Tuesday, January 22, 2013

Presidential inauguration contradictions

A good leftist like me would have to be a complete cad not to thrill to President Obama's second inaugural address. As much as someone who can be elected President is ever likely to, he presented a vision of the sort of country I wish this were: inclusive, generous, responsible, intelligent, fair-minded … No, the real country is not very worthy of any of those adjectives, but I don't mind someone at the center of the political world reminding us that these are ideals worth aspiring to.

James Fallows who has heard and studied a lot of Presidential speechifying call the speech "startling" and "a departure for him," That accords very much with my reaction: The Prez has seldom allowed himself the license to try to win by inspiring. Probably temperamentally, and certainly politically, it has served the guy well to modulate his utterances, never risking being perceived as too passionate. In this one, he dared a vision of our history formed in our citizens' struggles for democracy and equality. Good for him.

Yet even on this special day, I can't let him off the hook on what he obviously hopes he never has to talk about: the country's continued flouting of international law and human rights constraints in its overseas power projections. U.S. drones killed three people in Yemen today; are we at war there? With who? If so, for what? This President isn't saying beyond broadly claiming uncontested and secretive authority to label individuals "militants" and "al Qaeda" and blow them and anyone unlucky enough to be nearby to smithereens. This is not how a civilized democracy behaves.

And we didn't hear more today from this President who boldly outlawed torture on coming into office, but refused to make that edict stick by exacting any accountability from torturers and their enablers. Matthew W. Daloisio of Witness against Torture marked the inauguration with this truth:

Two presidents now, Bush and Obama, have worked to seal America’s identity as a torture nation, based in nearly incomprehensible hypocrisy and delusional commitment to the myth of America’s essential and unerring virtue.

Some people refuse to forget unfulfilled promises:

Yes, Mr. President, we still ask better of you. We take seriously the aspirations for a better country you presented today. We have no choice but to remind you there's more you must do.

Monday, January 21, 2013

Blog holiday and announcement

I'm taking a blog day-off today. I'll probably catch some coverage of the inauguration: whatever beefs I have with the Obama administration (and there are and will be many), the alternative would have been much worse!

596.jpg
Meanwhile I'll announce my new project. I've begun to walk all 596 election precincts in San Francisco while toting my camera. So far, each small area takes about two hours to cover. I seem to shoot about 40 pictures from which I intend to select one or two photos and post at 596 Precincts. Some December 2012 entries are already up.

This isn't an obsession; it's recreation. So posts will go up as I get around to it. Covering all the city's districts could take me the better part of ten years. If the idea happens to intrigue you, I recommend following by email through the link on the blog page, as posts will be sporadic.

Sunday, January 20, 2013

Dr. King's memory implies protest against US government when it does wrong

Legacy Mandates Respect for Due Process, End to Drone Killings and Warrantless Surveillance
by Dawud Walid, reprinted with permission

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day symbolizes many important moral and ethical principles, including the citizenry's responsibility to end the federal government's abuses of civil and human rights, both at home and abroad.

Dr. King is most often remembered for his leadership in the 1955 Montgomery Bus Boycott, his witnessing the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and his 1963 "I Have a Dream" speech, which challenged America to achieve a higher sense of morality. Moreover, Dr. King is remembered as being imprisoned by bigoted Birmingham, Ala., police and having his life threatened by White Supremacists.

What seems to be left out of contemporary MLK Day discussions is that Dr. King was a strong critic of American military actions against civilian populations and was himself the subject of intrusive federal surveillance by the FBI.

Dr. King was one of the first prominent public intellectuals to take a vocal stand against the war in Vietnam. In fact, he specifically declared that America was "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world," much of which targeted "little brown Vietnamese children."

Dr. King's call for justice for all of humanity caused him to come under intense spying by the FBI and for its director, J. Edgar Hoover, to label him "the most dangerous man in America." America has made great progress since the time of Dr. King, yet our nation remains plagued by these same moral challenges created by American violence abroad and by intrusive warrantless surveillance by federal law enforcement.

