Osama's Dead. Now What?

On Sunday, the White House announced a sudden and mysterious late-night speech by the President. For about an hour, the subject of the speech went unstated - causing a feeding frenzy among the media.

I sat with some friends of mine, all enjoying some old-school thrills, switching off on Super Mario 64. I - ever the nerd - was browsing the internet while the others struggled to find all eight of Big Boo's red coins, when I noticed a Breaking News alert on HuffPo. It said something to the effect of, "President to give speech; subject withheld." I announced this to the room, and the speculation was on! What could he be announcing? Why so late at night, so sudden? Why the secrecy?

Then it was announced it was "national security related." Cue full freak-out mode. We were all, apparently, going to die. Finally, finally, someone read the news on Facebook. Osama bin Laden had been killed. And that was totally awesome. I clicked "like," cementing my approval for the ages.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

We watched the President live on the White House web page. Obama swaggered to his podium, read the announcement, and footage started popping up of spontaneous mass patriotism outside the White House and in Times Square. Mario, long forgotten now, was fast asleep in Peach's courtyard. The rest of the evening was spent researching exactly how grisly Osama's death had been. (In the eye? Yikes. So much for kidney failure...)

The speech was brief, and as the President receded into the ominous Cross Hall, we all wondered aloud what this would mean for our country. Is this the end of the war in Afghanistan? Or Iraq? How did it all happen? Did we really have the body, or was this an elaborate ruse on the level of pretending to be an American citizen so you can run for President? How will this affect the election?

On the last point, some prognosticators have predicted that this news could bump up Obama's approval some 10 points or so, which might be sustained for up to six months. Seems sensible enough - even Republicans were having a hard time criticizing the President's handling of the operation.*

No, it's the liberals attacking the President this time. I had thought the execution of Osama bin Laden was a universal desire - he had masterminded at least one plot that resulted in thousands of deaths, possessed the ability to do so again, and stated his clear intention to do just that. I'm not the biggest fan of the death penalty, but goddamn if this isn't a worthy enough argument in favor. Osama's death wasn't just retribution, it wasn't murder, it was justice. More than that, it was the intelligent thing to do.

I understand some hesitation. We essentially committed an act of war in Pakistan. No matter how cool our equipment was, how smoothly the operation went, you can't change the fact that we flew troops into their country and rushed in, guns blazing. Hell, we blew up a helicopter on our way out - exactly the wrong sort of thing to do on the sovereign land of a nuclear power. Could this further anger the military of Pakistan?

IMPLICATIONS

Bin Laden was found not far from the Pakistani capitol, in a prominent, even affluent, military town. The "Pakistani West Point," Kakul Academy, is a stone's throw from where Navy Seal Team 6 exploded a cutting-edge stealth helicopter in Osama's walled-in compound. It's hard to imagine such a feat from the most wanted man in the world without some assistance, or at least a few turned heads, from the nation's powerful military. Will this lead American war-hawks to put more pressure on Pakistan? Could actual complicity come to light? And, if so, will our relations with the country, already frayed, prove irrevocably severed?

And, so long as we're asking questions, what does this mean for al-Qaeda? Without its founder and leader, can it remain the galvanizing, frightening organization it has been? Further, after this blow, and continued reports about what seem to be al-Qaeda's death throws, with the Taliban a distant memory in the national consciousness (hell, there's an entire generation now that doesn't even know who Osama bin Laden was), what purpose are American troops serving in Afghanistan? Isn't this grounds for immediate withdrawal?

All this ruminating, and no answers. Just question after question. The death of a madman is inarguably good news, and seems somehow to resolve so much. But it seems everyone seems stuck in the same loop as I, pondering mysteries that always seem to resolve themselves in the unshakeable refrain of, "Now what?"

_______________

*UPDATE 5/8: Not that it stopped them from trying.

Mid-West Mafia Take Over NLR

Alright, maybe the title's a little hyperbolic... but this is awesome.

I'm pretty new in Arkansas - I've been in Little Rock, the state's capitol and largest "city," for about a year - so I'm still catching-up on the intricacies of local politics. Sometimes it can be so hard to wrap your head around city politics in a new area. It's all dense with names and locations that have no meaning, no previous relavance. In short, it's all boring. But, every so often, due diligence can result in the discovery of a juicy news morsels like this one.

