Blog entry

Weekend Watchdog Wrap-up

Terrance Heath — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 11:08:22 -0400

This Sunday was a real head-scratcher for the Watchdog. Depending on how you look a it we 0-for-3, because none of our questions were asked. On the other hand, maybe we 2-for-3, since two of our questions were answered even though they weren't asked.

On ABC's This Week George Stephanopolous turned to Red Markey, CEO of the American Petroleum Institute, during the debate about offshore drilling. But instead of asking our question, George asked about exploration and drilling on public lands, giving Markey a chance to pooh-pooh the idea. Ironically, doing so, Markey underscored that exploration comes before drilling, and we don't find oil everywhere we look.

MARKEY: … Let me give you an example. Over half the leases in the Gulf of Mexico are Out in the deep water. We drilled 296 Wells in deep water. Only 21% ended up having any commercially available [oil].

It then fell to economist Jeffrey Sachs to remind the panel that any talk about offshore drilling is really a distraction from the problem Americans are facing today.

SACHS: That's why this is a distraction. It's 10 to 12 years off. A small amount compared to the world balance. … My point is that if we're going to get serious about this we have to do the arithmetic, and the President got us distracted in a useless debate about the offshore, continental shelf. This is a tiny part of the puzzle.

On Face the Nation, Bob Schieffer didn't get around to asking McCain advisor Carly Fiorina our question about whether offshore drilling will really impact gas prices, but Gov. Bill Richardson answered it anyway.

Gov. RICHARDSON: Well, I was energy secretary and I can tell you that every bipartisan administration has opposed offshore drilling for pristine reasons, the ecosystem, but also the fact that you're not going to get any of this oil out offshore for the next 10 years and prices won't go down till the year 2030 according to the Energy Information Agency, which is part of the Department of Energy.

Now, secondly, what we have here is Senator McCain is basically following the policies of George Bush: drill, drill, drill. Now, the oil companies have millions of acres of leases in America and continental US that they need to drill in, but we lead a long-term solution and face the facts, and that is renewable energy, that is fuel conservation, 50 miles per gallon fuel efficiency. We need dramatic efforts to promote conservation, we need dramatic efforts to generate new technology in the areas of solar wind and biomass. The solution is not drill, drill…

Fox News Sunday was the one unquestionable disappointment, since our question to Tom Daschle didnt' get asked or answered. But two out of three ain't bad at all, depending on wheher we're talking questions or answers.

Weekend Watchdog

Terrance Heath — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 17:38:45 -0400

Every Friday in our Weekend Watchdog feature, we post suggested questions for scheduled Sunday guests. You can add your own questions in the comment thread. We'll also include contact information for the shows, so we can let them know what their viewers want asked. We'll post a wrap-up here on the blog on Monday.

The watchdog is back, and it looks like this week's line-up on the Sunday shows gives us a perfect chance to sink our teeth into some of the slipperiest questions of the past week. That is, if any of them toss us a bone in the form of a relevant question or two.What's on your list? What questions do you want to hear asked and — more importantly — answered this Sunday? We've got a few of our own in mind.

For Red Cavaney, President and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute (ABC, This Week): Your organization estimates that it will take at least seven to 10 years before offshore drilling provides Americans with any oil.

Is drilling really the fastest way to relieve the economic squeeze Americans are feeling at the pump?

For Carly Fiorina, (CBS, Face the Nation): You've pointed out that the price of oil has doubled since John McCain began talking about our energy problems.

It's estimated that the amount of usable oil thought to be off our coastlines would only reduce the price of oil by $2.25 per barrel, and gas by 2.5 cents per gallon, by 2025. How does drilling significantly lower the price of oil, or gasoline?

For Tom Daschle (Fox New Sunday): Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke that the controlling health care costs is our biggest economic challenge, and the same week we're heard reports that health care costs are driving more seniors in to bankruptcy.

As the co-author of a new book about our health care crisis, do you agree with Ben Bernanke's assessment?

***

Contact info for the Sunday shows

Contact ABC's This Week by clicking here

Email CBS' Face The Nation at ftn@cbsnews.com

Email Fox News Sunday at FNS@foxnews.com

Contact NBC's Meet The Press by clicking here

Remember: always be brief, polite and respectful when contacting the media, so our voices will be taken seriously.

Weekend Watchdog: Open Thread

Terrance Heath — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 11:52:03 -0400

It's that time again. Time for the watch to patrol the Sunday shows, on the look-out for a relevant question — should one get through. Which ones should get through? Make your suggestions and pose your questions in the comments, and when the guests are announced this evening we may pick some of your questions for the Watchdog. Come back and check out our usual Weekend Watchdog post to see who's on the guest list and whether your question is on the Watchdog list.

If you've read the headlines, you know what's probably going to be the main topic — if not the topic — on just about every show. The presidential race is down to two candidates, and the debate has begun.

But a quick review of the headlines shows that there are some other big stories out there that somebody on at least one of the Sunday shows ought to be asked about.

A few come to mind right away:

Last week, Scott McClellan became the most recent ex-Bush aide to "tell all," and told us that Bush was not "open and forthright" on Iraq and rushed into an unnecessary war. This week, the Senate Select Intelligence Committee reported that, in the run-up to the Iraq invasion, both Bush and Cheney made claims they knew weren't supported by intelligence. This comes months after a report by the military's Joint Forces Command concluded — after pouring over 600,000 Iraqi documents — that there was "no smoking gun" to back up Bush's claims about a Saddam/Al-Qaeda link, and after the Pentagon buried the report.
Bear Stearns has finally been sold, and Countrywide's sale can move forward now. But we're still reeling from the crisis they've wrought. Americans' net worth has plummeted, to the tune of $1.7 trillion, and more than 1 million homes are now in foreclosure. Where's our relief?
In the meantime, is the next bubble about to burst while we're still recovering from the last one? George Soros thinks so. He says there's a "bubble in the making" in oil and other commodities, and there may well be. Federal regulators disclosed an oil trading probe last week. This week, we learned that hedge funds and Wall Street investors are buying massive amounts of oil contracts thanks to some handy loopholes in federal trading limits. How messy is that bubble going to be when it pops?

That should get us started. What's on your mind? If you could ask one question on "Face the Nation," "This Week," or "Meet the Press" what would you ask? Let 'em rip in the comments. And, as always, keep things polite and respectful, as practice for when you contact the shows with your question.

History

Terrance Heath — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 10:50:28 -0400

Image details: Obama Holds Final Primary Night Event In St. Paul served by picapp.com

I can only think of one moment in my memory that compares to this. It was when I stood in front of my television and watched the Berlin wall come down, live on CNN. I'm not yet sure that another wall has come down now. In fact, I'm more certain that significant portions of it still stand, and some may have been reinforced.

But there's an opening now. It was there before, but it's much, much wider now. Through it, we can just see the other side, and even have more hope of reaching it.

I only wish my father had lived to see this moment. After all he saw and experienced in his lifetime, I'm sure it would have done his heart some good. If I actually get to go to the convention and cover it, now that I'm credentialed along with the rest of the bloggers at Pam's House Blend, I'm sure I'll be thinking about him. And maybe again at inauguration. Maybe I will have the chance to take Parker to downtown D.C., to the inauguration, to witness the moment. He may not grasp the significance then, but he will when he remembers. And he will remember. I know I will.

But tonight, when I get home, I'll take down from the shelf a project Parker and I have been working on for a while now. It started around the time that my son finally started to notice race, and perhaps he even perceived more about the differences made between people based on race than he had words to express. Wanting to pass on to him an idea of his heritage, and what people who look like him have and can accomplish, I decided we would start a photo album.

First, we put in family pictures, and I explained to him who each person in each picture was. Then we moved on to African Americans who are famous for their accomplishments. I tried to pick people whose accomplishments matched his interests — a black race car driver, because at the time Parker was into race cars; a black astronaut, because for a minute he wanted to be an astronaut; a black composer whose songs are among those I sing to him at night, when it's my turn to put him to bed. We paste the pictures into the book, and then a short paragraph about that person, which I would read to him.

It's our little history book, I guess. And tonight we'll put Barack Obama's picture in that book. For both of us, it will be an example of what he can accomplish. I will look my son in the eye and say to him what my parents said to me: "You can do anything, and be anything you want if you work hard at it. You could even be the president."

The difference is that when my parents said it to me, it was a dream — perhaps a belief in what the future and their country could be.

Tonight, when I say those words to my son, it will still be a dream just this side of reality; but a dream within reach, where it has never really been before.

Weekend Watchdog Wrap-Up

Terrance Heath — Mon, 19 May 2008 12:01:26 -0400

It looks like the watchdog did a little better this weekend, almost going 1-in-3 when — thanks to Sen. Chris Dodd bringing it up on Fox News Sunday — Sen. Jon Kyl faced a question about John McCain flip-flopping on withdrawing from Iraq, and revising is deadline from 100 years down to just five years.

Sen. Dodd effectively countered Chris Wallace's attempt to put some distance between President Bush and John McCain.

WALLACE: Senator Dodd, in a speech on Friday, Barack Obama mentioned Bush and McCain in the same sentence 10 times in 10 minutes.

Given how many times that McCain has broken with President Bush over torture, earlier on how to wage the war in Iraq, and also a multiplicity of domestic issues, is that really fair to tie McCain to President Bush?

DODD: Of course it is. I mean, this is — again, we've been — embraced the policies on tax policy, on the war in Iraq, on the critical issues, on major economic issues. John McCain is very much a supporter of where President Bush has been and where he is today.

In fact, he's changed his view on some of these major issues in the last number of weeks, on tax policy, on the war in Iraq the other day, announcing he's now all of a sudden discovered that we ought to be out of there by 2013.

That's a very different John McCain than even a few days ago. So clearly, I think associating the policies of this failed administration in foreign policy with a candidate who embraces the same view is very legitimate.

