Dewey Defeats Truman!

In its lead editorial today, our great metropolitan daily (The Richmond Times-Dispatch for you out-of-towners), tried to explain Senator Clinton’s unexpected defeat of Senator Obama in the New Hampshire Democratic primary last week. As you know, before the vote the political polls indicated that Senator Obama would build on his Iowa caucuses victory by thrashing Senator Clinton in New Hampshire. All the political pundits were stunned by Senator Clinton’s seventy five hundred vote victory over Obama. How to explain it?

The TD tried to explain the upset by what it calls “The Wilder Effect.” It harkened back to the 1989 election for governor here in the Commonwealth. Before the election, the polls showed Democrat L. Douglas Wilder (African American) with a significant lead over Republican Marshall Coleman (Caucasian). On the day of the election, however, Mr. Wilder beat Mr. Coleman by a scant few thousand votes. “The Wilder Effect,” according to the TD, is the tendency of white voters to tell pollsters that they will vote for a black candidate although they do not really intend to do so. Presumably, these voters lie to the polls to avoid being perceived as racists. Only in the privacy of the voting booth will they reveal their true preferences.

Good try, TD, but I have a different explanation. The polls were just wrong. Way back when I was a wee lad, cutting my political teeth on a Democratic Party primary election in Brooklyn, USA, I learned the truth about polls, and it has nothing to do with race or ethnicity. The only poll that counts is the one on Election Day.

In 1965, the New York Democratic Party was choosing between two candidates for mayor—Sanitation Commissioner Paul Screvane and City Comptroller Abe Beam. I campaigned for Screvane going door-to-door in my neighborhood urging people to vote for him. On the night before the election, we sat around the Monroe Democratic Club celebrating our victory the following day. Why this premature party? The final polls on that Monday indicated that Screvane was going to beat Beam rather badly.

But, I forgot to tell you one key fact about the candidates. Paul Screvane was of Italian origin; Abe Beam was a Jew—the first Jew to run for mayor of New York. On Election Day, a funny thing happened. The Beam people hired a large number of busses and transported huge numbers of residents of Jewish senior residences to the polls to vote for Abe. Some came to the polls in wheel chairs; others actually on stretcher beds. Most of these older people hadn’t voted in years. Certainly the pollsters had not included them in their samples. So, on primary day, the Democratic electorate proved the pollsters wrong by choosing Abe Beam, rather than Paul Screvane as their candidate. I call this “The Abe Beam Effect,” or as Yogi Berra once said, “It ain’t over ’til it’s over.”

There is another “effect” that may explain the big New Hampshire upset. I will call this one “The We’re Gonna Teach Those Outsiders a Lesson Effect.” It was explained by a New Hampshire voter the day after the election. He said that people in New Hampshire are very independent and resent all the media and pollsters telling them how they are going to vote. He thought that a significant number of New Hampshire Democrats changed their vote from Obama to Clinton at the polls just to prove the political professionals wrong.

So what is the real reason that Hillary beat Barack in New Hampshire? Frankly dear reader, I don’t give a damn. The fact is that the polls were wrong and Clinton won. “The Guy with the Most Votes is the Winner Effect” triumphs again.

Throwing Down the Gauntlet

This maven has had enough of Doug Wilder’s war on the children of this city. According to the TD this morning, (http://www.inrich.com/content/cva/ric/news.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2008-01-12-0106.html) His Excellency is freezing 1.4 million dollars of school maintenance money because . . . well, because he feels like it. Mr. Wilder also threatens to reduce Richmond Public Schools' maintenance budget by 1.5 million for the next school year. I say enough is enough.

We, the citizens of Richmond, have watched this man war on RPS and on the School Board for his entire term as mayor. It is clear that Mr. Wilder is interested only in expanding his power. He cares nothing for Richmond’s children. If their schools need repairs, Doug replies “screw ‘em.” If the tiles are crumbling, if the basements are wet, if the ventilation is bad so the kids can’t get fresh air, if our school buildings are not accessible to disabled children, the answer is the same, “screw ‘em.” Yet, we the parents and grandparents of Richmond sit back and do nothing.

And let’s face it. The mayor is not the only public official in Richmond who says “screw ‘em” to our children. Our beloved City Council has re-imposed its funding freeze on RPS for at least another year. Fellow citizens, face the realities, a funding freeze is really a funding cut because costs are constantly going up. So, although other city spending goes up (all those increased assessments produced a big influx of revenue) our children continue to suffer. One of our councilpersons even has the audacity to call it “tough love.” Are our children acting so badly that we have to “tough love” them with budget cuts?

His Mayorship has convinced the City Council that RPS is over funded. He uses meaningless “cost-per-student” figures to “demonstrate” that RPS and the School Board must be wasting millions of dollars. However, cost-per-student comparisons are like comparing the proverbial apples and oranges. We in Richmond have to spend more per student on education than do our surrounding counties because we have a much higher concentration of children living in poverty than do any of the counties and therefore have to provide more services to our children.

We need to look at another comparison to see if we in Richmond are adequately funding our schools. Last year, using figures I gathered from the Internet, I put together a comparison of school spending as a percentage of a jurisdiction’s total operating budget. I found the following:

City of Richmond 26.1%
Chesterfield County 38%
Henrico County 54%
City of Norfolk 40.3%
City of Virginia Beach 48%

Clearly, Richmond is spending a far smaller percentage of its operating budget on schools than are these other jurisdictions. Not only do we spend less, we are heading in the wrong direction. The percentage of Richmond’s operating budget spent for schools is going down.

Fiscal year 2007 26.1%
Fiscal year 2008 25.03%
Fiscal year 2009 24.71%

Our mayor and our City Council are intent on starving our public schools. Who suffers? The children. And we, the parents and grandparents of Richmond say nothing.

I, for one, am tired of saying nothing. I am publicly announcing the year of our school children in 2008. I am determined to make the elections in November, both for mayor and City Council, turn on the issue of adequate funding for our schools. I am making it clear that I will not vote for or support for reelection either the mayor or any member of the City Council who refuses to provide a first class education for the people of our city. Here is my challenge:

Doug Wilder: I will not support you for reelection unless you stop your war against our children. You must support adequate funding for our public schools.

Kathy Graziano: I will not support you for reelection unless you provide adequate funding for our schools.

I invite all in our city who care about its future to join me in making this the year when we stop our public officials from depriving our school children:

Richmond Council of PTAs: Join me in demanding adequate funding for our schools;
Greater Richmond Chamber of Commerce: Join me in demanding adequate funding for our schools;
Richmond Education Association: Join me in demanding adequate funding for our schools;
Communities in Schools: Join me in demanding adequate funding for our schools;
Micah Initiative: Join me in demanding adequate funding for our schools;
Hope in the Cities: Join me in demanding adequate funding for our schools;
Friends of Fourth District Schools: Join me in demanding adequate funding for our schools.

Fellow citizens and taxpayers of the City of Richmond, we have to make our voices heard. Parents and grandparents we have to let our elected representatives know that we will no longer tolerate their continuous reduction in school funding. Go to the City Council’s website (http://www.ci.richmond.va.us/citizen/city_gov/council.aspx), find out who your councilperson is and write or e-mail to them your demand that they stop under funding our public schools.

Our leaders have been ignoring the needs of the children in this city for decades. Maybe their thinking is that because most of our school children are poor and black they don’t have to care about them. I have no doubt that if our public school children were predominantly white and middle class our school system would be world class.

Treasured reader, Richmond will never be a great city until we have great schools. It is that simple. Any of our elected officials who do not support our building a great school system do not deserve to be reelected. It’s really up to you. I think these politicians will continue to under fund our schools until you go to the voting machine and demand that they stop.

Watch Your Language, W

President W’s speech in Ramallah, as reported in today’s TD, again shows why it is crucial that our next president not be someone who is a foreign policy virgin and does not like to read. Mr. Bush, who didn’t even know the Middle East existed until September 11, 2001, and whose only interaction with it since has been the invasion of Iraq, has now decided to rescue his legacy by brokering a resolution to the century-long war between Jews and Arabs in the territory west of the Jordan River valley. And, Mr. Bush has made it clear that he expects the whole nasty mess to be over before he leaves office on January 20 of next year.

Unfortunately, Mr. Bush’s continued lack of foreign policy ability shows in his choice of words. As quoted in the TD, Mr. Bush said:

“There should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967. . .These negotiations must ensure that Israel has secure, recognized, and defensible borders. And they must ensure that the state of Palestine is viable, contiguous, sovereign, and independent.”

Mr. Bush’s statement is chock-full of poorly chosen words. If Mr. Bush were not a neophyte, he would know that to the Arab world “an end to the occupation that began in 1967” means a return to the armistice boundaries that were in place from 1948 until May of 1967. Such boundaries, as demonstrated during the 19 years year before 1967 did not constitute “defensible borders” for Israel. Moreover, merely by using the word “occupation,” Mr. Bush is impliedly accepting the Arab world historical view that the 1967 war was an unprovoked war of conquest by the Israelis.

It is not at all clear how Mr. Bush would provide for his “viable, contiguous, sovereign, and independent” Palestinian state. If Mr. Bush had looked at a map of the land west of the Jordan he would have realized that Gaza and the West Bank, the two areas that presumably will make up the Palestinian state, are separated by a significant portion of the State of Israel. When he calls for a “contiguous” Palestinian state, does Mr. Bush really mean that the two separate areas of the state must somehow be physically united?

