I took all these pictures from my door way, one from my porch! Scary stuff!
So, my wife and I have just been interviewed by the Santa Maria police department about our neighbor’s death. Cops are standing guard outside, so we feel safe. They are, however, looking through the yard for a murder weapon. They were asking about who was going in and out of his home lately, about his work, and about our relationship (which was virtually non-existent). They suspect he was killed Saturday night, so they wanted to know our whereabouts. All I could say was that we had gone to Solvang, went to Neverland Ranch, and then spent the evening with the in-laws before returning home in the evening. We had no time-table to give, unfortunately. But we did not recall hearing any loud noises. I told the investigator that I sleep like a rock, so I heard nothing. I also added that I wish I were more nosy, so that I could’ve been more helpful. I also clued them into the fact that he had an assistant, which they apparently didn’t know. I had no name unfortunately, but I directed them to our more nosy neighbor, who might know.
The news crews were standing in our yard, doing their report. They left a short while ago.
Police are investigating what they say is a homicide in Santa Maria.
The Santa Maria Police Department says officers responded to a residence in the 800 block of East Orange just before 5:00 p.m. Monday to a report of an unresponsive subject. When they arrived, they found a 55-year-old man, the resident of the home, lying on the floor. Police say he had suffered apparent trauma. He was pronounced dead at the scene.
Police say because of the suspicious nature of the man’s death and because of the nature of his injuries, they are investigating the incident as a homicide.
The man’s name has not yet been released.
Stay updated on this story and other news in your area on KSBY.com, and watch Action News at 5, 6 and 11.
SANTA MARIA – Investigators have been collecting evidence at the apartment on the 800 block of East Orange St. where the suspected male victim was found dead early Monday evening.
Neighbors say they heard a gunshot early Monday morning.
Investigators collected drops of blood on the pavement outside the alleged victim’s apartment.
He was a handyman who turned his apartment into a workshop where he ran a sewing machine repair business.
Neighbors have seen people coming and going from the apartment, including a woman whom neighbors say was the alleged victim’s girlfriend.
SANTA MARIA POLICE DEPARTMENT PRESS RELEASE:
On July 13, 2009, at about 1653 hours, SMPD Officer responded to a report of an unresponsive subject found inside of his residence in the 800 block of E. Orange. The subject was located by a close friend, after numerous attempts to contact him were unsuccessful. Upon arrival, the Officers located a 55 year old white male lying on the floor with apparent trauma. He was pronounced dead at the scene by medical personnel. Due to the suspicious nature of the death, investigative personnel were called in to assume investigative responsibility.
After review of the crime scene, coupled with the nature of injury, this incident has been classified as a Homicide. Investigators are actively interviewing known friends and associates. At this time, no further information is available for release. As new information becomes available, updates will be sent out.
The name of the victim is being withheld, pending next of kin notification.
My neighbor was killed early this morning! Apparently, he was shot in the head twice. Luckily, we were not home, so we were not around. Our neighborhood is pretty safe and quiet, so this was a huge shock. Our neighbor was kind of an ass, and I’m assuming this was an enemy of his, or some drug deal that went awry. Danielle and I were annoyed by his trashy yard and by the fact that he took all the storage units, but nobody deserves to be killed like this. There’s a news report online about it.
The King of torture, the Sultan of Secrets, Dick Cheney, is suddenly silent. He’s been as garrulous as a gaggle of geese since he left office, but he has yet to respond to a New York Times article that brings to light a secret counter-terrorism program– so secret that he ordered the CIA to keep it secret from Congress. The program is still classified, which has also kept former-CIA Director George Tenet from commenting, but the program’s existence came to light when Leon Panetta, the current Director, testified in late June before House intelligence committees. Leon Panetta stepped into the Pelosi-Waterboarding scandal when he denied that the CIA misleads members of Congress. He recently stood by that comment, saying that it was “not the policy of the CIA to mislead Congress.” It may not be the policy, but his revelation proves that it does indeed occur. He also added: “It is vital to keep the Congress fully and currently informed.” Panetta also testified that he ended the program when he first learned about it, which was on June 23.
This revelation follows a 38 page report from “inspectors general of the nation’s top intelligence agencies, the Pentagon and the Justice Department,” which had been initiated by Congress. The report concludes that the secret warrantless-wiretapping program that was started within a few weeks after 9/11 was based on “factually flawed” legal interpretations from a single attorney at the Deprtment of Justice– John Yoo. Yoo is also responsible for the legal basis for the U.S.’s heinous torture program. The report quotes his superior, former Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee, who describes Yoo as “the White House’s guy.” In a blast to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca8), the report found that she and other members of Congress had been briefed on the illegal program 17 times, and no one objected to the program. Tsk-tsk Pelosi. Where was your outrage then?
On July 9, the CIA reported that they were beginning an internal review of how they brief Congress on secret and classified programs and operations. Leon Panetta undertook this review in order “to take a look at what happened and to explore what the C.I.A. can do to improve its reporting to Congress.” This review comes amid Congressional squabbling over Pelosi’s assertion that the CIA mislead her and other members of Congress about their waterboarding program. The agency and Leon Panetta have insisted that they did not mislead her, or anyone else, essentially calling Pelosi a liar. However, the internal review suggests that Panetta is starting to back away from his earlier statements. Representative Silvestre Reyes (D-TX), in an interview with NPR, flat-out accussed the CIA of not providing Congress “full and complete information,” and, at times, of lying to members of Congress. Asked if the CIA violated the National Security Act, Reyes resoinded, “In my opinion, numerous times.”
The program was kept a secret for 8 years, per former-Vice President Dick Cheney’s orders, but now that its existence is known several lawmakers, including Reyes, are demanding an investigation. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Il), a House Intelligence subcommittee chairwoman, is one of those demanding an investigation. Her criticism did not extend to the current Director of the CIA, who, according to her, was “stunned” by the revelaton, which came five months into his tenure. He immediately shut down the program and the next day he informed Congress. Panetta, in Schakowsky’s opinion, is changing the agency for the better. Her criticism, instead, is directed at the Bush administration, who held Congress in “contempt” and behaved as though it was “an annoyance to them to have to come to us and answer our questions. There was an impatience and a contempt for the Congress.” In addition to the internal review, the revelations have also encourged members of Congress to push for a bill that would allow more members of Congress– rather than the “Gang of Eight“– to be included in CIA briefings about covert operations. President Obama has indicated that he will issue a veto if the bill is passed.
