Mildred Loving is a black woman who married a white man and almost went to  prison for it. Not in 1930. In 1967! She gave a statement last year on the 40th anniversary of her and her husband’s miscegenation case. She eloquently draws the parallels between her situation and the current debate on gay marriage. Here’s an excerpt:

“My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God’s plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation’s fears and prejudices have given way, and today’s young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry.

Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the “wrong kind of person” for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.”


farmer john

Negotiators have agreed on a farm bill, the antiquated one that pays subsidies to rich farmers and will almost certainly add to the world’s rapidly deteriorating hunger crisis. Pelosi and friends are arguing to limit subsidies to those poor folk making somewhere around a million a year. George Bush– yes, our president– has called for a much more reasonable limit of $200,000, and a call to help feed the world with food bought in other countries, not just the US. Amazing! SF Chronicle’s Carolyn Lochhead’s article discusses it in her article Farm bill upends normal political order

Where do our presidential candidates stand?

Clinton said this: “Rural America is struggling in the face of skyrocketing energy prices, an economic downturn and rising food prices,” Clinton said. “Saying no to the farm bill would be saying no to rural America.” swampland

McCain: “I do not support it. I would veto it. I would do that because I believe that these subsidies, the subsidies are unnecessary.” desmoinesregister

Obama (in November in response to filibuster of farm bill):”I was disappointed to see that important improvements and solutions for our family farmers in this bill fell victim to partisan politics and obstructionism. Those who stood in the way of this bill stood against our farmers and a clean energy future. While the bill that passed committee didn’t include everything I would have liked, including specific reforms to help family farmers instead of big agribusiness, it did take much-needed steps to invest in conservation, nutrition, specialty crops and rural development. It provided funding for renewable energy and recognized farmers who are working to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. And it included a packer ban, which is so important for market transparency.” obama

The problem, of course, is systematic: our capitalism and laws that allow lobbyist money to stranglehold our politicians. Though I don’t like what Obama says above (bolding is mine), I still think that he, after being elected, will do the most to work against such a system (his small donation campaign is a great start).

J.P. Allen teaches information technology in USF’s Business School. Next Wednesday, April 30th, he’s facilitating a panel with some Web 2.0 bigshots from LinkedIn, Meebo, and WordPress. Very cool!

April DeConick has some interesting things to say about obtaining tenure at a university and how blogging probably is counter-productive. She’s probably right.

But the future of the knowledge train does not run through the academic journal: it takes too long to disseminate knowledge. Turn around time can be up to a year and a half, and the journals and ‘professional societies’ are dinosaurs holding on to an outdated model just to survive. The tenure process feeds this old lion, while also leading our smartest people towards over-specialization and avoidance of big, important, and even vital problems.

People should post results as soon as they have them, getting feedback now instead of in half a year. Posts can be transformed into longer, more formal papers, also posted on-line and submitted to journals. Journals should be printouts of on-line collections. The rule that a work cannot have been submitted before or posted publicly should be eliminated, as should the rule against posting after publication.

And the rules of tenure must be rewritten, taking into account on-line measures of reputation.