When Jon Stewart has the smartest sounding idea around, we're in trouble...

So, Jon Stewart floats this option every time anyone remotely connected to the economy is on his show, and I have yet to hear one of them argue why it can't be done. Nobody has put forward a reason why his option would be worse than any of the other options we've heard.

Here's Stewart's idea in a nutshell, then I'll add my own brilliant flourishes (make it shiny!):

- The insurance companies (like AIG) are in trouble, because they have insured these loans that just aren't going to get paid back, and they can't afford to cover the banks' losses;
- The banks are in trouble because they have all of these loans on their books that aren't going to get paid back, and so their actual capital is less than what they need to be able to loan money out like they're supposed to;
- The homeowners are in trouble because they have these mortgages they can't pay back because they were stupid/gullible/greedy/whatever and were lured into taking out mortgages that they couldn't afford (and shouldn't have been approved for).

So far, our solution has been to give money to the insurance companies and banks: Now the insurance companies can cover the losses they've insured at the banks, and the banks can start lending money again. Homeowners... well, sorry, you're screwed... but you should have known better!

The problem is that the insurance companies and the banks aren't taking the money and using it to fix the economy, they're taking it and awarding themselves crazy bonuses, throwing lavish events, and not putting the money back into circulation in the form of loans, etc. So the economy is not moving forward, and our tax dollars are disappearing.

Jon Stewart thinks it's time to give the 3rd party in the debacle a chance to show us what they'll do with the money. Why not give the bailout money to the homeowners so they can pay off their mortgages? Then, the toxic assets aren't toxic anymore, banks balance books look like they're supposed to (provided they don't start making stupid loans again), AIG et. al. don't have to cover the losses on those loans because they're not losses anymore... problem solved, right?

Those are the pros, what are the cons?
1) Well, do homeowners who took risks they should have known better than taking be bailed out by the goverment? Is that fair to others who either continue to make their payments, or to others who didn't buy a home because they knew that they couldn't really afford it?
2) If we just give money to them, how do we know they'll use it responsibly to pay down their debt? What if they waste it on frivolous spending?

It's funny, because the cons of giving the money to the homeowners are the same as the ocns we've seen fleshed out in gory detail for the banks and insurance giants. So what if we can structure a bailout of homeowners that takes some of our experience with the financial institutions into account?

Right now, we own part of AIG and several banks as taxpayers. I'm not interested in owning those companies, I'd rather own houses! What if the government buys houses from people who are stuck in houses that they're in danger of defaulting on? Here are some ideas to make this work:

1) The government will buy any home that is in danger of foreclosure under certain conditions. Some conditions might have to do with when the loans originated, the payment history before interest was reset for ARMs, the percentage of equity versus the current appraised value of the property, etc.
2) The government will pay a price that covers the payoff amount of the mortgage, plus a percentage of the equity based on some formula that takes the aforementioned conditions into account. The payoff money for the mortgage does not go to the homeowner, but directly to the lending institution, releasing the title to the government. The balance goes to the homeowner in exchange for releasing the title to the government.
3) The government then immediately puts the home on the market, using a formula for the price that takes into account the price paid for the home and the current appraised value for the home. Any financial institution that wants to handle the mortgage for these government sales must choose from a limited number of options, like fixed-rate 30-year notes with minimal interest rates. It might even be an option to offer 40 or 50 year notes to qualifying buyers.
4) Current occupants of the home can be given the first opportunity to apply for the new loan and buy the house back from the government. If they apply (with realistic qualifications), they don't have to move out of the house and then move back in. They don't get the house for free, they get a restructured loan with government assistance.

So, the loans are no longer toxic, just a little bit nauseating. The banks exchange theoretical assetts and interest income that they'll never get back for a less amazing looking return, but a return they will actually receive. The government intervenes to make sure that the bank recoups its initial investment plus interest, though the interest is less amazing than they thought they could get in their pre-bubble-burst fantasy world.

Insurers don't need to save the banks, therefore they don't need government assistance, therefore they can use their own money to pay out bonuses and throw lavish to-dos.

Homeowners don't get a free house from the government, they just get another chance to pay off their debt with restructured loans that are more realistic. People who waited and didn't buy a home with crazy, unrealistic rates now have a chance to buy a house with reasonable rates that will stay reasonable from the government from those homeowners who really shouldn't have even tried, and who lose their homes but don't end up hopelessly in debt.

Why not? There's lots of cons, but I posit that the downside is less dreary than the current system of propping up the financial institutions directly. They've shown they can't be trusted to be responsible with our money. I'm all for giving the little guys a chance to disappoint us. We might be pleasantly surprised...

- "Now begone, before somebody drops a house on you!"

Options for Florida and Michigan (updated 5/21)

Option 1: Don't seat any delegates. In that case, the total number of delegates needed to win is 2,025. There are currently 86 delegates that will be determined by votes in the remaining states (and Puerto Rico), and 212 superdelegates who have not publicly pledged their vote to either candidate. Obama needs 62 (21%) of these remaining delegates to win the nomination, Clinton needs 247 (83%). (The two percentages don't add up to 100%, because of the 9 delegates awarded to John Edwards before he dropped out of the race).

Option 2: Seat delegates proportional to votes cast and reinstate superdelegates. In that case, the total number of delegates needed to win is 2,208, and the number of unpledged superdelegates goes up to 267. This would give Clinton half of the available pledged delegates from Florida where she received 50% of the popular vote (93 delegates), and Obama 33% of the available pledged delegates from Florida where he received 33% of the popular vote (61 delegates). Clinton would also receive 55% of the available pledged delegates from Michigan (70 delegates), while Obama would receive none, since he received no votes because his name was not on the ballot. Obama would need 185 (52%) of the remaining delegates to win the nomination, Clinton would need 268 (76%). (The two percentages don't add up to 100%, because of the 9 delegates awarded to John Edwards before he dropped out of the race, and because of the Florida and Michigan delegates that represent votes for candidates other than Clinton or Obama).

Option 3: Seat delegates proportional to votes cast, award all "unpledged" votes in Michigan to Obama (who did not appear on the ballot, though Clinton did) and reinstate superdelegates. In that case, the total number of delegates needed to win is 2,208, and the number of unpledged superdelegates goes up to 267. This would give Clinton half of the available pledged delegates from Florida where she received 50% of the popular vote (93 delegates), and Obama 33% of the available pledged delegates from Florida where he received 33% of the popular vote (61 delegates). Clinton would also receive 55% of the available pledged delegates from Michigan (70 delegates), while Obama would receive 40%, representing the 40% of Michigan voters who voted for "unpledged"delegates on a ballot that had Clinton's name but not Obama's (51 delegates). Obama would need 134 (38%) of the remaining delegates to win the nomination, Clinton would need 268 (76%). (The two percentages don't add up to 100%, because of the 9 delegates awarded to John Edwards before he dropped out of the race, and because of the Florida and Michigan delegates that represent votes for candidates other than Clinton or Obama). John Edwards name did not appear on the Michigan ballot either, however, making it problematic to award all of these delegates to Obama, which leads us to the next two options...

