No silent nights in the Holy Land this winter

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7801657.stm

We know that Israel and Hamas-controlled Gaza have been hostile for some time over cross-border rocket fire, embargo, and retaliatory attacks. Israel, the US, and Fatah have done all they can to oust Hamas, yet they doggedly continue to hold power (could it be that some suffering Gazans actually prefer them to the corrupt Western crony alternatives?). Tired of the bloodshed that seems to accomplish nothing, Israel and Hamas agreed to a truce in June that persisted more-or-less violence-free until December. But now hostilities have resumed, with Hamas firing dozens or hundreds of rockets into southwest Israel, and the IDF launching a devastating bombing campaign that will probably preceed a ground incursion.

As usual, Israeli casualties total a whopping 1 civilian, and Palestinian deaths are 225 (plus 700 wounded), including some women/children. Gaza is one of the most densely-populated areas in the world. Hamas compounds are situated near hospitals and apartments; there's no way around it. Unless you're using a scalpel, you are going to kill innocents when you strike. Israel knows this, but insisted on such heavy bombing. Aid workers say they haven't seen such carnage in Gaza since the 1967 War. But I suppose that hundreds of poor Muslim lives don't count as much as a single Israeli. Speaking of that, did you find it strange that during the Mumbai terror attacks, the 6 Jewish victims seemed to get 80% of the press coverage vs. the hundreds of South Asians that also died? Most US news outlets even listed them by name, paying more respect than is customary even to American soldiers who have died in Mideast combat. Fair and objective for sure.

As Arab states used the Yom Kippur holiday to mount a sneak attack on Israel, maybe now Israel has chosen this Christmastime to destroy Gaza, while the West is preoccupied with gift wrapping and doorbuster sales. Plus the transitioning US government (the few left who aren't on holiday) is too busy with the economy and administration succession to do anything. And we all know they would just diplomatically shield Israel anyway, Obama included. The double-standard exceeds even the most paranoid, anti-Zionist expectations. Just imagine if we punished Israeli aggression to even a fraction of how we routinely deal with Arab dictators! To show that he was tough on foreign policy, Clinton breached the UN mandate and bombed Baghdad after a supposed "plot to kill former president Bush" surfaced. Dozens died. A while ago Israel razed Lebanon to the Stone Age, last year they bombed an alleged Syrian "nuclear site" without imminent threat or evidence, and this week they are laying waste to an already starving and suffocating Gaza. All we get from Washington and the UN is a "plea for calm". Or if anything, they blame Hamas rockets for instigating the whole mess (Hamas is not innocent, but Israel does account for over 90% of deaths in this war). Basically, the official State Department stance is: there can only be peace when Hamas/Palestinians lay down their arms and agree to all Western conditions. To them, peace equals surrender - brilliant diplomacy as usual.

And this isn't really about Hamas rockets, anyway. If it was, there would be no point for the IDF to bomb Hamas political offices on the Mediterranean coast (the part of Gaza furthest from Israel and not cointaining rocket sites), which they are doing. Additionally, there is a huge election coming up in Israel next month. The current ruling party is trailing in the polls to the more hardline oppostion led by ultra-right hawk Benyamin Netanyahu. Some Israelis are demanding tougher action on the panic-driven rocket threat. Yet others worry that Israeli attacks can't stop the rockets anyway, and may even provoke harsher Hamas retaliation. And that is true; no matter how many buildings they bomb and how tightly they squeeze the Gaza border, somehow people will find a way to smuggle in and launch rockets, because they are that pissed off and fanatical (Israeli policies made it so). But regardless, the scandal-plagued Olmert regime is trying to do something desperate to deflate Netanyahu's charge. It's just sadistic that they choose to end hundreds of lives in order to score some political points. But being an American, who am I to talk?

Private security firms

Mercenaries a.k.a. "private security contractors" (I'll abbreviate them as PSCs) in the Middle East:

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/11/19/steve_fainaru_on_big_boy_rules
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/30/AR2008113002216.html

Although the first indictment of mercenary misconduct is pending (6 Blackwater Worldwide employees accused of slaughtering 12+ Iraqi civilians in the 2007 Nisour Square incident), the private security industry in the Middle East is thriving. The people from Blackwater may get off the hook as well, since they worked for the State Dept., not DoD. This was probably deliberate, because no laws exist to regulate State Dept. contractors overseas. Plus at the time, the US-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement gave private US contractors legal immunity in Iraq (which has now been nullified for 2009-2012), so they didn't face local punishment, and were probably whisked out of the country before anyone in government could respond. While PSCs have committed illegal killings probably every year of the Iraqi occupation, no previous incidents have made it to court due to the ambiguity of jurisdiction and challenges in procuring evidence. But the Nisour case, like the Marines at Haditha, was so blatant and publicized (especially among outraged Iraqis), that some heads have to roll. The accused have turned themselves in to authorities in Utah (one has already reached a plea bargain, probably to testify against others), hoping that they will get a more favorable, conservative-leaning trial than in DC.

We already know that the Bush administration has been the most prolific in terms of hiring private contractors to do government work, even crafting policy. And the Iraq War has been the most privatized war in US history. Part of that is due to the "sleek occupation" approach championed by Rumsfeld and Co., and an unwillingness to implement a military draft to make up the manpower shortfall. PSCs have fought in the Third World for decades, and were even involved in several successful or failed coups d'etat. But Iraq heralded their golden age (industry insiders gleefully refer to the "Iraq bubble"). Similar to the dot-com or housing bubbles, there are now tremendous demands and opportunities for their services. And with the gradual drawdown of US military forces in Iraq planned through 2012, PSCs will happily fill the void. Depending on how you measure, PSCs and non-combat support staff comprise a fighting force even larger than the Iraqi Army. They have their own helicopters, medics, explosives, and turreted armored vehicles (the poorer outfits like Crescent Security just use pickups with scrap metal plating). So really the US taxpayer is funding two armies (with very different priorities as well).

Some regular soldiers accept this with disdain. While they may earn under $30k/year putting their lives on the line for Uncle Sam, PSCs make $7-20k PER MONTH (higher-ups may make $200-300k/year). Plus the death/disability benefits for PSCs are much better than enlisted personnel, though it is unclear how many PSCs have actually been wounded/killed in Iraq because the companies are not required to disclose anything to the public. While PSCs do risk death on the job (and get in firefights on a near-daily basis), it's not like they have to do the grueling, tedious, confrontational work of uniformed soldiers like directing traffic, patrolling neighborhoods, and conducting counterinsurgency missions. PSCs mostly guard VIPs, Green Zone checkpoints, and vehicle convoys (that often come under attack, but again it's hard to estimate the frequency since companies don't release data). So they're paid nearly 10X an enlisted person's salary to do less work. No wonder Army recruiters are having difficulties reaching their quotas.

In addition, uniformed soldiers are bound by military discipline, Geneva Conventions, and the rules of engagement, while PSCs basically operate by the law of the jungle with practically zero oversight. Soldiers took an oath to defend the country (maybe all of them don't faithfully execute their commitments 100% of the time, but at least it's on their mind), while PSCs only have to answer to company management. A US soldier goes through hell to protect fellow Americans, the Constitution, and the interests of our country (yes, that includes access to oil). Bringing dishonor to the uniform is as unpalatable as defeat. They want to win wars cleanly, expediently, and then go home. PSCs have other priorities in mind, such as thrill seeking (seriously). In fact, it may be in the best interests of PSC firms to drag out wars indefinitely, which means a constant guaranteed paycheck. Despite the patriotic propaganda (PSCs are serving their country too... if the price is right), one has to question their loyalties. That is a big reason why it's always a risk to rely on mercenaries, dating back to Roman times. The Iraqis hate PSCs more than any other Westerners in their country. Probably the insurgents do too, which accounts for the higher number of kidnappings and other incidents.

Yet despite all this, many Iraq vets want to become PSCs after their service is completed. Some have trouble adjusting to civilian life (PTSD, etc.). Others were discharged from the military, but are addicted to adrenaline and miss the action. Though for most it's the money. With little education, it might be the highest-paying career they can get, and many military families endure significant financial hardships when a member goes abroad to serve. So they have little choice but return to the suck. Do we really want to leave our national defense and foreign policy objectives in the hands of people who are mostly concerned with profit, thrills, and may be mentally unstable? Again it's unclear, but there are at least 25,000 PSCs in Iraq, and the total could be as high as 50,000. That is larger than an entire military division. Apparently PSCs are paid out of the Iraq Reconstruction fund, not Pentagon coffers. The Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction estimates that they've paid out over $6B to PSCs since 2003, about 12% of the total reconstruction budget meant for roads, schools, utilities. But really they have little clue about the true financial burden of PSCs, not to mention the secondary costs of cleaning up their negative incidents and bad PR with Iraqis.

http://www.propublica.org/article/audit-us-fails-in-tracking-cost-of-iraq-contractors#When:17:30:00Z

PSCs are becoming as ubiquitous as conflict itself. During the Cold War, they were used by the CIA to train militants like the Nicaraguan Contras, or protect pro-US strong men like Augusto Pinochet. Besides Blackwater, other big outfits are DynCorp and AEGIS. Sourcewatch.org lists over 140 private security firms in total, and 77 have been used in Iraq. They are often based in British Commonwealth nations and tend to outsource to Third World conflict zones, where they can hire for less pay. They even operate within our borders: Blackwater USA trigger men were dispatched by DHS to New Orleans during Katrina to "maintain order" (I'd be unruly too if I went without food and water for days). Blackwater is also lobbying Washington to have its men patrol the Mexico border. So for the 500,000+ Americans who have lost their jobs this fall, maybe they should pick up a weapon and join an industry that is growing faster than health care or education. They pay is great and you might even get to kill a Muslim.

http://www.democracynow.org/2007/3/20/blackwater_the_rise_of_the_worlds

Thailand airport protests

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7775749.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7584005.stm
http://www.france24.com/en/20081125-bangkok-airport-closes-protest-turns-violent-thailand

Dear Newsweek,

I suppose your "Conventional Wisdom" section is more meant for eye-catching than delivering concrete news, but I disagree with the comment that the Thailand airport protests were peaceful and pro-democratic. Even your own article titled "Thailand Slides Toward Civil War" (by Wehrfritz and Seaton, Dec. 6 issue) refutes those claims. While it is true that the pro-Thaksin regime was corrupt in some ways, the opposition movement People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) has anything but democracy in mind. PAD is directed by Thailand's rich and privileged (military officers, upper classes, royalists), so obviously they were threatened by Thaksin's populism. During his five years in office, Thaksin reformed government to reduce bureaucratic inertia and become more results-oriented. His initiatives increased social services, economic opportunities, and political representation for the poor, rural majority. Thaksin and his successors - all wealthy men as well - were neither saints nor tyrants, but their main political transgression was daring to upset the elite-friendly status quo.


