For What It's Worth

My wife got me a copy of Ta-Nehisi Coates's book The Beautiful Struggle for Christmas and I finished it in about 48 hours. It's a great book, and portrays Coates's rough upbringing in West Baltimore through a poetic filter that really helps anyone (even a white kid from Montgomery County) relate to his story.

The book got me thinking about a lot of things, but one passage in particular really hit home:

"Nowadays, I cut on the tube and see the dumbfounded looks, when over some minor violation of name and respect, a black boy is found leaking on the street. The anchors shake their heads. The activists give their stupid speeches, praising mythical days when all disputes were handled down at Ray's Gym. Politicians step up to the mic, claim the young have gone mad, their brains infected, and turned superpredator. Fuck you all who've ever spoken so foolishly, who've opened your mouths like we don't know what this is. We have read the books you own, the scorecards you keep -- done the math and emerged prophetic. We know how we will die -- with cousins in double murder suicides, in wars that are mere theory to you, convalescing in hospitals, slowly choked out by angina and cholesterol. We are the walking lowest rung, and all that stands between us and beast, between us and the local zoo, is respect, the respect you take as natural as sugar and shit. We know what we are, that we walk like we are not long for this world, that this world has never longed for us."

At this point in the book, Coates was about to be in yet another fight, but would find himself overcome by the urge to fight back, the opposite of the clumsy and often unsuccessful escapes he had attempted in the past.

Growing up, Coates didn't only reject the attractions of the street because he feared them; he simply felt that he wasn't made for that world, and avoided it whenever possible. His father forced him to read as much as possible and kept his schedule full. Coates preferred Dungeons and Dragons to the ebb and flow of turf wars and pushing product. But just like everyone else growing up around him Coates had to maintain the appearance of someone who wasn't soft to prevent unwanted attention. The quote above and the ensuing fight are the first time that Coates really lets his frustration show through the filters he eloquently placed over the rest of the story. Though I grew up far from Coates's neighborhood and never came close to the hardship he experienced, I was able to relate to the feelings Coates laid bare.

I've always striven to help others. I briefly taught in two Baltimore public schools and education is the focus of my current job. I did plenty of service projects in high school and college, many of which brought me face to face with addicts, criminals, or homeless people. Throughout all of these experiences, my parents and teachers constantly reminded me of the importance of empathy. People should be treated with respect. No matter what they look like, which chemicals they lust after, which crimes they've committed, or what kind of environment they live in, people deserve your full attention when they talk to you and eye contact when you interact.

The necessity of that last sentence embarrasses me, but I feel people need to be reminded of that.

Friends and family know that I like to discuss politics, and race relations has always been a point of particular interest to me. Starting in eighth grade, I made a point to become well-versed in the similarities, differences, and connections between the white and black experience in America and today I feel, perhaps incorrectly, that I have a good sense of the troubles that continue to plague those around me.

Unfortunately, unless I'm citing a statistic, I find that using this knowledge often garners skepticism, disdain, or confusion from my audience. People who hear me speak with confidence about "black" things can't seem to wrap their heads around the idea that I'm not an Africana Studies major who wears a dashiki to bed and plays a djembe when nobody's watching. I've all but resigned myself to the fact that using what I know about the black community's ails will most likely never be seen as fully authentic because I'm white, and didn't experience these problems firsthand. I will always be treated as either insincere or trying to "be black." This is where my feelings intersect with Coates's in the quoted passage.

It infuriates me. The complete and total lack of empathy towards people who face the threat of injury or death every day for going about their business. The discussions about them as if they're a dehumanized group of faceless bodies who have chained themselves to the ghettos for the sake of pride. You may hear about what happens in the places you avoid on the news, but you don't know, and most people don't even try to understand. I understand why Coates was so angry.

We may not say it out loud, but Obama's election convinced many of us that, as a country, we are officially beyond racism's evil reach. In a time when racism is becoming a dirty word, fit only for those who wear hoods and burn crosses, it is imperative that anyone with the ability to convey important stories be taken seriously, regardless of their background. We will never be able to pay proper dues for the horrors imposed on the tribes that were here before the Europeans, or the slaves brought here for hundreds of years, but until we empathize with the struggles facing the less fortunate, we will be doomed to pursue a limited national success that, by its nature, prevents many members of our society from sharing in the prosperity.

Don't Cry Over Spilled Milk

I haven't written much on the debate (and I use that term loosely) over health care reform because while I've paid attention, I'm still not sure I understand the current system well enough to imagine what impacts the proposed changes will have. Still, there's no way to escape the bizarre (albeit typical) behavior of congressional Democrats regarding Joe Lieberman. For those who don't know, Lieberman has been threatening to filibuster any bill that includes an expansion of Medicare coverage, or anything resembling a government-run insurance plan... sort of.

Since his threat was issued, the liberals everywhere have flipped their lids, demanding, among other things, that Lieberman be removed of his chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Some have reiterated the call for Harry Reid to be replaced, contending that he is weak and incompetent, even when his party is in charge. Still others are blaming the White House for being too laissez faire with the processes at work in Congress.

I can't comment on Lieberman's motives or angle here; I just don't know enough about his political history. In principle, however, it doesn't seem ridiculous for someone who's listed as an Independent to decline falling in line with a major party, even if he has gone back and forth with his support several times. And this can't be completely unexpected! Lieberman actively campaigned against Barack Obama in the 2008 election.

A quick note for all those complaining about a lack of leadership and direction from the White House:

During his campaign and the beginnings of the health care discussions, Obama said that he wanted to be the kind of President that didn't have to lead a flock of 535 immature, incessantly-babbling politicians from one step of the legislative process to the next.

His words were obviously nicer than mine, but Obama's point was that he's purposely trying to pull back the amount of control he has to exert over Congress. He wants Congress (all of it) to grow a spine again. He has stated several times what he wants in the bill, and he'll help wheel'n'deal behind the scenes, but I don't think you're going to see the kind of heavy-handed leaning that we're used to unless something starts to go horribly, horribly wrong. To that end, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi will have to make damn sure that they get their party in line so that when they see a chance at success, they can pounce on it.

