Sunday Night Springsteen

Yes, it's b-a-a-a-a-ck.

Glastonbury, from a recent show. "Because the Night".

And the typo in the YouTube caption annoys me, but what can you do?

"Hey, Somebody Out There, Listen To My Last Prayer"

It's a rainy Saturday here in the Great State of New Jersey, so I sat inside and watched Senator Ted Kennedy's funeral this morning. All I can say is, "Wow".

First of all, since Boston's Cardinal and a host of Catholic clergy assembled in that magnificent church to preside over the funeral of an unapologetically liberal politician, can we please call an end to the intramural Catholic culture wars about who can and who can't be given a public honor? Honestly, I would provide a link to some of the bitter, hateful people who were demanding that Senator Kennedy be denied a Catholic Mass of the Resurrection, or at least that the Cardinal not be on the altar, but I don't want to be responsible for sending you to their sites. Google 'em if you must.

Second, we all know that the right-wing will be accusing the Democrats of acting "unseemly", and of "taking advantage" of Senator Kennedy's death to push forward health care reform. To which I say, "Tough". If it wasn't "unseemly" for Knute Rockne to tell his players to "win one for the Gipper", then it's not "unseemly" to invoke Senator Kennedy in support of a cause he for which he fought throughout his career.

So, the real "Wow" for me was the Prayer of the Faithful, which came after the readings from scripture. By the way, the scripture selections were inspired, especially the choice of the Gospel from Matthew, chapter 25, in which Jesus tells a parable of the End of Time, when He will tell the righteous -

'Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.' Then the righteous will answer him and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?' And the king will say to them in reply, 'Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.'

That message, that what's really important is what we do for the least of our brothers and sisters, is a message that Senator Kennedy chose to have delivered to everyone at and watching his funeral.

Anyway, back the the Prayer of the Faithful. That's the part of the Mass with intercessions prayed for by the congregation, which are written specifically for that Mass. As described in the official Guidelines for the Mass -

It is fitting that such a prayer be included, as a rule, in Masses celebrated with a congregation, so that petitions will be offered for the holy Church, for civil authorities, for those weighed down by various needs, for all men and women, and for the salvation of the whole world.

As a rule, the series of intentions is to be

a. For the needs of the Church;

b. For public authorities and the salvation of the whole world;

c. For those burdened by any kind of difficulty;

d. For the local community.

Nevertheless, in a particular celebration, such as Confirmation, Marriage, or a Funeral, the series of intentions may reflect more closely the particular occasion.

That last part is the important part. For his own funeral, Senator Kennedy had a series of intercessions read that were taken from his speeches and writings, about the issues which were important to him, all in the spirit of the passage from Matthew's Gospel quoted above. They were delivered by young members of the next Kennedy generations - and after every intercession, in response to the invitation "We pray to the Lord", the congregation responds, "Lord, hear our prayer" (thanks, hat tip, etc. to "stef" at Daily Kos, who transcribed the prayers and linked to a video) -

Kiki (Teddy Jr's wife):
Teddy served for 47 years, and he summoned us all to service. And so these intercessions, for the work of his life, is our prayer, for our country, and our world.

Kiley Kennedy (Teddy Jr's daughter):
For my grandfather's commitment and persistence, not to outworn values but to old values that will never wear out. That the poor may be out of political fashion, but they are never without human need. That circumstances may change, but the work of compassion must continue, we pray to the Lord.

Grace Allen (Kara's daughter)
For my grandpa's summons, that we may not in our nation measure human beings by what they cannot do, but instead value them for what they can do, we pray to the Lord.

Max Allen (Kara's son):
For what my grandpa called the cause of his life, as he said so often, in every part of this land, that every American will have decent quality health care, as a fundamental right, and not a privilege, we pray to the Lord.

Jack Kennedy Schlossberg (Caroline's son):
For a new season of hope that my Uncle Teddy envisioned, where we rise to our best ideals, and close the book on the old politics of race and gender, group against group and straight against gay, we pray to the Lord.

Robin Lawford (Patricia's daughter):
For my Uncle Teddy's call to keep the promise, that all men and women who live here, even strangers and newcomers, can rise no matter what their color, no matter what their place of birth. For workers out of work, students without tuition for college, and families without the chance to own a home. For all Americans seeking a better life and a better land, for all those left out or left behind, we pray to the Lord.

Kym Smith (Jean's daughter):
For my Uncle's stand again violence, hate and war, and his belief that peace can be kept through the triumph of justice, and that truest justice can come only through the works of peace, we pray to the Lord.

Anthony Shriver (Eunice's son):
As my Uncle Teddy once told thousands and millions, "may it be said of us, in dark passages and bright days, in the words of Tennyson, that my brothers quoted and loved, that have a special meaning for us now. 'I am part of all that I have met. Though much is taken, much abides. That which we are, we are. One equal temper of heroic hearts, strong will, to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield,'" we pray to the Lord.

Rory Kennedy (Bobby's daughter):
For the joy of my Uncle Teddy's laughter, the light of his presence, his rare and noble contributions to the human spirit. For his faith that in Heaven his father and mother, his brothers and sisters, and all who went before him, will welcome him home. And for all the times to come, when the rest of us will think of him, cuddling affectionately on the boat, surrounded by family, as we sail on the Nantucket Sound, we pray to the Lord.

Teddy III (Teddy Jr's son):
For my grandfather's brave promise last summer, that the work begins anew, the hope rises again, and the dream lives on, we pray to the Lord.

As I said, I thought this was one of the high points of the funeral Mass. In that magnificent church, before an assembly of the powerful (Democrats and Republicans alike), and the Cardinal, priests and all the other mourners, that was Senator Kennedy setting out one more time what was important to him. Not only were those his words, but I have no doubt that he was part of selecting them to be read by those members of the next generation of his family.

And hearing everyone have to say, "Lord Hear Our Prayer", after quality health care was described as "a fundamental right, and not a privilege", was priceless.

So, even past the end of his life, Senator Kennedy provided a last prayer for those progressive, humane causes he fought for, including peace, justice, equality, and the right to basic care. It'll be a help in countering the ugliness from the right which will no doubt continue to be seen and heard.

Show A Little Faith

There were some interesting reminiscences on the PBS NewsHour last night about Senator Kennedy, in particular on the role his faith played in his life (despite his well-known personal failings) -

TOM OLIPHANT: His own family. Well, you know, one of the aspects of Senator Kennedy that I think has been least discussed in his lifetime and about which people knew the least was just alluded to by the father, and that was his faith.

