... shouldn't you make sure you know the words? 

A recent case in point: Representative Todd Akins (2nd MO) recently led a group of Representatives (GOP'ers?) in the Pledge of Allegiance.  First he made a short speech about the importance of the Pledge.  Akin seemed especially concerned about the words "under God."  Then, he led the assembled crowd in the Pledge; except he flubbed it by leaving out "indivisible."  It sounds like the crowd didn't follow his example, and that after they said "indivisible," his voice stopped booming over the microphone.  Speaking in public can be stressful, and as The Young Turks point out, we should generally forgive these kinds of flubs because anyone can make a mistake -- unless of course, you're trying to demonstrate that the Pledge is important and you want to protect it.  According to TYT, Akin was sponsoring a bill to protect the Pledge.

What first started me thinking about this was a segment on TV (can't remember where, possibly The Daily Show) showing a long series of individuals called upon to sing The National Anthem (admittedly a difficult song) and blowing it.  An individual is chosen to sing the anthem at a ballpark, basketball court (Carl Lewis), hockey rink, NASCAR, another race park, the U.S. Capitol (a police officer), or other public gathering (another police officer, drunk?), and they forget the words.  This young lady is obviously experiencing a moment of stage fright, but when a gentleman comes over to rescue her, the National Anthem turns into a round.   Not only do they skip words, get lost in the middle, or repeat lines, some don't even know how to start.

Roseanne's rendition (not for the meek of heart or those with sensitive ears) left much to be desired, but at least she knew the words.

So, once again I ask: If you're selected to lead an audience in reciting some patriotic verses shouldn't you try your best to get the words right?  Please, at least take a cheat sheet with you.

You can get one at this site, which includes the lyrics as well as a midi file, and some sheet music (I can't tell if it is complete) that you can view online, or download.  Or, check out this one, which also includes sound files in various formats for instrumental and sung versions.

As for the audience, it seems that a growing portion don't know how to behave.   Listen to the audience jabbering away and watch the players as the unfortunate young lady tries to sing the anthem at a 2005 exhibition match between the US and Canadian national teams.  This Boston crowd may have had good intentions by responding to an earlier incident (in which Canadians booed our National Anthem) with a standing ovation, but it's not the way to show respect. 

It might also help if students were taught the meaning of the words:

Although, enforcement of proper decorum can go too far.  Just when are you supposed to go to the bathroom if not during the 7th Inning Stretch and can you stretch while "God Bless America" is being sung?  Opponents have several complaints about this NY Yankees practice, but there's one I don't understand, and that's that it causes too much of a delay.  It's kind of a short song, shorter than "Take Me Out to the Ball Game."  But I digress.

Which do you think would look worse, flubbing the lyrics and soldiering on, or taking a quick look at a cheat sheet?  Isn't that what sheet music is supposed to be?

Digital cameras typically have "welcome screens" that essentially are ads.  I turn them off because I don't want to see advertising if I can avoid it, and because they add to the start-up time.  What they don't have (at least none of the ones I've used) is a way to personalize the phone, say by adding owner and contact information in case I should misplace the device, which of course I never do.  If they let me add this information to their welcome screen, I'd leave the ad on.

Hear me, oh camera manufacturers of the world: Let us personalize your welcome screen/ad and we won't turn it off.

I was thinking I could try to make the very first "picture" one of a sheet of paper with this information on it.

[I actually wrote most of this post in June, but was unable to finish it then.]

It's been a bad two weeks on the tolerance front due to some hate killings: a guard at the Holocaust Museum in D.C.; a doctor who, among other things, performed late term (at 20-25 weeks) abortions - shot as he attended church; and a soldier at a recruiting station shot -- plus others wounded.  I know three events don't prove there is a trend, but it makes me wonder. 

Just after Obama was declared the winner in November, four young white men in New York went out and badly beat up three people, including one person who was in a coma for several weeks (and who was actually white, but was apparently wearing a hooded sweatshirt and found in the "wrong" neighborhood.  This is not an isolated incident, but there is no hard data on the number or the delta of these incidents.

What about all the plots the Secret Service and the FBI have foiled since the DNC convention in Denver?  Is the number par for the course, or does it represent an increase in plots against a President, because he is our first ever black President?  I haven't heard any statistics; the news seems to be reporting more of these foiled plots, but that doesn't necessarily mean there are more plots.  It may just be a case of more reporting, or more vigilance resulting in investigations of plots at earlier stages, including plots that never would have gotten past the initial stages.

We do know that the number of hate groups increased by 54% between 2000 and 2008 and that their vitriol is also increasing.  Although there was apparently no increase in hate crimes in the last couple of years, we don't yet have statistics for 2008, let alone for the first four and a half months of Obama's presidency. 

We also know there's been a gun buying spree since the elections.  The anti-Obama segment of the U.S. population is arming itself against dangers they foresee, which include gun bans and a Jericho-like future resulting not from nuclear devastation, but from economic woes (or a race war?).  At the same time that gun sales are on the rise, in some states, the issuance of concealed weapons permits are on the rise, and gun laws are being relaxed.  "Beware all ye who enter" Arizona, Montana, Ohio, and some of the southern states.  In Florida, not only  are concealed carry permits on the rise, the requirements for a justified use of deadly force were eased a couple of years ago.

The three shooters in these incidents have been called "lone wolves," who are said to be harder to find and stop than terrorist groups, but some have blamed right wing rhetoric for contributing to their motives and willingness to kill.  Others deny that Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Coulter or any right wing celebrities in any way contribute to these people who act out.  As I stated in my online comment, there may be nut jobs on both extremes of the spectrum who kill (anyone remember the Weather Underground?), but you can't, as the article did, call the converted muslim who shot two soldiers at a recruiting station a left winger.  It is specious to call him a liberal merely because he justified his actions as an act against the U.S. military.  He also justified it as an act for God - not a typical liberal rationale.

[Of course, since I wrote this in June we've had several plots against the President foiled, had a few terrorist attacks in the U.S. and the world foiled, and witnessed a lot of rancordirected at the President.]

The real secret to making money "during a Recession" through "a single mom's discovery of two products that when combined" whiten  your teeth.  This apocryphal single mom supposedly received free samples of two products and made an accidental discovery when she used one immediately after the other.  Why not benefit from her discovery and save hundreds of dollars (from unneeded teeth whitening products or procedures)?  They take your credit card info so they can charge you for "shipping."  Then, even before you receive these "free" samples, you apparently will be charged almost $100 for subscriptions to four products, two of which you didn't know you were getting - because the devil is in the fine print. When you discover the charges for these subscriptions that weren't mentioned in the ad, it may be difficult to cancel your subscription or get your money back because you won't find anybody to take your call.  Those TV ads promising enhancement "to that certain part of a man's anatomy" work the same way.  The real secret is that the only people making loads of money are the ones selling these products - through fraud.

You suspected a scam and you were right. Remember the adage that if an offer seems too good to be true, it probably is.

There are many of these scams.  Some that really offend me are the acai berry ones that purport to give you information on side effects, or be reviews from skeptical health experts but are just ads, like this one implying it's from WebMD.  

Here's an example of one of these Acai ads (I didn't copy the link, just the text):

 

Don't Use Acai…

Until you Read this Shocking Report by Health &…

www.HealthNews6.com

 

Thank goodness for the internet.  One thing that's hard to find is whether the whitening claim is true.  People scammed don't seem too keen to tell others about the efficacy of the two products (or what they are); perhaps, silence speaks volumes.

If it hadn't been for the vituperative antics of the Republicans in impeaching Bill Clinton, politicians might not be subject to the kind of media attention they are getting now when they stray outside of marriage.  It had been a well-known secret (if such a thing is possible) that many of our 20th Century Presidents, as well as other powerful pols, had affairs.  Allegedly, Eisenhower had one long affair and Kennedy had many brief affairs.  Until Clinton these had been considered, for better or for worse, peccadilloes which were not for dissemination to the general public.  FDR was supposedly not very discrete and this was something Eleanor had to deal with.  However, Hillary Clinton was the first First Lady who had to have her husband's affair become the subject of world wide interest as well as endure an impeachment and a federal investigation; she was the first one who had to very publicly answer the question "Why do you stay married?"  This is a question that the spouses of politicians and other prominent public figures now have to address frequently. 

Recent surveys suggest that 66-76% or so of married couples in which one spouse becomes aware of the other spouse's infidelity stay together for a fairly long time.  These figures are from an article in the NY Times that appears not in their sections on politics, or science, but in their "Fashion & Style" section.  I think its location is a reflection of the ambivalence our society has about whether the infidelity of public figures is a private or a public issue.

The most recent scandal is that of Mark Sanford, Governor of South Carolina, who has done a lot of damage to his reputation and his political future beyond his admission of infidelity (e.g., being AWOL from office and incommunicado for 5 days), so perhaps his is not the best case to consider the question about how public the infidelity of public figures should be.  However, his wife, Jenny Sanford, released a statement, a plea really, that she and her sons be afforded some privacy.  Her statement points out that the news coverage not only punishes the perpetrator, but also the victims of the infidelity.  I recall that in another statement she said that the people of South Carolina have to make a decision about her husband's behavior that is separate from her decision to give the marriage another go.

How should the infidelity of politicians be covered in the news?  Is there no going back to the days of JFK?  Should we go back to the days of JFK?  Does the public have a right to know?  If it does, how much detail is the public entitled to? 

It's been a down year for the country.  The foreclosure crisis, the bank failures and the resulting severe downturn in the economy, which brought stock prices tumbling down have touched almost every corner.  Only the very rich who did not invest with Bernie Madoff, or one of the other swindlers, are unscathed.

Thus, the news that many municipalities have had to cancel or scale down their Independence Day celebrations seems doubly sad.  One municipality particularly suffering from unemployment has instead donated the funds to local food banks, others have used the money to try to save at least one or more jobs.  

But the story about Punta Gorda, Florida, which is still recovering from the devastation of Hurricane Charley made me think of the ending of "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" - a misleading title since the Grinch didn't steal Christmas.  Celebrating Independence Day is no more about fireworks and concerts than Christmas is about presents and glittering trees.  Punta Gorda will have some fireworks, thanks to some donations, a discount from the pyrotechnics company, and the creativity of the city's planners who are filling the shortened display with "three-legged races, water balloon tosses, hula-hooping and key lime pie-making contests."

Independence Day 2009 is a day to celebrate the country that was birthed 233 years ago in what was essentially a political miracle.  Of course it was not fully realized then.  The military victory, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were still to come.  Political and civil equality for all was a long way off.  We've been working on it over the course of 233 years, and whatever faults still remain, it is still a great place in which we have rediscovered Hope that we can work together to make it a better place for ourselves and our children, grandchildren, and so on.  We are moving forward again after living through a great national nightmare and can be proud of it again.

If your town has canceled fireworks, find the closest ones you can get to; volunteer to help others; find a quiet moment for reflection and blessing; watch the movie 1776; or get together with family and neighbors to celebrate another birthday for the country that is "of the people, by the people, and for the people."



Happy Independence Day!

A 43 year old white supremacist is on trial in England for having improvised explosive devices on him and at his parents' home where he lives.  He apparently was planning to target those he considered "non-British."  British authorities believe that he was caught just as he was about to launch on a "terror campaign."  However, he was not caught by anti-terror forces.  He was caught by accident when his belongings were searched after his arrest for "abusing a train conductor."

In addition to allegedly "abusing a train conductor," he was also alleged to have been "drinking and smoking on the train and urinating in public," but is now on trial for more serious charges relating to the explosives and his alleged terrorism plans.   I presume that he considers his own actions to be acceptable British behavior, which is somehow being eroded by the actions of immigrants in England.  Go figure.

In March, a peace conference was cancelled because South Africa would not let the Dalai Lama attend.  South Africa barred the Dalai Lama because of pressure from China.

That is a dumb response which results in a win for China. Or, as the youth say now, "Oh, Snap!"  It's like saying "I'm going to hold my breath until I turn blue." I know some kind of slap at South Africa was intended, but .. <she sputters>.

Are we not in the 21st Century?  Why is the human rights community still using 1960's & '70's tactics?  With all the available technology today, even in South Africa, I imagine, the Dalai Lama could have been virtually present: teleconference, web cam, chat room, instant messaging, twitter ....  Then the purpose of the conference would have been accomplished and the participants would have thumbed their noses at South Africa and China.

This one's been bubbling in the mental volcano for a while.

Apparently D.C.'s baseball team is The Natinals, at least when they wear their home uniforms. 

 

I don't know what evidence the police have on the person they have identified as the so-called "Craig's list" killer.  The young man should be presumed innocent until proven otherwise, and we know police can make mistakes.

What strikes me is that once again, neighbors, friends and family are stunned to learn they may have a murderer in their midst:

Similar things were said about the BTK Killer, and decades ago, about Ted Bundy.   An expert said that serial killers "look extraordinarily ordinary on the outside."

