Kingfishery & Kingcakery - The Republicans in the State of Louisiana finally wake up and propose the ONLY effective GOP challenge to Sen. Mary Landrieu. I still think Mary's got the goods, the smarts, and the benefits of incumbency that will lead her to victory; but Foster (even moreso than Suzanne Haik Terrell) can make it an interesting race. But Foster risks his fairly positive legacy as Governor if he takes the plunge, which is something he might think twice about before doing.

Kingfishery and Kingcakery - As expected, the Times-Picayune has a follow up story on the Lynn Dean affair. (See below.) The backtracking and guffawing is par for the course in these sorts of snafus, but what interests me most about the article is that it appears to be softening the whole affair by once again painting it as typical (and hence forgivable) for the eccentricities of Louisiana's strange politics. The balmly breeze of Louisiana politics is again beginning its ascent!

Kingfishery and Kingcakery - State Sen. Lynn Dean, R-Caernarvon, in a moment of candor, publicly admits what everyone familiar with life "down the road in the Parish" knows all too well: racism "in the Parish" is the rule of thumb. Dean claims that "recreational" use of the "n" word is just fine and dandy. He boasts that he voted for David Duke, the Klansman, in the 1991 Governor's race, as the "lesser of two evils" - the other "worse" evil being Edwin Edwards (a crooked politician in the Huey Long mold, but one admired by a very high percentage of the black people of the state). But, incredulously, he still believes that the black folk in "the Parish" and their interests are adequately represented by their all-white leadership. While Dean's racist attitudes are not all that surprising, his public utterance of them is. But I wonder whether this seasoned politician didn't know exactly what he was doing. I think I know enough about Dean's turf to say that for every person in "the Parish" who is bothered by his comments, there are 10 who are nodding their heads in agreement. The sad reality is that, with his racist "coming out," he's almost definitely secured his position in the State Senate as representative of this particular district for as long as he lives. I fondly jest about the state of Louisiana politics, but things like this really do drive home the unfunny side of Louisiana's perverted politics; and they sincerely dishearten and sadden me.

Cuaderno Latinoamericano - It seems as if the peace in Guatemala is fading. What a tragedy. It is shameful and heartbreaking that the legacy of the Cold War in this Central American country still lives on. Ronald Reagan, the victor in the Cold War??? Rubbish! What a hollow and empty "victory" for these exploited peoples (both victims and perpetrators) in a global conflict that was essentially not of their own making.

Lagniappe - An interesting take on the Scowcroft flap by Martin Schram. The non-judgmental nature of Schram's piece gives his speculation on the reasons why Scowcroft acted some credibility and believability - at least in my opinion. Regarding this whole situation, there does seem to be a consensus gelling among pundits that a bit of daddy's counsel, either for good or for bad, is somehow at work here.

Liberal Lighthouse - The New Republic has just posted online the Notebook article I referenced and cited in full below entitled "The Sheriff-of-Nottingham Party." No new commentary to add here, just to say that I think the title of the weblink to this article on The New Republic's website is classic: "The Hood Robbin Party". As The New Republic says: "Who says Republicans don't believe in redistribution of wealth?" Amen!

Liberal Lighthouse - Paul Krugman's editorial in today's New York Times takes aim at the "fake populism" of GW. According to Krugman, Bush is all smiles, back-slaps, and photo-ops with the humble jane/joe, while wielding a scalpel behind his/her back. Krugman's partisanship is obvious, and maybe ALL politicians are like this - so perhaps Bush shouldn't be singled out; but Krugman's argument resonates as valid.

School Board - I cannot refrain from commenting on the recent uproar surrounding UNC Chapel Hill's Summer Reading Program. (The details of UNC's Summer Reading Program can be found at the University's Summer Reading Program website.) The issue concerns a requirement that all incoming first year students read a book on the Quran for an orientation discussion. For some background on public reaction to this program, you might want to consult this article and this article from the many in North Carolina's The News & Observer. The Washington Post ran an excellent piece on the controversy about a week and a half ago. The complaint lodged by some critics of this year's selection is that requiring such a book amounts to the promotion of religion (Islam) in a state university, which these critics claim is unconstitutional. Some other critics have taken the issue even further, complaining that the requirement amounts to religious indoctrination in the faith of America's "wartime" enemies. (And here we see the use of that nasty, omnipresent slogan "America at War" to stifle academic freedom.) But students can opt out of reading the book if it offends their faith, and can instead complete an alternate writing assignment explaining why they chose not to do the reading. Advocates of the program (and this year's book selection) see this as an academic exercise of exploring and learning about differing worldviews and religious cultures, rather than an evangelical exercise in the promotion of a particular faith. Additionally, some supporters of the program have made the issue one of constitutionally protected free speech and overall academic freedom. My point of view, knowing the academic world as intimately as I do, is that this academic exercise is about as far from religious proselytizing as one can get. I am certain, especially after having read the actual assignment, that the purpose of the reading program and discussion sessions is to deal with the subject of the book as a critical thinker and to stretch the expanses of knowledge. It is not a "bible study" whose purpose is to inculcate, reaffirm, and/or strengthen faith in Islam. In the same vein, I would consider the study of the Catholic doctines on sexuality and celibacy in light of the recent scandals an equally appropriate exercise in critical thinking about a timely and relevant controversy. Such a study does not advocate religious indoctrination. Looked at in another way, refusing to discuss Islam in an objective and critical way at this moment in our country's history is not only antithetical to understanding a worldview that millions of people embrace, but is also dangerous in that it encourages ignorance about that very same worldview which some have used to harm us.

Cuaderno Latinoamericano - A recent poll conducted by Latinobarometro, a Chilean polling firm, shows that Latin Americans are very patient with the United States and ultimately positive about their northern neighbor - in spite of the benign neglect (and sometimes even a bit of arrogant disdain) shown the region by the Bush Administration in recent months. Andres Oppenheimer weighs in on this new data. Not surprisingly, most Argentineans view the United States in a negative light according to this data. Does this give Bush a mandate to pursue a hemisphere wide Free Trade Agreement? Perhaps, but as Oppenheimer notes, the approval ratings, though high, are trending downward, which means Bush needs to act soon before it's too late.

Cuaderno Latinoamericano - Mexico is inching along towards constitutional reform that would open up the energy sector of the economy to greater private investment and management. If Mexican President Vicente Fox can finesse this issue, I would argue that the economic nationalism characteristic of the Mexican Revolution is two feet in the grave. See Elisabeth Malkin's piece in The New York Times for a thoughtful summary of current reform efforts in Mexico's energy sector.

Lagniappe - Can what Bob Herbert reports in his column for The New York Times really be true about the manslaughter conviction of three mentally-retarded black folk for having admitted to killing a baby that never existed? If so, it's truly unbelievable and absurd.

Liberal Lighthouse - Maureen Dowd's editorial today in the New York Times takes aim at the Bush-daddy/Bush-son relationship. This time, however, instead of the typical "like father, like son" angle on this relationship, Dowd senses a bit of a family dysfunction brewing. (You gotta love the column's title: "Junior Gets a Spanking.") The best snippet from this column, in my opinion, is the following: "It must be galling for Bush père to hear conservatives braying that the son has to finish the job in Iraq that the father wimped out on. His proudest legacy, after all, was painstakingly stitching together a global coalition to stand up for the principle that one country cannot simply invade another without provocation. Now the son may blow off the coalition so he can invade a country without provocation." One may be able to argue the point about whether or not Saddam is currently "provoking" the US response; but Dowd's point carries enough weight to merit some consideration.

School Board - Barry Siegel, an LA Times staff writer, tells the story of honor student and star swimmer Taylor Hess's year-long expulsion from his High School because his grandmother's bread knife was found in the bed of his pick-up truck after accidentally falling there while Hess was helping to move his grandmother and her belongings to an assisted-living facility. The story has a happy ending, but shows the absurdity of zero-tolerance policies gone too far. For me, the most disturbing and frustrating element of the story is that School Administrators were afraid to act on the basis of good common sense because they feared future charges of discrimination. This is what gives liberal efforts at promiting social equality through legitimate anti-discrimination efforts a bad rap - and what also gives conservatives the ammunition they need to protest all anti-discrimination efforts.

The Weak in (National) Review presents: "Impromptoupees", where we look at whether there is any cranial substance to the zingers written by Jay Nordlinger "off the top of his head" in his self-described "breezy" column. In his 8/16/2002 column, Nordlinger refers to a George W. Bush quote that just fills him with admiration for the man. Bush said: “Most Americans don’t sit in Martha’s Vineyard swilling white wine.” Then Nordlinger writes: “Ouch. This, no doubt, was an allusion to Bill Clinton, who loved to relax (and other things) [What “other things,” pray tell? Does Nordlinger know something from personal experience that we don’t?] among the Beautiful People, except during reelection year, when Dick Morris’s poll told him to go camping out West.” And with a proudful flourish (I can see his manly chest bursting out of his shirt), Nordlinger concludes: “George W. Bush is not the kind of president who takes a poll to find out where he should vacation with his family. Say that for him, and more.” Hmmm … Yes, it’s true that most Americans don’t sit in Martha’s Vineyard swilling white wine, but neither do most Americans go boating in Kennebunkeport or eat barbeque at Crawford Ranch. So what? I wonder how G.W. knows that, when it comes to vacations, Americans wouldn’t prefer to be sitting in Martha’s Vineyard swilling white wine with the Beautiful People as opposed to sitting in Crawford Ranch eating barbeque. If Bush is implying that Clinton’s swanky vacations were “out of touch” with ordinary Americans, and, by contrast, his “rustic” vacations are not, who should we assume is the one really pandering to public opinion? And, finally, I’ll be paying very close attention to where Bush vacations during reelection year. My money says that Bush will be conveniently vacationing with little brother Jeb in Florida. …

Moving on to the question of the prospect of an African-American museum on the national Mall. Nordlinger deplores the further “balkanization” and “racialization” of our society that would come with such an initiative. I invite Nordlinger to come to New Orleans and make the same argument against the preservation of the Confederate Museum as an independent and separate collection. In my mind, there’s no difference between the two in principle. …

And last, Nordlinger’s “smallish point” regarding the TIPS program as a means to encourage an “engaged” citizenry forces me to make my own “smallish point.” There’s a TIPS program in Cuba. They’re called CDRs (Committees for the Defense of the Revolution). We all know what these neighborhood watches do. Good intentions aside, TIPS is bad, bad, bad policy. There are better ways to “engage” citizens than to encourage them to be suspicious of their neighbors, instead of trusting of them.

The Weak in (National) Review presents: "Halo K-Lo" - comments on the “ex cathedra” pronouncements of Kathryn Jean Lopez. This week, K-Lo gives us a lesson in Politics 101. And believe me, it’s certainly at the 101 level of sophistication. The basic gist of her article is that “political discourse in America is pathetic” because all issues tend to boil down to “Right-vs.-Left.” As K-Lo says: “The real stupidity comes when the pundit game becomes Right-vs.-Left.” And then, perhaps unwittingly, K-Lo herself writes for us a perfect example of this “real stupidity” (her words) as she composes the rest of her article, complaining about how the “Right” is always treated cruelly and unfairly in this game. I guess this wouldn’t be so bad except that all the while K-Lo bemoans the fact that conservatives are often labeled as “just plain dumb” and “ugly” (i.e. Linda Tripp, Katherine Harris, etc.) and of the “extra-chromosome right wing,” etc., she dishes out her own petty meanness towards leftist liberals. For instance, K-Lo writes of Ann Coulter’s “laser-like ability to home in on the hypocrisies and cruelties and stupidity of the Left” as if hypocrisy, cruelty, and stupidity were natural and universal character traits of everyone on the Left. And later, K-Lo, the intellectual giant she is, essentially calls leftist partisan rhetoric “terribly grade-school in its intellectual level.” (Aside: I wonder if K-Lo has ever REALLY watched and read Rush Limbaugh’s "stuff" with the same intellectually discerning lenses.) And again, K-Lo just can’t help but talk about those “hateful” and “snippy” “liberal media types.” When it comes to the “real stupidity” in the pundit game, at least in the way that K-Lo describes it, there is no better example than K-Lo herself.

