So, two minutes ago, the following tweet comes through:

Let’s have a constructive debate. http://bit.ly/nr7eE

I know, I know. . . following Al Gore is idiocy enough (check out his young-skinny Al profile picture, by the way). I compounded things by clicking his link to “Al’s Journal”:

A constructive debate
November 12, 2009 : 3:05 PM

Last week the Environment and Public Works committee, under the able leadership of Senator Barbara Boxer, passed the most comprehensive piece of climate legislation in a generation. The vote was 11-1. Not a single Republican on the committee showed up.

This is a serious issue that requires our full attention. Republican Senators have decided that the better tactic is to ignore and stall and delay. After not showing up for the vote, they now complain about not being part of the process.

There is room for bipartisanship on this issue, as Senator Lindsay Graham has demonstrated. It is my hope that other Republicans begin to take their cues from him.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!! This from a guy who has ducked every tough question or request for debate for the last four years. Suddenly, when Harry Reid hints that legislation to enable Al Gore’s next billion may be put on the back burner, NOW debate is so critical.

He’s just precious.

I heard Scott Brown, Republican candidate for Ted Kennedy’s U.S. Senate seat, on the radio this morning.  He mentioned a recent League of Women Voters debate where Democratic candidate Rep. Michael Capuano, under heavy barrage by Brown, simply packed up his things and left the stage.   Leading Democratic candidate, Martha Coakley, didn’t bother to show at all.   I went looking for a story about this debate in the news, and found only this one blog post by BNCordeiro at redmassgroup.

As I was leaving work yesterday I was stunned when my cell phone registered a few Twitter tweets about the US Senate debate sponsored by League of Women Voters.  The fact that the woman, Martha Coakley, failed to show up at the debate is a whole other story.

Anyway, I’m walking out of my store when I’m alerted that Capuano suddenly picked up his name plate and walked off stage without any explanation.  Next, I’m alerted to the fact that before Cappy exited stage right that he was getting bombarded by State Senator Scott Brown on the issues of the federal stimulus failing to create jobs as well as on cap and trade legislation.

What is the official response by Rep. Capuano’s people?  Evidently, Cappy was “simply exhausted.”

I shouldn’t be surprised that I couldn’t find a single mass media description of this, but someone MUST have video of it somewhere.  If Coakley were there, you can be sure she would have leaked a clip of this.

“Simply exhausted” perfectly describes so many things about Michael Capuano and his campaign these days. He’s done. He’s been called out in one Boston daily for skipping too many votes, and another for flip-flopping.   But this story, if true, is less about Mike Capuano and more about a House member whithering and running away from criticism of his Congressional work.   This is a story that should be blasted up on Youtube for all to see.  Unfortunately, because the Massachusetts political media has anointed Martha Coakley, Rep. Capuano knew he could quietly and unceremonious retreat.   That’s galling.

I’m no expert on such matters.  I read and I consider.  But lately I get physically tense with angre when I consider the politics behind the dithering on our Afghanistan strategy.  I’m going somewhere, so bear with me for a moment.

I get upset first and foremost because there are troops now in the field who know something awaits, but haven’t a clue what that is.  And so, until white smoke appears atop the White House, we ask the soldier in the field to tread water with a plan that we have told him is imperfect.  What leadership.

I get upset also because military opinion on this seems remarkably consistent.   We’re not getting a flood of retired colonels and generals offering a variety of strategies.  Ralph Peters is one of the few strong anti-COIN voices I’ve heard.

I get upset with the disgustingly political way that this new strategy decision is playing out.  Did John Kerry even READ the McChrystal Report?  If he did, he’d know that much of what the good Senator suggested  in his wonderful speech was already embodied in the report.  The only difference, I guess, is numbers and resources.  How about selling the merits of the plan?  Clearly, the Senator doesn’t dispute the thrust of the plan, but he wants to “nuance” things in the course of covering for the “something less” we seem to be soon to get.

Lastly (but not really lastly), on that same point about politicizing warfare, this notion that we have to wait for a fair national election is just insulting and “upset” isn’t a strong enough word for me.   If there’s one pervasive theme of the McChrystal report, its that emphasis must be on a DEcentralize approach; winning the Afghani people on the village level, where the only choice is between the Taliban and the unknown “something worse” (my words, not McChrystal’s).   At best, the report suggests assisting the national Afghan government with the “battle of perceptions”; but the larger focus is on building all at the local level.   Again, the approach is decentralized, and yet we wait on this one election, with what everyone seems to concedes is a foregone conclusion.  In the end, the best we can hope for out of President Karzai is that he doesn’t screw up whatever operation we finally do install.   I can’t help thinking that the dithering has more to do with the November elections in THIS country than in Afghanistan.  But I’m not the first to suggest that.

So, with all that said, on to six minutes with McChrystal.   I know many here have seen this documentary before, but there’s one particular part that speak so strongly to the current debate on Afghanistan.  This is the National Geographic film Inside the Green Berets.   It’s one of the most compelling pieces of film making I’ve ever seen, but there are six minutes of it that should be required viewing for anyone who would ever think to utter an opinion about our next step in Afghanistan. It starts at 13:40 and runs to 19:40.

Briefly, a Green Beret patrol returns to camp.  They arrive to find a few dozen Afghan elders, some who have walked for more than a day, entering their camp to speak with them about their “Taliban problem.”  Several things are abundantly clear, and illustrate much of what the McChrystal report says:  This is a people that trusts no one yet; these people WANT to trust someone; these people want to trust someone other than the Taliban; and, finally, these people will put their own lives on the line with those whom they genuinely do trust.   That last part is my leap of faith, but that’s the implication in the clip - that these tribal elders risked their lives to meet with the Americans at Camp Cobra.   This is essentially McChrystal in broad and general strokes.

Again, the part I’m talking about runs 13:40 - 19:40, but if you haven’t seen the whole thing, I can’t recommend it highly enough.

That’s all I have.

I’m sure someone can do this much better than I can, as I try to fit stray thoughts around real-live work. It’s just that, this comparison is compelling to me. I had to vent a few thoughts.

October 15, 1962 - 47 years ago this week - our U-2 reconnaissance plane snapped shots of Soviet nuclear missile apparatus being assembled in Cuba. In the weeks that followed, a stand-off between our President, who had been previously considered by the Soviets as weak (or, at least, bluffing), and a Premier looking to advance the Soviet Union in the the race for international superiority.

Scroll forward to October 14, 2009.

In an interview published today in Izvestia, Nikolai Patrushev, the secretary of the Kremlin’s security council, said the new doctrine offers “different options to allow the use of nuclear weapons, depending on a certain situation and intentions of a would-be enemy. In critical national security situations, one should also not exclude a preventive nuclear strike against the aggressor.”

Can there be any doubt that there is purpose behind announcing a work-in-progress in a newspaper interview like this, while our Secretary of State is prancing around Russia, and while the United States and Russia are renegotiating an extension of the expiring START? Coincidence? Is this not the 2009 equivalent of parking a small flock of nuclear missiles off the coast of Florida? Is there any functional difference between a public Russian announcement of a doctrine of preemptive nuclear response in 2009 and active nuclear advancement in 1962?

Maybe. But in October 2009, it’s hard to believe in coincidences.

What does seem clear is that this is the test – or, one of them – that our embarrassing uncle, Joe Biden (think: Uncle Leo), told us we would see. This is the foot in the door that Russia has sought for the last 20 years, following an era where it was resigned to the position of also-ran. This is the same probing and aggressive spirit that led us to a showdown off the shores of Cuba. Barack didn’t even have to spend the travel money that JFK did in 1961 when he emboldened Khrushchev in Vienna. With one swift presidential announcement, the United States hastened its retreat from Eastern Europe (dude obviously never played Risk) and the message for Russia was clear: now is the time to assert. The U.S economy is weakened, the new administration embraces international parity, and U.S. and Russian negotiators are, no doubt, engaged in START negotiations. This was clearly the opportunity, and it was handed over with glee.

So, these are Barack’s Thirteen Days.   As promised. Man, that “reset button” thingy is like some sort of weird on-switch for Rube Goldberg diplomacy.

Second to Al Gore in the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize voting. For the last two years, on the announcement of the Prize, I think of Irena.

Read her heart-wrenching story. Tweet it. Retell it. Pass it along to others. It adds perspective to today’s “historic” announcement. Plus, it’s such a great story.

Irena Sendler passed away in May 2008. Her heroic story in a nutshell:

Irena Sendler is 97 years old. She has seen this image in her dreams countless times over the years, heard the children’s cries as they were pulled from their mothers’ grasp; each time it is another mother screaming behind her. To the children, she seemed a merciless captor; in truth, she was the agent to save their lives.

Mrs. Sendler, code name “Jolanta,” smuggled 2,500 children out of the Warsaw Ghetto during the last three months before its liquidation. She found a home for each child. Each was given a new name and a new identity as a Christian. Others were saving Jewish children, too, but many of those children were saved only in body; tragically, they disappeared from the Jewish people. Irena did all she could to ensure that “her children” would have a future as part of their own people.

She listed the names of every rescued child and buried the lists in a jar, hoping that the children could be reunited with their families after the war.

Mrs. Sendler listed the name and new identity of every rescued child on thin cigarette papers or tissue paper. She hid the list in glass jars and buried them under an apple tree in her friend’s backyard. Her hope was to reunite the children with their families after the war. Indeed, though most of their parents perished in the Warsaw Ghetto or in Treblinka, those children who had surviving relatives were returned to them after the war.

Yet Irena Sendler sees herself as anything but a heroine. “I only did what was normal. I could have done more,” she says. “This regret will follow me to my death.”

And then there’s this. . .

For two years, Jolanta’s covert operations were successful. Then, in October 20, 1943, the Gestapo caught up with her. She was arrested, imprisoned in Warsaw’s notorious Pawiak prison, and tortured. Her feet and legs were broken. She still needs crutches and a wheelchair as a result of those injuries, and still carries the scars of those beatings. She refused to betray any of her co-conspirators or to reveal the whereabouts of any of the children.

Jolanta was sentenced to death by firing squad, a sentence that she accepted with pride. But unbeknown to her, Zegota had bribed one of the German guards, who helped her to escape at the last moment. He recorded her name on the list of those who had been executed. On the following day, the Germans loudly proclaimed the news of her death. She saw posters all over the city reporting it. The Gestapo eventually found out what had happened; they sent the guard to fight on the Russian front, a sentence they felt was worse than death. Irena spent the rest of the war in hiding much like the children she had saved. Relentlessly pursued by the Gestapo, she continued her rescue efforts in any way she could, but by then the Warsaw Ghetto had been liquidated.

Due to the Communist regime’s suppression of history and its anti-Semitism, few Poles were aware of Zegota’s work, despite the unveiling of a plaque honoring the organization, in 1995, near the former Warsaw Ghetto. Mrs. Sendler continued her life, simply and quietly, continuing to work as a social worker … until the discovery by the Kansas teenagers catapulted her into the public arena.

At some point last week, Boston Globe Editor Marty Baron met with his staff. I imagine the meeting played out something like this:

Marty Baron:  Okay guys, what do we have in the works?

Metro:  Mayoral election.  That’s always  big.

Baron:  Good.  I need a few sideline pieces.

Metro:  Got it, boss.

Baron:  What else we got?

National:  The U.N. is in high gear.  G20.   Mahmoud will have something, I’m sure.

Baron:  Right.  Done to death, though.  Anything new?

National:  There’s probably something more to flush out with ACORN, boss.

Baron:  Bah.  ACORN bores me.  Find a new angle and maybe we ‘ll find some room on Saturday.

National:  Done.   Any particular angle you’d like?

Baron:  Surprise me.

Of course, that’s all conjecture.  But, in the last week, there has only been ONE acorn story to make the front page of the Boston Globe, so I’m just not sure how else something like this happens:

With conditions right, acorns go nuts

Instead of firing up its competitive spirit, after being embarrassed by the investigative journalism skills of two twenty-somethings with a $1300 budget, a mini-cam, and a faux fur shawl, the Globe takes the acorn news in an entirely different direction to give us important revelations such as:

I laughed out loud.   Genuinely. It’s the natural reaction. Yes, let’s bail these folks out. They’re too important to lose. Heh.

I’m not the greatest George Will fan, but I thought this one sentence tied everything together nicely:

On the 233rd day of his presidency, Barack Obama grabbed the country’s lapels for the 263rd time—that was, as of last Wednesday, the count of his speeches, press conferences, town halls, interviews, and other public remarks. His speech to Congress was the 122nd time he had publicly discussed health care. Just 14 hours would pass before the 123rd, on Thursday morning. His incessant talking cannot combat what it has caused: An increasing number of Americans do not believe that he believes what he says.

So today, September 11, 2009, I clicked on Google and saw this plain ol’ Google Logo.  Big deal, right?  I mean, Google certainly doesn’t HAVE to change its logo to recognize this day, and I’d be the last guy to condemn them for not doing so.  Private business, and all.

But Google Doodles have, according to Google, a rich history and a certain level of importance:

Google doodles, the drawings that are designed on, around and through the Google logo on our home page, have long been part of Google’s history. As a Google intern in 2000, Google Webmaster Dennis Hwang began celebrating and marking worldwide events and holidays with doodles. Since then, the work of the doodle team has been seen by millions and reached cult status, with fans waiting with bated breath to see the next creation on the Google homepage. We spoke to Dennis about doodles and how he got a job that combined his two passions: technology and art.

In the last two weeks days, Google customized its logo for:  Ivan Kostoylevsky’s Birthday (Ukraine), 09/09/09 09:09:09, Brazil Independence Day (Brazil), Unexplained Phenomenon, Doraemon - (Japan), Vietnam National Day - (Vietnam), Malaysian Independence Day - (Malaysia), Japan Elections - (Japan), Michael Jackson’s Birthday, Battle of Flowers in Laredo - (Spain), Qi Xi - (China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and the 400th Anniversary of Galileo’s First Telescope.

At the same time, today, Ask.com and Bing.com have real nice entry pages recognizing September 11th.  Good for them.  I’ll use them more often now that I know this.

To be fair, Google didn’t go entirely silent in recognition of this day in our nation’s recent history:

Google is, however, pointing to a site from the company’s official blog, that invites people to “share their experiences of 9/11 and its aftermath in an effort to preserve the memories of that time.”

The site is called Make History, and utilizes Google Maps Street View and Google’s App Engine. People can submit their photos/videos of the site of the World Trade Center attacks, the Pentagon, and the site of the Flight 93 crash, as well as their stories.

Okay.  Nice.  Still, customized Google Doodles have come to mean something.  You know how I know that?  Because those who wanted to make a malicious point on this day in 2007, did so by hacking the Google logo and posting these two alternate logos of Osama bin Laden and the burning twin towers.

My point with all this?   Something’s missing today.  You know it, I know it, but more importantly, Google knows it.

I'm not advocating compromise. What I AM saying is that, "trigger" will be offered as to test the good faith of Republicans. As if to say, "We'll go it your way unless and until it doesn't work." But, we know how this "unprincipled fight" is supposed to go. This is supposed to be a reform that fails and, as a result, DEMANDS a single payer. The term "off-switch" is, in poker terms, the call; as if to say, "Let true competition work and install an public option off-switch when it does."

It’s a dopey slogan, for sure, but it struck a tone with millions of people screaming for a movement to join.  We can’t not recognize that.

At it’s core, it’s wrong.  Barack knows this, of course.   It isn’t that the willing masses waited for a movement, a moment, or a sign; it’s that the masses, once congealed, waited for a charismatic leader.  More correctly, arrogant as the statement is, Barack’s line should correctly have been, “I am the one you’ve been waiting for.” The movement waits for the leader, not the push.  Barack gets this.  I think Bill Clinton does also; but his great success was in starting with less than a majority of approval, and then building it into more than a majority by triangulating and picking off constituencies.  You can hate the policies, but recognize his political savvy.

Conversely, Barack, for his part, started with a strong majority and counted on keeping the pack congealed. My own thought is that he counts on his magnetism (read: cult of personality) transcending the various national constituencies that tear ANY policy a dozen different ways.    One need only read the Federalists to appreciate that the draw of multiple factions will always screw with our Republican system.   But I digress  200 years back . . . .

I’m jaded.  So, when I see Barack these days (or, in truth, for the last two years) I think of Monty Python’s Life of Brian without all the reluctance of the savior.  My favorite, of many favorite parts:

Follower #1: Give us a sign.

Follower #2: He HAS given us a sign.  He has brought is to this place.

Brian:  I didn’t bring you here, you just followed me.

Follower #1: Ooh, it’s still a good sign by any standards!

In that nearly five-minute clip, there are several howlers when you juxtapose Brian, the reluctant messiah, against Barack, the all-too-willing messiah.  The guy who understands the concept of the movement waiting for a leader.  ANY sign will do.  And, as another digression, since his adult followers seem to be dropping off, he’s apparently reorganizing to bring his leadership to the ultimate of leaderless movements - elementary school children around the country.   (As another aside, I do a “mom test” on these sorts of things, and my mom was positively horrified by this one)

History showed us how this works.  Nazism moved because the people were frothy and rallied around a charismatic leader who played to their prejudices.    Mussolini, likewise, played to nationalism and the cult of personality grew from there.  In more contemporary American terms, this country YEARNED for a leader to bring them out of the gray 1970’s.   From LBJ. . . . to Nixon and Watergate. . .  to the Ford custodial presidency. . .  and then WHAM! - Jimmy Carter.  The people were begging for a leader to take the gourd or the sandal and lead them.   Enter Ronald Reagan - the leader that found the hovering and idling movement.   And so, there was this wonderful creation of “Reagan Democrats.”  So craving a true leader, they crossed party lines to follow the Reagan gourd.

As I said - Barack gets this.

But here’s the thing, and this is why I felt compelled to bang this thing out on my laptop this evening:  there is most definitely an idling movement these days.  There are rumbling masses congealing around issues that are important in the American scheme.  They have passion.   They have issues to motivate them.  The one thing they’re lacking is the leader.   These are Reagan Democrats without Reagan.

So, in a strange sense, WE are the ones we’ve been waiting for - but that isn’t enough.  Republicans have tanked in two National election cycles because they had no motivating interest.  It certainly wasn’t John McCain.   But we have that congealing political interest now.  What we lack is a leader.   I’ll tell you my own favorites (*cough* Paul Ryan) but that doesn’t cut it.  We can’t have Brians.  We need willing and charismatic leaders.

Little held here, guys.

That is all.

P.S. - I so badly want to scold this country much the way Brian’s mother did.

He’s NOT the messiah, he’s a very naughty boy!