Kingfishery and Kingcakery - Landrieu and Terrell are campaigning hard for the senate run-off. I'm a Landrieu supporter, so maybe this is wishful thinking, but it seems to me that Landrieu is coming off as more sympathetic and competent in the last few weeks of this runoff period. Let's see if this translate at the polls. Much will depend on the turnout. For the latest on the campaign, take a look at the most recent Times-Picayune article that can be found here.

Lagniappe - I've already missed a day! So much for resolutions!! Actually, I would have posted, but I just forgot. I guess it's just getting back into the habit. Well here I am today, posting at least this little bit. I've got more in store, though, so be ready!

Kingfishery and Kingcakery - While I'm not so keen on the negative campaigns being run by both Mary Landrieu and Suzie Terrell - they're equally repugnant in my view - I think that Suzie Terrell has dug a grave for herself by attacking Mary Landrieu's religious convictions. Regardless of one's political position on the abortion issue, judging another's religious faith commitment doesn't sit well with voters. First, we people of faith recognize that religion is personal, private, and protected. We also tend to be loathe to judge the value of another's faith, lest our "weakness" in faith be likewise judged, and especially since such judgment is reserved ultimately and exclusively for the Higher Power - and not some holier-than-thou like Suzie Terrell. It is not for us sinners to cast stones. Suzie Terrell took a cheap shot, and we all recognize it as such. What's worse for her is that, in my mind, she also came off as presuming to play God with Mary Landrieu. Archbishop Hannan MIGHT get away with something like this, but Suzie Terrell's credentials in the faith don't even approach the authority that Hannan carries with him. From the political perspective, what we do know is that Terrell has certainly lost a few votes because of the presumptousness and smugness, not to mention the "spiritual" meanness, of her statement. Shame on Suzie.

Cuaderno Latinoamericano - Andres Oppenheimer has a great analysis of what I have termed Mexico's "Paradox of Dependence and Nationalism" in the context of the 21st Century reality. Oppenheimer discusses Mexican Foreign Relations Secretary Jorge Castañeda's recent call for Mexico to resolve this "paradox" by trashing the outdated revolutionary anti-US rhetoric and by embracing positively Mexico's affinity for and bond with the United States. While I applaud Castañeda's attitude, what he proposes may be psychologically undesirable if not impossible for Mexican society. Subordinate and dependent states, in order to maintain some semblance of identity distinct from the regional hegemon, often times have only rhetoric to work with. The reality is also that Mexico is "not" the US, and sometimes the only way to make this distinction is simply by espousing the "anti-US" line. This anti-US rhetoric is not really to be "against" the US, but to be distinct from and independent of the US. Even still, Castañeda's comments mark an incredible change in the rhetoric of Mexico's independent history and its relationship with the US.

Lagniappe - Well, it has been almost two weeks since my last post. What good is a weblog if it's not kept up?? I have resolved to post something every day - at least a couple of sentences or a quick link to something interesting, if not a really substantive entry. I do need to give myself an out if I find that I am unable to get myself to a computer with internet access, which does happen on occasion. However, those moments are generally infrequent and so I should be able to post entries for at least 330 of the 365 days of the year. Let's see how good I am at keeping resolutions!

The Weak in (National) Review - Speaking of National Review (see my previous Lagniappe post), I'd like to comment briefly on the creeping hopes of the pro-life movement as expressed in Georgia lawyer Adam G. Mersereau's Guest Comment for the online version of the magazine. The point of his whole article is typical of conservative misreading of the abortion issue in American society. He thinks that the real issue dogging the hopes of conservative pro-lifers, even in the current favorable political environment, is this silly notion that people will be skittish about outlawing abortion because doing so would go against the core conservative advocacy of less government regulation of an individual's private life. Let me set Mersereau straight. The skittishness that he detects among the general American public regarding outlawing abortion is not the issue of government intrustion into private life. Rather, it is the issue of criminalizing something that many people, even pro-lifers, have a hard time criminalizing. This fact is oh-so-clear if one just pays quiet attention to this aspect of the debate. For example, in Louisiana's current Senate runoff race, Suzie Terrell is painting herself as a strong anti-abortion candidate, in part to counter the fact that her name appeared on a Planned Parenthood Conference program as one of its leaders/organizers/sponsors. But, in spite of Terrell's wish to pass herself off as a strong anti-abortion candidate in a relatively conservative state - even advocating a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion - she refused to follow through logically on her position when asked how women who might have "illegal" abortions in violation of the constitution should be treated/punished. Why? Here's why ... Note: I'm the father of two lovely little girls, ages 4 and 2 months. I cannot even fathom terminating a pregnancy knowing the joy that my children bring me. That's me. But sometimes I look in the mirror and ask myself this very simple question: "If either of my daughters were ever to come to me, with tears flowing and seemingly inconsolable, and tell me that she had an abortion, would I look at her as a murderer and a criminal? Would I look at her as if what she had done were no different than if she had walked up to an unsuspecting child on the playground and slit his throat? Would I feel the legal obligation to turn her in to the law for prosecution on a murder charge?" My answer: "Absolutely not!!!" And I think that my reaction is probably typical even for most pro-lifers. So, what does this honest reflection tell me? Well, for one, it tells me that I don't equate abortion with murder. Two, it tells me that no matter what my moral position is on the issue, I cannot accept criminalizing it. Three, it tells me that I can be anti-abortion morally, but pro-choice legally - and that there is no inconsistency with this position. This is the rub for conservatives on the issue. This is why there is general skittishness in the American public about outlawing abortion. It's not because of some silly "government-off-my-back" attitude. It's not even, to demythologize the more radical pro-choice stance on abortion, really about protecting a woman's right to control her own body to the exclusion of consideration of the fetus/unborn child. Nor is it about the moral question of whether abortion is right or wrong. It's just simply about not making the woman who has an abortion a criminal under the law. Simple as that. Any pro-lifer who says his/her own daughter should be held as a criminal (much less a murderer) for having had an abortion will at least be consistent in his/her position, though (in my opinion) one terrible, horrible, insensitive heel of a parent, unworthy of even being called a loving parent.

Lagniappe - A month since my last post. My how time flies and events change. It seems that Democrats are in some disarray and Republicans are gearing up for at least two years of unfettered policymaking. A quick read of the pages of National Review - at least the online version - reveals a bit of hopeful glee that the conservative agenda will transform US society and culture. We'll see. Conservatives are used to saying how unfair and discriminated against they are, how much the "liberal" media and just about anything else has misunderstood and mistreated them. Well, now, that whining isn't going to get very far anymore. If Republicans and their conservative agenda can't seem to carry through over the next two years, the "beseiged" line simply won't work. I'm actually looking forward to watching the Republicans first muddle through the startling reality of absolute, hegemonic control over all three branches of government, and then bumbling about trying to figure out how to govern in the midst of such power. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I can tell you right now, it ain't cake for single party dominant governments to rule, especially in a political culture that values the "balance" of power - and even has a soft spot for the accountability of "gridlock." Good luck, Bushies. As they say, be careful what you ask for, you just might get it! We liberals will be watching closely - and, you can bet your bottom dollar, we will be savoring the role of loyal opposition to the ruling party and the immunity that it provides.

The Weak in (National) Review - The Carter bashing continues - all because he won the Nobel Prize and Ronald Reagan didn't. Talk about a case of "Nobel Prize" envy. I've never seen anything like it. Jay Nordlinger leads off his more recent Impromptoupees column with a predictable sigh and lament. And John O'Sullivan writes an equally angst-ridden piece on the affair. O'Sullivan writes that Carter's win came not from his global acts of charity and mercy, but because of "his marked aversion to anything that smacked of armed force while he was president." O'Sullivan thinks this is somehow a not-so-good thing. But I beg to differ. I think it is a heroic thing. We should all be averse to the violence of armed force in conflict resolution. But notice that "being averse" does not mean "unwilling to use." I am convinced that Jimmy Carter would not have hesitated to use armed force as a last resort to protect us and to preserve our freedoms. He should be lauded for not considering the use of armed force as a "first resort." Besides which, "Peace" is the antithesis to "War" - and the Nobel "Peace" Prize SHOULD recognize efforts that represent an "aversion to anything that smacks of armed force." I'd be surprised if it reflected anything less.

