Let’s Reminisce: Hurricane Katrina 4 Years Later, and my Experience in New Orleans

While the death of the great Ted Kennedy has left many of us in mourning, and put the state of healthcare and many bipartisan efforts in jeopardy, there is another sad day coming up that needs to be remembered. Today, August 29th, 2009 is the 4 year anniversary of the landfall of Hurricane Katrina, a Category 5 Hurricane that put New Orleans underwater and caused the death of over 1,800 people in Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Ohio, Kentucky and Georgia and caused $89.6 billion in damages. The images of people stranded on rooftops, sleeping the Superdome and being washed away by torrents of debris and corpses is something that should be engrained in the minds of every American. The tragedy of New Orleans was not its natural element (Hurricanes happen on the Gulf Coast every year), but the failure on many levels of response, and the realization that years of political corruption in Louisiana had led to inadequate safety measures and ineffective levee systems.

Here are some brief points about the failures that ensued before Katrina, and their effects coupled with the failure of the Bush White House to quickly respond:

1. The Levee System was inadequate: Partly due to embezzlement and corruption in Louisiana politics and partly due to bad engineering, the Levees were built too shallow. The Army Corps of Engineers suggested a “T-Shape” form for the Levees and that they built on 72 ft support pylons. The Levee board, local to Louisiana prevailed in its cost cutting, and made the Levees in a different design (I Shape), with 24 ft support pylons. The levees were also designed by local construction firms, who won out bids from the local Levee boards. In other words, politics and corruption won over safety and prevention, and the Army Corps of Engineers could do nothing to ensure safe levee construction. The result was not only the cracking and complete destruction of the levees after both the Mississippi and Lake Pontchartrain flooded in, but the inundation of the supports of the Levees, which stood on a foundation of 24 ft, instead of a 72 ft recommended by the Corps of Engineers. The result of this was that some of the levees actually toppled forward from water inundated soil below them, and water seeping below the base.
The Solution: Build better levees, and reform Louisiana politics.

2. Oil Production on the Gulf Coast: Yup…all problems eventually point to sweet, crude. Oil on the Gulf Coast is a huge industry and offers a large supply of our domestic oil. There is no surprise that the first major spike in Gasoline prices at the pump was as a result of Hurricane Katrina and the closing and damaging of oil platforms on the gulf. But, how did oil production create a vulnerable environment and allow for Katrina to be so strong, when it hit landfall? First, Katrina was a powerful storm to begin with. But, that has nothing to do with oil production. But, in order to get the unbelievably large oil carrying tankers into the Gulf, the marshes, floodplains and natural barriers needed to be dredged. But, there is a reason they call them floodplains and barriers. These are nature’s self defense from itself. What I mean to say is: these formations are effective at dissipating the strength, and bearing the brunt of hurricanes, allowing them to slow before they hit landfall. But, without them, you have a clear path to destruction. This is probably why California has passed Zoning laws for areas coded “F” for protected floodplains. If levees on the West Coast near the San Joaquin valley fail, there goes nearly 20% of the nation’s produce. Solution: Put the marshes, floodplains and natural barriers back in and use smaller ships for oil transport.

3. Failure to Respond: The government, under President Bush, failed in both PR and adequate response to the flood. Bush’s ill-fated and ill-chosen head of FEMA, Michael Brown, became the early poster-child for failure, as his resume (picked because of his experience with Arabian Horses) lacked experience and his reaction to the disaster was slow and clumsy. A PR failure of Bush’s was also his “flyover” of the disaster in Air Force One. On the ground in New Orleans National guardsmen were instituting curfews, young men were being shot trying to commit robberies, fires were burning, people were dying, disease was rampant and the ultimate conclusion was that, somehow, the president felt it was necessary not to try to raise spirits as he did after September 11th. The image of Bush standing on the rubble of World Trade Towers vowing to hunt down the “evil doers” was a 4 year old ghost, and all that stood in his place was a lame flyover. Other failures included FEMA’s handling of emergency supplies and its inability to grasp the enormity of the tragedy. People were sleeping in the Superdome, using buckets for toilets and writing prayers and messages of help in their rooftops was FEMA was still trying to plan any kind of recovery action.

While these are the three main failures that allowed for Katrina to be so devastating, there are many more inadequacies that occurred in relation to both government action and local politics that highlighted the ultimate failure to respond.

Next, I want those who read this to try to understand the feeling one gets when they make a difference in someone’s life. But, mostly I want the readers to take away the stories I am about to relate as a motivation towards cherishing the life you have, the people who love you and all that you own. Because, in a single day, as these people experienced, it can be taken away, and that feeling of emptiness, not just from the loss of your livelihood, but from the belief that people have forgotten about you, can be devastating. But, once many of these residents lost everything, they realized how vulnerable life can be, and they began to appreciate any shred of hope, any effort of assistance and every open-mind who would listen to their story. While people may step back and criticize all types of policies, they will not understand the true impact until they have experienced it first-hand.

When I was in my sophomore year at UCLA, I decided to go on a Hillel Alternative Spring Break to New Orleans. Hillel, being the intricate and well-funded institution it is, subsidized most of the cost, and it became my responsibility to cover only $250. This was truly amazing. To be able to help residents of New Orleans and do it on a short expense was something unreal. But, I left for the airport at 3am with a “blank slate” of expectations. I was in Brazil when Hurricane Katrina made landfall, and I had doubted up until my trip to New Orleans one-and-a-half years later, the type of devastation that had taken place. It just wasn’t being reported. It wasn’t breaking news, so I had concluded that progress was being made. C’mon….this is America. Isn’t it?

I arrived by bus through the sweltering humidity to an AmeriCorps camp in quaint Kiln, Mississippi in March, 2007. I arrived with fellow Hillel participants from Kent State, Stanford, Harvard, UCSB, Santa Barbara City College and Delaware. I was very enthusiastic about the trip, because I had just started my minor in Urban and Regional Planning, and New Orleans represented a blank-slate for city planners. It could be, as Greenfield, KS was after a devastating tornado, a new, improved and much more efficient city.

The house I worked on for the majority of the trip was in Saint Bernard Parish, a middle class neighborhood which had seen about 15 ft of water. The first job was to take out all the drywall nails from the house, which had been fumigated and almost gutted. I took an entire 8 hour day with the help of our group to take out many of the drywall nails. Next, I was in charge of destroying all the fuse boxes. I took a hammer and a sledgehammer to every single fuse box in the house, even getting my face on the front cover the Harvard Crimson the following week. My last job at the house was the clear out the attic and the closets of all belongings left when the house was evacuated. This is where I began to realize that my job was not just cleaning out the house to be rebuilt, but it was to preserve the life and story of the family I was helping. As I dug through the closet and the attic, I found mementos and personal objects that told this families’ story. I found a Time Picayune from when we landed on the Moon, and from Kennedy’s assassination. I found a hunting trophy, an 8mm camera and a bunch of checks. I found a folded up American flag and I found a 1960s Porsche in the garage, still intact. I found pictures, diaries, money, wedding certificates, records, fine china, a music box, church clothes, running clothes, hunting clothes and a set of utensils. Most importantly, our group saved everything to be picked up by the family when they returned.

In order to allow us to fully comprehend the damage of Katrina, we took a bus tour through the upper and lower 9th ward, the poorest and hardest hit areas of the city. This is where the pictures of devastation came from in the days after Katrina, and these pictures remained wholly unchanged when I experienced them first-hand. There were houses, half destroyed, with pitched roofs spray painted with the appropriate “X” marking that they had been checked by National Guardsmen. The “X” always had a couple of symbols and numbers, one indicating the State of origin for the National Guard unit the amount of dead found. Where we worked, the number was always 0 or 1. As soon as you entered the lower 9th ward, the numbers rose significantly. I saw a house with “11” on it, meaning 11 people had died in that house. Most of these people had tried to huddle together for shelter and comfort, and their house had been destroyed. I saw a patch of green-space which looked like a park, which was amazing to me. Later I was informed that that area used to be apartments, and all that was left was the green-space and a set of concrete stairs. Images like this were not uncommon. In the days following the tour we were able to look through a house that had not been touched by recovery teams. We walked inside, with respirators on to avoid toxic mold. Furniture and debris lay all over the floor and most of the doors had been knocked off their hinges. There was a dark line just below the rooftop, where the water level had risen to: 10 ft or so. In the corner a case of eerie looking porcelain dolls and a cross lay intact on the wall. Everything else was upended by the flood waters. As I left the house, I looked across the street to see “HELP” written on the rooftop.

