Pomegranate Thoughts

Farewell to Little Boy

2012-01-16T07:39:00.000-08:00

It is with great sadness that we had to say goodbye to Little Boy this morning.

He was diagnosed with diabetes in August. This weekend he stopped eating and became lethargic. He developed diabetic ketoacidosis, which is the effect of poor glucose treatment. He never responded well to insulin, and his blood sugar levels were always high, even as we measured his glucose levels and injected him with insulin twice a day.

Boy-O came to us in 2004. He and his sister Tillie were found as kittens by our friends Kate and Jeff on a golf course during a tournament. Kate noticed a kitten in the weeds, and brought both of them to the vet. They were undernourished and sickly, but Kate and Jeff nursed them back to health. They couldn't keep the kittens because of their own cats, but we had three of our own (Hailie, Shadow, and Fisher), and we were unsure whether it was wise to take in two more cats. Our vet, though, suggested that we could handle it. So, one weekend, we journeyed to Philadelphia and brought the kittens back with us to Albany.

Little Boy was initially named Gormley, after the golf tournament's name. I can't say exactly how he got the name Little Boy. It was a rather ironic name. He quickly became a big cat, around 16-18 pounds, but he had a very high pitched meow like a kitten.

I must confess to feeling bad for letting him get so big, a product of Shadow and then Hailie being sick and hardly eating. We kept food out all the time to encourage our granny cats to eat--something Little Boy took full advantage of.

Little Boy was a playful, loving cat. He and his sister played constantly. They were always tumbling around, chasing each other, and playing with the other cats. When Kitty Meow joined us two years ago, he and she became best playmates. Little Boy is the only cat we've had who snuggled up with the dogs. He would rub his head on Indie's and sleep curled up with Bella. Although, he rarely curled up with us on the bed, and if he did, it was always at our feet.

He was a gem of a beast--by far the mellowest, sweetest, most charming cats we've had. He will be missed.

Fairwell Hailie

2010-09-12T19:10:00.000-07:00

Today Jon and I had to put our last granny cat to rest, our dear Hailie.

She lived 18 years, which is far longer than I could have hoped for, but the last year she was clearly an elderly cat. About a year ago she began losing weight, just as the twins had come into our lives. We began a more aggressive feeding regimen that included wet cat food and "Cat Sip", a commercial, lactose-free milk for pets, that fortunately she loved. Mixing the two of them together and giving them to her was a recipe she could stand, and although she did not really gain back her lost weight, she did not lose more.

The last few days, I noticed her lying around in unusual places, the middle of the kitchen floor, the bathroom floor, next to the dog dishes. Last week, I came upon her, lying there, looking more like a rug than a cat because she was so skinny, with bony hips and shoulders protruding from her fur, and thought she had died. She was so still and was in such an odd location, I bent down and gave her a little touch, and she raised her head and looked at me in that "do you mind, I'm resting here" look.

Today, she didn't come down for breakfast, and an hour later, I heard her meowing, but it wasn't her usual caterwaul. As an aside, Hailie has always had a loud yowl, but it got louder, I swear the last few years. And, she would yowl at the oddest times, often when the house had grown quiet as we headed to bed or in the wee hours of the morning. But, the meow today sounded more like the meow of her kitten self, and I thought it sounded like she was telling us she was in trouble or in pain. Jon reported later in the early afternoon that Hailie was moving very stiffly. I saw it for myself an hour later, as I saw her walk across the kitchen floor. She was moving so slowly, like every step was a tremendous effort, and her balance was slightly off. Fisher had done the same thing in her last hours. I said to Jon when I saw her "we're going to have to put her down." He nodded.

But, it's Sunday. Our normal vet isn't open. So, initially, the plan was to make a call first thing tomorrow. But, as the afternoon wore on, it became clear that she was in discomfort. She would move every 10 or so minutes from one flat-cat position to another, stretched out, breathing slowly, eyes wide open. At 4, we agreed we needed to take her to the emergency clinic and end her discomfort before tomorrow.

Much to our relief, a neighbor was able to come over and watch the girls, and we took Hailie on her last car ride. She hardly moved while we drove. When we got to the clinic and had her euthanized, she went very quickly. She seemed tired, ready.

We, Jon and I, of course were not ready. It does not get easier, even though this is our third.

But, it's more important to remember how she lived than how she died.

Hailie came to us right before Mother's Day in 1993. The plan was to get a kitten from the local animal shelter and give it to my mom for Mother's Day. So, we went to the shelter, and entered a chaotic scene of young teens and a few adults playing what I can only describe as musical kittens.

There were 8 or so kittens available for adoption, and they were being passed around by interested adopters. Hailie or what soon became Hailie kept getting passed on to others, who passed her on, as they aimed for some smaller, cuter kitten. Hailie was the oldest of the kittens, larger, blander, with big paws. She was shy, and seemed uncomfortable with all the people handling her.

When she finally came into our hands, and there were no other hands to pass her on to, Jon even before I did had decided she was to be ours. We paid our fee, and brought her home. She was the second cat in our domicile. Fisher was the first beast in our house, and I was very curious how Fisher and Hailie would get on.

Of course, at first Fisher was unhappy about this new presence, and Hailie spent much time in hiding, but gradually, they became buddies. Over that weekend, it became clear to Jon and I that we were going to keep Hailie for our own. Another cat would have to be found for Mom (and we did, Cleo, but that's another story).

Hailie became a much more distant cat after Shadow's arrival that summer. She stopped hanging with Fisher, as Shadow began hogging Fisher's time, and Shadow and Hailie never got along.
She almost never slept on the bed with us, and when she did she preferred to be on a corner near our feet.

Hailie was still excellent at getting our attention, though. She was the master of the door (she made a much better door than window standing in front of our monitors as we tried to work). She loved getting our attention while we worked at our computers. Jon created a special camp for her in front of his monitor (in part to try and get her to park her keester so he could see past her).

She had the infamous "paw of doom." When she felt annoyed at Shadow, in particular, she'd unleash a thumping. Hailie would raise her right paw almost above her head, and bring it down in fast, repeated thumps upon the head of Shadow. Hailie had no use for irritating other cats, and let them know it with her boxer paw.

Yogurt was one of her favorite treats. When I'd dish myself up some yogurt or had a yogurt cup, she'd be at my desk faster than I could take my first taste of it. I used to save the last bits from the yogurt cup for her. Occasionally, she'd get her head so pushed into the cup that it would get wedged in there, and then she'd walk backwards shaking her head trying to get the yogurt cup off, and when it did, her whiskers and forehead often would be smudged with her favorite stuff, then she'd happily sit there cleaning herself off with her hard-fought treasure.

She loved, I mean loved, drinking water by licking it off her paws. She especially loved dipping her paws in water glasses, preferably ones I was presently trying to drink out of. She was so bad about it that I could not trust that if I left a glass of water around that it would not be free of cat feet when I returned. Because of her, I stopped drinking out of regular drinking glasses at my desk, and switched to water bottles that I could close so that I wouldn't lose my freshly poured glass of water to Hailie's furry, dirty feet. She would create such a mess when she drank this way, letting her wet paw drip while she licked the water off. And, when she went back for more, she'd swish her paw around slopping water over the edges of the glass. Indeed, that was often the way I knew she'd adulterated one of my water glasses -- the sloppy wet mess around the glass, and then the wet cat paw marks of her departure. [I poured a glass of water tonight, and with a bitter smile noted I'd not have to worry about losing it to Hailie's cat feet.]

Hailie was a brown tabby, not particularly remarkable in markings, but she had stunning, large green eyes with an intent, wise look in them. She was the tallest and the biggest of our cats, not in weight (Shadow beat her there in her early years), but in height and stature. At her largest I think she weighed around 12 pounds.

As we acquired "the kittens" Tillie and Little Boy and last year Kitty Meow, Hailie tolerated them but like with Shadow mostly ignored them unless they irritated her in some way. It made me sad the day I saw her give way to Little Boy's bullying. In Hailie's prime, she'd have shown Boy-o who was the boxer of the family, but at 15 or 16, she was in her retirement and not up to such kitten antics. She chose to leave rather than fight.

With Hailie's passing, it feels like the end of something, an era maybe. Hailie, like Fisher and Shadow, were with Jon and I from our wedding, our moves around Minneapolis, to Philadelphia, and to Albany and our climb up the career ladder. Hailie had the distinct privilege of being the granny cat who came to know all of the daughters, something Shadow did not live long enough to experience, and Fisher only survived long enough to greet Isabel into this world.

These cats have been like Talismen, totems, sacred objects that journeyed with us, watched over us, nurtured us, and loved us for who we were, imperfect in all our ways. I am, as ever, grateful for their presence. Indeed, before we had daughters, we had cats. They were our children. Now our three cat-children have passed.

To Shadow, to Fisher, and now to Hailie, I honor your lives, your distinct characters, your special way of helping me to pause and share a bit of love with you and in return to receive it from you. Hailie, I love and miss you, special creature that you were, that you are.

No Longer Posting

2009-08-11T10:39:00.000-07:00

I've stopped blogging here. With Isabel, twins on the way, trying to achieve tenure, etc., there just aren't enough hours of the day to update this blog.

I've been mulling whether to keep it up or take it down. For the time being, I'll keep it up. Maybe the time and spirit will appear once again.

Stand By Me

2008-12-17T08:27:00.000-08:00

I have several essays in my head at the moment, but they'll have to wait for the grading to be done.

In the meantime, here's a very sweet rendition of Stand by Me played by musicians around the world at PlayingforChange.com. I'm a big softie for this stuff, and it touches the soul.

'Tis the Season for Giving.

The Crisis at SUNY

2008-12-11T09:34:00.000-08:00

Today, I attended one of the townhall forums hosted by the President, Provost, and CFO. I thought I was up on the latest budget happenings, but the information provided by CFO Kathy Lowry about UAbany's budget situation is far worse than I'd realized.

A few notable highlights:

--The University is increasing tuition for students by $300 in the spring semester. This money would help offset a small portion of the budget cuts exacted by the governor. The problem is that the legislature did not vote Nov. 19th to allow the SUNYs to spend that revenue. So, the money, as of now, cannot be spent.

--The University is bound by contract to pay union negotiated salary increases, but the state is not going to provide the University the additional revenue to pay for those salary increases. That money will then have to come from somewhere in the budget.

--The SUNY system is considered a state agency, and the governor has sole discretion to increase or cut higher education at his discretion with no input from the legislature. So far, Patterson has cut the budget for SUNY by over 10%. President Phillips described it as: a university research center, a four year comprehensive center, a technical center, and the entire SUNY central administration would need to be dissolved in order for the SUNY system to break even under the current budget constraints.

--Before the current budget cuts, Ualbany was receiving approximately 18% of its operating funds from the state. After the cuts, it's 15%. If more cuts come, then even less (and yet we're called a state school. Cornell gets more revenue percentage-wise from the state than we do, yet they're considered private).

--I asked about adjuncts. Provost Phillips said that the University cannot respond to this crisis with an increase in adjuncts to replace tenure track faculty. We are already ranked poorly because of our 1 to 21 tenure-line faculty to student ratio. With the budget cuts, we're likely going to increase to 1 to 23, which is bad. The Provost underscored that she does not want to see the entire university become mediocre as a result of this budget cut. She mentioned that rather than increasing the number of adjuncts, they are going to shrink the incoming Freshman and transfer populations next year (we're currently at an unprecedented 18,300 students) to try to hold down the faculty/student ratio, and to look at cutting whole programs.

There are a number of problems that the budget situation is highlighting. One of the biggest structural problems for the SUNY system is our designation as a "State Agency" under the Executive. We are the only higher education system *in the country* that is structured this way. It means that even though only a fraction of our budget comes from the state, we are under the budgetary whims of the governor, yet cannot raise tuition without legislative approval. It means that the SUNY system is especially inflexible to find new ways of increasing revenue, such as tuition, when the executive branch decides to de-prioritize higher education spending.

In short, things are grim.

If this pisses you off as much as it does me, the UUP is urging faculty, staff, students, and parents to fax their representatives. Information can be found here: http://www.uupinfo.org/. Do NOT use campus resources (your work computer, the department's fax) to make your voice heard to your state legislators.

If you're not part of the union, but you're worried about what the budget cuts mean for higher education in New York State, then contact your representatives, write letters to the editor, and talk with friends and family about this crisis.

Everyone needs to share the burden in a bad economy, but it is cutting the nose to spite the face to cut higher education in a downturn. It is affordable higher education that gives people the opportunity to enter or re-enter the marketplace as skilled workers and productive citizens.

More from Yes Men

2008-11-12T19:09:00.001-08:00

I got another Press Release this evening from the Yes Men about the NYTimes hoax.

November 12, 2008
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT:
writers@nytimes-se.com
917-202-5479
718-208-0684
415-533-3961

"SPECIAL" NEW YORK TIMES BLANKETS CITIES WITH MESSAGE OF HOPE AND CHANGE Thousands of volunteers behind elaborate operation

* PDF: http://www.nytimes-se.com/pdf
* Ongoing video releases: http://www.nytimes-se.com/video

* The New York Times responds: http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/12/pranksters-spoof-the-times/

Hundreds of independent writers, artists, and activists are claiming credit for an elaborate project, 6 months in the making, in which 1.2 million copies of a "special edition" of the New York Times were distributed in cities across the U.S. by thousands of volunteers.

The papers, dated July 4th of next year, were headlined with long-awaited news: "IRAQ WAR ENDS". The edition, which bears the same look and feel as the real deal, includes stories describing what the future could hold: national health care, the abolition of corporate lobbying, a maximum wage for CEOs, etc. There was also a spoof site, at http://www.nytimes-se.com/.

"Is this true? I wish it were true!" said one reader. "It can be true, if we demand it."

"We wanted to experience what it would look like, and feel like, to read headlines we really want to read. It's about what's possible, if we think big and act collectively," said Steve Lambert, one of the project's organizers and an editor of the paper.

"This election was a massive referendum on change. There's a lot of hope in the air, but there's a lot of uncertainty too. It's up to all of us now to make these headlines come true," said Beka Economopoulos,
one of the project's organizers.

"It doesn't stop here. We gave Obama a mandate, but he'll need mandate after mandate after mandate to do what we elected him to do. He'll need a lot of support, and yes, a lot of pressure," said Andy Bichlbaum, another project organizer and editor of the paper.

The people behind the project are involved in a diverse range of groups, including The Yes Men, the Anti-Advertising Agency, CODEPINK, United for Peace and Justice, Not An Alternative, May First/People Link, Improv Everywhere, Evil Twin, and Cultures of Resistance.

In response to the spoof, the New York Times said only, "We are looking into it." Alex S. Jones, former Times reporter who is an authority on the history of the paper, says: "I would say if you've got one, hold on to it. It will probably be a collector's item."

Sarah Palin Africa Hoax

2008-11-12T19:00:00.001-08:00

Last week much noise was made about Sarah Palin and a "fact" that she didn't know that Africa was a continent. Turns out that story was a hoax.

It's complicated, but in a nutshell the McCain aid the reported that Palin didn't know this basic geographic fact was not a McCain aid.

Read about it in the New York Times, and shame on journalists and bloggers for reporting a story from a guy who was KNOWN to be a huckster (details of this at the bottom of the story).

The Yes Men are at it Again

2008-11-12T18:56:00.000-08:00

I got an email message this morning from the Yes Men informing me of their distribution of a New York Times parody around the country.

Here's the text:

November 12, 2008
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

SPECIAL TIMES EDITION BLANKETS U.S. CITIES, PROCLAIMS END TO WAR

* PDF: http://www.nytimes-se.com/pdf
* For video updates: http://www.nytimes-se.com/video
* Contact: mailto:writers@nytimes-se.com

Early this morning, commuters nationwide were delighted to find out that while they were sleeping, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had come to an end.

If, that is, they happened to read a "special edition" of today's New York Times.

In an elaborate operation six months in the planning, 1.2 million papers were printed at six different presses and driven to prearranged pickup locations, where thousands of volunteers stood ready to pass them out on the street.

Articles in the paper announce dozens of new initiatives including the establishment of national health care, the abolition of corporate lobbying, a maximum wage for C.E.O.s, and, of course, the end of the war.

The paper, an exact replica of The New York Times, includes International, National, New York, and Business sections, as well as editorials, corrections, and a number of advertisements, including a recall notice for all cars that run on gasoline. There is also a timeline describing the gains brought about by eight months of progressive support and pressure, culminating in President Obama's "Yes we REALLY can" speech. (The paper is post-dated July 4, 2009.)

"It's all about how at this point, we need to push harder than ever,"
said Bertha Suttner, one of the newspaper's writers. "We've got to make sure Obama and all the other Democrats do what we elected them to do.
After eight, or maybe twenty-eight years of hell, we need to start imagining heaven."

Not all readers reacted favorably. "The thing I disagree with is how they did it," said Stuart Carlyle, who received a paper in Grand Central Station while commuting to his Wall Street brokerage. "I'm all for freedom of speech, but they should have started their own paper."

On Radio Shows and Racial Politics

2008-10-20T18:06:00.000-07:00

So, I've been mulling around the McCain ads and Republican strategy to connect former Weather Underground member turned college English professor Bill Ayers to Barack Obama.

It has struck me as deeply problematic that the McCain campaign would do this, because I read it as a fear tactic. Specifically, that in connecting Ayers, Obama, and terrorism it creates a cognitive and emotional link between the three of them, with the residual affect in the minds of voters, especially white voters, is that Obama is dangerous, scary, and "other".

I've been thinking of blogging about this for awhile, but I have over-the-top busy at work combined with unreliable childcare.

But, today, some radio station called while I was getting ready for a 2 hour faculty meeting to talk job candidates. The female reporter wanted to know what I thought of the presidential campaign ads. So, I blabbed on a bit about the unprecedented nature of the volume of advertising given Obama's massive spending abilities, and the high level of negativity, akin to the 1988 campaign.

She then asked if I'd like to be recorded, and I told her fine, but quickly.

So, she then asked me to tell me what I'd just said, so I did, but I wandered onto this subject of the McCain campaign's Ayers/Obama attack, arguing that the ads were designed to make people afraid of Obama.

At the end, the journalist asked me what my party affiliation is. I told her it was irrelevant and asked her why, and she said that I seemed pretty biased. I told her that when the dust settled and academics had a chance to really analyze this campaign, they would find exactly what I told her. I also told her to check out the University of Wisconsin's advertising project to get a fix on the amount of negative advertisements running right now by both campaigns. We then hung up.

Well, tonight I got this email from "ChuckWagon":

In what way has the John Mccain ads been negative?

I dont believe pointing out someone's voting record and history/

asscoiations is negative. Hillary Clinton raised these same questions?

I am a little confused by your accusations.

Oh. Here we go, I think to myself. I'm an idiot for answering the phone.

But, I penned a response. I'll share it with you:

Hi anonymous emailer,

You're quite right. It is legitimate and important to raise questions about voting records and about history. We need to know who these people are that might be our next president.

The problem is this. The advertisements and the attacks that link Obama to Ayers create a cognitive and emotional connection in the minds of voters, especially white voters, that Obama is scary and that he's a terrorist.

Now, if Obama were, indeed, "palling around with terrorists," I would want to know about it. But, several credible sources have provided useful evidence for how much of a link there is between Ayers and Obama. Factcheck.org, for example, has researched this connection, and has found 2 connections. 1) Obama when he was running for Illinois congress was invited to attend a coffee at Ayer's house for fundraising. 2) Obama and Ayers were both invited by Walter Annenberg (a Republican, a friend of the Reagans, and the endower of my alma mater), to participate in an ongoing panel dealing with education problems in Chicago. That's it. To my mind, drawing the connection between Ayers, Obama, and terrorism is therefore not a genuine effort to highlight a problematic relationship that the country should know, but instead is an effort to scare voters into thinking Obama is a terrorist.

I'm going to guess by your question that you are a McCain supporter, and there are lots of good reasons to support McCain. I just don't believe his advertising has been "playing fair." I don't think Obama's has either, but in this election McCain's ads have been more egregious in fear tactics than McCain's. [Ooops, should've typed Obama's there]

If you're interested, there are a couple of great books on political advertising that I'd recommend. One is The Race Card by Tali Menderlberg that maps out the argument I just made on race, fear, and negative ads in prior elections. Another terrific book is In Defense of Negativity by John Geer. In that book he makes a cogent argument about why negative ads are good for us.

