The Myopia of Knee-Jerk Conservative Opposition to the US Department of Education

A meme I hear a lot on the budget-slashing bandwagon of the conservative Tea Party express is the push simply to cut the entire U.S. Department of Education. Just obliterate it without a second thought. When I hear conservatives jump on this "cut-the-entire-Department-of-Education" bandwagon, I know that these folks have really no clue about the U.S. Department of Education and its various programs. It leads me to think that such bombast is nothing but an ill-considered visceral opposition to what is perceived as an agency of worthless liberal brainwashing programs. The ignorance that envelops this radical position is so very clear to those who have even a cursory knowledge of what the U.S. Department of Education really does. Conservatives who claim that the federal government has a constitutional obligation to protect the security of the United States fail to even look at how the U.S. Department of Education has been vital to that critical constitutional function over the years. When I hear such blathering conservative antipathy to the U.S. Department of Education, I ask those holding such positions if they have ever considered the national security ramifications that such a position entails. And I'm often met with a blank, open-mouthed stare. I see it in their eyes and I know what they are thinking. They're thinking: What could the U.S. Department of Education possibly have to do with national security?

And so I always lay out for them just one example of many that I know very well about: the Title VI program that provides federal funding for global area studies and foreign languages instruction. Without this federally funded program, and given this country's linguistic and cultural ethnocentrism, we'd have very few people who would be able to speak Chinese, Arabic, Farsi, Swahili, Tamil, Quechua, Guarani, or any of the other dialects that we really need to have some competency in to protect our national security. If left to the states, do you really think that the individual states would think about national security concerns enough to fund the study of Arabic in their state universities? Come on! Get real! Most states would think that teaching "ethnic studies" and those "terrorist" languages are just un-American! And yet the security of the country so desperately depends upon developing knowledge of global cultures and foreign languages. Additionally, without Title VI funding from the U.S. Department of Education, we'd have even fewer people in our country, in an already dismally ignorant environment when it comes to understanding the world (see Sarah Palin as exemplary display number 1 on this front), who could identify where Libya is on the map, much less understand what the different tribal groups are in that country's sociopolitical makeup. [Aside: Do you really think conservative patriots who can sing the Marines' Hymn can even identify what countries the "halls of Montezuma" or the "shores of Tripoli" refer to, much less the historical moments they address?]

And I haven't even mentioned U.S. Department of Education programs like the Fulbright/Fulbright-Hayes program, or the myriad other international research and cultural exchange programs that the U.S. Department of Education funds, or the collaborative role that the U.S. Department of Education plays in providing resources that make the Foreign Area Officers program of the U.S. Defense Department successful. So, if you ever hear any conservatives argue for the elimination of the U.S. Department of Education, don't take them seriously, especially if they fashion themselves as supporters of the constitutional mandate for the federal government to protect the national security. They're just probably swept up by a visceral hatred of state-led education initiatives as nothing more than a vehicle for liberal brainwashing, an attitude propagated by the likes of David Horowitz. They haven't studied what the U.S. Department of Education is actually doing. Not one iota. They represent nothing more than the thoughtless ravings of anti-state-originating education troglodytes. A real national security, constitutionalist conservative would at least look at what programs the U.S. Department of Education has in the service of national security interests -- programs that wouldn't likely be done well by any other agency -- before calling for the entire agency's head on the chopping block.

Krauthammer Attacks the Rich?

I just read Charles Krauthammer's latest op-ed on the possibilities of a "grand bargain" on fiscal reform.

I frankly couldn't believe some of the stuff I was reading. I mean, really, did Krauthammer really write the following about "true tax reform" that eliminates loopholes?

Fairness — because a corrupted tax code with myriad breaks grants deeply unfair advantage to the rich who buy the lobbyists who create the loopholes and buy the lawyers who exploit them.

Did he just say that tax breaks that disproportionately benefit the rich are unfair?

My ears are burning!

And then, is it really conventional wisdom among conservatives to push this next line?

Start with the obvious boondoggles, from the $6 billion a year wasted on ethanol subsidies to your Democratic perennials — corporate jets, oil-company breaks, etc. That’s the fun part. Unfortunately, whacking that piñata yields but pennies on the dollar. The real money is in the popular tax breaks: employer-provided health insurance, mortgage interest and charitable contributions. Altering some of these heretofore politically untouchable tax breaks would alone be a singular achievement.

Did Krauthammer just admit that he agrees with liberal talking points about the "boondoggles" of tax breaks for corporate jets and oil-companies, not to mention the exemptions from taxation of income spent on employer-provided health insurance and mortgage interest? I have to say that this kind of language is mostly anathema among conservatives. You just don't hear conservatives even acknowledge that there is anything untoward or unfair in any policy, no matter how it comes about or who it affects, that has the end result of exempting personal income from taxation.

I usually find Krauthammer columns to be rather distasteful; but I have to admit that I didn't find myself disagreeing too much with Krauthammer's overall point in this particular column.

He essentially embraces Simpson-Bowles as an acceptable blueprint for fiscal reform. I'm definitely not opposed to that. However, I do have one point of disagreement with Krauthammer, but it's one that's more a matter of degree as opposed to one of principle. And it has to do with his baseline starting-point on revenue neutrality. I could easily find my way to supporting the idea of revenue-neutral fiscal reform as a precursor to a grand bargain in which both raising revenue and cutting spending are both on the table. But where we disagree is what the starting-point of revenue neutrality should be.

Krauthammer's whole argument for revenue neutral reform of the tax code starts under the revenue baseline established with the Bush tax cuts in place. I would argue that revenue-neutral reform to the tax code should begin after the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. Why? Because, as even conservative economist Bruce Bartlett notes, revenue as a percentage of GDP is at its lowest levels since the cuts in 50 years. Revenues currently account for less than 15% of GDP, which is below the 18% historical average that has held from the post-WWII era until 2001, which is when the Bush tax cuts kicked in and then revenue as a percentage of GDP declined significantly. So, I say let's reform the tax code at a revenue-neutral baseline of 18% of GDP, and then have our "grand bargain" debate from that baseline.

The Economy and the Costs of Technology

Looks like we're headed for a double dip recession. And it looks like people are becoming more and more frugal about their consumption behaviors. Service and consumer product providers also seem to be girding for leaner times by trying to squeeze down their costs and pare down their product lines. What I see happening is a real contraction in the free-wheeling use of the internet. As ISPs try to extract more revenues by charging more for data usage, or by eliminating generous unlimited data usage plans, consumers will also be paring back on their internet consumption. Many folks trying to husband their resources in what appears to be a looming time of scarcity will undoubtedly cut back on things perceived as luxuries. I suspect that having unlimited access to the internet will be one of the first things to go. We can all do without the 24-7 live-streaming of Netflix. We can all do without excessive access to as much data as we find convenient. We will be more selective with what we access on the internet and won't be "hogging" data on whims of fancy. So, in short, I think we are headed into a time when we'll be moving back to books and conversation, instead of text messages, online movies, internet chats, blogging, and Facebook. As much as I've become accustomed to and enjoy liberal access to technology, I don't think this would necessarily be a bad thing.

Andrew Sullivan and Obama's Leadership on Fiscal Reform

When Obama punted on Simpson-Bowles way back when, Andrew Sullivan came down hard on him for his lack of leadership then. And now Sullivan is contending that Obama’s behavior in this current round of debt/deficit debate was just awful. I disagree. Maybe I am hopelessly deluded by my rose-colored glasses when it comes to trying to understand Obama, but as someone who considers himself a die-hard liberal worried about the country’s real debt/deficit problem, I can’t help but be immeasurably impressed by Barack Obama.

This is how I read Obama on the whole debt/deficit situation, even going back to his punting of Simpson-Bowles. We all know that a big part of the solution to getting our fiscal house in order involves paring back government spending, and making serious reform both to entitlement programs and the tax code. All of those necessities require tackling the sacred cows of the liberal left. That means they are MY sacred cows. And they are. And yet … Barack Obama knows that to get movement from the left on reforming our sacred cows (hell, even just acknowledging that we are fanatically wedded to them), he’s got to transform the left’s way of thinking about our sacred cows.

Obama also knows (as does everyone) that his ability to influence the trajectory of fiscal reform is greatest on the left. He can get more done on that front than he can on the revenue side given the current state of the GOP. So he concentrates on where he can be most effective. But Obama also knows that he’s got to move deliberately and slowly lest he face a Tea Party revolt of his own from the more irresponsible of us on his left flank. So, what did he do?

He first created a crack in the entitlement program sacred cow on the left by building in the idea of Medicare reform as a means of cost containment into the overall health care reform plan. There was nary a peep from the left because the overall goal of health care reform was such a big deal that imposing cost controls in Medicare as part of a larger health care reform effort that would expand healthcare coverage to many more Americans was acceptable. So the idea of cost control reforms to Medicare got a positive presentation and reception on the left. Seemed reasonable to me! A small dent in one entitlement sacred cow that most of us among the left came to accept, if not embrace joyously.

