Original Face

Claude Raines is in the house

    I think this could be the beginning of the end of the Obama campaign.  That seems odd, given his lead in delegates, media support and popular vote totals in the Democratic primaries as well as his lead in the national opinion polls, but I think that it is true statement.  Obama is as they say in prison movies, a dead man walking.
    Today, you see, Obama threw Rev. Wright under the bus.  More than that, Obama told the national media that he had no idea that the good Reverend held those views until he heard them at the National Press Club on Monday. And that he was shocked, shocked to find out that his minister believed such things about America.
    Who here believes that?  Ah, huh.  Right.  Nobody.  In the next several weeks the press and the Clinton campaign (McCain is adhering to the old political adage that when your opponent is committing suicide, don't interfere) will be doing their level best to dig out and play old sermons, speeches and interviews with Wright over the past 20 years.  Each time they do Obama will be asked if he had been there or had heard about the specific comment.  And every time they do, Obama's credibility will take a nose dive.
    Will Obama admit that he never actually attended church; that it was merely a political vehicle to establish his credibility in the Black community of the South Side of Chicago?  If so, there goes his image as a different sort of politican.  He will look craven.
    Will he plead a poor memory?  So much for his vaunted mind then.
    And what of Wright? Will the minister just sit still and let Obama trash him?  That is unlikely.  Most probably he will not go silently, but will remain a gadfly that will never leave the national stage. 
    Finally, how will the Black community view Obama's new change of heart after his speech in Philadelphia in which he stated that Wright represented the Black church and that he couldn't disown his society.  What will Obama say has changed?  Because in essence there has been nothing different said.  The only thing now is that Wright is stating his views in fora in which all of the nation can hear him.

Callous

    Next Sunday is the annual Walk for Hunger.  My parish is, as usual, having a group participate and this week's bulletin announces that all those who are walking for hunger should meet at 7.30 in the parish hall for breakfast before setting out.  Huh?  Breakfast?  Walk for Hunger?
    But it all, in a bizarre way, makes sense.  What are "Walks for" hunger or breast cancer, or AIDS, or diarrhea research?  Do they do any good? Do they make sense?
     Proponents say that they raise money, but donors would donate regardless of anyone treading the streets, wouldn't they?  They involve enormous organizational and logistic costs, they tie up traffic (with all of those autos burning $3.70/gallon gasoline and releasing carbon monoxides into the air waiting for the mass of walkers to cross the streets) and involve the diversion of police and other essential services.  All of these things make them among the most colossal wastes of money one could imagine.
    At the end of the walk what does society get out of it?  Much less money for the poor. 
    So why does it go on?  Because it is the quintessence of liberalism.  It makes the do-er "feel good" regardless of whether it actually helps or hurts.  Walkers can feel wonderfully self-righteous about their sore feet and sunburned arms and heads.  They can see it as their Bhutan march for the underclass.  Who really cares about results when one can feel good about one's self, after all.
    Stop it.  Stop it now.  Do something productive instead.  Clean up parks, scrub graffiti, feed the homeless, help the infirm cross the streets.  Anything that in the end of the day contributes to the commonweal.  Donors would almost certainly be more generous, the overhead would be less and the self righteous crowing would be due to doing something perhaps unpleasant but worthwhile.
    Oh, one more thing.  Skip the breakfast.  Use that money instead to feed the real hungry. 

Geeks are good

    I am not obsessive compulsive and I shouldn't try to be.  I have learned that if not the hard way, then at least in a pretty expensive way this week.  On Wednesday I decided to do some housekeeping--on the Mac.  Relabeling files, creating appropriate clusters, clearing caches and deleting old folders....OOPS.
    Those document files with the work on the book and old writing projects?  Why can't I find it--with Finder?  I couldn't have put it in the trash bin...the trash bin I just emptied, could I?  Of course I could--and did.  Time to call rent-a-geek.
    They came with their little computer ambulance and took away Wilbur (my Mac's name...after Mr. Ed's owner) to the Geek hospital to pump its stomach and find the old files.  Two and half days later...with its dad worried sick...it came home.  Files restored and its hard drive and system files all buffed and shiny.
    Phew....that's what I get for cleaning stuff up.  I'll know better from now on.