Whatever you do, don't mistake Obama's reluctance to lean on Congress for an aversion to participating in the legislative process. He wants to make sure that all his speeches and discussions count, and that means being judicious with his time. It's a lot like TNC's oft-repeated advice for himself: don't say anything if you don't know or can't add anything new.

While the administration might not be married to the public option, they have certainly been pushing for deals that make it possible. The White House has made clear that the administration's preference would be to appeal to Olympia Snowe (which would've practically guaranteed an public option in a few years), but bowed to Harry Reid's promise of 60 votes for a public option instead.

We haven't really seen Obama lean on Congress yet. Does anyone really doubt that he could make something good happen if he wanted to spend that kind of political capital? I don't think he's willing to settle for something that can't really be called successful. He knows too much is at stake for his party, his presidency, and the movement that gave him its banner last November.

We Won't Get It

Reading things like this does two things to me:

1 - It blows my mind.

2 - It reminds me of why I get so angry when I hear people doing things like this. Or this. Or this. Or defending this. Or saying this.

There are people alive today who dealt with Jim Crow as they grew up, but because we're almost 150 years past the end of slavery, we're far enough removed from the days of whippings, plantations, and the underground railroad to be sensitive about it. At least that's the message I get when I hear people use the word nigger, or see them sport the confederate flag for the sake of "heritage." I cringe because it shows how little we, as a country, understand the magnitude of slavery's brutality. I don't think we'll ever be able to fully appreciate the magnitude of its effects. Consider that for more than half its existence, the economy of the United States depended on the abuse and oppression of millions of people.

Many of the people who do the aforementioned things are not racist at their core. Many of them honestly don't think there's anything wrong with what they do, and they often do not mean any harm. But this is no excuse. By utilizing these provocative symbols in a modern context, people show a remarkable callousness towards the incredible damage done to our country as a result of slavery's existence. Furthermore, by trying to save or redeem these symbols, we prevent ourselves from coming to a very logical conclusion: there are ways to remember the sinister aspects of our history without forcing the acceptance of tainted symbols and ideas into our modern culture.

We don't lose anything by dropping these symbols from our everyday lives. People should leave these sordid cultural artifacts where they belong: in museums.

When Luster Fades...

I'm not an expert on football, but I've paid increasing attention over the last 5 years as my time in Baltimore has given me time to know and love the Ravens. Baltimore's 08-09 season was an incredible surprise to just about everyone, but the luster seems to have faded. Joe Flacco has hit a typical 2nd year plateau thanks to several issues: teams have had a year to study him, and they've picked out his techniques; Flacco also doesn't have many weapons on offense - Ray Rice is a monster, but Derek Mason is the only other reliable receiver. When you're in the red zone, short dump passes to Rice won't get you 6 points.

The Ravens will be fun to watch next season, but unless something changes drastically in the next 3 games, they're not getting anywhere near the Superbowl. The real stories this year, in my opinion, are the Patriots and the Saints. (The Bengals and Colts are doing well, but the Bengals are benefitting from consistently being underestimated, and while the Colts have Peyton Manning, he may be the only thing holding that team together.)

The game between New England and New Orleans on November 30th was one of the best I've ever seen. Both teams played an incredible first quarter, but the Patriots couldn't change enough to counter Drew Brees's incredible talent (highlights here). For the last 45 minutes of the game, the Patriots got worked like a Burmese kid in an Old Navy factory. As someone who hadn't seen the Saints play before and who also holds great disdain for Tom Brady and Bill Belicheat, the game made me euphoric.

Hopefully, New England's losses to the Colts and the Saints will finally break whatever spell has kept people afraid of the Patriots for so long. The Patriots had a great season back in 2007, but teams change so much between February and August; I don't understand why so many teams are still afraid of the Patriots. Anything can happen in a game - we've seen that several times this year. I've always gotten the sense that people think of the Patriots as the team that truly tests whether or not another club is great. Naive as I may sound, I'm hoping that their incredible loss to the Saints and their collapse against the Colts continue to snowball into a complete meltdown that removes the sense of invincibility that has helped the Patriots so many times before.

Commitment Issues Cont'd

The chatter about leaving Iraq and Afghanistan is constant now. I hear it on all the TV news channels, on the radio (yes, even non-NPR stations), and now on the street, too. I just. Don't. Get it.

Look. The debate isn't about which of these wars is "the good war" or "the right war." Those are misleading terms, anyway. The debate should be about how we change what we're doing in both countries to better fit our needs and the needs of these occupied countries. Inevitably, this leads us to the biggest problem we face: the goals we have are still too ambiguous to be helpful. Whether or not we have a moral responsibility to help build these countries up to a point that they remain stable and protect their people should not even be up for discussion. We do bear that burden, and I fear we are on the verge of leaving without fulfilling our obligations.

Before I go any further, let me point out that I am in no way condoning "endless war." That buzz term annoys me, but it's something I'll take flak for if I don't address it. I don't believe that our missions in Afghanistan or Iraq will take decades. Those who tout this argument seem to forget that America waged an almost 50-year long Cold War against another superpower and fought dozens of proxy wars and skirmishes while maintaining overall support from the American public. So let's be clear: the lack of objectives in Afghanistan and the lack of political stability in Iraq are the dominant obstacles to the success of both missions, but they are not the determining factor in whether or not we should stay.

I am in no way trying to trivialize the fact that American blood and treasure will be spent reaching these goals. I have friends in all branches of the military, and many of them are deployed overseas. I would love for the wars to be over tomorrow. However, we're engaged in a war against an enemy that feeds on poverty and misinformation (read: a lack of education), both of which exist on incredible scales in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's simply a fact of life that to help fix these issues, troops need to be there providing security.

Not surprisingly, a recent poll from NBC and the Wall Street Journal proves my point about American opinion on the wars we're mired in. Here's the good stuff:

(Click image for larger version)

Americans want to see a clear victory built on increasing reliance on the governments and armed forces of the countries we invaded. They don't know much else about what they want, but a victory is a must.

It's now up to the Obama administration to take in all the advice it can and make a decision. Time is of the essence, but I think the folks in charge understand that it's more important to make the right choices than to hurry up about making a decision at all. On the other hand, it would seem that we've already got our wires crossed. Fantastic.

The Lunatic is in the Hall...

