My Diet

I realized recently that I have not blogged yet about my diet. Since my diet choices are based on my politics, it seems appropriate that I do.

A year ago or so (maybe more, I do not remember), I decided officially that I was going to cut back on meat. For a while I had been see-sawing between effective vegetarianism and serious meat-eating with nothing guiding me. That worked at the time because I had no moral or ethical reasons for going either way.

As I learned more about food production in the US, I saw the effects of our dietary choices. First, I started consuming "free-range" eggs as often as I could. This change stemmed from my new understanding of the conditions of battery cage chickens, including the large amounts of antibiotics and hormones that are injected into them to keep them from getting sick (which is far more likely due to the unsanitary conditions in the battery cage operation).

More than that though, I learned about the industry behind our beef consumption. In fact, the meat industry is an enormous contributor to green house gasses and becoming a vegetarian is an easy way to decrease your carbon footprint. I also learned about the scale of pollution produced at the feed lots in the middle of our country and the conditions animals are kept in to feed our enormous appetite for beef.

The conclusion I came to is that our meat consumption is far higher than needs to be and far higher than is sustainable. This is possible because the prices we pay do not take into account the impact we are having. Introductory level economics courses will tell you that markets are ineffective at including environmental costs into the prices of goods (without regulation). Therefore, we are often underpaying, and therefore over-consuming, things that have serious negative environmental impacts. Meat is a perfect example of this.

I firmly believe that if we included the true cost of meat production, including the costs of pollution and greenhouse gasses, prices would be higher and consumption would be lower. People would realize they do not need to eat meat twice or three-times a day.

In the face of all this, I realized that I needed to decrease my meat consumption even before the market found a way to accurately price meat. I first cut back to eating meat no more than once a day. That was not as challenging for me since I was not eating meat for dinner. My next step was to cut back to eating meat no more than three times in one week. My final step has been to cut back to meat no more than once a week, and when I do I try to get it from somewhere that is raising the meat in a way that is sustainable and treats the animals more humanely.

So far, I have found it pretty easy to cut back to this level. (It helps that I have someone who can cook - and teach me how to cook - great vegetarian dishes.) Once you start trying, you find lots of things to substitute for meat. And when you do eat meat, it feels like a treat.

As you can tell, I do not believe that we all need to become vegetarian. I do believe however that we should think about how often we eat meat and the effects that has. It seems in our country that we feel we should eat meat at every meal as a right. There is no legitimate reason for this. We could all cut back and still lead healthy (maybe more healthy) lives and allow for our meat to be raised sustainably and humanely. As my experience has proved, cutting back on meat is not a major sacrifice. You still eat meat, but less frequently.

Now, in truth the same logic could apply to my egg consumption. I feel that free-range is marginally better than battery-cage. However, the bigger problem is overall consumption of eggs. I almost always eat at least one egg per day, which means I am definitely contributing to a level of overall consumption that is likely just as unsustainable as for meat. I will probably need to deal with this sometime if I want to really tell myself that I am being consistent.

How about this, I'll cut back on eggs if you cut back on meat? We'll do this together.

More Services AND Lower Taxes

I think I am learning something important about Democratic and Republican behavior in response to the public’s desire for more services AND lower taxes.

Democrats, when running for office, tell the country they are going to increase services while pretending that they are also going to be able to cut taxes.

Republicans, when running for office, tell the country they are going to cut taxes while pretending that they are also going to be able to provide services.

The point is that as a voter you should know which things a candidate says are real priorities. Despite giving lip service to both things constituents demand, they will only really be able to provide one. A president that tries to do both will end up running large deficits, as Bush did and as Obama right now is planning to do for at least the next few years.


Speaking of Obama's budget, it seems that he is moving away from some of the absurd gimmicks of the Bush years (ie not including war spending in the budget but asking for supplemental appropriations, which should only be used for unplanned expenses and after a year or two, the wars were no longer unplanned). Transparency is a beautiful thing, and it makes this budget analyst almost tear up to see our president moving in that direction.

