Wednesday, November 5, 2008

Obama’s Election is a Paradigm Shift in Politics

Today is a proud day for America. The election of Barack Obama as our 44th president represents a paradigm shift in the consciousness of the nation. It demonstrates that we have chosen hope and change over fear and divisiveness. It demonstrates that we are ready to embrace a future where the United States of America will become the first truly multi-ethnic, multi-cultural nation in the world.

Obama’s election is significant on many levels. He is hailed as the first African-American to be elected president, but it is even more significant that he represents a mixture of ethnic influences. His personal background includes White (through his mother and her family), African American (through his father, as well as his wife) and Asian (through his stepfather and sister, and his years in Indonesia). He has joked that his family gatherings look like a U.N. assembly. As such, he symbolizes a new America, where the fastest growing populations are minority groups such as Hispanics, African Americans, and Asians. By 2025, no ethnic group can claim to be the majority, and the United States will be the first country in the world where a multitude of ethnicities and cultures co-exist peacefully, eventually blending together in the proverbial “salad bowl”. The United States can become an important beacon of cultural diversity for the rest of the world to follow.

But Obama is not just a multi-cultural symbol; even more significantly, he has the ability to become a transformational leader. Throughout his presidential campaign, he has demonstrated that he is intelligent, perceptive, and visionary. He has shown that he is capable of making rational, levelheaded decisions. He is not afraid of seeking out the opinions of people who disagree with him, and he is willing to listen to facts and consider all sides of an issue before making a decision. He knows how to surround himself with the most qualified advisors on every issue from the economy to national security. And he obviously knows how to inspire people and bring out the best in all of us.

It is almost unfathomable that after 8 years of secretive leadership that was driven by the interests of a small group of insiders, a narrow-minded worldview, and George W. Bush’s personal agenda to redeem the legacy of his father, we will now have a president of the people and for the people. A president who truly represents the multifaceted groups of individuals who make up this great nation.

Of course there will be challenges and difficulties ahead. Of course, Obama will make unpopular decisions and mistakes along the way. But ultimately, I truly believe that he is driven by a desire to do what is right for the people, for the country, and for the world, and that he has the intelligence and sound judgment to be successful in his endeavor.

That we have elected Obama as our next president says something about us as a nation. It says that we are able to overcome our differences and embrace the future. It tells the world that we have grown up; that as a people we are capable of making wise, mature decisions. Yes We Can!

Congratulations, America!

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Colin Powell's Voice of Wisdom

Colin Powell’s endorsement of Obama for president was important in many ways, mostly because it was based on wise and thoughtful arguments for Obama as a “transformational” leader. It was also important because, finally, a respected politician spoke up against the bigoted equation of “muslim” with “terrorist” that McCain and Palin have been propagating.

Here are a few quotes from Washington Post's article about Powell’s endorsement:

“Powell also said he was troubled by Republicans who "said such things as 'Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim.' Well, the correct answer is 'He is not a Muslim; he is a Christian. He's always been a Christian.' But the really right answer is 'What if he is?' "

"Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country?" he added. ". . . Is there something wrong with some 7-year-old Muslim American kid believing that he or she could become president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, 'He's a Muslim, and he might be associated with terrorists.' This is not the way we should be doing it in America.""

It was about time someone pointed this out. How is it that “muslim” has become a derogatory term? And the same apparently goes for “Arab.” I was appalled when McCain sought to defend Obama against the racist bigotry of the Republican base. A woman at a town hall meeting tells McCain that she is scared of Obama because “he is an Arab”. McCain’s answer: “No, no, ma’am, he’s not; he’s a decent family man.” As if “Arab” and “decent family man” are mutually exclusive. Most media reported this as an example of McCain trying to do the honorable thing and renouncing his own campaign’s nasty scare tactics. And yes, his motive might have been to seem honorable and salvage a bit of his reputation, but couldn’t he do that without implying that “Arab” is a pejorative?

I realize that if Obama really were a muslim, or an Arab, he wouldn’t stand a chance in this presidential election. Electing an African-American is enough of a stretch for mainstream America at this point. But that does not permit us to accept blatant xenophobia. The United States is and should continue to be a multi-cultural society with room for people of all nationalities, ethnicities, and religions. Thank you, General Powell, for bringing a voice of wisdom and reason into the public discourse.

Monday, October 6, 2008

Sarah Barracuda is turning up the heat

Well, Sarah Palin didn’t get booted off the ticket. Instead, she’s back in full force. And she’s in attack mode. I guess you could say Palin did “well” in last week’s debate, in terms of looking self-confident and strong. She was sure to appeal to the right-wing Republican base, but most other people were turned off by her performance. She didn’t stumble the way she did in her Couric interview, but that was only because she set her own rules and chose to ignore the moderator. She bluntly stated that she wasn’t going to answer the questions; she was just going to talk about whatever she wanted. And she did. She talked about “mavericks” coming to Washington to “shake things up” (as if McCain hasn’t already been there for 26 years), and she talked about “energy policy,” as if she actually has something to contribute to this discussion.

Joe Biden tried to catch her on her evasive responses on several occasions, but moderator Gwen Ifill hardly ever followed up. Perhaps she was subdued by the pre-debate discussion of her possible bias, or perhaps it was simply the debate format, which only allotted a short time for each answer.

Biden may have looked old and tired compared to Super Sarah, but his answers were substantial and meaningful. He did a very good job of presenting the Obama/Biden ticket and what they stood for. When Palin ventured away from uttering catch phrases (“maverick”, “energy”), she managed to get herself into trouble. As, for example when she talked about climate change. First she states that it’s not manmade. Then she says that we need to take action by reducing emissions. Why would that help if man-made emissions haven’t contributed to the problem in the first place?

