Kingfishery & Kingcakery: Happy Mardi Gras! - As the Big Easy winds its way down to another festive Fat Tuesday, I wish all of you a safe and happy Mardi Gras. Have fun, but be smart. As for me, I'll be doing my own little Social Justice trip down to El Salvador to expose a group of my students to the realities and consequences of the injustices that the majority of the people of El Salvador face as a result of the brutal civil war that gripped that country throughout the 1970s and 1980s. Que les vaya bien y que tengan buen carnaval!

Lagniappe: Outsourcing!! - Best comment I've read yet on the whole subject of outsourcing. Reprinted in full from the "Letters to the Editor" Section of the New Orleans Times-Picayune for your convenient review. [Original can be accessed at the following link.]

"Let's outsource the politicos"

Tuesday February 17, 2004

I was stunned by the comments of Gregory Mankiw, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, on the "offshoring" of U.S. service jobs.

"Outsourcing is just a new way of doing international trade," he told reporters. "More things are tradable than were tradable, in the past and that's a good thing."

After considering this for awhile and allowing myself to calm down, I realized that there were many places where we could save money. Take, for instance, the government.

Chirac of France makes about $117,000 a year, Blair from England makes about $122,000 a year. The U.S. president pulls in $200,000. Salaries for representatives are proportionally cheaper in other countries as well. We could save significant bucks by hiring an overseas president, perhaps one from India or China.

Our sons and daughters need decent jobs and a chance at being a stakeholder in this great country. The gentleman who made that calloused comment should have earned a trip to the proverbial woodshed.

John Sarradet

Gretna

I love it! Unrestricted and unmitigated Free Trade at work!! Viva el Mercado Libre! Viva! Viva!

The 'Weak' in (National) Review: John Derbyshire's Trillion Dollar Deficit Blame Game - So, here's what apparently passes as an equal opportunity critique of federal government spending. That is, when looking at the Congressional Budget Office's adjusted forecast of a trillion dollar deficit over the 2003-2014 decade, Derbyshire seems to be implying that his criticism is of GOP and Democratic big-spenders in Washington. But I just want to point out an interesting little observation. In the entire piece, the only Republican legislator that Derbyshire mentions is Newt Gingrich. On the flip side, Derbyshire peppers his rant with references to a multitude of Democrats. What one gets out of this is that Derbyshire's frustration with the CURRENT GOP administration and GOP-controlled Congress's fiscal recklessness is taken out on the powerless Democrats. He can't bring himself to name GOP names as part of this irresponsibility, though ostensibly that is what one thinks he is also implying. Derbyshire needs to grow some balls. If he's going to bring MINORITY Sen. Kerry, MINORITY Rep. Kucinich, MINORITY Sen. Edwards, MINORITY Sen. Kennedy, and WASHED-UP Presidential hopeful Wesley Clark in the fray by name, where are the likes of PRESIDENT Bush, SENATE MAJORITY LEADER Frist, VICE-PRESIDENT AND FORMER SENATOR Cheney, and SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE Hastert? Why can't he bring himself to call out these folks on the carpet by name - you know, the ones ACTUALLY with the POWER to curb spending and support a balanced budget? Well, I think it is so for two reasons: (1) Derbyshire's simply blinded by his partisan loyalty and cowed by his political cowardice to take similar direct shots at his own; and (2) he can't fathom a world where the democrats may really be better deficit hawks than republicans. I just can't help but think this guy is nutty and imbalanced. I feel sorry for the guy's children, who will have to live with their dad's embarrassing and wierd eccentricities.

Liberal Lighthouse: MoDo's MoJo - Maureen Dowd's latest column is another testament to her absolute genius as a writer. She can be acerbic and she is certainly unabashedly partisan and anti-Bush; but one has to admit that she is as clever, sharpwitted, and funny as they come. I just loved this short little introduction of her piece:

I think President Bush has cleared up everything now.

The U.S. invaded Iraq, which turned out not to have what our pals in Pakistan did have and were giving out willy-nilly to all the bad guys except Iraq, which wouldn't take it.

And the rest of the piece follows suit. It's classic MoDo ... brilliant and a pure pleasure to read.

Cuaderno Latinoamericano: Here We Go Again ... Bush and the Anti-Democracy Agenda in Latin America - Well, there are some signals that the U.S. government is positioning itself to support another anti-democracy coup in that troubled Republic of Haiti. First, it was the ill-advised U.S. support for the undemocratic ouster of democratically-elected demagogue and populist Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. Now, the U.S. appears to be heading in the same direction in Haiti ... only this time, appearing ready and willing to support the ouster of the man we almost invaded Haiti to restore to office after another military coup kicked him out of the country.

Cuaderno Latinoamericano: Mexican Maritocracy? - Andres Oppenheimer has an interesting take on Mexico's trading of the authoritarian process of the current President hand-picking his successor. Apparently there's talk about Mexican President Vicente Fox's wife running for President. Is maritocracy what we'd call a successful Hillary Clinton run for the Presidency in 2008?

Lagniappe: One Soul with Two Heads? Or Two Souls Sharing One Body? - This story about a little baby girl born with two heads is sad and tragic. Although the story of this person has reached its sad conclusion with the baby's post-surgery death, I just can't get the picture of the abnormality out of my mind and I wonder if this is a case not of one baby with two heads, but rather two babies, two souls, sharing one body. The implications that such a determination would have on the ethics of performing surgery to remove the not-fully-developed "twin" are baffling. What would pro-lifers think about this situation? I'm not predisposed to make a judgment in any particular direction, but I am curious to hear what people think of the ethical/moral dimensions of this situation.

Lagniappe: Bush's BIGGEST Deception -- and it ain't WMD claims! - Well, I'm working on my tax return right now and I must say that the supposed "child tax credit" refund that we received over last summer was more a farce than an actual return of my hard-earned income to my own bank account. I consider myself to be a pretty bright fellow and fairly well-attuned to debates in Washington about tax relief plans, so if I was caught by surprise by the way this tax refund actually works, I can only imagine how those who just normally go with the flow will react. And I know for a fact that all of my siblings with kids were caught by surprise, too. Bush will have a heavy price to pay for this misleading tax refund plan. What am I talking about? Well, let me try to explain ...

Last summer, after the big budget battle in Washington in which President Bush seemed to have won his tax cut/tax relief plan, all we kept hearing was that if we had earned over a certain amount of income and if we had children/dependents in our household, then we were likely to get a refund in the amount of $400 per child/dependent. And sure enough, we received a letter stating as much which was followed shortly thereafter by a check from the US Treasury in the amount of $800 ($400 for each of my two children). It was also my understanding that this was a retroactive refund of what we had already previously paid in higher taxes before the tax relief plan went into effect. But how misleading this was. Apparently, this was merely an advance on our upcoming tax return to be filed for 2003. This advance effectively negated the supposed refund that we received.

By my calculations, there was indeed some tax relief, but not as much as was sold to us. If I've done the math right, this is what I come up with. The child tax credit for 2002 was $600 per child. This was increased to $1000 per child over the course of 2003, and the $400 difference between what we claimed in 2002, and what the 2003 plan called for, as I understood it, was to be remitted over the summer of 2003. So, what we were seeing when we received our $800 check in the summer was, so we thought, an augmented refund of $800 on our 2002 tax return. And our thinking was that when we filed for 2003, we would be able to take the full $1000 per child tax credit against our 2003 earnings. But, not in the deceptive world of George W. Bush. No way. That $800 which we received in the summer of 2003 was simply an advance on our 2003 tax return. So, when I sit down now, in February of 2004, to calculate my tax return, I am surprised with the need to count the $800 against 2003's tax return. So, in essence, my effective per child tax credit for 2003 is still only $600 per child after the $400 per child refund is deducted from the new higher $1000 per child tax credit. Next year, presumably, I'll be able to take the full $1000 per child tax credit without having to deduct any previous refund amount. So, I understand that the tax credit is real and will have an positive impact on the amount of money I'll end up keeping in my own pocket; but that doesn't remove the feeling that I was somehow duped into thinking that the refund was for 2002 instead of 2003. Many people spent their refund over the summer under the false assumption that they would still be able to take the higher per child tax credit when filing their 2003 taxes. And the fact that this isn't the case will, I think, make a lot of people upset just becuase they will feel misled and caught unawares after having prepared for a bigger refund check or a smaller tax liability that just isn't going to materialize. Now, in fairness, both democrats and republicans alike in Washington, DC, bear some responsibility for not adequately clearing up this misunderstanding that many people had in their minds about the nature of this summer child tax refund; but George Bush is the most visible target and he will bear the brunt of whatever misgruntled ill-will that is generated. And, I must say, it comes at a very, very bad time for Bush, given that this year is an election year and we won't have the opportunity to knowlingly feel the benefits of the larger child tax credit until next February, by which time the Presidential election would be long behind us.

It's sneaky and deceptive and will hit people hard and shockingly; and in this economic/electoral environment, Bush can't be having his tax-cut-loving, middle-class, suburban families feel misled and somehow bamboozled without paying, I think, a high price.

I can't say that I'm all that disappointed because I want to see Bush go down to defeat in November; and I really can't see how we can end the out-of-control deficit-spending without rolling back some major parts of his tax cut program; but, man, this was a stupid move on Bush's part. If I were a democrat who can't be tarred with supporting this last tax plan, I'd make this a central issue of my campaign, and I'd start hammering this point home right now.

This is the real scandal of the election year, and the most potent weapon against Bush that the democrats can mount. I hope it doesn't escape notice.

Kingfishery and Kingcakery: The Times-Picayune on Wes Mix's Racism - Good for the Times-Picayune's Editorial Crew. They end their criticism of the unconscionable treatment of a female Iraqi high school student by her world cultures (world cultures, of all things!) teacher with:

Students of all backgrounds deserve to be treated with respect and dignity. Someone who can't at least treat a member of another faith -- or anyone else who is different -- decently shouldn't be teaching children.

Amen!

Kingfishery and Kingcakery: Unabashed Racism in Jefferson Parish - An astounding article in the Times-Picayune about a teacher's abuse of a female Iraqi muslim high school student. You've got to read it to believe it. Here's part of it:

Sitting in Wes Mix's 10th-grade world history class at West Jefferson High School in Harvey, Maryam Motar said she had become used to the "jokes."

First, there were the times when she said her teacher thought she was of Indian descent and called her "Little Curry One."

Then came jabs about how Motar, an Iraqi, hailed from a Third World country, she said. Thursday's tease, the 17-year-old sophomore said, was about how she would "bomb us" if she ever went back to her country.

Motar said the final straw came Friday as Mix was passing out tests. After pulling back her religiously mandated head scarf, or hijab, Motar said Mix told her, "I hope God punishes you. No, I'm sorry, I hope Allah punishes you."

Motar said the teacher later told her, "I didn't know you had hair under there."

Read the whole thing. What to make of this? I don't know. But, I DO know that Jefferson Parish is a Republican bastion - home of David Vitter and Bob Livingston - with sympaties for the likes of David Duke. You make up your own mind.

Lagniappe: Democratic Primaries - Post-Tuesday Predictions - Kerry looks strong and likely to win the nomination. Dean is toast. Edwards has some surprising life. I'm pleased on the whole. My thinking is that we'll have a Kerry/Edwards ticket.

If this comes to pass, conservatives should be worried. Gore lost the last election partially because he couldn't carry his home state of Tennessee. Edwards has proven his mettle in the South. If he's on the ticket, he'll carry the two Carolinas plus a couple of other Southern states that have a strange tendency to tilt democratic under the right conditions (maybe Arkansas and Louisiana). We folks in the South like the young, folksy, good-looking, and populist-leaning-but-moderate types of politicians like Edwards. This profile worked well for Bush in the South during the last election to a degree. Gore, in spite of his Tennessee roots, didn't fit the mold. But Edwards most certainly does.

Kerry is a lock on the liberal Northeast. And I would venture that a Kerry/Edwards ticket would suffice in the traditionally liberal west coast enclaves - which I would imagine find more connection with Dean. And the working-class and protectionist tendencies of Edwards will sit well in the midwest motor states.

I've been a pessimist about democratic chances this fall; but I can feel the liberal base energizing while the conservative base is lethargic (at least in Louisiana), if not disillusioned with Bush's performance on the domestic front. It strikes me as very bad timing for Bush that the Conservative Blogosphere is going negative on Bush and his recent domestic agenda. Even the most die-hard of Bush fans on the right are more prone to speak critically of Bush these days than supportive of him. And this observation leads me to think that Bush is more vulnerable than I thought.

A Kerry/Edwards ticket will resonate among the wide variation of liberals in this country -- Moderate/Conservative Southern Democrats, ethnic minorities, union workers, social and enviro liberals, and even military moderates because of Kerry's experience, etc. Conservatives better look out for this combination.

The Weak in (National) Review:Byron York's Own Cave-Blindness - In his latest piece on the current status of the investigation into how internal Democratic Judiciary Committee Member memos were leaked to the public calls for tit-for-tat. York, in his admirable quest for equal justice, thinks not only that the GOP should pay a price for its indiscretion, but also that the Democrat collusion exposed in the memos should also lead to a price that the Democratic Party should pay for its antics. York says it best himself:

"If the memos leak merited the intense investigation that has been going on for months, then certainly the behavior described in the memos deserves scrutiny as well.

It's only fair."

York's naivete here is a bit surprising. What York fails to consider is that the GOP is also likely protecting itself by not going after the Democrats here. I would bet the farm that Senate Republicans on the Judiciary Committee are just as guilty of the type of "collusion" with their own special interest lobbies that York wants the Democrats investigated for. To go after the Democrats for their admittedly less-than-admirable collusion with special interests regarding the judicial nominee and approval process that these memos exhibit would make it acceptable for the GOP and its collusion with special interests to be likewise put on exhibit by the Democrats. And if the Democrats have similar dirt on the GOP, its revelation would make the GOP out to be actually more reprehensible in their duplicity and hypocrisy. I happen to think such dirt on the GOP exists (whether the Democrats have it or not), and the GOP thus can't risk having its own dirty behavior potentially exposed in retaliation for an attack on the behavior described in the Democrat memos -- otherwise, why wouldn't the GOP demand the fairness that Byron York calls for?

Lagniappe: I'm going with Edwards - Well, I've finally come off the fence and decided that my primary vote will be for Edwards. I don't think it will matter all that much, because it seems like Edwards is a respectable 3rd/4th, and unlikely to catch up with Dean and Kerry. Not that I have any major problems with either Dean or Kerry, and I can comfortably vote for either in November; but I just can't get enthused by Kerry and, though Dean gets me enthused, he's also a bit too much of a loose cannon for my tastes. I find Edwards very likable and positive; and I count myself among the numbers that believe that neither Kerry nor Dean can beat Bush in the South, whereas I think Edwards can give Bush a run for it down here. In any case, I'll cast my lot with Edwards come Louisiana primary voting time; and wherever the chips fall, I hope Edwards is somewhere on the Democratic Ticket come November.

Lagniappe: The Ugly Right Rears its Head - I enjoy reading and participating in Rightwign blogs. It keeps me honest and helps me both to question and to sharpen my own liberal thinking on a variety of issues. A theme that has made the rounds on such blogs recently is the ad campaign run by MoveOn.org. Apparently, two of the more than 1500 ads submitted in this grass roots, web-based competition unfortunately equated Bush with Hitler and found their way onto the organization's website for public viewing (as did every other submission). MoveOn.org recognized that allowing these ads to run on its site was improper and should not have happened. The organization issued a formal public apology. Not only could conservatives bring themselves to accept MoveOn.org's contrition, they also, for the most part, blew their collective stacks. The bitterness and viciousness of their reaction and attacks on MoveOn.org for the Bush=Hitler comparison were beyond the pale, but to a certain extent justifiable. I myself publicly condemned these ads, but I pointed out that both the left and the right were culpable of this type of nastiness. Conservatives generally argued with me that liberals were much more prone to such incivility. Well ... NOT. For example, John Hawkins posted on his blog, RightWingNews a cute little satirical lampoon of Hillary Clinton as a witch with broom engine trouble. Check out his little blurb and the picture. Now, in his comment board for this post, a nice RightWing fellow wrote:

Wait a minute everyone.....

That object in the photograph isn't her airplane. Her crashed plane was a Cessina Citation (not shown) which crashed due to pilot error. The pilot error was miscalculating the weight and balance properly. Hillary left the center of the fusilage to hit the toilet and the plane augered in. (that's aviation lingo for crashed).

THE OBJECT IN THE PHOTO IS ACTUALLY HILLARY'S SEX TOY. She has named it "Wombbroom Willie". Thank goodnesss it was properly strapped IN unlike Hitlerly!

by eddie on 2004-01-31 08:32:18

I think I'll let that speak for itself. Clearly, the left does not have a monopoly on incivility. At least in the case of the Bush=Hitler ads on the MoveOn.org website, MoveOn.org had the decency to issue an apology and a retraction. This is what I got from "eddie" after I called him on the carpet for his out-of-line comments about Hillary:

My dearest huckupchuck,

I'm not the least bit sorry to have offended your sensitive wittle bitsy liberal ego. As a matter of fact I purposely withheld my more acerbic comments regarding Der Furherina und her pleasure plunger. What are you her personal valet? She's a dirtbag no question about it.

If, and it's highly unlikely, she is elected president they better remove all the mirrors from the White house!

by eddie on 2004-01-31 14:27:05

Give me the "liberal" MoveOn.org and its apology any day of the week over "conservative" eddie and his filth mouth/mind.

Lagniappe: My Travels - As you can see by the following map of my travels through the U.S., I am definitely a Southerner/East Coaster:



create your own visited states map.

And my travels across the world as indicated in the tidy little map below belie my Western Civilization propensities:



create your own visited country map.

Where have you been?

Kingfishery & Kingcakery: Bush Campaign Headquarters at the Archdiocese of New Orleans - Reading the Archdiocese of New Orleans's publication, the Clarion Herald, and especially the political commentary of Fr. William Maestri, it becomes painfully clear that the Archdiocese is a "de facto" campaign headquarters for George W. Bush. First, we have Maestri, in his comment on the "virtues of truth, respect, faith, trust, compassion and justice" comparing GW Bush to Howard Dean. His "unpartisan" thoughts regarding this comparison are the following:

The political world (narrowly defined as those addicted to cable TV news channels) remains abuzz at the verbal meltdown of Howard Dean. We can be forgiven for missing the State of the Union speech, having been drowned out by the "Dean Screech."

Next to the spectacle of Dean making a spectacle of himself was the president offering plain speaking sense about moral values. Yes, Bush's State of the Union speech offered a mini-course on the fundamental virtues which are required of a free people. Liberty requires moral truth, or so the Founders believed. So does Bush - and a good many of his fellow Americans.

When you see such obvious partisanship emanating out of an organization that supposedly represents ALL CATHOLICS (Anti-Bush Democrats among them), you begin to lose faith in your Church leadership. The Catholic Church, as presented by Maestri, is NOT a home for those who don't agree with Bush. Moreover, it really seems like Maestri doesn't want to welcome us Catholic Democrats who think the Bush Administration is against the Social Justice teachings of the Catholic Church in the communion of faithful believers. And when you add Maestri's obvious partisanship to the Archbishop's recent edict that any Catholic who supports or votes for a political candidate who happens to be pro-choice should refrain from communion, you can't help but be disillusioned by the politicization of the Catholic Church. And this is all the more poignant when one realizes that, at the same time the Archbishop is effectively ex-communicating most Catholic Democrats, he's giving a pass to anyone who votes for a pro-death penalty, anti-life Republican. If he ex-communicates those of us who vote for a "pro-choice" candidate who more completely embodies the Catholic Social Justice Teachings in his or her other politics, he is effectively privileging one measure of a Catholic citizen's social and political obligations over another. Furthermore, he's also privileging one measure of respect for life over another.

Lagniappe: Amending the Constitution regarding Marriage - All the recent bluster about the "constitutional process" to codify marriage as exclusive to the relationship between a man and a woman is absolutely incredible. Regardless how people feel about the issue of gay versus straight marriage, is this somethine we want to enshrine in our CONSTITUTION? Imagine, next to all those worthy amendments that seek to outline universal and equal rights relating to liberty and justice for all, we have an amendment about marriage that is "prohibitive" and "exclusive." I think sullying the Constitution with something so clearly partisan and divisive is not the right way to deal with this issue. Bush is foolish for even suggesting as much; and I can only take his SOTU address as nothing more than a pandering to the intolerant fringe of his party.

Lagniappe: Bush's Aversion to Humility - Well, now that David Kay, the WMD inspector-darling of the Conservatives, has tilted pretty decisively towards the No WMD in Iraq position, the rightwing war-mongers are spinning, spinning, spinning, in order to try to salvage something worthwhile out of Bush's clearly false pre-war rhetoric that relied heavily on the WMD argument.

Now, I don't think that Bush LIED about the whole WMD thing; but it is fairly clear that he acted out of what we now know to be seriously flawed intelligence gathering. Moreover, Bush does need to take some responsibility for irresponsibly over-downplaying the available intelligence that did question the accuracy of the WMD claim and presented such claims as sketchy. But that still does not make Bush a liar. He chose to emphasize the flawed intelligence that gave him his justification for war, and he chose to marginalize any (apparently correct) intelligence that raised questions about this justification for war. He got it wrong ... and this is what chafes me most about this whole issue as it relates to Bush.

For whatever reason (and I think it is his hubris), Bush refuses to even acknowledge even the possibility that he got it wrong. There's no shame in admitting this fact. Indeed, 99.9% of all of us, Dems and Repubs alike, got it wrong. The virtue is in accepting this truth, and not trying to spin it away. The more Bush holds out, the worse he appears. And I think this will show up in the polls come November.

Lagniappe: Blister Bombs a Bust - Well, I'm not disappointed that Saddam is gone. That is a good thing. But the WMD claim is getting thinner and more desperate all the time. Folks who supported the war should just fess up and admit that, no matter the justice of the war, the hyped-up WMD threat (potential threat ... whatever) is just that: hyped-up. Sure, based on deplorable intelligence, but still hyped-up nonetheless. I just don't get what the Bush administration and conservative war supporters have to lose by admitting what is obvious.

The "Weak" in (National) Review: Nordlinger's Zingers - Jay Nordlinger, uber-conservative columnist for the National Review, writes glibly in his most recent "Impromptus" column:

Guys, I know I keep calling leading Democrats crazy — or implying such a condition — and I feel a little sheepish about it, because I hate to sound Soviet. But, according to The Drudge Report, Al Gore said to advisers, "The Bush policies are leading to weather extremes." This apparently is what he is also telling MoveOn.org (speaking of crazy).

Look, is it my fault that leading Democrats — including former vice presidents — are saying lunatic things to groups happy to link Bush to Hitler? [Emphasis added.]

I mean, come on!

Imagine this! And from the man who has written a number of times for the New York Post, a supposed "news" outlet that likes to say "lunatic things" that "link Dean to Goebbels." I mean, come on!