This morning's remarks by Barack Obama on the latest unemployment figures included the usual self congratulations we've come to expect from The One.  CBS News quotes him as saying:

Such hard-working Americans are why I ran for President. They're the reason we've been working swiftly and aggressively across all fronts to turn this economy around; to jumpstart spending and hiring and create jobs where we can with steps like the Recovery Act. Because of this plan, cops are still on the beat and teachers are still in the classroom; shovels are breaking ground and cranes dot the sky; and new life has been breathed into private companies like Sharon Arnold's.

The woman to whom Obama referred appeared with him this morning and POLITICO describes her as "Sharon Arnold, a small biz owner from Illinois."

In a brief presentation viewable at C-SPAN's Web site, Arnold explained she owns a small landscaping business that has benefited from government contracts.  Last year, however, she "had to lay everyone off, including myself."  All of her employees went on unemployment.  But now, things are just so much better.  Under Obama, stimulus money is flowing back to Illinois and she's been able to hire back 90 percent of her employees.

One aspect of all this I predict we won't hear about from the mainstream media is Arnold's background. She is also enthusiastic about at least one other Federal program, the Department of Transportation's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program.  In 1998, former Illinois Democratic Senator Carol Moseley Braun entered into the Congressional Record:

Listen to a letter from Sharon Arnold, who is president of SSACC, Inc., a certified women-owned disadvantaged business enterprise in Pontiac, IL:
I know that without the [DBE] program I would lose the opportunity to compete. That is all this program does for me; it gives me the opportunity to compete.

Business setbacks didn't appear to dampen Arnold's ability to give substantial amounts of money to various Democratic politicians over the years.  Federal Election Commission records show she's given money to Al Gore, Mary Landrieu, Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell.  And even with times as tough as they've been, Arnold managed to scrape together $3,500 to give to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.

A little research disclosed that Arnold is also a Feng Shui enthusiast.  She wrote in a testimonial:

We have found that working within the theory of the Feng Shui application, it gives the entire premises a feeling of true oneness with the environment and a sense of personal comfort within the perimeters of the office staff interactions, as well as those who come into our office.

 No doubt Arnold is feeling a true oneness with the environment in Washington these days.  As do much of the mainstream media, which is why Arnold's Democratic connection isn't deemed newsworthy.        

On Wednesday's CNN Newsroom, anchor Rick Sanchez focused on enhanced interrogation methods, a favorite topic of his.  He spoke with Jane Mayer, author of "The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned into a War on American Ideals."  The title itself suggests where Mayer stands, so it didn't take long for Detective Sanchez to uncover the true malefactor:

SANCHEZ: You know, I would bet you if you -- if you and I went around right now and we did some kind of random sample all over the country and just asked average Americans who do you think was the person who was really behind all of this, I know this doesn't get talked a lot about in the media, but I bet you most Americans would say Dick Cheney.

Would they be right?

MAYER: Well, you know, as you said, I have written a book about it. It's called "The Dark Side." And it's out in paperback now, and it tells the story of who really was behind this.

And I have to say, there are certain mysteries still. There are many more documents to come out. But it's incredible how many fingerprints lead off into the vice president's office.

Cheney is the person who keeps pushing forward. There -- there were many people in the Bush administration who fought back against this, not just liberals, not just civil libertarians. There were military people. The FBI, a number of lawyers who said, this is how our country does. This is what the enemy does. We don't -- this demeans us. We don't torture people, but Cheney kept pushing.

You have to wonder what Sanchez is reading and watching for him to claim that Cheney's role "doesn't get talked a lot about in the media."  CNN's own Web site carries recent stories titled "Cheney defends dark side interrogations" and "Senate report: Rice, Cheney OK'd CIA use of waterboarding."  It also has the commentary "Cheney says U.S. can torture but can't heal" by the always impartial Paul Begala.

This week Bloomberg.com published "Cheney’s Smirk Takes Us to ‘Dark Side’ Again."  In The New York Times, Al Hunt's Letter From Washington noted:

The bitterness is evident with a glance at blog sites. On the liberal side, there are pictures of obscene practices, shrill denunciations of Mr. Cheney, and headlines like, “Torture is foreplay for war.”

