Then We Came to the End

I'm reading that book right now, and not only is it a great read, but it's also very appropriate for this week, when both my tenure at work and the Democratic primary come to their respective ends.

I'm psyched to ride the Obama tide. I was an ambivalent but unwavering Hillary supporter throughout the primary, and I still think she would make an excellent president. I really can't get too worried about verbal gaffes or the sins of her supporters; I like her health care plan, I like her doggedness, and I like her solidity. But I think she now needs to concede—I always said she would never concede on the night of a primary win, so I'm not surprised she didn't concede tonight—so we can start the fight for Obama. And, actually, I think she needs to concede so the Republicans can start their fight against Obama. If they have aces up their sleeves that they're just waiting to rip out, it's far better they do it June than in September. And the sooner we can see him juxtaposed with McCain, the better. He will come across so well: He's quicker (I don't mean smarter, per se, but that too), he's more poised, and he's more passionate. He just needs really good foreign policy people whispering in his ear so he makes zero gaffes. I think Barack Obama will make a wonderful, thoughtful, and inspiring president, and I'm thrilled to have him as our nominee.

I wasn't too upset about work winding down. I've been excited for the summer and all the possibility and freedom it holds, and I've been looking forward to living outside the 9 to 5 (or 10 to 7, as the case may be). But just last Friday I started to feel the impending nostalgia. I work in a great area with great people researching and writing about great ideas. There have been better times and worse times at work, but in the end, I've been working in a job most people can only dream about. Not only do I get to write, but I get to write about science. Not only do I get to research, but I get to talk to great scientists about their work. Not only do I report, but I get to think deeply about scientific ideas. Not only do I get to think about articles, but I get to think creatively, across as many media as can fit on a screen (and that's many). And I get to do it all with an uncommonly intelligent and young group of people. That's pretty special. Oh, and I get to proofread. Which I enjoy more than is probably healthy.

There was a time, after I had been writing news stories for a while, when I was wondering whether I was really getting a lot out of my job. A couple of years later, I know I've learned an incredible amount. My writing is better than ever (and if you were looking for "but also"s to follow all of those "not only"s...I hate you). I have become more comfortable on the phone and with my ability to talk with people of all ages and levels of prestige. I have learned what it means to work in an office and what it means to work on a team...and how many things 'working on a team' can mean. I have slowly started to figure out what makes a good boss and what makes a good subordinate, although those are always a little slippery. While I never quite got the hang of thinking as a journalist—that's one of the reasons I'm not staying—I did get the hang of thinking about issues from the perspective of our publication, which is a worthwhile perspective to have. And I learned a lot about science. That's important stuff.

I certainly can't sum up 32 months in a single blog post, but I'll just say, I've been grateful for them. Even in the most miserable times, I was learning, and even in the best times, I was finding out what was wanting in me and in my work.

Oy, I've fallen into lots of soulful repetitions in this post. I think it's because I'm listening to Obama's victory speech as I write. Back to the Baracketry...

Gerry: Spring Her

Perhaps I'm missing some context. Perhaps I'm completely tone deaf. Perhaps I'm a horrible human being. But I don't see what the whole kerfuffle is about Geraldine Ferraro's remarks on Obama's popularity. As far as I can tell, she asserted that people wouldn't be as excited about Obama's candidacy if he weren't black, and this has contributed significantly to his success thus far. She also said that being a woman has more mixed repercussions, with some excitement generated but also a strong negative response, particularly from the media.

On the second point, about women candidates, I think I'd go so far as to say I agree. See my (likely incoherent) post below about types and why it's really hard for a woman to come off well as a leader. Ferraro's bitterness is unbecoming, to be sure, but I think her point is at least reasonable and at most right on.

Then to the race comment. I'll say first, I don't agree that people's excitement about his race is what's pushed him to this level of success. His charisma, his words, his voice, his speaking style, his optimism, and, of course, his message of hope, unity, and change would have been more than enough to get him this sort of following no matter what his race. Of course, you can't entirely separate things like his speaking style from his race, but I don't think that's what Ferraro was talking about.

OK, that said, why is it so horrible for her to suggest that? And worse, why is it so horrible that Clinton has to not only disagree but also "reject and denounce" both the comments and Ferraro herself? I understand it's dirty for a politician to give tacit consent to hideous speech on their behalf. But this doesn't strike me as outside the realm of normal messy politics. Neither did the Samantha Powers "monstrous" remark. Did that really merit a resignation?

