I used to direct an after-school program, which was housed in a public school classroom, and I tried to implement a democratic meeting with my middle school students (a diverse group in terms of race and family income). As well-intentioned as I was, the students didn’t respect me as a leader because I was offering them decision-making power. They seemed so used to an authoritarian school day that they didn’t know what to do with an unexpected dose of freedom. It was also just a drop in the bucket compared to the way they spent the majority of their time. How would you have handled this situation?
- Redwood City, CA

Jonah Canner responded to the above scenario with an excellent post about how we are all democratic by nature, even little kids respond to each other democratically while playing, and it is school that imposes an authoritarian structure upon us. The following years stuck in school become a long, tired battle between authority and resistance to it. With all the harm that school does it is hard to reverse it over night, it is hard also to avoid getting caught in the crossfire of that ongoing battle of authority and resistance. Especially when you don’t seem to fit easily into expected roles. I definitely encourage you to click the link and read the post. It was an insightful response.

But since I’m a bit of a jerk, I’m gonna offer up an alternative, less supportive response to the fella from Redwood City. I personally wonder if the way democracy was introduced to the students played a role. The initial comment was light on detail, but I can picture a few ways things went bad.

He/she said “I tried to implement a democratic meeting.” I’m not an educator and I don’t have much direct experience in running after-school programs or classrooms, but trying to see things through the student’s eyes I can imagine an adult coming into the room and saying “ok kids, now we’re going to do a democratic meeting” as being viewed no different from “ok kids, now we’re gonna do geometry.”

It is still an adult coming in and imposing a set of rules and guidelines on you. Still an adult telling you how things are going to be. Still an adult hoping you fit into their expectations and parameters. In my school days there were plenty of instances when the teacher would try to shake things up by doing an activity or group project or some other “fun” activity. The teachers no doubt thought to themselves, “Aren’t I an innovative, creative teacher? I’m making them draw a picture instead of write an essay.” The artistic kids liked it, but for the rest of us it was just one more piece of drudgery, the only difference is the teacher wanted credit for “thinking outside the box.”

The idea of an adult coming in and trying to implement democracy in a setting that has known only authoritarianism seems somewhat like the US invading an authoritarian nation to make them democratic. The intentions are pure, but it seems to me that true, authentic democracy can’t be given to someone or imposed upon them. It only works when it bubbles up from below.

Also, and here there are parallels to the mideast as well, if we give someone freedom and democracy, what happens if they don’t use their freedom in a way we like? The initial writer said, “they didn’t know what to do with an unexpected dose of freedom.” Obviously we don’t know exactly what happened, but what if they knew exactly what to do with a dose of freedom and it just wasn’t what the writer expected them to do with it?

Adult - Ok, we’re going to change things up today. Instead of me standing up here telling you guys what to do, I’m gonna let you guys have control. You can decide what we learn and accomplish today. You are free to decide.

Adults - Now, now, that’s not what I meant.

It seems the adult here had pretty clear parameters in mind. One of which was pretty clear from the paragraph:

the students didn’t respect me as a leader because I was offering them decision-making power.

So you were expecting them to greet you as a liberator? You wanted them to make decisions, but still wanted to be the leader? The success of letting them make decisions is dependent upon how much they respect you? What if the first decision they reached was to decide they didn’t like you very much? (sorry, happens to the best of us) I can’t imagine President Obama telling us, “Ok, guys, I let you vote, I let you decide your political future, but all you crazy tea party folks really don’t respect me, I guess this democracy thing isn’t working out.”

Again, I don’t know all the details and I feel bad calling out someone who seems to have good intentions, but democracy is messy. Freedom is messy. It rarely turns out like we want it to. Despite my cutting him down, I can totally sympathize with the writer. You try to do something really nice for someone and they spit in your face. It sucks. But whether or not you get the recognition and respect you deserve, it is still worth it for youth to make decisions. Even, and dare I say it, especially decisions you don’t agree with. If they aren’t able to make decisions that to you are absurd, ridiculous, and stupid, then they don’t really have the ability to make decisions in the first place. You are just asking them whether they want Coke or Pepsi, or whether they want to draw a picture or write an essay. Giving them a constrained field of pre-approved choices or outcomes to pick between isn’t true choice and isn’t true democracy.

