For those of you who don't watch Countdown with Keith Olbermann -- and I watch shows of people I agree and shows of people I disagree with, so if you're trying to pin me down based on that, you're probably wrong -- he announced Monday evening that he was suspending his "Worst Persons in the World" segment. It was a kind of response to Jon Stewart's Rally to Restore Sanity on Saturday, and it was a fitting one. I sincerely doubt that one cable TV host suspending one largely tongue-in-cheek segment about people who have said or done something perceived by that host to be wrong or stupid will change the nation, but it's probably a step in the right direction.

And it is kind of in the spirit of something that Jon Stewart said, and something he got right on Saturday. It's something that's been weighing me down for a long time, something I couldn't find a way to phrase despite all my training as a political journalist; perhaps I should have left it to a comedian.

And we can have animus and not be enemies. ...

If we amplify everything we hear nothing. There are terrorists and racists and Stalinists and theocrats but those are titles that must be earned. You must have the resume. ...

If the picture of us were true, of course, our inability to solve problems would actually be quite sane and reasonable. Why would you work with Marxists actively subverting our Constitution or racists and homophobes who see no one's humanity but their own?

For Stewart to suggest that the idea of calling your opponents even the most hideous of names during election season is something new to our politics, he's wrong. There are things John Adams and Thomas Jefferson said about each other during their election battles that were so vile they would be almost unanimously denounced by people of all stripes today. The protest vote against either would be so large, it would cost the candidate who said those things the election.

Our democracy has always been loud and boisterous and contentious. It's supposed to be. I used to think it was odd how Doris Kearns Goodwin would find some parallel to Abraham Lincoln in every current situation she was asked about while she was writing her book about Abraham Lincoln. But I'm a history minor who's always been drawn to the Gilded Age and the Progressive Era, and I see more and more of that time period today. So I guess I understand.

The divisions then were also profound and loud. The opponents of Theodore Roosevelt declared him to be a demagogue with dictatorial tendencies and a socialist bent. Socialists were in many cases disappointed that Theodore Roosevelt did not go far enough for their liking. For his part, Roosevelt railed against the "malefactors of great wealth" whom he saw as a threat to society itself. In a country not too far removed from the nation's Civil War, the rhetoric and anger was dangerously close to splitting the nation in two all over again.

Which, of course, it didn't. One of the great things about America's representative democracy is that it gives us a periodic release valve that allows us to avoid frequent civil disorder: Elections. You can disagree with the verdict the American people render, but the fact that they can make that decision every two years allows for those who aren't happy with the nation's trajectory to convince enough of their fellow Americans that it needs to change. Roosevelt won more often than he lost, but he did not always win. And I think most of us know that the people who were happy with the results of 2008 will be markedly less pleased with the results of 2010. That's fine, because there is a remedy for that as well. Those people need to try to convince their fellow countrymen of the rightness of their position in 2012, at the same time that the winners today will need to continue convincing the nation that their solutions will work.

But there does seem to be a bitterness to our politics now that I'm not sure was always present, and shouldn't be even if it was. (I do not want to leave the impression that we should tolerate intemperate political discourse just because the Founding Fathers did.) And as Stewart rightly pointed out with his balanced assessment -- "Marxists actively subverting our Constitution or racists and homophobes who see no one's humanity but their own" -- it is a problem that exists on both sides. It no longer seems to be a fight between the politicians and the special interests on both sides -- and there are special interests on your side as well as on the other guy's side, and they are an essential part of our democracy even if they must sometimes be checked.

At some point, it became a fight among us all. No longer is it just the president that's the dictatorial demagogue in his opponents' eyes, but everyone who supports him is now an atheist socialist foot soldier in a conspiracy to bring down America. It's not just that our conservative political leaders are allegedly cold-hearted and ideologically driven supporters of the "malefactors of great wealth" -- those who vote for them are also ill-informed bigots who want to truly take America back to the Gilded Age, when there were few way stations between the opulence of the Vanderbilts and the stomach-turning poverty of the thousands of nameless Americans who lives had little value beyond being cogs in the great industrial machine.

And that's where I disagree -- slightly -- with another part of Stewart's message.

