Celebrating the Feast of the Virgin of Guadalupe in Mexico

Hat Tip to Andrew Sullivan who calls yesterday's festivities in Mexico celebrating the feast day of the Virgin of Guadalupe The Catholic Superbowl. One of Andrew Sullivan's readers has some very interesting follow-up commentary on this particular performance and performer in the YouTube clip above.

I have to say that I've been to the Basilica of "La Virgen" many, many times over the years, though never during the big feast day celebrations. I can say from experience that the atmosphere is always festive and celebratory, and seemingly more commercialized each year. I always like going, in spite of all that. If you're ever in Mexico City, it's worth a visit, especially on a Sunday. You're not likely to see Mexican Pop Tarts paying homage in flashy and breathy performances; but you will probably be impressed by the real devotion that this place inspires. And, who knows? You might even be inspired!

The Warrantless Blogtapping Program

BLOG UNDER SURVEILLANCE: Right Wing News
Issue: The banning of huckupchuck

I'm not going to harp on the issue, I just wanted to take this opportunity to note that I still haven't been forgotten and that the issue of my banning is still, after some 6 months have passed, on some people's minds. In RWN's regular, bi-weekly Q&A Friday, a commenter, rmiller, thought to pose the following question:

Mr. Hawkins...

I still think it is important to clarify, at least somewhat, why Huckupchuk is no longer posting here.
Care to do that?

Posted by rmiller
December 13, 2007 1:33 AM

All I can do is express my appreciation to rmiller for thinking to ask the question again so as to let Hawkins know that this is not forgotten. I don't think Hawkins will "care" to answer the question; but I am thankful that some people care enough to still ask the question. So, if you ever read this blog, rmiller, please accept my thanks.

Why We Don't Have a TV in the Home

For the past 9 years, my household has been without a TV. My wife and I made the decision to toss the TV the moment we discovered that we were to be parents. Even though my parents think we're nuts, I am glad we made the decision.

There were many reasons behind our decision, one of which was certainly limiting the exposure of our children to the trash that gets broadcast these days. But that reason wasn't the main reason. The most important reason for our decision was really to help us, me and my wife, to be more present to our children.

As my wife and I know all too well (partly because we are constantly reminded of this by well-meaning relatives), TV does have some wonderful and educational programming. We also know that it wouldn't have been all that difficult to monitor how much TV our children would watch and what programs they would be permitted to see. So, we don't view the TV and TV programming, in and of themselves, as some kind of "evil" that will damage the social, emotional, and even physical well-being of our children. And we don't prohibit our children from watching the TV when we visit relatives (or when they visit their friends) where the TV is a part of that experience.

My wife and I, knowing ourselves and imagining how tiring it would be to have to give attention to our children when they required it and not just when we wanted to give it, saw the TV as a very easy and convenient parent substitute. In other words, we could see ourselves relying on the TV to quiet an upset child, to keep the children pacified while we tended to our own tasks, to short-circuit a brewing squabble between the children, to use as a tool of "rewards and punishments" for good or bad behavior, etc. All of this, it seemed to us, was a kind of abdication of parental responsibility. Sure, sometimes it would have provided us with a needed respite from the challenges of parenting in the wake of over-stressful days. Sure, sometimes it would have forged peace and order out of chaos and disorder. Sure, it would have even created more moments for the intimacies of marriage in the sense of my wife and I perhaps having more time for paying closer attention to each other and sharing more frequently with each other our joys and frustrations. But the flip side of these benefits comes the temptation for a weary or harried or undisciplined parent to not make that extra effort to be present to his or her children even though he or she may be tired, frustrated, or frazzled. And as the practice of relying on the TV for "crisis" moments becomes more habitual, the temptation to rely on the TV as a matter of course or out of pure convenience grows.

This is not to say that other things, such as the computer or the portable DVD player, can't take the place of the TV. But surely the TV is the "elephant in the room" when it comes to such things; and, besides, what's the harm in eliminating anything that can be a convenient substitute for parenting? Maybe a household without a TV and a computer and a portable DVD player is ideal; but certainly a house without a TV, but with a computer or a portable DVD player, is arguably better than a household with all three!

After 9 years without a TV, I can tell you that my kids don't miss it or even whine about not having one. To them, our house has always been a place without a TV. It's really a non-issue for them. As for me and my wife, we feel rather liberated. 10 years ago, I'd say we had a bit of TV addiction. Now, my wife and I also don't think of TV at all when we're in the house. You know that urge to turn on the TV once you arrive home from work? Not present at all in my life anymore. You know the alignment of a home's furnishings in the living room that all point towards the TV? Not so in my house. The sofa, the lounge chair, the coffee table, the chairs, etc., in our house are all focused around the communal space -- where the children play with their blocks or where they put on their plays or where they perform their dance recitals. Bedroom furniture and layout? Same thing.

It's been great on so many levels. And I'm sure my wife and I would agree that we're better parents for it.

Joining the Christmas Video War

Seems like I am late in coming to the Christmas video war among some NOLA bloggers. Scout Prime at First Draft has some real doozies. Hard to compete with that. virgotex takes up the challenge with a fine sally. Oyster at Your Right Hand Thief counterattacks with this. I have to say that Scout Prime, especially after unleashing her secret weapon from the reserve vaults, has the upper hand in the battle so far. Here's my humble sortie in the war:



Maybe not up there with Scout Prime, Oyster, or virgotex, but I think I can hold my own with this submission, and leave some bruises in my wake!

UPDATE 12/12/2007 12:40PM: Even though he apparently "doesn't want to fight," Celsus is now in on the brou-ha-ha with his shot across the bow. And Leigh C., not to be outdone, makes this seasonal holiday battle an ecumenical one with this Adam Sandler classic!

UPDATE 12/12/2007 5:10PM: Celsus regroups and makes a truly impressive second assault. As does Scout Prime. And let's not forget virgotex, who makes quite a find. Oyster's gag-inducing, self-declared winning knock-out blow is still lightweight, if you ask me. In the end, I think Greg's blitzkrieg over at Suspect Device: The Blog has to be the winner. Hands down. I'm raising the white flag of surrender and won't even try to compete anymore. I'll just leave you with this Christmas ditty, courtesy of the worst of the best of 1980s British Pop:



The music, lyrics, and fashion are bad enough as it is; but when you add the many layers of racial, class, and gender patronization wrapped up in this whole Band Aid enterprise (Ugh! Even the title of "Band Aid" offends!), how can one not get that profoundly sick feeling deep down in the recesses of one's being. Man, as someone who came of age in the 80s, I feel soooooooo cheated by everything about Popular Culture of that decade.

Oh, and, by the way, Merry Christmas!

What Immunity for Private Contractors Can Do In Iraq

Any sentient human being has probably heard of the horror stories of atrocities committed by Blackwater, a private security contractor employed by the U.S. Government in Iraq. What is particularly troublesome about the Blackwater case is what it reveals to us about the unaccountability and legal immunity that such contractors have in Iraq. Apparently, because Blackwater is not part of any official U.S. agency or department, such as the State Department or the Defense Department, it is not subject to the laws that govern the behavior of these governmental entities and it is exempt from prosecution for its misdeeds and crimes committed abroad. Furthermore, because Blackwater is a foreign entity in Iraq it may also be exempt from prosecution by the Iraqis according to Iraqi domestic law. In essence, Blackwater and other similarly-positioned contractors in Iraq seem to have de facto legal immunity against criminal prosecution for what they may do in Iraq.

But, as the tragic case of Jamie Leigh Jones demonstrates, this problem not only applies to non-security contractors such as Halliburton/KBR, but also even when crimes are committed by employees of such contractors against their fellow workers. The ABC News report, linked above, writes:

A Houston, Texas woman says she was gang-raped by Halliburton/KBR coworkers in Baghdad, and the company and the U.S. government are covering up the incident.

Jamie Leigh Jones, now 22, says that after she was raped by multiple men at a KBR camp in the Green Zone, the company put her under guard in a shipping container with a bed and warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she'd be out of a job.

Read the whole sad story. As you mourn what happened to Jamie Leigh Jones, and as you stand shocked and stunned by the brazenness and unaccountability of Halliburton/KBR and its employees, ponder the conditions and the enviroment that made such a thing possible. I challenge any of my readers and war supporters to come up with any scenario in the United States where such an incident would be tolerated.

