Let Them Eat Cake

Monday, September 29, 2008


It was pretty touch-and-go last Friday. It wasn't until just before 11:00a.m. that John McCain decided to attend that evening's debate with Barack Obama.

Here where I teach, at Frederick Community College, we had scheduled Debate Watch Parties. Teaching in a community college with a 100% commuter population, and very few students taking Friday classes, presents its own challenges when planning a Friday evening event. Once the drinking age was moved back up to 21 from 18, it's been difficult to get students to attend college social events. I can remember being an undergrad at Hood College back in 1980 and Dr. Len Latkovski invited us all to watch the debate. He brought a 12-pack to the classroom. Those were the days.

The best I can offer my students is pizza and soft drinks and a sheet cake for each candidate. The idea is, once the debate is over, the students come up and take a piece of cake of the candidate they think won their vote.

It was a rainy evening, McCain's appearance was shaky, and I knew the newspaper and NBC affiliate were coming to do a story on college students involved in the political process. I pulled up in my pizza-laden pick-up truck to find several cars in the Conference center parking lot.
They came. Over 60 college students came back to campus at 9:00 on a Friday night to watch a presidential debate for what was probably the first time in their lives.

This is a year of firsts. I work a regular Friday afternoon shift at Democratic Headquarters in Frederick, Maryland. In 2004, I was needed for the full day—10:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. This year, I am only needed from 4-6. Four years ago, I would spend the 8-hour day with very little to do. This year, in get much more traffic in a single two-hour shift than I got in a full 8-hour day in 2004.

It is not just that have registered more voters this year, but I have registered more adults who are voting for the first time in their lives. And I am registering voters who do not look like typical Frederick County Democrats. The typical gun rights, hard working, low taxes, family values, flag waving, socially conservative, yet politically apathetic, resident of Frederick County isn't buying it anymore. He wants things to change.

Things are different this year. But I don't see how it cannot go Obama's way. For the first time in a long time, the Electoral College is the Democrat's friend. In the 35 remaining days, I don't see how the map can change. Obama will get 283 electoral votes, despite Bubba. For the most part, Bubba lives in states that are going red anyway.

Actually, I had Bubba in my class last Thursday. I covered a class for a colleague and the class had been reading about politics: the Electoral College, the Meaning of Liberal and Conservative. A brash, vocal, opinionated young man was expressing total disinterest in politics in total and an admiration for Republicans in general. I went to the computer and brought up a presidential quiz and asked him to complete it while the class looked on. I don't have to tell you his reaction when he found that Obama would support his stand on the issues more that McCain.

So I say, "Let them eat cake." And, last Friday after the debate, they did. If you click on the link above for the first mention of the cakes, you can see them pre-debate. Click here, to see the results.

Like this cake, in 35 days, victory will be sweet.

This column was originally posted on airitoutwithgeorge.com

Let them eat cake

Here are the before and after photos of the Vote by cake after the first McCain/Obama debate

Why I Support Barack Obama

Monday, September 22, 2008


In Sunday's "Frederick News Post" a conservative letter writer attempted to explain why liberals (I think he means me) hate Sarah Palin. In typical Republican fashion, he begs the question by creating a fiction that liberals hate her and then proceeds to tell us why we are wrong.

In fact, I don't hate her; I actually kind of like her. There is much to admire about her. She's clever, confident, assertive, organized, and apparently fearless. I just don't agree with her. And I don't support her or John McCain.

What I hate is the McCain campaign playing fast and loose with US security by suggesting that this otherwise fine woman is a good choice to lead this nation in the event that an elderly man with a history of health issues should be unable to complete his term as president. I hope that is the last I will write about John McCain's choice.

The point of today's column is why I support Barack Obama.

Obama is a servant leader. Robert K. Greenleaf first described the Servant Leader in an essay published in 1970. In that essay, he said, "The servant-leader is servant first . . . It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead. That person is sharply different from one who is leader first; perhaps because of the need to assuage an unusual power drive or to acquire material possessions . . . The leader-first and the servant-first are two extreme types."

John McCain, in contrast, is a leader first. A leader in the military tradition where one seeks leadership and expects obedience from subordinates who do not necessarily grow under leadership as much as survive to achieve an objective.

Greenleaf goes on to describe, "The difference [between leader-first and the servant-first]manifests itself in the care taken by the servant-first to make sure that other people's highest priority needs are being served.

Obama's policies have our priorities in mind. They seek to provide health care for all Americans as a basic human right. To educate children, not just test them. To secure a source of energy that looks to the future and new technologies rather than to cling to a finite, fading resource.

To determine if a leader is leader-first or servant-first, Greenleaf suggests, "The best test, and difficult to administer, is: Do those served grow as persons? Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants? And, what is the effect on the least privileged in society? Will they benefit or at least not be further deprived?"

I am always puzzled why the least privileged in our nations so often vote against their own self interest. The Bush tax cuts, once rejected but now supported by McCain, did not help the least among us—yet many of them support these cuts. Equally baffling is the widespread support of the elimination of the inheritance tax—cleverly renamed "death tax" that allows someone to leave to his heirs, tax-free, up to $2 million in 2006-2008 and to $3.5 million in 2009. Seriously, how many people who support this nonsense will ever inherit anywhere near this sum? To swindle gullible Americans and trick them into supporting something that actually hurts them is not servant leadership—it's a con game. It does not help them grow; it holds them down.
Barack Obama has the potential to make a fortune, yet he chooses public service. Republicans are quick to spew, "But he's a millionaire!" Technically, yes. The Obama's have a net worth of $1.3 million, mostly from the royalties on his book and his wife's income as a corporate lawyer. That's not even the $5 million McCain says would make him wealthy.

