Jury duty

Today I finished serving as a juror in a criminal trial. I got the notice for jury duty in the mail a couple months ago and on June 2 I showed up for jury selection. I was selected for two juries (fortunately while I was serving today my wife received a phone call letting me know that the other one, scheduled for mid-July, has been canceled). Oh, how easy it would have been to get out of it. You are given multiple opportunities to back out if you're selected. It could be a serious schedule conflict, or an admission that you don't feel you could be fair or impartial on the case. No questions asked. But, alas, I had no such schedule or moral conflicts.

It was a two-day trial. Evidence was presented last Friday, and today we heard closing statements and the judge's instructions regarding the charges and our deliberation. We deliberated for over four hours before reaching a verdict on about forty counts. It was a long, exhausting day.

Yes, it was inconvenient. I missed two days of work. Yes, it was unpleasant. But it was important and in some ways I'm glad to have served. I thought we did a good job as a jury and reached a fair verdict.

It was all really interesting to be part of. The defendant was an 18-year-old guy that was accused of sexually molesting his sister, her friend, and a cousin at different times between 2003 and 2006. The charges varied significantly in severity, as did the quality of the evidence, which ultimately made our decision more complicated.

To be honest, I was really surprised by how poor each side's case was. Really. I think all the jurors were. The defense attorney offered little of a coherent defense. And the DA really seemed to be stretching on what charges they thought they could get away with. Evidence was pretty paltry, and ultimately we acquitted him of most of the counts against him, particularly the more serious ones for which there was little evidence. It was frustrating, and sometimes heart-wrenching, because while we certainly wanted to be fair to the girls, it was the burden of the state to convince us. And, with the exception of a handful of the charges, we were unconvinced.

The toughest thing, perhaps, is that we felt like it was by no means all this poor kid's fault. He grew up in an absolutely lousy environment, with all kinds of problems with communication, trust, and healthy sexuality. All this became obvious very quickly. This family had many serious issues. I felt grateful for my own parents, and for my own beautiful little family. It was a reminder that we have a lot of work to do to help families like these.

Even though I'm glad to have served, I certainly don't want to see another jury summons in my mail anytime soon.

Be nude to be green?

Now that I have your attention with my provocative title, I ask you to watch a hilarious ad for a new Discovery channel called Planet Green:



I love it. The looks on both guys' faces are hilarious. But seriously, think of all the environmental benefits of nudism: less energy consumed for air conditioning, washing and drying clothes, and so on.

It seems like in recent years we've seen a tremendous rise in the popularity of all things "green," obviously a code-word for environmentally friendly. It's really exciting to see, but I wonder how much of an impact most of it will make, and whether it's sort of just trendy and hip. Yes, we take our own cloth bags to the grocery store, recycle as much we can, try to minimize how much we drive, belong to the Sierra Club, and all that. Yet, I think it's going to take major changes in how we think about and use energy to really stop climate change due to human activity. I feel like it's really getting to be urgent, and it's time that we invest seriously in developing clean energy and ending our dependency on foreign oil.

But in the meantime, think about shedding some clothes and turning down the A/C.

Obama and religion

I guess it was just a matter of time until religion became an issue now that the general election has begun. There has been a lot of talk about religion in recent days on the campaign trail. Of course, during the primaries religion came up now and then. But it seemed to have disappeared from the spotlight in recent months.

I've always thought it's a shame that religion has perhaps not been a friendly area for Obama and his campaign. Two years ago he gave an amazing speech on the role of religion in politics and public life. He offered a strong critique of the Religious Right but also called on progressives to not underestimate the significance of religion in Americans' lives and its power to solve problems. But between ridiculous rumors about him being a Muslim, controversy over his former pastor, and remarks he made about rural voters at a fund raiser in California, Obama has struggled to make religion a plus for his campaign.

A slew of articles have appeared in recent days that involve Obama and religion. A Washington Post article describes his "full-throttle push for centrist Evangelicals and Catholics." It mentions a closed-door meeting Obama recently had with nearly 40 Christian leaders. It describes efforts he's making to appeal to young evangelicals that might not be as tied to the Republican Party as older ones. Yet, the article notes that it's an uphill battle for Obama, since polls have him way behind McCain among evangelicals. Even among young voters, who are overwhelmingly Democratic today, evangelicals still lean Republican, according a recent Pew survey.

The article also notes:

Still, some religious leaders wonder whether Obama's Christian-focused outreach might alienate Jewish and Muslim voters, for example, not to mention the Democratic Party's large secular wing.

I haven't seen a lot of discomfort on the part of secular Democrats, though I could imagine the most ardently secular might take issue with Obama's outreach. At any rate, if secular Democrats are concerned about Obama pandering to evangelicals or moving to the center on social issues, they ought to read his 2006 speech to understand his motives:

For some time now, there has been plenty of talk among pundits and pollsters that the political divide in this country has fallen sharply along religious lines. Indeed, the single biggest "gap" in party affiliation among white Americans today is not between men and women, or those who reside in so-called Red States and those who reside in Blue, but between those who attend church regularly and those who don't.

Conservative leaders have been all too happy to exploit this gap, consistently reminding evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their Church, while suggesting to the rest of the country that religious Americans care only about issues like abortion and gay marriage; school prayer and intelligent design.

Democrats, for the most part, have taken the bait. At best, we may try to avoid the conversation about religious values altogether, fearful of offending anyone and claiming that - regardless of our personal beliefs - constitutional principles tie our hands. At worst, there are some liberals who dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant, insisting on a caricature of religious Americans that paints them as fanatical, or thinking that the very word "Christian" describes one's political opponents, not people of faith.

Now, such strategies of avoidance may work for progressives when our opponent is Alan Keyes. But over the long haul, I think we make a mistake when we fail to acknowledge the power of faith in people's lives -- in the lives of the American people -- and I think it's time that we join a serious debate about how to reconcile faith with our modern, pluralistic democracy.

And if we're going to do that then we first need to understand that Americans are a religious people. 90 percent of us believe in God, 70 percent affiliate themselves with an organized religion, 38 percent call themselves committed Christians, and substantially more people in America believe in angels than they do in evolution.

What many Democrats forget is that evangelicals are not the ultra-conservative, gay-hating, theocracy-loving, ID-promoting bigots that some make them out to be. They tend to be conservative, and Republican, but they are a diverse group and they make up about a quarter of the population. (By the way, the new Pew survey has some great stuff on the political, social and religious views of all religious groups, including evangelicals).

It could be Obama's outreach to evangelicals that prompted Focus on the Family's James Dobson to slam Obama on his radio program recently. In speaking of Obama's 2006 speech, Dobson sounded like the kind of Religious Right figure that so many Americans are tiring of, accusing Obama of shoddy Biblical understanding, watered down morality, and a "fruitcake" view of the Constitution. What's frustrating is that when Dobson speaks, he gets media attention. Even NPR noticed Dobson's rant. What I hope gets noticed, though, is that many Christians feel his attacks were unacceptable, not to mention inaccurate. Evangelical leader Jim Wallis issued a strong statement in defense of Obama. Here are some excerpts:

You can read Obama's now two-year old speech, which was widely publicized at the time and will see that Dobson either didn't understand it or is deliberately distorting it. There are two major problems with Dobson's attack today on Barack Obama.

First, Dobson and Minnery's language is simply inappropriate for religious leaders to use in an already divisive political environment. We can agree or disagree on both biblical and political viewpoints, but our language should be respectful and civil, not attacking motives and beliefs.

And here's the best part:

Contrary to Dobson's charge, Obama was very strong in defending the right and necessity of people of faith bringing their moral agenda to the public square, and was specifically critical of many on the left and in his own Democratic Party for being uncomfortable with religion in politics.

Obama said that religion is and has always been a fundamental and absolutely essential source of morality for the nation, but also said that "religion has no monopoly on morality," which is a point that I often make. The United States is not the Christian theocracy that people like James Dobson seem to think it should be. Political appeals, even if rooted in religious convictions, must be argued on moral grounds rather than as sectarian religious demands--so that the people (citizens), whether religious or not, may have the capacity to hear and respond.

Religious convictions must be translated into moral arguments, which must win the political debate if they are to be implemented. Religious people don't get to win just because they are religious. They, like any other citizens, have to convince their fellow citizens that what they propose is best for the common good-- for all of us and not just for the religious.

Instead of saying that Christians must accept the "the lowest common denominator of morality," as Dobson accused Obama of suggesting, or that people of faith shouldn't advocate for the things their convictions suggest, Obama was saying the exact opposite--that Christians should offer their best moral compass to the nation but then have to engage in the kind of democratic dialogue that religious pluralism demands. Martin Luther King Jr. perhaps did this best of all with his Bible in one hand and the Constitution in the other.

But in case all this isn't enough for Obama to deal with on the religion front, there's been increased attention to the relationship between his campaign and American Muslims. The NY Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Boston Globe have all highlighted frustration among Muslims because of feeling neglected by Obama's campaign. Obama is certainly in a tough spot. he has to fend off ridiculous rumors about being a Muslim himself, and any interaction he has with Muslims is sure to set of a round of attacks from some conservative corners. Some people feel like in the process of defending himself against Muslim "slurs" and "smears," he has neglected to mention that there's in fact nothing wrong with being Muslims, and that Muslims make up part of our rich religious mosaic. And I think they'd have a point. His 2006 speech on religion certainly recognized Muslims as a valid and important part of our religious landscape, but maybe it's time he do it again.

Mormon church gets involved with California gay marriage issue in a big way

I have generally positive feelings toward the church of my childhood and early adulthood. I support my wife's continuing membership in the church, and even attend with her occasionally. I find myself taking on the role of defender and teacher when I feel like the church is being misrepresented or misunderstood. But I cannot understand why the church devotes so much time, money, and resources to the fight against marriage equality.

Right after the California Supreme Court's decision last month to extend marriage rights and benefits to gay couples, the Mormon church issued a statement expressing its disappointment and re-affirming its belief that marriage should only be between a man and woman and that this family arrangement is "the basic unit of society."

Yesterday I learned that this coming Sunday a letter from the church's First Presidency will be read in all its California congregations. You can see a copy of the letter here. News of this has reached several major news outlets, including at least the AP and the Salt Lake Tribune, and probably many others. Basically, it is asking California Mormons to support a proposed constitutional amendment that would recognize only marriages between a man and a woman. From the Tribune article:

In a statement to be read in California churches Sunday, LDS President Thomas S. Monson, with his counselors in the governing First Presidency, Henry B. Eyring and Dieter F. Uchtdorf, say Mormon teachings on the issue "are unequivocal."

"Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and the formation of families is central to the Creator's plan for his children," the statement says.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will participate with a "broad-based coalition of churches and other organizations" to promote the amendment, which will be on the Nov. 8 ballot.

"Do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time," the statement says.

Church spokesman Scott Trotter confirmed the authenticity of the statement published Saturday on the Internet, but declined to comment further.

With almost a million members in the state, Mormons are a force, and perhaps the strongest backer of the proposed amendment. Fighting against marriage equality is nothing new for the church. It poured loads of money and volunteers into a 1999 proposition in California, as well as efforts in Alaska and Hawaii to prevent gay marriage in 1998. I've spoken personally with a church member who was living in California at the time. He described to me how the church (very carefully and quietly) recruited volunteers to go door-to-door and to also put up yard signs and such.

The church can't be thrilled with Affirmation right now. Affirmation: Gay & Lesbian Mormons is an organization based in Los Angeles that is essentially a support and advocacy group for gay or lesbian Mormons, ex-Mormons, and their friends and family. Anyway, the media looks to Affirmation in these instances for an alternate (but definitely minority) viewpoint in the Mormon community. They've issued their own statement:

Affirmation: Gay and Lesbian Mormons believes that all loving couples should have the right to be together in a committed loving relationship, with the full measure of legal and civil protections that society has long accorded married couples.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is instructing its members to commit their time and money to deny these basic rights and freedoms to gay men and women in California.

Olin Thomas, Executive Director of Affirmation, said, "We are deeply dismayed that the Church ignored our request that they not meddle in California politics. This initiative will hurt so many people. Without marriage, a couple who have been together 30 years could be torn apart at the doorway to the emergency room."

As Mormons, we believe that respect for civil law and acknowledgment of individual freedoms is sacred. The California law affects civil marriage; it has no effect on any religious institution or religious official. To seek to revoke these basic protections in the name of God denies the fundamental freedoms on which our country was built. Constitutional law has always been about protecting civil and religious freedoms, not the denial of those freedoms.

We urge California voters to act in favor of freedom. Vow to Vote No.

I must say, I have to agree with Affirmation on this one. I continue to be disappointed that the church fights this so hard. It's frustrating. Yes, I understand the theology behind this. Heterosexual marriage is central to Mormon theology, and to their belief in the eternal potential of humans to become like God. I acknowledge that the church need not ever recognize gay marriage within its own theology and practices. But why does it have to fight so hard to prevent loving, responsible, decent human beings from enjoying the legal, emotional, and physical benefits of marriage? Why? Why and how does gay marriage threaten the church's beliefs and teachings about the centrality of heterosexual marriage in the eternal scheme of things?

What the church doesn't get, and what many opponents of marriage equality don't get, is that granting gay and lesbian couples the right to marry would affect them little to none. It would only make our society more just, more compassionate, and more loving. It would not lead to the crumble of Western civilization, nor to any crazy (and imagined) slippery slope. It would affirm the importance of committed and responsible family life and the institution of marriage.

I'm assuming that most Mormons that hear this letter on Sunday will be on board, but in relatively liberal, diverse California, there are bound to be many members that are disappointed and bummed about this new call to arms. I hope that they can have a voice, and that their voice will not be silenced.

Why kids don't want universal health care

A hilarious "news" video from the Onion explaining why kids oppose efforts to ensure adequate health care for all children:


Study Finds Most Children Not In Favor Of Children’s Healthcare

John McCain

I don't think I've ever had much to say about John McCain here on my blog. To be honest, I'd been paying attention to the Democratic primary so much that I just hadn't paid a lot of attention to him. I didn't even know that much about him. But I'm learning. I was struck by his assertion the other day that figuring out when we can bring our troops home is "not too important." While there's about a million reasons why we should not elect him, I just wanted to point out a few.

The non-partisan Tax Policy Center has issued an analysis of Obama and McCain's tax plans. Via a blogger at TNR, I found this figure (click on it for a better view). It's striking. In a time of growing income inequality in our country, McCain's plan would only continue to benefit the rich, while it's clear that Obama is the one that cares about giving working class and middle class families a break. Nonetheless, McCain and his campaign continue to mischaracterize Obama's tax plan.


Next, if you think that McCain is not like Bush, that he's a true "maverick" and independent politician, think again:

"Imagine No Religion"? No thanks!

The Freedom From Religion Foundation currently has this billboard up in Denver, CO, just blocks from the State Capital:


Yet, I must say that while I'm sympathetic to the aims of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, which have to do mostly with working for separation of church and state, I'm not a fan of this billboard. I have a few problems with it. First, this is not how I interpret the first amendment and our cherished separation of church and state. Maybe "Imagine a religion-free government," or "Imagine a government that does not favor religion over irreligion." But I suppose those wouldn't make very good billboards.

A statement on their website has a couple quotes from supporters in Denver. An attorney working with FFRF says "We want the public to reflect on the billboard's message and imagine a world without the rancor and divisiveness of 2,000 different religions." A local member says "Imagine if the government would be neutral and let individuals reach their own conclusions about religion. Perhaps then, in the words of John Lennon, the world could ‘live as one.’ ”

I've blogged before about the problem with blaming religion for all our social ills and historical tragedies. In a nutshell, I said that it's really hard to disentangle religious influences from other influences since 1) until recently religion was closely bound up with other institutions and 2) religious institutions and religious individuals by necessity have to act in non-religious ways and make non-religious decisions. So, while fully acknowledging the special dangers that are inherent to religion (due to its ability to shape strong, sometimes inflexible worldviews and endow them with divine legitimacy, even when it goes against reason and rational thought), I'm not ready to jump on the blame-religion bandwagon.

My other problem with the billboard is this - how different is it from a billboard that might read "Imagine a world with no atheists!" What's the value in putting up billboards that essentially ask us to imagine what the world would be like if it were missing entire groups of people!? Yeah, that's peace and love for ya.

Finally, I'm not a fan of the billboard because that's just not the kind of world I imagine. I'm a strong believer in religious freedom and religious pluralism. And to me this includes freedom from religion, too, for those who choose it. But I think there's something about us that longs for the kind of contemplation, meaning, community, and moral work that religion offers. Also, I'm more a fan of the ACLU's approach. From their website:

The right to practice religion, or no religion at all, is among the most fundamental of the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The ACLU works to ensure that this essential freedom is protected by keeping the government out of religion.

All of this begs the question: Is Unitarian Universalism completely invisible to people that have issues with religion? How could it not be an inviting option for some of these folks? In my last post, I hit on some of these issues, and explained why for a variety of reasons, a lot of people see it as no religion at all (which you'd think it would make it appealing to some of these folks). At any rate, this all illustrates how important it is for UUs and other like-minded individuals to imagine and even work for a world with religion, but that is more inclusive, more just, and more loving.

A side note: I'm assuming that the billboard text is a reference to the famous Lennon song "Imagine," which does mention imagining the prospect of a world with no heaven, hell, or religion. I like the song, and personally interpret it not so much literally, but as a call to challenge those parts of our society that divide and create inequality.

Isn't Unitarian Universalism "organized religion"?

I've been thinking about this one lately. A couple weeks ago after our Sunday service I was talking to a newcomer about Unitarian Universalism and our respective religious backgrounds when she mentioned having serious reservations about "organized religion" and that for that reason she wanted to check out our congregation. I asked her to elaborate a little and we talked for a bit about what "organized religion" might be and whether or not Unitarian Universalism falls under that category or not. I expressed my view that it is in fact organized religion, and I explained why I feel that way. She said she's not quite ready to accept that yet. We thanked each other for an interesting and helpful discussion and went on our way.

The Unitarian Universalist Association is a nationwide denomination headquartered in Boston, MA. From the UUA website:

The UUA is governed by a Board of Trustees consisting of District Trustees selected by the various districts and at-large Trustees, who are elected by delegates to the General Assembly. The General Assembly is the annual business meeting of the denomination, held in various parts of the continent. The Board of Trustees meets four times each year, three times in Boston and once at the General Assembly.

An elected moderator presides at the General Assembly and at meetings of the Board of Trustees, and represents the Association on special occasions. A financial advisor, elected by the General Assembly, also sits on the Board. An elected president, an appointed executive vice president, a treasurer, and ten others form the leadership council, manage the day-to-day business of the Association.

The UUA has over 1,000 member congregations. It collects funds from those member congregations. It has two theological schools. It has its own imprint, Skinner House Books, which publishes books and materials specifically for UUs, as well as another publisher, Beacon Press, which publishes books intended for a wider audience.

How is this not "organized religion"?

Here are some reasons I think many people may not consider it such, even many that regularly or sometimes attend UU services.

1. Organized religion carries with it a certain connotation. To many it suggests a certain amount of rigidity or strictness, perhaps even a certain amount of theological or political conservatism. Furthermore, Unitarian Universalism's lack of a creed might signal to some that it is somehow not authentic "organized religion."

2. Most definitions of religion itself involve some element of belief in the supernatural. I've struggled with such definitions and repeatedly argued that they need not necessarily invoke the supernatural, since so much of religion has to do with the plain realities of social life and social processes. Nonetheless, the association of religion and the supernatural is so incredibly strong in people's minds that Unitarian Universalism's more this-worldly perspective and its ambiguity (or at least diversity of beliefs) about the supernatural may lead some to believe that it is somehow not "organized religion."

3. Many newcomers to a UU congregation may not have any idea what the UUA is and does and what its denominational and organizational structure looks like. They might actually really think that Unitarian Universalism is "unorganized" or some sort of loosely organized social movement.

4. Finally, many may not call it "organized religion" simply because they don't want it to be.

I can understand these reasons, but as a sociologist of religion and as a committed Unitarian Universalist, I reject them. Unitarian Universalism is organized, in the most basic sense of the word. Also, rejecting the "organized religion" label places it outside of the American religious landscape, limiting the extent to which we can have a say in what that religious landscape looks like. It also validates definitions of religion that exclude the kind of worship, practice, meaning-making, and values that we cherish so much in Unitarian Universalism.

So, what do we do with those folks that insist that it's not "organized religion"? Well, probably just smile, listen, and express our confidence in what the religion of Unitarian Universalism can accomplish and what it has to offer to the world.

Frank Rich on last Tuesday's speeches

The NYT's Frank Rich was struck by the different visions of America offered last Tuesday, too. In his column yesterday he had this to say:

When Barack Obama achieved his historic victory on Tuesday night, the battle was joined between two Americas. Not John Edwards’s two Americas, divided between rich and poor. Not the Americas split by race, gender, party or ideology. What looms instead is an epic showdown between two wildly different visions of the country, from the ground up.

On one side stands Mr. Obama’s resolutely cheerful embrace of the future. His vision is inseparable from his identity, both as a rookie with a slim Washington résumé and as a black American whose triumph was regarded as improbable by voters of all races only months ago. On the other is John McCain’s promise of a wise warrior’s vigilant conservation of the past. His vision, too, is inseparable from his identity — as a government lifer who has spent his entire career in service, whether in the Navy or Washington.

All presidential candidates, Mr. Obama certainly included, are egomaniacs. But Washington’s faith in hierarchical status adds a thick layer of pomposity to politicians who linger there too long. Mrs. Clinton referred to herself by the first-person pronoun 64 times in her speech, and Mr. McCain did so 60 times in his. Mr. Obama settled for 30.

Remarkably, neither Mrs. Clinton nor Mr. McCain had the grace to offer a salute to Mr. Obama’s epochal political breakthrough, which reverberated so powerfully across the country and throughout the world. By being so small and ungenerous, they made him look taller. Their inability to pivot even briefly from partisan self-interest could not be a more telling symptom of the dysfunctional Washington culture Mr. Obama aspires to mend.

On attempts by McCain to mock Obama's liberalism and call for "change":

Mr. McCain only reminded voters that he, like Mrs. Clinton, thinks that change is nothing more than a marketing gimmick. He has no idea what it means. “No matter who wins this election, the direction of this country is going to change dramatically,” he said on Tuesday. He then grimly regurgitated Goldwater and Reagan government-bashing talking points from the 1960s and ’70s even as he presumed to accuse Mr. Obama of looking “to the 1960s and ’70s for answers.”

Mr. Obama is a liberal, but it’s not your boomer parents’ liberalism that is at the heart of his appeal. He never rattles off a Clinton laundry list of big federal programs; he supports abortion rights and gay civil rights with a sunny bonhomie that makes the right’s cultural scolds look like rabid mastodons. He is not refighting either side of the domestic civil war over Vietnam that exploded in his hometown of Chicago 40 years ago this summer, long before he arrived there.

On how McCain is the one "out of touch" with America and its needs and wants:

Mr. Obama’s deep-rooted worldliness — in philosophy as well as itinerant background — is his other crucial departure from the McCain template. As more and more Americans feel the pain of spiraling gas prices and lost jobs, they are also coming to recognize, as Mr. Obama does, that the globally reviled American image forged by an endless war in Iraq and its accompanying torture scandals is inflicting economic as well as foreign-policy havoc.

Six out of 10 Americans do want their president to talk to Iran’s president, according to the most-recent Gallup poll. Americans are sick of a national identity defined by arrogant saber-rattling abroad and manipulative fear-mongering at home. Mr. Obama closed his speech on Tuesday by telling Americans they “don’t deserve” another election “that’s governed by fear.” Of the three candidates, he was the only one who did not mention 9/11 that night.

On McCain's speech itself:

Mr. McCain’s speech in a New Orleans suburb on Tuesday night spawned a cottage industry of ridicule, even among Republicans. The halting delivery, sickly green backdrop and spastic, inappropriate smiles, presumably mandated by some consultant hoping to mask his anger, left the impression that Mr. McCain isn’t yet ready for prime-time radio.

But the substance was even worse than the theatrics. Incredibly, Mr. McCain attacked Mr. Obama for being insufficiently bipartisan while speaking to the most conspicuously partisan audience you can assemble in today’s America: a small, nearly all-white crowd that seconded his attack lines with boorish choruses of boos. On TV, the audience came across as a country-club membership riled by a change in the Sunday brunch menu.

And here's something I can agree with:

Anything can happen in politics, and there are five months to go. But Tuesday night’s McCain pratfall — three weeks in the planning by his campaign, according to Fox News — should be a clear indication that Mr. Obama must accept Mr. McCain’s invitation to weekly debates at once. Tomorrow if possible, and, yes, bring on the green!

Finally, a great video of Obama talking to his campaign staff last week after clinching the nomination:

Different visions for America

Tuesday night was, in my opinion, highly illuminating. Senator Obama secured enough delegates to clinch the Democratic Party's nomination. Obama, Clinton, and McCain each gave a speech at some point during the day. And what they said, and how they did it, said a lot about the different visions these individuals have for our country.

McCain's speech was generally considered to be weak, and even the ugly, green background for his speech did not go unnoticed.

Bizarrely, Clinton did not concede to Obama, end her campaign, and pledge her support to Obama and the Democratic Party. Instead, she was defiant, listing her primary victories, telling stories about her supporters, and speaking on issues that she has stressed during her campaign. She promised to make no decision that night about her campaign, despite the fact that Obama had, in fact, won the nomination already. Clinton's speech definitely gathered some strong criticism. It was a bit surprising to watch. It really was all about her, as if Obama and McCain did not exist and as if we did not fact a critical election in just a few months, an election in which she will not be a candidate.

Obama's speech was fantastic. Interestingly, the focus was not on himself, despite the historic nature of his nomination. He urged Americans to seize this opportunity to move our nation in the right direction. It was an exciting and yes, even hopeful, speech. I think his speeches are powerful because they make those of us who are concerned about the direction we've been heading in feel hopeful and energized, and confident that we can bring about change.

Obama is sometimes criticized for being merely a good speaker with no substance to back it up with. I think that claim is ridiculous. But that criticism kind of misses something. Good leaders inspire and motivate. They mobilize. Obama can do that, and that's why he is the Democratic nominee, and why he will make a good President.

You can read the full text of his speech here. A couple of my favorite parts:

The other side will come here in September and offer a very different set of policies and positions, and that is a debate I look forward to. It is a debate the American people deserve. But what you don't deserve is another election that's governed by fear, and innuendo, and division. What you won't hear from this campaign or this party is the kind of politics that uses religion as a wedge, and patriotism as a bludgeon – that sees our opponents not as competitors to challenge, but enemies to demonize. Because we may call ourselves Democrats and Republicans, but we are Americans first. We are always Americans first.

Despite what the good Senator from Arizona said tonight, I have seen people of differing views and opinions find common cause many times during my two decades in public life, and I have brought many together myself. I've walked arm-in-arm with community leaders on the South Side of Chicago and watched tensions fade as black, white, and Latino fought together for good jobs and good schools. I've sat across the table from law enforcement and civil rights advocates to reform a criminal justice system that sent thirteen innocent people to death row. And I've worked with friends in the other party to provide more children with health insurance and more working families with a tax break; to curb the spread of nuclear weapons and ensure that the American people know where their tax dollars are being spent; and to reduce the influence of lobbyists who have all too often set the agenda in Washington.

In our country, I have found that this cooperation happens not because we agree on everything, but because behind all the labels and false divisions and categories that define us; beyond all the petty bickering and point-scoring in Washington, Americans are a decent, generous, compassionate people, united by common challenges and common hopes. And every so often, there are moments which call on that fundamental goodness to make this country great again.

America, this is our moment. This is our time. Our time to turn the page on the policies of the past. Our time to bring new energy and new ideas to the challenges we face. Our time to offer a new direction for the country we love.

The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people. Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth. This was the moment – this was the time – when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals. Thank you, God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.

Jon Stewart has a humorous and insightful take on Tuesday night's events. It's pretty great. You can watch it here.