Presentation at the '09 Gulf-South Summit

This afternoon, I gave a short presentation at the 2009 Gulf-South Summit, a conference on Service-Learning and Civic Engagement through Higher Education, in Baton Rouge. The title of my presentation was: "Service-Learning as a Vehicle for Transforming Academic Cultures and Course Instruction: Bringing Politics Back In"

I think the presentation was well-received on the whole, but it did generate some critical commentary. The basic thesis of my talk was that the mission of higher education has evolved away from creating engaged citizens concerned about placing knowledge in the service of the public good in favor of training civically-disengaged, though highly-skilled, private professionals. I lament this de-politicization of the academy and suggest that administrators, faculty, and students work together to recapture and revive that mission -- and that the growing importance of service-learning in the academy represents an opportunity to do just that. My presentation simply articulates some percolating thoughts and is not researched in any "scientific" way, so take it more as an anecdotal reflection coming out of my experience as a committed service-learning instructor who not only tries to teach students about civic engagement, but who has also tried to explain to faculty colleagues the value of service-learning as pedagogy. What follows below are my presentation notes. Please feel free to comment on them and to critique them. I'd appreciate whatever input you might have.

Service-Learning as a Vehicle for Transforming Academic Cultures and Course Instruction: Bringing Politics Back In

What brought me to this topic was a growing realization during my years of involvement with service-learning in higher education of two somewhat troubling truths:

1) Students are mostly ignorant of what I called "applied civics."
2) Faculty are hesitant to see their work as part of civic education and tend to shy away from embracing as part of their jobs the role of crafting engaged citizens out of their students.

As I began to ponder these realizations, I began to wonder why this was so and I started to think that perhaps the root of this reality was located in our current academic culture. And if this were so, then I reasoned that this was a culture that I thought needed to be transformed. Hence the title of my presentation. But this title begs the question: What is the academic culture that needs transformation? For me, the answer is manifold, but I settled on five of what I thought were the most salient characteristics of our current academic culture that seemed to stand out to me. They are the following:

1) Our current academic culture is one that divorces knowledge from public life.
2) As a corollary to this point, our current academic culture is a culture that privileges knowledge as serving the professional and private life.
3) Our current academic culture is also one that confines knowledge within specializations and disciplinary silos; and this tends to discourage the process of making knowledge relevant, digestible, and usable to non-specialists.
4) Our current acacemic culture is one that conflates and confuses politics with ideology/partisanship, and demands that educators sacrifice the former so as not to be tarred and feathered with seeming to promote the latter.
5) Our current academic culture is one that sees students first and foremost as consumers and education first and foremost as a consumption commodity.

What is lamentable about this is that what I see as our current academic culture is a relatively recent creation. Education in the United States wasn't always this way. In fact, up until the late 1960s and early 1970s, education and curricula – and particularly higher education and university/college curricula – were designed intentionally and specifically to craft and mold engaged citizens through the acquisition of knowledge AND its direct application to public life. This is not to say that the kind of citizen that was valued in the halls of the academy prior to this moment in history is one that reflects an "ideal" citizen, but simply that administrators, teachers, and students were more conscious of and attentive to the civic dimensions of education.

Let me provide a brief example of what I mean here. The most frequent question I get from undergraduate and graduate students today about their college education is not: “How will I be better able to serve my community and be a more informed and active citizen?” but rather “What kind of job can I get with my education once I finish with college?” And I hear equally as much from faculty that their purpose is not simply to impart knowledge and encourage critical thinking, but how can I or my department improve our job placement statistics for our graduates. I hardly ever hear my faculty colleagues say (except occasionally in some kind of abstract and detached way) that their purpose as educators is to create engaged citizens who will apply the knowledge they gain from their academic experiences to public life.

How did we get to this point? Well, at least in the United States, I think in many ways it came out of a unique confluence of environmental factors during the specific historical period of the late 1960s and early 1970s that included:

1) A weariness with the socio-cultural conflicts of the 1960s between a civically-minded (and perhaps radicalized) academy and the entrenched forces of a recalcitrant state and a somewhat scornful private sector;
2) General disillusionment with public life and the seeming futility of civic engagement that came with the collapse of public trust in, and respect for, political life and public institutions in the wake of the Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal; and
3) An ascendent technocratic revolution of social, political, and economic life that promoted the professionalization and depoliticization of public sector and private sector work.

In essence, we in the world of higher education (faculty, students, and administrators alike) retreated into the safety and comfort of either the cold, hard rationalism of "scientific" inquiry across the disciplinary spectrum or the disconnectedness and, in my view at least, surrealism of post-modernism –- in either case, an escape from the public realm and the means of distancing the academy from its mission to cultivate in its students the idea that their education should be directed towards public life and civic engagement, or simply that public life and civic engagement even mattered (in a word: apathy). We went from the conception of higher education as a means to serve the public good by creating social capital in a knowledgable and engaged citizenry to a place where the civic and community purposes of education took a back seat to the creation of competent, specialized, and apolitical individuals.

