Impossible Scissors

This summer, the rising star in the field of pop music has undoubtedly been Colbie Caillat. Her popularity has skyrocketed as a result of millions of hits on her myspace music site, followed by her opening for the Goo Goo Dolls and the release of her single "Bubbly." Her debut album, Coco, is a phenomenal achievement for the 22-year-old singer-songwriter from Malibu.

Hearing Colbie sing might invite comparisons to Natasha Bedingfield. However, the resemblance ends with the comparison of their vocal qualities. Colbie's music emphasizes acoustic guitar melodies and powerfully-delivered, soulful vocals. The lyrics are clever and heartfelt, in direct contrast to insipid Bedingfield tunes like "I Wanna Have Your Babies."

Several tracks on Coco stand out as candidates for future singles. The breakup ballad "Battle" is probably the best on the album, from its powerful delivery to its lush piano melodies. "Midnight Bottle" is a song of reminiscence, perhaps the equivalent to "More Than a Feeling" for my generation. Colbie sings about confusion in "One Fine Wire," using her voice to create a unique rhythm that evokes the feelings expressed in the song. She serves up catchy, bluesy love songs in the form of "The Little Things" and "Feelings Show." There isn't a bad song on the album.

Coco is a lavish treat for the ears. Executive producer Ken Caillat, Colbie's father and a veteran producer, worked with producer Mikal Blue to put the finishing touches on the album. They succeed masterfully by layering lush beats and melodies to create an album that never stagnates but never seems over-produced. The album displays Colbie's sweeping vocal range, from fast-paced rhythm & blues to powerful piano ballads.

Overall, Coco creates a mellow, folksy sound that reminds me of the early John Mayer (before he got preachy and started thinking he was Jimi Hendrix.) I give it five of five stars, and predict that it will have a massive impact on the music world. Make sure to catch Colbie perform on "The Tonight Show" on the evening of Monday, August 27th.

Congrats to Rep. Brian Baird, for putting partisanship aside and declaring that, regardless of one's feelings on invading Iraq, America must do what it can to stabilize that country. He's saying the same thing that our military leaders are saying. Let the surge run its course and establish a realistic amount of security, then gradually transition the combat mission to the Iraqis. The open question is whether it's realistic to think that we can solidify the gains we've made by the time the surge ends in spring or summer of 2008. It's also debatable whether congressional Democrats (and quite a few Republicans) will give the surge that long to operate.

While it's hard to imagine Michael Vick's public esteem dropping any further as a result of the dogfighting charges he faces, this week saw his situation grow even worse. Two of his co-defendants have pleaded guilty and implicated Vick in the nefarious activities of Bad Newz Kennels.

If Michael Vick wants to play in the NFL again, I think he has no other option than cutting a plea deal within the next two weeks. Additionally, he will need to make a sizable donation to the Anti-Cruelty Society and other animal welfare charities. Americans are too familiar with the accounts of dogs being killed by slamming and electrocution during fights sanctioned by Bad Newz Kennels. In order to earn the public's forgiveness, Vick will have some major atonements to make.

Vick will likely see some sort of jail time, even if he cuts a deal with prosecutors. Jail or no jail, Vick is unlikely to play during the 2007-8 season. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell is taking strong measures to repair the league's reputation, and he's suspended players like Pacman Jones for offenses that are nowhere nearly as shocking as Vick's alleged history of dogfighting.

At the same time, I don't think that Vick's career is over. Assuming that he can show the public that he has truly reformed, he can still earn their forgiveness to the point where he will be able to play in fall 2008. If Mike Tyson can regain his championship after being convicted of rape and serving three years in jail, Vick's comeback will look like a cakewalk by comparison.

The Democrats' widespread acceptance of the Baker plan for Iraq has some interesting side-effects. The Baker Commission calls for the US to perform limited missions in Iraq after the combat forces go home, such as training Iraqis, border security, and counter-terrorism.

