Sunday, May 31, 2009

Gwen Ifill Makes An Interesting Point

Gwen Ifill was in a discussion about U.S. Supreme Court justice nominee Sonia Sotomayor and made an interesting comment in regard to hypocrisy.

Bill O’Reilly Is Not A Lawyer, But He Plays One On Television

I am still trippin’ out hard over this recent episode of The O’Reilly Factor when host Bill O’Reilly was trying to explain libel and the law to two lawyers. Yeah, that makes a whole lot of nonsense.

BILL O’REILLY, PLAYS AN ATTORNEY (HAS PROBABLY SEEN A FEW EPISODES OF MATLOCK AND A COUPLE OF PERRY MASON MADE-FOR-TV MOVIES): All right now, I was libeled by two newspapers, “The Post,” “The L.A. Times,” “Denver Post,” “L.A. Times,” and legions of other people. I’m famous so I can’t hire you to go in there and sue on my behalf, because I would lose. And I understand that. That’s the law here. But the spirit of the attacks on people, that is a violation of my rights. They’re trying to hurt me for my speech. What say you?

JAMI FLOYD, ATTORNEY: Disagree entirely. First of all, you are right, you couldn’t – well, you could hire me, but you would lose because you haven’t been libeled. Libel is very specifically defined in our law. And calling someone a bigot, quite frankly is, not libel.

But in terms of the spirit, I hear where you’re coming from. You know, I would die to defend your right to speak, right, Bill? But that is not a constitutional right from criticism by others, whether you’re a public or a private citizen.

O’REILLY: The difference between criticism and attacks is the difference between — and I disagree with you. Libel is basically saying something untrue about another person.

FLOYD: But the law is very specific about what libel is.

O’REILLY: It doesn’t matter – I don’t care about the law. My rights were violated here because they tried to punish me for my speech. It’s happening all over the place.

FLOYD: The First Amendment protects us from government action that would violate our right to speak. Not from discourse, however ugly it might get among citizens.

I love the exchange during which Floyd attempts to explain to him that he has not been libeled according to the law and he counters by saying he “don’t care about the law” and that his “rights were violated.” He doesn’t care about the law, but his rights were violated. OK. Frankly, I am going to trust a real and rational lawyer over an irrational and dishonest commentator (Bill O’Reilly) when it comes to law-related issues.

The O’Reilly Sucks Blog:
http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/

How Can Fox News Analyze The Media With Nearly All Right-Wing Viewpoints

I look at some of the so-called media watchdogs on Fox News and nearly all of them are hardcore right-wing commentators. The once-decent,but now pitiful show Fox News Watch, traditionally, has been stacked with far-right guys like Jim Pinkerton and Cal Thomas. Bill O’Reilly brings on the far-right Bernie Goldberg as his media watchdog and, today, Fox News has far-right Liz Trotta on to analyze the media’s coverage of the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the U.S. Supreme Court. The network needs to do a better job of balancing its news and, even more so, its commentary.

Fox News To Feature The Biased Liz Trotta

Liz Trotta, a Fox News analyst who joked on the air about killing President Barack Obama (before he became president), is going to be on the air to add some kind of analysis to the stories about the nomination of U.S. Supreme Court justice nominee Sonia Sotomayor. I do have somewhat of a problem with Trotta coming on (since she has an anti-Obama, pro-conservative bias). But, I am more concerned with the lack of balance in terms of having someone from the other perspective to make it more of a fair and balanced conversation. As we know, many times Fox News hosts have a bias on the right-learning network. This morning (earlier this morning) I was watching CNN which, for example, had Donna Brazile (a Democrat) and Ed Gillespie (a Republican) for a balanced discussion with host John King.

Liz Trotta is showing her bias (with no differing perspective on this Fox News segment), but this is no big surprise. I’m changing the channel. I gave her a chance and she lived up to her reputation as a right-wing hack.

Fox News At It Again

Fox News is still beating the grave of a dead horse (whining about voter registration fraud with regard to ACORN). They had a couple of right wingers on trying to portray President Obama and Attorney General Holder as essentially teaming up with the New Black Panther Party. This is a tailor-made Fox News story: (1) They can one again attack Barack Obama and (2) they can portray blacks as racist and scary. I do not support New Black Panther Party and I do not support any acts of voter intimidation or disenfranchisement. Those individuals who are engaged in voter intimidation and voter disenfranchisement need to be investigated (and if warranted) prosecuted. One of the guests on this late-morning segment attempted to smear President Obama by invoking the ghosts of Robert F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. I’ve watched this hack on some other shows attacking President Obama and calling on him to apologize (once again we’re in the apology culture … everyone is demanding an apology for one thing or another).

Lindsey Graham Continues To Take Sonia Sotomayor’s Comments Out Of Context

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham was on Fox News Sunday taking U.S. Supreme Court Justice nominee Sonia Sotomayor’s comments out of context to inflame the Republican base. Sen. Graham, like so many others, chooses to take the comments of Sotomayor out of context to fire up the largely white and very conservative Republican base (this is, of course, why you hear people like Pat Buchanan referring to her as an affirmative action selection).

“What she said is that based on her life experiences is that she thought a Latina woman, somebody with her background, would be a better judge than a guy like me — a white guy from South Carolina,” Graham said. “It is troubling, and it’s inappropriate and I hope she’ll apologize.”

She has nothing to apologize for with regard to those comments. What Sen. Graham and others on the right should apologize for is taking what she said out of context. Perhaps if they put it into context, to be fair, and then called for an apology … they might have a (shaky) leg to stand on.

Fox News:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/31/graham-calls-sotomayor-apologize-wise-latina-statement/

irst Lady For Going Out On A Date

News Hounds is reporting on the attacks against President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama going out on a date in New York.

Here is an excerpt:

The biggest headline on Foxnews.com tonight, bigger than General Motors’ looming bankruptcy and bigger than Obama’s health plan was the GOP “scrutiny” of the Obamas’ date night last night (5/30/09). Fox helpfully spelled out that scrutiny for its readers in the subtitle to the article: President, first lady’s NYC date night draws criticism from GOP, who question the night of entertainment during a recession and while automakers struggle to survive. The same story was repeated on GretaWire, too.

News Hounds:
http://www.newshounds.us/2009/05/31/in_synch_with_gop_fox_attacks_obamas_date_night.php

Crybaby Republicans Don’t Like Barack And Michelle Obama Going Out In New York

hiners in the Republican Party are crying because President Barack Obama has the nerve to go out in New York with his wife. It wasn’t all that long ago they cried (particularly the crybaby governor of Nevada, Jim Gibbons) because he was supposedly discouraging people from spending too much money in Vegas and hurting the economy. Now they’re complaining that he is going out with his wife in New York.

I’m not sure if Republican Party head Rush Limbaugh approved this particular message (although I am sure he approves of any anti-Obama message):

The Republican National Committee issued a news release that chastised Obama for saying he understands American’s troubles, but then hopping up to New York for “a night on the town.”

That is a funny comment coming from the party that (throughout last year) criticized Barack Obama for being a community organizer in the city of Chicago (where he was working with working-class people and not making a lot of money doing it). Conservatives turned “community organizer” into some kind of evil term. Now, coming full circle, the Republicans are trying to portray him as some out-of-touch elitist. It won’t fly and it just looks plain silly for the conservatives who are grasping at straws trying to attack President Obama.

I guess the conservatives (Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter and others) are taking a break from mischaracterizing and smearing Judge Sonia Sotmayor (a U.S. Supreme Court justice nominee) while inexplicably and inappropriately painting her as a racist (funny coming from some of these far-right conservatives). With a break from that comes this manufactured nontroversy over President Obama going out with his wife.

Fox News/AP:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/30/obamas-head-new-york-city-date-night/

An Adjustment Worth Considering In Women’s College Softball

Those who know me really well know at least a little bit about my affinity for women’s college softball. Softball is far and away one of my favorite sports to watch (live or on television). At this very moment, I am watching Michigan (from my home state GO BLUE!) play Georgia in the Women’s College Softball World Series. But, the more I watch some of these women’s college softball games, particularly the ones at the major college level, the more I am becoming increasingly convinced that the field dimensions are becoming too small as the athletes are becoming bigger, stronger and better. I’ve heard some college coaches discuss the issue. I wouldn’t say it was consensus, but the sentiment seemed to be that there were a good number of people appreciative of seeing more home runs … and, thus, fewer long outs. Now, from an excitement standpoint, clearly there is a value to the home run. But, as these outstanding women athletes become bigger, stronger and better … when do softball officials consider moving the fence back a bit to keep up with the positive evolution of the players?

Fox News, Washington Times Highlight Black Panther Voter Intimidation, But What About The Reverse?

I was reading an editorial from the Washington Times (reported on the Fox News Web site) about alleged voter intimidation on the part of the New Black Panther Party for Self Defense. Now, it’s blind-as-a-bat obvious why Fox News would highlight such an editorial (it attempts to paint President Obama and his administration in a negative light, it highlights black extremists and it attempts to frighten white conservatives). It’s very likely this is the same reason the Washington Times, a very conservative-leaning newspaper, also would run such an editorial. Trust me. You do not have to read too deep into the editorial to see the strong right-wing lean of the paper (or, at the very least, its editorial board).

Now, that being said … I do not in any way, shape or form condone acts of voter intimidation or acts to purposely and unfairly disenfranchise voters. I didn’t like it when it happened in Florida and elsewhere in 2000, either. However, it’s difficult to respect the Washington Times editorial since it flat out poo-poos voter intimidation and voter disenfranchisement in Florida in 2000 (as one example) and throws a fit about the Black Panthers.