So don’t get frustrated. Keep at it. But make sure that whatever democracy exists in your program it is created by the students, otherwise it’ll be empty and they’ll realize it. If, after all that, they still don’t like you very much? Well I guess that’s just politics. Just think of yourself as someone trying to provide healthcare only to find people demanding to see your birth certificate. Ain’t pretty, but that’s democracy, and believe it or not, it is worth fighting for.

Why is it that, whenever some politician yaks about wasteful government spending, they fuss over some wretched little lump of pork in the latest bill? Oh yeah, because the real problem is much more boring. But still:

When I was recruited as a census clerk, I had to go through about ten hours of training. All of it was worthless, pertaining only to the Recruiting Assistants who were also in my class. What little pertained to my job could have been learned much more effectively in ten minutes hands-on. I was one of five clerks taking that training at about $10/hr, plus a new tech officer who presumably earns considerably more, and the assistant manager who had to teach us probably earned the same amount. Result, well over a thousand dollars in tax money spent NOT DOING A DAMNED THING USEFUL.

Upon hiring, I was assigned to recruiting, a rather busy operation given that our office wants about six thousand applicants in the space of a year. The applicants are signed up over the phone to take the mandatory test. We write down their names on paper and stick them in binders. Binders, FFS. If the CEO of a non-government agency in the middle of a massive recruiting drive found his people in charge scribbling notes in binders in the year 2010, I assume he would axe several people and get a sensible database to keep track of all this. I imagine we could buy and set up a reasonable dedicated system for the cost of not-training ten clerks. But we don’t, so we have problems with people getting signed up for canceled testing sessions, five sessions with two people each on the same damned day, etc.

Less than a month ago, my office got an order from Philadelphia (the higher office) that I-9 identity forms are no longer to be stored with applicants’ other paperwork. We have about 2500 applicants, but okay. We went through all the folders, taking about 15 man-hours to separate the I-9s and alphabetize them. Sometime this week, a second order came down that I-9s are now to be stored with the other paperwork. Yay!

There are many more examples if for some reason you want them, but my point is, if this kind of crap is found throughout the federal government (and my fed retiree dad assures me it is), we could probably get by on two-thirds of our present budget by just not acting all ex-governor-of-Alaska’d. We’re bleeding money from a million tiny cuts, not to mention the absurd hiring process that all but ensures incompetents will be hired.

This stuff isn’t sexy, but I think it is the number one thing to cut the size and cost of government. People of either party has a sense that government doesn’t work. One side really wants it to work, the other not as much, but both generally recognize the problem. This is something that would appeal to all.

Even I, as someone who hates the size and scope of government, when looking at programs and departments as large chunks don’t have any very clear ideas on what to cut. Lots of things that philosophically I’d like to cut, but practically see their use and can’t imagine the steps it would take to get rid of them politically and replace them with some private entity.

This is the same reason when any semi-sensible politician proposes cuts they are talking about cutting programs that are tiny portions of the budget. Obama’s “spending freeze” that won’t really affect that much. Or McCain’s pledge to cut pork, which again isn’t a huge part of the budget.

If you can’t lop off giant things like social security, or the defense department, then you need to do what you can to make them efficient and cut the every day waste the guy talked about that bloat these big ticket items larger and larger.

The trouble is just the sheer size. I don’t think the private sector is immune. Dave formerly worked for an environmental non-profit with like a $30-50 million budget. He is always impressed with how much less crap we have to worry about as a small, streamlined two-man shop than the countless hoops and bureaucracy he had at the environmental group. Scaling up to the US Federal Government is worse by several more degrees.

The guys at the top can’t see to the bottom since there are too many layers of middle-men between and the people at the bottom who may recognize the problem don’t have any power to do anything about it.

So how to untangle this web of inefficiency?

The index is based on “interviews with more than 353,000 Americans during 2009, asked individuals to assess their jobs, finances, physical health, emotional state of mind and communities.” More info in USA Today.

