The Miracle League

"Give a little love to a child, and you will get a great deal back."

   - John Ruskin (1819-1900), British social theorist

Here's a wonderful story about people helping people by The Christian Science Monitor staff writer Elizabeth Lund. It's a heart-warming account of how the Miracle League and its volunteers are helping handicapped kids learn how to play baseball:

"Ken Ware kneels behind his son, Cal, steadying the little boy, who stands inches from a T and a bright yellow ball. Together they raise a metal bat, which slips back and bonks Dad in the head.

'You can do it, Cal,' says the game's emcee over the intercom system.

The two finally take a swing together, knocking the ball three, maybe four feet. Mr. Ware picks up the boy and runs with him past first base, second, and third. By the time they reach home plate again, everyone in the park is cheering, even the opposing team."

In these games there are no strike-outs, runners are never tagged out and every player gets to bat and hit the ball. There are two innings played and the final score is always a tie. Each player is worthy and welcome. All are equal.

This wonderful program was started by Eddie Bagwell, a Conyers, GA, coach who was moved to invite a wheelchair-bound child to join his baseball team. His experience with this youngster led him to begin wondering if some of the other 79,000 disabled children in the Atlanta area would like to play too. The rest is history:

"The Conyers field opened in 2000...Since then, 11 other custom diamonds have been built across the U.S. at a cost of roughly $450,000 each. Another 60 fields are under construction, with community organizations and individuals picking up most of the tab."

For most of the kids, the games are the highlight of their week. Their little faces are always beaming, whether they're in the dugout, at bat or in the field. Their parents are getting a kick out of them too. They can focus on their children's abilities rather than their limitations, and watching them play helps put the difficulties of rearing a mentally or physically challenged child on the back burner for awhile.

Another benefit of the games is that spectators who don't have disabled children are learning to become more comfortable responding to these youngsters. All of the kids' efforts are rewarded with lots of clapping, hugs, kisses and encouragement by everyone in attendance. It's a win-win for everyone, but most of all for the children.

My hat is off to the volunteers and contributors who are making this happen, the parents and children who are participating and Ms.Lund at The Christian Science Monitor for giving us a heads-up on the whole thing. People like these make me proud to live where I do.  

 

 

 

Books, Books, Books

"When I get a little money, I buy books; and if any is left I buy food and clothes."

   - Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536), Dutch humanist

I love to read and I love owning the books I read. A problem associated with owning books, however, is their tendency to accumulate in such numbers that you don't have a place to put them. I had no library in my old home in Atlanta, but purchased some inexpensive build-it-yourself bookcases to create a place where I could display my collection of literary treasures. I ringed the walls of a spare bedroom with these and packed them with so many books that the shelves sagged under their weight.

Sometime after I retired, and just before we re-located to the home we live in now, I decided (with some help from Lisbeth) that I needed to get rid of some of the books I had accumulated over the years. I knew I wouldn't have room for all of them in our new home, and didn't want the added expense of moving them. Painful as it was for me to discard any of my library, I identified about 1,000 titles that I felt I could somehow do without.

It was with much regret and sadness that I put them in with all the other things we hoped to sell in our moving sale. As the sale progressed and I watched my books disappear, I felt like I was losing a bunch of old friends, and I guess I was. Every book a buyer carried away elicited feelings akin to watching my children leave the nest. But I persisted, and by the end of the day all but a few hundred of the books were gone. These I donated to Goodwill, leaving me with maybe 300 that I simply couldn't part with.

At our new home, I had the foresight to include a library in the planning, a luxury I'd never had at any of the other homes we'd owned. This, I thought, will solve the problem of what to do with all my books. I now had floor-to-ceiling built-in bookcases with adjustable shelves--how much better could it get? The books I brought with me from Atlanta occupied maybe half the available space, and I had plenty of room for expansion, or so I thought.

This afternoon, as I write this, I am surrounded by three walls of floor-to-ceiling bookcases--now all filled with books. Not only that, there are stacks of books on the floor, books on the shelves and tables in the living room and den (where the wife tells me that knick-knacks and photos are supposed to be displayed), books on and under the night-stand by my bed, books in my car and books in boxes in the attic. I suppose you might say that I'm right back where I was before I moved. Over-booked.

Is there anyone else who has half a dozen books sitting in a stack waiting to be read, as he heads to the bookstore to buy a couple more? Is there anyone else, at any single point in time, who finds herself reading five or six books simultaneously and looking for another one to get started on? Is there anyone else who can't pass a bookstore without browsing for at least a few minutes? Does anyone know of a cure for this affliction?

Some have advised me to use the public library more, borrowing and returning everything I read. That's never worked very well for me because every book I read is read with a highlighter, felt tipped pen or both. I love to mark up the text and make notes in the margins as I read, and I would imagine that our hometown library would frown greatly upon this practice. And there's something that feels good about knowing a book is mine, that I can read it at my leisure, loan it to my friends and pull it off the shelf years later to find a special paragraph that I want to enjoy again. You can't do that with library books.

Frankly, I've about decided I'm stuck with my problem. Despite threats from my wife, lack of habitable space due to the expanding piles of books and hardly enough time to do anything but read, I continue falling under the spell of the written word. I acknowledge my habit and know that where books are concerned, I am truly weak, unable to control my urges, and most likely in need of some serious counseling. I've about given up. In fact, I'm going to run up to Barnes & Noble in a few minutes and see if they have anything new. Wanna join me? 

Countdown to Sovereignty

"If you can find a path with no obstacles, it probably doesn't lead anywhere."

  - Frank A. Clark

Author Con Coughlin, writing for London's Daily Telegraph, tells us of some of the near-term objectives of Ayad Allawi, Iraq's first post-liberation prime minister:

" 'It's not my ambition to run Iraq,' he told me when I last saw him in Baghdad. 'My objective all along has been to bring an end to Saddam's tyranny and establish a government in Iraq that is accountable to the Iraqi people.'

In many respects, then, this week's handover represents the halfway stage in a tortuous process that ultimately will result in Iraqis being given the opportunity of electing a government for the first time. Before that can happen...security within Iraq needs radical improvement and Allawi, who is well acquainted with the worlds of the military and intelligence, is well suited to the task.

Indeed such is his enthusiasm for tackling Iraq's lamentable security that he and his close aides have already dropped heavy hints that they intend to introduce martial law if the terror attacks continue at their current level.

Another measure of Allawi's no-nonsense approach is his determination to bring Saddam Hussein and the other leading Ba'athists currently languishing in American custody to trial at the earliest possible opportunity. So long as their fate remains unresolved, he argues, they remain a rallying point for disaffected Iraqis who oppose the post-Saddam political process."

