Smart Republicans?

As I've stated before, anybody in support of tort reform is either ignorant or a whore for the insurance industry. It appears that some Repubicans are finally catching on:
A new group of Republican attorneys on Monday accused their party of selling out to special interests in backing legislation that would impose new restrictions on Missouri's legal system with the hope of reducing jury awards in injury lawsuits.

I sincerely admire their efforts, but I suspect they'll find the Republican legislators appreciate the money on the nightstand too much to say "no".

Trickle Up Economics?

I have been doing research about the minimum wage lately, spurred on partially by Kerry's proposal to raise the minimum wage from its current $5.15 to $7.00 by 2007. The right wing has trotted out all the arguments against it - higher unemployment, inflation, etc., even though Bush is not necessarily opposed to the idea.

Coincidentally, one of my friends emailed me today and articulated a thought that has been forming in the back of my mind for the past several weeks. In a nutshell, why is it that the right wing is so quick to embrace trickle down economics, but so closed-minded about the possibility of trickle-up economics?

In a nutshell, your average right-winger accepts as an article of faith that if you give the rich people more money, they will spend it in such a manner that everybody will benefit. On the other hand, if you give a poor person a higher wage, that money disappears into a black hole and does no economic good (kind of like the money the right wing wants to spend on Star Wars defense).

Doesn't it make sense that if the poor community gets a wage hike, they will spend it in their community, on the goods they need or desire most? If the person bagging my groceries gets another few bucks a day, s/he isn't likely to ship off those dollars to Germany for a new Porsche - it'll probably go for more immediate needs, like better housing, clothes or nutrition. Doesn't it make sense that America's poor will do better if more money is spent in the areas where they live?

My friend wants to use this theory as a theme to build a new Democratic vision - and I think he has a point. The right wing's economic theories often center on enhancing the consolidation of capital as a form of economic efficiency. The left wing, however, could seize the issue by using economic theory as a way of solving the problems of the poor and the working poor by decentralization of capital. It's common sense that money siphoned to the wealthy may have some attenuated trickle down benefit, but it's also common sense that money earned by the poor will help the micro-economies of the poor, and will trickle up more quickly to the middle class. At the same time, it could have all kinds of "positive externalities" (see, I really have been reading some economics!), such as enhancing the health and welfare of our poorest citizens, rather than paying for the country-club dues and foreign cars.

The theory has deeper application than minimum wage laws, though. Universal health care could, perhaps, fit within the concept of trickle up economics. By asuring that everyone, employed or not, has access to adequate health care, we could unleash untold entrepreneurial energy currently enslaved by the necessity of maintaining employment for access to employee health care plans. Less traditionally liberal, trickle up economics may encourage the left to take a fresh look at issues such as school vouchers (which I currently oppose, but am willing to rethink).

Money spent on our social safety net is not wasted - in fact, it is invested in the area most in need of investment. Increased teacher salaries not only benefit teachers, they benefit students, and communities. Many of the programs near and dear to the heart of the left could, perhaps, benefit from being recast as wise investments in the economy, and their benefits may be more deeply understood from the perspective of how they trickle up, to build our economy on a stronger base.

A Book I'm Eager to Read

I've posted about the magestic prose of Mark Helprin, and I hope that some of you have waded into A Soldier of the Great War and found the water warm.

Another one of the overlooked masters of American literature is Ward Just. While much of his work deals with the world of politics and journalism, I have no idea what his political leanings are. I don't care. His writing is engaging and pulses with a wisdom born of long and close observation of human nature. I'd call him a Jane Austen of American politics, but his works have more ache and tragedy in them than would seem appropriate at Northanger Abbey.

Robin forwarded to me today a review of his latest book, An Unfinished Season. I'll provide a few excerpts from the review, so you'll see why I'm excited to pick up this book soon:

His fiction is keenly observant, as the best journalism is, and he is especially interested in power, a subject that journalists find endlessly beguiling. He has written about how power is sought, used and abused in Washington, about power and influence in the press itself, about power as it materializes in human relationships. He is an astute observer of politics and politicians (Adlai Stevenson plays a cameo role in An Unfinished Season, and plays it beautifully) but to the best of my knowledge has never ground a partisan or ideological ax in his writing. He is fascinated by the ordinary humanity behind the apparatus of power, and explores it with utterly unsentimental sympathy.
. . .
Every once in a while -- not often, for sure -- an author does a reviewer a favor and writes a book with such elegance, élan and acuity that the only way to review it -- to give readers some sense of the pleasures that await them in it -- is to quote from it, at length and with gratitude. John Gregory Dunne did that a couple of months ago with another novel about the heartland, Nothing Lost; now Ward Just does it with An Unfinished Season. A beautiful, wise book.

Don't Show Me State Senators

Talent and Bond, senators from Missouri, voted to endorse Bush's policy barring news photographs of soldiers' caskets. Disgusting, dishonest cowards.

Fahrenheit 9-11

I saw the movie this afternoon, and I was . . .
Disappointed. Underwhelmed. Wishing I had edited it so that it could have had more of a message.

Perhaps I was done in by the hype. I was expecting something to pull together the criticisms of Bush and tie them up into a fresh and interesting theme. Instead, it was an amalgamation of random swipes at Bush, a hodge-podge of over-riding themes, and a few distracting cheap shots.

If you have a fundamental awareness of what is going on in this world, the movie breaks no new ground. It is a great collection of Bush's weaknesses, but it needs a theme and some discipline.

Joke set in 2005

Shamelessly stolen from Smart Ass: The Official Blog of College Democrats of America:

One sunny day in 2005 an old man approached the White House from across Pennsylvania Ave, where he'd been sitting on a park bench. He spoke to the US Marine standing guard and said, "I would like to go in and meet with President Bush."

The Marine looked at the man and said, "Sir, Mr. Bush is no longer president and no longer resides here."

The old man said, "Okay" and walked away.

The following day, the same man approached the White House and said to the same Marine, "I would like to go in and meet with President Bush." The Marine again told the man, "Sir, as I said yesterday, Mr. Bush is no longer president and no longer resides here." The man thanked him and, again, just walked away.

The third day, the same man approached the White House and spoke to the very same US Marine, saying "I would like to go in and meet with President Bush."

The Marine, understandably agitated at this point, looked at the man and said, "Sir, this is the third day in a row you have been here asking to speak to Mr. Bush. I've told you already that Mr. Bush is no longer the president and no longer resides here. Don't you understand?"

The old man looked at the Marine and said, "Oh, I understand. I just love hearing it."

The Marine snapped to attention, saluted, and said, "See you tomorrow, Sir."

Duane Benton to the 8th Circuit

Judge Duane Benton of the Missouri Supreme Court was named to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit on Thursday. Here's an article about his appointment. Here's his official resume. Here's a more thorough biography, courtesy of the Missouri Bar

By all appearances, I should be appalled. The man was appointed to the Bench by one of my least favorite people - John Ashcroft. He is former counsel to the Missouri Baptist Convention - not a group with which I share much politically or theologically.

But I'm not appalled - I'm delighted. I've had the pleaure of knowing Judge Benton for several years, and he is a thoughtful, intelligent, kind, friendly, balanced, and fair judge. I love pointing out the many mistakes of the Bush administration - but this is not one of them. Judge Benton will be a great addition to the federal judiciary. Thank you, Bush administration - you got one right.

Gay Marriage Vote Analysis

I've written my analysis of the likelihood of Missourians passing an amendment banning gay marriage - in short, I think it's likely, but not inevitable. The Kansas City Star got around to posting its analysis today, and they're pretty much singing the same tune.

See the KC Congressional Candidates!

Here's a notice I received, and thought I should share:

Kansas City’s leading women’s organizations have come together to organize a forum for the candidates of the fifth congressional primary. The forum will take place on Wednesday, July 21 from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. at White Recital Hall at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. This collaborative effort is sponsored by the League of Women Voters of Kansas City/Jackson, Clay and Platte Counties, the University of Missouri-Kansas City Women’s Center, the Greater Missouri Women’s Leadership Coalition, the American Association of University Women Networking Group-Kansas City Interbranch Council and the Greater Kansas City Women’s Political Caucus Education & Endowment Fund.

All of the fifth congressional district candidates have been invited to participate in the forum, including Democrats Emanuel Cleaver II, Jamie Metzl, Republicans Annalisa Zapien-Pina, Steve Dennis, Joyce P. Lea, Jeanne Patterson and Clay Chastain, and Libertarian candidate Rick Bailie. The forum is free and open to the public. Representatives from the League of Women Voters will also be on hand to register participants to vote in the national election on November 2.