By the way, I never actually caught what radio station was interviewing me. I was running late for a meeting when the reporter called, and I was ill-prepared to speak clearly on the ideas that I'm trying to do a better job here of explaining. Would you tell me where you heard the clip?

Best wishes,

~Jenny

I'm probably still not articulating the idea clearly or well, and it's tricky. As soon as one brings up scare tactics and those that have a racial message, then people like me get attacked for either being biased or for being too sensitive.

But, I feel quite confident that I'm right about the ads' and the campaign message's intended effect: to scare voters, and to do so in a racial twinged way.

Tenure Docs

2008-10-15T11:20:00.000-07:00

An hour ago I turned in the bulk of my tenure documents.

It's oddly anti-climatic.

I feel relief, but only because it's one thing that's off my plate. Friends have told me I should do something nice for myself or celebrate, but today's my full day and night of teaching. In addition, the last presidential debate is tonight, and like last week I will be at the Campus Center with about 120 undergraduates watching the debate. By the time I get out of there, I'll be exhausted and ready for bed. Maybe this weekend, when I'm not reading job applications . . . . .

I think the bigger celebrations will come as various people vote on my along the way.

Oy. What a process.

Watching the Second Prez Debate

2008-10-07T18:48:00.000-07:00

Tonight, I'm sitting at the Campus Center Ballroom surrounding by about 100 students watching the second presidential debate. It's heartening to me to see such enthusiasm for politics in the students in this hall. The College Republicans have their McCain/Palin signs that they wave periodically when they find McCain saying something rousing. The College Democrats have been more reticent but on occasion have raised their Obama/Biden signs. At a few moments, there were loud cheers and applause for answers and even for questions asked by citizens in the townhall.

I've written about this before, but I enjoy seeing people viewing politics like they do Sunday Football. Some may say that's problematic, as it's emotional and irrational; but I think such participation can ultimately be good. Football or politics, when you watch, you learn. You pick up names, dates, events, you learn about problems and issues and strategies. Exposure is a good thing. Even if the exposure is motivated by a desire to "root for your team."

Root away, students!

A New Way to Predict Election Outcomes

2008-09-17T09:30:00.001-07:00

I don't have time to go into why public opinions polls are so problematic at election time.

But, there's a new predictive model out there, that's worth some attention. Fivethirtyeight.com is the brain child of Nate Silver. He takes a large swatch of polls, their current results of the "if the election were held to today, whom would you vote for" question, then plugs it into a statistical model that is then re-run dozens of times to establish the likely outcome of the election. His poll was an excellent predictor of actual outcomes during the primary.

My favorite poem

2008-09-15T11:02:00.001-07:00

I'm in a poetry mood.

My favorite poem is by Theodore Roethke. This one reminds me of my dad.

My Papa's Waltz

The whiskey on your breath
Could make a small boy dizzy;
But I hung on like death:
Such waltzing was not easy.

We romped until the pans
Slid from the kitchen shelf;
My mother's countenance
Could not unfrown itself.

The hand that held my wrist
Was battered on one knuckle;
At every step you missed
My right ear scraped a buckle.

You beat time on my head
With a palm caked hard by dirt,
Then waltzed me off to bed
Still clinging to your shirt.

Kay Ryan, Poet Laureat

2008-09-15T10:59:00.000-07:00

I heard Kay Ryan on a show last night. I went hunting for a few poems of hers. I found this one. It speaks to me. Makes me think of my mom and my grandmother.

THINGS SHOULDN'T BE SO HARD

A life should leave
deep tracks:
ruts where she
went out and back
to get the mail
or move the hose
around the yard;
where she used to
stand before the sink,
a worn-out place;
beneath her hand
the china knobs
rubbed down to
white pastilles;
the switch she
used to feel for
in the dark
almost erased.
Her things should
keep her marks.
The passage
of a life should show;
it should abrade.
And when life stops,
a certain space—
however small —
should be left scarred
by the grand and
damaging parade.
Things shouldn't
be so hard.

Trying to Vote in the Primary

2008-09-09T09:35:00.000-07:00

Today is primary day in New York. I just went to vote. The poll worker pushed the reset lever on our ancient pull-lever voting machines too hard, and it jammed the system. No voting. The poor guy whose vote was now screwed up had to vote absentee.

Will New York ever get its new voting machines?!? We're the last state in the country still voting on 50 year old (or older!) machines. Incredible.

More Me on (in?) the News

2008-08-29T19:18:00.000-07:00

Today, I was on Northeast Public Radio's WAMC for their 2pm call-in show.

I must confess, it was great fun fielding calls from listeners on the Democratic Convention and McCain's VP pick.

One of my former students even called in. He said I had been his favorite professor at UAlbany. I must put him on the payroll!

Listen if you wish.

Me on the News

2008-08-28T18:38:00.001-07:00

Last week, in the run up to the Obama VP announcement via text message, I got calls from a couple media outlets to talk about this strategy. You can watch the video or read the transcript of the rather quirky news story here.

Soup

2008-08-28T12:02:00.000-07:00

I have a cold, have had it for over a week now. Today, I'm working for home, and so made myself some quick chicken noodle soup using Ramen noodles, some left over chicken, and some old carrots lingering in the fridge.

I'm now at my desk, trying to finish coding deliberations, and supping.

I find it remarkably comforting. The warmth of the broth, the slippery-ness of the noodles, the sweetness of the carrots.

When I think of soup, I think of my mom. I ate a lot of soup thanks to her. When the cupboards and fridge were bare, and they often were, she could pull together a soup out of anything. One I remember most vividly is a carrot hamburger concoction.

We were living in a trailer that was part of a tiny little trailer park sandwiched in a narrow valley outside of Rapid City, S.D. in the Black Hills. This was around 1984. I was 12.

The crazy 1970s era trailer was one story in front and two stories at the back: teeny bedrooms above and below. It was blue. There was a hole in the roof in the living room where a wood stove should have been. The kitchen was at the front. It was summer.

At lunchtime one day, my brother and I came in from playing with the other kids in the trailer park, mostly illegal Mexican immigrants. We were starving. Mom hunted through the cupboards and fridge and found some beef broth, some wilty carrots, and a package of hamburgee. Twenty minutes later we had soup.

It was delicious.

I still think fondly of that soup. I've tried to reproduce it a few times, but it never tasted as sweet or as salty as what my memory says it should be. When you have little, such simple fare becomes all the more satisfying.

Why Conventions are Cool

2008-08-26T18:41:00.000-07:00

I'm streaming the convention on my computer while doing various and sundry things for work. Mark Warner has just taken the podium. But, before he did, there was about 5 minutes of downtime from the prior speaker. During that time the song "I'm so excited" played, and the cameras showed pictures of enthusiastic Democrats in the hall dancing, singing along, wearing silly hats, talking to each other, and shaking hands.

I've always found Conventions reassuring, because it shows a swath of America that really cares about politics, that is so completely energized by their party, and who have as part of their identity being political, being part of a party.

I know there's much hand wringing about the red/blue divide, and I have done some of that myself. But, it's also nice to see excitement for politics expressed in smiles and by bodies.

A Response

2008-07-15T18:19:00.000-07:00

One of my students (thanks, Mike!) sent me a link to an editorial cartoon that is the McCain equivalent of the New Yorker cover of Obama.

On Interpretation

2008-07-14T20:02:00.000-07:00

So, the big brouhaha today is the latest New Yorker magazine cover, which depicts candidate Obama in traditional Muslim clothing fist bumping Michelle Obama who has a massive afro and an assault weapon slung on her back. They stand in the oval office with a U.S. flag burning in the fireplace and a portrait of Osama Bin Laden above the mantel.

According to Nico Pitney at the Huffington Post, Barry Blitt the creator of the satiric cartoon aimed to convey the extreme views out there of the Obamas:

I think the idea that the Obamas are branded as unpatriotic [let alone as terrorists] in certain sectors is preposterous. It seemed to me that depicting the concept would show it as the fear-mongering ridiculousness that it is.

The problem is interpretation. The Obama campaign issued a release condemning the cover as tasteless and offensive. The McCain camp followed with their own condemnation.

It created such a stir that it even got time on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer.

So, is it a message highlighting the absurd rumor-mongering of the right or is it a tasteless and offensive portrayal of the Obamas?

Perhaps, a title would have helped?

Paying up for Weak Oversight

2008-07-12T11:29:00.000-07:00

The bad financial news at the end of this week focuses on the weak foundation of the two largest mortgage brokers Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. These two businesses buy mortgages from originating banks, bundle them together, and then sell them to investors as mortgage-backed securities. As more and more Americans foreclose on their homes, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae have had to dig into their cash reserves to continue to pay out the interest on the mortage-backed securities, even though they're no longer taking in the money from mortgages-gone-bad. In turn, the companies are having a hard time borrowing money to pay the interest owed to investors. It's another Bear Stearns.

Unfortunately, according to an article in the New York Times, it seems that tax payers may end up bailing out and paying investors their guaranteed interest on the mortgage-backed securities if Freddie and Fannie fail. The article argues that the two companies lobbied hard over the past decade for little oversight as their fortunes grew.

Now that there's been a reversal of fortune, they turn to the government for a bailout.

Not only will the taxpayers pay, but people trying to secure mortgages, and stockholders who are being hammered by this current unstable market (earnings over the past 2 years have been erased in a matter of months) will pay.

The problem is that if the government doesn't do something, and the companies tank, it means the credit market will freeze up. And, that will hurt Americans broadly, too.

If there had been oversight. If government regulators had been doing their jobs. If Congress and the Fed had been engaging in proper oversight, perhaps we wouldn't be in this economic quagmire today. Regulation and regulators have a place in the free market. When they don't, the consequences can be dire.

Can John McCain be President?

2008-07-10T20:22:00.000-07:00

Floating around have been questions as to whether John McCain constitutionally can be president. He was born on a military base in the Canal Zone in Panama in 1936. The Constitution requires that the president be a "natural-born citizen." McCain didn't become a naturalized citizen until 1937 the year that Congress passed a law granting citizenship to military personnel living in the Canal Zone after 1904.

The debate is over whether that Congressional law in 1937 entails that McCain is "natural-born." According to the analysis by Professor Gabriel Chin, the law was conferred a year too late to make McCain "natural born." Others, including liberal legal theorist Lawrence Tribe argue that it's preposterous for Congress to have created a loop-hole of this sort.

Congress in the spring passed a non-binding resolution that declared McCain eligible to run for the presidency and to hold that office if elected. But, there's a legal case in New Hampshire brought forth by a citizen, Fred Hollander, against McCain, challenging his constitutional right to run for president. The problem here is that generally such lawsuits are thrown out, because the plaintiff can't prove direct injury, and therefore cannot sue.

It's a fascinating legal paradox that likely will go unanswered. My own sense of this is that McCain may not be constitutionally allowed to be president, but that to prevent a guy who was born to American citizens, born on an American military base, and that if he had been a born a year later would be considered "natural-born", as being absurd. But, I'm not a legal scholar. Just a citizen thinking about what is the right and fair thing.

Read the details at the New York Times.

Tony Schwartz

2008-07-07T19:22:00.001-07:00

For a terrific audio profile of Tony Schwartz, listen to the Kitchen Sister's terrific compilation of interviews and sounds of the great audio genius (and man behind the 1964 Lyndon Johnson "Daisy Ad").

DCCC's Bush Impersonation Ad

2008-07-07T19:02:00.000-07:00

[Okay, so I've been a little busy . . . . The end of semester unloaded its torrent of papers to grade and theses to read, then to ICA in Montreal, at which I learned my grandmother on my dad's side had died, so a quick return to Albany to collect Isabel, and then off to Rapid City, South Dakota to attend the funeral, and then grappling for a week with a nasty cold, and since then trying to keep my NSF funded project running, and cranking out manuscripts and juggling other research projects. Tenure review is coming . . . .

AND: Rest in Peace: Tony Schwartz, George Carlin, and Tim Russert]

The Benton Foundation is reporting that a Philadelphia radio station is refusing to run a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee advertisement. The ad features a President Bush impersonator who thanks the local Republican congressmember for supporting "Big Oil". They're refusing the run it on the ground that it impersonates President Bush.

I first heard about the ad a few weeks ago, and my reaction was: not cool. No matter what one thinks about President Bush, it's over-the-line to hire an impersonator to put words in the President's mouth. There will be people, either who aren't terribly aware or perhaps who catch only bits of the ad, who think that President Bush is actually saying those things. It's a deceptive ad. The DCCC shouldn't have created it. Surely, there are better, more compelling ways to critique the Bush presidency.

Race and Religion

2008-04-24T06:08:00.000-07:00

This morning the New York times has an article analyzing the dynamic of race in the Democratic primary. Given that Obama was unable, again, to "seal the deal" with blue collar whites, the New York Times investigated what factor his "blackness" is having on white voters.

The article quotes independent pollster Peter Hart:

"The big question about Barack Obama from the very beginning has been, Is he safe? . . . . Safe in terms of both the cultural values that he has, and about whether he is strong enough to be commander in chief."

I think Hart is on to something, but neither he nor the article articulate the other dynamic: religion.

Specifically, I think it is far more pervasive than talked about in the news media that Americans believe in their heart-of-hearts that Obama is Muslim. So, Hart is right that people want to know if he's "safe," but with regard to whether or not he's really one of "them," one of our enemies, the people we're fighting "over there", the people who attacked us on 9/11.

This notion of his Muslim roots crops up everywhere. A church in South Carolina posted on their church sign the following:

Obama Osama Hmmmm. Are they brothers?

When asked about the sign, the pastor of the church said that he didn't mean to offend anyone, he just thought it was worth thinking about the connection, suggesting that they were "brothers" because of a shared faith.

My own neighbors ask me whether I think that his "past" and his "background" will surface during an Obama presidency. When I asked what they were referring to, they mentioned Obama's Muslim father and step-father, his education in Indonesia at a "madrasa" (another name for school, by the way, not ultra fundamentalist, Islamist school). When I explained what I knew of Obama's background and his current alignment with the Christian faith, they were still unconvinced that Obama was really who he seemed to be.

So, I think another strong undercurrent that explains Clinton's continued success and Obama's failure to win over a specific demographic in the Democratic party, has as much to do with religion as it does race.

"As Far As I Know"

2008-03-08T08:24:00.001-08:00

Last Sunday, Hillary Clinton was on "60 Minutes." In her interview with Steve Kroft, he asked her about the comments a supporter had raised of Obama during a campaign rally. The supporter had said that he thought Obama did not know the national anthem and that he was a Muslim.

Kroft asked her if she thought that Obama is Muslim. Clinton's response:

No. No. Why would I? No, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know.

As far as I know.

That's one hell of a qualifier: With those five words, she left open the possibility that there might be something in his past that would make one suspect he is or was Muslim, as far as she knows.

It's worth noting that her campaign was behind the claim circulated a year ago that Obama was educated in a madrasa as a boy in Indonesia (in American lexicon that means terrorist training camp; but in Arabic it simply means school; he was educated in a madrasa, but in the Arabic, not the American sense).

The insinuation that Obama is Muslim is being used as a slur, an attack. The implication is that it's a bad thing to be Muslim. To be Muslim is to be a bad guy, a terrorist, one of them. Wanted: Dead or Alive (In Bush's worldview).

Can you imagine if "Jew" were being used in our public discourse in the same way? [I grant that sometimes it is . . .]

I have yet to hear any outrage over the use of the label "Muslim" in this way. The only outrage I hear is over the attempt by various forces, including the Clinton campaign, to label Obama Muslim when in fact he's Christian. The response is more than simply to correct the record: "No, he's not Muslim, he's Christian." It is an attempt to redeem him or clear him from being one of them: "No, he's not a terrorist, he's one of us."

So, I am disgusted by the Clinton campaign for attempting to smear Obama by insinuating that he's Muslim. I am equally disgusted that such a tactic works in this theoretically inclusive culture.

[I can imagine a critic reading this blog post and calling me a stupid idealist, a softy, who does not understand that they are, indeed, the bad guys out to get us. But, for every radical terrorist who might wish Americans harm there are hundreds of thousands of Muslims who want nothing more than what Americans want: security, love, sustinence, life.]

Demeaning Internet-Savvy Voters

2008-03-06T11:10:00.000-08:00

I've gotten in the habit of reading the "inside baseball" of politics website Politico.com. It's not a place to find in-depth reporting of pressing national issues, but a place to read what the insiders' perspectives of the presidential campaign are.

Today, Politico reported on Clinton's efforts in the days ahead. The article notes that Clinton aims to compete in states like Wyoming and Mississippi, states that Obama is predicted to win.

Of Wyoming, one of Clinton's lead supporters in the state, Kathy Karpan, a former candidate for Governor, said

“We are going to do very well with the rank and file. The question is, will those people who get captivated by e-mails” — Obama supporters — “be willing to sit through the call to order, the nominating and seconding speeches. It takes a little bit of patience and interest in the process to do this,” she said.

Let's unpack what's being said here. Obama supporters, especially young supporters (since presumably, they are the ones "captivated by email," and also more likely to support his campaign), don't have, at best, the attention span, at worst, the intelligence to follow the voting process in Wyoming. Ouch.

There's another implication here, too, which is that Obama supporters are not "rank-and-file members of the party." That is, they are outsiders, and don't really belong.

Where did the inclusive, big tent party go?

Sad.

Isabel Faye

2008-02-13T20:06:00.000-08:00

Isabel will be 7 months at the end of this week. Hard to comprehend how fast she is growing and changing!

Politicizing 9/11

2008-02-12T09:34:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, the big news was that the U.S. plans this year to prosecute 6 suspects involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Although I am glad to see the U.S. moving forward on an effort to exact justice on detainees, I am deeply suspicious of the timing.

I am not alone in this suspicion. The New York Times is reporting today that the timing "suits Bush" as he works to improve his record in the history books. The article also notes it likely will help the Republican nominee. Indeed.

Justice ought not be politicized. But, I think we have another example of the Bush administration politicizing the judicial process (recall the firing of 9 federal attorneys two years ago, and the implication that they were fired for political reasons).

If we had evidence on the 6 defendants before now, then there should have been a military trial before now.

Instead, the Bush administration is going to try one last time to maximize Americans' fear of terrorist attacks by forcing us to relive 9/11 just in time for the presidential elections.

The implication, of course, is that John McCain (the presumptive Republican nominee) will benefit by public attention on fear, security, and 9/11.

Disgusting.

Super Tuesday --

2008-02-05T06:16:00.000-08:00

--is my Super Bowl Sunday!

The Sunday Morning Talk Shows

2008-02-04T11:03:00.001-08:00

I have become a religious watcher of the Sunday morning talk show Meet the Press. I "DVR" the show and watch it when I'm up and Isabel is mellow. I enjoy Russert's unblinking questions of our major politicians, and I enjoy the roundtable commentary of the pundits who speculate on polls, campaign strategies and political stumbles.

One thing that has been bugging, me, though, is the lack of independence of the pundits Russert has on. This last Sunday he had on his usual roundtable of Bob Shrum, Mike Murphy, James Carville, and Mary Matalin. All of them have ties to some of the current candidates running for office (Carville worked for Bill Clinton; Murphy worked for John McCain). Their own current and former loyalties seem to interfere with their abilities to look squarely and evenly at the contenders. Carville, for example, loves Hillary Clinton, so when he starts to question Obama's abilities and talents, one wonders if he's not trying to help Hillary out a little by singing her praises and questioning Obama.

Indeed, the New York Times wrote an article analyzing this very issue. So, clearly, I'm not the only one bothered by this picture.

I think what worries me is that people less knowledgeable about the insiders has no idea what the allegiances and alliances of the pundits are, and so take them at their word. I wish that more was said during their introductions to highlight their relationships, and possibly to even question their assessments because of their relationships.

I don't think that they should be disqualified from being part of the pundit class, but I do think it should be clearer what their historical relationships are. That way, viewers can judge for themselves whether the pundits are being thoughtful or simply loyal.

On Race and Politics

2008-01-30T06:05:00.001-08:00

One of my former grad students emailed me this morning to note how negative the press has been in their coverage of the presidential primary campaigns, especially the Democratic campaign. As usual, the news media have focused on the negative and the horse race and have failed quite strikingly to cover the issues, especially now that voters are trying to decide for whom to vote.

I typed him a long email that I want to share, because I've been thinking about this quite a bit:

I agree that the media is completely fixated on the negative: it's such a juicy story to see a female candidate and the former president going after a black candidate. Race and gender, especially race, are two topics that are highly controversial. The news media loves a good controversy. It helps when the black candidate fights back. Even more to cover!