Which forced Sen. Kyle to do a bit of fancy footwork, in an attempt to put some daylight between Sen. McCain and President Bush. Unfortunately, Chris Wallace quickly moved on from there, failing to ask about Sen. Kyl's criticism of Sen. Barrack Obama for suggesting the same Iraq withdrawal deadline long before Sen. McCain came around.

Nevermind the other obvious question: Now that Sen. McCain has finally caught up with a Democratic candidate's position on Iraq, does the implication follow that Republicans — in order to win votes — actually have to run away from their standard bearer for the last 7.5 years, and take positions resembling those Democrats have held all along?

Okay, okay. This is Fox News we're talking about, after all. But a watchdog can dream. Right?

Weekend Watchdog

Terrance Heath — Fri, 16 May 2008 17:55:31 -0400

For Senator Joe Lieberman (ABC's This Week): You recently traveled to Iraq with Seen. John McCain. Seen. McCain recently revised his estimate for victory in Iraq down from 100 years to a deadline of bringing American troops home by 2013 — just five years from now.

Based on what you saw in Iraq, what would it take get our troops out of Iraq and back home by 2013, and how soon would we have to start withdrawing troops to have even most of them out of Iraq in five years?

For Senator Jon Kyl (Fox News Sunday): You've criticized Seen. Barack Obama for suggesting that American troops could be withdrawn from Iraq by 2013.

Have you changed your mind on the feasibility of bringing American troops home by 2013 now that John McCain has proposed a timeline to do so?

For former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (CNN's, Late Edition): A year ago you told Roll Call, "The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail, and so far it's working for us."

Considering Republican's most recent loss in Mississippi, and concerns that Republicans could lose 20 more seats in Congress, do you still think being obstructionist is working for Republicans?

***

Email CBS' Face The Nation at ftn@cbsnews.com

Contact ABC's This Week by clicking here

Remember: always be brief, polite and respectful when contacting the media, so our voices will be taken seriously.

Weekend Watchdog: Open Thread

Terrance Heath — Fri, 16 May 2008 09:17:15 -0400

We're in the process of trying out some new approaches to the Weekend Watchdog. One of them is this open thread, where we hope longtime "watchdogs" and the uninitiated will engage in sorting out what questions about which issues and news items from the past week this Sunday's yet-to-be announced guests should face.

Make your suggestions and pose your questions in the comments, and when the guests are announced this evening we may pick some of your questions for the Watchdog. Come back and check out our usual Weekend Watchdog post to see who's on the guest list and whether your question is on the Watchdog list. (If it is, you might contact the shows to suggest they ask your question. Invite your friends to join in. The more the merrier.)

Some of the more interesting items from this week's news include:

A stunning loss for Republicans in a Mississippi special Congressional election, that has the party worried about prospects for the Fall and beyond.
The Republicans' attempt at rebranding themselves as a "change" party pretty much got them laughed out of the room.
President Bush's remarks at a celebration of Israel's 60th anniversary raised a storm of controversy and assertions that his policies have made America and Israel less safe.
Meanwhile, back home, jobless claims are up again, the foreclosure rate is skyrocketing, Americans are taking out loans to pay for basic needs and spending those stimulus checks on the same things, and more of us are stressed about maintaining our standards of living.

That ought to be enough to get us started. What's on your mind? If you could ask one question on "Face the Nation," "This Week," or "Meet the Press" what would you ask? Let 'em rip in the comments. And, as always, keep things polite and respectful, as practice for when you contact the shows with your question.

Recognizing the Race Chasm

David Sirota — Sun, 11 May 2008 15:52:56 -0400

The issue of race makes a lot of folks uncomfortable - and that's especially true right now when the nation is closer than ever to electing the first black President of the United States. As my new newspaper column this week shows, many Serious People who dominate our political debate have reacted to this historic election and their own queasiness about race by exposing their prejudices.

On one side, you have the ostriches - the political "thinkers" like Reihan Salam and Michael Lind who look at the Race Chasm and pretend it doesn't exist. These people look at a racially polarized election map, and explain it away with either flippant fact-free stories about Hillary Clinton's "waitress-mom sensibility," or wild theories about Northern European migration trends from a century ago. They expect us to forget that most often the simplest explanation is the most obvious - especially when it comes to a black-white racial divide that has been a defining characteristic of American culture since our country's inception.

On the other side you have the minstrel show producers - the media and politicians who are more than thrilled to exploit race and treat African Americans as less than human. My column offers up all sorts of specific examples of this, but I think Keith Woods of the Poynter Institute summed it up best. Appearing on PBS this week, he said:

"You see a full vocabulary for talking about white Americans in this debate, from blue-collar, a euphemism for white blue-collar workers. We talk about lunch-bucket Democrats. We talk about the soccer mom and the NASCAR dad, all of which are euphemisms in the national discourse for white Americans. And then we talk about black people, as though they are all the same, with pretty much all the same views."

Each side is expressing a form of bigotry. In denying the racial divide exists, the ostriches are telling African Americans that racism is just their imagination. In other words, the whitewashing (no pun intended) legitimizes racism by pretending it doesn't exist.