The Weak in (National) Review - This week, the online version of the conservative magazine, really reached a low for me. I normally enjoy reading NRO because I find the columnists to be engaging, funny, intelligent, and thought-provoking, albeit maddening at times given my liberal sensibilities. I have always thought NRO was better than many of the other conservative magazines because it carefully avoided letting ideological passion cloud good critical thinking. But after reading the blather and witnessing the mouth-foaming over Jimmy Carter's winning of the Nobel Peace Prize, I've come to see that under the glossy smoothness of NRO writing there is nothing more than a bunch of bitter, irrational, temple-throbbing ideologues who have ABSOLUTELY NO sense of true patriotism and NO RESPECT for the encompassing greatness of ALL America, not just Conservative America. You would think that as much as the people at NRO might dislike Jimmy Carter, they would at least attempt to embrace the recognition won by Jimmy Carter as a reflection of this great nation, whose contributions to global peace and security really are unrivalled in the world. Why wouldn't NRO wrap the American Flag around this significant accomplishment instead of demeaning it. It makes all of these folk look petty and unpatriotic, not to mention brings out the worst in terms of the coherency of the writing produced on this topic. Let me give you an example ... but first, for context, I want you to remember Democratic Rep. Jim McDermott's recent visit to Iraq, his comments while in that country, and the outrage (justifiable in my mind) of those who saw McDermott defending Saddam Hussein against his own President and his own country. Now let's turn to one Peter Schweizer, whose piece on Jimmy Carter is one of the most hypocritical and unpatriotic columns I have read. The gist of the article is that Jimmy Carter's record on human rights and his work on behalf of peace is suspect given some of his - how can I say - "appeasement" of some of the world's worst "communist" abusers of human rights. And what evidence does Schweizer mostly use to demonstrate this appeasement? Why, no less than the words of such paragons of human rights virtues as communist appartchiks like Anatoly Dobrynin, Andrei Gromyko, and Georgii Kornienko. Phrases like "According to the Soviet transcript of the meeting" and "according to numerous Soviet accounts" and "Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin recounts in his memoirs" and "According to Georgii Kornienko, first deputy foreign minister at the time" and "As Dobrynin recounts" pepper this "objective" analysis of Carter's human rights and political record. There is only one time in the whole essay where there is a reference to a "White House transcript" of a meeting. It seems as if Schweizer is content to base Jimmy Carter's human rights record on the rants and ruminations of the very "abusers" themselves, who were - if we listen to NRO types - nothing more than emissaries of the "EVIL EMPIRE." Why in the world would Schweizer give credence to these Soviets in evaluating a US President? Is Schweizer attempting to denigrate an American citizen, much less an ex-President of this great country, by using the very words of the official representatives of the evil empire? It would be like accepting as gospel truth the characterizations of George W. Bush that one might expect to find in the memoirs of Tariq Aziz, Muammar Qaddafi, and the like. I am amazed that this article passed muster under the watchful eyes of NROs editors. The only thing I can think is that the mere mention of Jimmy Carter in NRO's office tranforms usually rational beings into irrational, rabid neanderthals. It's a funny kind of conservative, Cold-War patriotism, I guess, to choose Dobrynin and Gromyko over Carter - but I don't want anything to do with it. In fact, I don't think it's funny at all. It's disgusting and reprehensible, and NRO has forfeited the right to criticize anyone's patriotism from now on - Jim McDermott included.

Kingfishery and Kingcakery - Well, it looks like good ol' boy Eddie Edwards has run out of time -- finally. His appeals are done and he has been given a prison report date as of the end of October. Thanksgiving turkey for Edwards will now have a whole new meaning. If you want to read up on the fall from grace of one of Louisiana's most colorful, crooked Governors, check out Eddie's touching Swan Song as reported in the Times-Picayune.

Cuaderno Latinoamericano - An amazing story about free trade's arrival to Cuba in the New York Times this past Saturday. It appears that US Agribusiness is cracking into the Cuban market - albeit in a very limited way. And agribusiness interests, to whom the Bush Administration has pandered in oh-so-many surprising ways, is chomping at the bit to burst through the restraints of the anachronistic embargo. I was equally astounded to hear Castro speaking timidly and hopefully of "fair trade" with capitalists in the US as opposed to simply railing against such capitalists with the equally anachronistic Marxist rhetoric and bombast that one usually expects him to spew forth. While the trade fair was very restricted, it's foolish to think that its impact won't be felt and recognized by the Cuban people. I am a firm believer that cracking into the Cuban market will do much more to chip at the Castro dictatorship and bring democracy to Cuba than will the embargo. But that old argument is for another post. What simply floored me in this article was a comment attributed to Otto Reich, Bush's controversial pick to coordinate the administration's Latin American policy. According to the article, Reich, a member of the Cuban exile community whose single-minded antipathy towards any policy of accommodation with Cuba, warned Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura, who was in Cuba participating in the trade exposition, to "steer clear of the island's 'sexual tourism.'" What the hell kind of a comment is this!?!?!? Is Reich not cognizant of the fact that "sexual tourism" also exists in the US? This comment is insulting to the American politicians and agribusiness representatives in attendance (in that it paints them as lecherous sex-hunters), as well as to the decency of the Cuban people. No question that prostitution is a problem in Cuba. I think every time Reich passes through Las Vegas or even Miami, we ought to "warn" (insult?) him likewise. But for Otto Reich to hurl such barbs just indicates all the more what an infantile idiot he is - as well as are all those who supported Reich's nomination and hailed him as the best candidate for the job.

Lagniappe - It's been a while since I posted; but I have a legitimate excuse. I have been joyously distracted from all but the essentials by the arrival of my new daughter, Ella Rose, to this world. She was born on Sep. 10, a healthy 7 lbs., 13.7 ounces, and has been the central focus of attention for the past weeks. I haven't forgotten about my blog, but I just put it on hold for a while. The birth of Ella, plus the start of the academic year at the University, has been just about all that I can manage. But I'm back, spurred to the blogosphere by some recent events in Latin America, which I'll pick up in my next post. Hopefully, I'll be able to give some attention to the blog from now on out.

Liberal Lighthouse - Well, it's time again to check in with Slate's Jacob Weisberg and his Bushisms. Always good for a hearty chuckle.

Cuaderno Latinoamericano - While the Mexican Supreme Court has given a setback to supporters of indigenous autonomy in the country, I still maintain that the activity of the High Court in such a public way and on such controversial subjects marks the welcome and positive evolution of a respect for the rule of law in that country. If the Mexican Supreme Court decisions, even if supportive of government positions, comes to be accepted as independent of the other branches of government, then the cause of Mexican democracy is well-served. I am more and more encouraged by the democratization of Mexico, even though such democratization has fallen far short of (almost unrealistic) expectations.

Liberal Lighthouse - I've been reading a lot lately about the "killing" of the Priscilla Owen nomination to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals by the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Byron York, of the National Review has written back to back laments on the subject. Republican Senators are issuing some bullying threats and are trying to "shame" their Democratic Colleagues for playing the same game of partisan politics with Judicial Nominations that was the modus vivendi for Republicans when Clinton was President. But even beyond that, Jason Zengerle of The New Republic has written an intriguing article which says that it is the very Bush Administration itself which should shoulder some of the blame for the litmus testing of federal judiciary nominees. Senate Republicans would be wise to read this article to realize that their grandstanding on this issue won't go very far (and may even backfire) if the public at large, like Zengerle, perceives the very "nominations" of judges by the Bush Administration to be the product of a pre-selection litmus testing process even before they reach the Senate. I, for one, can admit that Zengerle expresses a sentiment that resonates with what I have felt all along.

Cuaderno Latinoamericano - Mexico, always the independent energy maverick, seeks to increase its petroleum output. Ostensibly, this is part of Fox's national development plan. Really, this is Mexico once again taking advantage of an unstable Middle East supply to try to cash in. Cynical, yes, but probably on the mark.

Blog Banter - I must say that I'm very much looking forward to Andrew Sullivan's return after a month-long hiatus from the blogosphere. I'm sure he'll give me (all of us, actually) a lot of challenging and bold things to ponder. Welcome back, Andrew Sullivan! Even though you may never ever know about my blog, I look forward to a dialogue with you - even if a one-way dialogue!

Cuaderno Latinoamericano - Vicente Fox pleads with the Mexican Congress to help him ease the burdens of poverty and struggle faced by a majority of his country's people. He pleads for the Mexican Congress to do this by supporting his agenda for solutions to these difficult problems. He links the Mexican Congress's obstinacy to a failure of democracy. In doing so, he is feeding the fires of autocracy. Attention Mr. Fox: A Congress that doesn't just approve an executive's blueprint for change is not anti-democratic. Gridlock, though frustrating to many, is part of democracy. It is the strengthening of an effective balance of power, which is something Mexico has lacked for many, many years. His challenge is to convince the Congress to buy into his plans, not to call them anti-democratic for refusing to do so. He is welcome to play politics all he wants, and to call Congess obstinate and partisan and mistaken and wrong -- but to call them anti-democratic (and to imply that democracy is not working because of them) is to undermine one of the main pillars of a strong and vibrant democracy. Fox should be speaking of democracy in Mexico as a working reality, not as a failing expectation.

Lagniappe - I have been following the whole Pappy-Bush vs. Baby-Bush punditry with more than a casual interest. William Safire has recently weighed in on the subject with an op-ed piece in the New York Times. My feeling, which I've expressed numerous times, is that there is some sort of give-and-take going on between Pappy and Baby. I'm not quite sure exactly what this means or how it will ultimately play out, but Safire makes a convincing case that because of the perception of this family rift, Pappy-Bush will need to come out with a public stance at some point - either for or against - in order to put the rumors to rest once and for all and clear the way for an unhidden policy agenda regarding Iraq. But aside from the whole family rift gossip, I've been wondering more acutely about Pappy-Bush's original policy actions with regard to the Gulf War. People have spoken of Pappy-Bush's failure to finish off Saddam in round one as a policy blunder. But I'm not so sure of this. If one speaks of blunder in the sense that it may have contributed to Pappy-Bush's failed reelection campaign, that's something to debate. However, to speak of this blunder as an unintended mistaken decision on the part of the Pappy-Bush war team, as I think most do, is wrong-headed. The more and more that I give some thought to the Gulf War and its immediate aftermath, especially given today's context of the Pappy-Bush team's softness on Baby-Bush's current hardline Iraq position, the more I think that Pappy-Bush knew exactly what he was doing when he let Saddam off the hook at the end of the Gulf War. For some reason, which I can't quite fathom yet, Pappy-Bush seems to have thought that the security of the Middle East (as well as US Security) required (and still requires) the continued existence of Saddam in power. Did Pappy-Bush know something about the Middle East dynamic in a post-Saddam world that gave him the willies? What do we know about a post-Saddam Middle East now? I think it is worth exploring this subject further, and to stop thinking of Pappy-Bush's allowing Saddam to survive as a "blunder" and to think of it more critically and strategically as perhaps a policy with some good reason (if not soundness) to it after all. This is not to say that Saddam needs to stay, but that we stop thinking about his absence from the scene as necessarily a positive end to an all around ugly situation in that part of the world. Even though I'm not a big fan of Pappy-Bush, I do think we need to give Pappy-Bush some credit here. After all, Pappy-Bush was and is by far the more experienced statesman and diplomat of the two. The fact that this "rift" seems to be evolving tells me that Pappy-Bush's experience is telling him that precipitous action can be disastrous and can undermine the stated goal of strengthening US and world security. Why else would he allow the perception of a break with his son rise like it has? He must be seriously concerned about a real "blunder" coming from his son's current policy.

Lagniappe - After a brief hiatus, I am back and ready to blog. Last week was quite hectic for me given that it was the start of a new semester. With welcoming and orienting our new graduate students, as well as advising the returning grad students and gearing up for classes, the pace has been frenetic. Now, with a restful labor day weekend behind me, I'm primed up and eager to write. So, start up your regular visits again, I'm promising you some huckupchuck smack!