Now, in my estimation, Bill and Hillary get some of what they deserve with regard to all of the negative coverage. When major political elites, John Kerry, Representative Clymer of South Carolina, Ted Kennedy, Tom Daschle, etc. all speak publicly about Bill Clinton needing to town down his rhetoric about Barack Obama, you know that even political elites of the Democratic party thought he went too far in pushing race onto the agenda.

But, you see what Bill's doing, right? He's trying to marginalize Obama by turning him into "the black candidate." The spin from the Clinton campaign, from Bill, who is playing "bad cop," before and after South Carolina was to say that Jesse Jackson won South Carolina, too. That's code for "blacks vote for black candidates" or "Obama's a black guy and won't have mass appeal across the rest of the country."

Hillary's statement before MLK's birthday that it took LBJ to sign the civil rights legislation that MLK advocated for made my jaw drop. It could be read as a sincere statement that underscored the importance of the president in establishing law. Or, it could be read as "it takes a white president to get things done." I don't believe the Clinton's do anything innocently or with good intentions (and I don't think journalists think so either, which is part of why they're covering this so heavily).

So, you can see why this is such sexy news to cover. Nothing like watching the former President of the U.S. turn into a knock-em-down, drag-em-out street fighter for his wife against a black candidate (which, then brings up the story line of a female candidate being overshadowed by her husband -- another compelling story line that seems to repeat itself over and over again in campaigns with female candidates). The former "black president" against a potential future black president. That brings eyeballs to advertisers.

And, as far as the journalists are concerned, there aren't any real differences between the candidates, and their issue positions are old news. They announced their health care plans and plans for Iraq nearly a year ago. Their plans for an economic stimulus got some coverage, though, which is good.

One other thought, Tali Mendelberg wrote a book that came out last year titled The Race Card. I've read bits of it. It focuses on race in political campaigns. I think it's why I read the Clinton's as playing dirty pool with race. In it, she argues that when white candidates make subtle allusions to race when the opponent is black -- using code words, invoking images that speak to whites' fear of blacks, or that invoke and underscore the "blackness" of the candidate -- those appeals work very effectively at turning white voters against the black candidate. UNLESS: the white candidate is called on it, either by the media or by the candidate, and the allusions, the implicit racial appeals, are rendered explicit. When that happens, white voters (and the news media) tend to turn on the white candidate, because, although whites may have concerns about blacks subconsciously, consciously we have a sense of justice and rightness that apparent racial appeals violate, and voters punish the candidate who violated our sense of rightness.

I think that's some of what's happening here. The news media and some of the political elites cried "foul" on the Clintons. I think it's some of the reason why Hillary lost the white vote in South Carolina (as well as the black vote). Whether that loss continues is an open question, though.

Farewell Fisher

2008-01-25T18:30:00.000-08:00

Today I had to say goodbye to my best cat, Fisher.

We had noticed over the past month that she was losing weight, and this week we noticed that she was walking quite stiffly. So, today Jon took Fisher to the vet to see what was the matter. He called me about an hour later choked up and handed the phone to Dr. Cheever who told me that Fisher weighted all of 3.5 pounds and that she was "loaded" with cancer. She also believed that Fisher suffering. There really was not anything to be done. So, this afternoon at 4:30, we put Fisher down (the euphamisms for death are so annoying, but to say that we "killed" her is overly dramatic, yet she didn't just die. We had a hand in it, we made a choice to end her life -- it's a remarkably difficult act, at least for me, who would rather toss a bug out the back door than squash it).

Fisher was such a great cat. Not only was she simply a terrific companion, she also is part of a significant set of events in my life, formative events that set me on the path that I continue to walk today.

And, she was unique. Not only in her appearance and her manners, but in her origins. When I was 19 years old, in December of 1991, I packed up my old Buick Regal with all my possessions and headed West to San Francisco from St. Cloud, Minnesota. It was the sort of stupid, poorly thought out adventure that teenagers are known for. Within a month, I was nearly homeless, unemployed, and alone. My luck turned when I landed a job "canvassing" for abortion rights. I basically went door-to-door with the California Abortion Rights Action League, trying to get people to give me money, half of which I kept and half went forward to the League. I did that work from February until June of 1992, if my memory services. March and April were the high points. I was raking in the dough (I even canvassed a $500 check once, from a pro-choice Republican woman who was unhappy with the anti-abortion direction her party had headed). And, then, by May my luck had ended.

I remember an especially grim afternoon in the suburbs south of San Francisco. I was in a relatively new suburb, with large houses (the larger the house, the less likely to get a contribution), and SUVs in the driveways. I had wandered around for about 2 hours without getting any contributions or even any remotely friendly interactions. I was disheartened, and thinking seriously that my time as a canvasser was drawing to a close, when I came to my next house on the street. I noted as I walked up to it that it was more modest, and a Volvo was parked in the driveway. A Volvo was generally a good sign. I noted the pro-environment bumper sticker. I knew I would get something from this house.

So, with some renewed enthusiasm, I knocked on the door. A middle aged woman with long, salt and pepper hair opened the door. I opened with my pitch: "Hi, my name is Jenny and I'm with the California Abortion Rights Action League. Are you pro-choice?"

She replied "Yes, I always give to you guys. Come in."

It was protocol to not enter homes, but I broke it when the scene was right, and this scene was right.

The woman ushered me to the back porch and asked if I wanted anything to drink. I declined, but she brought me water anyway as I sat down. I remember she and I talking about the upcoming presidential election and George Bush and Bill Clinton's politics. I also vividly recall the white fur ball of a kitten that moved along the picture window before which the porch sat.

I commented to the woman how cute her kitten was. She explained that her kids had found the kitten and two siblings in a ravine, and had rescued them. One had died, the other two had lived, and now she was trying to find a home for the white one (the other one had already been spoken for), because her cat was unhappy with the kittens around. I made appreciative noises, and she paused, looked at me, and asked if I wanted the little white fur ball?

I said "yes" without thinking.

So, she proceeded to pack up this little white kitten into a wicker picnic basket. In another bag, she gave me kitty litter, and the formula she was still hand feeding the kitten. She was only 8 weeks old.

I didn't canvas another house, but instead went back to the van and hung out until it was time to pick up the rest of the canvassers and head back to base. Back at base, we customarily each wrote down how much we had made that day. Next to my name, I wrote:
$50 + 1 kitten

She was by far the best contribution I received.

Her appearance was always striking, at least to me. She had big blue eyes that were mottled, like they were somehow slightly damaged. She had some fire-tipped Himalayan in her, and some other breed or breeds. She was slight. At her heaviest she was no more than 7 pounds. And she had terrific long hair. At play, she would fluff out and pounce around the house, like Peppie Le-Pew from Saturday morning cartoons. But, she was terrible at cleaning herself. If it hadn't been for Shadow, Fisher would have been a seriously ratty cat, because Shadow, whom we got a year later, kept Fisher clean.

And speaking of Shadow, those two were such buddies. Shadow nursed from Fisher when we first brought Shadow home. Now, mind you, Fisher didn't have any milk to offer, but Shadow nursed anyway. So did Hailie, whom we got a few months before Shadow. Fisher was the nurturer and ruler of our cat roost. She could put the smack down on Hailie, who was almost twice her size, without a hesitation.

Fisher is at least some of the reason why Jon and I are together, or at least that's what we say now. In October of 1992, I decided to move back to Minnesota. I was unemployed, broke, and had no apparent future in California. I'd applied to UC:Berkeley, but had been rejected. At the same time, I had been accepted at the U of M. It was time for my San Francisco adventure to be done.

I met Jon in late January, and over the subsequent months we became very good friends. In May, we progressed to something more. But, Jon was scary (Not axe murderer scary - to be clear). He had asked me to marry him, and I had declined. I knew that if I let myself fall in love with him, we would marry, and I was not ready for such a dramatic event. Jon was patient, and incredibly supportive.

When it was time for me to fly home, he helped me pack, helped pay for my airfare (did I mention how broke I was?), and drove me to the airport. I had given Fisher a sedative to help her cope with the flight, because she tended to freak out in a cage. When we arrived at the airport, Fisher was acting very strange -- like she was having a bad trip. She was tumbling around in her cage, and making dramatic noises. When I had checked in, and the baggage handlers came to get Fisher, they saw my anxious face and told me not to worry. An hour or so later, I boarded my flight after a teary-eyed goodbye to Jon. The plane took off, and I gently wept in my seat. Soon after, a flight attendant came by and asked me if I was Jenny Stromer. I told her I was, and she handed me a slip of paper "from the captain." It was a note telling me that Fisher had not been placed on the flight, because she was acting too erratic. They needed a contact number for someone to pick her up and take her to a vet. I gave them Jon's number. I heard nothing the rest of that anxious flight.

As soon as I landed, I called Jon to learn of Fisher's state. Jon laughed and told me that she was fine, that she was sitting on his chest as we spoke. Apparently, when he arrived at the terminal to pick her up, the baggage handlers were playing with her; she was fine. He put Fisher a flight the next day, and she and I stayed at my mom's until , well, until Jon and I moved in together in Minneapolis in February of 1993, and then wed in August.

I think Fisher was trying to tell me what a bad move I was making in leaving Jon behind. I just didn't get it initially.

While she lived with my Mom, she learned to fetch empty cigarette packs. She loved the crinkly sound of the cellophane wrapping. When Jon and I moved in to our first apartment together, it had a long hallway. Jon would sit at one end and I the other, and we'd toss the empty, balled up pack back and forth over her head. Fisher would do tremendous leaps and twirls in the air to get the pack.

She also loved to be on top of people. She had a terrible habit of jumping on visitors, especially men. You'd be standing in the kitchen chatting away, and all of a sudden, a cat would be flying at you. I had to apologize to more than one guest for the apparent attack.

When we got "the kittens," Tillie and Little Boy, she nurtured them as she had Hailie and Shadow. Tillie and Fisher bonded after Shadow died. Tillie and Fish would curl up in a cat bed on the rocking chair. "Curl up" isn't quite right. Tillie would sleep on Fisher -- even though Tillie weighed twice as much.

I'm a side sleeper, and nearly every day of her life she slept on my hip. We got so used to each other that when I would roll over, she knew how to roll with me such that she'd end up back on top.

And, she used to clean me, especially in the early morning. She would sneak up, sit on the pillow, or on my head, and run her tongue through my hair. Sometimes it was cute and funny, but most of the time it was seriously annoying.

She loved pizza, pasta sauce, and ice cream. She went crazy for Cheddar Bunnies.

I would blow on her face, and she would lick the air.

I loved the smell of her.

I write down these memories in tribute to her. As I get older, I am realizing how fragile memories are. In time, they decay. So, I want to, need to, codify these memories in printed words, so that I will remember and others will know how essential a cat can be to human life. I love all my beasts. I especially loved her.

Hold the reigns or steer?

2007-11-26T18:49:00.000-08:00

The faculty union, UUP, is currently negotiating a new contract with the state. Since July or something I've been working without a contract (don't expect a strike, like the autoworkers or the hollywood writers).

I am eager to see what is in the new contract. Specifically, is there an improved family leave policy? The cynic in me doubts we'll see any changes to the current unsatisfying leave policy. I just don't think it's enough of a priority for the union. I think they're inclined to just hold the reigns.

Susan Herbst, UAlbany's former "officer in charge" refused to act on the leave policy passed in the Senate two years ago on the grounds that she was not in a position to create such a dramatic policy change on the campus and that a more progressive policy would have to be up to the new president.

Our new "office in charge" George M. Phillip claims that he won't just be a caretaker while the university searches for a new president. There was talk among the Organization of Women Faculty (created by Susan Herbst -- I'll give her credit there) that the family leave proposal should be brought before him. I think that's a smashing idea. See if he's really going to steer this institution . . .

Nationwide Citizen Deliberations: A Future Trend?

2007-10-13T18:50:00.000-07:00

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards has called for nationwide citizen deliberations. Calling them a "Citizen's Congress," he wants to convene 1 million Americans to deliberate and help inform policy in Washington D.C.

His announcement marks the first major recognition at the federal level of the growing deliberation movement - an attempt to bring citizens more directly into the policy-making process.

Organizations, such as AmericaSpeaks, have popularized deliberative efforts working with local and civic organizations to host deliberations. Researchers, such as James Fishkin, have advocated deliberative polls -- ways to poll Americans after they have become informed and deliberated with others on the issue before expressing their opinions. These efforts suggest that people learn more, develop more informed opinions, and become more politically engaged. Theoretically, citizen deliberations legitimize the policy making process by involving them more directly in identifying political problems and solutions.

This gives my new research an interesting potential life. I'm working with Peter Muhlberger, a political scientist, and Nick Webb, a computer scientist. Together we are trying to develop natural language software technologies that will help facilitate political deliberations that occur online. By providing tools to help citizens learn about the political deliberation before and during the deliberation, as well as facilitation tools to help citizens with the process and progress of the deliberations, we hope to enable better deliberations.

We just received a $450,000 National Science Foundation grant to bring these ideas to life.

Who knows. If we actually manage to make these technologies work, maybe we'll see them in action in Edwards' Citizen's Congress. Now, that's a thought!

A House of Cards

2007-10-11T19:02:00.000-07:00

My University, the University at Albany, lacks leadership. This is not meant as a criticism of the various people who sit in the positions of leadership. They are fine people. The problem is that they are interim. The Dean of my College, the Provost, the President at Albany, and the Chancellor of the SUNY system are all temporary until a permanent person can be hired.

So, hire some people, you say.

Well, if it were only that simple.

See, we can't get a new Dean 'til we get a new Provost. We can't get a Provost 'til we get a President. We won't get a President until we have a Chancellor.

House of Freakin' Cards.

Why don't we have a Chancellor you ask?

Well, because we got a new Governor. Our new Governor played hardball with the head of the Senate (these days manifested as "Troopergate"). The head of the Senate won't act on the Governor's nominees--which includes the Chancellor.

So, there you have it. No leadership, because Bruno and Spitzer can't play nice. Unintended and real consequences.

It's Time for a Mother's Movement

2007-09-22T05:32:00.000-07:00

Before I was a mom I worked hard for two years to get my university to pass a more progressive family leave policy.

Right now the University at Albany only allows for female faculty and professional staff to take four weeks before childbirth and six weeks after delivery of maternity leave. The maternity leave pay is tied to an employees sick leave. So, if an employee has been with the University two years or less, then much of the leave is unpaid. Male faculty and staff may only take 15 days, and adoptive parents may not take any leave (since no one is "sick").

Before Isabel was born, I didn't think six weeks of leave following childbirth was enough. Now, I know it's not long enough. At six weeks, I was just starting to get back into the swing of things. The thought of having to go back to work full time is simply unbelievable. I don't know how I would have managed that.

Now, it's true that parents have the option of taking the federal Family and Medical Leave Act time, which is 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for children or sick relatives. The problem there is such leave is unpaid. I have the financial luxury to take an unpaid leave, but many parents do not.

Family and childcare simply do not get enough political attention in the U.S. That needs to change. Mothers need to come together to be part of a movement to affect better policies around childcare and work. Women should not have to choose between work and family.

Fred Thompson Just Called . . . .

2007-09-05T18:00:00.001-07:00

I just got off the phone with the most novel fundraising approach I've ever experienced from a campaign.

I'm not even signed up on Thompson's website, but somehow his exploratory committee got hold of my telephone number and called me to solicit funds.

It didn't start out as a typical fundraising call. Instead, a pleasant, female voice told me that Fred Thompson is traveling the country seeking feedback from people like me as he explores his run for the presidency, and that he would like me to hear a message from him, and then answer a few questions about my thoughts about his campaign and the state of the country. I was thinking this was going to be a public opinion survey funded by his campaign.

So, I held the line as I listened to a recorded message from Thompson. He told me in his folksy, Southern voice that he had thought he'd turned his back on politics in 2002, but he's since decided the country needs someone like him, so he's been testing the waters for a run for the presidency and "the water is warm." He tells me he'd like me to stay on the line to answer a few questions.

So, I stayed on the line, and a new voice, a young, male voice greeted me with a "hello Mr. Stromer, er, Ms. Stromer" and asked me if I heard the message from "Fred" okay. I told him I did. He then asked me something along the lines of, "Do you think the White House should be taken back by average people like me."

"Well, sure," I said brightly.

What else would I say? "No. I think we should continue to have idiots run the country."

Then, the nice young man, dropped into a fundraising pitch.

It's worth noting that Thompson is "announcing" tonight at midnight. He's appearing on Leno and skipping the Republican debate in NH. He also is airing his first ad on Fox during the debate (that's a first, I believe).

If this is any indication, Thompson is going to be a financial force to reckon with. I understand he's amassed millions already - and he hasn't announced yet. It's novel that he's airing a nation-wide ad at this early date, and that he's already tele-fundraising is especially remarkable to me. I'm not likely to be on any of the Republican's donor lists, so that my name got picked for a call is remarkable to me. I haven't received such solicitations from any other Republicans or Democrats yet (and it's Democrats who are more likely to call me in the first place).

Ladies and Gentlemen. Let the games begin . . . .

Isabel Faye

2007-08-11T18:01:00.000-07:00

My few faithful readers will have to forgive me for the long silence on this blog. On July 17th, I gave birth to Isabel Faye. My days and nights have been filled with my new role of "mother," and it hasn't left room for much else. More political and social commentary will flow in the days to follow (I hope).

McCain's Malaise

2007-07-03T05:15:00.001-07:00

Politico this morning is running an article on McCain that the mainstream media has been reporting on since yesterday. McCain's fundraising was lower than expectations (only $11 million), and he is cleaning house and firing dozens of staff.

I have found the McCain campaign fascinating to watch this election cycle, in part for the fun of comparing this campaign to his bid in 2000. As I've written elsewhere, McCain has not been able to really carry his "straight talker" and "maverick" image forward this campaign, in part because of the overstatement of security in Iraq from the spring.

Like his campaign in 2000 he is struggling to capture the traditional Republican base. His stands on some key issues, immigration being the new one, put him at odds with his party base. He won New Hampshire in 2000 because New Hampshire allows registered independents to vote in primaries, and independents turned out for McCain in droves. But, he lost in South Carolina, at least in part because that state does not allow independents to vote in primaries.

He faces the problem of not appealing to the base this election cycle, and his stand on Iraq has put him at odds with independents who poll with Democrats on their negative opinions on the war.

Having said all of that, I am struck by how much the money game has changed this election cycle. In 2004 when Howard Dean raised $10 million in the second (or third, my memory is fuzzy now), it was heralded as a huge fundraising success. Now, a measly $11 million only gets a candidate scorn.

This is not to say that McCain has no problems. He does. A shake up of his staff, only $2 million in the bank, and low fundraising numbers compared to Obama who blew the record at $32 million signal that McCain has a rough road ahead.

Politico and other sources are ringing the death knell for McCain, but my prediction is that he'll stick it out. We're still 6 months away from the first ballot casting, and much can change during that time. McCain likely found it difficult to fundraise in the middle of the divisive debate on immigration, and now that such legislation is dead, he may find some pockets open up. Plus, his campaign is now seriously considering taking federal matching funds, which would give the campaign an additional infusion of cash.

Time will tell, though, whether Maverick McCain can communicate a consistent image and appease the party base.

"Public Forums" on Campaign Finance Reform

2007-06-30T07:08:00.000-07:00

On Wednesday, I attended the first of a set of "public forums" on campaign finance reform that the Senate committee on elections is hosting around the state.

"Public forums" is in quotes, because although the public is invited to attend, they're not invited to speak. Instead, the committee is bringing in expert speakers to discuss on various issues about campaign finance reform.

The one on Wednesday was about campaign finance reform and the First Amendment. Senator Joe Bruno keeps repeating the mantra that campaign finance laws violate the First Amendment. It was no surprise, then, that two of the three panelists held Senator Bruno's view.

John Staple of the CATO Institute and James Bopp, Jr. of the James Madison center for free speech (or something like that) both argued that campaign finance laws violate the first amendment. Staple argued that the First Amendment is violated because it forces candidates with less money to have to work harder to raise money in order to buy air time and campaign. Candidates with more money (either their own or those with wealthy networks) do not have to work so hard and can get their message out easier.

