Surf's Up!

Obama bet his fantastically successful candidacy on his ability to remain unmoored from what makes us so uncomfortable— America’s racial history, and more specifically, America’s relationship to its descendants of African slaves. As of his March 19th speech on race relations, that freely floating candidacy has been securely anchored right where he did not want it to be.

Obama told CNN’s Anderson Cooper, “In some ways, this controversy has actually shaken me up a little bit and gotten me back into remembering that the odds of me getting elected have always been lower than those of some of the other conventional candidates.”

Reminded him? Please. If he ever forgot, he certainly hasn’t the smarts to lead this country out of its current morass— and he has. He did not forget. He wanted us to forget… when it was convenient for his campaign. When he could gin up black support by accusing Clinton surrogates of racism, he remembered. Let’s face it, the man has done a brilliant job of playing both ends against the middle. Now, however, the jig is up. With the Jeremiah Wright controversy and the ensuing speech (which was far less an act of political bravery than political necessity, intelligently and elegantly handled), he’s acknowledged his ties to Afro-American culture and the distasteful light it shines on American history. He has attached himself to everything he once told America he would let them forget (Pardon me… transcend). We will not look at him the same way again.

Kevin Drum wrote:

“I think Obama’s fervent hope is that his speech pretty much closes the issue of race in this campaign. It just flatly doesn’t help him in any way to keep it on the front burner. Like NAFTA, which dropped off the radar after Ohio, I expect that after a couple of days Obama will also drop the subject of race if he possibly can. We’ll know by next week.”

No doubt that is his hope. But his aura has shifted. He has associated himself with that which, frankly, the majority of Americans don’t want to discuss, have a dialog about, confront or do the work to overcome. He has associated himself with some of the ugliest aspects of this nation’s past, things from which we’ve averted our eyes throughout most of our history. We have no desire to stop now. And henceforth, when we look at Obama, we can easily see some aspect of it.

When he first announced his candidacy, I assumed he was going to follow a successful model. I assumed he wanted to inure America to his black face and his adoption of Afro-American culture. This first run, I assumed, would allow all the poisons that lurked in the mud to hatch out. It would allow him to confront racial/cultural issues and race-based attacks. Doing so, he would make enemies, and he would lose, but the process would elevate his standing and stature. He would then spend the next four or eight years as a leader in various national and international fields, prepped to win in 2012 or 2016.

The model is Hillary Clinton’s. During her husband’s first campaign, she attacked gender issues head-on (artlessly, grant you). She talked about “standing by her man” and baking cookies, and got attacked from all sides. She made clear that she would not play the passive role assigned to her. For that pronouncement, she made enemies, most of whom still hate her with a psychotic passion. That dirty work done, however, she set about building a reputation based on the non-traditional role she had assumed. She won herself a senate seat, burnished a reputation as a hard worker, and got closer than any other woman could to becoming the Democratic presidential nominee.

I don’t know if it was Obama’s bi-racial background or his knowledge of his genetic freedom from the historic chains of Afro-American culture, but he seemed to believe he could avoid confronting “race” head-on, and thus make no enemies. He was wrong. Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo reports that “The co-founder of Laura Ingraham’s radio show, who now helps run Hugh Hewitt’s ‘Salem Radio Network,’ has mixed an Obama video interweaving Obama with Malcolm X, the Black Power salute at the Mexico City Olympics and Public Enemy’s ‘Fight the Power’.”

Yes. Obama’s aura has shifted, and this is how the game is played when you’re clothed in basic American black.

There’s an apocryphal story involving opera singers, including two black divas, sitting backstage. One of the black women reads a review. She grows agitated. “The black diva, the black diva… why is it always the black diva,” she roars and storms from the room. The others sit in silent discomfort.

“Someone had to tell her,” says the remaining black diva.

From the eyes of a teacher

I sat down with a friend of mine today who graduated from Northeastern University in Boston, MA last week, and we talked for a while about her take on the educational system in the United States. Although majoring in Theater Arts, Ashley Ghannad received a minor in elementary education and her certification, and plans to be an elementary school teacher as her next step.

Following, I have written up some of what she contributed to the conversation, as it taught me a lot about education from the teaching perspective. She also commented on being a graduating senior, entering into the job force while the economy is in its present state.



Before I can go into what she had to say, I should give a brief description of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) since she talks about it. For all of you who may not know what it is, NCLB
is a controversial United States Federal Law that reauthorized a number of federal programs aiming to improve the performance of U.S. primary and secondary schools by increasing the standards of accountability for states, school districts, and schools. It hinges on the idea of inclusive classrooms, meaning students with all levels of learning abilities in the same classroom, who require a myriad of different teaching modalities to learn.

