The U.S. needs high-speed rail

            Yesterday in The Washington Post, columnist Robert Samuelson criticized President Obama’s plans to finally provide funding for high speed rail projects across the country—the likes of which Europe and Asia have, but we lack.  His initial point—that Amtrak only serves a small amount of people—is essentially correct.  However, Amtrak is not high speed rail.  Amtrak is as much a political tool as it is a transportation network.  Politicians agree to fund trains that run through sparsely populated areas so that their constituents are able to have an alternative to driving.  Plus, these trains are used as leverage, with more populous sections of the country only receiving support for rail service if the countryside is covered, too.

            On balance, though, Samuelson’s harangue of high speed rail might have been more credible had he not made a few glaring omissions in his opinion piece:

1. He argued that train travel caters to only a small percentage of the population, citing daily Amtrak ridership of 78,000.  This ignores the fact that more than one million people ride commuter trains (which often are operated by contracted Amtrak employees) in dozens of major cities.  The Virginia Railway Express estimates that its operation takes roughly one lane of car traffic off of I-66 and I-95 during the morning and evening rush hours.  To imply that no one rides trains anymore is ludicrous.
2. Samuelson said that the U.S. does not have the population density of other nations which have high speed rail.  But no one is talking about building high-speed rail coast to coast, though the less populous states.  The plan is to build corridors in California, the southeast, the Midwest, and the Northeast—where the people are.
3. It is misleading to ask whether all of the train ticket subsidies would be “justified” without asking the same of highway and air subsidies.  Trains are much safer than automobiles and have fewer carbon emissions per passenger mile than planes.

Three steps forward on equality

            The country was pleasantly surprised this past week when the legislature of Vermont legalized same-sex marriage and the District of Columbia voted to recognize marriages performed elsewhere, which is a move seen as a prelude to allowing gay marriage. But the real shocker was what preceded both of those actions: a unanimous ruling by the Iowa Supreme Court to permit gay marriages.  Not to disparage Iowa, but the conception most people have of that state is hardly a progressive one—and is more than likely overshadowed by amber waves of grain, occasional natural disasters, and Midwestern down-hominess.

            Nevertheless, the move by the Supreme Court does not appear to be spiraling toward a constitutional amendment as was the case in California: the governor and the legislature appear content to let the ruling stand.  Of course, the social conservatives are fired up, with the state senate’s minority leader, Paul McKinley, decrying the “elites” on the court who are out of touch with the attitudes of people of Iowa.

            (As an aside, have you ever noticed that when judges rule against you, they are elite activists who have no business misinterpreting the will of the people? And when they rule in your favor, they are faithful guardians of democracy who stand between anarchy and rule of law as protectors of the integrity of the Constitution?    It’s like clockwork, and it has happened on both sides of the spectrum since the days of John Marshall.)

            In any event, McKinley asked the majority leader, Senator Mike Gronstal, if he would vote to end gay marriages today as he did in 1998 when the legislature outlawed same-sex marriages.  Gronstal’s extemporaneous response is admirable for its humility, its sincerity, and its simple truth about equality:

 

            Even though McKinley timidly responded with, “Thank you for your honesty,” before railing in his prepared speech about how the will of the people should be heard, the monologue begs an important question: if Gronstal could learn about the righteousness of treating homosexuals equally from his daughter, can the handful of states currently considering gay marriage and the 29 states that have constitutional amendments against it learn something from Gronstal?

            As a resident of Virginia, which passed a gay marriage ban in 2006 with 57 percent of the vote (only the half-dozen urban jurisdictions voted it down), I feel that that clause in our constitution is a mark of shame—the only acceptable form of explicit state-sanctioned discrimination.  The amendment has all of its bases covered, reading that “only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions,” and no other special designation of union can be created nor other states’ gay marriages be recognized.

            I would hope that within the next election cycle or two that the amendment would be repealed.  In Virginia, that requires two rounds of voting in the General Assembly and a referendum on the ballot.  I doubt that there are enough votes in that body or statewide to welcome same-sex marriage with open arms, but as long as the amendment remains in force there is no chance for dialogue on the issue.  And as more and more states legalize same-sex marriage, Virginia will seem out of touch and bigoted—much as the way the South did during the Civil Rights Movement.