Option 4: Seat delegates proportional to votes cast, award half of "unpledged" votes in Michigan to Obama (who did not appear on the ballot, though Clinton did) and reinstate superdelegates. In that case, the total number of delegates needed to win is 2,208, and the number of unpledged superdelegates goes up to 267.This would give Clinton half of the available pledged delegates from Florida where she received 50% of the popular vote (93 delegates), and Obama 33% of the available pledged delegates from Florida where he received 33% of the popular vote (61 delegates). Clinton would also receive 55% of the available pledged delegates from Michigan (70 delegates), while Obama would receive 20%, representing half the 40% of Michigan voters who voted for "unpledged"delegates on a ballot that had Clinton's name but not Obama's or Edwards' (26 delegates). Obama would need 159 (45%) of the remaining delegates to win the nomination, Clinton would need 243 (69%). (The two percentages don't add up to 100%, because of the 9 delegates awarded to John Edwards before he dropped out of the race, and because of the Florida and Michigan delegates that represent votes for candidates other than Clinton or Obama).

Option 5: Seat delegates proportional to votes cast, split the "unpledged" votes in Michigan evenly between the two delegates and reinstate superdelegates. In that case, the total number of delegates needed to win is 2,208, and the number of unpledged superdelegates goes up to 267. This would give Clinton half of the available pledged delegates from Florida where she received 50% of the popular vote (93 delegates), and Obama 33% of the available pledged delegates from Florida where he received 33% of the popular vote (61 delegates). Clinton would also receive 75% of the available pledged delegates from Michigan (70 delegates) representing the 55% of Michigan voters who voted for her, as well as half of the voters who voted for "unpledged" delegates (even though her name was on the ballot! A generous option for Hillary!), while Obama would receive 20%, representing half the 40% of Michigan voters who voted for "unpledged"delegates on a ballot that had Clinton's name but not Obama's or Edwards' (26 delegates). Obama would need 159 (45%) of the remaining delegates to win the nomination, Clinton would need 243(69%). (The two percentages don't add up to 100%, because of the 9 delegates awarded to John Edwards before he dropped out of the race, and because of the Florida and Michigan delegates that represent votes for candidates other than Clinton or Obama).

There's one more option that would definitely be the least fair to Senator Obama, especially since his name didn't even appear on the Michigan ballot...

Option 6: Treat both states as "winner take all" and award all available pledged delegates to Clinton and reinstate superdelegates. In that case, the total number of delegates needed to win is 2,208, and the number of unpledged superdelegates goes up to 267. This would give Clinton all of the available pledged delegates from Florida where she received 50% of the popular vote (185 delegates), and all of the available pledged delegates from Michigan (128 delegates) where she received 55% of the popular vote. Obama would need 246(70%) of the remaining delegates to win the nomination, Clinton would need 118 (33%). (The two percentages don't add up to 100%, because of the 9 delegates awarded to John Edwards before he dropped out of the race).

Notice that currently, Clinton needs over 80% of the remaining delegates to gain the nomination, while Obama only needs 21%. Almost any option that involves apportioning Florida and Michigan delegates in some sort of fair way reduces Clinton's needed delegates to 69% or 76%... not a huge change. The only way that she gains an advantage is if she gets ALL of the delegates from Florida and Michigan, which seems unfair since Obama received a third of the votes in Florida, and 40% of the voters in Michigan turned out and voted for "unpledged," which HAS to be interpreted as a vote that would have been cast for Obama or Edwards if they had been on the ballot. It's not too much of a stretch, either, to imagine that some of those who voted for Hillary might have voted for Edwards or Obama if they had been on the ballot.

I say award delegates proportional to the votes they received (option 2). That's not the fairest option (I think that option 4 would be closer to the real numbers), but it should take away any whining ammunition that Hillary might take into the convention if Obama gets to 2,025 delegates but not 2,208.

What do you think?

- "There's no crying in baseball!"

The voice behind the mouth

Hello, loyal readers,

I recorded another short "Perspective" for our local NPR station (KQED) and it will air Wednesday, May 7th. It's another installment in my ongoing, multi-part, multi-media rant on standardized testing. I think it airs at 7:37 am and again at 8:37 am... but I'm not sure. If you aren't able to tune in, you can listen to their archive of past Perspectives here, as well as my two previous contributions to the program here and here.

-"I'll make you famous."

I love you, Jonathan Kozol!

I've started to read Jonathan Kozol's latest: Shame of the Nation. I love it. Basically, Kozol is tracing the backward slide of American public education into segregation and inequity to a degree we haven't seen since the 1950's. Poor kids (especially black and latino kids) are being sequestered educationally and denied access to facilities, teachers, opportunities and especially money. Sounds like the good old days, doesn't it? I love the way he cuts through the political double-talk that we hear so often that claims that "throwing money at the problem" won't work for the education of poor, urban, minority students. If the rich really believe that, muses Kozol, how do they justify the insane amounts of money they gladly fork over for their own kids education? Their behavior certainly does seem to suggest that at some level they believe that a better education costs more money... or they're big suckers, easily parted from the money, an option which the fact of their wealth would seem to invalidate.

Anyway, reading this book is great... but there's a problem. So far it's just making me angry and frustrated, and I think that's valid. It should. But what good does that do anyone? Complaining loudly about how messed up things are has become something of a national pastime in post-modernist America, and being outraged at injustice has become an acceptable substitute for actually working for justice.

Not to say that it's our responsibility to fix the problems of the world, but here's a little game I like to play in my own mind: I call it "what if everyone made the same choices as I do?" I know that my owning a hybrid rather than a Hummer will not by itself save the world from global warming, or that whether I throw my soda can in the garbage or the recycling will determine whether or not my descendants will have to live in caves underground. But it is helpful to assume that on each issue, the world is full of two kinds of people: those who are making the problem worse and those who are making it better. At that point, I have to decide which group I want to belong to.

Making these choices more about the identity I want to reinforce for myself and the kind of person I want to continue becoming rather than about changing the world is very freeing. It's not my responsibility to change the world, but I can choose to be a part of the group that takes individual responsibility to the whole seriously.

So, back to the issue at hand: how should I respond to Kozol's damning indictment of American education? Here's some ideas I've been thinking of... please reply with more if you come up with any... and let me know how you're doing on following through!

• Vote for political candidates that favor more equity in public education (well, assuming the choice is given, check!)
• Write op-ed pieces, letters to the editor, my elected representatives at local, state, and national levels, and express my disappointment with the injustice going on and my hopes for their moral integrity as one of their constituents (check!)
• Try to let everyone I know in on what's "really" going on with public education, and deciphering the statistics and political jargon for what it really is: a concerted effort to make sure that any available resources are shifted toward those who already have more than they need at the expesne of those who really need it (If you're reading this... check!)

Now, the really tricky ones... the ones that trip up those avowed liberals in Hollywood or the left-wing politicians who talk the talk but send their own kids to the same elite schools as the rest of the rich people:

• Resist the pressure of society to seek out places to live with "good-schools" and assuming that my responsibility to my own children mandates sheltering them from "those people" and making sure that none of the "problems" of growing up as an urban minority have anything to do with me or my family.
• Work in an inner-city, minority school and teach those kids with everything I've got.
• Send my own kid to a public, urban school with a diverse population instead of the elitist schools that my race and socio-economic status hold out to me, and then invest heavily in that school community as a parent volunteer and advocate .

So that's the kind of response I want to have to a book like this. Please keep me accountable when you see my making choices that betray my convictions.

- "Have you met them? The poor?"

Sorry, Florida and Michigan... kind of...

Apparently, the voters of Michigan and Florida are being "disenfranchised" by the way the DNC policies have erased their delegates. People are understandably upset about that. But who should they be upset at?

State party officials were apparently well aware that they were breaking the national party rules when they scheduled their primaries so early. As far as I know, there has been no dispute on this point.

It also seems that the fact that their delegates would not be seated at the convention was also not suddenly sprung on them in the last month or so.

So, the state party officials who made this decision with full knowledge that they were violating a rule that they had agreed upon ought to be held responsible. What's funny is that these are the guys who are loudly blaming Howard Dean and Barack Obama (and others) for unjustly disenfranchising Florida and Michigan voters.

Florida and Michigan voters should be mad, but not at Dean, and not at Obama. They should be mad at their state party officials who agreed to something and then decided not to go along with it in order to increase the strength of their voice (or so they thought) in choosing the Democratic nominee.

What's ironic is that the decision was made to put them at the head of the pack, theoretically to have a more decisive voice in the nomination. With the 2 front-runners neck-and-neck, however, it now seems that the last states to vote will hold more power.

So now they are demanding to be given the last voice, too! It's just politics as usual, but it's still frustrating to hear the voices that caused all the problem loudly proclaiming everyone else to be at fault, and themselves to be the biggest victims.

The funniest thing is how both Clinton and Obama seem to have randomly fallen ideologically aligned with the position which (coincidentally) supports their own nomination. What are the chances? I love hearing them talk as if they're advocating for the poor disenfranchised voters, or for the other state parties who followed the rules and will be less likely to if poor precedent is set... when of course they're advocating for themselves!

Although I guess that same remarkable coincidence is at work in this very post, as I (an Obama supporter) advocate a stance that seems to work in Obama's favor.

That's politics for you.

- "And your gonna become voters! And your gonna vote like your friends do!"

Barack for President

Below is the text from one of the best political speeches I've ever read. Given by Barack Obama in Philadelphia today. (It's pretty long, so don't start if you don't have more than a minute or two free!)

"We the people, in order to form a more perfect union."
Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America's improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.
The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation's original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.
Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution -- a Constitution that had at is very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.
And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part -- through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk -- to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.
This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign -- to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America. I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together -- unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction -- towards a better future for of children and our grandchildren.
This belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people. But it also comes from my own American story.
I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton's Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. I've gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world's poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners -- an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.
It's a story that hasn't made me the most conventional candidate. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts -- that out of many, we are truly one.
Throughout the first year of this campaign, against all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people were for this message of unity. Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans.
This is not to say that race has not been an issue in the campaign. At various stages in the campaign, some commentators have deemed me either "too black" or "not black enough." We saw racial tensions bubble to the surface during the week before the South Carolina primary. The press has scoured every exit poll for the latest evidence of racial polarization, not just in terms of white and black, but black and brown as well.
And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn.
On one end of the spectrum, we've heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it's based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we've heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.
I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely -- just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.
But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country -- a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.
As such, Reverend Wright's comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems -- two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.
Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way.
But the truth is, that isn't all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God's work here on Earth -- by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.
In my first book, Dreams From My Father, I described the experience of my first service at Trinity:
"People began to shout, to rise from their seats and clap and cry out, a forceful wind carrying the reverend's voice up into the rafters.And in that single note -- hope! -- I heard something else; at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion's den, Ezekiel's field of dry bones. Those stories -- of survival, and freedom, and hope -- became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world. Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black; in chronicling our journey, the stories and songs gave us a means to reclaim memories that we didn't need to feel shame about memories that all people might study and cherish -- and with which we could start to rebuild."
That has been my experience at Trinity. Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety -- the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches, Trinity's services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.
And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions -- the good and the bad -- of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.
I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother -- a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.
These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.
Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.
But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America -- to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.
The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we've never really worked through -- a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.
Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote, "The past isn't dead and buried. In fact, it isn't even past." We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.
Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven't fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today's black and white students.
Legalized discrimination -- where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments -- meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today's urban and rural communities.
A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one's family, contributed to the erosion of black families -- a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods -- parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement -- all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.
This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What's remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.
But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn't make it --those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations -- those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright's generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician's own failings.
And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.
In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience -- as far as they’re concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.
Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren't always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.
Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze -- a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns -- this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.
This is where we are right now. It's a racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naive as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy -- particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.
But I have asserted a firm conviction -- a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people -- that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice is we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.
For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances -- for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs -- to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives -- by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.
Ironically, this quintessentially American -- and yes, conservative -- notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright's sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change.
The profound mistake of Reverend Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It's that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country -- a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen -- is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope -- the audacity to hope -- for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.
In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination -- and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past -- are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds -- by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.
In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world's great religions demand -- that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother's keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister's keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.
For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle -- as we did in the OJ trial -- or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina -- or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.
We can do that.
But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.
That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, "Not this time." This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are somebody else's problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.
This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don't have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.
This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.
This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged, and we want to talk about how we'll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.
I would not be running for President if I didn't believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country. This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected. And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation -- the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election.
There is one story in particularly that I'd like to leave you with today -- a story I told when I had the great honor of speaking on Dr. King's birthday at his home church, Ebenezer Baptist, in Atlanta.
There is a young, twenty-three year old white woman named Ashley Baia who organized for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina. She had been working to organize a mostly African-American community since the beginning of this campaign, and one day she was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there.
And Ashley said that when she was nine years old, her mother got cancer. And because she had to miss days of work, she was let go and lost her health care. They had to file for bankruptcy, and that's when Ashley decided that she had to do something to help her mom.
She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches. Because that was the cheapest way to eat.
She did this for a year until her mom got better, and she told everyone at the roundtable that the reason she joined our campaign was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents too.
Now Ashley might have made a different choice. Perhaps somebody told her along the way that the source of her mother's problems were blacks who were on welfare and too lazy to work, or Hispanics who were coming into the country illegally. But she didn't. She sought out allies in her fight against injustice.
Anyway, Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they're supporting the campaign. They all have different stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue. And finally they come to this elderly black man who's been sitting there quietly the entire time. And Ashley asks him why he's there. And he does not bring up a specific issue. He does not say health care or the economy. He does not say education or the war. He does not say that he was there because of Barack Obama. He simply says to everyone in the room, "I am here because of Ashley."
"I'm here because of Ashley." By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.
But it is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger. And as so many generations have come to realize over the course of the two-hundred and twenty one years since a band of patriots signed that document in Philadelphia, that is where the perfection begins.

- "They call me MR. TIBBS!"

Why John McCain is good for America (even though I probably won't vote for him)

The thing about McCain that I love is how virulently the "conservative" wing of the Republican party hates him.

The extreme right has held too much sway over the GOP for too long, just as the extreme left has had too much influence over Democratic policy. The extreme polarization has given us elections where we have to choose between extremes, with nobody representing the moderate, centrist values held by a majority of Americans.

John McCain might lose the votes of the extreme conservatives, but he also has a chance of pulling a lot of independents and even moderate Democrats (like me), who may feel uncomfortable with some of the far left leanings of the eventual nominee (if it's Obama, forget about it... I'm voting for Obama!).

This puts pressure on the Democrats to compete for those votes by fielding less polarizing, less far-left leaning candidates and positions. Heck, they might even be able to snag some moderate Republican votes that aren't satisfied with the radical-right-wing candidates that have been fielded.

McCain is good for the country because it's pressure away from the extremes and back toward the center for both parties. I don't know if I'd vote for Hillary over McCain if she's the nominee. That's something for the rest of my party to think about next time around, because I know I'm not alone.

- "'Well, I didn't vote for you.' 'You don't vote for kings!'"

"They broke the law. They're criminals."

An interesting comment that comes up often when debating the issues surrounding undocumented aliens (or "illegal immigrants," if you prefer) is something to the effect of "they broke the law" or "these criminals." A lot of the time it's used in defense of plans that require them to "wait in line" for citizenship or legal residency behind their countrymen (or women) who "played by the rules" or "did it the right way."