Oil Facts

I meant to link to this Times graphic a long time ago. Although the numbers may have changed a bit since then, I am guessing the overall picture is the same or similar. Here are the main ideas I take away from this:

- America is the largest oil consumer. (20.6 million barrels per day)
- America is the third largest oil producer. (8.4 million barrels per day)
- The biggest suppliers to the US are:
1. US (domestic production) (40%)
2. Canada (12%)
3. Mexico (8%)
4. Saudi Arabia (7%)
5. Venezuela (7%)
6. Nigeria (5%)

It is striking that Saudi Arabia makes up a relatively small percent of our consumption. Despite its small share though, it is still extremely important as small changes in production (or expected changes in production) have big impacts on prices.

Here is Our Chance

For those of you who have read Samantha Power's book A Problem From Hell, you'll remember her argument that throughout all of the genocides of the 20th Century, the US did nothing. It did not take action and it did not even condemn the genocides. The arguments used were the same - that to even condemn the genocide could cause the leaders of the guilty countries to choose not to cooperate with peace processes. Power argues convincingly that in the end, those leaders did not cooperate even though we avoided condemning them.

Despite countless examples in history to learn from, the same arguments continue to be made and sometimes carry the day. Those arguments have been voiced in regards to Sudan - although the US has condemned the genocide, many voices said that the International Criminal Court should not seek charges or an arrest warrant against Bashir, the President of Sudan. Those people said it could cause Bashir to stop participating in peace negotiations. I am glad those people were not listened to this time and that an arrest warrant for Bashir has been issued.

Those that argued against this in the specific case of Sudan claimed that if Bashir is arrested or otherwise loses power, those that might take over are far worse and that Bashir's role right now is somewhat productive. That may be true (although where are the results?). But for once we need to actually stand up to genocide. We need to show that we won't back down for fear that an uncooperative leader will not cooperate - that a murderous leader will murder more people.

But as with all experiments or new courses, we will be judged by the outcomes. So here is our chance - our opportunity - to show that the one time we condemned genocide and sought action in the ICC while the situation was ongoing, it made a difference. We can show that the best way to stop a killer is not to avoid making his life hard, but to do everything we can to make his life hard.

Here is our chance. Let's follow through. Let's actively seek Bashir's arrest, then continue by seeking charges against anyone else involved. Let's finally put an end to this genocide and set a serious example (unlike all the others before) to those who might perpetuate the second genocide of the 21st Century.

I Beg Your Pardon

As Bush was leaving office, I was waiting for him to issue a whole stream of absurd pardons. But as Obama was inaugurated, I heard / read nothing. So I wondered if maybe he had issued lots of pardons but it just wasn't covered. I went back and looked, and instead, what wasn't covered was the fact that he issued very few pardons at the end (wasn't covered means I didn't see anything in the NY Times - it very well could have been splashed over the Journal but I don't read that as often as I should).

So two things on this. First, I applaud Bush for not issuing a slew of pardons as seems to be the practice. Granted, I am not a lawyer and I don't know how many of the last-minute presidential pardons are legit. But it seems to me that if they are reasonable, then they should issue them at the time they come up. If you have to issue them on the way out, then you are worried about the appearance, which likely means they are probably bad pardons. I am especially glad that he didn't pardon Scooter Libby. (Dick Cheney thinks he was the victim of a miscarriage of justice - I agree. Cheney should have been the one punished.)

Secondly, I am disappointed that this wasn't covered more in the NY Times. If Bush did something prudent, it should be recognized. This is why the paper gets the rep for being very liberal and not objective.

Not Better

In case you were still holding on to the belief that Democrats are more ethical than Republicans, Spitzer's solicitation of prostitutes, Blagojevich's attempts to sell the Senate seat, Daschle's and Geithner's decision to avoid paying some of their taxes, and now stories about Roland Burris should have disabused you of any such notions. It is all simply disgusting.

About Roland Burris, he needs to resign. Either he lied or he is not as sharp as a Senator should be. I think it is both. We need to get the bad Democrats out of office now, so they are not around to make us look bad in 2010.

