bargains to kill for

On Black Friday, the day after Thanksgiving, so named because it is the day retailers typically turn to profit for the year, Jdimytai Damour was trampled to death by a bargain-crazy mob that broke through the doors of a Wal-Mart store on Long Island minutes before the 5 a.m. opening.

"By 4:55, with no police officers in sight, the crowd of more than 2,000 had become a rabble, and could be held back no longer. Fists banged and shoulders pressed on the sliding-glass double doors, which bowed in with the weight of the assault. Six to 10 workers inside tried to push back, but it was hopeless."

And later,

"When they were saying they had to leave, that an employee got killed, people were yelling, ‘I’ve been on line since yesterday morning,’ ” Ms. Cribbs told The Associated Press. “They kept shopping."

- The New York Times, November 29, 2008 (1)

I don't know what horrifies me more about this tragedy, that people can trample over another human being without regard, that they can ignore the pleas of his co-workers, or that they could complain when store managers tried to close the store after the murder but before the shoppers could get their bargains. Or simply that people would line up for eight hours in near-freezing temperatures overnight to save a few bucks on things they don't need. Watching refugees in Darfur clamoring around trucks handing out food donations? Understandable. Suburbanites willing to kill to save on a flat screen TV? Criminal.

Instead of using the economic downturn as a time for some much needed reflection on how rampant consumerism has impacted our lives, indeed our collective soul, Americans, like crack addicts on a budget, are going to extremes to get their next fix at a discount. Retailers and advertisers are our dealers, hyping shortages to increase demand. Witless tools of greedy marketers we as a nation have become.

Here's an idea: do without. Really. Job security hasn't been lower in 70 years. Personal debt has never been higher. Doesn't that point to saving? But don't just do it because it's responsible. Do it to re-set your definition of need. Because what is desperately needed now is a new equilibrium. A new normal for what we, as citizens of the world's richest nation, truly need to feel content. Once you have chosen to go without that which you had once deemed necessary, you may begin to look around at all the other things you thought you needed and see it as mere clutter.

I speak from some experience here. Out of necessity, I was forced to pare down my belongings as a Peace Corps Volunteer in Uganda. And I had a lot of belongings. I was 37 when I started my service and had already had well-paying careers in advertising and education. I spent my leisure time perusing Pottery Barn catalogs and Banana Republic stores. This, before I could do it no longer, was a consistent source of entertainment. A new skirt or arm chair brought a sense of freshness and contentment for at least a couple weeks. But the returns were diminishing. The more stuff I got, the more I needed to reach the same level of satisfaction.

Then, I was told I could bring just 70lbs of all that I owned to Uganda for the next two years. I'm not embarrassed to say I was the volunteer who brought the most luggage. Not embarrassed because it serves my point here. If I could get used to less, so can most people. I went from a spacious one bedroom apartment to 200 square feet including my pit latrine and bathing room. Effectively living in a quarter of the space I used to occupy. But I hardly missed it. I didn't miss my TV. I didn't miss my extensive shoe collection. I didn't miss my computer. I had no trouble living within that space and within my means. In many ways, I felt liberated. I was no longer a slave to my possessions. When I returned to the US, I was often surprised and frustrated by the amount of time it took to check my email, manage my finances or shop for groceries. Nevermind the price of an avocado.

I had re-set my sense of normal. When I moved to Jakarta with its lavish malls and my tax-free expat salary, my old ways did not re-emerge. Yes, I bought some clothes to refresh my wardrobe for an office environment, but it was more a task than leisure activity. Instead, I explored my new surroundings, spent time with new friends, traveled, read, and photographed. In fact, it was in Indonesia that I renewed my passion for photography. Don't get me wrong, a cute pair of shoes still brings a smile to my face, but if I already have similar ones, I can pass them up.

So how do you reset your new normal, short of ditching your family and moving to an African village? First of all, I'm not talking about a drastic alteration (for most). I for one would have a hard time parting with my mobile phone. But we can all set a new personal standard for what we need to be content. Here are a few ideas:

• Read this excellent, non-preachy guide (with cartoons!) to reducing your consumerism: Affluenza
• Join (or at least explore) the simplicity movement. Read more here: Voluntary simplicity movement re-emerges and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_living
• Get a fresh perspective: spend a night volunteering at a homeless shelter instead of lining up for deals. This will give you a whole new appreciation for the word need.
• Make a list of the things you really want and then put off buying them for 3, 6 or 12 months (or ever), and I'm talking about a flat screen TV or that third pair of black heels, not health insurance. It may seem painful at first, but you may see over time that you don't miss the items.
• Don't fill your leisure time with consumerism. Pick something you love to do - cycling, writing, photography - and do that instead. Yes, you may have to make some initial investments (don't use it as an excuse to gear up), but in the long run you'll have a much healthier and less expensive hobby than going to the mall.

I hope you will find, like I did, that it's not only easy to pass by a "Sale" sign, but it can actually make you feel freer. And as you find your new normal, appreciate a simpler life with less waste and less impact on the environment. Think of it as an added bonus.

(1) Walmart Employee Trampled to Death

oh happy day

My dear friend Emily thought I went a little off the rails with my last post. Fair enough and she has a pretty wide perspective in this area having grown up under martial law in the Philippines and living in the States since her teens. But really, who could possibly trust this administration after the horrors of the last 8 years? Thankfully, few did. My concern lessened as each major broadcaster posted 800 numbers for voters to call if they faced problems at the polls. The feigned outrage over ACORN voter fraud turned into real outrage over the nefarious acts committed by the Republican Party during the last two presidential elections which gave us, in my opinion, an illegitimate government for the last two terms.

Alas, that is the past. (At least until the next election.) It's been four weeks since Election Day - one for which I came home and campaigned, because how could I not? I have yet to read an account of the momentous day with dry eyes. Jubilation doesn't quite fit my mood. It is more a sense of profound relief and gratitude that our long, national nightmare will finally end.

Relief has turned to a cautious optimism. Can we really restore our constitution? Our rights to privacy, freedom of speech, and due process for all whom we detain? Can we seek a multi-sectoral approach to simultaneously solve our energy, economic, and environmental crises? Can we really be released from the death grip of the Religious Right and lift the ban on stem cell research to give hope back to millions suffering from potentially curable diseases? And lift the Global Gag Rule that prevents non-governmental organizations (NGOs) from even talking about abortion if they receive US funds even if the funds are not used for abortion services but rather for pre-natal care, contraception or medication to prevent mother-to-child AIDS transmission? Can we really hope that the tools for national security include the proactive deployment of diplomacy and aid and that these are not simply incorporated as an afterthought to "win the hearts and minds" of the citizens of countries we have ravaged with our military might or used to force the "values" of a vocal American minority on the desperately needy? Can we restore our standing in the world and once more serve as a beacon of hope and an example of a democracy that not only values human life by forbidding torture, but fully comprehends that torture actually makes everything worse?

Yes, we can.

This President-Elect has stunned me with his foresight at every turn. (And by stunned I wish not to imply that I could not expect this of him, rather that I have come to expect so little of my president over the last eight years and even to grudgingly accept so much acquiescence from the elected officials I have supported in light of the unyielding Conservative grip on our Congress.) The campaign was not only masterful in its success at winning, but in its ability to allow us to cast a new eye on our nation's political map. President Johnson declared the South lost to a generation of Democrats when he signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964. Well, that generation is finally, mercifully over. The Republican Party and its red state versus blue state divisiveness are in retreat. There is, and yet was, little room for meaningful debate, compromise and problem-solving in such a discordant environment. President-elect Obama has set the ground for a new era of political discourse perhaps without knowing just how critical it would become. For how can we solve the daunting challenges of the moment if we are divided?

It is heartbreaking that the prior toxic approach kept us from preventing or mitigating so many of the security and economic blunders of the last eight years that have led to the current meta-crisis, but to imagine a President McCain, architect of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which wrested habeas corpus from our constitutional guarantees, with best chum and rabid deregulator, Lindsey Graham, and foe-to-both-planet-and-animals Palin at the helm! #@+*§!

This is going to take some getting used to. We won. Have to keep reminding myself of this.

In addition to turning our great nation a lovely shade of purple, the Obama campaign also established a meaningful dialogue with its supporters, which the President-elect now seeks to expand to all Americans. Just go to http://www.change.gov/. I have already submitted my thoughts on environmental and healthcare policy and am gearing up for when they ask about foreign policy. The transition sub-teams also put out (admittedly light-on-substance) videos about their policy areas (but, hey, they're trying) and the President-Elect's weekly addresses can be found on youtube and iTunes. Can you even imagine President Bush asking for email advice on global warming? I mean even in a surreal, dream-like sequence?

Indeed it is a new reality. And a new happy day.

take nothing for granted

I don't mean to sound alarmist, but there is a lot going on in the U.S. right now that is being woefully under reported. And a lot of it could impact the upcoming election. As Republicans turn on each other in the final days and Democrats start calling the race over, the rest of us need to think about what it all really comes down to: voting. Here are a few things that may prevent us from doing just that.

1) For the first time since 1807, the President has put boots on the ground inside the United States. This after deploying Blackwater troops to the streets of New Orleans to fight crime in the aftermath of Katrina and expanding his power to commandeer National Guard Troops in 2007. Clearly Mr. Bush is seeking to establish and deploy his own private army within our borders.

Naomi Wolf writes at huffington.com:

The Bush administration has unilaterally decided to defy federal laws that have kept the military off our streets since 1807, almost since the birth of this nation: The John Warner Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 expanded the president's authority to deploy troops within the United States. The people raised a hue and cry -- and this power was then substantially limited by a new provision in the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act. But Bush signaled, with a signing statement, that he would not recognize these new limitations.

And so it came to pass...

On October 1, 2008, President Bush deployed a brigade -- which means three to four thousand warriors -- somewhere in America. We do not know where they are deployed though citizens have informally reported to me having seen military vehicles and troops in Georgia and Alabama. We do know that their official mandate according to the first report is 'crowd control' as well as action in the event of a mass civilian catastrophe. Initial reports described their technology 'module package' as involving Tasers and rubber bullets.

According to Amnesty International, more than 300 people in the United States have died since 2001 as the result of being Tasered by law enforcement authorities. According to the first reports, the mission includes subduing 'unruly individuals.' After an outcry, more recent statements from military spokesmen have backed off from identifying those tasks as being the ones the troops will be charged with. Why worry about the deployment of troops in our nation?

First, the founding generation set a bright line to keep military from policing our streets in 1807 because they knew from their own experience how easily military forces -- King George's -- could subdue civilian society. The First Brigade is Bush's force: they are not answerable to Congress or to the Governors of states: they are answerable to the Commander in Chief... troops (who) must obey the president, even if he asks them to arrest Congress or fire on civilians or attack media outlets. If they do not obey orders, he notes, they face five years in prison.

More information on this development has come out since this first report. The brigade is based in Georgia and is now saying they will not be used in cases of civil unrest, however, ultimately this is the call of the Commander in Chief. Democracy Now! did a well-balanced report on this (here), albeit not reassuring.

Questions remain. Why are these troops on the ground in the US? Don't we already have a National Guard for domestic disasters? A National Guard that is under the command of 50 individual Governors, not one increasingly powerful President? Why is this happening now, as a contentious election approaches? Can we expect to see them at the polls in swing states on Election Day? I don't mean to suggest that blood will be shed, but surely there exists the potential to scale up the kind of voter intimidation we saw in Florida in 2000 where, among other things, police checkpoints were set up on the roads to polling places in districts with high minority populations under the pretense of looking for citizens with outstanding parking violations.

2) Journalists and protesters are being intimidated at levels not seen since the 1960s. For instance, did you know that eight young Americans have been charged as 'terrorists' under the Minnesota Patriot act after being arrested at the Republican National Convention in St. Louis? They are now known as the RNC 8. Did you also know about the mass arrests and police brutality of 200 peaceful protesters and 40 journalists, including two ABC producers, at the RNC where where the RNC 8 were arrested? Arrested by police officers trained and armed with federal dollars for this occasion and with federal dollars to cover any lawsuits that may arise from their conduct? No? Maybe because the police confiscated all the video, except this, which was buried in the ground to prevent confiscation:



3) Elected officials are also being intimidated. Rep. Brad Sherman stated on the floor of the House that if the banker bailout bill was not passed martial law would be declared in America.



4) The candidate aligned with the party of the president is making extreme accusations that community organization group Acorn, which has mishandled some of its voter registration forms, is "now on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy," a call that distracts citizens from the real story - systematic and systemic suppression of Democratic votes since 2000. Read here for more.

Why should we care about any of this, you might reasonably ask, since George W. Bush will step down as President in a mere 3 months? Because there is still an election and a peaceful transfer of power to be had.

The only way to ensure none of this highly concerning activity results in a disruption of our electoral process is for Senator Obama to win by overwhelming and indisputable margins. This means getting everyone you know out to the polls to support Obama and making sure every vote counts. Don't listen to the pundits who say this race is over. After Florida 2000, Ohio 2004 and in light of the above events, we can't take anything for granted!

Here's what you can do:

1) Before you vote, download and read the comic book at www.stealbackyourvote.org which includes 7 steps to make sure your vote is counted; preview the movie while you're there.

2) VOTE (early if you can)

3) Volunteer to monitor polls in Democratic districts, especially those in minority neighborhoods.


ORGANIZE. VOTE. WIN.


More from Naomi Wolf:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/ten-steps-to-close-down-a_b_46695.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/the-battle-plan-iii-deplo_b_133662.html

up is the new down

When referring to Obama's tax policy, Sarah Palin said in an interview with CNN:

"I'm not going to call him a socialist, but as 'Joe the Plumber' has said, it looks like socialism to him," she said of Joe "the plumber" Wurzelbacher.

The GOP ticket and their supporters have invoked Joe the Plumber numerous times ever since the Ohio man confronted Obama about his tax policy in an impromptu campaign moment.

Palin said Wurzelbacher is representative of "Jane the engineer and Molly the dental hygienist and Chuck the teacher."

Where do I start?

1) According to the ever reliable Wikipedia, "Economically, socialism denotes an economic system of state ownership and / or worker ownership of the means of production and distribution."

How exactly is a 3% increase on the top tax bracket a move toward state and/or worker ownership of the means of production and distribution? Do they consider Bill Clinton a socialist? Because this is the very plan he implemented in the 1990s, the decade that left us with surpluses as far as the eye could see.

2) Does she really believe that Jane the engineer and Molly the dental hygienist and Chuck the teacher are making more than $250,000 a year? Can you say "out of touch"?

3) Let's assume Joe the Plumber really was a licensed plumber, who really was seeking "to buy a company that makes" (his words) up to $280,000 per year (none of which turns out to be true). Under Obama's tax plan, Joe would see tax breaks not tax increases.

Obama's plan is to restore Bill Clinton's tax on people making $250,000 per year in personal income not in gross business receipts. Assuming Joe's new company has expenses and investments exceeding $29,999 per year, it is safe to assume Joe will not yield a personal income higher than $250,000. Therefore, he would see no tax increase under Obama's plan and would see a tax cut if he makes less than $250,000. In addition, as a small business owner, he would receive a 50% tax credit for each employee's healthcare costs and would pay no capital gains tax on business investments.

Lastly, and most importantly, his customer base would also see personal income tax breaks making them more able to afford his services.

The real Joe Wurzelbacher, who makes closer to $40,000 per year would net a personal income tax break under Obama that's three to seven times larger the one he would net under McCain.

So how is it that Sarah Palin is still holding up Joe the Plumber as an example of the "real American" the McCain/Palin campaign is trying to help? You got me. But then this is the same woman who when found to have abused her power by violating the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act said, "I'm very, very pleased to be cleared of any legal wrongdoing, any hint of any kind of unethical activity there."

Up is indeed the new down in Palin World.

nobody does it better

couldn't have said it better myself

To the (New York Times) Editor:

Fair taxation isn’t about “redistributing the wealth” — it’s about giving back to the great country that gave you the opportunity to benefit so greatly.

It’s not about taking money from “Joe the Plumber.” It’s about making sure that “Joe’s Mega-Plumbing Incorporated” gives back to the country and the people who gave him:

• Roads and bridges for his trucks to roll on.
• Support for research for his latest plumbing equipment.
• Public education so he can have a well-trained work force.
• Markets so he can raise capital.
• Police and firefighters so his business is protected.
• Health care so the employees who helped him build his business can stay on the job.
• Freedom so that he can build his business creatively.

If “Joe” has been able to become wealthy because of the bounty of America, then he should pay his fair share back to America — that is patriotic.

Daryl Altman
Lynbrook, N.Y., Oct. 16, 2008

i want my country back!

