America in the 21st Century

The Purpose of Government - Moving Toward Sustainable Happiness

2011-03-13T15:23:00.000-04:00

As I have been looking for a positive vision of what I would like our country to be like, rather than merely focusing on the negatives of our current situation, I am more and more drawn toward the ideas put forth in Britain and elsewhere about happiness. In essence, the concept is that government should, in addition to protecting us from threats both foreign and domestic, make it more possible to pursue happiness over the long-term.

While Roger Cohen has an op-ed in today's NYT on this subject, I first came across it through TED.com. Nic Marks has a TED.com video and a related Kindle Single, The Happiness Manifesto. Marks' thesis is that governments - and western societies in general - judge our national progress by measuring production, usually GDP, while we should be measuring it by our well-being and our ability to sustain that well-being. In other words, are we happy and are we living in such a way that our children and grandchildren will be able to enjoy the same happiness. Happiness - or well-being - and the sustainability of it. Makes sense to me. I really don't give a crap if our GDP is growing if most of the wealth created ends up in the hands of the few most wealthy Americans and the rest of us struggle to pay our bills, keep our jobs, find a job, keep our homes, send our kids to college, etc. Most Americans don't need a McMansion or a Mercedes. We don't need expensive clothes or fancy jewelry. We just need to be able to keep our home, pay the bills, have adequate health care, send our kids to college, and support ourselves in retirement. Maybe take a vacation every once in a while. And we need to be able to do that without working two or more jobs or so much overtime that we have neither the time nor the energy to spend time with our families and enjoy our friends. Oh, and we want to know that our kids will be able to be as happy as we are. That's not too much to ask, is it?

We Need Clear Goals for Our Education System and Citizen Activists for Our Country

2011-02-13T13:19:00.001-05:00

For a decade now, we've been trying to improve an education system in America that we know falls short in a variety of ways. But as we "Race to Nowhere" while "Waiting for Superman," we seem to increase the value of standardized testing as a means of evaluating our students, schools and teachers without really knowing what our real goals are. How will we know when we have created a truly excellent system for the 21st century? Are we merely looking to teach students how to do well on standardized tests? Do the tests assess what we truly value? Or do they often lower the bar, creating minimum standards and then encouraging teachers to teach to the test and abandon what they know is "best practice"?

Are we really looking to just increase graduation rates? How can that be a meaningful statistic if we don't know what we want kids to know and be able to do if and when they do graduate?

A hundred years ago, our education system was geared toward teaching kids how to be prepared for jobs working in factories, and how to be citizens in a democracy. Well, we don't have many factory jobs left in the US, and the standardized tests I've seen - and I've seen plenty - don't assess a student's ability to be an effective citizen.

So what do we want kids to know and be able to do? There has been a lot written and discussed about teaching kids "21st century skills," and I do agree with much of it. But there hasn't been enough done to help teachers actually teach those skills or figure out how to assess them. And, meanwhile, the national obsession with standardized testing largely runs counter to that effort. In the absence of clear goals, however, getting kids to do better on these tests - and to fare better in tests that compare kids in the US with their overseas peers - will drive spending and reform efforts.

I, for one, am increasingly convinced that my job as a social studies teacher is to teach kids how to be effective citizens in the 21st century. I want them to understand how and why a democracy needs the active participation of its citizens, how individual citizens and groups of concerned Americans have made an enormous difference in our country's past, solving long-term problems and urgent crises. I want them to have the skills to research issues and problems effectively, to learn the relevant lessons from history, and to weigh the evidence and possible solutions so they can decide for themselves what should be done. I want them to know how to take that knowledge and put it into action - how to be a citizen activist. How do you participate in a democracy in the 21st century? How do you get your fellow citizens to care about an issue and support your cause? How do you get your government to address the problems you care about and take actions you believe are necessary for the common good?

The people of Tunisia and Egypt showed us this past month how even under repressive regimes people can make a difference and bring about real change. In a democracy like ours, it should be even easier. Indeed, throughout our history, average Americans have made an enormous difference, in spite of the control big money has had on our politics since the 1800s. But we need to teach our kids how to be agents of change, how to take responsibility for their country and government.

If we feel a need to measure our success toward that end, can we? Well, I'd love to hear some ideas from fellow educators and other concerned Americans, but for starters, we could measure our success by how many 18-30 year olds vote in each election, how many student protests there are a year, how many 18-30 year olds write or visit their member of Congress, etc. In our classrooms, we can assess the skills and know-how pretty easily. Kids can write to their member of Congress, propose legislation and constitutional amendments, blog, post on Twitter, write letters or op-eds for their local newspapers, create action plans on important local, national, or global issues.

Please let me hear from you. What should our other goals be?

"We can do everything!" The Real Lesson of Egypt

2011-02-13T12:35:00.000-05:00

As I was watching This Week on ABC this morning, they had a brief clip of a woman in Tahrir Square after Mubarak stepped down. She said, jubilantly, "We can do everything!" For me, that may be the biggest lesson from the 18 days of protest that toppled the former autocratic ruler and US ally.

All too often, we are limited by what we believe to be possible. But those limiting beliefs are self-fulfilling prophesies. If we believe something is impossible, then it is. We fail to attempt it or put in a half-hearted effort, convinced that failure is inevitable. So it is. Indeed, it becomes our excuse for not even trying. We find comfort in believing that we saved ourselves from disappointment and wasted effort. But it is a coward's alibi for inaction and complicity.

My own life is full of wonderful examples of people telling me, over and over again, that something is impossible, only to find out that it is, indeed, possible. Sometimes, I even found that it was relatively easy. It seems that once we reach and cross over that tipping point where something that seemed impossible now seems possible, we realize it is actually the status quo that is fragile and impossible to maintain. Change is inevitable, and the momentum shifts toward the change we now believe in.

People told me I couldn't go to college a year early, after my junior year in high school. But I did.

People told me I couldn't pass the Foreign Service exam, and certainly not on the first try. But I did. (By one point!)

People told us we couldn't get the US House of Representatives to pass legislation lifting the arms embargo on Bosnia. But we did - a mere six months after forming the American Committee to Save Bosnia and less than five months after starting our advocacy campaign. And a year later, we passed it in both houses of Congress by veto-proof 2/3 majorities!

I am proud of these achievements, but they pale in comparison to those of countless other people who have truly accomplished the previously unthinkable.

People said when I was growing up that the Iron Curtain would never fall. But it did. I was fortunate enough to witness the collapse of Communism first hand from my posting in Moscow. even got to help tear down the Berlin Wall with my own two hands and was an election monitor in the first free and fair elections ever in the history of the Soviet Union. I saw the people of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union stand up and demand their freedom. With the exception of Romania, each revolution was peaceful and relatively swift.

People said we would never elect an African American to be President of the United States - but we did.

And, now, after people said for decades that the Mubarak regime could never be toppled, the people of Egypt took to the streets for less than three weeks and showed, like Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., before them, that non-violent protest can achieve the impossible.

So when we talk in this country about how it seems impossible to stop a genocide in Darfur or the Congo, or to fix our inadequate education system, or to take back control of our political system from the big corporations and wealthy Americans who currently dominate it, or to reduce our federal budget deficit or fix Medicare and Social Security, or to solve the climate change crisis, let us remember the people of Egypt and Tunisia. They accomplished something "impossible" by believing they could and then doing it.

We really can do everything!

Trying to Understand Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood

2011-02-06T14:07:00.007-05:00

Updated 2/27/11

So what is the "Muslim Brotherhood"? What is its agenda?

For much of his time in office, Mubarak warned the US and the West that it needed to support him because the alternative was a takeover by the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization he portrayed as a radical Islamist group. If the MB took over Egypt, he warned, it would be like the Iranian Revolution of 1979.

Some politicians and pundits in the US, particularly on the right, have similarly warned of a pending catastrophe if the MB took over. At a minimum, it would be like having Hezbollah or Hamas running Egypt, they warn. Or, at its worst, it would mean the establishment of a Caliphate that would take over the Arab world and present the more dire threat to the US ever.

Glenn Beck and Newt Gingrich's apocalyptic warnings aside, I have been looking for more objective and informed analysis of the MB, its agenda, and its role in the current crisis and Egypt's future. So I am gathering worthwhile and interesting resources and will compile a list in this post, which I will update as more come across my screen. I hope others might find this list helpful and informative and that you will send me links to new ones as you find them. I do not know how accurate or reliable any of these resources are, but I share them in the hope that one or more might prove helpful in getting a clearer, more complete picture of the MB. Most do seem to paint a portrait of the MB that is more moderate, for now, than I had imagined in the past.

Helpful Links on Understanding the Muslim Brotherhood

New! Harvard University professor Dr. Tarek Masoud, on Fareed Zakaria's GPS
What the Muslim Brothers Want, by Essam El-Errian in the New York Times
Explaining Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, Lawrence Wright on NPR's Fresh Air
Don't Fear Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, by Bruce Riedel at Brookings
Should We Fear the Muslim Brotherhood?, by Shadi Hamid in Slate
The Moderate Muslim Brotherhood, by Robert S. Leiken and Steven Brooke for Foreign Affairs
Understanding Revolutionary Egypt, by various authors (including two of the ones above) for Foreign Policy
The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood: Islamist Participation in a Closing Political Environment, by Amr Hamzawy and Nathan J. Brown for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Egypt Opposition Wary After Talks, from the BBC

Egyptian Turning Points? Or Just More Uncertainty...

2011-02-06T13:31:00.000-05:00

We're in some uncharted waters here. As much as many people in the US, myself included, would like to draw comparisons to past grassroots uprisings - Tehran in '79, Tienanmen Square in '89, Berlin and Eastern Europe also in '89 - what is happening in Cairo is not exactly the same. Different country, different regime, different history, different culture, different people, different time. So it is difficult to know which lessons to draw upon from history, which policies to repeat and which to avoid, and where are the key turning points.

Watching some of the Sunday morning talk shows here in the US, it's clear that more and more journalists, pundits and policy makers are similarly uncertain. I'm certainly no expert on Egypt, though I have been following the events of the last two weeks closely. Here are some observations and thoughts at what may prove to be a turning point in the revolution in Egypt. My main theme, I think, is how uncertain everyone involved is.

The protesters in Tahrir Square have been remarkably successful at organizing themselves as protesters, but there seems to be a lack of cohesion and organization as an emerging political movement. As a result, there seems to be no clear agenda beyond toppling Mubarak, and, yet, it seems that the protesters really want something more: some kind of liberal democracy, at a minimum. But it appears that they have no shared road map for how to get there, so they don't know what to demand beyond Mubarak stepping down. But the real issue is that Egypt has been a military dictatorship for almost half a century.
As a result of the limits on political freedoms in Egypt over the decades, there is a lack of political parties and perspectives in the Egyptian political sphere. So we see the Muslim Brotherhood emerge as a major player, even though it represents at best 20-25% of the Egyptian people. And we see what may be the beginning of a splintering in the opposition, as certain parties enter into talks with the government while the majority of the protesters appear to be unrepresented and even uncertain as to when, if ever, they would negotiate with the government.
Without a clear leadership for the protest movement, US journalists keep interviewing each other, some Egyptian and foreign journalists, a few Egyptian officials, and Mohamed El Baradei, who appears to be a spokesperson for some of the protesters but lacks legitimacy as a true leader for the opposition and also lacks a clear agenda beyond toppling Mubarak. I have yet to see or hear one interview with a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood or with anyone purporting to be a leader of any other faction of the opposition.
Fareed Zakaria, as usual, has some of the more interesting and compelling analytical points to make, and asks many of the best questions when interviewing people on GPS. Today, he pointed out that, while many in the US and the West are fearful that the current uprising in Egypt will lead to a repeat of the Iranian Revolution in 1979, with a Muslim extremist government taking over, the most likely scenario for that result is that the US is seen as helping the army and the current regime maintain power when Mubarak eventually steps down, angering the protesters and the many Egyptians who want change and feel like they deserve it after all that the protests have accomplished so far. Resentment toward the regime and the US grows, the population and the opposition, in particular, becomes more radicalized and more religious, and eventually there is another uprising that does bring about a regime more like Tehran's.
The Obama Administration, the protesters, and those around the world who support the general aims of many of the protesters - an end to the Mubarak regime and the rise of democracy in Egypt - have a bit of a quandary right now. How do you get Mubarak to step down and transition to democracy in a country where political freedoms have been limited for so long? It takes time for a truly free press, freedom of speech, and freedom of assembly to create new political parties and a healthy debate over various visions for Egypt's future and the role of its government in shaping that future. If elections are held too quickly, the current regime might well find a way to use them to extend its grip on power, with new faces at the top but the army still in control. Or, one or more factions in the opposition might be able to grab power in a political vacuum left by Mubarak's demise and the absence of real political parties.

The Lesson of Egypt: A New Paradigm for US Foreign Policy

2011-02-01T09:51:00.005-05:00

Some commentators in recent days have highlighted the dilemma for US policy makers in addressing the protests in Egypt: How can we support calls for democracy and freedom in the Middle East while not rashly abandoning a vital US ally in the region? Calling for Mubarak's ouster in the early days of the crisis could have sent the "wrong" message to other US allies in the region and around the world. If you are an autocratic regime and face a popular uprising, the US will drop you like a hot potato. The last thing the US needs in the Middle East and elsewhere is to have its allies and partners in the war on terror lose faith in our commitments to them. If we would abandon Mubarak - for three decades, the most important and reliable US ally in the Arab world, in whom we've invested our trust and billions of US tax dollars - who wouldn't we abandon?

There's also the caution that "the devil you know may be better than the devil you don't know." It's a compelling argument, since it wisely kept us from toppling Saddam Hussein during the 1990s. Stability is better than a power vacuum, and a friendly dictator is better than a hostile one. Mubarak played upon this fear, hyping the dangers presented by a possible Islamist takeover in Egypt (beware the Muslim Brotherhood - any group with the word "Muslim" in its name must be bad, right? And some of al Qaeda's founders used to belong to the MB 30 years ago!).

So, do we have clear policy goals in the region, arguably the most important strategically in the world these days?

Well, some of my students tried to identify US policy goals in the Middle East and elsewhere last semester. They were looking for clear, achievable and observable goals. They couldn't find any. Not for the Middle East. Not for Afghanistan. Not for the crisis in Mexico. Not for combating human trafficking. None. I would suggest that part of the reason is that once you have clear goals, you will be judged by whether or not you actually achieved them. Better to keep things fuzzy, so you can define (and redefine) success whenever you see fit.

But a longer-term view of US foreign policy in the region, and around the world, suggests that, perhaps, another reason is that we view our strategic interests too narrowly (Israel, al Qaeda and oil), overestimate our power and influence (yes, we can prop up autocratic regimes with money and weapons for a time, but not forever - see Iran, Marcos in the Philippines, and, now, Egypt), and emphasize short-term needs over long-term objectives. As a result, our policy is more ad hoc, more reactive than proactive, and viewed by many as more hypocritical over time. We support the one true democracy in the Middle East - Israel - consistently, but we are best of friends with some of the worst regimes in the region.

As a result, much of the Arab world has lost trust in us, views us as part of the problem, or views us as the problem. We seem forever sucked into the tension and turmoil of the region, in large part because we depend on its oil. And we seem to need these brutal dictators as much as, if not more than, they need us. So we cling to them, sending them billions of dollars in military and economic aid, training their armies, and sending them billions more for their oil. And we send a clear message to their people, especially the poor and middle classes yearning for a better life and more freedom: we choose stability (for the short- and maybe medium-term) over democracy and freedom. We choose your oppressors over you, the victims. We defend democracy and freedom for us and for some of our closest allies, but not for you. Consider this: do you think it is more likely that Egypt's citizens become more anti-US and more radicalized by us hedging our bets and standing by Mubarak or by supporting their struggle for democracy?

If we should choose to truly think strategically, perhaps ridding ourselves of our dependence on foreign oil and trying harder to "do no harm" would be a start. Peter Maass had a short but excellent article in August on the hidden costs of our foreign oil dependence. The true cost of protecting access to Middle Eastern oil - for us, Europe, Asia, and the world - is staggering.

So let's start with one clear, achievable and observable goal that deals with that challenge. In 2009, the US imported 4.2 billion barrels of oil, or about 52% of its oil needs. Let's cut it to half the 2009 level ten years: 2.1 billion barrels in 2021. If we could go to the moon in eight years (JFK gave us a whole decade and we didn't need it!), why not cut our foreign oil imports by half in ten? Audacious? Sure. But isn't this urgent and important enough to be a little audacious? Two-thirds of our oil consumption is for transportation, and 2/3 of that is for gasoline. Let's make the switch to hybrids and plug-in electric vehicles a national priority. Let's get state, local, and federal vehicles switched over to electric or natural gas. A combination of tax incentives and higher gas mileage standards could do the trick. Switch the subsidies for big oil companies over to tax breaks for people and companies buying electric, hybrid, and natural gas vehicles.

Oh, and let's support the people who want to be free. That's something we can do now. Try this goal: Mubarak gone, and replaced by a transitional government of national unity charged with drafting a new Egyptian constitution, by tomorrow.

Some Thoughts on Egypt

2011-01-30T11:12:00.001-05:00

As I sit here watching coverage of the protests in Egypt, I am struck by a couple of things:

If we had rid ourselves of our addiction to foreign oil, this crisis would seem a lot simpler to us. While Egypt itself does not export much oil to the US, approximately 3.8 billion barrels of oil per day pass through Egypt, either through the Suez Canal or pipelines. In addition, if this pro-democracy movement spreads further in the Middle East, it could eventually affect major oil producers, too. It is easy to imagine oil traders/speculators driving the price of oil up in the coming days and weeks, with gasoline prices in the US reaching $4 or even approaching $5 per gallon this year.
Egypt's greatest importance for the US in recent years has been as a key partner in protecting Israel's security. Egypt has been a key mediator between Israel and the Palestinians. It has tried to constrain Hamas. While some have argued that Egypt has not been as effective as a mediator because it benefits from an endlessly drawn-out process, it is unclear how the US could replace Egypt. Moreover, the instability in Egypt has raised concerned that Mubarak could be replaced by a regime more hostile to US and Israeli interests, possibly even a regime that would nullify the historic peace treaty with Israel.
For Israel, things look worse than they did a month ago. Hezbollah is gaining more control over Lebanon to the north. Now, it's most reliable and long-term partner in the Arab world, Egypt, is in the midst of a political crisis that could lead to a new regime less friendly to Israel. Other countries in the region, in order to appease their own populations, may take on a more anti-Israeli - and anti-American - stance in the coming weeks.
Does the instability in Egypt cause Israel's government to become more open to a peace deal with the Palestinians, or to hunker down and take an even more defensive stance, putting the peace process in a deep freeze for the foreseeable future? While, logically, Israel should seek to stabilize its relations with the Palestinians as it faces more uncertainties and threats from its neighbors and potentially loses Egypt's contraints on Hamas, the current government in Israel will probably do the opposite.

Tackling the Big Oil Subsidies: The Numbers

2011-01-27T11:32:00.000-05:00

Some numbers to ponder as we wait to see if President Obama's call to end big oil subsidies by the federal government (borrowed from our kids' future earnings/taxes) has any chance of becoming reality:

The oil and gas industry spent $111,839,931 on lobbying in 2010, paying for 744 lobbyists (or 1.7 oil and gas industry lobbyists for every member of the House). That followed a record year of $175 million in 2009.
The oil and gas industry gave almost $18 million in contributions to congressional campaigns in 2010 and almost $23 million in 2008!
Speaker Boehner received over $100,000 in campaign contributions from oil and gas companies in 2009-10.
President Obama received almost $900,000 in contributions from oil and gas companies for the 2008 campaign, out of $5,637,348 total industry donations to presidential candidates (28% to Democrats, 71.9% to Republicans; McCain got well over double what Obama received.)
Exxon Mobil gave over $1.4 million to federal campaigns in 2008.

So what do all these donations get the oil and gas industry?

The US government spends (well, borrows...) $36.5 billion each year to subsidize the oil and gas industries.
According to the New York Times, the oil industry alone gets about $4 billion in tax breaks each year.

Not a bad return on their investment, is it?

Obama: The best we can hope for... and that's not good enough!

2011-01-27T10:49:00.000-05:00

President Obama's State of the Union speech the other night was symbolic of how I feel about his presidency in general. Overall, I liked the speech. I thought he delivered it well, it hit some broad, positive themes I agree with and care about (infrastructure, education, new energy, etc.). He even mentioned wanting to end subsidies for oil companies! [Did you notice how dour Boehner looked as he refused to clap for that line?]

But I also felt like the speech was a good example of how Obama falls short of expectations and the hopes of many of his supporters, including me. He did not mention campaign finance reform, climate change, or gun control. His specific goals - a million electric cars by 2015, 80 percent of the country living near high-speed rail within 35 years - are good and important, but not worthy of a "Sputnik" moment. [By the way, what percentage of Americans could tell you what Sputnik was? For those who could, to what extent does it still resonate with them?] How about eliminating our dependence on foreign oil in 10 years? Increasing the high school graduation rate to 90 percent in 10 years? [According to one report, it was 75% in 2008, up from 72% in 2001.] Let's have some audacious goals that, if we really bust our butts and put our best and brightest to work on them, we just might achieve.