For example, America's drone program continues to kill civilians under the banner of "collateral damage," thus causing the rise of anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world.

According to a recent study by Stanford University and New York University titled "Living Under Drones," only two percent of extra-judicial drone killings in Pakistan are of terrorists that pose an imminent danger to America.

Retired General Stanley McChrystal, former top commander in Afghanistan and once a strong proponent of drone strikes, now questions the negative impact that they have on long-term American interests. Simply put, it becomes difficult to justify the deaths of so many civilians, including innocent women and children, and at the same time claim to be the world's torchbearer of liberty and justice for all people.

Regarding warrantless surveillance, the FBI sent uncounted confidential informants and agent provocateurs into Islamic houses of worship -- without predication of criminal activity -- to make "initial threat assessments."

The tragedy of 9/11 continues to be misused as a justification for blanket monitoring of law-abiding Americans. Along with American Muslims, the FBI in recent years even monitored the late King of Pop, Michael Jackson, and spied on Occupy Wall Street activists for the constitutionally-protected freedoms of speech and assembly. Such warrantless surveillance not only is a waste of tax dollars and does not make the homeland any safer, but is also a violation of the very principles that are supposed to separate us from police states.

In the spirit of Dr. King, our national discussion should not only focus on racial equality, but also must include serious conversations about how the violence that America commits overseas affects the soul of the nation and how intrusive monitoring by the federal government is opposed to the aspirations of the Founding Fathers.

No one can know for certain what Dr. King would say about America's current drone killings and warrantless surveillance under the guise of national security. However, based on what he preached and was subjected to, it is safe to say that those who seek to follow in his footsteps should stand up for due process, question the violence carried out by our nation overseas and call for the cessation of federal law enforcement's intrusive monitoring of law-abiding citizens and legal residents.

Dawud Walid is executive director of the Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation's largest Muslim civil liberties organization.

Friday, January 18, 2013

Gun owners aren't the only ones feeling invaded ...


Yesterday Rain and I had a civil discussion in comments about what ought to be done about regulating guns. I'm an extremist on the topic and I was just tired of having those of us who want guns gone being polite and reasonable while the right wingers and the gun lobby screech about tyranny.

Josh Marshall at TPM apparently was also feeling that a large number of us are being silenced. He called his post "Speaking for My Tribe." Click the link to read it all:

I have my own set of rights not to have gun culture run roughshod over me. ... In the current rhetorical climate people seem not to want to say: I think guns are kind of scary and don’t want to be around them. Yes, plenty of people have them and use them safely. And I have no problem with that. But remember, handguns especially are designed to kill people. You may want to use it to threaten or deter. You may use it to kill people who should be killed (i.e., in self-defense). But handguns are designed to kill people. They’re not designed to hunt. You may use it to shoot at the range. But they’re designed to kill people quickly and efficiently.

... A big part of gun versus non-gun tribalism or mentality is tied to the difference between city and rural. And a big reason ‘gun control’ in the 70s, 80s and 90s foundered was that in the political arena, the rural areas rebelled against the city culture trying to impose its own ideas about guns on the rural areas. And there’s a reality behind this because on many fronts the logic of pervasive gun ownership makes a lot more sense in sparsely populated rural areas than it does in highly concentrated city areas.

But a huge amount of the current gun debate, the argument for the gun-owning tribe, amounts to the gun culture invading my area, my culture, my part of the country. So we’re upset about massacres so the answer is more guns. Arming everybody. ...

I heartily recommend reading Marshall's post and its follow ups. He's a reasonable person; I choose not to be on this topic.

This is one more arena in which our ability to work out our differences within a democratic system is suffering strains. I'm not one to fear polarization over political differences reflexively; I find it clarifying and don't mind some accompanying incivility. We can't wish polarization away -- we do disagree. I guess the best we can do is hope that majorities can be civil; some folks will always be screaming.