Next, I want to relate a couple stories of people we met in St Bernard Parish:

Johnny G - One of the first people we met there was a man we all called Johnny G. Johnny G was a former Navy SEAL, served his country, and decided to go back to New Orleans on a volunteer basis to help with assistance and cleanup. But, the job that he was given by the Navy was something that fit his qualifications as a Navy SEAL, and ended up being one of the worst jobs, in my opinion, anyone would have taken. I applaud, and always have shown reverence to those people who do the jobs that I cannot physically and/or mentally complete. He told us he received a call from the Navy right after Katrina hit landfall, asking to re-enlist temporarily and help out with the rescue and cleanup effort. He decided not to re-enlist, but to take up the job on a volunteer basis. When he got there, he was supplied with supplies that resembled a cross between a HAZMAT suit and a diver’s outfit. His job: He had to dive into the dirty, murky water that covered these homes and look for corpses. His only assistance was the diving suit, to prevent from coming into contact with any hazardous material, and a flashlight. Eventually, he said, they had to create a system for it, because without a system, the job would be way to taxing on the psyche. In his words…”I reached out for something soft.” Johnny G ended up being our coordinator for the house we worked on, and was our enthusiastic supporter throughout the whole trip, even teaching us how to eat crawfish properly.

Federal Judge – Down the street from the house we worked at, a Federal Judge from New Orleans was fixing up his house. He was incredibly delighted to see volunteers working on the houses in his neighborhood, and, one day, decided to relate to us his story after we had finished working. Like grandchildren collecting around their wise grandfather, we crowded around him in front of the house we were working on to listen. His house has been completely flooded up to the 2nd floor. We saw the watermark, and it was about 12-15 ft up. He was able to get many people in his neighborhood into his house for safety as the flood water rose. The power was out, and toilets didn’t work, so they had to use buckets. Eventually rescuers came to their aid and everyone was evacuated. Later, he had to fight the insurance company to even get a percentage of the money owed to him for damage done to his house. The problem during Katrina was that insurance companies decided that a lot of the damage was “wind damage” and was not covered under flood insurance. This was coupled with the fact that many people could not afford, or did not have flood insurance to begin with. But, he was able to get some money to fix his house, the rest which he had to pay for himself. He was nice enough to offer us drinks at his house, after we were done working. We were able to look through his house and see how it was being rebuilt. We thanked him by going to his house when he was at work and rebuilding his fence before he got home. Although it wasn’t completed, he was grateful and offered to helm a BBQ before we left.

A Mother and Her Son – After touring the untouched house, a woman came up to us and asked about what we were doing. When she heard we were a volunteer group rebuilding homes, she immediately began to heap on gratitude and compliments. She told us that her house was destroyed by the flood waters, and that she was living in a FEMA trailer. In order to supplement her income, she was collecting scrap metal from local trash piles and selling it to local utilities. She told us that it was something to keep her busy and it taught her son some responsibility, and got him out of trouble. At the end of her story, she broke down, trying to explain to us the importance of our work. I understood, in retrospect, that she might have lost everything, but in losing everything, she gained a respect for the life she had. The fact that we were giving up our time to help people like her, on a volunteer basis, was a kindness that she appreciated and took personally, which led to this outpouring of emotion.

The Former Electrician – When we were working at the house, a man drove by on one of the days and asked if he could take some of the metal parts and material from the scrap pile. We allowed him to do so, and we even told him we would separate the metal parts so that he could come by every day and pick from what he wanted. We also helped him load in an old air conditioning system to sell for spare parts. His story was that he was an electrician hired by FEMA to work in houses, stripping some of the wiring out. One day he was working in an attack and he came into contact with a corpse that had not been cleared. This was so emotionally devastating to him, that he immediately quit, and was collecting scrap metal for money. He told us that he didn’t have a good education, and wished that someone had told him that education was important. But, he vowed to us that his son, who was a couple years old, would be successful and go to college. He told us that the kid was a genius already.

The Stuck Car - On one of our working days, we heard of a woman down the street who needed help with her car. We sent some people over, and we were able to help her. She then inquired about what we were doing. We told her that we were a Jewish group working in New Orleans to help the local community while on our Spring Break. From what I heard, she got really excited. It turned out that she was a Palestinian, and that her father, who owned property in New Orleans, was a full believer in peace between Israel and the Palestinian authority. It was a inspirational coincidence.

I went to New Orleans a couple of weeks before the holiday of Passover. This had great meaning to me, as the purpose of my trip and the lessons of Passover are intertwined. The value of Passover is to instill the value of sympathy and empathy for those in need. The lesson is that, while you relax and dine during the Passover Seder, you should consider yourself as once Israelites under the yoke of Pharaoh in Egypt. And, like the Israelites, you should consider yourself lucky to have been freed by g-d with “an outstretched arm.” The point is to feel as if this devastation happened to you, as if you were there. This is why Hillel chose New Orleans. In order to understand the plight of those who lost everything in the hurricane, we had to experience it for ourselves, and too feel the same emotions and to see the destruction. After the trip was over, I felt a need to make sure that everyone I knew understood the destruction that I saw there. Like the Passover Seder reminds us, if we do not tell the story of the Exodus every year, or the stories of the survivors of the Holocaust, then it will be forgotten and lost in history. I feel the same way with Katrina. If they hadn’t challenged me, as I challenged my family during the Seder, to not forget what I saw and heard, it would have been lost to me, and it would have been lost to the world.

Now, we look back at New Orleans 4 years later, and I regret to write that it is being forgotten. The death and destruction that resulted from Katrina is only thought about once a year, and then is quickly lost. My message two-and-a-half years ago was that we have to remain firm in our mind that no one forget New Orleans, and we have to make it clear that everyone should know that New Orleans is not anywhere close to full recovery. But, this is lost. President Obama isn’t even visiting New Orleans on the 4th anniversary. It isn't America when we ignore or fail to help our fellow citizens hurt by this storm. When I stepped into New Orleans, I had stepped out of America, and into a situation that I never want to see. This is why I doubted where I was, and why, after describing the conditions, asked my family where they thought I was. But, I remain steadfast in my hope that America will realize that this fault in our judgment that produced such a devastating effect can never be thrown away, and that eventually New Orleans, with some help and ingenuity, will return to the great city it used to be. Until then, we still have a lot of work to do.

The “Lion” of the Senate: What We Can Learn From Ted Kennedy

This morning, at around 2am, Ted Kennedy, last of the original Kennedy Dynasty, died. He was suffering from complications from a malignant brain tumor that was discovered after a stroke in late 2008. He served in the Senate for 47 years, having the ability to reach across the aisle to get some of the most important legislation passed. Even with his exemplary record of service, his career was haunted by his accident in Chappaquiddick and the constant personal attacks by his political opponents. But, at the time of his death, with the outpouring of sentiment comes from both sides of the aisle, we can learn tremendously from Sen. Kennedy’s life and from his work in the Senate.

1. Civil Rights and Education – In 1982, he extended the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and was a contributor to the Voting Civil Rights Act of 1991 which made it easier for minorities to win lawsuits against their employers for employment discrimination. He helped pass the Americans with Disabilities Act and was a contributor in some way to most of the educational reform bills that came out of the Senate in the 1960s. He also championed Maternity Leave and worked with President George W Bush on the No Child Left Behind Act. He was very much a legacy of his brother John, who, in his short tenure as president encouraged public service, volunteerism and educational reform.

2. Healthcare – Kennedy worked alongside Republican Senators in order to pass a healthcare reform bill that ensured Americans the right to buy healthcare, and limited denying claims based on pre-existing conditions. He was able to extend to the disabled the ability to keep Medicare for disabilities, even after they started working. He also championed access to healthcare for children, the elderly, the poor and the disabled.