In practical terms, what became the standard operating procedure in classrooms was to assiduously avoid the tensions of politics (and I don't mean here partisanship or ideology) as part of the academic experience in the classroom. Engagement with and debate over hot topic issues was tolerated so long as it was “sanitized” and cleansed of even the hint of discussions of “right” or “wrong.” Given that my own academic training is shaped by this environment, even I, who have come to think of applied civics as an essential part of any course goal, still find myself continuing to tip-toe around the tension and messiness of the conflicts that come with awakening a sense of civic purpose to academic work among my students. I always feel the need to temper what some might refer to as intellectual conflict over polemical issues of everyday life by trying to tamp down passions, even well-informed and adequately-contained passions, in the search for “neutrality” and “balance” in debate and discussion. That's not to say that political and civic life don't come up in classrooms; but I find that when they do come up, the tendency is to tackle them in terms of process and theory. In other words, "how" political life and civic engagement work (process) and some suggestions as to "why" they work the way they do (theory); but usually not whether they work well (because that gets into the realm of "subjective" judgment), and certainly not what our individual roles might be in making them work well according to what we value and hold dear (because that makes it personal).

This is where we are now. But it is not where we have to stay. We can, and should, without compromising the “science” of knowledge creation and dissemination, try to reclaim for the academy as its primary purpose and mission, the training of students, and even the production of knowledge through our own research, with a much clearer eye towards advancing the public good and towards cultivating engaged citizens.

Service-learning as part of an academic curriculum, if done properly, represents an opportunity to achieve this transformation of the academic culture. Service-learning can be the perfect vehicle for this process. It is certainly a natural bridge that can connect the specialization of knowledge and the depoliticized and professionalized curriculum that guides our current academic environment to public life and civic engagement.

How can service-learning transform our academic culture and course instruction and bring politics, in the best sense of that term, back into the classrooms of the academy, without falling into the trap of advancing partisanship or ideology?

1. Many scholars have argued persuasively that service-learning can and should demand that faculty and administrators learn about and teach about applied civics as an integral part of the overall university or college curriculum and as an integral part of any course content. I agree with this argument. The simple effort of designing a service-learning course provides a golden opportunity for faculty not only to learn about and teach "applied civics" directly, but also to reconsider and reconfigure the content of their courses as it relates to applied civics.
2. I would also take a page from Harry Boyte's conceptualization of "everyday politics" to augment the applied civics foundations of an effective curriculum and argue that service learning courses should require that students and faculty think of their roles and lives as students and faculty as connected to this notion of “everyday politics” -- in other words, that the academy (and what goes on in the academy) is part and parcel of civic engagement and public life. It’s what we do every day, so why shouldn’t that experience factor into our approach towards public life. In other words, we don’t need to abandon our identities and roles as students and educators when we engage in community service and public life, nor do we leave the tension and messiness of civic engagement behind us when we enter the campus; but rather we make each relevant to the other. Civic engagement shapes learning and teaching, and learning and teaching shape civic engagement.
3. Service-learning courses, especially, should be spaces where cognitive dissonance and conflict regarding public life and community service can have the opportunity to find expression without being overly or unduly constrained or subverted by the apoliticization of knowledge creation, dissemination, and application. Service-learning courses are an opportunity for teachers and students alike to question the course content critically and politically (i.e. as it relates to the public good and civic life) in a way that reflects everyday life.

So there you have it. My presentation notes. Of course, I went off script a good bit during my presentation, but I stuck pretty much to this outline. Anyway ... just thought I'd share. If you feel so inclined to leave a comment or share your own toughts/reactions, I'd be grateful and appreciative.

Family Values

Have you ever noticed how rightwing conservatives tout the notion of "family values" as if only conservatives could ever hold them and abide by them? As if conservatism = family values and liberalism = anti-family values? It's all part and parcel of a pattern of conservative self-righteousness that seeks to take basic human decency, not to mention concepts of love, charity, honor, commitment, loyalty, dignity, hard-work, compassion, etc., and to claim some kind of proprietary ownership over these kinds of values.

Well, I have this to say: family values are not ideological.

I refuse to let self-righteous conservatives claim ownership of the basic human values that many, many, many liberals quietly and happily live by. Good, decent human beings can live by these values of decency, compassion, tolerance, understanding, charity, love, etc., regardless of their political ideology.

And to those special, outspoken, and judgmental "family-values" conservatives who have defiled their own marriage vows by cheating on their spouses, who have sought the comforts of sexual intimacy in brothels, who have themselves defended the institution of marriage by getting divorced, who have spent long hours at the office making tons of money all the while missing out on the family dinner together, who have never been to their kids' parent-teacher conferences, and who are generally just too busy to do anything with their kids, etc., I say:

Kiss my happily-married, never-divorced, completely-faithful, parent-teacher-conference-attending, elementary-school-volunteering, weekend-birthday-party-chauffeuring, regular-family-dinner-time-attending, family-values-living, LIBERAL arse!

Random NOLA

Here is my next addition to Random NOLA, which is a blog posting category that features a photo that I've taken from places around the city of New Orleans that make up a part of my day. They won't be pre-arranged. And I'm going to try to make them pictures of inconspicious scenes, but potentially identifiable to the attentive native. In other words, don't expect to find pictures of the Superdome or the St. Louis Cathedral or other such easily identifiable places. Where possible, I'll also try to keep street signs out of the picture, too. The goal is not only just to share a brief, random part of the path of my day, but also to see if true NOLA-philes can figure out exactly where in the city this scene is located. So, without further ado, here's the next "Random NOLA" Photo. Click on the picture to enlarge it. Give it your best shot and put your guess in the comments section:

March Madness

And, no, I don't mean the College Basketball kind of "March Madness."

