[An e-mail to my parents and sisters.]

How is everyone? I have a rare quiet moment at work and am catching up on Times op-eds. David Brooks' persistent cataloging of liberal narcissism is becoming very tiresome. He writes in a recent essay:

Snobbery is for a person such as myself. I make an effort to follow the news and try to understand how the world works, that is, how people conspire to arrange it for their own benefit; how people shift their language to persuade different audiences; how to infer a person's goals from their language knowing that people seldom state their aims explicitly. In short, I am interested in understanding why the world is arranged as we find it, and who this benefits.

In my lifetime I have observed that my interest is by no means popular. While people are deeply interested in learning how to make the most of their present circumstance, they are generally not very interested in learning why that circumstance came to be. I feel that my interest in the why, in addition to the how, elevates me above the masses. I feel no guilt or shame for believing this makes me better than those who make no such effort. Because in my mind elitism is a simple matter of effort. It has nothing to do with birthright, formal education, financial wealth, or social refinement.

Making an effort to understand the why makes one an elite. Not apologizing for this effort makes one a snob. I can happily say I consider myself both. On occasion, when listening to someone bemoan a sense of entitlement in another, I have been tempted to say "They are entitled. They have worked harder than you and are correct to dismiss your desire to be treated equally. Your effort has not been equal to theirs. Their curiosity makes them elite and your acceptance of Received Wisdom makes you average."

Of course I do not say that because it is hurtful. The insecurity, you see, is highly effective. It prevents an honest discussion of the relative value of people's opinions. Some opinions do not matter as much as others. Recognizing this truth is the foundation of elitism. Pretending this is false is the foundation of sales.

I clarify my thoughts in this less strident post.

Today I received an e-mail from a colleague regarding the President's recent comments about the danger of leaving Iraq prematurely. The e-mail contained the text of a Washington Post article entitled Bush Says U.S. Pullout Would Let Iraq Radicals Use Oil as a Weapon.

I inferred the reason he forwarded the article to me was to say "See, I told you it was all about oil!"

My colleague had sniffed out my politics a couple of years ago. Once he determined to his satisfaction that we were "on the same side," he began to seek me out each week for some political water cooler talk, usually delivered in the form of a litany of outrages and conspiracies. I like the guy personally, but his political conversation is very trying on my patience. I make an attempt to discuss the issues he raises by offering my analysis. But invariably he escapes his turn by executing a quick change of subject before he is forced to do any original thinking. This is accomplished by adding verbal aggitation to his voice, as if to indicate that, while he would like to further analyze the present subject, this next issue is so upsetting that we must discuss it immediately. "Did you hear about blah?" His rat-a-tat-tat delivery, thick in Bears Superfan accent, is exasperating.

My colleague often annotates his headlines with simple explanations: "It's all about power." Or, "The mainstream media's not giving us the whole story." Or, "Bush wants the oil." As if that helps the listener understand the behavior of the actors in the story.

This is why the first line of my response to his e-mail is a bit curt.

The real truth is finally coming out!

[My response]

No it's not.

How is this nightmare Iraq scenario any different from the war against Islamic fundamentalism? We are already paying for both sides of that war. $400B of taxes each year for our military. And billions upon billions of dollars of petrol profits each year to the Saudi royal family and other Arab princelings who control the world's largest oil fields and funnel hush money to the Islamic fanatics within their countries. The American public's money goes to our soldiers and the enemy they fight. We are paying for both sides of the war.

If Islamic fundamentalists were to gain control of Iraq's oil fields and we were put in the position of needing to buy oil from them, it would simply create a more vivid illustration of a problem that has been festering since the end of the Cold War. What difference does it make if we pay the Islamic fundamentalists directly or pay the chummy, Westernized Saudi princes who in turn pay off the religious zealots? We're still paying to perpetuate a stagnant, medieval culture that refuses to accept the concepts of scientific method and individual liberty developed in the West during the Enlightenment and Protestant Reformation.

What difference does it make who we pay? A symbolic difference. That is all. Of course that is why our President is yapping about it. Because he cares greatly for symbolism (buy oil from democratic Iraq) and little for substance (oil money stagnates societies).

Ted Koppel wrote an op-ed in the N.Y. Times recently where he related an anecdote that illustrates how ineffective are the legal restraints that separate us from those we find politically or morally dubious.