The minstrel show producers are more honest than the ostriches - they are overtly telling African Americans that they are unimportant, even though that's positively false in both the human and political sense.

The silver lining in all of this is the fact that - despite the ostriches - we may start to have a much-needed national conversation about race, to the great consternation of wealthy white pundits like Bill Kristol. As all of this racism oozes out of the political Establishment for all to see, we can recognize just how bigoted American culture is - and recognition is the first step towards addressing a problem.

You can read the whole column at the San Francisco Chronicle, Denver Post, Ft. Collins Coloradoan, In These Times, TruthDig, Credo Action, or Creators. The column relies on grassroots support, so if you'd like to see my column regularly in your local paper, use this directory to find the contact info for your local editorial page editors. Get get in touch with them and point them to my Creators Syndicate site. Thanks, as always, for your ongoing readership and help contacting local editors. This column couldn't be what it is without your help.

The Age of the "Insurance Card Marriage"

Terrance Heath — Tue, 06 May 2008 15:56:02 -0400

Forget green cards. A growing number of Americans are getting hitched to get health insurance.

Some people marry for love, some for companionship, and others for status or money. Now comes another reason to get hitched: health insurance.

In a poll released today, 7% of Americans said they or someone in their household decided to marry in the last year so they could get healthcare benefits via their spouse.

"It's a small number but a powerful result, because it shows how paying for healthcare is reflected not only in family budgets but in life decisions," said Drew E. Altman, president of the Kaiser Family Foundation, which commissioned the survey as part of its regular polling on healthcare.

...What surprised researchers was that such costs had become a factor in marriage decisions. "We should have asked about divorce," said Altman, joking.

Those who cited health insurance as a factor in deciding to marry tended to have modest incomes. About 6 in 10 were in households making less than $50,000 a year, said Mollyann Brodie, who directs Kaiser's opinion research. They also were younger, with 4 in 10 between 18 and 34.

Maybe they should have asked about divorce. They'd have found that at least some people stay married for the sake of health insurance.

Whether people get married or stay married for the sake of health insurance, who can blame them?

Health insurance is getting more and more expensive. Premiums have gone up 30%, compared to a 3% increase in wages. Co-payments for some prescriptions have shot up, as insurance companies change to a pricing system that charges patients a percentage of of the drugs' actual cost, instead of a fixed amount. And that percentage can range anywhere from 20% to 70%. Plus, insurers are reimbursing less for out-of-network medical services. If you've got cancer, you may have to pay cash up front before getting treatment.

And that's if you are insured, even under-insured. It's worse, much worse if you're uninsured. So, if people get married or stay (unhappily) married for the sake of having health insurance, I don't blame them one bit.

However, no matter which option these people choose, they all have one very important thing in common related to their access to health insurance: they can get married, to each other or to some other partner of their choosing. They might even marry someone they'd have married anyway. But, again, they can.

Do I need to say it? There's an entire class of people for whom marriage (getting married or staying married) isn't an option, because we can't marry each other. And the few alternatives don't really help much either. Just ask Robert Ryan and Ralph Martinelli, whose story I blogged about earlier.

What they didn't know before moving to Idaho could fill a house, and in many ways it does.

The kitchen table holds stacks of legal papers. Medication bottles litter a nearby countertop. The two-story home Robert Ryan, 42, shares with his partner, Ralph Martinelli, 53, overlooks a quaint suburb west of Boise, a rural landscape of ruddy hills that doesn't seem quite as welcoming as it once did.

A 2,400-mile move west that once seemed like a chance at a fresh start, has instead delivered some hard lessons -- especially about moving from a state that recognizes same-sex unions to one of the 21 states that don't.

The couple was stunned when Ryan was dropped from the company insurance plan the two shared in New Jersey, where they were able to register as domestic partners. Idaho does not formally recognize same-sex couples.

"It didn't even dawn on us that this would have an impact," Ryan said.

...A year after they started dating, they registered as domestic partners in New Jersey. Martinelli was told he could insure Ryan under his policy as a Konica Minolta Business Solutions sales manager.

Ryan used the policy to pay for medication to treat his depression, anxiety and the childhood asthma that resurfaced from severe smoke inhalation in the attack.

But he was dropped from the policy last October, shortly after the Konica Minolta company found the couple had moved to Idaho, where they couldn't register as domestic partners. In 2006, 63 percent of Idaho voters approved a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, effectively outlawing same-sex unions.

Of course, if Robert and Ralph had been Robert and Rachel or Roberta and Ralph, it wouldn't have mattered. If they were married, they'd have been just as married in Idaho as they were in New Jersey. And if they were just shacking up and moved to a state that didn't offer the option of domestic partnership, they could just get hitched.

Boom. Done. Ralph (or Rachel) has health insurance. But they're not Robert and Rachel, or even Roberta and Ralph. So no health insurance for Ralph. Maybe. Robert pays $650 a month that he wouldn't have to pay if he and Ralph were married (and the amount deducted from his paycheck to cover his spouse would probably be a lot less), for a COBRA policy Ralph wouldn't need if they could marry, and that will expire in March 2009 anyway.

