I recently read a passage from Twain (Mark, that is) in which he described with awe his view of the snow-capped Rocky Mountains from the window of an overland stagecoach on a hot and sticky day in July 1861. He reflected on the axiom "seeing is believing," and conveyed the import of that phrase and captured its precision through a lamentation that for many people "thinking is believing" and that those who believe without seeing are often shocked to find that once they have seen, they found out that, until their moment of sight, they never truly believed what they thought. For Twain, it was his childhood belief that snow could persist at high altitudes in the warmest months of summer. While he ardently believed that notion as a child, he never came to truly believe it and appreciate it until that moment when he had seen it himself "on the ground, in person." I found Twain's analysis profound and unquestionably applicable to my perceptions and judgments with regard to events occurring in our own time.
Take, for example, the Senate race in Pennsylvania, in which Republican incumbent Rick Santorum is on the ropes and, if you believe polls, likely to be defeated. Santorum is renown for his unflinching support of the pro-life agenda. However, Santorum is, by gender, a man and, thus, has not and never will "see" from the perspective of a woman what he believes in regard to abortion. I can't honestly believe that if Rick Santorum were a fifteen year-old girl that was violently raped and impregnated, he would still fundamentally oppose abortion. If he were a woman, how would he feel if abortions (and, in this sense, choices) were entirely unavailable to him?
Take, for example, the Senate race in Pennsylvania, in which Republican incumbent Rick Santorum is on the ropes and, if you believe polls, likely to be defeated. Santorum is renown for his unflinching support of the pro-life agenda. However, Santorum is, by gender, a man and, thus, has not and never will "see" from the perspective of a woman what he believes in regard to abortion. I can't honestly believe that if Rick Santorum were a fifteen year-old girl that was violently raped and impregnated, he would still fundamentally oppose abortion. If he were a woman, how would he feel if abortions (and, in this sense, choices) were entirely unavailable to him?
Perhaps someone should pose my query to Santorum at one of his upcoming rallies. However, recent precedent suggests that such a messenger will be assaulted, like this poor sap at a George Allen event:
It's always darkest before dawn, I suppose. Admittedly, this guy is an unlubricated dildo for the Webb campaign (albeit unofficially), but he's out there in the mix, reveling in the joie de vivre. My sense is that the spirit of activism he portrays is percolating in this country. You can see it the middle class family fuming over the wasteful spending of their tax dollars while trying to cover the payments on an interest-only mortgage that seemed like such a good idea two years ago. If it weren't for the weak housing market and apparently limitless interest rates unsecured lenders are allowed to collect, perhaps this family could send one of their children to a community college. I've seen this anger, and I believe it to be genuine and metastasizing. It exists in every person who has been downsized, outsourced or simply left out and shut out. Families who have lost loved ones in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Sudan and countless other countries are increasingly asking why and, more importantly, demanding to know the conditions that will dictate when the bloodletting can stop. These people all share a common trait-- they have all seen what they believe, and I have seen them; lots of them.
I have also seen those who continue to believe only what they think-- for some its the belief that illegal immigrants and same-sex marriages are unquestionably the last of the seven seals to be broken; others can't stop preaching (hypocritically, no less) that what's really lacking in this country is Christian faith and morality; a few believe that the recent adjustment to the payroll numbers from the last three months (including a 200+% increase in the September number) had nothing to do with providing the Republicans with a talking point on the employment aspect of the economy or that the timing of Saddam's death sentence was anything other than a contrivance; and, in a wave of Rove's wand, almost everyone who owns a television believed on Tuesday and Wednesday that John Kerry truly sought to insult the intelligence of American troops. Most who ponder the question agree that hearing, like thinking, is a lesser breed than sight in the measurement of belief.
My impression is that people of this mindset and the politicians they support-- those who believe what they think, without the benefit, or is some senses the will, to see-- will do poorly in the upcoming elections. That means you Jim Talent and the other Republican lemmings who have clung to the Bush coattails without even a hint of independent inquiry or investigation. The will of the people has turned-- and it now points squarely to disclosure, accountability in spending and equality and humanity in social services and education. It's impossible to believe that No Child has Been Left Behind when you've seen your local schools closing, annual district bond measures and DOE-mandated programs exploited by Bush loyalists for personal gain (here's a rebuttal of that assertion). In this relatively small segment of domestic policy, many have seen the results of Republican governance and they believe the time has come for a change. With heads snuggly in asses, Republicans will be sent packing on Tuesday. I don't just think it, I've seen it (as a Diebold technician, of course).
Now that it's begun to rain in Oregon, I'll soon be settling back in with the pen at greater frequency. I've already spun a rough draft on the myriad of reasons why America should not partition Iraq, and have the beginnings of an essay on why the Borat phenomenon is bound to end up in Branson, Missouri; already home to the comic stylings of one lovable Eastern European buffoon, Yakov Smirnov. "I love this country!"
I'm waiting on the Iraq piece because, like the Iraq Study Group, headed by uber patriots James Baker III and Lee Hamilton, I don't want to sway the elections with my super-secret plan to save the United States from seemingly certain political defeat in Iraq. The military aspect of this war was over long, long ago. What those troops are still doing there, as opposed to a UN force, is not clear. My eyes have told me, as I noted many months ago, that the troops are there to guarantee the security of the ol' fossil fuel, now pumping at a rate which exceeds the pre-Gulf War II level.
One thing the military is certainly not there for anymore: reconstruction. That well is now tapped out-- witness construction giant Bechtel "cutting and running" from Iraq (albeit to the bank with truckloads of our tax dollars). If companies like Bechtel and KBR are walking away from Iraq, it's either got to be the growing evidence of fraud or Iraq is truly engulfed in a civil war, but, more likely, a combination of those two. It certainly isn't the astronomical profit margins that are driving the contractors away.
I'm hoping that the Baker-Hamilton report finally defines "victory," because it's my impression that there is currently no discernible definition of that term offered by either major political party with respect to Iraq. Regardless of the report's conclusions, I'm worried because Baker and Hamilton have admitted that, due to certain dangers, they did not actually talk to any Iraqi civilians, only Iraqi government officials of the highest posts, not those "on the ground and in person." The list of sources for their upcoming report, while vast, fails to denote a single meeting with any Iraqis other than those who have continued in their failure to govern the country. Baker and Hamilton's greatest failure will be a result of failing to see what they believe, instead relying solely on believing what they and a handful of detached officials think.
I'm hoping that the Baker-Hamilton report finally defines "victory," because it's my impression that there is currently no discernible definition of that term offered by either major political party with respect to Iraq. Regardless of the report's conclusions, I'm worried because Baker and Hamilton have admitted that, due to certain dangers, they did not actually talk to any Iraqi civilians, only Iraqi government officials of the highest posts, not those "on the ground and in person." The list of sources for their upcoming report, while vast, fails to denote a single meeting with any Iraqis other than those who have continued in their failure to govern the country. Baker and Hamilton's greatest failure will be a result of failing to see what they believe, instead relying solely on believing what they and a handful of detached officials think.
Suffice it to say, this isn't the first time I've been happy that I am not an Iraqi. But, upon reflection, I realize that I am a human being and that no innocent person should suffer unnecessarily. So, while we continue to hear from VP Cheney that Iraq is not a quagmire and that, regardless of the outcome of the elections, Bush and his team will continue go "full steam ahead" doing "what they believe is the right thing," I can only wonder whether Democrats, having gained control of the House and/or Senate, will have the political spine to aggressively curtail the tax dollars Bush is allowed to spend on his military adventures. I'll believe that when I see it.
[Editor's Note: Instead of wasting your time randomly checking back for new essays, simply enter your e-mail address in the box on the top of this page's right column.]