Coughlin believes if Allawi can stabilize Iraq's security that the country's prospects are promising. He provides many examples of progress thus far:

"More than five million Iraqi primary school children have returned to the classroom...The coalition has spent $1 billion renovating and rebuilding hospitals and clinics...The Iraqi dinar has risen in value by 25 per cent since introduction of the new currency was completed in January...Unemployment is falling and will fall further as Allawi's government intensifies its recruitment drive for the armed forces."

Perhaps a new development has occurred with regard to insurgency that will aid Allawi in dealing with the continuing threat of terrorism. This Washington Post story  (registration required) by Edward Cody cites the protests of many Iraqi opponents of the U.S. occupation who are speaking out against the foreign guerrillas who are killing Iraqi citizens:

" 'We do not need anyone from outside the borders to stand with us and spill the blood of our sons in Iraq,' Ahmed Abdul Ghafour Samarrae, a Sunni eleric with a wide following, declared in his Friday sermon at Umm al Qurra mosque in Baghdad...'Which religion allows anyone to kill more than 100 Iraqis, destroy 100 families and destroy 100 houses?' raged Samarrae in his sermon. 'Who says so? Who are these people who do this? Where did they come from?...It is a conspiracy to defame the reputation of the Iraqi resistance by wearing its dress and using its name falsely. These people hurt the Iraqis and Iraq, giving the occupier an excuse to stay longer.' "

Other key figures, including the once rebellious cleric Moqtada Sadr, have also taken a pro-Allawi stance, calling for his followers to cooperate with Iraqi police in quelling the violence of foreign fighters. The actions of these clerics are good news for Allawi, who needs the support of the population if he is to bring an end to the destruction and discord being fomented by those who wish the new government to fail.

Could we call this a light at the end of the tunnel, or is it too soon to become optimistic? It's hard to say at this point, but come Wednesday and the days following the coalition turnover of government to Allawi's team, perhaps we will begin to understand how some of these things will play out.

Update: Robin Wright, staff writer for the Washington Post (registration required), gives us some more good news. A recent poll indicates that almost 70% of Iraqis have confidence in their new leaders. "The numbers are in stark contrast to widespread disillusionment with the previous Iraqi Governing Council, which was made up of 25 members picked by the United States and which served as the Iraqi partner to the U.S.-led Coaltion Provisional Authority. Only 28 percent of Iraqis backed the council when it was dissolved last month..."

Update: Omar, an Iraqi blogger, shares his views on Paul Bremer, former U.S. administrator for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq. Scroll down to the entry titled "From Um Mushtag to Abu Haider." 

Our Almost President

"We are never so easily deceived as when we imagine we are deceiving others."

  - Francois La Rochefoucauld (1613-1680), French moralist

In an emotionally charged speech reported on Thursday by the Associated Press, Al Gore rebuked President Bush, accusing him of lying about an Iraq - al Qaeda connection and refusing to admit his error because of the potential political fallout:

"They dare not admit the truth lest they look like complete fools for launching our country into a reckless, discretionary war against a nation that posed no immediate threat to us whatsoever."

Gore went on to accuse Bush of deliberately ignoring intelligence warnings that the claim of a link between al Qaeda and Saddam was false:

"So, when the bipartisan 9/11 commission issued its report finding no 'credible evidence' of an Iraq-al-Qaida connection, it should not have come as a surprise. It should not have caught the White House off guard."

Funny, what the commission actually said was they "found no credible evidence of a link between the events of Sept. 11, 2001, and Iraq," not that there were no links at all. Funnier still, John Tabin, writing for The American Spectator, tells us that back in 1998 when you-know-who was vice-president, the Justice Department's indictment of Osama bin Laden included these words, which were the position of the Clinton administration of which Mr. Gore was a part:

"Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."

1998 was also the year that Clinton bombed an al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical plant (thought to be producing VX nerve gas) in Sudan in retaliation for the Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. He and his security advisers believed the Iraqi government's chemical weapons programs were connected to the Sudanese facility, and knew the Sudanese were in bed with al Qaeda. They feared that chemical weapons would find their way into the hands of al Qaeda because of the connections between the three parties.

And this wasn't the Clinton administration's first brush with Saddam:

"Indeed, the Clinton administration's experiences with Saddam's penchant for terrorism go all the way back to Clinton's first term, when it was confirmed that the Iraqi Intelligence Service had attempted an assassination of former President George H. W. Bush. Clinton ordered a missile strike on the IIS headquarters in June, 1993, in retalitation."

 One of Clinton's top officials gave a speech shortly after the retaliatory attack was ordered:

"The suffering inside Iraq can come to an end when Saddam Hussein's regime is replaced. And I hope--and most of the world hopes--that this regime based on terrorism and atrocities against his own people will be replaced. Over time, we hope to achieve that result."

The official? Vice-President Albert Gore. I guess you can have it both ways--especially if you're Al Gore.

Update: Andrew C. McCarthy has more on the Iraq - al Qaeda connection over at National Review Online. McCarthy has some unkind words for the manner in which the New York Times has handled this story.

Update: Scott W. Johnson at Powerline has more on Gore's contradictions.

Allah's Warriors

"The most dangerous madmen are those created by religion, and people whose aim is to disrupt society always know how to make good use of them."

   - Denis Diderot (1713-1784), French philosopher

Andrew Bolt, a columnist for the Australian Sunday Herald Sun, expresses his concern about the adversaries we face in the Middle East and the manner in which those critical of the war view the threat of terrorism. "What a way to lose a war. Two stories this week prove we'd rather shoot our own leaders than admit we have enemies who would, literally, cut our throats."

To his point, he writes about Fawwaz bin Muhammad al-Nashami, one of the terrorists who participated in the recent attacks in Saudi Arabia where 22 people were murdered. Quoting excerpts from a chilling interview of al-Nashami that was posted on the website Sawt al-Jihad (Voice of Jihad), Bolt tells us of the ruthless, cold-blooded murders committed on behalf of Allah:

"Al-Nashami says he and his 'brothers' shot their way into an oil company compound, where, as police confirm, they killed a British worker and tied his body to their car. He says they drove on until 'the infidel's clothing was torn to shreds and he was naked in the street...and everyone watched the infidel being dragged, praise and gratitude be to Allah.'

The terrorists then stormed a second compound, and found an American infidel. 'I shot him in the head, and his head exploded. We entered another office and found one infidel from South Africa, and our brother Hussein slit his throat. We asked Allah to accept (these pious acts) from us, and from him.'

