The Fighting Irish

President Obama has been scheduled to speak during the commencement ceremony at Notre Dame. I first saw an article about it on Newsmax.com yesterday. I forwarded it to a devout Catholic friend who I knew would get riled up, but decided not to blog about it. Today the story hit the mainstream (and here) and I will throw in my two cents.

At issue is whether or not President Obama is an appropriate selection for the most recognizable Catholic university in the country given his positions on topics such as abortion and stem cell research. Some say the university should lay aside its grievances with "the man" Obama and welcome the honor of having the "head of state" Obama speak to them. Others, tens of thousands of others, are content to wait until 2013 to invite the next President. 

I say to my Catholic friends, if you're not willing to stand up for your convictions, who will?

I'm certain Notre Dame would not have invited the likes of Adolf Hitler, Robert Mugabe or Fidel Castro to speak at its ceremony, yet they also were heads of state. The title of "President of the United States" should not trump who Obama is as a man and what he represents. No, I'm not claiming that Obama is similar to any of the people I just mentioned, except that all, at one time or another, are/were the "leader" of their respective countries. What I am saying is despite the fact that Obama won the popular vote on election day and that many Catholics undoubtedly voted for him, Notre Dame, as an icon of the Catholic church, must disassociate itself from "the man" Obama whose policies cut at the very center of core Catholic beliefs - namely, the value placed on human life. 

The President will only speak at three universities this year, Notre Dame being among them. That is quite an honor. But it is much more honorable to be true to one's self.

Stand up and be counted, Notre Dame. 

That Makes One of Us

President Obama today assured the American people that he knows "we did the right thing" by way of the $787 billion stimulus bill.

To make this proclamation, the President boarded Air Force One* and flew 300 miles to Columbus, Ohio to tell a graduating class of police cadets that their jobs are a direct result of the stimulus bill. At least until the end of the year when the funding dries up. The claim was not without substantial evidence to support it - he first looked into the recruits' eyes and at their shiny new badges before making his assessment.

As further evidence of the bill's obvious success, the President also noted that many teachers, nurses, firemen, and first responders were not among the 651,000 newly unemployed during the month of February.

This was a thinly veiled attempt to draw emotional support for the cause:

• "...teachers who are still able to teach our children because we passed this plan."
  
• "...nurses who are still able to care for our sick..."
• "...firefighters and first responders who are still able to keep our communities safe."

My complaint remains unchanged: the poorly-named American Recovery and Reinvestment Act does extremely little to actually stimulate the economy. Paying for 25 new police officers salaries for 10 months does not address the core issue in Columbus, Ohio - insufficient budget to pay for the salaries itself.

On the other hand, if an operating environment were fostered that actually encouraged businesses to expand, that would be change I could believe in. Change with long-lasting effects. Those businesses would need to hire new people. Those people (and the companies) would pay more taxes, helping the City of Columbus pay for their own police force. But that's not all - those employees, including the new cops, would buy things from other businesses, lifting the entire local economy. They would also be able to pay their mortgages, removing a painful burden that has been set upon our shoulders.

If President Obama's stated objective is to be believed, shouldn't he begin pushing for and enacting policies that will encourage real growth and strength? Policies like corporate tax rates, regulatory barriers that make it difficult for American companies to compete globally, and trade imbalance?

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but there appears to be an agenda at work here. What other explanation is there for ignoring the obvious? For ignoring the will of the people? 300 million of us can't be wrong.

Big government = broke (and broken) nation

-----

* Lots of interesting talk here about the cost to taxpayers of operating Air Force One, plus a (short) special investigative Congressional report on the topic by a then-minority Representative Henry Waxman. Waxman's attempt to cast Bush/Cheney in an unfavorable light is no more relevant than is an argument that Obama shouldn't be flying around unnecessarily on our dime.

I am of the opinion that the costs of presidential travel are largely fixed. The planes, the pilots, support crew, security, Secret Service, etc., are all expenses that would be incurred even if the POTUS stayed in bed all day. The only significant variables are fuel and accommodations at the destination (security and otherwise).

In other words, while I sought out and found interesting the estimated cost per hour of operating Air Force One, I don't believe it to be a strong argument against Obama for his trip to Columbus.

Not Authorized to Speak

I scan several news stories every day. Frequently I see something I find very disturbing that has nothing whatsoever to do with the content of the story itself. It is that some person with inside knowledge has divulged a piece of information to the reporter even though they either A) weren't supposed to be talking to the press, B) preempted the forthcoming official announcement, or C) violated an express or implied confidentiality.

If I were the President, CEO, owner or other such stakeholder of any of these organizations, I would make it a priority to root out the offending parties. How could I expect to accomplish much of anything if I can't even trust one or more of the people in my inner circle?

I get the impression that the feeling is if the reporter states that the source was not authorized to speak, there is little damage or risk. It is immunity from responsibility. I am of the opinion that once something has been publicized and documented, whether it comes from an official spokesperson or not, that information becomes a de facto source.

If Madison spills the beans to Sara about a surprise I've been working on for her, what's the point in continuing the charade? If I were to publish information about my company on this blog, that material would become part of the public domain even though I'm not authorized to speak on the company's behalf, or that my understanding of the issues may be incomplete. This is exactly why I specifically do not blog about that aspect of my life.

Below are some examples from recent stories of what I am talking about. Links are to the full text, but my point is in the excerpts.

-----

Defense officials said a one-ton bomb was used to attack Rayan's home, and that weapons stored inside set off secondary explosions. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak to the media.
http://kstp.com/article/stories/s726187.shtml?cat=1

Earlier this week, Olmert rebuffed a French proposal for a two-day suspension of hostilities. But at the same time, he seemed to be looking for a diplomatic way out, telling Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other world leaders that Israel wouldn't agree to a truce unless international monitors took responsibility for enforcing it, government officials said. They spoke on condition of anonymity because the talks were confidential.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=98932711&ft=1&f=1001

Jett apparently hit his head on the bathtub, said a police officer who declined to be named because she was not authorized to speak on the matter.
http://www.app.com/article/20090103/ENT/90103002/1031/rss09

Reid was told by Obama that if Burris had the legal standing to be seated — despite controversy surrounding his appointment by Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich — it should be done "sooner rather than later," said an Obama transition aide, speaking on condition of anonymity because the conversation was private.
http://www.gopusa.com/news/2009/january/0108_obama_burris1.shtml

The Democrats who described the likely reversal did so on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to disclose developments not yet made public.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090127/ap_on_go_co/obama_stimulus

The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the president has not yet released his budget, said Obama hopes to achieve his deficit-reduction goal by generating savings as he follows through on three core campaign promises over the next four years.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090222/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_budget

The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because the White House had not made public the announcement.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/stimulus_oversight

-----

If something is confidential or you are not supposed to be talking about it - ESPECIALLY to the press - doing so anonymously does not make it okay. You should at a bare minimum be fired, and in some cases you should probably be prosecuted as well where national security or other similarly weighty subject matters are involved.

From the Desk of Captain Obvious - Volume One

• "'No earmarks' isn't a game-ender," said Peter Buffa, former mayor of Costa Mesa, Calif. "It just means there's a different way of going about making sure the funding is there."
  
• The urgency of the economic crisis dictates that there is not time to search for a Treasury Secretary candidate that is not also a tax cheat. "The fact that we're in a global economic crisis is not a reason to overlook these errors." (Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo)
• Are all of our nation's problems now solved, that our elected officials can waste time and taxes on revenge strategies? US attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. If the President didn't wish them to serve any longer, that is his prerogative. If the new President would like to reinstate those attorneys, so be it. Just do it already and quit crying about it.
• Without so much as a "thank you for allowing me to live even though I want to destroy your country and your people," it seems ex-detainees are returning to their old ways once released from prison. Perhaps we should let them all out and cross our fingers that they will one day have a change of heart.
• Many suspected; now official records prove it. President Obama's inauguration was declared an emergency, requiring disaster relief funding.

Thank You, And May I Have Another

As further evidence that our newly minted President is indeed the one who will restore balance to the Force, the markets responded to today's events (all of them, not just the inauguration) by redistributing a sizable chunk of my retirement fund. Remember, financial markets are generally a fairly accurate measure of our collective expectations, hopes and fears. My largest single holding, comprising half of my 401k, shed a full 24%. For every $100 I had last night, I now have $76. I like to think I'm now lighter, more nimble.

I guess I was secretly hoping that the 50% of voters that installed this regime might actually demonstrate some of that hopeful vigor we heard so much about and do something to spark the economy and the markets. Some type of "Yes we can!" we-told-you-so statement directed at the prior administration. Today would have been the day to do it, right? What day would have been better?

----

WOW! I just now got off the phone with robo-Steve Duin of KATU Channel 2. The first thing he wanted to know was my opinion of how well Barack Obama is serving as POTUS.

Can't say that I have much ground for evaluation at this point, ten and a half hours in. All I know is he's down $170 million to the house, is holding a poor hand, and likely does not have any aces up his sleeve.