Serve Others

A Matter of Trust

KTrapani — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 02:01:00 GMT

For 4 months, I have been thinking about the best way to blog. Frankly, I have quite a bit to say, but I want very much to hear from others as well. My previous posts, I'm told, are too comprehensive and leave little opportunity for response. As you might suspect, they're also hard to write while dealing with the demands of a normal life. I am not a professional writer -- as is obvious -- and I have not yet found the process nor the needed discipline to write regular, long, high-quality posts.

I approached this weekend thinking I'd try to write more frequent, shorter and more open-ended posts... inviting a great deal more response. That's what I'm doing today, but, once again, I have a lot to say. I promise, I'll hold back and hope to hear from others.

I spent most of the weekend angry at and about John Edwards. Without going into much detail, I'll just say that I was very supportive of and involved in his campaigns. My wife and I have been with John and Elizabeth many times and we wanted very much for John to be our next President. We knew about Rielle's pregnancy, felt terrible when we heard that Andrew Young was the father (we thought Andrew and Cheri were a terrific couple, raising a nice family...) and we were disappointed when John ended his candidacy.

We were devastated by Friday's news. Then, we were angry to hear about the use of the "One America Committee" funds. I spent a lot of time wondering how I could have been so wrong about the man.

Then I went to church. We often attend church on Sunday evenings in a small chapel built by slaves in the 1840s. It's an intimate setting and the Lord's words often seem clearer to me there than in the larger, adjacent church we attend on Sunday mornings. Tonight, that was the case. As we heard the scripture reading of Jesus walking on the stormy seas to rescue the boatload of his disciples, it came to me... we too often trust in one man, one earthly man -- like John, or Barack, or others -- to lead us, to save us. In the bible passage, Peter, trusting in his Lord, his faith, steps from the boat and he, too, walks on the water... until he becomes fearful and begins to sink, at which point, Jesus reaches out and saves him.

Folks, I don't know what your own faith calls you to be and do, but I'll tell you what I take from that story: we're all in that boat, the storms are raging and we all need to get out -- buoyed by our faith -- and walk on the water. We must save ourselves not by trusting on Obama or McCain or even Michael Phelps, but by trusting in the Lord, or Allah, or whichever higher power you recognize.

John is just a man, flawed as are we all. It was never only up to him to save the world. We always overstate the power of the President and understate our own role. I think it isn't up to the President, it's up to us. Each of us. What say you?

The Most Courageous Speech Ever Given...

KTrapani — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 21:57:00 GMT

It's April 4, 1968. Dr. King has been shot and killed in Memphis, Tennessee.

A few hundred miles away, Senator Robert F. Kennedy, campaigning for the Democratic Presidential nomination, is scheduled to appear before a large crowd in a dangerous black neighborhood in Indianapolis. He is advised by his security detail not to go, but he goes anyway. On the ride to the event, he is quiet, lost in thought. Finally, the unimaginable occurs to him and he asks, "Do they know?" "No", he is told. The crowd has been gathering and waiting for many hours, they've had no way to hear the news. Bobby Kennedy realizes then that he, a white man of great privilege, will be the one to tell the crowd that their great spiritual leader has been brutally murdered.

He delivers the speech -- only 6 minutes long -- from the back of a flatbed truck, without a single note in his hands. In the days and weeks to follow, Indianapolis is virtually the only major US city that is not on fire. Two months later, Bobby Kennedy, too, is dead.

Here's the speech. As you read it, please ask yourself these 2 questions:

- It's 40 years later... is there anything about this speech that could not have been delivered yesterday?

- Aside from the circumstances, how does it differ from Senator Obama's speech on the same topic 2 weeks ago?

Ladies and Gentlemen - I'm only going to talk to you just for a minute or so this evening. Because...

I have some very sad news for all of you, and I think sad news for all of our fellow citizens, and people who love peace all over the world, and that is that Martin Luther King was shot and was killed tonight in Memphis, Tennessee.

Martin Luther King dedicated his life to love and to justice between fellow human beings. He died in the cause of that effort. In this difficult day, in this difficult time for the United States, it's perhaps well to ask what kind of a nation we are and what direction we want to move in.

For those of you who are black - considering the evidence evidently is that there were white people who were responsible - you can be filled with bitterness, and with hatred, and a desire for revenge.

We can move in that direction as a country, in greater polarization - black people amongst blacks, and white amongst whites, filled with hatred toward one another. Or we can make an effort, as Martin Luther King did, to understand and to comprehend, and replace that violence, that stain of bloodshed that has spread across our land, with an effort to understand, compassion and love.

For those of you who are black and are tempted to be filled with hatred and mistrust of the injustice of such an act, against all white people, I would only say that I can also feel in my own heart the same kind of feeling. I had a member of my family killed, but he was killed by a white man.

But we have to make an effort in the United States, we have to make an effort to understand, to get beyond these rather difficult times.

My favorite poet was Aeschylus. He once wrote: "Even in our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, until, in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God."

