New signs of the same old thing

I believe it was the Architect Frank Lloyd Wright who once griped that Florida, being the lowest part of the United States, everything loose had slid down into it, but whether he did or didn't, there are many unsavory things down here in America's bilges. Not that we're all that unique. One can turn over rocks anywhere and find the same sort of things that turn up in the Sunshine state, but here they're more likely not to bother hiding.

So I'm leaving the local car parts store yesterday, coming up empty handed in my search for a transmission shift cable bushing and right next door in the seedy strip mall containing a barbecue joint where the ancient, blackened smoker sits in the parking lot and a pawn shop in front of which a weathered 1950's pickup truck has been moldering since I moved here 9 years ago.

These times are good for the pawn shops and I happen to be a fan of History Channel's Pawn Stars featuring a shop in Las Vegas operated by some funny characters and stuffed with real treasures, so I decided to have a peek. I'd been there before. It was about 6 months after President Obama took office and the two men seated inside in front of a large screen TV where Fox News was raging away were declaring that that damned Commie in the White house had had 6 months to fix the economy and had failed miserably. Little has changed, except for the worse. Same two men, same TV, same dark, gloomy, mildewed interior filled with the seedy detritus of sad lives and one hell of a lot of guns. Same suspicious glower. All that was new was a sign saying "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction." underneath which was the name Barack Hussein Obama - "from his book Audacity of Hope."

There's been a rash of newspaper comments about such things appearing in stores all over town and of course, that quote is gross misinterpretation of what the book really said.* Other stores have offended customers with entirely fictitious quotes by the First Lady. The real quote of course showed his promise of support for American citizens if such things as the internment of Japanese-American citizens should happen again.

I have to admit that the sheer firepower displayed there made me decide to vote with my feet and not shoot my mouth off and I simply left. But of course, to the devotees of the Obamahate religion, such heresy as any bit of truth I might have offered would not have been well received or credited. What's the use? No newspaper editorials debunking this disgusting garbage are effective, since newspapers are "Liberal" as we all know. The religious symbols of Obamahate are becoming as widespread as those chrome fish and other religious declarations scrawled on Mom's dump truck. It's not new, it's just a new sign in the old pawn shop.

Of course they can't find enough real criticism, even though there is plenty. That would require more in terms of intelligence and education than they possess -- nor can they simply say what they really mean, thanks to what they call "political correctness" which to me, is a cynical name for common decency: decency, at least as it relates to the cult of nativist and racist bigotry, being a Liberal affectation rather than a virtue. So they make up stories about the president. Easier than discussing the likelihood that TARP 'spending' will prove to be a net gain or whether financing a war on the prospect that a disproved scheme will generate sufficient revenue. Call him a Kenyan tribesman, a somehow Communist Muslim fanatic. Call his wife a gorilla. Safer than using the N word and revealing what you really are.


*They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific assurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

Does The Middle Still Matter?

I actually wrote this blog post below when I was home in the US over the summer and fully exposed to American politics. Keep in mind that prior to that, it had been a good 2 years since I was fully immersed in the wonderfully chaotic intenseness that is the American political system. Now after being back in Europe for a couple of months (while continuing to follow the next round of elections...we always seem to be voting in America), I'm wondering if what I wrote a few months ago still holds true: does the middle still matter? For the sake of America, I certainly hope so. Original post below:

My political beliefs are a bit of a hodgepodge. In general, I’m a middle-of-the-road person, not terribly prone to extremes on either side of the political spectrum. Since I find that most political issues are too nuanced to simply come down hard as a righty or a lefty, I generally tend to reside somewhere in the middle and normally refer to myself as a moderate (not a “fence straddle” as one of my friends put it). There are of course several exceptions to my moderate views (I have both liberal and conservative tendencies…just ask me my views on abortion or fiscal responsibility if you want to see how I make the conservative and the liberal peacefully co-exist in my mind), but for the most part I’m firmly in the middle. Which, for me is an awesome and interesting place to be.

