Originally published at Durosia.com. You can comment here or there.

2009 DC Metro Accident: Originally from the AP (via Google)
District of Columbia Fire and Emergency workers remove a victim from the site of a rush-hour collision between two Metro transit trains in northeast Washington, D.C. Monday, June 22, 2009. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)
If you're in the DC area, this news has been unavoidable the last couple of days.

If you're a commuter in the DC area who uses the Red Line of the Metro system, you're struggling through one of the worst times the system's seen. At least the worst time that's not related to tourists and security scares.

I worked from home on Tuesday so I wouldn't have to deal with the crazy problems caused by this terribly accident. Getting home Monday night, just a few hours after it happened, was a challenge. Not as much a challenge as it was for people actually on the trains involved... and far from as bad as those nine who didn't make it out alive.

That's a bunch of bad stuff right there. People dead. Transit disrupted. Expensive bit of commuter equipment destroyed.

The worst thing is that it's starting to look like this could have all been prevented.

I've held off commenting on all this until there was some small amount of actual fact coming through in the news reports. Some bit of investigation that pointed toward an actual cause. There were suppositions and insinuations of mechanical problems and driver error all over the place Monday night. People all up in arms over all sorts of things that had little basis in any facts connected with this particular DC Metro accident.

Now there are some facts and I'm rightly pissed off.

From the LA Times:

Debbie Hersman of the National Transportation Safety Board said the emergency brake was depressed, and the steel rails showed evidence that the brakes were engaged. Investigators also said the moving train had been in automatic mode, which means onboard computers should have controlled its speed and stopped it before it got too close to the stationary train.

This is a system failure. This crash should not have happened.

Back in 2004, there was a similar accident at the Woodley Park metro station, also on the Red Line. One train rolled backward down the track, building up enough speed to end up sitting on top of the front of the train that had stopped at the platform. Thankfully, the trains weren't full of people. But the main train involved in that accident was also one of these 1000 series trains--some of the oldest equipment in use in the DC Metro system.

That 2004 accident prompted a lot of attention from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).

From The Roanoke Times:

Hersman told The Associated Press that the NTSB had warned in 2006 that the old fleet should be replaced or retrofitted to make it better able to survive a crash.

Neither was done, she said, which the NTSB considered "unacceptable."

"Unacceptable," indeed.

Metro (and the officials who fund it) knew this could happen--that it already had happened--and the major source of the problem wasn't dealt with.

From CNN.com:

There should be nine data recorders aboard the first train, which will aid the investigation a great deal if they aren't damaged, Hersman said. The recorders provide data on such things as speed, braking and emergency applications. She said there were no recorders on the rear train.

"We've recommended for years that WMATA either retrofit those cars or phase them out of the fleet. They have not been able to do that. And our recommendation was not addressed, so it has been closed in an unacceptable status," she said.

The facts, as they stand now, are these:

• The train was in auotmatic mode
• Auotmatic mode is supposed to keep trains a certain distance apart
• The driver tried to apply the brakes
• The structure of the old cars can not handle a collision without massive internal structural failure
• Nine people are dead

This is nothing short of some sort of negligent homicide.

Unfortunately, since there were no "black box" type recording devices in the 1000-Series cars, we may never know exactly what happened.

All we know for sure, right now, is that this a tragedy that could have been prevented--if Metro had listened to the NTSB, if funding had been there to upgrade the cars, if those upgrade happened in a timely manner, if... if... if...

It doesn't look like it's getting better. No... no... definitely looks like it's getting worse.

Is the NSA spying on U.S. Internet traffic?

"It was very hush-hush," said one of the former AT&T workers. "We were told there was going to be some government personnel working in that room. We were told, 'Do not try to speak to them. Do not hamper their work. Do not impede anything that they're doing.'"

The importance of the Bridgeton facility is its role in managing the "common backbone" for all of AT&T's Internet operations. According to one of the former workers, Bridgeton serves as the technical command center from which the company manages all the routers and circuits carrying the company's domestic and international Internet traffic. Therefore, Bridgeton could be instrumental for conducting surveillance or collecting data.

If the NSA is using the secret room, it would appear to bolster recent allegations that the agency has been conducting broad and possibly illegal domestic surveillance and data collection operations authorized by the Bush administration after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. AT&T's Bridgeton location would give the NSA potential access to an enormous amount of Internet data -- currently, the telecom giant controls approximately one-third of all bandwidth carrying Internet traffic to homes and businesses across the United States.

Good thing AT&T has been taken to court regarding all this.

Oh, wait...

King for A Never-Ending War

We are kings. You can't touch us.

That's the essence the government's most recent reply brief in the Electronic Frontier Foundation lawsuit against AT&T for its alleged complicity in helping the NSA wiretap sans warrant the emails and phone calls of Americans.

The judge has just looked at the government's secret arguments to dismiss the case on the grounds it will reveal state secrets, and the EFF has argued that the judge could simply decide the case on the grounds that there's enough information in the public record and the government's own admissions to find that AT&T violated its customers' privacy.

Then the judge could levy fines and stop AT&T from continuing helping with the surveillance.

According to the government, that's just plain wrong. The "Global War on Terrorism" means no one, not the courts and not Congress, can do anything to touch the king.

"Even if (the court) were to find unlawfulness upon in camera, ex parte review (judge looking at documents in chambers without EFF present)-(it) could not then proceed to adjudicate the very question of awarding damages because to do so would confirm Plaintiffs' allegations."

Crap. Well, at least it's only this case where the government has used that thing. At least they've never done it with anything more serious (though I wonder if there is anything more serious that the blatant violation of the very thing that allows Democracy to work--free and open discourse).

Oh... wait...

Secrecy Mustn't Crush Rule of Law

The government has already been wildly successful in using the state-secrets privilege to completely shield itself from appropriate punishment for shocking and illegal behavior in El-Masri v. Tenet.

Khaled El-Masri was abducted, sodomized and beaten over five months of detention at the hands of CIA agents or their operatives. Eventually, the government realized it had kidnapped the wrong person and, luckily, released him.

El-Masri sued the head of the CIA, claiming the agency authorized his kidnapping and torture as part of the U.S. "rendition program." Though German prosecutors back up El-Masri's story and though the United States has admitted and lauded the practice of rendition, the government successfully moved to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds of state secrets.

Crap.

OK... anyone out there doubting we've got a problem now? Anyone?

*rabble*rabble*rabble* safety *rabble*rabble*rabble* terrorists *rabble*rabble*rabble* protection *rabbel*rabble*rabble* anti-American scum *rabble*rabble*rabble* if you're not doing anything wrong why worry? *rabble*rabble*rabble*

OK... how about anyone who hasn't bought the administration's lies, misdirection and misinformation? Anyone with a fully working independent brain doubting we've got a problem now?

*silence*

I didn't think so.

I don't care who you are or what you're fighting for, outright lying and misrepresentation is not way to make your argument. If you're told the information you have is wrong, either answer those allegations or correct the error. Further proof that you should always double-check info from a distinctly biased source.

Net neutrality proponents flagrantly lie about Craigslist blockage

It appears that the Net neutrality proponents have been caught in a flagrant lie in their effort to scare the public (thanks to The Original Blog and The Lippard Blog for pointing this out). MyDD.com and SaveTheInternet.com along with many other Net neutrality activist sites have accused Cox Communications of deliberately blocking the website Craigslist by quoting a report from our own Tom Foremski. This alleged blockage of Craigslist was supposedly an example of what would happen without the passage of an extreme version of Net neutrality being pushed by Congressman Markey and Senator Snowe and big Internet companies such as Google. The only problem with this accusation is that it is flat out wrong, yet SaveTheInternet.com and MyDD.com are flagrantly lying about it. Even though they have been repeatedly notified of the real situation, they refuse to retract their stories and continue peddling the lie.

And here's some commentary from Deavid Berlind on the issue.

Another Net Neutrality news bit. Proving, once again, that this is a very complex issue with no easy answers.

Sen. Stevens Offers Deal on Net Neutrality

Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens has offered a compromise in the fierce fight over legislation on Internet network neutrality, but stopped short of demands sought by content companies like Google Inc.

Google, Microsoft Corp. and other Internet companies have lobbied hard for Congress to bar broadband Internet service providers such as AT&T Inc. and Comcast Corp. from charging them to guarantee access and service quality, often called network neutrality.