The uninformed U.S. public is all too happy to send it's money overseas in exchange for the easy lifestyle made possible by oil. We are all guilty of this, myself included. And large U.S. corporations such as Dick Cheney's Halliburton are all too happy to help the Arabs suck oil out of their land, for a fee, without a thought as to where the Arab profits go, or what they fund.

I hope that a politician with sufficient courage uses the media spotlight of the next Presidential election to force the American public to look at how issues of environmental stewardship, alternative energy, and national security are intertwined. We desperately need a leader of national prominence to educate the public that reliance on foreign oil is becoming a serious threat to our national interests and that "going green" isn't a lifestyle limited to hippie communes, but something our government should support in the name of national security.

I watched a great film recently. Whale Rider, a small film out of New Zealand four years ago, is a quiet film that makes a very strong emotional impact. A coming of age tale is intertwined with ancient mythology in this depiction of an indigenous tribe struggling to keep its dignity and survive the modern world.

As we know from the Lord of the Rings films, the New Zealand landscape is stunningly beautiful. Watch this film for the cinematography, for the quiet and convincing performances, and for the Kiwi accent. Something about the way they pronounce their E's. Love it!

Fantastic film.

Don't you love it when you discover something quite old, but new to you?

A few weeks ago I took my Mom to see the Rolling Stones at Soldier Field in Chicago. It was the first time she had seen them perform, though she bought their albums back in college in the sixties. I had seen them last November in San Francisco. Sitting with my cousin and sister, waiting for the Stones to take the stage on a beautiful night by the bay, I decided to call my parents. My mother answered the phone and I told her "We are a few minutes away from seeing your college band."

I thought at the time how strong the bonds of friendship must be between these band mates- and between my mother and father.

When tickets went on sale for the Stones show in Chicago I bought four at first chance. The Stones career has spanned my parent's marriage and my entire life. I had already seen them once with my oldest sister. Now my Mom and I, Dad, and youngest sister were to see them. It was a frigid night in Chicago, windy and cold by the lake. Far from ideal weather for an outdoor show. But we didn't care. Mick Jagger thanked the crowd, "You are all heroes for being here tonight. We expected an Indian summer but instead we got a Bears winter." The crowd showed its spirit with a huge cheer. The Stones then demonstrated what a great rock and roll band they still are. On the drive home we listened to the local radio station's Stones mix as the first frost of the year formed on the suburban lawns. It was a night to remember.

I slept over at my parent's house that night. Woke up late the next morning glad that I took the day off work. Headed downstairs and found my parents setting the table for breakfast and listening to vintage Rolling Stones. They had dug out their old vinyl albums and were playing Sticky Fingers on the turntable. You know, the one with the famous Andy Warhol cover? The close up shot of a man's tight fitting jeans. That's when I made my discovery. Can't You Hear Me Knocking was playing. "What is the name of this song?" I asked my father. "This is really good." I could tell by his expression and the rhythm of his foot tapping the floor that he agreed.

I found some old photos online and made a slideshow set to Can't You Hear Me Knocking. Enjoy.

I'm not a golfer but this is funny to me. Some great physical comedy from Michael Richards.

Kramer: Do you want these? I don't want 'em!

Jerry: Why?

Kramer: I stink! I can't play. The ball is just sitting there, Jerry. I can't hit it! I only hit one really good ball that went way out there.

Jerry: Well, what happened?

Kramer: I have no concentration!

Jerry: What's wrong with your... ?

Kramer: Sand. I can't get rid of the sand. Look, there's still some in here. Won't go away. I even got sand in the pockets!

Jerry: Hey, come on. You're getting it all over the floor.

Sensing a changed political climate, Bob Woodward has altered his depiction of the Bush administration. From today's N.Y. Times:

For a beating! It's about time one of the Democrats showed a little backbone. Masterful as always, former President Bill Clinton shows the way to timid Democrats. When FOX News reporter Chris Wallace attempts to depict his administration as weak and cowering in the face of a looming al Qaeda threat, Bill Clinton sets the record straight. He also tells Wallace what he thinks of his question and his journalism.

Some key exchanges:

President Clinton: I want to talk about the context in which this arises. I'm being asked this on the FOX network. ABC just had a right-wing conservative running their little Pathway to 9/11 falsely claiming it was based on the 911 Commission Report with three things asserted against me that are directly contradicted by the 9/11 Commission Report. And I think it's very interesting that all the conservative Republicans who now say that I didn't do enough claimed that I was too obsessed with bin Laden. All of President Bush's neocons thought that I was too obsessed with bin Laden. They had no meetings on bin Laden for nine months after I left office. All the right-wingers who now say I didn't do enough said I did too much. Same people.

