"So I said to him, "Barack, I know Abe Lincoln, and you ain't Abe Lincoln."
O.K., so I know I said I wouldn’t write much about politics, but I couldn’t resist this. My father-in-law sent the above picture to my wife, along with the quote below. And I couldn’t resist. It’s just a thought – think about it.
You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred..
You cannot build character and courage by taking away people’s initiative and independence.
You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves.
…..Abraham Lincoln
Well, the jousting has begun. Yesterday, with lack of surprise, President Obama announced his nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor. Long speculated to be on his shortest of short lists, the President made it public.
Also, with no surprise, the networks began to weigh in with their almost universal approval of the new nominee and their consistent disapproval of anyone who would dare find anything critically wrong with her honor.
No need to keep score, Brent Baker took on that task for us.
Amazingly, after showing no reluctance in 2005 to describe John Roberts and Sam Alito as “conservative” or worse, the Tuesday network evening newscasts, particularly ABC and NBC, applied more “conservative” tags to Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor’s critics than “liberal” labels to her, as the coverage suggested calling her a liberal was a hasty judgment from accusatory partisans. In total, ABC’s World News and the NBC Nightly News combined for a piddling two uses of the “liberal” term while issuing a “conservative” tag eight times. (CBS viewers heard “liberal” four times and “conservative” just once.)
Neil Cavuto is probably the finest business commentator on the television airwaves these days. Formerly with CNBC, he now heads up the Fox Business Network. Don’t let the word “Fox” scare you, he is a sharp, fair, and intuitive journalist.
This week he wrote a great post regarding our government’s continuing tendency to involve itself in non-governmental affairs (i.e. auto industry, banks and finance, and insurance).
Beyond the obvious facts of the cases he points out that we are now seeing a new mode of government: “government with a club.” He causes me to ponder whether or not we are witnessing the development of a new “mob.”
Why, all of a sudden, are the big three automakers championing greater fuel efficiency?
Never mind setting tough fuel standards for an industry that can ill afford to do so right now ain’t easy. Saying “no” to the government that’s got you by the throat certainly ain’t easier.
As Cavuto correctly points out, there seems to be a pattern here.
Buy out the banks. Not a peep out of ‘em when you want to regulate pay at banks. Scoop up the insurers. Not a dissenter when you want to increase taxes on insurers. After all, you’re bought and paid for. Silence isn’t only golden. It’s strongly recommended.
I’m suddenly hearing the theme from The Godfather gently wafting in my subconscious while I see visions of Tony Soprano in my mind.
It’s the new way of doing business: the Barack Obama way.
Don’t wait around for your opponents. Buy ‘em out. Then shut ‘em down. After all, they’re under water. Which I guess they think is better….than underground.
Hugh Hewitt offers two great comments in his post from yesterday regarding California saying “no” to more taxes as well as how it might serve as an encouragement to the American Medical Association to finally speak up and get involved in stopping the national health care train from steamrolling the country.
If you’ve got a few minutes, take the time to watch this video. It’s pretty good education regarding how government, unions, and big spending work as well as the eventual results. It’s such a powerful combination, The Terminator himself couldn’t withstand it’s wide swath. Could America be next? Watch and learn.
Yesterday, USA Today once again came through loud and clear with a clarion voice regarding some of the basic problems with our president’s biases and his refusal to apply them to his own life (by the way, he is not alone; Congress walks with him). This time regarding education.
You can check out the article for yourself but the writer reminds us of the images of low-income kids in our Washington, D.C. schools. The schools are unsafe and, according to the article, the kids are not cared for. The result? Barely an education.
So why, the article asks, while the President allowed some of Washington’s neediest children to keep and use their educations vouchers until the time that they graduated, does he pull the plug on offering the program to new applicants? Particularly when the Education Department has shown that “school voucher” participants consistently show “superior skills in reaching, safety and orderliness.”
The USA Today article correctly points the necessary finger at the teacher unions.
Because teacher unions, fearing loss of jobs, have pushed most Democrats to oppose vouchers and other options that invite competition for public schools. Put another way, they oppose giving poor parents the same choice that the president himself — along with his chief of staff and some 35% of Democrats in Congress — have made in sending their children to private schools.
The tragedy of this hypocrisy is that studies have shown that vouchers have clearly improved the math and reading skills of inner-city schools around the country. But the opposition of teacher unions around the country have curbed experiments, studies and attempts to improve the education of our kids.
Florida vouchers were blocked by a party-line vote in the state Supreme Court. In Utah, they were killed by a union-funded anti-voucher campaign.
The opinion piece correctly points out that “this serves only to protect failing schools.” And hence we have the union’s continuing policy of perpetuating mediocrity. Who cares about the kids as long as sub-standard teachers get to keep their jobs and underperforming schools and programs get to keep their money.
