Mike Kueber's Blog

June 30, 2013

Race-conscious contracting by the City of San Antonio

During my City Council campaign, I provided two examples of Mayor Castro and his cronies on the City Council taking actions that unfairly discriminated against Anglos:

  • Redistricting.  Votes in the districts with the most Anglos were severely diluted.
  • City contracting.  Preferences were given to businesses owned by minorities.

In the course of researching the redistricting issue during the campaign, I learned that the City’s treatment of its Northside districts was not only inequitable, but also illegal, and I am in the process of getting that illegality rectified.  While doing some research this week on affirmative action, I stumbled across a Supreme Court decision that indicates the City’s race-conscious contracting is similarly illegal.

My first awareness of race-conscious contracting occurred in January this year, and I blogged about it shortly before getting into the council race.   The blog entry was based on two articles in the Express-News that described not only the Council’s first step of helping minority businesses to be more successful in the bidding process, but also the Council’s Plan B in the event that the first step wasn’t adequately successful:

  • At a City Council meeting last month, Fair Contracting Coalition members said city contract awards should mirror the diversity of San Antonio’s business community.  Members of the Fair Contracting Coalition want the city to step up its race-conscious method of awarding contracts to one of ‘segmentation,’ a method that would consider each racial and ethnic group separately and set hard goals for awarding contracts to each.  The city would move to segmentation only if it determines that the race-conscious plan isn’t effective.  It will take about a year to determine whether the race-conscious plan is working.  The city made the decision to abandon its long-running practice of weighing race and ethnicity in contracting decisions in 2010, a move that was effective in January 2011.  However, it switched back to a race-conscious program last May, saying minority participation plummeted under its race-neutral program.  The city noted it paid $24.3 million in construction contracts for the August 2011 through mid-May 2012 period, with minority- and women-owned businesses garnering $4.7 million, or 19 percent, far short of the city’s goal of 29 percent.”

The relevant Supreme Court decision that I stumbled across earlier this week is City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469 (1989).    According to Wikipedia:

  • Croson was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the city of Richmond’s minority set-aside program, which gave preference to minority business enterprises (MBE) in the awarding of municipal contracts, was unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. The Court found that the city failed to identify both the need for remedial action and that other non-discriminatory remedies would be insufficient.
  • Croson involved a minority set-aside program in the awarding of municipal contracts. Richmond, Virginia, with a black population of just over 50 percent had set a 30 percent goal in the awarding of city construction contracts, based on its findings that local, state, and national patterns of discrimination had resulted in all but complete lack of access for minority-owned businesses. The Supreme Court stated:
    • We, therefore, hold that the city has failed to demonstrate a compelling interest in apportioning public contracting opportunities on the basis of race. To accept Richmond’s claim that past societal discrimination alone can serve as the basis for rigid racial preferences would be to open the door to competing claims for “remedial relief” for every disadvantaged group. The dream of a Nation of equal citizens in a society where race is irrelevant to personal opportunity and achievement would be lost in a mosaic of shifting preferences based on inherently unmeasurable claims of past wrongs. [Citing Regents of the University of California v. Bakke]. Courts would be asked to evaluate the extent of the prejudice and consequent harm suffered by various minority groups. Those whose societal injury is thought to exceed some arbitrary level of tolerability then would be entitled to preferential classification. We think such a result would be contrary to both the letter and the spirit of a constitutional provision whose central command is equality.”

The similarities between Richmond and San Antonio are striking.  Both are cities where a minority was the majority (blacks in Richmond and Hispanics in San Antonio), yet they implement a program to favor themselves over the Anglo minority.  A major distinction is that Richmond established a hard goal, whereas San Antonio is merely threatening to do that if their softer techniques don’t succeed.

It is unclear to me whether the Supreme Court would look more generously on a technique that grants points to minorities instead of relying on hard quotas, but at a minimum the Court will require that the City Council based its action on a strong report showing that race-conscious contracting is (a) a compelling governmental interest and (b) narrowly tailored to accomplish its purpose.

Two-bit bet says San Antonio hasn’t done that.

Advertisements

June 28, 2013

SA2020 and diversity

Filed under: Issues,Law/justice,Politics — Mike Kueber @ 8:51 pm
Tags: ,

In my blog entry earlier this week concerning affirmative action and diversity, I had planned to report on recent developments with SA2020 (its Civic Engagement component) in working toward more diversity on City of San Antonio boards and commissions.  But I got distracted, so I will correct that oversight today.

