Deep thought...

Every member of Congress has access to Government provided health care - even the ones who will vote against it for others. As does every senior citizen, every veteran, every current member of the military, every federal and state worker. All told, about half of US helathcare is currently government managed in one way or onother. And yet, the Republic has survived...

Chillin' Out: It's August

Dear Blog,

No, I have not forgotten you. As the song says, ya know, you were always on my mind.

It's been a stormy month out there, hasn't it? Death panels (wtf?), guns at Presidential speeches (omfg!), Obama as a Nazi (take it away, Barney) it's all been a bit... mad, hasn't it?

Meanwhile, I've been... weirdly relaxed. My husband and I had the most glorious ten day holiday in the mountains of northern Spain. If you ever have the chance - I highly recommend this pristine, largely unspoiled area where they make delicious cheese and wine, where everyone is almost freakishly tan and healthy, by London standards, and where you can walk in the mountains all day and sit outside over your evening meal until late at night.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch I've got some really interesting free-lance projects on the go, where I act as PR, public affairs or a communications consultant to some really inspiring people.

And the health care debate... lurches on.

Everywhere I go Brits come up to me and want to know how Americans can possibly be so upset about the idea of giving everyone healthcare. American Democrats that I meet are beside themselves with anger and concern that the public debate has strayed so disastrously from reason.

But you know what? It all looks... sort of familiar to me. Around this time last year I was running our campaign office and spending the bulk of my time scooping dejected activists up from the limpid pools of fatalistic despair that they were sinking into. We were coping, you may recall, with not only a dip in Obama's poll numbers following the apparently successful "celebrity ad" from McCain, which made the oh-so-rational argument that 1) Barack Obama is quite famous 2) Paris Hilton is also quite famous. 3) Therefore they were just the same. People, bizarrely, appeared to be buying into this. And then, Sarah Palin entered our world.

My spiel (repeated to every Democrat I met twice daily, and taken alongside volunteerism) was that yes, things are going to go up and down. Nobody ever expected that this was going to be easy. But also that, yes, we do have a plan to win. We don't think that plan is any less valid now that we're 3 points down than it was when were 10 points up. It does, however, involve a lot of time, energy and commitment from all of us. And that the surest way to lose is to convince ourselves of the impossibility of winning.

Two Augusts ago, those of us who were early Obama supporters started going through a milder version of something quite similar. All we were getting in the press was that Obama was 35 points behind Hillary Clinton in the polls, she was the shut out favourite to take the nomination. My spiel at that time was that, yes, it was going to be difficult to win, and it would require a massive effort, but also that the confident assertions of the pundits and prognosticators were so much sound and fury signifying, essentially, nothing. The tragectory of the race would be set by the early primaries and caucuses, which is why rather than obsessing about the implausibility of our own success, we would spend out time raising money and getting out the vote for those races.

So August, to me, just feels like the usual ritual Moment of Panic that we Democrats go through on at least a yearly cycle.

Does that mean that health insurance reform will be easy, or is certain to succeed? Not at all. It's going to be very hard work indeed - remember that universal health care has been the holy grail of every Democratic president since FDR - but:

1) We have already come closer to making it a reality than anyone ever has before - no major reform has ever cleared all House Committeees before.
2) We are unlikely to have a bigger or a more cohesive majority in Congress than we have right now.
3) Some of reform's most effective former opponents have either remained silent or joined our side. (Remember Harry and Louise? They are literally appearing in pro-reform ads.)
4) It's not entirely out of our control.

We are not in a situation where we are helplessly sitting back and watching others do terrible things to our national debate without any power to react - it is within our power to get on the phone to our Senators and Representatives to let them know what we think.

We each have a wide network of friends and family who may be hearing lies and misinformation about the healthcare debate. We can set the record straight.

Here's a snippet from the lates Democrats Abroad alert on health insurance reform:

This next 30 days are critical in the health care reform debate at home. The emails from many of our members and the first-rate discussion of this signature issue for the President at the August Speakeasy show that the level of interest among our members is extraordinarily high.

The White House has asked that we write or call our Representatives and Senators to urge support for the President’s core principles on Health Insurance Reform:

-- to reduce costs
--to guarantee choice
--and to ensure quality care for all.

