So I figured, I don’t know all that much about any one particular thing, so I can’t call myself an expert as a citizen journalist.  You know, the ones who have memorized all the applicable laws and regulations, analyzed every fact meticulously and also have the unfathomable ability at the same time to communicate to others this information along with a heaping helping of ethical and moral and gold standard human value.

Well I call them citizen journalists, and have written about them many times.  They are my heroes for sure.

So I decided instead I will write editorials!  Well, just for tonight, ’cause I don’t wanna strain my brain, Jane.

Even good editorials are just editorials, opinions.  The great ones manage to transcend opinion and reach the hallowed land of brilliant thinking, but I’ll bet that always happened by accident!

So here’s why I ain’t gonna strain my brain, Jane.

I remember reading a story in the New York Times magazine, in October of 2004 about terrorism and John Kerry’s view on it.

Kerry had a far different view of what should be done to counter terrorism:

But when you listen carefully to what Bush and Kerry say, it becomes clear that the differences between them are more profound than the matter of who can be more effective in achieving the same ends. Bush casts the war on terror as a vast struggle that is likely to go on indefinitely, or at least as long as radical Islam commands fealty in regions of the world. In a rare moment of either candor or carelessness, or perhaps both, Bush told Matt Lauer on the ”Today” show in August that he didn’t think the United States could actually triumph in the war on terror in the foreseeable future. ”I don’t think you can win it,” he said — a statement that he and his aides tried to disown but that had the ring of sincerity to it. He and other members of his administration have said that Americans should expect to be attacked again, and that the constant shadow of danger that hangs over major cities like New York and Washington is the cost of freedom. In his rhetoric, Bush suggests that terrorism for this generation of Americans is and should be an overwhelming and frightening reality.

When I asked Kerry what it would take for Americans to feel safe again, he displayed a much less apocalyptic worldview. ”We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they’re a nuisance,” Kerry said. ”As a former law-enforcement person, I know we’re never going to end prostitution. We’re never going to end illegal gambling. But we’re going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn’t on the rise. It isn’t threatening people’s lives every day, and fundamentally, it’s something that you continue to fight, but it’s not threatening the fabric of your life.”

This analogy struck me as remarkable, if only because it seemed to throw down a big orange marker between Kerry’s philosophy and the president’s. Kerry, a former prosecutor, was suggesting that the war, if one could call it that, was, if not winnable, then at least controllable. If mobsters could be chased into the back rooms of seedy clubs, then so, too, could terrorists be sent scurrying for their lives into remote caves where they wouldn’t harm us. Bush had continually cast himself as the optimist in the race, asserting that he alone saw the liberating potential of American might, and yet his dark vision of unending war suddenly seemed far less hopeful than Kerry’s notion that all of this horror — planes flying into buildings, anxiety about suicide bombers and chemicals in the subway — could somehow be made to recede until it was barely in our thoughts.

Remember?  Remember when Bush said he didn’t think the “war on terror” could ever be won?  Remember when he and Cheney were running around on every talk show and media newshour one could think of, telling Americans we should live in fear, that it wasn’t just probable but inevitable that we would be attacked again?

I remember it very well.

Mick Jagger, it is said, didn’t like this version of the tune so didn’t release it for a long time.  But it suits my purposes for this essay, and I kinda like it.

Pleased to meet you … hope you guessed my name …

Found an interesting etymological factoid about the word “temptation”:

[Origin: 1175-1225; ME temptacion < L tempt?ti?n- (s. of tempt?ti?) a testing.

Emphasis mine!

I know there are a lot of my fellow citizens who have little sympathy for the struggles of undocumented workers in the United States.

I’ve heard all the arguments, the fears, the anger, and the confusion.

This essay is not intended to address any of that.  Whatever anyone feels about folks coming in to the United States illegally is something I will be happy to discuss at another time, in another essay.

Right now we have legislation pending written to treat immigration as a local law enforcement problem.

I got an email from Congress.org talking about the Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga) sponsored S2717:

[The] Effective Immigration Enforcement Partnerships Act of 2008. The purpose of this bill is to provide local governments and law enforcement the resources, training, and authority to enforce U.S. immigration law at the local level. According to his website, aspects of the bill include:

• “Clarifying their authority to enforce federal immigration laws during their normal course of duty”

• “Expanding the 287(g) program to every state.” Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act authorizes state and local police to perform enforcement duties related to illegal immigration

• “Offering a basic training course for all state and local law enforcement officers”

• “Compensating state and local entities for immigration enforcement related expenses”

If you go to Congress.org, you will see an option to have your say over this bill, whether you agree it should be passed or disagree and wish to let your representatives know you think this bill should not be passed.

In From Strom to Barack buhdydharma asks the question:

As we prepare to take this next step (hopefully) what do you think the ramifications will be on our society in general….and on the attitudes of the remaining, dwindling, but still large….population of both the casual and the more vehement racists in our nation as….

“The world is about to roll over them?”

In response, I’d like to link to two different diaries posted over at Daily Kos today, one on immigration by Duke1676 and one on the further shenanigans of the Army Corps of Engineers in New Orleans by mcbrid35.  I consider both these bloggers top notch in quality and credibility, excellent examples of true citizen journalists when it comes to analyzing facts, law and the ethical and moral consequences that we all will experience.

When I came online this morning I saw that the Green Zone in Iraq had suffered an attack of mortar bombs and/or rockets:

BAGHDAD (Reuters) – A barrage of mortar bombs or rockets hit Baghdad’s heavily protected Green Zone, home to the U.S. embassy and Iraqi government ministries, on Saturday, but there were no immediate reports of casualties or damage.

Of course for operational security reasons, we cannot know if there was any damage or what kind of damage or anything else:

“I can confirm that we did receive indirect fire and that it was multiple rounds,” said U.S. military spokesman Major Brad Leighton, referring further queries to the U.S. embassy.

U.S. embassy spokeswoman Mirembe Nantongo refused to say whether there had been casualties or damaged.

“To maintain operational security, we do not comment on indirect fire into the International Zone,” she said.

And of course what would the military official response be without a reference to Iran?

The U.S. military has blamed missile attacks on the Green Zone on so-called “special groups”, rogue elements of Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mehdi Army militia they say receives funding and weapons from neighbouring Iran. Iran denies the charge.

So we can’t know what damage was done by this attack.  Yet we can hear the military tell us they know exactly where this attack came from and that Iran has to be behind it.  Guess that’s not a secret so we can all know who the REAL enemy is!

(This is the third diary in a 24-hour fundraiser for Gilda Reed, Democratic Candidate for Katrina-Burdened LA-01.)

GILDA REED WILL NOT ABANDON US

Livingston.  Vitter.  Jindal.   When it comes to Louisiana’s First District, none of them stuck it out.  There’s no stability to be had when an entire community of American citizens is used as a political stepping stone.  Gilda Reed will not abandon anyone, ever.  Imagine that.

As for the Republicans running for LA-01 today, we can see from the Times-Picayune, the new crop of candidates are just as interested in “seat-hopping” as the old:

As Bobby Jindal drops his title of U.S. representative in favor of Louisiana governor today, voters will begin posing a number of questions to the candidates who hope to succeed him in Congress. Among them:

— What qualifications do you have to be my voice in Washington?

— What is your position on the war in Afghanistan and Iraq?

— How can you bring home the bacon?