What we need in the United States is not division; what we need in the United States is not hatred; what we need in the United States is not violence and lawlessness, but is love and wisdom, and compassion toward one another, and a feeling of justice toward those who still suffer within our country, whether they be white or whether they be black.

(Interrupted by applause)

So I ask you tonight to return home, to say a prayer for the family of Martin Luther King, yeah that's true, but more importantly to say a prayer for our own country, which all of us love - a prayer for understanding and that compassion of which I spoke. We can do well in this country. We will have difficult times. We've had difficult times in the past. And we will have difficult times in the future. It is not the end of violence; it is not the end of lawlessness; and it's not the end of disorder.

But the vast majority of white people and the vast majority of black people in this country want to live together, want to improve the quality of our life, and want justice for all human beings that abide in our land.

(Interrupted by applause)

Let us dedicate ourselves to what the Greeks wrote so many years ago: to tame the savageness of man and make gentle the life of this world.

Let us dedicate ourselves to that, and say a prayer for our country and for our people. Thank you very much. (Applause)

Robert F. Kennedy - April 4, 1968

You and I now underwrite mortgage-backed securities...

KTrapani — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:48:00 GMT

Our current economic model -- implemented all across the globe as the partner platform to advancing "democracy" in developing nations -- is not sustainable.

The time has come for us to recognize that any model that is dependent on over-consumption and easy credit and that disproportionately rewards the rich at the expense of services for the rest cannot work over any long period of time. Capitalism alone is not the saviour of society.

Since last August, the Federal Reserve Board Chair, Ben Bernanke, has told us that the "weakness" in the economy has been "contained". First, it was "contained" within the sub-prime mortgage industry. Then, in December, it was "contained" in the broader home-loan sector. Now, it will be "contained" by resolving the liquidity pressures faced by some banks who cannot now use their mortgage-backed securities as collateral. To that end, the Fed will now offer some $200 million in loans to these big banks, who will put up these mortgage-backed securities as collateral for Treasury securities. That means our government -- you and I -- are now holding financial instruments that are attractive to no one else on the planet. If they were, there would be no need for this new facility.

This is the third time in 6 months that the Fed has bailed out the banks, while also lowering their key interest rate significantly. Most observers expect yet another interest rate decrease next week and there is broad speculation there may be even more loan initiatives offerred to banks in the near-term.

Now, I'm not an economist, so it's very possible that these may be exactly the right things for the Fed to be doing right now. What concerns me, beyond these actions, is the context within which all this is happening. The home-loans in question are foreclosing at a record rate because the home values on which they were based were inflated and the terms under which they were established were not manageable for the homeowners after the first few years. The homes were purchased with little or no equity (the equity we now have in our homes, on average, is lower now than at any time since we have been keping the data...) because the initial interest rates were low and the approval process was easy, allowing folks to buy homes when they could not afford them under more sustainable circumstances, or to buy more house than they needed.

By the way, most of us have little to put down on a house any more because we don't save money any more. Our national savings rate is lower now than ever before.

Virtually the same circumstances (easy credit, lack of savings, a society focussed on consumption as status, the suffocating presence of retail promotion and the need for immediate gratification) also drive the crushing consumer debt of the middle class. That debt enabled the phenomenal economic expansion of the late 90s and early 2000s, but we are all now left with flat-screen TVs, IPods, X-Boxes, fast cars, big houses... no savings and family debt we can't service.

In the mean time, on the governmental level, while we continue to finance an unpopular war and short-term energy solutions, we are cutting the heart out of the most basic social services: education, health care, shelter, and even infrastructure maintenance.

This model is not sustainable. Immediate gratification and catering always to business and the wealthy does not adequately support community.

Sustaining our model requires the potponement of gratification. It requires that all of us, families and governments, invest in the future. Investing in an excellent education for all will develop a larger community of innovators and productive workers who can develop responsible products and solve major global problems in the years to come. Instead of turning our backs on immigrants, why not embrace and educate them?

Investing in adequate healthcare for all will lower long-term care costs and develop a more productive community.

Investing in adequate, affordable housing and food programs will develop more nurturing families, more secure kids and... a more productive community.

Sending $600 checks to everyone does not accomplish any long-tem goal. Funding the National Institutes of Health (whose annual budget is less than 1/2 of one quarter's profits at Exxon/Mobil...) does.

These kinds of investments will not pay off in any one Presidential term. They will take years to show a "return on investment." So what? I'm here for the long term... are you?

A lesson for Presidents' Day

KTrapani — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 13:41:00 GMT

The war is coming to a close. There are deep divisions in the US between hawks and doves, between blacks and whites, between those who want the firm hand of a central government and those who believe in the autonomy of the states, between those who support the President and those in opposition. It is 1865.

In Washington, DC, March 4 of that year is gray and blustery... not exactly the kind of day Abraham Lincoln had in mind for his second inauguration. Still, with the Civil War drawing to an end, there is hope and joy among the enormous crowds -- made up of wealthy Northern businessmen, a huge contingent of the Union Army, the entire US Government... the victors. Soon, they will have triumphed over the Confederacy and they will set about the process of re-unification. Some, humbled by their victory, will reach out to their opponent in compassion. Others, seeing the outcome as validation of their own moral superiority, intend to have their way with the South.