I know the economy is hurting back home, and of the different categories cities are ranked on, Holland is only 31st in “work experience”, but it is still damn impressive! I guess everywhere is hurting, so while it can be kind of depressing seeing all the closed up stores in Holland now compared to a few years ago, it isn’t doing all that bad compared to everywhere else. But what is cool though is that despite the jobs situation back home people still have a better quality of life than anywhere else in the country besides Boulder, CO.

This bit is also interesting:

Overall, the top 10 cities include four in California, two in Utah and one each in Colorado and Hawaii. Of them, only the Holland, Mich., and Washington, D.C., metro areas are located in the Eastern or Central time zones.

I’ve spent most of my life in the two best cities in this half of the nation. Boy, don’t I know how to pick ‘em? DC is #8. Go DC! Go Holland! Yay!!

The top 10:

Boulder, CO 293,161
Holland-Grand Haven, MI 260,364
Honolulu, HI 905,034
Provo-Orem, UT 540,820
Santa Rosa-Petaluma, CA 466,741
Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Goleta, CA 405,396
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA 1,819,198
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 5,358,130
Ogden-Clearfield, UT 531,488
Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA 797,740

Reports indicate the debate was one of the most discussed and highest profile events of their conference. It was definitely an event that put CAFETY and all of us opponents of abusive behavior modification programs on the radar of educational consultants. For those interested in it, IECA described the debate.

One of the most interesting parts of the debate centered on the question of the age of medical consent. Washington state requires that all individuals 13 and up consent to medical treatment. This law, as best we can tell, has had a major impact on reducing or eliminating abusive programs in Washington state and limiting the number of Washington state youth sent to programs in other states. As people debate the benefits of regulating the residential treatment industry (especially with HR 911 on the table), medical consent is a law that NYRA, CAFETY and others have thought of as an ideal, youth rights-centered way to reduce or eliminate the harm of the troubled teen industry. I am glad to see it be a major topic of discussion at the IECA conference.

Obviously this idea wasn’t discussed without some controversy or opposition. One member of the panel, Lon Woodbury, an educational consultant and well known advocate of teen behavior modification, was especially critical of the idea of medical consent. He followed up last month with an essay using teen brain research to blast the medical consent idea:

It is our job as a society to protect our children! Giving them rights before they are able to responsibly handle them does no service to children, especially those who like to “live on the edge.” We need to rethink the whole question of children’s rights in light of research on the functioning of the adolescent brain.

I am not in the least surprised to see Woodbury make an argument in defense of residential treatment using brain science. One common theme I’ve seen in my exposure to the residential treatment world is the tendency to invalidate one’s own experiences. Your views, your conceptions of yourself, your hopes and desires are declared wrong in a program. The only one who can tell you what is real or true is the program itself. NYRA board member and CAFETY President Brian Lombrowski talks about breaking kids down and building them up again from scratch in the program’s image.

This style of “treatment” flows quite naturally when your conception of youth is that they do not have the maturity, reasoning, or brain faculties to understand themselves, their lives and their desires. When you assume they are incapable of thinking for themselves or looking out for themselves it is easy for parents to conclude their kids are lying when they call home with tales of abuse. It is far easier as well for society to excuse abuse if it is done in the name of trying to help.

Our concept of “human” is that of a rational, sentient animal. When we picture youth as inherently irrational then we don’t fully regard them as human. When we don’t fully regard them as human than all manner of abuse and mistreatment will occur. Regardless of how benign our intentions may be.

It is very important for advocates in this field to stop and think about why the victims of this industry are all young. Surely adults have mental health issues and need treatment as well. Why aren’t they forced into similar abusive programs?

Because they have rights and the ability to consent.

The entire reason this industry exists is because young people have neither. The existence of the residential treatment industry is a symptom of our wider devaluation of young people and their capacity. I did not go to medical school but I understand treating symptoms is not the ideal way to address problems.

We could (and absolutely should) enact additional safeguards, oversight, and regulation of these programs (i.e. HR 911) but ultimately these changes won’t solve the problem. We can invent (and programs surely will) kinder/gentler ways to strip down one’s humanity, we can invent physical restraints that are less likely to cause death and injury, we can take the rough edges of the facilities we lock up our children in, but they will still be locked up.