(Ironically, Robert's act of paying for Ralph's COBRA policy is a significant indication of their commitment to each other. If Robert weren't paying for the COBRA policy, Ralph wouldn't have coverage.)

A while back, I asked "Is Health Care a Gay Issue?", and at the risk of repeating myself, it becomes one at the point where health insurance is linked to marital status, or at least it should.

Again, I have to go back to the Health Care for America plan, and how it could apply to same-sex couples and our families.

At a stroke, then, no one with a direct or family tie to the workforce would remain uninsured.

…For the small share of people without direct or family ties to the workforce and ineligible for Medicaid, S-CHIP, or Medicare, the Health Care for America Plan would be available as an attractive new coverage option. Premiums would again be based on income, ranging from no premium in the case of those with incomes below the poverty line to the average actuarial cost of coverage for all enrollees in Health Care for America in the case of those with incomes above 400% of the poverty level. In other words, Health Care for America would allow higher-income individuals without workplace ties to buy into the program for a premium that did not vary with age, region, or health status (a so-called community-rated premium).

Meanwhile, Americans without ties to the workforce would be enrolled in the Health Care for America Plan through an individual buy-in, through state antipoverty and un-employment insurance programs, or through new efforts to reach the uninsured when they sought medical care without insurance.

It may not be obvious at first, but it's pretty easy to parse out if you consider how it would apply to couples like Ryan and Martinelli. Even without the benefit of legal marriage, a move from one state to another wouldn't cause Martinelli — someone without a direct or family tie to the workforce (because his partner, Ryan, is not legally considered "family")— to lose his health insurance.

For same-sex couples with children the benefit of a health care plan like this becomes even more obvious. A post by Daily Journalcolumnist Howard Ludwig pointed me to a study recently published in the Journal of Economic Perspectives, titled "The Economics of Lesbian and Gay Familes," and among the findings was this interesting tidbit.

Gay and lesbian couples with children are more likely to have a stay-at-home partner. Similar to heterosexual couples, the partner who stays home in a same-sex relationship usually has fewer years of formal education.

Again, the choices for a stay-at-home parent in a same-sex household when it comes to health insurance — in any state where our relationships are not legally recognized — are: (a) purchase an individual health insurance policy at a higher cost than, say, the married heterosexual stay-at-home parent next door who's carried on her husband's policy, which is underwritten by his employer and a paycheck deduction that's a lot less than the cost of an individual policy; or (b) end up doing without health insurance. (Children, under this plan, born with coverage.)

Something like the Health Care for America plan would "divorce" health insurance from marital status because, quite simply, no one would have to get married to get health insurance. And no one who can't marry their partner would face marital status as a barrier to getting health insurance, or pay a much higher price for health insurance as a consequence of not being able to marry.

Health care has cropped up in national political debate again, as Sen. John McCain debuted his health care plan, and the conventional wisdom is that the McCain plan would raise health care costs and generally and already bad system worse. Bill Scher has posted a great blog round-up that includes my favorite assesment of the McCain plan: "Oliver Willis and Masson's Blog sum up what McCain's plan means for you in one word: Pray."

You can bet that if it would make things worse for heterosexual couples, it would do our families even less good.

The Democratic presidential contenders, on the other hand, have plans that pretty much resemble the Health Care for America plan.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards have been sniping at each other for months over healthcare, but there's one thing the top Democratic presidential candidates agree on: Americans of all ages should have the choice of buying a government-run plan modeled on Medicare.

The idea, which would set up a competition between a new government plan and private insurance programs, has been overshadowed by the political horse race. But it's one of the most far-reaching and controversial proposals for making health insurance more affordable and more widely available.

The government now guarantees access to healthcare only for seniors and the disabled through Medicare and for the poor mainly through Medicaid. Under the proposals being advanced by Clinton, Obama and Edwards, the government would offer coverage for middle-class workers and their families, with benefits comparable to those now provided for federal employees and members of Congress.

Participation in the government plan would be voluntary, but the approach sparks widely differing reactions.

Equality, for our families is and may continue to be hard to come by much of the time, and hard won where it does exist, while we are in the process of building our lives and our families together; weaving our families' destinies together with those of our community and our country, much as we weave our own together as families. We can walk down the aisle just like any other couples, but may continue for some time walk back up the aisle with fewer benefits and protections than other couples.

But neither we nor they should need to walk down the aisle for the sake of having health insurance. Health Care for All isn't a "gay health bill," and it doesn't single out particular groups for inclusion or exclusion. It does, however, offer a way to provide all Americans with health insurance, married or not. It would treat my family the same as the family down the street, with two legally married parents, because its benefits are not conditional on the basis our marital status or anyone else's. We'd get them whether we're married or not, and whether we can marry or not.

Well, that's a kind of equality, and one that appears to be good for everybody.

Or, to put it another way, for all.

