The Ledbetter Act for Unemployed Lawyers

Is it really surprising that one of lawyer Barack Obama's top priorities has the effect of goosing the fee universe for trial lawyers? All to further the dubious politically correct goal of gender pay equity and the related socialistic concept of  "comparable work". 

Let me address the latter point briefly: we have a President of the United States whom makes roughly $400K dollars a year, yet according to Executive PayWatch, the average S&P 500 CEO earned $14.2M. One could hardly compare the skills and scope and impact of duties, overseeing trillions in budgets and assets. Yet the Obama campaign machine raised around $700M to ensure the election of an unqualified, inexperienced leader. Billionaires (e.g., H. Ross Perot) have sought the post, and another billionaire, Mike Bloomberg, is trying to change city rules to enable him to run for a third term as mayor of New York City. You could make a similar comment about the responsibilities of enlisted recruits in the military whom start off roughly in the range of $15K  but experience job demands and risks far beyond others in the private sector. 

The private and public sectors are fundamentally different. There is no effective competing market for public services; however, job security and benefits are usually a premium selling point. One consequence, for instance, in the face of unemployment climbing over 7%, is that military enlistments are up after reaching a crisis point during a particularly bloody period in the Iraq occupation in 2006 following the terrorist bombing of a key Shiite mosque. Nevertheless, job cuts and layoffs are less frequent in the federal vs. state/county/local sector. In addition, the military sells recruits on how unparalleled exposure to sophisticated high technology and other market-coveted knowledges and skills can give them a leg up in the competition if and when they transition to the private sector, not to mention generous education benefits.

Many statistics, including those published by the Federal Reserve, show that gender differences have been rapidly declining, as young women now outnumber men in college enrollments and have raised their proportional participation in well-paid professional occupations, such as information technology, the law, and medicine, and I've seen certain statistics that, in fact, single women are starting to outearn their male counterparts in certain markets. Nevertheless, there are some differences, such as mothers with young children suspending their career or taking a lower profile, reducing their hours.

In an efficient labor market, employers practicing discriminatory labor practices are at a competitive disadvantage as other employers are more than willing to poach well-qualified females or minorities for better career opportunities and more equitable salaries for their performance. However, it's still incumbent on the job holder to make sure he or she is being compensated at a fair wage relative to the market, and note that some employers do not pay the going rate. For example, I once went on a campus visit (academic job interview) at a private Catholic university, Providence College; I was told if an offer was extended, it would be for $35K. In contrast I had been offered salaries up to 50% higher elsewhere. When I worked at Market Knowledge, I was knowingly making at least 15% below market, but it was my favorite place to work; within 6 months I was the production DBA working on our original and biggest client account  responsible for nearly a third of our revenues, and I was reporting to one of the company's co-founders (whom recommended to the CEO my promotion to his position when he resigned from the company). [Phil is a true techie whom gets up early in the morning to work on creating computer games; at MKI, his role had evolved to dealing more with customer relations, and he wanted to get back to the basics of tech work.]

Ms. Ledbetter sued her employer, Goodyear, after almost 20 years of work and filing for her pension, alleging past supervisor discriminatory actions (beyond the typical statutory 6-month to up to 1 year limit). Ms. Ledbetter did not file any grievance at the time of the alleged discriminatory actions, and the former supervisor is deceased, unable to contest the allegations. Ms. Ledbetter held the company responsible for the effect said actions supposedly had on her compensation and demanded the cumulative difference of that effect through the remainder of her tenure, claiming she qualified under statutory time limits because each paycheck during her last year was in fact a discriminatory act.

Obama and the Democrats (whose special interest groups include trial lawyers and radical feminists) want to overturn the Supreme Court decision against Ledbetter, which essentially held that Ms. Ledbetter's argument did away with the very concept of a statutory limit. What's the purpose of a grievance procedure if an employee ignores it and hence the company cannot review the full evidence within a timely period and make any due corrective action? Instead, the company finds itself forced to defend itself indefinitely with unavailable witnesses or relevant data. This is inherently unfair to the company; if the company's higher management has a manager violating anti-discrimination policy and relevant employees do not step forward, it does not have grounds for terminating or demoting the supervisor--and have a serial offender on its hands, increasing its legal vulnerability.

