Stop the Twilight Insanity!

Here's a sentence I never thought I'd write: Miley Cyrus and I have something in common. Last week, the teen pop singer declared that not only does she refuse to see The Twilight Saga: New Moon, she's horrified by its pop-culture domination. ("I feel really lame because everyone's, like, so excited," she eloquently explained. "I'm, like, 'Don't even talk about it!'") Granted, Cyrus' rage likely stems from the realization that her fans' attention spans have been diverted. That said. . . I, like, totally agree with her.

To put it bluntly, Twilight sucks. (Sorry, that pun is too damn irresistible). One moody high school girl lusts after an even moodier vampire and the result is a potential $100 million opening weekend at the box office?! A newsstand takeover?! A special week on Ellen?! Make. It. Stop. Seriously. What was an amusing little fervor last year has spiraled into an out of control phenomenon. Congrats to author Stephenie Meyer for literally dreaming up a mega-selling book series, thereby creating mass hysteria and causing extreme jealousy amongst all professional writers (cough, cough). But her output does not warrant an official critique from the Pope. The Pope!

Let's recap. New Moon received a 29 percent approval rating on Rottentomatoes.com. Our former president never scored numbers that low. Even more perplexing, the film does not feature a snazzy comic book villain, nail-biting suspense, eye-popping special effects, A-list movie stars or Yoda. And please -- don't even start with that "It's an unrequited romance for the ages!" argument. I watch SoapNet on a continuous loop in my office every day. Ryan and Marissa on The O.C.? Now that is doomed love, my friends.

Which brings me to Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart. Yes, it's plausible that, like hundreds of red-blooded movie stars before them, they hooked up on the set and fed each other grapes from Crafts service. Maybe they're still dating. Either way, they refuse to confirm a thing and, instead, tantalize the public with bread crumbs. Nicely played. Now their potential coupling is permanently entrenched in the celebrity magazine world. As an Us Weekly writer, it pains me that they're mentioned in the same "should we put them on the cover?" breath as La Brangelina and La TomKat. They don't even have a cute nickname, for crying out loud! Or, for that matter, a palpable desire to be famous. Kristen seems awkward and disaffected in every interview. Robert gives the same my-fans-are-so-crazy! shpiel to every reporter. That is, when he's not discussing his personal hygiene in that soothing British accent. (Memo to R-Patz: George Clooney is about to hit the press circuit for Up in the Air. It would behoove you to take notes.) The good news? Back-up hunks Taylor Lautner and Kellan Lutz are considerably more affable and press-friendly. Then again, Taylor kinda seems less interesting with his shirt on. And, until recently, I thought a Kellan Lutz was part of a figure skater's jumping repertoire.

Of course, the "Twi-Hards" will have none of it. Last week, I posted an innocuous anti-vampire sentiment as a status update on my Facebook profile. I received more than a dozen passionate responses -- some from "friends" whom I have not heard from since the late-'80s. One Us staffer, a proud Twilight devotee, even admitted to me that the movies disappoint, the books aren't particularly well-written and she can "absolutely understand" why people are getting annoyed. She's still going to see the movie again. ("Every girl can relate to Bella," she carefully explained in a makeshift Twilight intervention.) I anticipate similarly themed "Grow a heart, you soul-less witch" responses from this essay.

Look, this hurts me as much as it hurts you. I once plastered my bedroom with posters of The Lost Boys cast. (Kiefer = still hot.) I love a juicy movie juggernaut as much as the next pop-culture junkie. In fact, I still can't turn away from Titanic whenever it's on TV. (Leo = still hot. But he's no Kiefer.) Yet trust me when I say it's time to put an end to the Twilight madness -- or, at the very least, significantly lower the volume. Though emotional attachment to this supernatural franchise is fun, it's not worthy of stage-five pandemonium. But don't it for me. Do it for the movie's dreary narrative; for the actors who are still blooming into their celebrity; for the Harry Potter film that's coming out next year. And, above all else, do it for Miley.

Things have quieted down quite a bit. I'd say--right now--I'm out of the woods and feeling much better.

I've started resuming some of my normal activities, but the pace is still slower than I would like.

We're still planning on going to Edmonds to go to a church function and help out feeding the homeless for Thanksgiving.

My in-laws want us over, but not this year. :0)

Today was better. I managed to sleep more than yesterday. But the pills are making me loopy, edgy, and full of nervous energy.

April even had the gall to ask me if I wanted an energy drink! (lol)

I was like, "You really want me to fly off the handle more than I am now?"

I feel like I want to explode--not in a bad way mind you--but it's the way the meds have me wired right now.

The weather is still crappy. Rain, rain, and more rain.

But I was surprised by "New Moon's" movie release: $140M million dollars in three days!

Wow!

I wonder how many teenage girls packed the theaters to see that one? (lmao)

The one thing I hate about being on so many drugs is the EFFECTS: I feel like I've drunk 20 cups of the best, strongest, coffee imaginable and then hooked myself up to an electric cow fence.

I'm nervous, jittery, shaky like crazy, and my heart's going a mile a minute--making it just a little challenging to write this entry or type anything else.

The one thing that I am glad of, is that I am *not* easily addicted to prescription drugs.

I just use what I have and when it's over, I discontinue usage--minus my ongoing blood-thinner regiment. :0)

The surgery went well. Doctor Chen broke down and removed most of the fragments. I got another stent stuffed up inside me to help with drainage and swelling problems.

But I'm on something like 20 different types of medications here--most of it antibiotic and pain-related.

Sleeping was a little interesting to say the least: Sleep, wake up, pee, go back to bed, wake up an hour later, do it again, go back to bed, and repeat myself at least four more times--before I was finally able to "cat-nap" for about 2.5 hours.

Then my MIL called and woke me up out of a sound sleep!

Arrggghhh!!!

The injustice!

AMERICA ON TRIAL: WHY RIGHT-WINGERS HAVE REASON TO BE WORRIED ABOUT TRYING KSM.