They were all trying to get me to withdraw from Somalia in 1993, the next day after we were involved in Black Hawk Down. And I refused to do it and stayed six months and had an orderly transfer to the U.N. Okay, now let's look at all the criticisms: Black Hawk Down, Somalia. There is not a living soul in the world who thought Osama bin Laden had anything to do with Black Hawk Down or was paying any attention to it or even knew al Qaeda was a going concern in October of '93.

Chris Wallace: I understand...

President Clinton: No wait, no wait. Don't tell me. You asked me why I didn't do more to bin Laden. There was not a living soul... All the people who now criticize me wanted to leave the next day. You brought this up so you get an answer.

Chris Wallace: Bin Laden says it showed the weakness of the United States.

President Clinton: It would have shown the weakness if we left right away. But he wasn't involved in that. That's just a bunch of bull. That was about Mohammed Adid, a Muslim warlord murdering twenty two Pakistani Muslim troops. We were all there on a humanitarian mission. We had no mission- none- to establish a certain kind of Somali government or keep anybody out. He was not a religious fanatic.

Chris Wallace: [The 9/11 Commission] said about you and 43 and I quote, "The U.S. government took the threat seriously but not in the sense of mustering anything like the kind of effort that would be gathered to confront an enemy of the first, second, or even third rank..."

President Clinton: First of all that's not true with us and bin Laden.

Chris Wallace: The 9/11 Commission says...

President Clinton: Let's look at what Richard Clarke said. You think Richard Clarke has a vigorous attitude about bin Laden?

Chris Wallace: Yes, I do.

President Clinton:: You do, don't you?

Chris Wallace: I think he has a variety of opinions and loyalties, but yes.

President Clinton: He has a variety of opinion and loyalties now but let's look at the facts. He worked for Ronald Reagan. He was loyal to him. He worked for George H.W. Bush and he was loyal to him. He worked for me and he was loyal to me. He worked for President Bush. He was loyal to him. They downgraded him and the terrorist operation.

Chris Wallace: Do you think you did enough, sir?

President Clinton: No, because I didn't get him.

Chris Wallace: Right.

President Clinton: But at least I tried. That's the difference in me and some, including all the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try. They did not try. I tried. So I tried and failed. When I failed, I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and the best guy in the country, Dick Clarke. Who got demoted.

So you did FOX's bidding on this show. You did you're nice little conservative hit job on me. But what I want to know...

Chris Wallace: Now wait a minute, sir. I asked a question. You don't think that's a legitimate question?

President Clinton: It was a perfectly legitimate question. But I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you've asked this question of. I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked 'Why didn't you do anything about the Cole?' I want to know how many people you asked 'Why did you fire Dick Clarke?' I want to know...

Chris Wallace: We asked... Do you ever watch FOX News Sunday, sir?

President Clinton: I don't believe you ask them that... All I'm saying is you falsely accuse me of giving aid and comfort to bin Laden because of what happened in Somalia. No one knew al Qaeda existed then.

Chris Wallace: Did they know in 1996, when he declared war on the U.S.? Did they know in 1998 when he bombed the two embassies? Did they know in 2000 when he hit the Cole?

President Clinton: What did I do? I worked hard to try to kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since. And if I were still president we'd have more than 20,000 troops there trying to kill him. Now, I never criticized President Bush and I don't think this is useful. But you know we do have a government that thinks Afghanistan is only 1/7 as important as Iraq. And you ask me about terror and al Qaeda with that sort of dismissive theme when all you have to do is read Richard Clarke's book to look at what we did in a comprehensive, systematic way to try to protect the country against terror. And you've got that little smirk on your face. You think you're so clever...

Chris Wallace: [Laughs]

President Clinton: But I had responsibility for trying to protect this country. I tried and I failed to get bin Laden. I regret it, but I did try. And I did everything I thought I responsibly could. The entire military was against sending special forces into Afghanistan and refueling by helicopter and no one thought we could do it otherwise. We could not get the CIA and the FBI to certify that al Qaeda was responsible while I was president. And so I left office. And yet I get asked about this all the time and they had three times as much time to deal with it and nobody ever asks them about it. I think that's strange.