Ten states yesterday amended their constitution to discriminate against my mom. ‘20 Million Loud’ turned out to be 20 million losers who didn’t bother to show up. Unless you are a conspiracy theorist, 11/3/2004 will go down in history as the day America stood up and said “We won’t chose our leaders based on rational thought.”

Its difficult to criticize the election outcomes without sounding like a sore loser. But while there is power in numbers, and democracy in numbers, there is not necessarily truth in numbers. So why then are so many folks comfortable making completely irrational decisions about our democracy and leadership? What was there not to understand about the follies of reelecting President Bush? This is a man who put a federal gag-order on the Environmental Protection Agency because of leaked reports that exposed the damage his administration has caused. This is a man who sent our children to die for foreign oil. This is a man who gave a tax cut to the rich and then lied about it being for small businesses. This is a man who told millions of Americans who lost their jobs that they need to go back to school.

But my question is about more than just one man. The issues represented this election year make up the cannon of issues that will determine the direction our culture will take for the next half century. Voters chose discrimination. Voters chose religion over science. Voters chose religion over free will. Voters chose corporate interests over human rights. Voters chose a crook with no successfull political or business experience over a seasoned intellectual, lawyer and politician.

Yesterday voters voted agaist themselves. This nation is apparently not educated enough to accept the responsibility of democracy. Noone seems to be afraid of the fact that a republican government will ignore you if you are poor and sick, but will get in your face if you are gay. Apparently it is insignificant that irrational fears and unfounded morality has derailed scientific progress in America. Ultimately this nation has proven itself afraid and apathetic. Half of us have, anyway.

The other half, stunned, sick, and afraid, will now be searching for what to do next. Some might even consider leaving, for places like Canada or France. But John Kerry said it best in his concession speech, “We all win, because we’re all still Americans.” A movement has started, and even though the split of electoral votes didn’t change one bit from four years ago, Democrats today are more energized, more engaged, and more pissed off than ever.

If this election has proven anything, its that we need to redefine what it means to be a democrat. We need to clutch on strongly to our basic ideals, because we have truth and reason on our side. We need to not be afraid of being too liberal or too progressive. We need to be our president’s shadow, every step of the way, making sure that we’re heard and that he doesn’t get to ruin this nation without a fight. My faith in Americans is not dead, but my optimism is certainly bruised.

Recently the Florida Supreme Court ruled against the state’s school voucher program. In particular, against the legality of using taxpayer dollars to send children from ‘failing’ schools to religious private institutions. The Florida program is remarkably similar to the Bush administration’s No Child Left Behind Act. Both use standardized testing to determine the overall quality of a public school. Students of the most poorly performing ones are able to transfer to charter or private schools. The failing schools are ultimately faced with the choice of shaping up or closing down.

The reasoning behind these programs has recently come under question. A report harvested from the 2003 National Assessment of Educational Progress shows that charter schools typically underperformed public schools in both reading and mathematics. This grading is also based on statistical study of standardized test scores.

The productivity of this nation’s educational system has been in steady decline for decades. Politicians and administrators have been implementing programs to reverse the trend for just as long; No Child Left Behind is merely the most recent try. Their failure is not because of particulars — better planning or a better plan wouldn’t have made significant difference. The inadequacy of programs such as these is that they are essentially reactive. These programs see low scores and drag their feet against it. They try to stop momentum in one direction; instead we should try to start it in the other.

Why have test scores become the litmus test for the quality of our children’s education? When did parents stop checking homework and conferencing regularly with teachers to check progress? State administrators can send a child to a different school but they can’t make sure each child finishes their assignments. Tests can tell you how far behind a child is but can’t help them learn what they don’t understand.

Education does not need a new reform program, it needs new ideas. Public school curriculums have become increasingly regulated and homogenized over the past few decades. Grade school textbooks are full of trivia that wastes valuable time. When will diagramming a sentence ever come in handy for these kids? I suggest that children do not all need to learn the same things. Kids learn better when the material is closer customized to their interests and abilities.

Charter schools are a one new idea that attempts to bring this administration closer to our children. By allowing the school freedom of self-determination, faculty can make up close and personal curriculum decisions that would be impossible under state-wide regulation. Lets not allow problematic voucher programs to overshadow this innovation. We need to give this new idea a chance to work, rather than impatiently reacting to one year’s worth of statistics.

Every child deserves a great teacher. Our students need the most qualified teachers and incentive for our best minds to become teachers simply isn’t there. This is the premise of John Kerry’s new idea, the creation of a federally funded Teacher Corps. The teacher corps would pay college tuition for those willing to spend four years teaching in schools where many are reluctant to work. Much like the Peace Corps, the teacher corps would also make it possible for mid-career professionals to serve a year or more teaching in schools.

As long as politicians continue to culture these effectless education reform programs, the symptoms will continue to worsen. Our nation had begun an intellectual revolution with generation X. We need to learn from what worked then and find new ideas for what will work tomorrow. Otherwise at our current rate of decline we’re destined to get stuck in our own self-importance while the rest of the world grows up.

The first time I witnessed somebody lose their job because of software I wrote was difficult. Was I innovating to make things better, or just to make them cheaper? Were my lines of code replacing processes, or people? It certainly wasn’t the first time that a new technology had replaced jobs. Still it made me question what my role as a technologist really was.

Most business professionals will tell you that you can’t keep growing if you don’t streamline. You see this regularly: large companies go through cycles of layoffs because they’ve become too bloated. Streamlining refocuses their attention and almost always initiates new growth. Innovation requires a similar adjustment, whether the innovation is a new marketing strategy or a new corporate intranet.

The point is that after the company adjusts to the new environment it is better prepared for growth. 50 jobs may have been lost in the process, but at least 50 more will be added as the company expands upon the savings of running a tighter ship. Innovation doesn’t always replace jobs. Often it will turn something menial into something more enjoyable and offers new skills to the worker.

None of this is true however with outsourcing. Outsourcing is not innovation, it’s shopping around for a better price for your materials. Just about everybody in the Bush administration has been championing a host of false benefits. John Kerry’s site has a good summary here. Bush made the vague claim in a signed statement that “..When a good or service is produced more cheaply abroad, it makes more sense to import it than make or provide it domestically.” Granted, outsourcing can positively effect your bottom line and leave you with more money to grow. But if nothing other than your financial statements have changed, any growth you achieve will be short-lived and unstable.

Alan Greenspan tried to bring these two ideas together. He suggested that the competition outsourcing creates can itself spark innovation. Indeed competition motivates companies to innovate: i.e. manufacturing a smaller cell phone or deploying a clearer cellular network technology. The competition he speaks of is competition between products and services in a market, not between workers. No amount of innovation is going to change whether or not Americans are paid a fairer wage than Indians or Malaysians.

A recent survey by the Earth Institute at Columbia University confirmed that the motivation is still actual cost savings. Have you called your bank or ISP lately? Earthlink and Citibank certainly didn’t send their callcenters overseas because India offers higher quality services. The jobs went there because they cost less.

The same study offers legitimate reasons for outsourcing, like supplementing a deficit in specialized labor. If there aren’t enough skilled radiologists in America go look elsewhere. That’s not outsourcing it’s seeking the most qualified candidates. I’d argue that customer service too is a specialized skillset - it requires that you can relate to the person you are servicing - and there are plenty of unemployed people in America capable of relating to your customers.

About 50% of eligible Americans do not vote in the presidential elections. Ironically, a majority of the non-voting 50% consider themselves Democrats. No surprise people like Michael Moore and Dr. Howard Dean are doing their best to educate and mobilize activists to help recruit new voters.

I’m one of them. I carry around a bag full of voter registration forms, and ask everyone I meet if they are registered. Yesterday I realized however that while most people who don’t typically vote may be Democrats, they all aren’t. Welcome to the first moral dilemma in my career in politics.

He was a nice enough kid, 21 with two lip piercings and a skateboarder t-shirt. He eagerly accepted the registration form, and talked to me about why I was registering people as he filled it out. When he was finished, he said something that hit me like a speeding bus. “The main reason I’m a republican is because they hate queers, and I hate queers.”

In my life I have experienced many levels of hate and discrimination but I wasn’t prepared for this. He spoke with that raw, youthful passion you hear in a Linkin Park song. He wasn’t just tossing the word ‘hate’ around casually, as too many people do. He understood exactly what he was saying. I could see in his eyes that any words from me wouldn’t educate him that night. He will need to learn the lesson the long way, through experience and pain, and may never learn the lesson at all.

His voter registration form is still in the stack with the others, ready to be brought in to the elections office. For a flicker, I thought about throwing it out. After all, he looked me in the eye and told me he hates my mothers, and my father. I suppose that’s the best and the worst thing about democracy. I trust our democracy, as long as people keep teaching and learning. It may be slow to move, but I am to do my part without hypocrisy that form needs to be handed in along with all the rest.