Confessions of an Insider

Scott McClellan’s “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception” is the buzz of the week. The former White House press secretary’s revelations, however, are not new. Seriously, is there anyone on earth who doesn’t yet know that George Bush is not inquisitive, that he doesn’t have an analytic bend of mind, that he stubbornly refuses to admit mistakes, that he is deceitfully self-delusional, that he gave free rein to the diabolical Dick Cheney to call the shots in major strategic decisions, that the Iraq war was a “solution” in search of a problem from day one of his presidency?

But even without any shock value, the book deserves attention. As the president’s long-time confidant, McClellan’s memoir offers a fascinating glimpse into the conflicting demands of loyalty and conscience and the dueling instincts of self-preservation and the urge to speak truth to power.

But first things first. Was McClellan motivated, to some extent at least, by money? Sure. Wanting to cash in while the opportunity lasts is an ancient human instinct. Just ask Bush memoirists Paul O’Neill, John Dilulio, Larry Wilkerson, Richard Clarke and others. Many more tell-alls are likely to appear after Bush leaves office but by then interest in his presidency will fade. If one had to make a bundle before it was too late, it had to be now, and McClellan used the opportunity.

As to the charge of hypocrisy that his conscience was fine towing the official line for nearly three years but that it began to weigh on him only after he resigned in 2006, there is also some truth to it. However, McClellan is no Archibald Cox, and to demand of him integrity that animates only the rarest among us is itself hypocritical.

The point, however, is that McClellan’s conscience, even if tainted, eventually caught up with him. “What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary,” is how he sums up his telling, if belated, insight.

What also emerges from several published reports is that the act of writing the memoir was cathartic for McClellan. It liberated him from his own delusions. Putting pen to paper, or keystrokes to word processor, brought to light what lay buried in his mind.

The central question that the memoir raises is this: Why did Bush do what he did? What drove him to create, in the words of novelist and essayist David Foster Wallace “an unmitigated horror show of rapacity, hubris, incompetence, mendacity, corruption, cynicism and contempt for the electorate”?

There is a key sentence in McClellan’s book that, I think, answers it. “The president promised himself that he would accomplish what his father had failed to do …” In other words, Bush Jr. was driven primarily by one goal: to outdo Bush Sr. That he wanted to outdo his father vis-à-vis Saddam Hussein is known but it also extended to his other presidential acts, in the way he dealt with his political adversaries and the illegal privileges he showered on his sycophants. (The presidency of George Bush should convince voters that they must give thumbs down to presidential dynasties in modern times).

At a personal level, there is no doubt that George Bush is a kind and compassionate man. When McClellan handed his resignation in April of 2006 as the White House press secretary, “tears were streaming down (Bush’s) both cheeks.” Those were genuine tears. But Bush is also a man with severely flawed instincts and judgments. Combine this with his overpowering need to prove his superiority at any cost over the old man, another president who also happened to be a domineering dad once, and you have a recipe for rapacity, hubris, incompetence, mendacity, corruption, cynicism and contempt for the electorate.

“What Happened” will contribute to our understanding of why historians are already labeling George Bush’s presidency as among the worst in American history, alongside the presidencies of James Buchanan (1857-1861) and Warren Harding (1921-1923), a verdict that is likely to stand the test of time.

Certainly no profile in courage, Scott McClellan has nevertheless given us an honest account of his White House experience that revealed its meaning to him only upon later reflection, and for that we applaud him.

A Call for Olympians to Take a Stand Against the Genocide in Darfur

The Olympic charter contains these soaring lines: “The goal of Olympism is to place sport at the service of the harmonious development of man, with a view to promoting a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity.”

However, the charter also prohibits demonstrations of "political, religious or racial propaganda" at the official venues.

Should athletes follow the letter or the spirit of the Olympics charter? The question is gaining urgency as the world prepares to celebrate the summer Olympics in China in August this year.

China’s human rights violations in Tibet and, in particular, its complicity in the genocide in Darfur, are known to all but the most insular. Sudan whets China's bottomless appetite for oil and spends a significant portion of its oil revenue to buy arms from China. Protected by its trading partner at the United Nations, the Khartoum government has consistently flouted international appeals to stop the genocide in Darfur that it has waged with its allied Janjaweed militia on the darker-skinned indigenous farmers of the region since 2003.