Mr. Bush’s language, in fact his entire diplomatic initiative, reveals that after seven years as our CINC he still doesn’t understand. Mr. Bush seems to have fallen for the propaganda line that if only the “Palestinian Issue” can be resolved by the creation of a Palestinian state there will be eternal peace in the Middle East. If Israel and Palestine can only beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks, then
1- Osama bin Laden will make a “mission accomplished” speech, will call off his war against western civilization, and al Qaeda will disband;
2- Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will abandon his country’s uranium enrichment activities, will invite the Pope for a reconciliation meeting and will celebrate Passover with Israeli Prime Minister Olmert in Jerusalem;
3- All the factions in Iraq will disarm and will hold a “we’re so glad you’re here” party for American troops; and
4- Hezbollah, Hamas, and all the other Islamic terrorists will throw down their weapons; truly the wolf will lie with the lamb.

If only W had done a little reading, he would have known that there could have been a Palestinian state way back in 1948. The United Nations partition resolution called for the creation of both a Jewish and an Arab state in British mandated Palestine. Rather than establishing that state, the Arab leadership decided instead to try to destroy the infant Jewish state—Israel—with disastrous results for the Arabs living in Palestine.

For the next 19 years there could have been a Palestinian state. Instead, Egypt annexed Gaza, Jordan annexed the West Bank, and the Arab world continued its war of extermination against Israel. Even after the 1967 war, when Israeli troops were deployed from the Suez Canal to the Golan Heights, Israel offered to return land in exchange for peace. The response of the Arab world was “no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it . . .”

So, I’m not sure why Mr. Bush thinks that by being “a pain if I need to be a pain” he will bring about peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians in the brief 12 months (plus) that he has left as president. As the TD pointed out yesterday in its editorial Permanent War,

“Presidents, secretaries of state, and designated negotiators have tried to make Arab-Israeli peace their legacy. The Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded to encourage progress. Hopeful signs arise only to crash. The fundamentals have not changed—and may not change for additional centuries of scarlet violence.”

The TD concludes that Mr. Bush’s peace diplomacy will fail as have all previous presidential attempts to end the Arab-Israeli war.

I am not willing to be as pessimistic as is the TD. I hope that before I depart this world I will see at least a perpetual state of non-war between Israel and its neighbors. But I’m afraid it will take more than W and his twelve month deadline to bring it about. In fact, I’m afraid that his choice of words at Ramallah may have made it tougher to bring about that solution now.

Oh Bill, Tell Me It Isn’t So!

This maven is feeling very sad. I just received an e-mail from New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson telling me that he is indeed dropping out of the presidential race. This is after the voters in our thirtieth and fortieth largest states have expressed their opinions. This is when less than 5% of the delegates to the Democratic convention have been chosen. I know that Richardson finished fourth in both those states, but we have only heard from a few hundred thousand voters. How can the governor quit when only so few people have spoken?

What makes me sad is that Bill Richardson is (was) hands down the most qualified person in either party running for the presidency. He had legislative experience, having served several terms in the United States Congress. He was a diplomat, culminating in him serving as this country’s ambassador to the United Nations. (When President W needed someone to negotiate with the North Koreans to get back the remains of our Korean War dead, he sent Bill Richardson). He was United States Secretary of Energy, which not only required him to manage a big bureaucracy, but also had him dealing with both energy and nuclear weapons issues. Most recently he has served with distinction as the governor of a growing southwestern state. The credentials of Senator Clinton pale in comparison with those of Bill Richardson; senators Obama and Edwards don’t even appear on the same page.

So, if Bill Richardson is so qualified how come he attracted so little support? I’ll give you a few reasons—
1- The media didn’t take his candidacy seriously. Therefore they didn’t give him much coverage, which made it harder for him to attract support and money.
2- The media didn’t think he could win. Therefore they applied all their resources to covering the “first tier” of candidates—Clinton, Edwards and Obama. Most of the voters probably didn’t realize they had a choice other than the “first tier.”
3- Bill Richardson is not a sexy candidate. He is shortish and roundish and speaks just like you and me. He doesn’t wear thousand dollar suits or five hundred dollar hairstyles. On the debate stage he was hardly noticeable. Frankly, he looked a little messy just like you and me. He sort of reminded me of Harry Truman, who never could have been elected to any office in our television-Internet age.
4- Bill Richardson is not a great orator. Nobody could confuse him with Barack Obama. In our times, when style is so much more important than substance, Bill Richardson looked sort of like a burned out star on the stage with Super Novas.
5- (That’s enough. Only David Letterman can always think of ten reasons.)

Bill Richardson’s presidential demise points out all that is wrong with how we choose our candidates. The process is overly long, favoring those who can raise the big bucks. The process puts far too much emphasis on the early vote in the small states. Why should we allow a few hundred thousand voters in Iowa and New Hampshire have so much power? In many instances, it is the media, not the voters, who really choose the candidates. By deciding who to give coverage to and who to ignore, our friends at ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, CNN have a far greater say in who wins than the people who go to the polls or caucuses.

In his e-mail Bill Richardson urged his supporters to pick one of the remaining candidates and to support him or her. For me this will not be easy. Frankly, I do not have a great deal of confidence in the abilities of senators Clinton, Edwards or Obama to be elected in November. I have lived long enough to know that the Democratic Party always finds a way to stare into the jaws of victory and snatch defeat by picking a candidate that cannot win.

So, what am I going to do on February 12, when we in the Old Dominion finally get our say? I think I’m going to go to the front of the voting machine (we no longer have a booth for privacy) and I am going to vote for the person on the ballot most qualified to be president. That will still be Bill Richardson.

I’m Sorry Mr. Obama—No You Can’t

"I sincerely believe... that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale."
Thomas Jefferson, 1816

I’m sure you all got goose bumps from Senator Barack Obama’s “Yes We Can” not-quite-a-concession speech last night. Some compared it to John F. Kennedy or Bill Clinton. But to me, with the cadence and the Baptist preacher resonance, Mr. Obama’s “Yes We Can” sounded a little like Dr. Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream.” In any event, it was a thrilling speech and it left Mr. Obama’s supporters determined to capture and change our government.

I’m afraid, however, that Mr. Obama is raising hopes in his supporters and is making promises he cannot possibly fulfill. And it’s not just Obama. All of the candidates for president are likewise encouraging us to believe that they are going to end poverty, that they will provide universal health care, that they will cut taxes for the middle class, that they will do all kinds of wonderful things to bring “change” to this country. Unfortunately, just chanting “Yes We Can” will not change the reality that we can’t do most of what the candidates are preaching because we just can’t afford it.

Last night I went to the Department of the Treasury’s website and learned that our Federal Government is in debt to the tune of $9,199,557,987,743.58. In plain words, we owe nine trillion, one hundred ninety nine billion, five hundred fifty seven million, nine hundred eighty seven thousand, seven hundred forty three dollars and fifty eight cents. I don’t know about you, but despite my experience and expertise I am unable to contemplate nine trillion dollars. I don’t think that I have ever carried more than two hundred bucks in my wallet at one time. Let’s just say that nine trillion is a bit more than that. In the words of the immortal Everett Dirksen, we are talking about real money.

What is the result of this enormous debt? Each year our government pays over two hundred twenty billion dollars in interest. Do you have any idea of how much health care we could buy for $220,000,000,000? Can you imagine how many times we could fly to the moon? Think of how many of our children we could send to college for free. Let your mind drift and imagine what we could accomplish with those two hundred twenty billion dollars. Yet, that is the amount we will pay this year and every year just to pay interest on our debt. It is money for which we will get nothing.

And just in case you think that debt is going away, keep in mind that we have trillions of dollars of unfunded promises that we are going to have to pay to our citizens in the next twenty years. Everybody expects Medicare to be there for them. Everybody expects that Social Security will be there for them. Where, I ask, is the money going to come from? Are there enough governments, corporations and individuals in the world who will want to continue lending us money in the future to pay the amount of our yearly commitments? Or, will we need massive tax increases to keep our government solvent. Or, is it possible that the United States of America will end up defaulting on its debt?

Have you heard any candidate even hint at our debt crisis? No! You can’t make promises to get yourself elected if you admit that the government can’t afford what your are promising. Republicans don’t want to talk about the debt because a Republican president and a Republican congress have increased our debt by almost three and a half trillion dollars since January 20, 2001. Democrats don’t want to talk about the debt because to admit the crisis would dampen all their plans.

So, we just go on with business as usual and celebrate when our annual deficit gets lower than two hundred billion dollars. Nobody plans for a way to bring our debt under control. Nobody talks about the real sacrifices we will have to endure over the next several years.

Each year that our government operates at a deficit, we are levying a tax of the amount of that deficit on our grandchildren. None of the Bush tax cuts were real cuts; they were just tax deferrals to be paid some day in the future, when you and I are dead.

Is there any way out? Well, it won’t be nearly as easy as it would have been had the Bush Administration continued the debt reduction strategies worked out by the Clinton Administration and the Republican-controlled House of Representatives in the late 1990s. There is still time to act, although it will not be painless. We need to increase taxes. We need to restructure all our entitlement programs to reduce the unpayable promises we have made.

So what do you and I do? First we need to get more information. We need to go to the Fiscal Wake-up Tour by the Government Accountability Office (http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/longterm/wakeuptour.html). We then need to start asking the hard questions of all the presidential candidates. While we’re at it we need to start asking the same questions of our federal senators and representatives. We owe it to our grandchildren.

