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!

Liberal Lighthouse: Matt Bivens and his 'Daily Outrage' - Bush=Hitler vs. Dean=Goebbels - I am a fierce critic of those on my side of the ideological divide who would stoop so low as to equate Bush with Hitler. It is just reprehensible and uncalled for. I am by no means a Bush supporter. I didn't vote for him in 2000 and rest assured that I won't vote for him this year. But I do, at least, think we should be 'civil' in our disagreements and debates. The Bush=Hitler comparison has no place in a civil debate. But Matt Bivens has a great little blurb in his blog at The Nation, an ultra-liberal magazine. This is what Bivens has to say about the hypocrisy of the rightwing outrage over the Bush/Hitler clips run on MoveOn.org's website as part of a Bush in 30 Seconds Contest:

As The Nation's John Nichols reports, MoveOn.org is being pounded upon hysterically by the Republican Party over two ad contest entries -- mailed in from the public, not endorsed by MoveOn and even apologized for and pulled from the website -- ads that compared George W. Bush to Adolf Hitler.

MoveOn notes sourly, however, that none of this indignation was around when Democratic Senator Max Cleland -- a decorated veteran who lost both legs and an arm serving in Vietnam -- was smeared by the Republican leadership with television advertisements comparing him to Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

And Timothy Karr at MediaChannel.org observes, even as the mainstream media has raised cries of shame at the Bush-Hitler ads -- which were mailed in to a "Bush in 30 Seconds" ad contest and promptly rejected -- there's been silence about the still-truculently defiant decision by The New York Post to run a column devoted entirely to comparing Howard Dean supporters to Hitler's Brownshirts, and Dean himself to Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels.

Kerr suggests you ask your favorite news outlet to explain the double- standard: Two citizens send in speech comparing the Bush Administration to Hitler -- speech that's promptly rejected by progressives, even apologized for, out of embarrassment to even be briefly associated with -- and it's a sordid national news event. But leading citizens and editors at a major metropolitan newspaper craft and print a detailed comparison of Howard Dean to Hitler -- they don't apologize -- they don't back down or disavow -- and there's smug silence.

While you're at it, ask them how it wasn't a national disgrace that a man who left three of his limbs on the battlefield in Vietnam could be called, in Republican Party-sponsored ads on television, an al-Qaeda lover -- just because Republican operatives coveted his Senate seat, and becase he had dared question the president's war in Iraq. That was probably the closest thing we've seen yet to a Goebbels moment -- where was The New York Post's crack Goebbels-watching team then? Maybe if the Republicans policed their own ranks, a minority of the American public wouldn't be entertaining dark fears about homegrown fascism. [Emphasis and links are in the original citation. -- JH]

Reprinted in full for your benefit; but check it out at The Nation anyway. Is Bivens being unfair? Is he trying to fight fire with fire? Not at all. He's not defending MoveOn.org nor is he in any way supporting the Bush=Hitler comparison. What he is doing, however, is pointing out the hypocrisy of the right. What is really ironic is that on the comment boards of some conservative blogs that I visit regularly, this Bush=Hitler subject is met with outrage at the same time that The New York Post's article referenced above is either praised or ignored. Just to give one example ... If you go to conservative blogger John Hawkins's blog entry on the subject, and if you link on the comments section of this blog, and scroll down to my entry at time 2004-01-05 15:07:05, in which I write:

As a leftist liberal, I repudiate such trash no matter where it comes from. Comparing Bush to Hitler is flat-out wrong. For God's sake, the man is our president - agree with him or not, at least give him some respect for his office.

and if you compare this to a response I got on the very same comment board at time 2004-01-06 17:35:12 by a sincerely nice fellow (nom de web: decypher):

huckupchuck, you should read the editorial. It actually makes sense and wasn't in bad taste and made sense. The TWO ads that appeared on moveon.org were trashy and tasteless. They used the holocuast as a political prop. And if Howard Dean doesn't want to be compared to Hitler, he should stop adopting his political methods.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/4965.htm

Give it a read. I don't see anything that was untrue. And I don't see where in this editorial it says something anywhere near as bad as "What were war crime in 1945 is foreign policy in 2003."

Also, The NY Post is a newspaper, a minor media outlet. It does not raise money for the DNC and is not actively campaigning for a president.

Sorry, kiddo, but you got duped. And now you're doing their deflecting for them. Moveon.org is beneath contempt.

Also, I find it interesting that the left is still residing to typical deflection, trying to detract from their own horrific behavior by pointing out what they perceive to be other bad behavior.

you can see what I mean and to what Bivens is accurately referring. Partisanship blinds even the best of us ... that is, if we let it. Conservatives should see the hypocrisy of their outrage over the Bush/Hitler ad while at the same time giving the Dean=Goebbels article a pass, if not a thumbs up.

The "Weak" in (National) Review: Deroy Murdock's Defense of Marriage - Actually, I have to say this piece by Deroy Murdock on the question of gay marriage and the sanctity of the institution of marriage is actually quite strong. I find myself agreeing with Murdock in spite of myself. A rare occurrence for anything published at the National Review Online. Sample this by Murdock:

Whatever objections they otherwise may generate, gay couples who desire marriage at least hope to stay hitched. Britney's latest misadventure, in contrast, reduced marriage from something sacred to just another Vegas activity, like watching the Bellagio Hotel's fountains between trips to the blackjack tables.

Consider David Letterman. His hilarious broadcasts keep Insomniac-Americans cackling every weeknight. Last November 3, he got a national standing ovation when his son, Harry Joseph, was born. Those who rail against gay marriage stayed mum about the fact that Harry's dad and mom, Regina Lasko, shack up. What message is sent by this widely hailed out-of-wedlock birth?

And then there's Jerry Seinfeld. This national treasure's eponymous TV show will generate belly laughs in syndication throughout this century, and deservedly so. The mere sound of those odd bass notes on Seinfeld's soundtrack can generate chuckles before any dialogue has been uttered.

But while Seinfeld boasts millions of fans, Eric Nederlander is not among them. Shortly after the Broadway theater heir and his then-wife, Jessica Sklar, returned from their June 1998 honeymoon, she met Seinfeld at Manhattan's Reebok Club gym. He asked Sklar out, she accepted and, before long, she ditched her new husband and ran off with the comedian.

Where was the social-conservative outrage at Seinfeld's dreadful actions? Can anyone on the religious Right seriously argue that the real risk to holy matrimony is not men like Seinfeld and women like Sklar but devoted male couples who aim neither to discard one another nor divide others?

Read the whole piece. It's very good.

Cuaderno Latinoamericano: The Rising Tide of Latin American Assertiveness -- The Latin American countries are demanding that the United States treat them with respect. Moreover, they're not only talking this talk, but they're acting the part, too. I think this is good for the L.A.-U.S. relationship. It will force "Big Brother" to finally recognize that "Little Sister" is now a grown woman.