NEW YORK--One of my favorite books is by a conservative. Every American should read Stephen L. Carter's 1996 primer on ethics, "Integrity." Carter writes that integrity requires doing the right thing, "even at personal cost." In the world of politics, the example of Al Gore's father comes to my mind: a senator from Tennessee, Al Gore, Sr. openly opposed segregation and the Vietnam War even though he knew his outspokenness would cause him to lose his 1970 reelection campaign.

Faced with the choice between integrity and expediency, Republicans are taking the low road. Principles? Only when they're convenient. Never mind the Constitution, the Geneva Conventions or common decency--on the question of what to do about POWs rotting away at Guantįnamo Bay concentration camp, right-wingers' concerns are purely practical.

We are talking, of course, about Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in federal court in Manhattan, within walking distance of the World Trade Center Memorial Hole, which marks America's resilience.

Note: I don't refer to Mohammed as "9/11 mastermind." Unlike most Americans, I don't believe that something is true just because the government says it. Until a jury and the media examine the facts, we have no idea whether Mohammed is guilty of anything. As far as we know, he could be nothing more than a poster child for Pakistani bed-head. Moreover, my distrust multiplies in direct proportion to the number times a suspect has been waterboarded (in Mohammed's case, at least 183).

Anyway, it's interesting to watch "law and order" conservatives like Rudy Giuliani talk away basic legal rights like habeas corpus. "[Mohammad] should be tried in a military tribunal," Giuliani says, "He is a war criminal. This is an act of war." No, Mr. Mayor, he's not. And this is no war. Had an actual war been declared, a nation-state would have attacked us. 9/11 was a criminal act, and a terrible one: mass murder, air piracy and property damage. Until Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is tried and convicted in a court of law, however he is an alleged criminal, innocent until proven guilty. Where'd this Giuliani guy go to law school, Wal-Mart?

Among Giuliani's other worries: "security concerns." "Just wait and see how much New York City spends on this in order to protect him," he warns. While we're at it, think of how much money the government could save by eliminating the criminal justice system! Why not just let the cops shoot anyone they want?

The attorney general's decision should be commended. He was correct to act independently, without consulting with Obama. It is a long overdue course correction for a government still careening down the road to moral illegitimacy. Still, Holder's pseudo-conservative critics--wouldn't a real conservative favor strict adherence to the law, practical concerns like the cost of security be damned?--have good reasons to worry about how the trial will unfold, if and when it actually comes to pass.

For example, Republican Rep. Pete Hoekstra of Michigan fears accused terrorists will exploit their trials. He worries they will "disrupt it and make it a circus and allow them to use it as a platform to push their ideology." Well, yeah. In political proceedings, the defendants always try to put the state on trial. Unfortunately, the military, CIA and Bush Administration made that outcome inevitable by refusing to treat 9/11 as a crime. Mohammed and his comrades ought to have been turned over to The Hague, where the dull murmur of transcription machines has a way of sucking all the drama out of the most political of trials.

John "Torture Memo" Yoo frets in The Wall Street Journal that "KSM and his co-defendants will enjoy the benefits and rights that the Constitution accords to citizens and resident aliens--including the right to demand that the government produce in open court all of the information that it has on them, and how it got it." Though self-serving, it's an excellent point. The whole sordid story of America's post-9/11 torture program will be internationally televised.

At Mohammed's trial the whole world will hear how U.S. soldiers and intelligence agents stabbed, suffocated and sodomized detainees, including kids, most of whom were later determined to be innocent and set free. So much for the Obama effect; traveling overseas is going to suck for Americans from now on.

The government could have avoided this unpleasantness by, oh, not torturing. And, when we citizens heard and read and watched reports that our government was torturing, we could have racked up some integrity points by taking to the streets by the million to demand that it stop. But we had football and "Battlestar Galactica" and reality shows to watch instead. Oh, well.

Now it's time for America to take its lumps. Even if that means putting KSM on a plane back to Pakistan and watching him arriving home to a hero's welcome, that's too bad. Release is how a judge and jury typically treats a man who has been tortured while awaiting custody.

What does Stephen L. Carter think about this? I don't know, but I'd like to think that (as a conservative) he would agree with me. Integrity requires one to accept responsibility for one's actions.

What is So Patriotic About Fearmongering?

Creators Syndicate – The loudest voices on the right never tire of telling us that they are the truest patriots. They claim to be the deepest believers in our system, the strongest defenders of our Constitution, the most upbeat, bold and courageous Americans anywhere. But now that the government is finally prepared to put the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 terror attacks on trial, these same patriots are the first to spread doubt, instigate anxiety and abandon constitutional principles.

When did fearmongering in a time of war become an act of patriotism?

Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to try al-Qaida strategist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other residents of the Guantanamo prison in American civilian courts has provoked angry criticism from all the usual sources, from the Wall Street Journal editorial page to the Fox News airwaves. While some of the complaints are thoughtful, many are nothing more than demagogic appeals that seek to undermine the foundations of justice in a democratic society.

When Holder's critics say that Mohammed doesn't "deserve" an open and adversarial trial, they are misunderstanding the spirit of our laws. The right to a trial — indeed, all the rights afforded to criminal defendants under the Constitution — is not apportioned according to what the defendants supposedly deserve. What they deserve is, in fact, precisely what a fair trial is designed to determine.

The nation's founders despised the passions of the lynch mob and the arbitrary penalties handed down by kings and despots. They were particularly appalled by the tortures and abuse inflicted on American Revolutionary soldiers by the British oppressor — and vowed never to do the same to America's enemies.

When Holder's critics say that we don't dare try a criminal like Mohammed on the soil of the United States, in a New York City federal courthouse, that is a terrible concession to the terrorists. The same is true when those critics protest against incarcerating a figure such as Mohammed in an American prison, rather than Gitmo. Essentially, those arguments exaggerate the power of al-Qaida — which conservatives usually claim has been profoundly weakened over the past several years — and underestimates the strength of the American justice system.

In fact, we have been trying dangerous terrorists in American courts for many years, and then incarcerating them in American prisons. According to a new study by the Center for Law and Security at New York University, the U.S. government has indicted 828 defendants on terrorism-related charges since 2001. Of those indictments, trials are still pending against 235 defendants — and of the remaining 539 defendants, 523 were convicted either at trial or via plea.

The single largest venue for terrorism trials is New York City, where 145 terrorism indictments have been filed. The center found in a previous study that the conviction rate in New York is higher than in the rest of the nation, and that sentencing in New York is also tougher. That is understandable — and may help to explain why the attorney general chose the Southern District of New York for the Mohammed prosecution. In the city's federal courts, the conviction rate of individuals charged with terrorism involving a U.S. target is 100 percent.

When Mohammed is convicted (or pleads guilty, as he has previously vowed to do), the U.S. federal prison system is ideally equipped to inflict suitable punishment on him and his cohort. Better than providing him with martyrdom via execution, he should be buried in a "Supermax" prison, from which nobody has ever escaped, and left to rot.

The most basic challenge of the terror campaign waged by jihadi extremists is to preserve the differences between us and them — a challenge that the American government has failed at in far too many instances over the past eight years, through the use of torture, extrajudicial detentions, renditions to other countries, and various other violations of U.S. law and treaty obligations. Our own courts found that these acts by the previous administration were lawless and required them to be reversed.

As a nation, we should have the confidence to make the case against these murderers according to our laws and Constitution, without fear of their propaganda or violence. Every precaution should be taken to protect national security and public safety — and then our system will prevail over their perverse ideology.

Twilight and New Moon: sexual longing in a world of vampire abstinence

New York – If you've been spending time in proximity to teenage girls this week, there's a strong chance you've heard about "New Moon" and Edward Cullen. Edward is the undead hero of the bestselling young adult fantasy/romance "Twilight" series."

He's reached heartthrob status in a major way, and he's done it while refusing to devour, or sleep with, the story's heroine, like a Jonas Brother for the literary set. And now "New Moon," the second book in the series, is coming to a movie theater near you.

The "Twilight" books, written by Stephenie Meyer, have been heralded as the next "Harry Potter." To bank on the comparisons, "Breaking Dawn," the concluding installation, hit bookstores last summer with "Potter"-esque midnight parties, secrecy, and sales in the millions (although they didn't touch the "Potter" series' numbers, mostly because the fan base is so exclusively female and postpubescent).

There's plenty to cheer about when it comes to young girls reading voraciously. "Twilight" is much in the tradition of teen literature such as the "Nancy Drew" mysteries and "Goosebumps." The books are also rife with allusions to Shakespeare, Austen, and the Brontės, a nice touch that will inspire fans to hit the classics sections of their bookstores.

Is it 'Twilight' for strong heroines?
But what makes the "Twilight" saga particularly fascinating and disturbing are the sexual currents that run through its pages. Like American culture itself, "Twilight" is both lascivious and chaste. Ms. Meyer, a practicing Mormon, has said she draws a line at premarital sex for her characters. But, as New York Times columnist Gail Collins noted last year, boyfriend Edward holds the line, not heroine and narrator Bella. Bella, after all, is so hot for Edward she tells him she's going to "spontaneously combust" and frequently forgets to breathe when he kisses her.

Meanwhile, he is equally besotted with her, so much so that he trains himself to ignore his thirst for her blood, which has an aroma that could make even a good vampire (Edward and his coven have forsworn munching on humankind) go bad.

Yet Edward still won't go all the way because he doesn't want to get carried away and hurt Bella with his superhuman strength. Her physical safety becomes a symbolic substitute for her virginity, and Edward guards it with overprotective zeal.

Now that's a real fantasy: a world in which young women are free to describe their desires openly and launch themselves at men without shame, while said boyfriends are the sexual gatekeepers. The sexual flowchart in "Twilight" is the inversion of abstinence-only/purity ball culture, where girls are told that they must guard themselves against rabid boys and that they must rein in both their own and their suitors' impulses. But even while inverting the positions, Meyer doesn't change the game.

Purity is still the goal. Men, or vampires, are still dangerous and threatening while females are still breakable and fragile. Intercourse still has the potential of resulting in "death," just as it once relegated women to a social death. The only difference is the controls are handed over from the teenage girl to the guy – who happens, in this case, to be totally responsible and upright.

Meyer has tapped into a serious artery of the teen female psyche. Adding to the dynamic is the fact that Bella is a cipher whose only strong impulses are self-sacrifice and vampire lust. She has a glancing appreciation of classic novels and her family, but is easily projected upon by readers, who can imagine themselves in her place and be vicariously wooed.

Bella's other trait – overwhelming clumsiness – approximates adolescent bodily discomfort – the kind that comes from young women's realization that in a patriarchal society their bodies are now perceived as trouble incarnate. Rescuing Bella from her physical mishaps are Edward and her other suitor, Jacob, who happens to be a werewolf. The two of them happily tote her around so much it's a wonder Bella's legs don't atrophy.

It would be a far braver move for Meyer to show Bella's relationship helping her grow comfortable in her body. But instead she goes for the cheaper, more seductive, thrill of suggesting that ungainly, weak female bodies are the most attractive to men, that teenage gawkiness could be made into an appealing vulnerability that brings all the supernatural boys to the yard.

The lure of the books is so strong, even for feminist media critics (I devoured them more quickly than vampires catch their prey), that it's disturbing to resurface and ponder how retrograde Meyer's world is.

Bella's willingness to sacrifice her physical safety, her education, and her family and social ties for Edward – and the well-meaning but stringent control he exerts over her – are reminiscent, as some readers have said, of abusive relationships.

Talking about sex – not just the vampire kind
But teens are unlikely to change their views after reading the books: The hopeless romantics will remain so; the pragmatic readers will feel frustrated with Bella. Same goes for the book's take on virginity. It's doubtful Meyer foresaw how much graphic premarital sex in all kinds of gender and species permutations would appear in online fan fiction.

Though it does appear that "Twilight" readers' moms have found a good opening to talk about sex with their kids. And even better, the books have got teens arguing about gender roles, when to have sex, what defines a heroine, and the meaning of true love.

Taking a look at some blogs and sites that complain about "Breaking Dawn" (the fourth book) and the series in general, one can find feminist arguments galore. But the lively debate generated by the books implies that they may do more good than harm. It's the misogynistic climate in the books that harms their quality.

If Meyer had been able to put her "family values" aside to give Bella more spunk (and maybe a college education?) and generally lighten up on the patriarchal subtexts, the saga would improve aesthetically, and maybe, like the "Harry Potter" canon, reveal truths far beyond teenage wish fulfillment. Literary feminists can hope that J.K. Rowling gets inspired to write a strong, realistic heroine and show Meyer how it's done.

Until then, there's always Buffy.

SARAH PALIN: RICHARD NIXON UPDATED FOR THE CELEBRITY AGE

Poor, put-upon Sarah Palin.

She's been misrepresented by the left-leaning media, repressed and mishandled by Team McCain, betrayed by an ungrateful almost-son-in-law and falsely accused by political opponents back home in Alaska.

It's a wonder the woman survives to, ah, make so much money on that book of hers, "Going Rogue," given all the forces arrayed against her. But the former Alaska governor is a formidable personality, with a strong faith in her own righteousness.

Her capacity for self-delusion is undimmed, despite her experiences on the campaign trail. In Monday's interview with Oprah Winfrey, the formal kickoff of Palin's book tour, she rejected any blame for the loss of the McCain-Palin ticket.

"I think the reason that we lost, the economy tanked under a Republican administration. People were sincerely looking for change. I think, unfortunately, our ticket represented what was perceived as status quo," she said.

And even when Palin admits mistakes, she has a way of letting herself off the hook and pointing the finger elsewhere.

That disastrous Katie Couric interview? She knew it went badly; she caved in to her umbrage at Couric's suggestion that she wasn't well-informed, she told Winfrey.

"Obviously, I have, of course, all my life read. ... By the time she asked me that question ... I was just so annoyed and it was very unprofessional of me to wear that annoyance on my sleeve," she said.

Her stunning resignation as governor of Alaska, before her first term was over? Because of all those ethics complaints from her enemies, "My state of Alaska was being hampered by my presence there, being shackled behind a governor's desk."

The decision to put her pregnant teenage daughter, Bristol, and Bristol's boyfriend, Levi Johnston, on the public stage? In Palin's view, the fallout revealed the inclinations of an Obama-obsessed news media, which didn't subject the Obama children to such scrutiny.

"I wasn't given that privilege of being able to protect my kids," Palin told Winfrey. "I think there was a ... double-standard." Never mind that Palin chose to showcase Bristol and Levi at the Republican National Convention, starting with a warm greeting on the tarmac from the presidential candidate himself, McCain, as the teenagers arrived in Minnesota.

Palin is the new Richard Nixon, updated for the celebrity age. She's a stew of resentments -- angry at the elites, vindictive toward enemies real and imagined, unforgiving of even small slights.

Of course, she exudes a warmth and charm that Nixon never had. For one thing -- let's face it -- she's pretty, a trait that matters in the age of "Oprah" and YouTube, MySpace and Facebook. She's comfortable on the chatty stage of faux self-examination, in a way that Nixon would never have been. If you didn't know her history of all-out warfare against those who rile her family -- such as her former brother-in-law, Alaska state trooper Mike Wooten -- you might actually believe that she wishes Levi well.

Yet, she lacks a couple of important things Nixon had going for him: knowledge and experience. It wasn't CBS' Couric or ABC's Charlie Gibson or, for that matter, "Saturday Night Live's" Tiny Fey who caused Palin to appear ignorant on important policy matters. She did that all on her own.

And she will have to use all her considerable charm -- and no small number of ghost-written policy papers -- to change the public's opinion of her. A recent CBS News poll shows her with a favorable rating of only 23 percent. While she has 52 percent favorability rating among Republicans, that drops to just 21 percent among all-important independents.

Palin has remained coy about seeking the presidency in 2012, pointedly refusing to rule it out. She told ABC's Barbara Walters that she'd like to play a role in public life "if people will have me."

Her 52 percent -- a socially conservative, elite-resenting, MSM-hating cornerstone of the GOP -- will certainly have her. Despite her newfound affluence from speaking fees and book sales, Palin remains their standard-bearer against all those pointy-headed intellectuals and high-falutin' swells who [whom], they believe, have taken their country from them.

She's unlikely to refuse their entreaties to run.

The Fed is foolishly weakening the dollar

Irvine, Calif. – Has America's Federal Reserve become the single greatest obstacle to global economic recovery? Central bankers around the world are increasingly asking this question as the American greenback continues its Fed-inspired decline and damages the export-driven growth of countries from Latin America and Asia to Europe.

Historically, the Fed has responded to economic downturns by cutting interest rates to stimulate domestic business investment and consumer purchases of "big-ticket" items, like automobiles and housing, that are sensitive to the cost of loans. However, in the current crisis, this traditional formula is simply not working.

It's not working in part because the Fed's "solution" has been a concentrated dose of the problem. After years of promoting the easy money and loose credit that fueled asset bubbles, it has responded with even easier money and even looser credit. It's like fighting fire with gasoline.

American consumers are not responding to the Fed's liquidity surge because high employment, high oil prices, bottoming home prices, and stagnant wage growth have squeezed their purchasing power. Business investment has likewise failed to fill the recessionary gap because much of the investment US corporations used to make on American soil is increasingly being sent off shore.

Despite this lack of responsiveness, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke continues to throw monetary stimulus at the problem – and thereby has created an international dollar crisis now threatening the global recovery.

The declining dollar story is one of weakening demand for, and a massive oversupply of, the greenback. It is a sad and sordid tale scripted almost entirely by the Fed.

During the worst months of the global financial crisis, investors flocked to the dollar as a haven amid the storm. But since March 2009, when economic policy under the Bernanke Fed and the Obama administration became clearer, they have fled the greenback. In that time, the dollar index has fallen 16 percent.