The Democrats are attempting to pay off their special interest group support by attempting to further micromanage private sector human resource decisions and attempting to substitute socialistic principles in place of economic ones underlying labor supply and demand. This does nothing to further the concept of individual worker responsibility, and there are already megatrends in play, with increasing numbers of talented female business owners and managers.  In an information age where word of unfair labor practices can circulate instantaneously across the Internet, unjust employers will find themselves unable to attract the talented workers they need for long-term survival. 

The legislation is a bad idea; employees will have less incentive to report discriminatory actions in a timely fashion, and businesses will be exposed to additional frivolous lawsuits and reporting, recordkeeping and other costs associated with implementing the revised rules and regulations. It is really more of a boon to trial lawyers looking to intimidate companies into settlements with fat legal fees. Whereas the legal profession serves an important role in a functioning democracy, I submit that we spend a disproportionate amount of resources in legal services, and too many of our talented young people are attracted to that vocation vs. broadening the array of American goods and services in an increasingly competitive global economy.

Blagojevich Impeached!

With an all-but-unanimous vote, the Illinois House today voted to impeach Blago over abuse of power, largely related to the federal charges, in particular, the pay-to-play scheme for Obama's former Senate seat, to achieve the dubious honor of being the first Illinois governor ever impeached.

In an earlier post, I criticized Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan's attempt to misuse a law intended to provide for the replacement of an incapacitated governor (e.g., a severe stroke or other serious health condition) in an effort to oust Blago. However, I must admit that the governor seems to have lost touch with reality. He claims that the 144-1 vote reflects the bidding of the lobbyists and special interests which resent his health care initiative for real people. He then caps it off by portraying himself as a profile in courage, quoting Tennyson: "To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." Blagojevich does not seem to realize that he is politically radioactive. There isn't an Illinois politician whom isn't worried about challengers in upcoming primaries or elections trying to tie him or her to Blago. This bravado of expressing confidence in the Illinois Senate exonerating him is transparent; does he really want his political legacy to be one of the few governors in our nation's history to be removed from office, or will he do a service to his state and party by resigning?

In the meanwhile, the Burris nomination dance in the US Senate continues as Senate Democrats are praying for Blagojevich to exit the scene sooner rather than later. Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White refuses to certify Burris' nomination by Blagojevich as if he holds a de facto right to veto a sitting governor's nomination. It is no more his right than, say, a decision not to certify the legitimate election of a Republican lawmaker. Nothing allows Jesse White to arbitrarily refuse to exercise his professional responsibility; in fact, I consider what he's doing as a fundamental abuse of power.

The wildcard is the prospect of Lieutenant Governor Pat Quinn succeeding Blagojevich and then nominating a different candidate. The real concern among Democrats is that Burris would have almost no chance of defeating a Republican in 2010, being tainted as Blago's choice. They want a nominated Democrat whom is able to leverage his incumbency status and hold the seat; they do not want the 2010 election to be a referendum over Blago. Let's just say I don't think that playing politics with the Obama Senate seat and/or throwing Burris under the bus will end well for the Democrats.

The Senate's attempt to exercise arbitrary authority over a governor's duly-nominated replacement for a US Senator is unconstitutional. 

Protests Against Israel's Actions in Gaza

I saw a heartbreaking story the other day over a doctor's frantic attempts to deal with child victims of collateral damage as Israel, in self-defense, strikes back at radical extremists, many of whom shamelessly operate from areas they know will evoke sympathetic television footage, particularly in the Muslim world. Terrorists hiding behind innocent women and children while shooting rockets at Israeli civilians are guilty of crimes against humanity. 