DA’s Washington office has also posted a Legislative Alert on the DA website, urging members to write or call their Representatives and Senators in support of the President’s core principles.

Let me also urge you to write or call your elected representatives in Washington. Do it in the next few days. That is particularly important for those of our members who come from states where the position of their Representative or Senators is unclear or as yet unknown.

For your Representative’s contact details, go to: http://www.democratsabroad.org/sites/all/modules/civicrm/extern/url.php?u=65191&qid=6623723.
For your Senators’ contact details, go to: http://www.democratsabroad.org/sites/all/modules/civicrm/extern/url.php?u=65192&qid=6623723

Sotomayor Confirmed!

By a vote of 61-38.

"When she places her hand on the Bible and takes the oath of office, the new portrait of the justices of the Supreme Court will clearly reflect who we are as a nation," said Sen. Robert Menendez, the Senate's lone Hispanic Democrat.

"Judge Sotomayor should not be chosen to serve on the court because of her Hispanic heritage, but those who oppose her for fear of her unique life experience do no justice to her or our nation. Their names will be listed in our nation's annals of elected officials one step behind America's historic march forward," said Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois ahead of of the historic vote.

Welcome Sonia! I'm especially glad for Justice Ginsburg, who clearly has not been enjoying her tenure as the Court's only woman.

JUSTICE GINSBURG: It’s almost like being back in law school in 1956, when there were 9 of us in a class of over 500, so that meant most sections had just 2 women, and you felt that every eye was on you. Every time you went to answer a question, you were answering for your entire sex. It may not have been true, but certainly you felt that way. You were different and the object of curiosity.

I hear ya, Ruth. It's worth remembering that Sonia Sotomayor entered Princeton only a few years after women were first admitted to that University. (They were first admitted as undergraduates in 1969, Sotomayor entered in 1976 - at which point women were still scarce.)

As far as women have come, it's worth remembering that the women at the top of power today - Hillary Clinton and Sonia Sotomayor being telling examples - are really the first generation of women for whom it was even possible to enter elite institutions.

Just think how far the rest of us should be able to go, now that we have so much less to hold us back.

Plus, it's fun to say SotoMAYOR. Rolls off the tongue, don't you think?

Attention US Senior Citizens: You HAVE Government Run Health Care

I'm usually pretty hard to discourage, but this kind of thing really gets me down:

During the town hall, one conservative activist turns to his fellow attendees and asks them to raise their hands if they “oppose any form of socialized or government-run health care.” Almost all the hands shot up. Rep Green quickly turned the question on the audience and asked, “How many of you have Medicare?” Nearly half the attendees raised their hands, failing to note the irony.

Most people who have Medicare or Medicaid are highly satisfied with it. Yet, at the same time, most people in the Medicare age bracket oppose health insurance reform to offer a similar type of service to others.

I've assumed this was because they maybe have concerns about increasing the deficit, or are worried that wider coverage would threaten the quality of their own services. But is it possible that they just don't know what they currently have?

Say it ain't so!

Couldn't Have Said it Better Myself...

A reader e-mail from Andrew Sullivan's blog:

I was struck by two different views of America yesterday. On the one hand the Town Hall protesters who seemed elderly,white,scared and come across as unwilling to listen, and on the other hand the two freed journalists who seemed young,with ethnically diverse families and friends, and came across as generous and open minded.

The first group has become emblematic of the Republican party. The second group were surrounded by Democrats. Is there any doubt which party is winning the battle for the future?

I know who I'd rather hang out with.

Welcome Home Euna and Laura!

All I can say is, this must have been quite a moment:

Thirty hours ago, Euna Lee and I were prisoners in North Korea. We feared that at any moment we could be prisoners in a hard labor camp. Then suddenly we were told that we were going to a meeting. We were taken to a location and when we walked through the doors, we saw standing before us President Bill Clinton. We were shocked, but we knew instantly in our hearts that the nightmare of our lives was finally coming to an end.

Well done to President Clinton for skillful and compassionate diplomacy.

In other news, John Bolton seems convinced that America is irrreparably weakened by the success of this mission. What a scary, sad world it must be in his mind - where apparently almost everything that happens in the world is bad for America EXCEPT for failed military invasions which are, perversely, good. Poor soul.

Media Hound Watch

Quick note - I'll be on Sky News tomorrow morning at 7:30. If you're up and watching TV at that time, please do watch. Although normally, I would NOT be. Apologies in advance if I have that "where's my coffee" look.

Facts are Stubborn Things

Further to my message below, the White House is also off and running with a concerted effort to debunk some of the falsehoods being spread about Health Insurance reform. Check them out at the page appropriately entitled

Facts are Stubborn Things

Health care: Facts, Fiction and Fury

There's been much hand wringing on both sides of the health care reform discussion right now. I'd like to address both sides.

Among those who support reform, there's a lot of concern that we are entering the Congressional recess without a final bill in the Senate - they worry that President Obama may be losing "momentum" and that the August recess will be an opportunity for the voices of opposition to make their case. They also, understandably, are a little green around the gills at the prospect of the right wing's reported strategy to disrupt town hall discussions with angry shouts and chanting.

(By the way, for the record: attending town hall meetings = good. Asking questions at town hall meetings = good. Confronting lawmakers directly with your arguments, even emotionally so = good. Preventing others from speaking by disrupting the meeting to the poitn where no one can be heard = bad. Hope that's clear.)

To worried supporters I say this: to some extent, you SHOULD worry. Just because Barack has a massive majority to work with in both houses of Congress does NOT mean that he gets what he wants. There are powerful forces at work against reform, not the least of which is a force of nature... simple inertia. The status quo always has a structural advantage over change.

But the status quo is NOT an acceptable option. 46 million Americans are without health care, and that number is growing every day as unemployment rises. Millions more Americans who are currently insured are nevertheless destroyed by punitive costs. So if you're worried that health insurance reform will be stymied yet again, don't just sit there - pick up the phone. I bet your Senator or Representative would love to hear from you.

Go on. Shoo. Do it now. Then call your friends and ask them to do the same.

Now, for those of you who are opposed to reform, I know you have your own set of concerns. Let me try and summarise some of the concerns I have seen raised, and let you know why I don't think they outweigh the risk of staying as we are. FYI, some of this is a rephrasing of things I wrote on Facebook in a conversation with an anti-reform friend. I know that there are lots of good people out there who disagree with me about this. BUT, I have also seen a lot of "facts" flying around about the bill being proposed that just aren't true.

Worry 1) Health Insurance Reform will provide "Free health services for illegal immigrants."

This is not true. In fact, Section 246 of the House health care plan, or HR 3200, states:

NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS.
Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.

As you can see, undocumented immigrants are prevented from taking advantage of publicly funded federal healthcare under this plan, just as they are already.

Worry 2) My health insurance will disappear if the reform is passed.

President Obama has repeatedly stated, since early in the campaign, that anyone who is currently with an insurance that they like can keep it. The plan being developed is built around reforming the existing system, but preventing insurers from overcharging or denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions. A good plan should be able to adapt to those changes, especially since the market for insurance will itself be growing - with millions more Americans now buying in.

However, many worriers have a more complex concern in mind: that a successfully run public option in health care could drive out most private sector providers.

I don't think this is very likely, for a lot of reasons. Insurers are currently VERY profitable, and are appallingly inefficient. Like in other industries where competition suddenly increases (e.g., telecomms services after Ma Bell was broken up) those in the market should be able to find cost savings that they weren't looking for when they were in a more protected position.

And by the way, don't kid yourself - there is very little choice in health insurance right now:

Far from healthy market competition, HCAN describes the situation as "a market failure where a small number of large companies use their concentrated power to control premium levels, benefit packages, and provider payments in the markets they dominate."

So extreme is the level of consolidation, in fact, that one former top Federal Trade Commission official working with HCAN has sent a letter to the Justice Department's Antitrust Division, asking for an investigation into the health insurance marketplace.

But let's suppose for a moment that this were true. Let's imagine that, as my friend wrote: "Private insurance can not in any way, shape, form or otherwise compete with the government. They will all be out of business and there will be no "option" for private insurance."

I think it's worth unpacking that logic a little bit. First off, I assume what we're talking about here is the public insurance exchange allowing individuals and small businesses to buy into a gvt negotiated plan - rather than Medicare, Medicaid, the VA or other current health plans that are gvt run (and, by the way, very popular).

If that's right, then it will be because private sector insurers are abandoned by their customers. Presumably, the assumption here would be that they would not be able to produce a plan as cheap as the public one. (Which people BUY, don't get it for free.)

But if that were true the plans would have failed because people CHOSE to buy the other plan. Why wouldn't this be a victory for consumer choice and a successful market? I don't think this is likely to happen - but in theoury how would you be harmed if an insurance plan that is more expensive and less desirable goes out of business? Isn't tougher competition good for consumers?

Worry 3) Health reform will require taxes to be raised.

To some extent this is true. Right now, all of the proposals around the reform amount to a tax increase only on those Americans who currently earn more than $250,000 - less than 1% of the population. But still, if we are going to increase access to care for the 46 million currently insured we are indeed going to have to come up with some money from somewhere. Even if the plan is - as predicted - successful in bringing down costs, this would be a long term benefit that would require initial investment.

I do understand the concern about higher taxes. But it is misleading to pretend that the choice is between paying higher taxes or ... Read Morepaying nothing at all. Health care is a service that at some point in their lives everyone needs. Americans currently pay much more for it than anyone else in the world - by a huge margin. Much of that is already paid in taxes - we pay more in public health care than any other country already. The rest is in very high premiums and co-payments from private providers. The goal of the current plan is to produce a health care system in which the average family, such as yours, pays significantly less than they currently do for care that is as good or better. But yes, more of that money may come in the form of taxation.

Worry 4) The new health care plan requires seniors to report to the government every 5 years how they wish to die.

Obama got asked about this particular myth, which has been terrorising the elderly, at his AARP town hall last week. I find it terribly sad that some people are spreading this lie and frightening people off of what could be a wonderful benefit for seniors.

The back story is this. Medicare currently excludes from coverage any counseling services related to end of life care. This means that if you are facing a terminal illness or an imminent decline into age-related disability, and if you would like to speak to an expert in end of life issues to, for example, write a living will stating your wishes, you must pay for that out of pocket.

One small provision in the new plan allows for Medicare to cover a consultation on request - but not more than one every 5 years.

This has been twisted by some folks who are either very confused or very cruel into telling people that they MUST have a consultation. This is no more accurate than saying that if your plan covers plastic surgery they are requiring you to get a nose job.

There is a good debunking of many other health care myths here.

Happy Birthday Barack...

So, it's Barack's birthday.



What are you getting him? Because I forgot to shop.

What do you say we all chip in together and get him universal health care legislation? He'll understand if it has to be delayed until September, so long as we put the order in today.

Call your Senator, place your order. Thanks!

Teachable Moments: The Hard Work of Cops

So maybe you've been following the hullabaloo over Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates, who was arrested last week in his own home, and President Obama's straightforward comment that the officers acted "stupidly". You can watch the President's original statements at the end of his press conference on health care reform (remember that?) here:



Now predictably there was hue and cry over this - how could the President call a police officer stupid? How could he be sure there was a racial element, as he implied? What was he doing weighing in on a local matter anyway.

Obama, to his credit, seems to have thought the matter through and decided he could have handled it better on the whole, therefore on Friday he held a follow up brief press availability to address the matter one more time.



He was speaking shortly after getting off the phone with the police officer involved, who he described as an outstanding officer. He also said, "My hope is that as a consequence of this event, this ends up being what's called a teachable moment where all of us, instead of pumping up the volume, spend a little more time listening to each other and focus on how we can generally improve relations between police officers and minority communities. And that instead of flinging accusations, we can all be a little more reflective about what we can do to contribute to more unity."

Wise words and good advice.

So I thought I would take this opportunity to put down on paper my somewhat complex thoughts about the role of the police in society. Please bear with me as I try to get this right - it may take me a few paragraphs here to hit my groove.

First of all, there's a certain conventional wisdom - perhaps a conventional wisdom specific to the kind of white, reasonably affluent community I grew up, that says the police should get the benefit of the doubt.

"The police do incredibly difficult jobs, they face down bad people every day on our behalf. If they occassionally screw up, go too far, behave badly, the community should have their back. They should get special prviledges because they put their lives at risk for us."

