Bono gets it. Wow, does he get it. Do we?

NYT: “It’s 2009: Do You Know Where Your Soul Is?”

It must be difficult for conservatives who thought they had a lock on churchgoing Christians. In “Media apply God-talk double standard” (July 17), Colleen Carroll Campbell tries to reserve expressions of faith for conservatives and attempts to limit the issues important to churchgoers to “abortion, gay marriage and the banishment of God from public life.” She calls Democrats “secular liberals.”

Many Democrats are Christian; many liberals go to church every week. U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, is not trying to attract “conservative churchgoing voters.” His “socially liberal policies” are Christian values, period. Among liberal Christians like me, the concern has not been “the banishment of God from public life” but the co-option of our faith by right-wingers who would frame Christianity on their limited, exclusionary terms. I respect their love of the gospel; I do not respect their insistence that they alone are able to interpret the gospel for society.

In comparing theocratic leanings, it should be noted whose “theo” and whose “cracy.” Mr. Obama’s Christian conversion and baptism occurred in the United Church of Christ, whose roots go back to the first churches founded in New England and the Midwest, including St. Louis. Mr. Obama’s social policies are rooted in Christian interpretation of commands found in Matthew 25 and Leviticus 25.

I agree with Ms. Campbell on one point: A politician’s past action is what matters most. I’ll take the record of Mr. Obama, former community organizer, over President George W. Bush’s.

Published in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, July 23, 2008

St. Louis

I’ve been to many demonstrations over the years, as a reporter and as a marcher/demonstrator. The gathering of folks on the sidewalks by a gas station in St. Louis Wednesday was different, mainly in the way we were called to action – by a broadcast e-mail.

About 40 people answered Adam Shriver’s invitation to participate in the St. Louis version of MoveOn’s “National Day of Action for an Oil-Free President” demonstration at a Shell station at Skinker and Delmar boulevards. We joined thousands of MoveOn members who took to the sidewalks in more than 200 cities Wednesday to call attention to the differences in the proposed energy policies of the presidential candidates, Senator John McCain (Republican) and Senator Barack Obama (Democrat).

We held signs, passed out fliers and attracted several honking supporters at the busy intersection at the eastern end of the St. Louis/University City Loop. It was a varied group gathered at rush hour – teachers on summer break, college and grad students, retired folks, and those with flexible working hours or nearby jobs.

Donna Beard faced the street and raised her sign: “Exxon McCain: Big Oil Buys Another President.”

“I haven’t held up a sign since the 1960s,” Beard said. Back then, she was boycotting Woolworths in Chicago for its lunch-counter segregation in the South. After so many years, Beard was moved to pick up a sign in peaceful demonstration because “there’s gotta be a change” – in gas prices, in energy policy and in the leadership of the country. Like the other MoveOn demonstrators, Beard supports Obama.

“This is the best turnout yet,” Robert Recht told Shriver. Recht, who identified himself as “the oldest member of MoveOn St. Louis,” said he had been to about 10 MoveOn demonstrations.

This was Nick Apperson’s first demonstration. Apperson, 24, said he voted in the 2004 presidential election “against W” rather than for John Kerry, the Democratic candidate.

“This time is different,” he said. “This time I’m definitely for Obama. Of course, he won’t solve all our problems. Change takes more than one person.”

And that was one reason Apperson was moved to pick up a sign and hand out fliers. “This is just the beginning,” he said.

No traditional news media appeared to record the event in St. Louis. A student journalist for Vox Magazine, an online publication of the University of Missouri-Columbia journalism school, and a few bloggers were the only reporters at the local demonstration.

The events in at least a few locations elsewhere did attract mainstream news, although the list was apparently quite short. In a congratulatory e-mail to participants on Thursday, MoveOn spokesman Noah T. Winer mentioned only accounts on a radio station in Duluth, Minn. and a newspaper in Orange County, Calif.

Winer declared the nationwide demonstration a success: “Together, we accomplished our primary goal: now more people will think ‘Big Oil’ when they hear ‘John McCain.’ That is exactly what we wanted — for people and the press to start realizing McCain would be another president who is so closely tied to the oil industry we can’t count on him to lower gas prices or support alternative energy solutions.”

