honoring tip

For much of the past year, Cambridge has been awash in banners celebrating 100 years since the birth of the late Democratic congressman and former speaker of the House, Thomas "Tip" O'Neill, who was born and raised in the northwest part of the city. Tip was an extremely influential politician who served more than 30 years in the United States Congress. He began his career campaigning for FDR and ended up as the second-longest-serving House speaker in history!

Cambridge is holding a number of events to honor Tip's 100th birthday today, but I'll be marking the occasion in my own way. In 2008, a bakery called Verna's renamed one of their most popular donuts after Tip, as he had grown up just blocks away and was apparently fond of the local establishment. So of course I'll be ordering half a dozen of their Honey "Tip" Donuts in his honor. Happy birthday, Congressman!

idiocracy, interrupted

Today, the Internet is protesting a House bill called the Stop Online Piracy Act, which is purportedly aimed at wiping out online piracy but which, as written, would actually open the government and certain private parties to completely altering the way the Internet, digital commerce, and digital citizenship work. For a non-lawyer, I know a fair amount about this particular bill, what it actually says and doesn't say, thanks to my having family with intimate knowledge of both Internet and intellectual property law. It all started two months ago, when I received a phone call from said family. It was a distress call the likes of which I hadn't heard in quite some time. The fam was lamenting the fact that these two pieces of legislation, SOPA and PIPA, were flying through Congress with bipartisan support, and they were absolutely insane and ridiculous, and there was nothing anyone could do about it. "SOPA?" I asked, honestly not sure whether he was talking about a new law governing cleansing products. "What the hell is that?"

He then told me all about it, and I got hot and bothered, to the point of wanting to do something. So I tweeted. And he doesn't tweet, but he talked to people. And as is wont to happen, those people talked to other people. It seemed clear that from the community of those who had figured it out, a discussion would need to grow—and fast—were there any shot at stopping this thing. So it was awesome to see that it did begin to grow, in ways little and not-so-little.

Before long, I found myself watching hours and hours of the House Judiciary Committee's SOPA markup, which...is not like me at all. Let's face it: Much as I care about American politics, C-Span is pretty much where I draw the line. But to quote my friends from down South, hooeeeey boy! Was that an eye-opener. Washington Post commentator Alexandra Petri likened it to waking up from a nightmare only to realize the nightmare is real. Right-o. See, I've known for a long time that things in Congress are bad. But this was embarrassing. I listened for about eight hours, and the quickie version goes like this: The vast majority of the folks voting on this thing don't have a clue about what they're voting on. They huff and haw and bandy about words they think make sense but which, in fact, make no sense at all.

Which is kind of what you'd expect if every member of Congress were somehow Sarah Palin. But of course, and very thankfully, this is not (I think) the case. So what's really the problem, it would seem, can be summed up in two words: Lobbying. Money.

Taking a step back, we have to agree that here's a situation where almost everyone is on the same side: Foreign thieves stealing American goods is bad! We should stop them! Yet the bills were written not by people who carefully weighed all the factors and players in this game and crafted a plan of attack that would get to the core of the problem while protecting other American interests. Nope, the bills were (as is the norm these days) written by people who pay Congressfolk to vote the way they want them to vote. In this case, that would be Hollywood and other Big Content Providers who feel the need to stop at nothing to try to save their dying business models—even if it means spending over $2.5 million in legalized bribery or screwing with the First Amendment along the way.

The truly weird thing about this case, though, has been the bipartisan nature of it. You wouldn't bat an eyelash if it were all Republicans, since they like to slide crazy stuff through Congress ALL. THE. TIME. (I’ll spare you the links, but trust me on this one.) Usually, there are Democrats to push back. This time, however, the hot-shot movie producers and such who pony up big cash for the Dems each November are the ones trying to slip this legislation through—and they’ve paid off both sides of the aisle. The approach seemed to work pretty well until the tech sector and intellectual property experts started asking questions. And that brings me to the other weird thing about this case: Early on, the opposing side wasn't even allowed to be at the table! Yup, you heard me. In the lone hearing on the bill, only one representative of the Internet community was asked to speak, and it was clear she was only invited to serve as a punching bag. It recalls days of yore when, with 10-year-old index fingers firmly planted inside our own ears, we would yell, "Nya nya nya nya, I can't hear you!"

So back to last month's markup. There was a point in the day in which it seemed like reason was going to prevail: Democrats and Republicans alike began to come out of the woodwork, admitting they were playing with fire to support a bill that they themselves had no real understanding of. Sadly, that didn't last long, and suggested fixes after suggested fixes were voted down. But it was almost Christmas, and the few reps who'd brought their A-games were refusing to back down, so a vote to move the bill out of committee was finally delayed until the new year.

And that brings us into the here and now... In fact, it recently started to look like the not-so-friendly fire might be history. Over the weekend, statements emanated from the White House intimating strongly that President Obama would veto any bills with workings similar to the current SOPA and PIPA. Representative Eric Cantor was later reported to be dropping action on SOPA if there was no consensus, which got the blogosphere rejoicing—a bit prematurely—over the bill's death. So here we are, just a few days later, and a significant chunk of the Internet is blacking out in protest and in solidarity with the cause. The truth of the matter is that there is still serious work to be done in the way of killing these bills. But, how cool is it to know that there are tens of thousands of tweeters out there who now sport anti-SOPA badges? That everyone who trots on over to Wikipedia today to look up Elton John's birthday is gonna at the very least now have heard of SOPA and PIPA and the efforts to prevent them from becoming law? That you can get your own "I fought SOPA and all I got was this stupid t-shirt"? It's true, we haven't won the battle yet. But I'm impressed as hell that we've all rallied the troops enough to fight another day. ∞

Update: Hooray! SOPA and PIPA have officially been shelved just two days after the blackouts. The issue is sure to be revisited soon, but score one for democracy in action.

up up and away

last one by shlomi yoav

And so it is time for me to bid adieu to the space shuttle. The very last mission is set to begin this week with the launch of the Atlantis orbiter from the Kennedy Space Center on the Florida coast. This particular launch is a gift from the American people, whose representatives voted last year to tack on one last go before the entire shuttle fleet is permanently grounded and the orbiters put on their pedestals for future generations to ooh and ahh at. Yet those same politicians are also now looking to drastically defund NASA in what amounts to a serious rethinking of whether or not America has a real future in space. Will the U.S. forever take a back seat to the Russians or Chinese or anyone else in our quest to land humans on Mars? It could very well happen. In the U.S. we certainly like to talk the talk when it comes to being innovators, in space development and otherwise, but so often in the past decades, walking the walk has proven to be another story altogether.

Millions of words will be spoken, penned, blogged, and microblogged about this final countdown, so I won't clog the fiber optic cables with too many thoughts on this bittersweet occasion. But I will say that in the end I choose to believe that the American people will keep outer space in mind when they fill out their ballots of the future. And how, you ask, will we do this in the face of economic uncertainty, declining political will and an ever-straining space budget? By reaching out to each other. In the past couple of years I've met, virtually and in real life, more folks than I'd ever known existed who consider space exploration—both robotic and human-based—one of the most important endeavors humanity can undertake. And these folks have passion. If we can group together, to share our excitement with those unaware of what our space program actually does, to get our representatives to think beyond the next election and out toward the stars, to teach our little ones about what they might one day discover beyond our blue planet, we'll have a force to be reckoned with when it comes to our future in the cosmos.

A friend of mine is still hoping to be an astronaut someday. Despite NASA's uncertain future, he and others like him are keeping the dream alive by continuing to do what astronauts and all scientists do: constantly asking questions. What a stupendous waste it will be if we let this collective bundle of energy and human spirit go for naught.

And with that, I'll leave you with this brilliant 45-minute visual feast of the space shuttle on its way off the pad. I dare you not to marvel as you sit and watch, agog and wide-eyed, at the ingenuity it took to make this peculiar bird fly up, up, and away. &infin

on politics: a picture speaks a thousand words

I had zero intention of writing a blog post today, but this photo wouldn't let me go. It so perfectly encapsulates the serious frustration I've been feeling toward our government this year. It was taken moments after a bill to extend health benefits to 9/11 responders—the very "heroes" that members of the Grand Old Party have invoked time and again in the wake of that tragic event—was blocked by Republicans from entering a full vote in the U.S. Senate. At left, New York's junior Senator Kirsten Gillibrand seems utterly defeated, while her colleague and mentor Charles Schumer, NY's senior Senator, tries to console. One can only imagine the words between them at that moment. I'm reminded of that scene in Lost in Translation...you know the one. It doesn't matter what he said to her, and you don't need to know because you get the gist.

