Lagniappe: Discovered!! - Well, well, ... it seems that some of my friends who also double as the graduate students that I advise at Tulane have discovered my blog! Hey, chic@s, now that you've found me out, I expect you all to leave me some nice comments -- and even some challenging critiques in the midst of the heaps of praise and plaudits you're sure to throw my way.

Just know that I'm not attempting to hide anything -- I don't post anonymously (I think it's cowardly to do so) and I've set up the blog to be easily found via a simple Google search of my name. And I kind of like the fact that you all can get to see perhaps a different (or less cautious) side of me. Just another vehicle to humanize me even further.

But ... Now that I've got some new fans, I expect the dialogue to kick up a notch (as Emeril likes to say). You may be on to me, but I'm also on to you!!! And if you don't chip in your two cents every now and then, I'll be extremely disappointed.

Let the blog fun begin!!

Lagniappe: The Complexity of Archbishop Hughes and the Simplicity of Jesus Christ - Recently, New Orleans Archbishop Alfred Hughes wrote a pastoral letter on Catholics and political life. Naturally, as one might expect, he starts his letter off with a New Testament scriptural reference. He relates the Gospel story of Jesus responding to the efforts of the "Pharisees and Herodians" to catch him in a bind by asking him if it were lawful to pay taxes to Caesar. You know, the whole "give to Ceaser what is Ceasar's, but give to God what is God's" dictum.

Then Archbishop Hughes launches into a lengthy missive on how good Catholics should act politically and what should be the moral stance of Catholics with regard to their public obligations as good citizens.

Again, as one might expect, Archbishop Hughes focuses on the primacy of the defense of life as the single most important concept that should guide Catholic civic life. Abortion is wrong, and should be opposed unequivocally, he says. So is euthanasia, cloning, and embryonic stem cell research, etc. But when it comes to war and capital punishment, Hughes contends, he gives comfort to those Catholics who support the taking of life through war or capital punishment by painstakingly explaining the ethical wiggle room that the Catholic Church allows regarding these anti-life activities. Hughes uses some high-faluting rationalization he calls "human prudential judgment" to justify support for such anti-life activities.

What I find so ironic and sad is that Hughes is, essentially, acting just like those word-parsing and language game-playing Pharisees and Herodians he refers to in the opening lines of his letter. I've got one thing to say to Archbishop Hughes: Jesus's message concerning life was much simpler than his "human prudential judgment" cerebral parsing. When, on another occasion, these same pharisees, these tricky experts in Church doctrine and Church law, these experts in high-faluting theological rationalizations, tried to trip up Jesus with the same mental games regarding the identification of the greatest Commandment, Jesus' reply was simple: "The greatest commandment is this: love God above all things, and love your neighbor as yourself." Pretty damn simple and clear to me. If Archbishop Hughes wants to pretend to be more like the Jesus he supposedly represents, I don't see how he can claim that this simple mandate in any way, shape, or form, permits for the killing of one's neighbor in war or by capital punishment. If this is how Hughes interprets the mandate of "loving one's neighbor," then he's god one sick understanding of the meaning of love. And that's a shame, because we have the greatest example of love in the very Jesus Christ himself. What did Jesus do to show his love? He didn't kill, or support killing, or even try to rationalize killing under the special circumstances of "human prudential judgment." No, he just gave up his life. He let himself BE killed. That's the simplicity of the Christian example when it comes to the subject of LIFE. The theologically complex Archbishop Hughes ought to keep this more in mind.

Liberal Lighthouse: Bush Lies - You know you're in trouble when the pro-Iraq War editors of The New Republic call Bush an outright liar with regard to this war's current reality.

All politicians stretch truth to present accomplishments in the most appealing light. What President Bush has told the country over the past week about the deeply troubled Iraq occupation, however, is different. While an increasingly strong insurgency murdered 250 Iraqis last week, he portrayed the occupation as gliding to success. Last week, Bush told the Manchester Union-Leader, "I'm pleased with the progress." The template the administration is using for its portrayal of Iraq is the one the Johnson administration perfected during Vietnam: To win reelection, Bush is lying."

