A Few Thoughts...

1) A few gallup polls about which states are most conservative and which states are most liberal came out this week and a couple of results surprised me. One, that my home state of Texas was not listed in the Top 10 of conservative states. Two, that my second home state (Ahem, Commonwealth) of Massachusetts came in as the 5th most liberal states. I mean, c'mon Texas is the same state that has repeatedly thrown around the idea of seceding from the United States because of conservative staple issues like taxes, immigration and federal overreach. And Massachusetts, really!?! This is the first state to provide healthcare for all of its citizens. Yes, the same state that brought you (conservatives avert your eyes) universal health care, is only considered the fifth most liberal state.

Still, I am baffled by Texas not being on the list of Top 10 Conservative States. Could it be that the Lone Star State's status as the conservative standard bearer is just a bunch of hot air? Has the increase in latino population really tipped the scales? I'm not completely convinced yet that the state which prides itself on the motto (one of several I might add) "Texas - it's like a whole other country" has changed it's popular stripes. I am more likely to believe that those people who were polled in Texas were mostly conservative, but held tighter to the "independent" streak that runs throughout the state and just did not wish to label themselves as conservative, liberal or anything of the sort.

Time (or more likely the upcoming 2010 general elections) will either prove my suspicions right or wrong.

2) It is August 3, 2010 and there is already talk about what the president should do about his ticket for the 2012 election. We are not even two years into the Obama Administration and there are people making recommendations about who he should have on his ticket as Vice President in an election that is over two years from now. Interestingly enough, the person making this recommendation is a long-time Obama supporter and a pioneer/trailblazer in his own right when it comes to minority elected officials. His name, Douglas Wilder. For those of you wondering where you've heard that name before, he was the first (and far as I know the only) African-American elected as Governor of the Commonwealth (I know what you're thinking, again with those odd-ball "commonwealths", but this was not on purpose) of Virginia. His recommendation, replace Vice President Joe Biden with (Hill-raisers, get out your pom-poms - no gender puns intended) Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

There are all kinds of rationales for a move like this, but of greater concern to me is the fact that before President Obama even has a chance to settle into being the Leader of the Free World, there are already plans gearing up for the next election. This reality of the "endless" campaign is yet another reason why it's so important for voters to stay vigilant, regardless of who is representing you or the political party in power, because elected officials will come and go, but the issues that face you and your community will most likely be around a long time.

3) Maybe you haven't heard about this or maybe you have, but there seems to be a lot of talk about the 14th Amendment. Some are calling for its repeal, others are apparently calling for hearings to discuss whether or not the entire amendment should be repealed or possibly just parts of the amendment. The issue spawning all of this talk is, immigration. Some people have a problem with Section I of the 14th Amendment which states,

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

The amendment says much more than that, but that's the gist and some believe that "illegal immigrants" taking advantage of Section I by running across the border and having kids so that their children can be U.S. citizens. What is interesting is that this amendment overturned the Dred Scott Decision, which stated that the descendants of slaves were not protected by the Constitution and could not be considered U.S. citizens.

I get that people are trying to curb undocumented immigration, but by and large, those who come across the border illegally are doing so for financial interests, and those interest have very little to do with citizenship and everything to do with jobs. Address those large and small companies that directly benefit from the labor of "illegals" (as some like to call them) and the job opportunities will dry up. If the job opportunities dry up, facing the danger and second class existence that comes with living as an undocumented worker will be a lot less attractive.

This smells a lot like creating smoke where there is no fire in one place, because those in charge either don't know or don't want to deal with the legitimate fire that's burning somewhere else. Again, it is activity like this which flies under the radar until it's too late to do anything about it. Be alert, go ask some questions and be a part of the process. Sunlight, as they say, is the best disinfectant.

What About "States' Rights" and "Drill, Baby, Drill!!" Now?

As hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil spill into the Gulf of Mexico, I am struck by the conversion of two issues: States' Rights and the Energy Crisis. States' Rights and the reach of the Federal Government. Right now, there isn't one person on either side of the aisle that doesn't wish the Federal Government didn't already have some kind of solution to stopping the BP oil spill. During the 2008 Presidential Election, there was an anthem coming out of conservative talking heads when addressing the looming energy crisis, Drill, Baby, Drill! Often some of these same people will argue against Federal Government intervention in State issues.

Ironically, we stand today at the crossroads of both of those conservative talking points. State's Rights vs. Federal Power and Off-Shore Drilling vs. Alternative Energy Sources. The well that is currently painting the Gulf black was drilled within the last three years and, as hearings just a few weeks ago that included all parties involved in the oversight of this well proved, done with more concern for the financial bottom line than for safety regulations. These same people said in 2008 that the answer to the U.S. energy crisis was for Oil companies to be able to drill anywhere they could find oil in the country, without constraint, and the drilling would be done safely and efficiently. I believe it would be difficult for anyone to argue at this point that this idea has born the fruit once promised.

Meanwhile, as the worst oil spill in this nation's history continues on for the 38th day, I don't hear anyone talking about States' Rights. Where are the people arguing that this is an issue that the states of Mississippi, Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama and Florida can handle without "Big Brother" Federal Government dipping its nose where it doesn't belong? Where are the people (like the Tea Partiers) screaming about the burden of taxes and how they could be better used by the average citizen than by the Federal Government? It would be quite a sight to have private citizens from the Gulf States working together in the Gulf to cap the ruptured well spilling oil in their waters, but that sight would be an even more tragic one than what we see everyday at this moment.

All of this being said, I do believe that States' Rights has an important place in this country's Democratic Republic. Still, I also believe that before state's can truly claim to have the ability to handle most of their affairs, as some might claim, those same states must do more to bring more of its citizens into the governing process so that Citizens' Rights serve as the foundation for States' Rights and States' Rights serve as the foundation for Federal Rights.

When citizens are consistently and vigilantly involved in the governing processes of their communities and states, decisions about what to do about national issues like the energy crisis are so easily dominated by status quo entities such as the oil and coal (don't forget about the mine collapse a few weeks ago, leading to the death of several miners) companies. Constant citizen engagement makes sure that companies are doing everything possible to secure the safety of their workers and in the production of its goods.  Perhaps recent events should inspire a new idea, "Engage, Baby, Engage!"

Real "Change"

Today, after the Mid-Term Election version of "Super Tuesday", the words coming out of the talking heads are "anti incumbent" and "change". In 2008 similar words were thrown around with equal frequency. Long-time Republican/Democrat Senator Arlen Specter (PA) was defeated by the "change" candidate Joe Sestak. Incumbent Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln (D) is now in a run-off with the "anti establishment" candidate Bill Halter. Rand Paul (son of former Presidential Candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R - TX)) defeated the Republican establishment candidate Trey Grayson.

All across the country, a wave of "change" swept primaries from Connecticut to Louisiana. Still, I have one question: "Change" what? Most people who hold elected office were brought to office, because they at the time of their initial election, they represented change of some sort, whether it be fiscal responsibility, increasing jobs, improving education, being a "person of the people" or some other reform rhetoric. However, all of these once "agents of change" eventually become the establishment and then, of course, it's time for that "establishment" person to go, because establishment = corruption.

Over the decades, the voters have changed their elected representatives many times over, the country has changed political parties of preferences just as many times, but there is one thing that hasn't changed, the voters. Voters for a very long time have fallen into one of three categories: angry, subdued or negligent. Angry voters want anything other than what currently exists in their respective government. Subdued voters are the ones benefitting from the current system of their respective government. Negligent voters have completely checked out of the process and only get involved once they become angry voters.

There needs to be another category: Engaged. Engaged voters may become angry, but they are never negligent or subdued, because there is too much going on in the communities, cities, counties, states and nation around them to be content or decide to fall out of the process. Engaged voters both go to their representatives and make their representatives come to them because they are informed about the issues, how they as voters can effect the issues and what their representatives are doing about the issues.

Because of the fact that our country is founded on the democratic republic form of government, the government is a direct mirror of the people. The people lack awareness, engagement and vigilance, and this results in a government that doesn't listen or represent its people. Until there is a shift in that dynamic, the faces may change, but the real problem remains the same.

Knee-jerk Democracy vs Revolution

Right now the airwaves are bursting at the seams with talk of "Obamacare", "Angry Americans", "Government Takeover of Healthcare", "Historic Victories", "Monumental Deficits" and the like. And according to quite a few conservative legislators and voters, the revolution will not only be televised, but broadcasted, twittered and electorally significant come November.

Only time will reveal the reality of all the fears, hopes and predictions being presently made. What history has already shown us is that true "revolution" is more than checking off a ballot. Revolution is about vigilance, awareness, action at every turn to shift whatever unbalanced reality exists. After the 2008 General Election, the word revolution was spoken of to describe the present and the not too distant future. Those legislators (regardless of party affiliation) whom were associated with President George W. Bush's agenda over the past eight years were for the most part summarily dismissed.

It is now March 22, 2010 and many of the same petty fights, name-calling and partisan maneuvering are still happening, even after the "revolution of 2008". Why? You ask. Because while Thomas Jefferson's quote "Every generation needs a new revolution" is often connected with the electoral process created by our democratic republic form of government, by itself, elections are not enough to revolutionize anything. It is merely one in a long line of steps towards the kind of reform that true revolution brings about.

Voting is very important, but so is knowing what those you have voted in to represent you are voting on, proposing and legislating. The real opportunity for revolution comes when our elected officials start talking, debating, crafting and voting on issues that become policy for the city, county, state, region and nation. However, as was said earlier, revolution requires full commitment on the part of all those who claim to want it and that commitment must be proven at every step.

Having a knee-jerk reaction to what a political pundit, elected official or media outlet says is right or wrong won't actually lead to real change. The real change occurs when people stop depending on the thoughts, opinions and information of others to tell them right from wrong and make a commitment to knowing what's going on in all governments (local, state and national) so that they can decide for themselves.

"Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government." Thomas Jeffferson

Civic Investment

I was talking with someone from a financial management company today about what his company does and what they are about. All-in-all, the man's company seemed on the up-and-up. While he was showing me the investment strategy side of his company's business, he asked if I knew about "The Rule of 72", while it pained me to admit it, I had to be honest and tell him that I knew absolutely nothing about the rule of 72 other than it being greater than the "Rules of 0-71" and less than the "Rules of 73 - infinity".

He tried to explain it to me, but not being astute to the rules and practices of financial planning/strategy, I didn't understand all of it, but basically it has something to do with the amount of time it takes for an investment in a mutual fund to multiply. As he was speaking, I was struck with two thoughts:

1. My wife and I need to get our financial planning on track, or we won't be able to afford adult diapers let alone afford to live a reasonably decent life after retirement (with the current trend of inflation).

2. As much as people in general have become more and more enamored with instant gratification, the concept of long-term investment can be rationalized for a child's education, retirement, vacations, weddings, buildings, companies, stocks, bonds, etc, but long-term investment in government or anything related to civic engagement, comes off like a twisted dream sequence from a Tim Burton movie, a fantastical idea of wonder and imagination that could only exist in the make believe land of cinema.

As I thought more and more about this in the car on my way home, I became both saddened and pissed off. No longer than a month or so ago, President Obama, declared that scientific Research and Development needed to be a higher priority for both companies and the nation as a whole. However, I have never heard anyone ever mention a word about necessary R&D to push democracy or government to its potential. Ironically, both of those areas have been sorely under-invested for decades if not a century.

Technically, the last real investment in government came after 9-11, but that was hardly an invest for the progress of government in the way of Homeland Security, but that more an investment in the nation's defense and that is one area this country has rarely had a problem short-term or long-term investing in. One could also look at "The New Deal", FDR's response to the Great Depression, but that again was an invest in an acute aspect of government, but not in government itself.

