A popular -- though not in my neck of the woods -- Slate frayster recently died of lung cancer. Since I know by now how online connections matter, that they can be pretty close and striking in various cases (a recent wedding show underlined the point ... they met online), it is not surprising that this affected many people on that message board. The same occurred earlier on when another popular frayster died. (I had minimal contact, but I can see why he was well liked.) Ditto when a woman reported that she had a miscarriage.
The particularly striking thing this time was that the person wrote a swan song post in July, saying goodbye to public life and saying it was time to be with his family. In part, he was unsure what to say since current events did not really interest him. It might not be the best idea to connect the two, but I sort of can relate. I had various "fray arcs," let us say, since I started posting in force in early 2002. [I posted a few times in late 2000.] A favorite practice of mine, which I do not do as much any more, was to post articles (known as "cut and paste") with an extended commentary (usually as a prologue). This was something I did years back -- I found opinion pieces a useful way to collect my thoughts on an issue or point of view, especially since it served as a launching pad. I also find judicial opinions (and Findlaw columns) useful for this reason as suggested by my opus.
There were also, of course, always Slate articles and current events to discuss. All the same, there were two major streams of posts: election and war related. Thus, from 2002 to early 2003, I had many posts on my opposition to the lead up to the war. There was a certain anguish after awhile to these posts -- I am at heart a pacifist, though willing to admit force is needed in some cases (I simply didn't see Afghanistan as some slam dunk, especially since I didn't trust the commander-in-chief, but in reality, it was in effect one). So, the horribly wrong nature of the oncoming conflict was particularly troubling, especially since many non-pacifists were similarly troubled. The results of the election posts, especially since I leaned toward Dean (but knew deep down he would not win) and didn't really care for Kerry (especially his fake war dodge) was not much more pleasant.
Different fray locales were involved here. Today's Papers, Kausfiles (many despised the man, but his fray was used for election posts), Ballot Box (politics/war posts), and a few other places at times were my bailiwicks. Once the war came, it all seemed hopeless. The Republicans won in 2002, the Democrats did not seem to have much life (some were scrappy in the House, but they run the place like a plantation), and the overall results were of the "well it might not be quite as bad as it could have been" variety. I did not feel like writing much about the war under these conditions, though important stuff was going on -- there is a difference between bad and worse, even if it seems so hopeless. Politics in 2005 also seemed rather depressing. So, I spent much of my time in the Jurisprudence Fray.
But, things are starting to approach the point of stasis there too. A major concern, for instance, is the treatment of detainees. A recent article noted that we are talking about something like fourteen thousand people here overall though most of the focus in on the hundreds in Gitmo. And, the whole matter is depressing. Years of limbo while lawyers fight over holding on to minimum protections, which are essential since they have secured some modicum of justice for many detainees who were released or given some sort of due process. Meanwhile, however, the administration is playing a game of delay of which many defense attorneys with people on death row would be proud. Thus, what does Rasul and Hamdan really give you? Bare right of review, for now at least, with the actual details very unclear. More litigation! More waiting in detention!
Meanwhile, Bush et. al. continues to underline how horrible our leadership truly is. I won't even link these things to underline the standard nature of it all ... Bush calls a conflict that killed almost three thousand of his fellow Americans has died (not counting many more injured, or ten times as much -- by his own estimate some time ago -- Iraqis dead) but a "comma" (of history). The Senate Majority Leader gives a pathetic performance talking about the President's detainee bill (up there with his crack diagnosis via video of Terri Schiavo). More retired generals go on the record to say that Rummy was incompetent. Another likely Republican candidate for President in '08 is looking like more and more of a racist. A third (McCain) is again seen as a phony. Turns out the SWIFT story had bite (see NYT today). And so forth.
This is all very depressing. I am ready for a change, aren't you?* Now, I find current affairs pretty addictive, have for awhile found it necessary to keep up (at least via steady consumption of certain news sources) to some degree, and find various subjects (including of a legal nature) interesting per se. Finally, I also find compelled to voice my opinion on various matters, and it is amazing how online sources can allow one to do this in a fashion where so many can read it (and, this is almost as amazing, find it worth reading). So, I'm going to continue to do so. Also, I have loads of respect for those who actually are activists, who are continuously on the front lines or serving as rear guard actions in various ways and for many causes. The basic faith, comparable to religious believers, needed for this is clear.
Still, it is understandable -- and not just for those who are dying (obviously a special case ... but for the living, the responses are likely to be a bit less striking) -- you can see why so many might want to say "the hell with this." One hopes this year is different -- "hope" seems appropriate since events in recent years leads one to be guarded with one's expectations.
Some point to the Clinton FOX appearance as a rallying cry. I think John Dickinson was right to argue that the questions were not just sprung on Clinton -- he was expecting and prepared for them. It seems a bit naive of various left leaning sorts to ignore this possibility though both agree it was a very good performance ... if the word fits. Saying he was in some fashion "performing" does not take away from the force of his words. As a politician, after all, you have to do both -- play the game while serving the public at the same time.
We now have some backlash -- talk about how there was no "full-fledged" plans to go after Bin Laden etc. once the USS Cole was attacked in late 2000. If this is the best non-right leaning sorts can do, I'll take it. I am loathe to focus on Clinton ... this is not the 1990s any more, people. But, the attacks from the usual suspects are telling. Are we to believe that Bush was "as bad" as Clinton respecting pre-9/11 activities? Well, the Right hated the guy, right? Is this really a good place to be? Also, Clinton's sex stuff is still brought up (as shown in "breastgate") ... sure, that is as bad as what Bush and company is doing. How pathetic. Clinton was not god, but what exactly could one do at the end of one's term as elections are coming (and disputed)?
And, Republicans are the one's who would be more active, to do what Clinton was hesitant in doing (the latter is true enough though Rs opposed even some of what he did do), right? They are the adults, who could handle running a war and so forth. Imagine if Gore was President (such was said at the time)! Uh huh. The fact the days and years after 9/11 were one continual downer underlines why someone might want to not look at current events. And, what else is out there? Bad television? Lame entertainment news? Is there some exciting scientific developments? I guess, but nothing really immediate comes to mind. Downnnerrrr.
Great win for New Orleans though -- the whole country was on their side, and apparently so were the Falcons. Rather bad from the blocked punt/touchdown arising from their first three and out series. At times, it seemed even the officials were against them ... a few possible signs of life stopped with somewhat questionable calls.
---
* Sen. Specter, who (for now) is against habeas stripping, recently noted that there is a chance that something can be done about the situation in Iraq and related issues, but the election probably is complicating things. He thinks that something probably can be done once it is over. Yes, if a certain result occurs. His "wait and see" approach reminds one of the 2002 election. And, the 2004 election. Just wait ... things will get better. Still waiting.