3. Bipartisan Support – Kennedy’s title as the “lion” of the Senate was something he lived up to. While he was considered the liberal poster-child for attacks by conservatives, he was able to extend his hand and negotiation power to the other side of the aisle. He was able to work with Republican Senators on energy reform, healthcare, educational reform, taxes and the raising of the minimum wage. This section is the most important for today because we have seen recently the type of hindrance that comes from partisan politics. Kennedy, a champion of healthcare reform, was not able to be present in the Healthcare committee he was a part of because of his cancer. While the affect of his presence is all speculation, I believe that he could have been a unifying force. With uncompromising messages coming from the Republican party, and the inability of the President to unite factional sections of the Democrats in the House and Senate, both healthcare and energy reform look like they will fall plague to partisan politics. To make an issue partisan when it has implications that are beyond its political meaning is something that Kennedy tried to do when he reached out to Republicans. This is exemplified in the kind of sentimental outpouring that has come from Republicans like John McCain, Orrin Hatch, Mitch McConnell, Mitt Romney, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Michael Steele, Sarah Palin, George W Bush and Nancy Regan, just to name a few. These comforting messages were not just because his family was so influential, of or that it is courteous to comfort loved ones during loss, but they were more significant. Many of these messages emphasized Kennedy’s ability work alongside his political opponents and put the problems that he thought were most affecting America before his political leanings. This kind of ideal is present in Senators like John McCain who are willing, in his words, “to make concessions” when it comes down to negotiating for what is best for the country.

4. Work in Ireland – His international work made him a respected figure amongst both the Irish and British governments. He was able to use his Irish-Catholic background to negotiate a stable, united government in Northern Ireland that was wracked by civil strife between Protestants and Catholics. He was also able to help leaders of the Irish Republican Army gain some political recognition, when the British government branded them as terrorists. The outpouring of Sentiment from former Prime Minister Tony Blair, current Prime Minister Gordon Brown and leaders in Ireland have shown that his legacy is a lasting one overseas.

All of these examples are just a part of his political career and the difference he made in Congress in his 47 year tenure. The lessons we can learn from Kennedy’s life can be found squarely in his ability to work across the aisle in politics. The issues that have divided our country since Barak Obama was elected are issues of great importance, a majority of which transcend their political meanings. On many conservative blogs, many hateful people have commented that they were in delight in Kennedy’s passing, as he was an impediment to their personal or political beliefs. Ignoring the fact that these messages are blatantly rude and self serving, this kind of polarization with issues that affect all Americans is something that Kennedy worked at preventing. He worked tirelessly to solve the moral, social and political problems of his time with the mind of a progressive reformer first, and a liberal politician second. Hard line Republicans in the Senate, whose only compromise on the Healthcare bill is a resounding “NO” can learn from this mandate. Healthcare, something that Kennedy had championed for most of his tenure in the Senate, is a problem that should be worked on in a bipartisan basis. There have been some progress made with bipartisan groups, like the “gang of six,” but the grassroots protests and the inability to compromise on both sides of the aisle have seriously hurt the progress of healthcare reform. Senators and Representatives need to sit down, and as John McCain had said “make some concessions” for the greater good of American healthcare. That is something that Kennedy would have wanted.

Movie Reviews: Alien Apartheid and Once Upon a Time in Nazi-Occupied France

I am going to stray a little from my usual posts about issues of great importance, and write about movies. I think this is very appropriate because I did see two movies this weekend. I liked one better than the other, but I found both of them to be extremely entertaining, in different ways. One is Neil Blompkamp and Peter Jackson’s District 9 and the other is (highly-anticipated) Quentin Tarantino’s Inglorious Basterds.

I did not include full summaries of the movies, as that might ruin it for people interested in reviews, who haven’t seen the movie.

Part 1: Alien Apartheid: District 9 (SPOILERS)

District 9 is about a group of aliens who mysteriously show up in a giant ship over Johannesburg, South Africa. These Aliens are malnourished, and suffering, and, as the movie shows, the human race takes the humanitarian route and brings them off the ship and into Johannesburg. But, the aliens are eventually mistrusted and harassed. They react to this harassment through petty crimes and general vandalism. Eventually, all 1.8 million aliens are put in a slum area, called District 9. District 9 resembles the slums of Africa or the Favella of Brazil. They have rickety housing, hardly any running water, crime is rampant and the aliens are being exploited by outsiders, primarily Nigerians.

This movie was an entertaining science fiction movie, with something that many science-fiction films lack: character development and a realistic, human side. This was made possible by the documentary-news-like footage in the beginning. The accessibility of this movie comes from its ability to relate to stories and historical legacies we see today. This movie has the basic story line that a character, who is callous and unsympathetic, learns his lesson and develops a new-found appreciation for the “other” because he is forced into their perspective. But, it transcends that foundation and draws the audience in with its relevance to stories that people might see on the news.

The movie is about segregation, and the treatment of the “other.” It appeals to the generation that protested against the oppression of African Americans, and the detriments of segregation, including poverty, living condition degradation and harassment. It also appeals to the generation who rallied against apartheid in Africa, and the inequality that existed between whites and blacks in South Africa. And, it also appeals to the new generation, who sees inequality, poverty and harassment everyday, on the news stands and on television. Those who protest the wall in the US Southwest and the fence between Israel and the Palestinian Authority can also appreciate this movie. The movie is about aliens, but those aliens could have easily been any marginalized group. The movie also highlights the shock when affluent, western thought is met with the realities of the developing world, and the perceived exoticism and caution when experiencing the world of extreme poverty. I think the only movie to come close to that in the recent decade has been City of God.

Part II: Once Upon a Time in Nazi-Occupied France: Inglorious Basterds

Quentin Tarantino presents, writes and directs the epic WWII-epic (that’s right, I said epic twice) Inglorious Basterds. For me, this might have been enough, seeing as I have enjoyed Tarantino’s slate of movies. Some of these movies he wrote (True Romance, Natural Born Killers) and others he wrote and directed (Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, etc). But, I was disappointed with Four Rooms, Jackie Brown, Kill Bill and Death Proof. Nonetheless, he has had an impressive career, as he is given good budgets, good actors and he rarely makes his money back on movie sales. He is the master of self promotion, and the king of fan-boys all over the world. But, he has something over the fan-boy loved directors, like George Lucas and Sam Raimi. He is a fan-boy himself. And, this movie, along with Death Proof and Kill Bill, shows that he is ready and willing to adapt his love of exploitation cinema, samurai and western films to his own universe. And, since Inglorious Basterds came out, I say…keep on doing it!

I found cinematic substance in the violence, gore and revisionist history of Inglorious Basterds. The dialogue and scenes were true Tarantino, filled with intense close-ups, slow and moving tracking shots and fun ramblings. Whether it was about rats, or a weird German accent, the dialogue worked well. And, each scene’s tension was brought to a climax through some sort of action, which fit well with the scheme of the movie. And, of course I got a satisfaction out of seeing Nazis being scalped, beaten and pumped full of lead. It was a satisfying ending to a very well directed cinematic experience. WWII History according to Quentin Tarantino is well worth it.

But, Tarantino does not stray from his fan-boy roots. Inglorious Basterds is more of a Spaghetti Western than it is a World War II epic. Each major character and scene could have been transported to the desert of the Southwest, and with a little costume change, no one would have noticed the difference. And, the score was adapted from the great Western master himself, Ennio Morricone. To me, Tarantino wanted to stray into new scenery, but without losing the Western feel. This is why one of the working titled passed around was Once Upon a Time In Nazi-Occupied France. One is not meant to analyze the realism of this movie, like they might have in District 9. The over-the-top dialogue and the revisionist history are just elements of the “Great War” according to Tarantino. This is not a history lesson, but more of a welcomed romp through the Tarantino universe.

PS. For some more revisionist Nazi history, take a look at the upcoming "Iron Sky." It is about...yup...you guessed it...NAZIS IN SPACE! Google it for a synopsis.

The Problems that Arise from “Diversity”: New UC Admissions Policy and Prop 209, 13 Years Later

Recently, I read an article about the cash-strapped University of California system, and its problem with the idea of a “diverse” student body. I recently graduated from UCLA, and I know full-well the implications and backlash from using a “less-than-perfect” admissions system. That is to say: a system that does not allow for admissions to reflect the diversity of the city that the school is located in. UCLA had a backlash going into my sophomore year when they only accepted 49 African American students for the class of 2010. For much of the student body in the school year 2006-2007, this was the first time they heard the buzzwords of admissions, especially regarding the idea of representing the community. Some of these were: “Proposition 209” “Diversity” “Holistic” “Objective” “Subjective” “Race Based” “Quota”

Many of these words stir up emotion on both sides of the argument. These sides usually place themselves in favor of or against Proposition 209. Proposition 209, passed in 1996 was a ballot initiative that passed by a 54% vote that prohibited the consideration of race, ethnicity and gender for admissions to public schools, like the University of California system. Here is the text from section (a) of the proposition:

“The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.”

