservatives – they are terrorists.

And if you, Tom Q. Uberconservative, are just running out the clock on yourself, if you’re just looking out for old number one, if you honestly don’t think everyone in a town of 2,000, 5,000, or 100,000 can’t chip in an extra hundred dollars to pass a school or town budget, then I don’t want to know you. You’re a selfish son-of-a-bitch and I won’t forgive it.

Welfare

As a liberal, I believe in helping those less fortunate. America’s a great land for many people, no doubt about it. It is undeniable, however, that there is a great deal of citizens in dire poverty across this country. Americans die from starvation, from exposure, and from a premature failure of health. I choose to not let them go hungry. And since I cannot give thousands of dollars to the cause, I want to be part of a society that chips in together and helps.

I believe our government should help these people. Don’t ignore suffering. Many prominent Republicans in America today are proud of their faith and in their following of Jesus Christ, but these same Republicans are quick to go to war, become corrupt in order to stay in power, and not help those in poverty in favor of helping the rich. Hypocrisy doesn’t begin... you know what, let's just say it: If Jesus were alive today, he wouldn’t be a Republican.

The fact of the matter is that some children can never battle out of the poverty they were born into…if they survived that childhood at all. Let's remember that there were ways to prevent this from even happening.

Sex Education

Liberals want to teach kids about safe sex, including why our bodies do what they do during puberty, teaching about sexually transmitted diseases, and putting free condoms in the schools. Conservatives fight this, saying it’s improper to teach these issues in schools. They think teaching kids about sex and giving out condoms are ways to get kids thinking about sex.

Surely we know it’s not sex education that drives kids to want to have sex. In the words of Aaron Sorkin via character Toby Ziegler:
Random conservative: “Show the average American teenage male a condom and his mind will turn to thoughts of lust.”
Toby: “Show the average American teenage male a lug wrench and his mind will turn to thoughts of lust.”

Teaching abstinence will not stop the unmarried from having sex. It’s been proven, though, that teaching abstinence makes it less likely that students will know to use contraceptives, thereby not limiting unintended pregnancies.

Ultimately, kids make mistakes, as do all humans. Our imperfection is well documented. From Napoleon’s March on Moscow to Mariano Rivera blowing four straight saves against the Red Sox, even Greatness blunders. What are we to expect of the layman? Sometimes these mistakes are huge. Sometimes they are unavoidable. Sometimes, there is only one way to correct them.

Abortion

There are a variety of places to stand on this issue, factoring in causes, trimester count, and other extenuating circumstances. But without a doubt, there are two general camps that everyone will find themselves in. Either there are conditions under which you will support an abortion or there are no such conditions. Either you do not what the government to step in (Pro-choice) or you want the government to make it 100% illegal (pro-life).

Liberals are pro-choice. Rape, incest, poverty, health of the mother, health of the embryo, decision made by the would-be parents…these are reasons to support an abortion. Sometimes, it’s just better that the embryo does not develop. Who are politicians to force a mother to have a child if she does not want it? Roe vs. Wade had it right. The woman’s right to control her body outweighs the rights of an embryo.

Conservatives could not in clear conscious think liberals are fans of abortions. We wish there was a world without abortions, but only if it were a world where abortions weren’t necessary in the first place. This is why (cue yet another connection) we wish to teach our citizens while they’re still young about safe sex practices.

In other words, contrary to what conservatives would have you believe, liberals value life just as much, if not more than conservatives. For example...

Capital Punishment

Again, Republicans who cite Jesus Christ need to run away from him on this one. He did not say eye for an eye, but rather turn the other cheek.

Even if a person kills someone or many people, is it not enough to keep them away from the society they have wronged by handing them life imprisonment? Why is taking their life justice? In a world where a set of circumstances exist that someone wishes to take the life of another, how can we consciously execute someone, even if they took the life of someone else?

Moreover, all capital punishment prosecutions are not on equal footing. If O.J. Simpson were poor, would he have been founded not guilty? No, the evidence was overwhelming. In the words of Chris Rock: “If OJ drove a bus he wouldn’t even be OJ. He’d be Orenthal the bus driving murderer.”

If an innocent man is poor, he will have awful representation. Therefore, he has a worse chance of escaping conviction. In sum, the richer you are, the more likely you will get off for a crime you are accused of. Does this seem fair? I mean, at all? Especially when we’re talking about cases that could involve capital punishment?

Many rape cases have been overturned once DNA evidence was brought in years later. But how did those unfortunate souls get convicted in the first place? Bad representation. This easily translates to murders and other crimes where DNA might not come into play. Who’s to say all of those are convictions are accurate?

Indeed, American society is not fair on this issue at all. Currently on death row are 1,527 whites and 1,411 blacks, making up 45 and 42 percent of the death row population, respectively. Do 45 and 42 percent even CLOSELY resemble the racial makeup of the United States? No, the United States is currently about 67% white and 13% black. There are too many things wrong with the death penalty if the makeup of death row is so drastically deviated from the American demographic. Either a society has been created where blacks have a higher propensity than whites to commit a capital crime (blame lack of welfare, education, and sex education) or a legal system has been created that arrests and convicts blacks at a higher rate than whites, or it’s somewhere in the middle of those two injustices.

Either way, does it seem fair to continue executing before this is resolved? Not at all. I know of a quote, it’s not mine: “A system that will take life must first give justice.”

It’d be grand if we could cut down on murders. I think liberals and conservatives can stand shoulder to shoulder on this one. Then again…

Gun control

Guns are bought legally in this country. Someone can look for the gun, buy the gun, buy bullets for the gun, take the gun home with them, load it, then step back into society, and they can do all of that legally. Indeed, they can step back into the society where our children go to those dilapidated schools with underpaid and overworked teachers, they can go into the society where families happily attend their religious ceremony, they can go into the society where a single mother is working two jobs to raise her two children. And until this gun owner aims it at someone and pulls the trigger, they haven’t committed a crime.

I am a liberal, and I want this scenario to never happen. Therefore, I am for the most stringent gun control laws possible. We live in a time where a rogue nation or terrorist cell with a nuclear missile could throw the world for a loop. A microcosm of that is an unpredictable individual with a gun and nothing to lose. Because the rest of us have a lot to lose. We have children, wives, husbands, siblings, parents, girlfriends... So much to lose. And it can be taken away with the pull of a trigger by a gun obtained legally.

I want a government that protects all of us, a government that takes care of both the majority and the minority. It’s meant to be that way from the beginning, from the bicameral Congress to the Bill of Rights.

Protection of Citizens

Clearly, as a liberal, I believe in equality and I believe in assistance. This means I want equality for all Americans, regardless of social status, wealth, race, and sexual orientation.This means that I care for the weak. This means children are promised a good education at a safe place. This means the elderly have medical aid whenever they need it, as well as Social Security. This means our collective contributions (taxes) go towards the public good, i.e. public libraries, public transportation, law enforcement, fire fighting, emergency response, street lights, infrastructure, museums, recreation, and so much more. With a conservative no-to-low tax policy, all of those would gradually crumble into the dust of yesterday. And would society be better without those things? No.