One athlete who feels passionately about the Darfur genocide is the American Joey Cheek. Cheek won the gold medal in 500-meter speed skating at the 2006 winter Olympics in Turin. At the awards ceremony, Cheek announced that he was donating all his winnings from the U.S. Olympic Committee, a total of $40,000, to Darfurian refugees in Chad.

I can still recall how stunned and electrified I was (feelings that I undoubtedly shared with millions of TV viewers around the world) at the magnitude of this humanitarian gesture.

In a recent article, Cheek explained his motivation: “I feel no different from a person born in any other area of the world, except perhaps a bit luckier. And if people were gunning down my family, I would certainly want the world to help. So that's what I tried to do.”

Cheek launched a Website that monitors the situation in Darfur. It has become the catalyst for an international coalition of athletes determined to bring an end to the violence that has so far claimed over 400,000 lives in Western Sudan and created a staggering 2.5 million refugees.

Cheek wants to use the Beijing Olympics as a platform for peacefully publicizing the genocide in Darfur. Although not a contestant, his message to participating athletes is moving and forceful: “I sincerely hope that the newest Olympic champions not only show graciousness toward their Chinese hosts, but also issue a stern call for action in Darfur. With its significant ties to Sudan, China is one of the countries in the world best positioned to do more to stop the killing in Darfur, and it is the responsibility of athletes competing there this summer to say that -- respectfully yet forcefully -- even as they focus on their own athletic accomplishments.”

Mia Farrow, George Clooney, Don Cheadle and several other public figures have been working to draw the world's attention on the horrors of Darfur. In an ideal world sports and politics would not mix but we do not live in an ideal world. Who can ever forget the Black Power salute of Tommie Smith and John Carlos at the 1968 summer Olympics in Mexico City, and how it shook up the status quo? Joey Cheek is right to mobilize athletes to stop the unending violence in Darfur by putting pressure on the Chinese government. After all, what can be “faster, higher, stronger” than the force of will to defend those who are unable to defend themselves?

A Terrific Thriller

A killer has escaped from a prison in France. What makes the news particularly chilling is that the killer is a magician who seduces his victims - young girls - with tricks of the trade before killing them.

We never get to see the killer or what happens to him but the fact that he is out there somewhere suffuses the Claude Lelouch-directed movie 'Roman de Gare' with menace and suspense that make it a terrifc thriller to watch.

A bestselling mystery novelist (Fanny Ardant) has a secret: Her books are actually the work of an unassuming, diminutive ghostwriter (Dominique Pinon). Along with a flair for words, the ghostwriter also happens to be a ... magician.

In search of ideas for the next blockbuster, the ghostwriter witnesses a couple having a furious verbal fight at a gas station in a Paris suburb. The man suddenly drives away, leaving the woman (Audrey Dana) stranded. He offers her a ride; she refuses. Her fiance does not return; after several hours of anguished waiting, the woman reluctantly agrees to be driven to her destination by the ghostwriter.

The suspense builds, the mystery deepens. There is no high-tech gimmickry, no car chase. A gun is fired a few times but that is more for comic effect than anything else. The dialogue is witty and punchy and the humor only underscores the dark possibilities.

Our lives are not what they seem. Violence lurks just around the corner. The facade shatters when we least expect it. The confluence of angst, ambition, envy, love and the hunger for justice create undercurrents that carry only the naive and the innocent to safety.

Laden with pathos and glowing with superb performances, I found 'Roman de Gare' a thriller of uncommon power and artistry.

Cold-Blooded Profiteering by Oil Companies

On the eve of Memorial Day weekend here in San Jose, California, I paid $4.07 for a gallon of gas. In the distant past, I used to fill up the tank for avoiding frequent stops at the pump. Those were the days when almost every weekend in summer I would drive to the rocky shores of Point Lobos, the boardwalk in Santa Cruz or the redwood forests that ring my city. Now filling up half a tank requires planning and several peeks into the wallet.

What I find outrageous about the skyrocketing gas prices is the lack of media outrage. You open the daily papers and read about the terrible toll a sliding economy is taking on Americans but there is no word on the huge profits the oil companies are raking in. Yes, the price of oil rose to $135 per barrel this week and the end is nowhere in sight but consider this: Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Shell, BP America and ConocoPhillips made a profit of $36 billion in profits in the first three months of this year alone. That’s $36 billion in PROFITS in just 3 months.

