Irish Yam?

Notre Dame, our Mother

Tender, strong and true

Proudly in the heavens,

Gleams thy gold and blue.

Glory’s mantle cloaks thee

Golden is thy fame,

And our hearts forever,

Praise thee, Notre Dame.

And our hearts forever,

Love thee, Notre Dame.

~~ Notre Dame Alma Mater

The University of Notre Dame has a tradition of asking sitting Presidents to speak at their commencement ceremony every spring. They don’t always accept but most of them do.

The president of the university, Father John Jenkins, is struggling with whether or not to invite Trump. Apparently, he feels that Trump has exhibited a lack of Christian charity in his words and deeds. In fact, Father Jenkins has reassured all undocumented students who are there under DACA that they will be safe there and continue their studies; he has also considered designating Notre Dame a “sanctuary campus.”

Father Jenkins isn’t unfamiliar with controversy. He got a lot of flak for inviting President Obama to give the commencement speech in 2009. The Democrats’ pro-choice stance is antithetical to the teachings of the Catholic church, and there were many protesters in the city that weekend. He defended his decision by saying that as a University, they are committed to open discourse and discussion of all points of view. He got in some trouble with the Archdiocese, but he stuck to his guns.

I’m not a Catholic and I’m not even religious, but I’ve always admired Father Jenkins for his open-mindedness in the pursuit of truth, knowledge, and justice. I feel that Notre Dame does good things in our community and in our world and that they are committed to racial and social justice. Father Hesburgh was a vocal and active supporter of the Civil Rights movement. So while I don’t subscribe to the tenets of the Catholic church (or any church, for that matter), I give credit to anyone who seeks to help others and alleviate pain and suffering in their fellow human beings.

Heck, you don’t have to be religious to feel that way.

The student Democrats at Notre Dame have written a letter that will be sent to Father Jenkins urging him to not invite Trump to speak at commencement in 2017. It is worth a read because it says quite eloquently my feelings on the matter. Although I am not an alumna, I signed the letter as part of our community. I grew up here and have had a lifelong connection in that way, so I felt justified in signing.

While I share Father Jenkins’ commitment to open discourse, the reason I am opposed to Trump speaking at commencement is that what he says and does is not just antithetical to Catholic teachings; it is antithetical to basic human decency. The moment that I came to the conclusion that he is a contemptible person is when he mocked the disabled reporter. That is vile behavior and it shows a complete lack of empathy, charity, and kindness. His subsequent actions only added to my feelings, including his attitude towards women.

I am proud to be from South Bend, and a big part of that is Notre Dame. We love taking out-of-town visitors to see the campus, which is absolutely beautiful. I feel a certain pride of place about Notre Dame and I feel that Trump’s message would sully the good name—and the mission—of the University.

If Father Jenkins does invite him to speak, and he accepts, I plan on voicing my opposition by protesting and I have many friends who feel the same way.

See you on the protest line!

Breaking radio silence

My next entry was going to be about the fun time we had in Miami during the weekend of the BCS championship game (except for the three hours of the game!), but I managed to dick around for a couple of weeks and not get it written, so now I need to write about this big scandal involving Manti Te’o and his fake dead girlfriend.

::sigh::

As soon as the story broke, I had friends messaging me and posting to my Wall on Facebook asking for my reaction and thoughts. My initial reaction was to wait and see what else comes out about it...this is an ongoing story, and I think there is still much to learn about it. I actually had to say that I was not taking any questions on it at this time! I didn’t want to comment until I learned more about it, and there are more and more reports coming out that made me decide to write about it.

I’m not going to go into details about what has been reported so far, or any sort of timeline about what was said by whom and when it was said. There is plenty out there about it, and it’s all a Google search away for you. Suffice it to say that it’s one of the biggest sports stories at the moment, and if you follow sports or watch any news at all, you’ll have heard about it. What it comes down to is whether Manti was complicit in this hoax, or whether he was the victim of the hoax.

I’ve read quite a few things that have said that there is no way he wasn’t involved in it. I’m going to have to disagree with that, and this comes from gut instinct based on what I’ve heard and read about the guy, and on my own personal experience with online relationships.

