I was continuing researching the topic of federalizing the National Guard (so far it appears to be a legitimate action, which, of course, disappoints the hell out of me). As I googled, I found this reference to a NY Times article:

TO URGE FEDERALIZATION. National Guard Officers Ready to Open Fight Before Congress.

Special to The New York Times.

January 31, 1916, Monday

WASHINGTON, Jan. 30. — The Federalization of the National Guard will be urged before the Senate and House Committees on Military Affairs this week by members of the Executive Committee of the National Guard Association of the United States. Adjt. Gen. J.C.R. Foster of Florida, Chairman of the Executive Committee, reached Washington today and will oppose the Garrison Continental Army plan before Congress.

Did you note the date of the article? January 31, 1916

1916. A short time ago, the Times tried to block users from much of their content if they did not subscribe. Then they went a full 180: everything available for free.

Including the archives. Back to 1916. While it will be exciting to have Times articles going back a century or more (I found one article from 1884, so I'm guessing you'll be able to find the lead article from the first issue before too long), it will require paying careful attention to dateline.

It's no surprise when a newspaper subverts the news to entertainment or titilation in order to sell papers. It's an ancient truism: If it bleeds, it leads. The same is true of their online editions, of course, but the opportunity to present a wider variety of hooks means an even greater opportunity to produce content that is reprehensible and unworthy of a decent publication.

The Oregonian would like to pretend it's above such publication gimmicks, but they lack the shame necessary to remain unsullied. The current (Monday, July 21, 7 pm) online edition features this lovely image:

The "Criminal of the Week" — and for some reason, of the four choices, this nominee happens to have dark skin. However, since he's not of African descent — he is Indian — apparently the Big O feels comfortable in using his image in such a negative context.

It has been hip for quite some time to trash the intentions, not to mention the legacy, of certain great Americans, not the least of these being Jefferson and Lincoln. Their ambiguous record on slavery is the major source of such attacks. In Jefferson's case, of course, it was his ownership of slaves and his relationship with Sally Hemming. With Lincoln, the negative views have to do with whether or not he gave a damn about slavery or whether it was a political issue he got stuck with.

In July 1858, Lincoln wrote this note:

I have not allowed myself to forget that the abolition of the Slave-trade by Great Brittain, was agitated a hundred years before it was a final success.... Speeches & Writings, 1832-58

Why write such words if abolition was not something he considered a goal to be pursued? I have no doubt Lincoln was opposed to slavery not merely on political but also on moral grounds. In 1837, as a member of the Illinois Legislature, Lincoln joined with a colleague to protest a resolution on slavery that had been passed. In this protest, Lincoln stated unequivocally: "...the institution of slavery is founded on both injustice and bad policy...." The protest, however, did not deal with slavery as such but with states rights: "[We] believe that the Congress of the United States has no power, under the constitution, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the different States."

This protest summarizes neatly the challenge that later faced President Lincoln: At one time, the necessity of abolishing the unjust institution of slavery, yet preserving the rights of each state to make laws pertinent to its own governance. Ultimately, with the acts of the southern states in seeking dissolution of the Union, Lincoln could end slavery without touching on the question of states rights: He freed slaves in states which were in rebellion and, as such, had relinquished the rights he had once defended against federal usurpation.

In 2004, there was one candidate who was prepared to lead the Democrats to victory. One candidate who had any idea what was going on with American voters and how to work with them to defeat Rove and Bush. One candidate with both the understanding of how politics was changing and the willingness, the eagerness, to be part of that change. But the Democratic field of nominees, who to a person were clueless about the paradigm shift staring them in the face, united to sabotage that candidate and ensure that, yet again, defeat would be wrested from the jaws of victory.

Stand up and take a bow, John Kerry, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich and the rest of you. Oblivious to the incredible changes at work in America, you and the rest of the ilk — the Clark-Clinton cabal and Dick Gephardt — made sure that the only candidate who could defeat Bush was knocked out of the campaign before he could undermine the party's chances at defeat. But helping to screw over Howard Dean, the pack of wannabe-also-rans made sure the national Democratic Party would not be able to prevent an additional four years of misery under Bush-Cheney.

Fortunately, the changes these dinosaurs sought to prevent were too great to be stymied. As I said, this was a paradigm shift, and if you've read your Thomas Kuhn, you know a paradigm shift is nothing something that can be controlled by human beings. Paradigm shifts occur because the world moves relentlessly forward. And in American politics, this shift is the thing we are calling the "progressive movement" — the unstoppable and long-overdue transfer of political power from insiders to grassroots activists.