The juvenile justice system was created to offer a kinder, more understanding alternative to adult jails. In many cases residential treatment positions itself as a kinder, more understanding alternative to the juvenile justice system. We can invent new alternative systems today, but have we really made much progress?

CAFETY board member, Dr. Charles Huffine, MD takes issue with Woodbury’s interpretation of brain science:

It is not just Woodbury, there seems to be gross misunderstanding of how to interpret the research. I want you all to keep in mind that the frontal lobe immaturity shows up in high emotive situations! That is why juvenile crime is adjudicated differently - most crimes by juveniles are committed in a state of fear, excitement, being overwhelmed, shame, anxiety, etc. In calm circumstances the data shows that youth at least by 14 can make as valid a consent as an 18 yr old or 25 yr. old.

Dr. Huffine is correct. Youth DO have the ability to consent and understand their decisions. Will they always make the right decisions? Of course not. Neither do adults. Yet somehow our society survives allowing adults to make wrong decisions. Even though, as parents & bread winners, their poor decisions have far more of an impact on others than the decisions of teens.

I think though that most youth, most of the time, will make mostly good decisions. The same as adults. I think that is the most we can or should hope for. As Dr. Huffine said, science does suggest that. In fact I have a study that examines youth (some of whom are quite young) who make competent, mature end-of-life choices. I can’t imagine a more stressful, important decision a person could make than one involving their own death. It is worth a read.

Social values precede and inform the science that we do regarding young people. Our social values do not regard young people very highly. This has an enormous impact on research, and an even bigger impact on our understanding of that research. Research done on women or blacks in the 1890s is far different than research done today. I’m sure we are all aware that homosexuality was considered a disorder by the AMA for some time.

These social values which limit our understanding of youth not only cause us to restrict their ability to make decisions, they cause us to restrict the information that allows them to make decisions. The alcohol issue makes this problem plain. Due to our much vaunted research we have determined that young people cannot responsibly handle alcohol. So not only do we pass laws that stop them from drinking, we restrict their ability to learn about drinking. Our only official form of alcohol education is based on stirring up fear over how deadly, dangerous and harmful alcohol is and instructing youth to stay away. Now, after taking away all balanced, useful information through abstinence-only education we confirm our poor impressions of youth decision making when they do, in fact, make poor, uninformed decisions. Thus we feel more confident in their inability to make sound decisions and the cycle continues.

Our ability to understand what young people truly want and need is colored by many factors and is far from perfect. Instead of asserting that we know what is best for youth and invalidate the thoughts and feelings of youth like so many programs we oppose, we should trust them as people, as humans, and as equals to make the soundest decisions possible with the information they have at hand. Our role therefore should be to give them all the information available and all the honest support, understanding and friendship they desire to help them make quality decisions.

After determining the Big-12 championship game participants the BCS computers were put to work on other major contests and today the BCS declared Germany to be the winner of World War II.

“Germany put together an incredible number of victories beginning with the annexation of Austria and the Sudetenland and continuing on into conference play with defeats of Poland, France, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands. Their only losses came against the US and Russia; however considering their entire body of work–including an incredibly tough Strength of Schedule–our computers deemed them worthy of the #1 ranking.”

Questioned about the #4 ranking of the United States the BCS commissioner stated “The US only had two major victories– Japan and Germany . The computer models, unlike humans, aren’t influenced by head-to-head contests–they consider each contest to be only a single, equally-weighted event.”

German Chancellor Adolph Hiter said “Yes, we lost to the US ; but we defeated #2 ranked France in only 6 weeks.” Herr Hitler has been criticized for seeking dramatic victories to earn ’style points’ to enhance Germany ’s rankings. Hitler protested “Our contest with Poland was in doubt until the final day and the conditions in Norway were incredibly challenging and demanded the application of additional forces.”

The French ranking has also come under scrutiny. The BCS commented ” France had a single loss against Germany and following a preseason #1 ranking they only fell to #2.”

Japan was ranked #3 with victories including Manchuria, Borneo and the Philippines .

Do they know something we don’t?

Praise and skepticism greet Obama Nobel award

LONDON (Reuters) - A surprised world greeted the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to U.S. President Barack Obama with a mixture of praise and skepticism on Friday.

In its announcement, the Norwegian Nobel Committee hailed Obama’s “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.”

Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg referred to Obama’s work for peace and disarmament, saying: “This is a surprising, an exciting prize. It remains to be seen if he will succeed with reconciliation, peace and nuclear disarmament.”

Afghanistan’s Taliban mocked the award, saying it was absurd to give it to Obama when he had ordered 21,000 extra troops to Afghanistan this year.

“The Nobel prize for peace? Obama should have won the ‘Nobel Prize for escalating violence and killing civilians’,” Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid told Reuters by telephone from an undisclosed location.

Mohamed ElBaradei, director-general of the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency — awarded the prize in 2005 — said: “I cannot think of anyone today more deserving of this honor. In less than a year in office, he has transformed the way we look at ourselves and the world we live in and rekindled hope for a world at peace with itself.”

European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said in a statement: “The award of the prize to President Obama, leader of the most significant military power in the world, at the beginning of his mandate, is a reflection of the hopes he has raised globally with his vision of a world without nuclear weapons.”

In the Middle East, chief Palestinian peace negotiator Saeb Erekat said the award could be a good omen for peace in the region.

“We hope that he will be able to achieve peace in the Middle East and achieve Israeli withdrawal to 1967 borders and establish an independent Palestinian state on 1967 borders, with Jerusalem as its capital,” he told Reuters

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak told army radio he believed the award would enhance Obama’s ability “to contribute to establishing regional peace in the Middle East and a settlement between us and the Palestinians that will bring security, prosperity and growth to all the peoples of the region.”

The Islamist movement Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip and opposes a peace treaty with Israel, was more skeptical.

“Unless real and deep-rooted change is made in American policy toward recognizing the rights of the Palestinian people I would think such a prize would be useless,” Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas prime minister in the Gaza Strip, told reporters after Friday prayers.

REAL CHANGE

Saleh al-Mutlaq, a senior Iraqi Sunni Muslim lawmaker, told Reuters: “I think he deserves this prize. Obama succeeded to make a real change in the policy of the United States — a change from a policy that was exporting evil to the world to a policy exporting peace and stability to the world.”

In Indonesia, Masdar Mas’udi, deputy head of Indonesia’s largest Muslim organization Nahdatul Ulama, said: “I think it’s a good thing. I think it’s appropriate because he is the only American president who has reached out to us in peace. On the issues of race, religion, skin color, he has an open attitude.”

In Pakistan, Liaqat Baluch, a senior leader of the Jamaat-e-Islami, a conservative religious party, said: “It’s a joke. How embarrassing for those who awarded it to him because he’s done nothing for peace. What change has he brought in Iraq, the Middle East or Afghanistan?”

South Africa’s Archbishop Desmond Tutu, awarded the prize himself in 1984, hailed the award as “a magnificent endorsement for the first African American president in history.”

Two other former recipients, Mikhail Gorbachev and Wangari Maathai, were among the first to offer their congratulations.

Gorbachev, the former Soviet leader awarded the prize in 1990, was quoted by Itar-Tass news agency as saying: “In these hard times people who are capable of taking responsibility, who have a vision, commitment and political will should be supported.”

Maathai, a Kenyan environmentalist who won in 2004, referred to Obama’s mixed heritage of a Kenyan father and American mother, called it “another very encouraging event for Africa.”

From Obama’s ancestral village of Kogelo in western Kenya his uncle Said Obama told Reuters: “It is humbling for us as a family and we share in Barack’s honor. We congratulate him.”

Zimbabwean Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangarai, who had been among the favorites to win this year, said Obama was an extraordinary example.

“I wish to congratulate President Obama. I think he is a deserving candidate,” he told Reuters during a visit to Spain.

Even most of the international folks praising his choice talk more about the things they hope Obama will do rather than the things he has done. I am certainly in the camp that has high expectations that he will one day do something worthy of a Nobel peace prize, but…. he hasn’t yet. He hasn’t really done much of *anything* yet. I agree the tone has changed, and that is important, but seriously, a Nobel? Already? WTF?

Can people win multiple peace prizes? If not then, when he really does something momentous (as I hope he does) then there won’t be any recognition for it. Instead we have recognition for the hope of doing something. Very, very strange.

- Those people with insurance who are happy with it won’t have to change. (good)
- “against the law for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition” (good)
- “against the law for insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick or water it down when you need it most” (good)
- “They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or a lifetime.” (good)
- “We will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses” (I don’t get this, does that mean that high deductible insurance plans will be banned? What does this mean?)
- “insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care” (generally good)
- “creating a new insurance exchange - a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance at competitive prices.” (I think this is a great idea. I assume this will be, what John Mackey and others talked about allowing consumers to shop across state lines. Seems like there are dozens of reasons this is a great thing to do. If it takes the government to create some “exchange” to encourage competition between various insurance companies, then so be it, lets do it.)
- “For those individuals and small businesses who still cannot afford the lower-priced insurance available in the exchange, we will provide tax credits” (good)
- “we will immediately offer low-cost coverage that will protect you against financial ruin if you become seriously ill” (I don’t entirely know what this means. He said it was John McCain’s idea. It is probably good and benign, but I’m not totally clear on it.)
- “individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance” (I couldn’t disagree with this point more. I am very, very much against this. As he noted, I am young and I am healthy. That doesn’t make me irresponsible to not get insurance that makes me SMART. Why pay money for something I don’t need? Why should I have to choose between my rent and health insurance that I don’t use and won’t benefit me? This is bullshit and not only a bad policy but it goes against a campaign promise he made to be against health insurance mandates. Without a doubt this is the low point of his plan for me. Ugh.)
- “public insurance option” (On principle I don’t like this, but as far as these things go it is something I could live with. It is hardly a “government take over of health care”, especially if the CBO is right (and they rarely seem to be) that less than 5% of the people will opt for it. Plus, as he said, it will be cheap & non-profit, but not free. Again, if he is right that it’ll be funded entirely by the consumers who opt for it, it seems quite acceptable. Government run, but not tax-payer funded. Now obviously those are some really big IFs. But I at least am not totally opposed to the idea, guess it depends on the implementation.)

Money stuff:
- “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits - either now or in the future. Period. And to prove that I’m serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don’t materialize.” (This sounds amazing, and I want to believe him, I really, really do, but damn… I don’t see how this will remotely happen. I call bullshit on this.)
- “most of this plan can be paid for by finding savings within the existing health care system” (Again, I really want to believe this, but I am quite skeptical)
- “The only thing this plan would eliminate is the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud,” (Good luck, I’m rooting for you)
- “This reform will charge insurance companies a fee for their most expensive policies” (He didn’t elaborate on this, I have no idea what he is talking about.)
- “I am proposing that we move forward on a range of ideas about how to put patient safety first and let doctors focus on practicing medicine.” (Rather dodgy language for proposing this. I’ve never been terribly sold on the importance of tort reform, but I do very much appreciate that Obama is reaching out to Republicans and offering to adopt some proposals (like this) that they have been arguing for tirelessly for a while. So if nothing else I appreciate the olive branch.)

Those are pretty much all the hard details. Overall I really, really liked the tone and scope of the speech. While I don’t always agree with him on issues I commend and respect the President for seeming to genuinely care about all sides in the debate. He didn’t lampoon or ignore the other side he made very real references to ideas and policies from both sides. Some he even incorporated in his plan. Now I’ve heard that he talks a good game, but he doesn’t back it up with action. I don’t know about that, but from what I heard tonight and in many other cases he really seems to have a genuine understanding of many perspectives on the issue. Far better consideration is given to competing ideas by Obama than… just about any friend or colleague I know on the right or the left when it comes to health care.

If nothing else happens after this I really, truly hope we can all take a moment to try to understand the ideas and proposals of our opponents. Perhaps for a moment stop thinking of people as opponents and think of us all in this together trying to come up with ideas to fix this issue. Whether good ideas come from “our guy” or “their guy” shouldn’t matter. I am an independent and I am SICK of all the hatred and anger on this issue. Everyone is digging in their partisan heels and refusing to listen or understand anyone else. I don’t owe allegiance to any party or ideology and I can say that both (or all?) camps should be ashamed for how they’ve handled themselves.