First, I’ve watched this kid play for four years. You tend to hear things in South Bend about whether a player is a decent guy or a jerk; I have never heard a bad word about Manti. Everyone who knows him says that he’s a good guy. My impression is that he is a kind and decent kid with a strong work ethic and a good heart.

Second, many have questioned how anyone could be taken in by an online relationship like that. I’m here to tell you that it is entirely too possible, and I speak from painful and personal experience. One of the reasons that this story has gotten to me the way it has is that it has dredged up some hurtful memories.

Several years ago, I entered into an online correspondence with a minor celebrity. (I won’t tell you who it was, although some of my close friends know. He’s the reason my Bacon Number is 3.)  It was quite exciting and flattering to have the attention of someone on TV and in a few movies. My situation was a little different, because I did eventually end up meeting him a few times when he stopped to see me during his travels. I saw lots of things online about him having similar correspondences with several other women, but I just ignored all that and didn't believe that it was all true. Stupid, right? Yeah, when I look back now, it was, and I could just kick myself. I really wanted there to be more there than there was, so I ignored my good sense and just went along with it. I guess I knew deep down, though, that something wasn't right, because although he came to see me a few times, I never got a phone call from him. NOT ONE. Finally, I had had it and sent him a rather nasty email saying something to that effect (I believe it was “How come I have never gotten one single fucking phone call from you??” or something similar), and then he stopped responding to any of my emails. Just a complete cut-off.

A mutual friend told me that he told her that I was "mean to him" so he stopped writing to me. ::eye roll:: Whatever. I eventually got vindication when he wrote me a letter maybe a year later and apologized, hoping we could be friends again, and he promised to be a "better friend than he was a boyfriend." I was still angry and hurt, and was engaged to Ken by that time, and I told him that I wished him well, but please do not contact me again. That felt pretty good! I've gotten a little more mellow as I've gotten older, so I do genuinely wish him well.

Anyway, I write about this to illustrate that good, intelligent people can be deluded into believing things that others would look at and say, "What are you THINKING?" There are malicious people out there who know exactly what to say to sucker someone in, especially someone who is sort of gullible and trusting. This happened to me when I was in my thirties, so here you've got this college kid, 20 years old, a Mormon, sort of insulated as a star on the Notre Dame team...I can see how he got suckered into believing this was real. He wanted it to be real, he wanted to make that connection with someone who understood him...I don't know their motivation for doing this, any more than I know the motivation for my online friend who liked having plenty of chickens in the henhouse, if you know what I mean and I think you do! I guess maybe the attention? I really don't know.

I think you all know me well enough to know that I stand up for myself and don’t take shit from anyone. So it IS rather embarrassing to me that I took that sort of treatment for as long as I did. I can see why Manti is embarrassed about being duped that way. This happened to me about 15 years ago, and it still makes me cringe that I was so gullible and so willing to believe that there was more there than there really was. Older Beth wants to kick Younger Beth in the ass and say, “Wake up!”

There are a lot of us who want to believe the best of people. I’d honestly rather be this way than have a hard heart and be cynical and untrusting. But there is a price to be paid for that sort of mindset. We are vulnerable to being played for suckers, and that sort of experience only comes with time...and occasionally with painful lessons.

I think this is what is playing out for Manti right now. I could be wrong, and believe me, I’ll be the first to admit it if I am. My heart just aches for this young man, and I hope that my gut instinct is right in this case. I know how much such a betrayal can hurt, and how angry it can make you at yourself for your gullibility. We have yet to hear anything further from him other than his initial statement, and I hope he speaks sooner rather than later. In the meantime, I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt. Because I’ve been there.

Things to do, people to see

It was a busy weekend for the Nutwood gang!

We started Friday evening with a trip to the Cove, i.e., Coveleski Stadium, home of the South Bend Silverhawks. The Silverhawks are the Class A team for the Diamondbacks, and it’s really a nice little ballpark. Ken had arranged for an outing for his PMI group, and we also got tickets for his Mom and for Shane and Matt. We got some beers and then had our picnic dinner. The game was fun, but since none of us follow them really closely, it’s mostly just an excuse to mess around and have fun and be silly. We’re good at that! Every Friday, they do fireworks, so we ooh-ed and ahh-ed and enjoyed them a lot! (The popped collars were to tease my niece Heather, who has a major problem with popped collars!)