Has there been a more blatant display of greed and cruel indifference to consumers by the oil companies? In case you missed it, their profit last year was $123 billion when crude was selling at less than $70 a barrel. And if your blood is still not boiling, consider this: The GOP-led Congress has given the oil industry a $18-billion tax break. Jay Inslee, D-Wash., summed it up when he said the idea of subsidizing the oil industry at time when it is reaping huge profits is absurd. "If you were going to give awards for taxpayer abuse, this would win the Heisman and the Oscar and the Nobel Prize," he said.

With staggering profits filling their coffers, the oil companies still fight for the last penny with gas station owners who sell their brand across the country. If a Mobil station owner, for instance, raises gas price by a penny, his cash register automatically transmits the information to Mobil's central computers. The result? Exxon raises the wholesale price to the dealer by the same amount. You raise the price to pay the rent, you pay, your fate be damned. Such are the ways of these modern mercenaries.

But nary a word from mainstream media on the brazen gouging by oil companies and their bottomless greed, other than empty lamentations about the hardship of Americans during a lean economy.

Is there anything you and I can do? Yes. Cut down on long road trips. Stay home. Share thoughts that we meant to, but never got around to, with family and friends. Play with our kids. Grow a vegetable patch and reduce the grocery bill. Read that classic in the backyard instead of at the beach. Any activity that does not require the use of a car is a good activity.

And let’s mobilize a march down main street against the inhuman and cold-blooded profiteering by the oil companies.

Obama by a Landslide

TIME magazine (May 19, 2008) analyzes the mistakes Hillary Clinton made in her quest for the democratic nomination. There are vague statements like “She misjudged the mood,” “She didn’t master the rules,” and so on. At best, this is Monday-morning quarterbacking. It would have been more relevant to identify why Barack Obama won the nomination (Hillary Clinton will undoubtedly concede in the next few days). There are many reasons: excellent grassroots organization, intelligent use of Web 2 technologies to spread the word, stirring speeches to inspire Americans, particularly the young. But one factor contributed to Obama’s nomination more than any other, and that was his opposition to the Iraq war when everyone, including Hillary Clinton and John McCain, competed to jump onto Bush’s bandwagon. He opposed the ‘rash war’ in Iraq in 2002 and never wavered in his judgment. This made him the candidate of substance that voters had been pining for, as opposed to candidates whose views were dictated by the shifting political wind.

There is an unfortunate tendency by pundits and Clinton loyalists to attribute Obama’s ascendancy to race. “Obama won the democratic nomination because blacks voted en masse for him,” has been the refrain heard from opposing camps. This is blatant racism. Nowhere is there any recognition that African-Americans voted for Obama because they decided that he was the better candidate on issues and policies. Nowhere is there any acknowledgment that if Hillary Clinton offered better choices and options for Americans, blacks would have voted for her. In fact, that’s how the campaign began, with blacks backing Hillary more than Obama. But as the campaign progressed, voters began to see that one candidate remained true to his principles, while the other resorted to race-baiting and polemics. A difficult choice it wasn’t.

I was surprised by the attitudes of my fellow Americans of sub-continent origin (India, Bangladesh, Pakistan). “Americans are not ready for a black president,” many of them insisted. On probing further, it became clear that what they meant was that they found the idea of a black president unacceptable. Probing further still, I came to the conclusion that this was due to a strange and curious combination of racism and narrow world-view. I don’t know about other states but certainly in California, many Americans who migrated from the Indian sub-continent are bitter that Hillary Clinton's chances of winning her party's nomination has dwindled to zero.

As for those Clinton loyalists who assert that they will not vote for Obama in November, I think the feeling will pass. The passions are still raw but six months offer enough time for reconciliation and closing of ranks. I have no doubt that once Obama formally wins the nomination, Hillary Clinton will urge her supporters to vote for him.

So what will happen in November, 2008? Here is my prediction: Barack Obama will defeat John McCain, increasingly seen as Bush III or the Son of Bush, by a landslide to become the 44th president of the United States of America.

