Gremlins - A Running Diary

I'm trying to intersperse some fun themes along with all the politics. I have collaborated with "The Cloth" on an interview, then "The Bookie" for a duelling running diary of the CU-Nebraska football game. "The Fuzz" likes horror films. We decided to do duelling reviews of one of the most fun "horror" movies ever... GREMLINS!!

I decided to do my part as a running diary. I used to watch this movie over and over as a kid. It was even scary at one point in time, but, just like the Dark Crystal, I can't help but laugh at myself for being scared of this movie. I'm not even certain it is a "horror" movie. But, it was fun. The Fuzz and I spent Sunday night watching and dissecting this movie.

Here's a link to the Fuzz's review:

http://tgunhorror.blogspot.com/2007/12/gremlins-1984.html

Let's get it on! (Time stamp equals approximate time into the movie).

0:19 - The movie starts with a father looking for a "unique" gift for his son. A random kid in Chinatown coaxes the man into a tucked-away store. The man promptly tries to sell the "Bathroom Buddy" to the owner of the store.

Did I mention the store features Asian-themed Nick-knacks (and some crazy destructive creatures, but we're not there yet!) and this guy thinks an all-in-one bathroom travel kit would sell there!?!?!? He even looks at a dragon statute and asks the owner to imagine if he discovered that he had "Dragon Breath" and needed a quick brush before the big meeting. Ahhhh, the Bathroom Buddy! Great moments in 1980s cinema!

4:51 - How is it that a failed inventor facing foreclosure and a failing career is able to drop a bunch of hundred-dollar bills to buy a crazy pet never seen before in nature? "$100.00... No? OK, $200.00... I MUST have that Mogwai!" And, he's told the famous three rules (No light, no water, no food after midnight) and manages NEVER to ask why or what will happen!! No wonder this guy sucks as an inventor.

I imagine it would go something like this:

Dad: So, what happens if I feed this thing after midnight?

Creepy Store Owner: It will go into a cocoon and emerge as a violent killing machine and destroy all technology within a 100-mile radius, why do you ask?

Dad: Crap! I make my living on technology working! And, I like to live! Forget this! Got any fancy chopsticks?

7:00 - Holy cow! Cory Feldman is a little kid in this movie. And, one recurring character keeps talking about how great American cars are. When Billy's VW won't start, this guy says "Those foreign cars'll freeze on you!" American Engineering apparently neutralized the elements in the 80s!

(On a side note, remember when Made in the USA meant something to people? Remember when things were made outside of China? Ahhh, the 80s! In a related note, Billy has a man-perm!)

10:00 - While I'm waxing nostalgic, remember when people were supposed to dress up for work? Billy works at a bank and gets scolded for wearing a clip-on tie that is well shielded by a nice sweater. My bank teller here in town actually wears a clip-on with his red, short-sleeved polo shirt. That is not a joke. Sigh.

12:00 - Mrs. Deagle, the cranky old lady who is foreclosing on everyone, brings in the head of her "Bavarian Snowman" and threatens Billy's dog with death for destroying it. The dog then scares her by jumping out from behind the counter and she fakes heart trouble. Once again, the dog saves the day! Dogs were always heroes in 80s movies. Somewhere Michael Vick shakes his head.

15:00 - Judge Reinhold actually brags about having cable to impress Kate. Gotta love the 80s.

20:00 - Billy now has his Mogwai and manages to discombobulate the poor thing with a camera flash, mirror reflection and bathroom light all within 2 minutes of being told it doesn't like bright light. When bandaging Gizmo, he sets him ON THE EDGE OF THE BATHROOM SINK to bandage his entire head after a fall into the garbage. Anyone think Billy can manage not to screw this up?

22:00 - Cory Feldman (Pete) manages to spill water on Gizmo within 10 seconds of meeting him. Gizmo promptly produces 5 more Mogwai, all with crappy attitudes. Way to go Petey!

28:00 - Stripe, the leader of the Mogwai-5, is playing a mini Donkey Kong video game while all the others carouse. Donkey Kong rocked! Still, the fact it has flashing lights doesn't seem to bother Stripe. Hmmmmm.

(OK, they keep showing failed inventions, and it's funny to watch 80s technology being used to "simplify" daily things. Like the "Cordless phone" which requires one to unfurl a long antenna and try to talk like a walky-talky. The Fuzz and I giggled over that one.)

32:00 - After seeing what happened to the Mogwai, Billy takes one to his science teacher for study. Ummm, sure. I guess that's the logical result.

(About this time, Murray tells Kate that foreign cars have Gremlins put in them for sabotage. He's drunk, she won't let him drive... that's Public Service Announcement No. 1 for those counting at home).

34:00 - OK, Billy and Kate see Christmas carollers, which prompts Kate to explain how many people want to "open their wrists while others open presents" during the holidays. Kate, apparently, is crazy. Despite this talk, Billy asks her on a date. Clearly something HORRIBLE happened to Kate on Christmas. Still, Billy takes his opportunity!

40: 00 - The Mogwai-4 at Billy's house and the one at the school all manage to eat after midnight. The ones at Billy's house fool "The Perm" by chewing the cord on the clock at 11:30. Easy enough. The one at the school just waits for the teacher to finish his midnight snack and grabs the sandwich. That's right, a high school science teacher is working after midnight to study the previously-never-before-seen creature brought in by his student AND he left his sandwich by the cage. Stop me if this gets weird.

45:00 - The Gremlin breaks free while the teacher (who, by all accounts, LIVES at the school) shows a film reel about the heart. He asks that his students give him Super Bowl tickets as a gift and then tries to feed the monster a candy bar by putting his hand under the desk. No wonder our school system stinks. Did I mention he didn't turn the light on?

49:00 - Death No. 1: The teacher is found dead half-way under the desk... with a syringe in his butt.

50:00 - Apparently the school is completely empty even though class just got out. Billy chases the Gremlin into the nurse station. Meanwhile, the other Gremlins are playing darts with Gizmo.

54:00 - Billy's mom gets a knife and kills three Gremlins in the kitchen via blender, knife and microwave before being put in a full nelson by one hiding in the tree. Billy comes home and cuts its head off and burns it in the fire. Stripe breaks out the window into the snowy night. No one seems worried that snow is made entirely of water. They must know something I don't because the snow doesn't seem to have the effect of water. If only the high school scientist were available to explain.

60: 00 - Stripe goes to the YMCA to find water... Did I mention Billy tracked his footprints in the snow?!?!?! My head hurts. Anyway, Stripe dives into the water and immediately spawns thousands of new Gremlins. It's unclear why the snow didn't have the same effect considering it took ONE DROP of water to cause Gizmo to multiply. Gotta love a horror movie that doesn't take itself too seriously.

1:08 - Gremlins mess with cars, traffic lights, mailboxes and everything else. Four of them attack Santa Clause, who claws at the police car for help. They roll up the window and drive off. Ti's the season!! Mrs. Deagle gets catapulted out of her home by way of her stair-elevator. That's death number 2 of 2.

1:13 - For the record: pure, simple, unfrozen water and NOTHING else works. Gremlins have invaded the bar and are drinking all sorts of beer and other liquor. Also, I learned that Gremlins like to dance to music with 80s leg warmers, perform puppet shows and expose themselves by opening a trench coat while drunk.

1:16 - Kate, working the bar, uses a Polaroid camera to flash the Gremlins and make her escape. Once saved, she explains why she hates Christmas (this is a doozy): Her dad went missing... the house started to smell by way of the chimney... they expected to see a dead cat or raccoon... (wait for it)... and they found her DAD dressed like Santa with toys in the chimney... dead.

(So, apparently he didn't tell ANYONE he was going to do this. This is the highlight for me of the whole movie. I hadn't remembered that at all from past viewings. We even had to rewind to hear it again. Wow.)

1:22 - All the Gremlins go to the movie theater to see Snow White. Stripe gets hungry. Long story short, Billy and Kate blow up the theater and Stripe escapes. Say what you want, but these writers know how to wrap up a story. Billy and Kate follow Stripe to the department store... comedy ensues. It's the dead of night (remember this).

1:27 - Boom boxes are everywhere. Remember boom boxes? A boom box on the shoulder was a far cry from a walkman, but it said something about your "hipness." Run DMC Y'all!

1:32 - Stripe shoots Billy with a crossbow and throws saw blades at him and charges with a chainsaw. Meanwhile, it's day time!!! For those counting at home, that's 5 minutes until sun-up from when he entered the department store.

1:34 - Gizmo manages to drive a Barbie car even though those things don't actually have motors. This prompts Stripe to say "Gizmo Kaka." Stripe now has a gun.

1:37 - Stripe is in the water trying to multiply when Gizmo opens the shutters to expose a very bright sun. The sun rose especially fast today! By the way, Billy's dad just got back from the inventor's convention and just happened to stop by the department store with his bags. Billy must have left a note... or something.

END - The movie ends with the Chinese man scolding western civilization for its carelessness taking care of ... uh "the world" in general. PSA No. 2 for those counting at home: Westerners suck and everything we do is wrong and ignorant. Darn us! Maybe one day we will be ready.

This movie rocked because it didn't take itself too seriously. It was like shooting fish in a barrel, but we gave it the full MST3K treatment anyway. Good times!

Second Civil War?

Have the lines already been drawn?

(Political Cartoon)

I recently finished watching the Ken Burns documentary called "The Civil War" with my friend Book. It was a great documentary that really exposed the true reasons for the war and the fundamental political differences that eventually required armed conflict to resolve. Ironically, the same basic political differences (slavery aside) remain and continue to fester. States rights, the role of the federal government and its reach remain hot issues.

When we were about three discs into the five-disc series, Book and I were at Barnes and Noble doing some Christmas shopping. I saw a book titled "The Second Civil War: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America" by Ronald Brownstein. I had heard the author's name before, but I wanted to make sure the book was written by a legitimate source before making the purchase, so I went along my way.

In the meantime, I could not get the title out of my head. I kept thinking about my own fears about our political climate and how vicious politics have become. After my research, I discovered that the author has been a finalist for the Pulitzer twice and is a well-respected journalist from the Los Angeles Times. The book has been met with acclaim and has been praised for its even-handed view of the situation and its measured and academic approach.

I almost became obsessed with purchasing the book to see how it flushed the topic out. Long story short, I bought the book and read the first chapter.

Going into the book, my thoughts are that the idea of compromise has been pushed to the back-burner. This was done in an unusually-extreme way by George W. Bush's Republican Party (W's "my way or the highway" tactics), and (as an inevitable backlash), then by the Democratic party. Obviously the Democrats stink at this, as evidenced by its failure to stand up to bullying. The unquestionable consequence is that both parties and, as a result, the supporters of both parties, have taken a "take-no-prisoners" approach to politics. The best example is that the president will not sign a war funding bill with ANY strings and the Democrats won't present ANY without widrawal requirements. Realistically, neither can have what they want, yet neither will compromise. Time to find a middle ground, but no one is willing to. This kind of thing keeps the government from accomplishing anything.

Compromise seems dead. This is backed up by Brownstein, who shows that partisan voting is up to over 90 percent as opposed to the previously-consistent 70 percent from the 50s through the 70s (and some of the 80s). The result is sheep-like voting with the party line instead of doing what the voter thinks is right. I cannot believe they all just simply agree at a rate of 90 percent. Such things minimize political courage, which is now punished relentlessly. Compromise is now considered a sign of weakness. That's sad.

Let me state unequivocally that I am a firm believer in compromise. I believe that compromise should be the goal in politics. Lack of compromise leads to rancor, bitterness and a sense of defeat in a political opponent. Inflicting such heavy-handed political gains upon the opponent leads to the same treatment when the political winds shift. It also leads to a feeling that the population as a whole is not represented. And therein lies the basic argument for compromise. The varying beliefs of politicians represent the beliefs of his or her constituents. Compromise is true government on behalf of all the people.

I can feel it today. I absolutely do not feel like my point of view has been represented or defended successfully in the least bit from Jan. 20, 2001 until November of 2006. I say that even though I am a moderate. Moderates on the right side of the spectrum also feel this way. That's not good. But it would be equally bad to inflict the same. Two wrongs do not make a right.
Just because I name the Republicans as the first offenders (as does the author when discussing the current situation) doesn't mean I absolve Democrats of any blame. After being pushed for so long by a Republican-controlled Congress and White House, Democrats have responded in kind (or at least they try). I agree that they must stop the one-sided debate and put the brakes on Bush's runaway train, but they must follow up with an insistence on compromise rather than capitulation. In that regard, I guess it's not so bad that the Dems don't seem very good at hard-line politics.

As I begin this book, I will be asking myself whether this is a Second Civil War as asserted by the author. Obviously it's not a shooting war (at least not yet and hopefully never), but is it an ideological Civil War? Has our country fractured as badly as it appears?

The joke political cartoon above seems to illustrate just how clearly the lines have been drawn. The elections are increasingly coming down to the "purple" states that could swing (Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc.). The other states aren't even close. I appeal to the middle to take this country back.

I am interested in any thoughts on this subject. Is this an ideological Civil War? It sometimes feels like one. I will follow up with how the book influences my thoughts if it does.

Black Friday

Oh Yeah! It's time for the first installment of duelling running-diaries with Bookie Q. Santa. Don't worry, I don't gamble, but if you ever saw Book with a santa hat on and a stogie in his hand, you'd know that the name fits. You can see his version of these events at his blog under Links "By the Book."

We decided to each try to keep a running diary of our experience watching the Colorado-Nebraska football game at Old Chicago's. Unfortunately, there's a lot of Cubs merchandise on the walls, which doesn't help karma... without further delay...

10:05- The waiter sees my CU hat and says, "You're going into the lion's den." I look up and see a sea of Red ready to watch the game. Not too worried this year, though, because by just walking into that den, I became the 10th back this season to rush for 200 yards on the Cornhuskers. Time to rumble.

10:12- Eric Cartman introduces the CU team for ABC and makes hippie jokes. That's still better than having Larry the Cable Guy like Nebraska had against USC. Both are funny, but Cartman isn't a redneck. Advantage: CU.

(In a related note, one of the Nebraska defensive players goes by "Big Sexy." Do you think if Larry the Cable guy is booked next year they should just cut to the chase and call legendary wrestler Hillbilly Jim? Tim Allen? Cletus from the Simpsons?)

10:24- 7-3 Nebraska after a Joe Ganz TD run. Book roots for CU, but leaves me to cheer openly alone. He picks his spots.

10:30- CU finally starts running the ball and Hugh Charles breaks a long one, prompting the Nebraska fan sitting behind me to glare and say "Bastards." Like CU wouldn't have figured out you can run on them eventually. That 'N' stands for Nowledge.

Meanwhile, Bookie mentions that someone has 69 yards rushing and we giggle. Welcome to our world, folks!

10:41- I observe that with white pants and white shirts, the Nebraska defense now not only plays like marshmellows, they look the part, too... I'm now semi-openly goading the Nebraska fans.

10:45- Dusty Sprague runs the slowest reverse that gains yardage in college football history. Nice to see Hawk decided to "refine" that annoying habit of running reverses by doing it with the slowest wideout on the roster. This only works against Nebraska. 17-7 CU

11:20- While showing a stat about a CU player from Alabaster, Alabama, one of the commentators says, "Alabaster Alabama is not much like Boulder, Colorado." That's why he makes the big bucks! Way to go out on a limb. In a related note, NBA players would rather play in Miami than Utah.

11:31- CU goes cold. Damnit. Nebraska takes a 21-17 lead. As a bonus, however, a commercial featuring Bookie's college football nemesis Steve Spurrier (the Old Ball Coach), leads to this exchange:

Me: Hey, look, it's Steve Spurrier!

Bookie: Damnit, FSU is going to lose to Florida, then to the Old Ball Coach in a crappy bowl game.

Me: Are you in pain?

Bookie: (Glares).

I'm feeling better now, but the Husker faithful are venturing into optimism, but they remain cautious. This is new to me. Those folks don't seem as confident as usual. Thank you Bill Callahan, I'll miss you.

11:35- I remember when Nebraska fans took pride in pounding the football. Now, because they are new to throwing the football, they have been reduced to whining for pass interference calls whenever it would be helpful. That gets old quick.

11:42- 28-17 Nebraska. This feels like it's slipping away. Maybe I started goading too early. Bookie is stoic.

11:50- TD CU... it's 28-24 and we're back in business. Seems like 1:34 is a lot of time considering how those Huskers are moving the ball.

11:55- 35-24 at the half. Sigh.

12:12- John Saunders just says that the slew of upsets just goes to show that there is no need for a college football playoff "because the whole season is a playoff." I think he has a roomful of Tostitos waiting for him in his room back at the hotel. Maybe a free Nokia phone, too. In short, he's officially on the BCS payroll. And, the only man with that opinion in America.

12:30- PICK 6! CU picks off Joe Ganz and takes it in for the score. 35-31 Nebraska. The Buffs keep reeling me back in.

By the way, I'm torn on Callahan as NU coach. On one hand, I love watching Nebraska stink. On the other hand, he keeps beating CU. I babble about nonsense when the game isn't going my way.

12:36- Another INT. Dusty Sprague duplicates the slowest end-around in college history. It's like Blake Ezor had a reincarnation of his football career!

12:40- The Buffs score to take the lead. 38-35 Buffs. I just realized Shawn Watson (former CU O-coordinator) is now the O-coordinator for Nebraska. Traitor! He never called plays this well while in B-town.