I mean, he did not always have the best of relations with Catholic officialdom because of his personal life and also some of the issues that he championed, but he was a devout believer. I wish I had a dollar for every mass I've been to with him on the road when there was, like, nobody else except a driver.

And I remember one occasion. It was getting toward the 20th anniversary of President Kennedy's murder. And he was making a national tour. And rather than talking about President Kennedy, he was talking about poverty.

And he broke off one morning -- I'm pretty sure it was in St. Paul, Minnesota, a Catholic town -- and went to a mass in the middle of the week. And afterwards, I -- you know, we all know about his father saying you have the obligation. We all know the secular call to service.

But I asked him, "Where does this rabid concern about poverty come from?" And he looked at me like I was from Mars. And he said, "Have you never read the New Testament?"

And that was behind so much of his politics, but he was the kind of politician who would not bring it up. There was nothing evangelical about his political behavior.

Just something to keep in mind when any random politician starts trying to tell you that he's a "person of faith" - always check the output.

The Lion Sleeps Tonight

Even without words, the late Senator Ted Kennedy could say what needed to be said.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Moment of Zen - The Kennedy Shrug
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Healthcare Protests

Making Plans

I'm reading the latest on the "Death Book" lies being promulgated, specifically GOP Chair Michael Steele's embrace of that meme. As anyone can see, this whole episode is about a workbook intended to help veterans make a decision about an advance medical directive. It's difficult to address this topic, as anyone with older parents can attest. For younger people, it's well nigh impossible, if not actually ignored (leading to situations such as Terri Schiavo's, but more on that in a moment).

Politics is one thing, but right now the National GOP is misrepresenting an important discussion that every family should have, as some sort of suicide promotion. As a result, I've come to the conclusion that the National GOP is morally bankrupt, since I have no doubt that their arguments will prevent people from making those important plans and having those important discussions.

A few years ago, my Mom and Dad (who are still very much among us today) sat down with my brother and me to tell us, in plain and direct language, what their preference was if they were being kept alive by extraordinary means. My mother had gone through these issues with her mother years earlier, with a very clear decision that my grandmother preferred a "do not resuscitate" order on her chart. Instead of a conversation, of course, a legal document would be even better, in case the medical provider had any concerns about what my brother or I would tell them, should it ever be necessary to do so.

These types of discussions are important for all families. And, legal documentation is even more important, especially if there is a chance that family members might disagree on the course of action to take. Heck, if you listen to the Rush Limbaugh show, you can hear him do an ad for "LegalZoom.com" in which he notes a living will as one of the products his listeners could obtain from this advertiser.

The whole Terri Schiavo case was due to the fact that family members disagreed regarding the use of extraordinary measure to prolong Ms. Schiavo's life. Florida law actually covers this issue, on making these decisions in the absence of a legal document –

1) If an incapacitated or developmentally disabled patient has not executed an advance directive, or designated a surrogate to execute an advance directive, or the designated or alternate surrogate is no longer available to make health care decisions, health care decisions may be made for the patient by any of the following individuals, in the following order of priority, if no individual in a prior class is reasonably available, willing, or competent to act:

(a) The judicially appointed guardian of the patient or the guardian advocate of the person having a developmental disability as defined in s. 393.063, who has been authorized to consent to medical treatment, if such guardian has previously been appointed; however, this paragraph shall not be construed to require such appointment before a treatment decision can be made under this subsection;

(b) The patient's spouse;

(c) An adult child of the patient, or if the patient has more than one adult child, a majority of the adult children who are reasonably available for consultation;

(d) A parent of the patient;

(e) The adult sibling of the patient or, if the patient has more than one sibling, a majority of the adult siblings who are reasonably available for consultation;

(f) An adult relative of the patient who has exhibited special care and concern for the patient and who has maintained regular contact with the patient and who is familiar with the patient's activities, health, and religious or moral beliefs; or

(g) A close friend of the patient.

Of course, we recall that GOP meddling resulted in passage of a Federal law to override Florida law and the Florida judicial process, leading to the grotesque circus which followed.

By discouraging and disparaging any sort of counseling about an advance directive on medical care, the GOP is sowing the seeds for more Terri Schiavo tragedies. I use the word "tragedy" to refer, not to her unfortunate illness and death, but to the tearing apart of the family and the subjection of them all to the glare of partisan publicity. Nobody else should have to go through a situation like that, as described by the guardian ad litem (GAL) who had been appointed by then-Governor Jeb Bush, and whose report issued over a year earlier had been ignored by the Republican governor and his congressional allies. As noted by the GAL -

Sometimes good law is not enough, good medicine is not enough, and all too often, good intentions do not suffice. Sometimes, the answer is in the process, not the presumed outcome. We must be left with hope that the right thing will be done well.

We are, each of us, standing in Theresa Marie Schiavo’s shoes. Each of us is profoundly affected by the decisions that have and will be made in this case. Advocates of privacy rights and death with dignity, and advocates of right to life and rights of the disabled provide the compelling definitional parameters of this matter.

In the end, the GAL concluded (as the courts did later after Congress and President Bush got involved) that Mr. Schiavo could make the choice implementing what he understood Ms. Schiavo's wishes to have been. In so doing, the GAL wrote words about the tragedy of the dispute, which describe a situation nobody should have to face -

The Schindlers and the Schiavos are normal, decent people who have found themselves within the construct of an exceptional circumstance which none of them, indeed, few reasonable and normal people could have imagined. As a consequence of this circumstance, extensive urban mythology has created toxic clouds, causing the parties and others to behave in ways that may not, in the order of things, serve the best interests of [Ms. Schiavo].

The GAL concludes that the trier of fact and the evidence that served as the basis for the decisions regarding Theresa Schiavo were firmly grounded within Florida statutory and case law, which clearly and unequivocally provide for the removal of artificial nutrition in cases of persistent vegetative states, where there is no advance directive, through substituted/proxy judgment of the guardian and/or the court as guardian, and with the use of evidence regarding the medical condition and the intent of the parties that was deemed, by the trier of fact to be clear and convincing.

Now, from the top down, the GOP is attacking the concept of an advance medical directive, which cannot help but discourage the contemplation of these decisions by the men and women who do need to think about this issue, for the sake of themselves and their families. In order to score a few political points via distortion, the GOP is encouraging the potential creation of more family tragedies like that of the Schiavo and Schindler families.

And that is simply unconscionable.

I See London, I See France ...

