Mathematics After The Fall

If you had asked me in the past if I would see a Black man as President-elect, I would ask you the country you were thinking about. Of course, there are many countries with black-skinned majorities. Many have Presidents. Some are even not dictators. Let’s move to more challenging cases. 1978 South Africa? That would be at least theoretically possible, in the home of the Makana FA. Numbers were against the National Party from the start, the Gleneagles Agreement restricting sports contacts had been passed, and pressure was beginning to build. 1988 Namibia? The South African Border War was winding down, and Christmas came with an agreement for Namibian independence. Representative future was near.

Let’s try places where people with colored skin are a minority. 21st Century Europe? Well, as the San Francisco Gate reported, minority members of European governments are few and far between. France has exactly one parliamentary deputy out of 577, even though African ethnics are about 10 percent of the population. Out of 646 members in the House of Commons, Britain has just 15 minorities. There may be more women than America, but they’re basically all white. That’s not true in the United States. While Europeans might make nasty remarks about America and race, it’s interesting to look at the facts. Would every person in France vote for, say, an Algerian? I think not. Or Germans for someone with a Turkish father? Even in a Republican administration, Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice served at the cabinet level. And in real postings, too, not the “Minority Affairs” positions created in Europe. Right now, we have a black woman fourth in the succession line.

Still, for someone of color to reach the top? In 2008 America? When about half the electorate, those 45 and over, were born when racial segregation was legal? When for people over 40, having parents of different races was not everywhere legal?

Yet 52% of those who voted, 64 Million Americans, cast a vote for a Black Man. Well, OK, half-black. Does that make it 32 million colored votes? That is more than the population of European France, 61.9 million. 64 Million people, for Barack Hussein Obama. I was one of them. This was not a simple decision. I really wish Mr Obama did not support abortion. Mr McCain has a somewhat stronger record on that front, though he did not advocate for a total ban. Additionally, Mr McCain, unlike America’s current president, has personal integrity. It’s not obvious. In the Catholic definition, my proportionate reasons were the Iraq war and the choice of Vice President. I do not consider Governor Palin qualified to hold nuclear command codes. Not someone who, according to a Fox News contributor, didn’t know Africa was a continent. Or even as a millionaire, manages to need $150,000 for clothes. Or even though she did reduce travel expenses, she still takes a per diem from Alaska to sleep in her own house. It’s not that hard to be governor of a state with fewer people than Metro Louisville, who has enough oil to have a massive budget surplus.

Fortunately, the world is saved from that possibility, at least for a while. And one of those other great men, from another place, the South African
Mr. Mandela, gave congratulations. As did many others around the world.

How did it happen? Many things we don’t know. The exit polls have a very interesting story. Voters over 65, who spent their entire childhood under segregation, gave 53% of their votes to Mr McCain, 1% more than to Mr Bush four years ago. People between 30 and 64 went slightly for Mr Obama, at about 51%, 4 - 5 points more than Mr Kerry’s vote. But what about those between 18 and 29? Two-thirds, 66 percent, for the next President! Twelve points more!

Generations do change. I am, literally, amazed. And that’s a good thing.

I was visiting my parents in Pennsylvania, and I returned to an interesting request. A reporter from the New York Times had found the abstract of my talk on the age of homeless in America. The New York Coalition for the Homeless had received donated time for television advertisements. You can view the modified ads from this page.

Why do I call them modified ads? Well, they used to be different. The 90 second ad and the Facts ad used to include less quotes in the middle, and a different ending. It used to conclude “and by the way, the average age of a homeless person is nine.” As of early July, the original ad still appears on Youtube. I had heard this statement earlier, during the December 2007 Commencement at Bellarmine.

The article appears online at the Times’ City Room blog. Thus, I helped cause a change in the ads.

The full implications of this work startled me. There’s the boost to my professional career. Bellarmine also gets a mention in a big publication, helping the school. Of course, this means I now need to know a lot about the situation. This was originally just a teaching example, but now it’s not. Fortunately, I managed to find an assistant for the research; she and I will have something ready by Mathfest at the end of this month.

There’s a moral issue, as well. The Coalition was hurt by the negative exposure. That’s not a good thing, as homelessness is a large problem. Many people without permanent shelter are children, thousands in New York alone. Even if not half, they could use support. Weakening the groups that provide and advocate for support does not help. On the other hand, I have an academic responsibility to accurate statistics, as much as we can. An average age of 9 does not appear correct. In Catholic thought, even for the right ends, wrong means are inappropriate and sinful. This is a right end. Using a misleading (at best) figure is an inappropriate, potentially sinful way to do that. I should help. But it hurts a little. It’s funny how seemingly simple things, like 15 minute talks, can become moral dilemmas. I wish I had an answer here, or even better words to describe my feelings. Maybe later, I will.

