That’s right, baby!  Last November, Waldo Jaquith offered to wager $100 that then-RPV Chairman Jeff Frederick would not resign from the House of Delegates as promised.  After a healthy pause from the Virginia blogosphere, I took up the bet.

In good conscience, I can’t really say the bet was won… though Frederick did not file, it took until June 2009 — eight months after the bet was made — before either Waldo or I felt confident that Frederick would not run in the 52nd District.  When the filing deadline passed, the clock sorta ran out.  In the end, Jeff Frederick kept his word, and did not run for re-election to the House of Delegates.

Nevertheless, a crisp clean $100 (or a check) has been deposited in the safe hands of RPV.

As a good sport, Mr. Jaquith has cut the check, though admittedly charities might be a better idea for future bets, as Waldo points out:

What I did like about this process, though, is the effect of putting my money where my mouth was. $100 has a way of focusing the mind. I paid a lot of attention to Frederick’s actions in the past eight months, always considering how it might affect my wallet. This market-driven approach to political prognostication is healthy. Even if the quantity was just $10, it provides a value to place under consideration, a resolution to two differing views, and an opportunity for one party (me, on this occasion) to ‘fess up to having been wrong, and another party (Shaun) to say “I told you so.”

Rest assured, I was mentally prepared for the picture of a frowning me handing a check to thumbs-up of Waldo with “Shaun gave $100 to DPVA — won’t you match it?” in the inboxes of thousands of Virginia Democrats.  Whether it would have raised a dime, I haven’t the foggiest clue… but as a good sport it would have been fun to see that not all politics is cutthroat, and that a good natured gentlemen’s bet can still be shared.

Hopefully RPV will spend it on better social media outreach (or something to its effect).

Would I do this again?  Probably so, though like Waldo I might switch the beneficiaries to a charity.  I wouldn’t recommend this as a new fad (please — no mass “put your money where your mouth is” movements) but I certainly enjoyed the ebb and flow as Frederick leaned towards either not running or retaining the seat for the House GOP.  I’m not certain many would have blamed him for running for another term, especially after the April 2008 removal.

Now my question to our gentle readers here is this:  In this outburst in defense of the Fourth Estate, are we finally witnessing a split between liberals and progressives?

Some folks might argue, “What’s the difference?”  Some of the more cynical or reactive (read: progressive) But that would probably be the wrong take on this. Just as much as Republicans have fissures underneath the surface, I am quite certain the Democrats have the same. In that light, there really are two differing philosophies at work.

I’ve often commented on how liberalism and conservativism in the United States are really just two ends of the same political philosophy — that of classical liberalism. The neo-conservative or progressive flavors are something much more different; the former smacking of empire, the latter smacking of socialism.

What Chip Reid and Helen Thomas did yesterday was highly unprecedented.  What’s more though, they are entirely in concert with the principles behind free speech, open government, and everything — at least in rhetoric — that liberals purport to believe.

Contrast this with the narrowly controlled PR machine that has been Obama’s image since the Democratic primary.  Prepackaged questions, fake online presence, staged shots, teleprompters… openness and sunshine, this President is not.

Progressives have been keen to continue to polish and shine Obama into something which old Roman emperors would have marvelled.  Liberals, that old left arm of classical liberalism, seem to be instinctively revolting against a movement more keen to treat Americans as more attuned to appetites and soundbites rather than citizens uniquely aware that their elected officials should be conserving the public trust.  In as much as this is an American maxim, good people no matter what their political persuasion would like to know their unvarnished questions are being answered… not prescreened.

It’s good to see a little rebellion amidst the WH Press Corps from time to time.  Though I will probably never agree with or share the same sentimentalities as many of the left-leaning journalists at the top of the food chain, every once in awhile it’s worth noting that reason exists on the other side of the aisle.

*sigh*

Maybe it was how close the vote was?  Passing 213-212, several Democratic representatives could have tipped the scales, namely Congressmen Connolly and Perriello.  Bearing Drift issued the commentary that seemed to hit the Virginia leftosphere hardest:

Rep. Perriello just voted with Speaker Pelosi on an amendment to allow for funds to close Guantanamo Bay facility and move those detainees to Virginia. Perriello voted against an amendment, offered by Rep. Lewis of California, that would have prohibited the closure - the amendment failed 212-213 with Mr. Perriello casting the deciding vote.

And with what intelligence has the Democratic leftosphere refuted such argumentation!  Cited by AIAW, aznew over at Virginia Democrat:

…a patently absurd argument…

Lowell Feld over at Blue Virginia (the shadow of Raising Kaine) pretty much posts a “what he said” response.  Meanwhile, Drew over at Dem Bones (new blogger?) offers this erudite response:

…this Republican fear-mongering belittles both our prison facilities and our prison guards…

Ah.  Now I get it.  We just don’t trust our prison guards!  Those dastardly Rethugs Republicans?  Just “read(ing) the same talking points” as the other blogs, since naturally Republicans require such things because naturally, our public school educations simply don’t afford such out of the box thinking as “bring the terrorists here, and the problem goes away,” amongst others.

So to be original, AIAW decides to… well… read the same talking points to express her outrage against the very idea that people would be concerned, even bewildered, that we would bring terrorists to American soil.  To wit:

Here’s where it gets personal and why I am outraged. My cousin’s husband is a prison guard in South Florida. As such, he has guarded some of the most dangerous criminals in the Miami-Dade and Broward region, including members of the infamous Columbian (sic) Medellin drug cartel. So, do you really think he’s not up to the job of guarding some of the detainees and that South Florida would be less safe if they were in his care? I don’t.

…

However, BD and other conservative bloggers, taking their talking points, robot-like, from the Republican Party Central, have a shocking disdain for all civil servants. It is rooted in their anti-government ideology and rhetoric. But believe it or not, the government in a representative democracy is us. It is “we the people.” Sometimes your side or my side loses an election. But there’s always the next one. We are governed by those who win elections. To disdain them is to disdain America and its choices. To disdain our civil servants is to disdain our neighbors, friends, and relatives, many of whom work tirelessly to fight our fires, keep our streets safe, and guard our prisons. To insult them to score cheap political points is to put party before country. And that is unpatriotic.

Now obviously, I’ve highlighted the gems.  I won’t dwell too much on “talking points” critique because the Dems have literally been copying-and-pasting themselves into a whirlwind of false outrage.

But it’s the highlighted in red that just baffles me.  My oh my… what ever happened to dissent being the highest form of patriotism?

There’s no point in listing the litany of Democratic “outrages” during the Bush administration for “cheap political points… put(ting) party before country.”  I happen to agree with the sentiment that party differences stop where America’s borders begin, and deeply regret the fact that Obama-as-candidate and Pelosi-as-Speaker neglected this principle time and time again.  This whole “Dixie Chick” mentality was deplorable then, it’s deplorable now.

But now we’re talking about bringing terrorists here.  For what purpose?  To try them in American courts rather than in military courts-martial?  Here is where the rubber hits the road, and AIAW does her best to meet the challenge.  Unfortunately for her (and the rest of the Virginia leftosphere) this is where the car spins out of control:

America is built on the principle that we don’t hold people indefinitely without a trial. I have served on juries, and I can tell you that an absolute fundamental of American legal jurisprudence is that we are all “innocent until proven guilty.” Judges instruct jurors on that point all the time. Now, that doesn’t give a jury permission to acquit criminals and put them back on our streets. But it means that in America every man and woman is entitled to a fair trial. It’s who we are. We don’t keep people in prisons without their day in court. Communists, Nazis, and fascists do that. We don’t.

In a criminal court, you are innocent until proven guilty.  In a courtroom where the defendant is engaged in an asymmetrical war, has contravened the Geneva Conventions, and is engaged in a martial struggle against America and her interests — you are an enemy combatant.  And in warfare, nations detain enemy combatants for the duration of hostilities and the end of the conflict.  That’s warfare, those are the rules.

Here’s the other problem:  Organizations such as al-Qaeda and nations such as the United States can’t enter agreements on how to fight a war.  In other words, while the Geneva Conventions apply between existing states, it is nearly impossible to apply these rules to a nation and an insurgency.  Taliban, al-Qaeda, and other insurgents/terrorists don’t play by rules that nations who fundamentally require such black-and-white clarity demand.

Bringing the detainees to American soil doesn’t solve the problem.  It may treat the symptoms for a time, it may even give the shallow appearance of problem solving.  We might even be able to try enemy detainees in American criminal courts.  We may feel better about it, sooth our “outrage” for a time, but in the end the problem of terrorism and the status of terrorists remains the same for Obama as it was for Bush.

AIAW offers “that we don’t keep people in prisons without their day in court.”  But we can detain them forever and ever.  President Bush’s policy?  No… President Obama’s policy, as cited in his speech on Guantanamo Bay’s detainees on 21 May 2009:

Let me begin by disposing of one argument as plainly as I can: we are not going to release anyone if it would endanger our national security, nor will we release detainees within the United States who endanger the American people. Where demanded by justice and national security, we will seek to transfer some detainees to the same type of facilities in which we hold all manner of dangerous and violent criminals within our borders - highly secure prisons that ensure the public safety.

So much for innocence until proven guilty, right?  But there’s more from Obama’s speech on Gitmo at the National Archives, statements that should shock the rank-and-file that were so adamantly opposed to the very policies Obama is now assiduously upholding:

We are currently in the process of reviewing each of the detainee cases at Guantanamo to determine the appropriate policy for dealing with them. As we do so, we are acutely aware that under the last Administration, detainees were released only to return to the battlefield. That is why we are doing away with the poorly planned, haphazard approach that let those detainees go in the past. Instead, we are treating these cases with the care and attention that the law requires and our security demands.

Let’s concede for a moment that detainees were under a “catch and release” policy.  If so, why have a Guantanamo Bay facility?  But I digress… we’re not going to release detainees, but we’re going to do what precisely?  Obama expands by jumping through the appropriate hoops:  try those who can be tried in American criminal courts, others under military tribunals (though he never reversed himself, mind you… this is expedient!), transfer other detainees to foreign countries, and release — yes, release — those whom American courts have deemed to be inappropriately detained.  All well and good.

But what about that “fifth” category of Obama’s?  The ones who are true detainees who, if released, will simply rejoin the ranks of al-Qaeda or other terrorist organizations and do harm to America’s civilians and interests abroad?  Buckle up… because here’s where Obama gets all Bushian on AIAW:

I want to be honest: this is the toughest issue we will face. We are going to exhaust every avenue that we have to prosecute those at Guantanamo who pose a danger to our country. But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States. Examples of that threat include people who have received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, commanded Taliban troops in battle, expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans. These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States.

As I said, I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people. Al Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and those that we capture - like other prisoners of war - must be prevented from attacking us again. However, we must recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded. That is why my Administration has begun to reshape these standards to ensure they are in line with the rule of law.

Now I want you to go back and read those two paragraphs carefully.  I’ll wait…

You got that?

What Obama is saying here is that we are going to continue to detain people for the threats they might pose to the United States.  What’s more, we’re going to codify this in law — detaining people for what they might do to the United States.

Let me re-quote AIAW for a moment:

America is built on the principle that we don’t hold people indefinitely without a trial. I have served on juries, and I can tell you that an absolute fundamental of American legal jurisprudence is that we are all “innocent until proven guilty.” Judges instruct jurors on that point all the time. Now, that doesn’t give a jury permission to acquit criminals and put them back on our streets. But it means that in America every man and woman is entitled to a fair trial. It’s who we are. We don’t keep people in prisons without their day in court. Communists, Nazis, and fascists do that. We don’t.

Outraged still?  Or better put, are you sure your outraged is directed at the right people?

Obama doesn’t discuss who could be detained for these purposes.  Nor does Obama discuss whether Americans will be detained under the same circumstances (though they have before, as Japanese internment camps bear witness to this fact).

