When minorities turn to bigotry

November 4, 2008 marked a momentous day in United States history, while also serving as a black day for civil rights in California. By a majority of votes, Californians saw fit to strip Gays and Lesbians of their constitutional right to same-sex marriage under the state constitution, granted by the state's Supreme Court.

What is most despicable about this result is the participation of visible minorities, including African-Americans, Hispanic Americans and Asian Americans in supporting this discriminatory measure. Certainly while many amongst these communities didn't support this, exit polls suggest that a large portion of African Americans in particular voted in favour of Proposition 8.

Visible minorities ought to know better than to support discriminatory measures that deprive a class of people of certain rights. Japanese Americans were targeted for internment during World War Two. African Americans were once prohibited from marrying Whites, until the state Supreme Court ruled that such laws deprived them of equal protection under the state constitution. This was practiced in other states including Virginia until the United States Supreme Court declared such laws unconstitutional in 1967. This took place many years ago, but imagine if ballot initiatives were available back then which would permit changing the state constitution to deprive African Americans from marrying whomever they chose to, thus invalidating the rights granted by the court?

However, this bigotry isn't restricted to African Americans in California and the United States. In Canada, during the run-up to Parliament passing legislation permitting same-sex marriages across the country, numerous religious and ethnic minorities, including those from the south Asian community, voiced their opposition to same-sex marriage, in addition to the usual bunch of White religious hate mongers. Thankfully, Parliament stood firm and followed through.

I would simply say that members of visible minorities who support prohibition of same-sex marriages ought to ask themselves how much they value their right to equality when applied to them, and realize the damage they have perpetrated to the cause of equal protection and human rights in the United States.

Transposing Political Change

With the election of Senator Barack Obama as the first African-American President, a Canadian friend of mine (very) recently asked/commented on her Facebook status message the following: "X (my friend) wants Canadians to imagine how likely they'd be to elect an Aboriginal or First Nations PM...Hmmm..."

Prior to yesterday evening, one of the things I imagined that his victory would bring, would be a sense of possibility - that people of color could not only be elected to high office, but also aspire to run for such office(s) in greater numbers and perhaps participate more vigourously in the process. President-elect Obama isn't the only person of color to be sure to accede to important government positions: Governor Deval Patrick of Massachusetts (D), Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico (D), Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana (R), and a whole host of members of Congress.

But to return to my friend's query, I think that in order for voters in Canada or other countries to imagine electing an individual, who belongs to a member of a traditionally perceived "other" community, I think it requires a significant diminishment of that person's "otherness" or perceived otherness. It has been said of course that the reason many White voters have been drawn to Obama is that "he isn't really Black" or that the way he speaks is more White than Black - a notion which is highly problematic and will be the subject of a later post. But one of the things that separated Obama and made him a viable candidate for so many, was that he was different from earlier African-American Democratic presidential candidates (i.e. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton). The identity of being 'post-racial' - of being able to move beyond an identity politics - the ability to be more inclusive. Obama rarely brought up race in the election, it was only when he had to address remarks made by Reverend Jeremiah Wright that he launched into what many considered an important statement on race.

But yet I don't think it is entirely impossible to imagine a similar circumstance in other countries. But in order to do so, you will need an individual who can get the voting public to suspend (in large enough numbers) their own entrenched caricatures of what other people can or ought to be. I think a person of colour or an Aboriginal Canadian could potentially do the trick were they able to do a number of things. First, they would have to project themselves more broadly as a Canadian (who happens to be) of aboriginal/First Nations descent (or pick an ethnicity of choice) rather than as an Aboriginal/First Nations-Canadian or other hyphenated designation.

Second, one of the important aspects of Obama's candidacy was that he did not cater to a politics or perceived politics of ethnic grievance. It goes without saying that Aboriginal/First Nations Canadians have much to be angry about, as did/do African-Americans. Yet there is no way Obama would have won if he spoke much about these grievances. This isn't necessarily a good thing or a bad thing, yet it is a political reality.

The case of an Aboriginal Canadian becoming Prime Minister of Canada could be particularly challenging because for many Canadians, Aboriginal Canadians are more often associated with seeking greater independence and autonomy from 'Canadian society' and self governance while receiving money from the state. An Aboriginal Canadian would have to overcome such perceptions.

Even with other visible minorities, the climb to become head of a national party isn't easy either. While there are members of Parliament from visible minorities, there are some if not many who represent constituencies that are primarily comprised of their own ethnic community in addition to others. I think if a member of a visible minority were to break out and run for a leadership position, a real challenge would be to gain support outside of their insular space.

All that said, what made Obama's run so unique was his own individual ability to communicate and his eloquence, an ability to attract people of so many different backgrounds, an ability that few people possess, Black, White, Asian, Hispanic or Aboriginal. It will require the ability to speak in an accent and a voice that doesn't scream "foreign" all over it, a voice that won't take too much adjusting to. Of course there is a double standard involved because we need only hear the majestic erudition that flows from the mouth of George W. Bush to recognize that the same rules don't apply to minority candidates. Had Obama possessed the same speaking skills or accent as the current president, I doubt he would have even won his state senate seat in Illinois, much less what was to follow.

Notwithstanding the hurdles though, Obama's victory provides individuals of colour with a type of pathway (with necessary adjustments for local/national) circumstances that could lead to victory.

A Moment in Time

Senator (now President-elect) Barack Obama will be the 44th President of the United States on January 20, 2009. It marks a momentous time not only for African-Americans, the country-at-large, but also the world. For many it marks the beginning of an opportunity to engage with an intelligent, thoughtful administration led by a cosmopolitan, transformative figure.

President-elect Obama first propelled himself through his keynote address to the Democratic National Convention in Boston in 2004. I might add it may have been one of Senator John Kerry's most important and eventful decisions (as the Presidential nominee of the Democratic Party) for it exposed the country and the world to a new light and inspiration that was seeking to break through the darkness of the Bush administration. His campaign had been marked with considerable discipline and had bested several political veterans - including his own Vice-Presidential-elect, Senator Joe Biden, not to mention Senators John McCain and Hillary Clinton.

His victory signifies the idea that many of the things that we believe are impossible - are indeed possible. With a great deal of determination, perseverance and intelligence, the greatest of accomplishments are achievable. When his victory was called - I experienced a sense of empowerment - that anything was within my grasp if I chose to work for it. Yes it is very hokey.

But the sense of empowerment is what helps move people to do great things and affect others positively through their efforts.

One can only hope that Obama's win will impact and inspire others to take part or engage in politics in a similar manner.

Legislating Bigotry - Voting against Proposition 8

November 4th will be a date to be remembered in many respects. The United States will elect its first African-American President or its first female Vice-President. But it will also be remembered as the election where the people of California were given the chance to support the right of same-sex couples to marry or to support a constitutional amendment that would overturn the Supreme Court of California's decision in In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d 384 (2008) granting same-sex marriages under the state constitution.

The original proposed language of Proposition 8 read:

LIMIT ON MARRIAGE. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: The measure would have no fiscal effect on state or local governments. This is because there would be no change to the manner in which marriages are currently recognized by the state

The language was changed by the Attorney-General of California to read as follows:

ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California. Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Fiscal Impact: Over next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run, likely little fiscal impact on state and local governments.

The altered language accurately reflects the import and weight of what Californians are about to engage in. It is not just about defining the legal definition of marriage (which the original language suggests), but it is about destroying a right, a total deprivation.

What is frightening about this mechanism is the possibility of a majority possibly depriving a minority of a constitutional right through a mere vote. If successful, this may prompt litigation (at some point) to test whether such a constitutional amendment to the state constitution may violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. At this stage, it is not entirely clear that the U.S. Supreme Court would find such an amendment to violate the Equal Protection under the U.S. Constitution.

In an earlier decision, Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Colorado state constitutional amendment, endorsed by the state's voters that effectively stripped homosexuals of legal protections against discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation. The amendment read:

Neither the state of Colorado, through any of its branches or departments, nor any of its agencies, political subdivisions, municipalities or school districts, shall enact, adopt or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of, or entitle any person or class of persons to have or claim any minority status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination. This Section of the Constitution shall be in all respects self-executing.

The Court viewed the amendment as (not surprisingly) violating the equal protection rights of a class of individuals: homosexuals. The amendment was not even sufficient to be considered rationally related to a legitimate government purpose - the lowest standard of scrutiny that the Court applies. Whether the Court, as presently constituted, would rule the same way as it did in Romer is not all that certain given that the deprivation was far reaching in Romer. The question is, whether the Court would see depriving same-sex couples the right to marry goes that far.

What I think is important for California voters and particularly minority voters (Latino-Latina Americans, African-Americans and Asian-Americans) to strongly consider is the sheer bigotry that underlines Proposition 8. Many racial minorities have had experiences being targeted at some point for discrimination and being excluded (as have White Americans). Here is their chance to not perpetrate the same bigotry on another minority. We are all members of a majority or minority depending on how we define such concepts (i.e. race, nationality, religion, gender etc.) The majority of these racial minorities form part of a heterosexual majority and have the opportunity to respect the recognized right to marry by another minority. In California, Asian-Americans are particularly aware of discriminatory policies that have been aimed against them in United States history. African-Americans were once prohibited in certain states from marrying White Americans. In the case of the latter, these discriminatory norms were ushered out by judicial decisions much the same way that the California Supreme Court did earlier this year. Now imagine that the voting population decided to overturn those decisions by a majoritarian vote. We would not hesitate to denounce such a notion were such deprivations based on race.

So when does it become time to recognize the rights of same-sex couples? California voters have the opportunity to do what is right or they can shame themselves.

Living in the Age of That One

This isn't a year to be a standard politician or political party leader. Particularly when we're living, as we do, in the era of That One - a.k.a. Democratic United States Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill) and Democratic Party candidate for President. Beginning with his 2004 Keynote Address before the Democratic National Convention in Boston, Senator Obama established himself as an orator-extraordinaire rivalling even Bill Clinton. Although Obama's debating skills had previously left something to be desired, it seems like he has mastered that one as evidenced by his recent jousts with Senator McCain. His ability to connect has brought so many voters, new and old, Democrat, Republican and independent to his side. The longer lines at the early voting stations and the excitement to be able to vote for him illustrates, in part, this trend.

Contrast that with elections recently held in Canada where voter turnout was lower than normal. During the English-language Canadian party leaders' debate, the moderator Steve Paikin had to admonish the leaders from talking over each other lest viewers get frustrated and switch the channel to watch the (presumably more entertaining) Biden-Palin debate being telecast that same evening instead of theirs. Imagine a U.S. Vice Presidential debate catching more Canadian interest than the debate amongst a group, one of whom would become the next Prime Minister of Canada. Well at least this year, perhaps not so difficult.

The reality is, and this goes back, in part, to living in the Age of Obama - the leaders of political parties across the world, including in Canada and Britain, as well as the head of the Republican Party in the United States, don't excite the public in quite the same way. Perhaps they don't aspire to be, but they are not transformational figures who enliven the public to take interest in who is leading their government. Senator McCain's campaign was kick started by the selection of Governor Palin as his Vice Presidential running mate. But recent polls suggest that while the GOP base is still high on the candy that she represents, many others in the public, including Republicans, are feeling a little ill from all the sugar.

Maybe there is only enough space for one Obama at a time, but I have to believe that rather than merely trying to rip Obama apart by calling him un-American, (and there are fair areas related to policy to disagree with him on whether you are on the left or right), this is a call to individual politicians to rise to the occasion and do their best to get out their inner orator.

Obama's appeal though doesn't just rest as a splendid orator and/or hope-monger, it's also as an intellectual. Someone who makes being a thinker look good again. Of course this isn't difficult given what the lack of a keen mind has done to the United States under the Bush Presidency, or as exemplified by Governor Palin. I don't mean to say that they are not nice people one-on-one (they may be), but I think we have come to realize (even though it should have been obvious already) that we need smart people running the government, any government, and not people who aspire to the lowest common denominator who think becoming/voting for a president is akin to electing some one to lead a Joe Six-Pack beer-guzzling fraternity.

Being an intellectual, I should stress doesn't mean, strictly speaking, holding several graduate degrees. It's about having an intellectual curiosity and analytical mind to process information. One of my closest friends chose not to pursue studies beyond essentially a community college level, yet he has a curiosity and interest in what is happening in the world. He is an intelligent person who is interested in learning but chooses to do it outside the realm of academia. What is important is that thirst to learn, as a life long endeavor.

What I hope is that in the age of "That One", that some of his dust will fall onto other politicians and would-be politicians about the necessity to be smart, policy-oriented individuals who can also communicate in an engaging manner. The bar has been set high.

Knowing your Role

It seems as though the Republican National Committee (RNC) has opted for style over substance. In a recent Politico report, the RNC has spent $150,000.00 on Republican Vice Presidential candidate, Governor Sarah Palin and her family's wardrobe - http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14805.html

Where's the lack of substance that good money might have paid for? Well, it seems that Governor Palin seems to (still?) misunderstand the role of the Vice President with respect to the United States Senate. According to the Governor, Vice Presidents are "in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better...."

Here's what Article I of the Constitution says about the matter: "The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided."

No where in the Constitution is it suggested that the Vice President shall have a role in forging "good policy", "bad policy" or any policy. If she wanted to have a direct part in forming policy, she should have finagled the U.S. Senate seat presently held by the embattled Senator Ted Stevens of the state of Alaska.

How could the RNC spend their money better? Well for starters, they ought to consider perhaps spending money and hire a constitutional law scholar to tutor, if not intensively home school the Governor on the constitutional law that governs the United States and sets out the limits of the Vice Presidency; the position she aspires to be hired for by the American voters.

The Colin Factor

Former United States Secretary of State, General Colin Powell (Ret.) endorsed Senator Obama's campaign to become President of the United States on Meet the Press yesterday. The significance/irrelevance of the endorsement will be debated (and it has already begun) over the next two-three days - both in terms of the substance and the reasons that Powell provided and what it will mean vis-a-vis influencing voters, particularly individuals in the military and/or fellow Republicans.

There was one component of General Powell's endorsement that has however stayed in my mind, as it certainly has for many others. Powell drew attention to the persistent allegations that have been levelled against Obama, specifically, that he is a Muslim. While Powell repeated (as others have) that the correct response was obviously that Obama was a Christian, the larger point was - so what if Obama were a Muslim?

Powell was identifying the inherent bigotry that identifying Obama as a Muslim was intended to engender. In support of his argument about the loyalty of Muslim Americans, Powell has noted a photo essay which depicted a mother resting her face atop her son's grave stone at Arlington National Cemetery with a crescent moon inscribed on the stone indicating the soldier's faith. He emphasized that the soldier was an American citizen and born in New Jersey. Powell's point was that Muslims are part of the nation's military and were in it to defend their country just as others have. And perhaps more fundamentally, that they too were good American citizens - loyal and patriotic.

This is something that neither campaign has seemed to be willing to express, or if they have, they fail to do so in any prolific or sustained manner. Obama's campaign seems unable or hesistant to engage in this, perhaps for fear that he will be branded a Muslim/Arab sympathizer (as though again reaching out to and/or defending Arab and/or Muslim Americans was a bad thing). Senator McCain defended Obama against those who would accuse him of being an Arab by addressing the fact that Obama is a "decent family man", and "a citizen".

Powell, through his statements on this issue will hopefully encourage others, preferably in both parties to be more empathetic in defence of a visible minority than what we have witnessed so far.

Fierce Urgency of Equivalency

In the past couple of weeks, the public has seen some ugly footage emanating from the McCain campaign. I don't mean from the campaign itself (although some, if not many of the things that do come from the talking heads of the campaign warrant serious rebuke), but from those attending.

Now Senator McCain may not share the views of (some of) the hysterical people that populate his audiences. Certainly he should not be found guilty of mere association, least of all by mere virtue of their mere attendance. He can't control what people at his political events think. But it can't be but a little disheartening that his rallies seem to be the gathering grounds for the hysterical and the unhinged. No, and let me be emphatic here, not all of McCain's supporters fit this description, but it's hard to believe that it is not more than just a few.

To McCain's credit, when faced with those comments directly, for example, the lady who didn't trust Obama because she believed he was an Arab, he set the record straight. Obama was a decent family man and a citizen - although it's unclear whether McCain believes that Arabs are also decent family folks and in the case of Arab-Americans - decent family people and decent American citizens (James Zogby, an Arab-American had some thoughts on the matter http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-zogby/john-mccain-i-am-an-arab_b_133884.html).

At the most recent Presidential debate, Senator McCain took his Democratic rival to task for not having denounced some of rhetoric emerging from the crowds in the latter's campaign. I am curious, which out of step fringe-esque remarks is Arizona senator referring to? Would it be the "Boos"? In recent days, Obama would often tell his audiences, no we don't need that, we just need to vote.

McCain has tried to minimize the impact of these unsavoury crowd remarks at his rallies, by using the metaphors of minimization - fringe elements, or to quote Charles Krauthammer "a couple of agitated yahoos".
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/16/AR2008101603182.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

The problem is, we are not just speaking about a few deranged individuals or a couple of agitated yahoos, who yell out some stray incendiary comments. Perhaps Senator McCain or Mr. Krauthammer haven't had an opportunity to see the footage, but others have documented some of the daintier remarks directed at Senator Obama (or people who have supported him) from individuals attending McCain and/or Palin rallies. See for example:

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRqcfqiXCX0&eurl=http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/mccainpalin-supporters-let-their-rac

2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjxzmaXAg9E&eurl=http://bloggerinterrupted.com/2008/10/video-the-mccain-palin-mob-in-strongsville-ohio

3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itEucdhf4Us&feature=related

The fierce urgency of equivalency suggests that we should equate the hate and hysteria exhibited by the comments of these "supporters" with the "boos" that come from Obama rallies for McCain. It takes a coronary- producing dollop of immense nonsense to even imagine that the "things said at Obama rallies" come within the same galaxy.

We should also recall that these types of angry and vitriolic remarks are not reserved only for Obama, but have been directed at conservative writers such as Christopher Buckley and Kathleen Parker, the former for endorsing Obama (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-14/sorry-dad-i-was-fired/) and the latter for eventually questioning the choice of Governor Sarah Palin as the GOP Vice-Presidential pick (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/26/AR2008092603268.html). Ms. Parker was even "rudely" (an understatement to say the least) told in one e-mail that she should have been aborted by her mother for daring to criticize Senator McCain's choice of Governor Palin. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/30/AR2008093002315.html).

McCain has the unenviable position of running in an election where Republicans are roundly unpopular, largely due to the policies of the Bush Administration, which he has supported so greatly. He also has the undesirable position of being the practical choice for the xenophobic elements of American society that see Obama as evil incarnate, even if he doesn't himself share those views and has been explicit in saying so.

Rethinking Debates

The ABC Democratic Party Primary debate yesterday evening was quite a spectacle. It represented the nadir of the primary debate season thus far and should be a signal to dispense with them altogether (as presently constructed). ABC's moderators spent a considerable amount of time revisiting the many dust-ups on the Democratic campaign trail. I don't mind that moderators Gibson and Stephanopoulos aggressively pursued their questions. That was certainly fair. But that so much time was focused on tabloid trash was unworthy of a so-called news corporation. John Stewart noted astutely this evening that asking questions about statements taken out of context to such an extent was his job.

How debates are conducted ought to be re-imagined. The purpose of the debate is to question the candidates on their platforms. Certainly, they should be cross-examined thoroughly on them. But they should focus on issues that matter, on domestic and foreign affairs and their respective positions. The debate should be structured in a manner radically different from its present incarnations.

First, who should produce and host the debates? Should it be left in the hands of networks who exclude candidates because they do not gain a certain percentage of the vote. Moreover, given Gibson and Stephanopoulos' performance last night and that of previous hosts of other networks, it is clear their goal is to to provide information entertainment. Should debates be organized by C-Span or some non-partisan, publicly funded entity to organize and host debates. Under this paradigm, any candidate who has not left the race can still participate and raise issues.

Second, and apropos to the first point, who should be the moderators? If we follow the principle that the candidates should be cross-examined on their positions and platforms, should they not be questioned by experts on a variety of issues dealing with economics, immigrations etc..., rather than the steady slew of interrogatories aimed at silly issues that we witnessed yesterday night.

Third, debates should be structured in a manner more akin to the 2004 presidential debates between Senator John Kerry and President George W. Bush. Where for example, one debate focused on foreign affairs, and another on domestic issues (I confess I don't recall what the third focused on). However given the length of the primary season and the ability to have more debates, the debates topics can be more narrowed. For instance, any given debate can focus on a discrete issue, i.e. the Iraq War, energy independence, the economy, illegal immigration and border security, terrorism, etc...Of course there will be overlap on various subject matters, but the primary topic can still remain focused on.

With the general accessibility of debates on You Tube, individuals who miss a given debate can catch them online.

New alternatives need to be considered to have a proper debate on the important issues of the day. Unfortunately, last night's debate represented the overwhelming failure of the present situation.

The Governors v. The Senators

Not since John F. Kennedy has a United States Senator been elected to the White House. (Former) Governor Mitt Romney has "suspended" his candidacy, although it seems unlikely after Super Tuesday that he could concievably win anyway. Ditto Mike Huckabee, who is staying in the race, but for how much longer, who knows. Therefore, it will ultimately be John McCain going up against whomever the Democrats select as their nominee, both of whom are sitting U.S. Senators themselves.

An article (Reader's Blog) in the NY Times ruminated over the reasons why governors have more often been the elected nominees over U.S. Senators when it comes to the general elections. Some of the responses to the article argued, logically, that governors are the analog to presidents at the the state level and therefore have the most applicable experience to bring to the Oval Office. This is true, and in some ways it's a shame on the Democratic side, that Bill Richardson didn't advance further. Not only is he a sitting Governor in a border state (New Mexico) with its southern neighbor, but was Energy Secretary under Bill Clinton, an Ambassador, and Congressman. Therefore, he has important experience as the chief executive of a state, experience as a federal cabinet secretary on one of the most important issues that grips the U.S. and the world, experience as a diplomat, and experience as someone who knows how to draft legislation. The only thing Bill Richardson could add on to this resume is a stint on the bench. But enough of my Richardson digression for the moment.

One of the comments I read noted that Senators are "legislators" and Presidents/Governors are "implementers". This is of course true in part, but simplistic. Governors and presidents oversee a variety of executive agencies, that involve to be sure, traditional executive functions. These would include, law enforcement, border security, tax collection, issuing visas and permits, and directing the armed forces. Yet they also have legislative or quasi-legislative functions. Administrative agencies produce regulations, that have the same force and effect as Congressional statutes; they are law. When disputes arise, for example when someone is denied Social Security benefits, an Administrative Law Judge hears evidence and provides an opinion. All this is overseen by the executive branches. So the point is, governors and presidents do more than just implement and execute. There is more complexity to the job and involves an understanding of law-making and adjudication.

Although a Senator, who has never served as a chief executive, may lack a certain type of experience, s/he may still be able to bring his/her legislative strengths and insights to the legislative components of the job. Although, the President or Governor, rarely, I imagine, actually do any of the actual drafting of regulations. However, they may take more direct involvement in reviewing treaties and executive orders.

The job of a chief executive, however, is more than just being a good administrator. It's the direction that they can give to the country. And to be sappy for a moment, a certain vision, whether in the Obama, Reagan or Kennedy sense. It may explain why someone like Richardson, who clearly has the pedigree for the job, got see easily cast aside (in addition to the fact that Obama and Clinton had loads more money). Every now and again, for better or for worse, certain politicians come around and electrify. Of course, one would hope that it is more than smoke and mirrors, and that there is a real plan and experience behind the vision.

One thing is for sure, there is an awful lot of excitement surrounding Senator Obama's run for nomination, and it can be evidenced by the money that is pouring in to his campaign coffers. Senator Clinton just acknowledged that she had to loan her campaign 5 million dollars to assist in her bid. There is money which is reserved for the general election and cannot be touched. In any event, Obama seems to be blazing a trail and will likely use it to fight hard to drill into Clinton's delegate lead over the next few weeks and months.

One can't predict where this race is going to end up for sure. Pundits and polls have both been wrong a number of times since the primaries began, and I am neither a pundit nor a pollster, although a bit of a political junkie. But if this Senator-led election proves to be a once every 5 decades type event, perhaps it will go to the one Senator who seems to electrify so many. Or who knows maybe it will go to the very knowledgable Senator Clinton or the Senator "straight talk express" McCain who has the social conservative base of the Republican party threatening revolt.

Time will tell.

Nader's 2008 Presidential Dive

You can just hear Democrats letting out that groan. Here comes Ralph, again. He has announced that he is setting up an exploratory committee to examine the possibility of his running for the US presidency. Undoubtedly there are probably numerous Republicans thrilled about this news. For my part, I have mixed feelings about Ralph running again.

First, the positives. I believe Nader adds greater diversity to the overall discussion. I do not believe, particularly in a society that believes so much as the US does in open markets and competition, that Democratic and Republican candidates should have some de facto monopoly in running for the White House. I think he would stress a more vigourous approach to environmental issues, same-sex marriages, civil rights, and to be sure consumers' rights and health care, than what we have seen by any of the candidates so far. Certainly, in terms of tax policy, Ralph would have some relevant ideas on corporate welfare. Why shouldn't American voters get that opportunity to hear their options?

But now, I have to ask the question, who are we kidding? Most Americans are not or not likely prepared to vote for an independent third party candidate like Nader, even if they share his views in part. A couple of reasons why. First, Democratic voters don't want to risk another Republican taking the White House by supporting Ralph. Second, and this is what I will spend the rest of my time focusing on, why should we trust that Ralph would know what he's doing once he got into the White House.

As far as I can tell, Nader has been a fantastic public advocate on a variety of issues. He's far from being just a talker. Yet, has he ever run for any other office and for that matter served as either a legislator (either state or federal) or as part of the executive branch (governor or cabinet secretary)? From my review, I can't seem to find any evidence of this.

Now let me state at the outset, I don't believe that merely being elected, or having held office, means that you are automatically qualified sit in the oval office. The current resident at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. is a clear example that just living in a Governor's mansion doesn't give you the necessary insight to run the country. But those for whom the elevator does reach the top floor, such experience can provide an interesting laboratory to test their theories. If they work, this undoubtedly would bring to such a candidate a significant degree of gravitas. I think with Ralph's saaviness, he could take it far.

There are many things that vex Ralph. To name but a couple of things, corporate power and influence; the negligence of Congress for not having impeached George Bush. Why doesn't he run for the U.S. Senate or House and try to make change on these issues through campaign finance reform? Nader has recently criticized Barack Obama on CNN for not having pushed to have George Bush impeached, particularly since Obama was a constitutional scholar. I note parenthetically that Ralph doesn't apparently mind getting his message across through corporate media. But moreover if Ralph believed that George Bush should have been impeached, why didn't he run for the Senate in the past few years, and try to push the impeachment agenda. This is not to suggest that he doesn't have a point about Obama not leading the charge. Perhaps Obama and others should have led the charge impeaching Bush and Cheney. Yet, I see no reason why Ralph could not have tried to do the same thing.

Then there's running in a gubernatorial race. Many probably suspect that Nader's policies might seem too "liberal" for the majority of the US population and might not be "practical" enough to be implemented. A surefire way of proving such critics wrong would be to run a state (find even the most liberal state you can imagine) and prove that he can run it successfully. He could then enter a presidential race with a certain degree of credibility.

Ralph Nader can do a great deal for the United States. He would serve his cause well by advancing his platform at the local level or in the U.S. Congress. Perhaps it's time Ralph suited up.

Same-Sex Marriages, Judicial Nominations and the Presidential Election

The electoral race is heating up. On the democratic side, U.S. Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have spent much time recently courting various constituencies in their bids to secure their party's nominations. One group that has received little attention as of late it seems is the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered (GLBTs) communities. Amongst the many issues that concern Gays and Lesbians in particular, are the numerous discriminatory laws that exist ("Don't Ask, Don't Tell"; the idea of a federal constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex marriages; in addition to state constitutional bans against same-sex marriages). Particularly, and understandably, they should be concerned about what the next Democratic President would do about these issues. For the purposes of this posting I will restrict myself to issues of same-sex marriages.

Both Senators Clinton and Obama have stated that they would veto any federal constitutional amendment that would come across their desk. They are both in support of civil unions that confer all the rights and privileges of marriage, although not marriage itself. Apparently for many people, civil unions are a reasonable compromise, but same-sex marriage is a bridge too far.

With the exception of a proposed federal constitutional prohibition against same-sex marriages, there is little that any of the Presidential candidates can do directly about same-sex marriages or civil unions for the most part. These are issues that governed under state law. State laws that discriminate against minorities such as the GLBT community, still have to answer to the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. However for reasons which I will discuss in another posting, Equal Protection unfortunately isn't all that equal under current jurisprudence.

This leads me to the importance of judicial appointments which has similarly been whisked off the list of important debate topics. The President appoints federal justices, including those on the United States Supreme Court, who then have to be approved by the Senate. As the President cannot directly overturn a state constitutional law prohibiting same-sex marriages, s/he can appoint justices that will interpret the Equal Protection Clause and any other constitutional provisions that apply in a manner that is consistent with the intent of equal protection - to strike down laws that amount to invidious discrimination against a discrete minority.

Appointed (rather than elected) judges are important protectors of individual rights and discriminatory laws. They can issue unpopular decisions without having to worry about being removed from the bench by a bigoted electorate seeking retribution for upholding civil rights.

In recent years, many states have passed constitutional amendments seeking to prohibit same-sex marriages. These may end up being challenged as violating the Equal Protection Clause, and if so, the case may rise all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. Thus the issue of who sits on the federal bench, at any given time is of great importance (keep in mind, the case could be brought before state courts and who sits on the bench there is also of importance).

Fundamentally, the judicial nominees that either Senator Clinton or Obama nominate (assuming they win the general election), will have a profound impact for years to come. Therefore it is important to discuss what types of judges these candidates will seek to nominate, not only for issues dealing with discrimination against the GLBT community, but a whole variety of civil liberties.

If only CNN would consider such issues rather than asking Senator Obama whether he agrees with Toni Morrison that Bill Clinton was the first Black President. A substantive issue for the ages.

Africentered Alternative Schooling

Yesterday, the Toronto District School Board voted in an 11-9 decision to allow a pilot project to go forward establishing an "Africentered" or "Black-focused" school. It is estimated that the dropout rates amongst Black youth in the Toronto area is roughly 40%. In order to curb this tide, the Board opted for this type of institution, which is scheduled to open in September 2009.

Although it is still to be determined how the curriculum is to be shaped, one wonders about the advisability of undertaking this endeavor and the precedent it may set. Do Black school children need to be isolated in a special school in order to learn and remain in school? The creation of a Black-focused school also seems to presume a certain monolithic quality about the community. Indeed, the community is diverse drawing from families who have lived in Canada for generations, to more recent immigrant populations from Africa and the Carribbean. How would an Africentered respond to such heterogeneity and would it be sufficient?

One source seemed to suggest that the high drop out rate was attributable to a lack of interest amongst the students for the subjects taught in the current curriculum. For example: "[m]any students say they would do better if they learned about their heritage, but who knows about Mathieu da Costa, (a navigator of African descent) who came to Canada in 1603 as a translator in Champlain's expeditions." http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/298714

I find such reasons unconvincing. When I attended high school, (admittedly more than a few years ago), we had more than a few students who were part of visible minority communities. They were able to pass (and notably not drop out), notwithstanding the fact that the history classes were largely western-centric. I do not doubt that school could and should be made more interesting, and that curricula should be modified to account for the greater diversity that is existent in modern North American urban centres. Students across the board would benefit from such changes.

For example, a history course in high school could take into account other areas of focus that have hitherto been unexplored. This might include historical agents amongst women, the working classes, visible minorities and/or other historically marginalized communities, seeking to gain equal rights and opportunities through mediums other than political parties that excluded their participation. A new curriculum could include the attempts to effect changes in the law through litigation. For example, the successful efforts of the NAACP to have segregation struck down as unconstitutional or the use of civil disobedience to protest against unequal treatment on the basis of race. Or more recently, the efforts of same-sex couples, in both Canada and the United States who sought the right to be married and were able to achieve such change through court challenges. Rather than being a mere exercise in memorization of dates and events, history can be taught in a way that inspires students about the struggles that people took throughout history to effect change. This isn't to completely sidestep traditional historical subjects of course, but some favourite topics and ways of examining them may have to be set aside for others to be incorporated. The underlying point however is that separate schools are not necessary to have a more inclusive curriculum.

If (some) Black students need separate heritage-focused education in order to excel, what happens once they graduate from high school? Will such students need to be provided further heritage-focused education in University to maintain their momentum? Will they be able to compete academically with other students when they are once again faced with a "boring" non-heritage-focused curriculum? Will such schools be able to prepare students for what lies ahead?

These questions are not intended to be rhetorical or flippant, but should be part of the discussion. In all events, the pilot project will be observed from many quarters.

The Snow Day Phone Message

Be careful when leaving an irate phone message or sending a quickly worded e-mail in a fit of rage, cause you might find it/them appearing in unexpected places.

By now, many will have heard about the Virginia high school senior who left a phone message at a school official's home, asking why a snow day was not called, due to, wait for it, three inches of snow.

The spouse of the school official phoned and left a rather irate message on the senior's cell phone voice mail. Not to be outdone, the senior then decided to upload the spouse's recording, accessible by a link from a Facebook page dedicated to the school official. On the Facebook page, the official's home phone number was also posted. The official and his family then became the unfortunate recipients of numerous harassing phone calls, including during the wee hours of the morning. The media picked up the story and began to make numerous inquiries, resorting to such nefarious tactics as calling the senior's house, who apparently wasn't too fond of his new found notoriety. Thinking that now, enough was enough, the senior quickly reminded the media of the different and substantial issues of the day, which it was neglecting by pursuing this story: i.e. Darfur and the presidential primaries (for indeed the country is in such dire need to talk about the continuing saga of Bill, Hillary, and Barack on the campaign trail).

The senior was partly right, there are more serious things to discuss than hearing the spouse's irate message and the comic relief some derive from it. I'm talking about issues of privacy, expectations of privacy, and not to mention web etiquette, manners, civility, and perhaps due to the lack of respect for all these things, the potential growth of cyber defamation and/or other causes of action.

Did the spouse have some reasonable expectation of privacy that her phone message would/should not have been broadcast throughout the internet? She was after all leaving it on a private voice mail receiving system, and not on public radio. Furthermore, the spouse was a private citizen and not a public figure; she was not seeking to insert herself into some stream of public discourse. Whether the link to the actual phone message was fair game to post, certainly the family's phone number was not.

I have a great deal more sympathy for the spouse and the family on this one. Although, one could argue that the spouse might have strongly considered her words and tone more carefully before leaving the message, considering where they could potentially end up, there really is no excuse for the senior calling the residence to pester the official in the first place. That was "invasion of privacy" #1. #2 was publishing the phone number online accompanied by the spouse's phone message. I think any reasonable person, including a seventeen year old (they are after all one year shy of joining the age of majority and acquiring the right to vote) could forseeably anticipate that the official's house would be bombarded with phone calls in light of the recorded message being posted to elicit ridicule.

Nevertheless, there may be some hard lessons to be learned here. One, anytime you leave a message or send an unflattering e-mail, it may very well come back to haunt you. So choose your words carefully.

Second, there is a great potential for liability in the material we publish online. Those who are not careful might find themselves at the receiving end of a costly lawsuit, and not the type that ends up in small claims court. Indeed, it's a high and costly price to unleash scorn on another person.

Third, we need to be more cautious and conscientious about the impact that our cyber conduct has on others and the damage it may cause. The ability to instantaneously publish verbal refuse or damaging material has outmatched our capability to stop and reflect first.