No, what I mean is that thing I usually experience at work during the month of March. March is perhaps my busiest time of the year. In addition to my regular courses, I have lots and lots of very important administrative tasks that I must tend to. There's the whole graduate admissions process, where I coordinate all of the applications to our graduate program, coordinate our admissions committee meeting, and then parcel out the admissions decisions to our applicants. There are our summer grant programs, whose deadlines all arrive in March. There are three such programs and I coordinate the applications for all of them, arrange the committee meetings for all of them, and inform applicants of our decisions for all of them. And March (also leading into April) are the months of Conference Attendance and paper presentations. I have one paper to present at a National Conference at the end of March, and another one in April. The April Conference is one that my office is actually hosting and for which I am serving as the Local Arrangements Chair, since it is taking place in New Orleans. And we're talking about a Conference that attracts 150 or so attendees from all across the Southeastern United States. And then there are the undergraduate and graduate thesis defenses. On top of it all, I have committed to a pretty major role in the Spring production of my daughter's ballet dance company. (Yes, yes, I do a little bit of dancing myself, but mostly stage acting, so don't get too worked up about it.) And this means that my Saturday afternoons are pretty much eaten up by rehearsals. So, I am a bit crazy and generally tired during this one month out of the year.

All this is to say why I haven't been so attentive to the blog lately. But I try. I do try.

Open to Competition?

Ever notice how some pro-market conservatives aren't really all that open to competition when such competition threatens entrenched business interests? I've noticed. For example, take an article written by AP correspondent Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar which discusses the impact of Obama's idea for giving consumers another choice in the health care market -- this time a choice of government run health care like the kind that our elected federal representatives get at taxpayer expense.

It seems that Obama's plan would not only give consumers more health care choice, but would actually reduce the costs of health care premiums to consumers by 20% -- all simply by giving the consumer MORE CHOICE. Isn't that what conservatives always tell us? Here's Alonso-Zaldivar:

The proposal, which Obama advocated in his presidential campaign, would for the first time offer government-sponsored coverage to middle class families, as an alternative to private health plans. By some estimates, it could reduce premiums by 20 percent or more — making it much more affordable to cover the estimated 48 million people who don't have health coverage.

But insurers fear competition from a government plan could drive them out of business, and Republicans worry it would lead to a government takeover of health care. Liberals, meanwhile, are equally adamant that Americans deserve the choice of government-sponsored health care.

Such a plan could be similar to what seniors have in Medicare, which is government run. Or it might be designed like the federal employee health plan, available to members of Congress, and delivered through private insurers.

How is it, if the government is so inefficient, that a government-run plan could drive insurers out of business? Especially if consumers will always have choice between the public versus the private plans. Let me put it like this: if I don't like the restrictions or limitations that come with the government plan, then I can always choose the private plan, even if it costs a little bit more. Just like I can always send a package through UPS if I am dissatisfied with the US Postal Service.

When it comes to Social Security, I often hear conservatives advocate for allowing individuals the right to choose to invest in a private retirement account, arguing that citizens should have a choice to invest their own income either in the publicly-run retirement program (Social Security) or private ones. The argument has always been that more choice is better for consumers; and, in fact, the assumption is that private retirement investment companies would be much more competitive and attractive to consumers. When private companies think they can gain market share from the government, they and their conservative advocates ALWAYS argue for more consumer choice and freedom. But when private companies think they stand to lose market share from government competition, they and their conservative advocates ALWAYS seem to moan and groan about the unfairness and injustice of the principle of more consumer choice. If consumers were to be FORCED to buy the government plan, then maybe their gripes would have some merit. But that's not what's happening, and so conservative complaints fall flat and seem ... well ... un-conservative.

So, my challenge for conservatives is this: live up to your principles. If insurers can't compete, then they SHOULD go out of business. And if they are faced with a government-run program that is cheaper and preferred by consumers, then the creative private insurers WILL find ways to compete to regain market share. And that can only be good for consumers, right?

Random NOLA

Here is my next addition to Random NOLA, which is a blog posting category that features a photo that I've taken from places around the city of New Orleans that make up a part of my day. They won't be pre-arranged. And I'm going to try to make them pictures of inconspicious scenes, but potentially identifiable to the attentive native. In other words, don't expect to find pictures of the Superdome or the St. Louis Cathedral or other such easily identifiable places. Where possible, I'll also try to keep street signs out of the picture, too. The goal is not only just to share a brief, random part of the path of my day, but also to see if true NOLA-philes can figure out exactly where in the city this scene is located. So, without further ado, here's the next "Random NOLA" Photo. Click on the picture to enlarge it. Give it your best shot and put your guess in the comments section:

James Perry, Alcalde de Nueva Orleans

Este chavo es justo. Translation: This dude is righteous! I'm liking Perry more and more every day. You should be, too.

Anh "Joseph" Cao: Resume of a Democrat, Part IV

Ahem.

Dunceball: Obama vs. Limbaugh

The more I think about the whole situation involving Barack Obama's criticizing Rush Limbaugh publicly and then Rush Limbaugh's bombastic and long-winded speech to the fawning militants at CPAC, all followed by RNC leader Michael Steele's having to recant his criticism of Limbaugh and grovel for forgiveness at the feet of the Great Leader, the more I realize how utterly shrewd a politician Barack Obama really is.

