It bugged me the first time I watched it, and it bugged me even more today, so I decided to do something about it. Here’s the audio of the entire (13-minute) speech, run through heavy compression:

Yes We Can

And here’s a shorter version, just over four minutes, from the end where he really gets rollin’.

Yes We Can (Shortened Version)

I figure someone out there might be able to do something with these.

Rock on.

Yeah, me either.

That wouldn’t bother me so much if I weren’t confronted by ordinary goodness every single day. I look at CNN or Yahoo News or the local paper and I think, “The real world isn’t like that. Things are not this bad. They just aren’t.”

Do bad things happen in the world? Yes, of course. Sure they do. They happen all the time. But they aren’t the only thing happening, and they aren’t even the most common thing. Humans are, by and large, good people. The problem is, our brain is wired in such a way that only the exceptions stand out. Which means that only the exceptions are “newsworthy.”

Do the bad things happening in our world need to be talked about? Absolutely. We should be aware of events in our community, whether that community is our immediate neighborhood or the entire freakin’ planet. But here’s my question: Do they need to be the only thing talked about?

I say no. I say the reason we see only the bad news is that only the exceptions sell — and the news media has to sell ads to survive. We are fascinated by train wrecks and car crashes, so the news feeds us an endless stream of train wrecks and car crashes, hoping we won’t change the channel.

I say: enough.

I’m tired of it. It’s depressing, a bombardment of negativity that gives us an utterly skewed view of the world, from our perception of people in far-off lands to the fact that OH MY GOD A PREDATOR COULD LEARN YOUR CHILD’S BIRTHDAY BY HACKING HIS DS OVER WIFI!!!!!!! EVERYBODY PANIC!!!! (When I was a kid, we roamed the neighborhood from dawn until the streetlights came on. Now there is a predator behind every bush. Has the world changed that much in 25 years? No, it hasn’t. We just hear more about the bad shit that goes down. We hear more about the exceptions to the general okay-ness of people.)

And on top of this, there’s this sudden proliferation of websites devoted to letting you tattle on strangers anonymously. Don’t like someone’s driving? Post their license plate online! Think someone was speaking too loudly on their cell phone? Post all the personal details you overheard! (Yes, because the simple human exchange of walking up to the person and saying, “Excuse me, are you aware you’re speaking very loudly?” would be so far out of the question. Because you might get shot, of course. Or sued! Let me ask you a question: Out of all the people you personally know, how many have been shot, or sued? Yeah, exactly.)

So: enough.

I propose that the news media has got the job of circulating the bad news pretty well covered. So let’s take on the job of circulating the rest of the news ourselves.

Here’s what I’d like for you to do. Take a moment and think about something kind, or honorable, or just plain good you’ve seen someone do recently. It didn’t have to happen to you, and it could even have been you doing it, if you’re comfortable with blowing your own horn. Think of something you saw recently that made you think well of humanity. Then write about it. You can just drop a comment on this post, [or in the original post,] or write in your own blog and leave me a link.

I’m sick of hearing only bad things about other people. Aren’t you? Let’s do something about it.

I’ll start:

One of my favorite bands of all time was called Jawbox. The primary singer and guitarist was J. Robbins. These days he does a ton of really excellent producing work (he’s maybe even produced bands you’ve heard of, like the Promise Ring) and also plays in a band called Channels with his wife. Last year they had a child named Cal. It turns out that Cal has a pretty serious, and generally fatal, neurological disease for which there is no known cure. So his former bandmates, who now own a small record label, put up a post on their website about it, and took it upon themselves to ask for donations to help Cal’s parents with the astronomical medical costs.

Shortly thereafter, J. posted this on his blog: “Our great friends Kim Coletta and Bill Barbot took the step of setting up a donation page for Callum on the DeSoto Records website back in December, which has opened the door to an incredible surge of goodwill and support from friends and acquaintances around the world. It’s given us energy and resources to move forward that we simply wouldn’t have otherwise, and it’s hard to find the words to express our gratitude. We both dream of a day when we can try to explain to Cal how, when he was just a baby, so many people rallied to give him a shot at a better way forward.”

Here’s an excerpt from a more recent post: “A bunch of friends did benefit shows for Cal this weekend: Nick Pimentel and the Owls and Crows folks did one in DC; Jessica Hopper organized one at the Empty Bottle in Chicago with Bobby Conn, our pals in the Life and Times, and Red Eyed Legends; and our old friends at North Six in Brooklyn put on a show with Ted Leo, Medications, the Forms, and Last Letters. Cal is so lucky, and we are so lucky, to have these friends and this kind of support. I don’t know how we will ever be able to thank people for the kindness they are showing. I don’t see how Callum will ever grow up to be a proper cynical punk rocker, since he is already experiencing undeniable proof that at least some people are essentially good at heart.”

It is terrible and tragic that a child should suffer this sort of disease. But it is beautiful and moving that so many should come together to support him and his family.

Your turn.

The reason you should know this is because President Bush just kinda, uh, eliminated it. At least for “enemy combatants.” Funny thing about enemy combatants, though…an enemy combatant is a person the government claims is an enemy combatant. Neat, that, eh? And the method by which such a claim can be disputed: Habeas corpus.

Keith Olbermann on MSNBC (video, pops) has a particularly chilling commentary on this whole deal. It’s worth watching the entire thing.

That guy may be a bit melodramatic, but he’s quickly becoming one of my heroes — one of three people I know of in the media who actually appear to have balls.

The other two are John Stewart and Stephen Colbert.

Comedians.

Jesus.

For those of you who don’t like clicking links, I’ll summarize: Attorney General Alberto Gonzales wants to require all ISPs to keep records of ALL of your online activity, for purposes of catching pedophiles and, presumably, tur’rists.

Here’s the problem. Senator Stevens has made it very clear that our government does not understand technology. Now, I’m no hAxx0r but I do seem to recall a technology called “IP spoofing” that makes internet traffic look like it’s coming from someplace other than its actual source. So, what happens when someone trolling online for kiddie porn uses a spoofed IP address that happens to point to the computer grannie uses to e-mail her bridge partners? Or some al-Qaeda sympathizer spoofs the IP address of some random Arabic college student?

This isn’t even touching on the potential for willful misuse of this kind of information. I’m no conspiracy theorist, but considering how much of our day-to-day life is conducted online these days — business, commerce, communication — there’s an enormous potential for abuse. Not to mention simple, ham-fisted, governmental incompetence.

I hate sounding like a foil-hatter, honestly I do, but I’m starting to worry that these tiny nudges on the boundaries of our civil rights are not the random flailings of an incompetent administration, but rather calculated straining at the bumper of the juggernaut of fascism.

I just wrote that and even I think it sounds ridiculous. But that’s precisely part of my worry, that sensible, moderate, thoughtful, intelligent people are dismissing their fears as unrealistic, thinking “It can’t possibly be that bad.” But what if it is?

We as a country have an obligation to protect ourselves from tyranny. We have an obligation to say to our government, “You are overstepping your authority and we are uncomfortable with that.” Are we really going to wait for our leaders to throw their capes over their arms and go “Mwa ha ha” before we say enough is enough? I’m pretty sure it’ll never be that obvious.

The problem is that as long as the current administration equates dissent with treason, our fellow Americans will continue to miss the fact that dissent is the purest and best form of patriotism, the purest and best hope for the continued health of this country.

Do this for me: Read the article linked above. Think about how it might impact you, personally, as a law-abiding, upright citizen. And if you come to the same conclusions I did, tell your congresspeople — tell your friends — tell your neighbors — that this is too much. That this near-ubiquitous surveillance does not meet your standards for a free society. If nothing else, please just let your fellow Americans know that this sort of thing is being talked about.

I have to believe that we do still have the ability to influence public policy. It can’t have gone that far already.

Can it?

But.

How much more invasive “security” are we going to put up with? Right now you can’t take liquids on a plane. Liquids of any type. Even colloidal suspensions, or very slow-moving liquids like lip balm or gel deodorant. Here are some questions I would like to respectfully address to the TSA, just for purposes of clarification:

I know I can no longer bring on board the drink that I bought from the McDonalds right next to the gate, because it might be explosive. I also assume that while I may bring French fries, I may not bring ketchup packets. But can I take a cheeseburger on the plane if it has ketchup and mustard on it?