            Now, as then, coded language is used to protect the interests of the majority.  “Traditional family values” is as much a euphemism as “maintaining law and order” was once a euphemism for avoiding integration of schools and buses.  The only difference is that constitutional amendments are beyond the reach of the courts.  Although “activist judges” are decried for “legislating from the bench,” these men and women are tasked with interpreting the constitution in a way that is most just for the greatest number of people.  The fact that half a dozen state supreme courts have ruled on behalf of gay rights should be a telling trend.

            Until the U.S. Supreme Court or Congress acts on this issue (which probably will not be for another few years) states have a duty to be on the right side of history by passing laws which give greater rights to more people, not vice versa.

Revising Maryland’s “gory” state song

            Last month, Maryland legislators rejected a proposal made by a class of fourth graders to change its state song.  The concern was that the lyrics were too incendiary for 2009 and advocated the defeat of the anti-slavery, oppressive Northern states during the Civil War.  The nine-stanza poem, “Maryland! My Maryland!” was written in 1861 was and adopted as the state song in 1939.  Here are some of the more colorful verses (sung to the tune of “O Christmas Tree”):

The despot’s heel is on thy shore,

Maryland! [My Maryland!]

His torch is at thy temple door,

Maryland! [My Maryland!]

Avenge the patriotic gore

That flecked the streets of Baltimore,

And be the battle queen of yore,

Maryland! My Maryland!

 

Dear Mother! burst the tyrant’s chain,

Maryland! [My Maryland!]

Virginia should not call in vain,

Maryland! [My Maryland!]

She meets her sisters on the plain-

“Sic semper!” ’tis the proud refrain

That baffles minions back amain,

Arise in majesty again,

Maryland! My Maryland!

 

I hear the distant thunder-hum,

Maryland! [My Maryland!]

The Old Line’s bugle, fife, and drum,

Maryland! [My Maryland!]

She is not dead, nor deaf, nor dumb-

Huzza! she spurns the Northern scum!

She breathes! she burns! she’ll come! she’ll come!

Maryland! My Maryland!

 

       Maryland was one of the five slave-owning states that remained loyal to the Union during the Civil War; although the author of this poem, James Ryder Randall, obviously wished that that would not be the case.  Imploring his state to “spurn the Northern scum” and join her sister state of Virginia in “burst[ing] the tyrant’s chain,” it is certainly embarrassing to be singing about the romantic appeal of the Confederacy in the age of Obama.  Furthermore, even though President Lincoln took some extreme measures to combat the rebellion, including suspending the right of habeas corpus, to refer to him as a “despot” is neither politically correct nor historically justified.       

       The poem which was to replace this one was written in 1894 by a Maryland teacher.  It includes these verses:

 

We dedicate our song to thee,

Maryland, my Maryland,

The home of light and liberty,

Maryland, my Maryland,

We love thy streams and wooded hills,

Thy mountains with their gushing rills,

Thy scenes — our heart with rapture fills — Maryland, my Maryland.

 

In twain the Chesapeake divides

Maryland, my Maryland,

While oceanward its water glides,

Maryland, my Maryland.

 

Yet we in thought and purpose one,

Pursue the work so well begun,

And may our state be ne’er outdone,

Maryland, my Maryland.            

 

       This version is certainly more sanitized, with descriptions of the natural beauty and of the “proud sons and daughters” cheering on the “ship of state.”  Yet the problem with it is obvious: it is way too boring.  Don’t get me wrong: when singing about your state you want to emphasize its character and the attachment that citizens feel to their home.  But even if the 1861 poem was wishful thinking on the part of a revolutionary and glorifies the “gore” of a nation torn, that is what makes it appealing.  It’s alive, vivid, deliberately provocative.

             The question of whether to erase the legacies and symbolism of the Civil War—such as limiting the display of Confederate flags—is an important one.  I believe that of the few people who actually have taken the chance to read or sing this song, very few of them would consider the Randall poem as anything other than one of history’s curiosities that can at worst be ignored and at best be reinterpreted in a twenty-first century reference frame to invigorate citizens to fight all forms of injustice.  In any event, Maryland in 2009 has effectively become a Northern state—not that it matters, since sectional divisions are hardly as salient now as they were in the 1860s.            

       However, if lawmakers are still looking for an alternative song, they might try these rhymes on for size:

 

Our crabs are clean, but our bay is not,

Maryland, my Maryland.

We have horse races, and soon, slots,

Maryland, my Maryland.

 

Our drivers suck, especially,

Maryland, my Maryland.

But at least we’re right next to D.C.,

Maryland, my Maryland.

To fix the schools, D.C. must fix its teachers

        Washington, D.C.’s school system has long lagged behind its suburban Virginia and Maryland counterparts in student achievement.  The largely poor, largely non-white students score hundreds of points lower on the SAT’s and between half and two-thirds of children score below the “basic level” in math and reading.  Now, D.C.’s newly-minted chancellor, Michelle Rhee, has the unenviable task of bumping up student performance, increasing the rate of retention, and ensuring teacher accountability.

            One of her creative ideas was to renegotiate of teacher contracts, and under the new plan all teachers would get substantial pay increases (paid for by $200 million grants over the next five years).  Teachers who already have tenure can opt to retain it (for a pay increase) or give it up.  Should they choose the latter option, they will be placed on probation for a year but will have the opportunity to earn even higher salaries had they stuck with tenured positions.  In other words, salary is performance-based: teacher evaluations and students’ test scores will factor into the pay plan.  The penalty for not meeting acceptable standards of progress: remediation and/or dismissal.

            Now, after eleven months of talking with union representatives to no avail, Rhee, fed up with the gridlock, announced she will impose the plan immediately and could start firing teachers within 90 days if the at-risk instructors do not improve.  This program, coupled with a plan to pay certain middle school students to attend school, be attentive, and turn in work, has gotten mixed reviews from teachers and the community who cannot understand her brash manner of improving schools.

            But it is necessary.  I am on the fence about the pay-for-attendance program, but since student achievement is so low, anything is worth a try.  The teacher accountability part of her strategy, though, is just what the doctor ordered.  True enough, teachers may not want large sums of money for doing what they love; but to attract new, quality instructors will require a competitive salary and a system in which the teachers can have a material reward for raising their students’ achievement.  In addition, children will not suffer from teachers who take a more nonchalant aproach to their responsibilities.

            Oddly enough, D.C. teachers are split on Rhee’s proposal.  Younger teachers think it is a great idea, while the old guard are insulted at the misconception that they will have to give up tenure.  It may be that they are a bit aghast at a 38-year-old who is only accountable to the mayor having supposedly all the answers to fix a crumbling infrastructure—including firing her way to a solution.  I would hope that these concerns are irrational generational or racial fears for the teachers’ own preservation, not out of any serious concern for student welfare.

            After all, why should teachers remain in the classroom if they are measured by objective standards as having a negative effect on their students?  I would think that the older, tenured teachers would be the best in the business—the ones who would not be afraid to have their performance evaluated.  Yet the opposite is occurring.  The youthful teachers are more willing to undergo evaluation.  What are the rest of them afraid of?  Rhee’s system is not personal; it’s simply about the students.

            Now that the plan will be implemented regardless, hopefully those teachers who opposed it will nevertheless prove themselves to be excellent.  If, however, their skills have been dulled by years of complacency in a system of low expectations and low achievement, it is unacceptable to have those people retain one of the most crucial positions in society.  Teaching is not just a job—teachers must act as role models, counselors, social workers, and even parents.  And although the majority of teachers are changing lives every day, those who are unable or unwilling need to be in a position of less consequence.

Phunny Fotos

Virginia GOP courts the Macaccan vote

     This Saturday in Northern Virginia, Republicans will hold a 1,000-plus person rally that will hopefully draw more ethnic minorities to the party and to John McCain.  Democrats have usually scoffed whenever Republicans try to cast themselves as diverse, partly fueled by the images of this year’s vanilla-pure RNC.  Still, McCain campaigners have translated his policies into Spanish and Korean and are managing bi-lingual phone banks in an attempt to widen their base.  Fairfax County, the largest in Northern Virginia, has a non-white population of approximately one-third of its total residents.  Though NoVa has trended Democratic in statewide elections, Democrats are hoping Obama can carry the state in the presenditial election while Republicans are praying to maintain their hold.  The Republicans have enlisted the help of Representative Tom Davis and former Senator George Allen to speak at the rally.  Allen, of course, narrowly lost his Senate seat in 2006 largely because he was caught on videotape calling an Indian-American “Macaca.”  While he obviously will take care not to insult his audience extemporaneously, a draft of his speech released to the press shows that great pains have been taken to ensure restraint: