’)Was there any doubt? You can’t stop him. You can’t even hope to contain him.
Full text of President Obama’s speech at Notre Dame:
Remarks of President Barack Obama
Notre Dame Commencement
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Notre Dame, Indiana
Thank you, Father Jenkins for that generous introduction. You are doing an outstanding job as president of this fine institution, and your continued and courageous commitment to honest, thoughtful dialogue is an inspiration to us all.
Good afternoon Father Hesburgh, Notre Dame trustees, faculty, family, friends, and the class of 2009. I am honored to be here today, and grateful to all of you for allowing me to be part of your graduation.
I want to thank you for this honorary degree. I know it has not been without controversy. I don’t know if you’re aware of this, but these honorary degrees are apparently pretty hard to come by. So far I’m only 1 for 2 as President. Father Hesburgh is 150 for 150. I guess that’s better. Father Ted, after the ceremony, maybe you can give me some pointers on how to boost my average.
I also want to congratulate the class of 2009 for all your accomplishments. And since this is Notre Dame, I mean both in the classroom and in the competitive arena. We all know about this university’s proud and storied football team, but I also hear that Notre Dame holds the largest outdoor 5-on-5 basketball tournament in the world – Bookstore Basketball.
Now this excites me. I want to congratulate the winners of this year’s tournament, a team by the name of “Hallelujah Holla Back.” Well done. Though I have to say, I am personally disappointed that the “Barack O’Ballers” didn’t pull it out. Next year, if you need a 6’2” forward with a decent jumper, you know where I live.
Every one of you should be proud of what you have achieved at this institution. One hundred and sixty three classes of Notre Dame graduates have sat where you are today. Some were here during years that simply rolled into the next without much notice or fanfare – periods of relative peace and prosperity that required little by way of sacrifice or struggle.
You, however, are not getting off that easy. Your class has come of age at a moment of great consequence for our nation and the world – a rare inflection point in history where the size and scope of the challenges before us require that we remake our world to renew its promise; that we align our deepest values and commitments to the demands of a new age. It is a privilege and a responsibility afforded to few generations – and a task that you are now called to fulfill.
This is the generation that must find a path back to prosperity and decide how we respond to a global economy that left millions behind even before this crisis hit – an economy where greed and short-term thinking were too often rewarded at the expense of fairness, and diligence, and an honest day’s work.
We must decide how to save God’s creation from a changing climate that threatens to destroy it. We must seek peace at a time when there are those who will stop at nothing to do us harm, and when weapons in the hands of a few can destroy the many. And we must find a way to reconcile our ever-shrinking world with its ever-growing diversity – diversity of thought, of culture, and of belief.
In short, we must find a way to live together as one human family.
It is this last challenge that I’d like to talk about today. For the major threats we face in the 21st century – whether it’s global recession or violent extremism; the spread of nuclear weapons or pandemic disease – do not discriminate. They do not recognize borders. They do not see color. They do not target specific ethnic groups.
Moreover, no one person, or religion, or nation can meet these challenges alone. Our very survival has never required greater cooperation and understanding among all people from all places than at this moment in history.
Unfortunately, finding that common ground – recognizing that our fates are tied up, as Dr. King said, in a “single garment of destiny” – is not easy. Part of the problem, of course, lies in the imperfections of man – our selfishness, our pride, our stubbornness, our acquisitiveness, our insecurities, our egos; all the cruelties large and small that those of us in the Christian tradition understand to be rooted in original sin. We too often seek advantage over others. We cling to outworn prejudice and fear those who are unfamiliar. Too many of us view life only through the lens of immediate self-interest and crass materialism; in which the world is necessarily a zero-sum game. The strong too often dominate the weak, and too many of those with wealth and with power find all manner of justification for their own privilege in the face of poverty and injustice. And so, for all our technology and scientific advances, we see around the globe violence and want and strife that would seem sadly familiar to those in ancient times.
We know these things; and hopefully one of the benefits of the wonderful education you have received is that you have had time to consider these wrongs in the world, and grown determined, each in your own way, to right them. And yet, one of the vexing things for those of us interested in promoting greater understanding and cooperation among people is the discovery that even bringing together persons of good will, men and women of principle and purpose, can be difficult.
The soldier and the lawyer may both love this country with equal passion, and yet reach very different conclusions on the specific steps needed to protect us from harm. The gay activist and the evangelical pastor may both deplore the ravages of HIV/AIDS, but find themselves unable to bridge the cultural divide that might unite their efforts. Those who speak out against stem cell research may be rooted in admirable conviction about the sacredness of life, but so are the parents of a child with juvenile diabetes who are convinced that their son’s or daughter’s hardships can be relieved.
The question, then, is how do we work through these conflicts? Is it possible for us to join hands in common effort? As citizens of a vibrant and varied democracy, how do we engage in vigorous debate? How does each of us remain firm in our principles, and fight for what we consider right, without demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side?
Nowhere do these questions come up more powerfully than on the issue of abortion.
As I considered the controversy surrounding my visit here, I was reminded of an encounter I had during my Senate campaign, one that I describe in a book I wrote called The Audacity of Hope. A few days after I won the Democratic nomination, I received an email from a doctor who told me that while he voted for me in the primary, he had a serious concern that might prevent him from voting for me in the general election. He described himself as a Christian who was strongly pro-life, but that’s not what was preventing him from voting for me.
What bothered the doctor was an entry that my campaign staff had posted on my website – an entry that said I would fight “right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman’s right to choose.” The doctor said that he had assumed I was a reasonable person, but that if I truly believed that every pro-life individual was simply an ideologue who wanted to inflict suffering on women, then I was not very reasonable. He wrote, “I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words.”
Fair-minded words.
After I read the doctor’s letter, I wrote back to him and thanked him. I didn’t change my position, but I did tell my staff to change the words on my website. And I said a prayer that night that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me. Because when we do that – when we open our hearts and our minds to those who may not think like we do or believe what we do – that’s when we discover at least the possibility of common ground.
That’s when we begin to say, “Maybe we won’t agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions.
So let’s work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term. Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women.”
Understand – I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. No matter how much we may want to fudge it – indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory – the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.
Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words.
It’s a way of life that has always been the Notre Dame tradition. Father Hesburgh has long spoken of this institution as both a lighthouse and a crossroads. The lighthouse that stands apart, shining with the wisdom of the Catholic tradition, while the crossroads is where “…differences of culture and religion and conviction can co-exist with friendship, civility, hospitality, and especially love.” And I want to join him and Father Jenkins in saying how inspired I am by the maturity and responsibility with which this class has approached the debate surrounding today’s ceremony.
This tradition of cooperation and understanding is one that I learned in my own life many years ago – also with the help of the Catholic Church.
I was not raised in a particularly religious household, but my mother instilled in me a sense of service and empathy that eventually led me to become a community organizer after I graduated college. A group of Catholic churches in Chicago helped fund an organization known as the Developing Communities Project, and we worked to lift up South Side neighborhoods that had been devastated when the local steel plant closed.
It was quite an eclectic crew. Catholic and Protestant churches. Jewish and African-American organizers. Working-class black and white and Hispanic residents. All of us with different experiences. All of us with different beliefs. But all of us learned to work side by side because all of us saw in these neighborhoods other human beings who needed our help – to find jobs and improve schools. We were bound together in the service of others.
And something else happened during the time I spent in those neighborhoods. Perhaps because the church folks I worked with were so welcoming and understanding; perhaps because they invited me to their services and sang with me from their hymnals; perhaps because I witnessed all of the good works their faith inspired them to perform, I found myself drawn – not just to work with the church, but to be in the church. It was through this service that I was brought to Christ.
At the time, Cardinal Joseph Bernardin was the Archbishop of Chicago. For those of you too young to have known him, he was a kind and good and wise man. A saintly man. I can still remember him speaking at one of the first organizing meetings I attended on the South Side. He stood as both a lighthouse and a crossroads – unafraid to speak his mind on moral issues ranging from poverty, AIDS, and abortion to the death penalty and nuclear war. And yet, he was congenial and gentle in his persuasion, always trying to bring people together; always trying to find common ground. Just before he died, a reporter asked Cardinal Bernardin about this approach to his ministry. And he said, “You can’t really get on with preaching the Gospel until you’ve touched minds and hearts.”
My heart and mind were touched by the words and deeds of the men and women I worked alongside with in Chicago. And I’d like to think that we touched the hearts and minds of the neighborhood families whose lives we helped change. For this, I believe, is our highest calling.
You are about to enter the next phase of your life at a time of great uncertainty. You will be called upon to help restore a free market that is also fair to all who are willing to work; to seek new sources of energy that can save our planet; to give future generations the same chance that you had to receive an extraordinary education. And whether as a person drawn to public service, or someone who simply insists on being an active citizen, you will be exposed to more opinions and ideas broadcast through more means of communications than have ever existed before. You will hear talking heads scream on cable, read blogs that claim definitive knowledge, and watch politicians pretend to know what they’re talking about. Occasionally, you may also have the great fortune of seeing important issues debated by well-intentioned, brilliant minds. In fact, I suspect that many of you will be among those bright stars.
In this world of competing claims about what is right and what is true, have confidence in the values with which you’ve been raised and educated. Be unafraid to speak your mind when those values are at stake. Hold firm to your faith and allow it to guide you on your journey. Stand as a lighthouse.
But remember too that the ultimate irony of faith is that it necessarily admits doubt. It is the belief in things not seen. It is beyond our capacity as human beings to know with certainty what God has planned for us or what He asks of us, and those of us who believe must trust that His wisdom is greater than our own.
This doubt should not push us away from our faith. But it should humble us. It should temper our passions, and cause us to be wary of self-righteousness. It should compel us to remain open, and curious, and eager to continue the moral and spiritual debate that began for so many of you within the walls of Notre Dame. And within our vast democracy, this doubt should remind us to persuade through reason, through an appeal whenever we can to universal rather than parochial principles, and most of all through an abiding example of good works, charity, kindness, and service that moves hearts and minds.
For if there is one law that we can be most certain of, it is the law that binds people of all faiths and no faith together. It is no coincidence that it exists in Christianity and Judaism; in Islam and Hinduism; in Buddhism and humanism. It is, of course, the Golden Rule – the call to treat one another as we wish to be treated. The call to love. To serve. To do what we can to make a difference in the lives of those with whom we share the same brief moment on this Earth.
So many of you at Notre Dame – by the last count, upwards of 80% — have lived this law of love through the service you’ve performed at schools and hospitals; international relief agencies and local charities. That is incredibly impressive, and a powerful testament to this institution. Now you must carry the tradition forward. Make it a way of life. Because when you serve, it doesn’t just improve your community, it makes you a part of your community. It breaks down walls. It fosters cooperation. And when that happens – when people set aside their differences to work in common effort toward a common good; when they struggle together, and sacrifice together, and learn from one another – all things are possible.
After all, I stand here today, as President and as an African-American, on the 55th anniversary of the day that the Supreme Court handed down the decision in Brown v. the Board of Education. Brown was of course the first major step in dismantling the “separate but equal” doctrine, but it would take a number of years and a nationwide movement to fully realize the dream of civil rights for all of God’s children. There were freedom rides and lunch counters and Billy clubs, and there was also a Civil Rights Commission appointed by President Eisenhower. It was the twelve resolutions recommended by this commission that would ultimately become law in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
There were six members of the commission. It included five whites and one African-American; Democrats and Republicans; two Southern governors, the dean of a Southern law school, a Midwestern university president, and your own Father Ted Hesburgh, President of Notre Dame. They worked for two years, and at times, President Eisenhower had to intervene personally since no hotel or restaurant in the South would serve the black and white members of the commission together. Finally, when they reached an impasse in Louisiana, Father Ted flew them all to Notre Dame’s retreat in Land O’Lakes, Wisconsin, where they eventually overcame their differences and hammered out a final deal.
Years later, President Eisenhower asked Father Ted how on Earth he was able to broker an agreement between men of such different backgrounds and beliefs. And Father Ted simply said that during their first dinner in Wisconsin, they discovered that they were all fishermen. And so he quickly readied a boat for a twilight trip out on the lake. They fished, and they talked, and they changed the course of history.
I will not pretend that the challenges we face will be easy, or that the answers will come quickly, or that all our differences and divisions will fade happily away. Life is not that simple. It never has been.
But as you leave here today, remember the lessons of Cardinal Bernardin, of Father Hesburgh, of movements for change both large and small. Remember that each of us, endowed with the dignity possessed by all children of God, has the grace to recognize ourselves in one another; to understand that we all seek the same love of family and the same fulfillment of a life well-lived. Remember that in the end, we are all fishermen.
If nothing else, that knowledge should give us faith that through our collective labor, and God’s providence, and our willingness to shoulder each other’s burdens, America will continue on its precious journey towards that more perfect union. Congratulations on your graduation, may God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.
###
The dude’s good. It seems strange to actually watch the Pres give a speech without screaming at the TV and having my wife prevent me from kicking in the screen.
We have a president who can talk about serious religious matters without sounding like a buffoon.
America ftw.
Great, great speech. As always. Important ideas, well delivered.
Also: This post has been up several hours and not a single dumbo teleprompter comment.
Cons, consider me impressed.
I kind of miss that retarded President guy. You know, the one who got the petulant sneer every time he made a point so stupid or inane that the audience would just gape at him. Butch? Douche? What was his name again? That was some funny, surreal shit. Kinda like if Tony Clifton was President.
The man is confronted with controversy and he not only doesn’t shirk, doesn’t blink, and carries the day.
And he points out that we have work to do, together–hard work–or else we’re gonna keep getting what we’ve been getting.
FTW indeed.
Speeches like this one are the reason we even know Mr. Obama’s name. Back in ‘04, his keynoter at the Dem convention was another like this one. His ability to speak without fear about topics that have been perennial weaknesses for big Dems make him very nearly invulnerable to the sort of unprincipled attacks that the GOP has used to great effect.
“…retarded President guy.”
C’mon, enough with the childish insults. Stuff like that just gives ammunition to the Right.
“God’s white”-Randall Terry
C’mon, enough with the childish insults. Stuff like that just gives ammunition to the Right.
And increases the chance of them shooting themselves in the foot,
Very impressed that the official White House transcript of the speech also included the heckling by a protester. I can’t remember any time that his ever happened. The incident is omitted above, but the fact that the WH didn’t smooth it over is a powerful embodiment of the principles of the speech. Here’s the missing bit:
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Abortion is murder! Stop killing children!
AUDIENCE: Booo!
THE PRESIDENT: That’s all right. And since –
AUDIENCE: We are ND! We are ND!
AUDIENCE: Yes, we can! Yes, we can!
THE PRESIDENT: We’re fine, everybody. We’re following Brennan’s adage that we don’t do things easily. (Laughter.) We’re not going to shy away from things that are uncomfortable sometimes. (Applause.)
I see noone has actually READ the speech:
Fine words. Admirable words. Tremendous advice. If only he hadn’t spent the last 3 months villifying Rush Limbaugh. Or denoucing anyone who disagreed with his economic plans as “those who want to do nothing.”
SaveFarris,
Rush IS a villain, racist, liar, drug addict and a dumbass calling him so dose not make the speaker rabble it makes him an honest man.
So farris, other than “tax cuts for the rich”, how is the Republican economic “plan” doing anything? They don’t even have budget figures!
Please show me where Obama has come out in public villifying Rush Limbaugh. And while you’re at it, you should be a little less sanctimonious about how Obama’s words are admirable considering that you haven’t written a sentence here that rises up to the standards that you claim to praise.
Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.
Good words. Of course, it will be interesting to see what his supporters do with that. You know. The supporters who accuse people that are pro-life of just wanting to “control what a woman does with her uterus.” The supporters who lump anybody that is strongly pro-life in with the terrorists who advocate shooting abortion providers or bombing clinics. The supporters who call people who are pro-life, “right wing Christianist freaks.”
THOSE caricatures which I have seen people on this very blog use. Let’s see when the next time the abortion issue comes up if they’ll heed Obama’s advice.
I won’t hold my breath.
Jay,
I’m “Pro-Life” as well as “Pro-choice”. I have to this day hared any insult anyone that is pro-life.
Now as to Anti-Choice folks. that is a different story.
Jay, you’re not wrong in that such caricatures are used often by some of Obama’s supporters. And you’ll find on this very blog people who don’t care for such caricatures.
What you’re not holding your breath over is the possibility that the sum total of the millions of Obama supporters will rise to this criteria. Which you shouldn’t. It would be stupid to do so.
And you know it would be stupid to do so.
So really, you’re just blustering. Enjoy that.
Jay, you’re not wrong in that such caricatures are used often by some of Obama’s supporters. And you’ll find on this very blog people who don’t care for such caricatures.
I’m sure there are. It would just be interesting for those to actually say something to those who engage in such caricatures or for those who are falling over themselves to praise Obama (like Jaim for instance) to take Obama’s advice.
And my comments about holding my breath were restricted largely to the confines of these pages. I don’t expect the sum total of Obama’s supporters to follow his advice. I believe in miracles, but that’s too much to ask.
Yeah, we’ll do that while the other side calls us baby killers and infanticide fetishists and the like. There’s a reason why Barack Obama is the leader, he walks the path of reconciliation and good-mindedness.
Daniel–
C’mon, enough with the childish insults. Stuff like that just gives ammunition to the Right.
Yeah, but they’re not responding (here at least). Because then they’d have to admit they can speak his name.
Yeah, we’ll do that while the other side calls us baby killers and infanticide fetishists and the like.
And? If somebody does, then Obama’s call to engage differently goes out the window? Hmm. I didn’t see, “Unless they do it first” in the text of that speech.
There’s a reason why Barack Obama is the leader, he walks the path of reconciliation and good-mindedness.
One is only a good leader if somebody actually FOLLOWS his lead. Time will tell.
LOL,
Well I’ll say it, Bush may have had his flaws but he was an honest man with a lot of guts. He didn’t take the incredibly vile things said about him personally. He didn’t spend 20 years listening to racist church leaders preach hate to gain street cred. He didn’t call his grandmother who raised him, after his dizzy mother, a child herself, was abandoned by the african who seduced her a racist. And Bush was not a socialist trying to nationalize both industry and health trying to emulate the worst of europe. Bush never tried to rewrite contract law to curry favor with political special interests who voted for him.
Obama has committed our children and grandchildren to paying incredibly high taxes to pay for his utopian dreams even as he works feverishly to damage America’s ability to compete in the global economy through crippling carbon penalties. His spending makes Bush look like a miser.
I’m sure there are. It would just be interesting for those to actually say something to those who engage in such caricatures or for those who are falling over themselves to praise Obama (like Jaim for instance) to take Obama’s advice.
Yes, Jay, I’d love to follow the example you set every time yo mama or Dennis or random drive-by right-wing trolls stop in to slather great gobs of pinko-red liberal paint across the walls.
Also, on this very thread is daniel rotter asking the thread to avoid childish insults. Six short posts above yours.
I won’t engage in caricature. You have to not be a cartoon, though.
Bush may have had his flaws but he was an honest man with a lot of guts.
Wow, that’s some gen-yoo-whine world-class SARCASM.
I hope.
“Well I’ll say it, Bush may have had his flaws but he was an honest man with a lot of guts.”
Yep, that supporting role in defeating the Vietcong in Alabama was quite a tip-off. When he was there, at least.
And Bush was not a socialist trying to nationalize both industry and health trying to emulate the worst of europe.
True. Bush emulated the worst
Bush never tried to rewrite contract law to curry favor with political special interests who voted for him.
$200 million in public subsidies went to the Bush-owned Texas Rangers which in turn was sold to Thomas O. Hicks, Bush’s No. 4 career patron, for a 25-fold return on his investment.
Obama has committed our children and grandchildren to paying incredibly high taxes to pay for his utopian dreams even as he works feverishly to damage America’s ability to compete in the global economy through crippling carbon penalties. His spending makes Bush look like a miser.
Don’t want your “children and grandchildren to paying incredibly high taxes”?, don’t have any. Seriously. The reduced carbon emissions from all that mouthbreathing alone would do some good.
The issue at Notre Dame yesterday was not abortion . So the President’s (mostly self-proclaimed) ability to face that issue is irrelevant. Does anyone here think that he went to Notre Dame to speak about abortion?
The issue was (is) should a person – any person — whose views on a very sensitive moral and religious issue are diametrically opposed to those of the Catholic Church, speak at the Commencement Ceremony of a purported Catholic University?
While many thought he should not, he did anyway. That is not leadership – that is the obstinacy of the stereotypical liberal, who never lets courtesy, consideration or good taste stand in the way of ideology.
The protesters who wanted to make Graduation Day about abortion, succeeded. I am opposed to abortion, but I see that the disruption of the Ceremony, and its co – option by a debate on abortion, as foolish and irrelevant.
How would you like to spend a bajillion dollars and four years of your life struggling to graduate from one of America’s finest Universities, only to characterize your long – awaited day as “The Day Obama Spoke about Abortion”?
While many thought he should not, he did anyway.
Right. What nerve! I mean we all saw the footage of Obama using the secret service to muscle his way past university security and the heads of Notre Dame, the president, the provost etc. etc., to seize the stage and force them all to listen to him speak. It was really embarrassing when he pushed aside the officially invited commencement speaker to assume his place in the spotlight.
It would have been far more courteous, considerate and in good taste if Obama had actually been invited to speak by the university, instead of demanding and then forcing his way on to the satge.
Yes, Frankie, Obama shouldn’t have forced Notre Dame to let him speak at their commencement. Oh wait…
Which is a reminder that Notre Dame and its administration have not been praised highly enough. They came under real pressure from their own church’s hierarchy, and they decided to be a University and not a department of the Ministry of Truth. One can dismiss various idiot petitions and polls and pledges, but in fact it will cost them something in the short term and for who knows how long. But they’ve been working to be a great university and not just a Catholic football team, so this advances the cause, really — with direct endorsement of the President. Subtle and devious of them, isn’t it? You’d almost think they were Jesuits.
In all probability it will also help to keep the Church alive. This will be greeted with mixed feelings, sort of like the rise of a sane faction among Republicans, but that’s life.
I guess I have to translate adult English into “4th Grade-ese” for Porlock and “enlightened liberal” ( too bad his ‘enlightenment’ didn’t include simple English ).
I draw your attention to three sentences:
1) “Does anyone here think that he went to Notre Dame to speak about abortion?”
This is known as a “rhetorical question”. In this case, the anticipated, unspoken, but implied answer is , “No”. OK, so far?
Next, 2) “While many thought he should not, he did anyway.” This refers to the previous sentence :”… should a person – any person — whose views on a very sensitive moral and religious issue are diametrically opposed to those of the Catholic Church, speak at the Commencement Ceremony of a purported Catholic University?” This means that a certain number of people vehemently opposed his speaking there, but he spoke there, anyway. When he did, he was not required, or even requested to speak about abortion; he was there for a Commencement Address, and to receive an honorary degree.
The rest, even you two simpletons can understand.
You know, you shouldn’t offer an opinion on a comment when you have no idea what the comment means.
Shorter Frank: “You should let an opposing view/group of people bully you at will. Thats the courteous thing to do!”
Shorter Frank: “You should let an opposing view/group of people bully you at will. Thats the courteous thing to do!”
This is a pretty good encapsulation of the conservative mindset.
Porlock,
you are correct. It has not otherwise been mentioned here but Rev. (President) Jenkin’s introduction of President Obama was not only eloquent, as Obama rightfully noted, but full of grace.
with Frank’s return, the collective intelligence of the posters at OliverWillis.com drops another hundred points. Thanks for that, Frankie.
I love how Obama drives the wing-nuts crazy with his charisma and logic. Especially the ones who troll here.
“While many thought she should not, he did anyway.”
So Obama should have TURNED DOWN the invitation to speak at ND and receive an honrary degree? Imagine the grief he would receive then (“Obama is uncomfortable around Catholics! Obama hates Catholicism! Obama hates Notre Dame!”).
“I am opposed to abortion.”
Somewhat off-topic, but what criminal penalties would you desire for females who have abortions? Life sentence? Death penalty? Would you be personally willing to put the handcuffs on a 13-year-old girl who got an illegal abortion as a result of getting pregnant from being raped at knifepoint by her father? (And please don’t give me the standard nonsense about the woman/girl who had the abortion being “the second victim,” so the law shouldn’t punish her. If she had the procedure voluntarily, then she is definitely NOT a victim).
Fine words. Admirable words. Tremendous advice. If only he hadn’t spent the last 3 months villifying Rush Limbaugh.
This is known as a “rhetorical question”. In this case, the anticipated, unspoken, but implied answer is , “The people who were protesting him speaking”. OK, so far?
Fixed, and fine.
When he did, he was not required, or even requested to speak about abortion;
He wasn’t required to speak about any topic in particular. What did you want him to do? Say “Go Notre Dame!”, take his honorary degree and leave?
Right winger “Jay” preemptively attacked the left with caricatures.
“Jay” made his caricature attacks even while simultaneously deriding the possibility of civility from the left and without acknowledging that it was right wing extremists that repeatedly and crudely interrupted Democratic President Obama’s speech at Notre Dame University.
It was a tiny minority of right wing extremists that demanded that a cordially invited commencement speaker, who had the support of the vast majority of the student body, be denied to speak specifically because of their views on abortion, something that would have been irrelevant if the tiny minority of right wing extremists hadn’t made it their paramount issue in attacking the invited speaker.
Even now, right winger “Frank DiSalle”, is asserting that responding to those critics and their specific criticisms is somehow an “obstinacy of the stereotypical liberal, who never lets courtesy, consideration or good taste stand in the way of ideology.”
Right winger “Frank DiSalle’s” distasteful discourtesy used to push his fanatic ideology, even while complaining about being treated as he treats others, is a perfect caricature of the right wing.
What right wingers “Jay” and “Frank DiSalle” are doing is living up to the Right Winger’s First Rule: Rules Are For Other People.
To right winger “Frank DiSalle”, civility is defined by the left wing’s submission to right wing critics and criticisms. In “Frank DiSalle’s” world, when a right winger criticizes a left winger the only civil response is silence and servility by the left wing.
And right winger “Jay” bizarrely equates his expectation of civility of rhetoric by the left with the left’s willingness to ignore what “Jay” describes as right wing “terrorists who advocate shooting abortion providers or bombing clinics.”
Since I’m an independent with a conservative streak, “Jay”, your crude caricatures and absurd expectations don’t bind me.
As such, “Jay”, I WILL point out that, yes, it IS right wing terrorists who have bombed abortion clinics and killed clinic workers.
But right wing terrorists do more than bomb clinics and kill clinic workers, right wing terrorists use a long list of violent attacks and threats against clinic workers.
http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/violence/history_violence.html
What’s particularly absurd and little offensive about “Jay”, a guy who deliberately obscures the Constitution with a gun, is that he makes an ridiculous caricature of the left being unable to keep from caricaturing the right without any sense of self awareness of his caricaturization of the left.
Right winger “Jay” doesn’t need the left to caricature him, he does a fine job caricaturing himself.
[corrected]
What’s particularly absurd and a little offensive about “Jay”, a guy who deliberately obscures the Constitution with a gun, is that he makes a ridiculous caricature of the left, claiming that the left is unable to keep from caricaturing the right, without any sense of self awareness of his own caricaturization of the left.
Right winger “Jay” doesn’t need the left to caricature him, he does a fine job caricaturing himself.
Mr Rotter raises an interesting point: Did I say Pres. Obama should not have spoken at Notre Dame? I did NOT!
I said that despite the fact that some people said he should not speak there, he did, anyway. The very next sentence begins, “That is not leadership…”
My easily understood point was that contrary to what others had alleged, Mr Obama was not exhibiting leadership, rather “the obstinacy, etc.”
So, your so-called arguments, while an interesting diversion, neither prove, nor even demonstrate, anything. I never said what you said I said. I repeat: The objection to his speaking there was based on his positions on abortion. He vindicated their objections by speaking, irrelevantly, about abortion.
Was / is he free to speak about whatever he chooses? Of course he is. Should he have, in effect, played into the protesters’ hands, by letting them set the agenda for the day? Well, you tell me.
Finally, I would love to address Mr Rotter’s hypothetical questions “what criminal penalties would you desire for females who have abortions?”
First, why must any and all penalties for having an abortion be criminal? Did I suggest that? Put down that straw, set that straw man in the corner, and come back to reality. I have an imagination, which I can apparently use better than you can.
I would assume that each and every abortion did, and will, take place under a different set of circumstances, involving differing levels of participation , willfulness and responsibility on the part of the pregnant girl, her family, the putative father of the child, the doctor, and any other individual that played a significant role in the abortion.
On whom should the weight of responsibility for an abortion fall? Taking your far-fetched example of the knife wielding incestuous Dad, shall we we hold the knife manufacturer responsible? How about an education system that failed to teach the young girl a sufficient amount of self – defense to disarm her raging Dad? Or, perhaps we should punish the cabdriver that delivers the poor girl to Planned Parenthood? Multiplying absurdities is a game best played by fools and liberals like Zython — not by me.
“The objection to his speaking there was based on his positions on abortion. He vindicated their objections by speaking, irrelevantly, about abortion.
Was / is he free to speak about whatever he chooses? Of course he is. Should he have, in effect, played into the protesters’ hands, by letting them set the agenda for the day? Well, you tell me.”
I see my Stuck On Stupid friend Frank is not used to a Commander In Chief who is not afraid to take on adversity and address uncomfortable issues comfortably with ease and might I’d add…in public. Don’t worry, you’ll have the next 7 plus years to get over it. Buh-Bye now.
He didn’t call his grandmother who raised him, after his dizzy mother, a child herself, was abandoned by the african who seduced her a racist.
AO You are a worthless, racist jackass.
he protesters who wanted to make Graduation Day about abortion, succeeded. I am opposed to abortion, but I see that the disruption of the Ceremony, and its co – option by a debate on abortion, as foolish and irrelevant.
And yet you blame the President rather than the protesters? Some people didn’t want Obama to speak at Notre Dame, others did – including the vast majority of the students, faculty, and administration. Are you trying to argue that it would have shown true “leadership” for Obama to kow-tow to the protesters?
Because that’s just silly.
No I am not, Quaker, but you don’t “starve” a controversy by “feeding” it. If you believe that the President’s views on abortion should have prevented him from speaking there, then, yes, he should have addressed it.
If he believed that his views on abortion did not preclude him from speaking there, then it was not an appropriate topic for a Commencement Address.
He made an overtly political speech, which inadvertently played into the hands of the protesters — did you know they claimed “victory”? — and helped to spoil a most memorable day for the graduates, their families and their friends.
Holy shit. Two of the stupidest people who have ever posted on this blog, posting some of their stupidest thoughts they’ve ever expressed. Is it a full moon? WTF is going on here?
AO: “Well I’ll say it, Bush may have had his flaws but he was an honest man with a lot of guts. He didn’t take the incredibly vile things said about him personally.”
This is very, very stupid. I don’t know how anyone can be so blind. Holy fucking shitballs. Also: What Southern Quaker said.
Frank, I don’t even know where to begin. I think that more than a few of my neurons in my prefrontal cortex committed suicide after I read your posts. They just couldn’t handle the profound idiocy of your thoughts. I will miss them.
Let’s just go with this one: “Taking your far-fetched example of the knife wielding incestuous Dad, shall we we hold the knife manufacturer responsible? ”
First of all, fuck off, Frank. You’re a scumbag. My ex-girlfriend was brutalized by her father in precisely this manner on numerous occasions in her childhood. She got an abortion at the age of 12 because of what he did to her. She rarely sleeps through the night without waking up in a fit due to PTSD nightmares. Horrible, horrible things that she will have to deal with for the rest of her life; knowledge of these horrible things that I will carry around with me for the rest of mine. Far-fetched, indeed. You fucking asshole. Wake the fuck up and join reality, bonehead – shit like this isn’t as uncommon as it should be.
Secondly, that whole paragraph was some of the most nonsensical, idiotic tripe that I’ve ever seen you write. And that’s saying a lot.
‘He made an overtly political speech, which inadvertently played into the hands of the protesters — did you know they claimed “victory”? — and helped to spoil a most memorable day for the graduates, their families and their friends.’
Frank, I think they would claim victory no matter what the President did. And it’s a blanket statement to say he ruined everyone’s graduation. As you say, those opposed to the President’s appearance can come away with a sense of victory. Those supportive may not feel anything was ruined.
Aside to mambochicken: My apologies to your girlfriend. If what you say is true, and I do not hesitate to say I don’t believe it, I empathize with her. and she has you for a boyfriend.
“Hick” you make a valid point.
Frank: “Aside to mambochicken: My apologies to your girlfriend. If what you say is true, and I do not hesitate to say I don’t believe it, I empathize with her. and she has you for a boyfriend.”
Nice balls, Frank. Yes, I have nothing better to do than to make up false stories about tragic events relevant to my personal life, and broadcast them on a political blog just as a way of tearing you down for my own amusement. I am that kind of person. Absolutely. Nice touch with your last sentence, too. Real classy. You’re a class act, Frank.
What an unbelievable fucking bastard you are. I cannot even begin to imagine how you became this inhuman monster. It’s to the point where I can’t figure out whether I’m more furious or saddened.
If he believed that his views on abortion did not preclude him from speaking there, then it was not an appropriate topic for a Commencement Address.
Yes, what an entirely inappropriate speech to give at the commencement address of Notre Dame.
Can I just point out, AO is a despicable human being.
Nice paragraph, Quaker, I agree
Mambochicken, as I recall you insulted me twice before I mentioned your name. If anyone has a problem here, it is you. If you could get a handle on your arrogance, and condescension, you might be ready for tutorials in humanity.
Until then, put a sock in it.
Are you trying to argue that it would have shown true “leadership” for Obama to kow-tow to the protesters?
Because that’s just silly.
That’s what John McCain would’ve done.
How ironic that the right-wingers cry and whine for civility from the left while at the same time disrupting the President’s speech.
Right winger “Frank DiSalle” babbles incoherently, he starts off with an attack and a broad brush caricature and then complains when he in turn is attacked, he claims that what he just said in a previous post isn’t actually what he said, he argues against himself and then whines when his argument is dissected as the absurdity it is.
It’s sad really.
There are smart, conscientious right wingers out there, I’m fortunate enough to know a few personally.
But none have ever shown up at OliverWillis.com
I keep hoping that right winger “Jay” will start paying attention and think through his arguments. But he’s so enamored with his gun it short circuits everything else he thinks about.
I have a fantasy that right wingers “Colin” or “Jay Tea” will grow a conscience or at least learn how to do math.
right wingers “Amused Observer” and “yo mama” are just cowardly thugs (it’s almost like they are the same person…).
But this “Frank DiSalle” character is just wacky. He reminds me of that archetypal crazy person that wanders around nearly every big city, the person who wants to argue with everyone they meet, spout crazy arguments, and then smile and nod smugly as if their crazy arguments just won the argument.
Right winger “Frank DiSalle” is clearly a little nuts but his argumentation style is a Classic Right Wing con.
Right winger “Frank DiSalle” illustrates a common right wing tactic used to excuse many of the right wing’s predatory cons: Blame the victim.
In this case, as in so many right wing schemes, the right winger defends the right wing attackers and then blames the one attacked for responding.
That the one attacked responded politely is disregarded.
Right winger “Frank DiSalle’s” position is that the one attacked should not make any defense.
It’s a common tactic used by right wingers like Limbaugh, Murdoch’s FOX thugs, Gingrich, Cheney, and many if not most of the right wing speakers and leaders.
Right wingers attack and then act enraged when the person attacked defends themselves.
It’s an attempt to manipulate the left wing’s genuine concern for fairness against themselves.
The right wing pretends like they didn’t make attacks but then point to the defense as an offense. And if the one attacked attacks back then that’s pointed to as an even greater offense.
It’s an obscene way to manipulate an argument and right wingers are masters at it.
Right wingers attack and then complain about the one they attack defending themselves and then throw childish fits if the person or people they attack attacks back.
Oh My,
Once again I’ve been called a racist. You guys are too funny, nothing I’ve posted has been anything but true. Obama listens and let’s his children listen to most vile sort of racial hatred from his “mentor” and then throws his grandmother under the bus. The hypocrisy shown here is world class.
AO claims, nothing I’ve posted has been anything but true.
earlier having written…
his dizzy mother, a child herself, was abandoned by the african (sic) who seduced her.”
It is racist to suggest that Obama’s young, white mother was seduced and then abandoned by his African (read: black) father, when nothing of the sort has ever been suggested by the facts.
Did Obama’s mother get pregnant and then marry the father of her child? Yes. Did that marriage last only a couple of years before the couple parted ways? Yes, which sadly is not an uncommon story for that or any subsequent generation.
Does the fact that Obama’s father happened to be from Africa have any bearing whatsofuckingever on the circumstances of his birth? NO, you racist jerk!
You want to bring up that tired right-wing talking point that Obama “threw his grandmother under the bus,” okay. It’s utter crap, but okay. But there is no fucking way in hell you can justify that statement as anything but racist “OMG the scary black man got the poor little white girl pregnant!” bullshit.
Frank, I insulted you because what you said was monumentally stupid. The premise and the execution of your commentary on this thread is piss-poor, lacking critical thinking skills and showing your typical level of intellectual emptiness. If this is all you ever provide me with, why would I come to any other conclusion than you being a fucking moron?
And then, your bullshit re: violent, incestuous fathers and abortion, calling it “far-fetched”… not to mention your declaration that you don’t believe my story, and your implied lamentation for my ex that I was with her… all those things clearly demonstrate that you are disconnected from reality, a huge shitbag, and a sorry excuse for a human being. Yours is a sad, pathetic existence, Frank, and I truly hope that you get what you deserve.
Southern Quaker: Well said.
AO: You’re an awful human being.
You poor deluded Southern Pacifist.
When Obama’s 17 year old mother became heavy with child just how do you suppose that happened. And it is not racist to point it out. And she was abandoned by the father of her child. And the poor grandmother was tasked with raising the child. And Obama did make disparaging remarks about the woman who raised him having racist inclinations.
You play the racist card so often that it has no meaning and little sting. While not politically correct to point out what may seem embarrassing it is not racist.
Obama has a strange way of showing gratitude, little loyalty and damn little interest in helping out his own family members.
AO –
forget it. You’re not worth the effort.
One is only a good leader if somebody actually FOLLOWS his lead.
So why aren’t you? Why are you out to make the President look bad? America hater.