School Board - I'm still baffled and angry about the pulling of Harper Lee's Pulitzer Prize winning novel, To Kill a Mockingbird, from Parish School library shelves by Plaquemines Parish School Superintendent Jim Hoyle. What is objectionable is not anything in the book or the movie, but that anything could potentially be censored at the drop of a complaint. Again, I see an attitude here that once again absolves parents from any responsibility for encouraging mentally astute and critically-thinking behavior in their children. Sure, I don't want my children to see evil in the world, to hear profanity, and to suffer through morally difficult moments; but life is not so kind. What's important is for me, as a parent, to walk through such moments of exposure with my children, when I can, to help them think through things, to help them build their own sense of right and wrong, to help them develop a sense of correct moral action that they can call their own. I firmly believe that censorship short-changes the mental and moral strengthening of children, not the other way around.

Liberal Lighthouse - In the "Notebook" section of The New Republic (page 9 of the August 19 & 26, 2002, issue), there is a little gem under the heading "The Sheriff-of-Nottingham Party" which does not appear in the Online version of the magazine (at least, I can't find it), but which bears repeating in full: "At last the results of the Republican revolution are in. When the GOP took control of Congress in 1995, it promised to scale back government across the board - 'shared sacrifice,' as then-Budget Committee Chairman John Kasich put it at the time. Well, this week the Associated Press studied the changes in federal spending that have taken place under Republican control, and the outcome turns out to have been neither shared nor, from the point of view of Republican constituents, sacrifice. Rather, Congress mainly shifted programs away from Democratic districts and toward Republican ones. In the 1995 budget - the last one written by a Democratic majority - the average Democratic district received $35 million more than the average Republican district. By 2001 the average Republican district received a whopping $612 million more than the average Democratic one. This turnabout might seem like fair play but for one fact: Democratic districts tend to be poorer and thus in greater need of help from the federal government. These days they're not getting it. For six years Republicans have cut programs that help the struggling - such as child care food programs and public housing - and raised spending on programs that help the relatively well-off, such as farm subsidies and business loans. House Majority Leader Dick Armey offered this gloating explanation for his party's efforts at upward redistribution: 'To the victor go the spoils.' Now there's a moral basis for government."
Comment: So, not only does the party of George Bush want to give more federal tax money directly back to the rich through tax cut after tax cut, but the party of greed (I don't know how else one would describe it) also has made sure that wealthier Republican districts still get the much larger slices of a much smaller pie.

School Board - Censorship rears its ugly head in the Plaquemines Parish school library system. Apparently, Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird is offensive to one parent, so all have to suffer by having it pulled off the shelves. The Times Picayune has weighed in with a thoughtful editorial. More commentary from yours truly to follow shortly.

School Board - Just a quick point to ponder about the School Voucher debate: It's a very nice thought that School Vouchers equals School Choice - but does it, really, provide for such a choice - or at least a meaningful choice? Would highly-regarded suburban public schools and urban private/parochial schools (or should I say the students and the parents of the students in these schools) welcome inner-city voucher students to their learning communities? Putting a voucher in someone's hand doesn't neatly translate into supporting REAL school choice. In order for school choice to mean anything, voucher students must have the option to REALIZE their choice, which is something most voucher advocates haven't really thought much about. To use a common metaphor, it's as if someone were to hand me a fishing pole, some bait, a boat, and even give me fishing lessons; but then tell me that the lake with all the good fish in it that he fishes in was, ahem, off limits.

Liberal Lighthouse - The latest from Molly Ivins on the Bush Economic Forum. The column's everything you might expect it to be; but hidden away in it is a great little joke that I just have to share with you: "... Bush, Tony Blair, and Jacques Chirac are holding an economic summit. While Chirac maunders on about something, Bush leans over and says to Blair, 'The trouble with the French is that they have no word for entrepreneur.'" Get it?? Entrepreneur IS a French Word! Poor Bush! Will he ever be able to shake off the dunce image?