Lunar Obverse

Snow? Seriously? More snow?

This is the worst Portland winter ever. And by worst I mean coldest and snowiest.

The New York Times thinks partisan bickering began when Democrats took control of Congress in 2006.

“For the past two years, majority Democrats often denied Republicans the chance to alter legislation on the floor, mainly so they could not force politically charged votes or scuttle important legislation.

Now, heeding Mr. Obama’s call for cooperation, Senator Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat and majority leader, is tentatively testing the notion of letting Republicans offer amendments to legislation and having the parties engage in a battle of ideas on the floor. The fact that Democrats now have a majority of 58 seats rather than the 51 seats they previously held makes the concession far less painful.”

Weird. Do they not remember now-indicted House Majority Leader Tom Delay (R-TX22) and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) and the myriad ways they prevented the minority from amending or introducing legislation on the floor of Congress? The “nuclear option” that was named by Sen. Lott (R-MS) and which option was used as a club by Sen. Frist? Rep. Delay’s misuse of the FAA to track down and attempt to arrest the Democratic representatives on a private plane? Rep. Delay’s K Street Project to force Washington lobbyists to only hire Republicans?

To the traditional media, as well as those inside the Beltway in general (including, I’m afraid, our new President Obama), “bipartisanship” means marginalizing and silencing the left. It’s Democrats giving Republicans what they want.

The other day, I ran into my Republican co-worker at the coffee cart in the lobby of our building. We made small talk, and I made small talk with Amy, the cute red-headed coffee cart girl, while my Republican co-worker bought an energy bar, and I bought a coffee and donut.

Because I have had to tell him that we should stop talking politics, every new conversation he strikes up with me fills me with dread. Is this going to be the conversation that will finally break the taboo? Will he bust out some crazy story about how the Clintons were actually responsible for Watergate and the Vietnam War? Or will his insanity spill over into some new topic, like cooking or basketball or high definition TV? So I hoped for a largely silent walk through the building.

Sadly, no. On our way back to our office area, my Republican co-worker turned to me and leered. “So, you’re single, right?”

I had no idea where he was going with this but a chill went down my spine.

I kept what I thought was a normal look on my face, though, considered not answering at all or asking him why he wanted to know, and finally just settled on a direct answer. “Yes, I am.” Did I want to know why? “…why?” I added, finally.

He took no notice of the lengthy pauses in my response (he never seems to pick up on any but the most blatant body language, like turning completely around and walking away, for instance) and, still leering, said, “She was flirting with you.”

Who? Oh. Amy. The coffee cart girl.

I quickly reviewed the conversation in my head. Nothing obviously romantic or sexual stuck out in my head. The topics covered were coffee, payment of coffee, the weather, and my favorite kind of donut (of which she seemed unaware).

But my Republican co-worker seemed to get a kick out of it.

I shrugged and said, “No. No… no. Amy’s got a boyfriend.”

My Republican co-worker chuckled. “Well, how’re they doing?”

I shook my head. “I have no idea.”

“I’m just sayin’… maybe she’s lookin’ for something else.”

This conversation annoyed me on many levels. “That was just a normal, everyday conversation.”

My Republican co-worker shook his head in disbelief, as we reached my cubicle. He leaned in for one last comment while I dropped my bag, took off my jacket, and began starting up my computer. “Just think about it,” he said, still leering – over what, I was not sure. I silently hoped he wasn’t picturing me in an intimate situation with Amy, the coffee cart girl.

I remember when I thought that normal everyday conversation with women was actually flirting and foreplay. It wasn’t that long ago, actually.

The Oscar nominations are out as of today, and I’ve seen two of the five Best Picture nominees:

• “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” (Paramount and Warner Bros.)
• “Frost/Nixon” (Universal)
• “Milk” (Focus Features)
• “The Reader” (The Weinstein Company)
• “Slumdog Millionaire” (Fox Searchlight)

Looks like I know what the next three movies I see are going to be. Anyone care to join me, just say the word. The one I’m most interested in is “Slumdog Millionaire”, but “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” is still playing in my neighborhood theater, I think.

Disclaimer – I voted for Mayor Sam Adams in the last election. Did not contribute time or money towards his campaign. I did wear a button with his name on it, which was about the extent of my contributions. I also shook his hand when introduced to him at “Candidates Gone Wild” by a family friend who has been involved in local politics for many many years.

You may have heard that Mayor Adams, 42, has admitted to sleeping with an 18-year old intern. Mayor Adams is openly gay. There’s lots of questions and accusations being thrown around about the whole thing. I’m not going to summarize it here; the story has hit the national news in addition to being a local scandal.

I wasn’t going to write about this but since there’s already competing blogs calling for both his recall and for him to stay (hi, Hollie!), and there’s metric tonnes of electrons being spilled on Twitter (among other places, I’m sure), OK, fine, I’ll say my piece and move on.

I have no problem with the following, which are the facts as I know them as of writing this post:

1. Had a brief, two month relationship with a man 24 years his junior that apparently included consensual sex.
2. Lied about it when asked by co-workers, rival political candidates, and local reporters.
3. Convinced the young man to lie about it, too.

I had heard the rumors about Mayor Adams prior to the election, and it did not sway my vote. Because, again, it did not matter to me. I don’t fucking care who a politician sleeps with. I didn’t care when President Clinton was accused of sleeping with Monica Lewinsky; it did not matter to me in the least. It made the scolds who talked about it, endlessly and in national venues, look tiny and small.

To all the gasbags saying that it speaks to Mayor Adams’ “character” or whatever – fuck you. Stop pointing your fingers. I imagine that many of the critics would gladly sleep with an 18 year old, if given the chance. 18 year olds, either male or female, are hot. Duh. And if accused of doing that, I imagine the fear of being found to be a hypocritical Puritan would make those critics lie, too.

I would very much like to see politicians who are brave enough to stand up and say, “That’s not only none of your business, but please feel free to eat shit and die, too” when asked about anything other than policy or professional decisions or the duties and responsibilities of their office.

Having seen “Milk”, I understand that the fear of being open about a minority status might lead to a nutjob aiming a gun at you. I really do understand that; I belong to the most hated minority group remaining in America today, the atheists. There’s so much material just on this very blog that would prevent lots and lots of people from voting me into any office, small or large. I’m an open atheist. I’m scornful of the basic tenets of Christianity and God-belief in general. I frequent strip clubs, and I actually get private dances from the girls; in fact, I’m a regular customer of a small number of them. I drink to excess. I gamble. I spend my money un-wisely. I have testified against my boss. I have a poor work ethic, even though I’m a union steward.

I have often, though, toyed with the idea of running for office anyway. Not just acknowledging all of that, but making it a part of my campaign. There might be enough booze hounds, atheists, waitresses, bouncers, strippers, philosophy and art majors to get me a simple majority, don’t you think? And even if it didn’t… it would be a hell of a party.

But I still think I know the issues well enough to debate them on their merits. I’d like to think I can be logical and reasonable in weighing the pluses and pitfalls of different policies. None of what I do as entertainment would really disqualify me to represent my peers. Would it? Seriously? Feel free to weigh in.

Mayor Adams has big plans for Portland – transportation, energy, sustainability. You name it. And it all fits in with my values, and the values of my friends and family. He can lead on those issues as well as anyone else could, and perhaps, now that he’s been a bit humbled by his mistake in trying to cover up this relationship, he’ll be more willing to work with others to get these things done.

I’m glad he’s apologized for his error in judgement. Now, Mayor Sam Adams should stay, should face up to his accusers and tell them it’s a personal matter, and should get back to the business of making Portland work for everyone in it.

Here’s some quick hits and links that will stand in for a real post:

• Can someone do this to SE Bush Street in Portland, too? Especially around where it intersects with SE Clinton Street, please. Better yet, how do we start the process for formally renaming it?
• Didja catch the shout-out from President Obama (I am so incredibly happy to finally say that) to non-believers in his speech?
  

  As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience’s sake. And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: Know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.

  Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

  We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort — even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet. We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.

  For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and nonbelievers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

  My emphasis.

  I was not the only one watching that who gave a yelp of surprise and cheered.

• Amanda Marcotte praises the President for explicitly mentioning us godless ones; when non-believers are invisible it makes it easier for people to accept all the freakin’ religious references from our political leaders.
  

  “One might safely infer that the sudden shift towards more aggressive, activist-oriented atheism and skepticism has been working. Which of course is why it’s so strongly resisted. Complaints about big meanie atheism from Richard Dawkins or Bill Maher are stemming mostly from a fear that big meanie atheism is effective. I think that among secularists, the issue of raising non-believer visibility has been a troubling one, because we don’t necessarily see the purpose of it. After all, our government institutions should be secular as a matter of principle, and for the benefit of believers as well as non-believers. So, why should we have to raise atheist visibility?

  But politics isn’t just a matter of rational arguments. If people contextualize this country as being one that has multiple faiths but not that many faithless, people are going to have a hard time seeing the harm and unfairness of all this god talk coming from government institutions and other issues like faith-based funding. People aren’t going to see the harm so long as all references to god and faith are generic enough. But if you can point to a group of people who are still being excluded, no matter how generic the references, then people might have a better idea why the only fair solution to the issue of religious diversity is to keep religion private and make government spaces secular.”

  Read the whole thing, and the comments, too. Seriously. I didn’t want to cut any of it.

• Penn Jillette disagrees and thinks that the small inclusion was a sop compared to all the prayer and God.
• My atheist nephew texted me: “Why is religion so involved in American politics?” I replied: “Because some people haven’t yet put aside childish things, as the Bible teaches us.”
• To put today’s ceremony into terms that a gamer would understand, Obama unlocked an achievement today, after crushing the Republicans, taking the head of John McCain and Sarah Palin, and winning the Electoral College.
• I love the fact that, precisely at noon Eastern time yesterday, the time specified by the Constitution for the transfer of power, whitehouse.gov was switched over to include the President’s new blog and plenty of policy positions and agenda items. These people are tech-y and fucking with it.
• If you’re geeky, you’ll smile at the fact that the Robots.txt file for whitehouse.gov went from almost 2400 lines of exclusions to just two lines, including all search engines. If you’re not geeky, it means you couldn’t Google the site under #43 but now the whole thing is Google-able. If that means nothing to you, hang on; one of President Obama’s goals is to get you folks up to speed with the rest of us.
• From now on, I’m going to simply refer to our former president (damn, I like saying that almost as much as I like saying “President Obama”!) as #43. That’s snarky but still with a tinge of respect. Right?
• I had to add the words “Barack” and “Obama” to the spell-check dictionary on my computers today. Got tired of the red squiggly line for MY PRESIDENT.
• This is my new wallpaper (replacing a satellite image of all the freaking snow in December). It shows the crowds in D.C. this morning from space.
• So much more I could say but I’m almost overwhelmed. When I got a text from the Obama Inauguration team last night asking me to text back my wishes for President Obama, I thought for a bit to condense my thoughts, hopes, wishes and, yes, fears, into 160 characters, and sent this:
  

  “Congrats! We are the power and the promise; you are our symbol and leader.”

  Obama has been clear that it’s not about him; it’s about us, all of us, together. Yes, we can.

• Finally, my hopes and wishes go out to Senator Ted Kennedy, who collapsed yesterday during the inaugural lunch. Speedy recovery, Senator.

A couple of weeks ago, #43 took the unprecedented step of revoking a Presidential pardon.

To my knowledge, that had never been done before (which is why I used the word “unprecedented”, actually). And it seemed to be over such a minor issue – a developer convicted of mail fraud and tax evasion. And #43’s mouthpiece claimed that the administration didn’t want to “create the appearance of an impropriety”.

Huh?

So outing an undercover CIA agent and lying to the grand jury so badly that it interfered with the investigation into whether or not there was a cover-up is OK, but pardoning a minor crony because he donated money to the campaign is out of bounds?

It just didn’t make sense to me at the time.

But people argued back and forth about whether or not a president can actually revoke a pardon. Some said yes, it’s inherent in the ability to grant them in the first place. Others said no, once it was issued you can’t take it back. Josh Marshall had a great round-up of the debate.

The argument for revoking seemed to be based on the difference in time between when the president signs the form issuing the pardon, and when the lawyers at the Department of Justice actually execute the pardons.

The argument against was that, if #43’s (or, more likely, the legal weasels on his administration) theory was correct, it would insert an extra-Constitutional department into the Executive Branch’s Constitutional power. Ain’t no DOJ in the founding documents.

I guess, because I didn’t hear any more about it, that people decided it was OK. I could be wrong, and the opposition just might be under the radar or moving slowly, as justice often does.

And then, as the final hours of #43’s term ticked down, folks were waiting for the midnight pardons – the last-minute ones, the ones that would hopefully slide by in the dead of night. I particularly expected #43 to issue a blanket pardon for himself and his top aides.

It appears that that didn’t happen. Some border guards got their sentences commuted, but that’s it. No other pardons. Which means, I lose a bet and now owe someone twenty bucks. I was so sure.

Again… that just seems weird.

But Josh Marshall made a point: if #43 thinks that pardons can be revoked, maybe he thinks (or, more likely, the legal brains in his administration) that if he issues a late pardon, that Obama could then revoke it as long as the Justice Department hasn’t “executed” it yet.

I kinda wish Obama would do that, actually. But it wouldn’t fit in with his “unity” and “bipartisanship” themes. More’s the pity.

But then I got to thinking. Republicans play the long game. They don’t always have an eye on the immediate consequences of things; they pay attention to how things will play in the future. If, in fact, Obama allows #43’s new power of revocation to stand… surely the Republicans plan to use this power against any future outgoing Democratic presidents.

Watch out, President Obama! No, seriously – pay attention! Or, more specifically, please please please, Attorney General-designate Holder, don’t let #43 get away with this last, slimy trick.

…or if you’re going to allow him to get away with it, could you actually make use of this new power to make sure that justice is done?

I mean no slight to those who gave their lives in the cause of civil rights – Dr. King, Medgar Evers, far too many more for me to mention here – but here is a short list of people that I, personally, wish were still alive to see Barack Obama sworn in today as our 44th president:

• Hunter S. Thompson would have been 72. He abhorred President Nixon’s lawlessness, and he lost his journalistic neutrality while covering the Democratic primary, writing articles that perhaps helped to get George McGovern the Democratic nomination. Thompson viewed Mr. McGovern as a good, idealistic man. When George W. Bush won re-election in 2004, Thompson saw it as the return of Nixon and Nixon’s policies, and it finally broke his spirit; he committed suicide in February 2005. I’d like to think that Thompson would generally approve of Mr. Obama’s election – though he, like me, would criticize Mr. Obama from the left.
• Philip Kindred Dick would have been 80 today. PKD was frightened to his core when he was investigated by the FBI in 1955 because of a short story he wrote regarding nuclear power. Many of PKD’s novels from the 70s onward until his death in 1982 featured Richard Nixon as a villain. PKD feared abuse of government power and was sure we were all trapped in a recurring cycle of imprisonment he called the “Black Iron Prison”. If PKD could have survived the Bush attack on civil liberties and incredible expansion of executive powers (an even more extreme version of the Black Iron Prison’s social control), I think he would have been proud to see President Obama take the oath of office.
• Dr. Stephen Jay Gould would be 67. A fierce fighter for the idea of science and religion being non-overlapping areas of study, and a strong voice of reason and rationality in education and the making of policy, Dr. Gould is one of the few theists on my list of intellectual heroes. I believe that Mr. Bush’s antagonism towards science and uplifting of one specific set of religious myths would have saddened Dr. Gould; hearing President Obama include “non-believers” in his speech today, and hearing him explicitly state that policies must be based on data and science, would have put a smile on Dr. Gould’s face.

How about you?

Yesterday I said goodbye to Mr. Bush and surveyed the damage his administration has done to our democracy. And it was severe and widespread.

But we yet live in a democracy, even so. And a small part of that idealistic and hopeful system of government survives even the undemocratic reign of George Walker Bush. It survived this time in the form of the largest voter turnout in America’s history, in the election that selected the Electors who selected Barack Hussein Obama to be our 44th president. Mr. Obama will be sworn into office today. The campaign he ran was based on hope and change, which are, after all, the emotions underpinning our idealistic form of government. That makes Mr. Obama far more democratic than Mr. Bush.

Two months ago, on Election Night, I celebrated our country’s choice of Mr. Obama over his rival, Sen. John Sidney McCain. I danced in the streets. I talked to a woman who had lived in this country for many years but had not been a citizen. After the disappointing election of 2004, however, she knew that she had to do more; she worked hard so that when the election of 2008 came around, she could vote. I’m sure her story has echoes and parallels all over.

I also talked to a gentleman who was visiting our country on business from Switzerland. He was impressed and amazed at the happiness and joy he saw from Americans after electing Mr. Obama. I was proud of my country and of we, the people. He was happy to have been here on that night.

And the next day, I received an email from friends of mine, citizens of the United Kingdom, giving happy thanks to us for electing such a competent and rational president.

Today is our day to celebrate the renewal of the most powerful of our three co-equal branches of government. Today we take the man who won our popular vote, the man who then won the vote of the electors, and the man who was certified by the weakest branch of our three co-equal branches of democratic government, and make him swear before us, and the world, to uphold the Constitution that founded our country.

Not to uphold his political party’s policies. Not to protect the businesses, geography, or the religious beliefs, or the idea of democracy in the world at large. Not even to protect the lives of Americans or human beings in general. No, he, as all past presidents have, will swear to uphold the Constitution and the values, ideals, and laws found in that document.

Our Constitution of the United States of America is a very readable and accessible document. It grants many powers to the Legislative Branch, the institution that holds our directly-elected representatives. It grants a few powers to the Executive Branch, the one which will have Mr. Obama as its Chief Executive for at least the next four years. And it outlines the scope of responsibilities of the third branch, the Judicial, which is supposed to arbitrate the balance of power between the first two.

But somehow, over time, we’ve allowed more and more power for the Executive, largely at the expense of the Legislative. This is good if the person elected President is a good person, bad if the person is a venal or evil person. As much as I believe that Mr. Obama is a good person, I will still work to shift the balance of power back to Congress, and will work to elect leaders who understand that our Constitution doesn’t enforce itself.

Mr. Obama was a Constitutional scholar, so I am certain he is well aware of the fears and ideals that went into it, and the history of how it has been amended and interpreted. His knowledge of the details certainly far exceeds mine. But he and I, and we, the people, are all still subject to the laws it enshrines.

Will Mr. Obama bring about as much hope and change as we, the people, thirst for? Time will tell. I will give him the chance, of course. He is my president, and not simply because I voted for him. I agree with some of Mr. Obama’s positions, and I disagree with others. That is normal for a democracy; it thrives on opposition. But I will give Mr. Obama the chance to go from campaigning, to governing. He will now have the opportunity to enact policies rather than make promises.

Others may trust Mr. Obama to be a good president in the sense of enacting policies that uphold the ideals of our nation, but I am willing to bet that even Mr. Obama knows that it’s up to all of us to hold him accountable and to encourage him when he succeeds and to argue and discourage when he fails. We can do that through our representatives in Congress and at the state and local levels – or we can do that ourselves. And he will have no choice but to hear from we, the people, on what we think of his actions.

Luckily Mr. Obama has taken steps that are unprecedented in our history of opening a dialogue with we, the people, thanks to the tools our technology have given to all of us. I’m encouraged by the visible evidence of Mr. Obama’s willingness to listen, in the form of his website, Change.gov. I’m a little less encouraged by his somewhat weak answers to the top questions we, the people, have been asking him on that site, but at least he’s willing to engage us.

Mr. Obama values discussion and debate. It’s been said he thrives on disagreement. But after the topics have been hashed out, he also urges us to come together around the solution. Unity of purpose after everyone has voiced their thoughts. I can deal with that as long as I feel I have been heard, and as long as the final decision is based on the majority view, and as long as the core values of the Constitution are being followed. I trust Mr. Obama to do that – and I will work to ensure it happens. Mr. Obama would expect no less of us.

The people Mr. Obama has selected for the various departments under his control appear to be competent, educated, and outspoken. A team of rivals. Some of them are already unafraid to disagree with their boss; Eric Holder said in his confirmation hearings that the president is not above the law. Mr. Obama chose his political rival for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Rodham Clinton, to represent his foreign policy. His Energy Secretary is an actual scientist, well-versed in the nuts and bolts of how we create energy, rather than a representative from the businesses that sell oil, as most Dept. of Energy heads have been in the past. He chose to retain the previous Defense Secretary, Robert Michael Gates, a member of the other political party. OK, maybe Mr. Gates isn’t a shining example of competence, unless you count the fact that Mr. Gates has apparently prevented Mr. Bush from invading Iran.

Even where I disagree with Mr. Obama, I am proud of him. I am proud of my country for having elected him in record numbers. And I am eager for the future renewal of our democratic experiment.

Welcome to the White House, President Obama. Congratulations on participating in our democracy. Please leave it stronger than you inherited it.