My Father's Eyes

Terrance Heath — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:35:41 -0400

This weekend, we attended a local conference for LGBT parents and families, and I spoke on a panel about interracial couples and inter-cultural families. At some point, I found myself speaking less as a gay dad and more as a Black man raising two Black sons, and wondering aloud just how I would prepare them for the reality of what they will likely face as Black men, and how I will prepare them for that without catalyzing what I know is an inevitable loss of innocence; the same innocence I love to see in them, and so want to protect as a parent.

But I know that I will be doing them a disservice as their father if I don't prepare them for the reality I've experience myself, and that they will each have to face in their own time. It's no surprise that in the middle of the panel discussion, I remembered an exchange I had with my own father.

I was in college at the time. I'd been home for a weekend visit, and was heading back to school — at the University of Georgia, in Athens, GA. As I made several trips back and forth, loading up the car, my dad sat on the couch, watching television. Out of the corner of my eye, I thought I caught my dad looking at me with what appeared to be concern, as though he was trying to decide whether to say something to me about it.

Finally, I finished loading the car, and said my goodbyes. But my dad stopped me before I could make it out the door and finally spoke his concern.

"Son," he asked, "is that what you're wearing to drive back to Athens?"

I was wearing my basic school "uniform" at that time: a ripped pair of old, faded jeans, and a old t-shirt.

"Um, yeah," I said.

My dad then breathed a sigh that seemed a mix of resignation, exasperation, and trepidation over what he was about to tell me — what he had to tell me, really.

"Son," he said, "You are going to be driving through a lot of southern counties. Now, I'm not saying you're going to do anything wrong. But you are a young black man, and if you get pulled over by one of these southern sheriffs or policemen, they are going to take one look at you and get the wrong idea. They're not going to treat you like they would a white boy dressed like that."

It was on the tip of my tongue to argue with him, and say that stuff like that probably did happen when he was my age. Instead, I unpacked some clothes, and changed into a pair of khakis and a buttoned-down oxford, which met with dad's approval.

I was still thinking about my dad's words when I got back to UGA. After unloading the car and carrying everything up to my room, I turned on the television. At some point, the news came on and I saw this.

My father wasn't even one-year-old when the young black men who became known as the Scottsboro Nine were falsely accused of rape, and plunged into an ordeal that would last decades. My father was about 16 years old when the nation's last mass lynching happened in rural Georgia. My father was 25 years old and newly married when Emmett Till was murdered.

He lived through times when the life of a black man, especially in the south, wasn't worth a "plug nickel." He lived through times when his life as a black man wasn't' worth a plug nickel. He lived, like so many men before him, knowing that there were people who would think no more of snuffing out his life than killing a fly, and that there were people who would set them free afterwards. He lived knowing that it could happen, even if he wasn't doing anything wrong. It could happen just because he happened to be a black man, and happened to be in a particular place at a particular time. Any time. Any place. Any day.

My dad had lived with that reality, and I think he was trying to make me aware that I lived with that reality too. He had to, because he knew — and had probably seen with his own eyes — the danger of not being aware of that; the danger of taking for granted that the world would meet and treat me no differently than anyone else.

My father's eyes had seen things I had never seen and could not imagine then, or even now. I did not have my father's eyes, and he knew that. He also knew that I needed them and that I wouldn't have them unless he spoke. It was a legacy he had to pass on to me, for my own good.

Several years later, I was living in Washington, D.C., and found myself driving home late one night. I was giving a fraternity brother of mine, also a black male, a ride home after a late night fraternity event. My car wasn't in the greatest shape. I'd been in a traffic accident just a few days before, and hadn't taken it to be repaired because I needed to drive it that weekend.

We were driving past the Capitol when we got pulled over. I saw the flashing lights, and as soon as I heard the siren I pulled over. By then, I knew the drill. Don't argue with the officers. Don't get out of the car unless they tell you to. Get out of the car if they tell you to. Answer any questions with "Yes, officer," or "No, officer," give them any information they ask for, and maybe — maybe — you won't have any trouble. Still what happened then was a bit surreal.

As the officer came up to my window, I said a silent prayer that my fraternity brother — Neal, who was known for having a sharp tongue and a willingness let it loose — would keep cool. The officer asked for my license and registration. She asked if I knew why she stopped me, and I said no. She said it was because one of my tail lights wasn't working, and agreed with me when I said it was probably a result of the accident I had a few days earlier. She seemed to believe me when I told her I didn't know about the tail light.

I thought maybe she'd give me a ticket or a warning, and give my documents back to me. Instead, she walked back to her car and got on her radio (I think). I wasn't worried, because it wasn't like I had an outstanding warrant or anything more than a couple of unpaid parking tickets. But while she was in her car, another police car pulled up, and two more officers got out.

In my rear view mirror, I saw the officer who stopped us get back out of car, at the same time that I saw yet another police car pull up. At this point, I started to get nervous — because here we were, two black males, driving through D.C. at 4 a.m., in a banged up car, with the police units and six police officers now at the scene. Depending on any number of factors, including what we said or did, it might not matter if we'd done anything wrong.