Read the whole editorial. It's blunt and it's true.

Lagniappe: Bush, Leadership, and Credibility - Does George W. Bush ever listen to himself? This from Bush: "You can't lead this country if your ally in Iraq feels like you question his credibility." I wonder what Dubya would say if anyone took out the word "Iraq" and substituted, say, Germany, France, Russia, Mexico, Chile, and practically every other country of the world. My best guess is that Mr. Unilateral and Anti-Sensitive would say something like, "I don't need the approval of France, Germany, Russia, Mexico, Chile, etc., to be the leader this country needs. In fact, the true sign of a leader is precisely when he questions the credibility of his allies if what they are saying deserves question." The denseness and stupidity of this President is embarrassing and pathetic.

Kingfishery & Kingcakery: The Anti-Family Marriage Amendment - As one of the 22% of Louisianians (and, by the way, one who is a happily married heterosexual) who voted against this abominable amendment, I must admit that I was absolutely stunned speechless when I saw the election results.

This is not the Louisiana that I know and have known my entire life. Louisiana is a state that has felt poignantly the pangs of discrimination and has made tremendous strides to overcome the barriers to full civil rights for its citizens. I thought that having a woman (Democrat) and an Indian-American man (Republican) as the run-off candidates for governor last fall was a sign that this state had reached some new threshhold with regards to beating back the legacy of racial and gender discrimination that defines the state's past. But this recent vote on the anti-family constitutional amendment regarding marriage gives painful pause.

However, being a proud Louisianian and unwilling to abandon my (naive?) belief in the fairness and humanity of my fellow Louisianians, I still want desperately to believe that the majority of the people in this state don't really want what this amendment signifies. The only explanation that I can think of to rationalize this depressing election result, and still keep up my spirits somewhat, is that the people of Louisiana were purposely confused about the issue. I don't think Louisianians fully understand the implications of this vote. From the people I know (genuinely good people at heart) who expressed some sympathy for this amendment, the feeling is that this vote had nothing to do with civil rights and was simply more like the harmless expression of support for a resolution endorsing traditional marriage. I know for a fact that there was very little education of the electorate about the full discriminatory nature of this amendment and its far-reaching legal ramifications. In fact, what little attention was paid to this amendment here in the local media outlets basically viewed the whole process as a sympathy/non-sympathy vote on the idea of marriage more than a fundamental alteration of the state's foundational guiding charter.

When the impact of this amendment hits heterosexual unions not covered under the definition of marriage as defined by this amendment (and, believe me, there are a lot of "shacking up" situations and non-traditional heterosexual partnerships in this state), then folks are going to wake up. But I know that this is a weak rationalization. And though it makes me feel a little better, a little hopeful, it still can't beat back the depressing funk that I've been in since I read the newspapers Sunday morning.

The only consolation that I have is the certitude that the march towards civil rights for all people is inexorable and will bear fruit in the future. And I remain certain that, one day, gay people will be able to marry in the state of Louisiana.

Kingfishery & Kingcakery: Ivan the Terrible - Writing from Houston. Managed to get the family onto safer ground to weather out Ivan. Couldn't bring the house with us, though we did carry our pictures. What a worry! Keep the Gulf Coast in your prayers.