Although paying lip service to the Baker Commission is generally good enough in the eyes of the Democratic base, it obscures a fundamental truth about the idea of a long-term, limited mission in Iraq. In order to perform the missions proposed by the Baker Commission, it would still require between 60K and 90K soldiers on the ground. And they're still going to be getting into combat, and they're still going to be taking casualties. That's approximately half of what we currently have in Iraq. It's certainly a far cry from what Move On and the other anti-war liberals want to hear.

I don't think the Democrats are dumb (except for Bill Richardson, who thinks you could pull every American out of Iraq in 60 days--a logistical impossibility.) I think they know how many men it will take to accomplish even limited missions in Iraq. Either they are trying to hide that truth from the liberal voters who will choose a Democratic presidential candidate in 2008, or they are planning on short-changing the limited missions they claim to support. A future President Hillary Clinton or President Barack Obama could decide to give the generals only half of what they need, and then pull the remaining troops out after a "decent interval." Sounds an awful lot like Congress cutting South Vietnam's funding after pulling out of that war.

Democrats and Republicans alike realize that the US cannot sustain its current force levels in Iraq, but we can't pull the rug out from under the Iraqis either. The difference between the two sides is in the details. America needs a national debate that will cover when it would be appropriate to scale back our force levels and missions, what missions we should be performing in Iraq, what level of forces we'll need to perform those vital missions, and how long we will stay committed to those missions.

My personal view is that we can't scale back until we have some viable plan for the Iraqi factions to stabilize the country. American generals have a plan for "sustainable security" by Summer 2008, and I hope we can achieve that. If the surge is showing progress towards that goal, I hope Congress will have a change of heart and let the generals push for "sustainable security."

In 1961, Roger Maris broke Babe Ruth's home run record with 61 homers in a single season. The major league schedule had recently been expanded from 154 to 162 games, and the legitimacy of Maris's accomplishment was called into question. Apocryphally, Maris's record has been referred to as "61*" to denote that Maris didn't tie or break the record by the 154th game of the season.

Tonight, Barry Bonds made it into the record books by slugging his 755th career homer, tying him with Hank Aaron. But the legitimacy of Bonds's accomplishment has also been called into question after years of steroid allegations against the Giants slugger. Most Americans already believe Bonds to be a juicer, and few will give him credit.

If the allegations against Barry Bonds are true, leaving his record intact would be a grave injustice that would leave a permanent stain on the game of baseball. While fans were disgusted by the 1994 baseball strike, they should be even more appalled by the rampant use of banned, performance-enhancing drugs to take players to new heights of performance. I don't want to single out just Barry Bonds. I'd like to take aim at people like Jose Canseco (who has admitted to steroid use) and players like Mark McGwire & Sammy Sosa (who have been dogged with allegations of steroid abuse.)

Officially, Barry Bonds's record for career home runs (plus his 2001 record for home runs in a single season) should go down in the history books with an asterisk next to them. The same should go for any player who has been hit with serious allegations of steroid use. If those allegations are proven, those players should be completely erased from the record books.

There's old saying that "cheaters never prosper." The question I pose to the leadership of major league baseball is whether they're willing to let cheaters prosper and let the record books be forever tainted. The league needs a tougher anti-steroid policy, from both the testing and punishment perspectives. Players with tainted reputations also need to come clean and offer a decisive defense (or confession) in response to steroid allegations. Nothing less than the integrity of the entire game is at stake here.

If there's one word to describe the mood Americans feel right now, I think that "cynical" would be the most accurate answer. America is a nation that has little faith in its President or its Congress. While the highest offices in the land have been discredited by the mispronouncements of America's leaders, the situation has grown to the point that Americans refuse to believe anything our leaders say, regardless of the facts surrounding the issue. Newsweek's most recent polling results paint a disturbing picture of a nation where cynicism is chic and optimism is blase.

President Bush's credibility is so damaged that Harry Reid can get away with saying things like "the surge is a failure" and "the war is lost," even though the full surge wasn't even in place when the Nevada senator made his comments. At the time, Americans could have been forgiven for believing him; after all, our surge would inevitably be answered with a counter-surge by the enemy. But by July, the surge was starting to show quantitative and qualitative results in improving security across Iraq. Nevertheless, over 40% of Americans believe the situation in Iraq is getting worse, while around 20% think it's getting better.

