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?

:: :: ::

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.

:: :: ::

Jockeying for Position

It’s sadly funny to watch the positioning going on between Senators Barack Obama and John McCain. On the one hand, they are trying to define themselves by defending their respective decisions. At the same time, they are attacking each other on other, sometimes irrelevant or even unproven points. Which forces the other to scramble in establishing a new defensive definition.

What makes all of it worse, is that enough of what they say is utterly inconsistent with their stated policies and current voting records.

If I had to guess, the underlying reason rests on private polling results.

I’m not sure how else to say this, guys, but stand up for what you believe in, and stand firm. ‘Cause here’s the deal, when you get into office, we expect execution, even if you have to compromise. We’ve had eight straight years of incompetent lying. We don’t need any more of that.

:: :: ::

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.

:: :: ::

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.

:: :: ::

Unintended Consequences or Lack of Forethought?

Usually, when decisions that we make have a profound impact on other things or people, we say that there were unintended consequences. At times, I will agree. Most of the time, in fact, that is probably true. We may not have intended those consequences, but they happened anyway. In reality, we hoped those bad things weren’t going to happen.

The problem isn’t that the outcomes were completely unforeseen. It’s just that we didn’t think them through enough to understand what the impact would be.

I’ll give an example. Congress decides to offer substantial farm subsidies, greater than normal, for corn grown for ethanol. It is a politically expedient choice to make as it signals to Americans they are finding ways to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Perhaps on all oil for that matter.

So farmers throughout the Midwest start dedicating their acreage to corn grown for ethanol. They enjoy higher subsidies. We get cheaper blended gas (not available everywhere). Everyone is happy.

Everyone except people who like to eat. With less corn being grown for feed, it gets more expensive to feed cattle, pigs and chickens. It leads to higher prices for meat, milk and anything that contains high fructose corn syrup (check your pantry, and you’ll find that ingredient in most non-organically produced products).

Oh yeah, and the potential costs of using corn-based ethanol as our primary fuel source far outweighs any benefit. Certainly, there are other options, such as sugar or nearly any other starch producing product. Many of the same issues, however, are likely to appear.

Additionally, once we figure out the best option, we will have to wait several years for widespread access while automakers design, build and sell the cars that will run on the fuel. Other countries have a bit of a headstart on us, but they don’t consume nearly the amount of fuel that we do in America, so it’s not a fair comparison.

For the record, let me state that I am an enormous proponent of reducing our dependence on all oil, both foreign and domestic. But with the world having more mouths to feed every day and less land for farming at nearly the same rate, Earth-bound, plant-based fuels is not the way to go.

I don’t have the solution, so, in reality, I should keep my mouth shut on this (one of my mantras is that you have no right to criticize unless you have an alternative to offer).

No. As a matter of fact, I do have some solutions. Many of which would be easy to implement and in some cases are already there.

• Business tax credits for telecommuting—the technology is available for most businesses
• Time shifts to reduce energy usage and traffic buildups
• Investments in light rail
• Greater emphasis on fuel-efficient commuter vehicles (save the SUVs for weekend family excursions)

And we’d still be able to eat.

Check out this Wikipedia entry about ethanol for a pretty good look at the issue from all sides.

:: :: ::

Down to the Studs

I’ve gotten somewhat hooked on a show on Discovery Home called “Holmes on Homes”. The basic premise of the show one of rescuing home improvement projects gone bad. Mike Holmes, the main man, comes to people’s homes and fixes all of the problems contractors have created in botching their projects.

Holmes takes the homeowners and audience through the house pointing out the deficiencies and what needs to be done. Wherever he finds a problem, he pulls everything out, down to the studs, and starts over. The key for him is doing it right.

So why would he be successful in finding people who have these problems? Well, there are a couple of reasons. One is the unfortunate fact that there are people that want to make the most profit by doing the least work. Another is not caring about your finished product, as long as you get paid. Sometimes, customers don’t know enough to protect themselves. And many times, people simply want things done cheaply, going for the cosmetic fix and ignoring the underlying issues.

That last one seems to be a recurring theme throughout the world. Something isn’t right, so we cover it up with something more pleasing to the eye or ear. We spin what was said so it sounds better. We lash out at people who disagree with us trying to make ourselves look better. We put on a fresh coat of paint to cover that nasty stain.

Maybe we need to start taking more things down to the studs, fixing what is really wrong and not just what is on the surface.

:: :: ::

Lack of Enforceability

There’s been some debate in the Louisiana State Legislature lately about a ban on automatic weapons. Gun-rights advocates view the move as an infringement. Those favoring gun control applaud the move. But as several people have mentioned, even if the law passes, enforcing it will be near impossible.

That got me thinking about all of the other laws, rules, regulations and policies we face on a daily basis. The majority of them are only enforceable after someone has committed the crime.

I suppose it should be that way, making us all accountable for our own actions. For many of the laws, that seems to work well enough. There are others, though, that are noble in their purpose—like a ban on automatic weapons—but seem ridiculous once signed into law. It’s a feel-good measure that comes with a hefty price tag, and, because there are no measures that actually prevent ownership in the first place, law enforcement officers and the general public are no better off than before.

Consider this: possession of illicit drugs is illegal. Yet, we have an enormous drug problem in this country. And the costs of fighting it are astronomical, when you consider all of the costs involved in loss of life, drug treatment, prosecutions and incarceration. Anti-drug campaigns have had some good effect, but they are underfunded and only have a beneficial effect on a percentage of the population that can participate.

We need more proactive funding to support these protective laws, not reactive enforcement once the bad deed’s been done.

:: :: ::

Acceptance

Acceptance of how things beyond my control are. That’s probably one of the best lessons I’ve learned. I’ve been thinking about that a lot lately. It’s odd that last week, Paul Williams would write this post titled “It is what it is”, discussing the same concept.

And much like The Serenity Prayer encourages, I have focused more attention on improving the things I can control.

But I was reading an article from the March issue of The Atlantic called “Marry Him! The case for settling for Mr. Good Enough”, and something in there made me realize that the hard part is deciding what to do about the gray area. That space between what you can directly control and what you can’t. That space where things that you do affect how the people around you act and react, especially in relationships.

Many of us focus so much energy trying to change what we possibly cannot, while blaming others for the things we fail to do for ourselves. When we get to that in-between space, though, we sort of short circuit. We expect people to act in a certain way, reading our minds to figure out what we want. Then we punish them when they don’t get it right, even though they thought they were doing something good.

They might try one or two more times, but as long as we keep punishing them for being wrong, they’ll take the path of least effort. Making things progressively worse. Most likely, they are doing the same thing to you. We are all to blame. We create the vicious circle with someone creating another one.

If we do the work that’s necessary, if we take control in developing the relationship and allow the others to do the same, we can create something of shared control, resulting in a beautiful relationship.

Of course, that means that we are wholly accountable for what we do. If the relationship fails, it’s on us. That is a scary thought. It’s probably why we don’t do it.

:: :: ::