With the recent news that the Beatles are coming out with their own version of Guitar Hero, I thought it would be fun to delve into the age old argument of who was better, John Lennon or Paul McCartney. Of course it's difficult to judge them just by their Beatles songs because at a certain point their songwriting partnership was in name only. So even though all Beatles songs written by Paul or John have both their names attached, the truth is, in later years, their co-writing credits were merely contractual. You could narrow the argument by accepting that the songs that John sang lead on (Come Together, Don't Let Me Down) were his and likewise the tunes that Paul sang (Let It Be, Get Back). But I think it's more interesting to look at their post Beatles careers to settle the matter. For the purpose of argument, we will restrict the discussion to the time period from 1970 (John's first post Beatles solo release) to 1984 when the last of John's singles hit the chart after his untimely death.
During this time Paul was the more prolific recording artist. He released (solo or with Wings) 13 albums during this stretch to John's 7. Paul also lapped John in top 40 hits 31 to 16. So on quantity it's Paul in a landslide. But we're not talking quantity we're talking quality and by this measure it's John--hands down. To illustrate the point I'm going to stick to the three C's. Collaborations, Christmas songs, and Cojones.
First, collaborations. Paul's most noted collaborations between 71-84 were with Stevie Wonder and Michael Jackson. And what you will find is that he brought out the worst in both of them. In Stevie's case, he and Paul got together to record the insipid, vapid ode to racial harmony, "Ebony and Ivory." The only time Stevie was less cool was on his mega hit "I Just Called To Say I Love You." Both Stevie and Paul have a tendency to lean towards saccharine sentimentality and together they not only breached the boundaries of bad taste but they both came off as simpletons. Really, just hum that damn song in your head and you may just start wishing for the south to rise again. However, as bad as "Ebony" is, "The Girl Is Mine" with Michael Jackson is even worse. I mean can you really picture these two guys getting in a twist over the same girl? And can you imagine a more cloying tune? "Girl" makes their other duet ("Say, Say, Say") seem downright revolutionary in comparison. When the truth is "Say" is nothing but a light pop throwaway. But at least it doesn't make you sick. "Ebony" and "Girl" are why your mom and dad tell you that too much sugar is bad for you when you're little.
Now John only had two major collaborations during his solo career but they were both better (in one case infinitely) than Paul's. The first was "Whatever Gets You Through The Night" with Elton John. While neither was at the peak of their powers on this track, it's a rollicking, highly engaging pop tune with a great twin vocal. But the real feather in John's cap is the legendary single he cut with David Bowie, "Fame." A song so good that it's one of two songs by white artists on the Soul Train box set. "Fame " has everything, edge, groove, and style. Put this up against "Ebony" or "Girl." I dare you.
Paul and John also recorded a hit Christmas song each as solo artists. Paul's holiday contribution is "Wonderful Christmas Time." One of the worst songs (forget Christmas) ever recorded by anyone. Every Christmas season when that song comes out the radio I genuinely feel physically ill. Take a look and listen and see if it's possible to hold your lunch. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9BZDpni56Y). On the other hand, we have John's "Happy Xmas (War Is Over). A topical , bracing Christmas tune that dared you to think of someone other than yourself or your immediate family. "Happy Xmas" is the template for all the socially conscious benefit songs you've heard since. Just imagine "Do they Know it's Christmas" or "We Are The World" without "Happy Xmas." Impossible. In short, Paul just wanted you to simply have a wonderful Christmas time where John wanted you to change the world.
Lastly, we come to the most important C, cojones. John's got 'em and Paul pretty much doesn't. Let's compare John's 10 best solo tracks to Paul's from 71-84.
John Lennon:__________________Paul McCartney:
1) Imagine____________________1) Band On The Run
2) Watching The Wheels__________2) Live And Let Die
3) Happy Xmas (War is Over)______3) Maybe I'm Amazed
4) Cold Turkey_________________4) Take It Away
5) Instant Karma_______________5) My Love
6) Mind Games_________________6) Jet
7) Give Peace A Chance____________7) Let 'Em In
8) Woman_____________________8) Coming Up
9) Just Like Starting Over__________9) Goodnight Tonight
10) Power To The People__________10) Helen Wheels
Now, to give Paul some credit, all 10 of those songs are at least good and his top three are genuinely great. But look at John's list. All 10 songs are unassailably great. Why is that you say? Cojones. John's top 10 songs are more immediate, edgier, and topical. Paul's top 10 is reliably tuneful but edgeless, (Live and Let Die accepted) and well, warm and fuzzy. So why was Paul so great with the Beatles but so pretty good after? Well, if John comes out of his songwriting room with "Come Together," Paul can't come back with"Silly Love Songs." No, he came back with "Helter Skelter." See John wasn't afraid to take chances (he married Yoko didn't he?) with either his sound or content. But Paul, he needs someone to push him. That's why some of his best later work was on his "Flowers and Dirt" album with Elvis Costello. You see, Elvis suffers no fools.
And neither did John Lennon.
Sumo-Pop
June 5, 2009
Thursday, May 21, 2009
The Trouble With White People
On May 28, 2009 Dennis Miller appeared on the Bill O'Reilly show on Fox. O'Reilly asked Miller a question unrelated to the appointment of Sonia Sotomayor to the supreme court by President Obama. Despite the fact that O'Reilly wasn't referring to Sotomayor, Miller launched into an offensive, stereotype filled "joke" by putting a flower between his teeth and saying that he would be able to answer the question better if he were a Latina woman. Here's a link to Miller's "performance."http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fNMgv0sUPc. Clearly, Miller is referring to Sotomayor's comment that, in some cases, she would like to think that as a Latina woman she could make better decisions from the bench than a white male. She made these comments referring to cases of discrimination against minorities that might come before her. She also went on to say that many times in the past (Brown vs. the Board of Education for one) White male judges have done just fine. So in context she was simply stating that her life experience offers her a viewpoint that may be unique to others. Now Miller's "joke" got me to thinking about the trouble with white people.
After 230 plus years of running this country, a lot of white folks seem to be running scared. They are afraid of a black president, of a latina supreme court justice, of minorities taking over sports (damn that Tiger Woods). In short, they seem to fear that their way of life may be passing them by. Well, in a word, good.
Let's look at the history of white people in this country. We came over by boat and nearly extinguished the indigenous people we found here. Seriously, when was the last time you met a native american? The settlers came here, feigned a desire to live peacefully with the indians then continually broke treaties, took their land, introduced them to alcohol, and damn near ran them into the pacific ocean. How did we try to make up for this? We gave them reservations. Reservations. Places where indians live in poverty, with no hope, and an alarmingly high suicide rate. Nowadays, we might throw in a casino. Swell.
So, after taking the country from the indians we doubled down on the oppression of other races by our involvement in the slave trade. Why did we need slaves? Well to build up the country we stole of course. Who do we want to pick that cotton? To serve us tea? Why black people of course. And after the civil war when Lincoln "freed" the slaves what was waiting for them? Supposedly 40 acres and a mule and the right to count as 1/3 of a person. Hell, we only came through on the second part and that was after lying about the 40 acres. We then followed up with "Jim Crow" laws in the south. Laws which led to continual oppression of black people by voter suppression, lynchings, and a life of poverty. It wasn't until the 1960s and the civil rights movement that we even started moving towards equality. Think of that, only 40 years ago the south practiced segregation. There are plenty of people who lived through that time. I know we younger white people think that if it happened before we were born that it doesn't count, but those are people's grandparents who suffered through that awful period.
And what of our European lily white brothers? Well, there's the holocaust, apartheid, and the colonization of India just to name a few. While were at it, let's not forget the australians and their treatment of the aborigines. To paraphrase George Carlin, "white people are the human erasers, see a color and try to get rid of it."
So we, like Dennis Miller are scared. Our eraser has worn down to the nub, there's a black guy in the white house, and now the supreme court is being infiltrated by the third non-white person in it's history. Gloom, despair and agony on we. God forbid, we may have to learn how to talk to those who don't look like us.