Lagniappe: The Sanctity of Marriage and the Civil Rights that Go with It - Andrew Sullivan really nails it regarding the whole conservative Defense of Marriage movement that really seeks not to "defend marriage" but rather to exclude gays from the institution. First it was convicted parent-killer Lyle Menendez who got to enjoy and parse out the legal benefits of marriage from his prison cell, and now it's Britney Spears who gets married and has the marriage annulled all within 48 hours. What's better for the institution of marriage? What do you think will "defend" the insitution of marriage more? Sanctioning the institution for the whims of people like Menendez and Spears, or counterbalancing their damage to the institution by brining committed homosexual partners into the institution who really seem to actually VALUE the institution seriously. More and more, I see the folly and the hypocrisy of the anti-gay marriage cause.

Cuaderno Latinoamericano: The Bush Immigration Plan - Good for President Bush. He's doing the right thing by working towards legalizing undocumented workers. Not only will this be a way for hard workers from other countries to meet the demand for their services without having to slink around and hide from Immigration Authorities, but it will bring billions more dollars of legitimate tax revenues to the federal treasury. It's good for America all-around, both as a domestic and a foreign policy issue. I hope to have more detailed analysis of this latest development in an upcoming blog posting.

Kingfishery & Kingcakery: LSU! - I am a die-hard Tulane fan, who always wants Tulane to whip up on LSU whenever they play in any sport. But, when the two aren't playing against each other, I pull for both ... And so, I can say with the full pride of a Louisianian: "Congratulations, Tigers!" National College Football Champions. It's a shame that the Tigers have to share the honors with USC, because I think LSU is the better team; but splitting the title doesn't demean at all LSU's incredible accomplishment. Geaux, Tigers! We're all happy for you!

Lagniappe: I Wish You A Merry Christmas, and Hope You'll Wish Me A Merry Something Back. - What does one say to a stranger during holiday times when paths cross and a greeting is appropriate? Is Merry Christmas during Christmas season enough? Or is wishing someone a Merry Day the proper, politically correct, liberal thing to do? Well, I have an interesting take on what the liberal's greeting should be? You'll probably be surprised!

Though I don't get overly agitated at the PC tendency to remove the meaning from holiday celebrations, I do think this growing practice is an unwelcome tendency in our society. In fact, I don't think it is even a liberal tendency. Rather, from my point of view, a true liberal holiday greeting would be the opposite. Let me explain. ...

I don't care if you're Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish, Christian, or Pagan; if you are celebrating something, let me know what it is. I might not celebrate it with you, but at least I know you're not just commemorating a day for the day's sake! Think about it, if someone tells a Christian: "Happy Hannukah" or "Happy Ramadan" of "Happy Solstice", isn't that much more meaningful than a happy "holiday"? So, I never refrain from wishing people a Merry Christmas. It's who I am and I have a right to wish this to people. It's not horrible, you know.

Now, if I know someone is not Christian, then I will make every effort to add "Happy Hannukah" or "Happy Kwanza" after my "Merry Christmas" - but I can only wish people the joy that I experience on days special to me, and if they get offended by that joy because I don't know what is special to them ... well, that is their problem. Does this make me conservative? No, not at all. In fact, I think the multicultural diversity of liberalism should encourage the many blessing that come from all festivals, faiths, and days of celebration. Amen!

And ... Merry Christmas!

Lagniappe: What Does God Know? - What prompts this post is a discussion/friendly debate that I had last night with my brother, who is visiting from Berkeley where he is studying towards his Master's Degree in Theology. (By the way, my brother is a member of the Society of Jesus, a catholic religious order more commonly know as the "Jesuits." My brother is not a priest, but rather a religious brother.) In any event, the discussion we had last night centered around the question: What Does God Know? This is a question that has been discussed around the dinner table at my home many evenings. So much so that my 5-yr-old daughter has memorized my pat answer to the question. Before I give you my answer, I should let you know that both my brother and my wife (not to mention my daughter, who is inclined to side with them) do not agree with me on this issue. So, what is my answer to that interesting question? Well ... I say: "God knows that which is knowable." Seems fairly inoccuous; but its implications are critical, because it implies that there are certain things which God simply cannot know.

I don't believe God knows the future of human behavior. I don't believe God knows from the moment of our birth what our life actions will be and whether we are destined for heaven or hell or purgatory or whatever. I believe that God is omnisicient, but only in term of what is knowable in the context of my faith in the notion of free choice. If God knows our destiny, how is it that we have any choice or freedom at all? Now, my wife and brother say that we cannot understand the mystery of God omnisicience coupled with the existence of true free choice because we think as humans do, and not God; but I argue that even this position is the product of a human thought process that leads one to the notion of mystery and faith. My belief is that we can only know and understand things through the prism of our humanity and our human faculties, and so we must rely on our best efforts to lead us to understanding. For me, this means that we must rely on our faith informed by our reason. And my reason informs my faith that God knows the infinite possibilities of our choices, but he does not know (and does not compromise free will by thus knowing) what it is that we will choose in those moments of our life.

Because, if you buy into the notion that God knows our choices, and where we will be, the possibility of redemption through an act of free choice is not possible. We either have the ability to turn from evil and repent from sin at any point in the eternal existence of our soul (even after death), or we have no choice in the matter. If God knows that from the moment of our creation that we are destined for heaven or hell, then how is it that we are free to choose either the path to heaven or to hell. In a sense, it is already chosen for us because it is predetermined.

My brother argues that God is always with us in the context of our choices, and I don't disagree; but being with us and being in full knowledge of the infinite possibilities of choice does not mean that God knows which of those possibilities we will choose.

Let's move to some examples. We humans may not know if life exists on other planets in other galaxies; but if such is true, then God certainly knows it, since he is the creator. God knows all things that can be known. He knows what will happen to the arctic penguin when the leaf falls from the tree in the tropical rain forest. God knows how the bird's chirp in Louisiana affects the sleeping patterns of the Prime Minister of Japan. All of this, I believe, is "knowable" because it doesn't affect human free choice and will. However, if I get drunk at a New Year's Eve Party and make the mistake of driving home afterwards in bad weather, does God know that 10 minutes later drive into a tree and break my back? If I have free will and free choice, He can't. Why? Because it presupposes that within those 10 minutes, my ability to exercise free choice is no longer operational. I can't believe this. Why is it not possible for me to get into the car, drive for five minutes, realize that what I am doing is dangerous, and pull off into a parking lot to call for a cab or to sleep off the drunkenness. Of course, it IS possible for me to choose this.

Now, my brother would say that God is with me at every instant and every fraction of an instant and so is knowledgable of my choice as I make it. In other words he knows what I am going to do when I do it. But this still begs the question: who makes the choice? Something must come first. Is the choice and God's knowledge of it at the moment of choosing one and the same? It can't be, because then it is not fully free. I must make the choice distinct from God's knowledge in order for it to be fully my own free choice.

So I always end with the compromise: God is omniscient. He knows all that which is knowable. I don't pretend to define that which is knowable; but I do believe that God cannot know the unknowable. I welcome your thoughts on the subject.

Kingfishery & Kingcakery - We fans of the New Orleans Saints are truly patient sufferers with loads of blind faith in God. We've been praying for almost 40 years now to get to Football's promised land, and we are still waiting patiently for God to deliver us. Well, we're not at 40 years yet, so I guess we can't expect deliverance for another couple of years. Let's hope that we receive our just rewards for 40 years of faithfulness like the Israelites did during their Exodus from Egypt and their long 40 year march towards the promised land. How bizarre can it get ... the Saints are delivered a miracle that scores a touchdown to bring us one point from tying the Jaguars and heading into overtime, only to see Carney miss the chip shot extra point. The Saints lose another heartbreaker and season-breaker, 20-19.

Lagniappe: PETA terrorism - I'm all for the promotion of kindness to animals. And I'm even sympathetic to some of the work that PETA does on behalf of animals; but this tactic by PETA is simply intolerable. This is nothing more than psychological terrorism, and is no different than the anti-abortion terrorists who parade around with six-foot pictures of aborted fetuses at family events where children are traumatized. Funny, that! Protect the unborn children by traumatizing the already born kids. [Hat-tip to Conservative Blogger, John Hawkins for bringing this to my attention first.

Kingfishery & Kingcakery: New Orleans Archbishop Alfred Hughes on Gay Marriage - In deference to a a request from one of my very few regular readers, affectionately known as "Pops," and as a member of good-standing in the Catholic faith, I have agreed to blog my reactions on the following editorial written by Roman Catholic Archbishop Hughes in the Clarion Herald, the local Archdiocesan Offical Newspaper. In this editorial, Archbishop Hughes writes:

When the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decided this past week that marriage is any committed relationship between two people of any sex, these judges, whatever their motivation, turned away from the truth and took a step that contributes to a terrible moral darkness.

I just don't see how these judges turned away from the truth. The "truth" of the matter is that a man and a woman can marry for whatever reason - be it convenience, money, love, etc. Even convicted mass murderers are allowed to marry from their prison cells, bestowing all the legal rights, privileges, and blessings on the couple which come from the act of marriage. The other "truth"of the matter is that people are born gay. Gay people are also loving people who may very well be incomplete creations of God without the fulfillment that comes from an intimate relationship afforded by the institution marriage - and not only the legal benefits of marriage, but also the grace that the sacrament of marriage confers upon the partnership. What is morally "dark" in my mind is to arbitrarily deny the grace of the sacrament of marriage to two people of any sex involved in a committed relationship, for that, ultimately, is what marriage celebrates and sanctions. All the other arguments given to exclude gay couples from the institution of marriage are straw man arguments, which I will address at a later point in my reflections on the rest of the Archbishop's editorial. Archbishop Hughes continues:

What does the Church say marriage is? "The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament." This teaching is taken directly from the Second Vatican Council, the Code of Canon law and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It reflects God's revealed word in Scripture, handed down in our tradition. Please note that according to this truth, marriage is rooted in nature and, therefore, not a mere social construct. It involves a man and a woman and, therefore, is heterosexual. It has as its purpose both spousal happiness and procreation and education of children. This natural reality is raised for the baptized to a sacrament as a sign of Christ's spousal relationship to his Church.

Here, Archbishop Hughes narrowly interprets the Church teaching he cites. Of course the matrimonial covenant is something "by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life." But nowhere in this teaching is this covenant exclusive of gay couples. I must assume that the Church, which makes exception for infertile heterosexual couples, doesn't interpret this "covenant" as narrowly as Hughes suggests. Marriage IS rooted in nature. So is homosexuality. So, given this, what is so unnatural about homosexual marriage, especially to homosexuals? In fact, for gays, desiring marriage to their same-sex partner, is about as "natural" as can be. It is only "unnatural" to heterosexuals. Also, if marriage has as its purpose both "spousal happiness" and "procreation and education of children," then the only possible disqualifier here is the inability of gay couples to procreate. Gay marriage certainly can contribute to spousal happiness, and gay people are certainly able to education children well. And even the procreation argument has its flaws. Gay people CAN procreate, though perhaps not with their gay partners. They certainly can mother or father children. And so the procreative power exists, in ways not that much different, for instance, from a woman who cannot give birth herself because of some genetic deformity, but who can procreate through the use of a surrogate carrier. And even if we assume that the procreative power doesn't exist, why then can infertile couples marry? The fact is that there is no argument that can be made within the context of current Church law that proscribes marriage for gay couples that should not also proscribe marriage for certain heterosexual couples. Likewise, there is no good argument that justifies marriage for certain heterosexual couples, that cannot also be used to justify marriage for a homosexual couple. Hughes continues:

Some, of course, will raise the issue of tolerance. We tolerate people, not half-truths or lies. Christ calls us to include all in our lives, to love others with whom we disagree, even our enemies. But he enjoins us to resist untruth that comes from wolves in sheep's clothing. A half-truth is the more deceptive. We are to be wise of serpents, gentle as doves. We are to proclaim the truth in love.

When life and love, even efforts to promote justice and peace, are divorced from truth, then the foundation of our human society crumbles. Guigo, the saintly founder of the Comaldolese, once wrote: "The truth does not need us to defend it. We need the truth. Christ is the way, the truth, and the life." Christ's kingdom is one of truth. Let us pray whole-heartedly: "Thy kingdom come!"

Think about the patronizing tone of Hughes's "tolerance" argument. When Hughes says that we tolerate people, not half-truths or lies, he implies two things: first, there is something about the nature of God's creation of gay people that is somehow perverse, and requires tolerance like we tolerate pesky mosquitoes or the oppressive heat during the summertime; second, he implies that homosexuality in itself is a half-truth and a lie. How is this? Some people are homosexual and they are born that way. That is not half-true, it is completely true. And homosexuality is not a lie. Does God create, sustain, and love a lie? And with regard to Hughes's first implication about "tolerance," I'd just like to say that gay people do not need to be "tolerated," they need to be embraced and loved for the creation that they are, made in God's image. Hughes is treading on shaky ground. He is basically arguing that good Catholics need to reject the essential reality of the human condition and the requirements of intimacy and loving relationships for significant part of God's human creation. Furthermore, Hughes is arguing that God's grace as manifested through the sacrament of marriage is exclusive to people for no other reason than sexual orientation. I honestly don't believe Jesus would deny such grace to loving, monogamous, gay couples.

Well, that's my reflection on Archbishop Hughes's opinion. I know it goes against the thinking of "Pops" who solicited my impressions; but I've got to be honest to my conscience and take issue with Hughes on what I think is his wrong position on this subject. I welcome your thoughts and comments, too.

Lagniappe: On the Capture of Saddam - Let me go on record as saying unequivocally that this is a great accomplishment - for Bush, for his administration, for the Iraqis, and for the world. No ifs, ands, or buts. The U.S. military has managed this whole capture with the honor, dignity, and respectfulness that our soldiers represent and stand for. My hat is off to George Bush and to his team for the way they relentlessly pursued this evil man. I admired George Bush’s statement that Saddam will now receive the very justice he denied his own people for so long. The fact that Bush speaks of justice and not retribution is so impressive and consumately statesmanlike. George Bush deserves all the credit that this accomplishment will bring to him.

Any liberal that tries to minimize the importance and success of this capture - and all subsequent efforts to bring this evil man to justice - just because it redounds well on Bush, is not a friend of good and a foe of evil. An evil has been conquered, and that is a good thing. Period.

Has this changed my moral and political beliefs? No. I still personally don’t think the killing that comes with war is moral. And I still believe in liberalism as the most correct political and ideological orientation. And I am not planning to vote for Bush in the next election. But, Bush is the man of the hour. Good for him, good for America, good for the world.

Lagniappe: Collective Bargaining, U.S. Style - So, the Iraqi's have figured out one of the great lessons of democracy and capitalism. If the pay isn't worth the risk, you walk. Then, when the situation for the capitalist gets dire, you collective bargain. And Iraqi's stand to get a nice pay raise for going AWOL. My, they're learning fast!!

Lagniappe: Why keeping the French, Russians, and Germans out of the largesse loop regarding Iraqi reconstruction is self-defeating - First, to those who say it's US taxpayer money, so why not parcel it out exclusively to our "friends." Well, it's not really American Taxpayer money going over there. It's the U.S. Treasury Bondholders who agreed, by their bond purchases, to finance the amount we borrowed for Iraqi reconstruction, whose money is going to Iraq. The American Taxpayer won't pay out on this debt for many, many years. And, Surprise! ... These bondholders are not just Americans, but, I would guess, also French, Japanese, German, Russian, Canadian, Mexican, etc., investors. So, without our erstwhile anti-allies, we wouldn't have been able to float the loans to line the pockets of Halliburton. Also, politically speaking, the US needs Russia, France, Germany, etc., to help with Iraqi reconstruction by debt forgiveness. You cut these folks out of the money loop, you just shoot yourself in the foot and prolong the real expense of the Iraqi occupation (i.e. loss of American lives.) I tend to agree with those who say that this posturing by Bush is primarily election-year politics. He's throwing a bit of political red meat for his base in an election year. When one looks at this whole scenario dispassionately and with the ultimate goal of a peaceful, democratic Iraq in miind, the Bush exclusionary policy regarding contracting for Iraqi reconstruction makes absolutely no sense in terms of the goal of efficient, cost-effective, and speedy Iraqi reconstruction efforts - and not only in restoring the Iraqi economy, but also in facilitating the essential consolidation of Iraqi democracy. I just don't see how cutting the non-coalition world out of Iraqi reconstruction largesse is the way to "win the peace in Iraq" -- as much as it might be the way to "win some votes at home." Call me a cynic, but that's how I see this petty gamesmanship by Bush.

Lagniappe: It's Craptastic - It's Craptastic, one of the League of Liberals' ex-members and currently a member of the Liberal Coalition has posted a nice little piece on the need to get our troops home from Iraq. Let's hope this sensible little piece wins the New Blog Showcase this week.

Lagniappe: Sugar Bowl - College Football Championship in New Orleans at the Sugar Bowl: LSU Tigers vs. Oklahoma Sooners. Should be LSU Tigers vs. USC Trojans. The BCS sucks. I don't care how good Oklahoma is. The intangible called "HEART" sets champions apart, and laying down and losing your last game of the season, well ... it just ain't championship material. LSU and USC clawed their way back from mid-season stumbles and delivered when it counted most. Oklahoma sold the farm. I'll tell ya ... an LSU victory over Oklahoma won't be as sweet as an LSU victory over USC would have been. 'Nuf Said.

Why We Won't Homeschool Our Children

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

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

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

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

In the end, my wife and I sent our child to a public, foreign language immersion, state charter school. It's worked great for our child so far.

Lagniappe: Geaux, LSU Tigers! - LSU over Georgia at halftime, 17-3. Sugar Bowl and National Championship, here come the Tigers! Even though I'm a Tulane Green Wave fan and will cheer on Tulane every time the two go head-to-head, as a Louisianian, it's still good to see LSU doing so well this year. Geaux, Tigers!

Cuaderno Latinoamericano: Surprise! Pinochet is not Insane! - His supporters called the interview a "public relations gaffe," his detractors called it evidence that he has always been mentally fit to stand trial. It appears that the need to bring Pinochet to justice is in the news again. I've always hoped the General would be held to account for the human rights atrocities committed under his knowing regime, but at 88 yrs old, it's almost worthless to pursue the cause. Almost. I still want the Chileans to do the right thing and make him accountable for his crimes.

Kingfishery and Kingcakery:The Recent Louisiana Governor's 'Race' - The indomitable and often abrasive James Gill has a post mortem on the Louisiana gubernatorial election in which he discusses the issue of race as a deciding factor in dark-skinned Indian-American Bobby Jindal's loss to white Cajun Kathleen Blanco. In short, he doesn't buy the race argument as an explanation of Jindal's loss. The clincher ending paragraphs say it all:

But if racism was a factor, it was hardly the only one. It was not uncommon during the campaign, for instance, to hear voters, with no qualms about Jindal's race, wondering whether he was ready for the big time. In the end, he did pretty well for a candidate making his first run for public office at the relatively tender age of 32.

And there is always the outlandish theory that 52 percent of the voters might actually have thought Blanco was better qualified to be governor.

Food for thought.

Lagniappe: Giving Thanks - Reflecting on the many blessings in my life, I have much to give thanks for. I am thankful for faith, which brings inner peace and a sense of purpose, if nothing more. I am thankful for my own family ... my wife and two lovely daughters. They are thanksgivings every day of the year. My life would be utterly empty without them. I am thankful for my extended family. We stick together no matter what. Political preferences aside, we are always there to support one another. This is a rare thing among families these days. I am thankful for my health and for the good health of my family. I am thankful for friends and colleagues who make my daily grind not that much of a grind at all. I am thankful for this country, where it is possible to pursue happiness and achieve dreams. There is so much to be thankful for. And it's good that we have a day to reflect and give thanks. Happy Thanksgiving!

Kingfishery & Kingcakery - It's not often that you hear the winning team talk about racial hate-speech on the field. But some LSU Tigers are saying just that about the behavior of some of their adversaries on the Ole Miss Rebels football team. Seems like the good ole' boys from Mississippi are taking their cues from the example of Sen. Trent Lott when it comes to race-tinged talk on the gridiron.

Lagniappe: The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage - As a liberal who supports gay marriages for all the right reasons, I must say that David Brooks' op-ed in the New York Times on the subject is quite impressive. His argument in support of gay marriage reiterates what I have said in other places about my willingness to accept civil unions that provide equal benefits under the law to gay couples which marriage does for heterosexual couples as the lesser of two good options. Though I can live with civil unions, I still think that gay marriage is the preferred and better course of action between the two.

For example, on a recent blog comment board I wrote:

Civil unions are fine, and ... I can accept them as satisfactory from the purely legal perspective of providing the same access for monogamous gay couples to equal and non-discriminatory rights and benefits that accrue to heterosexuals trough marriage. The good is not the enemy of the better. But this solution is still an incomplete and partial one in my mind. Why? ... Because I don't think monogamous gay couples should be denied the special grace that I believe comes with marriage. Civil unions are less than marriage, and there is simply no good reason in my mind to deny monogamous gay couples this grace - especially when there is absolutely not one shred of concrete evidence that allowing gay couples to marry would in any way harm the world and the people in it.

After making this post, I recevied a follow-up question: "Why do you think civil unions are worse than marriage?"

I responded:

For two reasons: first, those who oppose gay marriage but support civil unions are differentiating the value of one relative to the other - with marriage being somehow more valuable than civil unions. Otherwise, why wouldn't people just have civil unions instead of marriage, or why even make this distinction? This leads me to the next reason, which is the more important of the two: marriage brings with it a special and privileged psychological and emotional relational element to the parties involved and with the larger society that civil unions wouldn't. People of faith might call this special element "grace." If given the option for a civil union or a marriage, each affording the same legal benefits, what would you think couples are more likely to choose? I think marriage. Why? Because there is an added societal value to marriage as an institution that provides more than just legal benefits. This is what the whole fight is really about, is it not? And I can't see setting up a "separate but equal" (which, as we know, is certainly separate but never really equal) societal institution that condemns gay couples to what would essentially be the second-class institution of the two.

This is essentially what Brooks is saying when he talks about marriage as "contingency," and he should be applauded for it. [Hat tip to Andrew Sullivan for alerting me to Brooks' column.]

Blog Banter - League of Liberals Blogger Anarchy Xero is posting on the rising U.S. death toll in Iraq. It's worth a look.

Cuaderno Latinoamericano: Double Victory in Guatemala - Although now almost two weeks past, there is good news on two fronts in the democratic transformation of Latin America. Ex-Dictator General Efraim Rios Montt was handily defeated in the first round of the Guatemalan presidential elections. He didn't even muster enough votes to finish in contention for a run-off. In an apparently clean democratic election, Guatemalans voted decisively in large numbers to say "no" to the man responsible for the worst ethnic genocide in Guatemala's recent history. But the added bonus is that General Rios Montt, by running for president, had to abandon his position in the federal legislature which deprives him of immunity for prosecution for human rights abuses. Now, it appears that Rios Montt will have no way to avoid answering in a court of law for the human rights abuses his administration perpetrated on the long-suffering Guatemalan Indian communities. For another good take on this, see this report by the Chicago Tribune's Hugh Dellios for more details.

Blog Banter - The patricidal Lyle Menendez enjoys all the legal rights and benefits of marriage - minus sex - (and so does his new wife) while serving a life sentence in prison. Once again, Andrew Sullivan uses this absurdity to drive his point home in a scathingly convincing way about the injustice of restricting marraige exclusively to heterosexual unions.

Kinkfishery and Kingcakery: More on Race in Louisiana Politics - Jarvis DeBerry has a very sensible column in the New Orleans Times-Picayune on how the race issue flowed through the recent gubernatorial election in ways that corrupted ALL groups - black, white, whatever. He gets to the point:

So you had some black people who seemed to be counting on a racist response because they thought it would help their candidate win, some Jindal supporters convinced that the "nonwhite" label harmed their candidate and some xenophobic residents pleased with what they think was this paper's gaffe for using that label in a headline.

No wonder racism is still with us. We seem incapable of living without it. We seem to call upon it if we think it will suit our purposes.

It's a very good column. Read the whole thing.

Lagniappe: Markey's Mark - The New Orleans Jesuit High School Blue Jay Football Team's Chris Markey just keeps on posting incredible numbers. For three weeks running now, this phenom has had 300+ offensive yards to his credit. The boy's almost a 1000 yard rusher in just three weeks! As a Blue Jay alum and former football player myself, I just had to comment about this kid's performance. He's perhaps the most impressive HS player I've seen in Louisiana HS football since I've been following the sport. Kudos, Chris; and good luck to the Blue Jays as they make the run for the state football championship.

Lagniappe: Shock and Awe(ful) - To all my liberal friends out there, I apologize if the following offends you; but I just can't seem to write off the disappointment and outrage I feel at what conservatives are calling the collusion memos. I understand that this is coming out of a decidedly conservative and partisan organization, but Senate Democrats are not contesting the authenticity of these memos. The following is a comment that I posted on the comment board of this blog post of Conservative Blogger JunkYardBlog.

Don't get me wrong: I am a fierce critic of conservatism and a die-hard defender of liberalism, and I will continue to be so; but I've just got to be morally and intellectually honest and speak out on this matter, which has really, really disappointed me. Read Mr. Preston's blog first, and then consider this, my comment:

Again, I am stunned. This is not an arsenal, it is a nuclear explosion.

This kind of politicking is intolerable. The Democrats have a lot of explaining to do, and no hemming and hawing and diversionary tactics. Either they admit that this is the dirty politics of Washington, which all politicians play (which still doesn’t justify it in my mind); or they admit that they are crass opportunists not really interested in nominee qualifications and borderline racists. (I say borderline because I just scanned the memos and didn’t find where the recommendation was made to block Estrada specifically because he was Hispanic - but I don’t doubt it’s there given the awful tenor of the memos.)

Bryan, you say “live by the leak, die by the leak” and you are dead on 100% right. But one of the worrisome implications here is that this is normal politics as usual in Washington regardless of party affiliation - it’s just that leaks bring this nastiness to the surface.

This makes me want to advocate for 100% transparency in the course of politics - that nothing, and I mean nothing, not even for “national security” reasons, gets shielded from public scrutiny. I know this is an unreasonable position and probably even unwise, but shenanigans like what the Senate Democrats are doing here make me feel this way.

I am horrified. This is not what I expect out of liberalism. Perhaps I am too much of an idealist when it comes to the nuts and bolts of politics; but I think I have a healthy appreciation for pragmatism. This whole situation, however, does not seem born out of pragmatism, but rather absurdity.

Do all politicians behave this way in private when “confidentiality” is supposedly secured? Is there no integrity left in politics?

But in spite of my outrage and disappointment with this, I can assure you that this won’t shake my faith in liberalism as the right vision for America.

I would most certainly welcome anything liberals can tell me about this incident and these memos that would salvage my respect for the behind-the-scenes behavior of these Democratic Senators and their staffers in Washington.

Blog Banter - Andrew Sullivan is right on and in top form regarding the Massachusetts Supreme Court's 4-3 decision in support of gay marriage.

Kingfishery and Kingcakery: Grace on Blanco - Stephanie Grace of the New Orleans Times-Picayune weighs in on the Blanco victory for the Louisiana Governorship. Some relevant pieces of her column:

Consider the similarities [between the 2002 Landrieu and 2003 Blanco campaigns]: Like 2002, Louisiana was the last state to go to the polls in a year marked by a string of Republican triumphs. Like 2002, the Republican candidate seemed to have a corner on the momentum for much of the race. Like 2002, the Democrat struggled when she talked conservative, but thrived when she switched gears and played up differences with her opponent and her opponent's party. [Emphasis added.]

Last year, U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu was the one facing a tough battle, and she started her primary campaign against three well-known Republicans by emphasizing her centrism and frequent support for President Bush. The tactic didn't get her the majority she needed to avoid a runoff, so Landrieu, who presumably figured out that voters looking for a Republican were going to just vote for the Republican, started emphasizing issues that would motivate her own base. [Emphasis added.]

...

Blanco and her backers also stepped up their portrayal of Jindal as extreme on social issues such as abortion and gay rights, a strategy aimed at getting the moderates and liberals who were drawn to his energy and resume to reconsider. [Emphasis added.]Jindal's well-oiled campaign finally faltered and didn't do enough to counter the barrage.

As I mentioned before, Democrats should always remember that winning Democratic candidates in this State emphasize their liberal credentials and work to motivate the base. Shifting rightward is a sure-fire strategy for failure in this State. The Democratic Candidate for the Presidency next Fall should remember this. ... And I predict and guarantee that WHEN Hillary Clinton runs for President in future elections on the Democratic ticket, she will handily win Louisiana's electoral votes.

Lagniappe: The Kiss of Death - Whenever New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin makes an endorsement, put your money on the opposite pick. My howler of the week: Some New Orleans Saints fans held up signs at the Superdome before the Saints/Falcons matchup this past Sunday which said (paraphrased): Mayor Nagin, please support the home team and publicly endorse the Falcons!

Kingfishery and Kingcakery: Mayor Ray Nagin and a Lapse of Ethics - Black Democratic Mayor of New Orleans not only crosses party lines, but also engages in questionable uses of public funds in doing so:

Tuesday November 18, 2003

By Frank Donze
Staff writer

Did Mayor Ray Nagin step over an ethical line by using City Hall's Web site to post a copy of his endorsement speech for Republican gubernatorial candidate Bobby Jindal and a subsequent letter explaining his decision to cross party lines?

Nagin's staff doesn't think so.

But a reading of the state law addressing how tax dollars can be spent on politicking appears to raise questions.

The applicable section of the Constitution says "no public funds shall be used to urge any elector to vote for or against any candidate or proposition, or be appropriated to a candidate or political organization."

Nagin spokesman Patrick Evans says nowhere in the speech or the letter did the mayor tell anyone to vote for Jindal, who lost to Democrat Lt. Gov. Kathleen Blanco in Saturday's runoff.
"So many people were asking about the mayor's decision-making process, posting it on the Web was just an efficient way to disseminate that information," Evans said.

But if the mayor never said, "Vote for Bobby," the message he gave in his Nov. 3 speech was unmistakable. Throughout it, Nagin heaped praise on Jindal, citing his "intelligence and credentials" and his "track record of accomplishments and success."

"This is what I found," Nagin wrote: "Kathleen Blanco has no specific plan for improving the future of New Orleans. She had no plan for Charity Hospital, where I was born. However, I was very impressed with the details and thought that went into Bobby Jindal's blueprint for New Orleans and Louisiana."

Nagin staffers said the message was directed to members of African-American church groups, traditional Nagin supporters and citizens who contacted the administration with questions about the endorsement.

A copy of the letter appeared on the city's Web site about 10 days ago and remained there Monday.

Original story linked here. And I thought Nagin was supposed to be rooting out this kind of corrupt behavior.

Kingfishery and Kingcakery: Bobby Jindal and the Race Factor - Jeffrey Gettleman has a follow-up story on the Louisiana Governor's election. What peaked my interest was how the story ended. Here's the final few sentences:

"Up until now, no one in the Indian community has really been interested in politics," said Bhavna Pandit, a marketing manager from New Orleans. "But Bobby's got people thinking it's good to have a voice, it's good to strive for more than just financial security, it's good to become a player in this country."

Most Indian-Americans are Democrats, including Ms. Pandit.

"But that doesn't matter," she said. "Bobby is one of us. And blood is thicker than water."

I wonder ... does this mean Republicans will take votes based on racial preference rather than ideology? Do the reasons for the vote matter, or is it just the fact of the vote that counts no matter how it is won? Based on GOP tactics in the past few statewide elections, I'd say the latter. Very interesting, indeed.

Kingfishery and Kingcakery: Democrat Kathleen Blanco as Governor - Today is a glorious day! First off, today is the Lord's Day. Second, the weather in the Big Easy was perfect. Third, we're celebrating the LSU football team's thrashing of Alabama as the Tigers begin their homestretch run towards the National Title. Fourth, the Saints even their record to 5-5 and score a thrilling, come-from-behind overtime victory over the hapless Atlanta Falcons. Fifth, a Democrat has retaken the Louisiana Governorship, held by the GOP for the last 8 years. While all of these events make today a special day, I want to focus on the last item a bit and share with you some of my post-election analysis of Blanco's victory.

The most comprehensive coverage of the post-Election news in the Louisiana governor's race can be found in the Times-Picayune of New Orleans. For the main story of the day, click here. For another locally-originating story, check this out. Of course the national press has reported on this as well. This is how Jeffrey Gettleman of The New York Times reports the outcome; and this is Lee Hockstader's take on it in the Washington Post. In the Conservative Press, the Washington Times has posted this report written by Robert Buckman.

In my opinion, Katahleen Blanco's victory is a sweet win. The Conservative press has chosen to emphasize Blanco's relatively conservative positions; and even some ultra-progressive liberals (see the discussion thread at Lib-Blogger Atrios's Posting on the Blanco win) are talking about Blanco's victory as a hollow win for liberals. As a progressive liberal, I celebrate Blanco's win and I think her win bodes well for a variety of reasons.

First, one must think of Blanco's victory as a death blow to the Louisiana State GOP. After Mary Landrieu's stunning Senate win in last Fall's election cycle, the Louisiana GOP has been reeling. And with Blanco's victory over Indian-American conservative Bobby Jindal, the Louisiana State GOP has gone down for the count. Even if Blanco turns out to be nothing more than a conservative Democrat indistinguishable from any Louisiana Republican, that still does not compensate for the fact that the Louisiana GOP hasn't been able to push and sell its own candidates successfully. Furthermore, the Blanco win brings the Governorship back to the Democratic Party after 8 years of Republican stewardship. This has tons of potential positive implications for other aspects of politics as well -- for instance, the Governor's powers of appointment to Congressional Vacancies before terms are completed means that any such necessity will result no doubt in a Democratic appointment. Furthermore, Blanco's chances for moving into John Breaux or Mary Landrieu's Senate seats have just improved. While these are all good things for Democrats both statewide and nationally, Blanco's victory is good news for Democrats in other ways as well.

Let me comment on the discontent among some progressive liberals about their feelings on Blanco's relatively conservative platform. I think this discontent is misplaced for one very, very important reason. Kathleen Blanco was only catapulted over the top not by drifting to the Center, but by tilting towards the liberal Democratic base. This was a lesson Blanco learned from Mary Landrieu's campaign last fall. Let's not forget that Mary Landrieu had positioned herself in the Senate primary race as a compromiser and as someone who was able to work with President Bush on issues important to the President. She emphasized her support for Bush's tax cut program and she emphasized other points of convergence beteween her and Bush. But this approach left a lot to be desired, and Mary Landrieu was only able to mount a successful come-from-behind run-off campaign against her GOP challenger (Suzanne Haik Terrell) by abandoning this "collaborative" stance, firing her campaign leadership, and hitting back hard against the GOP establishment by firing up her liberal base. Landrieu won BECAUSE she abandoned her moderate credentials and emphasized her liberal ones. She did not win because she was a relatively conservative Southern Democrat, but rather because she refashioned herself in the run-off as an oppositional liberal. Blanco followed this same pattern. And, in fact, one could easily argue that Blanco only managed to gain the last-minute advantage because she emphasized the liberal side of her positions (i.e. in favor of abortion to protect the mother's health, social justice in health care reform, etc.) rather than trying to be GOP lite. So, the lesson to be learned is that Democrats win in Louisiana by being liberal - not by being conservative. This fact should not be lost on the Democratic nominee for the Presidential race next fall ... and I would even venture to say that Louisiana is not alone in this regard in the South. I suspect that Democrats in the South would fare better in electoral contests, the more they emphasize their liberal credentials.

The next point I'd like to make is that National GOP firepower does not work in Louisiana. Landrieu won in spite of the entire weight, force, and presence of the national GOP on behalf of her competitor in the run-off election. Louisianians don't particularly care for their politicians to be stooges to National Party leaderhsip. For this reason, Jindal was smart not to bring in national GOP firepower; but it wasn't enough to catapult him beyond only minor inroads into the traditional democratic base -- particularly the black voter base.

This leads me to another not-so-savory point about Louisiana politics. An election pitting the white woman against the minority, dark-skinned man simply does not enthuse the race-conscious and patriarchal mentality of the white conservative (republican and democrat) Bible-belt rural regions and white-flight suburbs of New Orleans. I think these folks stayed home today, as evidenced by the fact that Blanco picked up significantly more of the white vote in conservative regions than one might have expected, while retaining more than 90% of the black vote. Sad to say, but I think race conscious conservative (either Republican or Democrat) Louisianians who did go to the polls today, in all likelihood went with the white woman as the lesser of two evils. Jindal put up high numbers in the more enlightened and less race-conscious conservative white suburbs of the state's major cities, but it wasn't enough to offset the more traditional race-conscious areas of white rural Louisiana, who tipped the balance in favor of Blanco in just the vast majority of rural Parishes in the state. (See this analysis of race in the election results.) For results divided by Parish votes, see this breakdown. By my count, Blanco won 52 out of 63 Parishes; and in at least 3 or 4 of the parishes she lost, she lost by only a couple hundred votes.

I'd also like to point out that this run-off election was merely a follow-up of last month's elections in which a Democrat won the Lt. Governor's race with an outright majority in the open primary; and Democrat Charles Foti handily defeated Republican (and failed Senate candidate) Suzanne Haik Terrell for State Attorney General.

All of this bodes extremely well for liberals and for Democrats - not only in Louisiana, but nationwide. And let's also not forget that this is the last major election until next year's Presidential Race. Democrats should ride this momentum. And Bush, Rove, et. al. should take note.

Liberal Lighthouse - In The Times-Picayune, Steve Kelly's editorial cartoon for Nov. 14 says it all ... At a press conference stand GW and Bremer. GW announces: "In a fundamental shift on Iraq policy ..." Bremer concludes: "We've decided to have one." click here to view it. Update 11/16/03: Well, the link only works for the current day's cartoon, so if you didn't have a chance to look at it on 11/14, you'll just have to imagine it.

Cuaderno Latinoamericano - Sobering report from the moderate Andres Oppenheimer of The Miami Herald. Bush is not only losing Latin America, he's taking you and me and the country's reputation down with him.

Liberal Lighthouse - "If they need help filibustering themselves, we'll be glad to pitch in." Senate Minority Leader, Democrat Tom Daschle, as Senate Republicans began 30 hours of narcissistic blowharding through the night Wednesday on President Bush's blocked judicial nominees.

Lagniappe: Roy Moore for Senate! Roy Moore for President! Roy Moore for God! - Kicked off the bench, Alabama ex-Chief Justice Roy Moore is cocky and defiant. And conservatives have the audacity to say that the fringe "loony" left is taking over the mainstream of the Democratic Party. I have yet to see the rightwing bloggers weigh in on this subject. Until they reject Judge Roy Moore and purge him from the GOP, why should Democrats worry about what the left thinks of Michael Moore or Al Sharpton who, in spite of their faults, don't carry nearly the weight of authority over lives and the administration of the rule of law than does Roy Moore? This has got to be an embarrassment to the rational right.

My favorite little tidbit in this article:

Many of Mr. Moore's supporters were outraged that an unelected panel had removed an elected justice.

"They're undoing a democratic process here," said Patrick Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition. "It smacks of third-world countries. It smacks of dictatorship."

Yeah, Patrick ... and defying the rule of law and declaring yourself above it certainly doesn't smack of third-world dictatorship. Hugo Chavez would blush.

Lagniappe: League of Liberals New Blog Showcase - Check out League of Liberal blogger And Then...'s thoughts on the rhyme and reason for the Senate Republican sleepover - full of pillow fights, puff makeovers, and giggly moot court sessions.

Lagniappe: All Saints' Day - In an appropriate follow-up on Gertrude M. Jones's incredible obituary, Times-Picayune columnist Lolis Eric Elie tracks down the family of Ms. Jones and gives us a follow-up of her story. She's not the radical lefty one might have expected. It's nice to reaffirm that decent, hard-working people have such firm convictions and can prove to Conservatives that one can be a solid American and still think Bush is just bad for the U.S.

Lagniappe: Haunting Bush from the Grave - Check out this obituary published in the New Orleans Times-Picayune on October 2, 2003.

Word has been received that Gertrude M. Jones, 81, passed away on August 25, 2003, under the loving care of the nursing aides of Heritage Manor of Mandeville, Louisiana. She was a native of Lebanon, KY. She was a retired Vice President of Georgia International Life Insurance Company of Atlanta, GA. Her husband, Warren K. Jones predeceased her. Two daughters survive her: Dawn Hunt and her live-in boyfriend, Roland, of Mandeville, LA; and Melba Kovalak and her husband, Drew Kovalak, of Woodbury, MN. Three sisters, four grandchildren and three great grandchildren, also survive her. Funeral services were held in Louisville, KY. Memorial gifts may be made to any organization that seeks the removal of President George Bush from office.

All I can say to Ms. Gertrude Jones is: YOU GO, GIRL!!!

Cuaderno Latinoamericano - Daniel Drezner has a relatively informative little piece at The New Republic Online concerning Latin America's threatening position to globalization and free trade regimes. He is fairly optimistic, but I should mention that resentments to "unfair" free trade regimes run high. Trade not only has to be mutually beneficial, but it also needs to be perceived as somewhat equitable in terms of the distribution of these "mutual" benefits as well.

The "Weak" in (National) Review - Can anyone wade through Bill Buckley's latest piece on NRO, in which he takes up the theme of illegal immigration, and tell me what in the heck this man is trying to say?!? His piece asks the question why can't we enforce illegal immigration laws. And for the life of me, I can't find the shred of an answer.

Lagniappe: The Bush/Rush/Addiction Trifecta - George Bush is apparently giving new life to his "faith-based" initiatives. In an AP Newswire report, we read the following:

"The best way to help the addict ... is to change their heart," Bush said in a reference to how he stopped drinking at age 40. "See, if you change their heart, then they change their behavior.

I wonder if we'll see a soft-n-fuzzy Rush return to the airwaves after his treatment. Will his heart be changed? Bush is not talking simply about kicking a habit, but changing one's life outlook. Will Rush be a changed man? I doubt it. But we'll see.

Lagniappe: Parsing Rush - Not to pick on a man when he's down, but let me give Rush a taste of his own medicine. Below is Rush's statement (directly from his website) on his drug addiction with my comments interspersed:

Rush Limbaugh Statement on Prescription Pain Medication Stories

October 10, 2003

You know I have always tried to be honest with you and open about my life. So I need to tell you today that part of what you have heard and read is correct. I am addicted to prescription pain medication. I first started taking prescription painkillers some years ago when my doctor prescribed them to treat post surgical pain following spinal surgery. Unfortunately the surgery was unsuccessful, and I continued to have severe pain in my lower back and also in my neck due to herniated discs.

I am still experiencing that pain. Rather than opt for additional surgery for these conditions, I chose to treat the pain with prescribed medication. This medication turned out to be highly addictive.

So, even before he assumes personal responsibility, he cleverly primes his audience to think of the drug as the powerful subject of his addiction. It's not Rush that has the problem, see. Rather it's the medication that has the problem. All of a sudden, and quite unexpectedly, his painkillers "turned out to be highly addictive." Gasp! One never would have known this about painkiller medication.

Over the past several years I have tried to break my dependence on pain pills and, in fact, twice checked myself into medical facilities in an attempt to do so. I have recently agreed with my physician about the next steps.

So, in the past, did he not agree with his physician? Makes one wonder if his physician counseled him extensively before the public exposure of his problem about proper action to beat his addiction, but that he consciously and purposefully resisted or rejected this advice until recently. Sounds like a man in denial, not someone who has been trying on successive occasions to kick the habit.

Immediately following this broadcast, I am checking myself into a treatment center for the next 30 days to once and for all break the hold this highly addictive medication has on me.

Here, again, even before he assumes responsibility, he points the finger stealthily at the medication. Twice, now, Rush has hinted that he has a problem, but that the origin of the problem is the medication, not himself.

The show will continue during this time, of course, with an array of guest hosts you have come to know and respect. I am not making any excuses. You know, over the years athletes and celebrities have emerged from treatment centers to great fanfare and praise for conquering great demons. They are said to be great role models and examples for others. Well, I am no role model. I refuse to let anyone think I am doing something great here, when there are people you never hear about, who face long odds and never resort to such escapes.

They are the role models. I am no victim and do not portray myself as such. I take full responsibility for my problem. At the present time the authorities are conducting an investigation, and I have been asked to limit my public comments until this investigation is complete. So, I will only say that the stories you have read and heard contain inaccuracies and distortions, which I will clear up when I am free to speak about them.

But you are free to speak about them, Rush. You just choose not to, in order to cover your rear.

I deeply appreciate all of your support over this last tumultuous week. It has sustained me. I ask now for your prayers. I look forward to resuming our excursion into broadcast excellence together.

Good luck, Rush. It's been a nice ride. I won't miss you.

School Board - The Washington Post's Paul Hill takes a balanced approach to the idea of school choice and the federally-mandated DC voucher program. I am a supporter of school choice, but I still think a federally-mandated voucher program is not the best solution to a clear problem for the crisis in our public school system. As Hill rightly points out, voucher supporters should recognize that there is nothing inherently magical about the voucher program, and that, in fact, there are major crippling obstacles to implementing a voucher program that could only worsen an already critical situation. I would also like to point out that any voucher program would STILL be a federally-mandated government program; and so it is a mistake to think that politics and government bureaucracy would not be involved in the implementation of such a program. Unless a voucher program is for all, and not a select few, the task of deciding who gets to buy in and who gets to watch on the sidelines does not seem like such a good school choice program to me. Also, ALL schools hoping to receive voucher money should be accountable to fair admissions policies and standards - making the "choice" of education that voucher recipients would hope to get a real choice. This means eliminating any racial, religious, gender, testing, etc., preconditions for admission. But, in the end, I'm willing to let voucher supporters have their shot at it. I think it's the wrong solution; and so I can't, in good conscience, support it. But out of respect for those who do support it, and who really have the good intention of improving on a problem recognized by all, I can't, also in good conscience, deny the voucher movement's right to have the chance to prove me wrong.

Liberal Lighthouse - Zowie!!! Robert Scheer expresses what I think is a growing cynicism and awareness on the part of the Bush Administration to lie first and backtrack later. He's got a point. The fact that this happens much too often among supposedly smart people makes it seem less coincidental than calculated. Bush is destined to be known in history as much for patronizing deception as any prior President.

School Board - I have been participating in a very interesting exchange with Bryan Preston on his conservative blog's comment board with regard to the whole school voucher debate. This debate has firmed up in my mind what I think is the hypocrisy of conservative support for the whole school voucher program. In essense, it seems that conservatives supporters of school vouchers lament the sad state of affairs of the public education system and want individuals to be able to use tax dollars via vouchers to put into the bank accounts of private schools. But these very same conservatives, who generally have a problem with government handouts to the poor, don't seem to mind it so much if these handouts really don't go to the poor, but to the endowments of their preferred private schools. Check out my exchanges with this conservative blogger to glimpse the typical conservative arguments in support of school vouchers and the inconsistencies that this argument entails. The most delicious and gratifying way to challenge conservatives is to use their own arguments against them. It's hilarious to see Bryan Preston protesting the tax exploitation of the poor and having to defend himself by arguing against the very conservative line of reasoning he so often employs against liberals.

Liberal Lighthouse - Michael Kinsley of Slate tells it like it is with regard to GW's hubris and the $87 billion, 1-dead-U.S.-soldier-per-day Iraqi nation-building plan.

Lagniappe - It's been a while since posting, but August is madness month in the academic world. Just a quick comment: The Conservative punditocracy and blogosphere has been deathly silent on the Ten Commandments Judge and the damage he is doing to his party in Alabama and to the hapless Attorney General of Alabama, Bill Pryor. I DARE the conservative punditocracy and blogosphere to go on record (one way or the other) regarding this fringe Chief Justice in Alabama. And I do feel bad for Pryor. Senate Republicans made him the "Catholic" judge - and now he has to decide between enforcing his "religious" convictions and defend Judge Moore, or obey the law and offend the very conservative theocratic support network that branded him the "Catholic" judge in the first place.

Lagniappe - I've been away for the past week in El Salvador and so haven't had the opportunity to post. Not to say because I didn't have internet access in El Salvador; but just that I didn't have the time. I have been busy now trying to catch up on all my favorite blogs and news sources and will hopefully be rejoining the fray. But, in my profession, August is a busy month and so I'm not sure how regularly I can post.