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.

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.

Handicapping the Republican VP contest

Now that Mitt Romney has prevailed in the competition for the Republican presidential nomination, many pundits have shifted their attention to the vice-presidential nomination.  One of those pundits is Washington Post liberal columnist Eugene Robinson.   

Among Robinson’s comments, I was most struck by his suggestion that Florida Senator Marco Rubio “offers the biggest potential reward – for the biggest risk.”  That sounds scarily like the description of Sarah Palin in the movie/book Game Change.  If I were Marco Rubio, I would not like being compared to Sarah Palin.

Robinson’s column also contained evaluations of Paul Ryan (less charisma than Romney), Chris Christie (spectacular game-changer), Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal (dull technocrat), Virginia governor Bob McDonnell (anti-woman), Ohio senator Rob Portman (safe/boring, but from key swing state), Indiana governor Mitch Daniels (safe/boring), South Dakota senator John Thune (safe, boring), former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty (safe/boring), and South Carolina governor Nikki Haley (a gift of writing material to columnists everywhere).

Washington Post conservative columnist George Will took a different tack in describing who Mitt Romney should select as his running mate.  Instead of listing pros and cons of the leading contenders, Will described the qualities that America needs in its Vice President:

• For the next decade, American politics will turn on this truth: Slowing the growth of the entitlement state is absolutely necessary and intensely unpopular. In this situation, which is ripe for a demagogue such as the Huey Long from Chicago’s Hyde Park, Romney’s choice of running mate should promise something Washington now lacks — adult supervision.

With that quality in mind, Will believes two politicians stand – Paul Ryan and Bobby Jindal.  Unfortunately both are charisma-challenged, and that is the second theme of his column – i.e., historically vice-presidential candidates are not important to presidential race and therefore Romney should select a running mate who will help him govern, not necessarily help him win the election.  That makes sense, and President Obama’s selection of Joe Biden vs. McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin helps support that point.

Who do the oddsmakers think will be Romney’s running mate?

• Marco Rubio – 25%
• Chris Christie – 10%
• Rob Portman – 11.1%
• Bob McDonnell – 8.1%
• Paul Ryan – 7.2%
• Mitch Daniels – 3.7%
• Susana Martinez – 3.6%
• John Thune – 3.0%
• Rick Santorum – 2.9%
• Bobby Jindal – 2.6%
• Rand Paul – 2.4%
• Nikki Haley – 1.7%

Rubio used to be above 30%, so his stocked has dropped some.  Who the hell is Susana Martinez?  She is the governor of New Mexico, the first female Hispanic governor ever.  A career prosecutor, she was elected governor in 2010 and thus seems spectacularly unqualified to be Vice President.

I’m pulling for Mitch Daniels, but would be OK with Chris Christie or John Thune.

President Obama and Augusta National (The Masters)

Conservative talk shows are in an uproar over President Obama’s suggestion that Augusta National should end its current practice of admitting only men to the club.  Although that suggestion may seem unimpeachable, talk-radio maven Michael Savage made a good point – if President Obama believes that women should be able to join a private club that is entitled to make its own membership decisions, why doesn’t he make an analogous decision with respect to a club that he actually has some responsibility for – i.e., the people who are granted the privilege to play golf without President Obama.  Savage’s implication is that President Obama rarely granted such privilege to females, but I have searched the internet and have not found any information relating to the gender of his golfing partners.

Personally, I would vigorously support the admission of women to a private club that I belonged to.  That is the sort of diversity that seems mutually beneficial to everybody.  In fact, I would be suspicious of any group that wants to exclude women from membership.  But I think it is hypocritical for President Obama to posture over an issue that is none of his business while his personal conduct suggests that he is as Neanderthal as the members of Augusta National.     

Incidentally, women can play golf at Augusta National, but only at the invitation of one of its 300 members.  They cannot become members themselves.

Nikki Haley is not ready for primetime

South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley was on Don Imus’s talk show yesterday morning to promote her new book titled Can’t Is Not an Option.  At the end of the Imus interview, Haley took a Sherman-esque position regarding the vice-presidency, saying that she had promised the voters of South Carolina that she would complete the job they elected her to do. 

Haley’s position vis-à-vis the vice-presidency seems just as strong as that other Southern prodigy Marco Rubio.  I suspected that both are taking this principled position because they realize that Mitt Romney would not consider selecting someone so unqualified.  Unlike John McCain, Mitt Romney plans to be a solid decision-maker who doesn’t gamble on long-shots like Sarah Palin.

