De-esclatate, investigate, disinitegrate?

Well, it looks as though the anti-war left disrupted what should have been a triumphant return to power of Braveheart proportions. In the middle of Rahm Emmanuel's unveiling of anti-lobby legislation that the new Democtratic majority sought to push through with great fanfare, Cindy Sheehan and the rest of the McGovernites staged a PR coup through an anti-war protest forcing the more . . . well, I can't say moderate . . . politcally savvy Democrats in power back into their caucuses. This tickled me on several levels.

First, Cindy Sheehan is alive! Apparently the hunger strike she and her cult planned to take was more of a hunger pause for the cause. Had she been more committed to her cause, she wouldn't've shown up and ruined the House Democrats day. I'm still interested if the rolling hunger strikes among the Hollywood elite are still going on, or whether they've paid food providers in other red states to solve their food shortage.

Second, now Cindy Sheehan gets to be one of the Republicans' favorite people. She's kind of like Swiper on Dora the Explorer. Everyone sees her and everyone shouts when she she shows up and she always leaves disappointed. Rest assured, unless the Democrats cut a deal with her for something, she'll pop up again at the next event where the Democrats try to change the subject away from the war and show the nation that they can lead. I can't wait to see if she camps out on Pelosi's front lawn.

Third, they're protesting themselves now! It'll be fun to see if all their hatred against Republicans will result in spontaneous self-immolation (hey, this is Viet-nam II). This kind of reminds me of a description I once read about the band Skid Row; they don't take shit from anyone, even if they might actually want the shit that's being offered. Dude, you guys won the election, ixnay on the ally-rays.

Fourth, depending on how you look at it, this shows the Democrats to be either fractured within their own party, or they're really bad at covering up their true anti-war feelings. The savvy Democrats like Emmanuel and Hoyer recognize that this past election was a short-term gain and that the majority of Americans don't really want to "give up" on Iraq. They want results. All the comparisons to Viet-nam have worked up until this point. Americans know that the biggest thing that we did wrong in Viet-nam was give up. So now, if the Democrats stage another helicopter off the roof of an embassy scene, there will be as many Americans lining up to blame the Democrats for giving up, if not more. Hell, even Bill Maher things that we have to accept responsibility for our "crack baby", and a stronger opponent to the Bush administration I don't think you'll find. Oh, I forgot about Cindy Sheehan. She just keeps turning up like a bad penny. Never mind.

Anyway, so either this protest shows the Democrats are all McGovernites, or it shows that it's deeply divided. I'll give them credit here, I think they are divided and I don't think they want to be beholden to their looney left the way the Republicans are to the religious right. They may ultimately be, but I think they recognize that the sure fire way to show that they are real leaders is to win the war in Iraq, or come up with a solution that can stabilize it. That's the "change" that Americans just voted for. Sure, some voted for an end to the war. But the swing voters, the realists, the pragmatists, aren't afraid of American influence abroad, they just want to see it used effectively. If the new leadership cuts and runs, they fail and the debate disintegrates into endless name-calling on both sides. But if they win! They can claim to be a party of leaders, a party of more than just TV shows starring GeenaDavis or written by Aaron Sorkin.

Which brings me to the one thing that saddens me about the event. Lobby reform is a good thing. If the Democrats get it passed and it results in real change, good for them! If they change things for the better, that's good, and I won't deny them praise simply because they are Democrats. I want them to be leaders and a party of ideas. They hold the majorities, and if they are truly intellectually bankrupt and incapable of leading, it will be truly tragic for America at a time when it seems like the world is going to explode. Unfortunately, it's hard to tell if they have any ideas, because of all the protesters shouting.

Here we go . . .

So begins my experimentation with the blogosphere. Of course, as Bill Maher would be quick to point out, it's not like I'm wearing a lab coat. Trial and error is about the only thing I'll be borrowing from the scientific method. But, it's not like I have a mission statement or game plan or something.

What I do know is that the Internet appears to be full of people who are very interested in what they have to say, regardless of what the reader might be interested in. It's great this thing the Internet. You can be the best example of yourself, the most you you can be, and you're probably safe in assuming that there's a niche market for that quintessential you. Someone will read about you, and even if no one is, you can still believe that to be the case. It's such a bizarre paradox, the desire to obtain immortality in such an ephemeral medium as the Internet. But hey, everyone wants to be cool, and isn't that the same thing?

Which brings me back to why I'm here. I'm not cool. As my two young boys get older I see cool moving farther and farther away from me. I never was cool. But, as I hit each developmental milestone I see how much closer I was to being cool than I am now. Sort of like gaining weight. I was never thin, but I sure wish I was fat like I was in high school. And because I want desperately to be as uncool as I was ten years ago, I thought I'd start writing down my thoughts and pretend that my columns are read as frequently as those in my local paper. If nothing else, I don't have to bother my wife with my ramblings about the news or movies or philosophy as much any more. I hope that I won't drive away the few who might stumble across this blog.