If they’re too big to fail, they’re too big. In 1911 we broke up Standard Oil -- so what happened? The individual parts became more valuable than the whole. Maybe that’s what we need to do.
 - - Alan Greenspan, former Federal Reserve Chairman, October 15,2009
     unexpectedly speaking on the side of the angels.

When college student Matthew Shepard was killed in Laramie, Wyoming for being gay, it was not a hate crime. It should have been.

My conservative friends, for the most part, don't care for hate crimes legislation. A few are a bit irrational about it, seeing it as a nefarious plot to crush conservative thought or religious freedom. Particularly offensive is the extension of protection to sexual orientation. Unless you view religious freedom as including the right to send gays to the hospital or the morgue you don't have much to worry about. Bigotry is a constitutionally protected right.

People don't go to jail for refusing to join integrated country clubs. Churches don't lose their tax status when pastors refuse to officiate at gay weddings. Hate crime involves violence motivated by group hatred. If you target folks for being black or white, or Muslim or Christian, or of Middle Eastern or Middle European descent, then you may be in additional legal jeopardy.

When someone goes cruising for some minority member to attack, it puts a larger number of people at extraordinary risk. It is more than a violent crime. It affects the ability of an entire group of people to go about the routine activities of life in peace. It is a form of terrorism.

Some of my liberal friends join my conservative pals in disapproving of the idea of adding penalties for violent crime because of what is in the mind of the perpetrator. There is discomfort with what can be viewed as thought control, even as an aggravating factor.

I'm fine with the debate. If you view the burning of a cross on my front lawn as the rough equivalent of a Halloween prank, we can argue the point. We can continue until you concede or we run out of time. I really don't mind. I can see how an honorable person can go the wrong path on the issue.

Last week, House Republican Leader John Boehner raised objections to hate crime protection. "All violent crimes should be prosecuted vigorously, no matter what the circumstance. The Democrats' 'thought crimes' legislation, however, places a higher value on some lives than others. Republicans believe that all lives are created equal, and should be defended with equal vigilance." Pretty strong stuff. The law was passed by Congress anyway.

Then reporters from CBS News began asking questions. It turns out Boehner does not really oppose hate crimes protection for minorities. He does not oppose protection from attacks motivated by religious hatred either. He just opposes protection against violence motivated by sexual orientation.

Members of my family will have the good offices of Congressman Boehner behind them if some race-motivated attack occurs. If my wife or daughter is attacked because someone hates women, Boehner will stand with us.

Matthew Shephard? He's on his own.

I would like nothing better than to see you die, Mr. McKinney. However, this is the time to begin the healing process. To show mercy to someone who refused to show any mercy. To use this as the first step in my own closure about losing Matt.

Mr. McKinney, I am not doing this because of your family. I am definitely not doing this because of the crass and unwarranted pressures put on by the religious community. If anything, that hardens my resolve to see you die.

Mr. McKinney, I'm going to grant you life, as hard as that is for me to do, because of Matthew.

 - - Dennis Shepard, November 4, 1999
     Speaking in court to one of the murderers of his son Matthew

It was encouraging to see Republican Olympia Snow (Maine) buck the harsh pressure put on her by fellow GOP Senators and vote for at least some sort of health reform. Denial of important committee assignments and a downgrading of campaign support were the tip of the iceberg, by all reports.

But courage only goes so far in politics. "I'll Vote Yes Today," she said. "Tomorrow Is Another Issue." She gave her opposition to the public option as a bellwether. In this, she echoes the current conservative wisdom.

The public option would provide a choice for consumers, should they opt for it, of government provided health insurance in place of private insurance. It seems to many of us like a fail safe proposition. If as opponents say government is hopelessly inefficient and unable to keep up with the private market, consumers will find a better deal in the marketplace and the government option will fade away. On the other hand, if government can genuinely come up with better coverage for less, then consumers will feel the benefit. It's a no lose, possible win proposition.