The editorial would have far more credibility if it did not go out of its way to blow off all the people who were blown off in Florida in 2000 (including thousands who were inaccurately labeled as criminals and were not allowed to vote). Voting intimidation is wrong … whether it favors Democrats or Republicans.

Lets balance it out.

Consider this (as just one small example from the Web site Project Vote):

The most flagrant example of voter intimidation is the commission of violence, or the threat of violence, against a particular group of voters. Polling places in low-income, minority, and heavily Democratic areas may be targeted for vandalism or destruction, causing both psychological and physical impediments to voting. Voters are also intimidated when they are informed falsely that, for example, they will be arrested at the polling place if they owe child support or have outstanding parking tickets.

Economic voter intimidation also exists, where an employer or supervisor threatens a person’s job if he votes for a particular candidate or party against the wishes of the company or union. Former felons suffer intimidation when they are told that they are ineligible to vote when they are eligible or banning non-felons due to record-keeping errors. Conversely, in Florida during the 2000 presidential election, almost 20,000 people with names similar to felons were disenfranchised when an error-ridden list of “felons” was used to bar them from voting. In the 2004 presidential election, voters received phone calls with false information about changes in voting locations or misinforming them that they should vote on Wednesday instead of Tuesday.

Here is another example from Project Vote:

The 2008 presidential election was one of the most competitive elections in our history, which led to many instances of voter intimidation. For example:

  • In October 2008, the ACLU of New Mexico and Project Vote filed a lawsuit charging a Republican New Mexico State Representative and a private investigator with voter intimidation and invasion of privacy. Newly-registered minority voters were declared in a press conference by the NM State Representative to have fraudulently voted in the state primary elections. A private investigator was later hired by a party official to go to the homes of these voters and interrogate them about their citizenship status.
  • After a rally in Fayetteville, North Carolina, supporters of Barack Obama went to a nearby early voting center, where they were heckled and harassed by a group of protesters as they went in to vote. Nearly all of the early voters were black, and nearly all of the protesters were white.
  • In Virginia, students at Virginia Tech were told that if they registered to vote in Virginia, it could affect their scholarship or tax dependency status and would obligate them to change their car registration and driver’s license to their permanent address.
  • Finally, a poll worker in Dearborn, Michigan was perceived to be intimidating Muslim Americans, of which Dearborn has a large concentration. Two Michigan precincts also reported the presence of police scanning the long lines for voters with outstanding warrants, with one person being arrested.

It happens all the time, but Fox News and the Washington Times should be more consistent and balanced in coverage and opinion

Fox News:
http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/05/29/obama_new_black_panthers_voter_intimidation/

Washington Times:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/29/protecting-black-panthers/

Project Vote:
http://www.projectvote.org/voter-intimidation.html

Andrea Tantaros Of Fox News Fails To Put Into Context Sonia Sotomayor’s Comments

It’s supremely difficult to have much respect for an opinion when it is based on statements not put into the proper context. Once again, the conservatives of this nation are taking comments made by U.S. Supreme Court Justice nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor out of context – in a savage attempt to paint her as a racist. The latest (not the first and surely not the last) is Fox News Republican political commentator Andrea Tantaros, who proves only slightly better (because she at least recognizes how politically stupid this line of attack is) than notorious bigots/haters Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich.

Here is an excerpt from her column on the Fox News Web site:

The verdict is in: Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich think Obama’s Supreme Court pick, Sonia Sotomayor, is a racist. Why? They start (and finish) with these remarks:

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

Yup, sounds like racism to me. And of course if any white man would have said the reverse he’d be vilified.

Any Republican assault that appears shrill to the electorate will backfire and damage our brand.

However, calling her a racist — though intellectually honest — is politically most unwise. The visual is even worse: two, old white guys angrily battling a minority female (I’m having flashbacks of the partial birth abortion bill passage when President Bush was flanked by all men in dark suits and grey hair. Not a woman in sight. It wasn’t pretty). This is not the picture, or the fight, we want.

Tantaros joins the same sad extreme right-wing talking points and tries to paint Judge Sotomayor as a racist with out-of-context comments. It’s intellectually dishonest and highly intentional.

It looks bad, for Republicans, because it is bad, for the diversity-challenged and empathy-resistant Republicans.

Fox News:
http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/05/28/tantaros_sotomayor_obama/

Rush Limbaugh Calls Native Americans ‘Clowns’ … Tries To Put Hispanic Men And Women Against Each Other

In his eagerness to continue to attack U.S. Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh tries to set Hispanic men and women against each other, in this rant, and finishes this latest example of madness by calling Native Americans “clowns.”

Media Matters for America:
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200905290026

Saturday, May 30, 2009

Bill O'Reilly Tries To Intimidate Two Women Lawyers And Fails

Fox News Bill O'Reilly earned a well-defended title as one of the biggest, most aggressive television bullies. In this video highlighted by Media Matters, watch how O'Reilly inexplicably attempts to school two lawyers about the law, fails (as you would expect), and then is left with no choice other than to try and bully the two women lawyers (both of whom hold up strong in spite of O'Reilly's clear bias and irrational opinions). In particular, pay close attention to how O'Reilly aggressively shouts down (in an effort to silence) Tanya Acker, the black woman lawyer (near the end of the clip, he screams "WAIT" and says "KEEP QUIET"), while acting as if he is Massa Tom Moore, or someone of the like, from the epic Alex Haley movie mini-series Roots.

Media Matters:
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200905290050

Friday, May 29, 2009

Paper Publishes Ad For Assassination Of Barack Obama … Later Apologizes

It has been a couple of years since I worked in the newspaper business, but I am having a difficult time understanding how something like this slips by:

Warren Times Observer Publisher John Elchert says the ad appeared Thursday. It read, “May Obama follow in the steps of Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley and Kennedy!” The four presidents were all assassinated.

That is unbelievable and, quite frankly, inexcusable. It sounds like the information has been turned over to the police and the Secret Service.

Huffington Post:
http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=97741908627&h=Nd1gZ&u=_tWFD&ref=nf

Rush Limbaugh Compares Sonia Sotomayor Nomination To Nominating David Duke

I am now convinced that conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh (the true head of the Republican Party), secretly, is a Democratic operative who has been placed in the GOP to destroy it from within.

Consider these comments documented by Media Matters for America regarding Rush Limbaugh’s latest vicious attack of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, who would be the first Hispanic woman to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court:

LIMBAUGH: I care about whether she’s qualified, and I think she’s disqualified herself. Not only does she lack the often-discussed appropriate judicial temperament, it’s worse than that. She brings a form of bigotry or racism to the court. I don’t care – we’re not supposed to say it, we’re supposed to pretend it didn’t happen, we’re supposed to look at other things, but it’s the elephant in the room. The real question here that needs to be asked – and nobody on our side, from a columnist to a TV commentator to anybody in our party has the guts to ask: How can a president nominate such a candidate? And how can a party get behind such a candidate? That’s what would be asked if somebody were foolish enough to nominate David Duke or pick somebody even less offensive.

So, now he is comparing Judge Sotomayor to David Duke … DAVID DUKE!

The man has lost his mind.

I don’t know how the Democrats got him (perhaps they used the Jedi mind trick from the old-school Star Wars movies … something) to infiltrate the GOP and destroy it from within.

Is there any wonder, now, why the Republican Party lacks diversity?

All I have to say to Rush is: Keeping talking big man!

Media Matters:
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200905290018

Is This The Best Question Fox News Reporter Major Garrett Can Come Up With?

Fox News reporter Major Garrett had an opportunity to ask White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs a question … and asks a dumb, partisan one about the shutdowns of Chrysler dealerships.

It’s nice to see Gibbs let Garrett down gently after a puzzling question.



Rupert Murdoch: Soon People Will Pay For Newspapers On The Internet

News Corp Chairman Rupert Murdoch believes that at some point in the future we will have to pay up to read our “favorite newspaper(s)” on the Internet. To some extent, I think Murdoch could prove to be correct. I suspect many newspapers (those that do not die) are going to attempt to charge readers for online news content. Printing newspapers is becoming increasingly expensive and many papers are either folding or cutting back the number of days they’re printing physical newspapers. More and more, people are going online to find their news.

MURDOCH: You’re going to have to pay for your favorite newspaper on the Web. (Free content online) is going to stop. Newspapers will be selling subscriptions on the Web. The whole thing (premium content) will be there. The Web as it is today will be vastly improved, they’ll be much in them and you’ll pay for them.

Sure, newspapers could attempt such an approach. But, what that might open up is an opportunity for citizen journalists – particularly in larger cities. You will still be able to get your news for free on the radio, television and with blogs. Radio, television and bloggers (who will always be able to find content to blog about) could be helped most by newspapers attempting to charge for what previously has been (for the most part) free content. Newspapers are banking on people being willing to pay for (online) what they are not as willing to pay for right now (in print).

Time will tell what happens with a newspaper industry that is in serious trouble right now, and desperately seeking some answers in an increasingly technological world.

Those hard-working men and women running newspaper printing presses (and the people making the deliveries to stores and coin boxes) are the ones who could be in trouble in the years to come.

It’s difficult right now to say what will happen in the newspaper industry.

These are scary times for journalists.

Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/28/murdochs-newspaper-predic_n_208821.html

Good To See One Republican Step Up To Condemn Attacks Against

It’s good tosee Republican Sen. John Cornyn, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, trying to keep an open mind in a party that is working hard to attack U.S. Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor on a number of racial, racist and sexist fronts. Leading the attacks have been the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Pat Buchanan and others. Other Republican leaders need to step forward and wrest control of the party away from the far-right extremists.

