The Knoxville tragedy

Update: Over at Orcinus, Sara's post is a perfect expression. Recommended you read.

Whatever the reasons turn out to be, there are at least two lessons I hope y'all take away from today's events.
One is that you can bet that the members of this congregation will find a novel way to approach their healing -- and in doing so, they'll set example for the rest of us to watch carefully. If (when) mental illness becomes the issue, they will respond to this man and his family with compassion and justice, because that's the UU way. And if hate turns out to be part of the story, too, then Knoxville, TN is about to have a dialog on hate crime that will leave nobody in town untouched or uninvolved. That's the UU way, too.
The other is that this congregation's cool, brave response shows, once again, that it's past time to drop that old stereotype, and stop underestimating the courage and intelligence of the religious left in America. We've gotten incredibly short shrift over the past few decades -- not only from the religious right, which thinks we're the minions of Satan on earth; but also from fellow progressives, who think that "religious" is a synonym for crazy, dangerous, irrational, and definitely not an asset to the movement.

I was in a meeting yesterday afternoon, at church, when the phonecalls started coming in. We UUs are a pretty small, tight community, and news of the shootings in Knoxville immediately stunned, casting a pall over the rest of the afternoon.

I went home and searched the web: who was he? why? There were few details uncovered over the course of the day.

There was a lot out there in the blogs, and in various newsite's comment threads. Some of the comment threads were deeply disturbing. Things like, at least it happened to a bunch of bible thumpers, or, on sites where posters knew that UUs aren't "bible thumpers", stuff about maybe we should worship Jesus if we don't want to get shot at.

I stopped checking those sites.

Elsewhere there was discussion about whether the church was targeted because it is liberal. I was going to post this morning that such speculation is counter-productive and unecessary, but it turns out that the man did leave a note saying that he planned the shootings because he hated the liberal movement".

I still don't think talking about his motives is productive.

This is pretty clearly a man with a mental illness. He apparently was not part of a liberal-hating group of any kind, just a guy without a job.

I don't think this signals the beginning of any kind of backlash- though I do believe the country is changing and that there will be backlash from various quarters. I just don't believe that this particular incident is necessarily symptomatic of anything.

I am so sad for the church members and friends. I am grateful for the knowledge that the UUA is supporting them with crisis ministry teams. I am so grateful that surrounding churches in their community are offereing them support and love.

And I have a spark of recognition- proud recognition- for who we are, and who those congregants are. The gunman, they say, did not expect to leave the church alive. He expected to be killed by police.

The members of the congregation who tackled and held him assured that he would not die there. And he will now stand trial. And that is a very good thing.

Scott emailed me this morning full of praise for the heroes who intervened and kept him from reloading and firing again. I'm very proud of them, too. And heartbroken that one of them is dead.

Anyway. The point of this post is that yesterday was a tragedy, and mourning is the thing to do right now. And sending love to those who are personally affected.

Political agendas and paranoia can wait.

Saturday local focus: CVUSD and Mike Dunn

Here in the Conejo Valley, we're blessed with good schools. Parents in LA Unified and elsewhere through the state have to weigh scores and hope that they can get their kid into a reasonably good public school somewhere in their district; here there really isn't a bad option.

The schools are different from one another, certainly. One thing that has changed a great deal since I was a CVUSD student is the level of parent involvement. Back in the day, parents weren't involved with schools so much as required to pay attention now and again. Yes, there was the PTA, but kids, for the most part, got up and walked or biked to school and developed their relationships with teachers and brought home report cards. Parents showed up for plays and the occasional conference, and complained to the principle when something got in their craw.

Now parents are everywhere in the school experience. Parents raise money to offset budget cuts. They volunteer in classrooms. We know our kid's teachers- what music they like and maybe where they went to school and how many pets they have, in addition to their teaching style. Parent involvement has a lot to do with the character of your neighborhood school. If you live in a neighborhood with a high concentration of artists, musicians, people who work in entertainment, your school probably has a very strong arts focus. Likewise science, sports, and multi-cultural events.

But the schools also have dedicated, talented, loving staff. I have been thrilled each year with my kid's teachers- all of them different in style and focus, all of them offering inspiration and support, all of them providing life lessons and academic skill to a diverse student population. We also have a really amazing child care program in CVUSD. It costs very little, and surprises me every year with the professionalism of the staff.

When I moved back to TO after years away, I was a mom expecting that the school district would never be able to meet the demands I have for my kid's education. I had been convinced that schools were in such decline, that educational standards were so low, that our family would have to resort to private schools.

I was so wrong. And the school board is primarily responsible for strength of our district.

Standards are, in general, much lower here in the US than I think they should be. Our kids are not required to do enough in depth science, history, geography, etc. The "Three Rs" advocates that I recall from my youth have largely succeeded in shrinking education down to reading, writing, and 'rithmatic. But here in the Conejo Valley, I have seen teachers and staff (and parents) who strive to broaden the curriculum and each child's academic exposure, against painful and repeated budget cuts and increasing testing demands (which focus solely on the "Three Rs").

The biggest fights around here used to be over which math curriculum to teach (and no, I really have no problem with "everyday math"). Used to be. Until Mike Dunn was elected to the school board, giving voice and power to a weird subset of people who seem to have made it their life's work to denegrate and demonize the school board.

Dunn has been a frustrating and very expensive presence on the board since his tenure began. Styling himself as the "voice of the parents" he has sowed division and controversy at every opportunity, slandered the service of the other board members repeatedly, and cost the district thousands and thousands of dollars in legal expenses every time he pulls some bone-headed illegal maneuver. He hates the teachers union, and that has been an ongoing issue, because he won't play by the rules when dealing with them, resulting in more legal costs. He won't even learn the rules, since he considers the training that's been offered him brainwashing.

Two years ago, when elections came around, Dunn had recruited a raft of candidates that would give his views an easy majority. They had a sizable evangelical contingent behind them, not to mention the Stricklands. It was pretty worrisome, for me and families like mine, and the teachers I had come to know and respect so deeply, and the volunteers who work closely with the district and the PTA. In the end, all three incumbents running were reelected, including Dunn. Which said, to me, that residents really didn't know the board, just voting the incumbents because everything seemed to be going ok. There is no other reason that anyone would cast a ballot for both Dunn and Tim Stephens.

There will be another election this fall, and the climate has changed here, dramatically. Due to declining enrollment and repeated state budget cuts, the district made the painful decision to close two elementary schools. It created a panel to review objective data and determine which schools should be closed. The panel worked for several months, as I recall, and then made its recommendations.

Then followed the great school closure fight, which got ugly and classist and racist very quickly (and when one parent group threatens to call the INS on another parent group, I don't know what to call it other than racism). I know that not all parents involved in the fight were into the ugly parts, but still: it was everyone out for themselves, with no regard for what their "win" would mean for other families, or the rest of the district.

My kid came home one day and asked if he could paint "Save " on his clothes. We said no. He could paint "Save ALL of our schools" if he wanted to, but his school staying open meant that another kid's school would close, and we care about that kid, too.

There's still fighting in the works, as one of the schools scheduled for closure is applying for magnet status. For the most part, the biggest hubbub has died down. But hundreds and hundreds of families were following this issue closely and actively- school board meetings had to be held in high school auditoriums. And of those hundreds of parents, I will bet that most of them were getting their first look at trustee Mike Dunn, the "voice of the parents".

Dunn, off course, convinced all of them that their schools could remain open, if only the other board members weren't so stubborn, refusing to look at other options. And his affected persona, his outsider status, his renegade "voice of the parents" act, has been enhanced to a great degree for people who know little else about him, or the other board members, or the work that any of them have done during their tenures.

I have exchanged email with Dunn on several occasions: once, when he was first elected, because I was a bit disturbed by his website (which became another legal issue for him a couple of years ago). Later, we had a few exchanges over the Glencoe high school biology curriculum, which he used in his culture war against all the liberal monsters he imagines under the bed.

I have thought a good deal about whether to publish his words, whether that's really fair game, as when he wrote them, he was writing to a parent, not a reporter. But I decided that he was writing as a public servant, and the public who will choose whether to vote for him and his new recruits this fall should probably know who the man really is, and then decide if they want him having a majority on the board when it makes decisions that affect our kids and their teachers.

So, email 1. I wrote:

Hello Mr. Dunn:

I am a parent, my child has registered in a CVUSD school for the first time this year. I am also a member of my church's Faith in Action group, and we're interested in school board activities, among other things.

I have been researching current members of CVUSD board, as you're new, I have questions regarding some statements you make on your website. I would appreciate your clarification. I specifically would like clarification on the following:

1) Please explain "freedom of all religions".
2) Please explain "support for other traditional family values".

Thank you,

And yes, I put in the part about church intentionally, because I wanted him to be honest. It wasn't a lie, though.

He responded:

Evidence supports my conclusion that groups like the ACLU are trying to purge from this country all public expression of religion. I can also present evidence that suffering in our society is increasing as the influence of religion and moral absolutes is declining. The worst example is the rise in the number of unwed mothers.
I contend that if religion had more influence in the public schools that we would have fewer drug problems, unwed births and disciplinary problems.
To reduce suffering and to promote stable families, I will support freedom of all religions in the public schools. Judism, Christianity and Islam all desent from Abraham and Moses.
All three monotheistic religions promote moral absolutes.
My support for traditional family values is in response to attacks from some secular groups against groups like the Boy Scouts. People like George Soros are aggresively using judicial dictators to promote a Godless humanistic society. They want kaos and no limits on morality.
No right or wrong. Sounds tempting until you look at the rates of unwed mothers, drug abuse and crime in the parts of this country where they dominate.
My primary motive is to make our world a better place to live in. Serving on this school board is one step of many to accomplish this objective. I remember a happier, healthier, country when I grew up in the 1950's.
Thank you for writing me. I would be glad exchange ideas with you.
Sincerely,

This post is long, so I won't comment further. But there will be more.

Wow. I mean, just... wow.

President Bush,today:

No regime should ignore the will of its own people and calls from the international community without consequences.

I just don't even know how to respond to that.

Probably better that I don't, not until I'm at a table with some friends and a lot of beer

An open letter from The World

Via Berube

EARTH, July 25, 2008 -- The entire world drafted an open letter to Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) today, asking him to drop out of the U.S. presidential race and concede the presidency to Senator Barack Obama (D-Illinois).
"Ordinarily we do not interfere in America's internal affairs," said a spokesman for the rest of the planet, "even when it has become clear, as in recent years, that American voters are about to elect ignorant, incoherent buffoons who will add immeasurably to our immiseration. But this time is different. We didn't think it was worth our while to step up for your Carter or Mondale or Dukakis or Gore or Kerry -- besides, we'd only be bombed or invaded for our trouble. But this time, I mean, come on -- you've got to be kidding me, right? Please tell me you're kidding."

Read the rest.

Allow me to be of some assistance

Via Wonkette,

Republicans Have Questions For Barack Obama!

I thought I'd try my hand at some answers, as I'm pretty sure the Senator has other things to do.

(Anonymous) You said 'When Americans go to France, they don't know the language'. How many Americans do you think could actually afford to go there or would want to go? Let Hispanics learn some English before they sneak into this country first.

Dear Anonymous: I think your question was a) can Americans afford to travel to France, and b) would they want to?
Fewer Americans can afford European travel these days, due to declining wages, skyrocketing fuel costs, and the wekness of the dollar. I wonder if one of the candidates has an economic strategy that would be different from the one we have been using for the last 7 years?
Who would want to go? Anyone who isn't a total xenophobe. And as part of our massive reeducation campaign, you will be forced to visit Paris and eat cheese by the end of January 2009.

(Anonymous) Sen Obama: My 17 year old son informed me he is not going to attend college in September. His tuition has been paid and it is a lifelong ambition. Why? He says there is no benefit. He believes under your campaign promises, he will work and sacrifice for 4 to 7 years - and then you will take it away from him and give it to a highschool drop out. How do I assure him?

Dear Anonymous: Your son clearly has a drug problem. You must seek help for him immediately.

(Anonymous) Sen Obama: You speak of expanded welfare programs for "single Mothers," "unemployed youth," "sick people." Will there be "state control" to assure children don't have illigitimate babies, "youth" MUST learn to read, write, employable skills, and "the sick" desist a lifestyle that made them "sick" (smoking, drugs, obesity, etc)?

Yes. Also Republicans will have to visit Paris before given a license to purchase Cheetos.

(Anonymous) Sen Obama: I, like you, spent decades sacrificing to pay off educational loans/expenses. Now that I earn a 6 figure income, why will I be expected to give it up to support those who never sacrificed?

Dear Anonymous: Because you have bad hair and no one likes you.

(Anonymous) Sen Obama: I am approaching retirement. I have spent 30 years sacrificing 5% yearly of my income to invest in Exxon stock for retirement. Your speeches say my money will be taken to support the "poor." Have you considered I will then be "poor"?

Dear Anonymous: The deadline for sending us the routing numbers for the above mentioned account was Tuesday. How are we supposed to take all of your Exxon money if you can't even be bothered to be on time? How about a little personal responsibility?

(Anonymous) Sen Obama: You have stated you will meet, without preconditions, with terrorists and terrorist supporting nations. However, you will not meet President McCain in town hall meetings with or without preconditions. Does this reflect your absymal performances without written "speeches"?

Dear Anonymous: Senator Obama just feels really bad when Senator McCain makes an ass of himself. He's clearly acting out so that he can get some attention, and we don't want to encourage that behavior. It's unseemly. So really, if everyone would stop reinforcing his negative behavior by giving him attention, he'll probably settle down.

(Anonymous) If Obama were to talk some common sence in to the hundreds of collage anti war students thay may come to realize that thy have been played by Educators on the hourses go in front of the cairage to heal this country we get reed of personal responablty and a man of color alone will heal this counrty. Is this a Crack in the strongest link?. Is A chan only as strong as is strongest link?.

Dear Anonymous: You clearly have a serious drug problem. Please seek help.

Weirdness

I had an interesting experience Friday night, which I've been meaning to write about since. My brain is such a jumble these days, I hope I can do justice to the experience and my perceptions of it.

Conejo Valley Unitarian Universalist held a public discussion forum on "Evolution, Creation, and Intelligent Design". The speaker was John Suarez, who has for many years been active in church/state issues. On the side of separation, I mean.

Suarez started out with a simple question for the audience. What, he asked, are the differences between the scientific terms hypothesis, theory, and law?

Hands shot up all over the room. Most people suggested that the difference between theory and law was one of degree; law presumably having been more thoroughly tested, and even absolute. No, Suarez explained, law and theory are really the same thing. We shouldn't even have two words, actually.

Hands shot up again. "What does Webster's say?" "I don't have Webster's here." he replied. A man with a determined look on his face insisted that law referred to an absolute, observable thing, like gravity. To demonstrate, he held his pen up so we could all see it, and dropped it.

No, Suarez explained: gravity isn't absolute, as you'd realize if you were on an airplane that suddenly lost altitude. And the Theory of Relativity disproves more than one element of Newton's Laws. So law is neither absolute nor consistently observable.

Arguing ensues. From various corners of the room, disagreement with Suarez's first assertion. Look, he says, all I'm saying is that there is no practical scientific difference between the two terms. You can toss one of them, pick whichever one you like.

He goes on, giving us a political history of the debate, beginning in the 1920s. He covers the Scopes trial, and some other state-by-state attempts to insert young-earth creationism into the classroom, one by one defeated. Eventually a few creationists with big degrees after their names came up with ID. Through the Discovery Institute's Center For Science and Culture, they have steadily organized a debate (see
The Wedge Strategy) intended to confuse, using negative arguments in place of positive theory. And, sadly, it works a lot of the time. And I experienced it in spades on Friday night.

Hands shoot up, again, from various corners. Lots of pseudo-scientific posturing. Evolution can't be proven. Look at the beaks on the Galapagos birds. Changes in petri dish cells aren't adaptations, they're deficiencies. The Cambrian Explosion doesn't explain enough, the pocket-watch argument, irreducible complexity, you name it, they trotted it out.

There were, of course, plenty of hands shooting up to answer these debunked ID arguments. Some of the people answering were scientists, some were not. I think I can say that all were surprised that what we thought would be a casual discussion turned out to be nothing of the sort. One woman said, "I am a microbiologist, and I wish I had all of the answers to what you've said in the front of my mind, but I don't right now. But there are answers. What you are saying is wrong."

See that was the problem: we didn't know we were supposed to have done homework before coming to the forum.

I have kept up with the ID movement's claims, court cases, etc over the years. But I don't keep all that data in the forefront of my skull. All of the minutiae, every debunked claim- it's not my job.

Here's what I do- what most of us do, I'll wager. A controversy arises. ID proponents make their arguments. I think, hm. Wonder what the scientific community says. I look it up. Science answers. Science has made a much better argument. I get a beer and watch another episode of
Deadliest Catch.

Here's what they do. A group of them get in a van. They drive to an event. They get out of the van and pray together. The enter the event separately, and take seats around the room. They have spent (according to one of them) two years memorizing CSC talking points. The forum begins, and they fire out talking points like shotgun pellets, fast, fast, fast, and if you aren't prepared, you haven't a chance at answering them fully.

I made a direct response to one of them, who'd asserted that there was no scientific consensus on evolution and many scientists support the theory of ID, blah blah blah. I'm not a scientist, I said, but I do know that for a concept to qualify as a scientific theory, it must be tested. The work must be peer-reviewed. I know that there are smart men with impressive sounding science credentials who are trying to advance ID as a theory, but it is not testable, none of them has ever produced a piece of data for peer-review, and ID is not science.

Another of them responded to me with the
Richard Steinberg BS that Ben Stein pushed in his (thoroughly debunked) movie. No, I said, I'm sorry. It never happened.

I mean- ok, something happened. What did not happen was a guy getting fired for trying to get ID scientific paper peer-reviewed. (Follow the link above to the full story)

I got up to go outside for a bit. I wanted to smoke, and get my thoughts together. I couldn't recall the particulars of the Steinberg affair, for instance, and I wanted to try and remember details. One of them followed me out. He wanted to discuss science in the Bible (which most people don't know, he said, even ministers). I refused to discuss the Bible with him. We had, I suppose a cheerful conversation, but a frustrating one. "How many mammals are in the fossil record?" he demanded. I don't know, I said. I am not a scientist, I don't keep that data in the front of my head. And you are not a scientist, either.

Eventually I got away from him and back to my friends. The event was over, and we all mingled a bit. A friend said to me, "You'll never get through to those people."

No, I said, you won't. But one of them had a teenage girl with him, maybe 17 or 19 years old. I can see her face clearly right now. And what you hope, as you engage their talking points, is that she will hear you, and get a good education, and eventually reject doctrine in favor of science.

That's what you hope. And you keep hoping, every time you have the opportunity to have another frustrating discussion with another regiment of culture warriors.

Next month the forum will be lead by an economist, topic is the mortgage crisis. I'm looking forward to October, when the issue will be same gender marriage.

Just to be on the safe side, I'll do some homework before I go.

A last, poetic bit of wisdom

Intellectuals

Writing the posts below made me recall the creationists at the forum last week demanding to know "What does Webster's say?" about the definitions of scientific theory and scientific law. So I thought I should provide a handy definition of the word "intellectual":

Oxford: adj. 1. of or appealing to the intellect. 2. possessing a high level of intelligence. 3. requiring the intellect. n. person possessing highly developed intellect.

Bly: wingnut. set of seemingly thoughtful ideas or concepts, compiled to confuse or demean normal human thought.

More tomorrow.

Wisdom?

McCain cancels his only press availability for this week.

Which, given the number of completely bone-headed things he's said over the past week, probably shows a decent amount of wisdom.

Let's talk about "wisdom" then.

McCain's got a new poster up.


So let's talk about wisdom, shall we?

There are a couple of ways to talk about Iraq right now. There are, as Obama has pointed out, tactics, and there is the much broader question of wisdom.

The tactics, pretty much anyone with a brain knows, have been screwed up since the beginning of our Grand Adventure. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and their various "intellectual" sycophants did no adequate planning for the occupation of the country. They put the American military in Iraq to prove an acedemic theory, and were sure that once Saddam was down and we were "greeted as liberators", capitalism and Ahmed Chalabi would pretty much take care of everything else.

Not enough ground forces. Not enough civilian assistance. Young, inexperienced cronies given ridiculous amounts of governmental responsibility. And when stuff went wrong? "Democracy is messy."

None of this should have been suprising. Military brass warned early of the need for a greater troop presence. The administration fired them. The army's counterinsurgency manual was tossed. So were the Geneva Conventions. "A few bad apples". Truckloads of US currency quite literally vanishing- billions of dollars. And as for a country that could, Wolfowitz predicted, "finance its own reconstruction"? It wasn't safe to walk out of doors, so you couldn't really blame them for not hopping up and rebuilding their power grid on our timetable, could you?

So yes, it's been pretty obvious that our tactics have been miserably inadequate. John McCain would like you to know that he would have planned things much better. Thanks for the tip, Senator.

Of course, he's been a very reliable supporter of the president while all of this has been going on, so I'm not sure about his track record.

But let's get back to the question of wisdom. The president is, after all, a civilian commander-in-chief. Tactics will, presumably, be influenced by actual military brass in the next administration (unlike this one, where the president just keeps firing generals until he finds one that makes the right noises). The president has to actually set goals, policy, strategy: the military should probably work on tactics without his help. So let us then recall,

John McCain still thinks our Grand Adventure was a Grand Idea.

Deep breath, and then, all together. Ready?

INVADING IRAQ WAS NOT A GOOD IDEA

John McCain supported the idea then, and he supports it now.

Lest we forget, there was not a unanimous vote for force in congress. There were people who held on to their brains and their principles while the rest of DC (and much of the country) was acting like a bunch of angry bed wetters. There was no humanitarian reason for going: our invasion has killed many times more Iraqis than Saddam could've in the same period. There was no threat, and the intelligence agencies knew it, and so should have congress.

"Preemptive" war is bad policy, and it certainly isn't an accurate reflection of American ideals. John McCain bought into the policy then, and he hasn't changed his mind.

Bush has said that 9/11 changed him, and that's why we had to start bombing people. Personally, that speaks to me of great moral weakness. 9/11 scared me, but the fear subsided. 9/11 hurt me, but we all must live on through pain. 9/11 made me want to do something, but it didn't make we want to start wildly bombing people (the "Suck.On.This." school of foreign policy advocated, at the time, by Thomas Friedman).

So when I listen to men and women who supported this war in the beginning, I hear great moral weakness. If they've come to their senses and realized what morons they were, then I'm pretty forgiving. Bush and McCain will never come to their senses. They will always be weak men in this regard, more concerned about their own definitions of "honor" and "strength" than they are about reality.

What I want in our next president? A compass. I don't know that expecting the Wisdom of Solomon is realistic. I'll settle for a track record of decent judgement.

Barack Obama publicly spoke against the policy of preemption and the invasion of Iraq when it was politically very unpopular to do so.

We've got a fairly messed up global situation right now. I'm hoping for a president who won't be tempted by wild, angry, paranoid, oil-filled goose chases.

Iran

One would hope that a country such as ours would be disillusioned enough with the administration's lust for war in middle east. One would hope, but this remains to be seen.

Over the past few months, the saber rattling has gotten steadily louder, more intense. A letter writer to the Star asked earlier this week:

With the outrageous actions by Iran, such as launching missiles and its president announcing Iran will annihilate the U.S. soon, does it not seem it's trying to provoke an attack from us?

What other reason could it possibly have for encouraging superior forces to attack unless it wants to use a nuclear weapon it has developed in secret or purchased from North Korea against our troops? Or perhaps use new silent submarines to sink our aircraft carriers and kill several thousand of our servicemen?

Why would Iran test missiles right now? Hmm. I dunno. Maybe because our president and his surrogates and one presidential candidate keep insisting that bombing Iran would be a really great idea?
Condi:

WASHINGTON— Condoleezza Rice flexed America's muscles in the Middle East on Thursday, forcefully warning Iran the U.S. won't ignore threats and will take any action necessary to defend friends and interests in the Persian Gulf.

