A banner week for Parade magazine

For those of you who might have missed it, this week’s Parade magazine, the Sunday newspaper insert, contained articles on two of my favorite people – Colin Powell and Kevin Costner. 

The Powell article, which was adapted from his new book titled It Worked for Me, was especially good.   In the article, Powell speaks of the importance of recognizing that every human being whom you encounter deserves to be treated with care and respect.  The article resonated with me because I had recently come to a similar realization when responding to an eHarmony question about what I was most proud of.  My response was that, aside from the obvious (my four boys), I was most proud of the way I had treated the people in my life.  Although I suspect that I have forgotten or overlooked many past failings, I don’t recall situations where I acted like someone else was beneath me or that I deserved preferential treatment.  In fact, I remember two situations in life (once in college and once near the end of my career at USAA) where I had cause to think about whether someone might have a grudge against me or a score to settle, and in both situations I concluded that there was no one.   

Incidentally, Powell the subject of “10 Questions” in Time magazine this week, too (plugging his book).  I particularly liked his response when asked about whether too many congressmen had overstayed their welcome:

• We need people who know how the system runs, but really is not necessary to stay there for an entire career.  When I made a three-star general, I was congratulated and told, “Two years from now to the day, if we haven’t given you another job or a promotion, we expect your resignation on our desk.”  That’s not bad.

That’s a good idea – up or out.

The Costner article in Parade focused on his relationship with Whitney Houston and the eulogy he gave at her funeral.    But I was more interested in his response when asked if he ever thought about running for office.  Like Powell, who was famously averse to elective politics, Costner isn’t tempted:

• I would never do it.  Ego has slipped so far into the political landscape that it’s usurped the idea of public service.  A good idea for one party is a bad idea for another – it has to be defeated.  Do I have the mentality to govern?  I think I do, but not in the system that exists.  I would be frustrated.

Boy, that’s a mouthful of truth (ego, partisanship) from Costner that resonates with me just as much as what Powell said.

Public service

On Friday night as I was returning from Castroville’s First Friday celebration, I casually mentioned to my date that I had campaigned for Congress in Castroville two years ago.  She politely asked me what prompted me to run for Congress.  Without thinking much, I responded that I’d always enjoyed politics; in fact, my college major was political science.  She commented that my response wasn’t like that given by most politicians. 

Without giving my date’s comment any additional thought, we moved on to a related political topic.  It was only later that it occurred to me that my honest answer was different than that given by most politicians because most politicians lie when they give their answer – i.e., they claim to feel an obligation to serve the public.  You might even get the impression that they are taking on this thankless duty out of a Mother Teresa-like calling instead of pursuing power because of a barn-sized ego.

I was reminded of this lie today when I listened to reports indicating the Senator Lugar of Indiana was bitter about losing his primary contest on Tuesday after serving Indiana for 35 years.  Unfortunately, politicians like Lugar end up believing their own lies and believe that their service/sacrifices over the years entitle them to hold their position forever. 

If their service were truly a sacrifice, Lugar and his ilk would be relieved that their electorate is asking someone else to take up the load.

A sheriff who helps ICE is in political trouble in Travis County

The Texas Tribune published an interesting article today describing a major issue in the election of the Travis County sheriff.  Travis County voters are being asked whether to re-elect a sheriff who cooperates with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).  This cooperation consists of reporting to ICE all Travis County jail inmates and then holding for 48 hours those inmates who ICE determines are here illegally.  Within those 48 hours, ICE has time to come and get the inmates for deportation. 

This cooperation between Travis County and the federal government would seem to be a good thing, unlike the internecine fighting in places like Arizona, but Travis County is a liberal hotbed in Texas and it sometimes believes that the practical policies of the Obama administration’s ICE are insufficiently enlightened.  And that explains why a Democratic sheriff enforcing the Obama policy is in danger of being outflanked on the left. 

The sheriff’s opponent in the Democratic primary is quoted in the Tribune article as saying, “I was appalled to see what it was doing to the Hispanic community and the immigrant community here.  I felt like it was very inhumane to be lazy and not do the research and say, ‘We’ll just hold everybody for deportation and not even mess with the particulars.’”  Apparently, the sheriff’s opponent wants the sheriff’s office to decide which arrested individuals have crimes that aren’t serious enough to justify deportation. 

Only in America would a person who is in the country illegally and then is arrested for allegedly committing a crime be released back into the community because the alleged crime was not serious enough to justify deportation.  A naive person might think that being in the country illegally is enough to justify deportation, let alone being here illegally and then getting arrested for a separate crime. 

With sanctuaries like Travis County, illegal immigration will never stop .

Incidentally, the Tribune article pointed out that Travis County appears to have a disproportionate number of illegal immigrants deported under this ICE program when compared to Bexar County (San Antonio).  The comparison is suspect, though, because it is based on the population of those two counties, not on number of illegal immigrants in each county.  I can’t find it now, but I remember seeing a report about a year ago that revealed the number of illegal immigrants in Bexar County was surprisingly low compared to DFW, Houston, and I, believe, Austin.  That would explain why Travis County has so many deportations.  And Austin’s sanctuary sentiment would also explain why so many illegal immigrants are attracted to Austin. 

As Ronald Reagan said, subsidize something and you get more of it, so you need to be careful what you subsidize.

Same-sex marriage – another step forward

Yesterday, I watched David Gregory on Meet the Press interview Vice President Joe Biden.  Biden is usually an interesting interview because he is too independent minded (or undisciplined) to be muzzled or ham-strung by the Obama/Biden campaign’s message.  Yesterday was no different when Gregory asked Biden about same-sex marriage.  Instead of giving Obama’s carefully nuanced message that their position was “evolving,” Biden gave a full-throated defense of same-sex marriage.  Although he didn’t go as far as Rick Perry did when he suggested that people who disagreed with him on immigration didn’t have a heart, Biden failed to recognize any rational reason for opposing same-sex marriage. 

Biden only pulled back when Gregory asked if President Obama would be coming out in favor of same-sex marriage in his second administration.  In hindsight, that was a ridiculous question.  Obviously, Biden doesn’t speak for Obama, and why would they announce in the current administration what they are planning to announce in the next administration.  That would be like Newt Gingrich announcing this week that he is going to announce his campaign withdrawal next week (except that Gingrich actually did that).   

For once, conservative and liberal pundits are in agreement as to why President Obama will not announce his support of single-sex marriage until after the election – political calculation.  Liberal pundits, however, suggest that the calculation is wrong because the popular support for same-sex marriage is growing rapidly.  I suggest the liberal pundits are wrong because presidential elections aren’t won by winning the popular election; rather, they are won by winning the Electoral College. 

With the Electoral College in mind, President Obama has calculated that his support of single-sex marriage will cost him moderate votes in conservative swing states while it will earn him liberal votes in liberal non-swing states.  That is a simple calculation.  President Obama may be an idealist, but he also realizes that his idealism will not have an outlet unless he is elected.  Thus, we shouldn’t expect him to take an transforming actions until after the election.  But then, Katie bar the door.

An open letter to the Washington Post’s columnist Eugene Robinson

Thank you for your recent column on immigration reform.   In the column you suggest that now is the perfect time for Congress to finally resolve our seemingly insoluble illegal-immigration problem. 

Why now?  Because of the Pew Hispanic Center report earlier this week that stated more Mexicans moved out of America than moved in between 2005 and 2010.  Based on this report you glean several unjustified conclusions:

• You conclude that the “crisis,” if there ever was one, is over.  That assumes that the crisis was the rising numbers of illegal immigrants.  I suggest that the actual crisis is the 11 million illegal immigrants in America (60% from Mexico).  That number hasn’t changed in a significant way, even though Romney’s concept of self-deportation, which many scoffed at, is proving to be valid.
• You contend that illegal immigrants “don’t come here to laze around and enjoy government benefits because, well, what benefits would those be?”  That statement must be a rhetorical device because I can’t believe that you really don’t know of any government benefits that illegal immigrants receive.  Just to humor you, let me list a few.  At the top of the list, birthright citizenship to any of their kids born in this country.  Some call these kids anchor babies; others use the term gateway drug because illegal immigrants can collect a plethora of government benefits (like food stamps) on behalf of their birthright babies.  Also at the top of the list is a free public education through high school.  The state of Texas tried to deny this benefit many years ago and was slapped down by the U.S. Supreme Court, which was afraid of creating a permanent underclass in America, but was not so afraid of creating a permanent, growing undocumented class.  Another benefit provided to illegal immigrants is medical care in our government-run hospitals and clinics, plus emergency care in all other hospitals and clinics.  One might argue that the best government benefit afforded to illegal immigrants is law & order.     
• You complain about “Arizona’s ‘driving while brown’ law, which instructs police to challenge and, if necessary, apprehend anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant. The law forbids racial profiling, but the truth is that it effectively guarantees profiling.”  Can you imagine any other country where the police are not expected to arrest someone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant?  I can’t think of a better example of living in an ivory tower.
• You warn that Obama will be hard to beat this fall unless Republicans start catering to the Hispanic special interest the way the Democrats already cater to the African-American special interest.  Of course, in doing that the Republican Party would be deviating from its principle of trying to represent all America, as opposed to the Democratic Party “principle” of catering to a motley assortment of special interests (trial lawyers, minorities, feminists, unions, and socialists).  Even from a practical perspective, however, your suggestion doesn’t make sense because, I’m sure you know, recent studies have found that the number of registered Hispanic voters has dropped precipitously since the last presidential election.