There does not exist an engine so corruptive of the government and so demoralizing of the nation as a public debt. It will bring on us more ruin at home than all the enemies from abroad…
Thomas Jefferson, 1821

Give Me a Break!

(Parental discretion is advised. The maven is going to use the “O” word).

I’m sorry. I just don’t get it. Did I sleep through a whole year? Was tonight the election? Have we elected the next president? The media pundits and commentators and news anchors were so excited about the New Hampshire primary that I was afraid we would be watching mass multiple orgasms right on our TV screens.

What was all the panting and moaning about? Well, it seems that Senator John McCain and Senator Hillary Clinton pulled off the greatest comebacks in political history. I mean, just last week, everybody was writing them off as politically dead and now they have been reborn. We have rarely seen such political miracles. Hillary actually received about 95,000 votes. McCain got about 75,000. You heard me loyal reader. Those are not millions those are thousands.

Yes, the media world is going absolutely insane over a very small number of votes. New Hampshire, that wonderful Granite State, is the home for 1,314,895 people according to 2006 census estimates. In population it is the 40th largest state in this country. And a primary election in our 40th largest state is causing mass media hysteria. Only about 250,000 people voted in the Democratic primary. For the Republicans it was about 200,000 people who voted. Yet, the winning candidates and the media wizards would have you and I believe that political history was made today.

And, all of this comes only five days after equally momentous political history was made further to the west. On last Thursday, an equally small number of voters in Iowa created almost equal excitement by delivering victories for Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Mike Huckabee. (I hope you haven’t forgotten those names from last week’s monumental political earthquake). As for Iowa, it is inhabited by 2,982,085 people according to 2006 census data. That makes it the 30th largest state by population.

Two weeks. Two “historic” votes. Each is more significant than the other. The excitement from each is almost unbearable.

Now, we are moving on to Nevada (2006 population 2,495,529-ranked 35) and South Carolina (2006 population 4,321,249-ranked 24). I assume that those two small state primaries will be equally historic. I really don’t know how our poor pundits and commentators and anchors will be able to keep their excitement level so high week after week. They might not have anything left for the primaries on February 5, which may actually be historic.

Keith, It’s All About The Kids

When I was a lad in the 1950s, we used to play stickball at our local school yard. We weren’t exactly affluent—one kid would bring a Spaldeen (a high-bouncing pink rubber ball made by Spalding Company), one would bring a stickball bat (a specially made thicker-than-normal broomstick with tape wrapped around one end for a better grip). We all wanted to win, but we also had a basic sense of fairness. So, if the player who just struck out complained that he hadn’t been ready for the pitch we’d grant him a “do-over” in the spirit of justice and having a good time. Being kids, however, sometimes our urge to win prevailed over everything else and we’d forget about do-overs and we would argue about the rules or about whether a hit was fair or foul. Not infrequently we would get so caught up in the argument that one of us would simply leave the game and go home. Unless it was the kid who brought the bat or the Spaldeen, the rest of us kept playing. But, the way I remember, it wasn’t as much fun playing one person short.

These episodes of school yard athletics popped into my head this morning as I read Olympia Meola’s story in the TD about the School Board meeting yesterday. As I mentioned in my previous post there was this little skirmish between George Braxton and Keith West over who would chair the board for the next year. Of course, if I had been reading some of my fellow bloggers, I would have known that this was a major battle and that there were some pretty strong feelings about whether or not to keep Braxton for another year. Well, as the TD article pointed out, the board reelected George Braxton. And, to my great disappointment, Keith West acted like one of those kids from my youth. He announced to his colleagues that he just wasn’t going to play any more. He will not run for reelection to his board seat next year. More important, he will not work on implementing the board’s “New Direction,” which he did so much to bring into existence. Instead, Keith will spend his time trying to recruit candidates suitable to him to run for election to the board at November’s election.

Come on, Keith! Swallow your ego and get on with the job that 7th District voters elected you to do. Although I didn’t pay any attention to your election campaign (not living in your district), I don’t imagine that you won by promising your constituents that you would work hard for the children of the city but only if you got your way. Governing our schools is a task that the laws of the Commonwealth entrust to a board, not to an individual. As in any kind of governing body, it takes a majority to make a decision. This is one of those unfortunate facts about a republican form of government. It’s messy. It’s slow. A dictatorship is always more efficient. But, most of us think that a republic is the way to go.

Keith, this is not about you. This is not about George Braxton. It is about the children of Richmond. If you really care about them, finish the job you started. If New Direction was your baby, you need to stay around and nurture it and watch it grow. You can’t just take your Spaldeen and go home.

Chairing the School Board

Last year, when I read that my School Board representative George Braxton was seeking the chair of the board, I felt like calling him and advising him not to do it. I knew that in Doug Wilder’s Richmond the chair of the board would become the lightening rod absorbing all those thunderbolts from City Hall. I knew that, because Mayor Doug cannot tolerate any independent thinkers with authority in our fair city, the chair of the board would also be subject to very personal attacks from His Excellency. I was afraid that if George took the job he would get burnt out from all the political battles that he would have to fight. However, although I consider George Braxton a friend, I didn’t feel that our relationship was close enough for me to offer him that kind of advice.

Well, dear reader, it is a year later and I read in the TD this weekend that 7th District board member Keith West is challenging George Braxton for the position of chair. And, again I feel like calling George and advising him that if Keith really wants the job he should step aside and let him have it. Let Keith deal with all the fireworks from the mayor. Let Keith deal with all the politics. Let Keith deal with all the stress that goes with the job. Let Keith experience the lack of gratitude that George must feel.

But, then I started thinking. If George Braxton is replaced as School Board chair by Keith West, Doug Wilder will consider it a personal victory. And, knowing His Excellency, I assume that the mayor will publicly gloat over getting rid of that pesky George Braxton. Also, if the board does not retain George Braxton as its chair, it would be interpreted by the public as a repudiation of all that George and they have accomplished since last year. This would not be good for the city or for all our children

So, even though I think that George’s physical and mental health would be better served by him not serving another year as chair, I am not going to make that call. I think that the needs of Richmond Public Schools must come first in my thinking. George, if you read this, I think you really have to stay on and finish the job that you started last year. (My apology to Kelly and the kids.)

Choosing the President: It’s the Media, Dummy

According to the Associated Press, ABC News has excluded Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel from its New Hampshire Democratic Party presidential debate. Apparently, neither the Ohio Representative nor the former Alaska Senator meet the network’s criteria for inclusion. ABC has determined that only senators Obama and Clinton, former Senator Edwards and New Mexico Governor Richardson can possibly win the Democratic Party nomination.

On the Thursday evening NBC News this week, anchor Brian Williams and Washington bureau chief Tim Russert were discussing the Iowa Caucuses that were about to start. After discussing the campaigns of Democrats Obama, Clinton and Edwards, and Republicans Romney and Huckabee, the two began to talk about the “second tier” of candidates. Somehow the issue came up of the role of the media in reducing these candidates to also-rans. Williams and Russert recognized that the candidates that raised the most money, and were thus able to run the most extensive campaigns, were the ones that received the greatest coverage from NBC News. Russert indicated that the campaigns of the “second tier” candidates complained to him that they weren’t getting adequate coverage from the media. Russert acknowledged that they might be right but added that it was, in effect, their own faults for not doing a better job selling their candidates.*

Loyal reader, we have a serious problem with the process by which we choose party nominees. The media, both print and broadcast, give extensive coverage to certain candidates. Those candidates, with this free publicity, are then able to raise significant amounts of money and gain recognition and support from the public (whoever the “public” may be). Those unfortunate candidates who do not win favor with the media do not get this free publicity. Therefore, they are not as effective in raising campaign money and in gaining recognition and support from the public. And, wouldn’t you know it, the early public opinion polls show that those candidates who received the free publicity from the media happen to be scoring better. Now, these candidates are the front runners, or “first tier,” and the media gives them even more free attention. All this has a multiplier effect and, in the words of the late Ray Charles, “them that’s got are them that gets.”

Look at this year’s Democratic contest, which as we know started last year at about this time. The media began salivating with the creation of exploratory committees by senators Clinton and Obama. One candidate was the first woman to launch a serious presidential campaign. Further, she was the wife of a former president. The other candidate was the first black man to launch a serious presidential campaign. (My apologies to Reverend Jackson.) And he was someone who was a virtual unknown as recently as 2004. These were great stories and the media gave them all the coverage they could. And, when other candidates got into the race they didn’t receive nearly the same coverage as Hillary and Barack. After all, a few old senators, a southwestern governor and a perennial candidate from Ohio just didn’t have the news sex appeal of Clinton against Obama. With all that free publicity, who raised the most campaign money? You got it—Clinton and Obama. With all that free publicity, who could put together the best campaign organizations? Again—Clinton and Obama.

Sorry senators Biden and Dodd! Sorry ex-Senator Gravel! Sorry Governor Richardson! Sorry Representative Kucinich! We the media have decided that you just don’t have the glamour necessary to be a viable candidate. Sure, one of you just might be the candidate best qualified to be president. That doesn’t matter. We have determined that the American electorate is just not sophisticated enough to judge among so many candidates. It will be so much easier for them to choose from just three.

I don’t know about you, but I get real upset when the media decides for me which individuals are viable candidates for president. I have checked the Constitution and I can find no reference to the role of the media in our election process. In this country the media have a tremendous responsibility to report completely and accurately. This applies especially to the broadcast media because we the people have granted them the use of the airwaves from which they make their profits. Yet the media revel in their power to be king makers. They are not particularly bothered by questions of objectivity or fairness. Unfortunately, they will continue to wield this power to choose for us until we demand that they stop.


*I apologize for this rather sketchy description of the Williams-Russert discussion. I went to the MSNBC website to view that discussion again. Unfortunately, the video of that Thursday night report seems to be missing.

Why Pay More Taxes for More Roads?

Who says that procrastination doesn’t pay off? If I had written this yesterday, when I first read about the proposed regional transportation authority, I would have had to write (and you to read) a seriously long piece. Fortunately, this morning, TD columnist Bart Hinkle wrote most of what I was thinking. (http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/opinion/oped.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2008-01-04-0027.html). Therefore, this will be relatively short.

In case you missed it, my very own delegate, Frank Hall, has proposed that the General Assembly create for us a regional transportation authority. (To be honest, it wasn’t all Frank’s fault. I think the very same chamber of commerce that brought us the Crupi Report is really the source of this proposal). The purpose of the authority would be to fund and implement transportation solutions for the central Virginia region that the General Assembly won’t fund. Projects would be paid for by issuing bonds. The bonds would be paid off by taxing and feeing residents of the region over $100,000,000 per year.

(By waiting until today to write this, I learned where this money is coming from. According to today’s TD, this is the way we will pay: 1- additional yearly $10 registration fee per car; 2- new car registration fee of 1% of vehicle’s value; 3- additional $10 vehicle inspection fee; 4-additional 5% sale on vehicle repairs and service; 5- regional congestion fee of 0.4% on real estate sales; 6- additional 2% sales tax on fuel; and 7- new 2% rental car fee.)

The area to be covered by the proposed authority would include nine jurisdictions, the cities of Richmond, Petersburg, Hopewell and Colonial Heights, and the counties of Chesterfield, Henrico, Hanover, Dinwiddie and Prince George. The authority would consist of the chairs of the boards of supervisors or the mayors of the jurisdictions involved, plus a business representative from each jurisdiction.

As Bart Hinkle pointed out, the transportation authority proposal is flawed because “it calcifies current thinking,” and because “IT IMPEDES progress toward new solutions (his emphasis).” The Hall-chamber of commerce thinking is locked into the idea that if roads are too crowded more roads are needed to fix the problem.

This kind of thinking is exemplified by a statement attributed to Greater Richmond Chamber of Commerce (GRCC) President James Dunn in yesterday’s TD. According to the TD,

“He [Dunn] said the area has extensive transportation needs, including widening Interstate 64 east of Richmond, extending the Powhite Parkway and improving Hull Street Road in Chesterfield as well as better regional mass transit.”

I guess I should be happy that Mr. Dunn added mass transit as an afterthought to his “more roads” philosophy. However, when a business leader, who could be a member of the regional authority some day, lists road projects as the area’s greatest transportation needs, it is clear that the business community is "calcified” (thanks Bart for that great word) into outmoded thinking.

What should be obvious to anyone who pays even a little attention to our local growth pattern is that we are stuck in a cycle. It sort of goes like this:
1- We build or improve roads to solve or avoid a real or expected traffic problem;
2- The new or improved road encourages extensive new commercial and residential development;
3- The new development draws tens of thousands of new residents and businesses, which puts an equal number of additional cars on the new or improved road;
4- The result is a new, probably worse, traffic problem; and
5- The solution is—we again must build or improve the roads.

A perfect example of this is the construction of route 288. Route 288 was a road project that went from a nowhere point on Interstate 95 in Chesterfield County to a nowhere point on Interstate 64 in Goochland County crossing a virtually unpopulated stretch of Chesterfield County. Virginia taxpayers paid hundreds of millions of dollars to build this highway. When built, this western bypass of Richmond could hope to carry perhaps a hundred motorists a day routed from points south to Charlottesville. Did we spend hundreds of millions of dollars for these few voyagers? No! Route 288 was built to create development opportunities along every road that intersected its proposed path. The result is ten of thousands of new homes, thousands of new businesses and many thousands of new cars (just think of all that additional carbon dioxide being emitted). And, what a surprise, one of Mr. Dunn’s pet projects in Chesterfield—the improvement of Hull Street Road—is necessary only because route 288 caused such a growth explosion at its interchange with that street.

I am a resident of the City of Richmond. I see no reason why I should agree to increased taxes and fees to pay for improvements to Powhite Parkway, Hull Street Road and Interstate 64. Aside from the rather selfish fact that I rarely drive on those roads, I object to these road improvements because they will add to rather than fix our transportation problems.

Mr. Hall and GRCC: Go back to the drawing board. Come up with a transportation authority that is mandated to design, fund and construct a regional mass transportation system. We don’t need no stinking highways!

Your Final Warning

This gotta be my lucky day. At first I was really annoyed. First, I went to the store without my shopping list. Then, I found it impossible to find a trash can that is the right size for those white kitchen trash bags. When I finally had my shopping cart full, I faced many long check-out lines. I quickly looked to see if any lines were shorter, but soon faced the reality that whichever line I picked would turn out to be the slowest.

So here I am with at least twenty minutes to kill. There is only so much I can think of saying to the woman in front of me. We commiserated on the long lines and that was it. I started looking at the tabloids and magazines. I read about which celebrities are hooking up and those that are unhooking. I found out who is the father of Jamie Lynn Spear’s little bundle of joy. Or maybe not (he is denying the whole thing, or at least the pregnancy part. “How could she be pregnant? We only did it once and it didn’t take that long.”) I read about the water remedy for belly fat (I have been constantly drinking since I got home, but I still have to bend over to see my toes.) Then I saw it.

It was this week’s issue of the “Sun.” As I remember from the movie “Men in Black,” the Sun is one of the most reliable sources of news on the planet, so I really take it seriously. On the front page there was a large statue of Jesus with his arms raised. Then there was the big headline,

“2008—The Year All Final Prophesies Come True”

Wow!

Then there was another headline, which read,

“Armageddon—Where The Final Battle Will Be Fought”

And another headline,

“Apocalypse—5 Signs The End Is Near”

And finally,

“Second Coming Is Sooner Than You Think”

And I thought this was just an ordinary day. I go to the store for some ordinary stuff and I come home with the bad (or good, if you're a fundamentalist) news that everything is nearly over. Now, I don’t have to worry about the Iowa Caucuses. I don’t care any more whether global warming is real (I can replace those mini-fluorescents with some REAL bulbs and see again). I don’t even have to worry that I will outlive all my ancestors and develop Alzheimer’s. Because, it ain't gonna last too much longer.

So dear friends, I am passing on this last notice to you. Do what you will with this knowledge. You might consider making New Year’s resolution that will not take a full year to fulfill. You also might want to get around to all those home maintenance chores that you’ve been putting off for "next week." Or, you might want to go to your local store, buy the Sun and read the other article highlighted on page 1:

“7 Miracle Foods to Add Years to Your Life”

Something Is Rotten In The Old Dominion

I humbly apologize. I have a responsibility to keep you informed on critical issues and I let you down. Although I touched briefly on an alarming development in the Commonwealth in my “Shame” posts about the election campaign of soon-to-be Delegate Manoli Loupassi, as soon as the election was over I dropped the ball. Then I read an article in today’s (December 23) Washington Post that announced the formation of “Save the Old Dominion,” a new umbrella group organized to lobby our General Assembly to enact legislation to further marginalize illegal aliens in Virginia. What a burst to the Christmas spirit of good will toward man. Save the Old Dominion, and its rival Help Save Virginia (along with such local groups as Help Save Manasssas, Help Save Fairfax, Help Save Loudon, Help Save Hampton Roads, Help Protect Culpeper and Save Stafford) are making it clear that Christian love this season only applies to citizens and those who are in this country with permission.

All these “help save” groups have me wondering. Just what do Virginia, the Old Dominion and all the localities need to be saved from? What exactly is the terrible danger to peace, justice and the American way? I know that we have been in dire straights before. During the American Revolution, British troops invaded Virginia, occupied Richmond, and chased Governor Jefferson beyond Charlottesville. Those were dark days; everybody suffered; but we survived. During the 1860s, either because of a rash decision to secede from the Union or, if you prefer, because of a northern invasion, our fair Commonwealth was devastated. Those were even darker days; thousands died; our economic infrastructure was destroyed; but we survived. What is the calamity that faces Virginia now in the 21st Century? It must be terribly grave to cause this outburst of savior groups.

Here it is friends: We’ve been invaded by “them”—illegal aliens. And, they’re much more dangerous than were either the British or Yankee armies. We knew who the British were; they were dressed in red. We knew who the Yankees were; they were dressed in blue. How do you identify this new enemy? Because they have no army, they wear no uniforms. They could even be living right on your block and you wouldn’t know it. Fortunately, there is one tell-tale sign that enables us to identify them—the vast majority of them speak Spanish.

What exactly is it that “them” has done that makes them so dangerous? They may have violated section 1325 of title 8 of the United States Code by entering into the country at a time or place other than that designated by immigrations offers or by eluding examination or inspection by immigrations officers. (I say “may” because in our jurisprudence we have this inconvenient presumption that those accused of crime are presumed innocent until proven guilty). The Congress has shown how serious it considers this crime by designating a penalty of a fine and/or imprisonment of up to six months for a first offense. First time offenders are also subject to a civil penalty of between fifty and two hundred fifty dollars for each violation. In addition, of course, offenders are subject to deportation.