I'm disappointed that this comment is usually left unchallenged. Here's what I would say if that came up in a debate I was having:

"Interesting that you seem to put so much weight on them having broken the law. Let me ask you: have you ever driven faster than the posted speed limit? Have you ever crossed the street in the middle of the block or against the red? Have you ever failed to come to a complete stop at a stop sign? You broke the law. You are a criminal. Do I have the right to demand that you be deported from this country? If you get caught, sure, there needs to be a penalty, but a penalty that is proportional to the damage or danger your behavior posed to the public. The mere fact that a law was broken is not sufficient reason to defend deportation.

"That's all assuming that the law is just. I don't think it is. In the 1850's, it was illegal for a slave to cross the "border" between a slave state and a free state without permission. That slave couldn't claim to be free just because they'd made it to a place where slavery was illegal. The fugitive slave law said that that person would be returned to a state of slavery if they were caught pursuing a better life north of the border. Anyone who helped them escape knowingly was also considered a criminal, even though slavery was illegal in their state.

"Does this law sound familiar? We're trying to pass those laws now! Would you label a fugitive slave a "criminal" and do everything in your power to return them to slavery? Would you insist that they "wait in line" behind the other slaves who were "doing it the right way" and "following the rules" by pursuing the option that some masters held out to their slaves of allowing them to "buy" their own freedom by taking on extra work over the course of decades... only to leave their families and children behind because they were still property? Would you lambast those citizens of the free states who hired former slaves and provided housing for them as "part of the problem"? I hope that in this day and age, the answer to these rhetorical questions is obvious.

"Do you understand that the desperation that drives people to leave behind family and community and risk their lives to travel hundreds and thousands of miles and be treated like a fugitive is the same kind of desperation that drove slaves to flee to the freedom of the north? Do you understand that it is not the lowlife criminals of these poverty-stricken nations that try to make it to the USA, but the most motivated, disciplined, hard-working and inspired citizens?"

I doubt I'd actually be able to make that argument without being shouted down, but it's what I'd want to say. If a law is immoral, then persons of conscience have a moral obligation to fight against it and defy it. The laws that try to drive hard-working immigrants from our nation by treating them worse than we treat our pets and livestock are immoral, and I applaud those immigrants who put their lives on the line and endure the brand of "criminal" to work for a better life for their family. We need more citizens with this relentless drive to wrest a living from their own sweat, blood and tears.

- "A lousy hundred bucks? Is that all my blood and sweat is worth?"

George Bush hates poor people like I hate leprechauns.

Remember when Kanye made that statement at an awards show about our President not liking black people? I have a different theory: George Bush doesn't believe in poor people. Whenever he gets a question at a press conference about the flailing economy, he responds by claiming that the economy is actually doing well and growing and how great things actually are.

At first, I thought he was just stupid. Now, I think he's just insulated. He doesn't know any poor (or even middle class) people. Their very existence is kind of theoretical to him, and his self-imposed isolation from all forms of media cuts him off from the stories and opinions of anyone he doesn't actually encounter in his day-to-day activities.

So when he makes these sweeping tax cuts that bankrupt programs intended to help the poor and instead puts the money in his rich friends pockets, of course everyone he thinks is worth paying attention to is telling him that the tax cuts are a roaring success. From their perspective, the economy is doing great! Then these writers-of-fiction called journalists come at him with a different story: people are hurting, getting laid off, losing their homes... who's he going to believe? The rather self-satisfied air with which he touts his avoidance of newspapers and television media (with the possible exception of Fox news, one assumes) is all the answer we need.

It's not surprising, then, that he's able to dismiss the plight of the poor so easily: they're not real! He would have the same reaction to someone complaining that cell phones mess up the TV reception in the aliens space-station on the moon.

To be fair, I think that Bush is suffering an extreme form of a condition that's pandemic to the halls of political power. Politics is isolating, and the ability to remember what's real and what's important is gradually diminished and replaced by what's politically expedient and achievable. "Seasoned" politicians are in constant danger of believing that political victories that mostly re-label things and create photo-ops are actually changing the quality of people's lives. Give me a candidate that's long on idealism and short on pragmatism. I'd rather support someone in a losing fight for a real solution than a winning fight for nicer deck chairs on the Titanic.

- "Heh heh heh. Ooh, yeah, right, Lisa. A wonderful, magical animal."

I'm back... kinda... VOTE FOR ME!

I've been getting nagged from all sides (mostly in the form of merciless ridicule at the infrequency of my posts) to get back to the blog. So, here's a treat for all of you superfans... you know who you are. Take small sips, you don't want to burn your brain.

Lots of issues are back on "the public's" (i.e. the media's) lips these days, what with an election coming up and all. Pretend that I'm running for elected office and read my sound bites (okay, they’re too long to be sound bites. “ Sound snacks”, I guess) on the hot topics of the day (they're not all original ideas, but I'm going to go full-on politician mode and pretend that they're all mine!). Here they are, from A to Z:

A is for ABORTION: "From my perspective, it seems that this issue hinges on one question: Is an unborn fetus in fact a person, and therefore entitled to the same rights extended to every other person on earth, regardless of age, gender, race, religion or creed? If this is the question we are attempting to answer, let us tread very carefully, and be mindful of our nation's shameful history of answering this question "no" when it has been applied to Native Americans, Blacks, women, and others. History shows that this is not a question to be answered easily nor without a willingness to accept the harsh implications of either outcome."

B is for BARRY BONDS: "Did Barry Bonds use steroids? Probably. Should he have an asterisk next to his name in the record books? I don't think so... unless everybody else gets one. To pretend that every season, every player begins and ends the season under conditions identical to every other player since the beginning of baseball is ridiculous. Every era, every team, every ballpark has its quirks that make the experience of every player different. This isn't science; it's not a controlled experiment - it's entertainment! It's actually to the benefit of the public that baseball isn't exactly the same every single time... the fun wouldn't last very long. Barry Bonds played in an era of steroids, as the recent congressional report confirmed what everyone had long suspected. Barry was competing against teams with "enhanced" hitters, facing "enhanced" pitchers, and his experience was in this regard totally unlike anything Ruth, Aaron, Maris or Mays ever faced. Even without considering the issue of steroids, there are myriad reasons why every hitters case is different: The extensive use of middle relief and closers, the ever changing strike zone, new stadiums a mile above sea level, the wide variation of distances to the wall (and heights of the wall) from ballpark to ballpark, and more. If records can only be broken under the exact conditions under which they were set, no records could ever be broken. Was Barry wrong? Of course he was, and what's worse, he took part in a growing culture of steroid use that is spreading to college and high school athletes at an alarming rate. Barry had no excuse to abuse the position that his fame puts him in as a role model and add fuel to this growing public health crisis. Should he be in the record book, though? I think so. If Hitler and Stalin can be Time's Men of the Year, I see no reason that Bonds (or Rose, for that matter) should be kept out of the record books or the Hall of Fame. They were phenomenal ball players, who made phenomenal mistakes."

C is for CHINA: "It's unrealistic to expect China or any other fast-growing economy to take the environment or fair trade policies into account when the biggest example of a rich, successful nation is utterly unwilling to make any concessions on any front or even to acknowledge that the concerns of 90% of the world's population should in any way influence our energy policies. If we bite the bullet and adopt and enforce stricter environmental regulations, we can set the model that the rest of the world will follow."

D is for DARFUR: "If we're not afraid to go against the world and invade Iraq, and we're not afraid to take on up-and-coming nuclear states like Iran and North Korea, what are we afraid of in Darfur? Whose permission are we waiting for to go in and save innocent lives? The lack of a military response may be justifiable to many like me who are hesitant to believe that violence is ever a solution, and who never look to it to bring about progress, but only as a last-ditch resort to slow down wholesale slaughter with no end in sight. The lack of an aggressive diplomatic push with the full weight of our economic and political influence across the world, however, is totally inexcusable. How many people do we think we're saving with our "Save Darfur" T-shirts? Is the Janjaweed susceptible to political pressure expressed only through "Genocide Sucks" bumper stickers? What in the world are we waiting for?"

E is for EDUCATION: "Half a decade after Brown vs. Board of Education, schools in the deep south are largely integrated while the enlightened coasts are more segregated than ever. In the guise of innocuous sounding programs like 'neighborhood schools,' 'vouchers,' and the closure of 'under-enrolled' schools due to a dearth of school-age children (at least, of certain ethnicities) in urban school districts, schools in the big cities of our nation are becoming monochromatic. In San Francisco, the alleged capital of progressive political ideology, a complex school-choice system ensures parents with political clout that their children will not be stuck in "under-performing" schools, and the implications of this practice can be seen when taking a tour of the cities elementary schools and being able to categorize them at a glance as "black," "Asian," "Latino," or "white" schools, with the only concession to integration being a white minority at an "Asian" school, or a school integrated with black and Latino students from similar socio-economic backgrounds."

F is for FCC: "TV producers tell us that they're just supplying the product that people want. How do people know they want that? Why do TV shows need to advertise if that's what people want anyway? The reality is that tragically, we have learned to look to TV to tell us what normal, successful people are supposed to look like. 'Reality' TV purports to show us what real life looks like, and while adults with life experience know that the reality they show is pure fantasy, children are being taught to expect life to look a certain way. All that being said, we parents need to make some hard decisions. I would love it if my child could turn on the TV and I didn't have to worry about what they might see. Since I can't do that (and probably won't be able to anytime soon), I'll take responsibility for my own child and keep the remote control on top of a high shelf, and make TV time something we do together."

G is for GUANTANAMO: "What's a worse injustice: for a criminal to go free, or for an innocent person to be locked up? Here's a better question: What's a worse injustice - for a criminal to have a trial, or for an innocent person to be locked up without a trial for 5, 6, 7 years? We're the good guys because we don't lock people up for years without a trial, because we don't attack countries we don't like without being attacked first. It makes us vulnerable, but we can't give that up without giving up our identity. What cost security? Are we willing to give up our souls to feel safe? We are taking the first steps on a road that will make us to the world what Saddam and the Republican Guard were to Iraq. Let's get off that road!"

H is for HOLLYWOOD: "Film and Television represent that rarest of things: a medium in which an artist can actually ditch their day job. Say what you will about the quality of the art being turned out, it is art, nonetheless, and the artists who create it should not be exploited by the middlemen who distribute it. The writers are the originators of a work, and if someone else is able to take that and turn it into millions of dollars, it's only because the writers themselves did not spend their time raising capital and developing distribution companies... they were too busy writing! If you make money off of what the writers wrote, pay them for it. Simple. End the strike by doing the right thing."

I is for IMMIGRATION: "Any proposal to address immigration that has any chance of implementation must address both sides of the issue: What is the cost on our society that will be alleviated by this solution, and what is the cost that will be incurred? To date, I have heard no proposals that involve voluntary or forced deportation of undocumented immigrants that incorporates a system to save the industries that will suffer collapse due to the loss of a vital workforce, most notably the hotel and restaurant industries. Nor do they address the unavoidable implication of skyrocketing produce prices leading to a collapse of American agriculture and a growing dependence on cheap food from overseas if American growers don't have the affordable workforce necessary to harvest what they have grown. It's one thing to be dependent on foreign powers for the gas we need to drive to the grocery store; it's quite another to be dependent on them for the very food we need for our survival."

J is for JOURNALISM: “Ideally, the job of a journalist is to present a forum in which both sides of an issue can be presented and verify or dispute the facts (not conclusions) as presented by both sides. When journalism becomes about reporting only what is said about an issue and doesn’t do the hard work of verifying claims made, it loses credibility. Politicians can also skirt the verification problem by making grand pronouncements about what they’re going to do in the future and then just not following through. Journalists these days aren’t great at follow-up. The media has a dual role of keeping the public informed and of keeping those in power accountable. If either of those roles is forsaken, the media becomes irrelevant.”

K is for KARMA: “You know you’re in trouble when the future of the world depends on other countries NOT following your example. We spend so much time spinning our wheels trying to get other countries to believe that they really shouldn’t try to become like us and then wonder why they don’t take us seriously. We don’t want any other countries to develop nuclear weapons, to have a strong military, to launch pre-emptive strikes on their enemies, to pass legislation aimed at forcing conformity to religious norms, to disenfranchise minority groups politically, to put supposed enemies in prison for years without access to legal counsel or a speedy trial, to pursue reckless industrial development at the expense of environmental responsibility, or to make decisions for their own benefit without taking the impact on the rest of the world into account. In other words, we don’t want them to be like us. And we wonder why they hate us.”

L is for LEGISLATING MORALITY: "Should a political candidate who self-identifies as a Christian be held to the moral and ethical standards of the Christian religious tradition by other Christians? Absolutely. Does it become an obligation on the part of that candidate to support legislation that would make it a crime against the United States for citizens who are not Christians to violate the moral and ethical standards of the Christian religious tradition? Absolutely not! Should the religious leaders of the candidates denomination threaten to refuse the sacrament of holy communion to any person, be they candidate or not, who willingly and repeatedly violates the ethical and moral standards of their religious tradition and is blatantly unrepentant? Perhaps. But should they threaten to withhold the sacrament of holy communion to politicians who do not support legislation making it a crime to violate Christian ethical and moral standards? Absolutely not! It is one thing for a Christian to commit adultery and proclaim themselves free of guilt or regret. Such a person is denying their identity as a Christian which is founded on submission to the teaching of scripture. It is quite another, however, for a Christian to choose not to pursue legislation that would make adultery a jailable offense. Should people who lie about the size of the fish they caught or use foul language when watching the game with their buddies be locked up? Do you think God would actually be pleased to have a bunch of people acting like they respect him only because they're afraid of being thrown in jail? That is not the God of Christianity."

M is for MARRIAGE: "I find it offensive that the secular government feels that I need to get their permission to marry at all. Marriage is a cultural and religious institution, and should not be moderated by the government in any way. The government is useful as a record keeper and mediator of social contracts that individuals enter into granting to each other financial and social rights that the law reserves only unto individuals, and as such, the government should continue to hold onto records of such arrangements, whether they occur in the context of traditional marriages, civil unions, or "common-law" marriages. The actual designation of a relationship as a "marriage" however, is something I think the government should have no place in. I was married to my wife under the authority of God and the church according to Christian tradition. I appreciate the government doing the paperwork that allows me to include my wife as a dependent when applying for health care, but I don't think the legitimate role of the government should extend beyond that. The government can't tell the church who they must marry. The church doesn't get to tell the government who gets to be declared as a dependent on their taxes. It's really that simple."

N is for NO-BID CONTRACTS: “Seemingly illogical actions and choices on the part of those in power can be better understood when we realize that they won’t always hold their office, and it pays to have rich friends who are grateful to you when you retire. Maybe the future of Iraq and Afghanistan are being set up for further failure, and maybe the economy of our own country is being destroyed, but these guys are making their friends rich and earning a lot of good will… so why should they care?”

