In a popularity contest, the most popular person tends to win, and to the extent that politics is a popularity contest, the Obama administration should be worried.
There is a growing popular backlash in this country, one that is neither expressly centrist nor liberal and composed of a diverse set of people. Though they differ on the best ways to fix our problems, all of them are angry at, and alienated by, a government that seems to lack ideas, ambition, and drive to reform a broken system.

The people who really hate Obama aren’t populists, because populists are currently in the majority and populists didn’t hate Obama to begin with. No one voted for Obama only to, post-election, deem him a dangerous, radical Nazi-communist who would take away his guns and freedoms. Such people voted against Obama to begin with, and they lost—badly. The people you saw at summer town hall rallies, and still see teabagging, are a fairly marginalized minority. They may claim to be “average Americans,” but they are not. The are a radical fringe that harbors an overly narrow, dangerously simplistic definition of what it means to be “American.”

Most Americans voted for Obama largely because they disapproved of the Bush Administration. The real intransigents on the right, meanwhile, are overwhelmingly white, mostly rural, and mostly southern. They are, literally, a dying breed. The average age of a Bill O’Reilly viewer is 71, and the average FOX viewer 65. It’s worth asking if FOX News is so highly rated because many, if not most, of its viewers are retired. The “teabaggers” can afford to go out and rally because they are also largely retired. Though this demographic must be factored into the political equation in the short run, with every passing election cycle more of it, callous though this may sound, dies off. It is a scared group, one that doesn’t know who to blame for its frantic anger. But these teabaggers are dying, and they are bound to diminish in political importance. On the other side of the demographic picture, 66% of people under the age of 29 voted for Obama. It would be suicide to run a national ticket on “traditional small town, small government values” today, let alone in fifteen years.

According to a variety of the most popular polls, populists—real populists—are independents and party members who vote across party lines. Independents, at this point in time, constitute approximately thirty percent of the American electorate. Most are religious and believe in fairness, hard work, and giving to the needy. They favor gun rights, although not fanatically, and are not inhospitable to current tax rates. Independents also support most government institutions—including Medicare, Social Security, the military, and public education. Most wanted a government-run health insurance option, and similarly favor a government that helps to create jobs.

But most don’t have any particular die-hard values—they’re susceptible to appeals to their self-interest, and they vote for candidates who they believe will improve their quality of life. Independents voted for Obama en masse because they thought he was smart, reasonable, calm, and would end the Republican-instigated economic nosedive. Now, however, Independents are turning against Obama. Why?

There are arguably three reasons for this shift. First, Obama isn’t doing a great job. Second, he seems a bit like the last guy. And third, he seems more loyal to “Wall Street” than to “Main Street.”

That’s right! Main Street. Obama goes to Akron, Ohio and Terre Haute, Indiana, and he talks to “regular folk.” They tell him: “Mr. President, we’re hurting, unemployment is over 10% and Wall Street got a big chunk of our money. Why is Wall Street being bailed out and why are we getting nothing?”

And Obama has unconvincing answers, especially given that he’s kept Ben Bernanke and Tim Geithner on as top economic advisors. Independents are beginning to think that Obama is either sleazy or incompetent, while Progressives are angry because he hasn’t done anything progressive—in short, Obama hasn’t made any systematic changes. The Republicans have already turned their backs on their former laissez-faire economic policies through TARP, and the only thing Obama has done that they might not have is the “stimulus thing.” Many people can’t see how deficit spending might be necessary. Not enough of the money spent by the Obama administration has gone to train people or build schools, roads, dams, etc. The irony may be that Obama chose not to launch “direct” government projects out of the fear that the people would consider his agenda “socialist.”

And this has electoral significance. How did Scott Brown win in my home state, the progressive state of Massachusetts? A bunch of independents voted for him. Why?

Well, mostly because Martha Coakley is a jerk. She didn’t run a campaign until the last week of the election, imagining that it would cost too much money that she could have used after she won. Coakley demonstrated utter disdain for her electorate, at one point saying she didn’t need to shake peoples’ hands outside of Fenway because it was cold and she knew the Deputy Director of Education. As District Attorney, she voted not to parole the most likely wrongly convicted individuals caught up in the “satanic daycare abuse” witch hunt in the 80’s—they’re still languishing in jail thanks to her. She’s morally suspect, and “regular folks” identified that in the election.

Scott Brown, on the other hand, ran essentially as a pro-choice, moderate Republican—an Independent, for all intents and purposes—to people who already have a state government-run healthcare system they like, one previously supported by Brown. People don’t like Obama’s current healthcare plan because it is seems tainted by sleazy backroom deals, and appears convoluted, creepy, and incoherent. Simply put, Massachusetts voted for Scott Brown because he was “the other guy.”

Obama should know the following: he is not invincible, and must use government in a way that convinces the people of its utility. People still like Obama, and he would still crush most Republicans in a televised debate. After all, an angry electorate would yet recognize a cookie cutter, socially regressive, pro-Wall Street Republican as a Bush clone. People want results. But a smart, reasonable-seeming moderate Republican could easily defeat Obama unless the unemployment rate seriously drops and Wall Street is seriously regulated. Someone like Mitch Daniels, the Governor of Illinois, might be able to pull off such a defeat.