Haven't been posting, because the Cautious Wife and moi took a trip to celebrate our 25th wedding anniversary. We went to London (where we've been before), and took a trip to Paris (where we've never been) in the middle of the vacation. We started out in London for a few days, then "chunnelled" into Paris on the morning of our anniversary, and spent the afternoon taking in the sights around the Tuileries, the Louvre, Notre Dame and the Latin Quarter, followed by dinner in the evening and a walk at night over to and under the Eiffel Tower. Spent a few more days in Paris, checking out the museums including the Louvre (why do people crowd for a glimpse of the Mona Lisa but then ignore all these other DaVinci paintings in the next gallery?), and visiting Versailles. Then back to London, for some theater (or "theatre"), music and general touristing.

Oh, and all the French people we met were friendly.

And, all the British people were steamed that the right-wing in the U.S. was dissing their health care system, but that's politics, and that's for another post some time.

A Good Man Is Hard To Find

Yesterday, the Department of Defense announced that they had identified the remains of Lieutenant Commander Michael "Scott" Speicher, a pilot whose plane was shot down on the first night of the first Iraq War in 1991. His body was recently found in a remote area, where he had been buried when he died in the crash of his plane that night.

The overall news coverage has neglected the fact that Lt. Cmdr. Speicher and his family were misused and exploited by the Bush Administration in 2002 and 2003, as part of their campaign for an invasion of Iraq in March of 2003. As we salute the bravery of Lt. Cmdr. Speicher, and extend condolences and thanks to his family for his sacrifice, we should also not forget that exploitation of his family by the Bushies. Specifically, shortly before the run-up to the war they claimed that he was probably still a prisoner in Iraq - probably a shocking development for his widow, who had since remarried.

The news story is at once sad, but also conveys the comfort (small though it may be) for his family that their questions had been answered:

Navy pilot Michael "Scott" Speicher was shot down over the Iraq desert on the first night of the Gulf War in 1991 and it was there he apparently was buried by Bedouins, the sand hiding him from the world's mightiest military all these years.

In a sorrowful resolution to the nearly two-decade-old question about his fate, the Pentagon disclosed Sunday it had received new information last month from an Iraqi citizen that led Marines to recover bones and skeletal fragments — enough for a positive identification.

His family issued a statement Sunday saying, "The news that Captain Speicher has died on Iraqi soil after ejecting from his aircraft has been difficult for the family, but his actions in combat, and the search for him, will forever remain in their hearts and minds."

The article also notes the twists and turns that his family's hopes had taken over the years, in particular in 2002:

Shot down over west-central Iraq on a combat mission in his FA-18 Hornet on Jan. 17, 1991, Speicher was declared killed by the Pentagon hours later. Defense Secretary Dick Cheney went on television and announced the U.S. had suffered its first casualty of the war.

But 10 years later, the Navy changed his status to missing in action, citing an absence of evidence that Speicher had died. In October 2002, the Navy switched his status to "missing/captured," although it has never said what evidence it had that he ever was in captivity. More reviews followed, without definitive answers.

[Emphasis added.] The Navy may have changed his status in October 2002, but that was after President George W. Bush had already described him as "unaccounted for". In a September 2, 2002 speech to the United Nations General Assembly, urging action against Saddam Hussein, Mr. Bush included the following in his list of "charges":

In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolutions 686 and 687, demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke its promise. Last year the Secretary General's high-level coordinator for this issue reported that Kuwait, Saudi, Indian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Bahraini, and Omani nationals remain unaccounted for -- more than 600 people. One American pilot is among them.

As Atrios noted at the time, back on October 11, 2002 -

Well, it's all right on schedule. Missing (once dead) U.S. pilot now considered missing and captured.

An AP story at the time demonstrates the close connection between this change in status, and the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

The U.S. Navy has changed the status of Gulf War pilot Scott Speicher from missing in action to missing-captured, Sen. Pat Roberts said Friday.

A defense official confirmed that Navy Secretary Gordon England had approved the change in status, which had been in the works for months.

Speicher, a Navy F-18 pilot who was shot down over Iraq on the opening night of the Gulf War in January 1991, initially was listed as killed in action, with no body recovered. But in January 2001, the Navy changed his status to missing in action, given an absence of evidence that he died in the crash.

Iraq says Speicher was killed in the crash.

Roberts, R-Kan., and other members of Congress have been pressing the Pentagon this year to change Speicher's status. Some in the Navy had worried that declaring Speicher captured would be seen as a political move as part of President Bush's drive to win support for possible military action against Saddam Hussein.

The change in status "sends a symbolic message to the Iraqis, to other adversaries and most important to the men and women of the armed forces that we will accept nothing less than full disclosure of circumstances surrounding the missing and captured," Roberts said.

Though not mentioning Speicher by name, Bush has referred in several recent speeches to a U.S. pilot still missing in Iraq.

Another contemporaneous news account shows the link between Iraq war planning and the change in Lt. Commander Speicher's status -

The status of missing Gulf War pilot Michael "Scott" Speicher was changed Friday from "missing in action" to "missing-captured," according to a Navy memorandum.

Navy Secretary Gordon England signed the order Friday in what has been a long anticipated move.

Earlier this year, Pentagon officials said that Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz wanted Speicher's status to be changed from MIA to missing-captured because the implication, according to one military officer, is that the change "will become another reason to bomb Iraq."

In his memorandum Friday, England said, "It is my firm belief that the government of Iraq knows what happened to Captain Speicher."

Speicher was shot down over Iraq in January 1991 during the early hours of the Gulf War and was listed as "missing in action" the following day.

Since that time there have been numerous reports about the fate of the pilot, but there has been no solid evidence to indicate what happened to him. His status was eventually changed to "killed in action." He was promoted to captain earlier this year.

In early 2003, another report was circulated to the effect that he might still be alive -

The United States in recent months has received another intelligence report suggesting U.S. Navy Capt. Scott Speicher is alive in Iraq, but intelligence sources emphasize they have not corroborated the information and have nothing to indicate it is accurate.

The report closely parallels that received in the past but has never been verified, sources said Friday. Intelligence generally has indicated Speicher is alive and has been moved among various locations in the 12 years he has been held in Iraq.