O is for OIL SPILLS: "The front pages of every major newspaper in the Bay Area proclaimed the 100's of volunteers demanding to be put to work saving the aquatic wildlife being threatened by the tragic spill. 'HEARTBREAKING' exclaimed the San Francisco Chronicle on the front page, above a photo of an oil-covered seabird. It breaks my heart that 100's of volunteers don't show up to clean up the sewage soaked bedrooms of children in Hunter's Point who are awakened by the horror of the plumbing in public housing projects nearly drowning them in human waste at 2 o'clock in the morning. Where are the volunteers when the lungs of children in poor families are filled with the pollution caused by industrial waste that surrounds their neighborhoods (after successful campaigns to keep those plants out of more affluent neighborhoods), resulting in alarmingly high rates of asthma among the most vulnerable among us, most without adequate health insurance? I'm not saying we shouldn't care about the birds. I'm saying, why do we care so much for the birds, but not for the children?"

P is for POLITICIANS: “It used to be that someone could be born in a log cabin, split rails, put themselves through law school and run for President. The cost of running a successful campaign has gotten to the point that the only people capable of running for office are representative of a narrow minority of American society whose interests often run contradictory to the vast majority of the population.”

Q is for QUAIL: “If I shot somebody in the face, I would feel really bad about it, even if they were a complete stranger. If they were a good friend, I would be sure to stay with them until their family told me to get lost. One has to wonder what went wrong with the underlying humanity of a person who could shoot a purportedly good friend in the face and then get back to business as usual. If the hunting down of ‘rogue quail’ is deemed to be a sufficiently important task as to justify so easily writing-off the potentially fatal wounding of a good friend, how can we believe that the welfare of American troops personally unknown to our leaders is important in the face of the supposed threat posed by Iraqi insurgents? And if you’re an Iraqi civilian, forget about it. You can rest assured that your well-being and survival simply don’t factor into any equations.”

R is for REALITY: “Politicians are becoming afraid to present realistic options for the tough problems facing our nation and our world in part because they’re afraid to admit that things are really so bad. Many of the press conferences we’re subjected to seem to be devoted to convincing us that things are going great. Numbers are flung at us to prove that no matter how miserable we feel, the economy is strong and everyone’s doing well. It’s a hard sell when we live every moment in the reality they’re denying, and it’s hard to see them as relevant to our lives when they seem so totally disconnected from our experience.”

S is for SUPPORT THE TROOPS: “I imagine that if the troops were asked if they felt supported by the stop-loss or the extended tours, they would politely decline to answer. I can’t imagine that policies that mean more time away from their homes and families over and over again feel incredibly supportive. I can think of two ways to support the troops: devise a strategy for quick and decisive victory and then implement it, or concede that we’ve done the best we can and bring them home. I have yet to hear anyone bring forth a viable option for the former. I suspect that this is because it would have to involve more troops than are currently interested in being supported, and instituting a draft would disturb the veil that has thus far shielded the eyes and hearts of most Americans from the harsh realities and costs of this war.”

T is for TAXES: "Unless you want to build your own road from your house to your work place, or hire some guys to hang around your front yard 24/7 just in case a fire breaks out, or broker your own personal peace treaty with North Korea, we need to pool our money together and get some people to take care of these things for all of us. That means government, and that means taxes. I have no problem with paying taxes, as long as I can still provide food, shelter and clothing for my family after I'm done. I have no problem with abolishing taxes for people who are struggling to do that, and I have no problem with raising taxes dramatically for those who make more money than some countries. But we don't really need to raise taxes; we just need to collect the taxes that are owed. Let's tighten the loopholes and increase enforcement of the existing tax code and we'll be doing alright. Multimillionaires (and billionaires) get away with tax dodges that cost the rest of us billions of dollars every year. I think that we can avoid raising taxes if we're able to figure out a way to get the money that's already owed us."

U is for UNINSURED: “The truth is that we end up paying for the medical care of uninsured Americans anyway. What happens is that without insurance they stay away from the doctor until they need an expensive hospital stay. Who pays for it? The taxpayers do. Sure, the patient ends up bankrupt, unemployed and a further drain on society, but then we end up paying for that, too. It’s interesting to see the level of preventive care I get from my provider when they know that they’ll either pay for preventive visits or extended hospital stays. It’s cheaper to keep people healthy than to treat sick people. The question is who will pay for that care? Right now the insurance companies are refusing to pay for the preventive care and the government ends up paying for the eventual treatment. The shareholders get rich and the government taxes us more. This is the issue that a single-payer system would address.”

V is for VICTORY: “What are we trying to accomplish in Iraq? What does ‘victory’ mean now? How will we know when we’ve won? I’m sure that the troops would be much more effective if they had concrete, measurable objectives that they were working toward, and could see a way home and out of this mess at the end of the tunnel.”

W is for WAR: "Jimmy Carter said that 'War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good.' War is rapidly changing from the option of last resort to the option of first resort, or of only resort. The decision to enter a war should always be heart wrenching and fraught with sadness and regret, not jubilation. We must begin each war with the daily hope that this could be the last day. We must sacrifice every comfort we enjoy in peace time if such sacrifice might bring a speedier end to bloody conflict. War is being prosecuted today in a way to ensure that it impacts the ordinary life of average Americans as little as possible, in hopes that we will let it drift to the back of our minds and be forgotten but for the occasional shocking image on the evening news. No war is fought without cost, and if a war absolutely must be fought, then we should be working every day to bring it to a swift resolution. 'Kill them all' is an unacceptable path toward this goal."

X is for X-RAYS: "Airport security has been taken over by the federal government, and now the underpaid, overworked, poorly equipped, disgruntled workers have new uniforms. Wouldn't it make sense for some of the billions that we spend each day to fight a war 'over there' were spent to protect against our getting blown up 'over here'?"

Y is for YAHOO!: “The internet gives us more access to more information… but what information? It used to be that in order for something to be made available to the public, a publisher had to believe that the information was valuable enough to invest a lot of publishing capital in it. It wasn’t always true, but it was at least entertaining. Nowadays, misspelled bigotry is held out side by side with well-researched journalism, and we haven’t been given the tools to distinguish between the two. More information isn’t automatically a good thing. They say that ‘a little learning is a dangerous thing,’ and we’re seeing the truth of that borne out.”

Z is for ZAMBIA: "AIDS is ravaging Africa. Should be good news for the pharmaceutical companies: a vast market for their antiretroviral drugs! There's no reason that we can't figure out a way to get the drugs to the people who need them and Big Pharma can make a profit. If they absolutely must make a huge, enormous profit, though, we run into problems. Africans dying of AIDS can't support the billionaire lifestyle to which Big Pharma has become accustomed. If only AIDS were ravaging New England or the Silicon Valley instead of Africa. Everyone's problems would be solved... especially the Africans!"

So there it is, my political campaign in a bottle. If there are any actual candidates that would like to license my views for their own uses, I have a wish list on Amazon...

- "It’s politics, man, politics.”

100 hours of Pelosi

It's no more than we should expect, but it's still entertaining.

It should be no surprise that new Speaker Pelosi announced that there would be a new bipartisan tenor to the House under her leadership. After all, it's what her party complained about all through their last 12 years in the minority, and especially the last 6 years with 2 branches of the federal goverment in Republican hands.

It should also not be surprising that she has unveiled a plan for the "first 100 hours" of the 110th congress (that's about 2 weeks, I think) that pretty much shuts the Republican minority out and pushes through several key pieces of Democrat-backed legislation that languished under Republican control.

And of course, we should not be surprised that the Republicans in congress are complaining about Pelosi's decision to rush legislation that has been crafted by Democrats to votes without allowing them sufficient time to amend or debate.

