Ex Cathedra: Catholic Church Hypocrisy? - I present, you decide.

In the Catholic Blogosphere (also known sometimes as St. Blog), as well as in the Catholic media, there have been untold expressions of outrage and offense hurled forth from the lips of the Catholic faithful (not to mention the Catholic hierarchy) about the recent Subpoena issued to U.S. Archbishop William J. Levada in the sacristy just before the start of his farewell mass. Archbishop Levada is departing for a new job in the Vatican as ex-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger's (now better known as Pope Benedict XVI) replacement at the Head of the Vatican Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. For some background and the basic nuts and bolts of the incident and its aftermath, you can check out this story published by Catholic News Service. Here's the relevant bit of the story that I want to follow-up on:

Shortly before the Mass, Archbishop Levada was served with a subpoena ordering him to be deposed in relation to clergy sex abuse lawsuits filed by some 250 plaintiffs against the Archdiocese of Portland, Ore., which the archbishop headed from 1986 to 1995.

Maurice Healy, director of communications and outreach for the San Francisco Archdiocese, confirmed Aug. 8 that the subpoena had been served in the cathedral sacristy before the Mass, but he criticized the timing of the move.

He said the archbishop, who "walks to work" and is a "very public person," could have been served with the subpoena on several other, less public occasions.

Healy said remarks made by several plaintiffs' attorneys in Portland following the Vatican announcement of Archbishop Levada's new post had convinced him that the lawyers wanted to "seize the opportunity created by his appointment to embarrass the church."

The Los Angeles Times reported that Cookie Gambucci, who served the subpoena, said she told the archbishop she would serve it to him on the altar if he did not accept it before the Mass. Gambucci said Archbishop Levada accepted the subpoena but told her, "This is a disgrace to the church."

Healy said the archbishop was misquoted and had said not to Gambucci but to an aide, "This is a disgrace to the legal profession."

First, let me start by declaring that I believe presenting a subpoena in such a manner at such a time is very impolitic and inconsiderate both to Archbishop Levada and to the Catholic faith community. But when one considers how the Catholic Church and its Archbishops themselves do precisely these sorts of very crass, impolitic, and inconsiderate public publicity stunts to hurt and embarrass members of the Catholic faith community, the hysterical reaction and outrage spewing from the lips and keyboards of Catholics against the Levada subpoena seems to me a bit misplaced and possibly a tad hypocritical. Let me give you the evidence of one particular case, and then you can be the judge.

At recent Commencement Exercises at Loyola University of New Orleans, a Catholic Jesuit University, a prominent local Catholic family -- the entire family -- was honored for its distinguished record of public service. This family, the Landrieus, consists of a former New Orleans Mayor, Moon Landrieu, current U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu (Moon's daughter), and current Louisiana State Lt. Governor Mitch Landrieu (Moon's son). All are Democrats. However, this Archbishop of New Orleans, Alfred Hughes, publicly snubbed this Catholic family by refusing to accept an invitation to attend Loyola's Commencement Ceremony and issuing a public statement to that effect, simply because the Landrieus were to be honored at this ceremony and he takes issue with what he perceives are the pro-abortion stances taken by Mary and Mitch during their political careers. As the above-linked article in the Archdiocesan Newspaper, the Clarion Herald states:

Archbishop Alfred C. Hughes did not participate in commencement exercises at Loyola University New Orleans last week because the university's law school chose to grant an honorary degree to the entire family of former mayor and state appeals court judge Moon Landrieu, which includes his daughter, U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., who has voted to support abortion rights.

Archbishop Hughes announced May 5 he had decided to decline an invitation to participate in the university's graduation ceremonies because "not all members of the (Landrieu) family have been faithful to the church's teaching regarding public policy" on abortion.

The response to Archbishop Hughes's insensitive and inconsiderate public effort to denigrate and hurt the Landrieu family received mixed reaction, but the orthodox pro-life wing of the Catholic Church praised Hughes for his stand. As one letter-writer to the Clarion Herald stated:

It was disappointing to learn that Loyola will be presenting an honorary doctorate to the Landrieu family as part of the university's graduation exercises. Archbishop Hughes has decided to boycott the graduation because of Mitch and Mary Landrieu's public support of abortion rights. This decision by the archbishop is a powerful affirmation of Church teaching.

Through all this, the Landrieu family kept their dignity and kept their peace; and Loyola kept its honor and principles and went through with their ceremony which honored the Landrieus. Then, not letting the issue rest, the Clarion Herald, published a guest editorial by Susan Mire which sought once again to defend Archbishop Hughes's decision to boycott in a very public and pronounced way the Commencement ceremony which honored the Landrieus and also to issue another condemnation of Mary and Mitch Landrieu's perceived stance in support of abortion. [As if the tastelessness and insensitivity of reopening these old wounds weren't enough, the sickening condescension of Mire toward the Landrieus really made the article nothing more than a pile of spiteful, vengeful garbage.] Here's how Mire opened her piece:

The early days of summer vacation can provide a time for reflection. I have been pondering the ongoing turmoil in our public life regarding Catholic politicians and their public support of abortion.

We had our own situation regarding Archbishop Alfred Hughes' decision not to attend Loyola University's graduation last month because the university honored the entire Landrieu family for its lifetime of public service. Archbishop Hughes received both local and national press, some of it quite unfavorable. The average person might think the archbishop was intolerant.

But my work with women who have had abortions or who are involved in crisis pregnancies has taught me that most people are unaware of the true dynamics of abortion and the mind set of those who enable it to continue.

Archbishop Hughes is engaged in the care of souls. His decision to bypass the Loyola graduation showed his regard for the souls of the unborn, the women and men who have experienced abortion, the Landrieu family and the Loyola family. Yes, he actually cares for the Landrieu family and the Loyola family, as those of us who disagree with them also should care.

There's so much one can say about this piece, and I've already had a bit of a say on this editorial previously. But let me point out something now that I didn't touch upon earlier. When Mire, in her opening salvo, ponders whether people might think the archbishop was "intolerant" in his public boycott of Loyola's commencement ceremonies, I would clarify for her that it was not so much his "intolerance" that was the issue as much as it was his insensitivity and disrespect for the family in taking his complaint with the Landrieus to the public in such a visible way. A good pastor who has an issue with the moral behavior of a member of his flock doesn't broadcast to the world his displeasure without at least attempting to take up the matter with the member first.

Stung once again by this public effort to defend the Archbishop's behavior and to condescendingly reproach the Landrieus as if they were misbehaving children requiring some "tough love," the Landrieu family, via Verna and Moon Landrieu, responded:

Believing that the controversy would fade, we have resisted writing even as articles and letters continue to appear in the Clarion Herald praising the archbishop for his courage in rebuking Loyola University for honoring our family. However, the latest article in the June 29 Clarion Herald by Susan Mire - CATHOLIC POLITICIANS AND THEIR SUPPORT FOR ABORTION - is so erroneous and hurtful that it cannot be ignored.

We believe Ms. Mire is a well-intentioned, devout Catholic. We also know she is terribly wrong when she writes: "... Senator Landrieu and Lt. Governor Mitch Landrieu have, for whatever reason, consistently advocated for abortion throughout their political careers." Neither Mary nor Mitch nor any member of our family is for abortion or has advocated for abortion.

Hurtful also is the condescending manner in which she assures us that the archbishop cares for "those who have experienced abortion, the Landrieu family and the Loyola family." As further consolation she comforts us with the thought that "God loves politicians, those named Landrieu and others."

After 46 years in politics, we are no strangers to calumny or criticism, but we do expect better from a devout Catholic.

Some believe that the action of the archbishop was courageous. To the contrary, it was unwise, unnecessary and harmful. The archbishop knows us personally from our participation on archdiocesan boards and committees as well as from social activities. Had he simply called us before he issued his public statement and told us that he found our family unworthy of the honorary degree, we would have solved whatever problem he thought he had, with harm done to no one. Instead, he went public (locally and nationally) thereby damaging Loyola, provoking criticism of himself and inflicting serious pain on our family. How sad! The 56 members of our family became collateral damage in an unnecessary ecclesiastical conflict.

As Catholics our faith will survive and we will move on in hope, but we do wonder about the scars left on our 37 grandchildren. [Emphasis added.]

And here is where we return to the Levada story and the potential hypocrisy of the Catholic Church and its faithful who were so offended by the outrage perpetrated on Archbishop Levada and the Church by the manner of the delivery of the subpoena. From where I sit, I would guess that this subpeona was issued in such a dramatic manner and with such publicity so as to bring attention to the subject of the subpoena: the sexual abuse scandal and the Church's complicity in covering up this moral outrage. And maybe there was the intent to bring a bit of humiliation and dishonor upon Levada in the process, all in terms of taking a stand in defense of the defenseless; but frankly, I don't see how this is any different than what Hughes did (and continues to do through his surrogates) to the Landrieu family.

Let's revisit a piece of the Levada story cited above in light of the Hughes/Landrieu story:

The Los Angeles Times reported that Cookie Gambucci, who served the subpoena, said she told the archbishop she would serve it to him on the altar if he did not accept it before the Mass. Gambucci said Archbishop Levada accepted the subpoena but told her, "This is a disgrace to the church."

Healy said the archbishop was misquoted and had said not to Gambucci but to an aide, "This is a disgrace to the legal profession."