Washington Democrats need to identify the degree to which they’re misstepping by ignoring independent and progressive populism. After Scott Brown’s success, Republicans will find a way to get a moderate on their ticket. Unless things change, they may defeat Obama. And if he loses, he will go down in history as one of the most pathetic incompetents in American history: a fake “conciliator” with no agenda other than to maintain the status quo. In twenty, thirty years, when all the teabaggers are dead, and this country is primarily liberal and independent, we will look back at the Obama Administration as the last heyday of the American
conservative movement.

President Obama waves to his supporters. Can he win the support of independents and Republicans? Photograph by Jason Reed.

Last week, just days after a State of the Union address that was reassuringly reformative, President Obama was invited to speak at a Baltimore GOP retreat, where he pressed upon Republicans the necessity of closing the partisan gap in Congress. Although the hour of question-and-answer that followed may have been more controversial and certainly more entertaining than the address itself, Obama’s speech to House Republicans was more significant: it was the greatest triumph of the First Amendment since Stephen Colbert’s scathing routine at the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner in 2006.

But perhaps the Republican’s self-opposing stance that authorizing national media coverage as a “mistake” is only fair. Though it is true that Obama’s remarks were “chastising” and “confrontational”, these incivilities should not be allowed to preclude the point. What we should take away from this historical moment is not how well (or poorly) our politicians defend their rhetoric, but rather what Obama’s 20-minute “in-tele-promptu” offensive reveals about the success (or failure) of his presidency.

“These are serious times,” he declared after a brief introduction to the members of the Grand Ol’ Party. “What is required by all of us— Democrats and the Republicans — is to do what’s right for our country, even if it’s not always what’s best for our politics. I know it may be heresy for me to say this, but there are things more important than poll numbers, and on this, no one can accuse me of not living by my principles.”

Or can we? Just because Obama’s approval ratings have fallen to 47% in the past few months doesn’t mean this is a result of his political steadfastness, as this quote seems to suggest. Is Obama’s rhetoric of taking on the plight of bi-partisanship, ending war in Afghanistan (remember that?) and curbing the deficit reflective of reality, or is Obama really an ideologue, contrary to his denials?

Obama noted that he had already enlisted many of the Republicans standing before him to cross party lines. He mentioned working with Sen. McCain to make the largest increase in the Veteran’s Association budget in 30 years and dissolve state lines for insurance companies. He implemented Rep. Eric Cantor’s idea to make the website “Recovery.gov” and incorporated the ideas of Republicans Mike Enzy and Victoria Snow to create affordable “catastrophic insurance” for young people. This makes it hard to deny Obama’s willingness to work with lawmakers regardless of their political affiliation.

While Obama has followed through on his promises of bipartisanship, those on the left might argue that he is making too many compromises. Have his personal liberal views begun to gravitate towards centrist ones in order to achieve success as President? Perhaps. But while I, as a progressive, am aware of his diplomatic elasticity, I am also aware of the current state of our politics. Right now the most critical issue is not that our politicians lack good ideas; it is simply that we don’t trust them and they don’t trust each other – all with good reason.

Is Obama succeeding in using his position as President to its fullest capacity? Both his proposal to the GOP of a “modest fee on the nation’s banks and financial institutions to fully recover the taxpayers’ money” and his decree for all congressional earmarks to be made public before they came to a vote reinforced his seriousness in reigning in the national debt. Even after the senate rejected his idea just a day earlier for a “bi-partisan fiscal commission to confront the deficits in the long-term,” Obama made it clear that he would nonetheless establish such a commission by Executive Order. Having placed all his cards on the table, it seems rather obvious that Obama is not prepared to go on playing political games, and that he is indeed living by his principles.

It is interesting to note one of the many disarming claims made in his speech. Obama cited a recent CNN poll which stated that “while most Americans disapprove of the 2009 economic stimulus bill, they like each individual policy in it. When you break it down into its component parts, 80 percent approved of the tax cuts, 80 percent approved of the infrastructure, and 80 percent approved of assistance to the unemployed.” A more recent article on CNN clarified that while “Obama’s summary was largely correct,” the poll stated only 70% of Americans approved of the tax cuts.

Despite this interesting paradox, neither CNN nor Obama has offered a deconstruction or explanation. Obama’s economic stimulus package seems to be obscured by an air of blind disapproval—even distrust—despite the fact the individual policies are transparent, and most American citizens support specific mandates wholeheartedly. This suggests that the viability of the stimulus bill amounts to more than the total viability of its parts. We must imagine, then, that the American people are having some collective hallucination that up and vanishes upon closer inspection.

Obama may value principle over his popularity for the time being, but he will inevitably face re-election and be forced to worry about public opinion. Perhaps the best way for Obama to transform his stimulus bill from a failure to a success is to allow the American people to get closer to the political process. If they are exposed to and continue to see the political discourse inside Congressional chambers and witness the ideological crossfire, then perhaps the American public will be rid of this illusion. Obama successfully promoted transparency by airing the speech on national television last week. Subsequently, it should be no surprise that since the convention, Obama’s polls have begun climbing again for the first time in months.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) has opened up, in the past several weeks, that longstanding debate on political realism, racism, and the intersection of both. Reid sparked the controversy following the release of Game Change, a book by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann in which it is reported that “[Reid] was wowed by Obama’s oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama—a ‘light-skinned’ African American ‘with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.’” The book, which some see as a sludge report of 2008 campaign gossip, was vindicated when Reid admitted to spouting the scurrilous remark.

But does Harry Reid’s comment make people uncomfortable because it’s racist or because it’s true?

The statement is both racist and true. Yet just because it is true does not make it right, and just because it is true does not validate the attitude behind it. Even the most liberal-minded people still buy into, either consciously or otherwise, the prejudices associated with black people— they are violent, overly-sexual, unintelligent, and unintelligible. Today, it is still not uncommon to hear “He’s black and so polite!” or “What a beautiful black model!,” implying that blackness and certain positive attributes are normally incompatible.

Truth can also be found in Reid’s statement. No one primarily speaking a “Negro dialect” or any stereotypical “dialect,” whether Asian, “white trash,” gay, or female, would find him or herself in high office. This is simply a point of political realism, not racism. People want their elected officials to fit their ideals and speak proper English. And when the office in question happens to be the Presidency, people want their candidate’s background, speech patterns and overall demeanor to not be representative (supposedly) of a single community, but of all of America. Some voters may appreciate a certain dialect, but any particular one likely alienates more than it endears.

Dr. Boyce Watkins, in his blog “The Gri,” believes this is indicative of something broader and perhaps more sinister; “What is saddest about Reid’s commentary, however, is that it reminds many African-Americans across the country that if our speech patterns or appearance are “too black” (whatever that means) or too different from what some consider acceptable, we are going to be deemed inferior. It seems that looking, sounding and behaving like a white man is the only way I might be considered to be as good as a white man. That is White Supremacy 101.”

Reid’s commentary is politically realistic, but it is also racist.

Speaking a certain way is an action, and an individual can choose (wisely or unwisely) to act in such a way at certain times and in certain places. Wise and unwise choices can be indicative of character, but skin color cannot.

Whether the non-black people of the United States chose President Obama based on the darkness of his skin is a reflection not on him but on the people and the degree to which they still make important judgments of character based on skin color and its socially constructed connotations.

How do black people (or any people) respond to these realistic but racist “compliments?” There are five typical responses.

At the extreme is passivity or a rebuke. For some, it is easier to stay silent and accept propositions like “I actually have a smart black friend” as problematic but genuine compliments that reflect an unfortunate status quo. Then there is the immediate rebuke, which points out that such statements are inherently racist. A rebuke, though, which leaves no question as to how one feels about the remark, may do more harm than good by discouraging well-meaning, non-black people who straddle a line between tolerance and acceptance.
The third response is humor, which offers no active explanation for or condemnation of the remark it responds to, but relaxes tensions and allows the offensive party to reflect. This is perhaps the most moderate kind of response to these remarks, which is then paired with either a thoughtful response or with passivity and forgiveness. A rebuke with a well-tempered explanation points out racism carefully and kindly, yet actively helps a person understand what was racist about a given remark. Passivity with forgiveness is usually employed towards one who knows better or should know better. There is no condemnation—on the contrary, there is usually unconditional forgiveness when an offensive party realizes his or her error on their own.

Choosing between such options is ultimately left to the discretion of a victimized party, who decides according to the strength of his or her personal connection with the offensive party. This introduces a social, and therefore necessarily political, relativism into the manner with which we react to racist comments.

President Obama chose to passively forgive Reid, saying recently “As far as I am concerned, the book is closed.” He didn’t need to condemn Reid. Reid was aware of what he did and had already apologized. The Republicans, on the other hand, were in an uproar. When RNC Chairman Michael Steele was asked if Reid should resign on Fox News Sunday, he responded saying “I think he should.”

There is a standard where Democrats think they can say these things and apologize when it comes from the mouth of their own. But if it comes from anyone else, it’s racism. It’s either racist or it’s not. And it’s inappropriate, absolutely. Steele compared Reid to Republican Majority Leader Trent Lott, who in 2002, at Strom Thurmond’s 100th birthday celebration, told Thurmond that if he had won his presidential bid in 1948, on a platform that supported segregation, the nation would have been a better place today. Consequently, Senator Lott was forced to step down.

Political relativism has justifiably helped Reid keep his job because his statement is much different than Trent Lott’s endorsement. First of all, it’s doubtful that President Obama would pardon just any Democrat who uttered a racially insensitive remark. Reid is not like other Democrats in the fact that he has sacrificed his career for President Obama’s health care initiative. Before this incident, Reid was already trailing in the polls behind the Republicans in Nevada’s upcoming Senate race due to his support of healthcare reform. The President will not alienate someone who risked so much for him.

Secondly, unlike Lott, Reid isn’t a racist. Though what he said may be, Reid’s actions are not. When Reid’s office called civil rights leaders to apologize, the Reverend Al Sharpton said “While there is no question that Senator Reid did not select the best word choice in this instance, these comments should not distract America from its continued focus on securing healthcare or creating jobs for its people.”

Democratic Committee Chairman Timothy Kaine responded to Steele by saying that, while Lott’s comments seem to imply segregation of blacks is a good thing, Reid was simply politically incorrect while praising then-candidate Obama. Dr. Watkins (author of the “Gri”) argues that “he wasn’t necessarily giving his own opinion. Rather, he was giving his assessment of the preferences of the American public,” albeit in a “racist white male dialect” using outdated words like “negro.”

Even if this was Reid’s opinion, Watkins explains that, “You don’t have to be a racist to embrace white supremacist thinking. You don’t even have to be white, since many African-Americans also believe that whites are superior… Harry Reid’s words are painfully connected to the day-to-day challenges that black people face all across America.”

Others have made comments equally, if not far more, egregious than Reid’s. During the 2008 campaign, former President Clinton tried to convince Senator Edward Kennedy to endorse his wife’s presidential bid. The late senator refused when Clinton said, “A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee.” Outside the campaign in 2007, Joe Biden called Obama, “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.” President Obama maintains relations with both of them.

A statement can be racist and politically realist or true and it can make people uncomfortable because of its dual nature. The nature of such statements, or “compliments,” makes responding to them more complex than responding to explicitly racist statements. This doesn’t make such statements right, but the reaction can make all the difference in diffusing or complicating the issue.

The statement itself is indicative of an attitude that may be bigger than the statement and the reaction themselves. Given that it’s nearing Dr. Martin Luther King Day, Dr. Watkins says “Fulfilling the dream of Dr. King is going to take hard work, not another string of benefit dinners and superficial Black History Month celebrations. It is going to take a commitment to policies that seek to eliminate systemic inequality, and a commitment to the dialogue necessary for all Americans to understand each other. This problem is far deeper than Harry Reid.”

Players must try to stay alive as they navigate a Sudanese refugee camp. Screenshot from darfurisdying.com

As I peered through the desiccated brush—hoping to make a mad dash to the water pump to bring back desperately needed nourishment to my family—I caught sight of yet another dreaded Janjaweed patrol. Damn, not again!

For the past week, my family had sent me into the desert along to forage for water, seemingly neglecting the fact that I, as their oldest son, would certainly be left for dead if the militia caught up with me. Nonetheless, fetching water, if slightly less desirable than burger flipping, was my duty; without water, we would surely perish. I continued about my duty, ever vigilant, ever watchful.

Finally, I stumbled back into the refugee camp, my home for the past week. The buildings were in shambles, the crops were sickly, and the spirits of the inhabitants were crushed like a flower under a boot. I went to water our sickly potatoes, and then…

My browser quits.

You see, I’m not actually a poor, starving refugee from Darfur at all. Instead, I’ve been playing MTV’s “Darfur is Dying” game, discovering from the comfort of my desk in Berry 3 exactly what it’s like to be poor, starving, and desperate. I’ve survived dozens of paramilitary attacks, cried with emaciated widows, and pleaded for help with the international community without even leaving my seat.

‘Darfur is Dying” certainly has a noble aim at heart, trying as it does to educate people about the disaster unfolding in Chad and Sudan using a comfortable, familiar medium.

However, it effectively dehumanizes the conflict as being, yes, no more than a game. There were some heartbreaking notes to be found in the game, but at the end I was more concerned about making it onto the leaderboard than I was about the welfare of Darfur’s refugees.

Another problematic issue with “Darfur” is that only people who are already interested in the Darfur conflict will play. It’s preaching to the choir. The only way to increase international awareness of the genocide is to make more people aware of the genocide. If MTV’s game isn’t reaching out to a new audience, then what is it accomplishing?

To solve the Darfur conflict, the world needs a way to publicize the crisis accurately, and more importantly, it needs to publicize it without being despairing or tacky. Does the Darfur game fit this framework? I’m not sure it does, but for now, it certainly can’t hurt.

Full body scans of a man and woman. Given the current security situation, the federal government is considering measures such as these types of invasive scans to detect terror plots like that used by the underwear bomber. Unfortunately, these techniques still cannot detect explosives and other contraband hidden in bodily orifices. Photograph courtesy of Wired.

Imagine being the host of one of the most successful American morning shows on television. People love you. They love your personality, your charm, your wit. People look to you for advice, but they also look to you for some early-morning fun.

Now imagine that one day, on camera, you make an incredibly stupid remark poking fun at people different from you. The viewers don’t seem to notice, though. Maybe the remark was said too quickly. Or maybe they thought the joke was funny. Regardless, you go on with your show, the show ends, and you go on with your day.

One person remembers though. Me. Unfortunately, you made one deeply offensive, ignorant comment that deeply resonated with me.
The FOX & Friends morning show can certainly be entertaining. In fact, I know many people who watch this show every day. Anchors Steve Doocy, Gretchen Carlson, and Brian Kilmeade make an engaging trio. Their appealing personalities make their show one of the most watched morning shows on television.

The anchors seem to make ridiculous remarks quite frequently, but this particular comment left me so dumbfounded that I stared at the television with a face that resembled the genie from Disney’s Aladdin.

Kilmeade discussed President Barack Obama’s response to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s failed bomb attack when he referred to Abdulmutallab as the “would-be crotch bomber.” Doocy then shifted the discussion to a lighter tone, in which he lauded Kilmeade’s apparently original nickname. After a few laughs Carlson decided to make this stupid comment: “It’s impossible to say his last name anyway.”

Now this might just be a joke, but no one should be made fun of or judged based on his or her name. A name is someone’s identity, and it says nothing of a person’s personality or character.

These sorts of inconsiderate jokes tell viewers that it is acceptable to criticize someone based on his or her name.
What Abdulmutallab did was inexcusable and deservevs punishment—but the condemnation should rest solely on his actions rather than how complicated his last name is.

One of the reasons why this issue strikes me so much is that I don’t have the most ‘conventional’ name either.

People have unintentionally butchered my name many times, and many people still do. It’s not very hard; the name is pronounced exactly the way it is spelled. But if people accidentally pronounce my name incorrectly, I would not hold any grudge against them. Instead, I would respect the fact they tried to respect the name my parents gave me. But people too lazy to even try to pronounce my name correctly instantly lose my respect. It especially annoys me when this sort of laziness translates into third-rate jokes attacking minorities in our post-9/11 world.

Carlson never seems to be far from controversy. She once referred to the late Senator Ted Kennedy as a “hostile enemy… on the home front” for disagreeing with the Bush administration on congressional approval for troop surges in Iraq. On the issue of free speech, she has stated, “I am tolerant. I’m all for free speech and free rights, just not on December 25th.” Apparently, Carlson is a big fan of the United States Constitution, just not on Christmas Day.

I don’t mean to infringe upon Carlson’s free speech rights. I believe that everyone deserves the right to freedom of speech everyday. Carlson should be allowed to say what she wants, whenever she wants.

However, she must be aware of people who don’t agree with her views. Such criticisms can come in various forms, whether as an article or increased voter-turnout against conservative candidates.

I find it funny how many right-wing political analysts have discussions on why minorities tend to not vote for the more conservative candidates. None of the analysts realize that one of the reasons is that conservative political commentators, such as Carlson, straight-up attack minorities for no reason.

Why should I, a racial minority, vote for a candidate who does not even respect the vast diversity that makes this country unique?

Though I tend to agree with the social and economic viewpoints of more liberal candidates anyways, I know quite a few minorities who refuse to vote for Republican candidates. It is not because the voters do not agree with the conservative platform, but because the people representing the conservative platform are intolerant to people who are different from them.

Neither Carlson nor conservative analysts should be surprised.

No one should be judged based on his or her external features or what other people label him or her.

Though people have the right to make politically incorrect jokes, TV shows should use better judgment when addressing a national audience that includes minorities of all races, religions, and ethnicities.

I have always believed in the free markets. And after the recent financial crisis, I still do. But I’ve never believed that free markets could work in lieu of government.

Recent events have strengthened this view. We should finally accept the fact that the financial system is by necessity “socialist.” At this point, the question is not so much, “can the free markets work without government regulation?” It is more, “We know the financial system cannot work independent of government. How can we ensure market regulation serves the interests of the American people?”

One can look back at the history of the financial system—Wall Street has never functioned independent of government. The reason is not that government has always sought to meddle in an otherwise stable system. Rather, Wall Street has proven incapable of surviving independent of government. And every time Wall Street collapsed, it was the financiers who demanded the government intervene to save them. This should be common knowledge taught in history class, but it is often not.

The first extreme case of government involvement in the financial markets came in 1913. The Wilson Administration created the American Central Bank, also known as the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve, funded by tax dollars, was instituted at the request of bankers in order to offset the then recent, near catastrophic runs on banks.

The most commonly known example, however, is the so-called, “New Deal” legislation. The “New Deal” was enacted under Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s. In addition to public work programs designed to provide employment, the New Deal legislation included provisions to check speculation on Wall Street.

The New Deal included another blanket form of protection to the banking sector—the Federal Government would provide insurance for a certain fixed amount of money held in private banks. Even if a bank were to collapse, Americans would not be left penniless. Before the recent near-catastrophe, this sum was $100,000. The figure has now been increased to $200,000, providing additional security. Most of the economy functions well without the government. Indeed, the central management of economies has proven disastrous, as illustrated by the Soviet Union. But, the failure to regulate the financial sector in particular has reaped virtually the same ruinous results. Every time Wall Street has attempted to deregulate, the house of cards collapsed.

The TARP bailout is a recent example of government intervention to save the financial sector. The bailout gave $700 billion in emergency loans to banks teetering on the verge of ruin. As has traditionally been the case, it was the bankers who asked for this money. In the free markets it is sink or swim, eat or be eaten, just like a nature documentary. The banks did not want to sink. In this instance, the banks were so large they could not be allowed to sink. As Americans’ private savings are either held in banks or invested in the stock market, the collapse of the financial system is unthinkable.

Conservative ideology stresses the independence of the free markets. One may reason that capitalism obstructed by government is not true capitalism. Non-capitalist economies do not work, and so we must avoid government at all costs. Of course, if this logic holds, there is no advanced capitalist economy in the world. All those wealthy, government-heavy nations in Europe have actually failed. They just haven’t told anyone. By the same logic, the American financial sector is socialist. For the last hundred years, there has been a central, quasi government-run bank with federal regulations and mandates. Some might argue that the financial system would actually work better without government intervention, but this logic has never survived the test of reality. There has never been a wealthy, prosperous nation without substantial government regulation and involvement in the economy. Ever. Perhaps there is some way to create a purely capitalist, rationally self-regulating financial sector.

This, however, remains a purely hypothetical undertaking. In all likelihood it is a pipe dream. No reasonable economist accepts the ideology of the “free market lovers” on the right. From Paul Krugman to Alan Greenspan, there is a consensus that the financial sector needs the government.

Now that we know the financial sector is socialist, it is important that we get socialism right. Socialism should serve the interests of the people who pay for it. American tax dollars paid for the bailout. The banks have become a product, just like a car an American family might purchase. In both cases, the consumer expects a useful, workable product. With Wall Street, this means regulations designed to protect consumers—bans on predatory loaning practices, limits on derivative trading, mortgage rate limits, and the like.

The market is complex, but there are ways to make it work for a more common interest. President Obama should understand this.

There is increasing populist rage directed at him from both sides of the political spectrum. The right is angry that the bank bailouts happened in the first place (despite the fact that they happened under a Republican president). They don’t understand that without the bailouts; the country would now be experiencing the second Great Depression.

Most “liberals” do get that the bailout was needed, but are frustrated at the lack of the promised post bailout reforms that could prevent another, or a worsening of this current, economic crisis.

Let’s learn our lesson for once. Let’s not return to the laissez faire, “leave the markets alone and everything will magically work out” attitude. But let’s also not bail out the finance sector unconditionally. Let’s not create a situation where banks can do whatever they want, until they fail, at which point they know the government will save them.

Without substantial market reform, this whole sorry state of affairs will continue, abuses will be unceasing, and it will happen all over again.

In Berlin this November, Germans are partying like it’s 1989. Well, almost. This time there are no sledgehammers, cranes, or bewildered communist soldiers. The only wall falling is a line of a thousand giant Styrofoam dominoes, painted by European school children.

Many Cold War notables were there as was the ever-popular Lech Walesa who led the Solidarity movement that unraveled the communist state in Poland. The list of attendees also included Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet Union’s last premier, whose glasnost reforms set the stage for the wall’s collapse.

On November 9th, 1989, an East German official decreed that civilians could “immediately” pass into West Germany and the Berlin Wall came crumbling down.
Joyous East Berliners and their compatriots in the west swept towards the wall.

Cameras rolled as hammers began knocking off concrete. The wall was already covered in anarchistic graffiti that lent the wall quixotic absurdity. The otherwise oppressive monument had become a piece of post-modernist art.

The shockwaves of the wall’s collapse were felt across the world. By then the wall had become emblematic of more than a long line of concrete and concerta wire. It was the ultimate symbol of communist repression. East Germany had become a literal prison, and its communist government required a physical wall to keep its citizens from escaping.

Oh, how times have changed. Berlin’s reunification was only one narrative in the revolutions of 1989, but the fall of the Berlin Wall twenty years ago joins Tiananmen Square as defining and world-changing moments in recent history. Who knows when the course of history will change next?

If and when Berlin-style manmade barriers in Korea or Cyprus fall too, they’ll be comparing it to the magic of Berlin. Hopefully, though, it won’t take another twenty years.

Untested sexual assault kits at the Los Angeles Police Department storage facility. © Patrica Williams 2009.

Take a moment to consider these facts, and try to comprehend the gravity of the problem of sexual assault in America:

1 in 6 American women have survived a rape or an attempted rape in their lifetime
1 in 33 American men have survived a rape or an attempted rape in their lifetime
Every two minutes, someone in the U.S is sexually assaulted
60 percent of sexual assaults, including rape, are not reported to the police
If a rape is reported, there is only a 50.8 percent chance of arrest
Factoring in unreported rapes, only 6 percent of rapists ever spend any time in jail

For the 40 percent of rape survivors who choose to report the crime against them, a long, frustrating, and often unsuccessful process follows. The victims first endure a 4 to 6 hour procedure, including a full-body examination, photographs of all visible physical injuries and body cavities, and swabs of every part of the body where ultraviolet light reveals DNA evidence. All these samples are placed in large white envelopes, and these “rape kits” are handed over to the police.

The ostensible next step would be to test these rape kits for DNA and other evidence that could lead to the arrest and conviction of a rapist. But in most large cities across the United States these rape kits rarely make it out of storage facilities and remain untested. San Antonio has 5,191 untested rape kits in storage; Houston has 3,846; Albuquerque has 1,116; and Detroit has somewhere between 5,800 and 10,000. A Human Rights Watch report from March spawned this count of stored rape kits across the country after highlighting Los Angeles’ failure to test an astonishing 12,699 rape kits.

Why aren’t these rape kits being tested? In the HRW report, no police chief or city official offered an excuse that justified leaving thousands and thousands of rape kits unattended. “We can only do so much with the resources we have,” said Greg Matheson, the Criminalistics Lab director for the City of Los Angeles police. That excuse is hardly sufficient when the 2004 Debbie Smith Act provides federal funds for state and local law enforcement entities to test DNA evidence—with rape kits specifically in mind.

A Los Angeles police officer offered another excuse to Human Rights Watch staff and this “justification” is just as fallacious as the previous one. The officer assumed some rape survivors just lie about what happened. Less than 2 percent of reported rape cases are false accusations, yet this unnamed officer exemplifies the erroneous belief that this percentage is much higher: “I am also not going to submit a kit when I don’t think the case is founded, where something about the victim’s story just doesn’t add up. As you know, some people report a rape to get back at their boyfriend, or to hide from their parents that they were having sex with their boyfriend, or all sorts of reasons. So, you don’t just test every rape kit that comes to you.”

The California State Assembly recently tried to address this problem with Assembly Bill 1017, which would require all local law enforcement agencies in the state to report to the Department of Justice the total number of rape kits in their possession that have not been tested or analyzed. This would at least give the state an idea of the scale of this problem. The bill easily flowed through both houses of the state legislature but stopped at Governor Schwarzenegger’s desk.

While the Governor made sure to say that he “strongly support[s] efforts to ensure that rape kits are analyzed and processed in a timely manner in order to identify and prosecute sex offenders,” he vetoed the bill because he claimed it required too much time, money, and effort on the part of police departments and the Department of Justice.

The U.S Senate has recently recognized that police departments like Los Angeles’ cannot be trusted to prioritize rape kit testing, and neither can state governments. As a result, Senators Al Franken (D-MN), Charles Grassley (R-IA), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) have proposed the Justice for Survivors of Sexual Assault Act of 2009. The act, which has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, would require the federal government to collect all untested rape kits and prioritize their testing in federal DNA funding programs, including those highlighted by the 2004 Debbie Smith Act.

Every major city in the United States will need the approval of this law to set fire to their feet on this issue—all, except New York City. The NYPD discovered their rape kit backlog problem way back in 1999 (and it was a BIG problem, with 16,000 untested kits) and vowed to have every one tested by 2003, as well as to immediately send every new rape kit to the crime lab for testing. Since 2003, the rape arrest rate in NYC has risen from 40 percent to 70 percent with the help of every rape kit being tested within 30-60 days of its collection. These figures prove that the backlog problem can be solved, and show that Los Angeles, along with every other city, county and state with a backlog of rape kits, needs to stop making excuses and make rape kit testing a priority.

Bill and Hillary Clinton just might cry, though not publicly. The long-awaited health care bill has passed in the House with one lonely Republican supporting vote (technically making it bipartisan). Unfortunately, there are still a slew of issues left to overcome before health care reform finally becomes a reality, not the least of which is having the bill also pass in the Senate.

Ever since it’s been clear that this bill will not simply be a stillborn dream child of Obama’s administration, lobbyists and interest groups have scrambled in a free-for-all to stuff the bill with as many special-interest goodies as possible.

One company, Genentech, went as far as to draft up prewritten statements for congressmen and congresswomen on both sides of the aisle, made apparent by the sudden deluge of strikingly similar entries into the Congressional Record. But despite the symbolic significance of those statements, those were just words, not legislation.

More tangible stocking stuffers include promotion of in-country medical research, continued absence of a tax on costly “Cadillac” health insurance plans that provide preferential treatment, and most infamously, the Stupak Amendment—dubbed the “anti-abortion amendment” because it would limit private health insurance companies’ coverage of abortions.

And given the rhetoric thus far, it seems unlikely that these will be snipped out of the Senate’s version or the eventual final bill.

The issues surrounding the Stupak Amendment are illustrative of the high stakes in this entire health care debate. Although it is more significant than the other stocking stuffers, the Stupak Amendment still only has a limited scope.

Even if it is enacted into law, the Stupak Amendment doesn’t ban abortion, nor does it put any additional legal fetters on the procedure. Other than the symbolic significance, the only practices it does affect are the new proposals being put into place on top of our current system.

Yet this new system will also fundamentally change the overall health care environment—which was the primary purpose of the reform. With the Stupak Amendment, private insurers can still offer abortion in their health care plans, but without the aid of federal subsidies. Given the significance of these subsidies in conjunction with insurance mandates, there will be few private insurers who want to cater to this new customer base that can afford to have abortion as a covered procedure.

Even those who currently cover abortion will likely scrap it in order to compete with the public option and strive for those subsidies. With the Stupak Amendment, federal dollars will work as a contagion to force abortion out of much of the private insurance market.

This doesn’t mean that abortion will be uncovered for everyone. Private insurers will still offer coverage for abortion in corporate group plans. Wealthy individuals may opt to purchase premium plans without the federally imposed restrictions—and even if they don’t, they can always pay for the uncovered procedures themselves.

This is a luxury, however, that few can afford. With these systemic effects, the Stupak Amendment might actually do more social harm than simply impose extra restrictions on abortions—it not only makes abortions more difficult to obtain, but creates a class divide in access and affordability to the procedure.