And on March 11, days before the order was given to invade Iraq, the Wall Street Journal "reported" the following:

POW Still in Iraq?
"U.S. intelligence agencies have obtained new information indicating Iraq is holding captive a U.S. Navy pilot shot down during the Persian Gulf war," the Washington Times' Bill Gertz reports. Navy Lt. Cmdr. Michael Scott Speicher was classified as killed in action when the Iraqis shot down his F-18 Hornet, but last year the Pentagon reclassified him as missing. Gertz says the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency have received information from British intelligence that "only two Iraqis were permitted to see the captive American pilot: the chief of Iraq's intelligence service, and Uday Hussein, son of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein."

As the war got underway, Senator Bill Nelson Florida stated the following on the floor of the United States Senate (Scroll down to page s4081 on this website containing excerpts from the Congressional Record) -

I have seen the early evidence, which has been made public, that a defector, who was corroborated--indeed, he passed a lie detector test, as well as being corroborated on other evidence--actually drove Speicher from near the crash site to a place near a hospital, and picked him out of a lineup of photographs.

I have seen more recent information from a variety of sources that leads me to believe that Scott Speicher is alive. That opinion, by the way, is shared by my colleague, Senator PAT ROBERTS of Kansas, now the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, who has been, along with former Senator Bob Smith, unrelenting--all of us--in the pursuit of a clarification on the status of Scott Speicher.

It is my opinion he is alive. So we have gone to our commanders, and they have assured us, we have gone to the civilian agencies, and they have assured us: Scott Speicher is at the top of their list of priorities as we are now going into Iraq, to go and find him.

And, oh, what a day that would be, if he is alive, and if America can correct the mistake that our DOD made and bring that American pilot home.

By the way, Lt. Cmdr. Speicher's widow had remarried by the time the Bush Administration had started changing his status and spreading rumors that they had intelligence proving that he was alive. As far as I am concerned, they needlessly victimized her and the rest of his family and friends, in order to stoke the fires in the run-up to the March 2003 invasion.

Who's Your Daddy?

Michelle Obama has spoken with pride and admiration of how her father raised her and her brother. Michelle Malkin has now written an unsavory attack on the First Lady's late father, Fraser Robinson. As documented by Media Matters for America, Ms. Malkin's new collection of rantings includes, as one of her attacks, this claim:

Mrs. Obama was literally born into the Chicago political corruptocracy. Her father, Fraser Robinson, was a volunteer precinct caption for the Democrat Party [sic]. ... Former alderman Leon Despres bluntly told Mundy that it was "overwhelmingly likely" that Robinson's job at the city water department was a reward for his loyalty.

A review of the source for the above "conclusion" actually shows the truth to be, well, the opposite, actually. This particular line of attack by Ms. Malkin attracted my interest because, once upon a time, she also was proud to highlight the accomplishments of her father, an immigrant and a physician. However, probably for the same pander-to-the-right reasons, Ms. Malkin has downplayed her immigrant father in describing herself.

Ms. Malkin claims to base her conclusions about the late Mr. Robinson, and his impact on his daughter's career, on information in a biography of the First Lady by Washington Post writer Liz Mundy:

Washington Post writer Liza Mundy called him "an essential member of the powerful political machine run by [Richard J.] Daley, who, in addition to being mayor, was the chairman of the Cook County Democratic Central Committee, meaning he controlled both the government and the political party, and could use one to do the other's bidding." Former alderman Leon Despres bluntly told Mundy that it was "overwhelmingly likely" that Robinson's job at the city water department was a reward for his loyalty. "The water department, where Fraser Robinson worked, was a renowned repository of patronage jobs."

Why such little scrutiny of Michelle the Merciless (or "That Other Michelle," as she's known in my house) and her crony-aided rise to power? Like her husband, Mrs. Obama is quick to play the victim card when her ill-considered statements and her dealings come under scrutiny. I don't call her President Obama's bitter half for nothing.

However, as the Media Matters analysis demonstrates, her father's need to participate in the system was an contributory factor in her skepticism about politics:

Her dad and her community may well explain her own grounded and hard-working nature, as well as her commitment to her children, but Chicago in the 1960s was almost certainly the source of her oft-expressed skepticism about politics. It was not only a racist and highly segregated city, but one with a complex and ambiguous political system, a system that Fraser Robinson participated in, either because he enjoyed politics or because it was one of the few paths open to an ambitious black man. [Michelle: A Biography, Page 23]

In fact, Ms. Malkin's accusation that Mr. Robinson's participation in the "corruptocracy" is a stain which then transferred to Michelle Obama, is really just a "blame the victim" approach which fails to understand the situation of the rank-and-file workers.

People who underperformed in their political work were susceptible to being "vised," or summarily fired. That was politics in Chicago. "Some of [Michelle's] subconscious -- some of her disdain as to politics could have to do with how [her father] was treated, and what he had to go through," says Al Kindle, a political consultant who grew up on the South Side.

And that, Kindle says, is why the black community was ambivalent about patronage and about Daley: the Machine lifted you up -- got you services and perks -- at the same time that it kept you down. "It was clear that you didn't get access to certain services unless you were a friend to the power structure. That spigot could be cut off. As a young African American with a family, you had to think about that with a jaundiced eye. Just as it helped you, it restricted your choice." So it could be that Robinson's son and daughter developed a dislike for politics even as they developed a deep, deep love for him. "We as a family were extremely cynical about politics and politicians" is how Craig [Robinson, Michelle Obama's brother] puts it. That started to change when they met Barack, whose political career was pushed in part by a coalition of people who had grown up in opposition to Daley and whose goal was breaking the Machine. [Michelle: A Biography, Pages 30-31]

Finally, as pointed out by Media Matters,

Citing Mundy's book in attacking Fraser Robinson, Malkin ignored Mundy's reporting that Robinson worked every day for decades despite being "crippled by multiple sclerosis." ... Mundy added that Michelle and Craig "describe what an inspiration it was to both of them, seeing Fraser Robinson get up to go to work every day, something that became increasingly difficult after his disease set in. Despite the fact that he needed a cane -- and, later, crutches and eventually a motorized cart -- he never stopped working." [Michelle: A Biography, Page 30]

Now, what makes this a "tale of two fathers" is the fact that, while Michelle Obama speaks proudly of her father, who she describes as literally having "died on his way to work", Ms. Malkin is less likely to mention her own father, or for that matter her mother's background.

A while back, when looking at Ms. Malkin's unique role in our national discourses on race, religion and immigration, I noticed something that I found odd. The "About" page on her website used to describe her as a child of immigrants.

Malkin, the daughter of Filipino immigrants, was born in Philadelphia, Pa. in 1970 and raised in southern New Jersey.