Here we have Barack Obama, who is proposing a budget that is so bold and costly that it gives even me the jitters, utterly decimating whatever conservative opposition to his agenda might be mustered by throwing into complete disarray the conservative establishment and making it all look like it's the conservatives themselves imploding. And how does Obama do this? All he did was plant the seed that Rush Limbaugh is the de facto leader of the conservative movement in opposition to the GOP's nominal leadership. Then he simply backed up and watched Limbaugh take the bait, rise to the occasion at CPAC, while the GOP leadership cowered and wilted.

The GOP comes across as completely emasculated and the only thing left on the pile of rubble is a bombastic entertainer whose self-indulgent and arrogant nature is basically a turn-off to anyone except rabid, bully-ish, and fight-picking rightwingers. I, myself, wasn't clued into the genius of Obama's move until I started reading what conservatives are saying to and about each other in this whole scenario.

Andrew Sullivan has a great rundown of what he calls the "Rush War." Andrew Sullivan's conservative colleague at The Atlantic, Ross Douthat, had this to say:

But if you accept the parallel [of Limbaugh] with Oprah, then you also need to recognize that if American liberals treated someone like Ms. Winfrey the way the adoring CPAC-goers treated Rush - not just as a great communicator and entertainer, but as an arbiter of what their movement is and ought to be, and what their party should be standing for - they'd look like starstruck fools. And rightly so.

My favorite, though, is conservative pundit David Frum who wrote this scathing assessment of Rush-mania:

And for the leader of the Republicans? A man [Rush Limbaugh] who is aggressive and bombastic, cutting and sarcastic, who dismisses the concerned citizens in network news focus groups as “losers.” With his private plane and his cigars, his history of drug dependency and his personal bulk, not to mention his tangled marital history, Rush is a walking stereotype of self-indulgence – exactly the image that Barack Obama most wants to affix to our philosophy and our party. And we’re cooperating! Those images of crowds of CPACers cheering Rush’s every rancorous word – we’ll be seeing them rebroadcast for a long time.

Rush knows what he is doing. The worse conservatives do, the more important Rush becomes as leader of the ardent remnant. The better conservatives succeed, the more we become a broad national governing coalition, the more Rush will be sidelined.

But do the rest of us understand what we are doing to ourselves by accepting this leadership? Rush is to the Republicanism of the 2000s what Jesse Jackson was to the Democratic party in the 1980s. He plays an important role in our coalition, and of course he and his supporters have to be treated with respect. But he cannot be allowed to be the public face of the enterprise – and we have to find ways of assuring the public that he is just one Republican voice among many, and very far from the most important.

It is a thing of beauty to see conservatives implode and to see Rush be the catalyst for this implosion.

Worse for conservatives and for the GOP is the fact that they finally did something smart by selecting Michael Steele to be head of the RNC, but that this whole Rush thing has made Steele not only look incompetent and servile to El Rushbo, but it has completely undermined the meaning of Steele as the first black Chairman of the RNC. Now, Steele seems like nothing more than a token figurehead of the GOP who has to bow down to Rush as if Rush were the white master and Steele the black servant. That's a shame, because Steele was such an inspired choice for the GOP. And now Rush has gone and ruined it. And when you think of how Limbaugh reacted to criticism of another Republican-of-color, Bobby Jindal, in the face of Jindal's atrocious speech responding to Obama's address to Congress, you realize how patronizing Rush is towards both Jindal and those conservatives who would criticize Jindal's speech. Rush's condescending and patronizing attitude towards the GOP's shining leaders of color just reinforces the worst of racial stereotyping that is often associated with conservatives and the Republican party.

And it is pure genius for Obama to know that he could count on Rush's massive ego to play his part in this whole affair and, as Frum said, "cooperate" in such an endeavor thought up by Obama and the Democrats -- an endeavor that would only help to dig the grave deeper and push the GOP even farther towards irrelevance, all at the moment when the GOP is the only thing standing in the way of Obama's bold initiative to reshape government and politics along liberal lines in a way not seen since the days of FDR and the New Deal.

One ends up thinking that Obama and the Democratic Party he leads are playing conservatives and the GOP for fools, and that all of them, El Rushbo included, are happy to play the part, albeit unwittingly. One can't help but think the following about Rush and the GOP: "What dunces!"

As a liberal, I find it quite enjoyable to observe this whole thing. But I can only imagine what sensible conservatives must be thinking. They've got to be pulling out their hair. Though that, too, is an image that I have to admit amuses me just as much.

Random NOLA

Here is my next addition to Random NOLA, which is a blog posting category that features a photo that I've taken from places around the city of New Orleans that make up a part of my day. They won't be pre-arranged. And I'm going to try to make them pictures of inconspicious scenes, but potentially identifiable to the attentive native. In other words, don't expect to find pictures of the Superdome or the St. Louis Cathedral or other such easily identifiable places. Where possible, I'll also try to keep street signs out of the picture, too. The goal is not only just to share a brief, random part of the path of my day, but also to see if true NOLA-philes can figure out exactly where in the city this scene is located. So, without further ado, here's the next "Random NOLA" Photo. Click on the picture to enlarge it. Give it your best shot and put your guess in the comments section:

Post Mardi Gras Roundup

Well, the Mardi Gras week has ended and the hectic pace of partying followed by reintegration into the more mundane realities of work and life has slowed. A few thoughts and comments:

