Is this man worth your angst? I don't know either.

I usually try to avoid writing about things until I've thought through what I think and why I think it, but a few days after Anwar al-Awlaki was killed in Yemen, I'm still thinking. I'm not ready to write something and put a "DONE" stamp on it.

Here's the thing... I don't have a problem with the U.S. military going after someone who committed acts of war against this country. As I wrote when Osama bin Laden was finally killed back in May, the world has changed to the point where our enemies aren't capable of signing treaties, so what other recourse do we have? But I also generally favor treating terrorism as a criminal matter than a military one. And in this case, both of the men killed were U.S. citizens.

I hear the people who don't like the idea of unilateral action against U.S. citizens without due process, and I respect where they're coming from. I understand the slippery slope argument. And I'm fine with drawing a line to make sure that, in the future, the U.S. military isn't used against Americans who honestly dissent from the current government. No one wants that... which is why there is already a law against using the military for law enforcement on U.S. soil.

Despite the rhetoric of people on the political extremes, this is still a country where our legal processes work most of the time.

So, where do we draw that line? How about this? When an natural-born American citizen living in a foreign country that's a haven for terrorists, who publicly admits that he's recruiting for a terrorist organization whose stated mission is overthrowing modern Western society, and/or self-labels as a "traitor to America," I think it's ok to take him out.

Yes, I understand the legal issues, and I look forward to reading about them when Constitutional scholars get around to arguing them. But I'm going to sleep alright tonight.

I heart Margaret Schroeder

For the last week, since the second season premiere of "Boardwalk Empire," I've been reading all over the 'net other people's opinions of the show, which seem to vary from "it's slow and boring" to "it's slow and boring, but really well made." Well, I think "Boardwalk Empire" is riveting. It's true that it's more character-driven than plot-driven, but when the characters are this well-written and illustrated, I'd watch them sit around and do crossword puzzles for an hour.

Case in point: Margaret Schroeder, played by Scottish actor Kelly MacDonald, whose story in tonight's episode may have put the character on my all-time favorites list. I already liked Margaret; her season one arc took her from impoverished, abused wife of a baker's apprentice (what the hell, by the way... aren't apprentices usually like 15 years old? Hans was the biggest deadbeat ever) to the "kept woman" of the most powerful man in Atlantic City - a move she owes almost entirely to her own street smarts.

Last season, we saw Margaret struggle with the idea of selling out some of her principles if it meant providing a stable life for her children. I loved how the show gave Margaret some agency, some say in her choices. She wasn't just some naif being dragged along by forces larger than her; she was a shrewd, intelligent woman who, by the end of the season, was able to admit to herself that, as Nucky told her, "a good person wouldn't be here right now." She dropped the Temperance Society pretense and started owning her choices.

Starting with tonight's episode, Nucky's beginning to appreciate the woman at his side. It's Margaret who retrieves Nucky's "Here's All the Illegal Stuff I Did Today" ledger from under the noses of the state investigators, and it's Margaret who suggests that maybe going forward he shouldn't keep a written record of his various illegal activities. But what I really loved is that this Margaret-as-Consigliere seemed like a perfectly natural progression of her character, not just something that the writers needed to happen. That last scene in the episode has been coming since the first time Margaret went to see Nucky in the pilot, and that's awesome writing.

Let us now consider the cultural impact of a reality TV dance competition

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Leave it to Jon Stewart to put the flap over Chaz Bono competing on "Dancing With the Stars" in perspective. He's right that the people freaking out over how they will explain transgenderism to their kids (who most likely are thinking of Bono only as the chubby contestant) are overreacting. OMG, how will I explain this to the children??? Um , I dunno, maybe the same way you explained the unwed teen mother, the former Playboy bunny or pretty much everything that comes out of Bruno's mouth?

For what it's worth, I don't think Bono is going far 'cause he's not in the best shape... but then again, his partner Lacey got Kyle Massey to the finals, and Kyle's not exactly svelte. Bono seems like kind of quiet guy, and probably not someone who would seek out reality TV-style attention on his own. But I think he's very brave for drawing this attention to his journey. When you're the first in a marginalized group to stand up and say, "Hey, over here! I exist!", you know you're going to get a lot of flack (and in this case, actual death threats). By going on "DWTS," he's making it slightly easier for the transgendered men and women who'll come after him, and I for one think that's worth a round of applause.

Pop quiz

If an audience at a debate of Democratic presidential candidates booed a member of the armed forces who's currently serving in Iraq, exactly how high would the mushroom cloud above Fox News HQ be?



At least Rick Santorum belatedly clarified that the booing wasn't cool.

Again with the hypocrisy. To be fair, the people who come to a debate well before a primary election are far more invested, and tend to be more partisan, than other voters in the party or general election voters. So I'm not going to sit here and write that all Republicans hate gay people, even gay servicepeople. That's unfair, and I don't think it's accurate.

But...

In my (admittedly anecdotal) experience, the voters and candidates who seem to be the most eager to wrap themselves in the flag, to the point where they accuse anyone who questions U.S. foreign policy is a pinko commie who hates America, somehow also seem to be the same people who go on and on about DADT and why it's awesome. (This is particularly hilarious when the person driving the giant oil-sucking SUV with the Support Our Troops" sticker never actually deigned to serve himself.)

Here's the thing... aside from the fact that anti-gay politicians like Rick Santorum seem to think way more about gay sex than actual gay people, it's incredibly insulting to assume that LGBT men and women aren't fit to serve in the military. It's an all-volunteer military, and you're going to turn away people who are willing to make that sacrifice because of who they happen to be attracted to? That makes sense...?

I'm a straighty, hetero, breeder, whatever you wanna call me, but from what I gather from my LGBT friends and colleagues, there are easier ways to meet people than to volunteer to sacrifice one's personal freedom for several years and possibly end up in a combat zone being shot at.

If a gay man or woman has volunteered to enlist in the armed forces, it's because he or she wants to serve our country, and no other reason. And if you support our troops, then you support all of them.

Confidential to the debate audience... there are many moderate Americans who are disappointed with President Obama for various reasons, and a sane presidential candidate could easily poach them. But you guys realize you're on camera, right? Reasonable voters aren't really wild about identifying themselves with people who cheer on the death penalty and red-blooded, legal citizen, Ron Paul-employed Americans dying from perfectly treatable diseases who also fracking boo at a U.S. soldier. Did the GOP fire all of its PR people?

And Rick Santorum seems like a real weenie.

UPDATE: the New Yorker's take.

Bad Debt

Saturday matinee double-header time! Today’s bill: first “Contagion” followed by a $5 hot dog and “The Debt.” Let’s take the first part last.

My title refers to a Marshall Chapman song about a deadbeat boyfriend who drinks all the singer’s beer and hangs around like, well, a bad debt. I want to point that out because I’m not calling “The Debt” bad at all… it was quite good, even though it drops off at the end.

Basically, three Mossad agents went after a Josef Mengele-type Nazi fugitive in 1966, and have been revered as national heroes ever since for killing him as he tried to escape. Now, 30 years later, the daughter of two of those agents has written a book about the experience. The problem is that events didn’t play out precisely as reported. And now the guilt over a secret that’s been hanging over our trio like a bad debt is in danger of going public.

It’s a good movie. It’s not a well-paced movie, though. A lot of the reviews I’ve read refer to the plot jumping back and forth in time, but it doesn’t. For the first 15 or 20 minutes, sure, but once the plot travels back to 1966 it stays there until that part of the story’s finished. And only after that do we get the resolution involving retired agents trying to fix things. I spent the whole drive home trying to figure out how the story could’ve been told differently, and I don’t know. The 1966 plot is so gripping that I would’ve been pissed had it been interrupted. The 1997 plot depends so completely on knowing how the 1996 plot ended that any flash-forwards to modern times would’ve pretty much been Helen Mirren scowling at Tom Wilkinson while they argue about what to do, when I’d rather watch Jessica Chastain beat up a Nazi.

*HERE BE SPOILERS*

For instance, if you cut from three young people in a Berlin apartment with a Nazi chained to the radiator to the late 90s when Helen’s tracking down a octogenarian claiming to be the evil doctor, it’s pretty obvious that the guy got out of that apartment. Ah, but how did he get out? Maybe the Plot Gods could’ve fixed this after all…

Okay, I’m about to do something I try never to do, because I think it’s douchey: Here’s where I honestly thought this movie was going, and now I think my version might’ve been better, meaning easier to write around. Dr. Evil is an OB-GYN, and Young Helen/Jessica is newly pregnant. What if, after he frees himself and beats the hell out of her, the menfolk come back (from WHERE THE HELL DID THEY GO ANYWAY???) and keep Dr. Evil from escaping. But maybe Dr. Evil has YH/J hostage, or she’s hemorrhaging, and now we have this situation: Dr. Evil can save her baby, maybe even her life, but only if they let him go. Decisions, decisions. She doesn’t really love the baby’s father. How does each of the men feel about her? Willing to let her die, or no?

And then there’s this… the whole reason that this movie even includes the 30-years-after plot is because “The Debt” is about the things that hang over us and how we cope with them. Guilt over losing a war criminal because he got the drop on you and you lied about it is heavy. But the guilt of knowing that he’s still out there because you willingly let him go? Unbearable. And, I think, a lot more interesting.

*END SPOILERS*

What you end up with instead is a very well-acted film that, in pieces, is well-made. I could always tell what was going on during the action scenes, which is more than I can say for most current films. In a nutshell, “The Debt” is an intriguing film whose story structure doesn’t optimally serve some wonderful actors and a rich premise.

I don’t have much to say about “Contagion.” It was good, worth my seven bucks, and you should see it. I think I need to think about it more… Because all I’m thinking about now are the things that didn’t work for me. I liked that director Steven Soderbergh took a more clinical, detached approach to the type of disaster story that too often comes down to an average guy trying to save his kid. (Though that guy is indeed here. Hi, Matt Damon!)

At least this time we get to see the rest of the world react. The detachment is good, for me, because it made genuinely affecting moments feel earned, rather than just melodramatic. I teared up more than once at scenes that just hit my humanity – a near-death patient trying to give her blanket to another virus victim with serious chills, or a doctor visiting her sick father. That kind of thing is so much more emotionally devastating for me than seeing yet another Joe Sixpack huddled with his golden retriever facing the end of the world, so I’m really glad Soderbergh didn’t take the typical disaster movie route.

Flaws? One – pick a category of disaster. You do not get to witness riots at the grocery store, your next-door neighbors being shot for their non-perishable food items and total quarantine of your town, and then come home to find your electricity working (unless you have a generator). For some reason this really bugged me. Also, I thought Jude Law’s blogger character is realistic – and what a sad commentary that is – but he would’ve been more interesting to me had he been toned down slightly. As it is, there’s not any doubt – at least there wasn’t for me – that he’s only concerned for himself.

*HERE BE SPOILERS*

At one point, blogger guy is pushing a homeopathic “cure” and urging his readers not to take the rapidly-approved vaccine, and he’s accused of profiting. Is he right that the government is manipulating tests to show that the homeopathic cure is BS? Is the CDC really in bed with the pharmaceutical industry? Are the authorities really keeping a cure to themselves? See, these would be interesting questions to ponder. But because Law’s character is so one-dimensional, we never really have to ask them. And that’s sad, because Law is a good enough actor to pull off the earnest activist who’s in over his head, and that would’ve been SO much more interesting to watch than the narcissist who’s so obviously been corrupted by his millions of page clicks.

*END SPOILERS*

Two good movies. Two stories that might’ve been better told. And that’s the real bad debt that hangs over you: seeing a movie that, given the skill of the people involved, you know for a fact could’ve been better than it was.

Spidey sense

So, President Obama just finished his long-anticipated speech to a joint session of Congress about plans to grow the American workforce—HOLY CRAP! Terrorist chatter about a possible 9/11 anniversary terrorist attack!!!

That’s not an exaggeration. President Obama was still shaking hands in the House chamber when Wolf Blitzer interrupted CNN’s roughly 15 seconds of speech analysis to tell us – breaking news! – that the Homeland Security Department had specific, but unconfirmed, intelligence about an anniversary-related attack.

The timing got my PR spidey sense tingling. And my politics-related PR spidey sense is rarely wrong.

Not that I doubt the information (and profoundly hope it isn’t true). No president would just make up a terrorist threat for political reasons. (At least, not this one. The last guy, on the other hand…) Here’s the thing, though. People who work with the media, especially at the level required at the White House, are very skilled at managing the flow of information so that news comes out precisely when they want to move the news cycle. They’re also skilled at managing relationships with the journalists that cover the government. If something leaks, they can still usually work around it. Rarely does anything catch a DC PR person utterly by surprise.

There’s a reason this news came out when it did, and not 3 p.m. this afternoon or 10 a.m. tomorrow morning. There’s a reason the president was able to give his speech without news cycle distractions, and then was able to keep his remarks from being immediately dissected because OMG TERRORISTS!!! Oh, the media will come back to the jobs policy, and it should. But it will have calmed down and digested a bit first.

Either the White House communications staff is crazy brilliant, or they just got once-in-a-career lucky*.

*”Lucky” meaning that their jobs were made slightly easier. Not lucky that al Qaeda still wants to kill us.

Back to the back of the bus… again

The other day, I got sucked into a discussion of whether Dan Savage is a bad, bad man for turning Rick Santorum’s name into a dirty joke. My thinking is, Santorum’s made a career off of telling people that Savage and his family are going to hell, and Savage is just supposed to take it? How well would you respond to that? I think turning the guy's name into a sex term is kind of mild, personally.

And, as I’ve noted, activism that doesn’t shock a little is kind of pointless. LGBT people and their allies are pretty tired of playing nice and hoping things get better. No one hands you anything unless you fight for it. Case in point:

Well, they’ve been trying for years to get a Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in our state. And now that the GOP finally controls the General Assembly, they’re pushing hard to get an amendment vote on a ballot next year.

Same-sex marriage is already illegal in N.C. So, why a constitutional amendment? Two reasons, one stated, one we’re not supposed to think about. The stated reason, according to Rep. Dale Folwell, is that an amendment will prevent our existing law from being challenged in the state supreme court – which, to my knowledge, never has been done in 15 years. Why now? That goes to the second reason: these ballot initiatives inspire conservative voters to get to the polls, where they typically stay to vote for president, etc. That’s why Karl Rove was so fond of them. This isn’t about values; it’s about politics and whatever will help this job-killing legislature cling to their jobs next November.

Back to the alleged reason for a second… if it’s true that the current law defining marriage as only being between one man and one woman could be considered by a panel of highly experienced judges to be un-constitutional, then isn’t it by definition incompatible with our state’s legal values? Scaring a majority of voters into ok-ing an amendment doesn’t make it suddenly kosher, Orwell.

And that’s setting aside what I wrote a while back, and in the Journal this week.An amendment saying exactly the same thing as an existing law is redundant, and therefore fundamentally UNconservative. For the love of William F. Buckley, what the hell?

Why is this amendment a bad idea for North Carolina? Let’s count the ways:

It’s bad for business.

If you’re an international corporation looking for a place to locate your next U.S. office, are you going to choose a state where your LGBT employees will be second-class citizens? I wouldn’t. And neither would people who've actually faced this decision. For now.

It does jack to “protect” marriage.

What exactly does your marriage need protection from? It’s a legal status, not a fraternity or an all-white country club. If your lifelong union with your spouse is in any way weakened by another person getting to visit her lifelong partner in the ICU, then you have bigger problems than an amendment can fix, honey. You don’t see Folwell trying to outlaw divorce, do you? We still let teens marry their cousins? Things like shared property and shared custody stabilize society, which is why the government offers so many thousands of incentives for married people in the first place. (What? Did you think it was because you’re a special coupled-up snowflake? The very second that marriage ever stops being good for the economy, you just watch your tax loopholes evaporate.)

It’s not a sin, and even if it were...

There is no law, and I can’t imagine there will ever be a law, that forces you what to teach your children or that forces your church to marry someone whose relationship it doesn’t approve of. (One picturesque church near where I live won’t marry people who aren’t members. No law against that.) If you genuinely disapprove of homosexuality on moral or religious grounds – I disagree with you, but it’s a free country. It’s also a civil country. Marriage may be a sacrament in your church, but what we’re talking about is marriage as a civil status. And, as we render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, we don’t bring religion into law. If that’s how you want to live, the Taliban is ready when you are.

It limits civil rights. Your rights.

Maybe you don’t know any gay people. (By the way – yes you do.) Think about the precedent this sets. Dale Folwell wants to let every voter in the state (just not the hundreds of thousands who are here for college or military service or who don’t have ID) vote on whether one segment of the population can take advantage of public protections. Today it’s gays and marriage. Fifty years ago it was African Americans and college. Hell, in my lifetime it’s also been African Americans and everything from public housing to private mortgage loans. The idea that anyone could propose a popular vote on something as fundamental as equal rights in 2011 is just mind-boggling. For a second there, I thought we’d left state-sanctioned bigotry in my mother’s history books. What’s next? Breast-feeding mothers and public parks? Parents who want to home-school their children? Parents who don’t want to vaccinate their kids? Your right to worship as you choose? Your right to own a gun or insult the president on your Facebook page? What about your life do you fundamentally know is no one else’s business? Now imagine that on a ballot. America left that stuff behind a long time ago, with good reason.

And what if a majority of North Carolinians do decide, five or 10 or 20 years from now that they do want to permit same-sex marriage? A constitutional amendment is a lot harder to overturn than a simple law, and that’s exactly why Folwell and company want to do this. They want to keep future North Carolinians from changing our collective mind. This is also fundamentally incompatible with conservatism.

“Let the people decide” is BS

Did Folwell let us vote by ballot initiative on whether to fire thousands of state employees, restrict voting rights, de-fund Planned Parenthood or force doctors to read a script during a medical procedure? No. Why do you think that is? Why is this one issue – which is already a law, again – worthy of a statewide vote? One – Republicans are whoring for single-issue voters. Two – the people supporting this are cowards. And yes, that includes any Democrats who sign on.

We have a representative democracy for a reason. Those Federalist Papers that the Tea Partiers have suddenly discovered (without having actually read, apparently) repeatedly argue that elections smooth out the rough partisan passions that divide our electorate. They are designed to be moderating forces, ideally producing a representative that can compromise between all factions. And, also ideally, these elected officials are supposed to be more informed than the rest of us. That’s why you don’t get a dozen ballots in the mail every day. You hired someone to do this for you.

The people we hired are shirking their duty. They’re not going to cast a vote. On some primitive level they won’t acknowledge publicly, they know this is wrong. And so they’re passing the buck. A hundred years from now, it wasn’t Dale Folwell’s fault that our state retrograded and signed bigotry into our foundational document. That was all you, North Carolina. It was totally out of his hands. I think that’s cowardly.

There is absolutely no good argument in favor of this proposed amendment. If you think you have one, please tell me. I want to talk about it.