RTIII's Education Panel Misfires

Well, well ... there is an emerging division among the NOLAbloggers about the Education Panel at the conference. And I'd say the balance is tilting somewhat against the panel. I have to say that I fall out with the critics of the panel. Not in terms of the issues discussed, not in terms of the ideological leanings of the panelists, but rather in terms of what I would call the relatively unimaginative and uncritical groupthink of the panel -- something I always find so odd among those claiming to be in the critical thinking profession.

The only nuanced thinker on the state of education in New Orleans on the whole panel I thought was Clifton Harris. He seemed to have clear personal opinions, but he also seemed to be tuned into the bigger picture that incorporated parental frustrations and hopes, student reactions, institutional history, honest considerations of performance, and educational quality. The rest of the panel seemed to me to be overly concerned with the more narrow bureaucratic interests of very specific groups as well as the nature of political power over the control of the structures and organizations of schools. There was almost no specific mention of educational quality.

The first blogger to raise the red flag regarding this panel was em of Dorophoria, who has a series of postings that show an anguished effort to try to understand and digest what just didn't sit well with this panel. Then Michael Tisserand was invited by Clancy DuBos to share his thoughts on the Education panel; and Tisserand's final word seemed to be that the panel might have been unduly harsh on public charter schools. And finally Pistolette came out with guns blaring. All of these blog reactions to the Education panel resonated in some ways with my reaction to the panel. [UPDATE: Correction -- the first blogger to raise the red flag was actually Maitri, who live-blogged the panel. Sorry I missed this, but I always tend not to count live-blogging in that it's generally more descriptive than reflective. But Maitri's live-blogging of this particular panel deviates from that norm and thus merits the recognition.]

My gripes with the panel, beyond its apparent lack of imagination in pondering the fuller dimensions of the subject and the seeming groupthink rigidity of the panel's content thrust, centered around the panel's dismissiveness of the importance of parents and students in the educational process. I was also particularly put out by Leigh Dingerson's inability to conceptualize notions such as community ownership of education or the importance of pubic schools to community revitalization beyond the political concepts of district segregation and school board authority. And by "district segregation" I don't mean by race, but rather the geographic lines of school districts as defining a school's community purpose.

Before I go any further, though, I should note that I am a parent to two public charter school students. My oldest, who is in the 5th grade now, started out at the International School of Louisiana and was there for two full years before the devastation of Hurricane Katrina threw the school's future into that realm of uncertainty. In the midst of this uncertainty, and after spending that Katrina fall semester at an elementary school in Virginia, where my family was exiled, we managed to get a spot for my oldest at Lusher elementary. That's where my youngest is also currently enrolled as a first grader. And both schools, the ISL and Lusher, as charter schools, have been wonderful experiences for my children. And I should also mention that my job brings me into contact with the Esperanza Charter School, Sophie B. Wright, and Green Elementary. So, that's where I'm coming from here, for better or for worse.

But what my experience with the post-Katrina public school system in New Orleans has brought to my attention is that the charter school movement, instead of being some kind of rightwing push towards privatizing education, has actually been, on balance, quite positive in achieving the goals of improved parental involvement in schools and thus in community ownership of schools. The ISL and Lusher, who as charters aren't as bound by district enrollment requirements to the same degree as perhaps some other schools are, are examples of schools where parents and students from all over the greater New Orleans area come together. The community that is being rebuilt in these schools is not restricted to neighborhoods defined by school district boundaries, but by commonalities as members of a citywide community. My children have friends from the 9th ward, from New Orleans east, from the Westbank, from Central City, from Uptown, from Lakeview. We bring them to their friends' birthday parties all over the city, in neighborhoods we would otherwise have very little reason to visit. This little fact has got to be good for building community solidarity. And my experience dictates that charter schools could not survive without community ownership of the educational experience. Sure, the administration of such schools may have their own less-than-transparent policies and procedures; sure these schools may cater to particular methodologies and pedagogies that are experimental and unique; and sure there are going to be problems that come with decentralized oversight. But by and large, parents and students are owning these schools. As Cliff noted in some of his comments on the panel, the hopes and aspirations of parents that accompany a perception of change from the failed system of the past entices and encourages parental involvement and community ownership of the schools. Yes, there are displacements of teachers. Yes, there are problems with the provisions and guarantees of retirement and health benefits for teachers. Yes, there are weaker teacher unions and thus a diminished capacity for teachers to seek redress of particular injustices. I, too, worry about these things.

But I want for my children and my family a public school where the principal cares enough to visit me in my home. I want for my children and my family a school where the educational quality is such that my kids will not just pass the LEAP tests, but where they will really learn something. I want for my children and my family a school where we, parents, have some direct ownership and power at the school, and not some indirect ownership through an historically unresponsive and corrupt school board.

It seemed to me (and I could be missing it completely) that the folks on the education panel were thinking about education in New Orleans on a completely different wavelength than I and my wife are. Unless these folks can somehow connect better with my concerns and hopes as a parent to a public school student, they're going to seem to me like nothing more than the very problem they themselves are trying to convince me is facing the public education system in the city.

[UPDATE: Monday, August 25, 2008, 5:40PM: Cousin Pat, who moderated the Education Panel and who blogs at Hurricane Radio, has a measured and thoughtful response to the criticism. It's very much worth a read for those of us who criticized the panel.]

Random Thoughts on Blogger Conferences

OK. So I attended my first Blogger Conference yesterday. By all measures, it was a wonderful event. I very much enjoyed putting names and faces to blogs. I'm sure others did, too. That's part of the attraction of this kind of event, I suppose.

And yet I had (have) mixed feelings about it. Don't get me wrong: (1) I love reading the NOLA blogs and I am not only much better informed about many things both local and national because of them, but I have been inspired by them to become much more actively engaged in civic work. So I owe a great debt of gratitude to NOLA bloggers for that. (2) I love the conference format for exchanging ideas, for networking, and for professional development. In fact, such kinds of meetings are a big part of my regular job as an academic.

But one of the things I have come to especially like about blogging (and perhaps the most important thing that I like about blogging) is its raw, hard-hitting, and unapologetic commentary and reporting. Blogging provides a sharp edge to opinion-making, critical thinking, and intellectual debate. And I think this edge, which is exciting and challenging, requires to some extent the absence of personalized human contact. When you share a beer with someone, get to know that person better socially, talk about the mundane things of life like jobs and families, etc., it becomes infinitely harder to maintain that sharp and critical edge in a blogosphere debate that pits two bloggers who are passionately committed to opposite sides of an issue. Let me give a couple of examples just from my own experience: (1) Oyster of Your Right Hand Thief and I have very different reactions to and postions on reforming the Assessors offices. Over the past few years, this issue has flared up as a hot item in the blogosphere. It even spawned a movement (the "IQ" movement) that I viscerally opposed. Oyster passionately supported the cause; I passionately opposed it. I don't think we disagreed on the need for reform; but we definitely and strongly disagreed on the "IQ" movement as a tactic and means to carry out such reform. So we aired our thoughts on our blogs and we pushed, challenged, and criticized each other in the comments sections. Not to say that we weren't civil and nice to each other. We were. But the lack of any kind of substantive personal contact between us made it possible for us to be stronger advocates of our positions and more forceful critics of each other. Now that I've had the chance to meet Oyster personally a couple of times, I think it will be much harder for me to be as forceful a critic of Oyster when we might disagree. That's not to say that I won't hold back in my criticisms, but I know myself and I know that I will be much more gracious in my criticisms. My comments will undoubtedly be tempered as a consequence of having gotten to know Oyster as a person, even if only a little bit more than before. (2) This is perhaps more poignantly so in the case of Jeffrey of the Library Chronicles. Before I ever met Jeffrey, I found his cynical style of blogging to be really rather annoying. And I often let him know this in pretty snarky ways, usually in comments to his blog postings. And then I met Jeffrey, first at Ashley's funeral, and then with my kids at the Library where he works. And my kids actually know Jeffrey from their frequent visits to the Public Library (and, get this, they actually like him! They think he's helpful, nice, AND funny!) And finally I got to see and hear Jeffrey perform as moderator at Rising Tide III. He was great and funny and thoughtful and good-humored. Absent was the acerbic cynic and critic of the Library Chronicles. And though I still think Jeffrey, the "cynic" blogger, is annoying, I've come not to think of him really as a cynic; thus I'm much more likely to be able to swallow his cynical blogging much better for having gotten to see him in person and to know him a bit better as a person. As much as I might want to try to maintain my critical posture towards Jeffrey's style, I know that there's no way I'll be able to do it in the same way.

And these are just two examples from folks with whom I basically share an ideological affinity. But I have to say that, given the fact that I'm a frequenter of a number of conservative blogs, the same would apply to ideological rivals that I have come to know from the blogosphere.

The fact is that the degree to which the shroud of anonymity disappears, and the degree to which bloggers become personalized and humanized to each other, the more likely it will be for the sharper critical edge of blogging and commentary to become tempered. And I do lament the loss of that to some extent.

HOWEVER ... And this is a BIG however ...

I am also increasingly becoming more and more convinced that Bloggers need to find more plentiful and more frequent opportunities to socialize and come together in environments that facilitate human contact and human exchange. And I think this is an imperative for two main reasons:

(1) There is a kind of narcissism among bloggers that is troubling to me. [And I am not immune to this tendency myself.] Jeffrey's comment at the conference yesterday about "Vanity blogging" really resonated in this regard. And it should resonate. Blogging, and the isolation that surrounds it (after all, most of us bloggers are usually just sitting in front of our computer screens with high speed internet connections when we put on the blogger hat and tap away our ruminations on the keyboards), tends to naturally lead to what I see as a kind of self-congratulatory smugness. We secretly (and sometimes not so secretly) pat ourselves on the back for unearthing some obscure nugget of information. And we are proud of ourselves, sometimes with good reason, when we can convert that nugget of information into a story that generates a buzz beyond our little blogging community. But without putting our blogging into a more personalized social and professional context, we can walk around during the day and do our routines with work and family without ever having that blogger's pride or accomplishment subject to the molding and shaping of our real world. Our blogging is insulated from the impacts of our real and human lives. Think of it this way: if we went around and talked to our friends, family, and colleagues like we talk on our blogs and to one another in comment threads, we'd be very lonely (and maybe even despised) people. And so getting bloggers as bloggers out into the world of other people who are also bloggers humanizes us as bloggers. So, events like Rising Tide III, and other blogger conferences are essential to pushing us bloggers as bloggers out of the insular and narcissistic world of our own (and others') blogs.

(2) The second reason why I think blogger conferences like that of Rising Tide III are imperative has to do with ideas of civic engagement that I've been mulling over for the past 8-9 months or so. As I said earlier in this posting, I love the NOLA blogosphere because it has informed me about my community and has cultivated an activist consciousness in me that was not as present in my life previously. The fact is that I am much more civically engaged now than I ever was before; and the NOLA blogosphere (along with my involvement in the Service Learning initiative at Tulane) has played a major and significant part in this evolution of my life. Now, I've always been concerned about such things notionally and as subjects of personal interest and even professional study; but I have not always been drawn to put this into some kind of civic action. And though I have the NOLA blogosphere to thank, in part, for creating in me a civic consciousness and thus pushing me to become more active, the fact that Tulane's Public Service initiative also gave me a very concrete push helped to make civic engagement a more fundamental aspect of my life. The problem with the blogosphere in general, though, is that even though it might cultivate a civic consciousness in bloggers and blog readers, there is nothing inherent to the blogosphere that translates this consciousness into civic action. Someone can be a great blogger, but an absent participant in what Harry C. Boyte calls "everyday politics." Conferences like Rising Tide III can be a means to address this real weakness in the blogosphere. In fact, with proper planning, Blogger Conferences can purposefully address this weakness. And though I couldn't participate in the Community Service project scheduled for today as part of the Rising Tide III Conference, I am glad that it was part of the program. But I do think that half-day service projects are not enough. We bloggers need to find more ways to convert blogging into sustained civic action and active participation in the project of everyday politics with real people in face-to-face contexts.

So, I remain with mixed feelings and will continue to sort through them. As an academic, one of the ways I am trained to do this is through pondering, studying, researching, and writing. And I have bubbling in the back of my mind a book project that will treat this subject more completely and thoroughly. So, if any bloggers out there might want to participate in this project, and perhaps contribute an essay to such a book project on the subject of blogging and civic engagement, drop me a line.

In the meantime, keep blogging! Oh, and if any of you have posted anything along similar lines, or if any of you have read blog postings that treat this subject, please let me know that, too.

LatiNola and the Latino Forum

I figure since I may be getting more visitors than I usually do following the Rising Tide III conference, I'm going to take the opportunity to let the NOLA Blogosphere know (if you don't already) that there are two very good blogs that can keep you abreast of just about any issue or initiative being promoted by the Latino activist community in New Orleans.

The first blog is affiliated with a group called LatiNola. The LatiNola website is full of great information, including an online volunteer sign-up page. Check it out and consider volunteering. But what I really want to point out is the LatiNola blog, called "LatiNola Speaks." Here you'll find some very interesting and thoughtful postings on a wide variety of topics from a number of folks. For instance, my friend and colleague, Lucas Diaz, has a wonderful reflection on what it means to him to be a Latino in New Orleans. And there are other great blog postings to check out there as well.

The second blog is not really a blog per se, but is more of an information clearing house. It is affiliated with the Greater New Orleans Latino Network known as the Latino Forum of New Orleans. The Latino Forum meets about once a month in locations alternating between downtown New Orleans and in Jefferson Parish.

I not only encourage you to check out both of these sites, but I exhort all of you to add them to your blog rolls. As for me, I have no excuse for not having these sites placed in my own blogroll. But I'm rectifying that problem immediately after I make this posting. In fact, what I'm going to do is to set up a new blogroll category called "LatiNola Network" and start compiling a collection of all Latino/Latin American focused websites/blogs centered in the Greater New Orleans Metro Area and websites/blogs which discuss issues of importance specific to the Latino/Latin American community in New Orleans. So, if you know of any websites/blogs that should be added to the list, please do let me know.

In the meantime, let's not overlook this community that is so vital to the culture and recovery of our fair City, but which often times flies under the radar screen of local political and social activist networks and leaders. The Latino community of New Orleans is in the midst of a political awakening; and the Greater New Orleans area is about to witness a significant power shift over the next few years as the Latino community wakes up, mobilizes, and begins to exert the influence that its growing numbers represent. Pay attention to it. Better yet, be a part of it.

Obama/Biden ... and McCain's Reaction

I'm very happy and comfortable with Obama's selection of Joe Biden as his running mate. Of course, being at a NOLA Blogger's Conference most of the day without my laptop [more commentary on that very good conference later], I'm only just now getting around to gathering reactions to the subject from my favorite national bloggers. So, I first came across the following ad at Andrew Sullivan's blog put out by the McCain campaign immediately following the announcement of Obama's selection of Biden:



Here's what I wrote in response to this ad, which I then emailed to Andrew Sullivan:

I consider myself to be a pretty astute reader of underlying messages in political advertisements; but, for the life of me, I can't see how the advertisement McCain released highlighting Joe Biden's comments on Barack Obama and on McCain himself actually benefits McCain. What does the ad do? First, it shows that Biden feels confident in his ability to lead and to challenge Obama on this front. That could be a negative for Obama, I suppose, in that it highlights Biden's unrepentent thoughts on Obama's inexperience; but then Obama picked Biden anyway! So, hell, Obama's selection of Biden shows that he both respects what Biden can offer the campaign and doesn't hold any grudges against Biden for opinions critical of him that Biden "stands by." Can you imagine McCain, with his short fuse and ego, tolerating a similar pick? By selecting Biden, Obama answers Biden's criticism of him, criticisms that McCain is supposedly highlighting. Score one for Obama. Second, the ad shows Biden commenting positively and graciously on John McCain. So, Biden scores with McCain-leaning moderates and independents for not coming across as a nasty, attack-dog partisan hack. Biden can be gracious and even complimentary to his opponent. Unlike ... guess who? John McCain! I think when folks see Obama and Biden basking in the friendly glow of this moment, and then they see the McCain ad, the likely reaction, I think, will be: well, Obama's smart for picking the wiser, more-experience elder statesman, and Biden likes Obama as much as he can be gracious to his McCain. And when McCain has to pick someone like Romney or Pawlenty, instead of Biden, he looks kinda ungracious towards the man who criticized Obama mildly and actually complimented him! So, then, can you tell me where the this ad is a winner for McCain and a loser for Obama? I sure can't see it!

Let me just add this, too. I know what McCain is trying to do with this ad; but, it strikes me as bass-ackwards. Really, how does putting up an ad that seems to be applauding Biden's assessment and judgments do anything good for McCain, since Biden's "good judgment," in the end, put him with Obama, not McCain. Kinda makes McCain look a bit foolish if you ask me!

From the Archives: Advice to Young Conservatives Getting Ready for College

I think this piece from The Huckupchuck archives will become a regular re-posting around this time of the year. I re-posted this back in January before the start of the Spring semester, and originally posted it before the beginning of a previous fall semester. Since we're once again gearing up for the Fall semester start of college, here it is again:

As a college professor, I would like to say to young conservatives (and, really, to all young people) about to embark on the "liberal brainwashing" that is college. Take heart! Just think that if colleges and universities really were the big brother boogeyman liberal indoctrination machines that Rush Limbaugh would have you believe, there would be much fewer conservatives, independents, and libertarians with college degrees out there.

The fact that many young conservatives not only survive college, but also come through it perhaps with a more informed conservative conviction, is proof positive that college is good for both liberals and conservatives (and even independent and/or apolitical folk, too!)

What is scary to folks like Rush Limbaugh is that college encourages critical thinking. College bombards you with information and data and then challenges you to digest it, make sense of it, and to argue in defense of the conclusions you reach from the critical thinking process with those who come to different conclusions when digesting and thinking on the same information and data. And please know that having what you believe challenged by others is not an assault on your being. It is an invitation to study, think, and argue back.

Folk like Limbaugh are afraid that if you think critically you might become liberal. And they call it brainwashing if, in fact, this happens. Well, let me just tell you that critical thinking is not something to be afraid of. Sure, it may (and probably will) change your view the world; but how it does so is wide open and is ultimately up to you.

I'd only add the following advice to young liberals: Don't think you are immune to having your liberal views challenged, too. And if you find yourself in an environment where your liberal views are more shared and more espoused by your peers, don't let the comfort of such an environment cause you to become complacent. Always question your views critically and be open to opposing ideas. And never ever manipulate an environment tilted more towards liberal viewpoints to demean or marginalize an intellectual rival. Remember that you will almost certainly find yourself at some point in your life in the minority and, perhaps, on the defensive on some issues. Think of how you would want to be treated by your intellectual rivals in such a context, and then offer that courtesy to others.

Obama's Foreign Policy Advisor on Latin America

The Council on Hemispheric Affairs (COHA), a progressive think tank that focuses on the Americas, has an interesting review of Gregory Craig, who is one of Obama's senior foreign policy advisors and who focuses on Latin America. The article addresses both Craig's strengths as an advisor, but also reviews some of Craig's behavior that raises questions about whether some of his past dealings in the region make him unsuitable for a progressive hemispheric foreign policy advisory position with the Obama campaign. In the end, the COHA declares that, all things considered, Craig would be an acceptable and appropriate choice for progressives as a senior foreign policy advisor to Obama on Latin America. But read the article for yourself and let's hear whether you agree with COHA.

**Crossposted at Cuaderno Latinoamericano

Louisiana, Mexico, and Trade

I couldn't help but notice this little nugget of information in a Times-Picayune article this morning:

Trade with all of the state's top 10 export countries climbed in the first half of the year. There was three-digit percentage growth to three countries: Colombia, Germany and Venezuela. Mexico replaced Japan, which slipped to second, in the period as the state's top trading partner.

The emphasis in the above citation is mine. Another reason to support the existence of a Mexican consulate in New Orleans. And another reason for Louisianians to read my book: Mexico: A Global Studies Handbook.

**Cross-posted at Cuaderno Latinoamericano

UPDATE: Friday, August 15, 2008, 10:31AM: Please note that a Mexican consulate does exist in New Orleans at this time. The consulate was closed for a while, but reopened this past April. I was just expressing general support for having the consulate here. I wasn't trying to suggest that we didn't have one, and therefore needed one. Sorry for the confusion.

Literature Miscellanea Updates

Well, I finished Jose Saramago's novel Blindness and I also completed my bucket list goal of reading through all of the 58 original Hardy Boys mysteries with completion of mystery number 58 last week.

With regard to Blindness, I would give it a "B+" rating. It was well-written, gripping, and extremely intriguing in an allegorical manner. The main philosophical question it poses is twofold, as I see it: (1) From a literalist point of view, what would a world be like if we were all blind? How would we survive? As humans? Or as animals? (2) Are we already effectively blind? Do we see the world we live in, but think we are blind to it? More succinctly, is what we are seeing registering as it should in our consciousness? Do we actually live in the world of the blind as the novel depicts it, but don't see the horrors of it for having become inured to it?

Although it is a very good novel, I couldn't bring myself to give it an "A" in part because I found the dialogue between characters at times to be unnecessarily disconcerting and discordant. But my main beef with the novel is that I just didn't find anything redeeming in the storyline or in the characters. It was actually quite disturbing and the way it ended I thought was a bit cheap [SPOILER ALERT!!]: it pretended to give some closure to the story with what could be called a "happy" ending by having people's sight restored. So the reader can exit the disturbing imaginary of this blind world with a sigh and the comfort of knowing that now things will be put back to right, without ever taking it to the logical conclusion of what one assumes its point really is: what IS the end point of a humanity reduced by blindness? Is there salvation without the "deus ex machina"? Is there an upward point, an aspirational hope for humanity, after it hits rock bottom? Or is there just rock bottom and then death?

Even still, I have to say that the novel pulls you along. The grotesque descent of humanity as it faces its blindness is what drives the reader to constantly plow into the next chapter. It's like you can't stand what you've just read and are horrified by it; but the recognition that there is yet more to read taps into that morbid fascination we humans have with wanting to know how much more horrifying and worse can it get. At one level, we don't want to know the answer to this, but we can't resist finding out in spite of ourselves.

I do, though, have to say that I am intrigued how the movie, based on the novel and scheduled for release next month, will turn out. I can't imagine that the movie will not distort the graphic and, in some ways, Nietzschean nihilistic narrative in order to create a Hollywood ending of redemption with all the warm and fuzzies therein necessary to sell tickets. But we shall see.

I am also in the midst of composing a detailed five part posting on Harry C. Boyte's excellent text, Everyday Politics: Reconnecting Citizens and Public Life. I should have the first part of this five part posting out in the next day or two, with subsequent parts following soon thereafter.

Church Closings and Archdiocesan Myopia

I live fairly close to the main administrative buildings of the Catholic Archdiocese of New Orleans; and as I was walking home from work today (which is something I don't normally do) I passed by these buildings (which are on a route that I don't normally take) and noticed that the local TV news stations (three of them, to be exact) were out in front of these buildings with cameras and reporters talking about the latest happenings in the controversial Archdiocesan Pastoral Plan calling for the closure of certain churches throughout the City.

I stopped just long enough to get the gist of what these TV news reports were about, and what I gathered through the snippets that I heard was that there might have been some planned protests earlier today in front of these administrative buildings against the closures of some of these churches by some upset parishoners. [If I can find links to these reports on the TV news websites, I'll try to link to them.]

This little moment reminded me of a posting I made on the subject a while back when I argued basically that the anxieties of a post-Katrina world here in New Orleans would seem to propel the Archdiocese to want to build more churches as places of refuge and solace for hurting souls. I still believe this makes sense.

But I also wanted to add another thought to the argument. It has to do with the reasons the Archdiocese is providing in justification for the closures. This reason is simply that there is a shortage of priests to pastor all the parishes in New Orleans and that the demands of staffing require some contraction and merging of parishes. But I think this is a defeatist attitude and one that, in a way, is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I would like to propose the notion that if the Archdiocese goes aggressively in the other direction, that is, if it says that it's not only keeping existing parishes open, but will plan to build 10 more churches throughout the city, then this demonstration of faith and renewal will actually be a magnet for priests. I bet if the Archdiocese had gone down this path, and put out a call for priests to come to New Orleans to head up one of the Archdiocese's existing parishes as well as new ones, the response would be overwhelming. In fact, it might even be a clarion call for new vocations in the diocese! Why wouldn't the Archdiocese give this plan a shot? I mean, really, if it flops, then it could always retrench in a few years and make the cuts it says it now needs. The post-Katrina reality here is certainly an opportunity for the Archdiocese -- just not the the opportunity to shrink, cut, and close Churches it has embraced. It is rather, as I see it, an opportunity for growth, expansion, and faith revitalization among a community starving for it.

UPDATE: Friday, August 15, 2008: 10:20AM: Here's a story from this morning's Times-Picayune that reports on the events that informed what I saw going on.

First Day of School Done

Today, my two lovely daughters kicked off their school year. Always an auspicious day. One filled with excitement, but also a little anxiety. The school my daughters attend have a policy that students will not know their homeroom teacher assignments until the first day of classes. So, that only adds to the mystery and the anxiousness of the first day, as all the kids have their hopes and fears regarding who will be their homeroom teacher.

My oldest daughter, who is the bolder and more confident of the two, was probably much better positioned to accept with a shrug and a positive attitude any disappointments the day might have brought to her. But she hit her jackpot. She got the homeroom teacher she wanted and was happy with the constitution of her homeroom classmates. Furthermore, my oldest daughter is in that enviable position of being at the top of the elementary school grade hierarchy, so she and her classmates can lay claim to top dog leadership among the student body. In fact, she proudly wore her "Lusher Leaders" button on her shirt to school.

It was the younger of the two, though, that got off to a shaky start. She's much more sensitive to and much less equipped to shrug off any disappointments, which, unfortunately, were plentiful for her this morning. First off, she was transitioning from Kindergarten to the First Grade, which is a tougher transition to make because it means that the "real" schooling starts, with homework and higher performance expectations. Also, at her school, Kindergarten classes are always together for every subject, which means that there isn't the experience of seeing new faces and dealing with variable personalities at different times during the day in different subject areas. So, being disconnected from the Kindergarten community she knew well was always going to be challenging for her. We just didn't expect it to be as challenging as it turned out to be. Not only did she not get the teacher she was hoping for, but there was only one of her fellow Kindergarten classmates (and mostly just an acquaintance friend at that) who ended up in her first grade class. So for the first 15 minute or so, that little sensitive lovely was a bit clingy, disconcerted, and wavering in and out of being utterly forlorn or putting on her best face and making a hearty go of it. In situations like that, there is only so much parents can do to help out the adjustment process. Fortunately, although it was touch-and-go for a while, there came that moment when she just, in her own mind, decided to go down the road of hope and make the best of it as positively as she could. Phew! (Of course, it did help that we managed to get the teacher to put the girl she knew from her Kindergarten class in the seat next to her!)

The verdict at the end of the first day was one of all around success. Both had happy faces when I came home from work and were excited about returning to school tomorrow. A very comforting thing to a parent!

Quoted by Andrew Sullivan

I sometimes write to Andrew Sullivan, one of my favorite bloggers, relative to topics that he discusses in his blog. Since his blog isn't set up to receive posted comments, Andrew Sullivan occasionally references some of the comments his readers send to him via email in his blog postings. Well, imagine my surprise to see a part of my latest email not only appear on Andrew Sullivan's blog, but also even recognized by Andrew as "a nice point."

Andrew Sullivan's policy is to keep his reader comments anonymous, and I appreciate the reasons behind this policy. But that doesn't mean I myself can't brag a bit and expose myself as one of those readers he thought well enough of to give a little time and space on his highly trafficked blog! Here's the full content of the email letter I sent to Andrew with the part he cited highlighted in bold:

From: Huck, James D Jr.
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 12:51 PM
To: 'andrew@theatlantic.com'
Subject: LETTER: Georgia and the Cold Warriors

Andrew – You are absolutely on target in pointing out that the Russia of today is not the USSR of yesteryear, and that this should make all the difference in how we calculate our strategic response to the crisis. By all measures, Putin’s Russia is much more akin to the Authoritarian regimes that Kirkpatrick saw fit to embrace as the better of two evils in the Cold War struggle. Thinking on what you have written, I can’t help but ponder the similarities between Russia’s current behavior and those of the Authoritarian regimes of South America of the 1970s and 1980s and their infamous National Security Doctrines, which tended to treated upstarts complaining about the lack of respect for human rights and democratic politics as threats to a broader nationalist project that needed to be put into place if not eradicated by brute shows of military force and repression. The U.S., unable to see these upstarts in Latin America beyond the prism of communism, when most of them simply wanted a respect for human rights and democratic practices, turned a blind eye towards their brutal repression by the authoritarian autocrats who ruled their countries. At one level, what Russia is doing to the provoking upstarts of democratic Georgia is intolerable and reprehensible; but there was a time when the U.S. understood and embraced regimes for doing precisely that. I suspect that if Georgia’s democracy was one that had even the whiff of Islamic nationalist tendencies, the response to the nationalist aggressions of the non-Islamic authoritarians of Russia would be treated much differently.

Sincerely,
Jimmy Huck

Maybe the first part of my comment is a bit of a stretch, though I think it has some merit. But I have to admit to being a bit proud and tickled that Andrew Sullivan thought my concluding sentence was "a nice point."

[And, yes, I know there are a couple of grammatical/spelling errors in my letter - "treated" should be just "treat" and perhaps I might have used the subjunctive mood in that final sentence Andrew cited - but I figured that it would be honest to print what actually got sent to Andrew Sullivan rather than put up a post-facto edited version of what, in editorial retrospect, I wish had been sent. But, so it is!]

Quote of the Day

"We impeached a president for perjury in a civil lawsuit. We're going to proactively pardon a president who authorized torture?" Andrew Sullivan, discussing torture, the Bush Administration, and the idea of proactively and pre-emptively issuing pardons for Bush Adminstration officials regarding possible charges of violations of the Geneva Convention.

I'm not one that would go so far as Andrew Sullivan does of calling some members of the Bush Administration war criminals; but the evidence is pretty overwhelming that the Bush Administration consciously engaged in measures even it considered of questionable legality, albeit perhaps considered necessary in the war against terrorism. Where Andrew Sullivan's argument is really persuasive is when he asks why the Bush Administration didn't press the argument for the compelling need for "enhanced interrogation techniques" (i.e. what otherwise would be called "torture") and seek some kind of legislative or judicial branch sanction for its policies? If there's nothing to hide, why be so squirrely? If there's nothing to be "pardoned" for, why advocate for a pardon? If "waterboarding" is not torture, why not say so publicly?

Kudos to Georgetown University

As an alum of Georgetown University, I regularly receive the Georgetown Magazine. The most recent issue features a story on Georgetown University's serious initiative to address the needs and concerns of the LGBTQ community. This feature story includes personal testimony from a wide range of alumni who are members of the LGBTQ community. Their personal stories are powerful and convincing, and confirm that what Georgetown University is doing in this regard is consistent both with the best angels of our nature as compassionate and empathetic human beings and with the teachings of the Catholic Church.

As a Catholic (and Jesuit) institution, its initiative has been criticized by the usual suspects who think that any initiative that seeks to advance the dignity of the human being irrespective of sexual orientation is a direct violation of Church teachings on the subject.

However, Georgetown University's decision to listen to and to reach out to the LGBTQ community is in no way a commentary upon the morality of same-sex orientation or homosexual activity. All the initiative does is identify a need faced by members of the Georgetown Community and creates an outreach program and an LGBTQ Resource Center intended to meet that need. It's no different, essentially, than reaching out to any person in need regardless of that person's race, creed, political ideology, nationality, or even religious faith. The Catholic Church does this all the time.

Read the whole piece.

For my part, I couldn't be prouder of Georgetown University for this effort, both as an alumnus myself and as a member of the Catholic Church.

Scraps of Wood

I'm one of those guys who likes to do his own home improvements and maintenance tasks. I'll throw myself into basic plumbing, electrical, carpentry, sheetrocking, painting, etc., tasks. Sometimes I throw myself into more than just the basics of these tasks. As such, I accumulate lots of bits of leftover materials: extra romex wiring, extra copper tubing, extra pieces of drywall, and lots of extra pieces of wood. Unfortunately, I'm also the kind of person who has a hard time tossing in the trash any leftover scrap materials that I think may have some remote utility down the road. Suffice it to say that now I have quite a collection of scrap materials. It's getting to the point where I need to make some decisions on what to do with my "stuff." I'm open to any cool suggestions on how to recycle such materials around the home. So, if you have some ideas, I'm all ears.

John McCain Makes a Pitch for the Latino Vote

John McCain must know that he's in trouble with the Latino vote. Here's his salvo, in Spanish, against Obama. He takes references in Obama's Berlin Speech to other countries of the world and notes the lack of mention of Latin America in his speech.

Here's the McCain ad:



Frankly, I don't think this will play among the Latino voting block in the United States. On the one hand, Latino voters plugged into the political process will look at Obama's trip to Europe as properly focused on the "Old World." I think most Latinos will probably agree that the Special Relationship between the United States and Latin America shouldn't be mixed in with and diluted by the affairs of the "Old World." Now if Obama visits anywhere in the Americas and talks only about Iraq or England or China, then he might have a bit of a problem. But somehow I don't see Obama making a trip to Latin America and not speaking about the region and its importance in an Obama administration.

But the ad does make me wonder: Did John McCain forget about the rest of the world when he visited Latin America? I wonder if all of us European Americans should be offended that he didn't mention our ancestral European countries of origin when he was in Latin America?

Obama, McCain, and the Dude on the Dollar Bill Dustup

Most who are paying attention know that McCain jumped all over Obama for his comment that the Republicans will try to scare folks because Obama doesn't look like the folks on our paper currency bills. McCain charged that Obama was playing the race card. But, I wonder, is it fair game for Obama to make comparisons of how Republicans will try to differentiate him with pictures on our currency, if McCain went there first?

Very interesting ...

[HAT TIP: Andrew Sullivan]

Literature Miscellanea

Here's a roundup of some of the literature surrounding my life these days:

(1) My book: Mexico: A Global Studies Handbook is now published and available for purchase. This volume is part of a 5-book series put out by ABC-Clio Publishers. I edited the series. The other volumes cover Cuba, Brazil, Argentina, and Costa Rica. It's a good series for a basic introduction to the history, politics, economics, and culture of these countries. Check it out.

(2) As I said in a previous posting, one of my goals in life was to make it through the original Hardy Boys series. There are 58 books in the original series, and last December I was up to #53. Since then, I have made it through #57 and am currently reading the last of the original series, #58, which is titled The Sting of the Scorpion. I'll probably finish this one in the next day or two, and can cross this task off of my bucket list. I've enjoyed the series, and probably will continue to read more from the series continuation, but once you've read one Hardy Boys mystery, you've read them all. The plots are always predictable and are generally pretty cheesy. But, hey, what would a little boy's life be like without some exposure to the Hardy Boys, right?

(3) Some other books I have read within the past year include: Passing Unseen: Stories from New Domangue, written by my friend Lucas Diaz. Lucas is a fantastic writer, and the depth of the voices he can portray in his stories is impressive. Lucas hails from the Dominican Republic, and some of the stories in this collection touch on life as an immigrant from the DR. Given that, it is interesting to compare his writing with other authors from the DR who touch on similar themes. So, I also read Junot Diaz's (no relation to Lucas) Pulitzer Prize winning novel The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao. It was good and Junot Diaz has some talent as a writer; but I think Lucas is an infinitely better writer. If Lucas can get noticed, there may be a Pulitzer in his future, too.

(4) I also re-read Roderic Camp's Politics in Mexico text, now in its 5th edition. You won't find a more concise, readable, and comprehensive introduction on Mexican politics. It's the best survey there is. Another book I re-read in conjunction with Camp's text is Sam Quinones' True Tales of Another Mexico. Camp lays out the basics of Mexico's politics formally, but Quinones gives us a glimpse into what I call Modern Mexico on the Margins. The book contains fantastic vignettes of human interest stories taking place all throughout Mexico and shows how the formal structures of Mexico's social and political systems produce these fascinating stories. They range from Oaxacan basketball teams, Narcocorridos, Modern-day lynchings, telenovelas-as-state-propaganda, religious cults, transvestite gay male prostitution, and many more. Combine these two texts and you'll get a fascinating glimpse into Mexican politics and society. I use these texts in my summer course on Mexican politics during the Guadalajara summer study abroad program that I direct.

(5) I also read Milan Kundera's The Curtain: An Essay in Seven Parts, which captures this Czech author's perspective on the role and importance of the novel in the contemporary history of literature; In Search of Buddy Bolden: First Man of Jazz, by Donald M. Marquis, which is a so-so exploration of one of New Orleans' enigmatic and mysterious early jazz trumpet players; Rudy Rucker's techno-geeky sci-fi novel Postsingular; and Walter Isaacson's illuminating and well-written biography of Benjamin Franklin. All of these books, as well as the Junot Diaz novel listed above, I read for my book club. Our next book, which I've only just started, is Jacob Burckhardt's classic study of the Italian Renaissance.

(6) On my own, I'm also reading Harry G. Boyte's excellent treatise on civic engagement called Everyday Politics: Reconnecting Citizens and Public Life. This book takes a look at how the average citizen should and can convert his daily grind into a vehicle for empowerment and civic action. I especially like the parts on the purpose of the academy in fostering civic engagement and how the mission of the college and the university have changed in this regard over time. I plan to do a review of this book, as well as a "favorite quotes" listing, on the blog at some point over the next few weeks.

(7) Finally, I'm reading for fun Portuguese author Jose Saramago's Nobel Prize winning novel Blindness. I'm two chapters into it, and it's excellent so far. I'm trying to finish it before the movie based on the novel is released this September.

Conservative Affirmative Action

Lately, the question of Obama and McCain's positions on affirmative action have been making the rounds among the punditocracy. Many conservatives deplore the whole concept of affirmative action, often arguing that objective qualifications should be the basis for placements or hiring. And yet we have evidence that the Bush Justice Department was practicing its own kind of affirmative action hiring. Monica Goodling, that farce of an attorney, engaged in all kinds of affirmative action litmus tests in hiring lawyers for career staff positions at the Department of Justice. Money paragraphs from the New York Times story on the subject:

In one case, for instance, Ms. Goodling slowed the hiring of a prosecutor in the United States attorney’s office in Washington, D.C., for a vacancy because she said she was concerned that he was a “liberal Democrat.” After the United States attorney, Jeffrey Taylor, complained to her supervisors, he was allowed to hire the candidate anyway.

And in another case, colleagues said that Ms. Goodling refused to extend the appointment of a female prosecutor because she believed the lawyer was involved in a lesbian relationship with her supervisor, according to the report.

And in another case cited by the inspector general, Ms. Goodling blocked the hiring of an experienced prosecutor for a senior counter-terrorism position because his wife was active in Democratic politics. The candidate was regarded as “head and shoulders above the other candidates” in the view of officials in the executive office of United States attorneys, but they were forced to take a candidate with much less experience because he was deemed acceptable to Ms. Goodling.

Notice we're not talking about college admissions or private company hiring practices, we're talking about the U.S. Department of Justice, that government agency responsible for serving all Americans in the impartial and fair administration of justice. The blatant politicization of the DOJ by Monica Goodling under the watch of ex-Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez is stunning. The last I checked the DOJ is a branch of government, not a branch of the GOP nor of the Christian Coalition. Where's the outrage among conservatives?

Anti-Liberal Derangement

At least when folks who hate liberals go on killing sprees inside Christian churches, they're honest enough to admit it:

A man who the police say entered a Unitarian church in Knoxville during Sunday services and shot 8 people, killing two, was motivated by a hatred for liberals and homosexuals, Chief Sterling P. Owen IV of the Knoxville Police Department said Monday.

I wonder who this guy was planning to vote for in November?

Drama in the Hood: Cops and Shooters

Wow! There are about 35 police vehicles surrounding my street. A little red car is crashed on the corner of Walmsley and Pine Streets, about 50 feet from my home. Apparently this car was involved in a police chase. Apparently, after crashing the car, the driver bolted and ran into the neighborhood and began a shootout with the police. My neighborhood is cordoned off and it looks like the SWAT team, or some kind of specially trained forces are now on the scene. I think they have the person cornered, but they haven't brought him in yet. I'm here in the house alone. Good thing the family is away visiting relatives. Would hate to have them subjected to this scene. More as the situation develops ...


UPDATE: Friday, July 25, 2008: 9:51PM CST: Well, the police eventually apprehended the suspects (there were two, and not one). I saw one of them being placed into the police vehicle to be brought down to the station. Here's the Times-Picayune's story on the incident. The whole event pinned me to my home for half the day, which meant that I had to rush off to work as soon as I could and so didn't have the time nor the energy to commit to updating the story at the moment. So, I'm doing it now. I did manage to snap a picture from one of the windows in front of the house. Here it is to give you a glimpse of what I saw:



















And that was just a peek out the window. You can't even see the crashed car on the street corner, which is a little to the right of what I captured in this shot. There were more than a dozen vehicles at least sweeping off to the right. And helicopters flying about, too. Needless to say, a very interesting morning. In the end, a massive, strong showing of law enforcement power. I guess that's a good thing. Now, with the exception of a bent fire hydrant, it all looks like nothing ever happened.

I'm So Glad

Im sitting in the Houston International Airport waiting for my connecting flight back to New Orleans, and I'm feeling pretty good to be back right now in the USA.

Mexico was great, but there's no place like home!

Home in 4 days

... but who's counting?!?

It's been a great ride this year in Guadalajara and other environs here in Mexico. Our group's recent trip to Mexico City was superb this year. And the weather was just fine.

One little comment about the Mexico City trip. We were all out in the Zona Rosa at a Mexican restaurant for dinner one evening and there was a mariachi band performing. It was nice. About halfway through the evening, one of the group stunned all of us. In a good way! This young woman, out of the blue, just got up, joined the mariachi band, and sang a mariachi song in Spanish. And she was great! A great voice! We had no idea!

I must say it was a great source of pride. Here we were, a big group of obvious gringos, gathering at a Mexican restaurant, and one of our fair gringas got up and showed Mexicans how it was done. The Mexicans in the restaurant were equally stunned but in very good spirits. It was a great moment for cultural solidarity. That was probably the highlight of the Mexico City trip.

Anyway ... much to do when I get back to New Orleans. I've lots of work to catch up on in the office in preparation for the upcoming academic year.

But one thing that I've decided will be one of my first tasks upon returning is to explore the possibility of either purchasing or renting an Alto Sax and then learning how to play it. I've really been brushing up on my Jazz History this summer and, though I've been thinking this for a while, the fact has finally congealed in my mind that I really want to play the Alto Sax.

I've always liked Charlie Parker, but this summer something really touched me and moved me about his music, his playing, and his contributions to Jazz. I'm just motivated by Bird to give the instrument he handled so well a go of my own. Any other Alto Sax players out there who might have some inspirational tips for me as I begin my journey into this musical venture, please don't hesitate to drop me a comment.

It's Been A While

I haven't posted to the blog in a good while now. In part, it's because my family is here in Mexico with me and my attentions are elsewhere. But it's also largely because I have very weak wifi internet signals at the places where I am most likely to post blog entries. At the place where I am staying, I can get a very weak signal, but it comes in and out and I often have trouble connecting to Blogger's server through this connection. The other place, the school where I am teaching, has a better and stronger signal, but when I am there I am usually preparing for classes. And when my class is over, I usually don't hang around the school much because I want to get back to my family. So, the result has been some sketchy blogging.

I am now at the school and have made it a point to take a few minutes from my class preparation to make a posting.

Every year my family comes to Mexico, we try to take a picture of the family holding the Travel Section of the Times-Picayune so that we can submit this picture to the Times-Picayune for publication. So far, the Times-Picayune has not published our pictures. So, not waiting to see how the Times-Picayune decides this year, I'm going to publish our picture from this year right here on the Huckupchuck. Here are my lovelies with not one, but two, Travel sections of the Times-Picayune in front of the Teatro Degollado in the Historic Downtown District of Guadalajara:



















And since I am not in the above picture as I am the picture taker, I figure I'd give you another picture of me in Guadalajara. Here I am in a place called Tlaquepaque singing with the Mariachi:



















Notice the 2008 Jazz Fest T-shirt. You can take the boy out of the N'awl; but you can't ever take the N'awl out of the boy!

Family Has Arrived

The family is all together here in Guadalajara. We've spent some great quality time enjoying the city and the restaurants and the swimming pools and the sun. More to come. Stay tuned...

Historic Guadalajara

Yesterday, our group toured the historic district of downtown Guadalajara. It's quite impressive. I've done this little excursion multiple times now and it never gets dull or boring.

Guadalajara is the capital city of the State of Jalisco. Jalisco is the birthplace of one of Mexico's most famous 20th Century painter and muralists, Jose Clemente Orozco; and Orozco's paintings are all over the place here.

Of course, we saw the beautiful cathedral, the Orozco murals in the Government Palace, and the amazing Orozco murals in the Hospicio Cabañas.

After walking the downtown historic district, we ended up at La Chata restaurant for a sabrosa y deliciosa comida Mexicana.

Tomorrow, my family arrives. Can't wait to see them.

Credit Annoyances

Every summer I have to face the prospect of having one or all of my credit cards turned down at least once while in Mexico. I assume that this is for my protection because a charge in Mexico probably elicits a fraud red flag. But it's a royal hassle nonetheless to have to call the credit card company from Mexico and explain the situation and get the block removed. Now, I should say that I've had this problem even when I call the credit card companies ahead of time and inform them that I will be in Mexico from such and such a date to such and such a date and to accept charges from Mexico during this time as legitimate. But to no avail. I have yet to have a smooth experience as far as credit card usage in Mexico goes. And this poses particular stress because I use the credit card for program expenses and activities that I organize for my group. Oh, well ... the price one pays for overzealous credit card companies. I guess I shouldn't complain. I'd rather be having to make calls to verify legitimate usage instead of having to make calls to contest fraudulent usage. But it is annoying and frustrating nonetheless.

Huckupchuck in Mexico

Well, I'm now blogging from the lovely Mexican city of Guadalajara. I arrived yesterday with my gang and got everyone settled in with their families just fine. With the exception of one student who ended up without one of her bags, the trip was relaxing and uneventful. In fact, I can remember no other time when my group's arrival went so smoothly.

I'm staying at a place called the Suites Margarita. I've stayed here once before. It's a bit of a splurge on my part, but when my lovelies come to Mexico for an extended time, as they are doing this year, I always splurge on them. My daughters love it here.

In fact, as I write now, it is about 8:00pm (Guadalajara in the summer is in the same time zone as New Orleans) and I am sitting on the terrace connected to the Suites Margarita's wireless internet service and sipping on a Pacifico beer. I would upload a picture for you, but my internet signal is weak and the photo is having trouble uploading to Blogger's servers. But I'll try to give you a glimpse of what my moment is like tomorrow when I have a stronger signal.

UPDATE: Tuesday, June 19, 2008: 9:15AM: Here's the glimpse I promised:




















Life at the moment is, as they say in Spanish, "muy tranquilo." I had a good day today. It was our group's orientation and all went very smoothly.

I did notice some changes in Guadalajara. A number of businesses have shuttered and there seems to be a slight, but noticeable sense of anxiety in the air. Though no one here has spoken to me of it, I get the feeling that there is a bit of an economic recession gripping the city. As another saying goes, when the US economy sneezes, the Mexican economy gets the flu. Perhaps the doldrums we're experiencing at home are having their repercussions here.

The US Dollar is weaker here, but only by a little bit compared to other places in the world. Last summer, I could get about 10.7 pesos to the dollar, now the best rate I've seen is about 10.3 to the dollar.

While on the plane yesterday, and also as I was relaxing last night, I finished my friend Lucas Diaz's collection of short stories that take place in a fictional town about 15 miles down river from New Orleans called New Domangue. I'm a pretty tough critic when it comes to fiction; but I have to say that I was really impressed with these stories. The book is called Passing Unseen: Stories from New Domangue. If you like Lafcadio Hearn's stories about New Orleans, I think you'll dig on Lucas Diaz's stories. Lucas has an amazing perceptive ability about the minds and languages of different age groups, racial and ethnic groups, and the culture of the region. If nothing more, this eclectic variety of the stories give witness to Lucas's expansive literary talents and cultural knowledge of the Louisiana Deep South.

More Mexico blogging to come ... stay tuned!

Confirmed: Immigration Bills Are Dead

I received this email update summary from a source up in Baton Rouge who was working closely on the immigration bills and whose credibility is unassailable:

There were 8 bills brought this session dealing with immigration. The results are as follows:

HB 25 (police checking status): Geymann – dead; passed through the House committee and House Floor but will not be heard in Senate committee by decision of the author

HB 24/1357 (harboring): Geymann – dead; passed through the House committee and House Floor but will not be heard in Senate committee by decision of the author

HB 26/1358 (transporting): Geymann - dead; passed through the House committee and House Floor but will not be heard in Senate committee by decision of the author

HB 887 (medical malpractice): LaBruzzo – dead; passed through House committee as restricting the cap on medical malpractice suits, morphed into an anti-immigrant bill on the House Floor due to an amendment that essentially became the body of the bill, challenged in Senate committee and the author decided to voluntarily defer the bill because he did not have the votes to get it passed

HB 1097/1380 (biometrics card): Harrison – dead; passed through the House committee but author decided to recommit the bill to its original committee once it was to be heard on the House Floor due to its incredibly high fiscal note; became a study resolution

HB 1157/1365 (renting property): Burns, T. – dead; passed through the House committee but will not be heard on the House Floor by decision of the author

HB 1103 (prohibits employers from hiring unauthorized aliens) – the author, Rep. Williams, never moved the bill

HB 1082 (prohibits state agencies from contracting with persons who employ illegal immigrants): Geymann – was assigned to House Appropriations but has never been heard

Batting a thousand. Not too shabby. But, as this source also noted, this is just the beginning of the fight. As long as the Feds don't act to reform a broken federal immigration system, we can expect to face such kinds of bills in future legislative sessions. For now, though, we can savor a small (even if ephemeral) victory.

Miscellanea

Well, it's been a while since I last posted. Frankly, I've been quite busy with a number of things. But I at least wanted to give a bit of an update. First, regarding the immigration bills ... it looks like every immigration bill that was working its way through the Louisiana legislature has stalled. There are less than two weeks to go in the current session and all of the bills have bogged down in the Senate Committees. If any of these bills are going to make it to the Governor's desk, they'll have to pass through Committee, then be scheduled for debate and vote on the Senate floor. There just isn't enough time to do this. One bill, HB 1365 by Tim Burns on renting property to undocumented immigrants hasn't even made it out of the House yet. So, that bill is dead. HB 25, HB 1357, and HB 1358 haven't even really been heard in Senate Committee yet. So, for all intents and purposes, they're dead, too. I guess the sponsors of these bills can go back to their districts as heroes for having tried to do something, even if their efforts failed. If that's how they want to play it, that's fine. In the end, it's still a legislative defeat for them and a victory for those of us who opposed these bills. They were bad pieces of legislation anyhow. The sad part of it all is that I never got to testify. And even if some of the bills are resuscitated next week, I still won't be able to testify given that I'll be in Mexico. And that's my next point ...

Part of the reason why I haven't been blogging so much lately is that I'm getting ready for my jaunt to Mexico. I've got to tie loose ends up at the office and at home. I've got to pack, prepare my course, and make sure final arrangements are set in Mexico. That's consumed a good bit of my energies.

I've also been frantically trying to close out some home repair and remodeling projects that I've had in the works for a while now. I've made some good progress on that front, too.

But once I'm in Mexico, I'll have more time to blog. I can leave the immigration stuff alone for the time being and turn my attention to Mexico, to the upcoming national elections, and to other aspects of Louisiana life and politics.

Oh, and I have to pay up on that bet with my wife's former pastor that I lost once Obama sewed up the Democratic Party nomination! Go, Obama!

Times-Picayune Again Editorializes on Immigration

I have to give it to the editors at the Times-Picayune. They have been relentless in their coverage of the immigration bills before the Louisiana legislature, and they have been clear in their opposition to such bills. Today's editorial, titled "Give up flawed effort," is the third editorial in as many weeks on the topic. In case you missed it, here it is in full:

Friday, June 06, 2008

It's comforting that some lawmakers have finally raised concerns about the misguided immigration bills proposed by Lake Charles Rep. Brett Geymann.

Rep. Geymann, however, is vowing to bring his proposals back next week. He should instead heed the flaws highlighted by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee B and abandon his proposals.

House Bills 1357 and 1358 would make it a crime to "harbor, conceal or shelter" and to transport illegal residents. Another of Rep. Geymann's proposals, House Bill 25, would require law enforcement agencies to verify citizenship and immigration status of every person arrested.

These bills are unenforceable, likely unconstitutional and a vehicle for racial profiling of people who look Hispanic, whether they are here legally or not. These are reasons enough to scrub the proposals.

Committee members apparently understand these problems. At a hearing this week, Kenner Sen. Danny Martiny questioned how police officers could determine whether someone is here legally or illegally.

That's a good question, considering most Americans don't carry passports, birth certificates or other proof of citizenship. Many people don't even have those records readily available.

Sen. Eric LaFleur of Ville Plate worried about many innocent residents and employers being trapped by the dragnet these bills would cast.

Defending the measures, Rep. Geymann said the bills aim at people who exploit illegal immigrants or businesses that hire them knowing of their illegal status.

But as Sen. Butch Gautreaux of Morgan City pointed out, the proposals do not make those distinctions. Sen. Gautreaux said the result would be profiling against people who "look a little different" or "are not speaking the king's Cajun English."

That's the most pernicious of these bill's flaws. Yet Rep. Geymann assured his colleagues that such profiling would not take place and that prosecutors would not abuse the bills. If he truly believes that, he's being naive.

Profiling was one of the problems Louisiana courts found in a 2002 law that made it a felony to drive without proof of legal U.S. residency.

Having no way to discern who may be here legally and who may not, police officers used the bill to unfairly target Latinos. Several U.S. citizens of Hispanic descent were wrongly charged for failing to carry documents proving citizenship -- which no American is expected to have on them. The courts appropriately ruled the law unconstitutional last year.

Our country needs strict border control and a sensible immigration policy that gives illegal immigrants a path to citizenship. Trying to pass constitutionally questionable proposals at the state level is not the answer.

The Senate committee members can see that -- so should Rep. Geymann.

I agree with every word. [And the Times-Picayune finally got Rep. Geymann's first name correct, too!]

Other states may find it more to their liking to go after undocumented immigrants with such legislative initiatives; but it just isn't in the spirit of the cultural, ethnic, and linguistic gumbo that is Louisiana to follow the same path. We are a very heterogenous, welcoming, and culturally pluralistic state, especially in the more populous Southern parts of the state. And the majority of the Senators in Judiciary Committee B come from Southern Louisiana. These bills just don't fit who we are. For these reasons, I'm confident that they'll be defeated. Rest assured that I'll be in Baton Rouge this coming week to testify when these bills will be scheduled for a hearing once again.

On Immigration: We're Talking Past One Another

The Times-Picayune has published a letter to the editor from an individual by the name of Joe Molyneux who writes in response to City Council President Arnie Fielkow's letter regarding the illegal immigration issue. Mr. Molyneux wrote in opposition to Fielkow's position and expressed support for efforts to curb illegal immigration. Here's what Mr. Molyneux wrote:

Re: "Piecemeal laws no way to handle immigration," Metro, June 2.

New Orleans City Council President Arnie Fielkow wrote a very moving and politically correct letter relative to immigration. However, the issue we face in America is illegal immigration. National security of this country should be a concern to all of us, not just the federal government.

Those who condone illegal immigration may not realize it, but they undermine our own laws in taking this position sending a message to those who break our laws that it is OK. Because most illegal immigrants come to the United States to make money does not make it right to subvert our laws. The end does not justify the means.

We do an injustice to those who come here illegally if we look the other way. We are implicitly telling them that our country is not based on the rule of law, that one can pick and choose reasons for breaking the law and suffer no consequences.

Joe Molyneux

Metairie

First, let me note that Mr. Molyneux's letter was respectful and understandable. He speaks about respecting the rule of law, which is an important concept and is one that I think most of us would agree with. I certainly do. His reference to this "rule of law" argument in defense of the kinds of anti-illegal immigrant legislation working its way through the Louisiana legislature is one that I often hear anti-illegal immigrant folk make. But, I don't find that this "rule of law" argument is really being contested or challenged by those of us who oppose the kinds of anti-illegal immigrant legislation we are seeing in Louisiana (and in other states throughout the country). That is not the source of our complaint within the illegal immigration debate, nor is it the root of our disagreements, especially regarding the state-level anti-illegal immigration measures being considered. We are talking past one another. Let me use Mr. Molyneux's letter, Mr. Fielkow's letter, and Martin Gutierrez's recent Op-Ed piece in the Times-Picayune to demonstrate this.

Mr. Molyneux's argument assumes that the positions held by Arnie Fielkow and Martin Gutierrez are ones that "condone" illegal immigration. His entire argument is based on that assumption. He says that by thus condoning illegal immigration, Fielkow and Gutierrez are undermining the rule of law in our country. If Fielkow and Gutierrez were condoning illegal immigration, he might have a point. But if you read Fielkow and Gutierrez carefully, neither of them at any point condones, either explicitly or implicitly, illegal entry into the United States. Nor are they condoning or justifying breaking the law. I think what both are doing, in their own ways, is simply stating that regardless of the method of an undocumented immigrant's arrival to our community, it serves the broader interests of public safety and the general welfare, not to mention serves the moral imperative to good-neighborliness, to approach these individuals in our midst with compassion, charity, and in a welcoming spirit. Now, there may be some disagreement as to the severity of the illegal activity, but I would imagine that most fair-minded people would recognize that the vast majority of undocumented immigrants are not the kinds of hardened criminals that would warrant punitive social isolation and rejection from our community. I have heard many people say that they would happily welcome the very same undocumented people into their communities if they would just go through the proper channels to get here. To me, this implies that, unlike the hardened criminal, people recognize the goodness of most undocumented migrants such that having them as neighbors would pose no problem. They are not the drug dealers, the sexual offenders, the property damagers, the disturbers-of-the-peace, etc., whom most people either fear or wouldn't want in their neighborhoods.

It is recognizing this aspect of undocumented immigrants that motivates Fielkow, Gutierrez, and myself in terms of how we should approach the problem. There is no condoning of disrespecting the rule of law in this case any more than there is condoning law breaking of the chronic speed-limit violator. Unlike what Mr. Molyneux claims, national (and local) security is a concern for all of us. It is this concern for security which partly drives opposition to what Fielkow called "piecemeal state legislative efforts." Let's revisit what Fielkow actually said:

As we have seen in Congress, the immigration issue is a complex issue that cannot be thoroughly and equitably addressed through piecemeal state legislative efforts.

As a nation, we have a responsibility to develop and implement a comprehensive national immigration policy that is enforceable, does not create an undue burden on law-abiding citizens, respects and protects human rights and creates an atmosphere in which a community can thrive.

Where does Fielkow condone illegal activity? Seems to me his focus is on what these state legislative efforts will do to law-abiding citizens and our communities. Gutierrez is more direct and explicit in his comments about the "rule of law" concern. He writes in his Op-Ed:

The Catholic Bishops of Louisiana and Catholic Charities Archdiocese of New Orleans strongly believe in enforcement of the law. We do not condone illegal immigration. We are not in favor of open borders and are not suggesting blanket amnesty, but rather an earned path to citizenship for the deserving among the millions of hard-working, community-minded undocumented individuals and families in this country.

We support requirements to earn legal status including learning the language, undergoing a criminal background check, paying back taxes and paying a penalty. We support putting this group behind others waiting for their applications to be processed.

Imagine for a moment what would happen if these 12 million undocumented residents were suddenly deported, as some have demanded. Many of these people have been living in the United States for decades. They hold jobs, belong to churches, and have children and grandchildren who are native-born U.S. citizens.

Again, here Gutierrez explicitly says that the Catholic Church, whose position he represents, does not condone illegal activity. But, like Fielkow, his concern is what such legislative efforts at the state level will do to human dignity, families, and local communities.

In the end, I don't think Mr. Molyneux's "rule of law" argument is what is at issue. He misreads Fielkow, Gutierrez, and many others who oppose these state-level anti-illegal immigrant bills. Fielkow, Gutierrez, and others who oppose these state-level anti-illegal immigrant initiatives and who advocate for comprehensive immigration reform at the federal level wouldn't dispute the importance of the rule of law. But it seems that Mr. Molyneux, though he may not realize it himself, is refusing to see that what concerns Fielkow, Gutierrez, and other is what rash and polarizing local anti-illegal immigrant legislation will do to our security and to our sense of community. What Mr. Molyneux seems not to want to recognize is that what is driving these local anti-illegal immigrant initiatives is not so much grounded in maintaining the rule of law in the face of those who would break it, but playing on the fears of citizens and even threatening law abiding citizens with punitive action in the context of the illegal immigration issue.

Mr. Molyneux's letter contends that "the end doesn't justify the means." He was basically arguing that whatever benefits might be driving illegal immigration, those benefits don't justify subverting the law. Along the same lines, I might argue to Mr. Molyneux that targeting law-abiding citizens with punitive consequences and jail time for potentially doing a humantarian good deed for an undocumented immigrant is not the proper means that justifies resolving the illegal immigration problem. Yes, indeed, "the end doesn't justify the means." That's precisely the argument that many make against these local anti-illegal immigrant measures. And even then, there's no concrete evidence that the very means deployed in these measures will achieve the desired end. So, in a sense, Mr. Molyneux uses the same argument that I might use. Another striking bit of evidence that we are talking past one another.

On this issue, we need to talk to one another more, instead of talking past one another. If we could talk to one another more, we might find that we may agree more than we disagree. And we would certainly understand better what motivates us in those areas where we do disagree.

A Super Day

Today was not just a good day for me, but a super one. First off, I completed the last formal academic obligation I had before heading off to Mexico. So, it was great to get that off my shoulders.

Second, although I couldn't make it to Baton Rouge to testify before the State Senate Judiciary committee on the immigration bills being considered there because of my academic obligation, I learned that one of the anti-illegal immigration bills (HB 887 on medical malpractice lawsuit rights) was defeated in the Senate committee. I also learned that HB 25, HB 1357, and HB 1358, which have been very much focal points for me, were voluntarily deferred by the bills' author, Rep. Brett Geymann, following initial tough questioning by the Senate Judiciary Committee that indicated he didn't have the support to get them through Committee. Rep. Geymann, in voluntarily deferring these bills, reserves the right to bring them up at a later date for a continuation of the Senate Committee hearing. But, the current legislative session ends on June 23, and so the likelihood of resuscitating deferred legislation at this point is very slim. Usually, when bills get deferred at this point, whether voluntarily or unvoluntarily, it suggests that they are pretty much defunct for this legislative session. But we shall see. It is certainly a positive sign for opponents of the bill. And I can confirm that the Senate Committee chamber was filled with plenty of people registering opposition to the bills. This must have made an impression on the Committee. And if the bills do manage to come up again sometime next week, I will have nothing preventing me from being able to go to Baton Rouge myself to testify against them.

And, third: YES, WE CAN! YES, WE DID! Barack Obama defeated the Clinton machine and has secured enough delegates to be the Democratic Party's official nominee for the November Presidential elections.

It has, indeed, been a super day!

UPDATE: Wednesday, June 4, 11:00AM: Lucas Diaz, who went to Baton Rouge yesterday to testify against the immigration bills, gives a riveting first-hand report on the events of the day. Here's the most illustrating, revealing, and shocking part of it:

Our next order of business was to make it to Judiciary A, where HB 887 had not yet been heard. Thirty of us found open seating where we could and patiently waited for 887 to be heard. When it was called, Representative LaBruzzo stepped up. He, too, was shown the thirty-plus red opposition cards to his bill. He had one in favor, one single lone green card. The Chairman, Senator Quinn, followed the same script, it seemed, as had the Chairman in the previous committee room. She asked hard questions about the bill, specifically the constitutionality of the bill. Rep. LaBruzzo stated (again, I remind you that this is public record and anyone can look it up at the Louisiana Legislature) that he wasn’t a lawyer but that his Senate staff lawyers had not advised him that his bill was unconstitutional. Senator Quinn then responded by reading the section of the constitution that applies to his bill, the section in which it clearly states that “no person” will be denied due process. She then asked Rep. LaBruzzo if he considered “illegal immigrants” as persons, to which Rep. LaBruzzo responded that when it came to his bill he did not. WAIT. WHAT??!!??

So, there we had it: straight from a legislator’s mouth. According to Representative LaBruzzo, of District 81 (Metairie, folks), “illegal aliens” are not to be considered persons–DESPITE the fact that the United States Constitution clearly states “person” and not citizen, or non-citizen, or legal resident, or whatever–it states PERSON. Last I checked immigrants were human beings, regardless of their legal immigration status, and last I checked human beings were considered persons. Unfortunately, our Metairie Representative does not appear to agree, so it begs the question: what does Representative LaBruzzo believe “illegal aliens” are? This would be funny if it wasn’t so scary. We are talking about people’s lives, about laws that one legislator seriously believes should be State law, and that a majority of House members voted up to the Senate. This would be funny if it wasn’t so scary.

But that’s not the end of it. A heated argument began between Senator Quinn and Rep. LaBruzzo regarding federal and state constitution (by the way, the State’s constitution reads in similar fashion as the federal constitution when it comes to due process). The voice of the Nursing Home Association chimed in its support, then the arguing continued until eventually Senator Quinn decided to chide the representative. She accused him of political pandering and expressed her extreme distaste for such activities in her committee and warned him to refrain from repeating the same offense in the future. After that the arguments between the two took on an even more intense flavor until Senator Quinn halted and motioned for a withdrawal. At the same time, Rep LaBruzzo voluntarily withdrew, keeping all of us and the rest of the Senators on the committee from asking further questions or testifying in opposition. However, Senator Kostelka had one comment to add. He chided the Chairman for attacking a representative in public and then publicly and clearly stated that while he was opposed to the proposed bill prior to the committee discussion, he now would vote for it because of the poor treatment Rep. LaBruzzo received. WHAT??!!?? Did we hear that correctly? Yes, we did. Senator Kostelka, a former judge, replied that constitutionality issues were less important than the “de-facing” of a fellow legislator. How interesting. So even when there is experience and expertise at the table, there is no guarantee of impartiality, objectivity, and concern for the common good. But I thought we elected officials to be concerned about the public well-being and not the individual well-being of a fellow elected official? I guess I was wrong in believing differently.

Well, let me add just one comment: Of course, LaBruzzo doesn't consider undocumented migrants to be persons. Anyone who uses the term "alien" to describe someone is consciously choosing a term that purposefully seeks to "dehumanize" that person. So if he doesn't think undocumented immigrants are humans, why wouldn't he interpret the constitution in the way that he does? [As an aside, I wonder what LaBruzzo thinks of a fetus's "personhood"?]

The Empathetic Position on Immigration

My colleague, Martin Gutierrez, had an op-ed column published in today's Times-Picayune. Here's the piece in full:

Tuesday, June 03, 2008

Martin Gutierrez

When I was a teenager, close to 30 years ago, my parents were forced to leave the country where we were born for political reasons. Our leaving Nicaragua was a matter of survival and freedom for our family.

During these 30 years, I have lived a fruitful life. I graduated from Chalmette High School, worked my way through college to earn a degree from UNO, purchased a home in Metairie and had a successful banking career. I will always be grateful to my parents for allowing me the opportunity for a better life, and to the United States for allowing me to contribute back to our society.

As executive director of the Hispanic Apostolate Pastoral Services of the Archdiocese, I now find myself asking my fellow American citizens (yes, I am very proud to be a naturalized United States citizen and registered voter) to consider granting others, who are already in our country, a similar opportunity to the one I had.

It makes good sense to reform immigration laws. The system is clearly broken. But the state Legislature is not the place to make the much needed repairs. These complex reforms belong in Washington, D.C.

The Catholic Bishops of Louisiana and Catholic Charities Archdiocese of New Orleans strongly believe in enforcement of the law. We do not condone illegal immigration. We are not in favor of open borders and are not suggesting blanket amnesty, but rather an earned path to citizenship for the deserving among the millions of hard-working, community-minded undocumented individuals and families in this country.

We support requirements to earn legal status including learning the language, undergoing a criminal background check, paying back taxes and paying a penalty. We support putting this group behind others waiting for their applications to be processed.

Imagine for a moment what would happen if these 12 million undocumented residents were suddenly deported, as some have demanded. Many of these people have been living in the United States for decades. They hold jobs, belong to churches, and have children and grandchildren who are native-born U.S. citizens.

These undocumented workers contribute to the U.S. economy and are employed in many sectors that would be severely impacted if they were suddenly no longer here. The Social Security Administration estimates that three-quarters of undocumented immigrants pay payroll taxes which annually contributes $7 billion in Social Security funds that they will never be able to claim and another $1.5 billion to Medicare.

An unintended consequence of deporting millions of undocumented workers would certainly be the potential harm to their children. According to the Pew center, about 3 million American-born children have at least one parent who is an unauthorized immigrant. A 2007 study analyzed the effect of workplace raids, which almost always result in deportation, on children. For every two illegal immigrants apprehended, one child was left behind.

Children should not be punished for the sins of their parents, and families are the cornerstone of society. If 12 million undocumented were suddenly deported, which most believe is economically unsound and logistically impossible, millions of children could be left behind.

What about amnesty? Should all 12 million simply be documented and made legal? The answer is no. As is the case with any large group, there is an element among the undocumented that should be deported. Instead of blanket amnesty, we must advocate for changes at the federal level that would allow for an earned path to citizenship.

Allow the good, productive people who came here fleeing poverty, starvation, violence or political repression to come out of the shadows and become integral members of our communities.

The issues of immigration reform are complex and continue to be debated, but action to reform the laws and fix the system belongs in Washington, not Baton Rouge.

I probably fall out much more on the more liberal side of the issue than Martin does, in the sense that I favor an even easier path to citizenship for undocumented migrants. Martin indicates that no special privileges be given to undocumented migrants in any comprehensive immigration reform program: that they have to pay a penalty for being here without proper documents, that they have to wait at the end of the line, etc. I don't disagree with the spirit behind this position because it is imbued with a sense of fairness and justice; but I'd also prefer that the economic and social contributions a migrant makes to the fabric and wealth of our society, including their contributions to the federal, state, and local treasuries for the taxes that they pay, count for something in terms of a comprehensive reform package. I'd rather that legislators weigh the "negatives" of being undocumented against the "positives" of the contributions undocumented migrants make to our economy and society and craft comprehensive immigration reform more along the "rewards" side of the "path to citizenship" equation rather then the punitive side of it. But I agree 100% with Martin that any immigration reform must be undertaken at the federal level, and not at the local or state level. There are just too many problems and complications with state legislative efforts. It invites more government and competing jurisdictions (not to mention additional costs to the taxpayer) to cloud and muddle even more an already complex and messy immigration system. Why would "good government" advocates desire this? Putting aside any humanitarian arguments in defense of a more liberal immigration policy, and regardless of the competing and opposing positions on the merits of local legislative initiatives, I think it's best to leave immigration reform and border security in the hands of the federal government, where our national constitution locates this responsibility.

Martin raises some very good points that provide an empathetic and dignity-based rationale for comprehensive immigration reform. And while we may disagree on some of the specifics, I think we share a solidarity regarding the way we should be responding: with empathy and respect for the dignity of the human being and the family.

Arnie Fielkow Against Immigration Bills

New Orleans City Councilman and President of the City Council has come out against the immigration-related bills in the Louisiana legislature. Here's his letter in full:

Recent letters to The Times-Picayune as well as an editorial published by the newspaper have addressed the recent initiatives in the Louisiana Legislature dealing with illegal immigration.

Some have opposed the bills as a practical matter of making sure that we have a sufficient workforce to do all the jobs required in our rebuilding efforts. Others have opposed the bills on moral grounds, claiming they impose burdens and penalties on citizens who do nothing more than provide humanitarian aid.

Others have opposed these bills for jurisdictional reasons, arguing that the establishment and enforcement of immigration laws is a federal, not a local or state, responsibility.

What is clear to all is that the target for this legislation is the growing Hispanic population in New Orleans.

As a City Council member for the city of New Orleans, I have had the pleasure and opportunity to meet and talk with folks from all walks of life. I embrace the diversity within our community and the richness in experience this diversity brings to our community.

As we have seen in Congress, the immigration issue is a complex issue that cannot be thoroughly and equitably addressed through piecemeal state legislative efforts.

As a nation, we have a responsibility to develop and implement a comprehensive national immigration policy that is enforceable, does not create an undue burden on law-abiding citizens, respects and protects human rights and creates an atmosphere in which a community can thrive.

I am glad to see the Hispanic community take leadership in speaking out about the various problems bills circulating in Baton Rouge.

In Louisiana, our Spanish-speaking neighbors have been with us as long as our French-speaking families. As a state, I hope that we remember this, and I hope that we are able to find solutions that benefit our community rather than divide us.

Arnie D. Fielkow
President
City Council
New Orleans

Fielkow could be our next mayor. Regardless, I am pleased that he has taken such a public position on the issue; and I take pride in the fact that the people and groups I work closely with in New Orleans on issues of importance to the Hispanic community here have played no small role in educating and cultivating a strong and positive relationship not only with Fielkow, but with the entire New Orleans City Council and the Mayor's Office.