Bolton
Kristol
Lieberman

And that's just a lazy one-site one-minute search.

And McCain is a harbinger, as should be clear to anyone with ears. Conason writes:

Obviously the war lobby within the Republican Party and the Bush White House has lost neither influence nor determination, no matter how wrong its predictions nor how disastrous its policies have proved to be. When John McCain jokes that exporting cigarettes to Iran might be a "way of killing them," he isn't really kidding. Like his warbling of "Bomb bomb Iran" last year, that moronic remark represented a profound judgment that war is the only way to achieve American objectives in the Gulf region.

None of this is about security, none of this is about "our FREEDOMS". It is all about control. It is all about playground bullies who want to own the swing set, and lack the imagination (or humanity) to figure out a way to talk their way in.

Anyway. Can't hurt to get organized right now. Armchair activists can go to The Friends Committee on National Legislation and start sending letters, getting connected.

Local lunacy

In addition to the local coverage I get from the Ventura County Star, the paper has commenting and blogs, and forums (which have declined and become icky and boring over the last couple of years). So I like to get a flavor of what people around here are thinking from the Star's website.

There are different commenters in different sections: people in the forums tend to stay in the forums (thank god). People who follow the local blogs tend to sound more thoughtful. The comments sections in the news and opinion pages often degenerate into flame wars, but it's interesting to check which stories will bring out which people, and which will generate the most ire.

Anyway. It's been a full week, so I figure I'll catch up on a couple of local threads that caught my eye over the past few days.

School Board Trustee Mike Dunn: still an asshole

I serve on a board, and one thing I know for sure: if the board is going to get anything done well, there has to be a certain amount of cohesion and respect for the board itself among members.

This means communicating with other trustees before you try to build a cabal of opposition or support for one of your pet issues, among others things. Mike Dunn will never be able to conduct himself appropriately, and I think he's too dumb to understand it.

Dorothy Beaubien, president of the Conejo Valley Unified School District board, said she received an e-mail from fellow Trustee Mike Dunn calling on her to "retire with dignity" instead of seeking re-election this fall.

In the e-mail, sent July 4, Dunn told Beaubien that she should retire "or be humiliated and lose the next election."

Which was Dunn's response to Beaubien's calling him out:

In the e-mail to Dunn that he said sparked his July 4 response, Beaubien reprimanded him for sending an e-mail to the charter school president "that was intended for the board" and called this action "unconscionable." She did not elaborate on the communication between Dunn and charter proponents.

"You are either very stupid or very vicious and conniving. Again, you have caused the district embarrassment and made it difficult for the board to work as a unit," Beaubien wrote in her e-mail. "What a sad thing that this community must put up with your antics for two more years."

Whatever you think of her words, Dunn was apparently trying- again- to build his cabal without communicating to other board members.

I'm not privy to their internal workings, but from where I'm sitting I'd say that the proper thing for him to do if he wants to share information with people outside the board is simply this: email the other board members first and say, "I really think we should share this with the parent group," or whomever. In fact, send the communication noting that the entire board wanted it forwarded.

That, however, would not feed Dunn's self-promoted persona of being the sole man of the people on the board. The only reason he does this is to build political division. It has nothing to do with the health of the district.

Dunn "often gets a bad rap, but he is trying really hard to keep communication open with the charter to make sure he understands, and I think other board members are trying to control that communication," Hartsuyker said. "He wants to hear what people say, and I respect that."

No, he's using you.

In his e-mail, Dunn wrote that a former Conejo Valley resident has contributed $8,000 to his political action committee and the Ventura County Republican Party to defeat Beaubien and Didio in November. He wrote that Citizens for a Better CVUSD, another political action committee, "is already running ads against you and Dolores. Blue Ribbon schools are being closed. CVUSD students are leaving our schools to attend other neighboring public schools." [snip..] Dunn "is bringing in the Republican Party, which is trying to deal with a nonpartisan election," Contini said. "One needs to ask, Are we talking about running to win or running to serve?' I don't see anything there about serving kids."

This particular bit of Dunn's positioning is all about division and creating a partisan board. Nothing else.

Dear editors

I know: the 'Opinion' page is made up of opinion, not reporting. I know that it's an important journalistic tradition, and that the free press demands a free opinion page.

I'm cool with that.

I do wish, though, that the Star and every other news paper in the country would just ask their columnists- at the very least- not to lie. That would seem to be a pretty minimal standard, asking opinion writers to opine on fact, rather than calculated partisan fiction.

Take, for example, Terry Paulson.

In his column this week (Energy Independence Now), he makes some pretty dubious claims:

While politicians demand more oil from overseas, we sit on oil reserves that are the envy of the world.

Really? The envy of Saudi Arabia? Of Iraq? Of Canada? Venezuela? US oil production reached peak in the '70s, and while we certainly have more reserves, even untapped reserves, there isn't much evidence indicating that tapping them now would lead us to energy independence.

What would lead us there is getting off our addiction to a finite resource. But since people like Terry must support the line of the current administration ("Conservation is a personal virtue" and "So long from the world's biggest polluter"), even when giving alternate energy resources a nod, they must press the delusion that the oil is there, and it is ours for the taking.

All of that is just opinionating, though, so of course it has a place in the editorial pages. What I really have a problem with is this:

When Hurricanes Katrina and Rita roared through the Gulf's 3,000 offshore oil and gas platforms, no major spills were recorded.

Now, if you're going to let someone write something that easily disproved (in fact, the oil spill could be seen from space), maybe just a note from the news bureau at the bottom of the column?

It just tears my hide when lies are published without challenge on the pages of a newspaper.

Oh, and although this isn't a lie, I can't pass up commenting on

France generates 80 percent of its energy needs through nuclear power and safely handles the waste; so can we!

France has a significant regulatory structure. And as this government can't seem to figure out how to keep e coli out of my food, and refuses to address weaknesses is chemical manufacturing and transport, I'd prefer not to complicate their to-do list with enforcement and protection of nuclear power plants.

So apparently I'm really white.

According to the Stuff White People Like blog, I am almost unbearably white in the left-leaning, educated, upper middle class coastal sort of way. How I got to be this white without grad school I have no idea- so maybe I'm just a poseur. Still my love of my Prius, David Sedaris, Wes Anderson movies, and "The Idea of Soccer" alone would seem to cinch my place in the halls of pretentious lefty whiteness.

I have another indicator of unbearable lefty whiteness this morning.

Yesterday at a party, my friend Tina said, "I have to ask you something, and I have to see your face." I gazed earnestly at her (or, as earnestly as I could, given the amount of rum and fruit juice coursing through my brain). She looked intently at me and said:

"Jesse Helms died. What do you think about that?"

And I am certain that I screwed up my face a bit as I tried to formulate a response. Because, as a person who fits so neatly in the category we're discussing, I have standards. I cannot take pleasure in the death of a human being. And I cannot speak ill of the dead (which is why we all love Hunter S. Thompson so much. When Nixon died, he alone could pen a an obit that refused to elevate a figure we all considered despicable.)

I have other standards, too. I love art, loathe racism (especially in its hateful mainstream form- something that Helms was exceptionally good at exploiting.)

My standards, in this moment, are completely at odds.

When Ronald Reagan died, I could acknowledge that he was the President, and give respect. I could say, honestly, that in his personal writings he seemed to be such a sweet person, such a good friend.

I cannot imagine having a friend like Jesse Helms.

I think I finally said something not quite witty, like what a tragedy for him that he died before realizing his dream of getting all the artists and uppity negroes into gulags.

But I didn't feel good about it.

Racing to the bottom....

This just pisses me off:

Accounting Plan Would Allow Use of Foreign Rules
WASHINGTON — Federal officials say they are preparing to propose a series of regulatory changes to enhance American competitiveness overseas, attract foreign investment and give American investors a broader selection of foreign stocks.

But critics say the changes appear to be a last-ditch push by appointees of President Bush to dilute securities rules passed after the collapse of Enron and other large companies — measures that were meant to forestall accounting gimmicks and corrupt practices that led to those corporate failures.

Legal experts, some regulators and Democratic lawmakers are concerned that the changes would put American investors at the mercy of overseas regulators who enforce weaker rules and may treat investment losses as a low priority.

When all else fails, deregulate? Because over the last 30 years, that has worked so bloody fucking well for us?

I am so very, very tired of the idea that we need to lower our standards on every fucking issue in order to be "competitive" in the "global economy".

We need to set our standards to be more in line with countries that have appalling human rights standards, no environmental standards, and, apparently, skewed and dishonest accounting standards.

Say that once, without a trace of dismay in your voice, if you can. And then tell me how that equates to American Leadership.

Bush and the GOP do not want this country to lead. They want this country to be a playground bully with wealthy parents.

Bonus reason to work to keep McCain out of the White House: Phil Gramm would most certainly set economic policy under a McCain presidency.

Three Reasons I'm Voting For Obama

I didn't support Obama in the primaries.

Truth be told, I don't even like him much.

But that doesn't matter. He's the Democratic nominee, and I'm going to vote for him in November. And I'm going to be enthusiastic about it.

And this is why:

One: John McCain.

As I wrote the other day, Obama is better than McCain. I know that seems obvious. Of course he's better than McCain. Everyone knows that, right?

Well, it's a damn good reason for me.

I agree with most, though not all, of Obama's positions. And I'd rather take my chances on Obama than on John McCain, with whom I agree on nothing. I don't know whether Obama will succeed in his goals, but I do know that I don't want McCain to even have an opportunity to try to succeed in his goals.

And while yes, there are things about Obama that bother me, there is a lot more about McCain that not only bothers me but downright offends me. Obama will certainly do some things I won't like, but McCain will undoubtedly do worse. Worse foreign policy, worse economic policy, worse political appointees, worse judicial appointees. Worse all around.

Two: He beat Hillary Clinton.

The fact that Obama -- the virtually unknown self-described skinny black guy with a funny name -- was able to beat the great and almighty Clinton machine -- complete with rich and powerful donors, celebrated strategists, and, oh yes, a former two-term president -- says something significant about Obama, something I've been reluctant to admit.

He is really smart. Really, really smart.

He didn't beat her because he was lucky. He didn't beat her because he had more advantages in the race than she did. He didn't beat her because he's black or because she's a woman.

He beat her because he is really smart. He hired very smart people and they developed a very smart two-pronged strategy: one, sell a message people are desperate to buy, and two, math math math. Obama's team understood the primary and caucus system better than Clinton's team and arguably, better than any other candidate in history. That's not luck; that's brilliance in action.

I recently reread my own journal about the Democratic primaries, which I started writing after listening to one of the debates in which, much to my surprise and even horror, I found myself leaning toward Hillary Clinton. I tried to articulate my thoughts in the hope of understanding how it was possible that I, someone who had refused to vote for Kerry in 2004 because of his vote on the Iraq war bill of 2002, could even consider supporting Clinton.

My thoughts in October 2007:

I want my president to be the smartest person in the room. I want it to be so obvious why my president is president. I don’t have to agree with everything my president believes. I don’t have to believe everything my president promises.

But I want my president to be the kind of person who always worked really hard in school. On the paper or student government or model U.N. Valedictorian would be nice. Rhodes Scholars are good too.

I want my president to be the kind of person who likes to hang out with other really smart people and discuss their shared ideals and dreams of how to change the world.

I don’t have to share all the dreams. I don’t have to think that every single idea of how to change the world is a good one. I don’t have to agree that all those ideas will work.

But damnit, I want a smarty-pants president.

Well, then, Obama certainly qualifies. Beating Clinton was no easy feat, and if his team's strategy for the general election is anything like his strategy for the primary -- message and math -- then McCain doesn't stand a chance because his machine is not nearly as powerful as the Clinton machine.

Furthermore, I am confident that President Obama will meet with foreign leaders and not embarrass our entire country with his horrible gaffes, his stupid jokes, or his inappropriate back rubs.

I am confident that President Obama will not need the press secretary to constantly explain what he means when he says completely nonsensical things because he cannot form a coherent sentence to save his life.

I am confident that President Obama will not ask if our children is learning or insist that we "misunderestimate" him or, dear god, encourage us to strive for higher pie.

An intelligent, literate, articulate president will be a wonderfully refreshing change and will, hopefully, help to restore the world's confidence us and in our ability to elect a leader of the free world who isn't borderline retarded.

Three: He'll be a decent president, and that's good enough for me.

Not much of a bar, I know, but after eight years of what historians pretty much unanimously agree is the worst president in American history, I think it's a good standard.

How many presidents in the last, say, fifty years can be described as decent? Johnson was decent, I suppose, except for that whole Viet Nam thing, which, fairly or not, overshadows everything else he did that might otherwise have made him a decent president.

Nixon? Like Johnson, he did some decent things, sure, but I've read too much Woodward and Bernstein to ever think of Nixon as anything but a crooked, corrupted son of a bitch who should have gone to prison and got off easy when Ford pardoned him.

Carter? Was he decent? I suppose he was, although history does not remember him that way. Too many crises -- hostages and oil among them -- stain his reputation.

Reagan? Don't even get me started.

Daddy Bush? See above re: Reagan.

Clinton? Well, that's tough, isn't it? I think he was a decent president, although there is certainly an argument to be made that he wasn't. He did bad things and selfish things and stupid things, and for all the good he did, we will never forget that he was the president who got impeached because he couldn't keep his pants zipped.

Dubya? Please.

So. A decent president is a good goal, I think. If Obama manages to be a great president, so much the better, but at this point, I'd settle for a president with good intentions. And I believe he has good intentions. Whether he will ultimately prove to be Carter -- good intentions without good results -- well, we won't know that until he moves into the White House.

But I do know that he has the potential, which is certainly more than can be said for John McCain.

So. Those are my three reasons for supporting Obama.

What are yours?


[Note: eurotom at DailyKos wrote a great diary today called Why I (a Hillary supporter) Am Committed to Barack Obama's Candidacy. I highly recommend it for some good coparisons of policy differences between Obama and McCain.

And I would encourage my other fellow Clinton supporters to add to this conversation. As some of the more fervent Obama supporters despair about Obama's turn toward the center or whether he's as progressive as they'd imagined, someone (or many someones) need to pick up the slack to keep up the enthusaism for Obama. If they won't do it, we should. He might not have been our first choice, but second choice is still better than last choice.]

[Cross-posted at DailyKos]