Will Nader Please Just Stop?

I realize that this is now sort of old news, but I have to comment on it anyway. Ralph Nader recently has fiercely criticized Barack Obama for what he calls “talking white”:

"There's only one thing different about Barack Obama when it comes to being a Democratic presidential candidate. He's half African-American. Whether that will make any difference, I don't know. I haven't heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead. What's keeping him from doing that? Is it because he wants to talk white? He doesn't want to appear like Jesse Jackson?. . .He wants to show that he is not a threatening . . . another politically threatening African-American politician. He wants to appeal to white guilt. You appeal to white guilt not by coming on as black is beautiful, black is powerful. Basically he's coming on as someone who is not going to threaten the white power structure, whether it's corporate or whether it's simply oligarchic. And they love it. Whites just eat it up." <Attribution: Rocky Mountain News 6-25-08>

All right, I know that Ralph Nader is running for president for what seems like the thousandth time (4th time I think actually) and therefore needs to generate some buzz, but... c’mon, now... “talking white?” “White guilt?” Can he please, please, please just go away? Or start grinding away at the “evil” corporations themselves rather than perpetuate old and hateful (by the very resonance of the terms themselves if nothing else) racial themes and really poorly thought-out comparisons and arguments? I mean, “white guilt” derives from Europeans in the Victorian Age feeling sanctimoniously charitable to those poor Africans in the 19th Century—we all saw how that turned out, didn’t we? Africa is just a wonderfully politically stable region of the world thanks to the efforts of European powers over hundreds of years, isn’t it? Doesn’t sound like a winning tactic to me.

And “talking white” (or “acting white,” more frequently) is a particularly nefarious phenomenon that I have heard and read about in some parts of the African American community relating to critiquing peers who attempt to succeed in education and business. To succeed or be educated is apparently viewed as “acting white.” (For those who have not read or heard about this sad phenomenon in some schools and communities, much research has been done about it. Here’s a link to one study about it: http://www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/3212736.html). That is a ridiculous way to criticize Obama. First, it does not make sense: it actually is NOT bad to succeed and be educated. So what is Nader saying here? That he believes that succeeding is talking/acting white and that is bad? That intentionally failing is good? The whole concept is a nonsensical contradiction, which is, of course, why the phenomenon is so nasty and sad. Second, how does an old white guy level that kind of criticism? It’s terribly confusing, which no doubt arises from the fact that Nader had no idea what he was referencing.

Perhaps Nader’s reference to “talking white” refers more to the “Uncle Tom” criticism—that a black man “talks white” and is “safe” in order to cozy up to white people and get along, thereby betraying both his pride—because he has to dumb himself down and relinquish his ambitions to be safe—and his minority community. If that is the case—and, again, I would have to say that this would be the first time I have heard a white man criticize a black man for such activity—it is an even worse injection of irrelevant, hateful language from the past to dump into our collective ears. The man (Obama) is running for president. If he is trying to give up his ambitions or dumb himself down, that would not exactly help his cause.

Please! No more!

There are valid criticisms to be made of Barack Obama from the left. Hillary Clinton made one of them, that his health plan does not include everyone. The Green party will no doubt find some flaws in his energy plan. But injecting inflammatory racial rhetoric is not helpful, not even close to accurate, and, to someone like me, in my thirties, is terribly dated and out-of-touch (and really sad to hear, because it is like your 80-year old grandmother making those terrible racist comments that are so out of line now, but you cut her slack anyway, because the environment has changed so much. I suppose no one, not even Ralph Nader, is immune to old age).

Please stop, Ralph.

For the record... please note that I made NO REFERENCE to the fact that Nader’s collection of 2.7 percent of the popular vote in 2000 directly resulted in eight long years of “W.” Whoops, I guess I just did, didn’t I?

Thoughts on immigration

We all came from somewhere. Some before the United States came to exist, most after. And yet immigration has been – and remains – the thorniest of political topics. For the one thing we all seem to have in common, is once we – and by “we” I include our forebears – have arrived, we seek to restrict the flow of new arrivals. Today it is the Mexicans and other Latin Americans flowing north in search of jobs their own economies cannot provide, but during the latter 19th and beginning of the 20th century, it was the “yellow peril” threatening to overrun the western US as Chinese and Japanese immigrants came east. On the east coast it was the Irish and Italians beginning in the 1850s and continuing sporadically into the first two decades of the 1900s bringing the “scourge” of Catholicism. Most had one thing in common – they did not have “immigration” visas: the vaunted document that now separates “legal” immigrants from “illegal” immigrants.

What does it mean to be “legal” and when precisely did the term enter our national lexicon? A good question which requires further research, but which is beyond the scope of this article… I speak now from my personal experience of fighting through the “legal” immigration process with my Japanese spouse, and I can say with some certainty that process is a large part of the problem. For the problem with which we contend is not one of allowing only “legal” immigrants with skills into the country, but rather a problem of supply and demand. There is a demand for unskilled workers in the American economy to perform jobs our own citizens currently decline as being too menial or “beneath” their status – whatever that means to an unskilled, unemployed worker. Certain segments of our economy – especially the agricultural sector – still rely on the labor of itinerant workers to bring in seasonal crops. While this is not intended to be a discussion on the failings of our own populace to meet the demands of certain segments of the economy – the fact is American industry has a demand unmet by the domestic populace, and Spanish-speaking countries south of the US have an ample supply of excess labor. And yet, what remains the primary difference between these “illegal” immigrants and our “legal” ancestors? Time.
The United States is unique in the community of nations in that our national identity is predicated on immigration. While we retain a “special” relationship with our former colonial power, the relationship has only been truly “special” since the mid-1930s and is significantly based on the special relationship that developed between President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Spencer Churchill – himself half-American; prior to the early 20th century, the relationship was more often hostile than not, and even after Pearl Harbor in 1941 many Americans remained isolationists. Unlike the rest of the nations spun off from the former British empire, we do not define ourselves as a member of the British Commonwealth; we define ourselves by the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Statue of Liberty… we see ourselves as the city on the hill, a source of emulation, and a melting pot into which all are welcome, regardless of religion, ethnicity or pedigree. And yet while we tend to romanticize the way our own ancestors came to America in our national mythology (slaves being the exception), we simultaneously denigrate those seeking to follow in our steps. It is so much easier to deal in the terms of demagogues – CNN’s Lou Dobbs comes to mind – and equate all immigrants as vagrants living off America’s largesse, seeking to take good, hardworking Americans’ jobs and giving nothing back in return. It is much harder to look at how and why the current system is broken beyond repair and only encourages illegal immigration, vice preventing or deterring new “illegal” immigrants.

The path to legal immigration is neither easy nor cheap. In my own case, I was seeking entry for my Japanese wife, who hails from a close US ally with no recent history of illegal immigration. She holds a bachelor’s degree from a well-regarded Japanese university in Tokyo, speaks English fluently, and at the point of our entry into the immigration system, our relationship was nearly four years old. Her application should have been a no-brainer. And yet for her to attain “unconditional permanent residency,” the entire process took nearly three years over a period from 2004 to 2006, it took three visits to the US Embassy in Tokyo, a visit to a stateside US Customs and Immigration Office (two years later), and nearly $700 in total fees. In other words, an amount exceeding the average annual wages in most non-“first world” countries. That amount has recently been increased, and if I read the CIS fee schedule correctly, it is more if the applicant is not a family member of a US citizen. Additionally, if the application is rejected, the fees are not refunded, making the entire process a huge roulette wheel for the average would-be immigrant.

Between the time requirement, necessity to visit an embassy or consulate on more than one occasion, and the significant monetary investment, we effectively eliminate most applicants from legal entry. Making matters worse, we have no easy system to facilitate the legal entry of temporary workers. What our system does not well anticipate is the choice of a normally law-abiding foreign citizen who is being forced to make a choice between illegally entering the US, or staying where he is and allowing his family to go hungry. Granted, his family may be going hungry because his own economy cannot generate sufficient numbers of reasonably well-paying jobs, and he may have more children than he can afford, but regardless, this is the position in which many would be illegal immigrants find themselves. Decrying such a situation does not make it go away.

Until the United States Congress and the President are willing to deal with this very real problem in a meaningful way, we will continue to have substantial problems with illegal immigration. We are collectively kidding ourselves if we think this is a problem solvable by building more fences or kicking out all the “illegals.” First, it is not possible to build a fence around the entire US, and the pundits who decry our not having done so are scoring easy points at the expense of an ignorant general public. Second, as long as nearly half our border comprises water, it will never be possible to keep out all those determined to get into the country. Third, our system cannot handle the mass deportation of 15 million people – the current estimate of illegal immigrants living in the US. This would be tantamount to moving the entire population of Utah somewhere else. The logistics notwithstanding, we do not have a law enforcement apparatus capable of finding and deporting every illegal immigrant.
The basics of what is required is easy – a combination of a guest-worker program, a path to legalization for those already in the US and working in the “shadow” economy, overhaul of our visa-processing apparatus, and a healthy cost-benefit analysis of the true risk we face from “terrorists” attempting to infiltrate the US through illegal points of entry. But until we are willing to have a true national dialogue unencumbered by those who would rather get TV ratings or score political points against their partisan opposites than solve the problem, illegal immigration will continue to be a festering sore and a blight on our national image.

These People Scare Me

I read an article over the weekend in the local Atlanta newspaper about a group organized in Georgia called GeorgiaCarry.org that fights for everyone’s—and I am quoting from the website—“right to own and carry the firearm of their choice for any reason other than to commit a crime.” I.e., for no restrictions on firearms other than not to commit crimes with them. In the article, the founder of the organization talked about how he views his organization as Georgia’s newest civil rights group.

He may technically be correct. The Second Amendment’s “right to bear arms” is, as the Supreme Court recently confirmed in a contentious 5-4 ruling, a personal individual right that forestalls governmental interference (although reasonable restrictions are permissible; but such regulations are subject to strict scrutiny. It is my opinion that this decision is going to generate a storm of constitutional law holdings in the federal courts on this subject over the next several years). However, every time I read about what fierce gun rights proponents are up to, I cannot help but think: why are these people so uncompromising? Why is it so important to someone that he be allowed to carry a concealed firearm—obtained with as little government scrutiny and control as possible—wherever he goes, on the street, on the job, in the car, at work, in a public building, a restaurant, a bar, or even in an airport (the subject of GeorgiaCarry.org’s current headline-making lawsuit)? We accept reasonable limitations on freedom of speech and freedom of assembly—both of which are enshrined in our Bill of Rights in the 1st Amendment to the Constitution (and do not have murky and vague references to a militia being important, like the 2nd Amendment does. See the full text of the 2nd Amendment here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution. See the full text of the 1st Amendment here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment#Text). For example, it is against the law to scream “fire” in a theater, for the very good reason that the panicked stampede that may result could and has, in the past, killed and severely injured people.

I think if I posed the following question to a random collection of Americans:

“Which is more important, the right to bear arms or the right to free speech and assembly?”

I would get far more responses that the right to free speech is more important. Perhaps that is because the right to free speech actually is more important, for two reasons (among many others). First, we live in a democracy, meaning that WE control the government and ARE the government. We also have a mature, balanced, and reasonably fair legal system. Hence, the best, most powerful, and effective way to change (or support) governmental policy or to protect rights is to petition the government (collectively, in a political sense) or through redress in the courts, rather than grabbing your musket and taking up arms. Viz., the power of the pen is far more powerful than that of the sword, especially in the 21st century. Second, our country now has a professional army that has all kinds of crazy technological killing machines. Using your handgun—or even assault rifle—against the U.S. Marines to protect your individual autonomy from governmental inference is just not going to be terribly effective. It is no longer a realistic check on the power of the federal government.

I also do not understand the obsession with gun rights when so many of our other individual rights have progressively diminished. If you are that fired up about having your individual rights bulldozed, how about take on privacy rights? How about take on insurance companies that attempt to catalogue us and our health information as much as possible to maximize profit? How about take on marketing companies that vacuum up our personal information and sell it to the highest bidder? How about fight the battle of protecting our social security numbers from being required by healthcare providers, insurance companies, and banks to identify us (instead of, say, winning battles to prohibit the use of social security numbers being required for gun permits—as GeorgiaCarry.org apparently successfully did in Georgia). Aren’t these battles more worthy than fighting against controls on firearms sales at gun shows or waiting periods for gun purchases or the ban on assault weapons (although, I do understand that the deer are fighting back, now, so hunters may need some extra artillery) or any of the other fringe issues surrounding gun control?

I understand the passion for fighting corporatism and the government, but I do not understand the particular battle gun rights activists have chosen. Hence, l can only conclude that they just want to be gunslingers. And, therefore... these people scare me.

Distortions of a Chinese Education

My wife and I have recently begun acting as liaisons for foreign students studying at Emory University, and last weekend we had our newest student over for a dinner party. Most of the students in this program are older and already have doctorates but are pursuing post-doc studies in a certain very specific area. Our student, who I will call “Jin” for privacy—and in admittedly annoying fashion will refrain from using pronouns for Jin in order to shield gender references throughout this blog post—was no exception, already having an advanced biology degree and pursuing advanced disease-related research at Emory.

First, I have to say that Jin reinforced the notion that I have held for a long time that if all the myriad people in the world could simply meet face-to-face, we would not have the kinds of catastrophic conflicts that exist today. Putting a face to “China” makes invective ring hollow. Jin was a very nice, polite, and possessed an extremely refined culinary palate (as anyone who praises the results of my food preparation will be identified in this blog). However, when we discussed politics and the differences between our two countries, the failures of Jin’s education and the extent to which Chinese orthodoxy reigns were clear.

Let’s just take three examples. First, one of the company assembled that evening mentioned Tibet and what Jin thought about the independence movement there. Jin seemed genuinely surprised about the topic and pointed out that the people of Tibet love Chinese control and involvement because of all the “free healthcare and services” the government provides. Jin also seemed to consider the Dalai Lama a radical crazy person, though we did not delve too much into that issue.

Second, we briefly discussed free speech and voting rights. Jin told us that Jin did not care for either McCain or Obama. Jin was also very happy and “glad” that Jin did not have to “worry” about voting. A committee chose the next leader of the country—or as Jin put it, Mao Zedung chose Deng Xiaoping, Deng Xiaoping chose Jiang Zemin, and Jiang Zemin chose the current leader, Hu Jintao. Jin considered it a burden that we here in America must vote.

Finally, Jin’s view of the protests and subsequent massacre at Tienamen Square in 1989 were that they were necessary to prevent disorder and the destruction of the country—though it was “sad.”

These beliefs were genuine. There was also no reason for Jin to worry about compatriots informing on Jin, because none were there, so there was no peer pressure from Jin’s countrymen.

I do not think I need to say much about the apparent efficacy of Chinese propaganda. Clearly, the party line is well thought out and calculated to present rationality for each abuse of human rights or power mongering. The thing that struck me so strongly was Jin’s disinterest and almost boredom in critically examining the government, its motives, and societal issues in general. They were mere facts, and uncomplicated ones at that.

I believe that this is not only due to the power of the Chinese government to tamp down such behavior, but also due to the Chinese government’s emphasis on a highly technical education. From an early age, Chinese children are pushed to learn science and mathematics and only exposed to humanities/liberal arts in a very factual sense (i.e., this happened, then this happened, etc.). The result of such an education is the devaluation of self-examination, philosophy, government, economics, and other soft sciences. The genius of such an education from the government’s point of view is that propaganda becomes inculcated and self-acting. The government need not work so hard to persuade what its people already are predisposed to. This is exemplified in the product, Jin.

Now, obviously, there are other factors at play. The traditional view of the clash between Western and Eastern cultures centers around individual rights versus collective rights. The recent (in historical terms, which can span centuries) Chinese government’s propaganda surely pales in comparison to the development of a certain cultural attitude developed over millenia.

I occasionally see examples of similar behavior among certain graduates of purely technical institutions in this country. Viz., a lack of social context due to a lack of education about non-technical fields of study. But that is a blog post for another time...

Drilling Delusions

"Unless Members are willing to accept gas prices at today's painful levels -- or even higher -- our nation must produce more oil. And we must start now. So this morning, I ask Democratic Congressional leaders to move forward with four steps to expand American oil and gasoline production."
-President George W. Bush, June 18, 2008

"Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less."- Petition campaign led by American Solutions for Winning the Future, an organization founded by Newt Gingrich

"I will vote to increase U.S. oil production to lower gas prices for Americans."- Petition circulated to other members of Congress by Rep. Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia's 3rd District

With the recent increase in gas prices, many have begun calling for more domestic oil exploration and production, the thought being that an increase in supply of oil will bring prices down. This idea seems to make sense, and the policy has gained a large degree of support.

But is it true?

There are at least two problems with the idea that drilling will lower gas prices. The first is that any new domestic oil projects will take years to start producing. Even advocates of drilling readily admit this.

The second, more significant problem, however, is that those projects, even if all of them are pursued, are unlikely to bring prices down significantly, if at all.

There are three major areas where new oil development is proposed.

1. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. An analysis performed by the Energy Information Administration, an agency within the Department of Energy, concluded that, if this area were opened to oil production tomorrow, oil would not begin flowing for at least ten years, that even at peak production the area would supply less than a million barrels per day, and that production would lower the world price of oil by at most $1.44 per barrel. See an analysis here

2. Offshore Drilling. Again, any offshore drilling projects awould take years to start producing. A New York times article cites a 2007 DOE study that says it would be 2030 before offshore projects started adding to domestic production. Current estimates are that ANWR and offshore projects together probably would not produce more than 2 million barrels per day, and this level would not be reached until sometime after 2020.

3. Oil Shale. Ignoring the manifold environmental problems this type of production would cause, the fact is that oil shale could not significantly impact U.S. oil production for 20 years. The RAND Corporation, hardly a mouthpiece for environmentalists, estimates that it would take this long for oil shale production to supply 1 million barrels of oil per day.

While the amounts of described above are not insignificant, they are not huge. The world currently consumes 85 million barrels of oil per day, so all of the projects above together, if they were producing today, would supply only about 5% of world demand. Any effect that increased domestic production would have on the price of oil (and therefore gas) is very likely to be swamped by other factors in the long term, including declines in the production of existing oil fields, increasing demand from the developing world, and moves by OPEC to prop up the price of oil by moderating its own production. More domestic production might dampen further increases in gas prices but is very unlikely to overcome these other factors and actually reduce gas prices.

The current drive by Republicans for more drilling therefore misleads by playing on the current hardship that we are experiencing at the pump. Of course, using current fears and misleading information in order to promote a policy that (a) is near and dear to conservatives but (b) does not actually address the cause of the fear has been a successful tactic of conservatives in recent years (costly, tragic and unsuccessful Middle Eastern war, I am thinking of you).

When one compares the fervor with which drilling is promoted with the lip service paid to other measures such as energy-efficiency and renewable energy sources, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Republican strategy is a political ploy. Renewable energy and efficiency measures have the potential to permanently reduce our need for oil, whether domestic or foreign, but one looks in vain for conservative petitions and Rose Garden speeches. Westmoreland has stated repeatedly that we need to conserve and to develop wind and solar energy, but he voted against a measure that would have extended tax breaks for efficiency and renewables projects. He also voted against the bill raising fuel-efficiency standards for vehicles.

There are good reasons to consider domestic oil projects. We do need to reduce our reliance on foreign, insecure supplies. And the transition to a different energy economy is itself going to take a lot of energy, much of which must necessarily come from fossil fuels. There are good reasons not to drill as well- feeding our "oil addiction" may distract us from developing other energy sources, and oil projects, particularly oil shale, do produce environmental problems.

But when deception works, why bother with honest debate?

Barack Obama Comes to Georgia... and is immediately Vernonized!

Just a quick note to my many viewers all over the world out there:

Sensing that the state may be contestable, Barack Obama came to town yesterday to campaign. Interestingly, he staged an event in virtually all-white and very Republican Cobb County. For those who do not know, Cobb County contains a number of the most affluent suburbs of Atlanta. I know this upfront and very personally, because I spent a large part of my childhood and went to high school there. (This might give you an idea of the county's political leaning: In what I view in hindsight after legal training as a terrible conflict of interest and abuse of the state-- and what I felt in my gut was wrong as a teenager when it occurred-- my high school jazz band was compelled to attend and play at a re-election campaign event for Newt Gingrich. I initially refused to play but was told in no uncertain terms what the consequences would be if I didn't: dismissal). What makes this interesting is that Obama was clearly attempting to reach out to more conservative voters. This was partially foiled by the large number of Obama admirers who came in from the city to see him speak. Still, it is fun-- and oh so refreshingly different-- to at least consider the possibility that our state may be "in play" as the politicos say.

Obama got a taste of what all of us Dekalb County residents have been witnessing over the last few years, though. Vernon Jones, the CEO of Dekalb County (a position akin to the mayor of a city), took the opportunity to campaign nearby for the Democratic nomination for Senate. This would not have been all that bad but for the fact that his campaign began distributing a flyer showing Obama and Jones apparently standing together, with the slogan "Yes We Can" printed in the background. The image was apparently photoshopped. (You can see the flyer and read about this story here: http://www.ajc.com/cherokee/content/metro/dekalb/stories/2008/07/08/jones_obama.html)
Those of us who live in Dekalb County are used to Jones' shenanigans, which have included hiring a posse of unnecessary bodyguards, pretty much constant fracases with the law (charges and allegations of sexual harassment, assault, etc.), allegations of discrimination (e.g., his pursuit of a "darker administration" of the county according to a federal lawsuit-- he was allegedly referring to race, not the Force), and ego battles with the county commissioners (one even made it to Youtube level! We're so proud!).

Barack Obama made it clear that he has not and "does not" endorse Vernon Jones. He also compared Jones' tactics to Southside Chicago politics.

I wouldn't be waiting on that endorsement from Obama, Mr. Jones.

I always wanted a blog, Ma

I have always wanted a blog. Even when there weren't blogs, I wanted one. In fact, I started one, even though I didn't know the proper label for it, back in 1999 when I created a very rudimentary website and posted "political ramblings" on a special page. Emails between me and G. Morris, one of the future posters to this blog, formed the basis for those posts. Their subjects are lost in the hazy past of the internet bubble stock market crash and disastrous election of "w" but my interest in political dialogue persisted and, now, finds a forum.

Except perhaps for criticizing my hometown Atlanta Hawks' draft choices-- seriously, Marvin Williams ahead of Chris Paul and Deron Williams???-- nothing tends to agitate and inflame me more than political discussion. Some of this is due to a strong innate feeling of justice and rights; thus, when my own Southern senator abrasively dismisses a person's right to marry and work without discrimination based on sexual orientation, I get upset, angry, and confrontational. Likewise, when an African American makes the same comments, I cannot hold back from pointing out that she is diametrically opposed to the teachings of MLK, Jr. Another reason for my passion for political discussion is a fundamental respect for accuracy, truth, and logic. The powers-that-be so obviously engage in-- to borrow a word from Scott McClellan-- propoganda, and the main stream media seem to lap it up like sweet heavy cream, or at least actually report it, which is sometimes bad enough (Swift Boat anyone?). Nowhere is this more evident than on the many, many news shows where "two views" are presented, in a show of balance or fairness; but it's not balance if on one side you have someone who is a nutcase (e.g., Ann Coulter) and on the other you have a legitimate presenter of an opinion. But they do it anyway.

The falsity and blatant self-promotion stun me. And make me mad. Hence, this blog.

I will not pretend that I do not have an opinion or a view, and I will certainly try to convince you that my view is the right one. But you can count on me to make an honest presentation of the facts. (Also, while my wife might disagree, I will admit when I am wrong).