Crossposted at Projectile Politics

Yglesias brings up a good point about today's Governor's Association meeting in Philadelphia. Biden issued a speech laying out some reasons that we should promote public transportation, specifically rail transit. Focusing Obama's stated desire to promote public works projects on public transportation would be incredibly smart. There are still many American cities that have sub-par transportation systems within the city and almost non-existent rail options from the `burbs.

Jumpstarting a massive rail construction program would kill many birds with one giant, expensive stone. It would prompt suburbanites who live outside the city to visit and spend on urban businesses and entertainment; it would provide cheap, public transportation for urban workers who live outside the city; and most importantly, it would drastically reduce the number of people who commute in personal vehicles, and thereby benefit our degraded, asthma-ridden natural environment.

Seattle is a good example of the need for more rail-centric public transportation. Within the city, it is fairly easy to get around using the bus system. But there is no rail transit besides the monorail that goes about three blocks and was created as spectacle for the World's Fair in 1962.

But a Light Rail will be completed next year to transport people from SeaTac airport to downtown Seattle and back. I'm very glad that this is happening, but its impact will not reach its potential unless complemented by a more extensive rail program becuase traffic west into Seattle from the Eastside is awful for hours every morning and evening. And the same goes for along I-5 north of the city center. Both are areas that the Light Rail will not service.

Biden's suggestion for developing more rail transit would help cities like Seattle develop their rail programs to benefit workers, drivers, and the environment.

Cross-posted at the Francis L. Holland Blog.

African American Political Pundit has been sounding the alarm that one Black man in the Oval Office does not diversity make. AAPP's Change Watch: Minority Advocates Watching Obama That point is underscored by a new report by the Government Accountability Office, showing that Blacks and women are still woefully underrepresented among the highest level of civil servants managing the government, and this will not change unless the Obama Administration makes a conscious decision to address rather than exacerbate the inequities.

For example, only 8.5 percent of high level executives were Black, although the nation is 12.8% Black; and only 3.6 percent of the high level executives are Latino, even though Latinos make up 14.8% of the United States.

Meanwhile, white men constitute 60.7 percent of the highest level civil servants, even though they constitute less than thirty percent of the population.  In other words, white men are 100% overrepresented in the highest level civil service jobs.

Some people are going to insist, as a defense of the current demographics, that these jobs should be given out based on merit rather than based on gender, skin color or ethnicity.  While each job should be given to the person most capable of doing the job, the "best candidate" argument assumes that white men are the best candidate twice as often as they are present in the general population.   It's more likely that white men are 100% overrepresented as a result of historic patterns of old-boy networks, the "white male supremacy syndrome".

I define "white male supremacy":  as "the belief that white males, no matter how much and how often they fail, are still, by virtue of their male gender and white skin, inherently more qualified than blacks and women who succeed."  -- Francis L. Holland, December 13, 2006 at DailyKos.  

In the middle of the worst recession since the Great Depression, it's hard to argue that having 100% over-representation of white men in the highest levels of the Federal Government is an example of choosing the best people for the job regardless of the color.   Instead, it's an example of choosing white men for jobs regardless of whether they are the best people with the best ideas and the most ability to implement them.

The over-representation of white men results, as well, from the superhuman white man myth.

The Strongest American Myth Historically is the Superhuman White Man Myth

To be elected president, Barack Obama had to overcome this powerful myth, helped by being compared with George W. Bush and John McCain in the context of a hugely unpopular war and then an international economic meltdown.

However, some of the "superhuman" white men who created the current meltdown (like leverage proponent Rubin) are being invited back into the Government, packing the upper levels with white men while ignoring the abilities of women and minorities who have not yet been given a chance to discredited their theories and abilities.   Robert E. Rubin is a director and counselor at CitiGroup, where he helped turn Citi into a financial basket case, a microcosm of the financial policies that have turned international financial markets into a freefalling chaos.

A lot of my posts here pertain to corporate responsibility-- most specifically and most often, with the halting attempts of America's largest retailer to fully grasp and embrace the meaning of that term, especially as it pertains to its employees.

This is because of my association with Wake-Up Wal-Mart and my dedication to the group's agenda.

Generally in this pursuit, I oscillate between a tone of detached snark and one of outraged derision toward the company, so I've been fairly described as having "an axe to grind."

I've been speechless since Black Friday. No snark, and it's hard to even muster outrage. There was a great thread here on the events of that day, and one as well on Daily Kos.

I still don't know what to say, but Meghan Scott of Wake-Up Wal-Mart has just issued the following statement:

Certainly good News:
The apprupt Retirement Announcement of FL Senator Mel Martinez (R) not to seek Reelection has promted FL CFO Alexis Sink (D) reconsidering her Decision not to run for Senate.

Please read her:
http://blogs.tampabay.com/buzz/2008/12/s ink-will-reass.html

After the historic election this month, we have all been left with one question: what now? How do we ensure that the change we voted for is seen in a real and tangible way?

In a recent piece at the Huffington Post, Sally Kohn eloquently wrote:

<The single greatest thing we can do to honor the spirit of Obama's campaign and life work is bring as much enthusiasm to holding Obama accountable as we did to electing him.>

Personally, I could not agree more. I'm sure some people will be hesitant to begin pushing Obama. Many of you are still reveling in the glory of this historic election and want nothing more than to keep believing the ballots cast on November 4th will equal the change we need.

But our civic engagement cannot end with Election Day. Obama's campaign proved that America can truly harness its people power for positive and progressive change. NOW is the time to keep that momentum rolling.

Ok, so, how can you help? For a start, you can tune into the December 4th event Realizing the Promise: A Forum on Community Faith and Democracy , organized by the Campaign for Community Values and the Gamaliel Foundation (for which Obama once worked) at which thousands of grassroots leaders are coming to DC to help shape the agenda for Congress and the new Administration.

It was a chilly evening in Atlanta Monday night, but that didn't deter supporters of Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Jim Martin from rallying on the steps of the State Capitol a day before the closely-watched run-off election between Martin and Republican Saxby Chambliss.

"We need at least one U.S. Senator who is a Democrat and works for us in Washington," state Democratic Party Chair Jane Kidd told the crowd.  "All we have is 24 hours to get the job done."

Accompanying Kidd on the stage was a who's who of political leaders, radio personalities and hip-hop artists --including Iraq War veteran Tammy Duckworth and Michigan Congressman John Conyers-- all encouraged Democrats to get out the vote for Jim Martin.

If you ever need a quick downer, go over to OpenLeft and read something by David Sirota.  I tend to agree with a lot of what he says, mostly because I'm a pessimist by nature.  Sirota ain't happy with Obama these days.  His team of rival (singular) essentially pits the progressive image of Obama versus the center-right D.C. establishment.  

In this narrative, Progressives have been played somewhat by ponying up precious time and money to get Obama in office only to find out that he's a re-run of the triangulation and lukewarm centrism that is both unsavory and unnecessary at this time.  The counter-argument is that Obama is so overwhelmingly in control that his center-right team will actually help him hone his thoughts and skills to the point that mere mortals will shutter at his deft center-leftitude.

I'm not terribly comfortable with either narrative, but I do find surprising solace in the daily emails I still receive from David Plouffe.  There is apparently a coordinated effort to continue online fundraising and drawing Progressives into the fold.  Obama's team is urging us to get together to share our thoughts for the future and actually organizing Progressive causes into some sort of lasting force.  I find this interesting.

I have a few good friends who are scientists, and the one thing they all share is zero tolerance for asshattery perpetuated by religious bigots. And with good reason. Scientists have faced a fierce assault from the religious right on all fronts, ranging from climate change to evolution and even medicine. But, to a scientific mind, the illogical objections spawned by religious dogma can be especially offensive when it comes to advancing health.