Now I know what you’re thinking… Shaun — you’re just misquoting for your own right-leaning, narrow minded, “patently absurd” argumentation.  Well don’t let me convince you; let Obama convince you:

I know that creating such a system poses unique challenges. Other countries have grappled with this question, and so must we. But I want to be very clear that our goal is to construct a legitimate legal framework for Guantanamo detainees - not to avoid one. In our constitutional system, prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man. If and when we determine that the United States must hold individuals to keep them from carrying out an act of war, we will do so within a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight. And so going forward, my Administration will work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime so that our efforts are consistent with our values and our Constitution.

Outraged yet?  So not only are we going to detain people without access to courts (just an “appropriate legal regime”), we’re going to create a system of “prolonged detention” that will be legally consistent with our values — whatever they might be — and our Constitution.

Read that again:  our values plus our Constitution?

So yes — I am opposed to bringing the detainees from the War on Terrorism to the United States.  Moreover, as Americans we should be deeply concerned about the implications of a policy designed to detain people for what they might do as opposed to what they did do.  Finally, I am diametrically opposed to policies being drafted consonant between some sort of brokerage between amorphous values and the rule of law.

Bush’s policies at least allowed the contradiction to be self-evident.  Obama’s attempt to put a veneer of “values” to make things consistent is repulsive to the very ideas with which AIAW claims to be so concerned.  Don’t think this is a right-left argument either — others from the left have voiced precisely the same concerns.

Sure, be outraged.  But be sure you’re outraged about the right things.

Determined not to plunk $100 on a new DVD player, we cracked the top open and discovered the tray to be slightly off track.  Repaired, and probably on it’s 80th showing of “The King and I” the DVD player lives to see another series of years, even if Sarah continues to make a beeline for the machine whenever the opportunity presents itself.

The lesson?  Most folks would have thrown that DVD player out.  It was jammed, it couldn’t be fixed, it might have taken hours, etc.  Mrs. Kenney has a fairly insatiable appetite for figuring out how things work and repairing them… and I just happen figure things can be fixed.  Just because there’s a cover on there doesn’t mean it operates by magic, after all.  It’s a machine with moveable parts!  If someone put it together, someone can ideally see if the fix is doable, right?

I’ve always wanted to write a book touching on such matters, but Richmond shop owner and philosopher Matthew Crawford beat me to the punch with Shop Class as Soulcraft, which was an extension of a New Atlantis article written in 2006 proclaiming the virtues of working with ones hands.  If you haven’t read his outstanding book yet, buy it today.  It’s a relatively quick read, and just the sort of remedy a philosopher/mechanic could offer.  From the review on Amazon:

Shop Class as Soulcraft brings alive an experience that was once quite common, but now seems to be receding from society—the experience of making and fixing things with our hands. Those of us who sit in an office often feel a lack of connection to the material world, a sense of loss, and find it difficult to say exactly what we do all day. For anyone who felt hustled off to college, then to the cubicle, against their own inclinations and natural bents, Shop Class as Soulcraft seeks to restore the honor of the manual trades as a life worth choosing.

Crawford does much more than this — he offers a path, away from the cycle of scalable enterprise and towards a more self-fulfilling and self-reliant ideal.  Trades are to be cherished because they offer the apprentice the experience of the master in a way not often (if at all) communicated in a modern classroom.  Modern education teaches us what to think, not how to think.  In trades, results matter; in cubicle hell, feelings and teamwork matter.  Most of all, as we’ve moved away from becoming craftsman and mere automatons along an assembly line, we’ve not only lost a bit of ourselves in the process, we’ve turned ourselves into creatures who seek process over results.  Crawford rejects the dumbed-down white collar workplace for what it is, and praises the more realistic trades many of us have forgotten.

Go read this book.  I would have really liked to see Crawford get into a bit of Aristotle’s idea of self-sufficiency (autarkestatos?), but I think he stops the book short on purpose.  It’s awful nice to see him leave all the tools on the table and practically beg the reader to follow through with his logic.  You’d expect no less from a master teaching an apprentice.

download lords of dogtown dvd

Hard to believe there is an entire generation of Americans (not too much younger than myself) with barely any idea of what the Soviet Union was, or why the Berlin Wall was built and what it represented.

• lesbian vampire killers divx download free age of innocence the

notorious online divx devil in a blue dress

imprint dvdrip download

teen wolf too dvd download