Despite this happening in so many cases, people continue to form in their minds a picture of serial killers and other criminals as something other than ordinary looking or even nice looking.  I think there are many reasons people do this.  Starting at a young age, we are shown bad guys who look the part.  It also coincides with the notion that what is on the inside is reflected on the outside; that Dr. Jekyll cannot forever keep his Hyde side from showing.

More importantly though, it contributes to a false sense of security that we carry around with us to maintain our sanity.  We believe we are safe, because we think we can tell the difference between the bad guys and the good guys.  Especially in middle class  neighborhoods, we maintain the illusion that we are safe because we are surrounded by people just like ourselves.  Criminals are poor and different from us.  People in the inner city probably believe that the criminals live in a different neighborhood, but seem to live with a bit more apprehension.

Could we live with the suspicion that a neighbor is a killer?  We could probably see our neighbor as an embezzler, but probably not a killer or armed robber.  We might suspect that our neighbor is a spouse abuser and still exchange pleasantries every day.  It is harder to live with the possibility that a neighbor might harm us.  Surely we can identify the kind of people who might hurt us.  Can't we?  As if criminals would not go out of their way to be pleasant and friendly, or quiet and blend into the background.

 

Some congressional  Republicans are urging President Obama to cut taxes just like Kennedy did.  Kennedy did lower the top bracket's rate: from 91% under Truman to 71%. Think these people would be happy with a 71% tax rate at the top or with Obama's proposal?

Check here for Kate Winslet's "Strategy" for winning an Oscar.

Maybe this is where she got the idea.  ;-)

Seriously, I don't know the production date for this episode of Ricky Gervais' show, but it is funny in retrospect.

A recent Wall Street Journal article says that with time both Bush Hatred and Obama Euphoria will subside and that they "both represent the triumph of passion over reason."  In other words, those of us who voted for Obama were acting irrationally.  I never saw it as being as much about Euphoria, except for this country electing the first African-American, albeit male, to the highest office in the land; it's really more about relief.  It's as if we were all in an elevator which was plummeting without restraint, and then the brakes come on and the elevator gradually stops. Being happy, even ecstatic, in that situation is not being irrational and it will wear off a little bit with time. But what really gets to me is that when the exact same situation happens in their favor, they don't classify it the same way. It's irrational when liberals do it, but sensible when the right wing does it.  I tried to post a comment in the forum to the article but was unable to do it and when I tried again the topic had been closed. So here it is:

I don't remember anyone at the WSJ writing about Bush Euphoria and Kerry hatred in 2004, or about its precursor - Bush Euphoria, and as a comment pointed out, Clinton Hatred - in 2000. A mirror image of last fall’s election, although Clinton’s favorability numbers were higher.  Lets recall that in 2000 Bush was also a fresh new face with little personal, political experience (and a somewhat checkered history of business experience), promising change from the then existing status quo. He promised to keep us out of other countries’ affairs, promised smaller government, and compassionate conservatism. "Systematic study and impartial inquiry" were also absent in the media, at least from 2001 to 2006/07.

Remember the yellow "Support Our Troops" ribbons (which really meant "Vote for Bush") that were so ubiquitous in 2004? To question or criticize President Bush was unpatriotic and an affront to our dedicated troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. That Pro Bush euphoria seems to have lasted until the last year or two of his second term. The yellow ribbons on vehicles and lapels have dwindled, despite increasing public desire to end the Iraq war and bring the troops home. Quite ironic given that the original public displays of yellow ribbons in America meant “bring them [our hostages in Iran] home,” but in 2004 the yellow ribbons promoted continuation of the war through voting for Bush.

Let’s also remember that some of Mr. Bush's most vocal critics were themselves conservatives. Unexamined euphoria and a cowered media contributed to the re-election of Mr. Bush even though evidence of his administration's incompetencies and lack of a grasp on reality were already quite evident in 2004. That election was quite a bit of "triumph of passion over reason." 

 Based on approval poll numbers and vote results then and now, some who were feeling pro Bush Euphoria are now looking up to President Obama. This is not surprising. Alexander Hamilton's concerns in October of 1787 that men's biases could lead even good men astray was and applies to the full political spectrum, not just to liberals, intellectuals, the media, and academia. Americans of all stripes, including conservatives, tend to put their political leaders on pedestals only to become disenchanted when they turn out to be human.

 If I remember correctly, in the end, the Constitution did get a fair hearing and was adopted, notwithstanding Mr. Hamilton's concerns. Here we are, more than 220 years later still being governed by it.

My favorite comment on the article is this one by Jonathan Lautman:

Does anyone remember Billy Carter, younger brother of President Jimmy Carter? In Carter's run up to the presidency, and during his term in office the antics of Billy, the family clown, presented somewhat of an embarrassment for his straight laced, baptist, older brother. Jimmy Carter had three siblings from his parents' 30 year marriage, which ended in 1953 with his father's death from pancreatic cancer. Compared to President Carter's, President Obama's family presents an exponential potential of embarrassing headlines.

In the run up to his presidency, the media's voracious frenzy for any hint of scandal has already produced several meant-to-be embarrassing headlines about one of Obama's many relatives. Now, not two weeks into his presidency we learn that: Obama's Kenyan Half-Brother detained over drugs.  George Hussein Obama, 27, says he doesn't do drugs and that it was all a misunderstanding. The local media says he was found in possession of Marijuana. The police are mum. The truth doesn't seem to matter; the headline has done it's job.

Best as I can tell, Obama has 8 half siblings;  although, at least one half sibling is dead.  I have no idea as to the number of step siblings, other than the two from his Indonesian stepfather. The woman Obama calls his grandmother is his grandfather's third wife; although she was Barack Obama Sr.'s stepmother, she was the woman who raised the senior Obama. There are half aunts and half uncles, countless cousins and in-laws. 

All this media attention cuts in many directions. Unlike President Obama, these people are not public figures. They have been thrust into the media spotlight through no fault or action of their own.  Jimmy Carter once observed that Billy "was the president's brother, and therefore fair game."  It's unfair and unfortunate. Imagine if your relatives' actions were publicized in your neighborhood, your workplace, your place of worship,and all of your social circles; all those funny family stories may stop being funny.  Would you want to be judged by what your relatives do? On the other hand, imagine for a moment that one of your relatives has suddenly become famous and everything you do gets scrutinized and publicized. Would you want everything you do or that happens to you to be put under a microscope 24/7 and blabbed to the world?

Obama's relations have dispersed throughout Asia, Europe, Canada, and the United States. Thus, on the bright side, the country may be learning more about the world through its president than it ever has before:  from the slums of Kenya, to its government, from Catholic schools in primarily Muslim Indonesia, from England, to China's burgeoning internet industry, to who knows where else.

Some puffer fish facts:

Ever since seeing The Simpsons episode, 'One Fish, Two Fish, Blowfish, Blue Fish'  the thought of someone eating blowfish makes me think of "poison, poison, tasty fish."

Now, here are my ruminations:  How? And Why?

How did they figure out what parts of the fish are poisonous?  Was it trial and error? if so, who was the taste tester?  Did they try it on animals or did some emperor force his loyal minions to keep eating parts of the fish until they could identify the poisonous parts from the non-poisonous ones?

Why?  I understand why people eat it now; some people, not yours truly, get a thrill out of taking risks, which are somewhat minimized by Japan's licensing requirements.  Some might think it exotic, or find an appeal in the exclusivity of this high-priced experience.  But why did it happen at all?  Having figured out this thing is highly toxic, why keep trying to eat it (or make someone else eat it)?  Was the first blowfish meal an accident? Perhaps five people divided a puffer fish among themselves and some survived; then they figured out what each diner had eaten and could formulate a hypothesis that some specific parts of the fish weren't poisonous.  Of course, there are other equally plausible hypotheses: perhaps some of the diners had stronger constitutions, or had eaten something else that counteracted the poison. So why take the next step and eat it again?  Why not just leave it alone?  Is it really that delicious or is it something else?

The only sane explanation I can think of is that humans were able to observe the actions of animals carefully picking the tasty blowfish parts & discarding the poisonous ones and surviving, and compared that to animals dining indiscriminately on blowfish and dying.  (If the surviving animals were from a different species than the ones that died, an equally plausible hypothesis is that one species had developed an immunity to the poison,)  Are there any such animals that humans could observe fastidiously selecting what parts of the puffer fish were safe to eat?  Even if there are, that just pushes my questions further back. How & why did this behavior evolve?

There's going to be a movie on tonight at 9 pm on NBC based on a book that I read (in paperback) last Christmas (or was it the one before?).  It's called The Last Templar .  I haven't seen the movie, but the book was one I would recommend.  I want to say something about it, but I don't want to spoil anyone's viewing. I will say that at the time I was reading this book, I was questioning my faith in a way I never had before, and I was glad I read the book - all the way through. Anyway, if you get a chance, watch it.

Countdown to the end of Bush's presidency:


http://www.bushslastday.com/

It's also the number of days left until Barack Obama's inauguration!

Thus, double cause for celebrating the countdown.

Finally, after 8 years, there are only 8 more days left of this administration and the damage that they can do.  Really feel like celebrating.  Too bad the economy is on such a downer, because it really feels like spring is coming (metaphorically, not literally).  Think Snow White and the end of the evil queen's reign. 

Today Prez Bush actually admitted to some mistakes by his administration, including the "Mission Accomplished" banner, but argued that America's international standing had not slipped during his term.  (He also regrets "not finding" WMDs.)  I didn't watch the press conference, but media reports made no mention of any regrets on starting a second war before finishing in Afghanistan OR catching Bin Laden.  Apparently, there were also no regrets about going in with too few soldiers and too little armor/protection. 

Secretary Rumsfeld at the time justified these decisions by saying that you don't go to war with the army you wish you had, but with the one you have.  No one pointed out that this is only valid when you don't control the timing of the war.  No justification was given for not starting a couple of weeks or months later after further preparations. He was repeatedly pressed about whether more forces were needed; at one point, the Secretary blamed the military for not properly using what they did have.  It wasn't as if they weren't warned.  The Army War College, General Shinseki, and numerous others spoke out against the war plans and the timing, but the civilians (some say "chicken hawks") knew better.

At one point, even before Nov 4th, I had begun to feel sorry for President Bush - until I found out about all the environmental regulations that the administration was trying to rush through at the 11th hour (more like 11:59), which essentially gut or lower environmental protections.  As economists tried to explain the mortgage crisis, and Congress and Secretary Paulsen tried to work out a solution, Bush looked so lost and helpless. But it was more than just not having a grasp of the factors creating the mortgage crisis, or of solutions for the failures of so many financial institutions.  It was more than just being a "lame duck."  He really looked depressed.

I think it was the lack of major accomplishments during his two terms that was on his mind.  Although some people were very bothered by Bush's Messianic rhetoric -- especially palpable in his first few years as President -- precisely because he believed it to be true.  President Bush believed that he had been made President in 2000 because God had some special purpose for him.  Now near the end of his turn, almost everything he's touched has been un-Midased.  There is a particularly low feeling that touches those convinced that they have been called by God for some special purpose, only to have the goal or opportunity slip by without its accomplisment.

Apparently this happens to leaders and members of doomsday cults who predict a particular date for the ending of the world when that date goes by and ... nothing happens.  The world just continues on its course past that date and the next day, and the next.  Dejection.  Cognitive`Dissonance.  So much has been sacrificed because of that belief.  In the doomsday cult leader's case, there's also a big blow to the ego.  As with Chicken Little, that sense of self importance, of mission, even if innocently and altruistically acquired, has popped like a soap bubble.  It looked like something real, but it was air, illusion, something insubstantial.

We seem to forget that most prophets have been reluctant ones and/or ones preaching unpopular messages.  The prophets aren't announcing wonders and riches we will receive, but calling us to remember the things we need to do, not just for our friends and families, but for all others, especially the least powerful and most vulnerable, and for the earth.

I can relate somewhat, to the loss of a sense of mission.

But not to worry, the Bush administration has come out with a list of 100 things they have accomplished in the last eight years.  (Fifty per term?)  Not only that, but various members and supporters of the administration have been touting these accomplishments, particularly the fact that there have been no more attacks like 9/11 in the last seven years and four months. 

First of all, has there ever been a presidential administration that felt compelled to publish an exit memo/press release pointing what it perceives to be its accomplishments?  I don't recall any.  This just highlights again that this administration is trying to deal with the dejection and cognitive dissonance it is experiencing. 

Second, as Mr Rumsfeld so "eloquently" once stated about WMDs, "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."  The Clinton administration could have boasted in 2000, and may have, that they had kept our country (though not all of our people) free of terrorist attacks for seven years -- since the 1993 bombing of the WTC.  Although they did warn that Bin Laden was "determined" to attack US.  In both cases we don't know, and may never know, what plots we have been protected from.  We can only state the facts and try to do our best in the future.

What  I want, and what I think many want, is for our leaders to drop the partisanship.  Like things should be treated the same no matter which party does it.  This is not a game to determine which of two political parties gets the most cookies.  The goal is, or should be, to try to figure out what is best for the country as a whole.

At last, I gots one. I likez it.