The report also includes some discussion about the role of Dick Cheney in the creation of the surveillance program, and the withholding of the program’s existence from Congress. A one point, as described on page 22 of the report, Dick Cheney suggested that President Bush reauthorize the program without legal consent from the Department of Justice. At the time, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft was hospitalized and was therefore incapable of signing the authorization. According to former FBI Director Rubert Mueller’s notes of the meeting, Mueller expressed his discomfort with the suggestion: “I could have a problem with that… [the FBI would] have to review legality of continued participation in the program.” When others expressed similar discomfort, according to the report, Cheney described the program as “critically important” and accused the acting Attorney General, James Comey, of risking “thousands” of lives. The report underscores the Vice President’s attempts to limit the number of people privy to the program’s existence, going so far as to require the personal approval of the Vice President’s legal advisor David Addington before disclosing the program to any individual. It also underscored his attempts to widen the scope of the program’s powers.
Michigan Rep. Peter Hoekstra, the House Intelligence Committee’s senior Republican, has portrayed Democrats’ outrage as political maneuvering. He criticized the Democrats’ recent letter to CIA Director Leon Panetta as “one of the most bizarre episodes in politics that I’ve seen in my time here in Washington.” It is not surprising that there is much opposition to the current talk– it was their President and Vice President who oversaw broad and secretive programs in order to spy on the American public. They would much rather focus their efforts on accusing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of crossing the line when she asserted that the CIA was lying about its waterboarding program. As events unfold, it becomes increasingly apparent that Pelosi was telling the truth.
One can only hope that Leon Panetta and the Obama administration will be more transparent and honest than their predecessors.
With world leaders meeting for the G8 Summit inL’Aquila, Italy, one uninvited leader is interjecting his thoughts: Pope Benedict XVI. In his third encyclical in four years, Caritas in Veritate (Charity in Truth), the Pope makes the case for how the Catholic church’s social teachings can have a positive impact on the human condition. With the global economic crisis as a backdrop, Benedict criticizes our modern economic structure that lacks respect for workers and places emphasis on bsinesses that “are almost exclusively answerable to their investors, thereby limited in their social value.”
Pope Benedict, in his encyclical, advocates the creation of a “political authority” that “giv[es] direction to the process of economic globalization. It is also the way to ensure that it does not actually undermine the foundations of democracy.” In what might be construed as a liberal-oriented view on economics, Benedict explains that in a globalized world, that seems to be increasingly individualistic, a sense of inter-connectedness and community is lost. There is a concern for the needs of one’s self, while the needs of his brother are ignored or forgotten. For too long economics have been a tool of the strong against the weak, who “should remain at a fixed stage of development, and should be content to receive assistance from the philanthropy of developed peoples.” Instead, he argues, that globalization should be a process that is “community-oriented” and allows people to “transcend” their economic situation. In the end, it is up to all of us to stand for social jutice and to “steer the globalization of humanity in relational terms, in terms of communion and the sharing of goods.”
The thrust of Benedict’s encyclical is that humanity needs to fully experience love: “Love — caritas — is an extraordinary force which leads people to opt for courageous and generous engagement in the field of justice and peace.” The most authentic form of love is charity, which “rejoices in the truth” (1 Cor 13:6)( hence the title of the encyclical Caritas in Veritate, or Charity in Truth) because it originates in God. “Love is God’s greatest gift to humanity, it is his promise and our hope.” Conservatives often dismiss charity and giving because they do not link it to “moral responsiblity,” instead they empasize a Reagan-esque supply-side economic model– the sort that precipitated our current economic melt-down. Benedict, in his critique, seems to support a wealth distribution model: “to love is to give, to offer what is ‘mine’ to the other… The more we strive to secure a common good corresponding to the real needs of our neighbours, the more effectively we love them.” To simply argue that wealth accumulation in the hands of the few (at their expense) would eventually benefit the poor masses ignores the fact that we all live in a global community, and as such we should be charitable with our neighbors. “The whole Church, in all her being and acting—when she proclaims, when she celebrates, when she performs works of charity—is engaged in promoting integral human development.” We should remember Matthew 25:34-46:
“Then they themselves also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?’ “Then He will answer them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ “These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
The Pope, in his encyclical, identifies four issues that must be addressed in order to promote integral human development: hunger, respect for life, religious freedom, and disciplinary collaboration.The most pressing is hunger. As many would argue, but others would dispute, access to food and water is a human right. Unfortunately, we live in a world where not everone has access to food and water. Hunger across our globe (even within our own borders) is still a major problem: everyday 963 million people go hungry every day throughout the world; 24,000 people die everyday from hunger, two-thirds of which are children; one in seven also suffer from malnutrition. With the wealth of all Western nations, who reap the benefits of globalization, why can hunger be ended?
The Pope’s encyclical is a call to action, as well as a rebuke to the modern concepts of selfish individualism. On friday, President Obama will meet with Pope Benedict in Vatican City. Though the two might clash over issues such as abortion, the two will likely find much common ground in combating world hunger. The two are set to discuss issues regarding human dignity.
It is too late tonight to finish the post on Iran as I had intended, but I do want to first share this video about a young woman named Neda, which means “voice” in Farsi. She and her professor were watching a protest on the streets of Tehran when she was shot in the chest by a sniper. The sniper was a member of the Basij militia, in an attempt to quell the protests. The protests were organized by supporters of reformist candidate Mir-Hussein Mousavi who alleged that the results of the recent Iranian elections were illegitimate, and that the election was rigged by President Ahmadinejad and the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei. Neda’s murder has become a martyr and her name has become a rallying cry for Iranians looking for freedom.
Below are the videos. The first is of Neda and her professor watching the protest, moments before she is shot. The second is of her being taken to the ground, where she dies of a gunshot wound to the chest.
Warning! This is seriously graphic:
President Obama has expressed his sadness over this tragedy, saying, “It’s heartbreaking, and I think that anybody who sees it knows that there’s something fundamentally unjust about that. I think that when a young woman gets shot on the street when she gets out of her car, that’s a problem.” Robert Gibbs, the White House Press Secretary, has blasted the Iranian government for attempting to portray her murder as a fake. “I think the notion that the death of an innocent woman would be staged is – even with them, it’s shocking.” What prompted this comment was a statement from Iran’s police chief Esmaeil Ahmadi-Moghaddam, who claimed that the Neda murder was a “pre-arranged scenario.” President Ahmadinejad has initiated a probe into the murder, adding that foreign media outlets have managed a campaign of misinformation and “widespread propaganda” in an attempt to take down the Iranian government.
For those who demand that President Obama do more, I ask you to read my blog tomorrow. It is exactly the harsh statements, saber rattling, and covert interventions against Iran that have gotten us where we are today. Were President Obama to get more involved Ahmadinehad would have the ability to claim foreign intervention, words that go to the heart of every Iranian, and would only succeed in bolstering the Iranian government. I think President Obama has struck the right tone: condemn the violence and crackdowns, but ultimately leave change to the Iranian people. It will come, just as it came to our country. The more the Iranian government cracks down on the protesters, the more angry and resolved the people will become that they need to overthrow the current regime. It happened in 1979, and it will happen in 2009. But, again, I will talk about all of this in my next blog post.
Please visit my blog soon to see my blog on how the U.S. created the Iranian monster that we face, and how it will be up to the Iranian people to decide their own fate.
I have no health insurance. None. My employer does not provide it, because they’re cheap. I cannot afford to purchase it on my own because it is so expensive.
Several years ago, about 2003, I was involved in a semi-serious auto accident that landed me in the hospital. I was treated fairly well at Marian Medical Center in Santa Maria, California, but it was certainly not worth the twelve-thousand dollar bill I received. I could not afford to pay the bill up front, so I arranged to make monthly payments. Being fresh out of high school and working a crappy part-time minimum wage job, it became clear that I could not even afford to make those payments. After several months, after my credit was completely ruined, I was able to secure a grant from Borders (my employer), who paid for the entire bill. Due to some clerical error, my credit was further ruined and I had to spend months proving that I had paid my hospital bill. It was a fucking nightmare, to be totally honest.
Even more recent than that, in early May 2008, I was bed-ridden with a tooth infection. I do not have health insurance, so I never had my wisdom teeth pulled. My bottom right wisdom started hurting me a few years ago, but I ignored it. The pain would come and go, and when it came I would take a lot of aspirin or rub orajel on the area. Well, needless to say, by early May the tooth had become infected and I fell gravely ill. Again, due to the lack of insurance, I stayed in bed, praying the pain and fever would go away. My fiancee (now wife) and her mother watched over me, not realizing that it was my tooth that was the culprit. When my fever reached 104 degrees, my future mother-in-law realized the severity of the situation. Danielle, my then-fiancee, pointed out my swollen throat and face, and knew that it was my tooth. I had complained about it before. They quickly got me up and dressed, and drove me to Marian Medical Center’s Emergency room. Mind you, this was around nine o’clock in the evening.
After waiting nearly three hours in the waiting room, I was finally taken into another room where I would wait another half-hour for the doctor. I saw the doctor for less than a minute, literally. He asked me to open my mouth (which could only open about 3 or four centimeters), flashed a light in my mouth, and then told me to see a dentist. He briskly turned around and left the room. A nurse came in and gave me two Vicodin, then directed us to the billing office. The whole sha-bang cost $800 dollars, hardly worth it. I am still trying to pay off that debt a year later.
The next morning, my future father-in-law took me to a dentist. I quickly sat in the chair and opened my mouth as much as I could. Within that moment, he realized that he could do nothing for my mouth. He called an oral surgeon and made an appointment for me, ASAP. Blessedly, he was a kind dentist who did not charge me a single cent for the visit. I saw him months later at a Red Robin and he was very interested in my recovery. He was concerned, however, that I could still not fully open my mouth. He recommended that I see him again, but I never took him up on that. Again, no health insurance.
At any rate, I was still in a state of intense fever. The Vicodin had long worn off and I was in a lot of pain. My memory of these few days is a bit fuzzy. I was taken then to an oral surgeon named Dr. Slaughter, how appropriate. I was ushered in quickly, but before he would touch me we had to pay the bill up front. I am rather impoverished, so my future father-in-law was kind enough to pay the bill, which was roughly $1,200 dollars. I was given an x-ray, then walked into a room, sat down, and was immediately put under…
I had the most horrific nightmare…
People were falling into a giant pit of flames, where the heat was so intense that their skin melted off their bones. I was amongst those people, set aflame, but still alive, screaming and crying all at the same time…
I heard my name being called from above, and a bright light was obscuring the scene. I awoke slowly and in tremendous pain. The nurses walked me to the office, where I was then given a prescription for Vicodin. Again, the Vicodin was really expensive, and I could not afford it, so my father-in-law to-be paid for it.
The days blurred together. I was riding the crazy wave of a pain fueled fever, which caused me to vomit quite a bit, and gave me the sweats, even though I was cold all over my body. I also could not eat anything without throwing it back up, even water. This was very troubling to those around me, especially Danielle. And when I vomited, I was also inadvertently removing the Vicodin from my body. I had no sustenance, no vitamins, not even very much water, for weeks. On top of that, my fever raged on. Danielle made sure that I had ice packs on my throat and on my chest, in an attempt to bring down my body temperature, which remained above 100 for about two weeks. I wanted to die.
By the middle of week three, my temperature had come down a bit, and I was able to drink liquids, but nothing solid. Even if I had wanted to, my mouth could not open wide enough to eat anything. I could not even talk, due to my swollen throat and jaw. I had lost a lot of weight, unfortunately, as well. I was also really weak, still bed ridden. By week four, I was still feeling ill, in pain, could not open my mouth, but I was able to sit in the living room and watch t.v. I had no news for so long!!!! I had also missed a lot of work, which cost me a lot of money as well. I used my time to think about the wedding, which was in July, and I spent a lot of time reading. By this time, my Vicodin had run out, and I was having to take a lot of aspirin. It was by the end of week four that I started spitting out disgusting blood and puss that began to seep from my surgical wounds. As I continued to ice it, the swelling came down. By the end of week five, I was relatively ready for work. My jaw was still not able to open all the way, but I was able to stand up and talk, somewhat. My fever was gone and I was relatively healthy. Either way, I had missed too much work and needed to go back. By this time, I had a minor beard going on and I looked more pale and thin than I had ever been in my life. People at work had no idea what had happened to me, and they were shocked by my appearance. I was also unable to talk clearly, due to my jaw still being a bit swollen. It would take weeks before I could open my mouth all the way and eat real food. My weight and strength came back with time.
Thus is the state of the U.S.’s health care industry.
If I had adequate health care coverage, my credit would not have been ruined, taking me more than five years to recover. If I had adequate health care coverage, I could have had my wisdom teeth pulled, or had my tooth looked at before it had gotten infected. I have not had a physical in probably a decade, God only knows what else is wrong with me. I am not the only one. Millions of people suffer as I do. To be exact, in 2008 the figure was 46 million. 62% of bankruptcy claims in 2007 were directly related to health care costs, even though “77.9 percent of those bankrupted by medical problems had health insurance at the start of the bankrupting illness, including 60 percent who had private coverage.” The figures are staggering, and I have not the patience to cite them all… maybe just a few…
* In 2008, health care spending in the United States reached $2.4 trillion, and was projected to reach $3.1 trillion in 2012. Health care spending is projected to reach $4.3 trillion by 2016.
* Health care spending is 4.3 times the amount spent on national defense.
* In 2008, the United States will spend 17 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) on health care. It is projected that the percentage will reach 20 percent by 2017.
* Although nearly 46 million Americans are uninsured, the United States spends more on health care than other industrialized nations, and those countries provide health insurance to all their citizens.
* Health care spending accounted for 10.9 percent of the GDP in Switzerland, 10.7 percent in Germany, 9.7 percent in Canada and 9.5 percent in France, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
The Impact of Rising Health Care Costs
* National surveys show that the primary reason people are uninsured is the high cost of health insurance coverage.
* Economists have found that rising health care costs correlate to drops in health insurance coverage.
* Every 30 seconds in the United States someone files for bankruptcy in the aftermath of a serious health problem.
* A new survey shows that more than 25 percent said that housing problems resulted from medical debt, including the inability to make rent or mortgage payments and the development of bad credit ratings.
* About 1.5 million families lose their homes to foreclosure every year due to unaffordable medical costs.
* A survey of Iowa consumers found that in order to cope with rising health insurance costs, 86 percent said they had cut back on how much they could save, and 44 percent said that they have cut back on food and heating expenses.
* Retiring elderly couples will need $250,000 in savings just to pay for the most basic medical coverage. Many experts believe that this figure is conservative and that $300,000 may be a more realistic number.
* According to a recent report, the United States has $480 billion in excess spending each year in comparison to Western European nations that have universal health insurance coverage. The costs are mainly associated with excess administrative costs and poorer quality of care.
* The United States spends six times more per capita on the administration of the health care system than its peer Western European nations.
Well, maybe that was a bit more than a few, but it is still staggering. That is why our country seriously needs health care reform. Republican’s shot down the Clinton’s attempt in 1993, and since then our health care crisis has worsened dramatically. Health care coverage is a basic human right, but Republican’s are so interested in keeping the status quo and in allowing the heath care companies to dominate the market for their own profit, and at the expense of the American people and their health. Martin Luther King once remarked that “Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health is the most shocking and the most inhumane.” He was absolutely right.
There is a health care bill going through Congress now, known as HR 676. I urge everyone to call their representative and demand action; demand that they support your right to health care coverage.
HR 676 will provide everyone automatic coverage for life for every American, and it will cover dental, vision, and prescription drugs. And despite Republican claims, you will be able to choose your own doctor and hospital. It will also have the added bonus of creating new jobs reducing health care costs for businesses. In having everyone covered, prices will drop, and CEO’s and faceless corporations will not have the ability to control your health care. We will have our health care in our own hands. Time and time again, Republicans claim government bureaucrats will control your health care, and they paint that as a negative consequence. I think that is a false choice: either have the government in control of health care, or have no coverage at all. I think most Americans would rather have coverage. Not only that, but I trust the government to handle heath care far more than I trust a greedy CEO, or a money grubbing board of directors, or anyone else looking to make a buck on my misfortune.
Now is our time. Now is our moment to take health care coverage out of the hands of the selfish few and share it with all Americans who are so desperate for care.
Michael Jackson, the self-proclaimed King of Pop, died suddenly on Thursday June 25, 2009, at his home in West LA. An autopsy report was inconclusive, so a second autopsy has been asked for by the Jackson family. A toxicology report will be released in the next few weeks, which will prove or disprove rumors surrounding his use of prescription medication. It certainly has been a bizarre end to a bizarre life. He was 50 years old.
According to Lisa Marie Presely, daughter of the King of Rock and Roll Elvis Presley, Jackson had once intimated to her that he thought he would meet his fate in a way that was similar to Elvis’: “At some point he paused, he stared at me very intensely and he stated with an almost calm certainty, ‘I am afraid that I am going to end up like him, the way he did.’” Deepak Chopra also recalled a similar comment from Jackson, adding that Jackson didn’t “want to go out like Marlon Brando. I want to go out like Elvis.” Chopra has also alleged that Jackson was fasting, and not ready for the strain of a world concert tour. He also believes prescription medications played a part in his death, which Jackson’s doctor denies. In fact, the police have just discovered prescription pills in the performer’s home.
I personally have had mixed feelings about this whole tragedy. Certainly, Jackson was an amazing performer, but his personal affairs were more than shady. In the now infamous documentary by Martin Bashir, Jackson admitted to sleeping with boys in his bed, claiming that it was the ultimate form of love. This film also included the young boy that would make the molestation accusation that launched the criminal trial (of which he was ultimately acquitted) in my hometown of Santa Maria, Ca (which I, at the time, dubbed the Kingdom of Jackson). Following the trial, Jackson spent some time in Bahrain and Las Vegas. In the last few months, Jackson announced a comeback world tour, and, according to Chopra, he was working on an album that would move the world: “He was talking about this new song that he had done. He had shared that with me. I think I’m the only person who has the music right now… he was thinking really big.”
I recently went back and looked at an anti-Michael Jackson website that I had set-up during the trial. Following the trial, I updated it and added some anecdotes documenting my experiences with the self-proclaimed king of Pop. It is pretty rough! I am posting my diatribe (which is admittedly brutal) in full and uncensored, as well as the link the site. Some of it has since been taken down. Given the glowing media coverage, I figured I would put my two cents in.
Enjoy!
Living in the New American Century, with neo-fascists and criminal celebrities, is scarier than waking up in a bath-tub full of ice with a throbbing pain in your lower back. How are we to survive, especially as the downward spiral of dumbness grows tighter… The center can only hold for a little while longer before things fall apart…
Before Michael Jackson contended that it didn’t matter if you were “black or white”, he tried to convince us that he was “bad”. Then, he tried to convince 12 jurors that he was actually not that bad, after all. Then, suddenly, maybe it did matter that he was black and not white. He attempted to play the race card, unsuccessfully. But Michael ain’t OJ, Tom Sneddon ain’t Mark Furman, and the only offensive six letter word he might have heard was “GUILTY”.
Oh, how I hoped he would hear it. At the very least, he deserved to hear it. Like a nightmare following a long night of Jack Daniels and loud music, my once boring town known as Santa Maria was overrun by the media circus, devoted Jackson fans, and the streets were littered with police. Every morning, while on my way to work at a local junior high, I had to fight my way through traffic and keep from staring at the near-naked woman selling sandwiches to the cold and starving Jackson well-wishers. If it weren’t for the slow movement of traffic I wouldn’t have noticed how lovely her curves were and how the cold affected her anatomy. Well, all that is beside the point. This went on from February 28, 2005 until the verdict was announced 14 weeks later. My town had become the Kingdom of Jackson, and I was but a lowly peasant trying to go about my busy day.