Then he got Simpson-Bowles to put entitlement reform on the table. Yes, he promptly punted; but he still got the idea circulating out there in liberal land that entitlement reform had to be included in any debt/deficit negotiation. Once again, we on the left grumbled, but the left’s culture of entitlement reform intransigence inched a bit more towards the end goal of reform necessity. Simpson-Bowles didn’t get most on the left to buy into such reform; but it conditioned us not to automatically knee-jerk into opposition mode by the mere mention of reform to our sacred cows. Because Simpson-Bowles came from Obama, we on the left listened a bit more than we would have otherwise. I know I did. Now we get this debt ceiling situation and the current compromise deal, and we on the left still grumble loudly (and I think with good reason); but it is unmistakable that we’ve been brought to a much more responsible position regarding our entitlement sacred cows and their need to be on the reform table.

When I look at my own attitude and thinking over the past two years, I see an evolved person. I almost don’t even recognize it; but there it is. It’s been incremental. Almost imperceivable. But Obama has brought the only constituency that he really has much influence over to a position where we on the left are much more comfortable than we ever would have been with doing what we need to do with our own entitlement sacred cows to put our fiscal house in order.

As many others have noted, the country’s fiscal house cannot be put in order without attention to the revenue side of the equation. We simply can't cut our way into solvency without throwing this country into a demoralizing and disastrous economic depression. That’s where we on the left justifiably bitch and moan. But, frankly, that’s a problem that bedevils the Republicans; and it is responsible leadership on the right that will have to do the hard work of bringing their side along on their own sacred cow of “no higher taxes.” Eventually, Obama will have to push hard on that side, too; but he’s doing his part with the left. And he’s done it (and continues to do it) brilliantly. He hasn’t abandoned his liberal principles, but he’s tried to recast them in the light of a fiscally responsible liberalism. And though his popularity numbers are on the downwards slope, they’re not atrociously bad. He certainly hasn’t lost me (and I’d venture to make that claim for many others on the left, too). And win or lose 2012, he has done his part to win for America with the left. I just wish some responsible Republican would do the same on the right.

Obama Signs Off on the Compromise

Obama has given his indication that he will support and sign the compromise legislation just being put together. As I suspected, this legislation gives Republicans 90% of what they wanted -- maybe even more. There are no tax increases, it's a two phase plan, it has automatic deficit cutting triggers if Congress doesn't accept a bipartisan super-Committee's deficit reduction recommendations, etc., etc. It even allows Congress a chance to vote on a balanced budget amendment, though it's not binding on raising the debt ceiling.

But, you know what? Now that Obama has thrown his support behind it, you can bet your marbles that the rabid reactionaries on the right wing in Congress will now reflexively reject it.

Obama's Deficit/Debt Plan Jujitsu

Wouldn't it be completely ironic if Republicans get 90% of what they wanted in a deficit/debt deal, but that Obama gets to claim such an outcome as a victory and Republicans have to swallow it as a defeat?

That's what GOP obstructionism and the radical wing of the Tea Party will hand over to Obama.

I really thought Obama was going to have to bite the bullet and take a hit with Democrats in promoting a serious budget and deficit-reduction plan if he ever hoped to be re-elected, but that he would come out of such a process badly bruised and having to contend with an aura of defeat. I felt this way even when the Democrats controlled the House.

But, somehow, the GOP has handed Obama a way to enact serious debt/deficit reform, as well as serious tax reform, that should be a Republican's dream, but which will not only minimize the fallout for Obama, but which will also likely make him look like he came out of it smelling like roses.

Conservatives, in their rabid and blind hatred for Obama, have consistently underestimated the man's formidable political skill. I'd even go so far as to suggest that this was Obama's plan from the start. Conservatives are like pawns in Obama's deft and shrewd hands. And my disappointments with Obama aside, that is something remarkable to observe about the man.

GOP Implosion

I wish I could say that I take joy in what appears to be Boehner's failure to rally his troops. While I certainly don't like his plan, it's tragic on such a serious matter that after all this wrangling and time-sucking go-it-alone strategy he couldn't even pull his caucus together.

I just hope he comes to his senses and realizes that if he goes just a couple of steps towards the middle, he can get most of what he's angling for right now and add plenty of democrats on board.

For the tea partiers, their "all or nothing" idea translates into their unwillingness to accept a plan proposed by Harry Reid (and supported by Obama) to cut spending without tax increases while restricting an increase in the debt ceiling to a level below that of the spending cut level. One would think the GOP would see this, even when compared to the Boehner plan, as something more aligned with their ideas than simply doing nothing at all. One would think that they would embrace the idea that the good is not the enemy of the better.

But, hell, they can't even do that. Pitiful.

And if Obama ends up embracing Bowles-Simpson (which I think he will, in the end, especially if he's re-elected), he'll simply box Tea Partiers into a corner.

The conservative invective and hatred towards Obama is such that Obama could propose a Cut/Cap/Balance plan and the anti-Obama rabid faction of the Tea Party GOP still wouldn't support him.

Well ... the people are tuning in and what they are seeing of the House GOP is a mess of dysfunction and right wing obstructionist radicalism.

Ironically, the Tea Party faction does not want to govern in the manner specifically designed by our founding fathers -- a manner that is predicated upon compromise with its multiple layers of checks, balances, and inclusion of minority representation in the process of governing.

Even if tomorrow Boehner manages to salvage something, even if he brings forth a measure more representative of the Tea Party radicals, the damage to his leadership and to the House GOP caucus and its governing credibility is done.

Question for Conservatives re: Debt Plans

If the conservative goal is to cut the deficit without raising taxes, I would like for any conservative to tell me what, exactly, there is in the Reid/Obama proposal that they oppose?

Bluegrass Banjo and Dixieland Jazz

They're not all that far apart, come to think of it. Check out this joint effort of The Del McCoury Band and New Orleans' own Preservation Hall Jazz Band on Letterman:

Debt, Deficit Reduction, and Rightwing Hubris/Cynicism

You know what pisses me off immensely in hearing conservatives try to defend the indefensible when it comes to having the wealthier assume a bit more than the poor in helping to solve our debt crisis? It's the arrogant idea that the wealth that the rich earn comes exclusively by the sweat of their own brow and that the society that had no small role in making their wealth possible has no claims on this in moments of national crisis.

The rich are rich in part by the efforts of their own labor and risk-taking -- I'll grant that -- but they are also rich in part (and I'd even argue a larger part) by the broader societal context of the country in which they operate. For the wealthy to look at the current state of our country and to essentially tell the broader society facing this crisis to go screw itself rather than to suffer the "indignity" of a 2% increase in their income taxes is the ultimate expression of cynicism. Why should I face the penalty of a larger hit against my economic security because this country goes into default when those who can afford to save this country from such a calamity by sucking up the "pain" of having to settle for the Jaguar instead of the Ferrari will simply refuse to even entertain this as part of a solution? The rich have to assume their part in how this country got to the point that it did; and for them to pretend that they aren't part of the problem is the ultimate expression of hubris. If they are in it like the rest of us are in it, they sure have a funny way of showing it.

Hell, even I'm willing to pay a bit more in taxes if it will help to put our fiscal house on more solid footing. I guarantee you that my paying a bit more in taxes is much better than my paying 10 times more than that in higher interest rates on my personal debt because of a federal default. You'd think that this would motivate the wealthy, too. It's like they'd much rather pay more in the penalties that would result from a debt default, than pay a little bit more in taxes to avoid such an outcome. If I were a wealthy private sector entrepreneur looking at a spike in interest rates on my outstanding corporate debt and a collapse in market stability for the sale of my product/services, I'd be getting pretty nervous right now. A minor increase in my income taxes would be looking much more rational and sane. And I'd be looking at Washington trying to see who is the more irresponsible party in heading us towards the edge of the cliff, and I'd come away thinking none too highly of the intransigence of the Republicans.

Trust me: everyone except the most blinded partisans can see that Obama has gone a long, long way to meeting the Republicans on terms favorable to their own position (even to the extent of angering the more liberal wing of the Democratic party) -- i.e. significant cuts in discretionary spending, an overhaul of the tax system along a much flatter and simpler tax code, and even painful cuts and reforms to sacrosanct entitlement programs --, and that Republicans simply refuse to meet him anywhere on the continuum, much less halfway.

It's clear to me that Republicans would rather run this country into default than agree to a compromise package of spending cuts and increased revenues (call it tax increases if you will, it doesn't matter) at a 3:1 ratio, respectively, to make a serious dent in our deficit.