Come on people, it's politics.

Of course Pelosi is going to come in promising to change everything that her opponents had been doing wrong, and to treat them better than her party had been treated while in the minority.

And of course as soon as she has the authority to actually make decisions, she's going to succumb to the temptation to push through as much broadly supported, non-controversial (or at least not-very-controversial) legislation as she can, especially when it's stuff that Democrats across the country were promising as part of taking control of Congress and it presents the appearance that things are really changing.

And of course she promises to let the Republicans play as soon as this really important stuff is settled. 100 hours, that's it, honest.

And of course the Republicans pull out the exact same complaints and arguments that the Democrats had been leveling at them for the last 6 (or, depending on how you look at it, 12) years that they're being sidelined and that legislation important to them is getting rushed through or put into drawers in committee meeting rooms. Because this is politics and everything has a half-life no longer than the daily news cycle, they are able to make these arguments without the slightest acknowledgement of any irony or awkwardness, brashly declaring "You're not playing fair!" without even a blush acknowledging the unsaid follow-up "You're doing it the same way we did for years!" or even a sheepish "I guess after the way we led, we should have expected this."

The memory of the political news cycle is notoriously short, and that's working out great for all parties involved. Pelosi can push forward in a sharply partisan fashion while promising that it's just for 100 hours, knowing full well that her prior promises of bipartisan partnership are no longer worth reporting on, and that 125 legislative hours from now nobody will bother reporting on whether or not she kept a promise she made two weeks previously. Promises are political fool's gold. Everyone reports on the promises and they get touted as accomplishments, but follow-up is poor and not "exciting" news. The politicians know it and they play it for all it's worth.

The same can be said for the Republicans in congress who feel complete freedom to blast Pelosi with the same scornful words that were justly leveled at them in years past, without shame or fear of being called "flip-floppers" (unless they run for President, I guess). The press corps is like an institutionalized version of Tom Hanks' character "Mr. Short Term Memory" from Saturday Night Live. If it happened more than a couple of days ago, it's not news. Their job is to report on what's happening now, not remind us of what happened before. The lack of accountability gives politicians license to make grandiose promises and count on the news reporting only on the promises and not coming back to follow-up.

So take the promises with a grain of salt. Check on the Congress in 200 hours or so for signs of bipartisanship in the agenda. Until then, it's politics as usual.

- "I want answers now, or I want them eventually!"

Pro Life?

I've just been thinking about this for a while... I thought it might be worth writing down my thoughts.

"Pro Life" is a politically charged slogan that has been aligned with a single issue in the last 30 years: abortion. It has been a polarizing issue, and one of a few issues that spring to mind when people answer the poll question "how important are 'moral' issues to you in deciding who (or what) to vote for?". The wording seems to make it obvious on which side of the debate Christians (or any person of conscience) should lie: who would say "yes" to the question "Are you 'Pro Death'?".

So, if you had asked me a year ago if I was "Pro Life," I would have said "yes," and I would have meant exactly what you thought I meant. I would have meant that I am opposed to abortion in the same way that I am opposed to murder: I believe that just because a person is still living inside of its mother's womb doesn't mean that its mother gets to decide whether or not it should die.

In the past year, however, I've heard a few things that have challenged that definition as being too narrow. First of all, I read Jim Wallis's book God's Politics over the summer. He says that Christian's need to be "Consistently Pro-Life" and not limit our passion for survival to the unborn. I also heard a powerful sermon from my pastor in which she talked about "Pro-Life" needing to inform our opinions not only of whether or not children or born, but the quality of life they experience after that event.

So, am I "Pro Life"? Yes. But it doesn't just mean I'm opposed to abortion being a legal option in this country.

Because I am "Pro Life," I think that we have a responsibility to defend the innocent Fur, Zaghawa and Massaleit people of Darfur from genocide at least as vigorously as we are defending the people of Iraq from a violent insurgency.

Because I am "Pro Life," I think that the worst act one person can commit against another person is taking their life, and we as a society must guard our own humanity by relegating those guilty of such crimes to a life of imprisonment without parole instead of making ourselves just like them by murdering them in righteous indignation.

Because I am "Pro Life," I think that we have a responsibility to provide millions of poor and dying widows and orphans in Africa with the food, water and medication they need to survive the ravages of extreme poverty and AIDS... a responsibility that should usurp our responsibility to the billion dollar portfolios of American pharmaceutical companies.

Because I am "Pro Life," I think that we have a responsibility to children and mothers in poor neighborhoods to insist that they be able to walk to a grocery store with as much selection and prices as low as the supermakets in suburban neighborhoods, and they should be able to walk there without exhausting themselves or passing a dozen liquor stores on the way.

Because I am "Pro Life," I think that we have a responsibility to make choices when we shop and when we vote that allow both farmers in Central and South America and peasant children in Southeast Asia to receive a living wage for the back-breaking labor that they do from dawn to dusk, seven days a week, from childhood until they are too old to stand... a responsibility that trumps our desire to save a few bucks, or wear the same shoes as Michael Jordan, or have our favorite coffee every morning.

Because I am "Pro Life," I think that we have a responsibility to a child born (not aborted) into a culture and cycle of poverty to adequately fund and reform public education so that their zip code doesn't determine whether they end up in college, jail, or Iraq.

Because I am "Pro Life," I think that we have a responsibility to exhaust every diplomatic strategy possible (and maybe even compromise on our own preferences for the sake of peace) before launching pre-emptive strikes against countries that might possibly be able to attack us at some indeterminate point in the future assuming our intelligence is not faulty.

Because I am "Pro Life," I think that we should be upset when the CEO and board of directors of an American company smugly award themselves multi-million dollar bonuses for the money they've made for their company... money they've made by "cutting costs" with waves of layoffs that take away the livelihoods of American workers and the pensions of retired workers, and "outsourcing" by creating a factory just across the Rio Grande where they pay pennies on the dollar to people so desperate for food that they'll work for slave wages.

And yes, because I am "Pro Life," I think that we should work to save the lives of as many unborn children as we can. If we are called as Christians to stand up for the defenseless and weak against the strong and the powerful, who is more defenseless than a child still dependent on its mother's body for every necessity of life? I don't believe, however, that making it against the law will accomplish this goal by itself. If abortion is murder, and murder is illegal, than reversing Roe v. Wade should make abortion as rare as murder is... and murder in our country is not nearly rare enough. I dare say that there may be a few "Pro Life" people out there that would be satisfied if abortion was still prevalent, but confined to the same neighborhoods in which murder is so prevalent in our country today, but I am not one of them.

The irony is that this is one point on which leading Republicans and Democrats agree: both parties want there to be less abortions performed than are being performed currently. The problem is that one side is committed to making it illegal as the only path that they're willing to pursue, and the other side is committed to keeping it legal no matter what. The debate has been trapped in this one question which our experience has shown will not in and of itself put an end to abortion... it will just give us a new label ("criminal") to put on the doctors and mothers who continue to pursue this option.

Will the number of abortions go down if it is made illegal? Maybe. Probably. I hope so. And if even a handful of lives are saved, then I think this is a path worth pursuing. But it shouldn't be the only path we pursue. If the war on drugs has taught us nothing else, it's that simply making something illegal doesn't make the problem go away... it may actually end up creating horrible violence both home and abroad as well as defining a steady source of income for organized crime, cartels, gangs, and street thugs. I'm not saying that these exact outcomes will be the results of making abortion illegal again... the point is that I don't know (and neither does anyone else) exactly what other issues might arise as a result of addressing abortion only by making those who seek it into criminals.

So what should we do? I think that if we truly believe that the unborn are people, then we should continue to work to make abortion illegal, since we define it as murder. Just because people still get killed in drive-by shootings doesn't mean that it should be legal. But it should mean that our work is not done once it is illegal. Let's also work to make this a world and a nation in which less people want to have abortions: where a poor mother knows that her child will be able to eat enough healthy food and have alternatives to gangs and be able to get into and afford a four-year university. Where children born in poor countries are more likely to die of old age than malnutrition or AIDS before they're old enough to go to school. Where a woman doesn't have to give up her career (and a vital source of income for a growing family) when she has a child because childcare is affordable (and even provided by her employer because of government subsidies and tax breaks), and health insurance plans cover children without charging exorbitant premiums or co-payments. And we need to use our resources to create places and communities where those women who are desperate and without resources can find hope and a family that they lost when they found out they were pregnant (check this out to see an example of what I'm talking about).

We can be Pro Life without being Pro-Death-Penalty, Pro-Big-Business, Pro-Military-Imperialism, or Anti-Capital-Gains/Inheritance-Taxes-On-The-Super-Rich. I would actually argue that we must be. Let's not feel defeated if the number of abortions actually comes down before it's illegal because of bi-partisan efforts to make "Pro-Life" apply to post-natal life as well as pre-natal life. Let's rejoice for those few lives saved and work and pray for more and more each day.

- "Ye know, the church says wearin' one o' them's a sin, darlin'." "So's this. Darlin'."

You know who I like? Corky.

So, Karl Rove blames the President's low approval ratings on the war in Iraq. Okay, Karl... what's your point? If we aren't thrilled about the war, who should we disapprove of?
Maybe Karl thought we should disapprove of the soldiers. It's their fault; they're not fighting hard enough. They should take a page from the suicide bombers play book and make sure that if they're going to die that they take out a dozen insurgents with them. Or Iraqi civilians. Whatever. Just keep that body count climbing... for freedom!
It seems to me that in a goverment where the President also holds the title of commander in chief, and in which he asked Congress to give up their authority to commit military forces to him, it's only fair for the President to be the recipient of at least some of the disapproval that comes up when the poorly-planned, ill-advised, under-funded, unpopular, unilateral war is not going well.
At any rate, it seems that Rove feels it's too bad that people are focusing on this whole "war" thing, because Bush is really a swell guy. Or rather, he's "likeable."
That's right, Rove actually seemed to be giving more weight to Bush's "likability" rating than his approval rating. Rove is less concerned about whether people approve of the job the President is doing than he is with whether or not they "like" him.
I'm a little concerned when one of the President's top advisors (or whatever he is now) is very concerned that people find the Presidnet to be "likeable." I mean, likeability is an important trait for the main character of a sitcom or family drama. Especially if you give the main character Down's syndrome and make them incredibly naive, and then week after week have them duped into commiting crimes or mean pranks by people that they think are their friends ("But why would he lie? I don't understand..." "But he said it would help people, I don't understand..." "But he said he was my friend, I don't understand..."). Who's more likeable than Corky? Maybe Scooby-Doo. Or Mr. Bean. I like him a lot.
Problem is, I would be digging myself a bomb shelter in the backyard if any of these characters were actually President ("But he told me the button was for ice cream, not missiles! Why would he lie? I don't understand...") . It would be nice if I liked someone who was qualified to be President, but if it comes down to it, I'll vote for someone I don't particularly care to socialize with if I approve of the job they'll do or have done as President.
Maybe that's the Democrats' problem. I mean, how likeable were Gore or Kerry? This bodes poorly for the future: Hilary? Not really likeable. Scary, yes. Likeable? Uh... is Corky a Democrat?

- "You like me! You really like me!"

Whoops! We CAN do better!

In November, I wrote a post about how the state's goal for school's API scores was 800, and how it was impossible for more than 40% of the schools to meet that goal. You know what? I was wrong... sort of. There is a way for 60% of school's to reach that target, but I still maintain that it's gonna be nigh impossible to get there.

Why? Well, imagine that there are 100 students in the country, and we rank them according to their test scores into quintiles (what's a quintile, you ask? Check this post out for an explanation). That would mean that 20 kids got a score of 200, 20 got a score of 400, 20 got a score of 600, 20 got a score of 800, and 20 got a score of 1000. You can see that only 40% of the students got 800 or above. The school's API, however, depends on the average of all of the students in the school. So it's possible to arrange the students so that the average is at or above 800 for more than 40% of the students.

How? Well, it's those kids that scored 1000. We can use their extra points to balance out some other kids who scored under 800. The simplest example would be to match up one student with a score of 1000 with one student with a score of 600. If those two students made up the entire school, that school would have an average API of 800. See? Easy, huh?

Unfortunately, it's only 20 percent of the students that have these extra points, so if we make 40 % of our schools populated with exactly half of their students in the 600 range and half in the 1000 range, we can bring up those schools to 800 as an average score. Keep all of the students who scored 800 together and their schools keep their 800 score, giving us another 20% of our schools meeting the target. Those kids who scored 200 or 400? Well, the problem is that we'd have to waste 2 or 3 1000 scoring kids on each one of those students to bring the average up to 800, which would mean less schools overall would have the average that we want. Sorry, bottom-percentilers. You lose, but America wins... right?

Not really. Notice that the only thing I'm doing is rearranging which schools these kids are going to. No increase in learning or improvement in instruction has to happen for more schools to come up to the statewide goal, we just need to mix the students up a little bit.

Actually, that's not a bad idea. I am not alone among educators who think that a heterogeneous population in a school and in individual classrooms makes for a better learning environment and improves learning for all students, even those at the top (of course, this won't necessarily improve test scores, since they don't measure learning, just ranking). So why do I say it's still impossible? Well, you'd probably be able to convice parents and students at a school averaging 600 that it's a good idea for some students from their school to be transferred to the school across town that averages 1000. The problem comes when you try to get parents and students (mostly parents) of the students at school 1000 to move over to school 600.

Well, I have a proposal that could actually make the standardized testing system marginally worthwhile. Not worthwhile enough to keep doing it the way we do, but less of a complete waste of time, energy, resources, and money. What if a federal mandate demands that all schools must be made up of a student population that has an average API of exactly 600? Testing would be given in 3rd grade, 6th grade, 9th grade, and 12th grade. Transfers would only be permissible in the 4th grade, 7th grade and 10th grade, and those transfers would have to rebalance the API averages in those schools back to 600. (It's cruel, ineffective, and nonsensical to administer standardized tests to kids before 3rd grade. They can't read well enough or sit still and focus long enough to make it worth the effort.) That way, every "Elementary B" school ("Elementary A" being Kindergarten through 3rd grade) would start off with the same average level of test-takers (notice I don't say that they're at the same level as far as actual knowledge or skill... just test-taking), and then the test that they take 3 years later would actually show whether their test-taking improved as a result of 3 years at that school or not (again, this wouldn't necessarily tell us anything about their learning during those 3 years, just their test-taking ability). Likewise for 7th -9th grade "Middle Schools" and 10th through 12th grade "High Schools." Any schools that scored above 600 would have improved their students test taking ability relative to the average improvements across the nation. Lower than 600? Well, that would be bad, wouldn't it?

It still wouldn't tell us much about whether the kids are learning anything, but at least it would be a fair comparison of the schools' test-prep abilities. It's a far cry from assessing actual knowledge, but isn't it better than testing for socio-economic status and race, which is what the tests as they're currently set-up do test for?

- "That's impossible, no one can give more than one hundred percent, by definition that is the most anyone can give."