Maybe there's reason to believe Ferraro truly sees this as some kind of affirmative action...at least partially because she's said the same thing about her own nomination for vice president. But the (obvious) difference between those situations is one dude (and his advisers) chose her as his running mate. A fair portion of the country is getting psyched about Obama. It's pretty hard to do affirmative action by a non-communicating, many-million-person committee. They like him; they really like him! Why do people think her comments were intended to be any more than "people are psyched about electing a black candidate, and that's an essential factor in his success." And if that's all there is, why is that so heinous a point to raise?

P.S. I reserve full right to delete or edit this post if I realize I sound like a moron later. :-P

Race & Sex. Yaaaaay!

In a discussion this inflated, my two cents are worth, well, about five Indonesian Rupiahs. (Oh, snap.) But I've been thinking a bit about this whole question of whether race or sex puts a presidential candidate at a greater disadvantage. A lot of the science seems to suggest that things are harder on the woman. Racial prejudice seems to be easier to overcome with specifics about a person, but prejudice against a gender is there to stay.

My thought...and perhaps it's a totally obvious one...is that we see people in types. And we have a whole bunch of these types, but ultimately it's a finite number. So if you try to think of an "old, black man," you might have five types that come into your head...and there are probably traits besides being old, black men they all have in common. And I think people have to play into these types in some way, otherwise we just don't quite get them. Even as a black man, Obama can play into the Edward R. Murrow-style gravitas. And there's just no type like that for women. If there are wise, gravitas-type women, they're generally low energy. And low-energy won't win you a nomination.

OK, things have gotten too interesting around the apartment for me to continue this post...another time, maybe.

Ought we give Iowa a try? Really?

7:59 PM (EST): The corn people are preparing to caucus (yes, that was the secret code), so I suppose I should register my predictions now. I predict Hillary will win handily. Not overwhelmingly, but handily. I base this on one fact alone: John Kerry won Iowa handily last time. To the best of my recollection (and my recollection may suck), Kerry was as much of an initial front-runner, as centrist, in as close a race in the polls, and substantially duller...in terms of charisma, not intelligence. So I'm going to bet that Iowans are perhaps only slightly hungrier for change—whatever that means—and Hills will win by about a 3 point margin. Could definitely be wrong...we'll know in a matter of hours.

9:48 PM (EST): It appears that Obama has won by that handy margin I predicted for Clinton. That does make me happy, even if he's not my first choice candidate, because it means the youth turned out. I like when the youth turn out because, well, young people are progressive. Young people aren't scared of Teh Gays, we want to help the poor, and we're violently pacifistic. If Obama's candidacy gets more young people involved in politics, that's great. ...but I'd still like to see Hillary win.

Will Someone Please Think of the Children!

Maybe I haven't sufficiently honed my maternal instinct, but I can never get too worked up when people employ argumentum ad juvenis, namely, the rhetorical tactic where someone suggests that an action might just harm "the children" and therefore must be wrong. There are a couple of problems with this argument technique.

First, and less universally, the action the person's trying to stop is often...not actually bad for the children. Take this fine editorial by Institute of American Values VP Elizabeth Marquardt. Marquardt is trying to argue against giving kids three legal parents, and she does so by saying kids who grow up split between several households can be in no better shape than kids from more-or-less amicable divorces, who "must grow up traveling between two worlds, having to make sense on their own of the different values, beliefs and ways of living they find in each home." FOR SHAME. I think the world might be a better place if the only values that were reinforced by all adult figures in a kid's life were those that are universally held. If one parent thinks eating meat is fine and another parent thinks it's cruel, or if one parent thinks responsible premarital sex is beneficial and another thinks it's unhealthy, it's great that kids have to recognize these ambiguities. It will also help them pick out the really important values (don't steal people's stuff) from the less critical ones (always look your best). Or maybe it won't. Whatever. Maybe on balance, kids from three-parent families have a slightly less happy childhood than kids from two-parent families. Which brings me to my second point.

Why the hell do we think it's so important that things are perfect for kids? Seriously. All kids ever grow up to be is adults, and we don't care nearly as much about them. It's not like kids are such freakin' saints; they can be downright cruel and self-absorbed and irritating. They're not any less pure-hearted than adults are. Most adults aren't truly cruel; they just want to get what's best for them and are often too self-centered to realize they're hurting people along the way. As any kid (and, you'd think, any former kid) knows, that's exactly what kids are like. Childhood isn't bliss. It's a shitshow of a social scene and you get totally scared by bizarre things. I don't think it's clear what factors make kids happier eventual adults, but you never hear people arguing about what will make kids better adults, just what's better for them while they're kids.

So why do we care so much about kids, without facing specifically that they're just going to turn into adults like all other adults? I think that the answer is—and steel yourself for the short-lived cheesiness—the kids represent hope. Awwwww. Ok, end cheesiness. I think kids represent false hope, the hope that these people will be totally unlike all the other people in the world and will somehow start a new world order where everything is just Jim Dandy. I'm kind of serious here. I have this feeling that adults are constantly looking for prodigies. They really want to find the one person who changes the world. You're a pretty special group of people, people who read the blog: When you were younger, did an adult ever relate to you as if you were really, really something special? And do you find it just a bit creepy? Like they expected oddly big things from you, things no adult could ever deliver on? I think everyone wants to find that Harry Potter, that kid that with ingenuity and goodness turns everything around.

Or maybe it's just an evolved emotional response. Wish we didn't have to base so much policy on it.

Adapted Screenplay

Just add stage directions, (barely) change the names, edit for length, and it practically reads like noir.

We are in a small interrogation room. CHUCK is leaning against the back wall and smoking, wearing the two piece remains of a three-piece suit. The smoke billows around his face, obscuring his features, but it is clear that he is in charge and he is at ease. Sitting at the table is JIM, a man with a face that could once stop traffic, but it looks like one car didn't quite stop in time. He has just come in from the rain and drops from his hair form a small puddle on the table and make the shoulders of his white, button-down shirt translucent. Exhaling, CHUCK speaks.

CHUCK

Can you remember the date and the day?

JIM

Yes, sir, very well. It was Wednesday, March the 10th, 2004.

CHUCK

And how do you remember that date so well?

JIM

This was a very memorable period in my life; probably the most difficult time in my entire professional life. And that night was probably the most difficult night of my professional life. So it's not something I'd forget.

CHUCK

Were you present when Al visited Johnny's bedside?

JIM

Yes.

CHUCK

And am I correct that the conduct of Al and Andy on that evening troubled you greatly?

JIM

Yes.

CHUCK

OK, let me go back and take it from the top. You rushed to the hospital that evening. Why?

JIM

[JIM takes a while to answer. He slicks back his wet hair and covers his face with his soaked palms, unable to look up at CHUCK.]

I've actually thought quite a bit over the last three years about how I would answer that question if it was ever asked, because I assumed that at some point I would have to testify about it.

I -- to understand what happened that night, I, kind of, got to back up about a week.

[JIM pulls in his chair and folds his hands on the table. He begins to tell CHUCK his story.]

In the early part of 2004, the Department of Justice was engaged -- the Office of Legal Counsel, under my supervision -- in a reevaluation both factually and legally of a particular classified program. And it was a program that was renewed on a regular basis, and required signature by the attorney general certifying to its legality.

And the -- and I remember the precise date. The program had to be renewed by March the 11th, which was a Thursday, of 2004. And we were engaged in a very intensive reevaluation of the matter.

And a week before that March 11th deadline, I had a private meeting with Johnny, the attorney general, for an hour, just the two of us, and I laid out for him what we had learned and what our analysis was in this particular matter.

And at the end of that hour-long private session, he and I agreed on a course of action. And within hours he was stricken and taken very, very ill...

CHUCK

You thought something was wrong with how it was being operated or administered or overseen.

JIM

We had -- yes. We had concerns as to our ability to certify its legality, which was our obligation for the program to be renewed.

[The camera follows JIM's story, showing Johnny at the hospital, showing JIM conducting official business.]

The attorney general was taken that very afternoon to George Washington Hospital, where he went into intensive care and remained there for over a week. And I became the acting attorney general.

And over the next week -- particularly the following week, on Tuesday -- we communicated to the relevant parties at the White House and elsewhere our decision that as acting attorney general I would not certify the program as to its legality and explained our reasoning in detail, which I will not go into here. Nor am I confirming it's any particular program.

That was Tuesday that we communicated that.

The next day was Wednesday, March the 10th, the night of the hospital incident. And I was headed home at about 8 o'clock that evening, my security detail was driving me. [We are transported into JIM's limo, driving down a major avenue, shockingly empty for the hour.] And I remember exactly where I was -- on Constitution Avenue -- and got a call from Johnny's chief of staff telling me that he had gotten a call from Johnny's wife from the hospital. She had banned all visitors and all phone calls. So I hadn't seen him or talked to him because he was very ill.

And Johnny's old lady reported that a call had come through, and that as a result of that call Andy and Al were on their way to the hospital to see Johnny.

CHUCK

Do you have any idea who that call was from?

JIM

[Pauses, tentative about what he wants to say] I have some recollection that the call was from the president himself, but I don't know that for sure. It came from the White House. And it came through and the call was taken in the hospital.

