Check, Please

Check, Please

There are 7.5 million Americans working in the food and beverage industry—waiter, bartenders, hostesses. The US Department of Labor reports that average hourly wages, including tips, are $7.14 for waiters, $7.86 for bartenders, and $7.78 for hostesses. That comes out to about $16,500 a year. Barbara Ehrenreich chronicled the server experience in her 2001 book, Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America. She set out to answer the question "how can anyone survive, let alone prosper, on $6 to $7 an hour?" The answer—you can't.

As far back as last June, servers started to complain about reduced tip income. Let's set a side for now the 1998 IRS estimate that "fewer than 40% of all tips received were reported, an estimated $9–$12 billion in unreported income." We also won't consider that restaurant owners are only required to pay $2.13 an hour in direct wages. The point is, tips are down. And in an economy that is focused on service—not manufacturing, agriculture, or mining—that is a canary in a coal mine.

We just heard this week that another 533,000 jobs were lost in November—the second biggest loss since WWII and the largest since 1974. Unemployment is at 6.7%, and that only counts those who want to work and are actively job seeking. We also got confirmation this week about something many Americans, like restaurant workers, already knew; we are, and have been, in a recession for the past year.

Unlike in other countries where tipping is expected, in the United States, tipping is an institution. The entire industry is structured so that menu costs are kept down because we supplement wages with cash gratuities to restaurant employees. We can't change it. We can't all of a sudden decide that we no longer need to provide part of the restaurant's payroll. We may not like it, but that's the way it is. The system has evolved and the customer and server are in a symbiotic relationship. We are co-dependant; we both want to eat.

So, here we are. The economy is a mess. People are out of work. And it's Christmas.
It is up to up to do something about it. It sounds cliché, but, this is the time of year when we need to think of others. If we cut back, others get cut. If we stay home, others lose homes. If we don't "do," others do without.

As much as possible, we need to continue to support local workers and businesses. Especially remember those who rely on end-of-year gratuities to cover family holiday expenses—the newspaper carrier, the barber, the stylist, the childcare provider, dog groomer, the doorman, the trash collector.

What we seem to have forgotten is that what is great about this country is our ability to get things done on a local, grassroots level. Our next president understands that, and he will provide the inspiration and leadership in about five weeks. Until then it's up to us.

It’s Time to Re-Think Failure

It's Time to Re-think Failure

My colleagues and I have noticed a change in our students over the past few years—the studnets don’t think they can fail. Not all of them, and not all the time, but enough to be remarkable. Just out of high school, they don’t think they will fail their classes regardless of how little time, effort, or attendance they put forth.

I had a phone call from one of our college councilors last summer who was calling on behalf of a student from the just-completed spring semester. She had my former student in the office and the student wanted to know why she had failed my class. According to the councilor, (yes, the student was there with her, but I was talking to the councilor) the student thought she was doing well in the class and was baffled as to how she could have possibly failed.
“She didn’t do any of the work,” I told the councilor.

She came to every class, even after I gave her written advice to drop the class after midterm when it was no longer mathematically possible for her to receive a passing grade. She was polite. She was present. Perhaps she believed Woody Allen when he said, “Eighty percent of success is showing up.” If that were the case, she deserved a “B.”

It’s not just her. Many of these new freshmen seem to believe we will not fail them under any circumstances. I asked some of the other students what this was all about. They told me that, in high school, if a student does nothing all semester long, he will just go to the teacher at the end of the semester and ask what he can do to pass. The teacher will give the student some paper to write with the promise of a “D.” I don’t know if this is true or not, but more than one student has told me so. Even if it’s not true, it’s what they believe—and they bring that belief to college.

It may not be their fault. Who can blame them? Lately, we have seen evidence on a national/global scale that confirms their belief—some people, some institutions, some businesses are so important, we can’t allow them to fail.

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-110), was originally proposed by President George W. Bush on January 23, 2001, immediately after taking office. These kids would have been in 5th grade at the time, just getting ready to enter middle school.

NCLB requires all public schools to administer a state-wide standardized test to all students each year. Those schools receiving Title I funding must make “Adequate Yearly Progress” in test scores. That means fifth graders must do better on this year’s tests than they did on last year’s. If it “fails” to do so, it is put on a list of "failing” schools. These failing schools are published in the local paper and the parents of children attending a failing school are given the option to transfer to a different, non-failing school. The failing school’s Title I funding is cut, and it must provide federally mandated special tutoring for its students—at the local system’s expense.