She’s also stunningly unprofessional. As when she gave a shout-out to her brother’s third grade class, telling them they would get extra credit if they watched the debate. That’s about as mature as saying “Hi Mom” and waving at the camera. Does she realize that she’s running for the second-most important office in the nation, not for VP of the local PTA?

What is really appalling about her performance is her over-confident attitude combined with her complete lack of knowledge. I cringe when she says, in that scornful voice she has mastered to perfection, that Obama is “beyond naïve” in wanting to meet with leaders of hostile nations. She has absolutely no credibility in anything relating to foreign affairs, and she can only get away with such statements because she is taking no questions from anyone who might challenge her statements.

True ignorance is not knowing how much you don’t know. And that is truly dangerous.

Monday, September 29, 2008

When is Palin going to withdraw from the race?

Sarah Palin’s disastrous interview with Katie Couric last week has been widely criticized, and some sound bites have been played over and over again, such as Palin’s absurd statements about Putin rearing his head over Alaska, but every part of the interview revealed that she is a person who has never seriously considered any issues regarding matters outside “the great state of Alaska.” On top of that, she tries to mask her ignorance by being arrogant and condescending. Here’s one of the lesser-heard exchanges from the interview:

Couric: In preparing for this conversation, a lot of our viewers … and Internet users wanted to know why you did not get a passport until last year. And they wondered if that indicated a lack of interest and curiosity in the world.

Palin: I'm not one of those who maybe came from a background of, you know, kids who perhaps graduate college and their parents give them a passport and give them a backpack and say go off and travel the world.

No, I've worked all my life. In fact, I usually had two jobs all my life until I had kids. I was not a part of, I guess, that culture. The way that I have understood the world is through education, through books, through mediums that have provided me a lot of perspective on the world.

There were a lot of ways she could have answered this question without insulting people who actually do travel abroad. Apparently she believes that only spoiled rich kids would travel outside the U.S. and only because their parents tell them to do so. It doesn’t occur to her that there are people who have a natural curiosity to see the world, and who might work to save money so they can travel.

And look at the last sentence. This woman has a degree in journalism, and she doesn’t know that the correct plural form is “media.” Somehow she missed that snippet of information during her six years at five colleges. When you use the plural form “mediums,” you are referring to psychic people, as in the TV show “Medium.” I don’t think that’s what she meant to say.

After her performance at this interview, plus her consistently absurd answers to the few questions she has taken from reporters, I seriously believe that the McCain camp will have to let her go. They have no other choice. And it will happen before the debate on Thursday. They will find a time to announce it when it is most likely to be overshadowed by other news – which shouldn’t be too hard to find these days – and they will wait as long as possible, to give Joe Biden as little time as possible to prepare for a different opponent. But it is going to happen.

Friday, September 19, 2008

Is McCain ready to implode?

I’m getting addicted to reading political news coverage. It’s fascinating and scary at the same time to watch what is happening. It’s truly amazing to see the McCain/Palin campaign implode, and it is frightening to see that McCain is still even with Obama in polls. It can only be a matter of time before that starts to change. I’ve never quite understood why anyone would want to vote Republican, but now it’s even harder to comprehend. Each day brings new damaging revelations. Palin is emerging not only as a person who’s ignorant of anything that doesn’t involve moose or hockey, but also as a shrewd politician who governs by secrecy, favoritism, and lack of willingness to listen to critics. Sounds eerily familiar to George W. Bush. And poor McCain, I actually feel sorry for him. At one point he was known for his honesty and integrity, but he has given up every shred of that in order to become “electable,” and he doesn’t look like he’s enjoying his new persona at all.

It’s interesting to see how McCain and Obama are responding to the current financial crisis. McCain comes out with rash statements that are meant to sound decisive but turn out to be hotheaded, and he has to backtrack and change his mind on a daily basis. Obama, on the other hand, chooses to step back and review the current situation and discuss the options with financial advisors before he will announce specific plans for dealing with the crisis.

Who would you rather want to be president? Someone who favors rash decisions that turn out to be wrong? Or someone who wants to absorb and understand the facts and discuss options and scenarios with knowledgeable people before reaching any conclusions? That should be an easy choice. Of course a president must be decisive, but a president should also be levelheaded and capable of making rational, intelligent, and carefully deliberated decisions. The ability to think before acting is a mark of wisdom. So is the willingness to listen to people who disagree with you.

Oh, and by the way, with all the Republican chatter about “tax-and-spend” Democrats, it’s worth noting that a simple statistical analysis of economic conditions from 1959 to 2007 shows that under Democratic presidents, the economy does better on every important measure. Taxes are lower, government spending is lower, unemployment is lower, inflation is lower, budget deficit is lower (or surplus is higher) and the economy is growing at a faster rate. Again, it should be an easy choice.

Thursday, September 4, 2008

One Scary Lady

I stand corrected. Sarah Barracuda is not entertaining; she’s downright scary. It’s not her soap opera family (though the hypocrisy is appalling: the media are told to stay away from the pregnant teenage daughter, yet the poor girl and her hapless boyfriend are placed in the front row during Palin’s convention speech); it’s the issues. The more I read about Palin, the less I like her. To think that Hillary supporters would ever vote for this woman is preposterous. She stands for the exact opposite of everything Hillary stands for. Sarah Palin is pro-life, anti-gay, anti-gun control. As the mayor of Wasilla she wanted to ban books from the local library and threatened to fire the librarian when she wouldn’t comply. She wants creationism taught in schools. Her answer to our energy problems is simple: Drill, drill, drill for more oil. Nothing about saving energy.