Can I bring items made of rubber or wax, as some scientists classify these as very slow-moving liquids? What about Silly Putty?

My PSP, iPod, cell phone and laptop all have liquid crystal displays. Is that OK?

Ice is a solid. Can I bring that onto the plane even though it will become a liquid in transit?

Similarly, instant Jell-o starts as a liquid but becomes solid. Can I bring some of that?

My vitamin suppliments are gelcaps. Are these acceptible?

Since I will not be able to bring bottled water with me and the flight attendants will come by maybe twice with tiny cups of water, I will need to find some other way to stay hydrated. Is it OK if I bring slices of watermelon?

Chocolate-covered cherries tend to have a small bit of liquid in them. Are these allowed onboard?

And finally, if I’ve had very much to drink before boarding, can I bring the urine in my bladder on board with me?

Look…I’m OK with these bizarre restrictions on a temporary basis if you’re concerned there are more liquibombers at large. That is, if you know, with utter certainty, that there were more people involved in this plot than the ones you’ve caught, and you are specifically concerned with this specific plan being carried out. If there’s a legitimate, immediate risk, I’m behind you 100 percent. After all, better to be inconvenienced than be, you know, dead.

But.

If you’re thinking about making this a permanent — or even semipermanent — thing, like the ridiculous lighter ban…you’re fucking crazy. We already put up with ridiculous amounts of bullshit to fly. (What other product or service do you know of where it’s totally legal to take someone’s money but only maybe provide them with the service they paid for?) If you continue to tell us we can’t bring along bottled fucking water that we bought at the fucking airport — you’re insane. The policy is so ridiculous that it can’t help but make you look like incompetent tools. Keep this in place and one of two things will happen:

1. People will recognize that you’re just building little walls of sand that do absolutely nothing, or

2. People will just stop flying. The airlines will go bankrupt, and the US economy will irrevocably change.

Hey, possibly both.

Do we have a right to fly? Nope. But we sure as hell have a right to demand respectful treatment from our government and its contractors.

In closing, I’d like to share this tidbit I got from the comments of the always awesome Making Light:

Dan Guy ::: August 11, 2006, 05:25 AM:
From LiveJornal user “rhiannonstone”:

First they came for the knitting needles,
and I didn’t speak up
Because I wasn’t much of a knitter
Then they came for the shoes,
and I didn’t speak up
Because I wear sandals
Then they came for the lighters,
and I didn’t speak up
Because I don’t smoke
Then they came for my Dr Pepper
And now it’s on, motherfuckers!

Homeland Security has launched the “Secure Automated Inspection Lanes (SAIL) Screening Pilot Project” here in San Francisco. This delightful scheme will screen one hundred percent of all passengers on the ferry route from Marin County–the most affluent county in the entire country–to downtown San Francisco. Passengers are handed a sheet of (I assume specially treated) paper, stand in a line, and then hand the paper to a TSA employee who slots it into a machine to test if you’ve been handling explosives.

Because, you know, if I plan to blow up a building in San Francisco, oh yeah, I’m so gonna take the ferry.

It’s not the program that twists my knickers as much as the advertising for the program. Thousands of slickly-produced, full-color brochures have been distributed (and discarded), featuring gorgeous photos of the ferries in action, printed on heavy card stock with a semi-matte finish. (You can see a PDF here.) I dunno if anyone else here has ever seen any numbers for printing this kind of thing, but let me tell you, that shit is expensive. And that’s not even counting the huge posters and special tickets that are all being distributed as part of this PILOT program. (See them all here.) So we can assume that, should this ever become a full-fledged, official program, we can expect another round of posters, fliers, and tickets.

Roughly four thousand people ride the ferry every day (not sure if that counts return trips; it could be as low as two or as much as eight). Contrast this with one hundred thousand people driving across the Golden Gate Bridge every day (which, incidentally, is owned by the same company that runs the ferries). And, Oklahoma City showed us what a van can do. (Oh yeah, the ferries are people-only; no vehicles.)

