144 Or Less, Vol. X / 8-13-11

Fourth post in four days.

Saw this plastered on a car's bumper:

I'm an American

and a Christian too!

Line 1 is bold. Driving around Suburb, WA, you gotta brand yourself. Lest anyone think you're neither of those things mentioned.

But line 2 is why the sticker, uh, stuck with me. Who defines themselves in that order? And in the superhypothetical setting of a Judgment Day, is that your plan?

"Hi."

"Hey God."

"S'up?"

"You know, the usual. Dead."

"So, you wanna spend some eternity in heaven?"

"Wait wait, I know this one... here goes... I'm an American."

"Well, in that case."

Looking terribly forward to the next generation:

I'm Caucasian

and alive too!

Or:

I speak English

and I chew my food before swallowing too!

Gosh, I hope I don't know this person.

(Word count: 139)

What This Nation Needs Right Now / 8-13-11

Yes sir, what this nation needs right now is more Rick Perry.

Katy's dad formally announced he's running for President this morning, joining a crowded field of one principled libertarian, one billionaire who's never held office, one serial marriagist, two Mormons (ed. note: unlike most right-wing evangelicals, I have no personal issues with the LDS faith), one wild-eyed homophobe, and lastly, whatever Tim Pawlenty's handlers want him to be this week. Plus maybe Sarah "There Is No I In Quit" Palin. If we're lucky.

Perry's announcement comes with a negative amount of surprise. His entrance was long rumored, and he did so officially Saturday morning. Welcome to the party, Governor.

(Rejected material, on account of it being too easy:

Yes sir, what this nation needs right now is another Texas governor who wears his supposed religion on his sleeve.)

Real material:

Yes sir, what this nation needs right now is a guy who can create jobs. Texas' unemployment rate was a shiny 4.2 percent when Perry took office in 2000. It was still 4.4 in early 2008. Now it's 8.4, and it's been hangin' in the 8's since. Sure sounds like a guy who can transcend macroeconomic trends and can put people to work regardless.

Yes sir, what this nation needs right now is a guy who can lead us out of perilous debt. Like in Texas. With GOP control of every branch of government and the courts, he implemented the kind of fiscally sound ideas that... oh... they're going to fall short by $27 billion in the next two years. Proportionally, that's a larger deficit than California.

Yes sir, what this nation needs right now is a guy who can fix health care. His solution in Texas has been clean and cheap: stop letting people get coverage at all. One in four Texans goes without health insurance, compared to one in six nationally. That's because 550,000 jobs in Texas are minimum wage and come without pesky "benefits" like insurance. In fact, Texas leads the nation, tied with Mississippi, in jobs that pay the minimum or lower, and those kinds of jobs have doubled since 2008.

Yes sir, what this nation needs right now is a guy who can pray.

Well, that can't work any worse that what he's tried so far.

Domestic Terrorism / 8-9-11

When Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Filibuster) says things like this,

"In the future, any president, this one or another one, when they request us to raise the debt ceiling, it will not be clean anymore,"

it's not hard to get at his meaning. The debt ceiling fight is far from over, y'all. Don't expect us to roll over next time. We take the long-term economic health of the country seriously, and we will fight to restrain spending every chance we get.

In a way, I like hearing him say that. Measures have to be taken to combat our mounting debt. The conversation needs to be had on a regular basis, so that we don't keep kicking the proverbial can down the proverbial road for as far as the proverbial eye can see. For sure, I don't believe him for a second when he implies that President Red Meat Republican would face a similar showdown. Yet he makes it sound like future debt increases will run into similar roadblocks as we saw this summer. And this in very plain language.

Now, when McConnell says things like this, in the same interview,

"I think some of our members may have thought the default issue was a hostage you might take a chance at shooting. Most of us didn't think that. What we did learn is this: it's a hostage that's worth ransoming,"

you just have to first admire the man's candor, then shake your head in consternation, then begin to unpack the unsavory things you just read. You have to. It's required.

Unpacking:

"some of our members" = Tea Party wing.

"a hostage you might take a chance at shooting" = if they didn't get their way, they were ready to wreck the economy. Our economy, and by extension, the planet's. Be assured that as the U.S. economy goes, so does the world's. What else could "the hostage" be?

"Most of us" = People who actually make the decisions. (This is comforting. At least the Senate leader understands that the TP can not be trusted with serious adult policymaking.)

"it's a hostage worth ransoming." = We're still very excited, as a party, to continue to use the threat of economic meltdown to get our way. After all, we got most of what we wanted, because the President had the good sense to pay most of our demands. He saw default as an actual calamity. Not a tool to make policy. Given a totally awesome win-win choice between Dollarmageddon and partial capitulation, he chose the latter.

Don't be fooled: an actual default on our obligations would bring about serious calamity. Interest rates would immediately leap. Bankruptcies and foreclosures would skyrocket in number. And the end result would be a downgrade of the country's credit that would actually add trillions of dollars to the deficit by bumping up the amount of interest the government pays on its loans.

The interest, annually, on our debt is between $400 and $430 billion, depending on when and where you check. Yes, that's just the interest. Should the rate rise four percentage points (and here I'm getting my numbers from the Congressional Budget Office), that number would pass $500 billion in 2012 and $1 trillion in 2015.

Replay: interest rates up 4 percent. Government now faces a choice between gutting the military, the safety net, or raising taxes in the midst of the toughest economic times in 70 years.

Well, what if interest rates climb 6 points? Are we then done, as a nation, economically? We wouldn't be able to afford, oh, anything, or pay our debts, and the bottom half of the middle class would cease to exist. Eaten alive by interest. With no significant social programs to fall back on.

Then what?

So, that's the hostage situation McConnell and the rest of the Republicans in Congress are OPENLY admitting they will recreate. Hostage: their word. Not mine. But at least you get to BE the hostage.

Ladies and gentlemen, your 2011 Republican Party.

Kiss My Angry Middle Class / 8-8-11

For a long time now, I've pined for a third party to gain viability in American politics. I momentarily shut off the urge three years ago to enthusiastically support then-candidate Obama's White House run.

I'm feeling the urge again.

President B. Hussein Obama, it appears, has governed like a centrist on a mission. On a mission to find the position squarely between the R's and the D's on, oh, pretty much everything except health care. And even then, the centerpiece of the recently passed health care legislation, the individual mandate, is torn straight from the playbook of the conservative Heritage Foundation. Republicans championed it in 1994 as an alternative to health care reforms proposed by the much-beloved Hillary Clinton.

Well, maybe the President has been sprinting on purpose toward the center since his inauguration. If you're a pathetic swing voter (ed. note: apologies to actual swing voters), it makes for a pretty compelling reason to re-elect him, and he does appear to love building consensus. Allow me to expand on this briefly before we get to my hot sexy political fantasy.

On matters of taxes, the White House has capitulated to not just the Republicans, but the fringiest of right-wingers, the millimeters-from-fascist Tea Party wing, on two very visible occasions (extending the Reckless Bush Tax Cuts and during the recent debt-ceiling negotiations). Tax-policy wise, Obama might as well be a mainstream Republican. Oh yes, he's the last one left, by the looks of it. Someone update the Endangered Species list, stat.

Meanwhile, on social issues, Obama's Supreme Court appointments look solidly liberal. And DADT is mercifully gone, as per his instructions. (This paragraph virtually ensures my vote for him again next fall. I can scarcely imagine the alternative.)

Guantanamo? Still open for business. Warrantless eavesdropping? Continues. Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Pullouts are happening. Aiming for the center again? Bulls-eye, Mr. President.

When it comes to treatment of the middle class, however, the current set-up is discouraging. On one "side": pro-obscenely-wealthy Republicans. On the other, but same, side: pro-regular-wealthy Democrats. Bisecting those two forces: a pro-kinda-wealthy President... ugh. The system needs someone fighting for us, if the three major players on the scene continue to show disinterest.

And by "fighting for us," I mean, to be perfectly clear, making economic policy that benefits the middle class. You know, the 80 percent of the country that keeps America running.

The thing is, people have been trying to launch third parties for quite a while. Ross Perot, in '92, tapped into a similar vein of dissatisfaction with the status quo; he scored 19 percent of the vote even after sabotaging his own campaign. The Green Party's been around long enough to swing some elections the wrong way and to elect local officials here and there. And it's plain to see we're only a couple twists of fate away from the Tea Party throwing a massive hissy fit, packing its bags and slamming the door in the Republicans' stunned faces. Recently, you might have noticed the Coffee Party on facebook. These guys get around, and maybe they're on to something.

Maybe. The Coffee Party is a good start, for sure. But its very name is borrowed from the Tea Loonies. And the Coffee Party's official motto -- "the middle class is too big to fail" -- comes off like a bunch of bitter welfare junkies got jealous one day that certain corporations got bailed out, and now they're wondering where to apply for their own government handout.

What we need in present-day America is a viable political force, a hefty, organized organization dedicated to preserving the economic conditions that led to creating the wealthiest, most powerful nation on earth. We need a good platform, full of nuance and simplicity, that emphasizes cooperation rather than bickering, solutions rather than empty political "victories," and the interest of the many rather than of the very few. Politics should be about preserving liberty, finding answers, and enabling prosperity. (You know, the easy stuff.)

What we also need is a good name for this movement.

The People's Party is dead on arrival. So's the National Party. As is the Social Justice Party. the Constitution Party? Already taken by some delusional crazyheads.

The Liberty Party's a good name. I've used it before, most recently in this post from last September. The name sounds like the Libertarians, but it's different enough to sidestep confusion.

The Solutions Party -- this is easily my new favorite. It's a little intellectual-sounding, sure, and I admit it doesn't immediately evoke grand ideals, but it does evoke the actual fixing of problems. Let's run with this for a while. Freedom-loving intellectuals that we are.

Here's its platform.

1. Problem: Social issues are touchy. Solution: States decide social issues, like pot legalization, abortion, gay marriage, and other less fiery topics, like gun regulation.

Of course, the Supreme Court can strike down unconstitutional or discriminatory laws. But the SP politicians will fight for states' rights. Because social issues are complicated matters on which reasonable people can present conflicting arguments, the way forward is not to scream at or past each other. The answer is to present laws to the people, see what they think of it, pass something appealing, and see what the judges, whose job it is to interpret the Constitution, think of it. And then try again, if need be.

2. Problem: Government programs cost money, and nobody wants to pay. Solution: We must implement a tax code that ensures the poor pay some, the middle class pay more, the rich pay even more, and the richest pay the most.

It's the only way to pay for social programs, which are necessary. Imagine no welfare, no Social Security. That's cruel. The solution to cruelty (which is just another form of uncivilization): Establishing and maintaining a safety net, because real people experience real hardship.

The only way to have a lasting safety net is to pay for it. Taxes are a force for compassion when they are used in this way.

3. Problem: Deficits threaten our long-term economic health. Solution: Pick your moments to open the federal purse strings.

Deficits are to be avoided, but there's a time and a place for large-scale stimulus of the economy, fueled by reasonable amounts of borrowing at reasonable rates. There's also a time to run a surplus. The economy will often dictate when these times are. Severe recessions or depressions call for the government to step in and fill the void. Times of robust growth are a great time to keep the deficit in check, and if not to actually decrease it, to prevent it from growing. Holding the national debt steady is the same as shrinking it, if the country's economy grows as a whole.

Times of pleasant economic expansion are not to be treated as blank checks to create new programs. We have enough entitlements already. If we'll only pay for them.

4. Problem: War sucks. Solution: Be certain of a mission and rectitude before embarking on military action.

War is terribly expensive in lives and in cash better spent at home. Military action should always remain on the table, but should not permanently live at the top of the list of options. Pacifism is out of the question for a country; it's fine for individuals and their consciences, great, but not at all OK as a means of defending the richest and most influential nation on the planet.

Presidents who start unnecessary or unjustified wars should be prosecuted. It's too large of a crime to let go unpunished.

5. Problem: We're not anywhere near energy independent. Solution: Go green now. With a vengeance.

Energy must come from as many green sources as possible, be as homegrown as possible, and all avenues of producing energy must be investigated and researched to their fullest, funded by public and private partnerships. In the meantime, we should drill for oil where we can and farm wind where we can. Pour billions into solar energy research. Ingenuity will find a way, but not without some serious cash behind it.

6. Problem: Unemployment. Solution: Balance in how the government treats businesses.

Corporations are not people. Their rights are not the same as those of citizens, their responsibilities are not the same, and their tax burden is not the same. Taxes on businesses must be kept as low as possible to encourage job creation, while not allowing any industry to collect enough subsidies to eliminate its tax burden entirely.

7. Problem: Middle-class wages are stagnant. Solution: CEO pay must be capped.

The free market exists to enrich the country, not the fortunate few ladies and gentlemen who head Fortune 500 companies. Cap CEO pay at x times the average worker of said company, and more employees will make more money.

This is highly interventionistic. It also makes so very much sense. If you can get past the idea of "It's my business, I can run it any old way I want" mindset FOR THIS NARROW BRANCH OF CAPITALISM ONLY, then checks on extreme wealth make sense. Should this type of regulation seep, little by little, into the marketplace, to pave the way for communism? Yeah no.

8. Problem: Elected officials spend more time fund-raising than legislating. Solution: National campaigns become publicly financed.

This is a pretty straightforward fix. Moving along.

9. Problem: Lack of access to higher education perpetuates a cycle of poverty and ignorance. Solution: Free higher education for everyone.

College should be free, including tuition, room and board, at state-run universities, for all comers. Period. Do what you want if you're Harvard or Central Connecticut College of the Coming Biblically Based Apocalypse (Go Horsemen!), but let's get working on breaking the cycle of poverty that stems from unequal access to higher education. More education = larger, smarter middle class = brighter future for the country.

There could be more planks to the platform. I just cobbled this together in a quarter-assed sort of way, as a harmless hobby, really. But then again, 1. covers a lot of legislative and ideological ground.

My hope is that the Solutions Party, as presented, is not placeable upon the left-right continuum. That's good, I believe. One wing of the political spectrum does not have a monopoly on sensible solutions. Otherwise, why would there even be more than one wing?

Now if only the SP could avoid the fate of all its predecessors so far -- that is, becoming the outhouse of American politics...

Patriot Facts / 6-23-11

My cat is fluffy.

(They teach you how to write compelling lead sentences, called "ledes," at journalism school. I think I slept in that day.)

So fluffy, sometimes we call him "Floofy." And by we, I mean someone in our household made it up as a clever nickname, and it caught on, because cute, and now the cat gets called that nickname more often than his totally awesome given name, a name which someone brilliant in our household pulled out of thin air, but we'll get to that part in due time, within some other hideously constructed run-on sentence.

Fear not. This is not a post about my cat.

So my five-year-old and I walk out the front door the other day, and there's the cat, rolling around in the front yard. The boy walks over to pet the cat on the belly. Those two get along great. It's sweet.

Fear not. This is not a post about my five-year-old.

But the five-year-old DOES say, mid-stroke, "He's so floofy."

Me: "He is. Imagine this, though, Alex -- the other day, I petted a cat that was EVEN softer than Sherlock."

(Which is, again, such a boss name for a cat. Seriously. Props to whoever came up with that. Kudos.)

Alex: *jaw drops open*

Me: "S'true."

Alex: *exaggeratedly pained expression*

Alex: "Dad, why are you being mean to Floofy?"

Suspend all remaining fear. This is a post about patriotism. Because having a discussion about what's wrong with America is too often like trying to explain to a small child that his pet can be outdone in some facet by another pet.

Me: "Well, in Sweden, their infant mortality rate --"

Patriot blinded by jingosim: "Socialists."

Me: "The thing is, our education administrators could take a cue from --"

PBJ: "We're the best."

Me: "Mounting deficits in Greece could wreck that nation's economy --"

PBJ: "Can't happen here."

Me: "Health insurance is guaranteed by the Canadian governm --"

PBJ: "Pussies."

Me: "Heart disease is lower in countries that outlaw chemicals in food and --"

PBJ: "McNuggets kick ass. 20 for $4.99, dude."

Facts. I got 'em. (Pardon the lack of links. Mostly trusting wikipedia here anyway.)

The U.N. lists 33 countries ahead of the U.S. in infant mortality rate. Singapore, Slovenia, Israel, New Caledonia all come out with better results.

Results of worldwide testing in math, reading and science in 2010 reveal U.S. students to be "average" among the 70 nations who participated.

The CIA's factbook for 2011 estimates that 49 countries have a higher life expectancy at birth than the United States. Jordan is one of those 49. Bosnia too.

We spend between 5 and 10 percent each year, as a government, on interest stemming from our national debt. (Just the interest, mind you.) This is in part because our national debt represents about 60 percent of our GDP. You know how much Russia's national debt is, relative to their GDP? Less than 10 percent. Huh. Wonder if that'll ever matter.

I love my country. But can we just admit already that as Americans, we could learn A LOT from how the rest of the world conducts its business? Can we just get over ourselves, face our deficiencies, and actually begin to address them?

Or will countless reports that highlight our warts continue to get swept under the suicidal banner of "No need to worry about that, we're the best"? I faintly hope not.

This Is Me Threading the Needle / 6-22-11

I appreciate you deeply, faithful reader, but please do not assume at any point during this post that you know what I'm about to say. Ahem.

First of all, I find it reprehensible when a victim is blamed for the crime committed against him or her. Remember that.

Now that we understand each other, here are four scenarios in which people make choices that lead directly or indirectly to discomfort. Maybe it'll be more clear where I'm headed in a few paragraphs.

1. If my home is burglarized while I am away, and I locked the doors and windows, it is not my fault that I bought a large TV or an XBox or some nice jewelry. I do not deserve to have nice things stolen from me just because I own nice things.

2. If I forget to renew my car insurance policy, and I hit a telephone pole, and I break a few bones, and the bank takes my house because I can't pay the hospital bill, I don't deserve to be penniless and homeless. I deserved to learn a painful lesson, but I didn't deserve to have my life ruined for combining an minor lapse in judgment with plain old bad luck.

3. At the same time, if I ride a bike naked through Fremont on a sunny summer solstice day, I can't very well complain of an uncomfortable itch the next morning.

4. AND... if I bathe in beef broth then go spend the night sleeping in a hammock between two trees in a forest full of grizzly bears, I can't expect anything less than to be eaten alive.

Now that that's out of the way, what to make of Slutwalk?

Background: In April, a Toronto police officer, addressing a small gathering of law students, seemed to suggest that certain victims of rape may themselves be partially to blame. His words, verbatim: women should "avoid dressing like sluts in order to not be victimized."

That was dumb. Classic blame-the-victim bullsh*t, because nothing a woman does entitles a man to sexually take advantage of her. Nothing. That includes the way she dresses, speaks or flirts. Rape is obviously inexcusable in all cases, and wholly the fault of the perpetrator.

Well, in what can only be described as "predictable," women and women's organizations erupted in fury. The officer was properly reamed, the first Slutwalk came to life, and women in four continents pulled together to march in all kinds of attire, denouncing the idea that rapists were lured into a violent crime by a little cleavage and a tight skirt.

Good for them. (The women, not the rapists.) All's well that ends well... except.

Except.

The officer's comments keep getting interpreted as belonging to the fourth category of statement I began this post with. Yeah, the bears and beef broth one. I don't know the officer, and I don't even care to look up the guy's name. Still, I would like to give him a minuscule portion of Doubt Benefit, and allow him to rephrase, so we can place his improved analysis where it might actually resonate, rather than chafe: squarely in between the second and third categories.

Here's some context to what he said (what?? context?? that has no place in public discourse!!):

"You know, I think we're beating around the bush here. I've been told I'm not supposed to say this -- however, women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized."

How to make this constructive instead of destructive... searching... searching... all right. This isn't perfect, but see what you think:

"Certain men will always find a way to abuse certain women, and it quite often will have nothing to do with the woman's appearance or her choice of wardrobe. Rape is so very often rooted anyway in psychological unrest, not sexual frustration.

"But if you, as a woman, wanted to take one additional step that could cut down, albeit marginally, the likelihood of you suffering a sexual assault, you could always choose to dress more modestly. If you want to avoid the unthinkable, then fastening an extra button on your blouse from time to time seems like another way to stack the odds more in your favor.

"It's not fair to you, because you ought to be allowed to wear what you want, within the confines of the law. And it's anything but foolproof, because these are deranged men we're dealing with here. But I'll tell you what: a modicum of modesty is probably marginally effective. And sometimes, marginally is all you need."

I mean, really. Try and deny that revealing attire makes guys think of sex. (To be fair: staplers, baseball, the letter Q, and white noise all are also perfectly capable of making us think of sex.)

Try and deny that certain unstable men will be pushed over the edge -- and yes, driven to contemplate, then carry out, a sexual assualt -- by so many plunging necklines and miniscule shorts.

You can't do it, can you? Your denial doesn't stretch that far, right?

Solutions to this dilemma are evasive. Burqas? No thank you very much. Fewer clothes? Yeah, right. Status quo? Blech.

No, the only solution is to determinedly steer clear from blaming the victim, to prosecute offenders, and to have enough self-awareness to stop deluding yourself into thinking that wearing a swimsuit in public HELPS men see you as a whole person.

(Far be it from me to give fashion advice to anyone, by the way.)

Unfortunately, such subtleties will be lost on those who advocate for dress, or for those who would ardently defend the dresser's right to be as suggestive as she wishes. Eh. At least this gives our citizens yet another chance to yell past each other.

Control-Alt-Delete / 6-20-11

I'm back. Sans vengeance.

It wasn't vacation. Maybe it was writer's block. Mostly, it was me jumping through some self-publishing hoops as I prepare to launch my puny novel into a largely unwelcoming world, a scoffing, haughty, naughty world that undoubtedly has no time for my "literary" shenanigans.

But now I pledge to reboot the blog, starting tonight, because I have been sent new and shiny bloggacious ideas. One came courtesy of my five-year-old: an insight into blind patriotism. One's from the news: a commentary on something called Slutwalk. And presidential politics are heating back up again. And for all we know, God is still out there, as long as you define "God," "is," "still," "out," and "there" in just the right way.

Anyway, the novel, yeah, it's done. It was submitted to my "publisher," which is just a company I hired to help me turn my story into an actual good-looking, professionally presentable piece of prose on which I can earn royalties. (I promise, the book is NOT full of alliterations. I make it a habit to save the worst humor for this space.)

So the process was vain, the result likely vainer, but now the novella (25,000 words) is in production, and before the summer is through, it'll be for sale. Sometime in August, I'll write a post about it, a preview of sorts; sometime in the fall, I'll update you on my efforts to sell it to people who want to pay me for it. Then, it'll fade into the obscurity for which it was destined. Which is totally fine. Mostly, this was a fun hobby that kept me busy for the past two years. And completion feels good, dadgummit.

But for now, let there be write!

Sorry.

Milton Bradley Lost the Media Game / 5-11-11

Milton Bradley, the baseball player, has his fans.

They're here, here, here, here and here. Just a sampling. (I freely admit the third link is lame. But still fun.)

Anyway. This seems like a lot of fandom calories dedicated to a guy who has the reputation not just for sowing seeds, but planting entire crops of discontent wherever he lands. He played 216 games with the Dodgers, and that was the most he logged with any one team over a 12-year career. Easy to do if you're Jamey Wright. Harder to do when you lead the AL in OPS in 2008.

Well, to offer a slight understatement, Milton hasn't made best friends with everyone at every stop.

"You understand why they haven't won in 100 years here," is how he described the environment in the Chicago Cubs organization. They traded him before he played another game wearing their uniform.

"You wonder what his problem is," one ex-teammate reportedly said.

Mariners manager Eric Wedge is personally aware of MB's uncuddly side.

There's plenty more along those lines. You don't need the whole resume. It's fun/maddening to remember he threw the ball in the stands after two outs against the Twins a couple years ago. Use that googly thing if you want more anecdotes.

Milton inspires a wide range of emotional reactions. It's not so hard, in the game of baseball, to become a villain, a laughingstock, or a feared offensive force. It's not so easy to pull all three off.

I'm not sure that the apparent trichotomy -- if it even exists -- comes from MB being somehow deranged, bipolar, manic depressive, although one of those may well be a real condition of his. Not a shrink here. Let me repeat: I'm not capable of telling if anything ails him, mentally. What I do know is that he treated the media like dogshit year after year after year, and he paid the price.

Milton Bradley spent his career losing the media game. Maybe he cared too much about what people thought of him; maybe he cared too little. Those are equally valid theories. What's not in dispute, though, is that he made it very, very easy for people who covered him to dislike him. The consequence: bad press. Simple cause and effect.

I don't know that individual reporters across the country deserved his disdain. Maybe they did. Speaking as a former sports reporter, journalists are just as capable of being jerks as the next guy. Humans!

Point is, you can treat the media like stinky stinky doo-doo if you're anonymous little me. Works less well if you're a public figure of any kind.

That being said, Milton earned some of the unflattering words printed about him.

Earlier this year, an arrest for what might or might not be domestic violence (no charges were filed) doesn't make him any more endearing or defensible to those who would work to endear him to us or defend him in the court of public opinion.

But digging a little further, why should any of us rely on the impressions of any media member to form a judgment on a player's inner qualities and deficiencies? Why should any of us try to ascertain if a socially distant guy is someone we'd like, or wouldn't? And by socially distant, I don't mean reclusive. I mean, if we can't get to know our sports idols (and very few of us fans get to do so), then why should we act like we do?

Come to think of it, that explains why I can't stomach comments from people who purport to know the guy beyond the player. Get over yourselves.

To conclude with a non-conclusion, our lack of understanding of Milton, the man, is why this blogger's piece from Monday is so spot-on. He admits he bought a view obstructed ticket to Milton Bradley: The Show.

We all did.

Not Exactly Cops and Robbers / 5-2-11

When Osama bin Laden's planes hit those towers, the Pentagon, and the field in Pennsylvania ten autumns ago, he announced himself as Public Enemy Number 1.

He graduated instantly from distant little terrorist nuisance pest dude to The Bad Guy. Deservedly so: He and his followers perpetrated an evil act on 3,000 innocent bystanders. And in the end, whether the mastermind was in fact bin Laden himself or not, that part is of little consequence. Al Qaeda did this to us, one way or another. (Conspiracy theories are fun, but flimsy.)

There is little way to deny that Osama and his minions, in this battle (I hesitate to call it a war), became the bad guys. We were victims of aggression by an evil band of murderers. We watched it happen. We were struck by evil.

But that didn't automatically turn us into the good guys.

We could have seized the moment and been the goodies, as the Brits like to say. Except that 100,000 dead Iraqis -- real, live men, women and children who perished in an subsequent unnecessary war waged under false pretenses at best -- would like to object. If they could.

So when you celebrate the death of a real bad guy, a mass murderer, for sure, see if you can copy me and try desperately to squeeze three competing thoughts in the back of your crowded mind.

One's from a friend of mine who posted this last night on facebook: "Being glad that anyone is dead is still being glad someone is dead."

Then, this gem, pulled from some clever bumper sticker author: "Who Would Jesus Bomb?"

At last, something from yours truly: "My opponent's wrongness is not some sort of redemptive purifying elixir that absolves me from making compassionate choices. Sometimes, a conflict might not have any good guys."

Ladenfreude / 5-2-11

Watched President Obama last night announce the capture and death of Osama bin Laden.

Then read up on what others had to say -- journalists, friends, strangers.

Is there a word for less-than-glad, yet highly relieved, with equal parts excitement and disbelief? There should be. That's what I am, so the word is required.

Less-than-glad is not exactly what these people, or these people, or even these people, are. (And that last one's from stuffy old NPR's facebook page.)

Yet... I just can't bring myself to dance on a grave, because no matter which bones lie in that coffin, the fact remains that if you look down, you find that you're still dancing on a grave.

That having been said, if we're being honest here, and now is as good a time as any to start with a truth-based strategy, I'm actually quite relieved. Not happy, mind you. Just relieved that a mass murderer is no longer free to let his particular brand of hate loose on the world. Quite relieved that bin Laden will never again strike my country. I exhaled all last night.

At the same time, adrenaline kicked in the instant I received the news alert. This bad guy, this mass murderer of people of every ethnicity and religious stripe, he's finished, and it's a f*cking big deal. W called it a "momentous achievement."

To boot, it doesn't feel real. Maybe because Al Qaeda has been on a decentralization kick as of late, at least according to most counter-terrorism experts, including Jack Bauer, so the news doesn't exactly spell the end of organized terrorism anyway.

I kid, I kid with the cheesy "24" reference, but when you spend a day sleeping in, doing yard work, watching baseball, and reading in the sun, your system just might reject serious news that forces it to revisit the last ten ugly years of world history. Did this really just happen?

Still looking for that catch-all word to sum up what I'm feeling. Good luck with that, self.