The St. Louis gathering is perhaps an example of the way political campaigning is changing, as supporters both use and bypass mainstream media and traditional political groups, and mix online networking with older-style street demonstrations. Shriver’s e-mail invitation said the demonstration was sparked by TV ads by the McCain campaign trying to blame Obama for high gasoline prices.

Broadcast e-mail reactions to TV ads and newscasts have become a standard campaign tactic of MoveOn, the Obama organization and other political and activist groups that have my e-mail address. (Republicans may do this, too, but I am not on any of their lists.) Most of the time, these mass e-mails contain a link to the offending video and usually urge the recipients to sign a petition deploring the action or statement. This time, we were urged to show up in person.

The fliers we handed out compared Obama’s and McCain’s voting records and policy statements on energy, including their ranking by the League of Conservation Voters in its 2007 legislative scorecard (Obama: 67 percent in 2007, 86 percent “lifetime”; McCain: 0 percent in 2007 because he missed every vote, 24 percent “lifetime”). We gave these fliers to people in cars leaving the gas station or stopped at the intersection, as well as to pedestrians and bicyclists. A lot of drivers gave us thumbs up or honked their horns. A few declined the fliers or gave us a thumbs down.

Michael Sandler, 22, who works for the Obama campaign, stopped by to register new voters and sign up campaign volunteers. The MoveOn volunteers were already registered, but Sandler found a ready audience for his pitch that they get more involved in joining the Obama organization. Linda Fried, who had been canvassing in my neighborhood a few days before for a candidate in the August primary election for state offices, signed up as an Obama volunteer.

In an odd juxtaposition of new-style/old-style campaigning, Sandler was quite open with folks he was recruiting, clipboard and pen at the ready to take their names and contact information; but he was adamant that he couldn’t talk to news media, including this blogger, because all statements to the press must go through the Obama organization. I guess it’s one thing to accept the endorsement of an independent group like MoveOn and quite another to have to worry about how any and every worker in one’s own organization might be quoted in the media.

The Internet has widened the reach of “word of mouth,” but traditional means of political persuasion still work. Two parents brought their children to the demonstration.

Angela Miller went to demonstrations against the Vietnam War with her father, Dwight Miller, a Stanford professor.

“We were chased down by mounted police in San Francisco,” she recalls.

On Wednesday, Miller brought her son, Jonas Stockie, 12, to his first demonstration. He hoisted a sign and waved to an acquaintance in a passing car. Miller’s daughter, Marisa Miller, 16, said she had been to many demonstrations in the past few years: for living wages for Washington University maintenance staff, against confirmation of Alberto Gonzales as attorney general, for example.

AnaClaire Bryant, 8, made her own pro-Obama poster. Her father, Sean Bryant, is a student at St. Louis University Law School. He encouraged AnaClaire to participate in the demonstration “so she can learn that she can speak her voice and people will hear it.”

He glanced fondly at his daughter standing in the hot sun. “If you believe in something, you’ve got to say what you believe. Right, Goofball?”

AnaClaire nodded, smiling.

Published 7/14/08 on Huffington Post

I wanted to link to MoveOn’s flier online, but it’s not available. I did find a pdf of the “talking points” for the event. This comes from the MoveOn planning site for the “Oil-free President” activities and is copied here without editing.

National Day of Action for an
Oil-Free President
Talking Points

* With gas prices at record highs and oil company profits out of control, John McCain is not the leader Americans can trust to ease our pain at the pump.

* John McCain has surrounded himself with donors and lobbyists who are tied to Big Oil — he’s their friend, not ours, when it comes to finding sane and affordable solutions to the energy crisis. A McCain presidency means $4 or more gas for 4 more years.

* The National Day of Action for an Oil-Free President will remind voters that if we want a long-term solution to the gas crunch, we can’t elect John McCain, who like Bush and Cheney, cares more about Big Oil profits than our gas prices and finding a way to get off oil.