Our friend Andy and his parents were in town this weekend, so we met them for lunch on Saturday. It’s always great to see Andy, it was great to see his Dad again (we had met him once before when they were in town for a game and stayed with us), and it was wonderful to meet his Mom. She is just a lovely lady! It was a beautiful day, so we were able to sit outside and enjoy it. We gabbed about several things, and although I don’t often start talking politics with people whose views I don’t know, I did this time (I know Andy has a liberal bent). I sent him a message later and said I hoped I wasn’t out of line in doing that, and he said it’s always fun to talk about politics and religion! I must not have been too outrageous, because I saw his folks again today (more in a moment), and his Mom said that she’s glad Ken and I are friends with Andy. I don’t think there’s any way to take that in a bad way, do you? They are just super nice people. I look forward to seeing them again one of these days!


Oh, and Andy had some tickets for us. Super excited! We love going to games, and are forever grateful for Andy’s help in getting tickets.


That afternoon, we just took it easy and enjoyed the gorgeous day. We both sat out on the deck and soaked up some sun, and ended up falling asleep out there!

Sunday was another relaxing day. Ken got a round of golf in, and got the lawn mowed. He revved up the chainsaw and chopped up that small oak tree that fell last week. Dinner was barbecued ribs, corn on the cob, and some cucumbers and onions. All really yummy! Watched a movie. It was a very pleasant weekend, with beautiful weather. The summer seems to be winding down, so that feeling of wanting to enjoy it as much as possible is setting in. The days are still nice, but it’s getting cooler at night. Great for sleeping, but still an indication that fall isn’t too far away. The summer has flown by! ::sigh::

Today Ken went back to work, and I headed over to Notre Dame to hear Andy speak. This was fun for me for a couple of reasons. Although I know where the stadium and pavilion and hockey arena are, as well as the performing arts center--oh, and the library, of course!--I’m not all that familiar with the campus. So I had to go online to find a map so I could locate Fitzpatrick Hall of Engineering. I had no problem, although I did ask a nice gentleman walking by if that building I was heading towards was Fitzpatrick. I was on the right track! Then it was a matter of finding the right classroom, and I had no problem. Jeez, it was such a throwback to my college days...trying to find the building, finding the classroom. For some reason, I was always nervous about that, but I always managed.

His parents were there today, and we sat together. We laughed as the room started filling up. There were the three of us, and the students were mostly clustering to our left. I said, “Three of these things are not like the other...can you guess which ones?” His Mom seemed to get a real kick out of that!

Dr. Andy VIEW SLIDE SHOW DOWNLOAD ALL

Andy did a great job with his talk. He discussed his project he helped to work on at CERN, which was about measuring and filtering aerosols, and his focus was on particulate matter. This has applications in climate science (what needs to be present so that these aerosols form?) as well as personal monitoring equipment. Andy’s research focused on particles less than 10 nanometers. Much of it was beyond me, but I have enough of a background in Chemistry that I was able to grasp the concepts. Some of his former professors were there, and they were the ones who asked the most questions after the talk. Andy had immediate answers for them, which always indicates to me that the lecturer knows their stuff. I told Ken that he seemed like a natural at the podium, very approachable, engaging, and knowledgeable. Along with his main job, he is going to be an adjunct professor at USC in Nanotechnology, and might be doing a thing here and there with Notre Dame, too. Fantastic job, Andy! Yay!

After parting ways with Andy and his folks and wishing them safe travels, I headed back to my car. I don’t feel guilty about not working out today, because I got a good walk in! It was such a beautiful day, it’s such a gorgeous campus, and I was feeling so good that I must have had a dopey smile on my face. I exchanged grins with a guy on a bike as I tried to get out of his way, smiled and waved ‘thank you’ at someone in a car who let me walk ahead of him, and even exchanged a smile and a nod with a priest that I passed. I walked by the stadium on the way back and got a couple of pictures, including one of the statue of my favorite ND football coach, Lou Holtz. When you’re there for a game, there is just a mass of humanity in front of all the statues, so I was able to get a nice shot without all the humanity!