White Recital Hall is located at 4949 Cherry on the UMKC campus in Kansas City, Missouri. Parking will be available in the metered lot to the east of the Performing Arts Center. No RSVP is required. For additional information or questions, please call Delores Blaser with the League of Women Voters at (816) 942-6040 or Jill Dunlap at the Women’s Center at (816) 235-5577.

Commenting

The "comment" function on blogs is, in my opinion, one of the things that make them valuable. If I see something stupid on CNN or in the New York Times, or hear something stupid on the radio, there's not much I can do on an immmediate basis. On most blogs, you can voice your opposing (or agreeing) opinion immediately. On many blogs, some of the most interesting material turns up in the comments, and even here, people like Thatcoloredfella, RM, and LJ do a great job of enhancing the level of thought.

That's why I think that blogs like Michelle Malkin's are a frustration - so much stupidity there to correct, but no opportunity to explain all her mistatements right there. A blog without commenting is a declaration that the writer is interested in political posturing, not debate.

This past week, I learned of something even more insidious - the bloggers who appear to allow commenting, but edit them down so that they appear to come out on top. In the past, I've posted comments on Matt Margolis' blog. He's an insecure young conservative who reminds me a bit of myself at that age - thinks he's smarter than the rest of the world, with a tendency to be obnoxious and shallow (I'm sure many of my college friends could elaborate!). Recently, I noticed that some of them weren't showing up - which I attributed to a glitch in the software. Earlier this week, though, Matt confessed that he's disallowed posting from me! Why? Because one of my comments pointed out that he was wrong when he claimed the New York Times wouldn't publish something!

Here's my policy on commenting: Go for it. The only way I'll wind up deleting a comment is if it includes something so offensive that people of even hardened sensibilities would be shocked (kiddie porn or something like that), or something that could get me in trouble (instructions on how to disrupt a presidential motorcade, or something like that). If I DO delete one of your comments, I'll substitute a comment explaining what it was, and why it was deleted. I'd much rather "play fair" than "win".

Off the Gubernatorial Fence!

I've been having a bit of a struggle deciding whom to back in the Missouri Governor's race. The two Democrats running are incumbent Bob Holden and Claire McCaskill, a former prosecutor from Kansas City. Holden is a good, decent man, but doesn't have much star appeal. McCaskill is a rising star, with lots of charisma and poise. Their Republican opponent, Matt Blunt, is an odious piece of right-wing zealot shit (and I'm being gentle) who is living off his father's name recognition, and will, much to Missouri's shame, provide a tough challenge.

Until today, I was leaning toward McCaskill - she has a little more ability to inspire, and she hasn't been worn down by dealing with the pin-heads in the legislature. I'd rather have either one of them than Blunt, and McCaskill seemed a little more electable.

Today, though, the following information came to me in a reliable email:

For those who don’t know about Claire McCaskill and tort reform, I refer you to the following verbatim statements made before the Springfield Chamber of Commerce in May 2004;

“…Judges who have been appointed in St. Louis City have this pact that they never sustain a venue motion. …”

“... As a member of the legislature I voted in favor of tort reform…”

“… I have a record of voting in favor of tort reform, back in ’86 when I served on both the civil and criminal justice committee and on the judiciary committee. …”

“Q: Yes or no; would you sign House Bill 1304?

A: In its current condition, or in the way it came out of the House?

Q: Current condition.

A: Current condition, I probably would.”

Ms. McCaskill has sold her soul to the insurance industry. Bob Holden has shown his ability to stand up to the Republican legislature and to the insurance industry. Missourians need leadership with integrity, even if it doesn't come wrapped in a spiffy package. Holden deserves our thanks, and we deserve four more years of his public service. Please support Bob Holden.

Who are my Senators working for?

In the Kansas City Star today, I checked out the feature "How They Voted", listing the votes of the federal legislators in the Kansas City area. This week's results demonstrate just how awful Senators Bond, Talent, Brownback and Roberts are. They voted in rigid lockstep with each other.

Undeterred by the wild violations of international law and the Geneva Conventions, they went on record to approve of the Pentagon's policy of using "private contractors" for interrogations in Iraq. Who in Missouri or Kansas does this serve? The families of soldiers who are now much more likely to face torture and death if captured by hostile forces, because of this misguided policy?

Next, they voted to spend $36.6 million dollars to support development of tactical nuclear weapons. I guess Bush is having a tough time bankrupting our country without another arms race . . .

Next, our 4 Senators showed the true grit to stand against some of their Republican colleagues and vote against expanding hate crimes legislation to protect Missourians and Kansans from crimes based on sexual orientation, disability and gender. Despite the best efforts from our Senators, it is now illegal to exercise your first amendment rights by killing a lesbian in a wheelchair. I'm sure that Senators Bond, Talent, Brownback and Roberts regret that Missourians and Kansans now cannot engage in hate crimes against those people.

Obviously feeling their oats in opposing the radically left-wing Republican party, they next opposed the President, by voting to enlarge the army by 20,000 troops, in opposition to the Bush Administration. In this vote, they were joined by 89 other senators (only 4 opposed) in acknowledging that the Bush administration's disastrous policy of trying to win this war "on the cheap" simply isn't working.

Missourians and Kansans who choose to engage in war-profiteering should be comforted by their next vote, in which our senators refused to establish war profiteering as a federal crime!!!! Who are they protecting?? Taxpayers? Soldiers? Or war-profiteers like Halliburton, who line their pockets with campaign contributions? You decide.

Their final vote was against requiring Star Wars missile defense to pass operational defense before full depoloyment. Hey, Senators Bond and Talent - remember when our state was known as the "Show-Me State"?? Or did those military contractors "show you" enough money to buy your votes?

This is just a random week, but one in which the local Senators demonstrated who they are working for, and it isn't Missouri or Kansas.

Kos Busts Bush

Bush is now back-pedalling from the al-Qaida/Iraq connection: "This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al-Qaida," Bush said. "We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida. For example, Iraqi intelligence officers met with (Osama) bin Laden, the head of al-Qaida, in the Sudan. There's numerous contacts between the two."

That sounds pretty convincing - the strategy of the right wing seemed to revolve around constantly using "al-Qaida" and "Saddam" in the same sentence, without specifically linking the two bogey-men.

Well, Kos found an easy-to-overlook claim by Bush that they were connected - in the letter to Congress declaring war on Iraq!! "I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

Kerry's First Foreign Policy Decision

When John Kerry takes office in January, he will be faced with a hard decision. Should he have Rumsfeld arrested and tried for violations of international law? Pentagon officials tell NBC News that late last year, at the same time U.S. military police were allegedly abusing prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld ordered that one Iraqi prisoner be held “off the books” — hidden entirely from the International Red Cross and anyone else — in possible violation of international law. Rumsfeld should be paying a lot more attention to the issue of proper treatment of prisoners, don't you think?

Greeted by Rose Petals

Part of the whole reasoning behind Bush's attack of Iraq was that there would be no "occupation", and that the Iraqis would welcome us as liberators. Of course, there would be a few splinter groups that wanted us out, but we were bringing freedom to the tyrannized.

Our own numbers show "that most say they would feel safer if Coalition forces left immediately, without even waiting for elections scheduled for next year. An overwhelming majority, about 80 percent, also say they have 'no confidence' in either the U.S. civilian authorities or coalition forces." Drilling down into the numbers only makes it worse. 54% believe that all Americans behave like the Abu Ghraib torturers. 55% would feel safer if coalition forces departed "right away".

(Of course, we will not leave right away. Establishing democracy is too important a business to be distracted by what the voters want.)

People, this is awful. If you are a Bush supporter because you think your $300 tax credit was cool, or because you think he would be more fun to drink a beer with, or because you think it's cute the way he mispronounces "nuclear", now's the time to grow up and stop that nonsense. It's just not funny anymore.

Good things about Missouri

My previous post expressed my fear that Missouri will enact an amendment enshrining discrimination in its constitution. Despite my suspicion that my state will mark itself as a home of homophobes, I still love this state. For those of you who don't know and love the Show-Me State, allow me to list a few of the reasons I'm happy to be a Missourian, in no particular order.

1. The Cardinals. Growing up listening to the exploits of Bob Gibson, Dick Groat, Curt Flood, Julian Javier and the whole gang was a joy I wish everyone could have shared.