12:46- Momentum is turning fast and furious. Blocked punt by CU!

12:51- Hugh Charles makes the score 44-35 (missed XP). I have decided that the gangly bearded guy on the Allstate Commercials is best represented by my buddy Chris. Good to see Gangles the Rodeo Clown getting endorsements.

1:00- The TV commentators just compared Callahan's first four years to those of Bill McCartney back in the day. Huh!?!?! McCartney took over a dead program. This sets me off on a number of loud proclamations that Bill needs at least 4 more years to turn this around! Just like Alberto Gonzales, he deserves as much time as possible to fix the trainwreck he caused. Nebraska's a red state, right? That logic might work, right? No need to fire him, right? (Please don't fire him!)

1:07- Bookie and I just discussed the possibility of a West Virginia v. Kansas BCS title game. Bookie asks how many tractors one stadium can accomodate. We might find out this year!

1:14- TD CU. 52-35... The Husker faithful are turning into the Husker frustrated. This is a new feeling and I could get used to it. (Chanting) Keep Your Coach! Keep Your Coach!

1:20- CU linebacker coach Brian Cabral is wearing a traditional Hawaiian... um... dress-like thing. Hey, I call it how I see it and I don't know the proper term.

1:30- 58-35. CU needs to hang 60 on them.

1:50- Bookie convinces me not to chant "keep your coach." How's this for a fact: My sports conscience is named Bookie. Better to win with class while the Huskers are down. I can still enjoy this, though. 58-43.

2:00- the Network prematurely cut away from the action and we miss the final CU score. Nebraska scores another junk-time TD and the final is 65-51.

That was fun.

Most Dominant Performance Ever!

I found this video and had to post it right away. I will add a post later to be a description of my evolution as a sports fan... for now, just enjoy the best performance I've ever seen in the world of sports (at least for one half). Pay particular attention to the 4:10 mark (the -2:55 if it counts down) and beyond. Although there are many impressive plays before that, the crowd just goes wild for those two baskets. It starts with a steal by Pippen, Jordan cleaning up Pippen's miss with a monster dunk, an airball by Portland and the sixth three of the half for Jordan in a moment where you wonder "How is this possible?"

Lesson: Never tell MJ he can't do something. I admire that kind of determination. Not everyone in life has it. It was suggested to let MJ shoot to slow him down and he proved that he can excel in whatever way he wishes.

Of all the sporting events I wish I could be in the stands for, the first half of this game tops all others. Just imagine if Portland would have kept this game close and Jordan would have played actual minutes in the second half. He barely played in the second half. He could have dropped 70 in a finals game.

I will always remember this game also because I watched it on a very small TV in my dad's hospital room when he was very sick with a big infection in his back. We were just mesmerized by the amazing performance. Michael Jordan was the only non-home-team player who turned me into a pure fan of one player's raw talent and desire to win.

I would describe Michael as a "cold-blooded killer" on the basketball court. He really had ice water in his veins. This is the best video yet of my favorite performance by the greatest to ever wear sneakers. Enjoy. I've already watched it 5times today.

Jacob!

Here are some pictures of Jacob at Halloween and getting into some trouble with his amazing climbing skills... I have attempted now many different ways to post video of him, but I just can't get it to load onto blogger. In the meantime, here's Jacob:

Messy Face:

On Halloween

Climbing:

That's it for now. I will try to get some video up sometime soon.

In the meantime, I will probably try to explain the new video I have uploaded to the left of this post very soon.... That one may also be my first attempt at a bi-lingual post. Anything written in German will also be written in English... we'll see how this goes (I will welcome grammer corrections).

Tortured Logic

I can't believe this country is even debating the topic of torture.

Here's what we know:

1. Torture often leads to "false positives" in the intelligence world. In short, a person will admit to anything, even something that is not true, to stop the infliction of severe pain or fear. The prisoner will especially admit what he or she thinks the torturer wants to hear.

2. Military leaders cringe at the idea of our side torturing because it opens up our troops to being tortured. Having American troops tortured is a bad thing.

3. TORTURE IS IMMORAL!!!

The Geneva Convention was established as a world-wide contract between nations acknowledging that the practice is immoral and agreeing not to do it to each other. If you think about it, that worldwide contract can be boiled down to an application of the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

The idea that we are dealing with savages who "want to kill innocents" and therefore must torture to "win the war on terror" is a ridiculous argument. It dismisses the importance of maintaining morality in a struggle, lowers our nation to the level of cold-blooded killers and compromises our principals.

I am not willing to compromise our principals. Our values have been our biggest asset in every struggle we have encountered, have kept us above the dirt as much as possible in war and has served as an inspiring example.

It offends me that this country tortures. I know we torture because this debate continues. Our new Attorney General won't say water boarding isn't torture. Bush says we don't torture, but he is evasive and vague when pressed about what he means by torture and has defined torture in various memos (written by YOU Mr. Gonzales) that essentially allow it. (The Geneva Convention is NOT quaint, Mr. Gonzales!!)

A president with any morals would step up and shout to the world, "this country does NOT torture under ANY definition of the term; our methods are and will continue to be moral and we will ALWAYS err on the side of humane treatment. We welcome the Red Cross into EVERY detention area we hold. We will never torture because it is wrong, unjust and unbecoming of a civilized people and because we refuse to win dirty!"

Anyone who suggests that the above statement from a president would embolden the enemy is foolish. If anything, such a statement would make clear that America would hold the moral high ground, which is every bit as strategically important as holding a hill in physical battle. Our enemies would cringe at the reestablishment of American moral authority.

Such a statement would do a lot to re-establish some moral authority and take off some of the smudges from our previously white hat.

For God's sake, why is this even being debated? America is supposed to be better than this.

Interview with Chris

Ladies and Gentlemen, your future pastor!

I moved to Colorado in 1991. My pattern has always been to find a few good friends and stick with those guys. In San Diego I was close to a neighbor named Daniel; in Virginia I met Wally (and later Alex); and in Colorado I met Chris, Tom, James, Book and Baggs. I'll stick to first names and nicknames to protect the innocent.

In Colorado, I pretty well latched onto one group of great guys, made a few additions in college and law school, and haven't looked back. We all went to high school together (except Baggs, who I met at CU) and have remained tight for many years. Just Friday night, four of us sat down and discussed how we all met and talked about some of the good old days.

Things change with time. People move, get married, etc. Chris is studying at Seminary School in Iowa and stopped by for a visit. He stayed at our hotel (i.e. basement) while in town for a wedding. As usual, he had a busy schedule, but I managed to grab hold of him for a few discussions.

Chris passed through town this weekend. You can find his musings by clicking on the "ganglylove" link on this page. I met Chris not long after moving to Colorado from Virginia and he and Tom were the first two friends I made here. I originally intended to create a "mutual post" in a conversation format, but it just felt better having one of our usual conversations and trying to summarize it.

You might say that I sat down with Chris for an impromptu interview Sunday night. My notes are scattered, but I attempt to reconstruct it the best I can. The rest I will summarize from memory. My dad always told me I made good decisions in picking friends, and I always took that as a big compliment. I have the greatest group of friends a guy could have and thought it would be fun to give the reader a taste of what we talk about and how we interact.

Chris is my Guinea pig.

Chris is in the second of three years for Seminary School and will be a full-fledged pastor when it's all said and done. Unfortunately for us, we're not sure he'll ever live close again. But, we hold out hopes.

ON COLORADO AND FRIENDS

Can we expect you back in Colorado?

"I don't know. As far as permanently, No. I hope I can come back, but to pin hopes and dreams on that is not reality. I like that I am in a place in life where my life is an open door. "

You don't have many reasons to come back here locally now that your mom is in Arizona and your dad is in Denver. I don't imagine we'll be seeing you too many more times for these visits.

"Someone once said that the family you are born into is there to prepare you for the family you eventually become a part of. I think we spend most of life with the community we surround yourself with as adults. I have grown to consider my friends like family. I always love spending time with close friends from my life."

You think that even though I used you for your car in High School? I mean, I needed a ride home and you were convenient.

"Hey, I used you for your video game system (Sega Genesis). You think I would have given you a ride if you didn't have a video game system? You think I'm that nice?"

Not really. Afterall, I had to worry whether your piece of junk would get me home in one piece. What kind of car was that anyway? I mean, it had a coat-hanger keeping the muffler on.

"It was a Grenada. 1981 Ford Grenada. The clothes-hanger was probably from 1993."

Some find it weird for high school buddies to stay so tight for so long. Thoughts?

"Most people meet friends for life in college. For me, I went to college at home. Tom, Dave, and James were still around... still close. That's probably why none of us made too many college friends. Although you were tight with Baggs and he's kinda become like the 6th Beatle. It was kinda instantaneous with him."

You were social butterfly in high school.

"I was never all that popular. I had 2 or 3 distinct groups. I helped lead James over to you guys. I had various groups of friends."

