State Of The Statement

My fellow Americans, the state of the union is perilous. Wherever we look, we see crossroads; no matter the issue, we see complexity so daunting as to make us want to turn away. If ever there were a time when we need to call upon the greatest of our resources -- our good will toward one another, our ability to sacrifice at critical times -- it is now.

And yet, there are signs that for the first time in our shining history, we are unwilling and unable to meet the challenges. To an unprecedented degree we have fallen upon ourselves, fighting change, challenging the patriotism of those with whom we disagree, falling prey to a constant stream of hyper-partisan misinformation. At both ends of the political spectrum there are voices saying, loudly, angrily, if I can't have everything I want, nobody gets anything. In a country whose very founding was based on the art and necessity of compromise, we're becoming a nation of selfishness that threatens, most literally, our survival. It simply can't go on like this.

Now, I'll place plenty of blame on myself. I've been unable to convince many of you of my good intentions (for that matter, there are people sitting right here, unconvinced of my citizenship), nor have I avoided missteps in promoting my ideas. But I do not accept -- I reject entirely -- the idea that I have not reached out across the aisle. How many have forgotten the words of a Congressional leader who said, after my first month in office, that his party had already had more face time with the President than in the entire eight years of the previous administration? When was the last time the losing presidential candidate was feted at the White House?

Nor is there the remotest bit of truth that legislation has been devoid of compromise on our side. To the great dismay of many on the left, the public option was dropped from the health care bill. Months were spent working with a bipartisan group formed with the express idea of finding middle ground. And after that ground was found, no votes were forthcoming from the other side. Not a single one. The same is true of the stimulus bill, which economists from all sides agree has been of significant benefit. And now, most astonishingly, after raising serious and very legitimate questions about our budget deficits, Republican members of Congress who were among the sponsors of a bill creating a bipartisan commission to study ways to address our deficits, have voted down its formation. I'm sorry to say this, but I think a very likely reason is that they prefer to run for reëlection against the deficits, rather than trying to fix them. Has it really come to this? In the most successful democracy history has ever known?

I hold neither myself or my party blameless. My point is simply to say that it's impossible to reduce the enormity of our problems -- whether they be the economy, jobs, wars, education, energy needs -- without a spirit of common purpose. Without compromise. Without willingness to forgo political expediency in the name of saving ourselves.

People are worried, they're angry. Their government, to a large extent, has failed them, and attempts to correct the failure have, so far, borne less fruit than anyone would like. But we can't let that anger become self-defeating; we must not let it destroy us. In times like these, there simply is no room for the close-minded adherence to one's view with no room for anyone else's. Nor, may I add, is there room for the sort of misinforming and destructive steam of vitriol that fills our airwaves.

So, my fellow citizens, here's the cold truth. In order for everyone to get something, in order for our country, most literally, to survive, nobody gets everything they want. Nobody. We cannot balance a budget without raising some taxes. Nor can we do it without cutting spending. Republicans will have to agree to finding reasonable cuts in our military budget; Democrats will have to buy into the notion that entitlements will need to be modified, so that those most in need get more, and those not in need get less. And, for now, everyone will need to be patient. The deficit spending we have undertaken, while not perfectly realized or distributed, is necessary -- let me repeat: with virtual universal agreement among economists -- we have HAD to spend money when none was available elsewhere, to get the economy moving. Were it not for the compromises we made, we would have spent more. And I think it would have been better. But that's what compromise is about.

When I ran for this office, a central theme of my campaign was that change doesn't come from above, it comes from below, from the people, from voters. To my shame, I believe I lost sight of that, and now I'm asking for amends, and I'm asking for the kind of help that this country needs more than ever. Citizens need to demand of their elected representatives, all of them, of whatever party, cease this intransigence and get to the extremely difficult work of legislating. Demand progress. Let them know that it's understood that, in a democracy, no one can have everything they want. Because if nothing else has become clear in this past year, this has: when we -- our politicians and our citizens -- break down into intransigence, nothing good comes of it. And yet, for far too many of the people in this room, for far too many of the people in the streets, for far too many of those who rant on our airwaves, that is where we are.

Democracy is built on compromise, it's built on the good will of people of all political persuasions. It demands thoughtful voters, and neutral but tough media. Democracy is hard. Democracy isn't for the faint of heart, nor the lazy or those of ill will. In legislation to fix our economy, no one will get everything he or she wants. No one. It simply can't be done. The same is true for our energy problems, our environment, our school. No one can have everything they want. No one. That's not how it works. Yet there are those who still demand it.

For the past year we've seen what I hope is the worst of our democracy. Angry people with no good will toward those with whom they disagree. Entire media outlets devoted to tearing down, to fomenting, to making things worse rather than pitching in. Politicians digging in their heels, calculating for their own benefit rather than for the country's. A year is too much. We don't have that kind of time to waste. It's time to get to work, it's time to realize that there are no perfect solutions but the only way to find the best ones is to drop blind ideology, to stop hoping for failure, and to begin the hard work, the noble work, the nation's work, just as our founders did, just as we have done every time we faced crises. Let us not be the first generation to fail. Let us not be the first to give up on one another, to give up on democracy, to resort to blind self-interest. To abandon decency. To forsake everything that has come before, and to forget about what ought to come later. Let us not lose sight of what has always made the United States of America great when the chips were down: hard work, cooperation, willingness to give up something now to secure a future for the next generations.

My fellow Americans, it is time. There is no more time, there is no other time.

[The above is what I wrote before the SOTU. His was better, of course, and calmer. That's why I still like the guy. He did touch some of the keys that I did, I'm happy to say.]

.

Heraldic Comment

Anyone who comes here because of an article in the Herald might want to zip past the two posts below this, to get a better idea of the blog...

As If

An historic get for The Onion.

.

Holy Sh*t

Literally.

.

Veneer

These are scary times. Haiti, for all its undeserved (unless you're Pat Robertson) misery, might be a harbinger. I'm thinking of the looting, the roving gangs wielding machetes. In dire times, the veneer of civilization reveals its tenuous thinness.

In fact, given the scope of the disaster there, it seems -- admittedly from a distance -- that lawlessness has been less than one might expect. With the dead evidently in the hundreds of thousands, millions homeless, infrastructure wiped away, government effectively gone, the falling of one upon another might have been much worse.

Which brings me to my point: I wonder how far we are from widespread violence here, in the USA.

Things are tougher here than most people have seen; yet compared to Haiti, which seems, with help, to be retaining some civility, we have it damn good. And still we're turning against our fellow citizens with increasing ferocity. Incited by the constant venom and propaganda spewing from Fox "News" and right wing talk radio, and by the demagoguery of their elected, political nihilism is steering us onto the reefs. Mostly, so far, in the form of hateful rhetoric, the political scene is -- so it seems to me -- heading toward civil breakdown. Already there are towns calling for the forming of militias and the curtailing of government. Arming themselves for who knows what, based on fomented fears feloniously fabricated and faciley fed, having swallowed it whole and happily, large swaths of the country are preparing for chaos. Thereby making it almost inevitable. (Amusingly, it's the left wing that have the more cogent arguments against President Obama's agenda. The right see a far-left ideologue when he's nothing of the sort.)

At the risk of sounding hyperbolic, in some ways the tea partiers and their ilk among the RWS™ are worse than those Haitian gangs: at least in that sorry place people have reason to be desperate. Starving, with the dead piled in the streets, resorting to violence seems unsurprising. Here, though, the destruction is mostly imaginary (communism... socialism... fascism... death panels... reëducation camps... destroying the very foundations of this country... reparations... hatred of white people... soft on terrorism...) To the extent that it's not, it's the leftovers from the very type of governance to which they long to return. Because it's based, for the most part, on blind hatred and fear rather than any sort of facts, I find it very ominous. When most needed, when times are only a billionth as tough as they are elsewhere, civil discourse is all but absent. Rather than suspending partisanship and blind ideology, half of the country has, instead, chosen obstructionism and demagoguery. It speaks ill of us, and of our ability to withstand tough times. Because they're strictly and unprecedentedly in the business of pushing a political agenda with no concern for actual journalism, it speaks particularly ill of Fox "News" and those who cling to it. (Ain't much actual journalism anywhere on TV; but for the others the sin is one of laziness and stupidity, rather than overt dissembling and distortion. Better, maybe by a little, but only marginally less destructive to democracy.)

I wonder if, in some barely imaginable future, such vilifiers as those on Fox and RWS™ radio, will ever come to realize the harm they've done. (The single counterpart on the left, whom I stopped watching months ago, actually did. That's among many differences between left and right.) Parenthetically (for I am nothing if not parenthetical) I'd add that unlike those in the Fox flock, liberals -- to a much greater extent than teabaggers anyway -- don't need to have their beliefs constantly and loudly reinforced by the fact-averse. Thus, the failure of Air America. (And it was almost NEVER fact-averse.)

Having revealed their intolerance of discomfort and unwillingness to search for real solutions; having chosen the spewing of unfocused and misdirected rage; having literally taken to the streets shouting slogans based on fear and hatred and, perhaps worst of all, demonization of all who disagree, huge numbers in this country are agitating toward anarchy, all the while claiming some sort of political high ground. Haiti is destroyed. In recent times, the closest the US came to it was a couple of years ago. People are trying (ineffectively, maybe, but trying) to fix it. But who remembers that? We are spoiled, selfish, and soft. Compared to Haitians, we're an embarrassment. At best.

I think it's not at all a stretch to believe that we're only about one more peeled layer away from roving gangs and far, far worse. The difference, of course, is that in this country they'll be much better armed and they'll feel way more aggrieved than those destroyed people in Haiti, despite all they have, and despite all the Haitians have lost. The greatness of commonality that got us through The Depression and WWII is receding faster than polar ice. Looking at the current heroes of the right, at the tactics of their national politicians, there's nothing to see but negativity. They can't go any lower without resorting to violence. It's next.

You heard it here third.

.

Anthem

Risking having my patriotism questioned, I had to mute the singing of The National Anthem for the second NFL game today. The first one was bad enough. The second (both American Idol winners/finalists, so what can you expect) was unlistenable.

I like singing that song. In particular, I like singing the bass line in a crowd, because it sounds good with the melody. Today, both people sang it slowly, as stars usually do, like a dirge. And they added, as usual, their self-indulgent flourishes, as if to say, "It's about me." If I sang it solo at an event, I'd do it about a third faster than most celebrity singers, and I'd do it straight, vanilla, which is how it sounds best.

In a book I wrote, I'm pretty sure I mentioned the best rendition of The Star-Spangled Banner I ever heard (if I didn't I should have.) I was making rounds as an intern in San Francisco, during the National League playoff series. Bending over a patient's bandages, I heard on the TV the clearest, purest, most unfussy and least self-centered version ever. Brilliant, stunning, resonant, a voice strong and like honey and brass. And I looked up to see Linda Ronstadt, to whom I'd barely paid previous attention, standing there in short shorts and a LA Dodgers jacket, dark-haired and beautiful. (I like dark-haired beautiful girls. Married one.) Who the f*ck is that, I wondered, in my internship horniness (I may have asked it out loud, in front of my patient. I hope not.)

I've been a fan ever since. Far as I can tell, there's no record of that performance. The above is a favorite; I used to love "Long long time" but ever since I used it as background of a slideshow I made after the death of a most beautiful niece, I can't listen to it without tearing up. (I changed the music for the show. To the above song, actually.)

.

Oversight

I'm no economist. But it seems sort of intuitive that, since the last two experiments with deregulation and interfering with investigations of banks led to disaster (the S and L crisis, under the first Bush, and, although it seems to have fallen from the collective memory, the current crisis under the second one), new regulations must be in order.

It's interesting to me that immediately following the revelation (hardly a surprise) that Obama wants to impose new regulations (and I admit I have no idea what, exactly, they'd be, how well-constructed, or whether they'd get through this -- or any -- Congress), the Dow tanked. The Dow, which, as a result of previous "policy," was, not long enough ago for most people (other than those with teabags on the brain) to have forgotten, was at 6000. Yet attempts to enact reforms aimed at preventing another cataclysmic fall are seen as a bad thing. By investors, of all people.

I will say this, however: I wish President Obama had, in his speech, laid off the populist crap. It seems to me an outline of the causes of the fall in relation to lack of regulation would have been enough to make the deal. Nor do I think bonuses are much a part of the big picture. They're obscene all right, especially when it's in the bailed-out banks. But harping on fat-cats is too much like the sort of politician I thought Obama was not. There's a case to be made. It doesn't need to be in the rabble-rousing mode. It's a little too Foxobeckian for my taste.