We're not in Kauai anymore

morning snow.JPG
Indeed we are not. A family emergency required a quick flight to New England. Lovely, but very different.

Thursday, January 17, 2013

Hardly anyone should own a gun ...


"The most savage ideological warfare imaginable…" That's what Ed Kilgore predicts we're going to see now that the President has thrown down with his "gun safety" proposals.

In the interests of adequately wide ranging ideological warfare, I'm happy to throw down my thoughts: nobody who is not a public safety officer should be allowed to wave a gun around. If we can't get that -- and a plurality of nincompoops at the Supreme Court have misinterpreted language about primitive state armed forces to say we can't -- then anyone not legally required to carry a fire arm on the job should be able, briefly, to check out a pistol to play at a shooting range or a rifle capable of no more than one shot without reloading to hunt for a day. And those "sport" uses should require a thorough background check. Anyone else in possession of a firearm goes to the slammer. Period. No "assault" weapons. No monster magazines. No "concealed carry." No armor piercing bullets. No bullshit.

Ain't gonna happen, so a couple of comments on what we're seeing. From the left, the ACLU warns, quite properly, that putting "new resource officers and counselors" into the schools can be another means by which youth of color just acting like dumb teenagers end up criminalized and lose their chances in life.

While well-meaning policymakers might assume that adding police, metal detectors and surveillance necessarily makes students safer, experience demonstrates otherwise. In practice, most school police spend a significant portion of their time responding to minor, nonviolent infractions—children who have drawn on desks or talked back to teachers, for example—rather than behaviors that seriously threaten school safety. … Criminalizing minor misbehavior that should be handled by teachers or school administrators has serious consequences for kids and only contributes to the school-to-prison pipeline - that is, pushing kids out of classrooms and into jail cells. When students are arrested just once, their chances of graduating drop dramatically and they face lifelong repercussions as a result.

Colorlines is following this aspect of the gun story.

Meanwhile, Kilgore tells us over and over what the wingnuts' gun obsession is really about: they think they must be armed well enough to overthrow the US government.

To “protect the citizenry from even their own government” may sound reasonable as an abstraction. But what it means is that Erick [Erickson, a prominent right wing blogger] wants Americans to be able to keep an assault rifle at home in order someday to use it to shoot police officers dead if the laws they seek to enforce represent “tyranny.”

But who decides when a tyranny is present? The people with assault rifles in their closets, apparently. With a few easy clicks, I can find people publicly describing Obamacare, progressive taxes, and even Keynesian economics as “tyrannical.” “Tyranny” has become an extraordinarily common term on the Right for describing the Obama administration generally. …

It is obviously impossible to have a rational discussion of gun regulation with people who think they may need to shoot you at some point to defend such fundamental liberties as their right not to subsidize health insurance for “takers” and “looters.” But it is important to remind them and everyone else now and then that their eminently respectable-sounding ideology is based on blood and fire and the implicit threat of violence.

A pretty substantial majority of us don't' want these bitter guys (yes, they are mostly guys) deciding what kind of government we have. We decide that by voting. And the proper use of force in this case is to disarm the lawless. We fought a civil war about this 150 years ago. "Government of the people, by the people, and for the people" prevailed. The struggle to actualize it never ends, but we don't carry it on by shooting law enforcement personnel enforcing laws we don't like.

Obligatory disclaimers: yes, as a kid, I took "riflery" and enjoyed shooting at targets. My older male relatives were hunters in the more rural society in which they lived. One of my current friends is a competitive biathlete. I know lots of contemporary gun owners have more sense than the NRA leadership or Erick Erickson. But I still think private gun ownership is not yielding a safer, saner United States and that we should just stop it.

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

Warming Wednesdays: push, pull and scientific communication



It's recently been reported that the New York Times is closing down its environmental desk. Nobody is getting fired. The seven reporters and two editors are being dispersed to other departments.

The Times assures worried readers that it remains committed to quality science reporting; the paper just wants to embed these journalists' expertise in other sections of the paper.

It's easy to react with a feeling of panic. Is the US newspaper of record giving up on demanding we take notice of global warming? By the very low standards of US journalism, the Times does a decent and interesting job of highlighting environmental issues. Are they letting frustration with our unwillingness to attend to impending disasters lure them into foolish cost cutting?

At a Scientific American blog, Bora Zivkovic suggests that we needn't be quite so worried -- yet.

… back in the old times, when I actually read newspapers on paper, how did I do it? I pick up the paper. I open it up. I take out all the sections I am not interested in -- Sports, Auto, Business, Real Estate, Classifieds, etc. -- and throw them directly into the recycling bin. Then I read the parts I am interested in (front sections, domestic and world news, opinion, Sunday Magazine, Week In Review, Book Review). When I was a kid, I read the comics first, then TV and movie listings, then Kids section, perhaps some nature/science, perhaps some sports.

Other people have their own preferences. If there is such a thing as "Environment" section, or "Health" section, or "Science" section, how many people do you think automatically recycle them and go straight to Sports instead?

A dedicated Environment section is a pull method. It pulls in readers who are already interested in the topic. Others never see it. And being online doesn't change a thing -- it works the same way as on paper, in its own ghetto, isolated from the stuff people actually read.

The 'push' method inserts science/health/environment stories everywhere, in all sections of the paper, linked from all the pages of the website. It includes science/health/environment angles into many other stories. People interested in politics, economics, education, art, culture, comic strips, whatever, get a steady diet of relevant information mixed into their breakfast. They can't avoid it any more. It is pushed onto them without their explicit request.

Let's hope that The New York Times is thinking this way, as that would be the best possible outcome.

The whole article is worth a read.

Zivkovic's discussion of the difference between "push" and "pull" made me think about my "Warming Wednesdays" blog posts. I started writing these in order to force myself to think more frequently and in perhaps a deeper manner about impending climate change. The discipline has served me, I think -- on my better days anyway. I'm no expert and can't expect to evaluate whether some tidbit I've noticed is important or marginal. But I notice the developing Anthropocene era more every day.

It is not at all clear whether my attempt to write some on these topics once a week serves anyone else. I do know that the minuscule visit-count at this blog goes down on "Warming Wednesdays." I get it -- thinking about how we're rapidly rendering our only home less habitable and how can't seem to find the political will to stop the damage is dispiriting. Much of what I write about here concerns struggles that seek to realize the promise of democracy, to realize a hope that something good can happen here. Climate change politics -- an unhappy conjunction of scientific prediction, popular ignorance, and interest group self-dealing -- doesn't show democratic (small "d") government in a good light.

Finding political solutions to the deadly byproducts of the deadly economic and political systems we've ourselves trapped in is tough work. But we have no choice. Perhaps naively, despite our having already done irredeemable damage to the natural systems that made our evolution possible, I do still trust our crazy species will find a way.

Despite every other legitimate concern, we cannot ignore that our economic and social system is rapidly making the planet less habitable. So I will be posting "Warming Wednesdays" -- reminders of an inconvenient truth.

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

One more Kauai sunrise

Kauai sunrise.JPG
I chose not to resist posting.

Kauai: invaders, past heritage, and progress jostle


In a museum at the 1835 plantation settlement of Koloa on Kauai, there's a placard that proclaims:

… the Koloa settlement remains a cultural crossroads of history. Those who live here still address the issues of progress versus preservation of past values and heritage.

Maybe because the first place we visited on the island, the McBryde Garden, a unit of the National Tropical Botanical Garden, is a display of plants brought to Hawaii from away, I became very conscious that just about everything in this place comes from elsewhere -- even, long ago, the ancestors of the native Hawaiians who are thought to be descended from Polynesian and perhaps Tahitian voyagers.

Apparently there were only about 12 genuinely native plant species -- nearly every bit of greenery on the islands was brought for somewhere else. So were most of the birds and all the larger animals. Now all these living things co-exist -- or more accurately jockey for niches to live in.