I suggest to you that the whole sick culture of anti-terrorism warfare cultivated by the Bush administration, ranging from the suspension of civil rights contained in the Patriot Act to the atrocities of Abu Ghraib to the sanctioning of "harsh interrogation techniques" such as waterboarding (otherwise known as torture), leads to this kind of sick behavior where U.S. citizens employed by a U.S. corporation contracted by the U.S. government can brutally rape a fellow U.S. citizen and then keep her locked up in isolation in a container without having to face any repercussions or without being held accountable at all for this outrage. Now, I certainly am willing to concede that this incident is certainly not the norm and that the vast majority of the folks working in Iraq with subcontractors such as Halliburton/KBR are honorable people doing good work. But I will also declare emphatically that one case like that of Jamie Leigh Jones is one case too much; and that any culture of warfare that makes it possible for such atrocities to happen without accountability and justice is not a culture of warfare that we should accept.

Spiritual Leaders, Critical Thinking, and Pop Culture

Once again, with The Golden Compass now showing in theaters, the debate over popular cultural production's supposed hostility to religious faith (and particularly Christianity) is again rearing its ugly head. The pattern is all too familiar. People of faith, particularly Christians, meet such cultural productions with claims of religious intolerance, if not persecution. And it is all the more stark around Christmas time, when some Christians feel particularly persecuted because cashiers at Wal-Mart don't wish them a Merry Christmas as they pass through the checkout line. But I digress ... the subject I really want to get into is the role that religious leaders play in the so-called "culture wars." It seems that whenever a controversial cultural production, such as The Golden Compass, or Harry Potter, or The DaVinci Code enters the mainstream of our society, some religious leaders feel it incumbent to their duties to dictate how their flock should approach such productions. Should we read the His Dark Materials Trilogy (the first book of which is The Golden Compass), the Harry Potter series, the DaVinci Code novel? Should we see the movies based on them? Usually, such religious leaders never refrain from offering their opinion on the subject, sometimes going so far as to declare a spiritual mandate of sorts on what a "good" Christian must do. And, generally, these mandates are exhortations that we avoid these dangerous books and films and that we keep our children away from them, too.

The irony of such kinds of mandates from religious leaders, as I see it, is that someone has to read the books and see the movies in order to be informed enough to know whether or not to discourage the flock from reading and/or viewing them. I have a number of reactions to ministers/priests when they do this. First, I am always somewhat insulted that they presume to know better (or can know better) than I as to what constitutes appropriate book reading and movie viewing. Second, I get put out that they seem to think that it is somehow o.k. for them to read controversial books and watch controversial movies. And third, I get especially huffy if they haven't read the book or seen the film, and yet still presume to tell me that I shouldn't do either on the basis of some secondhand reaction.

I know that most religious leaders are well-intentioned, but I'd rather that they restricted themselves to doing their jobs in the pulpit in interpreting the meaning of scripture, and then let us decide through our God-given minds and critical thinking skills, and based on the meaning of scripture they provide, what is appropriate to consume in our popular culture as opposed to what is not appropriate to consume.

Cold/Heat Miser: Big Bad Voodoo Daddy Performing

Remember this from the Classic Rankin/Bass Production, The Year Without A Santa Claus? It was (and remains) one of my favorite Christmas cartoon experiences of all time. This particular YouTube clip nicely matches the Big Bad Voodoo Daddy version of the tune with the actual scene from the original film. Enjoy!

Who is Huck_Martha?

Hmmm. I was reading the comments to this posting over at the Right Wing News blog and I noticed this comment:

I'm curious. Who do you consider the "founder" of Christianity? Emperor Constantine ?

Posted by Huck_Martha
December 8, 2007 9:00 PM |

I don't know who the heck this "Huck_Martha" person is, but I can assure anyone from RWN who might wonder, it is certainly not I. (As proof, please know that I would never write "Who do you consider ..." Such bad grammar. The correct thing to write, which I would always do, is "Whom do you consider ...") Still ... I think the person who posts under the numerous "Martha" reincarnations is a certifiable nutcase. And it angers me that this person would create such a username knowing full well about my history at RWN. I would expect anyone who knows of my history at RWN to keep any part of my identity out of what s/he does. And this "Martha" character has been around RWN long enough to certainly know about me. I only hope the "Huck" part of the "Huck_Martha" signature comes more from the rise of Mike Huckabee and not because "Martha" is somehow harking back to me when I posted there as "huckupchuck." (Aside: The rise of Mike Huckabee, especially his collaboration with Chuck Norris on a well-known campaign ad has really been a kind of curse for The Huck Upchuck.) Back to "Huck_Martha" ... I don't know how long "Huck_Martha" has been posting at RWN, but I hope that account is banned forthwith.

Because It's Sunday: Jorge Aragão performing Ave Maria

Jorge Aragão, one of Brazil's renowned samba and pagode composers and performers, gives us a stirring rendition of the Ave Maria, pagode style.



Beautiful.

From the Archives: Why We Won't Homeschool Our Children

[NOTE: I wrote this a few years back. I've edited it a bit simply to update some of the time relevant parts, but thought I'd post it again because the basic content and gist of it still reflects my thinking on the subject.]

My wife and I seriously considered home schooling for our children. Ultimately, we decided against it; but for a reason that is a bit different than what one normally hears from home schooling critics, though the reasons most often listed by this group (social skill development concerns, etc.) certainly helped to inform our decision as well. But, I also agree with those who say that the social skills argument against home schooling is not a very convincing argument on its own. In my experience, home-schooled kids are perfectly capable and pleasant social beings, they just socialize in a way that we don't usually associate with conventional child social behavior. The problem my wife and I ultimately had with home-schooling can be gleaned in this comment by a home school advocate and practitioner, which I find to be fairly typical for homeschoolers:

There are so MANY options out there now for kids outside of school for this involvement in some form of greater supervision. A variety of sports, boy/girl scouts, karate, drama and dance, church involvement..and normal hanging out with other kids (again, homeschool families network like crazy and go out of their way to plan "get togethers.")

In my mind the two cautionary elements in this comment have to do specifically with the phrases "greater supervision" and "to plan 'get togethers.'" Both detract from a child's ability to have his or her "own" learning/life experience. All aspects of such a child's life are planned, supervised, and guarded. And all activities that such children do are tinged with parental sanction and approval. Not that this is bad, necessarily, but it certainly is a "conditioned" experience. And in my mind, this leaves little room for children to learn to deal on their own with self-control, moral behavior, and difficult problem-solving - minus the watchful, protective, sheltering gaze of the protective parent (or parental figure).

I think it is true that the most important teaching about social interaction and even the process of learning comes in the context of the home and in the way parents raise their children to think and behave ... BUT, children need an opportunity to put their discerning abilities to the test WITHOUT the umbrella of the parental and "home" cocoon. And the classroom of a good, respectable school (whether private or public) is, in my opinion, the best place for kids to come into their own.

In the end, my wife and I are sending our children to a good public school. It's not without its challenges, but it's worked great for our children so far. They are developing strong independent identities and are becoming very self-confident.

Our President and His Legacy

This is what we've represented to the world over the past 7 years:



Great role model for this:



Ahem ... well ... at least we can give some props to the young woman for being beautiful and some slack for being young. What's Bush's redemption and/or excuse?

[Hat tip to Drive-By Blogger for introducing me to the Bush clip.]

Top 10 Christmas Movies

Here's The Huck Upchuck's Top 10 Christmas Movies of all time:

10. Nestor, the Long-Eared Christmas Donkey -- This may not be on par with some of the better full-length feature films that treat Christmas, but I have always adored this little 22 minute Bass/Rankin animated Christmas story. I guess it's thematically of a piece with the classic "Little Drummer Boy" Bass/Rankin animated short, but I like it better because it's not as well known and gives the animals of the Christmas story their moment. And who can forget: "Ears, Nestor!" :-) This is the only Bass/Rankin animated production that I'll include in my list, though there are certainly some more classics in this bunch of Christmas shorts that entertain the little ones every Christmas season. Honorable mentions in this category of "claymation" Christmas classics include The Year Without a Santa Claus, which features the Heat Miser, the Cold Miser, and Mother Nature, and Rudolph, the Red-Nosed Reindeer.

9. Barbie in the Nutcracker -- Given that I have two young daughters, it's hard not to find room for something like this in the Top 10 list. However, I have to say that this is actually quite a very impressive digital computer animated adaptation of the Nutcracker story. It's the first of these Barbie movies, and I remember thinking how graphically stunning it was at the time. The music and the dancing scenes in this version of the Tchaikovsky-scored Ballet are also quite good. None of the many subsequent Barbie animation movies compares in both production quality and plotline development as this original one. If you can overlook the whole Barbie culture and how it crafts an unrealistic and idealistic notion of female beauty, you can find a little gem of a Christmas movie here.