The one voice in support of campaign finance reform was the League of Women Voter's of New York State's Barbara Bartoletti, who argued that the reform legislation being proposed in New York state does not raise any questions or concerns about violating the First Amendment, since much of the legislation is about closing loopholes, requiring more transparency and reporting of donations, and limiting hard money amounts, but not to the strict levels established at the federal level.

I agree with Bartoletti that the legislation being proposed for New York state does not raise First Amendment concerns for the reasons she stated. In addition, it's worth noting that in Buckley V. Valeo, the Supreme Court clearly ruled that limits on amount of money an individual gives to a candidate *can* be restricted. What cannot be restricted is how much money a candidate can spend (unless they take public money to finance their campaign).

Stamp and Bopp both also argued that the Wisconsin Right to Life decision that was decided just last week by the Supreme Court indicates that campaign finance violates the First Amendment. The Court ruled that issue ads cannot be restricted from airing unless they clearly are involved in electioneering. The ruling likely will end the element of the McCain/Feingold campaign finance law that restricts issue ads from airing the last 60 days of an election if they urge viewers to contact the candidate running for re-election.

I agree with Stamp and Bopp that the Supreme Court ruled on First Amendment grounds in the Wisconsin case, but again, there is nothing being proposed for New York that bans issue ads or issue advocacy in the days leading up to an election. So, as Bartoletti said, First Amendment concerns are irrelevant.

The one part of the discussion that I found incredibly aggravating were claims made by Stamp and Bopp that public opinion basically is neutral on campaign finance reform. This echos Bruno's claim that no one gives a flying f*** about campaign finance reform in New York state. I don't disagree that if you ask New Yorkers what the most important issues facing the state are, campaign finance is not likely to make the top 10 (although I'd bet that issue of "reform in Albany" would rank somewhere). But, I don't think that matters.

I care a great deal about public opinion, and I think that public opinion can and should matter at times. But, some issues are complex, arcane, and do not directly affect voters. As a result, they don't rate highly on voters' lists of problems -- but that doesn't mean they aren't problems that need solutions.

To my mind, New York state has one of the most back-assward's processes for governance in the country. And without question the obscene amounts of money that candidates can raise with little oversight or reporting is one of many elements of governance that need reform.

Mike Bloomberg and Ross Perot

2007-06-20T06:31:00.000-07:00

Yesterday New York city Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced he is switching his party from Republican to independent. The pundit circles are abuzz that this signals he is running for president as an independent in 2008.

Journalists have been noting in their reporting that independent candidates do not fair well in the United States. Ralph Nader, running on the Green ticket in 2000, did not get 5% of the vote. Ross Perot, an overall more successful third party candidate, was unable to get any electoral votes in 1992, even though he had a strong, oh 18% popular approval going into the election (or so, my memory is a touch fuzzy on his support numbers).

I think the comparisons are unfair; that is, to lump all third party candidates and their campaigns together is inappropriate. Each third party candidate acquires a unique flavor, like different types of alcohol, and to mix them all together misses the subtleties and unique characteristics of each.

Take Perot for example. Journalists are comparing Perot and Bloomberg in part because they're both financially independent. Both are billionaires who could fund their campaigns. But the similarities really end there. Perot had never held elected office. He was a one issue candidate (remember those terrific easel demonstrations of the budget deficit?). He had really big ears.

And, he dropped out half way through the campaign. After coyly inviting people to get him on the ballot in all 50 states, which they did, in the early summer he dropped out, out of a fit of paranoia that he and his family were being targeted by the other campaigns in malicious ways. Then, in early fall he changed his mine and declared he was running.

The loss in momentum that occurred when he dropped out, coupled with the appearance of a somewhat paranoid mind led many supporters to back away from Perot, and it lost him potential supporters, too.

Bloomberg is an entirely different character. He's been mayor to the United State's largest city. He's managed it as a centrist. He is not a single issue candidate.

I predict that he will develop a following (and I *always* predict wrong, BTW), and that over the course of the next few months as he tours the country to see if his message is resonating, he'll find that it does. And then, the 2008 race will get even more interesting.

Paid Family Leave

2007-06-14T03:58:00.000-07:00

As the federal government steps backward on family leave, New York state is attempting to move forward.

The Assembly and Senate are considering a bill that would provide a paid family leave for workers who give birth, adopt a child, or care for a sick family member. The paid leave could extend for 12 weeks and pay at most $170.00 per week. The plan would be paid for by a weekly 45 cent payroll tax on workers' wages.

Presently, workers may take up to 12 weeks unpaid leave to care for a new child or a sick relative under the federal Family Medical Leave Act, passed under the Clinton administration. The problem is that many workers don't take the leave, because they cannot afford to go without a pay check.

Although I think the legislation is a step in the right direction, I'm not sure $170.00 per week is going to be enough for many families to opt to take the leave. Workers in professional jobs I would suspect are going to be especially uninterested in such a small wage during leave, although something is better than nothing.

The Times Union yesterday predicted the legislation will pass. If it does, New York will have the most progressive family leave law in the country. Washington state and California both have paid family leave laws, but for shorter periods of leave (and higher worker compensation).

I continue to be amazed at how back-asswards this country is with regard to creating a culture in which people can balance work and family life. That New York's law might be the most progressive in the land speaks volume of how far we still have to go to allow men and women to be both workers and caregivers, rather than having to choose between them.

The Food Stamp Challenge

2007-05-17T18:25:00.000-07:00

Some members of Congress have agreed to live for a week on a "food stamp budget," basically the per person allocation for food stamps for those who qualify (which is $21.00/week for the average food stamp recipient).

Congressman Jim McGovern has been blogging about it at foodstampchallenge.typepad.com. As his blog attests, it is not easy to eat well or even eat much all on $21.00 a week, or basically $1.00 per meal.

After my parents divorced when I was a young teen, my Mom went on AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children), on and off for about three years (from when I was 12 to about 15). AFDC included an allotment of food stamps, about $130.00 a month if my memory of those teenage years is correct. [My grocery budget now is about $180 a week, and that doesn't include dining out.]

The first two weeks of the month would be good, as we had enough food in the cupboards and fridge. But, the last two weeks were grim, as the cupboards ran bare, and there was no money to buy more until the start of the next month.

I remember praying for that check and the stamps to arrive at the start of the month so that our cupboards would have food in them again. When the postman would come and deliver the mail, and the check wouldn't be there, it meant another day of privation. The disappointment that empty mailbox produced, I still remember. I wonder if that's why I now need to keep necessities stocked. I get anxious when there's not milk or bread for tomorrow.

I remember many mornings at school when around 10am my tummy would rumble, because the piece of toast or small bowl of cereal had worked through my system hours ago. I was deeply embarrassed by the rumble. If I had gum, I'd swallow it to try and shut it up. No wonder I was a very skinny teen.

In especially lean months, my Mom would get government cheese, peanut butter, and prunes. I don't remember what agency or who gave that stuff out. The cheese came in a huge brick that would last weeks, and we'd live on cheese sandwiches until the bread ran out. I also came to love prunes.

When you're on welfare, you don't get to indulge in many sweets, like ice cream or candy, and the prunes were sticky and sweet, and would satisfy that intense craving for sugar that seems to drive children's taste buds. I still like prunes, although they're not as satisfying now.

The allotment for food stamps has not increased since 1996. So, as inflation has risen the amount granted in food stamps has stayed the same. Representative McGovern has proposed legislation to add $4 billion to the food stamp program, which he intends to add to the next agriculture bill. He also would peg the program to the rate of inflation.

For the 26 million Americans who receive food stamps (and that's only a percentage of those who are eligible for the program), such a move would help ease the burden of intense poverty and need, though it would by no means entail a life of gluttony.

So, I praise Representative McGovern and the other members of Congress who are taking the challenge. They get to try out poverty for a week, and to live in the shoes of the working and unemployed poor. They're trying to start a very important conversation in this country about hunger and poverty, two issues that are real, pervasive, and largely ignored by those of us who live comfortable lives.

Katie Couric and the Demand for Hard News

2007-05-14T05:06:00.000-07:00

The New York Times has an article online this morning about Katie Couric and the ratings for the CBS Evening News.

CBS News remains in third place and has slipped in ratings since Couric's arrival.

The article interviews various people who speculate on a range of reasons for the third place position, the most prominent being that the problem is Couric. Her approval ratings as an anchor are lower than those for Brian Williams at NBC and Bob Schieffer at ABC (which is in first place in the ratings); that is, there are more people that don't like her than don't like the other two anchors.

The other speculation is not that it's Couric, per se, but that she's a woman. Apparently there have been critical commentaries that she's too soft on news and was too hard on John Edwards and Elizabeth after they announced Elizabeth's return of cancer. There are also accusations that she wears too much or too little make-up, complaints one does not hear about Williams or Schieffer.

My own prognosis is this: CBS made a tactical error in going with soft news in the evening news slot. As the foreign and domestic scenes in the United States grow increasingly problematic and complex, viewers of national television news want more hard news, not less (hoorday!). Couric, with her reputation for the morning show, brings a soft news touch to in a time of hard realities.

So, recently CBS hired a a new executive to help turn-around CBS Evening News. Rick Kaplan has shifted the format to a major story with a few sidebar stories, and has picked up the pace of the show (MTV-ifying it, if you will), which is a format that is more typical of hard news.

The problem for CBS now is that if they shift to a hard news format, they've got the wrong anchor. I'm not saying that Couric can't do hard news. But, her reputation and the audience of people who were drawn to her in her morning show career are used to a "soft news" delivery style from Couric. So now, there's a disconnect between their anchor and audience and their news delivery. Given time Couric can make the transition, I suspect. But, will CBS give her the time?

Bruno, the Death Penalty, and Campaign Finance Reform

2007-04-28T07:41:00.000-07:00

New York Senator Joe Bruno is making political hay over the recent spate of cop shootings in the state. He's advocating for a new death penalty for the state. The old death penalty was struck down by the State's highest court for violating the rights of defendants.

The most recent cop shooting occurred last week. A young trooper with a wife and infant daughter was shot accidentally by another state trooper while involved in a wild-west shoot out with a fugitive.

This shooting occurred the same week as new Governor Eliot Spitzer announced that he was going to push the Senate and Assembly to pass campaign finance legislation. Currently your average New Yorker can donate $55,000 to a campaign (yep, the cost of a fully-loaded Hummer), and there are limited regulations on Limited Liability Corporations, PACs, soft money to political parties, etc. etc -- the usual hodge-podge of loose laws to allow money to flow unlimited and unregulated into the political scene. Spitzer wants to limit individual contributions to $15,000 ($13,000 more than limits to federal candidates, by the way) and limit contributions from other channels.

Now, when Spitzer advocated this, Bruno made it crystal clear he thinks campaign finance reform is bullshit. He characterized Spitzer's proposal as a violation of freedom of speech.

Bruno doesn't know his constitutional law, though. The U.S. Supreme court made it clear in 1979 in Buckley V. Valeo that there is no violation of free speech by limiting contributions to campaigns. There is a violation if there are caps on how much candidates can spend if they do not take matching funds - but that's not what Spitzer is proposing.

And, frankly, Bruno doesn't care about constitutional law. He's just throwing every half-baked argument at campaign finance reform, because he doesn't want to stem the flow of taint that pervades the New York State political process.

My favorite Bruno half-baked argument came on Thursday when he argued that the state should pass a cop-killer death penalty, and that Spitzer didn't have his priorities straight by advocating for campaign finance reform rather than a death penalty. He was quoted in the Albany Times Union saying: "What is more important than protecting the lives of law enforcement officers? Is campaign finance reform more important than that? I don't think so."

What's wrong with this argument? Well, I'll tell you. :-) It sets up a dilemma between the death penalty and campaign finance reform. But, it's an utterly FALSE dilemma. What, the Senate can't handle more than one policy initiative a year? It's so stupid.

I can't figure out why the people of Bruno's district put up with this crap. I write angry letters to MY state Senator complaining about Bruno (not that Neil Breslin can do much of anything about it, since he's in the opposite party, but still). I look forward to the day when that man loses his bully pulpit. To my mind, he is a perfect symbol for what is wrong with politics in this state.

Is it Time to Ban Handguns?

2007-04-17T05:32:00.000-07:00

Last night, watching the coverage of the shooting at Virginia Tech, my husband and I talked gun control. Virginia has some of the most lax gun laws in the U.S. Handguns were used in the shooting at the University. Indeed, it seems that handguns are the weapon of choice in killing other people. I caught an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer this weekend that said that shootings in Philadelphia are at new highs. Last year, over 400 people were killed in the city, and this year shootings are up 16% so far from last year. Most of those deaths are caused by people using handguns.

This is a tough topic for me, because I have some sympathy with the idea that the citizens should be able to rise up against the government when it becomes unjust and tyrannical. It's hard to do that without weapons. Although, as my Canadian husband, who finds Americans' love of guns bizarre, points out, no "well regulated militia" of average citizens can compete against the regular military. Those who might rise up against an unjust government would likely be put down by that military of that unjust government. But, still, I like the idea.

And, I grew up with guns, mostly rifles, which we used to shoot cans or prairie dogs (before they were an endangered species, ehem). My dad had an assortment of rifles and shotguns, which were part of life on the ranch. I handled those and was comfortable with them. And, I don't have a problem with regulated and managed hunting. Given that humans have killed off most of the predators, there's a certain amount of wildlife management necessary by hunting these days.

Handguns are another story, though. Their small size, easy handling, point and click interface (to use video game terms), make those guns seem fairly scary to me. They definetely seemed scary when I was a kid. My dad had a semi-automatic handgun that I found particularly scary. The recoil on that gun, and the ease of pulling and pulling and pulling the trigger to have it fire over and over again, gave it a feeling of lethality that I didn't feel with my .22.

Now, those who declare all guns (and the purchase and ownership of them) sacred in the Second Amendment and outside the purview of regulation I think have constructed an interpretation of that Amendment that far exceeds what the founders intended.

But, it seems to me the only way to get laws passed to better regulate guns is to amend the Constitution--to clarify the right. I don't think Americans should have the right to bear handguns that they can use to shoot other people. Vigilantism, retribution, hate, jealousy, drunken rage, you name it, are not good reasons to brandish guns and fire them at other people.

This is controversial, I know, but we need to have another deep conversation in this country about the manufacture, distribution, and acquisition of guns. Otherwise, the violence will continue. I don't see that as good for our society.

Violence at Virginia Tech

2007-04-16T15:17:00.000-07:00

I've been following today's coverage of the shootings at Virginia Tech. I have colleagues there, which just brings it closer to home how terrible the events were.

Violence like this can happen on any college campus. Let us all be vigilant to watch for those who show signs of stress and emotional trouble, especially in these final weeks of the semester. And not just those who might hurt others, but those who might hurt themselves. Suicide is still the most common type of on-campus death.

Imus Gets Canned

2007-04-12T14:32:00.000-07:00

I must confess I did not expect CBS and MSNBC to stop broadcasting the Don Imus show. But, that is what both have now done.

I think I didn't expect it, because although I assumed that this culture would find what he said inappropriate but not feel that he has crossed a line. I was wrong.

So, the question is: what line did he cross?

It wasn't a sexism line. As one of my students pointed out "ho" is said all over popular culture. I am resigned to the reality that although we don't think we're a sexist society, we still are at some very basic levels, and in this culture it is A-OKto use derogatory terms against women and not get censured for it.

Was it a race line? There's a children's book about "nappy hair," which suggests that the term can be viewed as a straight-up description (without the negative connotations). But, maybe it's because a white guy said it? Certainly, as another one of my students pointed out, there is an "insider"/"outsider" phenomenon at work. If I am gay, I can call myself and others who share my orientation "queer," but if I am straight and I call someone who is gay "queer," I might be in social trouble. The same may be at work here. But, we are still a racist society, and Imus has said racist things in the past which have never met with this sort of furor. So, I'm not sure that's it.

Was it a genre disconnect? By that I mean that the Imus show is mostly an elite show. Major politicians, journalists, pundits, and others who are opinion setters and policy makers appear on his show talking about the current events and latest ideas they're selling. Its mass appeal is in the political parodies and uncouth exchanges that draw in the masses who enjoy the "shock jock" aspects of the show (not that the elites didn't, even if they weren't supposed to publicly). Perhaps such a boundary-crossing show can't be both mass and elite without eventually alienating one of those two groups. [The problem I have with this analysis, at least as I've been able to articulate it so far, is that this assumes that the masses are base and quite happily revel in racist and sexist language, and although I think that's true, I don't think the elites are exempt from this. So, perhaps someone out there can make this argument work.]

Was it the subject of the "humor" that crossed the line? The people he claims he was just trying to make a joke about, the Rutgers women's basketball team, were a group of athletes who had made their university, their families, and the state proud by doing something extraordinary and worth commendation. Imus seemed not to joke about them but instead to attack them for no good reason, simply because they had done something extraordinary.

Quite simply, whom he picked on for humor turned out not to be a set of people who could serve as being an acceptable butt of a cruel joke. We have no qualms making jokes at the expense of Bill Clinton (Still! I enjoy it every chance I get). But, he deserves it. The women's basketball team did not. Thus, he joke not only failed as a joke, but it didn't even *seem* like a joke. Instead, it seemed like an attack, and an attack on a group of people who in no uncertain terms did not deserve it.

Now, perhaps Imus would still be on air if it weren't for the pulling of advertisements of major corporations from CBS and NBC. In the world of broadcasting, money is the bottom line, and the threat of a loss of revenue gets the executives listening. But it says something that advertisers said they did not want to be associated any longer with what Imus was dishing out.

So, perhaps, this signals a shift in our culture. The FCC is now regulating indecency more aggressively than in the past. And, perhaps, broadcasters are starting to get the feeling that Americans are not as inclined as perhaps we once were to be subject to morally depraved programming. I'm not quite ready to grant this, but I would like for it to be true. I don't want to see the morality police determining what we should watch, and I love a naughty joke as much as the next person, but there is a point when a society stoops too low, and perhaps we're there? Imus the first casualty.

Shock Jock Imus Hits New Low

2007-04-09T15:26:00.000-07:00

Many of you may have caught the furor over Don Imus' latest nasty remarks on his morning show. I won't perpetuate the shock by repeating what he said, but suffice it to say, he made a racially and sexually derogatory set of remarks about the Rutgers' women's basketball team.

When I read the story this weekend, I thought about blogging about it, but didn't want to give the ass any further publicity than he's already received. On the other hand, to sit quietly and not say anything, also isn't appropriate. He deserves all the scolding society should muster, because what he said was beyond the pale. The women of Rutgers basketball team are hard working, talented women doing something they love and furthering themselves and their school through their athletics. These are people who deserve praise not attack. That he thought it was okay to say such nasty things about people who absolutely did not deserve it speaks to his weak moral character (it also says something about our culture, but that's for another post).

Having expressed my own disgust at his remarks, the situation raises an interesting question. Should he lose his job?

On the face of it, I'm uncertain. On the one hand, he is using a public commodity (the public airwaves) to expound his vile and filth. Is it appropriate for someone to use a scarce public resource to demean and degrade people? No. On the other hand, there's that whole First Amendment thing. He has the right to express racist and sexist views as much as I have a right to express my disgust at them.

So, should he lose his job? As I consider it, I think yes. If he expressed this on his blog or to his friends in a living room, fine. First Amendment all the way. But, there is something deeply troubling about using a scarce public resource to expound hate for profit. Our public resources can and should be used to uplift society, not drag us down.

Update

MSNBC and CBS have both suspended their syndicated broadcasts of the show for two weeks (geez, now there's punishment . . . .). Imus reports that he believes the suspension is appropriate, and that he is sorry for his words.

It's worth noting that Imus has a long history of making racially derogatory remarks. He then apologizes profusely and says he won't do it again. Will it be any different this time?

I would like to see his many celebrity and political guests refuse to be on his show. McCain was asked if he would appear again (he's a frequent guest), and he said that he believed in redemption. But, how many times must Imus request redemption, before one starts to wonder if his heart is really in it?

Abandoned Pets on Easter Sunday

2007-04-08T10:00:00.000-07:00

I want to take this Easter Sunday to reflect on the plight of unwanted, abandoned dogs and cats.
Several times a year, someone abandons a dog or a litter of kittens up the hill from where we live. My neighbor, Ida Mae, on whose land most of them are dumped takes them all in. She has several abandoned dogs and a barn full of abandoned cats whom she keeps, feeds, and cares for.