What really alarmed me, though, were the news reports and videos of pro-HAMAS protestors in Florida arguing for Jews to "go back to the ovens", a thinly-veiled reference to the Holocaust, Nazi Germany's systematic genocide against the Jews and other undesirable targets. Unable to bury enough victims, ovens were constructed to burn corpses as millions went to their deaths in gas chambers and other horrific ways. I still recoil from the memory of WWII footage of the liberation of concentration camps while in high school history class--stacks of corpses, emaciated victims, etc. How many scientists, artists, musicians and other good, loving, talented people were cut short in the bloom of their youth, all for little more than glorifying God in a distinctive and beautiful tradition spanning thousands of years? Even if the loss was one, that was one too many. Six million voices cry out to be remembered. How could we not have known? How could we not have done more? Are not all babies, ours and theirs, beautiful? Are not all children, theirs and ours, gifts from God? Are their mothers any less tender, their fathers any less committed to their future?

All I could think of was how a group of people was killed for sharing the heritage and prayers that Jesus Himself knew and shared. How can I honor the memory of Our Lord without honoring and respecting the people and their traditions He Himself knew, served and loved? I am well aware that many misguided people in the name of Christ have sought justice against Jews for the Roman execution of Christ. But how can we condemn those whom Jesus Himself has forgiven and has called us to love?

But to those who speak of gas chambers and crematoria, I say this in solidarity with my Jewish friends: "Never again."

Miscellany: 1/6/09

Panetta as CIA Director? 

This pick simply mystifies me. Panetta has no background in intelligence and is known principally as Clinton's former chief of staff. I thought perhaps Obama would pick one of his high-profile supporters, Richard A. Clarke, well-known counter-terrorism czar and critic of both the Clinton and Bush administrations. The CIA post should not involve politics as usual; it should be based more on experience and merit.

Minnesota Election another Democratic Party Stolen Election? 

In 2004, Republican Dino Rossi defeated Democrat Christine Gregoire (yes, the same Gregoire whom over this past holiday season allowed the posting of an anti-religion rant next to a Nativity scene) in a close election, but a third "recount" showed Gregoire "winning" by 129 votes. This is despite the fact that more ballots were counted in heavily Democratic King County than there were registered voters. I don't care what kind of mental gymnastics it takes some liberal judge to pretend inflated vote totals didn't throw the election to Gregoire because he doesn't know which ballots were illegal ones and hence doesn't know which candidate the illegal ballots favored. In addition to more ballots cast than voters, we know provisional ballots (many of which should not have been counted) were counted with legal ballots, military absentee ballots likely favoring Rossi were excluded because they were sent out too late, illegal felon votes were counted, while hundreds of "votes" were being "discovered" in warehouses, storage rental facilities, and private mailboxes, not to mention numerous "good" absentee ballots somehow "mistakingly" placed in the rejected ballot pile.

It's really not surprising in the tradition of Al Gore and Christine Gregoire trying to cherrypick their way into reversing an objective count of the ballots on election night on a consistent basis, Al Franken is joining Gregoire in a dubious victory, despite the double-counting of certain Al Franken votes, double-standard judgments favoring Al Franken's position, etc. (The Wall Street Journal has proven more context for the alleged irregularities.) 

Senate Rejection of Roland Burris, Blago's Selection for Obama's Seat

Senator Reid is resorting to technicalities involving a legally dubious situation whereby the Illinois Secretary of State refuses to certify Burris' nomination by Governor Blagojevich and the Senate's gatekeeper privilege in seating members. In fact, Burris ran against Blago in the 2002 Democratic gubernatorial primary, and Burris ran for the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate during an earlier election. A multi-time statewide office holder before Blagojevich became governor, Burris cannot be called a tainted pick (but one could certainly say that he doesn't look a gift horse in the mouth: it's probably the last shot he had of getting to the U.S. Senate).

Richardson Scandal Leads to Withdrawal of  Commerce Secretary Nomination

The controversy over the awarding of state contracts has done in Richardson's national administrative chances. It's curious that in "turning the page", Obama has named a number of veteran politicians, and one must wonder about Obama's own vetting process.

Questionable Obama Picks Continue

Late word that a national news reporter/doctor Sanjay Gupta is to be named Surgeon General is yet another unconventional, puzzling pick (like Panetta's for the CIA). Given the fact that Dr. Gupta is a licensed doctor and surgeon, he certainly meets minimal qualifications. I do think Obama needs to focus more on substance than style or presentation. 

Obama Stimulus Package: Save Your Grandkids: Just Say 'No'

Obama is trying to emphasize the tax side in his carrot tax-and-spend approach, hoping to lure over GOP/conservative support. Who's against a tax cut/credit? After all, doesn't that follow Mom, apple pie, and Chevrolet? This pushing-on-a-string approach to overloading the legacy of your grandkids, already facing a globally competitive future, to fund giveaways--which may not even be spent as hoped--is unconscionable. The way I think  we have to proceed is to focus on drawing money in from the sidelines, and that means giving those with dollars more of an incentive to invest; the biggest thing Obama could do is to reduce uncertainty in the market--in particular, the soak-the-rich rhetoric needs to be set aside.

American Catholicism Since Vatican II

Matt Abbott, a Catholic Internet columnist, wrote a recent letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal in response to a book review exploring the impact of the 1960's Vatican II on U.S. Catholicism. Matt quoted a number of relevant statistics from Kenneth Jones' Index of Leading Catholic Indicators: the number of priests has declined by nearly 25% since 1965, the number of Catholic nuns/sisters by over 50%, and the number of marriages by 33%, while the number of annulments (the Catholic variation of divorce) has exploded exponentially from hundreds to over 50,000 per year. Abbott attributes the decline to the zeitgeist (i.e., the American experience including a sexual permissive culture, tolerance of abortion on demand, and changes to the traditional definition of marriage) and corrupt leadership within the Church hierarchy, particularly with respect to the sex abuse scandal exposed over the past decade: the unconscionable reassignment of sexual predator priests to unsuspecting parishes.

The Sexual Misconduct Scandal

Matt Abbott and I share a revulsion to how key Catholic prelates responded to the abuse scandals, which undoubtedly diminished much of the moral authority of the American Church and confidence in its leadership among most Catholics. Certainly the recent visit of Pope Benedict XVI and his personal ministry to past abuse victims was a significant step forward. I don't know how to explain the motives of those bishops whom reassigned priests with sexual allegations against them: Was it a naive belief that the predators were cured, based on input from psychologists or the word of the accused priests themselves? Was it a lack of opportunities for the accused priests to serve elsewhere without potential victims (e.g., jail ministries)? Did the bishops fail to ensure proper supervision and follow up with relevant priests whom had undergone therapy or other treatment and were subsequently redeployed?

I don't think that the prelates intentionally reassigned predator priests knowing a high risk of recidivism. But clearly shuffling a problem priest from parish to parish as complaints began to surface locally was a suboptimal short-term fix that didn't address the long-term consequences and deferred hard decisions (i.e., to defrock) regarding the accused priests themselves. I do not know the motivations, e.g., due process of accused priests or concerns about scandal to the Church upon full disclosure. But, at the very least, certain American prelates were incompetent administrators and de facto enablers of criminal sexual behavior. American Catholics have a zero-tolerance policy on sexual misconduct from priests.

Somewhere along the way the prelates lost sight of Jesus' pastoral mandate of protecting and healing the least of our brethren, the children, the victims of abusive behavior. Priests in particular are held to a higher standard of behavior; we respect and trust them as a surrogate for Christ Himself.

I think one unfortunate consequence of American prelate incompetence is the shadow it casts over the profession of the priesthood as a whole: Can I trust my pastor around my own children? This year my maternal Uncle Roger will celebrate the golden anniversary of his ordination. There were sacrifices he had made along the way to his ordination: my Mom, his only sibling, got married; my grandmother died of colon cancer. Uncle Roger is a true priest of God, one of the finest, if not the finest, men I've ever met.

My principal issue with Matt Abbott with respect to his listing the failure in American prelate leadership to confront this scandal early and decisively and to minister first and foremost to the related victims of sexual abuse is that I'm not sure to what extent we can partial out what can be attributed to the scandal itself in terms of Kenneth Jones' statistics. There is no doubt that the scandal has had a financial impact, e.g., Tuscon, Spokane and Portland dioceses filing for bankruptcy, settlement negotiations in the Dioceses of Orange (Los Angeles) and Boston. Parishioner contributions (and no doubt weekly attendance) took a significant hit in the aftermath.

