Represent

Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) for Commerce Secretary?

And you thought all New Hampshire had to offer was a broken man in the mountain.

And no sales tax.

An Exhortation

I would assume that regardless of who you voted for, it is hard not to bask in the historical significance of Tuesday's election. It is good and right and necessary to acknowledge and celebrate what this means for us, as a country and as individuals. I feel that we have somewhat redeemed ourselves in eyes of the world, but more importantly, we can once again believe in our collective conscience. Our country needed this. Our history needed this. Our souls needed this.

I would also assume that it is not enough to just have a black president, but rather, we need a successful black president. And I believe Obama earned this, winning not because (or in spite of the fact) he is black, but because people believe in his vision, leadership and character. I am proud and relieved to know that we, as a nation, were able to rise to the occasion and make history.


I am certain, however, despite the proclamations of the media, that this does not mean that America has been born anew, cleansed from its legacy of racism. We have indeed dawned a new day, but we cannot forget the dark yesterdays and the ugly tomorrows to come. Because they will come. The two pronged attack of racism, the individual coupled with the systemic, is fierce, and even with an African-American in the White House, you can bet that racism will continue to plague our neighborhoods, our work places, our schools and even our homes. We must not rest, believing that the history and present reality of injustice has been rendered obsolete by an electoral map. There is still work to be done.

But for now, I am more than happy to raise a glass to Obama, to celebrate this moment and to look with promise to the future. I know that my hopes cannot be pinned to any president, this one or the next, but it sure helps to have one who stirs my soul.

It's Not Just Me

A Conservative for Obama
My party has slipped its moorings. It’s time for a true pragmatist to lead the country.

Leading Off By Wick Allison, Editor In Chief

THE MORE I LISTEN TO AND READ ABOUT “the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate,” the more I like him. Barack Obama strikes a chord with me like no political figure since Ronald Reagan. To explain why, I need to explain why I am a conservative and what it means to me.

In 1964, at the age of 16, I organized the Dallas County Youth for Goldwater. My senior thesis at the University of Texas was on the conservative intellectual revival in America. Twenty years later, I was invited by William F. Buckley Jr. to join the board of National Review. I later became its publisher.

Conservatism to me is less a political philosophy than a stance, a recognition of the fallibility of man and of man’s institutions. Conservatives respect the past not for its antiquity but because it represents, as G.K. Chesterton said, the democracy of the dead; it gives the benefit of the doubt to customs and laws tried and tested in the crucible of time. Conservatives are skeptical of abstract theories and utopian schemes, doubtful that government is wiser than its citizens, and always ready to test any political program against actual results.

Liberalism always seemed to me to be a system of “oughts.” We ought to do this or that because it’s the right thing to do, regardless of whether it works or not. It is a doctrine based on intentions, not results, on feeling good rather than doing good.

But today it is so-called conservatives who are cemented to political programs when they clearly don’t work. The Bush tax cuts—a solution for which there was no real problem and which he refused to end even when the nation went to war—led to huge deficit spending and a $3 trillion growth in the federal debt. Facing this, John McCain pumps his “conservative” credentials by proposing even bigger tax cuts. Meanwhile, a movement that once fought for limited government has presided over the greatest growth of government in our history. That is not conservatism; it is profligacy using conservatism as a mask.

Today it is conservatives, not liberals, who talk with alarming bellicosity about making the world “safe for democracy.” It is John McCain who says America’s job is to “defeat evil,” a theological expansion of the nation’s mission that would make George Washington cough out his wooden teeth.

This kind of conservatism, which is not conservative at all, has produced financial mismanagement, the waste of human lives, the loss of moral authority, and the wreckage of our economy that McCain now threatens to make worse.

Barack Obama is not my ideal candidate for president. (In fact, I made the maximum donation to John McCain during the primaries, when there was still hope he might come to his senses.) But I now see that Obama is almost the ideal candidate for this moment in American history. I disagree with him on many issues. But those don’t matter as much as what Obama offers, which is a deeply conservative view of the world. Nobody can read Obama’s books (which, it is worth noting, he wrote himself) or listen to him speak without realizing that this is a thoughtful, pragmatic, and prudent man. It gives me comfort just to think that after eight years of George W. Bush we will have a president who has actually read the Federalist Papers.

Most important, Obama will be a realist. I doubt he will taunt Russia, as McCain has, at the very moment when our national interest requires it as an ally. The crucial distinction in my mind is that, unlike John McCain, I am convinced he will not impulsively take us into another war unless American national interests are directly threatened.

“Every great cause,” Eric Hoffer wrote, “begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.” As a cause, conservatism may be dead. But as a stance, as a way of making judgments in a complex and difficult world, I believe it is very much alive in the instincts and predispositions of a liberal named Barack Obama.

From D Magazine

TimesMachine

I was subscribing to The New York Times in the fall of 2001 as part of a class requirement. So you can imagine that on September 12, I eagerly retrieved my copy of the newspaper and cherished it ever since. After all, this was history and I had it in print from one of the most, if not the most, esteemed newspapers in the country. It was surreal. There's something about a real, ink-stained newspaper that can't ever be replaced: the feel, the smell, the black fingers. I read most of my news online now, but I wish I had more memories of getting "All the News That Was Fit to Print" in... well... print. I came across this new feature from The New York Times, and looking at the headlines evokes in me that same surreal feeling. These are the headlines that have measured the pulse of our world.

TimesMachine allows you to explore the archives of The New York Times from September 18, 1851 (the very first issue of The New-York Daily Times) to December 30, 1922. You must be a home delivery subscriber to have access to each and every issue; however, anyone can have a look at some sample pages from major events in history.

Front Row Seat

To be honest, I don't know that I've ever given too much thought to major party conventions. After all, aren't they just a lot of pomp and circumstance--grand galas disguised as conferences to officially confirm what everyone has already known and accepted for months? Well, I may be changing my tune after reading what I'm sure will be a witty and insightful look at the goings on of these highly regarded events.

A politics professor and ordained minister, the Reverend Doctor Dale Kuehne has never quite been able to fit into any predetermined box, which is precisely what makes him so refreshing. He has been a friend, pastor and mentor to me over the past 5 years or so as I have attempted to navigate the murky waters of faith and politics. Ever thought provoking, he is a serious thinker who doesn't take himself too seriously, and so, I am delighted to introduce him here via his blog as he recounts firsthand the play-by-play of the DNC and RNC.

I'm sure this is a front row seat you won't want to give up.

Denver's Disappearing Act

Next month, when (or if) you tune in to watch the Democratic National Convention, you need not worry about seeing a potentially "offensive" side of Denver. Nay, Denver has plans to clear downtown streets of homeless people, an effort motivated by supposed security concerns. The Colorado Coalition for the Homeless plans to hand out free tickets and arrange transportation to the movies, the Denver Zoo and the Denver Museum of Nature and Science, among other cultural facilities. Day shelters will have expanded hours and big-screen TVs are being donated so the homeless can watch the convention without being harassed. Those who favor the plan have maintained that it is a more humane way to attend to people, while others believe it is just a cover for sprucing up the city.

Now, perhaps all is not as it appears to be, and we all know what the media can do to a well-intentioned plan, but seriously? Appearances count, and let me tell you Denver/DNC, you're not looking so good. If it's true that this effort is motivated by a desire to treat the homeless humanely and provide them with options, then it is guileful. Apparently, it is only important to provide options when you're bathing in the national media spotlight. If, on the other hand, this effort is truly motivated by a need to sweep the streets of anything that wouldn't make grandma proud, then government is missing the point.

It is the role of government (of any party) to be for the people, ALL people. And this isn't just what I think--this is what the politicians (and the Constitution) tell us! So I find it ironic that at any convention, and especially at the DNC, there would be a felt need to present a facade. What's the point?

Remember what Lady Liberty tells us? "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" Sorry Ms. Liberty, they'll be at the movies.

The 'F' Words

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. It's all over the news and I only bring it up here to perhaps provoke some thoughts on government intervention (I know, I must be crazy). On NPR this morning, Adam Davidson could not emphasize enough how big a deal this is. He said that years from now, PhD students will be writing dissertations on what is happening at this moment. Today, Ben Bernanke and Henry Paulson will be testifying before Congress to present their case for government action in helping to prevent a fallout of the two mortgage giants.

Those who say yea: Freddie and Fannie have managed to stave off government regulation for years, but it is widely believed that if they were to collapse, it would be disastrous for the economy: housing will continue to slump, foreclosures will rise and the general economy will be thus affected.

Those who say nay: There is a general feeling of wariness in moving toward a reliance on government to bail companies out from any and all risky situations. If government takes the risk out of risky endeavors, then what happens to responsibility?

So, what do you say? Yea or nay?

Random Resources

Here are a few interesting websites I've happened upon.

eNature.com | An online field guide to over 5,500 species of everything from seashells to birds to wildflowers.

Earth911 | Wondering where to dispose of an old cell phone or fluorescent bulbs? Input your disposable and zip code here to find out the recycling or re-use location near you.

The Daily Dish by Andrew Sullivan | For your political amusement and/or bemusement...

Supercook | Input ingredient, get recipe.

World Ark | The magazine produced by Heifer International. I've received this publication at home for a few months now, and I'm impressed by its in-depth approach to various and complex issues.

Food for Thought

By Alfred Lubrano | The Philadelphia Inquirer

9:04 AM CDT, May 19, 2008

PHILADELPHIA - Some of the fattest people in America are among the poorest.

And with food prices rising, the problem is likely to get worse.

Tianna Gaines, who describes herself as impoverished and obese, knows this. At 5-foot-3 and 242 pounds, she lives on public assistance and eats junk food because it's cheap and more readily available in her neighborhood than carrots and apples.

Besides, said Gaines, 28, and a mother of three, "I don't have the money for Bally's fitness clubs. And I can't run here. They shoot you."

More poor people may suffer Gaines' fate, with the U.S. Department of Agriculture predicting food prices will be up 4.5 percent throughout the year, due to high fuel costs, weather problems, and the growing diversion of corn crops to make ethanol. Globally, prices will rise nearly 50 percent, according to the president's Council of Economic Advisers.

"The food crisis will make obesity and attendant diabetes even more rampant," said University of Washington epidemiologist Adam Drewnowski. "Fruits, vegetables and fish are becoming luxury goods completely out of reach of many people. Consumption of cheap food will only grow.

"Obesity is the toxic consequence of a failing economy."

While more people from every economic background are becoming obese around the world, the poor are still outpacing the better-off.

A recent U.S. Department of Health and Human Services study found that women in poverty were roughly 50 percent more likely to be obese than those with higher socioeconomic status.

In U.S. households making less than $15,000 a year, 31 percent of the women are obese, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In households with more than $50,000 annually, 17 percent are obese.

University of Pennsylvania epidemiologist Shiriki Kumanyika and other investigators found that poor 15-to-17-year-olds — black or white, male or female — were 50 percent more likely to carry excessive poundage than non-poor teens.

And a study by Drewnowski last year showed that obesity rates in poor Seattle neighborhoods were 600 percent greater than in rich areas.

Poor people frequently live in "food deserts" — neighborhoods with few supermarkets. They rely on corner stores and convenience marts for groceries, said Carey Morgan, director of the Greater Philadelphia Coalition Against Hunger.

These are great places to buy chips and soda, not so good for asparagus.

Concentrating on filling their stomachs, poor, hungry people go for high-fat, high-sugar foods. "They're not thinking about health — just getting through the day," said Mariana Chilton, a hunger expert at the Drexel University School of Public Health, and principal investigator for the Philadelphia GROW Project, which deals with nutrition and physical development among poor children.

Derek Felton, a community organizer with the Coalition Against Hunger and a former poor, obese person, agreed.

"I was the oldest of seven, with a lifetime of no breakfasts to eat," said Felton, who is 5-foot-9 and went from 247 pounds to 185. "When we had the chance to eat, we ate white bread to feel full."

All that corner-store processed food is relatively inexpensive — artificially so. Researchers say that many junk foods contain high-fructose corn syrup, made from government-subsidized corn crops. Federal help keeps the cost of syrup-containing foods such as sodas, fries and even burgers down. Drewnowski said that healthful, unsubsidized foods like spinach cost five times more per calorie to produce, thus driving up the price.

Food stamps are supposed to help. But Chilton's research shows that the allotments families in Philadelphia receive are not accounting for higher food prices.

As a result, families often run out of food stamps by the second or third week of the month, Chilton said.

The hunger can be excruciating, said Gaines, who lets her three children under age 4 eat whatever food is left after the stamps are gone.

It makes her all the more voracious at the beginning of each month, when the new stamps arrive.

"You go without eating, then gorge," Gaines said. "Then you go to sleep with a full stomach. That's how the weight picks up."

It works that way for lots of people. And with the current food inflation, even cheap foods are getting more expensive.

"What choices can poor people afford now?" asked Stella Volpe, a nutritionist at the University of Pennsylvania's School of Nursing. "Will their diets get even worse, and will hard times contribute to more obesity?"

Interventions to improve the eating habits of the poor in Philadelphia have "failed miserably," according to Terri Lipman, a colleague of Volpe's at the nursing school.

"We've told kids to eat fruit and walk," she said. But fruits are scarce and walking in poor neighborhoods can be dangerous, Lipman added.

Current school programs, like dance aerobics, are making some inroads toward health, she said. And Students Run Philly Style, which teaches poor kids to run in supervised settings, is creating good results, said Heather McDanel, director of the National Nursing Centers Consortium project, which works with Students Run.

"BMIs are down and kids' self-esteem is up," she said.

Still, experts say that if food prices continue to explode, even the better-off will seek more fast-food meals.

"Bad, cheap foods may become an even greater cultural mainstay," Volpe said, "with the middle class going for less expensive food. And becoming more obese."

from chicagotribune.com

Amen

Taking a Whack Against Comcast

The only thing more I could ask for is an accompanying YouTube video.

Codes or Common Sense?

Within the past few months, two female passengers aboard Southwest flights have been asked to "cover up" because their provocative clothing was inappropriate and potentially offensive to some passengers. Setara Qassim, 21, was asked to wrap a blanket around herself for the flight in order to hide her halter-style dress. She complained that if Southwest wants its passengers to dress in a certain manner, then they should publish a dress code. Southwest airline spokesman, Chris Mainz, said, "We don't have a dress code. We rely on our employees to use common sense, good judgment and good taste" (Associated Press).

And so they should! Are we really so wayward as to need a dress code to fly? The last thing we need when flying is another set of restrictions and regulations. We're already defying common sense when we have to remove our explosive lip balm from our carry-on bags. It's gratifying to know that there are corporations out there who still value common sense, and who are willing to uphold that value at the cost of possibly hurting someone's feelings. I applaud their effort to deal with violators on a case by case basis (a most uncomfortable situation, I'm sure) instead of hiding behind the safety of a blanket policy. And for those who feel humiliated by being reprimanded for their poor judgment? Next time, use common sense.

For further commentary on airborne apparel, click here.

Massclusivity

Saturday afternoons often find Andrew and I enjoying the people and surroundings of our neighborhood. In the past year, we have learned that come 9:00 am on weekend mornings, young families with children and pets have already escaped the house to enjoy the urban, yet neighborly, activity of the Square. I have appreciated the down to earth character of those who inhabit this neighborhood. While it’s definitely not lacking a fashionable style, it’s not exclusively trendy. Think Anthropologie meets lederhosen. A few weekends ago, we were relaxing on a bench and I couldn’t help but notice a very stylish mom hanging out with her son. She had a great dress on and I kept wondering where she purchased it and how much she paid. I finally asked her, braced to hear about some chic boutique, forever out of my price range. The answer? Target. “Yeah,” she said, “they have great designers who create lines exclusively for the store. You have to check often, because things get snatched up pretty quickly.”

Yesterday, I heard on NPR that Vera Wang is coming out with a line, Very Vera, for Kohl’s stores. Ahhh yes, the Democratization of Fashion. In 2000, Target brought in its first design partner, Mossimo Giannulli, followed by Liz Lange in 2002 and Isaac Mizrahi in 2003. A year or two ago, Wal-mart adopted the same approach to attracting more fashion conscious shoppers, but without as much success. And now Kohl’s. According to one fashion blog I read, “In recent years, a slew of high-end designers have worked with lower-end firms to offer "designer" products at low prices. This trend came to be termed "massclusivity"--the idea being that a lower ticket price would make high fashion available to the masses.” But is it possible that by bringing high-end designs to the public, the high-end designers are diminishing their own distinctiveness? Is it not precisely exclusivity that contributes to a product’s prestige and demand? And are we, the masses, truly experiencing the high-end luxury that these designers are bringing to our discount stores? Don’t get me wrong. I’m happy to pay $35 for a dress instead of $150. But something has to give, and something does. I recently bought an Isaac Mizrahi dress from Target. Style and fit? Great. Price? Great. Quality and fabric? Questionable. These clothes are not the stuff of the rich and famous. Nor should they be. For the sake of fashion and design, Cate Blanchett should not (and will never) show up at the Oscars with a Mossimo dress from Target.

Bottom line: Massclusivity will not grant me the opportunity to adorn myself with the luxurious fabrics and unique patterns of high-end designers. That’s what makes high-end designers high-end. And if they ceased to be high-end, where would Charlize Theron shop? But massclusivity will give me the opportunity to find unique designs by talented designers for a very reasonable price. Sure, I may need to replace some buttons and trim some loose threads, but hey, you get what you pay for.

Baby At

In case you were craving some interesting news...

BEIJING (Reuters) - A Chinese couple tried to name their baby "@," claiming the character used in e-mail addresses echoed their love for the child, an official trying to whip the national language into line said Thursday.

The unusual name stands out especially in Chinese, which has no alphabet and instead uses tens of thousands of multi-stroke characters to represent words.

"The whole world uses it to write e-mail, and translated into Chinese it means 'love him'," the father explained, according to the deputy chief of the State Language Commission Li Yuming.

While "@" is familiar to Chinese e-mail users, they often use the English word "at" to sound it out -- which with a drawn out "T" sounds something like "ai ta," or "love him," to Mandarin speakers.

Li told a news conference on the state of the language that the name was an extreme example of people's increasingly adventurous approach to Chinese, as commercialization and the Internet break down conventions.

Another couple tried to give their child a name that rendered into English sounds like "King Osrina."

Li did not say if officials accepted the "@" name. But earlier this year the government announced a ban on names using Arabic numerals, foreign languages and symbols that do not belong to Chinese minority languages.

Sixty million Chinese faced the problem that their names use ancient characters so obscure that computers cannot recognize them and even fluent speakers were left scratching their heads, said Li, according to a transcript of the briefing on the government Web site (www.gov.cn).

One of them was the former Premier Zhu Rongji, whose name had a rare "rong" character that gave newspaper editors headaches.