I love a good corruption story, but what's really savory here is the mob connection. George Wylie Thompson was arrested by the FBI in Cabot. The charges span from possession of 147 firearms and 80,000 rounds of ammunition to bookmaking and marriage fraud, going all the way back to 2008. (A lifetime ago, really.) A felon isn't supposed to own a single gun, and I hear the Feds really start to raise an eyebrow when the total exceeds 146...

Thompson had first been arrested at the tail end of 2009, on stereotypical mafioso charges in an East Coast sting. One can only conclude drug mules that speak in broken English aren't always the best business associates. Also, Arkansas isn't as boring as it seems.

Thompson got 10 years, the Alderman got four months. At least Thompson totally knows karate. That'll come in handy in the Pen, I'm sure.

Pretty cool, huh? A made man in the Mid-West. And somehow I still can't find a decent cannoli in Little Rock.

Thy Brothers' Keeper

I'd like to honor my fellow Americans, just now emerging from the darkened recesses of legislative oppression, on the eve of our President's signing what will undoubtedly be considered yet another historic piece of legislation. An era of discrimination has finally ended, and now that it has, I think it's important to view the evolution of a potent and divisive debate.

Congress, always on the cutting edge, has finally caught up with the majority of Americans and given equal rights to our nation's fearless fags. In honor of this momentous occasion, let's review the life and death of the military policies and guidelines we all affectionately called "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

__________

30,000 BC - First homo gets erectus for a dude. Cave-paintings appear as popular home decor. Local cave values skyrocket.

1924 AD - The Society for Human Rights begins advocating strange new ideas, apparently misconstrued from a literal interpretation of the Constitution.

1948 - Kinsey publishes Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, alerting the public to the growing dangers posed by the personal lifestyle choices of others. Also, people get all weird about how many gays are actually out there. Lurking.

1950 - President Harry Truman signs the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which details proper procedure for punishing homosexual activity among troops. None of the methods you're now imagining were ever implemented -- expulsion chosen instead.

1962 - Illinois legalizes sodomy. Gay people have sex for the first time. Initial reports indicate the fabulous nature of such encounters.

1973 - The American Psychiatric Association stops classifying The Gay as a mental disorder.

1982 - President Ronald Reagan signs Defense Directive 1332.14, which states that homosexuality is incompatible with military service. History in no way proves this to be the ranting of an increasingly senile former actor.

1993 - President Bill Clinton, trying to fulfill a campaign promise, pushes hard to let gays into the military. Opposition is, ironically enough, very stiff. DADT, a compromise between civil rights and homophobia, is adopted as official US military policy.

1994 - Col. Grethe Cammermeyer becomes the only person allowed to serve her country and be openly gay at the same time. Waits three years, changes her mind.

2000 - Vermont allows gay marriage. The institution of marriage immediately dissolves. Every citizen of Vermont marries their favorite pet or vehicle by mid-2003.

2001 to 2008 - George W. Bush.

2009 - President Barack Obama campaigns on repealing DADT. Doesn't seem weirded out by gay dudes. America approves. Also that year, the Supreme Court disagrees with America. (Again.)

2010 - Republicans grant the conceit that gays are people too, in exchange for tax-cuts.

2011 - DADT officially dead. Nothing bad ever happens again.

(Timeline via Infoplease, The Washington Post, Wikipedia, Google.)

Republicans Celebrate Status-Quo

I'll admit, even I -- a die-hard Obama worshiper -- had my faith shaken when I first heard about the extension of the Bush tax-cuts for the wealthiest Americans. It seemed nonsensical -- why would Republicans, who have shifted their entire brand toward closing the budget deficit, fight to keep the single largest non-defense aspect of said terrifyingly large spot of red ink? And, what's more, why the hell would Obama, that supposed fascist commie socialist, let such a thing happen despite it being the driving thrust of his election campaign?

I was bewildered. I grabbed the nearest bottle of alcohol and began what can only be described as a drug-fueled descent into madness. There was property damage, yes, and a few people may or may not have been mortally wounded (one should never, in those circumstances, stick around to hear the prognosis), but when I finally awoke and replenished my fluids, I had an epiphany. This is what I voted for.

Not this, specifically. I voted for the opposite. Screw the wealthy - they can have their tax cuts when my friends and family can exist without government aid. But this process, the idea of political compromise, of both sides getting what they want, that's what I wanted.