Lagniappe: Here's a Funny! - Five members of a Christian prayer group sat around one evening after their weekly meeting having coffee and eating cookies. The subject turned to politics and the upcoming Presidential election. After a while, it became clear that each of the five friends had a different political party affiliation. There was a Republican, a Democrat, a Libertarian, a Socialist, and a Constitutionalist. Each argued passionately and heatedly in defense of his party's platform and with firm conviction in his political ideology. Furthermore, each claimed that the core principles of Christianity, which they all espoused faithfully, supported his own position. Thus religion mixed with politics, and the discussion went round and round with not one of the friends conceding any ground to the others. After a while, when the debate seemed frustratingly hopeless, the friends decided to do what they always did when confronted with such difficulties: they would offer the debate up to God in prayer in the hopes of receiving His divine revelation and resolution. On this solution to wrapping up the debate, all could agree. So, the friends gathered in their prayer circle and raised up their hands and voices to God in prayer. After about ten minutes of earnest praying, a burning bush appeared in the middle of the prayer circle. Nestled in the center of the burning bush was a stone table, in which the following message was seared:

"My beloved and faithful children, your positions are all equally valid in My eyes."
(signed) God, (D-Paradise)

Lagniappe: The Zell Miller/GOP Convention Conundrum - First off, let's get it straight out in the open. I'm no fan of Zell Miller.

BUT, as a Democrat, I must say that it tickles me to no end that one of my own fellow card-carrying party members is being touted as the GOP's best offering to the Republican Convention. Sure, lots of GOP notables have spoken, but no one has elicited the swooning praise given to Miller by the multitude of GOPers commenting on the Convention -- not McCain, not Giuliani, not Schwarzenegger, not even Cheney. If a Democrat delivering a speech at the Republican GOP is the best the GOP can put forward, what does this say about the GOP lineup? It would be supremely ironic if the general consensus is that Miller, a DEMOCRAT, was the best thing going at the REPUBLICAN Convention.

I guess I should be proud that we Democrats are so impressive we can carry the weight of TWO parties these days.

Blog Banter: The Honest Conservative's Take on Zell Miller - Read this:

Zell Miller's address will, I think, go down as a critical moment in this campaign, and maybe in the history of the Republican party. I kept thinking of the contrast with the Democrats' keynote speaker, Barack Obama, a post-racial, smiling, expansive young American, speaking about national unity and uplift. Then you see Zell Miller, his face rigid with anger, his eyes blazing with years of frustration as his Dixiecrat vision became slowly eclipsed among the Democrats. Remember who this man is: once a proud supporter of racial segregation, a man who lambasted LBJ for selling his soul to the negroes. His speech tonight was in this vein, a classic Dixiecrat speech, jammed with bald lies, straw men, and hateful rhetoric. As an immigrant to this country and as someone who has been to many Southern states and enjoyed astonishing hospitality and warmth and sophistication, I long dismissed some of the Northern stereotypes about the South. But Miller did his best to revive them. The man's speech was not merely crude; it added whole universes to the word crude.

From Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish for September 2, 2004. And there's more, too. Go read it. The whole thing.

Lagniappe: Purple Heart Mockery at the GOP Convention - To all you honorable soldiers who sacrificed blood and limb for this country, the GOP Conventioneers have something to say to you and your Purple Heart(s):Bush For President: War Hero And you think they care about your sacrifice?

Lagniappe: Bush Admits his connection to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth From Andrew Sullivan's blog:

P.S.: I loved Bush's comment yesterday about the smear-ad: "I can understand why Senator Kerry is upset with us. I wasn't so pleased with the ads that were run about me. And my call is get rid of them all, now." "Us"?? I thought Bush had nothing to do with it.

Let's remember that Andrew Sullivan is no friend of Kerry, either; but at least he's honest enough to call it like it is.

Lagniappe: Bush the Dunce - I'm sure GW will recover from the gaffe, but it strikes me as typical of everything the man represents. I mean, really, on the eve of the GOP Convention, in the midst of people praising him as the only man capable of leading this country in the war on terror, GW publicly and with full confidence declares unequivocally and firmly that ... what was it, now? ... oh, yeah ... we will NEVER win the war on terror. Even assuming GW just had a momentary slip of the tongue, and didn't really mean what he said, what kind of person would make such a royal goof up at the most inappropriate time. Worse, what kind of American would vote to elect this incompetent person to another four more years? We need a dunce like GW leading us against the war on terror about as much as we need another cockroach in New Orleans. Puh-lease.