Like many people who voted for him in 2008, I have been both proud of and frustrated by President Obama during his first two years in office. I have come to realize, however, that he is merely the best president we can hope for, given the current realities of our political system. Given those realities, what he has accomplished is nothing short of miraculous. But, because of those realities, we can neither expect nor hope for much more, and that is unacceptable.

In two years, Obama has managed to prevent a second Great Depression, seemingly saved a large part of the US auto industry, passed a stimulus bill that saved or created millions of jobs, passed health care reform and the most significant financial reform bill in decades, won ratification of a new arms control treaty with Russia, and secured passage of a bill ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell. That's the most impressive list of achievements of any president during his first two years in office since LBJ.

Still, he he couldn't get a major energy or climate change bill passed, both health care and financial reform fell short of important goals (reducing health care costs and eliminating the threats presented by moral hazard and "too big to fail" banks in the financial industry). A second stimulus, which many economists deemed necessary and current unemployment and state budget numbers would seem to demand, was a non-starter.

We are not likely to see Obama tackle some of the greatest and most urgent challenges facing our country today because of the biggest threat to our democracy: campaign financing. Let's face it: Obama
ran for president promising "change we can believe in," but the reality is that he has achieved all that he has by making back-room deals with the big players in health care, on Wall St., and in the GOP. Cap and trade is off the table. The Bush tax cuts for the wealthy were extended. Lobbyists still rule DC. His Administration seems like it has a revolving door of employment with Wall St. Moreover, according to the number two Democrat in the Senate, Wall St. "owns" Capitol Hill. So what hope do we have that Obama - or anyone else - will successfully tackle the growing income inequality in this country? Or climate change? Or military spending and the privatization of the military and intelligence services? Or government subsidies for big oil and the corn industry?

In the end, I like President Obama. I am proud of my vote for him in 2008. I will, in all likelihood, vote for him again in 2012. But I have lowered my expectations for him.

I keep coming back to one thing: campaign finance reform. Without it, Obama will do the best he can - better than most. But that's no longer good enough.

The Suburban American's Dilemma

2011-01-25T23:15:00.002-05:00

Tell me if this rings true or not...

You feel lucky. You won the birth lottery: you were born in America. You live the American dream. [Cue John Boehner crying...] You live better than your parents did: nicer car, bigger house, much bigger TV, you've traveled more, etc. Sure, you work long hours to afford that lifestyle. You have a tiring commute and, unlike your parents' or, at least, your grandparents' generation, you and your spouse both have to work just to make ends meet. You worry about how to pay for daycare, how to save for your kids' college and your retirement, and still make your mortgage payments. You spend your weekends feeling like a taxi driver, ferrying your kids to soccer practices and play dates, coaching the little league team, buying the groceries and doing the laundry. It's an exhausting lifestyle. But, still, you are living proof that we live in a great country - the greatest country - in the world, with the best type of government available.

Sure, the system is flawed and doesn't always work great, but it works. And, in spite of your exhausting life, you do your civic duty and vote. Well, maybe not in every election, but in most of the presidential ones and even some of the others. And in 2008, you even stepped it up a notch: you donated a little money to a candidate, signed up for his mailing list online, maybe even made a few calls to help get out the vote. Mission accomplished, right?

Um... no. Sorry. Because we didn't actually get "change we can believe in." We got a really smart, earnest president who has accomplished an amazing amount in just two years, not the least of which was saving us from a possible Great Depression Part 2. But it seemed like everything he did was done in a way that reminded us just how little Washington has changed, just how dirty the political process seems, and just how beholden to big business our elected representatives - including our president - really are these days. Because they depend on campaign donations from the wealthiest individuals and corporations in America to get elected and reelected, that's who they really work for. Not us. They spend so much time raising money for the next campaign, they have less and less time for actually governing and legislating.

So as much as we'd like to think that we can continue to limit our involvement in our political system to a vote here or there, every two or four or six years, we can't. Not anymore. Somehow, in the midst of our busy lives, we need to find a way to do more. We desperately need to tackle the urgent challenges of our day - education reform, our dependence on oil, climate change, exploding health care costs, potentially crippling federal and state budget deficits, a crumbling and antiquated infrastructure - and we can't do it unless and until we free our government from the grip of big money and free our elected representatives from the need to perpetually fund raise.

For starters, we need to change the way we finance political campaigns, and we need to do it now. But it won't happen until people like you and me demand that change. No, we won't have to quit our day jobs. We won't have to chain ourselves to the White House fence. But we need to do more than just vote every so often, choosing between two candidates who represent a status quo we can't accept anymore. For some, it might mean writing letters, sending emails, or attending rallies; for others it might mean making some phone calls or meeting with congressional staffers. But if we all do something, it will all add up. If we don't, then we will cede control of our political system to the extremists in both parties and those who use their wealth to buy access, influence and control in Washington. This isn't just a liberal or conservative issue. And while I titled this post "The Suburban American's Dilemma," this is truly the dilemma for the working class American living in the city and for the small business owner trying to stay afloat in rural America. This affects all of us. We all lose if we don't fix this.

Now, as I write this, I'm beat. I get up at 5 am every day, and it seems like there's little, if any, downtime most days. But I've got to find a way to make a difference here and now. This blog is one small step. It's my humble call to see if there are kindred spirits who will raise their voices with mine. What comes next? I'm not sure, yet. But as busy and tired as I am, I now have to admit that I have to do something.

This is our country. It has given many of us wonderful opportunities and great freedoms. But, as my parents and teachers taught me when I was a kid, those privileges come with responsibilities. It's time to turn those words into action.

Tipping Points

2011-01-21T12:47:00.000-05:00

I found the comment on my last post to be quite thought-provoking. It is shocking, at times, that we have not reached a tipping point. But I think most Americans are either too busy struggling to get by or too busy and tired.

So what will it take for the middle and working classes in America to reach a tipping point and demand action? Rising oil/gas prices might. The growing state and local government debt crisis might. So might a national debt crisis, if and when it comes. But you would have thought the housing/financial crisis and accompanying Great Recession would have done it. And there was a backlash, though much of it was ill-informed or misdirected. Most of the outrage got directed at the government, and the Democrats paid the biggest price. People seemed more pissed off at the government for "bailing out" Wall Street than for Wall Street screwing over millions of Americans and walking away, in general, richer for it. People were more pissed off at Obama "bailing out" the auto companies than they were at the auto companies for decades of bad decisions and mismanagement. And lots of people were pissed off at the stimulus bill - which saved millions of jobs - because they thought it was the part of the bank bailout. And lots of people did not understand that the bank bailout, the auto bailout and the stimulus bill were necessary to keep us from the Great Depression II, or worse. Lots of people don't understand that the government will get back much of the money from the bailouts, and may even turn a profit. Tea partiers and others complain about taxes being too high, but they are taxed less under Obama.

Part of the problem is that the media ain't what it used to be. People have too many options now for getting their "news," and a lot of it sucks. TV news is all about ratings and image - and in some cases, about furthering a specific political ideology or agenda. And people are more distracted - fewer read newspapers, more watch reality TV, surf the web, play Farmville on Facebook, etc.

But part of the problem is that so many Americans have lost faith in their government, especially in Congress. So what if I think income inequality is a problem? So what if my standard of living os stagnating or declining? So what if the earth is warming and the climate is changing? So what if big business - especially the banking industry - think they own Congress? All too many Americans don't believe the government can or will fix the problems.

More and more, I think the wedge issue is campaign finance reform. People across the political spectrum agree that we need to get big money out of politics. If we did, then that might be an important first step in restoring some faith and confidence in government. And, in all likelihood, we'd see some politicians courting voters with as much enthusiasm and energy as they currently do their campaign donors. We might start to see some real legislation passed that would address the core needs and desires of the majority of voters.

This is a tough question. I'm no longer willing to give in to my cynicism. There will be a tipping point. I'd like it to come sooner rather than later. But I want it to be a catalyst for action that will put us on a healthier, positive path to the future, not a spark for violence or political extremism in American politics and government. That means that good, smart people who "get it" now need to start working together.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, that may mean some kind of serious campaign on campaign finance reform - maybe for a constitutional amendment - or a third party.

A "Do No Harm" Foreign Policy - a response

2011-01-18T16:32:00.000-05:00

I loved the comment to the original post, asking if it was too idealistic to think that we could actually ween our political system off the big money. Is it idealistic? Yes. Guilty, as charged. But so have been a lot of other reforms in our country's history, until they became necessary or the people demanded them. Women's suffrage. Direct election of senators. The Civil Rights Act of 1964. Brown v. Board. Trust-busting. Social Security. Medicare. The repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Heck, even the US intervention in Bosnia (sorry, couldn't resist...).

If we don't fix campaign financing, we're screwed.

But I think it's the kind of issue that real Americans from both sides of the aisle could eventually support. Everyone's hurt by the status quo, except those funding the campaigns and buying the influence.

I guess my theme lately has been to reject my own jaded, dark view of things and to, once again, believe that anything is possible. There are lots of people out there who want real change, who thought they were voting for it in 2008.

I also think the addiction to oil is another issue that should appeal to the left and right. What middle class, conservative American wants his or her gas money funding bin Laden & Co.?

The more I hear something is impossible, the more it makes me want to try!

A "Do No Harm" Foreign Policy

2011-01-18T13:35:00.000-05:00

As a former US diplomat and someone who advocated for the US to help stop the genocide in Bosnia, I've been a strong internationalist my whole life. I have believed that the US should use its role as a superpower to help others, to support human rights and make the world a safer, better place whenever possible. That didn't mean I thought we should intervene in every conflict or genocide around the world, or that supporting human rights in, say, China, was more important than every other US national interest. But I thought we should be actively engaged and helping out whenever possible. We did a lot of good during the Cold War promoting human rights in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, and those efforts helped support and encourage the people who eventually toppled those regimes two decades ago.

But I am starting to wonder. Yes, we should care about others. But I think we pay a lot of lip service these days to "human rights" while ignoring the considerable harm we do, intentionally or not, every day. And I think we over-promise and overextend ourselves, and we can no longer afford to do so.

So my new foreign policy paradigm is that we should "do no harm" while getting our own house in order.

Getting Our House in Order
First off, we should make sure we complete our military withdrawal from Iraq this year, while fully funding the State Department's expanding operations intended to build on our success to date. Second, we should withdraw from Afghanistan. I fear that we will be there forever, but I don't think the investment of blood and treasure is paying off or will pay off. In terms of long-term, vital US interests, there are better ways to invest our money and use our military than battling the Taliban and trying to turn the Karzai government into a stable government for that country.

I am sick and tired of the Middle East being the most important region in the world, just because we're addicted to oil and have refused for decades to do anything serious about it. While President Obama has significantly increased government investments in new energy technology, it's not enough. Let's be audacious and invoke a little bit of JFK's magic: let's rid ourselves of our oil addiction by 2020. Don't tell me it's impossible. We went to the moon in less than a decade - over 40 years ago! Don't tell me it's not important - how many Americans have died, and how much money has been wasted, just because of this addiction? How can we go to the pump and pay for gasoline that came from Saudi Arabia, when some of that money will end up financing terrorists trying to kill Americans and other innocent civilians around the world? Yes, the Middle East will always matter because Israel's security will always matter to us, but let's remove oil as the primary reason.

We also should examine ways to make more cuts in our defense budget. I've always been a defense hawk, but we can't afford the military budget we have right now, and we're clearly not willing to pay for it. We are willing to borrow from our kids and grandkids, but if we don't fix the budget deficit soon, our fiscal calamity will force even more draconian cuts later on. Now, we still need a military that can project power around the world and protect our vital interests, but right now the military-industrial complex is running wild. We have real and potential threats we need to defend against - North Korea and Iran come to mind - and we need to make sure that every defense dollar is spent actually making us safer. Sometimes, I think we just look at the hundreds of billions going toward defense each year and assume we must be really safe because we spend so much. That's a dangerous assumption.

In addition, drawing down in Iraq and Afghanistan hopefully will allow us to drastically reduce our dependence on military contractors, which has cost us untold billions. We need to make sure that we restructure our military so that contractors like Blackwater are no longer hired as mercenaries to take the place of our professional soldiers. You want contractors to handle building and staffing the mess hall - fine. But we should not be using contractors to fight our wars. We should not be using US tax dollars to finance the creation of private armies. Period.

Fixing the budget deficit isn't rocket science. It just requires us to act like responsible adults. It means agreeing that, except in recessions or extraordinary economic crises (like the last two years), we will all agree to pay for our government and to expect only the government we are willing to pay for. I have addressed - and will again - this challenge elsewhere on this blog, but suffice it to say that some relatively minor tweaks will fix Social Security, while additional healthcare reforms will be needed to slow the growth of Medicare. And we will need to raise taxes - primarily on the wealthy and, probably, on consumption, through a value added tax of some kind.

We also need to shift our spending priorities. Say goodbye to oil and corn subsidies, hello to rebuilding and modernizing our infrastructure. As mentioned earlier, we need even more investments in new energy. We need to change how we fund our schools as we try to make them more effective. We need to rebuild America as we reinvent it for the 21st Century and beyond.

Do No Harm
We talk a lot about other people's human rights. During the current state visit by China's president, the Obama administration is struggling to defend its record on human rights in China. Now, I do want people in China to have more freedoms, and I want the people of Tibet to have their rights and autonomy restored. But while we talk a lot about those issues and accomplish relatively little (other than ticking off the Chinese government), we do a lot of harm collectively and individually every day.

We buy mutual funds that invest in companies doing business in Sudan, effectively funding the genocide in Darfur. We buy cell phones and computers that use materials mined in eastern Congo, effectively funding the worst crimes against humanity on the planet. We do little to stem the use of illicit drugs bought in the US by our kids, which buys the guns used by Mexican drug gangs to kill thousands each year in a war that is turning Mexico into a failed state and is threatening our own national security. We buy clothes manufactured in sweat shops employing children and underpaid laborers, often working in dangerous conditions around the world. Largely because of our oil addiction, though partly to protect Israel, we spend billions propping up corrupt regimes in the Middle East that deny their own citizens fundamental human rights. We avoid serious efforts to reduce carbon emissions that are warming the planet and changing the climate to the point that people are dying and millions more are threatened.

If we just decided to do no harm, not expecting to be perfect but striving to be better, every day, we would do more good than all the lip service to human rights seems to be doing. Sure, if there seems to be a diplomatic solution or path to helping out (like Obama's efforts in southern Sudan of late), that's great. But, overall, let's focus first on not being part of the problem. Let's divest from companies doing business in Sudan and anywhere else where the money funds genocide. Let's insist that electronics be certified "conflict-free." Let's buy fair trade products whenever possible (that may also help protect US jobs against unfair competition from abroad to some extent). Let's figure out how to drastically reduce the use of illicit drugs that come from or through Mexico while using a combination of tighter gun control measures and border control checks to reduce the number of guns going from the US to Mexico. Let's adopt a cap and trade system - or if there's a better way to reduce emissions, let's do that. And let's make our oil addiction a mistake of the last century, not this one.

These shifts could potentially save thousands or even millions of lives. That's a much better return on our investment than Afghanistan or Iraq got us.

So my bottom line is that we should focus on rebuilding and reinventing America for the new century while trying to reduce the harm we do elsewhere. If we could show our kids that these changes are possible, think about the kind of America - and the kind of world - they could help shape during their lifetimes?

I welcome your thoughts and comments - this is a significant shift for me. If you've got some hard evidence or persuasive arguments that I'm way off course, I'd love to see them.

Join me in becoming less distraught and more empowered

2011-01-17T12:34:00.000-05:00

Most of my life, I've been a pretty positive guy. In fact, in college, friends said I viewed the world through rose-colored glasses. I have tended to believe that anything is possible. I tended to get along with everyone, didn't speak badly about other people behind their backs, and saw the good in others.

Recently, however, I feel like I'm stuck in some bad Star Wars remake, being drawn over to the Dark Side. Now, some of it may just be that I'm a middle-aged guy, with less patience who is more easily frustrated by ignorance, thoughtlessness, and selfishness. I'm more aware of my own short-comings and feeling more guilty about my lack of involvement in fixing our nation's problems. Moreover, like many people, I can get caught up in the day-to-day frustrations and disappointments of my life, the petty conflicts, the slights - real and perceived.

And, yet, I am a high school social studies teacher and love my job more than ever. I am having more fun, find my students more interesting, and enjoy the journey of learning with them more than ever. That would seem to require plenty of patience and a sense of wonderment. And, I'd like to think I'm making a difference, at least with some people, some of the time.

While there are, in all likelihood, a multitude of reasons for my darker mood, every day I come back to the same realization: that a major reason for this shift in attitude is the state of our nation, the direction in which we're headed, and the seemingly intractable problem of having a political system dominated by two political parties addicted to, dependent on, and beholden to big money. This problem is compounded by the alarmingly rapid growth of inequality in this country, where the top one percent, or less, are amassing wealth at a blistering pace while the middle class shrinks and stagnates.

It is easy to become like Bill Maher, host of HBO's Real Time, whose cynicism often is well-founded and defended. There are many, many enormous challenges facing our country, and there is plenty of evidence that the political system is broken. As a teacher, I have felt is was my duty to help my students see the looming threats to their future. I have felt even more justified, of late, since many of my warnings have become reality in the last few years.

The result, however, has been that all-too-many days my students left class feeling depressed or worried, while I wanted them to feel empowered. I have become ever more angry and frustrated with our politics and politicians and the lack of real progress in addressing our more urgent problems. But giving in to the cynicism, frustration, and anger solves nothing. If there's anything I've learned from my students this semester, and from the discussions since the shooting in Arizona, it's that we need to feel more empowered and less cynical. We need a positive vision of the future to rally behind, not an endless things to complain about and feel victimized by.

We all can see where things are headed if more and more of us feel like powerless victims. And there are plenty of people in politics and on radio and TV who stand to make more money and gain more power and influence by leading us down that path. But that path does not lead us to a future I want for me or my kids.

One of the things that has made America great over the centuries is that, when times got really tough and the challenges seemed enormous and virtually insurmountable, people rallied behind those who sought solutions and had a vision for a better future. The progressive movement of the late 1800s and early 1900s. FDR and the New Deal. Martin Luther King, Jr., and LBJ and the Civil Rights Movement and the Great Society. They reminded us of our strengths and the many things to feel grateful for while challenging us to become even better and to insure that more Americans had a shot at the American dream.

So my challenge for myself is to look for ways to better appreciate what I have in my life and the many wonderful things our country has achieved while finding ways to become a better citizen in a better country. To feel less angry and more hopeful. To find ways to empower myself, my students, and other Americans who want a better future.

That doesn't mean ignoring those who would bring us over to the Dark Side. Rather, it means holding them accountable for their lies and personal agendas while having real answers to the questions they pretend to answer. It means insisting on a fact-based, reality-based, forward-looking debate and modeling what that looks like every day.

If we all take on this challenge, if we all do our best every day to forge that positive vision and move us one step along in that direction, we will get there.

For me, the positive vision has to start with a major political reform of some kind to break the stranglehold of big money on our political system. I'm not sure if that means a third party or a constitutional amendment on campaign financing, but something has to shift. It also means young Americans - people in their teens and twenties - who have the most to lose if things don't turn around, standing up for their futures and being the agents of change people like them have been in the past (civil rights, Vietnam, the anti-apartheid movement, etc.).

Then, it's about creating the kind of America we will be proud to leave our children and grandchildren. I've written before in this space about what that vision might look like, and I will doubtlessly write about it more. And I want to hear from others what they want that vision to look like. It can't end with a conversation on the internet, but it can start here.

How am I doing so far? How about you?

Conversation with a young patriot

2011-01-10T17:38:00.000-05:00

I've been emailing back and forth with a former student this past week, and I thought I would share some of my end of the conversation in case it is of interest to anyone else:

[in response to an email about the shooting in Arizona...]

I totally understand how you are feeling. It is a horrific incident and these kinds of things - violence in politics - naturally cause many caring people to question if there is any hope. Coupled with the multitude of challenges our country faces, and the nature of political discourse these days (to say nothing of the campaign finance fiasco), it's all too easy to become disheartened.

I've felt it, too. I've been in a funk for over a week, and part of it is feeling so frustrated and even angry about all this stuff - and that was before the shooting! But, ultimately, we both have a simple choice:

Tune out, stop paying attention, and stop caring. Live our lives in a bubble and pretend this stuff does not matter and that we can't make a difference. OR,...

Do something! Figure out what really matters and find a way to get involved. Make a difference. Or, at least, try to fight the good fight.

You are smart, you get it, and you care. You have some important skills. If not you, then who? There are lots of other good people out there who care. Find them. The power truly lies in the fact that we are still a democracy, and if people raise their voices, they can make a difference. Even the Tea Party has made a difference (not necessarily for the better, but a difference nonetheless).

[my reply to questions about how to decide where and how to get involved...]

Ultimately, I think it comes down to trusting your gut - which issue(s) really move you? You also could look at it in terms of which issue gives you the most leverage to make progress on others.