There is no doubt that some in a sexually liberal society will argue that vows of celibacy are part of the problem and suggest that repressing one's sexuality results in dysfunctional behavior. Others also suggest that the celibate lifestyle of a priest or nun provides a socially acceptable cover for individuals with idiosyncratic sexual preferences. I do not believe that these suggestions are credible. The Church does screen applicants. No doubt screenings are fallible, but that holds true across a number of professions as well (e.g., school teachers, whom have more direct and substantive contact with at-risk children). I do think that priest supervisors need to be cognizant of relevant warning signs, e.g., unusual interest or involvement with youth activities, parents should make sure that children understand that no one is above the law, and the Church must make it clear its first priority is ministry to victims and how they can address relevant complaints, ensure that complaints are given due, prompt consideration, and that the source criminal activity is stopped and reported to appropriate authorities.

How Do We Interpret the Adverse Trends in the American Catholic I Church Since Vatican II?

I think that American Catholics have been largely influenced by what Abbott calls the zeitgeist, the confluence of American culture, politics, etc. This past election, for instance, we saw the majority of Catholic voters cast their ballots for Barack Obama, a politician whom not only stonewalled the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which ensured that babies born alive during induced abortion are given medical care and not simply left to die, but has said that his first priority as President is to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would abolish any and all restrictions (on any level of government) on abortions, including partial-birth bans, parental notification, waiting periods, etc.

In fact, one Democratic blog post (The Next Hurrah, Myths about Catholic Voters, 4/21/05) comments, with respect to a dubious poll commissioned by the "Catholics for Choice", that that "poll's data is consistent with just about every poll I've ever seen that breaks out data for Catholics. In general, Catholics track almost perfectly with the general electorate on almost every social issue." Catholics for Choice claims that the abortion rate among Catholic women is the same as for the American population as a whole. The poll in question reported that 53% consider themselves pro-abortion choice and clear majorities approve of embryonic stem cell research, the death penalty, and physician-assisted suicide. Furthermore, they aren't interested in pastoral guidance on political issues and oppose Church sanctions on denying communion to pro-abortion choice Catholic politicians, such as John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy, and Kathleen Sebelius. American Catholics may be the ultimate swing voters, voting for the winner in each Presidential election since 1960 except for year 2000.

In fact, some polls suggest that 8 in 10 Catholics are okay with artificial birth control and the average family size of 2.6 children is roughly comparable to the national average. (However, many do follow the rhythm method. I learned this when catching a ride with others while attending OLLU. I unintentionally came across the car owner's body temperature chart while clearing a seat. A little too much information.)

I suspect that in part we are dealing with the demands of tolerance in living in a pluralistic society. Hence, many pro-abortion choice Catholics attempt to justify their position by claiming disingenuously that "I am personally opposed to abortion, but I don't wish to impose my religious views on others." You could make the same argument about any ethical principle implemented within the English legal tradition.

However, this does not explain the shift from vocations and other statistics increasing, in the same pluralistic society, before 1965 and the drop since.

My Hypothesis: Societal Trends and a Vacuum in Strong Catholic Leadership

I'm sure that there are studies that have sought to establish relevant factors explaining negative trends for American Catholics and other Christian denominations (Pew and university-based, including the Jones study). I think Matt Abbott is tapping into something when he points out that the sexual misconduct scandal has had a devastating effect in the American Church. But I think a lot of it has to do with a vacuum in leadership.

Servant of God and Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen was a prolific author, a masterful radio host from the 1930's and became the first religious service broadcaster in the new medium of television 20 years later, competing and holding his own against Milton Berle and Frank Sinatra. There never has been a comparable successor among American prelates to the new media, although my Mom and others tune into the Eternal Word Television Network on cable and certainly figures like Mother Angelica have had an impact.

I personally haven't seen a proactive initiative in American Catholic leadership to rebuke an indulgent, materialistic culture, to articulate a Catholic vs. American secular political vision, to distinguish an authentic Christian from a secular humanistic perspective, to challenge a self-centered, relativistic, permissive existence to seek a God-centered life, to renew a prayerful, repentent commitment to spiritual growth, and to present a firm, principled Catholic point of view on the right to life, traditional family-based values, and individual, business, social, and government responsibility. The Church leadership should also not let the liberal mass media portray the lives of unborn children and other public policy issues to be typecast as  Catholic (vs. human rights) issues, and it's important to choose one's battles. For example, threats to withhold communion can make nominal Catholic politicians like John Kerry appear as sympathetic figures. On the other hand, there is something to be said for publicly calling on Catholic politicians to repent or to private meetings with bishops and (when necessary) to excommunicate.

The sexual misconduct scandal implicitly called in question the moral authority of the American Church. How could the Church allow itself to be put in the position of putting the due process rights of the accused over ministry to the victims? Why weren't priests whom violated their vows defrocked under a zero-tolerance policy?

I don't think that Catholics would lose their faith simply because some prelates did not react in a proactive and decisive manner when confronted with the scandal. After all, even Simon Peter denied knowing the Lord three times during the Passion. Prelates are fallible human beings. Similarly, we Americans did not lose our faith in our government's principles when Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton put themselves above the law. But I do think some nominal Catholics are using the crisis to rationalize relying on their own judgment over the teachings of the Church on matters of faith and morals.

The real story, however, is the culture. I think we can pick up some hints from polls and election results over the past year. We saw an extraordinary responsiveness of young adults to Barack Obama's nebulous, "turn-the-page", nonpartisan rhetoric, including his campaign's masterful use of the Internet to organize, fund raise, announce his VP selection, and provide Youtube addresses in lieu of traditional radio addresses. Similarly, the young voters are more accepting of nontraditional forms of marriage. There's also some anecdotal evidence that younger workers are more questioning of authority, more focused on short-term rewards and more likely to change jobs to achieve professional success or higher pay.

I'm not going to argue the Church should try to emulate an Obamaian approach to its message. But if Obama can use the media to sell an inexperienced leader with no policy expertise, decades-old liberal agenda policies irrelevant in a global competitive economy, and little more than inclusive motivational rhetoric, the Church should be able to present effectively the substantive, timeless teachings of Jesus Christ, which is what young people really want and need, not vacuous political verbiage.

I do think that the Church can sharpen its focus and avoid mixed messages like Catholic colleges and universities holding rallies for pro-abortion choice politicians or hiring antiauthoritarian theologians running their own agenda. Young people are being constantly bombarded by messages (songs, television, movies, politically correct education) promoting self-indulgent sexuality, nontraditional and extramarital relatonships, and victimization (vs. personal responsibility). Celibacy is seen more as being out of touch with one's sexuality than an ultimate sacrifice in a life of service to God's people. In short, I think the decline we've seen on a variety of metrics can be reversed by firm but respectful Church leadership steady as the rock on which Jesus built His Church against the world's troubled waters.

Bush and Rove's Book Reading Contest

Sometimes you just can't win. The late-night comedians for years have mocked Bush's intelligence. Jay Leno quips that the Bush Presidential Library consists of Cliff Notes and pop-up books. David Letterman says before the President writes his memoir, he needs to read a book first. Conan O'Brien says that President Bush wants to write a book after he leaves office; he's not sure what it'll cover, but it will be a pop-up.

I guess I have a different sense of humor. I think the insults to Bush's intelligence are mostly based on Bush's malapropisms (e.g., his notorious pronunciation of "nuclear"), but in fact he earned degrees at Yale and Harvard and started his own company, not the types of things mediocre comedians have done. To me, insults or cheap shots are not funny. I mean, something like President Ford not knowing to unshuck his tamale before eating it was amusing, and one might speculate on other incidents involving unfamiliar foods.

In particular, mocking the President in terms of books is inappropriate for a couple of reasons: first, his wife, Laura, is a librarian; second, Bush made bipartisan education reform (Leave No Child Behind) a priority during his Presidency.