Lagniappe: What is it about Serving in Vietnam on a Swift Boat near the Cambodian Border? - So, in the heat of war and in the complex fluidity of events and recollections that was the Vietnam War, John Kerry's claims to have been in Cambodia at the precise instant he claimed to be may not be accurate. Kerry, though, is convinced of his being in Cambodia during his service. It appears that one John O'Neill is equally as confused about his recollections of his whereabouts while serving in Vietnam. John O'Neill is recorded as saying he was in Cambodia during his service, but which he now claims was not true. Appears O'Neill is lying with impunity. Apparently his recollection some 30 years later is more accurate than his comment made within a couple of years from the actual events in question. What's the truth? Who knows? Fact is, I give O'Neill a pass because his mind was probably as muddled and shaped by the craziness of Vietnam as was John Kerry's. They both probably have some selected or exaggerated memories that stray somewhat from actual events. I would imagine this to be the case for all combat soldiers. The problem is that when Swift Boat Veterans for Truth claim to be representing the "truth" that they themselves contradict makes the group seem like a bunch of vindictive blow-hards. This will do nothing but bite Bush in the rear as the glow of their reghteousness comes under further scrutiny and the discrepancies of "truth" become more and more revealed along with their connections to the Bush Campaign. I want the Swift Boat Vets to come on strong, so that Bush can fall all the harder.

Lagniappe: Kerry and the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" - I've been thinking about this group's activities and wondering a lot about their motives and feelings. I can understand why many of Kerry's fellow combatants wouldn't really care for Kerry and even see him as "unfit" to serve as Commander-in-Chief. It's because Kerry had the courage to break military discipline and defy "loyalty to the insitition at all costs" in protesting and exposing that which was morally reprehensible about what went on in Vietnam. Many of Kerry's swift boat colleagues, like the majority of us, are more comfortable with obeying the "truth" of loyalty, than the "truth" of shame. This simple fact - that Kerry has the courage to question a decision-gone-bad (i.e. the Vietnam War) and to take a stand in protest of it - makes Kerry consummately fit for command. I don't want a leader so blinded by hubris and pride and unfaltering "loyalty" to his "comrades in arms" that he refuses to reasses and admit mistakes and problems. It is very, very possible that going to war in Iraq was morally and politically the WRONG decision for the United States and its citizens (regardless of how much good has come from it for others). But once on the path of war, it becomes very difficult for anyone who put us on this path (and through which much blood has been shed and lives lost) to admit it as a mistake. But sometimes it is necessary to admit our mistakes so that they don't become compounded out of sheer cowardice to do so. Kerry is a man who will fight a just war, and who will not hesitate to put American lives on the line; but he is also a man who will have the courage to admit if and when such a decision was a mistake and to prevent the continued unnecessary loss of life. I WANT this kind of person as a Commander-in-Chief. I don't want a drill sergeant or a "Yes" man. I want a responsible leader. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth would be wise to reflect on this.

Lagniappe: Blogging from Mexico - From the land of tequila and chilaquiles, I send you all my greetings. Mexico City is wonderful, as usual. I'm having a productive, and fun, visit. Talking to my friends here about their own political situation in Mexico, I am informed that this country's next presidential elections seem wide open and, perhaps, ripe for chaos. It appears that all the main parties and their leadership is fragmented here or caught up in scandals. This means that there is no clear favorites at this point for 2006 elections for President. I see this as the growing pains of true democracy in Mexico, but Mexicans need to stay true and firm to the democratization process. There is a lot of public disillusionment here right now about the political system; and Mexicans are accustomed to not putting much hope into reform efforts. If the country survives the next presidential election with a peaceful transfer of power, then I will begin to believe that the internalization of democratic reform in Mexican political culture is taking shape.

Lagniappe: Bush Speaks the Truth -

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we," Bush said. "They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." [Emphasis added.]

Now, whose side is the Bush Administration on again?

Lagniappe: Gone, Back, and Soon to Go Again - Apologies for the absence of any postings over the past few days. My lovely wife planned a "mini-vacation" on the spur of the moment to a resort hotel in Mobile, Alabama. We were at the Grand Hotel (Marriott) on Mobile Bay and we did nothing but have fun and relax for three days. No television, no radio, no computers, and only the USA Today for news. Needless to say, I've been out of the loop a bit; but it was a great trip ... time well-spent with the wife and kids.

Now that I'm back in town, I have one day to pack for a week-long research/writing trip to Mexico. Off to the biggest city in the world for one week of uninterrupted writing on my book project (a history of Mexico and Mexicans in New Orleans) with the only distractions being an evening tequila or two in the hotel bar. As you might imagine, blogging will be light to non-existent over the next week or so. Then, as the fall semester begins to kick-off at the end of August, what with welcoming a whole new crew of graduate students, I'll probably be unable to blog with much regularity then, too. I'll give it the old Blue Jay/Hoya/Green Wave effort, so do check back; but don't hold your breath for in-depth analysis of anything. Hasta pronto!

PS: Congratulations to my younger sister who just gave birth to her first baby, a daughter, Kayla, 6 lbs, 13 oz. Mom, dad, and baby are all healthy and in excellent spirits,though naturally tired. The extended family grows by one, with the balance tipping in favor of the "fairer sex!"

Lagniappe: "Results Matter" Catalogue, continued - Even the ultra-conservative, pro-Bush Washington Times reports that U.S. firms are experiencing punishing sanctions from the EU because of certain U.S. export subsidies that the WTO has ruled against. Result: A projected $36 billion tax bill to be paid by U.S. exporters to the EU over the March 1 - September 1, 2004 time period. Remember, Bush said it himself: "RESULTS MATTER."

Lagniappe: "Results Matter" Catalogue - You know, I've been thinking that I should hold Bush to his own campaign theme. Everytime I see some "results" that the Bush Administration seems to have produced or its policies have influenced, I'll pass the news along to you. If you come across any such "results," please pass them my way so that I can reference them or post them.

Let's start with this lovely bit of news concerning the airline industries. Seems like the Airlines are poised to shed their pension plans (instead of reducing CEO salaries). The impact: (1) workers who have invested their retirements in Airline pension plans are looking at an uncertain retirement future; and (2) if the Airlines do shed their pension plans, then the U.S. federal agency that insures pension plans against precisely this kind of eventuality, will have to cover the bailout bill. This means that, like the Savings & Loans Scandals of the 1980s, the U.S. taxpayer will be footing the bill for the failure of the free market to regulate incompetence, greed, and fraud. All on the watch of Bush. Remember, Bush said it himself: "RESULTS MATTER."

Lagniappe: Perfect Bush - Let me tell you what I think sums up the idiocy of George W. Bush and the delusional world he must live in. A couple of days ago, Bush made a speech in which he called on the U.S. citizenry to look at actual, conrete "results" as a basis for evaluating his accomplishments in office versus that of his opponent for the Presidency, John Kerry. The article I read on the AP Newswire Webpage indicated that this theme will be prominent in the next phase of the Bush campaign. So, "results" ... Hmmm ... And on the same day, in an article published by the very same AP Newswire referenced on the same webpage as the piece on Bush's "results" speech, there was an article discussing how the Office of the President had just announced a revised deficit projection of circa $450 billion, a record federal deficit in U.S. history!!!!! Bush wants us to look at "results"?!?!?!?!? I'd say a record deficit of $450 billion is quite a "result" for evaluating the fiscal profligacy of his administration and by far enough reason in and of itself to warrant voting Bush out of office. How idiotic can the man be??? And we haven't even touched upon the "results" of the Iraq War and its abysmal aftermath. People! Wake up and take off the blinders!! This man is not fit to lead this country. He is a joke.