That’s a high price for failure. It leads to gaming the system and teaching to the test. The schools can’t afford to fail—so they don’t allow themselves to fail.

On October 1-3, 2008 Congress passed The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. Within hours of its enactment President Bush signed the bill into law, creating a $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program to purchase “failing” bank assets. The banks could not be allowed to fail. They are too big—too important.

Earlier this month, executive from Ford, Chrysler, and GM arrived on Capitol Hill in private planes to convince Congress that the auto industry could not be allowed to “fail”—too many jobs at stake, too many families at risk.

Maybe it’s OK to fail. Failure actually has a long tradition of success in Western history. Henry Havelock Ellis, 19th century social reformer, remarked, “It is on our failures that we base a new and different and better success.”

His contemporary, John Dewey, the American philosopher, psychologist, and educationa; reformer, said, “Failure is instructive. The person who really thinks learns quite as much from his failures as from his successes.”

Still another contemporary, Thomas Edison, was fond of saying, “I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.”

This was America’s Golden Age, a period from post-Reconstruction leading up to World War I where there was a general sense of optimism in America. We had a booming economy; we had realized our manifest destiny expanding our borders from the Atlantic to the Pacific. And Teddy Roosevelt was leading the new Progressivism. We believed in ourselves and our abilities. And a little failure was the price we paid for progress.

It was our Golden Age and our greatest minds were not afraid of failure? What has changed? Even up until the 1960’s we had a different attitude about failure. Robert Kennedy said, “Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly.”

There are still those who keep failure in perspective. Colin Powell insists, “There are no secrets to success. It is the result of preparation, hard work, and learning from failure.” And Malcolm Forbes believes, “Failure is success—if we learn from it.”

But perhaps the Chinese (who have been eating our lunch lately) have had it right for thousands of years: “Failure is not falling down, but refusing to get up.”

We need to rethink failure. We need to be brave enough to fail—and to allow each other to fail. If the stakes are too high, lower the stakes. Keep corporations from getting so big that they can extort us. Make large school systems into manageable sub-systems that can be more entrepreneurial and responsive to their particular population. Let the big three automakers go the way of the buggy whip factory. If they refuse to adapt to a changing environment, then they should fail. It’s not like a new, modern; auto industry would not emerge to take their place.

The dinosaurs probably sat around convincing each other that there was nothing to this climate change thing and they, too, were too important an institution to be allowed to fail.
Let’s not be dinosaurs about this. Let’s put failure back in perspective. Failure can be good. Failure can be necessary. It may actually be a failure to keep something from failing that needs to fail.

Let’s learn to live with failure, and let it make us better. It may be just what we need to enter a New Golden Age in America.

We all “Don’t get it”

Monday, November 24, 2008

When automotive industry executives arrived on Capitol Hill last week in private jets to beg for money, we shook our collective heads and said, "They don't get it." They are so out of touch with the real world that it never occurred to them that $20,000-an-hour plane rides would appear inconsistent with the message they had arrived to deliver.

They don't understand that before you can ask someone else to help you out of your financial crisis, you should have already done all you can to address it yourself.

During the campaign, Barack Obama repeatedly told us that John "The-Fundamentals-of-our-Economy-are-Sound" McCain "doesn't get it."

McCain, Obama reminded us, is a nice guy who has served his country with honor and should be respected for his lifetime of public service. But he, with his seven homes and $100 million wife, doesn't get it.

I think we all don't get it. We are all nice guys, who work hard and do the right thing by others, but we don't get it.

We complain about the cost of energy while wasting over $100-a-year in our homes by keeping our instant-on electronics on standby. Five to fifteen percent of our electric bill comes from appliances on stand-by.

We leave our cell phone chargers plugged in even when we are not charging a cell phone. The computer is never turned off. And just exactly how many digital clocks do we need in one room?

We drink bottled water that comes from someone else's tap, at 240-10,000 times the price, rather than drink water from our own tap. The cost to manufacture and dispose of the plastic bottles and truck the 7-pound-per-gallon water around the country is gluttonous.

As for gasoline, we think in dollars—not gallons. We feel like burning $50 of $2.00-a-gallon gasoline is less than burning $100 of $4.00-a-gallon gasoline. We don't get it. We may be bottom-line people, but we don't think about how we got to the bottom line.