Disagree but not Disagreeable

Of course the papers / political programs are abuzz with the stimulus bill and what it means for Obama's plan for bipartisanship. Mostly, this is a function of the 24 hour news cycle and journalism's inability to see long-term. Obama will not change Washington in a matter of weeks. What we need to do is look back after two years, or four years, or eight years.

But we also need to be careful about what we are measuring when we evaluate his presidency. While I think the administration should be willing to compromise when that is possible, I don't expect Republicans to vote all the time with Obama (especially considering the fact that most of the Republicans now in Congress are more conservative as the moderates were voted out). After all, they have a different view of government's role in our lives. I do however expect that the tone will change. And I will judge Obama on this in time.

The Bush administration (as many before have done) came into office pledging bipartisanship. At times, they delivered or actually tried: No Child Left Behind received some Democratic support including that of Senator Ted Kennedy, and their attempt at immigration reform was also moderate, although it was scuttled by the far-right of the Republican party.

But when they failed to get Democratic support for other policies - especially the War in Iraq - their tone changed. Instead of respecting the Democrats for their positions, the Bush administration attacked Democrats' patriotism.

The Obama administration cannot do this. The tone in Washington has changed - at least if you believe insiders - over the last ten or twenty years. Democrats and Republicans do not interact as socially and instead the political battles seem to carry over into personal interactions. Obama can slowly change this if he changes his tone and the tone of the party. His campaign showed his potential to do this; he famously said, "We can disagree without being disagreeable." Now his presidency needs to show that he can actually accomplish it. And we need to give him some time to try.

No Anecdotes Please

The election this fall made it clear that our health-care system needed reform. Costs are escalating much faster than inflation and many people are uninsured. The changes we make will need to be carried out thoughtfully. Unfortunately, I think a lot of the debate will be in the form of articles like this one in the Atlantic, where anecdotes take the place of data that explains bigger picture issues.

In places the article mentions the big issues we'll have to deal with: Do we want everyone to have the same coverage or are we okay if the rich can buy better care? Do we want government making decisions about treatments (or insurance companies - an alternative the author doesn't consider)? How does government control affect innovation in health-care? How much are we willing to pay for care?

Although it mentions these questions, the article doesn't really answer them, and doesn't supplement the anecdote with any data to at least get us closer to the answers. So instead, we get a very superficial article about health-care masquerading as something relevant. In reality though, many people will read it - and many articles like it - and decide how they feel about more / less centralized medicine based on the one anecdote. (I haven't seen Micheal Moore's movie, but I have heard it is similar, although from the other side.)

If you have ever heard Senate debate on policy / legislation issues, you know that they also focus on anecdotes. And so I fear that we will end up with bad policy unless the debate begins to include actual information on the real ways different approaches will affect health-care in general. Will centralized medicine prevent drugs like the one in the story from being made? Will everyone be denied more expensive treatments or just the poor? We need to answer these questions through real data, not emotional stories.

Sabermetrics for Basketball

I really liked the book Moneyball. The idea that some baseball skills are undervalued because we do not know what actually correlates with winning, and that using statistics to figure that out and get an advantage, is fascinating. It's like poker, some of it is random and based on luck, but in the long run, you increase your chances of winning significantly if you make bets only where the odds are in your favor.

This week in the Sunday Times there is an article relating this concept to basketball. It is a great article. I am now a Shane Battier fan.

He Would've Made a Good President

Last year, we saw two sad examples of countries where contested election results lead to violence and instability - in Kenya and Zimbabwe. Both cases fortunately garnered public attention and concern for the vulnerable populations.

What is not as often reported is when the transitions go smoothly. Well, in December, Ghana elected a new President, and the winner was not from the same party as the outgoing president. The election was close, but in the end resulted in no reported violence and a smooth transition.

Last year, I actually had the privilege of meeting Ghana's presidential candidate, Nana Akufo-Addo. Mr. Akufo-Addo was from the same party as the outgoing president and was considered the front-runner. The event was a fundraiser in New York. Mr. Akufo-Addo came off as brilliant and deeply committed to improving Ghana. Although my first impression was that he would have made a great president, it is reassuring to see that though he lost, he stepped aside gracefully.

On the other hand, I know nothing about the winner, John Atta Mills, besides what is in the article. Hopefully he is as competent and trustworthy as Nana Akufo-Addo seemed.

There are some serious problems and crises in Africa that need to be addressed. But examples like this should help inform the world that there are many examples of good government to show that the problem is not with the African people, but certain people on the continent and certain conditions that lead to the crises we see.

Just Say We're Sorry

The leadership in Iran has, among other things, requested that the US apologize for its past crimes in Iran. While I do not think we should ever apologize because of pressure / force, I do think we should apologize when history shows that our behavior was deplorable.

Our decision to overthrow a democratic (possibly socialist but unlikely to be communist) government lead by Mohammed Mossadegh and install the Shah in 1953 is one of a series of similar and disgusting acts we committed during the Cold War. In too many cases, we chose to support undemocratic, repressive governments instead of allowing democratic socialist or communist governments. I have been meaning to write about this for a while, but cannot quite get my ideas structured right. Basically though, we had a policy that supported economic liberty (at least in the form of unrestrained capitalism) over political liberty. In fact, in some cases, Iran being one of them, we supported repressive capitalist governments over potentially free socialist governments.

So how could Obama apologize without empowering Iran too much? One way would be to apologize for all examples where we did this at once - Iran, Cuba, Chile, Congo, etc. Obama could also ask that the Iranian government issue an apology for taking over the US embassy and holding hostages.

The bottom line is that our foreign policy was bankrupt, and an apology would signal that we are ready to move away from that hypocritical policy and actually promote our ideals of political and economic liberty.

Promoting Democracy

I will be honest, when President Bush said he wanted to expand democracy across the world, I was excited. After all, who could oppose the expansion of freedoms to more people across the world? And who can argue that democracies do not improve the lives of those that live under them? It was especially refreshing to hear it come from a Republican, since I often associate Republican foreign policy with realpolitik.

In the end, Bush's rhetoric fell far short. He supported president Musharraf in Pakistan despite Musharraf's anti-democratic practices, he called for votes in Palestine only to ignore the results when Hamas won, and he did precious little in pro-American countries like Saudi Arabia to achieve real democratic reforms. In total, it made Bush look like a hypocrite - someone who wanted to use principles of spreading democracy to justify his war in Iraq.

An article in the Times shows that Obama is using less democratic rhetoric while making bigger pushes for actual change. For now it is way too soon to see if he is more willing to require our "friends" to change or to recognize elections that do not go our way and whether he can actually achieve these goals even if he is willing to do more. It is something we definitely need to pay attention to.

Second Bill of Rights

In reading the intro to a book I am thinking about buying, I was made aware of President Franklin Roosevelt's 1944 State of the Union in which he lays out the foundation for Second Bill of Rights. In this case, he wasn't looking to change the Constitution, but to proclaim that free people have rights that extend beyond what are laid out in the original 10 amendments to the Constitution. Here is an excerpt from his speech.

We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth- is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill housed, and insecure.

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our Nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. "Necessitous men are not free men." People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

This speech gets close to my (still developing) philosophy. There are a couple that I do not completely agree with: right to a remunerative job and the right of a farmer to raise and sell his products at a living return. First, although my understanding of economic concepts is a bit rusty, experience seems to show that eliminating unemployment is unlikely, especially without increases in inflation. Instead, I think people should have a right to a minimal standard of living and a commitment from the government that it will help them find a job if possible. Secondly, I do not know why farmers should have a special right to continue working in their field. If there is an oversupply or inefficiency, than we should not allow that condition to continue just out of nostalgic feelings for our more agricultural days.

As FDR lays them out, these are rights to be enjoyed by all Americans. I would take this one step further - that all humans have these rights. I think this is the point that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights tries to make (although notice how concise FDR was able to be). If we look around the world, we see people living lives that no human should have to endure. Just a basic sense of decency and compassion should make it easy to understand why all humans should have the right to security, food, shelter, education, and health care as much as they have a right to participate in their government, to practice a religion of their choice, to assemble, to speak, and to have equal protections under the law.

In the end, I wish this were the Democratic platform. I do not believe in socialism or communism. I do not believe in redistribution. But I do believe that every human has the right to basic living standards - that if a society is just, it exists to protect everyone and ensure equal participation in the freedoms that exit - including the markets that exchange goods as well as those that exchange ideas. Without adequate nutrition, education or health care, full participation in the society cannot be assured.

Obamanomics: Stimuli

As the new stimulus package is debated, you will hear each side talk with certainty about how tax cuts or government spending are better fiscal policies to stimulate the economy. In fact, each side will claim that the research shows that one is better than the other.

In introductory macroeconomics classes you are taught simple supply and demand equations, with tax cuts or government spending affecting overall economic activity. Depending on whether your teacher is conservative (like my high school econ teacher) or liberal (like my college econ professors), you will see multiplier affects that show tax cuts or government spending having a greater impact (respectively). In those classes, the multiplier effect is given to you by the teacher. This is why for a couple short years after high school, I believed that supply-side was the better policy.

The truth however is that what research there is shows wide variation in results. Some research does show a greater multiplier effect for tax cuts than government spending, while others show the reverse. (This Freakonomics article talks about one reason why the research is so unclear - that not as much fiscal policy research is done as monetary policy research.) In fact, a quote from an essay Christina Romer (Obama's selection to head his Council of Economic Advisors) wrote (taken from a David Brooks column) suggests that in surveys of past recessions, fiscal policy seemed to have little effect in ending the recessions.

So what are we to make of all this uncertainty? One, fiscal stimuli are more of a political tool than an economic one. They show that the government is working to make things better (even if it is somewhat cosmetic). Obama, by including tax cuts and government spending, is hoping to please people on both sides without proclaiming that one works better than the other. Two, the stimuli should at least go to things that we need. And this is the best part about Obama's stimulus package. If it is used to improve our electricity grid - a necessity if we are to actually try to change our energy supply - to improve our roads and public transportation, and to rehab our schools and public housing, it will be money spent that can both create some temporary jobs until the recession is over but also accomplish tasks that have for too long been put off.

It may not help end the recession, but it should make the transition easier while making us stronger for when it ends.

Peace in DRC?

It appears that the prospects for peace in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of Congo have increased recently. The violence (and epidemic of sexual violence) stemmed from four armed groups in the area with shifting alliances; the Congolese government troops, Hutu militants (those responsible for the genocide in neighboring Rwanda), Laurent Nkunda's Tutsi militants (supposedly there to protect Tutsis from the Hutu militants but with aspirations to take down the democratically elected government in DRC), and UN Peacekeeping troops (yes, they were there to keep the peace, but there were accusations that they too were contributing to the sexual violence while not effectively protecting the civilians).

Recently, Laurent Nkunda has been arrested by the Rwandan government and his militia is apparently disbanding. Jeffrey Gettleman's story says that there was a deal between Rwanda and Congo, where Rwanda would stop Nkunda, and Congo would let Rwanda go into Congo to attack the Hutu militias.

The only chance for sustained peace will be if Nkunda's militia does in fact disarm and no one steps into the vacuum (there are other rebel groups in the area, including Nkunda's former chief of staff, who is wanted for war crimes) and if the Hutu militia can be neutralized. Both of these are real challenges, but I am particularly worried about the later. The genocide happened in 1994 and the Hutu militants have been hiding in Congo since then destabilizing the region. Hopefully now is the time they are finally stopped. Unfortunately, stopping them may result in more bloodshed among the people living in Eastern Congo.

At the very least though, this new development brings hopes of peace to one of the most troubled regions in the world.

I Don't Predict the Future

So my prediction was wrong. Although I was right that the governor didn't choose Kennedy or Cuomo. Well, if you believe the rumors it seems as though he was going to pick Kennedy. But I did mention Kirstin Gillibrand.

I still think he should have chosen Byron Brown. The Senate could use more African-American representation - one isn't really enough, especially when that one is Roland Burris (yes, he made a very bad first impression on me).

Even though I would probably have preferred Brown, I do like this choice. Gillibrand is moderate and will represent upstate New York well. And as much as I am a downstate snob, I think upstate needs good representation at statewide office.

Oh yeah, and former Senate Majority Leader Bruno was indicted. Yesterday was a crazy day for New York State. (The funny thing is that I am not sure which was the bigger news story: Bruno, Gillibrand, or Patterson's seeming lack of leadership.)

The Inauguration

I don't have a lot to say about the inauguration except that I am excited. There is so much hope and possibility now with a smart and liberal president. I can't wait to see the new direction (or sometimes lack thereof?) in so many areas. My mind reals just thinking of the possibilities.

Overall, his speech was good. It started off somewhat dull but competent and ended really inspiring. His call for responsibility, hard work and sacrifice, and rising to meet challenges was such a breath of fresh air compared to Bush's "go about your business." Now we wait and see how the words transform into reality.

Also, I thought Aretha Franklin was great. So was the quartet piece written by John Williams.

And I made sure to watch Bush leave on the helicopter. I am glad Obama was respectful. But it was good to see Bush leave.

Portraits of the Future

The New York Times Magazine has a feature this week with portraits of Obama's top campaign / administration staff and top Democrats. The portraits are really well done. Check them out if you haven't already. This is our future people!

Dynamic Duo: Bolton and Yoo

There was an opinion piece in the NY Times recently calling for treaties to be ratified by a 2/3rds vote of the Senate, as called for in the Constitution. Who wrote this opinion piece? John Bolton and John Yoo. John Bolton, you'll remember, was Bush's appointee as Ambassador to the United Nations. Coincidentally, he is the same person who does not think the US has much use for international bureaucracies. Apparently Bush wanted to appoint someone that would antagonize the UN, instead of work with it, but I digress. And John Yoo... who was he? Wait, wasn't he the guy who wrote those illegal torture memos that conservative lawyer Jack Goldsmith rescinded? Yes, that's him. So we are going to take legal advice from him?

The best part is that the two don't suggest that all treaties go through this process. They admit that trade treaties like NAFTA were passed with simple majorities by Congress, and they are fine with that. Basically, they argue that the Constitution requires only treaties they don't like (liberal treaties like ones that ban weapons that are the most dangerous to civilians, like land mines or cluster bombs, or treaties on human rights issues, or treaties that deal with global warming) to get 2/3rds support from the Senate while treaties which conservatives support do not need to.

I admit that I don't know all the constitutional and legal requirements about which treaties should have to go through Senate with 2/3rds support and which can be passed with simple majorities by Congress. But it disgusts me to see people profess to care about legal and constitutional arguments only when it serves them. If the Constitution requires that treaties need to get 2/3rds support in the Senate, than that includes trade agreements along with everything else.

Finally, can we please stop quoting the founding fathers as if everything they said still holds true? The international world was far different in the late 1700s than it is today. If we are going to venerate something Thomas Jefferson or George Washington said just because they said it, then we have to do that for everything. And that means eliminating political parties and more bloody revolutions.

Selfish Burris Helps Governor

I get no pleasure in writing a post like this, but I think it needs to be said. Rolland Burris seems to be more concerned with becoming a Senator and extending his political career than he is with doing what is best for Illinois. If he had anything other than his career in mind, he would see that the best thing for him to have done when Governor Blagojevich called would have been declining to accept the nomination and then politely advising the governor to step down.

Instead, Burris is empowering the governor and giving him back some legitimacy by helping the change the topic of discussion. His trip to DC today was a sham. While there is some debate about whether the Senate can in fact refuse to seat Burris, they cannot seat him until his appointment is certified by the Governor and the Secretary of State of Illinois. But he showed up to the Capital without the Secretary of State's signature and he did it as a political stunt. All of his speeches and circus antics help no one but the governor of Illinois (and maybe Burris himself).

Don't get me wrong, I also think that Obama's replacement should be a person of color. But to hear Burris and friends talk, you would think he is the only person of color in the state. I hope that Illinois and the US Senate are able to prevent Burris from joining the Senate, and then get a different appointment from a new governor. Burris should not be rewarded for his self-serving antics.