RATIONALIZATION

First, it's important to remind my fellow liberals that this is how government is supposed to work. It was a compromise between right and left, and Republicans -- still basking in the glow of victory after decisively retaking the House and reversing many Democratic gains in the Senate - got the better end of the deal. Welcome to Democracy.

And when one picks this tentative framework apart, there are quite a few things there that Democrats wanted that would have, under any other circumstance, resulted in a drawn-out battle with these supposed budget-hawks on the Right. The extension of unemployment benefits being the most ready example - it assured economic stability to families just before the holidays.

Liberals are grousing, nonetheless. In the modern view of legislation as win/lose for Republicans or Democrats, this seems to be chalked up as a win for the Right, not a product of bipartisan negotiation. But criticism so far seems purely reactionary, and a little thought on the political strategery shows this single deal could be the most significant step toward a possible second term for the President.

I know, it sounds hyperbolic, but hear me out.

This bit of legislation will essentially act as another round of stimulus. The bill amounts to more than $870 billion, and though liberals like to complain that tax cuts are an inefficient way to gin the economy, it will help. At least a little. And the economy is a notoriously effective barometer for presidential political success. Recall the fierce debate from the previous rounds of stimulus and the Republican inability to allow Congress to function and multiply it by a few hundred billion, divide that by its own square root, carry the two, then do nothing for a few months. Congratulations, you've just acted out what Congress would have done were Obama to propose such a stimulus under any other circumstance.

THE IRAN STRATEGY

The act of inviting Republican leadership to the White House and essentially brokering a back-room deal is beneficial, too. Obama may have sowed seeds of good will among Republican legislators (unlikely, but possible), and looks at the very least to be attempting bipartisanship. If this is but the first of a series of such efforts, he can take either of two possible beneficial positions. One, he lead the charge in a new, more prosperous era of bipartisan legislation. Or, more likely, Two, he reaps the political goodwill as Republicans reject his overtures yet again and keep their image of Do-Nothing obstructionism.

Call it the Iran Strategy. Just like our policy toward Iran, alluded to in the most recent Wikileaks dump of diplomatic cables, this could be a play-nice-then-stab play. If Obama at least appears to exhaust all other options, he can make a show of throwing up his hands just before declaring all-out war.

The President's also tacking toward the center in light of a Right-leaning election. This is an important and difficult task, but one that nonetheless has to be taken by anyone seeking national election. He seems to be using the spirit of bipartisanship to ease into the hearts of moderates. He may be angering his base a bit, but there are minimal risks to that (it's not like they'll vote Republican anyhow), and any of a handful of legislative actions could offset any ill-will. And, let's not forget, this is the sort of thing he said he would do if he were elected President.

Before you join in the chorus of criticism, remember compromise, not idealism, is the key to negotiation. And, when voting for a candidate, one must be careful what one wishes for.

Popeadope

THIS IS WHAT HE REALLY LOOKS LIKE

So the Pope -- perhaps the most evil looking person on earth (see photo) -- recently announced that he believes condoms are a good way to "reduce the risk of infections" from STDs such as AIDS. Every person I know with motor-sensory perception immediately remarked, upon hearing such wizened words, "Yup." You'd think that would be the end of the conversation, no?

No. Apparently, conservative Catholics don't take too kindly to their faith acquiescing to reality, and they've spent every waking moment since Benedict's admission (that latex can beat up God) trying to explain it away. Some called for a more official announcement. Some, ignoring the irony of such a position, blamed faulty translation. And still others plugged their ears with their fingers and hummed their favorite hymn.

A knee-jerk reaction from some Catholics was to say that the Pope's use of a male prostitute in his hypothetical wasn't a change in Vatican policy. It just applies to dudes, the logic seemed to run. But soon after, the Pope's official spokesperson reported that he had asked Benny if the specific words used in his original statement (specifically, regarding the sex of the condom user) were important. The Pope replied, "No." You'd think that would stop the denials and finger-pointing, but no. It's still going on at all levels within the church.

Surprisingly, I was surprised. Mr. XVI seemed to finally own-up to one of the most damnable positions any group has ever taken on any issue, had finally said that condom use was at least a step in the right direction, had finally taken that arrow from the non-believer's quiver, and the response of much (but not all) of the Catholic leadership was to simply deny it had ever happened. Truly miraculous.