As he steps to the podium on that day, a month from the end of the war and only 5 days before his own death, Lincoln himself is moved almost to tears. He is about to deliver a speech he knows is his most important, at a time when his nation is broken and deeply in need of healing and inspiration and, as he rises, the sun breaks brilliantly through the clouds, streaming onto the platform, illuminating his very presence. Lincoln proceeds to deliver one of the most important, most emotionally moving addresses in US history and he finishes with words that resonate still today:

"With malice toward none; with charity for all... let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan--to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations."

A year from now, we will have a new President. For the next 9 months, though, we will argue bitterly over the course of our nation: war or peace? Universal access to health care or incremental improvements to health insurance? Governmental controls or free-market influence? Hope or fear? Along the way, we'll likely be goaded into judgementalism, we'll talk only with those who agree with us, or, worse, we'll avoid speaking about our choice completely and we'll allow the complex and fundamental issues of the day to be marginalized by the trivial... did she cry? Did his haircut cost $400? Finally, when our candidate wins, we'll feel, ourselves, victorious.

Unfortunately, regardless of who wins, the new President will have deep wounds to heal... not only the wounds of 8 years of divisive leadership, but the additional wounds of what may well be the most damaging Presidential campaign ever waged. I'm hopeful that not only the new President, but we, ourselves, can be guided by Lincoln's words from nearly 150 years ago: "With malice toward none; with charity for all... let us strive on to finish the work we are in..." In my view, the "work we are in" is not the nasty business of electing a President. For most of us, who are more prosperous than we could ever have earned or even imagined on our own, the "work we are in" is serving others. Particularly at a time when there are so many who are in so much need, it is our duty -- in fact, it is our honor -- to reach out and help those who are less fortunate than we are. Next year, let's not so much "spend our political capital" as much as share our many blessings.

The lesson of Abraham Lincoln is that even the most damaged nation can be healed. Let us hope and pray that, through our shared personal committment to come together through generosity and understanding we "may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations."

Why can't Johnny read? Why can't Sally teach?

KTrapani — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 17:32:00 GMT

Margot Carmichael Lester is an amazing educator, deeply involved with public school disctricts all across the US. As we approach a reassessment of "No Child Left Behind" I asked Margot to write a blog post for us on improving teaching outcomes. Margot will be a regular contributor to this space... I hope you enjoy her first post:

"We know that all schools are not created equal. Some clearly benefit from better buildings, more books, more computers, and the like. But from my work as a consultant in schools across the country, I can tell you that the connection between resources and results isn’t as clear as we think. Consider an urban school district that serves primarily students from low-socio-economic families. From a recent bond issue, it just spent $50,000,000 on technology. Most kids now have access to laptop and desktop computers, but their teachers aren’t trained on how to use them, so much of the power of this resource remains perpetually untapped. At the same time, Language Arts teachers are begging for books that can be read by their low-literacy students. The district is involved in a multi-million dollar textbook adoption process but this will only succeed in procuring textbooks most of their kids won’t or can’t read. Is this a well-resourced school district? On the one hand, it has incredible amounts of money for books and technology. But on the other hand, it doesn’t end up spending the money in ways that help teachers teach and help students learn. This problem, replicated all over the country, results from the complexity of regulation at the state and federal level and from a lack of administrative leadership at the district and school level. It’s easy to argue that schools don’t have money they need. But the problem isn’t what they have, it’s how they use it. Certainly, those schools that use their money well could do much better with more. And far too many schools are woefully under-funded. But more money doesn’t easily translate into more learning. Resources have to be focused in ways that directly improve the teaching lives of teachers and the learning lives of kids. And though it’s a bitter pill to swallow, things like computers and textbooks often miss the mark. Science and common sense clearly show that the best way to improve learning is to improve teaching. Raising teacher effectiveness is the #1 research-proven tool for increasing student achievement. So the question isn’t “What computers and textbooks should we buy?” it’s “How will these resources help teachers teach and students learn?” Until we commit to raising teacher quality, and fund this resource in accordance with its importance, the issue of money for schools is essentially meaningless. What can we do about the issue of resources for schools?

When your school or district spends large amounts of money on things like computers, textbooks, and other resources, ask them to tell you how they expect teaching to change as a result.
Ask your school or district to disclose the percent of its budget that it spends annually on teacher training.
Ask your school or district to identify causal links between significant expenditures and student achievement.
Ask your school or district how it supports teachers in pursuing National Board Certification.
Ask your state legislator to sponsor legislation that increases opportunities for teacher training and more rigorous certification."

Margot Carmichael Lester is editor of the Education Is Your Business blog (http://ttms.typepad.com/ed_is_your_business/) and co-owner of Teaching That Makes Sense, Inc., and education advocacy and reform company in Carrboro, N.C.

Forty years later, Bobby Kennedy still speaks the truth

KTrapani — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 21:35:00 GMT

This whole week, the folks in my office are working together to learn about freedom and history and, more specifically, civil rights and racism. Many served in the community with colleagues and family members yesterday on Martin Luther King Day -- "a day on, not a day off", as it has appropriately come to be interpreted. Today, the whole office, led by a 22 year old and prepared by a series of readings, participated in an overview of the civil rights movement and a discussion of race relations in today's world. Tomorrow, at the company's expense, a few of our folks will head to Memphis to the National Civil Rights Museum. On Thursday, those folks will lead another discussion about their experience. Friday, dozens of our folks will head to a photographic exhibit about the civil rights movement here in North Carolina.

All this is being done in the respectful environment of a diverse workplace. Some people will be uncomfortable with the dialogue. Everyone will be changed by the process. And nowhere is better than here, among trusted colleagues, to examine one of the central issues of our time: how do we relate to people who are different from us?

For all of human history, this question has confronted leaders who choose to unite rather than to divide. Those who divide do so by appealing to man's lowest instincts: to judge, to exclude, to persecute, even, to eliminate. Those who unite appeal to our highest ideals: to love, to nurture, to understand, to share. Over forty years ago, speaking to a group of young paople in South Africa on their Independence Day, Bobby Kennedy framed this issue beautifully and left the group -- and all of us -- with a call to action. Here are some excerpts from that speech:

"This is a Day of Affirmation, a celebration of liberty. We stand here in the name of freedom.

At the heart of that Western freedom and democracy is the belief that the individual man, the child of God, is the touchstone of value, and all society, groups, the state, exist for his benefit. Therefore the enlargement of liberty for individual human beings must be the supreme goal and the abiding practice of any Western society.

The first element of this individual liberty is the freedom of speech: the right to express and communicate ideas, to set oneself apart from the dumb beasts of field and forest; to recall governments to their duties and obligations; above all, the right to affirm one's membership and allegiance to the body politic--to society--to the men with whom we share our land, our heritage, and our children's future.

Hand in hand with freedom of speech goes the power to be heard, to share in the decisions of government which shape men's lives. Everything that makes man's life worthwhile--family, work, education, a place to rear one's children and a place to rest one's head--all this depends on decisions of government; all can be swept away by a government which does not heed the demands of its people. Therefore, the essential humanity of men can be protected and preserved only where government must answer--not just to the wealthy, not just to those of a particular religion, or a particular race, but to all its people.

Many nations have set forth their own definitions and declarations of these principles. And there have often been wide and tragic gaps between promise and performance, ideal and reality. Yet the great ideals have constantly recalled us to our duties. And--with painful slowness--we have extended and enlarged the meaning and the practice of freedom for all our people.

For two centuries, my own country has struggled to overcome the self-imposed handicap of prejudice and discrimination based on nationality, social class, or race--discrimination profoundly repugnant to the theory and command of our Constitution. Even as my father grew up in Boston, signs told him that No Irish Need Apply. Two generations later President Kennedy became the first Catholic to head the nation; but how many men of ability had, before 1961, been denied the opportunity to contribute to the nation's progress because they were Catholic, or of Irish extraction? How many sons of Italian or Jewish or Polish parents slumbered in slums--untaught, unlearned, their potential lost forever to the nation and human race? Even today, what price will we pay before we have assured full opportunity to millions of Negro Americans?

In the last five years we have done more to assure equality to our Negro citizens, and to help the deprived both white and black, than in the hundred years before. But much more remains to be done.

For there are millions of Negroes untrained for the simplest of jobs, and thousands every day denied their full equal rights under the law; and the violence of the disinherited, the insulted and injured, looms over the streets of Harlem and Watts and South Side Chicago.

But a Negro American trains as an astronaut, one of mankind's first explorers into outer space; another is the chief barrister of the United States government, and dozens sit on the benches of court; and another, Dr. Martin Luther King, is the second man of African descent to win the Nobel Peace Prize for his nonviolent efforts for social justice between races.

We have passed laws prohibiting discrimination in education, in employment, in housing, but these laws alone cannot overcome the heritage of centuries--of broken families and stunted children, and poverty and degradation and pain.

We must recognize the full human equality of all of our people before God, before the law, and in the councils of government. We must do this, not because it is economically advantageous, although it is; not because of the laws of God command it, although they do; not because people in other lands wish it so. We must do it for the single and fundamental reason that it is the right thing to do.

In some, there is concern that change will submerge the rights of a minority, particularly where the minority is of a different race from the majority. We in the United States believe in the protection of minorities; we recognize the contributions they can make and the leadership they can provide; and we do not believe that any people--whether minority, majority, or individual human beings--are "expendable" in the cause of theory or policy. We recognize also that justice between men and nations is imperfect, and that humanity sometimes progresses slowly.

"There is," said an Italian philosopher, "nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things." Yet this is the measure of the task of your generation, and the road is strewn with many dangers.