She’s far to the right of John McCain, and disagrees with him on issues where he has taken a moderate stand. For example, she doesn’t think global warming is caused by humans and thus wants to do nothing about it. She wants to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which McCain does not. She is by no means anti-lobbyism; she hired a lobbyist to secure federal funds for the tiny town of Wasilla. She was in favor of the “Bridge to Nowhere” until it was politically convenient to oppose it. Her economic politics are reckless, reminiscent of George W. Bush. I read about this on blogs (but, I admit, not from any “reputable” sources). Apparently, as mayor of Wasilla she turned a balanced budget into a large deficit. She lowered taxes for businesses but raised taxes for ordinary people. As governor of Alaska she wants to hand the state’s surplus out to citizens while borrowing money for necessary projects.

I watched part of her speech at the Republican National Convention last night – I couldn’t bear to watch it all, but I watched enough to see that she’s one tough lady. The blog rumors have it that she’s ambitious, ruthless, and stops at nothing to get what she wants. One of the TV commentators pointed out that her speech brought the culture wars back into the spotlight. Hasn’t John McCain tried to position himself as someone who can work across the aisle and favors bipartisanship? God help us if this woman is elected to the second-highest office in the nation. I hope that the American people will see her extremist views and stay far, far away from her.

Tuesday, September 2, 2008

A Brilliant Choice, Indeed

In my latest post I said that McCain’s choice of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin for VP was a brilliant move. Well, the line between genius and madness is a fine one, and we have yet to see which it is in this case. It may be a brilliant move, indeed – for the Democrats.

So far it is at least very entertaining, with Palin’s soap opera life story being unrolled in the media. First, there are the rumors all over the internet that Palin’s five months old baby is really the child of her teenage daughter. Then the campaign comes out with news that the teenage daughter is indeed pregnant (conveniently, she’s exactly five months pregnant, effectively putting an end to the rumors). None of this should matter, of course, except that it does bear some relevance to Palin's political positions. She, her baby (who was born with Down Syndrome), and her daughter are living proof of Palin’s pro-life ideals, which will surely make the Evangelicals happy (though they’ll have to overlook the moral issue of an unwed teenage mom). To others, her daughter’s pregnancy is evidence of the folly of Palin’s abstinence-only sex education policy.

Even if Palin’s and her daughter’s reproductive choices should be off-limits, thornier issues are surfacing. Such as the ethical investigation into her possible attempt to get her ex-brother-in-law fired from his job as a state trooper, with Palin ultimately firing his boss for not complying. The report on this issue will be released a few days before the general election. There’s also the question of whether she really was against the “Bridge to Nowhere” and other earmarks, or if she’s simply a political opportunist just like everyone else, taking the position that best suits her at the moment.

However these issues play out, it becomes increasingly clear that McCain made a very spontaneous decision that could turn out to be disastrous for him. He has effectively undercut his own casting of Obama as not being ready to lead. He has made people seriously question his judgment and ability to make important decisions. My guess is that the social conservative voters are going to love Palin, and McCain will largely have secured their support with this choice. But he’ll have independent voters and moderate Republicans scratching their heads. We’ll have to see how Palin fares once she starts actually saying something, other than talking about her family and her general ideas about politics. But it’s hard to imagine that she’ll do well discussing foreign policy, national security, or economy.

Obama seems to be born under a lucky star that has helped him so far in his political career. This comes just as his poll numbers started slipping. It could be the gift he needs to keep going. Thank you, John McCain!

Friday, August 29, 2008

Who picked the best VP?

I hate to say this, but McCain’s choice of Alaska governor Sarah Palin for VP is a brilliant move, and a great way to invigorate his campaign. She’s young – helping to quell concerns about McCain’s age. She’s a woman – attractive to discontented Hillary supporters. She’s conservative and pro-life, helping to attract the evangelical crowd. She’s a Washington outsider, bolstering the Republican ticket’s ability to bring a message of change. This is, quite simply, a bold and daring choice. And it makes one wonder if the Republicans may overrun the Democrats and serve up the first female presidential candidate. Actually, the strongest female leaders in Europe – Margaret Thatcher and Angela Merkel – have been conservatives. Could it be that a woman has to be a conservative to be seen as “tough” enough to become a leader? Liberal woman may be perceived as “softer” and can’t convince people that they have the stamina to be world leaders.

Of course, that’s speculation. Right now I’m afraid McCain has won this round. Obama’s choice of Joe Biden as his running mate pales in comparison. Biden is a good guy, but he’s a safe choice. He complements Obama on foreign policy, connection with working class voters, age, and experience. But he doesn’t make the ticket more dynamic. Perhaps the Democrats figured that Obama can carry the excitement all by himself and needed somebody to ground him. But people don’t want to be grounded; they want to be lifted up to a higher vision. This one is a score for the Republicans, and they are darned smart to announce it the day after Obama’s historic acceptance speech. I was working on a blog entry about Obama’s nomination, but now that seems old and stale. If it has that kind of effect on my little blog, imagine what it does to the big media machine. But fortunately things move fast in politics, and a lot can happen before Election Day. The excitement will wear off and other issues will become more important.

And while McCain's choice is smart, it's also a gamble that's sure to put off some Republican voters. It's interesting how both Obama and McCain chose running mates that undercut some of their core arguments. Obama talks about bringing change to Washington, yet chooses a VP who has worked in Washington politics all his life. McCain's hammers Obama for lack of experience, yet chooses a running mate who is even younger and less experienced. It will be interesting to see how that all plays out once the excitement settles down and the debates begin.

And we should all remember that we are not voting for a black candidate, a female candidate, or a war hero candidate. We are voting for the person who is best suited to be the leader of the most powerful country in the world. McCain’s many years of service and experience apparently have not brought him insight and wisdom when it comes to world affairs. And that’s an area where Sarah Palin can’t help him. In contrast, Obama’s speech yesterday demonstrated, once again, that he has the insight, the intelligence, and the judgment to make decisions that are in the best interest of the United States and the World.

Friday, August 15, 2008

My Life as a Football Mom

My 9-year-old son Nicklas is a sports nut. He wants to participate in every conceivable sport, and so far he’s been involved in soccer, basketball, baseball, swimming and tai-kwon-do. But this summer he decided that he wants to play football – not flag football, but real football, with full equipment. That did not make me happy. I consider football to be a dangerous sport that promotes aggression. I know this is heresy in the U.S. (and especially in Champaign, Illinois), but I have never been able to understand the appeal of that game; to me it looks pointless. All I see are two groups of big guys standing opposite each other. At a given signal they charge, struggling to knock each other down, until the referee blows his whistle. Then they withdraw, until it’s time to start over again. Somewhere in all this, there’s a ball floating around, but how anyone can keep track of that is beyond my comprehension.

However, Nicklas is convinced that he is the next Eli Manning, and who am I to crush his dreams, so when he brought home a flyer about a new football league in town, I agree to sign him up. But I knew we would have problems when I saw that all the important parent meetings and equipment handouts were scheduled in mid-July, while we were on vacation. I had to scramble to get everything done as soon as we got home, and we immediately started out with practices every single night for two weeks. Most of the parents actually camp out at the practice field, watching the kids from 6:00 – 7:30 pm. Who has time for that? I, on the other hand, rush home from work, rush Nicklas to practice, rush home to cook dinner, rush back to pick him up… you get the picture (OK, some days my husband comes home from work early enough to pick him up – yes, he usually works that late).

To make matters worse, we had scheduled a trip to South Dakota on the weekend of the first game, so I had to tell the coach that Nicklas wouldn’t be there. That was OK, but there was another problem – Nicklas hadn’t been weighed on the official scale that the football league is using. (Actually, he was weighed when he got his equipment, but the person who weighed him forgot to record it.) So I get an email from the coach saying that he has to report on Saturday morning to be weighed. Well, that wasn’t possible since we would be out of town. The coach gives me the name and phone number of a person to call in order to resolve this matter. I have no idea who this person is, but I call him and start explaining the problem. It turns out that he is the president of the football league, he has no time for small matters like this, and he certainly has no patience for ignorant people like me.

Nicklas must be weighed on this particular scale, which is on loan from the wrestling team for just one day. I try to ask if he could be weighed at a different scale, or if they could just go by the weight that was recorded when he had a sports physical in June. But no, that’s not OK. I ask the guy what I’m supposed to do, and he finally has had enough of me and yells, “It’s your own fault, you choose to be out of town when football season has started.” Uh oh, I’m afraid we just don’t have the level of commitment it takes to be a dedicated football family.

But then I see my son in his full football gear, broad shoulders, padded pants, and a big helmet. I see him come out of practice drenched with sweat, not complaining one bit about the hard work and rough tumbling. I see his excitement when the coach tells him that he is one of the fastest players and a valuable addition to the team. And I can’t help being a little bit proud of my budding quarterback. Maybe we can get used to this after all.

Friday, June 6, 2008

Money or Happiness?

This blog shouldn't be all about politics - so here’s something completely different to ponder. A study at the University of Illinois has looked at the correlation between happiness and money. The researchers found that the happier you are, the more money you make – until you reach a certain point. If you are blissfully happy; that is, if you are scoring a happiness level of 10 on a 1-10 scale, you earn less than people who score 8 or 9. Similar findings have been reported in other studies.

So what do the researchers conclude? A little unhappiness is good for you. It’s fine to be reasonably happy, but you need a sliver of dissatisfaction, because is will make you more likely to work harder and strive to make things better. If you are overly optimistic, the researchers contend, you’ll have less self control and be more complacent, and you won’t do as well in terms of career and wealth. The scientists suggest that if you are “too” happy, you should surround yourself with negative people who can drag you down to a level where you start caring about doing something with your life and making money.

These conclusions may have been valid, if they were based on a longitudinal study and found that ten years later these “overly optimistic” people were suffering and unhappy, because they hadn’t become wealthy. But that may not be the case at all.

Apparently, it doesn’t occur to the researchers that money may not be the ultimate goal for everyone. Maybe the “10s” are blissfully happy, exactly because they have realized that life isn’t about making money. Who is to assume that it is more important to be rich than happy? If you are blissfully happy, do you need money? Maybe the people who score “10” are those who have found that the pursuit of happiness does not equal the pursuit of money. Maybe they have moved beyond the desire for material possessions and found happiness through love, relationships, good health, and overall quality of life.

It would be very interesting to take a closer look at the people who score a “ten” in happiness. Are they Buddhist monks who have reached spiritual enlightenment? Or are they, as the researchers imply, naïve airheads who will at some point fall flat, because they don’t know how to worry about important things in life?

Without knowing more about these studies than what has been reported in the press, one can certainly draw a conclusion that’s very different from what the researchers suggest:

Making more money will increase your happiness, up to a certain point. If you want to become blissfully happy, you must transcend the need to make money and let go of your material desires.

Wednesday, June 4, 2008

A Dream Ticket After All?

What a relief! Barack Obama can finally claim the nomination and everyone can focus on the general election. But what about Hillary? She still hasn’t conceded, and speculations abound in the media today about Hillary as VP. Does she want it? Does Obama want her? Do the voters want her? I don’t know about the first two questions, but it looks like the answer to the third question would be yes. She continues to have a very strong following. It is amazing how she and Obama have split the victories between them. Even last night, when it was clear that she had no chance of becoming the nominee, she and Obama took one state each. Obama has long been the likely nominee, but he has run almost parallel with Hillary in terms of delegates and he is winning by a slim margin.

It seems clear that Obama has a problem with a part of the constituency – the low-income, uneducated, white voters – and that Hillary has a strong appeal among those groups. It may be that once Hillary is out of the picture, those voters will rally behind Obama. But maybe not. Maybe they’ll flock to McCain. Together, Obama and Hillary would be unbeatable, because of their appeal to different demographics.