AT&T and Comcast, two of the largest high-speed broadband Internet providers, have opposed any obligations imposed on their services or restricting their business operations.

I'm going to be very curious to see what kind of compromise comes out of all this. And even more interested in how it plays out in the real world in the years that follow.

On another controversial front, it looks like there's some logo choices for RFID-equiped things. Not that the places making the things with the logos seem to be making much noise about them...
RFID passport logo (or "mark of the beast"?)

The RFID passport logo was prominently printed or embossed on the cover of all of Moss' sample RFID passports, immediately below the words, "United States of America" -- but without any indication, anywhere in the passport, even in the finest print, that would tip off those not already in the know as to what the logo means.

The ICAO technical documents include an entire paper on the RFID passport logo, the need for standard RFID indicia on passports, and the discussion of which of several proposed logos to adopt. But none of those proposed logos, much less which one was ultimately adopted as the standard, are reproduced in the file on the public ICAO Web site.

The USA State Department mentions the logo in its "FAQ on RFID Passports", and even includes a hyperlink to an image file -- that doesn't exist at the specified location. But I found an image file with the same name, which I recognized and remembered from Moss's sample RFID passports at CFP, in another public directory elsewhere on the State Department Web server.

And here's some commentary by Bruce Sterling on the issue.

In the original post there, Hasbrouck makes some interesting points about why this whole RFID in a passport is a bad idea. That was all written months ago. Apparently things haven't gotten much better.

It's not the big things that are going to get us, it's these little, complex things. The ones with such subtle intonations that the underlying "bad" can be easily whisked away by the slightly more immediate sense of convenience and safety. The issues and technologies just complex enough that they can't be condensed into a one minute bit on the evening news or three column inches in a paper over-crowded with ads and celebrity "news" items.

That's where we come in. We are the intellectual and active elite. The people that will take the time to understand these issues. The people that will put what we've got (no matter how little or how much) to speak out on things in a calm and direct manner. The people that will take the time to whittle away at the propagandized and one sided arguments and answer the questions of the normal person on the street.

We've got the education. We've got the natural talent that we've (hopefully) honed to some sort of skillful point. If we don't use it, no one around us stands a chance.

Right now, this isn't about physical force. But soon, soon it may be.

And if we let it get that far... well, then we've really lost.

Forty-five years ago today, Dwight D. Eisenhower delivered his last speech as President of the United States. It introduced the world to the idea of the military-industrial complex and warned of the dangers it posed. (Read or listen to the speech here.)

In the four and a half decades, we as a nation have forgotten that warning.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Security. Liberty. The two ideas are not mutually exclusive. Regardless of what our current administration and our parrot-like media try to tell us, less liberty is not the path to more security.

In fact, the less liberty--the less freedom--we have, the quicker we fall toward the tyranny men like Eisenhower spent their lives fighting.

The illusion of security that comes at the expense of liberty is enough, it seems, to coddle the masses. Just knowing that the government security agencies can tap your phone without any true judicial oversight, people reason, is a deterrent. Then they point, as our own vice president has, to how necessary it is to reduce our liberty in the name of safety from our enemies.

"The activities conducted under this authorization have helped to detect and prevent possible terrorist attacks against the American people. As such, this program is critical to the national security of the United States." --Vice President Dick Cheney speaking on the current wire tapping scandal

This is a shortsighted solution at best; a nail in the coffin a a free society at the worst.

In the same speech, known so well for it's prediction of the evils of the military-industrial complex we've seen personified in the incestuous relationships the Federal Government have with corporations like Halliburton, Eisenhower also warned of short-sightedness.

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for our own ease and convenience the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.

During the long lane of the history yet to be written, America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect. Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many fast frustrations -- past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certaint agony of disarmament -- of the battlefield.

And yet, we are fast becoming a nation of fear and hate.

It is fear that is used to sell the people on the idea of giving up their freedoms for security. The fear mongers don't even hide it in their rhetoric any more. They constantly invoke the one major terrorist attack this country has seen. Constantly point to it and say proudly "See, what we do works! Nothing like this has happened here since then."

They never mention that it had never happened before September 11, 2001, either. Long before we had the Patriot Act in place. Long before we had a president that went around the process to approve more than 500 wiretaps. Long before the media stopped digging deep for the actual truth and instead decided to become part of the problem.

Long before we were afraid of the challenges that freedom brings us.

The challenge of thinking ahead--making policy decisions that are long-term solutions, not just quick and temporary fixes to raise the public opinion polls a few points. The challenge of playing well with others in the international community--many parts of the world are not at their most stable right now, ravaged by internal, international and meteorological attacks. The challenge to take responsibility--we are all our own masters in this nation, all of us as individuals have to start acting like it.

Eisenhower knew. He saw where things could lead and, like any good general, he tried to rally the troops. Unfortunately, too few heard the call. And those that did were quickly relegated to the category of "conspiracy freak" or, more recently, "liberal shill."

Now... now it almost seems that it's too late to make a difference. But that in and of itself is no reason not to try. We, the people of the United Sates of America, hold the reigns of our government. Somewhere along the way, we forgot that little fact. It is our job to tell them what to do.

All we need to do... is speak up clearly and consistently.

Bush Says He Ordered Domestic Spying

President Bush acknowledged on Saturday that he had ordered the National Security Agency to conduct an electronic eavesdropping program in the United States without first obtaining warrants, and said he would continue the highly classified program because it was "a vital tool in our war against the terrorists."
...
"I have reauthorized this program more than 30 times since the Sept. 11 attacks, and I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from Al Qaeda and related groups," Mr. Bush said. He said Congressional leaders had been repeatedly briefed on the program, and that intelligence officials "receive extensive training to ensure they perform their duties consistent with the letter and intent of the authorization."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this "war on terror" supposed to be about protecting us from people who are out to kill Democracy? And--again, I may be wrong about this--isn't one of the basic tenants of Democracy freedom to speak ones mind? And doesn't domestic spying sound a bit too much like what the last Big Enemy of Democracy (aka Communism) did?

What really gets me is the fact that the Shrub flies "I've reviewed and re-approved this measure 30 times" statement an example of how much he's looking out for us. Let's just ignore that the statement also says the review is to ensure everything is in line with "the letter and intent of the authorization" as opposed to being in line with "the letter and intent of the Constitution this fine nation is built upon."

Because, really, it can't be both.

(The same story as the Aussies see it from Down Under.)

And speaking of Commie Skum...

Agents' visit chills UMass Dartmouth senior

A senior at UMass Dartmouth was visited by federal agents two months ago, after he requested a copy of Mao Tse-Tung's tome on Communism called "The Little Red Book."

Two history professors at UMass Dartmouth, Brian Glyn Williams and Robert Pontbriand, said the student told them he requested the book through the UMass Dartmouth library's interlibrary loan program.

The student, who was completing a research paper on Communism for Professor Pontbriand's class on fascism and totalitarianism, filled out a form for the request, leaving his name, address, phone number and Social Security number. He was later visited at his parents' home in New Bedford by two agents of the Department of Homeland Security, the professors said.

Wha? That's just insane. Read the whole article. The implications are mind numbing. And, if actually true, proof of the silly things the government is doing with the powers given to them by the Patriot Act.

More on all of this when I can breath correctly again... this all just makes my brain (and my Democratic ideals) hurt...

***UPDATE***12-24-2005***
There were no federal agents. The student made it up, it seems.

I was just sitting here watching Access Hollywood when they hit the news bit about James Doohan passing away this morning. I don't know how many of you out there were/are Star Trek fans (let along fans of anything else the man did in his long career), but those who were will agree this is a sad (though not unexpected) day. (Read a news story)

I was lucky enough to see Doohan when he was at DragonCon in 2001. His body was failing him then, but his mind was still pretty sharp and he told good stories about his life. And he did lead a life that was at least as amazing as that of Chief Engineer Montgomery Scott.

Right now there are thousands of fans out there sending well wishes and condelances to his family (the newest member of it added not long before I saw him in 2001... not all of his body was failing, apparently). I know mine are on their way there, too.

At warp factor nine.

Terrorism is one of those interesting things.

At first, it can seem quite effective. People sit up, take notice and pay attention. You get exposure if you're a brand new terrorist. You blow stuff up, make some loony political statement and you get some positive feed back. More nutcases come out of the woodwork to support you. The government you have chosen to target talks about you all the time. I suppose it's good for the ego to think you're actually making a difference.

Then things change.

You set off a few more random explosions, injuring hundreds upon hundreds of civilians, disrupting a society you obviously have something against. But now not only is that government you have a thing against talking about you, they're sinking lots of money into hunting you down. You're pretty sure they won't be able to catch you, let alone kill you... after all, they're kinda slow and dumb... maybe that's why you dislike them so much.

But then you notice it's not just that one government out to get you. You realize they have friends. Even worse, no one really listens to your wacky political statement (if you ever had one) any more. Why? Because they've heard it before and you haven't done anything new and constructive with the "air time" you've had.

Oh, yeah, and you keep killing civilians. That doesn't win many hearts or minds in the world at large.

Buuuut... there's more nutcases signing up with you every day. They like to blow things up. Maybe they like it a little too much. Maybe... just maybe... you start to worry that what started out as a desperate cry to be heard is starting to get a little out of hand.

I mean, how long exactly can you go around blowing things up? More importantly, how long before no one listens to you at all and your own nutcase recruits start gunning for your position of power? Maybe they think you'll blow up real good in your fortified bunker.

That's the funny thing about terrorism. Sure, it breeds fear. But fear, when pushed too far, gets spun right up into violence--against the thing causing the fear. Once that happens, terrorism really loses any effectiveness it may have had. People aren't afraid any more--they're pissed off... at YOU.

And they'll do a lot to get rid of you.

But why turn to terrorism in the first place?

I can see why, once upon a time, it may have been a good way to get attention for your cause. But never by attacking a civilian target. That just pisses people off. If you're against the government, attack a government installation--not a cafe or a commuter route. And when you do something like that, really make use of your 15 minutes to say something. Don't just take credit for it--tell us all why you hate us so much. And then make some demands. You know, so, at least, we can laugh about them while we're sending thousands of troops out to your doorstep.

If you're against the society as a whole, well, you'll be screwed anyway. There's more of them than there are of you. You're not going ot win. Ever.

Terrorism itself stems from fear. A fear of being wiped out by some "other." A fear of being opressed. A fear of not being heard. In this day and age of cheap mass communication (Internet and stuff), there's nothing stopping you from being heard (except when people tune you out as a terrorist nutcase). Oppression can and should be fought--but if you attack indiscriminately, you became that which you hate. And if your fear is being wiped out, there's no quicker way to realize that than to go around poking nations with more military power than you'll ever be able to fend off (no matter how deep in a wasteland you decide to crawl). It's only a matter of time.

Today there were four explosions in London. All targeted civilians. Unlike the U.S. Britain has been dealing with terrorism on its soil for a good long time. (You do remember that, a couple hundred years ago, those of us here in the U.S. were terrorizing the Brits a bit, right?) None of it can even compare to what they went through during World War II. I think Germany would agree, too, that a few well placed bombs is a little disconcerting, but nothing compared to what a group can do it they really apply themselves. In fact, I pity any terrorist that tries to pull something like that on Germany. Historically, they seem to always be itching for a fight every 50 years or so.

But hey, just because you've got the U.S., England, Spain, the people of Iraq, Afghanistan and numerous other nations out to get you doesn't mean you have to stop.

After all, the more countries that feel the bite of terrorism--especially if it all gets traced back to one organization--the quicker we're all going to come right out to your cave and introduce you to our newest, pain-inducing, life-ending technology.

Of, if we're feeling really nasty, maybe we'll strap you down and make you watch season after season of reality TV shows like "The Simple Life" or "I want to be a Hilton."

That's right... you'll wish you were dead.

How's that for terror?

There was an article in the New York Times today about a survey conducted by the American Library Association. The survey focused on how often law enforcement officials had requested information from librarians about the usage habits of library patrons. They found that, since October 2001, such requests have been made at least 200 times. Not good, but not really that bad...

However:

The study does not directly answer how or whether the Patriot Act has been used to search libraries. The association said it decided it was constrained from asking direct questions on the law because of secrecy provisions that could make it a crime for a librarian to respond. Federal intelligence law bans those who receive certain types of demands for records from challenging the order or even telling anyone they have received it.

As a result, the study sought to determine the frequency of law enforcement inquiries at all levels without detailing their nature. Even so, organizers said the data suggested that investigators were seeking information from libraries far more frequently than Bush administration officials had acknowledged.

And that's where the problem really comes in.

How is anyone supposed to know if the law is being misused if you can't ask about the law?

This has been one of my big problems with the whole Patriot Act since Day One. A law that is not subject to public review once it has been enacted isn't a law: it's an totalitarian edict. Especially when the people making the rules are the only ones privy to how those rules are actually being used--and they don't share that information.

I'm just glad that there's a bit more thought going into the recent congressional review of the Patriot act renewal question. Hopefully, come this time next year, it'll all just be a bad memory.

Once again, providence strikes.

Just when I was getting worried that I'd bore people with what I would write tonight, I found this article from South Africa.

April 27 marks the tenth anniversary of the country's multi-racial democracy. That, my friends, is a good thing. South Africa has come a very long way in a very short time. Yes, they still have some major economic hurdles to overcome, but they are making progress.

The fact that we can now watch a modern country come to terms with its old problems is a reminder of how strong the human spirit of freedom can be.

It is also a reminder of how small-minded people can be.

There are still racial tensions in the U.S. after more than 140 years. Yes, we have come a long way but those old feelings are still clearly evident.

I've never understood how anyone could think less of someone just because of the color of their skin. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

I grew up in a rural area, but attended a very diverse high school. While I was there, the population distribution was a good mix of Latinos, Blacks (or whatever the currently vogue PC term is), Asians and Caucasians. It never really occurred to me to take any of those physical characteristics personally.

Until I was well into my high school career, the only place I can remember being exposed to racism was on TV (it was a popular topic in the 80s, there's no denying that... and then there were the re-runs of shows like All in the Family, too). Still, it wasn't a personal experience. It was more like "Gee, glad that doesn't happen around here."

I knew people from just about every ethnic group that was represented, I was treated pretty much the same by all of them. Generally, it was pretty good (we'll leave out all my tales of teen angst here... they're for another time and have absolutely nothing to do with race).

One of my friends, a great student in a number of honors classes from a good (middle class-ish) family, was Black. GB was a good guy. I liked him, he was fun. He played trumpet in band, was in most of my classes and had worked with me on a great project or two for some of those classes. It really didn't occur to me that the color of his skin would ever be a big deal to anyone.

Apparently, neither did he.

One day, that all changed quite abruptly.

After seeing GB sitting in class looking quite stunned, a few of us went over to see what was wrong. He told us he had gone to his locker, like he always did before class. This time, something was different. This day, someone had written something on his locker door in permanent marker.

Nigger.

We were all pretty shocked.

This was in the early 90s, before that word was bandied about as often as it is today. Before the community that word was used to oppress took it and made it their own. When no one in their right mind, by our 10th or 11th grade standards, would ever consider using it except in the telling of a dirty joke (and even then, I think we'd roll our tongues across it as quickly as possible).

The world changed for a lot of us that day. One of our friends had been branded. His differences had been pointed out and denigrated. GB was shattered and shaken, but he recovered (heck, he graduated at the top of our class).

I never talked about it much with him. Some days, looking back, I wish I had. I don't really know what changed in him that day, or how he dealt with it. All I know is that he pushed on.

That incident did have an impact on the school as a whole, though. Our principal at the time was also Black. He didn't take too kindly to something like that happening in his hallways. I know he must have pulled out all the stops in finding out who did it. And, knowing my former principal, I would not want to be that person.

A few years later, while in college, I made another great friend. Z is a white, middle-class guy from the Virginia-DC suburbs. He's not exactly a good ol' Southern boy, but he knew plenty growing up.

We discuss the topic of race frequently in the course of our lives. Neither of us thinks it should be as big a deal as it seems to be. Both of us are a little disturbed at how it has continued to be an issue of division in the 21st century.

When the topic first came up, Z looked at me and said: "Why hate someone just because of the color of their skin? There are so many better reasons."

Yes... yes there are.