Hayek, the Rule of Law, the Bush Administration, and Torture

I am brushing up on my Friedrich Hayek these days, and I am reminded of Hayek's chapter on the Rule of Law in his famous book, The Road to Serfdom. Hayek would chafe at the Bush Administration's Department of Justice and the work of the Office of Legal Counsel in drafting bogus memoranda legitimizing (post-facto, even) the arbitrary use of state power in the interrogation of suspected Islamic terrorists. In fact, there is nothing freedom-loving at all in how the Bush Administration usurped popular sovereignty for its own secretive and power-grabbing ends. Think about the following passage from The Road to Serfdom as it may apply to the Yoo and Bybee memos in the Bush Department of Justice, memos which sought to grant post-facto juridical cover from the legal prohibitions against torture and an arbitrary exemption from what Hayek would call the Rule of Law:

The idea that there is no limit to the powers of the legislator is in part a result of popular sovereignty and democratic government. It has been strengthened by the belief that, so long as all actions of the state are duly authorized by legislation, the Rule of Law will be preserved. But this is completely to misconceive the meaning of the Rule of Law. This rule has little to do with the question whether all actions of government are legal in the juridical sense. They may well be and yet not conform to the Rule of Law. The fact that someone has full legal authority to act in the way he does gives no answer to the question whether the law gives him power to act arbitrarily or whether the law prescribes unequivocally how he has to act. It may well be that Hitler has obtained his unlimited powers in a strictly constitutional manner and that whatever he does is therefore legal in the juridical sense. But who would suggest for that reason that the Rule of Law still prevails in Germany?

To say that in a planned society the Rule of Law cannot hold is, therefore not to say that the actions of the government will not be legal or that such a society will necessarily be lawless. It means only that the use of the government's cooercive powers will no longer be limited and determined by pre-established rules. The law can, and to make central direction of economic activity possible must, legalize what to all intents and purposes remains arbitrary action. If the law says that such a board or authority may do what it pleases, anything that board or authority does is legal--but its actions are certainly not subject to the Rule of Law. By giving the government unlimited powers, the most arbitrary rule can be made legal; and in this way a democracy may set up the most complete despotism imaginable. ...

The Rule of Law thus implies limits to the scope of legislation: it restricts it to the kind of general rules known as formal law and excludes legislation either directly aimed at particular people or at enabling anybody to use the coercive power of the state for the purpose of such discrimination. It means, not that everything is regulated by law, but, on the contrary, that the coercive power of the state can be used only in cases defined in advance by the law and in such a way that it can be foreseen how it will be used. -- [The Road to Serfdom, pp. 82-84 of the 1962 Phoenix Books edition. The italicized portions of the text cited above are mine.]

Now, Hayek was writing this with the legislative practices in Germany, Italy, and Russia prior to WWII in mind, practices that basically gave a semblance of legal cover to the dictatorial rule of Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin. Though he doesn't mention specifically the similar practices of manipulation of the law from within the executive branch of government, I think it is a safe bet that Hayek would have been even more disturbed by the Bush Administration's behavior because its legal shenanigans in parsing the law so as to give post-facto cover to the illegal practice of torture did not even make a pretense to democratic sanction through an elected legislative body, but rather was conducted in secret within the executive itself. In essence, the Bush Administration's behavior was even more arbitrary and dictatorial than what Hayek was even imagining. In fact, I imagine that Hayek would have been shocked and mortified by the Bush Administration's behavior and would have been equally shocked and mortified that Americans claiming to be Hayekian conservatives and advocates of the ideas contained in The Road to Serfdom would defend the Bush Administration's behavior.

What Now Anh "Joseph" Cao?

I like Anh "Joseph" Cao. I voted for him in the last election and would even consider him seriously in the next one, strictly on the basis of his progressive attitudes on immigration and language access issues.

But I want Cao to know right now that I simply will not vote for a Republican, no matter how much I like him (or her), given the importance of maintaining some Democratic Party discipline in these trying times when Obama needs it most.

If there is a credible Democratic candidate, and there looks to be plenty to choose from, that person will win my vote over any Republican or Independent candidate, Cao included.

My advice to Cao ... if you want to have ANY chance with voters like me, you better switch parties. And fast.

Joe Wilson's "You Lie!": A Revisionist Interpretation

Joe Wilson has apparently fooled us all. When he yelled out at the President, "You lie!" regarding the President's claim that the healthcare reform measure does not permit undocumented migrants to partake of its benefits, the immediate thought was that Wilson was upset because he was an anti-illegal immigrant reactionary.

But, really, the evidence seems to indicate that he was upset because he is pro-illegal immigrant and found it maddeningly frustrating that Obama, by making such a claim, was refusing to embrace and own up to a shared commitment to providing benefits to illegal immigrants.

Surely, given that Wilson happily voted to commit taxpayer dollars in support of the healthcare of undocumented immigrants in the 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act, what else can be motivating Wilson's outburst?

Let's compare: the best-known of the healthcare reform proposals out there, HR 3200, contains a specific part, Section 426, which declares that illegal immigrants are not eligible for coverage under the bill. In fact, this particular section of the bill is titled: "No Federal Payment for Undocumented Aliens" and it reads: "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States." Furthermore, nowhere else in the bill that I can find is there language that mentions benefits specifically intended to cover expenses incurred by undocumented immigrants.

Now, the 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act, which Joe Wilson voted for, contains Section 1011, which is titled: "Federal Reimbursement of Emergency Health Services Furnished to Undocumented Aliens," with language that clearly and repeatedly mentions benefits to the tune of $250,000,000.00 for each of fiscal years 2005-2008 that are specifically intended to cover expenses incurred by undocumented immigrants.

So, with such love by Wilson for spending taxpayer dollars on the healthcare of undocumented immigrants in the past, there's only one way to interpret his outburst this time around. He simply fantasized the inclusion of benefits to undocumented immigrants in the current healthcare reform bill because he desperately wanted such benefits to be in the bill, and he just couldn't accept the President's truthful declaration that such benefits were simply not there.

Federer the Magician

Incredible:

Football of the Fantasy Variety

I love football. I grew up playing football since I was 5 years old. In some years, I played for multiple leagues. I even got in trouble during my Freshman year of high school for playing both on the high school Freshman team AND the little league team at the neighborhood playground. Apparently, unbeknownst to me or my family, this was in violation of LHSAA rules and I caused my high school Freshman team to forfeit all the games I played in. I stopped playing competitive tackle football after High School, though I had been in a couple of flag football leagues since then. And even though my bum knees make it impossible now for me to continue actively playing even in flag football leagues, I remain a big fan of the sport. However, I do have to admit that my enjoyment of football these past few years has come not from following the rise and fall of particular teams, whether high school, college, or professional, but rather from the mix and match world of fantasy football.

This weekend marks the start of the fantasy football season in earnest, and I'm very much looking forward to it. I have three teams in three separate fantasy football leagues, and I always enjoy following all the professional games on Sunday to see how my fantasy teams perform.

Cass Sunstein and the Myopia of Conservatives

As someone who is familiar with Cass Sunstein's writings and who has read (and discussed) Sunstein's most recent book, Nudge, a collaborative effort with Richard Thaler, I have to say that I find the conservative opposition to Sunstein's appointment as the director of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Obama Administration's Office of Management and Budget to be very puzzling. Sunstein's basic thesis in Nudge was very much coming out of a libertarian tradition that prioritizes the freedom of choice and looks suspiciously on any practice or policy that might compromise choice beyond a fairly innocuous "nudge," whether that practice or policy originates in the state or the private sector.

Conservative columnist and pundit, David Frum, (currently a pariah among modern movement conservatives for his opposition to Sarah Palin and his criticism of the unthinking reactionary conservative bombast of folks like Mark Levin and Glenn Beck) has written an extremely thoughtful piece defending, with a persuasive conservative rationale, the appointment of Sunstein.

Here's part of what he said:

To anyone who knows anything – anything! – about what Cass Sunstein has actually written or actually said, it’s [conservative opposition to his appointment] a travesty and scandal. And ironically enough, if successful, it would have been a travesty and scandal in which conservatives would find themselves the main victims.

Had Cass Sunstein somehow been stopped, the next OIRA nominee would certainly have been less favorable to markets, enterprise, and competition. The next nominee would not have supported John Roberts and Michael McConnell, would not have chaired seminars with the American Enterprise Institute, might not have been endorsed by the Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, and very likely would not have shared with conservatives so many of the values that Beck purports to uphold but in fact betrays.

I, too, think Sunstein is better for conservatives, by leaps and bounds, than any other potential Obama administration appointment. If conservatives want to be masochistic, and work to dump Sunstein in favor of someone more radical from the left, that's their prerogative. It just makes no sense to me.

Quote of the Day: On Hayek

"According to the current Republican orthodoxy, Friedrich Hayek was a socialist." Andrew Sullivan.

Sullivan quotes directly from Chapter 9 of Hayek's The Road to Serfdom, one of the canonical, almost biblical, texts of conservatism. Read Sullivan's whole entry, which focuses on Hayek's defense of the kind of government program of the sort that the healthcare reform proposals of today represent.

I, myself, have been giving Hayek's book a re-reading over the past weeks to try to understand how far "modern" conservatism, the Limbaugh/Bachmann/Hannity/Wilson kind, has strayed from conservative orthodoxy into the realm of the absurd.