The congressional investigations into the accidental death of American hero Pat Tillman is another area where cynicism has gotten the better part of Americans. Shortly after Tillman died, cartoonist Ted Rall had the audacity to lampoon this fallen warrior. Yet now the left wants further congressional inquiry into the friendly-fire death of the former NFL star who answered his nation's call. I had to ask myself how far Congress was willing to go with this investigation, and what they hoped to accomplish. Was it merely about punishing military officers who delayed the news that Tillman fell victim to fratricide? Then I saw the answer on a left-wing blog: speculation that Tillman was deliberately murdered on the orders of the White House, because "he knew too much." Despite the fact that this conclusion has no evidence or logic to support it, I'm saddened to know that such vulgar innuendo is believed by some people.

The signs of American cynicism go on and on. The president only gets 44% approval for his handling of terrorism, even though the homeland hasn't seen a successful terrorist attack in nearly six years. Only a third of Americans approve of the president's handling of the economy, even though unemployment and inflation are at historically low levels (and, until a week ago, the stock market was at record-breaking highs.)

One of the Iraq-Vietnam comparisons carries a lot of weight: America is in a mental rut, much like we were during the 70's. The nation as a whole is demoralized. It's suddenly become cool to believe that America can't get anything right. That's not the attitude that made America what it is today. Whatever happened to the belief that the founding principles of this nation allowed us to accomplish whatever we put our minds to? Americans need to overcome this sickening pall of defeatism, and get back to the things that America does best.

Asking me to pick a favorite between Barack and Hillary is like asking if I'd rather be shot or stabbed. If I had to make a choice, I'd probably suppress my gag reflex and say "Hillary" because she has more experience as an elected official, and a better handling of foreign policy issues. After Barack's foreign policy gaffes of the past week, my logic has been reinforced, in my mind.

Barack really hit the trifecta of foreign policy naivety. It started during the YouTube debate, when he said that it was okay to negotiate with anti-American dictators with no pre-existing conditions. He turned the pages on foreign policy back to the pre-Woodrow Wilson era, before the notion of diplomatic non-recognition. Hil-dawg immediately tore into Barack, despite the Illinois senator's attempts to demonize non-recognition as a "Bush policy."

Barack went even further over the top with his speech about Pakistan. He accused the Bush administration of allowing the "killers of 3,000 Americans" to go free, and said that he'd deploy the US armed forces inside Pakistan if he had to. Well, here's some news for Barack: when you deploy your military to a country without that government's permission, that's what we call an "invasion." So Barack wants to "invade" Pakistan to wipe out al Qaeda, in a large and mountainous nation of 160 million.

The final strike against the senator from Illinois is his reassurance to America's enemies that he would never use nuclear weapons in the war against Islamist terror. While I would agree that there are few situations where nuclear weapons could be effectively employed to protect America from terrorism, the commander-in-chief of the US armed forces should never take any option off the table, even if those options serve only as a deterrent.

While Barack is afraid to admit it, there are things that have gone well during the Bush Administration. One of those things is handling Pakistan in the war against Islamist terrorism. While the Pakistan situation is far from ideal, the administration has made the most out of an unfavorable situation. Since the 9/11 attacks, Pakistan has helped us to kill or capture many high-ranking al Qaeda leaders; at the same time, the administration hasn't pushed on Pakistan so hard that the Islamists would rise up against General Musharraf.

Let's try to overcome our fears and imagine what an Obama presidency might look like. President Obama deploys US forces to Waziristan in search of Osama bin Laden, a haggard derelict-looking excuse of a man who hasn't seen daylight in years and has little contact with his followers. The Pakistani people, incensed by the US "invasion," blame Musharraf and start an uprising. An Islamist junta takes over the Pakistani government and its nuclear arsenal. The Pakistanis nuke America, while President Obama claims "the moral high ground" and refuses to unleash the Minutemen as America endures a nuclear attack.

