Is this what President Obama was saying?

Is this what President Obama was referring to in his State of the Union address last week (click on the photo)?

All kidding aside, the Supreme Court's recent ruling to overturn campaign finance legislation was certainly disturbing. I don't know about you, but I find it extremely troubling that this ruling could, and most likely will, open the floodgates for corporate sponsorship of our elected leaders. Can you say, 'let's make a deal (minus TV game show host Monty Hall)?'

I know the Justices said that campaign legislation limits free speech, but I don't buy it (pardon the pun). I do not equate money with free speech, although it seems apparent to me that the Justices have bought into the old maxim 'money talks.'

I've not spent a lot of time pondering over this issue. There has to be a common sense answer, but sadly I am reminded of Cyndi Lauper's song 'money changes everything.'

Personally, I favor some kind of state funded elections (with restrictions). In effect--and theoretically, this would enable anyone who wishes to run for office instead of just those who have access to big bucks. Seriously, who would you entrust more with your concerns, an "average Joe" with every day roots or some big fat cat who is beholding to corporations and big spending billionaires who donate money to protect their interests over those of we, the people?

Yeah, that's what I thought too.

Men of the Week

"I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens.

For me personally, it comes down to integrity — theirs as individuals and ours as an institution. I have served with homosexuals since 1968. Putting individuals in a position that every single day they wonder whether today’s going to be the day, and devaluing them in that regard, just is inconsistent with us as an institution.”

--Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, USN

"I fully support the president's decision. The question before us is not whether the military prepares to make this change, but how we best prepare for it. We have received our orders from the commander in chief and we are moving out accordingly."

--Robert M. Gates, Secretary of Defense

Both men sat before the Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday explaining a proposed change of military code that would put an end to the notorious policy commonly known as 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' Both explained the rationale of abolishing a policy that President Obama has deemed irrational and prejudicial--and one not befitting of our Armed Forces.

Each explained as a matter of conscience the cost this policy has inflicted upon the military, both morally and politically--as well as the implications of undermining the military's longstanding commitment to integrity. Their testimony before the senate committee signals an end of the nearly 17-year old ban on gays and lesbians from openly serving their country in the world's finest military force.

In contrast to the two leading U.S. military leaders, the following comments clearly illustrate the hypocrisy put forth by some senate leaders. Yesterday, U.S. Senator John McCain voiced his opposition to changing the policy.

"I want to make one thing perfectly clear upfront: I am enormously proud of, and thankful for, every American who chooses to put on the uniform of our nation and serve at this time of war. I want to encourage more of our fellow citizens to serve, and to open up opportunities to do so. Many gay and lesbian Americans are serving admirably in our armed forces – even giving their lives so that we and others can know the blessings of peace. I honor their sacrifice, and I honor them."

You honor them??? Forgive me, Senator, if I don't believe a word of your careully crafted speech. You say in one breath you honor gay and lesbian servicemembers, and in the next you say they can stay with the condition that they behave and keep their dirty little secret to themselves. In effect, you want them to become liars. Where are the sensibilities in this?

Sir, you are a former Navy officer. The Navy's core values of "honor, courage, commitment" are instilled to every Sailor from the day they step foot at Naval Station Great Lakes for boot camp. Expecting a man or woman to lie is anything BUT honorable!

The statement you read at yesterday's senate committee meeting smacks of hypocrisy of the highest degree. In my opinion, your very words bring shame on yourself, your state and your service to this nation--and to the Navy we both love.

One cannot serve in honor when encouraged--nay--demanded to perpetuate a lie about an integral part of one's very being. It is dishonorable to set Sailors (and servicemembers of the other branches of service) up for failure over a private matter that has nothing to do with defending one's homeland and fellow citizens.

Senator, you said, "Has this policy been ideal? No, it has not. But it has been effective."

Sir, respectfully, effective at what? Has it improved readiness? Prove it! Has it improved unit cohesion and morale? Again, give us Americans proof. Don't give us platitudes, don't give us speeches that veil your prejudice. Tell us why discharging 13,000 patriotic Americans was an honorable thing to do, and why it was the right thing to do for this man's Armed Forces?

Look at the stories of other nations who have abolished this ban. Are the armed forces of Britain, Canada or Israel any less effective because they they permit gays and lesbians to openly serve in their nations' armed forces?

Sir, what do you know that 20 nations of the 26 who participate in NATO do not? AND as a nation that prides itself on treating all of its citizens equally, do we want to be lumped in the same category as Iran, Russia, China, Venzueala and countless other countries well known for civil and human rights violations?

Senator, where were you the day 'honor, courage, commitment' was taught at the U.S. Navy Academy? Your words, especially in light of previous comments you have made regarding DADT (see below), merely add credence to President Obama's claim that the Republican Party has become the party of 'just say no!' You are an affront to everything I believe about serving in my beloved U.S. Navy.

Hypocrite of the week

"The day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, 'Senator, we ought to change the policy,' then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it."

--Senator John McCain, to an audience of Iowa State University students in 2006.