So I hung up the phone, immediately called my chief of staff, told him to get as many of my people as possible to the hospital immediately. I hung up, called Bob from the FBI and -- with whom I'd been discussing this particular matter and had been a great help to me over that week -- and told him what was happening. He said, "I'll meet you at the hospital right now."

Told my security detail that I needed to get to George Washington Hospital immediately. They turned on the emergency equipment and drove very quickly to the hospital.

I got out of the car and ran up -- literally ran up the stairs with my security detail.

CHUCK

What was your concern? You were obviously in a huge hurry.

JIM

I was concerned that, given how ill I knew the attorney general was, that there might be an effort to ask him to overrule me when he was in no condition to do that.

And so I raced to the hospital room, entered. And Johnny's wife was standing by the hospital bed, Johnny was lying down in the bed, the room was darkened. And I immediately began speaking to him, trying to orient him as to time and place, and try to see if he could focus on what was happening, and it wasn't clear to me that he could. He seemed pretty bad off.

CHUCK

At that point it was you, the old lady and the attorney general and maybe medical personnel in the room. No other Justice Department or government officials.

JIM

Just the three of us at that point.

I tried to see if I could help him get oriented. As I said, it wasn't clear that I had succeeded.

I went out in the hallway. Spoke to Bob by phone. He was on his way. I handed the phone to the head of the security detail and Bob instructed the FBI agents present not to allow me to be removed from the room under any circumstances. And I went back in the room.

I was shortly joined by the head of the Office of Legal Counsel assistant attorney general and a senior staffer of mine who had worked on this matter, an associate deputy attorney general.

So the three of us Justice Department people went in the room.

[We see the hospital room. On a simple bed is Johnny, a frail man with hollowed cheeks and small but sparkly eyes.]

I sat down in an armchair by the head of the attorney general's bed. The two other Justice Department people stood behind me. And Johnny's old lady stood by the bed holding her husband's arm. And we waited.

And it was only a matter of minutes that the door opened and in walked Al, carrying an envelope, and Andy. [Al and Andy enter in trenchcoats and fedoras that cast their eyes in shadow.] They came over and stood by the bed. They greeted the attorney general very briefly. And then Al began to discuss why they were there -- to seek his approval for a matter, and explained what the matter was -- which I will not do.

And Johnny then stunned me. He lifted his head off the pillow and in very strong terms expressed his view of the matter, rich in both substance and fact, which stunned me -- drawn from the hour-long meeting we'd had a week earlier -- and in very strong terms expressed himself, and then laid his head back down on the pillow, seemed spent. And as he laid back down, he said, "But that doesn't matter, because I'm not the attorney general. There is the attorney general," and he pointed to me, and I was just to his left.

The two men did not acknowledge me. They turned and walked from the room. And within just a few moments after that, Bob arrived. I told him quickly what had happened. He had a brief -- a memorable brief exchange with the attorney general and then we went outside in the hallway.

Dramatic, no? Here's the source material.

McCain't Say No

As part of my more regular blogging schedule, I'd like to highlight this stunning piece of asshattery:

Reporter: “Should U.S. taxpayer money go to places like Africa to fund contraception to prevent AIDS?"

Mr. McCain: “Well I think it’s a combination. The guy I really respect on this is Dr. Coburn. He believes – and I was just reading the thing he wrote– that you should do what you can to encourage abstinence where there is going to be sexual activity. Where that doesn’t succeed, than he thinks that we should employ contraceptives as well. But I agree with him that the first priority is on abstinence. I look to people like Dr. Coburn. I’m not very wise on it.”

...

Q: “So no contraception, no counseling on contraception. Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?"

Mr. McCain: (Long pause) “You’ve stumped me.”

Bloody brilliant, McCain. I'm kind of glad this guy's image as the totally honest, level-headed, non-partisan candidate is being slowly crushed. Because I think a year ago, a lot of swing voters and even Democrats would have voted for him over Hills, Barry O, or J.E. purely on that reputation. Perhaps by year's end he will be so powerless he will no longer warrant his #1 ranking on The Beast's 50 Most Loathsome list.

Oh, and for the record: Yes, condoms unquestionably prevent the spread of HIV. If McCain wanted to pander, he could have said something like, "Yes, of course they do, but I think we should prioritize other methods, like abstinence, which is the only method with a 100% blah-di-blah-di-blah." And even that would have been silly; people aren't going to stop having sex. For centuries, individuals and institutions have worked long and hard at stopping people from having sex. They've all failed. You can make fewer people have sex, but if our concern is protecting people (and I hope it is) we need to work on systems that will reach a larger percentage. Condoms do this. Right-o.