At the end of your column, you finally let the cat out of the bag regarding what Democratic intentions have been all along:

• We need a Reagan-style amnesty that would allow the great majority of undocumented immigrants to stay.

Just because Reagan did something doesn’t make it right.  He would be the first to say that we aren’t stuck on stupid.  The answer isn’t amnesty because that would reward bad behavior and encourage future bad behavior.  The answer remains the elimination of sanctuaries in America, along with the adoption of a broadened DREAM Act that would apply to all long-term residents, not just kids who go to school or the Service.

Sincerely,

Mike Kueber – San Antonio, TX

Illegal immigration and racial profiling

An article in today’s San Antonio Express-News reported on a shocking report from the Pew Hispanic Center, a Washington-based nonpartisan research group.  According to the article, between 2005 and 2010, more Mexicans left America (1.39 million) than came to America (1.37 million).  By contrast, between 1995 and 2000 670k Mexicans left America and 2.94 million came to America.

The Pew report does not provide an explanation for this dramatic shift in in immigration (legal and illegal combined), but it speculates that the cause was the declining availability of jobs in an American economy that was struggling with a recession, plus the increased border security and the improved Mexican economy. 

There was additional information in the report that I found even more interesting:

• At 12 million, Mexicans are the dominant immigrant nationality in America, but more than half of them are here illegally. 
• No other country in the world has as many as 12 million immigrants of all nationalities combined.  This fact shows how attractive America has been as a destination for foreigners and how relatively open our doors are.
• The number of illegal Mexican immigrants in America peaked in 2007 at 7 million, and that number had dropped to 6.1 million by 2011.
• The total number of legal Mexican immigrants in America dropped between 2007 and 2011, but the number in Texas increased during that time.
• The number of legal Mexican immigrants increased from 5.6 million in 2007 to 5.8 million in 2011.

This information regarding the predominance of Mexican illegal immigrants relates to another issue that we the subject of a Washington Post op-ed piece earlier in the week.  The Post’s op-ed piece was written by a Louisiana judge who pointed out the obvious – i.e., law-enforcement personnel who are attempting to identify illegal immigrants will pay more attention to individuals who look like Mexicans or are brown-skinned.  The judge went on to argue that such conduct amounts to illegal racial profiling, and he is hoping the Supreme Court review of the Arizona illegal-immigrant law will put a definitive end to it.

As a practical person, I am reluctant to discard a valuable enforcement tool.  The essential question is whether the value of the enforcement tool exceeds the cost to members of the group that will be scrutinized more closely merely because of their skin color.  This is an exceedingly complicated, subjective question, and I think the U.S. Supreme Court is supremely qualified to conduct an analysis and render a decision.  Unlike the Louisiana judge, however, I will not prejudge their decision and instead will look forward to reading their analysis.

 

 

 

Pell Grants

Have you ever wondered what Pell Grants are?  Me, too.  Until today, all I knew was that they were the most prominent form of federal assistance to kids wanting to go to college.  Then today, after returning from the gym, I noticed my youngest son had received a response to his 2012-2013 financial-aid application – the so-called FAFSA or Free Application for Federal Student Aid.  According to the federal response, my son was not eligible for a Pell Grant.  Although the result did not surprise me (during my later USAA years, my level of compensation seemed to keep me from participating in any federal program worth participating in, especially the Roth IRA and personal tax exemptions), I decided to learn who was benefitting from the federal largesse of the Pell Grants.   

Not surprisingly, the information that I was looking for was not easily accessible.  Most sites, instead of providing understandable information, provided only general guidance, such as eligibility depends on financial need, which is calculated by comparing the cost of attendance at a specific college (CoA) vs. the expected family contribution (EFC).  Depending on the results of that comparison, a qualified student could receive between as much as $5,000 a year to as little as $500 a year.  An unqualified student (my son) would receive $0.       

Some sites actually provided an extremely complicated calculator to determine the most critical factor – the EFC.  Way too complicated for me.  But eventually I found an article that gave me exactly what I was looking for.  According to this article provided by U.S. News:

• “Those with EFCs above $4,041 will be disqualified for Pell grants. Almost all Pell grants go to students whose families have incomes of less than $50,000 a year.

Because I am not interested enough to analyze the inner workings of EFC calculation, I have no opinion on its merits.  But Republicans might argue, as its presumptive nominee Mitt Romney has already suggested, that the federal government seems to be concerned only about the rich and the poor, whereas the middle class is neglected.  Kids of the poor have the government stand in for their parents to provide just as much financial support as the government has calculated a middle-class family should be providing to their kids, and kids of the rich don’t have any money issues because of the generous tax loopholes granted by government.  As Mitt Romney says, no one cares about the middle class. 

Although we live in a democracy, I think Romney is right.  But I am also willing to make an exception in this case because there are few things as important in this country as encouraging motivated poor kids to go to college.  And because the federal government doesn’t have unlimited amounts of money (in fact, it has no money), a cut-off for Pell Grants has to be somewhere, and perhaps $50k is the appropriate cut-off.  Personally, I think the cut-off is a bit low, and if I were in Congress, I would push for Pell Grants to kids with parents making up to $100k a year. 

Assisting kids to go to college is one of the most important things the federal government should be doing.

Nikki Haley’s husband and John Wayne

A couple of weeks ago, South Carolina governor Nikki Haley was making the rounds on TV promoting her new book called Can’t Is Not an Option.  During an interview on Imus in the Morning, she dodged his question about the allegations of her extra-marital affairs by simply stating that scurrilous stories like that are unfortunately a part of political life in America.  Although Imus could have easily pressed her on the subject, and made her dodging more obvious, he accepted her answer and moved on because that is his style.

Later in the interview, while discussing her husband Michael, Haley stated that he was a captain in the Army National Guard and that he wore his uniform to work every day.  Boy, was she proud of him.

Call me cynical, but her odd phrasing about wearing uniform to work every day immediately sent warning flags to my journalistic, bullshit-detecting instincts.  It reminded me of the other Republican wunderkind Marco Rubio saying that he was the child of Cuban exiles.  When caught on this canard, Rubio refused to apologize and instead doubled down and rationalized. 

A little bit of research on Michael Haley soon revealed that Nikki Haley was carefully not lying about her husband wearing a uniform to work every day, just as Bill Clinton was arguably not lying when he said he did not have sex with Monica Lewinsky.  But just as Clinton was trying to mislead people, so is Nikki Haley. 

Michael Haley is an officer in the Army National Guard, but that is a weekend warrior slot.  His full-time job is as a “federal technician” with the South Carolina National Guard.  The weird thing about a federal technician is that they are civilian employees who must also be weekend warriors.  Furthermore, they are instructed to wear their weekend-warrior uniform to work during the week even though they are civilian employees.

An acquaintance of mine in the National Guard in San Antonio told me that the state of Texas also utilizes federal technicians, but she couldn’t explain what the economic rationale for the position is.  She noted that, “They are GS government employees, but are required to be members of the National Guard as a condition of their employment.  They do wear the uniform, but get paid on a civilian pay scale.  Personally I dislike the program, since they wear the uniform but sometimes lack the discipline and commitment expected from a soldier. They can only work certain hours and must get paid overtime if they work extra.  They more closely resemble a union type of employee.”

My complaint with Nikki Haley’s claim is that she is embellishing her husband’s status for her political advantage; just as Marco Rubio is embellishing his parents’ status as Cuban refugees.  Is it asking too much to expect politicians to display some humility and be self-effacing?

As Ronald Reagan once said when describing how he keeps his moral compass pointing straight north, “When I’m unsure what to do, I ask myself, ‘What would John Wayne do?’”  Nikki and Marco should give that some thought.

Re-thinking creationism

Conservative America seems to be in the mood for re-thinking controversies that I had been taught were resolved.  The best example of this is the separation of church & state.  I actually included this as a no-brainer in the first edition of my congressional-campaign brochure until one friend and many constituents said, “Not so fast.”  They suggested moving this issue from resolved to controversial. 

Other examples of this rightward tilt are abortion (Roe v. Wade), limits to federal regulation of commerce (ObamaCare), and global warming.

Just last week, a new item was added to the list – creationism.  A headline USA Today proclaimed, “Debate over evolution now allowed in Tennessee schools,” and the associated article reported that a new law – the so-called Teacher Protection Academic Freedom Act (attached below) – would “reopen a decades-old controversy over teaching creationism to the state’s schoolchildren.” 

Ironically, Tennessee was also the venue for the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial.  Although the Scopes trial was not, as generally portrayed, the devastation of creationism as scientific theory, it was a landmark in public opinion on the issue.  As stated in Wikipedia:

• The trial was thus both a theological contest, and a trial on the veracity of modern science regarding the creation-evolution controversy. The teaching of evolution expanded, as fundamentalist efforts to use state laws to reverse the trend had failed in the court of public opinion.

The official summary of the new Tennessee law provides:

• This bill prohibits the state board of education and any public elementary or secondary school governing authority, director of schools, school system administrator, or principal or administrator from prohibiting any teacher in a public school system of this state from helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught, such as evolution and global warming.

But the USA Today article explained that, although the new law in Tennessee was technically directed toward encouraging critical thinking, there were significant fears within the scientific community in Tennessee that it was intended to encourage the teaching of creationism:

• Instead, it encourages students to question accepted scientific theories — listing as examples evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming and cloning — and it protects teachers from punishment if they teach creationism. Proponents say it will encourage critical thinking and give teachers license to discuss holes in scientific theories if they choose to do so.

The Republican governor of Tennessee, by refusing to sign or veto the bill, seems to agree with the scientific community:

• “I have reviewed the final language of HB 368/SB 893 and assessed the legislation’s impact.  I have also evaluated the concerns that have been raised by the bill.  I do not believe that this legislation changes the scientific standards that are taught in our schools or the curriculum that is used by our teachers.  However, I also don’t believe that it accomplishes anything that isn’t already acceptable in our schools.  The bill received strong bipartisan support, passing the House and Senate by a three-to-one margin, but good legislation should bring clarity and not confusion.  My concern is that this bill has not met this objective.  For that reason, I will not sign the bill but will allow it to become law without my signature.”

Critical thinking is wonderful, but it’s troubling that scientific theories are often challenged by conservatives whenever there is any component to the theory than cannot be definitively proven, while by contrast conservative doctrines are supposed to be given deference in American education unless they are definitively disproven.  (How about this canard – to raise government income, you simply cut tax rates.) 

Many Christians argue that intelligent design should be taught in schools as a scientific alternative to evolution.  Most scientists object that intelligent design has no place in a science class because it has nothing to do with science.  Rather it is a Christian attempt to reconcile evolution with the Bible.

There is nothing wrong with reconciling the Bible to science.  The Catholic Church has been doing that for years.  But this reconciliation has no place in a science classroom.  That’s as clear as the separation between church & state.

 

Teacher Protection Academic Freedom Act 

SENATE BILL 893 – HOUSE BILL 368

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 49, Chapter 6, Part 10, relative to teaching scientific subjects in elementary schools.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE:

SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 49, Chapter 6, Part 10, is amended by adding the following as a new, appropriately designated section:

(a) The general assembly finds that:

(1) An important purpose of science education is to inform students about scientific evidence and to help students develop critical thinking skills necessary to becoming intelligent, productive, and scientifically informed citizens;

(2) The teaching of some scientific subjects, including, but not limited to, biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning, can cause controversy; and

(3) Some teachers may be unsure of the expectations concerning how they should present information on such subjects.

(b) The state board of education, public elementary and secondary school governing authorities, directors of schools, school system administrators, and public elementary and secondary school principals and administrators shall endeavor to create an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues.

(c) The state board of education, public elementary and secondary school governing authorities, directors of schools, school system administrators, and public elementary and secondary school principals and administrators shall endeavor to assist teachers to find effective ways to present the science curriculum as it addresses scientific controversies. Toward this end, teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught.

(d) Neither the state board of education, nor any public elementary or secondary school governing authority, director of schools, school system administrator, or any public elementary or secondary school principal or administrator shall prohibit any teacher in a public school system of this state from helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught.

(e) This section only protects the teaching of scientific information, and shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or non-beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion.

Hilary Rosen and stay-at-home moms

Democratic strategist and CNN consultant Hilary Rosen created a firestorm on Wednesday by telling Anderson Cooper that Mitt Romney’s wife Ann has no credibility in understanding women’s economic issues because Ann “has actually never worked a day in her life.”  I understand that political partisans sometime misspeak, and Rosen eventually decided to apologize for a poor choice of words, but I also think that sometimes partisans accidentally tell the truth about their beliefs (it’s called a gaffe).  That is how I feel about Obama talking about people who cling to their guns and religion and that is how I feel about the Democratic activists talking about moms who stay at home. 

Deep down, does the Democratic Party support guns, religion, and stay-at-home moms?