Charity starts at home; so, apparently, does anger

If you are a Facebook user you probably saw this one floating about this past weekend:

"Shame on you America: the only country where we have homeless without shelter, children going to bed without eating, elderly going without needed meds, and mentally ill without treatment - yet we have a benefit for the people of Haiti on 12 TV stations. 99% of people won't have the guts to copy and repost this."

Sadly, I saw at least five people pass this along for others to read. Needless to say, I am troubled not so much by the sentiments, but the venomous hintings that the Haitian are undeserving of our aid. Oddly, I agree with some of the points the posting raised.

Most troubling to me were some of the ensuing comments by various readers. I read some comments that were downright hateful and racist--and angry. It shames me to think so many fellow citizens can be so hardened to the plight of those unfortunate.

I was so upset by the original post that I fashioned my own retort:

"Shame on some Americans for decrying we help a people (the Haitians) befallen by a horrible tragedy! And yeah, shame on us that we don't set enough time, money and energy aside to help our own. AND shame on us that we have more than 18 million people out of work, looking for jobs while our politicians and people devote not enough time and energy worrying whether all Americans are treated equally with health care, equal marriage laws and that we complain when someone talks about spending money for research to better our world's environment. Yeah, shame on us self-centered Americans who can see no further than our own wallets."

I was heartened to read more positive letters coming in afterwards. I'd like to think that the current economic conditions are the root cause of some of the hateful words I read, but I still ponder the source of all this anger and resentment.

I also wonder if Americans realize that in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina that Haiti--yes Haiti, one of the poorest nations on this Earth, offered financial aid to our disaster survivors in 2005. In the end, our nation did not accept the Haitian government's kind offer, but it is the thought that counts. In kind, how can anyone begrudge our people's act of kindness and generosity in light of this horrendous disaster that has, so far, claimed more than 150,000 lives?

In recent years while reading various blogs and comments on online news stories, I have come to a disturbing conclusion about a great number of our citizens.

We are an angry people.

Angry at just about everything, and everyone and maybe at life itself. But I ask why?

It doesn't take a genius to see this, especially after watching some of the town hall meetings last summer. It strikes me ironic the people who criticized our people for providing aid to the victims of Haiti are also saying we need to do more for our own people. To me, these are the same people who think our government is destroying our nation by sticking its nose into every avenue of our day-to-day lives.

Many of these same people who shouted down voices of dissent at the town hall meetings, it seems to me, are the by-product of Reagan doctrines who shut down medical facilities for the mentally challenged; shut down countless programs providing shelter and aid to the indigent. Those same people said these are best issues left to local government, not federal concerns.

Where were these people's concern back then? People took heart when they assumed their federal tax burden would be alleviated.

The problem, in my opinion, was their logic was misguided.

Sure, the federal government can cut its costs by cutting programs left and right. It can pass off these concerns to state and local governments. And yes, perhaps local entities can better address these issues. BUT there is a trade off. The feds can cut their costs by curtailing its services, but in reality they are passing along those same expenses to local governments.

In essence, one hand dropped its load while the other has taken on the additional weight. The costs remain the same, only the provider has changed.

We have become a nation used to its government entitlements, at least in part: Social Security, Food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, Home Start, pre-and post school programs, public schools, the interstate and state highway networks, local and federal police forces, and a myriad of other state and federal programs, all designed as a convenience or as a security net in time of need. The list is endless and the costs are vast. AND none of them are free.

These programs are based on moral tenets that we provide aid to those in need.

For those who ask why so many of our people not tended to properly, ask yourself this: Where were you last week when Massachusetts held its special election to fill the late late Ted Kennedy's seat? Why weren't you attending the town hall meetings asking our leaders why aren't they doing more to guarantee health care for ALL of our citizens, no matter what? Do you write your congressmen and women asking they support programs to better serve our people?

Worse still, I have--and I am sure you have too--heard people blame the victims for their plight. Just this past summer after our local CBS affiliate ran a story about the attempted break-in to my home one early August evening; after the story had aired, I read a number of online comments blaming me for the incident.

Point is, we are so busy being angry at God-knows-what, that we spend a great deal of time and energy looking for reasons to lay blame rather than solving the root cause of our problems. I am reminded of the old maxim that is takes but seven muscles to smile, and more than 20 to frown.

Michael Moore, controversial filmmaker, once raised the question (in his documentary Bowling for Columbine) "why are we so afraid?"

I put to each of us to the question, "Why are we so angry?"

They said what???

What do Rush Limbaugh, Pat Robertson and the staff of the University of Notre Dame's newspaper The Observer all have in common? No, this isn't a joke as I do not like to mention 'Notre Dame' in the same breath as these two men. All three have found themselves in a bit of hot water this week when they acted without thinking first.

First off, let me make no bones about it. I despise political and religious intolerance, and I have a very deep disdain for both Pat Robertson and Rush Limbaugh. I find them both to be pompous, hypocritical windbags.

Both are guilty of regularly inserting their foot in their mouth(s). And for Notre Dame, I expected better than what happened there earlier in the week.

In ranking of particular importance, I task both Limbaugh and Robertson, as I think they all too often speak without considering the implication of their words.

In case you missed it, Pat Robertson earlier this week practically said that the disaster in Haiti was invited upon its people after they had made a pact with the devil when they threw the French government out (many, many decades ago).

Now mind you, it's hard to take Pat Robertson's (I hate to even call him a reverend) rants seriously. He has, for years, made cryptic Biblical threats when he has seen actions for which he doesn't agree. I mean, don't you know, Hurricane Katrina visited New Orleans because of the actions of homosexuals residing there; likewise when he said meteors would flatten Orlando, Florida, for similar reasons. He even indicated that the acts of 9/11 were the results of this nation's collective sins (funny, Osama Bin Laden would agree with the right reverend over this issue).

Robertson has been making these ridiculous rants for decades and it must make for great ratings for his '700 Club' when he goes into one of these religious stupors, otherwise why would he do it? You don't really suppose God visits upon Robertson's altar to whisper in his ear about what he (or she) is displeased about this week, do you? And no one else?

C'mon. Religious leaders like Robertson truly test my patience. Seriously, I believe in God... it's just some of God's messed up religious leaders (dare I say kooks?) and institutions in which I have little or no faith.

Next.

Radio commentator (and unofficial) rank-in-faith leader of the Republican Party, Rush Limbaugh is off his rocker yet again. This week, in the aftermath, of the Haitian disaster said on his program that President Obama is using the disaster to hone and bolster his political image.

I was not aware that offering humanitarian aid was a political tool--I always, and maybe stupidly, thought it was the Christian and moral thing to do. Would Mr. Limbaugh prefer we stand by as thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people suffer and die by our inactions?

If by Limbaugh's definition that our President is acting out of political gain, then President George W. Bush was guilty of this as well when offering humanitarian aid when the tsunamis struck Indian Ocean countries in 2004... or when President Bush offered humanitarian aid when Katrina struck New Orleans... oh wait, we all know how well the Bush administration reacted to that disaster.

Maybe President Bush believed Pat Robertson's claims and decided NOLA wasn't worth the effort?

Both of these two men have refused to apologize for their comments. Robertson said he was quoted out of context--and to be fair, Robertson did offer prayers to the Haitian citizens.

Mr. Limbaugh says he stands behind his words. Both... both so-called righteous men are morons as far as I am concerned.

Do Republicans really need a leader, even if they won't admit that is what role Limbaugh plays, like this loud-mouthed hypocritical radio show host? Limbaugh would be quick to say that he is not a politician, but a commentator and an entertainer.

I would also offer that he is none of the above.

AND then there is The Observer. Normally, I have the utmost respect for the University of Notre Dame's daily newspaper. After working at the university for eight years, I feel I have some insights about the school.

To read of the following incident hurts me; I love Notre Dame. I always have. My son is a 1999 ND graduate, and for those who feel the school is far too conservative, I would offer that that is not necessarily the case and that the student body and its faculty have done great things in its long storied history.

But with the January 13, 2010, issue I must take a sad exception. The staff must have taken a collective leave of absence on Wednesday when they published a cartoon strip that asked the following.

"How do you turn a fruit into a vegetable?" The answer, according to the strip, was "a baseball bat!"

What??? This thinly veiled and patently unfunny comic was, unfortunately, referring to gays. I am simply shocked beyond words--AND for many reasons beyond the obvious.

I worked at Notre Dame Law School Library in 1998 when University of Wyoming student Matthew Shepard was beaten and tortured and left to die by two local criminals. University of Notre Dame students, like many other universities stood united in fellowship and voiced their opposition together against hate and bigotry. I stood with hundreds of ND students and faculty members at a candlelit vigil that was moving beyond words. Prayers were offered for Shepard's recovery, and sadly in this case those prayers went unanswered.

Shepard's death shook our students and many of us adults too--and citizens around the world. Many activists have tirelessly worked since to ensure that his death would not be in vain (made all the more obvious by the passage of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act in 2009).

But the publication of this strip has unquestionably done much to undo the goodwill fostered on this campus.

Worse still--and much more troubling, the comic strip original Q & A was as follows. "How do you turn a fruit into a vegetable?" This time, the far more offensive punchline, answered by saying, "AIDS." Real funny, huh?

Have we not gotten beyond this sort of stupidity, this kind of bigotry? Obviously not.

This incident begs many questions, what were these young people, these bright, young journalists thinking? How could they have permitted such a pointed cartoon to go to press? What of the artist's character of this strip? Where was the newspaper's faculty adviser who permitted this comic strip to be included? And what does this say about the university itself?

Sadly, to some degree the Golden Dome is a bit tarnished in my eyes today.

BUT on the positive side of this episode, and to the newspaper's credit, the editor and staff ran a detailed apology in today's edition. Unlike the elder Robertson and Limbaugh, the staff of the Observer realized its error and quickly took measures to rectify their mistake. They did the right thing, but this staff certainly took a hit on the stage of journalistic moral integrity.

Lastly, will Pat Robertson and Rush Limbaugh follow suit? Don't hold your breath. Stupidity is alive and well on America's television and radio airwaves!

photo of the University of Notre Dame administration building is by the author.

Happy New Year -- 2010

2009, thank God, is over.. history... fini, kaput... bye bye!