As Congressional races heat up and the claws come out, I’m starting to wonder if my old political mantra still rings true. What is my political mantra you ask? The middle matters. In my rather limited time as a voting adult (10 years and counting baby!), I can’t think of too many political campaigns (with the notable exception of some local GA races) where appealing exclusively to one’s hard right or hard left (or hard Libertarian/Green/Independent) base actually resulted in a victory. Sure politicians need to secure their party base. And if you happen to live in a congressional district that has a sh*t ton of folks from you’re party’s base, then you’re golden.

But let’s consider for a second something a bit large, such as a national political contest. Let's say Sarah Palin, for example, decides to run for president (*shudder*). Sure she’s very popular with her hard right conservative base. But that doesn’t mean jack sh*t. Those numbers aren’t enough to get a majority of the votes (I hope). And the hard lefties wouldn’t vote for her regardless of what she says or does. She would need to be able to convince those moderates like myself that she wouldn’t bring about one of the following: World War III and/or Armageddon/the Apocalypse. Frankly I’m not convinced she wouldn’t. Joking, joking (not really).

The same rings true for President Obama when he runs for re-election. His hardcore supporters will vote for him regardless (I mean unless he does something like turn into the second coming of Ronald Reagan and even then I'm pretty sure I can find some liberals who would vote for him). Those vehemently opposed to him (I’m looking at you Tea Party and Take Back America crowds) wouldn’t vote for him anyway (even if he out-Reaganed Reagan). So where would he pick up the needed votes? In the middle with us moderates (and I’ll go ahead and throw the undecided in there as well).

The same basic principle applies to the upcoming Congressional elections as well. Sure Rand Paul and Christine O'Donnell managed to win their respective primaries with their base of Libertarian and/or Tea Party supporters. But that alone won't necessarily be enough to carry them through the doors of Congress. They need to convince us pesky fence-straddlers moderates that they're up to the job.

But now I fear that with a crappy economy, a crappy housing market and pissed off people looking for an easy target to scapegoat blame that the middle, as so often happens during political campaigns, will be ignored…at least by the mainstream media. Too often the focus is on the more diehard left/right voters. Rarely will you hear a sound bite from moderate, middle-of-the-road voters. Instead he who can shout the loudest with the most extreme viewpoint is more likely to get airtime (and in the case of political pundits, get paid handsomely for it). Perhaps it’s more entertaining to watch polar opposites argue on political points that they’ll never agree on. But for me, I’d prefer to see some moderates have an honest discussion on the nuances of government policy and do something radical...like come to a compromise and resolve it. But I suspect Glenn Beck will retire his blackboard and stop crying on cue air while renouncing his fanboy devotion to Sarah Palin while voting for Obama before that happens.

Thoughts?

P.S. For my fellow Americans abroad: don't forget to request your absentee ballot for the upcoming elections. Don't know how? Well click this link...unless you plan on voting for a Tea Party candidate...I kid, I kid. No but seriously, don't click that link if you're going to squander your vote on the Tea Party.

P.P.S. Before I get any comments accusing me of "not getting" the Tea Party/Take Back America crowds or being a mindless liberal/progressive/communist/socialist/nazi/facist (actually, if you accuse me of the latter, you clearly weren't paying attention to the blog post...but I digress), trust me when I say I've done my homework on both. Don't believe me? Check out the following posts:
An Open Letter to Tea Parties/Anti-Big Government Crowd
Random Musing on Tea Parties
Taking Back America
Tea Party! An(other) Open Letter


Cross-posted from American Black Chick in Europe.

Scare Factor

It's been many decades since I read Mark Twain's Life on the Mississippi, but I remember his description of the man up in the bow of the riverboat measuring the depth with a lead line. When the line wasn't long enough to reach down to the river bed, he'd call out "nooooo bottom!"

I could hear that call yesterday when I read about the latest from Sharron Angle and David Vitter's campaign ads fincluding a picture of a trio of Mexican men used to imply that if their opponents were elected, these scary, swarthy, hostile and decidedly non-Aryan aliens would be sneaking about your back yard leering at the womenfolk, giving Marijuana to your toddlers forcing you to pay them social security benefits our of your contributions and spreading leprosy. The oldest of ploys, really and I'm trying like hell not to invoke that jerk Godwin and his damned laws, but of course everyone uses it from biblical prophets to today's iteration of the 19th century Know-Nothing party.

That the picture of three Mexican farmers taken in the far south of Mexico -- that's Mexico, not New Mexico -- and back during the Bush administration, may have been illegally used and do not actually portray aliens, illegal or otherwise, means nothing to these candidates or their supporters since anything they do in the name of the cause, even if they have no idea what that is, is justified. That is, of course, the very policy they attribute to Islamic terrorists, but never mind, only liberals would make an issue of it, you know. Liberals ( and that means anyone who opposes them) are "soft on illegals," love illegals, want more illegals and want to pay them Social Security benefits ( says the ad) and that makes Lou Dobbs a liberal along with that arch liberal George W. Bush who even speaks a few words of Mexican or whatever scary and incomprehensible-to-regular-folk language it is they speak down there. Of course that claim is as misleading as the photograph filched from the Getty Archives, but my experience proves that teabag zealots would rather pass along any lie than bother to check the facts.

There's no bottom to this muddy river. There never has been for any extended time in our history. The dream of a country run by white Protestant, preferably Anglo-Saxon males with guns (God and Guts) and their subservient families is still strong and apparently well armed. It's rapidly becoming a smaller minority and that of course only makes it an angrier bunch of dreamers with an ever greater number of unscrupulous opportunists and yes, idiots and the logically impaired. Few of them are smart enough to understand that their increasingly irresponsible extremism, the incompetent, morally unscrupulous tribe of candidates they support, harms the ability of rational conservatives -- and yes, liberals and even Libertarians -- to control the immigration rate, deal with the undocumented in a decent, American way and most of all to end the support they have from American industry as well as individual hypocrites like Dobbs and Whitman.

At first glance, it may appear that with the rise of the neo-Know Nothings, Liberal principles are under renewed assault once again -- and they are, but the real danger, in my opinion, is the death of principled conservatism and a dedication to efficient, honest government rather than one that looks good in theory but fails every test.

I have a certain amount of faith that the public will recognize the danger of the Christine O'Donnels and the Sharron Angles, the Pallidino's, DeMints and Vitters, but I have far less faith that we'll ever be able to survive the ability of Global corporations to steer us in any way they want, particularly since they are so good at keeping us fighting ourselves that we don't notice.

Steve Pearce - Mindless GOP Zombie

OK, so I've spent a lot of my time here in New Mexico ignoring Steve Pearce. I know the name, but he's been in the Second Congressional District for all my time here (Albuquerque, after all, is in the more resplendent First Congressional District, so I don't really have to pay attention to him).

(See, it's true - we Democrats are elitist. We can't help it. It's in our nature: we want the "elite" - the smartest, best and kindest - to be in charge. Why is that bad?)

Most of what I knew about Steve Pearce was that he was a featureless Republican rubber stamp, with no real personality and limited reason to exist. A wholly-owned subsidiary of the oil companies. A faceless, balding cipher who never had an original thought that wasn't given to him by Turdblossom and Associates.

Articles stolen from the Heritage Foundation were printed under Pearce's byline in small newspapers across New Mexico back in 2005. (His press secretary took the fall for him, so A+ for loyalty, but a big F for, you know, honesty and the like...)

He really only had one accomplishment to justify his existence. When the execrable Heather Wilson decided to give up her seat in the House of Representatives and try to jump into the Senate, Pearce kicked her butt, and then had the good grace to be defeated by Tom Udall (D-NM).

He's been endorsed by Sarah Palin, which might just be the kiss of death for him. Of course, with that nomination comes the requirement, apparently, to say blatantly ignorant crap, like refusing to admit that Obama is an American citizen.



If you're in a hurry, the lady's meds are wearing off, and she rambles on for the first 90 seconds of the video, trying to sound rational as she asks "Isn't the world about to end because we elected a Black Foreigner to a White House?" At about the 1:31 mark, Pearce tries to sound rational with "Barack Obama raised the most significant issues himself," and repeats the debunked lie that Obama traveled to Pakistan when it was illegal for Americans to be there.

Sorry, Stevie. No such ban ever existed, but the fact that you think there was... Well, a good Birther isn't willing to give up on a lie just because reality is rude enough to disagree, right?

If things follow their usual course with Stevie, he should be saying that Obama is a Muslim who pals around with terrorists next. He's a good follower; he'll say whatever he's told to say.

But that's not the only lie he wants to push forward. You wander around his website, and you find this page, where Stevie, or his Campaign Plagiarism Manager, writes:

Christians are just sick and tired of turning the other cheek while our courts strip us of all our rights. Our parents and grandparents taught us to pray before eating, to pray before we go to sleep. Our Bible tells us to pray without ceasing. Now a handful of people and their lawyers are telling us to cease praying.

God, help us. And if that last sentence offends you, well, just sue me.

The silent majority has been silent too long. It's time we tell that one or two who scream loud enough to be heard that the vast majority doesn't care what they want. It is time that the majority rules! It's time we tell them, "You don't have to pray; you don't have to say the Pledge of Allegiance; you don't have to believe in God or attend services that honour Him. That is your right, and we will honour your right; but by golly, you are no longer going to take our rights away. We are fighting back, and we WILL WIN!"

Sorry, Stevie, that's another lie. Nobody is trying to "take (y)our rights away." You just don't get to pay for it with the government's money.

I mean, I could be snide and point out that the vast majority of America used to have no problem with enslaving blacks, either. Instead... well, since you brought up what the Bible says about prayer, how come your mindless ilk can never seem to remember what else it said?

And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. (Matthew 6:5-6)

Yeah, sorry, Stevie. That's Jesus that just called you a hypocrite, not me.

Oh, and you know that six years in the House of Representatives? Just think of it as your reward. We're done with you now.

Bad Banks and Buttheads

The sad and sorry events that conglomerate to make up The Great Recession are not remote or removed from us. They are not hypothetical or academic. They are happening to me, to you, to people we love and know and meet. This is--ultimate irony-- an illiberal and unprejudiced set of setbacks; open to all comers, the just and the unjust alike. Doesn't that make it just so impossible to grasp the rationale behind policies and pronouncements from the reactionary right?! I'm almost speechless, but only almost. A couple of personal stories and a well-earned award--just got to get these off my chest.

The first thing a young man of my distant acquaintance found in his brand new mailbox during his first orientation week at college in late '90's was an application for a credit card--Holy Magic Crap, free money! The Grail. College definitely had the shit beat out of high school. He hid the application away in a drawer under his new Abercrombie boxer shorts for a few days, pondering whether to ask his parents about it or even whether it was safe to handle.  He took it out once and filled in the information blanks, then put it away. He took it out again and signed on the bottom line; the card company only asked for his signature--could that be right?--and hid it away again. There was the fine print, the interest rate, but those numbers had no meaning yet. Finally, he queried some of the less obviously insane freshmen on his dorm hall, and heard, "Dude, you haven't sent yours in yet?! Mine's already come. My roommate got an application at a booth at orientation. Check it out!"

Sane Enough to Know I'm Not: Depression

Please link to ParsleysPics (HERE) if you are interested in reading this installment. This has turned out to be a much larger - and longer - series than I had anticipated and I'm not comfortable hogging all the space on The Swash Zone. Thanks.

The Angle of reflection

A significant part of the Republican "message" has been that our secular laws derive from a largely mythical "Judeo-Christian" system of values. Yes, the adage about strange bedfellows is true, but politics and religion, being in bed together, tend to spawn strange offspring and to dress them up as reason and decency.

Of course it's true that a great number of our laws do reflect religious prohibitions, biases and attitudes and those laws often criminalize behavior that involves no harm to people or property and interferes with personal liberty, but those taboos seem to be shared by a great number of cultures which adhere to religions from Animism to Confucianism. There's little that's unique about our alleged Christian values and from the start, many of those values were at odds with our independence and our freedom. Yes, it's hard to think of a religion of any kind that has no rules of behavior but we're talking about Americans -- the people at the center of the universe who don't really think much about thinking or the necessity of reason.

So when we pass laws forbidding dancing on Friday, the observation or rejection of Christmas, the reading of certain books: when we make laws concerning who may live together, have sex together and in what way, we have illustrations of religious law intruding into secular life in America. Such things are slowly eroding and always changing, of course, but the prospect of a group that has always composed a small minority in the US: The Muslims, supporting certain religious rules within their own congregations and amongst their adherents, seems to have all the bells in the national belfry ringing in discord.

Islamic religious law, says Sharon Angle, is "taking hold" in some American cities and that's a "militant terrorist situation." No, really. I suppose it's wildly different in a terrorist sort of way for Jews to forbid Pork and Lobster or cheeseburgers or to require prayer at certain times and even to mandate beards or distinctive clothing. I suppose it's not the same thing for Catholics to forbid divorce and require celibacy of certain people and distinctive clothing for the clergy. The special Mormon underwear? Prohibitions against alcohol and coffee? Is the Church of Latter Day Saints "taking over" Utah and the constitution taken to the shredder? No, there's no militant terrorist situation there. Is there really a chance that the constitution will be supplanted by the Amish Ordnung even if an area has a majority of that peaceful faith? So why are we afraid and what are we really afraid of? Why does Sharon Angle say:

"It seems to me there is something fundamentally wrong with allowing a foreign system of law to even take hold in any municipality or government situation in our United States?"

Well, of course we wouldn't pay any attention to such a person as she if she weren't outrageous, but if we were a nation that could notice that these religious rules are in no respect taking hold of municipal governments and in fact are optional personal choices in a nation that allows us to make such choices freely, perhaps Sharon Angle would be all alone in some little room raving at the walls and not on national TV farting out her fallacies, misrepresentations and hysterical lies -- and God help us, running for the US Senate. Sure there would be something fundamentally wrong, but more certainly: it isn't happening here. Religion, say the courts, gives no license to break the law whether that faith demands we strangle a wayward daughter or drag a gay man behind a pickup truck or poison our congregation with cyanide.

The key word here is "Foreign." Although virtually all our religions are imported and many religious groups immigrated simply so that they could have communities with their own religious rules, Angle wants to reinforce the chauvinism of a certain kind of self-styled Christian who would be quite happy with a massively powerful government intent on substituting their own 'Christian' restrictions for our secular constitution. She is, most ironically, the best example of what she wants us to fear. Muslims and certain other people will always be "foreign" and most of us will never pause to reflect upon the horrible consequences that xenophobic, nationalistic bit of European bigotry had in the last century.

But we're not a nation of critical thinkers; at least not enough of us to give reason or even common decency a fighting chance. Bigotry, our real national religion, forbids it after all and we make demons out of people who don't want to participate or worst of all, don't want any religion forced on them.

Angle would like to pass on her contagious nightmare and indeed I know too many people who share it and who will refuse to be persuaded that even if we someday have an Ayatollah of Texas, he's not going to be able to use force to punish reprobates and infidels or have any more secular authority than an Archbishop or TV evangelist. They refuse to remember when Roman Catholics were a "foreign" religion to be feared for inquisitions and foreign rule over Americans. Somehow that "hopey-changey" thing did work our fairly well for them and for the many others who have had to contend with the Know-Nothing nativists and the Sharon Angles of their day.

What's in your wallet?

The prospect of foreclosure is frightening enough to the many people who are having trouble making mortgage payments and who fear losing their homes. It's frightening enough without the prospect of strange men crashing through the back door in the middle of the night.

Even worse for some people here in The Sunshine State, folks who are simply a bit behind in payments but who are not in foreclosure have been treated to a surprise breaking and entering by representatives of one of those banks that love to advertise how they're on your side. Listen to the 911 call from one frightened woman and put yourself in her position and ask yourself what you would do if the man in black kicked in your door. I certainly know what I would do and what the law allows me to do to a possibly armed unannounced midnight caller. It would involve more than an angry letter to J.P. Morgan.

The hired thugs of our friendly banking industry have done worse than frightening people half to death in a way Pauly Walnuts could only envy. There are stories of home invasions at wrong addresses and one Jason Grodensky from nearby Ft. Lauderdale, Florida with the good fortune to have no mortgage at all had his house foreclosed on by Bank of America. What's in your wallet?

The publicity has been bad enough that major banks are curtailing foreclosure viking raids or freezing foreclosures entirely for the moment. Nancy Pelosi and some 30 Democrats in the house are calling for an investigation in their typically socialist way and Attorney General Eric Holder has announced he will be looking into it. Bloomberg News reports that some 7 states are investigating charges that false documents and signatures have been used to justify hundreds of thousands of possible fraudulent foreclosures and their attendant Viking raids against surprised and terrified homeowners.

So it's all going to be taken care of right? The Democrats are on the side of the people and against those huge, ugly hordes of corporate Visigoths and their paper battering rams, right? They control the Senate and the House and they'd never let the Republicans rubber stamp the right of Corporate Huns to lie, cheat and bypass every code of human decency since the Code of Hammurabi and the Proclamation of Telepinu -- right?

Don't be too sure, because a bill that may do just that now sits on President Obama's desk that somehow oozed through our lefty, anti-business, death-to-Capitalism Congress. Stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Democratic Senator Robert Casey used some obscure procedure to take the bill away from the Senate Judiciary committee and the Senate then immediately passed it without debate and by unanimous consent. There was no one in the gallery to sing Whose side are you on.

Sane Enough To Know I'm Not: Bipolar 101

MRI of the brain during "normal", manic and depressed moods

So I’m bipolar. So what? How does this make me an expert? It doesn’t. I’m no authority on the subject whatsoever. I can only write about what my experiences have been and about what I’ve learned while searching for answers to this very complicated multifaceted mental illness.

There are several stock responses when I tell someone I’m bipolar. “Oh, my dear, I can just imagine the hell you go through.” Or, “Oh sweetie, talk to me anytime. My great-aunt/mother/brother/wife/ daughter has it. I know all about it.” Well meaning but it’s pure horse hockey. You ain’t got a clue unless you have it.

Another is: “We all get blue sometimes.” True, “we all” do just that. Someone dies, we lose our job or our kid gets sick. Or our house burns down while the firefighters stand there and do nothing. Any of these things alone is enough to depress anyone. But . . .

It is a situational depression. It is nowhere nearly as extreme in intensity or longevity. It isn’t so debilitating that you don’t want to get out of bed for weeks or months at a time. It doesn’t cause you to self-mutilate, or worse, to kill yourself. It may even last for a couple of years but not for a lifetime. And you can’t just talk yourself out of it.

Another is, “Well, gee, I have periods when I’m more energized than at other times.” Of course and that’s perfectly normal. You just got a raise, won some money, moved to that farm you’ve always wanted. Or, maybe it’s something simple like the sun shining and it’s a beautiful spring day. But . . .

This feeling of elation is thousands of miles away from the intensity and destructiveness of a manic episode. You don’t lose your judgment. You don’t make reckless decisions, spend boat loads of money you don’t have, or dance naked in a fountain, or self-medicate with drugs and alcohol.

Oh, there’s one more: “Well, I’m sure if you pray and talk to the Lord, you’ll be just fine.”

So what is this thing called manic depression anyway? What causes it? Is it contagious? Can’t you just take a pill to get rid of it? What are the symptoms?

According to the National Alliance on Mental Illness: “Bipolar disorder, or manic depression, is a medical illness that causes extreme shifts in mood, energy, and functioning. These changes may be subtle or dramatic and typically vary greatly over the course of a person’s life as well as among individuals.”

Too clinical. Too cut and dry says I. What are missing here are all the complexities of mood disorders, all the varieties which come in all sizes, shapes and even colors and the multitude of symptoms which overlap. There’s major depression. There’s manic depression. There’s schizophrenia. Each of them presents themselves differently and all of them have similarities, making diagnosis a complicated affair.

Even manic depression has variations on a theme. One is rapid cycling where moods go up and down like a roller coaster ride. The other is mixed states where mania and depression are experienced at the same time. Mixed states are bad enough. Rapid cycling is pure hell and they're both hard to control because just the tiniest dose of a medication, too much or too little, can send a person spiraling in the other direction. And there are even a few more, but that’s really getting too technical for this blog.

Scientists have been trying to find a genetic link to bipolar for decades, but so far it has eluded them. There was a huge study of the Amish about 15 years ago because they have such a high rate of bipolar and not a small amount of inbreeding. The study was a dud, unfortunately. But clinical trials continue at Columbia, John Hopkins, Duke and other major universities and centers. It is well documented that manic depression, and related mood disorders, is passed down through the generations.

A few cut and dry, but revealing, statistics from NAMI:

- Approximately 20.9 million – or 9.5 percent - of American adults over the age of 18 have some form of mood disorder.

- Manic depression affects about 5.7 million adults in America, or about 2.6 percent.

- The median age of onset is 32. (Note: children as young as six or seven are being diagnosed. More about this later).

- Ninety percent of people who commit suicide have a diagnosable mood disorder.

As mentioned earlier, bipolar is such a complex disorder that it is impossible to do it justice on a blog. What you’ve seen here and in my previous post (HERE) is a superficial look at best. But I think readers need this tiny bit of information to understand what follows.

Everything with us is an extreme. There's no such thing as smooth sailing. It’s a stormy sea with periods when a body, mind and soul can be pushed to the depths, raised up in turmoil and only occasionally have peace and calm.

An Instability of Ideas

Notions on the war in Afghanistan are tumbling through my mind and tugging on my emotions, demanding to be processed, refusing to coalesce, and threatening me with the dreaded bugaboo, cognitive dissonance. Don't want to write about them; can't stop thinking about them; let's see what happens when I throw them into the blog blender.


[But, first, the disclaimer: I support Democratic candidates, except where they are obviously unqualified, in which case I support the Green candidate (think SC, where they let me vote). I think Obama has done an heroic job. I think it's time for liberals and progressives to pull together. Having said that much, perhaps I should just stifle my issues with the war. Robert McNamara once said, when he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't on Vietnam, "And I would rather be damned if I don't," meaning that he'd finally decided it was time to STFU. Because, of course, he'ds actually been damned for what he did. So, should I bring this controversial topic up at a time when we need to pull together? Damned if I won't.]

Charles Krauthammer's Op-Ed for the Washington Post, Monday, Oct 4, 2010: "Has Obama Abandoned The Troops He Sent To War?"

"What kind of commander in chief sends tens of thousands of troops to war announcing in advance a fixed date for beginning their withdrawal? One who doesn't have his heart in it. One who doesn't really want to win but is making some kind of political gesture."

Krauthammer goes on to Bob Woodward's book, O'bama's Wars, and the quotation by the CinC that can be spun so many ways: "I can't lose the whole Democratic party." Krauthammer's spin is:

First, isn't this the party that in two consecutive presidential campaigns--John Kerry's and then Obama's--argued vociferously that Afghanistan is the good war, the right war, the war of necessity, the central front in the war on terror? [....]

Did he suddenly develop a faint heart? Or was the party disingenuous about the Afghan War all along, using it as a convenient club with which to attack Geroge W. Bush over Iraq, while protecting the Democrats from the charge of being reflexively anti-war? [....]

One can only conclude that Obama now thinks Afghanistan is a mistake. Maybe he thought so from the very beginning.

Krauthammer is shrewd. He's given the "weak president" spin to what had to have been and continues to be the toughest decisions a president is called on to make. That spin is predictable, despicable, typical of the right at the moment.


What I recall is that in the first days the new president was under enormous pressure from top military advisors to go all out in Afghanistan, to throw everything we had at a war he had doubts about. What I recall is that the surge and withdrawal target date announcement struck me as compromise, forcing me to trust that the President knew things I didn't...had come to know things he hadn't known during his campaign.


I continue to believe that the compromise was not politically based, but was chosen because Mr. Obama saw some possibility that a troop increase could further the goals of our war with Al Qaeda, but wanted to see smaller scale results before committing all our treasure and all our soldiers to the effort.


As to the effects of Bob Woodward's "revelations," I haven't yet read the book, but I have read more articles and blogs on the book than I can count. I've assumed that pundits like Krauthammer have culled what they consider to be the most damning quotations and I think they fail to damn. What I find damning is Krauthammer's conclusion in this piece:

"Sen. Kerry, now chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, once asked many years ago: 'How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?' Perhaps Kerry should ask that of Obama.

"'He is out of Afghanistan psychologically,' says Woodward of Obama. Well, he may be out, but the soldiers he ordered to Afghanistan are in.

Some will not come home."

I had my doubts about the surge then and I have them now. I wanted the soldiers home then and I want them home now. And I wish the President had worked harder to communicate with us about his decisions. But I find Krauthammer's conclusion to be a cheap shot in a profoundly significant discussion.


I believe these statements by the President, also quoted in Woodward's book and reported in the NYTimes and Washington Post, depict a leader wrestling with the best information and advice he could get his hands on, including interviews with former Sec'y of State Colin Powell, who advised, “don’t get pushed by the left to do nothing. Don’t get pushed by the right to do everything.”

 “I’m not signing on to a failure,” President Obama is quoted saying near the end of this book. “If what I proposed is not working, I’m not going to be like these other presidents and stick to it based upon my ego or my politics — my political security.”

************ 

“Everything we’re doing has to be focused on how we’re going to get to the point where we can reduce our footprint. It’s in our national security interest. There cannot be any wiggle room,” 

***********

 “In 2010, we will not be having a conversation about how to do more. I will not want to hear, ‘We’re doing fine, Mr. President, but we’d be better if we just do more.’ We’re not going to be having a conversation about how to change [the mission] ... unless we’re talking about how to draw down faster than anticipated in 2011.”  

What I want to know is, what's the Right's position on Afghanistan? Are they still sorting that out? Michael Steele was roundly condemned for calling Afghanistan "a war of Obama's choosing," and, "not something the United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in," (July, 2010). For once, Lindsey Graham said something I value in response to Steele's idiocy: "It was an uninformed, unnecessary, unwise, untimely comment. This is not President Obama's war, this is America's war. We need to stand behind the president."


The Republican Pledge To America acknowledges that we are a nation at war and makes not one statement on how it intends to deal with the war in Afghanistan other than that tired old phrase about supporting our troops, as if only Republicans fight. As if only Republicans care or worry for those who fight.

Last night, I watched "The Fog of War," a documentary based on a long interview with Robert McNamara on the Vietnam War. Certain quotations haunt me:

On the workings of President Johnson's mind, "People did not understand there were recommendations and pressures that could carry the risk of war with China and of nuclear war."

On allies, "If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better re-examine our reasoning."

On escalation, "This has gone from being a nasty little war to a nasty middle-sized war."

"How much evil must we do in order to do good." 

 Quoting LBJ for a memorandum on the war, "This morning, Senator Scott said, 'The war which we can neither win, lose, nor drop is evidence of an instability of ideas.'" (my emphasis) 

 I cannot sort out the jumble. I am relieved that Obama set a date to begin withdrawal, pending conditions (which ones?!). Must we maintain another presence in the region to contain Iran? Is Afghanistan our only door to terrorist training camps? Does the warrior nation mentality, which Obama opposes, demand that we keep an active front somewhere, always, and--if not in Iraq--well, then we never should have lost our focus in Afghanistan? That may well be the mindset of what Andrew Bacevich calls the Washington rules, but that is not, to my understanding, the mindset of Barack Obama.


Bob Woodward on Sept. 28th, to George Stephanopoulos:

He is an intellectual, as we know. He's the law professor...And so, intellectually, he realizes [that the situation is] real, real, hard. He knows as commander in chief, he has to do something.

And for the first time, you can see his internal struggle, his intellectual struggle. His dealing with the military. He's dealing with his political advisers.

I see a country, its political advisors, its military advisors, and its President struggling hard to do the right thing in Afghanistan--right for the Afghans, right for the Americans, right for the soldiers. There is another total review of the war scheduled for December. That process will be exhaustive, of that I am sure, because that is this President's way.

Charles Krauthammer turned this agonizing national decision into political fodder by exploiting our pain and our anguish about the human costs of war. Those costs are too real to be politicized. To imply, as Krauthammer does, that President Obama has lost interest in Afghanistan, that he doesn't care about the soldiers he's committed to that war, is the ultimate in irresponsible partisanship. Mr. Krauthammer would have been better off following McNamara's STFU motto, "I'd rather be damned if I don't."


P.S. For an excellent review of the President's decision process on the surge and withdrawal date, go to the Washington Post's Interactive Timeline for the period of September through December of 2009.