Political Ads Still the Same

It’s a little disappointing, but I’m not all that surprised. The political ads over here in sunny Phoenix, Ariz., are pretty much the same as what we had in steamy New Orleans. Bad.

Maybe it’s the same everywhere. “(Insert name here) will lower taxes, protect your family, create jobs, fight against (insert opposing party here).”

Either politicians are so naïve as to believe that they, as an individual, can just make that happen, or they don’t want to share the truth with the people that elect them.

I long for the politician that creates real, honest political ads. Ones that talk about compromise and negotiation and the fact that, sometimes (and hopefully rarely) the elected one may have to sell out to get something accomplished.

Or just keep counting on people not really caring all that much about their politicians, since they seem to keep letting us down.

:: :: ::

You Still Have to Earn It

I’m finally starting to catch up on some of my magazine reading. I have the May 2008 issue of The Atlantic right now. In it is a piece titled “This Is How We Lost to the White Man”. It’s about Bill Cosby’s quasi-crusade to change the attitudes and behaviors of many of the nation’s African Americans. In doing so, he is preaching accountability and self-reliance, earning the trust and respect of those around you.

I applaud his efforts. Not simply because he is speaking directly to African Americans, but because it is a lesson we must all understand. No matter who you are, how you were raised, what education or skill or talent you have, in the end, you still have to earn people’s respect and trust. If you are fortunate to enter a situation where that respect and trust for you already exists, you must demonstrate repeatedly that it is warranted.

This reminds of a class my freshman year of college. We were in Dr. Marcus Smith’s Modern Epic Literature class, and the discussion turned toward equality. I don’t quite remember how we got off on that tangent, but Dr. Smith asked one of the female students what it is she really wanted. She started talking about being given equal pay and equality in the workplace. Admirable and which I heavily support. His comment back to her, though, carried more weight than I would have realized.

He said, simply, “Who the f*** is going to give it to you?” She had no answer for that other than the infamous “they”. His point, though, was that no one is going to just give it (OK maybe some will, but they are few and far between). She had to earn it.

What are you doing to earn trust and respect? What are you doing that is destroying it? What can you do better? What are the things that you can and cannot control?

:: :: ::

You Said It

Last week, the big news on the campaign trail was Jesse Jackson’s remarks on The O’Reilly Factor. Well, the remarks were during a commercial break when he though the microphones were off. Oh, and he didn’t really mean them. And he certainly didn’t want to bring any harm to the campaign.

And we’re all supposed to accept that.

I’m sorry Reverend Jackson, but you said, quite clearly, that you wanted to “cut his nuts off.” Is there some meaning in there that the rest of us just don’t get? I’m pretty good with context and giving people the benefit of the doubt when things may be out of context.

Wanting to cut someone’s nuts off is pretty clear. And it would be a stretch to come up with something, anything, that might be positive or even neutral in some way.

Good luck with that.

I wonder how many more votes Sen. Obama will get because of it.

:: :: ::

Misguided Crusaders

This week, a coworker received calls from some of our customers concerned about a report they had seen on the news. Apparently, according to the report, certain products posed a moderate hazard. So, I did some investigating.

What I found frustrated, annoyed, and generally sickened me.

You see, a non-profit agency proposing to protect our children from harmful chemicals uses that platform for their own crusade, no matter how misguided it may be. They rail against the FDA for not imposing strict enough regulations, and issue black marks against companies that use products that the U.S. government fails to regulate. The reasoning behind this is that other countries, most notably Japan and the European Union do regulate these types of ingredients.

The problem is that this group has created several databases to deal with these ingredients individually, without respect for how they are used or the testing behind the final product. In other words, products approved for use in the EU, because they are safe, are disregarded in this study. Why? Because they don’t match up with the intended purpose. They need a reason to exist. So instead of being responsible in their analysis, they decide to take a more common, politically motivated route that focuses on fear.

Oddly, this particular organization felt it fine to attack numerous groups for their regulatory failings, while avoiding those governmental agencies dealing with crackpots spouting inaccuracies about any number of issues.

Here’s what most organizations relying on this type of tactic don’t realize: at some point it’s useless. No matter how loud you yell, people will stop listening because they are tired of hearing your dire warnings with no consequences.

Kind of like the boy who cried wolf. Instead, deal with the real issues we are facing. Not just the ones that fit into your database.