“I think it’s terrible. This is not the kind of tone any of us want to set when it comes to performing our constitutional responsibilities of advise and consent.”

CNN:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/28/top-republican-calls-limbaugh-gingrich-comments-terrible/

Another Argument To Smear Sonia Sotomayor: Asking Whether She Got Into Princeton Because Of Affirmative Action

The attacks just keep on coming against U.S. Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Conservatives have gone beyond questioning her record and qualifications – both of which are fair game. Many on the far right are questioning Judge Sotomayor’s intellect, labeling her as angry and as a bully and referring to her as an “affirmative-action” pick. Here is a radio exchange by a pair of old-school right wingers: Fred Barnes and Bill Bennett.

BARNES: I think you can make the case that she’s one of those who has benefited from affirmative action over the years tremendously.

BENNETT: Yeah, well, maybe so. Did she get into Princeton on affirmative action, one wonders.

BARNES: One wonders.

BENNETT: Summa Cum Laude, I don’t think you get on affirmative action. I don’t know what her major was, but Summa Cum Laude’s a pretty big deal.

BARNES: I guess it is, but you know, there’s some schools and maybe Princeton’s not one of them, where if you don’t get Summa Cum Laude then or some kind of Cum Laude, you then, you’re a D+ student.

Note to Fred Barnes: You know your opinion is extreme when you have a hard time convincing even someone like Bill Bennett, who is highly conservative.

Some on the right continue to use affirmative action as a weapon to attack and to marginalize the accomplishments of people of color, and probably always will.

Think Progress:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/28/barnes-sotomayor-affirmative-action/

Greg Gutfeld’s Racist Statement

Conservative commentator Greg Gutfeld is at it again with his nasty comments aimed at U.S. Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor, who would be the first Hispanic woman to be confirmed as a U.S. Supreme Court Justice. As we know, a growing number of conservatives have been reaching for ammunition (both real and imagined) to use against the well-qualified Judge Sotomayor (this includes taking her statements out of context and, the irony of all ironies, calling her a racist).

Here is an excerpt from a blog written by Greg Gutfeld:

So President Barack Obama just named federal appeals judge Sonia Sotomayor as the nominee for the next Supreme Court Justice.

So what do we know about her?

Well, she’s Hispanic.

Also, she’s Puerto Rican.

And…she’s Hispanic.

Plus, she’s Puerto Rican.

Case closed.

That’s the joy of racial politics and the media that swallows it– all you need to know about a person is their racial makeup - and in the words of the cop grimly taping off the bedroom in my vacation condo, there’s “nothing more to see here.”

Gutfeld takes a well-qualified judge, a scholar (a 1976 graduate of Princeton and and a 1979 graduate of Yale Law School) who has worked her way up from meager beginnings, and reduces her to little more than a Hispanic/Puerto Rican woman – as if she is just a token pick. It’s a shameful and unfair smear of a well-qualified judge by the same moron who got his smearing practice by disparaging the Canadian military.

Big Hollywood:
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggutfeld/2009/05/26/daily-gut-the-reign-of-race/

Is David Stern The Master Of Puppets?

No, I’m not talking about the old-school Metallica song when I ask: Is David Stern the master of puppets? Many people who follow the NBA live and breathe conspiracy theories: teams with star players are supposed to win, the refs protect star players, the refs and the league join forces to secure predetermined outcomes … yadda, yadda, yadda. I could write forever on all of the conspiracy theories.

In this year’s playoffs, the conspiracy theorists believe the NBA has already decided which two teams should be in the 2009 NBA Finals. Obviously, the two teams that are supposed to play in the Finals are the Cleveland Cavaliers and the Los Angeles Lakers. Why? The Cleveland Cavaliers have LeBron James and the Lakers have Kobe Bryant.

Isn’t that what NBA Commissioner David Stern wants? Doesn’t the commish want to see his two biggest stars playing on the league’s biggest stage for pro basketball’s greatest prize? The devoted conspiracy theorists certainly believe that is the case.

But, two problems exist for what many people feel is Stern’s dream NBA Finals showdown: (1) the Orlando Magic and (2) the Denver Nuggets. Many of the conspiracy theorists tend to believe that Stern is loving sleep and increasing the amount of white hair on his head with thoughts of Denver and Orlando locking horns in the NBA Finals – rather than having LeBron and Kobe going at it on center stage … for real … not as puppets in well-done Nike commercials.

Right now, it’s not looking good for conspiracy theorists: LeBron’s Cavaliers are on the brink of elimination (entering Thursday night’s game) and the Lakers (feeling better than Cleveland) are clinging to a 3-2 series lead heading back to Denver for Game 6.

We’ll see if David Stern is the master of puppets, as so many conspiracy theorists think, or if (at least in this case) the players truly control their own destiny.


Is Fox Nation Showing Fear Of A Black President?

Far-right nuts are continuing to advance the bogus, hate-driven conspiracy theory that President Obama has not produced a valid birth certificate. A generation from now, people will be laughing at how bigots tried to advance a ridiculous notion that President Obama did not produce a valid birth certificate – in spite of strong evidence to the contrary. President Obama, since the beginning of the campaign that landed him in the White House as the first black president in the history of the United States, has been fighting these hateful smears from the far left conspiracy nuts … many of whom have found a new home on the far-right Web site Fox Nation.

Check this out from Media Matters (which has documented the attacks and much of the evidence that refutes the attacks):

A May 28 headline on The Fox Nation – Fox News’ purportedly bias-freewebsite – asked: “Should Obama Release Birth Certificate? Or Is This Old News?” But contrary to The Fox Nation’s question, the Obama campaign released a copy of President Obama’s birth certificate, posting it on the campaign’s Fight the Smears website. It also reportedly provided the original document to FactCheck.org, whose staff concluded in an August 21, 2008, post that it “meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship.” The Hawaii Department of Health also repeatedly confirmed that the birth certificate on record with the state is valid and proves that he was born in the state of Hawaii.

Again, why should people let evidence get in the way of a good smear? How many previous presidents have had this kind of scrutiny over a birth certificate? Anyone who thinks our president and our commander-in-chief is not a citizen is questioning our U.S. government. Isn’t that anti-American? It seems like any time people questioned the government, when George W. Bush was president, they were labeled as “anti-American” or “unpatriotic” or something else negative.

Media Matters:
http://mediamatters.org/research/200905280018

The Right And The Use Of Sexism Against Sonia Sotomayor

It’s no secret that many of the extremists on the far right of the political spectrum are looking for any and all weapons they can use to attack U.S. Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor, and that includes heavy doses of racism and sexism. Sotomayor, who would be the first Hispanic woman to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, is a hell of a lot tougher than a good number of the far-right extremists(Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, Glenn Beck, etc.) realize. For this blog, however, I am choosing to focus on the sexism being faced by Sotomayor.

Here is a quote (as one example) from Fox News talk show host Sean Hannity (quoting others) I found at Think Progress:

HANNITY: [W]hat do the lawyers who have appeared in her courtroom think of her judicial temperament? Well, not much. The Almanac of the Federal Judiciary solicits commentary from practicing attorneys about our federal judges. Now here’s what some lawyers who have argued before Judge Sotomayor had to say about her. Quote, She is a terror on the bench. She is overly aggressive, not very judicial. She behaves in an out-of-control manner. She is nasty to lawyers.

Take another look at the quote and consider the sexism. HINT: The sexism in Hannity’s words are coded. Questioning Sotomayor’s “judicial temperament,” referring to her as “a terror on the bench,” saying she is “overly aggressive” is “out of control” and is “nasty to lawyers.” How often do you hear these used as negative qualities in discussions of males? It’s very rare. You see, these are all aggressive qualities and women, in the eyes of weak men, are simply not supposed to be aggressive. These are words used to label many strong women … words people use when they can’t use the so-called “b-word” in our politically-correct society.

Think Progress (check out the end of the story to see how Sotomayor was really portrayed):
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/28/hannity-sotomayor-terror/

Try to stomach this video from Hannity, who compares the comments about Sotomayor to comments (flattering comments) made about U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Anthony Alito. It’s classic sexism. Men are allowed to be aggressive, but women are not. Men are praised for being aggressive. Meanwhile, women are criticized for it.

Great Blog By Crooks And Liars On Republicans Calling Sonia Sotomayor Racist

Crooks and Liars has a story about some of the far right wingers laughably trying to portray Sonia Sotomayor as a racist – if not calling her one outright. It’s the usual far-right individuals talking up that aspect. It all begins, as one might expect, from individuals like current Republican leader Rush Limbaugh and former conservative leaders like Pat Buchanan.

Crooks and Liars:
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/look-whos-calling-sonia-sotomayor-ra

Orrin Hatch Prepares To Play Politics With Sonia Sotomayor Nomination

Republican Utah Sen. Orrin Hypocrite Hatch already is backpedaling from his prior support for Sonia Sotomayor (President Barack Obama’s pick to replace David Souter on the U.S. Supreme Court). Check out these comments of a conversation between Hatch and NBC’s Andrea Mitchell. You do not even need to see the video to sense the defensive posture being assumed by Sen. Hatch who, along with other obstructionists, are laying the groundwork for automatically opposing Sonia Sotomayor because she is President Obama’s nominee:

MITCHELL: Let me ask you this Senator, I mean George Herbert Walker Bush first nominated her to the bench and…

HATCH: Wait a minute Andrea, wait a minute, I was on the Judiciary committee back then. At that time a district court judge was really effectively by the Senate so in this case both the…

He already is on the defensive.