* Barack Obama has a real plan to power our country on clean and affordable energy. By promoting alternative fuel sources and going after irresponsible investors driving up prices, he will provide a policy that addresses the real energy problems our country faces in the 21st century.

MoveOn.org Political Action is a political action committee powered by 3.2 million Progressive Americans. We believe in the power of small donors and grassroots action to elect progressive leaders to office and to advance a progressive agenda. We do not accept any donations over $5,000, and the average donation to MoveOn.org Political Action is under $50.

I wrote this initially as a letter to the editor, in July, 2006, when the state used new accreditation standards to take over the St. Louis School District. The newspaper did not publish it. Now, Democrats in St. Louis are calling on candidates to support giving the school district back to local control and my comments on the appropriateness of Missouri controlling local city schools are as fitting as ever.

Before people start celebrating state takeover of the St. Louis Public Schools as the answer to its problems, consider that Missouri is the same state that:
*Required segregated schools in its constitution until the 1980s.
*Fought — at every court level — being held accountable for St. Louis school segregation.
*Resisted nearly every court-ordered state expenditure to remove the vestiges of segregation and to improve the education of all St. Louis children.
*Defeated any chance that state, local and court officials would work together for the common good — an improved education for all children, regardless of their race, residence or socio-economic status.
*Created a statewide testing program and promised it would never be used to punish school districts.
*Promptly tied student test scores to accreditation and state funding.
*Has not addressed in its recently adopted testing program the immediately recognized gap in test scores between white and black students – regardless of their district.
*Has therefore unfairly penalized districts where African-Americans are the majority.

This is the state that elected John Ashcroft as governor and U.S. Senator, thereby validating his efforts opposing the desegregation cases in both St. Louis and Kansas City.

Alongside racial politics, add the animosity between rural, suburban and urban voters, the current situation of extreme partisanship of elected officials that pits Republicans against Democrats in displays of raw power, the common good be damned.

What makes anyone think that state-level educators and a state-appointed board would be any more able to resist politics than locally elected officials?

“Live together or die alone.” That’s the motto of the castaways in the TV show, “Lost,” which began its fourth season a couple months ago.
The saying is far from original, of course. I’m reminded of the flag featured in the titles of the recent PBS documentary on John Adams, that depicted a snake in several pieces, with the words, “Join or Die.” It was a plea for the colonies to recognize their common interests and work together. See where that got us – one of the most powerful nations on earth.
Members of labor unions know the wisdom of collective action of individuals for the good of all. When I joined the Newspaper Guild in 1977, I benefitted from the strikes and struggles of the previous decades, with a 37 1/2-hour work week, a night shift that was an hour shorter than the day shift, and a solid grievance system that would protect me from the whims of erratic supervisors.
Some old-timers could tell me when they got those particular provisions in the contract, or what the results were of the strikes of the previous decade. Before I left, I could tell you the battles we waged to prevent a two-tier wage system, random drug testing or attacks on our very right to representation.
Readers of the Labor Trib don’t need to be persuaded of the value of sticking together for the common good. But in the last few years, maybe even the last few decades, many Americans seem to have lost sight of the notion of The Common Good in capital letters. Live together or die alone; join or die. These are not just sayings to make a good TV show or something from our history. These expressions of the necessity of focusing on the Common Good describe what has made America a great nation.
I’m afraid for our great nation when we lose sight of the Common Good.
The topsy-turvy weather we’ve been having the last few weeks has me thinking about global warming, power , money and the Common Good. The fact that our global climate is changing because of pollution is becoming inescapable. What mystifies me is why the Bush administration, the oil companies and other powerful monied interests are so anxious to deny it’s happening.
Oh, I can see the economic argument. Addressing the problem, tackling it with all our resources, would cost money. It might reduce profits. It could threaten fortunes. What I don’t understand is the attitude of the rich and powerful who seem to think that their power and money can protect them from global climate change.
It’s one thing to invade Iraq, using the nation’s soldiers and the nation’s money, while Bush & Co. reap profits and stay safe from the action. They seem to think that they can construct reality and live in their nice bubble, paid for with other people’s lives and livelihoods.
But there’s nowhere to hide from global warming. No amount of money or power can prevent the climate from changing in the rich man’s corner of the world. No amount of money can remove these problems to another planet. Everyone’s wellbeing is connected.
It’s the same with the attitude toward healthcare. The Republicans in Congress and the Blunt administration in Missouri seem to think that as long as their children have access to healthcare, they and their powerful friends shouldn’t have to pay taxes to ensure that other people’s children are healthy. Until the immunization rate has plummeted so much that we’re suffering from an epidemic of whooping cough – a thoroughly preventable disease. When the legislature or Congress feel no responsibility to provide access to healthcare for the least powerful of their constituents, they are acting as if they don’t live on the same planet.
Or take the economy. This latest downturn, the economists tell us, is different from those in the past. Because the poorest segments of the U.S. population never recovered from the last downturn. The rising tide of economic activity has not lifted all boats, especially among the chronically unemployed or underemployed.
Well, why should the billionaires in this country care about the widening gap between rich and poor? Why should the CEOs who get millions in bonuses even when their companies lose money – why should they care?
When the Common Good is overshadowed by “I’ve got mine, and to hell with you,” why should anyone care?
Live together or die alone. If money and power could buy peace and prosperity, the Middle East with its oil would be heaven on earth, where all children had enough to eat, where every adult had meaningful work and all God’s children would live in harmony. Instead, it is a spawning ground for terrorism. Why does this oil-rich region incubate the likes of Al Qaida, Hamas, the Taliban, ? Policies of the powerful that ignore or tear down the Common Good.
No one has enough money or power to buy peace of mind, if they’re focused only on getting it for themselves. No economy can function for long if the people who do the work are sacrificed for the comfort of the people who have the money. Take a look at the stock market’s gyrations lately. A system built on American productivity cannot hold if you ship the production overseas. A system that exploits immigrant workers and seeks to blame them for the exploitation will continue only if we refuse to stand together.
This political season, as some politicians try the divide-and-conquer methods again, I urge you to look for candidates who understand the necessity of making policy decisions for the Common Good. Live together or die alone.

Published in the St. Louis Labor Tribune, March 11-18, 2008

It took me a while to figure out what bothers me about the campaigns and questions asked of presidential candidates, especially during the last two debates between the two democratic front runners. Aside from the idiotic, irrelevant questions (Tim Russert asking Obama, “Do you reject the support of Louis Farrakhan?”), and the horserace coverage (the Post-Dispatch headline about the most recent debate: “Fight Night”), what bothers me is that we’ve all been acting like Clinton and Obama are running for the Senate.
Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama keep emphasizing how their healthcare plans differ. It’s a non-issue, unless Hillary is really campaigning to be Senate majority leader. Program details are legislative matters. Whatever the president hopes to do with health care, any proposal will have to be a product of Congress.
More important is how the president would carry out legislation. How about asking what the candidates would expect from their Secretary of Health and Human Services? Or how the agencies and offices in the administrative branch should be coordinated to improve the health and access to health care of all Americans?
The president will have tremendous influence and control over the policy and operations of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Surgeon General, the Occupational Safety & Health Administration and the National Labor Relations Board – which all affect the health of Americans and our access to health care.
In the end, it’s not simply what the president would do, it’s how the president would delegate, what priorities s/he would set and why.

Published in Letters, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, March 3, 2008

In this decade, the integrity of elections has been severely challenged – some would say broken – especially in high visibility precincts and states. The ongoing controversy over the Bush administration’s attempts to control investigations of election irregularities by firing nine U.S. Attorneys is but one indication of the ways that our electoral process can be corrupted.

Recent doubts about the integrity of election returns have focused on voting machines, registration and investigation. But fair elections are accomplished through a myriad of details. What happens at each precinct in each township in each county and state is supposed to be overseen by volunteer election officials. We need very vigilant, knowledgable officials at each poll. This oversight is necessary not simply to prevent fraud, but to ensure as much as possible that the results can be trusted and that all qualified voters have access to the ballot.

Perfectly legal decisions can affect election integrity. I’ll use as an example the experience of my own precinct in University City.
In November 2000 the people in my historic neighborhood west of the U. City Loop could walk to the polling place, which was in one of the public buildings next to City Hall. This is a racially diverse neighborhood, with a relatively broad range of housing prices and rental rates. It is heavily Democratic.

By November 2004, our precinct’s polling place was moved across Delmar Boulevard to a place with little parking. It was still theoretically within walking distance, but the particular intersections are extremely hazardous for pedestrians. You took your life in your hands crossing the street, especially during rush hour in dim or fading light. Driving there was only slightly easier, despite the close proximity. It took us twice as long to get to the poll and vote.

That was bad enough. But in November 2006, with a hotly contested U.S. Senate campaign underway, our precinct was combined with two others and moved to a senior citizens’ residence on an obscure side street with little parking. The polling area was quite small and only one touchscreen voting machine and one optical scanning voting machine were provided. This was compared with the two to four machines that had been available at each of the three precincts in April of that year. In essence, the Board of Elections had cut the number of machines for these three precincts by as much as 80 percent. The line of voters threaded through the lobby and out the door. Average line time in the middle of the day, usually a slow time, was close to an hour. Some of the people who needed to vote quickly — Washington U. students, working people – had to leave the line to make it to work or class. The polling place was one of the last to close in St. Louis County, more than an hour after official closing time. Who knows how many people were kept from voting because of the long line.

The rationale given for moving our precinct’s polling place to much less convenient locations was that the Board of Elections didn’t have enough judges to staff all the polling places.

The Board of Election Commission in each Missouri county consists of Democrats and Republicans, but the person in charge is of the same party as the governor. Was it a coincidence that the polling place consolidation that my precinct expereinced happened after the Republicans took over? Did such consolidation and resulting limited access occur as well in heavily Republican precincts? These questions have not been addressed, to my knowledge. This is an example of one of the stresses on election integrity. People suspect partisan motives, even if the decisions (and mistakes) are merely human oversight or error.

We have a national crisis of trust in elections. Responsible and informed registered voters have an opportunity to make a difference by volunteering to keep the process accessible and fair.

Besides increasing the number of judges available for polling places, additional knowledgable volunteers would be more able to be vigilant about keeping voting machines secure, helping voters navigate the sometimes confusing machines and ballot layout, and making sure that troubleshooting and problem-solving occur in a non-partisan way.

We will desparately need computer literate, assertive folks on the ground on election days this year – from all parties. But particularly from the parties not in power – Democrats and Libertarians and Green Party – to help the Republicans run honest and unbiased elections that stand up to challenges. Our trust in elections is at stake.

Published in the St. Louis Labor Tribune, February 26-March 5, 2008

Election commissions will continue recruiting volunteer officials through spring, summer and fall in anticipation of a large turnout in November.
In Missouri call the county (or city) Election Commission
Jefferson County, (636) 797-5486
St. Charles County, (636) 949-7550
St. Louis County, (314) 615-1800
St. Louis City, (314) 622-4336

In Illinois call the County Clerk
Clinton County (618)-594-2464
Madison County (618) 692-6290
Monroe County (618) 939-8681
St. Clair County 618-277-6600 x2380

Published in the St. Louis Labor Tribune, February 26-March 5, 2008

When Gov. Matt Blunt declared Missouri a state of ONE I wish I had asked him about the obvious contradiction — that he could blandly agree to support eradicating poverty in Africa and other Third-World countries, while just as blandly cutting the budget of Medicaid programs for children and families right in his own state.
He gave an indication of his ability to live in parallel universes in his speech Thursday. America is the richest, most privileged country in the world, he said. We are generous, and Missourians are more generous than the national average. Gov. Blunt seemed to be saying that individual and corporate efforts at charity were fine — admirable, in fact.
But when it comes to throwing the power and purse of state government behind eliminating the disease and malnutrition that haunt people in poverty in HIS OWN STATE, Blunt is able to disconnect from those noble words and cut programs and aid for children and the poor — even if it means losing matching federal funds.
I wish I had asked Gov. Blunt, what does it mean, to sign that proclamation, if you’re not going to change policy?