The Voice of Treason

“Sometimes the only way you conquer the pull of power is to set it down.”

– Prime Minister Tony Blair, May 10, 2007

“I’ll miss Tony Blair. He is a political figure who is capable of thinking over the horizon. He is a long-term thinker. I have found him to be a man who’s kept his word, which sometimes is rare in the political circles I run in.”

– President George W. Bush

“A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman thinks of the next generation.”

– James Freeman Clarke, Sermon

It would appear that not much has changed since Clarke delivered that message back in the 1800s. We have plenty of politicians, but only a handful of unpopular statesmen. This week, a group of Republicans in Congress – The Gang of 11 – met with the President to express how much the thought of job hunting offended them.

If this unpopular war continues, they explained, we won’t get re-elected. We’re telling you, in this very private meeting which we will leak as soon as we finish our coffee, that as of today, we are backing away from you, your administration, your policies, and your war. The American people just don’t like you very much. And that’s okay – you’re a short-timer, anyway. But think about us. We can’t let your unpopularity affect our futures. You can go back to the ranch and work on your memoirs. The rest of us aren’t that lucky. We’ll have to go get jobs. Do you have any idea what it’s like out there when you’re paying your own way?

“I have been Prime Minister of this country for just over 10 years. In this job, in the world today, I think that is long enough for me, but more especially for the country.”

– Tony Blair

It’s refreshing, to say the least, when a politician knows when it’s time to move on and actually does it. Sort of makes a person want to take a second look at term limits.

George Bush says he’ll miss Tony Blair, and I will, too. The British might have done a Churchill on him, but despite his recent drop in the polls he will be missed. And history will be kind. He leaves saying that Britain is the greatest nation on earth and he sounds as if he means it. Perhaps he knows something about the world that we don’t.

I mean, we like to say the same thing about the U.S., but more and more we’re starting to sound like the mother who insists her son in the orange jumpsuit has always been a good boy. It’s starting to feel obligatory. And a little phony. Perhaps we know something about ourselves that we don’t care to admit. Like, when we can’t say anything nice about someone, we don’t have the sense to shut up.

Vicious things have been said about Blair, but as long as the British continue to reap the benefits of a “New” Labour Party, the rhetoric will soften and he’ll be back to fight another day. Just look at Bill Clinton.

Hand on heart: One wonders if George Bush will be treated as well.

“I said to my kid, ‘They’re gonna send her to jail for 45 days – what do you think?’ He said, ‘It could be worse – they could sentence her to 45 days in a Hilton.’”

– Dennis Miller on Paris Hilton

I had to drive across town this morning, so I passed the Hilton near the Sunport – that’s what we call our airport here in the high desert. And then I saw it. My heart leapt! A group of people, positioned outside the hotel, was holding an enormous banner, which read:

“SHAME ON HILTON!”

Now, this is a bold move, I thought. Is the Hilton family really making such a statement about Paris? She’s one of them, yet they’re going out on a limb here and agreeing with the public. Who’s the marketing genius behind this campaign?

Just as I was wondering if maybe this wasn’t Hilton-sponsored after all, but instead was some grassroots family-friendly Vast Right Wing Conspiracy group I hadn’t yet heard of, I drove past the Hilton on University – the one we stayed at on our first trip to Albuquerque.

“SHAME ON HILTON!”

Another sign! But that’s when I noticed the additional letters on it. Shucks! It’s just that labor dispute that’s been going on… and on. Tsk. What a waste of a perfectly good sign.

“The secret of happiness is freedom. The secret of freedom is courage.”

– Thucydides

“While we are free to choose our actions, we are not free to choose the consequences of our actions.”

– Stephen Covey

I went to the Post Office earlier this week to mail a package and pick up some of those stamps. You know – the ones that cost what they cost but when rates go up again you’ll still be able to mail a letter without having to buy new stamps? As I approached the counter, I knew I had forgotten what they were called.

“Rats. I knew this would happen. Are you selling the… the Freedom stamps?”

“The what?”

“I knew I’d screw that up. It’s not Freedom, it’s – “

“You mean the Forever stamps?”

“That’s it!”

“Don’t feel bad. You wouldn’t believe how many people are calling them the Freedom stamps.”

