Qualifying for Boston

My last blog, "My Year of Running," spent some time discussing an ultimate running goal. This is the update.
On December 13, 2009 I ran a 3:18:30 marathon in Tucson, Arizona and qualified for the Boston Marathon.
No politics here, no wisecracking analysis. I am just really happy.

My Year Of Running

I can feel my body changing. Literally changing. Everyday there is a new revelation. Yesterday my ears popped out. They were just my normal ears, and then yesterday, I did a double take on them in the mirror. They look like Obama ears now, Will Smith ears. My face is getting close to its skeleton. Don’t worry, I think it is a good thing, my ears popping out. You see, on December 21, 2008, I started my Year of Running. Its November, 2009, and I went from casually running three times a week last year, to now, when I normally run six times a week and can log up to 75 miles over the course of that week.

Moreover, I know things. I know things about interval training, hill training, tempo runs, medium long runs, long runs, aerobic runs, fartleks, pyramids, and recovery jogs. I know the difference between dynamic and static stretching. I can run striders. I can tell you what I know, but then I read somewhere that one of the most boring social conversations involves explaining to someone what you did or where you went on a run, so I won’t do that. But believe me, I know things.

I race. During my year of running I ran a full marathon (26.2 miles). Subsequently, I have run three half marathons, two ten-kilometer races, one five-mile race, one five-kilometer race, and one extreme mountain endurance race, a seventeen mile torture fest, over a 13,000 foot mountain pass. There is no prize money, but, I have gotten much faster, and I’ll tell you something, I like being faster. For example, I used to run the odd race here and there, and finish squarely in the middle-of-the-pack. Today when I race, I even finish in the top ten sometimes, top three of my age group (twice), and finishing fast feels exceptionally fine. No offence to the happy-to-finish-crowd (I have been you after all), but the revelation of liking to be faster hit me during the Boulder Half Marathon, when I got to see all of your faces during the last six miles, because I was so far ahead of you at the turn-around point.

Perhaps now is a good spot for a confession; I might as well get the, ‘Yes, I turned 40 this year’ thing out of the way. All this running takes time. It takes a patient wife, a supportive three-year old son (well actually more than supportive since he comes to my races with a cowbell, and then likes to show everyone how he races too), and it takes more than a little self-awareness, that serious running is a selfish indulgence. I read somewhere that serious runners often lament how difficult it is to have relationships, jobs, and running all at the same time. Let me say, and I mean this as a message to all those serious runners, it sure helps if you have only two of those three things to worry about. Some may scoff, and say selfish indeed, yet, given this opportunity, wouldn’t most people embark on something like this if they could? Wait, don’t answer that, it was rhetorical, and I have more to present.

Captain Ahab pursued Moby Dick in the same way the casual-turned-serious runners dream of the Boston Marathon. To run in the Boston Marathon, you must qualify, and qualifying is not easy. You have to run a fast time, according to your age group, in another full marathon, during the year leading up to the Boston Marathon. The Boston Marathon is the oldest marathon in the United States. It is the best-run race, in the classic city, and everyone has heard of it. People ask about it too, as in, “Have you run Boston?” This question is often posed by the same type of people who ask about your newborn, “Does your baby sleep through the night?” Whether or not your baby sleeps through the night is an arbitrary standard of good parenting, and certainly whether or not you have run the Boston Marathon is a dubious distinction for anyone who just loves to run. Yet, for those of us, who want a bigger goal, a bucket-list-type challenge, Boston is definitely the Big-time.

I have an interesting relationship with this goal. My wife qualified for the Boston Marathon, back in her early 30’s, when she ran the perfect race during the Portland Marathon in 2004. Her qualifying standard was 3:40:59. She ran a 3:40:20 marathon, qualifying by 39 seconds. 39 seconds! The mind-blowing fact is that if she had run just two seconds slower per mile over the course of 26.2 miles she would have missed the cut-off. My time during that race was 4:14:25. Whenever running does come up, I tell everyone who will listen about this fact, and then sheepishly mention, that, “No, she never ran Boston, she never wanted to, it wasn’t her goal.” For me to qualify for the Boston Marathon I would need to run a 3:20:59 marathon. My personal record in the marathon is 3:52:30, so to qualify, I would need to run more than a half hour faster than my fastest time.

Running, of course, isn’t just about running faster, or achieving lofty, nearly impossible goals. It also feeds new obsessions, like the weather, as in ‘How can I run in a foot of snow?’ I live in Boulder, CO, a running Mecca. The Summer and Fall are perfect for running here, the skies are blue, the air temperature in the 60’s, and the altitude and hills present just the right challenges at 5200 feet in a gorgeous town nestled at the foothills of the Rockies. But then, right before Halloween, all that changed when a foot of snow got dumped on the ground, and all my running trails iced over. Ever since doing a 9 miler on the treadmill with too-cushy shoes (and having a week of knee pain that wierd-ed me out), I can't say that I have been very enthusiastic about treadmills. Just the other day, on a day of interval training, with grim anticipation, I ran slowly to the Boulder High Track, expecting it to be snowed over, which it was.... Yet, upon further inspection, I realized some diehard runner had come before me, shoveling a just-wide-enough foot-path all the way around the oval in lane one of the track. Hooray! You gotta love Boulder.

I mentioned above that I live in a running Mecca. A quick word about this, and this is where I will finish the Blog …. I recently ran the Denver Half Marathon, and Boulder resident, Frank Shorter, did the announcing from the finish line. FYI, Frank Shorter won the Olympic Gold and Silver medals in the marathon. He is a mythical running figure, and lately, it is just about every other day when I run north from my house that I run into the legend himself, out for his morning exercise. Recently one day, he looked like he was slowing to turn down a cul de sac, so I thought, 'if not today, when?', and ....

I said, "Hey Frank, I enjoyed your calls and commentary on Sunday at the Denver Marathon."
Frank Shorter said, "Yeah, did you come to watch or run?"
I said, "I ran the half marathon."
He said, "Yeah, what's your name? "
I told him
He said (slowly like he was going to remember next time), "That's an easy one to remember! What do you do?"
I said, "I'm a lawyer, sort of..."
He said, "Me too. But I don't practice law. Never did. Always, I have been a runner, or talking, or writing about the sport... I live right here in that house. Passed the Colorado bar, but let the license expire... too many CLE's. Plus who wants to give out advice about easements and such. No, I rather talk about running...."
I said, "Yeah, you are kind of responsible for all of us who like running, right? You know I saw that movie about Pre (Steve Prefontaine) that you and Charlie Jones played Olympic Commentators ...."
He said, "I learned a lot from Charlie. You need good advice as a commentator, whether at a local race or on broadcast television. He told me only talk about the stuff that is in front of you. The race I mean. Don't talk about who isn't there, all that other stuff is someone else's agenda..."
I said, "So is that why you can be so upbeat, like Sunday, about people who finish races so much slower than you?"
He said, "Yeah, exactly. We all love running. Everyone who does it. It doesn't matter how fast you are. Why not keep the focus on them? Their accomplishment... you know, when I was coming up, I was my own coach. We didn't have coaches for the marathon. So I was always a coach and a runner. Now I get to talk to all those runners, encourage them. Keep this great sport going. I kind of owe it to them."
Then I said, "So Frank, I'll just tell you, I'm trying to qualify for Boston this year for the first time.
He said, "What was your time Sunday?"
I said, "1:37:20 for the half."
Frank Shorter said, "And what standard are you trying to qualify under."
I said, "40 year olds and above, so 3:20."
Then Frank Shorter said, "Ahhh, you got it made."

Garmin Connect - Activity Details for Boulder Reservoir Out & Back Via Boulder Valley Ranch (15 MIles)

Garmin Connect -
Activity Details for
Boulder Reservoir Out & Back Via Boulder Valley Ranch (15 MIles)

RX To Find Consensus on Healthcare /Deficit: The Hidden Ball Trick

Most of the time, this Blog has been political, driven by a desire to remove George W. Bush from office, and later, to elect Barack Obama. Occasionally, the writing was purposefully polemic, forcing the reader to agree or disagree in rather black and white terms. Now, with my party in power, I am more interested in seeking consensus. Although I have taken so much time off, there has been plenty to continue to write about. I have been reading so much about the healthcare debate and how it all relates to the deficit and our growing debt. As you must know, the budget deficit is how much we are in the red year to year, while the national debt is the total bill we pay interest on. I have full confidence that all we need to do is relax. A consensus on healthcare and paying for it is near. While we fret over the banging of pots and pans, President Obama has been focused on the finished meal. In football terms, the line looks stacked against him, but he still has the ball, and he is quietly making his way around the line, and heading for the end zone.

Here’s my take: The Republicans, well, those that are left I guess, have become the party of “No.” There is some sanity to this position. Lacking any leadership, charisma, or much political credibility, they have found a pretty good niche (Continue to use talk radio to get people afraid of socialism and then encourage them to show-up at meetings packing heat and ready to shout). I think the town meetings about healthcare were great therapy for everyone who didn’t vote for Obama. I imagine shouting at that turncoat Arlen Specter was like stacking a bunch of magazines and popping off a few rounds, eh?

Meanwhile the Democrats, well, those that don’t rely on too many swing voters in their districts, have become the party with no apparent limit on the credit card. I do wish the Democrats would raise taxes, especially on the rich, and bring us more in line with the tax base when Clinton was President. Clinton brought in surpluses instead of deficits because of his targeted tax increases.