8. Emmet Otter's Jug-Band Christmas -- This charming muppet musical Christmas story from Jim Hensen conjures nostalgic Christmas memories for me. It is filled with all the great Christmas themes of selflessness, love, family, and friendship. It's not as technically slick as some of our modern day animation and muppetry, but it was a masterpiece of its day. I just love the sweetness and wholesomeness of this lovely little story, and the tunes are catchy and fun. Heck, even the bad guys in this story, the Riverbottom Boys Gang, have their own redeeming charm. Another little interesting tidbit to note is that the actors who provide the voices for Emmet Otter and his jug band friends also provide the voices for the characters in the Riverbottom Boys gang. It's fun to try and identify the alter egos in these two groups. Yes, there are times when the puppetry is so noticeable that it distracts from the story, but I am always struck by how few these moments are. For families with kids 12-yrs-old and younger, this Jim Hensen masterpiece should be a Christmas standard.

7. The Nativity Story - While I found The Nativity Story to be a bit superficial and overly simplistic, it is perhaps the best effort that I've seen to portray the nativity story on film with somewhat of a realistic feel, even though I think its pretensions to realism cynically mask what is essentially a romanticized and imaginary representation of history. The script is perhaps the weakest element of this movie, and the plotline is thin and incomplete in parts; and, unfortunately, the scene where a laboring Mary and Joseph arrive at Nazareth and make their way to the manger for the climactic birth of Jesus is so surreal that it almost sinks the realist believability of the whole movie. Nevertheless, it gets my recommendation for effort and for its undeniably impressive cinematography, not to mention the subtle beauty of actress Keisha Castle-Hughes as Mary and the wonderful performance of Ciaran Hinds as Herod.

6. The Polar Express -- This slick, cgi animated telling of the classic train-to-the-north-pole story merits a place in my top ten because it is visually stunning cgi animation. The storyline is 100% pure Christmas spirit -- of giving, friendship, and faith. I originally thought that the movie would be too saccharine for me and would wear off after the initial viewing and captivating animation "honeymoon" period. However, I found this not to be the case. Every time I'm in a room and this show is on the TV screen, I find myself drawn to it, less so for the visuals and moreso for the storyline. Most of the kids are slight caricatures, and it really is an unabashed feel-good movie, but it all tends to work in the end. I think this movie will become part of the classic Christmas movie lineup.

5. A Christmas Carol -- Of the numerous versions of this Dickens classic Christmas tale that exist, and that I have seen, the one that I find to be the most moving, best directed, and most skillfully acted is the 1984 version produced for TV starring George C. Scott. What I love about this particular version is that George C. Scott's Ebeneezer Scrooge is so understated. Unlike the Scrooge one sees in almost all other productions, Scott's Scrooge is not the caricatured heartless and unreflective miser that experiences an over-dramatic conversion. Scott's Scrooge is a troubled and conflicted soul, wracked by regrets, who hardens his heart principally as a mechanism of avoiding pain and disappointment. His greed and vindictiveness are not really central to his character. They exist, but they are sidebars to the real roots of his anti-social behavior. And his conversion does not come from fear, but rather from an awareness and eventual acceptance of his brokenness as a human, and that this brokenness is not unique and can be repaired. What I also like about Scott's Scrooge is that his "converted" character is softer, but still retains some of his gruff and troubled edges. In other words, when Christmas day dawns, he's not a completely different and unrecognizable Scrooge, as is so often portrayed, just a more vulnerable and human Scrooge, willing to open up, share, and smile.

4. Miracle on 34th Street -- I prefer the classic 1947 movie starring Natalie Wood as the little girl and Edmund Gwenn as Kris Kringle. There is something about the 1940s that makes the telling of this tale of belief in Santa resonate much more powerfully than the more recent 1994 remake starring Richard Attenborough. The simplicity of the Christmas message, the lack of pretense in the characters, the absence of a post-modern angst about the meaning of Christmas all make the 1947 movie such a joy to watch. What is interesting, I think, is that this particular movie takes on much, much better the alienation that has come with the creeping materialism of the holiday season than any other modern efforts. It's a refreshing, clean, wholesome and inspiring film. And its relevance to the contemporary Christmas environment is still very much real.

3. A Christmas Story -- One's top 10 Christmas movies list would never be complete without this classic included somewhere in the list. For me, this story ranks up there with the best of them. Maybe it's because I'm a guy and this film is really about little boys at Christmas. Ralphie's daydreams are hilarious, especially his "A+++++++++++" essay daydream. And who can forget the irony of the "You'll shoot your eye out!" admonition that actually almost happens. As a parent, I can't say that I'm thrilled about the fact that Ralphie creates the whopper lie that "the Icicle did it" when his Red Rider BB Gun almost puts his eye out, and then gets away with it! But, hey, what little boy hasn't gone down this path? I do, however, feel obliged to issue a warning to parents, though. This movie is marketed as suitable for Children, but beware that there are some really rough, uncensored moments of strong profanity here. It's a movie that is very much politically incorrect, so some might find some of the humor a bit much. But, if taken in the right spirit, it can make for an enjoyable film experience.

2. Love, Actually -- I just love, love, love this modern British movie. It's not really about Christmas, but it takes place around the Christmas season, and its theme is about the mundane beauty of love. The different vignettes are wonderfully done, and the cast is star-studded and stellar. What I particularly like about it is that not all of the stories have a happy ending, but all of them are about love in the Christmas season. Bill Nighy's irreverent performance is absolutely fantastic, and the proposal scene between Colin Firth's character and his Portuguese beauty is so classically romantic that I can watch it over and over and over again, and never get tired of it. And the fact that I know a bit of Portuguese helps me better appreciate the moment. Oh ... I get all wound up just thinking about all the dramas in this movie. I could go on and on about it. And, though I could have done without the sappy kiddie-crush subplot, even this, with some screening of the some fo the more adult scenes, makes it something even the tweens could enjoy. I should say, though, that there are some adult moments, and not all of the film is appropriate for young people, even tweens. For instance, one of the story lines features two characters who are stand-in doubles for what is apparently a porn film, and their scenes often involve nudity and sexually explicit actions, though the relationship itself is ironically sweet and innocent, which makes the contrast with the porn thing all the more stark. Overall, though, I think this film is just fantastic, and the message of love, in all its complex messiness and varied context, can't be beat. Highly recommended, but with appropriate caution when youngsters are involved.

1. It's a Wonderful Life -- I don't care how cheesy, overplayed, and overdramatized some think this movie is, it's still the best Christmas story out there. And I still get all choked up every time I see that last scene when everyone shows up and showers George Bailey with more money than he could ever need to resolve his dilemma. As an actor and person, Jimmy Stewart is one of the best. And Lionel Barrymore's portrayal of the villain, Henry F. Potter, is more classic Scrooge than Scrooge himself!



PS: I'll repost this when we get closer to Christmas.

UPDATE 12/7/07 10:30AM: I originally ran this post in mid-November, and thought it time to run it again now.

[NOTE: Hat tip to commenter Good_Ol_Boy at the Right Wing News blog, for suggesting this in a comment thread.]

Faith in the White House

We've heard a lot recently about religious faith and its relevance to the job of President. In fact, religious faith is being used in both positive and negative ways already in the campaigning in ways that I cannot ever remember being so prominent. It seems that religious faith is almost the central defining feature of this primary campaign season.

For instance, Arkansas Governor, and Candidate for the GOP Presidential Nomination, Mike Huckabee, attributes his current rise in the the polls and in popularity exclusively and completely to his Christian God and the power of prayer. Here's a clip of Huckabee, without any hesitation at all, making this bold (and dare I say outlandish) claim in a Q&A session at Liberty University:



Here's a man running for President, just one of any number of believers, mind you (so why would God privilege his campaign over others??), who is claiming a kind of religious mandate for office, yet who said at a Presidential debate that Jesus himself wouldn't be running for President. We can all make what we will of this; but I'm only here to point out how central religious faith is to Huckabee's campaign and how he has inserted this directly into the political space of the Presidential race.