This post from Andrew Sullivan over at the Atlantic deserves to be read.

He and Ta-Nehisi Coates are two of my favorite bloggers. They're highly recommended.

Commitment Issues

I wonder what changed in the last several months, aside from Obama's inauguration, that suddenly has everyone declaring Afghanistan unworthy of our nation's time and effort. American support for the Iraq War has decreased significantly since mid-2003, but our involvement in Afghanistan has always been more popular (though not always more important).

Doing only a quick look at Gallup poll numbers, it seems to me that the war in Afghanistan is suffering less from a lack of coherent strategy than from general war fatigue.

The fact that Afghans hope we continue to work with them should not be taken lightly, and I think we have an overwhelming moral obligation to stay in both Iraq and Afghanistan until the job is done. I'll outline what that means to me another day... that post definitely requires more research and time.

Time Travel Exists!

It must, because tonight feels like it's straight out of 1955. This stuff still happens. I'm always surprised by things like this, and then I think about them for more than 5 minutes, and the surprise is reluctantly replaced by a sense of resignation.

The fact that Keith Bardwell managed to say "I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way," and not have his brain explode is both amazing and a little disappointing. The most aggravating thing about this is that the only reason he'll get in trouble is for ignoring his responsibilities as a justice of the peace. There are private racists who espouse far more dangerous rhetoric in their homes and among friends, but never carry it into the public arena. In your face, First Amendment. Hopefully, Keith Bardwell will suffer consequences and be removed from office immediately.

For context, here are the parts where he's quoted or referenced in the AP article:

“I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way," Bardwell told the Associated Press on Thursday. "I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else."

Bardwell said he asks everyone who calls about marriage if they are a mixed race couple. If they are, he does not marry them, he said.

Bardwell said he has discussed the topic with blacks and whites, along with witnessing some interracial marriages. He came to the conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society, he said.

"There is a problem with both groups accepting a child from such a marriage," Bardwell said. "I think those children suffer and I won't help put them through it."

If he did an interracial marriage for one couple, he must do the same for all, he said.

"I try to treat everyone equally," he said.

"I've been a justice of the peace for 34 years and I don't think I've mistreated anybody," Bardwell said. "I've made some mistakes, but you have too. I didn't tell this couple they couldn't get married. I just told them I wouldn't do it."

I added the bold formatting to the quotes because I think those portions add up to something very important (but also fairly obvious) about the way Americans discuss race: he obviously believes that he's doing the right thing. Since Americans associate the term racist with burning crosses and hooded thugs, anything less than a lynching isn't racism, and therefore Bardwell or those who hold similar ideas aren't racists. To Bardwell (and many others), the incompatibility of black and white people in a romantic context is a simple fact of life that can bring all kinds of trouble to those foolish enough to get involved in an interracial relationship (in Lousiana). After all, he's just trying prevent the suffering of biracial children.

By attributing his actions to observation and discussion with an unknown audience (how much variety of opinion can there be in Tangipahoa Parish?), Bardwell shows that this is clearly a personal (or local) ideal that somehow managed to trump the basic consitutional rights of American citizens that went to him for assistance.

It is still rare that blacks and whites are involved in interracial marriages, but that doesn't mean that Bardwell's points have any merit.

Why I Watch

My interest in TV tends to be minimal, usually spanning a minor dedication to one or two shows. Since my relaxation time now occurs almost exclusively after 9pm, I've recently had a lot more exposure to what the networks have to offer. Sons of Anarchy and Fringe are two shows that I've become awkwardly attached to in the last several months. I say the connection is awkward because recently, both shows have left me disappointed.

Sons of Anarchy was an incredible show last season. As a start-up show with a somewhat finite audience, SoA was underrated and under-hyped by critics. With characters and story lines based on Shakespeare plays, the show has integrated powerful themes into a weekly smorgasbord of badassery. Katey Sagal and Ron Perlman lead a strong cast of newcomers, and season one ended with a conflict on the horizon between Perlman's character Clay, and his fictional stepson, Jax. It was an emotional season finale, and the second season seemed poised to deliver in full.

Then the first episode of season two aired, and it ended not only with a bizarre and unprecedented alliance between a staunch good guy and an avowed white supremacist, but Katey Sagal's character Gemma was gang raped - yes, gang raped - by members of a white supremacist gang that's moved into the town. Before I go any further, I should say that Katey Sagal deserves a lot more recognition than she's getting for the job she's doing with this role. She's one of the most powerful and compelling matriarchs on TV right now. In any case, while the event has been worked into the overall plot of the show fairly well, such a disturbing scene is a far cry from where the show was last season. It seems like the writers weren't expecting the funding for a second season. Things are improving, but I hope the writers pick up the pace.

On the other end of the Ludicrous Scale, there's Fringe. I think I'm missing something with this show. I think the lack of power in Anna Torv's acting is part of it, but I think the disconnect between all the stories is the biggest downer. A simple one-liner in each episode's recap saying, "We call these events The Pattern!" doesn't cut it. They've demonstrated no connection between any of the bad guys; the German guy from season one just happened to show up in multiple episodes, and the bald dude who eats lots of pepper (and apparently resurrected Peter?) is possibly a really bad guy who's shown up in multiple episodes.

But after two dozen episodes, there's still little or no connection. Apparently, the writers wanted to write a "procedural" and make each paranormal event the disease that has to be cured each week, much like a medical problem in an episode of House, but I think the lack of an overarching goal just makes it feel like a sorry excuse to have all these (admittedly neat) incidents occur to the same group of investigators. It's a crappy way to write.

To sum up my feelings about Fringe, here's every episode broken into 10 lines:

1. Peter: "Holy HELL! That chick just caught fire, blew up, and destroyed an airplane with her mind, all while flying in the air!"

2. Broyles: "We're calling these events the PATTERN."

3. Olivia: "...What the hell is wrong with me?"

4. Walter: "This is fan-TASTIC!"

5. Peter: "Walter, stop eating that sandwich while you've got those bloody surgical gloves on!"

6. Olivia: "I wonder if these cases are connected."

7. Nina Sharp: "You know, agent Dunham, you're quite gifted!"

8. Olivia: *draws gun on guy trying to help her* "What HAPPENED to me!???"

9. Evil Doer of the Episode: "You'll never understand what I'm trying to do."

*gunshots*

10. Olivia: "I just want to know what happened."

...You and me both, Olivia. You and me both.

Hating Homework, Part 2

A quick follow up to my post last night: David Shenk responded to my comments (scroll down to the comments section) and I made another point. Shenk says:

"I think there's two separate issues worth examining at here.

The first is an easy one. QUALITY. There is way too much homework out there that is ill-conceived, wasteful, overly stressful. Teachers and administrators should make it a point of pride to assign only high-quality homework: assignments that are clear, well thought out, efficient in their time demands, entertaining and inspiring if possible.

The second issue is a lot tougher. QUANTITY. Even in a world where all homework is quality homework, should we have a lot less of it, so as to give kids more time to pursue their own endeavors, and to rest, and to be kids? This is a difficult question, because on a subject by subject basis, it's easy to make the argument for the importance of high-quality of homework. So something has to give. My gut says that kids need that time to themselves more than they need homework -- even if it is high-quality homework."

My response:

"What are high-quality assignments? That's such a subjective thing, especially when the judges are primarily students and parents who are at least 1 step removed from the curriculum planning process. Maybe you're talking about rote-memorization like flash cards to increase a student's comfort with vocabulary. Maybe you're talking about readings with questions attached. All these things are helpful if used correctly by teachers and students. Parents and teachers need to instill an understanding in their students that practice after school is important to maintaining a firm grasp of the material. Study skills are important, and they are often taught by homework.

Quantity is obviously more difficult to discuss. With learning disabilities, extracurricular activities, etc. it can be very hard to figure out how much is too much, even on a per-class basis. But again, I'll point to the fact that study after study shows that school just isn't enough for students to understand all this material, and that students will not seek out reinforcement if left to their own devices. I'm not sure that we should be so willing to throw homework out the door based on the assumption that kids don't have enough time to be kids. Any parent will tell you that kids will stay up late to do that after homework is done anyway."

Shenk's intentions are good. Who wouldn't want the best possible results from their kid's education? The problem with his article is that without a discussion of homework in the context of the rest of the curriculum, readers don't understand the possible benefits associated with homework if all the parties involved make good use of it.

Hating Homework

I realized after I posed my comments on David Shenk's anti-homework inquiry that they would make a good blog post, so when you look at the bottom and see text very similar to the rest of what you're reading here, don't think less of me. As an educator, I have a knee-jerk reaction against anything that suggests doing less to further a child's intellectual abilities. However, I do understand that homework frustrates a lot of students, and that there might be alternatives. It should be no surprise though, that Shenk's rather lazy suggestion that homework is altogether useless made me cringe.

I think it'd ridiculous for anyone to write off the opportunities that homework offers. That said, I can understand why it's scoffed at by kids and parents: People (often including teachers) don't understand how to use it. Of course homework completion doesn't correlate with success in school. It's been shown time and time again that the only real push factors in student achievement are socioeconomic status and parent involvement. To take it one step further: success (usually) begets success.

What homework offers is not a laundry list of isolated, tedious tasks. Homework offers parents and their kids a chance to gauge, reinforce, and support academic success through cooperation and parental guidance. Is this a lot to ask of parents today? Sure. But that responsibility is what comes with having kids.

There are plenty of arguments to be made about whether or not too much homework gets given out, but keep in mind that teachers are under incredibly tight deadlines with regards to their curriculum. Sometimes, homework teaches new material, and that's just an occupational hazard (and a topic for another discussion). Also remember that the vast majority of studies that explore how kids spend their leisure time don't show them rushing to libraries, music lessons, etc... they're watching TV, playing video games, or surfing the web.

Maybe if parents started showing a little more finesse and willingness to engage and co-navigate the educational experiences of their kids, we'd have more successful students

Eugene Robinson Gets It Right

One quick post before I get back to work! Eugene Robinson over at The Washington Post has been a solid source for reasonable thought when it comes to race relations in the age of Obama, and he hit another home run with the last part of his column today on Rep. Joe Wilson's outburst:

"You will note that I have not yet mentioned race. For the record, I suspect that Obama's race leads some of his critics to feel they have permission to deny him the legitimacy, stature and common courtesy that are any president's due. I can't prove this, however. And if I'm right, what's anybody supposed to do about it? There's no way to compel people to search their souls for traces of conscious or unconscious racial bias. We could have an interesting discussion about the historical image of the black man in American society, but that wouldn't get us any closer to universal health care." (emphasis mine)

That last sentence is what I was trying to get people to realize yesterday. As much as it infuriates folks on both sides of the aisle when the other side won't admit that they're wrong or playing dirty, we really need to let go of getting the other side to agree to play by the rules of decency as a prerequisite for discourse. Obama proved that by ignoring the comment made by Wilson, and while there's been condemnation, it hasn't come from the White House because Obama knows that there are bigger things to worry about. Napoleon said it best: "Never interrupt your enemy when they're making a mistake."

If we expect to move past all this stuff and truly ostracize the folks who hold terrible things in their hearts, then we'll need to move on without them and force them to come with us by choice. That's how it's always had to be done. Nothing about the way we fight this stuff has changed... only the battlefield.

Racism, Cops, and Americans

Coverage of the Henry Louis Gates incident morphed, within mere days, from general statements about the situation that unfolded between Gates and Officer Crowley, to asinine commentary about what beers were or were not chosen for the meeting at the White House. I'd say it's unbelievable, but... this is America, and apparently anything is fair game.

While President Obama tried to turn the incident into something that people could understand a little easier than soundbites or tidbits of a police report, it seems that the public quickly made up its mind about what happened. Half of the country jumped on Obama for saying that the police "acted stupidly", while the other half cried "Racism!". The most telling part of this whole scenario is that while race might have played a part in what happened on Professor Gates's doorstep, nobody really bothered to think about what they might have done, or for that matter, what actually happened.

Let's be clear: Once it was determined that Mr. Gates lived in the house, it was the officer's duty to either ensure that Gates safely got into the house, or turn around and walk away. Instead, the scene escalated, and before long, Gates was (allegedly) yelling about Officer Crowley's mama, and Crowley was helping to handcuff the professor. Furthermore, I think both parties share an equal amount of responsibility (blame?) for what happened. The police officer showed up with vague information from a 911 call made by a cautious passerby. The professor stoked the situation by being belligerent. Interesting sidenote: the police report adds a few details that the 911 caller considers inaccurate.

The furor that engulfed the country immediately following the events in Cambridge boggled my mind. People seemed to be much more interested in talking and gauging the reaction of a new president than with considering the facts and their own feelings on the matter. Dialogue is difficult when everyone is talking, and understanding is impossible. Little by little, America seemed to revert to decades past when it talked about the Gates incident.

For me, the bottom line is that America has managed to convince itself that racism is a thing of the past, while reality rears its ugly head in the form of national headlines every 6-12 months. When we have cops telling people that the responsibility for not getting shot lies on the shoulders of those being confronted by police, it becomes clear that the country is still ankle-deep in the muck. Both Gates and Crowley were stubborn and impulsive during their altercation, but the national "dialogue" that followed is what really made the incident shameful.

The Nation Will Keep Moving, With Or Without You.

For some reason (I think I might have heard John Mayer's "Waiting On The World To Change" on the radio), I've been thinking a lot lately about the "active youth" myth that gets tossed around during most presidential election years. As much as I would like to believe that the 18-24 voting bloc has as much power as pundits say we do, it's just not mathematically plausible.

Here we see how those in the 18-24 age group voted, but in Table 4c of the Census Bureau's 2008 election report, we see that the way this age group voted really doesn't matter that much. Of 25.8 million voters in this youngest voting bloc, only 15 million (53%) are registered. To further clarify this issue, only 44.3% of this demographic even bothered to cast a vote for President of the United States in the 2008 election. Out of 6 voting demographics, the 18-24 group is the third smallest... and it managed to get out the smallest percentage of voters. Again.

It's sad that the people I heard complaining the most during the 8 years of President George W. Bush's administration couldn't manage to get out in greater numbers, especially when you consider that the 2008 election was hyped as the most important of our lifetimes. I lost count of the number of people who became fans of Barack Obama before the election. I wonder how many of them actually made it to the polls?

In any case, the 18-24 voting demographic makes me nervous. Sure, we get more responsible with age, but we're the ones that typically have the newest ideas and the most passion about getting things done. It's too bad that so many of us have fallen into the "things are too difficult to fix" crowd - that robs the nation of some of its brightest minds in their prime. Nothing ever got done working outside of an institution... even the Civil Rights Movement needed laws to get passed before it made real change. So all of you out there crying about how both parties are the same or how one politician or another is a fascist: get a grip and get involved. You're not doing anyone any favors by sitting outside the circle and whining.

I hear you thinking "Stop complaining! The Democrats obliterated the Republicans in the 2008 election! Drop it already!" And you're right - the Democrats did win handily. That still doesn't excuse those who refused to offer an opinion but complain afterwards. The "active youth" myth is just that; a story made up by young adults, for young adults, in order to rationalize a bizarre lack of action in a society that is literally constructed to allow input from everyone. I'll end this post with an excerpt from a great column by David Sedaris about non-voters:

"To put them in perspective, I think of being on an airplane. The flight attendant comes down the aisle with her food cart and, eventually, parks it beside my seat. “Can I interest you in the chicken?” she asks. “Or would you prefer the platter of shit with bits of broken glass in it?”
To be undecided in [any] election is to pause for a moment and then ask how the chicken is cooked."

The Active Youth Myth and Gatesgate

I've finally returned after a 16-day hiatus which completely shattered my goal of writing every day for 30 days. Thanks to all for your patience! A wife, son, job, and house to take care of sometimes take precedent over the internet. Sometimes. This won't be a full post, but more of a teaser for the posts I intend to write this week. Feel free to comment on this post in an attempt to tease back.

My first post will discuss what I consider to be a rather pervasive (but unsubstantiated) myth about political activism among the 18-24 age bracket. Oddly enough, the subject came to as I drove back to Baltimore this evening. I rediscovered my copy of John Mayer's album Continuum (which is one of the most finely recorded, composed, and performed records of the last 5 years), and put it on for some easy listening. The first track, titled "Waiting on the World to Change", is an unusually political song for Mayer, but it addresses a lot of what I'll write about in more detail later: the 18-24 age bracket has some of the most staunch opinions about contemporary issues, yet young adults tend to be the least politically active age group in the country. Why the myth when the disconnect seems so obvious? More importantly, why is this apathy allowed to slide, especially when it is supported by ridiculous arguments like the one Mayer makes: "We just don't feel like we have the means to rise above and beat it"?

Next up will be my take on the media storm surrounding Gatesgate. President Obama's short and simple answer to a simple question at the end of his press conference the other night completely overshadowed the major points he made on health care. I'll go over what is known about what happened in Cambridge between Mr. Gates and the police, and why the issue is important even though it doesn't seem to have any long-term consequences for the general public.

Thanks again for being patient while I fulfill my duties outside of the blogosphere. Comments made to this post by Tuesday evening will almost certainly be considered as I write my full posts on the subjects described above, so let loose!

Afghanistan's New Problems

Commentators have become increasingly aware (and adamant!) that the Afghan portion of the War on Terror now belongs solely to Barack Obama. Since he took office, the president has made a point to emphasize a dedication to the debatable success in Iraq in conjunction with an increased troop presence and focus on Afghanistan. I'll try to steer away from the temptation of discussing or blaming the Bush administration too much in this post, but no discussion of the current situation in Afghanistan would be appropriate with some context. To that end, it must be said that America's practical abandonment of the nation nicknamed "the graveyard of empires" between 2003 and 2007, and the consequential sacrifice of Pakistani security and stability has done incalculable damage to the prospects of Afghan unification and stability. If President George W. Bush's legacy in Afghanistan is one of underserved ideals and dysfunction, then how has President Obama begun to craft a new phase in the lives of the Afghan people? The answer has three parts: he has studied the situations in Afghanistan and Pakistan, he has begun a troop surge of his own, and he has begun to replace many of the people in roles of leading the effort in Afghanistan under President Bush.

An extensive review of American policies in Afghanistan and Pakistan was a brilliant political, but also necessary, maneuver that gave Obama room to nudge the War on Terror in a new direction without saying outright that the Bush administration completely mishandled its mission there. Perhaps not coincidentally, that sentiment, at least in public, has been saved for commentary on Iraq, allowing Obama to keep such a politicall damaging situation at arm's length. Continuously referencing Iraq in conjunction with President Bush also indicates where Obama's focus lies: for better or worse, this president considers Iraq a mostly finished job, and has chosen to focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan. While the study is not complete and thus not allowed Obama's team to put forth a complete outline of how America's role in the region will change, the administration has begun to reform policy gradually as conclusions are reached.

One of the earliest and easiest steps taken to show Obama's dedication to the Afghan situation was to request the resignation of General David McKiernan, who oversaw operations in Afghanistan under President Bush. Chronic lack of resources, civilian casualties, and a relatively static position in the major cities of the country characterized much of McKiernan's time in Afghanistan, though it's not clear how much of that was being steered by Iraq-centric policies. Regardless, the strategy that has brough much of the success in Iraq - clearing an area of insurgents, staying in that area, and building relationships with the locals - has been underemployed in Afghanistan, and constant air strikes by jets and drones have soured the Afghan population's feelings about the foreign troop presence. The appointment of General Stanley A. McChrystal as the leader of operations in Afghanistan indicates the beginning of a significant shift in the momentum of the situation there.

Lastly, and perhaps most significantly, Obama has begun a troop surge of his own. This will most likely mean that many veterans of the Iraq war are redeployed to Afghanistan, but since the Iraqi government has made no overtures regarding an extension of the U.S. presence there, it means that we are genuinely free to redploy and refocus our troops and efforts where they are needed most. The new offensive against Taliban and Al-Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan is incredibly important, and, like Iraq for President Bush, may ultimately determine how his presidency is remembered.

So far, President Obama has shown an incredible aptitude for adapting his policies and goals to fit any situation. His efforts in the War on Terrorism have so far shown us a man who reads and re-reads everything there is to know about an issue and then asks for more information before finally making a decision. Obama understands that the futures of Afghanistan and Pakistan are inseperable and that he must pursue security and stability in both nations if he expects to make real progress against those who would perpetuate global violence against innocents. We can only hope that the American people do not tire further of war, because without a dedication to seeing the mission in Afghanistan to a positive conclusion, we cannot hope to avoid opening another front in the name of ending the threat of terrorism.

Mornings in Charm City (Post 4, Part II)

Mornings in Baltimore emphasize the bizarre and often tragic differences between the peoples and neighborhoods in the city. Sleek new buses drive by abandoned and run-down homes, opening their doors to greet weary passengers with an automated message about their destination. The buses rumble past the make-shift tent city at Fayette and President Streets (or Front and Fayette via Street View) to drop their patrons off downtown. Day laborers gather at Broadway and Lombard to wait for possible employment, while professionals in glinting BMWs and Lexuses drive down Boston St. towards downtown.

Having volunteered (and briefly stayed) at homeless shelters in DC, I'm fully aware that these kinds of contrasts rear their ugly heads in every major American city, but Baltimore seems to suffer in ways that these other cities don't. I'm not just talking about crime or the crumbling infrastructure. Baltimore seems to be exhausted; resigned to a future of abandoned buildings, abject poverty, and a negligent education system.

I think I'll touch on Baltimore's problems in more detail in a later post, but if you're itching for a clearer understanding of how the city ended up in the mess it's in, I've got two words for you: race riots. In 1968, the city experienced a week-long riot following Martin Luther King Jr.'s assasination. Thanks to Google Street View, you can follow the path of the riot with these directions and see just how little has been fixed and renovated in the city since then. Pay special attention to streets just off North Avenue, like this one, to see the kinds of conditions that people live in.

With a clear view down my street to the heart of downtown and the Inner Harbor, I can see the skyscrapers that loom over the commercial heart of the city. Looking three blocks north of my neighborhood reveals an area of the city wracked by drugs, violence, and urban decay. This patchwork of broken neighborhoods and fancy renovated rowhomes is an enduring reminder that the city suffers from brain drain, a lack of motivation, and a lack of any serious political entities willing to put in the time and effort to change how the city operates. Simultaneously, that same patchwork compels the people who live here to love their city. They might speak poorly of it, and have little to boast about, but I can't think of any instance in which life-long residents have allowed outsiders to talk badly about Baltimore. That is the essence of Baltimore's relationship with it's people; not one of love and hate, but of caring and despair.

The Best Serious Quote Ever (Post 4, Part I)

Earlier posts have been very serious and I'm a bit exhausted (already!) of keeping up that level of intensity, so I'm moving away from that for a post or two. Mornings in Baltimore will be the subject of the next post, but in order to do the early hours in Charm City justice, I'll be putting off writing until tomorrow before work. In the mean time, I'll leave you with something completely unrelated: a serious quote from a real article on Yahoo! that I read today.

"As soon as we are done with the brain, we will return it."

There are so many reasons to love this quote, and I really wish it could be used more often. With all the awful, sometimes contrived, and always patronizing coverage of Michael Jackson's new state of existence, it's nice to finally have a nugget of hilarity that I can laugh at without people glaring at me as though I'd punched a homeless man and taken his only jacket.

I could dig into topics like the new offensive in Afghanistan or the coup in Honduras, but tonight I'm going to make sure everything is taken care of around the house, while being callous towards consistently asinine coverage of Michael Jackson's death. I don't mind if you loved him and what he accomplished... he's just not that big a deal to me. More specifically, I have trouble reconciling the two halves of his life - both haunted by things beyond his control, but also equally entrancing (though for completely different reasons).

Catch up with me tomorrow morning as I finish Post #4 in my continuing challenge to write 750 words or more every 24 hours. See you on the flip side.

Reading and Writing Aren't Dead (Yet)

Working at a company that runs virtual classrooms for students across the country provides me with plenty of opportunities to observe and analyze the effects of technology on student learning. As someone dedicated to education, I'm surprised that I haven't yet fled for the mountains. Every day, I read emails that use the English language in ways that would make most professors curl up in a ball and weep. A casual disregard for grammar often clouds the meaning and content of messages so badly that I can't tell if a parent or their 2nd grade student sent it. Constant exposure to such material drives my coworkers and I ever closer to the brink of insanity, so I can certainly relate to the people who claim that Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, email, blogs, and instant messaging are the meteors, volcanoes, and tidal waves setting the reading and writing dinosaurs on a course to extinction.