On the other hand, in a lot of minority communities, the police are seen very differently. The blogger Ta Nehisi Coates (read him, if you don't already) recently shared another way of thinking about the police.

"My basic perspective is that cops are men (or women) with guns and the legal right to shoot you, without the usual repercussions. I tend to use a lot of discretion when it comes to introducing that kind of element into a situation. It's just no way to tell how things will go down."

I don't know about you, but I find those words both completely understandable (Coates had a friend who was shot dead by a police officer, without cause) and utterly chilling.

Chilling because I'm fortunate enough - sheltered enough, maybe - that I call the police to feel safer. Something bad is happening, or might be happening, and I always know that if things get really stressful there are trained and armed men ready to step in.

It takes my breath away to think how awful it would be to not have that as a recourse. To believe, for rational reasons, that calling the cops is likely to make the situation worse, not better. Or to believe that calling the police wouldn't achieve anything at all - because they won't come to your neighborhood.

So here's my own thinking.

The police do, in fact, do an incredibly difficult and necessary job. We hire them to go places we wouldn't go and deal with people we are afraid to deal with. In fact, it's one of those jobs where I think it's reasonable to say that anyone who does it reasonably well is genuinely heroic.

But I do NOT agree with the theory that because their work is hard, even heroic, in some way that we should cut police officers some slack when, as happened here, they make a very bad error of judgement.

In the particular case in question, my suspicion is that Gates didn't behave very well. My understanding is that he had just returned from a trip to China - what's that, a 20 hour flight? - after which he discovered that he didn't have his keys and wound up having to break into his own home. Shortly afterwards, he's confronted by a police officer who accuses him of breaking into the house.

OK, now in this circumstance I'm pretty sure what I would have done. I've locked myself out of the house a few times myself, and inevitably I get very jumpy and nervous because I KNOW I look suspicious. I tend to over-explain, telling any stranger who looks at me funny what's going on. I'm pretty sure that if confronted by a police officer I'd be super-quick to fish out some ID (Gates did so eventually, but belatedly and grumblingly).

So Gates could probably have behaved better, sure.

But the role of the police isn't to protect citizens who behave impeccably, who aren't tired and grouchy, and who cooperate fully. The role of the cops is to be at their best at the moments when we are at our worst. That's the job. That's why it's herioc.

Yes, there's a whole history around failed relations between minority communities and the police. There's also, by the way, a certain tension in Cambridge, MA between the "townies" and the Harvard people. And sometimes, too, there are just flat out personality clashes.

A cop's job is to get over it. The citizen is allowed to be grouchy. The police officer is required to be above the fray. Why?

Because he's too powerful. We gave him a gun, a badge, and powers of arrest. Even a license to kill in certain situations. The cop is a human being, but he is required to behave in a manner beyond human grudges and grievances - because he's not acting on his own behalf. He's acting on mine. And yours.

So I do agree with President Obama that the cop acted "stupidly." Not evilly, not cruelly, just stupidly. He responded as a human being, angry to have been spoken to disrespectfully - which is understandable. But he used the powers of his office - the powers we invested in him - to assuage that frusstration. Which is not acceptable.

I know that the standard that I am setting out for the police is almost insanely high. I know that asking them to be equally capable of storming into a gunfight and sensitively defusing racial tension is a lot to ask.

But I do ask a lot of these people. That's why I say that doing the job reasonably well is almost inevitably heroic.

So what do we do when police officers fail to live up to this almost impossibly high standard?

I think we have to give them a chance to improve, encourage them to think through honestly where they might have gone wrong, get them talking to the members of the community, not just their fellow officers (a wider perspective on Obama's "let's have a beer together" strategy), they should go in for more training, and also I think that if ultimately they decide police work is not for them, I think we should commend their self-knowledge rather than stigmatising it. There should be an opportunity for a highly honourable discharge - rather than the current situation where leaving before retirement puts police officers at a massive social and economic disadvantage.

Any other suggestions?

Health Care: We Pay More, Die Sooner!

Have a quick look at this chart. (Via Matthew Yglesias.)

Now explain to me why paying massively more on healthcare per capita than ANY other country in the world, while not achieving greater life expectancy equates to the "best healthcare system in the world."

Some Americans get the best health care in the world. Many get none at all. Most, however have pretty good care at criminally insane prices. This system must be fixed.

Torture is the Rule, Justice the Exception. America Should be Exceptional

It's worth taking a few moments to read the thoughts of (the outstanding blogger) Hilzoy on the question of prosecutions for torture under the Bush Administration. Here's the core argument:

People around the world are not under any illusions about whether or not we tortured people. They know that we did, and that fact has already, and rightly, done enormous damage to our image.

What they don't know is whether we are prepared to do anything about it. Do we just lecture other people about their shortcomings, or are we ready to face up to our own? Most of the people I've met abroad assume that we will do nothing. They don't think this because of any particular dislike of the United States; they just assume that that is the way things work. If we do not hold anyone to account for any of the crimes that were committed under the last administration, they will not be surprised.

If we do hold people to account, on the other hand, that will make an impression.

I think that's a good point - and an important one.

Torture has been a tool of the powerful for millenia, and is still routine practice in much of the world. Although it's not an effective tool for securing reliable and usable intelligence, it's a great way to extract false confessions or other information to confirm what the torturer already believes to be true. For this reason, the powerful are always reluctant to give it up - everyone likes to have their assumptions "proven" correct.

But over the past few centuries, Western society has slowly but surely been building a philosophy of government that, nominally at least, respects the rights of the individual citizen enough to make torture morally and ethically repugnant. At least, that is, within our own borders.

It's worth remembering that in many respects America has not even come close (has not even tried) to living up to these ideals in our relations overseas - thus for many countries their main experience of the US is CIA supported Coups to overturn their democratically elected leaders, or our tendancy to speak stirring words about the evils of torture whilst handing over our prisoners to their dictatorial rulers to be tortured for us.

So, understandably, much of the world is not too impressed when America talks about its values and ideals - they've never seen us living up to them.

If they saw a former US President and Vice President get a fair and impartial trial and potentially even be convicted for torturing Muslim detainees, that would be a pretty high profile example of standing by our principles, come hell or high water.

BUT: in terms of public perceptions overseas and credibility here at home, any such investigation and prosecution must be handled at arms length by the administration. After all, if Obama agressively pursues criminal investigation of a former administration that could look like just another example of lese majeste - the new power in town showing his muscle by beating up on the defeated party.

No, it should be handled calmly, without rushing, ideally by appointing a genuinely independant prosecutor who will operate outside of the administration's purview. Meanwhile, Obama can get on with the work of the nation without distraction.

And it turns out that this is exactly what is likely to happen.

Self Evident?

Happy 4th of July!



Having just returned from the most amazing Democrats Abroad 4th of July picnic, I think I'm in the usual holiday spirit - stuffed full of barbecue, drowsy from sunshine, and grateful to see so many good friends today (hundreds of you came out to celebrate with us - a thousand thanks, especially to Karen, Lesly, and Michelle for the phenomenal job they did in organising it.

This year, the 4th feels a little different - for obvious reasons, and some not quite so obviously.

Obviously, it feels different to celebrate American independence abroad at a time when our reputation has so dramatically improved. Obama's popularity overseas makes it... if not exactly cool than at least a hell of a lot less UNcool to be seen out sporting American flag lapel pins. Heck, I even met some British people today who were happy to wear them.

Also, it feels different to celebrate the country now that it's led by someone who I not only agree with, but feel partly responsible for helping to get there in the first place. It's still my country even when it's run by Bush et. al, but I can't pretend I was proud of it when (in my view) it was violating it's own most profound principles. Now that we are getting back on track, and now that I feel like I had some part, however, tiny, to play in making that happen, the Fourth feels... different.

But there's something else as well - something I've been thinking a lot about lately. It's the bravery, the clarity, the willingness to put everything on the line of those who signed the Declaration of Independence all those years ago (not on July 4, by the way, but never mind). And it's the events in Iran that have made me think a lot more than usual about that lately.

The Declaration of Independence states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

But the Declaration is wrong. Clearly, there is nothing at all self-evident about these truths (though they are, I think, truths) or it wouldn't have taken so many millenia of struggle for anyone anywhere to start living up to them.

I remember in 5th grade learning about the American revolution, and as part of the lesson my teacher asked us to hold a debate - she told us that at the time of the revolution only about a third of the population supported the revolutionaries. Another third were loyal to the king, and a final third of the population were "fence sitters" essentially dithering between rebellion and the status quo. She asked us to decide which side we'd have been on and to argue out position.

The trouble was that these were patriotic American kids. Massachusetts kids, no less, raised on the spirit of the Boston Tea Parties - not one of them would admit to the possibility they might have supported the British, or even that they might have been fence sitters. Except for me. So it wound up being a debate between every other kid in my class... and me. My teacher (I think realising that I was paying the price for a mistake in her own lesson plan) was very grateful to me for sticking by my position against... well, everyone. She even sent me home with a special sticker of commendation. But if felt kind of odd to get such lavish praise for, basically, refusing to decide.

But the thing is, when I thought about what the situation would have been like for American colonists at the time, I couldn't honestly say that I would have sided with the rebels. Would I have been upset about the whole taxation without representation thing? Sure. Would I have wanted to live under a Democracy rather than as a colony? No doubt. Would I have been sympathetic to the ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Naturally.

But the British government was at that time the most powerful military force in the world. What's more, they represented a continuous, functioning government that was by no means alien to the colonists - that was, indeed, philosophically related from the cultural foundations of the very ideals that the revolution proclaimed. The British would have recently been our protection in the French and Indian wars, they were the source of most of our luxury goods, many colonists would have had family and close friends still living over there.

And we were asked to surrender all of this - cut those ties - for what? For a government who's shape and structure were not yet envisioned, for the possibility of cutting off all our important trade and commerce, and the likelihood that ultimately we would lose - and our families and friends would be punished severely for it.

I thought in the 5th grade, and I think now, that those of us who confidently declare we would have been rebels in that time and place are drastically understanding the bravery and sacrifice of the folks who were.

Similarly, when I look at the protestors on the streets in Tehran, who went out there with modest, simple demands ("count my vote") I wish that I could be certain I would be as brave as they are in a similar situation.

The American founding fathers didn't know that their revolution would succeed - that hundreds of years later their great-great grandchildren would grill meat and drink beer in the sunshine every year in their honor. Their remarkable bravery hinges upon the fact that they fought anyway, because they believed in themselves and their vision of what was right.

On this 4th of July, I raise my glass to everyone, everywhere, who rises to that challenge. May all in the world today who are brave enough to stand up for Democracy without knowing the outcome live to see it come true.

Showing Them Some Love

Here's Obama at a White House reception for the LGBT community last week - the first time any President has given a white house address on LGBT issues, let alone an address in the White House to that audience.



I loved the deadpan understatement of this bit:

"We have made progress and we will make more. And I want you to know that I expect and hope to be judged not by words, not by promises I've made, but by the promises that my administration keeps... We've been in office six months now. I suspect that by the time this administration is over, I think you guys will have pretty good feelings about the Obama administration."

Obviously, there are some noteworthy policy statements in this - his confirmation that he has instructed the Secretary of Defence to begin working on a plan implement the repeal of DADT. A repeated promise to overturn DOMA and to abolish the ban on HIV positive individuals entering the country.

But what I was struck by more than anything else was the body language. In recent weeks we've been hearing a lot about the tensions between the Obama White House and the Gay community, but in this speech even the preternaturally self assured President seemed really relaxed - comfortable, at home, and like he is genuinely in the company of some of his favorite people. Of course, to a large extent this is true - as he reminded us in the series of shout outs at the beginning, folks like campaigner Steve Hildebrand and John Berry at the Office of Personnel are quite literally and not just politically "old friends".

But notice the casual banter, for example at about 4 minutes 30 seconds in when he cracks up at someone's cell phone ring tone.

He seems here, dare I say it, a bit like how George W. Bush seemed when he spent time with the pro-life folks. There's a sense of, "These are my people."

Or maybe, to be cynical, he's adopting that attitude precisely because of the reported tensions from the community - a way of cooling them off. But if it were merely a performance, it would be masterful.

Either way, I believe him when he promises action. Any day now would be good.