Bright Hall

Supreme Court Explores High School Searches, Personal Drama

Sam Guzik — 2009-04-24T10:06:00+00:00

Filed under: National News, Washington University, News

Sam Guzik is now a contributor for The Cram, a student news arm of the newly launched PoliticsDaily.com. To follow his future work, click here.

The Supreme Court is one of the United States's most venerable institutions, packed with nine of the nation's best legal minds, so it makes sense that they might be a little too busy to keep up with popular culture. Comments during the oral arguments in a case earlier this week, though, take out of touch to a new level.

Safford Unified School District v. Redding, heard by the court on Tuesday, asks the justices to weigh in on the constitutionality of strip searching students in schools when administrators have received a tip about hidden contraband but no location-specific information. While sorting through the complex fourth amendment issues, Justices found themselves transported back to their own time in school.

Take Justice Breyer, who wondered how the strip search was any different than what he had to endure while being forced to change for gym class and, less relevantly, while being teased by fellow students.

"In my experience when I was 8 or 10 or 12 years old, you know, we did take our clothes off once a day, we changed for gym, OK? And in my experience, too, people did sometimes stick things in my underwear," said Breyer while trying to point out that it might not be unusual for children to hide things from teachers in their underwear. As the court broke out into laughter, Breyer quickly added, "Or not my underwear. Whatever. Whatever."
Putting aside the troublesome assumption that forcing students to change for gym is analogous with forcing a 13-year-old girl to expose her breasts and pelvic region to school administrators, Justice Breyer's anecdote should be enough to start shaking your head at the Court.

Justice Scalia was surprised to learn that students sometimes sniff markers to get high when he asked why the school was attempting to confiscate them from students. "They sniff them?" Scalia said. "That's what kids do, your honor, unfortunately," said Matthew Wright, the representative for the petitioners. "Really?" Scalia responded.

The Court is expected to find against Savana Redding, now 19 (pictured at right), when it rules on the case in June based on the precedent of several other cases that establish a lower standard for administration searches of schools.

During the oral arguments, only Justice Ginsberg--coincidentally the only woman on the court--seemed shocked by the situation, observing the differences between Justice Breyer's experience in the men's locker room and Redding's search.

"It wasn't just that they were stripped to their underwear! They were asked to shake their bra out, to stretch the top of their pants and shake that out!" she said.

According to USA Today, The National Association of Social Workers - joined by the National Education Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, the American Society for Adolescent Psychiatry and the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children - sides with Redding in a court filing. "Social science research demonstrates that strip searches can traumatize children and adolescents and result in serious emotional damage," they say, citing studies in educational and legal journals.

After the strip search, Savana never returned to Safford Middle School. She transferred to other schools but never obtained her high school degree. She is currently taking classes at a community college and working to prepare for her GED.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Magazine Capitalizes on Obama's Pecs

Kaitlynn Riely — 2009-04-22T16:30:00+00:00

Filed under: News, Media, Notre Dame

The torture debate is getting exhausting, and it's only just begun. Did the United States torture? Was it wrong? Should people be prosecuted? Will Dick Cheney ever stop appearing on Fox News and just enjoy his retirement already?

Let's instead turn to a much lighter story. Washingtonian Magazine, which typically has such attention-grabbing cover stories as "Top 100 Dentists in the Washington Area" or "Top 30 Places to Visit on the Weekend," has put out a May cover that is getting way more attention than their April edition, "Inside 10 Great Homes."

The topic of this month's cover issue is "26 Reasons to Love Living Here." Reason No. 2 is: "Our new neighbor is hot."

To prove the point, the magazine put a picture of President Obama, clad only in a bathing suit and sunglasses, on the cover.

I know the print media industry is suffering right now, but really, Washingtonian Magazine? I didn't realize your editorial board consisted of the women from Desperate Housewives.
The best part of this story is that the magazine isn't even embarrassed that they have turned themselves into a checkout line gossip rag. At the top of their Web site, the magazine asks readers to weigh in with their thoughts on the May cover.

They call it "the cover heard 'round the world." I get the historical reference, but I believe the cover's been seen, not heard. Okay, now I'm just giving Washingtonian Magazine a hard time. Back to the task at hand.

The magazine says "Some of you love it; some of you hate it; some have questioned whether or not it's an 'appropriate' cover; and some just want to talk about the state of Obama's pecs."

The comments posted on the Web sites are mixed, but as one commenter posts, regardless of what one thinks about the photo, it works. People who have never heard of Washingtonian before are checking out the site.

The photo in question, CNN reported, was taken while Obama was in Hawaii on his Christmas vacation.

Garrett Graff, the editor-at-large for the magazine, told CNN that the picture was appropriate.

"The Obamas, through their involvement in Washington, are helping to showcase just how exciting it is in Washington right now," he told CNN. "We use the world 'hot' tongue in cheek with the photo."

He added: "He is a buff president that the paparazzi enjoy taking pictures of." Graff seems like a pretty interesting guy, and he's had a lot of good ideas in the past (he was founding editor of Fishbowl D.C.). I'll chalk this up to an act of desperation on the part of Washingtonian Magazine.

If The Economist starts running half-nude pictures of Barack Obama on its covers, then it's time for print magazines to pack it up and go home.

Photo: Washingtonian.com

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Debate over Interrogation Tactics Continues

Kaitlynn Riely — 2009-04-21T08:43:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, News, Notre Dame

President Obama is making a mistake by not pursuing any prosecutions for those responsible for the harsh interrogation techniques that were used during the Bush administration.

Last week, I posted a blog piece about the legal memos released by the Justice Department that detailed the interrogation techniques used by the United States on people suspected of involvement in terrorist acts or planning. Obama reportedly agonized over the release of the memos, weighing whether their release was necessary for transparency of government or whether releasing the memos would compromise the security of the United States.

When he did release them, he announced that those who had carried out the torture, believing their actions were lawful, would not be subject to prosecution.

George Stephanopoulos, host of ABC's "This Week," asked White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel on Sunday whether the president also ruled out prosecution for the officials who devised the torture polices.

Emanuel responded: "He believes that people in good faith were operating with the guidance they were provided."

Stephanopoulos followed up with the same question.

"Yeah, but those who devised the policy, he believes that they were, should not be prosecuted either," Emanuel said.

Obama visited the Central Intelligence Agency Monday to thank agents for their service and to offer reassurance about the after effects of the release of the memos.

"Don't be discouraged that we have to acknowledge potentially we've made some mistakes," Obama said. "That's how we learn. But the fact that we are willing to acknowledge them and then move forward, that is precisely why I am proud to be President of the United States, and that's why you should be proud to be members of the CIA."

If the policy in place before was a mistake, if it was wrong, if it was torture, how can we just "move forward" without anyone facing retribution for their actions, or for what they allowed to happen?