These are the lucky ones. Half of all dogs that are dropped off at shelters are euthanized. Half. Any dog that is taken to shelter has a 50/50 opportunity at a second chance. It's even worse for cats. They have a 1 in 3 opportunity at a second chance. In total, 8-10 million animals are euthanized every year in animal shelters.

So, on this day, consider adopting a dog or a cat from your local humane society. If your house is full, then donate money or volunteer your time to the local humane society or animal rescue.

And, if you're thinking that it's time to get rid of your pet, because it's annoying, it scratches, it chews, it pees where you don't want it to, it doesn't match your furniture, reconsider. Enroll your animal in a behavior training program, or seek help and guidance from an animal trainer. Most "problems" can be solved.

Love your animals as much as they love you.

McCain's Fundraising

2007-04-07T07:18:00.000-07:00

Last week the candidate's released their quarterly reports on fundraising.

The two big surprises were McCain and Obama. McCain raised an unexpectedly small amount (only $12.5 million compared to Mitt Romney's $23 million). Obama raised an unexpectedly large amount ($23.5 million to Clinton's $26 million - although more of his money was raised for the primaries than Clinton. See, candidates can raise $2300 from a single donor in the primaries and that amount again during the general election. At some of the big donor fundraisers, attendees write $4600 in checks for both races).

[The amount of money being raises far surpasses anything we've seen in prior years. This will be a billion dollar campaign, without any question.]

The comparison between Obama's and McCain's fundraising style illustrates two very different ways to fundraise. Obama has recreated the Dean strategy of raising smaller donations through the Internet. He received donations from more than $100,000 donors, which beat all the other candidates [see article]. Half of his donations came from donors who gave online [see article].

McCain also had adopted a small donor approach to fundraising, but his clear campaign finance reform stance seems to have turned off donors (according to the pundits). After the fundraising reports, his campaign announced that he would more aggressively adopt the Bush strategy of "pioneer" fundraising. He has recruited several of President Bush's top fundraisers, whom Bush labeled "pioneers" and gave special perks (such as private dinners with candidate Bush) for raising $100,000 each.

My sense is McCain also is in trouble because he does not enthuse the conservative base of the Republican party, which was McCain's trouble in 2000. That election, McCain attracted independents, weak Democrats, and weak Republicans to his campaign. But the core of his party was suspicious of his reformist bent and his lack of vocal support for social conservative values. Unlike in 2000, his "straight-talk express" was a novelty, though, and there was something refreshing and exciting about his no-B.S. approach to campaigning.

This time around he does not appear to be quiet so "straight" in his talk. Recall that he had been a vocal opponent to President Bush's attempt to pressure Congress to include some forms of "interrogation" (or "torture" if you prefer) when detaining suspects of terrorism. Yet, when it came to actually writing the legislation, McCain bowed to Bush and wrote into the Senate's bill legislation which gave the President wide discretion in determining what constitutes appropriate interrogation tactics.

Just last week, McCain was in Iraq investigating the situation in Baghdad. He attended a large market to see how life was for Iraqis and declared during a press conference (rather testily according to some reporters) that things had improved in Iraq, and that he felt perfectly safe to walk about the market, which in past months had been a target of attacks. He failed to point out, though, that he showed up at the market in a bulletproof vest with over 100 support troops, helicopters flying overhead, sharp shooters placed on roof tops, and traffic redirected away from the market.

A New York Times journalist interviewed merchants at the market following McCain's visit and reported that the market was not safer, that the merchants were losing money, and that they had expressed their fears and concerns when McCain and the other congressmembers in the delegation spoke with them. But, McCain did not report their concerns, and tried to create a vision of the market as a symbol of an increasingly safe Baghdad.

Three days later, McCain issued an apology of sorts, saying that he "misspoke" when he said that the market was safe and a sign of improved conditions in Baghdad.

So, the "straight-talker" seems to have lost his straight-talking ways. If he can't appeal to independents, and if he continues to fail to excite conservatives, his campaign won't make it through the primaries.

Obama, by comparison, attracts not only independents but also weak and strong Democrats. He has the advantage of being novel, viewed as a relative "outsider" when compared with Clinton, of offering something fresh and different. He also had not adopted a persona yet that he has since betrayed (which is McCain's problem). Obama has staying power that will continue to be a major threat to the Clinton campaign. And, unlike Dean in 2004, he so far has not alienated journalists who cover his campaign, nor shown signs of being a hothead or "unstable."

As much as we may hate the amount of money that flows to campaigns, they serve as an important symbol of the viability and potency of a campaign.

Being Pregnant

2007-03-24T07:19:00.000-07:00

I apologize to my four faithful readers of this blog for being quiet the past little while. There's much happening in the political world right now, and I have things to say but no time to say them in.

The reason: I'm pregnant.

I've gone back and forth on whether to post anything here about my state of being. I find the public/private of blogging complex to negotiate, and have opted for a less revealing style of posting.

But, this pregnancy is a big deal for me, as it is for anyone who is experiencing it. It's a big deal for me (for us), because we've been trying to conceive for awhile now, and thanks to modern medicine it finally happened.

We're having a girl (at least according to the sometimes unreliable ultrasound). She's due July 25th. And, no, we don't have a name picked out. There's a list, but what she will end up being named, I cannot say.

So, if there are silences on this little blog, it's because I can't manage all the many tasks required of me right now coupled with the fatigue of growing another life inside of me.

Another life. It's surreal.

McCain Announces on Letterman

2007-02-28T18:44:00.000-08:00

In my email box, I received an announcement tonight from the McCain campaign. He's announcing his candidacy on David Letterman.

I've been trying to watch the clip on McCain's website, but it's been excruciatingly slow to load. The website must be getting hammered with page requests and calls for the video.

In the clip, McCain explains that this is not his formal announcement. That is coming in April. As McCain said, a candidate doesn't just announce, he or she drags it out as long as possible. Milk it for everything its got, because it's free publicity for the candidate and it generates dollars. Indeed, I'd bet he's making an announcement now, because he's getting scooped in the headlines by Giuliani and the race between the Democrats. An announcement now puts him back in the headlines, and stimulates new interest and money in his campaign.

Family Medical Leave Act Under Attack

2007-02-10T16:00:00.000-08:00

For those of you who work for large employers, don't bet on the fact that if you have a baby or if you or someone in your family gets sick you'll be able to take 12 weeks unpaid from work and get your job back.

The Department of Labor has published a request for information on the Family Medical Leave Act, which according to a Judith Warner's NYTimes column (requires registration) means that the Department has caved to business groups who have been pressuring the Department to greatly curtail or eliminate that 12 week unpaid leave workers can now take for family or medical issues.

The law as it now stands is unscrupulously chintzy, forcing workers to choose between their family or health and their paycheck. But, at least it's something, and guarantees that if workers need to take time for themselves or their family, they can do so without jeopardizing their jobs (up to 12 weeks, of course).

According to Warner's column:

When it was first proposed in Congress, in 1985, it was meant to provide 18 weeks of unpaid parental leave for workers in companies with one employee or more. By the early 1990s, when President George H.W. Bush vetoed it twice, the act had been scaled down to its current paltry offerings, but it nonetheless sparked the particular ire of social conservatives, who viewed it as an implicit endorsement of working motherhood. (In 1991, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, now House Minority Leader, called it “another example of yuppie entitlement.”)

The business groups that sought to defeat the family leave act way back when (including the Coalition to Protect Family Leave’s twice-removed parent, The Society for Human Resource Management) have been agitating since the mid-1990s to scale it back into virtual nonexistence. What they want now is to tinker with the bill so that only workers with the most “serious” medical conditions requiring extended leave will be covered. They want to make sure workers don’t take “intermittent” leave – i.e. a couple of hours off here and there to go to the doctor – but instead only avail themselves of the substantial chunks of time off that will put a serious dent in their income.

The idea, it seems, is to make taking sick leave so financially painful that only those without the slightest chance of dragging themselves to the office will do it.

You can do something to counter those who want to limit this basic protection. Visit the Department of Labor's website and send them your comments on FMLA. Tell them why it's so important, and why it should be expanded not contracted.

As you know, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. You need to be very squeaky.

Those Darn Bloggers

2007-02-08T19:43:00.000-08:00

So, the big news today was John Edwards' decision to keep on his staff two bloggers who on their personal blogs had written fairly nasty things about Catholics and conservatives.

It was all over the political news Web sites, and appears to have caused the Edwards campaign a good bit of controversial press.

The news here, for me, is that the medium matters.

Campaigns have always hired staff who are deeply ideological and say nasty things about "the other side." But, it used to be that such things were generally said when the microphones and videotape was not rolling, when people were in private and talking with like-minded comrades.

Not anymore. Now, idealogues can start a blog, and not only say incendiary things to their friends in private but blog about it in public. Such posts are not ephemeral. They are permanent, archived, searchable.

We have not seen the last of stories like this, I am sure.

Joe Biden: Insert Foot in Mouth and Other Stories

2007-01-31T18:28:00.000-08:00

[I'm so flippin' busy, and there are so many freakin' candidates, I can't stay on top of 'em . . .]

Tonight while cooking dinner and listening to National Public Radio, I heard that Joe Biden had declared himself officially a candidate for the the Democratic ticket.

Right. Got it. Add him to the "in" column. No surprise.

So, tonight, while taking a break from writing, I read through the headlines on the New York Times website. Seems that Biden's coming out party didn't turn out so well.

Apparently, the New York Observer printed a quote from Biden today that has him describing Barak Obama as "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy." Ummm, is that meant to be a compliment?

Jesse Jackson, who ran against Biden in 1988, said that he didn't find the comments "off color" but that they were "highly suggestive." Of what, exactly? He didn't say. Racism, perhaps?

This is not the way any candidate wishes to have their candidacy's first day go. He lost the message, and the good press he should have gotten has all gone bad. Indeed, CNN and the NyTimes are reporting other gaffes of the Senator's including inappropriate statements against Indians: "You cannot go into a 7-11 or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent." Geez.

Unscripted moments like these really let voters in, and of course journalist LOVE this stuff. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy, though (I think he's a bombastic ass).

He's going to be on the Daily Show tonight. I look forward to this one.

Others who have recently announced he's setting up an exploratory committee: Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee is thinking of seeking the Republican nomination. He of the same political stripe as Senator Brownback of Kansas: Christian Conservative. He announced on Meet the Press Sunday morning.

Dirty Politics Already

2007-01-22T20:43:00.000-08:00

I ran across an article on CNN tonight with a headline that stopped me in my tracks: "CNN debunks false report about Obama." Of course, I had to know what the "false report was."

It appears that staff from Hillary Clinton's campaign released to Insight Magazine information that Obama had attended a madrassa when he was a child living for a time in Indonesia. (A madrassa is a Islamic-fundamentalist school). This "fact" was reported on CNN, Fox News, and other outlets late last week.

CNN, it seems, traveled to the alleged madrassa and found it to be, yes a Muslim school, but not of the fundamentalist sort.

When a Clinton staffer was queried about this, he said it was "an obvious right-wing hit job."

My question is: If so, then why did it come from the Clinton campaign? And, why are other news outlets reporting something that came from Insight Magazine?

Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church (i.e. the moonies) own Insight Magazine. According to the Center for Media and Democracy, it tends to promote right-wing views.

If only cable "news" actually did its job of investigating facts instead of reporting rumors. Bah!

Oh, and Bill Richardson

2007-01-22T20:37:00.000-08:00

I need to note that New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson announced he will seek the Democratic nomination. He set up an exploratory committee this week.

If he runs, this will make for one of the most diverse Democratic fields in U.S. history. Richardson has Hispanic roots. His mother is Mexican.

He also is making the right moves with regard to making himself appear presidential. A few months back, he traveled to Darfur, Sudan to help negotiate a cease-fire between rebel leaders and the government. That's definately something we'll see him touting in speeches and advertisements down the line.

Oh, and Sam Brownback, too

2007-01-20T19:41:00.000-08:00

Kansas Senator Sam Brownback announced today on his Website (I detect a theme here) and in a speech in Topeka, Kansas that he will seek the Republican nomination. Brownback is a socially conservative Republican, with strong anti-abortion and anti-gay rights positions. Of all the Republican candidates who have announced so far, he is the most clearly in the "Christian conservative" camp. He mentioned on his Web video God, prayer, "and the wisdom to know the difference" (a reference to "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change . . . .".

I've been signing up to all the candidates email lists (it's always fun to see what the candidates are saying in their email). Brownback's sign-up is very confusing. There's a "join" link, but it's not clear what one is "joining." The "join" link takes a visitor to a page that requires your name and email address. But there are also two additional fields, one for "display name" and one for "user name" and it's not clear what those are or what that means. There are also little red arrows underneath each form field, and they are quite confusing. They don't seem to do anything. After filling in the fields, it just takes me back to the home page - no "thank you" for signing up. Not professional. Unlike the other websites so far, there is no blog.

Yeah Yeah, Clinton Set up a Committee

2007-01-20T18:49:00.000-08:00

I know I should be all excited that it finally happened - that Hillary Clinton finally announced the creation of an exploratory committee for a run at the Democratic nomination. It's not that I'm unexcited. Whenever a new candidate announces, it makes me happy (I know, I'm sick), but you know you'd have to be pretty clueless to have not seen this one coming.

If anything, it's noteworthy that she waited until after Obama. It's also noteworthy that she announced only a few days after Obama. Clinton does not want too much time to elapse after Obama's announcement. She needs to make sure that the fundraising advantage that an exploratory committee generates isn't lost. Both Obama and Clinton are going to compete for many of the same big (and small) donors.

Like Obama, Clinton announced on her website. She also is inviting people to sign up to join her for a live web chat. I'm curious to see how that will work. Like Obama's site, a large "contribute" button is featured prominently next to the video screen for watching her announcement.

Her announcement theme is about starting a conversation with the American people, which will happen through the live chats.

From an interactivity perspective, this is, so far, the most interactive move by a candidate that I've seen. If the interactive chats are really interactive, it will mark yet another milestone in the use by candidates of the Internet to connect and converse directly with people.

Candidates for President and Other Items

2007-01-18T18:08:00.000-08:00

I've been meaning to post since Tuesday when Barak Obama announced on his website that he's establishing an exploratory committee. The three minute statement was a classic direct-address statement of why he is thinking of running for president.

It's a clever move to have created this announcement on his website. Right next to the video is a huge "Contribute" button. Money is the key to viability. And, if he is going to be viable, he's going to have to match the Clinton money machine. The media coverage of Obama's announcement was complete, giving Obama ooodles of free media and driving traffic to his website (and, I am sure his staff hopes, drive up donations).

There are a few others who have announced a run for the Democratic ticket: Chris Dodd and Joe Biden. Both are senior Senators. Senator Dodd announced on the "Don Imus in the Morning" show. I'm still not sure what to think about that move. If anyone has any insights, I'd gladly hear them.

Senator Biden announced his run on "Meet the Press." Biden chairs the Senate's Foreign Relations Committee, and will get much free media by virtue of serving in that highly visible position (especially as Democrats vow to hold various and sundry hearings on the war in Iraq, etc.).

I should also mention that on the Republican side Newt Gingrigh announced on "Meet the Press" that he is seriously considering a run. He said he'd decide "after the new year." A Gingrigh run would be an interesting thing to see, especially alongside John McCain. I'd love to hear those two debate.

Also, just a brief aside, in my post about "20,000 troops is not the answer" I mentioned two things that have since changed. First, the "Iraqi" troops that will be going in to Baghdad as part of the "surge" are going to be primarily comprised of Kurdish forces (not Shia). This changes the dynamics somewhat. The Kurdish fighters are ready for battle. I don't know as well how they Sunnis or the Shia view them. I also read the al Maliki's government has detained 400 "Shiite militia." It's not clear what this means or who they are, but if they are part of the militia that's been rounding of Sunnis, torturing and killing them, then that's a good sign.

Second, Secretary of Defense Gates has just completed a tour of Afghanistan, and it appears he is likely to call for an increase of upwards of 3,000 U.S. troops in that country and 1,000 additional NATO troops. That's a good move in my book. Although, I still wonder how the Army will find these soldiers. (Does anyone else besides me have any interest in seeing a draft? or at least having a real discussion about it?)

Alright, back to preparing to teach and finalizing a research paper that should have been done weeks ago . . . .

Long Road Home

2007-01-17T08:32:00.000-08:00

One of my graduate students, Rachel Brune, served in Iraq with the sustainment brigade. Over the winter break, with her fiance she put together a You Tube video with photographs and video of their time in Iraq. It's a moving depiction of our armed forces. Recommended viewing. (It's Rachel singing, BTW).

Why 20,000 Troops is not the Answer

2007-01-10T19:55:00.000-08:00

I listened tonight to our President announce his new plan for Iraq.

The current situation in Iraq is unacceptable to me, and so on that he and I agree. But, I am not convinced that 20,000 troops is the answer. Here's why:

1) President Bush referred to "the Iraqi people" several times in his address. This is problematic. Those who live within the borders established during British Imperialism do not see themselves as "Iraqis". They see themselves as ethnic and religious clans and groups: Shiites, Sunnis, Christians, Kurds. There is no "Iraqi people" and there never has been. It is a mistake to think that we can get Shiites and Sunnis to reconcile, as the President has suggested. Sending in 20,000 more troops to Baghdad won't force a reconciliation.

2) President Bush proposed that "Iraqi military and police" would serve in Baghdad to help secure the 9 regions in the city backed by American troops. Sunnis already deeply mistrust the Iraqi military and Iraqi police. Shiite extremists hell bent on exterminating Sunnis have infiltrated the Iraqi police (Side note: The Iraqi police have been run through the Interior department, which is headed by a "radical" Shiite, and has been heavily infiltrated by Muqtada al Sadr's army as well as other militant Shiite factions that want nothing more than to terrorize Sunnis). As such, Sunnis will see this new move as a further effort to destroy them, which will only further radicalize them, and push them even further from the negotiation table.

It's also worth noting that as there is no "Iraqi people" there is no "Iraqi army." Only a few units have integrated Kurd, Sunni, and Shiite. Nearly all units are homogenous. Shiites don't want to fight alongside Sunnis and vice versa. So, the units that likely will go into Baghdad will be Shiite (since they have been more likely to join the military and police than the Sunnis who are mistrustful of those entities). This will further reinforce the fear in Sunnis that they are meant to be exterminated. Which, I fear, will lead to more insurgency and a stronger effort on the part of Sunnis to attack American soldiers and Shiites.

Moreover, Shiites don't exactly want to see more U.S. troops. The Shiites do not trust us, and believe that the U.S. knew about the bombing of the Shiite golden temple in Samarrah, the holiest place for Shiites, but chose to do nothing. Moreover, President Maliki is in Moqtada al Sadr's back pocket, and I don't believe for a second, that al Sadr will allow Maliki to let the U.S. military into predominantly Shiite areas of Baghdad to "quell the insurgency." President Bush tonight said he has Maliki's cooperation, but that is something I would need to see to believe.

3) The Army and Marines are already stretched very thin. The "trigger pullers" are but a fraction of the 1 million strong U.S. military, and many of them have already served 2, 3, or 4 tours of duty. How much more can we ask of our regular Army and Marines?

Even more critical for me is that in order for the Army to deploy the increased number of troops, the Pentagon will need to change their current policy on reservists and National Guard. Presently military personnel in these serve one tour of duty (extended at the start of the war from 1 to a maximum of 2 years). The Pentagon would need to change that to two tours of duty. How much can we ask of our reservists and National Guard? The states have joint control over the National Guard. Will they be willing to sacrifice that many men and women who are necessary for states in times of, for example, natural disasters?

Finally on this, Army and Marine units are going to be pulled from other theatres, specifically Afghanistan. NATO and the Afghanistan government have been begging the Pentagon to increase troop levels in that country, because the Taliban is gaining in force, and is quickly moving to reclaim areas of Afghanistan. NATO anticipates an orchestrated attack by the Taliban on Afghan/NATO forces in the coming months, and there are not sufficient troops to hold them back. So, just at the time we risk losing portions of Afghanistan to the Taliban, the U.S. is going to pull a brigade of Marines out of there and into Iraq. How does that make the United States more secure at home and abroad?

4) If there were to be a "unified Iraq," it would most likely be controlled by the Shiites (since they now have the most power and the most people in the country). The Shiites, for the most part, do not want a secular, nationalist government (like what existed under Sunni control). They want a theocracy styled in Iranian fashion. Although the Iranians are Persian and the Shiites of Iraq are Arab, they both share a common faith, and increasingly a common vision on how the government should be run, which includes Sharia Law, which is a fundamental Islamic legal system based in religion. The U.S. is unlikely to see women's rights in Iraq and Western-style democracy under Shiite-controlled Iraq.