An archived version (via the "Wayback Machine" at archive.org) is at this link. And this is how she describes herself today -

I’m a Philly-born, South Jersey-raised alumna of Holy Spirit HS and Oberlin College.

As a matter of fact, she didn't even mention her physician father from the Phillipines when she decided to comment on a kerfuffle involving a character on the program "Desparate Housewives" who says to her doctor, "Can I just check those diplomas because I just want to make sure that they are not from some med school in the Philippines."

So, to recap. Michelle Obama speaks proudly of her father, which is distorted by Ms. Malkin into a description of a corrupt participant in the Chicago machine. As for Michelle Malkin, any mention of her immigrant father (with pride or not) appears to be "inconvenient" for her nowadays.

Thursday? Night Springsteen (????)

Yeah, I know, the "Sunday Night Springsteen" hasn't been added to, lately.

But I saw this, this evening, and it had not been viewed much at the time.

Mr. Springsteen in Bilbao, with Chuck Berry's "You Never Can Tell". There is accordion, in case you were worried about that.

"If An Officer Stops You ...

... Promise you'll always be polite,
that you'll never ever run away
Promise Mama you'll keep your hands in sight."

- B. Springsteen, American Skin

The latest kerfuffle in the news involves comments made by President Obama when asked about the arrest of Professor Henry Louis Gates at his own home. Professor Gates needed help to push open his door, when he arrived home last week after a long flight; someone who saw two black men pushing open a door suspected a burglary, and called the police. As even the President said when asked about the incident: "But so far, so good. They're reporting -- the police are doing what they should. There's a call, they go investigate what happens." The President didn't make a negative comment about the response to the call, he made a negative comment about the decision to handcuff and arrest Professor Gates even after it was clear that he was who he said he was, and he was in his own home.

Was Professor Gates shouting angrily at the police? Yeah, he probably was. He was tired from a long flight, he had trouble getting back into his own house, and so was probably more than a little cranky already when a police officer came to the door and asked him to prove that this was his house.

Should he have been arrested? People are going to argue about that - I think not. Even in account from the official police report, the officer was out of the house, off the porch, and down the steps in front of the house, while Professor Gates was on his porch shouting. As reproduced at The Smoking Gun" website, this is what the officer wrote (click below to enlarge) -






The officer does not report that he felt threatened by Professor Gates, and as noted the officer was already out of the house, and with other officers. At the point where the officer is outside, in front of the house, and Professor Gates is on his own porch shouting - was that the time to take out the handcuffs, walk back up on to the porch, and cuff the Professor's hands behind his back. In my opinion, it was not.

[Edited 7/29/09 to add] Well, this is interesting. The Fox News legal expert, Judge Andrew Napolitano, concludes that Professor Gates shouldn't have been arrested for being disorderly if he was on his own porch - and adds that he thinks the officer shouldn't have even asked to come inside the house, based on the information he had at the time. (via ThinkProgress)

Leap of Faith

Well, President Obama once again pals around with another leftist leader. Well, maybe not "pal around", and maybe "leftist" isn't exactly the right word. But, if you're looking for somebody with a fairly left-wing view of world economics, who has a big megaphone and is not afraid to use it, then consider the guy who released this material earlier this week:

The processes of globalization, suitably understood and directed, open up the unprecedented possibility of large-scale redistribution of wealth on a world-wide scale ...

And:

Profit is useful if it serves as a means towards an end that provides a sense both of how to produce it and how to make good use of it. Once profit becomes the exclusive goal, if it is produced by improper means and without the common good as its ultimate end, it risks destroying wealth and creating poverty.

That would be the Capo di tutti capi of the Catholic Church, Pope Benedict XVI (a/k/a "B-16"). President Obama and the Pope had a meeting today, but you won't hear the same howling from the right about a Benedict-Obama handshake as you would regarding, say, a Hugo Chavez-Obama get-together. Actually, the right-wing is probably upset with the Pope for this meeting, but that's another story.

The Pope may not be a party animal, but on economic issues he's not exactly in step with the Republican Party line. In his encyclical Caritas in Veritate (Charity in Truth), released earlier this week, he addressed international economics, the environment, immigrant workers, and other related issues. He's definitely a "big picture" guy, and his picture involves a lot more international cooperation and less cut-throat capitalism -

Economic activity cannot solve all social problems through the simple application of commercial logic. This needs to be directed towards the pursuit of the common good, for which the political community in particular must also take responsibility. Therefore, it must be borne in mind that grave imbalances are produced when economic action, conceived merely as an engine for wealth creation, is detached from political action, conceived as a means for pursuing justice through redistribution.

As described by commentator David Gibson -

But what is clear, whether one reads every word or just excerpts, is that the pope is a liberal, at least in American political terms. He says this is not a document proposing "technical solutions," and stresses the greed and sin at the heart of the current economic crisis. Yet he rigorously and consistently applies the Golden Rule to economics and finance, calling for greater regulation of the markets and -- get this -- "a true world political authority" that can put "real teeth" into international governance.

Not even the purportedly "socialist" Barack Obama, who will meet with Benedict on Friday for the first time at the Vatican, would imagine going that far.

As several commentators have noted, the hostile attitude of right-wing American Catholics (which the press and especially Fox News love to highlight) just doesn't carry over to the Home Office in Rome. As noted by E.J. Dionne -

But the Vatican clearly views Obama through a broader prism. Archbishop Pietro Sambi, the papal nuncio in Washington, has privately warned American bishops that harsh attacks on Obama threaten to make the church look partisan.

The Vatican press has been largely sympathetic to Obama, and in a recent article, Cardinal Georges Cottier, who was the theologian of the papal household under Pope John Paul II, praised Obama’s "humble realism" on abortion and went so far as to compare the president’s approach to that of St. Thomas Aquinas. (Pray this won’t go to Obama’s head.)
...

[T]he pope and many of his advisers also see Obama as a potential ally on such questions as development in the Third World, their shared approach to a quest for peace in the Middle East, and the opening of a dialogue with Islam.

American conservatives will continue to hammer away with complaints about "European-style socialism" as they oppose President Obama's proposals. Taking a step back, I would suggest, just might show that reference to an older philosophy may be more applicable. As President Obama noted in a meeting with some of the American Catholic press last week, there is much "common ground" to be explored.

[Edited to add] A slide-show of President Obama's peek at the Pope.

