The American Antecedents of the Trayvon Martin Tragedy

I don’t think there’s much I can add to what’s already been said on the terrible tragedy that occurred to Trayvon Martin in Florida, but there was a disturbing parallel that immediately came to mind when I heard about what had happened, and that his killer was still free.

As I have mentioned before, I am reading Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass with my students, and in Chapter IV, Douglass details the gruesome shooting of a man named Demby by (the aptly named) Mr. Gore, an overseer. According to Douglass:

His horrid crime was not even submitted to judicial investigation . . . the guilty perpetrator of one of the bloodiest and most foul murders goes unwhipped of justice, and uncensured by the community in which he lives. Mr. Gore lived in St. Michael’s, Talbot county, Maryland, when I left there; and if he is still alive, he very probably lives there now; and if so, he is now, as he was then, as highly esteemed and as much respected as though his guilty soul had not been stained with his brother’s blood.

I speak advisedly when I say this,—that killing a slave, or any colored person, in Talbot county, Maryland, is not treated as a crime, either by the courts or the community.”

Douglass then gives another gruesome example, of a slaveholder’s wife who beat a girl to death:

“Mrs. Hicks, finding the girl slow to move, jumped from her bed, seized an oak stick of wood by the fireplace, and with it broke the girl’s nose and breastbone, and thus ended her life. I will not say that this most horrid murder produced no sensation in the community. It did produce sensation, but not enough to bring the murderess to punishment. There was a warrant issued for her arrest, but it was never served. Thus she escaped not only punishment, but even the pain of being arraigned before a court for her horrid crime.”

Douglass spoke from a moment in our history over 150 years ago, but the profound wound of a societally accepted injustice and brutality still stings today.

The difference today is that the outcry that has been rightfully raised has been loud enough to prompt a federal investigation into the shooting. For more on how awareness on the case was raised, read deeper into the MotherJones article.

President Obama said “if I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,” demonstrating just how critically important it is to have a leader who can understand and speak directly to those long suffering under a history of oppression, and further demonstrating how today is different than Douglass’ day.

But rightwing punditry backlash against Obama’s commiseration with Martin’s parents demonstrates, on the other hand, just how mired in racial tension we remain.

To pretend that race has nothing to do with this case is to ignore our own history.

Some things have changed, but some things remain the same.

The Great Bathroom Debate

Recently Newt Gingrich made some remarks about poor children learning the value of hard work through janitorial duties that has generated some commentary in the Twitterverse and on blogs.

My first thought in reaction to this, aside from a general distate for Gingrich’s firebrandism in general, was that he’s got it completely backwards: it’s in fact the rich kids who must be taught the value of hard work. These are the kids who will most likely never have to really struggle, and that have been raised with the expectation that the world caters to their needs and whims. Though poor kids may struggle with developing a strong work ethic in the menial jobs that many of them are unfortunately slated to endure (more on that below) — they hold no illusions that the world centers around them.

But after hastily posting something to this effect on my Twitter, which I botched since I was using a junky old phone, I rethought the classism inherent in both of these positions.

The fact is, as Andy Rotherham points to in his take on Newt’s statements, ALL kids need to be “systematically taught life-skills.” This doesn’t have to be a poor vs. rich kid conundrum. But the issue it does raise is whether in our frantic push to get all kids “college ready,” we are neglecting those character building experiences that help children to learn the value in hard work. We have a tendency in the United States to demean the challenge and value of technical skills and craftsmanship. Recently, I watched the Kings of Pastry, and was inspired by French President Sarkozy’s speech, in which he wisely advises not to consider ”manual knowledge to be less noble than academic knowledge, less capable to create wealth and well being.” This is advice we should learn to heed here in the United States.

I personally learned the value of hard work by cleaning bathrooms. I cleaned a lot of them over the 5 years that I worked at a camp and conference center in South Lake Tahoe, and trained others in how to clean them as well. And I believe that cleaning a bathroom truly shows the nature of one’s character.

To clean a bathroom well, you have to be committed to the personal experience of a complete stranger, whom will most likely not even appreciate, let alone notice, your work. You have to struggle to pick all the hairs out of the crevices of the tile, stuck to the edges of the tub, caught in the base of the toilet. You have to get down on your knees to scrub the grime out of the shower curtain, and the soap residue caked onto the soap dish. Not to get too in depth here, but you sometimes have to witness and clean up the extremely unpleasant aftermaths of a stranger’s digestive issues. That’s a deep commitment to the service of your fellow man.

I don’t think it’s such a terrible idea to suggest that all children should learn to serve others, not merely themselves. Perhaps cleaning bathrooms is a bit too unsavory to expect them to have to perform*, but certainly engaging them in tasks that better their school or community environment, such as cleaning their classrooms, or collecting recycling, or picking up garbage in their local park, or planting gardens around their school, should be considered an essential part of their public school experience.

But let’s remove the prejudice that only certain children need to be taught the value of hard work. And in this recognition, let’s further recognize that we must stop demeaning the value of vocational education and technical skills. We all need to learn to value and appreciate those who serve us, every single day, stocking our supermarkets and convenience stores with produce and products, cleaning our bathrooms and hotels, serving our food and maintaining our cars. There is nothing wrong or undignified with being a plumber, a car mechanic, a janitor, an electrician, or a housekeeper. My grandmother came from Sweden and worked her way around the country, as a single mother, cleaning houses and serving families. In my personal work experiences, I have cleaned bathrooms, made beds, stocked shelves, and served customers in both retail and hospitality industries, and now as a teacher, I serve children and their families. And I value this work I have done and am proud of it, because working hard and serving others is the foundation of our economy.

Until we learn to stop demeaning such work, most children will naturally never learn to see the value in working hard to serve others or to take pride in working their way up through a trade or industry. Especially when it’s perceived as menial labor with no positive outcomes. And while some of our children will be “college ready,” until we teach them concrete skills and the values they will need to succeed, most children will not be “life ready.”