Karl Rove has been writing a fascinating regular weekly column for the Wall Street Journal, and in last week's column, he noted an ongoing reading contest that he has been having with the President since a new term New Year's resolution. Perhaps he wanted to debunk the myth that Bush was an intellectual lightweight; Rove tongue-in-cheek bragged over a winning streak in an ongoing competition with the leader of the free world (noting that perhaps the President had less spare time to read). But he also revealed some of the President's reading selections, including a broad array of histories and biographies.

The reactions have been predictable. The obvious "Nero fiddled while Rome burned" judgment suggests instead of paying attention to what was happening with the economy and international affairs, Bush was sitting in the Oval Office on the clock catching up on his reading. Not surprisingly, others who felt that the Bush administration violated individual liberties (e.g., the Patriot Act) suggested changes to the reading list, including the Bill of Rights. Still others revive the myth of the ivory tower academic--i.e., being educated or well-read on a subject doesn't mean anything in the real world.

I want to touch on one subject: quantity vs. quality time. There is a well-known organizational behavior professor at the University of Houston with an incredible publication record--but he made it a point of going home empty-handed. Most of us who are creative find that we often come up with solutions at unexpected times. McCartney and Richie talk about waking up with new classic song melodies playing in their heads. But I've seen enough of the human performance literature that I wouldn't want an overly tired or stressed President making a critical decision. Also, appearances can be deceiving. The Executive Branch operates on a 24-hour basis. Even on vacation or in the evening hours, the President is available and seconds away from being briefed on a crisis.

There were two principal things I took away from Rove's article which unfortunately I haven't seen others discuss. First, the President is setting a fine example for our youth with his active exercise regimen and his reading habits. He's not wasting his time watching frivolous television programs, playing video games or meeting people on the Internet. Second, Bush does not have a closed mind, surrounding himself with yes men and a groupthink mentality. Instead, he has an active, engaged intellect, with a wide range of reading materials, open to being influenced by the writings of many authors and scholars.

The GOP Does Not Need Chip Saltsman

I instinctively don't like political correctness and the hypocritical, self-superior, self-appointed judges whom presume to enforce it. I'll give a couple of examples from my being part of the in crowd of the Catholic Newman Association at the University of Houston during the early 1980's.

A handful of cultural feminists were part of our group; in my experience, this manifested itself in a couple of obnoxious ways. The feminists were particularly focused on superficial analysis of traditional texts and decided to impose their own form of censorship. For example, the Nicene Creed contains the following phrase: " who for us men, and for our salvation"; despite the generally understood nature of the term "men" being used to represent human beings and prominent female saints in the Catholic Church, these people went and scratched out the word in each missal; in fact, some of the staff priests also went along with this, deliberately pausing and skipping over the word during Mass. This brandishing of terms like 'racism', 'sexism', and 'homophobia' as if they are formidable weapons, in the nature of confronting a vampire with a cross, deserves the universally relevant response: "Get a life!"

A second example was more personal. We generally had a pair of lectors for our Sunday Mass readings: a man and a woman. It was not unusual for one of the scheduled lectors to no-show without securing a replacement, and one morning at the last minute I, an available lector, got approached to be the substitute lector. The only problem was that the absent lector was a woman. Now the reverse situation had taken place on a number of occasions, i.e., two female lectors, and it never really bothered anyone, particularly the cultural feminists. But after the Mass, I found myself personally attacked by the cultural feminists, as they furiously attacked the fact that I was a male substitute. As to why the facilitator picked me (I did not volunteer), I suspect it was basically a last-minute decision for a substitute and any qualified substitute would do. My only motive was to agree to help the facilitator out with a staffing problem. 

The Myth of the "Magic Negro"

David Ehrenstein, on 3/19/07, wrote a column in the Los Angeles Times which argued that Barack Obama is the personification of the sociological construct (reintroduced into the culture by filmmaker Spike Lee) where a character of color serves a nonthreatening, often self-sacrificial role in the service of or on behalf of a white protagonist. Parodist Paul Shanklin wrote a relevant song called "Barack the Magic Negro", later played on Rush Limbaugh's show. (Limbaugh is the leading media conservative and considers himself a humorist.)