The country's 24 hour political pundit perpetual panic conflictinator did not cause our problems but its existence makes solving them that much harder. The press can hold its magnifying up to our problems bringing them into focus, illuminating issues heretofore unseen or they can use that magnifying glass to light ants on fire and then perhaps host a week of shows on the sudden, unexpected dangerous flaming ant epidemic. ...

And yet, with that being said, I feel good-strangely, calmly good. Because the image of Americans that is reflected back to us by our political and media process is false. ...

We hear every damn day about how fragile our country is -- on the brink of catastrophe -- torn by polarizing hate and how it's a shame that we can't work together to get things done, but the truth is we do. We work together to get things done every damn day!

The only place we don't is here [he gestured at the Capitol behind him at this point] or on cable TV. But Americans don't live here or on cable TV.

I'm sure the almost 600,000 people who call Washington home will be surprised to learn that they either aren't Americans or don't live there -- but beyond that good-natured jab, I understand what Stewart is trying to say. And in a way, he is right. Americans outside of Washington often get things done, if you're willing to narrow the definition of getting things done to exclude many of the things that makes a meaningful difference in society.

Because we argue now about many of the things that do make a meaningful difference in society. And more importantly, the people who go to that Capitol and don't get along don't appear out of thin air. Sure, the way you hear them talked about by whichever party is out of power at the time might make it seem like some strange alien race took up residence in D.C. and declared themselves our leaders -- but we sent them there. On some level, if they can't get along for the two or three months it takes to pass a major piece of legislation -- whatever the legislation, whether liberal or conservative -- it's our fault. Politicians will do what is in their best interests to get re-elected; most do have an ideological core despite what you might hear, but the threat of being thrown out of office is often a powerful incentive to compromise or course-correct.

As for the terrible media, a note: They are largely in the business of making money. If the cable news channels thought that they could make more money with thoughtful discussions of the issues, we would have more shows that feature people talking about the issues without yelling. (Actually, we do have one. It's called Parker-Spitzer, and if you haven't heard of it, you're not alone and probably shouldn't feel any urgency to correct the problem.) There is a market for whichever fear-stoking cable host you prefer, because there would be no advertisers if they weren't delivering some ratings. And there would be no network if there were no advertisers.

We are more interested today in yelling at each other and doing so with our own set of facts. There are two interesting things about that. First of all, I've been struck recently by what most people try do when they're yelling during an argument, and it's not trying to make themselves heard. Usually, they're trying to drown the other side out. And nobody really learns anything when we're doing that, except maybe who has the greatest lung capacity.

Second: We do not, we cannot have our own set of facts. There is no such thing as a liberal "fact," anymore than there is any such thing as a "conservative" fact. A fact is something that is empirically, provably true, like Marcus Lattimore having more than 100 yards rushing in a day or a tree being made of wood. There can be analysis that springs from those facts and reasonable conclusions to be drawn from them, but the truth is always the truth. A fact is not a fact because it is something you believe or want to be true -- and perhaps even more importantly, a fact is a fact even if you believe or want it to be untrue.

So vote. And if you're a conservative, pick up an issue of the New Republic. Or if you're a liberal, pick up an issue of the National Review.

I promise it won't hurt. Not much.

From: karl@karlrove.com
To: w@whitehouse.gov
Subject: Legacy Points

Mr. President,

Here are a few points you should add to the talking points about your legacy over the next few days.

--Exposed weaknesses in America's intelligence gathering and analysis systems.
--Made the English language richer by adding terms like "decider" and "misunderestimate."
--Brought American spending habits under control.
--Brought postwar security to Iraq in a mere four and a half years.
--Laid the groundwork for your successor to be well-received by world leaders.
--Created conditions for future administrations to take a "ground-up" approach to environmental regulations.
--Increased Americans' respect for predecessors, including Bill Clinton, Herbert Hoover and Millard Fillmore.
--Dramatically reduced the number of not-to-code buildings in New Orleans.
--Followed up on the promise of being "a uniter, not a divider." Almost 70 percent of Americans now agree on your job performance.
--Convinced millions of white Americans to give the black guy a chance.

I'm not going to say much about this, because it's the same spin we've been hearing for the last several weeks. "Tough decisions ... protected 'merica ... what economy?"

But I finally figured out the thing about the last few years of Bush vs. the Left that has really disturbed me and contributed, I think, to Bush's unwitting drive to undermine everything American.

Bush has a tendency to define the great political controversies of the day in a way that no one should be able to disagree with, but a way that nonetheless always benefits his version of the narrative. For example, he might say something like, "We must protect Americans from the scourge of international terror. So we will continue the fight in Iraq." He doesn't bother to actually connect the two -- i.e., why is fighting in Iraq part of protecting Americans from international terror? But the implication of the statement is that those who don't want to continue the war in Iraq don't want to win the war on terror.

His critics, meanwhile, are eager to disagree with almost everything Bush says. Often, this leads them into muddled and illogical statements. Bush will say that "we must win the war in Iraq," and the Left will say they disagree. But say they want to surrender or lose the war in Iraq, and you're being unfair. You see, they want to not win and not lose the war in Iraq; they just want to leave. They then allow themselves to be goaded into fighting Bush on the two-part statements like the one I used above -- some members of the Left get so into disagreeing with Bush's statement that "Iraq = war on terror" that they start bashing the idea that we should be fighting terror, or having a "war" on it, or that said "war" should be a priority, etc. Which plays right into Bush's hands by convincing the American people that the Left isn't serious about protecting them. (Luckily, Obama and other Democratic leaders have caught on, but some on the Left keep the inanity alive.)

So, in Bush's final speech, he made the apparently scandalous statement "good and evil exist in this world, and between the two, there can be no compromise." And the Left, of course, immediately disagreed, citing moral gray areas as evidence that there is compromise, and that maybe that whole distinguishing between "good" and "evil" is overblown.

First of all, anyone who has ever seen a mother comfort a child after a nightmare or who has talked to a doctor trying to find a way to continue treating Medicaid patients despite the much lower pay should know that there is good in the world. And anyone who paid attention on 9/11 or follows the genocide in the Sudan knows there is evil in the world. Some things are purely good and purely evil -- and there is no gray area there.

Morally gray areas more often arise when there are no "good" choices, not when good and evil compromise or cancel each other out. Israel killing hundreds of Palestinians, many of them innocent, isn't "good," but neither is allowing her civilians to be threatened by rocket attacks. But even if you take out the civilian casualties, is any war "good"? Isn't it sometimes just necessary?

America is, on balance, a "good" country. It attempts, most of the time, to do good in the world. Al Qaeda is pure, unmitigated evil. The struggle between them is not itself "good" or "evil" -- and America has often erred in that struggle. But the errors of the well-intentioned are not a sign that good and evil don't exist, or that they sometimes compromise. America is as good as anything created by fallible human beings can be; its leader and people sometimes lean toward evil, but its best impulses always seem to pull it back.

Al Qaeda, on the other hand, endorses violence against civilians as part of a goal to impose its own ideology on the entire world. Even if practiced perfectly, it would lead to evil. There is no mistake when al Qaeda or its leaders practice evil; that is their goal. That's what makes al Qaeda evil and its slaughter of innocent civilians categorically different than, for example, collateral damage in American military strikes, or revolting acts undertaken by certain officials (coughcoughCheneycoughcough) who aren't following American ideals at the time.

This has prompted some on the Left, and indeed many in the Middle and some on the Right, to question Bush's "Freedom Agenda." I'm not plowing any new ground here, but suffice it to say that simply saying "Iraq" and "Palestinians elected Hamas" as part of disproving the Freedom Agenda is to miss the point. Iraq didn't happen because of the Freedom Agenda; the Freedom Agenda became a convenient justification for Iraq when we couldn't find any WMD there. Palestinians elected Hamas for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with the value or worth of the Freedom Agenda.

But that didn't keep Chris Matthews from essentially saying on MSNBC that Arabs shouldn't be allowed to have democracies. He didn't put it in so many words, but he essentially said all the problems have come from "the Arab street" -- in other words, the people -- and that we do okay when we just work with the autocrats in the regions. He threw in the Hamas example for good measure.

Here's the problem with that: Our support for autocratic regimes is part of what made the Arab world anti-American. Among left-leaning critics of American policy, this used to not be controversial. For some of those people to now attack the idea of doing away with those autocratic regimes once again falls into Bush's trap: Our support for the autocratic regimes are one reason they hate us, but we should support the autocratic regimes. Huh?

One of the reasons Hamas got elected was not just that they wanted to fight with Israel, though that helped. But it was also a statement against Fatah, which while more moderate is also unbelievably corrupt and at times incompetent. Hamas was, if you'll excuse how horrible this statement sounds, the "reform party." As in America, sometimes the reform party wins regardless of ideology because the other guy is too corrupt to keep.

But, to a point, Matthews is right. In some Arab countries, the first wave of elections would elect regimes we find disagreeable or downright vile. (Some Arab nations, though, like Kuwait and Qatar, allow some democracy while keeping enough control to assure moderation in international affairs. Qatar, which has at least promised to move more and more toward democracy, will be an interesting experiment of how well a slow-motion transformation to democracy might work.) Even if Islamists win an election or two, though, that doesn't mean things won't work out in the long run. In the end, most Arabs want what anyone else wants -- to be able to feed their children, to be able to better their lot in life. In reality, a government founded solely on Islamism isn't likely to handle the economy well. One too many times blaming America, and the voters might start to think that these guys who like the Americans (or at least don't hate them as much) might be onto something.

What about Iran, which continues to elect anti-American Islamists? (And technically isn't an Arab nation, but is still an example cited by opponents of the Freedom Agenda.) Actually, there was a moderate elected government in Iran from roughly 1997-2005; it lost because the autocratic elders in Iran (who outrank the elected officials) thwarted the reformists' every move and then barred thousands of them from running. Ahmadinejad is currently so unpopular that the Ayatollah has come close to endorsing him, something Iran observers say is unprecedented, to try to avoid a reformist win in this year's elections.

All of this is to say that I have another reason to look forward to the day Bush leaves office. No longer will we have to listen to his Orwellian arguments about the war on terror, nor listen to the Left trying to oppose Bush by opposing the noncontroversial statements he uses to mask his true intentions.

Our political dialogue can get back to making sense.

Four more days.

nm

Random thought that occured to me while watching SportsCenter:

I like the American flag hats for July 4 and for 9/11. Part of this is probably because the Cubs are already blue and red, so it's not a big change.

But why are the Blue Jays wearing them? You know, the team from TORONTO???

You knew you were in a slightly different part of the world when the pilot came on the radio and told us it would take a few minutes to finish taxiing because, "they're trying to figure out which one of these slots we're going to take." This is, of course, slightly different than the U.S., where a plane has a gate assigned to it before it, you know, lands. But that's a small detail.

The day begins, in the sense that it began at all after my first successful all-nighter since college, with a predawn ride to the airport with my father, who will soon be taking off for Orlando, his own work training trip. It's a nice drive -- we discuss things that we can't usually discuss for a fear of a mother- or brother-disturbing verbal round-on-round, such as politics. Then it's a bleary-eyed two-hour wait for the flight to Miami.

The Miami airport is, in all honesty, a little bit scuzzy, and I'm still not sure why the alarm went off while I was there. But it's a relatively short layover, two hours or a bit less, and we're off to Punta Cana International Airport, with Miami sliding behind us as I experience for the first time the sensation of flying over nothing but water. Fortunately, as with the flight to Miami, sleep dulls the anxiety and shortens the flight.

Punta Cana is warm and muggy, and once we are brought to our rather large parking space, we are hearded onto the tarmac like those recovered hostages or prisoners of war that you see in the movie. The airport is confusion, a confusion I believe is intentionally generated to make sure that only the Dominicans truly know what is going on. It is, however, of little consequence to me, since the resort arranges for someone to meet us. My guide is a short but assertive Latina who simply strides to the front of whatever line might be in front of us and gives the impression that she is in charge and must therefore be listened to. I know I do whatever she tells or gestures for me to do.

She takes me, eventually, to something that looks like a pair of conveyor belts but which I wouldn't be surprised to learn is really being driven by a man on the other side of the wall riding an exercise bicycle. In any case, my luggage comes at an excruciating rate -- especially for a first-time bag-checker with an international connection -- and I'm ushered to a van.

The driver's name is Phillipe, something I know because he helpfully gives me a card, with his name and number scrawled on teh back, in case I need anyone to drive me somewhere. It is here, I think, that I first realize that I am in a country where most of the people would look longingly at a salary that I and most everyone else in the U.S. regard as pitiful. Though I forget, alas, to tip Phillipe -- when it's your first time at a resort, you don't think of these things -- I tip the bellhop and the bartender (for my Pepsi) what I consider to be generous.

After a lot of confusion with plans being rearranged, we meet in the lobby for cocktails, with me sporting a new Dominican deodorant purchased from the gift shop. I left mine at home, of course, fulfilling Rule No. 1 of traveling with Brandon: He must forget something important and personal before going anywhere.

After cocktails, we go to dinner at La Cana restaurant on the grounds, a buffet with very good food. Just reporting here, trying not to brag too much. After dinner, I go to my room for a while, until I realize it's $2.60 for one of the cans of Pepsi in my room -- yes, that's right, cans -- and I room around looking for anywhere else I can get Pepsi. I can find no Dr. Pepper in this uncivilized land. Eventually, I have to go to the bar, where I get a bottle for $2.00, six being one half-dozen of the other.

Then it is off to bed for the first time in Punta Cana.

Tonight I stood on the edge of the world.

With the water lapping at my feet, I peered up into the sky, and then off into the black distances that led to everywhere else. It was a feeling of incredible peace, like nothing else really mattered then.

Right now, I probably should be working on my story ideas for tomorrow's workshop. I knew this wouldn't be all a vacation, but nobody told me there was homework involved. Not that, aside from the off-key singing coming from the lounge behind me, I really have any valid complaints right now.

Today began, as usual, with me getting up late and just managing to basically step out of the shower and walk to the bus. But I don't think I was "late," at least not as the word goes here, where time seems to rarely be a factor. I don't know if this is a Dominican thing -- sort of like PRT -- or a New York Times Institutes thing, but it seems to be a chronic problem here. Not that things running behind are a problem for me -- they just make me look better.

Today was fisheries, which was of more interest for me professionally than climate change, mostly because there is a direct relationship between that and the Savannah/Jacksonville area. It did actually give me some ideas, only one of which I've been able to mold into something for tomorrow, which leaves me with a grand total of one, half of the total I'm supposed to come up with.

It's fascinating, I guess, but I really believe that I would have more luck with a fish story than with global warming. Savannah probably thinks the rising waters will be like hurricanes -- "It won't hit us! Huh huh!" -- and I'm not even sure if people in Jacksonville would care if Jacksonville got flooded.

Then came the reporter's workshop, where the scientists we have here seem very accommadating(?) to reporters -- but I'm skeptical that most of their colleagues really follow their lead. We'll see, I guess, as I try to branch more into the environment generally than environmetal policy specifically, something I intend to do even if I have to fight the Big W tooth and nail to do it.

Then we came back to the hotel, and I spent about two or two and a half hours doing battle with a horrible wifi connection before joining a few other reporters from some good Italian food at one of the restaurants here. Somehow, we managed to down a Salmon appetizer despite being told today that such fish are likely derived from an evil source. If you're wondering, tilapia is supposedly a fish that is environmentally friendly. So eat that if you're worried. But you probably shouldn't eat salmon more than once a month. And you probably shouldn't view a Gore-esque slide show on the evils of fishing.

After that came the walk on the beach -- barefoot, of course, and with a flashlight to make sure I didn't walk into the ocean and become the next Fox News Alert. Actually, I feel pretty safe here so far, partly from the knowledge that there are probably well-paid burly Carribean men paid to show any would-be interlopers the business end of a night stick. We'll see.

I've already lost my passport -- unbeknownst to me until the staff gave it to one of my casita-mates -- and I think a hold on my debit card by the resort (for collateral purposes) has set off all sorts of alarms at BB&T. I need to call about that yesterday, but I hope tomorrow will do.

Essentially, this marks the halfway point of my trip to Punta Cana. So far, so good.

P.S. -- Unless you log in right after I post this, I should have updated Day 2 and posted Day 1.

Punta Cana is, to a certain extent, a bit like a private colony. At least the part we're on.

As we were at lunch today, speaking with the great-grand-nephew (I think) of one of the founders of the PUNTACANA Resort, someone compared the 30 square miles they own to the way Dole once owned some of the areas it used to get its bananas. "We removed the fence," the great-grand-nephew responded, half-jokingly. I think.

The founders put in their own infrastructure when they originally built the resort -- including the diesel-powered generators, which spare us from the rolling blackouts that plague Santa Domingo. They have a security force and they own the Punta Cana International Airport. And they're essentially writing the rules to try to protect the coral reefs here because the government has a law but no real way to draft the regulations or enforce them. The good news, of course, is that the resort is interested in preserving the reefs.

The house we visited -- Casa Guayacan, I believe -- and which will serve as a makeshift meeting place for our visit here is, like most non-rooms at the resort, an open-air building. The abundance of those at the resort -- including both restaurants we've eaten at and the lobby -- is charming, in its own way, since neither the mosquitoes nor the heat seem to be too bad.

As we drove out of the resort, I noticed a chicken clucking along. Actually, I think it was a rooster. But, in any case, I have no way of knowing whether it was wild or not. But an interesting observation.

Casa Guayacan is essentially a meeting room and, I suppose, some living quarters, stacked on top of a kitchen, restroom, living area, etc. It runs parallel to the beach, so that when the doors and windows are open, a steady breeze keeps the place pretty cool. The house is not particularly large -- though I wager it's bigger than you or I have ever lived in -- though the architecture and stone give it a kind of grandeur. There's a thriving garden on both sides, a rocky coast beyond the back garden, palm trees and the like. Really a gorgeous place.

Dinner -- which comes too shortly after a hasty nap and furiously fast shower -- is at a marina restaurant, where I end up craning around in my seat in a somewhat embarassing manner to see Oscar de la Renta. This is obviously a bigger deal to the females, who actually care about Oscar de la Renta, than the males, who simply want to say they saw/ate at the same restaurant as Oscar de la Renta. Again, I'm just reporting, not trying to name drop or engender jealousy. But I thought it was pretty neat.

It is during the wait for a table -- which I'm not sure wasn't planned in an effort to sell more liquor -- that I learn a bit about some of the dictators that preceded the Dominican's tranformation into a democracy. It is a transition that this side of Hispanola appears to have handled far better than Haiti, for some reason, though some believe that is because (a) Haiti has pretty much stripped its side of the island of much of its trees and natural beauty and (b) Haiti's dictators, while perhaps not George Washington types, at least seem to have been visionaries. And Dominican apparently has its own version of earmarks, only here, they jack up gas prices before the election and use the proceeds to get around to badly-needed public works projects.

The hasty initial Day 2 post followed dinner, and then it was off to bed, where I will go shortly once I post Day 1.

"The average income there is $18,000 a year, roughly what I'll be paid to perform this show tonight. Why are we making fun of them? 'Crazy Christians,' 'Science Schmience,' 'Bush and the Republicans' are all fair game; it's hypocrisy and power. These guys are just trying to raise their kids." -- Harriet Hayes, Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip

So, Brandon's been cleaning some. And that gives him time to think about whatever big topic has piqued his interest lately.

And it's us.

We wonder in this country why our leaders seem to shout at each other, why nothing ever seems to get done, why a process that is supposed to be about debate is more often about arguing.

And it's all our fault.

In a democratic system, we get the government that the majority of the people deserve. And the majority of us, if not all of us, hate the people we disagree with.

And, yes, if you're an American and you're reading this, that probably includes you.

The problem with hate -- or animosity, or whatever term you want to use for it -- is that it's a lot easier to see it when it's directed at you than when you're the one wielding it.

If you're a secularist, it's a lot easier to see the hate coming from Jerry Falwell's mouth when he says that the reason 9/11 happened was because of the ACLU and the feminists. It's a lot harder to see it when someone writes a book about "The God Delusion" -- essentially saying that 80-90 percent of the American people are deluded -- or calls a member of the Christian right a "Christian Facist."

The religious conservative, on the other hand, is stung when they're portrayed as wild-eyed fanatics who bomb abortion clinics. But they don't seem to recognize the anguish and anger they cause when they label liberal people of faith as "baby killers."

Oh, but what you say about your opponents is true. With all due respect, that's your point of view. But it's wrong.

I know because I come down on both sides of today's fault line.

I'm pro-life and believe invading Iraq was the right thing to do. I'm also not sure we should ban abortions at this moment -- I'm a three exceptions (rape, incest, life of the mother) kind of guy -- and I think Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld ought to be prosecuted for negligent homicide for the way they managed the war. I think not talking to North Korea, Iran and Syria was about the dumbest thing we ever did.

I think we should spend as much money on our schools as we spend on defense -- and I think we should spend a lot on both. I think that, yes, it is my job to look out for the other guy, and if that costs me another few dollars every week in taxes, show me where to sign. I think we should have universal health care -- but I think single payer would be an unmitigated disaster. I'm not thrilled about the president's guest worker program, but only because it's still focused on how to limit the number of people coming into the country instead of trying to figure out how we can let as many people as is reasonably possible take part in this great, multi-ethnic, multinational experiment we call America.

I think it's a shame we don't talk about wiping out poverty any more. But I'm a die-hard free trader.

Close the gun-show loophole, reinstate the ban on assault weapons, and then don't do anything else on guns, at least for a while. And, NSA, if you're reading this, you damn sure better have a warrant.

So it stings a little bit when one of the liberals I know says that my thoughts about Iraq were shaped by "listening too much to neoconservatives" -- when I thought invading Iraq was a good idea before "neoconservatives" were even known to most Americans and I probably think more about Iraq and why I believe what I believe in a day than he does in a week. And it drives me berserk when people can't see why a completely innocent person doesn't want the government listening to my phone calls or reading my e-mails without a warrant, why I would want the terrorists to be able to talk to each other without getting caught -- which is utter nonsense.

Did you call someone a "Jesus freak" today -- and mean it as an insult, which you should know is not the way most of us Christians take it now? Then you're guilty. Did you say someone wants to make it easier for terrorists to hit America? Then you're guilty. Did you say that someone who supports Iraq is ignorant, or militarist, or racist, or whatever the slur du jour is? Then you're guilty.

I'll say quicker than anyone else will that debate is the music of democracy, that we're meant to disagree and that the call for bipartisanship and singing cumbaya on the issues is ludicrous, dangerous and incredibly naive.

But what we're doing now is not debate. It's anger and vitriol. And it's just as dangerous, if not more so.

It's dangerous to regard a fellow patriot as an ally of the enemy. It's dangerous to think that someone is less worthy, or less intelligent, or less informed, simply because they disagree with you. It's dangerous to think that the person whose son might be dying for you is less American.

The quote above is one of my favorites from the tragically short-lived Studio 60. The day after that episode aired, I went to a hearing (that I wasn't really covering per se) where a women begged, pleaded with an administrative law judge to reverse her local school board's decision not to remove Harry Potter books from the shelves. Normally, regardless of what I thought about the books, I would have joined in the merriment about this woman and her silly ideas about banning books and on and on and on.

But I found myself instead taking up for her. Not because I think we should ban books, or because I agreed with her arguments.

But because I thought about the fact that this woman probably had "better things" to do with her time. How many of us, if we could have had that morning to ourselves, would have slept in or gone shopping for ourselves or watched television? But here was this woman, so nervous her voice was trembling, there only because she honestly believed that her kids were somehow hurt or endangered by what was going on. And willing to stand up and take a beating in the public eye to do what she thought was right for her son and for others.

To me, that's noble. Even if what she wanted was wrong.

But when it comes to America in nowadays, we don't think that way now. Their argument is wrong, so they are somehow dishonorable or not to be trusted or "less than."

The truth is, they are just as much of an American, just as much of a patriot, just as valued a contributor to the public dialogue as you are.

Too bad we're too busy calling each other names to realize that.

... can't do something with this, they ought to be sued for malpractice.

And that, ladies and gents, is why I love history. Connections are the most bizarre when they come over a span of hundreds of years.