More Hayek pearls of wisdom from The Road to Serfdom will be coming soon. Stay tuned!

Obama's Speech to Schoolkids and Republican Rectal-Cranial Inversion

From the annals of contemporary conservative implosion, here's Neal Boortz, conservative Town Hall columnist, frothing over the rightwing's puerile imbecility regarding Obama's speech to schoolkids:

TeamObama must have loved this one. Talk about a hanging curveball. Once the manic inanity started all they had to do is sit back, prepare an innocuous speech for The One, and let the people scratch their heads wondering what in the hell the Republicans were so upset about! Now the next time the right comes up with an objection to some Obama concept, people who last week might have been on board will stand back and look at the Republicans with a jaundiced eye.

This one was so easy for the left I can’t even think of another 300 words to fill out this column. So just move on to the next one. Two steps forward and three steps back. Unless PrezBO really messes up his address to Congress tonight watch for his popularity ratings to rise. Thanks, Republicans! See if there’s some drug available for that rectal-cranial inversion you’re suffering from.

They're falling apart, man. Bashing each other. And I'm loving it. If you do check out Boortz's column, you absolutely must also have a quick read of the comments there. The frothing is legion! If these folks don't calm down, I think we might witness a mass death-by-aneurysm moment.

[H/T: Andrew Sullivan, who marvels at the genius of what he so aptly calls Obama's "rope-a-dope." Now, I'm not so sure Obama is that clever, but the coincidence of this "rope-a-dope" happening the day before Obama is poised to give a major speech on healthcare does raise eyebrows, doesn't it? When conservatives instinctively start frothing about Obamunism up to and following Obama's healthcare reform speech tonight, one has to wonder if sane Americans, fresh off the nuttiness of the recent conservative "sky is falling" chicken little performance regarding the talk to schoolkids, won't look askance at conservative frothing about Obama's healthcare reform proposal. Seriously, all Obama has to do tonight is come across as calm and reasonable on his healthcare reform proposal and the skeptical just might think that the "death panel" screechers on the right really are the lunatics in this debate and that Obama is the sane one. It might be just the edge Obama needs to prevail.]

UPDATE: Wednesday, September 9, 2009, 11:00PM: South Carolina GOP Congressman Joe Wilson, who rudely heckled Obama and blurted out "You lie!," just gave Obama that edge. The nuttiness at the Healthcare Town Halls rears its ugly, unbecoming head on national television in the "august" halls of Congress. Joe Wilson, you are a crude hick. Thanks, Joe Wilson, for revealing the true face of the modern GOP to the world. It was a wonderful gift to Obama.

A Few Good Letters

Letter 1:

Re: "Echoes of Bush in health care effort: Older voters show skepticism over plan, " Page A2, Sept. 8. First, everyone on Medicare who opposes health care reform as a socialist enterprise should relinquish all Medicare benefits.

Second, every anti-reform child and grandchild of Medicare recipients should urge their parents and grandparents to give up all Medicare benefits and then personally assume their parents' and grandparents' medical bills.

When both camps do this, then they can take the high ground on health care reform.

Kris Lackey

New Orleans

Amen, Kris Lackey! I couldn't have said it any better.

Letter 2:

"Re: "Obama student address decision is up to principals, archdiocese says," Metro, Sept. 4. As a high school teacher of U.S. government and a James Madison Fellow, I feel an obligation to voice my disappointment in some of our local educational leaders for caving in to partisan politics.

Parents who are worried that their children may be politically indoctrinated by President Obama's speech need to consider the following.

As a teacher, I do not give my students the option of not reading the Federalist Papers, the Bill of Rights or President Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, all of which were, in their day, more politically indoctrinating than anything President Obama can say in his speech.

Giving the students the option to disregard a president's address reeks of partisan politics and lacks a genuine motive.

Vanesa Gentinetta

Metairie

Common sense from a High School teacher more interested in teaching than in politicizing education. And, yes, Ms. Gentinetta, it does reek of partisan politics, indeed. Ronald Reagan can extol the benefits of low taxes to students, but Obama can't even tell them to stay in school and work hard? But I do have one beef with Ms. Gentinetta's letter: there is no lack of a "genuine motive" behind not requiring students to listen to Obama's speech. The motive exists and it's clear. Only it's not a very admirable motive. It's a motive of hate and disrespect for Obama. It's a motive of: "Break his teeth, O God."

Hitler on Obama's Speech to Schoolkids

I thought this was just too damn funny:

St. Tammany Parish High Schools and Obama's Speech

Part of a transcript of a WWL TV news report I heard earlier today while sitting in the Jury Pool lounge:

Not all schools embraced Obama’s speech, as some were beset with criticism from concerned parents.

All six St. Tammany Parish high schools and Terrebonne Parish schools did not air the speech live, opting to record the speech because it interfered with lunch. Students were given the opportunity to watch it later.

I assume this report concerns only public high schools, because apparently some of the Catholic High Schools showed the speech. Nevertheless, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if all Public High Schools in St. Tammany Parish refrained from showing the speech live. It is the Northshore, after all. Well, to whichever schools didn't show the speech live, I say fie on them. Let them look small, petty, paranoid, and imbecilic.

"Break his teeth, O God."

Words fail:



[H/T: Andrew Sullivan]

Obama's "Socialist" Message to Schoolkids

Whole thing is right here. Here's some of the choice "socialist" lessons Obama has to share:

But at the end of the day, we can have the most dedicated teachers, the most supportive parents, and the best schools in the world – and none of it will matter unless all of you fulfill your responsibilities. Unless you show up to those schools; pay attention to those teachers; listen to your parents, grandparents and other adults; and put in the hard work it takes to succeed.

And that’s what I want to focus on today: the responsibility each of you has for your education. I want to start with the responsibility you have to yourself.

Every single one of you has something you’re good at. Every single one of you has something to offer. And you have a responsibility to yourself to discover what that is. That’s the opportunity an education can provide.

...

And no matter what you want to do with your life – I guarantee that you’ll need an education to do it. You want to be a doctor, or a teacher, or a police officer? You want to be a nurse or an architect, a lawyer or a member of our military? You’re going to need a good education for every single one of those careers. You can’t drop out of school and just drop into a good job. You’ve got to work for it and train for it and learn for it.

...

We need every single one of you to develop your talents, skills and intellect so you can help solve our most difficult problems. If you don’t do that – if you quit on school – you’re not just quitting on yourself, you’re quitting on your country.

...

But at the end of the day, the circumstances of your life – what you look like, where you come from, how much money you have, what you’ve got going on at home – that’s no excuse for neglecting your homework or having a bad attitude. That’s no excuse for talking back to your teacher, or cutting class, or dropping out of school. That’s no excuse for not trying.

Where you are right now doesn’t have to determine where you’ll end up. No one’s written your destiny for you. Here in America, you write your own destiny. You make your own future.

...

That’s why today, I’m calling on each of you to set your own goals for your education – and to do everything you can to meet them. Your goal can be something as simple as doing all your homework, paying attention in class, or spending time each day reading a book. Maybe you’ll decide to get involved in an extracurricular activity, or volunteer in your community. Maybe you’ll decide to stand up for kids who are being teased or bullied because of who they are or how they look, because you believe, like I do, that all kids deserve a safe environment to study and learn. Maybe you’ll decide to take better care of yourself so you can be more ready to learn. And along those lines, I hope you’ll all wash your hands a lot, and stay home from school when you don’t feel well, so we can keep people from getting the flu this fall and winter.

Whatever you resolve to do, I want you to commit to it. I want you to really work at it.

I know that sometimes, you get the sense from TV that you can be rich and successful without any hard work -- that your ticket to success is through rapping or basketball or being a reality TV star, when chances are, you’re not going to be any of those things.

But the truth is, being successful is hard. You won’t love every subject you study. You won’t click with every teacher. Not every homework assignment will seem completely relevant to your life right this minute. And you won’t necessarily succeed at everything the first time you try.

That’s OK. Some of the most successful people in the world are the ones who’ve had the most failures. JK Rowling’s first Harry Potter book was rejected twelve times before it was finally published. Michael Jordan was cut from his high school basketball team, and he lost hundreds of games and missed thousands of shots during his career. But he once said, "I have failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed."

These people succeeded because they understand that you can’t let your failures define you – you have to let them teach you.

...

Don’t be afraid to ask questions. Don’t be afraid to ask for help when you need it. I do that every day. Asking for help isn’t a sign of weakness, it’s a sign of strength. It shows you have the courage to admit when you don’t know something, and to learn something new. So find an adult you trust – a parent, grandparent or teacher; a coach or counselor – and ask them to help you stay on track to meet your goals.

And even when you’re struggling, even when you’re discouraged, and you feel like other people have given up on you – don’t ever give up on yourself. Because when you give up on yourself, you give up on your country.

The story of America isn’t about people who quit when things got tough. It’s about people who kept going, who tried harder, who loved their country too much to do anything less than their best.

...

Your families, your teachers, and I are doing everything we can to make sure you have the education you need to answer these questions. I’m working hard to fix up your classrooms and get you the books, equipment and computers you need to learn. But you’ve got to do your part too. So I expect you to get serious this year. I expect you to put your best effort into everything you do. I expect great things from each of you. So don’t let us down – don’t let your family or your country or yourself down. Make us all proud. I know you can do it.