It's a bleak future indeed. It takes a bleak outlook of that magnitude to get me to compliment "the Hil-dawg" in any way.

So what if Barack Obama is a naive lightweight in the area of foreign policy? What does that do to his candidacy? I actually think it helps him amongst members of the hardcore liberal community. The Move On supporters of the world agree with Barack's foreign policy stance, and the most recent gaffes are a form of red meat that he's thrown to them in hopes of getting their votes over Hil-dawg and John Edwards. When it comes to the general election, I think that these comments will come back to haunt a potential Obama candidacy. His Republican rival would eat him alive for being concurrently reckless and soft towards terrorism and rogue states.

The scouting movement traces its roots back exactly 100 years ago from today, when Lord Robert Baden-Powell hosted the first scout camp on Brownsea Island. The camp included twenty boys and taught them basic skills of campaigning, observation, woodcraft, chivalry, lifesaving, and patriotism. In the hundred years since, the scouting movement has taught millions of boys the skills they need to become men, and expanded to virtually every nation on earth.

For Baden-Powell, the scouting movement was an outgrowth of the way he trained teenage boys as military scouts during the Boer Wars. It was also a way of instilling his beliefs in the Victorian British Empire into future generations. Until his death in 1941, Lord Robert Baden-Powell was a larger-than-life figure who was idolized and beloved by the world's scouts. While history records the names of Churchill and Roosevelt and others as the most dominant figures of the 20th century, I would argue that Lord Robert Baden-Powell left a wider and more lasting impact than any of the 20th century's political leaders. The ranks of America's leadership are stocked with Eagle Scouts like Gerald Ford and Robert Gates. Its art and entertainment are provided by the likes of Steven Spielberg and Michael Moore. Its pantheon of heroes is also staffed with Eagles such as Ron Young and Willie McCool.

While the scouting movement is declining in America, the lessons it teaches are growing more important than ever. Virtues and skills such as teamwork, physical fitness, marksmanship, cooking, community service, land navigation, leadership, and public speaking are increasingly important for boys to learn as they mature into young men. Yet our society is hostile to many of these virtues, and the public schools have too often failed in teaching these skills to young men.

As we survey the state of scouting around the world a hundred years later, we can pray that more young men will have their lives enriched with the skills and virtues that have not grown old since the days of Baden-Powell. We pray that boys will be able to partake in scouting, in nations where scouting has not been permitted to thrive (like Iraq, where scouting was re-formed in 2004 after spending many decades as the perverted "Saddam's Cubs.") And we will strive always to be prepared for all challenges that may come out way, and make the world better through a daily good turn.

In closing, I would like to finish with Robert Baden-Powell's last message to his scouts, dated around 1939. I had never heard of it until this past summer, but it was both haunting and beautiful in the sound advice it gave to the youth that would have to endure the worst war in the history of man.

Dear Scouts,

If you have ever seen the play Peter Pan you will remember how the pirate chief was always making his dying speech because he was afraid that possibly when the time came for him to die he might not have time to get it off his chest. It is much the same with me, and so, although I am not at this moment dying, I shall be doing so one of these days and I want to send you a parting word of good-bye.

Remember, it is the last you will ever hear from me, so think it over.

I have had a most happy life and I want each one of you to have as happy a life too.

I believe that God put us in this jolly world to be happy and enjoy life. Happiness doesn't come from being rich, nor merely from being successful in your career, nor by self-indulgence. One step towards happiness is to make yourself healthy and strong while you are a boy, so that you can be useful and so can enjoy life when you are a man.

Nature study will show you how full of beautiful and wonderful things God has made the world for you to enjoy. Be contented with what you have got and make the best of it. Look on the bright side of things instead of the gloomy one.

But the real way to get happiness is by giving out happiness to other people. Try and leave this world a little better than you found it and when your turn comes to die, you can die happy in feeling that at any rate you have not wasted your time but have done your best. "Be Prepared" in this way, to live happy and to die happy-- stick to your Scout promise always-- even after you have ceased to be a boy-- and God help you to do it.

Your Friend
Baden-Powell