Perhaps the relative newcomer status of so many life forms leads to the prominence of the many warnings about how to deal with various invasive species. Rules are essential.

That last sign is about a rare native, struggling against extinction by vehicular competitors.

Of course the truly disruptive invasive species is not usually named on these warnings: the human tourist. When rice and sugar cane cultivation collapsed on Kauai, the island's already heterogeneous population was left to sell the island's beauties and breezes to wave after wave of vacationers and curiosity seekers. That influx certainly tests the equilibrium between the values of past heritage and of progress. As far as I can see, to date Kauai is managing the delicate dance both practically and gracefully.

Monday, January 14, 2013

What to do about Social Security?


It's all a lie: the idea that there's something terribly wrong with Social Security, and that paying for it is putting the country in hock, and that it won't be there for young people anyway is just propaganda from the system's enemies. Remember the Republican prescription for health care reform: just die. The same goes for growing old without sufficient income.

Social Security is fully funded by our past taxes through 2033 (2012 estimate) and will be funded longer if the economy ever recovers and more people start paying in. Even if nothing is done about projected shortfalls (that may or may not be of the scale estimated) the system can pay 75 percent of benefits through 2086.

But there's a possible significant tweak that seldom gets discussed but ought to be the first direction to look to ensure Social Security remains solvent. We can raise the cap on the amount of income on which we pay SS taxes. Nicholas Beaudrot explained this so succinctly and clearly that it seems worthwhile to pass along here.

Social Security is paid for through payroll taxes. For every $1 of wages or salary, $0.062 is withheld as social security, so the worker only sees $0.938 today (though they'll get paid back, in essence, through Social Security wages when they retire). But, this only applies to the first $110,000 or so in income, though that threshold is adjusted every year for inflation. Historically, the payroll tax cap has meant that about 90% of income is subject to social security taxes, but the explosion in inequality over the past generation means that the tax covers only about 84% of income. Taxing the first $200,000 or so in income would get us back to the historical 90% threshold while still mostly preserving the "you get out what you get in" nature of Social Security, which is a big reason for the program's political stability.

If politicians aren't open to raising the cap, they aren't interested in fixing the system. They just are pretending to worry about budgets and debt in order to gut supports for old people. I'd make raising the cap a litmus test for all of them.

Sunday, January 13, 2013

Kauai sabbath

Christ Memorial Episcopal Church-Kilauea-Kauai.jpg
First we went to church at this lovely little place built from native stone. With a high season congregation of less than 40, consisting about half of (very nice) tourists, we wondered how the locals keep it afloat. I am sure they sometimes wonder too.

Then, since it was sprinkling intermittently, we sat back to watch some football on TV, much of it in the poolside bar. Off shore, huge breaks were forming and a few intrepid surfers were being towed out by jet skis.

I've been trying the local beers:
mehana volcano.jpg longboard lager.jpg big wave.jpg
None of them are anything to write home about, so I won't.

This is what a vacation looks like ...


Thirty seven lovely seconds from the East shore of Kauai. Just another day in paradise ...

Saturday, January 12, 2013

Football play-off post

I suspect my favorite NFL gladiators, the San Francisco 49ers, are just too banged up to prevail in their game tomorrow. But it has been an exciting season. Here's a lovely tidbit of NFL porn featuring Patrick Willis to mark the occasion.



The other day, Joe Staley, another of the local stalwarts, said something smart (they do have to be smart, in their own way, you know.) It strikes me as good advice in political struggles as well as football:

That's just the way … You can't get too up and you can't get too down. You can only control what you can control.

But you have to keep going ...

UPDATE: Well, the 49ers sure made the most of their bye week, seemed healthy today, and hammered the Pack who seem hapless. I love being wrong sometimes!