[Edited 7/13 to add] A pertinent cartoon, making this same point, found on today's "The Week in Editorial Cartoons" on Daily Kos -

Born In The USA (Not)

Via Lawyers, Gun$ and Money, Hugh Laurie of "House" fame doing a "Song for America" -

You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet

Governor Sarah Palin has been unleashed. Fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy ride. She combines the unhinged, say-whatever political approach of Congresswoman Michele Bachmann with a dash of the "Know Nothing", nativist and dangerous hate-mongering of Hal Turner.

She's Bachmann-Turner Overdrive!!!!

The Catholic Traffic

Interesting story via dotCommonweal -

The current president has cited the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin before, most recently in his speech at Notre Dame: ”He was a kind and good and wise man,” Barack Obama said then of Cardinal Joseph Bernardin. “A saintly man.”

And the “Common Ground” approach of Chicago’s Bernardin and Chicago’s Obama have great resonances. At a meeting this morning with eight [mainly] Catholic journalists ahead of his meeting next week with Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican, Obama invoked Bernardin again–and, as the WaPost’s Jackie Salmon writes, he “promised a ‘robust’ federal policy protecting health-care workers who have moral objections to performing some procedures.” (I think that’s the sound of another anti-Obama talking point falling.)

The whole thing is a terrific antidote to the "manufactured outrage" of some Catholic right-wingers (ably assisted by Fox News). There are links to other Catholic publications which were represented there, including the more right-leaning National Catholic Register -

In his remarks, the president said that he had a wonderful conversation with Pope Benedict XVI right after his election. He said that he sees his visit with the Holy See in some ways like any other government in that there will be areas of agreement and disagreement. He also said that he sees the Holy See as more than a government because of the Church’s influence on this country and the world. He said that it would be a great honor to meet the Pope and was looking forward to talking about the Middle East, climate change and immigration.

“The most noteworthy thing during the meeting was his dispelling of what you might call the expectation of the worst regarding conscience clauses,” said Father Kearns [editor in chief and publisher of the National Catholic Register, who was one of the attendees]. “He said that the confusion regarding the issue was due to the timing of everything rather than what he was going to do. His administration saw the previous administration’s 11th-hour change as problematic, and so they undid that. He said that in Illinois he was a supporter of a robust conscience clause, something he reiterated in his Notre Dame speech. He added that the government has received hundreds of thousands of public comments, and he promised that there would be a robust conscience-clause protection in place, and that it would not be weaker than President Bush’s 11th-hour change. Still, he added, it won’t please everybody.”

In addition, Father Kearns noted the president’s analysis of the divide in Catholicism.

“The president said he had fond memories of Cardinal Bernardin and that when he started his neighborhood project, they were funded by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development,” he said. “After the first question, from the National Catholic Reporter‘s Joe Feuerherd, the president jokingly asked, ‘Was there really [a controversy at Notre Dame]?’

And as reported by the National Catholic Reporter representative, the President noted with respect to Cardinal Bernadin's "seamless garment" approach which also encompassed poverty, the treatment of children, the death penalty, and war and foreign policy -

“And that part of the Catholic tradition is something that continues to inspire me. And I think that there have been times over the last decade or two where that more holistic tradition feels like it’s gotten buried under the abortion debate.”

The president continued, “Now, as a non-Catholic, it’s not up to me to try to resolve those tensions. As I said, all I can do is to affirm how that other tradition has made me, a non-Catholic, I think reflect on how I can be a better person and has had a powerful influence on my life. And that tells me that it might be a powerful way to move a broader set of values forward in American life generally.”

Read all the links, for a variety of points of view of this sit-down, if you're interested in this sort of thing. I find it fascinating, especially the way the President seems able to, once again, disarm potential critics by engaging them in an intelligent discussion.

Tunnel of Love

I can feel the soft silk of your blouse
And them soft thrills in our little fun house
Then the lights go out and it's just the three of us
You me and all that stuff we're so scared of
Gotta ride down baby into this tunnel of love

- Bruce Springsteen, Tunnel of Love.

I tried to resist giving in to temptation, but I couldn't resist the "sparking". So, a brief post about Governor Sanford of South Carolina. Talking Points Memo sums up his dilemma pretty well -

After days of assuring the public he was firmly in control after admitting a scandalous affair, South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford detailed other encounters with his Argentine "soul mate," dalliances with women before her, and his struggle to salvage his 20-year marriage.

Sanford, who last week used a televised news conference to throw himself on the mercy of the public, state leaders and his wife, chronicled his affair and tortured emotions in interviews with The Associated Press Monday and Tuesday. This time, he said, he wanted to "lay it all out."

But as more details of his private life spill out, what Sanford has done in the name of love is too much even for some of his friends in state government.

...

"I don't want to blow up my time in politics," he told the AP. "I don't want to blow up future earning power, I don't want to blow up the kids' lives. I don't want to blow up 20 years that we've invested. But if I'm completely honest, there are still feelings in the way. If we keep pushing it this way, we get those to die off, but they're still there and they're still real."

He has trouble, he said, shutting down the love he feels for Maria Belen Chapur, the Argentine woman he first met in 2001.

Sanford also said he's "crossed the lines" with a handful of other women during 20 years of marriage, but not as far as he did with Chapur and not since the two met.

"Without wandering into that field we'll just say that I let my guard down in all senses of the word without ever crossing the line that I crossed with this situation," he said, referring to his affair with Chapur.

He insists he can fall back in love with his wife, Jenny, even as he witnesses his "own political funeral."

There is just So. Much. Wrong. There. Leaving aside the whole hypocrisy thing, where he's "defending the sanctity of marriage" while making plans for weekend trysts, it's the post-discovery piling-on. As Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo put it yesterday -

In part two of his leave-no-rock-unturned interview with the Associated Press, Mark Sanford says that at least he will "be able to die knowing I had met my soul mate,"... . And if that's not enough, he says that for all the grief his affair has caused, that if the affair means he can never run for president (think the ship's sort of sailed on that one), that it will have been worth it.

I know there are a lot of people who are genuinely questioning Sanford's sanity at this point -- when you put together the furtive trips and the endless new revelations. But am I the only one who thinks that he appears to be deeply in love with this woman and should just go be with her?
...

Of course, when you're a middle-aged man facing the collapse of your life's work and abandoning hope of being with the woman you call your 'soul mate' rational decision making or a clearly considered plan may be too much to expect. But it does seem like there are two guys here. One saying he wants to serve out his responsibility to his state and reconcile with his wife and another using the press to broadcast a free form love poem to the girlfriend in Argentina.