“Well, in a way it would make sense. They’re not really forever – nothing is forever. But they do give you the freedom to avoid coming here and standing in line to buy more stamps – at least until you run out.”

I thought it was interesting that others were making the same mistake. Maybe the president is correct when he says:

“I believe that God has planted in every heart the desire to live in freedom.”

It’s like when you’re living in an apartment and you dream of the day when you can own your own place and hang pictures and not worry about losing your deposit. You can paint the walls any color you like and rip out the carpet. You can have a dog. You can turn up your music and dance to the B-52’s naked.

Or not.

I was listening to local talk radio yesterday. There was a discussion of the Albuquerque couple who did just that. They were in their home, with their dog, and they turned up their music and danced around their livingroom naked. This is America. You can do that in America.

Or not.

It seems a police officer stood outside the couple’s home and watched them dancing naked for several minutes before he entered their home unannounced and without a warrant. He had pepper spray and he used it on the couple and their dog. Gary and Penny Schinagel, married for twenty years and celebrating their kid’s departure for college, were arrested for battery on a police officer. Officers who arrived on the scene failed to help the family dog, who later died. And they also failed to lock up the house, which was burglarized the next morning.

This all took place in September 2005 after a neighbor reported hearing loud music. Since then, the battery charges have been dismissed, but the couple is suing the department and the city — accusing the officer of violating their privacy, false arrest, excessive force, and assault and battery.

The officer was responding to a complaint, he knocked on the door, but the couple probably couldn’t hear him. So he just walked in – surprise! The Supreme Court has ruled that an officer can enter a private home to investigate a minor disturbance. But the couple’s lawyer makes a good point.

“We have a right to privacy in our homes, and there is a right way and wrong way to enter.”

In most cases, I tend to side with law enforcement, but in this one I have to part ways with the cops. In the six minutes he spent outside the window, this officer couldn’t think of a better way to get the couple’s attention?

What’s disturbing is that this is the American Dream turned nightmare. A married couple has a home and a family, the youngest kid is going off to college, and they want to go a liitle crazy. In the home that they purchased, in the home where they raised a family, in the home where they’ve been paying their property taxes. It sounds like the Schinagels did everything right until that evening. And frankly, what’s so wrong with dancing?

Next time you hear loud music coming from your neighbor’s house, you might want to put up with a little annoyance. Who knows — maybe if you allow your neighbor a little freedom, he’ll do the same for you one day. It might just be the only opportunity we get to express it.

“Paris Whitney Hilton is an American celebrity and socialite. She is an heiress to a share of the Hilton Hotel fortune, as well as to the real estate fortune of her father Richard Hilton. She provides hope for young people all over the U.S. and the world. She provides beauty and excitement to (most of) our otherwise mundane lives.

…We, the American public who support Paris, are shocked, dismayed and appalled by how Paris has been the person to be used as an example that drunk driving is wrong…

This petition is to ask Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to pardon Paris Hilton for her mistake. Please allow her to her return to her career and life.”

– Paris Hilton’s MySpace website

You know the world is getting strange when you hear Liberals, discussing the situation in Iraq, accuse members of the administration – Republicans – of being “too idealistic.” Or when certain presidential candidates deny there’s a global war on terror even as there are Muslims plotting against our military in New Jersey. Or when a member of the White House staff is sentenced to prison, unable to return to his career and life, for a “leak,” and he wasn’t the one who leaked (but we know who did leak). Or when a former National Security Advisor steals and destroys classified documents and isn’t sentenced to prison.

Or when someone who is lucky she wasn’t injured or horribly disfigured or, worse, responsible for actually killing another driver, asks for a pardon because “she provides hope for young people all over the U.S. and the world.”

Hope? Why, the audacity.

Dr. Benjamin Franklin: Please Mr. Dickinson, but must you start banging? How is a man to sleep?

John Dickinson: Forgive me, Dr. Franklin, but must YOU start speaking? How is a man to stay awake? We’ll promise to be quiet - I’m sure everyone prefers that you remained asleep.

Dr. Benjamin Franklin: If I’m to hear myself called an Englishman, sir, I assure you I prefer I’d remained asleep.

John Dickinson: What’s so terrible about being called an Englishman? The English don’t seem to mind.

Dr. Benjamin Franklin: Nor would I, were I given the full rights of an Englishman. But to call me one without those rights is like calling an ox a bull. He’s thankful for the honor, but he’d much rather have restored what’s rightfully his.

John Dickinson: When did you first notice they were missing, sir?

– Sherman Edwards and Peter Stone, 1776

Every time we have pomp and circumstance in the White House, critics are quick to point out that we fought a war so that a new America wouldn’t have to support a monarchy. We’re just not into all the froufrou. We’re a nation that can go to the symphony in blue jeans or to a wedding in shorts. Or to the White House in flip-flops.

John Dickinson: Fortunately, the people maintain a higher regard for their mother country.

Dr. Benjamin Franklin: Higher, certainly, than she feels for them. Never was such a valuable possession so stupidly and recklessly managed, than this entire continent by the British crown. Our industry discouraged, our resources pillaged… first of all our very character stifled. We’ve spawned a new race here, Mr. Dickinson. Rougher, simpler; more violent, more enterprising; less refined. We’re a new nationality. We require a new nation.

Hey, I like casual, too. I started wearing sweatshirts in college and haven’t stopped. In fact, I’m wearing my alma mater’s as I type this. But as much as I hate pulling on the hose and the heels, I have to admit I like to play dress-up every now and then.

The country is all aflutter over our current guests from across the pond (How do you say hello to them? Do you shake their hands? Do you bow or curtsy? Do you even look at them or speak unless you’re spoken to?) And much is being said about the first State Dinner.

Imagine that. Six years in and there hasn’t been a white tie pulled out from under dry cleaner’s plastic. But this is a special occasion: The Queen may die twenty, thirty years from now, so we must have her over to the House for a nice meal before she goes.

I haven’t watched much of the Royal Visit – I tune in long enough to catch a glimpse of the hats and Elizabeth’s facial expressions. But I did watch the C-SPAN coverage of the preparations for the dinner because I love the behind-the-scenes work done by the amazing White House staff.

The floral arrangements! The pastries! The desserts created sugar petal by sugar petal. Why, they look just like real flowers! The calligraphy! The china, the crystal!

If the White House is truly our house, I’m content to have guests over from time to time. Especially since I’m not the one doing the dusting and vacuuming.

“As each day passes, it becomes increasingly clear that the Democrats will win the White House next year. It’s not quite 1932, but it’s getting close to a sure thing. All the energy is on their side, they are raising more money from more contributors, and there is little if any enthusiasm for any of the Republican candidates — even among Republicans.

Of course, one can never rule out the ability of the Democrats to seize defeat from the jaws of victory. But sometimes the trend in one party’s direction is so strong that even the grossest incompetence can’t keep it from winning. I think 2008 is shaping up as that kind of year for the Democrats.”

– Bruce Bartlett, May 2007

“What have they done to my party? Where does one go to get it back? One place comes to mind: the back benches. It’s time for a time-out. Time to hand over this sorry enchilada to Hillary and Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden and Charlie Rangel and Harry Reid, who has the gift of being able to induce sleep in 30 seconds. Or…what the heck, Al Gore. I’m not much into polar bears, but this heat wave has me thinking the man might be on to something.

My fellow Republicans, it is time, as Madison said in Federalist 76, to ‘Hand over the tiller of governance, that others may f*ck things up for a change.’

(Or was it Federalist 78?)”

– Christopher Buckley, October 2006

It seems as if everybody’s backing away from Republicans and Conservatives… except the French and a few others – all those outside North America. Bless those frogs! Not only did Sarkozy beat Royal, but damned near 85% of the French turned out to vote. Jeez, the last election here in Albuquerque enticed a whopping six percent to the polls.

I can’t believe I’m saying this, but what with their use of nuclear power and butter, then getting up off their baguettes to go participate in this election… well, I’m finding these people more appealing all the time.

Liberals in America are always telling us to be more like the French – they do everything so much better than we do. They eat better, they drink better, they look better, they dress better, they even think better. They’re just so darned nuanced. Why can’t the Americans be more like the French?

With North America moving further to the left daily, it’s not such a bad question.

“If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog”

– Harry S. Truman

Now that the D.C. Madam story is in the news, a familiar debate has once again reared its nappy head. Pundits, talk show hosts and their callers, and C-SPANners are all revisiting the argument that if an individual is performing well in his professional life, it’s none of our business what he does in his private life.

“The purpose of government is to protect the secrecy and the privacy of all individuals, not the secrecy of government.”

– Ron Paul

That’s the purpose of government? True, I think it’s fair to defend a person’s right to engage in any activity that is “peaceful and honest,” but this suggests that no one else is going to be adversely affected.

“I hold it to be the inalienable right of anybody to go to hell in his own way.”

– Robert Frost

“Sin,” though, is just one of those tough nuts. If someone wants to inject himself with heroin, what’s the harm? And if someone else wants to pay for the services of a sidewalk hostess, who are we to interfere? Consenting adults, pursuit of happiness, and all that.

But sin is never that simple. Drug abuse usually doesn’t just affect the abuser, and much of the same can be said about prostitution. Until drugs and “escorts” are legal, we’ll continue this debate.

When ABC teased the nation – we’re going to name names! – a lot of people suddenly decided that prostitution should be legal. Privacy is important, it’s nobody’s business, and careers and families shouldn’t be destroyed. Keep the names a secret. I’m just so confused. If there are so many Libertarians in America, why don’t we have more of them winning elections?

But even Ron Paul says that it isn’t the purpose of government to protect the secrecy of government. If those in government paid for the services provided by Miss Palfrey’s girls – whether or not they were Ann Taylor or Dressbarn – shouldn’t their names be revealed?

The answer: if you’re a Democrat and the clients are Republican, then yes. If you’re a Republican and the clients are Democrat, sure. If clients are from both parties, then everyone is suddenly a Libertarian and no harm was done – end of story.

But this case is not settled. Laura Schwartz, smiling like the Cheshire Cat, dropped hints about a major D.C. sex scandal that makes the Palfrey case look paltry. We can expect to hear about it around September, she says, her teeth flashing (and blinding viewers). Well, that’s politics for you.

So it appears that ABC didn’t find anyone interesting in Palfrey’s phone records. Fine, but there’s another stack – one from the Clinton years. Again, now that there’s a chance that Bill will be back in the White House, a lot of people are suggesting that sex shouldn’t get a person fired. (Unless, of course, you’re a Republican.)

But there’s a group out there – from both sides – who still make the case for dismissal. If you’re married and you’ve had an appointment with an escort, you’ve committed adultery. Marriage is the most basic contract and if you can’t be trusted not to violate that contract — lying to the people who are supposed to be the most precious to you — then you, sir, have some serious character issues.

Oops – there’s that word again.

“Uh, yeah, check it, uh-huh – yo!
Uh-huh, check it!
B*tch, run up!
Get anutha drink fo’ my mutha f*ckin’ sippy cup!

Whaaahh! Momma! I took a shiznit in my diaper!
B*tch, you best be thinkin’ – uh, I betta wipe ‘er!

Chorus:

Layin’ down: With my mind on my mobile and my mobile on my mind!

T to the O to the double D, L-E-R!
When I get taller, I be stealin’ yo’ car!”

– Phat track courtesy of T-Dawg ‘n’ D-Voice

An assortment of recent news stories: Imus causes a commotion over a few words that are commonly heard in popular music and is fired from two jobs; two black teenagers videotape themselves encouraging toddler relatives to smoke gunja; a black toddler talks trash into a microphone to entertain her family; Verizon makes a deal with Akon, then breaks it when people read his lyrics and see video of him dry-humping a teenage girl onstage.

I was four when The Beatles appeared on the Sullivan show, but old enough to remember how shocking that was. Mop-tops, indeed. My sisters were actually horrified by the long hair. I kid you not – this was disturbing stuff by 1964 standards.

More disturbing than Elvis’ pelvis? Some may recall an alarming period in history when Glenn Miller and his band played a tune called “In the Mood.” It just reminds me of Mitt Romney’s line at the Gridiron Club about Mormons and the problem they have with sex.

“Not because sex is wrong but because they believe sex can lead to dancing.”

Oh, you Mitt! Is this guy Ward Cleaver? No, he’s nicer. Ozzie Nelson? No, Mitt’s not scatterbrained. Gosh, maybe he’s Jim Anderson.

“You know, Kitten, it’s always a good idea to be married before you start raising a family. Just ask your sister Princess. Now tell your brother Bud to put on a clean shirt and help your mother with the snacks – we’ll hop in the wagon and go for a nice drive!”

We fogies remember those shows, thought that this is how normal families were supposed to be, then were told the messages from the Cleavers and Andersons were wrong. Harmful. The reason our families were dysfunctional.

Now we watch TV and get PSAs to help correct the damage. They tell us to talk to our kids about smoking, about drugs, about sex. They recommend feeding kids (always a good idea), reading to them (another excellent idea), and most recently, just talking to the little bastards in general.

I’m reminded of the feral child who lives next door. He barks like a dog. T and I listen to him imitate the family pets over there and he woofs and howls: he is also capable of grunts and screams. Just recently we’ve noticed he’s actually learned a few words. T had suggested one day when the kid was barking at us that it might be wise for us to sell our house before he gets bigger and can do some damage.

Romney’s platform is quaint: strengthen our military, our economy, our families. He likes to talk about the family as the building blocks, the foundation, for all that is fine in America.

“The work that goes on within the walls of a home is the most important work that is ever done in America… And if we want to strengthen America, we need to strengthen the American family.”

That sounds swell, but what families is Mitt talking about? I’d sure like to meet them. But I understand what he’s saying. Improve the family and everything else will just fall into place. True, instead of taking on the world and trying to fix it in one lifetime, perhaps parents should narrow their focus a little and concentrate on teaching their kids to do that heavy lifting. If it’s their future and their planet, let them learn now how to behave in it.

T-Dawg ‘n’ D-Voice in da hood:

“Check it! Uh – mmm – yeah – word, check it!
I hate white bread an’ I hate nig-noggaz
S’why I pos’ dis sh*t fo’ all you bloggaz!”

Just a few observations about the “debate” on MSNBC. I know the candidates fairly well so I wasn’t looking for a Reagan; however, about five minutes into it, I started hoping for one of them – and maybe only McCain could’ve gotten away with it because, like with Jack Bauer, we understand it when McCain goes rogue from time to time – had shouted over Chris Matthews:

“Excuse me, I PAID FOR THIS MICROPHONE, Mr. Matthews, and I’d appreciate it if you’d shut the hell up for two seconds!”

I thought Matthews was supposed to be the moderator, not one of the debaters. And really, is there anything “moderate” about Matthews? This was a typical Hardball interview, with Chris talking over people and cutting them off mid-sentence when he didn’t get the answer he wanted. This is boring… TIME!!! And what’s with the interpretation of answers? That’s a yes! That’s a no! I’m led to believe that MSNBC viewers need to be told, unlike FOX viewers who are allowed to decide on their own, the meaning of what is being said. T, the polignostic, was outraged. He couldn’t even remember who moderated the Democrat debate, but he knew that whoever it was didn’t cut people off when their time ran out (“TIME!!!”), interrupted answers, challenged answers, or tried to pit candidates against one another.

“I hate Chris Matthews. Who was that other guy – the one who moderated the other debate?”

“It was Brian Williams.”

“Who?”

“Precisely.”

But, as much as I would have liked one of them to put Chris in his place, Republicans who aren’t Reagan can’t shout at the moderator — the same way they can’t say no to a debate on a network that is clearly against them. Funny, the Democrats can back out of a FOX debate, but Republicans… well, never mind. I turned to T:

“Can you remember any distinct differences between the Democrat candidates?”

“Besides Kucinich and Gravel being whack-jobs?”

“Do you know anyone’s position on any hot button issue? What they’d do when they’re in office? Their position on anything in particular?”

“Not really.”

“There you go.”

The good news: the Republicans showed up in an obviously hostile environment and they were gracious. They answered the questions. They took positions – different positions. People like Romney, Huckabee, and Thompson got noticed. Matthews must have sensed that Romney and Huckabee were doing well and tried to create some friction, but the candidates wouldn’t take the bait. I liked that Ron ”When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads” Paul dropped the L-word and made his position on the IRS clear; I liked that Romney included his “marriage before babies” remarks and that he mentioned his wife’s disease while answering the question on stem cell research, but didn’t mention MS specifically; I liked that Huckabee, Thompson, Hunter, and Tancredo didn’t mince words; I liked that I heard “Flat Tax” and “FairTax”; and I liked that Gilmore and Brownback didn’t apologize for being conservative.

If I lived in Kansas – and I came close to moving there – I would vote for Brownback to keep him in the Senate. Do I want him to be president? Not really. Do I want Gilmore in the White House? Solid guy, but there are others in the race that ignite more passion. In a perfect world, all these guys would find their unique spot in a new Republican administration – and that includes Fred Thompson and Newt – but is that even possible?

The first question after each MSNBC debate was: Who looked presidential? Who looked good, who sounded good? What they said wasn’t particularly important. Have we become that shallow? It appears we have, because a lot of us are not only looking at the candidates as potential presidents but we’re looking at the wives as potential First Ladies.

I’ve always thought that Mrs. McCain was stunningly beautiful but I’ve always suspected that the woman is accustomed to walking on eggshells. (“My husband, bless his heart, could snap at any moment.”) Brownback’s wife is pleasant enough, but after watching her head bob incessantly during the post-debate analysis, I felt she’d be better on the dashboard of my car than in the White House. And I hate to admit it, but I cringed a little when I saw Judith Giuliani run up onstage immediately after the debate. What I did like was seeing Mitt Romney, chivalrous and respectful, go directly to Nancy Reagan, and then to the evening’s second host, Governor Schwarzenegger.

That Mitt is clearly a class act.

“The man who loves other countries as much as his own stands on a level with the man who loves other women as much as he loves his own wife.”

– Theodore Roosevelt

When it comes to America, I’m pretty monogamous. It wasn’t always that way. When I was younger I always suspected that the grass was greener in other locales, and I imagined a day when I would travel the globe, find that perfect place, and move there. Now I’m older and content to live in a place that is imperfect but has an appealing climate. I used to like grey skies, fog, and endless rain; now I like blue skies and sunshine.

This doesn’t mean, of course, that the rest of the country – indeed, the rest of the world – can go to Hell. I am dependent upon the rest of the world to survive here. Nuevo Mexico is not known for its citrus crop. We do not produce automobiles. We do not manufacture televisions or blue jeans. We have no Major League ball team. We have no skyscrapers, we have no theme parks. We can’t grow pineapple. No offense, Nuevo Mexico, but man cannot live by green chile alone.

Of course I’m interested in what’s going on in other parts of the country and the world. Something happening over there might seem insignificant until one realizes it’s happening here. And suddenly it’s pretty damned significant.

If bees are dying there, it won’t be long before they’re dying here. If people are drinking tea filled with tapioca balls there, it won’t be long before they’re drinking it here. If Socialist women are winning elections there, it won’t be long before – well, you get the idea.

Our system of government might not be perfect, but there are parts of it we like. Compare it to some others, and you’ll find there’s even more to appreciate. Did you know that there is a political party in France called “Chasse, Pêche, Nature, Traditions?” The CPNT claims it’s neither right nor left; translated it is the party of Hunting, Fishing, Nature, Tradition. Le Mouvement de la Realité might be right up Ted Nugent’s alley.

But what’s interesting about watching a political campaign in another place unfold is this: you discover what is going right and wrong in that city, state, or country. If similar things are going on where you live, it might behoove you to keep an eye, not only on your election, but on theirs, too. Sarkozy is an interesting little fellow, and he’s been called some terrible names. Bonaparte! Berlusconi! Bush! In return he has said some very nice things about his neighbors. It’s always unusual for a Frenchman to say something nice about Britain or America, so when a compliment is paid, one must pay attention.

He might not be the perfect candidate – who is? – but he isn’t the competition. France is facing some serious problems, and they still insist their problems are superior to anyone else’s. If that’s the case, why are so many French leaving France?

But I still have fantasies of a vibrant Paris and one day walking down a tree and poo lined boulevard to a small café to consume some cheese, some bread, and a bottle of wine. I do not hate the French; they are fun to watch. And now I will watch as they decide which path to take. We have a similar decision to make, a path to choose, and it isn’t that dissimilar to the one that must be decided in la République française.

Liberté, égalité, fraternité, ou la mort! Our flags’ colors are the same: we share a history of revolution and a fondness for fromage. There is no mention of sisterhood here; let us go forward and build on our brotherhood.