S.F. on verge of $4-per-gallon gas

David R. Baker,Michael Cabanatuan, Chronicle Staff Writers

Friday, April 18, 2008

More...

The age of $4 gasoline has arrived. And it's forcing Bay Area residents to change the way they live.

Sometime in the coming week, San Francisco is expected to become America's first major city to pay an average of $4 for a gallon of regular gas. The citywide average, tracked by the AAA auto club, stood at $3.96 on Thursday.

It's the latest milestone in a four-year run-up at the pump, fueled by crude oil prices that have climbed to their highest levels ever.

When gas prices began their current climb in early 2004, the run-up looked more like a nuisance than anything else, costing commuters an extra $5 to $10 per week. Now, the amount drivers pay to fill up has doubled, and it's enough to hurt.

In response, drivers in the Bay Area and elsewhere are re-examining the ways they live, work and shop. Some longtime car commuters have switched to BART, Caltrain or Muni. Others have ditched one of their family cars, traded in their gas-hog for a compact or - in the case of a determined few - said goodbye to the automobile altogether.

They have turned to telecommuting and combining all their weekly errands into a single outing. And the results are measurable.

Gasoline sales in California have fallen for two years in a row, according to state data. Mass transit ridership is rising in the Bay Area, while traffic on the region's toll bridges has shrunk.

"I think the temporary response to the price shock is past," said Rod Diridon, head of the Mineta Transportation Institute at San Jose State University. "People are beginning to move to different habits now. There are a lot of people looking for a permanent way to cut back on gas."

Cutting back on luxuries

Not everyone can. For those people, escalating prices have forced a different kind of change. They're finding ways to spend less on other parts of the monthly budget.

"It's the luxuries we all have - it's movies, dinners, stuff like that," said Michael Feeley, a landscaper who lives with his wife in Berkeley. "We don't actually sit down and say we've got to cut something out, but we're definitely more frugal."

Feeley used to spend less than $200 per month on gas for his Toyota Tacoma truck, which he uses to haul employees, equipment and supplies to job sites. Now he pays $500.

"When people say everyone's driving a gas-guzzler, well, some of us don't have a choice," Feeley said. "I can't run this business driving a Prius."

Many people, however, do have a choice.

The Bay Area, unlike much of the country, has a well-developed web of mass transit lines, linking cities via bus, ferry, subway and train. Their ridership is booming - particularly on regional systems such as BART and Caltrain that are heavily patronized by commuters.

BART has seen a 6.7 percent increase in the number of passengers through this week compared with the same period a year earlier, said BART spokesman Linton Johnson. Average weekday ridership is at 365,463, with riders taking almost 23,000 more trips on BART each weekday than they did a year earlier.

Bill Buehlman, who lives in San Francisco and works for the city's Homeless Outreach Team, has started relying on BART and Muni to commute and get around town. He estimates he's cut his driving from about 1,000 miles per month to 500 miles.

While Buehlman said he despises the oil companies, he's grateful that soaring gas prices are prompting him and others to reduce the amount they drive.

"I look at it as a gift, a blessing," he said. "The profiteers are giving us the opportunity to make a decision to do something better for our planet, for our community."

Mary Ann Buggs, who lives in Berkeley and works near San Francisco's AT&T Park, switched to BART and Muni after years of driving across the Bay Bridge. So did her husband. But she's a reluctant convert to transit.

"I'm not particularly enjoying it," she said, "because Berkeley to SoMa by the ballpark is expensive (in transit fares) and nowhere near as comfortable as a car ride. But it is cheaper than spending $60 twice a week in gas station excursions."

Buggs and her husband are among a growing number of people avoiding the bridge.

According to the Bay Area Toll Authority, the number of drivers crossing the region's seven state-owned toll bridges this fiscal year has dropped 2 percent compared with the previous year. Six of the bridges have seen falling traffic counts - from a 1 percent decline at the Bay and Dumbarton bridges to 4 percent at the Antioch and Carquinez bridges. Only the Benicia-Martinez Bridge, which received a new three-lane span last fall, has seen an increase in traffic.

While some people rely more on mass transit to avoid high gas prices, others have gotten rid of their least-efficient cars.

For Kim Howard and her husband, Edison Peinado, that meant selling their Jeep Cherokee. The sport utility vehicle got 11 miles per gallon in city driving - not good considering the couple lives north of the Golden Gate Park Panhandle in the middle of San Francisco.

Now Peinado, a pilot with SkyWest Airlines, takes BART to and from the airport when he can. Otherwise, he and Howard must split the use of their one remaining car, a 12-year-old Audi.

It's a juggling act. Howard drives to Campbell for her job as marketing director for the Infonetics tech-industry research firm, but she's able to telecommute much of the time. Peinado gets the car when his return flight to San Francisco arrives too late at night for BART.

"It was more painful in the beginning, but we're getting used to it," Howard said. "It's like most things - you adapt."

She says the change is worth it, both to save money and help the environment. But it's a trade-off, with the couple sacrificing convenience to make it work.

Trying telecommuting

Like Howard, many Bay Area residents have tried telecommuting as gas prices rise.

Barbara Heninger manages a team of technical writers at the Synopsys software firm, with five writers in Sunnyvale and three in India. One of her local employees lives in Santa Cruz and comes to the office once a week. Another, who lives in San Jose, averages three days in the office each week. They work from home the rest of the time.

"This last year or two has been the first when employees cited concerns about the environment and commute costs as some of the reasons for working at home," Heninger said. The arrangement works, she says, as long as telecommuters make a point of communicating regularly with their co-workers.

If gas prices keep rising, she said, she expects more people to try telecommuting. "It will either be that, or people will really start considering how far away they want to live from where they work," said Heninger, who lives in Los Altos. "When I started in the tech industry, it wasn't that unusual to have people commuting here from Danville, because they wanted the big house on the hill."

Still, there remain people who have to drive for work. In some cases, they must drive a lot.

San Francisco cab driver Jorge Perez now spends about $50 per day on gasoline. In addition, he has to pay $100 per day to lease his cab, he said.

"What happens on top of that is what I make for the day," he said. "Sometimes it's difficult to make that much."

It doesn't help that Perez drives a Ford Crown Victoria, which gets about 15 miles per gallon. "They're good cars for the hills of San Francisco," he said, "but they aren't known for their fuel efficiency."

E-mail the writers at dbaker@sfchronicle.com and mcabanatuan@sfchronicle.com.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/18/MNO4107CO5.DTL

This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle

My Kinda of town.....

I bet many joined the chorus.... Chicago is.

Right on for the countries second city. However, I am referring to my adopted home town, San Francisco. The democratic race for presidency is not enough to hold its attention, the town's Mayor aspirations for Governorship, the city's deficit that already affected schools, health care with across the board cuts -- it got into a quasi global fracas about Tibet, China, Burma, Darfur et al... Here is a town that needs no reason to protest, except some group believes a protest is what is called for, to shine a spot light for their particular issue du jour. The larger irony of the counter protest, as it is characterized by pro-China forces, how little critical thinking occurs within. Nationals in various media, feel national pride over rides increasing evidence of many abuses of a "non communist" regime.

I am not adverse to mass protest, with varying groups coming together to offer or object to a position/action/practice. To offer a reasonable, achievable alternative if wrongs are discover to be true.

more to follow.

Obama at the Helm

Blogger comment later...

Obama at the Helm

By Peter Beinart
Tuesday, April 8, 2008; A19

Washington Post

Deep into a primary campaign that was supposed be over by now, Barack Obama must still answer one fundamental question. Jeremiah Wright notwithstanding, it's not whether he's too black. It's whether he's too green. Hillary Clinton has made Obama's inexperience her chief line of attack, and if she goes down, John McCain will pick up where she left off. Luckily, Obama doesn't have to rely on his legislative résumé to prove he's capable of running the government. He can point to something more germane: the way he's run his campaign.

Presidents tend to govern the way they campaigned. Jimmy Carter ran as a moralistic outsider in 1976, and he governed that way as well, refusing to compromise with a Washington establishment that he distrusted (and that distrusted him). Ronald Reagan's campaign looked harsh on paper but warm and fuzzy on TV, as did his presidency. The 1992 Clinton campaign was like the Clinton administration: brilliant and chaotic, with a penchant for near-death experiences. And the 2000 Bush campaign presaged the Bush presidency: disciplined, hierarchical, loyal and ruthless.

Of the three candidates still in the 2008 race, Obama has run the best campaign by far. McCain's was a top-heavy, slow-moving, money-hemorrhaging Hindenburg that eventually exploded, leaving the Arizona senator to resurrect his bankrupt candidacy through sheer force of will. Clinton's campaign has been marked by vicious infighting and organizational weakness, as manifested by her terrible performance in caucus states.

Obama's, by contrast, has been an organizational wonder, the political equivalent of crossing a Lamborghini with a Hummer. From the beginning, the Obama campaign has run circles around its foes on the Internet, using MySpace, Facebook and other Web tools to develop a virtual army of more than 1 million donors. The result has been fundraising numbers that have left opponents slack-jawed (last month Obama raised $40 million, compared with Clinton's $20 million).

But the Web is the political equivalent of gunpowder: It can mow down your opponents, but it can also blow up in your face. In 2004, Howard Dean's campaign also raised vast sums online, but it spent the money just as fast. By embracing the anarchic ethos of the liberal blogosphere, Dean generated enormous excitement, but he couldn't harness it. Within his decentralized, bottom-up campaign, a thousand flowers bloomed, but not at the right time and in the right place. "You cannot manage an insurgency," said Dean's Web guru, Joe Trippi. "You just have to ride it."

The Obama campaign has proved that adage wrong. It has married Web energy with professional control. It has used the Web masterfully but, unlike Dean in 2004, sees it as a tool, not a philosophy of life.

At the top, in fact, the campaign is quite hierarchical. There's no question who's in charge: David Axelrod, a grizzled Chicago street-fighter whom Obama has known since he was 30. Axelrod and his subordinates believe their guy represents a new kind of politics, but they're not above using old-school, hard-ball tactics -- even against his own supporters -- to help him win. Last spring, for example, when the Obama campaign realized it couldn't control a popular Obama page on MySpace, it persuaded the company to shut the page down.

It is this remarkable hybrid campaign, far more than Obama's thin legislative résumé, that should reassure voters that he can run the government. As president, he'll need to keep his supporters mobilized: It will take a grass-roots movement, breathing down Congress's neck, to pass universal health care. But in dealing with those very supporters, he'll also have to be ruthless so as not to get caught up in the kind of side skirmishes, such as gays in the military, that weakened Bill Clinton early on. Obama's experience whipping up support on MySpace while simultaneously tamping it down is exactly the kind he'll need in the Oval Office.

The danger is that Obama will fall prey to the malady that ruined Woodrow Wilson and Jimmy Carter: self-righteousness. Elections are winner-take-all, but governing isn't. Candidates can denounce Washington, but presidents have to live there. If the lesson Obama draws from his outsider campaign is that he and his supporters are children of light while those who oppose them are cynics, he'll find it hard to compromise. Successful presidents know how to make half a loaf look like a big win, and presidents with messiah complexes don't do that very well. But if Obama can come across as idealistic without being moralistic, if he can keep his supporters' spirits high and their expectations in check, if he can fuse exuberance and discipline, he might just run the government pretty well. That won't be easy, but then, neither is running for president. Just ask Hillary Clinton and John McCain.

Peter Beinart, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, writes a monthly column for The Post.

Obama, Ferraro, Wright: 'Postracial' Meets Racism

This article can be found on the web at

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080407/younge

---

beneath the radar by Gary Younge

Obama, Ferraro, Wright: 'Postracial' Meets Racism

[from the April 7, 2008 issue]

"The way we see things is affected by what we know and what we believe," wrote John Berger in Ways of Seeing. "The relation between what we see and what we know is never settled."

When former vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro sees Barack Obama--a black man, raised by a single mother, whose middle name is Hussein and whose surname rhymes with Osama--she sees privilege.

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she said. "And if he was a woman of any color, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

Quite what concept Ferraro was referring to is difficult to fathom. Of the ten whitest states to have voted so far, Obama has won nine of them. Of the ten blackest states to have voted so far (including the District of Columbia), he has won nine of them. The votes are not weighted for melanin content. His lead is the product not of affirmative action but of democratic election.

Shortly after Ferraro made her comments, we saw just how advantageous Obama's race could be when controversy over his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, forced him to deliver a landmark speech about race. Every presidential hopeful has his racial moment. For Reagan it was the Neshoba County Fair near Philadelphia, Mississippi; George Bush Sr. had Willie Horton; Bill Clinton had Sister Souljah; Bush Jr. had Bob Jones University. Each one sought to comfort white voters with at worst their bigotry and at best their ambivalence toward African-Americans.

That was not an option for Obama. Boy, was he lucky. All he had to do was address black alienation and white disadvantage, set it in a historical context and then call on people to rise above it. In so doing, he had to acknowledge not just the fact of physical segregation--schools and housing--but psychic segregation. For while Wright's sermons clearly shocked many whites, to many blacks his sentiments were as banal an addition to the dinner table as hot sauce.

In truth there was only so long you could keep that elephant in the room before it dumped on the carpet. Obama cleared the mess up pretty well. Shifting the stains will be trickier. For all his talk about transcending race, not even this biracial, Ivy League, intact-black-family man could escape America's racial dysfunction.

Which brings us back to Ferraro. For if her initial comments were ridiculous, her response revealed just what Obama is up against. "Every time that campaign is upset about something, they call it racist," she said. "I will not be discriminated against because I'm white. If they think they're going to shut up Geraldine Ferraro with that kind of stuff, they don't know me."

And so Ferraro turns the world on its head. The perpetrator claims victimhood and takes to the airwaves to claim she is being silenced. Having asserted her right to be offensive, she then seeks to deny the right of others to be offended. Accusations of racism, real or imagined, are portrayed as more egregious than racism itself. Obama is lucky because he's black; Ferraro is discriminated against because she's white. White is the new black. We have race without racism.

There are many problems with her retort, but for now let's just deal with two. First, no one from Obama's campaign actually called her a racist. Obama called her comments "divisive" and "patently absurd." His chief strategist, David Axelrod, called her "divisive" and "polarizing."

Second, the comments are patently racist. Indeed, they are taken straight from the playbook of late-twentieth-century racism. Before the civil rights era the accusation used to be that black people could not succeed because they were black. Once affirmative action was introduced the emphasis shifted to suggest that they succeeded only because they were black. Either way the point is clear: black people are genetically ill equipped to succeed on their own merits.

This was no one-off either. Shortly before the New York primary in 1988, Ferraro declared, "If Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race." One wonders what a black candidate would have to be or do to meet with Ferraro's approval. In November, after Hillary Clinton was subjected to tough questioning in a debate, Ferraro said, "It's OK in this country to be sexist. It's certainly not OK to be racist. I think if Barack Obama had been attacked for two hours--well, I don't think Barack Obama would have been attacked for two hours."

There is a word for people who consistently deny the existence and effects of racism while denigrating black achievement. It's called racist. It is not a word that should be used casually, and it is a word that has at times been misused. But it is not a word that we should refrain from using simply because some people might be offended. Ferraro is a racist. That's not all she is. And that's not all she has to be. But that is what she has consistently chosen to be in her response to black men in politics.

To insist on this is divisive only insofar as it divides racists from antiracists. Those who seek to set underrepresented groups against one another must be challenged. There can be no progressive coalition in this country that does not include black men and white women. But that coalition must be based on antiracism and antisexism. Feminism that does not embrace antiracism, like antiracism that does not embrace feminism, is little more than a campaign for sectional interests masquerading as a struggle for equality. It seeks not an end to inequity but just a different division of the spoils.

Given his looks, oratorical skills and intelligence, it is difficult to imagine what Obama couldn't do if he were a white man; but it's pretty obvious that he wouldn't have had to make that speech. In the end, though, it may be less useful to speculate about what his candidacy would look like if he were a different race than to wonder how he would fare if there were no racism.

A more perfect union (Speech by Senator Obama Mar 18, 2008

A prelude to restarting the dialog on the principle of equality and the reality of racism and discrimination. Senator Obama shows the courage of his conviction , no matter the precipitant, how the country systematically contributed to groups of people's pervasive poverty and marginalization of African Americans.

Posted By Editor On March 18, 2008 @ 10:27 am In Campaign 2008 | 563 Comments

Here, the full text of Sen. Barack Obama’s speech, “A More Perfect Union,” as prepared for delivery.

“We the people, in order to form a more perfect union.”

Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America’s improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.

The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation’s original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.

Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution – a Constitution that had at is very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.

And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part – through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.

This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign – to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America. I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together – unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction – towards a better future for of children and our grandchildren.

This belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people. But it also comes from my own American story.

I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton’s Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. I’ve gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world’s poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners – an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.

Why the Fed's rate cuts won't help you (common man)

(parenthesis mine) Been thinking about "bail outs, lending crisis, bottoming out of the housing market, the depreciating dollar. "Yesterday on the drive to the city, I listened to a conversation "Where Does the Money Go?, Your Guided Tour to the Federal Budget Crisis" with authors Jean Johnson and Scott Bittle at KPFA's morning show. The authors spoke on the Federal Deficit, the Medicare crisis, the minute impact on the war in Iraq/Iran has on the whole picture of the USA economic decline, and the pentagon budget. What was salient for me is the point of Americans willingness (unwillingness) to pay additional taxes, cut spending, and resolve priorities by establishing them. Here included below is a more pointed perspective for the "middle class" to chew on, it seems many are deluded into believing "someday they will ascend to wealth" and benefit as the "truly rich" can only benefit.

http://kpfa.org/archives/index.php?arch=25326

Why the Fed's rate cuts won't help you

In its efforts to keep irresponsible bankers on Wall Street afloat, the Federal Reserve is spurring inflation, crippling the dollar and cutting into retirees' incomes. And mortgages and car loans won't get any cheaper.

By Jon Markman

The Federal Reserve today continued its attempt to get out in front of the worst financial crisis to hit the world banking system in five decades by slashing short-term interest rates by three-quarters of a percentage point, to 2.25%, the lowest level since 2004.

But the Fed's effort will have little effect on the ability of the average American to get a cheap loan for a new home, car or college education even as it has a large effect on U.S. banks' ability to fix their balance sheets by racking up fat profits.

If that sounds unfair, welcome to the latest episode of a brutal new American business ethic, in which the government bails out bad bets by risk-taking banking executives in New York with money that it borrows from middle-class families and foreign investors. The effort is gilded with fancy financial language and cloaked in the guise of a rescue that helps all citizens, but the reality is that Washington is essentially robbing the poor to help the rich.

It seems odd, but these are extraordinary times. Normally, when the Federal Reserve cuts the rate at which it lends money to U.S. banks, those banks in turn cut the rates at which they lend money to citizens and companies for personal and commercial use. Simple enough. Yet in the past few months, banks have made three important changes in their usual practice:

• They have not been passing all of their interest-rate savings to customers.

• They have restricted lending only to most creditworthy, documented applicants.

• They have cut the total amount they're willing to lend.

Good for banks, bad for you

Banks are taking these seemingly perverse steps in an effort to reverse the effects of the massive losses they have withstood for lending too broadly to consumers and companies with lousy credit over the past five years.

They're pulling a big 180, which is as confusing as it is disheartening. Rather than providing funds to prospective home buyers and business people with legitimate needs for moving into larger homes or expanding factory lines, records show the banks are hoarding the low-cost money they're borrowing from the Fed and investing it in Treasury bonds paying higher interest yields. They're then pocketing the windfall profits to repair their own ravaged balance sheets.

As if that's not bad enough, the Fed's swiftly conceived, unprecedented course of action harms the public in three other ways:

• It boosts inflation by lifting the total number of dollars in circulation.

• It undercuts the attractiveness of the U.S. dollar, which leads to higher food, energy and gold prices.

• It cuts the yields of dividend-paying investments such as government bonds upon which retirees depend for steady income.

In other words, the Fed action helps imprudent bankers dig out of a hole by putting prudent citizens and foreigners in one. This gives big financial businesses a shot at staving off disaster at the risk of cutting the spending and earning power of everyone else.

Continued: Outwitted and outplayed

Fed outwitted and outplayed

To be fair, the Federal Reserve never wanted to be in this position, and it told Congress as recently as a few months ago that the U.S. economy was in such great shape that it had no intention of lowering interest rates in a material way anytime soon. But the Fed's leaders, a dangerous mix of university professors and career bureaucrats, were drawn into a trap at amazing speed by dark forces in the global financing system that they now admit they scarcely understood.

How could this happen? Albert Wojnilower, who was chief economist at Credit Suisse First Boston for a quarter of a century, observes that the history of finance is rife with examples of financiers who successfully outwit their referees -- the accountants, auditors, rating agencies, bank examiners and government agencies that are assigned to create and enforce rules.

Wojnilower, now an adviser to Craig Drill Capital in New York, points out that just as in sports, some of these officials may be corrupt, indifferent, incompetent, or even hostile to the rules themselves, but they always fall behind the financiers. He notes that as soon as lenders are freed of constraints -- as they were in this case by Bush administration officials eager to deregulate the industry -- they are spurred by huge short-term rewards "to compete addictively with one another in taking bigger and bigger risks.” Wojnilower says that eventually havoc breaks loose, forcing responsible government authorities to halt the chaos by providing bailouts to participants considered too big to fail.

It's a bit ironic, and not a little sad, that government has come to believe it has to fight fire with fire. The Fed, whose leaders are appointed by the president, is essentially trying to battle problems created in an era of overly cheap money and loose lending by making money even cheaper and lending even more aggressively.

In just the past few weeks, it has broken all of its own rules by providing hundreds of billions of taxpayer funds to brokerages at special auctions, opening a bigger "discount" window to permit a wider range of financial institutions to beg at the government till and accepting weaker-than-normal collateral such as iffy mortgage-backed securities. The Fed has put the government in the position of being the payday lender of last resort.

The Fed's hamster wheel

Just to top it all off, the Fed this week announced plans to allow the twin titans of government-supported mortgage finance, Fannie Mae (FNM, news, msgs) and Freddie Mac (FRE, news, msgs) -- which have proved themselves horrible at managing risk -- to make even bigger loans than they had previously. And it is telling banks to let individuals facing foreclosure to stretch out their payments a little longer.

It is all a bit crazy, which is why many veteran financial advisers recommend that investors remain skeptical of rallies.

The market rallied before today's Fed action, expecting a full percentage-point cut, and reacted well initially even to the less aggressive action. But what you want to watch is the reaction of debt markets, not the equity markets. Credit investors, who are the real masters of the global economic system, believe that the Fed is like a hamster in a cage that has to run faster just to stay in place as events spin faster and faster out of its control. To have had a chance at getting ahead, by making money so cheap that lenders would have abandoned their policy of distrust toward borrowers, the Fed should have cut rates by 1.25 percentage points today. As the Fed's effort fell short, the hamster will likely just go back on the wheel.

At the time of publication, Jon Markman did not own or control shares of companies mentioned in this column.

State Supreme Court takes up same-sex marriage

Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

Sunday, March 2, 2008

As gay-rights groups call for marital equality and opponents warn of a public backlash, societal decay and religious conflict, the California Supreme Court is prepared for an epic three-hour hearing Tuesday on the constitutionality of the state law defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

It shapes up as the most momentous case the court has heard in decades - comparable to the 1981 ruling that guaranteed Medi-Cal abortions for poor women, the 1972 ruling that briefly overturned the state's death penalty law, and the 1948 decision, cited repeatedly in the voluminous filings before the court, that struck down California's ban on interracial marriage.

The arguments on both sides are weighty.

Supporters of same-sex marriage invoke the state's commitment to equality regardless of gender or sexual orientation, the needs of the children of gay and lesbian couples, the persistence of societal discrimination, and legal rights such as freedom of expression, association and privacy.

In defense of its law, the state cites a cultural tradition far older than statehood, the will of the people as expressed in a 2000 initiative, the steps California has already taken toward equal rights for gays and lesbians, and the power of lawmakers and voters to determine state policy.

Beyond those arguments, groups opposing same-sex marriage want the court to justify the state law on moral or scientific grounds, as an affirmation that limiting matrimony to a man and a woman is best for children and society.

A ruling is due within 90 days.

The case combines four lawsuits - three by nearly two dozen couples who want to marry and the fourth by the city of San Francisco, which entered the dispute after the court overturned Mayor Gavin Newsom's order that cleared the way for nearly 4,000 same-sex weddings in February and March 2004.

The suits rely on the California Constitution, which state courts have long interpreted as more protective of individual rights than the U.S. Constitution. The plaintiffs invoke a passage in the 1948 ruling on interracial marriage - the first of its kind by any state's high court - in which the justices recognized a "right to join in marriage with the person of one's choice."

Judge Richard Kramer of San Francisco Superior Court echoed that language in March 2005, when he ruled that the state's ban on same-sex marriage violated "the basic human right to marry a person of one's choice." He also said the marriage law constitutes sex discrimination - prohibited by another groundbreaking California Supreme Court ruling in 1971 - because it is based on the gender of one's partner.

But a state appeals court upheld the law in October 2006. In a 2-1 decision, the court rejected Kramer's findings of discrimination and said California was entitled to preserve the historic definition of marriage while taking steps to protect the rights of same-sex couples who register as domestic partners.

Advocates crowd in

As the case reached the state's high court, the participants and the arguments multiplied.

Conservative religious organizations, including sponsors of the 2000 ballot measure that reinforced the opposite-sex-only marriage law, accused the state of making a half-hearted defense of its law and sought to justify it as a pro-family measure. Marriage is for procreation, and children fare best with married fathers and mothers, they argued. They also said the definition of marriage is so deeply engrained in the law that judges have no power to change it.

The coalition of conservative religious groups warned that a ruling against the state law would "fracture the centuries-old consensus about the meaning of marriage."

An opposing assortment of liberal denominations counseled the court against a state endorsement of "the religious orthodoxy of some sects concerning who may marry."

The court also heard from hundreds of organizations representing psychologists, anthropologists and other professions, city and county governments, law professors, businesses, civil rights advocates and social institutions.

Judges and limits

Underlying all the arguments is a debate about the proper role of courts in a democracy, particularly on contentious social and political issues. It's the same question - how far, and how fast, judges should move to correct injustices they perceive in the actions of elected officials - that has confronted jurists pondering such issues as segregation, school prayer and abortion.

The subject was raised with unusual frankness in written arguments by Attorney General Jerry Brown's office, which is leading the defense of the marriage law that Brown signed as governor in 1977.

"One unintended and unfortunate consequence of too radical a change is the possibility of backlash," said Deputy Attorney General Christopher Krueger. Same-sex marriage may someday be legalized in California, he said, "but such a change should appropriately come from the people rather than the judiciary as long as constitutional rights are protected."

Brown said last week he wasn't asking the court to sacrifice principles to politics, only observing that rulings that "ride roughshod over the deeply held judgments of society" can have unintended consequences.

He noted that the court majority swung from liberal to conservative after three of his appointees, including Chief Justice Rose Bird, were unseated in a 1986 election that centered on their votes to overturn death sentences.

Legitimate concern?

Lawyers for San Francisco in the same-sex marriage case nonetheless accused Brown of using scare tactics and of encouraging the justices to abandon their duty to protect the constitutional rights of all Californians, regardless of public opinion.

"Far worse than any short-term controversy a principled but unpopular decision might engender, an unprincipled, politically based decision of the sort the attorney general seeks will invite and sanction the continued stigmatization and marginalization of lesbians, gay men and their families," said Chief Deputy City Attorney Therese Stewart.

But Cass Sunstein, a University of Chicago law professor who is not involved in the case, said concern about public reaction is a legitimate basis for judicial restraint.

Sunstein said he favors allowing gays and lesbians to marry, but fears that such a ruling in California "would have undue influence over the upcoming presidential election, would polarize the country in ways that are not desirable and would short-circuit a continuing process of democratic debate over this issue."

That debate has reached the state Capitol, where Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has vetoed two bills in the past two years that would have legalized same-sex marriage, and it may intensify statewide regardless of the court ruling. Two organizations are circulating initiatives that would write the current marriage law into the state Constitution; one of the measures would also repeal recently enacted laws protecting same-sex domestic partners.

Those laws, which grant domestic partners the same rights to property, finances, child custody and other benefits that spouses receive in California, are also at the heart of the state's case for upholding its marriage law. Brown's office argues that the partnership laws satisfy the state's obligation to treat same-sex couples equally and eliminate any need for judicial intervention.

"Maintaining the long-standing and traditional definition of marriage, while providing same-sex couples with legal recognition comparable to marriage, is a measured approach to a complex and divisive social issue," Krueger wrote in his argument to the court.

Benefits for married couples

Opponents of the marriage law counter that domestic partnership is a second-class status that leaves partners without the numerous federal benefits afforded to married couples, such as Social Security payments to survivors, joint tax filing, immigration assistance, the right to help a spouse immigrate, and recognition in other states. Within California, they argue, a household becomes a family in the eyes of the public only when its partners are legally married.

"The right to marry compels the state to sanction and support a unique expression of personal commitment, and that personal commitment is not the exclusive province of those who love someone of a different sex," said the National Center for Lesbian Rights, representing 15 same-sex couples who sued to overturn the state's law.

Other issues abound:

-- Whether the marriage law discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation, and if so, whether bias against gays belongs in the same category as laws that discriminate on the basis of race or sex, which courts rarely uphold.

-- Whether the 2000 ballot measure, Proposition 22, prohibited state legislators from legalizing same-sex marriage without voter approval.

-- Whether Prop. 22's sponsors and other organizations opposing same-sex marriage have the right to participate in the case on an equal basis with the state, based on their claim that broadening the marriage law would harm husbands and wives.

Cautious court

This case may not resolve all those questions. Under Chief Justice Ronald George's leadership since 1996, the court - with a 6-1 majority of Republican appointees - has been generally sympathetic to gay rights and civil rights, but has seldom overturned laws or thwarted popular majorities.

Over the last five years, with little dissent, the justices have established parental rights for same-sex couples, upheld an adoption procedure widely used by gays and lesbians and outlawed business discrimination against domestic partners.

But in more incendiary cases, the court has upheld the Boy Scouts' right to exclude gays and has broadly interpreted a voter-approved ban on preferences for women or minorities in public contracting.

Few court-watchers expect California to follow the lead of Massachusetts, whose top court - relying on the state's constitution - became the first and only tribunal to legalize same-sex weddings in 2003.

"This is a close case," said Clark Kelso, a professor at McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento and a longtime observer of the California court. "I don't think they will say anything like, 'Heterosexual couples are better at raising children.' But it's likely that the court will not blaze a trail.

"In cases of doubt," Kelso said, "the court is likely to tilt toward the expressed will of the people."

The proceedings are titled In re Marriage Cases, S147999. Briefs can be viewed at www. courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile.

How to watch the hearing

In the courtroom: The hearing is scheduled from 9 a.m. to noon Tuesday at the courthouse at 350 McAllister St. in San Francisco. Limited courtroom seating is available.

Remote viewing: The hearing will be telecast live in the Milton Marks Conference Center in the basement of the court building, and also at Hastings College of the Law, 198 McAllister St., first-floor auditorium. Limited seating is also available in the Koret Auditorium of the San Francisco Public Library, 100 Larkin St.

On cable: The hearing can be seen on the California Channel, a cable channel whose number varies from city to city. The channel is also online at www.calchannel.com. In San Francisco, the hearing will also be shown on SFGTV, Channel 26.

The law in other states

How other states treat same-sex couples.

Same-sex marriage legal: Massachusetts.

Civil unions, with most of the rights of spouses under state law: Vermont, Connecticut, New Jersey, New Hampshire.

Domestic partnerships recognized, with most of the rights of spouses under state law: California, Oregon.

Constitutional amendments outlawing same-sex marriage: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin.

Statutes outlawing same-sex marriage: Arizona, California, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, West Virginia.

E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle.com.

A confession on privilege

On privilege (benefited)
a male
first born
college educated with an advance degree
home owner/debtor
possess a personal computer a cell phone, a land line, a DVD player
a '95 Miata M edition (purchased use)
have good credit rating and a choice of credit cards
line of credit for both business and real property
participate in retirement programs (ROTH, IRA, 403B, Simple)
work with a financial adviser and an accountant
traveled to at least 2o countries in Europe (Ireland, England, Belgium,Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Switzerland, Holland, Austria), Asia (Philippines, Thailand, Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore), North America (Canada, Mexico), North Africa (Morocco), Near East (Turkey), Pacific (Palau, Guam)
level of achievement and recognition in field of work
network of friends spanning 3 continents, over one dozen states in the USA (MA, WA, HI, WDC, FL, NY, OR, CO, LA, MN, VA, GA)
traveled to NYC, Paris, Munich, Florence, Madrid/Barcelona for art and artist (painters: Van Gogh, Renoir, Picasso, The Blue Rider Group, Velasquez, Raphael, Goya, Gaudi, Matisse, Rembrandt, Botticelli, Michelangelo)
developed an educated palette (wine, fine food)
listened to Maestro Leonard Bernstein conduct the Vienna Opera Symphony listened to a talk given by Noam Chomsky at MIT
a Regents Scholar as an undergrad and had less than 10K in student loans attended catholic high school, working to pay for tuition passable language skills in Tagalog, Spanish
parents have a college education
maternal grandparents college educated in Seville


in a (personal) context
of being an immigrant to the USA, unequivocally brown
known homosexual
an avowed socialist
parents who worked and retired as clerk and janitor
living in places I esteem as socially integrated
abide to precepts of reduce, reuse, and recycle


occupy multiple social identities, undeniably perceived and categorized by assumptions held by those within the milieu (personal view: arm chair scholar, activist, loved with abandon and wisdom, perceptive)


modeled and continually exemplified/practice developing virtues of generosity (goodwill), faith in basic goodness of humankind, dignity, truthfulness, courtesy, duty, kindness, social responsibility, perseverance, openness, fairness, loyalty, thrift, nuturance, altruism

Experienced near death and lost a friend to poisoning during a vacation
Lost 2 dear friends during the 2nd wave of the epidemic
4 years since fathers death, have a deeper understanding of who I am, my place in American society and a deeper abiding love of my brother, mother, sole blood nephew

What should my penance be
Feel guilty and experience internal conflict
Momentary joy filled daily life
Free of desire and longing
Free of illusions from what is possible and see what is at hand

Embrace personal frailty: anger, disappointments, want, limitations in the intellectual and creative realm, listlessness. A buddhist precept on suffering, acknowledging these traits as among the challenges in personal evolution.

Self knowing is parcel to intelligence. There is also responsibility shouldered by being more than adequate.

(c) danielt, 2008

Race and Gender in American Presidential Politics

Readers, friends and colleagues. Shared in this article is the lack of discussion of privilege among the two leading Democratic candidates. Hazard to say, American dogma supports the silence on issues of inequity experience by women, or those who are not members of the dominant culture. It will be curious to see, whether the aspirations of these two candidates as potential "unifier's" or bridge makers across gender, class, religious, ideological rifts in national and global society will speak out on their role as a leader of one of the most powerful countries in the world.

This article can be found on the web at
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080310/ramdas

---

Leveraging the Power of Race and Gender

by KAVITA NANDINI RAMDAS

[posted online on February 21, 2008]

As the contest for a Democratic presidential nominee enters its final stages, the feminist dilemma has become palpable and painful. My inbox has been filled with passionate and provocative pieces from Katha Pollitt, Frances Kissling, Caroline Kennedy and Feminists for Peace and Barack Obama, all explaining why they are not supporting Hillary Clinton. Equally strong commentary in support of Clinton, and dismissing Obama, has arrived from Gloria Steinem, Robin Morgan, Ellie Smeal and Ellen Malcolm. All decry the misogyny evident in media coverage of the candidates and grapple--with varying degrees of success--with race and gender conflict. Clinton fans mention in passing that Hillary has been an international voice for women's rights.

As a feminist whose daily work focuses on the challenges facing women outside the United States--particularly those living in poverty, in war zones and under extreme patriarchal control--I think these conversations have a surreal quality. They are surreal because they are so perfectly American in their insularity. What is alarmingly absent from our conversations and arguments, even as they allude to race and gender, is any sense of how our decisions affect the well-being of people across the planet--not least the status of women, 51 percent of us, who are being treated with appalling brutality around the globe.

There is something profoundly wrong when a conversation about qualifications to be President of the most powerful nation in the world ignores the reality facing most of that world's inhabitants. While American pundits debate whether Clinton is being targeted unfairly, for example, thousands of women and children in Gaza are being collectively punished as Israel, a neighboring state and former occupying power, withholds food, fuel and electricity. Yet who is talking about that? In the face of such a travesty of human rights and international law, not one of the presidential candidates, regardless of race or gender, has the gumption to speak out and say this is wrong. Not one has said that he or she will not tolerate such behavior by any ally of the United States.

We live in a world where women are facing an epidemic of rape in conflicts from Nepal to Chiapas to the Democratic Republic of Congo, yet neither Clinton nor Obama has seen fit to mention it. Recent reports of the widespread murder of educated women in Iraq by religious extremists are adding new horror to an already horrifying situation but are going almost unreported. Women and children today form the bulk of the world's refugees and make up the majority of the world's poor. Despite doing more than two-thirds of the world's labor, women own only 1 percent of the world's assets. Yet not one presidential candidate has chosen to highlight the profound threat that gender inequality is posing to the development, economic stability and future peace of our world.

At times like these, the practical politics of US elections are staggeringly oppressive. We are told by the experts that Americans do not care about, or vote on the basis of, what happens in the rest of the world. We hear claims that presidential candidates cannot raise these issues during the race: we just have to trust that they will do better once they are in office.

That is not good enough. I want to hear from the woman running for President why being a woman and a mother matters to her and how it will inform her leadership. I want her to stand up for the millions of women who are not heard here or around the world. I want her to chart her course as the wisest, most humane President this country has ever seen, not to show us how much more macho she can be as our next Commander in Chief.

Women in the developing world are not reassured when they see Madeleine Albright standing next to Hillary Clinton. They have not forgotten that this former Secretary of State, when questioned about the death of more than 500,000 children as a result of sanctions against Iraq, responded that the price had been worth it. Most would prefer a President tough enough to say that Iraqi children matter to her as much as American children and that she would use the awesome power of the presidency to ensure the safety and well-being of all the world's children. Hillary Clinton would not be alone if she chose to own her power as a skilled and qualified politician and as a woman.

There is a rising number of fiercely feminine and feminist leaders around the globe--people like Michelle Bachelet of Chile, who is unafraid to be an agnostic single mother in a deeply Catholic country, and Ellen Johnson Sirleaf of Liberia, whose first act as president was passing legislation against sexual violence. Hillary has a unique chance to stand alongside them. For her to dance so gingerly around the question of gender in international affairs is to miss an extraordinary opportunity to use gender as a platform for healing the deep wounds left by the previous presidency.

But my high expectations are not limited to Hillary. I have equally high goals for the man who says he will unite us. Obama has his own powerful but underutilized tool: race. What prevents him, for example, from drawing analogies between the plight facing women--many of whom live in subjugation simply by virtue of their gender--and the experience of slavery? And why stop there? By owning the question of race on an international stage, Obama would have an amazing opportunity to reach out to people worldwide--who are in more need of hope than most Americans could imagine. Regardless of whether there are votes in it, this is of profound relevance to all of us in this country.

Yet Obama is also missing this chance. What is happening when a truly multiracial candidate, whose first name means "blessing" in Hebrew and Arabic and whose middle name is Hussein, feels he must spend his moral capital proving his Christian credentials? What I want is for Obama to stand with my husband, a man born and raised in Pakistan, who now is asked to step aside for a random search each time we board an airplane. He needs to tell us that he knows only too well that if he were not a US senator but an ordinary man with a foreign name going on vacation with his family, this could happen to him. I'd like to hear from him that when he looks at the United States or the world, what he sees are not Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Jews or atheists but simply human beings desperate to be treated with dignity and respect.

Like Clinton, Obama, too, can find inspiration and solidarity with a new generation of global leaders emerging from the shackles of their minority status. For the first time in Latin American history, for example, indigenous leaders are holding power as the heads of state in Venezuela and Bolivia. Obama has an unparalleled opportunity to speak to them from an empathetic perspective. And as September 11 showed us, our foreign policy is only a short step from our domestic concerns.

The next President needs the ability to demonstrate the inner courage and conviction that comes from owning his or her "otherness." As a woman and a mother, Hillary Clinton could bring insights and perspectives no other President in US history could have brought to the negotiating table of war and peace. As the stepson of an Indonesian Muslim and the son of a Kenyan and a white woman from Kansas, Barack Obama manifests what it means to be a global citizen. What is at stake in this election is not merely the historic first that would be accomplished if either a black man or a woman became the next US President. What is at stake is the fragile future of our shared world.

Vice President Rice

This article can be found on the web at http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080225/howl2
by Nicholas von Hoffman

Vice President Rice?
[posted online on February 13, 2008]

Who's John McCain's scariest running mate? Take your pick on the Nation Poll.

Democrats who think it's going to be a cakewalk into the White House next November had best remember one name: Condoleezza Rice.

John McCain is a formidable candidate in his own right, but if he has the political imagination to do it, he can cause the party of Jefferson and Jackson indescribable angst with Rice as his vice-presidential pick.

Besides being the greatest two-for in GOP history, Rice brings other huge pluses to the decorated Vietnam hero. Indeed, she may be enough to elect the venerable hero/naval aviator.

McCain's troubles with the religious wing of his party could well evaporate with the churchgoing Rice at his side. She solidifies that part of his base overnight.

With Rice on the ticket, the GOP would have somebody to get enthusiastic about. The Secretary of State is immensely popular with Republicans. For a party that up to now has been clueless about how to run against either a woman or a person of color, Condoleezza Rice is pure political gold.

Woe to any Democrat who thinks taking her on in a debate is a sure thing. The woman is tough, fast on her feet and able to give better than she gets. Anyone who has seen her in action testifying in front of a hostile House or Senate committee knows that she will be able to wipe up the floor with a plodding, ordinary pol of a Democratic vice-presidential candidate. Take Rice lightly at your peril.

In the ordinary course of things the ideal vice-presidential candidate is relied upon to carry his or her home state and keep out of trouble. With Condi the GOP gets a lot more. It gets a superstar to match the Democrats' superstars. If it comes to name recognition, glamour and magnetism for conservatives, Condi is dandy. Also, it is a plus for the GOP team that she is a snappy dresser.

Rice's presence on the ticket deprives the Democrats of the we-are-more-diverse-than-thou argument. It makes McCain--whose ethnically diverse family includes an adopted daughter from Bangladesh--an even more attractive candidate for a certain kind of independent voter.

Rice can rightly be attacked for serving Bush and backing an unpopular and disastrous war. But McCain, who is extremely pro-war himself, is not going to select a running mate who is wishy-washy on Iraq. Rice is also said to have done a poor job running the State Department, where morale is supposed to have dropped faster than a subprime mortgage. However, you can put the number of voters who give a rodent's behind about the care and feeding of cookie-pushing diplomats in a phone booth, if phone booths still existed.

With Rice on the ticket the Republicans are freed up to run a much stronger negative campaign against either Clinton or Obama because the Secretary of State provides them with cover against charges of sexism or racism. They would be able to go after Obama's membership in Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ. Its minister, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., with whom Obama is close, has won himself the militant tag from conservatives because of his association with Nation of Islam leader the Rev. Louis Farrakhan.

They can attack Hillary's experience claims as consisting of her being Bill's wife. They can challenge her boast that she is a strong, independent woman and paint her as a weak, hopelessly-in-love woman under the spell of a man subject not only to "bimbo eruptions" but also eruptions of smarmy deals with shady business figures.

Lastly, Rice is a notorious sports fan with excruciatingly detailed knowledge of much of its arcana. She's often said that her dream job is commissioner of the National Football League; however, in a pinch she would probably settle for Vice President of the United States.

Ahh the day after

Whew!!! now the first of many political election rushes has passed, it is post Super Tuesday. Who came out ahead will be debatable till the next sets of primaries and caucuses. North Americans, the USA and voting varieties, can stand proud in their interest and in exercising a basic right. Arguably one can say, more young people came out to vote, more African Americans, more Latinos, more bible belt conservatives -- spin it anyway it seems factual for the area from whence you speak.

In discussions, let us remain open to an exchange, shy away from polemics, cliche's and poorly reasoned statements that can only be fodder for increasing the perceived attack.

It is quite clear, where I stand politically and ethically. Earlier posts have indicated my leanings. I understand SF County came out strong for Senator Obama. Not surprising, one can say. This in the midst of a minor slight from the Mayor of the City by the Bay. It was claimed, the Senator did not allow for photo opportunities with the Mayor of a town long identified as a beacon of progressives and radicals. In this case an allusion to the Valentine Mass Wedding, ha can you imagine associating a more positive act than the original Valentine Day Massacre. Are we becoming more humane as a society? Or are we pushing an agenda for cultural separatism.

Bet many secretly wanted a rendering of post-coital regret or bliss. Well dream on, its good for your libido.

Caroline Kennedy's endorsement of Senator Obama

In the event you had not come across the NYTimes Op-ed, here it is for your reading. It is widely distributed that Senator Kennedy will be announcing his endorsement of fellow Senator Obama on Monday Jan 28. Remember Feb 5, is a big voting day for primaries across the nation.


January 27, 2008

Op-Ed Contributor
A President Like My Father
By CAROLINE KENNEDY

OVER the years, I’ve been deeply moved by the people who’ve told me they wished they could feel inspired and hopeful about America the way people did when my father was president. This sense is even more profound today. That is why I am supporting a presidential candidate in the Democratic primaries, Barack Obama.

My reasons are patriotic, political and personal, and the three are intertwined. All my life, people have told me that my father changed their lives, that they got involved in public service or politics because he asked them to. And the generation he inspired has passed that spirit on to its children. I meet young people who were born long after John F. Kennedy was president, yet who ask me how to live out his ideals.

Sometimes it takes a while to recognize that someone has a special ability to get us to believe in ourselves, to tie that belief to our highest ideals and imagine that together we can do great things. In those rare moments, when such a person comes along, we need to put aside our plans and reach for what we know is possible.

We have that kind of opportunity with Senator Obama. It isn’t that the other candidates are not experienced or knowledgeable. But this year, that may not be enough. We need a change in the leadership of this country — just as we did in 1960.

Most of us would prefer to base our voting decision on policy differences. However, the candidates’ goals are similar. They have all laid out detailed plans on everything from strengthening our middle class to investing in early childhood education. So qualities of leadership, character and judgment play a larger role than usual.

Senator Obama has demonstrated these qualities throughout his more than two decades of public service, not just in the United States Senate but in Illinois, where he helped turn around struggling communities, taught constitutional law and was an elected state official for eight years. And Senator Obama is showing the same qualities today. He has built a movement that is changing the face of politics in this country, and he has demonstrated a special gift for inspiring young people — known for a willingness to volunteer, but an aversion to politics — to become engaged in the political process.

I have spent the past five years working in the New York City public schools and have three teenage children of my own. There is a generation coming of age that is hopeful, hard-working, innovative and imaginative. But too many of them are also hopeless, defeated and disengaged. As parents, we have a responsibility to help our children to believe in themselves and in their power to shape their future. Senator Obama is inspiring my children, my parents’ grandchildren, with that sense of possibility.

Senator Obama is running a dignified and honest campaign. He has spoken eloquently about the role of faith in his life, and opened a window into his character in two compelling books. And when it comes to judgment, Barack Obama made the right call on the most important issue of our time by opposing the war in Iraq from the beginning.

I want a president who understands that his responsibility is to articulate a vision and encourage others to achieve it; who holds himself, and those around him, to the highest ethical standards; who appeals to the hopes of those who still believe in the American Dream, and those around the world who still believe in the American ideal; and who can lift our spirits, and make us believe again that our country needs every one of us to get involved.

I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president — not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans.

Caroline Kennedy is the author of “A Patriot’s Handbook: Songs, Poems, Stories and Speeches Celebrating the Land We Love.”

Senator Obama speaks with SF Chronical Editorial Board

Many of us are in the throes of decision making regarding the upcoming CA and other state primaries. Attached is link to a 52 minute dialogue with Senator Obama.

What is clear to me, he is forging a process more in line to participatory democracy that realizes big money, multinationals and the wealthy have vested interest in maintaining the status quo. He offers understandable and un-spun views on how to proceed on key issues that can be local, national, and international in scope.

What is disarming about him, he comes across genuine, thoughtful, and someone who has a plan for reinvigorating American society.

Though you may have made a decision, I can only asks that you be open to hearing him out, and see how your views can expand or focus based on what he says.

Note it is 50 min long, make time to watch and hear.

http://www.brightcove.tv/title .jsp?title=1381682549

Confounding the Racial Calculus -- Maxim Thorne, Esq

Mr. Thorne, offers an astute observation on the shift in the political strategy of Hillary Clinton. One has to weigh his perspective and not to view it as another "conspiracy theorist" or hapless victim of identity politics.

Thorne is a Yale Law graduate and an advocate in the New York city area.

Confounding the Racial Calculus

Barack Obama has been confounding the racial calculus of millions of Americans for the last year- including (apparently) the Clintons . It’s difficult being black even in the liberal democratic world. What we have seen in the last couple of weeks is first the outward frustration of the Clinton campaign in trying to understand how they calculated so wrong- and more recently their heinous attempts to restore the racial status quo.

Barack Obama has not only proven that he is a singularly unique Black politician but that he has the awareness and vision and commitment to rise above the sometimes toxic muck of American race relations (particularly within the Democratic Party). The old calculus would have rendered Barack's presidential bid a folly. It has been near impossible for Black politicians to win statewide offices like Senator and Governor. Even today there are just one sitting Black senator (Obama) and one sitting Black governor (Deval Patrick of Massachusetts ).

Barack immediately started confounding conventional wisdom through fundraising. The Clintons could not imagine that a Black politician completely outside of the party machinery they had lorded over for more than a decade was able to amass a war chest to rival Hillary's. Not only had Barack gotten the support and dollars of legion of white Americans but also many upwardly-mobile people of color. These folks really don't exist in the Clintonian vision of the poor and desperate Black and Brown masses waiting for a white knight to lead them to the promised land (re – It took LBJ…).

And then came Iowa . Like he did in Illinois, Barack won Iowa by having a wider focus and broader vision that the Black candidates who had come before him. Barack spoke to the concerns of urban folks struggling with failing schools and lack of health care. He also spoke to the concerns of rural Americans who face the erosion of communities by big agricultural conglomerates and dwindling populations. He spoke to Americans in general and people responded. He has inspired in Democrats an ability to dream and hope- to believe that while the progressive agenda has been derailed it can once again be put back on track. The Clintons had believed that most Americans had been so cowed by the disasters of the Bush years that they would pine for- hope for- nothing more ambitious than the Clinton years. What she was offering was not the America of their dreams but of their memories. Barack offered something intrinsically better.

But the Clintons don't seem to believe this. From their actions over the last couple of weeks it seems that their remedy to Barack's potential to win this nomination is not to counter him with an even better vision but to revert to race politics. They want to remind Americans that he's black. The Clintons seem incensed that Iowans- and the other Democrats who have allowed Barack to erase Hillary's once overwhelming lead in national polls- didn't just vote on race. "BUT HE'S BLACK- CAN'T YOU SEE !" is what Hillary and Bill have been telegraphing for weeks now.

To a Democratic electorate that seems to have finally begun to move beyond base race concerns the Clintons- the paragons of progress- are dedicated to dragging the party back to the depths of poisonous racial history. And not a moment too soon. Across the country the Clintons are on a remembrance tour- reminding Hispanics of the historic rivalry with Blacks; reminding Southerners of their latent fear of the Black man; reminding white suburbanites in the North and Midwest of the imagery of Black drug-dealers and gangsters that inspired the white flight to suburbs.

And it may be that the simple message of 'BUT REMEMBER HE'S STILL BLACK' will resonate far and wide within Democratic ranks: both black and white. Hillary and Bill are most convincing in their 'civil rights commitments' when it comes to vague imagery (Bill as the 'first Black president'; Hillary as the white partner in an 'interracial marriage') but they get in trouble when specifics come in. Hillary endured an onslaught of criticism when she claimed last year in Selma to have had a life-changing moment when she heard Dr. King speak in 1963. Yet in 1964 she was a Goldwater Girl. Goldwater was no ordinary presidential candidate. In addition to fathering the modern conservative movement that now strangles the Republican Party he was a pioneer of what would become known as the Southern Strategy. Goldwater was at the vanguard of GOP radicals in the early 1960s who saw opportunity in the Democratic Party's embrace of civil rights under JFK and LBJ. Goldwater was one of the few Republican senators to join Southern Democrats in very public opposition to civil rights and equality. Goldwater ran a campaign in 1964 that was in direct opposition to everything Dr. King hoped for. It is shocking that Hillary Clinton- a political astute college entrant who would head the Young Republicans at Wellesley- would not realize that Goldwater's narrow exploitation of white fears of Black equality didn't real gel with the civil rights agenda.

What Hillary and Bill do know, however, is that while the national Democratic Party quickly embraced a progressive agenda from the 1960s on it has been much slower going among the grassroots. Republican presidential candidates from Goldwater onward have gained the support of legions of Southern Democrats by appealing to latent racism over the years. Barack Obama's potency in national polls and his support among white voters across the country may well mark a period of transition as those voters come to terms with their fears of the past and move on. But not if the Clintons have anything to do with it. Perhaps Bob Johnson said it best for the Clintons when he warned South Carolinians that Barack Obama is no Sidney Poitier. In other words he may look and act like the 'Good Negro' but it's just an act; he's really an inner-city drug fiend.

And if Latinos- a critical voting block in Nevada but also in Feb. 5 primaries in states like California and New York- were thinking of moving beyond racial suspicions and voting for Barack on the issues the Clinton folks were nice enough to print a poster in Nevada reminding Hispanics of their history of not supporting Black candidates. Hillary Clinton said it’s not to revive racial memories; it's to make a historic statement.

But just to cover her bases the Clinton folks have gone to court in Nevada to prevent caucusing at the casinos where thousands of Democratic union workers- heavily Latino and Black- are working on Saturday while the caucuses are being held. The Clintons thought it was a good idea when the plan has made last year but changed their minds when an expected endorsement from the powerful Culinary Workers union went to Barack Obama instead. (A federal court judge rejected a temporary injunction and the caucuses will be held in the casinos).

Iowa made a lot of Americans feel good about the direction of race relations in this country but those good vibes may have been premature. That the Clintons of all people would think it pragmatic- and acceptable- to use race in this way is telling about how far we truly need to go. A truce on the race issue seems to be holding but unfortunately some damage has been done.

I believe Barack Obama has the ability to overcome this damage. His victory will be a testament to the progress we have made as a nation and an inspiration to our children who can still believe they can grow up to be President.

Best wishes,

Maxim

Maxim Thorne, Esq.
maxim@maximthorne.com
cell 202-460-4966

a you tube video is also online search Maxim Thorne