Thank you, God bless you, and God bless America.

Holy moly! That secular, atheist, Muslim fundamentalist, Kenyan-born, son-of-a-many-times-divorced-and-remarried mother even mentioned "God" to the kids while they were in school! How dare he coopt God for his nefarious brainwashing purposes?! Call out the good Christian soldiers to prevent Obama from marching our kids off the gulags and re-education camps! Obamunism is poised to pollute our kids' minds! God forbid that Obama usurp the authority of parents!

Seriously ...

This is a speech that one would think conservatives would wet their pants over. What a shame that they're so damn afraid of Obama that their kids are likely going to miss out on this inspirational message.

One thing I know for certain: Obama has once again upstaged the paranoid delusionals among the rightwing. Any rational, sane, honest parent would read this speech and would WANT his or her kids to hear it. And any individuals who persist in their absurd, insane hyperventilations about it will merely expose themselves for the idiots that they are.

To Kill A Mockingbird

Today, I took squirrely girlie the elder to see the movie To Kill a Mockingbird on the big screen. The Prytania movie theatre, one of the few neighborhood theatres that has managed to survive the mega movie complexes, is running a Classics movie series over the noon hour on the weekends. It is quite a success. My eldest daughter, who read Harper Lee's novel this summer and loved it, thought the movie was great. I did, too. Of course, Gregory Peck was wonderful as Atticus Finch. But the big revelatory surprise for me was realizing for the first time that the Great Santini, Robert Duvall, played the part of the mysterious Boo Radley. I've seen the movie a handful of times and never once did it register that Robert Duvall played this part.

I once had an idea some 6-7 years ago for converting another local neighborhood movie theatre, the one up on Robert E. Lee Blvd. in Lakeshore (I can't remember its formal name), to one that would specialize exclusively in children's/family theatre. You know, old Disney classics, etc. And then market it for birthday parties and such. And if I had the investment dollars, I might just have done it. I still think it would be a successful venture.

Nevertheless, the Prytania has done a great thing and I was happy to partake today.

Lusher Lions Football

I guess it's admirable that the new Lusher High School has even fielded a football team. But I went to their first game of the season this past Friday night, and the performance was a disaster. For one, the team was out of shape. Second, there was absolutely zero offense. The team had negative yardage on offense. The offense racked up more negative yardage due to penalties than positive yardage adding rushing, passing, and return yards combined. Speaking of penalties, there must have been about 20-25 total just against Lusher. In just one series of downs that I witnessed in the 3rd quarter, there were 2 offsides penalties, 2 delay of game penalties, and one holding penalty. It was absolutely painful to watch. In fact, there were so many penalties, delays, official time outs, etc., that the 12 minute third quarter alone lasted more than an hour. The best performance of the night was the halftime show, which featured the Lusher High School dance club doing a modern dance number. Needless to say, Lusher lost the game by a shut out -- 0 to 34.

What's even worse is that Lusher is in the district that contains John Curtis Christian High School -- the perennial state champion. I shudder at the thought of that game. God bless Lusher for pulling together a football team, but lord help them and help us all.

TP Letter Writer Misses the Obvious on Obama's Speech to Students

In a letter to the editor in today's Times-Picayune, Ms. Judi McGovern from Folsom on the Northshore in St. Tammany Parish writes the following:

Some of the loudest protests to the Obama "student chat" come from St. Tammany Parish parents and educators. It is interesting to note that not a single St. Tammany school is rated "academically unacceptable."

Could it be that St. Tammany parents and teachers have already taught their children the value and importance of education?

First, that some of the loudest protests are coming from ultra-conservative St. Tammany Parish residents comes as no surprise. The mere mention of Obama is enough to elicit the frothing madness of Northshore conservatives. It was this way before the election and has been this way ever since. Let's remember also that some of the state's most notorious racist hate-mongers like David Duke find a comfy perch in St. Tammany Parish from which to spew their filth. It's in St. Tammany Parish where white supremacist groups thrive and carry out their sometimes murderous mischief. Everyone knows the unvarnished truth about the nature and extent of the ideological leanings of St. Tammany Parish.

But, leaving all that aside, what I would like to ask Ms. McGovern is how having President Obama reinforce the "value and importance of education" that she claims is so successfully imparted by St. Tammany Parish parents and teachers to their own superior youth is somehow bad? You'd think that having this country's President reinforce the values that St. Tammany Parish's extraordinary parents and teachers convey so well is something Ms. McGovern would embrace. Instead, Ms. McGovern thinks a censorious pre-screening of a Presidential address on the virtues of staying in school is recommendable, and says that it is "a sad commentary for a president who has been in office for such a short time to have succeeded in raising so many obvious issues of trust." I think Ms. McGovern ought to re-evaluate her claim. It is not Obama that has succeeded in raising so many obvious issues of trust. I'd say it's the opposite. It's folks like Ms. McGovern, in collusion with the likes of Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh, who have succeeded in raising the issues of trust where they simply do not exist. Obama has, from the very beginning, extolled the values of family, has exhorted parents to be involved in their kids' lives, has defended the discipline of study and respect for teachers. But, in St. Tammany Parish, Obama could read, without commentary, verbatim from the Bible to students and Ms. McGovern would want to shield kids from it, simply and only because it is Obama doing the reading. The fact is that folks in St. Tammany Parish don't trust Obama because they never have and they aren't even interested in doing so. Ms. McGovern thinks the current controversy is some commentary on Obama; but I think the truth is that it is more a commentary on her. I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that Ms. McGovern was never open to placing her trust in Obama. I'd bet dollars to doughnuts she never will be. And it is that which is the "sad commentary" here.

My Advice to Parents Opposed to Obama's Speech on Education to Students

Home school your kids.

Conservative Pansies

A reader at Andrew Sullivan's site had this choice comment about the NIMBY (Not-in-my-backyard) folks who get all apoplectic about transferring detainees from Guantanamo to maximum-security prisons in the United States:

The Republican Party has gone from the party of fear to the party of being afraid. If the left ever acted like pansies about something the way the right has about this, they'd be taken to task and labeled "weak" or "soft".

I thought this was perhaps the most succinct capturing of the irrational thinking behind conservative opposition to the plan for closing Gitmo and dealing with its prisoners. Conservatives are nothing but irrational these days, it seems.

Obama's Education Speech to Students

Again, I am simply dumbfounded, astounded, and increasingly angry at rightwing hyperventilating at the simple mention of Obama.

It's almost to the point that I will refuse to have anything at all to do with such imbecility.

I have never seen a reaction to a President as I have seen by the rightwing to Obama. It's shameful.

This is my message to the folks who think that Obama's encouraging kids to stay in school and work hard is socialist indoctrination:

(1) At this point, I think rational communication with you is fruitless. So I will refuse to engage you in communication about such stupidity. From now on, we can only talk about sports and the weather.
(2) Your attitudes are hardening mine. If you want a war, I will oblige.
(3) You are a paranoid delusional nutcase. Completely irrational, mentally unstable, and intellectually bankrupt.
(4) You are a petty, small, bitter nothing.

Oh, there's so much more invective I can hurl. But it's almost not even worth it. It is clear that I am becoming increasingly angry and maddeningly frustrated, not by a thoughtful opposition to Obama, which I can respect and deal with, but by the damn stupidity and utter imbecility that is behind this current absurd madness. People have just lost their minds. Really, if left-liberals had voiced the same kind of inane nonsense about any conservative President giving such a speech to schoolkids, I would have had the same reaction to them. I would have told them to stop with the stupidity. I would have exhorted such liberals to get behind even the most conservative of Presidents, as it would be at least one area where nothing but good can come of such Presidential leadership.

I am just at a loss for what to say. And I even have a very difficult time wrapping my mind around this behavior. It seems completely senseless. I really can't seem to find the words to convey the incomprehensibility of all of this nonsense. Are there any thoughtful conservatives out there who can explain this rationally to me? Can someone please tell me how having Obama (or any President, for that matter) extol the virtues of education and staying in school is an unmitigated danger to my children?

Cal Thomas Is An Idiot. Seriously.

That conservative blowhard, Cal Thomas, wrote a column that appeared on the Op-Ed pages of the Times-Picayune this morning. This column was so gobsmackingly stupid and playgroundish. It actually was offensive in its stupidity. Here's a passage from this piece that was particularly atrocious:

Here is the way I believe it works at liberal universities. Some professors require their students to repeat back to them on test papers and in theses what the professors believe. Unless students hate Republicans, revile George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, renounce God, support abortion and gay rights, they can sometimes expect a lower, even a failing grade. When my wife studied for her master’s degree in counseling, she felt pressured to repeat her professors’ beliefs instead of stating her own. A friend with a Ph.D. told her, “Write what they want and get the degree. Then you can counsel the way you like.” This is academic freedom? It sounds like indoctrination. Why is it OK at liberal universities to tell professors what they want to hear, but not OK at conservative ones to do the same?

