Today President Barack Obama will address the 2009 graduating class of Notre Dame University in South Bend, Indiana. Can you imagine, many years later, being able to say that a sitting president of the United States of America gave the commencement address at your graduation? Wow! What an honor. The leader of the most powerful nation in the world!
All week long demonstrators at Notre Dame University in South Bend, Indiana have been protesting over President Obama’s pro-choice stance and his view on stem cell research. So far, 19 have been arrested. While there have been some student protests during the past few weeks, those arrested have been non-students. The moment they come on to school property, they are arrested. Who are these protestors? From all appearances, they are a hodgepodge of followers of Randall Terry who used to lead Operation Rescue. Some readers will remember the group that blockaded women’s clinics, chained themselves to medical equipment and cars, harassed patients and kept patients from entering and exiting the clinics.
In 2005, many members from this same group descended on Pinellas County, Florida, to protest removing Terry Schiavo’s feeding tube. Schiavo had been in a persistent vegetative state for seven years.
In addition to the remaining stragglers of Operation Rescue, former presidential candidate Alan Keyes is there making his statement as well as priests, bishops and other clergy. Norma McCorvey, the original Jane Roe in the Roe vs. Wade decision, is also there speaking badly of the president. Some are protesting that President Obama was even invited to speak. Others are protesting that he will be given an honorary degree from Notre Dame because he does not represent the Church’s values. It appears to be a real three ring circus.
Seven other distinguished Americans will receive honorary degrees along with Obama. They represent many different walks of life and philosophies. Notre Dame is to be commended for its endeavor to broaden minds rather than stifle knowledge; it is, after all, a university of distinction with a strong academic reputation. Schools like Notre Dame encourage thinking and do not turn out cookie cutter graduates who simply regurgitate facts. Academicians of national and international stature proudly claim Notre Dame as their alma mater.
According to Time Magazine:
Three-quarters of Catholics either approve of or offer no opinion on Notre Dame’s decision to invite Obama, and the same percentage of U.S. bishops have opted to stay out of the fight. However, for a small but vocal group of conservative Catholics, the episode has become an opportunity to draw lines between those who are genuinely Catholic and those whom they accuse of being Catholic in name only — even the head of the country’s premier Catholic university.
Those attempting to influence the university should be ashamed of themselves. Surely the Catholic Church does not want to be seen publicly as the ‘thought police.’ The world will be watching tomorrow to see the kind of respect given to all the dignitaries. Some of the protestors are asking where the prominent Republicans are. They have stayed away. They have more class than to show up with this bunch of rowdies.
The protestors seem to have no respect for the Office of the President. The circus has indeed come to town. Hopefully, the focus will remain on those who are graduating rather than the uninvited clowns.
That was not rude Moon, that was simply a statement of facts. You said you had seen no paybacks to Acorn. I said I would make less long comments if you did your research first before taking such a position.
Again that is not rude or arrogant in any way, it is a statement of fact and lack of research.
What is my position, Michael? I dont have a position. My position is in the thread. You know..Notre Dame antics?
What has Obama given Acorn? No one can answer that apparently.
@Michael:
That’s pretty darn rude in my world. So was the comment about me being in a cave or whatever little small minded snipe you said.
The position I took was stated at the beginning of the thread. I doubt very seriously if you have done anywhere near the research I have done on the thread topic.
The bottom line is this, it isn’t up to me to research whatever tripe you chose to put up.
I do think that most personal opinions are formed from what people hear in the news. Not many people have the time to do in depth research, and if they did how would they know the information isn’t biased? Each side of an argument has some good points at time, and it’s this problem of things never being quite black and white that keeps us from making a decision one way or the other. It’s like a murder trial where it is overwhelmingly obvious that someone did it based on circumstantial evidence yet the defense sheds doubt on each point to where the mind becomes paralyzed. This is why society never takes action where action is obviously needed. We are so afraid of doing something that 10 years later will be considered incorrect even though it was agreed upon at the time as being the proper thing to do. Complete paralysis with never ending debate!
Second Alamo, I think you have made an excellent point. Someone will always be applying 20/20 hindsight though–and it is often so brutal.
Janet Reno and Waco popped into my mind as I was reading your comment as an example of what happens.
Moon I think you are being way too over-reactive. A “position” is something people say on this blog, whatever point of view that is. It is a Pentagon term, for those of you who have been former Pentagon staff officers such as myself. It is a “viewpoint”, backed up by facts from which you offer a debate about the truthfulness or lack of truth about another person’s statements (written or verbal). Debate is how objectivity is achieved. Objectivity is how good decisions are reached. I’ve had 5 years of Pentagon training, and 25 years of operational staff training on the process of reaching good decisions, countering politics, exposing lack of knowledge, disortion of truth, exaggerations, hyperbole, rhetoric and misleading “half-truths”.
If you are always hyper-insulted about everything a persons says like “what rock have you been under” which is a common saying meaning “where have you been?”, then you are not likely listening to the truths that other people are saying to you. If you can’t listen and respond to truth, then you have no valid argument in a debate, only emotional rhetoric, and character asassination as a defense mechanism.
In response to your curiosity, I am both for and against Obama. He is a complex man, extremely brilliant, and very objective. He also has a weak side, that you see come out in the form of “excessive” agenda pushing, without fully thinking through the consequences and before he has all the facts. His recent decision reversals, on his campaign issues are examples of that weakness, and “fire, aim, ready” approach to issues he is passionate about. That is a result if his leadership inexperience. In many ways I admire himn, I believe he can and will fix many “ethical corruption” issues in this country, because he is very smart and for the most part ethical. His practical side will also cause him to pause in his beliefs and listen to others then make a decision that may be a reversal from his previous, un-researched rhetoric or beliefs. His inexperience and passions to help “low income” people while destroying “middle income” America in order to help foreigners first, and assume no nation is ever your enemy, is a weakness that can destroy this nation and its Democratic wisdom.
Michael, if you only knew how many of these topics I don’t give a rat’s ass about, you would be surprised. I have very little emotion about many of our topics. However, faking it gets the job done, now doesn’t it. Maybe its a woman thing…..
Perhaps the Pentagon doesn’t know that asking a person what rock they have been under is way of telling a person that they are stupid and uninformed. Or perhaps you do know. I consider that as rude as me telling you that you are full of sh!t.
If your own argument has merit, you don’t need to ask me what rock I have been hiding under. That has nothing to do with the discussion. It isn’t necessary to say. In other words, don’t.
Now your in-different, condescending, callous side is coming out. Is this the real political you?
I am simply saying that if you perceive my responses or threads emotion-laden, I often really have very little opinion one way or the other. Some things I care about, some things I don’t. My main point is that you have been rude to me.
Do you really think it wins friends and influences people for someone to ask what rock you have been under? Michael, you don’t talk to people like they are equals. Even if you are totally convinced you are better and smarter than the rest of us, fake it! pretend we are all on the same level.
If I have been rude I apologize, but you deserved it, since you attacked first. If you don’t want to receive it, don’t dish it out. I have never fired at you unless you have fired at me first, and you can see that in every thread I have dealt with regarding people who have personally attacked me that I have not personally attacked them first.
When you, Alanna, or elena or anyone else attacks me personaly first, you will discover that I will take each of you on and hold you personally accountable, but I have never been the first to attack anyone personally.
When I have something to say counter to a person’s posts, I say it to the world at large and not to them directly. Review my posts and you will see this to be true.
Michael, it seems we are at cross purposes. you believe I attack you and I believe you attack me or at least jab at me. Perhaps you don’t realize you are doing it.
Let’s just erase the slate clean and everyone try to be a little more cautious about what they say.
I think I have struck out when you assume I feel one way and I might not feel that way at all. I often put up threads I don’t have a point of view on. Stay tuned for one that exemplifies that.
agreed…
It is possible that sometimes I do not think what I say would bother anyone, it is certainly not intentional when I’m duscussing the truth or falsehood of “issues”, but somehow pointing out that I disagree with you, I have discovered also has a tendency to upsets you. I will do my best to disagree, without triggering your anger that I disagree. For those cases I apoligize. But I still get the sense that you typicaly escalate first, which triggers my direct responses to refute you.
Again I will do my best, because we can’t always agree. I do admire your “nature” however, most of the time you are polite and respectful, and we tend to agree on many of the same issues, unless it pertains to “giving illegals green card rights, by proclaimation” . If that is not the right way to say it, then someday I’ll try to figure out what you “really” want for illegals, that I do not want.