This sicko deserved all that the legal system has to offer. His guilt or innocence with respect to the molestation was irrelevant. The man paid between 15- 20 million dollars in January 1994 to shut up a 13 year old boy who had accused Jackson of molestation. Obviously, he was guilty… of something. You do not pay that sort of cash if you are innocent. His career in the nineties had been dogged by rumors of pedophilia and molestation. The new millennium was not looking too great for him either. But it’s his own fault, you see– not Tom Sneddon’s. Jackson should have stayed away from little boys and kept them out of his bed. A 2003 documentary by one Martin Bashir revealed that Jackson believed that, “the most loving thing to do is to share your bed with someone.” So, he had sleepovers with little boys. Mostly, I blame him for invading my homeland and making me feel like an outsider. Fucker. Rot in jail.
Ho ho, but he isn’t alone in his guilt. That useless mother of the accuser deserved jail time too. She let her child play with a grown man known for his affinity for small boys. She isn’t that stupid, though. She put her child into harms way knowing that she might make a buck. Or at least $23 million bucks. On April 15 2005, she went on the stand to try to convince the world that she and her son were prisoners in Jackson’s Neverland estate… BULLSHIT. She has a history of bringing lawsuits, such as the lawsuit she brought against JC Penny. She also defrauded the welfare system. Under intense cross-examination, the accuser’s mother self-destructed and admitted to lying under oath twice. She put her son in a dangerous situation with a sexually eccentric older man with the intention of reaping great financial benefit. This isn’t libelous, mind you… the woman is guilty as sin and I hope she pays dearly for it.
And when the defense called their celebrity witnesses the media circus went wild with orgasms and tales of lewd conduct. I was told about a midget fornicating with a clown, all the while making balloon animals. True? Doesn’t really matter does it, because it might as well have been! Jay Leno, Macaulay Culkin, and Chris Tucker took the stand, but a whole slew of celebrities were on the list of possible witnesses, including Larry King and Kobe Bryant. So maybe balloon animals don’t seem too far fetched. I half expected George W. Bush and his mother to testify! After all was said and done, all I wanted was an autograph from the Home Alone guy and Corey Feldman. I should’ve gone out in front of the court house to wait with the adoring fans waving banners while proclaiming his innocence, citing only his music as evidence.
I met Jackson once at a Toys ‘R Us, in about 2003. My girlfriend and I were browsing the aisles, looking at Star Wars action figures, when I encountered a tall thin man with long black hair weakly pushing a shopping cart full of toys. He was wearing a fedora and a black mask that covered his mouth. I elbowed Amanda and whispered, “Check out this guy!” She shushed me and we walked by. I was unable to take my eyes off of him. He looked so familiar, but I coudn’t place him. Suddenly, two small masked figures carrying blunt objects came running in my direction. “So, this is how it ends?” I thought. Murdered by midget assassins in a Toys ‘R Us. I shook myself sober and realized that these were not assassins, but children bearing toys. They were squealing, “DADDY!” Holy shit, I thought, that guy is Michael Jackson! And those are his children! The poor little children were wearing grotesque clear masks painted with clown make-up.The hideous red lips curled in a demonic smile could not mask their excitement. I quietly passed this along to Amanda who stood staring in horror.
We walked quickly to the next aisle, giggling with surprise, where Toys ‘R Us employees were hurriedly pushing a shopping cart and loading it with items that “Michael” had requested. They spoke his name as though he were royalty and not the scum that he is. Pathetic really.
I seem a bit angry don’t I? That’s because I work with kids as a tutor. I encounter them on a daily basis. They have enough shit to deal with without having to deal with crazies like our King Jacko. They are relatively innocent and mostly full of life and they provide me the confidence to continue in the field of education. People like Jackson and the accuser’s mother are guilty of denying children the right to their innocence and childhood. Michael should be more sympathetic. His father, through emotional, mental, and physical abuse denied him his innocence and youth. He carried on that shameful lagacy.
Amanda and I proceeded to the exit, but I first took one last look at Jackson. I shouted, “Hmm, sweet, check out that eight year old ass. Hmmm hmm hmm!” I’m horrible and have very little shame, you see. Amanda punched me pretty hard for that. She was a good person and was ashamed of my actions and words. I saw him again, much later, when he was formally indicted, on April 30, 2004. That was when he moonwalked on top of his SUV. I laughed long and hard. I was part of the mob that chased his vehicle until it pulled away and rushed off to his Neverland ranch where he was having a party of some sort for his fans. I had little choice, though. It was either run with the lemmings, or fall under the feet of the stampeding admirers. He held himself like royalty on that day. A king of kings, if you will. He did not grasp the gravity of the situation and did not feel that the law would catch up with him.
It is sad to think that only weeks into his trial he began his slow mental decline. He wore his pajamas to court and was consistently late. His behavior was so bizarre and erratic that he became fodder for late night t.v. Even his buddy Jay Leno couldn’t help but poke fun at his behavior during his opening monologues. As the trial neared the end, though, he seemed to get a firmer grip on the reality of the situation. He also realized that the prosecution had a very weak case and had virtually no hope of winning the trial. He started to act like his old self again.
On the day of the verdict, Monday June 13, 2005, I was at the mall sitting in the Red Robin across the street from the courthouse where the verdict was about to be read. Me and a couple of teachers had taken the AVID class there to eat lunch as a reward for good behavior. As we watched the proceedings on television, I looked outside of the restaurant and saw Tom Mesereau, Jackson’s lawyer, talking anxiously on a cell phone. I pointed him out to my students who did not quite understand who he was. A few moments later, Mesereau left the mall and headed for the courtroom. We could see him on the television, making his way. I pointed him out again on the t.v., only this time they were very excited. This was a unique moment for them. It was then that I leaned over to one of the other teachers and said,” What the hell am I doing here? I could be over there now instead of watching it on a t.v. across the street from where it is actually happening!” With that, I stood up and ran out of the mall and across the street to the courthouse.
I saw thousands of people, all trying to get closer to the action. Every person that I had ever met in my life in Santa Maria was there. Long lost elementary school friends, ex-girlfriends, casual acquaintances, and a whole host of recognized faces. There were also countless paparazzi. The police were all standing by with fist-fulls of plastic cuffs and batons in case the crowd went bat shit and needed a good beat down. I was actually afraid to think of the riot that would ensue if he were found guilty. Cars would have been turned over and burned, the strawberry fields would have been set ablaze, and the library would have been ransacked, though few read. I might have been hurt! The sound of the crowd was deafening, and their forward motion reminded me of zombies trying to break into a boarded up house with brains trying to hide inside. I crammed my way through the crowds, often brushing uncomfortably close to a stranger or having to beat my way through a jungle of signs praising the pedophile. Eventually, I was close enough that I could see the doors of the courtroom where Jackson would exit and make his way for the getaway SUV’s. Suddenly, there was an eerie silence that fell over the previously obnoxious crowd. It was an almost religious experience, albeit a cheap one. I could hear someone shout out, “Not guilty!” There was a short roar of approval from the mob, which was cut off by calls for silence. This continued again nine more times. Jackson had been acquitted of all ten charges that together very well could have landed him in jail for 20 years. I half-expected Jackson to burst out the doors doing the moonwalk. But no. He burst out the door, running, and made his way for his SUV, his family and entourage not far behind him. And again, as the SUV sped away, I was forced to follow Jackson, compelled by an aversion to being trampled upon. He was on his way to Neverland for a huge party, where there would be half naked boys dancing on poles, no doubt, or Chimpanzees juggling chainsaws, or whatever crazy shit happens at his retreat.
The mobs went away eventually. My life returned to normal. I have even made friends with people who came to Santa Maria from great distances for the trial, and ended up getting stuck here. One lonely night at Denny’s I met a photographer who covered the trial. We had a long discussion about the trial. It is now clear to me that the people of Santa Maria are not only loyal citizens of the Kingdom of Jackson, but so too is the greater population of the world.
In light of his recent death, I hope this isn’t too offensive, though I don’t really care. Too many people are sensitive to words! My, oh my. At any rate, my heart goes out to the Jackson family, even to Joe Jackson, who recently stirred up controversy for promoting a record company while discussing his son’s passing. I especially pray for his three children, who might now be allowed a normal life. Jackson’s mother today was granted temporary custody of the children, and hopes to be given full custody soon. There is no will, and Jackson died with half a billion dollars of debt. This is not over, not by a long shot.
Tomorrow, perhaps, I will visit his star on the Walk of Fame. Not to see the star, per se, but to watch the well-wishers and to document their uncritical and undying love for the complex man and entertainer that was Michael Jackson.
Since it was announced that President Barack Obama was going to be giving the commencement address for the 2009 graduating class of Notre Dame, the Vatican has been deafeningly silent. Close observers interpreted this silence as tacit approval of the Obama administration, and as a friendly opening for dialogue. This contrasted sharply with the outspokenness of a small group of Conservative Catholics (both among the laity and hierarchy) who have been against the President’s visit and the honorary degree the school was going to give him. Again, this was a small group, only 28% of Catholics, while half of Catholics approved of the President’s address and the remaining 22% not having an opinion either way. A recent poll also shows that 67% of Catholics approve of the way President Obama has run the country. Last November, 54% of Catholics voted for Barack Obama.
Ah, but the Vatican has ended its silence, which might prove problematic for Conservative Catholics.
Giuseppe Fiorentino, writing in the Vatican’s newspaper L’Osservatore Romano, has concluded that President Barack Obama has been a somewhat cautious leader, not the radical socialist Conservatives had portrayed him as. Fiorentino also cites Obama’s approaches to the economy and banking regulations, which have not been exactly bold; in other words, he has not used this as an opportunity to lead the U.S. towards socialism.
Obama’s stance on so-called “life issues” has not been as “apocalyptic” as some U.S. Catholic leaders have suggested, according to the paper. “The new guidelines regarding research on embryonic stem cells do not in fact follow the change of course planned months ago. They do not allow the creation of new embryos for research purposes or therapeutic cloning for reproductive purposes, and federal funds may only be used for experimentation with redundant embryos,” Fiorentino writes. “The search for common ground seems to be the road chosen by the President of the United States, Barack Obama, to confront the sensitive abortion issue,” L’Osservatore says. Instead of confronting his opponents, Obama has shown that he wants to engage in a positive dialogue and find “common ground.” They are also heartened to hear that he does not intend to pursue ultra-liberal laws regarding abortion.
The paper also noted President Obama’s intention to include a “conscience clause” in the Freedom of Choice Act, which would allow doctors who are morally opposed to abortion to refuse participation in abortion procedures. In addition to seeking dialogue, the President, Fiorentino writes, also wants to reduce the number of abortions, which includes a plan to facilitate the adoption process, and providing health care for women who do decide to keep their unborn child.
This article has been yet another positive sign from the Vatican, following its early May issue entitled Obama in the White House: The Hundred Days the Didn’t Shake the World.
Here is the full article:
Obama in the White House
The hundred days that didn’t shake the world
One thousand three hundred sixty-one days separate Barack Obama from the end of his mandate. No one can know nor imagine what will happen in this time. In fact, many analysts describe the “occupation” of the president as a reactive one. Planned political strategy leaves the post — as the case of the Bush presidency after 11 September 2001 proves — to choices dictated by events.
In another perspective, this 29 April marks a hundred days of the first African-American president in the White House, traditionally a much-awaited point for an initial assessment, however inevitably partial. But rivers of ink have already flowed over these weeks that, according to many commentators, they’ve signified a decisive turn from the past, a redefinition of the very image of the United States in the world.
It might be that this capacity to communicate is one of the great traits of the president, recalling that of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Like the architect of the New Deal, Obama utilizes the modern media — radio then, internet today — to spread the message of hope which the nation needs. The great crisis of 1929 can’t be compared to the current one. And still the imprint seems the same. So too the ability of shifting the attention of public opinion in a pragmatic and functional way.
In these months Obama has seen his popularity grow only by having opened the doors to changes: he proposed direct negotiations with Iran to resolve the question of Tehran’s nuclear program and invited Russia to new discussions for the reduction of its strategic arsenals. Above all, he’s proposed a different role for the United States on the American continent, beginning to imagine new relations with Cuba. But in other and more concrete international scenarios, continuity in respect to the past is anything but compromised. Like in Iraq, where the administration is applying the exit strategy begun by Bush, and in Afghanistan. Here — Obama declared — is found the new front of the fight against terrorism. New only to a point, as it was in Afghanistan where the first US military intervention after September 11 took place. And not everything as a wish for discontinuity can be seen by the retention of Robert Gates at the helm of the Pentagon.
Even when, opening to Cuba, he’s broken a taboo, Obama isn’t much moved from his predecessors in the request for tangible signs on the part of Havana.
Similar evaluations can be made for the economic stimulus undertaken by the president. It’s been accused of excessive statism by some, if not placing the country on the path to socialism. A calmer analysis, however, notes that Obama moves with caution: very reluctant in the face of the nationalization of financial institutions, he opened the private sector to his plan to save credit institutions. Revealing, according to the International Herald Tribune, an unexpected similarity with Ronald Reagan, the president who placed a flag for the state’s retreat from the private sector. And much more statism revealed itself in the final months of the Bush-Paulson team with the partial nationalization of the titans of property lending, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Even on ethical questions — which, from the electoral campaign, have been the forceful concern of the Catholic episcopate — Obama doesn’t seem to have confirmed the radical changes he had aired. The new guidelines regarding embryonic stem-cell research don’t, in fact, line up with the changes foreseen months ago. They don’t permit the creation of new embryos for purposes of research or therapy, for cloning or reproductive ends, and federal funds may be used solely for experimentation with surplus embryos. These don’t remove the motives for criticism in the face of unacceptable forms of bioengineering that contrast with the human identity of the embryo, but the new regulations are less permissive.