The government’s involvement in the health insurance market will affect the private industry deeply with even the smallest actions—which ironically is the oft-touted Republican fear of “distruptive government intervention.”

America’s health care system is in desperate need of reform. But as the example of the Stupak Amendment demonstrates, legislators are now playing with fire. If the public isn’t vigilant in paying attention to what is being added to the health care soup, Americans may end up with a whole new generation of problems and shortcomings in their medical system.

Although almost any reform legislation is a step in the right direction, Democratic leadership—eager to simply pass something and nearly anything—should take special note to ensure that the final bill isn’t a Pyrrhic victory for both Democrats and Americans as a whole.

Rest in peace, Washington Blade. Low resolution image of December 1st, 2006 front page of The Washington Blade.

As far as LGBT news publications go, The Advocate magazine may be the most prominent LGBT news source, but the D.C.-based Washington Blade is also a strong contender. That may no longer be the case—on Monday, November 17th, Blade’s parent company, Window Media LLC, announced that it had ceased all of its operations, including the publishing of Blade, Atlanta-based Southern Voice, and South Florida Blade.

It was hardly unforeseen. Since 2001, Window Media had gone on a buying spree, purchasing a plethora of gay newspapers and magazines, including national newspapers like Washington Blade, but also local LGBT papers like New York’s Genre magazine and New England’s IN Newsweekly. When Window Media acquired these papers, it replaced largely local content in favor of national stories. Major brand labels, instead of local, small businesses, largely comprised the newspapers’ and magazines’ advertisements. Whenever it bought a local LGBT paper, Window Media tried to nationalize it, much to the chagrin of the local LGBT non-profit organizations.

However, gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people did not appreciate being treated like a marketing commodity. They naturally didn’t continue buying newspapers that sacrificed their alternative voice to become national media advertising machines. By the beginning of 2009, Window Media’s publications were in financial trouble. In March, Genre magazine was the first of the company’s magazines to suspend its operations. Four months later, the New York Blade folded.

Although it may not be any surprise that Window Media and its subsidiaries have gone under, it’s a disturbing trend that plagues not just LGBT press, but all print media. Just this month, The Advocate announced its plans to market itself and combine subscriptions with Out magazine, ending its 40+ years of stand-alone status. When announcing the decision, the CEO of The Advocate’s parent company, Here Media, cited problems with the print publication model including the costs of paper, printing, and postage. Additionally, the Obama administration currently is in talks about a potential bailout of major newspapers including very well-respected mainstream papers like The New York Times and The Washington Post.

While the loss of LGBT newspapers may not be such a big loss compared to the potential downfall of The New York Times (I could never see The Advocate conducting “in-depth” reporting at the level of the big newspapers like The Washington Post), their demise certainly doesn’t help LGBT visibility. The Washington Blade, the oldest and one of the most well respected LGBT news sources, had conveyed to queer people that they were not alone. Founded shortly after the Stonewall riots in 1969, it encouraged gays and lesbians to come out of the closet during a politically tumultuous era. It was a long-standing tradition for these newspapers and magazines to give LGBT Americans a voice when others tried to silence them. So now, without them, will the LGBT community lose their voice?

I don’t think so. After all, mainstream newspapers, even traditionally conservative ones like the Chicago Tribune, are covering many LGBT events without sharp disdain for LGBT Americans. The social environment has changed in a way that allows discourse on LGBT issues by the mainstream. With the general media now covering more of these issues, it will no longer be up to specifically gay media to prompt active LGBT discussions.

Moreover, part of the reason that print news media is failing is due to the Internet. Free expression is encouraged on the Internet and there is something inherently democratic about a place where a complete amateur can have as much voice as the elite. There is no shortage of gay news blogs, and while they may not have as many features or look as tidy or neat as gay print magazines, they still provide a voice for the LGBT community.

However, I am troubled with blogs claiming they are the only “authoritative” news source or dictating how LGBT politics should be discussed. While there are blogs like Towleroad.com and JoeMyGod.com that discuss LGBT issues, they don’t foster real discussion. These blogs are written by single individuals and marketed towards those with the same ideological and political point of view. Furthermore, most blogs don’t publish editorials where people can stake a claim, support it with evidence, and potentially convince others to join their side.

When this practice existed in gay newspapers, this meant internal debate by queers for queers. Now there are many clamoring voices, but they are all isolated. I worry that these newspapers and magazines are still more likely to spark debate on a topic, compared to blogs. Although there is little danger of complete silence on LGBT issues, the quality of and—ironically—grassroots participation in the debate may suffer with the rise of Internet blogs.

The loss of LGBT print media represents a sad state of affairs for the community. In spite of the numerous problems with Window Media’s publications, the magazines and newspapers added voices to the discussion about a variety of LGBT issues, including marriage equality.

Although I feel that the queer community will be heard in spite of Windows Media’s bankruptcy, it will suffer if current trends continue. Trying to buck the trend, the former Washington Blade staff met this week to try to re-launch the paper under the new name, DC Agenda. But amidst a recession and the quickly thinning field of profitable newspapers, it doesn’t seem likely that they’ll succeed. For the time being, the story remains grim. Let’s just hope that there will still be someone left to report on it.