Where does one start with such trash? I mean, really, as far as arguments go, it is embarrassingly poor. It smacks of whininess and is something you might see in a playground taunting episode among third grade boys. First, Thomas pontificates on how "it works" at "liberal" universities as if he has any clue what goes on at universities these days. I'd bet he hasn't set foot in the academic culture beyond perhaps giving an invited speech now and then since God knows how many years ago. Here's what I know from actually working in the university academic environment: (1) I would say it is true that a majority of college professors in the Liberal Arts lean leftwards in their personal politics. But I can also categorically state that a vast majority of college professors, whether liberal or conservative in their personal politics, does not engage in any form of ideological brainwashing. And no faculty that I know penalizes any student simply because of a particular ideological inclination. Cal Thomas has bought hook-line-and-sinker into the conservative canard that university education at a "liberal" university (whatever the hell that means) is nothing but an experiment in ideological indoctrination. (2) What dimwits like Cal Thomas absolutely fail to recognize is that this belief is simply not borne out by the evidence. A significant number of conservatives in this country went through "liberal" universities. If the academy were such an indoctrination mill, how in the hell can there be so many college educated conservatives? (3) Another fact that these myopic ideologues like Cal Thomas fail to note is that the "liberal" liberal arts faculty does not a "liberal" university make. The professional schools, the natural sciences, and some of the "pure" social science disciplines even in the Liberal Arts tradition, tend to be populated much more heavily by conservative leaning professors. Does this mean that students are being indoctrinated into ideological conservatism by these professors? No. At least no more nor less than by any liberal-leaning academics indoctrinating students into ideological liberalism. Cal Thomas is just full of crap.

If you still don't believe Cal Thomas is an idiot, take a look at the only evidence he claims supports his "belief": His wife's friend's advice to parrot the professor's beliefs. That's not pressure coming from the Professor! That's pressure coming from a friend "with a Ph.D." who has probably been brainwashed herself from having read too many of Cal Thomas's columns! And is this "Ph.D. friend" a liberal or a conservative? Because if the friend is a conservative, wouldn't that seem to indicate that it's the conservative academic who is perpetuating what Cal Thomas seems to think is more "indoctrination"? When Cal Thomas actually shows me a reasoned, well-argued, well-written, critically-crafted paper or exam that gets a poor grade simply because the professor didn't like the "politics" of the paper, THEN I might think he has a point. And it's not enough for some ideologue who says "Damn the evidence and the science to the contrary, I'm going to argue that the world is 2000 years old, because the Bible says so!" and gets points deducted because there's no critical engagement with the science and evidence that says otherwise. That person earns a lower grade. Not because of any failure to adopt the "politics" of the professor, but simply for shoddy scholarship. In the end, Cal Thomas hasn't produced a shred of concrete evidence, NOT ONE BIT, beyond his paranoid delusions, that expressing a conservative point of view ends in a failed grade.

Finally (and here's where the playground silliness comes into play), Cal Thomas spends his whole time ranting about how horrible liberal indoctrination is and then posits a moral equivalence in which he gives a pass to conservative schools indoctrinating their students in conservative orthodoxies because he thinks liberal universities do it. Let's repeat the question Cal Thomas asks to end his little playground pout. He writes: "Why is it OK at liberal universities to tell professors what they want to hear, but not OK at conservative ones to do the same?" To which I say: "Well, Cal, you tell me? You're the one who seems to have a problem with what you perceive to be 'indoctrination' at universities? And isn't your whole complaint precisely about why it's not o.k., period?" Goodness gracious! What Cal Thomas seems to be saying in this question is that if liberals can get away with doing something "bad," then conservatives ought to be able to get away with doing something "bad," too. Whatever happened to "bad" being "bad" no matter who does it? This little bit of relativism strikes at the paranoid, delusional core of Cal Thomas's stupidity when it comes to the "liberal" university brainwashing meme of an unthinking, idiotic, ideologically partisan, knee-jerk conservatism. It's pitiful and it's actually embarrassing for the man. I hope he would be able to recognize this; but, then, he'd probably point to me as a liberal academic and dismiss it as nothing more than that liberal indoctrination he is talking about. Sheesh!

Oh, and one final point: If students were to write a paper for me in which they "hate Republicans, revile George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, renounce God, support abortion and gay rights" just because, I promise you they wouldn't win accolades for such a thing. No sirree. They'd fail like a Cal Thomas column because there would be nothing at all scholarly or critically thoughtful about such a screed. Maybe they can cry to Cal Thomas about my unfair discrimination, my grade-penalizing tendencies, or my indoctrinating agenda and get some sympathy from him on the principle of it; but they'd still get a failing grade from me.

FEMA and the Tulane University Library

The good news is that FEMA has come through with a nice chunk of change to help repair the University's main campus library's physical plant infrastructure. [ASIDE: This not only will help maintain the Library's significant collection, but will also help reduce the University's energy expenditures and help to save the environment in the process; for, as most anybody who passes by the library will know, the temporary repairs made to the AC/Heating system have huge cooling and heating seepage problems outside the building. At certain locations on the outside of the Library building, one could find it actually chilly in the midst of a sweltering August day, or one could find it toasty warm in the midst of a near freezing February night. The claim that Tulane was making a valiant attempt to cool down the neighborhood in August is not an exaggeration.]

In the middle of this good news story, I came across this little tidbit which has particular meaning to me:

Joining the books and equipment from the library's basement will be contents of the library's Special Collections division, which had been in the basement of nearby Jones Hall. Those holdings, along with the building's mechanical equipment, were also flooded.

What is of particular interest to me here is the mention of materials stored in the basement of Jones Hall. Although not a part of the Library's Special Collections Division, my own department's historical archives had been stored in the basement area of Jones Hall. In fact, the bitter irony of our story is that, not more than a month before the storm hit, we had just transported all of our archives down into our small basement storage area. When we returned after Katrina, of course everything in our basement storage area was long gone with nary a mention to us from the authorities about what had happened to it. We had all just written off these archives as forever disappeared; but this comment makes me think there is at least a glimmer of some hope that our archives have been preserved, cleaned, and restored. Now that would be a nice silver lining in a story that is already pretty golden.

For all its bungling, FEMA gets some credit (and some redemption -- at least in my eyes) for doing right by the Tulane Library.

Jury Duty

Spent my first day in the Jury Pool Lounge of the New Orleans Criminal Court. I have to say it wasn't all that unpleasant an experience. The folks running the Jury process seem to have the system pretty much down pat, and are very nice and willing to try to accommodate anyone's scheduling issues.

On my first day, I lucked out and didn't even get called up for the Voir Dire, which is the process of questioning a select group of potential jurors for possible seating in a jury. We, the unneeded, were released at 11:30am. I have to admit to being impressed by the whole experience and think that there is some truth to the claim that the New Orleans Criminal Court is "gaining in efficiency." And the free coffee was pretty darn good, too! Thick, black, and flavored with chicory. Just how I like it.

Thinking on what my month in the jury pool might look like, I couldn't help but read with interest a jury handing down a death sentence for a man convicted of murdering five people in a shooting rampage in Central City. I wondered if I might be called to serve in a capital murder case and if I would be selected. Of course, I am morally opposed to the death penalty; but I think I could honestly answer a question on the subject during a Voir Dire session by stating that I recognize that our legal system recognizes the legitimacy of the death penalty as an appropriate punishment for particular crimes. Of course, that skirts answering my own position on the subject, but it would be a true statement and might cause a defense attorney to fight for my inclusion in such a jury and might be vague enough for the prosecution not to object to my inclusion in a jury pool. But, if they ask me point blank about my position, I'd have to declare my moral opposition to the death penalty. Given this, though, my goal would be to get on such a jury and hopefully be able to save a life.

In any event, I should be able to get a lot of reading done while waiting in the jury pool lounge!

Adonde vas, Lee Zurik?

Lee Zurik, local news anchor and reporter for WWL-TV, is ending his run with that station. I remember Zurik from Rising Tide III and found him to be incredibly down-to-earth and with a wonderful attitude. He definitely deserved his Peabody. I count Zurik as a friend and promoter of the blogging community and medium, which is a somewhat rare thing among traditional media types. I wish him well wherever he ends up, even if it is the local FoxNews affiliate.

NOLA Blog Power! The Tide Has Risen!

In a lengthy front-page article, Molly Reid of the Times-Picayune covers the NOLA blogosphere and its impact as watchdog and gadfly on local politics. In the article, an anonymous blogger's identity is revealed (by the choice of the blogger himself) in the context of a threatened libel suit by the subjects of this blogger's investigations and postings. That particular story is interesting in and of itself, but the whole piece was a relatively thoughtful and detailed exploration of the impact of the local NOLA blogosphere in the rough and tumble of New Orleans politics and investigative journalism.

I thought Molly Reid did a nice job on the story. And I appreciate the fact that the Times-Picayune gave the story such prominence and space (it was continued over three different pages of the print edition). We NOLA bloggers have always known we were relevant and were making a difference to the civic culture of this community in positive ways; but it's nice to have the City's most prominent print newspaper finally acknowledge that as well.

Good luck to Ashe Dambala. I've followed his blog, American Zombie, and I don't think he has anything to worry about with regard to a libel suit coming from some disgruntled insiders. All he did was expose a web of interesting connections and pose the natural questions that anyone would have about such connections. And the fact that his identity is now out in the open should take the wind out of the sails of these disgruntled insiders. In fact, I hope they do file a libel suit, because then their web of connections will come under even greater scrutiny and will actually force the answers to the questions that Dambala put forth. I welcome anything that would increase such transparency and accountability. And I'm sure Dambala does, too.

Healthcare Reform, Torture, and Gay Equality: A Prognostication on Obama's Strategic Thinking

Barack Obama's first administration hinges on the outcome of the current Healthcare Reform debate. But this debate will come to an end soon, probably by the end of this calendar year. Whatever the outcome, Barack Obama will be free of the political constraints holding him back from going whole hog in pursuit of other matters such as prosecuting ALL folks up the chain of command to former Vice President Dick Cheney and former President George W. Bush who clearly and illegally authorized a horrific torture regime. Also, Obama will be free to rapidly overturn both the offensive "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that discriminates against gay members of the military and the equally offensive Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

Obama has always rhetorically committed himself very strongly to ending torture and upholding the rule of law against toturers, as well as to advancing equality for America's GLBT community. And he's always asked for patience. The more I think of it, the more I believe he's holding back on the decisive action he really wants to take on these matters in deference to fighthing the Healthcare reform battles.

If he loses the Healthcare reform battle, what does he stand to lose by advancing a progressive agenda on these other matters that he wouldn't already have lost in the Healthcare reform battle? If he wins the Healthcare reform battle, he can ride a wave of momentum to push forward on these other matters without running the risk of having opposition to these other matters translate into a threat to the Healthcare reform legislation, which would have already been resolved.

What also leads me to have some confidence in this prognostication is that the torturers are themselves sniffing the danger, realize that time is running short, and are thus mounting an all out offensive to try to legitimize their torture policy in the minds of the public so as to solidify their position in the American psyche before Obama turns his full attention to them.

What seems abundantly clear is that the Bush and Cheney cabal clearly devised and implemented a torture policy. In fact, the question of whether what they authorized constitutes torture seems to be clearly settled: what they authorized was, indeed, torture. Now, the architects of this illegal torture policy are reduced effectively to saying "yeah, we tortured, but it worked; so cut us some slack." They have conceded the fact of torture, which makes them explicitly legally culpable; but they are now trying to get the public to absolve them for their illegal actions. In effect, they are making their case with the jury of public opinion, where the public might let them off the hook, so as to try to prevent them from from having to face the jury constituted in a court of law, where they are much more likely to be convicted strictly on legal grounds.

Could my hunch, in the end, be true? Who knows? But one can hope.

Helena Moreno is a Batt Girl?????

The erstwhile Democratic Party wannabee for Louisiana's Federal House of Representatives Congressional District 2 seat, Helena Moreno, appears to be in cahoots with some other local notables in support of Republican Jay Batt and his campaign to once again represent Lakeview and parts of Uptown New Orleans on the New Orleans City Council, filling in for Shelley Midura, who beat him for the spot last go-around.

Thank goodness the good citizens at Anybody But Batt are back at it.

And shame on Helena Moreno. I always did think that she was a Republican wolf in Democratic sheep's clothing, even though I hoped-against-hope and desperately wanted to believe otherwise. And I probably would have voted for Joseph "Resume of a Democrat" Cao over Moreno anyway, even if she had defeated William Jefferson in the Democratic Primary and even though I voted for her over Jefferson in this primary race. But now we know for sure what she is and where her loyalties lie. It's quite telling that before she even knows who the Democratic Party's standard-bearer for this District A City Council seat is going to be, she's out there cavorting as a Batt Girl.

Message to Mary Landrieu on Health Care

Mary Landrieu is repeatedly criticized by Catholics and the Catholic Church for being a "pro-choice" politician. Hell, the Archbishop snubbed her entire family when they were recognized by Loyola University for their public service because of this issue. So, Mary Landrieu faces an uphill challenge with the Catholic Community because she is a pro-choice Democrat.

But on the health care debate, the Democratic position is much more in line with the Catholic position. So here's a rare opportunity for Mary Landrieu both to prove and publicly advance her Catholic credentials and to give herself political cover for supporting the Democratic health care initiatives being put forward in Congress.

[UPDATE: Friday, August 28, 2:46PM - Of course, this presumes that the Catholic voter of Louisiana who pulls out the "Catholic card" on the abortion issue really gives a damn what that very "Catholic card" has to say on the health care issue. And of this, I unfortunately can't be so confident.]

Hypocritical Opposition to Government Health Care

I read the Times-Picayune's article on Sen. Mary Landrieu's health care town hall meeting today. I came across this gem from an opponent to the idea of a government-sponsored health care option:

"I just think we're losing a little bit more of our freedoms every day," Nicholas del Giudice of LaPlace said afterward. He said Landrieu should vote against any health care bill and fight against government intrusion. He is insured by Medicare and a supplemental private policy, del Giudice said. [Emphasis added.]

Of course, this is nothing new. Many folks who directly benefit from a government plan think that this is something good, believe that they're entitled to it, are loathe to give it up for themselves, and yet don't want to share it with others who desperately need it. But I am sick and tired of the hypocrisy it entails. The unmitigated selfishness of it really ticks me off. And in my seething anger at such hypocrisy and selfishness, disguised under a sickening self-righteousness, I came to this conclusion: Anyone who opposes "government intrusion" in health care, should be completely cut off from any government healthcare plan. Including Medicare. I'm unwilling to continuing paying a penny of my taxes to keep selfish folks like Mr. del Giudice healthy, alive, and medicated. Cut the sucker off. In fact, I would hope he would thank me for my position, since I would be restoring a little bit more of his freedoms to him. In fact, anyone who is eligible for Medicare should be asked one question before anything else when they go to apply for the program: Do you support, in principle, the idea of government-run healthcare? If that person answers "No," then they should instantly be turned around, shown the door, and wished the best of luck. As a consolation, they should be given a little card that says: "Congratulations! You've just preserved your freedom!" And so as not to give the impression that the government that is turning them away is uncaring or unfriendly, they should also be given a list of charity health care providers who don't receive any government subsidies at all whom they may turn to in the event that they are unable to afford healthcare for themselves or even to simply secure private health insurance. [And if such people paid into the system, maybe we can even cut them a check in the amount of the "cash-out" value of their investment, interest included, minus the value of whatever benefits they would have already received through the program. I'm sure there are actuarials that could be employed for such a thing. And given what I know about the differences between what Medicare recipients cost the taxpayer for their healthcare versus what they paid into the system, I know we would end up with a fairly substantial net long-term savings to the taxpayer.]

It sounds harsh; but it's no more harsh than the message they are sending to all those millions of people whose "freedoms" leave them uninsured.

And, besides, being cut off from government health care appears to be what these people want.

I say let them have it.

From the Archives: Hurricane Katrina Commentary

What I wrote four years ago today as Hurricane Katrina was bearing down on New Orleans.

My first post-Katrina post from September 1, 2005.

Four years later and we're still battling the demons.

Never forget.

Asinine Rightwing Comment of the Day ...

goes to conservative blogger Melissa Clouthier. Commenting upon Ted Kennedy's death, Ms. Clouthier wrapped up a pitiful, meaningless comment with the following post script:

P.S. Using Ted Kennedy's death to prop up horrible legislation is disgusting. Politicizing death: it's what Democrats do.

I find the irony of this statement breathtaking. This comes from a woman whose own party called a midnight emergency legislative session, a session which even roused President Bush in the wee hours of the morning to be on standby to sign "horrible legislation," to try to run roughshod over States' Rights and the Florida State courts and keep Terri Schiavo alive. Talk about using someone's death to craft horrible legislation! Where was Melissa Clouthier's "disgust" back then? As for "politicizing death" being what Democrats do, I would point not only to the Republicans and the Terriy Schiavo case, but also to the whole Sarah Palin "death panels" absurdity. Now whether or not you believe Sarah Palin's "death panels" fears to be legitimate, it is still patently clear that the movement she sparked is 100% precisely about "politicizing death." I mean, really, if pushing the idea of "death panels" in the context of a debate over health care policy reform is not politicizing "death," I don't know what the hell you would call "politicizing death." And let's also be clear that this is something the Republicans did. And still do. And quite effectively, too. So, I think Ms. Clouthier would do well to reconsider her claim because, when it comes to "politicizing death," Republicans are the grand masters of it. It's what they do.

The Perversity of Our Current Health Care System

Read this gripping story of one family's struggle with the health care system as it currently operates. If this story is, by itself alone, not a clarion call for immediate and substantive reform, I don't know what is.

There are many things I would call "perverse" about what this family has had to go through to keep their daughter alive, but the most perverse is that, in order for this family to get the health care their daughter needs, they are incentivized to live below the poverty level. Read this and marvel at it:

Since SoonerCare is the only insurance that will accept Sophie, we have to meet their financial criteria, which means living at or below the poverty level. I have had to quit wonderful jobs because I made too much money to qualify for SoonerCare. At this point I can only work either part-time, or for a very small salary, because we CANNOT afford to lose Sophie's healthcare coverage. It's the most important thing in our lives. We structure every single financial and professional decision we make around staying eligible for SoonerCare.

And while we'll gladly continue to live at the poverty level in order to provide our daughter with the healthcare that keeps her alive, we SHOULDN'T HAVE TO. We would happily pay outrageous premiums and co-pays, and do whatever else it took to get Sophie covered by regular health insurance. But you know what they all tell us?
She has to go two years with no pulmonary medications and no doctor's visits because of respiratory problems before anyone will accept her. Sophie can't go two DAYS without her medications, let alone two years.

Hat Tip: Andrew Sullivan.

Outed Blogger Plans To Sue Google

I'm sure many have heard about the the case of Rosemary Port, whose identity was revealed by Google, which hosted her blog, after a court ordered the company to do so. Rosemary Port apparently said some not very nice things about an acquaintance and model, Liskula Cohen, under the cover of blogger anonymity. Cohen sued to get Google to reveal Port's identity, and the court ordered Google to do so. Now Port wants to sue Google for $15 million for failing to protect her privacy.

What do I think about this whole situation? The following: (1) I think anonymous bloggers lose any claims to privacy protection when they engage in ad hominem attacks. (2) If the object of an anonymous blogger's scorn can "out" the anonymouse blogger, then they have every right to do so. (3) Regardless, Port's suit against Google is baseless. Maybe some legal expert can clarify, but I don't think Google can be held legally liable in an sense simply for complying with a court order. That just makes no sense.

I think Rosemary Port got a little bit of the very same unflattering attention she so readily bestowed upon Liskula Cohen. That Port thinks it's not nice to have her identity revealed in association with nasty behavior should be a lesson to her of how it's not nice to go around calling other people nasty names without being held accountable for it. In fact, I see it as cowardly.

Now, a whistleblower blogger who keeps away from ad hominems and merely probes or exposes facts that can make people uncomfortable and which may elicit some intimidation and threats to their well-being -- that's another story. Such folks may very well deserve the protection of their private identities. But Rosemary Port ain't no whistleblower. She's just a catty and mean-spirited gossip. As such, she gets no privacy claim pass from me.

Junot Diaz Coming to New Orleans

Junot Diaz, author of the Pulitzer Prize winning novel The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao, is coming to New Orleans. He'll be giving a lecture on Monday, August 31, as part of Tulane University's Reading Project. The lecture starts at 7:00pm (Doors open at 6:15pm) and goes until 8:30pm, and will be held in Tulane's McAlister Auditorium.

I read The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao two summers ago. I thoroughly enjoyed it and am excited that Tulane picked a work of Latin American/Latino fiction for its Reading Project selection.

I'm planning to attend and I hope you will, too.

Blogging "Self-Nudge" Success!

With this posting, which makes number 32 for the Month of August, I have fulfilled my Blogging "Self-Nudge" arrangement for this month. By my count, all of my posts in August (minus one, which was a 4th comment for one day, thus going beyond my three-comments-per-day eligibility limit), legitimately apply towards satisfying my obligation.

What this means is that SarahPac, the RNC, and David Vitter's Campaign won't see a dime of my money. They're no worse off for that, I guess; but I'm pleased that I've been able to make the goal. I'll have to go back through this month's postings to confirm this, but I think I only missed two or three days of posting. I've been pretty consistent in trying to get up at least one post per day. And I still have 8 days or so until the end of the month. The posts I make between now and the end of the month are simply lagniappe now, but I plan to keep up the regular pace.

Go Sunstein and Thaler!

Rising Tide IV

Well, the 4th Annual Rising Tide Conference has apparently concluded. I was only able to stay until about 2pm, but that was enough to hear two panels, one special presentation, and the keynote talk from Harry Shearer. Also enough time to enjoy the breakfast and the yummy white beans and shrimp lunch provided by Cafe Reconcile.

Still have to think and process what I did get to hear, but I will post some comments up sometime over the next few days if my thoughts congeal sufficiently.

For those who may be interested in reading an excellent liveblogging transcript of the day, check out Maitri's VatulBlog. I think this year's conference was very well organized and the panels very engaging. I don't have official attendance figures, but my sense is that we had probably 25-30% more attendees this year than last year.

My favorite comment from this year goes to political cartoonist John Slade. Slade, who admitted to having voted for Ray Nagin 7 years ago, in part, because of the appeal of Nagin's reformist claim to "run City Hall like a business," commented that, after having seen how Nagin actually ended up running the city, voters should just walk away from any candidate whose platform rests on their business experience and on claims to clean up government by bringing private sector experience to the table. Slade said something to the effect that business should do what they are good at and create jobs for the young folks in this city and to just shut the hell up when it comes to politics and government, because government and public service are not businesses. And I think Slade is so right on: the business model, with its over-reliance on hierarchy, loyalty, private profit over any notion of the public good that is at odds with private profit, and an utter lack of transparency (and an arrogant dismissiveness towards any citizen who expects and demands such transparency), is just so far removed from any conceptualization of democratic governance so as to render it counterproductive, if not harmful, to democratic governance.

Anyway, if I have more to add later, I will. And if I can find any video or audio of the event, I'll link to it.

Rising Tide IV

Tomorrow is the convening of Rising Tide IV, which is the fourth annual conference organized by the who's who of the local New Orleans blogger community. I went last year and will be attending again this year. The schedule looks really good and I'm looking forward to attending.

I will, of course, be blogging about the event upon its completion and after I have had the time to digest it a bit. I am sure that some bloggers will be live-blogging the event; but I won't be one of them. I am just not a live-blogger kind of person. I tend to want to dedicate my undivided attention to the conference sessions and panelists themselves; and live-blogging an demands divided attention. So, I'll just enjoy, listen, and learn. It will be a welcome relief from the exhausting demands of the past two days of new graduate student orientation.

Catholics and Health Care Reform

Now this I like:

On the eve of Archbishop Gregory Aymond's installation Mass, he has joined with Archbishop Alfred Hughes to release a statement on health care reform. The two men have joined with Catholic bishops across the nation in calling for health care reform that provides access for all with respect for the dignity of human life from conception to natural death.

I can get behind my Church and my Church leaders on this point. Click the link above for the full official statement from the US Catholic bishops on health care reform, but I have to say that I particularly like this part of the official statement:

The Lord Jesus, who came to save us from our sins, manifested a great concern for the sick in his public ministry. He also urged us to reach out to the poor and sick in our midst. The Church rightly considers that government has a responsibility to ensure access to basic health care for all.

Now, I would be remiss if I did not point out that the bishops explicitly state that they do not propose either a public or a private option, and that they categorically oppose any plan that calls for taxpayer financing of "abortion, euthanasia, or other immoral activities," and they also demand that any plan provide for "conscience protections" for all providers and recipients of any health care reform plan. So, it's not something all liberals will probably agree on. But, for me, I can live with any of these conditions as long as there is affordable healthcare for all -- including legal migrants (which the archbishops also explicitly support). I hope conservative Catholics agree with their Church and its leaders on this as well. And I ask them to join with me in solidarity and support of our bishops. Affordable health care for all!

Scalia and his Cafeteria Catholicism

Much byte-ink has been spilled about conservative Catholic Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's comment in a dissenting SCOTUS opinion on a case concerning a man convicted of a capital crime and sentenced to death, yet who has also produced nearly indisputable evidence subsequent to his conviction that he is innocent. In this comment, reprinted below, Scalia's dissent basically argued from a point of judicial procedure that a convicted man sentenced to death in what was, at the time, a full and fair trial, must still die via capital punishment even if later evidence proves his innocence. Here's what Scalia actually wrote:

“This court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is ‘actually’ innocent. Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged ‘actual innocence’ is constitutionally cognizable.”

Alan Dershowitz skewers Scalia on this position both from a common sense jursiprudential position, as well as on an appeal to Scalia's stated view of the supremacy of his Catholic faith over even his obligations as a Supreme Court justice. The whole Dershowitz piece is a must-read, especially for orthodox Catholics. So, if you are one of my orthodox Catholic readers, click on the link and read the whole thing carefully from start to finish. For now, I'll just share some choice selections from Dershowitz's piece.

With regard to Dershowitz's skewering on the basis of a common-sense jurisprudential position, nothing speaks more clearly than this hypothetical scenario that Dershowitz posits:

Let us be clear precisely what this [Scalia's above-cited comment] means. If a defendant were convicted, after a constitutionally unflawed trial, of murdering his wife, and then came to the Supreme Court with his very much alive wife at his side, and sought a new trial based on newly discovered evidence (namely that his wife was alive), these two justices [Scalia and Clarence Thomas, the other Catholic Supreme Court justice who enjoined this dissent authored by Scalia] would tell him, in effect: “Look, your wife may be alive as a matter of fact, but as a matter of constitutional law, she’s dead, and as for you, Mr. Innocent Defendant, you’re dead, too, since there is no constitutional right not to be executed merely because you’re innocent.”

I think that pretty much about says it all. Scalia's adherence to procedure at the expense of simple common sense and a very basic notion that justice serves to protect the innocent is patently absurd when taken to its logical conclusion as expressed in the hypothetical case Dershowitz presents.

However, the more interesting aspect of Dershowitz's blistering critique of Scalia's position, at least for me, is how Dershowitz hoists Scalia on his own Catholic petard. Here's what I think are the money sections of Dershowitz's piece in this regard:

But whatever the view of the church is on executing the guilty, surely it is among the worst sins, under Catholic teaching, to kill an innocent human being intentionally. Yet that is precisely what Scalia would authorize under his skewed view of the United States Constitution. How could he possibly consider that not immoral under Catholic teachings? If it is immoral to kill an innocent fetus, how could it not be immoral to execute an innocent person?

Ordinarily I would not include a justice's religious views in a criticism of a judicial opinion, but with regard to capital punishment, it is Justice Scalia who has introduced the religious dimension. I am simply trying to hold him to his own published standards.

...

I invite him to participate in the debate at Harvard Law School, at Georgetown Law School, or anywhere else of his choosing. The stakes are high, because if he loses—if it is clear that his constitutional views permitting the execution of factually innocent defendants are inconsistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church—then, pursuant to his own published writings, he would have no choice but to conform his constitutional views to the teachings of the Catholic Church or to resign from the Supreme Court.

I wonder if Scalia will take Dershowitz up on this challenge. But, more importantly, I wonder what the Vatican itself might have to say about this. Perhaps Scalia's position tolerating the execution of the demonstrably innocent on procedural grounds, especially since he is precisely in a position as a Supreme Court justice to prevent such an immoral execution by the exercise of his judicial authority, might elicit some missive from some pro-life Catholic Bishop to deny Scalia communion, considering him formally cooperating with evil. Now that would be something to see.

The Warrantless Blogtapping Program

BLOG UNDER SURVEILLANCE: Right Wing News
Issue: John Hawkins's Disingenuousness About Race

I have a running chronicle of John Hawkins's schizophrenia on the subject of race. You'd think that by now, knowing that I am watching him whenever he discusses the subject of race in America, Hawkins would be a bit more circumspect in what he writes. But, you'd be wrong to think this. Once again, I've caught Hawkins being disingenuous on the topic, and particularly regarding his own stated views of the topic. But given that this dude is confused, and his views on the subject a convoluted mess, I guess it's no wonder that he contradicts himself regularly. Let me elaborate ...

In his most recent TownHall.com column, which he links to on his blog site, Hawkins starts off with the following introductory comment:

Although racism certainly exists in this country, it has become blessedly rare and marginalized. Some of the best evidence you can find for that is Barack Obama's election as President. Only in a country as colorblind as America could a black man easily win the Presidency when 75% of the votes were cast by white Americans.

I am amazed that Hawkins would write this. On his own blog in a March 12, 2008 posting, Hawkins put up a piece titled "Of Course Barack Couldn't Win The Democratic Nomination If He Weren't Black." Hawkins has repeatedly thrown out the charge that the only reason Barack Obama won the Democratic Nomination and the General Election was because of his race. And as for the claim that we see the end of racism because Obama won an election when over 75% of the voters were white, Hawkins has been clear that he thinks that the portion of this white voting population who voted for Obama did so out of a sense of "white guilt." In short, Hawkins is being quite disingenuous here when he claims that Obama's election is a sign of the end of racism in our country. Hawkins has never believed that "colorblindness" in America explains Obama's victory. It's quite clear from many of his other blog postings that he thinks exactly the opposite is true.

And the very next paragraph in his piece says the following:

Despite that fact, the cries of racism have become ever louder and more omnipresent since Barack Obama has been elected. Perhaps none of us should be surprised by that fact. After all, the racial grievance industry in this country still has bills to pay, the people who use racism as an excuse to explain their failures still need a scapegoat, and Democrats now have a ready-made excuse for every problem: "The President is black and so the people who don't agree with him must be racists!"

I ask: Does Hawkins not see the irony here? Hawkins himself has been one of the loudest among the "cries of racism" crowd and the "racial grievance industry" in this country. The cries of "racism" and the expressions of "racial grievance" that I have heard have come as much from the rightwing (Glenn Beck, anyone?) as from the left. As far as Hawkins and many others among the "colorblind" rightwing are concerned, they have their own ready-made excuse for every problem. It goes something like this: "The President is black and so the people who agree with him must be racists."

From the Archives

Advice to Young Conservatives Getting Ready for College

The Economic Impact of Legalizing the Undocumented

What many anti-illegal immigrant, but supposedly free-market conservatives don't want you to know:

The overall positive impact for U.S. households of legalizing these workers over ten years would be “1.27 percent of GDP or $180 billion."

And that's not even getting into the intangible benefits to our national security by bringing folks in from the shadows, not to mention the moral standing that comes with treating these hard working people with the dignity they deserve.

Melancon, Penguins, and Climate Change in Louisiana

Not sure how many people noticed or paid attention to the following story, but I found it very newsworthy.

Louisiana's only Democratic congressman in the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Democratic Party's best shot at defeating Republican Senator David Vitter, recently went on a very expensive taxpayer funded jaunt to Australia and the South Pole:

Last year, U.S. Rep. Charles Melancon, D-Napoleonville, took part in a trip to study climate change that cost taxpayers more than $150,000 and included a cable car ride through the Australian rain forest, a tour of a penguin breeding ground and a visit to the South Pole.

Asked to comment on the relevance of this trip and to justify such a hefty expense to the taxpayer, all Melancon could come up with was this:

Melancon said in a statement Thursday statement that the trip was important to study climate change and its impact on Louisiana.

"Louisiana is losing a football field of land every half-hour due to coastal erosion and rising sea levels," Melancon said. "Our very survival depends on reversing this trend."

Ummm... I guess there's some relevance to penguins and polar ice caps to the climate change issues that are affecting Louisiana's coastal erosion problems, but I'm pretty sure that one doesn't need to have taxpayers pay for a $150,000 field trip in order for Melancon to "study" the issue and to understand the relationship between the South Pole and Louisiana. I'd bet there are a number of reports, books, and videos that could have done the same thing just as well and for a fraction of the cost. Personally, I would much rather have seen that $150,000 be put towards more immediate coastal restoration projects or shoring up the levee systems surrounding New Orleans even more.

But, here's the kicker ... at least Melancon didn't go scuba diving and snorkling off the Great Barrier Reef like two of the other public officials who went on this junket. Heh. Yeah, that makes it all much better. As long as Melancon didn't do anything that anyone could consider "fun" on this trip, it must be a serious outing and worthy of such enormous expense, right? NOT.

What's my verdict on this Blue Dog Democrat's polar expedition? Epic Fail.

Usain Bolt

This dude is superhuman. As someone who has followed Track & Field sports his whole life, I can tell you that running a legitimate 9.58 in the 100 meter dash is mind-boggling. I remember when sprinters started to break the 10 second barrier with some regularity. I remember vividly the Carl Lewis and Ben Johnson rivalry for the title of world's fastest man, pushing both to do what, at the time, was considered the impossible feat of breaking the 9.9 second barrier in the 100 meter dash. But 9.58 seconds! That's just sick. Any faster and the dude will be flying!

My NOLA "Staycation"

This weekend, while the schedule was still pretty flexible for the family, my B-2/3 and I took a little "staycation." I made a reservation for two nights down at the Hilton-St. Charles. We packed the squirrely girlies off to my sister for Friday night, who handed them off to my parents for Saturday night. Then my B-2/3 and I headed downtown Friday evening for a great weekend in a great city. All weekend long, my B-2/3 and I commented on how great it was that we lived in a cool place where a "staycation" is as good as any "away" vacation one could imagine.

We ate at some great downtown restaurants, lounged about at coffee shops in the area, walked about the French Quarter like tourists, hit the used bookstore circuit in the Quarter, and did a lot of window shopping on Royal Street.

I unplugged from the computer and the internet for those two days (hence no blog postings) and just enjoyed late summer in New Orleans with my lovely wife. This week begins the academic year and soon thereafter the squirrely girlies will begin their usual weekend routines with Dance classes. All this to say that this weekend was the last best chance to have such unencumbered and relaxing fun, and we did not let the chance pass us by.

One of the highlights of the trip was having dinner at Wolfe's in the Warehouse, where we got to meet Mr. Tyrone Howard, a legend in his own right:



Not only is Mr. Howard the world champion napkin folder, but he may also be the best table-side bananas foster preparer in the city. But let me tell you something, New Orleans is the ONLY place where you can meet such friendly, colorful, fascinating, and talented people.

Sarah Palin's "Death Panels"

Just for the record, I should note that I have scoured the offending portion (Sec. 1233) of the House Health Reform Bill (H.R. 3200), also known as the "America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009." I was looking for any sign of a "death panel." Perhaps if I take a hit of acid or eat some shrooms, I might discover the presence of "death panels" somewhere in my subsequent hallucinations. For the lucid of mind, not only is there no mention of a "death panel" anywhere in this section of the bill, but the irony is that this section seeks to have health care providers give more information to patients to help inform their own decisions about advance care directives. It's helping empower people to make sure their own desires and wishes are respected. It's advancing freedom and liberty, not constraining it! And just about every reputable source within the medical community recognizes this. In fact, if anything, what is clear is precisely the opposite of what Sarah Palin claims. Here's what subsection (hhh)(5)(B) specifically states:

The level of treatment indicated under subparagraph (A)(ii) [subparagraph (A)(ii) reads: "(A) For purposes of this section, the term 'order regarding life sustaining treatment' means, with respect to an individual, an actionable medical order relating to the treatment of that individual that-- (ii) effectively communicates the individual's preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, including an indication of the treatment and care desired by the individual"] may range from an indication for full treatment to an indication to limit some or all or specified interventions.

So, by my reading, it seems pretty darn clear that the bill requires that the individual patient's voluntarily-expressed preferences (as opposed to some bureaucratic "death panel's" mandate) be respected in the provision of particular medical care treatment, AND that such voluntarily-expressed preferences can include "full treatment" among other options.

End result: Sarah Palin is a shameless, bald-faced, demogogic, Chavez-esque, populist liar. But what's new about that?

Well ... let me reconsider ... it's either that or she's hitting the LSD much too hard.

If that's the case, Sarah Palin should get off the LSD and, to quote her own pathetic self, "quit making things up."

UPDATE: Thursday, August 13, 2009, 10:26PM: You know, I really do have an unseemly and obsessive disdain for Sarah Palin. Although I often wonder if it's the true reason, I really think this disdain stems from the cultivated ignorance and crass anti-intellectualism that she not only consciously projects, but actually seems to revel in. It truly disgusts me. But, who knows? Maybe I'm just a crass sexist and not even aware of it. Regardless, it is unseemly and I should try to do better just to let it go.

Sarah Palin's Self-Loathing: The Liar Who Hates Liars.

Sarah Palin, you would do well to take your own advice and "quit making things up".

This from members of her own party:

Palin's posting came one day after Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska said that Palin and other critics were not helping the GOP by tossing out false claims. Portions of the Democratic health care bills "are bad enough that we don't need to be making things up," Murkowski said, invoking a phrase that Palin used in her resignation speech, when she asked the news media to "quit making things up."

Murkowski said she was offended at the death panel terminology. "There is no reason to gin up fear in the American public by saying things that are not included in the bill," she said.

Georgia Sen. Johnny Isakson, a Republican who co-sponsored a similar measure in the Senate, said it was "nuts" to claim the bill encourages euthanasia.

What a piece of work. A congenital liar who likes to cop snippy attitudes about congenital liars?!? Why does she loathe herself so? Is she delusional or what? And as her favorables continue to tank, she continues to be the darling of the GOP base? Increible!

Fox News and Health Care Emails to the White House

I'm not going to put up the clip of the FoxNews segment where the supposed "news" reporter harangues the Deputy White House Press secretary over the White House's efforts to disabuse people of myths regarding the health care plan, but you can see the clip here if you are so inclined.

This clip proves to me that FoxNews, as if anybody had any doubts, is NOT a news service, but rather an ideological propaganda outlet masquerading as a news provider. This FoxNews "reporter" did not just seek to get information from the Deputy White House Press Secretary. Rather, it is clear that she brought in a strong ideological agenda. She was out to fight an ideological and partisan battle, not to report news.

Second, I found her criticism to be somewhat schizophrenic. Here she is trying to claim that the right to public free speech is somehow compromised when it is distributed to the most public of sources: government. What is even more ironic is the fact that this FoxNews reporter likely supports the government's ability to intercept private communications secretly and without court approval -- to really put together an "enemies list" that happens beyond the scrutiny of the checks and balances of our democratic system. So, the secret capturing of private communication by people the government itself, and secretly, decides is an "enemy" is somehow acceptable and actually "defends" freedom, while pronouncements intended to be part of a widely-circulated public information campaign against government policy is somehow "chilling" to free speech when this widely-circulated public information campaign is actually presented to the government which is the supposed target of the campaign. These people want to engage in a public whisper campaign against the government and then cowardly want to avoid any kind of accountability for their public "free speech." Maybe they should start wearing masks and bring fake IDs when they attend these town hall meetings on health care so as not to be accountable for their "free speech." It's kind of terroristic, if you ask me. The contradictions of this FoxNews reporter's arguments are astoundingly obvious and make her look not only blatantly partisan, but also insanely stupid.

Third, a news outlet's campaign (a news outlet that laughingly proclaims to be "fair and balanced") to invoke McCarthyite claims that the government is putting together an "enemies list" is breathtaking in its evident insidiousness. And it's abhorrent, too.

The depths to which the rabid, reactionary rightwing has sunk is jawdroppingly stunning. I don't think I have seen anything like it. Ever.

GM Volt

I have been walking around in amazement at the latest announcement from automobile manufacturer GM (yes, that GM, the one whose financial situation was so horrible it required government intervention and takeover to keep it alive) about the imminent rollout of the GM-Volt. This car runs primarily on electricity and presumably can get up to 40 miles off of a single charge before the fuel-combustion process kicks in. 40 miles of low-intensity city driving! Since my family lives within 5 miles of just about every place we need to get to during the course of the day, it is possible that we would almost never have to use gasoline to drive around the city. And even with the use of gasoline, the car is calculated to get up to 230 miles-per-gallon under the normal usage patterns of the average driver. That's about 9 to 10 times the miles per gallon rate that many vehicles get. Incredible! I have three ancillary thoughts about this:

(1) I would purchase a GM-Volt in a heartbeat; and, as soon as it's on the market, I will. With 10 times the MPG savings, it would more than pay for itself within a very short time.
(2) I wonder why GM, sitting on this gold mine, wouldn't have unveiled this car sooner? Even the simple announcement of this advance in automotive technology would have been enough to bolster GM's standing on Wall Street and would have prevented its financial collapse. It makes me think that the auto industry, in collusion with the oil industry, simply kept this from us.
(3) If it takes a government bailout and takeover to shake the car industry up in such a way, I want to see more of this. Please!

Modern Conservatives and F.A. Hayek

In a recent exchange that I had in the comments section of a posting at a Conservative blog, the subject of F.A. Hayek's classic treatise "The Road to Serfdom" was up for some discussion. Of course, modern conservatives think the world of Hayek and often refer to his arguments as both a defense of conservatism and an attack on modern liberalism as an inevitable path towards totalitarianism.

I have read Hayek and find that I agree with him on some issues (his more libertarian bent), but disagree with him on others (such as his mischaracterization of welfare-state liberals as Marxian socialists). I respect his work as a provocative and thoughtful "conservative" intellectual and scholar, and I believe any modern liberal thinker worth his or her salt needs to be familiar with Hayek's work.

But I feel the need to point out to my modern conservative rivals that Hayek did not consider himself a conservative in the way that term has come to be defined. No. In fact, he considered himself to be a classical liberal. And, in fact, he recoiled from the notion that he should be considered a conservative. The reason for this is that he recognized the reactionary tendencies within conservatism as he understood it and found that conservatism posed as much of a potential threat to freedom and democracy as did the modern liberalism he equated with socialism. I firmly believe that Hayek would reject the fundamentalism and the reactionary character of what has come to define modern conservatism today. In fact, this is what Hayek had to say in the Foreward to The Road to Serfdom, written in 1956, 12 years after the original publication of the book, and included in the 1962 Phoenix Books edition of the text published by the University of Chicago Press, page xi-xii:

But true liberalism is still distinct from conservatism, and there is a danger in the two being confused. Conservatism, though a necessary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic, and power-adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a better place. A conservative movement, by its very nature, is bound to be a defender of established privilege and to lean on the power of the government for the protection of privilege. The essence of the liberal position, however, is the denial of all privilege, if privilege is understood in its proper and original meaning of the state granting and protecting the rights to some which are not available on equal terms to others.

Those who would call themselves conservatives in America today, I believe, reflect much of what Hayek finds deplorable, dangerous, and backwards in conservatism. He would see the fanaticism of folks currently benefitting from government-run healthcare through Medicare opposing an expansion of such benefits to others as "defending established privilege" and their disruption of health care town hall meetings as an effort to "lean on the power of government for the protection of privilege." Hayek would see the movement among conservatives to establish a federal marriage amendment to the Constitution as another example of reactionaries seeking to "lean on the power of government for the protection of privilege" as anti-thetical to his arguments and as much a recipe for totalitarianism as left-leaning "socialist" policy would be. He would view the Patriot Act and the powers of the executive to claim the unchecked authority to monitor private phone conversations, for instance, even if this authority were never exercised, as very troublesome and against the entire grain of his argument. I remain firmly convinced that Hayek would not recognize the character of what passes for conservatism in the United States today and that he would think of such Palin/Limbaugh conservatives invoking his name to defend their demagoguery and exclusionary fundamentalism with abject horror.

Two Things Obama Should Do Right Now

To fire up and inspire his coalition, to neutralize the frenzied nuttiness of the healthcare Town Hall disrupters, and to discombobulate his opposition by forcing them to have to pick which issue they want to blow their gaskets over:

1. Announce his intention to suspend immediately the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy while Congress fashions legislation to permanently dismantle it.

2. Encourage Eric Holder, his Attorney General, to appoint a special investigator to look into violations of the law regarding torture and to not exempt anyone, no matter how high up the chain of authority in the previous administration the investigation goes, from the consequences.

Quote of the Day

"Treat a person ill, and he will become wicked. Requite affection with scorn;--let one being be selected, for whatever cause, as the refuse of his kind--divide him, a social being, from society, and you impose upon him the irresistable obligations--malevolence and selfishness." -- Percy Bysshe Shelley, writing in the Athenaeum on November 10, 1832, in review of his wife Mary Shelley's novel Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometheus. Percy Bysshe Shelley's comment is taken from page 217 of the 2003 Barnes & Noble Classics edition of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, with an Introduction and Notes by Karen Karbiener.