Friday, January 11, 2013

Friday critter blogging: a bevy of Kauai birds

Nene in puddle.jpg
This goose, a Nene, is Hawaii's state bird. In the 1950s, the population of this indigenous fowl was down to about 50; protective efforts are enabling a comeback. They don't migrate and are nowhere near as frightened as they should be of autos and humans.

red crested cardinal w sand.jpg
The red crested cardinal seems common.

rooster!.jpg
As does the signature bird of the island: the chicken. Apparently some Polynesian chickens bred with some European chickens and the rest is history. They are everywhere, announced by the roosters' cries.

white tailed tropicbird.jpg
This white-tailed tropicbird nests on the cliffs at the Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge.

Laysan Albatross-kilauea wildlife refuge.jpg
A colony of Laysan Albatross inhabit the refuge. The link is worth exploring; apparently some of these large birds form female pairs that find ways to breed young.

Thursday, January 10, 2013

Meanwhile in DC ...


Catholic Workers and friends (Catholic Workers often have lots of friends of varying persuasions) are fasting in Washington to remind us that our country's shame -- the prison at Guantanamo -- remains open, that most of its current inmates have been cleared for release but are still held, and that the military commissions/kangaroo courts grind on. Matthew W. Daloisio writes

January 11, 2013 marks the eleventh anniversary of the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay, the seventh anniversary of Witness Against Torture’s January 11 presence in D.C., and our fifth liquids fast.

Here we are again, pilgrims from across the country, gathering in D.C. Though it is not to pay homage to the nation’s capital that we come, but to honor a common cause, a divine mandate in fact, “love one another.” Even enemies, even strangers, undoubtedly those unjustly detained.

Bearing witness alone is never enough, but without witness, more cannot come. Or so I think.

Wednesday, January 09, 2013

To anyone who wondered ...

meet the ocean.jpg
yes, we're having a great vacation.

I'll post more when I'm less tired from having fun.

Warming Wednesdays: what does global warming mean for Hawaii?

Kauai shoreline.jpg
A bit of Kauai shoreline outside our windows.

Arriving in Hawaii reminds me of national border crossings. Instead of a visa application, airlines hand out agricultural import forms to all passengers. The island state, though heavily dependent on the flow of tourists, struggles to prevent introduction of all sorts of foreign pests.

Isolated out here in the ocean, the state seems somewhat insulated from acrimonious debates about climate change in the political arena on the mainland. Hawaiian media know warming is coming; our best measurements of CO2 come from the observatory at Mauna Loa on the Big Island. The obvious threats here are sea levels rising, coral reefs bleaching leading to die-offs of fish species, and declining rainfall. All this suggests a bleak future for the tourism that provides much of the state's bread and butter.

But unlike most states on the mainland, the state government has attempted some pretty serious mitigation measures going back over a decade as well as moving toward less carbon polluting energy sources.

Unlike many small, developing island nations, as part of the United States, Hawaii has the capacity and resources to mount a credible defense against environmental impacts caused by climate change. Hawaii has exhibited foresight in anticipating climate change impacts. In 1998, the state issued a lengthy report on the effects of climate change on the islands. Recommendations and action plans to improve energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions over a broad range of industries were included in the report. Hawaii is proactive and has positioned itself to combat climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

In 2007, Hawaii enacted “A Global Warming Solutions Act 234″ to cap greenhouse gas emissions to the 1990 level by 2020. In 2008, Hawaii launched a Clean Energy Initiative with the goal of creating a 70 percent clean-energy economy within a generation. As a result of its location and lack of fossil fuel resources, Hawaii is the most oil-dependent state in the nation, getting 90 percent of its energy needs from imported oil. In a memorandum of understanding signed in 2008, the Department of Energy (DOE) will assist Hawaii to achieve the goal of reducing its dependence on oil for electricity generation.

Hawaii has at its disposal a plethora of renewable energy options to transition to a renewable energy economy including biomass, hydro, wind, geothermal, ocean waves and, of course, solar. In its favor, Hawaii emits only 0.4 percent of the total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and is therefore one of the lowest state emitters in the country. Hawaii is also part of the EPA’s Clean Energy State Partnership Initiative to support the introduction and use of clean, renewable energy. The Sierra Club reports that Hawaii also recently imposed a $1 surcharge on each barrel of oil imported into the state. Funds collected here will be earmarked for the development of clean, renewable energy. Last but not least, the [Republican!] Governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, … signed an energy bill [in 2009] into law mandating that 25 percent of Hawaii’s electricity must come from renewable energy sources by 2020 and 40 percent by 2030.

Henry Kwong, Perspectives on Global Issues

I guess it should be no surprise that the new Senator appointed to fill out Sen Daniel Inouye's term, Hawaii's former Lt. Governor Brian Schatz (D), immediately asserted

… personally, I believe global climate change is real and it is the most urgent challenge of our generation,

The Hill

Tuesday, January 08, 2013

People just want to stay in their homes ...

tenant-fights-for-home.jpg
For more on the struggles of tenants to stay in their homes, hop on over to Time Goes By for my latest Gay and Gray article.

I'm off on vacation to Kauai today. Don't know what the internet access will be, but will try to post some photos, if nothing more.

Monday, January 07, 2013

An accessible look at the aftermath of the freedom struggle

I feel as if Douglas Foster's After Mandela: The Struggle for Freedom in Post-Apartheid South Africa had been written for me.

On February 11, 1990, Nelson Mandela, a leader of the long struggle of the African National Congress against apartheid, was released after 27 years in prison. The release was televised world wide; Mandela spoke to waiting crowds on the Grand Parade in Cape Town. Millions felt they were seeing an almost unimaginable advance toward greater democracy and justice.

Within the next month a call went out to U.S. activists to send a team to teach digital publishing to newspapers associated with the "Mass Democratic Movement" against apartheid. My partner and I took up the call and in April 1990 began a three month stint working for South African tabloids in Cape Town, the Western Cape town of Oudtshoorn, and Johannesburg. It was a strange in-between time in South Africa: apartheid was clearly going to end, but just how a transition to non-racial democracy could happen was not at all clear. White racist fascists threatened and sometimes acted in terrorist resistance to the changes. Leaders of the African National Congress who had spent decades in foreign exile were returning and re-establishing their connections with the mass movement that had carried on a costly struggle within the country. Black people were going to have power, but what would that mean? -- and which black people? Elections were still years in the future, so the question of who could legitimately claim to voice the aspirations of the masses was unsettled.

Dropped into this, all the two of us were sure of was that we were ill-equipped to understand what we were seeing. Oh, it was heady. We attended the first legal rally by the ANC in decades in the township of Mitchell's Plain. Mandela and South African Communist Party leader Joe Slovo spoke -- Slovo was the more exciting draw insofar as we could gage the response. We saw a one day general labor action against developing inter-communal violence in Cape Town. We met with medical workers in the Khayelitsha township who were desperately trying to prevent the AIDS epidemic they saw coming -- after all we were gays from San Francisco; we knew something about living under that threat.

We certainly came away wishing the ANC and South Africa well -- but we also came away full of doubts. We didn't talk about this much; while we were in his country, Mandela had toured our country being received by liberal adulation. Every anti-racist progressive person in the United States was full of hope for the new South Africa.

We wanted to be that hopeful, but we came away afraid for the future. Our succinct expression of this, voiced seldom and privately, was that South Africa was more like the United States than anywhere we'd ever been. By this we meant that we saw a society proclaiming verbal allegiance to popular democracy and equality, but where huge parts of the population lived in such material and educational deprivation that it was hard to imagine how they could be brought into the national life. We anticipated that the white and "colored" English speakers we had worked with in the media might have a bright future in affluent white-owned enclaves, while black Africans and Afrikaans speakers of all races remained on the outside. (Foster's book bears this out, mentioning prominently some of the folks we worked with who we knew would rise to the top of any heap.)

One of us was asked to create a flyer for an introductory first meeting of a newly legal ANC branch committee. "Come elect your leaders" it was to say -- until the woman making the request came back to say it should read "Come meet your new leaders …" A culture of democratic decision making doesn't spring up without nurturing. Many trends looked like trouble ahead. But like the whole progressive world, we wanted so much for South Africa to remain a beacon of hope. And then, like much of the world, we applauded the 1994 non-racial, universal suffrage, elections that brought Mandela and the ANC to power -- and turned our attention elsewhere.

Foster's publisher describes After Mandela as a

revisionist account of a country whose recent history has been not just neglected but largely ignored by the West.

So it is and anyone seriously interested in the struggles within that wonderful country at the tip of Africa should read it.

Foster surveys the horrors of the unchecked and long officially unacknowledged AIDS epidemic. South Africa has plenty of smart scientists and doctors who saw the HIV plague coming, but for a variety of political and cultural reasons, the ANC ruling authorities flunked the challenge. One of Mandela's sons (and one of that son's wives) died of AIDS -- it was a breakthrough for open truth telling when Mandela, retired from the presidency, chose to speak of this in 2005. Foster reports on the conflicting emotions that HIV/AIDS created in the new country:

There was a deep sense of having been crushed by paralyzing grief right at the moment of everyone's supposed freedom -- "the simultaneity of new life and new death," as one scholar put it. Many people found the accumulation of such deep anguish quite difficult to bear, especially when it felt as though they were being dismissed or mocked by the regular public celebrations of their putative liberation.

The new country confronted intractable problems. Apartheid had been a social and economic safety blanket for white people, especially Afrikaans-speaking ones. The new democracy inherited grotesque economic inequality and only came into being on a promise not to dispossess the holders of wealth. The results are frightening:

…continued high unemployment, violent crime, and an uncontrolled spread of HIV brought people back to ground. These seemed like the intractable triad standing in the way of national progress. "If only the ANC knew how to govern as well as it knows how to campaign" a friend told me … here problems were deep-seated, and not matters of simple good governance alone. The Gini index, used to measure income inequality across populations, showed that South Africa scored far worse even than other middle-income developing countries in Africa, such as Kenya and Nigeria. The index for the country had been heading in the wrong direction -- toward a wider gap between rich and poor -- since Liberation Day, in 1994.

A racial age gap makes all this more difficult:

[Thabo Mbeki succeeded Mandela in office in from 1999 to 2008.]… Mbeki's Cabinet was well aware that economic growth alone would not substantially improve the picture on its own. Even if the country's growth rate surged up to 6 percent, orders of magnitude higher than its current rate, presidential advisor Joel Netshitenzhe figured that many young people from marginalized communities still would not be affected in a meaningful way. …This was the intersection where race, class, and age discrimination were thoroughly, frustratingly intertwined. While blacks accounted for 79 percent of the country's population, they made up 84 percent of South Africans up to fourteen years old. Seventy-nine percent of South Africans aged thirty and over were employed, but only half of those twenty-four and younger who were looking for work could find jobs.

The statistical material I'm quoting here misrepresents what Douglas Foster has done in this book -- though the book would not make much sense without it. Almost all of the book consists of reports of interviews with South Africans -- mostly young; mostly people who grew up after the 1994 liberation; of all races; famous and obscure -- about their hopes, anxieties and dreams. I don't know how a white English speaking US journalist achieved such apparent intimacy with his subjects, but I find their conversations utterly believable. I guess persistence pays off; Foster taught journalism in South Africa for several years. The result is fascinating, hopping from cultural commentary, through gossip, to policy insight, all skillfully woven into a series of story lines about people Foster seems to have cared about and who the reader can also relate to.

You don't need the sort of background I've got to read this book, though I think my experience helped. There's so much more to the South African freedom struggle than the singular moment when the world chanted "Free Mandela." Perhaps this volume can help some people in this country attend to the varied, bountifully contradictory, still mesmerizing, South Africa that is emerging in the 21st century.