We drive our SUV to the bank to ask for a renegotiation of our mortgage. We call the utility company on our iPhone to ask for emergency winter heating relief. And we complain about the state-of-things as we watch the Tivo-ed news on our premium digital cable package. It may not be on the level of a private jet or 7th house—but it's the same thing. We don't get it.

I was out at my favorite simulcast horse racing establishment last week when my new acquaintance, Mike, asked me, "What do you do?"

"I am an English professor," I replied. To which he said, "Oh! You'll be fine." He then turned to our other new acquaintance, Danny, and asked the same question. Danny said, "I am in commercial printing. And we are hurting."

Danny then told us about how he had to lay off 25% of his 60-worker department before Christmas. Mike then talked about his commercial construction business and how he sees bleak times ahead. It seemed, for a moment, like these guys were starting to get it.

Then we all got up and bet on the next race.

We all don't get it—not yet, anyway.

This column was originally posted on airitoutwithgeorge.com

Kickin’ it New Skool

Monday, November 17, 2008



There is an expression in the popular culture: "Kickin' it ol' skool." It means doing something the way it was done before—before new knowledge, new technology, and new techniques. It means doing something without these advantages and limiting one's self to what was done in a previous time or age. Things like cooking with charcoal rather than a gas grill, playing horseshoes rather than a video game, taking chicken soup for a cold, sending someone an actual paper-and-stamp letter, using a camera that has film in it. These are all examples of kickin' it ol' skool.





Sometimes we kick it ol's skool for the challenge, to see if we can still do it. Sometimes it is purist thing.





Sometimes we are just too stubborn and rigid to change.





We kick it ol' skool because that's all we know how to do.Whether someone voted for Obama or McCain, whether Obama's margin of victory gives him a mandate or not, it is clear Americans voted for change in four areas: Energy independence, healthcare, tax relief, and public education. Americans are not satisfied to keep kickin' these ol' school.





Speaking of school, few would argue that American public education is as good as it should be. It is a regular topic in the media . For all the talk, time, effort, and money, K-12 education in the USA is not something we can be universally proud of—especially America's high schools. That is not to say that there are not many dedicated, committed professionals and interested engaged students in pockets of excellence. However, we are not giving the majority of our children the education then need to be successful in the 21st Century.





Actually, we do pretty well in elementary schools. David Marsh, a professor at the University of Southern California Rossier School of Education says, "In fourth grade, American kids do above average internationally. By eighth grade, they slip a bit, and by 12th-grade, they've slipped a lot." Marsh goes on to say, "We're the only country that slides down that much from fourth to 12th grade."We are leaving our children behind. They are being harassed, assaulted, stolen from, intimidated, threatened, and abused. And we expect them to learn in that environment.





Don't take my word for it. Consider these data:





· According to Hostile Hallways, 83% of the girls and 60% of the boys reported experiencing sexual harassment in school. Over half of the incidents took place in the classroom.





· 160,000 children skip school each day because of intimidation by their peers. The National Center for Educational Statistics reports that 77 % of middle and high school students in small mid-western towns have been bullied.





· Nearly 95% of students aged twelve through eighteen reported that they had been bullied at school in the last six months. In general, females were as likely as males to report being bullied. (Indicators of School Crime and Safety 2000, U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Department of Justice, 2000)





· And a newly released study from the National Institutes of Health published in the Journal of the American Medical Association reveals that almost a third of 6th to 10th graders -- 5.7 million children nationwide -- have experienced some kind of bullying..





· 44% to 49% percent of all schools reported physical attacks, theft or larceny, and vandalism to the authorities. (2000 Annual Report on School Safety, Department of Education and Department of Justice, 2000)





· 21% of middle school/junior high schools reported fights or attacks with a weapon; these incidents for an estimated 7,576 incidents. (A National Study of School Environment and Problem Behavior: The National Study of Delinquency Prevention in Schools, Gottfredson Associates, Inc., 2000)





· Students aged twelve through eighteen were victims of more than 2.7 million total crimes at school. (Indicators of School Crime and Safety 2000, U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Department of Justice, 2000)





· Younger students, ages twelve through fourteen, were more likely than older students, ages fifteen through eighteen, to be victims of crime at school. (2000 Annual Report on School Safety, Department of Education and Department of Justice, 2000)