While there is shameful partisanship on both sides the lies spread about the health care proposal do need to be addressed specifically. I’m glad the President did. No funding for abortions (yay), no funding for illegal immigrants (eh), no death panels (obviously, yay). The hecklers who started shouting about the illegal immigrant thing were definitely out of line. Congressmen should have some more decorum I think. I could be wrong (and often am) but I don’t remember similar heckling during any of Bush’s speeches. It is also wrong however to take the few wingbats circulating lies and extreme statements about the health care bill and pin their antics on every one who disagrees with the health care plan. That kind of black & white, us vs. them thinking is what everyone hated about Bush. Don’t repeat the same mistakes. Some people oppose the plan and are crazy, some people oppose the plan and have lots of really good reasons for doing so and also some good ideas for making it better. Listen to them. It seems Obama is. I like this guy.

So… back to the details. Almost all of the plan he outlined sounds good. Or at the very least, quite acceptable.

The mandatory coverage though… that is a very bitter pill. A few weeks ago I called my whole congressional delegation and told them not to support any insurance mandates. Such a proposal punishes the young and it punishes the healthy. It hits home for me because I don’t have health insurance and I don’t want any. At least not at the moment. I have very, very limited income and don’t want to have to choose between paying rent or paying for insurance that I’m not going to use. Obama is wrong that we are foisting our costs upon others. I have very minimal medical needs, but in the rare cases where I’ve needed a doctor in the last seven years I’ve paid cash out of pocket. It was far more affordable for me to do so than pay for some insurance racket. This is not irresponsible this is sensible.

Sure I could get hit by a car tomorrow. Sure I could suddenly get struck with an expensive exotic disease. I understand there is a risk, but I have undertaken that risk willfully and knowingly. I haven’t had health insurance for seven years now and it has made a big positive difference in my quality of life. I don’t know what I would have done if over the last seven years I’d incurred hundreds or thousands of additional expenses going to some insurance company. If skipping out on these payments now means I should pay more in my 40’s, then so be it. I’ll be making more money then and will be able to afford it then. I can’t now. Young people are, as a class, poorer than middle aged adults. Shouldn’t we (all you progressive tax enthusiasts) have to pay less? Shouldn’t there be a health dividend?

Those are my thoughts. I am very upset over the mandate. Otherwise I think the speech and the plan was really good. But since I’m not a partisan warrior I can step back enough to point out the parts I really like and the parts I really don’t like without feeling I’m betraying my “team”.

An Arab couple whose one-year-old daughter was expelled from an Israeli day-care center on her first day are suing a Jewish mother for damages, accusing her of racist incitement against their child.

Maysa and Shuaa Zuabi, from the village of Sulam in northern Israel, launched the court action last week saying they had been “shocked and humiliated” when the center’s owner told them that six Jewish parents had demanded their daughter’s removal because she is an Arab.

In the first legal action of its kind in Israel, the Zuabis are claiming $80,000 from Neta Kadshai, whom they accuse of being the ringleader.

The girl, Dana, is reported to be the first Arab child ever to attend the day-care center in the rural Jewish community of Merhavia, less than one kilometer from Sulam.

However, human rights lawyers say that, given the narrow range of anti-racism legislation in Israel, the chance of success for the Zuabis is low.

Since its founding in 1948, Israel has operated an education system almost entirely segregated between Jews and Arabs.

However, chronic underfunding of Arab schools means that in recent years a small but growing number of Arab parents have sought to move their children into the Jewish system.

Dana was admitted to the day-care center last December, according to the case, after its owner, Ivon Grinwald, told the couple she had a vacant place. However, on Dana’s first day six parents threatened to withdraw their own children if she was not removed.

Kadshai, in particular, is said to have waged a campaign of “slurs and efforts aimed at having [Dana] removed from the day-care center, making it clear that [her] children would not be in the same center as an Arab girl.” Zuabi was summoned to a meeting the same evening at which Grinwald said she could not afford to lose the six children. She returned the contract Zuabi had signed and repaid her advance fees.

Zuabi said that while she was in the office Grinwald received a call from Kadshai again slandering Dana and demanding her removal.

Grinwald refused to speak to the media last week. However, last December, when the Zuabis first complained, she told Army Radio: “The [Jewish] parents called her a girl from ‘the [Arab] sector,’ they said this is a day-care center for Jewish children and that it should stay that way … I can’t change the world, I have to look out for my livelihood.”

Although Israel lacks a constitution, the Zuabis’ lawyer, Dori Kaspi, is suing Kadshai under the terms of the 1992 Basic Law on Human Freedom and Dignity, the nearest legislation Israel has to a bill of rights.

In previous cases when Arab children have been excluded from schools, the parents have launched a legal action for discrimination against the education authorities or the school itself.

Lawyers are doubtful that the couple can win given the law’s lack of reference to the principles of equality or equal opportunities.

One lawyer, who wished not to be named, said: “Instances like this are not covered by laws against discrimination. Anti-discrimination legislation in Israel is very specific, covering mainly examples of discrimination in employment and access to public places like pubs and clubs.”

Even then, the lawyer added, enforcement was extremely lax.

Instances of Arab children being denied places at Jewish kindergartens and junior schools have become more common in recent years, especially in the country’s handful of mixed cities.

Yousef Jabareen, head of Dirasat, a Nazareth-based organization monitoring education issues, said when parents tried to switch their children to Jewish schools it was because of the poor conditions in Arab education institutions.

“Although it’s an understandable reaction, it’s a cause for concern,” he said. “In Jewish schools Arab children are not taught their language, culture or history. Their Arab identity has to be sacrificed for them to receive a decent education.”

A report published in March revealed that the government invested $1,100 in each Jewish pupil’s education compared to $190 for each Arab pupil. The gap is even wider when compared to the popular state-run religious schools, where Jewish pupils receive nine times more funding than Arab pupils.

There is also an official shortfall of more than 1,000 classrooms for Arab children, said Jabareen, though Arab organizations believe the problem is in reality much worse. In addition, a significant proportion of existing Arab school buildings have been judged unsafe or dangerous to children’s health.

In some parts of the country where private religious schools are available, particularly in Nazareth and Haifa, Arab parents are turning their back on the state-run system, said Jabareen.

Two-thirds of the 7,500 Arab pupils in the northern mixed city of Haifa, for example, are reported to be attending private schools, despite high levels of poverty among the population.

Last September, the Adalah legal center for Israel’s Arab minority forced the municipality of the mixed city of Ramle, near Tel Aviv, to register an Arab boy in a Jewish kindergarten close to his home.

The mayor, Yoel Lavi, had earlier told the boy’s parents that he could not be admitted because he was an Arab and that the kindergarten served only Jewish children.

Jabareen said he favored binational and bilingual schools in which Jewish and Arab children could meet and study as equals. However, the state did not offer such schools to parents.

Four bilingual elementary schools admitting both Arab and Jewish children have been established privately. Israel has no mixed secondary schools.

Mike Prashker, director of Merchavim, an organization advocating shared citizenship in Israel, recently told the Haaretz newspaper: “The Israeli reality of segregated education systems creates ignorance and fear of the ‘other.’”

A poll published by Haifa University in January found that three-quarters of Jewish pupils regarded Arabs as “uneducated, uncivilized and dirty.”

A recent survey by Merchavim found that the segregation among pupils was mirrored by segregation among teachers. Despite some 8,000 Arab teachers being recorded as unemployed by the education ministry, only a few dozen work in Jewish schools, mainly teaching Arabic, even though the Jewish system is suffering from staff shortages.

The previous dovish education minister Yuli Tamir established a public committee last year to develop for the first time a “shared life” policy for Jewish and Arab schools.

The committee issued its report earlier this year recommending more meetings between Jewish and Arab children, that Arabic should be taught to Jewish pupils, and that schools should employ both Arab and Jewish teachers.

The new right-wing government of Benjamin Netanyahu announced it was freezing the report in April.

Jonathan Cook is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. His latest books are Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East (Pluto Press) and Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair (Zed Books). His website is www.jkcook.net.