Why is tonight (and last night) different than all other nights?

    Because it is the Passover.  Here is the wonderful poet, Primo Levi's, poem on and for the holiday.

Tell me: how is this night different
From all other nights?
How, tell me, is this Passover
Different from all other Passovers?
Light the lamp, open the door wide
So the pilgrim can come in,
Gentile or Jew;
Under the rags perhaps the prophet is concealed.
Let him enter and sit down with us;
Let him listen, drink, sing and celebrate Passover;
Let him consume the bread of affliction,
The Paschal Lamb, sweet mortar and bitter herbs.
This is the night of differences
In which you lean your elbow on the table,
Since the forbidden becomes prescribed,
Evil is translated into good.
We will spend the night recounting
Far-off events full of wonder,
And because of all the wine
The mountains will skip like rams.
Tonight they exchange questions:
The wise, the godless, the simple-minded and the child.
And time reverses its course,
Today flowing back into yesterday.
Like a river enclosed at its mouth.
Each of us has been a slave in Egypt,
Soaked straw and clay with sweat,
And crossed the sea dry-footed.
You too, stranger.
This year in fear and shame,
Next year in virtue and justice.

Sisk, boom, bah

    It isn't everyday that one can see an 81 year old bantam weight throw a real knock-down punch but yesterday at St. Joseph's Church on New York City's Upper East Side, Benedict XVI TKO'ed the Episcopal bishop of New York.  In his remarks to the assembled ecumenical leaders, the Pope made it clear that dialogue is only possible within the context of revelation and the apostolic teachings of the Church.  He singled out for particular condemnation (I don't think that this is too strong a word here...) the notion of "local option" in changing sacred doctrine.
    So how is this such a smack across Sisk's face?  Because the Episcopal Church's actions for the past quarter century has been characterized as an abandonment of doctrinal norms to press for sociological relevance.  From the unilateral ordination of women to the priesthood, based not upon Scriptural or theological analysis but upon political considerations (using theology to back-fill once the political decision was made) to the idea of "open communion,"  that is giving the Eucharist to the non baptized in direct and flagrant contradiction of both the Epistles and the ancient tradition of the Church, the Episcopal Church has claimed that it was acting locally.
    Sisk was in the audience yesterday as Benedict said "no dice."  What must he have said to Sisk when the NY Episcopal bishop was introduced to him?  What could Sisk say to him? 
    Traditional Anglicans for sometime have been wondering how and when the Vatican was going to become involved in the dismantling of the Anglican Communion.  Yesterday was a not-so-subtle message that that time is approaching very quickly.  It would not be surprising, given the Pontiff's remarks, to see Bishop Robert Duncan and other traditionalists be invited to take the place of the Episcopal Church leaders in future ecumenical dialogues.

How many strikes is that?

    Charlie Cook who has forgotten more about American politics than almost anyone (other than Michael Barone) has learned wrote a couple of weeks ago that the Democratic Party nomination was over, UNLESS Obama makes a big mistake each week for a month or so.  Since that time Obama campaign has been imploding in a way that may make Cook a mystic seer.
    First it was Reverend Jeremiah Wright, then it was Bittergate and last night Obama was reminded of his accepting political support from William Ayers.  Who is Ayers?  Like I wrote about Obama's "bitter" comment, if you don't know now, you will if the Clinton campaign has anything to do with it.  William Ayers is a former Weather Underground radical who has not only admitted to bombing buildings in the 1960s which cost the lives of a number of men and women but who said after the 9/11 tragedy that he not only had no regrets about his actions but that he only wished that he had done more of it.
    William Ayers has hosted political fund raisers in his home for Obama as early as Obama's first run for the Illinois state senate.  It isn't as if Ayers was an anonymous donor.  When one is a rookie candidate, anyone who helps financially, especially if it involves hosting a fund raising party, is someone the candidate will know.  In addition to their joint political activities, the two of them served on boards together (with compensation not some huge non-profit board) and continued to do so even after Ayers' post 9/11 comments.
    Obama tried to brush Ayers' connection off comparing it to his friendship to Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn, a pro-life legislator, with whom Obama has political disagreements.  But Ayers is not just a friend and a passionate pro-life legislator is not someone who has killed people with bombs and is proud of that fact.  (I wonder what Senator Coburn's office will say about Obama's comment in the debate.)  Ayers is reprehensible and Obama's cultivation of a political and professional relationship with him, at best, makes Obama a fool and, at worst, a fellow-traveler.
    I can't wait to find out what next week's Obama revelation will be.

Is this a trend or what?

    So let me see, Italy just voted for a right of center government which is favorable to the United States and its foreign policy.  France recently voted in a right of center government which is favorable to the United States and its foreign policy.  Canada has a right of center government which is favorable to the  United States and its foreign policy.  Germany has a right of center government which is favorable to the United States and its foreign policy and, if the polls are to be believed, it is fairly likely that Britain will vote next year for a right of center government.
    Then why do the Democrats talk incessantly about the United States, under President Bush, losing allies in the world?  I guess the singular loss of Spain to the Socialists has been too much for them.

Musical theater quiz time

    Back by popular demand (well, this is the first time and only I thought of it, but you get the idea...) it is Musical Theater Quiz Time!!!!  Don't all call out -- raise your hands.

    According to the title song of this musical where is it that:

  "The Underworld can meet the Elite"?

You have 30 seconds, as of.......Now.

Sometimes it is best just to keep quiet

    Obama has been living by the speech and today has provided a very damaging piece of material against himself by the speech.  You may have read, if not then let me enlighten you, don't worry, the Clinton and the McCain campaigns will make sure that if you didn't read it here you will read and/or hear it soon enough, what Obama said about small town Americans:

   "[I]t's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

So let me get this right, the reason people are religious is because they are economically frustrated.  And, if so if we cure this frustration then religion will cease?  It will no longer be needed as an "opium of the masses?"  I'm sure this will come as a major revelation (sorry, couldn't resist) to the deeply religious folks in the American countryside. 
    This is a telling moment in the presidential campaign.  The real Obama is now on display. It is the talk of an extraordinarily arrogant man who has disdain for the values of mid-America.  Like his wife, there is an antipathy to the ethos of the nation, a sense of running for president as a type of intellectual noblesse oblige. 
    This will be driven home in the days, weeks and months to come.  It will become one of the phrases that will define this election cycle.  And it maybe the death knell of the Obama campaign.

Massachusetts Mangle

    The national media is finally figuring out that if they want to get a sense of how Obama will govern as president there is a good laboratory in Massachusetts.  They have already discussed that Obama has taken phrases from his buddy Deval Patrick the present governor of the Commonwealth.  They have begun nosing around to see what other similarities between the two men, aside from their age and race, there might be.
    The there is a good deal.  Deval Patrick's campaign style was a complete foreshadowing of the Obama primary strategy. Lots of flowery speeches on hope and the future without any specifics to make the voter actually have a sense of how he would govern.  The voters in Massachusetts voted for Patrick, congratulating themselves for the enlightened attitude toward race, obvious that Patrick had no mandate to do anything in particular.
    Since his inauguration, actually the day before the swearing in when the Democrat controlled state legislature conspicuously ignored the future governor's request to delay a vote on putting gay marriage on the ballot, Patrick's administration has been inept and weak.  The executive branch has given away much of its power to the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate, both of whom have expressed open contempt for the governor and his aides.
    The major initiative of permitting casino gambling in the Commonwealth, promoted by Patrick never even made it out of legislative committee, let alone being made law.  Most of Patrick's other ideas have been brushed aside as naive and irrelevant by the State House veterans. 
    It is not enough to win election.  Mandates for action come from articulating a vision of governing that then is endorsed by the electorate.  For example, Ronald Reagan was able to force major tax reform through a Democratic Congress because it was clear, even to his political enemies, that his ideas had been approved by voters.  Deval Patrick is now paying the political price for his vacuous campaign.
    Obama had better pay heed to the example of his Massachusetts buddy.  If he does not lay out a program, he might discover that the presidency could be much like what John Nance Gardner said about the Vice Presidency, that it isn't worth a bucket of warm "spit." (Actually he said "piss" but the historians have cleaned up his language in order not to offend sensitive school children, most of whom hear worse daily on prime time television.)