There are now a good deal of studies showing how younger people interact with their computer screen. There is a corresponding number of (mostly) older alarmists crying over the "Dumbest Generation", which they have already written off as a lost cause. If my discussions with older friends are any indication, most Americans over the age of 50 are silently predicting the downfall of civilization brought on by apathetic teens and yuppies who are too enthralled by their computer screens to do anything but sit and refresh their comment counter, hoping for a hint of social acceptance. It is important to heed Ronald Reagan's warning that "freedom is always one generation away from extinction", but I get the distinct impression that what older folks (read: Boomers) fear could happen is far more dramatic than anything that will, or even could.

Until recently, I was firmly entrenched on the side of the those predicting the apocalypse, right next to my Boomer friends and relatives, readying my arsenal for the attack on English that was sure to come at any moment. Four years tutoring writing, earning a History degree and teaching certification, and a life-long debilitating dependency on coherent thoughts held me in place and gave me strength as I looked down my nose at the unwashed masses tweeting about their lives. Then a coworker sent me to a blog post that snapped me back to reality. As with any new idea, product, or technology, we must separate the tool from how the tool is used.

Obviously, I'm aware that nearly everything annoying in life (visits to the DMV not included) can be avoided, and to this day I have not visited a Twitter feed. It's just not my thing. Even without exposing myself to various social networking sites, I know that if Twitter and other social networking devices were as bad for society as people make them out to be, we would already be seeing cracks in the foundation of our republic. I'm sure that any trend showing America getting dumber started long before the dawn of YouTube, courtesy of our "everyone's a winner" educational theories and policies.

"But children don't learn when they're online!" cry our elders. In the sense that the Internet won't direct students to prepare for the SAT or learn about the Renaissance, this is probably true. The Internet won't direct kids to videos of cats playing the piano either, but that doesn't mean youngsters won't find them. The problem, then, obviously exists outside of the computer's realm altogether. Kids form interests and goals before they ever sit down at the keyboard, but they expand on these things based on what they think the Internet offers and how their online activity is monitored.

That last thought is incredibly important, so I'll repeat it: kids expand on their goals and interests based on what they think the Internet offers and how their online activity is monitored. The Internet can be an incredibly powerful tool, but if students are allowed to have a computer in their room and be on it without any restrictions, then of course their inquisitive minds will wander, followed quickly by their mouse cursor. In stark contrast to the whimsical exploration of children, computer users over the age of 30 tend to be much more cautious - almost suspicious - about new technologies. When parents and teachers alike are so intimidated by computers and the Internet, it's no wonder that youngsters have so completely taken over cyberspace for their own purposes, thus giving the older members of society the ability to hurl accusations of seflishness and apathy at their younger counterparts.

This is the ultimate challenge to professional educators and parents with regards to integrating technology into education. Without a real understanding of how students place computers in the context of their lives, we cannot hope to use these technologies to their fullest potential. I realize how silly it is to be discussing all this on a blog, but the moral of this story is that we need to start embracing new technologies instead of shunning them in order to better apply them in the processes we've created to improve our lives. If we continue to shun the use of Wiki pages, chat rooms, and yes, Twitter, then we will voluntarily surrender the control of some of our biggest assets to the people who create - and profit from - online content.

To bring this post back to where it started, it should be noted that my work also allows me to see the incredible talent of children who are excited about learning, and who love to read and write (properly). They might not always understand that the tone and syntax used in an email is completely inappropriate for a research paper, but guess whose responsibility it is to teach them the difference? Youngsters are still driven to learn, but what they focus their efforts on is still under the direct influence of parents and teachers.

The Sad State of Marriage

JUST in case anybody had managed to convince themselves that the institution of marriage wasn't a trampled, tattered shadow of its former self, feel free to read this article by Sandra Tsing Loh. I first read the article on The Atlantic Monthly's website about two weeks ago, but the article has quickly made its rounds on the internet. If you're too tired to read the entire article, know that even the jaded and often spiteful readers of FARK.com couldn't believe how poorly this woman had handled her affairs. Loh's article pretends to be a "coming of middle-age" expose. In reality, her article is a 4100-word farce; an embarassingly public and desperate attempt to rationalize immaturity and irresponsibility. She blames mental exhaustion and a father prone to wrath before finally taking aim the classic target of every guilty lover's frustration: the society that forced her into a monogamous life-long relationship.

Like any good apologist, Loh comes up with several examples of people and books that suggest marriage might not be the best way to maintain stability for modern American couples and their children. It's true that some studies have shown we aren't exactly wired for monogamy, and I think there are many reasonable arguments to be made on how to change the American family to better suit our lifestyles. However, Loh uses all this information for the exclusive purpose of justifying her actions. Even as she admits her "failure as a wife", she claims that an outdated norm is responsible for the misery of her and so many others. Loh is a performance artist, a regular on NPR, a contributor to The Atlantic, and a finalist for the National Magazine award, and yet she cannot find it in herself to "'work on' falling in love" again with her husband. This seems to be an increasingly common form of cowardice, reserved for those who didn't think about their needs, wants, goals, and ambitions before they lept into a long-term commitment of the highest caliber.

Note: I'm regretting not finishing this post in one sitting... the two comments made before I started writing again this morning covered a lot of what was on my mind before I called it a night.

Before anybody starts accusing me of wanting everyone to mimic the Cleaver family from television, it should be noted that I could not care less how people handle their relationships, as long as they do it responsibly. I would have gladly given my approval to Ms. Loh's story if it had described long discussions with her husband about possibly branching out to different people for physical relationships. This kind of responsible planning and exploration might not have alleviated all of the problems that drove Loh and her husband to divorce, but it surely would have made it seem more reasonable. In her article, Loh asks,

"Do you see? Given my staggering working mother’s to-do list, I cannot take on yet another arduous home- and self-improvement project, that of rekindling our romance."

No, Ms. Loh, I don't understand. You entered into a binding emotional contract - the legal aspects of which I will disregard for this article - with a person who, regardless of their feelings now, loved you and wanted to spend the rest of their life with you. The fact that you were too weak or overcome with passion to think clearly about the consequences of marriage does not excuse your infidelity or the impact it will have on your family. And just so we're clear, I feel that way about anyone who cheats on their significant other. If marriage is truly as outdated and misrepresented as Loh claims, then surely she had some hint of this when she got married 20 years ago.

Marriage statistics dating back 20 years are the subject of some of the most common and thorough studies performed in this country. Many people like to cite a number in the range of 50-60% when referencing the divorce rate in the United States, but, as the Census Bureau points out, the actual numbers are far different. In 2004, the average divorce rate for men was 20.7%, with 9.3% divorced at the time of the study. Women had been divorced at a slightly higher rate - 22.9%, with 10.9% divorced at the time of the study. On top of these lower numbers, it turns out that first marriages that end in divorce typically take an average of 8 years to do so. More than 95% of both genders are married by the time they reach the age of 70, so there must be something about marriage that continues to bring people together.

The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development tracked marriage as well. Between 1970 and 2007, crude marriage rates fell from about 11 people per 1000 getting married per year to about 7 per 1000. People are still getting married, though at a lower rate than before, which implies that Americans are already revaluating what marriage should mean. Where this reformation takes us is unclear, but I have a sneaking suspicion that it will include both a push for equal rights for the LGBT community and a significant shift in the responsibilities of men and women in the home. This could be particularly beneficial to women who are struggling to balance the professional and domestic aspects of their lives.

Do I expect everyone to be perfect? Of course not. I'm in no way suggesting that divorce be made illegal or otherwise more difficult to obtain, and I see a plethora of benefits to changing the expectations of men and women in the household. I freely admit the the point Sandra Tsing Loh is trying (badly) to make is a valid one: marriage isn't necessarily for everyone, and people should do what they feel is best for the stability of their family and relationship. However, the flippant and casual nature with which Sandra Tsing Loh explores this issue offends even the most sincere advocates of changing marriage and family. Take it from me, a man who got (happily) married at 22: to disregard the level of responsibility that any emotional bond requires of both partners seriously detracts from the quality of the relationship and the ability of those involved to be themselves.

Sarah Palin Continues to Mesmerize, Confuse

NOW that she has resigned as Governor of Alaska, the only person who knows what Sarah Palin is going to do is... Sarah Palin. There is, however, plenty that we can discern about her personality and political future from the press conference she held on Friday, July 3, which, in case you missed it, was one of the most awkward things I've ever seen on national television (click here for video). The quick pace, exasperated tone, and contradicting ideas that characterized her speech sent commentators and viewers alike into spasms of speculation. Several days have passed since her speech, and everyone who isn't Sarah Palin is still confused, but there has been time for more careful analysis and, as Mark Ambinder from The Atlantic puts it, "we ought to begin by taking her at her word."

We know from her time with the McCain campaign that Palin doesn't work well with others. As a politician, you have to roll with the punches, no matter what form they come in, and Palin has had trouble with that from the start. The comments about her son Trig or her daughter Bristol were, for the most part, mean-spirited and completely unethical. I can count on one hand the number of comments about her family that made a reasonable connection to how she would handle being the Vice President. But unethical attacks didn't stop Barack Obama from becoming president, and some of these attacks had long-lasting consequences; 11% of the country still thinks he's a Muslim. He overcame unfounded accusations of being a non-citizen and terrorist to win the White House. Having no experience on the national stage, Palin was probably suffering from sever culture shock and therefore couldn't handle such attacks as discreetly as Obama, but when you decide to run for national office, you'd better be ready to chew what you bite off.

What remains to be seen is how Palin will reconcile her resignation speech with her future endeavors. Her refusal to be a lame duck as she finishes her term seems reasonable at first. It may even be the only thing in the speech that made much sense, though not for the reasons she outlined in her speech. The Alaskan state legislature (read: Democrats and Republicans) has become increasingly combative with the Palin administration, epitomized by the "protracted battle with Senate Democrats" over the appointment of Bill Egan to fill the post vacated by the disgraced Ted Stevens. Palin's speech indicates that she bowed out to avoid being tempted to "milk" her position and travel abroad, but I have a feeling that her inability to move on her own legislative agenda had more to do with her decision than the temptation of luxury. If this truly is a reason for stepping down, how can she be expected to handle the same temptation at the national level?

The speech continued to run itself in ideological U-turns. Palin said, "I am not wired to operate under the same old 'politics as usual.' I promised that four years ago – and I meant it." Unfortunately for her, the status quo of finishing your term unless there's a health issue or indictment still holds sway with most Americans. If she expected to survive on the national stage, most likely in a bid for the presidency in 2012, she must not realize that she's given opponents the last nail for her coffin. All the Democrats have to do is run ads reminding Americans that she abandoned her post during the worst recession in 80 years while claiming she wanted what was best for Alaska.

After some more rhetoric, and a quick but pointed reference to the "superficial wasteful political bloodsport" that has afflicted her in recent months, Palin writes "I have given my reasons… no more 'politics as usual' and I am taking my fight for what’s right – for Alaska – in a new direction," thus bringing an unexciting end to a confusing presentation of loosely connected ideas; a trademark of Palin politics. The FBI has said she is not under investigation, but questions still abound regarding state-level inquiries into alleged abuses of power by the Palins. In conjunction with a complete lack of detail with regards to her future plans, it's no wonder the press and public have been drumming up a new theory every hour.

On the other hand, that's exactly how Palin thrives: she plays the martyr. By allowing the media and DC insiders to speculate so wildly about how she's going to proceed, Palin creates the appearance that she does know what she's doing, and that "Washington and the media will never understand; it's about country." She's managed to get this far without having a plausible game plan, but all that will change once she heads out to the lower 48 on her own. Whatever happens next will be big, and it will probably be ugly.

Follow up: Anne Applebaum at the Washington Post picked up where I left off regarding Sarah Palin today. She pointed out some other ironies and fallacies in Palin's speech, most notably her love of interacting with ordinary people "who now constitute the opinion-making classes", while simultaneously berrating those who would have negative opinions about her.