(1) I witnessed on Mardi Gras day a bunch of young punks jump up and grab some throws off of a Truck Float following the Rex Parade. I, probably foolishly, ran up to these kids as soon as I saw what they did and grabbed what they had stolen from their hands and gave it back to the Truck float riders. It ticked me off for a variety of reasons. First, the parade had come to a complete stop and had been stationary for a while, so it only made sense that the Truck float riders would refrain from throwing stuff (this was the complaint of the punks when I confronted them -- that the float riders weren't throwing anything, as if that gave them the right to "take" something from the riders.) Second, we were at the very beginning of the route on Napoleon and Danneel, and so the truck riders were facing a long, long ride and probably needed to husband their limited store of throws. All these things I can relate to as someone who himself rides on a float in a parade. Third, it's just bad Mardi Gras form to behave that way and ruins the spirit of the whole Mardi Gras parade experience. Fourth, and this is the most troublesome aspect of it to me, was that the young punks were white kids and the float riders were black, and the punks clearly seemed to be rationalizing their gross behavior as a reaction to their perception that they were being ignored by the float riders because of their race. It was an ugly moment. But the punks didn't threaten me because I got the feeling that they knew they were being cads. Furthermore, I probably startled them because I was wearing my Thoth headgear and mask when I first confronted them after their despicable act. I just hope that my little intervention made some impact for the good and in defense of the Mardi Gras spirit. Anyway ...

(2) Barack Obama's address to the joint session of Congress was simply superb. And Jindal's response was painfully and embarrassingly bad. I actually felt really bad and sorry for Jindal. And, frankly, if I'm honest, I actually wanted Jindal to do well. After all, he does represent Louisiana and it was a chance for Louisiana to make a positive impression. But Jindal blew it. I know he can perform much better, and perhaps the moment was simply too much for him at this time, but his horrible performance reaffirmed some of the worst stereotypes of bumbling and inept Louisiana politicians. Too bad. But, dang, that Barack Obama is smooth, smart, and charming. It's so refreshing to see that in our President after 8 years of less-than-bright, if somewhat folksy, George W. Bush-cum-Alfred E. Neuman speeches.

(3) I was somewhat astonished at the brazenness and ambitiousness of Obama's budget plan. I have to say that I give the man kudos for boldness, and I can even support what this means for the truly massive, profound, and long-term liberal shift in public policy that his plan represents. But my enthusiasm for this transformative liberal agenda is somewhat tempered by the price tag. I would like to see much, much more by way of fiscal discipline and an approach to balanced budget making and a reduction of federal deficits. But I still have confidence that Obama knows he's got to take this on if he wants to be retain his hold over the imaginations of the American public. We can't keep borrowing against our children's futures. So, we'll see.

Those are just some off-the-cuff thoughts for the moment. I'll have more to say later on, I'm sure. But let me end with this:

My B-2/3 is once again showing and selling her exquisite hand-made functional pottery tomorrow at the Arts Market of New Orleans in Palmer Park. The hours have been pushed back because of weather concerns to 12pm-6pm. But we'll be there. Please brave the weather and do stop by to say hello and watch my B-2/3 throw at the wheel.

Thoth Pics

OK. So I finally managed to download some of my Thoth pictures. Here are a few of them ... The first two are pre-parade in the staging and costuming area. The first of these is yours truly, fully-costumed, and the second is just a random shot of Thoth crew members getting ready. The second two are shots of me with my squirrely girlies and my B-2/3 right at the float staging area on Tchoupitoulas Street before boarding the float. The last two are pictures of the crowds from my vantage point on the float. Finally, as ever, the last is a YouTube video of some of my graduate students bead-bombing and book-bombing me.

Hail Thoth!

Had a great ride today. I am, as usual following this parade, completely and utterly exhausted. It was a lot of fun. My grad students are the best! I have never, ever, in my entire life as a Mardi Gras participant -- and I'm a native New Orleanean who has participated in Mardi Gras for most of my entire life of 40+ years -- witnessed what my grad students did. They are so creative! Along with their own beads, they also threw Latin American Studies textbooks up to me on the float! Not only reverse throwing protocol, but very cool specialty throws, to boot. Who would ever even think of college textbooks as Mardi Gras throws? I thought it was awesome. I kept the books and will mark in them that they were part of Mardi Gras 2009.

I saw so many people on the route that I know, including blogger Schroeder from People Get Ready, who snapped some pictures of me. I'd love to see them, Schroeder! I also saw blogger Leigh C. of Liprap's Lament - The Line, who passed along to me the best drink I had on the ride -- brandy milk punch. Thanks for that yummy deliciousness, Leigh C., and let me know how I can get your cup back to you, as it was a very nice cup, and in my mindlessness I just held on to it. Outside of blogger friends, I have a range of groups and networks: there are my children's classmates and their families, there is my own family, there are my undergraduate students, there are my graduate students, there are my faculty and office colleagues and their families, there is my JHS Blue Jay network, there are my LatiNola friends, and finally my neighborhood peeps. My brother-in-law, who rode next to me this year, told me that I should run for Mayor as it seemed like every five minutes people were calling out for me along the route. It's a lot of fun having so many folks come out to see you, but it's hard to keep up with them all and I know that I miss some of them. So, if I missed you, I apologize. It wasn't intentional. What you always need to remember is that for us up on the floats, it is never-ending cacophany. Unless the parade actually stops for an extended period of time, we never get any down time from the noise. It's a kind of aural and visual overstimulation of the kind I've never experiended in any other situation. Not even Saints games come close to what I'm talking about. So we miss some folks in the blur. Heck, today I almost missed my own wife and kids; so please don't hold it against me if I missed you.