What liberals have done for America

In retrospect, liberals continually improved the United States and have acted in the best interest of human rights. They have fought these low-tax, slow-to-change conservatives in order to improve our society and our culture. Thanks to liberals, we abolished slavery. Thanks to liberals, we have cleaner air and water. Thanks to liberals, women have the right to vote. Thanks to liberals, we’ve improved the rights of all voters. Thanks to liberals, we have Social Security and Medicare, meaning our grandparents have assistance for arthritis and a weakening heart, which keeps them happily in our lives longer. Thanks to liberals, we don’t have to inhale secondhand smoke with our bacon cheeseburger at the local pizza place. Thanks to liberals, our bacon cheeseburger is up to code, as well as the rest of our public food and beverage. Thanks to liberals we have Head Start, which gives a much-needed helping hand to low-income children who have done nothing wrong but be born into a poor family.

Conservatives opposed all of those.

Therefore, I like to think liberals are ahead of the curve. We know what is good for the country and for society. History has proven this. I hope you’re with us. Unless, of course, you're a proponent of segregation, poor public schools, suffering elderly, and dirty air and water. Then maybe the liberal ideology is not for you.

NOTE: This contribution was submitted by GC, a colleague of mine where I teach. It's a great review of the trials and tribulations that we teachers of English face at the secondary level. A huge thanks to GC for this wonderful contribution. Enjoy.

“Generation Next” and the Fate of the Current English Class

By GC

Do you ever think that the work we do as English teachers is becoming more and more irrelevant to the lives of our students? I’ve always known that part of the work we do as educators is finding ways to link the content of our courses to the experiences of those we teach. I also understood that even with my best attempts, I often fell short, and students got the increasing sense that school in general was some inconvenient interruption in the middle of what they perceived as the real stuff of their lives: time with friends, sports, music, work, etc. But lately it’s occurred to me that what we are asking of students now is more distant from their real lives than ever before. In the past few years, English class has become even more irrelevant, more superfluous, and more disconnected from what matters to them, or at least what they think matters, than in any time previous, mostly due to the increasing role of technology in their lives.

Just in the last five years, maybe even the last two years, technology has moved into our students’ lives in ways that may be altering the very way they think. Whether or not that development is advancement or not remains to be seen, but in the meantime the simple competition for students’ time is fiercer than ever. The first major intrusion into their time was video games. As a mother of three teenage girls, video games were never hugely popular in our house (although the hours they filled playing in the world of the Sims were pretty daunting). Still, I was amazed to learn about students who filled most of their free time playing video games. When Halo II came out, I saw just how devoted some of my students were to this activity; quite a handful played this game hour after hour for days on end, even avoiding sleep. Play Station III, which came out this past fall, had more than a few of my students skipping school and waiting on line, starting at midnight the day before, so they could purchase this new unit. I remember thinking to myself then, when do they do their reading? What about their schoolwork?

Also several years ago, we had the onset of Instant Messenger. Instant Messenger allows students to continue to engage in social conversations with classmates long after they’ve left the school building. Soon, having a screen name became a means of joining a kind of cyber-party. Everybody was talking and God forbid they be talking about you, so the best defense is a good offense, right? Get on line and STAY on line! Be a player~ who wants to be left out? So maintaining these conversations became a whole new way to develop and maintain friendships. I can even write an essay and talk to my friends at the same time! What’s more, the conversations I’m having with my friends are a lot more interesting than writing that compare / contrast essay. It’s not easy to maintain my line of thought when I’m composing with all these interruptions, but whatever.

It’s hard to believe that Facebook and then Myspace are relatively recent developments in the menu offerings provided by the Internet. Maintaining “your space” on these sites could take hours of your day, and then there’s checking out everybody else’s contributions. Profiles, surveys, blogs, comments, messages – there’s so much to click on! And it’s all about them (that is at least until Rupert Murdoch bought MySpace for a reported gadoozzle dollars). But these sites remain the place to be for Generation Next to communicate, create, network, gossip, listen to music, etc. etc. etc. (And you want me to take my English book and find a quiet corner, cozy up, and read? And miss this party?)
Even more recent distractions include YouTube and of course Google. Just think about how the teaching of the research paper has changed in the last five years. And leave us not forget cell phones -just one more piece of this pie- which allow interruptions to follow you wherever you go. Constantly in touch – ready at a moment’s notice – write a text and send it along. Take a picture – you can use it on your Facebook!

Take all of this in and then think about what you do in the classroom.

What will happen when schools become irrelevant to more and more students? Perhaps you have a core group, you say, that love to read. True devotees. And this core group will…remain stagnant? Can we imagine this group growing? What would be your best educated guess as to direction of the trend? Here is one pressing question that rises first to the surface of these ramblings: Is it critically important for students to read works from the past? Because if we believe that it is, then we have to figure out a way to ensure that students are sold on the notion that literature matters to them, literature from the past as well as the present.

But keep in mind: most students ARE reading now: they are reading videos. They are reading instant messages. They are reading comments left of their My Space or Face Book (or both) pages. And they are writing here too. They are very much concerned with the language of the present, with the stories of today (ask a teenager to tell you about “Jackass II” for a sample of the kinds of stories that interest them). So it’s not that they are separate from the written or visual world – it’s just…well, have you looked at that world lately?

Maybe, I imagine, asking students to pull away from their present world has always been a challenge for educators. My concern is that now – at this point in time – the task of getting students to unplug from their world is fraught with enormous challenges, challenges that need to be met by tapping teachers’ most creative and imaginative resources.

Do we want reading to be a computer activity? More and more, I think the answer is yes. But then again, what will that mean for us as a society of independent thinkers? Do we need to make reading and writing social activities? Primarily, yes, and yes. But what about the life of the soul? The development of the solitary mind? What would Thoreau say? Surely, there will be losses along the way. Certain beloved works from the past may not be translated into this new age as well as others. But others may find continued – even renewed life. And there will also be new works – and new means to access these works. Let students lead the way in this area, perhaps. I have learned so much from watching my own children, who are now members of “Generation Next.” Most significantly, I have learned that things are changing, without a doubt. Are we accelerating exponentially? Is it possible we are on the verge of an enormous human shift? These are just a few of the questions that have surfaced for me in the past few months. But this I do believe: teachers need to pay attention to the current changes in society as brought forth by technology. If we fail to adapt to the reality of today, we are doomed to become relics, frozen dioramas like those Holden Caulfield would admire in the halls of the Museum of Natural History: frozen in time, unchanging, and totally disconnected from the current flow of change and evolution.

FOLKS, MEET OUR: EDUCATOR-IN-CHIEF
You can't make this stuff up. Read the transcript.

Did the planets line up yesterday? Was there some meteor shower of sorts? Perhaps the WMD were, in fact, found? Nah. Between Captain Lieberman's pathetic show on Meet the Press and Chimpy's prime time--a rarity, indeed--declaration of "Educator-in-Chief" on 60 minutes--no wonder test scores are down, I feel like we are in the midst of some sort of "end-of-days" prophecy.

Did Capt. Lieberman and Chimpy forget to take their meds.? Or should we take ours to dull the pain? Whatever you do: you might need something to get yourself through this transcript. Do yourself a favor: check it out and check out the DailyKos for more commentary.

HIT HER WITH YOUR BEST SHOT: THE BOXER IN BARBARA
(dedicated to KT—a woman [ & good friend] with balls)

Quite frankly, I’m pretty stunned by all the coverage Senator Barbara Boxer received in her most recent smackdown of Condoliar Rice during the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Thursday. The folks over at Wonkette, one of my favorite blogs, claimed that Boxer “c*nt-punched” Condosleezza—“s” intended. Whiny feminists have been clamoring that it wasn’t “fair” of Boxer to insinuate that Condi couldn’t empathize with the war dead because she’s not a mother. Snap out of it! The New York Post, which is fair, balanced, and Murdoched asserted that Boxer’s questioning was a “low blow.” Even Rush Limfart weighed in—picture that—scary, huh? Viagra-taking Flush said that Boxer’s treatment was, get this: unfair. I won’t even go into the orgy fest that Fox Fiction is doing this weekend about Boxer. Boo-hoo, poor Condi. Would you like me to do my impression of Linda Blair in The Exorcist now or later?

That all this commentary centers around “the delta of venus,” that feminine space below the belt, rather than the reality of the more than 3000 dead Americans and countless wounded, is a bit troubling. First off, Boxer has been Rice’s nemesis since Rice went through her confirmation hearings for Secretary of State in January 2005; that Boxer had conveniently forgotten, in the summer of 2006, how Captain Lieberman opposed her opposition against Condi is a different story for a different entry. It was Boxer, not her Democrat male colleagues at the time, who had the balls to throw Rice up against the ropes by showing Rice where and when she had repeatedly contradicted herself and the president. This gained so much media attention that SNL couldn’t resist doing a spoof. Maya Rudolph was a better Condi than she had been a Donatella.

Since that initial bitch slap, Boxer has been relentless against Condi in hearing after hearing, and the good senator has said far worse than what she said on Thursday, including a verbal scud about Condi’s dishonesty to which a shaken Condi asked Boxer not to “impugn her integrity.”

The question is: Where have these “venus” spectators been? Second off, and perhaps even more importantly, Condi has just as big a pair as Boxer does. I’m sorry: all this sudden sympathy for steely-eyed, dominatrix-boot wearing, serial lying Condi makes me think about Linda Blair and the right kind of consistency of pea soup for my interpretation.

Why do we Americans “fixate” on and try to “castrate” women with balls? Interestingly, the media has sort of downplayed Senator Chuck Hagel, a Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and his treatment of Fangoliar Rice on Thursday, which included a scathing exchange about the meaning of escalation—or augmentation as Condi would have it.

It was Pat Benatar, a petite woman with a big voice and big pair in the 80s, who howled against her opposition in such anthems as “Hit Me With Your Best Shot” & “Love is a Battlefield.” It was Senator Boxer who hit Condi once again with her best shot on Thursday that made many of us realize perhaps all is not fair in love and war for women with balls.

Check out

"Presidential Personae"

my contribution to

Presidential Politics for America

I GET BY WITH A LITTLE HELP FROM MY FRIENDS

Readers:

I've invited some guest bloggers--people I work with, fellow educators, and this one very popular blogger I knew during his days at Connecticut College--to help both you and me get 1% more conscious in the upcoming weeks. As many of you know, I have a 10 week old and a 3 1/2 year old who keep me and my wife very busy as of late. Parenting, teaching, and blogging have constituted quite a balancing act, so I'm both grateful and delighted to welcome these contributors. For the record, these folks are left, right and center and I look forward to their observations. Thanks a million.

THE SPECTER OF NED

Yesterday, in the beltway, Joey and Johnny got together at none other than the American Enterprise Institute, the epicenter of neoconservativism, the site, I am sure, where Bill Kristol wants to be laid—no, not in that way—to rest. Still stunned by the party that disowned him, Joey must now rebound since Nancy, the liberal, and Harry, the Mormon, wrote that nasty letter to Chimpy, the asshole. “No more troops,” they’ve said, echoing everyone from Jimmy Baker to Joey Biden to the ghost of Gerald R. Ford to every General whom Chimpy—that Texas Air National Guard Specialist—has ignored. You see, when Nancy met Harry, they decided to flex some of that blue muscle and fast. But where did that muscle come from?

Joey, who disdains big blue muscle, who allegedly disdains partisan politics—because really he’s beholden to no one but himself, still insists that it’s “about people, not partisan politics”—the pathetic mantra of his senatorial campaign that does a have a kernel of truth to it: in your case, Joey, it IS about people—approximately 40,000 more troops—to send to their deaths. But where did that blue muscle come from?

Clueless in the capitol, Joey buddies up once again with Johnny after their trip to Iraq. They’ve done their ceremonial tributes to Robert Bly and male bonding, I’m sure, scratching themselves at the Imus zoo with all the goons to cheer them on. Now they must go to the Delphi of Neoconservative lunacy: the American Enterprise Institute, to respond to Nancy, the liberal, and Harry, the Mormon, and every other far out lefty who disagrees with them because everyone that disagrees with them and Chimpy are communists, lefties, Nazi sympathizers, Islamist militants, and let’s see: members of the falafel club who attempted to bring O’Shitty down. But where or where did that blue muscle come from?

Johnny turns to Joey and says, “Are you sure we’re doing the RIGHT thing, I mean the really RIGHT thing here, Joe? Because I’ve got a 2008 campaign to launch and I can’t fuck up.” Joey retorts, “Of course we are. We want to be tough. We want to be consistent. And furthermore, Karl helped me; he’s helped you. And we owe them something.” A bit perturbed, Johnny says, “I know, you’re somewhat RIGHT. But will it backfire? For Pete’s sakes, even Ford knew this wouldn’t work.” Arrogant as Captain Ahab, Joey responds, “John, we’ve got the ship under control. Don’t worry.” More than a bit perturbed, Johnny responds, “Look, Oedipus, I’ve said: I’ve got a campaign to launch. And furthermore, where the HELL did all of this blue, democrat muscle come from all of sudden?” Annoyed, stunned, angered, Joey grinds his teeth and responds, “It’s that son-of-a-bitch Lamont.”

M a c b u s h

Chimpy and his administration are resembling Macbeth and his insanity more and more with each passing day. We’ve moved from the end of Act IV to the beginning of Act V, folks. And it’s not looking good at all.

Today’s editorial in none other than the Wall Street Journal is particularly psychotic. Obviously grappling with the fact that HE is responsible for his party’s election losses this past November, Chimpy publishes a well-written essay—shocker, I know—I didn’t claim he wrote it, which seems more like a conversation he should have with a therapist rather than with the American people.

For those of us who have been enduring this political tragedy while on the edge of our seats, the ironies once again continue to abound--and amaze. From calling for “common ground” to appealing to the other side with a disingenuous “together,” from making the absurd claim that his principles are “no secret” and that he dislikes the “secretive process” to yet again conflating the operation in Iraq with 9/11, from praising “our tax cuts”—yeah, right—to hallucinating about a balanced budget in…2012, from suggesting reform for “Social Security” to warning congress not to pass bills to make “political statements”—how about that Terri Schiavo cabaret number, there, Georgey?, Chimpy has evidently lost his mind.

Perhaps the most seismic irony here is that we just witnessed the passing of a dignified leader in President Gerald R. Ford only to be subjected to the indignant behavior of George W. Macbush.

But Just like Macbeth who, on the brink of his own self-induced demise, fails to grip the emerging realities of “Birnam Wood” and “No Man Born of Woman,” Chimpy fails to heed the warnings of the Baker Group that No More American Men or Women should be left to die.

CAPTAIN AHAB STRIKES AGAIN

Just when I was ready to crawl into 2007 with ease, Captain Lieberman came out of the hull to publish his "opinion" in the Washington Post of why we need to remain in Iraq and why we need to increase troop levels: indeed, a symbolic, big middle finger to all those whom he opposes. Of course, Captain Ahab had to promulgate his opinion, which, let's face it, isn't new, from D.C. He wouldn't deign to publish this opinion first in the CT papers because really folks, he's for the CT people and tired of the partisan politics of the D.C. beltway. In lieu of deigning, therefore, he started McCaining, or better yet, McFeigning because who the hell knows who John McCain is any more in his latest quest to secure the Republican nomination: Straight but Crooked Talk Express; Bush Talk Express; Bullshit Talk Express; or better yet, a potpourri thereof.

A Tell-Tale Passing

With the sad passing of President Ford, we see yet again another passing of sorts; this one slightly more pathetic than sad: Chimpy trying to “pass” over his own blatant incompetence. But just like Edgar Allan Poe's "The Tell-Tale Heart" demonstrates, that which you suppress does come back to haunt you.

Perhaps I’m experiencing a synchronistic phenomenon here because just yesterday I finally started Frank Rich’s The Greatest Story Ever Sold, and in the first chapter, Rich lays out why Chimpy is no more qualified to do his job than, let’s say, Maggie Spellings is to do hers.

As Rich and others suggest, these past 5 Bush years ought to be dubbed The Age of Passing: Pretending to be the Very Thing You’re Not. You would think by this time that the White House spinzone would realize that we caught them at their game; but it looks like they’ve missed a pass or two in their now obvious attempts to score. Chimpy’s incompetence has grown so incredibly out of control and his defense mechanism of “passing” has become so fucking transparent, he’s beginning to parody himself. Poor Chimpy is just not that conscious, though, to recognize that he’s become a farce.

Just take a look at Chimpy’s highly ironic words about President Ford; they give new meaning to Freudian displacement. He praises Ford for his “integrity;” he mentions Ford’s pivotal role at the time for a nation that needed “healing;” he goes on to comment on how Ford led with “common sense” and “kind instincts;” and he even goes so far as to note how Ford helped the country through a “period of great turmoil and division.” I swear: these are his words, not mine. As I’ve mentioned before in my quest to be 1% more conscious: you can’t make this shit up. But you don’t have to hold a PhD in psychology or linguistics to realize that in this speech (and I’m sure in others) Chimpy is displacing and denying all over the place, attempting to “pass” by his own incompetence in his elegiac remarks on the passing of a former president.

The best part for me was that as I finished reading the speech, my 9 week old began screaming because she was apparently trying to “pass” gas. If only Chimpy would recognize that he’s so full of crap, the world would be a better place.

MOBY DICK

Call me annoyed. Several weeks have passed and I still can’t help but marvel at Oedipus Lieberman, whom I’m officially renaming. Hey, renaming is as American as apple pie—Jay Gatz became Jay Gatsby; Marshall Mathers became Eminem; and hell, Hillary can’t decide if she is Hillary Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton, or Billary Clinton—a renaming that remains in abeyance.

It’s official: Oedipus Lieberman has morphed into Captain Ahab, another tragically fueled figure. In this unfolding novel of contemporary American foreign policy, Melville’s masterpiece certainly comes to mind because as we grapple with how to “catch” some sort of success in Iraq, the ubiquitous presence in the American psyche, it eludes us just like the whale-the ubiquitous presence in the novel—escapes mad Ahab. And Ahab’s as deranged as they come. So is Lieberman.

While many in our ship of state have fully realized that the leviathan Iraq is Apocalypse Now, not Apocalypse Later, not Apocalypse On Hold because we want to avert a Vietnam redux, Captain Lieberman, in his insatiable megalomania, cannot help himself. He wants more troops. He wants more troops even as Chimpy equivocates. He wants more troops albeit Dodd and others with far more experience in foreign relations and armed services have said we are past the point of no return. He wants more troops even though it’s relatively clear that there is no military solution to the Iraq quagmire.

But like the maimed Ahab who once wrestled with his nemesis and sustained a loss, Captain Lieberman, who survived a primary loss to seek revenge in the general, cannot let go of that which has brought him so much agony: Iraq. And let’s hope that there really doesn’t exist some sort of symbolic parallel here: Ahab couldn’t extricate himself from what tormented him, and thus we leave him dejectedly strapped to the monster that subsequently brings his ship and him down.

Ah....?

What the hell is going with George H.W. Bush lately? Frankly, I’ve never had a problem with the man. As I’ve indicated many times before, I prefer his breed of martini-lunch, afternoon golf-playing, diplomatically prone Republican decorum to these asshole neocons. And I had jiminy cricket HIGH hopes that he would rescue us from his shithead of a son—chimpy. But the crying this week and the failure of the Iraq Study Group, the front for father Bush--let’s face it--to move chimpy to do something, has me deeply concerned that we are in the midst of the revenge of the siths, or, in our case: revenge of the shits. Daddy Bush’s latest display, in Japan of all places, involves a comment that indicated he would “beat the hell” out of Hillary should she run for the presidency. Now I know Hillary inspires homicidal tendencies, but come on now: have a martini or two. Chimpy must’ve REALLY fucked-up.

MERRY CHRISTMAS EVERYONE!

YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS SHIT UP: Santorum now wants to terrorize the field of banking????????

HOW ABOUT THIS FAMILY PHOTO? What a lovely group!

Something Wicked This Way Comes: Open, Locks, Whoever Knocks!

The tragic impulse in Macbeth launches into warp speed in ACT III. Duncan is long dead; Malcolm has bolted to England; Donalbain to Ireland. Macbeth realized he had to off Banquo, so he hires three thugs to do the deed. And he places servants—spies—in peoples’ houses. The Lady makes excuses for her man when, at a dinner, the ghost of Banquo looms only to scare the shit out of Macbeth. She wants the on-lookers to think one thing, when, in fact, something else is going on. Hecate, the goddess witch, appears and scolds her hags for their prophecies for Macbeth. Even the supernatural falls victim to the tragic impulse, which thunders vehemently toward more chaos, more corruption, more death, and more evil.

The tragic impulse in the Bush administration has escalated recently. Papa Bush and the paleo-conservative world of Republican diplomacy are symbolically dead. While Papa bolted to Florida to deliver a tribute to the favorite son, Jeb, Chimpy snubbed and smeared the council of elders—the Iraq study group. Scared shitless by the Papa Bush ghost, the W. posse realized they must off Baker III, consigliore extraordinaire, so they dispatched the echo chamber thugs to do the deed. While there has long been spying in Americans’ houses, we just don’t know whose houses and why because the NSA program still remains a “cloak & dagger” topic. The Lady made the lamest excuse of them all, blaming the media for Chimpy’s lower-than-Nixon approval ratings. Sadly, while Senator Johnson had a stroke, the political soothsayers speculated about the balance of power, who will actually run in 2008, and what we will hear in the change of course message Chimpy has postponed yet again to next year. The tragic impulse gains vigorous momentum as more chaos, more corruption—word has it that Abramoff is squealing like a pig in jail, more death, and more evil become abundantly apparent. Seeing George H.W. Bush cry was not only ample evidence enough, but, moreover, a haunting omen that something wicked this way may come, so bolt the locks to whatever knocks.

NO EXIT

So as NASA reports that a black hole has swallowed a star, the renowned “Iraq Study Group” has released its report today that claims Iraq, once a potential star of the Middle East for its rich oil fields, has turned into a black hole. Is this new information?

Quite frankly, it seems as though the mainstream media, the punditry, and everyTom, Dick, and Nancy—yes, folks, let’s include Nancy because she will be the Speaker of House, has been having the same conversation for months. What do we do with Iraq? We can’t immediately pull out? We can’t stay forever? We don’t want to repeat the mistakes of the past—ah…Vietnam. But we want to secure a better future. After all, Democracy is on the march. It’s like a bad broken record, which just skips, skips and skips. And while the record carelessly skips, the more bodies pile up and up—theirs and ours. Can we move on to a different song?

Meanwhile, Chimpy has hit new lows in his torpor of denial—a black hole that requires a shrink, not an NASA astrophysicist. He and his goons continue to pars, to insist that things aren’t as bad as they seem, and to claim that everyone who questions them, let alone disagrees with them, is partisan. That that asshole Tony Snow went after David Gregory today for “framing” things in a partisan way is the height of hypocrisy…for this week. Who the hell knows what’s on the launch pad for next week? Perhaps the weapons of mass destruction, which are going to be sent to the moon.

What the “Iraq Study Group” has revealed is that there’s no clean exit from Iraq: whether we do it now or later. Freedom isn’t on the march. Civil War and sectarian violence escalate. Our troops are doing their best albeit reports now indicate that they need new supplies. And things simply look like…a black hole.

Back to the record skip: Is this new information? Haven’t we heard this all before? We are in desperate need for a new song, and not the same old tune.

The most resounding line from Sartre’s No Exit is “hell is other people.” The most hellish reality for America’s foreign policy: there’s simply no exit.

BYE-BYE JOHNNIE

LEADING INTO CHAOS

As we slide into the end of 2006 and as every aspiring presidential hopeful announces his or her presidential run--by the way, don't be fooled by Hillary's rest period in New York; word has it she's due to attack any week now, we may want to check out this month's Vanity Fair. Some impressive features by James Wolcott and Michael Wolff that address everything from the GOP scandal crisis to Chimpy's never-ending daddy crisis, which now involves none other than Kissinger. It's a good issue; the Brad Pitt cover, I could do without. But if you get a chance, check out the Wolcott and Wolff articles.

QUIEN ES ESA NINA: Who's that girl?

Margaret Spellings. That’s who. One of the most stunning appointments to the Bush administration cabinet this term has been Margaret Spellings, Secretary of Education. Our gal Maggie was appointed back in November 2004, after Bush actually won a term.

That the mainstream media has let this appointment fly by has been unbelievable, especially for those of us in public education. Granted, one could see why the media went into an orgy over the “heckuva” job that non-qualified Mikie Brown was doing as FEMA director when New Orleans went under water. But wake-up media: Take a look at Maggie. Because although many of us on both sides of the aisle initially had high hopes for the broad improvements that No Child Left Behind would have had, it’s becoming patently obvious that it’s a colossal failure and there’s a big secret in America that few know about: Maggie Spellings, who heads the Department of Education and No Child Left Behind, is COLOSSALLY unqualified for her job. In the hierarchy of education, Spellings would be hard-pressed to get a substitute teacher position. And I’m not kidding.

Let’s review the qualifications of two former Secretaries of Education, shall we? I’ll even select two former secretaries who served under Republican presidents, ok? Just so you don’t think I’m being unfair and imbalanced here. Let’s start with Rod Paige, who served under George W. Bush’s first term.

Now I’m not a big fan of Paige, especially when he equated teachers unions with “terroists.” Well…I do know a building steward or two who has a narcissistic personality disorder and who has declared a jihad against anyone who disagrees with them, so he might’ve had a point; but that’s another story for another day. Back to Paige. Like him or leave him: Paige was more than “well-qualified” for the job. Holding a doctorate degree, Paige dedicated his life to education, serving as a teacher, a coach, a dean, and a superintendent.

How about Bill Bennet? The right guy the left loves to hate? Dr. William Bennet served as Secretary of Education under President Reagan during Reagan’s second term. As with Paige, Bennet is not one of my favorite people, especially when he made that heinous comment, suggesting that one way to reduce crime would be to abort African-American babies. Truly uncalled for. Regardless of this remark, though, which is awful, Bennet was “well-qualified” for his job. Bennet has more degrees than a thermometer, including a doctorate from the University of Texas and a law degree from Harvard. Additionally, he had served on countless boards and councils related to education, including the National Endowment for the Humanities.

It’s clear: we, the American citizens, expect that someone who fills a cabinet position such as Secretary of Education should be both well-educated and well-qualified, and that that individual should have some experience in public education. So that brings me to Margaret Spellings’ qualifications. Previously the Assistant to the President Bush for Domestic Policy, Spellings holds a degree in political science from the University of Texas. And that’s about it for education. Maggie was involved with education reform in Texas when she lived there, and she worked with then governor Bush on a whole host of issues related to education. Too bad her only experience being in a classroom has been as a student, and it’s a shame that there’s no indication that she served some time as a substitute teacher, which, in Connecticut, requires one to have an undergraduate degree, which Maggie does have. But that’s ok, isn’t? I guess that although I don’t know a fucking thing about a hospital, I should apply for chief of surgery. And maybe you, reader, who may know NOTHING about let’s say, astro-physics, should design a space-craft for NASA.

When our gal Maggie first came out as Secretary of Education in 2005, she had a “heckuva” of arrival taking everyone on from the cartoon characters on a PBS show, whom she thought were lesbians, to Dr. Betty Sternberger of Connecticut, former Secretary of Education in Connecticut, who, like Dr. Paige and Dr. Bennet had experience in education and in the classroom. Imagine that.

What I find most disappointing in all of this—deep breath—is that as a teacher, department head, and trained mentor teacher, I usually find a lot of common ground with my conservative colleagues on issues pertaining to education. In fact, we tend to agree on a great deal whereas I am constantly at odds with "left-leaning" colleagues who are more overly concerned with students’ feelings, with whether or not students like them, with sucking-up to administration, with creating problems where they don’t exist, and with slowly dismantling the Western canon in a vain effort to say that such works as The Odyssey are no longer valid (yes, some asshole presenter at a conference I attended actually said this—my wife is my witness—she was there, too). To be frank, I have found in my ten years of teaching that many left-leaning and conservative educators do have a wealth of common ground. The problem is: too many people in Washington and elsewhere are too unconscious to recognize this.

Who’s that girl? Maggie Spellings. And I’m sure she’s a nice person, and I’m sure she’s been loyal to President Bush—he likey likes that. However, she’s grossly unqualified. But here’s where Georgie has blown yet another opportunity. What the fuck? Just think what could HAVE been done had he had the right people—no pun intended—reached out across the aisle, found a way to deal with some of those zealots in the union—I know, I know, and forged away to make American education at the vanguard in the 21st century. Bill Gates has been plowing along. So has Bill Clinton and his business associates in his work for with the Clinton Foundation. Maybe we do need to get business more involved because public education remains tragically left behind. Maybe the "true" free-market conservatives have got it right.

HAPPY TURKEY DAY

THE HORROR! THE HORROR!

So after being smacked down by Mother Superior Pelosi last week with the force of Catholic Guilt, the ultimate weapon of mass destruction, Georgie finally goes to Vietnam to do what?: talk about another failed war: Iraq. The irony here is so overwhelming and surreal it seems as if the center of gravity has been temporarily displaced, and those of us watching have all we can do to hold on.

But Texas Air National Guard George doesn’t seem to get it, does he? When asked about what lessons the Vietnam War has to offer, our Commander of a Chimp replies, “We’ll succeed unless we quit.” Great response there, skippy. Obviously reading off of the dick diplomacy notes of Five Deferment Dick, Georgie wants to stay the course despite the mid-term election results, despite the declaration of Father Bush and his republican, old guard cardinals of the Iraq Study Group (whom I much rather prefer)—“Son, you’ve definitely fucked-up,” despite being confronted by Mother Nancy Patricia Pelosi for throwing spitballs in the Foreign Policy H block class, despite Kenn Mehlman OTDing (that’s out the dooring) of the RNC, and despite his approval ratings once again dipping around-to-below freezing.

Sure: he fired Rummy, a move many Republicans said he should’ve made weeks ago to have given some GOP candidates a snowball’s chance in Iraq of winning. Make no mistake about it: this election was a referendum on the war, despite what that asshole Oedipus-Revenge Lieberman says.

But one would think that after journeying to the heart of darkness of America’s foreign policy past, after seeing the iconography of Ho Chi Minh and the specter that that represents, after considering how Vietnam rebuilt itself in the wake of chaos and has inched to some sort of appreciation—in its own time—of free market capitalism, Georgie would get 1% more conscious about what’s going on. If his foray into the Pacific Rim with a PR blitz in the country where 58,000 Americans lost their lives doesn’t elevate his approach to this war in some way, then we will all being whispering in unison: the horror! The horror!

THE RIGHTOLESCENTS & THE LEFTOLESCENTS

I've always had a high approval rating with my conservative students. I'm serious; I'm not kidding. And these kids know that I'm left of center.

What gives? A few things. First and foremost, self-identified conservative students know a bit more about government and politics--and I appreciate that. And they tend to appreciate me for appreciating that--and them. This isn't saying much, though, because most high school teachers will tell you that despite having a state-mandated "civics" graduation requirement for all students, a scary, overhelming majority of our students know squat about government and politics. It's true. Generally, though, conservative kids know more than their peers.

Because the rightolescents, I believe, know a bit more about government and politics than most of their peers, they come across stronger in class discussions that might address politics or debatable issues in one way or another. Of course, years ago when I first entered teaching, I came across a Sean Assity-in-training, who knew nothing other than what he thought; where did he get this from? Sean Assity, of course. He, though, was the exception, not the trend. Suffice it to say, the rightolescents know their stuff.

Frustrated with what was happening to the leftolescents I knew who were adrift, I was motivated a couple of years to help a group of students, at the high school where I teach, to form a young democrats club. I had to take some of these leftolescents out of the bell jar of the 2004 loss and educate them about what many of the righties already knew. And I had to encourage them to get involved; I am proud to say that many of them did with this past election.

In a recent phone conversation with a retired, left-leaning colleague of mine, whom I will call MC Master Teacher, MC Master Teacher has agreed with my observations and has also noted that in class discussion or debates, the rightolescents are generally much more controlled and compelling. I find this also to be true. More oftentimes than I care to admit, leftolescents, especially those who just claim to be so for no reason other than what they feel, tend to implode with emotion when addressing controversial topics, aspiring for high drama and operatics rather than a measured discussion. This helps explain why I don't get the right's infatuation with histrionic loud mouths like Mann Coultergeist and Rush Limfart. It doesn't make sense: would you rather have George Will and Peggy Noonan presenting your case or Coultergeist and Limfart? I say George and Peggy all the way.

Another reason that my approval rating has been consistently high with the rightolescents is that I--I believe--allow them to express their views and beliefs, regardless if I agree with them or not. Much to my dismay, I have heard stories from the rightolescents over the years that they felt uncomfortable coming forth with their ideas in certain classes. And while I can't cite any specific educators who do this, I knew a few trolls on the left who fit the bill of being looney, close-minded, and tragicaly one-sided. We educators need to encourage critical thinking for all adolescents, regardless if they ooze right or left. Let's work together on educating and broadening the American minds.

GRACE & DIGNITY: CHECK OUT HOW A TRUE STATESMAN CONDUCTS HIMSELF.

http://simmonsforcongress.com/news/

THE RUMMY FILES

OEDIPUS LIEBERMAN ON MEET THE PRESS: THE INTERVIEW YOU DIDN'T SEE

Russert: Senator Lieberman, welcome back and congratulations.

Oedipus: Thanks, Tim. It's great to be here.

Russert: Senator, you won the general election but lost the primary. Your thoughts at this juncture?

Oedipus: Tim, I have to tell you: it's been a difficult couple of months; I've learned and grown as a politican and as an indivdual; and I thank the candidates for such a spirited race. But as you know: this is politics. These things sort of happen, but the challenge is to move on.

Russert: You've gone on record saying it was a bitter campaign. Your thoughts?

Oedipus: It was bitter, and I wish it had been different--on my part, as well as on my opponents'. There was a great deal to talk about and we do need to move forward now.

Russert: Have you spoken to Mr. Lamont now since the election?

Oedipus: Yes. I thanked him for his efforts. I thanked him for being involved and raising the issues to new levels. You know, at the end of the day, he and I do see eye to eye on many issues and I have certainly considered our differences and where I need to be more embracing--let's say. And it's my hope that now the election is over, Mr. Lamont will join me along with my supporters in making sound decisions for our state and for our nation.

Russert: Improve? Would you elaborate?

Oedipus: Certainly--as I mentioned in my campaign, my role as a politician is about people. And while many agree with me, there are many who are disappointed with me. Now it's my job to listen to why those people are disappointed and to note that while we may disagree, we can work to cultivate common ground. That's my challenge. It's about people, Tim: I'm serious when I say this.

Russert: Does this include the bloggers, whom you claim vituperated you?

Oedipus: Yes. Look--being in public office isn't easy. You will have your supporters and your critics. And there were many critics who were bloggers. But as a public official representing many of these people, it's not my role to distant and isolate these individuals: my challenge is to reach out and to know them better to settle our differences and to move forward.

Russert: Iraq? What do we do now?

Oedipus: Well, while I've gone on record to support the Bush Administration, now is the time to make some changes. I don't know what exactly those changes are, but we need to do something because things aren't working and the American public is growing increasingly angry with the handling of the war. And I believe President Bush feels the same way.

Russert: And as you've indicated, you're a true Democrat. Will you caucus with the Democrat majority with the new congress?

Oedipus: Certainly. I said I'm a true Democrat, and I will caucus with my colleagues. Sure, many of them supported my opponent--I know that. But to be truthful, what would have I done had one of them faced a primary challenge and didn't win? Politics can be ugly at times. But we have to move on. And I have to move on. I said I was Democrat, and I mean what I say.

*********
This was obviously the interview you didn't see; instead, we saw more of the same of Oedipus--angry, spiteful, parsing, and inflexible. Some things will never change.

Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf—I mean—Nancy Pelosi?

George. And if he isn’t, then he should be. For weeks now, we’ve heard the right wing goon squad fear Nancy. Nancy, the liberal. Nancy, from San Francisco. Nancy, the left coaster. Nancy, Nancy, Nancy. Nancy, bella Pelosi. You almost get the vision of Taylor and Burton, as Martha and George respectively, singing, “Who’s Afraid of Virgina Woolf? Virginia Woolf? The Big Bad Woolf?” In fact, while composing this entry, I went to the Wikipedia biography of Pelosi, looking for a picture, when lo and behold, I found a graphic photograph of a certain female part where a picture of Pelosi should’ve been. Talk about the vagina dentata male fear!

There’s a lot to fear with Nancy Patricia Pelosi. Nancy Pelosi is a first class politician and a better role model for women than that triangulation queen, Hillary. What’s Hillary calling herself now…an ambassador of bipartisanship? Ok, Hillary Lieberman. What a crock of shit!

The youngest of a large Italian-American family, Pelosi learned early on from both her father and her family that there are discrete skills necessary to be adept at politics. Pelosi’s father, a former mayor of Baltimore and a congressman, and her brother, also a former congressman, served as role models for Pelosi. But I would argue that growing up in an Italian-American family also provided a solid training ground for Pelosi, and I speak here from personal experience because I’m part of Italian.

The Italian-American family is all about politics; anyone who is Italian-American should know. There’s the head of the family, of course—the mother. Yes, folks, mothers have far more power than fathers in the family albeit this doesn’t seem to be so. Just look at Tony Soprano, for heaven’s sake: he can’t escape the wrath of his mother or the presence of his wife—the mother of his children—and the judgment of his shrink—Dr. Melfi—his surrogate, psychic mother. Let’s take a lesson from Tony: You never want to permanently piss off the Italian-American mother because if you do, you will receive an unbearable wrath or a sustained silent treatment, which is worse. Learning to navigate the waters of our mothers’ households—their kingdoms—teaches us Italian-Americans political skills that seldom can be reduplicated elsewhere. I won’t even address sibling dynamics—the senatorial set, the aunts and uncles, who act like the chorus in a Greek tragedy, and the multiple cousins and their factions—a blog is clearly insufficient for the volumes of political experiences to be analyzed here. One could write tomes upon tomes.

The fear of Nancy, though, extends beyond her ethnicity. Pelosi’s accomplishments are quite impressive unto themselves. Having raised five children, Pelosi officially entered politics once her children were in high school. She rose through the ranks of the political scene in northern California, Marin County, San Francisco, to be exact, which has a history of being red despite the conventional indigo perception. First elected to the House in 1988, Pelosi has been a flame-thrower ever since. And she’s known for her discipline, her backroom politicking, and, believe it or not, her moderation. Sounds like all the attributes a Republican pole salivates over; for Barry Goldwater’s sake, even Joe Scarborough has gone on record to say nice things about Nancy; this, of course, was in the late afternoon when the red set was still at work.

So let’s put this equation together: Mrs. Pelosi comes from the matrix of all political matrices—the Italian-American political institute, nothing to sniff at; Mrs. Pelosi has learned skillfully how to operate in the “family”; Mrs. Pelosi is a mother, a grandmother, and a practicing Catholic—the right hates that; Mrs. Pelosi is far better at flame-throwing than frumpy Hillary; and Mrs. Pelosi, like Howard Dean, another figure of hate for the right, has all the attributes of a successful politician: discipline, responsibility, decisiveness, fearlessness, and conservative traits of governing that so many overlook. Add these factors together and what you get is what the opposition fears most: the possibility of a successful, moderate—yes, moderate, House Leader.

Who’s Afraid of Nancy Pelosi? The neoconservative, hard right—you betcha. Just looking at Georgie in the press conference with Pelosi this week conjured up images of the naughty Catholic school boy meeting with mother superior—I know: been there, done that. The faithful left—sure, the criticisms are already rolling in, just check out The Huffington Post. And what about that junior senator from New York? Well, if she’s not scared, then perhaps she should take a harder look at Nancy Pelosi and how Pelosi has risen to success in a man’s world without bending herself into a pretzel of unrecognizable shape.

FACTS ARE FACTS

Here we go--crash helmets on: now that Lamont lost, we Americans have to "rush to judgment," the media, pundits, and yes, some of us bloggers, to suggest that the Netroots and Democrat activists have gone down in defeat in the wake of Oedipus Lieberman's redux. Snap out of it!: there's a lot more to this picture than meets the eye. First off, as KOS notes: elections are elections. Some of the candidates the net activists supported won, and some lost. Secondly, I would encourage both Lamont supporters and Lieberman voters to check out this article by Dave Sirota, who worked for the Lamont campaign. Granted, Sirota worked for Lamont but we need to go inside of the storm to see what really happened. Sirota is an apologist--you say? Well, that's a matter of perspective.

Last but not least, let's deconstruct this mono-myth promoted by David Brooks and others who have this lazy excuse for those of us who support Democrats wanting change. As I compose this blog intermittenly, I am chasing my three year old around the house while burping Catherine, the Great, who's just about a week and a half old. I don't have time to channel Lenin or Marx to ascribe to some right winger's fantasty of the mad, liberal left. My wife (yes, I'm married and we do go to church) is upstairs getting the kids' clothes so that we can go out shopping for food and baby items. Sorry, but we don't have time to plan a hostile revolution that would make Abbie Hoffman and his followers telekinetically communicate with one another from the grave. We both drank eight o'clock coffee this morning, not Starbuck's--not there's anything wrong with that. Quite frankly, we both find Starbucks good but a bit strong, so we stick with the working person's coffee just to get us through the morning. And we are charting out our day because later, I have to go to one of my three jobs. Sorry to piss on delusions of an angry "left," but I need to make a suitable living to provide for my family instead of attending the local chapter of the communist revolution.

Facts are facts; elections are elections; and some of us neither have the time nor the inclination to fulfill this poorly conceived vision of a leftist coup.

Have a great weekend, and may the force be with you all.

THE TIDE IS HIGH AND I'M HOLDING ON
(some quick observations)

1. The tide is high and I'm holding on (yes, I'm inspired here by the great Debi Harry): But let's not go nuts. Tsunami--I think not. Many of these wins were razor thin margins of victories. Even Chimpy pointed this out. Snap out of it Dems.!!! Don't get me wrong: I'll take it. But just as soon as the tide got high, the waters have already started receding and rather quickly. Be bold Dems. Bold and appealing, not whimpy and scary.

2. Post election Oedipus: A true Democrat? Get real. Ol' Joe boldly projects anger and revenge--any 9th grade student can see that. I suspect he will be doing more 3 dimensional chess with the caucus than he did before the primary smackdown. The fact that the right-wing chorus, led by none other than David Brooks and Mr. Safire on the OP-ED pages of the Times this morning, have harmonized in favor of Joe should give you an indication of how they have framed the Oedipus redux.

3. Ned is dead: Not really. Heal thyselves, Lamontistas. Ned Lamont, I believe, forced Dems. to surgically re-implant a backbonde when it came to the war. Both pundits and political scientists have noted that the Lamont influence coupled with the Murtha insurgence deserve more consideration. Get it, Dems.--a backbone. Perhaps this is why Lady Clinton, although she offered some alms to the Lamont campaign, stayed away from CT. You can't get into a pretzel with a backbone. Too bad Kerry got the backbone a little too late.

4. Looking to 2008: Well, from Lady Clinton's acceptance speech, which was enough to put me and everyone else I know to sleep, the lady has a lot of work to do. As a father of a new daughter, I'm delighted that we FINALLY have a woman speaker of the house and hope some day that we have a capable, qualified woman in the White House. Which brings me to Nancy Patricia Pelosi, who's got a pair. We like ballsy women. That's we--Americans. Hillary has shown some balls in the past. But she has cowered and triangulated a little too much for my liking. In fact, one can hear this in the rhetoric of her lame-ass acceptance speech. A note to Hillary: If you want to be perceived as tough, then be tough. Study Pelosi. Study Thatcher. Study Ol' Billy's smackdown of Chris Wallace. Study some of the gutsiness of Lamont. In the meantime, Barak and Gen. Wes. Clark are looking good, very good. And Johnny Edwards awaits in the background.

5. After the wave and the low tide comes in: hopefully, something will be done about the Iraq situation. It's a mess. Rummy is gone. Bush's Daddy's folks have come back--thank God. Let's hope something can be done for our troops. And let's stay 1% more conscious.

A GOOD MAN IS HARD TO FIND

(a note to readers: Catherine, the Great, the latest addition to our family, arrived last week. Hence, I’ve been 1% more conscious amidst burping, changing diapers, and sleepless nights.)

Well, it’s official: Oedipus Lieberman’s narcissistic personality disorder has swung into yet another new chapter, “A Good Man is Hard to Find.” In a pathetic effort to direct voters to look for his name at the ballot’s bottom—an appropriate place indeed, although I’d prefer his name off the ballot entirely, Oedipus et al are running an advertisement campaign to make sure the voters find him. How ironic!

Perhaps Oedipus Lieberman should find himself, since we now know that he’s really not a “true” Democrat even though he still clamors to be one. It’s also blatantly obvious that he’s not a “real” independent either. Being financed by every special interest group and corporation known to man, Oedipus Lieberman should be going public any day now. That Oedipus Lieberman has now sought the backers of former CT Governor and convict John Rowland shows the depths that Joe will go. And since Halloween has come and gone, some Republicans might be getting the hint that while Joe has temporarily aligned with them, his relentless masking and unmasking as any political entity financiers and their bases want reveals an individual who will do anything to retain power. Folks, he’s not a Republican either. Put simply, he’s Oedipus Lieberman, a man so myopic that what matters to him most is his own self-interest.

In a twisted way, I’m fascinated by this new chapter, “A Good Man is Hard to Find,” for two reasons: one, the blatant irony; and two, for those of us familiar with the great Flannery O’Connor, her famous short story, “A Good Man is Hard to Find.”

Let’s start with the irony here: who is really good in this senate showdown? Is it Joe, an establishment, self-serving politician who believes he owns a senate seat and who is more patently concerned with special interest groups than with his own constituents? Hell, I’ve received more mail from Joe and his “friends” in the past two weeks than in the past eighteen years he’s been in the senate. Too bad the mailings are about Ned Lamont and not about explicating Lieberman’s positions on Iraq, especially since there were approximately 100 American deaths in Iraq last month compounded by the fact that military leaders have been calling for Rumsfeld’s resignation. Too bad the mailings didn’t set the record straight on Joe’s position, or let’s say positions, on Social Security. Joe’s done more triangulating on this one than Billary and Billary put together. Too bad these mailings were swifter than a response by Joe’s office to me and countless others for not filibustering the confirmation of Samuel Alito. Too bad these mailings were quicker than the responses to the many constituents who discovered that they no longer could count on Joe even though they once agreed that Joe actually did serve Connecticut, an element of this political narrative that the media has conveniently overlooked.

Is Ned Lamont the good one in this campaign? Granted Lamont is a political neophyte. Undoubtedly, he’s rather unpolished; he’s not as smooth as Joe, or as quick witted as Lucky Hands Al, who, let’s face it: talks a great game but comes up short in more ways than one. Just talk to people who live in the Derby area, and you may find out that they don’t think Al’s funny at all.

Willing to take a risk, Lamont is a father of three teenagers and a former Lieberman supporter, who, like many of us, views this prolonged, ill-conceived and mismanaged war very differently and has grown increasingly fed up with obdurate Oedipus. Unlike many of us, though, Ned has the money, influence and wherewithal to do something about it. Say what you will: Yes, Lamont is basically financing his own campaign. Yes, he has little political experience. But at least we know that Ned has paid for his campaign and dares to offer new ideas and bold criticism whereas Lieberman has been bankrolled by Wall Street backers and hackers, neoconservative loons, and special interest groups who are more concerned with…staying the course. By the way, folks, it’s a known fact that ol’ whining Joe has surpassed Lamont with campaign contributions.

Who’s good? You decide. But what does Flannery O’Connor have to do with this? O’Connor’s dark, twisted, comedic story “A Good Man is Hard to Find” focuses on this old, southern grandmother who remains stuck in her ways and resists change while the whole world around her, including her family, breaks from the past to move toward the future. On a family trip to another southern destination, the grandmother and her family learn that there’s a serial killer on the loose. Because of the grandmother’s insistence on visiting a plantation along the way, one she once went to long ago, the family literally crashes into this lunatic and his posse. Yes, they all meet their fate because of her, because of her stubbornness, because of her unwillingness to change, because of her unbending reverence for the past. One by one, the serial killer and his men start to kill off the family, saving ol’ granny for last. She tries to reason with him, and strangely enough, begins to believe that because he’s a good, Christian man, she can convince him not to KILL her. The hell with her family, who is already dead. By the time that the serial killer kills ol’ granny, the reader—and obviously, the author—are glad to see her dead. She’s that unforgiving.

So what’s your point? What does this have to do with the CT senate race? Are you outrageously implying that Joe is allegorically…that awful grandmother? Are you asserting that the serial killer and his posse are the deranged neocons who’ve bulldozed the Bush administration and engineered the Iraq fiasco? Is the car and the family in the car the electorate of Connecticut?

Perhaps you’ll have to read “A Good Man is Hard to Find.” Who’s good? You decide.