Money is a relatively easy way to fix the "investment" gap, but as can be seen with institutions like the Department of Education, throwing money at an issue only provides more possible resources, but not actual solutions. However, education and applied practice could provide a lot more bang for the proverbial buck. If people gave more money to their local, state and federal governments, it wouldn't help them improve or become more productive, most likely the money would do exactly what "rainy day" surpluses in budgets like social security and the like do in the hands of governments, get used to miraculously provide "tax cuts" that rarely do the good for the needy that is often promised.

But, if people were taught, not only the pros and cons of our systems of government, but also how to maneuver in and through those systems for the purposes they were intended; the yield of that investment in government might be great enough to make Wall Street traders blush. Still, all the other investment examples I brought up earlier have their own people who advocate for short-term and long-term invest in those various areas. Who do we have to advocate for the same level of investment in government or democracy?

Money vs Voters

This week by a vote of 5-4, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of removing any limits to the amount of money a corporation or organization (like a labor union) can spend in support of a candidate running for federal office. This ruling strikes down 63 years of precedent set by previous supreme courts as well as severely weakening the McCain-Feingold Act, which set restrictions on the direct involvement large special interests could have on campaign finance.

Now, some might say the McCain-Feingold Act just resulted in the rise (beginning with in the 2000 Presidential Election) of what have come to be known as 527s, popularized to the point that they have been given their own verb, "swift-boated". McCain-Feingold, in a lot of people's opinions, has in no way addressed the issue it was supposed to address, money versus free speech. The efficacy of McCain-Feingold can be (and has been) debated to exhaustion, but at the very least, it was a proactive attempt to ensure the electoral process remains connected to the voters and not special interests.

The Supreme Court decision, according to some, has done nothing to significantly change the landscape of electoral politics, while others suggest the sky may be falling. The only certain reality of this decision is the fact that it has just become easier to influence an election with money and more difficult to hear the voice of the average voter. The argument could be made that corporations, unions and non-profit organizations are filled with voters too and making it easier for them to speak is a victory for free speech.

However, there is no way to know whether or not groups who might financially support a candidacy are actually speaking on behalf of the interests of that candidate's representative area or on behalf of a broader agenda. While, the voice of the voter in a particular election is ensured to be directly related to the interests of their area of representation. The ability for organizations to affect an election with endless amounts of money allow special interests, who may have absolutely no concern for a candidate's effect on their region, to have a significant hand in the futures of people thousands of miles away, all to further one particular cause.

Even more disturbing is the reality that the Supreme Court made this decision based on the case brought by a partisan organization, Citizens United, about whether or not they could disseminate ads to "On-Demand" cable services for their movie "Hilary: The Movie" during the 2008 Presidential Election as motion picture and not as a political advertisement, which fall under different regulation. A case, originally about whether or not a movie is treated like a motion picture or a political ad, has now opened the flood gates of financial influence on federal elections and potentially drowned out the voices of average people.

And once again, the fate of millions have been virtually decided by the few who decided to show up. This court decision, like many others will most likely go forward without many people paying any attention, that is until September, October and November come around and the Mid-term elections are front and center nationwide. However, what the now oblivious masses will discover at that time, is that the money train left the station while they weren't looking and there is nothing they can do to stop it.

Tragedy & Engagement

While driving around with my wife I began to think about Haiti. Not about the tragic events that have racked that nation or some of the stupid things that public figures have said regarding their plight. What struck me was a feeling of hope and the idea that in the face of all the things in this world that are wrong, depressing or sad, people still have the capacity to help those that they do not know.

Celebrities and artists from all walks of life and every corner of the globe, former heads of state with a plethora of differences between them have come together with thousands of the world's citizens to reach out to a devastated nation. With every global tragedy, be it Darfour, Somalia, Rwanda, Ethiopia, Serbia-Herzegovina, The Phillipines, China, Thailand, Katrina or September 11 (to name a few), the world comes together to the best of its ability in an effort to return some semblance of normalcy and hope to those who have been affected.

Later in the day I was struck with a question, one that often comes to me in the aftermath of charitable efforts like this in the face of tragedy. Why? Why does it take such painful, awful and tragic events like Haiti to remind all of us that everything going on around us, whether or not we are directly involved, should matter to us. If my neighbor down the street gets mugged or beaten up, it affects me. If I lose my job, or my cousin drops out of school, it should matter to our community, because both of those events could be a pattern of a larger issue going unresolved.

As the saying goes, "no man is an island" and since we can't actually succeed without the efforts of everyone else, it would benefit all of us to care about what happens to others and get engaged before things escalate. Before a couple of weeks ago, most people couldn't point to Haiti on a map, but now it's the first thing you hear about in the morning. Haiti has had problems for many years now and if the world cared about the country a little sooner, things might be a little different.

If each of us can take a minute from the isolated lives we're working so hard to live, we might become more aware of what's going on around us and put ourselves in a position to do something about it. Who knows, maybe we can prevent the next Haiti, Katrina or Darfour. One thing I do know is that effort spent preventing disasters is goes a lot further than the effort responding them and a little concern for others today might result in a brighter tomorrow for everyone.

The Problem with MLK and Barack

Today is January 18, 2010. On this day falls the national observance of Martin Luther King Jr's Birthday, and furthermore, his contribution to a civil rights movement that changed the consciousness of the country. A year ago, Barack Obama was sworn in as President, becoming the first African-American person to hold the nation's highest office. These two events are related in ways that might surprise the average person.

Both of these men are known for leading movements that neither of them sought to lead. MLK was just a budding preacher at Ebenezer Baptist Church when the Bus Boycott began in Birmingham, Alabama. It was this boycott that brought the injustices to Blacks in the south to the national stage (you'd think the Civil War and Reconstruction, might have been a pretty big clue, but I digress) and MLK front and center as figure head of the Civil Rights Movement. Barack Obama was a junior senator from Illinois, when Sen. Harry Reid brought Barack into his office and told still young senator that he thought he should run for President and could win. Obama, as we now know, would go on to unify a country (shattered by financial ruin, unending war, fear of terrorism and eroding confidence in its leaders) as well as an international community increasingly disenchanted with an arrogant nation.

Both of these men are also portrayed as examples of the best the African-American race has to offer as well as proof of progress the United States has made in achieving racial equity. The fact that these two men are not seen as the potential of any educated, motivated, supported and hard-working African-American who is given a chance is proof positive of how little African-Americans think of themselves and the rest of the nation thinks of African-Americans. The fact that people can look at the singular victories of MLK being given a national holiday and Barack Obama being elected as President as evidence that "race doesn't matter any more" only serves to prove how little we understand the enormity of the work yet to be done.

As I type these words, there are thousands of marches, panel discussions, festivals and other various celebrations being held across this nation in honor of Dr. King. In the homes of many proud African-Americans (including many that I know personally) exist commemorative shirts, calendars, bobble-heads, playing cards, etc in honor of Barack's historic victory.

Unfortunately, in many measurements of success (high school/college graduation rates, average income per household, average salary), African-Americans still rank near the bottom and have actually fallen behind races that existed in negligible numbers at the time the Civil Rights Movement began, while in most measurements of failure (incarceration rates, murder rates, infant mortality rates, high school dropout rates, obesity rates) African-Americans still rank near the top.

Now, there are many factors that contribute to these disturbing realities and some very smart people (Cornell West, Henry Louis Gates, The Center for Information & Research On Civic Learning and Engagement - CIRCLE, to name a few) have written and reported on this issue ad nauseam, but that's another point for another post. The point I'm making is that the success of a race, nation or movement cannot be wrapped up in the histories of two people. While MLK and President Obama can absolutely be held in the highest regard of dreams achieved, potential realized, and hope of progress to come, it cannot stop there.

In order for the dream of a truly progressive society that judges people (to use the words of MLK) "...not based on the color of their skin, but on the content of their character", we must use the successes of these two men as a call to arms and not singular trumpets of victory. The consequence of our complacency could darken the light shone on our nation by these two men until they become distant stars we only read about in dusty forgotten books.