Last month NewsBuster Noel Sheppard reported "Saturday Night Live Introduces Dick Cheney's ‘Torboto: The Robot That Tortures People.’"  And it's been almost two years since The Washington Post told readers:

Cheney and his allies, according to more than two dozen current and former officials, pioneered a novel distinction between forbidden "torture" and permitted use of "cruel, inhuman or degrading" methods of questioning. They did not originate every idea to rewrite or reinterpret the law, but fresh accounts from participants show that they translated muscular theories, from Yoo and others, into the operational language of government.

Sure, Rick, there are matters that the media devote more coverage to.  You know, important stuff like Obama's supposed eloquence and Michelle's well toned arms.  But your sidekicks in the mainstream media have carved out no small amount of time to blame Dick Cheney.  For anything they can.    

Today's Washington Post Web site carries the Associated Press story "Who's Watching News Scorecards on Obama?"  Written by David Bauder, the piece begins by reporting:

As President Barack Obama passed his 100th day in office last week, two studies judged that the news media has given him more coverage, and more positive coverage, than his two predecessors at the same point in their terms.

Paragraphs later comes one explanation of the fawning mainstream media coverage:

The newscasts reflect reality, said Rick Kaplan, executive producer of the "CBS Evening News." He said he believed that the president has done extraordinarily well. "Everybody, including Republicans, would have to say that his first 100 days have been great," he said.

No doubt Kaplan would be astounded to learn that not everyone agrees that Obama's first 100 days have been so terrific.  Today's Rasmussen Reports daily tracking poll, for example, finds that 43 percent of voters disapprove of Obama's performance.  Moreover, 32 percent of the nation's voters strongly disapprove.

Kaplan went on in the article to explain:

"You cover what's out there," Kaplan said. "Everybody gets upset. If you cover somebody too hard, his supporters think you're being unfair. If you cover somebody too soft, his opponents think you're too soft. Across his four years, or eight years, whatever it is, there will be plenty for people on all sides to not like or love. It will balance itself out inevitably."

I find it interesting that Kaplan speaks of covering "somebody too hard" or "too soft."  Factually reporting news would seem to leave little room for such subjectivity.  Of course, factually reporting news doesn't appeal to much of the mainstream media.  They have a dog in this fight and don't care if their audiences know it.

The incredibly favorable coverage of Obama has again demonstrated the blatant bias that permeates much of the press.  Yet, somehow, magically, we're expected to accept that eventually "it will balance itself out."

Sure.  I believe that.

Melissa Harris Lacewell penned "Why blacks are more optimistic about race" for Friday's Philadelphia Inquirer.  As might be expected, the associate professor of politics and African American studies at Princeton University and author of the breathlessly anticipated "Sister Citizen: A Text for Colored Girls Who've Considered Politics When Being Strong Isn't Enough," is very, very happy with Barack Obama.  But readers may be at least mildly surprised at what she considers the highlight of his inauguration:

But the best part of Jan. 20 was that Barack and Michelle got out of the bulletproof black Cadillac and walked the streets - and no one shot at them. I know we are not allowed to say it, but one reason black people believe race relations have improved in America is because Obama lived through the primaries, the election, the inauguration, and now through 100 days.

She claims "we are not allowed to say it," yet then does exactly that.  She goes on to cite various Obama acts that she deems accomplishments.  Closing Guantanamo, signing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, capping executive pay, and performing a "deft move of racial defiance by proxy" through attorney general Eric Holder's terming the U.S. a nation of cowards are some of the highlights.  Others came when he "dapped up" Hugo Chavez, "hung out" in Canada, "fired the head of General Motors, something most people didn't even know an American president could do," and "established serious street cred."  

But even all this wasn't enough:

Even though he was changing the world, he found time to play ball with his advisers, filled out an NCAA bracket, and had a beer at a Wizards game. This is what we call being on the grind but remembering to keep it real.

And if that weren't enough, Obama actually "kept his campaign promise to his daughters and got them a dog."

All in all, "it was a great 100 days. And did I mention nobody shot at him?"

Yes, you did, professor.  Not all of America shares your wonder at that.         

Appearing today on the Toledo Blade's Web site is the article "Candide: Toledo Opera production offers the liveliest aspects of opera, musical theater, and operetta."  Author Sally Vallongo writes:

In the 1950s, as then-Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R., Wis.) and his House Committee on Un-American Activities investigated liberal and progressive artists in search of Communist-oriented dissidents, Hellman and Bernstein collaborated on what would become one of several major works fomented by government activities: the play and film Cradle Will Rock, and Arthur Miller’s play and opera The Crucible are others.

Sometimes, readers must wonder if newspaper correspondents ever passed a class in basic civics.  If journalists had, they’d know that Congress consists of two bodies, the House and the Senate.  A member of one body doesn’t chair a committee from the other.  No Senator – not even Joe McCarthy – could run a House committee.  A clue might have been that his title was senator rather than congressman or representative, but perhaps that's expecting too much.    

Moreover, McCarthy didn't devote a great deal of time to investigating, as Vallongo asserts, "liberal and progressive artists."  Possibly she's confusing his inquiries with those of the House Un-American Activities Committee, which held hearings on Hollywood's comrades years before McCarthy launched his anti-Communist crusade. 

The mainstream media are justifiably criticized for their reporting of what's taking place now.  They don't do such a hot job of covering the past either.  

Politico today reveals what those in the fawning mainstream media have known all along: "For Obama, hipness is what it is."  It begins:

During his first 100 days as president of the United States, Barack Obama revealed how different he is from all the white men who preceded him in the Oval Office, and the differences run deeper — in substance and style — than the color of his skin.

Barack Hussein Obama is the nation’s first hip president.

This, of course, is subject to debate. But watch him walk. Listen to him talk. See the body language, the expressions, the clothes. He’s got attitude, rhythm, a sense of humor, contemporary tastes.

To buttress his assertion of Obama's hipness, the author quotes John Leland of The New York Times, longtime Democratic operative Roger Wilkins, and Deborah Tannen, professor of linguistics.  Wilkins and Tannen are themselves apparently hip, both having contributed money to Obama's campaign.  That hip fact didn't merit reporting.

The Politico piece has been picked up by Yahoo News as well as by the NBC affiliates in Los Angeles, Miami, and Dallas Fort Worth.  No doubt it will be reported as "news" by many other outlets.

It's gonna be a very long four years. 

Kansas City Star editorial page columnist Barb Shelly is miffed.  In today's "The (mis)labeling of Kathleen Sebelius," she explains why:

In other words, this image that's being projected of Sebelius as some radical defender of the abortion industry is very much overstated. She's a pragmatic executive and it's ludicrous that her confirmation process has become so politicized.

Sebelius is, of course, Barack Obama's health secretary nominee.  In that capacity, she'll wield considerable influence over governmental policies concerning abortion.  Shelly argues:

I'll say this again: Sebelius is a moderate governor in a state that happens to be home to one of the few doctors willing to perform late-term abortions. Just like many other Kansans, that doctor, George Tiller, has exercised his constitutional right to contribute to political campaigns. Some of his money went to Sebelius.

Shelly doesn't detail how much of Tiller's money went to Sebelius.  Earlier this month, the Associated Press reported that the nominee "got nearly three times as much political money" from the abortionist than she had reported to the Senate Finance Committee.

And how "moderate" is Sebelius on abortion?  Her own archbishop requested she not receive Holy Communion.  He explained why:

For more than 25 years, Gov. Sebelius has advocated and supported legalized abortion. She has opposed such modest protections as parental notification for minors, waiting periods, informed consent and improved regulation of abortion clinics.

Author George Weigel has written in the respected journal First Things that ". . .Kathleen Sebelius is an abortion radical by any reasonable definition of the term. . ."

Regardless of where one stands on abortion, there's no denying that Sebelius is among its most ardent defenders.  Abortionist Tiller understands this.  So does Barack Obama.  Yet columnist Shelly of the Kansas City Star doesn't.  Or perhaps she's just not willing to admit it.

Persuading Americans that Barack Obama is an effective president won't be easy.  So local news outlets are lending a hand when they can.  This was obvious last night on Chicago's NBC5 News at 10.  Anchor Bob Sirott reported:

And now to a sign the president's economic stimulus is working.  Bank of American today announced a $2.8 billion profit for the first quarter.  That report was much better than expected and followed positive results from other banks.  It also comes after a loss of more than $2 billion for the last three months of 2008.  Bank of America received $45 billion as part of the financial rescue package.

Sirott's positive assessment of Obama's plan isn't justified.  The big profits he touted are largely illusionary. Andrew Ross Sorkin explained why in "Bank Profits Appear Out of Thin Air," which appeared in yesterday's New York Times.  An excerpt:

This is starting to feel like amateur hour for aspiring magicians.

Another day, another attempt by a Wall Street bank to pull a bunny out of the hat, showing off an earnings report that it hopes will elicit oohs and aahs from the market. Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup and, on Monday, Bank of America all tried to wow their audiences with what appeared to be — presto! — better-than-expected numbers.

But in each case, investors spotted the attempts at sleight of hand, and didn’t buy it for a second . . .

Sydney Finkelstein, the Steven Roth professor of management at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth College, also pointed out that Bank of America booked a $2.2 billion gain by increasing the value of Merrill Lynch’s assets it acquired last quarter to prices that were higher than Merrill kept them.

“Although perfectly legal, this move is also perfectly delusional, because some day soon these assets will be written down to their fair value, and it won’t be pretty,” he said.

Investors reacted by throwing tomatoes. Bank of America’s stock plunged 24 percent, as did other bank stocks. They’ve had enough.

The truth is there's scant evidence that Obama's taxpayer-funded efforts are having much of a positive impact.  Spending our way out of financial distress isn't really a solution to anything.  Still, hesto-presto, even local newscasts are finding slivers of hope.  Perhaps it's part of the magic of Obamamania.

****NBC5 anchor Bob Sirott has reacted to this post.  His email to me:

just read it.  you know what.....i remember reading that story, and rewriting it a bit, but i should have changed the first line, which i did not write, because that was more along the lines of editorializing, and although i do that on the 5pm nbc5 news (one more thing) that particular story was part of the first section of the ten o'clock newscast and should have been reported without comment.  it didn't need that first line.  some may think it was an example of the stimulus package working, others may not..but that's beside the point.  thanks for pointing it out.

It's not often that those in the media respond to criticism.  I appreciate Mr. Sirott's thoughtful appraisal.

Think Obamamania is limited to only His Messiahship and Michelle Obama's well toned arms and J. Crew wardrobe?  Think again.  Today's front page of the Washington Post features "Move Over, Miley. In Washington, The Obama Girls Are the Latest Craze" by staff writer Ellen McCarthy.  The tone of this thoughtful analysis is set early in the article:

The tween girls of the Washington area have transcended differences of race, class and wealth to reach a single, resounding conclusion: They really, really, really, really want to be friends with Malia and Sasha Obama.

They lap up every shred of information about the first daughters, dream about meeting them and strategize ways to make it happen. Minivan rides and dinner table conversations are dominated by questions about the girls: What's their favorite food? What kind of dog did they get? Where can I get a coat like Malia's?

"Sometimes I go up to my room and I just think, 'I want to meet them, I want to meet them, I want to meet them,' " says a desperate Sophie Metee, a fourth-grader at Wood Acres Elementary in Bethesda.

Later we learn that fascination with the young ladies "may also have a great deal to do with President Obama's popularity in the country and the region -- he won an overwhelming majority of Washington area votes and enjoys significant approval ratings."

Yes, the president does have significant approval ratings, something the mainstream media remind us of frequently.  What we don't hear often is he also has significant disapproval ratings.  Today's Rasmussen Reports daily presidential tracking poll notes:

Overall, 55% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance so far. Forty-four percent (44%) disapprove.

Pretty evenly divided, yet the Washington Post and other news outlets rarely mention almost half the Nation has misgivings about Obama.

No doubt the Obama daughters are of interest to some people, particularly young ones.  Does this interest deserve front page coverage at a time so many critical events and issues merit attention?

The Washington Post obviously thinks so.  Folks there really, really, really, really want to be friends with the Family Obama.
  

If, as Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed, taxes are what we pay for a civilized society, we have become very civilized indeed.

A difficulty is that our tax laws are so complicated, so convoluted, so loaded with preferences and exceptions, that it’s next to impossible to understand them, let alone apply them fairly.

President Barack Obama must be acutely aware of this problem by now. Tom Daschle, his first nominee to run Health and Human Services, withdrew after disclosure he hadn't paid $146,000 in back taxes. The same day, chief performance officer designee Nancy Killefer withdrew her name from consideration because of tax issues.

In his role as Treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner runs the Internal Revenue Service.  This is ironic as it was disclosed during his confirmation hearings that Geithner himself failed to pay almost $40,000 in taxes since 2001. Moreover, he took a dependent-care credit on his returns even after an accountant advised Geithner he didn’t qualify. Obama asserted Geithner’s errors were “an honest mistake.”

During the confirmation process for Health and Services secretary, Kathleen Sebelius paid the IRS more than $7,800 for “unintentional errors” of previous tax returns. Obama’s nominee for U.S. trade representative, Ron Kirk, was sworn in last month after paying $9,975 for amended tax returns. Labor secretary designee Hilda Soltis’s husband settled over $6,000 in tax liens in February.

If people who qualify for appointment at the highest levels of government can’t accurately complete their taxes even with extensive professional assistance, what chance does an average Joe or Jane have of navigating a tax code that’s out of control?

In 1913, the Form 1040 was four pages long. And that included instructions. This year’s Form 1040 with instructions and selected schedules checks in at 161 pages.

In January, National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson made her annual report to Congress. She noted that one estimate of the number of words in the current tax code is 3.7 million and that there were more than 500 code changes in just 2008. About six in ten taxpayers hire a preparer to complete their return.

Calling the IRS for help is often an exercise in futility. One analysis

found staff gave correct answers to only 57 percent of the questions asked by investigators pretending to be taxpayers.

So flawed is the tax system that practically anything, including a consumption tax or a flat tax, would be preferable. Ending withholding would be beneficial. It conceals the real cost of government by taking the money before the taxpayer ever sees it. Paying in an annual lump sum would drive home what the genuine cost of government is.

Another recommended change would involve moving tax day from April 15^th to October 31^st. This would make Halloween even scarier. It also would place it only days before voters have a say on the miscreants who’ve so grotesquely expanded the scope and expense of government.

We need to change our tax system and make it simple and equitable. So simple and equitable that even Barack Obama’s appointees would have no excuse for not paying their fair share. 

Today on CNN Newsroom, anchor Rick Sanchez attacked Senator James Inhofe's (R-OK) assertion that Barack Obama is disarming America.  Joining Sanchez was Jim Arkedis of the Progressive Policy Institute.  Sanchez wanted viewers to believe the PPI is a nonpartisan think tank.  He ran a video of Inhofe denouncing Obama's proposals followed with:

SANCHEZ: Cutting and gutting the military budget.

Joining us now is Jim Arkedis.

He's the director of the National Security Project of the Progressive Policy Institute.

You guys check on these things...

JIM ARKEDIS, PROGRESSIVE POLICY INSTITUTE: We do.

SANCHEZ: ...to make sure the figures are right. So because you're down now in the middle, I'm going to ask you the question -- is Senator James Inhofe correct to say that President Obama is "gutting the U.S. military budget?"

In fact, he goes on to say disarming America.

ARKEDIS: Obviously, the senator's words are pretty ridiculous. President Obama has proposed an increase, as the numbers you just rattled off suggested. And there's absolutely no hint any time in the future that America's military budget is going to be gutted or we're going to be incapable of fighting the wars that -- that we are in now and we will look to in the future -- or have to in the future.

SANCHEZ: And just to be clear, you're -- you're not a lefty, right?

You're not coming at this from oh, I'm a defender of Barack Obama or the Democrats' proposals here, right?

ARKEDIS: Well...

SANCHEZ: Your organization is?

ARKEDIS: We are the Progressive Policy Institute. So I'll let the -- the title speak for itself. But we are a centrist progressive organization.

The Progressive Policy Institute is clearly partisan and makes no effort to hide it.  The organization's Web site notes:

Called "Bill Clinton's idea mill," PPI's policy analysis and proposals were the source for many of the "New Democrat" innovations that figured prominently in national politics over the past two decades. The Institute also has been integral to the spread of "Third Way" thinking to center-left parties in Europe and elsewhere.

It also discloses:

PPI's mission is to define and promote a new progressive politics for America in the 21st century.

For those not paying any more attention to political discussion than Rick Sanchez, "progressive" is the term preferred by liberals who for obvious reasons don't wish to be identified as liberals.

PPI states it is "a project of the Third Way Foundation Inc."  The foundation's chairman is Al From, founder and CEO of the Democratic Leadership Council.

To his credit, Arkedis didn't deny defending Democratic proposals.  When asked about that, he began with "Well..." Sanchez cut in, not wishing to cloud his own claim that PPI is "in the middle."

It's down the middle about as much as you usually are, Rick.  In the middle of left field.

Watching Barack Obama this past week was painful.  The new president went out of his way to display his fresh style of leadership.  It won rave reviews from many foreigners, the mainstream media and others who hold the United States in contempt.

A key component to Obama’s approach is apologetically groveling.  The United Kingdom’s Telegraph reported:
President Barack Obama has offered an apology for the Bush era, declaring that America had ‘shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive’ towards its allies.  President Obama said the US had ‘failed to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world.’

His speech in Strasbourg went further than any United States president in history in criticising his own country’s action while standing on foreign soil.

Now a man who brought along an entourage of 500 people and 12 teleprompters, a guy who gave his acceptance speech in the midst of a temple façade, knows more than a little about arrogance.  So he goes overseas and knocks his own country.

Even The Washington Post took note of how penitential Obama sounded:

Obama’s deferential approach was manifest in his public statements, which described shrinking U.S. influence as a positive development.  At times the president sounded almost apologetic about past American primacy.

Expressing regrets about America is something that apparently comes easily to Obama.  Certainly he’s had enough experience in apologizing for his own fumbles.

He said he was sorry for comparing his bowling prowess to the Special Olympics.  He had to call Nancy Reagan and apologize for saying she held séances in the White House.  Last May, he told a local TV reporter he was sorry for calling her “sweetie.”

The following month two Muslim women wearing headscarves weren’t allowed to sit behind candidate Obama at a campaign rally.  Of course, he called them to express regret for the incident.

In 2007, he claimed we “have seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted.” That elicited Obama contrition.  The candidate had to apologize to his Democratic primary opponent for a staff memo referring to “Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab).”

Obama’s penchant for apologizing is a Democratic presidential tradition.  He’s well on his way to matching Apologizin’ Bill Clinton.

You’ll remember that Bill apologized for slavery in Africa: “European-Americans received the fruits of the slave trade and we were wrong in that.” In Rwanda, he apologized for not doing anything earlier in his administration when massacres killed more than 700,000 Hutus and Tutsis.

In Guatemala, he said said he was sorry about America’s support of military and intelligence units in our fight against Communism in the region.  At home he apologized to black World War II veterans who didn’t receive the decorations to which they were entitled.  He apologized to the survivors of the Tuskegee syphilis experiments.

The president who gave phone sex a bad name had these words for his contributors when the scandal could no longer be hidden:

“I’ve done my best to be your friend, but I also let you down and I let my family down and I let this country down.” Clinton even managed to apologize for an apology.  After admitting in a speech that he’d “raised your taxes too much,” he caught heat from Congressional Democrats and decided hiking taxes had been the right thing to do:

"So, if I said anything which can be read in any other way, then I should not have said that.  And I certainly did not mean to do that, and I accept responsibility for it, because I am very, very proud of what I did."

No doubt, Clinton was proud of raising taxes.  But in terms of spending other people’s money, he’s a miser next to the current president.  And we’ll not hear any apologies for that from Obama.

He prefers to do his sniveling overseas.

CNN’s Roland Martin is hosting Campbell Brown: No Bias, No Bull for the next eight weeks.  On Monday’s program, Martin clearly demonstrated he’s going to have trouble living up to the program’s title.

The subject was the Notre Dame-Barack Obama controversy.  Martin argued with the Catholic League’s William Donohue that inviting the adamantly pro-abortion Obama to the school and awarding him an honorary degree is no different from Notre Dame’s 2001 treatment of former President George W. Bush, who supports capital punishment:

And one of the critical issues when it came to Bush speaking in 2001, death penalty. I have heard Pope Benedict, as well as Pope John Paul II talk about the death penalty, and they rank it just right up there with abortion.

Minutes later, Martin said:

Well, again, though, I like how you talk about the abortion piece. But, again, Catholics are just as vigilant when it comes to the death penalty.

And so all I'm saying is, if it's good for one, it should be good for the other.

Are abortion and capital punishment morally equivalent in the eyes of the Catholic Church?  Paragraph 2267 of the Church’s Catechism begins:

The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.

Paragraph 2271 discusses abortion and says in pertinent part:

Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion.
This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.
Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law. . .

Martin claims he’s “heard Pope Benedict, as well as Pope John Paul II talk about the death penalty, and they rank it just right up there with abortion.”

Not according to Pope Benedict XVI.  As Cardinal Ratzinger, he wrote:

Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment. . ., he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities. . . to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible. . .  to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about. . . applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

In defending Notre Dame’s invitation and awarding of an honorary degree to Obama, Roland Martin distorted the Church’s teachings.
Martin started his program by saying:

But, look, I'm not going to bother with the silly notion of who's a liberal or a conservative on this show. I voted for Obama and also for George H.W. Bush, Republicans and Democrats. On some issues, I might be called a liberal, on others, a conservative.

I judge people based on the issues and refuse to be pigeonholed and wedded to the ridiculous notion of ideology. Our goal on this show is very simple. That is to speak the truth to the power, no matter the party or the person.

Wow, he voted for the first President Bush.  But that was over 20 years ago.  If Roland is, as he claims, conservative on some issues, he’s gone out of his way not to show it.

My experience is that people who eschew what they disdainfully call political labels are almost always liberals.  Conservatives don’t have a problem admitting their perspective.  For them, ideology is hardly “a ridiculous notion.”

Roland Martin’s hosting of the program may well require amending the show’s title.   How does All Bias, All Bull sound?   

Barack Obama promised to elevate the level of political discourse.  Some of his apparent admirers didn't get the memo.

Take, for example, this user comment on the Washington Post's 44: The Obama Presidency blog yesterday:

Considering how many people donated small amounts to his campaign, I imagine it would be difficult to find people who couldn't be considered "backers" in some way. I mean one of these guys donated a whopping $250. Yay Matt Drudge! Yay Rush Limbaugh! Way to be more retarded than Palin's down syndrome baby.

The poster was responding to the blog item "Obama Town Hall Questioners Were Campaign Backers."  That piece documented that at Obama's town hall meeting, his staff stacked the deck with the president's partisans.

Introducing Gov. Sarah Palin's special-needs child into the discussion shows how low Obamatons can go in defending their hero.  I don't know if the Washington Post's blogs are moderated.  I do know, however, that the newspaper maintains User Discussion and Submission Guidelines.  The very first section states in part:

You agree not to submit inappropriate content. Inappropriate content includes any content that: . . .degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability, or other classification

Here's a screen shot of the comment.  On the Internet, things sometimes have a way of getting scrubbed.

 

If the Washington Post doesn't moderate its blogs, it might want to give serious consideration to doing so.  In this Golden Age of Obama, his backers obviously feel free to coarsely express their opinions no matter how despicable.

Today's Chicago Sun-Times features the column "Obama speech tests Notre Dame's strength" by Carol Marin.  She begins:

It takes courage to be a Catholic educator. In America's culture wars, abortion is the trump card of every moral discussion. Or so the righteous right requires us to believe.

At Notre Dame, the most Catholic of Catholic universities, a national protest is building over the decision by the school's president, the Rev. John I. Jenkins, to invite President Obama to give the commencement address on May 17.

Marin then goes on to write that Obama's done much more than advancing abortion and embryonic stem cell research.  For example, he's "trying to stop the economy from going over a cliff."  She approvingly quotes a former Catholic university administrator saying the role of those institutions is to "espouse academic freedom where people are allowed to research, teach and hear many voices on campus . . ."  And what would an article mentioning the Catholic Church be without at least one reference to pedophilia?  Marin doesn't disappoint in that regard.

You'd think Marin, who prides herself on journalistic professionalism, would at least have started the column with the facts.  Obama was not merely invited to give a commencement address.  Notre Dame's own Web site acknowledges he will also be "the recipient of an honorary doctor of laws degree."

This clearly conflicts with the policy of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, which provides:

The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.

One speculates as to how far Marin's support for many voices being heard on college campuses goes.  Does she think David Duke would be an appropriate speaker at Howard University?  How about a Holocaust denier at American Jewish University?

Carol knows from personal experience that the free speech notion only extends so far.  A dozen years ago, Marin quit a Chicago TV news anchor job because the station hired Jerry Springer to do commentaries.  The May 1, 1997 Chicago Sun-Times published an article by Marin on the subject.  She wrote:

This fight is not about Springer. It is about respecting the intelligence of the public we serve. It is about protecting the journalistic values to which many of us still subscribe.

Yet she doesn't admit that the Notre Dame-Obama controversy is about protecting the moral values to which many Catholics think a Catholic university should subscribe.  No, it's all about "the righteous right."  You know, the people who "require" everyone to believe certain things.

Jerry Springer makes as much sense as Carol.