Bottom line: Homeland Security has never made me feel safe. In fact, they’ve always made me feel less safe, because they always seem to focus on programs that would make absolutely no real difference, to the detriment of anything that might prove truly effective in protecting this country.

I believe that it is immoral to persecute another human based on age, gender, sexual preference, religious affiliation, political affiliation, national affiliation, ethnicity, physical appearance, or financial status.

I believe that it is immoral to go to war without just cause.

I believe that it is immoral, if war is unavoidable, to do anything but seek a swift and just end to it.

I believe that it is immoral to abuse our planet’s natural resources.

I believe that it is immoral to ignore the suffering of the less fortunate.

I believe that it is immoral to exploit the suffering of others for personal gain.

I believe that it is immoral to exploit the ignorance of others for personal gain.

I believe that it is immoral to willfully deceive the credulous for personal gain.

And I believe that doing any of these things under the pretense of “moral values” is not only immoral, it is actively evil.

These are my moral values — and, as you may notice, they are based on human decency and not religious dogma. I’d imagine that many of you also have an extensive list of moral values. Don’t let the zealots convince you — or anyone else — that you don’t.

In many ways, this was an election about morality. The point the zealots seem to be missing is: morality lost.

Sincerely,

George W. Bush

My pal John puts forth a well-reasoned argument against it, the basic gist being that this isn’t just about preventing same-sex marriages from happening in the future—it’s about breaking up the same-sex marriages that have already happened in Massachussets.

But I stumbled across an even more direct argument on a Fark comments thread, of all places. Allow me to quote it for you here:

“Can you give me an example, besides marriage, where any two adults are not allowed (by federal mandate) to enter into a legal contract based on their sexual preference?”

I’d never heard it put this way before, and it makes such perfect sense, highlighting the absurdity of the proposed amendment so beautifully. It cuts cleanly through all the religious arguments to the heart of the issue: marriage is a legal contract. It can be more than that if it happens in a religious venue, but it can’t be less than that and still be influenced in any way by the government. Banning same-sex marriage is discrimination on the grounds of sexual preference.

I don’t think anything more needs to be said.

My point is, I’m not one of those types who thinks that all Republicans are pure evil, while Democrats are lovingly fashioned out of moonbeams and pixie dust. Me, I like to think for myself instead of finding a convenient bandwagon to hop onto. There’s corruption on both sides of our government right now; there are pillars of purity, too—on both sides, truly.

I think this is an important point. As long as we divide along party lines, we cheat ourselves out of honest politicians. We are, as you might have heard elsewhere, all to blame for the current state of affairs, and until we stand up and start educating ourselves, stop turning our brains off when we stumble across an agreeable clique, stop trusting the forked tongues of the great chiefs in Washington, we’re going to keep recycling the tired dishonest-politician cliche.

That said, reading this makes me feel like I’ve been punched in the stomach. “[T]hese activities, if conducted in concert with the church or church leadership, certainly could be construed by the IRS as the church engaging in partisan electioneering…”.

Um, yeah. Perhaps not so much “could be construed as” but “is exactly what the separation of church and state is supposed to prevent.” So little Timmy Smith goes to church with Mommy and Daddy, and during the sermon—you know, the part where the minister is supposed to talk about things relating to Timmy’s eternal soul—Revr’nd Dobbs instead starts stumping for Bush/Cheney ’04. Does this seem okay to anyone out there?

I can understand that Bush’s election supervisors would be hitting a good chunk of their target demographic with this tactic. Big points for thinking outside the box, gentlemen—now please step the fuck off my Constitution, thanks very much.

Look, friends, if you want to set up little kiosks just outside of church property, go right ahead. The tactic will probably be equally effective, perhaps even more so. You’re still hitting the same group with the same message. You’re just doing it honestly, in a way that doesn’t lead unsuspecting parishioners to distrust their minister, their government, and their founding fathers.

If that happened, boys, trust me—you wouldn’t like the result.