First, is the danger of futility: the belief there is nothing one man or one woman can do against the enormous array of the world's ills--against misery and ignorance, injustice and violence. Yet many of the world's greatest movements, of thought and action, have flowed from the work of a single man. A young monk began the Protestant Reformation, a young general extended an empire from Macedonia to the borders of the earth, and a young woman reclaimed the territory of France. It was a young Italian explorer who discovered the New World, and the thirty-two-year-old Thomas Jefferson who proclaimed that all men are created equal.

It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.

The second danger is that of expediency; of those who say that hopes and beliefs must bend before immediate necessities. Of course, if we would act effectively we must deal with the world as it is. We must get things done. But if there was one thing President Kennedy stood for that touched the most profound feelings of young people around the world, it was the belief that idealism, high aspirations, and deep convictions are not incompatible with the most practical and efficient of programs--that there is no basic inconsistency between ideals and realistic possibilities, no separation between the deepest desires of heart and of mind and the rational application of human effort to human problems. Of course to adhere to standards, to idealism, to vision in the face of immediate dangers takes great courage and takes self-confidence. But we also know that only those who dare to fail greatly, can ever achieve greatly.

A third danger is timidity. Few men are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital quality of those who seek to change a world which yields most painfully to change.

For the fortunate among us, the fourth danger is comfort, the temptation to follow the easy and familiar paths of personal ambition and financial success so grandly spread before those who have the privilege of education. But that is not the road history has marked out for us. There is a Chinese curse which says "May he live in interesting times." Like it or not we live in interesting times. They are times of danger and uncertainty; but they are also more open to the creative energy of men than any other time in history. And everyone here will ultimately be judged--will ultimately judge himself--on the effort he has contributed to building a new world society and the extent to which his ideals and goals have shaped that effort.

So we part, I to my country and you to remain. We are--if a man of forty can claim that privilege--fellow members of the world's largest younger generation. Each of us have our own work to do. President Kennedy was speaking to the young people of America, but beyond them to young people everywhere, when he said that "the energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it--and the glow from that fire can truly light the world."

And, he added, "With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own."

No words need be added to Bobby Kennedy's, except these: cannot your own community, cannot your own workplace be a place where constructive, civil discourse on the most important issues of the day be the rule and not the exception?

One year to go...

KTrapani — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 14:17:00 GMT

Today we celebrate the life and contributions of Dr. Martin Luther King... now viewed -- in the words of biographer Harvard Sitkoff -- as "a moderate, respectable ally of Presidents and a facile spokesperson for the American Dream." Indeed, virtually every modern presidential candidate invokes the image of Dr. King as as model of peaceful, incremental change.

This view is wrong and dangerous. 40 years ago, Dr. King's agenda was radical, not moderate. He preached the need for cataclysmic change. He was hated by many in the population, especially by the FBI and state and local governments all across the South. He was attacked, discredited, sent to jail and, finally, murdered.

And he was right. At the time, America was a segregated society and there was not adequate access to shelter, health care, education or economic opportunity for a significant portion of our citizens. Because of his work, we are better today, but are we where we need to be? Are we less racist or is our racism better hidden? Are we less racist, or have our prejudices devolved into class, not racial, hatred? Are the basic needs of all our citizens being met?

As important, have we so sanitzed the image of Dr. King that we have forgotten what it takes to change this society? Dr. King was angry and justifiably so. We have a lot to be angry about today (the bumper sticker I see often in my town says, "If you aren't outraged, you aren't paying attention.") Expressing our anger, however, generally meets with either apathy or a sense that anger is an inappropriate reaction -- especially when directed at the current administration. Interestingly, as of yesterday, there is one year left for the Bush administration. I think it's time for us to recognize the wreckage of the past seven years and begin to articulate the kind of leadership we demand in the future.

Mr. Bush and his associates have created a world in which we have both a growing class of uber-rich and a failing economy that is crushing the middle class with runaway debt, falling housing values and inconsistent and underfunded public services: a collapsing infrastructure, unreliable policing, a chaotic public education system and diminished recreation services. We now torture, fire judges when we can't influence them, destroy or withhold evidence of governmental wrong-doing, invite polluters to secret meetings to shape environmental policy, reveal the identities of intelligence operatives to punish political opponents, invade foreign countries on false pretenses and willingly suffer the indignity of -- last week -- having to beg the Saudis to lower the price of oil. I'm not naive enough to beleive Mr. Bush is the only President to have shaped or mis-used intelligence to further his own agenda (see my ealier post on the Bush-LBJ Doctrine...) and I certainly understand that other administrations have withheld evidence, lied and made terrible decisions. I'm convinced, however, that we have never before been so brazen in our flouting of the Constitution. Am I too angry when I conclude that this will eventually be viewed as the either one of the most corrupt or one of the most incompetent adminstrations in history... or both?

I think not. I think it's time we all speak truth to power, even when it's inconvenient or uncomfortable. I think it's time we tell our neigbors how we feel and encourage them to do the same. I think we need to explore our own motivations in order to begin to establish a civil, but frank, public dialogue about our expecations of ourselves, of our leadership and of our country. I think it's time that we recognize that. despite the prosperity many of us are experiencing, millions of people across the globe are poor, undernourished, homeless, sick, uneducated and without hope. More important, it's time that we recognized that their plight is our problem. And solving these problems will not come from moderate, gradual, incremental change.

Dr. King was a radical. And he was right. Today, we celebrate his spirit. Do we have his courage?

Britney Spears' Latest Meltdown!

KTrapani — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 21:32:00 GMT

Tony Romeo off to Cancun with Jessica!

Marine Murder Suspect Found!

Or, how about this: College Students Build Basketball Court for Indigenous Community!

I was supposed to have been in Chiapas, Mexico, last week with a few co-workers to serve alongside a group of Elon University students in a remote region governed by the Zapatista rebels. For several reasons, we were unable to make the trip, but the students -- all part of the unique "Periclean Scholars" program at Elon -- are there now for a 30-day winter-term experience. The Periclean Scholars program is highly selective, grounded in service and raises the students' awareness of the global human condition though intense, personal exposure to diificult, often dangerous circumstances. In most cases, these children of privilege are serving some of the poorest people in the world. Last winter, for example, they were in Namibia working on AIDs relief with Anita Issacs, an amazing woman.This year, Chiapas.

Their faculty advisor on the trip is Dr. Bird Stasz, an education professor at Elon, a true citizen of the world and my own daughter's mentor and inspiration in her time at the school. She writes me about the group's experiences when she get's back to civilization (about once a week) and I was moved by her note today. Here it is:

"Greetings to all,

We are back from our last stint in the field and busy taking showers and relaxing. Our time in the village was both rewarding and heartbreaking. We had the opportunity to be present for the inaugruation of a basketball court which was in fact an opportunity to witness the immense energy and hard work of the whole community. The basketball court was in fact the new community center and provided a place for everyone to come and participate in activities. We picked coffee and were amazed as the family who took us into the fields wore no shoes and the mom carried her baby on her back. It was a lesson in gratitude for what we have and I don´t think any of us will ever think lightly of a cup of coffee again. The family makes 200 dollars a year and that is their entire disposable income. The students had a chance to participate in the whole process and there is some authentic coffee at the bottom of everyone´s suitcase. Susan and I were called in to try and help a young mom with a very sick baby. Our pathetic first aid for infants was an electric tea pot and a jar of vicks. Some how there was a belief that that might make a difference. Sadly the baby had to be taken to the city hospital... an expensive and last ditch effort by the community. Again and again we were humbled by the food we were given, the warmth we felt given to us so generously by those that have nothing to us who have much. We all look forward to coming home.. dr Bird."

Bird Stasz is a treasure and her students are growing into selfless, moral, engaged citizens. I'm proud to be associated with these folks and I'm thrilled that -- surprise, surprise -- there are many like-minded kids in college these days. The times, they are a-changing. Can you feel it?

What is the role of the news media?

KTrapani — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:57:00 GMT

Like most of you, I have been overexposed to the tv news media for the last few days. And, as several of you have commented, I much prefer the relative sanity of the print media. Still, I find myself wondering why they both insist on covering polling in much more depth than they cover the substance of the issues or the candidates. As we watched the treatment of both the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, we learned much more about who was likely to win and, later, why the polls were wrong than we did about the differences between the candidates. On last night's edition of PBS's "The News Hour" -- generally a terrific source of informative news -- Judy Woodruff admiitted that "polling shapes most of (election) news reporting..." Later, Jon Stewart asked the important question: "Why can't we wait?" (By the way, he also did a great bit on the stupidity of CNN's "Magic Pie Chart" as demonstrated by Anderson Cooper...) Stewart wanted to know, of course, why we can't wait to know what we will eventually find out.

Imagine if the media shifted their attention to examining the meaningful positions of each candidate and the elements of their character and experience that might be helpful in assessing their relative readiness to lead. That kind of content, delivered through multiple media sources and relying both on the words of the candidates and good, investigative journalism, would deliver to the voting booth a better-informed electorate and would likely deliver to the White House a better prepared president... one who might even feel compelled to deliver on some of the promises he or she had made in the previous 2 years. Additionally, the de-emphasis of reporting on polling may well eliminate one important dynamic that now shapes elections. Many in the Obama campaign now think that the New Hampshire results came because their candidate's supporters were over-confident (they supposedly had a double-digit lead, according to nine different polls) and, as a result, didn't show up. Many in John Edwards' campaign think the perpetual characterization of the contest as being only between Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama has made it impossible for Mr. Edwards to raise the money needed to be a factor. Is it right for polls to shape the race? Especially when, as we saw in both Iowa and New Hamshire, they can be so wrong?

I'd like to see a civil and insightful analysis of the candidates, delivered, as they say in retail, at the point of purchase. There's no need for the media to be reporting polling and analyzing "races" a year before the first vote, but there's an enormous need for good information to be delivered when the majority of the electorate is ready to listen. For me, there was an unusual hero in the last week: when asked on CNN what he thought would happen in New Hampshire on Tuesday night, Ralph Reed, of all people, said, "I don't know."

Hooray for Ralph Reed.

The Doctrine of Preemptive Military Action: Bush or LBJ?