2. Big Cedar Lodge. Beautiful.

3. Kauffman Stadium. An enthralling park in which to watch the hometeam lose.

4. We elected a dead man to the Senate instead of John Ashcroft.

5. The Blue Room. The best jazz in the world, smoke free.

6. The St. Louis Art Museum. Some of the best art in the world, free. Plus, the best place to sled in the Midwest right out front.

7. Huckleberry Finn.

8. Boulevard Pale Ale. Probably the best everyday ale in the world.

9. The soccer team that upset England in the 1950 World Cup.

10. T. S. Eliot. He was an anglophile, which I deplore, but he wrote The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock, which I truly love.

Gay Marriage in Missouri

Thatcoloredfella, in a comment on my previous entry, Missouri Gay Marriage Issue on August Ballot - Good for the World, asks a series of good questions: Other than reason you stated, are there any other benefits to Kerry and the Dems, by keeping this off the November ballot?

How do you think the campaign on this will shape up? What groups will emerge as prominent adversaries? Will money be spent? How? TV, radio, mailings...push polling?

How will the major state political players (both parties) be involved? Is the result a far gone conclusion? What side will the major papers take?

Wow, Thatcoloredfella, you expect real analysis from me? Fair enough, I suppose.

The main reason it is good that the issue will be on the August ballot is the one I stated - it is less likely to skew the November election. It is my belief that Missourians are likely to vote in favor of the amendment - my guess would be 60-40. That's just a guess, though, and it is possible that the vote could go differently. A recent unscientific poll in traditionally conservative Springfield showed that 50% opposed the amendment.

Let's face it - the average Missourian is queasy with the idea of gay marriage. By having the vote in August, though, it is possible that a huge GOTV effort by the pro-gay-marriage people could counteract what will probably be a huge GOTV effort by the less-enlightened churches and by the out-and-out homophobes.

I'm not sure how the money plays out in this campaign. The gay rights crowd has PROMO out front, but I doubt that PROMO can out-grassroots the thousands of conservative churches sprinkled through Missouri. Perhaps some enlightened individuals and organizations from outside Missouri will funnel dollars to PROMO and other organizations, but I'm not sure they'll raise enough for serious media buys.

The anti-gay people are already hard at work. I drove through mid-Missouri this weekend, and listened to AM radio. In the midst of a religious broadcast, I heard a commercial from some guy who claims to be formerly gay, and is now a proud father of one with another on the way. He claimed that he turned away from the gay "lifestyle" and that if he had been allowed to get married to a gay man, as he wanted, his life would have been ruined, but the protecting hand of the law saved him from such an awful fate. So, yeah, there will be some radio efforts on the anti-gay side, but I doubt they will gather enough money to really do much media outside of the religious broadcasters where, presumably, they will be preaching to the converted and the rare masochistic liberal riding through corn country.

While both democratic candidates for governor oppose the amendment, neither will choose to make it a central point of their candidacy. The Republicans will probably try to make it an issue, but that's another advantage of getting the vote over with in August - it will be decided before the campaign stretch starts.

I expect the St. Louis Post Dispatch and the Kansas City Star to come out against the amendment, but I don't expect any other major papers to support gay rights.

As I said at the start, I am pessimistic about the chances of defeating this amendment, but Missouri voters have surprised me before. In 1999, I expected the state to pass a "concealed carry" amendment, but the voters rejected it 52-48, despite the gun lobby outspending the good guys by a margin of 4:1.

It is possible, just possible, that the majority of voters in August will refuse to enshrine discrimination in the Missouri Constitution, but, if I were forced to bet my house on the outcome, I'd say that the religious right will have its way.

Tortured Legal Analysis

For the best analysis of the Bush Torture Memos, go to the Whiskey Bar, and pay special attention to this entry.

I don't know how anybody can even think of supporting this administration any more. The implications of what has gone on are as frightening as can be. If a movie were made in which these things were going on, it would be dismissed as implausible. The President, who claims that he hears God talking to him, is being told that NO LAWS APPLY to him - international or domestic.

Think about this. If there were a terrorist attack in October, would Bush call off the election?

I know this sounds like tin-foil hat conspiracy nonsense, but a month ago I would have thought that anyone accusing the US of systematically torturing prisoners of war, and claiming that the conduct was supported by the White House, was doing the same thing.

This administration has shown itself fully capable of "thinking outside the box" of traditional constitutional law, civil rights concepts, international law, and even truth.

Politicizing Reagan's Death

Of course, the Bush administration is trying to wrap itself in Ronnie to the Nth degree, but I can't criticize them for that. The line between sincere mourning and what they are doing is a blurry and indistinct one, and I haven't seen them cross it (though I haven't been watching closely, either).

The hostile fringe, however, is doing its utmost to make this an "us vs. them" situation. The most ludicrous I have seen is the ever-hyperventilating Matt Margolis, who has been working his fingers to the bone trying to find liberals to criticize. First, he visited Barbra Streisand's homepage (certainly a spot I'm sure he visits often) and blasts her because she cancelled a concert out of deference to Reagan (he thought she should have sounded more grief-stricken in her announcement).

After even his allies agreed he was being a moron about Streisand, he dredged up an item published by an unbalanced (in several senses of the word) source, quoting an anonymous, unconfirmed source, that Clinton privately expressed disappointment in not being asked to speak at the funeral. The report is, of course, right wing nonsense, but the idiot fringe of the right has cranked up the hype machine to try to find something bad to say about the Democrats - even if it has to resort to silliness like this.

Finally (so far, anyhow), Margolis finds a blog on Kerry's website in which a few private citizens were less than teary-eyed in their memories of Reagan. This, he proclaims, is a reason Kerry should not be president! (Funny how the right is quick to criticize the left for insisting on "politically correct" speech, but they are so thin-skinned when it isn't minorities or women being attacked.)

It's been fascinating - in a sick way - to watch the right wing search desperately for a way to politicize Reagan's death. They care less about the passing of the man than they do about trying to find ways to criticize the left. They are disgusting and shrill. They are also hopelessly inept if this is the best they can do.

Bush "Lawyers Up"

Bush's consulting with a private attorney has not attracted much attention. As a lawyer, I defend the right of anyone to consult with an attorney whenever he or she feels the need, and I reject the popular sentiment that "you don't need a lawyer unless you're guilty of something." Regardless, Bob Harris, posting at This Modern World, provides some informed perspective that makes it look like another leak has sprung in the dike.

Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve

I visited the Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve yesterday. It's a beautiful place, with a sparseness that turns into rich biodiversity when you get into the heart of it. It includes a spectacular old limestone mansion, and almost 11,000 acres of prairie in the Flint Hills of Kansas. If you want to see some photos, visit here. It was a little more than a 2 hour drive from Kansas City, but it felt like we slipped back into the 1800s.

Sam's Speech

My son, Sam, graduated from high school last weekend, and he was selected by his class to deliver a speech at the graduation ceremony. I'm proud of him. Here's his speech:
Hi. For those of you who don’t know me, you’re most likely wondering who I am and why I’m up here. For those of you who do know me, you’re probably wondering something along the lines of - “how pathetic is the senior class that the best person they can throw up there is Sam Ryan?”. It’s a good question, but one I can’t answer.
Like I said - I’m Sam Ryan, and I started at Pembroke in my freshman year. My experiences with Pembroke go back well before that, though. When I was in elementary school, I went to Volker, a public school down State Line a bit. And every day when we went to school, I would look out the window, gaze longingly at the Pembroke Hill campus, turn to my father, and ask “Daddy, can we run over rich kids in the crosswalk?”.
Things have changed a lot since then. For four years, I’ve parked in Pembroke Hill parking lots, squeezing my Geo Prizm between BMWs and Jeeps. For four years, I’ve watched as my fellow students spent more on Pembroke Hill flip-flops than I spent on entire ensembles. And for four years I’ve endured the glances I got from people when I tell them “I go to Pembroke Hill.” And yet now, here I am, graduating from Pembroke Hill. Somehow, over the last four years, I’ve become one of you, and what’s even more shocking than that is that I like it.
I was one of the yearbook’s text editors this year – unless you felt that a caption was offensive, in which case Kjerstin Johnson is solely at fault – and one of the challenges we faced was trying to link the experiences of the entire student body – from Kindergarteners to the Senior class – and while most of our teachers would doubt a mental gap, the differences are so extreme that to describe what it is to be the Pembroke Hill student is nearly impossible. For me, being a Pembroke Hill student was scary at first. My friends from my old school laughed at me, and I assumed that the rich kids would laugh too – and running them over wouldn’t be a solution anymore. I told people I was going to Pembroke Hill with a shrug at best, and tended to avoid acting too excited.
This probably all seems fairly negative for a graduation speech, and since I’m not sure if it’s too late for the administration to revoke my diploma, I’ll get to the positive part. We’ve all very lucky to have gone here. Whether we took advantage of every opportunity or slept through every class, we’ve had chances that kids at no other area high schools have. We get all the best aspects of being a small school at the same time as we have the opportunities to deal with great teachers, strong programs, and dedicated students. Being at Pembroke Hill doesn’t always make a lot of sense – every time I see a girl in UGG boots or a guy in a filthy white baseball cap, I question our collective sanity, and all of you parents who bought your kids massive SUVs, I hope you guys own stock in Texaco – but being at Pembroke Hill, for all its pains and absurdities, has been one of the best experiences of my life.
I've always heard never to trust people who say that high school was one of the best experiences of their lives – apparently, they’re moronic at best, and after three minutes of listening to me speak, you’re free to agree – but Pembroke is a deceptively fun place. As a person who takes nothing seriously, especially not important things like Statistics class, advisory meetings, or graduation speeches - as a person who takes nothing seriously, the lesson I’m here to pass along (that’s right, there is a lesson, so you kids on the bleachers, listen up) is that coming to Pembroke was one of the scariest things I’ve done in my life. I came here knowing exactly three people, and was entirely unable to imagine how I could ever be a “Pembroke Hill student”. For a while it was a mystery. I did well in my classes, I made friends, I got involved with the theatre program.
But I didn’t learn anything until I stopped taking things so seriously and trying to look at them through a “Pembroke Hill” lens instead of a “Sam Ryan” lens. The moment I became a true Pembroke Hill student was during elections during my sophomore year. While other kids got up and gave speeches about how much they really wanted to be student government representative at large – a position no one really wants, unless your college transcript was as bad as mine – I got up for my speech and sang a version of Marvin Gaye’s “Let’s Get it on” with the lyrics changed to “Let’s Vote Me On”. It didn’t matter whether I won or lost at that point – although I did kick ass, big time – what mattered was that at that moment, there I was – a Pembroke Hill student.
Obviously not everyone should get onstage and sing a song – no one else would be able to pull it off like I did, anyway – but everyone should take one of those chances you wouldn’t get to take at another school, no matter how ridiculous or dangerous it seems. The Pembroke Hill motto is “Freedom with Responsibility”, and how many schools still care about the concept of freedom? Sure. You’ll annoy teachers, administrators will walk by you a little faster in the halls, and you’ll most likely have classmates who don't like or get what you're doing. But do it anyway. Submit your poem to the Garret. Start your Ultimate Frisbee team. Drop math – or science – or foreign language – and take something you love, or think you might love. Or drop your study hall and take all three – speaking from experience, the only thing I got done in my study hall was flirting with sophomore girls.
Go ahead – change something about yourself or others. Don’t cop out and accept the perception that high school is a time just to do what’s prescribed for you. That’s the chance Pembroke Hill gave me, and the reason I’ve appreciated the last four years. So thanks for the last four years and thanks for listening to me for the last five minutes. Have a good night.

Missouri Gay Marriage Issue on August Ballot - Good for the World

In Nixon v. Blunt, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that the Secretary of State must put the Gay Marriage Amendment on the August ballot rather than the November ballot. The ruling was unanimous, and its reasoning, though dry to read, is solid.

The implications of this ruling are huge. The amendment will almost certainly attract every backwoods under-educated, Bible-thumping moron in the state to the polls, and we have plenty of them in this state. If they came out in November, they would certainly skew the polls toward their intellectual equal, George Bush. Since Missouri is a swing state, it is conceivable that Bush just lost 11 electoral votes today, because a Missouri Supreme Court composed of 3 Republican appointments and 4 Democratic appointments did their solemn duty, and reached a unanimous decision. Their decision may possibly save the world from 4 more years of Bush rule.

Republicans and Gas Prices

As we face a summer of $2.00+ prices at the pump, let's pause a moment and thank those who helped contribute to such high prices. The Republicans passed special tax breaks for their small business contributors making it cheaper for them to buy massive SUVs than to buy fuel efficient automobiles. The Hummer Deduction is just another example how Republican stupidity harms everyone in this country.