You can't blame investors for selling. By first driving, and then maintaining, short-term interest rates near zero, the Bernanke Fed has made it far less attractive for them to hold dollars.

In a desperate effort to break the back of the credit crisis, the Fed has also engineered the most massive increase in the money supply in US history. Since 2007, the Fed has roughly doubled the monetary base. This, however, is only half of the oversupply story.

The other half of the tale involves the willingness of the Bernanke Fed to help accommodate the rapidly rising, and historically unprecedented, US budget deficits. Such accommodation involves the Fed's willingness to print new money to purchase many of the government bonds being issued by the Treasury Department to finance the budget deficit.

The practical effect of the Fed's easy money policies has not been to stimulate the US economy through traditional channels of domestic consumption and business investment. Rather, it has debased the dollar and thereby, in true beggar-thy-neighbor fashion, helped to stimulate demand for US exports while discouraging imports from the rest of the world. To the rest of the world, this policy seems cynically aimed at bootstrapping the American economy through exports at the expense of its trading partners.

This beggar-thy-neighbor effect is further complicated by the Chinese government's pegging of its currency to the falling greenback. Because of this peg, every time the dollar falls, the Chinese yuan falls with it. The steadily weakening yuan has further boosted the already formidable competitive advantage of Chinese manufacturers in markets across the globe.

In response to sluggish export demand in their home countries and the loss of market share to China, central bankers around the world are beginning to retaliate with large-scale interventions in the currency markets designed to brake the dollar's decline relative to their own currencies. The clear danger is that this tactical retaliation will devolve into a longer term strategy of competitive devaluations that will ultimately pit nation against nation and destabilize the already fragile international monetary system.

Washington officially supports a strong dollar. But its policies suggest otherwise. To avoid this destructive cycle, it is critical that the Fed and the Obama administration find the courage to end easy money and the accommodation of ever-larger budget deficits. This certainly won't be easy, but the road to global economic recovery must ultimately be paved with both fiscal and monetary discipline in the US – not with Great Depression-style competitive devaluations.

Memo to Holder: Who's Accountable Now?

When the Clinton administration prosecuted the blind cleric, Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, and nine co-defendants in federal court in New York for their roles in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, much less was known about al-Qaeda and the risks of using ordinary criminal process for terror suspects. Part of the legacy of that trial was the disclosure of information to the lawyers for the defendants that wound up promptly in the hands of al-Qaeda members who eventually would plan and execute the next attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. The information, which revealed some of what our government knew about international terrorism and how we knew it, helped shield some of the terror enterprise's deadly planning from those trying earnestly to monitor and stop terrorism. No one will ever know how to apportion responsibility, but there should be no doubt that this was one of many contributing factors to the loss of nearly 3,000 innocent lives in the horrific attacks of 9/11.

Now President Obama's Attorney General, Eric Holder, has made the decision to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (indicted but never prosecuted for the 1993 explosion) to trial in federal court in New York as the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks. I have no doubt that Mr. Holder is an honorable man who took this decision seriously, worried about it, and weighed carefully the advice of his legal team and others in (and perhaps out of) the administration regarding the risks and benefits of this and alternative approaches, such as use of the military tribunals authorized by Congress and favored by the Bush administration for terror trials. The 240 pages of memoranda he reviewed just before reaching his decision were the synthesis of what both political appointees and career officials thought most relevant to the choice of process and venue. The public doesn't yet know what was in those memos - whether they contained any speculation on political risks from sticking with military tribunals, for instance - but undoubtedly a lot of legal and practical considerations were reviewed critically by the team and the Attorney General.

Most public attention now will focus on whether Mr. Holder made the right choice. But that isn't the only question people concerned with how our government works should be asking.

The other question is what if Mr. Holder has guessed wrong? What if challenges to the way evidence was obtained result in exclusion of enough material that KSM is acquitted? What if discovery rules for federal criminal trials again result in disclosure of sensitive information - ending up in the hands of our enemies - on how we gather information and who provides it? What if that facilitates another attack with more lives lost?

Would there then be exposure for Holder and those who advised him? Should the public have access to the memos now so that we can judge for ourselves if the advice was sound? Should we be thinking about possible legal sanctions, maybe even prosecution, if we decide the advice was wrong, that it didn't rightly account for the risks to our safety and our lives, that it didn't value our security highly enough, or didn't ultimately fulfill the legal obligations of those in high office?

**********

Like all Americans, I sincerely hope Holder's optimism respecting the use of civilian courts for deciding what punishment to mete out to international terrorists is borne out. I also recognize that every critical decision like this one ultimately is a judgment about the probability of certain results and the values of specific good or bad outcomes. There can be no certainty in these matters.

If history is a guide, however, there will be plenty of bad fallout from this choice. The ill fit between the criminal process and the fight against international terrorism will reverberate in a series of decisions down the road respecting the conflict between effective antiterrorist measures and steps necessary to preserve litigation options. We don't want soldiers thinking about reading enemy combatants their rights, giving them Miranda warnings, making sure they have access to lawyers. We don't want our intelligence community worrying that Brady rules for disclosing evidence will compromise their effectiveness by revealing critical information on their methods and sources.

Admittedly, there are laws to protect confidential information that, in theory, can help shape procedures at trial to prevent nightmare scenarios. But those laws were in place during Rahman's trial as well. While one of his lawyers and other members of his legal team were convicted and sentenced to prison for revealing confidential information in that trial, that provides little comfort to Americans who lost loved ones, thanks in part to the disclosures. Laws are critical to our civilization, but the threat of legal punishment isn't enough to prevent harm from people who don't value our laws or our lives.

**********

In marked contrast, the threat of legal punishment has a powerful chilling effect on people who live under the rule of law, whose lives and livelihoods are tied to the law. Much as I disagree with Mr. Holder, he and those who advised him shouldn't have to worry about the prospect of prosecution if the next administration decides they made the wrong call. They shouldn't have to worry about having the information they were looking at disclosed in ways that might discourage open, honest communication among public officials. They shouldn't have to worry about conforming to whatever comes to be accepted as good policy two or four or ten years down the road.

That is a lesson the same officials should keep in mind as they weigh what steps to take against former Bush administration officials. Mr. Holder and President Obama have wavered on the question whether prior officials should be prosecuted for their determinations - whether memos and communications between Department of Justice attorneys and other administration officials should be publicly released. Those officials should get the same respect for a serious, thoughtful effort to frame the information the right way and to reach the right decision as those advising Holder should receive now.

Edited by author 11-18-2009 08:31 PM
Yesterday, I spent all day running errands. I thought I was going to be able to get my Fragmin injections, but because of an insurance glitch, I had to get Lovenox instead. (That was today.)

I hopped the bus back up Evergreen Way and got off close to Frontier Bank where I got the #11 to the Everett Mall.

Once I got there, I went to Sam Goody's and bought two steel-case exclusive copies of the new STAR TREK movie!

(I had them on reserve for the past 3 months now.)

So afterwards, I jumped on the #11 and was about to head home when I realized...I had forgotten my cane!

So, I hopped off and went to get it--missing the bus. But I figured that a good walk home wouldn't hurt along the way and did that; making a quick pitstop over at McDonalds.

After that, I headed home.

Just as we ate our pizza and watched maybe a half-hour's worth of the new movie, I was overcome--in quick fashion--by excruciating pain in my right side.

I spent the next 4-5 hours trying to pass what was either another kidney stone fragment or a small blood clot.

Either way, I was NOT a happy camper!

The pain subsided sometime after 1 in the morning--from 8:35PM--and I was finally able to get one night of uninterrupted sleep.

But when we got to Social Security for the meeting over the matter of me paying back nearly $21,000--the pain started up just a little.

I was sure I was going to have another "drive by" today and I just kept thinking about other things--other than the unnerving pain in my side. (Which is coming and going, but it is not like it was last night.)

I stopped off at the post office and dropped off Tara's copy of STAR TREK. I paid an extra 68-cents to cover the added weight of the DVD movie and she should be getting it either by Thanksgiving, or the day *after*.

The matter with Social Security is that I'm facing a 0.2% chance that I'll have my case overturned and my SSDI payments restored. But because we lacked a lawyer and our case wasn't that credible to the judge--it's most likely that we are going to have the previous decision stand.

Which...is going to make my publishing plans a lot harder to carry out. I was hoping to use the lump sum paid back to launch my book. But it doesn't look like that's going to happen.

So...I'm going to have to try something else.

The only good thing about this, is that I won't have to pay back the amount--due to my limited income. And even if I *were* working either part time or full time, they still wouldn't take it out because I don't make near enough (per year) to live on my own.

Or support April.

(Especially when you're looking at rent being sky high as it is. And every other basic necessities are also pricey.)

So I have some appointments I need kept for the coming month. But the application process is going to take awhile. So I have plenty of time to sort things out.

Outside of that...? I'm ready to go for my upcoming laser lithotripsy surgery. It's not going to be pretty, but I want this damned stone out of me! (Or whatever the hell is causing me so much pain!)

On the political front, some people are still worried about the terror trials going on in New York. One letter writer in the Everett Herald was an absolute FRUITCAKE. (Yes, Washington state *does* have its share of nuts too!)

He claimed that everything he learned about terrorists--he learned in kindergarden. (When I was kindergarten, I was still learning my numbers and letters. How could this guy have advanced knowledge of the world around him when he was 2 or 3 years of age? I certainly didn't!)

Then he went on to make some garbled comparison to terrorists from the classic "War of the Worlds" movie. (The 1953 version.)

He thought that fiction meant "reality" and tried to say that the Martians--whom invaded Earth--were just as bad as the "radical Islamic terrorists whom seek to destroy America outright".

He thinks that if the "other half" of America would "just get it" (meaning liberals, Democrats, Independents and other third-party voters), we could "wipe out Islam all over the face of the Earth".

He went on to say that Vietnam was winnable--if only the "peaceniks" hadn't interferred with the war by turning America against its own President and military, and Iraq was the same way--had the "left-leaning liberals not contaminated the war effort in a bid to make Bush look bad".

But the thing is, both wars ended badly. The surge that Bush launched in a desperate bid to save what was left of his sagging Presidency didn't have the "full on" effect that he had hoped for.

All it did was just buy him and Obama time to get out of the country--while we still had a military left to pull command.

Afghanistan is in the same boat as Iraq and Vietnam. Neither one has an exit strategy and neither one is "winnable" by any realistic measure.

We may have tamped down the violence in both countries, but we left both nations in shambles as a direct result of our invasion. (Because--as you know--invading armies of all kinds have had this effect on other targeted nations. World War II is a good example of the carnage cost by both Allies and the Axis powers. Europe was left in ruins as a result of the 4-year conflict. Parts of Vietnam was too. And now--? Iraq joins the club. And assuming we haven't COMPLETELY obliterated Afghanistan into nothing...? That country will also share a similar fate.)

Palin's populist book tour won't help GOP

Atlanta – When Sarah Palin's book "Going Rogue" hits stores today, it will increase the tension between elitism and populism that's marked American conservatism from the beginning.

Today, the Republican Party, led by Ms. Palin and Mike Huckabee, is unabashedly folksy. Their brand of populism – reaching out to ordinary voters by rejecting the values and intellect of the so-called establishment – may help sell books and draw high television ratings, but it won't rebuild a party that is still reeling from last year's severe defeat.

If conservatives want to abbreviate their exile in the political wilderness, they should move quickly to reassert their claim to intellectual leadership. Long-run political success requires developing ideas that make America secure and prosperous. And that takes a party in tune with its head more than its heart.

Conservatism's elitist roots
Throughout much of American history, conservative-minded politicians like President John Adams and Sen. Daniel Webster were openly elitist.

In their view, government was the preserve of the virtuous, intelligent, and educated minority, who must refuse to pander to the whims of the electorate. Conservatism meant the preservation of a complex and fragile civilization, which had to be protected from the rabble. Demagogues like President Andrew Jackson, who invited everyone to his inauguration, turning it into a drunken rout, jeopardized the republic.

President Herbert Hoover shared this view.

He had come into office in 1929 as one of the most loved and admired of all Americans. He was the great humanitarian hero of World War I and had enjoyed almost a decade of success as secretary of Commerce.

Then he was blamed for the Great Depression, which began less than a year after his election. Homeless men called their shantytowns "Hoovervilles."

Hoover was no laissez-faire conservative. He took several aggressive measures to combat the nation's worst-ever economic crisis. But by 1932, voters thought the man with the high starched-collar shirt was out of touch, electing instead one of America's most populist presidents: Franklin Roosevelt.

Roosevelt's New Deal horrified Hoover as a departure from America's traditions of citizen independence and limited government. He feared that FDR might be an American counterpart of the dictators then coming to dominate Europe: Mussolini, Stalin, and Hitler. Like today's Republicans, he dreaded too much federal power, too much federal spending, and too great a national debt.

On the other hand, he had never been a moss-backed conservative, and he knew that merely turning the clock back would never work. In a speech to the GOP convention in 1936, he reminded his fellow Republicans that "betterment for the common man must be inspired by the human heart" but that it could "only be achieved by the intellect."

As Republicans considered policy alternatives to the New Deal, they must build "from the materials of scientific research" by painstakingly "sifting truth from the collection of fact and experience." Ideas, not impulses, he believed, should characterize the Republican recovery.

Hoover's impassioned words to his party in 1936 did nothing to sway the voters, who reelected Roosevelt in one of the greatest landslides of the century, then went on to elect him again and yet again. Nor did conservatives themselves heed his plea for intellectual rigor.

In the decades following, conservatism more often than not put its faith in the masses and their intuitive good sense, arguing that the elite was out of touch with the real America.

Conservative anticommunism in the cold-war era was a popular – and populist – movement, sometimes degenerating into feverish McCarthyism. The Moral Majority and its successors on the Christian right were populist, too: high on righteous indignation, low on intellect. They asserted the superiority of ordinary God-fearing citizens and argued that a sinister elite of "secular humanists" threatened the nation.

The conservative movement confronted internal contradictions even as President Ronald Reagan brought it to power in 1980. Libertarians, traditionalists, elitists, and populists had little in common other than their dislike of liberals and their fear of communism. It took skillful leadership, and the artful writing of men like William F. Buckley Jr. and Irving Kristol to keep the factions cooperating.

Once the Soviet Empire collapsed about 1990, the movement lost the cement that had been holding it together. The conservative factions, disagreeing on basic questions of philosophy and policy, bickered through the 1990s and into the next millennium.

Neoconservatives won the struggle for influence within the administration of President George W. Bush, especially over foreign policy. But the wars for Middle Eastern democracy they had planned didn't turn out quite as intended, and their star also waned.

Movement without a leader
Now the conservative movement, and the Republican Party to which it belongs, have come to a crossroads. Much in need of counsel, they recently lost their best guides with the deaths of both Buckley and Kristol. On the landscape of the right today there is, for the moment, no charismatic political leader and no agreed-upon intellectual guru.

As they face the future, conservatives need to contemplate the blend of good and bad news confronting them. The good news is that the United States, which has enjoyed extraordinary political stability under the Constitution for more than two centuries, is a very conservative place, latently ready and willing to support them.

Conservative history offers a rich array of former leaders and thinkers, from whose insights this generation can draw. Without losing sight of the need for electoral strength, the movement can recover some of the intellectual dignity that it sacrificed in the McCain-Palin campaign.

The bad news takes us back to the 1930s. Hoover gradually recovered his reputation (Presidents Truman and Eisenhower both esteemed him highly), but as a figure in electoral politics he was finished. From the 1930s until the late '70s the Democrats seemed to be the party of ideas, putting the Republicans at a disadvantage from which they recovered only slowly.

If they want to take back the White House and Congress, Republicans should move quickly to reclaim their leadership on ideas. In the long run, intellectual power and political success go together.

I suffered an asthmatic attack this morning which had me practically terrified out of my wits.

I couldn't go back to sleep because of it.

So April and I went to the ER to have me checked out and it turns out that I had a mild episode with some minor inflammation of the sac surrounding the heart.

But I came away with more meds to sink a battleship--that's for sure!

I'm just hoping that this is just an isolated incident and not the start of something else.

CONSERVATIVES POISED TO REPEAT HISTORY

LOS ANGELES -- Was George Santayana right when he said that those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it?

Well, perhaps the Republican Party can test that thesis for the rest of us. Forty-five years ago the Republicans in convention -- the convention that nominated Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater for president -- tried to boo New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller off the stage when he said:

"These extremists feed on fear, hate and terrorism. They encourage disunity ... The Republican Party must repudiate those people."

It was no tea party, that one. Angry Goldwater delegates began booing and chanting, "We Want Barry!" Many of the people in the hall wanted Rockefeller out of the party at least as much as they wanted Goldwater in the White House.

"Rockefeller was the enemy!" said Richard Viguerie, who was one of the most enthusiastic chanters in the balcony. He was 30 years old then and was soon to become an important figure in the "New Right," the branch of the party that wanted liberals, and moderates too, out so that the Grand Old Party would be a pristine conservative vehicle. Maybe a Model T.

Goldwater, of course, went down in one of the greatest landslides in the history of presidential elections. Many raw conservatives ended up more or less in the wilderness or underbrush until they felt free to come out into the open again during Ronald Reagan's run for president in 1980.

It seemed to me then that the big story of last Tuesday's cluster of elections was not the Democratic defeats in gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia, but the amazing race in the 23rd Congressional District of New York, a relatively poor area where trees greatly outnumber residents. Most of that area -- congressional district lines have changed over time -- has sent only Republicans to Washington since 1871. On Tuesday, a Democrat named Bill Owens was elected over a moderate Republican and a Conservative Party candidate named Douglas Hoffman.

How could that happen? Well, conservatives were out of the woods again. Local Republican leaders in 11 counties had given the nomination to a state assemblywoman, Dede Scozzafava. National Republican trumpeters, led by radio talk show hosts Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, proclaimed that Scozzafava was too liberal on social issues, particularly abortion and gay marriage. Sarah Palin and money from conservatives all over the country poured in, and Scozzafava was effectively marginalized and quit the race, throwing what support she had to Owens. National party leaders were humiliated, but they quickly joined the push for Hoffman. In the name of party unity, they abandoned their own nominee.

Owens defeated Hoffman in a race close enough that national conservatives probably found encouragement in their drive to marginalize all moderate Republicans. (There are no liberal Republicans of the Rockefeller type to eject anymore. The last ones standing, Lincoln Chafee and Jim Leach, were defeated in 2006.)

The new New Right, I suspect, will be a major factor in the 2010 congressional election. Establishment Republicans are celebrating party victories in Virginia and New Jersey -- good for them -- but it is no longer a joke when folks say Limbaugh is the real leader of their party. The radio conservatives will almost certainly be challenging establishment Republicans across the country. When the new New Right cannot choose the Republican candidate, which is what happened in upstate New York, they are going to use or try to create third parties. That was easy under New York election laws because the state has had a small but real Conservative Party on the ballot since the early 1960s.

Santayana's quote about history is not the only relevant thought about what these off-off-year elections showed. It was Henry Clay who said he'd rather be right than be president. Clay was exaggerating more than a bit, but conservatives are going to demand that Republicans be Right before they can be president -- and history will repeat itself in defeat.

Call Joe Lieberman's Bluff; Have a Real Inquiry

The Nation -- Following the horrific shootings at the Fort Hood army base in Texas, Connecticut Senator Lieberman pulled a thread from the right-wing blogosphere and called for a congressional inquiry into whether the incident was an act of "terrorism."

Not domestic terrorism, but full-blown terrorism that is comparable to what is seen in the most unstable of warzones.

"This was an attack on America troops," Lieberman chirped on Fox New Sunday. "You've got to see it as if 12 American troops were killed in Afghanistan."

But, wait, U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan are fighting a strategically-sophisticated and structurally-coordinated enemy that employs traditional military tactics and terrorist strategies such as suicide bombings in urban areas.

Is Lieberman serious about making a comparison between what happened at Fort Hood and what happens in Kabul?

Not really.

When he's pinned down, Lieberman makes the slightly more precise calim that the Army doctor who killed 13 people and wounded 29 at Fort Hood showed signs of being a "self-radicalized, homegrown terrorist."

Never mind that another way of saying "self-radicalized, homegrown terrorist" might be "completely isolated mental-health case."

Never might that, when he started running the "terrorist" line on Fox New Sunday, host Chris Wallace used a sound line of questioning to make it clear that the senator did not have "any evidence so far (from) what you and your staff have heard in briefings that.. he was exchanging communications either in this country or overseas with other Islamic radicals."

Lieberman says he plans to use his chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security Committee to launch a congressional investigation into the motives behind what he describes as "the worst terrorist attack since 9/11."

In his calmer moments, Lieberman admits that "it's premature to reach conclusions about what motivated [Major Nidal Malik Hasan]" and acknowledges that "the stress he was under" was a factor.

But, of course, the "homegrown terrorist" line was a headline grabber.

And the senator will not let go.

So be it.

Let's call Joe Lieberman's bluff.

Let's have the Homeland Security Committee hearings.

While the Army and the FBI will conduct both criminal invesigations and serious inquiries into why Major Hasan's breakdown was not adequately noted or addressed by his commanders, congressional oversite of the military is always appropriate.

So have the hearings. But make them real.

There's no need to downplay the fact that Major Hasan was a Muslim, or that he appears to have bought into some of the most extreme -- and broadly rejected -- variants on Islam.

There's nothing wrong with asking precise, detailed questions that offer as much explanation and detail as can be accumulated. There is no point in being politically correct -- or in being politically incorrect. Embrace transparency and facts. Bring in experts and ask questions.

Ask all the questions.

What was the bigger factor motivating Major Hasan: stress or religion?

Was Major Hasan a cold, calculating Islamic extremist or a deeply troubled man who was about to be dispatched to a warzone (Afghanistan) on a mission that associates and family members said was his "worst nightmare"?

Was the stress Major Hasan was under the sort that might lead an otherwise responsible individual to get lost in a swirl of religious ranting and fundamentalist fantasy?

Could such stress lead other individuals to embrace fundamentalisms, be they Muslim, Jewish or Christian?

Might it be a good idea to strengthen the wall of separation between church and state in what is supposed to be a secular fighting force?

And don't hestitate to ask questions about Muslims in the military?

Was Major Hasan a typical American Muslim? or an outlier far removed from the mainstream values and practices of a religion that has been practiced in the United States since the founding of the republic?

Was Major Hasan typical in any way of the thousands of Muslims who currently serve in the U.S. military?

Isn't it true that the overwhelming majority of Muslim soldiers serve with distinction and that, overall, Muslim soldiers -- like their Jewish, Buddhist and Hindu comrades -- have historically been seen as less likely to get involved with fights and violence on military bases?

Isn't it true that Muslim soldiers are seen by military commanders as essential players in a diverse Army that does not merely reflect the whole of America but that presents the best face of America in a world where it is vital to assure that this country's military missions are not dismissed as the "crusades" of a western nation that does not understand Islam or Islamic states?

Was Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey right when he warned against actions that could "heighten the backlash" against Muslims in the military and argued that Muslim soldiers provide diversity "gives us ALL strength"?

Was General Casey even more right when he declared after the shootings, and after he had reviewed detailed reports about Major Hasan's background, motivations and actions, that: "As great a tragedy as this was, it would be a shame if our diversity became a casualty as well"?