MITCHELL: I understand that both senators from NY …

HATCH: They had a one for one deal so I, she was chosen by a Democrat and George Herbert Walker Bush, really basically had no choice but to appoint her now…

MITCHELL: You’re saying by senatorial courtesy — she was Pat Moynihan’s choice for the court. Let me ask you about your own vote in 1998, sir, I mean you voted for her, did you not? Or do I have that wrong? You were one of the seven Republicans.

HATCH: Well, let me just say this, I think the media tries to make something out of that because George Herbert Walker Bush was president.They shouldn’t. She was basically picked by Sen. Moynihan, a Democrat. In 1998, for the Circuit Court of Appeals, I did vote for her because I believe in giving the president due deference, especially for Circuit Court of Appeals nominations, but now we’re talking about…

Setting up his party’s partisan opposition to Sonia Sotomayor, Hatch goes out of his way to downplay the fact that she was nominated by George H.W. Bush. Then he ends with the all-too familiar desperation tactic of the far right: blame the media. That’s sad.

Crooks and Liars:
http://thirdbranch.crooksandliars.com/node/28452

Dahntay Jones Avoids Suspension … For Now

ESPN’s Marc Stein is reporting that Denver Nuggets guard Dahntay Jones will not be suspended for his dangerous and intentional trip of Los Angeles Lakers’ guard Kobe Bryant during Game 4 of the Western Conference finals.

Wrote Stein on ESPN’s Web site:

Denver Nuggets guard Dahntay Jones is on the brink of a one-game suspension after the NBA upgraded his Game 4 trip of Kobe Bryant to a flagrant foul.

The foul — deemed a flagrant foul 1 by league officials — is Jones’ third flagrant of the postseason and his second in the past two games in the Western Conference finals. That gives Jones three flagrant-foul points in the playoffs, with players receiving an automatic one-game ban when they exceed three points.

The league confirmed Tuesday night that Jones’ third-quarter trip — which was not spotted by the officiating crew — has been reclassified as a flagrant 1.It also confirmed that Andrew Bynum’s fourth-quarter flagrant 1 against Denver’s Chris Andersen has been downgraded to a personal foul.

The NBA didn’t quite have the guts to do what needed to be done. Instead, the league seems to have decided to let Jones (earning a reputation among some people as a dirty player), in essence, suspend himself with his next flagrant foul. I can understand not wanting to let a suspension play a factor in this important playoff series, but that was not Jones’ first cheap shot of Bryant. On the other hand, the league needs to be tougher on habitual offenders in regard to dangerous plays like that one.

Heaven only knows what referee Bennett Salvatore (who called nothing) was looking at … standing right in front of the play.

I still contend, buig playoff series or not, Dahntay Jones deserved a one-game suspension for the trip (that followed up the dangerous push of a mid-air Bryant).

ESPN:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4207241

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Glenn Beck Attacks Sonia Sotomayor On Race And Gender

From conservative Fox News host Glenn Beck’s radio show: “Hey, Hispanic chick lady! You’re empathetic … you’re in!”

Later in the clip, Beck goes on to make jokes about people who some might consider minorities.

Media Matters for America:
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200905260041

Surprise, Surprise, Fox News Channel’s Megyn Kelly Jumps To Conclusion, Takes Sonia Sotomayor’s Comments Out Of Context

Megyn Kelly, of Fox News, takes out of context a comment from Sonia Sotomayor and tries to hold the race hammer over her head. Kelly, like others, is working what few angles they have to try and trip up Sotomayor, President Obama’s nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court to replace retiring justice David Souter. Take the time to read the Media Matters for Americastory to get the full story to better understand these out-of-context attacks from the far right on Sonia Sotomayor.

First, thanks to Media Matters for America, here is what Kelly said:

KELLY: Your thoughts on this controversial quote that she offered up on Latina judges? This was Judge Sotomayor speaking back at the University of Berkeley Law School in 2001, and I’ll read you what she said and ask if you are able to put this in perspective for us.

She says, quote, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion as a judge than a white male, who has not lived that life.” You know, that sounds to a lot of people like reverse racism, basically. Like she’s saying that Latina judges are obviously better than white male judges, and that that’s her assumption, and people get worried about putting a person like that on the U.S. Supreme Court.

REP. JOSE SERRANO [D-NY]: Right. And like I said, we’re gonna hang on everything she’s ever said — if she has said them. I think the key there is, “I would hope,” just like I have said at times throughout my life that when you come with this background that I came, that I would hope I would be always true to believing when I legislate in Congress — and I’ve been in Congress 20 years, and in the state Assembly 16 years before that — that I would keep in mind that while I’m legislating for the whole country, I also have to keep in mind what it is that I bring to that legislation. My personal experience and how it is to fight yourself out of poverty. All she was saying is –

KELLY: But is there a role for that on the bench? It’s different, some would argue, for you, because you’re an elected lawmaker.

SERRANO: Well, there is a role in that you never forget who you are. I mean, she has made decisions based on what the law is and what the Constitution says. That’s what she’ll be doing.

[...]

KELLY: What I want to ask you about, Tim [O'Brien], is these prior statements, because as much of a moment as we may be having now watching this and just rooting for her as a human being, there are some problematic statements that she’s made in the past that are gonna come up at these confirmation hearings. And the one we’ve been talking about is this one where she says — and I want to get it right: “I would hope a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male.”

And I – now I’ve looked at the entire speech that she was offering to see if that was taken out of context, and I have to tell you, Tim, it wasn’t. In fact, she goes on — she says, “Justice O’Connor has often been cited” — that was our first female justice — “has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and a wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases.”

She says, “I’m not so sure I agree with that statement.” And then she goes on to say that “people from different backgrounds will come to different decisions” and she said that “one must accept the proposition that a difference will be created by the presence of women and people of color on the bench and their personal experiences.” Now, is that just a statement of fact, Tim, or is that in fact controversial?

Sorry, Megyn, but you are taking what Sonia Sotomayor said out of its original context. Here is what Sotomayor said, in full context:

In our private conversations, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant but I also choose to emphasize that the people who argued those cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape ultimately were largely people of color and women. I recall that Justice Thurgood Marshall, Judge Connie Baker Motley, the first black woman appointed to the federal bench, and others of the NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the Court that equality of work required equality in terms and conditions of employment.

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other(s) simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see.

Of course, the Megyn Kellys of the world interpret her comments in the worst possible light (that she is a reverse racist who thinks Latinas can make better decisions than white men). Read Sotomayor’s comments a little more closely and understand the context in which she made these statements (talking about diversity and how that can impact the court) that many on the right find so offensive. She was talking about race and discrimination cases and how diversity can be beneficial during the decision-making process for such cases. People like the conservative Megyn Kelly act as if Sotomayor walked out of a fast-food restaurant and, with little context, declared Latinas are better judges than white men. That is a mischaracterization. You have to put her comments into the proper context to be fair. I mean, if you’re a fair and balanced news outlet, that’s what you would do.

Media Matters for America:
http://mediamatters.org/research/200905260050

Blaming LeBron James Is Silly

I’ve been amused listening to some of the criticism being heaped onto the broad shoulders of Cleveland Cavaliers’ superstar LeBron James in this playoff series against the Orlando Magic. In all honesty, these are individuals who need to have their heads examined. LeBron has been brilliant in this series. If anything, what has been exposed is the fact that his supporting cast is not quite as strong as a lot of people wanted to believe (after an impressive regular-season run). Don’t get it twisted, the supporting cast is not bad. Look, Mo Williams is a fine pro basketball player (an all-star this year) and the Cavs have a few other guys who are solid contributors. But, lets be honest, LeBron’s supporting cast (solid as it is) clearly is not in the same class as supporting casts enjoyed by the Los Angeles Lakers’ Kobe Bryant and the Denver Nuggets’ Carmelo Anthony. So, we can kill that noise right now. LeBron has put this team, franchise and city of Cleveland on his back. At this point, in a series between evenly-matched teams, LeBron could use a little more help carrying the load.

The Weekly Standard (More like The Weakly Standard) Writer Smears President Obama

Here is another interesting attack from The WeaklyWeekly Standard in a blog posted by Michael Goldfarb (whining about Sonia Sotomayor being nominated for the U.S. Supreme Court):

… on the issue of diversity, Obama seems to have the views of a 21-year-old Hispanic girl — that is, only by having a black president, an Hispanic justice, a female secretary of State, and Bozo the Clown as vice president will the United States become a true “vanguard of societal ideas and changes.”

Maybe if President Obama simply would hire or nominate all white guys then Republicans would be happy? Then again, the one white guy mentioned here is Vice President Joe Biden who the writer refers to as “Bozo the Clown.”

I guess you have to be white and conservative.

The Weekly Standard:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/05/vanguard_america.asp

More Right-Wing Attacks On Sonia Sotomayor

Are you ready for some more attacks on Sonia Sotomayor, who has been nominated by President Barack Obama for the U.S. Supreme Court? Next up on the attack (as documented by Think Progress) is right-winger Curt Levey.

Here is what Think Progress has:

This morning on WTOP, Curt Levey, executive director of the right-wing Committee for Justice, compared Sotomayor to Harriet Miers:

I would point you to the Harriet Miers nomination under the second President Bush. She was also many people felt and intellectual lightweight, picked because she was a woman, people felt. And even though Republicans controlled the senate, she ultimately had to withdraw. And that could happen here. This is someone who clearly was picked because she’s a woman and Hispanic, not because she was the best qualified. I could certainly see red and purple state Democrats gawking at it and she may very well have to withdraw her nomination.

So, Sotomayor (implicitly) is being attacked as an intellectual lightweight. Levey is asserting that she essentially has no qualification for the high court beyond the fact that she is a woman and is Hispanic. Wow, you would not want to prejudge someone, huh?

This is typical of the kind of attacks we can expect from the right wing. Sonia Sotomayor seems to be a lot tougher than these right-wingers think.

By the way, did anyone think Clarence Thomas was the most qualified or best pick for the U.S. Supreme Court? I doubt very many people considered Thomas the most qualified.

Think Progress:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/26/sotomayor-lightweight/

Republican Party Head Rush Limbaugh Hoping For Sonia Sotomayor To Fail

Rush Limbaugh, head of the Republicans and conservatives, is once again calling on someone (a person who could become an important figure in the United States of America) to fail.

LIMBAUGH: Do I want her to fail? Yeah. Do I want her to fail to get on the court? Yes! She’d be a disaster on the court.Do I still want Obama to fail as President? Yeah. AP you getting this? He’s going to fail anyway, but the sooner the better.

Limbaugh again proves himself to be a reprehensible individual whose patriotism is apparently tied to whether or not his party is in power. With rhetoric like that, his party might not be back in power any time in the near future.

Check out the video of that great “patriot” Limbaugh hoping for more leaders of our country to fail.

Think Progress:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/26/limbaugh-sotomayor-fail/

Media Matters:
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200905260033

Keep This In Mind When Conservatives Begin To Smear Sonia Sotomayor Over ‘Policy’ Comment

Media Matters for America is on the case to put into context one of the weapons conservatives will attempt to use against Sonia Sotomayor, the woman who is being nominated by President Barack Obama for the U.S. Supreme Court.

Here is a portion of the Media Matters story:

SUMMARY: Fox News host Jane Skinner asserted that Judge Sonia Sotomayor “is coming under some fire for making some comments that were recorded on tape a while back, saying that it’s her job, really, to make policy from the bench.” In fact, Sotomayor did not say “it’s her job” as a federal circuit court judge to “make policy from the bench.”

Check out the entire article to see the comments put into their full context.

Media Matters for America:
http://mediamatters.org/research/200905070035

Sonia Sotomayor Can Expect To Be Attacked By Far-Right Extremists

It appears that President Barack Obama is going to nominate federal appeals court judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court to replace the retiring David Souter. The reports have been circulating around all of the major media news outlets this morning. If confirmed, the 54-year-old Sotomayor would be the first Hispanic and only the third woman (currently, Ruth Bader-Ginsburg serves) ever to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. Sotomayor’s reported nomination is hardly a big surprise as she has been on what many have speculated to be President Obama’s short list for quite some time.

Now, however, comes the hard part. Sotomayor’stoughness will be tested as the far-right nuts will begin attacking any high-court nominee that does not fit their ideological vision of what a U.S. Supreme Court Justice is supposed to be. That should not matter. Nothing I have read about Sonia Sotomayor puts her outside reasonable mainstream beliefs. What should matter, about Sonia Sotomayor, are her qualifications. As much as I was not (and am not) a fan of Clarence Thomas, I supported President George H.W. Bush’s right to nominate him to the high court.

Besides, Sotomayor’s selection will do nothing to tilt the liberal-conservative balance of the U.S. Supreme Court since she is replacing Souter.

Still, I doubt that will matter to many people as the attacks on Sonia Sotomayor begin. Check that, the attacks have already begun (they started when she was first rumored to be on President Obama’s list).

Dahntay Jones Gaining A Reputation As A Dirty Player

Dahntay Jones, of the Denver Nuggets, is gaining a well-earned reputation as a dirty player. The NBA needs to come down hard on Jones for his push in the back of the Los Angeles Lakers’ Kobe Bryant followed by an inexcusable dirty trip of Bryant in Game 4. Jones has to be harshly disciplined. That trip could have been much more dangerous. He could have hit Bryant in the shin and we could have had a broken leg, an injured ankle or something else serious. There is no place for dirty play like this in the NBA. This is the playoffs and we can expect good, hard and physical play. But, those two plays are indicative of a guy who is doing things outside of good and hard-nosed basketball.

Dahntay Jones must be suspended.

Saturday, May 23, 2009

Nolan Finley Is Correct About Monica Conyers, Detroit, North American International Auto Show

All of the obstructionism by members of the Detroit City Council, led by Monica Conyers, has put Detroit in a frightening position right now (with respect to continuing to host the gigantic North American International Auto Show). Conyers’ personal victory, however, in the effort to prevent a regional authority from assuming control of raggedy Cobo Hall (and provide funding to repair and expand it to keep it up to standard) may end up costing Detroit the Auto Show. The show could be headed out to the suburbs or it could be headed out of the state.

From Nolan Finley’s Detroit News blog:

The Detroit Auto Dealers Association seems plenty serious about moving the North American International Auto Show to Novi if Detroit doesn’t come up with a Cobo Center solution soon. The folks at Rock Financial Center have the shovels waiting to go in the ground on an 800,000-square-foot expansion to accommodate the auto show.

It would be a major coup for western Oakland County and would turn the Rock center into a major convention venue. That means more hotels and restaurants for the surrounding communities.

And none of it would be possible without Monica Conyers.

Hopefully new Detroit mayor Dave Bing will be able to cut through the garbage to bring people together and do something positive for the city of Detroit. Dealing with Conyers, however, will be no easy task (as the city, the region, the state and perhaps the world is increasingly becoming aware of).

Detroit News:
http://apps.detnews.com/apps/blogs/nolanfinleyblog/index.php?blogid=1246

Lets Not Play Revisionist History With Cass Tech High School

In reading the Detroit News, I ran into another one of those head-scratching articles. Cass Tech High School, in Detroit, is one of the most respected high schools in the nation. Why would anyone mess around with something as successful and historic as Cass Tech? Well, leave it to the Detroit City Council to try and mess around with something that has been so successful for generations. Not that City Councilwoman JoAnn Watson is necessarily messing with the academic success of academic success. She is, however, messing with the tradition of Cass Tech High School – it’s name.

Increasingly, people are going back and applying today’s standards to yesterday’s figures.

From the Detroit News:

A resolution before the Detroit City Council “urging the renaming” of Cass Technical High School because it is named for Lewis Cass, a former Michigan territorial governor. The resolution claims there’s an “inherent dichotomy” in the school that touts “fairness, equality and brotherhood” taking its name from Cass, the architect of the Trail of Tears that killed thousands of Native Americans.

Later, the article says the following:

Councilwoman JoAnn Watson introduced the resolution last week after she said she was approached by some students. A council subcommittee is studying the resolution.

“The young people have agreed to talk with those who are somewhat older,” Watson said. “I believe in a democratic process and to let everyone have access. Nothing has been decided.”

Note to Councilwoman Watson: Quit worrying about something of this nature and messing around with history. Cass may not be my favorite historical figure, but he did help make it possible for the existence of Cass Tech High School. Should the city of Detroit give back the land to the descendants of Lewis Cass?

Let it go. This hardly seems like a good use of the council’s time (there are way more pressing issues with Detroit Public Schools). Also, this whole resolution is disrespectful to history, prestige and far too many people to calculate.

Freedom Of Speech … Just Watch What You Say At Liberty University

Liberty University believes in freedom of speech, but do its beliefs in that regard include both Democrats and Republicans?

It seems Liberty is working to pull the plug on those who support the Democratic party on the Virginia-based school’s campus:

Liberty University will no longer recognize its campus Democratic Party club because its parent organization stands against the conservative Christian school’s moral principles. The club, which has about 30 members, will no longer be able to use Liberty’s name, hold on-campus meetings or be eligible for student activities money.

It seems, however, that the Republican party club is not having the same funding issues at a school founded by the late Rev. Jerry Falwell.

“I think it does the university a great disservice to stifle one side of the discussion simply because we are Democrats,” said Maria Childress, the club’s adviser and an administrative assistant at the school.

This runs counter to what college campuses should be all about.

Brian Diaz, president of Liberty’s Democratic club said he was informed of the school’s decision in a May 15 e-mail.

“The candidates supported are directly contrary to the mission of Liberty University,” the e-mail said.

That is just plain wrong, and it’s a shame the university endorses such intolerance.

Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/22/AR2009052200793.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR

John McCain Understands The Torture Issue

Sen. John McCain, perhaps as much as anyone, understands what torture issue is all about (even if you take the approach of former Vice President Dick Cheney and distract from the seriousness by using the words “enhanced interrogation” to describe torture). Vice President Cheney has been on this Save-My-Legacy Tour, but has mostly done nothing but damage to his own party.

MCCAIN: When you have a majority of Americans, seventy-something percent, saying we shouldn’t torture, then I’m not sure it helps for the Vice President to go out and continue to espouse that position. But look, he’s free to talk. He’s a former Vice President of the United States. I just don’t see where it helps.

Sen. McCain also seems to take issue with the sugarcoating of torture:

MCCAIN: (Cheney) believes that waterboarding doesn’t fall under the Geneva Conventions and that it’s not a form of torture. But you know, it goes back to the Spanish Inquisition.

Someone needs to tell Dick Cheney that it’s over, his time is up and he should go chill out somewhere.

Think Progress:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/22/mccain-cheney-torture/

Negro, Please: Steele Attacks President Obama Using Race

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele rarely misses an opportunity to open his mouth to offer criticism of President Barack Obama. Sadly, however, Steele is resorting to old and tired Republican talking points: Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, etc. Steele, however, steps into an interesting territory with this comment he recently made (as documented by Think Progress):

STEELE: The problem that we have with this president is that we don’t know [Obama]. He was not vetted, folks. … He was not vetted, because the press fell in love with the black man running for the office. “Oh gee, wouldn’t it be neat to do that? Gee, wouldn’t it make all of our liberal guilt just go away? We can continue to ride around in our limousines and feel so lucky to live in an America with a black president.” Okay that’s wonderful, great scenario, nice backdrop. But what does he stand for? What does he believe? … So we don’t know. We just don’t know.

Some of the tired talking points from Steele in the above comments:

  1. We don’t know him
  2. He was not vetted
  3. The press fell in love with him
  4. The press fell in love with him because he’s black

These are some of the same tired and old talking points we heard over and over again throughout the presidential campaign. Additionally, it’s evidence Michael Steele and Republicans refuse to bring anything new to the table (that is positive). The public wants something more for the Republicans than to play the fear card and the woe-is-us (the press supposedly in the pocket of President Obama) card.

Check out Think Progress’ article because it points out a little hypocrisy coming from Michael Steele (with his implications about the president based on race). Maybe it’s time someone took the microphone away from Chairman Steele. He may be a good man, but it seems as though nearly every time he opens his mouth something damaging to the party comes out. Comments like that may strengthen the Republican base, but it hurts the ability for the party to expand beyond its far-right base.

I will say one thing about Michael Steele: He knows how to stay in the public spotlight.

Think Progress:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/22/steele-obama-race/

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Jesse Ventura School Bus Stop 1: The View

Former Navy SEAL Jesse Ventura, the former governor of Minnesota, has been on a tour schooling conservatives for their illogical opinions on torture. The student taken to school in this video is the conservative Elisabeth Hasselbeck, one of the hosts of The View.

It’s kind of painful to watch as Hasselbeck is working hard to defend her position and, quite frankly, failing miserably.

The Gholston Post:
http://simmerdown3.wordpress.com/2009/05/19/jesse-ventura-school-bus-stop-1-the-view/

Jesse Ventura School Bus Stop 2: Hannity

Jesse Ventura, the former Navy SEAL and former governor of Minnesota, has on Sean Hannity’s Fox News television program. Ventura had Hannity so tied up in knots that the conservative talk show host even made the laughable statement that the United States of America is better off after George W. Bush than it was before his presidency began. It’s a good thing for Hannity that Ventura seemed to have an abbreviated segment. Ventura, who is a proud independent, ran a clinic on how to school a blowhard conservative sticking obsessively to party talking points (while ignoring reality). I have to admit. I give Hannity a little bit of credit for bringing Ventura on there (even though Jesse beat him like a drum).

The Gholston Post:
http://simmerdown3.wordpress.com/2009/05/19/jesse-ventura-school-bus-stop-no-2/

Jesse Ventura School Bus Stop 3: Fox And Friends

Jesse Ventura, a former Navy SEAL and the former governor of the state of Minnesota, continued his school bus route as he made a stop on the set of Fox and Friends. Pay particular attention to an early exchange that takes place between Ventura and one of the hosts, Brian Kilmeade. In two different ways, Ventura asks Kilmeade why we don’t torture/waterboard criminals in the United States of America (including Timothy McVeigh, who was a major part of the Oklahoma City federal building bombing)? Both times, Kilmeade ducks the question and changes the subject to try and make it seem as though Ventura is not as interested in keeping us safe. Jesse, however, was not buying Kilmeade’s right-wing garbage.

Here is a transcript from Crooks and Liars:

VENTURA: I have been waterboarded. It is torture. I can speak from experience. It was part of SERE training that I went through as a Navy SEAL.

KILMEADE: And are you OK now?

VENTURA: I’m fine.

KILMEADE: So is Khalid Sheik Mohammed. He’s about 60 pounds overweight, having a great time –

VENTURA: It doesn’t matter. If it was OK, then why don’t we do it to criminals? Like, if we’ve got gang members in L.A., OK? We know that their gangs are gonna do bad things. When we arrest them, why don’t we waterboard them so we can get information out of them? Because it’s against the law.

Hmm, that is a good question. How does the right-winger Kilmeade respond? He changes the subject.

KILMEADE: Do you want us not to be safe from attack?

Ventura was not impressed.

VENTURA: Don’t come after me with that nonsense.

VENTURA: OK, why didn’t we waterboard McVeigh and Nichols, then? There were more people that they thought involved at Oklahoma City. Why weren’t they waterboarded to get more information? Because it’s against the law.

Wait — and if we’re not going to be a country that goes by the rule of law when it’s convenient or not convenient, then what do we stand for?

More good points by Ventura. Kilmeade, of course, ignores the points and goes back to the politics of fear.

KILMEADE: But what about the difference — you bring up Timothy McVeigh and maybe gang members, and maybe those threats weren’t as imminent as the threats –

VENTURA: I don’t think these threats are imminent.

KILMEADE: You didn’t think after 9/11, that America felt threats were imminent, that more could be coming?

VENTURA: Maybe. But I think our behavior has caused us to be in more trouble. Now they won’t release these photos. Why? Because they know the Muslim world will go irate. They’re all after Nancy Pelosi — when did she know? When dah dah dah — Well, if we hadn’t of tortured, it would be a dead issue, wouldn’t it?

The Jesse Ventura School Bus Route … coming to school a conservative hypocrite near you.

For the video:
http://simmerdown3.wordpress.com/2009/05/20/jesse-ventura-school-bus-stop-3-fox-and-friends/

Crooks and Liars (I encourage you to read David Neiwert’s blog. It’s good stuff):
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/jesse-ventura-piledrives-yellow-elep

Funny Catch By Talking Points Memo

Talking Points Memo made a nice catch on an attempt at humor by (quite likely) conservative Republicans. The Republicans have been playing up this theme that President Obama is spending all this money (ignoring the deficits run up by George W. Bush, the two wars he got us in and the economy that administration allowed to deteriorate). But, in what could maybe have been a funny attempt at humor, the “creators” of this joke ultimately clowned themselves with a disappointing error.

Republicans get the expiration date wrong. Oops!

Republicans get the expiration date wrong. Oops!

President Obama is in office until January 2013.

Talking Points Memo:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/rnc-site-obamacard-expires-in-january-2012.php?ref=fpc

Republican Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons Is Whining

Republican Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons (Fox News does not identify him as as a Republican in their story as of the time I read it) is whining about President Barack Obama visiting Nevada.

First, here is how Fox News lays out the controversy:

Gibbons had demanded a sit-down meeting following Obama’s controversial statement that companies shouldn’t book trips to Las Vegas if they have received federal bailouts and claims statements he made that were critical to Nevada and have caused economic damage to convention business and tourism business in the Silver State.

Total crybaby stuff that makes you wonder how much of it is politically motivated. Las Vegas probably only came up because it is a popular tourist destination. This is the kind of whining that leaves people disgusted with politics and politicians. Quite frankly, I’m not sure that Gibbons is in a position to make demands of the president.

“I am disappointed at the hypocrisy shown by this Administration,” Gibbons said. “President Obama is coming to Las Vegas later this month for a political fundraiser, but he will not help the struggling families in Las Vegas and Nevada who are out of work because of his reckless comments. President Obama is coming to Las Vegas to raise campaign cash for Senator Harry Reid, apparently our money is good enough for the President, but our tourism, jobs, and economic future are not. This is politics, pure and simple, President Obama stood for change, but all he has done is brought negative economic change to Nevada.”

Gibbons needs to quit crying and get to work.

One would expect Fox News to take another anti-President Obama story and give it major billing on its homepage. One also would expect Fox News to do some basic research to add the fact that he is a Republican (just to be fair and to perhaps put Gibbons’ nontroversy into context).

Fox News:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/05/19/nevada-governer-slams-obamas-refusal-meet/

Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Gibbons_(United_States_politician)

Cowardly Syracuse Caves To Conservative Pressure; Denies Dr. Boyce Watkins Tenure

Dr. Boyce Watkins is one of the most strongest scholarly black voices in the United States of America. His willingness to strongly stand up, even in controversial issues that make most people cower and run for cover, has won him a lot of respect among people of all races over the years. He has been courageous in standing up against bias, speaking out against racism, the exploitation of student-athletes and more during his career. But, as we all know, that is a good way to make a lot of enemies – as Dr. Watkins fully understood going in. A professor at Syracuse University, Dr. Watkins was up for tenure, but was denied. Here is a excerpt of what he had to say when his case was denied by Syracuse University:

In case you don’t know, my tenure case was denied, which means I’ll be dismissed by Syracuse University. I personally am not offended, as I didn’t expect to receive tenure after the attacks by Bill O’Reilly last year and the work I’ve done speaking out on behalf of NCAA athletes (Syracuse earns tens of millions from athlete families and likely lost alumni donations after the Bill O’Reilly attacks – I stand by every word, however, since I won’t allow a racist like O’Reilly to speak of lynching Michelle Obama or any other Black woman for that matter). Additionally, our business school (The Whitman School of Management) has not, to my knowledge, recommended tenure for any African American, in any department, in its entire 100 years of operating history (I can’t concur with the conclusion that every Black scholar on the planet is unqualified to be here). So, while we can say all we want about elusive and idealistic concepts such as academic freedom, most scholars understand that the rules change when you are an outspoken Black man with no significant Black male power presence on your campus. My role was to support pre-existing intellectual, social and administrative paradigms, not to engage in active, progressive scholarship.

As Dr. Watkins says, shed no tears for him. He has worked hard to solidify his position and will thrive in spite of the cowardly actions of Syracuse University. Unless there is something significant that we do not know of and that hasn’t been reported … this is (if you will excuse the saying), bush league stuff. Universities should want professors who are strong and positive role models doing things to better the lives of young people. That is the essence of what Dr. Watkins has been about and I am sure will continue to be about as he moves into this next chapter of his life and professional career.

I wish Dr. Watkins, founder of http://www.yourblackworld.com/, the best of luck. Based on his track record, I know he will continue to thrive and continue to do things that have a positive impact on the lives of young people. He has beena tremendous advocate for education and self empowerment. It’s a shame Syracuse does not hold with those same values as strong as does Dr. Boyce Watkins.

Dr. Boyce Watkins:
http://drboycespeaks.blogspot.com/

Monday, May 18, 2009

One Too Many Ass Whippings For Alan Keyes

Alan Keyes, the crazed right winger who has an ongoing vendetta against President Barack Obama, has lost his mind. The latest evidence that Keyes is more nutty than Planters, came with his obsessive activities at the University of Notre Dame before, during and since commencement activities.

KEYES: Well, I think it was clearly an effort today to try to establish some kind of moral legitimacy for Obama despite the fact that he takes an extremist stance on child-killing that marks him as the focal point evil, with respect to this heinous destruction of innocent life in our world today.

That quote is evidence that Keyes (who has made a career out of hateful language and political defeat) is a nut who is off his rocker. His vicious and hateful words have done little more than drag the Republican party down into the mud of extremism and bitterness.

Crooks and Liars:
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/alan-keyes-calls-president-obama-cen

Pittsburgh Steelers Player James Harrison Gives Us A WTF Moment

James Harrison, a linebacker for the Pittsburgh Steelers, had this to say about his turning down a visit to the White House to be honored for winning the Super Bowl. This is a long-standing tradition for teams to be honored by the president of the United States at the White House. Why should tradition or this team function mean anything to James Harrison when he can put the spotlight on himself (and place his interests above that of the team) by refusing to participate in this team function.

Said Harrison to WTAE, a local Pittsburgh television network:
This is how I feel – if you want to see the Pittsburgh Steelers, invite us when we don’t win the Super Bowl. As far as I’m concerned, [Obama] would’ve invited Arizona if they had won.
If that is true then maybe these are true too:
  1. James Harrison would never participate in the Pro Bowl because the Pro Bowl only invites you when you have a great season. The Pro Bowl obviously should invite players when they have bad seasons, too.
  2. James Harrison would never accept a long-term contract since long-term contracts generally are only given out to very good players. Teams should also give long-term contracts to players who are not very good, too.
  3. James Harrison would not accept a large signing bonus since you would not give out large signing bonuses to players unless they were very, very good. Obviously, teams should give large signing bonuses to players who are not good, too.
  4. James Harrison would have refused to be drafted since teams only draft players who they feel can help their franchise. Why draft the good players when you can draft the bad players?
  5. James Harrison would not have accepted a college athletic scholarship since they only award those to people who have a demonstrated history of success and the potential for more success down the line. They don’t give scholarships to players who are no good … so, what’s fair is fair.
  6. James Harrison will not hold the Super Bowl trophy since that is only awarded to the winning team.
  7. James Harrison will not participate in the victory parade and rally since only the winning team holds a victory parade.
  8. James Harrison will not accept a Super Bowl ring since only the winning team gets Super Bowl rings and the losing team doesn’t.
It was dumb when he declined to meet with George W. Bush and it is dumb today. Sadly, this guy has learned nothing since the first time he made this same idiotic decision.

Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/18/james-harrison-snubs-obam_n_204865.html

Cowardly Syracuse Caves To Conservative Pressure; Denies Dr. Boyce Watkins Tenure

Dr. Boyce Watkins is one of the most strongest scholarly black voices in the United States of America. His willingness to strongly stand up, even in controversial issues that make most people cower and run for cover, has won him a lot of respect among people of all races over the years. He has been courageous in standing up against bias, speaking out against racism, the exploitation of student-athletes and more during his career. But, as we all know, that is a good way to make a lot of enemies - as Dr. Watkins fully understood going in. A professor at Syracuse University, Dr. Watkins was up for tenure, but was denied. Here is a excerpt of what he had to say when his case was denied by Syracuse University:

In case you don't know, my tenure case was denied, which means I'll be dismissed by Syracuse University. I personally am not offended, as I didn't expect to receive tenure after the attacks by Bill O'Reilly last year and the work I've done speaking out on behalf of NCAA athletes (Syracuse earns tens of millions from athlete families and likely lost alumni donations after the Bill O'Reilly attacks - I stand by every word, however, since I won't allow a racist like O'Reilly to speak of lynching Michelle Obama or any other Black woman for that matter). Additionally, our business school (The Whitman School of Management) has not, to my knowledge, recommended tenure for any African American, in any department, in its entire 100 years of operating history (I can't concur with the conclusion that every Black scholar on the planet is unqualified to be here). So, while we can say all we want about elusive and idealistic concepts such as academic freedom, most scholars understand that the rules change when you are an outspoken Black man with no significant Black male power presence on your campus. My role was to support pre-existing intellectual, social and administrative paradigms, not to engage in active, progressive scholarship.

As Dr. Watkins says, shed no tears for him. He has worked hard to solidify his position and will thrive in spite of the cowardly actions of Syracuse University. Unless there is something significant that we do not know of and that hasn't been reported ... this is (if you will excuse the saying), bush league stuff. Universities should want professors who are strong and positive role models doing things to better the lives of young people. That is the essence of what Dr. Watkins has been about and I am sure will continue to be about as he moves into this next chapter of his life and professional career.

I wish Dr. Watkins, founder of http://www.yourblackworld.com/, the best of luck. Based on his track record, I know he will continue to thrive and continue to do things that have a positive impact on the lives of young people. He has beena tremendous advocate for education and self empowerment. It's a shame Syracuse does not hold with those same values as strong as does Dr. Boyce Watkins.

Dr. Boyce Watkins:
http://drboycespeaks.blogspot.com/

Sunday, May 17, 2009

President Obama’s Speech At Notre Dame

Here is the full text of President Barack Obama’s commencement address at the University of Notre Dame on Sunday.

Below is the text of President Obama’s Notre Dame commencement speech, as prepared for delivery courtesy of Huffington Post.

Thank you, Father Jenkins for that generous introduction. You are doing an outstanding job as president of this fine institution, and your continued and courageous commitment to honest, thoughtful dialogue is an inspiration to us all.Good afternoon Father Hesburgh, Notre Dame trustees, faculty, family, friends, and the class of 2009. I am honored to be here today, and grateful to all of you for allowing me to be part of your graduation.

I want to thank you for this honorary degree. I know it has not been without controversy. I don’t know if you’re aware of this, but these honorary degrees are apparently pretty hard to come by. So far I’m only 1 for 2 as President. Father Hesburgh is 150 for 150. I guess that’s better. Father Ted, after the ceremony, maybe you can give me some pointers on how to boost my average.

I also want to congratulate the class of 2009 for all your accomplishments. And since this is Notre Dame, I mean both in the classroom and in the competitive arena. We all know about this university’s proud and storied football team, but I also hear that Notre Dame holds the largest outdoor 5-on-5 basketball tournament in the world – Bookstore Basketball.

Now this excites me. I want to congratulate the winners of this year’s tournament, a team by the name of “Hallelujah Holla Back.” Well done. Though I have to say, I am personally disappointed that the “Barack O’Ballers” didn’t pull it out. Next year, if you need a 6′2″ forward with a decent jumper, you know where I live.

Every one of you should be proud of what you have achieved at this institution. One hundred and sixty three classes of Notre Dame graduates have sat where you are today. Some were here during years that simply rolled into the next without much notice or fanfare – periods of relative peace and prosperity that required little by way of sacrifice or struggle.

You, however, are not getting off that easy. Your class has come of age at a moment of great consequence for our nation and the world – a rare inflection point in history where the size and scope of the challenges before us require that we remake our world to renew its promise; that we align our deepest values and commitments to the demands of a new age. It is a privilege and a responsibility afforded to few generations – and a task that you are now called to fulfill.

This is the generation that must find a path back to prosperity and decide how we respond to a global economy that left millions behind even before this crisis hit – an economy where greed and short-term thinking were too often rewarded at the expense of fairness, and diligence, and an honest day’s work.

We must decide how to save God’s creation from a changing climate that threatens to destroy it. We must seek peace at a time when there are those who will stop at nothing to do us harm, and when weapons in the hands of a few can destroy the many. And we must find a way to reconcile our ever-shrinking world with its ever-growing diversity – diversity of thought, of culture, and of belief.

In short, we must find a way to live together as one human family.

It is this last challenge that I’d like to talk about today. For the major threats we face in the 21st century – whether it’s global recession or violent extremism; the spread of nuclear weapons or pandemic disease – do not discriminate. They do not recognize borders. They do not see color. They do not target specific ethnic groups.

Moreover, no one person, or religion, or nation can meet these challenges alone. Our very survival has never required greater cooperation and understanding among all people from all places than at this moment in history.

Unfortunately, finding that common ground – recognizing that our fates are tied up, as Dr. King said, in a “single garment of destiny” – is not easy. Part of the problem, of course, lies in the imperfections of man – our selfishness, our pride, our stubbornness, our acquisitiveness, our insecurities, our egos; all the cruelties large and small that those of us in the Christian tradition understand to be rooted in original sin. We too often seek advantage over others. We cling to outworn prejudice and fear those who are unfamiliar. Too many of us view life only through the lens of immediate self-interest and crass materialism; in which the world is necessarily a zero-sum game. The strong too often dominate the weak, and too many of those with wealth and with power find all manner of justification for their own privilege in the face of poverty and injustice. And so, for all our technology and scientific advances, we see around the globe violence and want and strife that would seem sadly familiar to those in ancient times.

We know these things; and hopefully one of the benefits of the wonderful education you have received is that you have had time to consider these wrongs in the world, and grown determined, each in your own way, to right them. And yet, one of the vexing things for those of us interested in promoting greater understanding and cooperation among people is the discovery that even bringing together persons of good will, men and women of principle and purpose, can be difficult.

The soldier and the lawyer may both love this country with equal passion, and yet reach very different conclusions on the specific steps needed to protect us from harm. The gay activist and the evangelical pastor may both deplore the ravages of HIV/AIDS, but find themselves unable to bridge the cultural divide that might unite their efforts. Those who speak out against stem cell research may be rooted in admirable conviction about the sacredness of life, but so are the parents of a child with juvenile diabetes who are convinced that their son’s or daughter’s hardships can be relieved.

The question, then, is how do we work through these conflicts? Is it possible for us to join hands in common effort? As citizens of a vibrant and varied democracy, how do we engage in vigorous debate? How does each of us remain firm in our principles, and fight for what we consider right, without demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side?

Nowhere do these questions come up more powerfully than on the issue of abortion.

As I considered the controversy surrounding my visit here, I was reminded of an encounter I had during my Senate campaign, one that I describe in a book I wrote called The Audacity of Hope. A few days after I won the Democratic nomination, I received an email from a doctor who told me that while he voted for me in the primary, he had a serious concern that might prevent him from voting for me in the general election. He described himself as a Christian who was strongly pro-life, but that’s not what was preventing him from voting for me.

What bothered the doctor was an entry that my campaign staff had posted on my website – an entry that said I would fight “right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman’s right to choose.” The doctor said that he had assumed I was a reasonable person, but that if I truly believed that every pro-life individual was simply an ideologue who wanted to inflict suffering on women, then I was not very reasonable. He wrote, “I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words.”

Fair-minded words.

After I read the doctor’s letter, I wrote back to him and thanked him. I didn’t change my position, but I did tell my staff to change the words on my website. And I said a prayer that night that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me. Because when we do that – when we open our hearts and our minds to those who may not think like we do or believe what we do – that’s when we discover at least the possibility of common ground.

That’s when we begin to say, “Maybe we won’t agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions.

So let’s work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term. Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women.”

Understand – I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. No matter how much we may want to fudge it – indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory – the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.

Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words.

It’s a way of life that has always been the Notre Dame tradition. Father Hesburgh has long spoken of this institution as both a lighthouse and a crossroads. The lighthouse that stands apart, shining with the wisdom of the Catholic tradition, while the crossroads is where “…differences of culture and religion and conviction can co-exist with friendship, civility, hospitality, and especially love.” And I want to join him and Father Jenkins in saying how inspired I am by the maturity and responsibility with which this class has approached the debate surrounding today’s ceremony.

This tradition of cooperation and understanding is one that I learned in my own life many years ago – also with the help of the Catholic Church.

I was not raised in a particularly religious household, but my mother instilled in me a sense of service and empathy that eventually led me to become a community organizer after I graduated college. A group of Catholic churches in Chicago helped fund an organization known as the Developing Communities Project, and we worked to lift up South Side neighborhoods that had been devastated when the local steel plant closed.

It was quite an eclectic crew. Catholic and Protestant churches. Jewish and African-American organizers. Working-class black and white and Hispanic residents. All of us with different experiences. All of us with different beliefs. But all of us learned to work side by side because all of us saw in these neighborhoods other human beings who needed our help – to find jobs and improve schools. We were bound together in the service of others.

And something else happened during the time I spent in those neighborhoods. Perhaps because the church folks I worked with were so welcoming and understanding; perhaps because they invited me to their services and sang with me from their hymnals; perhaps because I witnessed all of the good works their faith inspired them to perform, I found myself drawn – not just to work with the church, but to be in the church. It was through this service that I was brought to Christ.

At the time, Cardinal Joseph Bernardin was the Archbishop of Chicago. For those of you too young to have known him, he was a kind and good and wise man. A saintly man. I can still remember him speaking at one of the first organizing meetings I attended on the South Side. He stood as both a lighthouse and a crossroads – unafraid to speak his mind on moral issues ranging from poverty, AIDS, and abortion to the death penalty and nuclear war. And yet, he was congenial and gentle in his persuasion, always trying to bring people together; always trying to find common ground. Just before he died, a reporter asked Cardinal Bernardin about this approach to his ministry. And he said, “You can’t really get on with preaching the Gospel until you’ve touched minds and hearts.”

My heart and mind were touched by the words and deeds of the men and women I worked alongside with in Chicago. And I’d like to think that we touched the hearts and minds of the neighborhood families whose lives we helped change. For this, I believe, is our highest calling.

You are about to enter the next phase of your life at a time of great uncertainty. You will be called upon to help restore a free market that is also fair to all who are willing to work; to seek new sources of energy that can save our planet; to give future generations the same chance that you had to receive an extraordinary education. And whether as a person drawn to public service, or someone who simply insists on being an active citizen, you will be exposed to more opinions and ideas broadcast through more means of communications than have ever existed before. You will hear talking heads scream on cable, read blogs that claim definitive knowledge, and watch politicians pretend to know what they’re talking about. Occasionally, you may also have the great fortune of seeing important issues debated by well-intentioned, brilliant minds. In fact, I suspect that many of you will be among those bright stars.

In this world of competing claims about what is right and what is true, have confidence in the values with which you’ve been raised and educated. Be unafraid to speak your mind when those values are at stake. Hold firm to your faith and allow it to guide you on your journey. Stand as a lighthouse.

But remember too that the ultimate irony of faith is that it necessarily admits doubt. It is the belief in things not seen. It is beyond our capacity as human beings to know with certainty what God has planned for us or what He asks of us, and those of us who believe must trust that His wisdom is greater than our own.

This doubt should not push us away from our faith. But it should humble us. It should temper our passions, and cause us to be wary of self-righteousness. It should compel us to remain open, and curious, and eager to continue the moral and spiritual debate that began for so many of you within the walls of Notre Dame. And within our vast democracy, this doubt should remind us to persuade through reason, through an appeal whenever we can to universal rather than parochial principles, and most of all through an abiding example of good works, charity, kindness, and service that moves hearts and minds.

For if there is one law that we can be most certain of, it is the law that binds people of all faiths and no faith together. It is no coincidence that it exists in Christianity and Judaism; in Islam and Hinduism; in Buddhism and humanism. It is, of course, the Golden Rule – the call to treat one another as we wish to be treated. The call to love. To serve. To do what we can to make a difference in the lives of those with whom we share the same brief moment on this Earth.

So many of you at Notre Dame – by the last count, upwards of 80% — have lived this law of love through the service you’ve performed at schools and hospitals; international relief agencies and local charities. That is incredibly impressive, and a powerful testament to this institution. Now you must carry the tradition forward. Make it a way of life. Because when you serve, it doesn’t just improve your community, it makes you a part of your community. It breaks down walls. It fosters cooperation. And when that happens – when people set aside their differences to work in common effort toward a common good; when they struggle together, and sacrifice together, and learn from one another – all things are possible.

After all, I stand here today, as President and as an African-American, on the 55th anniversary of the day that the Supreme Court handed down the decision in Brown v. the Board of Education. Brown was of course the first major step in dismantling the “separate but equal” doctrine, but it would take a number of years and a nationwide movement to fully realize the dream of civil rights for all of God’s children. There were freedom rides and lunch counters and Billy clubs, and there was also a Civil Rights Commission appointed by President Eisenhower. It was the twelve resolutions recommended by this commission that would ultimately become law in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

There were six members of the commission. It included five whites and one African-American; Democrats and Republicans; two Southern governors, the dean of a Southern law school, a Midwestern university president, and your own Father Ted Hesburgh, President of Notre Dame. They worked for two years, and at times, President Eisenhower had to intervene personally since no hotel or restaurant in the South would serve the black and white members of the commission together. Finally, when they reached an impasse in Louisiana, Father Ted flew them all to Notre Dame’s retreat in Land O’Lakes, Wisconsin, where they eventually overcame their differences and hammered out a final deal.

Years later, President Eisenhower asked Father Ted how on Earth he was able to broker an agreement between men of such different backgrounds and beliefs. And Father Ted simply said that during their first dinner in Wisconsin, they discovered that they were all fishermen. And so he quickly readied a boat for a twilight trip out on the lake. They fished, and they talked, and they changed the course of history.

I will not pretend that the challenges we face will be easy, or that the answers will come quickly, or that all our differences and divisions will fade happily away. Life is not that simple. It never has been.

But as you leave here today, remember the lessons of Cardinal Bernardin, of Father Hesburgh, of movements for change both large and small. Remember that each of us, endowed with the dignity possessed by all children of God, has the grace to recognize ourselves in one another; to understand that we all seek the same love of family and the same fulfillment of a life well-lived. Remember that in the end, we are all fishermen.

If nothing else, that knowledge should give us faith that through our collective labor, and God’s providence, and our willingness to shoulder each other’s burdens, America will continue on its precious journey towards that more perfect union. Congratulations on your graduation, may God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.