I wouldn't go too far down the "tortured soul" road. Look, I know that marriages break up, but I also know that we can make choices in life. We can choose to do things that help keep our marriages strong, or we can do things that weaken or detract from them. Governor Sanford decided that a woman whom he saw infrequently, but who he corresponded with via email, was more "real" to him than the woman he had courted, married, been helped in his career by, and parented children with. Instead of spending time thinking about how exciting things would be with "Maria from Buenos Aires", he could have tried to think of ways to enhance the life he was living with his wife. For crying out loud, he was a successful, rich and popular politician, so his life wasn't that miserable to begin with.

He may fallen victim to the age-old failing, the confusion of love and lust. Emailing his far-away innamorata may have been more "thrilling" than his everyday life (but see the part above about being rich, successful and popular in that "everyday life"). In Book 2, Chapter 2 of his Confessions, St. Augustine wrote of his former life with words that could have come from a Governor Sanford presser -

But what was it that delighted me save to love and to be loved? Still I did not keep the moderate way of the love of mind to mind--the bright path of friendship. Instead, the mists of passion steamed up out of the puddly concupiscence of the flesh, and the hot imagination of puberty, and they so obscured and overcast my heart that I was unable to distinguish pure affection from unholy desire. Both boiled confusedly within me, and dragged my unstable youth down over the cliffs of unchaste desires and plunged me into a gulf of infamy. Thy anger had come upon me, and I knew it not. I had been deafened by the clanking of the chains of my mortality, the punishment for my soul’s pride, and I wandered farther from thee, and thou didst permit me to do so. I was tossed to and fro, and wasted, and poured out, and I boiled over in my fornications--and yet thou didst hold thy peace, O my tardy Joy! Thou didst still hold thy peace, and I wandered still farther from thee into more and yet more barren fields of sorrow, in proud dejection and restless lassitude.

In case it's not evident yet, while I feel sorry for the Sanford family as a whole, I'm on the side where there's little sympathy created by the pathetic spectacle that he's been presenting.

It ought to be easy ought to be simple enough
Man meets woman and they fall in love
But the house is haunted and the ride gets rough
And you've got to learn to live with what you can't rise above
If you want to ride on down
In through this tunnel of love

Think It Over Judge One More Time?

The United States Supreme Court decided Ricci v. DeStefano this morning. That's the New Haven Firefighter case (otherwise known as Judge Sotomayor's "reverse discrimination" case). The majority found that the City did not provide a sufficient basis for rejecting the results of a promotion exam which the City perceived to be racially skewed. The opinion can be found at this link (Note, it's a PDF).

So, did the majority of the Supreme Court conclude that Judge Sotomayor was an "unwise Latina" who violated constitutional principles in order to discriminate against white firefighters? Not exactly. Instead, the majority concluded that the law in this area embodies conflicting principles, and that is was the job of the Supreme Court to provide guidance as to how to reconcile those principles. Far from faulting the lower court decisions, the Supreme Court's decision recognized that it was taking the opportunity to clarify the law, and to show what a jurisdiction needed to do in order to conclude that test results in a simlar situation were or were not evidence of an improper racial disparity.

Some quotes supporting this. From page 20 of the decision -

We consider, therefore, whether the purpose to avoid disparate-impact liability excuses what otherwise would be prohibited disparate-treatment discrimination. Courts often confront cases in which statutes and principles point in different directions. Our task is to provide guidance to employers and courts for situations when these two prohibitions could be in conflict absent a rule to reconcile them. In providing this guidance our decision must be consistent with the important purpose of Title VII—that the work-place be an environment free of discrimination, where race is not a barrier to opportunity.

Also from page 20-21, the majority says that an argument that an employer could never consider the results, in deciding that there was an impermissible disparate racial impact, goes too far -

Petitioners take a strict approach, arguing that under Title VII, it cannot be permissible for an employer to take race-based adverse employment actions in order to avoid disparate-impact liability—even if the employer knows its practice violates the disparate-impact provision. See Brief for Petitioners 43. Petitioners would have us hold that, under Title VII, avoiding unintentional discrimination cannot justify intentional discrimination. That assertion, however, ignores the fact that, by codifying the disparate-impact provision in 1991, Congress has expressly prohibited both types of discrimination. We must interpret the statute to give effect to both provisions where possible.

Finally, in the conclusion on page 34 -

Our holding today clarifies how Title VII applies to resolve competing expectations under the disparate-treatment and disparate-impact provisions. If, after it certifies the test results, the City faces a disparate-impact suit, then in light of our holding today it should be clear that the City would avoid disparate-impact liability based on the strong basis in evidence that, had it not certified the results, it would have been subject to disparate-treatment liability.

There's a chance (okay, a likelihood) that some commentators would call the decision a "rebuke" or "rejection" of decision that Judge Sotomayor joined in the appellate court. Actually reading the decision shows that is not the case.

Cat Shrugs His ShouldersSits Back and Sighs ...

We had to say goodbye to one of the Cautious Cats today. Not only was he in pain, but his lack of eating had made him half the cat he had been (although that still was considerable, for a cat). He was finally too weak to do the cat things he always liked to do. His last extended (and slow) walk around the house was a few days ago, and he wandered all over as if looking for some way, any way, to get outside - probably just to go off by himself.

So, he's not in pain anymore. He is survived by a Cautious Man, a Cautious Wife, two Cautious Kids and his older, Cautious Cat brother.

I now will need another way to keep the papers on my desk from being blown off by a sudden breeze.

He's "The One"?

John Hodgman at the Radio & Television Correspondents' Dinner, considering the question of whether Barack Obama can be considered "our first nerd President."



One of the many parts of this that amused me was at this point in the video, when Mr. Hodgman declares of the President, "There are some who claim, sir, that you are the Kwisatz Haderach", at which point there are some scattered laughs (I laughed when I watched it) - Hodgman turns toward the laughter and brightly says, "Hello, nerds!"

As It Changes To GreenWith Your Faith In Your Machine ...

The situation in Iran causes one to pause, and to hope for the best for the people there.

It causes someone such as Andrew Sullivan to paint his place "green" and urge everyone else to do the same in "solidarity".

I like the response from John Cole -

God love Sullivan, because I know his heart is in the right place. ... If someone can give me one legitimate piece of evidence that wearing green boxers is going to help bring democracy to Iran, so help me I’ll wear plaid from head to toe and shoot for world peace.

I know he means well, but this is what I was talking about this morning when I said that the coverage of the events in Iran by American bloggers was giving me a warblogger circa 2003 vibe. I can’t be the only one who is reminded of Abbie Hoffman’s plans to levitate the Pentagon through the power of meditation.

My thoughts are with the folks in Iran risking it all fighting for democracy, but this can not be said enough- this is not about us, it is about them. I love the coverage of events, but please stop with this narcissistic nonsense.

Just so you know, here at "A Cautious Man" we've been "green" from "Day One" (after "a long process of formatting and coloring"). We welcome Mr. Sullivan to the Blogs Who Are Green.

Sunday Night Springsteen

Haven't done this in a while.

This is a show from the Meadowlands, which I believe I was at.

Looking forward to the last night at Giants Stadium this October (last concert before they take it down), which we will be at (of course).

Jersey Girl -

"Well If I Could I Surely WouldStand On The Rock Where Moses Stood ..."

If God had texted the 10 Commandments (from McSweeneys.net) -

1. no1 b4 me. srsly.

2. dnt wrshp pix/idols

3. no omg's

4. no wrk on w/end (sat 4 now; sun l8r)

5. pos ok - ur m&d r cool

6. dnt kill ppl

7. :-X only w/ m8

8. dnt steal

9. dnt lie re: bf

10. dnt ogle ur bf's m8. or ox. or dnkey. myob.


M, pls rite on tabs & giv 2 ppl.

ttyl, JHWH.

ps. wwjd?

Calls You By Your True Name

Haven't posted a random thought in a few weeks. I've been doing more reading and thinking, but not much communicating. I felt moved to post a comment to this entry at the blog Catholic Sensibility, on anonymity in blogging. The proprietor at that site makes a good point -

It is a mystery to me why a few well-known Catholic bloggers have opted for pseudonymity given their penchant for attack. Oh, I can understand a spouse or family insisting on anonymity. My wife would definitely prefer I not use my real name and link to my real locations. The phenomenon strikes me as similar to the superhero alter ego. In a way, a man or woman becomes a different person wearing the mask, the costume, the pseudonym. If you’re fighting the minions of evil, fine. If the modus operandi is to disenfranchise one’s ideological adversaries, bad show indeed. It would be better for anonymous or pseudonymous folks to just refrain from attack unless they’re willing to sign their name on the line. Once I told an e-mail correspondent if they were unwilling to show their posts to their spouse and parish pastor, why would they expect me to take them seriously as a believer with a cause?

My comment that I added there was this: All I really know about the bloggers I read, is what is on their pages. Whether they are identified with a real name or not, or provide personal information or not, their worth comes not from who they are (or how important they may think they are) but from what they write. I don't have time to just read mindless attacks, no matter how they're signed. There can be as many false accusations in a signed piece of writing as an unsigned one - sometimes more, if issued by some of the more self-righteous commentators.

That having been said, if I ever become so consumed with my own self-importance, and think that my opinions must be worth more than those of others, just because I'm me, I should probably utilize a different means of communicating them.

Be True To Your School ...

This little tidbit was in the middle of today's New York Times profile of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama's nominee to the United States Supreme Court -

When Ms. Sotomayor arrived at Princeton in the fall of 1972, she was one of the only Latinos there: there were no professors, no administrators, and only a double-digit number of students. Princeton women were sharply outnumbered as well; the first ones had been admitted only a few years earlier, and some alumni had protested their increasing ranks. (Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who graduated just a few months before Ms. Sotomayor arrived, belonged to one of the groups that protested.)

Good times coming on the Supremes!

I Like To Be In America

Immigrant goes to America,
Many hellos in America;
Nobody knows in America
Puerto Rico's in America!

- "America", from West Side Story, Music by Leonard Bernstein, lyrics by Stephen Sondheim.

Some right-wing clown named Mark Krikorian warns that once we have to pronounce people's names correctly, anarchy will follow.

Most e-mailers were with me on the post on the pronunciation of Judge Sotomayor's name (and a couple griped about the whole Latina/Latino thing — English dropped gender in nouns, what, 1,000 years ago?). But a couple said we should just pronounce it the way the bearer of the name prefers, including one who pronounces her name "freed" even though it's spelled "fried," like fried rice. (I think Cathy Seipp of blessed memory did the reverse — "sipe" instead of "seep.") Deferring to people's own pronunciation of their names should obviously be our first inclination, but there ought to be limits. Putting the emphasis on the final syllable of Sotomayor is unnatural in English ...

He then proceeds to explain how he is such a wimp that he happily lets people mispronounce his own name -

For instance, in Armenian, the emphasis is on the second syllable in my surname, just as in English, but it has three syllables, not four (the "ian" is one syllable) — but that's not how you'd say it in English (the "ian" means the same thing as in English — think Washingtonian or Jeffersonian). Likewise in Russian, you put the emphasis in my name on the final syllable and turn the "o" into a schwa, and they're free to do so because that's the way it works in their language.

It's all for a higher purpose, however - nothing less than preservation of American culture -

This may seem like carping, but it's not. Part of our success in assimilation has been to leave whole areas of culture up to the individual, so that newcomers have whatever cuisine or religion or so on they want, limiting the demand for conformity to a smaller field than most other places would. But one of the areas where conformity is appropriate is how your new countrymen say your name, since that's not something the rest of us can just ignore, unlike what church you go to or what you eat for lunch. And there are basically two options — the newcomer adapts to us, or we adapt to him. And multiculturalism means there's a lot more of the latter going on than there should be.

We're not talking about throwing widows on their husbands' burning funeral pyres, we're talking about how people say their own name!!!! It's almost as if there is a deep-seated conservative need to use schoolyard taunts as a way to assert themselves, whether it's deliberately mispronouncing someone's name (especially if that name is Hispanic) or referring to the "Democrat Party".

Something tells me that when Mr. Krikorian and his fellow-travelers think about Judge Sotomayor, this is what they see in their minds -

Facing Up To Their Responsibilities

From today's news -

The director of the White House Military Office has resigned, an administration official said Friday, two weeks after he authorized an Air Force One backup to fly over the Statue of Liberty that terrified thousands of people in New York City. The director, Louis Caldera, who served as the secretary of the Army in the Clinton administration, had apologized for approving the flyover. He submitted his resignation on Friday, after the president ordered an internal White House review.

For those of you who are keeping track -

Number of government officials taking responsibility for mistakes which allowed a flyover that reminded people of the 9/11 attacks: 1.

Number of government officials taking responsibility for mistakes which allowed the 9/11 attacks: 0.

Concluding that this is a different kind of Presidency doesn't even begin to explain this.