· Almost one in five students reported being threatened with a beating, and again this was a more common experience for middle school students (22%) than for high school students (16%). (A National Study of School Environment and Problem Behavior: The National Study of Delinquency Prevention in Schools, Gottfredson Associates, Inc. 2000)





· On average, each year there are 133,700 violent crimes against teachers at school and 217,400 thefts from teachers at school, reported by teachers from both public and private schools. (2000 Annual Report on School Safety, Department of Education and Department of Justice, 2000)





What is most disturbing is that these are crimes—some felonies—yet they go unreported. In fact, only nine percent of violent crimes against teenagers occurring in school were reported to the police compared with thirty-seven percent of such crimes occurring on the streets. We are telling our young people that public schools are places where the laws of the larger society do not apply.





Apparently, building-level administrators are empowered to interpret the law within their schools. That bothers me.





But this is where we are, and this is what we've got. It's not getting better; it's not getting worse. It is what it is. The situation has, more or less, stabilized.Just like a stabilized patient in the ICU, he's no longer dying, but he's not getting better. He's stable. Now medical personnel have something to work with. They have some base-line data. They can tell if what they are doing is making him better, or making him worse.





Let's think of our public schools that way. What we have is baseline data, Square 1. From here we can see if we can get them healthy.What I am about to propose is not as radical as it may seem. It preserves that status quo. It maintains the current stable state. It maintains the currently accepted situation and preserves the rights of all students to keep exactly the same quality of education and learning environment they currently enjoy. Nobody is taking anything away from anyone. It maintains the Old School.





What I propose is kickin' it New School.The New School will co-exist with the Old School. Everyone is welcome in the new school, but not everyone can stay. The new school is for students who decide they want a better environment in which to learn, and they understand that it is up to them to create it. To be a member of this learning community, you have to show up, arrive prepared, do thoughtful work, make progress, and behave in a civil way.





The new school is not reserved for the best and the brightest. It is not a magnet school where the most promising students apply and are selected. Students self select to be a part of this learning community. It is open to anyone who wants to learn. The difference is student need to perform in order to stay. They must attend, be attentive, complete assignments, and contribute to a positive learning environment.If some students decide they do not what to do what is expected in the New School, they are welcome to return to the Old School where the status quo has been preserved. Nothing has been taken away. The student self-selected to return to the established standard.





Students can return to the New School. They are always welcome back. They just have to demonstrate a desire to learn and help maintain a positive learning environment. It's no big deal—they just walk over to the other side of the building. Part of maturation is making good choices. The New School/Old School model gives student control over their education. They get to make decisions and experience the consequences. Not only that, but they get second (and third and fourth) chances. And remember, nothing has been taken away from anyone, and a recent survey indicates that what we have now is just fine with parents and students. So there should be no complaints.





Certainly, there are logistical considerations to work out. Who and what decides when a student must leave the New School or may return? How do we coordinate course content so that there is portability between New and Old? These challenges can be solved. It can't be any harder than working out lunch shifts, bus issues, and traditional transfers.





As for teachers not wanting to teach in the Old School—they teach there now. They must believe they can be, and are, effective in the status-quo environment. Why do they stay otherwise? Good enough must be good enough for them, too. How else could they continue to do it year-after-year?





We can continue with our current way and probably survive. That is what we have been doing. But seeing where we are not in our nation, our economy, and our world makes me think we need to make some changes. We need to make some good decisions about our collective future and our priorities. Some of us are happy where we are and with what we have; some of us want to advance as a nation and as a people.





It's time for America to kick it new school. Let's start with the school.

This column was originally posted on airitoutwithgeorge.com

Discipline—Not Secrecy

Monday, November 10, 2008

These past nearly-eight-years-of-a-Bush-Administration have been arguably the most secretive in White House history. From the very start, President Bush tightened the government's hold on information and limited public scrutiny of his administration's activities. He asserted executive privilege, adopted a restrictively-narrow view of the Freedom of Information Act, stamped everything in sight with national security classification, and was unresponsive to congressional requests for information. This all was before September 11th.

In his second week in office Bush created the now-infamous National Energy Policy Development Group with chairman Dick Cheney, to , "develop a national energy policy designed to help the private sector, and, as necessary and appropriate, State and local governments, promote dependable, affordable, and environmentally sound production and distribution of energy for the future." We still don't know who was invited to that party, but we know how it turned out.

What resulted from these eight years were suspicion; division; and economic, social, and political disaster. It's been a really bad time.