In other words, "we the people" are finally taking over our country. In 2003 and 2004, the only leader of national standing to truly understand what was going on was Howard Dean. "You've got the power!" At every rally, including during 2004 as he campaigned tirelessly and powerfully for Kerry, he would say those words. "You've got the power!" For Dean, that was not mere rhetoric. It was the basic fact of politics, and he saw it happening. After all, how could the unknown former governor of tiny Vermont become the front-runner in the Democratic primary, raising tens of millions of dollars at an average of less than one-hundred bucks a pop? Dean is a brilliant man, and he knew there was nothing extraordinary about his campaign apart from one little thing: He was articulating the change Americans were beginning to demand. He spoke against the war when it was still relatively popular. He stood up for women's right, for civil rights for all, for universal health care, for many of the issues of vital importance to the majority of Americans — issues the Bush Administration had ground under its hob-nailed boots.

I finally bicycled to work today. A few problems.

One, my bike needs sooooo much work. I bought it used last week, and boy did I get jobbed. But used bikes are on the same price scale as small apartments in Pdx, so that's what you get. Unfortunately, the drive train was shot: the chain broke within blocks, and since it's an old stretched-out chain, that means I have to replace the cassette, too.

Did I get a chance to mention yet that the chain broke again, going to work? But I think it's ok now, just too short to shift gears decently. I bought new gear cables after work but don't know when I'll to replace them. So this 21-speed bike is currently a 5-speed.

I found a decent route to work, through the Eastmoreland area on Bybee; I avoid a lot of the nastier streets this way before getting on Milwaukie up to Powell. The Ross Island Bridge isn't too bad, apart from having about a 30-degree grade! No, that's just the major problem with biking: I am so horrendously out-of-shape. So I was sucking wind bad on the bridge, and the only thing that kept me from inhaling tons of exhaust was that the wind was from the north, keeping my air supply pretty decent.

I did not have a helmet until after work; that was scary. But I now have one, and I have lights, and the brakes actually work well. So with good weather ahead, I should be able to start getting into shape. I need to get over to the Bicycle Repair Collective so I can work on it, but I'm thinking I'll probably have a tune-up done: drive train & other adjustments. It'll be an extra 50 bucks or so, but the alternative is to do a half-ass job myself and suffer for it. Once it's been set-up properly, I can take it to the BRC once a month and tweak it.

The point is: I'm biking again, and I love biking. The Tour is on. The Seattle-Portland Classic is this weekend. Summer is finally here. It's the right time to be on a bike, even if I'm fat, out-of-shape and struggling to keep the damn thing in gear. I'm sore and exhausted, and I feel great.

Honestly, watching these little blips of Bush, I find it truly difficult to believe he is the President. He is so unpresidential, and these are truly the tips of the iceberg on that fact. I simply cannot accept as reality that George W Bush will have been president for eight years.

Only the trail of destruction he leaves behind him confirm it.

I plan to start working with Charles soon, using whatever opportunities I have to promote his campaign and help him in his uphill battle against Amanda Fritz. Most people have already got her pencilled into office, but I figure, well hell, we might as well pretend the election actually matters. I think we should at least wait until someone votes first.

I'm just getting to know Charles, and I hope over the coming months not only to learn more about him but to share it with others around the city and get them to understand he is a special person worthy of their support. At this point, I have two reasons for my support.

One, I find that I am attracted to underdogs: Howard Dean, Barack Obama, Steve Novick, Pete Sorenson. I supported these candidates when they were no-hopers. I think there's something about a person who answers the call to public service in the face of big odds. Either that person flames out fast — Chris Dodd is a great Senator, but there's a reason his presidential campaign didn't last very long — or they demonstrate they have those special characteristics needed to be a leader. Dean, Obama, Novick and Sorenson have all proved that time and again. Just because 3 of the 4 did not win their campaign does not mean they are not terrific leaders; we know they are. Sometimes, you can be a great candidate and still not win. That's politics. But I saw something I liked in all four of these candidates, and I felt they were worth my time and effort (and a bit of money).

Maybe I'm just slow on this point, but I've not gotten a handle on how to communicate the need to "allow" people to bring their religions viewpoint into the political discussion while keeping the church-state separation in place. Jim Wallis, speaking about Obama and attacks on him by James Dobson, states it clearly for me:

The United States is not the Christian theocracy that people like James Dobson seem to think it should be. Political appeals, even if rooted in religious convictions, must be argued on moral grounds rather than as sectarian religious demands — so that the people (citizens), whether religious or not, may have the capacity to hear and respond. Religious convictions must be translated into moral arguments, which must win the political debate if they are to be implemented. Religious people don't get to win just because they are religious. They, like any other citizens, have to convince their fellow citizens that what they propose is best for the common good — for all of us, not just for the religious.

Obviously, for dogmatists like Dobson, religion is far more than the "moral grounds" by which to live. Religion is far more than that, of course, but in the political arena — which means the public sphere where people of differing beliefs and perspectives determine how government and related will serve the people — religion cannot be more. Most Americans want to preserve their own rights, including to worship (or not) as they choose. The only way this can be possible in a country of so many different faiths is to remove all religion from politics.