John McCain and Sarah Palin desperately want us to see the danger in electing a risky, liberal, unknown Democrat as our next President. Someone who doesn't see the world as they see it. Someone who is so different from "us" that he can't be trusted. McCain went off the rails last night with his divisive politics in the last (thank God) presidential debate by trying to link Obama to Acorn, accusing Acorn, and by association Obama, as "now on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy." Seriously? A network of community organizations working to enfranchise poor people who are predominately minorities and first generation Americans by helping them get housing and voting rights? Who exactly is trying to undermine our democracy, Mr. McCain?

What happened to my America? My land of opportunity? What's happening to our huddled masses yearning to breathe free?

I have lived in the Northeast, the West and in the South. I have lived in Uganda, Indonesia, and France. And if there is one thing I have learned over and over and over again is that there is far more that unites us than divides us. People are people all over the world. And I am sick to death of the Republican Party trying to tell me otherwise.

From 1986 to 1999 I traveled extensively throughout the South, even living in New Orleans for a few months. But things changed after 2000. Life took me in a new direction, mostly overseas, but politics, too, took me away. We were no longer a rich, diverse country full of vibrant stories and varied experiences. We were red states and blue states, liberal coasts and a conservative South and heartland. We were divided by our different backgrounds, no longer united by love of our country and what it stood for.

In my college and post college days, the South was the land of Athens, Georgia, REM and the B-52s, The Indigo Girls' sweet ode Southland in the Springtime, Flannery O'Connor's Everything that Rises Must Converge, Zora Neale Hurston's Their Eyes Were Watching God, and Alice Walker's everything. It was muffalettas, The Maple Street Book Shop and the Neville Brothers at Tipitina's in New Orleans. It was the juicest fried chicken at Mrs. Wilkes Dining Room in Savannah. It was K.T. Oslin and Lyle Lovett, and Gordon Parks's gorgeous photographs at the Museum of Fine Arts in Houston. It was my first Krispy Kreme donut, hot off the presses in North Carolina, and the mist that rose up and over the Habitat houses we were building in the Appalachian hills of Pikeville, Kentucky. It was flying over the New River in West Virginia with eighty-five-year old Five Dollar Frank, his one-engine Cessna, his two hearing aids, and my terrified sister. In 1986, I fell in love with the South. In 2000, we broke up.

In 2005, deep into the Bush and Karl Rove years, I drove with my sister and brother-in-law from Washington, DC to Hilton Head, South Carolina. Stopping at a roadside restaurant in North Carolina, my brother-in-law declared somewhat ominously, "this is Bush Country." At once, I felt dread that we would be exposed for the Northeast Liberals we were but also an overwhelming sense of loss. Because I once knew, even just a little, but since lost a place that holds so much magic and mystery, memories of struggle and despair from the Civil War to the Civil Rights Movement, and yet also a persistent sense of hope and renewal. A place so rich with history, creativity, culture, and beauty it can leave you breathless.

But a place that didn't seem to want my blue self around anymore.

I miss my country. I want my country back. Not just the blue states, but the purple ones and yes, the red ones, too. I want the rugged coastlines of the Northwest and the raucous fun of New Orleans. I want the gentile and rhythmic life of Savannah and the Low Country. I want New York City jazz and Nashville, Tennessee country; Seattle, Washington mountain grandeur and small town Minnesota warmth. And I want to be accepted in all of these places as simply a fellow American.

I want this:

There is not a liberal America and a conservative America — there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America — there’s the United States of America.

The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I’ve got news for them, too:

We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don’t like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the Red States.

We coach Little League in the Blue States and yes, we’ve got some gay friends in the Red States.

There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq.

We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.

-Barack Obama, 2004

I want my country back.

from the maelstrom, a way forward?

Conservatives are abandoning the increasingly reckless McCain/Palin ticket with, well, reckless abandon. George Will, David Brooks, Kathleen Parker, David Frum, Christopher Buckley (son of conservative icon William F. Buckley), among others, have all come out in recent weeks to denounce the selection of Sarah Palin as McCain's running mate and/or the recent ugly attacks on Senator Obama. A battle between the social conservatives and intellectual conservatives threatens to divide the Republican Party in the runup to November 4.

In the midst of their own maelstrom, seeing the writing on the wall, many conservatives are now trying to panic voters with premonitions that their (their as in the conservatives') worst fear is about to be realized - socialism is at the gates! Democrats will bring big government! Spending! Higher Taxes! The New Deal 2.0 is upon us! With their dying gasp, and collapsing under the weight of the largest expansion of government in the last forty years (brought to us by a Republican President), they are warning us against evil, big government Democrats.

Deep breath, everyone (if you still can, that is). In the mind of at least this progressive, I have no desire to nationalize our country's banks. At least not permanently. As an omnivore, I am not opposed to hunting or gun-owning hunters. If a woman can't decide after six months (and her health, including mental, is not in jeopardy), I think she should go ahead and have the kid. I believe in free and fair trade and in competition - in business and in schools. I want an efficient government that doesn't interfere with my private life. I have been known to go to church.

I am in favor of short-term government spending to stimulate the economy, but I much prefer a vibrant, market-based economy that yields tax revenues through good jobs at good wages. I want universal healthcare, but I prefer it be supplied by the private sector through fair and transparent competition.

Surely, we can find some common ground.

We have all lived through (or heard about) the swing from an overregulated, overtaxed society (remember rotary dial telephones?) to the current crisis of deregulation, stagnant wages for the middle class and the moral hazzard of golden parachutes. We have all learned lessons.

Like most things, think feminism or free trade, the pendulum swings wildly from one end (no suffrage, chastity belts/Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act) to the other (women need men like fish need bicycles/massive plant closings) before settling in the moderate middle.

I suspect the same will occur with fair banking regulations and universal healthcare. And I believe Senator Obama is just the man to make that happen.

Obama is, at heart, a pragmatist. A man who relies on experts and research, but also on first hand accounts from the people affected. He is not penned in by ideology, which is why many liberals find him frustrating and many conservatives can't launch an effective attack against him.

And, contrary to McCain's attacks, he can take on his own party. After all, he took down the lions of the modern Democratic Party - Hillary and Bill Clinton.

Maybe we can finally look back together, see what has worked and what has not, and then look to the future to make a way forward.

lesson learned?

This is a very interesting article to re-read in light of recent events:
Confronting Ghosts of 2000 in South Carolina , by Jennifer Steinhauer, New York Times, Octboer 19, 2007

In that fateful primary election, Senator McCain decided to go negative against then Governor Bush in response to the gutter level attacks he was under. The strategy backfired, as it has this time. But interestingly, this time McCain was not provoked to go negative. He was just losing. So what did he really learn in South Carolina?

if you want to live like a republican, vote democrat

Which political party has been better for American pocketbooks and capitalism as a whole? Here’s an experiment.

going cannibal

John McCain wants you to be afraid of Barack Obama, but McCain's the one who's scaring me these days by scapegoating two advocacy organizations - the Annenberg Foundation and ACORN - to score cheap political points.

Okay, ACORN has raised the ire of conservatives as many organizations seeking to politically empower the poor do. Read here to understand why the McCain campaign is attacking them (hint: to set the stage to contest the Nov 4 outcome). And here and here for ACORN's response (hint: McCain's attack is part of the same Republican voter suppression effort that led to the ousting of former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Karl Rove for their role in the illegal firing of seven US Attorneys).

But Annenburg?? McCain has a web ad up claiming that "Ayers and Obama ran a radical education foundation together" referring to the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.

The Annenberg Foundation has played a vital role in education reform efforts since 1989. I worked alongside them in Philadelphia in 1999 and 2000 while my organization and theirs tried to tackle the dismal situation in Philadelphia Public Schools. They were and are highly respected in the field for their generously funded and reform-minded projects.

Here's what they say on their website about the Annenberg Challenge grants that funded 18 projects around the country, including the one in Chicago:

"Announced in December 1993 at the White House (my emphasis), Ambassador Walter H. Annenberg's $500 million 'Challenge to the Nation' became the largest public/private endeavor in U.S. history dedicated to improving public schools.

Eighteen locally designed Challenge projects operated in 35 states, funding 2,400 public schools that served more than 1.5 million students and 80,000 teachers. Over 1,600 businesses, foundations, colleges, and universities, and individuals contributed $600 million in private matching funds.

Each Challenge project fit unique local conditions and was planned collaboratively by educators, foundation officers, and community, civic, and business leaders."