As your own reporters noted: The PAD [...] advocates the transformation of Parliament to one dominated by appointed lawmakers because, as PAD leader Sondhi Limthongkul told NEWSWEEK a few months ago, the rural masses "lack intelligence and wisdom" to vote responsibly. The group's guards carry guns, knives and explosives and have fought pitched battles with riot police. [...] Pavin Chachavalpongpun, a foreign-policy specialist at Singapore's Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, says the PAD vision for Thailand is "scarily analogous" to the political system Burma's generals are constructing to perpetuate their own monopoly on power. Rural Thais resent it so viscerally that they're rallying around Thaksin's allies as a point of pride.

And as further proof that the airport protests were not peaceful, France24 reported that PAD supporters opened fire on rival pro-government protesters and assailed them with metal poles (eleven were injured).

Zimbabwe/Mugabe history you probably don't know about

We all know that Robert Mugabe is a stupid man and worse dictator. Zimbabwe, once the breadbasket of southern Africa, is now starving. Terrible mismanagement, corruption, and crackdowns/abuses by the Mugabe regime have crippled the country. Inflation was at 10,000% in 2007 and higher than 200M% today (yes, that is 200,000,000%), so now a 10M bank note is worthless. And to make matters worse, thousands are now dying from preventable cholera, which is spreading to neighboring nations via waterways. That is partly why Zimbabwe's neighbors are finally starting to denounce formerly revered African nationalist Mugabe. The health care and clean water systems have broken down, so now cholera, which usually kills just 1% of infected, is now killing 10-40% in some areas. It's a horrible situation, yet some in Harare claim that the epidemic is "under control". But others are secretly or publicly begging for more foreign aid.

Zimbabwe's political dysfunctions have been well documented. Here is the State Dept's take: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/16501.htm. Clearly the catastrophic Mugabe regime would prefer to blame the West for national ills rather than actually address them. Bordering on Rev. Wright territory, the Mugabe government has even accused the UK/US of deliberately infecting people with cholera/anthrax.

But Mugabe wouldn't have risen to power if he was all bad. Like Mandela, he protested against the white minority rule in British Rhodesia, and was imprisoned 11 years for his efforts (while jailed he earned 3 advanced degrees, including law). His 4-year-old son died while he was behind bars, and his jailors wouldn't even allow him to attend the funeral. Maybe that contributed to his disdain for whites and the West. In 1980 he came to power in a shady fashion (like many post-colonial nations), and adopted a pseudo-Maoist political platform. But while in power, he actually did some good and Zimbabwe thrived. According to a 1995 World Bank report, from 1980-1990 infant mortality/child malnutrition rates were nearly halved and immunizations tripled. Life expectancy rose 8 years, and Zimbabwe was above average on many social metrics vs. other developing nations. But short on cash in 1991, Mugabe began to print more cash, land reform backfired, foreign investment dried up, economic problems worsened, and things spiraled downward to present conditions. But it wasn't totally his fault.

Contrary to what we might expect, it was not Mugabe or other black revolutionaries who resisted British colonial rule and established an independent state. Zimbabwe was not an Algeria. Actually it was Ian Smith, the UK-appointed white leader of colonial Southern Rhodesia, who broke off ties with London and declared independence in 1965. Though the UK pushed for international sanctions, and Rhodesia was never officially recognized. Smith's Rhodesia implemented minority white rule and enforced apartheid (blacks couldn't vote and whites owned most of the usable land), which contributed to the rise of black nationalism resistance from groups like ZANU (Zimbabwe African Nat. Union) and UANC (United African Nat. Council), the former which Mugabe belonged to. The whites and blacks waged war from 1971-9 until the UK brokered the Lancaster House peace agreement that created Zimbabwe and launched Mugabe's political career.

http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/1196912834.59/

Surprisingly, relations between Mugabe and the UK were quite warm in the 1980s and early '90s under Thatcher/Major, and Britain invested heavily in the Zimbabwean military and public works projects. The UK even cooperated in Mugabe's land reform initiatives, buying back over 40M pounds worth of land from whites so Mugabe could redistribute it to blacks. But things changed overnight when Tony Blair became the new PM. Blair's government decided to cancel his predecessor's verbal promise to continue the land program, angering Mugabe. Things "seemed" to be going well between whites/blacks and the UK/Zimbabwe, but Blair unilaterally decided to change course. Partly because of this, Mugabe adopted a harder political line (and became more racist/xenophobic too), cracked down on his opponents, and forcefully seized white land instead. He believed that the Blair regime was supporting his political rivals to undermine and oust him, so in a sense, Blair pushed Mugabe into becoming a bigger tyrant. The Bush administration also got on board (maybe as quid pro quo for Iraq?), and the US/UK lobbied the UN for sanctions and foreign divestment from Zimbabwe. I guess it's not paranoia if some people really are out to get you.

http://www.gmanews.tv/story/63020/Western-sanctions-hurt-the-poor-Zimbabwe-central-bank-report-says

The US/UK claim that they just want to punish the Mugabe regime and won't hurt poor Zimbabweans. They want him out of power so Zimbabwe can fix its economy and move towards democratic reforms. That's all fair and good, but "targeted sanctions" are like smart bombs - more humane in principle but not so in practice. Yes it is true that despite soured relations, Western agencies have continued to pour millions of aid dollars to help Zimbabwe with HIV, hunger, and other problems. But official and unofficial sanctions have crippled the Zimbabwean economy. They have a harder time exporting their goods overseas in a competitive manner, and have to accept grossly unfair prices for the imported raw materials that they need. At least Saddam had "Oil for Food".

It's a vicious cycle: foreign divestment makes Zimbabwe poorer and lowers its economic appeal/credit rating for investors, which forces Zimbabwe to pursue riskier sources of capital or even print new money to try to balance its books, which further lowers its economic health. Foreign direct investment/donor grants fell from $240M/year in the 1990s to $60M in 2006. The WHO closed its Harare office, and the IMF/World Bank cancelled its loan programs (loans that literally kept the nation afloat), probably at the behest of the US/UK. There were many "legitimate" reasons for those org's to cut off Zimbabwe, but political foul play was obviously involved as well. Because if the IMF applied the same scrutiny of Zimbabwe's loans to other developing nations, they'd have to remove dozens more countries from their books too. But I guess their patience for Mugabe is particularly low? The Zimbabwe central bank is not full of idiots; they are printing all that money and suffering record inflation because they don't have a choice (they can't get funds from anyone else). Surely governments and companies have the right to withdraw investments as a form of political protest, but we shouldn't deceive ourselves into thinking that innocents won't be hurt in the process. Hospitals can't afford drugs/equipment, schools can't buy new books/computers, and infrastructure projects languish without funding. It's partly Mugabe's doing, but ultimately we let it happen.

Mugabe has a lot of blood on his hands and will go down in history as a failure, but we shouldn't overlook the West's role in Zimbabwe's suffering too (even if the media and history books do).

A new crime wave in Japan

By senior citizens...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/3213349/Japan-struggles-with-elderly-crime-wave.html

Japan struggles with elderly crime wave

Police in Japan are struggling to control a crime wave carried out by the most unlikely of criminal fraternities: the elderly.

[Me:] A portent of things to come in the US? In Japan, one of the top nations by measure of longevity, 20-25% of the country is over 60, and the US/Europe are on that path. NPR was discussing this too, and they said that one elderly lady stabbed a younger woman just because she was homeless and wanted the police to care for her (or at least put a roof over her head in jail). It reminds me of poor Palestinian youth deliberately committing minor crimes to get "street cred", and also to live more comfortably in Israeli jails for a while (hot meals, TV, safety). Though unlike Palestine, Japan is the #2 economy and a traditionally low crime, orderly country. It's really shocking that things have come to this, though Japan is a peculiar case study in social dynamics on many levels. The traditional family support network has broken down, and younger generations either don't care to help the old, or are too busy trying to survive in the world themselves. And it's amazing how unsympathetic, and even pejorative, the center-right Aso government is to the seniors' plight (plus, it's not like the leaders in Tokyo are spry young guys either). They prefer to build new prisons for them rather than improve their crumbling safety net. I don't know how much of Japan shares that attitude though. I guess to some Japanese, seniors are just temperamental and burdensome. Old people will always be burdens, but so are kids, wounded veterans, and the handicapped, and we don't cut them loose (usually). It's up to the society or family to decide how to treat them, and I am not sure if Japan has age discrimination laws like the US. Well, kids represent the future, so investing in them is more justified, but the old have apparently outlived their usefulness.

I am sure all of us have horror stories of our elderly relatives acting out and being a pain. Sometimes they can't help it (Alzheimer's, dementia, irritability over chronic pains etc.). Sometimes they do it to get attention, or maybe they are just crabby SOBs. I guess some older Japanese take it to another level (crime), partly because of economic desperation and partly due to their frustration over their irrelevance and neglect. Like terrorism, we have to analyze why some seniors would choose to resort to criminal acts in order to make a statement or strike out at society. That generation worked like hell to bring Japan out of the WWII ashes and into a premier industrial power, but for what? A piddling pension and social disdain/alienation? Not only are they not respected and appreciated (as they were taught to do... filial piety Confucian/Shinto values and such), they are cast aside like chaff. Apart from helping seniors with basic essentials as the costs of Western living continues to rise, I think many of the disgruntled elderly would appreciate some moral support too. The past is prologue, and much of what we now are is because of them, for better or worse. How we think of and treat our elderly is a reflection on how we feel about ourselves. Would it hurt so much to show them a little more inclusion and gratitude? It's one of those social problems where everyone is guilty, so no one is, and therefore nothing gets done. I am sure many seniors hate being old more than we may ever know, and maybe some would prefer to end their lives than feel useless and unwanted by their family/country. It's not their fault that they continue to live. It's up to us to decide what kind of life our societies will provide for them, or what kind of life we would want if we were in their shoes.

I know some of you have lived in or studied about Japan, so would love your input. The same story is unfolding in China, Russia, and parts of the West. At least for poorer, developing countries, their excuse is economic limitations precluding better senior care. But in the US, how are we faring?

------------

Article text:

While the majority of crimes committed by older Japanese involve petty theft, cases of murder, assault and violence are on the increase.

"There has been a huge change in the last 10 years," said Tomomi Fujiwara, author of the book "Bousou Rojin" ("The Elderly Out of Control").

"It can be a question of money for some of these people, but that is not the main reason we're seeing this problem now," he said.

Mr Fujiwara blamed the changing face of Japanese society for the spike in crime. "In the past, elderly people were revered and cared for in Japanese society, living in the same homes with their children and families. That has gone now and they don't recognise their own neighbourhood or the people living around them."

Cases of the elderly becoming involved in crime include a 79-year-old woman stabbing two young women with a fruit knife in Tokyo after leaving a shelter for homeless people; a terminally ill 85-year-old man strangling his wife because he did not want her to go on living after his own death and a man in his 70s robbing a store in Nagoya at knife-point.

Japan has traditionally enjoyed low levels of crime and government statistics show that overall figures are falling, except among the elderly. The number of people aged 65 or older convicted of a criminal offence stood at 13,739 in 1998; by last year that figure had risen to 48,597 cases. That number accounted for one in seven of all reported crimes and included 150 murder charges. The Japanese government is spending Y8.3 billlion (£39 million) on constructing three new prison wards that are specifically designed to cater to the rising number of elderly inmates. Many are repeat offenders who commit another minor crime shortly after their release simply to get back into a community where they are comfortable, warm, fed and have friends of their own age.

Mr Rujiwara also said many elderly people have abandoned politeness and understanding - values for which the Japanese are renown - and are now rude, demanding and threatening. "I've seen it happen myself," he said. "I watched this man shouting at a member of staff in a supermarket and then he went into the bank and did exactly the same thing again," he said. "I had never seen anything like it before."

As well as the dislocation from society and their families, Mr Fujiwara said the elderly were increasingly concerned about who will care for them when they become frail. Japan's pension system is disarray, with thousands of workers' records lost, causing fears among the elderly that they will not receive any financial assistance. "Society has already changed and now we have more economic problems, so I really don't see this situation getting any better in the near future," said Mr Fujiwara. "In fact, I'm sure it will get much worse."

More on education

Thanks for your responses, guys. To address your points:

Few countries can match America on its diversity and acceptance of diversity, which is a national strength for us I think. But it carries a cost as you alluded to - accommodating so many diverse people. Though of course the government has no obligation to do that beyond the mandates of law, which can be open to interpretation. Maybe there is such thing as "diversity overkill"? I really don't see why objective subjects like math and science shouldn't be taught near-identically across the nation for the 90% of students who fit the "normal" category. I know state's rights and all that, but name me one state that wouldn't like to save on education costs. And even primary-level language, PE, and history studies don't really need to be customized. But instead, we have different districts buying different textbooks and preparing students for different standardized tests at the end of the year, which contributes to waste. And that waste is not due to America's size vs. Finland, but a bureaucratic choice.

Surely we need to tailor teaching to special-needs or non-English speaking kids, but those are a minority in most communities. Shouldn't it be like group health insurance? The majority healthy people pay a little into the program and are mostly left alone, so more resources can be devoted to the sick. But as A said, the poverty issue does the exact opposite. The healthy get more care while the sick are left to get sicker. In Finland, it seems common that higher-performing students finish their in-class assignments faster, and then offer or are instructed to help their struggling peers. Maybe we could see more of that in America, instead of the "every person for him/herself" mentality. The wealth gap here is much larger, but there are still poor people in Finland and Japan. Maybe they have a hard time going to college too, but clearly they have a better chance at a decently comfortable, productive life than poor, marginalized Americans.

A, are you sure that Asian nations filter out poorly-performing schools when they make their national test performance measurements? The WSJ study data was collected by OECD, a 30-nation consortium and Paris-based think tank promoting democracy and free markets. As far as I can see online, there have been no criticisms of the PISA test and data collection methods, apart from wealthy Luxembourg, which complained that the relatively low scores by its students were the result of the test not being administered in that nation's most popular language, Luxembourgish. If Asian states or others are skewing their results, shouldn't the other countries and OECD leadership have an interest in calling them out on it? But I suspect that the top students in all the OECD nations score similarly, as well as the worst students. As Jared Diamond said in Guns, Germs, and Steel, geniuses pop up at a relatively similar frequency across ethnicities, but it takes a good social system to recognize them and allow them to maximize their potential. But you can see the strengths and weaknesses of the education system by removing the outliers and looking at the average students. And clearly the average Yank under-performs. Poverty and education system both play a role, but I agree that poverty is a stronger factor.

Yes as M said, it's not like every European works 10 hrs/wk less than every Yank. Companies and job titles make a difference. But in general, the European commute is shorter, Europeans busy themselves with fewer "activities" for their kids, Europeans have more vacation time (6-8 wks vs. 2-4 here), watch less TV, and probably do spend less time in the office on average. They also don't have to worry as much about making extra money to pay for health care, child day care, college, and retirement, since much of that is state-provided (a fair trade for 10-20% higher income taxes?). Growth rates in the big EU states have generally been lower than America's, and their unemployment is higher. They're not keeping up with us, but they're not so far behind either. And look at the price we pay in stress and time to get that extra 2% ahead of Europe. But it's not like Europe is Utopia; they are in recession too (maybe their banks are in worse trouble than ours) and they face the same problems that we do (immigration, aging population, rising costs of services/energy). But if both of our cultures are unsustainable and eventually go broke, at least the Europeans reinvested their money on improving quality of life for citizens for as long as they could, while we spent it on foreign wars and corporate profits.

-------

Well, the main thing isn't that Asians purposefully weed out stupid kids from taking the test. The key difference is that Asian kids that have special needs (developmentally disabled, kids who don't speak the local language at home, etc) aren't accommodated at schools. Call it culture, whatever, but Asian societies generally aren't very sympathetic or accommodating to kids that have some form of a disability that prevents them from learning (even stuff like dyslexia). These kids, obviously, tend to do terrible on tests, but in the US we test these types of students as well 'normal' students.

So it's not like they are trying to rig the test results, but the kinds of kids that the US goes out of our way to include in our educational system (even, to be a bit un-PC, crack babies and the like) just don't show up in their Asian equivalents. I'm not real sure how it works in Europe, but you'd have to look at to whom they give the test (do they exclude those outside of normal schooling or not?).

And of course it doesn't take into account the fact that American schools, compared to their Asian equivalents, tend to be much better at developing critical thinking skills. Most Asian educational systems emphasize rote memorization. Not that we're all that great at it, but Asian schools are notorious for being all about memorizing mathematical formulas and passages out of literature without critically assessing what they are learning.

So I'm hardly saying that the US is an educational paradise - I'm in complete agreement about standardization; it's really stupid to have all of this reduplicated effort to develop basic curriculum (and of course gives the fundies a chance to put in their nonsense), and schools in areas with endemic poverty that are underfunded are in really bad shape.

But it isn't clear that these tests that are given out are really that comparable across systems nor does it account for tests of how well it preps you for later success, which is one of the main criticisms of No Child Left Behind; that we are gunning for Asian-like increases in test scores, but what are we really gaining to get there? On the other hand, I think we do have to introduce some accountability into the classrooms; I think the majority of teachers are probably pulling their weight, but we've got to have some way of punishing those that are deadweight. I've read some literature that has suggested that maybe we should use evaluations by principals, but that brings in all of the political and petty bullshit drama that goes on in the workplace, so it's not a clear win either. Maybe some combo? It's a tough issue...

--------

That's very descriptive, and I agree with your points.

I think it's unfortunate that some Asian and other families consider learning disabilities to be "shameful". They might prefer to hide it and make the kid "tough it out", rather than seek out special assistance. Or maybe the state doesn't have much to provide in those areas. But on the flipside, learning disabilities are grossly overdiagnosed and overmedicated in the US, maybe other places too. Now there's a syndrome for everything. It's never the fault of parenting of course. My little angel is sick and has special needs! It's almost a badge of honor to claim to have some learning challenge (Bush with dyslexia). Surely some drug companies, doctors, and DTC advertising are partly to blame for this. Sorry to be un-PC also, but there is such a thing as lazy, stupid, unmotivated, and unfocused (both parents and students). Some cases are real of course, and some steps can be taken to give the kid a better chance at success. 30 years ago, there was no such thing as ADHD, and now the APA estimates that up to 15% of young people may be receiving some sort of treatment for it. Give me a break; maybe that figure should be at 5% at most. Kids are usually excitable, but that doesn't mean they're disabled. They have to be TAUGHT to behave and concentrate. Yet with all the added awareness and treatments now, have nationwide test scores changed much? In fact, an investigation in AUS showed that autism was being overdiagnosed among students in order to gain more education funding. Sad. All these drugs just keep kids SEDATED so they are more easily controlled by irresponsible adults, but the side-effects can be catastrophic (suicides among Prozac and Paxil-taking youth, etc.). And who knows what the long-term effects will be? We need more time to collect the data, but by then these kids will have grown up in an environment that tolerates or promotes substance abuse as first response to "fix" problems.

http://psycport.com/stories/krdigital_2004_06_08_eng-krdigital_eng-krdigital_065551_6431782967861404803.xml.html
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24643013-5003426,00.html
http://pediatrics.about.com/cs/mentalhealth/a/psymeds_suicide.htm

I see what you mean about critical thinking. "Critical thinking" is subjective though, and probably only the best 10% of US schools/teachers even start to cultivate that, but it's still better than "conform and work hard like robots" Asian schools. I do appreciate that some US schools push for creative outlets like senior project, fiction writing, internships/research, group entrepreneurial contests, etc. that other nations might not. However, creativity and self-expression are less useful if a student doesn't have solid fundamentals first. I'd rather have a robot who knows his/her stuff decently but will never be a visionary, rather than an empowered, opinionated "free thinker" who might come up with interesting ideas that are unfortunately based on ignorant assumptions and superficiality (a.k.a. a bullshitter). We have enough of those in America. Plus for many companies and nations in history, creative visionary people are only 10% of the labor force at most, and the rest are robot-like workers. I can't argue if that is a good or bad model, but it's the prevalent model so far for humanty. I think the world and America might benefit more from a surge in comprehension than a surge in creativity.

However, that is probably a factor why East Asians are one of the most educated and highest-earning groups in the US, yet probably the least represented in politics and top-level corporate management. Jerry Yang just bit the dust, but at least South Asians have a governor in LA and a CEO of Citi, to name a few. So even though US-born Asians didn't attend Asian schools, somehow those cultural traditions persist? Well, no point in conducting an exercise in stereotypes.

But as you said, standardized test scores in school are limited data, and not very predictive of future career success. However, they do open doors for higher education, which of course is correlated with career earning power. More teacher accountability would help a lot as you said, though the unions and bureaucracy are tough negotiating partners. Today in France many teachers are on strike due to proposed head count reductions. It has been a political pissing match for decades. Conservative Sarkozy spoke badly of teachers he didn't think were pulling their weight, though 54% of France supported the strike. And Obama is also in a pickle between teacher unions and education administrators over how to balance reforms/accountability, merit-based pay, tenure, firings, smarter testing, and whatnot. But that is another can of worms.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/145843/output/print

Comparing Finnish and US students

Sent from my Finnish colleague:

http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120425355065601997.html

It's a telling comparison between two cultures with different parenting/teaching philosophies. Maybe Americans are "watering down" school with distractions like organized sports, clubs, dances, etc., when really the students should just be focusing on learning, and then they can go home unfettered for leisure and family time. I find it amazing that Finns have less than 1 h of homework per night, versus 4-5 h for some Asians and Americans (I'll abbreviate as AA for now, no pun intended). I cannot believe that some of my young cousins say they do HW until 1 AM most nights, when we probably went to bed at 10 in our day. Maybe they also lose a lot of time with test prep, piano lessons, volunteering (worthwhile if they do it for love and not just resume building), part-time job (I doubt many Euro teens work), dance practice, sports practice, whatever practice. Does all that crap make well-rounded kids or overwhelmed, spread-too-thin kids? Not to mention all the other distractions like the Internet, video games, chat, cellular, TV, movies, shopping, gossiping, loitering, etc. I am sure Finns do some of that too, but AFTER they've finished their studies and chores.

And it's not like the Finns are total study-holic geeks without personality; maybe they're more socially adjusted than the average materialistic and electronics-addicted US teen! Yet our kids are not learning as much as Finns on average, so what is all the extra time and stress for? We're not getting bang for our buck. Asians study like hell too, but at least they actually learn the material and score well vs. other nations. Is school just a surrogate babysitter in America to keep the kids "occupied" why parents work and shop? But then the highly ambitious or parent/culture-pressured AA's get burnt out and sometimes suicidal when they don't get a good grade on a critical placement exam or don't get accepted at Harvard (this has been reported much too often from India to Korea to the Ivy League).

Which brings me to my next point, the "ambition gap". Since college is mostly free to Finns and other non-Americans, and the discrepancies between the colleges are smaller, they have less pressure on them to get into the "right" school and take the "right" courses. They can actually enjoy college life and learn on their terms (my friend says it's not uncommon for Finns to take 7 years to graduate, but then their degree is more like a MS). Finns and other Europeans seem to let their kids be kids, and let them learn self-reliance. Of course this doesn't apply for all cases. On the other hand, Americans have to ace standardized tests, do all the extra-curricular crap to distinguish themselves, take out massive student loans, pick a "marketable" major, and hurry to graduate ASAP to join the workforce (to start paying off those loans!) or maybe professional school. And then more rounds of costly test prep, apps, and loans. It's a crazy process that makes "adulthood" start at about 15 for some Americans. So overzealous parents, self-conscious and competitive with neighboring families, pull strings to get their kids into the best HS, stressfully shuttle them from activity to activity, and pay for more gadgets and more classes. They fuss over and micromanage their kids so much, by college they don't even know how to run a laundry, and expect Daddy to bail them out every time there's trouble. They think it's love - sacrificing to give their kids the best chance at the best life. Maybe it is, but it comes at a cost. Then for the "blue collar" types who don't have the resources and opportunities to do all that stuff, it's "Would you like fries with that?" until they die. Sorry for the melodrama.

It's shocking to me that America's HS drop out rate is 25%; I had no idea it was so high. At least after 1 year of HS in Finland, kids can decide (or be forced) into vocational or college-bound programs. So they can still excel in areas that they are most interested in. Well, also in Finland there is less salary gap between a miner and physician. Maybe that's too socialistic for us? Yet here we divide up students as well: the "gifted" who take Advanced Placement courses, and the "clods" who take Home Ec and Auto Shop. The income gap is the big problem - weathy areas have well-funded schools, and their students can afford many advantages (laptop, test prep, tutoring, internships with Daddy's company, etc.). Whereas poor students in poor areas don't have any of that, plus their bellies may be hungry (studies have show that makes learning near-impossible), crime may be around them, and their households may lack stability and good role models. It's an old story that we know from Kozol and others. Hopefully the Obama admin. can do something about it beyond "No Child Left Behind".

Well, as the article said, Finland, like the high-performing Asian nations, enjoys smaller population, more homogeneous student bodies, and less language challenges. They spend about the same on each student and pay teachers similarly, but what about the bloated school bureaucracy waste in the US? So maybe less money actually reaches American students to make a difference. It seems that Finnish teachers are better trained and supported at least. I am sure that every school in Finland teaches 95% the same curriculum, while in America each school district has the right to modify whatever they please under the Constitution. It's confusing and wasteful for our kids.

I guess all this may also mirror the workplace? Europeans have the 35-40 h work week and get basically the same amount done as Americans/Asians working 50-60 h. So we're just not using our time/resources efficiently? Like for example, me emailing this instead of working on my lab projects!

Would love to hear your thoughts.

--------

I have to say that it is hard to rule out the size of the country and the diversity of the population. For instance…many restaurants are able to create delicious meals thousands of times every year. But those same restaurants may be ill equipped to feed thousands of people in one sitting. And if those thousands all eat chicken, life is easy. If there are vegetarians, kosher eaters, peanut allergies, etc, the job is just that much more difficult. I wonder if a worthwhile comparison can even be made under those circumstances. Is there another nation with the cultural diversity and size of America with the same problems? Is there another nation that ranks higher in the happiness index or on the education rankings of similar description?

And the other objection I want to make is that I don’t believe that Europeans “get the same amount done” in their 35-40 hours vs 50-60 hours for asian/American workers. And I also don’t believe that all or even most workers at American corporations work those hours. There are always some, and I’m sure that goes for Euro nations as well, but at least in America I find it hard to call that the norm for most businesses.

All that being said, clearly America has a ways to go in the area of education and resource allocation and a large list of other things. And changing the institutions may not be enough to change the culture. If you suddenly mixed Harvard professors and UC riverside professors in some homogeneous mixture, would parents be less incentivized to send their kids to Harvard? Would the name Harvard immediately disappear into obscurity? Lots of “prestigious” colleges are terrible places to send an undergraduate student and yet the prestige of the name carries weight in and of itself. There is the alumni factor as well. And the culture of America is to be bigger, better, and badder than your competition. And the education game is a competition for your dollars. Equality in the rankings of schools would, under our current socio-cultural pressures, lead to just another differentiator.

--------

I think Mark touches on an important problem in comparing these measurements cross-country. One is that in Asian countries typically school tests are only administered at 'good' schools, while thanks to American fetishes for tests we give them at every school. I'm not sure how it works for Europe, but it may be the same.

The other is, of course, that America has deep pockets of endemic poverty (the ghettos, but also some rural areas). Typically these areas do way worse than average on tests and have a large number of special-needs children. So saying that it's the educational system's fault that kids in these areas aren't as smart as the Finns is looking at the wrong culprit.

I think the bigger problem in the US isn't so much the educational system, but rather that the US has allowed pockets of endemic poverty to exist and managed to not find a way to deal with them. It's certainly a big problem for the US and I think requires even more radical action than modifying the school systems...

Complaints from inside talk radio

I know you used to listen to a lot of talk radio T, so I thought you might be interested in this. It's about as cynical as you might expect, but the account actually comes from a guy that worked in a talk radio station...

http://www.milwaukeemagazine.com/currentIssue/full_feature_story.asp?NewMessageID=24046&pf=yes

Conservative talk show hosts would receive daily talking points e-mails from the Bush White House, the Republican National Committee and, during election years, GOP campaign operations. They’re not called talking points, but that’s what they are. I know, because I received them, too. During my time at WTMJ, Charlie would generally mine the e-mails, then couch the daily message in his own words. Midday talker Jeff Wagner would be more likely to rely on them verbatim. But neither used them in their entirety, or every single day.

Charlie and Jeff would also check what other conservative talk show hosts around the country were saying. Rush Limbaugh’s Web site was checked at least once daily. Atlanta-based nationally syndicated talker Neal Boortz was another popular choice. Select conservative blogs were also perused.

A smart talk show host will, from time to time, disagree publicly with a Republican president, the Republican Party, or some conservative doctrine. (President Bush’s disastrous choice of Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court was one such example.) But these disagreements are strategically chosen to prove the host is an independent thinker, without appreciably harming the president or party. This is not to suggest that hosts don’t genuinely disagree with the conservative line at times. They do, more often than you might think. But they usually keep it to themselves.

......
Hosts are most dangerous when someone they’ve targeted for criticism tries to return the fire. It is foolish to enter into a dispute with someone who has a 50,000-watt radio transmitter at his or her disposal and feels cornered. Oh, and calling a host names – “right-winger,” “fascist,” “radio squawker,” etc. – merely plays into his or her hands. This allows a host like Sykes to portray himself as a victim of the “left-wing spin machine,” and will leave his listeners, who also feel victimized, dying to support him. In essence, the host will mount a Hillary Rodham Clinton “vast right-wing conspiracy” attack in reverse.

A conservative emulating Hillary? Yep. A great talk show host is like a great college debater, capable of arguing either side of any issue in a logical, thorough and convincing manner. This skill ensures their continuing success regardless of which political party is in power. For example:

• In the talk show world, the line-item veto was the most effective way to control government spending when Ronald Reagan was president; it was a violation of the separation of powers after President Clinton took office.

• Perjury was a heinous crime when Clinton was accused of lying under oath about his extramarital activities. But when Scooter Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s top aide, was charged with lying under oath, it was the prosecutor who had committed an egregious act by charging Libby with perjury.

• "Activist judges" are the scourge of the earth when they rule it is unconstitutional to deny same-sex couples the rights heterosexuals receive. But judicial activism is needed to stop the husband of a woman in a persistent vegetative state – say Terri Schiavo – from removing her feeding tube to end her suffering.

-------

Thanks, A - very interesting. I wish the author could have commented on the talk radio industry in general, instead of focusing on the specific habits of Sykes, which may or may not be representative. He said that wealthy, educated people also listen to that kind of radio, so I was curious if he had any demographics data. But just so people don't get the wrong idea about me; I do not and never did enjoy talk radio. It was my landlady who was an avid right-wing talk radio listener (KSFO 560 AM Bay Area), and I just rented a room in her house during grad school, so therefore I was subjected to it during dinnertime.

Yeah, it reminds me a lot of the "Outfoxed" documentary about FNC by Robert Greenwald. It's pure Goebbels stuff, and yeah it works. That's why it really dismays me when liberals try to replicate the recipe on their side of the ideological spectrum (Olberman, Al Franken, etc.) because they think it will help their cause. It's not about truth, it's about winning. And it makes them sound dumb, partisan, and sometimes hateful. Electing Obama (who had quite a bit of conservative and independent support) was maybe a referrendum on that type of poisonous politics. How about "common sense" radio instead, with multiple viewpoints and complexities? I mean, in principle the Capitol Gang or Hannity & Colmes is a good idea, if the rhetoric and guests actually had fair representation. Maybe America can't handle complex? Well, I'd prefer that the media confuse rather than manipulate. A lot of the problems out there are confusing, and maybe it's better to admit that we don't know instead of deceiving yourself and others that you have it all figured out? This applies doubly for politicians. As we've seen during the Bush years, ignorant confidence (spun as "decisive") can be much more damaging than hesistance or flip-flopping.

But I think many Americans are tired of these guy/gals who just get ANGRY about every little thing and spout off OPINIONS all day, with very little data or perspective to support their arguments. It's especially hypocritical for moral-religious arguments, since many of their personal lives are a wreck. I mean, I guess I do that too in this email discussion group (of which I am unfortunately 90% of the total activity), but at least I try to acknowledge other views, and inject a graph or statistic every now and then. :) Those radio hosts tick me off because they think they're right all the time, and display extreme complacent ignorance. So what they admit they don't understand, they ridicule as unimportant, pansy crap. It's almost a quality to be unsophisticated about certain matters, like pronouncing Iraq correctly (much less Ahmadinejad). Maybe this is part of the culture war? So how can anyone have sociopolitics all figured out and neatly wrapped in a conservative world-view bow? Especially when half of them have very weak journalistic credentials, narrow backgrounds, and no public policy experience. If the world was really that simple and obvious, we wouldn't need them to tell us. Or is it the liberal media that are filling our heads with lies? And as you said, clearly their views are malleable if judicial activism and line-item vetos can morph from bad to good depending on which party is in power. And that is precisely my point: things can be both "bad" and "good" depending on the circumstances. There are times when Kim Jong Il was a good leader (very few times I'm sure) and times when the US was the biggest war criminal on the planet. There are times when Democrats started un-necessary wars and hooked up big business, while Republicans risked their careers for the environment, diplomacy, and civil rights.

It's also hilarious when those radio hosts have feuds with each other. I mean, they are big egomaniacs competing for attention from the same audience, right? I can't find any web examples now, but I do remember Rush dissing O'Reilly's program and whatnot, circa 2004. So if they are in competition, they gain an advantage by shocking the most people and getting the most buzz. That's why Ann Coulter is such a genius (and a bitch of course). It doesn't matter how offensive and evil she gets; some people will eat it up and ultimately it will benefit her more than the commentator who was less controversial.

I do know what the author meant about caller screening. If they did allow a disagreeing or liberal person on KSFO talk shows, they picked such an incoherent wacko that he or she made the host's point for them. You know, the kind of people who think that Bush orchestrated 9/11 and the oil companies are running our Mideast wars (well, that one might be semi-true!). And how can you have a respectable debate with someone if you have the power to cut them off whenever you want, and deliver your rebuttal unopposed thereafter? Plus you have your army of lackeys to dig around the web, and formulate a great counterpunch to burn your opponent, airing on tomorrow's program.

It is strange how these radio hosts can reel in so many sympathetic listeners just by making them feel like victims. The peak of my KSFO listening came during the nasty illegal immigration debates. As you would expect, illegals were blamed for everything but the kitchen sink leaking (in fact, they are the ones who fix your leaky sink). There are plenty of things to criticize about illegal immigration, so why go overboard and get personal? How many Americans have been directly negatively affected by illegal immigration? And how many of those are talk radio listeners? It must be less than 5%. The wealthy doctors and businessmen - why are they victims of anything? Sure it sucks to pay a lot of income tax, but it's better than applying for food stamps. There is like this total lack of empathy for others and a victim complex for oneself, which is one of the things I detest most about "the American mentality". Some people are never thankful of what they have (especially compared to the less fortunate), yet always want to blame others for the things they think they don't have, but deserve. They maybe make the world out to be a zero-sum game where they're the only honest chaps left, and everyone else freeloads or steal sfrom them. Well, I could go off here on xenophobia and egocentrism, but I better not.

Knowing some elderly conservatives, I do understand how they feel that the mythologized "perfect America" of the Greatest Generation is "under attack" now and eroding before their eyes. Ironically, progressives say the same thing, though blame different causes of course. They love America, it's theirs, and they don't want it to lose its luster. That makes sense, but how do you go about that daunting task? Some things that made America great 50 years ago are still here, but others may not be available for many of us in the 21st Century. The world is changing and we are too, somewhat for the better and somewhat for the worse. That is nothing new for any state. I guess fundamentally, conservatism is about clinging to the traditional. I am not against that view (and in fact share it sometimes on certain issues like family and consumption), but we have to leave some wiggle room. All traditions started out as a new practice, and survival means change. France has had at least 5 revolutions since ours, while Mugabe keeps extending his presidency. China has adopted a market economy, while the Soviets degenerated into Third World status.

Treasury not buying up troubled assets and the auto bailout

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20081113/pl_bloomberg/apwpjfpf6mgu_1

``This is a flip-flop, but on the other hand, when they first proposed the thing, they didn't really know what they were doing,'' said Bill Fleckenstein, president of Fleckenstein Capital Inc. in Seattle and author of the book ``Greenspan's Bubbles.'' [Treasury Secretary Henry] Paulson has pushed some ``cockamamie schemes,'' he said. ``So one has to ask, does he have any clue?'' -Bloomberg.com

In September, Bush and Paulson sold the rescue package to Congress and the public as such: taking the toxic mortgage-backed securities off Wall Street's books would help restore recently lost confidence and unclog the financial sector. Uncle Sam would hold onto these investments until the economy rebounds and they turn profitable, maybe even making a pretty penny for the taxpayers. After initial resistance, Congress signed on, and up to $700B was available for Paulson to buy up whatever he felt would help the economy.

Yet two months later, how many securities has the government purchased? Yep, a big fat zero. This is partly because of the credit crisis taking priority and stocks tanking. Lending dried up, the economy was grinding to a halt, and banks requested cash infusions and lowered interest rates to try to right the ship. Like in Europe and Asia, our government also wanted to buy up shares of troubled companies to stanch the bleeding. So what about the bundled mortgages? Washington hasn't moved on those toxic securities because even the experts have no friggin' clue what those assets are worth (if anything), and who really owns them. It's too darn difficult to research and ascertain the value of those securities to decide what to buy. So instead, they just take the easy approach: pump more money in the credit markets, keep interest rates low (will the Fed rate even fall to 0%?), and hope for the best.

Paulson generally received praise for his swift, decisive handling of the financial crisis this fall (but decisiveness is only commendable when you're making good decisions). Now he said that he won't apologize for changing his approach as the facts change. That is fair, and much better than clinging to an outdated, flawed strategy. But maybe he could have handled his PR a little more delicately. The Wall Street bailout was already very controversial in Congress and more so on struggling Main Street. Some Americans still feel very outraged, and anti-fat-cat backlash is the strongest its been in decades. The taxpayers have given unprecedented authority and a gargantuan loan to Bush/Paulson to fix the economy. If the custodians of our cash appear wavering, maybe people will start to feel jerked around. It also sends mixed signals and uncertainty to the markets, which responded as expected (Dow and Nikkei lost 4-5% on Wednesday). So they don't have to pick one plan and stick with it no matter what, but at least speak plainly with us (something Paulson is not known for). Is this bailout about restructuring mortgages, increasing lending, buying up stakes in troubled companies that are "too big to fail", or taking toxic paper off private sector books? I am sure we need to do all those things, so let's have a cohesive, comprehensive plan of attack already. It's been two months, and more people's lives are being shattered each day longer that Washington flounders.

----------

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12601932

"Bailing out Detroit would be a bad use of public money." -The Economist

Also, what do you guys think about Obama/Pelosi pushing for an auto industry bailout? As J and I noted in September, the Big 3 already got $25B in "loans" from a rushed spending bill in Congress, to help them modernize and get more efficient (things they promised to do years ago, but kept making SUVs instead). Now Obama is calling for another $50B in a move that would resemble Chrysler's rescue in 1979. But America and Detroit were very different back then. Auto was and still is huge, but to give you a sense of scale, UPS has more employees than the Big 3 combined. Manufacturing was a much larger sector of our economy back then, Wall Street was relatively healthier, and Chrysler had the very effective and innovative Lee Iacocca at the helm (he axed many bad car concepts, rolled out the first American minivan, and laid the groundwork for the Jeep Cherokee). I don't think the current bozo CEOs would measure up. US auto sales are way down across the board (even for Toyota), and the Big 3 are hemorrhaging money to keep their expensive operations going while their lots are chock full of unsold vehicles. They have announced new rounds of layoffs, factory closures, and reduced hours/production. But this is nothing new - Detroit has been contracting for a decade or longer ("Roger and Me"). Maybe they would have failed earlier if not for all the lobbying in Washington for huge tax breaks and other government assistance.

The rescue might sound outrageously huge, but to be fair, the entire proposed auto bailout is just 42% of what one company already got from Paulson ($120B to AIG). Though AIG had its tentacles in most of the big players in global finance, so its failure would make Detroit's vast problems look like a piece of cake. Rescuing auto will add to the bad precedent of the Wall Street bailout: companies can screw up as much as they like, and Uncle Sam will clean up the mess (as long as they demonstrate that they are "vital to the economy"). But the Big 3 are not, at least not as much as banks/credit. For years, Detroit kept saying they are this close to finishing their restructuring for modern competitiveness, and just need one last push to get over the hump. Maybe this bailout is that last push, or maybe they are willing to say anything for a handout. Sure in a perfect world we would want to help Detroit. But lending and resources are very tight now. Imagine all the good that $50B could do for expanding green industries and critical infrastructure projects (things Obama promised during the campaign), which also creates jobs and commerce. Instead of a bailout, the Big 3 can file for Chapter 11 as the airlines successfully did after 9/11. If it wasn't for the spike in jet fuel, many of our airlines might be healthy and profitable now. Auto can continue to pay their workers and maintain some operations during the bankruptcy negotiations, and it won't cost taxpayers nearly as much. Then in a few years after this recession has abated, they can emerge as leaner, stronger companies ready to compete it the new hot markets (developing nations, not saturated Western countries).

Though of course the auto industry has sentimental and symbolic value to America, and its labor unions have much political influence. But does that mean we have to use our dime to keep those screw-ups on life support? In a market economy, companies are free to fail. Yes it's true that the ripple effects will be huge (losing the Big 3 would also kill thousands of dealerships, parts suppliers, mechanics, etc.). But they are not the only show in town; foreign auto makers also have dozens of huge plants in the US and employ almost as many Americans as the Big 3. We don't have to build or buy American cars if we can't do it well. Or will auto become another taxpayer-subsidized unprofitable industry like agriculture? Already our domestic electronics and textile sectors are all but gone due to globalization - why not let auto go if the costs of supporting them are too great? It will be painful, but auto is not the only industry in deep trouble. The gambling entertainment industry (which employs more Americans than the Big 3, and generates billions in tax revenues) is also on the rocks due to restricted leisure spending in this economic downturn (I guess it's not recession-proof after all). The major casino corporations have seen their stocks drop over 50% in the last 12 months. The airlines are desperate too: Delta-Northwest merged out of survival, and even though oil dropped from $140 to $55/barrel this year, the industry will still report billions in losses. The big carriers' stocks all lost over 20% yesterday on news that Americans would be predictably curbing their travel habits next year. Who deserves a bailout and who doesn't? Who is more vital to our economy?

And what about the housing sector? Isn't that the root of many of our problems? Millions of households are still at risk of foreclosure in the next year. What about their rescue? The mortgage and housing sectors employ many more people and are a much larger chunk of our GDP than auto.

---------

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/

Some interesting interviews on these issues:

First, though, Henry Paulson. We've told you over the past couple of weeks that there isn't any buying up of troubled assets going on. Today, Hank Paulson made it official.
Our Washington bureau chief John Dimsdale starts us off.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dimsdale: Secretary Paulson was unapologetic about the change in plans. He said the purchase of bad assets would have been too slow to help banks, while the new strategy of injecting government capital will shore up banks and attract private investments.

Tape of Henry Paulson: As the situation worsened, the facts change. The thing I'm grateful for is we were prescient enough, Congress was, that we got a wide array of authorities and tools under this legislation. And I will never apologize for changing an approach or strategy when the facts change.

Paulson said he might use some of what's left in the bailout to encourage broader lending to consumers, now that credit card, student and car loans are drying up. The Department is reportedly thinking of requiring that lenders match future government payments with money they raise on their own. And John Dearie at the Financial Services Forum says forcing lenders to come up with their own capital eases the perception that the government is choosing winners and losers with its money.

John Dearie: The extent to which you can minimize government involvement by trying to leverage the government's involvement by bringing in or encouraging private capital, I think that's wise on Secretary Paulson's part.

Paulson is also under pressure to use bailout money to help homeowners facing foreclosure. He praised Fannie and Freddie's plans to set voluntary standards for banks to ease mortgage terms, but stopped short of endorsing an FDIC-backed plan to buy distressed mortgages. He said that crosses the line into a government spending program.

----------


RYSSDAL: I wanted to pick up on a couple of themes that John Dimsdale just laid out for us. First of all, why? Why didn't the original plan to buy up those toxic assets work?

PETROU: Well, they've never tried it. But, in part, it didn't work because it was always going to be hard. And not anticipating how hard it was going to be, Treasury was sideswiped when it figured that out and then had to quickly construct Plan B.

RYSSDAL: Was it the thing that we heard about as that plan was being floated -- that you couldn't figure out how to price these assets? You didn't know what they were worth?

PETROU: Bingo. The assets are complicated. They're hard to price. They're held by thousands of investors around the world. This isn't e-Bay here. This is tricky.

RYSSDAL: All right. Well, then, why is bank recapitalization better?

PETROU: In the long run I'm not sure it is. It's just easier. I think in time in poses significant issues, most notably the question of combining troubled banks into huge, bigger troubled banks. Or handing problems that ought better to be resolved by the FDIC over to big banks that then get weaker. But it was easier. It was quicker to corral those nine big banks, put them in a room and force the capital on them than it turned out to be to run the asset disposition and purchase process.

RYSSDAL: Here we are, two months into this bailout program and still the secretary of the Treasury said this morning that he is worried about systemic failure in the economy. Did that catch your ear at all?

PETROU: Anytime he says that, it sure does. It's pretty scary out there still.

RYSSDAL: Why?

PETROU: I think it is because we've taken the financial markets from a liquidity problem, which was where we were starting in August of 2007, and a very delayed recognition by the federal regulators and Treasury about how serious that was. Then we moved into a rapid collapse of the housing market, particularly prices and the residential market freezing up. Now we're looking at a recessionary scenario -- one thing building on the next, with a sharp drop-off in retail sales and the unemployment issues. So, that's a lot of scary reality built on top of the liquidity and market-confidence issues. And that's the problem Treasury Secretary Paulson was referencing this morning.

RYSSDAL: Let me ask you sort of a strategic question. It seems now the government's attacking this problem two ways: One, sort of top-down with the Treasury and the bailout money, and also, especially, yesterday with some mortgage relief. How did that come to pass and is one better than the other?

PETROU: I think we need all of them. We need more mortgage relief. And the plan announced yesterday with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is a piece of the problem. As you all know, the FDIC is looking at another program that would involve guarantees. We're going to need still more in the mortgage sector. But we've got problems throughout the financial sector -- autos coming immediately to mind, commercial mortages. There are different tracks for each one of these asset sectors.

RYSSDAL: Where do the tracks all lead, then, Karen?

PETROU: Ah, to you and me and the rest of us as taxpayers! I hate to say it but that's where, right now, all the tracks are coming into each one of our houses.

RYSSDAL: Karen Shaw Petrou is a managing partner at Federal Financial Analytics in Washington. Karen, thanks a lot.

--------

Yeah, the problem with bailing out the Big 3 is tough. I'm sure the US Gov't will demand their requisite pound of flesh for bailing them out (equity, limitation on executive pay, etc). The problem this time comes from the high possibility that you create zombie firms; sure, this time they only ask for $25 billion, but what about when they keep losing money and have to come asking again? Are we going to say no then?

On the other side, there is the fact that if just GM went out of business, 100,000 people lose their jobs, with a multiplier effect of maybe up to 500,000 people losing their jobs (supplier companies, etc.). If all 3 went out of business, we'd be talking about well over 1 million people. In the middle of perhaps one of the worst recessions in the last 50 years. It's a pretty steep price for creative destruction; it would no doubt further sink the economy and prolong the recession.

So ideally you'd want a company to come in and buy up GM or Ford's productive assets (like the bank bailouts); lay some percentage of the people off, but basically keep the plants and whatnot running as going concerns. But who wants to buy these turds of a company now?

It's a really tough nut to crack. I guess I'd probably come down on the side of bailout, but hardly enthusiastic about it. I'd probably bail them out but only under the agreement that they work on parting themselves out as quickly as possible...

---------

Well, I agree that we shouldn't "punish" the Big 3 and ancillary employees for their industry's mismanagement. But let's not be alarmist - it's not like 100% of those jobs will be lost and they'll all go on welfare. And where do you draw the line then? How do you justify saving some and not others? We have seen how the markets responded to the ambiguity of saving Bear but not Lehman. We can't possibly save them all, unless we want our future economy to be semi-private. How many other troubled industries will come crying to Washington for rescue? Just today Citi announced over 50,000 layoffs - that is half of GM. Sure that company is still solvent, and probably the move is meant to downsize from their bloated status during the financial bubble. But why should Washington care more about auto workers than those workers, or the 1.2M+ Americans (according to CNN) who have lost their jobs in the last 12 months for a variety of reasons?

Plus, we're not talking about the Big 3 disappearing. Maybe Chrysler is beyond salvation, and will be carved up and sold on the open market no matter what. But the other two will be around, just maybe in diminished form or merged, even during Chapter 11. Unlike Chrysler's rescue in 1979, the Big 3's current problems have less to do with finances. They just have a screwed-up business model and produce the wrong products for the 21st Century. Ford and GM are successful in overseas developing markets (often because they enjoy near exclusive trade rights), but other makers are catching up. They have had almost a decade to reconfigure their facilities and change their production to match demand. But they haven't yet. I know it's a pain in the ass to negotiate with the UAW, shareholders, and change is like molasses for some companies. But what is it... like Japan needs 2 years to get a car from blackboard to showroom, yet Detroit needs 8? Will another $25B in loans be able to fix that? Their problems extend far beyond executive pay.

Whatever we do, it's going to be painful no doubt, and some lives will be ruined. But it boils down to choice. Will those billions be best spent by our government on an auto bailout, or maybe other public works and economic stimulation programs that could deliver more widespread impact? Let's be honest; Michigan, Ohio, and much of the Midwest rust belt are dying economies, even if the auto industry was more robust. And auto bailout just postpones the inevitable. And even if the Big 3 have to lay off 100,000's, I really doubt that the Obama administration would just cut them loose. Already there are plans for job retraining and other assistance programs, right? And a lot of those supply chain logistics jobs can translate into many other industries. We bailed out the banks because we didn't have a choice. I don't think that is the case with the Big 3. But as you say, there is quite a strong argument to still do it. Maybe the pros outweigh the cons. We just won't be happy about it.

Gay marriage cont'd

Yeah I totally agree with your last point. One of my really good friends at work here is gay and she is (was, I guess now...) planning on getting married to her long time partner. On Wednesday afternoon, a lot of people in our office were scanning the polls to see if Prop 8 had passed or not. Finally late in the day it looked like 8 was going pass. My friend got teary and said "I can't believe that so many people in California hate me." To me, it's like what the F...how can people who have gay friends or relatives look them in the eye and basically think "No, I don't want you to have the same rights as me." I just don't get it.


Anyway, I'd rather spend $50,000 on a Lex or a Benz than a political campaign! At least mortgage your children's future for something tangible, preferably with lots of bling. Arrgggg...

--------

The no on prop 8 ad that was talking about how other races used to not be able to marry and such was Samuel L. Jackson, so I assume they were appealing to blacks with that one.

And I also have a hard time understanding, maybe the better word is believing, someone when they say they are not against gays but only against gay marriage.

I have debated, recently, a lot of religious folks, non religious but first generation Americans (i.e. strong traditional values from their country of origin), “normal folks” etc. And at this point I haven’t talked with a single one whose argument doesn’t boil down to negative reactions to homosexuality. Either they don’t want their children to turn gay, they think being gay is immoral intrinsically, it varies, but the jist is homosexuality = bad.

And of those that I have debated, in general the black folks are either insulted or just disagree with the position that gay marriage is the same thing as black civil rights. Homosexuality is a choice, it’s a lifestyle, its unnatural, and the arguments go on. But until African Americans at large can associate homosexual acceptance with civil rights, they won’t be changing their minds any time soon.

Someone else brought up the fact that in contrast to blacks or Chinese or whoever not being able to intermarry, gays CAN marry, they just can’t marry other gay folks. That is almost like the opposite of laws that existed in times gone by where interracial marriage was the taboo and black marrying blacks was no problem.

But to my main point, I reject the idea that you can be anti gay marriage and for gay rights, or the homosexual lifestyle or say that you are tolerant of their lifestyle. And all my experience to this point has proven this out.

As to abortion, I can at least accept the idea that there is ambiguity on when life begins. I can intellectually understand how two reasonable people can look at the same evidence and disagree in their final decision. No religion, intolerance, etc required. Gay marriage seems to require something extra to reject, intolerance or hate or prejudice whatever the case may be.

--------

Thx M's for the comments, and props to G for even getting to the last point on one of my long-winded emails! Regarding your coworker - I can understand why she's upset. But of course it's not like the "Yes on 8" people "hate" her specifically, or gays in general. Unfortunately we live in a very competitive, adversarial, fragmented society. Giving concessions or benefits to one group may be perceived by others as doing so at their expense. They would rather "protect what's theirs" than give gays something that seems to diminish what they already have, regardless of the hurt it causes to gays. For lack of a better metaphor, maybe it's like rich people lobbying Congress to cut their taxes by reducing welfare benefits to the poor? So it's not like the rich hate the poor and want to punish them (well, not all rich people at least), but they want what they think is rightfully theirs, and are willing to take from another group to do so.

But I heard a very sage comment from one gay woman interviewed by KQED. She said that she was planning to marry her longtime partner as well, but despite this unfortunate voting result, she knows that no one can attack the love they share - and that's more important than any official title like marriage or whatnot. If everyone was so humble, then we wouldn't even have this conflict. Not to say that gays should just accept it, but non-gays also could also say, "Gays may be marrying, but nothing that anyone else does can take away from the sanctity of my bond with my spouse, so it doesn't matter." Separation of church and state? Certainly, but let's also remember separation of public and private life. America is a great land because our private practices are no business of others or the state (within reason). But that freedom carries the responsibility that we must also respect others' wishes, even if we don't agree with them.

Yes I agree with M's comments and also think it's strange for some people to say they oppose gay marriage, but are not homophobic. Obviously people are more bigoted than they admit, and homosexuality is not well accepted worldwide (if CA gays feel bad now, maybe they could visit Tehran for a week and see how good they have it actually). So immigrants will bring those sentiments with them here. I know gays may never be able to change some minds, but better PR from them fostering better public perceptions would really help their cause. But maybe the fundamental difference is that homosexuality doesn't really affect non-gays, because in general they don't have to see it publicly. But for gay marriage, just to know that it's legally equivalent to hetero marriage, and worry that their kids will be confused in school or other stereotypes, makes them oppose it? I heard one voter say, "I am not even against gay marriage, but just I don't want my kids being taught those things." Even though most of those fears are unwarranted, how can you get through to people who think like that, especially with the anti-gay-marriage side stirs up their paranoia?

I also find it funny that interracial or inter-religious unions used to be discouraged or even illegal, yet homosexual marriage is now under fire. But the rationale seems to be similar. "Traditionalists" and narrow-minded people didn't want their faith or race polluted by lesser humans, and don't want gay marriage to take away from hetero marriage's status. It's an ideology I guess. However, I do disagree with those who want to equate their situation with the black Civil Rights struggle. As recently as the 1960s, blacks couldn't even be in the same restaurant as whites, were assaulted rather than protected by the police, and their disenfranchisement was tolerated. Gays have it much, much better, and I think it may insult or at least turn off some blacks if they try to draw parallels with their people's past suffering. Plus, it's not like blacks have totally overcome as the old song said. All the statistics suggest that blacks are still doing much worse in America than gays, even if our next president is half black. But that is mostly symbolic, and the fact that Obama won will not in itself do much to improve the lives of millions of American blacks still marginalized or burdened by the legacies of racism.

And the stakes have raised...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081108/ap_on_re_us/mormon_backlash_boycott

I would expect this type of response from the pro-gay movement, but it is counter-productive and hypocritical. Not all Christians are against them, and probably not all Mormons either. No matter how they may look down on or dislike Mormons on a personal level, it's not right for people who promote (or even demand) tolerance to behave so intolerantly to their political opponents. If that happens, then they lose their moral high ground. They say that Mormons have gone from persecuted to persecutor, but obviously that is quite a stretch (the latter part). Gays are not "second class citizens" in CA or most of America. They are protected under the same rights that we all are, the same rights as Mormons or the KKK (no relation). It's not like they are stoned in the streets, barred from owning businesses, or forced to wear rainbow armbands. Exaggeration won't help their cause, and in fact suggests a victim's complex. "Persecuted" is not a term that should be used lightly, lest it lose its power to describe real instances of high injustice (Darfur, Palestine, etc.), which numbs people from feeling outrage and taking action.

It's not right to deface Mormon temples or defame an entire faith just because they don't agree with you. Collective punishment is ignorant, often bigoted, and even prohibited in the Geneva Conventions, but few people pay heed. Mormons were one of many groups supporting "Yes on 8"; so why just single them out? Would they dare do the same thing to black churches who were also against them? And Utah is about 70% Mormon; if they boycott tourism and commerce there (ski industry, Sundance Festival, etc.), it will hurt thousands of innocent people who don't care about Prop 8 or may even support gay marriage. Similarly, it's ludicrous for conservative extremists to call for boycotts of "gay friendly" companies, just because they may donate to some gay rights groups. It's not like Microsoft or Ford are designing gayness into their products to brainwash non-gay users. But that demonstrates how hard it will be to bridge the gulf between the activists on each side of the debate (if you can call it that).

Bob Malone, CEO and president of the Park City Chamber of Commerce and Visitors Bureau, said it is unfair to try to punish certain industries or parts of the state over an issue it had nothing to do with.

"It's really not a Park City thing, and I don't see it as a state thing. That was more of a religious issue," he said. "To sweep people in who really have nothing to do with that issue and have no influence over religious issues — it's sad that people kind of think that and say, 'We're going to bury you.' It's sad to hear people talk like that."

More on gay marriage

In my opinion, spending your life savings to back a proposition of any sorts is completely and utterly irresponsible. I know that it's their right to spend the money however they see fit, but with five kids and a California economy that is sinking, that is just plain stupid.

The 69% vote from African Americans for Prop 8 is kind of shocking. IMO, it's also hypocritical of African Americans to vote for it after decades of their own fight against inequality. I'll just leave it to the California Supreme Court's own words from their May decision to allow same-sex marriage:

"An individual's sexual orientation — like a person's race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."

And as usual, Jon Stewart expertly highlights the hypocrisy of the Mormon Church's fight against same-sex marriage:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=189782&title=i-now-denounce-you-chucklarry


Why can't people just let people live? If you don't approve of gay marriage, then don't get one and SHUT THE F*** UP.

--------

Well now you see why I prefer to discuss foreign policy issues. Sadly, the conflicts in the Middle East and Africa seem easier to comprehend than the bitter, emotional deadlocks we face on such social issues like gay marriage and abortion! But I appreciate your input M, and generally agree.

I too feel bad about the black voter reaction to gay marriage and whatnot. But despite being majority Democrat, most Christian blacks follow a fairly socially conservative version of the faith. There were a lot of "No on 8" radio ads narrated by an obviously black voice in order to maybe change their opinions, but to no avail. History seems to show that previously persecuted groups will generally not stick their necks out to assist other persecuted groups (especially when it could return them to persecuted status). And sadly, once persecuted groups obtain power, they may return the favor by persecuting their former abusers or others (Iraqi Shia being a recent example). That is probably what some xenophobes and white supremacist Americans fear about empowered blacks and the new Obama administration. But there were some positive examples, such as Northern Jews risking their lives to help Southern blacks in the Civil Rights struggle, and the Mandela-led reconciliation in South Africa. But unfortunately, it seems that persecution may just make minority groups more self-protective, even at the expense of others. Not to say that is happening with American blacks, but it's clear that many of them are not going out of their way to speak out for gays/immigrants/Muslims, but no more or less than other races I guess. It just depends on who become the new n*****s in our society: blacks, Indians, Poles, Irish, Italians, Chinese, Latinos, gays, Muslims. And unfortunately, the previous n*****s (after the mainstream decides to include them) often join the bandwagon to give the new n*****s a hard time.

Even with Obama, check out this link:

http://www.startribune.com/politics/20729974.html?location_refer=Nation

I guess it's more the fault of his campaign handlers than Obama himself, but he's the chief. They are so paranoid of the Arab-Muslim "slur" (so are "Baptist" and "British" slurs now too?), that they have gone to ludicrous lengths to "protect" Obama. Of all the hundreds of speeches he gave, he never ONCE said that Americans shouldn't be like that. He dissed McCain for not using email, but never said that it's ok to be Muslim, even if he isn't. But Obama just wanted to win, and had to neutralize this potential weakness, even if it meant failing to take a stand for what's right and insulting a subset of his supporters (Muslim Americans are heavily anti-GOP for obvious reasons). It does disappoint me and other liberals who believe that Obama could have shown more courage and inclusion, especially since he has criticized Bush for straining relations with the Muslim world and inciting backlash. As you said, isn't that hypocritical of a black man with a law degree, who should know a lot about injustice? But sorry to digress...

Funny Daily Show clip, thanks. Well, for the record only a few fringe Mormons practice polygamy, and I guess it's not totally mysogenistic - during their trek to Utah, many men died and the survivors felt obligated to care for the widows/orphans. Supposedly it's the same principle behind Muslim polygamy (many men died in wars and left their women in a bind, so other men picked up the slack). Not to say that I agree with it, but just a take on the history. There was an interesting documentary on Mormonism on PBS that my wife and I saw last month. I guess it went a few steps beyond the South Park parody haha. I couldn't really get my head around the concept that they believe we're all "celestial beings", and families were predestined to find each other on Earth, and then be together for eterninty in the celestial realm. Man, that must be truly hell if you have to live with your family forever! Maybe that partially explains why many Mormons take family very seriously and therefore feel strongly about perceived attacks on their "divine" family model.

Yes I agree with you about that family's spending. I didn't mention it to praise them, but rather to demonstrate how extreme some people's reaction to gay marriage can be. I will give them the benefit of the doubt and hope they weren't manipulated into that decision by their church or "Yes on 8" minions. Those parents love their kids as much as the next family, and I guess they just felt that their savings, which could have been used to improve their kids' lives in many ways, was better spent as political influence. I guess to help shape a world where there are laws that better preserve their value system. I'm not saying it's sound thinking, but it's not like they're just jerks who want to pick on gays. Though I would question "activist religions" that would rather speak with their pocketbooks/lobbyists than humble deeds of love and charity. Thankfully we live in a "civil society" versus Congo or Iraq, where they settle their differences with bloodshed. But here we sometimes inflict sociopolitical violence on one another instead, which can be almost as hurtful.

Maybe pro-tolerance groups can't reach some people who have gone off the deep end, but it shouldn't have gotten to this point. Now pro-gay groups are protesting outside Mormon temples and such, which won't help anything. Shouldn't they know that some religious people crave nothing more than feeling righteously persecuted? Remember how bad it got with the Tom DeLay Congress and Terry Schiavo? Animosity just makes both sides want to circle the wagons and be less receptive to the other's views. Some people are truly homophobic, but others do mostly practice live and let live. However, those people's beliefs may compel them to want to "protect marriage" or other social standards. It's not good enough to them to go about their lives knowing that gay marriage is happening around them. I mean, would we sit idly by if we knew our next-door neighbor beat his wife and kids? I know it's not the same thing (and gay marriage is not a crime), but to the "Yes on 8" people, I guess they feel that it is their moral duty to take action and not just passively accept it, especially if people like Newsome keep flaunting it all over.

Same thing with abortion; they feel that a high crime is being committed and their conscience won't let them just tolerate it. Though the pro-life side may never accept anything less than "life begins at conception". At least with gay marriage, maybe in time the proponents can demonstrate that gay couples just want to mind their business, be happy, and don't have an agenda of spreading gayness. In fact, many preachers have said gay marriage is a good thing, because any sort of increase in monogamous commitment between two people in love strengthens family values and sends a good message in the community. Divorce and promiscuity are bigger threats to marriage than gay marriage is! So if traditionalists eventually lower their guard and feel comfortable that gays don't threaten heterosexual marriage, and don't want to brainwash their kids, then there's no problem, right? But that would require the pro-gay movement to maybe tone it down a notch, and not upset conservative sensibilities with flamboyant pride parades and such. That accentuates their differences, when really they should be striving to demonstrate humility, commonalities, and shared values.

Maybe living in CA we have a skewed sense of gay acceptance, since we are definitely on the more tolerant end of the spectrum (Prop 8 aside). Of course it's not like gays are getting lynched (at least not as often as blacks), but let's remember that public acceptance of homosexuality is not a given in America. Over half the states ban any sort of gay unions (like all of the South and Midwest). And "progressive" states like MI, WI, and OR also ban gay marriage. Only CT and MA have legal gay marriage, which is like 5% of America. Gays live pretty well in CA (not 100% equal, but who is?). I know they always have the right to ask for more, but let's be reasonable. Getting a black president elected was already a big step in 2008 - and blacks have been here from the start! Change is slow (especially social acceptance) and America might need more time with gay marriage.

But people often forget that it's a two-way street. If gays want more acceptance and equality, they need to do a much better job with PR and outreach to non-gays. Like half of Obama's campaign was about convincing America that he was one of us. Obama campaigners across the country "embedded" themselves in communities that might not have been very receptive to a black Democrat with a funny name. The locals came to like them, so they figured, "Well this guy is alright, and if he is so gung ho for Obama, maybe Obama is ok too." It's unfortunate that he had to go to such lengths, but at least he succeeded. Nothing breeds support for gay rights than non-gays having gay friends (or at least gays trying to reach out to non-gays and make a good impression).