:: :: ::

Oh How Quaint

So they have moved passed just saying it, and Barack and Hillary have proven they are playing nice in the sandbox. For their first appearance together since Sen. Obama became the presumptive nominee, they have chosen the tiny town of Unity, N.H., where they split the Democratic primary vote right down the middle 107-107.

Oh. How. Quaint. Or is it trite?

It is a move aimed at us Democrats to reinforce their call for, you guessed it, unity. But here’s the thing. A publicity stunt is a publicity stunt no matter how you try to spin it. And sometimes the desired or intended symbolism is so trite and contrived that it loses effectiveness.

A far better move would have been a joint appearance in a large and critically important city where Sen. Clinton won handily. That would have been a much more powerful call for unity. Not in a state that much of the rest of the country considers to be a bit snobbish, and certainly not one in the northeast.

Think middle America. Think red states. Just think.

:: :: ::

Not the Same

Since Katrina blew through southeast Louisiana, people have been asking me how things are doing. Most of them are kind and sincere in their question, with only a few casting doubts. I appreciate the concern.

When responding, I work to sound upbeat and point out some of the positives, while acknowledging that there remain problems. At the same time, I often find myself saying, “It’s just not the same.”

This weekend it occurred to me that it sounds contradictory to my normal stance that things evolve. They change. If we’re not growing and improving, we are falling behind. We are made that way. It’s why we become older and wiser.

And of course things in New Orleans aren’t the same. It was devastated by a major meteorological event. It has to change. We (meaning all of us) lost a lot when the levees broke.

The aftermath provided people an opportunity to use the problem to their advantage. Our house did not suffer the scale of damage that many others faced, but we did have enough to require some major work. It allowed us to completely remodel our first floor, making it better than it ever was before. In the end, it wasn’t the same. At that was a good thing.

But that’s not what I mean. I’m talking more about the spirit. Too much of the city longs for the way it used to be, wanting everything to go back to the way it was August 28, 2005. Because that cannot happen, people must deal with a mixture of emotions including anger, depression and defeat. Cynicism is the norm.

Some of that remains from before the storm. The Saints disappointed us far too many times. But that playful spirit that made New Orleans unique is gone, replaced with a sense of desperation and forboding.

The city will always be home, and I will cherish the memories I made there—the good and not so good. I made my best friends there. My roots are there. I became who I am because of the many years I lived there.

There are several things I miss about the city and many others I am glad to leave behind. I will be back to visit. That much I know.

What I want for New Orleans, though, is for it to regain that charm and spirit that separated it from every other city in the world. To use this time as an opportunity to make right all the wrongs that plagued the area for so many years. To vault itself back on top as one of the greatest cities in the world.

It won’t be easy by any stretch. And it will mean that several people will have to make incredibly difficult choices. I wish them the best. They are still facing a long road ahead.

:: :: ::

How Can We Trust What You Say?

I’m not the only one who will be commenting on this phenomenon, but I’ll throw my two cents in anyway. This past weekend, Senator Hillary Clinton suspended her campaign and called for all of her supporters to support Senator Barack Obama in his presidential bid, representing the Democratic Party.

This is the same person she called inexperienced. Not ready to be Commander-in-Chief. With dealings with shady people from Chicago. Unable to capture the votes of her supporters.

So if we were supposed to believe her then, why should we trust in what she says now? Well, it was a campaign, and we all say things we don’t necessarily mean. It’s just how you play the game.

Now that she has lost the nomination, she has to shift gears, because of the Hatfield-McCoy fight coming through November. The Democrats have to win. It’s time to say whatever we have to for that to happen.

And the Republicans are doing the same thing.

How do we know what the truth is, what we can trust? We really don’t and won’t until their respective actions match their words. Who’s more likely to walk the talk? That’s tough to say. But based on how Sen. Clinton ran her campaign, there is reason to have doubts.

:: :: ::

Adoption and Race

Last week, The Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute issued a report critical of the Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994. You can read the story by The New York Times here. The day following the original story, I had the opportunity to hear one of the report’s authors and someone from San Francisco, who disagreed with the report, on a radio talk show (forgive me for not knowing their names, as I started listening after the introductions were done).

Basically, the law says two things—adoption agencies cannot consider race in matching parents to children and states must do more to recruit minority parents to adopt children.

The report contends that parents willing or wanting to adopt children of a different race should undergo special training. While I agree that families that will become multiracial through adoption have special needs to address, families that adopt any child will face many of the same needs. The question shouldn’t come down just to race. It must also include the family’s support network and whether it is sufficient (or capable of being sufficient) to support all of the child’s needs.

It goes further to say that those same parents should consider raising that child within the child’s culture. The reasoning given on the radio interview was disappointing. It went something like this (I’m paraphrasing): when you black children are raised in predominantly white areas, they have more problems in their teenage years with racism. Instead, the parents should consider moving with the child into an area that is more suitable to her. This may be taking it to an extreme, but it sounds like he is saying that since racism exists, we need to keep the kids separated by race.

That’s is less of an issue of race than proximity. But if cultural sensitivity is the goal, shouldn’t we all be exposed to a broader spectrum of cultures and not be told we should grow up with our own kind?

The report also acknowledges that states must make more of an effort to recruit minority parents. And I agree with that wholeheartedly. And they may not succeed in doing so, which might be OK.

Because, at the end of the day, what are the most important things we must accomplish with, not just adoptees, but all children? Health, welfare, a good education, a solid path to adulthood? Which of the available parents are best suited to provide that for these foster children? For any adopted child?

And who is going to set the criteria for matching children and parents appropriately?

Oh yeah, and how much time, money and effort are states going to put into recruiting the right parents for these kids?

This issue goes much further than race alone.

:: :: ::

Against Pure Partisanship

Last month’s The Atlantic included a piece from Matthew Yglesias making his “Case for Partisanship”. The basic thrust of his argument is that strict ideological partisanship leads to greater predictability in what legislation will pass and decreases the power of lobbyists.

He compares the polarization of the parties today to the coalitions of the past that worked so hard to maintain segregation, especially in the South.

Predictability, however, doesn’t necessarily mean that good things will happen. The anti-desegregation coalitions were predictable, too. Not because of political ideologies, but through pure geography. And it was no better.

When operate along strict lines, one of two things will always happen. We either will have a piece of legislation that never passes or we have legislation forced upon on that creates additional problems. Most often, those problems are avoidable when all opposing views are included in the process. It is then incumbent upon those involved to develop a solution that does the most good.

So, no, partisanship is not the answer. There is a happy medium, one the necessitates that those representing constituents behave that way with an eye toward reasonable compromise. Simply because one party has more members in power doesn’t mean that they can go to radical extremes in making political statements so they can get that Sunday morning interview or clip on the evening news. Or push through legislation that truly satisfies a select few.

The point is to represent all of us, not just those that voted for you. Negotiate legislation and policies that do the greatest good, not just addresses a special interest. When you represent all of the people in good faith and not based on hardline party politics, you end up doing what you were elected to do. And those who voted for the other guy last time, may vote for you the next time around.

:: :: ::

Activism Struggles with the Other Side of the Issue

Activism usually comes about because someone doesn’t believe enough, or the right, people are paying attention to a particular issue. In general, though, activists seek only to push their view of the agenda without sitting on the other side of the table, seeking to understand the other view. Without taking the time to gain that true understanding or acknowledging the viability of the counter arguments, other problems develop.

You can find one such example in my post from last week. But there are others. For instance, in the late-1990s and early-2000s activists in Europe worked incredibly hard to ban genetically modified foods or foods that contained genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Now that there is a global food shortage, particularly affecting poorer nations, those same activists are reconsidering their stance. Producing GMO food, which can withstand blight and other diseases better, would go a long way to feeding millions. Are there potentially negative consequences to using GMO food? Absolutely. Without other viable solutions, however, in the midst of this crisis, it is the best opportunity so far.

Another example is less obvious. Globalization has greatly benefited developed and developing nations alike. We can acquire certain commodities and goods at lower prices because poorer nations are now able to produce and ship them overseas. That includes food, even those that are out of season. Last week, though, famed chef and TV personality Gordon Ramsay announced that he had approached UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown about fining restaurants that didn’t source their produce locally and in season. I am a bit of a fan of the fiery chef (pardon the pun), and I can sympathize with his intent. In fact, I applaud the sentiment.

At the same time, spurning global production for strictly locally-grown produce goes flies in the face of the same forces that have helped him to become an international star. And it could cause a severe blow to those developing nations.

I like local produce because it tends to be fresher. And I like food in season because it just seems natural and right. But if we have a bad growing season, and I am looking for something that I can get from somewhere else, I’ll probably get it. In 2008, that’s the way it should be.

:: :: ::