NCLB is the latest federal legislation, which enacts the theories of standards-based education reform, formerly known as outcome-based education, which is based on the belief that high expectations and setting of goals will result in success for all students - no matter their learning level. The Act requires states to develop assessments in basic skills to be given to all students in certain grades, if those states are to receive federal funding for schools. NCLB does not assert a national achievement standard.

The effectiveness and desirability of NCLB's measures are highly controversial and constantly debated. A primary criticism asserts that NCLB could reduce effective instruction and student learning because it may cause states to lower achievement goals and motivate teachers to "teach to the test." A primary supportive claim asserts that systematic testing provides data that sheds light on which schools are not teaching basic skills effectively, so that interventions can be made to reduce the achievement gap for disadvantaged and disabled students.



With all that said, let's get into what Ashley, shown to the right, had to say.

She said that while NCLB is highly effective and a great idea in theory, translating theory into practice makes things more than difficult for a teacher. And thus, NCLB has not been as effective as it was intended to be.

She believes in not separating students - putting all the learning disabled students in one classroom and the regular education students in another - but there needs to be some sort of revision.

"NCLB needs to be looked at...really looked at...and maybe not even thrown away. But something's not working. Something needs to change."

Of the potential future presidents, John McCain voted for NCLB, Hillary Clinton would end NCLB, and Barack Obama would reform it. For more information about the candidates' stances on the issue, click here for a full recap.

But she attributes some of the difficulties to certain issues. They might be separate form NCLB, but they still affect the education system and the next president must take a close look at them.

Funding is a major issue. She talked about the achievement gap, where students who grow up in urban settings already have a certain percentage less chance of graduating that students who grow up in suburban settings, just because of the types of schools they go to and how much funding the school receives.

Some urban schools, she explained, don't have any resources or materials...some don't even have enough desks for their students and 40 kids to a class.

"A construction worker needs tools to build a house," Ghannad said. "Teachers aren't miracle workers. They can't teach effectively without the correct tools."

And when students don't receive any supplemental education - art, music, physical education - she doesn't blame kids for not enjoying their education, especially when so many teachers are teaching to the tests. The students who were born and raised in the United States take the same tests as those who have been in America for one year and struggle with English who take the same tests as those with dyslexia...teachers don't want their students to fail and their schools to lose funding (if a school does not pass a certain quota per year, it can lose funding), so of course the teacher teaches to the test. But sometimes that's not as effective. And not is it only ineffective for certain students, but it also takes away other valuable learning experiences. So not only are kids missing out on all of the "fun" classes, but they're also not learning as much science or social studies because they're not on the first couple of tests, at the youngest level.

"These are our future doctors and presidents, and they're not getting a well-rounded education. They're not fully educated individuals of society, and we're blaming them for not graduating?" she questioned.

Even the money spent on NCLB has not been up to par.


There are also individual education plans, which those who have learning disabilities or are considered special education. Plans are drawn up for these kids and teachers, principals, parents, psychologists, etc. all come up with specific goals and work to achieve those goals. So not only does a teacher then have to be specific to each of these students' needs (and there are probably multiple plans per class), but she needs to speed these students up while at the same time not boring the regular education students or those in between.

"There were so many teachers who could not deal with all the pressures and retired early in the past few years...not to mention some good retirement packages were written up," Ghannad said. "Many old fashioned teachers can't deal with new ideas, you know, education plans, inclusion classes, experiential education, hands-on activities...they couldn't keep up with the pressure of different theories and beliefs so they figured they would just retire early so not to become discouraged."

But Ghannad takes this all as a challenge. As a young teacher, directly out of college, she is excited to jump right into her own class.

"It's going to be challenging," she said, "but I’m really excited to jump in. A year ago I thought about having my own classroom and almost had a heart attack, and it’s only been a year, but now I feel like I’m ready, I’m prepared."

But she hopes the next president can step in and take a look at everything and see that "education is a problem."

"I understand war spending is important, but a good president will be able to juggle everything - both international and our problems - as opposed to Bush who decided to pick one thing (whatever that may be, and he chose war spending and forgot the rest). I'm sure he never had to deal with the achievement gap, growing up in a poor city or anything else facing education these days. He's never tried to empathize. Hopefully the next president will just take a long hard look."

Either way, Ghannad is in it for the long haul.

"I knew the money wouldn’t be great, and that’s okay with me because I think I’ll go to work every day and love what I do despite how frustrating it might be at times."

(p.s. -- hopefully this can count as two posts -- I put not only a lot of time and effort into getting the interview, but I wrote a lot -- 1261 words to be exact, which is enough to cover two blog posts.)

Democratic deadlock looks deadly for Clinton's dream

Yup, that's right folks - for all of you Hillary Clinton supporters, it's looking pretty bleak. But why does the woman refuse to back down? Well there are lots of reasons, the biggest being personal: it would mean accepting the fact she will not achieve her dream...well, at least not this year. And the dream of becoming the first female president in the United States is not a small one, nor is it an easy one to achieve. She was well on her way. After Super Tuesday, it looked even brighter for her. But in the past few months, it has come crumbling down before her eyes. But like I said before...for this year, at least.

The following YouTube clip goes more into what should go into the New York senator's decision.

Now, is there a possible joint ticket with Barack Obama as president and Clinton as vice president? In his first interview since the primaries in North Carolina and Indiana just a few days ago, Obama deflected the question. He said it's too early to start thinking about running mates.

"Sen. Clinton has shown herself to be an extraordinary candidate. She's tireless, she's smart, she's capable, and so obviously she'd be on anybody's short list to be a potential vice presidential candidate," he said. "But it would be presumptuous of me at this point ... to somehow suggest that she should be my running mate."

But think of the one two punch that would be - and there has been much talk of this throughout the race. Clinton brings her "experience," and Obama, his "change," but I don't think we can be surprised who came out on top. As green as Obama may be when it comes to being the president of the United States, his promise for change has hit the hearts of voters nationwide.

A Rock the Vote poll shows that where 23 percent of Americans think the country is going in the right direction, 69 percent believe it's going in the wrong track.

Source: Rock the Vote 2008

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Clinton promises to keep things the way they are because she doesn't. But her campaign revolved around the idea that she would be able to hit the ground running from day one (emphasizing her past White House experience, etc.) whereas Obama's entire campaign was grounded on a foundation of change. From day one, he's promised change. And that hasn't changed now that he is almost guaranteed his party's nomination.

"The world wants to see the United States lead. They've been disappointed and disillusioned over the last seven, eight years," he told CNN's Wolf Blitzer in an interview on "The Situation Room."

"I think there is still a sense everywhere I go that if the United States regains its sense of who it is and our values and our ideals, that we will continue to set the tone for a more peaceful and prosperous world."

Linkz and Lolz

Last week saw the continued brow-beating of the American people with Jeremiah Wright overkill. The first 16 minutes of Meet the Press were devoted to it. CNN, FoxNews, and the whole lot continue to replay the YouTube clips. I’ve even seen some ridiculous implications in the more whacked-out portions of the blogsophere that Obama and Wright are co-conspirators in a murder.

As the Democratic primary slogs on, it seems people really can’t get enough of this sensationalism, like all of the real issues have now been exhausted and the entire affair is reduced to a pseudo-meditation on race in America. If that’s what people really want to talk about, why not replay clips of Obama’s speech in March over and over again? Seems a bit more comprehensive than Wright’s sermons.

Frank Rich wrote a brilliant op-ed for the New York Times over the weekend discussing the double-standard in the media on the coverage of Wright/Obama vs. Hagee/McCain.

None of this is to say that two wacky white preachers make a Wright right. It is entirely fair for any voter to weigh Mr. Obama’s long relationship with his pastor in assessing his fitness for office. It is also fair to weigh Mr. Obama’s judgment in handling this personal and political crisis as it has repeatedly boiled over. But whatever that verdict, it is disingenuous to pretend that there isn’t a double standard operating here. If we’re to judge black candidates on their most controversial associates — and how quickly, sternly and completely they disown them — we must judge white politicians by the same yardstick.

Meanwhile, as our country is engaged in multiple fronts of war, all in the name of combating “terror,” a recent MSNBC article discusses the failure of the US government to work with Yemen in retaining many of the suspects in the USS Cole bombing. The suspects have either escaped or been outright freed by the Yemeni government as the US made several unsuccessful attempts at forcing extradition. Two went on to commit suicide attacks in Iraq.

“After we worked day and night to bring justice to the victims and prove that these Qaeda operatives were responsible, we’re back to square one,” said Ali Soufan, a former FBI agent and a lead investigator into the bombing. “Do they have laws over there or not? It’s really frustrating what’s happening.”

Two of the suspects, however, are sitting pretty in Gitmo right now, making me wonder how this diplomatic impasse will serve as further justification for the existence of the American concentration camp in Cuba.

Elsewhere, an article getting a ton of heat on The Huffington Post concerns Clinton’s campaign using the “nuclear option” of using the DNC’s Rules and By-Laws Committee meeting on May 31 to force the seating of Michigan and Florida delegates (quite a nifty piece of headline writing). Looks like this could possibly get uglier. Great.

And just to spice things up a bit, here’s a great Times Online piece discussing the evolution of the music industry and how many smaller acts are giving into branding partnerships with big business to foot the bills.


This isn’t exactly from the weekend, but it’s an encouraging report on the anti-SUV sentiment now rampant in the used car market as a byproduct of rising gas prices.

And lastly, this is just for gits and shiggles. It robbed me of my last scrap of innocence. Nature can be downright bizarre.

"Changing" times call for a specific agenda

Change.

It comes in many forms, and both democratic candidates are asking for it.

If a democratic candidate emerges to beat John McCain in the next few months, we’ll see a lot of change.

Following the amount of attention Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have drawn to themselves, and how little attention has been paid to McCain, the thought of McCain having a legitimate shot at the White House seems far removed from the daily realm of discourse and expectation.

After all the talk that has ensued, and the 21 debates, and the constant news coverage, it seems either Obama or Clinton is necessarily in line to take over the Oval Office.

But behind the usual chatter that seems to take over every conversation, news-talk program and newspaper front page, is a quieter, more ominous and biting topic.

It’s in these dark, underground conversations, that the rooted pessimism emerges and we hear whispers of another superlative for Obama; unelectable.

Hidden away from the news cameras and far from the poster boards calling for change and hope, are the mass e-mails sent out of Obama’s family in farming clothes, asking America, “Is this what you want for our first family?”

It’s the web sites with quotes from Obama, grossly out of context, painting him as a terrorist or, “too black” to run our nation, like this one from Obama, saying, “There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression. And the anthem it self conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all. It should be swapped for something less parochial and less bellicose.”

It’s the Youtube.com videos made by the KKK calling for the ultimate destruction of the African American presidential candidate.

Those discreet, underground whispers say “unelectable” at the surface. But deep down, what they mean is “black.”

Unelectable.

And the conservatives aren’t the only ones who know that word. But in this politically correct world, the news media simply cannot acknowledge the existence of the deep seeded racism that truly exists in this country. If they acknowledge it, they accept it. And for a business run by ratings and advertising, accepting the existence of racism would be fatal.

Sometimes, the racism is characterized as “fanatic,” or something like that, but when we say fanatic, we imply that such a belief is the minority of the beliefs in this nation. Sadly, I think this is a mischaracterization, because racism in this country, still, is not the minority belief. Obama, himself, recognized that in his “race” speech.

Suddenly, it starts to seem like McCain doesn’t have much of a fight ahead of him, although judging by Obama’s performance thus far, it’s obvious he does.
The fight facing Obama, if he wins the nomination, is on par with the any of the greatest civil rights struggles in the past 100 years. Yes, I said a civil rights struggle, even in a society that calls itself accepting and progressive.

Between now and November, onlookers to this election cycle are going to be bombarded with conservative propaganda by a Republican Party determined not to change the past.
Maybe that’s the change Obama is asking for, that he won’t characterize as such, in so many words.

The change Obama asks for, is actually the change he needs. As people, we are inherently resistant to change.

Unfortunately for the rising star candidate, he cannot win unless we do change our views, and cut down those misinformed mass e-mails before they start.
Expect a lot more of this type of behavior before November.

Unfortunately for Obama, my grandparent’s generation is still around, at least for another couple of years, who simply won’t tolerate the change he needs to succeed.
My grandmother, who says Obama is a sleeper cell terrorist, so she’ll vote for McCain, even though she liked Romney more, is a huge obstacle for him.
Change.

It comes in many forms, and both democratic candidates are asking for it.
But maybe they’re not just asking for it for the nation’s sake. Maybe it’s not coincidental that both an African American and a woman made “change” their key platform.

Maybe they did it, because they know that without change, neither of them has a fighting chance. How far our nation would come though, if we could change.

As it stands, there has not been a more qualified candidate to lead our nation, in years than Obama. Now it’s time to see where our nation truly stands on matters of race and justice. After the 1950s and 60s, we have looked upon our racial progression with pride.

If Obama is shut down by the Conservative party, which they are no doubt gearing up to do before November, it should become clear that we have a lot further to go than we thought.

Change isn’t just what Obama wants; it’s what he needs.