Again, all in all, an awesome ride. Pictures to follow. In the meantime, enjoy the rest of Mardi Gras. I know the Hucks will!

From the "You Can't Make This Stuff Up" Department

My B-2/3 (better two-thirds) pointed out to me this little wire service story that appeared in this morning's Times-Picayune. Notice anything particularly hilarious about it? Hint: look at the print highlighted in RED:

With hundreds of thousands of Americans out of work and the economy in a nosedive, the U.S. peanut industry expected sales to soar this year.

Americans tend to turn to peanut products to stretch their food dollars in tough times, avoiding more expensive protein sources such as steak and ground beef.

Enter an ongoing salmonella outbreak that has sickened some 600 people in 43 states and been linked to nine deaths, and those rosy predictions after a record growing season have been dashed.

"They've tainted our entire industry," said Shelly Nutt, executive director of the peanut producers board in Texas, the nation's second largest growing state behind Georgia. "Public perception is killing us."

We both got some good belly laughs out of that one. My B-2/3 and I got the "Nutt" part, but it was my 10-year-old who added to our mirth by pointing out that the "Shelly" part worked nicely into the joke as well. After all, what is a peanut if not a "Shelly Nutt"!

Come, Now, Friend Cao ...

I'm disappointed. Not by Anh "Joseph" Cao's vote against the stimulus package, per se. I can abide that vote as I think that there are principled reasons for not voting for the measure. Rather, I am disappointed in the explanation Cao gave in his letter to the Editor in today's Times-Picayune (can't find it online yet) regarding his vote. In short, even though I think Cao's letter was earnest and sincere, it didn't really make a case for his "no" vote on the basis of those principled reasons. I am afraid to say that his letter was not convincing at all, and, in fact, underscored his inexperience and his impotence as a legislator.

I'll get more into this when I can actually reference his letter directly. (I don't have the print copy of the TP in front of me, and I can't find the letter online). But suffice it for now to say that Cao's principle argument for not supporting the legislation was that it didn't serve his district in terms of wealth and job creation. The implication is that had it done so, his vote would have been different. But this argument reveals a couple of things to us about Cao, none of which reflects positively on him.

First, it simply drives the point home that, if there was nothing in the bill to benefit Cao's district, then it is also true that Cao either did nothing or could do nothing to change this. It points to Cao as a passive "taker" of the stimulus as opposed to an active "shaper" of the stimulus. And it defies logic that Cao, had he really wanted to, could have used his potential role as the lone GOP Congressperson to support the measure, to extract something for his district that he would have been proud of. In short, it points to Cao's political impotence and to his political naivete. Not good. We in Louisiana's 2nd Congressional District should expect more from Cao. And Cao, himself, should actually be presenting himself as more proactive on behalf of his district instead of coming across as a rather helpless and ineffective bystander in looking out for his district.

Second, Cao's argument underscores a real lack of vision about what is good for his district. In fact, Cao's argument that there weren't specific goodies in the bill that targeted his district directly seems to indicate that Cao, himself, would consider supporting a stimulus only to the extent that it serves the narrow interest of his district without reference to what a stimulus might do for the overall national economy that is also critical for the wealth and job creation of his district. Cao apparently fails to see how a responsible stimulus that really puts the US on a much more solid economic footing overall is actually good for Louisiana's 2nd Congressional District, even if that stimulus doesn't have specific earmarks or pork projects for his district. To put it another way, if Cao had considered how the stimulus might benefit state budgets or regional development efforts, he might have come to a different conclusion about the benefits of such a stimulus on the economic health and welfare of his own district.

UPDATE: Tuesday, February 17, 2009: 9:00PM - Here's Cao's letter. Read it for yourself.

UPDATE THE SECOND - Cao's letter, as is typical for most GOP stimulus package opponents, laments the apparent lack of fairness and transparency in what is supposedly a back-room deal that is foisted upon Congress without adequate time to study and debate the measure. Cao writes:

The passage of the stimulus bill was neither fair nor transparent. The entire process was characterized by traditional Washington back-room dealing and was intended to ram through a trillion-dollar spending frenzy with as little debate and scrutiny as possible.

To read this, one would get the impression that Cao and others simply had no time to read and ponder the stimulus plan's fine print. But what rankles any honest observer is that this complaint is also accompanied by the charge that the stimulus is "loaded with big government spending and dubious initiatives that will do little to help the average American. The costs of the stimulus bill far outweigh the benefits." How, if this stimulus was rammed down Cao's throat with little to no debate and scrutiny, is Cao so certain that the bill is loaded with big government spending and dubious initiatives? It seems to me that Cao would have had to study the bill fairly thoroughly in order to know this. If it is true that Cao didn't have time to study the bill's fine print, then his claim to know what the bill is "loaded" with is really disingenuous. If it is true that Cao didn't have time to scrutinize the bill, how would he really be able to know that the benefits aren't worth the costs? It seems to me that Cao is simply parroting standard GOP talking points. Disappointing. Again, I'm very willing to entertain a rationale for opposing the stimulus on the basis of specific reference to fiscally irresponsible elements of the bill; but Cao doesn't give any specific references that he himself discovered, all the while claiming that they exist and that he is aware enough of them to find fault with the bill and to vote against it.