Do supposedly fiscally-responsible conservatives not see what would happen if the plan that Obama supports and is proposing would be embraced and passed? Do conservatives think that this plan of fiscal austerity proposed by Obama would be viewed negatively by markets? Is cutting the deficit by $4 trillion over 10 years by combining spending cuts and revenue increases a bad thing when it comes to tackling our fiscal problems? Even if you are a conservative, and would prefer a "Cut, Cap, and Balance" solution that involves no new "taxes," you still have to believe that the good (Obama's plan - which WILL dramatically reduce the deficit) is not the enemy of the better when it comes to reducing the deficit; and that the good (deficit reduction Obama-style) is certainly much more preferable than the bad (debt default). But expecting conservative Republicans to be sane and sensible about a real and palatable compromise that cuts the deficit significantly is just too much to ask, isn't it?

This Was My Lunch Today

You can only wish you were me! Eat your sorry hearts out, ladies and gents.

What we got here is a fried softshell crab po-boy with a side order of french fries, a Barq's rootbeer fountain drink in the background, and a Hubig's fried pineapple pie for dessert. Where y'at, dahlins?!?!?!?!

Blogging Sabbatical Coming to an End

As my one or two regular followers know, I have been on a kind of "blogging sabbatical" for the past six months or so. Actually, I can't say that I've missed blogging all that much; though I have missed it a little.

The time away was refreshing in many ways. It really is an intense time-suck. And I haven't actually had much disposable time as of late. But I've had enough, so that's just a bit of a lame excuse. My hiatus has really been more about blogging fatigue and a diminished interest. It's as simple as that.

All that said, I still very much value blogs. I read Andrew Sullivan daily. I check in periodically with a few other national blogs. I keep abreast of the NOLA blogosphere. And I really enjoy those moments when I come across funky new blogs or re-engage with blogs of friends and acquaintances that I find immeasurably enjoyable to read and which give me unique insights into the windows of the minds, personalities, and souls of people I respect and admire.

I also have blogging to thank for some new friendships (that's you, Eric!) that have lasted over the years and which have undoubtedly enriched my intellectual life. I've even had the chance to meet in person and break bread with some very nice folks that I came to know initially through blogs.

So, I have a fondness for the medium for reasons other than as an outlet to upchuck my opinions and rants (though that has always been a nice release, too!).

All of this is to say that I will be recommitting myself to The Huck Upchuck starting now, but really in earnest at the start of the month of August. And to hold my blogger feet to the fire, I will be re-instituting my blogging "self-nudge" to re-start in the month of August. (Interestingly, that whole idea was a product of an online book club experiment that emerged out of my blogging; and the actual book that gave me this idea came from my online friend, Eric, who I met through blogs and who was part of that original online book club!)

In short, my blogging sabbatical is at an end. The Huck Upchuck is back! Let's see how it goes ...

Andrew Sullivan and Marriage Equality in New York

Yesterday, I spent most of the evening glued to the live streaming of the New York State Senate's session. I wanted to be a witness to what I hoped would be a historic vote by one of the country's most populous states to enact marriage equality through the legislative process. I'm glad a spent this Friday evening in my apartment in San Jose, Costa Rica, fixated on my computer, for the result was wonderful to witness. New York State now permits same-sex marriage; and the legislation, signed by Governor Cuomo late last night, will go into effect 30 days hence.

Of course, being tuned in to the proceedings via the internet also afforded me the opportunity to navigate back and forth through various other websites. I had multiple tabs on my browser. One of them was for the actual livestream broadcast, another was the wikipedia page for the New York State Senate (where I could find out information on all the state senators as the need presented itself to me), another was Facebook, and a few others. But the one website I kept going back to every few minutes and refreshing was Andrew Sullivan's blog, The Daily Dish.

I have been following Andrew Sullivan's passionate and eloquent writing for a long time now. I was a Dish-head when Sullivan first started his blog (that blue background, white text monstrosity!!) and I remember reading his essay following the 9-11 attacks titled "This Is a Religious War" and being greatly influenced and moved by it. In fact, when I myself started blogging in August of 2002, my very first posting was a tribute to Sullivan and a recognition of his blogging as the inspiration for mine.

It's no exaggeration for me to claim that I have basically scanned, if not read entirely, every single posting of The Daily Dish since then. I have written Sullivan numerous emails over the years, and sometimes he has even posted what I have sent to him on The Daily Dish. Once or twice, in the early years of his blog, he even replied to my emails personally.

All this is to say that as I sat listening to the NY State Senate start up the debate over the Marriage Equality legislation, I had Andrew front and center on my mind. I was following his live-blogging, and I kept envisioning and imagining where he was blogging, how he was following the NY Senate debate, and what must have been going through his mind all the while.

And mind you, I'm sitting some thousands of miles away in the Curridabat neighborhood of San Jose, Costa Rica, feeling this very personal connection to this person whose intellect I greatly admire and whose passion and commitment to the cause of marriage equality I have seen on full, unapologetic display for the past 12-15 years. Although Andrew Sullivan has been the primary influence in my own thinking on marriage equality, what he mostly did was helped clear out some of the cobwebs and to help bring into much sharper focus my own support for marriage equality. As early as November of 2003, I was trying to articulate my own defense of gay marriage even against the "civil unions" alternative, and also in terms of what I considered a faith-based argument for gay marriage. As a Catholic like Andrew Sullivan, I was trying to grapple with the position of my religious faith against gay marriage. Before reading Sullivan, I had the gut feeling that being against gay marriage just didn't jive with the core fundamentals of my Catholic faith. In fact, opposing marriage equality seemed counter-intuitive to my faith; but I struggled to figure out why there was this disconnect between the formal position of the Catholic hierarchy and my understanding of the very precepts of Catholic Christianity. Sullivan helped me not only to figure this out, but also to come around full circle and embrace marriage equality within the fundamental precepts of Catholic Christianity. And I have been intellectually and spiritually at peace with gay marriage since. But I digress ...

Anyway, listening to the NY State Senate debate last night, there were a number of intensely emotional and moving moments. Listening to openly-gay, HIV positive, Democratic Senator Tom Duane's testimony was heart-rending and touching. Listening to Catholic Republican Senator Mark Grisanti talk about his struggle over the issue and how he came ultimately to support the legislation was equally powerful. But the most emotional moment for me came at the end of Republican Senator Stephen Saland's explanation of the religious protections amendment to the original bill. I can't find the video of his comments on the Senate floor, but he has posted the text of his statement in support of marriage equality. Maybe it was just me reading too much into his comments, but it seemed to me that he got a bit emotional when he started to express his support for the bill. And it was at that very moment (not when Sen. Grisanti spoke, which was some pretty awesome icing on the cake) that I realized that the bill was going to pass. I got pretty choked up myself and couldn't help but think of Andrew Sullivan at that very moment and feel so extremely happy for him and proud of him. It took a little more time than usual for Andrew to update his blog and I just couldn't help thinking that he was experiencing the same emotional sense of happiness and relief that I was feeling. And when the vote was all said and done, and Andrew posted that all he could do was sob, I got choked up once again.

On a completely unrelated matter, I will be travelling to NYC tomorrow, Sunday, which also happens to be the date of the Gay Pride March in NYC. And even though Andrew tends to stay away from these kinds of events, this happily-married and straight father of two hopes to be able to go and see and participate and celebrate -- and I will definitely be raising a pint of beer on the soil of New York in honor of marriage equality and, especially, in honor of Andrew Sullivan.

A Window on Bobby Jindal's Government

Good government types should be astounded and outraged at this. Watch all the clips.

Let me tell you something about government privatization schemes from having studied how these were done by many developing world governments as part of the neoliberal reform process. If you skirt the kinds of transparency that are absolutely essential to public accountability for government behavior, what you'll get in the privatization of public assets are backroom sweetheart deals that transfer public wealth (taxpayer dollars) to the bank accounts of corporate fatcats with deep pockets prone to kickbacks to politicians via all kinds of shady negotiations with minimal protections and benefits to the people forced to swallow such privatizations. It's essentially nothing more than raping the public on behalf of the private sector. It's a government-directed and government-forced redistribution of wealth upwards, and a government-induced impoverishment of the less-favored and less-powerful. Let's be clear: there's nothing "laissez-faire" about this process.

I want to reiterate again -- and it's something every person should know -- that the private sector is not interested in free market transparency. It is interested in maximizing the capturing of wealth no matter how that wealth is obtained. If it can reduce any state regulation that would prevent the abuse both of individuals and of the broader public good, it will do so. What drives the private sector is the bottom line. Pure and simple. Even at the expense of the public good.

You can't watch these clips of testimony without feeling sick to your stomach about the blatant deception and dishonesty that plagues government. And the Jindal administration is no exception, its claims to good government efficiency and transparency notwithstanding.

When Is The Palin Joke Gonna End

I mean, really. I know she can be entertaining in a perverse sort of way, such as in one looks at her with a kind of macabre fascination; but when will the people on the right wing who are serious about addressing this country's problems inform the Palin dupes that the joke is over?

I have never seen a more shocking joke of a serious national political figure in my life. I mean, I get that she taps into the populist frustrations of a certain terrified and angry right wing, but there is fundamentally nothing at all redeeming or attractive about Sarah Palin as a viable governing authority.

My friends on the right wing, almost all of whom are equally embarrassed and appalled by her, constantly tell me how disastrous Palin is to the values and ideals they believe in and hold. So, in that sense, I'm not really worried about Palin's chances in any head-to-head election with Obama (or any other Democratic candidate); but I am, shall I say, more than worried about what the Palin phenomenon is revealing about our culture.

I though conservatives loathed the idea of victim-politics; but it's abundantly clear that victimization is all that Palin is about. In fact, she's the noisiest and most blatantly pandering caterer to the victimization and resentment culture that this country has seen in a long while. Doesn't that become weary to conservatives after a while? I'm just askin' ...

Obama and Osama

As everyone knows by now, Osama bin Laden has been killed by a meticulously planned and perfectly executed military operation in Pakistan.

Quote of the moment relative to this whole moment goes to Andrew Sullivan:

But it remains obvious that the president who kills Osama bin Laden is a president who is going to be almost impossible to beat in 2012.

Amen to that sentiment. Even more impressive is that all the while Donald Trump was stirring the "birther" pot, Obama was taking on the real task of governing. When the history books look back on this moment in the history of our country, Trump and all his birthers will look like abject fools and Obama will look like the serious statesman who just ignores the petulant noise and rises above it.

The Birther Conundrum

I remain confounded by the currency that the Birthers still carry among the hard-core, anti-Obama, rightwing GOP. It has reached a point where a number of state legislatures, including my own (Louisiana), are crafting legislation requiring the submission of some kind of natural-born citizenship proof in order for any candidate for President to appear on that state's presidential ballots. Let me tell you why I think this is crazy:

1. I presume that candidates must already establish their eligibility to run for public office. I don't know how most states certify eligibility to run for a particular national office, but I presume that states already either require the submission of particular documentation certifying constitutional eligibility (and other legal eligibility requirements, such as proof of residency, etc.) or have accepted the certification of eligibility by some other official source (i.e. the Federal Election Commission). I really don't know how it works, but I presume that there must be some accepted process.

2. Even if states pass what I'll call "birther" legislation, what's going to happen when candidates submit the evidence of their eligibility? In a sense, I look forward to this because it will no longer allow people to walk that line between saying, "Hey, I believe so-and-so's a citizen, but I just want to correct a gap in the law, blah-blah-blah..." In the case of Obama, which is clearly what is motivating this birther legislation push all of the sudden, when he submits his certified birth certificate from the State of Hawaii, which he has already released, people are going to have to come out and declare their true feelings by saying either: "Yep, that satisfies the law." Or "Nope. I think your certified birth certificate is a fraud." I mean, really, what are these states like Louisiana and Oklahoma going to require? Are they going to say that another state's legal process for certifying birth information is unacceptable? The State of Hawaii has already certified, multiple times, in accordance with that state's prescribed process, the legitimacy of Obama's birth in that state. Are the birthers going to demand some kind of federal legislation requiring all states to adopt the same criteria for certifying birth records in their state?

I can just see it. In the 2012 election, for the states who pass legislation requiring it, Obama will submit his birth certificate from the State of Hawaii to "prove" his constitutional eligibility to run for President. And if some states balk at this as insufficient, all Obama will have to say is: "Look, this is how Hawaii does it. I'm just following that state's proper protocol. I'm giving you the official proof of birth and citizenship certified by the state of my birth. The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, as well as long established Federal statutory law, requires that Hawaii's process be accepted throughout the country. And how Hawaii does it is good enough for the State Department to issue me a passport, is good enough for making me eligible for Social Security benefits as a citizen, and is good enough for EVERY other federal program or benefit requiring proof of citizenship as an eligibility requirement. Any and every citizen born in Hawaii running for President would give you the exact same documentation. Deal with it. Exercise your own state's right to accept it or not; and live with the consequences."

What is clear, in the case of Obama, is that he has already revealed the necessary documentation to prove his constitutional eligibility to run for President. I can't wait for the day when this birther legislation in the various states forces the moment of truth when some state official, or some state agency, or some state legislature, will have to declare outright and officially that Obama's credentials are illegitimate or insufficient.

What I think will happen is that states who get bamboozled by the birther movement to pass such legislation, when confronted with the documentation that Obama will submit in order to be in compliance with that state's legislation, will simply say: "OK. Eligibility test passed. Let's move on." And I can guarantee that if this is, indeed, what transpires, the anti-Obama birthers in that state, the very forces behind the birther legislation movement, will feel betrayed and will express their outrage that the state actually had the audacity to behave in such a treasonous way so as to certify the eligibility of someone clearly, in their minds, ineligible to run for the Presidency.

But if I am wrong, and if states declare that the documents Obama submitted are inadequate or insufficient, then this will pit the right of one state, Hawaii, to certify births and citizenship status, versus another state's infringement on Hawaii's right. In essence, we'll be set up for a legal fight over competing notions of "States' Rights" regarding the Full Faith and Credit Claus of the Constitution, that has already been settled by the Supreme Court. But even if some twist in the case law makes another SCOTUS fight over this a possibility, this fight will still have no bearing on the legitimacy of Obama's eligibility to run for office as the Supreme Court has already accepted the legitimacy of Obama's constitutional eligibility to run for federal office. All this will do will be to expose the real (and ugly) sentiment behind the birther legislation in those states who seek to deny Obama a spot on that state's Presidential election ballots.

Republicans and the Debt/Deficit

If Obama's debt/deficit reduction plan, to be outlined this evening to the public, is what we are being told it will be -- strategic and specific cuts to the Medicare/Medicaid entitlement programs, along with tax increases for the wealthy -- and if the Republicans insist with their silly notion that tax increases are a "nonstarter" (as Boehner has said), then Obama will have painted the GOP into a corner. Obama's plan, when compared with the pain that Ryan's plan will inflict on the middle classes and the elderly, will seem like the fair compromise and will resonate as balanced and built upon shared sacrifice. How can the GOP claim to want to tackle the deficit on the backs of the poor and the elderly, and yet simply take tax increases on the wealthy off the table altogether? That's not a balanced approach to fiscal discipline, that's recklessness and rigidity rooted in class warfare ideology. And in tough times when the poor, the elderly, and the middle classes are called to sacrifice while the rich aren't is a losing strategy. Any attempt to deal with the deficit simply on the spending-reduction side is simply unserious. On this signature GOP issue, one that Republicans hope will take them to the White House again in 2012, Obama wins if his plan is serious about both cutting expenses and raising revenues in a manner that appears to be "fair and balanced."

Palin the Incurious

You want to see another incident of how utterly incurious Sarah Palin is about the world, watch this:



Pay attention to two particular moments: (1) When asked what she has seen in India, the only thing Palin could muster up was a reference to the sights from her hotel room and out of the window of the car driving her around. Even a regular tourist would come up with at least some kind of historical building or monument to mention. The image that her comment conveys is of a person who never leaves the car or the hotel room and who never ventures out to really get to know the people and the place that she is visiting. (2) The second revealing moment is when Palin is asked whom she would have liked to meet in India, but didn't have the time nor the chance to meet. And, again, Palin could only think of the people she has met and didn't even address the question itself. This makes Palin look utterly uncurious about the country. Maybe she could have mentioned a famous Indian scientist, or novelist, or artist, or, hell, even a cook or TV entertainer. But she apparently knows so little about the country, and is so incurious about it that she couldn't even care to learn about it some.

Let me ask you all this: every time you plan a trip to a foreign country, what's the first thing that you do? Well, what I do is that I read up as much as I can about that country's history, culture, national monuments and treasures, and its people. I formulate a plan for how I want to see and learn about the country and its people. I think of the hotel room and the car as mere means to an end, and I certainly don't try to keep myself cooped up in such places, or subject myself to such a scripted and sheltered schedule that I can't enjoy the place. It shows to me that Palin simply doesn't really care all that much beyond the photo-op what visiting a place outside of the US can really teach her.

Michele Bachmann's Tea Party Patriotic FAIL

I don't expect most Americans to know all that much about all the mythology and symbolism surrounding the American Revolution; but when you wrap that mythology and symbolism all around yourself with the kind of bombast and pretension that many Tea Partiers do (even the name itself harkens to this mythology), and when you use this mythology to vilify others of your fellow countrymen for their apparent lack of patriotic credibility, then you damn better at least know this history beyond the knee-jerk sound bites -- especially if you are a political leader of the Tea Party movement like Minnesota's Michele Bachmann is.