The crime of which our new “enemy” may be guilty is not exactly in the category of murder or rape or marketing drugs or espionage or treason or stuff like that. They have simply crossed our border without permission. Don’t get me wrong, I do not condone violation of the law. If our legislature, whether the Congress, the General Assembly or the Richmond City Council, prohibits certain behavior I expect the law to be enforced. When people “get away” with violating the law, the law is held in disrespect, which is very dangerous for our society. On the other hand we have to keep this illegal alien thing in perspective. Aliens who have entered our country illegally are not, for the most part, dangerous felons.

I have no objection to a group of people who press for enforcement of the federal law. I don’t even object to a group that lobbies, fairly, for legislation that its members believe will benefit all the residents of Virginia. However, the “help save” groups go dangerously far in their crusade to purge the Old Dominion of illegal aliens. Let’s start with their names. Just by using “Save Virginia” or “Save the Old Dominion” (or any of the other saves) these groups are strongly suggesting that civilized society is seriously jeopardized by the mere presence of illegal aliens. You don’t need to save something unless it is seriously threatened with destruction. Thus, the savior groups are making clear their belief that illegal aliens are a real menace that must be stopped.

Further, the language the “help save” groups use is inflammatory. It tends to build strong anger not only against illegal aliens but against all Spanish speakers. I quote to you from the December issue of “The Front Line,” the publication of Help Save Manassas (Parental discretion is advised):

“Through a misguided attempt to promote multi-cultural awareness, our wonderful American traditions now find themselves under assault. Recently, we witnessed such an assault right here in Manassas at the annual Christmas parade. Do your fond memories of childhood include having someone dressed up as the devil in a Mexican dance troupe lunge out and frighten you? Probably not. Do you remember seeing the Mexican Flag displayed during a parade, promoting the tribalism of national origin over the unity of our American heritage? Seeing the devil marching in a Christmas parade is bizarre enough. But injecting a Mexican harvest ritual into Manassas’ sixty-two-year-old, all-American, traditional celebration of the Christmas season, represents a not-so-subtle attempt to introduce a political agenda. This so-called diversity, which the few seek to impose on the many, is in reality a dis-unifying deed. It can lead nowhere but to tribalism, a Balkanization of our community and nation, where we no longer share a common heritage, but are simply members of various tribes, briefly coming together to compete for America’s bounty.
* * * *
“Will we defend our culture from those who seek to change it to suit the needs of the ‘tribe of the week?’ If not, we risk losing those traditions that bind us together as a community and as Americans. If we reach the point where being American is redefined and reduced into the meaningless oblivion of being a ‘world citizen,’ we will soon find ourselves wandering down the broken road which other nations have already traveled, squandering their unifying, commonly shared values and beliefs. At the end of that road, only civil strife and death await us.

“We are obliged to defend our embattled culture before we inexorably veer off onto that destructive path. But we fight on many fronts. Whether our battle is combating the ‘press one for English’ insanity, or preventing the pollution of our longstanding cultural traditions with pagan harvest rituals from Mexico in our Christmas celebrations, we must engage in the struggle.”

Another article in “The Front Line” reads,

Unfortunately, the illegal alien problem is dramatically diminishing the stability and security of the American neighborhood. Numerous homes once occupied by “known quantities,” fellow Americans we knew or could at least identify with on many levels, are now being re-placed en masse by foreigners, many of whom are here illegally. The quaint rambler next door once owned by Mr. and Mrs. Smith may now be bursting at the seams with day laborers or multiple families of questionable legal status. In many cases, the occupants do not even speak our native language. Who are they? Do they have a criminal record? Could there be sex offenders among them? Are they all here to work or are some escaping the law of their ‘home countries? We can no longer be sure, and our needed sense of security fades.

The Front Line” is filled with photographs supposedly showing how the undesirables have ruined countless neighborhoods by their intolerable life styles. The message is clear, if we don’t get rid of this scum, your house will be next.

In my November 3 post I stated, “Marginalizing people leads to considering them less than human. This can lead eventually to such nice things as internment camps and even genocide.” Yesterday I warned about the dangers of our inborn xenophobia that can lead any of us to carry out terrible actions against “the other” to protect “us.” Unfortunately, the hate preached by Help Save Manassas creates the potential for violence against those they declare to be undesirable.

Oh, come on, maven! You are exaggerating. This is a good Christian country and no matter what rhetoric is used we’re not going to do terrible things to people even if they are not part of “us”. In the words of Sinclair Lewis, “It Can’t Happen Here.”

How foolish of me. What was I thinking? Clearly we are not the people who kept African Americans in a state of bondage for nearly two hundred fifty years. We are also not the people who waged over two hundred years of genocidal war against the American Indians. Certainly, we are not the people who expelled American citizens of Japanese ancestry from their homes and kept them in concentration camps during World War II. We are Americans; we would NEVER treat our fellow humans so badly.

Hate is contagious. Once it spreads in a community, that community is in danger of breaking down. Today it’s the “help save” groups preaching hate against illegal aliens. Tomorrow the hate may be directed at others. The continued success of our Commonwealth requires that we not only tolerate but accept our differences. People like those who write “The Front Line” threaten the domestic tranquility of the Old Dominion. We cannot allow them to prevail.

The Virginia Holocaust Museum at 10

The Richmond Times-Dispatch published my letter this morning. However, the editors made some changes that subtracted from the message I was trying to convey. Further, since there may be some people outside the publishing range of our great metropolitan daily who read my rantings, I shall exercise my editorial discretion and publish the whole thing.

"Thank you for your editorial today, “An Anniversary,” acknowledging the important work being done by the Virginia Holocaust Museum. However, by prefacing your congratulations with several paragraphs describing current instances of anti-Jewish sentiment in the world, you portray the Nazi Holocaust and the ten years of work by the Museum as exclusively Jewish issues. They are not.

"Certainly the event we call the Holocaust was a disaster of unprecedented proportions for the Jewish people. Approximately six million Jews, including more than one and a half million children, were murdered by the German Nazi regime and its allies. It is also alarming that today so many people still express such animosity toward Jews. However, the Holocaust was a disaster for others in Nazi-controlled Europe. Millions of other “undesirables”—Gypsies, Jehovah’s Witnesses, homosexuals, mentally or physically handicapped—were murdered by the Nazis.

"In addition to being a Jewish issue, the Holocaust is a Christian issue. It is an unfortunate fact that the many thousands who participated directly in the murders and the millions of bystanders who either watched without protest or cheered the elimination of the Jews from their area of Europe were born and raised as Christians. Christians today must still address the question of how worshippers of a God of Love could have acted with such hatred towards Jews and others.

"The Holocaust is still an ongoing issue for the whole world. It is another unfortunate fact that since the end of World War II millions of defenseless humans have been “eliminated” by various regimes throughout the world in the interest of racial or ethnic or religious or political purity. We need to recognize that either through evolution or by intelligent design we humans are a very violent species. We have been endowed by our creator, or by the accident of natural selection, with a very powerful sense of xenophobia. This allows us to carry out rather nasty acts against “them” in defense of “us.”

"Finally, the Holocaust is an issue for you and me. Another of those unfortunate facts is that most of the Nazi murderers were “normal” people. How is it that someone can machinegun or shove hundreds of people into execution chambers during the day and then go home and have a normal dinner that night? It is very comforting to think that only very evil people can commit such terrible crimes. However, history shows that under certain circumstances ordinary people like you and I can be persuaded to perpetrate acts of unspeakable cruelty against our fellow humans."

You may ask, why this waste of bits and bytes when anyone can read the edited letter in the TD? Maven, is your ego so big that you can’t tolerate a little editing?

I must confess that my ego often is too big for my own good. But, this is not just a matter of the pride of authorship. The TD version misses some important issues I was trying to address.

First, the TD left out the next-to-last paragraph, highlighted above. We, as humans, especially with the power and sophistication of our weapons systems, need to realize that we have been programmed to defend our own tribe against the “other.” Perhaps, hundreds of thousands of years ago, this trait helped our ancestors to survive. In the 20th and 21st centuries, however, this inborn xenophobia (Fear and hatred of foreigners—Webster’s English Dictionary), has led to the brutal murders of tens of millions of our fellow humans. We need to know that all of us have inherited this trait and must guard against demagogic leaders who exploit this trait by urging us to purge our society of this or that group of “undesirables.” This is the most important lesson we need to learn from the Holocaust. Unfortunately, since genocide continues unabated in the world, it is clear that this lesson has still not sunken in.

Second, the TD has made a few language changes that have affected the meaning of my original letter. In one sentence in the last paragraph I asked how someone could “machinegun or shove hundreds of people into execution chambers” and go home to a normal dinner at night. The TD took out my graphic description of what the Holocaust murderers actually did and substituted the word “execute.” This is not just a matter of using a euphemism. I have read diaries of Holocaust perpetrators and they often refer to the killings they did as “executions.” One of the definitions of “execute” in Webster’s English Dictionary is “to put to death in compliance with a legal sentence.” It may have given perpetrators comfort to think that they were merely carrying out government policy. However, the people they killed were murdered, not executed.

Finally, by leaving out the little word “however,” the TD editor weakened the concluding sentences of the letter. All of us assume that only certain “evil” people could perpetrate genocide. You and I know that we are basically good people and could “never” commit atrocities. By blaming genocide on evil people, we can avoid considering what we are capable of doing. The history that the Virginia Holocaust Museum teaches us, however, shows that it is possible for “ordinary” people, like you and me, to carry out terribly evil acts.

Deja Vous—Again?

Despite my diatribe yesterday, I do read the Richmond Times Dispatch every day. Without it, I couldn’t write this blog. Where else would I get my information? The local broadcast news only reports on four things—crime, accidents, weather and sports. So, for me, it’s the TD or nothing. (Well, not exactly; I occasionally find meaningful stories in Style Weekly or the Richmond Free Press.)

In case you’re interested (and even if you’re not) this is the way I read it. First I look at the cover to see what non-news item the editors have chosen to make the lead story. Then I immediately go to the editorial/op-ed pages where all the action is. I especially pay attention to the letters to the editor. Every once in a while I’ll find a gem of inanity that deserves my “most wonderful letter of the day” award. I also like to see the kind of letter that the editors deem worthy to be their Correspondent of the Day. (For the record, my maveness has won this award; I have not.)

Well, today, the lead story on page 1 was “Richmond jail forms mental-health unit.” I guess I’ll concede that is news. The editorials consisted of a tribute to my favorite local congressman for his opposition to taxes and some kind of religious piece about Jamie Lynn Spears (who has embarked on the family’s favorite activity, teen pregnancy.) If I hadn’t attacked the editorial yesterday, I’m sure I could have found something useful in these pieces. Oh, lest I forget, I was quite impressed with the editors’ observation that “[t]he slotting of six Democrats and six Republicans in next year’s presidential primaries suggests Virginia could be a battleground.” I can only guess at the logic behind that statement.

So, I looked at the Correspondent of the Day. It was a letter asserting that the founders intended the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms to apply to everybody, not just state militias. That sounded amazingly familiar. I got this eerie feeling that I had sat and read that letter before (but who knows where or when?) Counting from the time of conception, my brain is over 64 years old. And, during the dark times of the year, it only functions at about 37% capacity. So it was entirely possible that my gray matter was deceiving me. But the earlier letter seemed so real.

I went looking for an earlier TD. However, since our resident recycler allows papers to accumulate for only 36 hours in our home, I had to log onto the TD website. I looked through the letters for December 20; nothing. I looked through the letters for December 19; there it was! The Correspondent of the Day on December 19 (that’s about 48 hours ago for those of you who can count) was a letter asserting that the founders intended the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms to apply to everybody, not just state militias. Wait a second! Did they mistakenly print the same letter twice? Did they mistakenly print the same letter twice? Nope—different letter, different correspondent. I started hearing the familiar music and Rod Serling’s voice saying “There’s the signpost up ahead...”

But seriously, how can the same newspaper award the same award to virtually the same letter first on December 19 and then again on December 21? The Richmond Times-Dispatch is certainly entitled to its editorial policy, although you and I find it to be rather Neanderthal. If they want to rave about Nancy Pelosi, that is their right. But, I would expect that their editorial policy would not affect their choices of what letters to print and award each day. I don’t care if they feel a lot safer packing their Glocks, they need to be objective about the letters they print.

How I long for the Brooklyn Eagle!

Would George III Be A Strong Enough Mayor?

I went to the website of the Pulitzer Prize to make sure. Yes, the 1948 prize for “distinguished editorial writing” was awarded to TD Editor Virginius Dabney, not to the Richmond Times-Dispatch itself. So, I guess the Pulitzer committee cannot retroactively rescind the award based on the current quality of TD editorials.

What, you may ask, led me to check out the Pulitzer thing? I had just finished reading today’s (December 20, 2007) lead editorial “Charter Member,” http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/opinion/editorials/more.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2007-12-20-0055.html, and I was baffled. Not that I think that today’s editorial was the worst I have read. Since I came to live in River City in 2004, I have read many TD editorials that have left me wondering whether it was me or the editors who had lost the power of reason. By comparison, today’s editorial was not that bad.

As were many Richmond citizens, the TD editorial was discussing our beloved mayor’s Tuesday speech to the Crusade for Voters. As I noted yesterday, Mr. Wilder’s remarks indicate that he is getting back into his imperial aggressive mode after a couple of months of playing mild-mannered Uncle Doug. The TD used His Excellency’s remarks to raise its repeated assertion that our city charter does not give to the mayor as much power as we the people wanted our mayor to have. In the words of the editorial,

“This summer many Richmonders learned the mayor's office was not so powerful as they may have suspected. The city has a strong personality in a relatively weak position.”

Excuse me, Mr. Editor. Are you saying that we Richmonders want a mayor who has the authority to ignore the law? Does the ruling by the District Court that Mr. Wilder cannot disregard an ordinance passed by City Council indicate that the office of mayor of Richmond is a weak position? The President of the United States governs subject to restrictions placed upon the position by the Constitution and laws enacted by the Congress. The Governor of Virginia rules subject to the Commonwealth’s constitution and the laws enacted by the General Assembly. Are you suggesting that the presidency and the governorship are weak positions?

The editorial goes on to say,

"Maybe it [Richmond’s citizenry] did not want a mayor who would have an impact on Richmond similar to the impact celebrated mayors such as Rudy Giuliani have had on the cities they are credited with reviving."

We need not examine Mr. Giuliani’s performance as mayor of New York City. There is plenty of time to do that should he win the presidential nomination of the Republican Party. I need to point out, however, that through no fault of my own I grew up in New York City and I know for a fact that mayors of the Big Apple govern subject to the constitution of the State of New York and also to laws enacted by the New York legislature and ordinances enacted by the City Council of New York City. If Mr. Giuliani did “revive” New York City, he did not do it by asserting that the law did not apply to him.

We citizens do desire a mayor and City Council that will work together to make Richmond the great city it can be. However, we do not want, nor did we intend to elect, a tyrant who claims powers we have denied to our executives since 1776.

As I indicated in my October 26 post, “It Ain’t Broke, It’s Just Badly Bent,” our city charter divides power between a legislature (the City Council) and an executive (the mayor). This is the model of government that has worked very well for us for over two hundred years. The division of power keeps both the executive and the legislative branches from gaining dictatorial powers.

The penultimate paragraph of the editorial is the strangest. It explains Mr. Wilder’s expressed intention to abandon his attempts to have the charter revised to “clarify” his power. In the words of the editorial,

"Wilder's decision regarding the charter reflects political reality, alas. The city's legislative delegation did not figure to be helpful; the Assembly would have been unlikely to embrace reforms that lacked the enthusiastic backing of senior Richmond legislators. This season suggests the aptness of one of the late Henry Howell's favorite aphorisms: There's more than Santa Claus running around in the dark."

That the editor quoted Henry Howell is strange enough. Considering its editorial policy, I don’t suppose the TD had much use for Mr. Howell when he was alive. But what is the editor driving at? What’s this stuff about Santa running around in the dark? If we look at what old Howlin’ Henry actually said, the editor’s meaning becomes clearer. Mr. Howell’s adage was “There's more going around in the dark than Santa Claus, and hanky-panky is its name! “ When read with the complete quote from Howell, it becomes clear that the editor is accusing the Richmond area’s General Assembly representatives of conspiring to keep the mayor from achieving the greater powers that he somehow deserves. If, in fact, our local delegates and senators oppose Mr. Wilder’s attempt to rewrite the charter in his image they deserve our gratitude. Rather than hanky-panky, they are merely responding to the Commonwealth’s motto, “Sic Semper Tyrannis.”

Doug Wilder: Jekyll or Hyde

Watching Doug Wilder is so interesting because you never know which Wilder you’re going to get. Will it be the mild mannered benevolent Uncle Doug, who we all love? Or will it be the nasty dictatorial His Excellency, who drives many of us up the wall?

For a while, since the disastrous Friday night invasion of Richmond Public School offices, Mr. Wilder has been in the Uncle Doug mode. He appears to be nice to everybody. He schedules all these photo ops that show him smiling and shaking hands. He makes a brilliant appointment (Sheila Hill-Christian) for Chief Administrative Officer, replacing Harry Black who the City Council refused to confirm. He seems so anxious to let bygones be bygones and work productively with the City Council. However, based on Michael Martz’s front page article in today’s TD, it appears that Uncle Doug is on the way out and His Excellency is coming back.

In his article (http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/news.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2007-12-19-0188.html), Mr. Martz points out that Mr. Wilder is no longer interested in working peacefully with City Council. Mr. Martz quotes Mr. Wilder as saying,
“I’ve extended all the olive branches I intend to extend. . . I’ve been told I’m supposed to be conciliatory—you’ve seen all you’re going to see of me being conciliatory.”
To prove his point, according to Mr. Martz, the mayor accused the City Council of turning back the clock on black political representation. He noted that the black majority on the council had been replaced by a white majority. Although Mr. Wilder found “nothing wrong” with a white majority, he accused the council of “turning back the clock” because the council’s only black male has a vote on only one council committee. (It’s appropriate that Mr. Wilder did not object to the white majority since he supported a white candidate running against a black incumbent in last year’s election). Martz’s article indicates that the mayor’s comments were aimed at City Council President Bill Pantele.

Am I mistaken, or is His Excellency the Mayor rolling out the race card in his renewed battle against the council? Those of you who were watching Mr. Wilder’s 1985 run for Lieutenant Governor or read “When Hell Freezes Over"(which tells the story of how a boy from Brooklyn was able to get a state senator from Richmond elected as the Commonwealth’s first African American Lieutenant Governor), know that the race issue is not new for Mr. Wilder. In the 1985 campaign Mr. Wilder frequently used his race and the accusation of racism to blunt attacks on him for having been disciplined by the Virginia Bar or for acting like a slum lord with respect to his rental properties in River City. No matter what issues were raised against him in that campaign, Mr. Wilder’s standard defense was that he was being accused only because he was black. By the end of the campaign, Mr. Wilder and his strategist Paul Goldman had convinced most Virginia voters that if they voted against him they would be perceived as racists. The result was that Doug Wilder won the election.

Can it be that His Mayorship is planning to run for reelection next year and is starting to use the race issue now just in case his opponent turns out be Mr. Pantele? Could Mr. Wilder be planning a campaign based on the entitlement of an African American majority in the city to an African American mayor? I would really hate to see this city suffering through a mayoral election in which race was a major issue.

On the other hand…

I just finished reading Mr. Wilder’s holiday message in this week’s Vision Newsletter (http://eservices.ci.richmond.va.us/applications/newsletters/mayor/visions.asp). It seems that Uncle Doug is back. Uncle Doug tells us about his unannounced visit to Fairfield Court Elementary School and how well he was treated by school principal Dr. Irene Williams. (This maven is not so egotistical to think that Mr. Wilder was following my advice to him on December 7 that he spend some of his time in Richmond’s public schools.) In talking of the school and Dr. Williams, Mr. Wilder says,
"This highly-motivated and selfless devotion to cause and to duty impressed me beyond measure. Here is a school in the shadow of public housing units portraying to all who would care that yes, these young people can learn. They can show that it doesn't matter where you were born or your economic status - you can achieve and overcome and become outstanding contributing citizens."
He concludes with
"The holiday season represents a time of love, joy, remembrance and reflection. Amid the food, decorations and festivities, it is also a time to look ahead and envision the means toward a brighter future for our community."

Just when I was getting really mad with Mr. Hyde, Uncle Doug uses his Dr. Jekyll to make me love him again (at least for the moment). Didn’t I tell you that Doug watching was so much fun?

The “Fair Fax” Just Ain’t Fair

Reading Jon Wakefield’s op-ed in Monday’s TD, “Tax Code Change Would Benefit All” (http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/opinion/oped.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2007-12-17-0062.html) might lead you to believe that he had discovered Nirvana. Mr. Wakefield has apparently become a true believer in the so-called “Fair Tax” proposal. In his article he spits back the arguments made by Americans For Fair Taxation on their website (http://www.fairtax.org ). And it sure is a compelling argument. The Fair Tax proposal would repeal all federal income-based taxes and replace them with a 23% federal sales tax on all purchases made in the United States. It would eliminate everybody’s nemesis, the Internal Revenue Service, and would convert April 15 into just another beautiful spring day. No more loopholes, no more tax cheating, no more expensive tax lawyers or CPAs, no more H&R Block commercials all winter, no more anxiety-producing tax forms, no more keeping of receipts. It would truly be a taxpayer’s heaven. But, would it be fair?

A tax system should have only one purpose—raising revenue for the government to carry out the functions that the representatives of the citizens have assigned to it. In addition, under the theory that those who accumulate the most wealth derive the most benefit from the country or state, the tax system should be progressive. Those who earn the most should pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than do those who earn the least. Finally, a tax system must not only be fair, it must also be perceived as fair by the citizens.

Under these standards, our current tax system ranks low. First, rather than being only a mechanism for raising revenue, our current system is used continuously by the government as a mechanism for controlling the behavior of individuals and corporations in our society. When the government wishes to encourage certain activities it offers tax incentives to those who abide by those wishes. Likewise, when the government wishes to discourage certain behaviors it places tax costs on those behaviors. This management of our society by use of the tax code is probably as old as the code itself and has been used by both Republican and Democratic governments. It explains why the Internal Revenue Code is thousands of pages rather than only a few pages long.

Second, our tax system is unfair and is perceived by most citizens as unfair. It is set up as a yearly game between the citizens and the IRS. The objective of the IRS in this game is to maximize the amount of taxes each citizen pays. The objective of each citizen is to minimize the amount of taxes he, she or it pays. The rules of the game are tens of thousands of pages long, and those who can afford expensive CPAs or tax lawyers who have mastered those rules are going to play the game much better than those who can’t. A tax system in which the amount you pay depends on how clever you and your tax preparer are is not a fair system. And it cannot be perceived as fair. Many taxpayers get the feeling that somehow they are paying more than their fair share of taxes. They fear that their neighbor has discovered a hidden deduction that they don’t know about. Or they fear the dreaded audit in which the IRS will discover that they have claimed more in deductions than the law allows.

The unfairness of the system extends into its progressiveness. Although our tax system is, on its face, progressive, the presence of so many loopholes and deductions and credits and shelters reduces the tax burden on those with higher incomes. The result is that in many cases individuals with high incomes may be paying a lesser percentage of that income in taxes than do individuals with lower incomes.

Look, I would love to see our present system replaced with a fair tax system. I would love to see the IRS disappear. I would love to eliminate the anxiety I suffer every year in playing the 1040 game. However, I see no purpose in replacing one unfair system with another unfair one.

By their very nature sales taxes are not progressive. In a state with a 5% sales tax, everybody who makes a purchase in the state pays the same 5% tax regardless of their income. Further, since lower income families spend a far higher percentage of their incomes on subsistence items such as housing, clothing, food or fuel, the 5% percent tax they pay on each purchase is more onerous. The Fair Tax proponents are, of course, aware of this inequity. They have tried to deal with it by creating a mechanism called the “prebate”.

Under the Fair Tax prebate, the Social Security Administration (you read me right) would mail a check to every household in the United States each month. The purpose of this prebate would be to compensate each household, in advance, for the amount of sales tax it pays on subsistence. The Fair Taxers have established an “annual consumption allowance” for each household that varies with the number of persons residing in that household. For example, for 2007 had the Fair Tax been in effect, the consumption allowance for a single adult household with three children would have been $20,650. For a two adult household with one child the allowance would have been $23,900. The sales tax that would apply on the amount of this allowance is calculated and constitutes the annual prebate. One twelfth of this amount would be sent to the household each month--$396 for the first household above, $458 for the second household. (If this sounds complicated, blame the Fair Taxers, not me).

The Fair Tax proponents prepared a chart that demonstrates that with the addition of the prebate feature the federal sales tax would actually be progressive. There are two problems with the chart. The first is the assumption that a household’s annual income and its annual spending will be the same. The second is the calculation of the tax rate as a percentage of the amount the household spends rather than as a percentage of the household’s income. If we look at a hypothetical real world (how’s that for an oxymoron), however, things are not as fair as they seem.

Let’s look at some examples:

The Smiths have an annual income of $50,000. They would like to put away part of their income in a savings account. However, with the cost of living in their city being so high, they are unable to save and end up spending all their income. The 23% federal sales tax they pay on their $50,000 consumption amounts to $11,500. Based on the size of the Smith household, they receive a prebate of $5,497. Therefore, the actual federal tax they will have paid is $6,003. As a percentage of their income, they are paying a tax of about 12%.

At the other end (but not the far end) of the income spectrum are the Jones. The Jones household has an annual income of $1,000,000. Because the Jones are not conspicuous consumers they spend only $200,000 and are able to save or invest $800,000. The 23% federal tax they pay on their consumption amounts to $46,000. Like the Smiths, the Jones receive a prebate of $5,497. The actual federal tax paid by the Jones is therefore $40,503. As a percentage of the household’s annual income, the Jones are paying a tax of a whopping 4%.

Let’s review. Under the so-called Fair Tax, the Smiths with an income of $50,000 would pay a 12% tax. The fortunate Jones, however, with an income of $1,000,000, would pay a tax of only 4%. I don’t know about you, but to me this is not a fair tax.

Despite Mr. Wakefield’s assertion, the Fair Tax plan also has its loopholes. If our Jones household wishes to be less frugal they may choose to buy a $500,000 yacht with the amount of their income they don’t need to live on. If the Jones buy that yacht in Newport News, they will pay a federal sales tax of $115,000. However, if the Jones are smart (and I assume they are), they will buy their yacht from some boat yard in the Bahamas. They will then pay a federal sales tax of zero. And, this loophole does not only apply to the wealthy few. It is also available to those of us who live along the Canadian border. Why buy a $25,000 car in Detroit and pay $5,750 in federal tax on that purchase when you can go across the river to Windsor and buy your car without paying any federal tax.

I can discuss other unfairnesses that I have found in the “Fair Tax,” but this post is already much too long. When the Fair Taxers fix these inequities, I will be happy to support their proposal.

Best Use For Old Schools

I read with interest Olympia Meola’s lead story in the TD today, “Old School Buildings Go Unused.” I then turned to the Metro section and read Michael Paul Williams column on the fate of old school buildings. Well, it’s the dark time of the year and this maven’s mind is in hibernation mode. But it doesn’t take the fully functioning mind of a maven to figure out what to do with buildings that are no longer needed as schools.

Before I moved to River City, I lived in the far north of the Commonwealth. I even crossed the border on a regular basis into the Columbia District. I often saw old school buildings being used by school systems for other purposes. In the District, old buildings house school system administrative offices. I’ve seen the same in Fairfax County.

Now, I know that the Columbia District was the capital of Mr. Lincoln’s evil Union. I also know that Fairfax County was occupied by union troops during most of the War of Northern Aggression. So it is proper to suspect that those parts might be tinged by Yankee thinking. However, even the Yankees might have some ideas worth considering in the Old Dominion.

If my Swiss-Cheese brain serves me, I remember a time, not too long ago, when our fair city’s chief executive officer sent his minions on a guerrilla raid to cleanse City Hall of the administrative offices of Richmond Public Schools. His Excellency indicated that he had better uses for his precious City Hall than administering schools for our children. Then there was this nasty court battle and Mr. Wilder was told he had to let the schoolies stay. Now, as I said, I’m not thinking too well now, but wouldn’t it satisfy the needs of Mayor Doug and RPS to use unneeded school buildings to house the administrative offices of RPS?

Just this morning, I drove past the building that formerly housed Patrick Henry School and was used last year as shelter from the storm for students of A.V. Norell School. It is a beautiful building, and since it was used as a school as recently as last spring it has not traveled far down the road to dilapidation that Ms. Meola indicates the building and site of Whitcomb Court School have. Patrick Henry is located at the intersection of Forest Hill and Semmes avenues and is thus only about ten minutes from City Hall. It would make a fine home for those pesky RPS officials that Mayor Doug wants out of City Hall.

What would it cost to renovate Patrick Henry for office use? I don’t know, but I’m sure that city officials could find out rather quickly. If the cost is prohibitive, I’m sure that the city could enter into a sale-rent-purchase agreement with a private developer. Under such an agreement, title to the building would be transferred to the private developer. The developer would renovate the building and then lease it to RPS for a period of twenty or twenty-five years during which time the developer would recover its investment and a reasonable profit. At the end of the lease period title would revert back to the city and RPS would continue to use it.

Ms. Meola indicates in her article that city officials are considering other possible uses for vacant school buildings. However, since these building were built to serve the educational needs of our students, using them for the administrative needs of RPS makes the most sense.

An Open Letter to Mayor Wilder

Dear Uncle Doug,

That was a really great picture of you with the hard hat in Wednesday’s TD. But I knew right away when Michael Martz quoted you as saying, “This is a helluva atrium! I've never seen anything like it in my life!" you weren’t talking about the new learning courtyard at Westover Hills Elementary School. In case you missed it, that atrium for our kids was put together with the money and work from the Westover Hills School community and its business partners. It’ll be a great place for the kids to learn about nature and that kind of stuff.

Of course, the atrium you were talking about, at the new Hilton Garden Inn being built on the old Miller & Rhoads site, is probably a lot prettier than the one at Westover Hills. And the people who see it will probably be of a much better class than the students that go to our schools. I would imagine that many of our students will never see it at all. But, it was a great photo op.

I also like that one of you last week leaving your hand print to be hung on the wall at the new North Boulevard Cinema. It really has the homey touch. It takes the edge off of some of the bad press you’ve been getting lately. I wish that nasty Judge Spencer could just get to know you. Maybe then she wouldn’t be writing those decisions against you.

There are probably some people that will criticize you for all these photo ops. They might think they are a waste of time, especially when the city has so many problems. I really have to disagree with them. I understand fully you hanging out with the business men. I know that all the new business development will increase tax revenue for the city. I also know that once that revenue rolls in you’re going to make sure that the City Council appropriates it all for Richmond Public Schools. Those people who think you don’t care about the kids just because you insist on the School Board cutting $20 million from their budget before you’ll talk to them just don’t know the real Doug Wilder.

Uncle Doug, there is another thing you could do for the kids. You might consider spending an hour or so each week in one of our public schools reading to the kids or helping them learn to read better or to learn their math. As the Crupi report indicated last week, there are a lot of kids in our schools who can really use your help. If you choose to do it, and I really hope you do, I suggest that you don’t bring the photographers or reporters. Trying to make sure our kids succeed is not something you want to do with the camera running. It’s not a photo op. It’s just doing the right thing.

Take care.

Maven

Greater Richmond: First Create It, Then Save It

You may not have noticed it, but at the end of November, David Ress of the TD wrote an article entitled “Business leaders eager for input from public.” In the article Mr. Ress indicated that the very same business leaders who paid Dr. James A. Crupi to write his report, “Putting the Future Together,” have decided to implement Dr. Crupi’s recommendation that the business community take the lead in developing a plan for rescuing “Greater Richmond.” I guess this makes sense. If you’re going to lay out big bucks to hire a consultant to recommend that you become “Greater Richmond’s” superhero, you better be ready to don the mask and cape.

At first I was a bit upset. Where did these business leaders get the gall to appoint themselves our saviors? Is there some provision in the Constitution or laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia that says that when you’re not happy with the way things are going you can appoint yourself to fix them? Do we not have in the Commonwealth a General Assembly and a Governor that we elected to make and implement policy? Do we not have in the local jurisdictions boards of supervisors or city councils, not to mention Uncle Doug, that we elected to do exactly what the business community has appointed itself to do? What ever happened to the republic we fought so hard for only 230 or so years ago?

But then I started thinking. Who was I to complain about the business community? Aren’t I, as a maven, self appointed? Oh yes, I studied long and hard and struggled through six decades of life to qualify to be a maven. But I have to admit that nobody elected to me to this position. So, if I can self appoint myself maven, I have to concede that our business leaders can self appoint themselves regional saviors.

Which brings me, finally, to the point of this posting. Is there such a thing as “Greater Richmond?” I have studied my map of the Commonwealth long and hard and cannot find anything called “Greater Richmond.” I see the City of Richmond. I see various counties surrounding the city. But there is no “Greater Richmond.”

How can this be? If there is no “Greater Richmond,” how can there be such a thing as the Greater Richmond Chamber of Commerce? I went to the chamber’s website to find out about this “Greater Richmond.” On the page “About Us,” under “The Facts,” it says that the chamber is,

“Located in Richmond, Virginia and serving the City of Richmond, and the counties of Chesterfield, Hanover and Henrico."

I guess that means that “Greater Richmond” means the city plus Chesterfield, Henrico and Hanover counties. That makes sense to me. The city and the counties do make a nice little compact area, except for Hanover, which is on the wrong side of the Chickahominy. But… in Dr. Crupi’s report he talks as if “Greater Richmond” also included Charles City, Goochland, New Kent, and Powhatan counties. He also sometimes uses the term “Metro Richmond.” Does Metro mean the same thing as Greater?

But, you may say, this is all semantics. I agree. The definition of “Greater” or “Metro” Richmond is not the major issue. In his report, Dr. Crupi sets out as one of the reasons there is little regional cooperation in the Richmond area, “[t]he inability or unwillingness of metro leaders or citizens to think of themselves as a region.” I think that what Dr. Crupi is saying is that there is no feeling of community in the area.

The Merriam-Webster online dictionary has the following definitions for “community:”
1- a unified body of individuals;
2- the people with common interests living in an area;
3- an interacting of various kinds of individuals in a common location; or
4- a group of people with a common characteristic or interest living together within a larger society.
These definitions use word like unified or common or interacting or together. Unfortunately, none of these words currently apply to the people living in Greater or Metro Richmond.

Rather than being a single community, Greater Richmond is an amalgam of hundreds of small local communities. Aside from those places with historic names like Midlothian, Short Pump, Glen Allen, Bon Air, Mechanicsville, Highland Springs or Varina, there are all those named neighborhoods in Richmond City and the tons of developments built in the suburbs over the years. The unfortunate fact is that the vast majority of the people living in the counties surrounding Richmond do not consider themselves connected to the residents of the city.

Take a ride out Broad Street. Take a ride out Hull Street Road west of route 288. Take a ride out the many other suburban boulevards. What you see is mile after mile of commercial development. Our suburbs have been developed in a way that the residents have all their needs satisfied right near their homes. Need food, go to the local strip mall. Need gasoline, go to the local strip mall. Need medicine, go to the local strip mall. In addition, look at all the jobs that are located out on those suburban boulevards. The fact is that because of the way the suburbs have developed a majority of the people living there have no need to ever enter the City of Richmond. There is no feeling of unity or interdependence or togetherness or connectedness between the residents of the suburbs and the residents of the city.

(An aside: My daughter is a high school teacher in Henrico County. She told me that in one of her classes more that half the students stated they had NEVER been in the City of Richmond.)

Before our business leaders can became saviors of Greater Richmond, they need to create a community. They need to find a way for residents of the city to care about the problems of people living in the suburbs. They need to find a way for residents of the counties to care about the problems of people in the city. On page 28 of his report, Dr. Crupi listed the dismal statistics of poor people living in the city: 19% of the residents of the city live in poverty; 25% of the city’s children live in households with annual incomes of $20,650 or less; 74% of the students in Richmond Public Schools receive subsidized lunches; etc. The business leaders have to get the residents of the counties to care about the poverty in the city. Our business leaders need to find a way to deal with the attitude shown in a letter to the TD back in October:

“Does anyone really believe that suburban citizens will experience any improvement in their lives if such a [regional] government is adopted? Do the surrounding county residents want to see their current quality of life decline to the point that mediocrity and complacency are benchmarks? Should the county citizens be penalized for Richmond's failures?”

Or in this response to TD reporter Michael Paul Williams’ article last week about the inferior quality of school buildings in the city as compared with the counties:

"If the students and teachers can't take care of what they have, what makes it mandatory to give them more. The majority of suburban students, teachers and parents take pride and care in their educations and schools ... Problem is that the people that stay in Richmond don't care about the schools their kids go to."

I am sure there are equally negative attitudes held by city residents toward our suburban cousins.

So, our business saviors, the first thing you must do is convince us all that we live in a community all the time, not just when we suffer from a hurricane or a drying up of our beloved James. You must show us that what happens to one of us happens to all of us. You must convince us that we will sink or swim together.