The aim of proposition 209 was right in its text. It tried to eradicate the age old problem of increasing presence and diversity amongst the graduating class of public schools in California, and thus trying to reverse the many years of social inequality felt by underrepresented groups. It has effectively increased the graduation rates of African Americans at universities like UC Berkeley and UC San Diego. These are statistics that pro-209 people will site to make themselves feel proud that they have put another nail in the coffin of inequality and provided another booster shot for diversity. The sloping rates of underrepresented groups gaining admissions to the University of California is something that opponents of prop 209 can site, saying that program will damage programs within the university that are aimed at recruiting underrepresented minorities for admissions, and giving them avenues to learn more about the advantages of college. Both of these arguments are valid.

Recently, Marc B. Haefele wrote an article about a new idea that the UC system had to increase diversity in its admissions. To some, Prop 209 has stifled the ability for the university to make itself a microcosm of California. An admissions rule for the University of California has been that the top 12.5% of all graduating seniors get a guaranteed admission to a UC school, and the top 4% of all schools have an assured spot. This new plan would combine those two to create a new rule that makes the top 9% of all students at all schools in the state guaranteed admissions considerations to a UC school. But, this is not guaranteed admissions; it is only creating a larger pool of applicants for consideration. According to Haefele, they must maintain a 3.0 and take the SATs, but do not have to take any SAT II subject tests, as they are less likely to be taken by underrepresented students like Blacks and Latinos.

But, like any decision, there is no free lunch. The top 4% guaranteed admission element would be eliminated, and along with it, a huge population of Asian students. Anyone who has gone to UC Irvine, UCLA, UC Berkeley, UC San Diego and most of the other UCs has seen the large population of Asian students. They are well qualified, and function well in the fields they enter. I agree with some of the opponents of the change, as it will not significantly change the admissions amounts for Blacks and Latinos and it will be an admissions burden on the Asian community. There should never be an ethnic or racial trade off when it comes to admissions policies. That is what Prop 209 was instituted to prevent, and unfortunately, that is what Prop 209 is doing well.

When you get into the “diversity” of admissions, you walk a thin line of rhetoric, emotion and tedium. That is, the ethical dilemma associated with “diverse” admissions is the behemoth, 300-pound gorilla called Affirmative Action. It was set in place, like prop 209, to try to create microcosms of the community in public institutions. The admissions to law schools, higher education, business schools and the completion of high school was low for minority communities, like Blacks and Latinos. This was, of course, in comparison to Whites and Asians, who were very much represented amongst the graduating classes of prestigious institutions like UCLA. This, as assumed, was from a legacy of segregation, oppression, racism, classicism and social inequality. The Brown v Board decision was only 24 years old when the Bakke decision regarding Affirmative Action was decided. African Americans have only had “equal” rights to public education institutions for about 55 years. Even after the Brown decision was announced, it took another Supreme Court ruling and decades of enforcement to actually desegregate (Think George Wallace, 1958, U of Alabama). This legacy of separatism and “less-worth” has psychological affects on children, as Thurgood Marshall argued in 1954, and those create an atmosphere of unequal access. It’s true that in years following the Plessy v Ferguson “separate but equal” decision, the conditions were certainly separate, but were not equal. This inequality has a legacy, which is something that Affirmative Action tries to stop.

But, when does “leveling the playing field” cause the field tip the other way? Is there a point where those in the majority are held to an unequal standard because there is too many of them? “Victims” of affirmative action, as they might call themselves, might be those White or Asians who are not considered for admissions because they fit the profile too well. They have extra-curricular activities, they have a good SAT score, good GPA and a strong personal statement, but their situation is not wanting. They have not overcome terrible obstacles, been in a gang, and lived under a bridge or anything that sets them apart from the rest of the “regular” applicants. Maybe it’s like what Berkeley uses in their admissions: They look at the “potential” for an applicant to succeed in the Berkeley environment. Is this why my friend, who got into MIT, Cornell and Duke, was rejected from UCLA? Was she too much like everyone else?

Here is where the “diversity” becomes hazy and way too subjective. But, why use “diversity” in the first place? Why don’t we just drop the word and consider the person? Who made race, ethnicity and gender a consideration in anything? Let’s make this a Rawlsian experiment, and put up the Veil of Ignorance over Race, Ethnicity and Gender and consider their social situation. As Walter Benn Michaels would say, the trouble with diversity is that we celebrate and cheer it, when, in this modern world, there are much more pressing matters. Yes, racism still exists in the United States. But, poverty and income inequality are more rampant than racial or ethnic inequality. The ethnic and racial component of this is that the highest represented races and ethnicity that live under the poverty line are those who are underrepresented, like Blacks and Latinos. In admissions, along with test scores and other objective criteria, there should be a consideration for social status and condition, but not for race, ethnicity or gender. You cannot help that you are black, white, Asian or Latino, and therefore those things should not be considered in your admissions, as they don’t LITERALLY hold you back. But, social inequality and unequal access to the ability to go to college is something that is often outside of the applicants control, something that will affect them psychologically and something that will hold them back from college admissions. So, the argument about admissions will always be circular. If you consider social status and condition, you will be targeting Blacks and Latinos, primarily. And, when pro-209 people see this, they will have a fit about how their proposition is being violated by considering race and ethnicity. As you see, this is a tedious situation with no easy answer. But, here is one anyways.

My solution: You must increase the presence of college admissions programs in secondary education, as early as kindergarten. Teach at high schools and middle schools how, no matter your financial situation, you will be able to come to the University of California. Teach that no matter your race, ethnicity, and gender or whether you live in a 1 bedroom apartment in East LA with 6 people or a McMansion off of Sunset in Brentwood, you have the right to go to an Public Institution. Give them the resources and tools to make an informed decision about their educational future. Persuade, prod and pull them out of their condition and make them believe that regardless of their social condition, they can succeed at a UC school. With money flowing to programs for these purposes, I would say with high certitude that you will have more Blacks and Latinos at public schools.

(SOURCES: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-haefele18-2009aug18,0,3817202.story)

A Message to the Fringe: Calm Down! Lets Talk (Your Guns Are Safe, Don’t Worry)

“Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool
now angry mob mentality's no longer the exception, it's the rule…”
-NoFx “The Idiots are Taking Over”

“In Hagerstown, Md., last week, a man appeared at a town hall meeting hosted by Sen. Benjamin Cardin (D-Md.) with a sign that read "’Death to Obama’" and "‘Death to Michelle and her two stupid kids.’"
-Tim Rutten, Op-Ed “America the Delusional”

These quotes are both scary and relevant. As per my last topic, we have seen the rise in mob mentality in relation to the healthcare reform debate, and the slow, but assured loss of any kind of civilized debate. But, as I skimmed through the Lehrer Hour, CNN, Fox News and the Onion, I found that these verbally abusive protests have been only one element of the healthcare debate. From the footage I saw on these shows, there actually have been some clean, problem-solving town hall debates that have asked the right questions and received due diligent answers from their representatives. That is, people asked to be recognized, received the floor, inquired about their grievance and were answered by their representative. This is how someone should voice their opposition or support, and this is how constituencies should be addressed, in the town-hall meeting setting. Responsibility to create effective programs and governance is not 100% on the shoulders of representatives. If the people want their concerns voiced, they should take the initiative, and do it in a way that is civilized and stimulates discourse.

But, that is not the case for a fringe of the protest movement. There are some serious questions I would like to be answered by these fringe groups:

-Do you think you will gain credibility by associating Obama with Hitler? Hitler murdered 20 million people, including 80% of Poland’s Jewish community. He was an extreme nationalist. You call Obama un-American and not a citizen, and listen to Rush Limbaugh saying it would be good for America if he failed. How does this compare?
-Do you think people will believe you if you call Obama a Fascist or a Socialist? Do you even know the difference between Fascism and Socialism, or even what each of those government models entail?
-Do you really think Obama is going to take away your guns?
-Do you really believe Obama was not born in the US?
-Will you ever take what the President says seriously?
-Is there any way that the President can assuage your problems?
-What is your goal when you shout, boo, turn your back on and ignore your representatives?
-Do you know that pundits make a lot of money (10-100 times what you make), and yet you think they can talk to you on the same level? Do you know they’re talking to make money, not dispense information? Why do you think Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh have merchandise stores and Sean Hannity has a (pay-for-membership) dating site?
-How do you define a “true” American?
I know I won’t get answers to these questions. But, if I got 30 minutes to interrogate a group of these protesters, I would like to know what they are thinking. What goes on in side their head when they take the time to create a poster with Obama next to Hitler?

(Before you get all “you’re a hypocrite” on me, I would like to make something clear. I never supported, and never thought that protestors comparing George W Bush to Hitler had any substance at all. I think the comparison, then, was stupid and I think the comparison, now, is stupid. I hold both sides with the same regard: Ignoramuses.)

But, what is worse about these recent protests is their inability to progress. We do not progress on healthcare when you yell about birth certificates. We do not progress when you yell about fascism. We do not progress when you shout about teabags and taxes. But, there is a violent imagery and a scary foreshadowing that is accompanying these protests, and a lot of that has to do with the belief that Obama is going to take away people’s guns. A couple articles and op-ed pieces have covered the group of protesters who “carried” to an Obama speech in Phoenix, AZ. Arizona is a state where you can carry a concealed, or not concealed (depending on your mood, I suppose), weapon in a public place and not have a permit. This is very scary to me.

Let me tirade about gun issues for a second. I believe 100% that everyone in the United States has the right to own a gun. The government will not, and should not, completely restrict or take away anyone’s guns. With that said, there has to be standards and regulations that are put in place to ensure that people know how to use their guns, and ensure that those guns will not be used to break the law in any way, shape or form. These should not just include “safety tests” and background checks, but should include psychological evaluations and extensive review of person’s intentions to buy the gun. There needs to be oversight. Next, I have become appalled that the one thing that people in America are willing to fight and put so much effort into has been the right to own and carry guns. Think for a second, readers….OK? Ready for a forced revelation? GUNS ARE DANGEROUS OBJECTS! Yes, people are dangerous too, and people do kill people through other means, but guns, specifically are a medium of violence. How can such a large population of people be so passionate about something so inherently negative? How did America become defined by its gun ownership? What about knives, flame throwers, SAM missiles or mustard gas? Was it the second amendment? Do we just love to bear arms? Was it the belief that some huge force, invisible to see, overshadowing our rights, is going to come down and control our lives, so we better hoard our guns and wait for a “last-stand-in-front-of-the-bar” shootout like we see in countless movies? I have no idea.

Back to Phoenix. Yes, the law in Arizona says that you can carry a gun in a public place, so you have the right to do so. And, the law says you can carry that gun in a public place, even without a permit. So, you have the right to do so. But, this is a speech that is going to be made by the President of the United States. Coming to a Presidential speech with a gun will secure your right to be harassed. Get this into your thick skull: OBAMA IS NOT TAKING YOUR GUNS AWAY!!! And, heed Johnny Cash’s words: “Don’t take your guns to town, son. Leave your guns at home…”

Will these protests push a good debate into the dirges of hysteria? I believe we are on our way. Conservative talk show hosts and pundits are firing on all cylinders and bringing out the big guns (no pun intended) in order to dilute this healthcare push with irrelevant issues and false, hyperbolized statements about re-education camps for the overweight, killing grandma and Obama-the-Muslim so that any progress towards helping improve the health of Americans becomes as likely as Rush Limbaugh getting a brain (or losing weight). Will this help the Republican Party in the interim election? I believe it most likely will. But, will that help us reform our healthcare system, fight the war in Afghanistan, grow a Clean Energy economic sector, fix the economy and progress as a people. Absolutely NOT!

(SOURCES: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-rutten19-2009aug19,0,3225096.column) (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-guns18-2009aug18,0,2649181.story?track=rss) (NoFx, “The Idiots Are Taking Over”)

PS. Here's another fact. The guy who created those "Joker" pictures of Obama did not intend to have "SOCIALISM" written on them. They were co-opted by some wingnut who put the Socialism message on him/herself. The artist was even quoted as saying that it was immature to call Obama a Socialist. He even questioned who made it a sudden norm to characterize Socialism as evil.

(SOURCE: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/arts/la-et-poster19-2009aug19,0,1347679.story)

Health Care: Protesting our Way to the Bottom

A couple of posts ago, I touched upon the subject of the right to dissent if you believe your government is not doing enough to serve your needs. I believe the government is there to protect the people and their well being and health, and allow for free competition that gives everyone the chance to succeed. In this post, I am taking aim at the behemoth problem of health care. This is directly related to both the right to dissent and the role of government, not as working within the parameters of a defined role, but how a healthcare overhaul might affect the its image in the eyes of average Americans. It will also refer back to my post about punditry and doing your own research. That section, of course, will take aim at the recent “grassroots” protests at local town hall meetings. Lastly, I will consider some things I have read about healthcare in relation to California and its budget crises, including some scary statistics.

Let’s start by taking a swing at the left. This is of course regarding the Op-Ed piece that Speaker Nancy Pelosi wrote to the Washington Post. In this Op-Ed she said that the disruptions at the town hall meetings were “Un-American.” Bad move, Pelosi. I think your intentions were spot on, but your wording was off by a mile. These protests and dissents are the epitome of what it means to be American. You cannot, and should not berate dissenters as un-American. The act of protesting, as I have said in the aforementioned passage, it’s a right that is ensured under the Constitution, and a medium through which people can voice their discontent with the administration’s health care plan. With that said, Pelosi should have gone about it a different way. Pelosi should have explained that the protesters were rude and inconsiderate and shouted down any chance for their representatives to help assuage their problems. Shouting down your Senators, when they are trying to help you, is something that Glenn Beck would do to a guest he has on his show who disagrees with him. She also should have taken aim at the fact that many of the protesters were either uninformed people who just shouted irrelevant messages about stimulus funding and socialism, were paid Republican staffers or were subsidized by private medical insurance companies. But, they are certainly NOT Un-American.

But, the dissent has a very irking characteristic to it. That characteristic is the unorganized, chaotic, disrespectful, mobbing, unintelligible and disunity of the message that the health care uprising has included at its rallies. This mob is has not taken sides or shown any kind of coherence of message in their uprisings. That is, they attack both Democrats and Republicans at their town hall meetings for a various host of issues, all of which have nothing to do with healthcare. Birthers, Anti-Tax, Anti-Bailout, Anti-Global Warming and Nazi graffiti have all been characteristics of these town hall meetings, which were aimed at a spirited discussion about healthcare. If these people want transparency and an active role in having their opinions taken seriously, they should be doing it in a fashion where their opinions can be respected and heard. Booing and talking over your representatives does not produce such a result. Being angry and yelling does not produce such a result. Asking for Obama’s birth certificate does not produce such a result. Spray painting a swastika on a sign for a town hall meeting does not produce such a result. Calling Obama a fascist, socialist or Hitler does not produce such a result. Here are some examples of mob rule that has unfortunately characterized our “dialogue” with the people:

1. Sen Arlen Specter (D-Pennsylvania) was shouted down and booed at a town hall meeting after he tried to talk to his constituents about health care. Some attacked him personally for switching parties, while some yelled about “restoring the country” to what the Constitution had envisioned. Of course the Constitution had wanted to keep health care a private, for profit business. The Constitution was a “bundle of compromises” and if these people are not willing to compromise on their manner of speech to get an agenda through, then their opinions are mute in the healthcare issue. Of course, amidst the booing, healthcare was hardly brought up.
2. Claire McCaskill (D-Missouri), a relatively centrist Democrat who is known for being a moderator between the parties, was shouted at, booed and drowned out by the mob. She expressed her concern that the debate was not about “who was the loudest.” At one point she tried to talk to the crowd about healthcare, was shouted down and threatened to leave the meeting.
3. David Scott (D-Georgia), also a relatively centrist politician, had a town hall meeting in an Atlanta suburb, and a swastika was spray painted on a sign outside of the town hall meeting. I didn’t know the likes of Hitler had anything to do with Healthcare. I didn’t know trying to ensure that everyone has access to healthcare was a Nazi idea. Oh yah…their just being racist and unbelievably ignorant. Nothing to do with healthcare.
4. Sen John Cornyn (R-Texas), a reliable conservative and head of the GOP Senate Campaign Committee, was booed down in a teabaggers rally for supporting the Bail out. Of course this was a tax-based rally, not a healthcare town hall. But, booing him for voting for the bailout at an anti-tax rally does not produce tax reform, and certainly does not paint his constituency as reliable.
5. Bob Inglis (R-South Carolina), the most reliable conservative in the GOP, was yelled at and shouted over about vaccines for swine flu and his criticism of a conservative broadcaster (probably Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Savage or one of their cohorts). Angered, he was later quoted as saying that these protestors cannot build a base off of unsubstantiated and false claims. And, of course this goes to show you that these people eat up the bullshit that pundits and broadcasters tell them, and revolt with furious anger over such bullshit as if it were god’s truth.
6. J Gresham Barrett (R-South Carolina) was booed down, and had backs turned to him at an anti-tax rally in April for voting for a 2008 bailout. He tried to plead with the crowd, citing his conservative record and his devotion to the “conservative cause” but was not taken seriously. Again, while this does not have to do with healthcare, it shows you how the protesters don’t understand how they need the support of their representatives to pass legislation that is to their desires. They can’t just boo and yell and expect something to get done.
7. Michael N Castle (R-Delaware) was asked repeatedly during a town hall meeting on why there has not been an investigation into Obama’s birth certificate. These questions elicited boos and shots in support from the audience. Yes, let’s waste the valuable time of our Congress to find out the obvious fact that Barack Obama was born in the United States. Wait…who gives a shit? He was voted in, and given the confidence of the office of president by a mandate. Bringing up the “Birther” issue does not solve the problems of Healthcare, bailouts, two wars, global warming and all other RELEVENT problems facing the country.

(SOURCES: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-health-gop16-2009aug16,0,5794904.story?page=2&track=rss
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/08/town-hall-anger-why-we-love-to-hate-our-politicians.html)

But, LA Times columnist Gregory Rodriguez brings up a good point (http://www.latimes.com/la-oe-rodriguez17-2009aug17,0,4516013.column) He says that the right to dissent and challenging authority is much older than the United States, but is also a characteristic of democracy. He comes to conclusion after going through Alexis de Tocqueville's “Democracy in America.” His dilemma is that once you look down upon or consider these protests to be not wholly American, you put at risk not only a characteristic of American democracy, but you put at risk a tenet Democracy as a whole. But, one question he leaves unanswered is what happens when the innovation that comes from challenging opinions produces anti-intellectualism and a “sheople” mentality. This is definitely reflected in the uninformed protesters at these town hall meetings and their reliance on punditry to challenge their representatives. Nonetheless, I agree with his points that challenging authority is a very American characteristic and must be protected, like any other part of American democracy.

Now, let’s look at some scary examples of how healthcare reform needs to be instituted. These come from California, whose budget compromise has put a huge burden on healthcare, especially for those who can barely afford it, or depend on state and federal programs. Steve Lopez of the LA Times has been following the trials of volunteer workers and uninsured patients at a clinic in Los Angeles. Thousands of uninsured patients have got treatment through a nonprofit called Remote Area Medical for anything from root canals to diabetes medication. Lopez’s recent article is called “At a Free Clinic, Scenes from the Third World.” He has some testimony from a dentist from Westwood. CA who worked in Brazil, who said that their free healthcare and clinics cause a waiting period, but not as bad as it is in the United States. Most of the patients have Medicare, and many need small operations, medications and eyewear that Medicare does not cover. And, with the budget cuts to state supported healthcare, that coverage list might get smaller and smaller.

(SOURCE: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lopez16-2009aug16,0,3959652.column?page=2)

Another example is a legacy of the budget cuts to California, but also resembles the need for a base standard for healthcare. The Healthy Families program of Los Angeles will have to cut insurance to 60,000 children from its program. These children come from poor families and are often times disabled. Without funding for the program, 670,000 children will have to be dropped by June, 2010. This is unbearable to think about, mostly because these Children had nothing to do with the budget crises, and their circumstances are beyond their control. They are being punished for the actions of others, and they do not have the political power to do anything about it. This is a prime example of a healthcare system gone awry, not just in California, but in the nation.

(SOURCE: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-california-budget14-2009aug14,0,6580131.story)

We need to step back from our hooting and hollering, our anger and distaste and our need to vent and take a long, concentrated look at our healthcare system. 47 million uninsured, poor and disabled children in the hundreds of thousands being dropped from insurance and free health clinic resembling third world countries are not hallmarks of the most powerful and influential nation in the world. If nations like Brazil can offer better healthcare for children and Mexico begins to offer free healthcare for tourists, then we certainly have a big issue on our hand. Minimal healthcare must be provided for everyone. This is not socialism, fascism, Nazism, but it’s a product of the concern for the health and safety of our citizens. You may have the right to protest Obama’s birth certificate, taxes, global warming and waste tea while you do it. But, while you yell and scream, some uninsured person is costing you as a taxpayer a lot of money because they hurt themselves working to make America what it is. Everyday, the working men and women that these “Grassroots” protests represent work preserving the American entrepreneurship spirit, and yet they cannot afford healthcare and became the same burdens on taxes that these protesters decry. Maybe it’s the recession? Maybe a whole lot of uninsured, unemployed people have to vent their frustration at a situation that was most likely beyond their control. They were employed at steady jobs before an irresponsible bank sector, housing market policy and credit system crippled the economy causing massive layoffs. Now, they look at the administration in its promises of new jobs as the culprit of misinformation and bad policy. But, some of these people are leading unhealthy, unsustainable lifestyles that they aren’t willing to give up, which also puts a burden on the healthcare system.

But, you know who else suffers because of your principles? The poor, the low income, the disabled, all who depend on an equitable healthcare system and to be treated with respect and dignity, like all Americans should be. Their situations are often beyond their control, but they don’t have the means to voice their opinions, or their struggles. They are the result, the end-product and the poster child for policies. But, in the end they are not helped. In the end, the healthcare issue is not resolved. In the end, the time-wasting, shouting, booing, inconsistent, disorganized, mob-mentality of these “grassroots” protests does not make the situation any better for them. You act on the principles of America, and yet you fail to recognize or respect those who are truly struggling. So, abandon your quest for an Obama birth certificate and start thinking about other people for a change. Then, maybe you will realize that this healthcare system needs a change. It does not necessarily have to be the same policy that Obama wants, but it should include a minimum standard. We should strive to help as many as we can with a new healthcare system. The well being and health of ALL Americans should and always be a priority.

McNamara's Lessons on Vietnam, and our War on Terror

By the time I was born, the Vietnam War had been over for 13 years. But, my parents generation, the so-called Baby Boomers of the post-WWII era protested, petitioned, fought and died on the battlefields of Vietnam and Universities like Berkeley, Columbia, Stanford, Yale, UCLA and Cal State Northridge. Their dissent against an increasingly unpopular war, along with the military defeat as the tanks of Ho Chi Minh rolled into Saigon galvanized the nation and left a lasting scar that still continues today. Did we know it was a Nationalist war instead of Communist War of Aggression? Was there such thing as a Communist Monolith that bounded China, the USSR and all other "wars of liberation" together? If Vietnam fell to the Communist forces, would, as Eisenhower put it in 1960, the "dominoes fall?" Did we have enough expertise in the military, Congress or government to fight an affective war against the forces of Ho Chi Minh?

Robert McNamara, former Secretary of Defense under Kennedy and Johnson, tries to reconcile these points, avoid a catharsis, debunk the myth that this was in fact "McNamara's War" and try to beat it into our heads that policy in Vietnam was "wrong, terribly wrong."The book starts out with a history of McNamara's exploits from turning down Stanford to go to Berkeley and accepting admissions to Harvard Business School. From Harvard, after meeting his wife, he joined the army and joined up with Curtis LeMay on strategic Bombing. When he worked for LeMay he was responsible for putting statistics on bombing raids, which LeMay was obsessed about. LeMay wanted to improve night and day bombing raids and reduce causalities. McNamara was on staff when LeMay ordered the fire bombing of Tokyo, which killed nearly 200,000 people and burned part of Tokyo to the ground. When the war ended, after recovering from Polio, McNamara was hired at Ford Motor Company. He became part of the "Whiz Kids" who worked towards revolutionizing Ford. McNamara was an unusual entity at Ford, as he pushed for better fuel efficiency, environmental standards and safety, which were not popular in car culture. This led to many failures and many successes. Eventually he became President of Ford, the first President not to be a descendent of the Ford family. 6 week after accepting the position he was called by President Kennedy and offered the position of Defense Secretary.