Random NOLA

Here is my next addition to Random NOLA, which is a blog posting category that features a photo that I've taken from places around the city of New Orleans that make up a part of my day. They won't be pre-arranged. And I'm going to try to make them pictures of inconspicious scenes, but potentially identifiable to the attentive native. In other words, don't expect to find pictures of the Superdome or the St. Louis Cathedral or other such easily identifiable places. Where possible, I'll also try to keep street signs out of the picture, too. The goal is not only just to share a brief, random part of the path of my day, but also to see if true NOLA-philes can figure out exactly where in the city this scene is located. So, without further ado, here's the next "Random NOLA" Photo. Give it your best shot and put your guess in the comments section:

Shotgun Wedding Announcement of the Year

From the Wedding Announcements section of the Sunday, February 15, Times-Picayune, in the "Living" section, page D-2, we are informed of the marriage of Miss Erin Ashley Malone and Mr. Michael Frank Rourke. In this announcement, in the penultimate paragraph, we get a new twist on the whole "shotgun wedding" theme. Check this out:

The couple met while attending LSU Engineering College. Erin and Michael were engaged in December 2007, in a duck blind in Lafitte, while the bride's father shot their limits.

Gulp! I can only imagine what it must be like for the groom, on the verge of declaring his eternal love to his fiancee and issuing a marriage proposal, to be doing so with the ringing sound of his future father-in-law's shotgun lingering in the air, in the midst of that acrid smell and billowy smoke of spent gunpowder, as hapless and helpless ducks are falling dead from the sky in droves. No room for getting cold feet and having second thoughts in that scenario!

Anh "Joseph" Cao and the GOP War on Obama

It seems more and more clear to me that the GOP has declared partisan war on Obama and has never, ever planned to deal with the President on good faith, in spite of Obama's efforts to reach out to them and include them in working on this country's dire problems when he basically has enough votes in the House and Senate to ignore them completely.

Little tidbits keep trickling out from the mouths of some GOP politicians like Judd Gregg and Arlen Specter and Louisiana's own David Vitter that all point to this fact.

Let's just forget the stimulus legislation and any other policy initiatives for the moment and focus simply on the strategy, I wonder what Anh "Joseph" Cao thinks of this kind of politics? A politics which shows deceptive, bad faith contempt for a President who wants to do the right thing by trying to include the GOP. A politics which places party over country. If Cao is the kind of person I think and believe he is, I would imagine that it's getting harder and harder for him to face himself honestly in the mirror before he goes to bed at night and feel good about his party's strategy and his small part in this game.

Anh "Joseph" Cao, don't give in to this cynical, small, and puny politics. Don't sell out your soul and your country in this way. Either stand up to it as a member of the GOP, or abandon it by joining the Democrats.

Calling Anh "Joseph" Cao: Switch Parties and Join the Democrats

Since I'm pretty sure that Anh "Joseph" Cao's office apparently checks out The Huck Upchuck, I would like to use this blog to exhort Cao to take a long hard look at his partisan affiliation with the GOP and to consider switching parties and joining with the Democrats. There are plenty of good, pragmatic reasons for his doing so. For one, if he hopes to have any chance at re-election in two years, he'll have to compete as a Democrat. He and everyone else, including the GOP, know this. It is also true that his social justice views align much more closely with progressive Christian liberalism than they do with reactionary Christian conservatism. But I would like to emphasize another point to Cao: the Republican base loathes him. If he thinks that he can be Louisiana's 2nd Congressional District representative and win the favor of the Louisiana state GOP over some more reliably partisan Christian conservative, he's got a rude awakening coming to him. Sure, he just voted to oppose the stimulus package and to snub President Obama in a very Obama-friendly district, after giving very strong assurances of his likelihood to support the stimulus package. That's not very wise politics, even if one gives Cao the benefit of the doubt that this decision was more the result of hewing to conscience rather than to partisanship. And Jeffrey over at the Yellow Blog does have an excellent point that Cao could have actually done something by way of inserting measures into the stimulus legislation to ensure that the stimulus legislation actually did serve his district in ways that would have elicited his support. But here's the thing ...

I like Cao. I think he is, at core, an honorable politician and, more importantly, an honorable, empathetic person. He is someone who I believe really does have the best interests of his district at heart. I think he finds himself attracted to the GOP because of a few other issues, some of which he says shaped the basis for his opposition to the stimulus measure. I also think he feels some loyalty to the GOP for sticking with him and helping to get him elected in the first place in a very Democratic district. I can understand that. I want to remind Cao, though, that, whatever the GOP might have done for him, it was Democratic voters like me that made the difference. He should consider some loyalty to that as well. So, if Cao does read my blog, I want to appeal to his sense of intellectual honesty and decency to realize that the Democratic Party is also filled with people who are progressive pro-lifers, who are concerned about "family values" of all kinds, including fiscal responsibility, and who welcome diversity of opinion and even ideological disagreement within the party enough to have helped put him in office. We Democrats scrap amongst ourselves and might disagree mightily over policy issues, but we tend not to vilify any kind of pragmatic politics within our ranks. His election is a testament to that.

On the flip side, though, I wonder if Cao, when he really looks at the current GOP, can find the same kind of welcome? In today's GOP, crossing party lines for reasons of conscience is anathema to acceptance. Which is odd, because the GOP fashions itself as a party that respects the calls of conscience. In fact, I think it's pretty clear that not buying into right-wing party orthodoxy is actually cause for vilification and outright hostility. Just look at what happens to intellectually honest conservatives like David Frum, or Andrew Sullivan, or Charles Buckley, or Douglas Kmiec. I find it hard to believe that the GOP didn't twist Cao's arm in some way regarding his vote on the stimulus package. Now, Cao may feel some loyalty to the GOP and may be drawn to the GOP on certain issues, but I can assure him that the GOP's base despise folks like him. I regularly look at some of the more popular conservative blogs and I can assure Cao that he is considered at best a RINO and at worst a stealth Democrat. Here I am, a liberal Democrat who voted for Obama and who is also a cheerleader for Cao. And yet I challenge Cao to visit conservative blogs and find out what the GOP base thinks of him. The fact is that, all the hoopla about Cao being the future of the party, the conservative base does't like Cao and doesn't trust him. Example 1: That "Resume of a Democrat" meme I have been associating with Cao? That's not mine. That's what a FREEPER said about Cao. Example 2: A conservative reader of my blog wrote in a recent comment to one of my previous posts about Cao, and the prospect of Cao's switching party affiliation:

"I agree he should switch parties. He fits in with the looters and exploiters -he's absolutely perfect for your state!"

Cao should take a long, hard look at where he stands on issues, especially when those issues challenge GOP party orthodoxy and really consider where he would find a more welcoming reception. Immigration. Cultural and Linguistic Diversity. Public Education. Poverty eradication. Foreign aid. The reality of structural inequality. Environment. I have a pretty solid idea where Cao, the empathetic person and compassionate Christian, if not the cynical politician, falls out on all of these issues; and I can guarantee Cao that his allies on these issues, issues that resonate with the core of his human character, are to be found within the Democratic Party. It is crystal clear to me that Cao's conscience as well as his social justice inclinations really do align him more with progressive liberal values; and it is also equally crystal clear to me that the pressures he faces as a member of the GOP to compromise his core values as a human being will chip away at his soul, as much as they will chip away at his electability.

Cao can be a pro-life Democrat in the FULL meaning of being pro-life and find more of a welcome in the Democratic party than he can if he were to be a FULL pro-life advocate (i.e. oppose war, capital punishment, etc.) in the GOP. Cao can promote fiscal responsibility and lower taxes as a Democrat and find that his positions on such issues are not deal-breakers within the Democratic Party as much as voting FOR a fiscally responsible tax increase would be a deal-breaker within the GOP.

I consider myself to be a progressive liberal Democrat, and I don't fault Cao for voting against the stimulus package. I myself worry about the long-term fiscal impacts that this package will have on the country. But I certainly don't feel unwelcome in the Democratic Party for having this view. Furthermore, on questions that are really infinitely much more important to me as a person and human being, questions such as eliminating structural violence and endemic poverty, the integrity of the family in the face of assaults on it from globalization and neoliberal economic policies, solidarity with the poor, giving equal voice to the dispossessed and marginalized in shaping our social contract, treating all people with respect and dignifying their beings regardless of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, national origin, etc., the Democratic party and its social policy positions are infinitely much more aligned with my core values than the GOP is. If Cao is the kind of person, as I believe him to be, who shares these core values with me, he should join with me as a Democrat.

In fact, I am part of a Maryknoll Affiliates group in New Orleans. We meet monthly to discuss these issues and our roles in society as those committed to being in solidarity with the poor. And we plan actions on behalf of justice based on our values. I invite Cao to come to our meeting to see how his values align with ours and with progressive Christian liberalism.

I am part of a local non-profit called LatiNola, which seeks to empower and serve the local Latino Community and which is rooted in a commitment to justice, freedom, and equality. We meet monthly to plan events that seek to serve this community, regardless of the immigration status of the members of this community. I encourage Cao to join us and to see how his values align with ours and with progressive social liberalism for immigrant communities.

Rep. Anh "Joseph" Cao, with the same intensity and earnestness that Monsignor Archbishop Oscar Romero implored those in his country who would scoff at the principles of justice, equality, and human solidarity, I implore you: If you are really committed to serving your district, don't condemn yourself to being a one-term Representative by sticking with a Republican party whose fundamental positions on the critical, human issues of our day are much more at odds with what I believe, at the gut level, to be your positions on these issues.

Care about us enough to give yourself a chance to serve the 2nd Congressional District for more than two years. Join us.

Random NOLA

Here is my next addition to Random NOLA, which is a blog posting category that features a photo that I've taken from places around the city of New Orleans that make up a part of my day. They won't be pre-arranged. And I'm going to try to make them pictures of inconspicious scenes, but potentially identifiable to the attentive native. In other words, don't expect to find pictures of the Superdome or the St. Louis Cathedral or other such easily identifiable places. Where possible, I'll also try to keep street signs out of the picture, too. The goal is not only just to share a brief, random part of the path of my day, but also to see if true NOLA-philes can figure out exactly where in the city this scene is located. So, without further ado, here's the third "Random NOLA" Photo. I would say that this is perhaps the easiest one yet; but give it your best shot and put your guess in the comments section: