9/11

The Berlin Wall fell a few months after I was born. The Soviet Union collapsed when I was still a toddler.

Growing up in the '90s, you had an overwhelming sense that history had ended. Not completely, of course. There were lots of little wars, in little countries no one cared about. Jim Lehrer kept on talking about Bosnia for some reason. And something called the Internet happened at some point.

But face it: life was good. The cosmic struggle over the fate of the world had ended. On September 11, 1990, as the first Gulf War loomed, the first President Bush famously set the tone for the next decade:

Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective -- a new world order -- can emerge: a new era -- freer from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice, and more secure in the quest for peace. An era in which the nations of the world, East and West, North and South, can prosper and live in harmony.

In a matter of months, the United States brought one of the largest military forces in the world to its knees. And a decade later, it really did seem like a new world. America ruled, computers were everywhere, and the Furby promised to delight children of all ages with its ability to mimic human speech.

As my family and friends rang in the start of a new millennium, I didn't know what the future would hold. But as I stood in the warmth of the Hawaiian winter, I knew my world would be better and safer than the world my parents and grandparents had grown up in.

On the night of September 10th, 2001, there was a scheduled power outage in our neighborhood. My family decided to turn the event into a kind of family bonding experience. We were all going to sleep together in the living room. Like a sleepover, but without the friends, or fun. Or electricity.

When I woke up the next morning, the power was back on. Almost everyone had made their way back to their own rooms. I drowsily rolled off my sofa bed and wandered into the hallway. I could hear the TV on in my parents' room.

I walked in, and saw a skyscraper in New York collapsing. Another was on fire.

I hadn't seen enough movies to immediately recognize the Twin Towers, but I knew a lot of Americans were dying, and things were about to change.

History was starting again.

It felt like we were stuck in front of the television for days, waiting for things to make sense. When President Bush gave his address to the nation, I felt more proud of my country that I ever had before, and probably ever will.

(A lot of people wonder how Bush managed to sneak into a second term. I think it's because 62 million people didn't forget that speech.)

Like most Americans, I felt everything that day. Terror. Sadness. Anger. But that night, I wrote a typically matter-of-fact entry in my journal:

September 11, 2001, a date that shall live in infamy. Today, terrorists completely destroyed the world trade center twin towers, and damaged the pentagon. They did so by highjacking 4 airliners, and crashing into their targets. One plane crashed in a field and did no damage. The death toll is not yet confirmed.

A month later, I wrote a follow up, with the appropriate heading "America Strikes Back:"

Shortly after the attacks on the WTC it was confirmed that the hijackers were members of Al-Qaeda, a terrorist organization headed by Osama Bin Laden. This organization has been credited with the bombing of the USS Cole. The organization, which is based in Afghanistan, has been tolerated and supported by Afghanistan's Taliban regime. In a speech, president George W. Bush called the terrorist attacks "an act of war" and condemned the Taliban regime.

On Sunday, October 7, 2001, the U.S began launching air strikes on Afghanistan.

Today, America is drowning in debt, and divided. We're still fighting in Afghanistan. The President tells us that we're done fighting in Iraq -- but the 50,000 troops that remain tell a different story. We have no leaders. Liberals are stabbing each other in the back, while conservatives fawn over a self-proclaimed rodeo clown and an unemployed hockey mom.

When the masses celebrated the start of the new millennium on January 1, 2000, smart people scoffed. They knew that the 21st century wouldn't really start until 2001.

They were right.

Get On The Joe Train!

American rail transit hasn't been doing so well for the past four decades or so. Despite heavy federal subsidies, ridership on Amtrak is still pathetically low by international standards. Some cynics have even questioned the merit of keeping the ailing passenger rail network on life support.

Fortunately, Amtrak has a friend in high places. Since the day he landed in office, Vice President and Chief Train Enthusiast Joe Biden has become the official champion of Amtrak. And a few days ago, in the digital pages of the Huffington Post, Biden delivered a fresh argument in favor of keeping Amtrak around for future generations to enjoy (and pay for):

When I took the train every night--and I still do whenever possible--I always noticed the lights on in the houses flickering in the passing neighborhoods, dotting the landscape speeding by my window. Moms and dads were at their kitchen table, talking after they put their kids to bed. Like Americans everywhere, they were asking questions as profound as they are ordinary: Should Mom move in with us now that Dad is gone? How are we going to pay the heating bills? Did you hear the company may be cutting our health care? Now that we owe more on the house than it's worth, how are we going to send the kids to college? How are we going be able to retire?

I would look out the window and hear their questions, feel their pain. And every time I made that trip, it would inspire me to get up the next day, head back down to Washington, and give them the answers they're looking for. Those moments looking out the window and seeing the lights on, they told me things that the briefing folders in front of me never could.

Residents of the Wilmington-DC corridor must sleep soundly at night with the knowledge that Joe Biden is gazing lovingly into their windows, feeling their pain. If only more Americans would ditch their four-wheeled monstrosities and choose rail transit. Trains alone have the power to inspire the children of today to become the Joe Bidens of tomorrow.

Of course, there is a semi-serious argument embedded in Biden's nostalgic trip down the tracks. Namely, that rail transit is "a powerful and indispensable way to carry us all into a leaner, cleaner, greener 21st century." To prove his point, Biden notes the importance of rail transit in a densely populated stretch of the East Coast:

Consider that if you shut down Amtrak's Northeast Corridor, it is estimated that to compensate for the loss, you'd have to add seven new lanes of highway to Interstate 95. When you consider that it costs an average of $30 million for one linear mile of one lane of highway, you see what a sound investment rail travel is. And that's before you factor in the environmental benefits of keeping millions and millions of cars off the road.

While this is certainly true, it's also true that the majority of Amtrak passengers are concentrated along the Northeast Corridor. In almost every other part of the country, rail travel simply isn't a part of everyday life. Americans love their cars, regardless of whether they're going five blocks down the street or across the country on an epic journey to find themselves. There's a reason why you don't see a whole lot of teen train-trip movies.

On paper, rail transit has benefits. But that doesn't mean squat unless people actually use it. Fortunately, with a spokesman like Joe Biden, it's only a matter of time before good Americans realize the error of their ways and embrace the true power of the train.

Open Letters To Random Public Figures At The Dawn Of A New Year, 2009 Edition.

Dear Barack Obama,

Millions of starry-eyed Americans voted for you in '08. Some of them were impressed with your fancy talk. Others liked the fact that you weren't George W. Bush. But mainly they just thought you would grow a beard in office.

Alas, a year has gone by, and your countenance is as hairless as one of those hideous dogs you sometimes see in books on freakish animals. If you really want to honor the legacy of Abraham Lincoln, put your face where your mouth is.

There's still time. Time to put facial hair back on the presidential map. Time to inspire a new generation to aspire to bearded greatness. It's all within your grasp.

Just do it.

Dear Tiger Woods,

You are probably still an excellent golfer. I can respect that. In fact, there are many things about you we can all respect. Like your ability to golf! But I already mentioned that. Also, you have lots of money. Many people would enjoy having as much money as you have. You could buy the best Lego set ever! Twice!

So, cheer up. Things can always be worse than they are. You are not dead or homeless, which is more than I can say about any number of dead or homeless people. And when was the last time a bear attacked you? A bear attack is the ultimate bad thing that can happen to someone -- and it hasn't even happened to you.

People are like ugly goldfish. With time, they'll forget all of your personal transgressions. Just ask that one guy.

Dear Sarah Palin,

Please, no. No.

NO.

Dear Glenn Beck,

I remember the good times. You were like the hilarious uncle that everyone wanted to hug with their laughter. Then, Obama came, and something changed. Now you're more like the scary uncle who frightens the children with racist conspiracy theories.

We want the old Glenn back.

You can start by simply calming down. If Obama is destroying America, why is food still so delicious? It just doesn't add up. Embrace life, and weep no more.

Dear Pixar,

You are awesome. But in these times of austerity and sacrifice, don't you think it's time to share the awesome?

Think about it: if you merely donated 5% of your awesome to lesser movie studios, you could raise Hollywood's total awesome quotient (TAQ) by 500%.

This is actual math.

Dear Jim Lehrer,

It's the beginning of a new decade. And you remain on TV. That's something to think about.

Fifty years ago, no one would have imagined that a Muppet could become one of the longest-running news anchors in America. But despite your stiff, mechanical movements, and crudely designed, white-less eyes, you've managed to outlast your human competition.

It's true that no one under, over, or at the age of 20 watches you anymore. But compared to the rest of the Muppets, you've done very well for yourself. The direct-to-video movies? That Christmas Special? Those terrible commercials? The short-lived association with Long John Silver's? Oy.

So, thank you. Thank you for showing the children of America that you don't need a beating heart to touch the heart of a nation.

Why Do Bad Politicians Happen To Good Countries?

Quitters never win, and winners never quit.

Unless you're Sarah Palin. Then you can quit, whine about how mean the media elites are, and get a big hug from millions of conservatives pining for a charismatic leader.

Naysayers who thought Palin was finished after her disastrous vice-presidential run and subsequent resignation can think again. Everyone's favorite hockey mom is back with a vengeance, and she's got a best-selling book, crowds of adoring fans, and heaps of of 2012 presidential buzz to prove it.

That's good news for Palin's bank account -- and bad news for the country.

The excitement over Sarah Palin has little to do with her accomplishments, her policies, or her ability to lead. Like Obama before her, Palin is a vessel for the discontent of millions of Americans. This time, it just happens to be conservative discontent. It doesn't matter what she says, does, or writes. Some conservatives will always see a political savior when they look at Sarah Palin.

But the question begs to be asked: has there ever been a political idol less worthy of worship?

The frenzy over Barack Obama was absurd. Presidential rumblings began the moment he started his first term in the Senate. Nothing in his paper-thin list of accomplishments suggested he would be a transformational figure.

But at the very least, Obama was bright, clean, and articulate.

He went to Harvard.
He sounded smart.
He reached out to the other side.

Palin, on the other hand, manages to combine Obama's lack of experience with the eloquence of Dubbya and the depth of Dan Quayle. Her policy positions consist of conservative buzzwords wrapped in layers of winks and you betchas. True, it's no secret that conservatives are suckers for folksy politicians. And there's nothing wrong with that -- as long as there's some substance beneath the folksiness.

On an even more disturbing note, Palin represents a brand of identity politics that flies in the face of everything conservatism stands for. The fact that Palin is a woman is used as a sledgehammer against her critics; every attack is automatically branded as sexism. The same people who've railed against affirmative action for decades have suddenly discovered that being a woman is the only qualification anyone needs to be a national political leader.

This is a critical moment for the conservative movement. There's an incredible amount of anger and disappointment surging up against Obama and his policies. Conservative leaders can either try to channel this energy into a positive force for substantial change, or become buzzword-chanting demagogues, fueling the worst instincts of the conservative base and alienating everyone else. Sarah Palin – who won't even draw the line at giving a nod to the “birther” movement – has chosen the latter path.

There's no question that the Republican Party needs leadership. But Palin has nothing to bring to the table. She can draw crowds -- but those crowds are made up of people who are already in the tank for the GOP.

Every minute Palin stays in the spotlight is a PR disaster for conservatism. She may have bailed out on Alaska, but Palin can still perform one more act of public service: retiring to private life.

That's a change even I could believe in.

Maine Comes Out Of The Closet.

When California voters passed Proposition 8, it was a stunning victory for supporters of traditional marriage.

California is a blue state. And although California is home to a strong conservative minority, Proposition 8 even managed to pass in notoriously liberal Los Angeles county. Increased minority turnout -- usually considered a boon for liberals -- pushed the proposition over the top.

To cope with the loss, the gay-rights movement invented a convenient fiction: it was all those darn Mormons! Yes, the insidious Mormon church, with its infinite supply of money, had hoodwinked the good people of California. Because we all know that Mormon coercion is the only possible reason for opposing something as awesome as gay marriage.

In retrospect, there was nothing surprising about the victory. Every time the issue of gay marriage has been brought to a direct vote, Americans across the country have soundly rejected it.

And last Tuesday, Maine joined the ranks of states that have defeated gay marriage at the ballot box.

Earlier this year, members of the Maine State Legislature legalized gay marriage. They probably assumed they were doing what the people wanted. A reasonable assumption, given Maine's demographics.

Like California, Maine is a blue state. Although Maine's senators are Republicans, both are moderate-to-liberal on the issues. And Maine isn't exactly a part of the Bible Belt. A recent Gallup survey on religious identity ranked Maine as the 3rd least religious state in the country, just beneath New Hampshire and Vermont.

Blaming Mormon cash probably won't fly this time. Protect Maine Equality, the campaign supporting Maine's gay marriage law, raised $4 million, compared with only $2.5 raised by Stand for Marriage Maine, which aimed to overturn it.

Social conservatives were outspent and outmaneuvered in unfriendly territory.

So why did this haven of secularism decide to put the gay man down?

Here's my guess: most people are just fine with the current definition of marriage -- even some people who who have no moral qualms about homosexuality. Like Barack Obama, they believe marriage is between a man and a women. And as long as Americans can vote gay marriage down by secret ballot, they will.

Which means that gay-rights activists will have to increasingly rely on courts to impose their will on the people. American voters may not approve of gay marriage, but when courts rule that gay marriage is an inalienable civil right, there's nothing they can do about it.

Sure, some people might be ticked off at first, but conventional wisdom says that history will vindicate their judicial activism.

Or will it?

Advocates of gay marriage assume their cause is the continuation of the civil rights movement of the 1960s. This assumption rests on the premise that marriage is simply the union of two individuals -- making laws banning gay marriages as arbitrary as the laws that prevented mixed-race couples from marrying in the past.

But social conservatives -- along with plenty of social moderates -- believe that marriage was designed to enshrine the unique male-female relationship. No one is being denied the right to get married; it's just that being married involves spending your life with someone of the opposite sex.

Ultimately, the issue isn't about civil rights. It's about the definition of an institution -- and who should be allowed to define it.

This nuance escapes the gay-rights crowd. People who disagree with them are hateful, or homophobic. And they believe that eventually, like the racists of the past, these bigoted neanderthals will quietly fade into the margins of society.

It's true that homosexuality is gaining more public acceptance, and the same thing can be said about gay marriage. But even if the entirety of secular America embraces gay marriage (hardly a foregone conclusion), the religious beliefs held by millions of other Americans will make gay marriage a controversial issue for the foreseeable future. And America's increasing ethnic and religious diversity could play a major role in undermining the gay-rights agenda. Immigrants from third-world countries tend to be more culturally conservative than their native-born counterparts, and the expanding Muslim community in the U.S might prove to be a powerful conservative force in the culture wars.

In other words, resistance is not futile; Americans will not be assimilated. Whenever an advocacy group adopts the language of inevitability, mental flags should go up. This is no exception. Maine's rejection of gay marriage revealed just how tone-deaf gay activists have become. There are deeper issues at work here than a simple conflict between bigotry and acceptance. And if supporters of gay marriage want to continue to ignore and marginalize their opponents, they should brace themselves for the sting of defeat.

Think About It.

Decisions that are weighed carefully are better than stupid decisions. And when members of our government are making decisions, the importance of rational thinking is paramount

Bills rushed through Congress in a couple days can financially burden the nation for decades. And half-baked strategies cooked up by a commander in chief can lead to tragedy.

The "never let a crisis go to waste" mentality is the root of all kinds of evil. When a crisis strikes, bad ideas can become reality in the blink of an eye. We saw this happen in the aftermath of 9/11, the aftermath of the financial meltdown, and we're starting to see it in the midst of an overblown health care crisis. Government officials become intoxicated with fear, make a flurry of drunken decisions, and wake up a month later with a serious legislative hangover and angry constituents flooding the phone lines.

So, when Obama promised to "never rush the solemn decision" of sending American troops into combat situations, it seemed pretty reasonable. The use of military force is a complicated issue, both financially and morally. War is not a game.

The war in Afghanistan, which Obama was addressing in his speech, is an especially sticky situation. More manpower may be needed, but it's only a small part of what needs to be a multi-pronged strategy. The surge in Iraq produced incredible results, but ultimately, it was the Sunni awakening movement as much as increased troop levels that quelled the violence. In Afghanistan, where corruption is endemic, tribalism reigns, and opium powers the economy, it'll take some serious thought to cook up a comprehensive strategy that can stop the country from returning to the arms of the Taliban.

But prominent conservatives, including Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and Rush Limbaugh, have decided that Obama's policy of actually thinking about things will lead to ruin.

According to Cheney and Limbaugh, Obama is "dithering" on Afghanistan.

Rove claims Obama is being too "wobbly."

Really?

For the record, there's nothing conservative about behaving rashly. Few things are more antithetical to the conservative mindset than a gut reaction to a problem. William F. Buckley famously wrote that his National Review stood "athwart history, yelling stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so." For decades, conservatives have fought against ill-conceived experiments in social engineering. They would do well to encourage the same critical thinking when it comes to American military action.

At least George Will gets it. After Cheney accused Obama of "dithering," the masterful columnist offered this rebuke:

"For a representative of the Bush administration to accuse someone of taking too much time is missing the point. We have much more to fear in this town from hasty than from slow government action."

Yea, verily.

A bad leader can still make a bad decision after months of rigorous thought. Obama may indeed drop the ball on Afghanistan. And if he ends up making a bad decision, critics should feel free to fire away. But criticizing him for trying to make a good decision is absurd.

Obama is trying to do the right thing in Afghanistan. For that, he deserves a tasty cookie -- not ridicule.

Michael And Me.

Anyone who goes to a Michael Moore movie expecting a logical argument will walk away disappointed. Moore is a populist, not an intellectual. He goes for the gut.

And in his latest movie, Capitalism: A Love Story, it works. Sometimes.

Capitalism has everything you'd expect from a Moore film. There's the ironic, '50s-era stock footage (more so than usual), Moore-on-a-mission stunts, honest Americans facing economic ruin, and a lesson about the evils of -- what else? -- capitalism.

To make the case that capitalism is the root of all evil, Moore presents a loosely connected set of emotional vignettes:

Families being forced out of their homes.

Airline pilots who have to work a second job to survive.

Companies taking secret life insurance policies out on their employees.

And so on.

Some of the things Moore shows us are troubling. But ultimately, Moore is kind of like a man who sees a house on fire and launches into a tirade on the evils of oxygen. It's sad that some people are losing so much. But everything they had in the first place was the result of -- *gasp!* -- capitalism.

And many of the things Moore complains about don't seem to have much to do with capitalism at all.

In the final portion of Capitalism, Moore lambasts the $700 billion bailout of financial institutions as corporate robbery, and marches to Wall St. demanding the American people's money back. Fair enough. But government handouts to failing businesses are hardly a product of pure capitalism.

Similarly, when Moore tells the story of a for-profit juvenile prison that rakes in the dough thanks to a couple of corrupt judges, the problem seems to lie with the dangerous collusion of business and government -- not laissez faire economic policies.

Michael Moore claims to be non-partisan, but conservatives hoping to see Obama get some comeuppance for his continued support of corporate welfare are left empty-handed.

Moore does go after some prominent Democrats, most notably Chris Dodd. But Obama largely gets a pass. Even when Moore rips apart Tim Geithner, he never mentions the man who appointed him.

And while Michael Moore shows footage of house Democrats -- including Dennis Kucinich -- boldly standing up to the first bailout bill, he ignores the fact that a wide majority of Republicans voted against the bailout.

And as always, Moore plays it loose with the facts. When Moore reveals that wages have remained steady since the '80s while productivity has shot upward, he concludes that Americans are being forced to work harder for the same amount of pay. While this may be true in some cases, it's pretty lazy to ignore a little something called the digital revolution that's been going on for the last few decades.

Interestingly enough, Capitalism has a strong religious message, unusual for a Moore film. Moore, a liberal Catholic, interviews several priests who have some harsh words for America's economic system, and mocks the idea that Jesus would support capitalism. To drive home the point, the movie's takeaway message is worded in distinctly moral terms: "capitalism is an evil, and you can't regulate evil."

Like all of Moore's films, Capitalism is cleverly crafted and entertaining. But your enjoyment of the film may hinge on your ability to temporarily shut down large portions of your brain.

Near the end of Capitalism, Moore shows footage of Katrina survivors stranded on the roofs of their houses, and tells the audience that this is what capitalism bring them.

Actually, that's what large hurricanes combined with bad engineering bring us. Common mistake.