At first, McNamara thought that he was not qualified for the position because of his lack of political skills and military experience. Kennedy's response was "there is not school for Defense Secretaries...there is not school for Presidents." McNamara and the Kennedy family got close during his few years as president. In the book McNamara talks in detail about his conversations with Kennedy and Kennedy's reactions to such events as the Diem assassination. He sincerely believed that if Kennedy had lived, he would have pulled the troops out of Vietnam before a ground war could ensue. It was during this time that McNamara created his own perspective on Vietnam, which was that it was a war that the South had to fight for themselves. They had to make their own destiny. While we could send "advisers" and bolster a government against Ho Chi Minh, we could not fight their war.

After Kennedy's assassination, and Johnson's ascension, McNamara was reassigned as Secretary of Defense. During the first few years of the Johnson administration, up to the fateful Tonkin Gulf Resolution, the populace remained heavily in favor of helping South Vietnam defeat the communists. And, Johnson reiterated his point that he would not send "American boys" to fight for South Vietnam, because it was their responsibility to fight their own war. But, Johnson kept what they called A34, a covert operation in helping forces in South Vietnam strike at strategic targets in the North. But, after the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution passed in Congress allowing a blank check for fighting the war, limited bombing of targets in Vietnam ensued, and finally, under pressure from Gen Westmoreland and the Joint Chiefs, troops were added. This is where McNamara says he finally began to realize that they could not win a military war on the ground. The North was able to coordinate strikes into the south, inflict damage and quickly disappear. His objections and attempts to negotiate were poor and befuddled by bombing in the North, and eventually after a disastrous hearing in front of the Arms Service Committee and a charge from Sen. Strom Thurmond that he was a "communist appeaser" McNamama left to become president of the World Bank.

The book is heavy in policy analysis and document citing. McNamara did his research, and in a very McNamara way, was very rational about it. But what is most compelling is his belief that we can take this book and use it for its lessons. The lessons are more like points, 11 in all, which outline his and other policy figures' failures in Vietnam. The most compelling ones are:

1.Misjudging the Enemy both on terms of communist aggression and nationalistic tendencies. In other words, was Ho Chi Minh a Tito or a Stalin? In the end he was a nationalist, like Tito.
2. The support of a government that was a complete failure, and the fact that they refused to believe that the government would fail. This fact came to a head after the assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem and the realization that the inept generals who followed him continued infighting a civil war, which destabilized the country.

3. The lack of information on the history and situation as it was in Vietnam. This was led, in part, by the relentless belief in the Domino Theory. But, it also led to the belief that the US could instill a democratic stability into an unstable country, whose history lacked any sort of democracy in the first place.

4. They did not consider the alternatives. Policy makers around President Johnson, and McNamara himself, while aware of the need to have dialogue with both the American people and outside policy experts and the alternatives to military intervention, they did not go through with them. One of these included disengagement.

5. The failure to recognize the actual threat to US security. The question arises: If Vietnam fell, would the dominoes fall in SE Asia, and would that be a huge blow to American National Security? The obvious answer, in retrospect, was No. But, that was never a consideration, as it was a concept set-in-stone, much like the Domino Theory.

6. Ignoring both the hearts and minds of Vietnamese citizens and the opinions of domestic protest movements. This led to degradation of popular opinion of the government and McNamara at home, and the loss in any kind of moral authority in Vietnam.

McNamara was vilified, protested, assaulted and shamed for his actions in Vietnam. It is only natural to look at the Secretary of Defense as a culprit in an unpopular war because he is responsible for conducting policy for such a war. McNamara was a product of his own intellect and his own expertise. He was a businessman and a mathematician, not a military adviser. McNamara tried to be a filter and moral compass between Johnson’s policies and the Joint Chief’s suggestions, but he failed. He failed because any sign of weakness towards communists, perceived by Congress was a political death-knell for Johnson. This is especially apparent during McNamara’s last hearing before the Arms Service Committee when he testified on the grim situation in Vietnam and the fruitless efforts that would amount from troop increases, as the Joint Chiefs had requested. This testimony was immediately rebuked by the Chiefs, Johnson was not there to support McNamara and he was named a “communist appeaser” by Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond. The Chief’s and Westmoreland proposed a high troop increase, up to nearly 700,000, and mentioned the right to reserve the use to nuclear arms if China were to enter the war. This brinksmanship, nearly 20 years old, was not a rational policy. In a nuclear exchange, with the interconnectedness of both the US and its allies and the Soviet Union and its allies, would have meant disaster for the entire human race. Whether or not this was a “bid high and accept lower” strategy by the Chiefs is remained to be seen. Nonetheless, McNamara knew that brinksmanship was not a sound policy, and that troop increases in an unpopular, unwinnable war would be at the cost of more American lives. Even negotiations setup by McNamara through international counterparts in France and Sweden broke down over bombing that occurred in Hanoi on the day of the negotiations. You cannot blame any world power for refusing to go to the bargaining table when their country was being bombed. McNamara’s failure in this respect came when he did not fully express his support of a complete bombing halt in return for negotiations.

The lessons of Vietnam that McNamara lists are hauntingly relevant today. Throughout the interviews I have seen him do in the few years after his book was published, he mentions the Middle East many times. But, he mentions it in the light of his own mistakes made during the Vietnam War. Some of these lessons do apply. When we invaded Iraq, did President Bush consider how much of a realistic threat Sadaam Hussein was to American National Security? First, there were not Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, although there was some evidence that some agents of Hussein were negotiating for Yellow Cake in Africa. Secondly, Hussein was a secular, albeit violent, ruler who was a buffer between rival Muslim religious sects. Thirdly, the connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq only occurred after our invasion, which attests to evidence that Hussein only allied with hard line religious extremists to bolster himself against the American onslaught. These points also support the idea that we underestimated our enemy, and should have considered the alternatives to marching right into Baghdad. McNamara always mentioned the decision by George HW Bush not to go into Baghdad because he knew of the security implications, as he was a former CIA director. Lastly, I think we did not take into the lesson that we had the ability to instill both stability and democracy in a place that was, first, very unstable and second, had no history of Democracy.

Our broad goal of fighting terror, or terrorism, or a “War on Terror” was misguided in its PR and was full of emotion and misdirection. The problem with concentrating the fight against terrorism on one or even two fronts is misjudging the fact that terrorists are not sedentary people and have networks, safe-houses, shelter and support from all over the world. This means that a war on terror would be both costly and lengthy. Does this make Afghanistan and Iraq proxy wars in the war on Terror, like Korea, Vietnam and our meddling in South America were proxy wars in the Cold War? I think there is possibility for a definite comparison. Expanding the war on terror using military action, which invariably results in more civilian casualties and destruction, will make extremism more palatable and attractive to the average civilian. This is the same way that a US backed regime in the South, which persecuted Buddhists and was wholly unpopular led to increasing Vietcong presence in farmers in the South. They saw the Southern government as a representative of the US, and therefore felt that the Communist North would treat them better, if they fought the American aggressors.

But, I think there is room to improve. For example, in our War on Terror proxies, we have put more emphasis on winning the hearts and minds of the populace. We have liberated them from an oppressive murderous regime and have made it a priority to instill free elections and protection for the people. We have used intelligence and language experts to negotiate with local people and tribesmen whose common enemy is Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and have had military success against the aforementioned groups as a result. Lastly, our new approach by Gen McChrystal in Afghanistan is to put protecting civilians and Afghani people as a priority over military clashes with the Taliban, which often lead to civilian casualties.

The Low Lying Fruit: Clean Energy Summit 2009

On a 102 degree morning in Las Vegas, the likes of Al Gore, Sen Majority Leader Harry Reid,
Secretary of Energy Chu, Secretary of Labor Solis, Texan Eco-Baron T Boone Pickens and many more gathered at the UNLV Cox Pavilion to talk energy. The event was covered by many news stations and media outlets, and covered the new "green" economy. In my perspective, the Summit leaned heavily towards the viability of a new "green" economy and a smaller, but significant amount on how that viability can be translated into the creation of new "green" jobs.

When I arrived at Cox Pavilion, I was greeted by the "best-of-the-best" in wingnuttery. At the entrance to the parking lot of Cox pavilion, the streets were lined with protesters whose signed read "Fascist," "Global Warming is a Tax Hoax" and "Man-Made Global Warming is a hoax, Co2 is what plants breathe." As I walked passed them, I was treated with respect, as I expected. Then I proceeded on my way to find another layer of sign-holders. These people were countering the other protesters with signs like "Clean Energy," "Sierra Club for Clean Energy" and "Green Jobs for Nevada." I will admit, I felt more at home here, because I could tell these people were ready for a transition. For me, with green economies, a transition, albeit a smooth, slow one, is the best way to usher in a new Global Warming mitigation strategy.

Clean Energy, that the second group was touting, is not necessarily an incarnation of cap-and-trade that the other side was protesting. While cap-and-trade is a strategy to reduce emissions, the summit was not about that. The Summit was about finding ways to usher in a new clean economy and new viable methods of clean energy, like Natural Gas for 18-wheelers and Methane capture from landfills. These ideas and technologies are not new and its not as if we do not have the capacity to implement them. It is, as Chu (and repeated by Clinton, Gore and Pickens) had said, the "Low Lying Fruit" that must be picked. We just need the political will to institute it.

Here are some highlights from the Panel in the morning:
1. Senator Reid - He introduced some of the panel. But, his most compelling banter was when he said he has multiple meetings with T. Boone Pickens, and had been converted to the "Church of Pickens." I can appreciate this because Pickens has influence with those who will go against a clean energy policy, as has the ability to convince them otherwise.
2.Al Gore - Al Gore related a story about the creation of the Atomic Bomb and the opening up of Oak Ridge in Tennessee. The splitting of the atom and the energy implications for such an ability, with the creation of the atomic bomb and atomic power was the last great energy revolution. It was the Manhattan Project's scientists' responsibility to create a new energy. Now, it is our generation's responsibility to usher in a new energy revolution. He also talked about the importance of the Recovery Act and its tens of billions of dollars for alternative energy subsidization. He also spoke that will to create a new energy environment was stifled by out dependence on oil. When oil goes up we become jolted out of our seats and cry for alternatives and better policy. But, when gas drops in price we go back into a Lull. He called this the "shock and trance" cycle. Lastly, and most importantly, he challenged the new generation to take up energy as a "New Mandate" against the Climate Crisis that will "affect all civilization," and that we must "repower America."
3. Secretary Chu - Secretary Chu referred to development of renewables as the "Second Industrial Revolution." He related his trip to China, saying that they are beginning to realize the devastating affects of Carbon pollution. He said they were creating a new smart grid (800 kV by 2020) to connect the entire country, creating solar panels and wind farms. What was most compelling about this was that he said they were employing these new technologies for DOMESTIC use. The charge in the US was that China was only employing things like PV solar to export to bolster their already giant economy. But, Chu says differently, and I definitely trust a Berkeley Physics professor with a Nobel Peace Prize. He also emphasized the advantages that renewable energy could have on the Agricultural Sector, including growing new biomass for ethanol creation and using yeast and bacteria for diesel and jet fuel. Lastly, and I want to emphasize this point, he said that the COST OF INACTION WOULD BE HORRENDOUS!!! Take note of that, please!
4. Stephanie Burns (Dow Corning) - She mentioned that Down corning has created 9GW of solar PV and promoted energy efficient buildings. But, her main point, and one that I agree wholly with, is that these technologies were created and invented int he United States, so we should be building them in the United States (applause). The access to finance should be assured, and investment in clean energy is what will spur the new economy.
5. Gen Wesley Clark - He emphasized the expediency of what we should be doing. He said we should be making 1st and 2nd generation biofuels and creating clean infrastructure now, in order to put our construction sector back to work. He said we should go to higher ethanol fuels, with a low carbon fuel standard that could save 1 million barrels of oil per day. His group is championing methane capture from landfills and using it to power generators through natural gas pipes. He is also using secondary carbon capture to feed bacteria that creates ethanol and biofuels. These ideas are similar to ones I encountered in Sao Paulo, Brazil, which is very reassuring to me.
6.Denise Bode, American Wind Association - She said that we are currently up to scale on wind energy. She said it could create 35,000 new construction jobs in creating wind turbines and that we have the potential to be the leader in wind energy creation. She emphasized the need to drop policy barriers in order to create more turbines.
7. T Boone Pickens - He related a story about how he was the "odd man out" in the group. He said he was a Republican, and was getting annoyed that the party did not have an energy strategy. He said he was able to talk to republicans but they "never did anything for him" for his energy concerns. Finally, he spoke to Sen Reid and was able to get a good conversation going about renewable energy, and was willing to sink $60 million into it. He emphasized that we have the resources to stop our dependence on foreign oil. It is a sad state when we have to depend on our enemies for fuel. He emphasized that there has been a plateau on oil creation at 85 million barrels, and has only stayed that way because of additions from nearly tapped reserves. Once those reserves are gone, the cap will fall every year until we run out. He said that our prestige is being destroyed because we have 4% of the population but use 25% of the oil. He said that replacing the 6.5 million 18 wheeler trucks with natural gas will cut the OPEC oil consumption in half. I had the privilege of talking to Pickens for about 5 min about Atlantic and Gulf Coast wind farms.
8. Sen Cantwell (D-WA) - She said we need to look for opportunities in a new renewable resource economy. He quotable was "As Nevada goes, so goes the nation." This is true, because of Nevada's vast resources in solar, geothermal, methane capture, natural gas, etc and its abundance of BLM land that it is the new frontier for renewable energy.
9. Van Jones - He made a very powerful, emotionally charged speech about the ability to unite the country over a new energy economy. He said its not transforming the economy, but "reinventing a new sector." This is a good response to those who believe a transformation in the economy will lead to a great crisis. Jones is right in saying that this is a technology that is there, and all we have to do it have the will to reinvent it.
10. Mayor Villaraigosa - Los Angeles has been the poster child for sprawl, pollution and bad public transportation. But, he also said that it met the Kyoto Standards in 2008, is 13.9% renewable, has worked with Caltech, USC and UCLA on a Clean Tech Corridor, has created a drayage truck electrification plan for the ports of LA/Long Beach and has a pilot program for 1500 students to work on renewables.
11. Secretary of Labor, Solis - She said we should educate Americans about green jobs and make American the leader in green jobs creation. She said it something that will take time for change to occur, but it will result in global leadership and good jobs in the US. It starts, according to Solis, with cross-departmental standards for green job employment.
12. Danny Thompson, NV AFL-CIO - He said that the state unemployment in the building trades he represents is 20% and in Reno, NV it got as high as 50%. We need to create more jobs for this sector, ones that are integrated into a green job portfolio. He gave an examples of putting solar panels in the desert around Las Vegas, which would create thousands of jobs.

Clinton's Speech - Clinton started out talking about the C40 program in his own organization that brought energy efficiency to 40 cities. The problem, he said, was that these were affluent near or 1st world nations with these cities. He spoke of the retrofit of the Empire State Building, which cut its carbon pollution by 30%, will take 4 million tons of carbon out of the air. His main message was that we have to convince people that it will be economically positive to invest in renewable resources. The cost of retrofitting a house is often too costly for individuals, so his program suggestion would be to have retrofits backed major energy companies. There is $900 billion in loans available at banks, but people are too scared to take out any. He said if there was a small business loan guarantee of 1 to 10, in the same way SPA loans are given, backed by companies like Johnson Controls, Honeywell or Siemens, it will infuse confidence back into consumers to take loans for retrofits. He then brought out a brickette, made in Haiti, from biomass that costs 1 cent. For 4 of these brickettes, one could cook food for 45 minutes.

Conclusion: Nevada is the new frontier for renewable energy. And, there must be the message that what Nevada does, the country should look at as an example, like they have done with California for the last decade or so. But, more importantly, my generation must take up renewable energy and a new industrial revolution as its new Mandate. We have the technology, we have the scientists (most of the technology was created in the US) and we have the innovation, all we need is the political will. This idea should be embodied in the efforts of people like T Boone Pickens, who is willing to cross the political line to promote clean energy. It is a security, environmental and existential problem. But, Pickens has proved it can be a non-political issue. He characterized his meeting with Reid as "Two Americans talking about an American Problem" and that "there was no politics involved." This is not just an American problem, but a global problem. Even if one were to say that he is using this to make a profit, that would be a positive ideal. Making a profit off of renewable energy just shows the economic viability of it. And, if we are to maintain our prestige as leaders in the world, we have to innovate and research new technology and make our world more energy efficient. It is about time we stop our dependence on a dwindling resource like oil, and begin to look towards the future, which is only made less stable by continuing oil pumping. If we can get a retired army general, a Texas oil man, a Nobel Peace Prize winning environmentalist and a Nobel Peace Prize Winning physicist to agree, then certainly we can convince the rest of the nation, and the world, that energy efficiency is an American priority.

And...I will certainly consider converting to the Church of Pickens.