I said that despite the fact that some people said he should not speak there, he did, anyway. The very next sentence begins, “That is not leadership…”
My easily understood point was that contrary to what others had alleged, Mr
So you’re saying that he shouldn’t have spoken there because there were a few people that didn’t want him to? He should have all of his actions dictated by others? THAT’S not leadership, Frankie.
The objection to his speaking there was based on his positions on abortion. He vindicated their objections by speaking, irrelevantly, about abortion.
I think it was a fair compromise. He gave the people who wanted to hear him speak a rousing and memorable speech, while he gave the people exhuming phony outrage some slim sense of justification. That’s what we call “compromise”.
First, why must any and all penalties for having an abortion be criminal?
Because your side equates abortion to murder?
On whom should the weight of responsibility for an abortion fall? Taking your far-fetched example of the knife wielding incestuous Dad, shall we we hold the knife manufacturer responsible? How about an education system that failed to teach the young girl a sufficient amount of self – defense to disarm her raging Dad? Or, perhaps we should punish the cabdriver that delivers the poor girl to Planned Parenthood?
You just avoided the question. What do YOU think the penalties should be?
“On whom should the weight of responsibility for an abortion fall?”
Well, logically, under criminal law, anyone who participated in the abortion. A simple answer to a simple question.
“First, why must any and all penalties for having an abortion be criminal?”
Good grief, what other kinds of “penalties” could there be for the woman/girl having an abortion except criminal ones? Revocation of her library card? Loss of sampling privileges at Cold Stone Creamery?
“…shall we hold the knife manufacturer responsible?”
No.
“How about an education system that failed to teach the young girl a sufficient amount of self-defense to disarm her raging Dad?
No (and since when is it the job and duty of education systems, as opposed to, say, karate classes, to teach self-defense to young girls, or anyone else for that matter, anyway?).
“Or, perhaps we should punish the cabdriver that delivers the poor girl to Planned Parenthood?”
No, we shouldn’t since, unlike the girl in question, the cabdriver wouldn’t be participating in the abortion (and that’s accepting the implied premise of your question that the girl tells the cabdriver about the abortion she is about to get in the first place, which is fairly unlikely).
I’ve answered your questions in this matter. No why don’t you extend me the same courtesy and answer mine: What criminal penalties should be imposed on the girl/woman who has an abortion?
Mr Rotter, I answered your question , to wit : I would assume that each and every abortion did, and will, take place under a different set of circumstances, involving differing levels of participation , willfulness and responsibility on the part of the pregnant girl, her family, the putative father of the child, the doctor, and any other individual that played a significant role in the abortion.
If you were waiting for, “Burn her for a witch!”, or, “Hang the Doctor from the nearest lamppost”, well, sorry , you won’t. As long as you believe that the law provides “simple answers to simple questions”, you will never understand the law.
Mambochicken , as long as you attempt to justify your behavior by saying that my comments compel your responses, rather than face the fact that you are an arrogant, contemptuous windbag, you will never get a respectful response from me. It is you and your ilk that strive daily to turn our world into a cold, unfeeling laboratory maze for human beings to try the next liberal experiment, each one failing one after the other, to contribute in any way to the betterment of the human condition.
Go away. Quietly, or loudly, but go away.
Frank, three things.
First, you’ve demonstrated yourself ONCE AGAIN to be a complete fucking idiot. Tell me – what is compelling my responses, if not your comments on this thread? Who am I responding to? I call you an idiot because your language indicates that you are one. Give me some evidence to the contrary, and then I can re-evaluate my position. But with the lack of this evidence, I must continue to think of you as a complete fucking moron.
Second, your hypocrisy is showing. Denouncing me for a lack of civility, while simultaneously engaging in low blows, as well as telling me that I lack humanity and am an “arrogant, contemptuous windbag”… you’re a hypocritical piece of shit. For the record, I don’t give a shit if you call me arrogant, or a windbag, or what have you – go to town. But I do get annoyed at your lack of self-awareness and your raging hypocrisy.
Third, you are a miserable scumbag.
“It is you and your ilk that strive daily to turn our world into a cold, unfeeling laboratory maze for human beings to try the next liberal experiment, each one failing one after the other, to contribute in any way to the betterment of the human condition.”
This is highly amusing to me. With respect to the “betterment of the human condition,” I’ve probably done more in my 5 years as a Ph.D student in psychology than you’ve done in your whole miserable, long existence.
You’re just a bitter, lonely old man, watching the clock tick down on his world ever-faster. Your body failing, your mind inflexible and deteriorating, you’ll cling helplessly to life for the next few years (if you’re lucky) before the sun sets on you. And when it does, Frankie, dear friend, you better hope that I am right about the whole God question – because if you’re correct, you are going to Hell.
Frankie, why didn’t you respond to my comment? I asked you a legitimate question and you ignored it. This leads me to believe that you never critically thought about your views and actually hold no opinions of your own. Rather, take your cues from religious far-right organizations like NOM, Focus on the Family, and Stormfront.
It is you and your ilk that strive daily to turn our world into a cold, unfeeling laboratory maze for human beings to try the next liberal experiment, each one failing one after the other, to contribute in any way to the betterment of the human condition.
Translation: “Whaaaaaaa!!! I don’t like change!”
Seriously, though, what the fuck are you on? If you don’t know, abortion’s been legal for 30+ years. Here, it’s YOU that wants to “experiment” to see if women having to risk their lives for abortions betters the human condition, and, of course, failing AGAIN.
And, of course, like the last time you brought this “gem” up, which was talking about gay right, you believe this doesn’t better the human condition. Because apparently, gays (or women this time) aren’t human to you.