The terrorists then killed guards at the third compound, where al-Nashami says they found Johansson: 'Brother Nimr cut off his head and put it at the gate, so that it would be seen by all...'

They caught other workers and checked their religion. 'We found Filipino Christians. We cut their throats and dedicated them to our brothers the Mujahideen in the Phillippines. We found Hindu engineers and we cut their throats, too, and Allah be praised...We utilised the time for (teaching) the Koran to the Muslims who remained.' All true, say witnesses.

They then found an Italian hiding on the stairs. 'We...decided that he should call al-Jazeera (the Muslim cable network) and talk to his people and send them a warning about the war of Islam and its people...He spoke (to al-Jazeera) for several minutes. I asked the broadcaster, Did you record that? He said, yes, and then the hero Nimr cut (the Italian's) throat.'

These are terrorists of a movement that some commentators say has reasonable grievances we must discuss. In fact, these are terrorists who have even bloodier mayhem in mind for us."

The second story to which Bolt refers is the one about the interim reports released by the 9-11 Commission and the subsequent misinterpretation and misreporting of the Commission's findings by many in our news media:

"In a little-reported passage, they warn: 'Al-Qaida remains extremely interested in conducting chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear attacks.' ...experts believed 'the trend towards attacks intended to cause ever-higher casualties will continue.'

This week's 9/11 commission reports also said Saddam approached al-Qaida at least three times when it was based in Sudan, and again, it seems, when it was in Afghanistan.

The reports for some reason don't discuss other reported links between Iraq and al-Qaida, but cautiously conclude: 'We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaida co-operated on attacks against the United States.

This is almost word for word what Bush has long said. Yet ABC TV news said this week's reports prove al-Qaida 'had no links with Saddam Hussein, as suggested by the White House,' and ABC's The World Today added: 'One of the Bush administration's central arguments for going to war with Iraq appears to be in tatters.' "

The debate about this has been raging in the blogworld for some time now. Paul on his weblog, Wizbang, goes into a little more detail than Bolt has if you're interested.

The part of this story that really got my attention was the Fawwaz bin Muhammad al-Nashami interview where he was praising Allah as he dragged the body of one of those he'd murdered behind his car. These Islamists, my friends, are in the midst of what is to them, a "holy" war. And anything they do, no matter how ruthless or inhumane, is okay, because it is "God's" (Allah's) will.

I believe they will stop at nothing to inflict as much harm on us as they possibly can. I believe those who crashed into the World Trade Center and murdered 3,000 Americans on September 11 are of the same ilk, the only difference being their choice of weapons. I do not believe they can be negotiated with, for they have a cause. That cause was recently articulated by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian born terrorist who now threatens Iraqi prime minister Allawi's life: "We will carry on our jihad against the Western infidel and the Arab apostate until Islamic rule is back on Earth."

The world is now in a war, a terrible war, and Iraq and Afghanistan are only two fronts in this conflict. Unless all of us wake up and come to grips with this, no matter who our president is, we are going to see more and more death at the hands of these fanatics. Still unconvinced? Just keep watching the evening news, reading your morning paper and listening to your radio. Everyday, it happens again, and al-Nashawi and his friends have no intention of stopping the killing, and won't, until we make martyrs of them.

Update: James Joyner, at his weblog Outside the Beltway, has more on the Iraq - al Qaeda connections.

The Price of Freedom

"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees."

- Dolores Ibarruri (1895-1989), Spanish Communist Party leader

Imagine if you will what it would be like to be asked to become a city councilman, a county commissioner, a representative to your state legislature or even a member of your country's congressional body, and to know that in accepting such an honor, you would be signing your death warrant.

How many of us would have the courage to step forward? How many of us would be willing to stand up for our principles? How many of us would not be intimidated by those who would threaten us, our families and friends, and take a leadership role in our government? Given the option of either serving at the risk of my life, or opting out to assure my safety, I would probably opt out. Most of us would, I think.

Such a threat is what those who have agreed to serve in the political institutions in Iraq now face. This Washington Post article (brief registration required) by foreign service reporter Rajiv Chandrasekaran talks about what it's like to be a council member in Baghdad:

"The weekly meeting of the Rashid district council began last Wednesday with a prayer for two of the group's 33 members. One was in critical condition at a U.S. military hospital after being shot seven times in an assassination attempt. Another was in hiding after gunmen attacked her house and killed her brother...Council members voted to close the meeting to the public because of fears that assassins would slip in and mark members for death. To enforce the decision, U.S. and Iraqi soldiers surrounded the council building and stationed snipers on the roof."

It's a story worth reading in its entirety and I hope you will. As you do, try to imagine how these people must feel as they face this challenge. Can you fathom their situation?

What would cause someone to put her life on the line in order to be a part of the new government? In addition to being the targets of assassins,many Iraqis are critical of them and view them as illegitimate because they were not elected. Most have had little time to prepare to govern and are unsure about their new responsibilities, and there still exists great conflict about whether their new system will be democratic, Islamic, or some combination of the two. I doubt the pay is very good either.

And yet they courageously come forward. Their fellow council members die and still they come forward. I fear greatly for them, for many will continue to die and it will take much resolve on their part to continue their work. But I believe they possess great determination and will eventually prevail. Why? Because they are hungry for freedom. They're weary of living in a country where saying the wrong thing, looking the wrong way, or committing some other minor offense could get them imprisoned, tortured or killed, so they're willing to risk their lives in order to change things.

Put yourself in their shoes if you're able. Would your hope of being free, of having a society where you had a voice in your destiny, and a future free of tyranny outweigh the obstacles you had to overcome in order to make that dream a reality? Pearl Buck once said, "None who have always been free can understand the terrible fascinating power of the hope of freedom to those who are not free." If Ms. Buck was correct, perhaps we can't empathize with these heroic people, but I believe we should try.

They are not foolish enough to believe their task is not daunting, but they are willing to begin the process, even at great peril to themselves. I wish them the best, and I hope all of you do too.

Update: Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Jordanian-born militant, and his henchmen say they will assassinate Iyad Allawi, the new Iraqi Prime Minister. Allawi scoffs at them.  

Change of Heart

"Freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order."

 - Robert H. Jackson (1892-1954), U.S. Supreme Court Justice

Back in May, blogger Andrew Sullivan writing for the gay and lesbian magazine, The Advocate, announced that he could no longer support George W. Bush for president in 2004:

"I endorsed George W. Bush for president in 2000--very narrowly. It was more an anti-Gore decision than a pro-Bush one. I really wanted John McCain to win. I still support the president's war on terror. But it's time to say something very clearly: Bush's endorsement of antigay discrimination in the U.S. Constitution itself is a deal-breaker. I can't endorse him this fall. Like many other gay men and women who have supported him, despite serious disagreements, I feel betrayed, abused, attacked."

Sullivan's reversal has elicited varied reactions from his readers, many of which are posted in the "Letters" section of his weblog, The Daily Dish. If you take a look at his readers' reactions to his decision, you'll gain some new insights and be entertained in the process.

I've been reading Sullivan's blog for a long time. I feel that he brings a balanced view to most subjects he posts, and I respect his feelings regarding Bush's stance on gay marriage. I, too, have issues with many of our president's policies, and am regularly writing my representatives to express those concerns. At this point, however, I have not joined Andrew in letting my dissatisfaction become a deal-breaker in my support of President Bush. I haven't because my feelings about the war on terror supersede anything negative I might feel about how the president is handling some of the nation's other problems.

There are many reasons I believe that terrorism is the most crucial issue we face today. I think that our country is at a historical juncture now, and that how we ultimately deal with the situation we have in Iraq is going to set the tone for our foreign policy for years to come. If we fail there by withdrawing prematurely, we'll send a message to the rest of the world, friends and enemies alike, that the U.S. can be attacked with impunity. Our allies will know they cannot count on us for any extended period of time, and our enemies will know that if they can just hang on in any conflict for a year or two, we'll get disenchanted and leave them to plan their next attack. I believe that Bush knows this and will stay the course. I'm not sure that Kerry does, despite what he's telling us in his speeches today. His anti-war record speaks more loudly to me than his campaign rhetoric.

I found one letter among the dozens written to Sullivan that echoed what I'm saying. It's titled "If Bush Loses," and can be found under the June 17, 2004 correspondence that Sullivan posted. You'll have to scroll a bit to find it. Here are excerpts for your consideration:

"I sympathize with your (Sullivan's) diminished enthusiasm for Bush. And I understand but do not share) your willingness to hinge your vote on the FMA issue. For I, too, have decided that my vote will be based on a single issue this year: The Iraq War.

If Bush loses, every president for a generation (or more) will refuse to undertake the kind of mission that Bush (rightly) undertook in Iraq. The lesson will be clear: the American public will not support a president who undertakes an ambitious, potentially world-changing mission...

I stand by the justness of the cause in Iraq, the need to take the war to the jihadists, the doctrine of preemption, and the critical long-term goal of bringing democracy and liberation to that troubled region. You (Sullivan) have never wavered from these, even as you have wavered in support of Bush. If Bush loses, not only will we be ousting a president who failed to most effectively implement his goals, but we will be practically ensuring that future presidents don't even try...That is too high a cost to pay just topunish this president...

The big point is not whether the next president will continue to carry on this mission, though that is important. The big question is whether future presidents would consider undertaking any such mission in the future, and whether the dictators and terrorists of the world can be made to believe that future presidents would do so. Electoral defeat for Bush would teach a lesson not just to future presidents considering the risks of large, potentially world-changing undertakings. It is a message to all the enemies of the U.S. that when a threat comes from the White House, it is backed not just by the short-term commitments of an effectively lame duck president, but also by the people of the strongest nation in the world. The credibility of the U.S.'s threats is critical to advancing U.S. interests without having to resort to military action in the future."

It, and all the others, pro and con, are interesting thought-provoking reads. I hope you'll take the time to visit Andrew's blog and take a look at the correspondence he's been receiving since he wrote The Advocate article. Who knows? Maybe something you see there will make you consider changing your vote. Yeah, right.

The Power of One

"Not everything that is faced can be changed. But nothing can be changed until it is faced."

   - James Baldwin (1924-1987), American writer

I haven't been involved in the formal education of children for a long time. My now grown sons graduated from high school almost 15 years ago, and when they began their higher education I pretty much put aside my thoughts of PTA meetings, teacher conferences and how they were doing on their report cards. Even so, I still have an interest in what's going on in our educational system and try to keep myself informed by reading the newspaper, magazines, and listening to the evening news. I'm sorry to say, that with few exceptions, what I read and hear is mostly negative.

Occasionally, however, I do stumble across something that gives me hope that our K-12 schools aren't quite as bad as some in the media would have me believe. Tonight as I was reading C-Log, I ran across a post by Patrick McDougal that did just that. Patrick links to an article by Dr. Holly Robinson, senior vice president of the Georgia Public Policy Foundation.

Dr. Robinson tells the story of Dr. Wanda West, who became superintendent of the Twiggs County public school system in 1998. Twiggs County is one of the poorest counties in Georgia, with a per capita income almost 40% below the state average, and its school system's test scores were at the bottom in the state. There were other problems as well:

"Polarization was everywhere. Cliques wanted control of power and money; no one trusted anyone. Principals were 'building holders,' not instructional leaders and, sadly, teachers had lost faith in the central administration and board. Parents were at their wits' end and begging for change...Facilities were dark...and in dire need of repair and renovation...The high school was deemed not safe by parents, even described as out of control. There were allegations of drugs, no faith in the teachers or administration, and students were literally out of control."

To say this lady was faced with a challenge would be a gross understatement. She realized almost immediately that a focus on the children had somehow been lost and set about changing that. How she went about this encourages me that there are still individuals in public education who, even in the face of great resistance, can make a difference. Dr. West certainly has:

"She visited facilities at all hours without notification. She arrived at work on time, and expected the same of others, and she demanded participation and accountability...(she gained) for the first time accreditation by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools...she uncovered the system's hidden talents...she (went) to the community with a survey of expectations for parents, teachers and administrators."

Six years after West arrived, Twiggs County students have reaped the rewards brought about by the changes she initiated. Their teachers are more committed, their parents more involved, their facilities in better condition and their test scores are up. Sometimes all it takes to get a bad situation turned around is one individual who believes that something positive can be done and is willing to devote the time and energy to make it happen.

It's an inspiring story. Read the whole thing.

Update: More about the Twiggs County success story can be found here.  

Voters Without A Candidate

"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

    - Neil Peart, Canadian born rock star

Andrew Sullivan on his weblog, The Daily Dish, frequently posts interesting emails from his readers . This one, from a gentleman in Tennessee, makes the case for Americans who don't find either of this election's presidential candidates all that appealing:

"You would, I think, be amazed at how many people in Middle America...are politically frustrated in much the same way you are. It's not the ideologues--they've picked their sides...It's the ones in the middle, people who might describe themselves as center-left or center right..."