Hardly the stuff of radicalism and not even considered left-wing. In fact, Founder Walter Annenberg was a lifelong Republican and former ambassador to the United Kingdom under President Richard Nixon. His widow, Leonore, has endorsed McCain and contributed the maximum donation allowed to his presidential bid. She is a MAJOR donor to the Republican Party and its candidates. See here for details.

PolitiFact, a non-partisan fact checking organization, gave McCain's claim that the Chicago Annenberg Challenge was a radical foundation run by Obama and Bill Ayers a "Pants on Fire" rating, its worst. Read here for more.

As McCain's campaign goes from carnivorous to cannibalistic (first dismissing Republican pundits who've come out against Palin as "Georgetown cocktail party" people and now attacking Republican philanthropists), we can hope that this will come back to bite him. But I'm somewhat horrified to note that Obama slipped in the polls last week amidst the barrage of attacks from McCain/Palin.

Democrats can't take this election for granted and must stand up to the slander and voter intimidation tactics or 2008 will be Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004 all over again. Please get the word out so we can set the record straight!

oh dear

"After I whip his you-know-what in this debate..."

- John McCain, October 12, 2008

More scary stuff here.

more of the same

A woman stood up at a McCain town hall meeting, held at Lakeville South High School in a far suburb of Minneapolis, and told Mr. McCain that she could not trust Mr. Obama because he was an “Arab.”

Mr. McCain replied: “No, ma’am, he’s a decent family man, citizen who I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues. And that’s what this campaign is all about.” At that, the crowd applauded.

- New York Times, October 10, 2008

So the good news is that McCain is backing away from the despicable tone his campaign has set in the past week. But the bad news is that in doing so he has chosen to juxtapose being a decent family man and citizen with being an Arab.

Was it an intentional slur? Probably not. But what does it say about the man that his subconscious misses the obvious negative stereotype in her question? McCain's answer brushes right past it, essentially accepting the premise that to call Obama an Arab is to associate him with terrorists.

There are between 350 and 422 million Arabs in the world, with 1.4 million people of Arab descent living in the United States. I guess it's safe to say the McCain/Palin ticket is not counting on this voting block, although half of registered Arab-Americans are Republicans. (1)

But is it really necessary that McCain continue the cultural warfare between Arabs and Muslims (note to McCain supporters - these terms are not interchangeable) and the mythical group some people like to call "regular Americans"?

Here are a few "regular Americans" McCain's supporters may be surprised to learn are Arab-Americans:

Jerry Seinfeld, (Syrian Mother, Jewish) Golden Globe- and Emmy Award-winning comedian

F. Murray Abraham, Hollywood actor and Oscar winner for the film "Amadeus" (Syrian father)

Jamie Farr, (Lebanese) Hollywood actor especially famous for his role as Klinger in the TV series "M*A*S*H"

Steve Jobs, co-founder of Apple Inc. (Syrian father)

Danny Thomas, (Lebanese) actor and his daughter Marlo Thomas, actress

George J. Mitchell, (Lebanese) U.S. Senator from Maine, Senate Majority Leader

John H. Sununu, (Lebanese/Palestinian) Governor of New Hampshire and White House Chief of Staff under George H. W. Bush

Spencer Abraham, (Lebanese) Senator from Michigan and Secretary of Energy under George W. Bush

Helen Thomas, (Lebanese) reporter, columnist and White House correspondent

Sammy Hagar, (Lebanese), rock musician

Chris Kattan, (Iraqi Jewish father), comedian and actor, best known for his work on Saturday Night Live

Doug Flutie, (Lebanese) NFL Player


Here's one who happens not to be:

Barack Obama

Not that it matters.


(1)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_American

that one

Love this. From The NY Times today.

my friends, enough already

Just a few quick notes and links here related to last night's debate and the recent, ugly turn the McCain/Palin campaign has taken.

In the debate, once again, Senator McCain called for a spending freeze to deal with our current economic crisis. Let me be clear - the worst thing the government can do right now is to freeze spending. When no one is spending - government, individual citizens and businesses - jobs disappear, businesses collapse, families go bankrupt, governments are starved of tax revenues, unemployment and Medicare expenditures sky rocket creating huge deficits... am I making myself clear?

Consumers, sorry, citizens (still stuck in Bushspeak) were told to go shopping after 9/11 to shore up our economy, and look where it got us - mortgages we couldn't afford and the highest credit card debt ever recorded, nearly a trillion dollars(1). We aren't likely to fall for that line again, and if consumers aren't buying, businesses won't spend. So guess who's left? Either way, we're going to have deficits - with spending freezes that lead to lower tax revenues and raise welfare outflows or through job creation programs and healthcare reform that alleviates financial pressure on citizens and businesses. Only Obama's plan has a light at the end of the tunnel.

And did anyone catch this nonsensical exchange:

BROKAW: The three -- health care, energy, and entitlement reform: Social Security and Medicare. In what order would you put them in terms of priorities?

MCCAIN: I think you can work on all three at once, Tom. I think it's very important that we reform our entitlement programs.

My friends, we are not going to be able to provide the same benefit for present-day workers that we are going -- that present-day retirees have today. We're going to have to sit down across the table, Republican and Democrat, as we did in 1983 between Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill.

I know how to do that. I have a clear record of reaching across the aisle, whether it be Joe Lieberman or Russ Feingold or Ted Kennedy or others. That's my clear record.

We can work on nuclear power plants. Build a whole bunch of them, create millions of new jobs. We have to have all of the above, alternative fuels, wind, tide, solar, natural gas, clean coal technology. All of these things we can do as Americans and we can take on this mission and we can overcome it.

My friends, some of this $700 billion ends up in the hands of terrorist organizations.

As far as health care is concerned, obviously, everyone is struggling to make sure that they can afford their premiums and that they can have affordable and available health care. That's the next issue.

But we can do them all at once. There's no -- and we have to do them all at once. All three you mentioned are compelling national security requirements.

What $700 billion? Going to terrorists? Reagan and Tip O'Neill? Does anyone under 50 know what he's talking about? And by the way, we are not even going to get the Social Security benefit that seniors get today - the one that makes them choose between medicine and food?

Now, about the campaigning of late. Has anyone else noticed that the McCain/Palin campaign is going after the white racist vote? Thankfully, yes. Three takes on it:

John Stewart on how McCain/Palin is inciting angry mobs

Roland Martin of CNN on the euphamisms Joe Six-Pack, Soccer Mom, NASCAR Dad, and Small Town America

The New York Times on how Palin's demagoguery has elicited some frightening, intolerable responses

(1) http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/04/plastic_problems.html

what don't they understand?

As a photography student at New York University, I learned of the Farm Security Administration (FSA) and its cousin under FDR's New Deal, the Works Progress Administration (WPA). The FSA is famous for its small but highly influential photography program that ran from 1935-44 and realistically portrayed the challenges of rural poverty. It garnered support not only for its own projects but no doubt for other major New Deal projects such as the Tennessee Valley Authority which built dams to simultaneously provide jobs and electricity to the very poor in southeastern states. Many of the most famous Depression-era photographers were fostered by the FSA project, including Dorothea Lange, Gordon Parks, and Walker Evans. You may recall seeing some of their works:




Through the FSA, I learned of the Works Project Administration, established by President Roosevelt in 1935, which provided jobs and income to the unemployed during the Great Depression. The program built many public buildings, projects and roads and operated large arts, drama, media and literacy projects. It fed children and redistributed food, clothing and housing(2). On a personal note, nothing has ever tied together so neatly my love of photography and passion for progressive social policy as the FSA, which is why I share the connection and the images here.

But onto my point. Senator Obama has been criticized of late for being anything from cautious to absent (depending on your political leanings) in the current economic debate because he has yet to put forth a plan to deal with the crisis.

This is baffling to me, because he does have a plan and he's been talking about it since at least February 13 and most succinctly here. Five core underpinnings define that plan:

1. A National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank to rebuild our crumbling roads and bridges and create jobs
2. Investments in new energy technology, in part to create jobs
3. Near-universal healthcare to alleviate expenses for families and businesses
4. Closing the gap between the middle and upper classes with a progressive tax policy to put purchasing power back in the hands of the middle class
5. Investments in education for future growth

The first two proposals create jobs through government works projects and incentives to the private sector. And jobs are what we need right now. Obama's healthcare plan would alleviate the crushing cost of healthcare for families and businesses. These costs prevent families from investing in education or debt reduction and diminish businesses' ability to invest in new technologies or compete globally. Closing the gap between rich and middle to lower income people through progressive tax policy puts real purchasing power back in the hands of the spending classes versus the savings class (see my last post), creating demand for goods and services, which in turn creates more jobs. And investments in education keep us competitive globally going forward.