[Addendum, a while later: Right on cue, the Republicans resort to the usual. Not a little ironic, of course, given the "us versus them" Palin rhetoric, and the anti-"elitism" (whatever that is) core of their entire presidential campaign.]

.

Running For The Exits

Just a thought: does anyone doubt that if, in the context of the Massachusetts election, the parties were reversed, facing an electoral loss that left them with a 59-41 vote majority (The Village Voice, this morning, headlined "Scott Brown Wins Mass. Race, Giving GOP 41-59 Majority In The Senate"), Republicans would say the loss was because their candidate wasn't a true conservative, and would dig in even harder? But, in droves, Congressional Democrats -- especially in the Senate -- are bailing. What a pathetic bunch of losers. They don't deserve the power the people, in overwhelming numbers, granted them a year ago.

True to form, the Ds will slink away and commit seppuku, gladly handed the knife by their colleagues across the aisle.

Terrifying

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c Moment of Zen - Calvin Trillin's Prediction www.thedailyshow.com Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Here are a few things I believe about terrorism:

1) The danger is real, and potentially devastating.

1a) Absent a nuclear attack, the devastation will be, to a very significant degree, self-inflicted: political chaos, psychological mayhem, panic, fomented strenuously by the RWS™.2) The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have done nothing to lessen the threat.

3) Money spent at home, to beef up security, is of immeasurably greater value than that spent on wars.

4) We can't eliminate the threat with armies (cf: Yemen, Sudan, the next after them; and, of course anywhere in Europe, Asia, South America, Mexico, the US, to name a few.)

5) So far, our response to 9/11 has given al Queda everything it could have hoped for, and more.
5a) That means we're doing much of their work for them, by way of tearing ourselves apart politically, tossing out the window the very values that have allowed us to succeed as a nation, bankrupting ourselves fighting shadows.

Assuming the above thoughts are even partly true, it follows that we'd be much better off ending our wars and spending our manpower and treasure on such things as border security, increased personnel devoted to intelligence gathering and analysis, body scanners, and the like. Money well -- and much better -- spent, far as I can tell.

Amid the recriminations, reasonable and otherwise, following the underwearer, the difficulties have become pretty clear. It's been said (by David Brooks on PBS Newshour, matter of fact, source not stated) that our intelligence services collect, DAILY, as much data as there is in the Library of Congress. DAILY. Our desire to assign blame notwithstanding, searching prospectively through that mass is daunting, nearly impossible. Brooks blithely said we need more of a human touch, more gut instinct, to turn those data into actions. Probably true. But how do you do that when no one is willing to spend (and pay, and collect) the money it would take? How many more people than we currently have are needed for such a task? Specifically, of those happily blaming everything that ever happened or will happen on Barack Obama, how many would be willing to pay the extra taxes, okay reducing our wartime commitments, stop the inflamed rhetoric, address the real issue rather than the politics?

My guess: few enough that it rounds off to none. After all, they just elected another tax-cutter to the Senate. Reduce government. Lower taxes. And, while you're at it, keep us safe.

.

In Case You Missed It

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c Mass Backwards www.thedailyshow.com Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

As usual, Jon Stewart nails it. The Democrats are pathetic. With a loss in Massachusetts, they'll still have an EIGHTEEN VOTE MAJORITY!!! and they're unable to pass healthcare??? In 2008 the voters swept Obama into office and gave him huge majorities in Congress. And yet the minority, with its lies distortions and obstructions (not to mention the help of the cosmically embarrassing Democrats), wins. .

Lessons Learned

I learned a lot in 2009, none of it good. Not being a naive innocent, maybe I should say I had some beliefs confirmed, but to an unexpected level. I've known for a few years that, as a country, we're screwed. Still, I didn't think the end would be coming this fast.

What's funny, in the sense of non-funny, is the extent to which so many people are so easily manipulated, and the extent to which they are simply unable to see it. How ironic it is that those people who claim the current administration is like Soviet Russia, or Nazis, have been convinced of that by the fusing of a political agenda and a network propaganda machine exactly like those created and maintained by those authoritarian and failed entities.

The truth is that on average we are a stupid people, weak-willed and uncomfortable with complexity. The reason Fox has the influence it does is that it appeals to the sense of victimhood and lost entitlement that's increasingly the political mainstream. Roger Ailes' brilliance in unabashedly pushing a hyper-partisan agenda is his realization of how simple it would be. Constantly barraging listeners with repetitive falsehoods, conspiracy theories, reinforced endlessly in every time-slot by ethically empty so-called journalists, his network is the embodiment of theory of the "big lie." And the process is made even easier by targeting the very religious, with their need for certainty and their long-standing cultivation into the art of denying reality, the willful rejection of the obvious. Religiosity and political manipulation: they go together like hand and glove, peanut butter and blackberry jam, unprotected sex and STDs.

Who'd, for example, have thought that the destruction of Haiti could be so politicized? It's amazing enough that science has become partisan, with denialism as the central core of an entire political party. But charity, for Christ's sake? To what level of cynicism have our politics sunk that President Obama's actions to help a ravaged nation are mocked, decried, and demagogued shamelessly? That people are being asked NOT to help, and it's being hyped by the right wing, the party of Jesus? (I'll admit that in this, even Rush's rants seem not to have deterred giving to a noticeable extent. Possibly because, as usual, atheists are pitching in.)

How can it be that Massachusetts may well elect to the Senate a guy who, exactly like George Bush, advocates massive tax cuts, after denouncing the budget deficits, and without saying a single word about where he'd cut the spending needed to make up the difference? (And who, most Foxoteabaggingly, suggests our president's mother wasn't married.) Implicitly making the disproved argument that cutting taxes increases revenue, he also claims that the health care bills represent "government takeover," and promises to stop it. Government takeover? Relying entirely on the private insurers to an extent their stock has shot upward? Government takeover? Really? Yet there he is, the darling of an entire movement: completely divested of fact. Not to mention decency.

All of this is against the backdrop of the most misguided populism imaginable, cynically manipulated by corporate interests. Dick Armey, of "Freedomworks" must be in a state of constant tumescence over the ease with which he's pulled it off (as it were). As I've said many times, there's much to criticize about the Obama administration so far: most especially that stimulus monies seem to have been misdirected to a large extent. Not unneeded: inadequately dispersed. Nor do I agree with the buildup in Afghanistan; I'm concerned about Tim Geithner, about the lameness of some White House responses to the constant and dishonest attacks from Fox and the rest of the RWS™. But these worries have a basis in fact. Rather than lies and obstructionism, I wish the opposition would pitch in and provide sensible suggestions, work together even a little. Democracy depends on it. It might even do their party good!

Unlike the things I criticize, wild statements on the placards so proudly waved by the teabaggers are based on unquestioned belief in the steady stream of propaganda to which they're constantly and uncritically subjected. The supreme irony is that they are the very people who ought to be -- claim to be -- scared sh*tless by political agitprop and media control. And yet they eat it like cookie dough.

To them, disagreement is pure evil. I wonder what they think about the founding process of the country they claim to love, and understand not a bit. Compromise. Respect for opposing opinions. Doing the hard work of finding common ground. Contra the Nazi-baiter, it's they that have been dumbed down, not liberals.

Today, for the second time in a few months, someone forwarded me a breathless email. Strewn with full caps and varying colors like holiday fireworks, it claims Obama has demanded a stamp be produced to honor a Muslim holiday. "If you only forward one email.... patriotic Americans.... reject... stand up.... " The usual crap. (The wild-eyed commentary is based on the fact that every year for around ten years such a stamp has been issued, much like those commemorating Christmas, Hanukkah, and Walt Disney characters. Of absolutely NO significance, but seen by the crazed hordes as proof of Obama's treason.) Into the streets they march; into the Congress they send like-minded (in the loosest use of the word "mind") representatives, intent on destruction. It's working.

In a perverse way, I hope I live long enough to see it, because I'm absolutely certain I'm right. And I'd like to know if at any point along the decline those blind and dumb right wingers and teapartiers will realize what they've done, even though I already know the answer.

[PS: speaking of lessons, here's a good one.]

.

Balanced

Saw this on Pharyngula. I like it.

What The Devil?

Ever since Pat Robertson enlightened us, I've been thinking about the idea of a deal with the devil. I have a couple of questions.

First: it seems to me the kind of person who'd make a deal with the devil is pretty much already consigned to hell. So wouldn't making a deal be a smart play? Get a little something up here before you sign in down there?

Second: how does this pact thing work, anyway? Some guy can get a deal that pays forward so that two hundred years later, a bunch of innocents get destroyed, painfully, miserably? Oh, yes, I know: the deal was with the devil. This here thing is from god. So he (god, not the devil -- although in this case it's hard to tell) smites people who had nothing to do with Pat's pact, centuries later, as punishment? The fact that Haiti is 80% Catholic isn't enough?

Finally, the most obvious question: this Christian god is all mighty, right? Can do anything, n'est-ce pas? So what the hell is the devil doing existing, anyway? (I'm sure there's plenty of theological thought -- somewhat of an oxymoron -- on the subject, but why not some common sense?) Either god is the most powerful, perfect, capable thing in the universe, or he's not. If the devil exists, and can pactifiy people, per Pat, then it can only be at the pleasure of god, correct? Alternatively, if the devil can exist and do all the bogey-man stuff that Wretched Robertson claims, then he (the devil, not god, although it's hard to tell them apart in this case -- or did I mention that already?) is as powerful as god. But god is all-powerful; he makes earthquakes that kill people by the hundreds of thousands, ferchrissakes! Plus, god has a plan for everyone and everything. So isn't it obvious who, in fact, made a pact with the devil?

Just asking.

Meanwhile, as it is with prayer, the whole idea of the devil is self-negating. Assuming there's an oog (I'm getting tired of writing "omniscient, omnipotent god"), and if that means -- as it's said -- that god has a plan for everyone, then what the devil is going on? Can the devil disrupt god's plans? If so, then god has a plan but is unable to carry it out. Big deal. So do I. If the devil can't foil god's plans, then what's he for, except scaring people into coming to church (and sending money to Pat Robertson), and giving a lot of people excuses? You simply can't reconcile deviled oogs.

It's one thing to believe in god. But if I also believed in some red guy running around causing havoc that my god was powerless to prevent (or that he chooses not to prevent so he can see people fry in hell or, even better, directly inflict massive suffering on their heirs for generations), I'd be embarrassed to admit it. In fact, I would have hoped for the moral strength not to have bought in.

.

Reprehensible Piece of Sh*t

Gee, imagine that. Rush thinks responding immediately to a humanitarian crisis in which 100,000 people have died, is, in the context of waiting a sub-Bush-sixian three days (publicly) to discuss the panty bomber, is horrible. And then throws some gratuitous feces against the wall while he's on a roll.

These guys will politicize anything; and their listeners will shake their fists and clench their gingivitical jaws in the rage of agreement that only blind and dumb hatred can engender. It's pathetic.

And it will destroy us. Like the wound from a sharp knife that you don't feel for a moment, it already has.

.

Tough Guys

Here's one of those pesky little fact-filled tracts, in response to the RWS™ decrying President Obama's approach to the underpants guy. Seems like Dick Cheney's tougherness-on-terrorness left much to be desired. Included:

The Bush administration -- in which Liz Cheney's papa held a fairly high position, you might recall -- prosecuted, after 9-11, 828 people on terrorism charges in civilian courts. At the time of publication of this excellent report from the Center on Law and Security, NYU School of Law last year, trials were still pending against 235 of those folks. That leaves 593 resolved indictments, of which 523 were convicted of some crime, for a conviction rate of 88%.

With regard to military tribunals, the Bush administration inaugurated 20 such cases. So far just three convictions have been won. The highest-profile is the conviction of Salim Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's driver. The Hamdan legal saga, rehearsed here, doesn't exactly suggest that military tribunals provide swifter and surer and tougher justice. In the end, he was convicted all right, but sentenced -- not by a bunch of New York City Democrats, but by a military jury! -- to five and half years.

Then, the tribunal judge, a US Navy captain, gave Hamdan credit for time served, which was five years. So he served six months after conviction. Today he's back in -- guess where? -- Yemen.

So there you go. Make of it what you will. And, by all means, don't let the facts stand in your way.

Oh, there's this, too, if anyone cares.

And here's a really good question, from Fareed Zakaria, which repeats a frequent theme of mine:

As for the calls to treat the would-be bomber as an enemy combatant, torture him and toss him into Guantanamo, God knows he deserves it. But keep in mind that the crucial intelligence we received was from the boy's father. If that father had believed that the United States was a rogue superpower that would torture and abuse his child without any sense of decency, would he have turned him in? To keep this country safe, we need many more fathers, uncles, friends and colleagues to have enough trust in America that they, too, would turn in the terrorist next door.

Exactly.

.