The Junta in Burma Must Fall

I was a student at Dhaka University in the-then East Pakistan when one of the deadliest storms in history struck the province’s coastal regions on the night of November 12, 1970. The Bhola cyclone took an estimated 500,000 lives. Even now, almost four decades later, I get nightmares remembering the bloated bodies of children floating on low-lying islands and rivers.

The military government in power in West Pakistan, led by General Yahya Khan, responded to the disaster with … silence. When the world erupted with outrage, the General ordered his minions to mount a relief operation pathetically inadequate to the devastation wrought by the cyclone.

Economic and political oppression of the eastern wing by the western wing had become the modus operandi within months of Pakistan’s independence in 1947 from India. For almost a quarter century, anger had been rising among the Bengali-speaking people of East Pakistan at the blatant usurpation of power by the ruling coterie of West Pakistan.

The 1970 cyclone was the last straw. East Pakistanis realized that the status quo could be tolerated no longer. A month later, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s Awami League won a landslide victory in the national election. The choice was clear: either allow, as the constitution demanded, the Awami League to form the central government, or get ready for secession.

General Yahya Khan’s brutal crackdown on unarmed civilians of East Pakistan is among the worst genocides of the 20th century. Over a million people were killed in nine months but that could not stop the inevitable. East Pakistan became the independent nation of Bangladesh in December of 1971.

While several factors contributed to the birth of Bangladesh, the Bhola cyclone was undoubtedly a catalyst of sorts. Even to those diehard loyalists who wanted the country to remain intact, the brutal indifference of the central government was impossible to ignore.

Fast forward 38 years. A deadly cyclone struck Burma (Myanmar) on May 2, 2008. Cyclone Nargis has already claimed over 60,000 lives and the toll is likely to exceed 100,000. Close to two million people are homeless and at risk of epidemics and starvation. The Irrawady River Delta is a scene of death and destruction that reminded me of what I had seen in 1970 in coastal Bangladesh.

But the similarities do not stop there, for Burma has been in the grips of its military since 1962. The current junta seized power in 1988 and renamed the country Myanmar. It is among the most repressive regimes the world has ever known. The Burmese live in fear and misery. The despised generals, operating in a time warp, crushed an uprising by monks - the Saffron Revolution - in September of last year. Peace activist and Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi has been under house arrest for much of the past 18 years.

The Burmese are among the most enterprising and industrious people on earth. Visitors to Cox’s Bazar in Chittagong, Bangladesh, that shares border with Burma, can see examples of their creativity in the their unique farming methods, in the design and manufacture of pearl jewelries, and in the soaring beauty of their pagodas. The junta is relentlessly crushing the spirits of these peaceful, freedom-loving people . Led by "Supreme Leader" Than Shwe, the generals are preventing humanitarian aid to reach grief-stricken Burmese. They added insult to injury by engaging in a sham referendum in the midst of sputtering relief efforts to perpetuate their tyranny.

The generals must be overthrown. The West, particularly the United States, must provide overt support to Burma’s government in exile without fearing any backlash from China. Even an outright invasion should not be ruled out. In fact, that may very well be the best option. At the very least, the United Nations must put together a genocide tribunal for Shwe and his fellow criminals. Simply waiting for the generals to die or disappear will not work. Conscientious people around the world must convince their respective governments to rid Burma of the junta that has all but ruined this pastoral South Asian country. If cyclone Nargis can be the catalyst for freedom in Burma, perhaps the thousands of lives lost will not have been in vain.

Microsoft Needs to Reinvent Itself

Microsoft’s decision to withdraw its offer to acquire Yahoo! was a sensible one. Throughout, the dialogue was shrill, the intention bad and the move desperate. Even if Microsoft succeeded, it would have been a pyrrhic victory. As long as the company continues to think of “Search” as the holy grail of computing, a game that Google plays to perfection, Microsoft will be playing catch up and fall further behind its nemesis.

It is critical for Microsoft to reinvent itself if it wants to regain some of its former glory. It is possible but it will require Steve Ballmer to set his priorities right. Forget trying to compete online with Google through acquisitions, even if the acquisition brings you Facebook. Not much will change. Instead, focus on the creativity of your company’s most brilliant minds to chart a new direction that will make “Search” only one of the Web's crown jewel, as opposed to its most lustrous and overpowering one.

As one with a flair for mathematics, Ballmer should know that while the brute force method can be used to solve a particularly complex equation, a powerful and intuitive solution awaits discovery by gifted mathematicians inspired to think along new and original lines.

Get off the beaten track. Forge a new trail. The revenue will follow if you can capture the imagination of young geeks as Bill Gates did at the dawn of personal computing three decades ago.

Tiger's Need for Humility

In the firmament of golf, no star shines brighter than that of Tiger Woods. He is not only one of the greatest golfers ever, it is likely that he will be regarded as the greatest to have played the game, a cut above even Jack Nicklaus. In terms of brilliance, concentration and the sheer will to win, Woods is nonpareil.

Which is why, as a fan, I flinch everytime he predicts that he will win this or that tournament. Given his recent string of wins, Woods predicted the Grand Slam in 2008 as within his reach. Surely he is the favorite everytime he plays but as a fan I wish Woods wouldn't make such predictions. Why tempt fate? There is a difference between quiet confidence and arrogance, between the resolve to do one's best and implying that others are footnotes to a foregone conclusion.

That Woods wasn't able to win the Masters this year in no way undermines his status as the preeminent golfer of his time. As a fan, however, I feel that Woods makes it hard on himself unnecessarily by predicting victory when he would be better off not speculating about the outcome. There are far too many variables in golf - a change in wind direction, a drop in temperature, a mysterious 'x' factor that prevents one from clicking - to predict victory even by the best. I hope Woods will display more humility in the future. If a reporter asks him whether he can win the Masters or the U.S. Open or even the Grand Slam, he should say something like this: "All I can tell you is that I will give each game my best. The rest? We'll see."

The Creator and the Created: the 2008 Templeton Prize

Michael Heller, a Polish theologian, cosmologist and philosopher, was awarded the 2008 Templeton Prize “For Progress toward Research or Discoveries about Spiritual Realities.”

In accepting the prize, professor Heller said, “Science gives us knowledge, and religion gives us meaning. Both are prerequisites of the decent existence. The paradox is that these two great values seem often to be in conflict. I am frequently asked how I could reconcile them with each other. When such a question is posed by a scientist or a philosopher, I invariably wonder how educated people could be so blind not to see that science does nothing but explore God’s creation.”

Heller was only 4-years old in 1940 when Joseph Stalin banished 1 million Poles, including Heller, his four siblings and his parents, to Siberia. This was after the Germans had invaded Poland in 1939 and Heller’s family had to flee from Tarnow, Poland, to what is now Ukraine. The suffering he experienced and witnessed in Siberia became for him a life-defining experience. Even at that tender age he sensed that many people survived the brutal Siberian extremities through the power of prayer. Heller resolved that if he survived the ordeal, he would take on one of life’s greatest challenges. “I always wanted to do the most important things, and what can be more important than science and religion,” he recalled.

Heller wrote 30 books, almost all of them dedicated to the creative dialogue between science, theology, and philosophy. His seminal contribution was to see in these seemingly distinct realms of human understanding a profound synergy, and he used his considerable intellect and insight in clarifying the nature of this synergy for us.

Attention to Heller’s work comes at a critical time. Scientists such as Richard Dawkins and atheists/secularists such as Christopher Hitchens have declared a war on religion. Their books are best-sellers. Many religionists have responded in kind, polarizing the religion-science issue further. What we seem to overlook is that inflexible ideologies, both secular and religious, drive away common sense, a loss for all. It is this loss that Heller is determined to stem, by engaging our collective common sense and without minimizing the complexity involved in reconciling the knowable scientific world with the mysterious, and ultimately unknowable, nature of God. Through a rare combination of scientific acumen and theological insight, Heller addresses fundamental questions of knowledge and meaning in a holistic context that go far beyond the parochial arguments of the secularists and the religionists. In doing so, he also rejects a “God of the gaps” theory that uses God to explain what science cannot.

In a chapter titled “Cosmological Singularity and the Creation of the Universefrom his book “Creative Tension,” for instance, Heller writes how difficult it would be to find a book or an article on cosmology in which the author is silent on the Big Bang and the creation of the universe. But, Heller notes, it would be even harder to find a book or an article in which this problem is dealt with responsibly from the point of view of both science and theology. This is what Heller boldly sets out to do. By tracing the evolution of singularity as it relates to the origin of the universe, from Newton and Friedman to Einstein and Hawkins and others, Heller writes that “God knows the outcomes of laws and chance not by calculating from the initial conditions, but in the same direct way as God knows everything. What for us is a chance, for God is a detail of the picture that is simply present.” Even though such a viewpoint disturbs some theologians who speak of God’s immanence over God’s transcendence, Heller shows that this is nitpicking, that a transcendent God is also an immanent God. A reader may have difficulty following Heller’s carefully constructed arguments, but no one can accuse him of lacking rigor in his thinking, moving fluently between the scientific and the theological world as only one deeply versed in both can.

In the chapter called “Generalizations: From Quantum Mechanics to God” in the same book, Heller raises the metaphysical question, so persistently asked by the 17th-century German mathematician Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” Heller suggests that we read old religious masters from the perspective of the most recent scientific theories such as quantum mechanics. We should not repeat their doctrines blindly, he writes, but look at them with an eye sharpened by the enlargements of imagination prompted by the achievements of modern science. He writes: “Today we ask such questions as: How old is the Universe? Did it initiate in a “Big Bang”? Will the future theory of quantum gravity remove the initial singularity appearing in the standard cosmological model? Is the fundamental level of the world atemporal and nonlocal? There are many similar queries. All these questions are purely scientific, and we hope that, with the continuous progress in developing our theoretical and empirical tools, we will sooner or later find answers to some of them. I do believe that this will greatly contribute to our better posing of philosophical and theological questions, and more cautiously formulating tentative answers to them. The main lesson we should learn from science in this respect is that we must always be open to broader and broader horizons.”

Finally, in the chapter titled “Chaos, Probability, and the Comprehensibility of the World," Heller writes: “Modern developments in science have discovered two kinds of elements (in the Greek sense of this word) shaping the structure of the Universe—the cosmic elements (integrability, analycity, calculability, predictability) and the chaotic elements (probability, randomness, unpredictability, and various stochastic properties). I think I have convincingly argued in this chapter for a thesis that the chaotic elements are in fact as “mathematical” as the cosmic ones, and if the cosmic elements provoke the question of why the world is mathematical, the same is true as far as the chaotic elements are concerned. On this view, cosmos and chaos are not antagonistic forces but rather two components of the same Logos immanent in the structure of the Universe.” This is why Heller believes that religious objection to teaching evolution “is one of the greatest misunderstandings” because it “introduces a contradiction or opposition between God and chance.”

When evolutionists and intelligent design proponents clashed in 2005 over the origin of life, spawning legal fights over high school biology curricula in Pennsylvania, Kansas, Ohio and other states, I wrote in an article that “There are many theologians from different faiths who find in the theory of evolution evidence of God’s glorious self-disclosure, and many scientists whose research leads them to ask the deeper questions of life – why are we here, why do we suffer, what makes our life meaningful - that lie outside the realm of science.” I also wrote, “The unexplored region between religion and science beckons people with open minds seeking spiritual and scientific truths. Is it not possible that wildflowers of insight will bloom on it if nurtured with humor and humility?” I did not know then that the ideal I had in my mind when I wrote those sentences were theologian-scientists like Michael Heller.

Heller’s concluding statement after winning the Templeton Prize for 2008 should become a basis for public discourse on religion and science in America and elsewhere: “When thinking about science as deciphering the Mind of God, we should not forget that science is also a collective product of human brains, and the human brain is itself the most complex and sophisticated product of the universe. It is in the human brain that the world's structure has reached its focal point – the ability to reflect upon itself. Science is but a collective effort of the Human Mind to read the Mind of God from question marks out of which we and the world around us seem to be made. To place ourselves in this double entanglement is to experience that we are a part of the Great Mystery. Another name for this Mystery is the Humble Approach to reality … The true humility does not consist in pretending that we are feeble and insignificant, but in the audacious acknowledgement that we are an essential part of the Greatest Mystery of all – of the entanglement of the Human Mind with the Mind of God.”

Barack Obama's Challenging Race Speech

Barack Obama's speech today on race and religion was among the most powerful and poignant speeches ever. The words were stirring, evocative, and served as a call to action on the race front in America.

We often forget that it took the United States many years after the civil war to rid itself of the evil of slavery. “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."

He addressed those who thought that he was where he was not by dint of his merit but as a result of affirmative action. At the same time, he rejected Reverend Wright’s racist remarks, repudiating his racism while harboring no hatred for the man. “On one end of the spectrum, we've heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it's based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we've heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation, that rightly offend white and black alike …

“The profound mistake of Reverend Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It's that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country -- a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black, Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen -- is that America can change. That is the true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope -- the audacity to hope -- for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.”

He was blunt about the effects of racism in our society. “Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven't fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today's black and white students.”

Obama is, however, not one to give in to despair and cynicism. “But I have asserted a firm conviction -- a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people -- that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice if we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union. For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances -- for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs -- to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man who's been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for our own lives -- by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.”

With this speech, I believe Barack Obama has convinced a majority of undecided Americans that he is the best candidate to be the next president of the United States. His words of hope, change, action, accountability and responsibility struck a deep chord with people from all walks of life and will prove to be decisive in the November election.

Also today, the Wall Street Journal carried an article by Shelby Steele called "The Obama Bargain" in which he suggests that Obama has used his race as a "bargain." As a bargainer, Obama makes "the subliminal promise to whites not to shame them with America's history of racism, on the condition that they will not hold the bargainer's race against him. And whites love this bargain - and feel affection for the bargainer - because it gives them innocence in a society where whites live under constant threat of being stigmatized as racist. So the bargainer presents himself as an opportunity (in italics) for whites to experience racial innocence."

This is a conspiracy theory of the most subtle kind. Mr. Steele should read Obama's speech in full (… we've heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it's based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap …) and recognize that his thesis is not merely untenable, it is downright disingenuous.

Barack Obama is not bargaining for anything. His sight is set on a higher plane. He is telling us that together, we are more than the sum of our creed and color. He is calling for a reconciliation grounded in our common hopes and aspirations. It is the surest way to end racism in our country as we march toward a “more perfect union.”

The Finnish Frame of Mind

The Finnish public education system is the envy of the world. In the triennial PISA tests administered by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Finnish students regularly place at or near the top in science, math and reading. In contrast, American teens usually finish near the middle (grade C) among students from 57 countries.

What can explain this in a country about the size of Montana and with a population of less than 6 million? Perhaps Finns start school early to get a head-start on their peers from around the world. Maybe they are “homeworkaholics” whose ideas of fun are to dissect frogs, master long division and study the classics for clues to character building. Or perhaps parents relentlessly drive their children to succeed in school, because failure would make them pariahs for life.

Actually the opposite is true, as several reports, including this recent one in the Wall Street Journal (link may require subscription), reveal. Finns don’t start school until age 7, a year later than most U.S. first-graders. Homework is light, rarely more than a half-hour a night, far less than what the average kid in the U.S. has to contend with. Finnish parents hardly get excited about how their kids are doing in school. They rely on the system to do its job, and if a student is falling behind, why then, it is the school that has to step up to the plate, not them.

Finnish students are certainly not lacking in the fun department. As Ellen Gamerman reports in the WSJ, the youth dye their hair, waste hours online, surf Google for answers and listen to rap and heavy metal. They are as passionate about extracting maximum excitement from after-school hours as their U.S. counterparts.

But surely something has to account for why, by the ninth grade, Finns are way ahead in math, science and reading, on track to becoming “among the world’s most productive workers.”

The reasons are as prosaic as they come. Finns place premium value on teacher training. Would-be teachers must hold masters' degrees and have to compete hard for the privilege of teaching. Over 40 candidates may compete for a single position. Teachers are rewarded more with freedom to pursue their creative ideas than with higher salaries.

Once in the system, teachers can rely on mentors to hone their craft. Gamerman quotes an OECD educator in defining the traits of Finnish teachers: “In most countries, education feels like a car factory. In Finland, the teachers are the entrepreneurs.”

Finnish educators also believe in ensuring that all students have a solid grasp of the basics before moving on to higher grades. There are rigorous programs in place for helping lagging kids to catch up and they almost always work. The emphasis is more on preventing students from falling through the cracks than on special programs for the gifted. A school principal observed, "We don't have oil or other riches. Knowledge is the thing Finnish people have.” And they make the most of it.

There are lots of no’s in the Finnish education system: No fancy pedagogical theories, no honor societies, no off-beat classes with exotic names, no valedictorians, no tardy bells and little or no standardized testing. However, there are plenty of hands-on science and a lot of questioning, critical thinking and extra playtime.

It is probably unfair to compare Finland with the U.S. After all, Finnish educators work with a near-homogeneous, relatively small student population. Failures can be quickly detected and corrective actions urgently applied. American teens, on the other hand, are far more diverse in aptitude and ethnicity and pose formidable challenges to attaining a minimum level of proficiency. More important, American teachers, on the average, are nowhere near as well-trained as their Scandinavian counterparts and do not enjoy comparable status in society.

There is also the negative effect of politics in many American schools that causes many gifted educators to give up on the teaching profession.

The Finnish educational system has its flaws. The demands of a global economy and the need for innovation are causing some educators to question whether what has succeeded so far can continue to hold in their country. Opinions are being increasingly heard that “Finland needs to fast-track its brightest students the way the U.S. does, with gifted programs aimed at producing more go-getters.” A principal complains that “parents also are getting pushier about special attention for their children.”

The occasional serpent in paradise sometimes rears its head too: an 18-year-old shot eight people inside his high school in southern Finland last November before turning the gun on himself.

Still, the Finnish back-to-basics approach to high school education, with a no-frills curriculum, a love of reading and a culture that promotes self-reliance early, constitute a timeless prescription for success. Educational fads will come and go but these old-fashioned ideas and values will endure.

P.S. Here is an excellent source of information about the Finnish School System.

I thank Tom Hanson, Editor of OpenEducation.Net, for making me aware of his organization and the good work it is doing.

For more postings on the state of education in our schools and colleges, please visit my prototype Website http://www.beyondgpa.com/ and login with Username "myguest" and Password "welcome". I am looking to transform the prototype into a one-of-a-kind educational and social networking Website for our kids with the help of some top-notch (and idealistic) Web 2.0 programmers. The content is all ready to go. Anyone interested out there willing to advance a good cause?

Unstoppable Obama

With eight straight primary victories against Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama has caught the wind on his sail for good. There is no stopping him now as he surges ahead of his rival in what started out as a keenly-contested race.

Analysts are attributing many factors to Obama’s success – more money, more grassroots support, more sophisticated use of the Web, more this, more that.

They are, however, missing the most important factor: Obama has captured the imagination of Americans like no presidential aspirants in recent memory. Neither Ronald Reagan nor Bill Clinton comes close. The only apt comparison is with John F. Kennedy and his mythical, magical evocation of a new frontier.

It is now beyond Hillary Clinton to overcome Obama’s x-factor advantage. Hillary Clinton represents variations on the theme of "what is" but Obama represents a bold and new version of "what is possible." And as the poet Robert Frost may have said, that has made all the difference.

Hillary's Stunner in New Hampshire

How did Hillary Clinton pull the stunner in New Hampshire last night? Even though pundits and pollsters were busy eating crow, they took turns to "explain" Clinton's victory. Two words summed up their analysis: "race" and "gender."

Nonsense. Race, gender (and ethnicity) played no role in this primary.

There are four reasons why Hillary won.

First, it is in the American character to root for the underdog. With polls predicting a thumping victory for Obama, voters felt inclined to vote for Hillary. If Hillary swept the senator from Illinois in Ohio and polls were predicting a repeat for her in New Hampshire, it is most likely that Obama would have won in the Granite State.

Second, for the first time since she began her campaign, Hillary came across as a vulnerable human being instead of a micro-managed robot. Count on seeing the video in which she tears up many more times before this race is over. People like that. Yes, they admire guts and determination and straight talk, but they admire genuine emotions even more.

Third, Hillary spoke more substance on issues that mattered to voters in New Hampshire than Obama. There was no block voting; more women flocked to her because she addressed their concerns.

Finally, voters were fed up with the certainty of pompous pundits and pollsters. Let's teach these buffoons a lesson or two, many of them said to themselves as they stepped into the booth to register their feelings.

A hard-fought campaign is the fire through which presidential mettle is forged. No one can predict at this point who will win the democratic nomination but one thing is certain: the democratic nominee will be the next president of the United States.