If there's no penalty for breaking the U.S. law against torture, the law will be hard to enforce in the future. News sources have reported that two captured al Qaeda operatives were subjected to waterboarding 266 times. If waterboarding is torture, then the law has been broken, and someone, or multiple people, must face the consequences.

A day after Emanuel's interview, The New York Times reported that White House aides did not rule out legal sanctions for the Bush-era lawyers who legally justified using the harsh interrogation techniques.

The change to U.S. interrogation policy is a good step forward, but if Obama allows those who developed the interrogation policy used under the Bush administration to go unpunished, then the United States' past mistakes will not be fully corrected, and our moral standing in the world will be questionable.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Miss California & The Gay Rights Thought Police

Joshua Sharp — 2009-04-20T20:22:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, USC, News

OMG! Miss California is a social conservative!

Last night, the Miss USA pageant was held -- unbeknownst to me, since all I know about pageants is what I've seen in Little Miss Sunshine. Near the end of the pageant, celebrity judge Perez Hilton was tasked with asking one question of then-frontrunner Miss California Carrie Prejean. He decided to lob a question about one of the most politically controversial issues of our time; Prejean's response may have cost her the title:

Hilton: "Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit, why or why not?"

Prejean: "Well, I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what, in my country, and in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised and that's how I think that it should be between a man and a woman. Thank you very much."

Now, most politicians don't like answering that divisive question in front of a split audience, and typically squirm while doing so. For Prejean to have the courage to (even somewhat inarticulately) frame the issue as a state-by-state choice while acknowledging her honest personal beliefs, I think, shows a lot of strength and reflects well on her character.

But the beauty pageant judges were aghast at Prejeans' lack of political correctness, and retribution was swift.

"I think it did lose her the crown," Hilton said today on MSNBC. On a webcast posted late Sunday night, he ranted against Prejean, saying, "She lost not because she doesn't believe in gay marriage; she lost because she's a dumb b****."

More from Hilton: "... [T]hat is not the kind of woman I want to be Miss USA. There's a difference between running for president and being a beauty queen.

"A president is affiliated with a political party, that political party has ideologies, they are in favor with or against. A beauty queen, a beauty pageant queen, Miss USA, should represent all Americans. And with her answer, she instantly was divisive and alienated millions of gays and lesbians, their family, their friends, and supporters."

I have a much simpler answer: Why not avoid the hot-button issue during a beauty pageant in the first place? By asking that provocative question, Hilton was giving Miss California an ultimatum: answer correctly, or risk the crown.

Hilton claims no political bias, saying, "I was not upset or frustrated with her disagreeing with me about gay marriage. I was just upset and frustrated with how she answered the question."

Um, that's essentially the same thing.

Regardless of one's personal views on the issue, and whether we agree or disagree with Prejean's opinion, it's extremely troubling to see someone answer a question honestly -- articulating a viewpoint consistent with roughly half of the voters in her home state -- only to be punished by those who disagree.

It is hypocritical to fight for freedom of speech and freedom of expression if one has no tolerance for those with opposing views, and I am deeply concerned by the gay rights movement's overall decision post-Prop 8 to begin blacklisting political opponents out of anger and vengefulness.

Let's cut out the litmus test, and leave politics in the political arena.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

U.S. Realizes Cuba Policy Has Been a Failure

Kaitlynn Riely — 2009-04-17T22:28:00+00:00

Filed under: News, Notre Dame

I guess you could call it the new "oops, our bad, guys" approach to foreign relations.

The same week that President Barack Obama decided to allow Cuban-Americans with relatives on the island nation to visit and send money without restrictions, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton traveled to Santo Domingo in the Dominican Republic to talk about America's relations with other countries in the Americas, including Cuba.

At a digital town hall, she took a question from "Juan" of Cuba, who asked her about the embargo with Cuba, which has been in place for nearly 50 years. Clinton said Obama views engagement as a useful way to achieve the United States' objectives with other countries.

"We are continuing to look for more productive ways forward in dealing with Cuba, because President Obama and I and the Administration view the present policy toward Cuba as having failed," Clinton said.

Good, it only took us half a century to realize that. Maybe in another 50 years we'll be able to figure a way to get out of Iraq without leaving it a mess.
Obama is in Trinidad and Tobago now for the Summit of the Americas, which Cuba was not invited to, though he also made some overtures toward Cuba, saying the United States "seeks a new beginning with Cuba," according to a CNN report.

"I'm prepared to have my administration engage with the Cuban government on a wide range of issues -- from human rights, free speech and democratic reform to drugs, migration and economic issues," Obama said when he spoke Friday to representatives of 34 countries at the Summit of the Americas.

Obama did not list any specifics as to how he would like to see the U.S. relationship with Cuba develop. But he said he rejected the "stale debates" that have marked the past five decades of the U.S.-Cuba relationship.

"I didn't come here to debate the past -- I came here to deal with the future," he said, according to the CNN report. "As neighbors, we have a responsibility to each other and to our citizens. And by working together, we can take important steps forward to advance prosperity, security and liberty."

It will be interesting to see what changes to Cuba policy, if any, occur during the rest of the Summit of the Americas. Will the "oops, we've screwed up for the past several decades and we just realized it" approach work?

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Interrogation Memos Reveal Rough Treatment of Detainees

Kaitlynn Riely — 2009-04-16T21:00:00+00:00

Filed under: News, Media, Notre Dame

The U.S. Department of Justice on Thursday released four Office of Legal Counsel opinions that describe interrogation techniques used by the Central Intelligence Agency during the Bush administration.

Politico reported that White House senior adviser David Axelrod said President Barack Obama spent a month trying to decide whether to release the memos about the techniques.

In a letter to the officers of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), posted on the agency's Web site, Obama thanked them for their service to the country. He said he made the decision the night before to allow the Justice Department to release the memos.

"I did not make this decision lightly," he wrote in the letter. "As you may know, the release is part of an ongoing court case. I have fought for the principle that the United States must carry out covert activities and hold information that is classified for the purpose of national security and will do so again in the future. But the release of these memos is required by our commitment to the rule of law."

Obama said that while he has prohibited use of the interrogation techniques described in the memo since he took office, he and Attorney General Eric Holder would "protect all who acted reasonably and relied upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that their actions were lawful." Holder affirmed this in a Thursday news release from the Department of Justice.

The individuals in the CIA who carried out the harsh interrogation actions will not be prosecuted, or so Obama says. Will anyone?
Although most of the information described in the memos was already known in general terms by the public, reading the details about interrogation methods is chilling.

One of the memos is signed by Jay S. Bybee, a Justice Department official at the time, and addressed to CIA attorney John A. Rizzo, dated Aug. 1, 2002. The memo states that the proposed interrogation techniques described in the memo would not violate U.S. law prohibiting torture.

The prisoner being discussed is Abu Zubaydah, believed to be a high ranking member of al Qaeda. "The interrogation team is certain that he has additional information that he refuses to divulge," the memo says. In order to obtain this information, the CIA desired to move the interrogations to the "increased pressure phase."

The interrogators wished to use 10 techniques, the memo says, including cramped confinement, placing insects in a confinement box, facial slapping and and escalation to waterboarding. I think everyone knows what waterboarding is by now. "Walling" is a new one I haven't heard of, but it involves a flexible false wall and the interrogator pulling the prisoner forward, then quickly pushing him back toward the wall, which will make a loud noise to shock the individual, thereby creating a sensation which seems like it would be akin to being in a car crash.

The memo concluded that walling was okay, and that this technique, like the nine others listed in the memo, did not qualify as torture: "You have informed us that the sound of hitting the wall will actually be far worse than any possible injury to the individual. ... While it may hurt to be pushed against the wall, any pain experienced is not of the intensity associated with serious physical injury."

CIA Director Leon E. Panetta sent a letter to CIA employees Thursday reaffirming that he would oppose any efforts to punish those members of the CIA who followed the guidance of the Justice Department.

"Although this Administration has now put into place new policies that CIA is implementing, the fact remains that CIA's detention and interrogation effort was authorized and approved by our government," Panetta wrote.

This is true, but at some point, shouldn't someone have stood up to say, this is the United States? This isn't right?

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Tea Parties Planned for Tax Day

Kaitlynn Riely — 2009-04-15T08:25:00+00:00

Filed under: Culture, Breaking News, News, Media, Notre Dame

The Internet has been buzzing lately all about parties happening on Tax Day. Tea Parties, to be exact.

I never got an invitation, but I'm more of a coffee drinker. It'd be a bit of a pain to purchase tea bags just to dump them in a body of water.

Like the great pre-Revolutionary War colonists who came before them, American taxpayers are up in arms and want to protest "higher taxes and out-of-control government spending," according to a column in the Wall Street Journal Tuesday. It's hard to tell who exactly started this movement, but the columnist asserted that this is not the work of a "right-wing conspiracy," but rather, average Americans who are using the expanding power of the Internet to organize an imitation of an event that took place in 1773.

According to the Wall Street Journal column, the protests began in mid-February with bloggers in Seattle, Wash., then grew when CNBC commentator Rick Santelli delivered his now famous rant against President Obama's policies, advocating that people organize a tea party in Chicago on July 4.

From that rant, a movement was born. Now these flash mob protests are apparently planned across the country on Tax Day. The Tea Party movement is one of the top trending topics on Twitter, and on Facebook a group called Nationwide Tax Day Tea Party has more than 35,000 members.

I'm always up for a party. And those are big numbers. I'd love to fly home to watch protesters dump a million tea bags in Lafayette Square in Washington D.C, as the protest organizers say they will, according to a Washington Post story.

Imagine if we took that tea and, provided it was caffeinated, gave it to American workers. Think of the productivity we'd see on Tax Day!

On second thought, the people organizing the Tax Day Tea Party probably don't need any more caffeine. This grass-roots movement has grown surprisingly quickly. A lot of people are comparing it to Obama's use of the Internet in 2008 to increase enthusiasm for his campaign. Except, with Obama, there were a lot fewer teabags. And fewer unfortunate inappropriate jokes. (I'm not explaining it. Look it up.)

A Web site called Tax Day Tea Party purports to be the online headquarters for the tea partiers. A "revolution is brewing at a city near you" they say. Besides being clever at wordplay, the site's creators have also done a good job of listing Tea Party events occurring in every state.

Over on her Web site, conservative columnist Michelle Malkin has a playlist of songs for the Tea Parties. I recommend the reader-suggested rendition of "American Pie."

If you cannot make it out to a local Tea Party, the Republican National Committee has a way for you to participate. Go to their Web site and you can mail a postcard to President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Senator Harry Reid or Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Best of all, you can choose one of four varieties of tea bags to send along with your postcard.

At the White House briefing Tuesday, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said he is not sure if Obama knows about the planned parties, but Gibbs said he personally is not monitoring them.

If the Tea Parties don't work, perhaps some other famous event in American History can be re-staged? A flash mob to cry that the British are coming or a re-enactment of Washington crossing the Delaware?

If nothing else, all this flash-mobbing will improve our collective knowledge of this country's history.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Brown University Faculty Votes To Hijack History

Joshua Chaney — 2009-04-14T21:50:00+00:00

Filed under: Culture, Breaking News, News, Brown University, Microtrends on Campus, American University, Muskingum College

An obsession with political correctness at American universities has rapidly become a national phenomenon in recent years. A few colleges have really taken it too far.

Brown University's faculty voted last week to rename Columbus Day "Fall Weekend" on the University's calendar, a move that apparently was in step with the wishes of students according to a poll by the college newspaper The Brown Daily Herald. The poll revealed a majority of students disapproved of continuing to call the holiday Columbus Day.

The decision came after weeks of pressure from student groups proposing change.

American University's Undergraduate Senate passed a similar resolution a few years ago declaring the holiday "Indigenous People's Day" instead.

Columbus Day is named of course after Christopher Columbus, the man incorrectly attributed with discovering North America. As we know today, Columbus was tied to the enslavement and abuse of native inhabitants of the West Indies. Columbus Day has been celebrated since 1971.
But really, Columbus Day? It seems strange that academics would be so willing to hijack history for the sake of an extremist obsession to purify it. Owning a history book doesn't give one the right to rewrite it, however. Columbus Day still exists as does U.S. history in its entirety - dark spots as well as bright.

The faculty might have instead used the day instead to ... oh, I dunno, teach? Since when is it an acceptable standard in American academia to ignore history instead of use its errors as a basis to teach and educate?

"Brown University made itself an example to the nation by carefully exploring its ties to the slave trade and using that process to promote greater understanding," Providence mayor David Cicilline, a 1983 graduate of Brown, said in a press release last week. But the decision to "simply erase the celebration of an incredibly significant moment in world history and Italian-American culture for the sake of political correctness does just the opposite," he added.

While Columbus might not be credited now with being the first person to discover America, many Italian-American organizations still credit Columbus, an Italian explorer, as a major historical influence on western civilization's introduction to a new part of the world.

Providence newspaper columnist Bob Kerr called the decision "detached," especially because of the large number of Italian descendants residing in Providence. Rush Limbaugh also opined on the decision, attacking the students who urged for the change.

One Brown student said Columbus is "undeserving of a holiday." Another said "what they teach us in elementary school is misleading - hero worshiping."

The decision was "a progressive step," he added.

I couldn't disagree more. The most feasible part of the students' argument is that Columbus wasn't deserving of the holiday in the first place. But what is certain is that the holiday is also is a yearly reminder of how far we've come. It provides a basis on which teachers can educate their students.

A much greater injustice is done in ignoring the sacrifices made at the hands of the ignorant. Their story deserves to be told, not swept under the rug and the best way to do that is for Columbus Day to remain untouched. It is not an elementary teacher's place to go all philosophical on an 8-year-old, and I don't think children are educated to idolize Columbus - at least I wasn't.

At a higher level of learning, the flaws of such individuals need to be observed and critiqued.

The decisions by both American University and Brown University were more accurately in step with those attempting to censor historical scars, and call it cliche, but those who ignore history are, indeed, destined to repeat it.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Supreme Court Justice Opines on Rights and Dishwashers

Kaitlynn Riely — 2009-04-14T02:30:00+00:00

Filed under: News, Notre Dame

I'm not sure what's more unsettling, that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas thinks there is a "proliferation of rights" or that he is fascinated by dishwashers.

It's a close call.

Justice Thomas revealed these insights and more March 31 when he spoke to winners of a high school essay contest in Washington, D.C. at a dinner sponsored by the Bill of Rights Institute. The New York Times published some great quotes Monday from the talk, which was supposed to address the topic of the Bill of Rights.

Thomas has served on the Supreme Court since 1991, when he was nominated by President George H. W. Bush. In his article, New York Times writer Adam Liptak pointed out that Justice Clarence Thomas has not asked a question from the bench since Feb. 22, 2006.

Thomas spoke at an event in 2007 at Hillsdale College in Michigan, and according to an article in U.S. News and World Report, he criticized those judges that asked questions and debated cases out loud during oral arguments.

"My colleagues should shut up," he said then. Thomas, the article reported, has often been criticized for his silent approach to Supreme Court cases.

Judging from some of his bizarre statements recently, maybe silence is a good policy.
Liptak wrote that Justice Thomas, when talking about the Bill of Rights, proposed some alternatives.

"There is too much focus on our rights," he said, according to the New York Times. "Indeed, I think there is a proliferation of rights."

Oh no. This man is on the Supreme Court.

He continues.

"I am often surprised by the virtual nobility that seems to be accorded those with grievances," he said. "Shouldn't there at least be equal time for our Bill of Obligations and our Bill of Responsibilities?"

He went on to talk about how many people seem to think they are owed a certain standard of living, like nice cars, phones and televisions. And that's how he got onto the topic of dishwashers.

"I have to admit that I'm one of those people that still thinks the dishwasher is a miracle. What a device! And I have to admit that because I think that way, I like to load it. I like to look in and see how the dishes were magically cleaned," he said, according to the Times.

I'm going to give him this one. I spent a few months without a dishwasher in my apartment, and when I moved back to a dishwasher-outfitted residence, I too was amazed at how much easier it was to do dishes.

So it's the proliferation of rights comment that bothers me. I like my Supreme Court justices to be big fans of the Bill of Rights.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Pirate Jokes Becoming Less Funny

Kaitlynn Riely — 2009-04-11T17:08:00+00:00

Filed under: News, Notre Dame

Remember when pirates were entertaining? When Johnny Depp was Captain Jack Sparrow? When the only hint of danger at Disney's Pirates of the Caribbean ride was when they told you to keep your hands inside the boat at all times?

There's even an International Talk Like a Pirate Day, on Sept. 19 each year. If you visit the event organizers' Web site, you can collect some pick-up lines for your next night out. The No. 1 pick-up line, according to the site: Prepare to be boarded.

But "prepare to be boarded" is not a joke, nor is it a cheesy attempt at seduction, for people on ships sailing near the coast of Somalia in Africa. On Wednesday, pirates took control of the Maersk Alabama, a ship flying the U.S. flag, and took 20 American sailors hostage, the New York Times reported. The crew retook the ship in a matter of hours, but the pirates are still holding the ship's captain in an enclosed lifeboat, and they are demanding a ransom.
The Alabama was heading to Mombasa to deliver its cargo of food aid when it was attacked. With a security escort, the Alabama arrived at the Port of Mombasa in Kenya safely, except for the captain. The captain is believed to be unharmed, but pirates are demanding $2 million for the captain's release, as well as a guarantee of their safety, Reuters reported.

The Alabama was the first American vessel to be hijacked off the Horn of Africa, but piracy is a growing problem. The New York Times reported that more than 150 ships were attacked off the coast of Somalia and in the Gulf of Aden last year, and currently 16 ships are being held for ransom by seagoing pirate gangs.

Vanity Fair writer William Langewiesche had a great piece on Somali pirates, in which he talked about the experience of the crew of a French luxury cruise ship that was captured by a band of pirates last spring in the Gulf of Aden.

As U.S. ships converged near the Horn of Africa, Somali pirates hijacked another boat, this time an Italian-flagged tugboat in the Gulf of Aden, the Associated Press reported.

Why are all these pirate attacks happening? And now that we see how malicious they can be, why on earth did Disney make rather positive films about them? Although, I guess this is the same company that romanticized the mistreatment of Native Americans (see: Pocahontas).

Piracy is becoming an actual business in Somalia, which hasn't had a functioning central government since 1991. The New York Times reported that pirates took $80 million in ransom last year. It's going to be hard for the United States, and the international community, to defeat such a rogue, decentralized band of sea-roving pirates, especially in an area where there are few patrolling police forces. Add this to President Obama's to do list.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued a statement on the pirate situation, and I think she was trying to remind people we aren't dealing with any Jack Sparrows here; this is serious.

"These people are nothing more than criminals," she said. "And we are bringing to bear a number of our assets, including naval and FBI work in order to resolve the hostage situation and bring the pirates to justice. Piracy may be a centuries-old crime, but we are working to bring an appropriate 21st century response."

But FoxNation.com showed Clinton laughing while talking about pirates. You have to take FOX's editing with a grain of salt, but this video is pretty strange.

I'm going to give Hillary the benefit of the doubt that the current pirate hostage situation is not in fact something she finds hilarious. I bet she was thinking about a pirate joke, possibly this one.

What kind of women do pirates prefer?

CougARRRS!

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

U.S. Tackles Diplomacy 101 with Iran

Kaitlynn Riely — 2009-04-09T01:18:00+00:00

Filed under: News, Notre Dame

After eight years of President Bush's "You're either with us or you're against us" foreign policy, I'd almost forgotten the United States did diplomacy.

Diplomacy was so United Nations, so Neville Chamberlain, but now the United States is flexing its diplomatic muscles (or are we putting on our diplomatic beret?) Some members of Congress are urging the United States to improve its relations with Cuba, with which it has had a trade embargo for nearly 50 years.

The United States is even trying to talk to (gasp!) Iran, a country Bush labeled in 2002 as a member of the axis of evil. The State Department announced Wednesday that the United States will join the talks between the United Nations and European countries with Iran over Tehran's nuclear program.

In a statement Wednesday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States would be a full participant along with Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China in future negotiations with Iran. This is a departure from Bush policy, save for the one exception last July, when the former president allowed a senior U.S. diplomat to attend a meeting at which an Iranian representative was present. But The Washington Post reported that the Bush administration believed Iran was not serious in that meeting and said the effort would not be repeated.

The Post quoted a senior administration official who said "it was kind of silly that we had to walk out of the room" when the Iranians were present.

That does sound a bit silly. Talking to countries with whom you have a disagreement seems like a crazy idea, but it's so crazy it just might work...
However, diplomacy is not going that well for the United States so far. Iran has not yet accepted the offer, but the State Department has its fingers crossed.

"If Iran accepts, we hope this will be an occasion to seriously engage Iran of how to break the logjam of recent years and work in a cooperative manner to resolve the outstanding international concerns about its nuclear program," State Department spokesman Robert Wood said, according to CNN.

The United States is currently trying to get Iran to cooperate in resolving the case of Roxana Saberi, an American freelance journalist detained in Iran since January and charged with spying, as well as two other Americans believed to be missing or detained in Iran.

The United States cut off its diplomatic relations with Iran after the 1979 Islamic Revolution and hostage situation involving Americans at the U.S. embassy in Tehran. After going so long without speaking diplomatically, things are bound to be awkward at first.

Will Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's president, say yes to President Obama's requests that the two countries begin dialogue? He said in a televised speech in Iran that his country "welcomes a hand extended to it should it really and truly be based on honesty, justice and respect," the AP reported.

The stakes are pretty high in Diplomacy 101. Let's hope the United States doesn't flunk this one.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Aaron Schock Adds Sex Appeal to Republican Party

Kaitlynn Riely — 2009-04-07T22:19:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, Featured Stories, News, Media, Notre Dame

The Republican Party keeps getting sexier.

They've had an uphill battle. In the fall, John McCain had to compete with the sex appeal of Barack Obama (those abs!) and Joe Biden (those teeth!), but McCain proved he had more sexy in reserve than America has oil in reserve offshore when he introduced Sarah Palin (those legs!) as his running mate.

But Americans voted "Yes, we can" instead of "Drill, baby, drill," and Palin retreated back to Alaska, so the Republicans were left with a sexy deficit (except for when Palin family scandals pop up in the news once a week).

That deficit has been filled. Aaron Schock is in the House.

Of Representatives, that is. Schock represents Illinois' 18th District, and at 27, he is the youngest Member of Congress and the first to be born in the 1980s. He's not just a pretty face, hair and body. Not surprisingly, Schock is your typical over-achiever. He graduated from Bradley University in Peoria, Ill. with a B.S. in Finance, a four-year degree, in two years.

In his early teens, he began working after-school jobs and invested the money he made, making his first real estate purchase at age 18, according to his official House Web site. He entered public service by serving on the Peoria School board starting when he was 18 years old.

When he was 23, he was elected to the Illinois House, where he shared the 2007 award with then-Senator Barack Obama from the Illinois Committee for Honest Government for his "Outstanding Legislative and Constituent Service." He spoke at the 2008 National Republican Convention, and now that he is in Congress, he is sitting on three committees: the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the Small Business Committee and the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. He's also been named Deputy Republican Whip.

And, perhaps most notably, he's been named "hottest freshman in Congress" by the readers of the liberal blog site Huffington Post.

Schock has been getting a lot more attention in the media than the average freshman Member of Congress, due to his good looks and young age. Meghan McCain wrote a blog post for The Daily Beast about "The GOP's House Hottie." I opened the Chicago Tribune yesterday to find an article about Schock, asking "Has GOP found its rock star?"

TMZ has been following Schock as he walks between his office building and the Capitol, and a few weeks ago posted a picture of Schock in his bathing suit (Schock gives shirtless Obama a run for his money).

Schock appeared on CNN's Reliable Sources with Howard Kurtz, also of the Washington Post, who asked him about his appearances on TMZ. In a weird moment, Kurtz asks Schock if he wants to take off his jacket and roll up his sleeves to give TMZ more footage. Luckily, Schock had the common sense not to disrobe for a Sunday morning show. Save it for the late night shows.

Schock has a Doogie Howser meets Brad Pitt thing going on. He should own it. In the Chicago Tribune Monday, he told reporter James Oliphant he's using the media coverage to keep communication channels open.

"First, you've got to get their attention," he said. "Step one in getting anyone's vote is getting their attention."

First Barack Obama. Now Aaron Schock. Illinois' prime export is quickly becoming hot, young, driven politicians.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Mapping the Gay Marriage Debate

Tony Romm — 2009-04-07T21:20:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, News, American University

First Iowa, then Vermont -- two states, in less than two weeks, have conferred marriage rights to same-sex couples. In the nation's capitol, meanwhile, the D.C. Council has approved a measure that would recognize gay marriages performed out of state -- a decision that, while unanimous, is still subject to a final vote and Congressional approval.

In 29 other states, however, constitutional bans still prohibit in-state gay marriage, fail to recognize out-of-state gay marriage contracts, or bestow no domestic partnership benefits upon same-sex couples.

The following map outlines those states in which gay marriage-related laws have been passed:

View Larger Map (Please note that due to the size of the window, Alaska and Hawaii were omitted. Both states have banned gay marriage)

How to use: Click on each state to read any applicable information, or click on the map to open a larger window.

Legend:

Green - State performs gay marriages
Yellow - State performs civil unions
Blue - State endows same-sex couples with domestic partnership rights
Red - State bans gay marriage
Pink - State recognizes out-of-state gay marriages and/or civil unions

INFORMATION COURTESY OF THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

North Korea Launches Rocket, Prompts Famous 3 a.m. Phone Call

Kaitlynn Riely — 2009-04-06T00:06:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, Breaking News, News, Media, Notre Dame

Hillary Clinton saw this coming.

President Barack Obama got his 3 a.m. phone call, albeit at 4:30 a.m. Sunday morning in Prague, Czech Republic, when North Korea launched a long-range rocket. That's a sudden way to remind someone that being president isn't all about the economy.

Last year, when Obama and Clinton were still vying for the Democratic nomination, Clinton put out an ad saying she was the best one to answer the theoretical 3 a.m. phone call because she had the experience. Obama replied to her political advertisement with a nearly identical one that said he should answer the theoretical 3 a.m. phone call because he had better judgment.

The scenario became reality Sunday when North Korea launched the rocket they'd been threatening to launch for several weeks. The North Korean government said they had conducted a successful, peaceful launch of a satellite into orbit, CNN reported. But the United States and South Korea characterized the launch as a "provocative act" and said the rocket's payload failed to enter orbit, instead falling into the Pacific Ocean near Japan.

CNN quoted a State Department spokesman as saying the launch was in violation of a U.N. Security Council resolution on North Korea's weapons program, which prohibits the country from conducting ballistic missile-related activities.White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said he personally woke Obama to tell him the launch had been confirmed, and that Obama then consulted with his top aides, including Clinton, who was in Prague with Obama to participate in the European Union summit.

Obama responded strongly to the North Korean actions, which weren't much of a surprise since the North Koreans had been talking about the launch for weeks. His statements focused on the need for an international response to North Korea's rogue behavior.

"North Korea must know that the path to security and respect will never come through threats and illegal weapons," Obama said, according to a CNN report. "All nations much come together to build a stronger global regime. That's why we must stand shoulder to shoulder to pressure the North Koreans to change course."

A few days before the launch, FOX News's Greta Van Susteren asked former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich what he would do about North Korea if he was president. Gingrich criticized Obama for his foreign policy approach towards North Korea, which he said entailed "being courteous to them and communicating with them."

If he were president, he told Van Susteren, he would have used "whatever methods were necessary for the missile never to be launched." That could mean using the military if necessary, he said.

"If I can't find a way to bribe somebody to blow it up, I'd find a way to have either a small team go in, or a way to deliver a laser or another kind of device," he said on FOX. "That is a missile that is sitting there on that launch pad, and I think you could take it out with very, very minimal risk to anybody."

There's been some speculation that Gingrich will run for president in 2012. If he does, I propose he runs an ad showing Obama taking 4:30 a.m. phone calls while Gingrich is fast asleep--because he already took care of the problem with lasers.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Congress Begins Talk of Ending Cuba Embargo

Kaitlynn Riely — 2009-04-03T01:41:00+00:00

Filed under: US Elections, Politics, News, Notre Dame

Sen. Richard Lugar, a Republican from Indiana, is trying to urge changes to the nearly 50-year-old economic embargo against Cuba.

Lugar, in a March 30 letter to President Obama, said the embargo against Cuba, which has been in place since 1962 to protest the government set up by Fidel Castro, "undermines our broader security and political interests in the Western Hemisphere."

Lugar asked Obama to appoint a special envoy to start direct talks with Cuba's communist government and end opposition to Cuba's membership in the Organization of American States, The Washington Post reported. Lugar pointed to the April 17-19 Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago as a good place to make changes in U.S. foreign policy toward Cuba.

Lugar is also the co-sponsor of a bipartisan bill that would end restrictions on travel to Cuba except for in cases of war or direct threats to health and safety. As it stands now, Cuban Americans with relatives on the island are allowed to visit once a year. Travel to Cuba by all U.S. citizens has been prohibited in varying degrees since 1963, the Post said. The State Department lists who exactly is allowed to travel there. It's a hard list to make, which is a shame, because the forecast for the next week is in the 80s.

The Post said neither Lugar nor the legislation he is co-sponsoring proposes lifting all the sanctions right away or resuming diplomatic relations immediately, but Lugar said the appointment of an envoy and the start of direct talks would "serve vital U.S. security interests ... and would ultimately create the conditions for meaningful discussion of more contentious subjects."

Last year, during the U.S. presidential campaign, Fidel Castro, who has handed control of the government over to his brother Raul, gave his opinion of the Democratic candidate after Obama gave a speech to the Cuban American National Foundation in Miami in which he pledged to maintain the trade sanctions against Cuba as a means to press for democratic change. But Obama also said he wanted to ease restrictions on travel to Cuba and sending money there for relatives.

At that time Castro called Obama "the most progressive candidate to the U.S. presidency," the New York Times reported, while also scolding him for saying he would continue the trade embargo.

Castro may need to look toward Lugar, rather than Obama, to start the momentum to change the embargo.

Obama can end the travel limits for Cuban Americans at any time by executive order, the Post reported, but lifting all restrictions, and the trade embargo, requires legislation. Vice President Joe Biden said recently that the United States is not planning to lift its trade embargo on Cuba.

Americans still seem pretty evenly split on the issue. An Associated Press-Ipsos poll conducted in early 2007 showed that 48 percent of respondents believed the United States should continue the embargo, while 40 percent believed the United States should end it. Twelve percent were unsure.

Members of the Congressional Black Caucus will travel to Cuba this weekend, to demonstrate to Cubans that Americans are looking to build a new relationship with them, Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., told the Associated Press.

Lee, the chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, said she did not think improving economic relations with Cuba would bolster the government at the expense of the citizens.

"It's a country that we've had an embargo against for what, 40 years, but it hasn't worked," she told the Associated Press. "American citizens should have a right to travel to determine their own points of view."

Maybe Fidel will give Rep. Lee some Cuban cigars for her efforts.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

'White People With Blue Eyes' Caused Economic Crisis?

Joshua Chaney — 2009-03-28T09:42:00+00:00

Filed under: Culture, News, The Economy, Muskingum College

Brazil's President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva recently blamed the global economic crisis on "white people with blue eyes," and said it was wrong that black and indigenous people should pay for white people's mistakes, the Financial Times reported.

Standing next to UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown at a joint press conference in Brasilia, Lula da Silva told reporters: "This crisis was caused by the irrational behaviour of white people with blue eyes, who before the crisis appeared to know everything and now demonstrate that they know nothing."

"I do not know any black or indigenous bankers so I can only say [it is wrong] that this part of mankind which is victimised more than any other should pay for the crisis," he added.

What a fun position Gordon Brown found himself in!

"I'm not going to attribute blame to any individuals," Brown said, probably wishing he would have skipped out on the Brazilian stop of his five-day tour of Europe, the United States and South America.

Brown's tour was in preparation for Thursday's G20 summit. Brown made a joint appeal for the world's biggest economies to pledge $100 billion to boost global trade.

Adding to his analysis of the economic crisis, Lula da Silva likened protectionism to addictive drugs.

"I compare protectionism to a drug," he said. "Why do people use drugs? Because they are in crisis and they think the drug will help them. But its effects pass quickly."

While not as shocking as the first pronouncement, this isn't winning a Nobel any time soon either. Such extreme statements also won't help Brazil's campaign for a bigger voice in international financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund and the Financial Stability Forum. At least until their president drastically alters his thinking.

And that might be the only positive development to come of all this.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Obama Commencement Coverage Focuses on Protesters

Kaitlynn Riely — 2009-03-26T02:01:00+00:00

Filed under: Culture, Religion, News, Local, Media, Notre Dame

Kaitlynn Riely, a student at the University of Notre Dame, is delivering the latest news and opinions on the growing Obama Commencement controversy from South Bend. See her coverage on the progression of this media event here, here and here.

I'm starting to feel like I'm living in an abortion debate-themed production of West Side Story.

Ever since Notre Dame announced that President Barack Obama would deliver the May 17 Commencement address, those against hosting Obama because of his pro-choice beliefs and actions have been rumbling, mostly on the Internet and in print, with those who want him to speak here.

I can almost hear the snapping.

The argument is taking place in the opinion pages of Notre Dame's student newspaper, The Observer. The national media has picked up the story. Catholic and pro-life blogs and Web sites are condemning the University for asking a pro-choice politician to speak at Notre Dame and deciding to give him an honorary doctor of laws degree.

But for all the Obama drama, I've only spoken to a few students who are against him speaking here in May. And back in October, Notre Dame's student government conducted a mock election and the results were 52.6 percent for Obama, 41.1 percent for McCain.

The reason it seems, from media coverage, like popular Notre Dame community sentiment is against having Obama speak is because the people opposed to Obama speaking are doing a very good job of organizing and getting their opinion out.

Case in point: Today, a coalition of Notre Dame student groups launched a Web site and issued a press release denouncing the University's choice of Obama as Commencement speaker, an objection, they said, that was not based on "political partisanship" but due to Obama's "hostility to the Catholic Church's teachings on the sanctity of human life at its earliest stages."

The coalition, made up of 11 Notre Dame student groups, asked that only members of the Notre Dame community lead protests against the University's decision.

"Over the next several weeks, in response to this scandal, our organizations will host various academic and religious events to engage the University community," the statement said. It was signed by the 11 student clubs, which include the Notre Dame chapters of Right to Life and the College Republicans.

A Notre Dame alum started an online petition for people who support having Obama on campus, but that petition has gotten little notice. Scan the Internet, and it would seem most Notre Dame people oppose Obama speaking and receiving an honorary degree. It is true that there are many, many people who are against him speaking, and their position has merit. But the media is ignoring the large numbers who are thrilled to have Obama speak at Commencement.

The White House responded to the controversy late Tuesday, reported ABC's Political Punch blog. Deputy White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said Obama was "honored" to address the graduation class, but said he understands there are students, parents and alums who don't want him there.

"While he is honored to have the support of millions of people of all faiths, including Catholics with their rich tradition of recognizing the dignity of people, he does not govern with the expectation that everyone sees eye to eye with him on every position and the spirit of debate and healthy disagreement on important issues is part of what he loves about this country," Psaki said.

But the negative reaction has been so loud, and so widely covered, that there's been less coverage of the "healthy disagreement" and more coverage of the outrage by some about the choice. I cannot foresee Obama deciding not to come, or Notre Dame rescinding his invitation. When May 17 has passed, will the story of this controversy be that most Notre Dame people were against his coming? Or will it be clear that many students supported Obama speaking at graduation?

As I did yesterday, I'll end again with my favorite Obama Drama moment of the day. Two Notre Dame students were interviewed on Fox's Greta Van Susteren Wednesday night about their opposition to Obama. At the end of the interview, Van Susteren congratulated the girls on their upcoming graduation.

Her congrats came about a year too early. Both girls are juniors, so they cannot go to Commencement anyway. Greta ended the segment before they could make the correction.

Everyone has the right to have an opinion on Obama speaking at Commencement, but let's see the media seek the opinions of Notre Dame seniors, for whom this decision primarily affects.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Bishop to Boycott Obama Commencement Speech at Notre Dame

Kaitlynn Riely — 2009-03-25T00:30:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, Small Campus, Big Story, Culture, Religion, News, Local, Media, Notre Dame

Bishop John M. D'Arcy, who presides over Indiana's Fort Wayne-South Bend Diocese, which includes Notre Dame, announced Tuesday he will not be attending Notre Dame's May 17 Commencement, since President Barack Obama will be speaking.

"Can I have the Bishop's ticket?" my friend posted on the Web site Twitter.com.

D'Arcy has clashed with Notre Dame in the past, most significantly when University President Fr. John Jenkins issued a statement in 2006 allowing The Vagina Monologues to be performed on campus. Now it's Obama's pro-choice stances and decisions, rather than vaginas, that have gotten D'Arcy's Irish up.

Notre Dame and the White House announced Friday that Obama would be speaking at Notre Dame's May 17 Commencement ceremony, with Jenkins following up Monday clarifying that asking Obama to speak, and awarding him with an honorary doctor of laws degree, does not signify support of his policies. Most students, from my observations on campus, seem to be supportive of and excited about hearing Obama speak. But a vocal student minority, as well as alumni and unaffiliated pro-life groups, have protested the decision vehemently.

In his statement Tuesday, D'Arcy said Jenkins informed him of Obama's acceptance shortly before the announcement was made. D'Arcy said it was the first time he'd been told about the invitation. This May is the 25th Notre Dame graduation since D'Arcy became bishop, and for the first time, he said, he will not attend.

"After much prayer, I have decided not to attend the graduation," he said. "I wish no disrespect to our president, I pray for him and wish him well. I have always revered the Office of the Presidency. But a bishop must teach the Catholic faith 'in season and out of season,' and he teaches not only by his words -- but by his actions."

He added: "My decision is not an attack on anyone, but is in defense of the truth about human life."

I understand that D'Arcy has major disagreements with Obama over abortion and stem cell issues. But isn't he giving up a unique opportunity to pull the president aside for a moment and voice his concerns? It may not make a difference in Obama's stances, but when else will D'Arcy have the ear of the president?

I'm unimpressed with D'Arcy's leadership. The pro-life movement's sign-carrying, march-making approach hasn't worked so far, and I doubt the Bishop's boycott will make any difference in abortion policy in the United States. It just distances the Catholic Church from the decision-making process.

Too bad. I wish D'Arcy had been a bit braver and seen the opportunity, rather than ask whether Notre Dame has "chosen prestige over truth."

D'Arcy's ticket won't go to waste. Notre Dame seniors, who are only guaranteed 3 tickets each for graduation, have been posting on Facebook asking those who don't want Obama to speak at Notre Dame to give away their tickets.

Security itself on graduation day promises to be intense. But already, with two months to go, life in the Notre Dame bubble is becoming surreal. Leaving the gym this afternoon, I stopped by a television because a woman from a local television station was delivering a report from my campus.

When I got back to my room, a friend told me Notre Dame was on CNN.

Does this controversy have the momentum to last two months? Pro-life groups will certainly try their best. Everyone here has a viewpoint on the Obama drama.

My favorite opinion of the day came in a letter to the editor published in Notre Dame's student newspaper, The Observer. The author of the letter is a student at Saint Mary's, the all-women college across the street from Notre Dame, who asked whether the Notre Dame "administration considered the impact such an important political figurehead will have on the travel plans of the other schools graduating that weekend."

I imagine potential traffic congestion is the last thing Jenkins is thinking about this week.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Obama Dances In Boring Press Conference

Joshua Chaney — 2009-03-24T22:30:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, News, The Economy, Muskingum College

Who's sick of hearing the President blame all of his problems on the previous administration?

Evidently some in the press.

The answer to a tough question usual begins with an Obama answer along the following lines: "Well, I would say you have to remember, I inherited (insert any current national crisis or issue here)."

The president didn't disappoint in delivering that answer at a press conference in which he spent most of the night defending his $3.6 trillion budget, saying the budget "is inseparable from this recovery."

Overall, the press conference seemed dull, highlighted only by Obama's eloquence in dancing around each question, giving long-winded answers normally that had little - if any - to do with what was asked and usually ended with health care reform or green energy reform and green jobs.

CNN's Ed Henry and CBS' Chip Reid called the president on the hypocrisy. Asked on the question of whether his budget tramples wishes not to "pass on our problems to the next generation," Obama kicked off his answer by blaming President Bush and Congressional Republicans.

The following is a portion of the press conference transcript from CNN:

Reid: Thank you, Mr. President. At both of your town hall meetings in California last week, you said, quote, "I didn't run for president to pass on our problems to the next generation." But under your budget, the debt will increase $7 trillion over the next 10 years. The Congressional Budget Office says $9.3 trillion. And today on Capitol Hill, some Republicans called your budget, with all the spending on health care, education and environment, the most irresponsible budget in American history.

Obama: Yes.

Reid: Isn't that kind of debt exactly what you were talking about when you said "passing on our problems to the next generation"?

Obama: First of all, I suspect that some of those Republican critics have a short memory, because, as I recall, I'm inheriting a $1.3 trillion deficit, annual deficit, from them. That would be point number one.

Later...

Henry: Thank you. Mr. President. You spoke again at the top about your anger about AIG. You've been saying that for days now. But why is it that it seems Andrew Cuomo seems to be in New York getting more actual action on it?

And when you and Secretary Geithner first learned about this 10 days, two weeks ago, you didn't go public immediately with that outrage. You waited a few days. And then you went public after you realized Secretary Geithner really had no legal avenue to stop it.

And, more broadly, I just want to follow up on Chip and Jake. You've been very critical of President Bush doubling the national debt. And, to be fair, it's not just Republicans hitting you. Democrat Kent Conrad, as you know, said, quote, "When I look at this budget, I see the debt doubling again."

You keep saying that you've inherited a big fiscal mess. Do you worry, though, that your daughters, not to mention the next president, will be inheriting an even bigger fiscal mess if the spending goes out of control?

Obama: Of course I do, Ed, which is why we're doing everything we can to reduce that deficit.
Look, if this were easy, then, you know, we would have already had it done, and the budget would have been voted on, and everybody could go home. This is hard.

And the reason it's hard is because we've accumulated a structural deficit that's going to take a long time, and we're not going to be able to do it next year or the year after or three years from now. What we have to do is bend the curve on these deficit projections.

And the best way for us to do that is to reduce health care costs. That's not just my opinion. That's the opinion of almost every single person who has looked at our long-term fiscal situation...

Henry: But on AIG, why did you wait -- why did you wait days to come out and express that outrage? It seems like the action is coming out of New York and the attorney general's office. It took you days to come public with Secretary Geithner and say, "Look, we're outraged." Why did it take so long?

Obama: It took us a couple of days because I like to know what I'm talking about before I speak.

The president again used a hand-picked list of journalists to direct questions to, oddly leaving out many major print sources like Newsweek, Time, The New York Times and the Washington Post. In an obvious effort to fend off his teasers, Obama also chose to ditch the familiar glass teleprompters he often uses for a large flat screen television in the back of the room instead.

Defending a budget idea to reduce the tax deduction that wealthier families can take when the make charitable donations, Obama said it is "the right thing to do."

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Debate Over Obama Notre Dame Commencement Address Heats Up

Kaitlynn Riely — 2009-03-24T01:03:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, Small Campus, Big Story, Culture, Religion, Breaking News, News, Local, Notre Dame

The White House and Notre Dame announced last Friday that President Barack Obama would be the main speaker at the May 17 Commencement ceremony and would be awarded an honorary doctor of laws degree, a decision that has caused controversy among many in the Catholic community.

Though many students and alums of the University are pleased to have the president speak at Commencement, those opposed to the decision have been far more vocal, as students, alumni and people not affiliated with Notre Dame voiced their protestations loudly throughout the Internet and in Notre Dame's student newspaper.

Fr. John Jenkins, the president of Notre Dame, gave an interview to The Observer, the student newspaper, Sunday in which he responded to the criticism and said he did not "foresee" circumstances in which Notre Dame would rescind the invitation to the president. (Full disclosure: I work for The Observer.)

"We have invited the president and he's honored us by accepting," he told The Observer.

There's been an uproar about the decision, judging by letters to the editor, blog posts and petitions, due to Obama's pro-abortion stances. Jenkins defended his choice, saying the invitation to Obama does not signify an endorsement.

"The invitation of President Obama to be our Commencement speaker should in no way be taken as condoning or endorsing his positions on specific issues regarding the protection of life, such as abortion and embryonic stem cell research," Jenkins told The Observer.

The protestations against the choice of Obama have been very loud, especially in the opinion section of The Observer, but it should be noted that in a mock election held by Notre Dame's student government last October, Obama won 52.6 percent of the vote compared to McCain's 41.1 percent.

Not everyone is protesting Obama coming to campus; many are thrilled. A Facebook group titled "We Will Be Honored To Have President Obama at Notre Dame" has 1,389 members. Several Facebook groups, however, have been created to protest Obama as Commencement speaker.

All I wanted was a nice, quiet, peaceful graduation day, a time to celebrate with my family and friends, without posters of aborted fetuses. Such a simple request. But it won't be so.

Already, pro-life activists are making plans to come to South Bend to protest.

A Web site called notredamescandal.com has set up an online petition to ask Jenkins to rescind the invitation, saying it is in violation of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' 2004 document called "Catholics in Political Life," which states that "those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles" "should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions" by Catholic institutions.

The Web site, launched by the Cardinal Newman Society, claims it has nearly 48,000 signatures. The Cardinal Newman Society, established in 1993, is "dedicated to renewing and strengthening Catholic identity at America's 224 Catholic colleges and universities," according to its Web site.

National Review Online, the Web site of the conservative magazine, asked various commentators to give their views on Notre Dame's speaker choice.

It's become popular in American discourse to invoke Hitler when making a point about something one views as egregious. On National Review's Web site, Fr. George W. Rutler, a Catholic priest in New York, skipped that tiresome cliche and brought back an oldie:

"If a Midwestern school seeks attention by granting Obama an honorary doctorate in law, the next logical step would be to grant Judas Iscariot posthumously an honorary doctorate in business administration," he wrote.

This is only day three of the Great Obama Debate; there is no end in sight. Outside the Notre Dame bubble, I'm sure, no one is talking about the Obama Commencement speaker choice. But it's hard to see reality beyond the bubble while on campus. Here, it is the primary topic of conversation.

Anecdotally, I'd say most seniors I've talked to are excited about Obama coming to speak at graduation. But those who are against Obama speaking are making a lot more noise in the student paper and on the Internet.

My advice to Fr. Jenkins is to fire Charlie Weis and re-hire Ty Willingham. There's nothing like breaking football news to change the topic of conversation at Notre Dame.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments