Vox Publica

I was just watching one of those old-testament movies I so enjoyed as a child and which probably helped cement my faith back then. And I was wondering, why is "God" so insecure that he needs to have people worship Him and only Him, so much so that He tries to "buy" people to do so by promising eternal happiness and so on (you know, that stuff he hasn't been able to deliver on earth so far) and threaten them with eternal doom if they don't obey? I mean, if he is God the Father, what kind of bad parenting skills are those?

Nope, having a gazillon blogs wasn't enough. I had to create another one. The Human Rights Blog (www.humanrightsblog.org will be about, well, human rights. News, actions, announcements but also my own and uncensored views about just what's wrong on the world. Check it out (though you may want to wait a couple of days until there is some content).

Salon's Andrew Leonard writes on his blog of how the take over of the American ports by a UAE state-owned company came to be. Apparently there has been a lot of consolidation in the unsexy world of port opprations, and who runs a port is ultimately not that big a deal.

Perhaps, but it's interesting that the UAE company has such strong ties to the Bush Family, and had previously bought the company ran by current Treasury Secretary John Snow.

How the World Works

I'm not a Christian - at least not one of the God-believing variety - but if I was one, I think I'd be a quaker. Their commitment to peace and non-violence is admirable - but perhaps not unusual, the Jains, after all, won't harm a bug - but it's their active commitment to social justice, to putting their believes into action, which makes me respect them so much.

Quakers believe in equality among human beings, and have done so since they were founded in the 17th century. That belief led them to be deeply involved in the struggle to abolish slavery -including the running of the underground railroad which helped escaped slaves find freedom. In WWI they founded the American Friends Committee to allow Quakers to help ameliorate the miseries of a war, mostly by helping refugees. Since then AFC has become a force for peace and justice worldwide and has been awarded the Nobel Prize.

As a human rights activist, I run into Quakers everywhere. Indeed, like Tom Fox, they go where other activists fear to tread. Their courage and commitment awes me - but also inspires me, not just in my work but to be a better person altogether.

I just read the ballot information for Prop. 82, which would institute voluntary universal preschool for 4 year olds in California by taxing the very rich (those who make over $400K per person). My initial feeling was to vote for this measure - I remember signing the petition to put it on the ballot some months ago. And given that research shows that a good quality preschool can make a big difference in the life of underprivileged children, why wouldn't one support it? Specially, when it's not I but the richest Californians who will have to pay for it.

But after reading the details of the measure, I can't imagine voting for it. The measure is supposed to take in about 2 billion dollars a year. That money would be spent to build preschools, for teacher training and on teachers’ salaries (it's expected that preschool teachers would be compensated an average of $76K a year, or $70 an hour - and they say teachers are underpaid!). Currently, 62% of 4 year olds go to preschool or a preschool-like facility - it's expected that if the measure passes this number would rice to 80%, a meager 18% increase. It seems that spending 2 billion dollars a year to put 99,000 additional kids in preschool is excessive. This amounts to over $20K per kid - about $16K more than it would cost to send the child to an equivalent private preschool. I know the money is "free" in that it'd be the rich who will be taxed, but it seems to me that if we're going to tax them, the money could be put to better use for K-12 education. I don't understand why don't we just offer tuition assistance to low-income families who can't otherwise send their kids to preschool - it would cost 1/4 as much and it wouldn't mean creating another bureaucracy.

There are other problems with the proposition. Teachers would be that well paid because they'd be required to have college degrees and to eventually be credentialed on early childhood education. But there would only be 1 teacher and 1 aid per 20 students, or a 1 to 10 ratio. All the education in the world cannot make up for individual attention. Even at my daughter's cheap private preschool the ratio of teachers to students is 1 to 6 or 8.

Moreover, the assumption is that at most 10% of parents would keep their children in private preschools after the public preschools appear. It makes sense, why pay for tuition when you can send your kids to these schools for free? This mean that there will be a lot of unemployed preschool teachers. As most of them do not have the education and credentials required by the measure, they won't be able to be employed at the new preschools. My daughters have had some wonderful teachers at their school and I really do not want to see them - or women like them - be tossed out on the street without a job.

But a more troubling issue is that these schools will only provide 3 hours of preschool curriculum a day for 189 days a year. That's less than many private preschools provide now, so kids will actually end up spending less time in preschool than before.

Another problem is that under this measure the state would set the curriculum. There is a lot of controversy as to what's the best way to educate preschoolers. Montessori has many advocates as do play-based curriculum. I've looked for long-term comparative studies and I can't find anyone which says what is better. The state will arbitrarily choose one and parents will be stuck with it. Unfortunately, parents will probably also lose the option of sending their kids to a private school and paying for it, as the mass migration to public school will probably force many private preschools to close.

Finally, I just hate the idea of creating another huge bureaucracy. California K-12 schools are a miserable failure as it is. Why should we trust the state to do a better job with preschools?

On a last note, one of the arguments made in favor of prop 82 in the ballot guide really bothered me. This is the argument that we should fund universal preschool because it will get kids ready to learn how to read. But if learning how to read is the problem - then what we should do is actually invest money on Kindergarden, as that's when kids actually learn. Right now kindergarden classes here in San Leandro have 1 teacher for 20 students. Why not put some of this money on paying for 1 teacher aid for each kindergarden class? What's the point of giving kids good preschool education if we're going to shortchange them as soon as they get to grammar school?

I still support the idea of universal preschool, but I really think this is not the way to go. So I'm voting "no on 82"

Marga’s Election Choices

I’m not going to be in San Leandro during the upcoming elections, so I’ve had to make up my mind and vote a little bit early. The following are the candidates I’ve voted for and the reasons why I've chosen them. Note that these are my personal choices and that Mike may vote differently.

Governor: Barbara Becnel

I don’t think either of the two main candidates would be optimal choices for California, and they are both running negative campaigns that have turned me off. Looking at the other choices, Becnel seems to have the most progressive agenda, and she seems to understand the importance of reforming the justice system in California.

Lieutenant Governor: Jackie Speier

I have reservations about some of the bills she has sponsored (for example one limiting the sale of cold medicines and another mandating that released sex offenders have a GPS devise at all times), but she’s been a leader on the issue of prison reform which I think is one of the most important issues for California. I hope she’ll continue working on that.

Secretary of State: Debra Bowen

She has a strong record on privacy issues, has embraced technology but is very skeptical of electronic voting, recognizing that the potential for fraud and abuse are quite large.

Controller: Joe Dunn

He stood up to Enron and the National Guard spying on protesters. This is probably a hold position on his way to a governor’s race, and he’d probably make a better candidate than the 2 we have now. Plus he seems to be less pro-business than Chiang.

Attorney General: Jerry Brown

He’s predictably unpredictable, and as a matter of course I don’t want prosecutors, with their biased view of their criminal justice system, in office.

Insurance Commissioner: John Kraft

He’s not Bustamante

US Senator: Colleen Fernald

Feinstein should really change parties, as she’s a Republican at heart and in deed. There is no chance someone will unseat her, but I’m not voting for her. Colleen Fernald listed her job as “Mother” which I like.

Representative: Stark

OK, so he’s running unopposed but he’s great

State Senator: Ellen Corbett

I’ve met with both Klehs and Corbett (Dutra is another guy who is in the wrong party), and I liked both of them. I’d be happy with either of them in the Assembly and I’m worried that they will split the liberal vote and Dutra will end up winning. But of the two I’m ultimately going with Corbett. She’s a woman - and we need more women in government -, she is a mother - which means she is personally invested in the future of the state - and she is local (I’ve run into her at the Farmer’s market and seen her at civic events, plus her headquarters are here in San Leandro). Most importantly, early polls showed she was ahead and in this particular race, where the objective is for Dutra to lose, I’d probably back whoever had the greatest chance of winning.

18th Assembly District: Mary Hayashi

I talked to both candidates and was impressed by Mary’s enthusiasm and desire to go and make a difference. She’s an advocate for mental health, so clearly that’s where her priorities are, but it’s also clear that she’s not going to the Assembly just to warm a seat or add something to her resume. She also seems like a very intelligent woman, and I think she’s someone I could work with, or at least lobby, on civil liberties issues in California.

More info on my talk with her here

County Central Committee Members: Everyone BUT Robin Torello

You get to chose 6 out of 7 candidates. Robin Torello is 1)an incumbent and 2)didn’t submit any info to smartvoter.org

Judge Office No. 21: Dennis Hayashi

He seems to be among the most liberal, has experience on civil rights, has Barbara Lee’s endorsement and he went to Hastings ☺

State Superintendent of Public Instruction: Sarah Knopp

I like to vote 3rd party when I can, and Sarah Knopp is a Green running on a very progressive platform. I don’t agree with all of it - I think vouchers may be a good idea - but it’d be nice to see some new, energetic blood dealing with these issues.

County Superintendent of Schools: John Bernard

I like his emphasis on Juvenile Hall education, for which the county is responsible, and on multicultural education (that’s what his PhD is on). Plus his opponent endorses Prop 82, which I have already determined is a very bad idea - and she got a $60K raise. There were questions about John Bernard allowing the teaching of creationism in the schools, but after talking to him I trust that the his views were misrepresented, see here

Member board of education trustee: Esther Holcomb

Her opponent is too chummy with the county superintendent and it does seem he’d rubber stamp whatever she wanted to do.

Supervisor 3rd District: Alice Lai-Bitker

Nardine didn’t offer more than platitudes on her website, Sheila Young’s platform of economic development and neighborhood revitalization seems hollow given San Leandro’s lack on both regards, and Jim Price hasn’t convince me he’s not just ranting.

Treasurer: Donald R. White

Couldn’t find any info on his opponent.

Treasurer: Write In

I don’t like to vote for people who run unopposed (Stark, above, is the exception) so I’ll be writing in somebody’s name.

Member, State Board of Equalization 1st District: Write In

Assessor: Write In

Auditor: Write In

District Attorney: Write In

Sheriff: Write In

Mayor: Marcene Nardine

I’ve talked to OB Badger (see here) but I haven’t talked to Santos, the two major mayoral candidates. For what I’ve been able to find out both of them are pretty much the same. They both have the backing of the Sentinels (the political arm of the Chamber of Commerce) and they are both part of the old-boy network. Badger is black, and it’d be nice to have a black mayor in San Leandro, but he’s received almost $50,000 on contributions to his campaign and that means he owes a lot of political favors. Santos seems more responsive to his district’s needs, but he’s been on city council for over 20 years and I’d like to see new blood (particularly minority blood) in there. I examined their recent voting record, and they both seem to vote the same way on most issues. As I haven’t made up my mind, I’m voting for Nardine hoping that there will be a run-off in November and I’ll have more time to decided on one candidate.

Council, District 1: Michael Gregory

I had a very long talk with Gregory (here) and he impressed me as being intelligent, analytical, a critical thinker and having the commitment and motivation to improve the running of the city and life in San Leandro.

Council, District 3: Diana Souza

I’ve also talked to her (here) and she gave me the impression of being intelligent and committed to San Leandro (i.e. not just there to fill the seat). Polvorosa, her major opponent, said at the mayoral candidates forum he was running just because his friends asked him to, not a good reason in my view. Plus he’s also part of the old-boys network which needs to be broken in San Leandro.

Council, District 5: Write In

‘Cause Bill Stephens is running unopposed

Measures:

81. Public Library Bond: Yes

I think libraries are the centers of many communities in California, and they need to be supported and improved.

82. Preschool Education: No

I support universal preschool education, but I think this bill does it the wrong way. It’s too expensive, it creates a new bureaucracy, it will allow the state to set curriculi and will likely do away with choice in preschool education. For a more detailed analysis see here

I - Increases Business License fee in San Leandro: Yes

Even the Chamber agrees that our business license fee is too low. It will still be too low after this measure passes, significantly lower than in neighboring cities, but it’s a start and our city really needs the money.

I was thinking about the Moussaoui case a short while ago, while discussing the issue of the Guantanamo Bay prisoners with some friends. The US government, in prosecuting Moussaoui, claimed that he knew about the plans for 9/11 and, had he told them about them, they would have been able to prevent it. What I was wondering is if anyone in the Justice Department, the American intelligence forces or anywhere in government, actually believes that claim.

Do we have a government that is plain evil or plain incompetent?

The best evidence that Moussaoui did not know about 9/11 is that it happened. I'm pretty sure that the one lesson they teach you in Terrorism 101 is that if a plan you've made has been compromised, then you should not carry on that plan. If they arrest someone who knew about the plan, you have to assume the plan was compromised. No matter how much you trust the person or how much you like them (and really, would anyone have even trusted Moussaoui?), you have to assume that they will be tortured or otherwise "pressured" and that they will sing. So you change your plans, or at least you postpone them.

Now, you'd expect the administration and the justice department to both know that this is basic operating procedure for any organization of any kind conducting secret operations, and to trust that al-Qaeda members would be intelligent and organized enough to follow procedure. If they don't know this, then we might as well give up on this so-called War on Terror, we just are not going to win.

If they do know that, and their whole point on going after Moussaoui was, as it's safe to suspect, a clumsy attempt at propaganda - then perhaps we should start thinking that our government is filled with people who really have no respect not only for democratic ideals, but for the American people in general. Ok, OK, this is what many of us have thought for a long time. But there is always the voice of doubt (in my case, my husband) standing up and shouting "it's incompetence, not evil" - but just how incompetent can a government be?

My husband's political opponent on his race for School Board (School Board!), a solid Republican until a few days ago, has now turned coats and joined the Democratic party. Of course, he realizes that in a city with a strong Democratic majority, his relationship with the Republican party is unlikely to win him any votes. So, in the name of political expediency, he switches parties.

That, in itself, amuses me. It's an act of desperation that I predicted would happen. It's a pity, because even though I know the man is only running to give another School Board member a hold over the Board, he seemed like a nice guy. He may not realize just how unethical his behavior is - just like he didn't seem to realize that telling me how attractive he finds women to be, was inappropriate if not outright sexist.

But for some reason I am bothered by the fact that his campaign manager has allowed him (encouraged him?) to perform such an obvious trick. Forget how laughable and counterproductive it's likely to be for his candidate (a turncoat Republican surely sounds worse than a registered Republican), just how unethical is this? Of course, one expects campaign managers to be somewhat unethical, but to that extent? I'm frankly disgusted. OK, maybe not too disgusted, as I expected it, but sad that this is playing out just like I thought.

My next thought is that they're going to start playing dirty, a negative campaign. We'll see - but mark my words. They have nothing going for them (as the candidate has no interest in the school system) so mudslinging makes sense. Of course, that's what won Ellen the election :)

One of Camila's favorite dolls has long blond hair in a braid, eyes that open and close. It has a soft body, but a plastic head, hands and shoes. It's pretty nice all in all. We bought it at the dollar store for, you guessed it, one dollar.

I can't but wonder at the person or persons who made this doll. How little must they be paid, if after the cost of materials, transportation, and several levels of profit, they can sell the doll for only $1. Was it made by a child who doesn't even have her own doll? Was it made by a woman who must work countless hours to make ends meet? Whatever the answer, I'm sure it's not pretty. And yet I bought the doll.

By now, we all know or should know the great evils that have come from the diamond industry: endless wars in Africa, slavery, the use of child soldiers (and the atrocities they've been made to commit), and so on. I think it's apparent to anyone with any kind of moral sense, that buying diamonds is just wrong.

But it's not just diamonds that must be avoided, the following article from AP shows how in the mining of gold, even children as young as 4 years old are put to work. And this is dangerous work. Mercury is used to mine gold, it attracts it like a magnet, "but it also attacks the brain and can cause tremors, speech impediments, retardation, kidney damage and blindness." The article goes on to describe many more of the evils committed on these children. And to ascertain that if you buy gold of any kind, it's likely to be at the expense of those children.

Now, if you think silver is the answer, think again. Much of that silver is also mined by children in just as hazardous conditions - not to speak of the environmental damage that gold and silver mining causes. If you have the time, I recommend you watch The Devil's Miner, an amazing documentary about a young miner boy in Potosi, Bolivia. His father died, he's left to support his mother and sister, and he has no choice but to work in the mines. He knows he will die early, he dreams of studying instead. And I hope that the documentary saved his life.

And all for our own frivolity!

I know that this will not convince anyone to give up buying jewelry. Kids far away of other races and colors are too hypothetical, too removed, gold is shiny. And I'm not a big jewelery buyer myself - but did get a couple of pieces last year. No more.

in addition to voting for Morgan Mack-Rose for the San Leandro School Board at large seat, you should vote for Hermy Almonte for the District 1 seat. Hermy is a father of two, one of his children just graduated from San Leandro High School and the other is still there. He's been very involved in the schools, serving in their United Parents organization, the English Learners Advisory Committee and the School Council. His opponent, just like the guy running against Morgan, has taken a policy of rubberstamping the decisions of the Superintendent - even when these have led to severe conflicts with teachers and parents

So please, vote for Morgan and Hermy Almonte.

I'm crying, or at least tearing up. I, who almost didn't vote for Obama (because of the FISA bill - California is a "safe" democratic state, so I considered voting for Nader). But I'm crying because, not to be corny, I finally have faith, hope, that America is a country I could be proud of. A country that has finally been able to transcend race, where the possibilities might finally exists for *anyone* (perhaps even a 10-year old Muslim boy somewhere in the Midwest) to one day become President.

Given the incredibly nasty, fear mongering, disgusting campaign that McCain (and Palin, let's not forget her) ran - it wasn't clear to me that that was possible. And still, almost 50% of the country voted for a ticket that represented that fear and that hate. But the majority didn't - which tell me that we are finally moving in the right direction.

I'm also thrilled that so many young people put so much of themselves into the Obama campaign. Young people tend to be idealistic (and Obama really presented hope) and active - so perhaps there shouldn't be much of a surprise. But what matters is that these young people represent a new generation of Americans that may very well be color blind. Today we cherish the fact that a black man could become president of the US. Perhaps 20 or 30 years from now, we won't think anything of it. Our kids won't understand what the big deal was.

It was easy for me, ultimately and despite Obama's vote on the FISA bill, to vote for Obama. No, I haven't read his books and I haven't listened to many of his speeches - but what I've heard made me think that Obama was one of us. A generation of people who received a liberal education (in the actual sense of the word) in massive numbers, and who share a core set of principles: a belief on liberty (again, despite the FISA bill), on equality, on the fraternity of man. Yes, those beliefs that inspired the American constitution and the French revolution. The beliefs and ideals on which this country was founded and that once made it lead the world, not by force, but by example. Who knows? Perhaps I'm optimistic. Perhaps I'm thinking of a liberal elite, from my safe haven in the Bay Area. I wish to think that my generation will change America.

Locally, I am just as ecstatic that the three candidates I supported for local office also won. I had no doubt that Morgan Mack-Rose would win. All in all, she was the perfect candidate, but also a safe candidate: a college educated mom, PTA president, with an in-depth knowledge of both education and the shortcomings of our school district. But I wondered if Ursula Reed, our black candidate, could beat Linda Perry, a white woman and native of San Leandro who has been involved in local politics forever. San Leandro, after all, was until the '70's, an enclave of white racism. Blacks and other minorities were not allowed to live in town (see The Suburban Wall, a TV magazine segment about San Leandro), and were hassled by police when they crossed the border from Oakland. We've had two black city council members before, but they had to be appointed. This is the first time that a black political novice wins an election - and she did it without the support of the political establishment.

I'm equally happy - and amazed - that Hermy Almonte won a seat in the School Board, against a well known white incumbent. Hermy is a Filipino immigrant, with an accent as thick as mine. Even though San Leandro has a population that is at least 25% foreign-born, I really doubted that a person of color that wasn't born here could get the support of the electorate. I was wrong - and I'm thrilled that I was wrong. Not just because Hermy is going to be a great School Board member - he's smart, thoughtful and actually cares about improving education in San Leandro (imagine that), but because I was wrong on my assumptions. San Leandro has changed, it is now a much more inclusive city. I can be proud not only to be an American, but a San Leandran.

I just read an interesting opinion piece (by UCLA professor Saree Makdisi) on what's behind Israel's attack on Gaza - in which 6,000 civilians were killed or injured, a third of them children. According to Makdisi:

Clearly, the aim of the bombardment of Gaza wasn’t to extirpate this population. But it was intended to pound them, and all other Palestinians, into submission, to make them give up their call for self-determination and justice. It was intended to extirpate them in a symbolic sense -- a kind of politicide, to use the term coined by the Israeli sociologist Baruch Kimmerling.

Like it or not, Israel is doomed. Palestinian Muslims - both within and outside Israel's borders - reproduce at a much higher rate than Jews (and even Christians). While Arabs now constitute less than 20% of Israel's population, their higher birth rate means that they will become a majority in Israel between 2035 and 2048. Israel has failed to integrate its Palestinian citizens into the political and social life of the country and in many ways treats them as de facto second class citizens. That's not surprising, given that Israel defines itself as a Jewish state, but it's dangerous, because by further marginalizing its Palestinian population, it encourages it to self-identify more and more strongly with their repressed brethren in Gaza and Palestine.

If we assume that Israelis are not stupid (and I think there is no reason to assume that they are), then it has to be apparent to them that the real danger to the Israeli state is its growing Arab Muslim population and not the antics of Hamas. While, according to Israeli figures, about 35 people were killed in terrorist attacks in 2008 - only 4 or 5 of them died from Hamas' mortars before the Israelis attacked Gaza. Only a handful more were injured. In other words, Israelis have more to fear from dog bites and lightning strikes than they do from Hamas rockets. So why go to war, and risk more Israelis dying, for the possibility of saving 5 lives a year?

Well, I think the only logical reason is that they want to intimidate the Palestinian population - both within and outside Israel - into submission. Really, this is not so different from the tactics used by the Argentinian junta and other repressive regimes throughout the world: take a few terrorist attacks as an excuse to terrorize the whole population. "First we'll kill all the subversives. Then we'll kill the collaborators. Then the sympathizers. Then the undecided. Finally, we'll kill the indifferent" said a a high-ranking Argentine military man during the "dirty war". Israel has taken the same tactic - only that it's killing them all at once.

What the Israeli government is doing, is showing that it'd have no reservations about committing crimes against humanity if that, in any way whatsoever, behooves it. And that it will do so with complete impunity. Finally, it's showing that the United States will stand by it, no matter how grave and disproportionate its actions are. Yes, it's saying, Israel can do anything, including committing genocide (because that's the silent threat which comes with killing & injuring hundreds of Palestinian civilians), without the world, and in particular the United States, batting an eye. And if they don't bat it for the Palestinian population outside Israel's borders, why would it care about the Palestinian population within its borders? It's easy enough for the government to invent some threat from them to justify any repression - and nobody will care. So let them heed this message.

Apparently Mormons are now up on arms because the HBO series "Big Love" (about a Mormon polygamist family living in SLC) will depict one of their "sacred" ceremonies in its next episode (read about it here - the Church statement is here). It's hard to feel bad about their sensibilities. The Mormon Church is one the most intolerant institutions in the world. Until recently, they did not accept blacks into the Church - saying literally

'No person having the least particle of Negro blood can hold the Priesthood' (Brigham Young). It does not matter if they are one-sixth Negro or one-hundred and sixth, the curse of no Priesthood is the same.

In the Mormon Church, all men are considered priests - so there is no such a thing for a man as being Mormon without holding the priesthood. Only in the 1970's, when the IRS threatened to deny them their tax-free status, did the Mormon church start accepting blacks as members.

The Church has also shown its desire to meddle with the private lives and religious beliefs of others by, on the one hand, baptizing as Mormons people who have died (including the Jewish victims of the holocaust), and on the other putting tons of money into Proposition 8 - the California initiative that banned gay marriage. They want to literally get in your bed to judge whom you should sleep with - but they don't want their rites exposed to the world. Well, too bad.

The rites, real or imagined, of the Catholic religion have been the object of movies and TV programs for ages. As far as I know, Catholics have not protested about this specific aspect. But then again, Catholics, unlike Mormons, are pretty open about the tenets of their faith. I've spent quite a lot of time talking to Mormons who tried to convert me - and never once did they mention their belief that if men (never women) were pious and good enough, they would become gods and be given their own planets to rule over. No wonder they don't want people to know about this. In that they remind me of Scientologists, with their wacky beliefs on Xenu (BTW, you can vote for Xenu to be the name of the new International Space Station’s Node 3 at http://www.nasa.gov/externalflash/name_ISS/)

I was reading the letters, in response to Alex Koppelman's commentary on the Stewart-Cramer interview. For those living under a rock, Jon Stewart, the host of Comedy Central's The Daily Show, accused CNBC's - a cable financial news network - of knowingly deceiving the public about the nature of the "bubble". Cramer, one of the hosts, took offense to that, going after Stewart on all sorts of programs - and Stewart kept getting the best of him. For some unexplainable reason, Cramer agreed to go on the Daily Show for an interview with Stewart, and Stewart massacred him once again. What can I say? He's a very intelligent man, who does his homework and seems to have his heart in the right place.

But I am not interested in writing about the interview here - I'm sure the blogosphere is overflowing of postings about that interview - but about the "bubble". Now, if you know me, you know that I'm completely ignorant about finance. I don't have two-cents to my name, so I've never had to think about how to invest money. I also don't have cable, so before the Daily Show bit I'd never even heard of that Cramer guy. Hey, I'm not sure if I'd heard about CNBC.

But what I did hear, somewhere circa 2002 or 2003, was that the Fed (aka Greenspan) had decided to respond to the bursting of the internet bubble, with such low interest rates as to create a housing bubble. That bubble, of course, could not be sustainable and would burst bringing down the economy with it. That opinion piece appeared in the Wall Street Journal - and I'm pretty sure that I was not the only person to read it and remember it throughout in the last 5-7 years. I mention this because one of the letter writers mentioned above, as well as many other commentators, have said over and over that the nobody knew we were in a bubble - which clearly is crap. People may not have wanted to believe we were in a bubble - but they knew.

A few minutes ago, I went hunting for that WSJ article - given that I have no idea when it was published, it is not an easy task. But while looking for it, I came across this 2005 article at the website of the Cato Institute, titled "No Housing Bubble Trouble". That someone at that institution would argue that point is not surprising - after all, these are the people who scammed us all (well, at least those of you who own(ed) something). But what is interesting is that the article is responding to the "economic pessimists" who warn that "the 'housing bubble' [is] about to burst, with a supposedly devastating impact on household wealth." Among those pessimist the author mentions Ed Leamer of University of California-Los Angeles and Stephen Roach of Morgan Stanley. The author also takes to task the July 2, 2002, Wall Street Journal editorial (perhaps the one I read) which worried that "homebuyers are resorting to greater levels of mortgage debt". Hmmm.

Another google hit took me to this 2005 Los Angeles Times article titled "It's Not a Bubble Until It Bursts", which basically says that both economists and regular people knew there was a housing bubble, they just didn't know when it'd burst, so the idea was to get in the game and make money until then.

So, I'm sorry, I don't believe for a second that the best minds in finance in this country did not realize we were in a housing bubble. Now, they may have not known in the intricacies of derivatives and what-have-you, but they knew that our economy was resting on feet of mud - and that everything would come down once the housing bubble burst, and that, of course, it would burst.

Raúl Alfonsín died a few hours ago. The day when he became President of Argentina, December 10th, 1983, was also the day in which, very much coincidently, I left Argentina for good. I was fourteen.

My memories of Alfonsín are inexact, colored by memory, distance and age. I remember his hand gesture, present in all his posters, his happy face. My family backed De la Rúa in the primaries, my opinion was of course, colored by that. I'm glad, however, that Alfonsin won.

I think he was a good man. I think he did mean to bring truth and justice to Argentina. Perhaps he wasn't as strong a President or a man as was needed for that. Or perhaps he was too ambitious. But in all, I think he did the right thing. I mourn his death.

Every few days I get a letter from a person (usually a man, though sometimes a woman) telling me about the human rights violations they are experiencing. Sometimes is the government broadcasting thoughts into their minds, where they'd installed a microchip, sometimes it's being poisoned, sometimes it's being persecuted by government officials. There are many other variations, stories that don't even make internal sense. I also get them on the mail, sometimes from foreign countries. My friend Thierry, an Argentine psychologists, explained to me that in their reality, what they are experiencing are clear human rights violations and the logical place to go to is a human rights organization. I expect groups like Amnesty and Human Rights Watch get these complaints by the thousands.

Once in a great while, the story I get is plausible, and then I treat it seriously. Otherwise, I just delete or archive the letters, knowing that there is nothing I could say that would help the situation. Indeed, some of these people are aware of their mental problems, having been in and out of hospitals for years.

What I hadn't considered until recently, is that these individuals could pose a danger, to me, perhaps, or to others. The letter of the gunman who killed 13 peple in Binghamton a couple of days ago, sounds very much like the e-mails and letters I get.

I have to admit that I have never given too much thought to the issue of mental illness and forced treatment. My instincts go against it but... a some quick online research shows that there seems to be a relationship between schizophrenia and violence, and the deeper the psychosis, the greater likelihood of violence. And if you think about it, it makes sense, if you are being persecuted, at some point you need to defend yourself. And to the point that psychosis makes you irritable, it'll make you more likely to react badly to others. But a mere potential of violence should not be a reason to incarcerate or hospitalize someone. But...

Shouldn't a person who suffers of psychosis at least be given the opportunity to make a rational decision about whether to medicate themselves? And can they possibly make that decision if they are not medicated?

Below, there is the letter from the gunman, and a letter I've received.

We saw this briefcase, which look like the kind that pilots use to carry documents, just sitting around in the airport near one of the luggage carousels. There was nobody around it, and it indeed went unclaimed for the half an hour or so we were there. Meanwhile dozens of people, including airport personnel, walked by it. Everybody ignored it, nobody reported it. Why not?

Well, in our case because we did not think for a minute that the briefcase would contain a bomb, but feared that if we reported it, the airport security people would over-react, treat it as a national emergency and shut down the airport. Not really what we are looking for after a long flight at 10 PM at night.

As far as airport security goes (and the same can be said about national security) this is a classic "the boy that cried wolf" problem. Airport security is based on paranoia, but people who are not mentally ill can only be paranoid for so long. After a while all the false alarms add up into a general disbelief on actual danger - or at least a disbelief that something can be done to prevent that danger. Anyone who has half a brain knows that we are not appreciatively safer by taking off our shoes, putting our liquids in 3-oz containers and not taking clippers as we go through security. Assuming that terrorists are not stupid - and the fact that we assume they are speaks volumes about our views of foreigners -, they can figure out a way to make it through the well known airport security masures, if they chose to cause another air disaster. The measures that exists do nothing but inconvenience regular travelers. And we don't want to be inconvenienced any more. Thus the lack of interest in reporting unaccompanied luggage.

For us, not reporting it was clearly the right decision. We felt sorry for the pilot that lost his briefcase, but knew that at that point he wouldn't get it back anyway. In Paris, years ago, we saw a piece of unaccompanied luggage blown up. At least they didn't close the airport to do it.

Today's New York Times reports that the Bush administration was considering the use of the US military in US soil against suspected Al Qaida operatives.

I'm always surprised of how little attention has been given to the ideological framework behind the Bush presidency, and in particular to its theoretical and practical similarities with the so-called "Doctrine of national security". The latter was taught at the US Army's School of the Americas in Panama throughout the 60's and 70's, and formed the theoretical underpinnings behind the military dictatorships in the Latin American region. It's a relatively complex doctrine which includes the concept that those seen as enemies by the military (the true guardians of the state), which include those who support, sympathize or are even indifferent to the named enemy, are not protected by the rule of law, and can and should be eliminated. The doctrine calls for the use of the military to fight "terrorism" (by any means necessary) within national borders. The doctrine also calls for the tacit derogation of all human and constitutional rights, and the use of forced disappearances (AKA renditions), torture and extra-judicial executions.

For anyone who grew up under a military dictatorship in America, it's impossible to not see the parallels between those governments and the Bush administration.

School starts tomorrow in San Leandro (why it starts on a /Wednesday/ rather than a Monday is beyond me), so I just went to check on what class my daughter will be. There are several second grade classes every year.

Well, the lists are not up and won't be up until 6 PM tonight! That, of course, means that parents that are busy or work at night won't be able to check them until tomorrow - you can imagine dozens if not hundreds of parents crowding themselves in front of the school door, trying to figure out where to take their kids.

But why aren't the lists posted today? They are at other San Leandro elementary schools. Are the staff or principal Cher Mott that incompetent? After all, they had the whole summer to figure out which kid will be assigned to which class.

What I wonder, though, is whether they just don't want to let parents know to what class their children will be ahead of time, that way they save themselves the aggravation of having parents complain about the misplacement of their child. For example, I've heard of advanced going-into-second grade students, assigned to 1st/2nd grade combined class, for perhaps dubious (racial? political?) reasons.

In any case, not having the lists posted by the beginning of the day is ridiculous.

which is just f****d up.

I just got a call from a friend who moved a block away from a San Leandro school. Today, the day before school starts, they called her and told her that there was no room for her son in that school and that he had to go to another one. Of course, the school district does not offer any transportation for the kid, and the parents don't have the necessary transportation. But, according to the receptionist at the school, "that's not my problem".

Again, they had the whole summer to figure out attendance to the schools. There is no reason whatsoever that they have to wait until the last possible minute to tell the parents that they cannot accommodate their child, not allowing the parents to even start to figure something out. In this economy, parents cannot afford to be missing work because the San Leandro School District cannot get its shit together.

And of course, the problem starts at the top, with the incompetent Superintendent and the (old) Board that extended her contract.

Anyway, it's interesting that I've only talked to three people today. Of those, both had problems with the school district. The third is a home schooler.

newcampus@sanleandro.k12.ca.us.

I believe that we should name the 9th grade campus after Fred Korematsu, one of the very few true heroes that San Leandro has. Korematsu was a patriotic Japanese-American who volunteered to fight with the Navy during WWII but was turned down for health reasons. In 1942 the US government decided to intern all people of Japanese decent in its own concentration camps - lest they provide help to the Japanese. Interestingly they didn't have the same concerns about citizens of Italian or German extraction.

Fred Korematsu refused to give up on his constitutional rights and heed the internment order - instead he went into hiding but was eventually arrested in San Leandro. He was tried and convicted. He appealed his conviction but the Supreme Court, in 1944, in one of its most shameful decisions since Plessy v. Ferguson, ruled that military necessity justified the detention of Japanese Americans. Korematsu did not give up, however, and in the 80's he was finally vindicated in court. Through his life, he continued fighting for civil rights and against discrimination. You can read more about him in his wikipedia article.

Personally, I believe that there is no higher courage than to stand for your rights and beliefs in the face of oppression. It's so much easier to give in to fear and rationalize your cowardice - something that I've done plenty of times myself. Korematsu, however, did what was right and I'm proud that he lived in our city. I cannot imagine a better name for a new school here. Let's teach the new generations that true courage and true patriotism are best shown by dissent.

If you share these feelings, please e-mail the San Leandro School Board.

1. Stop all executions. Our government should not use death as a
punishment.

2. Provide health care to everyone. Access to health care is a fundamental human right. We sent people to the moon more than 40 years ago. We can figure out to do this.

3. Restore habeas corpus. No country, especially the U.S., should
engage in the practice of forced disappearances.

4. Overhaul copyright laws to restore some common sense to our legal
system. Listen to Lawrence Lessig.

5. Stop annoying travelers with ineffective regulations that make us
nearly as angry at Homeland Security as the people who try to attack
planes.

6. Get rid of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." If gay people want to protect
our country, we should let them.

7. Legalize marijuana. The criminalization of marijuana use is
wasting money in our courts and prisons. It's also killing thousands
in Mexico.

8. Stop treating corporations like citizens. Corporations can't vote
in elections and shouldn't be permitted to influence them with money.

9. Treat climate change seriously. Sure there are skeptics and there
will always be, but we can take actions now that future generations
will be grateful for.

10. Spend less money on the military and more on research and
development that will benefit all of humanity.

As anyone who knows me knows, I'm a die-heart atheist. I was *very* religious as a child (I grew up as a Methodist, but my faith was actually based on the biblical stories I read), but eventually I realized that I could not be a thinking person and have blind faith at the same time. When I started questioning my faith, I could not reconcile the fact that it was too much of a coincidence that I would have been born to the one "true" religion. Had I been born in Saudi Arabia, I would be a Muslim, had it been India, I would have been a Hindu, and if those religions were not "true", what was to say that Christianity was? Then there was the factor of the Old Testament. For years, I had been very interested in ancient civilizations, to the point that I had decided to become an archaeologist when I "grew up". Ironically, that interest have been sparked by my reading of the Old Testament. But when I started reading on Sumerian and Akkadian civilizations, I could not but notice that many of their creation myths were *very* similar to those of the Bible. Abraham, the founder of the Jewish faith, had himself come from Ur, a Mesopotamian city. It made sense that he had brought those creation stories with him, and that that's how they made their way to the Bible. BUT, the myths were similar, but not identical. Given that Sumerian civilization preceded Jewish civilization, Sumerian myths were older and therefore had to be closer to the "truth". And yet, when I read them I was reading them as myths and not as "history" - the way I was reading the Bible. This was only a problem because I had always taken the Bible literally, believed not just in the essence of the "message" but in the accuracy of its historical accounts. As I delved more into ancient history, it became clearer and clearer than the biblical accounts were inconsistent with archaeological and historical evidence and were, therefore, false. So the seeds of doubt were there.

During my freshman year in college, I was first exposed and first learned about the "scientific method", at the same time than I was learning about evolution. The scientific method made absolutely sense to me - in particular the very simple and elemental notion that a theory needed to have evidence to back it up. What was the evidence that there was a god? Human life? But that could be and to me was convincingly accounted by the theory of evolution.

Richard Dawkins is considered nowadays one of the biggest atheist thinkers because of his book The God Delusion, but in reality his seminal work was one of his first, The Selfish Gene. This book explains evolutionary theory so well, so clearly and concisely that it's impossible for any thinking person to not take it seriously.

I read the Selfish Gene in my Anthropology 1 class my freshman year in college. The class was taught by Vincent Sarich, one of the discoverers of the molecular clock. Vince (as I came to call him) was, at the time, the most intelligent man I had ever met and among the most inquisitive. He was also a terrific teacher and a man not unwilling to challenge PC notions and let science guide him where it did. Twenty two years after that Anthro class in Berkeley, I can still say he was one of the two most important influences in my life (the other one is probably my friend and co-worker Gregorio Dionis, the architect of the criminal procedures in Spain against Pinochet, and the other most intelligent man I've ever met). Vince did not only introduce me to the scientific method and the theory of evolution by natural selection (which is really the crux of the theory), but he also introduced me to the concept of parsimony, the concept that the simplest explanation, the one that would take the least steps, was the most likely to be true. That also made a lot of sense to me. Even if I needed to postulate a god as the ultimate creator of the universe, the question was, how did god came into being? I ended up at the same place, not knowing, so I might as well reject the concept for which there was no evidence, god.

So I did, and by the end of my freshman year in college, I'd become an atheist. I haven't looked back since.

For many years, I found people's belief in God to be quaint and perhaps necessary for their emotional health. It's hard to give up on the idea that we are alone, purposeless, and that when we die, we die. And as Marx said, "religion is the opium of the masses". But in recent years, I've become offended by the notion of the Christian god. Offended because that god, said by Christians to be omnipotent, would be, if real, so cruel and even "evil", that, in my mind, worshiping him, much less wanting to be like him, is in itself an evil act. This is a god, after all, who stands by while he sees babies being raped to deathby some crazy notion that sex with them will cure AIDS (a disease, btw, that has not only disseminated African populations, but has left millions of orphans who now live in squalor and hunger). A god that allows genocides to be committed, torture to go on, children to be turned into drug-mad soldiers, millions to die of hunger and disease. And yes, a god that sent (or at least allowed) a devastating earthquake to one of the poorest and most miserable countries in the world. Why would a god do that?

If you talk to christians, they will tell you that people do horrible things because god gives them a "choice" (but what choice do those babies have to be raped?). That doesn't explain earthquakes, however. It doesn't explain why children, little children who have not had a chance to live, and therefore sin, need to die through painful deaths. It doesn't explain why millions of children worldwide are not given a chance to be loved and fed, why they are turned into monsters or killing machines.

How could a god that cruel invite worshiping? How could anyone worship that god and keep their integrity?

A big deal was made during the last presidential campaign about Obama's tenuous connection to a former member of the terrorist organization "Weather Undergound". William Ayers, the man in question, is now a professor of education at the University of Illinois-Chicago and he served in some education board with Obama. He also contributed to his campaign. Somehow this suggested to the Republicans that Obama was a friend of terrorists, purportedly unfit for the presidency.

You would then think, that there should have been more Republican uproar at Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's visit to Uruguay, to attend the presidential inauguration of José Mujica. Mujica was an important Tupamaro leader during the early 70's, spent 14 years in prison, and then pursued a less violent political career. The Tupamaros were the main "revolutionary" group in Uruguay, responsible for a number of kidnappings and killings.

As if that was not enough, Hillary continued on to Buenos Aires, where she met with Argentine president Cristina Fernández, herself a former Montonera. The Montoneros were Argentina's main subversive organization during the 1970's. And if that wasn't enough, Hillary went on to Chile, where she met with former Frente Patriótico Manuel Rodríguez member and current Chilean President Michelle Bachelet.

Hmmm. Perhaps being associated with a former "terrorist" is not a big deal outside of a campaign.

I was thinking about Juana Azurduy today - the lyrics of Mercedes Sosa's song often run through my mind. And as compelling (or catchy) as the song lyrics are, Juana's story is even more so. She was a mestizo woman from the Alto Perú (currently Bolivia) region of the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata (currently Argentina). She rebelled against being a nun, was committed to the ideals of popular rights and freedom, and married a like-minded man. Together, they raised an army and battled the Spaniards using guerrilla-like tactics. She continued fighting even after her husband was killed in battle and she was injured, she through pregnancies and births - for over fifteen years. She received the official title of Lieutenant Colonel and later was named commander of the Northern Army. At one point she had over 6,000 troops under her command - waging a guerrilla style war against the Spaniards.

Her end was like that of other revolutionary heroes - not exile this time, but being set aside and left to die in poverty. She was only rescued from the pages of history a hundred years later, I'm not sure to what degree by Mercedes Sosa's beautiful song. Today, of course, she is recognized along the other heroes of the independence war in Argentina and Bolivia.

I learned Juana's story and song when I was in elementary school in Argentina. The song really stuck with me, even thirty years later I remember many of the lyrics (press on "continue reading" below for the lyrics in English and Spanish). Part of me is surprised that I actually learned the story and song in school, given that our military government couldn't have been too fond of any vindication of guerrilla warfare or anything associated with Mercedes Sosa. Still, the Argentine military did venerate all things martial, and specially those associated with the revolutionary war (after all, that has been the only war the Argentine military has fought /and/ won - if we don't count the Conquest of the Desert, whereas the Argentine military conquered Patagonia by exterminating most of the Mapuche population) - so I guess they figured they might at least throw the girls a bone and tell them about Juana.

And Juana's story is one that I want to tell my daughters. It's one that inspires me and one that I imagine has inspired many other revolutionary women in Argentina. I want my little girls growing up knowing that women, as much as men, were responsible for the social changes that brought us freedoms and rights (which is also why I will tell them about Eva Perón, even though I was raised a radical and still cannot shake my bone set antipathy against her :-), and that it will be up to them to continue the struggle for rights and freedoms.

As I was thinking about Juana, it occurred to me that I couldn't think of one female hero of the American revolution. The only one Mike could come up with was Betsy Ross (the woman who sew the first American flag). There must be other, more real ones - but they seem to be lost in darkness. And I wonder if having Betsy Ross as the "woman" of the American revolution does not do more harm than good - does it imply that the only way women can help revolutionary movements is through domestic pursuits? Do we only have men to thank for the freedoms and rights we enjoy in America? At least in Europe you have women throwing salons and contributing to the spreading of the enlightment, on which not only the French Revolution but the independent movements in all of the Americas are based. And you have women /directly/ participating in the war efforts in WWI and WWII (including in the French and Italian resistance movements - I'll write about one such woman later). But where are the revolutionary women in America?

I'm not sure what is the chicken and what is the egg, but this led me to think about just how terribly sexist American society is. And I mean sexism in the sense of people believing that women are actually intellectually and/or ethically inferior to men - not /different/, I think women and men are different, but ultimately less. It's not the sort of thing that you can pinpoint easily, but if you lived in other countries, you'd know what I'm talking about. For example, why is it that twice as many girls in the Arab world chose to become engineers as in America? Why is the idea of having a female president still so revolutionary in the US, when there have been women presidents in South Asia, Europe and Latin America for decades? But even those are just symptoms - what I'm talking about is something much more ethereal, something that you can actually feel and that my daughters will have to grow up to counter.

Below is the video of Sosa singing and the the words of the Juana Azurduy song, my free translation in English and the real ones.

It really bothers me that Google has decided that I must speak English, so all the search results I get, at least for the few pages, when I search for phrases that are likely to have more abundant Spanish-language results, are in English. Clemente Rodríguez is a player with my home team, Estudiantes de La Plata. You know that the information about him in Spanish must be many times greater than that in English - but just try searching for his name, all that appears is in English. Note that I've never set up my google account to be "English only" or anything of the sort.

I wonder how much information I'm not finding through Google due to this stupid bias towards English-language stuff. Lord, I wish there was a better search engine out there!