Because when you, you know, not only get it wrong, but get it so epically wrong, like Michele Bachmann did, you make yourself and your movement look like the foolish patriotic poseurs and utterly craven, ignorant pretenders that you are.

Tea Partier patriots who take their patriotism seriously enough to know their early American history are (or should be) embarrassed by Bachmann's arrogance and ignorance.

Carnival in the Atlantic Magazine

OK. I get it that the festivities in Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) for carnival are really impressive, but, come on, out of 52 photos of carnival festivities around the world, New Orleans only gets a total of ONE picture? And the New Orleans picture is that of a dog parading in "Barkus"???? Sheesh! I'm very disappointed in the Atlantic. New Orleans might not be as glitzy as the paraders in Rio's Sambadrome, but we are certainly much more celebratory and colorful in our Mardi Gras festivities than just about any other place in the world.

T.S. = Team Sullivan?

Or is it a case of Plagiarism? I hate to think the worst of Andrew Sullivan, but I can't help but wonder. The college professor in me, always on the lookout for plagiarism, caused me to raise my eyebrows and the red flag of concern at the following:

Check out this blog posting over at The Daily Dish.

In that blog posting, there is a source link to this posting over at the Israpundit blog.

But when you scroll through the comments at this Israpundit blog posting, you'll find this comment (comment number 12, if the link doesn't work properly), written by one "T.S." With the exception of a few words here and there, it's an exact copy of the blog posting up on The Daily Dish.

At the very least, if this comment is one that Sullivan left on the Israpundit blog, Sullivan might want to reference on his own blog posting that he's reprinting his own comment that he left on the Israpundit blog under the "T.S." moniker. Just a suggestion for Sullivan to not open himself up to questionable practice.

Pogo's Latest

Murmers of Middle Earth:



This Pogo dude is a genius.

Michele Benson Huck Pottery

At the Palmer Park Arts Market, this Saturday, from 10am-4pm. Drop by and say hello. Until then, you can get a glimpse of Michele (at the 0:35 point) in this nice video plug of the Arts Market:

Another Thought on Wisconsin

I think the GOP in Wisconsin has way overreached in this conflict. On the one hand, the manner in which the GOP has tried to railroad through this union busting legislation comes across as very unseemly and autocratic. Check this out for some context:



Second, when the legislation seems to only punish those public service employees unions who didn't support the GOP Governor's candidacy, and actually exempts public service employee unions who did support the GOP Governor's candidacy from the legislation, it plays out as if the measure is one motivated by partisan preference and not any kind of principle. And when one of these exempted public service employee unions withdraws its support for and endorsement of the Governor because of how grossly partisan, unfair, and unseemly their exemption seems, you know that the situation is playing out poorly for the GOP in the public arena.

Third, when the whole fiscal crisis is being perceived in some quarters in Wisconsin as one primarily manufactured by the Governor himself, and is then being used disingenuously to attack basic collective bargaining rights that touch on labor freedoms, the lack of good faith here on the part of the GOP seems even more pronounced.

My prediction is that Walker, the GOP Governor, and the GOP legislators in the Wisconsin legislature, who simply refuse to even acknowledge the autocratic nature of the process by which they are trying to impose this preferential legislation, have gone a long way to turning Wisconsin once again as a solidly blue state. I wouldn't be surprised if the Democratic party not only retakes control over Wisconsin's state government in the next few election cycles, but does so decisively and for a fairly long time. I'm already counting Wisconsin's electoral votes in the Obama column in 2012.

Collective Bargaining Rights for State Workers in Wisconsin

The struggle going on in Wisconsin is the big news these days. Here's what I can't understand about the Republican position in this fight:

Collective bargaining is simply the ability of workers to come together to try to negotiate benefits, wages, and other employment conditions with their employers. From my perspective, this is simply a matter of freedom, and it is something that should be promoted and protected by government, not squelched by government.

I also don't understand the argument that somehow people should forfeit their freedoms when their employer is the government (and by extension, "the people"). When people who work for the state have to forfeit their freedom precisely because they are working for state, then that strikes me as walking a bit on the totalitarian line.

Let me try to break this down a bit and understand it better. What is at issue here is the right to collective bargain, not necessarily an entitlement to a particular outcome of the collective bargaining process. Because the legislation seeks to prevent what I think is a right to free association and to use that free association to negotiate labor conditions, without any guarantee as to what the outcome of that negotiation will be, I don't understand at all why Republicans would be opposed to this. It seems as if it is nothing more than antipathy to the whole idea of unions and the rights of labor, in principle, to band together to bargain for benefits.

The argument that the restriction of such freedom is necessary in a difficult financial crisis also seems bogus to me. For one, the financial crisis is partly one of the current Republican governor's own making. He cut taxes and then used the consequences of the loss of revenues generated by his tax cuts to fabricate a budget crisis to bust the union. Secondly, and more importantly, I thought Republicans believed that restrictions of such freedoms are prima facie wrong.

If someone can explain to me why collective bargaining is, in and of itself, a behavior that requires state repression, I'm all ears.

A Republican Supports Federal Funds for Contraception

Albeit for horses as opposed to women!

Seriously, you can't make this stuff up.

Blogging

I want to be blogging. I really do. And lord knows there's not a shortage of stuff to blog about. (And I still owe folks a review of Lonesome Dove!) But when push comes to shove and I open up the Blogger "new post" screen, all my initiative and enthusiasm for blogging just withers on the vine. And it's not even that it would take a lot of effort. The blogging mojo just isn't there. I'm not gonna give up on the medium, and I'll keep trying to motivate myself, but I just wanted to let folks know where I am and what's up.

Unmasked: The Disturbing Blending of Christian Fundamentalism and Politics

""Anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I'm telling you, you're not my brother and you're not my sister, and I want to be your brother." -- Recently-elected Governor of Alabama, Robert Bentley

Of course, he instantly apologized for the remark; but I can't help but ponder the implications of what this means in a democracy rooted in equality. There is a mindset of inequality in this line of thinking. As I see it, it is just another manifestion of the belief that there is a "real" America, and a "lesser" America. I don't like it one bit. When I hear stuff like this emanating from the mouth of a Conservative Republican state governor, I would consider any argument that the Conservative movement and Republican Party doesn't have a basic and pervasive problem with an intolterant religious fundamentalism pushing through the thin veneer of the secular democracy upon which our government was formed and emerging as a governing philosophy itself to be a flimsy and half-baked argument indeed.

The Right Wing's Anti-Elite Elitism Exposed

Charles Krauthammer, no Obamaphile by any stretch of the imagination, exposes Rush Limbaugh for the Anti-Elite Elitist that he is:



I've said it before in different contexts and in different ways, but I'll say it again now: certain anti-elite demagogues of the Rightwing, of which Limbaugh is one, point to intelligence, statesmanship, competence, and gravitas in a liberal President as if it were somehow a bad thing. It is quite telling of the partisan hack and fraud that he is that Limbaugh demeans what are essentially admirable qualities by calling it a kind of hallmark of "elitism" -- which in Palinite code is a bad word akin to a profanity. When this branch of conservatives claims that it prefers that its President NOT demonstrate such "elitist" characteristics, it is essentially embracing the idea that it prefers the opposite for its leader: ignorance, un-statesmanship, incompetence, and unseriousness. And it links this kind of unflattering and ordinary mediocrity in its leaders to what it considers to be the solid, average, "real" American. They would like their President to be, for lack of a better way to describe it, nothing better than the average Joe. I am always baffled by this. Why would any American not want his President, the leader of the free world, to be an extraordinary person? I don't know about you, but I'd rather my President not be just "average." I don't want my President to be like my mother. God bless her sweet soul, but my mother, as magnificent and wonderful as she is in so many ways, has no business being President. Why is having a President who is exceptional in intelligence, leadership, creativity, oratory, persuasiveness, etc., always suspect to such people? Maybe conservatives don't think Obama rises to this level, but Limbaugh's comment exposes the reality that it's not really Obama that is the issue, but rather the whole idea of what they think defines an "elite." George W. Bush had to "dumb himself down" to win the accolades of the "average Joe" wing of the conservative movement. In their effort to counteract a notion of "elitism" as arrogance coupled with an unwarranted claim of privilege, they also abandon the notion of elite as special, unrivalled excellence. When we speak of the Green Berets as an "elite" unit within the armed forces, isn't that something we admire and take pride in? When we speak of Peyton Manning as being among the "elite" of NFL quarterbacks, aren't we talking about something positive? So, for Obama to act Presidential as we would want any President to act, for him to deliver a truly elite performance in terms of quality and excellence, that demonstration of excellence becomes for folks like Limbaugh nothing more than an expression of "elitism" worthy of scorn and derision. Krauthammer just nails Limbaugh on this point and exposes him for the partisan hack and fraud that he is. In fact, I'd say Krauthammer's point is a veiled dig at Limbaugh, a dig which hints subtly at a kind of small-minded, unpatriotic, anti-American attitude festering in the soul of Talk Radio's most notorious grinch. Interesting also that this is all coming from within the ranks of the conservative movement itself.

New Year's Resolutions

A Preface: I just can't seem to get motivated to work myself up enough to put posts on this blog more regularly. Maybe I need to go back to my blogging self-nudge; but right now I think my heart is just not in it like it has been and could be. Maybe that will change. We shall see. In any case, I'll blog when I can rouse myself to do so. Right now, I'm moved enough to post a couple of my New Year's Resolutions. And they are ...

1. Write two books (one fiction and one non-fiction) by the end of the year.
2. Submit a couple of articles for publication in peer-reviewed academic journals.
3. Save my heated political commentary for my blog and reserve the use of Facebook for non-political stuff. (Although I had basically decided on this weeks ago, the recent tragedy in Tuscon has strengthened my resolve in this direction even more.)
4. Read the following books: (A) The Grapes of Wrath (Steinbeck); (B) The Federalist Papers (in their entirety); (C) I, The Supreme (Roa Bastos); (D) Absalom, Absalom (Faulkner); and (E) The Adolescent (Dostoevsky)
5. Finish what I'm calling the "Display Room" (for my B-2/3's pottery) in the "Basement."

I had a wonderful discussion today with a good friend about McMurtry's Lonesome Dove and I promise I will be writing up at least a brief review of the book sometime soon on the blog.

That's it for now.

A Second American Revolution??

There's a bumper sticker that is popular with many Beckian conservatives. It reads:

"2010: The Second American Revolution"

Let's remember that the First American Revolution was a bloody and violent armed struggle in the cause of freedom from oppression. In my mind, in comparing the First American Revolution with the current political situation, the subtext of hinting at a justifiable violence in the cause of freedom from oppression today (i.e. 2010) is crystal clear.

Frankly, I think Gabby Giffords is a casualty of this "Second American Revolution."

This narrative of political violence justified under the banner of patriotism has got to stop.

Assassination Attempt in Arizona

We've all by now heard much about the assassination attempt of a Democratic Congresswoman in Arizona earlier today. It's worth noting that this Congresswoman was one of 20 Congress people put in the gun sights of a Sarah Palin posting on one of her new media sites. Conservatives are now on the defensive trying to show how this assassination attempt was the work of a deranged, disturbed individual -- and that ideology has nothing to do with it. Well, perhaps.

But here's the thing conservatives need to know: when one of the 20 Congress people put in the gun sights of a Sarah Palin online media posting, or whatever it was, ends up the victim of a brutal assassination attempt, you have to expect that such connections between actual assassination attempts and the figurative calls for them are going to be drawn. The lesson is pure and simple: don't put people, figuratively or otherwise, in the gun sights. It just encourages the nuts. And that's why this narrative of Second Amendment remedies, spilling blood in the cause of freedom, "shooting down" your electoral opponents, etc., -- narratives that have come almost exclusively from the right wing in this country -- is just completely irresponsible. And it has nothing to do whether this guy was a loony or a Tea Partier or an anarchist or whatever. Hinting at armed violence as a means to resolve political disputes is just wrong. Period.

If there were nothing at all untoward in advancing such notions, even figuratively, why then are all such references being hastily taken down? Couldn't be some residual sense of guilt, could it? Couldn't be some nagging awareness that such inflammatory imagery and rhetoric of politically-motivated violence just might have encouraged this nut, could it?

I think people, deep down, understand this; and I think it took something like today for people who defended this use of inflammatory narratives and imagery of armed political violence as harmless expressions of free speech are only just now looking in the mirror and saying: "Oh, sh*t! We really have crossed the line!"

I've said it many times, both on this blog and in comment threads, criticizing the tolerance of such rhetoric on the right wing, that words and imagery of violence do have consequences and do encourage the behavior of others, especially those disturbed individuals prone to act out such narratives.

Well, Ain't This Grand

Just got wind of this.

At the very least, the University seems to be doing everything it can to handle the situation.

But what I want to know is what the hell was this information doing on a portable laptop in the first place; and, moreover, what the hell was this employee thinking to leave a laptop with so much critically sensitive information unmonitored in a car, on an out-of-town trip? I don't think this information should ever be placed on a laptop to begin with; but if it had to be, then the person responsible for it should have handcuffed the damn thing to his or her being.

I'd hate to be that person right now.

Home

I just love this one by Edward Sharpe and the Magnetic Zeros:

Edward Sharpe and the Magnetic Zeros "Home" from Edward Sharpe on Vimeo.

That's the "official" video; but I think even better, more energetic, and more magnetic is this live performance on Letterman:



But, being a daddy of two lovely young daughters, this rendition, God bless, just absolutely takes the cake:



Her arm resting on his while he plays. There is nothing more uplifting than this.

Back to Blogging

OK. Holidays over. Time to get back to the blog. I needed a bit of a break, I think. Some quick updates:

1. I finished McMurtry's "Lonesome Dove." I'll be writing a more detailed review; but the short of it is that I liked it very much. On the whole, a thumbs up, though I do have some criticisms. I've also watched the movie version and thought it was very good, too.

2. New Year's Resolutions coming soon in a separate follow-up posting.

3. Still proud of Barack Obama. If he gets serious about the debt situation, which I think he will (especially if he finds common ground on this issue with someone like Tom Coburn), he'll be in great shape for 2012.

4. The only disappointment I have with the 2008-2010 Congress is failure to pass the DREAM Act. My greatest joy about the 2008-2010 Congress is passage of the Health Care legislation and repeal of DADT.

5. The Saints are in the Playoffs and have a good, realistic chance of making it to the Superbowl again. Looking forward to the post-season run. I predict that the NFC Championship game will be in New Orleans, with the Saints hosting the Packers.

6. Finally, let's start the New Year with this bit of "Wow!" ...

Why I'm An Exodus Catholic, ctd.

Yet another reason. Certain things repulse me about the callous behavior of the Catholic Church and how it privileges the lives of the unborn over the lives of the already living. There is something fundamentally un-Christ-like, something unforgiving, something unwelcoming, about the attitude that leads to such decisions like the one emanating from Bishop Olmstead.

Palin Speaks On Haiti

Credit where credit is due. As a fierce and regular critic of Sarah Palin on this blog, I think it is especially incumbent upon me not to gloss over where Palin does something that I think is laudable.

Sarah Palin has visited Haiti and urged that we not forget this suffering and troubled country.

I agree with that message. And, as far as I'm concerned, you can't have too many people delivering this message. Sarah Palin's voice in this respect is more than welcome.

From the Archives: Big Bad Voodoo Daddy's Heat Miser/Cold Miser

Remember this from the Classic Rankin/Bass Production, The Year Without A Santa Claus? It was (and remains) one of my favorite Christmas cartoon experiences of all time. This particular YouTube clip nicely matches the Big Bad Voodoo Daddy version of the tune with the actual scene from the original film. Enjoy!

Top 10 Christmas Movies

I've run this in years past, and I'm running it again now. Nothing has surfaced since last Christmas to warrant a change in my rankings.

Here's The Huck Upchuck's Top 10 Christmas Movies of all time:

10. Nestor, the Long-Eared Christmas Donkey -- This may not be on par with some of the better full-length feature films that treat Christmas, but I have always adored this little 22 minute Bass/Rankin animated Christmas story. I guess it's thematically of a piece with the classic "Little Drummer Boy" Bass/Rankin animated short, but I like it better because it's not as well known and gives the animals of the Christmas story their moment. And who can forget: "Ears, Nestor!" :-) This is the only Bass/Rankin animated production that I'll include in my list, though there are certainly some more classics in this bunch of Christmas shorts that entertain the little ones every Christmas season. Honorable mentions in this category of "claymation" Christmas classics include The Year Without a Santa Claus, which features the Heat Miser, the Cold Miser, and Mother Nature, and Rudolph, the Red-Nosed Reindeer.

9. Barbie in the Nutcracker -- Given that I have two young daughters, it's hard not to find room for something like this in the Top 10 list. However, I have to say that this is actually quite a very impressive digital computer animated adaptation of the Nutcracker story. It's the first of these Barbie movies, and I remember thinking how graphically stunning it was at the time. The music and the dancing scenes in this version of the Tchaikovsky-scored Ballet are also quite good. None of the many subsequent Barbie animation movies compares in both production quality and plotline development as this original one. If you can overlook the whole Barbie culture and how it crafts an unrealistic and idealistic notion of female beauty, you can find a little gem of a Christmas movie here.

8. Emmet Otter's Jug-Band Christmas -- This charming muppet musical Christmas story from Jim Hensen conjures nostalgic Christmas memories for me. It is filled with all the great Christmas themes of selflessness, love, family, and friendship. It's not as technically slick as some of our modern day animation and muppetry, but it was a masterpiece of its day. I just love the sweetness and wholesomeness of this lovely little story, and the tunes are catchy and fun. Heck, even the bad guys in this story, the Riverbottom Boys Gang, have their own redeeming charm. Another little interesting tidbit to note is that the actors who provide the voices for Emmet Otter and his jug band friends also provide the voices for the characters in the Riverbottom Boys gang. It's fun to try and identify the alter egos in these two groups. Yes, there are times when the puppetry is so noticeable that it distracts from the story, but I am always struck by how few these moments are. For families with kids 12-yrs-old and younger, this Jim Hensen masterpiece should be a Christmas standard.

7. The Nativity Story - While I found The Nativity Story to be a bit superficial and overly simplistic, it is perhaps the best effort that I've seen to portray the nativity story on film with somewhat of a realistic feel, even though I think its pretensions to realism cynically mask what is essentially a romanticized and imaginary representation of history. The script is perhaps the weakest element of this movie, and the plotline is thin and incomplete in parts; and, unfortunately, the scene where a laboring Mary and Joseph arrive at Nazareth and make their way to the manger for the climactic birth of Jesus is so surreal that it almost sinks the realist believability of the whole movie. Nevertheless, it gets my recommendation for effort and for its undeniably impressive cinematography, not to mention the subtle beauty of actress Keisha Castle-Hughes as Mary and the wonderful performance of Ciaran Hinds as Herod.

6. The Polar Express -- This slick, cgi animated telling of the classic train-to-the-north-pole story merits a place in my top ten because it is visually stunning cgi animation. The storyline is 100% pure Christmas spirit -- of giving, friendship, and faith. I originally thought that the movie would be too saccharine for me and would wear off after the initial viewing and captivating animation "honeymoon" period. However, I found this not to be the case. Every time I'm in a room and this show is on the TV screen, I find myself drawn to it, less so for the visuals and moreso for the storyline. Most of the kids are slight caricatures, and it really is an unabashed feel-good movie, but it all tends to work in the end. I think this movie will become part of the classic Christmas movie lineup.

5. A Christmas Carol -- Of the numerous versions of this Dickens classic Christmas tale that exist, and that I have seen, the one that I find to be the most moving, best directed, and most skillfully acted is the 1984 version produced for TV starring George C. Scott. What I love about this particular version is that George C. Scott's Ebeneezer Scrooge is so understated. Unlike the Scrooge one sees in almost all other productions, Scott's Scrooge is not the caricatured heartless and unreflective miser that experiences an over-dramatic conversion. Scott's Scrooge is a troubled and conflicted soul, wracked by regrets, who hardens his heart principally as a mechanism of avoiding pain and disappointment. His greed and vindictiveness are not really central to his character. They exist, but they are sidebars to the real roots of his anti-social behavior. And his conversion does not come from fear, but rather from an awareness and eventual acceptance of his brokenness as a human, and that this brokenness is not unique and can be repaired. What I also like about Scott's Scrooge is that his "converted" character is softer, but still retains some of his gruff and troubled edges. In other words, when Christmas day dawns, he's not a completely different and unrecognizable Scrooge, as is so often portrayed, just a more vulnerable and human Scrooge, willing to open up, share, and smile.

4. Miracle on 34th Street -- I prefer the classic 1947 movie starring Natalie Wood as the little girl and Edmund Gwenn as Kris Kringle. There is something about the 1940s that makes the telling of this tale of belief in Santa resonate much more powerfully than the more recent 1994 remake starring Richard Attenborough. The simplicity of the Christmas message, the lack of pretense in the characters, the absence of a post-modern angst about the meaning of Christmas all make the 1947 movie such a joy to watch. What is interesting, I think, is that this particular movie takes on much, much better the alienation that has come with the creeping materialism of the holiday season than any other modern efforts. It's a refreshing, clean, wholesome and inspiring film. And its relevance to the contemporary Christmas environment is still very much real.

3. A Christmas Story -- One's top 10 Christmas movies list would never be complete without this classic included somewhere in the list. For me, this story ranks up there with the best of them. Maybe it's because I'm a guy and this film is really about little boys at Christmas. Ralphie's daydreams are hilarious, especially his "A+++++++++++" essay daydream. And who can forget the irony of the "You'll shoot your eye out!" admonition that actually almost happens. As a parent, I can't say that I'm thrilled about the fact that Ralphie creates the whopper lie that "the Icicle did it" when his Red Rider BB Gun almost puts his eye out, and then gets away with it! But, hey, what little boy hasn't gone down this path? I do, however, feel obliged to issue a warning to parents, though. This movie is marketed as suitable for Children, but beware that there are some really rough, uncensored moments of strong profanity here. It's a movie that is very much politically incorrect, so some might find some of the humor a bit much. But, if taken in the right spirit, it can make for an enjoyable film experience.

2. Love, Actually -- I just love, love, love this modern British movie. It's not really about Christmas, but it takes place around the Christmas season, and its theme is about the mundane beauty of love. The different vignettes are wonderfully done, and the cast is star-studded and stellar. What I particularly like about it is that not all of the stories have a happy ending, but all of them are about love in the Christmas season. Bill Nighy's irreverent performance is absolutely fantastic, and the proposal scene between Colin Firth's character and his Portuguese beauty is so classically romantic that I can watch it over and over and over again, and never get tired of it. And the fact that I know a bit of Portuguese helps me better appreciate the moment. Oh ... I get all wound up just thinking about all the dramas in this movie. I could go on and on about it. And, though I could have done without the sappy kiddie-crush subplot, even this, with some screening of the some fo the more adult scenes, makes it something even the tweens could enjoy. I should say, though, that there are some adult moments, and not all of the film is appropriate for young people, even tweens. For instance, one of the story lines features two characters who are stand-in doubles for what is apparently a porn film, and their scenes often involve nudity and sexually explicit actions, though the relationship itself is ironically sweet and innocent, which makes the contrast with the porn thing all the more stark. Overall, though, I think this film is just fantastic, and the message of love, in all its complex messiness and varied context, can't be beat. Highly recommended, but with appropriate caution when youngsters are involved.

1. It's a Wonderful Life -- I don't care how cheesy, overplayed, and overdramatized some think this movie is, it's still the best Christmas story out there. And I still get all choked up every time I see that last scene when everyone shows up and showers George Bailey with more money than he could ever need to resolve his dilemma. As an actor and person, Jimmy Stewart is one of the best. And Lionel Barrymore's portrayal of the villain, Henry F. Potter, is more classic Scrooge than Scrooge himself!

The Gross Unfairness of the Senate

The U.S. Senate, with its abused filibuster mechanism, is the place where legislation goes to die. I detest both the filibuster and the way the Senate is constituted. It is inherently unfair by any stretch of the imagination when it comes to any just understanding of democracy. Take, for example, resident population of the U.S. in 2009 broken down by state:

Reliably "Blue" states:
California - 37 million citizens - 2 Senators
New York - 19.5 million citizens - 2 Senators
TOTALS - 56.5 million citizens - 4 Senators

Reliably "Red" States:
Alaska - .7 million citizens - 2 Senators
Idaho - 1.6 million citizens - 2 Senators
Kansas - 2.8 million citizens - 2 Senators
Kentucky - 4.3 million citizens - 2 Senators
Mississippi - 3 million citizens - 2 Senators
Montana - 1 million citizens - 2 Senators
Nebraska - 1.8 million citizens - 2 Senators
North Dakota - .7 million citizens - 2 Senators
Oklahoma - 3.7 million citizens - 2 Senators
South Carolina - 4.5 million citizens - 2 Senators
South Dakota - .8 million citizens - 2 Senators
Texas - 24.8 million citizens - 2 Senators
Utah - 2.8 million citizens - 2 Senators
Wyoming - .6 million citizens - 2 Senators
TOTALS - 54.1 million citizens - 28 Senators

This includes the highest-ranked reliably conservative population state of Texas. And even if you put some of the small population liberal states in the mix, you'll never be able to match the gross disparity in representation here by always including the highest-ranked reliably liberal population state, California, in the mix. No matter what combination any conservative may try to put together that includes California and New York on the liberal side and Texas and Georgia on the conservative side, the balance will always penalize states that consistently lean liberal.

Lets look at it another way:

Top 15 population states: California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina, New Jersey, Virginia, Washington, Arizona, Massachusetts
Bottom 15 population states: Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, Alaska, South Dakota, Delaware, Montana, Rhode Island, Hawaii, Maine, New Hampshire, Idaho, Nebraska, West Virginia, New Mexico

Even here, the imbalance is quite obvious. In the end, Liberals Democrats are always at a disadvantage in the Senate.

will.i.am

Check it out:

you a chihuahua
I'm a rotweiller

Jesuit DREAMers

On the other hand, this letter to the editor of the Times-Picayune made me proud of being a product of the Jesuits. It's also one of the reasons why, even though I consider myself an Exodus Catholic, I don't break completely with my Church and my faith:

Every year approximately 65,000 young people graduate from high school in the United States but are unable to go to college, work or join the military because their parents brought them to the country as children without legal documents. Their lack of legal status prevents them from pursuing their dreams and their full human potential and from making vital contributions to the well-being of our nation.

The DREAM Act is commonsense legislation that would remedy this. To move from being undocumented to being a U.S. citizen, eligible young people would be required to pass rigorous background checks, be of good moral character, graduate from high school, then go on to attend college or serve in the military for at least two years. Approximately 800,000 young people would be able to meet the requirements of the DREAM Act, including about 800 Louisianans.

No matter what one's views on fixing our country's broken immigration system, why would we want to punish children for the actions of their parents? Many of these young people know no other home than the United States.

As the president of a university committed to providing young people the education and formation experiences that allow them to realize their God-given potential, I find it very unfortunate to deny opportunity to talented, intelligent and dedicated students who only know the United States as their home.

Finally, I would like to thank Congressman Joseph Cao for taking a leadership position on this bill by becoming a co-sponsor of this legislation.

In preparation for an upcoming vote on this legislation, I urge your readers to contact members of the Louisiana delegation to support this vital piece of legislation that could bring hope and dignity to so many deserving young people.

Kevin Wm. Wildes, S.J., Ph.D.
President
Loyola University
New Orleans

I will say, too, that if Cao really does shepherd the DREAM Act through Congress during its lame duck session, and if he really does exercise leadership on this matter in any event, that in and of itself will go quite a long way to redeeming him in my eyes.

Tulane, Athletics, and Priorities

For the past two days, the New Orleans Times-Picayune newspaper has run two letters to the editor from supposed fans and alumni of Tulane University regarding the University's decision to extend the contract of head football coach Bob Toledo, in spite of four seasons of a losing record. I'm gonna get to the content of each of these letters in a bit, but I want to preface my "fisking" of these letter with a few introductory comments. First, full disclosure: Although I have zero connection today to the Tulane Department of Athletics, I am employed by Tulane University as a professor/administrator. Second, I am a Tulane Alum. I attended Tulane as an undergraduate for my Freshman year as a Dean's Honor Scholarship recipient. (Note: I transferred to Georgetown University after my Freshman year simply because I wanted to attend college away from home.) But I then returned to Tulane for graduate school, where I earned both my MA and Ph.D. degrees. Third, and perhaps most importantly for this discussion, I am a varsity letterman and athletic scholarship recipient in Track and Field at Tulane (back in the day when Tulane had a Men's Track & Field program. (Yes, yes, I gave up both the academic scholarship and the athletic scholarship to transfer to Georgetown. Although my dad nearly choked when I made this decision, there is no doubt in my mind today that it was the right decision. And my dad has come to see it this way, too.) So, I think I can safely say that I'm pretty invested in Tulane in more ways than one and I've earned the right to fire back at these letter writers. Now that I've tipped my hand, let's get right down to it...

Yes, I take a dim view of what these letter writers had to say. Here's the first of the two in its entirety:

Why is Tulane extending the contract of a football coach who, after four years, is only averaging about three wins per season? This is ridiculous.

If the Tulane administration does not care about athletics any longer, then just man up and say it publicly!

The administration should not insult the intelligence of the Tulane alumni. Their ability to lead Tulane University is now in serious question among the Tulane alumni.

Do not respond to me with more excuses, and please do not fall back on the Katrina situation as an excuse. It's been five years, and it is time to move on from that.

For the first time in my life, I am ashamed of being a Tulane alum. I am sure that my father (a 1950 graduate and World War II veteran), would feel the same if he were alive today.

Antoine "Pete" Madere
Baton Rouge

What can I say to this? There's so much to unpack here. First off, given how difficult it is to recruit and field a competitive division one football team at Tulane, four years is barely enough time to build a program. Give the guy four more years and then see what happens. For this letter writer to think that anyone can come in and turn around a program like Tulane's in four short years is succumbing to the absurd attitude that drives opinion about elite football programs like LSU. When it comes to football culture (and the corresponding fan culture), Tulane is not like LSU. And I say "Thank God!" for that. In fact, I'd wager that what Tulane needs in order to develop a solid football program is some longer-term stability. Firing a coach every 3-4 years is probably the worst thing that a place like Tulane can do to build up its football program.

The rest of the letter that talks about insulting the intelligence of Tulane alumni or about measuring the value of Tulane's leadership to run a first-rate University (and last I checked a University's primary mission is an ACADEMIC one!) says more about the letter writer than it does about Tulane. And the very last thought the letter writer leaves us tells us everything we need to know about this letter writer. Really, think about it: this guy is ashamed of being a Tulane alum because of the administration's decision not to fire a football coach. If the measure of this guy's pride in Tulane is wrapped up in a friggin' football thing, then he would have been better off going to LSU. What does Mr. Madere have to say about, you know, the EDUCATION he received from Tulane? What about Tulane's impressive graduation rate for its current athletes? Is there no pride in that? Furthermore, what about the many superlative aspects of the University that have nothing to do with athletics? Can't this dude find something redeeming about his Alma Mater in something other than a sport? I'll tell you, as someone educated by Tulane and as a former Tulane Athlete, what makes me ashamed is that there are alumni like Mr. Madere who calculate the measure of Tulane's excellence by the record of its football team.

Turning to the other letter...

Re: "Toledo stays on as Wave coach," Sports, Dec. 1.

I used to be a mainstay at Tulane baseball games. I don't even go anymore. I used to drive out all the way from Kenner midweek with my daughter on a school night to watch bad basketball at Fogelman Arena, never missing a game. I don't even bother anymore.

I haven't missed a football home game since 1996. That streak ends.

Tulane athletics is a non-event in our own hometown. Identifying yourself as a Tulane supporter by wearing gear in public will actually draw laughs. I challenge Scott Cowen and Rick Dickson to get out of their cocoons and try it some time. That deplorable situation sits squarely in their laps.

Tulane football used to be a vibrant part of our city. It is now a laughingstock. The leadership has done nothing but encourage further decline with decisions like the coaching decision made and announced late Wednesday.

Jason T. Liuzza
Tulane Class of 1993
Kenner

Now while Mr. Liuzza at least keeps his criticisms of Tulane focused on what he sees as the decline of Tulane athletics, and doesn't generalize this as a commentary on the University as a whole, his emphasis on athletics still conveys the notion that what he values about Tulane (and, by extension, what he thinks the rest of us in New Orleans value about Tulane) is its athletics. I can tell Mr. Liuzza that when most people from the community see someone wearing Tulane "gear" in public, they neither laugh nor ridicule. Instead, many of them (in fact, most of them, I'd say) think of Tulane students, faculty, and staff as critical resources for the community. Most people see in the Tulane brand things like ESL classes, after-school tutors for the city's urban youth, social entrepreneurship, coastal restoration work, community health clinics, etc. They see the sign of a civically-engaged, top-notch research and knowledge-generating institution.

As a Tulane alumnus and a former Tulane athlete myself, my advice to Mr. Madere and Mr. Liuzza is that they get their priorities straight and stop measuring the value of Tulane by its athletics.

The Messianic Cult of Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin was in my neck of the woods recently. I am always struck by how many of the very same star-struck adorers of Palin are also the ones who most likely recoiled at the "celebrity" power of Barack Obama in the last election. But the adoration has reached messianic proportions among some of the folks who basked in the divine glow of St. Sarah at the temple of Barnes and Noble:

Metairie resident Betty Purcell also had been waiting all day to meet Palin, who she praised for being a Christian and a leader. "It's really neat to be able to touch someone who's doing what she's doing," Purcell said.

Now what, exactly, is Sarah Palin doing beyond a book tour and a reality show? Maybe that one "touch" has cured all of Betty Purcell's ailments connected to Obama Derangement Syndrome. Who knows? And if there ever was any doubt that the ideological wars are being played out in Reality TV shows, I give you this from a St. Sarah devotee:

"You may have shaken hands with the future president," Brenda Fernandez told the boys after they stepped from the table. "This is something they'll never forget."

Brenda Fernandez told Palin that she voted for her daughter, Bristol, 10 times during the younger Palin's recent stint on "Dancing With the Stars."

"Thank you for keeping her in there," a smiling Palin told Fernandez. "She had a blast."

See the conflation of politics with pop culture? The same woman who is ga-ga over having possibly met a future President, sees fit to affirm her loyalty to such a future Commander-In-Chief and leader of the free world not by stating that she admired and voted for her in the 2008 election, but by declaring the multiple times she voted for Bristol Palin on "Dancing with the Stars"! Yes, Eric, we've already lost the battle. Do you see that now?