Sadly, it was just the first major blow for the two, and especially the junior Senator, on this day. Hours later, the Senate GOP blocked another vote, this time on a bill that included a provision Gillibrand had put her full force behind, a repeal of the military's discriminatory Don't Ask Don't Tell policy. Even the recently despicable Joe Lieberman of Connecticut had gotten behind this one! And yet most of the rest of the Senate's conservative wing refused to set aside "procedural niceties," as one blogger so eloquently put it, to ensure equal rights for all our service men and women. W...T...F?

But back to the picture. Schumer, the sage elder who you can tell here has been around the Congressional block a few times, may be more adept at this point at swallowing defeat, and it's heartwarming to see him encouraging his counterpart to keep her chin up. Gillibrand is a young, energetic Democrat, elected to the Senate just last month after serving two years in the seat Hillary Clinton vacated when she became Secretary of State. I can't help but feel that Gillibrand in this photo represents what most Democrats are feeling these days: growing disappointment and disillusionment in the wake of what seemed so promising back in 2008. To be sure, it's nothing new for me to get annoyed with Republicans. And I freely admit that an unfocused Democratic caucus shoulders a certain amount of blame for recent events. But the GOP obstructionism has gotten totally and completely out of hand. I recently saw a blog post explaining how today's Republican strategies closely resemble those of Cold War-era Soviets. They include:

•Taking extreme starting positions
•Employing emotional tactics such as exasperation, or getting angry and storming out of the room
•Viewing concessions by the adversary as a sign of weakness
•Delaying giving concessions and then only giving very small amounts
•Paying no attention to deadlines

In other words, they're being little brats! And hypocritical little brats at that; see 2:31 in this short video on GOP obstructionism. The poster went on to quote (a hardly liberal) David Brooks:

"[My] problem with the Republican Party right now ... is that if you offered them 80-20, they'd say no. If you offered them 90-10, they’d say no. If you offered them 99-1 they’d say no. And that’s because we’ve substituted governance for brokerism, for rigidity that Ronald Regan didn’t have."

Sigh. Anyway, as I tweeted earlier, hang in there, Senator Gillibrand, and keep fighting the good fight—even though I get that it might feel right now like you're smacking your head against a slab of cold concrete. To put things in a completely random perspective (and I know you're probably a Yankees fan but go with me for a second), this is sorta how we Mets fans feel every year. We deal. We pick up. We carry on and try again tomorrow. By the way, I hear you turned 44 today...here's hoping a few birthday drinks were able to numb the pain. ∞

Photo by Drew Angerer for The New York Times

felons and felines

William Minnick is a wiry-haired inmate at the Indiana State Prison, a maximum-security correctional facility about 50 miles east of Chicago. He's been behind bars since 1982, when he was convicted of assaulting and killing a young woman in her home. Minnick knows a thing or two about the darkness of prison life; he was on death row for many years until his sentence was stayed in 2004. Even then, he remained confined in a small cell with little to live for.

Enter Mr. Magestyk, Minnick's slightly overweight and clearly pampered cat. The pair became fast friends in 2006 when Minnick, now 47, adopted Magestyk (pictured below) as part of a pilot program to allow inmates to care for homeless cats. Today, Minnick and Mr. Magestyk are inseparable. By all accounts, the introduction of this little ball of fur into Minnick's cell has given him a new lease on life.

I learned about the Indiana State program after coming across a fascinating blog post detailing one woman's quest to discover how cats are making life better in a place where 70 percent of convicts are there for murder. Diana Korten, who not only visited the prison but also interviewed corrections officers and inmates there about the program, found that aside from giving inmates something to love and be responsible for, the cats have mellowed them out considerably—which means fewer incidents of violence for officers to deal with.

Not that the cats haven't instigated a few rumbles... In one case, an inmate was found murdered after he had allegedly spit soda on another inmate's cat. Another time, several convicts put out a contract on the life of whomever was responsible for killing the cat of a particular prisoner. The cat killer was never found, but the fact that his own life was threatened illustrates how closely the inmates at Indiana State have bonded with their felines!

Simply put, this program appears to be a blessing for a population that doesn't have much else going for it. And considering there are so many cats in need of homes, it seems like a great system to try out in other prisons across the country. Some might argue, of course, that allowing prisoners to own cats or other animals is a pleasure they shouldn't be afforded, especially when the crimes they've committed are particularly heinous. But it's my belief that convicts should be given some way to grow as people while they're behind bars. And if a prisoner can find some humanity with the help of a pet then why shouldn't he have that opportunity? It should be noted, by the way, that inmates in the Indiana State Prison program have to pay out of their own pockets for the upkeep of their cats—which means for most of them that they have to work to earn money for food, toys, and medical expenses. So the kitties give their owners that extra incentive to stay on task, too.

