It Begins Now

Tonight I went to watch election results with some friends, but started to walk back home as we were nearing time for California and the rest of the West Coast to be called. I knew when all was said and done when seemingly in unison, whole apartment buildings started screaming. Fireworks started going off. There was literally singing on the streets. Cab drivers were going up the street honking their horns, pedestrians were cheering each other on. It was a beautiful sight.

Eight years of misrule were repudiated tonight right here in the streets of DC. As I walked the mile or so from Woodley Park to Adams Morgan where I live, the wave of joy continued to overtake me and all those around me. As I neared the busy intersection of 18th and Columbia, I could literally hear a roar of excitement. People were walking down the streets singing the "Signed, Sealed, Delivered, I'm Yours!"

This night is historic on so many fronts that I don't even know where to begin, and don't think I will. President-elect Obama (!!!!) hasn't gone on stage yet, but we've already heard an exceptionally gracious concession speech from Senator McCain, and I truly wish we had heard more of that John McCain during the campaign than we did.

Yet the hard work now lies ahead of us, in spite of the hard work of the past two years. Electing Barack Obama as President of the United States is the first step towards correcting this country's course, not the last. We'll need to fight to hold this president accountable, just like all the others.

But for now, we celebrate. This is our time, and this is our future. If nothing else, we've already seen tremendous progress based solely on the fact that some 100 million Americans are believed to have voted in this election. That's a damn site better than we've had before, and that's a tremendously good sign. Now let's keep up the momentum, and push ourselves to greatness.

I've been repeating this all week, and perhaps it's trite, but hard work like this is how we grant ourselves peace.

This Election Shall be Live Blogged

It's 8am Tuesday and I just got back from voting! I arrived at my polling place at 6:50am, and the line was already wrapped around the block. By 7, when the doors opened, there were probably a hundred or so more people behind me. Of course, all this calls for photos!

Where I started in line.

Where the line ended when the polls opened 10 minutes later (you can't see it!).

Made it around the first corner.

Made it around the second corner. Still a long way to go.

A good sign along the way (that's my neighborhood, y'all).

So close you can smell the democracy.

At the door!

All in all, for a line that absurdly long, the wait wasn't bad at all, and I even had time to come back home for a snack. Once again, if you haven't voted yet, today is your last chance. Go vote, and grant us peace.

Dona Nobis Pacem: Go Vote

Folks, the time is now. Tomorrow morning the polls will open for a truly momentous election. If you're an American citizen, you've registered to vote, and you haven't voted yet (in places where early voting is allowed), we implore you to get out tomorrow. Lines are expected to be long, and the weather may not be entirely cooperative, so dress warmly and dryly and bring a little reading material, or, better yet, chat up your fellow voters. Regardless of how you intend to vote in a given race or on a particular issue, the democratic process brings disparate people together every couple of years and asks for their opinion on the critical issues of the day. Take advantage of this unique form of fellowship to get to know a few new people. Challenge each other's assumptions and celebrate your commonalities.

I, for one, believe strongly that participatory forms of government are essential foundations for peace. This country isn't quite peaceful yet, and hasn't been for centuries, but we're further along than a lot of places. In the past year, we've seen tense elections in places like Bolivia, Paraguay, Kenya, Zimbabwe, Russia and even Canada. In some of those places, people died for their votes. In others, their votes were canceled out by corrupt authorities. In still others, people felt a real sense of liberation after all was said and done.

Tomorrow and later in the week we'll start to analyze how this election impacts issues of peace and social justice around this world. If I can swing it, we'll even get to hear from someone on the ground at the winning candidate's victory celebration.

But for now, your charge is simple: Go to your polling place, stand in line, and cast your ballot. And vote on everything, not just the next president. In my own neighborhood, the race for our representative on the school board could mean a lot for how justice expands through the local population. All these issues matter; that's why they're on the ballot. Go out and vote your conscience, and thereby grant us peace.

--
EDIT: Persons in some corners are expressing concerns about voter suppression. If you experience trouble at the polls (e.g. your registration or ballot are challenged) and you think you need help, call 1-866-OUR-VOTE (1-866-687-8683) and they'll provide assistance, including on-site legal aid, if necessary.

Is that a voting guide in your pants?

Because I'm a dork, I several hours this weekend doing my usual pre-election candidate research. If you haven't done that yourself yet, I recommend you get started.

Looking at the presidential race, my mind was basically made up there, and the wealth of information available through all types of media, as well as questionnaires the candidates have answered and items on their websites reaffirmed my choice. There being no ballot issues in my jurisdiction, and since I live in a colonized city-state, I didn't have that much to do.

I'm not going to tell you every single person I intend to vote for, though I will mention a few. Especially useful resources were the Washington Post (the voter guide moreso than their endorsements), the DC chapter of the League of Women Voters (find your local chapter -- they do great stuff!), and the Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance, which is a local, not national, organization.

After reading that stuff, plus candidate websites (where I could find them), I found myself having to seriously think about two races: the At-Large DC Council race (two seats), and the Ward 1 State Board of Education race (1 seat). Ward 1, where I reside, is not voting for a ward rep to the DC Council this year (stay tuned for 2010). Other local races for shadow senator and shadow representative don't excite me because none of the candidates excite me, the at-large seat on the Board of Education is a one person race, so you either like him or not, and the delegate to the U.S. House is a pretty easy choice when you compare the candidates.

So that at-large race: there are 2 open seats, one of which needs to go to a non-Democrat (under the law that states that 2 of the 4 total at-large seats need to be held by someone of the non-majority party). The Democratic incumbent is Kwame Brown. The official Republican candidate is Patrick Mara. The Republican incumbent, Carol Schwartz, is running a write-in campaign. There are also three independents (Michael Brown, Mark Long, and Dee Hunter), and Statehood Green Party candidate David Schwartzman. Personally, I really like Carol Schwartz, especially after the way she's acted on the issues I raised in my last post (writing the mayor in opposition to proposed changes, grilling Peter Nickles at his confirmation hearing). She's also a fiscal conservative in a city that frankly needs more of that. We certainly don't agree on everything, but she believes in holding government accountable, so she gets my vote (write in her name, and connect the arrow).

That leaves me one other choice. My research leads me to support David Schwartzman, but since he's also a non-Democrat, that vote would basically cancel out my vote for Schwartz. Thus I'll also vote for Kwame Brown, the incumbent Democrat, since a vote for him won't count as a vote against Carol since he's already in the majority party. The other so-called independents are basically job-seeking Democrats, and Micheal Brown seems hell-bent on running for every office open until he gets on. And Patrick Mara just seems shady, especially after having met him. As an aside, why oh why can't we vote for these two seats entirely separately, instead of all lumped together?

The other race then is the State Board of Education seat. This reconstituted Board advises the State Superintendent of Education (not the DC Public Schools Chancellor) on issues related to academic standards and compliance with federal law. The Board and State Superintendent oversee all public education institutions in DC, including DCPS and all charter schools. Here in Ward 1 we have one of the few contested races for a seat on this new Board. Two of the four choices, Pamela M. Johnson and Dotti Love Wade, get incredible props for being concerned parents/community activists, however their grasp of the issues they'll face seems a little weak. That leaves Lillian Perdomo and Shelore Williams, both with long records on education issues and a firm grasp of what they'll be doing and where they want to go. Yet it's Perdomo's record of engaging parents through her grassroots multicultural outreach work and her committment to social justice issues that put her on top for me. Read her bio and see for yourself.

Now, your homework is to Google all of the above, as I'm too tired to look up all those links to individual candidate sites again. I'm happy to help if you get stuck.

Happy voting! Polls in DC are open from 7am to 8pm Tuesday, and you can still vote early tomorrow.

P.S. This week I'm leading the election coverage over on Practical Peaceniks. Be sure to check out my introductory post, and check back there throughout the week. And don't worry, I'll always save my most irreverent bile for this space. :)

Peaceniks Forum: The Election that Changes Everything that Ever Was

Perhaps that's a bit of an overstatement, but that seems to be the way most Americans are acting right now. So let's have a bit of discussion. What matters to you this time around? Why is this election so important? If you're one of our growing contingent of international visitors, what outcomes do you want to see from the U.S. election? Will anything good come of it for you?

Here at Practical Peaceniks, we've already weighed in on how we think McCain or Obama will promote peace in the world (or not). We've also touched on how some of the rhetoric surrounding the campaign has caused people like us who are dedicated to peace and social justice to cringe/want to spit venom. As virtually anyone has noticed by now, the campaign has only gotten more heated, especially as one side pulls ahead while the other seems to be spiraling downward. Is this a positive trend? Further, is a campaign process that has taken nearly two years and cost two billion dollars really good for this country, or any country?

For my own sake, I want to see a government for the people that brings an end to the degradation of civil liberties and demonstrates a renewed emphasis on expanding civil rights to all individuals in the United States (I use that construction intentionally). I want a government of the people that takes to heart the advice of Nobel Laureate, former Secretary of State, and fellow Tennesseean Cordell Hull, who said in 1945, "There is no greater responsibility resting upon peoples and governments everywhere than to make sure that enduring peace will this time -- at long last -- be established and maintained." Finally, I want to see a government by the people, that does not engage in unjust wars (with victims at home and abroad) and refuses to compromise our core values by torturing and illegally detaining individuals suspected of acting against us.

This election is important to me because I feel strongly that the country has been on a downward spiral. It's not just a matter of U.S. standing or influence in the world -- I don't really care about that. It's that within our own borders, we are a society that has lost the ability to value anything other than ourselves and our material wants. Too many Americans lack healthcare. Our schools need support, investment, and love. Our economy needs to be reconstructed so that injustices meted out by the privileged few don't get perpetuated when those same privileged few get bailed out while their victims get nothing. And looking abroad, this is a nation of remarkable power, and we should truly scrutinize whether we are using that power -- hard, soft, or whatever you want to call it -- in a responsible, compassionate way that still somehow manages to further our interests and keep us safe.

As for the electoral process, I tend to agree that it was wrong for Obama to break his promise to accept public financing in the general election. However, in so doing, he may well have uncovered a new approach to public financing. Having over 3 million donors and an average donation of just $85 may indicate that public interest in financing campaigns is growing, and we just need to rethink how the current public finance process works. The time this whole soiree has taken, though, is ludicrous. I've frankly stopped paying attention to the news for much of the past month simply because I was tired of it all. When the campaign process drags on for so long, we lose sight of issues and instead start deconstructing every syllable that comes out of someone's mouth. The 24-hour news cycle only exacerbates this problem. And only having two major candidates hurts too, I think. Maybe the Barr, McKinney and Nader campaigns have something to offer the country. If they do, we certainly haven't had a chance to hear about it. If they don't, we haven't even heard that either.

Consider this the opening salvo (definitely not a peaceful term) of your Practical Peaceniks election coverage this week. As always, we welcome your thoughts, and encourage you to join the conversation.

My hat goes off to these guys

I just stumbled upon Rednecks for Obama, a group founded by a couple of older gentlemen down in Missouri. All I can say is, good work.

Sometimes we (self included) kid ourselves by thinking of the predominantly white inhabitants of the rural South as being backward, gun-toting, God-fearing, died in the blood Republicans. Here is excellent evidence that they're neither backward nor Republicans (though certainly the middle two probably still apply). So for those of you who have a picture of some Southern monolithic populus in your head, think again.

Check out their guestbook to see the thoughts of folks from around the country. It's inspiring, really.

And gentlemen, should you feel the need to pass through Soddy-Daisy, Tennessee, I'm sure I can dig up some relatives to fix you somethin' good to eat.

With that, I think I'll order a t-shirt. After all, I've gotta head to TN myself soon.

Hat tip: Princess Sparkle Pony

Bring it on, Palin

Look folks, Sarah Palin got interviewed by Katie Couric for the 47,000th time, and she of course lost, again. [How one continues to "lose" at interviews should illustrate the Governor's particular level of skill.] Yet this time she got personal, with some ridiculous blather about her lesbian friend's poor life choice about... you guessed it... being a homo! I dare not repost the actual text, as I don't want to sully my blog (read the last three paragraphs of the link above), but I do want to offer a few general comments, as is my wont:

1. This whole "it's a choice" rhetoric is only a loosely veiled method of classifying queer people as second class (or worse) citizens, as in "I shor do feel for those dumb homos who can't live their lives right, like responsible (read: godly) people."
2. If, then, denigrating language is displayed on national television by a (like it or not) important public official, it's only encouraging more people to think that way, and to believe that such dehumanizing thinking is acceptable. This leads to hateful thinking, and hateful acts, all justified by some bizarre conception of the divine, as sanctified by the good governor.
   
3. I can handle the fact that Palin can't tell Paris, Tennessee from Paris, France., because I'm certainly not going to vote for her anyway. But don't start dishing out ignorant, mean-spirited, hateful crap on TV. She should limit her ignorance to countries and concepts, and leave basic human rights out of it.
4. I hope her "good lesbian friend" becomes her less good lesbian friend.
5. Finally, to all my fellow homos who are still steamed that Hillary lost and are thinking of voting for McCain because your diva lost, and he picked another one (who is a horrific replacement, mind you), I hope this kind of crap causes you to finally come to your meth-addled senses.

Clearly, this week's news is bad for my blood pressure. Good thing I'm now just avoiding the economy, or I would've blown a gasket.

Hat tip: Princess Sparkle Pony.

EDIT: My former prof Dan Chong has another fun take on this.

As the world falls down and goes boom

This article in today's Post poses the question of whether or not Americans today (particularly the young folk) are apathetic, or just making use of new tactics to express discontent with the seemingly perpetually declining state of our Union. There are a few hypothoses here:

1. Americans protested like all hell in the 1960s because the sick combination of a military draft for a pointless war and blatant, sickening racial discrimination brought things to a boiling point. Draft them, and they will protest.
   
2. Anti-establishment rhetoric has been mainstreamed, and thus no longer motivates people.
3. Burning down several cities in 1968 seemed only to usher in roughly 40 years or so of rule by people who almost wholly disagreed with those who carried torches, making violent protest seem pointless.
4. Americans are increasingly politically active, it's just harder to get a real grip on the level of online and other, less traditional forms of expressing discontent.
   

Oddly, the first theory was raised in a conversation I had last week, and while there is merit to it, I think that given the unlikelihood of a draft coming anytime soon, we can't expect that motivator. The other three points seem basically true, but note that I added the word "violent" under proposition 3. No, violent protest didn't work. In fact, I (and others) would go so far as to posit that it was the turn to violence that killed the mass appeal of "bring 'em onto the streets" organizing.

Thus I have a few questions for viewers like you:

• Is all this online/door-to-door activism a good representation of using different forms of non-violent strategy? If so, are organizers intentionally trying to act non-violently, or are they merely using convenient tools that happen to not be violent?
• The year 1968 gets bounced around a lot for obvious reasons, but is it the wrong example? Isn't, say, 1963 a much better year to demonstrate non-violent protest?
• Given the two questions above, if we are not seeing people try to intentionally be non-violent, and we are simultaneously holding up the wrong example of what protest looks like, how do we (the peace movement, educators, whatever you think you are) build cognizance around non-violent ways to challenge our exceptionally trying times?

Looks like this turned out more intellectual than I originally anticipated, but I welcome your feedback.

Sometimes political blogging is hard

Especially when all the good stuff is said by other people. As the Sarah Palin drama has unfolded in all its "the Clampetts go to Jerry Springer" glory, you will note that a mere whiff of a notion of a possible bit of a critique of Governor Palin's record is immediately refuted by "that's sexist" from people (read: fat old rich white guys) who couldn't even find sexism in the dictionary before last Friday. Rather than say more on this hypocrisy, I'm simply going to defer to Jon Stewart.

Things campaign advisors shouldn't say

It's been a big week in politics, what with the Obama soiree and all (btw, I think he said everything he needed to say, and that the Biden addition makes for a really strong ticket). Then, yesterday, as expected, John McCain announced his running mate, who was not as expected.

This prompted the following quote from a McCain aide, which made it into the NYT article above:

“She’s going to learn national security at the foot of the master for the next four years, and most doctors think that he’ll be around at least that long.”

If that kind of idiocy doesn't get you fired these days, I don't know what will.

Peaceniks Forum: How will an Obama/Biden Administration Promote Peace in the World?

Note: This is the first of a two-part series centered around the major political party conventions taking place in the United States. This week the Democrats are up. Next week we'll pose the same question for the McCain ticket. We also are aware that we generally lean to the left here, but hope to give fair treatment to both campaigns.

With the Democratic Convention well underway, and Saturday's selection of Joe Biden as Barack Obama's running mate, we here at Practical Peaceniks thought it would be worthwhile to take a look at how an Obama/Biden administration will promote peace in the world. However, rather that just give you our opinion, we thought we would open the floor to our (growing number of) readers. Please feel free to have your say in the comments, and a few of our contributors might pitch in with more in-depth thoughts as the week progresses.

A few general comments to start us off:

Obama's foreign policy could probably best be summed up as pragmatic global engagement. As others have noted, the selection of Joe Biden for vice president reinforces that theme. This is a foreign policy that doesn't seem to fit neatly within traditional international relations constructs. Rather, the presidential responsibility to keep America safe is seen as one and the same with actively partnering with the rest of the world politically, economically, and socially. Ideological maxims are largely cast off in favor of doing what works, and Obama's foreign policy team reflects those aims. Also of note is that Obama doesn't buy into the old mantra that in order for Democrats to convince people they aren't weak in national security, they have to espouse an especially tough foreign policy. This is a refreshing turn of events worth noting.

Now, what are your thoughts?

Minor crow eating

So remember last week how I got all uppity about the ridiculousness of planning the presidential transition while the campaign was still ongoing?

Apparently I underestimated the Obama monolith.

[Hat Tip: Passport]

Is the world really that scary?

The NYT ran a curious op-ed this morning by Jamie Gorelick and Slade Gorton, formerly of the 9/11 Commission, calling for a complete rethink/reallignment of the current presidential transition process (to the extent that any real process exists). While the idea of having presidential nominees line up people for key national security posts before they've won the election, and having those people be given access to lots of sensitive information well before November sounds nice at first blush, I wonder if the proposal is worthwhile or even plausible.

Candidates at this juncture are rightly concerned with campaigning. To be able to name their future cabinets in the summer before the election, they would have to expend incredible resources and take time off the trail, when they should be meeting with the American people writ-large, and not a few bright national security and foreign policy luminaries. Both McCain and Obama had difficult primary campaigns to endure, and it just doesn't strike me as realistic that they could name a whole slate of people for cabinet posts when it takes a few months just to identify a running mate. This is not to say that presidential candidates shouldn't think about who their final teams should be -- indeed, their campaigns likely reflect the inner circle that will follow into an administration -- but the timing may not be right. Further, is it a good idea to name the cabinet early on, and thus create bad blood among those who might be useful for the campaign?

The other major question I have about the proposal is whether or not it's smart to be doling out sensitive information to two potential National Security Councils before the election takes place. While I'm no fan of the Bush administration's secretive policies, at the same time there is some intelligence information out there that is rightly distributed to a limited audience. It seems to me that the dangers of leaks and all the rest grows higher if you put highly politicized people (campaigning campaign advisors/cabinet members to be) into that fray.

I do agree, though, that key posts need to be filled early on, and that the Senate should confirm as many nominees as possible on January 20. Yet doesn't this usually happen? Have we ever really gone weeks without a Secretary of State or Defense in recent memory?

The proposal has good ideas, I guess, but is maybe a little too far removed from reality to be useful.

A discussion you should follow

FP's Passport and UN Dispatch (see sidebar) have teamed up to run a special blogging series, aka Peacekeeping Salon, featuring thoughts on the state of United Nations peacekeeping operations and imperatives for the next U.S. administration. The conversation is just starting, but it's worth a read. Click here to visit, and be sure to glance at the background paper here (pdf).

EDIT: If you need some convincing as to why the U.S. should be fully engaged in and supportive of UN peace operations, read this.

Tyrranical, monarchical rabbit announces presidential candidacy

Since I still can't decide who to vote for in the primaries, I've decided to just vote for my bunny, Buster. He immediately agreed to run, and his official campaign announcement is below.

O! Buster '08... The best there is!

You should vote for Buster. Why? Because Buster said to. Buster has a brilliant plan for Amerka. And what about experience? Buster already knows how to run a country, since he's currently the King of the Dutch Bunnies (conveniently/accidentally born in North Carolina for electoral purposes). That means Buster is a candidate you can trust.

So what does Buster stand for?

The EconomyBuster's economic stimulus package consists of having you ship him lots of cardboard to chew on. Think about all the cool stuff you can order online as a service to your country! And Buster "recycles" everything his little body consumes! Al Gore can't even claim that!

HealthcareWe've all had those embarrassing moments when our bodies do unbecoming things, sometimes disturbing those around us. Buster is here to help. According to a fortune cookie he ate tonight, a carrot a day will keep cancer away! By the end of his lifetime term of office, everyone in Amerka will have the healthcare they need.

National SecurityBuster's sheer intestinal fortitude will keep Amerka saferer. No terrorists. No extremists. No communists (are we even still afraid of them?). And no non-exploitable foreign immigrants.

Foreign PolicyBuster will travel the world to restore Amerka's once glowing international reputation. How else would he be able to satisfy his incredibly sophisticated pallet? And all you developing nations out there needn't worry. Buster eats a lot. A state visit will create jobs!

LeadershipUnlike some people who (have) occupy(ied) the White House, Buster knows what to do with a newspaper. That's the sign of a smart guy who's fit to run a country.

But after 8 years of government by idiots, can we really trust him?Of course. Buster's obligatory goofy campaign outfit is way more goofy than anything those other losers have tried on. And besides, you need to prove to your neighbors that you're not speciesist.

O! Buster '08. He'll make everything better!

(This message has been approved by HRH Buster Terry-Edelman, PhD^7, Esq.)

A completely speculative list of global things that may or may not occur in 2008

Method? Who needs it! In spite of my absurdly sporadic posting of late, I'm still alive and even still reading the news. And since it's now a new year, I've decided to motivate myself by making off the wall predictions about what I think will or will not happen in 2008. Bear with me, especially since these are in no particular order.

• The topsy-turvy politico-military balance in Pakistan will likely get topsy-turvier before it gets better. Some people, however, have at least agreed that Benazir Bhutto's son is "cute."
  
• In spite of the establishment of UNAMID today, nothing much will change in Darfur, because the P5 are hypocrites.
• Olympics in Beijing! How many aspiring athletes will choke on smog? My guess is at least 10. Nonetheless, you will see a gold medal worthy PR operation all damn year.
  
• The United States may or may not recognize Somaliland. I hope they do. No point in continuing to punish those that can actually govern a piece of land because those that cannot would be cranky.
• Also in the United States, "U.S. Americans" will make excellent use of our maps and elect one of 16-odd people as president. This person, regardless of party, will most likely be an idiot, but slightly less so than the current incumbent.
  
• Hugo Chavez will engage in dirty tricks to hold onto power. This may or may not backfire.
• Things will get messy in Nigeria should a review panel determine that Yar'Adua's election to the presidency was illegitimate. Then again, the review panel may suddenly end up with fancy cars and houses just before they make their ruling, which might change their minds.
  
• Dirty politics is also likely in South Africa, as Zuma and Mbeki try to sway the ANC.
• Finally, will there ever be durable peace eastern Congo? Probably not this year.

I'm fairly certain I've missed a bunch of things here. Feel free to add to the list in the comments. I'll probably track these events as the year progresses, and if I'm lucky, will actually remember to write about them.

Paix.

No Tennesseans for president, please

What's that you say? A Tennessean advocating that people not vote for someone from Tennessee? Let me put this in perspective, by sharing with you some brief stories about the three gentleman Tennessee has already sent to the White House.

1. Andrew Jackson (Seventh President, 1829-1837). Jackson greatly promoted the idea of giving friends government jobs. He also opposed having a central bank, and then ordered the removal of Native Americans from their land and sent them to Oklahoma instead. In memory of this greatness, his visage is on your $20 bill. After all, who needs a monetary policy, and wasn't this country claimed for god or England or something back in 1607?
   
2. James K. Polk (Eleventh President, 1845-1849). Polk was an imperialist dude, who annexed Texas, bought what is now the Pacific Northwest, and scammed Mexico into giving up all but a tiny bit of what is now Arizona after a brief and effective, yet totally unnecessary war of aggression aimed at increasing America's resource wealth. That probably all sounds familiar, except for the "winning" part. But again, he gave us Texas, the state that killed Kennedy and sent us a few too many Bushes. At least Polk started and ended his war within one term, and then retired, having had his fun. He promptly died.
   
3. Andrew Johnson (Seventeenth President, 1865-1869). Johnson replaced Lincoln, and proceeded to piss off virtually everyone he came in contact with. He also opposed civil rights legislation on more than one occasion. His own cabinet hated him, so Congress forbid him from firing anyone. In a gesture of conciliation, he of course fired the Secretary of War. Congress then impeached his ass on 11 counts, but he was acquitted by one vote. Having managed to somehow not be a member of any political party, nobody nominated him for re-election, so he decided to piss off President-elect Ulysses S. Grant by unilaterally and unconditionally giving amnesty all remaining Confederate soldiers and civilian officials that had failed to swear allegiance to the United States.

Now why do you need this history lesson? Because people keep talking about Al Gore and Fred Thompson running for president. Both of them are from Tennessee. In an even greater irony, Thompson was elected to fill the Senate vacancy created by Al Gore after he became vice-president.

What would a Tennessean do if elected? Why, he would steal your land, kill your relatives, invade a country for no real reason (though he might do that well), piss everybody off, and then screw the country for a century or two. Think of it like you're given a choice between electing one Bush or another, and then think about how much worse the country would be as a result.

There's a reason no one from my state has run the country in over 100 years. Just think about that.

I thought she retired

Allow me to just go ahead and jump into the chorus of people laughing at Cindy Sheehan's announcement that she'll (maybe) challenge Nancy Pelosi for her seat in Congress in 2008.

Now let me take a moment to prove my bona fides here. I'm just about as anti-Iraq War as they get, and I'll gladly point out the various reasons why that effort was and is both illegal and unethical. I'm not yet a pacifist, but a Quaker education and a degree in peace have pushed me markedly in that direction. Nevertheless, I have a long-standing (though rarely mentioned) beef with Cindy Sheehan (not that I've ever met her).

Plenty of people have gone on about how she's unqualified for this and that, how she takes overly simplistic positions on incredibly complex subjects, etc. I'll leave those arguments to their merits (or lack thereof).

My thing is this. Cindy Sheehan is far too possessive of the "parent of an Iraq War service personnel killed in action" mantel. I hear her story about her son's service and her grief at his loss and it is truly heartbreaking, and certainly one I empathize with. However, through her things like setting up Camp Casey and naming every soldier and marine that's fallen and claiming that they died in vain, she's disrespecting the memories of those individuals. I won't tell her how she should remember her son or what she should feel about his loss. But she shouldn't go around telling the other parents/loved ones to be enraged. Some parents/spouses/children of deceased Iraq veterans believe that their family's victim in the war died honorably, in an honorable cause. No matter how much Cindy Sheehan, or anyone else, feels about the war and its consequences, absolutely no one has the right to challenge people in their grieving. Sheehan should have respected the wishes of those families who did not want their loved one's names displayed at Camp Casey (and elsewhere) and who did not want to be connected with the message she was conveying. She simply cannot rightly claim ownership over and complete understanding of every single U.S. military death in Iraq or Afghanistan, and her claim to speak for all war-dead parents is totally unfounded. It's painfully disrespectful and frankly rude.

Now my faith in any elected representative is virtually nil, and my trust of them is even less existent. This definitely means I don't really like any of them. Nonetheless, I truly wish Speaker Pelosi the best in a potential campaign against Cindy Sheehan. Besides, I thought Sheehan was supposed to have bowed out of public life by now.

Why losing Vilsack's candidacy is bad for America

I have no particular loyalty to Tom Vilsack, the former Iowa governor who Friday dropped out of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination. I had heard his name tossed around in 2004 as a potential running mate for John Kerry, and that's about all I knew of him. But as we know, the 2008 race is already shaping up to be the most expensive campaign in history. This reality killed the Vilsack campaign. It simply couldn't gain a foothold in a crowded field that includes several heavy hitters.

Admittedly, a lot of total loonies run for office at all levels each year. There's always some yokel from the middle of nowhere who gets his name added to the presidential ballot in some state, just because he got a lot of people to sign a petition. But Vilsack was at least someone who could claim to have bona fide political and administrative experience to offer. Again, I don't know much about his positions on this or that, but I would've liked the chance to learn. And it shouldn't cost him or me hundreds of millions of dollars to hear it.

What's most disturbing though is this quote from Vilsack's bowing out speech:

“I came up against something for the first time in my life that hard work and effort couldn’t overcome. I just couldn’t work harder, couldn’t give it enough.”

Should money really be the factor that determines a person's viability as a candidate, especially for the presidency? Of course not. Hard work and effort should matter, not cash on hand. Furthermore, the media should be better about giving equal attention to candidates, rather than brushing some off as unelectable before they can even get going, but that's a whole different issue.

Relatively smart person agrees with me!

David Broder, who is actually a fairly respected columnist, has endorsed my position that presidential campaigning is now a far too long and drawn out process. He even offers some decent suggestions to fix this problem, which may even be better than my own suggestion for us all to go live in caves for the next 18 months.

So there you have it folks, this little-read blog is inspiring greatness!