My point is, Obama didn't cash in—he pitched in.

Barack Obama is one of the smartest people to ever seek the office of the presidency. We should be pleased by that—not suspicious. He has steadily taken on new challenges and the causes of others. Obama has held elective office for 10 years. He has taught constitutional law at one of the top law schools in the country. He has experience politics and government from the ground up as a community organizer.

There is no real way of knowing if someone is qualified to be president. But I am confident Obama is. Let's take a look at his qualification.

He earned a B.A. in Political Science from Columbia University where his major was International Relations. His senior thesis topic was "Soviet nuclear disarmament."

At Harvard Law School he earned J.D. and was magna cum laude. He was also elected president of the Harvard Law Review. For those who don't know what that is--it's a really big deal.

From 1983-1988 he was Director of the Developing Communities Project.

He is a scholar of U. S. Constitutional law, and, from 1993-2004, he was a Senior Lecturer in Constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School

He served as an Illinois Senator from 1996-2004 where he was chairman of the Health and Human Services Committee

Obama has been a United States Senator since 2004, where he has been a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on European Affairs

He has served on the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions; Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; Senate Committee on Veterans' Affair

As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Obama has made official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa.

I am not going to compare John McCain's career here. I am weary of disparaging the opponents. With 42 days until the election, I hope we can look for reason why we should vote for our candidate—not against the other. The American mood seems to be that we are looking for a president with vision, integrity, wisdom, courage and a record of good judgment, cool temperament, and the ability to make us all better people.

That is why I support Barack Obama.

This column was originally posted on airitoutwithgeorge.com

When Life Begins

Monday, September 15, 2008


Today is going to be one of the worst days of my life. At 5:00 this evening, I am taking my almost 15-year-old-dog in to have him euthanized.

My wife and I have been watching this once-strong, fast, athletic guy become frail and crippled. He can't even walk without the aid of a leash looped under his belly to hold up his once-powerful, now-useless back legs.

So it is a little difficult to think of politics this week. So for now, Sarah Palin can adjust her lipstick and say, "Thanks, but no thanks" for the pork that she orders while at her home is Wasilla taking a per diem for travel. John McCain can continue to pretend that he still has some honor while he cozies-up to Karl Rove and does to Obama what Rove did to McCain in 2000. Joe Biden can figure out how to debate a lightweight without looking like he is "Picking on a girl." And Obama can take this time to figure out how to be outraged without looking like an angry black man.

You all go ahead. I'll catch up with you soon. Tonight, I have to bury my dog.

Actually, it reminds me of a story:

A Christina preacher, a rabbi and a secular humanist are having a discussion about when life begins. The preacher insists that life begins at the moment of conception. The humanist counters that life begins when the baby is able to thrive on its own outside the womb. The rabbi says, "You're both wrong. Life begins when the kids move out and the dog dies."

My kids moved out years ago. I guess life begins tonight.

So, while I am on the subject, and in a life-and-death kind of mood, let's assume for argument's sake that life begins at conception. Put aside, for the moment considerations of choice and abortion. Let's suppose that the issue is settled in Palin/McCain favor and all abortion is banned. The choice has been taken away.

Shouldn't those who took the choice away now take responsibility for the consequence of that lack of choice? Aren't they responsible to make sure the unwanted child is loved and wanted? And clothed and fed, and schooled and sheltered, and healthy and happy? Isn't it now their—our—responsibility?

You know what I think—take away the choice and assume the responsibility for your choice to deny someone else a choice. Yeah, it's confusing. Better yet, I think men should just stay out of it. We will never be pregnant. We will never have to make that choice. I trust women to decide. If they can get together and come up with a solution, men should just shut up and go along with it.

But if life begins at conception, what about the 400,000 frozen, fertilized (meaning "conceived") embryos? Are they not "people"? Do they not have the right to life? Is it not de facto abortion to allow them to wither in liquid nitrogen until they become non-viable? Don't we put people in jail for failing to care for their children and causing them to die as a result? Why is this not discussed?

What ever happens, choice-no choice, abortion no abortion, I just want kids to have a fair chance at life with a family to love them and be sad when they die.

Once, I get over the loss of my friend, the election will still be there. The issues will still be there. And they will all seem important to me once again. Today—not so much.

This column was originally posted on airitoutwithgeorge.com

Jack 1993-2008

We had to put our Jack down. We had him for almost 15 years. He was a very good friend and the nicest person I ever knew. I really miss him.

McCain’s “Drive By” Vice President

Monday, September 8, 2008


It is Sunday morning, the day that my wife and dog sleep in and I have some alone time to read the paper and plan my favorite Sunday activity: watching the Sunday politics shows. Coffee in one hand the, newspaper in the other, I look to see who is going to be on which program. Let’s see . . . Barack Obama is on This Week at 10:00. John McCain is on Face the Nation at 10:30. Joe Biden in on Meet the Press at 10:30, and Sarah Palin is on . . . nothing.

It has been 10 days since Sarah Palin was tapped to be McCain’s Vice Presidential nominee, and she has not answered one reporter’s question. Not one.

She has given nearly a dozen speeches where she attacks Obama, belittles liberals, and charms the crowd. And then she is off like a gangbanger in a drive-by shooting. The McCain campaign strategy as far as Palin is concerned seems to be, “Get out while the getting is good.”

The best strategy for McCain is to keep her hidden, never let her speak without a script, don’t give anyone the opportunity to ask her a question until the debate, and then hope that her poor performance is overshadowed by calling Biden a bully.Here are some questions that desperately need asking.

“Are you now, or have you ever been a member of a separatist movement?” This seems a fair question given McCain’s “Nation First” theme at his convention.

“If we were to being offshore drilling today, what is the soonest we could begin to use this source of oil and what effect would it have on gasoline and heating fuel prices?” After the chants of “Drill Baby Drill” I think a good second verse is “When Baby When?”

“You were initially in favor of the Bridge to Nowhere and then said, “Thanks but no thanks.” Yet you accepted the money and used it for other projects. Given your opposition to earmarks, how can you explain this inconsistency?” This seems like something a reformer would want to clear up.

“While mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, you hired a lobbyist who procured $27 million in federal earmarks for your town. As a candidate for vice president, you pledge to end this type of practice. What changed your mind?”

“In 1996, you fired the police chief and library director of Wasilla for "not fully supporting her efforts to govern." The assumption of your constituents at that time was that you retaliated for their not supporting you in your election. This seems quite similar to the undergoing investigation into your firing your public safety commissioner for allegedly not carrying out your wishes that he fire your former brother-in-law. As a self-professed reformer, how can you claim to root out corruption given these past actions of your own?” Since administration is under continued scrutiny for its firing of federal prosecutors who were politically disloyal, it seems that McCain/Pail is indeed a third Bush term.


“You praised your 17 year-old daughter for making the right choice to bring her pregnancy to full term and marry the future father. Yet you seek to deny that same choice to others in your daughter’s situation. Shouldn’t everyone be given the same opportunity as your daughter?” This is a fair question given that she has built a political career by taking an extreme stance on reproductive rights.

This is a good start. We could go on and on: global climate change, endangered species, creationism...

I think we have enough here to fill the 30 minute interview. That interview is yet to be scheduled. According to reports, Palin is sequestered with tutors and unlikely to face any reporters before her Thursday, October 2nd debate with Joe Biden. Let’s call that the final exam.

Drive-by attacks are as despicable in politics as they are in street gangs. It is an act of cowardice. It is sneaky, It is dishonorable. In the meantime, it is helpful to recall American boxer Joe Louis (1914-81), who, on the eve of his fight with the light heavyweight champion Billy Conn, said, “You can run, but you can’t hide.”

This column was originally posted on airitoutwithgeorge.com

You Heard it Here First: Palin will Bow Out

Monday, September 1, 2008


On Monday, September 22, at 3:40 p.m., we will say goodbye to summer with the arrival of the autumnal equinox. By that date, we will also have said goodbye to the vice presidential hopes of Alaskan Hockey Mom, Sarah Palin.

That is how long it will take the McCain Campaign to realize what the rest of us already know. Selecting Sarah Palin was the worst mistake of John McCain’s life.

It was worse than getting involved with the Keating Five; worse than deciding to play a practical joke on the crew of the USS Forestal by wet starting his A-4E Skyhawk engines resulting in a fire that killed 27 and injured over 100 of his fellow sailors; worse than his embracing of Rovian tactics to make his campaign as ugly as Bush 2000.

Selecting Sarah Palin makes those mistakes look miniscule. The McCain Campaign is probably already crafting an exit strategy. It will go something like his:

Surrounded by her family at some Alaskan location, hair down and dressed-down, Palin, holding her infant son, will approach the podium. A concerned-looking McCain with wife Cindy by his side will hold hands as Palin bravely begins to speak. “Over these past few weeks, I have been honored and humbled by the confidence that Sen. McCain and the people of this great nation have placed in me by nominating me for the vice presidency. However, I have come to realize that the demands of my family, and my unfinished work of reforming the Great State of Alaska, must come first. Therefore, I must step down from the ticket so that . . .”

Or, it will go like this: In a tailored suit with hair up in business-like fashion, Palin and McCain appear together at a small press conference. McCain does not speak, but stands, alone, beside her. Palin begins:“The on-going investigation into the legitimate firing of an employee in my administration has become a distraction for Senator McCain and the campaign. Although these accusations have no merit, and I will be exonerated of all allegations, it is in the best interest of the Republican Party and the people of the United States that I step down from my candidacy of vice president so that Senator McCain can focus on what is really important in this election.”

There are other scenarios. The McCain Campaign will find some excuse to attempt to correct this bold blunder. Yes, this is the worst political blunder in modern American politics. And it proves what Barack Obama said last Thursday night: “John McCain doesn’t get it.” She’s not a plug-in Hillary, she is completely unqualified.

Alaska has a population the size of Charlotte North Carolina; Wasilla, Alaska, about the size of Thurmont, Maryland. Alaska is not a typical American state and does not reflect typical American issues and challenges. Alaska is a single issue state and Governor Palin is on the wrong side of that issue. They tout her reputation as a maverick and a reformer, yet to be a successful reformer in a rampantly corrupt state is just picking the low hanging fruit.

To argue that she has “executive experience” that qualifies her to lead this country, should a 72 year-cancer survivor die in office, is head-shakingly absurd.

By Republican qualification standards, Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon is more qualified. But then, Dixon is a Democrat. There are hundreds of Democratic women who are more qualified than Sarah Palin, but the pool of Republican women is pretty shallow.McCain has a history of poor choices and impetuous behavior.

Let’s hope it’s not too long before the American voter realizes that. Selecting Palin was a disastrous decision. It will be corrected. If not by McCain, then by the American voters.

This column was originally posted on airitoutwithgeorge.com

Gold Medal Platitudes

Monday, August 25, 2008


Michael Phelps, perhaps the greatest athlete of all time, is fond of saying, “Anyone can do anything they set their mind to.” He has said it more than once. He also credits his imagination for propelling him to victory.

So what are we to assume? His opponents lacked imagination? They were simply weak minded? They didn’t “want” it badly enough?

Apparently, it was not Phelps’ huge hands which allow him to scoop more water than the average person, his size 14 feet that propel him through the water, his six-feet-four inch body, his nearly six feet seven inches wing-span, his long torso and short legs, and his incredible work ethic—it was his mind and imagination that earned him a record eight gold medals in a single Olympics.

Don’t get me wrong. I admire Michael Phelps and think he is a likable, affable young man. But he is a young man. At 23, and on a global stage, he may be too young and too inexperienced to be doling out motivational advice.

Such platitudes by a global champion are possibly unkind, arguably arrogant, and usually not at all helpful. It minimizes the importance of having physical and intellectual abilities, and access to opportunities.

As an English professor at a community college with open admissions, we often get underprepared students in our classrooms. We offer them a range of “developmental” courses—some call them “remedial.” On more than one occasion, there have been students in my classes who were intellectually limited—some call them mentally retarded. One particular student could not do the work, could not keep up with the class, and was unable to participate in a meaningful way. I checked the records and saw she had taken the course before—and failed.

I met with her to discuss her progress and her goals. She said she was tired of working the third maintenance shift at the hospital and thought if she could finish college, she’d get a better job. She expressed determination to succeed.

She said that everyone in her family told her, “You can be successful at anything if you just try hard enough.” When she would fail, they would say, “Just keep trying; you’ll get it!”She could not have tried any harder. She could not have wanted it more. And she could not be successful in college.

Telling her—and others like her—that they are able to accomplish anything if they work hard enough may make the person saying it feel better, but it is not kind. It is cruel. And it is people like me who have to explain the harsh reality after others have showered them with positive platitudes.

A few years back, I was trying to run a qualifying time for the Boston Marathon. At my age, I had to run the 26.2 miles in 3 hours and 26 minutes—about a 7 minute, 50 second-per-mile pace. I trained hard, did speed work, endurance work, hill work, cross training, and watched my diet . . . everything the experts told me to do.

I ran the race of my life: at 3 hour 40 minute race—14 minutes too slow—half-a-minute-a-mile too slow. I did more than set my mind to it; I did more than imagine it. My body, unlike Michael Phelps’, is just not capable of doing what I imagined it could do. However, my body did exactly the best it could do.

We can’t all be Michael Phelps, but we can achieve our individual best—the best our bodies and our minds can do with our unique abilities and available opportunities.That is what Michal Phelps should have said: “We are all capable of accomplishing great things if we set our minds to them, allow our imaginations to flourish, and work very, very hard.”

That is what is possible for all of us. That’s the message America needs to hear.

This column was originally posted on airitoutwithgeorge.com

Boys Just Want to Have Fun

Monday, August 11, 2008

John McCain’s campaign has made a decidedly sharp turn toward the negative. After getting trounced by Obama’s triumphant European trip and McCain’s inability to rise above 45% in the polls, McCain’s people released a series of video ads designed to attack Obama on his strengths. I guess he wasn’t getting enough traction calling Obama a traitor and blaming him personally for gas prices.

You’ve seen them: Brittany, Paris, Moses. It’s the kind of sophomoric humor that is usually produced and created by snickering high school boys in the locker room. When McCain was asked about the nasty tone of these ads, he replied that he and the boys were “just having some fun.”

When McCain was asked why he was focusing on Obama’s image rather than the issues, he said, “Well, I don’t think it’s negative. I think we are drawing the differences between us.” “This is a very respectful campaign,’’ McCain said. “I’ve repeated my admiration and respect for Senator Obama. That clip is of Charlton Heston. It’s a movie. It’s a film, movie. So, I really appreciated the movie and I appreciated Charlton Heston’s magnificent acting skills as I saw it, but it’s a movie.’’

Just a movie, and he’s just having a bit of harmless fun, showing that maverick sense of humor, taking that Straight Talk Express on a side trip to Laughsville. McCain said, “We think, it’s got a lot of humor in it, and we’re having fun and enjoying it. And that is what campaigns are going to be like, that’s what every campaign that I have been involved in. I am going to enjoy it . . .”

It amazes me how short McCain’s memory is. In 2000, (the last, “every campaign that I have been involved in“) the Bush Campaign was just having a bit of fun with McCain.

Back then those fun-loving Bush folks called McCain “The Fag Candidate.” Actually they implied McCain was both gay and cheated on his wife. They suggested he had fathered an illegitimate black child and that his wife was a drug addict. Oh, those guys—such cut ups. How did they get any work done with all the hi-jinx?

Once they regained their composure from all the convulsive laughter over those gems, they spread the word that John McCain was unstable, that he returned from 5 1/2 years as a POW in North Vietnam with a screw loose. They asserted that his five years as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam had driven him insane. (Now, I’m confused. I thought those 5 ½ years made him a hero.) Bush operative, Ted Sampley even called McCain “The Manchurian Candidate.” Sampley went on to accuse McCain of being a “weak-minded coward” and that McCain had escaped death “by collaborating with the enemy.”

According to the New Yorker, that ‘ol prankster, Karl Rove, suggested McCain committed treason as a POW and fathered a child with black prostitute. You’d think that would make McCain hesitant to make the treason claim against Obama—that he’d rather lose a war than lose an election. I guess not. A good gag is a good gag.

I doubt that the Obama Campaign will nasty-it-up Bush/Rove style. But if they do, we can be sure that McCain will laugh it off. After all, they are “just having some fun.”

This column was originally posted on airitoutwithgeorge.com

Sticks and Stones . . .

Monday, August 4, 2008


Some people say the word “liberal” like it’s a bad thing—something we should be ashamed of. It’s right up there with pedophile and traitor. They kind of remind me of the children on the playground who think “gay” is an insult. Apparently, we godless tax raisers are responsible for all that is wrong with this country.

The other side—conservatives—has been trying to defame the world “liberal” for quite some time.

The ol’ standby: “Tax and Spend Liberals,” however, may be showing some wear now that they are the “Spend and Spend Conservatives.” You just don’t hear that one anymore. We were once proud to be liberals. A generation ago, John Kennedy, on September 14, 1960, said, “If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

What has happened is that we have allowed the Republican Conservatives to control the language. Limbaugh, Rove, Coulter, Hannity, O’Reilly, even our local mini-demagog , Maryland State Senator Alex Mooney, have spat the word with such disdain that we are now afraid to use it. They are trying to do the same with the name of our party. Obama is not the democratic candidate—he’s the democrat candidate. It’s now the Democrat Convention and the Democrat Party. They like the cacophony and harshness of the word—and how they get to say “Rat” at the end.

It looks like they have won the battle of words. Many of us are afraid to say we are liberal. We deny it and chafe at the accusation. So, we are now calling ourselves “Progressives.” I guess that’s kind of catchy. Let’s see them spit out “Prog-ress.” They will probably emphasize the “Prog” partand even call us “Progs.” They are relentless like that—kind of like gnats.

On the other side, the word conservative is so sacrosanct that, until recently, the party’s nominee, John McCain, was not even allowed to use it. To be conservative is to maintain the status quo, to be careful stewards of resources, to value personal freedom, to demonstrate character and family values. Yeah, right.

Conservatives like to remind us that Winston Churchill once said, "Any man under 30 who is not a liberal has no heart, and any man over 30 who is not a conservative has no brains." What they don’t say—or more than likely don’t understand—is the Churchill was referring to British conservatism—not 21st century American Conservatism. In fact, British “Conservatives” are more liberal than American Liberals!

OK, so we’re all heart and they are all brains. OK, let’s go with that: the Heart Party and the Brain Party.Let’s take a look at how the battle of hearts and brains is playing out with two issues: one local, one national. On the topic of dependence on foreign oil, the conservative solution is to drill for more oil domestically. This is definitely a conservative solution. It maintains the status quo, it is comfortable, easy to understand and about as challenging a concept as a connect-the-dots puzzle in Highlights Magazine. You don’t have to explain THAT one to the party of brains.

However, foreign oil is not the problem—oil is the problem. It is running out; the whole concept is no longer sustainable. Fixing the oil problem by drilling for new sources of oil is like trying to cure alcoholism by going to a different liquor store.

The progressive solution is to look beyond oil. Of course we are still going to USE oil for the near future but we need to stop investing our time, money, and (dare I say it?) brains on an obsolete system. We didn’t make a better buggy whip as an alternative to the automobile. We don’t walk around with cellular telegraph machines. There comes a time when we must face up the end of oil. Even if it is easily understood and comfortable, its time has passed. Even oil man Boone Pickens, (the money behind the Swiftboat Campaign and a big financial supporter of the current president of the brain party) has moved on.

Progressives look forward with bold new solutions to complex problems. Conservatives look backward to the tried and true—even if it’s been tried and no longer true.

On a local issue, here In Frederick, Maryland, we have a problem with where to put all of our trash. Our landfill is full and we are spending something like $12 million a year to take our trash and put it in someone else’s landfill. Our county commissioners are divided. Two from the brain party—Charles Jenkins and Lenny Thompson—want to build an incinerator at a cost of over $300 million.I’m not kidding. They want to solve a 21st century problem with a 1950’s solution. And they are not even embarrassed about it. The third Brain Party commissioner, David Gray, seems to be waiting to be convinced.

Weighing in for the Heart Party is Kai Hagen (and to a somewhat lesser extent, Jan Gardner). He would like to take that $300-plus-million and invest it in a 21st century solution. He wants to build a reclamation center where recyclable materials can be captured and reused instead of burned, thus reducing the amount of non-recyclable waste to a point where the system is sustainable. The revenue gained from the recycled materials would help offset the cost of waste disposal.The Brains have a problem with this; they understand burning. But picking through he trash? Jenkins is an outspoken advocate of the concept that human activity has nothing to do with global climate change. To him, burning is of no consequence.

According to Business Week, “8% of global oil production is siphoned off to make plastic each year. Recycled plastic, however, requires 80% less energy to produce. Recycled aluminum burns up 95% less energy. Recycled iron and steel use 74% less, while paper requires 64% less. . . One ton of recycled aluminum saves an average of $700 in electricity. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that if the recycling rate were to increase by just five points, to 35%, this would save the equivalent of almost 2 billion gallons of gasoline annually.”

The Party of Fear—the Brain Party –falls backward on comfortable, familiar easily understood solutions to new and complex problems. The Party of Hope—the Heart Party—looks forward to face challenges with bold new innovations to build a sustainable future.The challenges of the future cannot be faced with the solutions of the past.

You would think the Brain Party could get their brains around that concept—we certainly got our hearts around it.

This column was originally posted on airitoutwithgeorge.com

All in the Family

Monday, July 28, 2008


I was in the Elk’s Club last Tuesday. This is a place that one would think is pretty secure Bush Country. There are several flat screen TVs above the bar and several are usually tuned-in to Fox News. However, this evening all were tuned to the local DC news broadcast.

President Bush appeared on the TV and was reassuring the American Public that we are just fine, the economy is growing, gas pricing are falling and things are looking up. The kind of thing the Elk’s Club crowd would usually buy in to.A few barstools away, a man said—intending for all of us to hear—“Sure, he’s gonna be fine. He’s a multi-millionaire. He got what he wanted—he’s rich. The hell with the rest of us.”

I looked around—sure enough, I was still in the Elk’s Club. And I thought, “What has happened to the base?” My, my, how times have changed.

I remember when Al Gore won/lost the 2000 election. I tried to rationalize it over Thanksgiving dinner and told my conservative Republican brothers and sister that maybe this was a good thing. I predicted, in November of 2000, that four years of a Bush presidency, combined with a Republican Congress, was all American would need to see that the Republicans-left unchecked, could not be trusted to look out for the average American. All the blustering about family values, fiscal responsibility, and lower taxes, would reveal themselves to be a cruel hoax. Just lies they told people to gain and abuse power.

After four years, America would be so disgusted with the Republican excess and lies and abuses and secrecy and arrogance and contempt that we’d have the Democratic Party in power for the next 20 years.

Soon after inauguration, my prediction was coming true. For the first 8 months of Bush Inc., all went according to plan: 6 hour work days, long weekends, even longer vacations. Bush showed himself to be kind of lazy, completely incurious, and a divider—not the uniter he promised to be.Let’s take a look; shall we?

In January 2001, Bush suspended implementation of most of former President Clinton's late-term executive orders regarding the environment, including the continued use of snowmobiles in Yellowstone National Park. Bush’s EPA lifted air-pollution standards and former Sen. Spencer Abraham—who tried to abolish the Energy Department while in Congress—was approved as Energy secretary.

In February 2001, Interior Secretary Gale Norton sought to "adjust the boundaries" of Clinton-designated national monuments while Bush planed to cut funding for environmental policy enforcement by 7 percent. The Republican-controlled Senate introduced the now-infamous bill that would allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge-- the cornerstone of Bush's energy policy.

In March 2001, Bush reversed a campaign pledge and announced he will not order mandatory reductions of carbon dioxide emissions from the nation's electrical plants. He also withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol. Mining industry lobbyist, J. Steven Griles was nominated for Interior deputy secretary.

In April 2001, Bush broke another campaign promise and abandoned plans to invest $100 million a year for rainforest conservation. Bush’s Assistant secretary is Bennett Raley, who once testified that the Endangered Species Act should be repealed. And Vice President Dick Cheney met with Enron executives to write the administration’s energy policy.

By May of 2001, Bush and company placed a freeze on new proposals for the national park system. James Connaughton, who defended General Electric in Superfund fights with the EPA, was nominated as the chair of his Council on Environmental Quality. Bush released his super-secret energy plan, devised in super-secret fashion by a super-secret task force headed by super-secret Vice President Cheney.

Then the first cracks in Carl Rove’s Permanent Republican Majority began to appear. In June 2001, Vermont Sen. Jim Jeffords, disgusted by Bush’s environmental policies, abandoned the Republican Party to become an Independent. This gave nominal control of the Senate to the Democrats. Unperturbed, Bush nominated former timber lobbyist, Mark Rey, as Undersecretary of Agriculture for natural resources and environment.

In July of 2001, the administration announced it will open 1.5 million acres of the Gulf of Mexico to oil drilling -- but not near Florida Gov. Jeb Bush's shorelines. The U.S. is conspicuously absent at Kyoto Protocol climate talks in Bonn, Germany.The Justice Department indicated, in August 2001, that it wanted to overturn a federal court order blocking oil and gas exploration off the California coast. Another crack appeared when the General Accounting Office sent a letter to Bush demanding the release of documents relating to the deliberations of the super-secret Cheney-led Energy Task Force. Citing executive privilege, Bush refused to reveal with whom Cheney met.

By this time, I was patting myself on the back. My prediction was way ahead of schedule. Bush’s approval ratings were in a freefall.

And then September . . .Maybe I was wrong. Maybe there was something to this man. The world was with us. Here was an opportunity for greatness. Maybe, just maybe, he was a man for our time. . . Nah.

There were two spikes in Bush’s approval ratings: when the war began and when Sadam was captured. Aside from that, Bush was right back to where he was in August of 2001. It took two years for the confusion of 9/11 to begin to clear. Too late, however, for a frightened America to deny him a second term of excess—I mean office.

My prediction was back on track—it just took a two-year break.

This Thanksgiving, I’ll remind my brothers and sister of my 2000 prediction. Let’s hope they have the opportunity to try and make a similar prediction on a Democratic Whitehouse and Congress.

I welcome the challenge. My 2000 prediction has 20 years to go.

This column was originally posted on airitoutwithgeorge.com

Fool me Once . . .

Monday, July 21, 2008

Way back in those halcyon days in the fall of 2002, President Bush was speaking about the need for the United Nations to confront Iraq's President Saddam Hussein. We now know he was building a case for unilateral war. Anyway, in an effort to justify his actions, Bush told an audience at a school in Nashville, Tennessee: "We're trying to figure out how best to make the world a peaceful place." He then gave the world a classic Bushism:“There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

For those of you who just arrived on Planet Earth, the actual Chinese Proverb reads: Fool me once, shame on you; Fool me twice, shame on me.Early one Friday morning, October 11, 2002, the Senate voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refused to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions. A scant few hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden, who initially opposed the war powers resolution as too broad, decided to back it, "because we should support compelling Iraq to make good on its obligations to the United Nations."Biden also said, "A strong vote in Congress increases the prospect for a tough new U.N. resolution on weapons inspections, which in turn decreases the prospects of war."

But a number of Democrats said the resolution set a dangerous precedent for unilateral pre-emptive strikes, that Bush had not made a case that Iraq posed an imminent threat, and that conflict in Iraq would detract from efforts to root out terrorist groups they said posed a greater threat.Bush repeatedly and emphatically said that he had not yet decided whether to launch a military strike against Iraq. But he has sought congressional backing for possible action to strengthen his hand as he seeks U.N. Security Council approval of a tough, new resolution ordering Iraq to permit unconditional weapons inspections and disarm, or face the use of force if it does not.

See that, he didn’t actually want to go to war. All he wanted was for the UN to make Iraq let the weapons inspectors back in. That’s all.

Senator Byrd of West Virginia had argued during a failed filibuster attempt, that the resolution amounted to a "blank check" for the White House.It seems beyond ironic now. Now that we know there were no WMD, no active nuclear program no yellow cake from Nigeria. In fact, WE were the ones being “fooled once.”

But wait. Blank check, blank check . . . . That sounds some how familiar.

Thursday, July 17, Treasury's acting under secretary for financial markets, Anthony Ryan, requested the ability for the Treasury to buy unlimited amounts of stock and provide unlimited loans to Fannie May and Freddie Mack. Ryan said repeatedly and emphatically he didn't think the troubled government-sponsored enterprises of Fannie May and Freddie Mack would need to tap unlimited credit lines but said it would help stabilize financial markets if they had it.

But lawmakers, Republicans this time, expressed strong opposition claiming it amounts to granting a "blank check."Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson defended the plan as a "bazooka" that federal officials could hold in reserve but would probably not have to use because it was so potentially potent. Its mere existence, he testified, should give confidence to the financial markets that the government was standing behind the firms."The stability of these institutions is very important and having this ultimate backstop -- again, we don't see that they'll have to access this -- sends a very strong message in terms of the stability of the marketplace," Ryan said.Asked whether specifying a dollar amount would ruin the effectiveness of the plan, Ryan said "I think it limits it, and it creates additional challenges for the marketplace. It looks different than it does when it's unconditioned and unlimited."

And here is the fool me twice part:"Let me stress that there are no immediate plans to access either the proposed liquidity or the proposed capital backstop," Paulson stated. "If either authority is used, it would be done so only at Treasury's discretion, under terms and conditions that protect the U.S. taxpayer and are agreed to by both Treasury" and the mortgage-finance companies.

When will we learn that we cannot trust this administration?

Shame on us.

This column was originally posted on airitoutwithgeorge.com

Caminar una milla en sus zapatos!

Monday, July 14, 2008


Ken KerrIn the past seven-and-a-half years, I have agreed with President Bush on one issue: Immigration Reform. Specifically, the following provisions of President Bush's Plan for Comprehensive Immigration Reform:
*To Secure Our Border, We Must Create a Temporary Worker Program;
*We Must Bring Undocumented Workers Already In the Country Out Of the Shadows
*We Must Promote Assimilation into Our Society by Teaching New Immigrants English and American Values

Particularly encouraging was the president’s middle-ground approach to a very polarizing issue:“The President Supports A Rational Middle Ground Between A Program Of Mass Deportation And A Program Of Automatic Amnesty. It is neither wise nor realistic to round up and deport millions of illegal immigrants in the United States. But there should be no automatic path to citizenship. The President supports a rational middle ground.”

Here in Frederick, Maryland, the elected Republican officials apparently don’t agree with the president and me.Frederick County Commissioners Charles Jenkins and Lenny Thompson, as well as Sheriff Chuck Jenkins, are three elected officials who have taken a hard line against undocumented county residents. None will admit political motivation in taking on locally what is a federal issue. None of these fiscal conservatives seem bothered by the waste of time and money on issues that the Court has clearly placed outside their jurisdiction. They are clearly overstepping, and I don’t believe that the three have any idea what it is they are asking.

We have, at best, sent mixed signals (Keep Out/Help Wanted) to immigrants, largely South American, who have entered this country outside of proper channels.Sheriff Jenkins says, “If you are here illegally, and you commit a crime, you are not welcome in Frederick County.” Never mind that the vast majority of those “crimes” are driving offences. Jenkins also opposes giving drivers’ licenses to undocumented residents. Commissioner Jenkins wants to declare English as the official language of Frederick County.

Back at the turn of the 20th century, it is said that you heard as much German spoken on the streets of Frederick as you did English. No uproar back then.Commissioner Lenny Thompson wants the school board to survey the number of illegal immigrants who are students and has proposed withholding school funding if the BoE fails to agree. A little snag in this attorney’s plan is that Federal law prohibits school systems from inquiring after a students' immigration status.

Insisting on “English Only” and while denying them school? Arresting them for driving offences while denying them driving privileges? Complaining they don’t contribute while intimidating them deeper into an underground economy? If it weren’t so mind-bogglingly ill-conceived it would seem fiendishly sinister.I am reminded of Thomas Moore’s Utopia: “In this point, I pray you, what other thing do you, than make thieves and then punish them?”I really don’t think Jenkins, Jenkins, and Thompson fully appreciate what they are asking—demanding—of others.

I don’t know how well traveled they are. I don’t know if any of them has ever tried to speak another language or attempted to live in another country (High school French and seeing a city through the window of an English-guided tour bus don’t count).

I recently lived in Argentina for six months to get some idea of what it’s like to find my way in another country, in another language. I took 18 months of Spanish in preparation. I moved into an apartment in the Recoleta Barrio of Buenos Aires. I had money and a safe apartment. All I had to do was go to school at the University of Buenos Aires and take Spanish classes.It was the most humbling experience of my life.Everyday was stressful. Every situation was awkward. Every thing was a challenge.

If I had to raise a family, get my kids into school, find a job—it would have been oppressively difficult. I was exhausted at the end of the day just from Spanish class.Once the first three months of excitement and novelty wore off, the last three months were often humiliatingly difficult. I wasn’t smart, I wasn’t funny, I wasn’t important. I wanted to go home to the familiar, the friendly, my culture, my language. I now have some small idea of what immigrants—regardless of legal status—experience.

We can continue to argue about whose fault it is that Frederick has about 3000 undocumented residents. We can continue to say “What part of “illegal” don’t they understand.” But that’s not a plan—that’s just finger pointing and an empty slogan.“They” are here. If we can try to exceed our legal authority to persecute them, we can also exceed in the other direction—and help them.

This column was originally posted on airitoutwithgeorge.com

The Happiest Place on Earth (Hint: It's not Disneyland)

Monday, July 7, 2008


Much attention is being given, these days, to the concept of happiness. A recent study was conducted by University of Michigan political scientist Ronald Inglehart for the July 2008 issue of the journal Perspectives on Psychological Science. His findings were reported by the Associated Press on July 1, 2008.

This study, of 17 years in 52 countries and involving 350,000 people, finds the happiest people in the world are not in here in the USA--but in Denmark; we are 16th. That is actually better than what Adrian White, an analytic social psychologist at the British Leicester University's School of Psychology, found. He places the USA at #23.

On the bright side, at the University of Michigan, their 20-year World Values survey places us at #15. Let's go with that one. However, even that list puts El Salvador ahead of us at #12. Hmmm, that means a sizable portion of the immigrant population here in Frederick, Maryland actually traded down.Why is the #1 most prosperous country in the world only the 15th happiest? Apparently, money cannot buy happiness.

In Daniel Gilbert's book, Stumbling on Happiness, he finds that once one's basic needs are met, a "little" more money brings a "little" more happiness. After that, more money does not bring more happiness or affect one's sense ofwell-being. It seems that meeting life's basic needs is the big tipping point for getting happy.There is always the difference in the definition of "basic needs." Nevertheless, the wealthier are not happier. The super rich are not super happy.

Inglehart found, "The happiest societies are those that allow people the freedom to choose how to live their lives." Maybe he is on to something there.Gregg Easterbrook, in The Prosperity Paradox, writes, "It requires some effort to achieve a happy outlook on life, and most people don't make it." He also found that, "People who are grateful, optimistic and forgiving have better experiences with their lives, more happiness, fewer strokes, and higher incomes." Easterbrook also found that money makes people happy only when they give it away. People report higher levels of happiness when they use their wealth to help others.

Under Barack Obama's tax plan, a worker making up to $250,000 a year would pay no additional payroll taxes. I'd say most of us could have our "basic needs" met with that income. However, those making $250,000 or more a year would pay an additional 6.2 percent in payroll taxes.

Perhaps the next congress and president can do the wealthy a big favor and help them get a little happier.

It's the least we can do. It would make me happier

This column was originally posted on airitoutwithgeorge.com

I am named a faculty scholar

PHI THETA KAPPA
INTERNATIONAL HONOR SOCIETY OF THE TWO-YEAR COLLEGE
For Immediate Release
Contact: Susan Edwards
2/12/2008 susan.edwards@ptk.org
601.984.3541
Frederick Community College Faculty Selected
2008 Faculty Scholar

Jackson, MS - Dr. Kenneth Kerr, a member of the Frederick Community College faculty, was selected as a Faculty Scholar for the 2008 Phi Theta Kappa Faculty Scholar Conference and 2008 Phi Theta Kappa International Honors Institute.

Dr. Kerr is one of only 24 people who were selected for this honor from a large pool of applicants. Applicants must be Phi Theta Kappa advisors who have exhibited exceptional knowledge of the current Honors Study Topic, The Paradox of Affluence: Choices, Challenges, and Consequences, and demonstrated excellence in teaching. In addition to being selected as a Faculty Scholar, Dr. Kerr was also named the 2008 Parnell Scholar. This honor is given to one of the faculty scholars each year in recognition of excellence in incorporating the Honors Study Topic within the curriculum.

The Faculty Scholar Conference, sponsored in part by the National Endowment for the Humanities, was held at Phi Theta Kappa’s Center for Excellence in Jackson, Mississippi, January 30 –February 3, 2008. The Faculty Scholar Conference prepares the Faculty Scholars to serve as group facilitators at the Phi Theta Kappa International Honors Institute. Faculty Scholars heard presentations on a variety of issues concerning the paradox of affluence and participated in discussion groups throughout the four-day conference.

The annual International Honors Institute will be held at San Francisco State University (SFSU) in San Francisco, California June 16-21, 2008. During this conference, Dr. Kerr and the other Phi Theta Kappa Faculty Scholars will lead groups of 15-20 honor students in seminar discussions of the issues presented throughout the week.

Phi Theta Kappa International Honor Society, headquartered in Jackson, MS, is the largest honor society in American higher education with 1,250 chapters on two-year and community college campuses in all 50 of the United States, Canada, Germany, the Republic of Palau, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, the British Virgin Islands, the United Arab Emirates and U.S. territorial possessions. More than two million students have been inducted since its founding in 1918, with approximately 100,000 students inducted annually.

For more information on the 2008 Faculty Scholars and Phi Theta Kappa Honors Programs, contact Susan Edwards, Director of Honors Programs at 800.946.9995, ext. 3541.