KTrapani — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 18:45:00 GMT

It's barely dawn in the Gulf of Tonkin on August 4, 1964 and the US warship Turner Joy is under attack by the North Vietnamese. 21 torpedoes, machine gun fire... the ship is evading and counter-attacking: full battle stations, high drama in international waters. That night the US President, Lyndon Johnson, goes on national tv to tell all Americans that there was "unequivocal proof of an unprovoked attack" on a US vessel. Then, he went to Congress and on August 7 both houses passed a joint resolution called The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, allowing the President to use miltary force to "support" any Southeast Asian nation threatened by North Vietnam.

And the Vietnam War begins in earnest.

Interestingly, the incident described above never happened. Oh, the resolution and the war sure did, but the Turner Joy was not attacked. The very action for which we were "retaliating" never happened in the first place. The reports of the incident were, perhaps, the hysterical reactions of an over-aggressive sonar man aboard the ship or the mis-interpretation of a Pentagon staffer... either way, the "incident" was packaged and delivered to Congress immediately as proof of the threat of imminent danger from the North Vietnamese. And Congress, in an election year and in the context of the "Communist Threat" just as quickly authorized the use of military force.

Does any of this sound familiar to you?

Certainly the Global War on Terror, WMD and Iraq match up nicely with the Communist Threat, the Gulf of Tonkin Incident and Vietnam, but, unfortunately, we long ago missed our chance to head off that war of choice.

Today, we learned that Iran "harrassed and provoked" 3 US warships in the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow channel into and out of the Persian Gulf. According to US officials, the Iranian boats, operated now by Iran's Revolutionary Guard (which, by recent act of Congress, is considered to be a "terrorist organization") made "threatening moves" and approached to within 200 yards of one US ship.

Now that we know Iran does not have the nuclear capability we were told by the administration they had, does anyone else suspect that we will find another reason to attack yet another soveriegn nation?

Democracy at work: The Iowa results

KTrapani — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 03:35:00 GMT

One out of two isn't bad...

I told you Mrs. Clinton might be a distant third and she was.

What I missed was more important: a black man won a Presidential preference caucus in a white state. And, by doing so, Barack Obama proved that this process is color-blind and that he is no amateur: he won in the 5 largest precincts and he won on the realignment of supporters of unviable candidates -- precisely where I thought John Edwards would win. Good for Mr. Obama and good for the people of Iowa. The process of major change began today and almost exactly one year from today, we'll inaugurate a new President... one who will, again, make us proud to be Americans.

Tomorrow, the candidates will wake up in New Hampshire and they'll continue this constructive, crucial dialogue. The Republicans will have a real effort by Senator McCain and a desperation play by Mr. Romney to complement the continued effort by Mr. Huckabee. Apparently, among the Democrats, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden will step aside. Mr. Dodd is a very good guy: experienced, articulate, a family man, a true citizen of the world. His presence has improved the quality of the discourse and I'm hopeful he'll continue to speak out in the months and years to come (perhaps as Senate Majority Leader...) Senator Biden is as strong an international presence as there is in either party and he may well have a significant role in the next Democratic administration.

In their absence, Barack, John and Hillary will spend 5 of the most important days of their -- and our -- lives. Pay attention, your future is calling.

Today, we begin to change for the better.

KTrapani — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 18:45:00 GMT

Tonight, it will be 19 degrees in Iowa, a dramatic improvement over last night. And about 120,000 Democrats will go into homes, schools and churches and choose, in full public view, the presidential nominee of their party. Across town, in a slightly different process, Republicans will do the same. All across the state, Iowans will have begun the essential process of healing our country so desperately needs.

Most thinking people now admit that we have lost our way in the past 7 years. We are not a country that fights wars of choice. We are not a country that tortures. We are not a debtor country. We are not an isolationist country. We are not a country that leaves poor people on rooftops for days on end. We are not a country that reserves the most basic resources of shelter, education, health care and economic opportunity for only the most fortunate.

We are -- at our core -- a country of compassion, of generosity, of opportunity. Dr. King taught us tolerance and inclusion. Mr. Reagan taught us to hold oppressive regimes accountable on the international stage. And Mr. Gore is teaching us to clean up after ourselves. Smart people can disagree about how best to act with compassion or to heal the earth, but no responsible American can disregard either obligation. Iowans know all this and tonight, whether they choose McCain and Edwards or some other combination, they will be choosing an agent of change.

By 8:30 tonight (Central) the caucuses will be over and the most important Presidential selection process of my lifetime will have begun in earnest. The precinct volunteers in Storm Lake and Ottumwa will have begged and cajoled and served cookies and twisted arms and all the polling will fade away... and we'll have some actual presidential preferences to examine, as opposed to the often inaccurate media representation of "the race." As you'll recall, 4 years ago, Mr. Dean was, on the eve of the Iowa caucuses, the presumptive Democratic nominee, according to the media consensus. Mr. Kerry polled a distant third, Mr. Edwards was an afterthought.

So what will happen tonight? If I'm a Republican, I'm a little embarrassed that I don't have a very good candidate yet... but I may be saying that because I'm not a Republican. Tonight's GOP results may mean little, with Mr. McCain and Mr. Giuliani bypassing the state in favor, respectively, of New Hampshire and Florida.

For the Democrats, the results might be important. The polls suggest a dead-heat and even that outcome will, if nothing else, re-frame the national debate: it will officially be a 3-way contest. A distant third by any of the "favorites" would be a meaningful setback. I think it's very possible that Mrs. Clinton will have to deal with that outcome. I think Mr. Edwards will win the day by more than a few points. In my view, he has the right message, clear and practical plans, sincere and infectious passion and an impressive structure on the ground. At 7:30, when the "unviable" candidacies' supporters are re-distributed, Mr. Edwards will be the choice of the vast majority, taking a high-20's result into the mid-30's.

But, what do I know? I'll be right there with you, awaiting the outcome and hoping earnestly that, as has been said before, "...our long national nightmare is coming to a close."

New Year's Resolutions

KTrapani — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 15:21:00 GMT

I can't remember a time when a few days away from the office was more helpful to me. Like most folks, I took some time to reflect on 2007 and to look ahead to the new year. I have been so very blessed in so many ways and, watching my kids relax at a beautiful beach with their mom and grandparents, I recognized again how fortunate I have been. Of course, like most folks, I also thought about some things I need to do in the next year: lose ten pounds, spend more time with my family, excercise more financial restraint...

I thought a great deal more, though, about what more I -- and all of us -- need to do for others. In reflecting, my thoughts turned again, as they often do, to The Millenium Development Goals (MDGs). Adopted by the United Nations in 2000, the MDGs are a 15-year plan that provide a common approach for individuals, companies, congregations, communities and countries to reach out and address the most significant problems of our time. In case they're not familiar to you, here are the main 8 goals:

Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger.
Achieve universal primary education.
Promote gender equality and empower women.
Reduce child mortality.
Improve maternal health.
Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases.
Ensure environmental stability.
Develop a global partnership for development.

Each goal has clear deliverables. "Reduce by half the proportion of people living on less than one US dollar per day," is one example. Under #8, "Develop further an open trading and financial system that is rule-based, predictable, and non-discriminatory. Includes a committment to good governance, development and poverty reduction..." In other words, if we are in a flat world, let's all play by the same rules and, more important, let's be sure that economic development benefits the many rather than the few.

The MDGs are well designed, clear and, with appropriate support, achievable. To quote my pastor, "Our nation, which has been given so much, ought to be providing strong leadership in this effort. But we can only speak with authority to our elected officials when we ourselves are doing what we are asking others to do."

We offer a prayer about the MDGs in our Church and I'll share a part of it here with you:

"...open our eyes to structures of oppression, and free us from apathy or indifference.

Give us courage to accept our responsibility, wisdom to chart a sound course amid complexity, perseverance to finish our work..

And the gift of your spirit to do what we alone cannot do."

Happy New Year.

The gift of Grace

KTrapani — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 02:35:00 GMT

In my faith community, we celebrated today the birth of Jesus Christ, who we believe is our Lord and Saviour. I don't think we have a monopoly on salvation by any means, but I do think those who follow the teachings of Christ to the best of our all-too-human abilities will be looked upon favorably on Judgement Day and we will enter the Kingdom of God. I think that's also likely true of those who see paradise, nirvana, or some other form of salvation.

I also beleive that -- even in this broken world -- there are innumerable examples of God's grace at work. My own life is a perfect example. I am an imperfect man: vain, selfish, undisciplined. Yet I have a wonderful family, a supportive community, meaningful work and service, and every material thing any man could ever want. Interestingly, I spend less time now than ever before worrying about and striving for material gain, yet more rewards come to me now than ever. I don't think that's a coincidence.

All the great faith communities have times set aside to give thanks and to appreciate all that we have been given... and to come to understand what is expected of us on our own faith journey. My prayer at this and every Christmas is the same: the first part comes from Don Henley... I pray "to want what I have, and take what I'm given with grace." Then I pray that God will give me the strength and courage to love and serve Him in singeleness of heart all the days of my life.

Amen.

Pay attention to Congo

KTrapani — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 03:08:00 GMT

In the last couple of years, encouraged by an unending stream of celebrities, we finally began to respond to the horrific human catastrophe in Darfur. Apparently, the murders of as many as 500,000 people, countless rapes and some 2.5 million refugees was enough for even the US to pronouce the situation a "genocide." Now, the worst of it appears to be over, thank God.

Unfortunately, those numbers don't appear to create a "benchmark" for global response. At the very same time, and even as I write this, the situation on the ground is worse, much worse, in Congo. According to a report today in the Chicago Tribune, the violence, disease and starvation accompanying the ongoing revolts in Congo have caused some 4 million deaths in the last ten years. Again, virtually every village attack results in mass rape... now a standard tool used on the African continent to demoralize the conquered.

We have begun to make a difference in Darfur. It's time we focussed our time, talent and treasures on Congo. It's time we decided to stand up for the rights of all God's children when basic human rights are violated.