I am tired of all the secrecy and mistrust. It's no way to run a democracy. What I hope to see from President Barack Obama is not secrecy, but discipline.



Obama ran a remarkably disciplined campaign. "No Drama Obama" was its moniker. After being soundly dismissed and ridiculed as "a community organizer," he organized and mobilized a community of volunteers and dispersed them into nearly every populated corner of the country. A junior senator with no executive experience executed a remarkable victory. This is a remarkably capable and disciplined man.

We can only hope that the discipline of the campaign extends to the administration. The selection of Rahm Emanuel as chief-of-staff is a good sign that will be the case. An effective senior advisor to President Clinton, experience as an investment Banker, a term on the Board of Directors for the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation ("Freddie Mac"), and five years in the US House of Representatives gives him a near 360o view of the current political landscape.
Emanuel led the Democrats to victory the 2006 elections, and he was a leading candidate for the position of Majority Whip. His oversight of the day-to-day operations at the White House will guarantee a tight ship—not a leaky one.


On the other side of town, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have been less-than-impressive in using their slim majorities. Congress currently has a 17.3 Approval Rating to show for it. South Carolina Democrat James Clyburn, the House Majority Whip will need to bring his "A-Game" come January. In the past, he admitted difficulty of counting votes and rallying the fractious Democratic caucus. He needs to get out the whip and instill some discipline in the 256 Democratic Congresspersons. He picked up 20 seats so far. The Republicans are in disarray. We should know in the first few weeks of the 111th Congress if he is up to the job.

The way I see it, is there are two milestones Obama and Congress have to pass: the first quarter of 2009 and the Congressional Elections of 2010. With some discipline, teamwork, thoughtfulness, and a bit of good luck, they may be able to turn this mess around. We need them to. And it will take discipline.

In very broad terms, "discipline" is systematic instruction given to a disciple. Given the messianic expectation many have of our new president, maybe that is an appropriate way of thinking of the word.

But it is the origin of the word, the Latin disciplina meaning "instruction," from the Latin root discere meaning, "to learn," that we come to understand discipline as a means to instruct a person to follow a particular code of conduct, or to adhere to a certain "order."


We must all exercise some discipline in the coming months and years. We don't need secrecy and insular thinking. We need to work together in an orderly, courteous way. If Democrats can show themselves to be effective and as acting in the best interest for the future of our country, Americans will respond to that with gratitude and support.

Let's hope we are up to that challenge.

This column was originally posted on airitoutwithgeorge.com

The Day After Tomorrow

First of all, it will not be close. Barack Obama will win perhaps as many as 355-360 electoral votes. The poplar vote will be closer, no more than 52% for Obama. So, tomorrow is not in question.

What is in question is the day after tomorrow.

The day after tomorrow, we can expect near-universal approval among our friends and allies throughout the world. The election of Obama signals a US willingness to change. The world will appreciate that we traded in a cowboy for a professor, carelessness for caution, brashness and impulse for thoughtfulness and insight. We forget that as much as we are hated and feared, we are counted on throughout the world for stability. Friend and foe alike will welcome a return to a ship-of-state on an even keel.

Over the next 80 days, Obama's transition team will begin to introduce potential cabinet members. We can expect a few republicans: Chuck Hagel and Dick Lugar for certain—Arnold Schwarzenegger, a curious possibility.

However, Barack Obama is inheriting a wounded America. We have to put his campaign in perspective. He set out a plan for change and a vision for a future. A crippled economy, a crushing deficit, and two poorly-waged wars will overshadow many of his bold initiatives. The very thing that ensured Obama's victory will make it difficult for him to deliver on the promise of his presidency.

It is likely that we will continue to run deficits beyond Obama's first term. We will continue to see widespread unemployment, limited lending, and anemic growth. Obama's plan to invest in infrastructure can help with employment but without some kind of dotcom-like economic phenomenon, it is hard to see how we can pay-as-we-go.

A Manhattan/Apollo-size energy initiative has the potential of producing innovative breakthroughs in fuel cell, alternative energy technologies. But those will be hard to sell in a war-weary, bailout-battered, recession-racked budget year - Or years.

But enough about what won't happen. Here is what will happen the day after tomorrow.
The day after tomorrow, we can expect President-Elect Senator Obama to be prominently seen in Republican company on the Senate floor. Even though the Democrats are unlikely to reach the filibuster-proof-majority of 60 (58 seems more likely), there will be any number of Republican lawmakers all-too-willing to associated with a president elect, and then president who has just won a landslide.

The day after tomorrow, John McCain will lay low for a while. He will then work to restore a reputation reduced by a cascade of bad choices, bad advice, bad decisions, and bad timing. He will remind us why we once admired him. And we will do so once again.

The day after tomorrow, Sarah Palin will continue to splinter the Republican Party. She will solidify her core constituency of rural, white, uneducated, self-identified-Christians who will huddle around her in anger and defiance that their vision of American was rejected by a preponderance of the electorate. What remains of GOP "leadership" will quickly destroy her by year's end—unless the rest of us get bored and ignore her before then. The GOP will not embrace Ultra-rural, -right, -religious, -anti-intellectualism as a brand.

Each Tuesday, following the first Monday of November, of every even-numbered year divisible evenly by four, we collectively stand at a crossroads—a mythical, metaphorical place of monumental decision. Throughout literature and across cultures, the crossroads is a place where we pause and look ahead. We choose a direction and go down a road together—for better or worse.

Eight years ago, we followed the same path as Robert Johnson. This year, we follow Robert Frost.

And we start the day after tomorrow.

This column was originally posted on airitoutwithgeorge.com

They Can’t Win . . . If We are Not Afraid

Monday, October 27, 2008

In 1991, there was a movie starring Albert Brooks and Meryl Streep titled, Defending Your Life. It was a little two-star movie with a four-star theme.

Daniel Miller, played by Albert Brooks, dies in a car accident sent to Judgment City, a waiting area for the recently deceased of the United States. He, like everyone else is put on trial for "being afraid." Day after day goes by in a court room setting where he is made to watch himself controlled by fear, lacking courage, and making bad decisions as a result. In Judgment City, he meets and falls in love with Julia (Meryl Streep), a woman who lived a seemingly perfect life of courage and generosity, especially compared to his.

His fear caused him to lead a meaningless life. He is sentenced to be recycled back to earth to live another life time to see if, this time, he can overcome fear. Julia, having overcome fear, gets to move on.

That is where we are today. We, as a nation, are on trial to see if this year we will continue to let our fear control us. For the past eight years—who knows, maybe longer than that—we have been controlled by a government kept in power by keeping us afraid.
Our fears have caused us to make some very bad decisions—indefensible decisions. The War in Iraq, the election and re-election of Bush, the PATRIOT Act, domestic spying, refusing to talk to our enemies . . . you can probably add a few of your own.

For better or worse, fear is powerful and as basic to human survival as air and water.
There is a part of your brain, the stem, that exists solely for survival called the "reptilian" brain. This is the original part of the brain. As we evolved, our brains evolved, and other parts were added, for example, the limbic system which deals with emotions and the cerebellum which is the thinking part. This stem of the brain is securely protected by the rest of the brain. When all other parts of the brain are non-functional, this part will still be working, ensuring survival.

When our limbic system experiences the emotion of fear, the reptilian brain goes into action and the rest of the brain pretty much shuts down. While in the emotional state of fear, we have two choices and everything we do will be based on one of those choices: fight or flight. The body goes into survival mode. Everything becomes black or white, yes or no, good or evil, live or die.
In this fear state, human beings do not have the ability to think of alternative solutions, to behave rationally—only run or fight.

Our current government keeps us in a constant state of fear—Code Orange, take your shoes off at the airport, "real America." Now John McCain has only that one trick left in the bag—FEAR. We need to vote for McCain because Obama is (in hockey terms) just too doggone scary, doggonit!

What we need to fear is the erratic, questionable judgment of McCain and his hand-picked successor. We need only to look at the Republican rats deserting the SS McCain, their resumes flooding the mail rooms of the Fortune 500. They know there will be no jobs for them in the West Wing. They fear.

At the end of the Movie, Brook's Dan Miller character, seeing he would lose Julia forever, was able to overcome his fear, risked his own existence, and was released from the eternal cycle of fear-loss-rebirth-only-to-fear-again.

Let's be Dan this year. Let's find the courage to fight the fear, to overcome our reptilian origins and act like rational human beings. Let's imagine a world where there are alternatives, where it is not black and white, good and evil. Let's find the courage to find real solutions, not just make the best of a bad situation.

Let's vote hope—not fear.

The most famous "fear" quotation comes from Franklin D Roosevelt's inaugural address in 1933. We often repeat the sound bite, but we rarely hear it in context. And it is the context that is relevant to our time:

"This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days."

Think about that . . .Leadership in critical days.

On November 4Th, I am giving my reptilian brain the day off.

My cerebral cortex will be casting my vote.

This column was originally posted on airitoutwithgeorge.com

The Politics of Poker and the Poker of Politics

Monday, October 20, 2008

At the final presidential debate, a new American icon emerged—Joe the Plumber. Contrary to popular myth, Barack Obama did not knock on John McCain's new poster boy's front door while canvassing in Joe Wurzelbacher's Toledo, Ohio neighborhood. The "plumber" tracked Obama down and confronted him in front of the cameras. Asking Obama if he believed in the American dream.

It made for good television. It made for good sloganeering. It made no sense.

Wurzelbacher presented himself as a plumber who was on the verge of buying the two-man plumbing company where he works. He falsely indicated that he was an undecided voter who was genuinely curious about how Obama's and McCain's tax plans would affect his entrepreneurial endeavor. He was less than truthful.

Joe is not a plumber. He is an unlicensed contractor who works for a two man company. His partner, too, is unlicensed. He makes about $40,000 a year and has not the money, the means, or even the beginning of a plan to buy Newell Plumbing & Heating from his partner, Al Newell.

He was bluffing.

And Joe, like many—too many—Republican voters, is a really bad poker player.
There is a poker strategy—if it can be called a strategy—known as "betting on the come." What that means is, a player does not bet with the hand he has, but bets on the hand he thinks he might get. It is drawing to the inside straight, a low-percentage play, and a proven way to lose almost all the time.

Poker players like Joe usually leave the table broke.

Joe is using his paycheck to bet on the come. It is clear that he will benefit under Obama's tax plan and will not under McCain's. But Joe, and all-too-many working class Republicans, thinks he might be wealthy some day. So he bets (sorry, votes) one the come. He votes to have tax policies already in place that will benefit his long shot, improbable, ill-conceived plan.

At his age, in this economy, with his skills and preparation, making over $250,000 a year is not likely to happen. It may, but probably won't. Just like drawing to an inside straight, you can do it. But there are only four cards in the deck that can get it done and they are likely already in the hands of other players.

It is not just Joe Wurzelbacher; Working class Republicans have a history and tradition of irrational voting. They consistently vote against their own, best self interest. Rural Americans vote to support big-business interests, middle class Republicans who will never inherit anything sizable support repeal of the "Death Tax" that shifts a greater tax burden onto themselves.

Poker is an interesting game. For most players, the more they play, the better they get. They learn from other players, learn to read the table and see if the hand they have is likely to have a chance at winning. If a hand cannot be potentially improved, they fold and wait for the next hand.

In politics, just like in poker, there is always a next hand. The cards are being dealt this November 4Th. In this hand, Barack Obama is the card that will give Joe Wurzelbacher, and all other working Americans, the best chance of winning.

This column was originally posted on airitoutwithgeorge.com

Ronald Reagan has Left the Building

Monday, October 13, 2008


After a successful career as Governor of California, Ronald Reagan, the former movie star, was a political star. Not quite bright enough to outshine the incumbent Gerald Ford for the 1976 Republican presidential nomination in 1976, Reagan later eclipsed all competition in 1980.
Soon after talking office in 1981, the movie star/political star went supernova. Reagan was the brightest object in the political sky.

In ancient times, when science was non-existent and myth and superstition ruled the human mind, such a supernova would be seen as an object of awe and mystery. The ancients would have worshiped it as a god. Much the same thing happened to Reagan.

Politicians and devotees sought to bask in the light of Reagan's supernova star. They evoked his name, repeated his words, and studied his teachings. Reagan took on mythic proportions. He ceased to be human. In fact, if Reagan the man were to run against Reagan the myth, he would not stand a chance. He would lose in a landslide.

In 1994, diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease, he retreated to his Bel Air home-much like the Greek gods of Olympus—we knew he was there, but we could not reach him. But just knowing that he was there his star, though dimmed, continued to warm and reassure his devoted followers. In that same year, his false prophet, Newt Gingrich—full of Reagan power, authority, and sanctimony—engineered control of Congress.

Later, a completely unprepared and unqualified Nero-like George W. Bush rode the Reagan wave to the White House. Bush's propaganda minister, Karl Rove, predicted a permanent Republican majority in American government. The Cult of Reagan was at its height, in full control of all branches of government: functionally, politically, and ideologically. And the United States of America is in crisis as a result.


Twenty-eight years later, Reagan's star has vanished. His supernova is now a black hole collapsed upon itself by its own weight and sucking in from around it the remnants of a Republican party in complete disarray—and the last remnants of his tattered legacy.

A few pathetic attempts to resurrect his power have been seen lately. Last week at the second debate, John McCain claimed Reagan as his personal hero—but only after he had already given that honor to Teddy Roosevelt. A week before, at the vice presidential debate, Sarah Palin's coaches gave her some Reagan scripture to quote in her closing comments. Curiously, it was from a speech that Governor Reagan gave in opposition to Medicare. So unaware of content and context are Palin's Republican handlers that they gave her lines to recite that were first spoken in an attempt to deny health care to old people.

The so-called Reagan Democrats, now awake and aware that Republican/Reagan ideology does not benefit them (and never really did) are returning to the Democrats. The party is over—the Republican Party that is. Democrats woke up and they are angry at being misled for a generation. The celebrity of Reagan no longer holds power over the American political firmament.

When Elvis Presley would give a concert, his devoted fans demanded encore after encore. They were hoping to hang on to the moment, to be in his presence a bit longer. Similarly, Reagan fans used to cheer at the mere mention of the name, Reagan. When Elvis was finally exhausted and had nothing left to give, his staff would make an announcement intended to send the adoring crowd home. It is now time to borrow that line from Elvis and send the Republican Party home:

Ronald Reagan has left the building.








This column was originally posted on airitoutwithgeorge.com

Obama’s New-New Deal

Monday, October 6, 2008

It's pretty clear how we got into this financial mess. The regulations placed upon the financial sector after The Great Depression were whittled-away over the past 16 years. This took on an accelerated pace over the past eight years.

We also know how we got out of it last time. President Franklin D. Roosevelt instituted The New Deal, a series of programs between 1933 and 1938 with the goal of giving work to the unemployed, reforming business and financial practices, and helping the economy recover from The Great Depression.

The "First New Deal" of 1933 was aimed at short-term recovery. Roosevelt implemented banking reform laws, emergency relief programs, work relief programs, agricultural programs, and industrial reform. There was a "Second New Deal" in 1935–1936 that included labor union support, the WPA relief program, the Social Security Act, and programs to aid farmers.
So here we are, almost 80 years later. Much of what Roosevelt did to restore our prosperity has been undone. And we now have the greatest disparity of wealth in the United States since the time just before The Great Depression. Greed and a largely-unregulated financial sector have returned us to 1929.

The Financial Bailout Bill—now renamed the Rescue Package—is just as necessary in shoring up the US economy today as was Roosevelt's support of the banking industry in the First New Deal. Barack Obama not only voted for it, but has spoken extensively in New Deal terms since last February when he spoke at a GE Assembly Plant in Jamesville Wisconsin: "For our economy, our safety, and our workers, we have to rebuild America," said Obama. "This investment will multiply into almost half a trillion dollars of infrastructure spending and generate nearly two million new jobs—many of them in the construction industry that's been hit hard by the housing crisis."

That sounds a lot like Roosevelt's New Deal to me.

Obama also calls for creating five million new jobs by strategically investing $150 billion over the next ten years to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future. He hopes to put 1 million Plug-In Hybrid cars that can get up to 150 miles per gallon on the road by 2015. He calls for these cars to be built here in America by Americans. And his plan to ensure 10 percent of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025 will create more high-paying jobs for American workers.

Some criticize this as Socialism. They said the same about Roosevelt. So what? What is so wrong about a little socialism?

According to the Future of Freedom Foundation, any government-owned, -funded, or -subsidized operation is considered to be a socialist program. For example, publicly owned airports, sports arenas or government-funded universities would be considered socialist operations by that definition. And we have plenty of those.

What we need in the months and years ahead is to look back to what has worked and what has not. We need a cool-headed, thoughtful, scholarly approach to solving a problem brought on by decades of greed and anti-intellectualism.

I look forward to the next four years under Obama's leadership. I anticipate a rebirth of this nation as an engine of innovation, and science, and prosperity. And I look forward to reading the details of Obama's New-New Deal.

This column was originally posted on airitoutwithgeorge.com

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