ND campus VIEW SLIDE SHOW DOWNLOAD ALL

I really need to check into going to more lectures there, because I enjoyed that thoroughly. We live about ten minutes away from one of the nation’s premier universities, so I should take more advantage of that.

Another early night tonight, because I’m picking Ken’s Mom up tomorrow to take her to her MRI appointment. Happy slumber!

Harris kicked his butt!

That may be the quote of the night, but I’ll get to that at the end.

I went to see Sam Harris debate William Lane Craig at Notre Dame this evening. (Heretofore known as SH and WLC.) I cannot begin to describe just how good this was, but I will try. I took many notes (along with a couple of crummy pictures on the sly...I wasn’t supposed to take any, but being the heathen that I am, I did...and I liked it!), and I think the easiest way to write this up will be to just transcribe my notes with a little “neatening up” and commentary for clarity. The premise of the debate was whether or not religion and/or God is required for morality, i.e., can someone be moral without being religious? Harris maintains that that is most certainly possible; Craig says no. It naturally ended up as a debate of whether or not there is a supreme being who shaped our world and expects our worship; if we do not accept those terms, we will burn in hell. So here are my notes, and I’ll try to make some sense out of them. I can already see that there are some things I wrote down that I’m thinking “What was that about?” St. Anselm? What? Ha!

Heard behind me before the debate started: “I believe in a higher power...but I’m not Catholic.”

WLC looks smug. Harris opens his Mac.

WLC goes first, has 20 minutes to speak:

• Quotes SH from The Moral Landscape, but leaves out crucial points of his hypothesis, especially regarding genital mutilation of females. In some cultures, this is considered a “moral” reality, based on religious beliefs. As moral beings, how can anyone condone this? Craig doesn’t seem to grasp what Harris was saying about that.
• States that by nature, God is loving and kind
• Says that Judeo-Christian beliefs are to love your God, love your neighbor
• Compares humans to rats or insects
• Says “Nature is morally neutral”
• I want to barf (This was my thought, not a statement from him)
• Compares humans to bees, corn, and bacteria
• “If there is not a God, what foundation remains for objective moral duty?”
• Incest - without religion there is nothing to stop it (I might have laughed out loud at this point)
• States that Harris says there is no free will (since when did Harris say that?), so no one is morally responsible
• Says that Harris says right and wrong don’t exist

Sam Harris gets 20 minutes:

• He is surprisingly soft-spoken
• Quotes his book concerning burqas; considered moral in that society, but highly restrictive of the rights of women in ours.
• Where do our notions of right and wrong come from? Evolution and then cultural mores.
• Avoid the worst possible misery for everyone; that is what drives our morality and guides us to making things better for others.
• Talks at length about the Taliban; a highly religious society that dictates morality, but one that we find repugnant. They feel that throwing acid in the faces of young girls who dare to go to school is perfectly acceptable, and their literacy rate for women is something like 12%.
• Generally seems to be a little more humorous, in a low-key way
• Speaks of the value of evidence and logic, whether looking for reasons behind morality or for a belief in a god

WLC rebuttal:

• God is essentially compassionate
• Moral values are grounded ontologically in God
• Speaks of the non-moral uses of “good,” using ridiculous, semantic arguments--bullshit
• Atheism cannot explain moral values because atheists can’t see any reason to act morally; they have no moral lawgiver.
• My head is exploding! (My thought, not his.)

SH rebuttal:

• Any god is either impotent or evil
• If you’re praying to the wrong god, you’re doomed...no evidence to support this. Made a comparison to Lord of the Rings. I snorted, and the crowd laughed (at his remark, not at my snort, although those in my immediate proximity might have been laughing at me).
• The Bible supports slavery
• God is psychotic--totally detached from the well-being of humanity
• References transubstantiation by saying that it’s like praying over pancakes to turn into Elvis. I snorted again.
• “I hate to break it to you here at Notre Dame, but Christianity is a religion of sacrifice.”