* One of the things Rotherham points to in his article in Time is that cleaning bathrooms is too dangerous for children to perform due to the chemicals that are used. Having cleaned many bathrooms using chemicals, I am acutely aware of this danger, and so as housekeeping manager, I researched and developed my own non-toxic cleaning solutions to protect the safety and health of myself and my employees. These solutions are cheap to make, just as effective in cleaning as the chemicals we unnecessarily invest in, and scalable for larger operations. Please visit my website, Environmentally Sound Solutions, for the specific solutions I used.

Obama’s Transparent Donor Sourcing Rakes in the Moolah

I’m contributing to this campaign. It’s my small way of acknowledging that this is the kind of leadership that I want to see in our country. Diplomacy beyond ideology, integrity, and intelligence.

https://www.youtube.com/v/hlypjw9i7Vg?version=3

Must See Daily Show Snippets on Education

Interview with Diane Ravitch

Jon Stewart on Teachers and Wall Street

Thoughts on ‘The Shame of the Nation’

The Shame of the Nation: The Restoration of Apartheid Schooling in America by Jonathan Kozol

My rating: 3 of 5 stars

While I don’t agree necessarily with some of Kozol’s perspectives on education, such as his obvious horror of standardized testing and other accountability measures, I do think that his ultimate unveiling of the United States educational system as one based on apartheid as devastatingly accurate. Any educational reform, whether a Race For The Top or a No Child Left Behind—anything, essentially, short of equitable integration—will continually fail to bridge the “achievement gap.” There will be only those children already poised to succeed academically by the nature of their parent or community resources, and those children largely destined to fail academically by the nature of their family or community poverty. And it must be clarified explicitly that those children destined (statistically speaking) for academic failure are predominately black or Latino. There is a prevalent perspective based on fundamental racism in our country—all the more insidious because it is rarely voiced outright—that black or brown or just simply poor people will never really amount to anything because they just aren’t smart enough. And should thus be kept out of schools with gifted white children destined for true achievement. This racist perspective is not only insidious due to its covert nature, but furthermore because it is an often subconscious distillation of policies, lifestyles, and the nature of our current economy. The form in which it is considered does not appear immediately racist when it does come into public discussion. In this form, it arrives as something unfortunate, something so deeply ingrained that it cannot even be challenged. As an example, think of the middle class white parent who wants to get their child into a “good” school. They may move in order to be within the zone that will most likely get their child placed there. They may buy their child special instruction in order to meet the testing and interview requirements for the school. They may borrow money or dip into savings in order to pay the large tuition. And the school we may be discussing might only be pre-school. This competitiveness, in which parents positioned with resources may most easily navigate and triumph, seems at first sight to be based somewhat fairly on our democratic and capitalistic notion of merit. There does not seem to be any overt racism there. Who would deny a caring and savvy parent their right in garnering the best possible opportunities for their children? But upon further examination, it becomes evident that the only children who get into these “good” schools come from families or communities with resources. Meaning, in effect, the white children of the middle or upper class. As Kozol painstakingly reveals, the reality of this results in an educational system more deeply segregated than in the years immediately following the Brown vs. Board of Ed supreme court decision. And all of the reforms that have been enacted since that time address only achievement, not equity nor integration. The failure of such educational reforms can be examined, as Kozol does somewhat here, historically, or simply by looking at some recent news. New York has come under criticism due to the revelation that its standardized test scores have been inflated over the last few years. Scores from this last year were then accordingly scaled down, revealing that barely half of NY city students are considered even “proficient” in math (already a pretty low standard to achieve), and well less than half are capable of reading at grade level. This sobering news may for a moment make some would-be reformers want to throw up their hands. It also reinforces the quiet racism that lurks at the back of people’s minds, such that they think “Why should we even bother trying to raise the achievement of these children? Why waste the money?” But the problem is not the reform movement per se. There are achievements that have been made in instructional delivery and research-based assessment that I don’t think should be played down. The effort to improve achievement in the face of entrenched poverty and ingrained racism and ghettoized city policy has been noble. But nothing–as Kozol so despairingly portrays in his book–will vastly improve until children of all races and classes are given equal opportunities to learn in the same schools.

View all my reviews >>

Criticism of the Obama Administration: Constructive or Destructive?

Here’s what I find interesting about all this “hate-on-the-Obama-administration” hoopla that seems to be a daily media activity: he seems to be held directly accountable for every happenstance occurrence, whether an act of God, the act of someone beyond his control, or a failure of free markets. Now compare this harsh stricture of accountability with the Bush era of administration: that guy was rarely even present as a leader. Yet there wasn’t this level of criticism of him. It’s like we expected him to be an idiot. His presidency was more notable for his absenteeism and puppetry by behind the scenes power players than it was for his management. And yet now there seems to be this underlying theme behind all of the criticism of the Obama administration: Obama is too restrained. Obama is not pushing through the progressive agenda. Obama is not prioritizing the right strata of revolutionary reform. I mean, what exactly do people think Obama is going to do, move mountains? He’s a president, not a dictator, and he has been wielding his power accordingly. He can’t wave a wand and make a worldwide economic recession go away. He can’t wave a wand and push through controversial legislation in a nation that is–for better or for worse–predominantly conservative. He can’t bend over backwards and please all of the divergent progressive agendas and still stand up to the Republican party juggernaut. Yet to hear the criticism of him, it would seem that A) people don’t really want to live in a democratic nation; B) people won’t be satisfied with anything; or C) some force out there is very cleverly steering the national conversation towards constant nitpicking criticism due to the overriding desire simply to see him fail. I think there is a combination of these factors going on, but while A and B just kind of reflect the fickleness of human nature and are unfortunately to be expected, reason C concerns me the most. It’s no secret that there are strong conservative forces out there extremely adept at manipulating the national consciousness (and with the money to back it) into maintenance of the status quo, which in this country means the rule of the super-rich via divide and conquer.

This is not to say that Obama and his administration should remain immune from criticism. They have made plenty of mis-steps in accordance to their own campaign promises and they should certainly be held accountable for that. However, it is the level and intensity of criticism that I don’t really understand, except from the standpoint of trying to derail everything he is trying to do. One has to understand what he is up against, and remember where our nation stood before he was elected president. Our nation is incredibly sick, politically and now economically speaking, and it won’t be cured by more partisanship. But that seems to be just where we are headed. And if progressives and moderates and the people straddling the lines aren’t willing to become more realistic in their expectations, and more pragmatic in their political activism, then our nation is headed right back into the pocket of decay that led to the furor that swung Obama into office in the first place. Is this really what we want?

Be realistic about what one man can accomplish in the halls of power. Hold his administration accountable, but do not expect them to make magic without any moderate or conservative support. Concessions will be made, bills will be watered down, and that is the reality of politics in our country. But it is no excuse to stop caring, throw up your hands, and allow the conservatives to creep back into power come this November.

Reflections On My First Year As A Teacher of Special Education

Now that I’ve had some space of time to unwind a little and rediscover my existence apart from the closeted confines of my students, I’m beginning to consider the bigger picture of my instruction and obtain a vision of a master plan for the next year, as well as to consider how to manage and confront the behaviors and attitudes of students raised in poverty and labeled with a learning disability.

When you’re down in muck and mire of the daily slog that is the self-contained classroom in the South Bronx (a quick reprise for those stumbling across this post: “self-contained” is educational jargon for a special education classroom with a ratio of 12 students to 1 teacher and 1 paraprofessional), it can be hard not to take students’ attitudes, slurs, cusses, laziness, threats, and insults personally. But once a little space of clearance with which to see more clearly is gained, I am well aware that it is not the students’ fault that they don’t possess the tools and skills needed to succeed in school.

The advantage that students from middle class and wealthy families possess is that they come to school already equipped with the basic skills needed to function and succeed in a classroom: they know how to manage their supplies, they have a broader vocabulary and exposure to the wider world, and they have knowledge of formal cadences and structures. Students raised in generational poverty don’t have these advantages. And so they show up the first day of school already behind. The rest of their schooling can all too often be viewed primarily as a snowballing succession of failures, in which they are punished and berated for not having ever gained the most basic of cognitive skill sets.

If we are to expect students raised in pervasive poverty to succeed, then we must teach them the values and skills that they will need to perform in a classroom. In other words, alongside of the learning of academic content, they must be primarily taught how to learn academic content.

When this need is not acknowledged, the feeling that one has as an educator is of leading the horse to the water but not being able to force them to drink. You teach them all the content, but it’s like dropping things into murky water. And you end up becoming frustrated with your students, their families, and the school system et al. Because you could be the best teacher in the world of academic content, but if your students don’t yet understand how to sit in a chair properly or how to process formal English, then you’d be only teaching them half the time — which would be that time when they happen to be interested in the subject matter or when you force them to get something done.

Students who come into classrooms already disadvantaged due to their socio-economic positioning have a lot of things going on at home that someone from a different class can’t normally conceive of. They are exposed to levels of constant and acute stress that stretch them thin emotionally, spiritually, and mentally. I have heard teachers declaiming on how resilient their students are. Some have witnessed siblings dying before them, some already have children at the age of 13, some have been abused by family members or foster parents, some have lived in shelters or moved from legal guardian to legal guardian.Yes, indeed, they are resilient. But they are also still children who have not been given a chance to live the life of a child; they have been exposed to unimaginable levels of stress. This means they don’t always know how to cope with the added demands of the alien values and expectations of academia, nor perhaps grasp what the purpose or utility in education is at all. Their more urgent concerns are keeping face with their peers and social networking for protection and status.

If it sounds like I may be preparing to argue that schools must somehow water down their intent or curriculum for disadvantaged students, or if I am saying that disadvantaged students never have a chance to succeed in academics, then let me hasten to state the contrary. I believe the reality is that when a student comes into a school already behind, then that means they must work twice as hard as privileged students. There is no easy way. But in order to get them on track to this effort, it is the duty of the schools to provide them with explicit instruction on the values, skills, and perspectives that they will need to navigate middle class society. They must be taught how to learn academic content, how to self-regulate their behavior, and the differences between the street and the classroom.

This “invisible” curriculum is perhaps the most important of all, and I believe that all students — regardless of their socio-economic status or whether they are diagnosed with a learning disability — can benefit from explicit instruction in this area. It is this curriculum that I will be considering for next year, in addition to my ELA, math, social studies, and science curriculum. This last year I spent most of my time frustrated and angry because I was busy trying to cram academic content down the throats of my students  who did not possess the coping and self-control skills necessary to perform in a classroom. This next school year, I want to not only teach them academic content, but teach them how to adapt to an academic environment.

The Strength in Obama’s Weakness

I feel the need to post on something other than work or journaling type stuff, so I’ll turn to a subject I once used to post much more vociferously upon: politics. And I’ll plunge right into the heart of the typical contemporary debate regarding President Obama. The consensus, given the way the media portrays it and random polls convey it, is that Obama is failing to meet the expectations of the American populace. There are two reasons for this: 1) the American populace is accustomed to a dog and pony show when it comes to politics, not serious discussions of policy; and 2) Obama’s insistence on diplomacy at all costs makes him appear momentarily weak.

A few weeks ago, I was drinking some Laphrioag at a bar with a friend, and as I am wont to do while sitting and imbibing liquor, I began expounding ideas on things I have no right to expound ideas on. I had not really ever voiced it before, but it came to me as I discussed Obama’s performance (and invariably defended it) that there may possibly be some potential positive long-term outcomes from Obama’s seemingly weak focus on bilateralism during the healthcare reform.

Certainly, it is inarguable that his lack of strong direction in stuffing reform and a more progressive agenda through the pipeline of legislature is hurting his administration politically. And in the coming elections, this political loss will result in the rise again of the GOP and all of the policies that have so riddled this nation with woe and delusion. However, think for a moment of that young GOP senator who has been witness to Obama’s insistence on diplomacy, bilateralism, and transparent exercise of power. It may be that this senator, and others like him/her, will have taken a little kernel of the bigger picture from Obama’s modeling, and that this will enact a subtle shift in the dynamic of our nation’s politics from that of divisive, short-term pose striking, to that of a stance of greater active listening, greater long-term vision, and a greater ability to simply be willing to listen to the other side. Even if and when the GOP once again dominates the discussion (which–let’s be realistic here–it inevitably will).

Does that sound like wishful thinking? Perhaps. Though it may be hurting Obama and the Democratic Party politically, we need to take a step back from the political damage and look at what the bigger picture. A dogged insistence on trying to make a broken democracy function like an ideal democracy demonstrates just what could be possible if opposing sides were willing to work together. And that is a lesson that people who think and reflect will duly note.

Obama has demonstrated that he is willing to take political damage and risk unpopularity as a president, even as he demonstrates a strong commitment to long-term policy making and a diplomatic approach to brokering legislation. In my book, he is performing exactly as I would expect a great leader to perform. In any case, history will be the greatest determiner of his impact.

Fighting Climate Change Through Prevention

In this article in the NY Times, analysts correctly ascertain that climate change could result in threats to national interest. What is sad about this form of analysis–which as, of course, the FOXNews reporting eagerly highlights (Climate Change Could Warrant U.S. Military Action)–is the reactive mentality that this lends to the debate about policy and strategy. Instead of talking about methods of combating climate change in terms of establishing carbon emission reducing policies, funding ‘green’ technologies, and mitigation of climate change in those areas most affected, war hawks eagerly begin anticipating increasing weapons cachets and military budgets. But what good will it do to send in troops to areas devastated by climate change? That’s like trying to staunch a wound with a toothpick. The only effective measures we can take to address the potential threats to U.S. interests and security from climate change will be preventative: through policy, funding, and diplomacy. And that must happen now, not later.

My $.02 On Health Care Reform

Health care reform. Does it need to happen?  Is it going to happen? Does it require an inclusive public health insurance option? God yes. Depends on your idea of reform. And yes.

This is a sticky issue that has been largely avoided by politicians who don’t want to tango with sticky issues. Props to Mrs. Clinton for even attempting it years ago, back when it should have been done. President Obama has elected to tackle it head on, and the issue has punctured his seeming political invincibility. But one cannot dock him points for giving it an honest effort. He could just sit back on his ranch and pretend that allowing the status quo to continue is the right thing for all Americans, not just the top 5%.

It’s amazing how much debate there even is revolving around the issue of public health coverage. Apparently the reality has been rendered so opaque to analysis that many a folk appears to have missed the obvious: that national health care coverage needs to be as universal as possible, or else all public health, both nationally and globally, is endangered. That’s the reality. Now the other reality at the moment, politically speaking, is how do we pay for it. But to me, at least, the answer to this is also clear: we need to tax the rich and use that money to cover public health insurance. The poor have never been able to afford health insurance. That’s why they go to the ER and make the public pay for it anyway. And the middle class can no longer afford health insurance either. Why? Because it’s big business. Health care is a luxury in this country. But public health can not be relegated to luxury/big business status. If we do not cover the majority of the population, then all of the population is put in grave danger due to outbreaks of disease. Evolved microbes do not recognize class distinctions.

A sidebar on “middle class”: apparently, the President seems to consider households that make below $250,000 a year to be “middle class”. I’m sorry, but if your household is making that much, then you are not middle class. You are doing just fine. You should be paying higher taxes so that the rest of us can get health care.

New Paradigm

You may have noted that I have been relatively quiet on the political/news front as of late, mostly because I don’t have any free time anymore, but furthermore because I think that most of the events, such as Obama’s inauguration, speak for themselves and we are all somewhat inspired and hopeful for the future, finally. But there are a few things that I want to say about the pressing economic and political events of our time.

First of all, former George W. Bush’s presidency was a complete and abject failure. Please, let’s not forget that. There have been a lot of interviews and articles before the switch-over that offered a somewhat benign retrospective of Bush’s reign, and it looks like reporters have been attempting to remain “objective” by entertaining the notion that Bush may have represented integrity because he never backed down from doing whatever the fuck he wanted, or something like that.

Bush was a terrible mistake, and a giant mar on the already besotted history of US politics. He stood as a representative not of personal integrity, but rather as the exact negative of what a leader should be. He didn’t listen to his opponents nor his own constituency. He didn’t utilize diplomacy in dealing with world bodies and foreign leaders. He took more vacations than any other president in history. His administration was peppered by yes-men, neo-cons, and nepotism. This is completely ignoring the myriad scandals that marred his administration. Basically, he didn’t do anything that he was supposed to do as a LEADER. The real “leadership” in the Bush presidency were the people who actually ran things, such as his vice-president and Karl Rove. Presidents in the past have oft been puppets on strings, such as Reagan, but at least Reagan had charisma and could instill some kind of false confidence, even when his actual policies resulted in terrible outcomes that we are still paying for today.

So yes, thank god we have closed that terrible chapter in our history. But we will be continuing to pay for those 8 years of bullshit for a long time hence, Obama or not. The Republican Party, as evidenced by their cold response to bipartisanship in the passing of the stimulus plan, are awaiting an eventual rebuttal to the centrism of the Obama presidency. They will do all they can do to ensure that his policies fail, so that they can renew their onslaught of the poor and middle class. Bear that in mind in the coming years: W. Bush was not an anomaly. He was the epitome of hard-line right-wing divisiveness. And again, let me be perfectly clear about the policies of such an administration: they failed. Period. They will never be effective. The myth of free market capitalism has been—with finality—debunked.

The history that Obama has made in his ascendance to the American presidency is not simply about a black man becoming a US President, nor reductively about simple “change”: it is about the forceful backing of an American public for a government that will utilize its policies for greater control and responsibility of economic tides. A government that does what it is supposed to do, rather than absolving itself of any and all responsibility beyond that of blatant militarism.

Now I want to discuss these “tough economic times,” as they like to say everyday on the news. This is indeed a time when the failed economic policies of the past are coming home to roost. This is also a time when “the American people” are beginning to pay for their years of living wantonly off of money that they never had and never will have. This is a time when issues of sustainability are no longer simply concerns of hippies, but of academic professors and Washington policy wonks. This is a time when America has to wake up to the fact that we have been sleeping, while the rest of the world has been quietly surpassing us in their investment in business and educational competitiveness.

Even though comparisons to the Great Depression can be fruitful simply for waking up people to the fact that this recession is real and its effects on people devastating, let’s also abstain from going too far. No one is jumping out of windows on Wall St. The lines for unemployment may be exceedingly long, but there’s no extensive lines for soup kitchens, at least, not yet. Retail chains that have stretched themselves too thin on the promise of endless sales have indeed been shutting their doors. Banks are decisively slimming their ranks with a butcher’s knife. And this impact cannot be understated on the economy nor on men and women now without salaries. But for many, it also doesn’t mean much of anything other than that they won’t waste their money like they might have before. And that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

Because the fact is that transitioning into what they call a “green” economy can not be easy, nor even possible without the recognition that it is necessary. These “tough economic times” are not about a housing market bubble collapsing, nor about over-investment in bad securities and over-lending of easy credit: it is about the transition into a new economic and political and social paradigm. A paradigm in which we recognize our interdependence on each other and other nations, acknowledge the interconnectivity of mankind with that of the earth, and begin to take responsibility for the actions not only of ourselves, but of our governments and world bodies.

So as tough as these times are—and yes, these times are tough for me personally, thank you very much—they are also a necessary time for buckling down and gaining a clearer vision of what we need to achieve.

Look at how far we’ve come

I don’t really like saying “I told you so,” but. . . just re-read this past post of mine to see how far we’ve come as a nation. Now do you still think all Americans are stupid?

It’s Obama Time

Well, I’m staying up past my bed time, which means 5 hours 4 hours of sleep or so tonight, but what the hell. I feel the need to post something; what was once only oft a means of circumventing loneliness or merely a form of mental masturbation has now become a luxury in my life.

First of all, what can I say about Obama getting elected? It has turned from hope beyond hope into reality. It is a paradigm changing event. I went to bed once he took Ohio, but couldn’t sleep anyhow because everyone in my neighborhood proceeded to uncork champagne bottles, scream, and set off firecrackers once he had reached the necessary amount of electoral votes. I went to sleep happy.

I then attended some management training classes for 2 days, which were useful even if only for ascertaining that I’ve learned much of the right stuff mostly on my own already. I think the Tao Te Ching is ultimately the best piece of literature on effective management techniques.

Obama seems to have taken to heart the Tao Te Ching. He is able to influence vast and sweeping change without appearing to break a sweat. He knows how to let others act and speak for him, how to maintain constant discretion, discipline and restraint. He is indeed a capable leader.

If ever there was a “mandate” behind an election, I think this has been it. Regulation and the curtailing of unrestrained markets have been given a clear green light, which sets the stage, finally, for a possible regenerative economy and environmentally sound agenda.

To be perfectly honest, I think electing Obama came down to a matter of our children’s survival. We would have been fucked otherwise. Free market capitalism and individual rights to do whatever they damn well please is apparent as no longer viable in an age when the failure of an emerging nation to develop its economy and to sustain its natural resources is recognized as critically important to the success of rich nations. An interdependent globe is only as strong as its weakest link.

So thank god Obama is our president. The world and the sane members of the United States can collectively breathe a sigh of relief. Now it’s time, finally, to get to the real work of dealing with the mess we are in. Let’s get to it.

In other news, I am now engaged. You heard it here first.

Looking Beyond Election Day

As you know if you read my frequent political rants and shpeals, I am a firm supporter of Barack Obama, and have vociferously petitioned for him to become the next President of the United States. I have also donated, for the first time in any election, a number of times to his campaign.

Now that the election is looming, I want to again remind all of you to get out there and vote. But I also want to begin looking beyond the current election, and shed some of the starry eyed endorsement that I have portrayed here on my blog for Obama. I’m assuming that Obama is going to become elected, which might seem conceited of me, but it simply is due to the fact that I found out that my Dad, of all people, is voting for Obama. Listen: if my Dad is voting for a non-Republican, than you know that times have a-changed. He’s about the most stolid conservative I can imagine. When he told me over the phone that Obama was the best candidate, I knew that there was hope.

(A caveat: I also don’t want to be sticking my foot in my mouth here, either. His election is neither certain nor definite at this time, and like all other supporters at this moment, I am still slightly frightened. In a post Al Gore-Florida-2000 world, nothing in an election is ever certain.)

Obama, as defined by Colin Powell in his eloquent and intelligently framed endorsement, is indeed a “transformational figure”. He is transformational not because he represents, as so many conservatives seem to be petrified of, a radical shift from right to left, but rather because he represents a bridge between right and left. He is a center-left politician, but it would be a stretch to try to hoist any radical ideologies onto his shoulders. He is unique at this particular moment in American politics because he can appeal not only to left wing progressives, but furthermore to fundamentalist Christians and neo-conservatives (except for the blatantly racist ones). Such a politician has been hitherto unimaginable.

In recognizing his centrism, however, it is important to note, for a radical tending left winger such as myself, that he represents for progressives simply the potential for change, not the guarantee. McCain represents a step back, the step back that W. Bush so horrifically embodied. A step back in the sense of a bureacratic rejection of scientific and intellectual advancement, a continuing division between a tiny populace of rich and a large and ever increasingly larger populace of the poor, and a similar boorishness in foreign policy that guarantees that the United States as a society and civilization is destined to collapse in the face of environmental and economic changes.

Obama represents a step forward in that at least we know that with the right kind of applied pressure, he will make decisions that are based more heavily on pragmatism rather than ideology, and on populist necessities as opposed to super-rich welfare. But what I want to emphasize is that we cannot afford to sit back on our laurels after Obama is elected and expect him to make all the right decisions for us. He is an able and intelligent leader, and he requires the right information and feedback to respond effectively to our needs. And as progressive as he may seem in the light of the past 8 years, he is also simply a politician and he must respond to all constituencies, and he is severely limited by the controlling majorities in the House and Senate. The most we can hope is that he can start the ground work for the herculean struggle of righting the United States from its spiralling path to the precipice and begin paddling back upstream, bit by bit.

So while I may have seemed to be that uncritical starry eyed supporter of Obama, in fact my support is due in large to political pragmatism. He is the only candidate who can become elected that will potentially respond correctly to the challenges that our nation and our globe currently face. We need a leader who recognizes the intrinsic value in diplomacy, compromise, and bridging partisan divides. We need a leader who recognizes global interdependence and will respect and strengthen global institutions such as the UN and global drives for aid to the poor, collaborative environmental objectives, and international law and regulation.

I would prefer a candidate whose platform was built entirely on sustainable environmental policy reform and more solidly and specifically on building a regenerative green economy, with foreign aid to developing nations. I would prefer a candidate who was more proactive and radical on pushing through environmental legislation, with the aim of achieving oil independence within a shorter time frame, such as Sweden has already done. In an ideal world, I would be voting for the Green Party. But the time, unfortunately, has not yet come for a third party candidate in US electoral politics. In being pragmatic, I recognize that the candidate who is realistically electable and will potentially respond to environmental challenges effectively can only be Barack Obama at this moment in time.

I don’t expect the man to change the world. I expect that the world can only be changed if we apply appropriate and effective pressures onto his administration in order to affect necessary changes, regulations, and policy reform. But at least with Obama’s administration, we know that these changes are possible. With Bush, no change, other than regressive, has been possible, and the only hope has been in getting rid of the bastard.

It is indeed a brighter day. But the challenges remain ever more difficult. And it’s only potentially another 4 years that we have to move forward. In looking forward, we must bear in mind that we have to be active in politics constantly and consistently, not only on election day.

Death of laissez faire?

The Economist posted an interesting article defending free-market capitalism. What surprised me about this article is how unusually defensive, clear and one-sided its perspective is. While I agree in principle with the premise that what we need is “not bigger government, but better government”, I think the author mistakes the movement in general towards greater regulation and government oversight. No one wants a communist government nor to refute capitalism (other than for fringe idealists who don’t understand economics), nor, for that matter, to overly constrain the market economy. We simply want government to do what it is supposed to do—formulate responsible policies and regulations—rather than sit idly by and allow the market to run wanton (and destroy the environment in the process).

Part of this is making government policy and electoral processes more transparent and efficient, which entails utilizing internet and software technology. That means streamlining government, not adding to its bureaucracy. I don’t think that the way to the future lies in more overtly “Great Society” type of programs, but rather in simply attempting to bring the government back up into the present age, to keep up with businesses and civil society.

I would like to say much more on this timely and interesting topic, but I have to dash out the door to work right now. Talk amongst yourselves.

The Bigger Picture, Based on Our Current State of Affairs

Well, it’s ’bout time for me to post some thoughts about the current state of the world. I sometimes wish that I had a column in a major newspaper, so that I could generate national debate and establish talking points for The View. But, alas, my blog is just too random, too all-over-the-place, too largely mundane and only intermittently insightful, too much me, to ever hold such a place in the pantheon of established punditry. I wouldn’t have it any other way, of course. I will hold forth, in any case, as if the entire world listens attentively to my every last quest for meaning.

To the point: the major news item on our collective plate is the economy. We all know that the “bailout” plan, as it is called, is pretty much a bunch of hogwash, but we also all know that we need to do something, and not many of us are economically minded enough to know quite what that is. We just know that we want our retirement funds to stop being depleted, etc. First of all, I recommend checking in with Paul Krugman’s blog from time to time for some academic economic insight parsed down, relatively speaking, for the average Joe. He has written a short paper explaining what he thinks is going down right now, and to parse it even more simply into my own think-speak, it basically has to do with the global interdependence of financial markets. Which is why shortly after our economy started nose diving, the European economy has started feeling the effects of free-fall gravity as well.

If you follow my random output of thought consistently, then you’ve noted that I have a certain fascination with the concept of interdependence (go ahead and check out my posts filed under the topic of ‘interconnectivity‘ if you don’t believe me). I see interdependence, interconnectivity, the intwinement of multiple beings into one collective entity, as a source of greater strength. An individual vulnerability that establishes greater collective depth and power. This is the strength of the artist, the strength of the family, the strength of the nation. It makes us more open to superficial attack, but better resilient to sustained barrages.

Our economy—and hence, the global economy—is undeniably, at this point, in for some hard times. For how long, of course, no one can say. I have discussed elsewhere about how the economy is inevitably headed towards seeming disaster, but also about how what appears as tragic at the moment could potentially turn into a deeper manifestation of something necessary and redemptive i.e. the movement towards a more sustainable society. However, this transformation can only occur if we are willing to make some changes, such as move towards more Democratic—even *gasp* Socialist—notions of political governance as opposed to continuously giving in to Republican “small-government, big business” ideals. Obviously, putting Barack Obama into office is a great first step on this path. But beyond the presidential campaign, we need to push much harder for a move towards responsible government policy and regulation.

It’s sort of ridiculous that it takes a crisis or tragedy for people to awaken to the importance of individual sacrifice for collective betterment. It’s what we do in hard times, and it’s what people who live in poverty always do: help each other out. It’s about time that we start taxing the rich, taxing or putting caps on destructive and wasteful practices (such as lawns, SUVs, and plastic product packaging), and investing back into our society as a whole.

We all know that Communism and/or Fascism has failed. We all know that we believe in freedom and democracy for all. But it’s time that we grew up and recognized, as mature adults, that firm regulation, investments, and incentives must be established for people and businesses to do the right thing. And we must further recognize that we can’t go this alone. We need Government, with a capital ‘G’, and that means ‘G’ as in Global in addition to national. The US, for far too long, has been able to get away with insouciant and unconsidered behavior because we once were a superpower. We will henceforth be known as the last of the world’s superpowers. There will be no more superpowers, just as there will be no more Picassos. There will always be nations that have greater power, just as there will always be individuals who have greater influence. But no longer will there be a singular entity that can completely dominate and determine the direction of world commerce or culture.

What does this mean for us as a nation, and as individuals, then? It means that we have to become a team player. It means that we have to know our place in the world. It means that we have to not only compete, but cooperate. That’s what it means, at an extremely basic and fundamental level.

This ultimately ties back into deeper issues such as environmental stewardship, spirituality as opposed to religious fundamentalism, scientific advancement and technological development coupled with social progress, etc. But I’m not going to get into any of those wonderful issues at the moment because I’m beginning to get sleepy, and I’ve got another long week looming ahead of me. Due to my inability to post as frequently as I would like to, I’m going to begin utilizing WordPress’ nifty new function of sticking old posts up on my front page, so that you can see some selections of my old shit that I feel is worth perusing. Til next time, piiiiigs iiiin spaaaaaaace. . .

American Change (Outside of the Box of Media)

Inevitability: this is the crushing weapon that the Republican party so effectively wields, bludgeoning the American public with such a banality of lies, misinformation, and bluntness of political manipulation—all oriented around sidestepping deeper issues of actual policy—that people talk wearily of the inevitability of McCain being elected president. Here are the arguments for this position:

The American vote is skewed towards the middle American states, where most Americans are so brainwashed that they would vote for a melon if they thought it stood for fundamentalist Christian values and gun rights.

Americans are simply stupid in general.

George W. Bush was elected for 2 terms. Enough said. Americans are hopeless.

These are perhaps convincing arguments if you tend towards fatalism. However, it disregards and slanders the majority of the American people. Yes, many Americans are extremely misinformed and formulate their political ideas based on petty and irrelevant issues. Yes, the vote is heavily skewed towards Americans who think red meat, rifles, and religion are the defining issues of our day. However, these Americans, known colloquially as rednecks, are the ones most affected by bad policy in Washington. They will be the ones losing the most jobs, they will be the ones most affected by environmental degradation, they will be the ones continuing to have their working wages taxed by a government they distrust and loathe.

Were they fooled by W. Bush? To a certain extent. But they understood, more fundamentally, that he stood for status quo. He would give us exactly what they thought America stood for: individualism, small government, and big business. Now McCain is playing the status quo card once again, while pretending to give just enough of a hip “maverick”-ness to the situation to win over those on the fence.

Many Americans, while the economy was still apparently riding high, didn’t want change. They called for status quo. They called for continuing to do just what America had been doing. It seemed to work, sort of.

Now it’s not working. It’s failing terribly. And the prospect before us is harrowing. Even while official analysts shrug and dismiss the current economic downfall and refuse to call it a recession, Americans who are most affected by the downturn know exactly what it is: hard times. Unemployment is high, the divide between rich and poor is untenable, health care consists of ER visits, basic food item costs are increasing, and SUVs no longer make much sense to working folk who can’t pay off their mortgages or credit card bills.

This has not much to do with failed foreign policy that has led to neverending warfare, or a regressive position against contemporary science. It doesn’t even have to do with the impending and disastrous consequences of climate change, nor with the depletion of topsoils and overall degradation of our earth.

It has to do with a fundamental flaw in the American conception of what has been working in the past, and what will work in the future.

We fought ferociously against the concepts and institutions of communism and socialism, and we relished the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union. It was the triumph of capitalism. It was the triumph of individual choice, freedom of markets, competition between all for the benefit of the common good.

We’ve been so knee-jerk allergic to ideas of government involvement in economics that we’ve failed (officially) to recognize that the times have changed. A little dose of government intervention is necessary in times of crisis. And therefore, the Democratic vision of politics is no longer quite as unsavory as it once was. The idea of “change” (in the sense of a non-Republican dominated government) has begun to make sense. The status quo is driving America to its knees before the world. The dollar is falling, our imperialist foreign policies are antiquated, and our fierce individualism is costing the entire world the possibility of dealing effectively with united stances against climate change.

I don’t think Americans are as stupid as the media and the Republican party assumes it is. I think that the majority of Americans simply allow themselves to be led when they see no reason to change the way things are, when it seems to benefit them. It is becoming quite apparent that change—real change—must occur for America to remain a viable force in our world. Our businesses will fail if they cannot innovate. They cannot innovate if the government does not provide incentives for them to innovate. The government cannot provide incentives if the people do not call for policy change.

The time has come for Americans to unite, truly unite, not in the sense of warfare, not in the sense of blind following of political deceit and big money, not in the sense of willful ignorance and bigoted small-mindedness. Americans will unite because the only path to a hopeful future is clear. And it is not the status quo.

The Teetering Unifocalism of the Republican Party

Well, so the question in the presidential campaign of the moment is: will the blatant strategic political maneuvering of the Republican party, which has worked so well for Bush/Cheney, still work its deceitful magic and captivate big media and its captive conservative audience? I think another phrasing of this question is: are Americans as a nation still too easily manipulated and gullible to put 2 and 2 together?

The media has been blabbering ecstatically about the strategic “daring” of McCain’s pick of an almost neolithically conservative Alaskan woman, but let’s recognize it for what it is: an act of both cynicism and desperation. The strategy behind it is obvious: pick a woman to appeal to women voters, as well as to pretend that suddenly McCain is a progressive (simply because he’s picked a woman), while at the same time, conversely, appealing to their essential Christian Coalition base of voters, because Palin may be a nice looking woman, but she’s also a Christian fundamentalist.

To the Republican strategists, who are always eager to harness the most unsavory aspects of fundamentalist religion (whether Christian or Islamic) to garner power, such an act of political theater is hardly daring. It is right in line with the type of cynical PR strategy that’s been used for Bush and his administration time after time. To the rest of the nation, however, I hope that this act of desperation is seen through for what it is: a demonstration of what McCain and his backers are really about: a blind grab for power at all costs, utilizing any means and political posing that will take them there. Please note that Obama chose his VP carefully, picking someone who not only would aid him strategically in winning the bid for presidency, but would more importantly serve as a strong addition to the White House in the role of Vice President.

It’s no secret that Palin has absolutely none of the qualities (she’s currently got a scandal brewing in Alaska) nor experience (they say that Obama is inexperienced? Give me a break.) to serve our nation as an effective Vice President. She’s just there to fill a symbolic strategic role. Seen for what it is, this purpose is actually quite demeaning to women. McCain’s pick for VP is not daring at all; it’s a pathetic excuse to try to gather in a hypothetical mass of voters who would judge only on shallow appearance. The Republicans are hoping that with enough of the media (we all know that Fox will be doing the cheerleading) in their pocketbooks, they can manage to mockingly sweep aside the obvious implications of their strategy.

So the question is: does this approach of putting voters into one-dimensional boxes really work? They have looked at the power of the votes of women, they have noted the power Hillary Clinton generated amongst women voters, and they have single-mindedly decided that women will vote for women. How incredibly reductionist of the plurality of identities that women can occupy beyond their gender designation. Did they stop to consider that women may have supported Hillary not simply because she is a woman who champions women’s rights, but furthermore because she is an incredibly intelligent and adept public representative?

This ploy is desperate because it demonstrates that however strategic and cynical this maneuver was, ultimately, it means that McCain’s puppet-masters are responding to the tone that Obama has set in the campaign, rather than calling the shots. Obama has struck the chord in America that finally, we have a politician with integrity, someone with energy, populist agendas, and the diplomacy and intelligence to work across partisan divides. Obama has run his campaign stressing the importance of change and a new direction in American politics. McCain has been turning against his own record in Washington by now pretending to be a “maverick” and “progressive.” He has positioned himself as a decoy of change by simulating seemingly progressive stances, such as picking a woman as VP and verbally denouncing our dependence on foreign oil. Wow, how progressive of him. Good thing his VP strongly supports big oil, has already demonstrated political abuse of power in her home state, and is fiercely anti-abortion.

So will the desperate and cynical strategems of the Republican party work this time around, even when Bush and his party’s popularity is at an all-time low, both within the nation and around the globe? Will the farce of Republican progressive change win over the true progressive agenda of Obama? Will the decoy win over the real thing? Superficiality over integrity?

I think not. There was a lot of true positive energy generated at the Democratic National Convention. There was a palpable force felt in that stadium that reached out across the dry and drab news network television coverage. The hunger for real change stirs somewhere in America, and I don’t think it’s just in liberal enclaves. People are waking up to the cynical, power and money hungry political maneuvering that operated the Bush administration, and hopefully, they have learned to navigate past the bland relativism presented by the media, where somehow truth seems to have no meaning until it’s already too late.

I believe the one-dimensional, unifocal political strategies of McCain’s puppet-masters will fall over on themselves. They have built the fantasies up a little too high this time around. Casting Bush Jr. as a born-again working rural man with divine conviction may have worked for a little while, but casting McCain as a simultaneous agent of progressive change AND conservative fundamentalism is just too much of a stretch. It can readily be seen through to what it is: a blind and misguided and desperate fumbling for power by a Republican party riddled with cronyism, corruption, scandals, and neo-conservative simple mindedness.

I will enjoy watching their politics of deceit finally topple over and fail in the public eye. Like Obama said in his speech at the convention: “they just don’t get it.”

Think Politics Are Tired? Think Again.

I don’t care if you are Republican, Green Party, or Anarchist: watch Barack Obama’s acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention. This is what we all have been aching for. It is graceful, eloquent, emotional, direct, forceful, filled to the brim with conviction, politically adept, aggressive, embracing, beautiful, and intelligent enough to wow all the politicos and policy whonks.

And watch the Obama biography video that came directly before his speech as well. It’s truly powerful, and it answers the questions that people on the fence that don’t know much about Obama might have. He is the candidate that America so desperately needs.

Do I sound captivated? Don’t take my word for it. Don’t listen to the talking heads on television. Go see this shit for yourself. It’s wonderful, and it will make you not only believe in politics, it will make you believe in the promise of America again. Really.

Vote

I’d like to make the case for voting in the upcoming elections. I’ve made some of these points before, but I feel that it is an issue that requires some more attention. I’m going to be orienting this argument towards the people out there that believe that voting is a pointless and meaningless endeavor.

There are a lot of people who choose not to vote—not because they are apathetic, but because they believe that by boycotting the electoral process they are “making a statement”. Unfortunately, this statement doesn’t result in any kind of positive affect. In fact, this “statement” seems to be welcomed with open arms by the neo-conservatives who have been running our country, because they wouldn’t have the opportunity to hold such blatant power and influence otherwise. You non-voters out there who refuse to vote in order to make a statement: the only statement you are making is that you are selfish and small-minded.

So you choose to withhold your vote because your single, individual vote doesn’t hold much sway. But is it not obvious that if everyone voted, then that cumulative total could make a quite powerful statement?

So you choose to withhold your vote because you don’t even believe in either of the two parties that hold power. But is it not obvious that by becoming completely uninvolved in the political process, you are allowing the politics in the US to become even more deeply divided and distant from your personal needs and beliefs?

What would you have? That your country should collapse and fail because you are so selfish that you can’t allow yourself to compromise and utilize whatever limited tools and options you have as a citizen to become involved?

Yes, the democracy in this country is mostly a sham. Yes, the choice between party A or B is almost as bad as no choice at all. Yes, the individual voice is lost and suppressed in the clamor and lobby of moneyed interests.

But my question to you is: what are YOU doing to change this situation? Are you hiding away in your pseudo-intellectual hole? Are you going to move to Canada?

We indeed have limited tools available to us in order to enact progressive change as a people and as a nation. But the choices before us in this upcoming presidential election couldn’t be more clear: either you choose not to become involved, and you send this country down the path of another four years of bad policy, bad foreign affairs, poor economic decisions. . . or you vote for Barack Obama, and you vote for an intelligent politican who has integrity, clear and strong progressive policy agendas, and who stands as a living representative to the world of what America wants to be about: diversity, intelligence, and charisma.

This election will determined by whether the non-voters out there get involved or not. If you choose to make your statement by boycotting the vote, then who do you think you are putting into power? The same kind of administration that has been winning consistently in the past for that very same reason. Is that the kind of statement you want to make? Think about it.

I’m sorry that American politics are not ideal and perfect and truly democratic. Getting involved in politics is involving yourself in an imbalanced, often one-sided, and messy relationship. You have to compromise. You have to be patient and determined. But you have to be involved if you want to make change.

We need to get Barack Obama into office. Then we need to stay involved in order to put the pressure on his administration to roll out the changes that we want to see.

Or we can just sit back, and keep complaining. Watch our country fall apart as the super-rich get richer and the rest of us lose our jobs. At least it will give us something to feel righteous and indignant about.