This plan mirrors the economic policies of twentieth-century British economist John Maynard Keynes that FDR employed as he wrestled to get the US out of the Great Depression. The National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank (NIRB) is a modern day WPA using government spending to provide much needed jobs and to complete public works which in turn yield improved infrastructure that businesses can use to transport goods more cheaply.

New jobs mean more money in the pockets of Americans, which stimulates demand, which leads to more business investment, which in turn creates more jobs, and so on. Keynes called this a multiplier effect. He argued that government spending should be used in times of recession in order to counteract an economy on a downward spiral and provide more long-term economic stability. In other words, when individuals and business stop spending for fear of a recession, which tends only to exacerbate or fulfill the expectation of that recession, then demand decreases and leads to less business investment, which leads to fewer jobs, then less consumer spending and so forth. It is at this point that only government can step in and reverse the economic freefall by creating a multiplier effect through investments until the economy is once again self-sustaining.

As for Obama's healthcare plan and tax policy which favor the middle and lower class, Keynes believed that fiscal policy should be directed towards the lower-income segment of the population, because that segment is more likely to spend the money, contributing to demand, than to save it(3). As I wrote in my last post, FDR's Federal Reserve Chief blamed much of the depression on a concentration of wealth in the upper class.

In March 2007, Senator Obama warned of the housing crisis and a year later in a speech in Manhattan he called for investment banks, mortgage brokers and hedge funds to be regulated much as commercial banks are, the streamlining of overlapping regulatory agencies, and the creation of a commission to monitor threats to the financial system and report to the White House and Congress - six months and several bank failures before John McCain called for the same types of reform(4).

Jobs creation through public works and new energy investments, closing the gap between rich and poor through progressive tax policy and healthcare reform, tighter banking regulations, improved business environment through improved infrastructure and lower healthcare costs - in short, a plan that draws on what's gotten us out of tough economic times before... what don't the pundits understand?

Maybe they wanted Obama to say something new? But Senator Obama's economic plan has always addressed the current crisis, because unlike most pundits, he's seen it coming all along. Maybe they just need to catch up with him.


(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farm_Security_Administration
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_Progress_Administration
(3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics
(4) http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/...

reading between the doggones, betchas, and bless yer hearts

The problem with politicians who believe that government can't possibly work for the people is that when they take office they do everything they can to fulfill that prophecy. Just think Katrina.

So when Sarah Palin said on Thursday evening in her debate with Senator Biden, "Patriotic is saying, government, you know, you're not always the solution. In fact, too often you're the problem," it sent chills down my spine. Because if we look back at the last three Republican administrations and a possible McCain/Palin administration, she's right.

Steven Labaton writes in today's New York Times about a decision taken by the Securities and Exchange Commission in 2004, under pressure from top investment banks (Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs), to relax regulations on debt to capital ratios which would allow those same banks to 'leverage up' and free up billions of dollars to invest in mortgage-backed securities, credit default swaps and other complex derivatives, and that they be allowed to self-regulate these activities. Ya know, get government out of the way.

When have we heard this before? Ah yes, 1999. As governor of Texas, George W. Bush signed a law enabling most major industrial polluters to audit their own pollution records, provided they reported them, in exchange for which there would be absolute protection from public disclosure. He also championed tort reform which made it more difficult for individual citizens to sue these companies.(1)

In the end, investment banks collapsed under the weight of their own debt and Texas continued to lead the nation in air pollution volume.

Whether it's through deregulation, lax oversight, incompetent agency managers, or managers who lobbied for the very industries they now regulate, the Bush Administration followed the pattern set in Texas, and has, in its own circular logic, proven the theory of ineffective government.

Now, in the bitterest of ironies, it is the government that is called on to bail out one of the most deregulated and unsupervised industries. And thanks to Bush, the effort is lead by one of the bank chiefs who pressured the SEC to relax the rules on capital holdings in the first place, Treasury Secretary and former Goldman Sachs CEO, Henry Paulson. And no one believes he can do it well, because no one trusts the government to do anything right.

So where do we go from here?

We can follow Sarah Palin's lead, if we believe government is never the solution. If we want to continue to bail out reckless industry titans, watch our social security go the way of our 401(k)s through privatization, our kids' toys continue to be coated in lead paint, our school cafeterias continue to receive the poorest quality meats from our nation's grossly under-supervised meat processing plants; if we want to no longer trust the drinking water that comes out of our taps or trust that the bridges we drive over won't collapse, by all means, we should vote for the ticket that doesn't believe that government matters.

In a more amusing irony, Governor Palin said in her closing statement, "It was Ronald Reagan who said that freedom is always just one generation away from extinction. We... have to fight for it and protect it, ... or we're going to find ourselves spending our sunset years telling our children and our children's children about a time in America, back in the day, when men and women were free."

Ronald Reagan was warning against the socialist threat of Medicare, a government program now widely considered to be, along with Social Security, the third rail of government.(2) Why? Because they provide real solutions for real Americans.

(1) www.texasobserver.org/article.php?aid=670 and www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2002/jun/16/features.magazine57
(2) www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/opinion/04herbert.html?ref=opinion

it's deja vu all over again... or is it?

Marriner S. Eccles, who served as Franklin D. Roosevelt's Chairman of the Federal Reserve from November 1934 to February 1948, detailed what he believed caused the Depression in his memoirs, Beckoning Frontiers:

As mass production has to be accompanied by mass consumption, mass consumption, in turn, implies a distribution of wealth to provide men with buying power equal to the amount of goods and services offered by the nation's economic machinery.

Instead of achieving that kind of distribution, a giant suction pump had by 1929-30 drawn into a few hands an increasing portion of currently produced wealth. This served them as capital accumulations. But by taking purchasing power out of the hands of mass consumers, the savers denied to themselves the kind of effective demand for their products that would justify a reinvestment of their capital accumulations in new plants. In consequence, as in a poker game where the chips were concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, the other fellows could stay in the game only by borrowing. When their credit ran out, the game stopped.

That is what happened to us in the twenties.

That's what's happening to us now with tax policies that distribute more wealth to the rich, a credit-fueled housing boom (now gone bust), and inflation in commodities such as eggs and gas that disproportionately takes wealth away from those in the lower income brackets.

Robert Reich, Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton, wrote in February of this year:

We're sliding into recession, or worse, and Washington is turning to the normal remedies for economic downturns. But the normal remedies are not likely to work this time, because this isn’t a normal downturn.

The problem lies deeper. It is the culmination of three decades during which American consumers have spent beyond their means. That era is now coming to an end. Consumers have run out of ways to keep the spending binge going.

And...

The underlying problem has been building for decades. America’s median hourly wage is barely higher than it was 35 years ago, adjusted for inflation. The income of a man in his 30s is now 12 percent below that of a man his age three decades ago. Most of what’s been earned in America since then has gone to the richest 5 percent.

Yet the rich devote a smaller percentage of their earnings to buying things than the rest of us because, after all, they’re rich. They already have most of what they want. Instead of buying, and thus stimulating the American economy, the rich are more likely to invest their earnings wherever around the world they can get the highest return. (More here.)

Just what Eccles attributed the Great Depression to - more money to the wealthy and less to the middle class. Middle class buying power based on credit and not real assets. And remember all that capital sloshing around from my last post that's wreaking havoc with our financial system? That's what the rich are doing with their excess wealth.

Now, all this is not to say that we are necessarily headed for another depression. In fact this time, we may actually get a do-over. First, as noted earlier, we have the chance, if Congress can get its act together, to flood the market with capital and ease the credit crunch. (By the way, as of September 30, lending rates between banks have hit and all-time high.)

Second, we can elect Barack Obama as our next president and put the middle class back on firmer ground. Eccles went on to write:

Had there been a better distribution of the current income from the national product -- in other words, had there been less savings by business and the higher-income groups and more income in the lower groups -- we should have had far greater stability in our economy. Had the six billion dollars, for instance, that were loaned by corporations and wealthy individuals for stock-market speculation been distributed to the public as lower prices or higher wages and with less profits to the corporations and the well-to-do, it would have prevented or greatly moderated the economic collapse that began at the end of 1929.

Obama's tax plan does just what Eccles recommends by giving tax breaks to the middle class and recinding the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy - that disastrous policy McCain supports. See for yourself:

(from The Washington Post)

A healthy middle class means a healthy America.

stem the bleeding, stabilize the patient

Like most people, I am trying to get my head around this economic crisis. I get the credit squeeze and its potential effect on ordinary Americans. I get the partisan politics in Washington. I don't like it but I get it. There's a lot on the line with an election 35 days away and there's a lot of contention and frustration about how we got into this mess in the first place and, therefore, how to fix it.

But here's what I'm struggling to grasp: if we don't pass the bailout plan, is this the beginning of the next Great Depression? How is this situation like that one? How is it not? Like any 21st century citizen would do (except maybe John McCain), I Wiki'ed it. Sadly, I found, history is not necessarily our teacher:

Scholars have not agreed on the exact causes (of the Great Depression) and their relative importance. The search for causes is closely connected to the question of how to avoid a future depression, and so the political and policy viewpoints of scholars are mixed into the analysis of historic events eight decades ago. The (overriding) question is whether it was largely a failure on the part of free markets or largely a failure on the part of governments to curtail widespread bank failures, the resulting panics, and reduction in the money supply. Those who believe in a large role for governments in the economy believe it was mostly a failure of the free markets and those who believe in free markets believe it was mostly a failure of government that compounded the problem(1).

This provided some insight but didn't make me feel better:

Debt is seen as one of the causes of the Great Depression, particularly in the United States. Macroeconomists including Ben Bernanke, the current chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank, have revived the debt-deflation view of the Great Depression: in the 1920s, American consumers and businesses relied on cheap credit, the former to purchase consumer goods such as automobiles and furniture, and the latter for capital investment to increase production. This fueled strong short-term growth but created consumer and commercial debt. People and businesses who were deeply in debt when price deflation occurred or demand for their product decreased often risked default.

Isn’t this what’s happening in the housing market? There's a school of thought that says, "(a) key cause of the Depression was the expansion of the money supply in the 1920s that led to an unsustainable credit-driven boom." David Brook's writes today in The New York Times, "We’re living in an age when a vast excess of capital sloshes around the world fueling cycles of bubble and bust. When the capital floods into a sector or economy, it washes away sober business practices, and habits of discipline and self-denial. Then the money managers panic and it sloshes out, punishing the just and unjust alike." So the money sloshed into the housing market creating a credit-driven boom and now it's sloshed out. Okay, I'm catching on.

The good news is that it seems we have learned one important lesson from the Great Depression - that closing ranks (e.g., tightening money supplies or limiting trade) doesn't work, as most people agree on one thing - the market needs a massive injection of capital to offset the slosh-out, as it were. Which essentially means that we agree that not providing the necessary capital would lead to a serious downward spiral. Free market types would just prefer that capital come from the private sector versus the US taxpayers - a commendable viewpoint, but hey, there's a kink in the IV line and that private capital ain't flowing!

Whatever you see as the underlying cause or the fix, think of the bailout as patient stabilization at the scene of an accident. It's a bandaid to stem the bleeding, followed by a bumpy ride, until the surgeons can more fully assess and address the problem. And even then, it's a wait and see game until the patient is on his feet again, with some tinkering to get the meds right or fight off infection.

Maybe after this, we'll all think a lot more about preventative care.


(1)All references, except where noted, are from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression

holy shit

why the pundits lost the match... again

Saturday morning, Maureen Dowd lamented, "(Obama) willfully refuses to accept what debates are about. It’s not a lecture hall; it’s a joust." John Dickerson of Slate opined, "I can imagine Obama fans were frustrated their man didn't throw a few big punches." The sports analogies continued, "There were no knockout blows in the first presidential debate" bemoaned David Broder at the Washington Post.

The blows, the homeruns, the slam dunks may well resonate with first-stringers on the red or blue teams, but they're not the candidates' audience right now. It's the swing voters, stupid. You remember them, the ones who are tired of the endless bickering, the us vs. them? The ones looking for some real bipartisan problem-solving, not more left hooks and upper cuts? They're looking for civility, and yes, from time to time, for someone who agrees with his opponent's point-of-view or at least sees it. To them, and to me, Senator Obama won the first presidential debate hands down.

Here's what one New York Times blogger had to say about John McCain's performance, "Last night, he was condescending, arrogant, and childish. He has a lot of experience but he didn’t act Presidential. As a regular, white working stiff, I put a lot of stock in how someone treats another person. McCain was rude and offensive and acted like someone who takes his toys home if you disagree with him. I was an undecided Independent until last night. . . " It seems continually calling your opponent inexperienced and naive when he didn't sound inexperienced and naive backfired.

In the CBS poll of uncommitted voters who watched the debate 39% said Obama won, versus 24% for McCain, with the remainder calling it a tie. (Uncommitted voters may have a preference for one candidate but could change their minds.) The poll also indicated that while both candidates benefited from their performances, 46% said their opinion of Obama improved, while only 32% said the same of McCain. And tellingly, 21% had a lower opinion of McCain following the debate versus just 8% for Obama.

Women polled by CNN overwhelmingly chose Obama as the winner, 59%to 31%. That's because, Dowd aside, most women don't respond to the incessant sports analogy framework - horse races, boxing matches, mud wrestling - the presidential race is pinned into but rather merely tolerate it. And our tolerance is stretched with commentaries like Broder's, "Whether viewers caught the verbal and body-language signs that Obama seemed to accept McCain as the alpha male on the stage in Mississippi, I do not know." Seriously? Is this a contest for top gladiator or top statesman? I'm in it for the latter, and again Obama won in this category.

He was clearly in command of his facts with a depth and understanding of the issues that goes beyond the memorized soundbite. Both candidates outlined their positions and contested the other's. The lack of barbs and jabs in my book meant viewers could focus on serious issues discussed by serious candidates and not on the usually chicanery.

That seems to have worked in Obama's favor. Fully two-thirds of those in the CBS poll walked away believing they knew what both candidates would do as president - double the number that walked in - and 60% now believe Obama is prepared to be president, up from 44% before the debate. McCain, who actually lost a point here, but still ended up with 78%, did not have to clear this hurdle. His was on the economy and following the debate he trailed Obama by 24 points on whether voters believe he would make the right decisions about the economy.

One last word about political strategy and the drubbing President Clinton took in the media this week over his praising of Senator McCain: again, let's try to remember the audience. Uncommitted voters see value in both candidates. The practice of chiding one to gain points for the other may work well with the partisan crowd, but it tends to alienate the undecideds. Clinton, in the role of elder statesman, praised McCain but steadfastly sided with Obama. Given that Clinton is widely considered the best politician of his generation, and Obama, that first-term senator with a funny name who is currently ahead in the polls, is giving him a run for his money on that title, maybe we should trust that these guys are on to something.

governor palin, you are no Hillary Clinton

My transition to supporting Senator Obama has happened in three stages:

Stage One: a reluctant attempt to fulfill a promise I made to myself and my Obama-supporting friends. This stage was accompanied by much sighing and thoughts of, "Okay, at least he's not McCain."

Stage Two: a cathartic re-mourning for my candidate after her speech and floor actions at the DNC, followed by an emotional release. Stage Two was characterized by some misty moments, but a sense of relief that she wanted me to support Obama. (Shoot me. I'm a girl.)

Stage Three: Sarah Palin. Are you kidding me? I sent my first donation to the Obama campaign immediately following her speech at the Republican National Convention.

My immediate, visceral reaction to the announcement of Governor Palin as Senator McCain's running mate was, "he's pandering to women voters." Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that had Obama chosen Clinton as his running mate, McCain would have chosen a white man to counteract a culturally progressive ticket?

Rest assured, my Obama-loving friends, I'm not one of those Hillary supporters who believed Obama would or should have picked Clinton. Get real. He would have spent the whole time competing with the Clinton legacy (the good, the bad, and the ugly). Clinton knew that. I knew that. And I don't blame him one bit.

Instead he chose the person he thought would give him the best council, challenge his views and assumptions, and, for the political side of things, shore up support among a constituency Obama struggles to connect with - white-skinned, blue-collared men.

McCain, on the other hand, made a stunningly political choice. A choice intended to win an election, not to govern a nation.

In her announcement speech, she (and her scriptwriters) brazingly sent a shout out to disenfranchised Hillary supporters to try to bring them into the McCain fold. She repeated the effort in her interview with Charlie Gibson.

Well, I am here to tell you that Sarah Palin is no Hillary Clinton.

Policies aside, as they are diametrically opposed on nearly everything from stem cell research to drilling in ANWR to energy policy to tax policy to you name it, Hillary Clinton was eminently more qualified to serve as president than Ms. Palin is to serve as Vice President.

What Clinton understands, and Palin does not, is that experience, knowledge and qualifications matter. That is why she did not seek to run in 2004 after only 4 years in the US Senate. Instead, she sought out positions on the Senate Armed Services Committee to balance out her social services expertise with foreign policy and national security expertise. She doubled down on delivering on her promises to her constituents in upstate New York's small towns and rural communities. In 2006, she won re-election to the Senate with an overwhelming 67% of the vote.

Clinton began her career serving on the staff of the House Judiciary Committee considering the impeachment of Richard Nixon in the early 1970s, and later worked with the Children's Defense Fund, ran a legal aid clinic while teaching law at the University of Arkansas, and led an ambitious and successful reform effort in Arkansas schools as First Lady there.

She took an earnest stab at trying to get us national health insurance. Her years as First Lady of the United States also gave her unparalled access to world leaders and the world stage. Her speech at the United Nations 4th World Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995 is still heralded as a turning point in American policy towards women in the developing world as well as on world views towards women.

Sarah Palin says her 2007 trip to Kuwait and Germany to visit Alaskan National Guardsmen, shortly after getting her first passport, was "life changing." Great. How about going on a backpacking trip around Europe and leaving the governing of the most powerful nation on earth during one of the most dangerous times in world history to those who know what they are doing.

Women cannot and should not be satisfied with the token nomination of Sarah Palin.

what the world needs now

Don't share this with your red state friends (it could sink Obama), but the rest of the world is really counting on us to elect Obama. The funny thing about how many Americans view France (as a bunch of wine-sipping, intellectual elitists; actually they are not really off about that and most French would agree) is that the French are actually too conservative to elect a bi-racial president.

Obama has stirred an excitement around the globe unmatched by any American politician in living memory. Polling in Germany, France, Britain and Russia shows that Obama would win by whopping majorities, with the pattern repeated in Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America. If November 4 were a global ballot, Obama would win it handsomely. If the free world could choose its leader, it would be Barack Obama.

The crowd of 200,000 that rallied to hear him in Berlin in July did so not only because of his charisma, but also because they know he, like the majority of the world's population, opposed the Iraq war. McCain supported it, peddling the lie that Saddam was linked to 9/11. Non-Americans sense that Obama will not ride roughshod over the international system but will treat alliances and global institutions seriously: McCain wants to bypass the United Nations in favour of a US-friendly League of Democracies. McCain might talk a good game on climate change, but a repeated floor chant at the Republican convention was "Drill, baby, drill!", as if the solution to global warming were not a radical rethink of the US's entire energy system but more offshore oil rigs.

If Americans choose McCain, they will be turning their back on the rest of the world, choosing to show us four more years of the Bush-Cheney finger. And I predict a deeply unpleasant shift.

Until now, anti-Americanism has been exaggerated and much misunderstood: outside a leftist hardcore, it has mostly been anti-Bushism, opposition to this specific administration. But if McCain wins in November, that might well change. Suddenly Europeans and others will conclude that their dispute is with not only one ruling clique, but Americans themselves. For it will have been the American people, not the politicians, who will have passed up a once-in-a-generation chance for a fresh start - a fresh start the world is yearning for.

And the manner of that decision will matter, too. If it is deemed to have been about race - that Obama was rejected because of his colour - the world's verdict will be harsh. In that circumstance, Slate's Jacob Weisberg wrote recently, international opinion would conclude that "the United States had its day, but in the end couldn't put its own self-interest ahead of its crazy irrationality over race".

Even if it's not ethnic prejudice, but some other aspect of the culture wars, that proves decisive, the point still holds. For America to make a decision as grave as this one - while the planet boils and with the US fighting two wars - on the trivial basis that a hockey mom is likable and seems down to earth, would be to convey a lack of seriousness, a fleeing from reality, that does indeed suggest a nation in, to quote Weisberg, "historical decline". Let's not forget, McCain's campaign manager boasts that this election is "not about the issues."

Of course I know that even to mention Obama's support around the world is to hurt him. Incredibly, that large Berlin crowd damaged Obama at home, branding him the "candidate of Europe" and making him seem less of a patriotic American. But what does that say about today's America, that the world's esteem is now unwanted? If Americans reject Obama, they will be sending the clearest possible message to the rest of us - and, make no mistake, we shall hear it.

Jonathan Freedland, The Guardian (UK)

i'm over it

Hillary Clinton lost the Democratic Primary. Like many of her supporters, I hoped until the last vote was counted that she would somehow prevail. I even hoped for some juicy bit of information to come out about Obama that would take his campaign down. Sorry, but if we're going to move forward together, I feel the need to be honest.

But now I'm over it, and she helped me get there. Senator Clinton's speech at the Democratic National Convention was outstanding. She and her husband said what they needed to say to convince me and many others that they are putting their party, and indeed their country, first by supporting the candidacy of her opponent with whom she and I share many points of view, and that I need to do the same.

But more remarkable than her speech was her action on the convention floor the next day when she asked the speaker to halt the roll call and call for a vote by acclamation for Senator Obama to be our nominee. I could not have been more proud. What she did was above and beyond the call of duty for the candidate not chosen and it demonstrated enormous personal fortitude and humility. I have heard of no male candidate doing the same in any previous convention, and I am endlessly proud that this is what women can bring to politics.

Unfortunately, there are those who don't think she went far enough to flatter Obama in her speech. Yet had she done that, I believe, it would have come across as disingenuous, even if it weren't. There are those who say she is supporting him only in an effort to boost her own 2012 prospects should he not prevail this November. Some are even expected to blame her if he loses. For me, I believe she is doing far more than one can even expect of someone in her position and she's doing it out of a genuine concern for the future of our country. At this point, if Obama loses (perish the thought), it will be on his shoulders and our shoulders, not hers.

It's not an easy transition from one candidate to another. Yes, there was sexism in the race that went unchecked. Yes, when reminded, I am still irked that the Obama campaign took many opportunities to paint the Clintons as racists, but as a wise friend told me, you've got to leave it on the campaign trail. So I will.

It also helped to read an account of how the two campaigns were run during the primary here. Obama won because he ran a more strategic, better planned, and better staffed campaign than my candidate did. This alone gives me the confidence to now fully support Barack Obama as my candidate as it bodes very well for an Obama presidency that he surrounds himself with experts, has an overall strategic vision, and plans for contingencies. Hmmm... we could have used that in Iraq.

gail collins, my hero

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/26/opinion/26collins.html?ref=opinion

true love weights

There was a disturbing question at last weekend’s “Compassion Forum” on CNN, a program during which reporters asked Senators Clinton and Obama questions related to their faith. The question was asked by Dr. Frank Page, President of the Southern Baptist Convention of Senator Obama.

PAGE: Thank you, Senator Obama. Thank you for being here at Messiah College for the Compassion Forum. Southern Baptists have been very active for years in sub- Saharan Africa in the HIV/AIDS relief ministries. Sometimes orphan care, sometimes educational activities.

But we also are involved in a ministry called True Love Waits, which has been credited by the government of Uganda for lowering the AIDS infection rate there dramatically from 30 percent to 6 percent. But we also teach a part of that, that faith has a role in the issue of HIV/AIDS. Do you concur with that and would you elaborate on that, please.

BROWN: Can I just clarify, True Love Waits is an abstinence program.

PAGE: Abstinence based and faith based, yes.

The claim in this question, that True Love Waits had a significant impact on the dramatic decline of AIDS in Uganda is, quite simply, breathtaking. The decline in the rate of infection has largely been attributed to the fact that the majority of those who were infected died. New infections were minimized through an approach called ABC, which stands for Abstinence, Be faithful, use Condoms.

But even these tenets are near impossible for many women to follow in Uganda because they simply do not possess the social or economic power to make decisions regarding their own sexual health. Indeed, one of the fastest growing groups of those infected with HIV is married women.

In 2004, I was serving as a Peace Corps Volunteer in Uganda. While I was spending a few days at a fellow volunteer’s house, we heard the chilling screams of a child being beaten two doors down. By this time, we were both all too familiar with this sound. The boy’s mother had locked them up together in their small, 2-room dwelling and was screaming at him and hitting him, probably with a cane as was common in Uganda. This attack was among the most brutal either of us had witnessed. We banged on the door, threatened to call the police. My friend tried to get the other neighbors involved, but they were reluctant to meddle, believing that there was “nothing that could be done” or that it was none of their business. A neighbor boy filled us in on the abusive mother's plight. The father of her three children had left them for another woman, a second wife. The woman and her children were left destitute. No money, no job, no food, no recourse. She was, by all accounts, at the end of her rope and taking it out on her young son.

Where does true love and abstinence fit into that picture? Can we really believe that if her husband returned, she would abstain from having sex or even ask him to wear a condom to protect herself from HIV/AIDS? No, she would do what she needed to do to put food on her table and take care of her children in the short term.

The oppression of women puts them in very precarious financial situations. They are dependent on men for food, shelter, clothing and to care for their children. Each sexual act becomes a Faustian bargain pitting the choice of immediate financial security against the longer term prospect of good health. Abstinence and demanding safe sex become luxuries they cannot afford. HIV/AIDS tomorrow is not such a threat when no food today can lead to a more immediate death.

At another point during my service, I read a story about a remarkable 11-year old girl who, when asked to speak at a community gathering, did so and then proceeded to demand that her elders do something to stop the raping of young girls like herself. Raping by uncles and principals and other adult males of young girls and sometimes boys is all too common and she wanted to know when it was going to end.

Where does true love and abstinence fit into that picture?

I am not against abstinence. It has its place in comprehensive sex education and in HIV/AIDS prevention. What I am against is a one size fits all solution to complex situations, especially when the solutions are conceived from a uniquely western perspective. In many nations and cultures, just the idea of true love is a quaint ideal only westerners can enjoy.

We cannot afford another administration that embraces this parochial and ideological approach to HIV/AIDS policy. Not only do we limit our effectiveness in fighting HIV/AIDS, but we send a message to the world that we simply have no intention of seeing things from their point of view.

it ain’t over ‘til it’s over

December 13, 2000, the day before my 35th birthday, was a dark day. After five long weeks, Vice President Al Gore conceded the presidential race to George W. Bush following a Supreme Court ruling that stopped the vote count in Florida, and effectively handed Bush the presidency.

I was inconsolable, deflated, angry. Angry at the Supreme Court, angry at Bush and his cronies, and angry at Floridians. But mostly… angry at Al Gore. How dare he concede! It wasn’t up to him! It was up to us, the voters! We are the ones who decide who is to be our president, not the candidates. Their job is to campaign. Our job is to choose. And half a million more of us across the nation chose Al Gore over George Bush.

So here we are again. Pundits, the press, and some Democrats calling on Senator Clinton to get out of the race. They say the math is near impossible. She can’t win without a miracle. It’s getting ugly. It’s damaging to the Democratic Party. They’re tired of the race.

So what? They’re not the ones voting. Ask most people in Pennsylvania, Indiana, Puerto Rico and North Carolina if they want it to end. They’re signing up in record numbers to choose a new president. Turning up at rallies, putting signs on their lawns, donating to the candidates’ campaigns. They’re fired up. Do you want to tell them they don’t get to participate? I sure don’t.

If you’re tired of the noise, tune it out. Try following American Idol instead until a nominee is chosen. And consider these reasons why it’s good for the Democratic Party to keep the primary race going:

• Americans are registering as Democrats in record numbers. In every state the primary continues, more and more Democrats are added to the rosters. Clinton or Obama will need these voters in November – in every state, not just the 40 plus that have already voted. (www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-04-06-voterregistrations_N.htm)
• Before Mike Huckabee conceded the Republican nomination to John McCain (i.e., when both primaries were still competitive), four times as many people went to the polls to vote for Clinton or Obama as went to vote for McCain! High voter turnout can continue in every state if we let it and lead to higher voter turnout among Dems in the general election.
• John McCain is background noise. Let’s keep it that way.
• The candidates are getting a more thorough vetting in a “safer” Democratic primary before entering the general election.
• Elections are good for local economies with money spent on advertising, hotels, transport, food and beverages, sign and banner printing, etc. In this economy, many states welcome the extra revenue.

As a Hillary supporter, I will be much more enthusiastic about supporting Obama if he wins if all the votes get counted. Democrats should consider there are others like me.

five ways to spend that stimulus check!

The way I see it, the government has driven up our national debt to nearly $10 trillion, financed a war on borrowed money, failed to provide basic services and protections to Americans, and yet somehow sees fit to send us (many of us who do not need it) a check for $600. Most Americans will either spend the money on personal items (what the government is hoping for) or put it toward debt relief (not a bad idea).

But here's another idea - use the money to fix what the government has broken. Here are a few examples:

1) Where FEMA failed, you can make a difference - Donate to Habitat for Humanity New Orleans (http://www.habitat-nola.org/) or better yet, sign up for the Jimmy Carter Work Project in May and build homes in the 9th Ward!

2) To counteract a greatly weakened Environmental Protection Agency - give money to The Sierra Club (http://www.sierraclub.org/).

3) Since we can't trust the USDA to protect our food supplies, even the hamburger meat sold to our public schools(!) - Spend a little extra money and buy grassfed, free range beef (at Whole Foods or http://www.lgbeef.com/) or donate money to your local school for their lunch program.

4) Since we can't trust the FAA to protect our skies - Take a vacation on Amtrak or a non-American airline.

5) If our $10 trillion national debt is keeping you up nights worrying about your children's or grandchildren's future, you can help pay it down. Send a check to the US Treasury. Make it payable to the Bureau of the Public Debt, and in the memo section, notate that it is a Gift to reduce the Debt Held by the Public. Mail your check to:
Attn Dept G
Bureau Of the Public Debt
P. O. Box 2188
Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188

If you decide to spend your stimulus check in one of these ways, write your representatives and tell them what you did and why. You can find out who they are at http://www.house.gov/ and http://www.senate.gov/. And, feel free to share other ideas by posting a comment.

Until the government starts making the right decisions, we'll have to do it for them!

tuzla tall tale or sleep-deprived slip-up?

In August 2006, at the same time I was flying from Jakarta to Makassar in Indonesia, my mother was undergoing surgery for Stage 1 breast cancer in France, where she lives. On the news that morning were stories of rioting in Makassar, a city for which I received danger pay when traveling there. Gangs of young men were "sweeping" hotels, which means they were threatening to burn down the hotels if the staff didn't provide lists of western expatriates staying there, presumably for intimidation purposes. They'd followed through on their threats before. Students were breaking windows and setting fires on the campus I was going to the next day. The US Embassy, always erring on the side of caution, warned Americans to stay away until things cooled down.

My colleague in Makassar said he and his driver would pick me up from the airport and we would take the road that avoided the town center. Contacts from my colleague's previous line of work in security confirmed to him that the situation was indeed serious. While his security experience put me somewhat at ease (his six-foot tall, muscular frame didn't hurt either), his concern for our safety heightened my anxiety.

As the plane landed, I had a "Godfather" moment alternatively imagining my mother going under the knife, then the riots that would be greeting me in the streets of Makassar.

In the end, we saw no violence. At the university, the rector cheerfully showed us the broken windows and a few that had already been repaired. Our meetings proceeded as planned. My mom came through her surgery with flying colors. When I remember that day, however, I can't divorce my sense of trepidation from the events - or non-events - as they actually occurred.

I imagine Hillary Clinton feels much the same way about her trip to Tuzla, Bosnia. Being warned of potential sniper fire, being sent into a country to which the Secret Service would not send her husband, taking her young daughter along with her no doubt created a sense of unease easily recalled when revisiting the memory, regardless of how the trip actually played out. And with all due respect to Sheryl Crow and Sinbad, whose patriotism in these events is to be admired, the First Lady and her daughter would be more likely targets for snipers wanting to send a message to America than a singer or a comedian.

In my experience, when describing "danger zones," the State Department, the military and the media go out of their way to instill fear. Just read the travel warnings issued by the State Department on Indonesia and Uganda to see what I mean. My guess is that Mrs. Clinton received one of these hair-raising briefings before her journey, and under the pressure of a relentless campaign and sleep deprivation, it caused her to misremember the actual events. Not to mention that over 16 years, she has visited more than 80 countries, including Iraq as a Senator where she probably did have a corkscrew landing. In that context, is it that hard to imagine she would mix up events that occurred over 12 years ago?

But don't take my word for it. Two staffers who traveled with her explain what really happened here and why her recollection was not that off-base: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/01/opinion/01muscatine.html?scp=2&sq=tuzla&st=nyt.

Wouldn't it be nicer if we could give the candidates the benefit of the doubt and remember that they are all human instead of harping on every misstep?