Back in February, I received a personal invitation to view the rehearsal of a controversial event. No, I don’t mean the 2008 KYMAA math festival. I mean an event on Bellarmine’s campus that was held around 14 February. The stated purpose of the event is to raise funds and interest to fight violence against women, as stated on the web site. That particular link has no potentially offensive or vulgar terms, but other pages on that site do. I’m talking about something called V-Day, with V not for Violence or Valentine. Know what? I’d like to use actual terms, which are considered impolite, so I’ll send this beyond the more link. Click away if you wish.
Read the rest of this entry »

When I registered in Kentucky, I faced a dilemma. Illinois has an election-day open primary. Sure, according to the official rules you has to declare a party to vote in a primary. But, and it’s a big qualifier, you can decide at the polling station! You or I can walk up and say “I’d like to be a Republican today.” The official marks that down, and you or I get a Republican ballot. This allows people like me to officially register as independents, but vote as desired. I consider this an Open Primary.

Kentucky, on the other hand, has a closed primary system. I can’t decide on Election Day which ballot I desire. I had to make a choice when I registered, or by December 31 before the primary. This posed a dilemma, because neither party represents me well. After some consideration, I registered as a Democrat. Part of that is where I live. The Highlands is heavily Democratic, meaning the Democratic primary is far more important. I wanted more voting power. To a small extent, my position is historical. Democrats populate my family, like my parents and my Catholic grandmother. Grandma went to the 1984 Democratic National Convention as a delegate from Pennsylvania. We never really discussed this issue, since I was 13 when she died, but I suspect she was pro-life.

More surprisingly, even as an adult, I’ve generally been Democratic. This surprises a lot of people, because of abortion. It should surprise no one that I strongly support the Consistent Life Ethic. Abortion is homicide, slaughter, murder. The only acceptable number is zero.

The reason and the problem, the real problem, is that I grew up in Pennsylvania, one of the centers of Democrats for Life. In Pennsylvania the parties make more sense. Back in the 1980s, I would have said that the pro-life party in PA was the Democratic party. That was true; over 100 Congressional Democrats in 1978 were pro-life. Now there are perhaps 30. Yet in Pennsylvania, the parties are mixed. According to the National Right to Life website, Democratic Senator Robert Casey has a stronger pro-life record than Republican Arlen Specter. Six of the ten Pennsylvania Democratic Congresspeople caucus with Democrats for Life. (This includes the Representative of my parents, John Murtha. There’s a wry story here. Because my grandmother, my mom’s mom, was an important Democrat, the wedding attracted some attention. As a state Democratic representative, Mr. Murtha sent a gift.)

At least in Pennsylvania, the abortion debate is still open. In many other issues, the Democratic Party protects the weakest. Why does it here? In some ways, abortion is a means to equality, but it’s parity, not justice. Now, women can kill as men do, and they do. That is not the equity I desire. It’s not the equality anyone should desire. I firmly refuse the lesser standard of parity that pro-abortion groups propound. Happy, healthy, loving, intimate relationships don’t need assassination. Much of my professional career is devoted to ways to help women and men nurture happy, healthy, loving, intimate relationships. Why would I ever set a lower goal?

As of this evening, I’m an official paying member of Democrats for Life, though in thought I was long ago.

Yes, I know that title makes little immediate sense. For a few of you, it’s an Easter hymn in Lent. For most of you, it’s that the primary process is nowhere near over. Given the closeness of the contest between Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama, there are many primary and caucus battles forthcoming. Not knowing until the convention appears increasingly likely. Nevertheless, there is a reason forthcoming.

My Democratic choice is clear: Barack Obama. His speeches are spectacular. His rallies continue to grow. Today, more than 18,000 packed Seattle’s Key Arena for Obama, with another 3,000 forced to wait outside. For him, people voluntarily make good music videos. His capacity to motivate is unmatched in this campaign. Senator Clinton lags behind. I could write about experience and intelligence, but those appear elsewhere. Senator Clinton and Senator Obama are both highly intelligent, highly accomplished people, though Obama went to Harvard Law School, while Clinton went to Yale.They both easily achieve the criteria for Congress. Their policy positions are similar. (I do have problems with many policies, which will wait for a general election comparison. Obama receives an advantage in my mind, but it wouldn’t override leadership issues.)

In this contest, there are sharp demographic divides. Blacks support Obama; Hispanics and Asians support Clinton. Females support Clinton more than males. Most importantly, and most interestingly, the generational divide is vast. The gap between Boomers and the younger generations, Gen X and Millenials, has been discussed for years. Now we have reached the key political juncture. When I see a Democratic op-ed, I look for the author’s age. People over 45 are more likely to support Clinton, while those younger tend to support Obama. The Courier-Journal this week published a representative piece. The mother, a female Clinton supporter, is 67; the daughter, a female Obama supporter, is 36.The daughter, Ms. Lorenza Munoz, writes a great statement:

To my mother, Clinton embodies all the struggles women in her generation have faced. Clinton’s intelligence, seasoned political skills and life experience as a wife, mother and career woman have convinced my mother that she is the better candidate. “I had hoped that you would want to help break that glass ceiling, if not for your generation then for your daughter’s,” she said to me the other day. “You are not giving a chance to a woman who has fought against men all her life.”

I admire Clinton; I do not see her as a fighter for the needs of today’s women. To me she inescapably represents the generation whose mantra was “We can have it all.”

That’s not true. We can’t raise kids, have a happy marriage and advance in a killer career at the same time. And I don’t understand why abortion has been the most important issue for feminist leaders of Clinton’s generation, while things like affordable, good-quality day care, equal pay, jobs that have flexible hours and real maternity-leave benefits were put on the back burner.

The Boomer world treated women very differently than the world of many Gen X adults, and almost all Millenials. In the world of current college students, females do better in education. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, “Women continued to earn more degrees than men in academic year 2002–03, about 58 percent of all degrees. Women earned 60 percent of all associate’s degrees, 58 percent of all bachelor’s degrees, and 59 percent of all master’s degrees.” Thirty-five years ago, during the time of Boomer women, women received about 44 percent of all bachelor’s degrees. Back then, girls needed extra educational support; in the next generation, many places will need what this article from Time describes: affirmative action for boys.

At least in opportunity, my title makes sense. The Strife is largely over. An urban or suburban woman under 25 generally sees women doing better in school. She has plenty of opportunities for exercise and sport. She has few restrictions in clothing or sexuality; every pair of short shorts with a logo across the butt is evidence of personal freedom. She likely attends a college with more women than men.

Instead of barriers, she sees the resources of the world rapidly and wastefully disappearing. Almost all evidence points to increasing temperatures and weather variability; whether caused exclusively, primarily, or trivially by humans, the trends command attention. Gated “communities” with oversized houses are dominated by energy guzzling automobiles. Government dominated by Boomers engages in a massive monetary transfer away from Gen X and Millenials. Instead of program examples, I’ll talk about numbers. The US government has debt of roughly $9,200,000,000,000.00. There are a lot of zeroes in Nine Trillion Dollars. The debt growth pattern has not been linear. As shown on the blue chart below from this debt clock page, from the end of World War II to the early 1980s, the figures remained remarkably constant for nearly forty years when inflationary forces are taken into account. Then the Boomers entered politics. After 1983 however, with the notable exception of the Fiscal Years ending in September of 2000 and 2001, the trend has been upward even when inflation is taken into account. The numbers went from about 2 Trillion to 9 Trillion. That obligation is passed onto my generation, and the generation I teach.

The so-called stimulus package, which includes money for seniors that pay no taxes, will be funded by more government debt. The millennial female will get $600 in the summer. For that temporary benefit, which will cost money to print and mail, she’ll get much more than $600 to pay later. Effectively, the Clinton generation purchases their happiness from her. And me.

Is there any wonder people of my age don’t want a dynastic Boomer, warring against Strife already o’er, and stealing our resources to do so?

In an effort to think about the upcoming Presidential race, I decided to examine the stated duties in the primary source, the US Constitution. As you may or may not remember, the Executive Branch comes second, after the Congress, and has a lot less text. And a lot less duties. Section 1 describes qualifications for the rank. The duties appear in Sections 2 and 3:

Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

That’s not very much. I see this as a call for certain qualities.
The President I desire shows leadership. Military command is helpful, but the person should show the ability to command. With that, and the need to receive Ambassadors, commission Officers, and choose Executive Branch leaders, I consider the qualities of a director primary. I look for her or him to have the ability to rally people for a cause, demonstrated integrity, varied experience, wisdom, and honor. That honor is adherence to what is right and proper.

Specific policies are secondary, since they serve only as evidence of adherence to proper ideas. For a member of Congress, policies are primary, since their job is to make bills and laws. That’s not the case here. As I post my thoughts on the 2008 Presidential Election, this is my basis. I think.