Miami News Flashback-- Boxing and Archdeacon

One of the things I miss about the Miami News, aside from their West Coast boxscores and the fact that they were not the Miami Herald, is the ample space they were able to provide great writers like Tom Archdeacon. Mr Archdeacon was in town recently to cover a boxing event in Miami Beach. An excerpt:

Never mind that Duran, now just a few weeks shy of 58, looks, as someone noted, more like Buddy Hackett than the steaming, petulant Hands of Stone who knocked out 70 men in 119 fights and won world titles at four different weights. He was THE center of attention Friday.

And the cowboy-hatted LaMotta — now 87 and far from his Raging Bull days — held nearly as much sway. He and Duran are boxing Hall of Famers. With this crowd, they were gods.

All night long, people streamed to their table seeking photos and autographs and especially a snippet of conversation. Duran especially obliged.

Some 32 years ago here at the Fontainebleau — when he was the coal-haired prince of machismo — I saw him retain his lightweight title with a 13th-round knock-out of Vilomar Fernandez. After that, I covered several of his fights in Miami, Las Vegas, even Cleveland.

I’ve listened to him regale late-night tippers at the Caesars Palace lounge with outrageous stories about his pet lion. I’ve seen him take the stage in a Miami nightclub and play the bongo drums with the band and, of course, I know the story about the time an opponent’s irate mom jumped into the ring and tried to clobber him with her stiletto heels. She got KO’ed, too.

Duran did things on his terms, and though they sometimes had an edge to them, he became one of my favorite fight personalties. Friday night he sat with Frankie Otero, whose family fled Cuba for Miami when Fidel Castro came to power. He became a top-10 lightweight himself in the early 1970s and was the local favorite here.

The Fontainebleau always was a magnet for fighters. Beau Jack — the lightweight champ of the 1940s who headlined Madison Square Garden a record 21 times — shined shoes here after his career.

“Don’t have no pity on me,’’ he once told me. “I’ve been the champion of the world — been to the top of the mountain — and I met a lot of nice people along the way. I’ve worked hard all my life, and I’m doing honest work now.”

Go on, I dare you not to read the whole article.

Thanks to Santos Perez for tipping us off about the article. The article referenced is copied in full at end of post.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
‘Night of Legends’ fights create quite a stir in Miami Beach
By Tom Archdeacon - Staff Writer - Monday, May 25, 2009

It was a pretty unbelievable scene.

At one ringside table in the Fontainebleau Hotel ballroom sat Alonzo Mourning, one of the most celebrated figures in Miami sports history.

The 16-year NBA veteran and seven-time All-Star played most of his career with the Miami Heat and helped them win an NBA title. Less than two months ago, he became the first Heat player to have his number retired and now his charitable foundation is huge in South Florida.

Yet Friday night, May 22, he sat there in his wine-colored shirt and fancy straw fedora and was all but ignored by the crowd.

Two tables away, supermodel Cheryl Tiegs — whose face has graced the covers of magazines like Vogue, Glamour, Harper’s Bazaar, Time and three Sports Illustrated swimsuit issues — wasn’t creating much of a stir either.

And it wasn’t much different for Matt Damon or Kourtney Kardashian at their ringside perches.

This evening was billed “The Night of Legends” but none of the above qualified. Not with this crowd. Not up against the two aging guys sitting at the table between Mourning and Tiegs.

The Fontainebleau — that glitzy Miami Beach hotel where Frank Sinatra, Elvis Presley, Jackie Gleason, Sammy Davis Jr. and Bob Hope once were regulars and movies like “Goldfinger” and “Scarface” were shot — reopened six months ago after a $1 billion renovation.

Friday night it hosted an ESPN-televised fight show that not only featured four trumpeted Cuban boxers who had recently defected — including two-time Olympic gold medal winner Guillermo Rigondeaux — but also honored Roberto Duran and Jake LaMotta.

Duran steals show

Never mind that Duran, now just a few weeks shy of 58, looks, as someone noted, more like Buddy Hackett than the steaming, petulant Hands of Stone who knocked out 70 men in 119 fights and won world titles at four different weights. He was THE center of attention Friday.

And the cowboy-hatted LaMotta — now 87 and far from his Raging Bull days — held nearly as much sway. He and Duran are boxing Hall of Famers. With this crowd, they were gods.

All night long, people streamed to their table seeking photos and autographs and especially a snippet of conversation. Duran especially obliged.

Some 32 years ago here at the Fontainebleau — when he was the coal-haired prince of machismo — I saw him retain his lightweight title with a 13th-round knock-out of Vilomar Fernandez. After that, I covered several of his fights in Miami, Las Vegas, even Cleveland.

I’ve listened to him regale late-night tippers at the Caesars Palace lounge with outrageous stories about his pet lion. I’ve seen him take the stage in a Miami nightclub and play the bongo drums with the band and, of course, I know the story about the time an opponent’s irate mom jumped into the ring and tried to clobber him with her stiletto heels. She got KO’ed, too.

Duran did things on his terms, and though they sometimes had an edge to them, he became one of my favorite fight personalties. Friday night he sat with Frankie Otero, whose family fled Cuba for Miami when Fidel Castro came to power. He became a top-10 lightweight himself in the early 1970s and was the local favorite here.

The Fontainebleau always was a magnet for fighters. Beau Jack — the lightweight champ of the 1940s who headlined Madison Square Garden a record 21 times — shined shoes here after his career.

“Don’t have no pity on me,’’ he once told me. “I’ve been the champion of the world — been to the top of the mountain — and I met a lot of nice people along the way. I’ve worked hard all my life, and I’m doing honest work now.”

Levi Forte — known as The Battling Bellman — still totes bags at the Fontainebleau. He’s worked at the hotel 45 years and he boxed more than 30 of them. He was Muhammad Ali’s sparring partner, fought George Chuvalo twice, Floyd Patterson once and — in 1969 — he became the first man to go 10 rounds with George Foreman, who gave him four broken ribs.

Forte came to Friday night’s show to see the four Cuban fighters, three of whom were making their pro debuts. All had impressive amateur careers and even more enthralling stories of flight from Cuba.

No turning back

Rigondeaux had disappeared from the Cuban national team with fellow boxer Erislandy Lara, a welterweight world champ, at the 2007 Pan Am Games in Rio de Janeiro.

Two weeks later, Brazilian police picked them up and the fighters then said they hadn’t planned to defect and wanted to return home.

A German promoter — who said he signed them to five-year contract during their disappearance — claimed the only reason they agreed to return was because Cuban authorities were threatening their families.

Once back in Cuba, the pair felt the wrath of Fidel Castro himself who wrote, in an essay for Granma, the regime’s propaganda paper:

“They have reached a point of no return as members of a Cuban boxing team. An athlete who abandons his team is like a soldier who abandons his fellow troops in the middle of combat.”

The two were no longer permitted to fight and soon after Lara escaped again, this time on a speedboat to Mexico.

Rigondeaux finally fled in February — leaving a wife and two kids — with two other boxers Yudel Johnson and Yordanis Despaigne, both former Olympians.

The three won their debuts Friday and Lara upped his pro record to 6-0.

Meanwhile, the Cuban national team is feeling the effects of so many defections in recent years. For the first time since 1968 — not counting the two Games it boycotted — Cuba failed to win a boxing gold medal at the Beijing Olympics last summer.

Four Cuban fighters who left the island have won pro titles and many think the 28-year-old Rigondeaux is the best of the lot.

“I have won more than 400 amateur fights so I consider myself more of a professional,’’ Rigondeaux said as the crowd celebrated his three-round TKO victory with unfurled Cuban flags and the chant “Coo-ba... Coo-ba... Coo-ba.”

And had he looked out into the clamoring masses just then, he would have spotted one very tall man in a fedora pointing a cell phone in his direction.

Alonzo Mourning wanted to capture this moment with a photo of his own.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Read more!

Philly Talk After Lindstrom Walk

It's 9:54 pm and Matt Lindstrom has just walked Shane Victorino to open the 9th inning. It's officially time for me to pace around the house. As is my habit, I had just logged back into MLB.com and the other team's radio broadcast [I had been checking in off and on during the game]. One of the neat things about MLB.com is the ability to listen to the other teams broadcasters. I have no idea what makes a good or bad broadcast, when I listen I'm trying to get a sense of what others are saying about the Marlins [and naturally, any anti-embargo comments-J].

The Philadelphia broadcasters are fine--Scott Franzke and Larry Andersen on WPHT-easy going and fair about the Marlins, i.e. raving about what a good young prospect Voldstad is. They had just the right amount of homer-ism too. For example, they were still whining many innings later about a pitch they felt which should have struck out Helms before he homered--music to my ears given that it came at the expense of uber-annoying Jaime Moyer.

To put the revenge factor in perspective, it did not rise anywhere close to the 3rd strike call against Fred McGriff and the Atlanta Braves in the 1997 NLCS. That glorious pitch, delivered by Livan Hernandez, was so far outside it would have gone behind a right-handed batter and came at the expense of a team which lived off it's great pitchers getting the benefit of an expanded strike zone for over a decade, in the playoff game clinching at-bat no less. It is simply the gold standard for revenge. If Eric Gregg was forced to spend any time in purgatory before arriving in heaven, some of my prayers may have [or will] put him over the top. An actual wikipedia quote about the 1997 NLCS Game 5:

Hernández pitched a complete game, three-hit, 15 strikeout masterpiece to reclaim a series lead for the Marlins

This particular game is remembered for the controversy surrounding an unusually wide strike zone by umpire Eric Gregg.

Beautiful, just beautiful.

But I digress. It's 9:55 pm and the crowd is buzzing, smelling a comeback against the struggling Marlins and Lindstrom. It's now 9:56 pm and just like that, it's over. Paulino threw out Victorino trying to steal 2nd base. The air went out of the crowd and the broadcast. Stairs and Ruiz were quickly dispatched and by 10:00 pm, Lindstrom had another save. It's 10:01 and I'm trying to convince myself that I never really doubted him.

I am a big fan of the Marlins TV broadcasters, Rich Waltz and Tommy Hutton. Waltz makes you realize how valuable a sense of humor is to an enjoyable broadcast, especially over an entire season--think of him as the anti-Joe Morgan. I think Hutton does a good job of walking that fine line of being honest about questioning managerial moves--a key part of an analyst's job I would imagine--without trying to throw the manager under the bus.

Case in point, last night Hutton speculated about whether Dan Meyer could have been left in the game to pitch to Howard in the next inning. A tough call given that Meyer's batting slot came up in the top of the 8th. Working together, Waltz laid out the scenario for not over using the bullpen and Meyer. Last night was the 1st time all year [ever?] that Meyer was used in 3 consecutive days. Case closed, he should have come out, but it's a fun baseball debate.

Hey we got Andrew Miller going tomorrow, he's looked good in his two outings since his return....

Read more!

Sarah Stephens -- Puppeteer With a Cause

Media Puppeteer:

n. - One who advocates while pretending to inform. Information typically disseminated by those pretending not to have an opinion, i.e. journalists and/or marionettes.

Sarah Stephens is an advocate for lifting the limited U.S. economic embargo against Cuba. Check out her web site here. Here is a quote from that that website:

She has advocated for changes in our policy toward Cuba in forums, editorial columns, and other publications since starting the Freedom to Travel program in 2001.

Unlike most advocates quoted in the media, Ms. Stephens operates with a distinct advantage. She is often quoted on the topic of Cuba without having it disclosed that it is her job [and personal belief I assume] to advocate for the embargo to be lifted.

Her latest example of puppeteering came in an above the fold front page article in the New York Times. The role of marionette feel to Ginger Thompson with the New York Times:

Sarah Stephens, an expert on Cuba policy, praised the move, saying, “It is a signal not just to Cuba but also to the region that we’re leaving behind our policy of isolation and moving in the direction of engagement.”

Allow me to translate: Ms Stephens, who we [the NY Times] believe to be a Cuba expert, dispassionately analyzed this particular decision and deemed it worthy of her approval. You see, that is so much more effective than stating that Ms Stephens has been working and planning for this move to become a reality for years. But if that were it, Ms Stephens would just be another run of the newsroom puppeteer, no she is the best. Very next paragraph:

Three members of Florida’s congressional delegation — Representatives Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Lincoln Diaz-Balart and Mario Diaz-Balart, all of whom are Republicans — issued a joint statement denouncing the administration for proposing reopening talks with Cuba.

No disclosure, then disclosure, back to back and the marionette will not even blink [rumor has it Ms Thompson actually drank a glass of water during this part of the article].

I took a closer look at the Board of Directors for Ms Stephens organization. I found the name Dr. Julia Sweig. Ms Sweig is a talented puppeteer in her own right, her work was on display recently with the policy announcement by the U.S. company Orbitz.

How else could have Ms Stephens been quoted? Here is another NY Times article on Cuba from April 14th - article by By Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Damien Cave:

“We really don’t know yet what he’s got in mind for the long term,” said Sarah Stephens of the Center for Democracy in the Americas, which advocates a further loosening of the restrictions. She said the administration may be trying to take “baby steps toward building confidence” by letting the Cuban exile community in Miami, which has traditionally opposed any softening of American policy, get used to the idea.

Now 'advocates further loosening' is the gentlest of disclosures, but it is a disclosure [hey, it is the lefty NY Times after all]. But not all journalists or editors operate with that level of fairness. For every Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Damien Cave, there are Ginger Thompson and Mike Nizza.

In a recent article Mr Nizza accurately identified Babalu as a "leading anti-Castro blog" [albeit with a messed up hyper-link, an accident no doubt] but then only described Ms Sweig as an 'expert' and went on to describe the Council on Foreign Relations [CFR], as a nonpartisan organization. The only thing the CFR is nonpartisan about is which leftist dictator to kiss up to more, Castro or Chavez. If you think I'm exaggerating, try finding a quote critical of either on their web sites. They are there, but it might challenge your 'I Spy' skills [folks w/o kids, just move on, but not to move on dot org].

Anyways, let's hope Mikey at least got a date out of that one. Strings attached, of course.

Just another day on the Cuba dilettantes watch.

Read more!

John Wooden's Pyramid on Leadership

Please click on image above to enlarge or print.


Click here to see John Wooden's web site.

Read more!

What The Miami Herald Leaves Out, Part 2

Maybe the Miami Herald doesn't want to help itself. I mean if you can't flaunt leftist preferences during the age of Obama, then when can you?

Back in February, we took a look at how Frances Robles seemed unwilling or unable to label people on the left of the political spectrum involving Cuba. Today in another article about Cuba, the Herald's Lesley Clark exhibits the same ideological slant. An excerpt:

Mauricio Claver-Carone, a leading pro-embargo lobbyist, noted that both Clinton, who signed the accord, and later Bush, scrapped the talks, expressing frustration with the Cuban government. At one point in 2000, there were no talks for more than a year, with Cuba canceling indefinitely -- and without explanation -- one meeting.

"President Clinton and President Bush gave it a shot, let's just hope [the administration] understands the reason they've been suspended and holds the Cuban government to their end of the agreement," Claver-Carone said.

Freddy Balsera, a Miami political consultant and Obama campaign donor, said talks advance U.S. interests.

"These kind of conversations don't put into question existing policies, but allow us to interact with a country that's just 90 miles away," he said.

Freddy Balsera is a Democratic political consultant. He was identified as such in a National Journal article and worked on the Obama campaign [not just a donor]. None of this is either hard to determine or an earth shattering revelation. But I think that it is very revealing that Herald writers seemed determined to lend a hand to their causes in such obvious ways.

The point is that whenever a person or organization is quoted without being labeled, it lends a certain credence to their position. Simple fairness would dictate that a newspaper do its labeling in a consistent manner. So sayeth this right-wing, Cuban-American, would vote Libertarian if I had any guts blogger.

By the way, in googling Ms Clark [unisex writer names are a hassle to mention, you gotta look up their stuff to make sure you don't appear to be trying to insult them], I came across an article she wrote about being on Facebook. A good read from one of the Herald's two [at least] writers who really don't like the embargo.

Article referenced is copied in full at end of post.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama aims to renew migration talks with Cuba - BY LESLEY CLARK - lclark@MiamiHerald.com

Posted on Fri, May. 22, 2009

Further signaling its interest in engaging Cuba, the Obama administration is asking the Castro government to resume migration talks that President George W. Bush suspended in 2004.

The move comes a month after President Barack Obama lifted travel and gift restrictions for those with relatives on the island and eased restrictions on U.S. telecommunications firms to do business in Cuba. And it comes as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton heads to Honduras for a gathering of the Organization of American States, where the reintegration of Cuba into the hemispheric body promises to be a hot topic.

The State Department on Friday afternoon delivered a diplomatic note to the Cuban Interests Section in Washington, D.C., asking to resume the biannual migration talks, which were alternately held in the United States and Cuba.

'We intend to use the renewal of talks to reaffirm both sides' commitment to safe, legal and orderly migration,'' said Sara Mangiaracina, a state department spokeswoman, who added that the meetings would be used to ``review recent trends in illegal Cuban migrations to the U.S. and to improve operational relations with Cuba on migration issues.''

. A spokesman at the interests section, Alberto González, said Cuba ``is always in the best position to sit at the table and talk about any kind of topic with the U.S., including immigration. . . . It's important for us, it's important for the United States.''

PUBLIC REACTION

Cuba watchers who favor increased relations with Cuba hailed the decision as a step toward thawing U.S.-Cuba relations. Several groups had urged Obama last month to resume the migration talks, saying they demonstrate that Washington is interested in a new relationship with the island nation.

''It is consistent with the President's values, and a signal not just to Cuba but also to the region that we're abandoning our policy of isolation and moving in the direction of honest talk and mutually beneficial cooperation,'' said Sarah Stephens, executive director of the Center for Democracy in the Americas, which advocates for more normalized relations with Cuba.

But the overture was met with swift opposition from Florida's Cuban-American Republican members of Congress who say Havana should first show that it's willing to make a move. They note that the United States suspended talks five years ago because the Castro government refused to comply with a U.S.-Cuba migration accord.

The talks were begun after a migration accord was signed by the two nations in September 1994 in an effort to prevent mass migrations to Florida, like the balsero crisis earlier that year that resulted in tens of thousands leaving the island. Under the agreement, U.S. officials agreed to grant legal entry to at least 20,000 Cubans a year. But the Republicans argued that the Castro government violates the accords by refusing visits to repatriated Cubans and denying exit permits to Cubans with U.S. visas.

''The administration should insist on the regime's full compliance with the migration accords before reopening formal talks,'' Sen. Mel Martinez said. 'Otherwise, this will be little more than a concession to the regime and a departure from the president's commitment to make freedom the `lodestone' of our policy toward Cuba.''

And in a joint statement, Reps. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Mario Diaz-Balart called the move a ''unilateral concession'' to the Cuban government.

TALKS SUSPENDED

The United States and Cuba were meeting regularly until December 2003, when Washington canceled a scheduled meeting because it said Cuba was unwilling to cooperate.

''The Cuban regime continues to violate the accord by denying hundreds of exit permits annually to Cuban nationals who have received visas to enter the United States,'' the three members of Congress said. 'The Obama Administration should first insist that the Castro dictatorship complies with the accord before renewing `talks.' Regrettably, this constitutes another unilateral concession by the Obama Administration to the dictatorship.''

Mauricio Claver-Carone, a leading pro-embargo lobbyist, noted that both Clinton, who signed the accord, and later Bush, scrapped the talks, expressing frustration with the Cuban government. At one point in 2000, there were no talks for more than a year, with Cuba canceling indefinitely -- and without explanation -- one meeting.

''President Clinton and President Bush gave it a shot, let's just hope [the administration] understands the reason they've been suspended and holds the Cuban government to their end of the agreement,'' Claver-Carone said.

Freddy Balsera, a Miami political consultant and Obama campaign donor, said talks advance U.S. interests.

''These kind of conversations don't put into question existing policies, but allow us to interact with a country that's just 90 miles away,'' he said.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Read more!

Orbitz: CFR's Stealth Messenger

If the Council on Foreign Relations [CFR], a reliable policy group on the political left, came out against restrictions on U.S. travel to Cuba, no one would bat an eye, it's a given. But what if they got someone else to do it and not mention the connection to CFR? That might be 'news,' or a sufficient fig-leaf for like-minded media to run with the story.

The decoy was Orbitz [OWW], an online travel agency, and the initial [or the earliest dateline I saw] media tool was The Chicago Tribune. The Tribune played their role dutifully, the article described Orbitz's decision process as follows:

Orbitz created its Cuba campaign in Internet speed. Energized by a White House visit with the president in March, [CEO] Harford decided to rally his company behind a social cause and selected Cuba. His engineers built the Web site in just two weeks.

Orbitz is owned by The Blackstone Group, a private investment banking firm. No one whose bosses include institutional investors, especially one as powerful as Blackstone and Peterson, would ever pretend to take a company down such an overtly political path unless he had the blessings, if not outright specific instructions, to do so.

Peter G. Peterson is Senior Chairman and Co-Founder of The Blackstone Group. Mr Peterson is also Chairman Emeritus, at the Council on Foreign Relations. Mr Peterson is a big supporter of people like Julia Sweig, the CFR's woman in Havana and the journalist Matthew Cooper [note the number of Peterson and Cuba related topics in his recent columns] . In short, the politics of all the above are aligned with removing travel restrictions to Cuba. Orbitz was a most useful messenger [and least likely architect of the message], because it gave the story a business angle, instead of a typical position by a political think tank.

Whenever you see a mention of this story, make a note if they address why Orbitz would have taken such a political position and the CFR connection. That connection is critical, because it places it in the context of politics, the hook in the story is that a business is taking the lead in addressing a political issue [dog bites man].

Particularly interesting [i.e. displaying a 'Bambi-ish' innocence] is the attempt to ascribe the decision to the company's 'energetic' 37 year-old president, Barney Harford, who "fell in love with Cuba in a trip to Cuba in 1997 ." [Must have been one of those magical congressional delegation trips, the reviews of which are always through the roof].

But back to Orbitz. Their web site has a link to learn more about Cuba. Here is their Cuba Overview [the content of which they attribute to Frommers]:

Cuba is unlike any other place on earth. What draws people to this fascinating Caribbean island is much more than beaches, sun, and cheap drinks, though there are plenty of all three for those who want them. One of the last Communist-bloc nations left, it doesn't suffer from the drab and desultory demeanor of its disappeared peers. Cuba's rich culture, unique political history, and continued survival through ongoing economic hardship make it one of the most eye-opening countries that experienced travelers can still discover. Seeing the best of Cuba means grooving to its intoxicating music, marveling at how Cubans improvise on a daily basis to make ends meet, and visiting a land in which the past 50 years seem to have passed by in some odd sort of state of frozen animation.

So much for high-minded efforts at defeating a dictator with dollars. The message brought to you by the CFR, courtesy of various MSM outlets, via Orbitz and Frommers does not seem to be too concerned with the Cuban people or the need for change. Based on that last paragraph, if Orbitz were less politically correct, their travel brochure might say the following:

• A warm-weather Communist-bloc failure on display just minutes from us. Ideal for you Snowbirds who vowed never to touch the white stuff again.
• Forget Paris on $100 a night, these people survive on $17 a year. Seriously, you gotta see it up close. Make sure to ask about 'La Cuchufleta.'
• Love old movies? Wish you could have been in one? Orbitz has got the next best thing. We'll arrange your trip to a country so locked in time, you'll swear you just saw Hyman Roth walk past you.

Think I'm exaggerating? Here's an actual teaser on the web site:

Any time now, the world's last Communist stronghold will be open for adventure. But for an overzealous kayaker, that's way too long to wait.

Bottom line, given the Peterson connection, for independent journalists to have kept Blackstone / Peterson / CFR out of the story, is an example of how bias is practiced in the media. Below are the list of sources I saw mention or link the story without addressing the CFR connection.

• The Washington Post
• Chicago Tribune
• The Miami Herald
• Los Angeles Times
• Foreign Policy Blogs Network
• Cuba Study Group

Just another day on the Cuba dilettantes watch.

Read more!

What Real Catholics Believe

The simple answer is, The Creed. But as to the controversial issues, such as abortion, the title post is an oxymoron. Catholics are to taught to avoid judging others [ i.e. who is the real ...?]. We are taught instead to pray for those we disagree with [the essence of the Christian message], while trying to remain as obedient as possible to the tenets of the faith in our own lives.

However, although most Catholics attempt to practice the obedience and restraint asked of them, not all do. Which creates the following frustrating scenario; Catholics who do not feel bound by the Church's teachings frequently become the loudest voice in the public square. In effect, they contradict the stated beliefs of the Church, benefit from the restraint and obedience shown by those who do comply with the Church's teachings and then lecture the obedient Catholics as lacking the intellect and courage which drove them to their heroic opposition, or so they tell us.

In National Review, George Weigel, analyzes President Obama's comments at Notre Dame and points out how he attempted to inject himself into our Catholic debate:

What was surprising, and ought to be disturbing to anyone who cares about religious freedom in these United States, was the president’s decision to insert himself into the ongoing Catholic debate over the boundaries of Catholic identity and the applicability of settled Catholic conviction in the public square. Obama did this by suggesting, not altogether subtly, who the real Catholics in America are. The real Catholics, you see, are those like the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, who are “congenial and gentle” in persuasion, men and women who are “always trying to bring people together,” Catholics who are “always trying to find the common ground.” The fact that Cardinal Bernardin’s undoubted geniality and gentility in bringing people together to find the common ground invariably ended with a “consensus” that matched the liberal or progressive position of the moment went unremarked — because, for a good postmodern liberal like President Obama, that progressive “consensus” is so self-evidently true that one can afford to be generous in acknowledging that others, less enlightened but arguably sincere, have different views.

In a way, worrying too much about these matters, is an example of a lack of faith. Our God and our faith have survived much more serious issues than presumptuous charlatans in the public square, but the urge to strike back in all sorts of ways is strong. But not, thankfully, overwhelming. For this peaceful balance to continue, we pray.

What do real Catholics believe? This faith [redacted by local Archdiocese] is hard, man.

The Nicene Creed, George Weigel's article referenced and President Obama's speech at Notre Dame are copied in full at end of post.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nicene Creed

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in being with the Father. Through Him all things were made. For us men and our salvation He came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit, He was born of the Virgin Mary , and became man. For our sake He was crucified under Pontius Pilate; He suffered, died, and was buried. On the third day He rose again in fulfillment of the scriptures: He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son, He is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama and the ‘Real’ Catholics - The president inserts himself into a religious debate. By George Weigel - May 18, 2009

Passionate debates over doctrine, identity, and the boundaries of “communion” have been a staple of the American religious landscape for centuries: Trinitarians vs. Unitarians in 19th-century New England; Modernists vs. Fundamentalists in early-20th-century Presbyterianism; Missouri Synod Lutherans vs. Wisconsin Synod Lutherans vs. Other Sorts of Lutherans down to today. Yet never in our history has a president of the United States, in the exercise of his public office, intervened in such disputes in order to secure a political advantage.

Until yesterday, at the University of Notre Dame.

The principal themes of President Obama’s Notre Dame commencement address were entirely predictable; indeed, in some offices I know, betting pools were forming last week on how many of the Catholic Left hot buttons Obama would hit. In the event, he hit for the cycle several times over, mentioning “common ground”; tolerance and reconciliation amid diversity; Father Hesburgh; respect for those with whose moral judgments we disagree; problem-solving over ideology; Father Hesburgh; saving God’s creation from climate change; pulling together; Father Hesburgh; open hearts; open minds; fair-minded words; Father Hesburgh. None of this was surprising, and most of it was said with the president’s usual smooth eloquence.

What was surprising, and ought to be disturbing to anyone who cares about religious freedom in these United States, was the president’s decision to insert himself into the ongoing Catholic debate over the boundaries of Catholic identity and the applicability of settled Catholic conviction in the public square. Obama did this by suggesting, not altogether subtly, who the real Catholics in America are. The real Catholics, you see, are those like the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, who are “congenial and gentle” in persuasion, men and women who are “always trying to bring people together,” Catholics who are “always trying to find the common ground.” The fact that Cardinal Bernardin’s undoubted geniality and gentility in bringing people together to find the common ground invariably ended with a “consensus” that matched the liberal or progressive position of the moment went unremarked — because, for a good postmodern liberal like President Obama, that progressive “consensus” is so self-evidently true that one can afford to be generous in acknowledging that others, less enlightened but arguably sincere, have different views.

Cardinal Bernardin gave a moving and powerful testimony to Christian faith in his gallant response to the cancer that finally killed him. Prior to that last, great witness, however, the late archbishop of Chicago was best known publicly for his advocacy of a “consistent ethic of life,” in which the abortion issue was linked to the abolition of capital punishment and nuclear arms control. And whatever Bernardin’s intentions in formulating what came to be known popularly as the “seamless garment” approach to public policy, the net effect of the consistent ethic of life was to validate politically the intellectual mischief of Mario Cuomo’s notorious 1984 Notre Dame speech and to give two generations of Catholic politicians a virtual pass on the abortion question by allowing them to argue that, hey, I’m batting .667 on the consistent ethic of life.

The U.S. bishops abandoned the “seamless garment” metaphor in 1998, substituting the image of the “foundations of the house of freedom” to explain the priority to be given the life issues in the Church’s address to public policy — and in the consciences of Catholic politicians. The foundations of the house of freedom, the bishops argued, are the moral truths about the human person that we can know by reason. Those truths are embodied in law in what we call civil rights. Thus, the life issues are the great civil-rights issues of the moment. This powerful argument did not, however, sit well with Catholics comfortable with the Cuomo Compromise (“I’m personally opposed, but I can’t impose my views on a pluralistic society”), for these good liberals and progressives had long prided themselves on being — like Father Hesburgh — champions of civil rights.

So the “seamless garment” went underground for a decade, only to be dusted off by Douglas Kmiec and others in the 2008 campaign; there, a variant form of the consistent ethic was used to argue that Barack Obama was the real pro-life candidate on offer. As casuistry, this was risible. But it worked well enough that Catholic Obama-supporters on the Notre Dame board saw their chances and took ’em, arranging for the president to come to Notre Dame to complete the seamless garment’s dust-off and give it a new lease on life by presenting the late Cardinal Bernardin — “a kind and good man . . . a saintly man” — as the very model of a real Catholic in America. Not the kind of Catholic who would ever criticize Notre Dame for bestowing an honorary doctorate of laws on a man determined to enshrine in law what the Catholic Church regards as a fundamental injustice. Not the kind of man who would suggest that, with the life issues, we’re living through the moral equivalent of the Lincoln/Douglas debates, with Barack Obama unhappily choosing to play the role of Stephen A. Douglas. Not a man, in other words, like Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, Cardinal Bernardin’s successor, the president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, and one of the most articulate critics of Notre Dame’s decision to honor a president who manifestly does not share what Notre Dame claims is its institutional commitment to the Church’s defense of life.



Whether or not President Obama knew precisely what he was doing — and I’m inclined to think that this politically savvy White House and its allies among Catholic progressive intellectuals knew exactly what they were doing — is irrelevant. In order to secure the political advantage Obama had gained among Catholic voters last November, the president of the United States decided that he would define what it means to be a real Catholic in 21st-century America — not the bishop of Fort Wayne–South Bend, who in sorrow declined to attend Notre Dame’s commencement; not the 80-some bishops who publicly criticized Notre Dame’s decision to invite the president to receive an honorary degree; not the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which explicitly and unambiguously instructed Catholic institutions not to do what Notre Dame did. He, President Obama, would settle the decades-long intra-Catholic culture war in favor of one faction — the faction that had supported his candidacy and that had spent the first months of his administration defending his policies.

At the Seventh Provincial Council of Baltimore in 1849, the U.S. bishops petitioned the Holy See to grant the archbishop of Baltimore the title of Primate of the Catholic Church in the United States (as, for example, the archbishops of Québec City and Mexico City are the “Primates” of their respective countries). The Holy See declined and, ever since, the archbishops of Baltimore have had to settle for being the ordinaries of the “premier” see in American Catholicism. Barack Obama at Notre Dame was not so modest. Rather like Napoleon taking the diadem out of the hands of Pope Pius VII and crowning himself emperor, President Obama has, wittingly or not, declared himself the Primate of American Catholicism.

What the bishops of the United States have to say about this usurpation of their authority will be very interesting to see. Whether Obama’s Catholic acolytes will recognize a genuine threat to religious freedom in what they are already celebrating as their Notre Dame victory over the pro-life yahoos and reactionaries will also be instructive.

— George Weigel is distinguished senior fellow of Washington’s Ethics and Public Policy Center, where he holds the William E. Simon Chair in Catholic Studies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below is the text of President Obama's Notre Dame commencement speech, as prepared for delivery. Full video is below.

Thank you, Father Jenkins for that generous introduction. You are doing an outstanding job as president of this fine institution, and your continued and courageous commitment to honest, thoughtful dialogue is an inspiration to us all.

Good afternoon Father Hesburgh, Notre Dame trustees, faculty, family, friends, and the class of 2009. I am honored to be here today, and grateful to all of you for allowing me to be part of your graduation.

I want to thank you for this honorary degree. I know it has not been without controversy. I don't know if you're aware of this, but these honorary degrees are apparently pretty hard to come by. So far I'm only 1 for 2 as President. Father Hesburgh is 150 for 150. I guess that's better. Father Ted, after the ceremony, maybe you can give me some pointers on how to boost my average.

I also want to congratulate the class of 2009 for all your accomplishments. And since this is Notre Dame, I mean both in the classroom and in the competitive arena. We all know about this university's proud and storied football team, but I also hear that Notre Dame holds the largest outdoor 5-on-5 basketball tournament in the world - Bookstore Basketball.

Now this excites me. I want to congratulate the winners of this year's tournament, a team by the name of "Hallelujah Holla Back." Well done. Though I have to say, I am personally disappointed that the "Barack O'Ballers" didn't pull it out. Next year, if you need a 6'2" forward with a decent jumper, you know where I live.

Every one of you should be proud of what you have achieved at this institution. One hundred and sixty three classes of Notre Dame graduates have sat where you are today. Some were here during years that simply rolled into the next without much notice or fanfare - periods of relative peace and prosperity that required little by way of sacrifice or struggle.

You, however, are not getting off that easy. Your class has come of age at a moment of great consequence for our nation and the world - a rare inflection point in history where the size and scope of the challenges before us require that we remake our world to renew its promise; that we align our deepest values and commitments to the demands of a new age. It is a privilege and a responsibility afforded to few generations - and a task that you are now called to fulfill.

This is the generation that must find a path back to prosperity and decide how we respond to a global economy that left millions behind even before this crisis hit - an economy where greed and short-term thinking were too often rewarded at the expense of fairness, and diligence, and an honest day's work.

We must decide how to save God's creation from a changing climate that threatens to destroy it. We must seek peace at a time when there are those who will stop at nothing to do us harm, and when weapons in the hands of a few can destroy the many. And we must find a way to reconcile our ever-shrinking world with its ever-growing diversity - diversity of thought, of culture, and of belief.

In short, we must find a way to live together as one human family.

It is this last challenge that I'd like to talk about today. For the major threats we face in the 21st century - whether it's global recession or violent extremism; the spread of nuclear weapons or pandemic disease - do not discriminate. They do not recognize borders. They do not see color. They do not target specific ethnic groups.

Moreover, no one person, or religion, or nation can meet these challenges alone. Our very survival has never required greater cooperation and understanding among all people from all places than at this moment in history.

Unfortunately, finding that common ground - recognizing that our fates are tied up, as Dr. King said, in a "single garment of destiny" - is not easy. Part of the problem, of course, lies in the imperfections of man - our selfishness, our pride, our stubbornness, our acquisitiveness, our insecurities, our egos; all the cruelties large and small that those of us in the Christian tradition understand to be rooted in original sin. We too often seek advantage over others. We cling to outworn prejudice and fear those who are unfamiliar. Too many of us view life only through the lens of immediate self-interest and crass materialism; in which the world is necessarily a zero-sum game. The strong too often dominate the weak, and too many of those with wealth and with power find all manner of justification for their own privilege in the face of poverty and injustice. And so, for all our technology and scientific advances, we see around the globe violence and want and strife that would seem sadly familiar to those in ancient times.

We know these things; and hopefully one of the benefits of the wonderful education you have received is that you have had time to consider these wrongs in the world, and grown determined, each in your own way, to right them. And yet, one of the vexing things for those of us interested in promoting greater understanding and cooperation among people is the discovery that even bringing together persons of good will, men and women of principle and purpose, can be difficult.

The soldier and the lawyer may both love this country with equal passion, and yet reach very different conclusions on the specific steps needed to protect us from harm. The gay activist and the evangelical pastor may both deplore the ravages of HIV/AIDS, but find themselves unable to bridge the cultural divide that might unite their efforts. Those who speak out against stem cell research may be rooted in admirable conviction about the sacredness of life, but so are the parents of a child with juvenile diabetes who are convinced that their son's or daughter's hardships can be relieved.

The question, then, is how do we work through these conflicts? Is it possible for us to join hands in common effort? As citizens of a vibrant and varied democracy, how do we engage in vigorous debate? How does each of us remain firm in our principles, and fight for what we consider right, without demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side?

Nowhere do these questions come up more powerfully than on the issue of abortion.

As I considered the controversy surrounding my visit here, I was reminded of an encounter I had during my Senate campaign, one that I describe in a book I wrote called The Audacity of Hope. A few days after I won the Democratic nomination, I received an email from a doctor who told me that while he voted for me in the primary, he had a serious concern that might prevent him from voting for me in the general election. He described himself as a Christian who was strongly pro-life, but that's not what was preventing him from voting for me.

What bothered the doctor was an entry that my campaign staff had posted on my website - an entry that said I would fight "right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman's right to choose." The doctor said that he had assumed I was a reasonable person, but that if I truly believed that every pro-life individual was simply an ideologue who wanted to inflict suffering on women, then I was not very reasonable. He wrote, "I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words."

Fair-minded words.

After I read the doctor's letter, I wrote back to him and thanked him. I didn't change my position, but I did tell my staff to change the words on my website. And I said a prayer that night that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me. Because when we do that - when we open our hearts and our minds to those who may not think like we do or believe what we do - that's when we discover at least the possibility of common ground.

That's when we begin to say, "Maybe we won't agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions.

So let's work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term. Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women."

Understand - I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. No matter how much we may want to fudge it - indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory - the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.

Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words.

It's a way of life that has always been the Notre Dame tradition. Father Hesburgh has long spoken of this institution as both a lighthouse and a crossroads. The lighthouse that stands apart, shining with the wisdom of the Catholic tradition, while the crossroads is where "...differences of culture and religion and conviction can co-exist with friendship, civility, hospitality, and especially love." And I want to join him and Father Jenkins in saying how inspired I am by the maturity and responsibility with which this class has approached the debate surrounding today's ceremony.

This tradition of cooperation and understanding is one that I learned in my own life many years ago - also with the help of the Catholic Church.

I was not raised in a particularly religious household, but my mother instilled in me a sense of service and empathy that eventually led me to become a community organizer after I graduated college. A group of Catholic churches in Chicago helped fund an organization known as the Developing Communities Project, and we worked to lift up South Side neighborhoods that had been devastated when the local steel plant closed.

It was quite an eclectic crew. Catholic and Protestant churches. Jewish and African-American organizers. Working-class black and white and Hispanic residents. All of us with different experiences. All of us with different beliefs. But all of us learned to work side by side because all of us saw in these neighborhoods other human beings who needed our help - to find jobs and improve schools. We were bound together in the service of others.

And something else happened during the time I spent in those neighborhoods. Perhaps because the church folks I worked with were so welcoming and understanding; perhaps because they invited me to their services and sang with me from their hymnals; perhaps because I witnessed all of the good works their faith inspired them to perform, I found myself drawn - not just to work with the church, but to be in the church. It was through this service that I was brought to Christ.

At the time, Cardinal Joseph Bernardin was the Archbishop of Chicago. For those of you too young to have known him, he was a kind and good and wise man. A saintly man. I can still remember him speaking at one of the first organizing meetings I attended on the South Side. He stood as both a lighthouse and a crossroads - unafraid to speak his mind on moral issues ranging from poverty, AIDS, and abortion to the death penalty and nuclear war. And yet, he was congenial and gentle in his persuasion, always trying to bring people together; always trying to find common ground. Just before he died, a reporter asked Cardinal Bernardin about this approach to his ministry. And he said, "You can't really get on with preaching the Gospel until you've touched minds and hearts."

My heart and mind were touched by the words and deeds of the men and women I worked alongside with in Chicago. And I'd like to think that we touched the hearts and minds of the neighborhood families whose lives we helped change. For this, I believe, is our highest calling.

You are about to enter the next phase of your life at a time of great uncertainty. You will be called upon to help restore a free market that is also fair to all who are willing to work; to seek new sources of energy that can save our planet; to give future generations the same chance that you had to receive an extraordinary education. And whether as a person drawn to public service, or someone who simply insists on being an active citizen, you will be exposed to more opinions and ideas broadcast through more means of communications than have ever existed before. You will hear talking heads scream on cable, read blogs that claim definitive knowledge, and watch politicians pretend to know what they're talking about. Occasionally, you may also have the great fortune of seeing important issues debated by well-intentioned, brilliant minds. In fact, I suspect that many of you will be among those bright stars.

In this world of competing claims about what is right and what is true, have confidence in the values with which you've been raised and educated. Be unafraid to speak your mind when those values are at stake. Hold firm to your faith and allow it to guide you on your journey. Stand as a lighthouse.

But remember too that the ultimate irony of faith is that it necessarily admits doubt. It is the belief in things not seen. It is beyond our capacity as human beings to know with certainty what God has planned for us or what He asks of us, and those of us who believe must trust that His wisdom is greater than our own.

This doubt should not push us away from our faith. But it should humble us. It should temper our passions, and cause us to be wary of self-righteousness. It should compel us to remain open, and curious, and eager to continue the moral and spiritual debate that began for so many of you within the walls of Notre Dame. And within our vast democracy, this doubt should remind us to persuade through reason, through an appeal whenever we can to universal rather than parochial principles, and most of all through an abiding example of good works, charity, kindness, and service that moves hearts and minds.

For if there is one law that we can be most certain of, it is the law that binds people of all faiths and no faith together. It is no coincidence that it exists in Christianity and Judaism; in Islam and Hinduism; in Buddhism and humanism. It is, of course, the Golden Rule - the call to treat one another as we wish to be treated. The call to love. To serve. To do what we can to make a difference in the lives of those with whom we share the same brief moment on this Earth.

So many of you at Notre Dame - by the last count, upwards of 80% -- have lived this law of love through the service you've performed at schools and hospitals; international relief agencies and local charities. That is incredibly impressive, and a powerful testament to this institution. Now you must carry the tradition forward. Make it a way of life. Because when you serve, it doesn't just improve your community, it makes you a part of your community. It breaks down walls. It fosters cooperation. And when that happens - when people set aside their differences to work in common effort toward a common good; when they struggle together, and sacrifice together, and learn from one another - all things are possible.

After all, I stand here today, as President and as an African-American, on the 55th anniversary of the day that the Supreme Court handed down the decision in Brown v. the Board of Education. Brown was of course the first major step in dismantling the "separate but equal" doctrine, but it would take a number of years and a nationwide movement to fully realize the dream of civil rights for all of God's children. There were freedom rides and lunch counters and Billy clubs, and there was also a Civil Rights Commission appointed by President Eisenhower. It was the twelve resolutions recommended by this commission that would ultimately become law in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

There were six members of the commission. It included five whites and one African-American; Democrats and Republicans; two Southern governors, the dean of a Southern law school, a Midwestern university president, and your own Father Ted Hesburgh, President of Notre Dame. They worked for two years, and at times, President Eisenhower had to intervene personally since no hotel or restaurant in the South would serve the black and white members of the commission together. Finally, when they reached an impasse in Louisiana, Father Ted flew them all to Notre Dame's retreat in Land O'Lakes, Wisconsin, where they eventually overcame their differences and hammered out a final deal.

Years later, President Eisenhower asked Father Ted how on Earth he was able to broker an agreement between men of such different backgrounds and beliefs. And Father Ted simply said that during their first dinner in Wisconsin, they discovered that they were all fishermen. And so he quickly readied a boat for a twilight trip out on the lake. They fished, and they talked, and they changed the course of history.

I will not pretend that the challenges we face will be easy, or that the answers will come quickly, or that all our differences and divisions will fade happily away. Life is not that simple. It never has been.

But as you leave here today, remember the lessons of Cardinal Bernardin, of Father Hesburgh, of movements for change both large and small. Remember that each of us, endowed with the dignity possessed by all children of God, has the grace to recognize ourselves in one another; to understand that we all seek the same love of family and the same fulfillment of a life well-lived. Remember that in the end, we are all fishermen.

If nothing else, that knowledge should give us faith that through our collective labor, and God's providence, and our willingness to shoulder each other's burdens, America will continue on its precious journey towards that more perfect union. Congratulations on your graduation, may God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read more!

José MartíJan 28 1853 – May 19 1895

I Cultivate a White Rose
By Jose Martí

I cultivate a white rose
In July as in January
For the sincere friend
Who gives me his hand frankly.

And for the cruel person who tears out
the heart with which I live,
I cultivate neither nettles nor thorns:
I cultivate a white rose.

Martí on Socialist ideology:

... danger stems from the arrogance and hidden rage of those who, in order to climb up in the world, pretend to be frantic defenders of the helpless so as to have shoulders on which to stand.

Martí's poem in Spanish is copied at end of post.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cultivo Una Rosa Blanca Por Jose Marti

Cultivo una rosa blanca
En julio como en enero,
Para el amigo sincero
Que me da su mano franca.

Y para el cruel que me arranca
El corazon con que vivo,
Cardo ni ortiga cultivo,
Cultivo una rosa blanca.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Read more!

Why We Pray for Priests

A portion of Fr Vallee's homily for Mother's Day:

I. Mother’s Day/Ordinations
Today, I went to the ordination of three priests at the Cathedral. As you may know, the “form” of ordination is Bishop’s Prayer of Consecration. The “matter” of ordination is the laying on of hands. First the bishops, then the priests, each, touch the men to be ordained. I was ordained 22 years ago next Saturday. That day, 22 years ago, is kind of a blur to me. But one thing stands out clearly. As soon as the ceremony was over, Bishop Dorsey pulled me aside. I had lived with Bishop Dorsey for two years before being ordained a priest, one as a seminarian and one as a deacon. He brought me into the candle room where a little Haitian lady was praying. He knelt down in front of me, grabbed my hands and said, “Father give me your blessing.” I was 25 years old. The Bishop was 60 and had been a priest for over thirty years. It felt strange, especially with the lady watching us. Apparently, she found this little bit of drama more interesting than the candles. When I had finished blessing him, the bishop grabbed my hands and kissed the open palm of each hand where they had been anointed. The bishop was crying, I was crying and the old Haitian lady was crying. The lady, whose name I later learned was Marie, then fell to her knees and said, “mon petit pere, benyi moi, si vous plait.” Which is, “my little Father, give me your blessing.” I blessed her but again, it was strange, here was this 80 year old woman, on her knees, being blessed by a 25 year old boy. She then grabbed my hands and kissed my open palms.

II. The rest of the story
The story does not end there. Marie would come to mass every week and after mass she would wait for me in the candle room. I would give here a blessing and she would kiss my palms. After about six months of priesthood, I was going through a very difficult time. It was the only time in my 22 years of priesthood that I had ever considered leaving. I was depressed and frustrated and exhausted. That Sunday, after mass, I was making my way back to the sacristy when Marie pulled me into the candle room. This week, for some reason and for the only time in three years, she didn’t kneel....

The email address to request to be put on Vallee's email distribution list is Cioran262@aol.com. To see the entire homily click on 'read more.' Search for other Fr Vallee homilies in this blog by entering 'Vallee' in the search box in the upper left hand corner.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------


I. Mother’s Day/Ordinations
Today, I went to the ordination of three priests at the Cathedral. As you may know, the “form” of ordination is Bishop’s Prayer of Consecration. The “matter” of ordination is the laying on of hands. First the bishops, then the priests, each, touch the men to be ordained. I was ordained 22 years ago next Saturday. That day, 22 years ago, is kind of a blur to me. But one thing stands out clearly. As soon as the ceremony was over, Bishop Dorsey pulled me aside. I had lived with Bishop Dorsey for two years before being ordained a priest, one as a seminarian and one as a deacon. He brought me into the candle room where a little Haitian lady was praying. He knelt down in front of me, grabbed my hands and said, “Father give me your blessing.” I was 25 years old. The Bishop was 60 and had been a priest for over thirty years. It felt strange, especially with the lady watching us. Apparently, she found this little bit of drama more interesting than the candles. When I had finished blessing him, the bishop grabbed my hands and kissed the open palm of each hand where they had been anointed. The bishop was crying, I was crying and the old Haitian lady was crying. The lady, whose name I later learned was Marie, then fell to her knees and said, “mon petit pere, benyi moi, si vous plait.” Which is, “my little Father, give me your blessing.” I blessed her but again, it was strange, here was this 80 year old woman, on her knees, being blessed by a 25 year old boy. She then grabbed my hands and kissed my open palms.

II. The rest of the story
The story does not end there. Marie would come to mass every week and after mass she would wait for me in the candle room. I would give here a blessing and she would kiss my palms. After about six months of priesthood, I was going through a very difficult time. It was the only time in my 22 years of priesthood that I had ever considered leaving. I was depressed and frustrated and exhausted. That Sunday, after mass, I was making my way back to the sacristy when Marie pulled me into the candle room. This week, for some reason and for the only time in three years, she didn’t kneel. Instead, she told me to kneel. As I knelt, she put her hands on my head, whispered in Creole and blessed me, over and over and over again, she whispered and blessed me. I tried to get up but she was tough for 80 years old. She then looked me right in the eye and said, “bon courage, mon petit pere. Mwen priye pou vous chaque jour, chaque jour.” Which means, “have courage little Father. I pray for you everyday, every day.” People often say that sort of thing but when you looked into Marie’s eyes, you know she meant it. When she was done, I embarrassed her by taking each one of her hands and kissing them right on the palms. I am fairly well convinced that I am still a priest today because of one stubborn old Haitian lady who prayed for me chaque jour, everyday. I buried her a few years lady. But I am willing to bet that she is still keeping her promise to me and “elle priye pour mwen chaque jour.” I’ll bet she is still praying for me every day in heaven.

III. Conclusion
The Gospel today tells us that Jesus Christ is the vine and we are the branches. The idea being that we cannot get to Father except through Christ. And, if we are connected to Christ, we are necessarily connected to one another, just as all the branches of a vine are connected. Today at the Cathedral, the Archbishop and hundreds of priests touched three young men on the head and, by that physical touch, they were made priests. Jesus Christ is the vine and we are the branches; we are all physically connected. I have not mentioned mothers’ day but it is almost too obvious an application. Marie was a mother in the best sense of the word. Encourage your children. Most importantly, pray for them chaque jour, every day. Let us ask the Mother of our Lord, to bless and protect each of our mothers ... Hail Mary ...
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Read more!

Economist Bias

In an Economist magazine article designed for making a case for increased contact [dollars] between the US & Cuba without requiring the Cuban regime to actually improve their human rights performance, the article notes the following:

the vast majority of newcomers [to the U.S. from Cuba] are seeking the economic freedom Fidel Castro has denied them, not political asylum ...

... They see Cuba as a prison. How does it make prisoners happy when you cut them off from the world?

I find it telling, but not logical, that the Economist didn't see the political ramifications of having a country described as a prison by those who experienced it and then fled.

But they were just warming up at that point. They later quoted two Miami talk-radio hosts in the story. One of them they quoted as an example of what 'hardliners' believe, Ninoska Pérez, which was fair enough. The other described as a 'moderate,' Francisco Aruca.

The most instructive thing I can say about Mr. Aruca was the headline in a New York Times article about him from a December 2006, "If Castro Had a Talk Show, It Might Sound a Bit Like This."

If Mr Aruca is a moderate, who or what position would represent the left or soft-line in this debate? If the Economist wishes to keep its centrist reputation, it should not allow those type of biases to creep into their articles.

Economist article referenced are copied in full at end of post.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cuba and America

Gently does it
May 7th 2009 | MIAMI
From The Economist print edition


Cuban-Americans mostly feel that Barack Obama is making the right conciliatory gestures

Reuters

A long-delayed embrace

WHEN the Obama administration relaxed restrictions on travel to Cuba, Yanaisy Queija wasted no time. Taking a week’s holiday from her job at a computer-parts factory, she checked in on May 2nd for the 45-minute flight from Miami to Havana, looking forward to seeing her father and grandparents. Because the previous administration limited Cuban-Americans to one visit every three years, she had not seen her relatives for two years.

The plane was crammed. Demand for seats on the handful of charter flights has risen by up to 60% since the restrictions were eased. New flights are being added, with bigger aircraft. Some older Cuban exiles insist that visiting Cuba simply puts money in the hands of the Castro regime, but Ms Queija had no qualms. She pointed to her luggage, bulging with toys, medicines and clothes. “None of this”, she pointed out, “is for the government.”

Barack Obama’s policy shift fulfilled a promise he made to Cuban-American voters in May 2008 at a campaign stop in Miami. At the time, many thought he was taking a risk that might alienate hardline Cuban-Americans. But his move was designed to cause as little outrage as possible, while appealing to a new generation of exiles who are more progressive than those who fled the Castro regime in the 1960s.

At least 300,000 Cubans have come to the United States since 1994, when an accord was signed granting 20,000 American visas a year. The vast majority of newcomers are seeking the economic freedom Fidel Castro has denied them, not political asylum, and retain their strong ties to the island. “These people are not going to be aligned with virulent anti-communism,” says Mario Loyola, a Cuban-American and former Republican foreign-policy adviser in the Senate. The new arrivals, he adds, are now reshaping Cuban Miami. “They don’t understand a policy that isolates Cuba. They see Cuba as a prison. How does it make prisoners happy when you cut them off from the world?”

A recent opinion poll shows that 64% of Cuban-Americans approve of Mr Obama’s travel policy, giving the president an overall approval rating of 67%. “For the first time, a majority of Cuban-Americans are aligned with a Democratic president on Cuba policy,” says Fernand Amandi, who works with Bendixen & Associates, the Miami-based firm that conducted the poll. But hardliners reject the poll numbers, arguing that Bendixen polls are biased. Though they agree that Cubans should be allowed to visit their families, they are angry that Mr Obama gave Cuba a free pass. “This was a great opportunity to demand a good-faith gesture from Cuba, like releasing political prisoners,” says Ninoska Pérez, a popular Cuban-American radio broadcaster.

Some of the older exiles, such as Carlos Trueba, a Cuban-born retiree playing dominoes in an outdoor park in Miami’s Little Havana, object to the lack of ideological spine among the new arrivals. “Cubans come here asking for political asylum and then a year later turn right around and want to visit their family for a vacation. That’s not right.” Mario Diaz-Balart, a Republican congressman, goes further, likening those who favour Mr Obama’s proposals to people who supported doing business with Hitler.

But most of Miami’s right-wing Cuban-Americans leaders have fallen uncomfortably silent. This can be explained, in part, by the fact that Mr Obama has so far defended the 47-year-old trade embargo against Cuba. He is wise to do so, says Joe Garcia, a prominent Democratic Party activist and director of the Cuban-American National Foundation, an exile group that was once hardline but now backs greater engagement with Cuba. “The embargo is not a policy, it’s a religion. So…you leave it alone.”

If the president plays his cards right, he could pull off a political coup. “Obama is creating a whole new political base among Cuban-Americans,” says Francisco Aruca, a moderate Cuban-American radio-show host who also runs one of the charter companies flying to Cuba. The relatively mild reaction of Cuban officials helps to strengthen the view that he is not caving in. In fact the Cuban government seems caught off-guard, tentatively welcoming the new Cuban-American visitors—and their money—while continuing to rail against the embargo and rejecting any call for concessions on its own part.

Other diplomatic action includes a meeting last week between the State Department’s senior diplomat for Latin America, Thomas Shannon, and Cuba’s top diplomat in Washington, Jorge Bolaños. The Obama administration has also chosen as its new ambassador to Mexico Carlos Pascual, a Cuban-American diplomat and leading author of a recent Brookings Institution study advocating engagement with Cuba.

Although Cuba was still on the State Department’s annual list of state sponsors of terrorism, along with Iran, Syria and Sudan, when it was reissued last week, the report credited it with “no longer actively” supporting armed struggle around the globe. (Cuba remains on the list because it “continued to provide safe haven to several terrorists”.) That is some progress.

American officials have privately made it clear that further steps towards better relations with Cuba can be expected. Most of these will be minor and incremental, such as reviving the talks on immigration that used to be held regularly but were suspended by the Bush administration. The next move could come from Congress when, this autumn, it takes up a bill to lift travel restrictions for all Americans. The bill already has 134 co-sponsors in the House; a bigger battle is expected in the Senate. Both houses passed a similar bill in 2003, but it was killed by Republican congressional leaders before it could make its way to Mr Bush’s desk. If this time it gets passed, it is hard to see how the trade embargo could survive.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Read more!

Is Dan Uggla Just in a Slump?

If you have been a productive employee at your job for 3 years, can you imagine being fired for a few unproductive months in year 4? If you can, you should be able to relate to the pressure Dan Uggla will be under for the next two months. If you are under pressure to be productive, that also tells us that you are not a government employee, but that's another post [that would be the one about Hirudinea who feast on small invertebrates].

Consider the following batting average statistics from his first three seasons:

• On average, May is his best month by over 70 points at .336
• May was his best month in each of his 3 seasons
• On average, June was his 2nd best month at .266
• June was his 2nd best month in 2 of his 3 seasons
• On average, September was his worst month at .230
• September was his worst month in 2 of his 3 seasons
• While Uggla has had some minor injuries, he has still gotten at least 60 at bats in 18 'full' months across 3 seasons
• Uggla has hit over .300 in 4 of his 18 'full' months of MLB. 3 in May, 1 in June

Consider the following slugging percentages from his first three seasons:

• On average, May is his best month by over 65 points at .639
• May was his best month in 2 of his 3 seasons
• On average, June was his 2nd best month at .574
• June was his 2nd best month in 2 of his 3 seasons
• On average, September was his worst month at .398
• September was his worst month in 2 of his 3 seasons
• Uggla has slugged over .500 in 7 [2 of them right at .500] of his 18 'full' months of MLB. 3 in May, 2 in June, and 1 in August
  

If you are Larry Beinfest and Uggla continues to struggle, then the choice is almost made for him. The poor hitting, average defense and high [for the Marlins] salary, means that he will likely move Uggla.

The more interesting scenario is what happens if Uggla improves, but not to the level of how he has historically performed in May and June. While most fans would be happy to see the improvement and interpret it as evidence of Uggla ending his slump, they may not realize what Beinfest and now you, discerning 2 Think Good readers, now know; When it comes to Dan Uggla, May & June are as good as it gets.

We are not the only ones watching with interest of course. Up in the Marlins New Orleans Triple-A affiliate, left-handed hitting second baseman Chris Coghlan is currently tearing up the Pacific Coast League [batting .348, 8th in the league] and waiting. We know from an earlier post which examined how players are developed, the Marlins don't want their top prospects to spend too much time in Triple-A before being given their MLB opportunity.

Dan Uggla is not just in a slump, he may be batting himself out of being an everyday second baseman in the National League a few months after winning an arbitration dispute with the Marlins and about one year after earning a spot on his 2nd All-Star team. Nothing against Beinfest or Coghlan, but that must suck.

Read more!

Whose Struggle Are You Getting Involved With?

UPDATED: Please visit the 26th Parallel blog which also had a post on this issue. In addition, Robert provided some very useful links to sites which address the issue of Priestly celibacy.

If the answer to the title post is no one's, chances are you may be reveling in the news about a local Catholic priest who may have violated his vows. Soon, people who care not and wish ill of my Catholic Church, will be given a platform to pontificate on the issue of celibacy in the priesthood. Like a liberal Congressional delegation's trip to Cuba, no original thought need apply, just dust off the old scripts ['I was struck by the friendliness of the Cuban people,' is the perennial favorite of the obsequious hordes] and watch the attacks begin.

For me, this is a good opportunity to highlight another Catholic priest I read about recently. My interest in Pierre Teilhard de Chardin is purely from the perspective of his struggles within the faith, not his wayward theologies. No disrespect intended to Fr Cutie, but the comparison is solely based on the fact that a priest's celibacy has been called into question. The circumstances of Teilhard's life story would make it difficult to compare anyone to him. Novelist Morris West based the character David Telemond in The Shoes of the Fisherman on Teilhard. A brief outline of his life:

1881–1955, French paleontologist and philosopher. He entered (1899) the Jesuit order, was ordained (1911), and received a doctorate in paleontology from the Sorbonne (1922). He lectured (1920–23) at the Institut Catholique in Paris. After visiting China (1923–24), he resumed teaching at the Institut, but in 1926 he was forced by his superiors to abandon teaching and return to China because of his controversial attempts to reconcile the traditional view of original sin with his concept of evolution. Shortly after his return to China, Teilhard was named adviser to the National Geological Survey, and in that capacity he collaborated on research that resulted in the discovery (1929) of Peking man. While in China (1926–46) he also completed the manuscript of The Phenomenon of Man (published posthumously, 1955), in which he outlined his concept of cosmic evolution and his conviction that belief in evolution does not entail a rejection of Christianity.

Evolution he saw to be a process involving all matter, not just biological material, the cosmos undergoing successively more complex changes that would lead ultimately to "Omega Point," which has been variously interpreted as the integration of all personal consciousness and as the second coming of Christ.

I had come to know about Teilhard from Tom Wolfe. He had mentioned him in a now classic magazine article called, 'Sorry, But Your Soul Just Died.' The article was about the development of neuroscience. He later wrote of him again in one of the essays of his book [I wouldn't make THIS up], Hooking Up. Here is part of what Wolfe wrote about Teilhard in the book's essay, 'Digibabble, Fairy Dust, and the Human Anthill':

As a young man he experienced three passionate callings: the priesthood, science, and Paris. He was the sort of worldly priest European hostesses at the turn of the century would die for: tall, dark and handsome, and aristocratic on top of that.... Every other woman in le monde swore she would be the one to separate this glamorous Jesuit from his vows.

Teilhard had glamour to burn. At the age of thirty-two he had been the French star of the most sensational archaeological find of all time, the Piltdown man, the so-called missing link in the evolution of ape to man [two years before his death, it was revealed to have been a hoax]. A year later, when World War I broke out Teilhard refused the chance to serve as chaplain in favor of going to the front as a stretcher bearer rescuing the wounded in the midst of combat. Meanwhile, in the lulls between battles he had begun writing the treatise with which he hoped to unify all of science and all of religion.

"With the evolution of Man," he wrote, " a new law of nature has come into force--that of convergence." Biological evolution had created step one, "expansive convergence." In the 20th century, by means of technology, God was creating "compressive convergence." Homo sapiens were being united by a "stupendous thinking machine" that would cover the earth like "a thinking skin." Before almost all of the technology we know today was either invented or refined, Teilhard foresaw what is known now as the Internet.

Teilhard has also argued that biological evolution [Darwin's theory] had been nothing more that God's first step in an infinity grander design. However, a priest was not allowed to put anything into print without his superiors' approval. Given his then heretical views on evolution, Teilhard was never allowed to publish any of his works [six books in total]. He accepted the restrictions because he could not envision leaving the Church.

Lucille Swan could. Lovely Mrs. Swan was in her late thirties and arrived in Peking in 1929 on the China leg of a world tour aimed at diluting the bitterness of her recent breakup. She couldn't get over him. He was the right age, 48, a celebrated scientist, a war hero, and the most gorgeous white man in Peking. The crowning touch of glamour was his brave doomed relationship with his own church. She had him over to the house daily for 'tea.' When she was away, he wrote her letters of great tenderness. "Remember, whatever sweetness I force myself not to give you, I do in order to be worthy of you."

Whether Teilhard ever failed his oath of celibacy could obviously be questioned, what can not be questioned was his desire to serve God as a priest, with all the sacrifices, frustrations and obedience that entailed. His service to God through the Catholic Church is all the more impressive because it was so obviously a struggle on many levels. Why do we think it's not supposed to be?

So the next time you hear the obligatory jokes about other priests and their struggles, a better use of your time might be to say a silent prayer for a priest who struggled like Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Or who knows, perhaps someone still in the struggle. Because if Teilhard had left the Church, or if a Fr Cutie does now, the real loss is all the good they could have done as priests going undone.

My thoughts on the subject are driven by a desire not to be measured by my own sins, even ones of the flesh. To have the prospects of a lifetime of service as a priest be negated by the failure to never have violated their celibate vows seems like a trade-off only a Screwtape would encourage. So whose struggle are you getting involved with? Or would you rather tell me the one about the priest ....

Read more!

Selena Roberts: Hatchet Person

For all the accusations you will see and read being made against Alex Rodriguez, keep in mind the following; the main person behind the accusations has a history of attacking Rodriguez and has a history of being part of one of the most irresponsible smear campaigns in recent media history, the charges made against the Duke Lacrosse team. The hatchet person's name is Selena Roberts of the New York Times.

Craig Calcaterra of Shysterball has written on Roberts treatment of Rodriguez before these most recent allegations. Check out his recent posts, here and here. An excerpt on Roberts role in slandering the Duke Lacrosse team:

Roberts concluded the piece by seemingly suggesting that the false rape charges and prosecutorial misconduct were worth it in the end, if it opens up Duke to "change" and positively impacted the culture of spoiled white athletes. Like a lot of people, I wasn't very critical of the first reports, but post-Nifong, Roberts' latter article was nothing short of astounding.

But don't take my word for it. A much longer and scholarly handing of Roberts' reporting on the Duke lacrosse case can be found in this law review article, the conclusion of which was a real humdinger:

"[The New York Times] largely ignored the law of defamation in its reportage on the Duke lacrosse case. Chest-thumping newsworthiness or news creation became its mantra, if not its mode of operations. Maybe this is the unfortunate true legacy of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the most important defamation decision in Anglo-American legal history: that the media may largely act unconstrained by defamation liability concerns because of the practical difficulty of litigation and the huge obstacles to actually collecting an award."

Craig Calcaterra's posts referenced are copied in full at end of this post.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why I’m skeptical of Selena Roberts’ new book - Craig Calcaterra - Thursday, April 30, 2009

This morning I wrote that, while the facts are the facts when it comes to the A-Rod business, and that they will ultimately bear themselves out (or not), we should be mindful of the characterizations and judgments that accompany those facts:

Which in some ways illustrates my skepticism about the book. Not about the facts as such -- facts have a funny way of proving themselves right or wrong on their own, and once the book is out and A-Rod and his lawyers and publicists have their say, the allegations in this book will take on either an air of credibility or not. Lord knows after Clemens and Bonds and everything else, no steroid-related fact will shock me.

No, my skepticism involves how any ambiguities in the factual record will be spun and how the biographical fill-in will be slanted in order to make A-Rod out as a generally bad person. That's not a skepticism borne of some predisposition to defend A-Rod. I admire his talents, but I'm not a huge fan. Rather, my skepticism is based on experience of reading Roberts' previous work about Rodriguez.


As some people mentioned in the comments, there is more than Roberts' previous work on A-Rod to be considered when assessing whether she has committed an act of responsible journalism or a drive-by character assassination. For example, there's Roberts' work on the Duke lacrosse case. Via Timeswatch.org, here's what Roberts wrote in March 2006, in a column that Timeswatch says "seethes with the presumption of guilt":

"The season is over, but the paradox lives on in Duke's lacrosse team, a group of privileged players of fine pedigree entangled in a night that threatens to belie their social standing as human beings. Something happened March 13, when a woman, hired to dance at a private party, alleged that three lacrosse players sexually assaulted her in a bathroom for 30 minutes. According to reported court documents, she was raped, robbed, strangled and was the victim of a hate crime. She was also reportedly treated at a hospital for vaginal and anal injuries consistent with sexual assault and rape.

"Players have been forced to give up their DNA, but to the dismay of investigators, none have come forward to reveal an eyewitness account. Maybe the team captains are right. Maybe the allegations are baseless. But why is it so hard to gather the facts? Why is any whisper of a detail akin to snitching?"

Later, as the erroneousness of the rape charges and prosecutor Mike Nifong's perfidies came to light, Roberts took on a defiant tone. After noting how much hate mail she had received for earlier reporting, Roberts continued:

"What happens if all the charges are dismissed? There is a tendency to conflate the alleged crime at the Duke lacrosse team kegger on March 13, 2006, with the irrefutable culture of misogyny, racial animus and athlete entitlement that went unrestrained that night.

"Porn-style photos of two exotic dancers -- one of whom was the accuser -- emerged from cellphone camera downloads. Heated exchanges between players and dancers occurred. Racial slurs were heard. And in an 'American Psycho' reference, a repulsive e-mail message depicting the skinning of strippers was sent by a player, Ryan McFadyen, who, to his credit, has since apologized.

"To many, the alleged crime and culture are intertwined. No trial, all vindication. This microview has some passionate, respectful followers, but also a few loquacious bullies.

"Don’t mess with Duke, though. To shine a light on its integrity has been treated by the irrational mighty as a threat to white privilege.

"Feel free to excoriate the African-American basketball stars and football behemoths for the misdeeds of all athletes, but lay off the lacrosse pipeline to Wall Street, excuse the khaki-pants crowd of SAT wonder kids.

"No one would want an innocent Duke player wronged or ruined by false charges -- and that may have occurred on Nifong’s watch -- but the alleged crime and the culture are mutually exclusive."

Roberts concluded the piece by seemingly suggesting that the false rape charges and prosecutorial misconduct were worth it in the end, if it opens up Duke to "change" and positively impacted the culture of spoiled white athletes. Like a lot of people, I wasn't very critical of the first reports, but post-Nifong, Roberts' latter article was nothing short of astounding.

But don't take my word for it. A much longer and scholarly handing of Roberts' reporting on the Duke lacrosse case can be found in this law review article, the conclusion of which was a real humdinger:

[The New York Times] largely ignored the law of defamation in its reportage on the Duke lacrosse case. Chest-thumping newsworthiness or news creation became its mantra, if not its mode of operations. Maybe this is the unfortunate true legacy of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the most important defamation decision in Anglo-American legal history: that the media may largely act unconstrained by defamation liability concerns because of the practical difficulty of litigation and the huge obstacles to actually collecting an award.

Before I go any further, let me make a couple of things perfectly clear:

(1) I don't dare propose that anything to do with A-Rod rises to the level of seriousness of the Duke lacrosse case; and

(2) I have no idea if the facts reported in today's Daily News piece or any of the other facts in Roberts' upcoming book are true or not.

Indeed, as I've said three times today, I don't even think that I care if the facts are true or not, because the facts don't interest me as much as the way in which they are presented, the context, and the conclusions they cause Roberts to draw. For all I know, A-Rod was eating minotaur adrenal glands three times a week until last Thursday and has been involved in every underhanded baseball operation since the death of Hal Chase. Such matters will be borne out as true or false in a mostly orderly fashion over time.

What I do care about -- and the reason I have quoted all of this stuff by and about Selena Roberts -- is the culture of character assassination that has become inextricably linked to the subject of steroids in baseball. Every big name who has tested positive has not only been branded a cheater by the media, but a dirty cheater with evil and chicanery in his heart. Every assertion of innocence -- even to subordinate allegations -- has been met with scorn. In addition to censuring players under the rules of baseball, the media (and the public at large following the media's lead) has further demanded that high-profile steroids users be ostracized, and that the historical record be expunged, as best it can be, of their very existence. It has been a shameful few years in this regard, and I hope and pray that one day some semblance of perspective on the subject of performance enhancing drugs in baseball prevails. But we're certainly not there yet.

Enter Selena Roberts. The same Selena Roberts who has already demonstrated a clear interest in making Alex Rodriguez into a villain. The same Selena Roberts who smeared the Duke lacrosse players. Even if we concede that she gets the facts right in her upcoming book, can we have any faith that she presents them with even a semblance of balance, as opposed to surrounding them with innuendo, rumor, conjecture, and false sanctimony?

And before you ask, yes, that stuff is important. It's important because whatever we think of Alex Rodriguez the baseball player, we cannot forget that Alex Rodriguez is also a person. That he's a father. That because so few people will actually get to know him personally over the course of his life, books like Roberts' and the surrounding media storm will forever be his calling cards, whether he likes it or not. In light of this, the man -- or any other person who becomes the subject of intense scrutiny -- should be afforded some basic fairness in such endeavors. Report the truth for good or ill, but be double damn sure about the character judgments you draw about him in the process.

As I said this morning. It's one thing to say that A-Rod lied about certain things and broke certain rules. It's another thing to say that he did so because he's an inherently evil or damaged person. I have no problem with the former. Based on Selena Roberts' track record, however, I am extremely skeptical of anything she writes positing the latter.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The New York Times' A-Rod Hatchet-Job - Craig Calcaterra - Friday, December 7, 2007

The biggest reason why I was so convinced A-Rod wasn't going back to the Yankees was the notion that no reasonable person -- especially one with skin as thin as A-Rod appears to have -- would want to put up with the devastatingly bad press he endures in New York day-in and day-out. My thinking was that he would do almost anything to go play somewhere where he'll just be left alone to play ball. Of course I was completely wrong about that, which has taught me a lesson about trying to figure out what's going on in a ballplayer's head.

But I wasn't wrong about the press, and this morning's New York Times contains the latest broadside against the Yankees' third baseman. The charges? (1) A-Rod owns some low-rent apartment buildings in Tampa and some residents are complaining; and (2) A-Rod's charitable foundation has been surprisingly inactive. While both of these subjects are legitimate topics for discussion, the rhetoric employed and conclusions drawn by the author, Selena Roberts, are way over the top.

While the article features some complaints from a handful of residents of one of the several apartment complexes A-Rod owns, Roberts amps up the condescension, accusing Rodriguez of "profiting off struggling families," and claiming that "[t]he veneer of Alex Rodriguez’s real estate empire of working-class housing is staged to disguise his inner Mr. Potter." Rather than simply note that Rodriguez wouldn't comment on the story, Roberts goes ad-hominem and says "Repeated efforts to reach A-Rod through three layers of publicists — think booby traps around a precious stone — were unsuccessful."

The relative inactivity of A-Rod's charitable foundation provides another platform for Roberts' curiously charged rhetoric:

An examination of his high-rolling corporate side, as well as a glossy A-Rod Family Foundation short on largess, reveals a portrait of Rodriguez as a player about to enter Yankee Take II solely for business purposes, primarily as a branding tool. He emerges as an obsessive pursuer of cold, hard numbers on and off the bases, with serially disingenuous nods to his ever-challenged image.


The evidence that Rodriguez only cares about charity for image purposes? That he is, in Roberts' words, "a cheap tipper?" (1) that he hasn't donated much to his relatively inactive foundation; and (2) that Derek Jeter "while he may have I.R.S. issues," has given $2 million to his foundation in the past nine years. How this is an indictment of Rodriguez when, in the very next paragraph, Roberts herself notes that Rodriguez has given nearly $4 million to a scholarship fund and to build a practice facility at the University of Miami is beyond me. Indeed, the practice facility donation is used against Rodriguez, as Roberts derisively notes that "the practice facility is named Alex Rodriguez Park." How dare he.

Rodriguez may be a bad landlord (though it's worth noting that Roberts quotes only three of his tenants, two of which complain and one of which says that the place is clean), and his foundation may not be well-run or well-conceived, but nothing in even this hatchet job of an article justifies the rhetorical bombast and personal attacks made by Roberts. She and the New York Times obviously set out to kill Rodriguez and do so, in a manner that would make the Post and Daily News blush.

Alex: you still only have a deal in principle. You haven't signed anything. It's not too late to pack your things and head out west. The only thing you'd risk by doing so is some bad press. You're getting that anyway, in spades, so why not leave?
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Read more!