Anyway, if you're interested in learning more, here's a short piece detailing some of the history of the Indiana State Prison cat program, and an article on pet therapy for prisoners. You can also check out the video below on cats in prisons, including at Indiana State (Minnick and Magestyk make an appearance). &infin

trouble in the jungle

Okay, boys and girls, time for a quiz. Your question for today: What's the worst oil spill you can think of?

Did you say Exxon Valdez? Oh, sorry, no. In the grand scheme of things, the estimated 30 million gallons it released into Alaska's Prince William Sound are chump change. Try again! Okay, the Deepwater Horizon disaster must have been worse, you're thinking. And you are correct. But even this year's catastrophe—which, depending on who you ask, leaked anywhere from 206 million to 348 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico—pales in comparison to a systematic leaking of some 18 billion (with a "b!") gallons' worth of petroleum-infused toxic waste into the waterways and soils of the Ecuadorian Amazon Rainforest over the past 30-odd years.

Known to many as the Amazon Chernobyl, this horrid large-scale spill has poisoned once-pristine rivers and vegetation, killed untold millions of animals, and plagued thousands of Ecuadorian and indigenous peoples with various types of cancers, birth defects, and other ailments. Of course, with all the pollution taking place in a relatively remote jungle over several decades in a country you probably can't even place on a map, it'd be no surprise if you'd never heard of this environmental catastrophe. Well, you have now. Keep reading.

I learned about the calamity affecting the Ecuadorian region of Lago Agrio (Spanish for "sour lake") through a documentary released last year—and available now on DVD—called Crude. The film charts the struggles of some 30,000 Ecuadorians and indigenous peoples who've banded together to file a class action lawsuit against the Chevron Corporation, owners of the former Texaco, who were the initial drillers of oil in the 1,700-square-mile Lago Agrio area. The suit charges that Chevron should be forced to pay an estimated $9 billion—about two weeks' worth of their annual revenue—to clean up the contamination caused by Texaco's lingering oil pits and install new water systems.

Of course, prosecuting one of the wealthiest and most powerful companies on the face of the planet ain't easy—and Chevron is playing hardball. The script of this true-to-life drama has Michael Clayton written all over it, with corporate finger-pointing, alleged assassination attempts, and legal shenanigans the likes of which U.S. courts could only dream of (the case is being tried in the perpetually corrupt Ecuadorian legal system). At the end of the day, it's impossible not to take sides with the individuals who have no choice but to consume their polluted waters and face the consequences: a destitute mother who struggles to come up with the money to pay for cancer treatments for her teenage daughter; a baby, not two weeks old, covered head to toe with a dangerous skin rash common among those exposed to polluted waters; even a poor white goose, whose intake of oily water has clearly affected her nervous system to the point where she's paralyzed, webbed feet flailing in the air, staring at the cameraman with the look of certain death in her eyes.

The picture is grim, and it's an uphill battle for these folks, yet the film suggests some hope. One ray of light comes in the form of a Vanity Fair article, which exposes the issue, at least temporarily, in its high-profile pages. Another comes from Trudie Styler, wife of the rock star Sting, who teams up with her husband to raise awareness and money for the victims of the Lago Agrio disaster. As the film shows, their case has become a veritable David-versus-Goliath scenario, with no immediate end in sight. But with a scrappy legal team led by the feisty Ecuadorian prosecutor Pablo Fajardo and a savvy New York litigator, Steven Donzinger, it's still within the realm of possibility that David may actually win...if the trial ever ends. Anyway, check out the links below if you'd like to learn more. &infin

If you've got 10 minutes: See the 2005 New York Times op-ed about the Lago Agrio disaster and/or Trudie Styler's call-to-arms in the Huffington Post. You might also try this more recent article in the British Independent, or make a quick visit to the watchdog site ChevronToxico, which is devoted to the issue.

If you've got 15 minutes: Watch the 60 Minutes segment on the Chevron lawsuit.

If you've got 30 minutes: Read Vanity Fair's tell-all article about the lawsuit, from its 2007 Green Issue.

If you've got 100 minutes: Here's the website for the Crude documentary; it's also available on Netflix or for purchase from Amazon.

Images by the Rainforest Action Network on Flickr

snail mail to president obama

Dear Mr. President,

I have never felt compelled to write to someone in your office before, but after hearing you speak to Congress on health care this evening, I simply had to put pen to paper (well, fingers to keyboard, anyway).

I am 32 years old, in overall good health. My brother, J, however, is very ill. Just 30 years old, he suffers from a rare and serious form of multiple sclerosis. Every day is a struggle; there are times when he literally cannot move his limbs, and when the most basic of tasks are impossible. For the last four years, J has endured a cocktail of drugs, from daily injections to monthly infusions of steroids and other chemicals that have helped with the MS but ravaged his body in other ways.

For the moment, my brother enjoys a good job that accommodates his physical ailments and provides private health insurance. But even so, his medical bills are extremely high. He has been denied various treatments despite his desperate state, and he is often forced to go to the emergency room, where out-of-pocket costs are exorbitant. But perhaps scariest of all, Mr. President, is that my brother lives in Massachusetts, the one state in the Union that assures health insurance for all. What of all the other Americans, suffering day in and day out as he does, who can’t get any coverage at all based on their condition, which will never go away and will therefore be “pre-existing” for the rest of their lives?

To be sure, I didn’t write to burden you with another sob story. What I am writing with is my message that you must pass this health care bill. This may be the fight of our time, but it is one that simply cannot fail. I urge you to continue to reach out to our young people, to educate them about how government works for them. One of the biggest problems I see with American politics today is that the right aims to keep its followers down. They want to keep information out of the hands of those who most need it. You and I both know that it’s the poor and uneducated who have most at stake with this bill—and who least understand it. It’s an unfortunate state of affairs when fear is the driving factor holding up as important a bill as this one. And so I urge you to keep fighting the good fight.

Thank you for all the hope you inspire in so many of us.

Sincerely,

MW

the myth of the unbiased judge

The confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor began today, and by all accounts, plenty of senators are ready to dig their heels in and start grilling when the questioning session begins in earnest tomorrow morning. I suppose this is to be expected nowadays, and I'm not particularly concerned that Sotomayor will have any trouble getting confirmed. But I wanted to take a moment to discuss what many believe is going to be a central argument in these proceedings: namely, that a Supreme Court justice (or any court judge for that matter) is supposed to be completely unbiased when deciding his or her rulings.

To this I say: Nonsense.

Justices of the Supreme Court—and indeed of any trial court in the United States—are charged with applying the rule of law as written in the Constitution and the web of Congressional laws passed in the 200-odd years since our country began. As discussed in some detail in yesterday's New York Times, some, including Chief Justice Roberts in his own confirmation hearings, have likened Supreme Court justices to baseball umpires; the idea is that they simply enforce the laws, they don't make them. But everyone knows that judges' decisions are but interpretations of the law. Laws aren't always black or white; if they were, we wouldn't need judges. Indeed, the word "judge" implicitly suggests using one's experiences and understanding of the law to make a conclusion about a given case.

So how do judges make legal decisions? Well, they hear arguments from both sides and look to current laws and judicial precedents to guide them whenever possible. But when precedent is lacking, or when society has changed such that precedents must be rethought, it is personal point of view that necessarily impacts how a judge views the facts of a case. This is indisputable; there would be no "conservative" judges or "liberal" judges otherwise—there would simply be judges. And there wouldn't be any need to question Supreme Court appointees quite so fiercely; everyone would be in agreement about what's right and what's wrong.

Ergo, to complain about a judge drawing on her background to help interpret laws and predict how decisions may play out in the real world is kind of crazy. I guarantee you that every Supreme Court justice has drawn from his or her experiences at one time or another during his or her career. That legal verdicts are also called "opinions" is another etymological clue to the fact that even the Founding Fathers realized that judges would draw from their lives to make decisions.

From everything that's been said so far about Sonia Sotomayor, it seems clear that she's a superb judge who has been as objective as realistically possible in her decisions. Indeed, out of some 400 cases she's decided as an Appellate Court judge, only three were overturned by the Supreme Court—and of those, two were narrow decisions. Sotomayor may be wishing right now that she had refrained from her "wise Latina" comment, but most people forget that immediately before it, Sotomayor declared that "there can never be a universal definition of wise." This was, perhaps, the wisest remark of all. ∞

rebuilding america

Good things are starting to happen on the streets (and bridges, and railways) of America.

A few weeks ago I attended a lively panel discussion at the Municipal Arts Society called "Transportation and New York's future." The panelists, who represented various levels of governance of the metro area's infrastructure, fed us with insights into the development of some long-awaited road, subway, and train improvements in and around the city. With President Obama pledging significant funds to repair and upgrade our crumbling infrastructure, the sense of excitement at the possibility of pipe-dream projects actually seeing the light of day was palpable.

For example, one of the city's new ventures, which was unveiled this week when parts of Broadway were officially closed off to vehicular traffic, has pedestrians—not cars—ruling Times Square for the first time. So far the move, which aims to emulate programs in other major cities, has been hailed mostly as a success. But that's just one of many projects around the country aimed at improving the landscape of our roadways and railways, so that they can more efficiently—and cleanly—serve not only cars but buses, cyclists, train commuters, and pedestrians.

A glance at the current issue of GOOD magazine is all you'll need to get your wheels spinning (so to speak) on the topic of rebuilding America. It contains an almost mouth-watering feast of articles and infographics focusing on the future of transportation and—there's that ugly word again—infrastructure around the U.S. If you don't get GOOD (and I suggest that you do if you're interested in science, environment, design, society, and the public good), you can power through the online version of many of the articles from the issue.

In particular, I recommend checking out their "livable streets" contest posting, which features interactive graphics depicting the revitalization of various American cityscapes. Some of the designs may at a glance seem prohibitively expensive, especially for cities that are already reeling from the current economic downturn. But the ideas are there to grow on, and could be implemented slowly, or with some creative, cheaper solutions. One example is the idea of making crosswalks built out of brick, which gives intersections more of a sense of pedestrian right-of-way. Of course, ripping up roads to put bricks in is expensive. But that hasn't stopped Providence, Rhode Island, from painting fake bricks onto their crosswalks to get the same effect (pictured)—but for much less cash.

Anyway, keep your eye out for more on this hot topic. I long to see the day when cars and buses and bikes and trains and our own two feet can get us where we need to go without causing a fuss and completely wrecking the environment in the process. It may take some doing, but I think we're on a promising new track. ∞

death penalty doldrums

I knew we'd find a bright side to our current financial crisis, but I had no idea it would come from death row. Earlier this week, CNN put together a thoughtful article about the fact that state budgets are so screwed right now that a number of states are thinking about putting an end to the death penalty. Hurrah!

I've always been an opponent of the death penalty. My biggest beefs with it are that it isn't enforced fairly; it costs a fortune to taxpayers; and, most of all, I believe in the "an eye for an eye makes the world blind" view of revenge.

But let's talk money, since that's the issue we face today. Many people still believe, wrongly, that it's way more expensive to keep a man in jail for the rest of his days than to put him to death. The truth of the matter is that a state's cost to process a non-death-penalty trial can be a million or more dollars cheaper than the cost for a death-penalty case. According to the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, over the last 25 years we've spent (and I do mean you and I, because taxpayers foot the bill) $253 million on capital punishment cases—way more than it would have cost if all the defendants had been given life without parole.

Death penalty proponents tend not to be very forthcoming about the financial costs of capital punishment. But the states themselves are now having to take a closer look; they simply can't afford not to. Of course, there will be opposition. But it's a small victory, in my eyes, for the anti-death-penalty campaign. ∞

dark days of aught-eight

We're in a curious place in the race for the White House these days. Less than a month to go, and things are getting decidedly nasty. The Swift-boat style attacks on Barack Obama are in full swing. We knew the Republicans would bring it, but it's pretty disturbing how bad it's become.

Last night I heard political commentator David Gurgen describe what he saw at a recent rally: people actually calling for the murder of Barack Obama. Videos taken at GOP events have shown people in such furor that I can't help but think back to the film Mississippi Burning, which portrayed the racial hatred that permeated the Deep South in the 1960s. And McCain and Palin are doing nothing to stop it. In fact, they seem to be spurring on the spewing of hatred (and the dissemination of outright lies); Palin in particular has all but called Obama a terrorist! McCain may not have gone that far, but if his supporters want to think that way, he seems to be just fine with it.

So how did we get here? A friend of mine recently posted on his blog the idea that the Democrats are drawing on hope in this election, while the Republicans are drawing on fear. It's not the first time I've heard that equation, but especially with what we're seeing with the current financial crisis, the GOP certainly seems to be ratcheting the fear factor up a notch...and adding a certain amount of unfounded hatred to the mix.

The tax issue is just the tip of the iceberg. McCain and company harp so hard on the "Obama wants to raise your taxes" line, despite the fact that to his face, on two national debates, and on countless commercials, Obama has made it clear that almost everyone in the U.S. will pay FEWER taxes under him than under McCain. More disturbing are the rumors that Obama is a terrorist because of his middle name (Hussein) and/or because of his connection with a man with questionable ethics (Ayers). I mean, the hypocrisy of that, especially with Palin—who was recently found guilty of abusing her power as governor—is astounding.

But more intriguingly, I just wonder where all of this hate is getting the McCain camp. I can't help but think that some people in the Republican Party must be turned off by this level of fear-mongering. John McCain has, until this election, seemed like a sensible guy that Republicans, as well as some independents and even Democrats, could like. What is it saying about his leadership style if he and his people have to resort to the lowest of the low blows to get a win?

It's also just depressing, though, to know that this culture of fear, which has been promoted by Republicans for some time now, is propelled by a continually spiraling education system. It's no wonder that our schools are failing, that our country's collective math skills are going down the drain, and that many people consider the "intelligent elite" the scum of the earth when the Republican agenda has been to keep money out of public schools and to turn both teachers and students into zombies who can do nothing else but study for standardized tests.

I don't happen to agree that all's fair in politics. Regardless of what happens a few weeks from now, I think we're heading down a dangerous road. I only hope that we can reverse course before it's too late. ∞

Update: Looks like I'm not alone in feeling this way; this spot-on op-ed appeared the day after my post.

george w. bush 2.0

I was having a conversation with a friend today about the improbable candidacy of Sarah Palin for the position of Vice President of one of the most powerful countries in the free world. We were discussing how grossly underqualified this woman is to be the country's second-in-command, much less the proverbial heartbeat away from the oval office. But more specifically, all we could think of was that Ms. Palin is basically a clone of George W. Bush—with heels.

You could talk about political ideologies; Palin and Bush are both right-wing Christian conservatives who'd be thrilled to repeal Roe v. Wade and dozens of other cases that have empowered people in this country. And they both obviously disdain science, conservation, and reason in favor of rewarding their friends and super-rich Republican cronies. But it's the way they work that really makes them seem like they were separated at birth.

For one thing, Palin and Bush both surround themselves with people who do the talking for them. They know that errant words can and will come back to haunt them, so they've both taken every step to keep layers upon layers of press handlers, who very rarely let them speak candidly and face their accusers. Bush and Palin are also masters of changing the subject to avoid real issues.

But most of all, Bush and Palin are both compulsive about manipulation, secrecy, and personal revenge. They will both do whatever it takes to get what they want—including firing people because of personal vendettas—and they've shown that they'll abuse their power to make sure no one gets in their way.

So we have to ask ourselves: Is Sarah Palin really who we want as the second-in-command of our country? I realize that John McCain is the first name on the Republican ticket, but his selection of Palin has been a real eye-opener. I mean, McCain keeps calling himself a maverick. But Palin is the same type of leader as Bush—minus the Washington experience! So in choosing Palin, McCain is in fact embracing what Bush stands for. Talk about fuzzy math!


In the last two months, we've seen McCain try to distance himself from Bush with words, while his actions have made the case that he and his running mate are just George W. Bush 2.0. A perfect example is the recent "interview" he gave to Time magazine. His behavior makes it crystal clear that, if he wasn't there already, McCain has completely defected to the dark side.

In short, McCain and his Veep choice are more of the same old team that brought us a pointless and devastating war; who constantly sided with big business and big oil at the expense of average Americans; who set us back decades in terms of cleaning up the environment and following progressive policies to fight pollution; and who ruined our good standing in the world, both financially and ideologically. I really hope that in the coming weeks, any undecided voters will come to realize how dangerous John McCain and Sarah Palin would be for our country if elected. It's time to restore some decency and reason to the White House, and the only person who's going to do that in this election is Barack Obama. ∞

refueling america: grasping at straws

Hello readers! Apologies for the long drought in posting. It's been a busy 6 weeks...

So, there's been a lot going on in the world since my last post. I'll start my return to the blogosphere with a piece on a new marketing strategy I've been hearing about as I watch Mets games (an activity that has become a lot more painful since I wrote last...yikes). This strategy's moniker? "Let's Refuel America."

The label alone makes me think of such falsely named Bushy initiatives as No Child Left Behind and Clean Skies—and for good reason. The program is run by Dodge, Chrysler, and Jeep, who have teamed up to offer customers who buy one of their vehicles a deal where they pay no more than $2.99 per gallon for gas in each of the next three years. As the program website states, after buying a car or truck, you get a special credit card that magically converts every gas or diesel gallon you purchase to $2.99. (You simply pay the initial bill if prices go back under $2.99 per gallon.) Of course, as average gas prices have recently passed the $4-mark, the deal may seem like a pretty sweet one. Here's why it's not!

For one thing, I looked into the fine print, and you can only use the card for a certain amount of gas. I don't think they're worrying about people reselling the gas—although stranger things have happened. But they preset a maximum amount of fuel that you can purchase that's based on the miles-per-gallon consumption rating of the car you buy (of course, there are other restrictions on grade of fuel you can buy, too). For instance, if you buy a Jeep Grand Cherokee, which gets a paltry 16 miles per gallon, you can buy up to 2,250 gallons of gas—which, by the way, doesn't actually need to be used in that Grand Cherokee you purchased—over three years. But if you buy a Jeep Compass, which gets a much more respectable 24 miles per gallon, you can only purchase 1,500 gallons over the three-year term. How annoying is that?

Of course, the bigger problem with this program is that it promotes our continued reliance on driving fuel-inefficient cars. Rather than following the trend of many other car companies, who of late have obviously been working much harder at building and promoting hybrid models that both use less gas and pollute less, Chrysler, Jeep, and Dodge are effectively giving a big middle finger to the environment just to make a buck. "We'll pay the oil companies off so you can use our gas-guzzling cars!" they're saying. "Who cares about cutting our dependence on oil and our emissions of noxious, polluting carbon dioxide? We've got SUVs to sell!" It's really sad. I urge anyone in the market for a new car not to fall for this horrible scheme! If you really want to save money on gas and you must get a new car, buy one with fuel economy of 40 miles per gallon or more. Here's a list of cars that get great mileage. ∞

super days ahead

My second grade teacher had a habit of labeling most of the work I handed in with her signature smiley face and the word "Super!" or, on occasion, "Super Duper!" if I'd done a particularly good job. I'll be thinking of Mrs. Walsh these next few days as her exclamatory adjectives come to embody two of the most highly anticipated events of 2008: the Super Bowl, and Super Tuesday.

First, let's talk football. The NFL playoffs are really the only time I get "super excited" about professional football. The energy they come with is exactly what's missing from our tepid-by-comparison process for crowning the collegiate champion team. (See an earlier post for more of my thoughts on that.) This year, there's the added bonus of two equally compelling stories: the as-yet undefeated season of the New England Patriots and the inspirational story of the New York Giants, who went into the playoffs as heavy underdogs and have won three games in a row to get to their first Super Bowl in eight years. Of course, being a lifelong Giant fan, it's been fun listening to everyone get excited, especially our mayor, Mike Bloomberg, who's not only made a serious wager with the mayor of Boston, he's also symbolically renamed an Upper East Side bar, from "Brady's" to "Manning's." Anyway, it should be a good game, what with the Giants being the only team this season that really gave the Pats a run for their money. By the way, during halftime, skip Tom Petty and head on over to the Animal Planet channel, which will be airing their annual Puppy Bowl and Kitty Halftime Show.

The other half of the next few days' "super duo" is Super Tuesday, which holds intrigue of its own and, I dare say, may be a tad more important than the first "super" event. The Republican race is down to four candidates, although I'd be shocked if McCain and/or Romney don't force Huckabee and Paul out of the contest with strong showings. I think even Republicans would agree, though, that the more intriguing contest is the one on the Democractic side. I can't say I've ever remembered a primary quite as hotly contested as this one, so it'll be interesting to see whether Clinton or Obama will walk away with this thing this week or whether primary season will march on into the spring. I kind of hope things are settled relatively quickly, to be honest - I think the Dems are going to need to unite as quickly as possible in preparation for the upcoming battle in November. That said, the Annals of Spacetime blog proudly endorses Hillary Clinton for President! Don't worry, I won't be offended if we don't make it to the national endorsement lists...

Regardless of who wins in both contests, let's just hope the next three days live up to their "super" billings! It's funny, back in 2000 we had the same setup: the Giants were in the Super Bowl and Al Gore was later up for election against W. I remember thinking I'd be okay with the Giants losing the game as long as the Democrats won in November. Needless to say, my team ended up losing both contests...so hopefully we'll do a little better this time around! ∞