About a month ago, I posted that SA2020 had adopted an objective of increased diversity, but the Civic Engagement people had put off creating an objective until a baseline was determined.   In that posting, I speculated that the objective would be to have boards and commissions that “look like San Antonio” – i.e., racially and ethnically balanced.

Earlier this month, the Civic Engagement people confirmed my suspicion when they published a report that concluded there were not enough Hispanics and women on City of San Antonio boards.  The basis for this conclusion was that Anglos currently held 42.4% of all board positions even though they comprised only 26.6% of the city’s population.  Similarly, women held only 33.1% of all board positions even though they comprised 51.2% of the population.

The Civic Engagement people made no attempt to explain or understand this discrepancy, yet immediately jumped to the conclusion that it should and can be fixed by working toward “a significant change that more closely approximates the diversity of the city’s projected population in 2020.” 

Effecting a change in favor of more minorities and fewer Anglos on San Antonio boards shouldn’t be difficult considering that boards are appointed by our Hispanic mayor and a City Council that has six Hispanics, two Asians, one African-American, and only one Anglo.  But this objective became paradoxical and problematic this week when both liberal and conservative Supreme Court justices reaffirmed this week in an affirmative-action decision that racial balancing is illegal.

Incidentally, when the head of Civic Engagement, Molly Cox, first provided these numbers and goals to me, I told her that as a male Anglo, I would try to help out the city by not volunteering for any of its boards and commissions.

Funny how things work in a democracy.

 

Diversity of Boards – 2012

Anglo (42.4%)

African American (5.2%)

Hispanic (36.2%)

Other (3%)

Sex:

Male – 66.9%

Female – 33.1%.

 

Diversity of San Antonio – 2010   

Anglo (26.6%)

African American (6.9%)

Hispanic (63.2%)

Other (3.5%)

Sex:

Male-­‐ 48.8%

Female-­‐ 51.2%

June 25, 2013

Fisher v. Texas finally decided anticlimactically

The U.S. Supreme Court finally decided its affirmative-action case, Fisher v. University of Texas.  Unfortunately, they punted on the decision by instructing a lower court to reconsider its previous decision.  In this reconsideration, the lower court is supposed to hold the University to a much heavier burden for justifying race-influenced admissions.

Because of this holding, both sides can claim victory.  Liberals like the New York Times and the San Antonio Express-News editorial boards are thrilled (or relieved) that affirmative action has been allowed to live at least another day, while conservatives are encouraged that all future cases with be subjected to most difficult equal-protection analysis – i.e., strict scrutiny.

After reading an article in the SA Express-News (whose reporting is scarily similar to its editorial page), I submitted a comment suggesting that this legal issue is a sham because the liberals are pretending to pursue diversity while in reality they are pursuing racial balancing.  The sham is required because the Bakke decision by the Supreme Court in 1978 said that racial balancing was illegal but diversity was not.

Shortly after making the comment, another Express-News reader, Daniel Miller, suggested that I was mistaken.  He accused me of falsely charging the universities of seeking racial balance when, in fact, they were purely pursuing diversity.  He also accused me of failing to define racial balancing.

With this prompt from Miller, I googled the difference between racial balancing and diversity, and was taken to an interesting website that contained an excellent description of this issue.  The website contains several quotations from legal decisions relating to racial balancing:

  • Accepting racial balancing as a compelling state interest would justify the imposition of racial proportionality throughout American society, contrary to our repeated recognition that “[a]t the heart of the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection lies the simple command that the Government must treat citizens as individuals, not as simply components of a racial, religious, sexual or national class.” 
  • Allowing racial balancing as a compelling end in itself would “effectively assur[e] that race will always be relevant in American life, and that the ‘ultimate goal’ of ‘eliminating entirely from governmental decision-making such irrelevant factors as a human being’s race’ will never be achieved.”
  • An interest “linked to nothing other than proportional representation of various races … would support indefinite use of racial classifications, employed first to obtain the appropriate mixture of racial views and then to ensure that the [program] continues to reflect that mixture.

After responding to Miller’s comment, I decided to read the Fisher decision again, and while doing that, I noticed the concurring opinion of conservative Justice Thomas and the dissenting opinion from liberal Justice Ginsberg.  Justice Thomas described the stark difference between diversity and racial balancing:

  • Attaining diversity for its own sake is a nonstarter. As even Grutter recognized, the pursuit of diversity as an end is nothing more than impermissible “racial balancing.” (“The Law School’s interest is not simply ‘to assure within its student body some specified percentage of a particular group merely because of its race or ethnic origin.’ That would amount to outright racial balancing, which is patently unconstitutional.”  (“Preferring members of any one group for no reason other than race or ethnic origin is discrimination for its own sake. This the Constitution forbids”). Rather, diversity can only be the means by which the University obtains educational benefits; it cannot be an end pursued for its own sake. Therefore, the educational benefits allegedly produced by diversity must rise to the level of a compelling state interest in order for the program to survive strict scrutiny.

Justice Thomas also provided interesting information relating to the extent of racial discrimination at UT in admitting its class of 2009:

  • In the University’s entering class of 2009, for example, among the students admitted outside the Top Ten Percent plan, blacks scored at the 52d percentile of 2009 SAT takers nationwide, while Asians scored at the 93d percentile. Blacks had a mean GPA of 2.57 and a mean SAT score of 1524; Hispanics had a mean GPA of 2.83 and a mean SAT score of 1794; whites had a mean GPA of 3.04 and a mean SAT score of 1914; and Asians had a mean GPA of 3.07 and a mean SAT score of 1991.

Liberal Justice Ginsberg admitted that all of this talk about diversity was merely camouflage:

  • Petitioner urges that Texas’ Top Ten Percent Law and race-blind holistic review of each application achieve significant diversity, so the University must be content with those alternatives. I have said before and reiterate here that only an ostrich could regard the supposedly neutral alternatives as race unconscious.  As Justice Souter observed, the vaunted alternatives suffer from “the disadvantage of deliberate obfuscation.”  Texas’ percentage plan was adopted with racially segregated neighborhoods and schools front and center stage….  It is race consciousness, not blindness to race, that drives such plans.  (Footnote – The notion that Texas’ Top Ten Percent Law is race neutral calls to mind Professor Thomas Reed Powell’s famous statement: “If you think that you can think about a thing inextricably attached to something else without thinking of the thing which it is attached to, then you have a legal mind.” Only that kind of legal mind could conclude that an admissions plan specifically designed to produce racial diversity is not race conscious.)  As for holistic review, if universities cannot explicitly include race as a factor, many may “resort to camouflage” to “maintain their minority enrollment.”

A few weeks ago, I posted an entry about two dramatically different meanings of “diversity”:

  1. In the academic world, the concept of diversity encompasses acceptance and respect. It means understanding that each individual is unique, and recognizing our individual differences. These can be along the dimensions of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, age, physical abilities, religious beliefs, political beliefs, or other ideologies.  It is the exploration of these differences in a safe, positive, and nurturing environment. It is about understanding each other and moving beyond simple tolerance to embracing and celebrating the rich dimensions of diversity contained within each individual.
  2. In the real world, however, people know that the term diversity was created to replace the politically-incorrect term affirmative action, which was created to replace the even more politically-incorrect terms of quotas and reverse discrimination.  In the real world, a person who refers to diversity is not talking about recognizing individuals as unique, but rather is talking about expanded  minority (and possibly gender) involvement.

In the post, I also criticized a local Hispanic leader, Lionel Sosa, who recently attempted to further obfuscate reverse discrimination by lobbying in favor of something he calls “inclusion.”  In a column in the Express-News, Sosa argued that Republicans must:

  • Add “inclusion” to our core principles. This means top-to-bottom inclusion utilizing all channels; party leaders, campaigns, candidates, think tanks, office holders, bloggers, strategists, talk show hosts, the media, the party faithful, political consultants, pollsters, faith community, etc.
  • Ban the word “outreach.” Outreach is tokenism. Inclusion means having talented Latinos present at every level.

Sosa’s “inclusion” seems very similar to quotas and racial balancing.  Coincidentally, an article on affirmative-action in the NY Times around that time included advocates using the term “inclusion,” while noting, “There is diversity fatigue. We could fall backwards very quickly.”   To its credit, the article described a widely-acknowledged side-effect of affirmative action:

  • A black associate at one Houston firm, who requested anonymity so as not to jeopardize his chances of making partner, used a familiar legal term to describe his unease at work, saying he sometimes felt there was a ‘rebuttable presumption’ that he was there to fill a quota and was not as qualified as white colleagues.

Obviously, this moral/political issue will be with us for many years to come.

June 23, 2013

Paul Lee – reflections from another perspective

Filed under: Biography,Culture,History,Philosophy — Mike Kueber @ 4:04 am
Tags: , , , ,

Paul Lee was an old friend from Aneta who died on April 13, 2013 at the age of 64.  While I was visiting Aneta last week for the city’s annual turkey bar-b-que, I came across a letter-to-the-editor in the Aneta Star reflecting on Paul’s life.  The letter was written by Paul’s younger cousin, Greg Lee, who grew up with Paul in Aneta before moving away while Paul stayed at home.

Greg’s letter seemed to have two themes – (1) Paul was an incredibly talented young athlete, and (2) because Paul clung to his youthful athletic stardom, he failed to realize his potential.  The letter concluded with a lengthy quote from Bruce Springsteen’s 1984 song, Glory Days.  The song’s lyrics describe a high school baseball star who wasted everyone’s time by incessantly telling boring stories of his glory days and who never amounted to anything.

According to Wikipedia, Springsteen wrote the lyrics to Glory Days based on a real-life encounter with a former high school friend.  Springsteen was not an accomplished athlete in high school (see the video on You Tube; he throws a baseball like a girl in the 60s) and he admits to hating high school, so the song seems an obvious attempt to mock the athletes who were popular and successful in high school.  Springsteen would do well to remember that Envy is one of the seven deadly sins.

As Greg’s letter indicated, Paul loved to talk about his glory days, and all of Paul’s friends will agree on that point.  But, although Springsteen was clearly mocking high school athletes, I’m sure Greg did not intend to be critical of Paul.  Rather, that part of the letter was probably intended to be a cautionary tale.

But if the letter contained cautionary words of wisdom for small-town kids, you might wonder if Paul would have agreed.  Fortunately, I know the answer.  A few years ago, while perched on a barstool in Aneta’s Whitetail Bar, I enjoyed a long conversation with Paul about glory days before I broached the subject of Springsteen’s song Glory Days.

Paul thought Springsteen’s song had it all wrong.  Most people, according to Paul, have a brief opportunity to do something really dramatic and memorable, and that opportunity is most likely to occur with high school sports.  That is when everyone’s attention is focused and everyone wants the same thing.  Paul mocked the frustrated high school athletes who later attempt to find glory by competitively running a 10k or endlessly practicing golf.  As he said, who cares then?

But everyone cares about athletic success in high school.  It is a defining moment that lasts forever.  I just watched a movie about high school football in Texas – Friday Night Lights – and the most inspirational point of the movie occurs near the end when the coach gives a stirring halftime speech – “I want you to put each other in your hearts forever because forever is about to happen here in just a few minutes.”  Paul understood and appreciated the way Texans feel about high school football (Odessa Permian HS) and college football (UT Longhorns).

First Lady Barbara Bush once noted at a college commencement address that material success in life is relatively unimportant.  As evidence of that, she said you’ll never hear of individuals on their death bed lamenting that they failed to achieve one more promotion up the corporate ladder.  That would be chasing fool’s gold.  But you can’t say the same thing about making or missing an important free throw in a District Championship game.  That result will stick with you forever.

On a different level, Springsteen’s criticism of nostalgic reminiscences seems petty.  I am reminded of the sage advice given by cowboy philosopher Gus McCrae to Lorena Wood in Lonesome Dove:

  • “Lorie darlin’, life in San Francisco, you see, is still just life. If you want any one thing too badly, it’s likely to turn out to be a disappointment. The only healthy way to live life is to learn to like all the little everyday things, like a sip of good whiskey in the evening, a soft bed, a glass of buttermilk, or a feisty gentleman like myself.”

Nostalgic reminiscing provides a simple, accessible joy to people who are not preoccupied with future objectives.  Intense, never-ending ambition is fine for some people, but it is not for everyone.  The crux of the matter is whether reminiscing prevents an individual from achieving things in life.  People who believe that are guilty, I believe, of the logical fallacy that correlation implies causation (cum hoc ergo propter hoc, which is Latin for “with this, therefore because of this.”)  I think it is more accurate to conclude that individuals who aren’t predisposed to forward thinking are more likely to enjoy looking back.  There’s nothing wrong with that.

The solution is simple – Glory Days are worth remembering, but shouldn’t be shared with those who aren’t interested in them.

Returning to Greg Lee’s letter, he said that Paul had big ideas and plans that went beyond Aneta and North Dakota, and that, although Paul failed to leave Aneta, Greg was inspired by Paul’s dreams and left Aneta.  This comment reminds me of some additional wisdom by Gus McCrae, who scolded Woodrow Call for disparaging a woman who didn’t get out of Lonesome Dove and instead died there:

  • It ain’t dying I’m talking about, it’s living. I doubt it matters where you die, but it matters where you live.”

Gus’s point was that an individual can lead a satisfying life, regardless of where.  I believe Paul’s life in Aneta, not in San Francisco or New York, was satisfying.  He managed the family farm and started three successful businesses, even though he never made it to Yankee Stadium.  He once told me that if my brother Kelly, Jim Kleven, and he could attend a game in Yankee Stadium, they might as well die and go directly to heaven because they would have nothing more to look forward to in this life.  That sounds like a man with sound priorities and one who is comfortable in his own skin.  He lived his dream, not someone else’s.

Coincidentally, Time magazine had an article this week on the exploding interest in cremation, with almost 50% of the deceased people in America currently being cremated.  One of the explanations proffered by the article is that, because of the baby boomers’ geographical mobility, they don’t have a single hometown to be buried in.  Rather, they are born in one place, educated in another, work in several, and finally retire to die somewhere else.  That is not true of Paul.  He was a son of Aneta, and the people of Aneta will favorably remember him for many ears.

RIP, Paul.

p.s., although Paul didn’t agree with the Glory Days lyrics, he was a Springsteen fan.  My brother Kelly informed me that Paul’s three favorite songs were Springsteen’s Dancing in the Dark (1984) along with the Doors’ Light My Fire (1967) and Jefferson Airplane’s Somebody to Love (1967).

I had a friend was a big baseball player back in high school

He could throw that speedball by you

Make you look like a fool boy

Saw him the other night at this roadside bar

I was walking in, he was walking out

We went back inside sat down had a few drinks

but all he kept talking about was

Chorus:

Glory days well they’ll pass you by

Glory days in the wink of a young girl’s eye

Glory days, glory days

Now I think I’m going down to the well tonight

and I’m going to drink till I get my fill

And I hope when I get old I don’t sit around thinking about it

but I probably will

Yeah, just sitting back trying to recapture

a little of the glory of, well time slips away

and leaves you with nothing mister but

boring stories of glory days

June 22, 2013

Saturday Night at the Movies #74 – Friday Night Lights (the movie)

Filed under: Movie reviews — Mike Kueber @ 12:22 am
Tags: ,

A TV show based on a movie is rarely as good as the original movie.  That is not the case with Friday Night Lights (the movie – 2004).  The 76-episode TV show, which I reviewed a few weeks ago, was so good that I decided to re-watch the critically acclaimed movie (81% by the Rotten Tomato critics, 84% by the audience) that I had watched many years ago.

The result?  I found the original movie less satisfying than the TV show.

Why?  I loved the TV show because of its memorable characters, while the movie focuses on a more prosaic subject – high school football in Texas.

An excellent contrast between these two approaches can be shown with the only two actors that appeared in both – Connie Britton plays Tami Taylor, the coach’s wife, and Brad Leland plays Buddy Garrity, the team’s biggest booster.  In the movie, both characters are superficial and have no depth.  In the TV show, however, they come to life and become interesting and important roles.  Plus, the TV show has a coach, Kyle Chandler, who is immensely more charismatic than the movie coach, Billy Bob Thornton.

FNL is based on a true story so the storyline isn’t quite as incredible, but as an editor in the movie The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence suggested, “When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.”  FNL also contains better football action sequences.  In the end, however, I love the characters in the TV show, and missed them terribly in the movie.  I give the movie only two and a half stars.

June 1, 2013

Saturday Night at the Movies #73 – Friday Night Lights (TV show)

Filed under: Movie reviews — Mike Kueber @ 7:48 pm
Tags: , ,

Well past midnight last night, after finishing episode #76 of “Friday Night Lights,” I posted the following on Facebook:

  • Just finished a viewing binge of 76 episodes of “Friday Night Lights.”  What a fantastic show!  I will ponder for a while before deciding whether it is as good as “24” – action hero vs. glory days of high school.  Although the dialogue and action in FNL can’t compare to “24,” the plethora of memorable, evocative characters in FNL is similarly incomparable.

So, who are these memorable characters?  My favorite is Tim Riggins, a fullback for the Dillon Panthers who wears jersey number “33.”  Tim reminds me of my son Jimmy, not just because of his hulking size and Samson hair, but also because his success on the football field and his easy-going personality have enabled him to experience success in many areas of life without developing the personal discipline that most successful individuals have.  Gotta love him.

Tim’s off-again, on-again girlfriend Tyra Collette is another favorite character.  Like Tim, Tyra oozes charisma and rejects traditional values.  Although they are both extremely successful in high school life, they seem to realize that their success will be short-lived.

The stars of the show are Coach Eric Taylor and his wife Tami.  They seem to have a perfect marriage, not in the sense of never always acting perfectly, but in the sense that they seem to have a relationship that will enable them to work through all of the problems and challenges that confront everyday people.

The other royal couple on the show is Matt Saracen (also called QB-1 or “7”) and the coach’s daughter Julie.  Matt is amazingly level-headed and sincere despite having immense personal challenges; Julie has all of the typical problems of a teenager despite having two perfect parents who expect her to be perfect, too.

Matt’s best friend is Landry Clarke, who begins as a dorky Irish geek, but evolves into a cool, centered musician/athlete.  His dad is played by Glenn Morshower, who played Secret Service Agent Aaron Piece in “24.”  The two look amazingly alike, as does Buddy Garrity, the warm-hearted, bombastic Panther booster, and his chubby son Buddy, Jr.  Luke Cafferty is a farmboy with evangelical parents who becomes a star running back after getting Becky Sproles pregnant.  Despite having an abortion, Becky remains as lovable as ever.  Tim’s older brother Billy is a loser who, against all odds, manages to get his life together.

The final episode of FNL is amazing.  The penultimate scene involves Tim and his brother Billy taking a break from their work and having a beer, something that they have been doing in most of the 76 episodes.  Billy asks, “Texas forever?”  Tim responds, “Texas forever.”  This slogan defines Tim and it defines the show – i.e., Texas is in their blood, and they will never leave.

Ironically, the final scene finds Coach Taylor coaching a new team after leaving Texas for the first time in his life.  He tries to get his new team to chant his Dillon Panthers slogan – “Clear eyes, full hearts, can’t lose.”  After he calls out the first two phrases, he waits for the team to yell, “Can’t lose.”  When they look at him dumbly, he simply says, “We’ll deal with that later.”

Sorry, Coach, but you and Tami are going to regret leaving Texas.  Maybe when there is a movie sequel, you will be back home where you belong.

p.s., while at my apartment pool today, a friend and I were discussing FNL and how Texans have a unique love of their state, but that reminded my of Brad Pitt in “A River Runs Through It,” where the prodigal son refused to move from Montana to his angelic brother in Chicago.  Pitt told him, “Oh, I’ll never leave Montana, brother.”

p.s.s., at the end of the show, Mrs. T argues that her interest in taking a job in Philly should prevail because she had been deferring to Coach’s job pursuits for the past 18 years.  That argument fails to acknowledge that for the first 14 years, Mrs. T was a stay at home mom.  It was only for the past four years that she had a paying job.  Thus, it is misleading to suggest that her career has played second fiddle to his for 18 years.  Rather, she had what should have been a fully satisfying career for 14 years as a mom, and was in the beginning stage of her second career compared to his 18-year career that was really blossoming.  Admittedly, though, her new position as Dean of Admissions at a near-Ivy college provides her with an incredible opportunity to implement her heart-felt philosophy about giving disadvantaged kids more opportunity.  But my feelings for Mrs. T were irreparably damaged when I read a column that her and a producer wrote about their disenchantment with the Romney campaign for borrowing the Panther battle cry – “Clear eyes, full hearts, can’t lose.”  Seems they thought the theme of FNL was more consistent with Obama’s socialism.  You’ve got to be kidding me, Mrs. T.