Although Nikki Haley is more qualified than Sarah Palin to be vice president, the difference is not great.  Haley is only 40-years old, and only spent four years in the South Carolina House of Representatives before being elected governor less than two years ago.  She has enormous charisma and a compelling life story, but she needs at least four more years of seasoning, and possibly a couple years in the U.S. Senate, like Democratic wunderkind Barack Obama.

Trayvon Martin

President Obama today went out of his way to interject himself into the Trayvon Martin affair.  Although I wasn’t familiar with the tragedy, I made the following comment on my Facebook wall:

• What does President Obama mean when he says his son would look like Trayvon? And what does that have to do with this tragedy?

A USAA friend responded with the following comments:

• What he meant by saying it is pretty obvious. Unfortunately, race is still a being issue in today’s society. This type of incident certainly wasn’t the first and surely won’t be the last. Parents should never have to bury a child under these circumstances. I of course don’t know the whole story, but I hope the right thing is done.

I responded as follows:

• No, Steve, I don’t think it is obvious what he meant. I am reminded of his comments about the Harvard professor, when he said it was obvious that the police had overreacted. I think Obama overreacted in the Harvard incident, and I think he is over-reacting in personalizing this matter.

My friend responded, “But Mike, isn’t it almost always an ‘over reaction’ to a black male being accused, harassed, or killed?”  I responded – “Yes, it’s an over-reaction to claim racism every time a black male is accused or killed.”

I continue to believe that President Obama overreacted by interjecting himself into this matter, but the Washington Post disagrees.  In an article in today’s edition, the Post attempted to distinguish between President Obama’s reaction to Harvard-gate and his reaction to the Martin killing:

• Calling Obama’s response to the Gates arrest “a disaster for the president” because he passed judgment on what had happened, Ari Fleischer, who served as press secretary for President George W. Bush, said Obama’s message Friday was a welcome contrast.  “There really is an issue of whether if you are black in America today, if you are dressed the way you are dressed, that that can make you a victim.  These are society’s most delicate issues, and I thought the president handled it delicately.”    

I disagree.  By suggesting that America needs to do some “soul searching” over the Martin incident and that Martin looked like Obama’s son would look, President Obama is prejudging the matter and implying that racism by Zimmerman result in Martin’s death.  Let’s await the local, state, and federal investigations before coming to that judgment.

A Mormon baptism

Maureen Dowd, one of my favorite liberal columnists, recently opined that Mitt Romney seemed to be trying to separate himself from his religious beliefs.    That is not surprising since he is a devout Mormon and many Christians think of the Mormon religion (the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) as a cult. 

Cult is defined as a religion that is considered as strange or extreme by the mainstream population.  If you dig deep enough, you could probably find things about most religions that are cultish, but Dowd took it upon herself in her column to focus on why her readers should consider Mormons to be a cult. 

No, she did not talk about the religion’s acceptance on polygamy in the 19^th century.  And she didn’t mention its religious undergarments, which Mormons supposedly wear to remind themselves of sacred covenants.  Instead she focused on the Mormon belief that an individual cannot get to heaven without a Mormon baptism.  Because of this belief, Mormons have developed a practice for baptizing people, especially ancestor, who have already died. 

This baptizing practice became controversial when Mormons baptize people who aren’t ancestors – e.g., Elvis Presley or victims of the Holocaust.  According to Wikipedia, however, this controversy has caused the Mormons to stop the practice, but that didn’t stop Maureen Dowd from basing her column on the practice (or describing Romney’s new “7,400-square-foot home featuring an additional 3,600 square feet of finished underground space.”  I wonder if she has an ulterior motive.    

Incidentally, Mormons believe that baptism is effective only with total submersion.  I am always amazed when religions make an important distinction between things that obviously should not be significant.  For example, religions often make a similarly important distinction between whether children can be baptized.

Also incidentally, Dowd mentioned in her column that Romney was apparently flummoxed by his primary opponent Rick Santorum and his immigrant, blue-collar roots.  I find it interesting that Santorum can claim immigrant, blue-collar roots even though his parents were born in America and had white-collar jobs.  That reminds me of President Obama portraying himself a deserving affirmative-action baby even though both of his parents had doctorate degrees.

Joe Klein on Rich Santorum’s inconvenient truths

There has been a spate of articles and columns (and entries in my blog) suggesting that Rick Santorum’s extreme religiosity and his willingness to allow his religious beliefs inform his policy views will preclude him from becoming president of the United States.  This week in Time magazine’s Joe Klein penned a column that affirmed that basic thesis, but went on to commend Santorum for his willingness to give full-throated defenses of positions that careful pols avoid talking about.  As described in another way by a different pundit, Santorum is not afraid to engage a reporter’s question instead of resorting to canned responses.

Klein’s column in available on-line only to Time subscribers, so I have attached the column in-full below for those interested in reading it.  Two passages are particularly interesting:

1. “The right-to-life movement has been particularly clever and disciplined, changing public opinion about abortion over the past 20 years. It has gone after the most egregious and grisly outliers, like so-called partial-birth abortion. It has gotten a major boost from science, ironically, as sonograms have made it impossible to deny that from a very early stage, that thing in the womb is a human life.”  I am confused by this conclusion – i.e., what about sonograms conclusively shows the early-stage fetus is a human life?
2. “But I also worry that we’ve become too averse to personal inconvenience as a society–that we’re less rigorous parents than we should be, that we’ve farmed out our responsibilities, especially for the disabled, to the state–and I’m grateful to Santorum for forcing on me the discomfort of having to think about the moral implications of his daughter’s smile.”  Klein raises the concern that American’s are becoming more selfish and less committed to treating each human life as something special.  

 

Rick Santorum’s inconvenient truths 

Bob Schieffer of CBS news is the gold standard for sane and solid in American TV journalism, and on the morning of Feb. 19, he was clearly nonplussed by extreme comments Rick Santorum had made about prenatal testing (“ends up in more abortions”), public schools (“anachronistic”) and the President’s position on the environment (a “phony theology”). “So, Senator,” Schieffer began, “I’ve got to ask you. What in the world were you talking about, sir?” At such a moment, the overwhelming majority of American politicians would go on the defensive, hem, haw and respond with “What I really meant to say was …” Not Santorum. He didn’t seem at all flustered. He vigorously restated the positions he had taken–in some cases, eloquently. He was especially vigorous on the subject of prenatal testing, citing studies that show that 90% of Down-syndrome babies are aborted. Schieffer asked whether Santorum wanted to turn back the clock on science and ban such testing. No, Santorum replied, but the federal government should not be promoting procedures like amniocentesis, which “are used for the purposes of identifying children who are disabled and in most cases end up [being eliminated by] abortions.”

Santorum has become an inconvenient candidate even for those who agree with him. These are delicate issues, to be handled delicately. The right-to-life movement has been particularly clever and disciplined, changing public opinion about abortion over the past 20 years. It has gone after the most egregious and grisly outliers, like so-called partial-birth abortion. It has gotten a major boost from science, ironically, as sonograms have made it impossible to deny that from a very early stage, that thing in the womb is a human life. As a result, the split on those who identify themselves as pro-choice vs. pro-life has gone from a 56%-33% pro-choice majority in 1995 to a 47%-47% tie now.

In the days after the Schieffer interview, audio was unearthed of a 2008 Santorum speech in which he seemed to argue the literal existence of Satan and a Mephistophelian intent to subvert the United States of America. He also seemed to compare the Obama Administration to Hitler, saying America now was like America in 1940, when some people thought Hitler wasn’t a threat. “It’s going to be harder for this generation to figure this out. There’s no cataclysmic event,” he said, just a slow creep toward state control of practically everything. These sorts of statements will probably stall the Santorum surge and hand the Republican nomination right back to Mitt Romney. Most Republicans aren’t going to want to battle Obama on contraception and prenatal testing.

And yet when you leave Hitler and Satan aside, there is something admirable about Santorum’s near Tourettic insistence on bringing up issues no one else wants to talk about. His position on education–that parents need to spend a lot more time supervising their children’s schooling–draws stifled groans from the overworked parents in his audiences, but he’s right: parents know best how their children learn. His emphasis on the importance of intact families is undoubtedly correct as well; every major study since the 1960s has shown the disaster that results from out-of-wedlock births. Even Santorum’s use of prenatal testing raises uncomfortable issues for many people. It was a sonogram that helped determine that the Santorums’ son Gabriel needed microsurgery in the womb to clear his bladder. Rick and Karen decided to fight for Gabriel’s life, which nearly cost Karen her own, and they passionately embraced the child during his two hours on earth. They have spent the past three years caring for their daughter Isabella, whose genetic defect, trisomy 18, is an early-death sentence. “Almost 100% of trisomy 18 children are encouraged to be aborted,” Santorum told Schieffer.

I am haunted by the smiling photos I’ve seen of Isabella with her father and mother, brothers and sisters. No doubt she struggles through many of her days–she nearly died a few weeks ago–but she has also been granted three years of unconditional love and the ability to smile and bring joy. Her tenuous survival has given her family a deeper sense of how precious even the frailest of lives are.

All right, I can hear you saying, the Santorum family’s course may be admirable, but shouldn’t we have the right to make our own choices? Yes, I suppose. But I also worry that we’ve become too averse to personal inconvenience as a society–that we’re less rigorous parents than we should be, that we’ve farmed out our responsibilities, especially for the disabled, to the state–and I’m grateful to Santorum for forcing on me the discomfort of having to think about the moral implications of his daughter’s smile. 

 

Unfairly picking on Rick Santorum’s charitable giving

A blog in last week’s Washington Post contrasted Mitt Romney’s and Rick Santorum’s financial habits based on a review of their recently disclosed tax returns.  The major point made by the blog posting was that Santorum “gave a shockingly tiny amount to charity.”  Oh, really?  Since when is giving 3% of your income to charity “shockingly tiny”?  The posting concedes that the American average is 2%, but then argues that the super-rich give an average of 3.4%.  So Santorum gives 0.4% less than the average super-rich person – big deal. 

Santorum’s giving, however, does pale in comparison to that of Romney, who tithes to his church.  In addition to his 10% tithe, Romney gives an additional 6% to other charities.  This combined rate of 16% a year is highly commendable, but it doesn’t justify the suggestion from the Post blog writer that Santorum is a hypocrite:

• “I focus on the charitable giving because so much of Santorum’s career and a good deal of his writing focus on faith-based charities. So why did he personally give so little to the groups he lauds?  For someone who lectures his fellow citizens about parenting and contraception, he deserves to be scrutinized for what appears to be a glaring inconsistency in his own behavior. He talks the talk, but does he walk the walk? These tax returns suggest not.”

Unfortunately, social conservatives are often held to a higher standard by those who don’t like being lectured.

Equal protection under the laws and same-sex marriage

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, which has already earned enmity of every constitutional conservative in America, recently threw out California’s 2008 voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage (known as Proposition 8).  According to the court, this ban violated the equal-protection constitutional rights of gay men and lesbians in California.  

The U.S. Constitution under the post-Civil War 14^th Amendment prohibits the states from denying “to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.”  In accordance with longstanding jurisprudence, the Ninth Circuit accurately described as follows the legal standard for determining whether a law denies a person equal protection - “If a law neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class, we will uphold the legislative classification so long as it bears a rational relationship to some legitimate end.”

In the practical application of this standard, the courts scrutinize a law in three ways:

1. Strict scrutiny.  Strict scrutiny (if the law categorizes on the basis of race or national origin or infringes a fundamental right): the law is unconstitutional unless it is “narrowly tailored” to serve a “compelling” government interest. In addition, there cannot be a “less restrictive” alternative available to achieve that compelling interest.
2. Intermediate scrutiny.  Intermediate scrutiny (if the law categorizes on the basis of sex): the law is unconstitutional unless it is “substantially related” to an “important” government interest.
3. Rational-basis test.  Rational-basis test (if the law categorizes on some other basis): the law is constitutional so long as it is “reasonably related” to a “legitimate” government interest.

I’ve always been amazed when a court concedes that a law “neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class,” yet concludes that the law is essentially irrational – i.e., it is not reasonably related to a legitimate government interest.  Why would a legislature act irrationally?  As Michele Bachmann would say, a court must have a lot of chutzpah to reach such a conclusion.  And the California case is even worse because the law was enacted by the voters through a proposition.  Thus, the Ninth Circuit is saying that the California voters acted irrationally.

It’s no wonder that Newt Gingrich has decided to demagogue the Ninth Circuit; it is an easy target.  But he neglects to consider that our system has a Supreme Court that has full authority to reverse outliers like the Ninth Circuit or Gingrich’s other so-called renegade jurist in San Antonio, Federal Judge Fred Biery.

Incidentally, Biery caught hell for refusing to allow a speaker at a local high school graduation say a prayer, and he was promptly reversed by the conservative 5^th Circuit Court of Appeals.  Last week the litigants agreed to settle the matter, and Judge Biery issued an Opinion and Order that concluded with the following personal statement:

A PERSONAL STATEMENT

During the course of this litigation, many have played a part:

To the United States Marshal Service and local police who have provided heightened security: Thank you.

To those Christians who have venomously and vomitously cursed the Court family and threatened bodily harm and assassination: In His name, I forgive you.

To those who have prayed for my death: Your prayers will someday be answered, as inevitably trumps probability.

To those in the executive and legislative branches of government who have demagogued this case for their own political goals: You should be ashamed of yourselves.

To the lawyers who have advocated professionally and respectfully for their clients’ respective positions: Bless you.

Biery is fortunate that he can vent from the safety of a lifetime appointment.

 

 

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2012/02/07/1016696com.pdf