ON HANGING OUT / WORK

Free rides for video game fodder, that was a good deal for me.

"I will always remember 'Barkley for three!' (NOTE: video Charles Barkley beat Chris at the last second with an inconceivable three-pointer that sent Chris to the floor with grief circa 1992). We also played a lot of Joe Montana Football and Goldeneye. Those were some real fun times. I loved the 'one shot, one kill' settings on Goldeneye."

Your mom probably wondered what happened to you in those days.

"Mom always wondering where I was. She spent a lot of life wondering that. She worked and I worked."

Speaking of which, it was you who got me my job at KFC.

"Will you ever forgive me for getting you a job there? Then again, you owe me for getting you a job there. You owe me, because if you hadn't gotten a job there you wouldn't have that little guy on your lap there (little Jacob). You wouldn't have met that wonderful wife of yours."

I don't know if you remember, but you were taking me to a Rockies game when I first saw Jen. We stopped at KFC for free drinks for the road when she served me a Pepsi. I had worked at KFC the previous summer and was getting ready to start that summer (1995) as well. I made note to find out more about the cute one who fixed my drink. You gave me the 4-1-1. My first question was, 'how old is she.'

"I knew she was an engineering major at CSU."

I was secretly happy that she was in my age range because she looked possibly too young. I was glad she was my age.

"As opposed to the 17-year-old you asked for the under-12 buffet?"

Yeah, you will never let me live that down! That girl looked 12.

The pranks were the best there.

"I still remember throwing the roto-bird to you. 'Joe, go deep.' April (the manager) was so relieved when you caught it... until you spiked it on the floor."

Do you still do pranks at Seminary?

"I took the doorknob off a friend's door, turned it backwards and then was able to lock her in her room. But, she had actually done me a favor earlier that I wasn't aware of at the time, so I felt bad about that one."

"She got back at me by putting Rainbows and 'Just Married' on the windows of my car when Me and Ryan were going to drive to Colorado. We cleared that off before leaving."

ON SEMINARY SCHOOL

How has school changed the way you think?

"It has challenged the way I think, but given me a lot of answers to why I believe what I believe. It takes the blinders off of my faith. Also, it's helpful to learn of the history and how the bible was translated."

Has the process changed any beliefs?

"I know there has been some change, but can't say exactly what off the top of my head. I have a deeper feeling that community is more important now than before. Communal faith as well. Specifically First Corinthians."

NOTES

As usual, our conversation took many other turns after I stopped taking notes. We talked about how we have all changed and grown and how each of us have gone through a variety of life experiences.

We talked about how life is like a movie; how fun it was for the others to try to get me to drink when I was dead-set against it; how none of us made any of the parents nervous or suspicious and just how much fun it was growing up together. It was fun to look back on that and to once again talk into the wee hours about life. I never get over new perspectives on old memories. Chris' theory about my loosening up was that I finally learned to "come out from your dad's shadow." Only tight friends can make such observations.

Chris likes to say he'll always have a lawyer, and I think I've found my pastor. So, I guess you could stay, we're still just using each other. First it was video games and beat-up cars, now professional services. Can't beat it.

Examined Life

"The unexamined life is not worth living."

- Socrates

It has been said that great books, if they are truly great, change your life. Without any contemplation, I can name two such books.

Brave New World by Aldous Huxley inspired me to turn off the television (or at least limit its demand on my time) and pick up productive hobbies.

But no book changed my life quite like the Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin. It is more than a biography, but a road map to an examined life written by one of the most remarkable people in world history.

I believe that examination of life and the resulting changes in habit lead to happiness and virtue. I do not advocate the substitution of Benjamin Franklin for the chosen religious text of the reader. But there is no source for life view that will not benefit from the road map provided by Mr. Franklin. It is an example of how to be virtuous in our organic world. From his attempt at perfection through 13 daily rules to the examples of an altered life, I present it all to advocate an examined life.

Try to be a better parent, better friend, better sibling, better professional or a better and more honest citizen than you were yesterday.

Anyone who reads the autobiography will see that it was no accident Benjamin Franklin lived one of the most thoroughly successful lives ever (although success comes in all shapes and sizes). He won international fame for his scientific discoveries, donated inventions to public use (rather than profit from the patent), negotiated alliances and peace and accomplished more than I can justly list here. His most impressive quality to me, however, was a willingness to diagnose and treat his own life in ways that added virtue. More so than accomplishing impressive feats, Ben Franklin accomplished in life by doing things the right way. I am more impressed with his use of celebrity to bring the issue of abolishing slavery before the very first US Congress than by his discovery of electricity or his mapping of oceanic currents. I respect that more because it was the right thing to do and the decision was steeped in integrity.

When I revisited the autobiography I discovered that my motivations for this blog were similar to Franklin's motivation for his autobiography. I do not intend to write an autobiography, and I do not bring the stature of a founding father to the discussion, but both of us were motivated by a desire to communicate lessons learned to a son.

Like him, I strive to show my son that anything worth doing is worth doing honestly.

Franklin's book starts with "Dear Son," and includes this explanation:

"I have ever had a pleasure in obtaining any little anecdotes of my ancestors. You may remember the enquiries I made among the remains of my relations when you were with me in England and the journey I undertook for that purpose. Imagining it may be equally agreeable to you to know the circumstances of my life - many of which you are yet unacquainted with - and expecting a week's uninterrupted leisure in my present country retirement, I sit down to write them for you. "

No one is capable of perfection, but anyone can benefit from the steps taken by a man who ventured far closer to it than most others.

THE THIRTEEN VIRTUES

Happiness seems to come from peace of mind. Franklin's 13 virtues assist in obtaining peace of mind.

It is a legendary story that Franklin attempted to fulfill each of these 13 virtues every day and famously kept a checklist for that purpose. However, he acknowledged that the task was impossible and soon gave it up. After all, we are all fallible beings. Although perfection is impossible, idleness regarding virtue will not further happiness. Just like the mathematical formula that always approaches zero without ever touching it, so will we always strive for the unattainable.

For me, anyone who believes that what we do on earth matters must conclude that how we conduct ourselves must also matter. With that in mind, I give you Franklin's 13 virtues (and a few of my comments):

1. Temperance: Eat not to dullness. Drink not to elevation.

2. Silence: Speak not but what may benefit others or yourself. Avoid trifling conversation. (I add to make it a point to defend those not present or unable to defend themselves.)

3. Order: Let all your things have their places. Let each part of your business have its time.

4. Resolution: Resolve to perform what you ought. Perform without fail what you resolve.

5. Frugality: Make no expense but to do good to others or yourself, i.e. waste nothing.

6. Industry: Lose no time. Be always employed in something useful. Cut off all unnecessary actions. (Make family time more precious than professional time)

7. Sincerity: Use no hurtful deceit. Think innocently and justly; if you speak, speak accordingly.

8. Justice: Wrong none by doing injuries or omitting the benefits that are your duty.

9. Moderation: Avoid Extremes. Forebear resenting injuries so much as you think they deserve. (Hold no grudge)

10. Cleanliness: Tolerate no uncleanliness in body, clothes or habitation.

11. Tranquility: Be not disturbed at trifles or at accidents common or unavoidable. (Bring none of those trifles to bed at night)

12. Chastity: Rarely use venery but for health or offspring - never to dullness, weakness or the injury of your own or an other's peace or reputation.

13. Humility: Imitate Jesus and Socrates. (Be faithful, but not judgmentally so).

Quite a list. Even Franklin failed famously at some of those. But, given that some failures are to be expected, it is important that a person be mindful of the goal.

I have made my own alterations to this list (beyond just my comments), and I imagine there are as many varieties of lists as there are people based on personality, desires, values, strengths and weaknesses. The important part is to have a list at all. Unfortunately all too few are willing. After all, in Franklin's words "How few there are who have courage enough to own their own faults, or resolution enough to mend them!"

EXAMPLE

My favorite example of an examined life in action came when Franklin, a young man, decided to change his whole approach to argumentation. The story goes that Franklin often found himself and his arguments dismissed because he brought arrogance and stubbornness to the discussion. The book goes through his analysis of himself as he decides to add phrases such as, "you make an interesting point, but have you considered.....?"

Franklin notes that by listening, communicating with respect and softening the blow of a factual or argument correction, he could show his point on the merits. Shouting and pounding on the table, however, served to halt all listening and set the listener to argue against even the most well founded points for the sake of dragon slaying. This is just one small part of life, yet it warranted the attention of Mr. Franklin because it was on his mind.

How a life is examined may be determined by the examiner, so long as the process happens.

The Autobiography is very short. It ends abruptly because Franklin died before its completion. Still, I feel it is important to learn from those who came before us. It goes without saying that I strongly recommend the book to anyone who contemplates the merits of an examined life.

Jacob!

Finally, I have pictures of Jacob to share! And, as a bonus, they are all very recent.

I can't really describe how this little guy has changed our lives. Of course, I can only speak for myself. There was a time in my life when goals and advancement were much more important. Then came Jacob. My number one goal in life now is to maximize my time with him.

He says "cheese" and "Please" and a number of other words that he speaks with varrying frequency. I hope you enjoy these photos of our little guy.

What a flirt. The shirt says it all!

Playing Peekaboo

Jacob with Dad

By the way... he can climb!

NOTES: I have tried a few times to post a short video of Jacob at the park, but so far cannot get Blogger to upload the video. I'll have to play with that some more.

OTHER NOTES: I am now half-way through "Fiasco." Just like Seth, who posted on my first Iraq post, I am at a loss for words to see just how badly this military campaign was bungled. Unlike the political books I've read to this point (like "State of Denial") this one goes through the nuts and bolts failures of implementation. What a read. I recommend it strongly, but make sure you are ready for outrage.

Surge Ahead

Just like everyone, I was anxious to hear what General Patreaus would report to the nation on September 11, 2007. Unfortunately, by that scheduling timetable, someone decided once again to make a subtle gesture to try to link 9/11 to Iraq when no rationally-thinking humans left in this world can make any such connection. To quote George Tenant from page 341 of his book "Let me say it again: CIA found absolutely no linkage between Saddam and 9/11." That has been communicated TO the President, BY the President and still some choose to believe this (apparently because it comforts them).

This argument is over. There is no connection. All supposed connection theories and allegations have been proven false. To those out there who persist in this idiotic theory, it's time to move on. Just stop it.

There are a few topics of discussion from the Petreaus Report I want to discuss. First, many were unnerved by how a four-star general could be put in this position in the first place. It was very unusual to see an officer in that position. Second, the testimony showed once again just how divided this nation has become. The results has been to embolden both sides in an increasingly ugly national debate. Finally, the substance of the testimony preached more of the same and did little to give us hope for better results in the future.

GRILLING A GENERAL

It was unfortunate to watch such a highly-decorated military officer get grilled like that, but that was the bus under which General David Patreaus was thrown. Since January, the President has been telling critics of his "surge" policy to "wait until Gen. Patreaus gives us his update on the progress of the war." If he said that once, he said it 10,000 times.

And he said it again, and again, and again... and... you get it. Every critique of the strategy and the war in general were met with "wait for Gen. Patreaus, then we can talk." The "deal" brokered between Congress and the President to allow funding for the war before the surge was announced depended upon this report.

Some have criticized critics of the war for grilling the general. I believe that criticism is misplaced. General Patreaus was thrust into that position. When the President will not engage in dialogue and the reason given is the coming report that took on celebrity status, there was no other choice. Critics were to either pander to and defer to the General or do their duty by quizzing the only one who would answer questions.

Many have speculated and rumors have even surfaced that the military as a whole is unhappy with the way this was allowed to play out. I would be very surprised if the military EVER again consents to one of its own being used by the President as a shield as Gen. Patreaus was this month.

It was embarrassing and should never happen again. But I cannot blame Congressmen and Congresswomen for grilling the only one who will answer for what is going on. They have a very important job to do.

SURGE IN BELIEF

Both sides feel they were validated by the testimony. Those deferential to all things military or supporters of the war heard the phrase "making progress" and will use that to justify more patience. Those against the war or critical of the surge heard how slow and difficult that minor progress has been and will use that to strengthen an argument for withdrawal.

The bottom line is that Democrats don't have the votes to override a veto and cannot do anything to stop this war unless they get those votes. Frustrated Republicans have been switching sides regularly, but not in the numbers necessary for a veto-override.

The President continues to be defiant and to simply dismiss his critics and prosecute this war as he wishes despite the majority of Americans' beliefs on the subject. Critics continue to be apoplectic about the "original sin" of invasion in the first place.

I also can't get past the original sin. The more I hear what a mess this situation is the more I want to scream that we shouldn't be in this mess in the first place. As the article cited a few posts down in a comment on Executive Privilege, there is a lot of anger on both sides.

The challenge is to rise above that for a solution. But, strategies can't continue to be jammed down every one's throat by one side. That continues to happen with the now open-ended status of the war in Iraq. The 5,700 promised to come home before Christmas were scheduled to come home anyway based on time served there already. In other words, there was no concession.

I'm open to solution talk, but I don't think there are any good options. I do say this, though: If we are only a cork in the bottle stopping catastrophe (I'm not even sure we're even that considering the crisis there anyway), then that isn't worth the lives of our soldiers. If that Civil War will have to burst out of its bottle at some point whether 1 year or 20 years from now, just let it happen and get us out sooner than later.

The argument that bad things will happen if we leave is losing its strength rapidly. It looks like bad things could happen WHENEVER we leave. Heck, it looks like bad things are already happening.

My hope is that the next President will be able to unite this country again. Since it is now clear this will go on into the next Presidency, I only hope a unifying candidate emerges.

MORE OF THE SAME

No matter the circumstances behind the testimony, however, it was what it was expected to be. The substance of the much-anticipated testimony could be summed up as "more of the same."

What did Patreaus and Crocker really say? That can only be determined when we know exactly what the purpose of the surge was. To paraphrase W Bush, the purpose was to provide enough physical security to give "breathing room" to the political process in Iraq.

So, what did they say? Simple. They said that has not happened. No one testified that political progress has flourished or even progressed. The "government" in the capital of Iraq still does not control the nation, still does not pass necessary laws, still does not have the support or allegiance of much of the provinces (including Anbar, which remains against Al-Qaida AND the government in Baghdad), and still cannot provide its own security.

When you boil it all down, the testimony acknowledged failure of its stated purpose. It could only report "progress." If you listen to speeches from the 60s and 70s our military made nothing but progress right up until the last helicopter left Saigon and the name was changed to Ho Chi Mihn City.

I don't buy it.

Most telling for me was when John Warner, a conservative hawk, asked if this plan, as presented by Gen. Patreaus, would make America safer. General Patreaus just said "it will help us achieve our objective in Iraq." Warner responded "does THAT make America safer?" Patreaus said "I don't know" and explained that he is focused on Iraq. Although it is the job of politicians usually to deal with those kinds of questions, I cannot imagine Eisenhower saying after D-Day anything other than "absolutely, our actions here today made our country safer." Why? Because that situation had clarity.

That illustrates why this is a very different and unique situation. That is why this country is divided. Because there is no way to equate those two things (Iraq and safety). There is entirely too much grey in this war. No answer that could ever be provided in this fact situation could ever unite this country behind a given strategy. There is too much grey. Does it make us safer? Debatable. Does it have anything to do with 9/11? This was grey, but is now clear. Did it rid a country of WMD? No. What exactly did we accomplish? Not clear. Grey.

Grey is the byproduct of a war without solid moral grounds.

As a result, we should never expect anything but more of the same until someone disconnected from the "original sin" of invasion takes office. It just stinks that so much bad must happen while we wait.

NOTE: Still working on getting those pictures of Jacob transferred (at this point I'm trying to fill a disc). I expect to be able to get that done this week. I may even be able to post a short home movie of Jacob. Stay tuned.

Wahoo-wa

I have stumbled upon some problems trying to get our new laptop to recognize our older digital camera. Therefore, my plan to write about Jacob, complete with pictures, will have to wait until I figure out this technological riddle. That also explains my delay in posting.

For now, I figured I could talk about my day today (Saturday, Sept. 1, 2007). I went to Laramie Wyoming to watch the Virginia Cavaliers play the Wyoming Cowboys with my buddy Mike. I've been a big Virginia fan since I started going to their games in 1983. My dad and I attended just about every home game from then until 1991. Naturally, one does not drop a team after spending so much time rooting for them. I lived and died with those UVA teams when we lived in Virginia and have followed the team ever since.

Unfortunately, it was different this time. I had contemplated taking Jacob with me, but it was too hot, he is too active (and mobile) and it would probably have only served to distract me from the game and annoy fellow spectators. So, I left him home. I'm glad I did. My hope was to take him to a UVA game just as my dad took me. Afterall, this was probably one time the Wahoos will ever come around these parts again.

Not only did UVA get killed and look horrible, but it was just different this time. Many would wonder why I would root for a team I only followed over one from which I received a degree. I can't really explain it other than that there was always something special about UVA. Probably because when I went to those games, I had my dad all to myself. I was about 7 or 8 when I started going to those games and was about 14 or 15 when we moved. Those are ages when alone-time with a parent is important.

I can still remember being angry at dad when he used "my" ticket for a friend of his who was visiting from out of town. I remember feeling hurt that he would contemplate taking anyone else. Kids don't understand those things sometimes.

I now know that it will never be like that with Jacob and UVA. Simply put, that was for me and dad and no one else. It will never be duplicated. Watching my first live UVA game without my dad pretty much sealed the deal for me. It'll never be the same again. And, that's OK. In fact, it's actually comforting to know that it really was the quality time and not the game that mattered. It was equally comforting and depressing to realize that.

It is important for kids to have something they can do with each parent exclusively. I hope to have something like that with Jacob. I've already decided that if Jacob is interested and has the attention span (and after a few trial runs when he is old enough), I will look into Colorado University season tickets. Then that can become our special time. If he isn't interested in CU football, we'll find something else. It could be anything. I don't care what it is, sports or not. But, one way or another we will find something that will be for us only.

Jacob has already taken to helping Jen in the garden and is always thrilled to get in the mud and pick the flowers. I hope he finds something that the two of them will also have as mom-son time (and it looks like they have an early leader in gardening). I think such intimate relationship building with parents individually builds strong connections.

For now, I walk away from the train-wreck performance by Virginia in Laramie without too much disappointment. No matter how much UVA stunk, my memories are safe. I was at the 1990 game when Virginia beat Clemson for the first time in 30 tries. I still remember the scream of the crowd when the punt-returner broke free down the sidelines and it was obvious that the curse was over. I found a You-Tube clip of that moment and it's just as I remembered it. Please see the first play from the TOP video I linked to the left of this post (titled 1990 Virginia vs. Clemson football part II). The punt return is the first play you see. Pay special attention to late in the run when the crowd realized together "holy cow, he didn't step out of bounds and is still going!" That squeal is still vivid in my memory. If you watch both links, they provide all the highlights from the game.

What great times. I am already watching closely to make sure Colorado is on the right path so the team will perform well for me and Jacob down the road if that's what we end up doing. (It didn't hurt that they beat CSU today... although I'm still usually only relieved when they win that game as opposed to happy). But, even if they don't get better quickly, I remember suffering through a 55-0 loss to Clemson in 1984. I remember because I couldn't blow my new UVA horn unless Virginia scored. When UVA blocked a fourth-quarter extra point, dad let me blow the horn. It made the 1990 game all the sweeter.

I look forward to my Jacob time, no matter what it is. And I hope it'll some day be as special for him as it was for me when I was the kid. And I imagine I'll just root for UVA alone... which is just fine by me.

Executive Privilege

Although the courts will afford the utmost deference to presidential acts in the performance of an Art. II function, United States v. Burr, 25 F.Cas. pp. 187, 190, 191-192 (No. 14,694), when a claim of presidential privilege as to materials subpoenaed for use in a criminal trial is based, as it is here, not on the ground that military or diplomatic secrets are implicated, but merely on the ground of a generalized interest in confidentiality, the President's generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial and the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal justice. Pp. 3107-3110.

- Supreme Court of the United States in U.S. v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, (1974)

I want to begin by briefly explaining why executive privilege has come front and center in our national debate. Many are confused and wonder "why does it matter?" This post is my attempt to explain why it does matter and why a claim of absolute privilege is wrong.

What is executive privilege? Quite simply, it is a privilege that the president has to block the release of information given to him by his cabinet members. It is to encourage candid and uncensored advice to the president. That privilege is applied mostly to cases involving national security and military and diplomatic secrets. You will not find it in our constitution because it is court-created. As a made-up example, this privilege would block Congress from compelling the public testimony of advice given by Robert Kennedy to John F. Kennedy regarding his input into the handling of the Cuban missile crisis and the intelligence on which he based his advice. Obviously, such matters should not be compelled to be released to the public.

The most famous misadventure with executive privilege came from Richard M. Nixon in 1974 when the President claimed the privilege to block inquiry into the break-in at the Watergate Hotel. The above cited quote from the Supreme Court in that case illustrates the limits of this privilege. It was that attempt to abuse executive privilege that inspired the Court to write "Executive privilege is an extraordinary assertion of power not to be lightly invoked." It's
supposed to be the last resort to halt irreparable damage being done by releasing the kind of information that would be dangerous to release.

The main issue to which executive privilege is being applied by the President today is the firing of US Department of Justice attorneys. The privilege is being applied to block testimony from Harriet Meirs and John Bolton regarding the firings of department of justice attorneys. In that same case, it is being used to block the Congressional Subpoena given to Karl Rove regarding the same matter.

So, why should anyone care that attorneys were fired? Don't most people dislike attorneys and aren't they all rich anyway? Why should we cry over attorneys? Can't the President hire and fire at will anyway?

Simply stated, those are the wrong questions to ask. It matters because the allegation is that those attorneys were fired for an unwillingness to go after Democrats for voter fraud when those attorneys discovered no evidence of wrongdoing. In short, they were fired for resisting attempts to compel prosecutorial misconduct for political ends. They weren't willing to put politics over law enforcement.

How does one prove that? With Congressional Subpoenas. With hearings on the matter. Congress has attempted to use its oversight authority to search for answers in this matter and has been blocked. Do we know that the accusation is true? Not entirely, but one wonders why the innocent would dodge. This obviously leads to the conclusion that the White House has something to hide. One expert on executive privilege from an Ivy League law school has called the use of that privilege in this case "astonishing."

The Supreme Court said that "any absolute executive privilege under Art. II of the Constitution would plainly conflict with the function of the courts under the Constitution." This matter may end up in the Supreme Court again.

The quote cited at the top of this post clearly indicates that executive privilege cannot be used for a "generalized interest in confidentiality." Has this case moved to the level of a criminal trial? No, but probably because the evidence has been blocked. Criminal investigation? Seems like it could be. Is this a concern? I say absolutely.

Congress' only hammer in this is Contempt of Congress filed against those who refuse to testify. The law states that, once Congress issues a contempt citation, the US attorney for D.C. SHALL submit that matter to Federal Court. The White House has stated it will not allow that attorney to bring the issue to court even though the law gives him no choice.

If the president could use executive privilege on a "trust me" level for all communication within the White House, congressional subpoenas specifically and oversight in general would be rendered obsolete. If the President can order the DC attorney not to follow the law, oversight of the executive branch will be dead.

When Nixon asserted the privilege and then fired the man hired to investigate him and many others (the Saturday night massacre), the stench got so bad that the public, Congress and the Courts all eventually forced the end of Nixon's presidency. He may have resigned, but he saw the writing on the wall.

So, how do things smell right now? I think things have calmed for now, but if the White House makes good on its threat to block the enforcement of the contempt of congress citation, it will become more pungent. And if Bush begins to fire people for attempting to enforce US law... well, things will smell down-right rotten. Stay tuned.

Unfortunately, this isn't the first attempt to subvert law enforcement. Remember Scooter Libby? The special prosecutor stated that Libby was throwing dirt in the eyes of those investigating the CIA identity leak. The only remedy for that is to punish the perpetrator with a perjury and obstruction of justice charge. A jury of his peers found Mr. Libby guilty. He was sentenced to 2-plus years in jail and a large fine. But, the threat of jail and, therefore, the
incentive to stop obstruction of justice was taken away when Bush commuted the sentence.

Now, a (probably already rich) man who saw others raise money for his fine and attorney fees can sit at home a free man with no reason to tell the truth while the actual perpetrators enjoy the cover of a sandstorm of obstruction. The White House is directly responsible for the cover enjoyed by those responsible for leaking the CIA agent's name.

I guess I'm disappointed that more people aren't more concerned that the highest-level law enforcers (attorney general, president, etc.) are obstructing justice. After all, many of the people in power now insisted that even obstruction of justice (a crime) to cover up a non-crime(adultery) was impeachable.

Law is not worth the paper on which it is written without acquiescence in it. If those charged with "upholding the laws" of our nation play these kinds of games with law, what message does that give to the citizens? How will I convince Jacob that everyone is treated equally by law and that laws are to be followed when he can simply point to the enforcers of those laws as an example to the contrary?

I hope that never happens. I hope that, whatever the outcome of this, that respect for law wins. I hope the White House does the right thing and chooses respect for law and allows the contempt citation to go through.

OTHER NOTES

... I'm going to try to post some updated pictures of Jacob soon. We do not have new pictures on this computer yet, so I have to just take some and add them. At least that way the pictures will be recent. I think my next post will mostly feature Jacob.

... I am a little over half-way done with the book by George Tenet, "At the Center of the Storm," and I find it interesting. I enjoy the inside information and tolerate the endless attempts to clear his name. He quotes endless memos warning of terrorist threats before 9/11, but pours it on a little thick sometimes trying to exonerate his agency's failures (and there were many). I haven't gotten to the Iraq part yet. I can't wait to hear how he didn't screw up the WMD debacle. Most notable so far is how scary some of the terrorists really are. He really opens eyes about the level of hate toward us.

... On the recommendation of Seth in his comment on my Iraq post, I have purchased "Fiasco." The author has won a Pulitzer prize and is well regarded as an expert on pentagon affairs. I can't wait to start it. The idea that this book is considered a must read for military regarding what went wrong in Iraq, I look forward to the nuts and bolts. "State of Denial" left much open on that area.

... Football season is upon us and that rocks.

... Finally, a good friend from my Virginia Days, Alex, will be here from Aug. 23 - 26. I'm looking forward to his visit.

Bootstraps

None of us got where we are solely by pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps. We got here because somebody - a parent, a teacher, an Ivy League crony or a few nuns - bent down and helped us pick up our boots.

- Thurgood Marshall

I've always believed that no one can succeed in this world without help. Help may come in the form of direct assistance, motivation or even the most basic nurturing.

Quite frankly, the fact that my parents didn't beat me or encourage destructive behavior put me ahead of too many in this world. Indeed, the truly special are those who succeed despite difficult circumstances brought about by no fault of their own. Still, success requires opportunity, and support produces more opportunities than determined individual effort.

Of course, people make the most of the opportunities given and succeed based on merit, effort and talent. I do not intend to underestimate the hard work and talent of the very successful. Still, where would even the very talented be without opportunity? Without support?

My purpose for this post is to illustrate why the quote above speaks to me and to illustrate why Thurgood Marshall was right. And, I intend this post to refute those who use the "bootstrap" argument to disparage the kinds of programs that help even the "opportunity playing field" such as affirmative action and government studen loan programs. Many leaders and innovators succeeded because someone gave them the break they needed.

As a case study, I always think of my father. His success allowed me to live life without the pressure of having to achieve the most lofty of standards to even consider education past high school. As for support, he passed on to me the same benefit given to him. I simply had more room for error. I managed to go to college without a 4.0. Unlike my father, I didn't need it to preserve the opportunity. As I will share, he didn't have much room for error.

The picture posted on this page is my favorite picture of my dad. It shows his focus, his perseverance and illustrates his determination. I refer to this pose as "that look." Whenever he had "that look," it meant he was solving problems, learning something useful or dominating a topic no matter the hour or length of the work day. "That look" shows the wheels turning at a speed I always considered super-human.

Of course, I'm proud of his intellect and bring family bias to the subject, but his brilliance was also shown by objective proof. Still, a list of accomplishments wouldn't be helpful without context.

Larry J. Findley did not have the luxury of knowing that he would be able to go to college without a big break. His father was a bricklayer who traded blood and sweat for the family wage. It was enough to get by, but not to fund the kind of educational heights worthy of my father's talents. It was my grandmother who bugged him about applying for something as lofty as the Boettcher Scholarship and would not leave him along until he filled out the application. By my father's own admission, he wasn't sure what he would have done without the scholarship. And, he wasn't sure he would have applied if not pushed.

He was one of only a very few who earned the Boettcher Scholarship in Colorado in 1967. His only other option was a football scholarship to Dartmouth, but a back injury during his final high school game rendered that unrealistic. It was by receiving an honor nearly as rare as winning the lottery that my father became the first in our family to run the collegiate table and become a doctor.

Only someone with unusual gifts can earn such an honor, but one must not overlook the assist from family. Without the support of his family, the direct insistence that he shoot for the stars or the values instilled during his upbringing, who can be sure that his skills would have blossomed as they did? If no one encouraged him as a young man, would he have ever made it to college? Would he have had that motivation at all? Would he have left his talents on the table so that he could simply earn enough rent money to stay warm as many talented people must? No one can ever know. Some simply never have an opportunity. He was good, but he was fortunate, too.

The help didn't stop there. The Boettcher Scholarship only paid for his undergraduate studies. My mother worked various jobs so that dad could continue his quest to become a doctor. She worked during the day while he worked as an internist at night. Yet another in a long line of assists, but this one was given at great personal sacrifice.

The end result? He was a researcher who pioneered medical advances in sleep apnea, published hundreds of articles (including in the New England Journal of Medicine) and spoke all over the world; he became a top-notch pulmonary doctor and managed to be involved in the lives of his children. None of it would have been possible alone; even for someone as talented as he was.

Obviously, none of that would have happened without a brain that worked like a jet engine. But, dad never let anyone forget that the best results in life are born of support and family. In short, humility and recognition completes the truly successful person.

I am grateful for the support I have received and humbled in the knowledge that I had it easier than my father did. My parents were great to us and supported us in every way. They tried to direct us to the right path and were generous in many ways. They encouraged us to be independent and work hard (that's why they only helped with half the tuition for me), but we always knew they were there. Finally, they had the means to open opportunities they never had. What a gift.

Just like my father, I also benefited from the assistance of a wife willing to help me accomplish a goal. Without Jen's support in every way, my schooling would have ended much sooner. I could spend the rest of my life trying to repay her support, but, as my parents did, the best repayment comes from paying it forward.

We already feel like we have opened a few doors early for Jacob simply because we do not neglect him. But, the long-term effort through his childhood will be our opportunity to pay forward what each of us has already received. It is our obligation.

When you think about it, the notion of "pulling oneself up by bootstraps" defies physics. It also defies reality. Anytime that feat appears to have been accomplished, take a closer look. There are likely many people in the shadows with a hand under each arm.

Sports Scandals

It's a tough time to be a sports fan.

I recently read "Game of Shadows" and came away convinced that the integrity of many sports have been compromised deeply. But, I didn't have to read "Game of Shadows" to be disillusioned. I could just read the sports section.

I have long defended sports as suffering the same ailments as our world as a whole. Percentages, I figured, would show that sports stars were no more likely than anyone to be convicted of a crime. That may remain true, but the allure of success has led to some troubling actions that compromise the integrity of competition.

That is where I get disillusioned as a fan.

Percentages and overall trends aside, the list of current problems in the sports world is longer than any time I can remember.

CYCLING
Cycling is essentially a mess overall. Last year's Tour de France winner still hasn't been cleared of doping and his fate might not be decided until a new champion is crowned. Almost all of the best 10 riders from years past have been forced out of competition from a scandal involving a Spanish doctor distributing blood doping agents. All of this keeps chiseling away the faith I had put in Lance Armstrong.

My one argument was that he was the most tested athlete ever. Now, I know that all he had to do was use something they don't test for. It's simply not hard to beat a test, as evidenced by the confession of a former Champion (Riis). Passing a test doesn't mean you are clean. I really hope Lance was clean, but how does one explain his dominance over all those "cheaters."

I hope, but I can no longer believe whole heartedly.

FOOTBALL
Pacman Jones just got suspended for a season for his and his posse's involvement in a shooting that left a man paralyzed... The Cincinnati Bengals had something like 10 arrests in 12 months... Michael Vick was caught in a huge dogfighting ring.

I also believe there will inevitably be a steroids scandal in the one sport in which steroids make the most sense. I mean, only in football does one have to be HUGE just to compete. High school offensive linemen were 240 pounds when my dad played football. Today, high school lines can average 300 pounds. I'm sure some of that is from nutrition and the general upward trend of size in humans, but that's dramatic for only a generation.

Sometimes, if it seems amazing that a human body can weigh 240 pounds and run as fast as a 4.5 40 yard dash, it might just be artificial. I'm waiting for this scandal. It's coming. I love football, but it may NEED some sort of cleansing. It would be naive to think they are all just naturally that big.

BASEBALL
Where do I start?... the 1998 resurgence led by Sammy and Mark is now under a cloud... The evidence from "Game of Shadows" is so convincing, I can't believe Bonds is allowed to walk to the plate... The Commissioner isn't showing up to watch the most cherished record in baseball be broken... That same commissioner has allowed this steroid scandal to balloon to what it has become... It is possible that the once sacred statistics will be deemed so tainted as to be meaningless... The Jason Grimsley and Jason Giambi steroid revelations continue to unfold and may lead to many more being proven as cheats...

This sport is under a cloud because it appears that the owners and league offices almost encouraged the use of steroids to rescue the sport from the 1994 strike. And, steroids weren't even banned until after 2000.

The players push Bud Selig around and his response was initially that a 10 game suspension would be the punishment. It took the threat of Congressional intervention to get baseball to move the penalty for first time use to 50 games.

OLYMPICS
Game of Shadows basically lays it out: We are the new East Germans... Steroids have become such a cloud over our Olympic athletes (Marion Jones, Montgomery, Gatlin to name a few) that I can't get excited for this event.

Unfortunately, it appears that some Olympic records may actually have been impossible while clean. The 2004 games saw many alleged users back out with "injuries" and the winning times were very low compared to other years. Not coincidentally, that is when a test for THG had been found.

The difficulty is in proof. This is because all those athletes initially passed all drug tests. Once the test catches up (temporarily) it is too tough to know how many past champions just got out before the test. It is discouraging.

BASKETBALL
The worst of all of the scandals mentioned is the current NBA referee scandal. The referee has been allegedly caught influencing the outcome of games because of gambling troubles.

At least with steroids they still had to perform (possibly against other users). This scandal involved the official literally creating an outcome. This is horrible. And, NBA officials control outcomes more than officials in ANY other league.

I am a HUGE basketball fan and was most depressed by this discovery. Unfortunately, it did not come as a shock since the NBA has long been the "iffiest" league when it came to calls.

We accepted that superstars would get calls. Fans almost became numb to it and just expected the unexpected. This one hurts me the most.

CONCLUSION
Unfortunately, the cheaters always seem one step ahead of the law. That seems like it will continue because no one will use a drug that can result in a positive test. It's unfortunate, but sports seem so infiltrated by drugs, gambling and cheating of various kinds that there is no way to ever eradicate it. But that is no reason to stop trying.

I will always be skeptical of these outcomes from now on. Sigh.

Unfortunately in life, we must accept a certain amount of dishonesty, corruption and deception in our world. It's hard to finally realize that... just hard to accept.

I will elaborate on this point in a future post about what I have seen in law. Specifically, how those who understand law can use law to abuse it. That topic will have to wait for another time and another post.

NEXT POSTS
I have a hard time holding myself back from commenting in detail about the current executive privilege being claimed, but I am open to other topics anyone wishes to put forward. Just post a comment with your suggestions.

... but I assure you, eventually the extreme executive privilege claim will be dealt with.

Iraq

NOTE: This is a long post. I will try to make future posts shorter (and about less controversial topics). I try to express my opinions without vitriol, and I hope that was achieved with this one. The Iraq war inspires very passionate feelings and a lot of anger on both sides. For me, it still incites stronger feelings than any other topic. That said, I welcome respectful dialogue, but I expect strong feelings from supporters of preemptive war. I promise I will respect all opinions, but be ready to defend them.

Here we go...

I was against the Iraq invasion from the beginning. But, I was against it for different reasons than most people who currently want a change in policy. This is my argument against anyone who would defend pre-emptive war under any circumstances. Preemptive invasion coupled with nation building injures our national security, is morally and ethically wrong, and damages our standing in the world enough to influence our interests.

I won't even go into the facts about how wrong we were about WMD, how it appears that the administration purposely misled and exaggerated the threat or that diplomacy was faked while we prepared for the inevitable invasion. All of that is beyond inexcusable. However, I do not believe that we should have invaded, overthrown and occupied Iraq EVEN IF it would have had WMD.

These are the reasons why.

NATIONAL SECURITY

No one in his or her right mind would say that we should invade, overthrow and occupy Iran and North Korea now. It would be foolish. Obviously. Since not everyone agrees that it is immoral, I'll make an argument even the very conservative would agree with: We don't have the military readiness to do it.

THAT is exactly why this should never have been done in the first place and should never be done again absent a WWII-like scenario. It is irresponsible to our national security readiness to leave ourselves so militarily vulnerable. Occupation occupies an army as well as a nation. It does so to the point of being not available if a real emergency were to arise. If North Korea invaded South Korea tomorrow, we can't do much about it.

That is dangerous.

Our biggest deterrent was the threat of our power. That threat is gone right now. For one, our military is unavailable. In fact, even the mystique of our power is being chiseled away as our powerful army gets bogged down by citizens without uniforms. It empowers other nations to believe that we aren't so invincible after all. We took our biggest deterrent away to disarm a toothless, caged and impotent tiger.

Today, the same administration that decided to invade Iraq for national security reasons reported that Al Qeida is now back to pre-911 readiness. Our national security has officially (and by Bush administration admission) gotten worse because of the Iraq invasion. Why? Because we are no longer chasing them around the world. They are in Iraq only because we are. They remain hidden in Afghanistan. All those "unpatriotic dissenters" were right after all. This really didn't make us safer.

No responsible argument can be made that this invasion has made us safer. And I have heard no strong argument that our continued presence will make the situation better. We must look to Vietnam, but this time learn from it.

Many point to the fact that if we leave, all hell will break loose. That may well be true. However, no one has convinced me that our continued presence would do anything more than temporarily delay that same chaos. Our presence in Vietnam delayed the inevitable by more than 10 years. It took less than a year to finally fall when we left. The real lesson is that that is why nation building does not work when forced by invasion.

We should have known that by paying attention to history.

Finally on this point, to those who argue that we all knew it would take years I say this: Only a nation with people strongly united behind a war effort will have that kind of patience. When commenced with shaky support, the idea that we would sustain a decades-long occupation supported by the populace is foolish. With a morally clear objective, such problems do not exist.

This was not a morally-clear objective.

MORAL AUTHORITY

I believe very deeply that it is immoral to start a war for preventative reasons. Preemptive war is per se wrong. Action to neutralize the arming of a dangerous nation does not require invasion, overthrow and occupation. If it did, we would currently occupy half the earth. If the threat is true and rationally supported, we won't ever have to do it alone.

This war has bred even more stains to our authority as an example of good in the world. The United States of America engaged in torture. Our president declared he had that authority.

While sitting in the mud, how can we now denounce those who partake of that brutal assault on humanity?

These United States punched first. How could we ever tell China not to invade Taiwan? At least Taiwan has up-to-date weapons (we have their receipts).

My county is now one that doesn't believe in non-proliferation treaties. Doesn't seem right but it is true. Our pursuit of the Star Wars program has antagonized many potential aggressors. It is foolish to think that such a system can help us in the age of suitcase nukes. But, that hasn't stopped us.

The fact that my phone could be tapped for any reason without any judicial oversight stifles our influence toward the spread of a freedom-based system of government. We look like hypocrites.

These issues have eroded the once shining example we provided. And it has affected how our allies look at us.

WORLD STANDING

I was in Germany when we were rattling sabers, threatening invasion and faking diplomacy. And then something amazing happened. It worked. Bush pulled off a coup. He got Saddam to blink. He used our biggest deterrent and won. All inspectors were allowed to look where we told them to. People forget this, but inspectors were on the ground before the invasion. Look it up. I remember vividly because that made me most livid about the decision. I remember because we had to have them pulled out before we invaded. We had won. We could make sure no WMD were in existence and we didn't have to go to war. A really brilliant move. We took a risk and won.

And then we went all in with a pair of twos and invaded anyway.

I discussed this with many Germans. Even though I was staunchly against the war, I found myself trying to justify the sanity of my nation. They were confused because polls showed Americans were split on the idea of war in Iraq before the invasion, but those numbers turned to 80 percent support once the invasion became imminent. They wanted to know why.

I tried to describe the political phenomenon called "rally around the flag" and explained that Americans support even controversial actions when the bullets fly. I will never forget the look on an instructor's face when I explained that. She was horrified and said "Das ist Dummheit!" (that is idiocy!). There is no reason to suspend our rational thought when bullets fly, she said. In fact, it should be intensified. I agreed, but tried to explain that our nation isn't used to being wrong and tried to explain our level of trust in our government.

I was asked to look around at all the houses. Not a single German flag could be found. I was told, "we know the dangers of excessive nationalism." We are not Nazis, but we weren't looking real good at the time.

We were very unpopular when I was there. I was told we were monsters and bullies. One man (who only spoke a heavy Bavarian accent I could not understand) bridged the communication gap by saying "Bush" and making a throat-slash sign.

If we cannot convince like-minded nations of the rightness of our action, we should stop and think again about what we are about to do. Like minded nations were afraid of us, our actions and the precedent we seemed determined to set. I was frustrated and a bit ashamed for us. We were supposed to be moral leaders in this world. Our example was supposed to shine. For the first time in my lifetime, I felt like our country had lost its moral authority.

The world is much less willing to go along with us today. The EU now also considers itself a possible counterweight to a reckless US rather than just another large block of allies. Sure, we maintain friendships with these nations, but we have earned some suspicion.

CONCLUSION

We are in this mess. Our nation has been divided, and bitterly so. The truth is finally coming out and the approval ratings are showing just how disappointed the American people are. Many options for withdrawal are being considered. I consider it a late attempt to undo a mistake. The tragedy is that the Iraqis must pay the price when we finally leave. But leave we must. Civil war has already started.

I am concerned that this nation is too nationalistic when armed forces are involved and too convinced that dissent equals non-support of troops. Support for the troops is important and they should always have the respect and admiration of the populace no matter what. But, we should be more responsible with their sacrifices. Our system of government depends on reasoned analysis and debate, continued analysis and scrutiny.

The blame for this disaster falls only on Bush, his administration and every Congressperson who voted to trust him without careful consideration. This was a rush job, but it was allowed to happen by a Congress that can best be described as an accomplice. But the Congress represents a populace that it believed (probably correctly) wanted that action. Therefore, we, the populace, also failed.

Our government failed us and we failed our government. But I know our people are smart enough to right the ship. Polls indicate a national reevaluation. Many were misled and are eager to make up for it.

Maybe this time we will learn from our mistakes. Then our moral authority will once again influence constructively while we use our power responsibly and with humility.