And then there’s the President; some would say he is going too far spending too much, some would argue he isn’t going far enough, especially with his compromises on healthcare. This must mean he is a sensible person, trying to do what’s best for the country without offending the middle. Which brings us to the current bru ha ha over the President addressing school children and all that outrage in States (mostly Texas) over indoctrination and socialism. Again, like the tea baggers (unfortunate name), and the birthers (creepy name), and the townhall shouters, this latest outrage is all just more group therapy. Those who don't agree with my confidence in our President will tell me that a Gallup Poll from mid-August indicate that more people (49%) disapprove of the President on healthcare, than approve (43%). Ah, I say, the therapy is working! Little distractions allow consensus to be built. That is how our country works. Americans also disapproved of many programs under the New Deal, but F.D.R’s personal numbers stayed high. Americans were suspicious of the Civil Rights Act, but it passed in the wake of a former President’s popular legacy (Kennedy). There might be some distraction causing some confusion on healthcare, but the overall intent to trust him, still exists. I think President Obama is doing just fine, and his numbers, 55% approval – 39% disapproval according to Gallup today, indicate that we who voted for him, still trust in where he is taking us.

Now, look! This was short and sweet, hardly divisive at all. There is consensus to fix healthcare. The President knows that. I feel better, don’t you?

Run

While living in Mexico for six months, I am taking this Blog off. In the meantime, I am running a bit. That's me below as a cartoon widget, getting my game on, and is suppose to remind me to run more often. I am trying to run a sub-4 hour marathon. To do that, I need to average under 9:08 (minute/second) pace per mile.

Defining Moments

As I was driving back from Colorado Springs, CO last night I had a chance to listen to AM talk radio. I guess it shouldn't surprise me that "church leaders" and "doctors" on nationally syndicated talk shows were asking callers to answer questions like, "Do you think it is a good idea to elect a Socialist like Barack Hussein Obama?" It seemed like every channel on the dial was railing, yelling really, about "liberal media bias," "forced abortions," and "Communism in America." I couldn't turn it off. It was amazing, and that's when I thought, "Is this real? - Is this the same country that gave women the right to vote and later passed the Civil Rights Act?" Then I heard Conservative radio host Don Wade inviting listeners to describe their greatest fears of an Obama Presidency, and there it was. Did you know Barack Obama is the anti-Christ and will bring about the End Of Days?

Then a rather calm feeling came over me as I switched off the radio. This IS the same country that ushered in great movements of necessary progress and social justice. I think the sometimes violent reaction to the idea of our first African-American President is proof positive that we are on the cusp of something GREAT again.

These are my final thoughts, and I leave the rest to you, the voter.... we are at a defining moment. These are exciting times.

What I See On The Ground

Colorado Notes:
I have been trained three times. Barack Obama’s get-out-the-vote effort is so sophisticated that each time I volunteer to work the phone banks, a new script has been refined and developed as necessary.

For example, the first time I made calls, I contacted new Democrats or registered Unaffiliated voters and asked them for their support of Barack Obama. Many of the calls reached answering machines, so we didn’t waste voter’s time with left messages. When a live voice did pick up, the conversation always seemed to go well. If the voter was an Obama supporter, I tried getting voters to commit to a mail-in ballot. This is one option in Colorado, and it encourages early voting. Obama is banking as many of these early votes as possible because the campaign expects massive irregularities and “voter exclusions” due to long lines and or actual planned voter exclusion on election day.

The second time I arrived, I was trained to only contact new voters who had already received a mail-in ballot. My goals were three-fold: identify supporters and remind them to send-in that ballot. Most importantly, Colorado requires newly registered voters to mail in a copy of their Colorado Driver’s License or a U.S. Passport, or a statement that includes the last four numbers of their Social Security Number. So I informed them.

Indeed, Colorado has a lot of confusing requirements for new voters. Twice in the last two years, different Republican Secretary of States (the first retired to the oil and gas industry), have purged what the NY Times estimated as up to a third of all Colorado registered voters due to identification technicalities or possible matches on illegal voters (immigrants or felons). The possible match concept is wonderfully vague and dubious. If you are a citizen with a name of Jose Martinez, there is a pretty good chance you were purged because another Jose Martinez got bounced off the voter roles for having improper ID, and heck, you just can’t be sure which Jose Martinez is improper, so you better remove them all. Voter purges and the voter exclusions by Republican operatives on election day are so back-channeled and secretive that only insiders see the magnitude (they make “voter fraud” and the Acorn mess look paltry).

Obama has countered this of course by registering hundreds of thousands of new voters. I did my part in Oregon by registering many of my students. I think in the end, Hillary did wonders for the Obama campaign by staying in as long as she did. Her participation also registered thousands of new Democrats, and despite what the media might suggest, most of her votes will go to Obama.

My third training was the most intensive. I had to leave messages if no one answered. This was the day I called people to tell them that the Secretary of State had removed them from the voter ranks on a technicality, and if they still wanted their vote to count, they had just one week to correct the error. Fortunately, maybe two/thirds of the people I reached were willing to go to the State website and download a correction form or had already received a letter and acted on it. My wife found out there was a glitch in her registration (mysterious wrong zip code) and also had to go through this process. I am left to wonder though how many people are willing to register, re-register, and then vote. It can be difficult when life is happening, right?

On Canvassing: our get-out-the-vote-effort includes the same door-to-door work you saw Obama himself doing in Ohio (yes, when he ran into Joe The Not-Really-A-Plumber). Last weekend and again tomorrow, I will knock on doors of the Unaffiliated voters and try to get their support. At one apartment I met an Obama supporter and her live-in boyfriend who was one of those mysterious Undecideds. I asked the Undecided Voter what he wanted in his candidate, and he was just really proud of not knowing who he wanted to vote for, that he was really independent, and said he didn’t really have time to “research” all the issues. I left by joking to the Obama supporter, “Work on him for us will you?”

I am not alone in my pilgrimage from a Blue State to a Swing State. Everyday more volunteers show up at the Obama office, many like me, coming from a State that doesn’t seem to matter. People are pouring in from out-of-State. I have met women from Texas and Georgia, a man from New York, and more, always from non-Swing States. I make calls sitting next to retirees and college kids. Here is a confession. The Obama campaign has some demographic information about each person we call. I do notice that I hesitate before picking up the phone when the Unaffiliated voter is a male over the age of 34. I am always worried to reach a staunch Conservative like Joe The Not-Really-A-Plumber who is afraid of “Obama the Socialist.” I guess these people dream of the day they will be in a higher tax bracket, so they vote against their own interest (and with Obama’s plan - lower taxes), because they are against class welfare. Then I realize that I am a male over the age of 34, and that new data shows that men are starting to lean Obama. I am also reminded that I have actually only reached one such man who thought Obama was a socialist. I am polite. I thanked him for his time. Then I picked up the phone and dialed again.


Yesterday the phone rang at our rented apartment. A robo-call from the Republican National Convention telling me that Obama has a buddy named Bill Ayers that bombed America. Later on television I saw a 504-Group Ad for McCain starring Reverend Wright. I keep thinking, thank goodness Obama did not take public financing. McCain’s swift-boat-like proxies are making-up the money-gap, but Obama’s individual donors have remained steady. Yet for all McCain’s attempts to blast Obama’s character, when I reach a voter who wants to chat, it is then I believe, most encouragingly, that Obama will win. Most people I talk to are worried about the economy. They want new energy sources and worry about inflation. They are concerned about their retirement. They want to bring an end to spending money on war. It has never been about associations and character (although you know Obama's character is impeccable).


The endgame. In volunteering so much time for Obama, I just cannot conceive of a McCain victory, unless there is something particularly corrupt about our election procedures OR if we are as racist a nation as some would have you believe. I know, I know, the poll numbers are shifting again. Today (Friday) most of the networks have a new narrative. The focus is on a McCain comeback. The polls are narrowing they will tell you. Etcetera. Yet this is what I see and know: I now admire the candidate Obama so much more because I can document the efforts and leadership his campaign has maintained. I realize what an organized and expert President he will be. Obama has 40 offices in Colorado like the one I work for; I know he has similar efforts all across the country. His volunteers outnumber McCain’s by the thousands. He has offices in Red States like Georgia and Louisiana, and will be competitive in Red States like Indiana, North Carolina, and even West Virginia. This will make all the difference on election day. I found out that at each polling place we will have coordinated poll watchers to defend the voter’s right to vote. I also am privy to our election strategy to get people to the polls once early voting begins here is Colorado and of course, on election day. This is all very good news…

This is what I see on the ground …

An Obama victory in November.

This Is What You Get

To “turn the page” on the bad news of the economy, the McCain campaign announced they would only run negative ads against Barack Obama and Joe Biden. One hundred percent negative ads.

John McCain and Sarah Palin followed suit, attacking Obama’s character on the campaign trail, and as you probably know, Palin even told a crowd that Obama was “palling around with terrorists.”

In response John McCain supporters have grown more and more enraged while McCain or Palin rally their troops.

“Socialists are going to take over the country,” said an angry supporter to McCain. McCain seemed to agree with the man.

Later, “Terrorist,” shouted someone with more anger.

“He’s an Arab,” – said one woman.

And finally, “Kill him!”

Well, I guess this is what you get.

John McCain is trying really really hard to win the election. Let’s just hope he doesn’t incite his supporters into violence against Obama voters before this is all over.

Most of these comments have been overlooked by the McCain campaign, even encouraged by the lack of response, especially by Palin. Today, in an abrupt 180, McCain told the woman who called Obama an Arab, "No ma'am, no ma'am. He's a decent family man...[a] citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues. That's what this campaign is all about."

I can’t believe I even have to write this; Obama has been a Christian his entire life. He is not Muslim. Arab is an ethnic distinction, not a religious one. And for the record, McCain didn’t correct the woman on her Arab claim. In his statement, McCain basically punted.

I am not sure how any of you feel about the economy tanking, your healthcare, your debt, our troops abroad, energy costs, the environment, etc. etc. But I know how I feel about the McCain campaign’s new strategy. It is criminally dangerous. And it reeks of fear-mongering to stir up hatred for Obama.

Here is my plea to all of us:

If you need to blame, that is fair. If you seek different perspectives, that is even better. And expressing your discontent simultaneously with your most precious hopes for the future is downright American. But please, please, too many people already spend too much time hating and fearing what they perceive to be different than themselves. Do not incite hate. We need to try to understand ourselves as Americans, all of us, and use our freedom of speech for constructive dialogue, and of course, by voting our hopes and our beliefs.

Sarah Palin

Survivor: the Election Edition

After Barack Obama spoke at the Democratic National Convention, I went to bed like most hopeful liberals, renewed and optimistic. We had fretted over the narrowing in national polls showing McCain drawing even without real cause. The hysteria around the Hillary and Obama feud faded as Obama’s uplifting oratory only seemed to heighten his issue-smart specific policies, and would usher in a new era of positive social change, sustainable environmentalism, and peace.

As you all know, the next morning McCain picked Sarah Palin to be his Vice-Presidential running mate. Then the Republican National Convention seemed to be about two things: 1) Be afraid of Barack Obama, and 2) You should vote for the McCain/Palin ticket because Palin continues to distinguish herself as an issue-challenged, scandal-prone political oddity, and inasmuch flawed, just like you.

Since Palin’s pick, every day brings out a new revelation that Palin is ill-suited for the job one septagarian heartbeat away from the Presidency. By the way, I taught my high school students that the Bush Doctrine was defined as the U.S. strategy of pre-emptive attack (in the case of Iraq it was going on offense as defense). Is it reasonable that high school students know more about U.S. war policy than a candidate for Vice President?

Here is what I have learned about McCain’s pick, his lead in the polls, and the future of this country:
1). McCain has turned his campaign over to Mark Burnett (the creator of Survivor). Republicans have chosen the ultimate reality contestant (Sarah Palin) in the highest stakes reality show ever. The red-meat State appeal of Palin is undeniable:
Exhibit A) Palin Is A Five-kid, Pro-Life, Super Hockey Mom With A Special Needs Child!
Reality Show Revelation: Palin votes against sex education programs and has a pregnant teenage daughter. Triumph Over Adversity! Oh, Palin is really just a five-kid REAL Mom with REAL issues (just like you)!
Exhibit B) Palin Is A Maverick Who Will Take On Special Interests!
Reality Show Revelation: Palin has an ethics scandal involving nepotism (favoring your relative by firing that meanie state trooper). Triumph Over Adversity! Oh, that just means she will stand up for her kin, and who doesn’t have an ethic’s scandal these days?!
Exhibit C) Palin Is A Sassy Talker Who Isn’t Afraid of the Liberal Media!
Reality Show Revelation: Disney-Owned ABC interview and mild ol’ Charlie Gibson expose how incompetent and unprepared Palin is (she was like a wind-up doll repeating what they told her to say until Gibson asked her about substantive issues and like a fembot, she seemed to tweak and blow a gasket). Triumph Over Adversity! Oh, the press is so, so, so mean! And why wouldn’t we want a real person who may not be so smart, but she is so likeable!

2) McCain/Palin is not only the “just like me vote” for American Idol America, it is also the ultimate cynic’s vote from unscrupulous Republicans who know that McCain has traded his soul and is now indistinguishable from the Bush/Rove nightmare of the last eight years. The next five weeks will reveal that Palin is further unqualified and these Republicans who smile at just how clever they are will only divide the country further.

3) How crazy is it that Americans like voting for people based on gut feelings over competence?

4) How crazy is it that Americans like voting for people based on gut feelings over competence? [No type-o, I just think this is exactly how we got George W. Bush. We seem to want to repeat ourselves, so I am just giving into the urge.]

5) Barack Obama WOULD usher in a new age of positive social change, sustainable environmentalism, and peace. And I will not fall victim to the Republican cynicism that predicts liberals like me will fold.

Will other liberals, moderates, and independents fold or will hope triumph over cynicism in this country once more?

Stay tuned! Because next on Survivor: the Election Edition, Sarah Palin delivers a heartfelt video to her fishing-husband aboard his ultra-dangerous fishing expedition in the melting arctic circle!

John McCain

John McCain

John McCain had a reputation for being a maverick in the U.S. Senate. After getting burned (caught) as one of the notorious Keating Five, McCain became tainted with the stigma of being a greedy Republican. In a series of policy announcements, John McCain drew the ire of his party as he moved to the center. First , he worked across party lines to curb corporate influences in elections with Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold, he then suggested guest worker programs for undocumented workers, and he even reiterated his opposition to overturning Roe v. Wade. In other words, despite Republican party-line views on slashing public education, privatizing social security, and (not) protecting the environment, there was a time (the first time he ran against George W. Bush for example) when an informed voter could call McCain a moderate on some issues.

Today’s John McCain is very much a reactionary conservative. John McCain’s flip-flops reveal a candidate who puts politics before passions, and ambition before convictions. On campaign finance: Despite his saintly assertions that he is taking public financing, the Republican National Committee has assured McCain that its private and corporate fundraising will amply keep up with Obama’s citizen-generated support. On immigration: McCain has been advised to only preach border security and stay away from anything that might appear to sympathize with ‘illegals’. On abortion: This change of position is stark because he now makes a point of saying he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade by appointing judges who will remove the precedent, even though when running for President in 1999, McCain said, he would not want “women in America to undergo illegal and dangerous operations” – he concluded, “in the short term, or even in the long term, I would not repeal Roe v. Wade."

Charles Keating was convicted of racketeering and fraud in both state and federal court after his Lincoln Savings & Loan collapsed, costing taxpayers $3.4 billion. Although Keating faces new trials on all the Federal and State claims, his convictions have been overturned on too-good-to-be-true technicalities, including the absurdity of having Judge Lance Ito (yes, that judge), who made fatal errors in the State case on jury instructions. Regardless of Keating’s fate, John McCain got into serious trouble when he intervened on behalf of Keating shortly after Keating gave McCain $112,000 in contributions. Of course, as you might expect, there were also at least nine documented McCain trips on Keating’s private jet, retreats to the Bahamas, and Cindy McCain got what the Phoenix New Times called a “sweetheart deal” to invest in Charles Keating’s biggest shopping center.

Perhaps in seeking voter forgiveness for these ethical oversights, McCain threw himself into campaign finance reform. The legislative history of campaign finance was brutal. Not since the early 1970’s had politician’s voted against their own incumbent advantages. And although it was Olympia Snow’s (R. Maine) version that carried the 59-41 passage of the law, McCain’s name remained on the Bill. In the end, McCain was one of only 12 Republican’s who voted for curbing political action committees and setting the limit (now at $2,300) that any particular individual might contribute to a candidate’s campaign.
In running against George W. Bush in 1999 and 2000, McCain felt the sting of his moderation. Karl Rove unleashed push-polling in South Carolina to suggest McCain had fathered a black child out of wedlock. McCain was eviscerated on abortion by the born-again George W Bush. And McCain lost.

As a Senator, McCain positioned himself to make another run at the Presidency. In the post-9/11 world, the decorated prisoner of war easily backed Bush on the need for military involvement to keep America safe and strong. However, even as Bush won re-election by continuing to scare and divide Americans, it could not have been easy for McCain to flip-flop on the one issue so very close to John McCain—torture. Once a vocal supporter of the Geneva Conventions, McCain, in perhaps a move to strengthen his differences with Obama on peace and security (did he really need to, they are so easily distinguished), decided to be okay with water-boarding and other extreme interrogation methods. This switch may have won McCain a few primary votes from the war hawks in his party, but consider the obvious drawback; the United States, in committing torture, has lost a moral advantage over the terrorists, while John McCain lost any credibility that a man who had experienced the brutalities of war had learned something from it to inform his Presidency.

McCain's flip-flop on torture says so much. McCain basically gave up a moral conviction for political points. In his candidacy, McCain’s hard turn to the right was nearly complete as he racked up victories in the Republican nominating process.

Now we know John McCain faces Barack Obama. Obama, as anyone with a pulse knows, is an inspiring candidate to millions of people with reformer appeal who seems to be everything that McCain is not. Obama is young, progressive, eloquent, and also happens to be African-American. McCain is old, deeply conservative, not a good speech-maker, and very white (McCain remember, is from Arizona, the only State that refused the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday). After a captivating Democratic nominating process, the words the public associated most with the Democrat and the Republican who would compete for the White House, were “Change” and “Old.”

John McCain wants to be President. He faces an uphill battle of perceptions. How do you make up the gaps in the polls and the first impressions that the public has regarding your opponent and who you are? Well, let’s start with those whispers that the media made sure we all heard. Scurrilous rumors about Obama on the internet will only get you so far, and frankly, you know what I am talking about when I say this; most of them now will earn a, “Really?! Are you really saying this?”, kind of reaction to the idiocy that inspires them. And Obama is smart. Fighting Republican-generated smears by leaving no allegation unanswered is Obama’s anti-Kerry strategy that has until now, worked. Obama has stayed up in all of the polls. But many of you now know, the polls are tilting in McCain’s favor. Slowly. Gradually. As the expert marketing and image-makers will gloriously tell you, McCain is in the process of “branding” Obama. Never mind the horrifying implication of that statement, how is McCain doing it, this re-defining of Obama for the American public? Answer: McCain has fired most of his campaign. He now employs Karl Rove’s trained henchmen to come up with negative advertising on Obama. All negative, all the time.

Time will tell of it will work. It may. After 2000 and 2004, I have little remaining faith in the critical thinking skills of the undecided American voter. If McCain makes the best-worst attack ads, he will probably win. If he scares you. If he intimidates you. If he tricks you. But, there is something vaguely telling about my editorial in all of this that is a bit sad, and it is this sentiment that I guess I empathize with some Republicans and Moderates up to a certain point. Whether McCain wins by employing all the same strategies and policies of the sitting U.S. President and his 25% approval rating, I want you to know this:

My mother-in-law has lost some unquantifiable measure of admiration for John McCain, enough to make her, a self-described 'moderate', feel disenchanted with politics.

The McCain camp would be thrilled. Elections with low voter turnout inevitably favor Conservative candidates. How to torpedo Obama's popularity? Attack it directly as a weakness of style over substance. That's Karl Rove 101. Take whatever public perceptions of strength your opponent has and fabricate just enough doubt to get people to vote their fears, instead of their hopes.

A Video Response to "Untitled"

I am to0 optimistic to let the last posting sit there by itself.

Like Shari said, here is proof in the "urgency of now":

Yes, Barack.

For just under a year this Blog has been silent. Silent on politics, silent on culture, just silent. There has been great change in my life, and I anticipate even more in the few months ahead. And with change as a theme for this Blog, I want to officially endorse one Presidential candidate, and suggest you take a look at him as soon as you are able and ready to be inspired. Yes, Barack.

So back to my silence. I haven't been ambivalent. I have been active. Sometimes it's better to just focus on what you can change and affect by doing it, and time for reflection comes later. As many of you know, I am a high school teacher. Most recently, a little experiment I had been nurturing to get off the ground for three years (with the help of some amazing students), finally sat up and flew. After years of organizing, a club at my school raised money and brought Kenyan exchange students and a teacher to my school. The impact was undeniable. The Kenyans overwhelmed us with their openness, grace, and thankfulness to the opportunities their travels gave them. The many of us who spent any time with them were simultaneously reminded of our own privileges that we take for granted and also enlightened by what they saw in us. One of the Kenyans said, “You have everything you need, everything you don’t need, and then you have even more.”

Before the Kenyan’s arrival, I was caught up in creating new class curriculum and paying close attention to the wonders of raising a nearly two-year old. Any parent will tell you that having your first child makes you hyper-aware of change. Changes in his eating, changes in his vocabulary, and changes in his mobility. I like to brag. Its unflattering in parents, but do forgive us. My twenty-two month year-old can count to twenty in English and almost as high in Spanish. What kind of population change can our country expect? I am counting on my son being bilingual. I am also putting my hopes in a multiracial candidate for President because I WANT to live in a diverse America. Yes, Barack.


Swirling at the edges of American life has been a growing sense of unease about the economy. Gas prices drive the conversations in my classrooms about solving "climate change." Here’s my take on that. Hey, if the high cost of gas has us thinking about global warming, you can call it whatever you want. But what I like about one of the candidates on this issue is a commitment to building a new economy around green technologies. Yes, Barack.

George W. Bush has an approval rating approaching 30%. He should congratulate himself. He has a higher approval rating in his own country than his country has in the eyes of most of the world. Whether or not you care that the rest of the world DOES NOT LIKE US, is in some ways, a reflection on your lack of a desire to travel much. You laugh. Maybe I would join you if the dollar was worth anything. At least then when I left the country to travel and somebody told me they didn’t like me because I am American, I could whip out a few Dead Presidents to impress them, but somehow I think they’d rather take Euros. One Presidential Candidate wants to change the impression the rest of the world has about us. He wants to invest in super-sizing not our war machine, but our rather forgotten-about peace machine. You might recall them not so long ago…. The Peace Corps. A new generation of ambassadors for peace and development is waiting for us to reintroduce ourselves to the world, if we just get it right in the next election. Yes, Barack.

Finally, and let’s be honest, a little self-serving, one candidate would like to increase, even double, teacher’s salaries. He wants changes in education. He wants to attract professionals in all professions off the treadmill to self, self-improvement, and offer them the opportunity to mentor and teach for some other’s self-improvement. By flooding the teacher’s ranks with the highest quality teachers and giving them a salary to impress the youngsters in terms of salary expectation, why not improve our educational system to create opportunity for more Americans? Yes, Barack.

So I am changing my stance from silence. I am doing so because change can be inspiring. Very Inspiring. Yes, for the last time, Barack.

All The Laughter That Matters Most Is Right Now

There’s a lot going on out there… the Democratic control of Congress of course (pushing a long list of social programs and ethics reform), scientists convening in Paris this week to file the definitive report on global warming, the public’s stone-faced reply to Bush’s re-escalation in Iraq, and my personal favorite, the new Congress’ decision to fully fund what was promised (1.4 billion dollars) in aid to Africa.

How do we attribute this wave of progress? I have a theory. It’s laughter. Lots and lots of laughter.

Follow me on this. For 5 _ years, our country has been assaulted by the political right and their brand of entertainment, embodied perfectly by Fox News, a mixture of fear mongering and blame for 9/11. As big media corporations raced to consolidate and bring you war coverage like a football game (until we started losing), shunning hard news, corporations and politicians made a mad grab for money and power. Their weapon? Nothing all that creative. Republicans have always done well convincing white voters that the majority’s power/wealth status was under attack by gays (religion!), blacks (crime!), Mexicans (your job!), but now they had the ultimate weapon, Muslims (your very lives!). The political left basically caved. Nothing funny there you say. Rightly so, but wait, have you noticed something?

We all started snickering in spite of them. This undercurrent of giggles began escaping (along with all that pent-up fear of others) a few years into the war in Iraq. Goodness knows we needed a laugh. Perhaps it was really just a big desire to question reality, and ultimately, to expose all of the open hostility toward most people who are not white.

But wait you say. Aren’t more and more Americans calling themselves “not-white” these days? Yes! And they are the ones laughing the hardest. Read on.

I’ll give partial credit for the recent tidal wave of good humor to the staff at the British version of the sitcom, The Office. Ricky Gervais created a modern day Archie Bunker in his version of the worst boss ever, but with a twist. He made the boss CLUELESS. The idea of an unknowing bigot (a person insensitive because they just don’t know better) makes the humor painfully real. In the American version, Steve Carell plays an office manager at a paper company named Michael. Michael gets written up by HR for “outing” an employee named Oscar (over and over again). Oscar then gets a paid vacation because of his boss’ antics. When Oscar returns, Michael wants to throw him a party, and assumes Oscar (who is Hispanic) will want a “Fiesta!” with Mexican food, music, and decorations. Oscar tells the camera that he hasn’t complained about this stereotype yet because he is holding out for a big-screen TV.

Comedy Central, already home to Jon Stewart’s the Daily Show (never afraid to make fun of the Republican’s shameful tactics) added three new additions to the genre. Silverman, a new show, finds Sarah Silverman, a Jew, spouting all kinds of cringe-inducing anti-“other” rhetoric. The Naked Trucker & T-Bones Show takes the basic laughter formula found in the Will Farrell movie, Talladega Nights: the Ballad of Ricky Bobby, and places two itinerant blue-collar types into absurd schemes in which repeated failures demonstrate the limits of their own narrow thinking.

The coup de tat has been The Colbert Report. Stephen Colbert lampoons the political right every single night by taking the rhetoric on Fox News and tweaking it up just one notch. To the casual observer from a certain political perspective, you could almost agree with everything Colbert says, until he says something that will dawn on you that YOU are the one being made fun of. Remarkably, Colbert was invited to do his shtick at the White House Correspondent’s Dinner and simultaneously needled the President and the press. No one who attended laughed very much, and yet, Colbert’s performance is now one of the most popular viewings on the public’s video forum, You Tube. Incidentally, the press has invited Rich Little, an anti-political, self-described Republican, to host the next dinner (so much for liberal bias in the media).

But wait you protest, I still don’t see what is so funny about racism, sexism, or homophobia? Why do the liberals, who conservatives love to chide for political correctness, like this kind of humor? The answer is simple. It plays well with liberals because its funny, its truthful, and, above all, it has a moral message.

Hands down, the winner of this new genre of comedy is Sacha Baron Cohen. Cohen, in reality, is a Jewish/British comedian. Unless you live on a pop-culture-free planet, you know Cohen is the man responsible for the movie and character, Borat, the anti-Semitic reporter from Kazakhstan, who travels to America to understand our culture. Delightful for its premise alone, Cohen mixes script and reality to foil Americans into revealing all of their inner-ugliness. The moral message for the audience is clear… “Am I like that?”

The critical thought Carell and Cohen force upon their audiences begins to translate into greater awareness. As Americans began to laugh at all the meanies, politicos, and jerk-os in our society, they also just got fed up with the real ones in power. The Democratic Congress owes much of its success to anti-Bush sentiment, it’s true, yet Congress owes part of its success to all of those making us laugh as well.

My Neighbor Ron

I saw my neighbor Ron this morning in a nearby coffee shop. The well-appointed gentleman who resides up the hill on Mt. Tabor sat with his wife, reading the paper. He looked engaged in an article in the Opinion section of the Oregonian. I wondered if my neighbor was reading the article I had just finished about Tom McCall, the popular Oregon Republican Governor from the early seventies, who pioneered many great ideas about what it means to live here: quality of life, preserving open space, championing public transportation. This is the guy who created Oregon’s historical bottle bill, the law that started recycling not just for Oregon, but as a model for the USA. I wondered if my neighbor really thought he could be a Tom McCall-kind of Governor in today’s partisan political climate. You see, my neighbor is Republican Ron Saxton, who will find out on Tuesday if he has become Oregon's next Governor.

Ron Saxton is also the great hope of the national Republican Party this year. With the country’s mood turning against Republicans, many conservatives believe Saxton is their best hope to actually make an inroad in a Blue State. Toward this end, the national Republican Party and other conservatives have pumped more than 4 million dollars into his campaign. According to the Oregonian, timber companies and executives gave Saxton at least $265,000 in the past month; homebuilders contributed $130,000, and the Republican Governors Association gave $500,0000. Rudy has been here, so has Mitt. Trying to distance himself from national Republicans but cozy up to East Coast moderates, Saxton has been telling voters, “I am a Republican. I will vote with my party when they are right, and against them when they’re wrong.” It’s catchy, to be sure, and polls had indicated Saxton might actually win in a tossup.

What about the issues then? Is Saxton a moderate-enough Republican to change the direction and tone of the party in charge of our nation? Consider the record. Six years of Republican leadership has:
- Wasted good will and opportunity in Afghanistan in exchange for a prolonged and un-winnable civil war in Iraq along with the resurgence of the Taliban.
- Delivered 9 Billion a month to Iraq down a sinkhole. Did you know we can’t even account for ¾ of all small arms (guns) we have shipped to Iraq? Who is protecting our troops?
- Provided an unending deficit—this year, its $260 million—1.5 trillion since Bush’s first year in office after surpluses under Clinton.
- Subcontracted environmental, energy, labor, and healthcare policymaking to corporate interests. Never mind chemical company and logging industry board members in executive positions through the revolving door that has become the EPA, did you know that a reported two million dollar salary went to a retiring Republican congressman who became the pharmaceutical industry’s top lobbyist immediately after writing into law a bill that forbids the government to negotiate prices for prescription drugs?
- Taught economic lessons that no high school student would approve – increased inequality, poor race relations, replenished numbers of poor and uninsured, exacerbated the insecurities of the middle class.
- Wallowed in a festival of bribery and a culture of corruption from the boardrooms to Capitol Hill.

PBS.org tells us on the issues that one of the biggest differences between Oregon's two leading candidates for governor is the environment. 
Incumbent Governor Ted Kulongoski has won the endorsement of conservation groups while challenger Ron Saxton is championed by the timber industry. On education, Saxton believes education-spending yields few results. He favors tightening budgets, low taxes, and efficient government. Saxton also wants to restrict abortion by favoring a measure on the Oregon ballot to require parental notification, even in the case of incest or rape. Saxton ran as a moderate for Governor in 2002 and lost in the primary, so this time out he moved to the right, and his positions reflect this change.

Perhaps sensing the desperation of the Republican Party to find a bright spot, Oregon voters have dealt Saxton some bad news of late. CNN reports that Democratic Gov. Ted Kulongoski has pulled ahead in the Oregon governor's race, leading Republican challenger Ron Saxton by a margin of 47 percent to 36 percent.

I started this Blog by telling you about Ron, my neighbor. As Ron Saxton and his wife got up, walked out, and drove away in their Lexus, I told a couple my age, “Hey, there goes my neighbor from the Mr. Tabor neighborhood.”

“But he lives in the Pearl District neighborhood,” they smiled.

“No, I’ve seen his house,’ I insisted.

“No, Ron rents an apartment so his kids can attend Lincoln.” (The preppy public school on the West side of Portland with high test scores).

You know, that reminds me. Every time Ron is asked about how he might protect the environment while the timber industry and homebuilders fund his campaign, he talks about how much he likes to garden in the backyard of his Mt. Tabor home. I read today in the Oregonian that despite 99% certainty of global warming, U.S. citizens overwhelmingly believe George Bush when he says it is an issue that needs further study. More depressingly, Americans who drive high consumption, fossil fuel dependant cars, think that they, themselves, are not to blame for the scientifically proven effects of rising greenhouse gases.

My neighbor Ron strikes me as the type who will enjoy the outdoors, but not take the steps to protect it. He is the type of person who will benefit from a good public school, but only if he bends the rules so his children can attend it. My neighbor Ron strikes me as the type who will lose on Tuesday.

I just hope he’s not the only Republican in a tossup election that finds themselves unemployed on Wednesday.

YouTube = Free Stuff = Good

First of all, let's get this going the right way....



Now technology is a wonderful thing. Not only can I write my own songs with Apple's Garageband, shoot my own video with a video camera that fits in my palm, and edit my own movie with Apple's IMovie, but now I can guarantee a world wide audience with YouTube. I blog it to you on a free website. And you get all of this entertainment for free!

Whether or not you agree it's entertaining to read these blogs or watch my video is not really my point. If you are reading this, or watching my video on YouTube, that means you have exercised some brain power and made a choice. You are choosing to view free content, and you aren't watching cable or commercial television, or going to a movie you paid $15 bucks to see, or listening to satellite radio. (Protests over the costs of high speed internet are noted, but pa-lease, try out your neighborhood coffee shop's WI-FI, for free, or jog down to the local school or library).

Jumping on the distribution bandwagon, the cities of Austin, TX and Portland, OR have wired their cities for internet access anywhere near the center of town.

Is this form of artistic sharing a good thing? Many conservatives and barking-mad corporate types say this is all part of a leftist communist plot -- bad for freedom and democracy -- bad for America.

Recently, caught up in a wave of goodwill and technology, the Canadian artist formerly known as Jane Siberry (now Issa) gave up all her worldly possessions, including her music, now available to the public for free in the form of MP3's on a website . The artist now known again as Prince and Steven King have also dabbled in this kind of intellectual property right giveaway. Heck there's free legal music everywhere -- even on the bottom of Slurpee cups. ITunes Music store lets you download pilots and music and trailers and all kinds of digital nirvana.. all for free.

Is this the end of corporate dominance as we know it? Yeah, but that's a good thing.

The web makes corporations compete against free content for our collective entertainment dollar. How ironic is that? Those overly synergized content providers - the owners of studios, shows, stations, radio, and news channels - have become an anticompetitive ulcer wrought by capitalism. But now, by giving stuff away and downloading (for free or swapped) makes competition in today's instant information age inevitable, regrettable for THE MAN, but good for us.... I bet Marx never saw THAT coming.

Ghana vs. The United States is David vs. Goliath

Football fans! On Thursday, June 22, you have a great opportunity to watch something meaningful. I am talking about a real-life “David vs. Goliath” event on a worldwide stage. That’s right; Ghana will be battling the United States for placement in the second round of the World Cup Football Tournament.

The chance to root for Ghana against the United States is a great one if you consider how many times Ghana has lost to U.S. interests in the past. Don’t call me unpatriotic, just fair-minded. Let’s consider the evidence.

Ghana is blessed with natural resources. They have ample supplies of gold, timber, industrial diamonds, bauxite, manganese, fish, rubber, hydropower, petroleum, silver, salt, limestone, and most importantly cocoa. (CIA World Factbook) It’s this generous supply of cocoa that has enslaved tens of thousands of African children to pick coca so people like you and me can eat cheap chocolate bars and drink our soy mochas.

According to the BBC, Chocolate manufacturers were blamed for helping to create market conditions which encourage child slavery and poverty in the African cocoa industry. By keeping prices low and farmers in poverty, the multinational corporations like Hershey’s, Mars, and Nestle, drove many chocolate suppliers into using forced labor. At least 15,000 children from Mali are thought to be sold or kidnapped into slavery in Ghana or the Ivory Coast, producing cocoa for almost half of the world's chocolate.
“The slave children are taken from poor areas of Mali. Many are the sons and daughters of street sellers, or slum children whose parents sell them for just a few dollars” reports the BBC.
But you protest! You didn’t know your chocolate was so tainted! Why would Ghana sell all of their public and valued resources to private companies from the West so people in countries like the United States can enjoy luxuries, while their own people face exploitation?

Let’s consider the history. Formed from the merger of the British colony of the Gold Coast and the Togoland trust territory, Ghana in 1957 became the first sub-Saharan country in colonial Africa to gain its independence. As with most African nations however, Ghana struggled under the influences of its former imperialists. Like many developing nations, Ghana was encouraged to take out loans for development. These loans failed miserably. The reasons these loans failed to help Ghana are at this point well known, not just in Ghana, but also all over the developing world. The money was lost due to capital flight (the money never got there), corruption (the money was never spent on what it was intended), and waste (the money went to large scale projects endorsed by the IMF/World Bank that flopped).

Latest figures show that Ghana’s external debt has now reached a staggering $7,396,000,000 in U.S. dollars. This in a country where the infant mortality rate is 55 deaths per 1000 births (ranking it in the bottom _ of the world) and where it has been reported that about 130 people in Ghana contract Aids daily and it is estimated that 125 people will die from the dreadful disease daily by the year 2009. And yet, Ghana is a country that has paid up to five times more on servicing the interest on its debt than on basic social services.

But wait you say. Haven’t I heard something about debt relief? Yes, you have, and more than once. For several years, Ghana has been placed on a kind of “top priority” list. Ghana’s rich natural resources make it especially susceptible to all kinds of debt reorganization and privatization plans. “The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank have agreed to support a debt-relief package for Ghana,” the BBC announced in 2002. Four years later, it’s a new plan according to the U.S. Government, “Ghana has been included in a G-8 debt relief program decided upon at the Gleneagles Summit in July 2005.” SO where is the relief?

According to the U.S. Government, “receipts from the gold sector helped sustain GDP growth in 2005 along with record high prices for Ghana's largest cocoa crop to date.” Terrific, more money for foreign transnational companies, more chocolate slavery. But that IS the plan. Look what the United States says in its official policy on debt relief:

“Priorities under Ghana’s current $38 million Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility (PRGF) include tighter monetary and fiscal policies, accelerated privatization, and improvement of social services.” Tighter money, sell more to the private sector, increase social services. Wait, that’s the same plan we gave them back in 1973 when the U.S. encourage private banks to start making development loans in the first place! And it’s the same plan that the IMF/World Bank used when they took over and restructured Ghana’s economy with Structural Adjustment Plans (SAP’s).

The cycle of debt restructuring is usually accompanied by more loans and intense privatization with dubious results. In the latest fiasco, on 31 January 2006, the IFC approved a $125 million loan to Newmont Mining Corporation for the development of the Ahafo gold mine project in western Ghana. Ghanaian and international NGOs say the project has displaced 9,500 people and will displace a further 20,000. A number of people have been injured over compensation rows. Environmental concerns include depleted groundwater, contamination of water sources, and threats to biodiversity. I am certain the Newmont Mining Corporation will make out splendidly though.

Benjamin Asare, associate professor of sociology at Indiana University is one of many critics of the World Bank and IMF who have shown how the "helping hand" can kill you. Asare focuses his research in his native country of Ghana. While proponents of modernization theory argue that development in Ghana and other Third World countries must imitate the value systems and production techniques of the West, Asare's research points out significant problems with that idea.
The real problem, he notes, is that colonial powers exploited African resources. In Ghana, for instance, the British colonial administration organized the local economy to supply natural resources like coffee and cocoa for Britain. The best land was reserved for this effort, and Ghanaians were forced to supply cheap labor for the British. Ironically, this same pattern of exploitation continued after colonialism fell and the British went home. At that point, the Ghanaian government imposed policies that continued to exploit farmers. Specifically, the government established "marketing boards" that set the price for each agricultural product. The problem was that the government would pay the farmers relatively little for their products and then turn around and sell the products on the world market where the transnational companies would encourage them to do so. Resources get sold out to the highest bidder without benefiting the people. And the money? You guessed it: 1) Capital flight, 2) corruption, and 3) waste, only now you get to add 4) repayment of external debt.

So you argue, the IMF and World Bank are international organizations. You, after all are American. I have to ask you to please, sit up, drop the remote, and pay attention. The IMF and World Bank ARE the United States. The IMF is controlled by the United States, and the President of the World Bank, is Paul Wolfowitz, American, appointed by George W. Bush, and oh yes, the architect of the war in Iraq. The United States is the beneficiary of IMF/World Bank meddling. You are the beneficiary. That chocolate and gold from Ghana? It comes to you cheaply, but at great consequence to Ghana.

As an American, I do have a choice. PBS showed a documentary about good-hearted Americans trying to do something nice by giving their used and discarded T-shirts away to Goodwill. Following the path of one of these T-shirt’s, the documentary tracked how globalization allowed American industrialists to buy up scores of donated T-shirts from places like Goodwill. From the nominal purchases prices, the T-shirts get shrink-wrapped into bulk cargo containers and packaged off to Latin America and Africa (now you know why African kids have Bart Simpson T-Shirts). Once in the developing world, the T-shirts are broken up and sold, undercutting the price of locally made, fair trade goods, which are produced outside the factory/sweat shop model.

Now consider Ghana again. Perhaps the most visible (and most marketable) cultural contribution from modern Ghana is Kente cloth, which is widely recognized and valued for its colors and symbolism. Kente cloth is made by skilled Ghanaian weavers, and the major weaving centers in and around Kumasi (Bonwire is known as the home of Kente, though areas of Volta Region also lay claim to the title) are full of weavers throwing their shuttles back and forth as they make long strips of Kente. These strips can then be sewn together to form the larger wraps which are worn by some Ghanaians (chiefs especially) and are purchased by tourists in Accra and Kumasi. The colors and patterns of the Kente are carefully chosen by the weaver and the wearer. Each symbol woven into the cloth has a special meaning within Ghanaian culture.

So there is a lot here to ponder: Slavery for your chocolate, the causes of 3rd World Debt, imperialism masking itself as global trade, and now you tell me even charity can’t be done without hurting someone. I believe that every one of these conditions are the result of a lot of people, namely American, being unaware of the greater world. As a child I was taught that I was lucky to have so much, to be American. As an adult I see less luck in my birthplace, and more responsibility. My advice? Be aware. Take action.

I will root for Ghana on Thursday during the World Cup, and hopefully by letting some friends and family know why, I might make a few people aware of why Ghana truly is a starling David in the battle against our Goliath.

Where Bush Ranks

Recently a bunch of historians got together and published a list of Presidential blunders. James Buchanan's failure to avert the Civil War tops the list. Ronald Reagan comes in at number nine for trading and selling arms to Iran for U.S. hostages, and then illegally funneling that money to the Contras in Nicaragua to encourage a Civil War there. Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky are number 10. Historical hindsight allows this kind of ranking fun. I suppose current events seem too raw, too not-yet-understood for scholars to apply 20/20 vision to rate George W. Bush.

If historians won't weigh in, perhaps we should turn to the media. John Stewert, host of the Daily Show, says the American Press is like a bunch of kids playing soccer. Every once in a while the ball pops out and there they go, running after it! Too bad the storm around the ball is often supplanted by a new rush for the "latest" news the trillion dollar corporations deem a more interesting story (this week the Bush administration's handeling of Hurricane Katrina is being supplanted by a killer nurse).

Simply stated, George W. Bush is one of the worst Presidents we have ever had. My first blog ever, 10 Reasons Not To Vote For Bush, chronicals his first administration in terms of the damage (Bush enriched himself and friends while seriously undermining middle and low -income Americans, the environment, and all of the good will America once had while making the U.S. a pariah in the world).

The damage is also accompanied by an enormous record of real scandal, deception, and crime. Here are six solid impeachable grounds in chronological order. My message: Historians, feel free to rank Bush now. Press, I wish you had an attention span longer that your average soccer-playing five year-old.

The Six Most Egregious Crimes:

1. Enron Cover-up: Bush refuses to step in at the request of former Governor, Grey Davis, during the energy crises in California. Records will show that Enron was lying about energy supplies and manipulating energy prices to create a false panic to gouge customers. Enron was the largest contributor to the Bush campaign. Records are produced showing contact between Enron and Dick Cheney's office during Enron's illegal activity. Story disappears after 9/11.

2. Lying about Iraq: British intelligence tells the Bush administration that a report linking Iraq to uranium purchases in Africa is a lie, in fact, this "idea" was made-up by British intelligence. Bush announces this discovered link anyway during the State of the Union. Other patterns of pre-war intelligence exaggerations and falsehoods pile up after no weapons of mass destruction are ever found.

3. Treason: Yes, that is what it is called when a U.S. official with classified information knowingly reveals the name of an undercover spy working for the U.S. government. Scooter Libby may be taking the fall, but how can the Vice President's Chief of Staff be the only one to take blame for leaking Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife's name to the press? In case you have not heard, the name was leaked for revenge. It was Wilson who told the press that Bush had lied about Iraq and a uranium connection.

4. Torture: The United States sanctions torture in the military and through the hiring of private military contractors. The photos from Abu Ghraib are shocking. The fact that the Bush administration continues to refuse to release all of the now two year-old photos is par for the course. New photos just being released under the Freedom of Information Act (meaning small press operations had to sue to get them) show piles of naked prisoner carcasses without reference to how they died. The United Nations just released a report telliing the U.S. that it should close Guantanamo Bay for verified reports of inhumane treatment and torture of poltical prisoners.

5. Spying: The domestic spying program is discovered by the New York Times while Bush is running for re-election. Bush pleaded the Times not to release the story, arguing that it would compromise efforts to stop an eminent threat to national security. The Times finally revealed last month that Bush has been eavesdropping on U.S. citizens without any accountablity, due process, or judicial scrutiny (more than one year after the fact of the discovery). Bush refuses to stop or to tell the public who he has been listening to all this time or what threat he felt he needed to thwart while running for re-election.

6. Lying About Katrina: Yesterday, a video taken days before the Hurricane, was released. This video actually shows Bush getting briefed about "grave concerns" that levees would not hold back flood waters in New Orleans. Among other pre-Hurricane warnings (now in transcipt form) was also a specific concern about evacuees at the Superdome. Five days after this video conference, Bush announced on national television that no one knew of any threat to the levees.

18 Ways To Be A Good Conservative

Hello, I know this does not help in the dialogue.

Sometimes though, I like to respond in kind. A conservative friend sent me an email that he found circulating on the net entitled, "18 Ways To Be A Good Liberal." With this he said, and this is basically verbatim, "I'm not a great writer, but I am a great cut and paster." As a school teacher, what can I say? Ugh. I know, I know, it's like, "I can't think, but I can repeat what other people think." So, I took it upon myself to at least offer him some original responses, despite the tackiness....

Here is a link, if you want to read the Liberal one going around the net: 18 Ways to Be A Liberal

Without further fanfare, here are my .....

18 Ways To Be A Good Consevative:

1. You have to be against a woman’s right to care for
her own body, but the right to life ends at state
sponsored execution.

2. You have to be for corporate welfare but against
foodstamps.

3. You have to believe that the 2nd Amendment
guarantees the right to hunt with an Uzi, even if it
means while quail hunting, pecking off a friend or
two.

4. You have to believe that the height of artistic
sophistication is the Blue Collar Comedy Tour.

5. You have to believe, despite world-wide scientific
consensus and all measurable facts, that global
warming is a cyclical change, that will just go away
whenever that cycle changes, although no one seems to
be telling you when that might be, and gosh, come to
think of it, why are all of those hurricanes getting
so big?

6. You have to believe in the right to pick on people
for being gay.

7. You have to feel that it is not America’s
obligation to help countries afflicted with AIDS
because it's really their problem, isn’t it?

8. You have to believe that public school teachers all
must suck because why else would you have to pay a
tutor to do your child’s homework for him.

9. You have to believe in the right to wear fur.

10. You have to believe that self-esteem is self-made,
unless you inherited it, which in that case, you
should get a tax break too.

11. You have to believe that John McCain is getting
too liberal.

12. You have to believe that the ACLU is bad because
it supports the Bill of Rights, and those rights include
free speech and religion, but you love
the NRA because it supports the most important part
of the Bill of Rights, the 2nd Amendment.

13. You have to believe that the minimum wage is too
high, but CEO salaries too low.

14. You have to believe that American History is
important only to white (preferably Southern) men.

15. You have to believe in nepotism, cronyism,
alumni-relations, backroom deals, and secret
handshakes, but not diversity in education or the workplace.

16. You have to believe that socialism has failed
everywhere even though the United States has Medicare,
Social Security, unemployment compensation and borders
a little country called Canada that continues to have
many forms of a socialist economy.

17. You have to believe in the right to pick on
people for being gay. I know you have already
expressed this belief, but you just can’t say it
enough, can you.

18. You have to believe this message is funded by
liberal Hollywood and the biased media.

SHALOM.

The Attack on Public Education

It's been a while. Every once in a while I get an email that seems like a personal antidote, but turns out to be propaganda.

Here's the email:

Subject: Sad, Funny and True
Last week I purchased a burger and fries at McDonalds for $3.58.
The counter girl took my $4.00 and I pulled 8 cents
from my pocket and gave it to her. She stood there,
holding the nickel and 3 pennies. While looking at the
screen on her register, I sensed her discomfort and
tried to tell her to just give me two quarters, but
she hailed the manager for help. While he tried to
explain the tranasaction to her, she stood there and cried.
Why do I tell you this?
Because of the evolution in teaching math since the 1950s:

Teaching Math In 1950
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His
cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What is his
profit?

Teaching Math In 1960
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His
cost of produ! ction is 4/5 of the price, or $80.
What is his profit?

Teaching Math In 1970
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His
cost of production is $80. Did he make a profit?

Teaching Math In 1980
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His
cost of production is $80 and his profit is $20 Your
assignment: Underline the number 20
.
Teaching Math In 1990
A logger cu! ts down a beautiful forest because he is
selfish and inconsiderate and cares nothing for the
habitat of animals or the preservation of our
woodlands. He does this so he can make a profit of
$20. What do you think of this way of making a living?
Topic for class participation after answering the
question: How did the birds and
squirrels feel as the logger cut down their homes? (There are no wrong
answers.)

Teaching Math In 2005
! Un ranchero vende una carretera de madera para
$100. El cuesto de la produccion era $80. Cuantos
tortillas se puede comprar?

Go ahead. Laugh. Now consider the racist overtones of the above.

Is the story about the poor McDonald's clerk true? I doubt it. It reads like a set-up for that crafty little joke.

Not only does the email recall the Good 'ol Days of education ("In my days, I walked through 50 miles of blizzards and ten feet of snow to a one room schoolhouse"), but it offers a nice little dig at those crazy tree-huggers and immigrant-loving liberals who don’t see a need to wall up our borders.

This is right-wing claptrap and I can smell it a mile away. Bush’s poll numbers stink, the Republicans are riddled with bad money from DeLay and Abrahmoff, and daily bad news about the Iraq War just won’t get off the front page. The think tanks don’t shut down though do they? Instead, they look for wedge issues that they can use to attract fearful middle class voters.: “Christmas is under attack!” “We must control the borders!” “Public education stinks!”

Recently a family member sent this email to my wife, saying “Funny,” and “How True!” My response to her was to look before you laugh and to consider your sources. That’s good advice for us all.

I’m a Democrat. I’m in a union. I am a public school teacher. I am a liberal. So if you are still interested, instead of just slyly attacking public education, I have offered a short list of three problems and fixes when it comes to public education.

Considering our size (300 million Americans) and efforts (the greatest percentage of people with college credit than ever before), I’d say that overall, American public schools do an amazing job. We can always do better. Here’s my big three:
1) Too Many White Teachers: Our profession lacks diversity to offer role models and a sense of identity to multicultural students. Solution: Affirmative Action, intense recruitment, free or heavily endowed education, and higher pay for teachers of color.
2) Inequity: The U.S. Supreme Court continues to hold that local communities have a right to provide substantial funding for public education -- this all but guarantees that wealthy communities will always have better schools. Solution: Treat public education like the NFL (National Football League) and share the wealth, and step up Federal funding across the board to increase the number of teachers (class size is a huge problem), to increase access to technology, and to provide multi-lingual education for the increasing need in this area (Deal with it folks – we are only going to get more multicultural as a nation).
3) Stop Attacking Public Schools: Bush's poll numbers smell afoul to his supporters and so do his policies for the rest of us. The conservative think tanks have come up with the strategy of using public education as a wedge issue to get people mad at a traditional liberal strong hold. This allows them to push toward privatization - Yippee, turn schools into corporations so that rich white Republicans have another source of exploitation and income. Solution: "Bravo!" to the Florida Supreme Court for telling Jeb Bush that the State of Florida can't absolve itself from public education through vouchers.

Charting Globalization: Consuming the Third World

Here's my thesis: Globalization (the opening up of markets to increased commerce, trade, industry, and pollution) has thus far created great wealth for a few people and arguably raised the standard of living in a few places like China and India; it has also contributed to the plight of billions living in extreme poverty across the world, while somewhat ironically, driving down the standard of living for most Americans.

I am going to use charts to give a view of globalization that reaches my thesis by asking you to simply connect-the-dots. All charts, or the information in them, are taken directly from Time Magazine, the BBC, or PBS. Clicking on them makes them bigger and very easy to read, so click on them, and then use the back browser to continue.

Chart #1. Globalization And The Extremely Poor:


Globalization really got going during the last twenty-five years with the practices of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Trade Organization (WTO). Backed and administered primarily by the United States, Western Europe, and Japan, the World Bank uses the IMF to make and collect on loans to “developing nations” while the WTO ostensibly exists to monitor fair trading practices. A quarter-century of these practices has left a world where China and India have marginally better standards of living* while Africa, Latin America, Eastern Europe, and the Middle East have all suffered declines. Africa, in particular, has been a victim of globalization. Through heavy borrowing and the mandate of economic restructuring (which often requires third world nations to "open" natural resources and precious minerals to Western industrials), some sub-Saharan African nations no longer even own their indigenous water supply, yet somehow owe billions to the World Bank.

* China has moved 500 million Chinese out of extreme poverty though a combination of its socialist government and a slowed, measured opening-up of commercial markets, primarily through the use of its natural resources (pollution is notoriously devastating in China) and human workforce (like factory workers making products for Wal-Mart). India has seen gains among some well-educated caste members, less so among the poor. One could argue all day about whether either country has truly raised standards of living with the help of globalization.

Chart #2. The Wealthiest Regions of the World Over Time:


The chart above really tells it’s own story.

Remember when the United States was "shamed" into donating more money for Tsunami relief? There is a pattern.

Chart #3. The Giving Gap:


Why does to the United States, the richest country in the world give so little to the rest of the world? One answer has to do with tough love. The political and industrial leaders of the United States focus on international trade, so that developing nations might “raise themselves up”(!). Meanwhile, the United States has become the stingiest nation in the world.

(!) Phil Knight, founder of Nike, was quoted saying this when asked about Nike sweatshop conditions in Indonesia. Incidentally, Knight also admitted he had never been to Indonesia to look at factory conditions.

Chart #4. Spreading American Culture Abroad:

I saw the movie "Super Size Me," and I should never need to go into another McDonalds again. For those of you who may have missed this smart documentary about the horrors of fast-food hamburger joints, suffice it to say, that McDonalds is not healthy for you. McDonalds, as an American corporation, is obsessed with growth. How then do you grow as a company in a saturated market, especially when the American public is wisening up to a national health crises? McDonalds has the answer - spread your wonderful product abroad - another key strategy for the first world in terms of globalization.

Chart#5. Where the United States Stands in the Eyes of the World:


Many people have focused the much talked about "anti-U.S. sentiment" on the war with Iraq. Certainly, this has an effect (especially among our oldest allies). Yet when I look at the above chart, I see the world fearing our ideas and products just as much, and that means we are going about globalization in the worst possible ways.

Chart #6. Economic Snapshot of the United States:


The above chart brings me at last to the United States, where 1% of the nation controls 40% of the wealth. Meanwhile, the bottom 40% own just 0.5% of the wealth.

Chart#7. Who is Making the Most from Globalization:


The above chart demostrates just who globalization has enriched (no need to click on it).

Chart #8. American Buying Power:


Remarkably, the minimum wage has barely kept up with inflation, while buying power, the true measure of the standard of living for most Americans, has shrunk to the levels of the Great Depression. Even though globalization has made huge profits for the corporate leaders who make the transnational deals, they have not passed it on to their employees. Quite the opposite, Wal-Mart, which uses cheap labor in China, then hires illegal immigrants to clean stores in the United States to avoid paying even minimum wage and benefits.

As the United States plans to put the architect of the Iraq War, Paul Wolfowitz, in charge of the World Bank, and George W. Bush touts the spread of freedom, I wonder if the world’s interests are at the heart of those in charge of the United States’ interests. As for my thesis, I do not believe globalization has thus far helped "raise up" suffering nations. Again, quite the opposite, globalization has crippled nations, created obscene wealth for a few, and even managed to outsource American jobs and money.

I hope my generation, and those in the next and the next, will see these trends and take action to define themselves as part of a global community, and not just isolated consumers of the world’s riches.

Visit my website at David Frick

Oscar Predictions: The Six Stages of Victory

Some of you out there in bloggerland might care to know that besides timely rants and clever observations about current events, I also enjoy going to the movies. This perfectly benign activity is accompanied by my annoying ability to tell you all the other films the director made and what else the more obscure supporting actors appeared in, which is especially exasperating to my wife given I still can’t remember which disposable items go in the recycle bins, even though she has posted written instructions and has reminded me countless numbers of times, but anyway…

You might think this movie geektitude and the fact that I try to see most of the films nominated might indicate insight into the winners of the Academy Awards this week. The simple answer is—not really, no. Although, I do try.

Each year in February I engage in the rather enjoyable ritual of getting in touch with my two best friends from law school, Mike and Jeff, to make Oscar predictions. Over the last ten years, we haven't bet anything you might actually win, but that’s never been the point. The point is to beat your friends, and victory must come in stages.

Stage One: The first quest for glory comes in the ability to predict not who will actually win which awards, but to forecast mastery over the others in the only-three-lawyers-would-act-like-this category of, “Superior knowledge on a general scale that makes the other two participants weep at my greatness.” Once verbal barbs regarding the prowess of one’s own mental abilities has been made by each old friend, usually via volleys of emails or left voice mails, it’s time to recall past contests.

Stage Two: Championing ones intelligence is almost immediately followed by ridiculing each other for past mistakes and incompetence. This is especially difficult for Jeff and me, because, unfortunately, Mike wins year after year. This is Mike’s favorite stage. He likes it even more than the actual win in the middle of the night of the telecast. During this stage, he writes a four page email about how he wins year after year and goes on an on about how he is great and how we “lick” and how we should “put on our red noses” and “floppy shoes,” “kiss Clara Belle,” and “cram into our red wagon with our big top friends.”

Stage Three: Jeff and I mount retorts. I usually resort to predicting victory in each new year by citing my track record of always coming in second place. I recall honorable finishes that were clearly undermined through some sort of malfeasance, bribing, or lawyer trick employed by Mike. Jeff, to his credit, does not sink to this desperate level. He usually says that he has the inside track on “Best Animated Short,” and will win someday.

Stage Four: We make our picks. Mike and I exchange predictions via phone. He uncannily picks Las Vegas favorites, although he denies doing so. I pick from the heart. Yes, I am the one who picks the ones I want to win. As for the obscure categories, we employ various schemes. I usually go with the one with the shortest name. Mike likes to find out if the Holocaust was the subject matter, and then he picks that choice. Somebody tracks down Jeff, who is always last with his picks, and completely oblivious to this year’s nominations. Jeff likes to put whomever he’s talking to on speakerphone. That way his hands are free to eat a sandwich or drink a 72-ounce 7-11 Slurpee.

Stage Five: Oscar Night. The moment Best Supporting Actor is announced, I take the lead while the other two, who went with the favorite, sulk. That also means its time for a phone call. The thrill of Oscar Night is the play-by-play. Mike is in New York, Jeff in Colorado, and I’m in Oregon, and our phones become the instruments of our trash talk. Mike takes a share of the lead when the live action short about the Holocaust wins, and Jeff stops phoning when Mike figures out that Jeff has been mathematically eliminated. Mike moves into first place alone when Randy Newman loses again—his mantra of never voting against Disney in the song category is infuriating. Mike furthers his lead when his “safe bet” takes home the actor or actress award. Now, only I can overtake Mike, and only if I run the table on a fairly tricky Director contest and my long shot wins Best Picture. Best Director is read and I am back in the game. It’s all down to Best Picture….

Stage Six: It’s 1 a.m. on the East Coast, and Mike nimbly punches redial one more time.
I begrudgingly answer.
“What,” I feebly say.
“Lick.”
Visit my website at this link: David Frick

Hydrogen Car vs. The Ipod: Why Does The Ipod Win?

One of my students showed me a picture of a hydrogen car. This student, who loves cars, then told me about the prototypes for a hybrid car, a total electric car, and even a solar powered car. Well, I say, its about time!

We talked about the technology of the future, and then he asked me what High School was like when I was his age. I told him he could research the subject by renting any number of John Hughes’ films like The Breakfast Club or Pretty in Pink. As you can see, some things stay the same—when asked off-topic subjects, teachers still suggest independent research projects. Yet he pressed me.

Well, here goes. I didn’t have a laptop yet, so all work in class involved pen and paper (when I tell friends that I assign 14 and 15 year-olds research and power point presentations on a set of classroom laptops, usually the response from older folks is not one of shock over the laptops, rather, “You know how to do Power Point?” ).

I told this student, that yes, way back in 1987, things were kind of different.

I had no Internet, so it never occurred to me to simultaneously check 150 national reviews for the same movie being released that week. Without GOOGLE , I even had to look things up, one by one, in a painstaking activity that involved something called the Readers Guide to Periodic Literature. This could take an entire Saturday. Now it takes a mouseclick.

Need a ride home from school? Calling Mom or Dad meant finding a quarter. Interruptions in class were verbal, not electronic, and my fingers remained nimble by writing and passing notes in class, not through text messaging on a cell phone.

We had no cell phones, CDs, DVDs, TiVos, Palm Pilots, Fax Machines, or the omnipresent Ipods that he and everyone came back to school with after the holiday break.

Nobody wasted weeks of sleepless nights on Xboxes or Playstations, although I did have an old Atari kicking around somewhere.

SUVs were for off-roading, Faxing was something only very large corporations did, and at my Dad’s bank, a state-of-the-art computer system took up an entire room.

Worst of all, there was no Starbucks, which meant no specialty coffees, which meant that Folgers was the height of caffeine sophistication.

Life was truly primitive in 1987. Fortunately, they had invented cash machines, Taco Bell drive-throughs, Gilligan’s Island re-runs, and my girlfriend’s gas-guzzling, beat-up Camero to get me through the hard times of high school.

Which brings us full circle.

Who is “they” exactly and how do they do it? How did they decode life into 1’s and 0’s so that today I can assign my students a filmmaking project on handheld digital video cameras that can be checked out from the school library and edited on school computers? More importantly, 1987 was 18 years ago, almost two decades ago. When will they get around to giving us those electric or hydrogen or solar power cars?

Now that is what I am looking forward to.

Visit my website at this link: David Frick

Santa Quits, Spotted in Fiji, Kudos to Him!

Shhh. Don’t tell anyone, or maybe, if they heard “something crazy like that,” don’t remind them. It’s the holidays. For goodness sake, if we can ignore a whole war, we can certainly deny how hard we worked this year.

Fact is, the average American worker is putting in 200 more hours per year than he or she was in 1973.

The latest report, issued by the International Labor Organization, found that Americans added nearly a full week to their work year during the 1990's, climbing to 1,979 hours on average last year, up 36 hours just from 1990.

By comparison, in the 2000’s, work increased to 137 hours, or about three and one-half weeks, more a year than Japanese workers, 260 hours (about six and one-half weeks) more a year than British workers and 499 hours (about 12 1/2 weeks) more a year than German workers, the report said.

The Japanese had long been at the top for the number of hours worked, but in the mid-1990's the United States surpassed Japan, and since then it has pulled farther ahead.

Well, that’s okay isn’t it? We love our jobs and are happy to have them.

According to a Gallup Poll in 2000, “Attitudes in the American Workplace,” 80% of Americans feel significant stress at work. Crazy—15% of all respondents reported wanting to hit someone—and 10% actually witnessed or participated in an act of violence.

Why all the stress? It might be job security.

Sixty-one per cent Americans say they are concerned that they (or a friend or a relative of theirs) might lose a job because the employer is moving that job to a foreign country, says a Gallup Poll taken in March of 2004.

Stay at a dead-end job? According to a poll by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation in April ‘04, 32 percent of the people surveyed were very or somewhat worried they might lose their health care coverage, and 24 percent stayed at their no-love job to keep benefits.

Wow. Working harder than ever for less enjoyment and less benefits. What does that lead to? Hypertension, heart disease, depression, alcoholism or drug addiction, and spousal abuse.

Stress "is an unavoidable consequence of the human condition," says Dr. Paul Rosch, president of the American Institute of Stress, “A certain amount of stress can help you stay motivated to do your best. But when tension at work begins to negatively affect your health, your personal life or your overall happiness, it's time to evaluate what you can do to take control.”

Are you in need of an “evaluation?”

I am realistic enough to know that this will not apply to all of you out there in Bloggerland, but here’s a snappy solution. How about working less!

New Year’s resolution: Work less.

Warning: Consequences may include less income to spend on stuff you don’t need. Could mean losing benefits your boss will do away with this year anyway.
May mean quitting a job you don’t like. Could result in more time with family. Might translate into more vacation time.

Visit my website at this link: David Frick