A Gentleman’s view.

Poor sportsmanship shows a LeBron not ready to be crowned.

The NBA was all set for Kobe’s west coast Lakers to take on the LeBron James led Cleveland Cavaliers as a Final for all times until a little Magic changed the plans. The King; LeBron James was dethroned this weekend by an very motivated team from Orlando Florida that had more than enough magic to become the Eastern Conference Champions and earn a spot in the NBA Finals this year. The King’s team didn’t not show up to give support needed to win a chance to dance with the Kobe led Los Angeles Lakers. The Lakers pretty much dominated the west coast teams all season long. The James supporting cast suddenly decided to join the rest of the viewing public and watch as the ‘King’ took over games at times and saved them from being swept with a prayer at the buzzer in game two. For all the hype and anticipation of a showdown between the leagues stars, one player found out he has something to learn about leadership and the other found out their team has what it needs for now, just a question of will it be enough for the next round.

The bad show was on the ‘King James’ version of losing gracefully, he did not. When any competition is over, it is customary to high five or  a shaking of the hands of the successful opponents who are moving on to the next round. Maybe a comment like; “Don’t let those Lakers win a damn thing’, East Coast rocks the most or something like that, would have been appropriate. But, LeBron sadly wasn’t man enough to face his vanquishers after straight up competition and congratulate the efforts of their victory. Nor was he willing to face the media, who had heaped untold praise upon this young man to date. LeBron James has enjoyed all the hype that went along with be crowned the new king of the NBA, but could not stay to face the music of failing to live up to expectations. This is not the way a true king of anything behaves for his adoring public. This is no way for a man of his unique talents to represent in front of all the young potential ‘James’ coming in his wake. His behavior last Saturday night in losing to the Orlando Magic was reason to be glad he didn’t get crowned this year, instead, he got just what promos stated, win or go home. So long until next year your majesty.

We are Americans, we’re tough, and we can handle anything except Muslims.

The Republican Party is really good at sending strong messages as a political party. They have co-opted many symbolic themes of strength from the opposition and in doing so, painted them as being against these same principles much to their detriment. They are by reputation the party of fiscal responsibility, strong military defense, family values and extremely patriotic. As a political party, they have used this reputation they have harnessed and manipulated to brow beat into submission the opposition party when it comes to legislation, political opponents when it comes to elections, and as a cultural weapon to divide and conquer the voting public. The Republicans have long been known for being strong on defense of this nation and cutting taxes for the rich to have the poor pay for the military. They do this is as it is practical for them, as the poor are the ones who will be employed by the military and die. According to one Rick Santelli, Wall Street Broker and staunch supporter of McCain, the Republican Party is not made up of losers, like those who might have to get a job by joining the military. The men of their party usually speak out in a forceful ‘we don’t take no nothing from anybody’ manner when it comes to dealing with others on the international stage. These stands taken by this party has been for them a statement of character, for the party, for potential individuals representing them, and against any who oppose them. These are statements of strength, conviction, courage and power.

So the most powerful representative speaking out in defense of taking just those kinds of stands as leaders of this country and elected representatives of the Republican Party of this great nation, former Vice President Dick Cheney is going around making just such a statement. For after 9/11, and being supposedly caught off guard with the attack that took place that day, the tough guys reaction to the attack was to invade two Muslim nations with our military. Totally tear down our Democracy as it was known to exist by the changes that became known as the Patriot Act. He swears by all considered to be red state in mentality and true American patriotism, the best way to prosecute this war on terror was to use enhanced interrogation techniques referring to tactics legally determined to be criminal. Their legality adjusted by the justice department at the behest of the Bush Administration to their puppet AG Alberto Gonzales. Through the Justice Department and the Patriot Act legislation they bogarted thru Congress, they changed the rules of the game, the way the game was played and then the game itself with the false reasons to go to war with Iraq.

So, this party of tough guys decides to go extreme in exacting revenge on the weaker states of the Muslim nations that exist today using methods techniques and principles once deemed proper for petty third world dictators and such. They sit in wait for another attack, any kind of terror event to prove that the present administration is wrong in not continuing the use of these illegal tactics to keep Americans safe. They suggest that closing Guantanamo prison is another major policy failure of President Obama’s decision making process that will endanger our security. They continue that theme with attempting to invoke fear and quiet hatred and prejudice by claiming ‘enhanced danger’ of bringing the detainees here to America. Fear of some dreaded attack from some outside radical Muslim group seeking either to free their brethren or revenge on the community at large and then some spectacular Hollywood prison break. If not for the amusement of the entertainment value, one might just shake their heads.

But, here’s my point on this, we are the toughest nation on the planet, we lock up over 1 million criminals in this country, more than anyone else on the planet. We have the most highly secure super max prisons in the world which already house some of the country’s known worst criminals, and Dick Cheney and the Republican Party wants us to believe that we can’t keep 240 prisoners locked up or some of their associates from breaking them out just because they are Muslim. Personally, as an American, I am more than a little insulted by that very concept. What kind of tough guy would say that about the most beautiful country in the world he loves so much? That is not very patriotic where I come from.

I am posting this as it is my considered opinion the former Vice President has lost his mind.

Finally tonight, as promised, a Special Comment about Mr. Cheney’s speech. Neurotic. Paranoid. False to fact and false to reason. Forever self-rationalizing. His inner rage at his own impotence and failure dripping from every word and as irrational, as separated from the real world, as dishonest, as insane, as any terrorist.

As you know, Sir, you are quoting former CIA Director George Tenet. That would be the George Tenet who told Congress, on February 11th, 2003, quote: “Iraq is harboring senior members of a terrorist network led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a close associate of al-Qaida.” Mr. Tenet then went into elaborate detail about the Iraq/al-Qaida connection. None of it was true.
This is your source. As he was your boss’s source.

“George, how confident are you?” President Bush asked Tenet about Saddam Hussein’s Weapons of Mass Destruction, just before the Iraq war, according to Bob Woodward’s book “Plan Of Attack.” “Don’t worry,” Tenet answered. “It’s a slam-dunk.” That is your independent authority on how well torture worked. Next time you see him, Mr. Cheney, you might as well ask Mr. Tenet if he thinks he is Napoleon. I don’t want to know who you think you are:
“…those are the basic facts on enhanced interrogations,” you concluded. “And to call this a program of torture is to libel the dedicated professionals who saved American lives, and to cast terrorists and murderers as innocent victims.”

You saved no one, Sir. If the classified documents you seek released really did detail plots other than those manufactured by drowning men in order to get it to stop, or if they truly did note plans beyond the laughable ones you and President Bush already revealed — hijackers without passports targeting a building whose name Mr. Bush couldn’t remember, clowns who thought they could destroy airports by dropping matches in fuel pipelines 30 miles away, men who planned to attack a military base dressed as Pizza delivery boys forgetting that every man there was armed, and today: the four would-be Synagogue bombers, one of whom turns out to keep bottles of urine in his apartment, and to be on schizophrenia medicine.

If those documents contained anything of value… you would have leaked them already! As you leaked those revenge fantasies of the Library Tower and the JFK Bomber, and the Fort Dix Six. “When they (terrorists) see the American government caught up in arguments about interrogations, or whether foreign terrorists have constitutional rights, they don’t stand back in awe of our legal system and wonder whether they had misjudged us all along. “Instead the terrorists see just what they were hoping for — our unity gone, our resolve shaken, our leaders distracted. In short, they see weakness and opportunity.”

The weakness the terrorists see, Sir, is the weakness of blind rage replacing essential cold logic.The weakness the terrorists see, Sir, is the weakness of judgment suspended, in favor of self-fulfilling prophecy. The weakness the terrorists see, Sir, is the weakness of moral force supplanted by violence and revenge fantasies. The weakness the terrorists see, Sir, is the weakness of Dick Cheney. And yet, still, ceaselessly, indefatigably, you moralize and lie to us.

“I might add,” someone said today, “that people who consistently distort the truth in this way are in no position to lecture anyone about ‘values.’” Very apt. The quote is from your speech. Your speech, which was at essence, about your fantasy that you and Mr. Bush were not negligent. About your pig-headed certainty first that these attacks were impossible, then that they were a good excuse for a war you had already planned in Iraq, and finally that they were to be imminently repeated and only you knew whence the next threat would next come.

You saved no one, Mr. Cheney. All you did was help kill Americans. You were negligent before 9/11. Your response to your complicity by omission on 9/11, was panic, and shame, and insanity, and lying this country into a war that did nothing but kill 4,299 more of us. We will take no further instruction from you, Sir. Let me again quote Oliver Cromwell to you, Mr. Cheney: You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately… Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!

I do have to congratulate you, Sir. No man living or dead could have passed the buck more often than you did in 35 minutes this morning. It’s not your fault we water-boarded people, you said. It isn’t torture, you said, even though it is based on 111 years of American military prosecutions. It was in the Constitution that you could do it, even if our laws told you, you could not. It was in the language of the 2001 military authorization you force-fed the Congress that you could do it, even if our international treaties told you, you could not.

It produced invaluable information, you said, even though the first-hand witnesses, the interrogators of these beasts, said the information preceded the torture and ended when it began. It was authorized, you said, by careful legal opinion, even though the legal opinions were dictated by you and your cronies, and, oh by the way, the torture began before the legal opinions were even written. It was authorized, you said, and you imply even if it really wasn’t, it was done to “only detainees of the highest intelligence value.”

It was more necessary, you said, because of the revelation of another program by the real villains, the New York Times, even though that revelation was possible because the program was detailed on the front page of the website of a defense department sub-contractor. It was all the fault of your predecessors, you said, who tried to treat terror as a “law enforcement problem,” before you came to office and rode to the rescue… after you totally ignored terrorism for the first 20 percent of your first term and the worst attack on this nation in its history unfolded on your  watch.

“9/11 caused everyone to take a serious second look at threats that had been gathering for awhile,” you said today, “and enemies whose plans were getting bolder and more sophisticated.” Gee, thanks for being motivated, by the deaths of nearly 3,000 Americans, to go so far as to “take a serious second look.” And thank you, Sir, for admitting, obviously inadvertently, that you did not take a serious first look in the seven months and 23 days between your inauguration and 9/11.

For that attack, Sir, you are culpable, morally, ethically. At best you were guilty of malfeasance and eternally-lasting stupidity. At worst, Sir, in the deaths of 9/11, you are negligent. The circular logic, and the self-righteous sophistry, falls from a copy of Mr. Cheney’s speech like bugs from a book on a moldy shelf. He still believes in “dictators like Saddam Hussein with known ties to Mideast terrorists.” He still assumes everyone we captured is guilty without charge or trial, but that to prosecute law-breaking by government officials is “to have an incoming administration criminalize the policy decisions of its predecessors.”

And most sleazy of all, while calling the CIA torturers “honorable,” he insists the grunts at Abu Ghraib were “a few sadistic prison guards (who) abused inmates in violation of American law, military regulations, and simple decency” even though — and maybe he doesn’t know we know this — even though there is documentary proof that those guards were acting on orders originating in the office of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld.

It is, in short, madness.Madness, Sir. Mr. Cheney, your speech was almost entirely about you. There are only five or six other people even mentioned, and only two quoted at any length. And why would you have quoted, as you did, the man who said this. “I know that this program saved lives. I know we’ve disrupted plots. I know this program alone is worth more than the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency put together have been able to tell us.”

As you know, Sir, you are quoting former CIA Director George Tenet. That would be the George Tenet who told Congress, on February 11th, 2003, quote: “Iraq is harboring senior members of a terrorist network led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a close associate of al-Qaida.” Mr. Tenet then went into elaborate detail about the Iraq/al-Qaida connection. None of it was true.
This is your source. As he was your boss’s source.

Bush may have been president, but Cheney was ruining the show.

This will be a short one, former President Bill Clinton left office with his reputation in ruins, but our country was okay basically. He left Bush with a surplus with the government, a country at peace with no  attacks since the tragedy at Pearl Harbor. After just eight years in office, Bush leaves President Barack Obama with cleaning up the damage of the sins of his foreign and national policy. Cheney is telling the world he was the lead on many of these changes in mode of operations when it comes to prosecuting war. Here is a condensed list of seven of the worst sins the current administration is spending so much time cleaning up.:
1. A wrecked economy; The housing, banking and auto industries in complete chaos and collapse. Deficits.
2. Not one, but two wars; Afghanistan, which already broke Russia and Iraq for no good reason, except oil.
3. Rendition; We as a country are responsible for kidnapping people and shipping them away to be abused, tortured and held without due process of law.
4. Wiretapping; In the name of National Security by way of the Patriot Act, former President was able to label anyone an enemy combatant and bug their communication devices without warrant. Even Americans.
5. Torture; We, as citizens, gave permissions to our citizens to torture and abuse people suspected of being terrorist as rule of law was never allowed to be used to prove guilt or innocence.
6. Specifically about torture; Water boarding of prisoners of war to seek a connection of Iraq to the attacks on America on 9/11.
7. A damaged political party; The reputation of the Republican Party really took a terrible beating because of the damage done by the former President to the principles the party stood for. Their psyche in such ruins, they have nothing left to offer the country, but No, Limbaugh and Cheney. The country has had enough of him already.

The Cheney “we are no longer safe” tour gives impetus to an investigation of sorts.

I am a techie by paid trade, writer here, but if I were to be a lawyer by profession, I would track down the former Vice President of these United States and tell him to take a hint from the current President. Who is wishing to act like Cheney isn’t out there on a confession tour. Then tell him straight forward like;’ to shut the blank up’. I don’t know about you, but it appears to me, as a client, he pretty much, with some intense bravado, has confessed to being guilty of the war crime by authorizing torturing prisoners of war or detainees of combat and potential criminal defendants in a trial. The former Vice President Dick Cheney publicly stated the agencies wanted to know to what degree should they take the interrogations of important captives anticipated to be prisoners in this war on terror we are all caught in. He stated that he encouraged and ordered the used of ‘enhanced techniques’ to include the use of water boarding. As a former member of Congress, former Secretary of Defense, House Minority Whip he would have to know that was a crime against many United States Laws and many other international laws and treaties such as the Geneva Convention. He knows of this as a member of Congress after Viet Nam, during which US Generals designated the technique illegal. What else can we consider this tour to be but a confession tour of sorts?

The essence of all the efforts on the part of the Bush Dictatorship was to justify the act of going to war with Iraq, these techniques were stepped up was an attempt to associate the rationale for war by gathering evidence stating Iraq was involved with the attack that took place on American soil on September 11, 2001. He states his determination to have the required documents declassified he has requested (subsequently been denied) from the CIA in order to prove the enhanced techniques benefits to this country’s safety. That safety he is now so concerned our current President, Barack Obama is ripping to shreds. The Intelligence agencies are concerned that if the photos President Obama won’t release get out it will be detrimental to our forces abroad, as does the military establishment. The photos in question in tandem with those already released previously to date, tell a tale of denigrating behavior and derogatory treatment of prisoners at best. These are of the ‘enhanced techniques with local improvisations as would be the norm when you open the door to allow humans to treat other humans like trash. This is the very proud work of the former Vice President of these United States of America he swears to the almighty above that he was stridently trying to protect.

This is the same proud work which the present administration has no stomach to prosecute and even less will to investigate. However, the continued efforts on the part of a very public Cheney, untraditionally attacking the current administration’s policies may inadvertently motivate the wrong forces of change looking to be protective of the President. Those previously desiring to leave old dogs buried where they lie may find the only way of shutting down the former Vice Presidential vindication tour will be to prove that the Vice President in authorizing the use of torture did so seeking to obtain a false connection from Iraq to the attack on 9/11. They may find that to be enough probable cause to consider a special prosecutor investigation after all. The former Vice President and all those involved in the war crime of water boarding and authorizing, implementing and using other torture techniques will get the kind of attention they truly deserve.

President calls for understanding for all peoples of this country!

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-foot, 2-inch 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 e-mail 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 Web site — 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 Web site. 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 coexist 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 percent — 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 12 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, Wis., 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 quest for impeachment would not be a question if the party was reversed.

The definition of a judge is a specially trained person who has been deemed qualified to hear arguments and make decisions relating to the matter of law. These selections are made from a pool of practicing attorneys within the area of the jurisdiction requiring a judicator. Federal judges for obvious reasons come from the pool of attorneys working at and for the United States government. No bias, just a situation dealing with the natural pool of legal manpower resources available to them. Washington, being what it is as a town of politicians, has always been a town where the party in power controls the flow of the companies it hires for its legal work, as there is much of it. So there is a wealth of legal firms with associative leanings that either address the needs and or mindset of one party or the other, or are extremely fortunate enough to handle both parties neutrally. Judicial appointments are made based on the party in charge and the hot issues of the day or causes moving the power brokers at the time. Once an appointment has been made, not haven been done lightly, require remarkable circumstances to be reversed, there appears to be one such case before this President presently.

You may or may not have heard of one federal Judge Jay Bybee, who was recently appointed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, one of the last appointed by former President George W. Bush. All of the talk about the torture memos when they came out was about the now infamous John Yoo, but the real legal opinion with the good housekeeping seal of approval came by way of this man now sitting in judgment of others in case brought before his bench. This was the man who took Mr. Yoo’s foundational rough draft and applied the required terminology attempting to give reason for the authorization for members of our military and intelligence apparatus to commit war crimes. What previously was straight up called by the criminal name of water boarding now became the enhanced interrogation technique of water boarding. The final product is posted on the page option to the right of this column, or the tab labeled BUSH above to read the whole reprint or posting of those memos and the legal ramifications inquired about because of using those techniques. There appears to be a lot of consideration given to the making this activity a highly progressive part of the war effort. This man, Bybee, was the point man in final product that was to be considered legal permission to proceed with the newly renamed ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ as rule of law.

This man now sits in judgment of others seeking justice from those who most likely just abused them in some way or form, be it robbery, or identity theft, or murder. This man who manipulated laws and treaties already agreed upon by most of the civilized nations of the world and aided in tearing to shreds the once perceived pristine relationship of the United States of America in the name of protecting us from another 9/11. He gave the only dictator of America that I know of, legal authority to ship Americans and just about anyone else anywhere in the world to be tortured by complete strangers if he thought we were a threat, yet we never knew what grounds would have to been in place for him as a President to make that claim. Bybee is a Federal Circuit Judge of the 9th District Court of Appeals in San Francisco. The Republicans can claim bias all they want, anyone who condones torture should not be sitting in what is supposed to be fair judgment for the citizens of a free society.

I am having trouble understanding what kind of message is being attempted here.

One of the main reasons I am writing about this particular issue was because it was brought to my attention by a 24 year old young black male. I thought if this kid thinks what he sees is inappropriate, and then maybe it was worth a column. My daughter is older than him, just turned 28, but I have a 7 year old granddaughter and grandson, and more behind them. Let me get to the point of all this about messages; Miley Cyrus, daughter of country music star; Billy Ray Cyrus. As a father of a young lady who was and pretty much always will be my little girl, they do grow up, she now is a mother of four. I feel some obligation to inquire about a father who happens to be famous and he has a daughter who has fame in her own right as a star of music, Disney, the big and small screen. I am not stating rumors or innuendo of any kind ever coming out of an untoward nature about the relationship this young lady has with her father. However there are pictures that suggest at the very least comfort levels of propriety being breeched in a serious manner.

I am speaking about a man who happens to be but a few years behind me at the age of about 48, with his daughter Miley a very young 16 year old. Basically a baby and not old enough to understand or be responsible for the ultimate public relations material that gets released to the public. Old fashioned as this may sound to some, but in at least a half a dozen photos of her with her father, she is wearing a dress barely below the bottom of her behind, it seems he didn’t have any issues with that. In another set; she is literally draped across her father suggestively as though she was his woman. For all the young girls out there looking at this, it is sending the wrong message about way a young girl should expect a much older man to be handling her. This is very dangerous for little girls to pick up with the high occurrence of pedophile predators that are known to exist today. These photos really look inappropriate as best and highly suggestive of a major out of bounds relationship between father and daughter at worst. They could be used by adults seeking to prove to young child just how ‘right’ an inappropriate relationship really is.

I wondered that I may be taking something that really is just a basic photogenic expression of the closeness that exist with this particular father and daughter, and then I remembered raising my daughter. We were very close at various points during my raising her, and I understand that every situation is different. But basically, If a twenty something young black can see how on a basic level ‘that’s just not right’ being the manner in which she was draped all over her father , then I am most certainly inclined to agree with him. What I don’t understand is how those shots got past any one of responsibility at Disney. I sure hope ‘old Walter Disney, the founder isn’t rolling around in his grave because of some modern day acceptance of provocative public relations shots all over the internet. Just what are the limits when it comes to selling a product specifically catered to the young developing minds of adolescents today? I know that they have made millions, but whatever positive message they are trying to send to young kids is not working at all.