Here's what I think we should be doing instead:

Diplomacy - the "political" solution as they say. We need to work with the Sunnis and the Shiites to help them each establish their own regional government. The Constitution that the Kurds and Shiites created (the Sunnis boycotted this process) establishes a very weak federal government and strong regional governments. This opens the door for not a "unified Iraq" but three strong, but separate regional governments that each get a share of the oil that comes out of the ground primarily in the Shiite region of the country (although there are productive wells and the possibility for more in all three regions), and that each establish their own local laws and rules of government. The Kurds have already done that. Now, we must find a way to help the Sunnis and Shiites to do the same.

It is a mistake to think that we can "unify Iraq" and "quell the insurgency" by bringing in 20,000 more troops to Baghdad. What we need are many more diplomats and regional experts (the regional experts have been quite left out of this entire Iraq fiasco to this point) in that country who speak the language, forging ties with local leaders, and helping them to each craft governments and military/police, and infrastructure that is acceptable to each region.

Forcing "Iraqis" to reconcile will be a fruitless mission that will kill thousands more American soldiers and "Iraqi" civilians, and drain our treasury even further. Helping the Shiites and the Sunnis to develop regional governments, to help them each gain ownership of a region, to let them define for themselves how they wish to govern themselves, and to allow the weak national government do what it wants to do - govern, then we will have indeed allowed for a democracy to take place and helped the people of Iraq to help themselves.

[Side note: Much of my information on Iraq comes from Peter Galbraith's smart book, The End of Iraq. My solutions are really his, but he convinced me as no one else has that his is a real solution to the problems of "Iraq." Reading the newspaper also helps .]

Vilsack on Daily Show and Poor Giuliani

2007-01-04T19:34:00.000-08:00

Tom Vilsack, former Governor of Iowa, and one of the three officially announced Democratic nomination contenders was on The Daily Show on December 18 (yeah, I know, it's now January, but better late than never that I look at this).

The four plus minutes of time focused primarily on the War in Iraq, and Vilsack's tour of the country, which led him to his proposed policy that the United States needs to withdraw.

He described the relationship between Iraq and the United States as an addiction - that the Iraqis are addicted to a belief that the United States should save them. Vilsack said he believes the Iraqis need to save themselves.

Stewart used the "if you break it, you fix it" analogy that Colin Powell had offered some time ago as reason to stay in Iraq, and Vilsack responded with the proposal that the Europeans and others must step in and help stabilize as we step out.

He mentioned Bush at the beginning of the segment, noting that Bush is advocating a surge in troops in the months ahead. Vilsack then said that Bush now has McCain advocating this approach, and then Vilsack offered his plan for withdrawal, saying that a troop surge was a mistake. What's noteworthy is the explicit mention of McCain, which is a signal that that is who Vilsack thinks will be running on the Republican ticket in 2008.

There was, of course, at the end of the segment a plug for Vilsack's website - a now customary move for candidates to try to drive traffic to their website.

On a side note - I read in my local paper that the New York Daily News was reporting that Rudy Giuliani's entire campaign playbook was left (or stolen) from a hotel room (or airplane), and has been leaked. There's some speculation that the playbook was stolen by an aide to the new Florida Governor when Giuliani was campaigning for him last year, possibly someone who favored a different Republican candidate for the presidential nomination.

The playbook's details have not received much media coverage, except in the Daily News, which detailed the unvarnished assessment of Giuliani's weaknesses, which include his three marriages, his relationship to disgraced Bernard Kerik, and his private business dealings.

Such foibles are hard on a campaign, because they're distracting and cause candidates and their staffs to go off message. This will blow over, but I am curious whether or not this will be made more of when the campaign starts to heat up.

John Edwards Announces

2006-12-28T09:37:00.000-08:00

John Edwards, who ran as John Kerry's vice president in 2004, announced his run for the 2008 Democratic nomination today. His announcement was staged in New Orlean's Lower Ninth Ward.

CBS News reported that last night he created a media event by doing yard work with young volunteers of a woman whose house was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina in preparation for the announcement today.

He was interviewed this morning on ABC's Good Morning America with George Stephanopolous. Stephanopolous asked only one policy question in the four minute interview, which was on the war in Iraq, although it was framed in a "why should Democrats nominate you" on Iraq when Edwards originally supported the war and now he's against it.

Edwards' response was to highlight honesty, trustworthiness, and integrity as characteristics he would posess in dealing with Iraq. Although not mentioning Bush's name, he clearly insinuated Bush lacked those characteristics in the war in Iraq. He also rejected the idea of strengthening troop levels in Iraq, and he parroted the now-overused phrase that Iraq requires a political solution not a military solution.

Stephanopolous started the interview with a snippy strategy question by noting that Edwards had criticized President Bush in 2004 for exploiting Ground Zero for political gain, and whether Edwards was now doing the same thing with New Orleans. Edwards emphasized that New Orleans still needs much help after Hurricane Katrina and must not be forgotten--a nice job of dodging the question.

The caption underneath Edwards' bust shot was "John Edwards Running for President: Can He Take on the Big Names?" This theme was emphasized by the question of whether he's more qualified than Hillary Clinton. Edwards responded by saying that it's not up to him to decide, but that the next leader would have great responsibility to rebuild leadership and moral authority in the world - perhaps a slight dig on the Clinton legacy?

There was also news today that his Website was launched early, yesterday rather than today, and it was reported as a glitch for the campaign. CBS reported that campaign staff shut the site down until this morning.

I went through the website, and it's a little glitchy. When I entered the website from the splash screen, I went hunting for the announcement speech, but couldn't find it. Then, I wandered to the blog, which requires registration. After doing that (grrr), the site said I'd successfully logged in, but then the blog didn't load. I had to click on the blog link at the top to see any of the content. When I went back to the home page of the site, the top now heralds his announcement speech and includes vide from You Tube of a speech he made yesterday, which was posted on Wednesday night, according to Paul Kaputska. Kaputska declares the pre-announcement announcement on You Tube a candidate first. Of that, I am sure.

Who's Running For President?

2006-12-16T11:25:00.000-08:00

I should be grading undergraduate student papers, but procrastination is the name of the game (you should see how spotless my kitchen is). To continue the dawdling until I really must start grading, let's take a little run down of who has thrown or has been publicly thinking about throwing their hat into the ring.

Democrats

Two candidates have officially announced, and many others are exploring a run for the nomination:

Tom Vilsack, Governor of Iowa, announced he was running earlier this year. His website suggests he is running a high tech campaign, utilizing his blackberry, videoblogging, and social software to connect to possible supporters. His website, though, lacks any indication of why he's running for Governor or what his major issues are.
Dennis Kucinich, the anti-war candidate in 2004, has announced a second run at the Democratic nomination, continuing his anti-war message.
Bill Richardson, Governor of New Mexico, has declared that he will form an exploratory committee to investigate a run for the nomination.
Joe Biden, Senator from Delaware, said he would seek the Democratic nomination.
Evan Bayh, Senator from Indiana, had announced plans to form an exploratory committee at the beginning of December, but has since decided not to run.
Mark Warner, former Governor of Virginia, had explored a run, but announced he would not seek the nomination. What was interesting about Warner was that he held a townhall forum in the 3-D sandbox, Second Life. I'm disappointed he dropped out, only because I was curious to see what he would do with his digital self.
Hillary Clinton, Senator from New York (and former First Lady, in case you've been living on a deserted island for the past 14 years), has been visiting New Hampshire and Iowa, and making noise about an exploratory committee. I must confess that I'm not eager to see her run. The days of Hillary hating were painful, and they will be back in force when she throws her hat into the ring.
Barak Obama, junior Senator from Illinois, has been the media's baby, creating quite a splash on his visit to New Hampshire last week. Will this media darling sustain the withering scrutiny of an attentive press?
Al Gore, former Vice President. I throw his name into this simply because there has been much speculation that his movie An Inconvenient Truth was his entry back onto the political scene. I'm not sure myself. I suspect he's quite happy beating the drum of global warming and not the drum of president. But, we shall see.

Republicans

As far as I can tell, no one has yet declared him or herself a candidate for the nomination, but here are a few who are exploring:

John McCain, Senator from Arizona, created an exploratory committee a month ago. The news media has been running polls with Hillary as his Democratic opponent. McCain does not have much support with the Republican base, but wide-spead popularity with independents and Democrats. For Hillary, it's the opposite: strong support from the base, and weak support from independents and Republicans.
Rudy Giuliani, former Mayor of New York, established his exploratory committee in November. He has widespread popularity as America's mayor given his remarkable performance during and after the days of the terrorist attacks.
Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts, is considering the nomination. Romney is interesting, because he's not a traditional Republican. His state was one of the few to declare gay marriage a legal right for lesbians and gays. His state pushed for comprehensive health care.
Tommy Thompson, former Governor of Wisconsin, says he will form an exploratory committee in January. All I know of Thompson is that he's a good conservative.
George Pataki, soon-to-be former Governor of New York, has been visiting New Hampshire and Iowa, but I'm not sure if he's actually formed an exploratory committee yet. Pataki is, like Romney, a moderate conservative, and I'm not sure he's got wide-spread support from the Republican base. He also has about as much personality as milk toast.
Bill Frist, former Senate Majority Leader, has declared he won't seek the nomination, although he had made noises of this sort earlier this year. Thank goodness. I will never forgive him for his arm-chair assessment of Terry Schiavo. For that, he should have lost his medical license.

Stayed tuned. There's two years more of this to come . . . .

The Draft

2006-12-06T19:14:00.000-08:00

Since 2003 Representative Charles Rangle of New York has been talking about legislation to reinstate the draft. Not an NFL draft, but a military draft. His rationale for the legislation is to sensitize Congress to the seriousness of war authorization if their own sons and daughters might be called to serve. He also believes that military service in an all volunteer army falls primarily on those who are often from the lower classes and minority communities and have few options. By forcing a draft, the people whose bodies on the line would come from all classes.

The conversation is back on the table as the Iraq Study Group releases its findings, as the Senate confirms Roberg M. Gates to serve as Secretary of Defense, and as Rangle moves to chair the House Ways and Means Committee.

The conversations in the past days have focused on whether more troops should move into Iraq to help stabilize the country. The problem with that plan, if that were to be the will of the Administration, is there aren't that many more troops to be had. More National Guard and Reservists could be called up and more service men and women currently in Iraq could be forced to serve more tours. But, is that the answer? Or is it time for a draft?

Even if the Administration decides to remove troops from Iraq, it is evident that the United States cannot fight a war on two fronts with an all volunteer army, which has been the measure of our military strength. We have not the troop strength to sustain such a feat.

So, what do we do? Do we revise our vision as a military super power and back off an ideal that we can fight a war on two fronts? Or, do we reinstate the draft for such times as these, when the nation is at war?

What do you think?

The New York State Assembly Sucks

2006-11-29T05:11:00.000-08:00

Okay, that's a rather nasty title, but really, they do. Here's why:

The Senate and the Assembly of New York State engage in a practice known as member item spending. Basically, when the "three men in a room" plan the budget they set aside millions of tax payer dollars to give out to their favorite members to spend on projects they like with virtually no public oversight. Until yesterday, the public was denied access to how the money was spent or which member was given money.

The Times Union sued both chambers, specifically Joe Bruno, Senate Majority Leader, and Sheldon Silver, Assembly Speaker, under the Freedom of Information Act here in New York. A judge ruled that both men must give up the information. Silver did so first, but initially struck the names of the Assembly members who received the money! I'm not kidding.

(If they didn't think what they were doing was wrong, why hide the names of the Assembly members? And, why "protect" them? It's not like the Assembly members are in a witness protection program. They simply received unregulated, unsupervised money to spend on any pet project they pleased.)

Okay, but that's not why the Senate sucks (that's why the Assembly sucks). Here's why the Senate sucks:

So, yesterday both chambers released Adobe PDF documents of the 3,000 documents or so on the member item spending. But, here's the thing, both offices scanned the documents as images, not as text, so there's no way to search the thousands of pages or import the data into a program that would help with the analysis.

When the Times Union went back to the Assembly, Silver's staff acquiesced and produced text-based PDF documents. When they went to the Senate, Bruno's staff member John McArdle said, "What the Senate has been willing to do is to provide the information [author's note: only under court order] . . . . Our understanding is that this is all you're entitled to." And here's my favorite part: "Bottom line, that's all you're going to get."

Don't you just LOVE that?!?

The arrogance, and the lack of any sense that they have an obligation to provide USEABLE information to the public. It's shocking. It makes me supremely angry. These public officials have no regard for the public. It's disgraceful. That Bruno is still in office can only be because that man can bring home the bacon like no other pork dealer in this state. It's certainly not because he has any regard for transparency in politics.

Give to Your Local Food Bank

2006-11-24T13:34:00.000-08:00

On this Thanksgiving weekend, I tend to reflect back on past Thanksgivings, and people, events, and things in my life that make me thankful.

One thing I am thankful for is food. I know that sounds rather silly, but when I was a teenager, food was scarce at times. My Mom had mental health and chemical dependency issues, which led her down a classic path of divorce, economic distress, job insecurity, job loss, and welfare. Since she had custody of me and my brother, we joined that path with her. There was a set of Thanksgivings and Christmases that were made possible only through the generosity of others. That generosity was funneled through our local food bank.

So, this Thanksgiving weekend, be thankful that you are not one of the estimated 35 million Americans (according to the Agriculture Department) that do not have regular access to food on a given day. Be generous and give to your local food bank.

In the richest nation in the world, no one should go hungry.

Touch(ed)

2006-11-20T18:11:00.000-08:00

I spent this weekend in San Antonio, Texas at the National Communication Association annual meeting. This is the big, national conference for communication teachers and researchers. When I say big, I mean 8,000 people big this year. That's a lot of communication people.

These conferences serve as a place for people to share ideas and present research. It is also a reunion of sorts. Here, once a year, friends from graduate school or from prior jobs converge in one location. I roomed, for example, with two dear friends from my Annenberg days, had lunch with two dear friends from my Minnesota days, had drinks with senior scholars in the field, had dinner with friends and possible collaborators of future research projects. I had chance encounters with old acquaintances and old friends who had grown distant.

In nearly all of those interactions, the one element that seemed to be a constant was touch: hugs, handshakes, hands on shoulders and upper arms or around the back, kisses on cheeks or lips. Greetings in this context seem to require some form of touch. Why?

I think when we see acquaintances and friends whom we rarely get to see, physical touch communicates more effectively and deeply the reality of that connection than can words. We rarely if ever physically touch strangers, and when we do we often apologize (think about walking through a crowded hallway of strangers: bump into somebody's arm as you're passing through and you apologize). We also rarely touch people we see on a daily basis, with exceptions of family members or really close friends. I don't often touch my co-workers, and I certainly don't give them a hug everytime I see them standing by the coffee pot in the office (can you imagine what a reputation one might get for doing so?).

As I think about my interactions with my friends and colleagues at the conference, I often remember the warm embraces, and the feeling such physical connection brings: warmth, connection, love.

That's why I enjoy conferences.

Election Post Mortem

2006-11-12T18:37:00.001-08:00

Like all political junkies I was up until the wee hours Tuesday night into Wednesday morning watching the returns come in. When it was clear Montana, Missouri, and Virginia were not going to be decided in the next few hours, I went to bed.

I woke up with the news that Missouri had been called for McCaskill, leaving Montana and Virginia. By Friday, the outcome was clear: The Democrats were the majority in both the House and the Senate.

I am relieved to see, at last, a check on the executive. I believe it is problematic when both the executive and the legislative branches are held by the same political party. The legislative branch as of late has been especially meek, tepid, and mostly useless, with too many legislators saying "Yes" to whatever the executive asks for, while lining their pockets with lobbyist money, and bringing home the bacon to constituents to ensure the lever gets pulled for them the next election cycle.

And, even though there were ridiculously few genuinely competitive races this year, I'm heartened to see Americans rejecting another 2 years of what we've seen the last 6. I don't think the budget, our foreign policy, or minimum wage workers can stand much more of the same.

My Brother Passed the Bar!

2006-11-04T16:47:00.000-08:00

I just have to shout it out to the world - my brother passed the Maryland Bar exam.

Mark, I am SO proud of you.

Congressman Sweeney's Ad Lies

2006-11-03T07:34:00.000-08:00

So, Factcheck.org released an analysis of the latest ad in Republican Congressman Sweeney's arsenal in his re-election run against challenger Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand here in upstate New York. It's been an especially nasty race since September, and it just got nastier.

Factcheck.org analyzes an ad that attacks Gillibrand for being a war profiteer, taking illegal campaign contributions, harassing a fallen soldier's mother, and (my favorite) making little kids cry (I'm not kidding).

Factcheck exposes the claims for what they are - lies.

It's disgraceful and Sweeney should be held accountable for such lousy antics.

Good ol' Aristotle argued that effective persuasion was possible when the person attempting to persuade had upstanding moral character and genuinely had the interests of those he was trying to persuade at heart. Where did that go in this country? The authors of the new book, The Architect: Karl Rove and the Master Plan for Absolute Power, reveal that Rove has targeted Christian conservatives for both legislation and mobilization tactics to strengthen the dominance of the Republican party. Rove himself, though, has no particular affinity with God, and does not necessarily hold the values of the Christian conservatives he is targeting. He has encouraged such overtures solely for strategy - to help benefit the Republican party.

Where are the people who genuinely believe the values they preach? Where are the people with values, period?

Negative Advertising

2006-10-28T10:10:00.000-07:00

The 2006 midterm elections are hot hot hot.

The races, already competitive coming in to October, became even more so as the Republicans were knocked off message by the Foley Page scandal (in case you've been in a cave the past month, Representative Foley of Florida sent naughty messages - in Tony Snow's words - to young male Pages). Now, as I've said since 2000, it's the Democrats' races to lose.

The strategies of the two parties this election season are noteworthy for their differences. The Republican National Committee is doing what it's been doing successfully for 10 years, which is to raise huge sums of money from big donors, then funnel that money into 10 or 15 close races, more-or-less ignorning the rest of the country.

This had been the Democratic strategy until Howard Dean became Chariman of the DNC. His strategy, which is hated by the old-time Democrats, has been to not raise huge sums of money from a few key donors, and not to spend money on only a handful of targeted races. Instead, Dean has been raising money from small donors (sound familiar?) from across the country, and then funneling that money into local Democratic party organizations everywhere - even Alaska.

The thinking behind the strategy is that the Democratic party must rebuild its grassroots base, and in so doing eventually be able to win races in areas that Democrats have not seen victories in decades, such as the South.

The problem is that there is a spectacular imbalance between the two parties. Republicans have at least $69 million in their coffers. Democrats have in the neighborhood of $14 million. Given the strong correlation between money spent in a race and winning, this could prove problematic for Democrats.

There's a second notable difference in the parties' strategies. According to a new report from the non-partisan Factcheck.org. , Republican Campaign Committee ads in targeted districts have been attacking Democratic opponents on their character. Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ads have attacked Republican opponents on their policy positions.

Now, the Democratical ads are often incorrect or misleading in their attacks - so I do not want to appear to be defending the Democratic strategy. But, the Republican attack ads are classic mudslinging.

Although character can be an issue in a campaign, for example if a politician has been found to be involved in illegal doings the voters have a right to know (take, for example, the Comptroller's race in New York, with Alan Hevesi illegally using a state driver for personal use). Often, though, these character attacks are completely baseless, and aim only to demean or smear the name of the Democratic opponent.

Perhaps, the most controversial ad has been the character attack on Harold Ford, a black Democrat running in Tenneessee against white Republican Bob Corker. The person-on-the-street ad shows average people saying that Ford was right to rasie money from the porn industry, to reinstitute the "death" tax, and to let Canada deal with North Korea. The most controversial element is the sexy blonde who says she met Ford at a Playboy Bunny party. The ad ends with her winking to the camera and telling Ford to "call me."

The ad, at its most innocent, calls into question both Ford's policy positions and his character (raising money from the porn industry and attending Playboy parties is meant to be sleazy). At worst, as John Geer notes (whose book on negative advertising my grad students will be reading soon), the ad plays into fears white people have of interracial dating and sex.

Ken Mehlman, RNC chair initially said the ad was not racist and that the RNC wasn't involved in making it. Later, he corrected that statement (the RNC did, indeed, create and pay for the ad), and the ad is no longer playing. But, many other sleazy ads are.

So, at a 10,000 foot view it seems that Republicans are doing what they've been doing and Democrats are trying something new. It remains to be seen which tactics will work. For the sake of democracy, I hope that we could have less mudslinging, more accurate attacks on policy positions, and more energy and money and spent across the country and not just on 10 races in a few key states. But campaigns rarely are meant to better the democracy . . . .

The BEST Resource for Political Ad Analysis

2006-10-11T07:20:00.000-07:00

The mid-term election campaigns are in full swing, and political ads are invading our television screens.

For the the best resource for analysis of the truth and lies in political ads, visit Factcheck.org. The website, referrenced (incorrectly) in the 2004 Vice Presidential debates by Dick Cheney, has continued to be the premier source for critiques of political advertising.

The website was started by journalist Brooks Jackson, the father of adwatching on television news, as part of an initiative at the Annenenberg School for Communication, at the University of Pennsylvania (my alma mater). Factcheck.org is funded through the Annenberg Foundation, and is non-partisan and beholden to no special interests that might influence the analysis.

If you want to know whether your candidate is telling fibs or telling the truth about his or her opponent, visit the site.

To Hell in a Handbasket

2006-10-03T06:37:00.000-07:00

As in "We are going to hell in a handbasket." [A big gold star to the person who knows where this saying comes from. I say it a lot these days, and I love the imagery.]

Weeks like this one make me think the United States is rotten at its moral core.

Sunday night, I watched 60 minutes, which had an expose on a surge in violence against the homeless, apparently because of the video series "Bumfights," which shows bums fighting each other and doing violent, painful, dangerous things to themselves while deeply intoxicated.

White, suburban teenage boys watch "Bumfights" (which can be downloaded from the Internet). Then, after having thoroughly laughed at and ridiculed the homeless in the videos, violently attack homeless they encounter or seek out on the streets.

Sixty Minutes interviewed the creator of "Bumfights," a 24 year old white guy who saw absolutely nothing wrong with the videos. He paid two homeless guys alcohol and pocket change to do the acts he captured on video. "Bumfights" has led to "The Bum Hunter," video footage of another 20-something white guy who goes around binding and gagging the homeless. The 24 year old director of Bumfights, when shown footage from "The Bum Hunter" thought that these were funny "skits." And, he insinuated that the homeless deserved it for being bums.

My moral outrage meter was on overdrive.

And, then, there are the school shootings. Three in a week. The latest one happened in Lancaster, PA, when a white middle aged guy stormed an Amish one room school house, released all the boys and teachers, then lined up the girls, bound them, and shot each of them in the head. Five girls have died so far, and the other seven girls fight to survive.

What in the hell is wrong in this country?

But, wait, there's more. It seems that another white, middle aged guy simply can't be a decent human being. Representative Mike Foley appears to like little boys, pages at the White House, to whom he instant messaged and emailed sexually explicit notes.

Remember in the 2004 elections, when Republicans declared that they won the election on moral values? Where are those moral values now?

Power to the President

2006-10-01T07:33:00.000-07:00

On Friday, Congress completed its work on the Military Comissions Act of 2006.

In a nutshell the Bill allows the President to interpret the Geneva Conventions, and establishes that the courts do not have jurisdiction to hear challenges to his interpretation.

The legislation also strips detainees of any right to challenge their detentions in court. [This little element is likely to land the Bill back before the Supreme Court, and force Congress to rewrite the legislation.]

It also defines "enemy combatants" more broadly. Now, an "enemy combatant" is any noncitizen living in the United States (legally or illegally) or living outside the United States who is determined by the Secretary of Defense or the President to be an enemy combatant.

This legislation gives the Executive Branch broad power in establishing the judicial process for detainees. The bill denies the Judicial branch oversight when the Executive branch is challenged on its execution of that process.

The United States needs to establish a judicial process for trying the detainees we currently have. We ought not just hold them forever. But, this terrible piece of legislation does not get us there. It gives too much power to the Executive branch, and elements of it that can be challenged in the courts will be, which means that it will be another couple of years before we have the possibility for a process. In the meantime the 14,000 people we're currently detaining, some of whom do not deserve to be there, continue to rot in detention centers.

I can only hope that the force of public opinion, both at home and abroad, will keep the Executive in check as it tries to execute this current law. Certainly, Democrats and moderate Republicans in Congress absolutely failed in their duty to do so.

[Read a powerful critique of the Bill and our Congress in The Nation.]

Why We Fight in Iraq

2006-09-23T08:00:00.000-07:00

The conversation on the last post has been terrific. I want to keep it going.

So, here's some more to chew on: Last night, Jon and I watched the documentary Why We Fight by Eugene Jarecki. The film has a website (of course), whywefightmovie.com, which I recommend.

The film and the website start with a video clip from President Dwight Eisenhower's last speech in office. This is the speech in which he coins the phrase "militaryindustrial complex." [Read the full text of the speech.]

In the speech he argues that only in the 20th century has there been a military industry. This industry benefits from war, and if not kept in check, could influence every aspect of social and political life.

The film's narrative arc is to prove that Eisenhower's caution went unheeded - that we now have a government that is beholden to the industries that support and benefit from war.

As just one case in point, take the new B-2 Bomber. The B2 was originally designed as a Cold War terror device. The message to the Soviets was, if you screw with us, we'll fly one of our planes from our country to yours within hours, a plane that can't be detected by your radars, and with its massive nuclear payload drop tons of radioactive love on a target, and leave you glowing [Read a good history of the B2].

The cost of the B-2 was a major issue in its development. The Air Force originally estimated the new planes to cost $45 million each, according to the GAO in 1995. The Air Force then revised the estimate, stating that it would cost more like $89 million in 1997. A fact sheet from the Air Force from this year estimates the cost of building future B2s at $1.2 billion dollars PER PLANE.

One might wonder why, today, we would need such a plane. The B-52 also is a large payload bomb dropper (love my technical military parlance?) originally designed to drop nuclear bombs on the Soviets. It has been used successfully in every war. The unit cost: $53.4 million. You could build 25 B-52s for the cost of 1 B2 Bomber. The government currently owns 21 B2s, according to Boeing, one of the companies that make the bomber (other companies included, Northrop Grumman, Hughes, Generl Electric, and Vought). Each of these first edition B2s cost tax payers $2.2 billion each.

The only military advantage of the B2 was that it was designed to circumvent enemy radar, particularly large conventional forces radar (i.e. standing armies of nation-states fighting each other). We don't dare land one in Turkey or any base outside of the United States, because they are too valuable. They have no armor, unlike the B52. Their only defense is their anti-radar detection capabilities. The B2 is usually not deployed until all ground based radar is destroyed. So, basically the planes are so expensive, we only use them when there's no risk that they'll be destroyed.

So, again, why are we building this plane? The answer is simple: because a piece of the bomber is being built in all 50 states.

Did you catch that?

So, if the B2 program were scrapped, Senators and Representatives would feel pressure from constituents who lose their jobs if the factory in their town closes. Since each state benefits from having the B2 in the form of jobs, then what's the harm in spending billions of dollars on a few planes?

The point here is this: the reason we are at war is because major corporations benefit from war, and these corporations are incredibly successful at pressuring government agencies and politicians to help them increase their profits. According to the film, the militaryindustrial complex is today a $740 billion dollar a year industry. That is a 25% profit. When most companies see 5-7% profitability, this is a staggering windfall. The new CEO of Boeing, James McNerney, receives $1.75 million in salary, and a bonus of as much as $4 million a year. The CEO of the bulletproof-vest maker DHB Industries made $70 million in 2004 compared with his 2001 salary of $525,000, according to CNN, because Congress approved major purchases in body armor. The profit from war is substantial.

Another point of the film is the relationship between politicans and the militaryindustrial complex. The film highlights Vice President Cheney's position in Haliburton after serving as Secretary of Defense under George H.W. Bush. Cheney who had strong government ties was a valuable asset to Haliburton. As Vice President he continues to be helpful to Haliburton. The film highlights that Haliburton received several no-bid contracts to support the war in Iraq. Although there is absolutely no smoking gun that Cheney helped Haliburton acquire those contracts directly, the loose association of friends and acquaintances that exist between the two (government and military corporation) are so intertwined that the influence is now in the very fabric of the relationships between the two.

The film also highlights that on 9/12/2001 President Bush discussed with his Cabinet the possibility of a pre-emptive attack on Iraq - even though Iraq had NOTHING to do with the attacks the day before.

So, there it is. It's not oil, it's not democracy or freedom (two of the most empty God terms bandied about these days), it's profit for militaryindustrial corporations. That's why we fight.

What do you think?

Bring Them Home?

2006-09-17T19:00:00.000-07:00

As we move into the fall elections, one of the major issues if, of course the War in Iraq. Lawn signs have popped up along the side of the road on my way to work declaring "Support the Troops Bring Them Home Now." Yet, Republicans, especially President Bush (most recently in his speech commemorating 9/11) have argued that we must stay the course in Iraq.

I want to start a conversation here on this question. I am very curious to know what my friends and readers think on this issue. I will confess that I was against the war when we declared it, because I was very skeptical of claims of WMD in Iraq and connections between al Qaeda and Iraq. Now that we know both of those claims were false, reasons for being there have changed. Now, one of the primary arguments is that we are bringing democracy to the Middle East.

My gut instinct on whether we should pull out of Iraq is that we should not. My current feeling is that we have a moral obligation to help the Iraqis to at least establish the infrastructure they need to be a stable country (or countries).

But, I am very open to other perspectives. What do you think?

[Oh, and this time the question mark in the title is genuine!]

Voter Turnout?

2006-09-14T06:00:00.000-07:00

New York State had its primary this past Tuesday. Turnout was reported to be light. But, light is an understatement.

Today the official word is that only 5.5% of *registered* Republicans turned out to vote. The turnout for Democrats was higher - somewhere between 11% and 15%, according to the Times Union.

Part of the reason for the discrepancy in turnout is the number of high-profile contested races. For Republicans only the U.S. Senate seat was contested. The race between John Spencer and K.T. McFarland was at times really nasty. But, that was about it for Republican voters. For Democrats, there were contests for several offices, including Governor and U.S. Senator.

But, still: 5.5%? What kind of democracy do we have when such tiny slivers of the population turn out to vote during the primaries?

The primaries were established in the early 1970s to encourage a more democratic process for identifying who a party's nominee would be. Before that, most states' parties selected their leaders through back-channel and private negotiations - imagine the smoke filled room in the back of a bar somewhere with guys sitting around a table deciding who would be the nominee.

But, the revised primary system has failed to do what it aimed to do. With only an average of about 15% of registered voters of a party turning out to vote on a given election, it is still a thin slice of the electorate who is selecting their party's nominee. And, this is not a random sample of the electorate who turns out. People who vote in primaries are more ideological, better educated, and more knowledgable about the political process, the candidates, and current events - sort of like the old days with the men in back rooms picking the candidates.

I'm not sure there is a way to fix this broken system, and perhaps it's okay that such a small percentage of the people turn out. At least the primary system allows those who want to have a say to have one. The rest can stay home as they always have.

[The question mark at the end of this blog post's title is a nod to John Stewart, who last night, on the Daily Show, had a terrific piece about titles on the crawlers of CNN and Fox News. Why say it when you can ask it?]

Katrina : One Year Later

2006-08-30T19:38:00.000-07:00

Last year around this time I was simultaneously pissed off and disillusioned. Watching the images coming at me via CNN of the New Orlans convention center gave me a surreal feeling that I was not witnessing an event in the United States. Surely, the US of A would not allow 40,000 people people to linger for five days in a rancid building without food and little water. Surely, my government would never fail to send desparately needed supplies and manpower in the form of our National Guard to the flooded homes of the Gulf Coast. But, that's what I was seeing.

One year later, it is important to reflect on the complete failure of the several layers of government to do what it is intended to do: serve its people. In times of disaster (from hurricanes to terrorist attacks) we turn to our government to help us. The government is our collective will, our common good, with the resources and agency to act in the service of those who we all agree need help.

But, that's not what I saw one year ago. And, it still makes me angry.

[photo from Mother Jones]

Bad Things Come in Threes

2006-08-14T09:03:00.000-07:00

A good friend of mine is terrified of flying. She is very attentive to any news of plane crashes or "incidents." After there have been three, she relaxes somewhat, because bad things come in threes.

My rational self says such ideas are silly, but the past few months have given testament to this superstition. Three people have died this summer who have touched my life. The first death was Mike Young, a talented comedian and graphic designer in Philadelphia. A brain tumor stole his life and robbed his wife and young son of an incredible soul. The second death was Uncle Len, my husband's uncle. Len was at our wedding - the jovial, good natured jokester. Len was an important figure in Jon's life, and I'm sorry that we won't be able to enjoy future Christmases at his house.

The third I just learned of. My University's president died yesterday in a swimming accident. Kermit Hall has been president of my University almost 2 years. He was energetic, had vision, and worked very hard to promote the University at Albany in our community and to the state legislature. His work paid off in a line item in the budget desparately needed to upgrade my decaying concrete campus. He pushed to increase the number of tenure-track faculty on campus by 100 over the next 5 years. He was also a distinguished legal historian, with an impressive research career.

President Hall's death will have tremendous impact on my campus. We were gaining momentum and hope under his leadership; Now that will stall as we move to an interim president. Having lived under one interim president before Hall was appointed, it is clear that they generally stay the course until a new president is appointed. So, the progress we were making, including a stronger family leave policy that I worked very hard on for the past two years, now will be on hold.

His death, like Mr. Young's, shakes my assumption that life is a given as I go about my daily routines. One day you could be enjoying coffee on the deck with the Sunday newspaper, and the next day . . . . All the more reason to push boundaries, to get out of comfort zones, to help others, to better yourself, and your world.

All three of these men who have died this summer enacted the virtue of a life lived fully. May we all strive to be so vivid.

The Theme of This Summer

2006-08-12T10:17:00.000-07:00

"Out of my Comfort Zone."

I ran into a colleague on campus yesterday, and he reminded me that we only have three weeks left of summer. I did not need to hear that.

But, it got me thinking about what has transpired this summer. As usual, I have not gotten as much accomplished as I had envisioned, and a trip to Minnesota is not going to happen. But, I have done some things, many of which are new for me - and challenging: the dogs, the longer runs, gaining authorization to drive the ambulance for Helderberg volunteer EMS, learning guitar, and doing a whole new kind of data analysis than I have done before. The latter two have been the most frustrating. I still cannot get my fingers to make a nice sounding G chord, and the data analysis has been so very slow.

But, I am learning things, and pushing myself out of well worn routines. That makes for a satisfying summer.

Flashbacks of Katrina

2006-07-31T19:56:00.000-07:00

Those watching world events have heard of the deaths of civilians, women and children, in the Lebanese town of Qana by a precision - guided Israeli bomb. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert expressed regret at the killings, but Olmert and Israeli officials have said repeatedly that Hezbollah must be stopped and that civilians were given notice to evacuate.

The implication is that Hezbollah must be stopped at any cost and that those who failed to evacuate are responsible for their deaths.

The later echoes in my head.

Didn't "Brownie" and various government officials after the chaos that Katrina invoked in New Orleans say the same thing of those who didn't get out before the huricane hit?

Do none of these government officials recognize how difficult it is for many people to "evacuate" on a moment's notice? Especially people who are poor, who do not have cars, who do not have safety nets and social networks to give them some place to go? If Hezbollah was the primary social safety net in Southern Lebanon, then the Lebanese government likely was not assisting evacuees out of Southern Labanon in any way. How are the elderly, young families, the destitute to get themselves out of bomb blasts?

Moreover, how the hell are people supposed to flee on wrecked roads and bombed bridges while Israeli missiles rain down from on high?

The rhetoric that civilians were warned constructs a moral exit for Israel. If they warned civilians to leave, but they are still there, then it's their own fault they were killed. The blame is on them (and Hezbollah), not on Israel.

Other Israeli rhetoric further pushes blame elsewhere. The New York Times reported the following:

But Dan Gillerman, the Israeli ambassador, said Hezbollah had used Lebanese civilians as human shields and had deliberately exposed them to danger in the hopes of stirring expressions of outrage against Israel. “What is happening around this table is exactly what they wanted to happen,” he said.
Lebanese civilians “may have been killed by Israeli fire,” Mr. Gillerman said, “but they are the victims of Hezbollah, victims of terror.”

Now that is a twisted logic.

No, they are the victims of Israeli's grossly disproportionate force against Hezbollah's kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers. Soldiers mind you, the guys who are in the military, who are not civilians, who are generally, for lack of a better phrase, "fair game" when violent force is the order of the day.

Using precision guided weapons heightens Israel's culpability. They knew exactly what they were hitting when they blew up the apartment building in Qana this weekend. They knew it was an apartment building. Israel has footage of what appears to be a rocket launched from somewhere behind the apartment building. Note: behind the building, not from the building. Yet, Israel chose to bomb the building. Why? (And for that reason, why on earth did they bomb the U.N. building last week?)

The 24 hour cease fire that Israel announced after the deaths has, unsurprisingly, been rescinded, the New York Times is reporting. Bombing continues today.

And this just underscores the problem. Civilians weren't able to get out before Israel began bombing. They've been stuck. They'd still be stuck if it weren't for the Red Cross and Lebanese soldiers, and a short period of calm to get themselves out.

How many are still stuck? Pawns in a terrible game that kills dozens by the day.

Cease Fire?

2006-07-29T08:43:00.000-07:00

So, after the meeting in Rome and the lack of a clear message from several world leaders (thanks to Rice thwarting such efforts), Isreal's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert declared that the lack of a message out of the meeting in Rome was a signal that his country was authorized to keep bombing southern Lebanon to smitherings.

Now, hold on a minute.

The U.S. was the only country quibbling over the terminology of "immediate" in the phrase "cease fire." The rest of the leaders, especially the European leaders, were crystal clear in their opposition to the continued airstrikes and ground war by Israel as well as Hezbollah's launching of rockets into Israel.

Fortunately, the European Union leaders have continued to put pressure on Isreal and on the United States to reject a long-term war. Indeed, after Prime Minister Blair met with Bush yesterday it seems that Bush is changing his message somewhat on the Israel/Hezbollah war and seems to now be pushing for a shorter time period before international peacekeepers would move into the region. Until then, Isreal can continue to pound sounthern Lebanon with abandon, but once the peacekeepers enter that can no longer happen. Israel will be effectively reigned in from their current unabandoned bombing spree.

Now, I should be clear and say that Hezbollah needs to be disarmed. They have basically held Lebanon hostage, bringing death and destruction to thousands of Lebanese citizens who have no interest in this war. The U.S. needs to help Lebanon strengthen its military and its government. One of the reasons Hezbollah continues to exist and to receive tepid suppport from Lebanese citizens is because Hezbollah runs hospitals, grocery stores, and cares for the poor. The Lebanese government must step in and offer better services to its citizens, removing the incentive for support of Hezbollah.

I fear, though, that the overwhelming force Isreal has used on Lebanon against Hezbollah and by extension the Lebanese citizens will turn Arab sentiment further against Israel and create renewed sympathy for Hezbollah. Indeed, reports from CNN suggest that is the case.

It's hard to get people to join your cause if they think you're evil.

Cease Fire

2006-07-26T17:53:00.000-07:00

Today, Condoleeza Rice met with leaders from several European and Arab governments to discuss a possible cease fire between Hezbollah and Israel (Syria, Iran, and Israel were not there, I should note - the three countries that might be able to actualize a halt to the killings). The Bush Administration dragged its feet, sending Rice only this week to the region to talk with both sides.

The Administration clearly has no desire to see a cease fire between Israel and Hezbollah. Although the other government officials came to the meeting in Rome arguing for a demand for an immediate cease fire, Rice was hell bent on preventing that.

The BBC reported that nearly an hour and a half was spent debating whether the phrase "immediate" should be used in relation to a cease fire. In the end, Kofi Annan, still declared the need for an immediate cease fire, and BBC News ran with that as its headline.

[Note: the photo is courtesy of About.com. I quite like the Condi-Conan look.]

Her rhetoric justifying a position of no cease fire is worth considering. According to the New York Times, Rice said after the meeting:

"It doesn't do anyone any good to raise false hopes about something that's not going to happen. It's not going to happen. I did say to the group 'When will we learn?' The fields of the Middle East are littered with broken cease-fires."