"Is this your vehicle?" the officer asked me when she arrived back at my window. "We've had some car thefts reported in this area."

I assured her that it was my car, and she stepped away for a moment to confer with one of the other officers now milling about the scene. At that moment, a police van showed up, and stopped alongside the passenger side of the car. Neal, who hadn't said a word at this point, looked at the van, looked at me and just said "What the..."

I finished his sentence silently, in my mind.

The officer, at this point, was back at my window. "Sir," she asked me, "do you have the title to the vehicle."
How many people keep the title to their vehicle in the car itself? I didn't know but, I knew that I did have the title in the car. I knew just where it was. It was in my briefcase, which was in the trunk of the car. I knew that in order to retrieve the title, I'd have to get out of the car — and with at least eight officers now pretty much surrounding us — walk over to the back of the car, open the trunk, open the briefcase, and retrieve the title.

What if, I thought, just one of these officers thought I was reaching for a gun at any point in that series of steps? That I had no gun — had never even owned one, in fact &#8212 was and would have been meaningless in that moment. It wouldn't have mattered.

This was about four years before the Amadou Diallo shooting, but just about two years after the death of Malice Green. So, I knew we were one misunderstanding, one miscommunication, one hesitation, one moment of exasperation away from being another one of those stories.

I told the officer that I had the title, and that it was in my briefcase, in the trunk of the car. I told her I'd have to get out of the car, open the trunk, and open the briefcase to get the title out and show it to her. She gave me the go ahead, and I walked around to the back of the car, opened the trunk, opened the briefcase, and got the title. I don't remember if the officer followed me, and I didn't look to see if any of the officers had their hands on their weapons. I couldn't.

I showed the officer the title. She looked it over, handed it back to me, and told me to get back in the car. The van drove away, and one of other police cars drove away. Finally, the officer came back to my window.

"I'm giving you a warning," she said. "You take him home, get yourself home, and then I don't want to see you driving this car again in this condition."

I assured her that she wouldn't.

"Alright," she said. "Have a good one."

I rolled up my window, and started the engine. To this day, I am eternally grateful that Neal waited until the windows were rolled up and we were driving away from the police officers to exclaim — well out of their earshot — "Have a good one? F___ you!"

I laughed, out of sheer relief, but I understood that there was a moment back there when we could have been "another Rodney King." We could have been "another Malice Green." We could have been Amadou Diallo, or even Abner Louima.

And now, as I remember that night, I know we could have been Sean Bell too.

Bell, 23, had just left his stag party at a club in Jamaica, Queens, when he was shot and killed on November 25 2006.

Two of his friends, Joseph Guzman and Trent Benefield, were also wounded as the three plainclothed police detectives opened fire on Bell's car.

All three of the men in the car were unarmed and the shooting - which recalled a 1999 episode in which an unarmed immigrant, Amadou Diallo, was shot dead by police - brought fierce criticism of the detectives.

But after a seven-week trial, Judge Arthur Cooperman ruled that the three police officers, Michael Oliver, 36, Gescard Isnora, 29, and Marc Cooper, 40, bore no criminal responsibility for the death of Bell or the wounding of his friends.

...However, the New York mayor, Michael Bloomberg, who had been critical of the shooting, said that the judge had followed his duty to decide the case on evidence presented in his courtroom.

"There are no winners in a trial like this," he said in a statement. "An innocent man lost his life, a bride lost her groom, two daughters lost their father, and a mother and a father lost their son. No verdict could ever end the grief of those who knew and loved Sean Bell."

Oh, but there are winners in a trial like this. The winners are the officers who walked out of the courtroom, never to bear legal consequences for actions leading to the death of a young man who should be alive today. The officers will return to their lives. However changed those lives will be, they have them to return to.

They will return to their families. They will return to their children. They will very likely see those children grow up and — if they're fortunate enough — live to hold their grandchildren in their arms.Sean Bell will not, though there is no good reason why. So, yes, there are winners in this trial. And there are losers. To say "Nobody wins," diminishes the magnitude of loss experienced by Sean Bell's family.

Under the right circumstances, I could be Sean Bell and people could be expressing the same outrage.

Hundreds of angry people marched through Harlem on Saturday after the Rev. Al Sharpton promised to "close this city down" to protest the acquittals of three police detectives in the 50-shot barrage that killed a groom on his wedding day and wounded two friends.

"We strategically know how to stop the city so people stand still and realize that you do not have the right to shoot down unarmed, innocent civilians," Sharpton told an overflow crowd of several hundred people at his National Action Network office in the historically black Manhattan neighborhood. "This city is going to deal with the blood of Sean Bell."

Sharpton was joined by the family of 23-year-old Sean Bell — a black man — and a friend of Bell who was wounded in the 2006 shooting outside a Queens strip club. Two of the three officers charged were also black.

The rally at Sharpton's office was followed by a 20-block march down Malcolm X Boulevard and then across 125th Street, Harlem's main business thoroughfare, where some bystanders yelled out "Kill the police!"

Fifty of the marchers carried white placards bearing big black numbers for each of the police bullets fired at Bell and his friends.

Sharpton urged people to return for a meeting this coming week "to plan the day that we will close this city down" with the kind of "massive civil disobedience" once led by Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

Why shouldn't the city come to a halt? Why shouldn't they march and shut down the city? Why shouldn't there be a peaceful demonstration of outrage; justified outrage at an absolute lack of justice?

Sure, depending on your perspective, the system worked just the way it's supposed to.

The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution ensures that we have the right to a trial by a jury of our peers in a serious criminal case. But as with all rights, you can voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waive that right and instead have your case tried by a judge.

That is what Michael Oliver, Marc Cooper and Gescard Isnora did. Many thought it was a gamble. It was a gamble that paid off.

Justice Arthur Cooperman, a 74-year-old bench veteran, acquitted all three detectives. The public is outraged. But it shouldn't be. Cooperman did what we ask every juror to do: consider and determine the facts of the case -- that is, what he believed to be the true facts -- from among all of the evidence in the case.

Again, that there are "no winners" in a case like this is a misstatement, at best, that serves as an attempt to blunt outrage. It's the flip side of calls to redirect that outrage at less specific targets.

...The history of policing in America really is the history of race relations. So, if the takeaway from this is that there's no problem because the police weren't convicted, then that would be tragic and that would be completely missing the point. This was an operation that was extremely problematic, and every effort has to be made to make sure it never happens again.

This really is a legal case more than your ordinary criminal case, because the law of self-defense is very favorable to the police. I think what they were trying to avoid was the possibility that a jury of individuals might say, well, with so many charges, we have to convict them of something. New York law allows police … to make pretty serious mistakes and still not be criminally liable, because the state has to disprove any justification beyond reasonable doubt--which is a very high standard. A judge has to put himself in the police's shoes and look at the case through their eyes. With the jury, the concern would be that the jury would say, well, let's compromise. But this judge saw that if you have doubts about whether the cops are completely justified, then, following the law, you must return a not guilty verdict, which is what he did.

...The larger message is that there's an over-reliance on the criminal-justice system, and that that has really fallen in a whole host of ways on minority Americans. This is just one example. And it's really not fair or decent to blame the cops--they're not the ones who create the system that we have. The outrage that should really be sparked by this event should be over how we have a system where so many minorities end up on the receiving end of our criminal-justice system? Why are they constantly on the receiving end? Can't we have a more balanced and a more just approach, and a more decent and humane approach?

The problem is that the target for outrage is amorphous, faceless, and too esoteric to inspire the kind of passion that a case like this one does.

And it does little to address the specific injustice in this case. Sure, a jury probably would have recognized that injustice. A jury, or at least a significant number of jurors, wouldn't have felt right about letting that injustice go un-addressed, and probably would have wanted to charge the officers with something, rather than let those responsible for Bell's death walk out of the courtroom and back to their lives.

Mayor Bloomberg can say "there are no winners" in a case like this, but there are victims; victims who have not and most likely will not get anything approaching justice.

Black male lives are meaningless in America," a female friend just texted me, and what can I say to that? Who's going to help Nicole Paultre Bell, Sean Bell's grieving fiancé, explain to their two young daughters that the men who killed their daddy are not going to be punished?

I am willing to bet that at least half of all African American families, somewhere in their history, have a story of at least one male family member who was lynched or murdered, or at least have passed down stories of what happed to young men in their community. They know, too, where an incident like this probably wouldn't happen, and who it wouldn't happen to.

Real talk: this tragedy would have never gone down on the Upper Eastside of Manhattan or in Brooklyn Heights. I am not just speaking about the judge's decision, but the police officer's actions. Those shots would have never been fired at unarmed White people sitting in a car. Until we understand that racism is not just about who pulled the trigger in a police misconduct case, but is also about the geography of racism, and the psychology of racism, we are forever stuck having the same endless dialogue with no solution in sight.

My dad never spoke of it, but I'm willing to bet when he was growing up he'd known someone, or heard about someone, who met that same fate. He probably thought about that as he saw me about to walk out the door to drive back to school. I couldn't, in that moment, see myself through my father's eyes. Instead, he looked at me and saw all the others who'd gone before me; those who are now just plain gone.

Can my dad be blamed for thinking that so little had changed? Can anyone be blamed for thinking that the more things change, the more they stay the same?

William Bell showed the most frustration. At one point, while everyone stood and chanted, he sat stiff-jawed in his seat, his elbows on his knees and his fingers interlocking. Later, he stepped to the microphone and said, “Is this 1955 Alabama?”

Is it? It's easy to say "things like that don't happen any more." But we all know better. I was raised on it, and even when my father reminded me that I — as a black male — would not be treated the same as a white male my age, I knew enough not to even try to say he was wrong.

He wasn't wrong then, and he isn't wrong now. And if the day comes when I must have the same conversation with one of my sons that my father had with me that day, will I be wrong? Will that marrow-deep intuition — that knowing — finally be wrong?

It isn't, yet.