WLC rebuttal:

• Responding to Harris’s remarks concerning an impotent or evil god, a psychotic god, Bible supporting slavery: “The less moral framework is ATHEISM!” There was laughter among the audience.
• If God does not exist, we have no foundation for morality
• Evil proves that God exists (I think I need to explore that premise further in another entry)
• The Taliban has got the wrong god

SH rebuttal:

• Every branch of science relies on core values
• Certain facts are objective
• “We have hit philosophical bedrock with the shovel of a stupid question.” Brilliant!
• We can have a conversation that is from the first century, with the Old Testament. Or from the seventh century, with the Koran. Or we can have a discussion in the 21st century.

WLC closing statements: God is the paradigm of good blah blah blah

SH closing statements:

• Everything that WLC has said about Christianity could also be said about Islam
• The scriptures were written by men who had no concept of our worldview, or of what we have learned since they were alive.

Question and Answer time:

• Someone asks Harris if some religion could be true? Would he accept any religion as true? Harris says that in about five minutes, we could make a new religion. Let’s just cut out Deuteronomy and Leviticus, and at least half of the ten commandments. (The crowd laughs.)
• Someone asks about WLC’s previous remarks concerning light vs. dark (it was along the lines of O’Reilly talking about the tide goes in, the tide goes out...you can’t explain that), and how older societies turned to a magical explanation for the phenomenon. She stated that this is now explained by science. WLC goes into a long response about ontology vs epistemology. The questioner says, “Can I clarify? Why is God an explanation for morality?” (Laughter and mild cheers from the audience.) More stuff from Craig about ontology vs epistemology.
• The existence of God doesn’t really add to the concept of love. (I don’t recall the question there, but that was a statement from Harris.)
• A questioner asks about miracle stories, and how that can be explained. Harris says, “It would be trivially easy for God to convince me of his existence.” (Laughter from the audience.)
• A questioner asks about homosexual vs heterosexual love, says that the former was shown to him last night...as Harris struggles not to laugh, WLC berates the questioner for not being serious. In all fairness to WLC, although it was amusing, it was a troll question.
• Harris says that people are means, not ends...our happiness is dependent upon that of others. Unless we’re psychotic, we genuinely want to see others happy, and do what we can (while taking into account our own well-being) to achieve that.
• Harris says that this is the only world...it encompasses the most happy and the most miserable. Most of us want to help others rather than harm them.
• Harris mentions WLC’s “divine command theory.” God instructed Abraham to kill his son, and Abraham was going to do it. Harris’s point was that such blind obedience is not conducive to morality, and is no different than the Taliban ordering its religious adherents to throw acid in the faces of young girls who dare to go to school.
• Harris maintains that there is no consensus within Christianity; various denominations believe various things, and have differing dogma. Christian dogma is dependent not upon morality but upon whatever the hierarchy decides will be the dogma.
• WLC ends with the statement that there are no morals in atheism.

Whew! Man, that was a wild ride. I know that I’m biased, but I thought that Harris came across as rational and logical, humorous and earnest. He seemed much more relaxed and low-key; although I know he wasn’t speaking off-the-cuff, he seemed much more at ease and comfortable with his opinions and statements. Craig seemed stiff and uncomfortable, very rehearsed and stilted. I sensed that the crowd responded to Harris’s comments better than Craig’s; Harris’s comparison of the Taliban and Christianity seemed to resonate. Not that they are the same, but in one sense, they are: the absolute certainty that anyone who doesn’t believe the way they do will surely burn in hell. I felt like his examples of Taliban justice in the name of their religion got through to people; he questioned how certain any religion can be of their absolute righteousness. He implored people to think about what he said.

Here is what was really remarkable to me. This lecture took place at Notre Dame, that bastion of Catholic universities. (Although with President Obama speaking at their 2009 commencement, they seem to have lost a bit of their holy cred.) The questioners, who all seemed to be Notre Dame students, asked some great questions (except for the guy talking about last night’s homersextical experience) and were not giving Craig a pass. I honestly think that the students, at least, were much more in line with Harris’s thinking than Craig’s. They were definitely questioning, in every way, and I applaud both the university for hosting this debate, and the students for using their critical thinking and asking some really amazing questions. It was truly a fantastic debate, in a setting where you wouldn’t expect to see such a thing!

As for the title of this entry...on the way out, I overheard a young man (all decked out in a suit and tie) say to his friend, “Harris kicked his butt!” I was still on cloud nine feeling the same thing, so I said, “Excuse me...did I just hear you say that Harris kicked his butt?” He said, “Yeah!” I shook his hand, and he added, “I’m a good Christian, though!” He said something like “I don’t agree with either of them!” I have to chuckle about that. Was he telling me, or was he trying to convince himself? At least for that young man, Sam Harris succeeded in getting him to think past the indoctrination, and maybe start doing some critical thinking. If a self-proclaimed “good Christian” thought that Harris kicked butt, then I think that Harris pretty much kicked butt.

William Lane Craig? You got pwned. At the University of Notre Dame. Thanks for stopping by!

The Story That Wouldn’t Die

It's not me fueling the fire, either. This baby is sprouting legs and crawling out of the primordial ooze.

I'm talking about President Obama speaking at Notre Dame's commencement. The Notre Dame student paper published an excellent editorial on the subject, and it also appeared in our local paper this morning. It's worth a read, if you'd like to see the students' side of it. The seniors who will be graduating are overwhelmingly in support of the President speaking at their commencement.

A group called the Cardinal Newman Society calls for greater orthodoxy on Catholic college campuses and has set up a website and started a petition. The group isn't affiliated with Notre Dame, and none of its seven employees are Notre Dame alumni, but they've gone after Rev. Jenkins in the past for his decision to allow a student production of "The Vagina Monologues," and his decision to allow the Notre Dame Queer Film Festival to take place. Rev. Jenkins wrote a piece for the Wall Street Journal in 2008 and mentioned this group. He wrote, "The Newman Society has no ecclesiastical standing and no academic standing. For me, it resembles nothing more than a political action committee." I am really liking Father Jenkins—this guy kicks ass!--and I believe he's going to stand his ground on this one. There are a couple of other petitions circulating out there in support of his decision, and I was happy to sign them.

Oh, and that fine upstanding Christian, Newt Gingrich, even weighed in on it, on his Twitter page:

It is sad to see notre dame invite president obama to give the commencement address Since his policies are so anti catholic values 1:26 AM Mar 24th from TwitterBerry

Hey Newt, let's ask your first wife how she feels about it. Remember her? The one who you visited while she was in the hospital recovering from surgery for uterine cancer, still coming out of anesthesia, and you tried to get her to sign off on your divorce demands? Yeah, that one. Not the second one, who you also divorced. I guess all is forgiven, though, because Newt is getting ready to convert to Catholicism.

There are voices of reason, too. Rev. Thomas Reese, a Jesuit and senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University said, "The controversy over commencement speakers at Catholic universities pops up every spring along with the tulips," and called the brouhaha over the President giving the speech "absurd." He went on to say, "If Cardinal Edward Egan of New York can invite Obama to speak at the Al Smith dinner in October of 2008 when he was only a presidential candidate, then there is certainly nothing wrong with Notre Dame having the president speak at a commencement."

Unfortunately, there's a whole other level of crazy that has latched onto this like a tick onto a dog. Randall Terry has made his way to town. This is the guy who founded Operation Rescue, the anti-abortion group, back in the 80's. He spent some time in jail because he sent a fetus in a jar to then-presidential candidate Bill Clinton. I've got no problem with people using civil disobedience to forward their causes, but this guy is and always has been about hatred and intolerance. In 1993, he was quoted in the Fort Wayne, Indiana newspaper as saying this:

I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good.... Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism.

After his jail time and his divorce, he was ousted from Operation Rescue, and the new head of the organization released a statement saying, "...he has completely disqualified himself from any leadership position in the Christian community through his unwillingness to be held accountable for his adultery, theft, lies, deceptions, misrepresentations, perjury, failing to provide for his first wife and children, and evasion of church discipline." Terry was also censured by his church at the time, Landmark, for several reasons, one of which was "a pattern of repeated and sinful relationships and conversations with both single and married women."

Both of his adopted daughters became pregnant outside of marriage and one converted to Islam.

In 2004, his adopted son Jamiel revealed that he was homosexual. Terry disowned him.

In 2005, he converted to Catholicism. I guess when one religion doesn't want you, you try another one.

"Hate is good."

This A-hole is not a good person. He is not a nice person. And he's camping out in my town. He has vowed to stay here, and is setting up a base of operations, until the invitation to the President is withdrawn or the President says he will not attend. Stand tall, Notre Dame, hang tough, Father Jenkins, and do not negotiate with terrorists. This creep is a terrorist and as far as I'm concerned, he can get the hell out of Dodge South Bend.

Catholic Campus Controversy Continues

Dan (AKA Milwaukee Dan #3) over at Slapinions commented on my entry yesterday about President Obama speaking at Notre Dame's commencement, Bishop D'Arcy's refusal to attend, and Rev. Jenkins' defense of the invitation:

ND is a Catholic University and while of course it's open to anyone it should still stand on its principles. That it doesn't is no real shock and serves as another signal that it is moving to the left (and risking many of its traditionally conservative alumni $ in the process)

Quite aside from religous issues, I wish the yahoo in charge of ND would just be honest. He thought it'd be nifty to have Obama speak, get a little face time for ND that doesn't involve the failure of the football TV ratings, yada yada.

"we see his visit as a basis for further positive engagement." Yeah. It's ALLLLL about the chance to open a dialouge with him about abortion and stell cell research. Please.

Dan, you know I like ya, man, but...Jiminy Christmas, dude. First off, was it really necessary to call Father Jenkins a "yahoo," and to get a dig in against the football team?

Actually, I think Father Jenkins realizes that while Notre Dame was founded as a Catholic university, it is an institute of higher learning, not a church. (Although they have a lovely one on campus, the Basilica.) A while back, there was another controversy when there was to be a production of "The Vagina Monologues" on campus, and some protested. (I guess the V-word is a no-no for some.) Father Jenkins stuck by that, too, and defended the students' rights to put on that production. I supported him in that, and I support him in his decision about the commencement and wrote to him to tell him so. I think Father Jenkins is progressive, and trying to bring the university into at least the 20th century. Maybe he can shoot for the 21st century, and really rile up the powers-that-be!

So this is nothing new for Rev. Jenkins.

The Vatican also opposes birth control, as they recently confirmed when telling the Catholics in AIDS-riddled Africa that using condoms still was not kosher (so to speak). I'm sure that plenty of those good Catholic kids attending Notre Dame kind of ignore that rule. Unless, of course, as good Catholic kids, they know that it's wrong to have sex outside of marriage. [snort] I don't care if it was founded on Catholic principles, it's a college campus. Sex is happening there, people, and I haven't noticed a higher-than-average rate of unplanned pregnancies or births in South Bend.

Bishop D'Arcy's statement said that while the President has promised to separate politics and science, what he has really done is separate science and ethics. You know, I really don't think the Vatican wants to get into a discussion about "ethics." The vast majority of Catholics that I know are very kind and wonderful (and ethical) people, but the Vatican has done some pretty iffy things, in my opinion, over the years. And since when are they the sole arbiters of ethics? Personally, I think it's unethical to let a person infect even one other person with AIDS on their way to their own death, because they feel they'll go to hell if they use a condom.

Finally, Rev. Jenkins thought it would be nifty to have Obama speak? Well, sheah. The President is one of the most powerful leaders on the planet, arguably the most powerful. He’s also an excellent speaker. Of course, it's a coup to have our sitting President speak at the commencement, and several--of all parties and philosophies--have done so over the years.

I doubt if I'll be able to actually go to the commencement, but I look forward to watching the address. It's an honor for South Bend, and it's an honor for Notre Dame.

As Prince said, “Controversy!”

Before I get to that, an answer to a question, and revisiting one of my pet peeves.

Mark of Stars Like Grains of Sand in My Pocket asked, based on my writing about how internships for MT's have gotten so much shorter:

I have to wonder if the MT's of today are as good as the MT's of the past ... what would you say to that, Beth?

Yes, I think so. I worked with a lot of students over the years, and there were plenty who really understood the theory behind everything and showed a great aptitude for the work in general, and for Microbiology in particular. As with any new graduate, they need to gain experience. Someone just getting out of school isn't going to work as well or have as large a knowledge base as someone who has been doing it for a couple of decades (or more). That's why it's important that newer techs work with and learn from experienced techs--you can't develop that experience overnight.

A while back, a decision was made by a couple of people to move a tech in training down the hall, so that they didn't "ask questions" and get the wrong answers from other techs. We were all like, "WTF?? Hold up!" We got the VP of the lab up there and said that one of our most invaluable resources was the experience of the people in our department. We started adding it up--Mary with over 20 years, me with over 20 years, Pat the same, Marsha with over 30 years as a Med Tech and probably half of that number in Microbiology, etc., etc. Our outraged plea was impassioned and heartfelt, and the decision was immediately reversed. I think of the people who trained me as I was coming up, and they had that kind of experience. That's how the younger techs learn, and when you put the younger ones and the more experienced ones together, they make an excellent team.

To sum up, while the internships may be shorter now, the real training begins when the job starts. As long as they've got the knowledge and understand the job, including the fact that behind every number there is a patient, they'll do well.

After I got home from taking care of Shane's cats, it was sprinkling, but it cleared up and we had a beautiful day! I was able to get out and pick up trash along the road. Ken ran the mower out there to mulch some remaining leaves, and said that there was some junk that needed to be picked up. For the life of me, I will never understand why anyone would be driving down a country road and just throw their trash out the window! (And yes, we're to the pet peeve part!) Gaaaah, you nasty, littering A-holes, you make me SICK! I walked along the road and picked up Starbucks cups, plastic bags, cans, and several beer bottles. It's bad enough that these dumbasses are drinking and driving, but they're litterbugs, too! And can someone please explain how a coffee mug from the Excalibur in Las Vegas ended up in our woods?

Now for the controversy bits. Do you remember when I wrote about the breaking news that President Obama would be delivering the commencement speech at Notre Dame in May? Pretty exciting, right? Well, not for everyone. Remember that Notre Dame is a Catholic university, and Bishop D'Arcy of the Archdiocese that oversees the Fort Wayne-South Bend area has said that he will not attend this year's commencement because of the President's stance on reproductive rights and stem cell research. There are some devoutly Catholic student groups that are also protesting his invitation to speak. The thing is that Notre Dame isn't an exclusively Catholic university. It's not like if you're not Catholic, you don't get in. The president of Notre Dame, Rev. John Jenkins, issued this statement:

Presidents from both parties have come to Notre Dame for decades to speak to our graduates – and to our nation and world – about a wide range of pressing issues – from foreign policy to poverty, from societal transformation to social service. We are delighted that President Obama will follow in this long tradition of speaking from Notre Dame on issues of substance and significance.

We will honor Mr. Obama as an inspiring leader who faces many challenges – the economy, two wars, and health care, immigration and education reform – and is addressing them with intelligence, courage and honesty. It is of special significance that we will hear from our first African-American president, a person who has spoken eloquently and movingly about race in this nation. Racial prejudice has been a deep wound in America, and Mr. Obama has been a healer.

Of course, this does not mean we support all of his positions. The invitation to President Obama to be our Commencement speaker should not be taken as condoning or endorsing his positions on specific issues regarding the protection of human life, including abortion and embryonic stem cell research. Yet, we see his visit as a basis for further positive engagement.

Bravo, Rev. Jenkins! While Notre Dame may be a primarily Catholic university, and was founded by a Catholic order, it has obviously become more inclusive. Rev. Jenkins is not condoning the President's stance on some issues, but he realizes that it would be an honor for the university to have another sitting President give the commencement address. Our local news says that it is unlikely that the offer will be withdrawn. The President has already accepted, and obviously, the president of the university stands by and welcomes his appearance.

And Bishop D'Arcy? If you're not going, could I have your ticket? 'Kay? Thanks!