Sumo-Pop (pale pasty honkey, in case you wondered)
June 1, 2009
After 230 plus years of running this country, a lot of white folks seem to be running scared. They are afraid of a black president, of a latina supreme court justice, of minorities taking over sports (damn that Tiger Woods). In short, they seem to fear that their way of life may be passing them by. Well, in a word, good.
Let's look at the history of white people in this country. We came over by boat and nearly extinguished the indigenous people we found here. Seriously, when was the last time you met a native american? The settlers came here, feigned a desire to live peacefully with the indians then continually broke treaties, took their land, introduced them to alcohol, and damn near ran them into the pacific ocean. How did we try to make up for this? We gave them reservations. Reservations. Places where indians live in poverty, with no hope, and an alarmingly high suicide rate. Nowadays, we might throw in a casino. Swell.
So, after taking the country from the indians we doubled down on the oppression of other races by our involvement in the slave trade. Why did we need slaves? Well to build up the country we stole of course. Who do we want to pick that cotton? To serve us tea? Why black people of course. And after the civil war when Lincoln "freed" the slaves what was waiting for them? Supposedly 40 acres and a mule and the right to count as 1/3 of a person. Hell, we only came through on the second part and that was after lying about the 40 acres. We then followed up with "Jim Crow" laws in the south. Laws which led to continual oppression of black people by voter suppression, lynchings, and a life of poverty. It wasn't until the 1960s and the civil rights movement that we even started moving towards equality. Think of that, only 40 years ago the south practiced segregation. There are plenty of people who lived through that time. I know we younger white people think that if it happened before we were born that it doesn't count, but those are people's grandparents who suffered through that awful period.
And what of our European lily white brothers? Well, there's the holocaust, apartheid, and the colonization of India just to name a few. While were at it, let's not forget the australians and their treatment of the aborigines. To paraphrase George Carlin, "white people are the human erasers, see a color and try to get rid of it."
So we, like Dennis Miller are scared. Our eraser has worn down to the nub, there's a black guy in the white house, and now the supreme court is being infiltrated by the third non-white person in it's history. Gloom, despair and agony on we. God forbid, we may have to learn how to talk to those who don't look like us.
Sumo-Pop (pale pasty honkey, in case you wondered)
June 1, 2009
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Get Over It
Sometime in the near future, the next generation (within 20 years) is going to look at the current struggle of gays and lesbians and ask "what was that all about?" And they will be right. Why on earth are (some) straight people up in arms about this? The simple answer is religion. But here's the thing, no one's suggesting that churches be forced to marry anyone they don't want to . Look at the catholic church. They won't marry divorcee's without an anullment. Fine by me.
However, what gays and lesbians are really talking about is the legal contract of marriage and the rights that go along with it. Insurance rights, transferral of property, the right to visit your companion in the hospital for Pete's sake. The half measure offered by centrists is that of civil unions. Now if I were gay I'd take it before I'd walk away with nothing. But I'd be properly pissed about it. Much like "don't ask, don't tell," civil unions are a compromise to placate the "marriage can only be between a man and a woman" crowd. My question to these folks is why do you care? Just because you don't "like" something doesn't mean it should be illegal. Hell, everytime Glenn Beck opens his mouth I have to fight off a fit---yet I still believe in freedom of speech. Even his.
Furthermore, if you want gay marriage to be illegal then tell me who the injured party is? Are we so frail that we can't get out of the way of people trying to get on with there lives? Do we really think that straight people provide such a great example of how to manage a lifetime committment? I don't think so. The divorce rate is 50%. On top of that, how many couples stay together in spite of being miserable? Gay marriage activists will one day be looked at like members of the civil rights or women's suffragette movement. And the next generation will wonder why in the hell that was necessary in the first place.
Sumopop
May 21, 2009
However, what gays and lesbians are really talking about is the legal contract of marriage and the rights that go along with it. Insurance rights, transferral of property, the right to visit your companion in the hospital for Pete's sake. The half measure offered by centrists is that of civil unions. Now if I were gay I'd take it before I'd walk away with nothing. But I'd be properly pissed about it. Much like "don't ask, don't tell," civil unions are a compromise to placate the "marriage can only be between a man and a woman" crowd. My question to these folks is why do you care? Just because you don't "like" something doesn't mean it should be illegal. Hell, everytime Glenn Beck opens his mouth I have to fight off a fit---yet I still believe in freedom of speech. Even his.
Furthermore, if you want gay marriage to be illegal then tell me who the injured party is? Are we so frail that we can't get out of the way of people trying to get on with there lives? Do we really think that straight people provide such a great example of how to manage a lifetime committment? I don't think so. The divorce rate is 50%. On top of that, how many couples stay together in spite of being miserable? Gay marriage activists will one day be looked at like members of the civil rights or women's suffragette movement. And the next generation will wonder why in the hell that was necessary in the first place.
Sumopop
May 21, 2009
Monday, May 18, 2009
The Return of Michael Vick
---For Lily, Sarah, and Dusty
Soon, very soon, Michael Vick will be released from prison after serving 17 months for his dog fighting related conviction. Vick was originally sentenced to 23 months in december of 2007. Now the NFL has to figure out what to do with him. Do they extend his suspension from the sport, do they let him return with certain conditions, or do they bring him back with open arms? Sadly, painfully, I believe they should opt for the second choice. Let him return to the game but keep him on a short leash (no pun intended).
I was never a huge fan of Vick. Being a lifelong Miami Dolphins fan I don't often attach myself to athletes who don't play for my team. That being said, I loved to watch him play. He is the most unique athlete to ever play the quarterback position. His ability to turn a broken play into a 50 yard scamper leaving empty-armed defenders in his wake was something to behold. So, it was terribly disturbing to learn of his involvement in the heinous activity (it ain't no sport) of dog fighting.
Now I should reveal something about myself. I am a dog nut. I love my two-year-old walker hound like she's my child. Because to me she is. I find dog fighting and those involved to be vile and repugnant. The fact that Vick will only end up serving 17 months of his ridiculously short 23 month sentence is an outrage to me. There are many reasons why I detest the length of sentence that Vick received. For one, it wasn't just dog fighting--- it was racketeering and running a criminal operation. For two, the people involved in this endeavor are typically involved in other criminal activities as well. But the most significant issue to me is the treatment of the dogs.
Those who run dog fighting rings are guilty of crimes against nature. To take a dog, build up it's loyalty and then turn it loose on another dog is bad enough, but that's only part of the story. Aside from the fact that the dogs receive terrible and often fatal injuries in these contests, what often happens afterwards (should they survive) is even worse. These dogs are often killed by the very people who raised them once they have outlived their usefulness. This same treatment is reserved for dogs who don't show appropriate aggression. In the case of one of Vick's dogs--- who was deemed unfit for fighting--- the dog was slammed to the ground repeatedly. Another was hung from the neck until dead. But the non-aggressive dog may actually receive an even worse fate. That of a bait dog. These dogs are put in front of a more aggressive dog for "training" purposes. The handler will often hold food back from the fighting dog and antagonize the animal until good and angry and then place the "weaker" dog in front of it and let it release his/her aggression. There are even documented cases of family pets being stolen from backyards to serve in this capacity.
There is also the issue of what this has done to the most popular fighting breed, the pitbull. Contrary to popular belief, these dogs are not naturally aggressive. What they are most known for in breeder and veterinarian circles is their easy loyalty to their owners. This coupled with their powerful physique and jaws makes them an unfortunate, but natural choice for dog fighting. This has understandably led to misconceptions about the breed. In fact, in the city of Detroit, if a pitbull is taken in by animal control for any reason--- that dog will be euthanized, aggressive or not.
So this is what Michael Vick was a part of. What kind of person must he be? I've heard the excuse that it's part of his "culture." That the activity has been passed down from other family members and that he is only following tradition. Bullshit. It's a crime. A horrible crime.
So how then can I accept his return to professional football? Well, because in this country once you serve your sentence you should be able to look for and find meaningful work. What Vick did had nothing to do with the NFL. He wasn't caught using performance enhancing drugs. He wasn't caught shaving points or gambling. He was caught dog fighting. And as awful and painful as it is for me to admit, one thing has nothing to do with the other. Now certainly Commissioner Goodell has the right to place limitations on Vick in regards to any future trouble he may get into. If Vick should run afoul of the law after reentering the NFL then I would expect the punishment to be swift and severe. But he should be allowed to return.
However, it is my hope that no owner of any NFL franchise would deem his athletic gifts worthy of risking the team's public relations. I can't possibly imagine the type of protests that would greet Vick at each stadium he would enter or why an owner would want to subject their team to this reaction. But I am certain someone will take that risk if they think he will help them win. So go ahead bring him back. But know this, your franchise will become the most hated by many fans including myself. And if the Miami Dolphins decide to add Michael Vick to their roster, I will have a new favorite team every week. Whoever suits up against them.
Sumopop
May 18, 2009
Soon, very soon, Michael Vick will be released from prison after serving 17 months for his dog fighting related conviction. Vick was originally sentenced to 23 months in december of 2007. Now the NFL has to figure out what to do with him. Do they extend his suspension from the sport, do they let him return with certain conditions, or do they bring him back with open arms? Sadly, painfully, I believe they should opt for the second choice. Let him return to the game but keep him on a short leash (no pun intended).
I was never a huge fan of Vick. Being a lifelong Miami Dolphins fan I don't often attach myself to athletes who don't play for my team. That being said, I loved to watch him play. He is the most unique athlete to ever play the quarterback position. His ability to turn a broken play into a 50 yard scamper leaving empty-armed defenders in his wake was something to behold. So, it was terribly disturbing to learn of his involvement in the heinous activity (it ain't no sport) of dog fighting.
Now I should reveal something about myself. I am a dog nut. I love my two-year-old walker hound like she's my child. Because to me she is. I find dog fighting and those involved to be vile and repugnant. The fact that Vick will only end up serving 17 months of his ridiculously short 23 month sentence is an outrage to me. There are many reasons why I detest the length of sentence that Vick received. For one, it wasn't just dog fighting--- it was racketeering and running a criminal operation. For two, the people involved in this endeavor are typically involved in other criminal activities as well. But the most significant issue to me is the treatment of the dogs.
Those who run dog fighting rings are guilty of crimes against nature. To take a dog, build up it's loyalty and then turn it loose on another dog is bad enough, but that's only part of the story. Aside from the fact that the dogs receive terrible and often fatal injuries in these contests, what often happens afterwards (should they survive) is even worse. These dogs are often killed by the very people who raised them once they have outlived their usefulness. This same treatment is reserved for dogs who don't show appropriate aggression. In the case of one of Vick's dogs--- who was deemed unfit for fighting--- the dog was slammed to the ground repeatedly. Another was hung from the neck until dead. But the non-aggressive dog may actually receive an even worse fate. That of a bait dog. These dogs are put in front of a more aggressive dog for "training" purposes. The handler will often hold food back from the fighting dog and antagonize the animal until good and angry and then place the "weaker" dog in front of it and let it release his/her aggression. There are even documented cases of family pets being stolen from backyards to serve in this capacity.
There is also the issue of what this has done to the most popular fighting breed, the pitbull. Contrary to popular belief, these dogs are not naturally aggressive. What they are most known for in breeder and veterinarian circles is their easy loyalty to their owners. This coupled with their powerful physique and jaws makes them an unfortunate, but natural choice for dog fighting. This has understandably led to misconceptions about the breed. In fact, in the city of Detroit, if a pitbull is taken in by animal control for any reason--- that dog will be euthanized, aggressive or not.
So this is what Michael Vick was a part of. What kind of person must he be? I've heard the excuse that it's part of his "culture." That the activity has been passed down from other family members and that he is only following tradition. Bullshit. It's a crime. A horrible crime.
So how then can I accept his return to professional football? Well, because in this country once you serve your sentence you should be able to look for and find meaningful work. What Vick did had nothing to do with the NFL. He wasn't caught using performance enhancing drugs. He wasn't caught shaving points or gambling. He was caught dog fighting. And as awful and painful as it is for me to admit, one thing has nothing to do with the other. Now certainly Commissioner Goodell has the right to place limitations on Vick in regards to any future trouble he may get into. If Vick should run afoul of the law after reentering the NFL then I would expect the punishment to be swift and severe. But he should be allowed to return.
However, it is my hope that no owner of any NFL franchise would deem his athletic gifts worthy of risking the team's public relations. I can't possibly imagine the type of protests that would greet Vick at each stadium he would enter or why an owner would want to subject their team to this reaction. But I am certain someone will take that risk if they think he will help them win. So go ahead bring him back. But know this, your franchise will become the most hated by many fans including myself. And if the Miami Dolphins decide to add Michael Vick to their roster, I will have a new favorite team every week. Whoever suits up against them.
Sumopop
May 18, 2009
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Three Cheers For Old Notre Dame?
So today is the day that President Barack Obama was honored with an honorary degree and served as the commencement speaker for the University of Notre Dame's class of 2009. Now before I get too deeply into the controversy surrounding the school's invitation to President Obama I must make a couple of things clear. I do not come at this subject as a non-partisan or maybe even all that objectively. You see, I am an ardent supporter of our current president. My wife and myself walked the streets of our hometown registering voters on behalf of the Obama campaign, we went to rallies and gave money too. However, that does not mean I always agree with the 44th president. While I applaud his discontinuation of "enhanced interrogation techniques" (torture), I do not agree that those who committed or ordered the use of these methods should not be prosecuted. I agree with the president regarding civil unions for gay couples but differ with his opinion that gays should not be allowed to marry. And I worry that his efforts to end the war in Iraq may be moving at too slow a pace. That being said, President Obama has at least met me half way on these issues where we have differences.
Which brings me to today's events at Notre Dame. I have always believed that one of the main reasons you go to college is to figure out who you are and what you believe. I also believe the way you do that is to be exposed to those who may differ with you, to hear them out, share your beliefs and then see where you stand. Today Notre Dame honored President Obama. A man whose opinion that abortion should be legal is in opposition to catholic doctrine. And because of this, a sizable number of catholics and conservatives have chosen to protest his invitation if not his very existence. I wonder where these folks were when President Bush spoke to students in 2001. You know, the guy who believes in the death penalty so fervantly that as the Governor of Texas he allowed the execution of people who many considered to be mentally retarded. I lived in South Bend then and don't recall nearly so much of an uproar. Now while I find the death penalty dispicable for many reasons (unfairness in it's adjudication being one), I am certainly not alone. In fact it is against catholic doctrine as well. I also don't recall a stink being raised when Condeleeza Rice was given an honorary degree and who is also pro-choice. So, what gives here?
Being no fan of the procedure myself, I respect the views of those who are against abortion. What I don't understand is the absolute disregard they have for those that disagree with them. If they would take a closer look at President Obama's position on abortion I think they might find much to agree with. For starters, he believes that abortion is a tragic decision that has profound psychological and spiritual impact. He believes that through education and assistance we should be looking for ways to help young women avoid the decision by not ending up in the circumstance to begin with. And he also believes that we should make adoption an easier process for prospective parents. Does that really sound so bad? Can those that oppose his position at least see potential for some middle ground?
The answer is yes and no. Let's start with no. The folks who paid for airplanes and trucks to roam over and through South Bend with disgusting pictures of aborted fetuses trailing their wings or on the sides of their vehicles had no intention of anything except fostering division through the exploitation of their pet issue. They decided to block out any discussion of common ground and not only disrespected the President (which is fine, he can take it), but also the citizens of South Bend who have a right to go about their business without such inflammatory images invading the eyes of their children. But perhaps even worse, they disrespected the graduating class of 2009 on what should be their day to celebrate their achievments. Now there is a flipside to this and that is the decision of Notre Dame to invite, and for President Obama to accept this invitation. In doing so, what the University has decided is that there is much to like about our current president. His committment to social justice, efforts to curb global warming, and ending the policy of torture just to name a few. They also see the room for common ground on the issue of abortion however abhorrent they belive the procedure to be. And what of President Obama's decision to accept knowing full well that the possibility of protest was high? It says that we can disagree without being disagreeable. That we can find common ground on issues that we disagree upon, and perhaps most importantly that I will engage with and listen to others even when they mightily disagree with me.
Now it should be said that I am no fan of Notre Dame. I believe they treat the community of South Bend with disregard. That the University enjoys insulating itself from the community at large. Hell, in the coming years I half expect them to build a moat around the school complete with alligators and a draw bridge to boot. I also think their devotion to their football program goes far beyond the pale. In particular their treatment of former coach Tyrone Willingham and their refusal to join the big ten were at best poorly handled decisions and at worst reprehensible. However, on this day Notre Dame has shown something else. The ability to listen to others, to invite diversity of thought, and to honor a historic election.
So on this day (and maybe only this day), three cheers for old Notre Dame.
Sumo-Pop
May 17, 2009
Which brings me to today's events at Notre Dame. I have always believed that one of the main reasons you go to college is to figure out who you are and what you believe. I also believe the way you do that is to be exposed to those who may differ with you, to hear them out, share your beliefs and then see where you stand. Today Notre Dame honored President Obama. A man whose opinion that abortion should be legal is in opposition to catholic doctrine. And because of this, a sizable number of catholics and conservatives have chosen to protest his invitation if not his very existence. I wonder where these folks were when President Bush spoke to students in 2001. You know, the guy who believes in the death penalty so fervantly that as the Governor of Texas he allowed the execution of people who many considered to be mentally retarded. I lived in South Bend then and don't recall nearly so much of an uproar. Now while I find the death penalty dispicable for many reasons (unfairness in it's adjudication being one), I am certainly not alone. In fact it is against catholic doctrine as well. I also don't recall a stink being raised when Condeleeza Rice was given an honorary degree and who is also pro-choice. So, what gives here?
Being no fan of the procedure myself, I respect the views of those who are against abortion. What I don't understand is the absolute disregard they have for those that disagree with them. If they would take a closer look at President Obama's position on abortion I think they might find much to agree with. For starters, he believes that abortion is a tragic decision that has profound psychological and spiritual impact. He believes that through education and assistance we should be looking for ways to help young women avoid the decision by not ending up in the circumstance to begin with. And he also believes that we should make adoption an easier process for prospective parents. Does that really sound so bad? Can those that oppose his position at least see potential for some middle ground?
The answer is yes and no. Let's start with no. The folks who paid for airplanes and trucks to roam over and through South Bend with disgusting pictures of aborted fetuses trailing their wings or on the sides of their vehicles had no intention of anything except fostering division through the exploitation of their pet issue. They decided to block out any discussion of common ground and not only disrespected the President (which is fine, he can take it), but also the citizens of South Bend who have a right to go about their business without such inflammatory images invading the eyes of their children. But perhaps even worse, they disrespected the graduating class of 2009 on what should be their day to celebrate their achievments. Now there is a flipside to this and that is the decision of Notre Dame to invite, and for President Obama to accept this invitation. In doing so, what the University has decided is that there is much to like about our current president. His committment to social justice, efforts to curb global warming, and ending the policy of torture just to name a few. They also see the room for common ground on the issue of abortion however abhorrent they belive the procedure to be. And what of President Obama's decision to accept knowing full well that the possibility of protest was high? It says that we can disagree without being disagreeable. That we can find common ground on issues that we disagree upon, and perhaps most importantly that I will engage with and listen to others even when they mightily disagree with me.
Now it should be said that I am no fan of Notre Dame. I believe they treat the community of South Bend with disregard. That the University enjoys insulating itself from the community at large. Hell, in the coming years I half expect them to build a moat around the school complete with alligators and a draw bridge to boot. I also think their devotion to their football program goes far beyond the pale. In particular their treatment of former coach Tyrone Willingham and their refusal to join the big ten were at best poorly handled decisions and at worst reprehensible. However, on this day Notre Dame has shown something else. The ability to listen to others, to invite diversity of thought, and to honor a historic election.
So on this day (and maybe only this day), three cheers for old Notre Dame.
Sumo-Pop
May 17, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)