Translation:

"What is the point of working towards a solution? People will only die anyway? Best to give up now, and just let Israel bomb Hezbollah into the stone age, along with the Lebanese civilians who are stuck in the middle."

The U.S. apparently has a new approach to diplomacy: Diplomacy works best that works least.

Time has a compelling commentary on "Condi in Diplomatic Disneyland".

Indy and Bella's Journeys

2006-07-24T06:47:00.000-07:00

For those of you who have been following our dog adventures - a little update. Yesterday, Jon and I attended a "happy hour" for dog owners at a local pub. The benefits went to Peppertree Rescue, where Jon and I got the big beasts.

When we arrived we were surrounded by friendly people who knew these two dogs - especially Indy. Several people praised us for having taken him in, and a few said they didn't think he'd ever get adopted and would be put down.

I also learned a little more of the circumstances of the dogs. Bella was originally named Edie. She came to Peppertree from Georgia with her sister Eva in November, 2005. She was adopted out twice and returned because of her many issues. Somewhere in there she was renamed Bella.

[Side note - you'll see in the photos that Bella loves having things in her mouth: sticks, kongs, bones. She'll wander around the house all day with her red kong in her mouth. If she were a human, she'd be a smoker.]

Indy was turned in to the Mohawk & Hudson Humane Society as a stray. He was found with a second dog, both of whose faces were covered in porcupine quills. The Humane Society was able to track down Indy's owner, but when they called to tell them that Indy had been turned in, the owner said they were through with Indy and didn't want him. Thus began Indy's journey in foster homes where he became an escape artist of remarkable feats (jumping over 6' fences, eating through plastic crates and tearing through screen doors).

It gives me some more perspective on what these dogs have been through.

I have to say, though, I am getting very sick of Bella's bad habits. She has two that are frustrating. First, she jumps. Second, she's not quite housebroken. If anyone has any tips on how to deal with these two problems, please share!

The First 5K

2006-07-22T11:54:00.000-07:00

Today, in the rain, my friend Emily and I ran the Berne 5K. We placed first and second in our age class. You should be impressed . . . . or not, since Emily and I were the only two people in that class!

There were 103 runners, so a perfect first race - small and surrounded by friendly people, some of whom were my neighbors.

The route of the race is one that I run at least once a week, and it was a joy-ful feeling to run with others on what is usually my solo course.

It was a delight to run it with Emily. She has run marathons, and I've been intimidated by her feats. But, after today, I have new confidence that perhaps I could run longer distances. If she could do it, then maybe I could do.

I have felt the runner's high - and it is good.

Where is Jenny S-G?

2006-07-20T13:54:00.000-07:00

Joshie Juice posted on the last entry a question: Where am I?

I've not been a good blogger for a while. I know. I've been sort of hiding. I don't have good reasons, but I have reasons.

The run-up to the trip to Dresden and Budapest at the end of June was hectic. I had both an encyclopedia entry and a book chapter due immediately upon my return, and as usual it was a scramble to get them finished.

Upon my return, I've buried my head deep in analyzing and writing up research I've been working on for forever now. At the conference in Dresden it sunk in that I'm going up for tenure in a year, so now is the last big push. When I'm in the writing stage, I find it best to be a bit of a recluse (even a bit enjoyable after the high social interaction and distractions of the semester). I'm trying to be disciplined and not distracted by such things as thoughts for the blog.

As well, I feel overwhelmed by what is happening in the Middle East and in the United States both domestically and our foreign policies, and I don't even know where to start to express my thoughts on the many bad happenings.

Even more preoccupying, I've been taken with the journey of my fellow ASC alum Danna and her husband Mike who had a brain tumor. He died Tuesday, and I've been coping with my sadness for her, my grief that has resurfaced about my mom's death, and my own fears of mortality . . . . I'm afraid of death, so I'm not blogging (how's that for an excuse?).

But, on the positive side, I'm running my first 5K on Saturday with my friend Emily (I know, you couch potatos will say there's nothing positive about running a 5K race . . . . . ) . I've been running two days a week and doing a long run on weekends. I'm up to 7 miles. My goal is 10 by the end of the summer. The dogs make great running companions.

So, maybe now that I've broken the seal of solitude, I'll be a good blogger again?

And Then There Were Two Dogs

2006-07-06T04:37:00.000-07:00

(Apologies for being quiet on the blog - I've been traveling)

So, May 15, we brought a second dog into our lives. Her name is Bella (that's the name she came with). She's a 62 pound black lab/hound mix, and around a year old.

After we got Indy, we thought he would do well with a second dog in the house. He is quite anxious, and we hoped that a second dog would help him be more calm. Plus, Peppertree Rescue has an endless supply of needy dogs, and we felt we could accomodate one more.

Bella's backstory is that she came out of the New York shelter system. Apparently, her first owner got her as a puppy, lived in an apartment somewhere in the city, and turned her in to the shelter after neighbors complained that Bella barked while the owner was at work. Bella was subsequently placed in a couple of different homes up here, but her barking when left alone was found unsuitable. When we got her, she was being kenneled at an animal hospital. We agreed to long term foster care for her to at least get her out of the animal hospital. If she worked out we'd keep her.

Two days after we got her, I left for Eastern Europe. My unlucky husband had to manage two big dogs in my absence. Bella turns out to be very poorly mannered, not really knowing or obeying any commands, and walking like a torpedo when on a leash. But, Jon worked magic while I was gone, and she is increasingly becoming a well-behaved dog. It helps that she is very lovey.

As per my last post, the plight of dogs in shelters has not decreased. Give to your local animal shelter, and urge your friends and relatives to spay and neuter their pets. Consider taking in a first or second (or in our case sixth) animal. The rewards are endless.

Rescuing Indy

2006-06-12T18:25:00.000-07:00

I've been busy, and have neglected this little blog. What has kept me busy, you ask? My new dog, Indy. We adopted him from a local rescue on April 29th. He appears to be part Lab, part Rhodesian Ridgeback. He's tall, and weighs about 75 pounds. We're not sure how old he is - somewhere around 4.

We don't have much back story on him. He was dropped off at the Mohawk and Hudson River Humane Society the beginning of March. He was dropped off with another dog, possibly his brother. The other dog was adopted right away, and Indy became very depressed - he became listless in his cage, turning constantly, and not eating.

Peppertree Rescue, a local area rescue, adopted Indy out of the shelter. Peppertree's mission is to rescue and to adopt out dogs with good natures. They work closely with area Humane Societies to rescue dogs marked for death because they're not being adopted out. Indy was poorly behaved at the Humane Society, and wasn't showing well, but the folks at Peppertree saw that Indy just needed a second chance. I am overjoyed with the new addition in our herd of beasts.

In the process of adopting Indy, my husband and I have become highly aware of the state of animal abandonment in the United States. In adopting Indy, we felt we had made a small difference, but as I look at the Peppertree site and see a new round of dogs in need of homes, I realize that it's a never-ending tide of unwanted animals.

The Mohawk and Hudson River Humane Society, for example, receives over 12,000 animals every year. They receive no government funding for their work housing, healing, and helping abandoned animals (so give generously). Right now, they have over 70 cats in need of adoption. 70 cats! Are there 70 people willing to take them in? And even if there were, in another month, there would be 70 again. It's a grim cycle.

But, we made a teeny tiny difference, and we saved a really good dog from death.

Diebold: Keeping America Safe From Democracy

2006-05-16T18:27:00.000-07:00

A new report is out by Harri Hursti, a computer programmer in Finland, who tested Diebold's machines to see if they could be hacked to alter election returns.

Hursti, in participation with BlackBoxVoting.org, has released a report which detail several vulnerabilities with the Diebold machines - now the most used machines in the United States.

In short, Hursti's report says that the machines can easily be compromised if a hacker has a few minutes of time with the machine. Compromises can be very difficult to detect. In the process of "installing" updates to the software, malicious code could be written into the install and the machine would still report a successful installation of updates. The hack could cause the machines to fail to work or, worse, alter votes without anyone detecting the comprised vote.

So, today, which is a day of voting in New York for local school boards and school propositions, I thank my lucky stars that I'm still voting on those fantastic, old 2 ton pull-lever voting machines.

Faulting David Horowitz

2006-05-09T04:34:00.000-07:00

A group called Free Exchange on Campus has produced a document countering the many baseless claims Horowitz makes in his book The Professors. The find many niggly little errors, such as that only 100 professors are profiled in the book (Horowitz claims that there's actually 103 profiled, because he discusses 3 in his introduction). They also find more weighty problems, such as a lack of any evidence supporting his claim that conservative students are being punished by liberal professors by lowering their grades.

Thank goodness. I think some academics would prefer to just ignore Horowitz on the hopes that he would just go away. But, he's not likely to do that, and it's better that the claims get countered than to let them stand.

Academia, intellectually, is about falsifying, truth telling, and producing compelling argument. It's time we tell the truth and let it speak louder than Horowitz.

For more info, there's a good story in Inside Higher Ed this morning.

When Rumsfeld Lied 2,414 Died and Thousands Injured (and it's not over yet)

2006-05-07T07:38:00.000-07:00

After watching my pre-recorded episodes of the Simpsons last night, I flipped through the channels looking for something to watch as I stalled going to bed. I landed on C-SPAN, which was showing a purple heart award ceremony. Seven men and women stood in front of the dias in their military fatigues to receive the award, their family members by their sides. Two men were in wheel chairs; a woman walked with a prosthetic leg. As the medals were awarded, family members softly wept. I did too.

This is not news, but it's worth being said: The war in Iraq has taken a terrible toll on our military members and their families. And, I found myself asking as I watched last night: To what end?

When Donald Rumsfeld beat the drum for war in 2002 and early 2003, I was doubtful of his claims of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in Iraq and his claims of a link between Iraq and al Qaeda. Now, more than three years later, the press is finally highlighting the claims made before war and the reality that we now face - no weapons, no connection between Iraq and al Qaeda, massive loss of life and limb of Americans sent to "liberate" Iraqi people and of the Iraqis we're supposed to be liberating.

Times Union reporter Eric Rosenberg wrote an article that was published this morning (in the paper but not on their website) that details the claims Rumsfeld made before we went to war and the claims he's made since, denying the original claims.

At a forum in Atlanta last Thursday, Rumsfeld was challenged by a questioner. The questioner claimed that Rumsfeld had lied when he said that he knew where the weapons were located in Iraq in the days leading up the war. Rumself replied

"I did not. I said I knew where 'suspect' sites were."

But Rosenberg's investigation on Rumsfeld's claims in 2002 and 2003 prove otherwise:

On March 30, 2003, 11 days into the war, Rumsfeld was asked in an ABC News interview if he was surprised that American forces had not yet found any weapons of mass destruction.

"Not at all," Rumsfeld said, according to an official Pentagon transcript. "The area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces control is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat."

Well, not exactly.

So, because of the deception, the claims of certainty that Hussein threatened the security of the United States, we went to war. But, the claims were false, and the war our men and women continue to fight is premised on false assumptions.

We can tell ourselves that we're fighting a war on terror, but it feels to me that we're fighting figments of Donald Rumsfeld's imagination. And the price we pay for that fight is precious life.

The Way of Business: The CEOs Get Richer While Minimum Wage Stays the Same

2006-04-17T18:15:00.000-07:00

'Tis the season when publicly traded companies hold their annual meetings. So, in my Yahoo email account I receive notices from the few companies we own that it's time to vote my shares in preparation of the shareholder's meeting. I employ the same ethic to voting for boards of directors and shareholder proposals as I do for voting for candidates, which means I spend more time than I should researching who the various board members are and what the shareholder proposals mean.

(Before you jump to the conclusion that college professors get paid too much if I have money to play the stock market, let me be clear: the play money came from a lovely and lucky windfall my husband and I received for being in the right place at the right time in the real estate market in Philadelphia. That whole buy low, sell high moto works.)

Here's what I learned from my research this weekend: If you want to be rich, become a CEO.

Of the companies I researched this weekend, only one CEO made less than $1 million in total compensation in 2005, and that was Charles Schwab, the namesake and CEO of the financial company. He made $911,000 in compensation. And that figure was so low becuase he refused the bonus that his Board of Directors Compensation Committee had allocated for him. His peers in the same market sector made on average $4.7 million in 2005.

By contrast, the CEO who made the most money of CEOs in my portfolio was the Chair and Executive of a mega-conglomerate called Cendant. Henry R. Silverman raked in $24 million last year. (Cendant is a company that owns everything for Coldwell Banker to Orbitz, to Cheaptickets, to Wyndham, to Budget. It's breaking into four companies over the next few years.)

Now, you might think that perhaps that's just what CEOs of companies of his type make. No. The average compensation is $3 million.

Well, maybe you'd think that he must really deserve it. This must be a company that's stock is soring, that is gaining ground in its many business ventures, that is outcompeting its competition. No.

Of all the stock I own, it's the one of two companies that's sucking ass. I've lost 26% of my money on the company since I bought into it over a year ago.

So, why does this guy deserve to make 800% more than his rivals? Beats me. It's counterintuitive that somebody who is the CEO of a conglomerate can make money while the company is losing it.

What's really aggravating is there isn't much I or any of the shareholders can do about it. Executive compensation is generally not voted on by shareholders but is decided by a sub-committee of board members who chair a compensation committee.

Here's the rub: All those &$*%ers are CEOs themselves. So, it's a beautiful club to join. I join your Board of Directors and give you a nice fat salary, bonuses, and stock options. In return you join my Board and do the same for me.

Meanwhile, the federal Minimum Wage of $5.15 hasn't increased in 9 years, and the rising costs of fuel, food, and life's essentials have increased more than the 2% cost of living raises the rest of us working schmucks get per year.

Where's the justice?

Higher Education, Salary Gaps, and Manliness

2006-04-13T07:13:00.000-07:00

I've been working for two years now to improve the family/maternity leave policy at the University at Albany. During this time, I have grown keenly interested in gender disparities in higher education.

Inside Higher Ed is reporting this morning a new study that looks at the salary gap between male and female academics. In raw numbers, female professors on average earn 21.8% less than their male counterparts. The researcher, Paul D. Umbach, then identified several independent variables, including number of years in the discipline, number and types of publications, whether the faculty has external grants, and rank.

Factoring in all these variables reduces the gap to 6.8%. That's still a sizable number in my mind, although not nearly as grim as a full 20%.

Umbach isn't sure that the gap indicates a genuine bias towards giving men higher salaries or if the bias is more discipline based - some disciplines are populated with more female faculty (schools of social welfare/social work, schools of education) and others with more male faculty (engineering, computer science, biology, chemistry).

I'm not sure that there's a "preferrence" in salary allocation to male faculty either, but I am sure there are system wide biases. There are clear salary discrepencies between, for example the hard sciences and the humanities, with hard science faculty making more than arts faculty, and hard science faculty bringing in more external funding.

To me, this just indicates that our society, for better or worse, places more value on "hard" sciences than on humanities. And, with more women attracted to the humanities than the sciences, and women's work less valued than men's, we get further reinforcement of the justness of the salary discrepancies.

Speaking of women's work less valued than men's, I heard an interview on WBUR Boston's "On Point" with Harvey Mansfield, who has written a new book, Manliness.

He defines "manliness" as "confidence in a situation of risk," and argues that this is a quality that men have and that women lack (tell that to Rosa Parks, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Madeline Albright, Ida Tarbell, Margaret Thatcher, and any number of women who have stood strong in the face of adversity and danger).

He argues that we need more "take charge" guys; that our gender-equal society has constructed women and men as interchangeable. This is bad for our society, since women are inherently NOT interchangeable with men.

Women are inferior to men. Yes. That's what he said in the interview.

And certain jobs women do are sheer drudgery for men, like housework, and should be done with pride by women, but should not be done by men, since it's beneath men to do.

I would not want to be Mrs. Mansfield.

South Dakota Senator Bill Napoli is Looney

2006-04-08T11:16:00.000-07:00

As I hope everyone knows by now, South Dakota's government recently passed a law banning all abortion except if the mother's life is threatened. They are hoping that the law will be challenged eventually at the level of the Supreme Court and that Roe V. Wade will be overturned.

My cousin Loy and her partner Bob live in South Dakota, and Bob has created an auction site on E-Bay to raise money for a proposed women's clinic on the Pine Ridge Reservation. It's an interesting way to ensure women have access to basic medical services, including abortion, even if the ban takes effect--since Pine Ridge isn't subject to state laws. Even if the ban never takes effect, South Dakota currently only has 1 abortion provider in the entire state located in Sioux Falls, which is on the eastern end of the state and a five hour + drive from the western end of the state. More clinics in South Dakota are desparately needed.

The item being auctioned by Bob to raise money for the clinic is a card with a statement by one of the South Dakota Senators, a truely remarkable character, by the name of Bill Napoli. Napoli on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer justified that there shouldn't be an exception in the bill for rape and incest, because such an exception would naturally occur for a particular type of rape victim:

"A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life."

Bob, who has a mischievious wit, has created a card printed with this bizarre declaration, which Bob has titled the "Sodomized Religious Virgin Exception" that he's auctioning on e-bay to raise money for the Oglala Women's Clinic.

Here's where things get very strange.

Bob mailed a copy of the card he's auctioning to Napoli. Napoli sent him a note back that made my jaw drop. You can see a copy of it, but the text reads as follows:

Newland,

What's with the Bullshit Card? You want to be friends again????

After reading some of your diatribe on a couple of the blog sites, I now understand you much better.

Your apparent self importance isn't near what you think it is. As a matter of fact, for a person who has failed so miserably in his life, I am surprised at your consistent criticisms of people who used to have a modicum of respect for you.

I suppose too many years of seld induced abuse has definitely taken its' [sic] toll.

No Joke Newland! If I could have had you arrested for the threat you made towards me and my family, I would have.

Napoli.

The blog comments and the "threat" that Napoli refers to was a comment Bob wrote on the Rapid City Journal Blog that said

When Napoli's father was growing up here in the wild west, his cafe was burned to the ground. A sign was left nearby, 'Italian nigger go home.' I happen to believe that can happen again. Ah, the good ol days.

The moderator of the blog wrote a note following Bob's comment with this:

I got a backchannel complaint from a reader who said someone could take the above comment as a threat or intended threat. It didn't seem like a threat to me, but I called Newland and asked him to clarify the remark. Bob told me his "ah the good old days" comment was in reference to Bill N's statement that he believe [sic] we could go back to the days when young men were forced to marry the girls they impregnated and live up to their responsibilities.": "I was mocking his comments about shotgun weddings," Bob told me. he said his point was that the "good old days" might not have been so good. Bob also said, "I think Napoli's been a valuable asset to South Dakota."

As a friend of Bob's, I can also say confidently that Bob's comment was not intended in any way to be a threat to Napoli.

Nonetheless, Napoli's pissed at Bob. So, Napoli contacts the South Dakota Criminal Investigation unit and has an agent sent to Bob's house to interrogate him about the supposed threat. Bob wasn't arrested, since there was no threat there, but Napoli certainly was doing his best to threaten Bob.

So much for free speech in this country--especially speech targeted at a looney South Dakota Senator who is so self-important as to think he can treat women like vessels and dissenters as criminals.

Research on Liberals and Conservatives on Campus

2006-03-30T04:32:00.000-08:00

Continuing the conversation of the accusations by David Horowitz of a left-wing bias on college campuses, Inside Higher Education interviewed a researcher who has been investigating the claim that students with a conservative ideology are more likely to get low or failing grades in their classes.

The researcher, Markus Kemmelmeier, at the University of Nevado at Reno studied a cohort of nearly 4,000 of students over four years. His surveys of these students indicated that, no surprise, students with liberal leanings are more likely to enter fields, such as sociology and cultural studies. Students with conservative leanings are more likely to enter fields, such as business and economics. Grades in those disciplines overall tend to be lower than in the arts and sciences:

So when conservative students complain that their grades are lower than their liberal friends, they may be right--but it has nothing to do with bias.

Grades in the disciplines where liberal students tend to gravitate suggest no relationship between their ideology and the grades they received; whereas:

In disciplines that tend to attract more conservative students (economics and all of the disciplines in business schools), conservatives have a slight edge -- the equivalent of0.25 on a 4 - point graduate point average scale.

This difference is slight, and the researcher cautions liberals declaring a conservative bias on college campuses. Instead, he believes his research demonstrates that there is not a pervasive, systemic liberal bias on college campuses.

Sounds about right to me.