No, I am not anti-teachers. I grew up the son of a jr. high social studies teacher. I have been educated by far too many wonderful teachers to list. I have many friends who are teachers – good teachers. And they take their responsibility seriously. But by-and-large, teacher unions do not share the same goals as these fine teachers. That’s why not only do voucher programs receive such violent opposition, charter schools suffer the same abuse as well.
Again, studies have shown that charter schools are also effective in achieving the same goals as voucher programs. And they too are growing in popularity. And, just as vouchers…
The ones requiring strict order, regular testing and more school time have succeeded in raising their low-income students’ academic performance above public-school peers. Yet 26 states restrict either the number of charter schools or charter students, and many local authorities and unions hobble their formation and funding.
It is not all gloom, however. There is hope.
Public schools are at least being held accountable under the federal No Child Left Behind Act. The federal requirement that schools make testable, yearly progress in student performance has driven improvements in math and reading for most age groups, the latest National Assessment of Educational Progress shows. Measuring teacher performance is the next step. Expanded by President Obama, Bush-era “pay-for-performance” is sure to improve schools — as long as requirements aren’t weakened.
Let’s hope the Education Department has the courage to take a stand.As our USA Today friends have so clearly and correctly pointed out…
20 million low-income school kids need a chance to succeed. School choice is the most effective way to give it to them.
Because my kids live in California I pay more attention than most Idahoans to the news coming out of the golden state. So I was particularly interested in how yesterday’s vote turned out. Californians are not necessarily known for their wisdom or common sense (insert your own granola joke here) but yesterday they wisely said “NO” to more taxes.
John Mark Reynolds is a profound intellect with a distinctly Christian world-view. Which is perhaps why I was so interested in his take on the Barack Obama/Notre Dame Commencement controversy. I found his weighing in on the issue to be very insightful and cut right to the heart of the matter.
For example, while the MSM (main-stream media) (aka Kool-Aid drinkers) hailed it as a wonderful speech, Dr. Reynolds saw it for what it was – NOT a great speech.
“President Obama’s speech was a very bad speech in that it pretended to be one thing when it was something else. I predict it will be hailed for boldly confronting the “controversy surrounding his appearance,” but he was not bold and he did not confront the controversy.”
One of the reasons it missed the mark was because, as so often has been the case, the President didn’t understand the real issue.
“The President spoke as if the controversy centered on his appearance at Notre Dame and speech when in reality it centered on his being honored despite his views.”
As the days ramped up to the event, I found myself somewhat in conflict (OK – a lot in conflict). Why didn’t I want the President to speak at Notre Dame? Why exactly did I find myself siding with the outspoken critics and protesters? Was it because I’m conservative? Was it because I disagreed with his abortion stance and even more with his decree to fund stem cell research? Or was it because I really didn’t want to hear the view of someone with whom I disagreed?
I think I’ve detected a personal flaw in that often I just don’t want to listen. I’ve made up my mind and you won’t change it. So I don’t want to hear it. (It’s the adult version of sticking your fingers in your ears and singing at the top of your voice to drown out someone else’s voice. I know – really mature.)
And Dr. Reynolds correctly nails me for that while providing an excellent reminder.
“Those who do not want to listen to their opponents are wrong. We should all charitably read opposing views on the great issues of the age and treat our opponents with tough-minded respect. If we still disagree, we should charitably believe for as long as we can that they are misled and not wicked.”
Notre Dame listened. But they didn’t JUST listen. And therein lies the problem.
“Notre Dame did not just listen to the most powerful abortion advocate in the world, but loudly and publicly honored him. He is a man, perhaps with noble motives, who is sending their tax money to pay for abortion.”
Yet about the issue that led the controversy’s hit parade (abortion), did anyone notice that the President actually said nothing? He talked about having dialogue, and listening, but he conveniently (political safe ground) said nothing about the view he holds. Dr. Reynolds correctly noticed that too.
“About abortion, the President “bravely” said nothing at all to defend his view that it should be legal to take the life of a child in the third trimester or that experimentation on humans (or potential humans) is licit. He said nothing at all to show why the Catholic papacy and bishops are wrong to say that support for abortion is a sin so grave that it overshadows other good deeds in politics.”
And that’s where both our President and Notre Dame were wrong.
“In short, Notre Dame and the President talked about what they agreed on and ignored their differences. Any pretense that the President was brought to the campus to give all points of view is laughable. President Obama did not give his point of view, but was cheered for “bravely” having it by a school dedicated to the Blessed Virgin Mary.”
I would also add that both were in error in judging that one’s words are more important than their actions. President Obama loves to talk. (Has there been a president that had more news conferences in their first four months in office than this one?) But here’s the point: while words may reveal one’s intellect or view or stance, actions betray the heart. And that should not go unnoticed. Yet many, including Notre Dame, missed this.
“Perhaps well-intentioned academics are so skilled at dialogue that they are apt to ignore actions. While President Obama invites Notre Dame to talk, he governs outside of the culture of life.”
I’m developing a new fondness and appreciation for the writings of Rev. Charles J. Chaput, Bishop of the Catholic Church’s Archdiocese of Denver. You might recall I referred to him on May 12th: Precisely What the Church Needs to Hear. I refer to him again today. Amidst all the ink spilled and breath wasted in debating the controversy of President Obama appearing at Notre Dame’s commencement, his is a distinctively Catholic, and authentically Christian voice.
You can read it on the Archdiocese’s website or, for your convenience, I have printed it below. Note especially the phrases: “evasive, sad and damaging,” “embarrassing,” and “no excuse – none, except intellectual vanity.” As I said, “distinctively Catholic” and “authentically Christian.” But also profoundly intelligent.
May 18, 2009
Archbishop Chaput on Notre Dame and the issues that remain
“I have found that even among those who did not go to Notre Dame, even among those who do not share the Catholic faith, there is a special expectation, a special hope, for what Notre Dame can accomplish in the world.” – ~ Reverend John Jenkins, C.S.C., May 17, 2009
Most graduation speeches are a mix of piety and optimism designed to ease students smoothly into real life. The best have humor. Some genuinely inspire. But only a rare few manage to be pious, optimistic, evasive, sad and damaging all at the same time. Father John Jenkins, C.S.C., Notre Dame’s president, is a man of substantial intellect and ability. This makes his introductory comments to President Obama’s Notre Dame commencement speech on May 17 all the more embarrassing.
Let’s remember that the debate over President Obama’s appearance at Notre Dame was never about whether he is a good or bad man. The president is clearly a sincere and able man. By his own words, religion has had a major influence in his life. We owe him the respect Scripture calls us to show all public officials. We have a duty to pray for his wisdom and for the success of his service to the common good — insofar as it is guided by right moral reasoning.
We also have the duty to oppose him when he’s wrong on foundational issues like abortion, embryonic stem cell research and similar matters. And we also have the duty to avoid prostituting our Catholic identity by appeals to phony dialogue that mask an abdication of our moral witness. Notre Dame did not merely invite the president to speak at its commencement. It also conferred an unnecessary and unearned honorary law degree on a man committed to upholding one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in our nation’s history: Roe v. Wade.
In doing so, Notre Dame ignored the U.S. bishops’ guidance in their 2004 statement, Catholics in Political Life. It ignored the concerns of Ambassador Mary Ann Glendon, Notre Dame’s 2009 Laetare Medal honoree – who, unlike the president, certainly did deserve her award, but finally declined it in frustration with the university’s action. It ignored appeals from the university’s local bishop, the president of the U.S. Catholic bishops’ conference, more than 70 other bishops, many thousands of Notre Dame alumni and hundreds of thousands of other American Catholics. Even here in Colorado, I’ve heard from too many to count.
There was no excuse – none, except intellectual vanity – for the university to persist in its course. And Father Jenkins compounded a bad original decision with evasive and disingenuous explanations to subsequently justify it.
These are hard words, but they’re deserved precisely because of Father Jenkins’ own remarks on May 17: Until now, American Catholics have indeed had “a special expectation, a special hope for what Notre Dame can accomplish in the world.” For many faithful Catholics – and not just a “small but vocal group” described with such inexcusable disdain and ignorance in journals like Time magazine — that changed Sunday.
The May 17 events do have some fitting irony, though. Almost exactly 25 years ago, Notre Dame provided the forum for Gov. Mario Cuomo to outline the “Catholic” case for “pro-choice” public service. At the time, Cuomo’s speech was hailed in the media as a masterpiece of American Catholic legal and moral reasoning. In retrospect, it’s clearly adroit. It’s also, just as clearly, an illogical and intellectually shabby exercise in the manufacture of excuses. Father Jenkins’ explanations, and President Obama’s honorary degree, are a fitting national bookend to a quarter century of softening Catholic witness in Catholic higher education. Together, they’ve given the next generation of Catholic leadership all the excuses they need to baptize their personal conveniences and ignore what it really demands to be “Catholic” in the public square.Chicago’s Cardinal Francis George has suggested that Notre Dame “didn’t understand” what it means to be Catholic before these events began. He’s correct, and Notre Dame is hardly alone in its institutional confusion. That’s the heart of the matter. Notre Dame’s leadership has done a real disservice to the Church, and now seeks to ride out the criticism by treating it as an expression of fringe anger. But the damage remains, and Notre Dame’s critics are right. The most vital thing faithful Catholics can do now is to insist – by their words, actions and financial support – that institutions claiming to be “Catholic” actually live the faith with courage and consistency. If that happens, Notre Dame’s failure may yet do some unintended good.
Did you see President Obama throw out the ceremonial first pitch at last night’s Major League Baseball Allstar Game?