A certain surprise has otherwise come about in these days through a bill designed by the Democratic party: the Pregnant Women Support Act would move to limit the number of abortions in the United States through initiatives of aid for distressed women. It’s not a negation of the doctrine until now expressed by Obama on matters of the interruption of pregnancy, but the legislative project could represent a rebalancing in support of motherhood.
Signals of innovations in the Obama administration are undeniable. Above all on matters of the care of environment and in particular the partnership that seems born with Beijing. But maybe it’s early to talk of revolution or imbalance in judgment, whether positive or negative. These hundred days have not shaken the world. Better to await the next one thousand three hundred sixty-one.
I recently wrote about a local figure and a family friend named Ted Zenich, who was diagnosed with ALS in the last year. His battle against the debilitating disease came to an end on Friday, May 15th. His daughter commented on the blog piece:
Thank you for your thoughts and prayers regarding our Dad Ted. As I am sure you have heard, Ted passed away on Friday May 15th, peacfully at home. Your article was very touching and really appreciated. Please feel free to contact us via email if you would like. Memorial Service will be on Thursday May 21, 2009 from 12:00 to 5:00 at the VFW Lodge on Battles.
Thank you again.
I would also like to ask people to keep Ted and his family in your thoughts and prayers. If you want to learn more about ALS, or donate money to research, click on the following links:
First of all, for those who are unaware, I am a practicing Catholic. Now…
Conservative Catholics have lost their minds. They have confused their faith with their extreme right-wing ideology. These wayward souls have even gone so far as to align themselves with right-wing Christian groups who hate the Catholic Church, have likened the Pope to the anti-christ, and regard the Church as inherently evil. Have these Catholic Conservatives no shame? Do they not realize that they have made a pact with people who hate them and are only using them for political gain?
The reason I write this today is because President Barack Obama gave the commencement address at Notre Dame, where he was also given an honorary degree. Conservative Catholics, along with their right-wing Christian/Republican friends, have gone mad over this development. Michael Steele, the Republican National Committee Chairman, said it was “inappropriate” for Notre Dame to give Obama an honorary degree. Other U.S.Catholic leaders have rebuked Notre Dame for its invitation of President Barack Obama and intend to boycott his visit to the University. The president of the Catholic League, Bill Donahue, was quite vocal in his opposition to the President’s presence at Notre Dame, saying, “To give him an honorary degree would be like Howard University giving David Duke a degree in racial politics.” Donahue, keep in mind, is a flaming Republican, who rarely speaks out against the shortcomings of Conservative politicians. Only 55 American Bishops (roughly 20%) have complained about Obam’s address, as have some Cardinals including James Francis Stafford. He has gone so far as to say that Obama has “an agenda and vision that are aggressive, disruptive and apocalyptic.” Strong words, but do they reflect reality?
The protests against the President’s address at Notre Dame included Alan Keyes, and other Republican figures. As many as 39 people have been arrested because of the address, including Norma McCorvey, better known as “Roe,” the plaintiff in the Roe v. Wade case that made abortion legal. She has since become a pro-life activist. Protesters, including Keyes, were pushing strollers containing dolls covered in fake blood. Among those who were arrested was a Priest, who complained aloud, “Notre Dame is arresting a priest. Why are you arresting a priest for trying to stop the killing of a baby? You’ve got it all backward.” Well, apparently trespassing is illegal, and that was why he was arrested, along with Keyes. Many of the critics of the decision to invite the President have also called for the resignation of Notre Dame’s President Rev. John I. Jenkins, gathering some 360,000 online signatures. Though the protests and criticisms have been strong, Jenkins has been quiet and resolved. He did, however, put out a statement: In a statement well before the ceremony, Jenkins wrote that the invitation: This “does not mean we support all of his positions … [on] abortion and embryonic stem cell research.”
In what appears to be a somewhat silent break with American Catholic officials, the Vatican has been mum on the controversy. In late April, for instance, the Vatican’s official newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, essentially chastised the American Catholic leadership for exaggerated “forceful concerns”. The document, though pointing out differences with President Obama, seems to be reaching out to the new President: “On ethical questions, too — which from the time of the electoral campaign have been the subject of strong worries by the Catholic bishops — Obama does not seem to have confirmed the radical innovations that he had discussed.” In other words, he is not the radical they worried about initially. Indeed, the Vatican seems more interested in building stronger ties to Jewish and Muslim communites, as well as encouraging progress on peace in the middle-east. Since Obama’s election, the Vatican has shown signs that they are quite impressed and enthusiastic about the new President, and their silence on this issue is yet another sign that the Vatican is looking forward to working with this administration on a range of issues including, Global Climate Change, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, combating poverty, encouraging fairer economic policies for poor families, health care, a living wage, working with women who are pregnant in order to help them choose life over abortion, and a whole host of other issues.
In short, the Vatican and the Obama administration have far more issues in common than issues that divide them.
The same is true of Catholic American laity. 67% of Catholics approve of the way he is running the country, according to a Pew Poll. Pew also found that half of American Catholics supported Notre Dame’s invitation of Obama, while only 28% opposed the invitation. 22% had no opinion. Just as a reminder, it is also important to remember that Obama won 54% of the Catholic vote in November’s election. Again, it is the small, albeit vocal, group of Conservative Catholics who confuse their allegiance to the GOP with their faith that are opposed to Obama’s commencement address.
As President Barack Obama took the stage and began his speech before the 12,000 people, there were some boos, which were interrupted and quieted by the graduating class and commencement audience. One heckler was likewise heckled until silenced. Before he spoke, Rev. Jenkins praised the President for his ability to speak with people who disagree with him, unlike those “who [stop] talking to those who disagree with him.” This was a not-so subtle jab at those who opposed Obama’s address. As the President spoke, he was supported with cheers, loud applause, and standing ovations. Many students had the words “Viva Obama” written on their caps. Critics wondered what Obama could possibly say, assuming, I suppose, that being pro-choice would only confound him whilst among a pro-life audience. Instead, as the President often does, he reached out to the critics, offering an opportunity for “fair minded” discussions about abortion. Striking a different tone than those zealots who would shut him up, he also highlighted their similarities: “Let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions. Let’s reduce unintended pregnancies. Let’s make adoption more available. Let’s provide care and support for women who do carry their child to term.” He recognized that “no matter how much we want to fudge it … the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable,” but he urged that people stop “reducing those with differing views to caricature. Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words. It’s a way of life that always has been the Notre Dame tradition.” “I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away,” the president said. “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.” His speech was quite inspiring, and it demonstrates the President’s commitment to bridging the gap between “enemies” with communication. He’s a uniter, not a divider.