Focus on clarifying the big picture for you, then just take a step a day in that direction. Don't worry about the "how" or whether it seems doable or not. Find people on campus who share your interest/passion. Put up flyers and organize a meeting. Form a club/organization. Then figure out who else beyond your campus cares and network with them. That's a start....

So what next? Here's where my thinking is headed, for what it's worth:

It seems to me that the system is broken. Neither party is really capable/willing to what's necessary because big money has a stranglehold on the campaign process. So it's either create a third party (Robert Reich and others are starting to talk about it...) or push for a constitutional amendment to fix campaign financing, since the Supreme Court really screwed that up.

It's either that or... use the deficit/budget debate, which is getting into high gear now, as a wedge to force a debate on short- and long-term priorities.

Thoughts? I think you need to do some networking on campus to find some like-minded patriots...

Why can't I be a "supporter of the 2nd amendment," too?

2011-01-10T16:36:00.000-05:00

Listening to some of the discussions in the media in the aftermath of the shooting in Arizona this weekend, it is striking how the language of the gun control debate seems to favor the anti-gun control side.

Language matters. The words we choose often convey bias or judgement - good or bad, right or wrong. The NRA and its anti-gun control allies seem to have won the battle over language. Time and time again, I have heard those in who oppose gun control (often of any kind) as "supporters of the 2nd amendment" or "supporters of 2nd amendment rights." Now, I favor some forms of gun control. I favor a ban on assault weapons, I favor waiting periods and more serious background checks. I favor mandatory training and licenses, like you need to drive a car (another potentially deadly weapon). But I also believe in the Constitution and the 2nd amendment. I just don't interpret it as broadly as the NRA and most anti-gun control people do.

So why does the media tend to use language that makes me seem like I am against part of the Constitution and against the 2nd amendment?

Here's what the 2nd amendment actually says:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Seems pretty clear to me that this protects people's right to own weapons because we need a citizen milita to defend the freedom of the country. Now, we live in an era where the US military and National Guard protect the freedom of the country, so the intent of the amendment would seem moot. But I am willing to acknowledge a long-standing tradition of gun ownership in this country under a broad interpretation of this amendment. But it would seem prudent and constitutional for the government to pass laws limiting or regulating access to weapons if it is in the interest of protecting the general population.

But that does not make me "anti-2nd amendment," as the current language used in the media would suggest. By suggesting that those against gun control "support" the amendment (and, therefor, the Constitution), it is implied that those for gun control are against the amendment (and the Constitution). that pretty much stifles the debate.

One more thing on the corn subsidies...

2011-01-07T16:31:00.000-05:00

Obviously we're addicted to cheap corn, so we can't just cut the subsidies today. We need to wean ourselves off of them. We need a sensible approach toward a more sustainable food policy and system. Pig factories are dangerous to the local environment and to our society in general. And we don't want kids and poor people drinking soft drinks and eating cheeseburgers and fries so much. We want and need less processed foods that are more affordable.

But because of the influence of the farming industry, we can't even begin the conversation politically. Even Michelle Obama's relatively modest initiatives around healthy eating have come under attack!

We need some real strategic thinking in DC. On energy, education, food/health, infrastructure. Concrete, achievable and observable goals for the next 10 years and clear policies for achieving them. If the current political parties can't do that, then our nation needs another party...

Our insane corn policy

2011-01-07T16:19:00.000-05:00

Since the Nixon Administration, we've had a crazy policy of subsidizing corn production. It's a bonanza for the big agricultural companies like ADM and has become a bit of a political sacred cow - big shock. Between ADM and other companies exercising their lobbying clout and the Iowa caucuses being so important in the presidential election process, it's become as American as apple pie and baseball.

The consequences are tragic. Cheap corn made corn syrup a staple in processed foods, making the least healthy food the least expensive. Corn became the feed of choice for cattle and pigs, enabling the creation of mega cattle and pig factories and the necessity for using antibiotics to keep those cows and pigs "healthy." Fast food and soft drink sales exploded. So did childhood and adult obesity. So did drug-resistant diseases.

In recent years, ethanol became a more popular alternative to or additive to gasoline, as mandated by the government. That, in term, increased demand for corn and drove the prices up, making food that depends on corn (beef, pork, etc.) more expensive.

NPR has a series on ethanol, and one installment discusses this crazy aspect of our corn subsidies - which need to end. Decades or centuries from now, historians may well look back on American corn subsidies as one of the stupidest and dangerous government policies of the 20th and 21st centuries.

Like so many other policies that need to change, this one is tough because the status quo serves the interest of big business. But it's killing us.

Acting like Soviets

2011-01-07T14:26:00.000-05:00

When I lived in the Soviet Union during its last years, one of the things that struck me as a critical difference between Soviets and Americans was the attitude when your neighbor had something you did not.

In America, if your neighbor bought a nice, shiny new car, you wanted one. You tried to figure out how you could get a car just like it - or better. We called it, "Keeping up with the Joneses." This mentality helped fuel economic expansion in the 20th century by increasing demand for consumer products and rewarding innovation. Your neighbor got the new color tv? Well, you had to get one, too. Sometimes that meant trying to get a promotion or bonus, or maybe even switch companies so you could earn more money. When it got out of control, it meant over-borrowing by running up our credit card bills or by borrowing against the equity in our houses.

In the Soviet Union, if your neighbor got that nice, shiny new car (ok, they weren't that nice or shiny...), you thought, "How did they get that? Must have paid someone off. I should report them to the authorities so they will take it away! I can't afford one, and even if I could, I'd have to wait 5-10 years on a waiting list in order to get one. Ivan shouldn't be able to buy one now!" People resented any evidence of success or wealth or improvement in the standard of living of their neighbors.

Now I am not a big fan of America's consumption mentality. I think it is a source of unhappiness and stress and waste. But it also is a source of innovation and ambition and progress. It is part of what unites us in the pursuit of the American dream - that we will live better than our parents and that our kids will live better than we do.

The current attacks on public employees and their unions smacks of a Soviet-style attitude of resentment: "Why should government workers have cheap health insurance or a decent pension when private sector employees increasingly do not?" Rather than denying public workers affordable health care and a pension, why don't we have a national conversation about how to really make health care affordable for all - beyond what Obamacare might or might not do? Why not discuss how everyone will live comfortably in old age, especially as life expectancy increases? Will 401k's and Social Security be enough? Can Social Security and Medicare be made solvent for the long term without making them ineffective as safety nets? If most people do have to save for their own retirement now, how can we better educate and empower them to do it wisely and successfully? After all, most high school students never learn about financial planning and investing, yet most will be responsible for managing their finances, saving for their kids' college educations, and building a pretty big nest egg for retirement.

Let's not make public employees the villains here and try to tear everyone down to a poor lowest common denominator. Let's figure out what or new vision of the American dream is and then figure out the best way to make it happen!

Fixing education in America - are we on the wrong path?

2011-01-07T08:15:00.001-05:00

The Economist has a hopeful article about education reform in the US. While I am glad that we seem to be in the early stages of a more serious debate about the future of America's schools, I am very concerned that the debate is merely accelerating a move in the wrong direction. Seemingly every day, I hear or read about someone pointing the finger at teachers and teacher unions as the problem. We need more accountability for teachers! Let's test kids more so we can use those tests to determine how well teachers teach, then fire the ones whose students do poorly on the tests and increase the pay for the ones whose kids improve the most. Yet while some talk about needing to recruit better-qualified teachers and pay them more if they are effective, governors across the country this week are targeting public employees, their unions, and their benefits (health care and pensions) in order to address dire fiscal crises. So we're going to cut teacher pensions and health care, and cut teaching positions and/or slow the growth in salaries?

I've been teaching for over a decade now. I love it. It's harder than I ever thought, and I hate grading. But it's incredibly rewarding, challenging, and interesting every day. I learn so much from my students and about myself. I get up at 5am every day and I can't wait to get to school!

I'm also incredibly fortunate to teach in an affluent school district with supportive parents and more resources than many districts in the country. I've had supportive administrators, too, including my first principal who was a mentor to me and encouraged me to take risks and develop my own philosophy toward teaching.

So while I acknowledge that my perspective is somewhat limited, I'd like to weigh in on the growing debate in the US about how to improve our sub-par educational system.

I think we've been moving in the wrong direction in terms of national policy for a decade. No Child Left Behind created underfunded mandates for states and put us firmly on the track of relying on standardized tests to judge effectiveness. That's extremely flawed and, overall, harmful to education. The Obama/Duncan approach toward education reform similarly emphasizes testing, but now to evaluate teachers, not just schools.

Standardized tests have their place. Designed well, they can be one way of measuring minimal standards of proficiency for certain skills. But, in the end, they merely measure how each student can do on one given day on a limited range of tasks. They often test how well kids memorize material that, two weeks later, they forget. They really test how well you take a test. When is the last time you took a multiple-choice test where you work?

The reliance on standardized tests, I believe, has helped dumb-down America's schools in all too many cases. Rather than raising standards, they have often lowered them. Many teachers now "teach to the test," relying on lecture-based instruction to "cover" material that might be on a test and assessing students' learning by giving them tests that mimic the standardized ones at the end of the year.

The purpose of America's schools shouldn't be to raise test scores. I believe the purpose of America's schools should be to prepare our kids for 21st century careers and to teach them how to participate successfully in our society. Kids need to learn how to innovate, problem-solve, and collaborate with peers. They need to learn how to research, analyze, and communicate effectively, in writing and verbally. They need to understand how the economy works, how to budget and manage their money, and how to invest for the future. They need to know how to take care of their bodies through exercise and good nutrition. They need to know how to evaluate a doctor's advice and how to understand news about medical and scientific studies. They need to know how to be effective citizens in a democracy - how to follow and understand the news, how to discuss political and economic issues with their relatives, friends and co-workers, and how to participate in a democracy. Kids need to know how to figure out for whom to vote, how to vote, how to lobby their elected representatives, and how to share their opinions with their fellow citizens (letters to the editor, Twitter, Facebook, blogging, etc.).

For the most part, standardized tests do not assess how well we are meeting those needs. We will not have the best chance of meeting those needs by teaching to the test by lecturing kids and having them memorize facts they can look up online in 30 seconds. If we lower our expectations to the standards of the tests, teachers and kids will lower their expectations and those needs will not be met. Basing teachers' salaries and job security on how well their students do on standardized tests is the path to mediocrity, not innovation and excellence.

We need better and higher standards. We need better ways of evaluating what we do in the classroom. We need better ways of preparing kids in poor inner city and rural districts for elementary school, so they can read and write and focus the rest of their academic careers on rising to high expectations. We need to train our teachers to be more innovative and creative, to take risks in the classroom in order to best address the needs and aspirations of the students they work with each year.

What do you think our goals should be? What's the best way to achieve them? How do we do it in this fiscal climate?

I've had it!

2011-01-06T20:45:00.001-05:00

I am increasingly frustrated and angry with the direction of our country and the tragically flawed nature of our political system. I'm looking for people who share my concern so we can figure out what to do - how we can raise our voices and join together to make sure that we and our kids have a brighter future.

The root of all evil seems to be the infection of the political system with corporate money. How can we expect the government - no matter which party is in charge - to do what is best for the common good when corporations and other wealthy donors have bought access and influence that is unchallenged? Just this week, we learned that hedge funds bankrolled the GOP toward the end of the midterm elections, providing $10 million in campaign financing.

Why should it surprise us when Obama appoints a top JP Morgan Chase executive to be his chief of staff? Why should we be surprised when his budget director leaves to go work for Citigroup?

Why should we be surprised when the first step in health care reform was to cut a private deal with the major companies involved in health care?

Why should we be surprised that the GOP had as its top priority to extend tax cuts on the wealthiest 2%? Why should we be surprised that the most likely solution to fixing Social Security's solvency is to make middle and working class people pay more in payroll taxes and postpone retirement, rather than reducing future benefits for the wealthy or taxing more of their current income?

Why should we be surprised when eight presidents - from Nixon to Obama - fail to provide a serious energy policy to get us off our addiction to Middle East oil? Why should we be surprised that oil companies are among the most heavily subsidized by the government?

Why should we be surprised when some of our leaders ignore science and deny climate change? Why should we be surprised when even those who believe in science do nothing to address the need to reduce carbon emissions?

Why should we be surprised when the US government spends tens of billions of dollars subsidizing agriculture in ways that make our citizens - and especially our kids - obese?

Americans need jobs, we need to rebuild and modernize our infrastructure, we need major investments in new energy technology, and we need to fix and better fund our educational system. But who is lobbying Congress to make sure that gets done? And who is lobbying Congress to make sure it gets done not by borrowing from our children's future income but by asking those who benefit the most from our country's wealth to pay more according to their means and by ending subsidies that keep us addicted to oil and unhealthy food?

We're a great country, capable of solving our problems and giving our kids - and the world - a brighter, healthier, safer future. Our challenges might be great, but so is our capacity for innovation and hard work. But unless and until our government stops serving the needs of the few and puts the needs of the average American first, much of that capacity will go to waste.

Thanks to the Supreme Court, the only way to remove the stranglehold big money has on our political system may be to amend the Constitution. So do we need to rally together to make that happen? Is it even possible? Will politicians in DC and state legislatures choose to cut off the hand that feeds them? Or do we need a third party that will counter the Tea Party and raise support for a platform that will fix our fiscal mess while investing in our future? Is there another way, one that is more unconventional that takes advantage of social networking and the technology of the 21st century to truly transform grassroots activism?

I would love to hear from others who share my frustration and anger. I especially would love to hear from younger Americans - those in their teens and 20s - who have the most to gain and lose. You have the power - and the time and energy - to make a real difference. Time to stand up and be heard!

Sobering op-ed from Friedman

2010-08-23T17:11:00.000-04:00

Tom Friedman had a sobering and, as usual, pretty on target op-ed on the structural problems the US is facing in the coming years.

Our political leaders are not likely to forge the "grand bargain" Friedman calls for, so who will? Or who will demand it? The Tea Party is a ridiculous anti-tax, conservative movement. But it has proven that it is possible to get the country's attention with some grassroots activism.

Time for people who care about our country's future and want to really make America strong and prosperous in the 21st century to organize and demand:

- a new stimulus bill that invests in infrastructure, education, new energy technologies, and tax breaks for new businesses
- an end to the Bush tax cuts once unemployment drops below 7 or 8 percent
- a plan that will make Social Security and Medicare sustainable for the foreseeable future while preserving their support for those Americans who most need it. That means Bill Gates and Warren Buffett may get less...

Reply to an important comment - why should the wealthy pay more?

2010-08-19T15:55:00.000-04:00

Someone posted the following comment in response to an earlier post:

I don't think many would disagree that we should be paying taxes. The real debate (in my opinion) is not should we pay taxes but why should those who earn the most be supporting those who contribute the least. I certainly expect to "pay for what (I) get" however my question is why should others "get" what I am paying for?

I hear this a lot and it is an important and common point of view. I'd love to take a crack at replying...

First, I think a lot of people don't like paying taxes think they are "Taxed Enough Already" (the TEA Party people), and would like to see their taxes cut further. Unfortunately, no one really forces them to acknowledge that we pay little in federal taxes compared to other developed nations and, because we cut taxes almost a decade ago, we end up borrowing from our kids' future earnings to finance much of what our government does.

Also, in my experience, most people who are reluctant to pay more in taxes can't come up with a credible plan for spending less so we don't have to borrow. And most of the ones that I know have at least one or two major budget items they fervently want to protect (defense spending, Social Security, Medicare for their elderly parent, etc.). In general, we Americans want more from the government but refuse to pay for it. That is fiscally irresponsible and morally wrong.

Now, as to the main point in the comment, about "paying for what I get" but not wanting to have others "get" what the wealthy in America pay for, it's a fundamental question of what is fair and sensible in American tax policy.

The fundamental reason for a progressive tax system, in which those who make more pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes, is that those who earn more can afford more (the poor and middle classes spend most or all of their income on necessities - the rich have more discretionary income and can afford to pay a higher percentage of income in taxes). In addition, the theory goes, wealthy Americans benefit more, overall, from having a government that protects us, makes sure the financial system functions well (um, that is, most of the time?), and insures a healthy level of economic competition and the rule of law. I agree that, in general, a progressive system of taxation makes sense and is "fair" for those reasons. So does Warren Buffett. In fact, he has argued that our tax system offers so many loopholes and deductions for the wealthy that in many cases they pay less than middle class Americans.

But I also think it is ok to think selfishly. The reality is that wealthy people in this country generally do better when the middle class is growing and prospering. A healthy middle class buys more goods and services from businesses that the wealthy class owns and invests in. So if we make sure that the middle and poor classes pay less in taxes and have more money to spend, that's good for everybody. Just look at the 90s - the wealthy paid more in taxes than they do now, but the middle class did better and so did the overall economy - and the rich got richer!

There's one final point I'd like to make: we are in this together as a country. We choose to live here and participate in a social contract that tasks the government with providing for the general welfare of the country and its citizens. That means that, sometimes, those of us who have more provide aid and support to those who have less. It is one of our greatest traits as a people, I would argue. We are, generally, a kind and generous people. That's why we have had a social safety net for seven decades. And, while it does not work perfectly and there are those who take advantage of it, in general it serves us well and I am proud that we have one.

Thanks for the important comment and the chance to respond.

Some things should be sacred

2010-08-17T19:15:00.000-04:00

The insane debate over the proposed Mulsim community center and mosque near - not at - Ground Zero in Manhattan is incredibly frustrating and disappointing for me. I fully understand and, sadly, accept the current state of politics in this country, in which every issue is partisan and where politicians carefully couch their statements in response to the current winds of public opinion or the latest statements of pundits on FOX News or MSNBC.

But some things in this country should be sacred, like freedom of religion. I know that separation of church and state can be murky, at times, but every American - especially our political leaders - should cast aside partisan agendas when it comes to our core freedoms. If someone wants to build a mosque, or a church, or a synagogue near Ground Zero, that is their right (provided they meet whatever local zoning and building codes apply). Period. Politicians should not try to score political points - or capture votes - by suggesting one religious group should be treated differently than any other.

I also am disturbed by Newt Gingrich - who, in spite of his intelligence is a crass political opportunist primarily concerned with his own political future - suggesting that Islam is the equivalent of the Nazis. So now Newt - and all too many Americans - would have us condemn all Muslims for the sins of a small number of crazy radicals. Great. That really is crazy.

No American who truly cares about the values millions of Americans have fought to defend should allow this line of reasoning to go unchallenged.

I know next to nothing about the group of imam behind the proposed community center and mosque. But I do know Rabbi David Saperstein, head of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism and and one of the most honorable Americans I have had the pleasure of knowing and working with. Rabbi Saperstein wrote eloquently and powerfully in support of the proposed community center/mosque. That's just about the best endorsement you can get.

Where are the Millenials - and their parents?

2010-08-15T13:26:00.000-04:00

There is a serious crisis looming for the Millenials (people in their teens and twenties), but most of them seem oblivious.

Our exploding federal debt and the financial woes of Social Security and Medicare (though the health care reform helped this a bit) threaten to doom my kids and others of their generation to a bleak economic future. Left unchecked, current trends will leave them with much higher income taxes to merely pay the interest on our debt while at the same time having fewer jobs and lower wages because our country can't afford to fix/improve education and infrastructure. Moreover, if waiting to fix Social Security and Medicare results in draconian benefit cuts down the road, our kids will have to spend more of their money taking care of us, their parents. Yikes! My generation is on course to be the first in over a century to leave our kids with fewer opportunities and a lower standard of living than we had.

Now, one of the problems in tackling this issue is that, right now, we actually need to spend and borrow more to make sure the fragile economic recovery takes hold. If we don't, the deficit will soar even more as the economy tanks and tax revenues evaporate. We need a solid economic recovery to create jobs, which will raise tax revenues and make it easier to get our fiscal house in order.

There are some Millenials who get it - like We Have POWER Now (http://wehavepowernow.org). But more need to join their cause - NOW! And we, their parents, need to join forces, too, to force our elected leaders to have some guts and make the tough but smart choices. It means having clear priorities and, ultimately, it means paying slightly higher taxes and, once the current economic crisis has passed, reigning in spending so our kids won't face astronomically higher taxes for a crippled government in a stagnant economy. It's called being the responsible adults.

Exit strategies and deadlines

2010-08-13T17:52:00.000-04:00

As I have been working through my personal beliefs about the war in Afghanistan, it has reminded me of something Josh Muravchik said in the mid-1990s during the debate over the genocide in Bosnia. When someone asked about what the US exit strategy might be if the US got involved militarily, Josh essentially said, "When we send troops into war, the other guys should be the ones looking for the exits! I'm not interested in exit strategies, I'm interested in success strategies." (Hope I did justice to Josh's quote...)

I think that's a great philosophy. We need clear goals and a sensible plan for achieving them. We leave when our goals have been achieved - not when an artificial deadline was passed. I understand the rationale behind having deadlines, but they usually seem to be a counterproductive substitute for clear, achievable and observable goals and the will to achieve them.

Unless President Obama can provide those goals - and the ones we have right now do not meet those standards - we should not be wasting lives or money there.

My tipping point on Afghanistan

2010-08-13T17:40:00.001-04:00

I guess the thing that finally led me to essentially give up on Afghanistan was the Wikileaks publication of US military documents on the war in July. Based on what I have read about them so far, the documents don't offer much we didn't already know or suspect. But, for me, the war in Afghanistan has really been about Pakistan for years. Once the Taliban was routed and bin Laden escaped, I believed we needed to stabilize Afghanistan in order to help stabilize Pakistan. I feared that if we abandoned Afghanistan - or looked like we were going to - the Pakistani government would hedge its bets by increasing its support for the Taliban.

The Wikileaks dump of Pentagon documents was a wake up call for me - the Pakistani government has continued to support the Taliban in Afghanistan and will continue to do so. they believe we won't stay in Afghanistan forever. In addition, they see the Taliban as a counterweight to increasing Indian influence in Afghanistan. Obama's deadline of next summer for beginning a US withdrawal just reenforced Pakistan's conclusion that we will inevitably pack up our troops and leave.

In terms of stabilizing Pakistan, it seems that what we do now in Afghanistan will make little or no difference. Indeed, one could make the argument that, if anything, our involvement in Afghanistan increases anti-American sentiment in Pakistan.

In the end, if what we really care about is the stability of Pakistan - and its nuclear weapons - and trying to go after Al Qaeda and extremists who seek to destabilize Pakistan's government, then we should focus on what we can reasonably do inside Pakistan and reducing tensions between Pakistan and India.

Time is up in Afghanistan

2010-08-13T15:23:00.002-04:00

While the New York Times reported this week that Gen. Petraeus and other US military officials in Afghanistan are arguing for more time to implement their counter-insurgency strategy in Afghanistan, it seems pretty clear that it is actually time to hasten our withdrawal and scale back our goals.

When we first invaded Afghanistan in 2001, our goals were clear and sensible: Attack and destroy Al Qaeda camps, kill or capture Al Qaeda members and leaders, and remove from power the Taliban leadership that had provided Al Qaeda with a safe haven from which to operate. While we allowed Osama bin Laden and some of the Al Qaeda leadership to escape to Pakistan, we otherwise accomplished these clear and achievable goals.

After that, our goals became increasingly unclear and less achievable. According to the same NYT article this week, President Obama's goals include:

"securing Afghan population centers so that Al Qaeda could not use the country again as a launching pad for attacks on the United States, promoting good government, anticorruption and rule-of-law measures..."

Al Qaeda is now using Pakistan, Yemen, and other countries as bases of operations. Permanently preventing it from returning to Afghanistan is not necessary - Afghanistan is not indispensable to bin Laden.

I am all in favor of "good government," fighting corruption, and promoting the rule of law, but those are not clear goals that are observable and achievable. How would one know when we've achieved them? Do we keep tens of thousands of US soldiers there until we are sure we have? And should we spend billions of dollars and risk countless more US (and Afghani) lives while we ignore violence and horrors in Darfur, Congo, and elsewhere?

Moreover, we really can't afford this war anymore. Sure, if it were a battle to the death between us and bin Laden, I'd want us to sell as many Treasury bonds as we could to finance it. But I am not willing to mortgage our country's future (my daughters' futures) to pursue Obama's vague goals. It is time to invest in our future, rebuild our infrastructure, develop new energy technologies, and fix our schools. As Tom Friedman says, the nation-building we most urgently need is right here at home.

I really don't like the overdrawn Vietnam War analogies, but it is starting to feel like Obama is acting like LBJ - he knows we can't "win," but he is determined to not be the president who "loses."

Some thoughts on the federal debt...

2010-08-11T13:21:00.001-04:00

I guess my beliefs on the federal government's debt are pretty straightforward - and, at least I'd like to believe, fairly reasonable, logical, and sound from an economics point of view:

The government owing money is not a bad thing. Governments need to borrow money, and at times it is the best way to pay for something, especially a short-term, unexpected expense (stimulus spending during a recession, a sudden military buildup at the stat of a war, etc.)
In normal times - decent economic growth, low unemployment, and relative peace - the federal government should not borrow much, if any, money. That's the time to pay down existing debt (so you have room to borrow in future crises, plus it frees up capital for private borrowing/investment) and invest in the future: improve education, fund more research in medicine and new technologies, repair old roads and bridges and build new ones, add new infrastructure (nationwide wifi, for example), etc.
Government debt can be a bad thing when it becomes too big a percentage of GDP (the tipping point is probably somewhere around 90 or 100% of GDP). Just ask Japan. It can suck up too much of the available capital, stifling private investment. Interest rates go up, making all borrowing more expensive and suffocating economic growth. And taxes need to be raised during what is likely a period of economic stagnation, because the government can't borrow as freely (or cheaply) and just making the interest payments becomes a huge part of the government's budget. Other budget items need to be cut - defense, education, care for the poor and elderly - because the debt payments squeeze them out.

So what does that mean about current fiscal policy? Well, it means Bush got it wrong - he cut taxes and borrowed heavily during "normal" times, then added to the borrowing during two wars, never raising taxes to help finance them as they dragged on endlessly. He also added a historic unfunded entitlement - medicare prescription drug benefits for the elderly - which compounded our fiscal woes.

As for Obama, he seems to be trying to hit the mark. Short-term additional borrowing to prevent the Great Depression II and spark a sustainable recovery. If anything, we might need more stimulus borrowing in the short-term. But he says he wants to start looking toward getting our fiscal house in order as soon as it is feasible - and has commissioned a bipartisan task force to come up with recommendations by December. We'll see if that bears fruit. He also has Defense Secretary Gates proposing cost-cutting measures to responsibly shrink the defense budget. The devil is in the details, but that is something that has to happen. Obama also wants to, eventually, end the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. That's a no-brainer.

So Obama may be on a sensible course. But the politics of fiscal policy in the US have been crazy ever since Reagan and the GOP made paying taxes almost seem unpatriotic. We pay less in income taxes than most, if not all, developed countries. Most of us pay less than we did two years ago. And many Americans pay little or no income taxes. It's time we all grew up and acknowledged that we need to pay for what we get - not just expect to get what we pay for. Time to pay our bills, not borrow from our children's future earnings.

An initial draft of the "vision"

2010-08-10T16:54:00.000-04:00

While my list of issues is a bit daunting, I thought I'd take a first crack at the vision piece. Not sure how many of the issues it will encompass, but here's a first draft. Again, feedback/comments are welcome.

A Vision for America's 21st Century

The first priority is making sure that we have a sustainable economic recovery that includes investments in our long-term prosperity and competitiveness. If we don't do that, we won't be able to afford to address any of the other problems. That means additional short-term borrowing (fortunately, at close to zero percent interest!) to provide more federal spending on infrastructure repair and upgrades (roads, bridges, electrical grid) and new technology (nationwide broadband/wifi), education, and new energy (expanding the investments in last year's stimulus package).

Even before the recovery is assured, we should commit to putting our fiscal house in order, so we don't bankrupt the country and have our kids paying half their income in taxes to pay the interest on our debt. The actual steps in this direction might have to wait until the recovery is assured, but then it means a combination of reforming Social Security and Medicare so they are sustainable for the long-term, plus raising taxes some (eliminate Bush's tax cut on wealthy and add a value-added tax; this combo might allow us to eliminate or at least reduce income taxes on those making less than 10k/year). And we need to reduce spending - phase out subsidies for corn (and reduce obesity as an added benefit) and oil companies, end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, reconfigure our military (beyond what Gates has proposed) so we can address the threats of the 21st century more cost effectively, etc. This must include reduced dependence on military and intelligence contractors. We can neither afford to pay a premium for those services, nor can we feel comfortable financing the creation of private armies and intelligence services.

Our long-term focus then turns to:

Fixing education so it offers a real path out of poverty and encourages creativity and innovation, not rote memorization and regurgitation.
Reforming campaign finance and the role of the government so the focus is on government protecting us (from unsafe water, chemicals in our consumer products, food, etc.), not protecting the companies and donors.
Creation of new private sector jobs in new energy and other 21st century technologies.
Preparation for the long-term effects of climate change that may no longer be reversible.
Making America the true beacon of human rights, again, by making the fight against human trafficking and for empowerment of women a global priority.
Reforming our military and intelligences services to focus on the specific threats to America's security (loose nukes, leaders and training centers for terrorists, etc.) and joining with our NATO allies to combat mass murder and genocide (Congo, Darfur, etc.).

Well, that's a first draft. Comments/thoughts/suggestions?

The issues...

2010-08-10T16:19:00.002-04:00

So here is an initial list of the issues that I think are important/critical and in dire need of attention. Part of my goal in blogging is to come up with a more focused list of priorities and some way of forging my thoughts about them into some kind of coherent vision. I eagerly welcome comments/feedback on the list and my thinking about it as it evolves. I started this list as part of an email exchange with a friend, who added to it.

The Issues That Concern or Scare Me Most

Exploding federal debt
Systemic poverty in the US
The growing gap between the rich and everyone else; this includes the stagnation and decline of the middle class
Dependence on fossil fuels, especially foreign oil
Nuclear proliferation and loose nukes
Our inefficient and costly healthcare system (we'll see how well the recent healthcare reform fixes this. It is at least a first step...)
Human/sex trafficking
Campaign finance reform
The future of the media (Fox News, decline of newspapers, etc.)
Climate change
Decline of infrastructure
Water quality in US
Water shortages worldwide
Lack of public faith in government/politics
Outsourcing of military and intelligence work to contractors (Blackwater, etc.)

Moving forward on the blogging...

2010-08-10T15:52:00.000-04:00

This blog has been an afterthought for the most part. I have other things that have been more "urgent" or important, or I just wondered whether anyone else would even be interested in what I have to say on a regular basis.

I guess from here on out my philosophy is this: I will blog when it moves me or when it is useful to get some thoughts or reactions down in writing. Making it "public" rather than a private journal is useful because it forces me to be a bit more thoughtful and take ait a bit more seriously, because someone might actually read it.

But I also hope to blog from time to time because my voice does matter. Everyone's does, and I mean that. I have seen how one person can make a difference, how an "average American" can affect the course of history. But I also believe my voice matters because I have a unique perspective as a teacher and former diplomat and activist. And I care about some issues that are critical to our country's future and my views tend to be pretty well-informed. So maybe, just maybe, someone will read this and it will make them think a bit more about something important. And that's a start.

My first order of business is to try to use this space to flesh out a vision for America in the 21st century. A modest goal, I know. ;-) But I have a huge number of issues I care about and that all seem "urgent," so I need a place to think through the priorities and see if I can construct an overall vision that seems to address the big ones. We'll see if I succeed on any level.

ipadio: Steve Walker's phlog - 1st phonecast

2010-05-11T08:21:00.001-04:00

Zakaria: How to Solve America's Debt Problem - Fareed Zakaria - Newsweek.com

2010-03-01T12:32:00.000-05:00

Zakaria: How to Solve America's Debt Problem - Fareed Zakaria - Newsweek.com

Fareed, as always, is right. Time to start paying the bills while continuing to invest in our future.

Today's youth - 18-30 year olds, the people with the most to gain and lose in this struggle - need to speak up and demand to be heard. Here's a starting point for them to demand of our leaders:

1. Fix entitlements. Raise the age of retirement and link it to life expectancy. Tax benefits of the wealthy or have some kind of needs testing - Bill Gates shouldn't get Social Security, or he should at least pay taxes on it. Crack down on Medicare fraud (I think it's about $60 billion a year!).

2. Restore "PayGo," or "Pay As You Go," effective in the FY 2012 budget. If Congress wants to cut taxes or raise spending, it must find a tax to increase or spending to cut to offset it.

3. Abolish the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy ASAP.

4. Commit the country to energy independence from foreign oil by 2020. Invest in truly green energy and offer tax credits to businesses and homeowners who go green.

5. Eliminate agricultural subsidies that are making big agribusinesses richer and America's kids fatter. Kill the corn subsidies and you start to save lives - and make balancing the budget easier.

6. Eliminate the homeowner's tax deduction. I love it as a homeowner, but it makes no fiscal or policy sense. Phase it out over the next 5 years.

7. Phase in a Value Added Tax (VAT). While it is regressive - it hurts the poor and middle class disproportionally - it could help balance the budget and still allow for lowering income taxes on the working poor and many in the middle class. That might work out ok. Worth a closer look, at least.

A bit more on the GOP

2010-02-06T12:52:00.000-05:00

The GOP is severely lacking in vision and leadership. How else can you explain Sarah Palin? What would I like to see from the GOP? Serious solutions to our big challenges:

Job Creation - We need to get businesses hiring quickly and help foster new enterprises with new, higher paying jobs for the future.
New Energy - We need to develop new energy technologies to accomplish ALL of these goals: reduce/eliminate dependence on foreign energy supplies; reduce carbon emissions; AND create new jobs and new intellectual property here, not in China or India.
Healthcare - We need to do all of these: provide safe, reliable healthcare to everyone; reduce costs for large and small US companies, the US Government, and the consumer; AND make all fields of medicine more appealing as a career choice (address tort reform, for one).
Education - We need to provide a good education to all Americans (black, white, rich, middle class, poor, urban, suburban, rural, etc.) and an excellent education for as many as possible. We need to make college more affordable and accessible to all. We need to entice more kids to go into engineering, math, and medicine. We can't compete with China and India, or provide more and better healthcare here at home, without more kids studying math, science, medicine, engineering, etc.

At least the Democrats have some ideas about some of these challenges. The GOP really has little to offer on few of them. I get it. Their leadership is weak and fractured. The ruled the White House for 8 years and both the WH and Congress for 6 of those years and really screwed things up while allowing the problems to fester. So they need to reinvent themselves. But they need to do so quickly. There are some core Republican principles they could rely upon to craft a new vision, including:

Fiscal responsibility - this may be tough given the need to spend more money on these challenges, but the GOP could lead the way on eliminating real waste, setting priorities, and reforming Medicare and Social Security not by privatizing them but by embracing higher taxes for them in return for reduced benefits for the wealthiest recipients.
Individual empowerment - Rather than seeking more tax cuts for the wealthy, how about being creative about using the tax code to encourage private investment in solving the above-mentioned challenges?
American competitiveness - An honest appraisal of what it would take to make America more competitive in the 21st Century would inevitably lead the GOP to focus its efforts - and the hearts and minds of Americans - on these challenges.

Some things that concern me...

2010-02-06T12:02:00.000-05:00

Just a list of some things that are bothering me lately. No particular order:

Obama's failure to present a clear vision to the American people and to get the word out about what he has already accomplished and why. He is gifted in so many ways as a communicator. But he and his staff suck at this. How hard would it be in this day and age to get people to buy into: "New Jobs, New Energy, and New Schools"? Link healthcare to jobs. Tell people we need new energy for new jobs and to stop fighting wars in the Middle East. Then get a new Education Secretary and offer real education reforms. Change the way schools are funded and encourage ad reward new teaching methods, not standardized tests.
The privatization of the US military. We have as many contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan as we have GIs. The contractors operate without direct congressional oversight or civilian chain of command - and often without being held accountable under local or US laws. This allows the USG to carry out wars with no clear goals and weak public support. We need a draft for national service. Pick 2 years in military or 4 years of either Peace Corps or AmericaCorps.
Cyberterrorism.
Exploding federal debt at a time when we need to spend more money to rescue the economy, create jobs, and invest in our crumbling infrastructure, education, and new technologies (energy, especially).
The lack of a loyal opposition party with real ideas. The GOP is a joke, and we are all paying for it.
The Democrats' lack of strong leaders.
Our ignorance of the impact of chemicals in our water and homes. Are we poisoning ourselves and our kids?

2010-01-21T20:57:00.000-05:00

Initially, I was not so discouraged by Scott Brown's victory in the MA Senate special election this week. I figured Obama would get the House to pass the Senate's version of health care reform - a flawed bill, for sure, but far better than nothing. The President would sign it in the coming weeks and attention could turn to financial reform and jobs creation.

Instead, the President and House Speaker Pelosi are indicating that the House will not pass the Senate version. Obama is talking about a more modest bill, which would probably have to be quite limited in its scope and impact to pass the Senate. But Senate Majority Leader Reid seems to be more interested in jobs legislation than more battles on health care.

This is starting to feel like deja vu.

I had hoped we'd see a little fight from Obama.

2009-12-22T22:06:00.001-05:00

6228JKAXTKZ2

Afghan government will need to do better than Pakistan's has so far...

2009-10-17T16:32:00.001-04:00

Foreign Policy magazine's website has an interesting article on the differences between Al Qaeda in Iraq and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Here's the link:

http://afpak.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/10/14/all_al_qaedas_are_not_created_equal

The article makes several good points, but I found the concluding paragraph most sobering in terms of the current debate over adding more troops. Most of that debate has focused on whether or not the additional troops would enable success against the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan and whether, simultaneously, we can build up the capacity of the Afghan government and military. Even if a counter-insurgency strategy with more US troops succeeds in neutralizing the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan and stabilizing the Afghan government in Kabul, however, it won't be enough:

An Afghan government unable (or unwilling) to control its entire territory will not adequately protect U.S. interests in the region. Though U.S. COIN strategy rightly prioritizes protecting the Afghan people over controlling territory, a COIN-produced Afghan government must eventually control both the people and the land, or al Qaeda will still have a safe haven from which to plot against the West. Pakistan has not controlled the Federally Administered Tribal Area for years. Iraq neither controls its northern third or its borders. To protect U.S. strategic interests, the Afghan government will have to do better.

So even if the Afghanistan "surge" works, it is hard to imagine the Kabul government being more willing and able than the Pakistani government to eliminate Al Qaeda from its territory. It would require an ability to control the territory of the whole country, the political will to engage in difficult military operations in the mountainous border region with Pakistan against extremists who are fairly popular among the local population in some areas, and military cooperation with the Pakistani government. That means the Pakistani government will have to prove more willing and able to eliminate its own Taliban insurgency and Al Qaeda in the border region and elsewhere.

That's a tall order.

Financial Reform - or Revolution?

2009-10-14T19:04:00.000-04:00

We hear from Capitol Hill this week that the House is starting the process of writing and passing legislation to reform the U.S. financial system. It seems clear, however, that these reforms, if passed, are unlikely to address the root causes of the financial and housing crisis that led to our current economic troubles.

I saw Michael Moore's new documentary, "Capitalism: A Love Story," this past weekend. I liked the film overall and found much of it to be compelling. One of the major themes of the movie is that Wall Street has essentially carried out a coup d'etat in Washington. As a result of Wall Street's control over our nation's capital, serious reform seems unlikely, if not impossible. This situation is discussed in a riveting and disturbing segment of Bill Moyer's Journal on PBS from October 9:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/10092009/watch.html

In the segment, one of the stars of the Moore film, US Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), and MIT economist Simon Johnson, explain how Wall Street insiders and friends dominate the executive branch (Summers, Geithner, et al) while campaign contributions secure the loyalty of members of Congress from both parties.

It makes me wonder whether financial reforms will even do the trick. What we need is a revolution - massive changes to our financial and political system on the scale of the New Deal or greater. We may not be able to reconstruct the Glass-Steagall Act wall between commercial and investment banking, but we need the equivalent and more. We need to keep banks from becoming "too big to fail." We need to change the rules for financing of congressional campaigns - probably just have public financing. We need to regulate derivatives and any new, risky investments Wall Street's "geniuses" come up with. And we need to close the revolving door between Wall Street and Pennsylvania Avenue.

If we don't, Johnson warns that the next crisis will likely be even bigger - just as this one was bigger than the technology bubble and the S&L crisis that preceded it. If that happens, we might have a real revolution on our hands.

One more thought on Afghanistan (for now...)

2009-10-12T20:26:00.000-04:00

One of the most compelling arguments for staying in Afghanistan and adding troops to better implement a counter-insurgency strategy is that we need to prove to the Pakistani Army and intelligence services that we are serious and we are staying. If we draw down our forces in Afghanistan, this argument goes, one of two things will happen. Either the Pakistani security forces - or elements among them - will decide that their long-term interests are better served by making nice with - and even, as they have in the past, supporting -the Taliban or in spite of Pakistan's best efforts the Taliban and Al Qaeda will use Afghanistan as a base for further destabilizing Pakistan.

This is a valid concern. I would love to see some creative and realistic thinking on how we can stabilize Pakistan even if Afghanistan, once again, fails as a state.

More on the urgency of Pakistan - from the BBC

2009-10-12T14:02:00.000-04:00

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8303521.stm

Missing the mark on Afghanistan and Iran?

2009-10-12T13:49:00.000-04:00

It seems like the policy debates in Washington on two of the most "urgent" challenges facing President Obama right now may be missing the mark.

Afghanistan would not appear to be the biggest threat to America and the world right now. Al Qaeda has found a new refuge nearby in Pakistan. The Taliban may be resurgent in Afghanistan, but while seeing the Taliban back in power in Kabul would be a humiliation for the US and a tragedy for many of Afghanistan's citizens - especially its women - it would not present a clear and present danger to the US or even that region. The increasing strength and audacity of the Taliban in Pakistan, however, is frightening. The Taliban in Pakistan seems to have a larger agenda than the Taliban in Afghanistan did while in power. It's almost like a mixture of the old Taliban with Al Qaeda - religious extremists with an axe to grind against the US and our allies. There are several nightmare scenarios for a destabilized or failed Pakistan, and they all involve one or more of Pakistan's nuclear weapons falling under the control of the Taliban, Al Qaeda, or less-than-responsible elements of the Pakistani Army or intelligence services. Yet our focus seems to be on Afghanistan, which cannot be solved without first solving the trouble in Pakistan. And we seem to have no fresh ideas on how to solve Pakistan's woes.

With respect to Iran, the focus of the US and other concerned countries is on preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Despite recent diplomatic progress on that front, there are few, if any, real options for denying Iran nuclear weapons if it truly wants them - and why wouldn't it? Sanctions rarely work at forcing a change in a determined government's policies. The Pentagon determined some time ago that there was no good military option for denying nukes to Iran. So it may be that, as John McCain recently acknowledged, we may have to accept the reality of a nuclear Iran at some point in the not-too-distant future. Now what do we do then? How should we prepare for that eventuality? Isn't that the real question policy makers need to be wrestling with in the coming weeks and months? We need to continue our best efforts to deter Tehran from seeking the bomb while preparing for the day when it gets one.

Obama's "Vision Thing"

2009-10-12T13:36:00.000-04:00

In spite of the Olympic embarrassment and his premature Nobel Peace Prize, I think that, overall, President Obama has done a pretty good job in his first 8 1/2 months in office. Remember - he inherited the worst financial and economic crisis since the Great Depression! We were on the precipice of a real disaster in January. I remember telling friends back then that Obama would largely be judged by how well he dealt with that crisis. If we entered a depression, he would be a one-term failure, today's version of Herbert Hoover. If we rebounded, he would be a hero. While it remains to be seen whether we will see a smooth, albeit slow, recovery or a double-dip recession and prolonged double-digit unemployment, based on the data we have to date Obama deserves praise. He passed a massive stimulus bill that probably helped stem the bleeding. He managed what appears to be a sensible, successful (at least in the short-term) rescue of GM and Chrysler. The banking system did not collapse, though there are lots of problems in that sector that could still send it over the deep end. But things are better now than they were in January. So Obama, rightly or wrongly, gets some of the credit.

But I was wrong about Obama being judged just based on the financial/economic crisis. Certainly in his first term, he also has staked his legacy and reelection chances on health care reform. Foreign policy challenges - from Iran and its nuclear program to Iraq and, increasingly, Afghanistan - also will greatly define his administration.

There is a sense that Obama has too much on his plate, that he is trying to do too much at once. That is a valid concern. Many past administrations have struggled because they took on too many things at once or were faced with too many challenges. In Obama's case, however, I am not sure he can avoid or delay many of these challenges. Health care is a problem that must be tackled in order to boost American competitiveness economically and avoid a looming financial crisis for Medicare. Afghanistan is getting worse, as is the situation in Pakistan, and we need to decide if we need a new strategy or just more troops to make the old "new" strategy work. The problem is that the rising instability and growth of the Taliban in nuclear-armed Pakistan is more of a long-term threat to the U.S. and the world than Afghanistan at this point. Iran's nuclear program demands some kind of international response, and the US is the only country that can possibly herd the major players toward some kind of consensus. And let's not forget climate change. It may be as pressing an issue as any of the others.

So if Obama must deal with all these enormous challenges, why do so many of his supporters think he is overreaching? I think it is because he is failing at the "vision thing." President George H.W. Bush dismissed complaints that he had a vision deficit - no clear, overarching goals for his policies - but his lack of a clear vision for America's future is part of what made his Administration look out of touch and adrift during the 1992 election year, in which he lost to Bill Clinton.

In the health care debate, he did not, early on, lay out in a fireside chat-like address to the American people why we need to reform health care and how. As a result, his opponents set the tone and agenda for the debate. Americans heard more about "death panels" than they did about how we spend twice as much per person as other developed countries but rank just above Cuba in quality of care. They heard more about the "public option" in recent weeks than why we need to have something like the public option to reduce health care costs.

Obama also has failed to make clear his vision for America moving forward. There's no long-term vision for what he is trying to do. One gets the feeling that he is trying to put out fires and avoid losing short-term battles. Avoid failure in health care and get some kind of bill passed. Avoid failure in Afghanistan by either sending more troops or redefining what success and failure mean. Avoid looking feeble on Iran and avoid an Israeli strike against Iran that would create a new crisis to grapple with.

The policy review on Afghanistan offers some hope that the Administration is trying to think big picture and not be forced into short-term decisions with tragic long-term consequences. I certainly hope we get more vision along with some sound, rational decisions on the full range of challenges we face.

Krugman on Education Spending

2009-10-09T12:26:00.000-04:00

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/09/opinion/09krugman.html?em

I may be biased because I am a teacher, but I agree with Krugman. I teach because I believe in the value and importance of public education and the role education plays in our country and preparing for the future. We really need to get our fiscal house in order long-term, but part of that is about using our tax dollars more wisely and effectively. Education is a vital investment in our future. It is the key to long-term economic competitiveness, innovation, and redressing the inequalities in our society.

We should not be addressing whether or not to fully fund education in our country. We should be debating how best to fund it.

Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize for not being George W. Bush. Should donate award

2009-10-09T08:19:00.000-04:00

I just sent this email to President Obama. I wonder how many like it he will receive today? The Nobel committee has tarnished this award a bit today. It's a shame.

Dear President Obama:
I have been and continue to be a strong supporter of yours. I think that, overall, you have done an admirable job so far, under trying circumstances. As an American, as a teacher, and as a former US diplomat, I am dismayed, however, that you were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize this morning. Honestly, you have not earned it and I find the decision patronizing. In essence, you won because you are not George W. Bush.

When I helped lead the "Save Bosnia" campaign in the 1990s, I cam to appreciate the enormous sacrifices grassroots activists make every day in the cause of peace. I urge you, Mr. President, to turn this bizarre decision by the Nobel committee into an opportunity to reward and support a grassroots activist in the United States who is trying to bring peace to his/her community. Given the troubling gang-related violence in your hometown of Chicago, perhaps there is an organization there that could benefit from the attention and resources if you were to donate your award to them. I am sure there are hundreds, if not thousands, of activists and organizers in this country worthy of such an act of humility and compassion.
Thank you for your service. I hope that a year from now we can say that you have truly earned this award.
Best wishes,
Steve Walker

Madeline Albright undermines feminism with her new book

2009-10-04T20:56:00.000-04:00

Madeline Albright has a new book out. Given the complex and challenging foreign policy agenda today (Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea, climate change, etc.), one would hope that the first female Secretary of State would make an important contribution to the debates of the day. Instead, Albright reminds us of her lackluster (I'm being generous) legacy as Secretary of State and her lack of gravitas by writing a book on how she used costume jewelry as a tool of diplomacy. Ticked off at the Russians or Saddam Hussein? Forget tough diplomacy - change your lapel pin!

This is a step back for feminism. Albright should be raising the level of discourse on the challenges we face in the 21st Century and demonstrating that female diplomats are at least as capable of solving those challenges as their male counterparts. I know that when I was a Foreign Service Officer, the female officers I worked with were often more intelligent, more capable, and harder working than our male colleagues. They had to be - it was harder for them to get in the Foreign Service, harder to get promoted, and harder to get good assignments because they were women. A class action suit against the Foreign Service proved this discrimination to be a reality at the time.

As the father of two girls and an educator, I am embarrassed and disappointed that Albright does not take her responsibility as a woman who broke through an important glass ceiling more seriously. Then again, expecting more from one of Bill Clinton's top diplomats is a bit unrealistic on my part.

Why Friedman Is a "Must Read"

2009-10-02T18:12:00.000-04:00

This past week, Tom Friedman reminded us why he is one of the op-ed writers everyone should read.

In his most recent article, "Where Did 'We' Go?", Friedman makes a frightening connection between the right's attacks on President Obama and the political atmosphere in Israel prior to the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin in 1995. Indeed, it is disturbing to hear and see the intense anger and disgust of protestors and critics who falsely assert Obama in not a US citizen, that he will kill off sick senior citizens if his health care reform passes, that he is a "closet Muslim," or that he is a liar. As Friedman notes, Obama's opponents are not so much interested in a debate as in trying to delegitimize him. Debate is not possible with such people. Even the Republican leadership in Congress - in fact, virtually every Republican in Congress - views the health care debate as an opportunity to hand Obama a defeat rather than a debate about how to best fix an inefficient and bloated health care system that acts like an anchor on our economic growth.

Friedman worries that solving the myriad problems we face in the coming days, weeks, and years will be difficult given the extreme partisan nature of our political system. He's right to worry. We can't afford gridlock on these issues, or watered-down, lowest-common-denominator policies that placate a Republican or two but render the solutions ineffective.

At best, Obama and the Democrats will be forced to govern like George W. Bush and the Republicans in Congress during his first term: shove through their legislation and don't worry about bipartisanism. My hope is that, if the Democrats are successful in passing serious legislation, moderate Republicans will start showing up to negotiate, especially if the legislation is popular. But if they don't, I just hope Obama and the Democrats are willing and able to do what is necessary to take real action to solve the real problems we face.

Friedman's other important article this week was "The New Sputnik." In it, Friedman warns:

...China’s leaders have decided to go green — out of necessity... What do we know about necessity? It is the mother of invention. And when China decides it has to go green out of necessity, watch out. You will not just be buying your toys from China. You will buy your next electric car, solar panels, batteries and energy-efficiency software from China.

I believe this Chinese decision to go green is the 21st-century equivalent of the Soviet Union’s 1957 launch of Sputnik — the world’s first Earth-orbiting satellite.

Again, Friedman is right. As he has encouraged for several years, we need to embrace the challenge of climate change as an opportunity to be a leader in developing - and selling - green technology to the world. If we don't, we run the risk of losing even more jobs in the future to China and other developing countries that do understand that green technologies create jobs.

I may not agree with everything Friedman writes, but he sees the big picture like few others and understands important trends and how they might affect us over time.

Obama's Olympic Blunder

2009-10-02T17:00:00.000-04:00

I know it sounds like Monday morning quarterbacking, but all week I kept asking friends why Obama was going to Copenhagen to lobby for the 2016 Olympics. With everything else on his plate (health care, climate change, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, etc.), it seemed like a silly way to spend 24 hours and bad PR in the midst of the health care debate. Now, I know that a president can do virtually anything on Air Force One, so it was not like he was away from the job for 24 hours, but appearances matter in politics - sometimes more than substance.

But what really made it look stupid was Chicago getting the fewest votes of the four contending cities! It was bounced in the first round of voting. I find it hard to believe that Obama's advisors were not able to find out in advance whether Chicago really stood a chance or not. Clearly, it did not. Obama's staff dropped the ball and Obama takes the hit. That's ridiculous.

Krugman: Easy Being Green

2009-09-25T09:11:00.000-04:00

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/25/opinion/25krugman.html?_r=1

Paul Krugman is clear and lucid in refuting the major argument of those opposing climate change legislation - that it will ruin the economy. Krugman notes that the cost her household would be minimal. Unlike in the health care debate, President Obama will need to serve as "Educator-in-Chief" early on in the climate change battle. He needs to make clear early and often, ideally through a "Fireside Chat" with the American people, that:

Climate change is a reality, not a theory. The debate is long over.
The longer we wait to deal with this reality, the more it will cost in terms of dealing with the effects of climate change and trying to slow the process.
America's economic competitiveness in the 21st Century will depend, in part, on it's ability to be a leader in green technologies, especially those that reduce or eliminate carbon emissions. Tom Friedman has been right all along: Green is the new red, white and blue. The "greening" of America will be good for the economy in the long run, not costly. It will create jobs. It will help us avoid the environmental disasters that are growing as a result of climate change.
We need a national commitment to dealing with this evolving disaster, including increased investments in renewable energy (solar, wind, etc.), conservation, and clear goals for the next decade (all hybrid or electric cars and trucks by 2020, less than 25% of electricity from coal by 2020, etc.).

Unlike with health care, where it is a legitimate argument to support a wide range of legislation simply to get the reform process started, climate change demands dramatic shifts in policies now. And the President needs to frame and shape the debate before his opponents do so - as with health care. Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and other have shown that if you say a lie over and over again there are many people who will take it as gospel.

10 Lessons for Tea Baggers

2009-09-23T23:36:00.000-04:00

This is a great list. It really does drive me crazy that opponents of health care reform can get away with the crap they shovel.

I find it amazing that some people, who consider themselves more "patriotic" than liberals, will defend a health care system that is grossly inefficient and immoral while talking about our government like it is the most incompetent on the planet. Ironically, many of these same people supported George W. Bush trying to export our system of government to other countries. Our government is not perfect - far from it - but it does a lot of things incredibly well:

- For 46 cents, you can send a letter across the country in about 2 days.
- Our interstate highway system revolutionized transportation in this country over the last 50 years.
- The federal government created the internet. Case closed!
- Many of our most important technological innovations of the last half century are the results of our space program and defense research.
- Medicare is a highly-regarded and very efficient health care program - and, yes, it is run by the federal government!
- Flawed strategies and goals from our political leaders have turned the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan into the messes they are. But our military can beat the crap out of anybody else's conventional army, and unmanned drones are proving to be another effective military innovation.

I could go on, but I think the point is obvious. Stop demonizing our government. Admit that the existing health care system is an embarrassment full of waste and inefficiencies. Then, let's have a serious discussion about how best to fix it.

Unfortunately, the Republicans have decided that they are best served by trying to defeat this reform effort in order to deny Obama and the Democrats any kind of victory. They hope such a huge defeat will doom the Dems in 2010 and Obama in 2012 (and maybe render him a lame duck for the remainder of his term). That means Obama and the Dems need to focus on passing the best possible bill that will actually insure everyone, make the system better and reduce costs. Forget bipartisanship. If Obama can sign a good health care bill this year, there will be moderate Republicans knocking on his door the next time around.

GoodGuide

2009-09-23T23:17:00.000-04:00

GoodGuide is one of the most important and helpful organizations to come along in a long time. It gathers and analyzes data on countless products so consumers can make informed choices about what they buy and why. As noted on its website,

GoodGuide provides the world's largest and most reliable source of information on the health, environmental, and social impacts of the products in your home.

The organization is discussed extensively in Daniel Goleman's book, Ecological Intelligence: How Knowing the Hidden Impacts of What We Buy Can Change Everything.

GoodGuide is an invaluable resource that helps move us closer to radical transparency and empowering consumers to truly be the change they want and need.

Climate Change

2009-09-23T23:09:00.000-04:00

There's been a bit of press coverage recently about the data from the last decade that could be used to refute the overwhelmingly clear evidence of climate change and its effects. But this NASA article explains the short-term temperature data in the context of the longer-term warming causing the climate change.

The reality is that this debate is really over. Climate change is real - it is here, and it is serious. Those few who question or doubt are ignoring the consensus in the scientific community and the evidence that surrounds us every day.

The challenge, however, is getting the Obama Administration to do something dramatic about carbon emissions, particularly from coal-burning plants. We urgently need a serious plan for reducing our dependence on coal for electricity. Over the next decade, we will reduce our transportation emissions - more and more hybrids, including plug-in hybrids, will replace gas-guzzlers. Tom Friedman is right, we should tax gasoline more in order to compel people to move to more fuel-efficient cars and trucks. But even without a higher gas tax there will be movement. But our coal addiction may be tougher to quit.

Just a few political musings...

2008-01-16T22:40:00.000-05:00

... When is Mike Huckabee going to finally be dismissed as a radical religious candidate? He promises evangelicals that, if he gets nominated, they will run the GOP. So we can assume, I suppose, that if he is elected president they will run the country, too, right? I'm not sure I've been this shocked about something a politician said. And then he told another group that e supports amending the Constitution to bring it in line with the word of God. Specifically, he was talking about banning abortion and gay marriage, but the general idea is even more disturbing. So much for separation of church and state, huh? Can you imagine if Romney told Mormons they'd run the GOP if he got nominated? Or if Obama told blacks they'd run the Democratic Party if he got nominated? Candidacy over. But Huckabee gets a pass?

... As my friend Martin has noted, Bill Clinton is shaming the presidency by acting like a political hack and hatchet man for his wife during this campaign. Can anyone remember a former president getting involved even in a dignified way in any campaign? Even Pappy Bush played it cool in 2000 - though, maybe, it was because he new his son was not the best candidate... But Bill is out of control.

... Given the economy's troubles, "It's the economy, stupid!" could become the mantra of this campaign, as in '92. Unless something terrible happens - God forbid - on the war or terror front, the economy is likely to be one of the two dominant themes of the campaign and perhaps the one that determines the outcome. If so, the candidate who demonstrates the most empathy with the suffering and fears of the middle class will win in November. Too much to ask for empathy with the working poor, right?

... Obama needs to keep his message positive and inspire people. That's what makes him different from Hillary. Too easy to get pulled into a brawl over records and mud-slinging, as he found out last week.

... Other than a local NPR story on voting machines in NJ and NY, has the media taken a close look at how prepared each state is to insure fair and honest voting procedures this year? Lots of money has been spent since the 2000 debacle, but from what I have read over the last couple of years, it seems like there's lots of potential for more problems this year.

The legacy of the next president...

2008-01-07T21:39:00.000-05:00

As campaign 2008 gets into high gear for the primary season, I have been thinking about what I would hope to see our next president actually do when he or she takes office in a year. I am more and more convinced that a Manhattan-style project for quitting our dependence on oil would be the most important and politically powerful program to push. People concerned with global warming would love it. People who understand the economic dangers of peak oil and rising global demand for oil would love it. People who want to see us care less about places like Iraq would love it. People tired of paying over $3/gallon for gas and fearful of $4 or $5/gallon prices would love it. It is an urgent and important problem that could easily become a crisis in the coming months and years.

The next president could offer tax credits and other incentives for taxpayers and corporations to use renewable sources and more fuel-efficient technology, funded by a gas tax and CO2 taxes. The government could invest money in research and development of new energy sources conducted at American universities and provide more support for math and science education at high schools across the country - especially those in less affluent districts - to make sure future scientists and engineers are well-educated and inspired.

The reality is that we are probably 10 years or more behind in addressing this issue. So time is of the essence. We ignore is at our peril. But it also seems like a political no-brainer.

Surprising myself...

2008-01-07T21:19:00.000-05:00

I often tell my students how I have never really voted for a candidate for president. I've voted against the other candidate. This just might be the year I get to vote FOR someone.

I have been intrigued by Barack Obama since his famous speech at the Democratic convention in 2004. I read his latest book, The Audacity of Hope, and was impressed by his ability to discuss the important issues of the day, acknowledge his own bias and ideological prism as well as his opponents, and identify areas of potential compromise/agreement to move forward and find solutions.

But I have been consciously holding back from jumping onto the Obama bandwagon because I did not want to be disappointed. I wanted to see if he could convince me that he was ready. I wanted to see how he dealt with the rigors of an intense, competitive campaign.

As the Iowa caucuses approach last week, however, I found myself becoming increasingly excited and full of anticipation as Obama's numbers in the polls rose. Then, Thursday night, I was euphoric! I awoke Friday feeling a new sense of optimism and hope. Obama's victory speech Thursday night was one of the best political speeches in years. Once again, he offered the hope that he might be that rare politician who could inspire a country. I want to be inspired by my leaders. I want to feel proud about the person for whom I am casting my vote. Obama just might be that person.

I have no idea whether or not his lack of DC experience would make him less effective as president. I do know that Hillary Clinton has no more executive experience than he does and only a few more years of experience in the U.S. Senate. Being First Lady is not entirely insignificant, but it says nothing about Clinton's readiness to be president.

You never know for sure whether a candidate will prove to be a good president or a bad one. People do seem to be changed by the office. Moreover, so many presidencies have been shaped by the circumstances well as by the person sitting in the Oval Office. So I'll take intelligence, some vision, some inspiration, some charisma, and the hope for change. I'll take a candidate who seems to take health care, Medicare, Social Security, energy policy, and genocide as seriously or more seriously than his opponents. It's more than any of the other candidates can offer.

I'm looking forward to casting my vote in the NY primary and hoping to vote FOR a candidate this November...

YouTube - Obama's Victory Speech

2008-01-04T23:14:00.000-05:00

YouTube - Obama's Victory Speech

I have been so incredibly excited since Obama was declared the victor in last night's Iowa caucuses. I have been increasingly impressed by him as the campaign progressed, though I was worried by a weak month or so late this fall.

Last night's victory was a fantastic moment on several levels. Obama ran a great campaign and attracted younger voters, 35% of the women, independents, and even some Republicans. An African American won a critical vote. And Hillary Clinton came in third!

If Obama wins NH and, as looks quite possible, SC, too, then the nomination will be his to lose. Sure, a lot could happen in the coming weeks. But, as David Brooks noted in his op ed today, many Americans are going to get caught up the the Obama successes and the historical significance.

Here's a link to Brooks' article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/04/opinion/04brooks.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Unequal Treatment at the State Department - The Board - Editorials - Opinion - New York Times Blog

2008-01-01T22:24:00.000-05:00

Unequal Treatment at the State Department - The Board - Editorials - Opinion - New York Times Blog

A friend emailed me the farewell address of former US Ambassador to Romania Mike Guest:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/04/AR2007120401785.html

Nice to see the NYT editorial board supporting Mike and his protest of USG/State Department discrimination against gay employees and their partners. I served with Mike in Moscow in the late 1980s. He was an outstanding diplomat and colleague. I am proud to have known and served with him.

Of course, this whole mess is due to the fact that our country discriminates blatantly against homosexuals by not letting them marry. It's ridiculous that in the 21st Century we still have to deal with this issue. Government should not be in the business of denying people rights but protecting them...

General jailed for Sarajevo siege

2007-12-12T18:03:00.000-05:00

BBC NEWS | Europe | General jailed for Sarajevo siege

Another bit of justice - albeit delayed - was served today when a former Bosnian Serb general was sentenced to 33 years in prison by the Hague tribunal for his role in directing the siege of Sarajevo. Granted, it comes 12 years after the siege ended. And the two top Bosnian Serb officials responsible for the siege and the genocide in general - political leader Radovan Karadzic and military leader Ratko Mladic - remain at large. Justice delayed is still justice denied.

Unfortunately, the justice at the Hague has not deterred todays war criminals, including those in Sudan responsible for the Darfur genocide. And, like in Bosnia until political pressure forced Bill Clinton to abandon his policy of complicity, the U.S. and its allies refuse to intervene to stop the Darfur slaughter.

"Never again" truly has become "Again and again and again and again and..."

The People We Have Been Waiting For - New York Times

2007-12-03T23:58:00.000-05:00

The People We Have Been Waiting For - New York Times

Another article from Friedman on global warming, but this one sounds a note of hope. Friedman shares recent initiatives led by Google and college and grad students at MIT and elsewhere to develop new sources of energy.

My favorite line, of course, is the last, which is a quote from a student website: "We are the people we have been waiting for." If we are to conquer this challenge - and the closely related one of peak oil - we must be the people we have been waiting for. We all must be willing to sacrifice and invest in order to create the future for ourselves and our children that we want and deserve. But we must act now and we must believe that it is urgent, important, and possible. I'm sick and tired of people giving this cause lip service and then going out and buying an SUV or putting enough Christmas lights on their house and front lawn that they can be seen from space...

U.S. Finds Iran Halted Its Nuclear Arms Effort in 2003 - New York Times

2007-12-03T23:42:00.000-05:00

U.S. Finds Iran Halted Its Nuclear Arms Effort in 2003 - New York Times

Well this was a bit of a bombshell... Nice to see the Intelligence Community has more integrity and guts than it did 5 years ago with Iraq. Let's hope they have really good intel on which to base the assessment that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program years ago. Getting that wrong could be just as costly - or even more so - as overestimating Iran's program.

And it is difficult, as the White House suggests, to really understand the intentions of a regime like Iran's.

Of course, this is a new opening for some creative and focused diplomacy that could constrain Iran's program for some time to come. Unfortunately, given the Bush/Cheney rhetoric on Iran and the new initiative on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, we are unlikely to see anything resembling creative and focused diplomacy on Iran in the coming weeks or months...

Wake up, America! Markets Jolted by Oil Surge and Worries Over Slowdown - New York Times

2007-11-07T21:40:00.000-05:00

Markets Jolted by Oil Surge and Worries Over Slowdown - New York Times

Oil prices approach $100/barrel on nothing but speculation and fear - prompting overreactions to relatively minor fluctuations in supplies. But what we are really seeing is the convergence of some long-term problems that have been looming over the horizon for years - but largely ignored:

- A weak dollar, which has been embraced to date by the Bush Administration as a way to lower our trade deficit;

- The sub-prime mortgage crisis, the impact of which will be felt it seems for at least another year or two;

- Peak oil and the approaching moment when global demand for oil will surpass supply. The oil market's jitters are, in part, due to the acknowledgement by more and more experts and traders that this moment is just around the corner, if not already here;

- A $9 trillion federal debt that ties the hands of the government when it comes to fixing major problems, responding to economic crises, or investing for the future; and

- The inevitable moment when China's willingness and/or ability to endlessly help finance that debt will end.

So what will it take for us to finally wake up and do something serious about these problems? When will our "leaders" finally start leading?

Is there anyone out there? Hello???

House Approves Ban on Anti-Gay Discrimination - New York Times

2007-11-07T21:14:00.002-05:00

House Approves Ban on Anti-Gay Discrimination - New York Times

I don't know whether to be happy this bill was passed by the House or saddened that it took so long and still faces a Senate vote and a likely presidential veto to override.

It seems ridiculous that in the 21st Century we have yet to conquer discrimination based on sexual orientation (and, remember, marriage equality is still a dream for most). I hope that in 20 years this will all seem like a distant memory - that sexual orientation, as well as skin color, religion and gender, will have nothing to do with limitations or prejudice in anyone's professional or public life.

Oil's Recent Rise Not as Familiar as It Looks - washingtonpost.com

2007-11-05T23:23:00.000-05:00

Oil's Recent Rise Not as Familiar as It Looks - washingtonpost.com

Interesting and fairly comprehensive article on the recent rise in oil prices. Unlike many/most news articles on the topic, it brings a variety of questions/concerns/perspectives, including the voices warning that demand could soon outpace supply:

Traders say that they are not buying and selling on whims, however. The unusually thin cushion of excess oil production around the world and the rapid growth in consumption in China and India make this rise in prices different from earlier oil price spikes, they argue. That combination, the traders add, leaves the oil markets one incident away from an even steeper increase.

"There is no current shortage, but no one deals on today's market. They make deals based on tomorrow's market. And that's what they're worried about," said Joseph Stanislaw, an oil consultant and senior adviser to the accounting firm Deloitte & Touche.

Obama, Civil Rights and South Carolina - The Caucus - Politics - New York Times Blog

2007-11-03T16:51:00.000-04:00

Obama, Civil Rights and South Carolina - The Caucus - Politics - New York Times Blog

Interesting speech by Obama yesterday, both for its direct reference to concerns that America may not be ready for an African American president and for his discussion of poverty.

It is incredible to me - though perhaps not really that surprising - that after all the shock and horror after Katrina about poor black people having been forgotten and ignored for so long we have failed to do anything of note to address the problem.

Obama has so much potential, but his campaign has seemed to falter of late. His performance in the latest debate was not terribly impressive and he hs been unable to pierce Clinton's commanding lead in the polls. His numbers have remained static since the summer or even spring in many of the national polls:

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08dem.htm

He continues to trail Clinton and Edwards in Iowa, as well. Obama needs to make some headway soon. Of course, if Edwards wins in Iowa and Obama can close the gap with Clinton in NH somewhat, he could remain viable and could possibly score victories in Nevada and South Carolina.

Sox Win!!!

2007-10-29T01:03:00.000-04:00

Expansion dream - Boston Sports Blog

Unreal. Another World Series championship.

As Eric Wilbur writes, it is not the same as 2004 and nothing ever will be. But this is sweet!

By the Mississippi Delta, A Whole School Left Behind - washingtonpost.com

2007-10-28T18:20:00.000-04:00

By the Mississippi Delta, A Whole School Left Behind - washingtonpost.com

If you have not seen Lalee's Kin - an HBO documentary on a poor black family in the Mississippi Delta region and the school district where they live - you must! The district in this article sounds a lot like it. The documentary has had a profound impact on my students. Two years ago, one class raised money to purchase textbooks for the elementary school there.

I wish we could have a serious discussion of how to fix our education system in this country. Until we address the inequities created by funding primarily from local property taxes, this problem will not go away. More standardized testing will not solve the problem. We need better teachers - with higher pay - and smaller classes. More and better preschool programs. More mentor programs. More and better after school programs.

If we don't fix this, we will continue to deny an embarrassingly large segment of our population the hope that life can get better, that the next generation can leave poverty behind. We will continue to deny ourselves the promise that some poor kid might invent a new source of energy or a cure for cancer. We will lower our chances for competing successfully with India and China in the coming decades, since only by tapping intot he full potential of all 300 million Americans can we hope to match their growing middle classes.

Like developing alternate sources of energy and forcing our government to stop adding to the $9 trillion federal debt, this is an issue of national security for the United States, not a liberal cause to be dismissed or ignored. We cannot afford to allow poverty and inadequate education to plague our country in the 21st century.

Pulling for Lester and the Red Sox...

2007-10-28T16:30:00.000-04:00

Boston Red Sox - Extra Bases - Red Sox blog - Boston.com

Not wanting to jinx anything, I won't count my chickens before they hatch. But it is incredible that the Sox are on the verge of their second World Series victory in three years! My father waited his whole life for one and never saw it. My grandfather was at Fenway for the 1918 series and never saw them win again. I waited decades...

But here they are, up 3-0 in the series and with a made-for-tv-movie story in the making tonight. Cancer survivor Jon Lester takes the mound and could potentially be the winning pitcher in the clinching game. Unreal.

So far the Series has been a bit anticlimactic. Other than the 2-1 victory in game 2, the games have been dominated by the Sox. And there's an air of destiny about this team, like the 2004 version. they are happy, goofy even, and relaxed. Just taking it one game at a time. Francona has been brilliant at times in his game management and seems to do an even better job in the clubhouse. He's by far the best manager of the Sox in my lifetime.

The young guys - Pedroia and Ellsbury - have been spectacular. It will be good to be Jacoby this offseason - young, good looking, charming, and the hero of the World Series. Boston will be his city!

It is definitely not as nerve wracking as '04. That championship took care of so much baggage and anxiety. Now it's just a hunger for another. I almost feel like Goerge Steinbrenner - anything less than a WS victory is unacceptable with this team and ownership.

I also have to give credit, again, to the ownership and Theo Epstein the GM. Incredible to be back in the Series so quickly - and pretty much on the timetable Theo foresaw. Even more so to be on the verge of another WS sweep. And they did it with a dramatically different team, built around a core from '04 but with lots of new talent from the farm system, trades, and free agency. Theo has made his mistakes, but overall he's been amazing.

So here's hoping for a victory tonight for Jon Lester! I actually could end up going to game 6 or 7 if it goes that far, but I'd rather have the Sox close the deal ASAP in Colorado. Let's just win...

Cum Laude Speech

2007-10-26T08:57:00.000-04:00

Below is the text of the speech I delivered October 25, 2007, at the induction ceremony for the Cum Laude Society at the school where I teach. As with everything on this site, you may quote from it with appropriate citation.

---
Cum Laude Speech – October 25, 2007

Note of thanks…

The late Kurt Vonnegut said, “We are here on Earth to fart around, and don't let anybody tell you different.”

I’m sure none of you will prove Vonnegut true as second semester seniors, but some of your peers might.

But with all due respect to Vonnegut and my good friend, who is a big fan Vonnegut, I disagree. There’s much more to our purpose here on Earth.

In all likelihood for the first time in your life, you are about to embark on a journey in which you are in almost total control of your day-to-day life. Until now, the majority of your waking hours have been dictated by your parents, the state of New York, the school board, your teachers, your coaches, and even your friends.

As you move on from high school, probably to college, your life is now your own to direct. Which classes will you take? Will you take mostly morning or afternoon classes? What will be your major? What will you do with the enormous amount of unscheduled time you will have every week? Perhaps most importantly for your parents, how often will you come home?

Across the country, however, your generation is struggling with this newfound independence, freedom, and responsibility. You are too used to having your lives controlled by others and being insulated from the consequences of their mistakes. You find it difficult to make decisions, to solve problems, to find your way.

Lots of experts on child development, education, and psychology have written about this phenomenon. But the solution, at least in part, may be as simple as having clear goals.

A Harvard Business School study reportedly asked Harvard graduates if they had goals and whether they had written them down. Twenty years later they interviewed the same group. The 3% of graduates who had written down their goals were making 10 times more than the average of all the other graduates…and 98% of all the wealth resided with that same 3%!

A former student of mine recently gave me a book to read: The Extreme Future, by James Canton. Canton is a global futurist, someone who studies trends and tries to predict the future for companies and governments. He often asks his clients, “What do you envision your company will look like in 2020?” After stares of disbelief, his clients are able to figure out their vision and goals, and then plan backward to develop plans and strategies for achieving those goals. Teachers also are encouraged to plan that way – figure out what you want your students to know and be able to do and then figure out how best to get them there.

It makes sense, right? After all, if you don’t know what your destination is, how can you begin to figure out what’s the best route for getting there?

Which leads me to two questions I want you to answer: What do you envision America and the world will look like in 2020? And, perhaps more importantly, what do you envision you will look like in 2020?

In 2020, many if not most of you will be turning 30. For many of us farther along on life’s journey, turning 30 was a big deal. In some ways, it’s been the true beginning of adulthood for people of my generation – the era in which we took on more responsibilities like marriage and parenthood, settled into our careers, and bought real estate. Our parents retired, our social lives mellowed a bit, we took fewer risks.

But that was us. In many ways, you are so very different from us. You seem to be more capable intellectually than we were at the same age. You have more distractions and more demands on your time. And you have grown up in a world dramatically different from the one we grew up in. Yours is the world of the internet. Of Tom Friedman’s “flat” world. Of 9/11 and al Qaeda. Of Iraq. Of global warming. Of stem cell research and nanotechnology. Of change that Canton says will be “blinding, comprehensive in scope, and will touch every aspect of your life.”

Some of that sounds scary. But hopefully some of it also sounds exciting! The new world you will live in is one of challenges and opportunities. And of infinite possibilities – possibilities you will create through the sheer force of your thoughts and beliefs.

So whom do you want to be in 2020? Let’s assume that you want to be someone who is happy and healthy in 2020. What will it take for you to be happy and healthy? What kind of values do you want to have? Where do you want to live? What do you want to be doing professionally? How do you want to spend your free time? What kind of people do you want to be surrounded by?

Canton and others suggest that having this vision, being able to imagine this future you, will help you make better decisions along the way and set you up for inevitable success. And the beauty of this process is that, as you travel along this journey, this vision can and probably should evolve. Like your first choice for a college major, you can and probably will change your mind along the way.

But without this vision, you will be like a captain without a compass, a map, or even a destination.

Now don’t be afraid to think big. Be audacious. Accept no limits on what that future you will look like. It’s not your job to place limits on your vision – it’s your job to imagine a future with maximum joy and love.

So now you’ve got your vision of yourself in 2020 – right? But as a social studies teacher - and someone who cares passionately about my country and my world – I have some kind of moral obligation to remind us of the other question I asked: What do you envision America and the world will look like in 2020? But what I’m really asking you to think about and imagine is what kind of America and world will you help create by 2020?

We live in a day and age in which, more than ever before, one person can make a difference. I’ve seen it and lived it myself, but the power you will have in your lifetime to affect and influence the course of events will dwarf that of previous generations. And given the fact that you will have been given a tremendous gift – the gift of a great education – you have an obligation to do what you can do to forge a future that will make you proud in 2020 and beyond. And your work starts today with the creation of your vision for that future world and the role you will play in creating it.

Today, America and the world around us are full of uncertainty and real and potential threats. But America and the world of 2020 also are, like the future you, full of infinite possibilities! By 2020, we could be well on the way to energy self-sufficiency, stopping or reversing the tide of global warming, eradicating AIDS and malaria in Africa, and eliminating poverty in America.

So which challenges and opportunities do you want America and the world to address in your lifetime? Which values do you want us to live up to? Which great new frontier in medicine, technology, culture, or even politics do you want us to explore?

Once you have your vision, you really have a simple task every day – stay focused. Think about your vision for yourself and the world around you. Give it texture and depth. Focus on how awesome you will feel in 12 short years when your dreams and desires have been realized – and it’s time to create new ones. Enjoy the progress you make every day, however incremental it might be, in moving toward the realization of that vision.

The future truly is in your hands.

Now Vonnegut argued that "True terror is to wake up one morning and discover that your high school class is running the country."

Well, that might have been true for Vonnegut or even me, but I think you all will be relieved that you and your peers will be running the country. So enjoy the freedom you have to create that future. Ignore the hecklers and naysayers. Surround yourself with people who will love and encourage you, not hold you back or tear you down. And remember to dream big.

I could not be more excited for you – and I can’t wait to receive what will probably be an email – or whatever we use for instant communication at that point - from you in 2020 letting me know what your vision for 2040 will be!

---

YouTube - Garry Kasparov on Bill Maher

2007-10-22T22:09:00.000-04:00

YouTube - Garry Kasparov on Bill Maher

A fascinating interview with Kasparov. He's tough on Putin - and Bush - and is a sophisticated and witty political analyst. He talks about the same thing Tom Friedman has talked and written about - how high oil prices are propping up thugs like Putin. Chris Matthews notes at the end how impressive Kasparov is compared to American politicians, who tend to talk down to the American public. That is so true and drives me nuts. I long for a candidate who treats us like we have IQs over 50. FDR's fireside chats showed respect for the audience - where's that kind of respect?

Believe!

2007-10-21T00:01:00.000-04:00

Who would have thought that JD Drew of all people would hit the grand slam tonight? Unreal. He's actually having a great ALCS. And Schilling came through in yet another big game in the playoffs.

Dice-K better come up big, as must the bats again. I know that Beckett is going to be available in the 'pen, if necessary, but I hope he's a last resort. Assuming we make the WS - which we will! - we want him rested for game 1. Dice-K needs to be aggressive and challenge hitters. I listened to part of game 3 on a Cleveland radio station and the announcers were wondering why a guy who throws great stuff in the mid-90s doesn't challenge batters more often. As Buster Olney noted on SportsCenter tonight, he seems afraid of contact and nibbles around the edges of the plate. That's what killed Carmona tonight and in game 2. Dice-K has to challenge hitters with his fastball and then use his off-speed stuff to keep them honest and guessing.

As if I'm some kind of expert on pitching, right?

Go Sox!

A conversation with Samantha Power - Charlie Rose

2007-10-19T23:58:00.000-04:00

A conversation with Samantha Power - Charlie Rose

Samantha, as usual, is compelling and thoughtful in this recent interview with Charlie Rose. Unfortunately, there is still a willingness on the part of Samantha and other leading voices in the Save Darfur movement to cut the Bush Administration slack over Darfur.

I acknowledge that the Administration has little or no moral or political credibility on this or any other issue abroad. That is no reason to excuse or even endorse what is essentially lip service to addressing genocide. The movement that forced Clinton to intervene in Bosnia and Kosovo had a clear goal (stopping the genocide without rewarding it) and was unwilling to compromise on that. Any pronouncements or policies that fell short of that were not acceptable. I wish the Darfur movement had that clarity, strength and persistence.

Having said that, I wish there were more people like Samantha, with her character, values, intelligence, and passion speaking at the national level about foreign policy and would love to see someone like her on the domestic side. she sees the big picture and is far from an inflexible ideologue. She also paints a very appealing picture of Obama...

Markets Slide as Wall Street Sees Signs of Trouble - New York Times

2007-10-19T23:20:00.000-04:00

Markets Slide as Wall Street Sees Signs of Trouble - New York Times

More market jitters... Interesting and sobering excerpt:

---
But a prominent figure in the hedge fund industry, Julian H. Robertson Jr., said yesterday that the economy was heading for a “doozy of a recession.”

“I think the credit situation is worse than anybody realizes,” he said on CNBC. “I don’t think any of the normal indicators you would look at in the economy are really very strong. As a matter of fact, they are weak, and not really getting any better.”
---

The impact of the credit crisis could be enormous - some estimates are as big as $600 billion or more just in bad loans. Then there are the many institutions and investors with exposure to it.

And the oil market is incredibly volatile - almost $90 a barrel over nothing! Can you imagine what happens when demand catches supply or peak oil arrives?

Where's the sense of urgency?

Eugene Robinson - Which Black America? - washingtonpost.com

2007-10-14T21:35:00.000-04:00

Eugene Robinson - Which Black America? - washingtonpost.com

Good op-ed from Eugene Robinson in the Washington Post. Points out that many in America - especially the media and even some leading black organizations - do't understand that there really isn't a "black America" anymore. The black community is more diverse economically and socially than ever before.

That's probably one reason why so many of these problems have failed to be addressed seriously. The needs and challenges of middle class blacks in the suburbs are radically different than those of inner city poor blacks. There isn't a one-size-fits-all policy or program or message.

Bill Cosby on Meet the Press talking about race and poverty

2007-10-14T20:37:00.000-04:00

Meet The Press with Tim Russert - Video, Podcasts, News and Politics, Transcripts - MSNBC.com - MSNBC.com

Bill Cosby and his co-author, Harvard professor Dr. Alvin Poussaint, were on Meet the Press today. I highly recommend the show - catch it on reruns tonight or this week or watch excerpts online (above).

Cosby's been one of the few prominent African Americans who has openly and starkly discussed the challenges and tragedies facing blacks in America today. he acknowledges that systemic racism that exists but calls on blacks to tackle their problems, as well - as his book title suggests, to move from victims to victors.

The systemic racism is tough to overcome, they note. But Cosby knows that just focusing on how one is victimized will just perpetuate the victimization.

The issues surrounding racism, discrimination, and iequality in our country are so important to me. I spend more time on these issues in my US History classes than any other. I would love to hear from anyone out there with some creative thinking on how we can begin to fix these problems. We cannot afford to let the current situation continue.

Ugh... The wheels come off in the 11th...

2007-10-14T02:03:00.000-04:00

Boston Red Sox - Red Sox - Boston.com

The Sox had every opportunity to win the 2nd game of the ALCS tonight - but didn't. Cleveland hung in there and in a battle of bullpens came away 13-7 victors. Eric Gagne started the implosion for the Sox, but he had plenty of company after he was yanked; Lopez and Lester were no better. What a shame, since the 'pen had been mostly solid to that point. Manny Delcarmen was not on his game, but Okajima, Timlin, and Papelbon more than made up for it.

When the core of the Sox lineup - Papi, Manny, and Mike Lowell - went down in order in the bottom of the 10th against Mastny, with barely a wimper, things didn't look good for the home team. And the Sox left plenty of men on base tonight.

Even though the Sox couldn't score after the 5th, you'd like to think 6 runs should win a game. We need our starters to do better than Schill did tonight, allowing 5 runs in less than 5 innings. Hopefully Dice-K can give us at least 6 solid innings Monday.

Hopefully the Sox will shake it off on the way to Cleveland and Dice-K will find his early season stuff.

Frank Rich on Clarence Thomas and race

2007-10-13T18:29:00.000-04:00

Nobody Knows the Lynchings He's Seen - New York Times

This op-ed by Frank Rich is a "must read!" Rich is writing in response to the media frenzy surrounding Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' new memoir and other recent events regarding race in the U.S. I'll let Rich speak for himself and won't attempt to summarize him here.

But recent events suggest that we really have made little progress addressing racial prejudice or the social and economic results of 300 years of discrimination and segregation. One only has to look around most corporate board rooms, high school classrooms, and suburban neighborhoods in America to know that while segregation and discrimination based on race are illegal in the U.S., segregation remains a fact of life in 2007. The headlines about nooses being hung in Jena and at Columbia University are harsh reminders that there are those who wish official segregation were still a reality and seek to terrorize those who seek equality and respect today.

According to the US Census Bureau, "[b]lack households had the lowest median income in 2004 ($30,134) among race groups. Asian households had the highest median income ($57,518). The median income for non-Hispanic white households was $48,977." (http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/005647.html)

In addition, the Census bureau reported that in 2006 the poverty rate for blacks was 24.3 but for non-Hispanic whites only 8.2% (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/poverty06/pov06hi.html).

Just as troubling, the situation has become worse for blacks in the last decade. While poverty rates for blacks did not change much between Martin Luther King, Jr.'s assassination in 1968 (34.7% of blacks lived in poverty) throgh 1993 (33.1%), the economic expansion of the 1990s did pull some blacks out of poverty. By 2000, the black poverty rate was down to 22.7% - still far above the rate for whites (7.4%) but a considerable improvement. But now we see the rate for blacks inching back up to 24.2% in 2006. (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html)

This should be unacceptable to Americans. It is morally reprehensible that we have yet to redress the poisonous effects of segregation and discrimination in this country. And while the Roberts Court's support for a color-blind Constitution might be laudable, until the country - including our school systems - are truly color-blind and color neutral, we must pursue policies that will truly level the playing field.

It also is foolish for us to allow such a significant segment of the population to languish in poverty with little or no hope of escaping if we are to compete successfully with over one billion Indians and over 1.5 billion Chinese in the coming decades. We will need all Americans to have the opportunity and support to pursue their passions and explore their potential. We need to find and develop the potential innovators and CEOs who grow up in inner cities and poor rural areas as well as those living in comfortable and safe suburbs.

Barack Obama's candidacy has the potential to help shift our attitudes toward race in America. He might be judged by the voting public more by the content of his character instead of the color of his skin. If so, win or lose, Obama's candidacy will serve as evidence that we have made some progress since Dr. King's premature death. But only if Obama - or whoever does win the presidency next year - has the courage and vision to address the deeply rooted and tenacious causes of inequality and racism in our country will we truly be on the path to realizing Dr. King's dream.

Leak not destroy? - Who pays for this?

2007-10-13T16:44:00.000-04:00

White House on Bin Laden: Leak not destroy? - MSNBC Video

If you have not seen this video from MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann, you need to watch it now. You may remember that the White House recently released the tape of Osama bin Laden's latest video. In fact, they released it days before Osama did! Incredible coup, right?

Well, the video was actually obtained by a private security firm that had found a "back door" to an extremist Islamist web site used by al Qaeda. Doing the right thing, the firm turned the video over to the White House, asking that the video and its source be kept private.

In an apparent attempt to deflect attention from inconvenient news that week - namely, the less than stellar report on Iraq by Gen. Petraeus - the White House leaked the video to Fox News Channel (surprise!). It should come as no shock that al Qaeda subsequently shut downt he web site.

So let's get this straight - the Bush White House compromised a potentially invaluable source on America's #1 enemy - al Qaeda - in order to diminish criticism about its failures in Iraq. Doesn't that sound like treason? I know that's a strong word, but our national security was compromised. What if that web site could have been a source of information on the plans for a future attack here in the US? What if innocent lives are lost as a result? We'll never know for sure the cost of this selfish and stupid act by the White House, but it sure looks like it could be potentialy devastating.

Someone whould be punished, right? Is this an impeachable offense?

We seem so tolerant of our leaders and their dishonorable acts these days. Clinton got reelected in spite of complicity in two genocides (Bosnia and Rwanda). He survived an impeachment trial in spite of committing perjury. bush got reelected in spite of allowing America to get attacked on 9/11, failing to defeat al Qaeda and capture bin Laden, and launching a disastrous war in Iraq. And he survives still - continuing his failed policies and seemingly making America less secure every day! - with over a year left to go...

When will we get fed up as a nation and finally hold our leaders accountable for their errors and crimes? We truly do get the leaders we deserve...

Boston Red Sox - Sox put a chill on Indians in opener - The Boston Globe

2007-10-13T13:28:00.000-04:00

Boston Red Sox - Sox put a chill on Indians in opener - The Boston Globe

As Shaugnessy writes, this Sox team is feeling like a team of destiny. Last night's win, against a Cleveland team that handled the tough Yankees with relative ease in 4 games, was awesome! Manny and Papi are dialed in - they are in the zone with no signs of leaving before a parade in downtown Boston later this fall. Beckett, always a tough, hard-throwing force from the mound, is now a smart, patient, tough, hard-throwing force from the mound. He doesn't overthrow like he used to - as recently as last year on a regular basis. He isn't trying to make the perfect pitch all the time, and as a result seems to have amazing control these days. He uses his off-speed pitches with great effectiveness, buckling the knees of otherwise impressive hitters. The bullpen isn't perfect - Gagne continues to remind us of that - but it is avoiding the big mistakes and disastrous innings. They may bend - like Lopez giving up a run or Gagne two hits and a walk - but they don't break.

Of course, it's early - the Sox were down 0-3 in the 2004 ALCS, I know - but there's a feel to this team that is just incredible. It's the feel of destiny...

The Vision Thing

2007-10-13T12:13:00.001-04:00

Listening to a discussion of the Republican candidates on Tim Russert's talk show on MSNBC, I was struck by the comparison of Fred Thompson's sober view of America - things are ok now but could get worse, that's why we need his leadership - vs. that of Ronald Reagan in 1980 (morning in America, etc.). The comparison is interesting for two reasons. First, Thompson is marketing himself as the reincarnation of Reagan - a larger-than-life former actor with a vision - the visions are so different in tone and even substance in many ways. Russert and Co. point out that Romney's vision is more Reagan-esque.

But I also found it interesting to take a step back and think about the vision I'd like to see guide America well into the 21st century. With the major candidates reluctant to get specific on their vision or detailed policies, the campaign is a bit frustrating. Chuck Todd of NBC noted how voters and focus groups want "authenticity" - for candidates to talk candidly about who they are, what they believe, and what they will do if elected. Me, too!

Let's take foreign policy. There have been strains of isolationism, protectionism, and nativism throughout our country's history - and we've seen those ideologies of fear, insecurity, and distrust in policies that avoided confronting the aggression and genocides of Hitler and Milosevic, raised tariffs that sparked reciprocal barriers to American companies trying to sell abroad, and established discriminatory and harsh immigration quotas that separated families and legitimized prejudices.

But America became the world's superpower - defeating the two greatest evils of the 20th century, fascism and communism - and grew an economy that not only dominates the new globalized world but also brought enormous wealth and hope to millions of Americans in an expanding middle class by demonstrating strength, courage, and persistence in confronting its enemies and challengers; promoting free trade; and harnessing the hard work and innovation of immigrants.

In The World Is Flat, Tom Friedman frames the choice for America as choosing between seeing the new "flat" world as one of challenges and opportunities or one full of threats, whether they be from new economic challengers in India and China or terrorists from al Qaeda and other extremist organizations.

It is my hope and belief that we will embrace this new world as one that presents vital challenges and opportunities. That we will tap into that great tradition of innovation and hard work - and, dare I say, sacrifice? - to seize the moment and solve our problems and lead the world into a new era of peace and prosperity.

That doesn't mean we should not press China to improve its labor and environmental laws and regulations or design a sensible immigration policy that will reduce the number of illegal immigrants while providing new workers and opportunities for family reunions. But it means that when we encounter problems and challenges we don't revert back to the failed ideologies of the past that were based on fear and prejudice. We need solutions that will be consistent with our time-hnored traditions and values and will make America even stronger in the coming decades.

Manny being Manny...

2007-10-12T19:40:00.000-04:00

So we're in the second inning of the ALCS. Manny Ramirez - who drives me nuts - is having a grat game so far. RBI single in the first, great catch to end the top of the 2nd.

They showed his stats with Cleveland and with the Sox - almost the same # of games (a few less with Boston) and the stats are almost identical!!! Is he the most consistent hitter ever?

I really don't get Tito Francona starting Kielty for Drew. I'm no JD Drew fan - I'm not sure after this season one can be a Sox fan AND a Drew fan! - but Kielty's success against Sabathia is old news and Drew has been hot since early September, batting .367 with an OBP of .467 and SLG of .673 over the last 30 days according to the Sox web site.

Tito stuck with Drew all year and benches him now? Of course, it's easy for me to write now - I started this post when Kielty was on deck and then he struck out...

The Yankees lose! Theeee Yankees LOSE!

2007-10-08T23:53:00.000-04:00

Game 4 Final: Indians 6, Yankees 3 - Bats - Baseball - New York Times Blog

A Yankees loss is almost as good as a Red Sox win - so I'm pretty darn happy tonight! The Sox move on to the ALCS and the Yankees do not! Now don't get me wrong - I'm not looking forward to Cleveland's pitching in the next round, but I couldn't be happier to see the Yanks go home early. Sweet justice...

I have had enormous respect for Joe Torre's incredible record of success in the 90s - and he seems like a classy guy - but he's been given so many chances with enormous payrolls and All-Star lineups with no WS victory that no one can fault George for finding a new manager.

Charge It to My Kids - New York Times

2007-10-08T23:45:00.000-04:00

Charge It to My Kids - New York Times

Friedman is on target again with yesterday's op-ed piece. It drives me nuts that we continue to fund not only the Iraq War but upper class tax cuts and out of control government spending by borrowing on our kids' - including my kids'! - futures. the Republicans abandoned fiscal conservatism during the Reagan era and haven't looked back. Democrats have been loath to call for tax increases alongside spending reducations for fear that the Republicans will shine the spotlight only on the tax increases and the label of "tax and spend liberals" will be back.

But it's time for someone - anyone!!! - to start treating the American people like intelligent adults. Heck, even Ross Perot with his wacky personality was able to get deficit reduction on the front burner. You can't tell me that there isn't one major candidate in either party who couldn't pull off a similar feat this time around.

It is unconscionable that we continue to mortgage our children's future because we are not willing to pay our own bills, tighten our belts, or make some minor sacrifices. The resulting federal debt and reluctance to consider even sensible new taxes to pay for things like research into new sources of energy have tied our hands and limited our ability to invst for our - and our kids' future as well. So now our kids face a lifetime of paying for our inability to pay our own bills or invest in their future.

It's disgusting. It's not the American way - at least not the one my parents, part of the Greatest Generation, brought me up to be proud of.

Jimmy Carter's Shamefully Ignorant Statement on Darfur

2007-10-08T23:24:00.000-04:00

Jimmy Carter's Shamefully Ignorant Statement on Darfur

Here we go again... Jimmy Carter is tryng to appease some of humanity's worst thugs. Again.

In spite of his reputation as a great humanitarian, Nobel Prize winner and former US President Jimmy Carter has made a second career out of kissing up to the post-Cold War world's worst dictators and genocidal maniacs. During the first round of the North Korea nuclear crisis, Carter undermined then-President Clinton's diplomacy to appease Kim Jong Il and cut a deal that essentially allowed North Korea to continue its nuclear program while receiving considerable US and Japanese economic aid. In Bosnia, Carter broke a US-backed isolation of Serb political leader Radovan Karadzic in another ill-fated effort at appeasement. Many human rights activists with whom I worked in DC during the 90s told me that at least several elections certified as "free and democratic" by Carter had been seriously tainted.

So now, as Eric Reeves so brilliantly points out, Carter is trying to sweep a genocide under the carpet in Darfur. If Marion Jones can be stripped of her five Olympic medals for using steroids, can Carter be stripped of his Nobel Prize for appeasing Sudan's genocidal leaders?

Obama Explores Abortion Issue - The Caucus - Politics - New York Times Blog

2007-10-07T20:33:00.000-04:00

Obama Explores Abortion Issue - The Caucus - Politics - New York Times Blog

This link is to a transcript from a recent campaign appearance in Iowa by Obama at which he answered a question from someone who is clearly "pro-life."

What I liked about Obama's answer - which is pretty much the same thing he wrote about the topic in his book, "The Audacity of Hope" - is that he seeks the common ground for those on both sides of this divisive issue: reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies.

The reality is that those who are "pro-life" or "pro-choice" are unlikely to switch sides. The only hope for a national policy that will actually reduce the number of abortions is one that focuses on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies.

Much of Obama's book explores this kind of thinking about tough issues. He is adept at understanding both sides of an issue and seeing where common ground can be found without either side feeling like they sold out. Now that would be a refreshing kind of leadership in Washington...

Red Sox win ALDS!

2007-10-07T20:14:00.000-04:00

Boston Red Sox - Red Sox - Boston.com

It's starting to feel like another special year for the Sox... They swept the Angels today and now await the winner of the Yankees-Indians series. Granted, the Angels were pretty beat up, but the Red Sox look like a well-oiled machine, pitching and hitting extremely well. They look confident, relaxed, and determined - much like 2004.

Unlike 2004, I'm not itching for a Red Sox-Yankees ALCS. The need to defeat the Yankees in the playoffs was satisfied in '04 when the Sox humiliated the Yankees by making history and coming back from an 0-3 deficit. Instead, I'm hoping for a Cleveland sweep tonight - it would be so sweet. Already, it's a great night - seeing Roger Clemens leave in the 3rd was nice. And a Yankees defeat would be the perfect way to end a day in which the Pats and Sox won big.

I'll admit that when it comes to the Yankees my usually good nature and kind heart turn cold. Too many memories from '78 and '03, too many Yankee fans and their arrogance pre-2004. Too many chants of "1918" before that incredible World Series victory.

Of course, this could all come back to bite me on the butt. The Yankees could still win tonight and win the ALDS. Or Cleveland could continue its dominant pitching in the ALCS. But for now, I'll enjoy the Sox sweep and hope the Indians brought their brooms to NYC, too...

Hillary distorts husband's record on Bosnia and dishonors the dead...

2007-10-05T05:32:00.001-04:00

I finally watched Hillary Clinton's interview on This Week with George Stephanopolous from almost three weeks ago. I shouldn't be surprised that a Clinton would lie or misrepresent what had happened in the Balkans, but I have to admit that I was a bit shocked when she characterized her husband's Balkans policy in a way that portrayed him as the guy trying to stop ethnic cleansing and forge a coalition to stop the bloodshed in Bosnia and Kosovo. Outrageous! And she claimed the Republican-controlled Congress at the time tried to block her husband's efforts. Unbelievable.

The reality was that Bill Clinton and his aides repeatedly lied about and denied the genocide in Bosnia and refused to engage in a serious response to the Serbian aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo until forced to by bipartisan congressional pressure. In Bosnia, it was the passage of legislation - by veto-proof margins in both houses! - that would have allowed the Bosnians to defend themselves that compelled Clinton to finally step in, though the belated intervention was essentially to appease the infamous dictator Slobodan Milosevic. Clinton had refused to acknowledge that a genocide was being committed in Bosnia, refused to lift the arms embargo himself to allow the Bosnians to defend themselves (though he had pledged in the 1992 election to do exactly that!), and failed to live up to our NATO obligations to use air power to stop the shelling of civilians in so-called "safe areas" - actually the least safe areas in Bosnia during the war.

Hillary's gross distortion, turning her husband's complicity in Bosnia into an alleged heroic act, should come as no surprise. After all, her husband refused to intervene to stop the genocide in Rwanda, as in Bosnia denied it was a genocide, and even forced the UN to withdraw its limited peacekeeping force in Rwanda so that if it failed to stop the slaughter he would not feel pressure to send troops to protect innocent lives. Then several years later he had the audacity to travel to Rwanda and tell the survivors he wished we had known what ad happended there so we could have helped. Unbelievable.

I have not chosen a candidate to support in the '08 campaign. But I do know for whom I will not vote. I had enough of Clinton foreign policy failures and lies in the 1990s. And I've had enough of Hillary Clinton's disrepect for the truth and the victims of genocides who could have been saved had her husband just let others do what they wanted to do: defend the innocent.

Can a Plucky U.S. Economy Surmount $80 Oil? - New York Times

2007-10-04T23:33:00.000-04:00

Can a Plucky U.S. Economy Surmount $80 Oil? - New York Times

Boy, isn't this one of the biggest questions we face today? With peak oil coming sooner rather than later, the degree to which our economy can handle a spike in oil prices - starting with the much feared $100/barrel mark - without triggering a significant recession or worse remains a great unknown. This article does a great job of exploring this question, though it doesn't even mention peak oil - a frustrating blind spot the media continues to have.

The problem is that we live in a global economy the likes of which we have never seen before and it is constantly changing. The U.S. may still be the world's largest consumer of oil - leading some economists to argue that a recession would in turn trigger lower oil prices - but at some point in the not too distant future China will overtake us in oil consumption. And before we even reach that mark, China and India and other countries will consume enough (and maybe do already) to prop up oil prices even if US consumptions declines in a recession.

Given the uncertainty, however, shouldn't we plan prudently and ratchet up our efforts to develop alternate energy sources, rather than using the uncertainty to ationalize a "do nothing" approach?

A Swiftly Melting Planet - New York Times

2007-10-04T23:25:00.000-04:00

A Swiftly Melting Planet - New York Times

Is it me, or doesn't it seem that, in spite of Al Gore and Co. raising awareness about global warming, we continue to whistle past the graveyard? So the Arctic ice cap is melting faster than anticipated. Not a shock to me. And I've got plenty of friends and relatives who, in a change from 2-3 years ago, now list global warming as an urgent problem we need to address. Then they hop in their SUV or fail to buy more energy efficient light bulbs or appliances. Or to switch the electricity supplier to a green alternative (I'm able to get my electricity through a "green" ConEd option using wind and water power). They drive their kids to school instead of having them take the bus. They refuse to car pool. They pay little or no attention to the presidential candidates' positions on global warming or energy policy.

Time for us to hold ourselves and each other accountable. Time to walk the walk, not just talk the talk. Time to start acting like global warming and our addiction to oil are real problems we need to address now, not just paying lip service to sound like we care.

Friedman does it again...

2007-10-01T23:04:00.000-04:00

9/11 Is Over - New York Times

Tom Friedman continues to be one of the best at seeing the big picture and having some kind of vision. This column calling for a vision for America that looks beyond the 9/11-centric politics of the Bush Administration (which Giuliani seeks to ride to the White House) should be required reading for all the presidential hopefuls.

I have been thirsty my whole life for a politican with real vision. I have never really voted "for" a candidate - I've voted against the opponent. Most politicians don't treat the voters with respect - they play to the lowest common denominator and fear the voters wouldn't really understand or appreciate the real issues and challenges of the day. the one exception, interestingly enough, was Ross Perot, who, in a modern day version of FDR's firside chats, would buy time on network TV to explain the danger of exploding deficits and fiscal irresponsibility to the voters. Perot believed - correctly - that if you treated the voters with respect and didn't talk down to them or play to their worst instincts, they would understand and vote accordingly. As a result, Perot, in spite of his eccentricities, garnered almost 20 % of the vote and his crusade against deficits was adopted by Bill Clinton and Republicans in Congress in 1993. By the end of the 1990s, the budget had been balanced.

We need a politician today who will provide some real "straight talk" to the American public. Someone who will explain, again, why annual deficits and a debt over $9 trillion are irresponsible and limit our ability to deal with current and future challenges and crises and to invest properly for the future. Someone who will make clear the urgency of developing and deploying new energy technologies in the face of global warming and peak oil. Someone who will shine the light on the challenges and opportunities of the "flat" world Friedman wrote about so powerfully, making it clear that if we are to compete in the 21st century we will need to finally redress the inequities in education and provide a real path out of poverty while fixing our health care system. Someone who will help Americans see that foreign policy is more than fighting terrorism and deaing with Bush's failed war in Iraq.

That's a tall order, I know. I'll take someone who can provide a clear and compelling vision on one or two of those issues, I suppose. Oh, and I'd like some charisma, if possible. And character does matter - I'm tired of Presidents who lie about sex with interns and WMDs.

Too much to ask? No! This is the United States of America - a country that aspires to be the greatest on the planet and has only begun to tap into the enormous potential it's incredible citizenry possess. We deserve the best leadership possible. We deserve a candidate we are proud to vote for.

Global Warming and Darfur - More of the same...

2007-09-30T22:50:00.000-04:00

On Warming, Bush Vows U.S. 'Will Do Its Part' - washingtonpost.com

President Bush's comments this week on global warming - acknowledging that it is a major challenge and caused by "human activities" while resisting any mandatory goals for reducing greenhouse gases - echoes his record on the genocide in Darfur. Bush has been great - at least when compared to former President Clinton's lies in Bosnia - about calling the atrocities in Darfur a genocide. But he's done little to actually live up to our obligations under the Genocide Convention to stop the mass murder, rapes, and expulsions.

Like peak oil - which is on its way - global warming demands immediate and dramatic investments in alternate fuel technologies, improved federal fuel economy standards, tax incentives for consumers and businesses to go "green," and major diplomatic efforts to bring China and India along as well. We all must come to realize that this is a matter of national security and an opportunity. New energy technologies and greater efficiency and conservation will reap major economy and security benefits for the U.S. and any other country that embraces these challenges rather than ignoring them...

Sox clinch home field!

2007-09-30T09:09:00.000-04:00

Boston Red Sox - Red Sox - Boston.com

Well, it al came together this weekend - finally! After some serious anxiety the past month as th Sox allowed their lead over the Yankees to dwindle, the Sox secured the division and then home field advantage throughout the playoffs. Phew! Now it's on to the dance...

Dice-K appears to have been demoted to the #3 slot in the rotation, with Schilling moving up to #2. In a short series, that's a great 3-man rotation, especially if Dice-K and chill pitch like they did their last outings. And the Angels have been hurting lately - lots of players banged up or coming off injuries. And even JD Drew is on fire! Now that's a good omen! :-)

October baseball in Boston... it has meant so much to me. I went to my first Sox game the last game of the '67 Impossible Dream year - and my dad and grampy went to the home games of the Series - have two of the tickets hanging in my house! The end of the '75 series was the first time I saw my father cry. I was at the Bucky Dent playoff game in '78 - and had been at every game of the horrific September Massacre that led up to that nightmare. The Buckner '86 Series I was living in Mexico, so it was a bit surreal and cloudy for me - thankfully.

The 1999 playoffs were incredibly exciting - rejuvenating my love of the game. 2003 was the worst experience since '78. I was in a bar in NYC with a Yankee fan friend watching game 7 of the ALCS. Screamed when Grady Little left Pedro in the game - I still can't beliee it. And felt my heart being crushed in a staggering case of deja vu, with Aaron Boone playing the role of Bucky Dent.

But then came 2004. Redemption. Rebirth. that season felt special from early on. Things had changed in the fall of '03. Fans no longer fell silent when the chips were down - they got on their feet! '04 began to take on a feeling of a new destiny. The old Shakepearean tragedy or late season collapses was no longer to be. When then Sox swept the ALDS, I WANTED the Yankees in the ALCS! I wanted revenge. I wanted to beat the best. I wanted all the questions answered, all the doubts erased.

Falling 0-3 to the Yankees in the ALCS tested all of our faith, but it seemed like every at bat from game 4 on was like new blood coursing through the collective veins of Red Sox Nation. Looking back, this was the way it as meant to play out - the way it had to play out. To show the Sox fans and the world that the Sox no longer were destined to fall short, ripping out the hearts of their faithful. A new era had been born. The Yankees were the ones to choke, to fall jut short of nirvana. The Sox would prevail.

After that ALCS, the momentum was palpable. A sweep almost inevitable. My friend Martin, who was living in China at the time, called me after the ALCS and asked where I was watching game 1 of the WS. When I told him I'd be right there in my living room, he said it wasn't true: I'd be at Fenway! He had secured tickets to every game and was flying back to Boston. And I was the lucky person who would accompany him to see history being made - game 1 of the first WS the Sox would win in 86 years!

Yawkey Way was incredible! I got there very early to soak it all in. I collected every free thing - signs, magazines, newspapers - people were giving away to commemorate this historic occasion. Martin still gives me crap about all the crap I had in my arms that night. There was so much electricity. If ever I had doubted that the universe is really just made up of eneergy and that we humans can control our own energy, that night should have put it to rest. It felt like Red Sox Nation could power an entire country that night.

We moved inside the Park and found our seats. So there I sat - next to WEEI's Glenn Ordway and his family, right behind the Sox dugout!!! It was a cold, but that didn't matter. I was sitting in the same Park where my grandfather had sat when he watched the Sox win in 1918. I felt like some kind of cosmic family circle was now being completed. My father had lived his whole life and never seen his team win it all. But I would - right here, right now.

Game 1 was by far the most exciting - and high scoring, high energy game. From the introductions on, it felt like a unique moment in time and space. And it was.

The rest, as they say, is history. I passed on going to game 4 in St. Louis (money was tight) and watched at home as the Sox finished the sweep. I couldn't believe it. I cried, I screamed. My cousin Carolyn - who is my Red Sox soulmate - and I spoke on the phone. I was euphporic and a bit sad - my father had never known this joy and relief.

Carolyn and her daughter Tricia and I went to the parade together - extending the joyous celebration.

So here we are - sorry for the long trip down memory lane! But it's amazing what gets triggered when the Sox return to October baseball. Full of hope and possibility. Play ball!

The Ugly Side of the G.O.P. - New York Times

2007-09-29T15:15:00.000-04:00

The Ugly Side of the G.O.P. - New York Times

Wow... Bob Herbert has taken off the gloves with a provocative and hard-hitting reaction to Republicans blocking the bill that would have given DC representation in Congress.

Herbert not only condemns today's Republicans in the Senate but also the decades-old "Southern strategy" Republicans have followed to secure the elections of Nixon, Reagan, and both Bush presidents. It's a powerful piece, but perhaps the most striking evidence of long-standing GOP bias is a quote from the late Republican strategist Lee Atwater:

“You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘Nigger, nigger, nigger,’ ” said Atwater. “By 1968, you can’t say ‘nigger’ — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things, and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.”

Wow. I shouldn't be so surprised or shocked, I imagine, but it is stunning to see Atwater admit this so explicitly. Add in Herbert's reminder that Reagan launched his 1980 campaign at the site of an infamous Civil Rights era slaying of three civil rights activists, proclaiming in slightly veiled language that he supported "states' rights." Reagan was essentially telling wite voters that he opposed the federal government's interventions to protect blacks against state-sponsored segregation and racism. The stuff we forget...

I wish we could find a way to have a more honest and open conversation/debate about race and poverty in this country. People like Jonathan Kozol and bob Herbert are trying. But until we do, the politics of avoidance will continue. Democrats who fail to confront the realities of life for African Americans trapped in the legacy of Jim Crow or the growing gap between rich and poor (blacks, white, Latinos, and all poor Americans) are as complicit as the Republicans - even if the Dems don't court white bigots. They do, however, have a track record of 40 years of broken promises to blacks and the poor.

Other than John Edwards, who has made a serious attempt to address these issues?

ODAC-Oil Depletion Analysis Centre

2007-09-29T10:52:00.000-04:00

ODAC-Oil Depletion Analysis Centre

One of the issues I am most consumer with is peak oil. This web site is for a British organization dedicated to educating the public on oil depletion and related issues. I just took a quick look around, but I saw it referenced in n article I read recently. Supposedly, they issued a report this year with analysis indicating that peak oil production could come in the next 4 years!

The article that really turned me onto this issue was this one by Peter Maass in the NYT in 2005:

http://www.petermaass.com/core.cfm?p=1&mag=124&magtype=1

Peter's always been a favorite of mine and his lengthy analysis on this topic is important and gripping. We do seem to be whistling past the graveyard. I have not heard a major presidential candidate address this in any serious fashion. Yet, if peak oil - or the point where demand outstrips supply - is just over the horizon, we are already far behind where we need to be in terms of deeloping affordable alternate sources of energy. We cannot change our economy from oil-based to something else overnight. The economic disruptions could be dramatic. Add to it the other fundamental economic challenges - $9 trillion federal debt, weak dollar, mortgage and housing crisis, personal debt crisis, infrstructure that needs repiar and replacing (bridges, electrical grid, water and sewage systems), etc. and our ability to deal effectively and efficiently with the peak oil "breaking point" could be quite limited.

So where's the leadership and vision on this issue?

Boston Sports Blog - Boston.com

2007-09-20T22:53:00.000-04:00

Boston Sports Blog - Boston.com

Eric Wilbur has a great blog entry about the Sox not wanting the division badly enough - I think he's dead on (see my post below). I've been one of those people talking about how the Cards and Tigers folded last season only to rise again in the playoffs. Hope the Sox can find some of that magic this year!

Boston Red Sox - Red Sox - Boston.com

2007-09-20T22:50:00.000-04:00

Boston Red Sox - Red Sox - Boston.com

It's amazing how the Red Sox can bring either euphoria or that feeling of impending vomit. A 14 game lead down to 1 1/2. No sense of urgency or energy behind winning the division and/or securing home field advantage. It's not a winning mentality. If it were quiet confidence I would get it. But it's more like indifference or arrogance at best. And then there's Gagne, who perhaps cares too much and has forgotten how to pitch like a closer. He's just trying to throw heat - and throwing too hard while forgetting about his change-up. He' a mess. And his ineptitude sems to be contagious - Papelbon has caught it!

I am the eternal otpimist, however, and believe that as long as the Sox can get hot in the playoffs all will be well. But that means the bullpen finding it's earler dominance and at least some bats getting hot again.

Soon - please, soon!

2007-09-20T22:41:00.001-04:00

This is a test post to try out the Mac widget for Blogger. Just switched to a MacBook after a lifetime with Windows and am really enjoying it!

Iraq and The Surge - The Democrats' Dilemma

2007-02-11T19:04:00.000-05:00

The Democrats are in quite a bind right now. Bush's policy in Iraq has clearly failed thus far. Iraq is increasingly less stable politically, violence is increasing, and civil war seems increasingly inevitable.

But Iraq is not yet lost. A full-blown civil war has, amazingly, yet to explode. Most Iraqis still seem to be holding out for a better future. Islamic extremists have not taken over the government. While Iran and Syria seem to be intervening by supporting allies inside Iraq, the long-feared regional conflict is still but a possibility.

The dangers of losing Iraq have been extensively discussed and are generally acknowledged by Bush's supporters and critics alike.

So what to do? Bush's escalation seems ill-conceived. It involves too few troops, though sending more troops seems to be not an option. Many military analysts say that the US military is "broken" and we are limited in terms of available combat troops. So we are left with Bush sending 21,000 plus combat troops, plus additional support troops, to attempt to secure Baghdad and, perhaps, one additional province. It is possible that the troops will succeed in the short term, but the surge seems unlikely to change the political landscape in Iraq or to enable the Iraqi Army to finally take over security for its own country.

Moreover, even though Rumsfeld, Wolfowtiz and Feith are gone, it is difficult to imagine the Bush Administration suddenly finding the ability to be competent in Iraq - or anyplace, for that matter. Why allow this commander-in-chief to send even one more soldier into harm's way after the way he has mismanaged this war, the war in Afghanistan, Katrina, etc.?

But if not the surge, then what?

That's the Democrats' - and the sane Republicans' - dilemma. We can't afford to lose Iraq. But we can't trust Bush to save it. The Iraq Study Group's recommendation to engage Iran and Syria in regional talks is worth trying - what's there to lose? - but it would be naive to think that Syria or, certainly, Iran will suddenly shift it's priorities in Iraq just because Condy Rice asks them to. It is worth trying to engage Iran in serious talks about a range of issues - its nuclear program, its support for Hezbollah and Hamas, its involvement in Iraq, etc. - but let's not bet everything on Iran suddenly becoming a partner for peace and stability in the region, much as it might benefit from such an outcome.

In terms of trying to broker an internal political arrangement in Iraq, that remains our best bet, but I can't help but think that if Zal Khalilzad couldn't pull it off during his tenure as our ambassador to Iraq, it's unlikely that even an experienced diplomat like his successor, Ryan Crocker, will find success any time soon.

So here we are, back to the dilemma. Handed the majority in Congress by an electorate seen to be fed up with the failures of existing Iraq policy, the Democrats need to find some way to apply pressure on the Administration to change course without assuming responsibility for what increasingly seems like an inevitable disaster. Compelling a hasty withdrawal or cutting off funding for the existing troop deployment or the surge could lay that failure squarely on the laps of the Democrats in Congress. But passing a non-binding resolution against the surge while approving the funding to make the surge possible could make them seem complicit should the surge fail in its objectives and result in even more American body bags coming home.

Perhaps the least bad option would be to deny funding for the surge - if you think it's the wrong thing to do, how could you vote to fund it? - and then throw it back on the President's desk. Make it clear that this is his mess and that the American people voted clearly in November for a new approach - not more of the same failed approach. Tell the President he's just going to have to do better with the troop levels he already has.

Otherwise, the Democrats will be left with, at best, a symbolic non-binding resolution against the surge and waiting to see if it work in the short term. If by the fall the situation in Baghdad is not considerably better and a political settlement is not in place, then the Democrats can say they gave Bush one last try, but the voters may see that as having been a violation of the trust they invested in the Democrats last November.

China reflections...

2006-08-28T13:28:00.000-04:00

I may take weeks or months for me to fully digest the trip to China earlier this month. Some initial reactions:

Even having read and seen so much in recent years about China's economic growth and the success some there now enjoy, it still came as a bit of a shock to see the extremes of wealth and poverty there. Outside Xi'an, we visited a family that has lived in a cave for 5 generations. The next day, we were experiencing the enormous wealth and rapid pace of construction in Shanghai - a truly breathtaking contrast.
Every Chinese I spoke with was more sober and cautious about China's future than I was. they see the enormous challenges that lie ahead and understand how China still has so far to go to become a major economic power on a scale with the US. Per capita, they are right. And China has enormous challenges ahead - educating the masses, improving healthcare and other infrastructure, dealing with the rampant destruction of its environment, the growing poverty gap, unrest in the provinces, etc. But I couldn't help but be impressed by how every educated Chinese I spoke with saw this as a path China is on and that they get what they need to do on every level.
The people we met in high-tech companies - Lenovo and Augmentum - were very impressive, young, and ambitious. They seem to be blending the best of Western/American business practices with the best China has to offer. They are great at graphic design and high-tech manufacturing. They still lack the innovation that is America's strength - but they know that and are trying to train/educate/empower the next generation to be innovators. How will that mesh with a still very authoritarian regime politically? Great question...
There are so many opportunities for cooperation with China - alternate sources of energy, environmental protection, urban planning, etc. - that could help us economically and politically avoid seeing each other as threats only. It may well be inevitable that a rising China and the US will see each other as rivals - in Asia and globally - but that does not have to preclude finding areas of mutual interest and cooperation, too.
We encountered no anti-Americanism. Quite the opposite - in spite of the Chinese government's nationalistic/China First rhetoric over the past years, we found everyone to be very inviting and friendly and eager to help us. Many Chinese tourists in Beijing wanted to take pictures with our students. People in the cities seem to embrace signs of American and Western businesses as evidence of the "international" character of those cities and new economic opportunities, not a cultural/economic invasion.
The pollution is terrible - did not see a blue sky while I was there. It is tragic that they are destroying their country like they are.
Traffic in Beijing is bad but not like the worst of Boston or NYC. But it will only get worse as they add so many more cars each day.
I got the sense that many Chinese in the cities see China's rise as its reemergence. For thousands of years China was a great civilization. After a brief interlude, it is back! China as an advanced and great power is seen as China's normal state and destiny, not a new phenomenon. Shanghai is clearly on its way to becoming the commercial and financial center of Asia - and China is intent on making that happen.
The poor farmers living in the cave are so disconnected from the "new" China. When asked about the economic changes and growth - with the nearby highway construction as evidence - one woman said, "It has nothing to do with us."

Bush on Darfur - Still too little, still too late...

2006-04-08T09:46:00.000-04:00

President Bush is doing a great job of sounding concerned about Darfur without actually doing anything that will stop the genocide. On March 29, he said:

I'm deeply worried about the human conditions in Darfur. Ours is a government
that spoke out about genocide, and we meant it. I thanked President
Obasanjo
for the AU presence in the Sudan. I told him, however, I did not think the
presence was robust enough. I do believe there needs to be
a blue helmeting
of not only the AU forces, but additional forces with a NATO overlay. And the
reason I believe that NATO ought to be a part of the operation is twofold:
One, to provide logistical and command and control and airlift capability, but
also to send a clear signal to parties involved that
the West is determined
to help a settlement -- to help affect in a settlement, that this is serious
business, that we're just not playing a diplomatic holding game, but that when
we say, genocide, we mean that the genocide needs to be stopped.

Clearly, the African Union force in incapable of stopping the bloodshed. Merely sticking UN blue helmets on the heads of the AU soldiers and giving them a NATO taxi service is unlikely to turn them into the peacemaking force they need to be. Bush's statement seemed to echo a recent NATO statement that virtually ruled out a NATO "bridging force" that would intervene until a capable UN force could be deployed.

Bush has much to gain by showing real leadership on Darfur. Understanding that his legacy will largely be determined by the long-term outcome in Iraq, that legacy could be significantly enhanced by a successful initiative that stops the genocide in Darfur.

After speaking with Eric Reeves the other day, it seems clear to me that what is needed is a clear goal - or set of goals - and the forces to accomplish those goals. Operationally, these goals might sound like:

- Seal the border with Chad so that refugees fleeing Darfur are not pursued across the border.

- Provide security so that refugees may return to their homes in safety.

- Provide security so that refugees may return to their homes and resume farming so that they might be able to feed themselves over the long-term.

Each of those goals would require a different force in terms of size and capabilities. Moreover, the duration of each mission would likely vary, perhaps considerably.

The International Crisis Group (ICG) suggests in a recent report that "monitoring" the Chad-Sudan border, protecting civilians, and enforcing a ceasefire could be done with 15,000 UN troops, provided the bulk of the troops comes from a militarily capable NATO member, like France.

Putting aside, for a moment, the legacy of French blue helmets in Bosnia (who allowed the Bosnian Deputy Prime Minister under their protection to be executed by Serb forces, among other failings), President Bush's recent statement clearly falls short of endorsing even such a modest proposal from the ICG. Yet, in comparison to his fellow heads of state, Bush could be seen as leading the way on Darfur.

The question of French troops does, however, underscore the point that there are few countries with the military capabilities of intervening in a genocide like Darfur. As with Bosnia, however, the real question ultimately comes down to political will. Who has the political will to actually intervene and stop the genocide? Clearly President Bush does not. He's willing to call it a genocide and, possibly, give someone else a lift if they want to go stop it. But saying you'll support a UN mission without sending your own troops starts to sound like then-President Clinton hiding behind the failed UN mission in Bosnia. It is difficult to convince other countries to risk their troops if you're not willing to do the same. That does make it convenient, however, if what you ultimately want is an excuse for your failed diplomacy.

That's why, even though political "realities" in the the U.S., Sudan, and at the UN Security Council may render it moot, Bush has two options for getting other countries to step up to the plate:

- Bush could state publicly that he is willing to send U.S. troops as part of a NATO mission to stop the genocide. Then he could turn to other countries and ask them to join us in making this "sacrifice" in order to stop these crimes against humanity. In the end, U.S. troop participation might prove politically impossible, but he would have demonstrated that we are not interested in stopping a genocide only when others put their lives on the line. Or,

- Bush will need to engage in a diplomatic full-court press that involves lots of public and private diplomacy to secure a NATO mission - even if those NATO troops are wearing blue helmets - to stop the genocide. The U.S. likely will need to participate by providing logistics, intelligence, and airlift capability. But President Bush will need to act forcefully to make sure that our allies provide the troops necessary to make the ground forces credible and capable. In all likelihood, this means a NATO rapid reaction force between 5,000 and 15,000 troops that can respond quickly and decisively to any assault on civilians or gathering of militarily-significant forces. Without making a similar commitment for U.S. forces, Bush will need to bring the full force of U.S. diplomacy to bear - something he has thus far been unwilling to do.

Those who truly support an end to the genocide in Darfur need to hold Bush accountable. Bush has been content to merely doing more than his counterparts. He "spoke out about genocide" - others have refused to use that term. But does calling for a UN force that is incapable of stopping the carnage demonstrate that he "meant it"?

Let's say what we want - clear goals, as I have outlined above - and understand what it will take to accomplish them. Until Bush stands behind that agenda - and is taking clear, concrete steps to accomplish those goals - let's all make it clear: he doesn't mean it.