Now, let's just think about this. By my reading, when Levada says "This is a disgrace to the legal profession," one would assume he means that what is disgraceful is not the FACT of his being issued a subpoena, nor really the subject of the subpoena, but rather the timing and dramatic effect of its delivery calculated as a publicity stunt with the intent to embarrass him at a celebratory moment of his and the Catholic Church's life. I wonder if the similar behavior by Archbishop Hughes would receive such strong words. Would Levada look at Hughes and how he treated the Landrieus and say of him: "This is a disgrace to the church"? If he were consistent, he would do just that. At another level, as the aggrieved party to Hughes's impolitic and calculated-to-harm behavior, Moon Landrieu would have every right to follow the lead of Bishop Levada and issue a similar statement to the press that his family's shoddy treatment by Hughes and the manner in which Hughes chose to take issue with the family, a good Catholic family, represented a "disgrace to the Church."

It appears that the Landrieus have much more class and dignity than Levada by not stooping to his level of maligning the "offending" profession, simply because members of that profession did their job in a way calculated to have the most dramatic public and political effect in support of their cause and convictions. If Hughes can get away with such shenanigans as a member of the Priestly profession sticking up for his pro-life principles and be hailed by Catholic faithful as a model of principled behavior, then the officials who resorted to the shenanigans of delivering Levada his subpeona when and how they did should also be hailed by the Catholic faithful as models of principled behavior in carrying out their professional duty to prosecute those religious implicated in the sex abuse scandal and its coverup by Chuch leaders, leaders like Hughes and Levada.

Lagniappe: New Posting Category for the Blog - Given a review of some of my recent posts, I've decided to add a new category for my blog posts: EX CATHEDRA. In this section, I'll comment on topics related to religion, faith, and in particular my faith and church: Roman Catholicism and the Roman Catholic Church. Some may consider my choice of category title as heretical given that it is a phrase used to refer to Papal Infallibility. But, what the heck! Its literal translation is "From the Throne" and my ruminations on the subject of religion, faith, and church, though undoubtedly very fallible, can be considered proclamations issued from the throne of HUCKUPCHUCK bloggerdom. Next up, my first posting under this heading.

Lagniappe: Media and Missing Persons Coverage - Lately, there have been some to-do's about the Media's preference in its Missing Persons coverage for focusing almost exclusively on white females. I began to think about this and came up with a simple experiment. Try it on yourself and begin with this question.

If you identified off the top of your head all of the missing persons stories picked up by either local or national media that stick in your mind, who would they be?

Feel free to answer in the comments section before reading further, lest you be biased by reading my personal answer to the question.

Now ...

For my part, I can remember clearly Jon Benet Ramsey, Laci Peterson, Chandra Levy, the Runaway Bride, Natalee Holloway, the little girl that was found in California with that strange religious fanatic, the little girl up north recently discovered with a sexual predator, a girl in Florida that went missing under the noses of Social Services, and ... I can't remember any more.

Of these cases, only one involved a missing minority, and all were female.

Even though I'm sure I'm missing some people here, I must admit that it does seem very unidimensional. Without attributing any sinister motives or intentions to anybody, it does seem like there is a pattern in the media coverage of missing persons that prefers white females.

Maybe it's a "so what" thing; but it does give pause.

The "Weak" in (National) Review: NRO Editors on Intelligent Design - Well, I'll be! With all the brains (i.e. intelligence) supposedly on display at the conservative standard-bearer National Review, I never would have imagined that I would be reading an editorial that says this:

So a local school board's failure to teach evolution becomes, literally, a federal case: a violation of the Court's version of the separation of church and state.

Whatever the outcome of the debate over evolution, it should be conducted at the local level.

I understand the point here, which is that the editors are taking issue with the courts deciding that the "absence" of evolution in the curriculum is somehow a religious statement in and of itself. But if they aren't teaching evolution in life science classes, then, what are they teaching? One hopes that they are teaching something! But it's the bigger implication underlying this point that astonishes me. If I am reading the editors correctly, they are suggesting that local school boards should be at liberty to decide what to teach in public schools, that there should be no educational standards whatsoever. [In fact, they say as much at another point in the editorial when they write: "There are no national standards that require evolution, or any other subject, to be taught in a certain way in the public schools. Nor should there be."] So that, if the local school board decides simply not to teach evolution, to ignore it altogether, so be it. I can't imagine what the editors of National Review would say if a local school board decided not to teach algebra or U.S. history, or, conversely, if a school board should decide to teach the fundamentals of witchcraft and wizardry or some version of world history predicated on the literalist biblical idea that the earth has only been around for some 4,000 years.

All I can say is that if the local school board in po-dunk city, USA, wants its children to be uncritical intellectual neanderthals, well, I guess, so be it.

Cuaderno Latinoamericano: TeleBush vs. TeleChavez? - Rep. Connie Mack (R) of Florida has proposed that the U.S. Government create and fund a state-sponsored TV broadcast (similar to TV Marti) to counter Venezuela's TeleSur Network, which was funded and sponsored by the Venezuealn government as a pro-Chavez network in that country. Is this a good idea? Andres Oppenheimer thinks not. Already, the global press is cynically referring to this initiative proposed by Mack as TeleBush, with the not-so-far-fetched notion that this broadcast will be nothing more than a U.S. Bush Administration propaganda machine against Chavez. Furthermore, why would the U.S. want to do this in a country where press freedom and alternative TV networks are still functional? Personally, I think it is a boneheaded move strategically, and will only strengthen Chavez in power and confirm the already-embraced idea of the U.S. as the bully of the Western Hemipshere.

Lagniappe: Bolton Heading to the UN - Well, John Bolton is now Bush's guy at the United Nations, thanks to his recess apointment. For liberal Democrats and sensible Republicans who opposed Bolton, the good news is that, by his own admission, Bolton, as a part of the UN, is himself now "irrelevant."

Cuaderno Latinoamericano: Roger Noriega Quits the Bush Administration - Roger Noriega, Bush's Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs in the State Department, has quit. Noriega simply says it was time to retire after a long career in public service; but some speculation has it that he was too single-minded to do a balanced job for the whole region. Personally, I tend to agree. His obsessiveness with Cuba and Venezuela made him unable to be really effective in other probably more important matters in U.S.-Latin American relations. Word is also that Thomas Shannon, chief of Latin American Affairs at the National Security Council, is Noriega's likely replacement.

Liberal Lighthouse: Casey vs. Santorum - As of July 22, 2005, Rasmussen has Pennsylvania's Democratic Candidate for the Senate, Bob Casey Jr., ahead of Republican Incumbent Rick Santorum, by a double digit margin: 52% to 41%. Personally, I think Bob Casey Jr. will win this in a landslide. Here are my reasons for this assessment:

(1) Santorum, while a reliable social conservative, has some damage repair to do among his own base after having supported the moderate Republican, Arlen Spectre, in the last Senate GOP primary race against the much more socially conservative Pat Toomey.
(2) Santorum, with his outspoken support for a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage, has been labelled (whether rightly or wrongly) as an intolerant homophobe. His attitudes and positions on this issue have made him seem unforgiving and judgmental. This hard edge will not sit well with moderates and conservatives who value compassion and understanding if not agreement with the besieged gay minority.
(3) Casey is a pro-life, pro-social justice Catholic who will win over some of Santorum's previous Catholic supporters who vote pro-life, but who also highly value a pro-social justice orientation in political candidates.
(4) Pennsylvania is a reliably democratic state, having elected a Democratic Governor and having gone decidedly for both Gore and Kerry in the past two presidential electoral cycles -- something neither Santorum nor Spectre could overcome for the national GOP; and this fact may not elicit the type of enthusiastic interest by the national Party as Santorum will probably need to have to win in this election.
(5) Casey is a much more likeable and personable individual than Santorum. Casey rubs people the right way, whereas Santorum tends to rub people the wrong way. People either love or hate Santorum; but no one hates Casey.

School Board: Catholic Schools and Tax Dollars - I continue to be amazed at the inconsistencies in the New Orleans Archdiocesan Educational Office's single-minded fascination with State Government as an answer to the money woes of the Catholic school system. It is all the more interesting to me given that the Superintendent of Catholic Schools for the Archdiocese of New Orleans, Fr. William Maestri, pretends to be a social and fiscal conservative. Fr. Maestri is obviously a Republican cleric who constantly criticizes big-government, tax-and-spend liberalism. But he spares no effort to get the State Government to adopt a voucher program that would put more and more money into the Archdiocesan coffers. Although Fr. Maestri speaks of the voucher program in terms of "parental choice" in education, it is also patently clear to me that he's also in it for the money. A recent article in the Archdiocesan Newspaper, the Clarion Herald, in a moment of unguarded candor, highlights this fact:

Among the biggest challenges is finding the money to meet the needs of Catholic education in the inner city. There are 24 inner-city Catholic schools with a total population of about 10,000 students, and many are kept financially afloat by parish giving and archdiocesan subsidies totaling more than $1.5 million annually.

About 60 percent of students in inner-city Catholic schools are non-Catholic, but Father Maestri said the church has a commitment to offer quality education "to people of every race, creed, color, religion, national origin and socioeconomic status."

"Catholic education is a true gift, one that requires constant maintenance and a constant openness to where the Holy Spirit is calling us to serve," Father Maestri said. "Catholic education and the entire state of Louisiana are uniquely joined in an incredible relationship for the common good. Catholic education has contributed mightily to the well-being of our city and state in all facets of life."

Father Maestri said the archdiocese is open to the possibility of taking over a failing elementary school in Orleans Parish as early as the 2006-07 school year. He will meet with state education superintendent Cecil Picard to discuss the details of a possible takeover.

THE archdiocese also will continue its lobbying efforts for a pilot voucher program for students in failing Orleans Parish public schools.

In other words, if the financially failing Catholic elementary schools in the City can't make it in the current educational market, what's the solution? What else: GOVERNMENT! That's right, stop asking other successful and wealthy suburban parishes to subsidize the inner city Catholic Schools and get the State Government to do it. Why rely on private charity and personal incomes to pay for Catholic schooling when the state can do it for you!

If Fr. Maestri were a big government, tax-and-spend liberal Democrat, then I could perhaps understand his fixation on Government as a solution to the financial crisis facing the Archdiocesan Catholic school system. But, he's not a big government liberal. Or at least he pretends not to be when it doesn't serve his company's own financial interests.

Maestri's lobbying of the State for a voucher program rather reminds me of Tom Benson's efforts to get the State to fork over taxpayer dollars to subsidize a losing professional football team in ways that secure his bottom-line profit margins.

Call me a cynical SOB, but it seems to me that Fr. Maestri is not really against Government telling people how to spend their own tax dollars. He just wants to make sure that people can only use these vouchers on educational services and that his company is one of the State's few preferred (but unaccountable) vendors of such services that taxpayers can patronize.

As I said before, if Fr. Maestri were really interested in the best educational opportunities for children, he'd be begging the Catholic High Schools run by religious orders, given their excellent and proven abilities for fundraising scholarships for needy kids and building up endowments AND their financial independence from the Archdiocese, to open up and run feeder elementary and middle schools. But I'm not holding my breath because it would risk putting the non-competitive Archdiocesan schools out of business.

Cuaderno Latinoamericano: CAFTA - How the GOP squeezed it out - By arm-twisting and bribing and horse-trading their own vulnerable party mates. What will the fallout be in next year's mid-term elections? I think the GOP will pay a big price for this.

Cuaderno Latinoamericano: CAFTA Approved - I generally recognize the potential benefits of free trade policies. However, I am also of the opinion that unregulated free trade does not necessarily improve the quality of all lives, even if it increases overall wealth. I guess you might call me more of a "fair" free trader -- someone who wants more open markets and understands the benefits that can be gained by creating more open markets, but who also wants the benefits to be spread out evenly and fairly among all involved.

That said, I am not at all convinced that CAFTA, in its current formulation, is structured to bring benefits to all affected parties.

The fact that the CAFTA as currently formulated is opposed by the U.S. Catholic Bishops, as well as by the Central American Catholic Bishops, is enough to give me pause. Free trade without justice is not worthy of support; and how can justice be present if workers have been excluded from the crafting of the CAFTA.

My two cents. I'd love to hear yours.

Cuaderno Latinoamericano: Dinosaurs Back in Mexico? - Andres Oppenheimer is hinting maybe so. As a student of Mexican Politics for a long time now, I've often wondered if the Fox victory was part of a long-term political strategy by the PRI to shed its image as an anti-democratic Party but to create the conditions for its return to power without really substantively changing the way the machine operates. I've also been of the opinion that the true test of whether democracy has finally arrived in Mexico will take place in the wake of the 2006 presidential elections, especially if the PAN loses control of the Presidency, as it seems poised to do. Will the post-Fox Mexican political system return revert back to its PRI-dominated authoritarian past? Or will it turn into a PRD-style authoritarianism? In either case, will Mexicans prefer the certainty and security of authoritarianism or the continuation of democratic gridlock and uncertainty? We shall see.

Lagniappe: First Iraqi War Vet to Join Congress? And he's a Democrat, to boot. His story via Salon is here and his campaign website is here. Liberal patriotism at its best comparing Hackett, the Democrat Iraq War Veteran, with his Republican rival, Schmidt:

On the issues, the candidates both describe themselves as fiscal conservatives, but on the Iraq war and the so-called moral values questions, they stand in stark relief. Hackett is a critic of Bush's Iraq war policy and believes America was led to war unnecessarily. Schmidt is a strong backer of Bush's handling of the war. ...

Schmidt commends Hackett for his service, but believes Hackett should "stand with the president" by "supporting the Iraqi war effort and our troops that are over there," her campaign manager Joe Braun said. (Through Braun, Schmidt declined to speak with Salon.) When asked to answer that charge, Hackett is blunt: "The only way I know how to support the troops is by going over there." He doesn't hesitate to criticize Schmidt's support of the war: "All the chicken hawks back here who said, 'Oh, Iraq is talking bad about us. They're going to threaten us' -- look, if you really believe that, you leave your wife and three kids and go sign up for the Army or Marines and go over there and fight. Otherwise, shut your mouth."

Ya gotta love it!

[Hat tip to YatPundit.]

The Corner Watch: Derbyshire vs. Lowry - In a refreshing moment of candor on National Review Online's blog, "The Corner," John Derbyshire takes on Rich Lowry. You need to read Derbyshire's whole posting to get the background before arriving to his concluding statement, but this is the somewhat surprising way in which Derbyshire concludes with:

So, were you [Lowry] arguing back in 2002 and 2003 that the main reason we ought to invade Iraq was to kill local jihadis more easily? Was that your rationale, or some large compnent of your rationale, for supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom at that time? If it was not -- if, at some point between spring of 2003 and now, you changed your rationale for our presence in Iraq -- how would you go about persuading an impartial observer that your change of rationale was not motivated by blind loyalty to this administration?

Again, Derbyshire is an avid supporter of killing as many jihadis as possible and he is principally a supporter of the Iraq War, but this makes his blunt question to Lowry all the more interesting. It will be interesting to follow this conversation to see how Lowry responds.

Lagniappe: Letter to Fr. Maestri and the Clarion Herald on Parental Choice in Education - Fr. William Maestri, the Archidiocese of New Orleans' Superintendent of Education, has been an ardent and outspoken proponent of "parental choice" in education. This is code for being an advocate for school vouchers. In this editorial, Fr. Maestri praises the passage of State House Bill 613, which paves the way for a voucher program. He considers this Bill to be a "historic victory for children, familes, and education." For a sample of the effusiveness of his praise, read these words by Fr. Maestri:

There are many to commend for this historic victory. Rep. Burns, a freshman in the House, embraced parental choice as if it were his issue for all of his young life. He showed political prudence, patience and a genuine desire to make things better for our children and community.

A true hero and leader was New Orleans Rep. Austin Badon. He dared to put children first. He dared to speak, vote and act on behalf of what is in the best interest of Orleans Parish and our schools. He was not a politician but a true statesman whose courage and conviction were inspiring and instrumental for the outcome. New Orleans is fortunate to have such a leader.

Many members of the Louisiana House of Representatives broke with the old voices who continue to accept failure and lack of opportunity for children. These courageous members dared to think in new ways in order to combat the all-familiar voices of poor education and poverty. They indicated they, in the name of Louisiana, were ready for a new day. Such a new day centers on making things better for all our citizens, especially our children who live in poverty.

Sounds great, doesn't it! Fr. Maestri's selfless devotion to the best educational interests of children seem evident, no? But, as highly as I might think of the cause, I have it on good authority that Fr. Maestri seems to be more interested in boosting the declining enrollments of Diocesan-supported Catholic Elementary and Middle schools, than what is in the best educational interests of the City's poorest children. I have it on good authority that Fr. Maestri is a staunch opponent of having independent (that is, non-diocesan-controlled) Catholic High Schools open up affiliated Catholic elementary and middle schools. Now why would someone supposedly looking out for the best educational interests of the City's poorest children be opposed to such a possibility? Well, my speculation is that it is because such schools would out-compete the Diocesan schools, and that voucher funds, should they become available, would go to the Dominican Sisters or the Jesuits or the Christian Brothers, rather than to the Diocesan coffers.

But, I want to give Fr. Maestri the benefit of the doubt. I want him to prove that he is not really opposed to options that are in the best educational interests of the City's poorest children by openly declaring his position on the creation of such "alternative" Catholic elementary and middle schools. I want him to say that if Brother Martin High School or if Jesuit High School wanted to start up a middle school at no expense to the Diocese in the wake of the creation of a voucher program, he would lend his full support to this option. So, to that effect, I wrote a letter to the editor of the Clarion Herald on the subject. I sent it via email and via snail mail. Here is what I wrote:

Attn: Editor
Clarion Herald
P.O. Box 53247
New Orleans, La. 70153


Dear Editor:

As a product of the New Orleans Catholic School system from grade 1 through college, I applaud Fr. Maestri for his unyielding and tenacious fight for the rights of children to have the best education possible. Fr. Maestri's persistent efforts to lobby the Louisiana State Legislature for a voucher program that would ostensibly help poor children to attend private or parochial schools is a fine demonstration of his resolve. We should all be inspired by his indefatigable fight to provide the best educational opportunities for our City's poorest children.

In the spirit of his example and his commitment to the best interests of our children, I would like to encourage Fr. Maestri to go one step further. And it's an easy step, too, given Fr. Maestri's position as superintendent of Catholic schools for the Archdiocese. Why don't Maestri and the Archdiocese encourage the New Orleans Metro area's best Catholic High Schools to open up and run elementary and middle schools? Such schools would be wildly popular, financially secure, and unreliant on the thinning Archdiocesan coffers.

Imagine children going to such fine centers of Catholic education as "Brother Martin" or "Dominican" Elementary Schools, or "St. Augustine" or "Archbishop Chapelle" Middle Schools! With or without vouchers, what a marvellous opportunity for the City's children that would be!

Surely Fr. Maestri's dogged commitment to the best interests of the City's poorest children (not to mention his good, conservative Catholic values) wouldn't be shaken by a little competition between St. Dominic School and "Jesuit Elementary," even if it meant not filling ALL the seats of what would surely become its less-competitive and less-desirable Archdiocesan-run elementary and middle schools? Just a thought from someone inspired by Fr. Maestri's admirable and unselfish commitment to seek the best educational options for our city's poorest children.

I don't expect the Clarion Herald to publish this letter; nor do I expect a personal response from the Archdiocese or from Fr. Maestri. But I do want not only them, but also my blog readers, to know that I'm calling them on the subject. And if you want to call the Diocese and Fr. Maestri out on the subject, feel free to send out your own letter of support as well.

Kingfishery & Kingcakery: Citation for Being Too Clean ... Only in New Orleans - I guess being out of the City for six weeks dulls one's threshhold for the seeming incomprehensibility of some of the things that go on here, but, had I been here all along, I still probably would have been as incredulous to read that the City had issued a citation and a hearings summons to a homeowning couple for putting out their trash for pickup a bit too early. I kid you not. The City of New Orleans apparently intimidated some people who were responsible enough, even if a bit too overeager, to put their trash out for collection instead of spreading it around the streets and gutters. I mean, seriously, one quick pass through the French Quarter at any given moment is enough to illustrate the silliness of such action. It's a sad day when "garbage consciousness," especially in a City known for measuring the success of its Mardi Gras by the tonnage of randomly-strewn garbage picked up off the streets, results in an intimidating and costly summons for conscientious citizens. What's even worse, though, is that the City, having refused to even investigate the problem before issuing a summons and citation, got it wrong and apparently intimidated the wrong people! Ay, Caramba!

Kingfishery & Kingcakery: Susan Mire on Archbishop Hughes and Pro-Choice Politicians - You know, I'm a liberal Catholic that tends not to get too animated by or defensive about the Catholic Church's formal position against abortion. I expect the Church to promote a pro-life position when it comes to abortion. But, I chafe when people speak in justification of the Catholic Church leadership's public behavior regarding the politics of abortion when other issues of "life" -- i.e. capital punishment and war -- engender no such similar public protests by the Catholic leadership in defense of life.

That's why Susan Mire's piece in the Archdiocesan newspaper, Clarion Herald, really offends me. It isn't enough that Mire tries to defend Archbishop Alfred Hughes's political behavior on the issue of abortion [Hughes refused to attend a ceremony held by Loyola University honoring the entire Landrieu family's public service record because U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu and her brother, State Lt. Governor Mitch Landrieu, have voted "pro-choice" on occasion.]. No, she feels the need to say that Hughes's very public and very calculated snub was also an act of love towards the Landrieus. (Just the patronizing condescension of this attitude is enough to turn my stomach.) But more appalling is how she tries to canonize Hughes by explaining his "loving" political behavior as an example of true moral leadership and courage. Speaking in justification of Hughes's actions to boycott Loyola University's celebration of the Landrieus, Mire ponders, as if she were in Hughes's shoes (Now, remember, she's speaking of a man who has a not-so-admirable history in the Church sex-abuse scandal in the Boston Archdiocese):

What if you found out that someone you respected and admired, someone you knew to be generous, concerned for the less fortunate, peaceful and church-going, would regularly go behind a locked door, confer with others, and agree to support the brutal killing of children and the sexual abuse of women? And this plan included sending funding to individuals who prey on women, the natural defenders of children, when they were most vulnerable. Would you continue to defend their good actions? Or would you question them and challenge them?

Change a few select phrases here and there, substituting "the brutal killing of children and the sexual abuse of women" with "the wilful coverup of the sexual abuse of minors by priests," and Mire's questions about whether one should continue defending the good actions of the Landrieus take on a whole new meaning when applied to the "loving" protest actions of Hughes. Instead of praising Hughes for his "principled" stance against the Landrieus, where's Mire's "questioning and challenging" of Hughes? Methinks Mire should take a bit of her own advice, and begin to protest Hughes out of her deep love for him.

Lagniappe: Sean Huze's Gripping Story from the Front Lines in Iraq - The Gambit Weekly, a fine New Orleans weekly newspaper, has in its current issue a great story by Eliza Strickland on Sean Huze's experience as a marine on the front lines of the Iraq War when it began in March of 2003.

Sean Huze volunteered the day after 9/11 and, according to his own words, went to war with full faith in George W. Bush's arguments. Although Huze still supports the troops and wants the U.S. effort in Iraq to succeed, he returned from the war feeling deceived by the Bush Administration. Here are some of what I think are the more important pieces in this story:

Don't get Sean Huze started on the subject of yellow ribbons.

"I really have a resentment against these freaking yellow ribbon magnets, I really do," says the former Marine, a veteran of the Iraqi Freedom campaign and a Louisiana native. "It's not the ribbons themselves. But I think people stop there, and that's not real support. A yellow ribbon magnet on the back of your car is not supporting the troops."

So what is supporting the troops? Not sending them to die in battle unnecessarily, Huze says. Providing support for families left behind. Properly arming and equipping those soldiers in the war zone, and making sure they're not stretched too thin. And taking care of returning veterans who bear the physical or psychic wounds of war.

Huze believes the Bush administration has failed on all counts. He also thinks the American public hasn't insisted that its government do better.

Huze left the armed forces in the fall of 2004. When he returned to the United States, he wrote a well-received play about the war titled The Sand Storm: Stories From the Iraqi Front. He also serves as a spokesman for Operation Truth, a non-partisan veterans organization that has frequently criticized the Bush administration for its management of the war and its treatment of soldiers and veterans.

"The voice of the troops on the ground is something that's not reaching America," says Huze, speaking by phone from his home in Los Angeles. "People will listen to a general who can't even tell you what gunpowder smells like, but they won't listen to a private who has had to take a life and see his comrades fall in battle. It blows me away."

Here's another section of the piece where Huze defends the troops ...

Huze's battalion soon came to be called "The Destroyers" by the Iraqi troops who encountered it. They fought battles in Al Kut and Tikrit, and fended off surprise attacks in non-descript towns and on nameless roads. Huze earned his share of commendations for his role, including a Certificate of Commendation citing his "courage and self sacrifice throughout sustained combat operations"; the Combat Action Ribbon; Meritorious Promotion for Corporal; the Presidential Unit Citation; and the National Defense Service Medal.

"We were certainly effective, and we all made it home," says Huze, speaking in measured tones. "So there's something to be said for that. We were also responsible for a lot of carnage. Unfortunately, as in any war, the civilian population pays a pretty heavy toll, especially when we were engaged throughout the war in urban areas. It's not like you're in an open battlefield and it's two armies going at it. All of it was in densely populated areas. You see a lot of things you'd rather not see.

"I've met so many people out here in the past months who'd like to portray the military as a collection of trigger-happy fools who love killing women and children," Huze continues. "It's a disgusting lie to perpetuate. You're in an urban environment, you are taking fire, and you've got tenths of seconds, not even seconds, to make the decision. Mission accomplishment is always No. 1 priority, so you do what you have to do to push on with your mission."

And here's Huze relating his feeling of being deceived by the Bush Administration and of being put off by Bush's arrogance ...

Before long, Huze would discover other ways in which his war experiences had changed him.

"At the time I went to Iraq, I was a sucker like about 90 percent of us," says Huze. "I believed the justifications, I believed what the president said."

Throughout his time in Iraq, Huze says, he continued to take comfort in the rationale for war that he believed the Bush administration had presented: that Saddam Hussein had links to Al Qaeda and that Iraq's stockpiled weapons of mass destruction posed an imminent threat to the United States.

But back at Camp Lejeune, after the glow of his hero's welcome had worn off, Huze began to question those assumptions. On July 2, 2003, a presidential press conference changed his uncertainty to anger. Answering a question about the burgeoning Iraqi insurgency, Bush replied with a challenge: "Bring 'em on." To Huze, it seemed that the president was more concerned about his "Texas tough guy" image than the lives of the troops. "He was surrounded by body guards, while the guys I knew were the ones who were really putting it on the line, who would have to bear the repercussions of his statements," Huze says.

As Huze began to doubt the war, he became more troubled by his memories. If the war wasn't fought for the cause of thwarting terrorism, how could he justify the dead Iraqi civilians the Destroyers had left in their wake? And how could dead American soldiers rest easy in their graves?

Huze, being an actor, put his experiences and his reactions as a soldier on the front lines into a theatrical production that has met with success. It's called The Sand Storm and I hope to be able to see it some day.

Lagniappe: Back in the Saddle - Let's see if I can try to give some more life to this blog. It has been a while since I posted anything ... not because of lack of desire, but just because of lack of time. I've spent the last six weeks in Latin America and was consumed with the affairs of my work and life there. Now I'm back in the Big Easy, enjoying a bit of a Summer break before the next semester kicks in to gear, and propelled by the heaviness and heat of the typical New Orleans summer to keep cool indoors and to ponder more deeply the events of our time.

Some returning thoughts:

(1) I still think Andrew Sullivan is the best all-around independent-thinking, right-leaning blogger in the universe.
(2) I'm not all that worked up about the nomination of John Roberts to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court. I'm not exactly happy about having another conservative on the court, but it could have been worse.
(3) I'm reading the new Harry Potter and I am loving it as usual, though I think it is not as action-filled as I would have liked. My favorite to date is still Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, but that may change when I finish the Half-Blood Prince
(4) I'm writing a country study of Mexico for ABC-Clio Publishers and editing their Latin American Country Study series.
(5) I'll be revving up my Cuaderno Latinoamericano blog shortly. And hope to do the same for my social justice blog, Semillas. Anyone interested in participating as a contributor to either of these blogs is welcome to write me and find out what is entailed and expected.
(6) Regardless of what happens to Karl Rove (and I think he's toast, or should be), we now know that the Bush team is just as sleaze-ball, sneaky, and cut-throat as any administration has been. You can call it politics if you want, that doesn't make it any less trashy.

Kingfishery & Kingcakery: Ban on Smoking in Indoor Public Spaces in Louisiana - To listen to conservative talk radio, one would think that individual rights are being trampled on by the looming state legislation to ban completely smoking in public, indoor spaces like bars and restaurants. As a non-smoker, I'm all for the ban for a whole bunch of the typical reasons. Now, those conservative/libertarian types who complain about the prospects of such a ban and argue that it would infringe on the rights of bar and restaurant owners to run their own businesses as they see fit (not to mention the rights of patrons who don't mind killing themselves by inhaling smoke) have a very short-sighted take on the subject. Remember that the airlines went smoke free not because of passenger complaints, but rather because of employee lawsuits -- and the airlines determined that it would be better for business to go smoke-free. I think a general ban on smoking in public, indoor spaces would ultimately serve all constituencies. It would work towards protecting the public health of citizens (both smokers and non-smokers alike) AND it would protect businesses from the debilitating costs of future lawsuits from affected employees. If I were a bar owner who smoked, I would still have a ban on smoking in my place of business in order to protect myself from potentially litigous bartenders and barmaids. From my perspective, this is a good, conservative reason to support the ban.

Lagniappe: The Right-Wing Myth of Christian Persecution in the U.S. - Here and there, I have been trying to debunk the notion circulating among right-wing Christian conservatives that there is a liberal conspiracy in the United States to persecute Christians. Among certain hard-core, right-wing Christians, it is almost useless to even argue the point. But at long last, prominent conservative columnist George Will has written on the subject also, and not only supports what I have been saying all along, but comes down even harder on "the persecuted" conservatives for the cynical victimization game that they are playing. Perhaps, maybe, just maybe, some thick-skulled, right-wing conservative Christians will listen. It's a long-shot, I know; but one can hope.

Cuaderno Latinoamericano: Fernando Botero and Abu Ghraib - One of Latin America's most prominent, living visual artists, Colombian Fernando Botero, has produced a series of arresting, graphic portraits of the torture scandal at Abu Ghraib. The New York Times has published an article on this new work by Botero. Here's one example of Botero's Abu Ghraib portraits:

[Click here for an enlarged image of this portrait.]

The fact that Botero has considered himself to be an admirer of the United States drives the point home even more of how this torture scandal has damaged the reputation of the United States abroad. It amazes me how oblivious the U.S. public is to the rotten image that our country has crafted for itself across the globe because of the Iraq War and all its attendant nastiness.

Cuaderno Latinoamericano: Exploding the Cost/Benefits Myth of Illegal Immigrants and the US Economy - The Case of Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid - Eduardo Porter has written an excellent, revelatory article in the New York Times about the real contributions Illegal Immigrants make the the Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid programs in the United States and the exploitation that they face in never being able to benefit from their contributions. For instance, read this:

Since illegally crossing the Mexican border into the United States six years ago, Ángel Martínez has done backbreaking work, harvesting asparagus, pruning grapevines and picking the ripe fruit. More recently, he has also washed trucks, often working as much as 70 hours a week, earning $8.50 to $12.75 an hour.

Not surprisingly, Mr. Martínez, 28, has not given much thought to Social Security's long-term financial problems. But Mr. Martínez - who comes from the state of Oaxaca in southern Mexico and hiked for two days through the desert to enter the United States near Tecate, some 20 miles east of Tijuana - contributes more than most Americans to the solvency of the nation's public retirement system.

Last year, Mr. Martínez paid about $2,000 toward Social Security and $450 for Medicare through payroll taxes withheld from his wages. Yet unlike most Americans, who will receive some form of a public pension in retirement and will be eligible for Medicare as soon as they turn 65, Mr. Martínez is not entitled to benefits.

He belongs to a big club. As the debate over Social Security heats up, the estimated seven million or so illegal immigrant workers in the United States are now providing the system with a subsidy of as much as $7 billion a year.

How is this possible, you might ask? Well, employers demand that potential employees provide a Social Security number to prove that they can work legally in the United States. Then, without verifying or checking the accuracy of these Social Security numbers, many of which are fraudulent, employers deduct payroll taxes from the earning of these employees and turn this over, along with their own matching contributions, to the U.S. Government. This money just sits there, adding to the available pool of resources that help to keep Social Security and Medicaid/Medicare solvent. Current and future retirees in the United States will benefit from the contributions that these illegal immigrants make to the system by their hard work, and these illegal immigrants will never see a dime of their contributions in their own retirement.

Not only does this demolish the claim by the anti-immigrant, nativist crowd that illegal immigrants are leeches on the U.S. welfare state, but it also shows, once again, the double exploitation illegal migrants face in our country. They contribute mightily to the local, state, and federal treasuries of the United States by way of paying taxes (and not only payroll taxes, but also sales taxes, and property taxes via rents), but they are facing efforts to exclude them from receiving the benefits that their tax contributions have earned them.

The next time you hear anti-immigrant, pro-Minutemen, xenophobic blowhards bring out this reason to justify their border vigilantism, feel free to mention this little fact to them.

Read Porter's whole article for the full extent and ramifications of this reality. It will give you a new appreciation for the value of the illegal immigrant.

Cuaderno Latinoamericano: Vigilantes and Being Vigilant - I just loved this little gem from Time magazine about the new anti-immigrant Minutemen border patrol movement led by Chris Simcox:

Simcox bristles at the term vigilante, saying that his group is not detaining anyone but only fulfilling the President's post--Sept. 11 request that all Americans remain vigilant--and, in the process, providing a release valve for popular outrage. [Emphasis added.]

Tell me if I'm missing something here, but how can Simcox bristle at being called a "vigilante" when he apparently describes his actions as nothing more than heeding Bush's call to be "vigilant." The two words aren't almost exactly the same for nothing. I would have imagined that a man seriously heeding the call of his President to be "vigilant" would be proud to be called a "vigilante"!

Lagniappe: Note to the Schindlers - Stop running around in front of cameras playing politics and go BE with your daughter. Hold her hand. Comfort one another as she passes into a much better life. Grieve her passing, but celebrate the Easter promise of resurrection with her.

Lagniappe: The Easter Story and the Schiavo Situation - Something else has recently struck me about the coincidence of Terri Schiavo's death journey and this week when Christians celebrate the passion, death, and resurrection of Jesus. What we Christians celebrate this week, above all else, is the great gift of life through death. And all I'm hearing from self-proclaimed Christians who disagree with removing Terri Schiavo's feeding tube is all about the need to desperately cling to life. There is no discussion about the mystery of the great gift of life after death that this Passion week so acutely reminds us of. There is no celebration going on about the new and better life about to unfold for Terri Schiavo, a much better life certainly than the one she has experienced in the past 15 years if you can call it life. In fact, her parents seem to think that Terri's soul will be condemned if she dies under such conditions in which she currently finds herself. What baloney! Let's remember the purpose of the Passion, Death, and Resurrection of Holy Week! Terri is passing into eternal life, thanks to Jesus. We are fortunate to have this Holy Week to remind us of this. I think all Christians should reflect on this, especially those who want so desperately to cling on to some form of temporal bodily existence that they call life for Terri Schiavo. We don't pretend to want to debate the what-ifs of Jesus' possible escape from death this week. No, indeed. We CELEBRATE His death. We are grateful that it happens, because it promises us new life. Let's remember that when we remember Terri Schiavo.

Lagniappe: The Sad Case of Mary Schindler - The schreeching, almost hysterical theatre being bestowed upon us by Mary Schindler is sad and pitiable on many fronts. On the one hand, it seems irrational and excessive. Most folks who protest a perceived injustice or who have to suffer through the death of a loved one (capital punishment comes to mind) don't lapse into the hysterics that seem to characterize Mary Schindler. I feel for her frustration and the sad agony of the situation, and I don't want to sound unsympathetic, but the overly melodramatic nature of her appeals seems to ring hollow and partly false. But the saddest thing about Mary Schindler's behavior, and the most telling about what I would call her utter selfishness in this whole affair, is that she is so caught up in her public theatrics that she appears to be missing the chance to accompany her daughter on her death journey. Mary Schindler doesn't need to agree with the decision to remove her daughter's feeding tube in order to be with her daughter as she passes on. What should be a soulful, prayerful, and peaceful journey into death and (for us Christians) new life, for Terri but also for her family, is really nothing short of madness. When Terri is gone, I have no doubts that Mary will suffer pangs of grief not only for her loss of Terri, but also out of guilt for not being present to Terri as the loving, supportive, and comforting mother she might have been in Terri's final days. It really is pathetic and sad. I pity Mary Schindler.

Cuaderno Latinoamericano: Mexicans in the US Armed Forces - Many anti-Mexican immigrant folks will go to hateful ends to make Mexicans feel unwelcome and unwanted in the United States -- even to the point of advocating for the construction of a "Great Wall" dividing the countries along the border. Some even also advocate for vigilante border patrolling to make sure those "wetbacks" don't stay long enough on U.S. soil to let their backs get dry. But when it comes to Mexicans signing up for the U.S. military and then dying needlessly in the Iraqi deserts in an unjust war carried out by an administration whose rabid right-wing supporters despise Mexican immigrants, albeit of the "illegal" kind so they say, where are these malicious folks. It is quite something that Mexicans will die in service of the United States, without even having the benefits of full citizenship, when some of the very citizens that they die for have very little sympathy for them, their family, and their countrymen. The New York Times has a moving piece on Mexicans who die for the U.S. I wish all anti-Mexican immigrant zealots, those who also call themselves U.S. patriots, would read this article and have a change of heart.

Lagniappe: Schiavo vs. Schindler - Take a look at this picture plastered all over the web ...

and tell me if all the hoopla is really about Terri Schiavo and not about Mary Schindler.

Laginappe: The Terri Schiavo Dilemma - The whole debate about Terri Schiavo that is going on these days is not necessarily an issue of social justice, but it is an issue about the dignity of life versus the dignity of death. And this is, in some way, a justice issue. The official Catholic Church is against the removal of Terry Schiavo's feeding tube; and many so-called "pro-lifers" are staging poignant protests to keep this woman alive in a condition that no one can really claim is any kind of positive quality of life for anyone.

Personally, I am very torn by this whole ordeal. On the one hand, we have a woman who can’t speak for herself and who actually might have expressed a wish to not be kept alive by artificial means. I know that my wife has made that abundantly clear to me in our discussions, but I don’t think she has ever put this on paper. But, as a pro-life liberal, I am inclined to opt on the side of life when there is a clear question as to Terri Schiavo’s intent. I don’t think the husband and his transgressions, or the parents and their pleas, or Congress and its absurd and abusive use of its “subpoena” powers really matters at the core of this issue. What this really boils down to, in my mind, is the absolute sanctity of life versus an individual’s right to choose death.

Here we have a case where, if a living will existed, or if there were any clear indication that Terri Schiavo herself expressed her wishes not to be kept alive by artificial means, then it would somehow be morally acceptable to “pull the plug,” so to speak. Is that any way to defend the dignity of life? Why not then support assisted suicide?

Also, I read recently that there are many, many cases (in the thousands per year) where families are faced with this agonizing decision to “pull the plug” on their loved ones in “permanent vegetative states” - just like Terri Schiavo. And the fact is that many families come to the mutual consensus decision to terminate a life without knowing what is the will of the person subject to death regarding being kept alive artificially. Yet, I don’t see anyone protesting these arbitrary decisions to terminate a life.

Is a simple consensus of guardians who decide to terminate a life any morally different that a decision to terminate a life without a consensus of guardians? This is what troubles me about singling out this particular case and making it such a “pro-life” cause celebre. Where are the pro-lifers when the thousands of others in permanent vegetative states are starved to death because someone else (parents, spouses, children, legal guardians) says its o.k. to disconnect the feeding tube, but when no one else has the heart to challenge this decision?

Do we as a society respect the right to die with dignity via the whole "living will" process? Do we who are Catholic accept the right to die with dignity even if technology exists to artificially lengthen our lives? Does the "quality of life" matter in terms of respecting the "dignity of death"? I would appreciate your thoughts on this to help me sort through this isse.

Liberal Lighthouse: Daniel C. Maguire and "The Pro-Life Lie": Daniel C. Maguire writes that "People shoud be judged by the ideals they most loudly profess." What else does Maguire say? Try this:

Pregnant women and their fetuses suffer from these same lethal deprivations and pregnant women and their fetuses are being bombed in their homes. If you who sanctimoniously wear the 'pro-life' banner were really pro-life-and pro-fetus, that would bother you and we would be hearing your voices raised powerfully in peace protests around the world. We don't. Therefore we must conclude that you are not 'pro-life' and that if you say you are, you are liars.

Reminds me of a scene from the movie Romero when Archbishop Oscar Romero (played by Raul Julia) tells the Salvadoran President (and Military General): "You are a liar." No mincing words. No splitting hairs. No regrets. No hemming and hawing. Crystal clear. ... "You are a liar" ... "You are liars." And, absolutely, 100% right. Daniel C. Maguire's recent piece is scathing and reminds me of what true, Christian fire-and-brimstone moral clarity ought to be. Read it all, revel in its delicious boldness. George Bush likes his advice "unvarnished." Well, he just got what he likes. Good for you, Danny-boy! You speak for a lot of us!

Cuaderno Latinoamericano: "Cuaderno Latinoamericano" - Hi, folks. As a professor of Latin American Studies (and as an erratic blogger who recognizes the importance of the new medium) I am trying a pedagogical experiment in my Latin American content courses at Tulane University by requiring my students to participate in a Latin America-themed blog. So, what was once (and still is) a category of this blog site -- "Cuaderno Latinoamericano" -- is now its own blog, though with many new contributors. If you are interested in Latin America, or just want to see how university students are at blogging, I encourage you to visit the Cuaderno Latinoamericano blog. Help my students see the power of the blogosphere. Visit the Cuaderno Latinoamericano often and leave your comments.

Lagniappe: A Call to Inaction - "Not One Damn Dime Day - January 20, 2005"

Since our religious leaders will not speak out against the war in Iraq, since our political leaders don't have the moral courage to oppose it, since Bush is wasting 40 MILLION dollars on his inauguration party...while the soldiers have inadequate armor and too few of them to create or maintain peace in Iraq... Inauguration Day, Thursday, January 20th, 2005 is "Not One Damn Dime Day" in America.

On "Not One Damn Dime Day " those who oppose what is happening in our name in Iraq can speak up with a 24-hour national boycott of all forms of consumer spending. During "Not One Damn Dime Day" please don't spend money. Not one damn dime for gasoline. Not one damn dime for necessities or for impulse purchases. Not one damn dime for nothing for 24 hours. On "Not One Damn Dime Day" please boycott Wal-Mart, Kmart, Target...Please don't go to the mall or the local convenience store. Please don't buy any fast food (or any groceries at all for that matter). For 24 hours, please do what you can to shut the retail economy down.

The object is simple. Remind the people in power that the war in Iraq is immoral and illegal; that they are responsible for starting it and that it is their responsibility to stop it. "Not One Damn Dime Day" is to remind them, too, that they work for the people of the United States of America, not for the International corporations and K Street lobbyists who represent the corporations and funnel cash into American politics. "Not One Damn Dime Day" is about supporting the troops. The politicians put the troops in harm's way. Now 1,300 brave young Americans and (some estimate) 100,000 Iraqis have died. The politicians owe our troops a plan - a way to come home.

There's no rally to attend. No marching to do. No left or right wing agenda to rant about. On "Not One Damn Dime Day" you take action by doing nothing. You open your mouth by keeping your wallet closed. For 24 hours, nothing gets spent, not one damn dime, to remind our religious leaders and our politicians of their moral responsibility to end the war in Iraq and give America back to the people.

Please share this call to action with all your friends and colleagues.

(Thanks to Semillas member Dan DeMers for circulating this message.)

Lagniappe: The "Salvador Option" in Iraq - Newsweek reports that the U.S. Government (and particularly the Department of Defense) is pondering the creation and support of Iraqi "Death Squads" much like the Reagan Administration did in El Salvador in the 1980s. These paramilitary units would be used to "crush" the Rebels. We know what happened in El Salvador ... a protracted, violent, and bloody civil war in which the U.S. paid mere lip service to democracy while the forces of repression went to work with impunity. This is a frightening story, and if it is true, the sham of Bush's Iraq policy is exposed. Thanks to a friend of mine for bringing this disturbing story to my attention.

Kingfishery & Kingcakery: Buddy "D" - RIP - A sad day for New Orleans and Louisiana sports. The great and colorful radio sports personality Buddy Diliberto has died. A sudden and unexpected heart attack claims the life of an icon. He never got to see the Saints win a Superbowl. May God bless his soul and may he rest in peace.

Lagniappe: Keeping the Christ in Christmas - What does it mean to keep the "Christ" in Christmas? One hears it a lot these days. At the very basic level, I think when folks say this they intend two things: (1) to protest in some way the hyper-commercialization and materialism of the season at the expense of the religious meaning of the holiday; and (2) to attack a perceived "politically correct" attitude that questions whether government promotion of the religious symbolism of the event violates the principle of the separation of church and state.

I've been thinking about this a lot, and I think these two intentions undergirding the phrase are somewhat misplaced -- at least for me. On the one hand, they both seem to come out of a confrontational or reactionary motivation. They're both rather scrooge-like and embittered motivations, if you ask me. They certainly are not celebratory motivations.

For me, the phrase bears a positive, celebratory meaning, as well as a moral challenge. First off, whether the ACLU protests the exhibit of a nativity scene on public property shouldn't have any bearing on whether I am keeping Christ in my Christmas. Keeping the Christ in Christmas means that I need to make sure that what is front-and-center for me during Advent is Christ, and not some distracting preoccupation with what City Hall or the ACLU is doing. And second, if I keep Christ front-and-center in a special way during this Advent season, I should be obligated to keep the "least of my brothers" front-and-center in a special way during this Advent season also.

So, for me, at the end of it all, the phrase "keeping the Christ in Christmas" means that I should strive to exhibit my solidarity with the poor and dispossessed of this world all the more forcefully and to work towards a justice for them worthy of God's becoming flesh in the birth of Jesus and worthy of Jesus' life-long embrace of the marginalized. That's what the phrase "keeping the Christ in Christmas" means for me. What does it mean for you?

Lagniappe: Maryknoll - New Orleans: Social Justice Network Blog - If you are interested in Social Justice and Progressive Catholicism, check out this new blog that I set up as part of a Public Discipleship group to which I belong. It's called "Maryknoll Affiliates - New Orleans: Social Justice Network." It's a multi-member blog, and so you should see over time postings from other members of the group. I look forward to hearing from you over at the Social Justice site as well as here at my own personal website. Oh, and by the way, any time you come across some interesting link or story that pertains to issues of Social Justice, please let me know and I'll link to it from the Social Justice Network blog.

Lagniappe: Bushisms - If you ever want to laugh so hard you'll wet your pants, just visit Jacob Weisberg's Complete Bushisms column at Slate. One of my recent favorites:

"Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB/GYN's aren't able to practice their love with women all across the country."— [George W. Bush,] Sept. 6, 2004, Poplar Bluff, Mo.

Go get 'em, cowboy!

Liberal Lighthouse: Kaplan on Rumsfeld ... "What a leader of men." - Well, I'm back in the saddle. Election mourning period is officially over. Lot's to write about. I'll start with a reference to this piece from Fred Kaplan at Slate. Kaplan writes:

Donald Rumsfeld gave every grunt in the Army a good reason to hate him today.

At a cavernous hangar in Camp Buehring, Kuwait, the secretary of defense appeared before 2,300 soldiers to boost their morale before they headed off to Iraq. During a question-and-answer period, Army Spc. Thomas Wilson of the 278th Regimental Combat Team, a unit that consists mainly of reservists from the Tennessee Army National Guard, spoke up to complain about their inadequate supply of armor.

"Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles?" Wilson asked, setting off what the Associated Press described as "a big cheer" from his comrades in arms.

Rumsfeld paused, asked Wilson to repeat the question, then finally replied, "You go to war with the army you have." Besides, he added, "You can have all the armor in the world on a tank and it can be blown up."

Such a leader of men.

Rumsfeld's answer was, first, unforgivably glib, reminiscent of his shrugged line about the looting in the days after Saddam's fall ("Stuff happens"), but more shocking because here he was addressing American soldiers who are still fighting and dying, 20 months after Baghdad's fall, as a result of Rumsfeld's decisions.

More than that, his answer was wrong. If you're attacked by surprise, you go to war with the army you have. But if you've planned the war a year in advance and you initiate the attack, you have the opportunity—and obligation—to equip your soldiers with what they'll need. Yes, some soldiers will get killed no matter the precautions, but the idea is to heighten their odds—or at least not diminish them—as they're thrust into battle.

And the party continues. I wonder ... Is GW Bush still looking for WMDs under the furniture of the White House?

Lagniappe: The New Post-Election Map of North America

Lagniappe: Spinning RealClearPolitics - As many of you poll watchers are probably aware, RealClearPolitics is a conservative leaning site that gathers national polling data (as well as state and local polling data) and tallies an average of such polling data to indicate the favored candidate. This "meta-poll" averaging methodology has consistently indicated that George Bush maintains a consistent, though small, lead over John Kerry. In fact, George Bush has NEVER trailed Kerry in any of these daily tallies. Consequently, as you might imagine, many conservative bloggers and pundits often refer to RealClearPolitics for some "comfort" and reinforcement in their hopes of a Bush victory.

However, there is an interesting trend in at least one aspect of RealClearPolitics' poll tracking and averaging methodology that portends bad news for George Bush. And it's the trend that never gets mentioned or analyzed at RealClearPolitics, but the one trend that is perhaps the most relevant and likely to predict the outcome of the election. What is this trend? Let me explain ...

In addition to averaging national polling data, RealClearPolitics also breaks down this polling data by state and uses these state polling averages to work up an state-based, electoral college vote-mapping scenario. It is ultimately this state-based, electoral college vote-mapping scenario that should garner the most attention, because that's how presidents are determined, after all. Furthermore, RealClearPolitics has been mapping its state-based averages daily for a while. As of today, their website lists these daily average since September 21 up to today. And because of shifts in these averages, adjusts its electoral college mapping predictions accordingly. So, in other words, as the race dynamics change in each state, the results force the folks at RealClearPolitics to adjust their predictions of who each state will go for.

Here's where the troubling trend for Bush comes into play. If you look at these trends, you'll see that RCP's (RealClearPolitics) state-based poll averaging methodology has George Bush's predictable (according to their averaging methodology) electoral college vote lead dwindling from a high of 291 in late September to a low of 227 as of today - a dramatic loss of 64 likely electoral college votes. And as this number declines, so too does George Bush's margin of victory in national polls decline (from a high of 5+ percentage points in late September to a thin 1-2 percentage points as of today). But, while the former trend shows Bush losing critically at the state-level and in electoral college votes, the latter trend shows Bush just slightly dipping at the national level, but still always ahead.

Conversely, RCP's state-based, poll averaging methodology shows John Kerry's predictable electoral college vote tally consistently in the range of 200+, with a high of 228, but, with the exception of a one-day low of 189 (October 21), never dipping below the 200 mark.

Electoral votes not allocated to either candidate by RCP come from those states whose poll averages fall within a margin of "too-close-to-call."

All of RCP's daily tallies and electoral vote allocations are supposedly based on a consistent and objective standard of measuring state polling data. Let's assume that its method is fair and objective. Given that assumption, what do we know?

Well, what we know from RCP is that Bush has experienced a significant and consistent decline in battleground states, so much so that states once considered by polling averages to be in his corner are now either toss-ups or trending towards Kerry. Kerry, on the other hand, seems to be holding his own and, if not gaining states out of the toss-up category, at least not losing the states that lean his way to the toss-up column as George Bush has done.

In a nutshell, Bush's once solid footing in battleground states has been consistently slipping and eroding, and thus the electoral votes of these states are now up for grabs. And Kerry's footing remains the same, with more of the previously Bush-leaning toss-ups now his for the taking. It is this trend, heading into the elecion booths today, that should have the Bush folks worried. And, even though RCP, given its pro-Bush leanings, doesn't comment on this trend, we Kerry-supporters have RCP to thank for such hopeful and good news.

Lagniappe: FOX News - Fair and Balanced? - I report, you decide: Is FOX News really "fair and balanced"? Check out the following Headlines:

Oct. 30, 2004 - FOX News Election Poll: Bush 47, Kerry 45. (Bush shows a 2 point lead.)
Article Headline: "10/30/04 Poll: Bush Up By Two Points Over Kerry"

Nov. 1, 2004 - FOX News Election Poll: Kerry 48, Bush 46. (Kerry shows a 2 point lead.)
Article Headline: "FOX National Poll: Voters Split"

Fair and balanced my a**! Kerry/Edwards!!! (Hat tip to
Andew Sullivan.)

Lagniappe: Andrew Sullivan Goes for John Kerry

Lagniappe: Kerry, Bush, and the "Life" Issue -- A Note to Catholic Voters - Where should the pro-life vote go this election? Andrew Sullivan gives perhaps the most rational explanation for voting for Kerry on this issue. He writes:

The Church hierarchy, of course, distinguishes between abortion and the death penalty. Abortion is always wrong. The death penalty is almost always wrong. The "almost" is very small - Rome has come extremely close to saying it is wrong in all cases, and certainly believes it should be restricted to a tiny number of cases where the alternative could be disastrous. Now compare that to Bush's own record. He has signed more death warrants than almost any man in the country. As Texas governor, he showed absolutely no qualms about giving the nod to hundreds of deaths; in fact, he bragged about it. In one case, he even joked about it. He is far closer to the evil of the death penalty than Kerry is to the evil of abortion. And he has shown in his statements on the issue far more glibness than Kerry has ever revealed in the case of abortion. I should say: I think Kerry's support for partial birth abortion and his extreme backing of everything the pro-choice movement wants is troubling. But Bush doesn't get a free pass here. And I'd have more respect for pro-life, pro-Bush Catholics if they averred at least some discomfort with Bush's ease with this particular culture of death.

I've added the emphasis in the above citation because I think it provides a comparative context in defense of the morality of voting for Kerry. If we have two candidates who cannot distance themselves from the evils of abortion and/or capital punishment, then "human prudential judgment" requires Catholics to either abstain from voting altogether in this election or voting for the lesser of two evils, which in the big "pro-life" picture requires a vote for John Kerry.

Lagniappe: Vote for Life - Vote Kerry/Edwards - Read this heartbreaking letter from Brooke M. Campbell, whose brother, Ryan, was death casualty #832 in Bush's misguided war in Iraq. How can anyone with a conscience vote for Bush after reading this? A month before Ryan's death, Bush thought he was being funny when he joked about not having found WMD in Iraq. This C-rate, pathetic excuse of a leader has got to be removed from office. Gof forbid, if Bush wins the Presidency, I will NEVER support him, NEVER "rally behind him," NEVER! (Hat tip to Michael at 2Millionth Web Log for this poignant story.)

Liberal Lighthouse: Alan Keyes vs. Barack Obama - Perhaps the best introductory paragraph to an article that I have ever read. I laughed from one sentence to the next. Here's Tom Franks from The New Republic:

In the Illinois Senate race, Barack Obama leads Alan Keyes by a margin so wide (over 50 points, according to one poll) that a debate between the candidates must--almost as a matter of science--help narrow the campaign. But that would be to underestimate Alan Keyes. As people know, Keyes is candid, eloquent, and intellectually consistent. He argues rather than spins, allowing his logic to take him where it will. He panders to no (earthly) constituency. And he may well have pulled off the impossible last night: lowering his poll numbers even more. Obama is an unconventionally gifted politician, but even an incompetent one--let's go farther, actually: even a dolphin or trained seal--could have done better last night than Alan Keyes. All Obama had to do yesterday was play the Earthling card; Keyes took care of the rest.

Read the whole piece. It's a classic.

Lagniappe: Celebrating the United Nations - Most Americans know of the existence of the United Nations, but very few know much about the organization. For instance, it may come as shocking news to many people that the United States has set aside Oct. 24th as "United Nations Day." If you want to learn about the United Nations more completely, you can visit the UN website by clicking here. But a better site for US Citizens to check out is the United Nations Association of the United States of America (UNAUSA). Their website can be accessed here.

The good number of United States citizens express either ambivalence or even outright hostility to the United Nations as an organization. And this comes primarily out of a very limited understanding of the United Nations in its POLITICAL role. We hear about the Security Council and most of us can recognize the name of the UN Secretary General (Kofi Annan). And we have probably also read about or heard about UN peacekeeping operations or, more recently, UN Security Council battles over the situation in Iraq. But this is simply a tiny fraction of what the UN is all about. What I would encourage reflective people to do is to make a distinction between the "politics" of the UN and the "on-the-ground" work of the UN.

The UN is the single most important agency that undertakes massive and coordinated efforts world wide to battle discrimination, poverty, hunger, displacement, health crises and any other daily life issues that affect the world's most marginalized and ignored populations -- a group that, in fact, sadly, makes up a vast majority of the world's people. One quick look at the organizational chart of the United Nations will give you just a surface-level sense of the magnitude, reach, and impact of the United Nations in the world today. Let me list some of the UN agencies whose works are not only critical to the health, happiness, and well-being of many of the world's dispossessed, but also without which there would be no effective protections or help for the poor and marginalized of the world. For example, there are the myriad of agencies strictly dedicated to humanitarian affairs. Among these are the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which protects and provides a living space for those people who have no "home" on the globe. There's also the Special Representative of the Secretary General for Children & Armed Conflict and the office of the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction. Some other critically important UN Agencies include the United Nations Economic and Social Council (UNESCO), which is the main agency coordinating the UN's impressive Economic and Social Development Programs. Included in this broad umbrella category are institutions like the World Health Organization and the World Food Programme among many, many others.

Needless to say, as you can very well see, the United Nations is not primarily dedicated to issues of war and peace, though certainly this forms an important part of its work. Instead, the United Nations is prinicipally dedicated to helping people, saving lives, and making for a better world for those who live in the most troubled of circumstances.

Many states in the United States have their own particular events and festivities planned in celebration of UN Day on October 24. Please check out the United Nations Association of the United States of America to find out what's going on in your own area. And then join in and become a part of celebrating the good work that the United Nations undertakes.

To look at the United Nations another way, try to envision a world in which the United Nations doesn't exist. How would starvation in Africa be dealt with in the absence of the United Nations? How would the AIDS epidemic worldwide (or the SARS epidemic) be managed without the United Nations? How would peoples displaced by famine or war survive without the United Nations? Who would care about the health and well-being of the world's marginalized and dispossessed if it weren't for the United Nations? We take for granted the presence and the work of the United Nations after almost 60 years of its existence, much like we take for granted the Social Security system of the United States which has saved innumerable lives from destitution and death. In spite of the many failings and weaknesses of the United Nations, the world is undoubtedly in better shape than it would have been without the UN's existence. Anyone concerned with social justice and the fight against global poverty and hunger should embrace the UN, warts and all, as the best chance the global community has of dealing with some of the world's most pernicious problems. I encourage you to do so, and I leave you with a quotation by U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell to inspire you: "...keep in mind what the UN is, the UN is us. It isn't a separate organization that exists separately from its members. It is a creature of its member states...." (Sec. of State Colin L. Powell, 10/1/04). Indeed. The UN is us. It's successes are ours, as well as its failures. We should do no finger-pointing at the UN unless we're willing to assume responsibility for it ourselves. And we most certainly need to do our part to make the United Nations what we want it to be.

Lagniappe: O'Reilly and Sexual Harrassment - I'm not a fan of blow-hard Bill O'Reilly of the FOX network. And I think O'Reilly could very well have a phone sex fetish and could very well be a sexual harrasser. ... But I do have to say that I find his accuser's claim that she was forced to have PHONE sex against her will to be incredible. Who is ever forced to have a phone conversation, any conversation, much less one about sex, against his/her will? Why didn't she just hang up?

Cuaderno Latinoamericano: Editorial on Cuban Academics at LASA - The New Orleans Times-Picayune takes a stand for the free exchange of ideas. Good for the Times-Pic.

Liberal Lighthouse: Andrew Sullivan on the VP Debate, again - This is what pro-War, libertarian/conservative pundit and blogger Andrew Sullivan has to say about the debate:

Maybe, of course, we're all hopelessly biased--and debates are so subjective as to make objective analysis impossible. Maybe my initial unfiltered response was distorted by my expectation that Cheney would win easily, by my watching the debate with a bunch of college students, or by what I'd eaten beforehand. But in the critical battle for the middle ground in this election, it seems to me indisputable that Edwards gained territory for Kerry last night.

Read the whole article here.

Liberal Lighthouse: Jay Nordlinger Take on the Debate - I call this one "Liberal Lighthouse" because Jay Nordlinger's "unvarnished" post-debate evaluation is more a critique of Cheney's debate failures rather than a promotion of the things that made the "debate" a draw as he claims. After reading this piece, one gets the impression that he calls it a draw because he needs to put the most positive spin on a failed performance, and the best he can do (and still be honest with himself) is to call it a draw. The most intellectually honest liberals and conservatives all seem to be saying that BOTH the Kerry/Bush debate and the Cheney/Edwards debate are decisive victories for the Democrats. Good news for Kerry/Edwards, hopeful news! A momentum switcher and an fourth-quarter run that is both exciting and encouraging. Bush/Cheney, on the other hand, seems like a campaign much akin to the New Orleans Saints with a fourth-quarter lead of 21 points that gets whittled down to a tie ball game and is decided by whether the opponent can connect on a 30 yard field goal as time expires in regulation. Oh, that sinking feeling in the gut that we Saints fans know. I imagine this is how it feels to be a Bush/Cheney supporter this morning.

Liberal Lighthouse: Saletan and Sullivan on the Edwards Triumph - My gut first reaction was that the debate was a draw, with victory tilting toward Edwards if it tilted anywhere. However, I am heartened by how some pundits I respect on both the left and the right have so graphically described an Edwards triumph. William Saletan, of Slate, writes a piece that argues that Kerry cleaned Cheney's clock. And Andrew Sullivan wrote on his blog immediately after the debate the writes that the debate was a car-wreck for Cheney and that Cheney was the road'kill. Strong stuff. Looks like the Bush/Cheney ticket is in trouble. Perhaps the next four years will be one of those moments in Cheney's illustrious government career that he'll have to look for another private-sector, Halliburton job until the GOP next regains power.

Liberal Lighthouse: Bush/Kerry Debate Quote of the Day - From Andrew Sullivan:

No president who has presided over Abu Ghraib should ever say he wants to put anyone on a leash.

Yep, that's right. Andrew Sullivan. "Wait a minute," you say ... Andrew Sullivan?!?!?! Jay Nordlinger?!?!?! ... Liberal Lighthouse?!?!?! What is the world coming to?

Cuaderno Latinoamericano: Cuba and the War on Terrorism - What is one country's terrorist is another country's freedom fighter. ... No, it's not what you think. As the Latin American Studies Association prepares for its upcoming conference in Las Vegas, we learn that all 61 Cuban academics who had applied for permission to attend this conference were denied visas. Here's New York Daily News columnist Albor Ruiz to explain in a piece aptly titledTerrorists welcome - if they're anti-Castro:

Let's see if we can make sense out of this: On Tuesday, Washington denied visas to a number of Cuban scholars - I repeat, scholars - who had been invited to participate in an academic conference in Las Vegas.

Yet, in what amounted to a suspension of the war on terror, a few weeks ago, Pedro Remón, Guillermo Novo Sampol and Gaspar Jiménez - three Cuban-Americans with long and proven ties to terrorist activities in this country and abroad - were given a celebrity welcome to the U.S.

Terrorists yes, scholars no? It doesn't make any sense.

Read the whole thing to get a sense of the lunacy and inconsistency (what does Bush call it? Mixed messages?) in the War on Terror. If you want to read up on any of these thugs and the kinds of terrorist acts of violence they have perpetrated over the years, just do a google search on any of the names. You'll be mind-boggled.

How can anyone take Bush seriously in his prosecution of the War on Terror when such unscrupulous murderers receive such a welcome in the United States. What was it that Bush said again about his administration's view of countries that harbor terrorists???

Lagniappe: Bush Debate "Strategery" - Just a random thought ... Many have said that Bush's debate strategy is rooted in setting the performance bar dismally low so that when Bush gives even a mediocre performance, it looks like he shined compared to expectations. I've been wondering if Bush's abysmal first debate performance is part of this "strategery" -- I mean, the only direction Bush can go in debates two and three compared to this last one is up, right?? But I have to say that if this is so, his "strategery" is about as boneheaded and buffoonish as is the word "strategery" itself. In this case, the rhetoric becomes the reality.

The Weak in (National) Review (Or should I classify this as a "Liberal Lighthouse" post?!?): Nordlinger's Zingers - The Bushies must really be sweating when one of their most stalwart supporters, Jay Nordlinger, of the National Review concedes that Bush handily lost the debate -- so much so that, as Nordlinger says, if he were to base his own vote only on the debate, he would have to go with Kerry. In his own words:

I thought Kerry did very, very well; and I thought Bush did poorly — much worse than he is capable of doing. Listen: If I were just a normal guy — not Joe Political Junkie — I would vote for Kerry. On the basis of that debate, I would. If I were just a normal, fairly conservative, war-supporting guy: I would vote for Kerry. On the basis of that debate.

Read his whole piece. Boy, it really is one of Nordlinger's zingers, and a surprising one at that.

Liberal Lighthouse: Bumper Sticker of the Day - No one died when Clinton lied.