Chip Saltsman, the former Tennessee Republican state chairman who ran former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee's recent campaign for the Presidential nomination, is running for RNC chair and decided, as part of his campaign, to circulate on a gift CD on half of his campaign copies of the songs "Barack the Magic Negro" and an equally obnoxious "Star Spanglish Banner",  Shanklin's contribution to the Mexican immigrant community. Saltsman has basically responded to subsequent criticisms by arguing that people like the uncriticized Erhenstein opened the door and the liberal media, by targeting Limbaugh and himself, are being hypocritical and that others don't have a sense of humor.

Commentary

In the aftermath of an election where McCain received probably a record-low 5% of the African-American vote and a third less percentage of the Hispanic vote since 2004 (despite his leadership role in the 2007 immigration debate), Saltsman has shown stunningly bad judgment and timing. I join Newt Gingrich, Mike Duncan and other GOP leadership in arguing that Saltsman is unacceptable as RNC head. 

As a Maryland resident, I urge Republicans to take a strong look at our former lieutenant governor and Republican state chairman, Michael Steele, a former seminarian with outstanding character, ability, articulateness, and judgment.

I am not part of some political correctness committee trying to argue that criticism or comedy aimed at Barack Obama is off-limits. In fact, during the campaign, I was amused by the McCain campaign's distribution of a tire gauge, bearing the title of "Obama's Energy Plan", and the lampooning of Obama's over-the-top "we are the moment we have been waiting for" nonsense. But I also believe that Obama's more respectful and less confrontational approach with his adversaries is legitimate, dating back to his days as a community organizer. 

To mock someone whom is intent on restoring some degree of civility to our political discourse is in exceedingly bad taste. I have, and will continue to have, disagreements on policy with Obama; I do fault him for not taking on a leadership role in cleaning up Chicago politics when he had the ability to make a difference there. I do think he exercised poor judgment at times at associating with people like Rezko, Ayers, and Rev. Wright. I am absolutely convinced that his policy positions are counterproductive for the American economy. However, I also recognize that an accomplished person of color graduating from Columbia and Harvard Law School could have put his own material interests first vs. taking a low-paid, often frustrating position as a community organizer. I do not dispute his motive and intent or his intelligence.

Saltsman needed to come to the campaign for RNC chair recognizing the core problems the GOP has with the American voter, including a deteriorating position with minority groups (a growing percentage of the American public) and erosion of GOP support nationally (e.g., no statewide offices in California and Illinois, no Republican Congressman in New England) . To many, the message has become all too predictable: tax breaks, limited regulation, national defense, and social issues like gay rights and abortion. Bush, the first MBA President, presided over growing budget and trade deficits, an invasion of Iaq (which did not pose an obvious military threat to the United States), the inexcusable bungling of Hurricane Katrina, one of the biggest expansions of government (Medicare drugs and Homeland Security), and an unprecented federal intervention into the economy. Despite holding the White House for 20 of the last 28 years, we have seen a growing dependence on foreign oil, much of which is produced by hostile interests. We have an aging population and a health care infrastructure unable to cope with it; more Americans are having to file bankruptcy to get out from under the burden of unmanageable medical bills. We are facing funding crises for Medicare and social security, writing more IOU's on the backs of young Americans just as they are beginning to face an increasingly competitive global economy. 

The idea that the GOP would recruit a chairman whom thinks it's a good idea, in the aftermath of the election of the nation's first black President and the 2007 defeat of the immigration bill, to poke fun at minorities at precisely the time the GOP is losing more of their votes defies any logic whatsoever. Saltsman's response to blame others for employing double standards in judging him instead of apologizing for a mistake in judgment is unacceptable. Instead of recognizing Obama's appeal in terms of providing a more inclusive message and civil tone, Saltsman thought the way to go was to poke fun at people different from himself. What was he trying to do--run for GOP head or Rush Limbaugh's job? For shame!