Another advantage is seldom mentioned outside of wonkishly detailed analysis. If the program does succeed, bulk buying of coverage, medical supplies, prescriptions, and health care itself would drive down costs. It's partly the cheaper-by-the-dozen rule, partly that gouging is harder against big guys. Try purchasing individual insurance coverage as opposed to group insurance, and you will notice the difference right away. A big purchaser driving down costs would also benefit smaller purchasers. So people going with private carriers would also see lower premiums and better coverage.

But opponents twist themselves into knots by insisting that opposite arguments are simultaneously true. On the one hand, government is hopelessly inefficient and incapable of providing health coverage competently. FedEx competes against the Post Office, thank you very much. On the other hand, government is extremely efficient and has the ability to provide such good service at such low cost, consumers would be foolish to turn down the public option. Think fire fighters and police officers. So private companies would be unable to compete, since the deal would be so good for ordinary people. That's why voters overwhelmingly want the public option.

A coin can't really land on both it's sides at once, and both conservative sides can't be true. But Olympia Snow managed to state them at once in explaining why she might change her mind and cave on reform. "I'm against a public option because I think the government would be another vast new bureaucracy, and also create a disproportionate advantage in the marketplace. And inevitably government's not going to do it better."

There you have it. Up is down, in is out, and good is bad. It's conservatism at its most hypercubic, multidimensional, mobeus strip best. Quantum policy to go with the GOP parallel political universe.

All the naysayers weren’t looking at what is happening on the ground, which is that moderate members are open to a public option.

 - - Senator Charles E. Schumer (D-NY), October, 2009
     Promoting the Public Option favored by 77% of voters

Long simmering arguments about Afghanistan are just now making their way to the surface of public awareness. General Stanley McChrystal, commander of US forces in that embattled country, has been giving the President a series of options. At the high end is a number of around 80,000 additional troops. The low end is 10,000. The General's personal recommendation, released in a leaked 66 page report, is 40,000. Presumably the figure is not arrived at by some golden mean. 21,000 more have been sent so far. The administration has reportedly rejected the high and low ends of the spectrum.

Michael Moore has what he considers an ideal figure. Zero. Nice round number, the one favored by conservative columnist George Will. It is below what the President has already rejected as too low. The 40,000 recommendation made semi-publicly by General McChrystal provoked the Speaker of the House to advise him to go through channels and make his case directly to President Obama who, after all, is his ...you know... boss. Republicans have their own public recommendation. It is that General McChrystal answer the Speaker by putting the little lady "in her place."

President Obama's 21,000 troops, and General McChrystal's 40,000 are aimed at the same overall objective, which is to avoid failure. Failure would push the country into chaos, with the Taliban establishing a foothold. al Qaeda would be the likely beneficiary. So failure is to be avoided.

The initial invasion of Afhganistan, the one that went through flower strewn paths through adoring crowds of cheering citizens, has a clear purpose. It was to capture or destroy the organization and its leader that had engineered the brutal murder of 3,000 people on American soil. The harsh fundamentalist religious theocrats that had taken over Afghanistan were in the pocket of the wealthy bin Laden and they quickly made clear they were not about to give over al Qaeda. Our clear aim was disrupted by the urge to invade the unrelated dictatorship in Iraq. When the Bush administration let al Qaeda get away at Tora Bora, the entire effort lost focus.

Decades ago in Vietnam, it became clear that the only viable alternatives were to go in with whatever it took to end the conflict militarily or leave quickly. The Johnson administration, followed by Nixon then Ford, tried to follow a middle muddle. The disaster that resulted could have been predicted.

Unless we adopt clear, limited, achievable objectives, we will lose in Afghanistan. The most likely objective is to get back to basics. Crush the organization and the leader who started this, then get out. To do that, we will need to ignore borders, and forget propping up corrupt governments, except as temporary exigencies in the main effort.

At the moment, victory in Afghanistan is falling to its default definition: not losing. For an occupying power it is a definition that leads to destruction. Not losing is how insurgents win. Not winning is how occupiers lose.