Then there's Mitt Romney, who recently made a major speech defending his Christian religious credentials against the questions being raised about his Mormon faith. It really hasn't been since 1960, when John F. Kennedy gave a speech defending himself against questions raised about his suitability for the Presidency because of his Catholicism. The difference, though, is that now Romney defends himself by using the "America is a country of many faiths" argument, while demanding the requirement of religious faith (of some kind, at least) for the Presidency. Andrew Sullivan has a go at this element of the Romney campaign. Romney's speech is really more for the members of the GOP, and so I'm content to let the right wing punditocracy squabble internally about how much Romney's Mormonism matters. But, again, my point here is not to judge, but simply to point out the centrality of religious faith to the current political Presidential campaign environment.

Then there's Barack Obama. I, myself, have been impressed and inspired by the manner in which Obama embraces and speaks on the subject of religious faith in the political sphere. But, even here, though I think he speaks on the subject in an ecumenical and universalizing way, Barack Obama contributes to the movement of making religious faith central to the political process. Recently, though, Barack Obama has been the subject of the nastier side of this process. He has been cloaked with the mantra of Islam, by his rivals on the right as well as his competitors on the left, as if doing so will tarnish his reputation by affiliating him with the "evil" religion of the terrorists.

Now, what do I think on the subject? Well, I do think there is a place for discussing religion and faith in the public space. And I do think our political leaders should be forthright about their faith. They should not use the legitimate notions of secular government and church/state separation to relegate the importance of their religious faith to the background of their identities. However, that is not to say that religion should be a litmus test for one's suitability to be the President. A candidate can certainly make a good President and also demonstrate a strong faith commitment. There is a line, though, that I believe should divide faith and politics. It is when folks begin advocating the erasure of this line and the merging of these realms of faith and politics that I begin to have problems with it. I think this threshhold is where the candidates sort themselves out. When it comes to what I think is an appropriate relationship between faith and politics, I put Barack Obama, Fred Thompson, and Ron Paul on one side, the side whose candidates don't hide their faith, but who also don't make their faith also the rock base of their political platform; and Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee on the other side, the side whose candidates root their politics fully in faith. The former candidates value the importance of faith personally, but see an America where even those without faith of any kind are co-equal citizens. The latter candidates seem to want to cloak America with religion through public policy. And I'm very, very uncomfortable with that.

In the end, and in keeping with the intent of this posting, I should state that I value the inclusion of dialogue over faith in the public and political sphere, but only insofar as it is inclusive, nonjudgmental, and universalizing. We are all Americans, after all. Many of us are people of faith, and so we should be able to talk about this in the public sphere; many of us people of faith are people of different faiths, so this public dialogue should not presume the privileging of one faith over another; and, of course, some of us are not people of faith, which means that our public dialogue over faith as it relates to politics and citizenship should involve all citizens, even those with no religious faith, as equals in the discussion.

Assessment Reform???

The New Orleans Times-Picayune has an exposé on how the new property tax assessment system isn't working as the "reformers" had hoped. Apparently, the same kind of "squeaky wheel gets the grease" syndrome is at work, only this time it's the private company subcontracted to handle appeals rather than the assessors themselves. Here's how the article starts:

If most homeowners came away smiling after successfully seeking lower assessments from the firm hired by the city to manage 6,000 appeals, the city's seven assessors were less thrilled with the outcome.

In about one-third of the cases in which they were overturned, the assessors are appealing the appeals. In defense of their original valuations, the assessors have asked the state Tax Commission to review about 1,350 properties that received reductions from the City Council, which acted on the advice of the law firm Frilot LLC.

To some assessors, the privatized process was riddled with the same capriciousness for which assessors have long been criticized. The old system came under fire because it promoted cozy relations between homeowners and the people who decide how much their houses are worth.

Well, well, well ...

"Appealing the appeals" ?!?!?! I wonder how much that's going to cost the taxpayer.

Anyway ...

It appears that some of my fears about the "reform" movement, particularly the principle of "outsourcing" the assessment process to an unelected and unaccountable private subcontractor, which formed a part of the "IQ" or "I Quit" platform, are coming home to roost. The more we outsource or privatize public policy decision-making (such as tax collection) away from the elected officials who are specifically elected by the people to do this job, the measure of accountability goes down a notch. Now, we have a situation where Assessors can claim that they were doing the very difficult job that the electorate demanded of them, but that the outsourcing of the appeals process is resulting in more of the same inequities that previously existed. The difference is, now, that taxpayers are footing the bill not only for the salaries of the Assessors and their offices, but also the costs of this independent and private subcontractor hired to handle appeals that should have been handled by the Assessors themselves. The way the Assessors are talking now, including IQ reformer Nancy Marshall, they'd have us believe that their hands are tied by the City Council and the Tax Commission. And, truth be told, their complaints are justified. They were elected to do a job, which should include handling the appeals to their own assessments, and yet the "privatization" of part of the job to an unelected and unaccountable third party has meant that we can now STILL have gross inequities in the assessment process, but that the assessors, whom we elect for the job, can't be held accountable. That was part of my beef with the IQ movement to begin with. They wanted to "quit," to absolve themselves ultimately of the responsibilities of the job and to use their salaries to pay for a better-qualified, non-political, unelected, professional, and "objective" private assessment authority to fix the problem. Well, they quit part of their job (which is handling the appeals) and look where it got them. Look where it got us.

I sniffed some of these problems out from the beginning. I lamented the fact that the assessment and appeals processes were not transparent and clear. I feared adding another layer of disconnect between the voter and the decision-makers that characterized the IQ movement. I deplored the IQ movement not for its representation of a need for reforming the assessment process, but for its cynical treatment of the democratic process in doing so, for its plans that I saw as an effort to remove assessments even further from elected officials and, thus, public accountability.

So I ask now, especially to IQ movement supporters, when looking at this joke of an appeals process that smacks of institutionalized and privatized cronyism (you know, the softer, gentler side of private sector customer service philosophy, where the customer is "always right") whom do we punish at the polls the next time around?

My recommendation is that we force the Assessors not to "quit" their jobs, not to "quit" even any part of their jobs, but to reclaim the whole kit-and-kaboodle, from determining assessment to dealing with appeals directly, and to do it right and competently according to the expectations of the people who elected them.

There's so much more to be said on this point, and I'll probably say more on this myself in the upcoming weeks, but I'll stop here for now, take a breath to try to cool my boiling blood, and listen to what you have to say.

UPDATE: Tuesday, December 4, 7:26pm: Oyster at Your Right Hand Thief has a different reaction. In fact, we're kinda at strong loggerheads on this point. I think it's because we both are a bit personally invested in aspects of the assessment issue. He's graciously linked to me in an update to his original posting. He also has a much more detailed critique of my posting in the comments section (to which I responded), so be sure to read them. Let me just say that I respect Oyster's position and see the value of his points. He argues that I lack a sense of history and proportion. I don't think so. I think, if anything, I'm too much wracked by a sense of history and proportion. I think Oyster is so invested in the success of the current reform process (and I should note that I, too, hope for the best), that he is willing to overlook the obvious: the same patterns are present, albeit under different "management." He wants to look forward with positive energy to a new game, as do we all, but we still need to be vigilant lest we let our hopes blind us to the process of continuing to exorcise the ghosts that go much deeper than who occupies the assessor's chair. He makes the case that I'm "letting the perfect be an enemy of the good." That's one way to look at it, I suppose. But, as I wrote in a comment to his posting over at YRHT, I'd describe my attitude more as not letting an imperfect better be an excuse for the bad. And, I don't know about you all, but what I read on the front page this morning in the Times-Picayune, especially when coupled with the picture and caption of the recent assessment history of 1442 Nashville Ave., was bad.

O Amor é um Rock

One of my recent favorites from Brazilian songwriter and musician Tom Zé. Enjoy this rather unique, enigmatic, and philosophical take on the contours of "love."



"O amor é egoista," indeed!

Free the St. Tammany Six!

The New Orleans Times-Picayune ran an interesting, but troubling story today of the unlawful detention and imprisonment of illegal migrant workers who are witnesses to a murder. Here's the basic crux of the situation:

Because they were illegal immigrants as well as material witnesses to the April 29 crime, the men were immediately taken into custody and have remained in jail for the past seven months: first in St. Tammany, then in federal custody, then back to the north shore. For the first six months, they didn't have an attorney.

They're stuck in a perilous limbo, in the fissure between state and federal government -- trapped between prosecutors, who need them to testify at the trial of four suspects, and immigration officials, who would deport them if they were released.

Here's my take on the situation. If we are a country of laws, then regardless of what our position is on the illegal immigration question, if we are going to make obedience to the law and its enforcement the cornerstone of our social order, much less as our approach to the illegal immigration problem, we should at least respect the law ourselves. Currently, the law, like it or not, does not allow for the detention and imprisonment of individuals, even illegal immigrants, without formally charging them with a specific crime and beginning the process of hearing the case according to established legal procedures. (Except, of course, if someone is identified as an "enemy combatant" by the President, which could erase even one's basic human rights, but that's another topic altogether and is irrelevant to this case since none of these illegal immigrants, as far as I know, have been declared "enemy combatants" by the President.)

Seems to me that our system of laws, if we pretend to still be a country of laws, requires one of the following courses of action: (1) charging these six individuals with a crime (legitimately verifiable and not trumped-up) that warrants such lengthy detention and imprisonment according to the law, as well as providing them with the corresponding rights to legal representation and due process; (2) releasing them immediately from jail, and accepting that they may be deported in accordance with immigration law and may thus prevent the ability of prosecutors to call them as witnesses in a murder trial that would put violent criminals behind bars and provide for the safety of the general public; (3) making an accommodation with federal immigration authorities that normalizes their legal resident status in the United States that would subsequently prevent their immediate deportation while securing their immediate release from prison. [ASIDE: There is, of course, a fourth option: having the POTUS declare these six people enemy combatants. But doing this would be nightmarish as it would confirm the worst fears of the cynical use and abuse of such authority imaginable -- even though, sadly, unthinkable that this would have been in different times, it would not come as a surprise to me if something like this were done.]

What is unconscionable and illegal is the status quo: keeping these six men, not charged with any crime, locked up in jail without sufficient legal representation (and withouth any legal representation for six months!) and due process of law.

Regardless of any other considerations, if we are a country of laws, and if we expect migrants to themselves obey our laws, this really should be a no-brainer: they should be freed immediately from jail in accordance with our laws. The argument that they don't deserve such privileges because they are illegal immigrants is a non-starter argument. Those who would make such an argument would be doing so on the basis of wishful thinking and not on the basis of sound legal grounding and precedent. For those who think this way, the long term solution is to get legislators to craft laws that would serve justice all around instead of having to carry out (or at the very least tolerate) one injustice and violation of the law in the pursuit of rectifying another injustice and upholding the law. In the meantime, though, it seems to me that the correct and proper course of action in accordance with the law is clear:

Free the St. Tammany Six!

The U.S. and Latin America: At a Critical Juncture

A few weeks back, a fairly well-known and well-respected scholar of U.S.-Latin American Relations, Riordan Roett, came to Tulane as part of the inaugural events of the new Center for Interamerican Policy and Research (CIPR) which is affiliated with my office, the Stone Center for Latin American Studies.

Professor Roett participated in a series of meetings, and I attended a luncheon meeting at which the small group discussed informally the nature of contemporary U.S.-Latin American Relations. One of the points that came up during this discussion which Professor Roett made was that U.S. policy makers these days, as most clearly reflected by the frontrunner candidates of each major party in the upcoming U.S. Presidential contest, have almost no substantive interest to speak of in Latin America as a world region. Of course, the one exception to this could be Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, but even then our interest in Chavez is mostly reactive to his outrageous behavior and is still only sporadically on the radar screen. And when US policymakers are engaged with Latin America, it is almost always in the context of domestic issues: immigration, trade, jobs, etc. As a student of Interamerican relations, I have myself noticed this trend and basically agree with this assessment. What is interesting about this trend is that it is somewhat counterintuitive to the trend of the increasing "Latin Americanization" of the U.S., which generally everyone admits is occurring, for better or for worse, to some degree or another. One would think that as we in the U.S. become more intertwined with Latin America, the greater our interest in the region would be.

This discussion prompted me to explore more fully a hypothesis that has been brewing in my mind as of late which seeks to explain more systematically why this may be. I am now in the process of a more formal investigation of the subject which I will hopefully write up in a paper that I will present to my peers for their reactions at any one of a number of upcoming conferences.

My basic hypothesis is that the disconnect between the growing integration of the U.S. and Latin America and the relative disinterest among our policymakers in the region is nothing more than a reflection of the product of a deep-seated psychological discomfort and anxiety that Anglo-America is experiencing as it feels the waning of its cultural hegemony in the context of this inexorable integration and as it thus relinquishes its position of privilege and dominance, especially in the realm of culture, to what Nestor Garcia-Canclini might call a culture of hybridity.

In essence, what I think is happening is that the people of the United States are sensing that we are at a cultural critical juncture in our history, and that this juncture bodes a change that will radically reorient what it means to be "American" - at least how they have come to understand the meaning of an American identity. Thus, I think what we are witnessing in reaction is a kind of policy and attitudinal schizophrenia. We see policy makers ignoring the region at one level, yet obssessing over the region's impact on the domestic reality of the United States at another level. We witness no coherent foreign policy that seeks to engage the leaders and the people of Latin America all the while we see a kind of psychotic obsession with the dangers of the Latin Americanization of our culture and our society, all of which is manifested in a resurgent isolationism (withdrawal from engaged diplomacy in the region, a resurgent economic protectionism, etc.), a reactionary cultural nativism (English as the official language), and strong traces of an ugly xenophobia in the anti-illegal immigration movement the likes of which I have not witnessed in my lifetime.

In essense, we are disengaging ourselves formally from the region precisely because we are becoming ever more integrated with the region. And the more we realize that we cannot escape this process of cultural hybridization, the more we try to bury our heads in the sand in the face of it.

This is a very preliminary and rough outline of my hypothesis. I think, though, that there is clear evidence in support of it and I'll be developing it more thorougly over the next few months. But I wanted to share it here now, and will welcome your thoughts on the subject.

Some Great NOLA Music

Because I had the pleasure of hearing some of this live yesterday ...

And because it's Friday ...

Thought you might enjoy some Washboard Chaz Trio blues.

Confidential to President_Friedman

P_F: In John Hawkins' "Liveblogging the YouTube Debate" posting from yesterday at RWN, you wrote in one of your comments:

I thought McCain won easily with Thompson, Huck, and Rudy tied for third. One thing about Huck, he got some easy questions.

Heh. I'll take a roundabout mention on RWN -- even one intended for someone else ;) -- whenever I can get one.

Indulge me a couple of comments. First, I'd never be found on stage participating as a candidate in a GOP primary debate. Second, I'd never finish anyplace but first. Third, I never get softball questions, I always just make them look softball by my magnificent answers!

"Damn right, it's you."

"Damn right, it's you." -- That's what Jarvis DeBerry opines New Orleans would tell the Presidential Debate Commission should the Commission admit that its decision to shun New Orleans had nothing to do with the City and everything to do with its own dysfunctions and incompetency. Here's the relevant section in the DeBerry column:

We've heard that the city isn't ready to stage a large event. Then we've heard that the rejection has nothing to do with the city's ability to stage a large event.

We've heard that the city's ability to provide security is a concern. We've heard the security complaint despite multiple visits made by President Bush and his wife Laura in the past two years.

We've heard that too many people were involved in the application. (Four local universities jointly applied to stage the event at the Ernest N. Morial Convention Center.) We've heard that only Anne Milling of Women of the Storm actually signed any paperwork, and her signature alone was problematic.

We've heard that, in sympathy for our plight, the commission thought it wrong to ask New Orleans to shoulder the costs of hosting a debate.

We've heard the commission say everything to New Orleans except, "It's not you. It's me." If somebody with the commission slips up and says that, however, expect New Orleans to answer, "Damn right, it's you."

Damn right. Mad props to Jarvis for telling it like it needs to be told. Read the whole column. It's one of Jarvis's better efforts.

Thank God for This Illegal Immigrant

Anti-illegal immigrant conservatives love to point out those stories where illegal immigrants do harm to some legal citizen of the U.S. They love to point out that if only our immigration laws were enforced and we put up a stinking wall, some innocent and unsuspecting victim of a crime committed by an illegal immigrant might still be alive. Fine. No one ever said that illegal immigrants are not like other human beings, capable of doing bad and criminal things. But what these anti-illegal immigrant conservatives NEVER point out is the other reality that many lives are saved and many good deeds are done by illegal immigrants.

Here's one recent story of an illegal immigrant who made the choice to stay and help a 9-yr-old boy who was involved in a tragic automobile accident in the Arizona desert, an accident which claimed the life of his mother. Facing the certainty of deportation, this immigrant chose to do the right thing and stayed with this boy, likely saving his life, until help could arrive. I could very well argue that had a wall been built and this illegal immigrant kept out of the United States, it could have very well cost the life of a traumatized 9-yr-old U.S. citizen. Here's the pertinent part of the story:

As temperatures dropped, he gave him a jacket, built a bonfire and stayed with him until about 8 a.m. Friday, when hunters passed by and called authorities, Estrada said. The boy was flown to University Medical Center in Tucson as a precaution but appeared unhurt.

"We suspect that they communicated somehow, but we don't know if he knows Spanish or if the gentleman knew English," Estrada said of the boy.

"For a 9-year-old it has to be completely traumatic, being out there alone with his mother dead," Estrada said. "Fortunately for the kid, (Cordova) was there. That was his angel."

Cordova was taken into custody by Border Patrol agents, who were the first to respond to the call for help. He had been trying to walk into the U.S. when he came across the boy.

The boy and his mother were in the area camping, Estrada said. The woman's husband, the boy's father, had died only two months ago. The names of the woman and her son were not being released until relatives were notified.

Cordova likely saved the boy, Estrada said, and his actions should remind people not to quickly characterize illegal immigrants as criminals.

"They do get demonized for a lot of reasons, and they do a lot of good. Obviously this is one example of what an individual can do," he said.

What a story of heroism and goodness! But don't hold your breath waiting for Lou Dobbs to tell it, though.

Homenaje a Chalino Sanchez

The King of the Narco-Corridos.



His voice kinda grates, but he is, for lack of a better comparison, the Bob Dylan of the modern corrido. The thing to know about Chalino is that he took the traditional corrido of the Mexican Revolution, which was at the time of the Revolution a rather subversive music form but which later became institutionalized and fused with the modern Mexican national identity, and reclaimed it and recast it again as a subversive music form - a music of the marginalized and of the modern lawlessness of the Mexican narco subculture. His corridos glorify not the traditional folk anti-heroes of the Mexican Revolution, but the new folk anti-heroes of the modern narco-trafficking world.

Fred Thompson in Kenner??

Did anyone even know he was here?

Thompson defended his record on abortion following a speech to several dozen supporters at a hotel next to Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport.

Several dozen supporters?!?!? And this is the GOP rightwing's best hope? In a right-leaning Southern state? Methinks (as I knock on wood) the only way the Democrats can lose the presidential election a year from now is if they wrap it up, put on a shiny bow, and hand it to the GOP as an early Christmas present.

The Huck Upchuck's Election Recommendations

District 95 State Representative:

UNA ANDERSON

Let me tell you something about Walker Hines, Una Anderson's rival, that completely turned me off to him forever. I'll never vote for him. I came home today from work to TWO (not ONE, but TWO) robocall phone messages trashing Una Anderson by referring to the Times-Picayune's story about Stan Barre's accusations against her. These messages were anonymous. But who else other than the Walker Hines campaign would have made them? He didn't have the damn balls to own up to his negative smear campaigning. It's the worst kind of campaign politics and it is something I utterly deplore. These calls were anonymous, they were negative, and they were based on a completely unsubstantiated allegation that Una Anderson strongly denied. Any decent person with any integrity would have stayed away from this kind of thing. It's revealing that Walker Hines didn't.

Now, Ray over at Ray in New Orleans blog received an email letter from Walker Hines that Ray supposedly thinks "displays a lot of character" on the part of Walker Hines. Read the letter. I don't see much "character" in it. All it tells me is that Walker Hines can't write worth a damn. His grammar sucks. It's not that his email to Ray has the forgivable one or two mistakes due to an oversight, it's that the mistakes are plentiful and indicative of a larger problem of intelligence and carelessness.

I just can't and won't vote for the kid.

*********

District 5 State Senator:

CHERYL GRAY

Oyster, along with his reaffirmed endorsement of Gray, has the latest run-down on the seedy attacks against Gray that should tip the balance for Gray for any fence-sitters.

Thanksgiving in a Public School

OK. My daughters attend a New Orleans Public School. So, one would expect there to be a lot of PC-ness surrounding how the school operates. But, I've never found this to be the case. Sure, people are sensitive and respectful of diversity and difference; but in a very human and commonsensical way. No one goes out of his way to offend anyone, but no one also makes a big deal about the little things. People are just pleasant and friendly. For instance, at my daughters' school's outdoor morning assembly, which parents are welcome to attend, the day always starts with the Pledge of Allegiance that includes the words "under God." Nobody ever complains and everyone participates. It's just not an issue.

And just today, my youngest daughter, who is in Kindergarten, had her little Thanksgiving celebration where her class put on some cute little acts which was followed by a lunch "feast." Now, unfortunately, I couldn't make the actual event because of a work obligation, but my daughter did give me a preview of her class's performance. One of the things her class all did together was to recite some Thanksgiving poetry. My favorite was the following:

Our Turkey Gobbler

Our Turkey Gobbler feels so sad,
He stands around and moans.
Tomorrow there will be nothing left
But just his poor, old bones!

Imagine a bunch of kindergartners reciting this poem with the requisite hand gestures and bodily demonstrations of the poem's imagery. I nearly fell out of my chair laughing when my 5-yr-old daughter "performed" this poem for me.

Whoever says that Public Schools are nothing but groupthink liberal PC brainwashing doesn't know what he's talking about.

As far as I can tell, at least at this particular public school, kids are having as much good ol' fun at public elementary school as I ever had at my parochial Catholic elementary school.

From The Archives

[NOTE: Thought I'd reprint something I wrote a while ago]

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

Momentum Killer

You know, I was feeling pretty much pumped about the recent flurry of activity around the New Orleans District Attorney's office. Eddie Jordan, the hapless DA, finally cashed it in. We got a temporary DA in Keva Landrum-Johnson who seems to be hopeful and competent. Heck, Eddie Jordan had even authorized a good-faith payout of about 8-9% of a court settlement of $3.7 million levied against the Jordan's DA office for racial discrimination

And then this comes along and turns sweet into sour. At least for me. In a city desperate to get its law enforcement agencies out of the muck and back into the business of protecting its citizens, it gets slammed with the abrupt and imminent closure of the DA office by the plaintiff's attorneys in the discrimination case in question:

The Orleans Parish district attorney's office watched helplessly Thursday as about six of its bank accounts, including payroll, were frozen by a federal judge, the first step in seizing assets to collect on a $3.4 million job discrimination verdict brought on by former District Attorney Eddie Jordan's firing of 43 white workers in 2003.

"The mayor ignored us in his budget proposal," said Clement Donelon, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs. "I'm not sure how the city is going to ensure public safety by shutting down its DA's office."

No money has left the bank accounts yet, Donelon said.

Instead, the plaintiffs have embarked on a fact-finding mission to determine exactly how much the district attorney's office has socked away, asking Liberty Bank President Alden McDonald to disclose how much money is in accounts labeled "payroll," "FEMA" and "Crime Victims Assistant," as well as others.

But for now, the district attorney's office cannot touch the money, with payday approaching Nov. 15.

Keva Landrum-Johnson, acting district attorney since Jordan resigned Oct. 31, called the move "appalling" and lawyers for the office said it will only complicate talks to resolve payment of the judgment.

Yeah, that's right. Take a legitmate grudge against Jordan's incompetence and force the rest of us to continue to suffer for it. Can you believe the gall of Plaintiff Attorney Clement Donelon who defends his decision to ask the judge to freeze ALL the DA Offices assets by wondering how the City will ensure public safety now? Hey, Buddy, you are the one who shut the now purged DA's office down. All of Eddie Jordan's incompetence aside, he is no longer to blame for this latest assault against my safety. Yeah, yeah. You have a point to make. And it's a point I agree with. But, dag-nabbit, please don't cut of your fellow citizens' noses (and threaten their safety) in the process of making the point.

I have to say that this was a dumb, dumb, dumb move by the Plaintiffs in this case. They're telling the rest of us in the City, many who supported their cause, that we can just fend for ourselves while they wait at the bank salivating with their gold-grubbing hands over their judgment loot. Punish us? Because Jordan is a fool and because Nagin and the City Council don't want to set what could be a bad precedent for taxpayer bailouts of such kinds of judgments?

Dude! I wasn't the problem here. Don't punish me and my family by keeping the DA from keeping the crooks at bay.

Cal Thomas, a Professed Catholic, on Torture

Here is a brief little blurb from conservative Catholic columnist, Cal Thomas, on the subject of torture:

Torturing Ourselves to Death

By that I assume it is meant torture by the West, since terrorists are famous for using all sorts of torture, including physical, mental and religious torture, such as forced conversion.

There is a double standard when it comes to this subject. We in the West are supposed to adhere to certain rules so we "won't be like them." But if the other side adheres to no rules and sees our standards as a form of weakness, such things are counter-productive to our objectives. It is not coincidental that the trailer for the new season of the TV series "24" features Jack Bauer testifying before a congressional committee on the subject of torture. Bauer is asked if he defends torture and responds that if it is needed to save lives, he will use it.

That seems to me to be the proper balance if it is reasonably certain the person being tortured (and how do we define torture?) has information that will save innocent lives. To do otherwise might satisfy certain civil libertarians, but they should know that terrorists do not discriminate between those who favor torture and those who oppose it.

First, Pope Benedict and the Vatican authorities have had this to say on the subject:

At a news conference about the peace message, Cardinal Renato Martino, head of the Vatican's pontifical council on peace and justice, was asked if torture could be a legitimate tool to gain information that might prevent terror attacks.

The prelate replied that there was no justification for using torture, which is the "humiliation of the human person, whoever he is."

"The church does not allow torture as a means to extract the truth," Martino said. Terror suspects "sometimes say what the torturers want to hear. ... There are other ways to obtain the truth."

Notice that the Vatican's guidance is that torture isn't acceptable even if it extracts information that prevents a terrorist attack. According to our Catholic Church's leaders, there is NO justification for using torture. I wonder how Cal Thomas squares his Catholic faith with his defense of torture.

Second, I would add in my criticism of Cal Thomas that our motivation for behavior should not ever be relative to what terrorists will or will not do. Yes, there is a double standard. But for good reason. We shouldn't be like the terrorists. We should hold to a standard that doesn't embrace what Cal Thomas supposedly finds reprehensible in the standards (or lack of such) among terrorists in their practice of torture. Cal Thomas should know that there are many examples of martyrs in the Catholic faith (not to mention Jesus, himself), who withstood the indignity of torture and death, in the practice of a higher standard of speaking truth to power. Why should we accept a common standard with our enemies that tends towards the least common denominator of accepting torture, however defined, as opposed to demanding that our enemies abandon torture themselves, and of holding that even if our enemies don't abandon torture, that we will unilaterally do so nonetheless, even if it costs us our lives.

Vitter, Thomas, Anderson Compared

Compare this press conference transcript relative to U.S. Senator David Vitter's "sin" with this statement from New Orleans City Councilman Oliver Thomas relative to his corruption admission to this reaction from Una Anderson (watch the video) defending herself against charges of accepting a bribe. And when you compare them all, you tell me who ends up with your respect and with her honor and integrity in tact.

In my mind, there is absolutely no question that Una Anderson is the subject of a malicious and untrue attack. In my gut, I can just tell by the way she is reacting that she's been greivously wronged. And I admire her tenacity in fighting back. And she's got my vote in the upcoming run-off election for State Representative. If you are a voter in Louisiana State House District 95, you should vote for Una Anderson, too. I don't know much about Walker Hines, her opponent, and I don't really have anything against the guy, other than that I cannot find anywhere on his website what his party affiliation is, which kinda bugs me. But he's young, wealthy, and riding on the privileged coattails of his connected lawyer-father. I'd rather have a tough, seasoned, and experienced Anderson than an untested unknown. Unlike others, I thought Una Anderson performed admirably and with integrity on the School Board at a moment when it was politically inconvenient to do so. She's done nothing to lose the respect she earned from me during that time. In fact, her facing down the adversity of this latest smear has only augmented the respect I have for her.

Vitter Facing Subpoena to Testify in DC Madam Trial

Finally, it appears that Vitter will no longer be able to hide behind the veil of "no comment" when it comes to his whore-mongering. Looks like Vitter will be required to testify at the trial of DC Madam Jeanne Palfrey about his use of the Escort Service she ran.

It's rather poetic justice that no matter how Vitter responds to such a subpoena, it will reflect poorly on him and once again jeopardize his standing in the Senate and in the GOP. Even his continued silence in the face of a subpoena by pleading the 5th won't come across well. The Times-Picayune article explains:

Legal experts say Vitter has little grounds to avoid testifying, noting that the U.S. Supreme Court said former President Bill Clinton had to provide testimony in Paula Jones' civil lawsuit.

"He may also make some argument based on his being a member of Congress, but I doubt it will work," said Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond (Va.)

Sibley said he expects Vitter will try to quash the subpoena on the grounds that his testimony would not add much to the legal issues at the hearing. But, he said, Vitter's public admission that he was a client, along with the phone records, could undercut that strategy.

"He has a problem because he went on TV and apologized," Sibley said.

...

Legal experts say it is possible Vitter will attempt to avoid discussing the details of his dealings with Palfrey's escorts by asserting his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. But that, too, carries a political risk.

"The thing can hardly be viewed as a joyful experience," said Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University. "If he pleads the Fifth, he'll put himself in the same category as mobsters and madams. If he testifies, he will create his own detailed record that can be used in his next campaign. Either way he is facing a serious problem."

They say the truth will set you free. That may be true with regard to Vitter's soul, but the truth would certainly probably sink his career. I'm sure Vitter is probably thinking: "If only the truth were such that I could call a press conference and do what Una Anderson did when faced with a potentially damaging accusation."

But, alas, the truth is that David Vitter is a marriage-defiling john; and I'm fairly sure he wouldn't want to perjure himself over the matter, too. Time is almost up, David Vitter. The chick-a-dees have apparently finally come home to roost.

Fisking Conservative Blogger John Hawkins' Take on Religion and Politics

Conservative blogger and columnist John Hawkins has a piece up on Townhall.com arguing in defense of "keeping religion in politics." Given the fact that the vast majority of our public officials adhere openly to some religious faith, I can only interpret his exhortation to keep religion in politics not as a call for people of faith to govern ethically and morally according to how their faith informs their sense of ethics and morality, but rather as a call for people of faith, specifically Christians, to approach civic life theocratically -- that is to impose the specific tenets of a particular faith (i.e. Christianity) onto American society via its governing system. In any case, his article deserves a good section-by-section fisking, which will hopefully expose his essentially theocratic agenda. So, here we go ...

In recent years, there has been a concerted effort to drive God from the public square and his followers from the political process.

Really? I'm a practicing Catholic Christian, and I haven't noticed this. And last I checked, I can still vote my conscience in the political process, however my conscience is informed. Also, I can walk across the street to my Church to pray or attend mass whenever I so choose. And when I walk down streets in the French Quarter, there is never a shortage of Christians peddling their brand of fire and brimstone on us sinners. I haven't ever seen a police officer, or any pedestrian tourist, for that matter, drive anyone from proclaiming their theology in public spaces. Perhaps Hawkins should be a little clearer what he means here. By "public space," Hawkins should declare that he means government property, such as courthouses or City Halls. He certainly can't mean streets and sidewalks, or public parks, because I've gathered in these "public spaces" on any number of occasions to celebrate my faith. Besides, if he really were a believer, he'd know that God can't be "driven" from anywhere.

Oh, don't get me wrong, Christians are still welcome to mouth politically correct platitudes and vote for whoever says a few nice words about Jesus, but if we actually support policies and candidates based on our religious beliefs, the anti-Christian secularists start tut-tutting and slinging cliches.

Well, isn't Hawkins admitting that religion is still very much alive in the "public space" as long as people of faith can mouth platitudes of whatever theological or Jesus-friendly stripe they choose? I mean, our democracy pretty much guarantees that the "public space" isn't owned by anyone and that it is precisely a place where views and ideas can be "mouthed" and even contested. Hawkins seems to be saying that being able to proclaim faith in public spaces isn't enough to satisfy him. Indeed, it seems that he wants faith to own the public space and, furthermore, to be exempt from the "tut-tuttings" of any other group, whether they be anti-Christian secularists or not. Notice that he's not denying that expressions of faith in the public space are permitted, he's saying that when such expressions of faith get challenged, then that somehow means that it is being driven from the public space. My suggestion to Hawkins is that he "tut-tut" and "sling cliches" right back. I think he'd find that his right to do so is very much protected and guaranteed. But, let's be frank and honest here, he's not really talking about freedom of religious expression in public here. He's really talking about the ability to force religion down the throats of others via the strong arm of the government. He wants the City Courthouse or the Mayor's Office to be able to put up the nativity scene in the entrance to their buildings at Christmas. He wants the state to sanction an expression of Christianity, not to protect his right to express his Christian faith publicly. I could go on, but let's move on with the fisking ...

We're told that you can't legislate morality. Newsflash: almost all of our laws are based on morality. Better that it be Christian morality than secular morality.

First, what the heck is "secular" morality? Is it some general notion of right or wrong? And, if so, how is "secular" morality different in terms of notions of right and wrong that come out of "Christian" morality? By making such a distinction, by implying that Christian theology should inform legislation, it seems to me that Hawkins is suggesting a version of right and wrong as codified in law as coming out of a strictly theological interpretation. If, after all, we are a society subject to the rule of law, and if this law is not determined according to a basic human interpretation of right and wrong, but rather to a particular theological, Christian interpretation of right and wrong, then we don't have democracy, we have theocracy.

We're told that we have "separation of church and state." However, that phrase, which was torn out of the context in which it was used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists, has been regularly used as a slight-of-hand to deny Christians the religious freedoms we are guaranteed under the First Amendment.

Hawkins might not like it, but our Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment of the Constitution in a particular way. And this particular way interprets the Establishment Clause in a way that operationalizes the notion of a separation of church and state. When Hawkins can demonstrate to me that he doesn't have the religious freedoms he is guaranteed, then he might have a point. But I know for a fact that Hawkins can practice his faith any way he chooses, even to the point of standing in front of a Court House with a Cross and a Bible and proclaiming the Good News at the top of his lungs for as long as he can sustain it. Again, when Hawkins talks about constitutionally guaranteed religious freedoms here, he is not talking about his right to proclaim and practice his faith, but rather his demand that the state promote his faith. They are not the same thing.

We are told that we need to keep God out of politics.

Really? Where and when? As long as there are believers who participate in politics, there also is God. No, again, what Hawkins really means here is that we are told that the state should not be in the business of serving as the arm of God in politics.

Unfortunately, whether Christians are interested in politics or not, politicians are interested in us. They're interested in denying Christians our First Amendment rights, preventing Christmas songs from being sung in school, and they're interested in codifying practices no Christian should support, like abortion, gay marriage, and using public schools to promote deviant sexual and moral practices to our children.

What bunk! Christians are not denied their First Amendment rights. There are many Christian schools where kids sing Christmas carols every Christmas season. You don't see the state attempting to prevent this. And the state adopts policies that are constantly at odds with my Christian beliefs, but that doesn't mean that I have to support them or live by them. And I at least recognize that I, as a Christian, share this country with citizens who might support policies that I disagree with. What should I tell them? Your voice doesn't matter in this country because I think you're wrong? The fact is that Christian politicians have the opportunity, just like any other politician of another faith, to promote their points of view, to lobby for changes in laws, and to proclaim their faith in the public space where it can be challenged and contested by any other citizen who might not share the same beliefs or points of view.

Put another way, Christians may want to stay out of politics, but politics isn't going to stay out of the domain of the church.

I don't know about Hawkins' church, but in my church, the Catholic church, politics has never interfered with how my church operates and what my church leaders proclaim. The state, or "politics," has never once dicatated or mandated what the Catholic Catechism needs to be, or what the Catholic position on any social issue should be. I challenge Hawkins to point me to any instance where "politics" has dictated the tenets of any particular faith in this country.

Since that's the case, we need more Christians involved in politics, not less.

I'd venture to say that the number of Christians already involved in politics is by far the vast majority. A vast majority of our state, local, and federal legislators, executives, and judges proclaim adherence to a particular religious faith. Hawkins can advocate for more participation by Christians, but I think he misses the obvious point that Christians clearly dominate the political landscape in this country.

Of course, that doesn't mean we're all going to agree. In fact, even amongst conservative Christians, it sometimes seems as if the only thing that two Christians can agree on is that the third Christian is wrong about something.

Then, when you start putting liberal Christians into the mix with conservative Christians -- well, don't even get me started. It's hard to believe that people who share the same faith can have so many wide-ranging political differences on even the most basic of issues.

And what does the ability of Christians to differ so widely and publicly over social and public policy matters tell us? What Hawkins refuses to admit: people of faith are free to proclaim, debate, differ, and discuss -- all without the oppression of the state. Imagine that if Christians didn't have their First Amendment rights protected, where would this vibrancy among Christianity in this country be?

Yet and still, both political parties and the country as a whole are better off to have Christians, particularly Christians who take their faith seriously, participating in the process and letting their faith help guide their decisions.

Granted, social conservatives can come across as a little too preachy and the whole "we're going to form a third party if we don't get the candidate we want” approach that some advocate is completely counter productive, but there would have never been a Reagan Revolution without the Christian Right. Furthermore, given all the complaints we hear about our culture as is, imagine what a moral sewer this country would have degenerated into without conservative Christendom rising up to stand for what's right.

Wait. I thought "Christendom" referred to all Christian believers, not just the conservative ones. Isn't it an oxymoron to divide Christendom into ideological divisions? But look what Hawkins does with this division ... he politicizes Christianity. He makes belief in Christ secondary to political ideology. What's worse is that he implies that conservative Christians are the only kinds of Christians that can stand for what's right, and absent conservative Christians (i.e. if Christianity were the exclusive domain of liberals), we'd have a "moral sewer" for this country. Hawkins reveals his contempt for Christians who happen to be politically liberal here. He presumes that Christians who happen to be liberal aren't really moral people at all. No, we're degenerates. What Hawkins is doing to Christianity is precisely the opposite of the Christian message. No matter what he might say to the contrary, he is attempting to appropriate Christianity for ideological conservatism. And he exposes the fact that his version of Christianity is secondary to political ideology.

In the Democratic Party, Christians have much less sway, but their civilizing influence has helped keep the radical atheists from running the party and staging an even larger attack on Christianity, tradition, and the moral foundation of our country. That being said, it would be great if more liberal Christians had the moral courage to stand up to their fellow travelers on the Left on the frequent occasions when they mock people who are serious about Christianity.

All of my liberal Christian friends, every single one, from ministers, to priests, to nuns, to lay missionaries, to parish council presidents, defend the Christian faith from any and all attacks. I have never, ever heard a liberal politician who is part of the Christian faith not defend his or her faith. I challenge Hawkins to point out anywhere this has happened. Furthermore, I wish Hawkins would call on his conservative Christian friends to stop mocking liberal Christians as degenerates and fakers and moral reprobates because we disagree politically. Heck, even Hawkins implied as much about the moral degeneracy of liberal Christians in his comment above. And how many times have I had to defend my professed Christianity on Hawkins' own blog from those who mocked me and dismissed my faith as unserious, if not heretical. The road goes two ways, Hawkins.

Naturally, not everyone would be pleased to see a larger, more forceful Christian contingent entering politics. But, those who argue that Christians have a negative impact on our political process because they tend to be "overly concerned" with morals or family values are engaging in an act of hypocrisy.

Just as the people who attack our troops as being thugs and mercenaries are only capable of doing so because of the blanket of protection provided by the very soldiers they attack, people who sneer at Christians are only capable of doing so because of the Christian ethics and morality that have permeated American culture since the time of the Founders.

Hawkins, I hate to break it to you, but Western Democracy is rooted in the classical traditions of societies that believed in Zeus and Hera, not in Jesus Christ. The political philosophy of our founding fathers was more rooted in these traditions that in religious Christian traditions. Now I'm not saying that the contributions to Western Democracy haven't been enhanced by the writings of Augustine or Thomas Aquinas; but you must remember that liberal democracy is not, at root, a fundamentally Christian tradition. We are not free because of the Christian ethics and morality of our founding fathers, but because of their embracing of popular sovereignty and human rights coming out of secular Enlightenment tradition, rooted in the ethics of Plato and Aristotle, that even challenged Christian authority at a time when such authority was resistent to the ideas of democracy and freedoms.

America has been and continues to be a great nation because we are a good nation that is populated in large part by a fundamentally decent, Christian people. If Christians step back and allow the bastion of freedom, decency, and opportunity that this nation represents to be squandered, God may forgive us, because that's what He does -- but something precious, a birthright that should belong to future generations of Americans, will be lost from the world.

Last, but not least, if you take one thing away from this column it should be this: if those of us who believe in the Lord simply shrug our shoulders and abandon politics to the secularists, then we should not be surprised when our government pursues secularist policies and imposes upon us laws that contradict our most cherished beliefs.

If we believe in our democracy, we must believe that our government has never "imposed" anything on us that our democratic system didn't legitimately produce. I'm all for advocating that Christians engage politics in a way that is informed by their faith. I do that as a matter of course. In this sense, I agree with Hawkins. I'd argue, though, that Christians have always done this and continue to do this. Hawkins is ringing the alarmist bell when all he needs to do is to look around and he'll see that his fears are unfounded.