He goes on to list some of the things these voters want in a candidate:

1. A president for whom the War on Terror is by far the top priority and who will execute it with cold efficiency and competence.

2. A president who doesn't kowtow to every...interest group that beats down his door.

3. They want a president who has...opinions that are clear, forthright and his own. They don't like Kerry because he...has no principled opinions, and they don't like Bush because listening to him talk...is pretty excruciating.

There's quite a bit more, and it has me wondering how many people like this fellow are out there, not quite sure what they're going to do come November? Quite a few, I would imagine, for I've heard folks who live in my neighborhood express some of the same concerns. I must admit that I've expressed some of them myself. One good friend even suggested that we need a new political party. He wasn't kidding.

I'm not "ready and willing to stay at home," as this gent suggests, but I do wish that either Bush or Kerry were more aligned with my overall political philosophy. It would make me more comfortable casting my vote for one of them.

I'm one of those Americans for whom the War on Terrorism is a top priority. I believe if we don't get that problem solved, the other problems we think we have won't matter all that much. For that reason, I lean toward Bush. But I also have strong feelings about social issues that I feel would be better dealt with by Kerry. I suppose you could say that I'm conflicted about both of these men, and that seems to be the frustration felt by the people this Tennessean writes about.

Despite that, come November I'll be casting my vote for the man whose stance most nearly matches my views. I hope everyone else will too.

Who Cares?

"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it."

- Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929-1968), American civil rights leader

Recently, the American Enterprise Institute hosted an event featuring five Saddam-era torture victims who had their right hands amputated as punishment for alleged crimes against the old Iraqi regime. A transcript of this meeting can be found here.

In addition to the presentations of the five Iraqis, a video of some of the atrocities committed by Saddam's followers at the Abu Ghraib prison was shown to those attending--shown to those who could bear to watch it, that is. Deborah Orin, the New York Post's Washington Bureau Chief, was one of the half-dozen journalists present at the AEI event. Her observations are recorded in her op-ed, "Reporting for the Enemy."

"The video only lasts four minutes or so--gruesome scenes of torture from the days when Saddam Hussein's thugs ruled Abu Ghraib prison. I couldn't bear to watch, so I walked out until it was over. Some who stayed wished they hadn't. They told of savage scenes of decapitation, fingers chopped off one by one, tongues hacked out with a razor blade--all while victims shriek in pain and the thugs chant Saddam's praises."

She wonders why so few journalists attended this particular AEI briefing when other events sponsored by the think-tank are generally standing room only affairs, then surmises that the sparse attendance was because the video AEI showed was just too unbearable to watch. How those reporters who failed to show would know how unbearable it was having never watched it escapes me. I'm more inclined to believe they didn't want to be bothered with news that would interrupt their continuing attention to the U.S. offenses at Abu Ghraib, so they ignored AEI's invitation. Whatever. 

She goes on to suggest that the lack of publicity given these atrocities by our media "raises a very complex problem in the War on Terror." That problem, she says, is that we more vigorously highlight our own wrongdoings than we do the terrible things Saddam's people did. Why? Because they are less appalling and therefore more acceptable for airing on our evening news. In the world of propaganda, our enemies one-up us by doing things that are so horrific that our media won't air the gory details.

"Media analysts like Washington Post ombudsman Michael Getler admit it sounds 'sanctimonious' to justify publishing prison abuse photos--but not al Qaeda beheading videos--in the name of showing 'the reality of war.' But that is just what he did.

AEI spokeswoman Veronique Rodman, puzzled by the minimal interest in the Saddam torture video, is sure that if it was a video of equally horrific torture committed by U.S. troops, the press would find ways to show or report it.

Reporters have to face up to the fact that right now, if we highlight the wrongs that Americans commit but not--out of squeamishness--the far worse horrors committed by others, we become propaganda tools for the other side."

Orin closes with a reference to the Iraqi torture victims mentioned earlier in this post:

"Saddam's torture videos may be too awful to show, but it's hard to explain the low media interest in the story of seven Iraqi men who had their right hands chopped off by Saddam's thugs--and then got new prosthetic arms and new hope in America. They're eloquent, they're available, they're grateful for the U.S. liberation of Iraq. No one can better talk about Saddam's tortures--and no one is more eager to do so. Yet, as of yesterday, the New York Times had written 177 stories on Abu Ghraib--with over 40 on the front page. The self-proclaimed "paper of record" hadn't written a single story about those seven Iraqi men."

We're legitimately bent out of shape about what a few of our misguided soldiers did to Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib, but these seven guys and thousands of their fellow countrymen? Who cares?

I do.

Update: Nick Schulz, editor of TechCentralStation, has more on the Saddam torture videos and the media's lack of coverage of them over at National Review Online. You may want to take a look. Sobering indeed.

 

   

 

Oakland Angel

"A little help is worth a great deal of pity."

    - Anonymous

This heart-warming story about Oral Lee Brown, an Oakland, California woman, and the children she has helped is worth a read. Ms. Brown was moved to service by a little girl she met one afternoon as she was walking down an Oakland street:

"...a little girl in pigtails stopped Oral Lee Brown on the street and asked for a quarter. Brown didn't have any change, so she walked with the girl to the corner store to buy her a treat. She expected the girl, who looked about 8, to head straight for the candy. But the child instead chose staples: a loaf of bread, some cheese, and bologna. Outside, Brown asked the little girl, 'Why aren't you in school?' She only shrugged. Brown asked, 'Don't you go to school?' Her answer: 'Sometimes.' Then the light changed, and Brown watched her walk away."

Though she never saw the little girl again, Brown began thinking about the incident and realized the youngster's situation might not be all that uncommon. Her concern led her to look for a way that she could help children such as the one she had just encountered:

"She 'adopted' a first-grade class at nearby Brookfield Elementary School. There, she made a promise to the students: 'Stay in school and I'll send you to college.' "

This was a real stretch for her. She put $10,000 of her $45,000 salary into a trust fund each year in order to finance her promise to the children, but realized this might not be enough, so she supplemented her own contributions with fund-raisers. These met limited success. Eventually, she was able to attract the attention of businesses and other individuals who provided additional contributions. 

It was in 1987, that Brown made her promise to the 23 Brookfield first-graders. Nineteen of them went on to college. Since then, she has continued her work:

"...she is sponsoring 89 new students from Oakland schools, selecting them by soliciting applications districtwide two years ago from grades 5 and 7. 'The need is still there,' she says. When she meets a new group of students, she asks them...'What are your dreams? Do you want to go to college?' Typically, every little hand goes up--so Brown tries to explain what it's going to take."

Not too long ago, Brown was recognized by her fellow realtors with their Good Neighbor Award for her work with the Oakland children. The write-up appeared in Realtor Magazine Online. It's also worth a read.

People like Oral Lee Brown are what makes this country great. For every one whose work becomes known as hers has, there are thousands of others who never receive any publicity, nor do they want it. They all have one thing in common. They see a need and they try to meet it. Bless them all, for they bring light to all the lives they touch.

Thanks to Vincent at the World Magazine Blog for pointing out the link to this story.  

Some of My Favorites

"Good company in a journey makes the way seem shorter."

    - Izaak Walton (1563-1683), British writer

There won't be any posts until Monday for I'm heading up to Charlotte, NC, to be with friends. Until I return, you may enjoy reading some of my older efforts, in no particular order. I consider these my favorites:

The Time You Have Left, my thoughts on living each day to its fullest.

Me Too, the difficulty my father and I had in expressing our love for each other.

The Baseball Glove, how the little things in life are what you remember best.

A Most Difficult Time, when you lose a cherished pet.

Mostly Preventable Losses, a post about being watchful, but not paranoid about your health.

Dear Hayden, a letter to one of my sons. This one is in three parts since it was written when there was a 2500 character limit in AOL Journals. Parts II and III follow this link in subsequent entries. Just click on "View Older Entries" after you've read Part I, and go to Part II.

The Choices We Make, thoughts about why we make the choices we do.

That's probably enough to keep you busy. Enjoy. I'll talk with you next Monday. In the meantime, take care of yourselves, hug someone you love and don't let the politicians get you down.

Ron

"Rocky" Redux

"With high hope for the future, no prediction is ventured."

    - Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865), 16th U.S. president

As I was having my morning cup of coffee and reading the sports pages, I ran across this inspirational Associated Press article by Ben Walker (brief registration required). It's the story of Najah Salah Ali, a 24-year-old Iraqi boxer who will be among about two dozen others from his country who will be going to the Summer Olympics in Athens, Greece.

Ali has visited New York and Michigan and is currently working out with U.S. boxers at the Galena Park Boxing Academy in Houston, Texas. Later this month he'll compete at the Titan Games, a pre-Olympics event in Atlanta, GA, then he will fly to Japan for some appearances before making the trip to Athens. 

He is being trained by American Maurice "Termite" Watkins, who himself qualified for the 1974 U.S. Olympic Boxing Team, and fought for the WBC Junior Welterweight Title in 1980. Watkins, who was on assignment in Iraq as a pesticide expert, met Ali through a chance encounter with a British officer who liked boxing. Interested, he asked the officer to introduce him to the Iraqi boxers. He described his first encounter with them:

"When I started working with those guys, some of them were barefoot. The boxing rings were concrete, and there were four metal posts stuck in the ground. There were four ropes for the ring--well, three ropes sometimes."

Despite the oppressive conditions under which they were training, he sensed potential and volunteered to work with Ali and his friends in cooperation with the foundation Playing For Peace, an organization that helps foreign athletes who are in difficult situations. His effort in this regard resulted in him using his single wild card to select Ali as Iraq's sole representative to the Olympic boxing competition--clearly his best choice since Ali is the current Iraqi National Champion in his weight-class and also won the Arab Championship in Egypt.

And what does Ali think about all that is happening to him?

"I feel my country needs this. With all this situation in Iraq, we need this medal. If someone gets a medal, it would be very big. I would give the medal to my country. After that, my dream is to be a professional boxer."

I'm a sentimental slob and this whole story reminds me of how I felt years ago when I saw the movie "Rocky," where underdog Rocky Balboa got a shot at fighting Apollo Creed, the heavyweight champion of the world. I don't know how Ali will do in the Olympics, and that really doesn't matter, for simply getting to participate is a great achievement in itself. But wouldn't it be something if he won a medal? Can you imagine? 

I say, more power to him and to the people who are helping him. The world needs more Maurice Watkins who are willing to volunteer their time and energy to help lift someone up, and more Najah Salam Alis, who are willing to take a leap of faith and work their hearts out to achieve their dreams. Good luck guys!

 

Loyalists All

"One wanders to the left, another to the right. Both are equally in error, but, are seduced by different delusions."

  - Horace (65-8 BC), Roman poet

David Brooks, columnist for The New York Times, has written an interesting piece titled "Circling the Wagons" (brief registration required). In it he talks about how partisanship is contributing to the deep divides we see among the American people today.

Referencing Partisan Hearts and Minds, a book by political scientists Donald Green, Bradley Palmquist and Eric Schickler, Brooks tells us that:

"In a perfectly rational world, citizens would figure out which parties best represent their interests and their values, and they would provisionally attach themselves to those parties. If their situations changed or their interests changed, then their party affiliations would change. But that is not how things work in real life...Few people switch parties once they hit middle age."

Interestingly, the authors of this book have found that people do not choose parties by researching their platforms and selecting one based on which will most nearly work for the nation's interests. Rather, they have "stereotypes in their heads about what Democrats are like and what Republicans are like, and they gravitate toward the party made up of people like themselves."

Further, once they've decided to devote their allegiance to a particular party, they alter their beliefs to become more in tune with their "political tribe." Paul Goren of Arizona State University reinforces this theory with survey data he's used to track the same voters over time:

"Under the classic model, you'd expect to find that people who valued equal opportunity would become Democrats and that people who valued limited government would become Republicans. In fact,you're more likely to find that people become Democrats first, then place increasing value on equal opportunity, or they become Republicans first, then place increasing value on limited government. Party affiliation shapes values, not the other way around."

Mr. Brooks also cites Angus Campbell's book, The American Voter, in which he argues that party affiliation shapes people's perceptions of reality:

"...partisanship serves as a filter. A partisan filters out facts that are inconsistent with the party's approved worldview and exaggerates facts that confirm it."

And finally, Brooks refers to Princeton University's Larry Bartels, who provides some examples of this phenomenon at work:

"In 1988, voters were asked if they thought the nation's inflation rate had fallen during the Reagan presidency. In fact, it did. The inflation rate fell from 13.5 percent to 4.1 percent. But only 8 percent of strong Democrats said the rate had fallen. Fifty percent of partisan Democrats believed that inflation had risen under Reagan. Strong Republicans had a much sunnier and more accurate impression of economic trends. Forty-seven percent said inflation had declined.

Then at the end of the Clinton presidency, voters were asked similar questions about how the country had fared in the previous eight years. This time, it was Republicans who were inaccurate and negative. Democrats were much more positive. Bartels concludes that partisan loyalties have a pervasive influence on how people see the world."

Brooks concludes that these academics may have a point, for he sees rival political communities today embracing "one-sided attitudes and perceptions," and views this as a rather depressing development.

As I read all this, I kept asking myself, "Is this me? Is this what I do?" I like to think not, but am I sure? In a recent post I made the observation that we hear the things we want to hear, and I think that's generally true. Most of the time we use selective listening when we hear something, ignoring what doesn't fit our belief system and accepting what does. I think that most of us would deny that we are guilty of this. We like to believe that we're open-minded and willing to consider opposing views. Perhaps we are, but then again, perhaps we aren't.

An Early Guess

"Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future."

   - Nils Bohr (1885-1962), Danish physicist

We're already seeing many predictions about who will win the presidency in November. There are dozens of polls every week, some saying Kerry, some saying Bush. There are websites like this one that track a flabbergasting number of factors to make their guesses. There are the Iowa Electronics Markets and other futures exchanges like them, which I wrote about the other day (see "Wanna Bet"). And there are pundits like William Kristol over at The Weekly Standard.

Who's your favorite candidate? Whoever it is, you can find someone who can prove to you that your man will win. In some ways, it's like trying to decide whether a stock you want to purchase is a good buy. Just read what enough analysts have to say about it and you'll eventually find one who'll tell you what you want to hear. Maybe that's why we listen so closely to these prognosticators. We're looking for confirmation of what we've already decided.

That being the case, Kristol's article, "Yes, Bush Will Win," should make a lot of Republicans happy. Mr. Kristol predicts that not only will the president win the election, but he'll win the war as well:

"How do I know this? Needless to say, I don't. And, God knows, the Bush administration often seems to be snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. But I've spent much of the last two weeks abroad, which (perhaps) gives you perspective. And that perspective leads me to think Bush will win."

Kristol says most of the world wants Bush to lose and that we Americans, being a stubborn lot, won't give them the satisfaction of allowing that to happen. That, he admits, might be wishful thinking, so he points to some of the things that he feels legitimately signal a Bush victory:

"We are actually winning the war in Iraq, and the war on terror...Saddam and his regime are gone; a decent interim Iraqi government is taking over, we and the Iraqis have not suffered a devastating level of casualties...there is nothing approaching civil war...And last week, the new prime minister, Iyad Alawi, thanked the United States for liberating Iraq, said that it would be 'a major disaster' for U.S. forces to leave, and privately said that to win the war you have to kill the enemy."

He also feels that, despite the difficulties we've faced in Iraq, a majority of Americans believe the policy of removing brutal dictators and changing the Middle East is the best way to fight the war on terror.

Kristol closes his op-ed with some observations about how the things that Democrats like Ted Kennedy, George Soros and Al Gore are saying about Bush in public forums could hurt their candidate more than they hurt Bush.

Will Kristol's prediction pan out? Who can say? His points are well-taken, but it's still a long, long time until November. I must admit, however, that with the economy continuing to improve as it is and the Iraq situation improving daily, the momentum would appear to be shifting toward Bush as Mr. Kristol suggests.

Update: Here's another columnist who thinks Bush is on a roll.   

 

 

Simon Says

"Being willing to change allows you to move from a point of view to a viewing point--a higher, more expansive place, from which you can see both sides."

   - Thomas Crum, American motivational speaker, writer

Andrew Leigh, writing for National Review Online, has interviewed Rogor L. Simon, screenwriter, novelist and most recently, an avid blogger. I enjoyed reading what Simon had to say about his political transformation and the fun he's having with his popular weblog among other things.

On Blogging and His Blog:

"It caught on because I'm a disaffected liberal. There's a lot of others like that out there...It's the first time in my life that I have no editor, no publisher, no movie star editing what I write...I get email from all over the world--hundreds daily."

On the War On Terror:

"(September 11) was the point of no return. We are in a titanic struggle. I think it's bigger than the Cold War because God is in it. It's like the 30 Years War. It's going to get worse before it gets better."

On Economic Issues:

"I am puzzled. I'm more pro-market than I was. I'm pro-free trade, pro-NAFTA."

On Social Issues:

"I'm very liberal on social issues: pro-gay marriage, pro-choice, separation of church and state. I think racism and sexism are the greatest evils in the world."

On Kerry (when he was at Yale University with him):

"I was militantly antiwar. So was Kerry, publicly and vocally." (It threw Simon for a loop when Kerry volunteered for service, striking him as a supremely hypocritical act. Kerry's actions didn't match his expressed convictions.)

On Bush:

(Simon supports Bush's reelection because)...I don't want the world to see us repudiate what he's done."

In reading through Leigh's account of this interview, I was struck by how closely much of what Simon says he stands for parallels my own political orientation--neither all Democrat, nor all Republican, but a mixture of both. Maybe it's time we formed a new political party, for my sense is there are thousands of Americans who feel as Simon and I do. I believe we would support a party whose planks were based on these more centrist views.

Any volunteers?

Update: Well, I didn't expect this to happen so soon, but here's a potential volunteer. Joe Carter, on his weblog The Evangelical Outpost, also wants to start a new political party. I'm not sure he and I are singing from the same sheet of music, though. 

Wanna Bet?

"When men speak of the future, the gods laugh."

       - Chinese proverb

While reading Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish a couple of days ago, I saw where he had linked to the Iowa Electronic Markets where speculators can legally wager up to $500 on the outcome of the 2004 presidential election. Wondering what the I.E.M. is, I set out to get a little more information about it. Suprisingly, there was quite a bit to be found, not only about the Iowa Market, but several others as well.Two of the best articles I uncovered were at The New Yorker and Tech Central Station websites.

The not-so-recent New Yorker piece by James Surowiecki is titled "Decisions, Decisions." In it, Surowiecki talks about how these markets allow people to speculate on almost anything, including political races. Just as in stock and commodity exchanges, they "bet" on the outcome of an event based on the best information they have. The result is profit or loss, depending on the accuracy of their bets. Mr. Surowiecki tells us that these "betting" markets predict the future with much greater accuracy than op-ed writers, tv pundits and polls typically do:

"The Iowa Electronic Market routinely outperforms major national polls. In the last four presidential elections, for instance, almost six hundred different polls were conducted, and the I.E.M.'s market price on the day each of them was released turned out to be closer to the election results seventy-five per cent of the time."