But it was not only the President asking for “fair-minded” discussions, the Valedictorian, Brennan Bollman, (in an interview with the Huffington Post) said that “this issue has not divided the campus by any means,” because the President is bringing “everyone to the table.” In response to those Catholics who have seen red over the President’s address, Bollman responded: “We know exactly what it is to be Catholic because we are inviting President Obama to speak to us.” She even went as far as to say that President Obama has “given [respect] to human life through many of his policies,” adding that many of his policies reflected Catholic values: “President Obama takes a lot of pro-life positions. I don’t think that he is strongly pro-abortion.”
Catholics, like myself, are proud of the President’s speech. We’ll see how the Conservatives will respond.
Below is the full text of the address:
Well, first of all, congratulations, Class of 2009. Congratulations to all the parents, the cousins — the aunts, the uncles — all the people who helped to bring you to the point that you are here today. Thank you so much to Father Jenkins for that extraordinary introduction, even though you said what I want to say much more elegantly. You are doing an extraordinary job as president of this extraordinary institution. Your continued and courageous — and contagious — commitment to honest, thoughtful dialogue is an inspiration to us all.
Good afternoon. To Father Hesburgh, to Notre Dame trustees, to faculty, to family: I am honored to be here today. And I am grateful to all of you for allowing me to be a part of your graduation.
And I also want to thank you for the honorary degree that I received. I know it has not been without controversy. I dont know if youre 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. So, Father Ted, after the ceremony, maybe you can give me some pointers to boost my average.
I also want to congratulate the Class of 2009 for all your accomplishments. And since this is Notre Dame …
(Speech is interrupted by anti-abortion protesters.)
We’re fine, everybody. We’re following Brennans adage that we dont do things easily. We’re not going to shy away from things that are uncomfortable sometimes.
Now, since this is Notre Dame I think we should talk not only about your accomplishments in the classroom, but also in the competitive arena. No, dont worry, I’m not going to talk about that. 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.” Congratulations. Well done. Though I have to say, I am personally disappointed that the “Barack OBallers” did not pull it out this year. So 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 sit 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. You have a different deal. Your class has come of age at a moment of great consequence for our nation and for 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’s a privilege and a responsibility afforded to few generations — and a task that youre now called to fulfill.
This generation, your generation is the one that must find a path back to prosperity and decide how we respond to a global economy that left millions behind even before the most recent 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.
Your generation must decide how to save God’s creation from a changing climate that threatens to destroy it. Your generation 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, diversity of culture, and diversity of belief.
In short, we must find a way to live together as one human family. And it’s this last challenge that Id like to talk about today, despite the fact that Father John stole all my best lines. 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 — these things 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 greater 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. And 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 here in this country and 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 that you’ve received here at Notre Dame is that you’ve had time to consider these wrongs in the world; perhaps recognized impulses in yourself that you want to leave behind. You’ve 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, bringing together men and women of principle and purpose — even accomplishing that 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 an 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 — 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, as Father John said, demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side?
And of course, 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 e-mail from a doctor who told me that while he voted for me in the Illinois 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 was not what was preventing him potentially from voting for me.
What bothered the doctor was an entry that my campaign staff had posted on my Web site — an entry that said I would fight “right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman’s right to choose.” The doctor said he had assumed I was a reasonable person, he supported my policy initiatives to help the poor and to lift up our educational system, 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 I thanked him. And I didn’t change my underlying position, but I did tell my staff to change the words on my Web site. 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 up our hearts and our minds to those who may not think precisely like we do or believe precisely what we believe — 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 heart-wrenching decision for any woman is not made casually, it has both moral and spiritual dimensions.”
So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions, let’s reduce unintended pregnancies. Let’s make adoption more available. Let’s provide care and support for women who do carry their children 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 not only in sound science, but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of women.” Those are things we can do.
Now, understand — understand, Class of 2009, I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. Because 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. A 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 coexist with friendship, civility, hospitality, and especially love.” And I want to join him and Father John in saying how inspired I am by the maturity and responsibility with which this class has approached the debate surrounding today’s ceremony. You are an example of what Notre Dame is about.
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.
You see, 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. And 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.
And it was quite an eclectic crew — Catholic and Protestant churches, Jewish and African American organizers, working-class black, 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 these 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 was really broke and they fed me. Perhaps because I witnessed all of the good works their faith inspired them to perform, I found myself drawn not just to the work with the church; I was drawn to be in the church. It was through this service that I was brought to Christ.
And at the time, Cardinal Joseph Bernardin was the Archbishop of Chicago. For those of you too young to have known him or known of 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 and 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 hearts and minds.”
My heart and mind were touched by him. They were touched by the words and deeds of the men and women I worked alongside in parishes across Chicago. And Id 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.
Now, you, Class of 2009, are about to enter the next phase of your life at a time of great uncertainty. You’ll be called to help restore a free market that’s also fair to all who are willing to work. You’ll be called 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 simply someone who insists on being an active citizen, you will be exposed to more opinions and ideas broadcast through more means of communication than ever existed before. You’ll hear talking heads scream on cable, and you’ll read blogs that claim definitive knowledge, and you will watch politicians pretend they know what they’re talking about. Occasionally, you may have the great fortune of actually seeing important issues debated by people who do know what they’re talking about — by well-intentioned people with brilliant minds and mastery of the facts. In fact, I suspect that some of you will be among those brightest stars.
And 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. In other words, stand as a lighthouse.
But remember, too, that you can be a crossroads. Remember, too, that the ultimate irony of faith is that it necessarily admits doubt. It’s the belief in things not seen. It’s 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.
And this doubt should not push us away our faith. But it should humble us. It should temper our passions, cause us to be wary of too much self-righteousness. It should compel us to remain open and curious and eager to continue the spiritual and moral debate that began for so many of you within the walls of Notre Dame. And within our vast democracy, this doubt should remind us even as we cling to our faith 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 and charity and 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’s 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. The call 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 percent — have lived this law of love through the service you’ve performed at schools and hospitals; international relief agencies and local charities. Brennan is just one example of what your class has accomplished. That’s incredibly impressive, 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, even for a moment, to work in common effort toward a common goal; when they struggle together, and sacrifice together, and learn from one another — then 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. Board of Education. Now, 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 12 resolutions recommended by this commission that would ultimately become law in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
There were six members of this 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. So 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. And finally, when they reached an impasse in Louisiana, Father Ted flew them all to Notre Dame’s retreat in Land OLakes, Wisconsin — where they eventually overcame their differences and hammered out a final deal.
And 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 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 — because 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, the same fulfillment of a life well lived. Remember that in the end, in some way 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, Class of 2009. May God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.
.jpg)
Recent Comments