The Flying Dutchman

This past Wednesday, I went with Squirrelly Girlie the Elder to see the New Orleans Metropolitan Opera's production of Richard Wagner's The Flying Dutchman. The singers were good, but I was not impressed with the Opera itself. The music and the characters were so self-absorbed. The interaction between the characters was merely a vehicle (and a flimsy one at that) for getting to the arias. Every time a character opened his or her mouth to sing, it was as if that character had all of a sudden forgotten about anyone else around him or her and was just singing to hear himself or herself sing. It was musical narcissism and operatic bombast at its absolute worst. Wagner is just so obviously full of himself. I know that he can have flashes of musical brilliance, but his ego suffocates whatever talent he might have.

Cao, No

Well, it seems I was wrong. Cao is a "No" on the Health Care Reform bill. He must have wearied already of being in Congress because if he votes "No" he's electoral toast. I like the guy personally, but I will not vote for him again if he votes "No" on this issue. The GOP often complains that Congress isn't listening to the people on Health Care Reform. Well, all I can say is that Cao is not listening to his constituents who overwhelmingly support the Health Care Reform bill.

I called Cao's office today and the staffer I made my plea to heard me out and only said one word before hanging up: "Thanks." I could hear the resignation in this staffer's voice. He knows his gig is up.

I followed that phone call up with an email to Cao and made my final plea on moral grounds that Cao change his mind. I don't expect him to do so at this point, but anything is possible. I'm confident the bill will pass without Cao, but I'm very disheartened by and disappointed in him. I'll wait to see the actual vote before I bid Cao my good-byes.

Health Care Reform: What Will Cao Do?

It's simple ... if he wants to win in November, he votes "Yes."

The question is ... does he want to win in November? I say yes.

And I'm finally glad that some prominent Catholic voices are taking the appropriately bigger pro-life picture than just the anti-abortion part of it. When you factor in the larger pro-life calculus, there is much room for pro-life, anti-abortion people like Cao to vote "Yes" on the measure in good conscience.

What does this mean in the end? This means Cao votes "Yes."

Knee Update

Many of you know that I had knee surgery some 10 weeks ago, in the first week of January. Well, I haven't spoken about it in a while, so I thought I should give an update.

The short of it is that my recovery has been pretty remarkable. I would say that I am at about 95% full functionality in my left knee. Today, I went about my business all day long and didn't even think about or notice my knee once.

Occasionally, I'll have moments of stiffness and some slight twinges of negligible pain or discomfort in the knee; but they are few and far between.

I have started intense physical therapy to strengthen my left leg and to recover from the atrophy that set in immediately following my surgery. The goal is to get my back into running shape -- not that I plan to do any running -- but to get me to the point where I could jog if I wanted to.

Really, my goal for physical therapy is to strenghten my lateral movement enough to permit me to get back on the racquetball courts, which I haven't played in over 7 years or so.

My last physical therapy session, which took place last Thursday, was pretty stressful on the knee. I left that physical therapy session limping slightly; but mostly this was due to my leg's weakness and its inability to be able to endure intense exercise for an extende period of time. But it did feel good to have my leg be pushed to its limits of tiredness and weakness.

I still am amazed at how relatively pain-free the whole experience was for me. Let's hope it continues to go so well and I find myself whacking that racquetball soon!

All Big East Final Four

OK. I'm going way out on a limb and will predict an all Big East Final Four:

Widwest Bracket Champs: Georgetown
West Bracket Champs: Syracuse
East Bracket Champs: West Virginia
South Bracket Champs: Villanova

Finals Matchup: Georgetown and West Virginia -- in a repeat of the Big East Tournament Championship Game. Only this time, Georgetown emerges victorious, with Louisiana's own Greg Monroe taking MVP honors with a monster 25+ point game.

That's my fantasy dreamland pick, and I'm sticking to it!

The Impending Dismantling of the Superbowl Saints

I guess it's inevitable that the players who constituted a world champion team would be hot commodities in the open market.

But I have to say that I find the casual lack of loyalty to be a bit unseemly. It rubs me the wrong way. What happened to the days when teammates who gelled so well together such as to win a championship would be loathe to leave such a good thing. Really, if I were part of a championship team, I'd want nothing more than to keep that team together so as to continue winning championships.

But today's NFL players just don't seem to have that mindset. It's the green that speaks to them, not the drive to be champions. Seriously, why would Hargrove even ponder going to such a perennial loser as the Detroit Lions? And why would Bell hitch his future to an aging and declining Eagles franchise? For that matter, why would Fujita head for the Browns? Why would these folks want to leave a team like the Saints that is at the top of the NFL and just starting to crest for teams that wallow in the dregs? Only one reason I can see: the green.

That's what speaks to players these days. Call me cynical, but I don't buy any NFL player's pretensions to be moved by value of championships as a good in itself beyond how such championships can boost their personal bank accounts.

I guess it's true when they say it's a business, not a sport. And I find that depressing. Give me the Friday Night Lights of High School football over the "business" of the NFL any day.

Murder on the U.S.-Mexican Border

Things were bad in Ciudad Juarez before, but they've only gotten worse. Today, gunmen connected to the region's drug cartels have taken their war against the U.S. by murdering in cold blood two workers for the U.S. consulate.

And to think that I almost set up a Border Justice program in Ciudad Juarez for college students. I don't think I'll ever be able to get that program up and running.

The End of the Gay Rights Movement

Andrew Sullivan concludes a lecture at Princeton with a powerful appeal for the conservative case for gay marriage and civil rights. This is Part 7 of his speech, but you really should listen to all 7 of the clips.

Cao and Earmarks

I'm not a fan of the current earmark process in the federal Congress where a bit more transparency and accountability would be welcome. However, I do not think the draconian grandstanding of many Republicans on this issue is ultimately a pragmatic posture with regard to good government. Let's face it: taxpayers do deserve some return on their investments. Earmarks are one way that taxpayers at the local and state level can see specific returns on their investments that directly benefit them and their communities. I acknowledge that the potential for abuse here is great, and that such actual abuse is all too common. And this must be stopped. But I'm not the kind of person that thinks that throwing out the baby with the bathwater is the way to stop it. Apparently, so, too, does my favorite Republican Congressman, who also happens to be my Congressional District Representative. Once, again, Cao refuses to drink the koolaid that the rabid rightwingers of his party are serving up. And I like him for that. But it still won't be enough for him to win in November. C'mon, Cao, switch parties now! It's your only chance to keep your seat. (Unless you fail to vote for Health Care Reform in the coming weeks, in which case your candidacy is dead, even if you switch parties.)

Happy Birthday

To my lovely B-2/3. Every moment of life with you is a joy.

Why I'm An Exodus Catholic

I've often referred to myself as an "Exodus Catholic." Here, here, and most recently here.

An "Exodus Catholic" is a Catholic who finds himself so much at odds with many of the institutional Catholic Church's practices and pronouncements that he finds himself alienated and wandering in the wilderness of institutionalized faith, even though he shares enough of the fundamental values and beliefs of the faith to not break fully from it.

And now we hear that the Catholic Church's Supreme Leader, the doctrinally orthodox and moralistically rigid Pope Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger), is now personally embroiled in the Church sex abuse scandal. Once again, it looks like we have none other than the Pope engaging in the cover-up of a renegade abusive priest. The argument that the Pope, when he was Archbishop of Munich and Freising, did not know of the abusive priest's reinstatement, where he continued to engage in abusive behavior, just doesn't wash. We know all too well that in the hierarchical nature of the leadership structure of the Catholic Church, especially when it comes to circling the wagons around the Church and its wayward priests, Bishops and Archbishops as a matter of course would be informed of and would have ultimate authority over such decisions. I can assure you that Bishop Ratzinger knew. And even if he chose to close his eyes to it, the hallmark of leadership is that responsibility always flows to the top. This means that Bishop Ratzinger knew, AND that he is ultimately responsible.

This sickness within the Catholic hierarchy is so profound and widespread that no leader goes untouched by it. Sad. Welcome to my faith wilderness.

Health Care Reform

My money's on the passage of health care reform. The current system is unsustainable. Obama is right: If not now, when? If not us, who? I think the US House of Representatives will pass the Senate version of healthcare reform with the hope of reconciliation in the Senate to address some of their concerns. But, I have to say that I don't think the reconciliation plan will ultimately pan out. And vulnerable House Democrats will point the finger at the Senate and say that they promised changes through reconciliation, but didn't deliver. And Senate Democrats will shore up their cred by saying they stood firm in not allowing reconciliation to proceed. Either way, we get health care reform. And everyone knows that once it gets passed, and people see that their lives are not worse off, and may in fact be better off with such a safety net in place, we Americans will just acclimate ourselves to it.

The Saints, Darren Sharper, and the "Love"

What? A superbowl championship isn't love enough? I know the damn game is a business; but I do think Darren Sharper should keep his whining to himself. It's one thing to go where the money is, like Scott Fujita did; but it's another thing altogether to present yourself as entitled to it. That's what Sharper's comments seem like to me: prima donna entitlement. Sad.

A Challenge for Social Entrepreneurs

One of the hot things in what is called the "service movement" on college campuses these days is the idea of the "social entrepreneur." What is the social entrepreneur? In short, he is the person who comes up with creative ways to turn a profit off of socially conscious commerce. It could be fair trade coffee, or changing out incandescent light bulbs with fluorescent light bulbs, or it could be putting shoes on the shoeless in a buy-one-donate-one model. All good things. But ... there's something potentially untoward in some social entrepreneurial models.

Last week, I had the chance to hear the founder of TOMS shoes, Blake Mycoskie, tell his story. He is a charming, charismatic, enthusiastic, sincere, and down-to-earth guy. What he is doing is good. But I want to challenge him (and others like him) to think harder about the for-profit social entrepreneurship model and ponder whether the profit goal of the business is not in conflict with the very social mission that makes it profitable. I want to push these social entrepreneurs to apply their considerable talents to resolving the structural conditions that create the problems that ultimately make them profitable. For instance, if Blake Mycoskie's concern really is for the shoeless in our world, and laments the injustice of shoelessness, then he should be working to put himself out of business. But my fear is that the profit-driven model of social entrepreneurialism demands an operation that is driven by profit. I've never known any for-profit venture that seeks ultimately not to succeed where success is measured by profit. Not that there's inherently anything wrong with profiting; but there is something problematic when such profit is produced precisely by the continued existence of a social problem.

Let's take the TOMS model, for example. Even Black Mycoskie admits that the reason why his shoes do so well, why his shoes compete favorably against his competition, is precisely because of the social condition of shoelessness upon which his business is based. As Mycoskie himself explains, his shoes sell because people want to give. They feel good about giving, and thus their charity makes his buy-one-give-one-away-to-the-needy model so appealing. Therefore, it stands to reason that in order for his business to continue to thrive and profit, he needs for shoelessness (or at least the perception of shoelessness) itself to thrive. The more shoeless people there are in the world, the more he can sell shoes to those who feel good about putting shoes on the shoeless. What this whole project fails to do is to ask the burning question of "why" there is shoelessness to begin with and then to seek solutions to the fundamental structural conditions in our world that cause shoelessness.

Until social entrepreneurs can convince me that they are interested in eliminating the problem that makes them profitable (and are actually working towards this end), then the fundamental altruism that forms the basis for the marketing of their products/services seems hollow. In fact, it can seem even cynical. Social entrepreneurs have a special obligation to address this criticism.

Anh "Joseph" Cao Lauds the Saints in the House

"We may be tired and poor right now, but we are contenders. We are New Orleans. We are America."



I love this guy, even though he still is a Republican.

C'mon, Cao! Switch parties!

[H/T: Kevin Allman at the Best of New Orleans Blog.]

Batt Bombs

He had the bling, the blang, the brother, and the babes. And in spite of all that, he lost ... big ...

Voters ain't blind as a Batt.

Congratulations to Susan Guidry.

WTUL

Athens, GA, from what I gather, has a growing reputation as a kind of indie/progressive music place. Lots of bands and performance venues. Makes sense given that this is a College town. But it's got me thinking about how New Orleans is also such a place and how Tulane's student run radio station is a big part of the indie/progressive music scene in the city.

I'm a DJ at WTUL (currently taking the semester off to recover from knee surgery), and so I thought it would be appropriate to give a shout-out to WTUL for its greatness.

Link to WTUL by clicking here, check out the programming schedule for the wide variety of shows the station has, and then click the link to tune in to this programming via live streaming online. And if you like what you hear, please also consider making a donation to support the station. It's the right time to do so as WTUL is gearing up for its annual "Marathon" fundraising drive. Support the great music and radio culture of NOLA by supporting WTUL!

Catholic Charities in DC Cuts Off Its Nose to Spite Its Face

Want to see yet again another reason why I have no choice but to consider myself an "Exodus" Catholic?

Take a look at this:

The Archdiocese of Washington's social service branch will stop offering benefits to spouses of new employees in a bid to balance the District of Columbia's new same-sex marriage law with Catholic opposition to homosexuality.

Now will someone with a brain (forget about compassion) please explain to me the logic behind such a boneheaded move? In order to "defend" the institution of marriage from the onslaught of having to give the same sex spouses of its employees access to marriage benefits such as health care coverage, it will now creates hardships and penalizes the heterosexual spouses of its employees? And how, exactly, does that policy protect and defend the institutions of marriage and the family? Man, there are so many problems with this at all kinds of levels that I almost don't know where to begin. But let's just take two of the obvious ones:

(1) First, if the Catholic Church is so committed to protecting and defending the institution of marriage from gay folks with partners, why would the institution have any gay folks with partners on their payrolls in the first place? Does anyone not see the contradiction here? The Catholic Church is recognizing that it already employs (or may employ) gay people with active partners, thus implicitly demonstrating a tolerance, if not acceptance, of such relationships. They already provide "benefits" to such employees, so why would extending those benefits to another partnered person be any different. I mean, couldn't the church just say it opposes gay marriage and yet still provide benefits to gay employees and their partners according to the law? Isn't that what they currently do with their gay employees in active partnerships?

(2) How bass-ackwards is it for the Church to profess a strong commitment to "traditional" heterosexual marriage and the family only to tell future employees that even their "traditional" heterosexual marriages are no longer eligible for the kind of benefits through employment that such marriages offer. Sheesh! The Church actually has programs to help mitigate the problem of the uninsured, and yet here they go instituting a policy that actually perpetuates the very problem they profess to have a moral and social commitment to mitigating.

(3) I'd like to know what the Church has done to defend the institition of marriage from those divorced and remarried heterosexual employees on its payroll who receive spousal benefits packages. It's hard to see the Church's current policy in this light as not really to defend the integrity of marriage as it defines it, but rather a specifical policy targeted to punish only one group of people who "threaten" the institution of marriage exclusively because of their sexual orientation.

There's nothing logical or Christian about this current policy. It's an embarrasing bit of unmitigated dissembling and discrimination. The Church has lost any kind of common-sense (and even moral) mooring on this issue.

Gulf South Summit

I've been attending the Gulf South Summit on Service-Learning and Civic Engagement Through Higher Education at the University of Georgia in Athens, GA, for the past few days. It's been an enlightening and rewarding conference.

This morning, I moderated a round-table discussion at breakfast. The theme of my table's discussion session was "Teaching the Civics of Public Service: Should Professors 'Politicize' Knowledge?" This is a particular subject of interest that I have and I was glad to have the chance to share some conversation around the subject.

All in all, a very well-run conference. I'll be looking forward to next year's conference in Roanoke, VA. Back to the N'Awl later this evening.

Gun Enthusiasts and Private Property Violations

For some gun enthusiasts, it doesn't matter if I, as a private individual, prohibit the carrying of weapons on my property. For these gun enthusiasts, it doesn't matter if a private business owner prohibits the carrying of weapons on the premises of his business. It doesn't matter because these folks think the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms trumps all other rights.

What I find ironic about the actions of such people is that they are some of the loudest and most vociferous defenders of individual private property rights. And yet they have absolutely no qualms about challenging, if not trampling upon, the private property rights of gun control people like me. And it is precisely because there are people like these gun enthusiasts, for whom the right to bear arms is used as a means to target and intimidate individual private property owners and businessmen who oppose and prohibit the carrying of weapons on their property, that the push for more gun control is made.

It's like these gun nuts use their weapons as political agitprop much more so than as a means for self-defense. To me, that's scary, because it implies that weapons and their use are bigger than self-defense for these folks. And when people who carry weapons believe that, it's a recipe for disaster.

I wonder what responsible gun owners think about politicizing the 2nd Amendment in such ways that challenge private property rights.