I’ve argued against the “dream team,” but that was when Hillary suggested Obama as her VP – a preposterous suggestion when she was already losing the nomination. Of course there are many problems with Hillary and Obama as running mates. After six months of ripping each other apart, will they be able to stand each other? Will she hurt his message of change? Will Obama supporters be able to overcome their distaste for her? She may not be the ideal choice for VP, but it seems next to impossible to get around her. Not just because she refuses to back down (which at this point seems fairly pathetic), but because her supporters keep going, too. With the strong, passionate support both Obama and Hillary have garnered, a joint ticket may be the best way – perhaps the only way – to unite the Democratic Party.

Friday, May 23, 2008

Racism in America

As Barack Obama is inching closer to the presidency, one can’t help wonder if the U.S. will be ready for the first black president. Will the low-income, white voters support him? If nothing else, Obama’s candidacy has really exposed the issue of race in the U.S.

It’s very difficult for an outsider to understand race relations in the U.S. Coming from a small, ethnically homogenous country like Denmark, I had never thought much about racism until I moved to the U.S. (Denmark is starting to have its own problems as the nation is becoming more multi-ethnic, but that’s a different story). And it wasn’t until my kids started school that I realized how deep the racial divide still is in this country.

We live in a city of about 70,000 people. Several years ago, a group of black parents challenged the school district, saying that the schools with predominantly black children were of a lower quality and their children didn’t receive the same level of education as the white kids. Their lawsuit resulted in a consent decree, whereby the school district agreed to fix the problem. Their solution was to implement a system that’s called “schools of choice,” which means that your kids don’t attend your neighborhood school but will be bused somewhere else. Most people still try to choose their neighborhood school, but the popular schools have long waiting lists.

The school district also has an accelerated learning (gifted education) program for students who qualify. The self-contained gifted classrooms are placed at the schools with the worst reputation in the worst neighborhoods, in an attempt to lure children from privileged homes to these schools (that’s not the official explanation, of course).

Our children attend the gifted program at a school that is located in a low-income, predominantly black neighborhood, and 67% of the kids come from low-income families. The gifted program provides an excellent education, but the gulf between the gifted and non-gifted classrooms is evident. The ethnic breakdown of students at the school is 40% black, 34% white, and 16% Asian, but in the gifted classrooms, it’s more like 50% Asian, 45% white, and 5% black. It’s a recurring problem for the school district that black kids don’t make it into the gifted program, and that black low-income kids still attend their neighborhood school.

And it appears that the racial barriers are already firmly in place even for young children. The kids in the gifted and the non-gifted classes don’t get along very well. There are the predictable taunts, such as the non-gifted kids calling the gifted kids “nerds” and “teacher’s pets,” but there are also racial undertones. For example, a black kid said to my son, “I want to wipe the whiteness off your face.” A lot of the racial slurs are directed from blacks to Asians. My son’s best friend is Korean, and he’ll often endure comments such as “you’re a stupid Chinese boy.” It’s very sad to see that the racial hostility is already in place when you’re 10 years old. Those kids must have been inculcated with negative attitudes towards what their parents probably see as the “privileged races”.

When my daughter started Kindergarten last year (not a gifted classroom; the program doesn't start until 2nd grade), she became best friends with a black girl. They were inseparable at school – until the girl’s older sisters declared that they didn’t like Nathalie and that Caitlyn shouldn’t play with her. Nathalie would come home and tell stories like this: “Caitlyn pushed me at recess, because she wanted her sisters to think she’s not my friend.” I can’t say that the sisters disliked Nathalie because she is white, but I also can’t see any other reason – they didn’t know her at all. Not surprisingly, Nathalie and Caitlyn are no longer best friends. (Nathalie‘s current best friend is a black boy, who apparently doesn’t have older siblings).

Quite frankly, I was shocked to learn that racism runs rampant among kids. And it’s a tall order to expect the school system to fix it all. The problems in the schools are reflecting a broader level of societal problems. Champaign schools are segregated because the city is segregated. There are neighborhoods for black, low-income families and neighborhoods for white, upscale families. The problems need to be addressed at a broader, societal level.

But is doesn’t hurt to start with the kids. I think the schools should work to promote racial integration, starting at the Kindergarten level or earlier, when the kids are still open and less biased. It would also help to provide kids with homework help to break the social heritage of underperformance. A kid whose parents dropped out of high school simply cannot get the needed academic support and encouragement at home. These kids need support that matches what the privileged kids get a home. As the low-income kids perform better academically, they also may feel less alienated and threatened by the kids from wealthier homes.

There are no easy answers, but I hope that Obama is right that the U.S. is ready to become a united nation. Maybe having a black president would at least facilitate the process.

Monday, April 14, 2008

Who's bitter now?

Gosh, I took the weekend off from reading any political news, a now there’s another fully erupted battle in the Democratic camp, with McCain on the sidelines echoing Hillary as best he can.

This time Obama is being “elitist” because he said small town Americans were “bitter” and clinging to “guns and religion.” Hillary apparently believes that this is the gaffe she’s been waiting for, or at least she can make it into one.

Meanwhile, according to the buzz on the internet, and at least one town where Hillary tried to bash Obama (link) , some small town people actually agree, saying that yes, they are bitter and angry – over lost jobs, high gas and food prices, indifferent politicians. And being the non-elitist candidate is kind of a hard sell for wealthy, privileged HRC.

I just wish that the Pennsylvania voters will get to it already, and vote Hillary out of the contest. This is getting ridiculous and it’s certainly not helpful to anyone.

Hillary might have been a great president, but this is not her time, and she needs to realize it. Trying so hard to make Obama look unelectable is absurd.

And the worst part of it is that now they’re both at each other’s throats, with Obama accusing Hillary of playing Annie Oakley, pretending to be a beer-drinking, gun-slinging, down-to-earth gal. I just wish Obama would stay above the fray, but I guess that’s not realistic if he wants to win.

I also wish he wouldn’t keep apologizing for this statements. It’s nice and refreshing with a politician who can admit that he makes mistakes, but it shouldn’t be to the point that whenever someone takes issue with something he says, he immediately retracts. He should own up to his statements, even if they rub some people the wrong way. “Bitter” is not a bad choice of a word, and it probably reflects perfectly fine what he meant to say, and what many people across America feel about the current state of affairs. It’s great that he tries to clarify and elaborate, but there’s no need to claim that he “misspoke,” the current preferred vernacular for “I’m stupid/lying/didn’t mean for other people to hear that”.

Seriously, these three people speak all the time to all sorts of crowds. And every word they utter is instantly available to the world on the Internet. If they never made a statement that could potentially be offensive to someone in their vast audience, they would never be able to say anything of substance. I do think there is a difference, however, between Obama’s comment and Hillary’s and McCain’s recent “misspeaks”. You can argue endlessly over whether Obama’s comment shows that he understands small-town Americans and empathize with them, or whether he understands small-town Americans and patronize them. (Either way, the comment shows that he understand them).

Hillary’s “misspeak” about sniper fire, on the other hand, was repeated multiple times and reveals an attempt to misrepresent and over-dramatize her life experiences. McCains multiple “misspeaks” about shia and sunni muslims reveal that he does not have a firm grasp on the situation in Iraq, which is serious because his primary claim to the presidency is his expertise regarding foreign policy.

There is a big difference between getting the facts wrong, about your own life or a political situation, and getting a point across by using a description that may rub some people the wrong way. Making such a big deal out of such a small thing really shows that there are no major issues for Hillary and Obama to discuss, underscoring the point that it’s time to stop fighting and unite behind one candidate.

Thursday, April 10, 2008

Who's behind the door? A president or a goat?

A recent article by John Tierney in the New York Times discusses the Monty Hall problem. (Featured in the old game show “Let’s Make a Deal” with host Monty Hall). This is a math problem with a psychological component, addressing probability as well as choice and decision-making.

The problem goes like this: You have three doors. Behind one is a car; behind the other two are goats. You win the car if you pick the right door.

So you pick one door (say, Door 1), but before it is opened, the game host opens one of the other doors (say, Door 3) to reveal a goat. You now get to decide whether you’ll stick with your original choice (Door 1) or switch to Door 2. Which one gives you a better chance of winning?

According to John Tierney, you may think that your chances are 50-50 no matter which of the remaining two doors you choose, but in reality you’ll be better off switching to the other door. Why? Because your chance of picking the right door out of three would be 1:3, while your chances of picking the wrong door would be 2:3. So there’s a greater chance you picked the wrong door and would be better off switching to the other door (though there is some discussion of the validity of this probability if your first choice was completely random).

Interesting concept.

Now imagine that there are three doors. Behind one is a great president and behind the other two are goats. If you pick the right door, the country will prosper, but if you pick a goat, it will go downhill from here.

You randomly pick Door 1. The game host opens Door 3 and reveals John McCain. You know that behind the other two doors are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. But you don’t know who’s behind which door, and you don’t know who’ll be the great president and who’ll be the goat.

What should you do?

Maybe you should ask the audience to help you. Assume that the rest of the world are sitting on the other side of the stage and can see what’s behind the doors. Sometimes the outside perspective provides an advantage.

It looks like the audience will tell you to pick the door that leads to Obama. He’s the overwhelming favorite of people in Europe and everywhere else, as this piece by Shmuel Rosner points out.

But of course Americans don’t care what the rest of the world thinks. Or they wouldn’t have reelected George W. Bush in 2004. “How can 59,054,087 people be so DUMB?” was a headline in Britain’s Daily Mirror after the 2004 election. And you’ve got to admit the Europeans were right on this one. So maybe they’ve got it right again.

OK, of course we shouldn’t pick a president based on what people in other countries think. But it doesn’t hurt to listen to some common sense.

And of course, picking a president isn’t a completely random game. We have plenty of information on which to base our decision. But when it comes down to it, we can never know for sure. We’ll just have to hope we’re picking the right door.

Thursday, April 3, 2008

How do we decide whom to support?

Following up on my previous post, I am wondering how people become so passionate about their favorite candidate that they almost forget we’re on the same bus. Most people agree that Hillary and Obama differ very little on the issues. If politics is not the main reason to choose one candidate over the other, what makes us decide whom to support?

Perhaps we look to whom we think is better at following through on their ideas and getting things accomplished. That’s when we get into discussions of their respective legislative records, who got more bills passed in the Senate, and who was better able to work across the aisles. That’s relevant enough, but I suspect that even before we look at such arguments, we’ve already made up our minds. Our preferences are shaped at a more subconscious level and reflect how we respond to each candidate’s personality and how we feel that we can relate to each of them. And it’s not just a matter of race and gender, though both may play into it.

Why do I prefer Obama? As a white woman (I’m not going to say middle-aged, though maybe that would apply), you’d think I was all for Hillary. But somehow I feel I can relate better to Obama. I’m not biracial, but like Obama, I grew up without a father, partially raised by my grandparents. Like Obama, I have lived in different countries and at times struggled to define who I am and where I belong. Many people in this country of immigrants have multi-ethnic, multi-national roots and Obama becomes a symbol for the new global American. There is a sense that his background gives him a broader perspective, a bigger vision.

At the website “Women for Hillary,” you can read comments from women who support Clinton. How about this one from Maya Angelou (in an essay celebrating Women’s History Month):

“There is a world of difference between being a woman and being an old female. If you’re born a girl, grow up, and live long enough, you can become an old female. But, to become a woman is a serious matter. A woman takes responsibility for the time she takes up and the space she occupies. […] Hillary Clinton is a woman. She has been there and done that and has still risen. She is in this race for the long haul. She intends to make a difference in our country.”

It’s as if Hillary’s toughness comes out of a sense of resentment, as if she’s been treated unfairly but has honorably fought her way to the top – when in reality she was born into privilege and has had every advantage in her education and career.

Then look at the words of another black female writer, Alice Walker:

“I am a supporter of Obama because I believe he is the right person to lead the country at this time. He offers a rare opportunity for the country and the world to start over, and to do better. […] He is the change America has been trying desperately and for centuries to hide, ignore, kill. The change America must have if we are to convince the rest of the world that we care about people other than our (white) selves.”

In her essay, Walker does talk about her past, growing up in racist, segregated Georgia. Clearly, blacks have much more blatant injustice and oppression to be resentful about than women like Hillary.

But Obama is not just black, he is also white, and his sister is half Asian. He defies standard definitions and bridges across traditional divides in our society. Obama’s vision isn’t fueled by resentment; it’s fueled by hope. He makes us feel like we can see beyond the struggles of the past and create a new future.

Obama may not be stronger on the issues or better at the political games than Hillary, but he possesses the ability to inspire, to make our minds and hearts soar, and that’s no small feat for a leader.

Don't forget the real battle

As the race between Obama and Clinton is dragging on, both of them seem to have shifted their attention from each other to John McCain. And appropriately so, because that’s where the real battle lies. McCain is a great patriot and has served the country well, but his accomplishments are in the past. He offers no new ideas, no real solutions, and it’s clear that his politics wouldn’t be much of a change from the current administration.

What a shame it would be if the democratic infighting got so bitter that we missed out on this wonderful opportunity to make history and shape the future. Both democratic candidates are extremely bright and capable individuals, and both would break new ground for this country. Hillary may be more steeped in traditional politics than Obama, but she’s still light years ahead of McCain. Let’s hope that no matter who wins, people from both camps will come together and support the nominee. As we hash out the differences between the two, we should not forget that the major philosophical and practical differences are between Republicans and Democrats, and the fight for the Democratic nominee is merely over who’s the best representative for what we believe in.

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

Hillary under fire

This week it’s Hillary’s turn to be under fire – media fire, not sniper fire, that is – for her “misspeaking” (or “misremembering”) of the events on the Bosnia tarmac in 1996.

Memory is a notoriously unreliable entity. When I was in graduate school, my psychology professor talked about an interesting study he had conducted on memory. Volunteers were recruited for an experiment. When the volunteers arrived, they were told that the researcher wasn’t ready yet, so they’d have to wait in a graduate student’s office. After a short wait, they would be directed to another room where the experiment took place. Well, here they learned the actual nature of the study – they were asked to describe the room in which they had just spent time waiting. They were to write down as many details as they could remember.

A substantial number of people included “books” in their description, even though there was not a single book in the room. We expect that there be books in a graduate student’s office, so the brain fills in the missing details to make our recalled experience consistent with our expectations.

As this experiment illustrates, memory is not a computer that records everything and can replay it accurately on cue. Memory is a mishmash of actual events, our perception of events, our previous knowledge, cultural expectations, and perhaps our wishes and desires.

Certainly, some events are forever etched into memory, and running to escape sniper fire would probably be one of them. Ah, but what if it didn’t happen but we wish it did? Can we lure our brains into thinking that our lives are more dramatic and interesting than they really are?

It’s hard to believe that Hillary was telling this story as a deliberate lie. That wouldn’t be a very smart move; she must have known that there were plenty of witnesses to set the record straight. It is more likely that the situation gradually became more dramatic as she replayed the events in her mind and retold her story to different audiences.

Just like she continues to believe that she will be the next president of the United States and cannot come to grasp with the possibility that it may not happen. In her mind, she is already there, and she cannot believe that the world around her does not conform to that fact.

I have always had a lot of respect for Hillary, but it is beginning to look like she’s so bent on becoming president that if she can’t have the nomination now, she would rather take down Obama and help McCain win, so she can get another chance in 2012.

Let’s just hope that Democratic voters aren‘t going to let that happen.

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Obama and the race issue

Obama’s greatest challenge so far is undoubtedly his association with Rev. Wright and Trinity United Church of Christ. It is very hard to believe that he has been a member of the church for 20 years without being aware of the radical statements made by Wright. I’m not worried that Obama is really a closet extremist and that he might secretly share Wright’s views. However, it does make me uneasy about his sense of judgment.

How could he feel such a strong connection with this pastor and this church? No doubt there is more to Wright than the sound bites we now hear in the media, but the pastor’s style and opinions seem at odds with Obama’s sensible, bridge-building approach. Perhaps the church provided a way for him to become connected with the black community, a natural desire for him but something that’s hard for white voters to understand.

The biggest risk for Obama is to be seen as “a black candidate,” which for white voters would mean someone who is disproportionately concerned with the interests of black voters. So far that hasn’t happened, but his association with Wright could potentially tip the boat in that direction. His Philadelphia speech today was meant to do damage control and soothe the fears of white voters, without alienating blacks. Did he manage to adequately address these concerns?

Yes, I think he pulled it off. He came across, once again, as very intelligent and levelheaded, as well as inspirational. Race is an incredibly sensitive issue in this country, and it is something that we need to confront and discuss. In his speech, Obama acknowledges that there is a racial divide, and he shows that he is able to understand the viewpoints on both sides. We need somebody who is able to bridge that divide, and Obama is uniquely positioned to so that with his biracial background and his family ties to both white and black culture.

Did he do well enough to ease the discomfort of mainstream white voters? It’s too early to tell. But it’s a good thing for Obama that the Pennsylvania primary is still more than a month away. It will give the whole thing some time to settle down and other issues will come into focus. And, by the way, it speaks to Clinton’s credit that she hasn’t tried to capitalize on the Wright controversy. Perhaps she realizes that doing so would make her equally vulnerable to inappropriate comments made by her supporters.

(For Danish coverage of Obama's speech, see here)

Friday, March 14, 2008

Ethics in Politics

The fall of New York governor Eliot Spitzer once again reminds us that things are not always what they seem, in politics and marriage alike. And it begs the question, is there such a thing as an ethical politician?

Or is it like the sports world, where a top athlete once in a while is caught using steroids and everyone is shocked and outraged, but deep down we suspect that they probably all do it; or they wouldn’t be top athletes. Once it becomes widespread practice, you either play the game or you leave. Some people become scapegoats so the rest of us can pretend it’s an anomaly; yet it continues to happen behind the scenes.

Is it the same with politics? That you cannot possibly get to the top level of power without some amount of lies and deceit? That a truly honest and ethical person will never get anywhere in the world of politics? In other words, it’s not a matter of who’s doing something unethical; it’s a matter of who’s getting caught.

It’s a discussion we have frequently in our household. My 25-year-old stepson has been actively involved in politics (in Denmark, presumably one of the least corrupt nations in the world), and my 10-year-old son wants to go into politics when he’s older. My husband strongly advises against it; he maintains that politics is a dirty game and all politicians are corrupt. I ‘d hate to believe that he is right, but sometimes I can’t help but wonder.

What I tell my 10-year-old is that I believe many people go into politics for idealistic reasons, because they want to help make the world a better place. And that I believe it is a noble career choice, because democracy depends on people being willing to spend their time and energy in all levels of government.

Of course I realize that politics tend to attract people who are hungry for power and have big egos, and they are the ones who rise to the top. I also realize that you probably won’t be in politics for long before you find out that you can’t always stick to your high ideals; you’ll have to make compromises to get anything accomplished. When do you cross the line between being pragmatic and being corrupt? Do they all cross it at some point?

It makes me worried about our presidential candidates, especially Barack Obama, whom I strongly support. He seems “clean”, but can he possibly be? He’s coming out of Chicago politics, which is notoriously corrupt – after all, Illinois has a former governor in jail and the current governor under investigation in the Rezko trial. Obama seems to have only minor ties to Rezko, but can we trust that to be true?

And the next question is, can ANY candidate at that level be “clean?” Will we just have to accept that they all come with baggage and we can only hope that it isn’t “too” bad, i.e., obviously illegal or blatantly unethical. And at least Obama is young, which means that he has had fewer years to be corrupted than Hillary or McCain. And at least it appears that he started his career from an idealistic standpoint, choosing to be a community organizer rather than working for a prestigious law firm.

Or we can choose to make a leap of faith and believe that maybe there are a few rare individuals who are truly driven by a desire to accomplish the highest good for society; individuals who are able to navigate the balance of making the deals that are required to get things done and get ahead, yet maintain their personal integrity and never sacrifice their inner core and highest ideals.

Perhaps Obama invokes such strong emotional reactions in his supporters, because he makes it possible for us to believe that he could be that unique person – a powerful political figure who’s still a decent human being. It may be a leap of faith, but it is a leap we need to take.

Thursday, March 13, 2008

Dream ticket or nightmare?

Like most other Americans I closely follow the race for the presidential nomination. I'm not yet a U.S. citizen, so I can't actually vote, but that doesn't mean I can't be engaged in the political discourse. With my Danish background I am, of course, a democrat, and like many other democrats I've felt hopelessly torn between two excellent candidates. I've always admired Hillary Clinton and I think she'd be an excellent president; however, I believe that Barack Obama is the one who can bring us into the future. 

At first I felt very guilty for not supporting Clinton, because she's clearly competent and it would indeed be great to see a woman take the top spot. In any other line-up of candidates, I would have strongly supported her. Certainly, I'm not the only one; she would have secured the nomination easily had it not been for the Obama-phenomenon. It's unfortunate for her, and clearly hard –no, impossible –for her to understand and accept what's happening. But sometimes history turns a page and there's a paradigm shift in the collective consciousness of people.

I guess that makes me one of those naive, latte-sipping intellectuals who fall for great oratorical skills over substance and issues. There's really no evidence that Barack would be a great president. But then again, is there ever? Do we ever know for sure who'd be successful? Sometimes we just have to trust out guts. What's so appealing about Obama? He's like a breath of fresh air. He brings inspiration and hope. He comes across as very intelligent and he appears to have a balanced, calm personality and a good sense of judgment. Whether he has the courage to actually carry through on his beliefs remains to be seen. But at least he has the right ideas.  


And I have to admit that Hillary is making it increasingly easy for me to support Obama. Her negative attacks and her determination to bring him down can only hurt the Democrats in the general election and it reflects poorly on her. The way her team is trying to spin everything in her advantage, well, it's the nature of the game, but it's also offensive to anyone with a shred of common sense. 


Now she is bringing up the "dream ticket" with her and Obama running together, which has been floating around in democratic circles for a long time, but at this point seems more like a nightmare. She's using it only as a strategy, trying to make us believe that if we vote for her, we'll get them both. Of course there's no guarantee that she would actually pick him (or that he would accept) if she were the nominee. If they had been able to agree on a joint ticket before the dog fighting started, everyone would have been ecstatic. Now it's too late.  Obama is the frontrunner and there would be no point for him in conceding the #1 spot to her.


It's hard to believe that a few months ago, the Republicans had a handful of candidates, none of whom anybody liked, and they had to pick the lesser evil of the bunch, while the Democrats were energized by three very viable and likable candidates. Now the Republicans rally around their guy (mostly), while the Democrats are tearing each other apart. 


I hope Obama wins the nomination (and picks Bill Richardson for his VP) and that he wins in November. If McCain wins, I predict that he'll be a one-term president, replaced in 2012 by either Obama or another fresh, young politician who has yet to emergy on the scene. But let's keep our fingers crossed that the change this country needs will happen NOW!