The more recent Tech Central Station story is titled "Sell Bin Laden, Buy Bush!" Written by Jan Arild Snoen, it goes into a bit more detail than The New Yorker article does, which makes it a more entertaining read. Snoen talks about how these markets have sprung up, the range of bets you're able to make, and how they, like a regular stock market, are accumulators of information that provide snapshots of likely future outcomes:

"Whenever the U.S. troops have a particularly bad day in Iraq, Bush stumbles badly in a speech, the employment data are suprisingly good or new opinion poll data are released, the market price for Bush contracts moves. For those too busy following all the news, just checking the TradeSports homepage gives you an instant update on the state of the Bush campaign."

Each of these stories provides good background information on the usefulness of these new markets in forecasting the future, not only in politics, but in business and governmental matters. If knowing more about them interests you at all, I would commend them both to your reading.

In the meantime, anyone out there who thinks he knows who's going to win this fall can "put his money where his mouth is," as my late father was fond of saying. And in the process, we non-gamblers can reap the benefits of your shrewd investment research by getting a heads-up on how it's all going to turn out in November. Pretty good deal for both of us I'd say--that is, if you're an astute speculator. I never was. 

Update: Just in case you want to know where Bush and Kerry stand after the first three days of trading, you can check that out right here. At the moment, it's Bush 55%, Kerry 45%.

 

We Report. You Decide.

"One ought to examine oneself for a very long time before thinking of condemning others."

     - Moliere (1622-1673), French playwright

Last month, John S. Carroll, editor of the Los Angeles Times, gave a speech at the University of Oregon in Eugene, Oregon. Mr. Carroll was delivering a lecture on ethics at a gathering in honor of Robert W. Ruhl, the late editor and publisher of the Medford Mail Tribune. Among other things, Mr. Carroll criticized the journalism of the Fox News Network, which he described as pseudo-journalism:

"But we live in changed times. Never has falsehood in America had such a large megaphone...If Fox News were a factory situated, say, in Minneapolis, it would be trailing a plume of rotting fish all the way to New Orleans...It is the netherworld of attack politics that gave us Roger Ailes, the architect of Fox News. Having spent much of his career smearing politicians, he now refers to himself as a journalist, but his bag of tricks remains the same."

Mr. Ailes, to whom Carroll refers, is the Chairman and CEO of Fox News. Somehow, what John Carroll said about Fox and him found its way back to his office, and Ailes responded in this rather scathing op-ed in the Opinion Journal:

"Mr. Carroll's pathetic attempt to smear Fox News Channel will only drive his paper's circulation down, as it should. Fox News Channel's audience in Los Angeles is increasing daily. The Los Angeles Times is becoming less relevant in people's lives, so Mr. Carroll is trying to flog health back to a newspaper by attacking television news."

Well, there you have it--a little mud-slinging from two media titans, both of whom are zealously promoting their for-profit entities by putting the other down. Couldn't they spend their time on more useful and enlightening activities, like giving us the straight scoop on things that matter?

Jesse

"If I were asked to give what I consider the single most useful bit of advice for all humanity it would be this: Expect trouble as an inevitable part of life and when it comes, hold your head high, look it squarely in the eye and say, 'I will be bigger than you. You cannot defeat me.' "

    - Ann Landers (1918-2002), American advice columnist

My friend and fellow journalist Patrick over at Patrick's Place just brought my attention to the plight of a young man named Jesse. You can read Patrick's post about Jesse right here. It is my hope that you will.

Jesse is twenty-one years old and he is battling cancer. He seems to me to be a remarkable young man with an amazingly resilient spirit considering what he is going through. He is an AOL journalist too, and is writing about his perilous journey on his blog Kool Aid and Ramen, even as he faces the possibility of his death:

"I wish there was a way that none of this would be happening. I know I don't deserve this, but then again no one does. Besides, it isn't a matter of me deserving this or not. It is either my time or it isn't...I don't know if I'll be online that much, but please email me and check in and let me know how you all are doing...I'm trying to keep a positive outlook through all of this. I'm trying to keep my strength and trying to keep my hope up." 

There's much more. Do yourself a favor and pay Jesse a visit, and while you're there leave him a note of encouragement. I'm sure it will mean a lot to him, and I'm sure that the power of your collective well-wishing will infuse him with the spiritual strength that he needs at this difficult time in his life.

Listening To Our Opponents

"We are sure to be losers when we quarrel with ourselves; it is a civil war, and in all such contentions, triumphs are defeats."

    - Charles Caleb Colton (1780-1832), English writer

Shortly after writing about Arnold Schwarzenegger's success in getting his opponents in California to cooperate with him, I ran across some related thoughts by Jim Miller on his weblog, Jim Miller on Politics.

Jim asks where good ideas come from, and refers to a University of Chicago study indicating that in business the best ideas come from those who have contacts outside their immediate work groups, especially with people who think and act differently than the ones with whom they normally associate. Miller believes that what is true in business is also true in politics:

"...I have long thought that listening to those you disagree with is one of the best ways to learn that you are wrong on some point. It may not be pleasant, but it is often useful."

He cites several examples of how treating your opponents with civility and listening to what they have to say leads to better solutions than deciding on a course of action after conferring only with those who agree with you. Then he poses the question, "Do I always practice those principles?" and admits that he doesn't, but that he tries to.

I think most of us know we should entertain other points of view, but it's a rare occasion when we do. We usually feign interest by letting those who disagree with us have their say, but I doubt that we really listen with anything close to the attention we'd give to someone who agrees with us. Most of us have already made up our minds, and little short of the threat of bodily harm would lead us to consider the possibility there might be a better way than the one we brought to the table.

Is it possible for Republicans and Democrats to cooperate for the common good? Maybe. We're seeing some signs of that in California, but unity in Washington seems to be giving way to mostly criticism, finger-pointing, and "I told you so's."

I wonder? Had Bill Clinton been president when 9/11 happened, and had he taken every action taken by Bush since then, would the Democrats and the media have been as critical of him as they have been of Bush? And conversely, would the Republicans have given their support to him as they do now to President Bush?

I really don't think so. I think the roles would have reversed. I believe that Democrats would have supported the war as most Republicans now do, and Republicans would have been against it, as most Democrats now seem to be.

Maybe it's simply asking too much of a member of either party to support the policies of the opposing party. Maybe the common good must take a back seat to partisanship. Maybe you can't be a team anymore. Maybe the way we do politics today won't allow party members to cooperate with each other.

On the other hand, maybe there's some hope, for surely, there must be many exceptions to the strident criticism we hear being hurled back and forth between the party leaders. The problem, for me anyway, is the exceptions are like positive stories out of Iraq. You rarely hear about them.

Update: EvilPundit in his post "The Great Divide," shares an email from a reader whose friendships are being jeopardized by disagreements over politics. Sad, really.