The Bags go missing

Installment the first [janinsanfran narrating]

It all began with two intrepid voyagers seeking to fly from Boston to San Francisco in the afternoon in winter. Not a good idea. No timely one-way non-stop flight was available; we could only achieve this plan, without spending a fortune, by changing planes somewhere on the way.

As I said, it was winter. We arrived at Logan Airport by ferry and bus in good time and checked our luggage with U.S. Airways. We passed through security and proceeded to our boarding area. We sat. And then, we heard that our plane would be delayed at least one hour on the ground and perhaps another on the tarmac.

Naturally we joined the scrum at the agent's desk. This change, caused by snow in Philadelphia, meant that we'd miss our flight to the West Coast. Could we be re-routed? Why yes, said the agent, we could fly to San Francisco via Las Vegas and get home no later than 2 am the next day. What would happen to our checked luggage? After all, though our first flight was on U.S. Airways, our original second flight was to have been on United. Nobody knew, but all personnel were reassuring.

We decided getting home in this protracted fashion was a better bet than chasing after our luggage and getting snowed in at Philadelphia, so accepted the new itinerary. Eleven hours later we stumbled off a plane in San Francisco and -- not to our surprise -- discovered our luggage was not among the pieces that tumbled off the conveyor belt.

And so, we lurched over to the "Office of Property Irregularities," described our Bags and were assured by a confident agent that they would be sent along the next day. A quick cab ride home and eight hours sleep later, we telephoned U.S. Airways. Well, no, our Bags had not arrived -- but surely they'd come in sometime that day.

They didn't. By evening, still no Bags.

The next morning, still no Bags. We patiently explained to the agent at "Property Irregularities" that most likely our Bags had disappeared somewhere in the clutches of United Air since we had been originally ticketed to fly their route from Philly to San Francisco. Finally, in late morning, we were assured that the luggage was in possession of the Courier. Perhaps the saga was coming to an end ...
***

Installment the second [rebeccag narrating]

You may recall that when last we left our intrepid two-wheeled heroines, they had fallen into the clutches of The Courier. Or so we had been informed by the mysterious minions of U.S. Airways employed by the department they call "Property Irregularities." This Courier, these minions (perhaps we should refer to them as the Irregulars) assured us, was a force for good, and would shortly appear on our doorstep, The Bags in tow.

Secure in the knowledge that we would soon be reunited with our beloved Bags and the books, underwear and knitting paraphernalia they contained, we set our minds to other matters. Hours passed in useful activity, uninterrupted however by the appearance of anything resembling a Courier. Growing concerned - and aware that we had an engagement for dinner some hours hence - we attempted further contact with the minions of US Airways. We did not wish The Bags to arrive only to find the house darkened and silent, save for the occasional piercing howls of Fester the Cat.

Reader, we phoned again. Alas, the minions of the Department of Property Irregularities had disappeared, leaving behind only their infernal Message Machine, whose mechanical voice cheerfully assured us that their concern for our missing Bags was nearly as deep as our own. Skeptical, but undaunted, we considered a change in tactics. Our original flight plan involved a switch in Philadelphia to United Airlines. Although we had never actually traveled to Philadelphia due to untoward inclemency there, you may recall from an earlier episode that The Bags had indeed made that journey. Perhaps the good people of United Airlines would know something of their fate?

A call to United Airlines (answered, we suspect, in Lahore) revealed that indeed The Bags were in their possession. They were, in fact, repining at the San Francisco Airport at that very moment. Could we ourselves retrieve them? Indeed we could.

In high good humor we set out for the airport. We improvised a ditty:

Do not fly on US Air.
Do not fly on US Air.
They take your luggage
And throw it in the air

The Homeland Security Alert Level being set at "Orange" we elected to leave one of us in the car, while the other parlayed with the good people of United. This task fell to janinsanfran. Just as a helpful policeman was urging me in the nicest possible way to remove my potential car bomb from the curb, janinsanfran emerged from the baggage claim area. One look at her crestfallen face - and her Bag-less hands) was sufficient to communicate the Awful Truth. The Bags were no longer in the possession of United Airlines. Indeed, we had missed them by a mere 15 minutes. You may well imagine our consternation upon hearing that they had been seized by the sinister personnel of US Airways.

But the trail was a mere quarter hour old. Surely with a bit of courage and ingenuity we could close the gap. We circled back to the now-familiar Department of Property Irregularities at the U.S. Airways terminal. I hovered while janinsanfran went in. There she encountered the kindly Clifford, who offered to fortify her with a cup of Coffee while he related to her his part of the Tale. Declining the coffee on grounds of concern for her hovering partner, janinsanfran urged Clifford to make haste and tell her what he knew.

Clifford, it appeared, did not work alone in the Department of Property Irregularities. Indeed, he was much plagued by a co-worker, known only as The Girl, who drove him near distraction. In order to attain for himself a moment's peace, he had lately dispatched her to United Airlines, to retrieve our Bags. It was indeed odd, he mused, that he had not seen her since. We could be sure, however, that she had conveyed The Bags into the hands of The Couriers, who would shortly deliver them to our doorstep.

At once disappointed to have been within a quarter hour of success, and elated at the prospect of a grand reunion, we rushed home to prepare a proper welcome for The Bags.

Some hours later, no Courier having appeared, and the hour of our engagement growing dangerously near, we hazarded another call to the Irregulars at US Airways. The kindly Clifford had finished for the day, but his successor, a lovely woman, assured us that The Bags had been transferred to the Couriers. She provided a telephone number.

Reader, I called that number. "Did we call you?" asked the voice at the other end of the telephone.

"No," I replied, a bit startled, "I called you."

"Well, you can't call us until we call you. You have to call the airline."

"But they told me to call you. They said you have our Bags."

A deep sigh greeted this news. "Well, what address are they supposed to go to?"

I told her our address. After a bit of searching, she informed us that the Bags were indeed in her possession. "They should be there by 7:00 tonight."

Alarmed, because our Engagement was to begin at 6:30, and we did not relish the thought of The Bags languishing unprotected on the porch of our house, I asked whether we might instead retrieve the bags ourselves.

Our informant was dubious, but at length agreed that we might do so. A complex set of driving directions followed. which in the event would prove inaccurate and lead us on a merry adventure among the warrens of warehouses of Trans-Freeway South San Francisco.

We knew better, after so many near misses to set our hopes too high, but we set out in good spirits. Once it dawned upon us that our informant's directions were in cypher, and must be interpreted inside out and backwards, we at length arrived at a warehouse set at the back of a dark and empty parking lot. We discerned in the distance the welcome glow of an open door.

On approaching, we were greeted by a number of singing Couriers, young men of the Tribe of Hip-Hop. They were a bit surprised to find two aging women in their midst, but once having understood the nature of our errand, they proved most helpful. Indeed, of all the people we had come across throughout our quest, these were the most helpful of all, for once learning that our Bags were bound for San Francisco, they led us to a small corral.

And there, dear Reader, amidst a sad assortment of suitcases and knapsacks, looking forlorn, but none the worse for wear, we saw them!

With great jubilation on all sides, we effected our reunion. As we were leaving, I offered the assembled Couriers a bit of advice:

"Never fly US Airways."

This suggestion was greeted with great hilarity. "Look around you," said leader of the Couriers, gesturing at the room full of bags. "Do you really think any other airline would be any better?"

Collective punishments

The Israelis have said they will allow power plant fuel and medicines into the Gaza Strip on Tuesday, easing a blockade imposed after rocket attacks.

Defence Minister Ehud Barak agreed to ease the curbs for one day hours after the territory's sole power plant shut down, plunging Gaza City into darkness. ...

EU external relations commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner spoke out against "this collective punishment of the people of Gaza" and called for an end to the blockade

BBC News

While folks in the U.S. are properly distracted by Presidential follies, the Israelis have been beating up on the 1.5 million Palestinians locked down in the prison that is the Gaza Strip. They are "answering" home-made rocket attacks on Israel launched from Gaza. Let's see:

• 783 rockets fired at Israel in 2007, killing two people ... Israeli Defense Forces (Army) via BBC

• [During the last week], over 100 Palestinians have been injured and more than 31 have died as a result of Israeli military action ... World Vision Middle East via Alertnet

Israeli policy seems to be to use vastly disproportionate force to punish all the unfortunate, trapped inhabitants of Gaza. It can, so it does.

None of the U.S. politicians currently chasing our votes is likely to do anything to oppose this behavior.

When collective punishments were meted out to resisting citizens of German-occupied Europe during WWII, occupiers' behavior was considered monstrously barbarous, clear evidence of the uncivilized character of the Nazi regime. When the U.S. Army leveled most of the Iraqi city of Falluja in late 2004 for the crime of serving as a center of resistance to U.S. occupation, the attack was simply a military operation.

At root, we either think other people are people -- or not. Nazis knew that untermenschen, especially Jews, were subhuman. Israeli authorities know that Palestinians, especially those associated with Hamas, are just cockroaches obstructing the Zionist project. U.S. commanders in Iraq know they confront only hajis, whose lives and country require no respect. When the enemy is not human, any atrocity goes. Not a pretty picture ...

Campaign tidbit: It may surprise you to learn they are human

Presidential candidate John Edwards doing the work. (AP Photo/Noah Berger)

In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter a hoot what I think about the Democratic Presidential primaries. Oh, I'll vote and all -- but if I wanted to have real influence, I'd work on local issues and candidates as wells as organize to increase civic participation and competence among those who aren't currently able to get in the game. And I do, for my work.

But the long running Presidential sweepstakes is great theatre, so over the next few days, I'm going to share a series of tidbits and perhaps insights as they fly by.

One of the most insightful bits of journalist punditry I've seen about the campaign was this from James Fallows:

If you have not worked or traveled on a political campaign, you really cannot imagine the importance of sheer mind-destroying, bone-sapping, emotion-straining, personality-fraying exhaustion as a factor in performances by candidates. Especially the moments that seem angry, thin-skinned, dazed-sounding, ill-advised, or clumsily-worded. Where there is a "gaffe," there is usually an over-tired candidate backed up by over-tired staff. ...

Their day involves endless stress, movement, and performance, starting at 4:25am when they get up for the next bus or plane or morning show, through maybe 1:15am that night when they collapse after the last staff meeting or poll discussion or evening show or fund-raising call. ...

Rule of thumb: each hour of super-fatigue takes maybe 5 points off your IQ and 10 per cent out of your emotional balance, especially in the equanimity, patience, and "taking things with a grain of salt" departments.

All very true -- the mentor who got me into working campaigns warned me: "when it is over, it will take you months to recover -- the world will seem gray and empty." She was right.

But of course these people, candidate and handlers, choose this lunatic activity. On the lower levels, quite often a "candidate" gets into a race and then learns s/he doesn't actually choose to run at the actual pace required -- and nearly always loses.

So just because they are human, do we have to forgive them for dumb stuff said and destructive tactics adopted? No. Just as I have little patience with the plaint often emerging from dysfunctional progressive non-profit organizations -- "but the staff work so hard" -- I don’t give a pass to candidates and their staffers who screw up during the marathon. That's the game. Live with it and master it.

Obama's contagious optimism

A long time friend, a feminist, an African-American, a mature woman who has seen much trouble and much joy, sent me this letter about the Democratic Presidential hopefuls. I've been hard on Obama at times and continue to lean to Edwards, but I thought readers might find her letter thoughtful.

Given that all along I saw Obama, Clinton & Edwards as being fairly similar on the issues (not nearly as good as Kucinich, but way better than the Republicans), my choice of Obama had/has to do with 2 things.

One: I think it would be a major (positive) paradigm shift for an African-American to be elected president in this country. Of course it would be a major (positive) paradigm shift to elect a woman as well. But I disagree with those who believe that a woman has less chance than an African-American man. I think those who say that seriously underestimate the level of racism in this country. I think that both the racism and the sexism are so extreme and so ingrained that it is inaccurate, silly and counter-productive to argue over who is less likely to be elected (and who you therefore should vote for). The old (stupid) game of "whose is most oppressed and therefore most deserving?" Let's not keep this competition going.

Two: (and this is what edged Barack over Hillary for me), Barack comes across more as a real human being rather than the usual politician, which Hillary acts more like. He is incredibly honest for a politician. If you want to know what he really thinks, read his book, "The Audacity of Hope." If you want to know what his life has been all about (prior to being senator) read his autobiography "Dreams from my Father." He tells all (which we all knew would eventually be used against him in this race, as it now is beginning to be.) He doesn't pretend that he "didn't inhale." ...

Along with Obama's remarkable honesty (for a politician), is his great knack for inspiring hope in people. Honestly, I think Ms. Clinton may have gotten further in her own race as a result of the hope that Obama inspired in so many people that it may actually be possible in the here-&-now for this country to elect either an African American or a woman.

This is something so many of us could not conceive of happening in this backwards country in our lifetimes.

But Obama's contagious optimism helped a lot of people believe and throw their support behind him in great numbers, which led others to believe also that we could finally vote for someone we really support and they might actually have a chance to win, and so Clinton supporters also gained hope and courage and supported Clinton in great numbers and support for both of them began to snowball in a way that is unprecedented for either a female or an African American candidate for president of the U.S.

Anyway, I am supporting and voting for Obama, even tho I have serious qualms about the stance of all 3 democrats on Iran/Iraq/Pakistan &/or US militarism. Still, either Hillary or Barack would be a super big step in the right direction for this country.

Not how I read the campaign, but I certainly share that yearning for optimism. And I have to like a campaign that moves my friends to write serious letters about what they think of the candidates.

Friday Cat Blogging:Barn cats

These beauties are workers. They keep down the rodents at this farm stand, located in the corner of the barn. And they sure appreciate a bit of human affection.

Campaign tidbit:Field demonstrates its value

In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter a hoot what I think about the Democratic Presidential primaries. Oh, I'll vote and all -- but if I wanted to have real influence, I'd work on local issues and candidates as wells as organize to increase civic participation and competence among those who aren't currently able to get in the game. And I do, for my work.

But the long running Presidential sweepstakes is great theatre, so over the next few days, I'm going to share a series of tidbits and perhaps insights as they fly by.

Many observers have been struck by how very high the turnout of Democrats was in Iowa and New Hampshire.

The fact that almost 4 times as many people attended [an Iowa] Dem caucus in 2008 versus 2000 is the real story of the night for me. It makes the Rep attendance gains seem paltry....

Beyond who won on each side, there's a very big partisan message out of tonight. Just under 220,000 Democrats caucused tonight. About 115,000 Republicans did. That is a very big vote in itself. Talking Points Memo

After New Hampshire, many observers pointed out that Clinton seemed to have an exceptionally effective Get-Out-The-Vote operation.

Raising turnout, and especially turning out the voters who have said they will vote for a particular candidate, is what "field" operations do in campaigns. If nobody loves the candidate, field can't fix things, but well run field operations can raise a candidate's vote total by 3-5 percent.

Field is unpopular with media oriented consultants; it is not profitable for them, it's messy, costly in labor, difficult to control because it employs volunteers -- and it can be a difference maker. Field requires commitment of campaign cash. In this year's Presidential extravaganza, candidates have had enough money to invest heavily in field in the early states.

Historically, field operations have often foundered on difficulties with "the lists." Because local and state election authorities seldom maintained very reliable records of voters (the raw voter file), field ops often tried to contact "voters" from records that were as much as 30 percent wrong. It can get very frustrating when a third of your phone calls reach disconnected numbers or you knock at the fifth house of the day where the person who answers the door says "Who? She doesn't live here."

The combination of contemporary databases, list improvement using commercial data, and better state registration practices means that "the lists" have become more efficient tools for making voter contacts. And more computing power has made all that information cheaper to manage. So campaigns have been doing more field work and getting more out of it. Matt Stoller of Open Left has tracked how field drove turnout in Iowa. Campaigns had access to

...far superior field tools deployed over the last five years, including the Voter Activation Network (VAN) and Catalist, as well networks of field staffers who know how to use them and a commitment to invest in field from all the major campaigns. This was a field battle, for once, and finally, the tools were great. That means that more voters were touched earlier and more often than ever before with sophisticated chunks of information. And they turned out. Voting is kind of hard, and the campaigns made it easier.

The sentenced I've emphasized is the essence of what field brings to campaigns.

Unlike any campaign's tightly controlled media messaging, field is where democracy happens. That's some of the good news in this year's cycle.

Depressingly honest

The Toronto Globe and Mail notes:

Canada puts Guantanamo on torture watch list
[The ministry of] Foreign Affairs has put Guantanamo Bay on a watch list for torture, despite Ottawa's assertions that it will not intervene with claims that Omar Khadr has been abused while in detention, CTV News reported last night.

Mr. Khadr, 21, has been held at Guantanamo Bay for more than five years as he awaits trial for the alleged killing of a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan.

His U.S. military lawyer, William Kuebler, says Ottawa's move to name the detention camp on the watch list - outlined in documents released as evidence in a court case - contradicts Prime Minister Stephen Harper's assurances of fair treatment for the Canadian man.

Two lawless governments -- one brutal, the other cowardly -- play out their roles.

UPDATE: January 19 -- Well, Canada didn't stick to its principles very long. Reuters reports:

Canada's foreign ministry, responding to pressure from close allies, said on Saturday it would remove the United States and Israel from a watch list of countries where prisoners risk being tortured.

Both nations expressed unhappiness after it emerged they had been listed in a document that formed part of a training course manual on torture awareness given to Canadian diplomats.

Foreign Minister Maxime Bernier said he regretted the embarrassment caused by the public disclosure of the manual, which also classified some U.S. interrogation techniques as torture.

Why you want a jury of "your peers"

This week the federal government won one of its "terrorism" prosecutions. That's news, since despite a lot of noise, many much heralded trials have not led to much result, for example, that of Holy Land Foundation. But last week the government won one.

... three men [of Middle Eastern origin] were found guilty of conspiracy to defraud the United States and of a scheme to conceal the true origins of the nonprofit charity, Massachusetts Care International Inc., which operated from 1993 to 2003 and collected $1.7 million in donations. ...

"This prosecution serves notice that we will not tolerate the use of charities as a means of promoting terrorism," said Kenneth L. Wainstein, assistant US attorney general for national security, in a statement released after the convictions.

He called the verdict a milestone in the government's efforts "against those who conceal their support for extremist causes behind the veil of humanitarianism."

Boston Globe

Sounds important. And probably the convicted men are at least sympathizers with aggressive Islamists.

But if you delve into the Globe's story, it comes out that the case was not so straight-forward.

In a telephone interview last night, Jean Ngarambe, of Salem, the juror who wrote [a question to the judge,] said he didn't have any bias as a result of Sept. 11, 2001, but was trying to determine whether he could consider the emotional impact on Muntasser, who was born in Libya and is a Muslim. He said he believed Muntasser's contention that he lied to the FBI in 2003 about his earlier travel to Afghanistan because in the post-9/11 world, he feared that he might be sent to the US detention camp at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

"He had a good reason to lie," said Ngarambe, who added that he would have acquitted Muntasser of lying if the judge had allowed them to consider his motivation and emotional state.

"I am satisfied about the verdict, but for Muntasser I am sorry about that," said Ngarambe. He said Muntasser had withdrawn from the conspiracy in 1996 when he quit his job at Care International and wouldn't have been convicted at all, if not for lying to the FBI in 2003. "But on the other hand the crime is there. They defrauded the IRS."

The Globe does not tell us Mr. Ngarambe's ethnic background. But clearly this juror knows something of contemporary U.S. reality that scared-silly white jurors might miss.

If only he'd been allowed to bring his experiential knowledge to bear on the case ...

Hard realities

U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, commander of Multinational Corps with Iraqi Minister of Defense Abdul Qadir Mohammed Jasim. U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Curt Cashour

Today the New York Times tells us:

The Iraqi defense minister said Monday that his nation would not be able to take full responsibility for its internal security until 2012, nor be able on its own to defend Iraq’s borders from external threat until at least 2018. ...

Given Mr. Qadir’s assessment of Iraq’s military capabilities on Monday, such a withdrawal appeared to be quite distant, and further away than any American officials have previously stated in public.

This has set off hand wringing in some quarters.

Now we've got a lot to worry about, but a member of the current Iraqi government asking for "enduring" bases shouldn't be a major cause of concern. Why?

• The Iraqi "government" is a largely a fiction, a squabbling mess of sectarian politicians grabbing for spoils. Doubt this? Read Inside Iraq for several well-placed Iraqis' on-going reports.

• There is no reason to believe that whatever temporary diminution of violence "the surge" has achieved will continue. U.S. troop levels will be drawn down in 2008 both because the Pentagon has no more bodies to throw into the maul and because domestic U.S. politics will require it.

• Meanwhile, there is no reason to believe the "insurgents" have really been wiped out and aren't just waiting for the heat to subside. After all, Iraq is their country. From the get-go, the invaders have assumed the Iraqis would let the U.S. decide their fate. We forgot we were crashing into one of the "cradles of civilization." They've seen a lot of invaders come -- and go.

• And then there's that other little military entanglement -- the war the U.S. is rapidly losing in Afghanistan.

The peace movement has a lot of work ahead. This year, so far as possible, we have to show our politicians that killing our troops for empire will cost them their jobs. Over time we have to turn the country away from oil and world domination. But we should remember, in all this, reality is overwhelmingly on our side.

Mitt Romney defends himself against allegations of tolerance

Since we run the risk of losing him today, we might as well enjoy Mitt while we've got him.


Mitt Romney Defends Himself Against Allegations Of Tolerance

Courtesy of The Onion.

Stereotypes on the campaign trail

As the Clinton campaign, in its anxiety to fend off Obama fever, lurches dangerously toward the country's historic racist sink hole, maybe we could all use a dose of Professor C.H. Dalton:


Stop it, all of you.

The aliens are coming

What's this on the trail to the beach?


They just keep on coming. ... Evil crabs and shellfish are invading the Massachusetts coast.

The Chinese Mitten crabs, which arrive as stowaways in ballast water, can do a lot of damage.

Mitten crabs are ravenous omnivores and the zoologists fear they could both eat and out-compete vulnerable freshwater species. "It's quite a big crab and capable of disturbing the environment for other organisms," said Rainbow. ... Studies show the crabs can also cause serious damage by burrowing into banks and earthworks along rivers.

[If only we'd adopt Chinese food preferences...] "The Chinese love them, especially when they're full of gonads during the breeding season. The carapace of a large one measures eight centimeters (about three inches) across—that's a decent-sized meal."

The Rapa Whelks meanwhile are eating up their competitors. Apparently these Asian origin shellfish grow too large for the local turtles to consume -- and then chow down on the local clams, oysters and mussels.

As for the third alien, I couldn't find much except this description this description from a Texas source.


The town boards that encourage the shell fish industry and the Martha's Vineyard Conservation Society are offering a reward to people who apprehend one of the invaders. Since I've already got a copy of the trail guide (it's great), I think I might pass any I found to some child who would receive a more desirable prize.

Just a foreseeable consequence

Hell of a way to mark six years of the U.S. gulag at Guantanamo. From the Center for Constitutional Rights:

the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit today dismissed an action brought by four former British detainees against Donald Rumsfeld and senior military officers for ordering torture and religious abuse. The British detainees – Shafiq Rasul, Asif Iqbal, Rhuhel Ahmed and Jamal Al-Harith -- spent more than two years in Guantanamo and were repatriated to the U.K. in 2004.

In a 43-page opinion, Circuit Judge Karen Lecraft Henderson found that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a statute that applies by its terms to all "persons" did not apply to detainees at Guantanamo, effectively ruling that the detainees are not persons at all for purposes of U.S. law. The Court also dismissed the detainees' claims under the Alien Tort Statute and the Geneva Conventions, finding defendants immune on the basis that "torture is a foreseeable consequence of the military's detention of suspected enemy combatants."

Apparently if something is foreseeable, it ceases to be culpable. Besides, these prisoners are not "persons." All hail the torture regime.

Friday critter blogging

What the heck are those things?


Seems to be a PVC-a-saurus.


Some teeth there. Wouldn't want to meet this guy on a dark night, but he doesn't seem to be very mobile.


His little friend the PVC-piglet seems more benign. Perhaps this is an effect of the plugged snout.


Not too surprisingly, these critters reside next to this shingle.

Running hazards

Starting out to run the other day, I had a choice.


I could head off down a quiet country road.


Or I could plunge into the forest to see what I could see on rocky, leaf strewn trails. For me, it was a no brainer. Into the forest I went. I pretty much always do, when trails are available.

Given my longstanding choice for the wild, a letter in the San Francisco Chronicle last month really annoyed me. The writer was distressed by a story about friends of a missing person looking for her on the trails in Marin County.

Safety in numbers
The latest tragedy on Mount Tamalpais underscores a basic hiking rule: Never, ever under any circumstances, hike alone in a wilderness area.

We see hikers often with no hiking poles, inadequate footwear, no water, no map, and no idea as to where they are, where they are headed, or how to get back to the car. Hiking trails are rough; rocks and roots can trip the most careful. A misplaced foot on the soft trail shoulder can send the hiker down into a ravine and into dense underbrush.

If you must hike alone, stick to Golden Gate Park or along city streets (stay out of Richmond). Hiking alone is simply asking for trouble.

Mr. Letter Writer, if I took your advice, I'd never get out on the trails. Of course I run alone -- how else could I explore the places that beckon, galumphing along at my own pace, occasionally turning up an unknown side trail or even stopping to take a photo?

I'm equipped enough by my standards: I carry a water bottle or wear a Camelbak full of liquid if I plan to go longer. Tucked in the latter I'll have a wind shirt. I usually have a paper towel and a pocket camera. If I'm in a new area, I try to have a map, but will admit I sometimes employ some dead reckoning, branching out from familiar paths to find new ones. If I don't know the area, I pay close attention to route finding.

Yes, I've been known to fall over a root or trip over a rock. I'm a 60 year old with occasional skinned elbows and knees to show for my trail addiction -- and not too worried by it. Maybe I should be, but I'd rather just go.

In the wild places, I've never had a really bad encounter with another human being. I know these can happen. For awhile at the beginning of the 1980s, there was a killer in the Marin Hills. And there was this chilling true story.

But I like my odds on the trails a lot better than I like my odds in urban parks. In 30 years of running, it has been in parks that I've encountered human violence. I've been yelled at from passing cars, had a gun pointed at me "as a joke," had guys expose themselves -- all in daylight in city public places.

So, no, Mr. Letter Writer -- I can't take your advice. I worry myself a little at times, but the trails still call and I still rumble along them. Usually alone.

Clinton's day: Does NH victory bring race to the fore?

My good friend Bob Wing, who I have worked alongside in War Times/Tiempo de Guerras, along with Marqueece Harris-Dawson who is executive director of the Community Coalition in Los Angeles, have written an analysis of color-coded voting in New Hampshire. (Emphasis is my addition.)

The jubilation of Barack Obama's stunning win in Iowa was muted by the dismay of his defeat in New Hampshire.

Commentators have conjured up every conceivable explanation for New Hampshire's sudden change of heart as Obama's nine point lead evaporated within 24 hours. But, as they often do, most media pundits have ignored one of the most obvious factors: race.

Truly they are color blind.

The specter of Tom Bradley's California gubernatorial run in 1984 now haunts the 2008 election.

Like Obama, Bradley, a moderate black Democrat and former Los Angeles mayor, breached racial barriers and inspired massive support among white voters. But once he was perceived to be a serious potential winner, a backlash set in that prevented Bradley's victory.

In 1984 preelection polls and even the election day exit polls gave Tom Bradley such an overwhelming lead that news organizations hailed him the victor virtually the moment the polls closed. Instead he suffered an upset loss to Republican George Deukmejian.

Much the same dynamic sunk Andrew Young's gubernatorial bid in Georgia in 1990.

Behind the white curtain that protects the privacy of the voter, a large number of voters in California in 1984, Georgia in 1990 and New Hampshire in 2008 could not bring themselves to vote for the black man that they claimed to be so excited about just 24 hours earlier.

This so-called "Tom Bradley Effect" had not yet come into play in Iowa because Obama was not yet taken as a serious threat to win the nomination and because the caucus process was so intimate and open. His dramatic victory in that state means that no one can any longer doubt that he has a real chance to win.

Race is now openly central to the race. Are white Americans ready for a black president?

Most white Republicans and many white Democrats may not seriously consider voting for Obama, even if their politics coincide with his. Others may be on the fence. And still others, at this point a definite minority but clearly growing, say they will vote for him.

A lesson of New Hampshire and a testimony to the power of race -- The Tom Bradley Effect -- is such that even significant numbers of that growing and relatively racially enlightened group that says they will vote for Obama, won't.

Surely race was not the only factor behind which candidate that any person may support. But to ignore it altogether, as most commentators have in the wake of the New Hampshire primary, is a grand act of racial denial that is a disservice to all of us.

For once, let's deal with race straight ahead.

Obama supporters should be thrilled that Obama climbed from a 20 point deficit to a nine point lead in New Hampshire's preelection polls. But now it is clear that even that spectacular climb, a climb whose significance should not be lost, was not enough to win.

Of course Hillary Clinton also faces a version of the Tom Bradley Effect: Is the U.S. ready for a woman president? The vicious invective aimed her way can hardly be explained without factoring sexism into the equation.

But, in truth, Hillary's biggest task, and indeed for any Democratic candidate, may be to reverse the voting trends of white women. In 2004 white women went for Bush by a 55-44 margin and were the critical swing vote in his election. Women of color went for Kerry by 75 to 24.

The woman vote is clearly color coded.

The Good News is that Obama is a bonafide contender who is breaking racial barriers daily and Clinton is similarly bursting gender blocks. The Bad News is that means racism and sexism have become even greater factors in the voting.

The Grand Opportunity is that it will give all of us a chance to appeal to our better selves and overcome our so often denied racial and gender biases.

In this country, racial progress like that Obama is making always brings racial resistance. Further progress is contingent on seriously addressing the resistance.

Whatever the outcome of the nomination and general election, we all have the chance to ensure that the 2008 election serves to advance racial and gender progress by openly and frankly addressing these fundamental issues.

***I'm not convinced that "the Bradley Effect" was the only factor behind Clinton's surprising success in New Hampshire. There are numerous anecdotal accounts of Clinton's campaign running a terrifically well-designed and organized field effort. I've heard from people who had relatives working for Clinton in Manchester about how well-oiled the GOTV operation was. Publius at Obsidian Wings summarized:

A turnout like she got, the margins of support in certain key demographics, this isn't coincidence, this is straight up organization, preparation and tactical execution on game day. When the dust settles, I think you'll see that the biggest key to her victory was a textbook perfect endgame in the final 48 hours.

For a multi-factor analysis of the discrepancy between the pre-New Hampshire polling and the outcome, see this piece by Chris Bowers.

But Bob and Marqueece are right: ignoring the country's historic white supremacist and misogynist patterns won't make them go away. This strange and wonderful campaign contest among the Democratic contenders serves as an opportunity for folks to air some dirty linen -- and move beyond our secret fears.

Poor John Edwards -- he gets brushed to the periphery by the imperative to face our evil ghosts -- though he's the one who set the bar on the war, the economy and health care access.

This campaign is good for the country.

Obamania -- which side is he on?

After the Iowa caucuses, I got what I think of as "the letter" from a friend whose political activism I respect very much:

I read on your blog that you're planning to vote for John Edwards in the California primary and I want to make the case to you for supporting Barack Obama. I hope you'll give him another look and reconsider your plans.

I signed on long ago because I think he is the best democratic candidate. He's smart and streetwise, and yet he's still got integrity. He's real, not poll tested. He embodies change because of the color of his skin, his age, his short time in Washington and because of his mixed race and international heritage. He's been right on so many issues, especially the war, on which he is the only consistently anti-war candidate. He's tough--not only has he beaten a Clinton, but he's won in rough and tumble Chicago politics. He owns the change message for 2008, which will win over independents and which appeals to so many democrats, liberals and progressives who desperately crave a change. And, he ran a phenomenal ground campaign in Iowa--you've got to admire the campaign this organizer-at-heart put together and ran.

... Did you listen to or watch his speech [in Iowa]? Here's the text and video.

Okay, so I read the speech -- and then, since the text struck me as rather ordinary, I watched the video -- and that was more interesting, but I remain unconvinced.

Many of the (few) specifics in "the letter" seem shallow to me: Obama may have opposed the war before he was elected to the U.S. Senate, but he has voted to fund it repeatedly and done nothing discernible to encourage backbone in Congressional Democrats who are enabling the war. Worse yet, he makes no serious critique of the imperial pretensions that got us into the war, while currently endorsing military intervention in Pakistan. The only Chicago campaigns he won were the ones in which he'd made himself the only viable candidate; his Senate race was against a joke. It is not clear to me that he has ever won a contested election campaign, though he did just win one party primary and looks to take New Hampshire as well. I don't know if I am seeing streetwise or smooth, though he certainly comes across as smart and likeable.

So, for the last couple of days, I've been trying to "get it". What is the Obama boom about anyway? What follows are semi-digested snippets.

• The guy certainly is an organizer. That's the main lesson I take from the Iowa speech; he tells the people they won the fight and he makes them believe it. For any of us who hold that mobilizing the people is the content of democracy, that's always the message.

• The speech was wonderful on atmospherics -- hope over fear, unity over division, change. The delivery was charismatic. But what, if anything, did he say? Nothing extraordinary I could discern. He makes the right noises on ending the Iraq war, access to health care, jobs -- the catalog that is the litany of Democratic issues. None of the candidates are deeply convincing on these vital matters; Obama shows he can name them, but that great organizer gives only a hint of a plan for getting there against opposition. Hope is necessary, but it is not sufficient when struggling with forces that will buy you if they must or kill you if they have to.

However, many smart people I listen to think he has found the message for the moment:

The Obama campaign has the feeling of real change, powered by real people. And in a period of our history where people want real change, I think that means Obama is going to win. ... the dynamic in this race overwhelmingly favors Obama.

Mike Lux

Many hope or fear he is a new John F. Kennedy, a charismatic figure whose election brought youth and vigor to a stodgy country. Young people do thrill to him -- that makes sense to me, because I am fortunate to have worked politically with lots of young people. Many are sick to death of feeling simply stuck, unable to move on to solving obvious problems because of fights that seem to them mired in old history. They want a hero who feels like one of their own to cut through the morass; Obama has won that role. The JFK role can have many implications. This comment catches some of the hopefulness that came of the JFK election:

JFK's election was never seen by many of us as any great millennium. But, fueled by many younger people and others of similar inclination, it reflected the profound discontent and frustration that had festered in the "dismal '50s." The election of '60 ushered in a rapidly growing atmosphere of Realistic Hope.

Movement picked up -- and up -- and People Wanted More -- and More. They pushed and More came.

It's always been my experience that, when folks start winning on good and tangible fronts, they shoot higher -- and higher. The Kennedys et al.[and the System in general] were pressured from the grassroots For More -- and More. And a fair amount of More did indeed come.

Hunter Gray

And this comment catches the pain of the aftermath:

Now they are comparing Barack Obama with JFK. I'm sad that young people put that kind of enthusiasm, place so much hope, in a politician again. Most of all it makes me sad to see them "fall in love" with a political leader. I been there, I done that. It still hurts. ...

Frankly, I don't think any of the candidates this year are very impressive, but after eight years of Bush, the bar isn't very high. I would be amazed if any of those running could do a worse job than he has. I would also be amazed if any were too successful either. It is no longer in their hands to be so.

But please, please, don't let the children fall in love with a politician again, the disillusionment is not worth the enthusiasm and does terrible damage to an entire generation.

David Seaton

Of course, we, the tired and the disillusioned, don't get to tell anyone who they can fall in love with -- it is not our time.

And we can't ignore race and the country's white supremacist past and present... Just as I was before Iowa, I remain convinced that Obama leans so strongly in his rhetoric on a promise to unite rather than fight because, for an ambitious Black man in this still racist country, convincing whites they should not feel threatened remains Number One Job. He's had a lifetime learning to perform that pre-requisite to success; doing it well got him Harvard and the Senate; he's not going to change now. This makes me nervous -- in the President's office, would he dare to get much of the country's back up if he had to? Or would he follow a life long pattern of trying to draw in the forces who'll be arrayed against him -- the warmongers, the corporate lobbyists and the health profiteers? It's the powerless who lose most if their chosen champion makes nice with their enemies. The issue is one of trust.

After Iowa, after digging into what Obama says and what others say about him, I'll still probably vote for Edwards in California. The white guy from the south forced the others to deal with the critical issues that face Democratic constituents, so he gets my single vote, and I am not working for anyone.

I don't go into Democratic Presidential primaries expecting to love any candidate (these are actually all relatively adequate; I don't even hate Clinton). Once in office, any of them would require frequent kicks in the pants from progressives to keep them marginally on our side. You see, I think there are sides. Does Obama believe in his heart that there are sides? That's what I continue to wonder. ***For a great collection of international reactions to a man of color taking the lead in the U.S. Democratic primaries, see Global Soul Power.

100 years of occupation

Apparently the other night in New Hampshire, John McCain allowed as how U.S. troops might stay in Iraq for 100 years and "that would be fine by me." He wouldn't want them getting killed ... but if they could pull off that feat, it was okay by him for them to stay around there forever.

We don’t usually get such bald statements of imperial intent from our rulers. On the other hand, such confident disregard for what Iraqis might think about our deployments is commonplace.

What struck me about this exchange is how it came to be: according to MoJo Blog here's what brought McCain's Iraq intentions into the light:

McCain was confronted by Dave Tiffany, who calls himself a "full-time antiwar activist." In a heated exchange, Tiffany told McCain that he had looked at McCain's campaign website and had found no indication of how long McCain was willing to keep U.S. troops in Iraq.

McCain's endorsement for permanent occupation followed.

Listen up, peace folks -- make these dorks tell us what they intend while we can. Elections can be empty, distracting political theater, but we're flubbing an opportunity if we don't push their possibilities.

H/t to NO REST FOR THE AWAKE.

Ray Gordon 1920-2008

Yesterday my partner's father died at age 87. Ray was an artist, an actor, a writer, a director, a drama therapist who worked with prison inmates -- and a good, loving, man who often made his many friends laugh. We will miss him.

UPDATE: I am overwhelmed by the many condolences commenters have left here. We, the family, are most grateful.

Ray was proudly culturally Jewish and an atheist by conviction, so he might have found the words of many of you odd, to say the least. I can only say, for myself, that I cleave to a hope that death carries us all to a state of being in which all the divisions we cling to seem merely amusing, all hurts are washed away, and we both thrive and rest in Infinite Joy. Seems possible.

YET ANOTHER UPDATE: Ray's obituary from the Martha's Vineyard Gazette.

Meme of Seven

Blogging will be light for a bit as I am staying with family in a house without internet while we tend to and accompany as far as we can a loved relative who is leaving us for whatever comes next.

A few weeks back I got tagged with a meme by Manegee. The rules:

1) Link to the person that tagged you, and post the rules on your blog.
2) Share seven facts about yourself.
3) Tag seven random people at the end of your post, and include links to their blogs.
4) Let each person know that they have been tagged by leaving a comment on their blog.

I'm going to bend the rules. I did one of these with six factoids awhile back; I'm bored with my many oddities. This time I'm going to post seven photographs I've taken over the years and tell you a little about what they show, and if relevant, what I was doing there.


If you hike out the Bear Valley trail to the Pacific Ocean at Point Reyes, this is where you arrive. Not bad, is it? It's about 8 miles, round trip, and quite flat. I like to run it.


She (yes, the horns reveal the breed, not the gender) didn't think I belonged in her pasture. She knew I'd back off if she approached me slowly. In that Montana field, I edged away, knowing what was good for me.


A lot of what attracts me to high places is their ruggedness, their rocky ridges. This shows the summits of two Colorado peaks that rise to more than 14000 feet, Grays and Torreys. By midday the clear morning light had given way to an electrical storm that sent us running off the heights.


Cities have their high points too. This is Louisville's skyline at dawn.


And the earth has its own secret places. If we could venture into its burning depths, I wonder where this Yellowstone fumarole would reveal?


Belize's keys present an image of paradise. Since I took this picture, oil has been found in that remote country and who knows what will happen to Eden? The nearby coral reef is already suffering from defiled seas.


Salcontay Peak, over 20000 feet high, looms over this Andean plateau in Peru, a dry pasture land at over 13000 feet. The Indios who live in these remote places welcome tourists who'll buy a soda or hire a horse to carry baggage. If enough of us go, their lives will change radically. Who decides whether inescapable change is good?

Who to tag wth this elastic meme? How about Kate's Thoughts, Jane at Acts of Hope, Surf Putah, Grandmere Mimi, Pisco. Elizabeth at The Cassandra Pages, and anyone else who wants to play.

Football contradictions

I admit it -- I love watching college football teams battle it out in the huge array of ludicrously named year end "bowl games." I can even enjoy something called the "San Diego County Credit Union Poinsettia Bowl" or the "Roady's Humanitarian Bowl."

But it is only fair to pause for at least a minute to take in what this wacky system means to the young athletes who so entertain us. For the last few days, the sports media have been working themselves into a lather over whether Arkansas' Darren McFadden, a running back who led his team to the prestigious Cotton Bowl, might have accepted an SUV from a sports agent. This football hero can't accept a fancy toy and remain a college athlete. We hear a lot less about the $17 million, each, that the schools receive for getting their teams into the Bowl Championship Series games.

So the athletes can't take money or goods for their pains -- but after all they are getting a college education. Or are they?

The NCAA (the governing body of college football) uses a measurement [pdf] called the "Academic Progress Rate" (APR) to evaluate whether colleges are moving student athletes along toward graduation.

The NCAA's APR measure is a real-time indicator of the progress of each team's student-athletes toward a degree. But it’s a much less rigorous test of academic performance than students actually graduating. ... Half of each school's APR score is based on student-athletes just being enrolled as students. The other half is derived from the number of student-athletes completing 20 percent of their courses toward a degree each year, with no minimum GPA required.

Not too tough. Schools need to achieve a score above 925 on this measure to avoid sanctions -- but 16 of the 64 teams playing bowls this year are flunking even this soft standard.

Overall, graduation rates for football players are very low. According to Higher Ed Watch,

Only 56 percent of Division I-A football players entering college between 1997 and 2000 graduated within six years of initial enrollment.

That's not good, but the picture gets even worse when overall graduation rates are broken out by race. The Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport at the University of Central Florida (a Liberty Bowl participant this year) publishes an annual report on the difference in graduation rates between black and white football players. This year

• 47 schools (73 percent) had graduation rates of 66 percent or higher for white football student-athletes, which was more than 3.6 times the number of schools with equivalent graduation rates for African-American football student-athletes (13 schools or 20 percent).
  

• 27 schools (42 percent) graduated less than 50 percent of their African-American football student-athletes, while only Florida Atlantic graduated less than 50 percent of their white football student-athletes.

• Seven schools (11 percent) graduated less than 40 percent of their African-American football student-athletes, while no school graduated less than 40 percent of their white football student-athletes.

• Seven schools (11 percent) graduated less than 40 percent of their African-American football student-athletes, while no school graduated less than 40 percent of their white football student-athletes.

• 14 schools (22 percent) had graduation rates for African-American football student- athletes that were at least 30 percent lower than their rates for white football student- athletes.

• 24 schools (38 percent) had graduation rates for African-American football student- athletes that were at least 20 percent lower than their rates for white football student- athletes.

• Four schools had graduation rates for African-American football student-athletes that exceeded their rates for white football student-athletes: Florida Atlantic (15 percent higher), Florida State (ten percent higher), Connecticut (four percent higher) and Rutgers (two percent higher).

The top teams for graduating their African American players were the military schools, Navy and Air Force, as well as some regional powers like Boston College and Cincinnati.

The very top football schools don't look so good, especially when it comes to graduating black athletes. Ohio State and Louisiana State will play for the national championship. Boston Globe columnist Derrick Z. Jackson points out

Ohio State has a 43 percent black player graduation rate -- 31 percentage points behind white players. ...

LSU's black player graduation rate is 42 percent, 28 percentage points behind the white players.

And what about Arkansas, where McFadden earns millions for the college, but can't have an SUV without becoming ineligible? Again according to Jackson,

The worst graduation gap, a 53-percentage-point difference between white and black players, belonged to Arkansas.

College football is a brutal sport and an exploitative business - and still beautiful to watch.