There has been mucho sputtering this week on the macho right over President Obama's nomination of Sonia Sottomayor for the U.S. Supreme Court.

Bill Bennett and Fred Barnes ruminated on the radio over whether this summa cum laude Princeton and Yale Law grad is just a mediocre affirmative action babe. Of course, when you realize that all but four of 110 of our Supreme Court Justices have been white males, you have to marvel at the efficiency of the affirmative action program that worked for them.

Former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell is whipping the NRA crowd into a frenzy based on her decision not to expand second amendment rights to a nun-chuk bearing New Yawker challenging a state law. The right only wants   "strict construction" and states rights respected as to some but not all of the Bill of Rights.

Another right wing pundit complained that the Latina Judge has no right to tell us how to pronounce her name. After all putting the accent on that last syllable is just not the way "real" Americans talk. Maybe the rest of us should start calling that other Justice  "Clarence Tow - Mas".

Newt Gingrich was twitting from Poland (was he really at Auschwitz?) that the nominee is a "racist" because of a 2001 speech where she expressed hope that her judgment as a female Latina with her depth of experience might actually be better than some of all those "learned" white guys on the bench. Imagine that aspiration. Since it was a crowd of white guys who got us into this world of 21^st Century hurt, how hard would it be for a Latina or two to beat their track record?

Several of our current Justices dance to the tune of the Club for Growth, and its motto of "individual responsibility and economic liberty".  Which means you get as much freedom as your line of credit can afford. It's the type of thinking that says corporations can use the bankruptcy laws to avoid their contract and pension obligations to their employees, but regular folk can't use the bankruptcy laws to bail out of grinding student loans or restructure their mortgages. "Empathy"- the concept that a Judge can and should consider the impact of his decision on the litigants and the community -  is a real threat to that line of thought . So it's no wonder that the base has been in a state of agitation this week.

Their real frustration for the right is that the Sottomayor nomination appears to be a political homerun: a mainstream selection with the type of Obama-esque back story that has make her opponents seem mean-spirited defenders of a failed staus quo.

But who did Rush and his team expect Barack Obama to nominate to the Supreme Court?  He was elected on themes of Hope and Change. The voters handed him what looks like a filibuster proof Senate, give or take a reformed Republican or   Comedian.  Did they expect some new version of Dr.No as President Obama's first SCOTUS selection?

Some late night hacking into Michael Steele's g-mail account might unearth the following   list of dream nominees that the GOP was hoping for - White Guy Democrats who would either fit in with the Roberts-Thomas-Scalia-Alito quartet, or so flawed that they would get tied up in the confirmation process for the next year or two:

10. West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd- if nominated, this reformed Klansman would give Jeff Sessions someone to fawn over; if confirmed he would not likely outlast the Roberts / Alito combo.

9. Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman- While not dependable on those all important  "life" issues, the GOP could count on Joe when it comes to denying due process to those pesky terrorists down Guantanamo way.

8. Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey - Pro-Life Democrat....Could the reversal of Roe v. Wade be far behind? Plus his selection opens up an extra Senate seat for Tom Ridge to shoot for in 2010.

7. Former Nebraska Senator Bob Kerrey - Controversy over Vietnam War massacre allegations, along with his charming shoot-from-the -lip irreverence, could make for long and entertaining confirmation process that could last through Obama's second term.

6. Virginia Gubenatorial Candidate Terry McCauliffe - His nomination would clear the field for the GOP to take back the Virginia Governor's mansion. Plus his loans to the Clintons and all those goofy interviews as the final days spinster for Hillary's Presidential campaign would make him a worthy victim of a Senate filibuster.

5.  Clinton Flack Lannie Davis - with all his time on FOX news, Lannie must have picked up some of that cherished reverse Robin-Hood Karma.

4. California Attorney General Jerry Brown - aka "Governor Moonbeam" - dredging up his flakey meanderings from his 1976 and 1980 Presidential campaigns, along with testimony from former girlfriend Linda Ronstadt would make these hearings a real "flashback" to a wilder and crazier time. His appointment would also eliminate one of the strongest candidates to replace the Terminator in Sacramento, who is term limited.

3. Former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich - GOP needs to find a way to get this guy back in the news.

2. Tulane Law Grad and former Cincinnati Mayor Jerry Springer - think of the hours of video tapes that GOP Senators can pour over, even before you consider Jerry's pre-talk show scandal involving a check to a Kentucky prostitute.

1.Mr. Spock - The ultimate anti-empathy candidate. Could be counted on to blindly go where no justice has gone before. Would he argue for Kling-Ons to get protected classification status?

Apparently the White House did not get this memo.

The National Conference of Catholic Bishops have formulated a questionnaire to help Catholic Universities avoid future "scandals" in the selection of commencement speakers like the controversy embroiling the University of Notre Dame about their selection of President Barack Obama for its 2009 commencement address.  Catholic institutions are reminded that they should neither "honor" nor provide a "platform" for those who do not subscribe to the "fundamental moral principles" of the Catholic Church.

 The following questionnaire should be used to ferret out those who should be denied such an honor or platform. There may be more than one correct answer to each question. Respondents should be told to mark the answer they think is best.  Please submit the completed questionnaire to your local Bishop for scoring:

1.     Have you ever been divorced? __________.

2.     If the answer to number 1 is "Yes", did you pay your local Diocese the proper fee to annul your first marriage. _______.

3.     How many children do you have: _______________.

4.     If married, the method of birth control you  use is (a) condoms; (b) oral contraceptives; (c) watching the calendar; (d) watching lots of American Idol; (e) Vatican roulete.

5.     Whether abortion should be allowed   a woman impregnated as a result of rape or incest  (a) is between the woman and her doctor; (b) a matter of states rights; (c) should be banned by Constitutional amendment; (d) depends on whether the father wears a collar.

6.     Waterboarding can be used: (a) if helpful to obtain information to protect our nation's security; (b) only when needed to disarm a "ticking" nuclear device; (c) if approved by the local Bishop as part of a proper Inquisition; (d) to wring a fifth vote from a Supreme Court Justice to overturn Roe v. Wade.

7.     The best way to improve the quality of education on America is: (a) better teacher training; (b) replace sex education with "abstinence only" programs; (c) don't confuse kids with all that Darwin stuff; (d) Vouchers to let parents send their kids to Catholic schools.

8.     Invading another nation is allowed only if: (a) the nation possesses weapons of mass destruction; (b) the nation possesses vast oil reserves; (c) the nation has invaded a neighboring country; (d)  the Pope declares a Crusade.

9.     The Death Penalty should be imposed: (a) Never; (b) only after extensive appeals; (c) only on Doctors who perform abortions; (c) only By Texas Governors who say they want to uphold the "culture of life".

10. When in doubt about what the law requires you would: (a) ask your Attorney General; (b) Review the United States Code;(c) Consult the Constitution; (d) Look up the Relevant Papal Bull.

11. The federal witness protection program should be available to: (a) mafia dons who turn on their families; (b) Bernie Madoff if he turns over his Swiss Bank account numbers; (c) Al Qaeda alumni who turn in Osama's Pakistan cave coordinates; (d) Pedophile Priests and the Bishops that shelter them.

12. The doctrine of sovereign immunity (i.e., protection from legal liability) should apply to: (a) state governments; (b) the United States government; (c) foreign governments; (d) Any Diocese sued by alleged victims of abuse by Priests and Bishops.

13. Your political party affiliation is: (a) Republican; (b) Green; (c) Libertarian; (d) DemocRAT Socialist.

14.  If you had to spend a night in jail with a cellmate, and you could pick anyone from world history, you would prefer to be in jail with: (a) Jesus Christ; (b) Martin Luther King, Jr. ; (c) Joan of Arc; (d) Allan Keyes.

This week Pope Benedict is touring the Mideast, trying to build bridges between sects and religions.  Back here in the United States his flock is in an heated intramural dispute about whether the President of the United States is worthy to appear at the nation's flag ship Catholic University, and his lieutenants, the nations' Bishops are throwing fuel on the fire.

This morning's New York Times' headline caught the mood of the Pope's plea for respect and tolerance for the Mideast's shrinking Christian population: "Pope Says Extremism Is Aided by Loss of Diverse Beliefs". http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/world/middleeast/13christians.html?scp=1&sq=Mideast Christians&st=cse

But back here in the United States, the Pope's Bishops and a loud and belligerent crowd of Catholic fundamentalists have used words like "scandal" and "embarrassment" to belittle Notre Dame for its decision to invite the current President to speak at its commencement, as it had all Presidents going back Dwight Eisenhower.

If diverse beliefs are something the Pope wants to preserve in the Mideast to help ward off extremism, maybe its time for Catholic Bishops in the United States to acknowledge that great Universities should welcome and be prepared to hear and debate diverse beliefs, even when they conflict with what are characterized as the "fundamental principles" of their faith.

In comparison to the Catholic Bishops demanding that Catholic Universities like Notre Dame deny "platforms" and "honors" to anyone that refuses to walk lock-step with Church doctrine on abortion, birth control or stem cell research, the Pope has shown much more flexibility to share the platform with secular leaders like Nicholas Sarkozy, the French President who supports abortion rights, has twice divorced and describes himself as a "lapsed Catholic". 

Can I really be suggesting that the German Pope should be a role model for our intolerant American Bishops?  Sadly, its come to that. Maybe Allan Keyes will get himself arrested when the Pope comes to say his next Mass at Yankee stadium and invites President Obama to attend.

Justice Souter is going back to New Hampshire, and the media buzz has focused this week on who President Obama will select to replace him. The hard right interest groups and their radioheads are already in a frenzy, overheating their googlers, scanners and PDFers as they get ready to portray whoever the President selects as just another dreaded "activist" Judge, who will betray the unborn and stray from blindered impartiality to favor the little guy every now and then. 

Already the Club for Grope types are "shocked, shocked" about the President's suggestion that a Justice should actually show a bit of empathy for the citizens effected by the Court's decisions.

Newspapers and websites have already shown us a line-up of usual suspects, mostly distinguished and predominantly female Judges with proven track records on the lower federal courts and state supreme courts.

But lets face it: whoever the President selects will be demonized by the right, and its minions on the Senate Judiciary Committee, led by failed judicial nominee Jeff "Only Joshing About My admiration for the KKK" Sessions (R-Ala.). 

So lets encourage the President to spare all those ugly attacks on some earnest and hard working   Judge, and have some fun with this pick.  Here are some "outside the box" ideas for this Supreme Court vacancy. (And remember, you don't have to be a lawyer to serve):

10. Hillary Clinton: with her approval ratings actually higher than the President's own lovely reviews, maybe the President wants to park here somewhere she won't be tempted to jump into the 2012 primaries.

9. Bill Clinton: Sure he's a little older than what the playbook calls for, but if you are looking for "empathy", why not the old feeler of our pain. This would also put him somewhere the Secretary of State can keep an eye on him, at least from October to June.

8. Mary Cheney: talk about breaking down barriers - the Court's first way out of the closet Lesbian  Justice.  A little libertarianism can't hurt to balance  authoritarians like Justices  Scalia and Thomas.  Would The GOP dare demonize this chip off the Old Water-boarder?

7. Joe Biden: A place to park the loosest lips on the uber-disciplined Team Obama. With Joe's  proclivity to "borrow" the words of others, it would be fun to have a Justice free-channeling Hugo Black and William O. Douglas. Add to that the fun of a new Veep-stakes, and this makes a compelling choice!

6. Chelsea Clinton - for those worried about appointing her parents because they are too old to outlast Roberts and Alito, and willing to trust the gene pool.

5. California Attorney General Jerry Brown, former "Governor Moonbeam", then Mayor of Oakland. But maybe we should let him reprise his role in the Governor's Mansion as the successor to....

4. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger - he could bench press Alioto, Roberts and Thomas combined, adding a little physical, if not intellectual, muscle to the center-left of the Court.

3. Barack Obama- After a  compelling first 100 days, maybe he should move on and appoint himself while he's still ahead.

2. Michelle Obama- All the credentials plus the ability to introduce sleeveless robes to the Court.

1.Former Cincinnati Mayor and Tulane Law Grad JERRY SPRINGER: Not only would he bring live TV cameras into that staid court room, he would hire body guards instead of law clerks.

Two polls out this week show public opinion shifting dramatically based on the frequency of respondents' attendance at Church. I noticed it first in a Washington Post article describing a Pew Poll on the question of whether Notre Dame should have invited President Obama to campus for its 2009 commencement. Catholic Bishops and the fundamentalist Cardinal Newman Society have been on the attack against my alma mater because of Obama's views on abortion rights and stem cell research.  But Catholics aren't jumping on the Bishops' bandwagon, unless they attend mass weekly.  Here's the Report:

"But a poll released yesterday by the Pew Forum of Religion and Public Life shows 50 percent of Catholics saying they approve of the Notre Dame award to Obama, while 22 percent say they disapprove. Twenty-two percent said they didn't know. That's pretty similar to the views of Americans overall on the issue -- 48 percent of the general public said they approved, 25 percent disapproved and 27 percent said they didn't know.

In recent years American Catholics have come to mirror the general American population more and more. Another recent survey by Pew showed that more than two-thirds of Catholics approve of Obama's job performance, about the same as the population in general. Only 33 percent of white, evangelical Protestants feel the same way. Meanwhile, 96 percent of black Protestants support the president's performance.

However, authors of the poll note that there is a gap in the Notre Dame controversy that persists in so many arenas -- between more and less observant Catholics. Among white, non-Hispanic Catholics who attend church weekly or more often, approval of the decision plummets to 37 percent. Forty-five percent said the decision was wrong. Among those who attend "less often," 56 percent support the invite while 23 percent oppose it.

Pew's poll also shows that weekly attending white Catholics are now noticeably more negative toward Obama's performance compared with earlier this year. In fact, a plurality of this group (45%) now disapproves of the job Obama is doing, more than double the figure in February (20%). "

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/godingovernment/2009/05/notre_dames_obama_award_ok_with_most_catholics.html

Its possible that regular Catholic attendees skew a bit older, are more exposed to the weekly harangue on "fundamental moral Principles" of the Church,  and might be more inclined to judge the President  through the single issue lens of the pro-life vs. pro-choice culture warriors.

More striking was the results of another Pew poll focusing on Church goers' views of torture. As reported by CNN:

More than half of people who attend services at least once a week -- 54 percent -- said the use of torture against suspected terrorists is "often" or "sometimes" justified. Only 42 percent of people who "seldom or never" go to services agreed, according to the analysis released Wednesday by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.

White evangelical Protestants were the religious group most likely to say torture is often or sometimes justified -- more than six in 10 supported it. People unaffiliated with any religious organization were least likely to back it. Only four in 10 of them did.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/30/religion.torture/

 Why would 54% of regular Church attendees - mostly Christian - think torture is an acceptable way to collect information from terror suspects, while only 40% of those who identify as "unaffiliated" reject torture. Susan Brooks Thistlewaite had a thoughtful column in today's Washington Post linking torture support from the faithful to the cruel treatment of Jesus  depicted in Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ".  http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/susan_brooks_thistlethwaite/2009/05/why_the_faithful_approve_of_torture.html?hpid=talkbox1

Her thesis suggests that good Christians believe that if Jesus could take a good flogging to redeem us all, then Osama Bin Laden and his disciples should be able to take their medicine too.

But when I put the question to my facebook friends, they generated some less thoughtful explanations.

TOP TEN REASONS WEEKLY CHURCH GOERS FAVOR TORTURE:

10. Using those hard wooden kneelers at Sunday Mass seems like a worse "stress position" that used at Guantanamo.

9.  Due to today's short attention spans, most bible study classes never make it past that "eye for an eye" stuff in the old testament.

8. Its not just terrorists. If questioned further they also believe that Catholic Bishops should be tortured to disclose locations of pedophile Priests that have been given a "second chance".

7. Waterboarding seems pretty mild compared to the last 40 minutes of "Passion of the Christ".

6. Believes it was Jesus who said "The ends justify the means'.

5. Infidel terrorists won't make the cut on Rapture Day anyway, so what's a little more pain?

4. A lot of those regular Catholic Church goers grew up eating fish sticks on Fridays.  Now that's torture!

3. Spanish Inquisition nostalgia is a powerful thing.

2. Thought that whole "turn the other cheek" thing referred to CIA's face slap questioning techniques.

1. Got confused and asked themselves WWCD? (What would Cheney Do?) rather than WWJD?

After right wing talking heads tried to link the swine flu to terrorists earlier this week, their heads must be spinning upon the revelation that the only known Swine flu case found in Indiana happens to be on the campus of the University of Notre Dame.http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/43911682.html

Yes, that's right.  The same Notre Dame where a "scandal" has erupted (at least in the eyes of the cranks at the Cardinal Newman Society), because the University had the temerity to invite our President to address the graduating class of 2009. Now the culture warring fundamentalists can claim that the Swine Flu is not just an instrument of heathen terrorists, but God's own way of casting bad vibes on a University that has ignored the Catholic Bishops' admonition against  providing a platform for those who do not buy into each and every one of the Church's "fundamental moral principles".

This week the Catholic fundamentalists crusading against the President's Notre Dame gig got support from one Mary Ann Glendon, a Harvard law professor and  self proclaimed "Pro-Life Feminist", who agreed to accept, but then rejected the University's prestigious Laetare Medal, given each year since 1883 to a prominent American Catholic. Seems that Ms. Glendon could not live with standing on the same platform as the President of the United States because of his failure to adhere to the fundamental moral principles of her Church.

Ms. Glendon's most recent claim to fame was as The Bush Administration's "Ambassador to the Holy See" (i.e. the Vatican), where she presumably had to explain why her President rejected the Pope's views on fundamental moral issues like the death penalty and our invasion of Iraq. 

When Glendon initially agreed to accept the Award, she must not have gone over the list of past moral scoundrels who had been so honored, including Martin Sheen (2008) and the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who was denounced by NY's Cardinal O'Connor for his views on abortion when he received the award in 1992. Why would she want to be a member of that club?

Ms. Glendon's past writings include a screed for the Wall St. Journal in 2004 defending her President's support of the "federal Marriage Amendment", in which she attacks gay marriage as a violation of religious freedom, because in her view once gay marriage becomes legal "every religion that disagrees will be labeled as bigoted and openly discriminated against". Huh? http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004735

Lets get this right. If someone disagrees with the religious teachings of a particular Church - whether on an issue like gay marriage, or abortion, or "an eye for an eye", or the imperative of a jihad to drive out infidels - the expression of that disagreement means that the members of that Church are being discriminated against? I thought the 1^st Amendment guaranteed both religious freedom and freedom of expression about religion. Does she actually teach that twisted view of the First Amendment at Harvard?

Ms. Glendon's shameless and convoluted assault on gay marriage may well explain why George Bush rewarded her with that fancy Rome apartment and her audiences with the German Pope.

But here's the irony: the Pope himself seems not to have the scruples that either the Catholic Bishops or Ms. Glendon have about  providing a platform or sharing the stage with someone who does not adhere to the Church's "fundamental principles". The Pope has been happy to appear to bask in the glow of  France's President Nicholas Sarkozy and his foxy wife Carla. President Sarkozy who describes himself as a "lapsed Catholic", is twice divorced, and support's France's permissive laws on abortion.

 So, Ms Glendon and all you Catholic Bishops, please explain the difference between a non-Catholic un-divorced President who happens to support abortion rights speaking at a Catholic University, and the Pope's appearances with a divorced,"lapsed" Catholic President who supports abortion rights.

GOP ANNOUNCES 10 WAYS TO COMBAT SWINE FLU PANDEMIC

GOP minority leader Eric Kantor has been burning the midnight oil (no ethanol, please) this week, trying to shed his reputation as the latest incarnation of "Dr. No." He and Senate Majority Mitch "My wife's no longer in the Cabinet so find her a job at a right wing think tank" McConnell have come up with the following sure fire ways to lead our nation out of the pandemic panic:

10. Strip pandemic funding out of stimulus package as just more "pork". After all, whether to fight the flu or embrace it should be a matter of states' rights and individual choice.

9. Commission a Heritage Foundation Study to show that "culling the herd" will help reduce rising unemployment - literally killing two birds with one stone.

8. Dispute all this talk about flu viruses mutating into new and dangerous forms as all part of that debunked and un-Christian evolution theory thing.

7. Fillibuster President Obama's appointments to the Department of Health and Human Services because they support family planning and the right to choose. We must protect the innocent unborn before worrying about the sinners already born.

6. Claim that this whole swine flu thing is just an overblown Democratic ruse to get those anti-life HHS appointees confirmed.

5. Remind Americans that if there were more assault weapons available, more pigs would have died in hunting accidents over the last 20 years.

4. Get Texas Governor Rick Perry to say that this never would have happened if you had just let Texas secede from the Union and invade Mexico.

3. Find a fundamentalist preacher to say this is all God's vengeance for the legalization of gay marriage in Iowa.

2. Release report "showing" that kids who are Home Schooled or attend Charter Schools have less of a chance of contracting the swine flu.

A More Perfect Union ... Without Texas?

 Last week, Texas Governor Rick Perry, flaunting   his Texas Big hair, was cheering on those FOX News watching, Tea Bag Toting, Flag Waving,  Anti-Tax Crusading, Obama fearing   protesters in their call for Texas' secession from the Union. Seems this crowd was "shocked, shocked"  by their recent discovery that the federal government is running up big deficits and expecting Americans to pay taxes to cover the tab.

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/04/16/perry/index.html

When asked to explain his sympathy for calls to withdraw Texas from the Union,  Rick said "if Washington keeps thumbing their (sic) nose at the American people, who knows what might come of that."

Now some of us in the upper 48 had figured out a few years back that Texas's last Governor, who  vacated   the White House less than 100 days ago, had run up more debt than all of the preceding Presidents combined. Yet the folks at FOX and the Texas tea-baggers,  who suddenly want to round up their longhorns and go home, seemed more than content when it was one of their own boot scootin' away on the national credit card.

It got me thinking about how all of us would cope if Texas waved goodbye and became its own Republic again.  Here are some of the Pros and Cons:

PROS:

·      Dallas Cowboys will no longer be "America's Team".

·      We get back that Texas size share of the stimulus money that Governor Perry first stuck his nose up at, then decided to keep.

·      We also get to keep the money Texans paid into the Social Security Trust Fund, since Texans surely won't expect to get paid SS benefits once they secede.

·      Two less obstructionist Senators in D.C. defending democracy while filibustering against an up and down vote on judicial nominations or health care.

·      Dubya gets a mulligan .... Can run for Emperor of Texas and rub the German Chancellor's shoulders again at some group of 8 Summit Meeting.

·      Chance to make fun of native born Texans who hop the fence to find jobs in the real United States.

·      We no longer have to pay to defend all that god forsaken sage brush.

·      Lone Star Beer will gain cache as an import.

·      No more subsidy payments to reward Texas land barons for the cotton they don't grow.

·      Kinky Friedman would make a great Texas ambassador to the UN.

·      He next time Galveston gets leveled by a hurricane it will be the Republic of Texas' problem, not FEMA's.

·      Cincinnati will now be the undisputed U.S. capitol of Chili.

·      The next time a NASA space crew runs into trouble we won't be hearing "Houston, we have a problem".

·      Don't have to worry about those Mexican drug lords on our border....at least not as much of our border.

·      With a Republic of Texas Attorney General's office to staff up, "Gonzo" Gonzalez might actually be able to find a lawyering job after he crashed and burned as US AG.

CONS:

·      Big Expense to move that fence designed to keep out illegals from the south border of Texas to the North Border of Texas.

·      Have to re-call all those shiny quarters with the Alamo on the flip side.

·      Lyle Lovett will need a passport for his concert tours.

·      Texans will probably reintroduce slavery, once the 13^th and 14^th Amendments would no longer apply south of the border.

·       What would the TV network ad sales be without Ross Perot and T. Boone Pickens?

·      Can't  build overpriced Presidential libraries on foreign soil (Maybe that's a Pro?).

·      Texas foreign policy will try to restore the good name of "torture".

Hard to figure where this balancing test comes out, but so far I am finding more goods reasons to say goodbye to Texas than bad ones . Feel free to add to both lists.

This week there was a new media buzz phrase: "the scourge of piracy". I heard it first from our Secretary of State, who solemnly pronounced in a press availability that we needed international co-operation to combat the "scourge of privacy" off the coast of Somalia. Later that morning,  on my local NPR station, some instant piracy expert bemoaned our inability to stop "the scourge of piracy".

According to my laptop's dictionary a "scourge" is   "a whip used as an instrument of punishment".  Or, more apt for this latest international crisis", "a person or thing that causes great trouble or suffering".

Of course, with the world in a big hurt these last few months, it seemed a good sign that the "scourge of piracy" had vaulted to the top of the world crisis list this week. (Plus it was good to see Pat Buchannan have a new issue to get all snarly about other than Barack Obama visiting Notre Dame.}

As compared to loose nukes, North Korean crazy missiles, the meltdown of the world financial system, or even an earthquake in rural Italy, a few undernourished guys with sub-machine guns, motorboats and rope ladders in the Gulf of Aden seemed more annoying than a source of "great trouble or suffering." The revelation that cargo ship owners have avoided the expense of having armed guards on board to deter these mangy swashbucklers made the problem seem easily de-scourge-able.

But that doesn't mean that these pirates aren't a problem worth solving in our "can do" sort of way. So here are the

TOP TEN WAYS TO END THE SCOURGE OF PIRACY IN OUR TIME.

10. Air drop cases of Cap'n Morgan's Rum on Somalian Beaches, laced with LSD, with hopes that Pirates will "mellow out". (Follow up air drops might include surplus cannisters of Pringles to sooth the munchies.)

9. Get ABC to offer Pirates jobs at various Disney properties for the re-launch of the "Pirates of the Caribbean" attraction.

8. Hire Johnny Depp as Director of the Special White House Office of Counter-Piracy Ops.

7. Make sure that future ransoms for kidnapped crews or hijacked cargos get paid in toxic assets.

6. Offer all Pirates willing to put down their Sabers and Parrots one of those thousands of vacant condos in Florida.

5. Persuade Mexican government to replace corrupt Police with Somalian Pirates. (Hard to solicit a bribe in Mexico if you can't speak Spanish.)

4. In his effort to re-brand GOP as more hip, Michael Steele can hire machine gun totting, eye patched Pirates to act as charming "posses" for leading party figures like John Boehner, Mitch McConnell and Bobby Jindahl. That's bound to be more inspiring than looking for new ways to just say "No".

3. Plant bogus maps showing "X marks the spot" locations of buried treasure along West African Coast, distracting Pirates to engage in time consuming wild goose chases.

2. Bring Peter Pan out of retirement from the "lost boys" home.

1. Offer Pirates Jobs at AIG with lucrative retention bonuses to make sure they don't go back to the bounding main.

The Bullies Take on Notre Dame.

As a University of Notre Dame graduate (class of 1972), I was thrilled to read the news that our new President had accepted my alma mater's invitation to be the 2009 commencement speaker. No doubt hundreds of colleges and universities had extended the offer. ND's class of 2009 was lucky to be one of the three chosen, along with the Naval Academy and the University of Arizona.

One thing special about Notre Dame is its place in the heart and imagination of the broader Catholic community in this nation: not just the folks who toe the Vatican line and fill the pews and  bingo halls every week, but Americans who self-identify  as "Catholic" based on family heritage or education at a parochial school. Notre Dame's special place within that community was first solidified by the exploits of its "Fighting Irish" football team, the underdogs from a small all-male Midwestern Catholic school who, in the days before ESPN or even the ABC game of game week, took on and often beat the juggernaut football teams of the day. ND's "subway alumni" may never have gone to college themselves, but had aspirations for their children and grandchildren. Over the years, as the prowess of its football team has faded, the University has become better known as a widely respected co-ed academic institution with tough admission standards and a well respected faculty.

Notre Dame is also is a place where serious people have come to find a national stage to say serious things.

The University's tradition has been to invite our Presidents to speak at commencement, often in their first year in office. Six Presidents, including Presidents Eisenhower, Carter, Reagan, Clinton and George W. Bush took up the offer. At least three others Presidents have come to the campus. These were men of differing parties and ideologies, with varied views on the key tenants of Catholic doctrine. But all were welcomed with the respect due the person chosen to lead our country.

Yet within days after news broke about our current President's decision to speak at Notre Dame, a drumbeat of opposition from elements within the Catholic Church began to demand that the invitation be withdrawn.  According to these folks, the President's support for stem cell research and international family planning, and his unwillingness to use government's power to further restrict abortion rights  disqualify him from this honor at a Catholic university. (Somehow, the prior President's support for the death penalty and wars of aggression, both denounced by the Vatican, had been no source of protest from this crowd when he appeared at Notre Dame.)

The protests, the petitioning and the demands of certain Catholic Bishops  have been amplified by Fox news and the shrill voices of the right wing radio crazies.(http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-cardinal-notre-dameapr03,0,5403041.story ).  These protests ignore the facts that Barack Obama received a majority of votes in November from those  who self-identify as Catholics, and from among Notre Dame students.  All of this points out the huge disconnect between Americans who consider themselves "Catholic" and the Vatican's lieutenants in America and other self appointed guardians of Catholic orthodoxy.

All the noise made me "google" the primary agitator of these protests, a fundamentalist group called the "Cardinal Newman Society".http://cardinalnewmansociety.org/

Its "Mission" is "renewing and strengthening Catholic identity at America's 224 Catholic colleges and universities." But its pages of denouncements show that only 20 or so mostly obscure Catholic colleges (the renowned Franciscan University of Steubenville makes the list) satisfy its narrow standards of orthodoxy. Those standards seem to require hiring only Catholic faculty members who accept all Church doctrine without question, admitting only Catholic and hetero-sexual students, and refusing to countenance any speaker or debate that presents a point of view contrary to official Church doctrine on abortion, birth control, sex education, homosexuality, the ordination of women priests, or stem sell research. 

"Academic freedom",  a cornerstone of American higher education, involving a free and open forum for the discussion of important ideas, is heretical to the scolds at the Society. Do they really fear open and honest debate about "fundamental" doctrine of the Church?

The Society's current home page screams in bold about the "Notre Dame Scandal" (as if an appearance by the American President on campus was like sheltering a pedophile Priest, the only issue that the Society seems to have no strong opinion on). But ND is hardly the only mainstream Catholic University labeled as "scandalous" by the Society. Cincinnati's Xavier University is another target...because (believe it or not) it allowed Republican nominee John McCain to hold a town hall meeting on campus in 2008. The conservative Senator's appearance at XU was "scandalous" because he has supported stem cell research. Presumably the Society would be describing a Notre Dame scandal this year no matter who had been elected President in November.

Among other targets of the Society's holy wrath are all of the most prominent Catholic colleges and universities that come to mind: Georgetown (for allowing discussions of sex beyond how to practice the rhythm method), Boston College (for allowing gay advocacy on campus), Villanova (for allowing John McCain's daughter to speak on Campus), Holy Cross (for employing a faculty member who does not toe the full Vatican line).

Of course, what has made all of these Universities important institutions drawing quality students and faculty is their willingness to provide a robust liberal arts education to all qualified applicants - Catholic or not. In my day at Notre Dame, that meant offering a forum for a variety of speakers and entities presenting different points of view on the important issues of the day -whether the Fathers Berrigan who opposed the War in Vietnam, or job interviewers from the CIA or DOW Chemical, who had their own role in prosecuting that War. Students were free to protest when views the disagreed with were expressed on campus, but there was never a  ban of any point of view as contrary to some Vatican pronouncement.

Of course, the Constitution's guarantee of free speech does not apply to a privately operated campus like Notre Dame, or Franciscan University of Steubenville. The book burners at the Newman Society have every right to use their own rights of expression to urge all Catholic Universities to ban any faculty member or politician that does not subscribe to their views of Catholic orthodoxy.  But how many families would really want to send their children to the type of narrow  gauge College that the Society endorses?

Let's hope that Father Jenkins, Notre Dame's President, ignores the fundamentalist bullying and keeps Notre Dame a place that acknowledges its Catholic heritage while celebrating the traditions of academic freedom and respect for a variety of views that made it the great University is has become.

Here in Cincinnati, it's the time of year when several hundred local gents don their tuxes and leave their wives and significant (female) others at home for the annual dinner of the Cincinnati Chapter of the Friendly Sons of St. Patrick, this year under the expansive dome at Union Terminal.

In my years of attendance, the only female participant seen at this grand if decadent event was (current ) Councilmember Roxanne Qualls, who brought her greetings as Mayor, and seemed to take particular pleasure in breaking down that traditional gender barrier. (Former Mayor Bobbie Sterne had sent a Vice Mayor to do this task).

The evening is a throw back to an earlier, politically incorrect age when women were best left at home, calories and drinks were not counted, cigars were not seen as a source of deadly air pollutants, and surf and turf was not a culinary outrage.

It's that rare evening where current and long retired politicos, lobbyists, Judges, lawyers, bankers, developers, brokers and n'er do wells   arrive unfashionably early to get first crack at the Guinness, Harp and Jamieson, standing in line to fill their plates with shrimp and smoked salmon at the Buffet Erin. They begrudgingly sit for dinner as a long program of "greeters",  tributors,  acceptors of tribute, glee clubbers and a "featured speaker"  all try to be heard over the din of men eating, conviving and popping champagne corks.

Over the years, as I have suited up in my tux for this event, my four daughters and wife have rolled their eyes at this macho frolic. When they were younger, the girls would ask: "Who is this St. Patrick guy, anyway?"  I would explain that since some of their ancestors came from Ireland, they should know he was Ireland's "Patron Saint", a former slave who converted druids to Catholicism around 400 A.D..  But since their religious training was rather thin, that explanation would just lead to more questions, and this back up: Why He's the guy who drove the snakes out of Ireland! From their trip to Ireland at a wee age, my daughters knew there were no apparent snakes slithering about. It all made sense!

Of course, now that explanation would cause them to whip out their I-Phones and learn within a minute from Wikipedia that  "pious legend credits St. Patrick with banishing snakes from the island, though all evidence suggests that post-glacial Ireland never had any snakes."

Considering the skepticism born of our "facts -at -mouse- click "world,  I got  thinking about what would happen if a contemporary St. Patrick pulled the caper of a lifetime by ridding the 50 states of their snakes. While hikers in the southwest, canoe-ers in the southeast and Indiana Jones might breath a sigh of relief, you can also imagine the following:

·      PETA chapters throughout the U.S. begin mass protests, showing up dressed in human sized snake outfits at all of St. P's public appearances, and dousing him with pretend snake blood..

·      Per barrel "Snake Oil" prices triple overnight, causing T. Boone Pickens to launch a new round of ads lambasting our dependence on imported snake oil and touting his plan for a "hot air" alternative powered by natural gas.

·       In and around Roswell, New Mexico aging hippies report sighting of mysterious snake skins found shed in the desert, but not a snake.

·      On E-Bay there is a boom of new listings for snake skin belts and shoes as families on the cusp of foreclosure try to cash in on the sudden shift in supply/demand dynamics.

·      Senator Patrick Leahy (D.-Vt.) suggests establishing a "Truth Commission" to find out what really happened to the snakes.

·      Warner Brothers re-issues deluxe DVD edition of "Snakes on a Plane" and signs Samuel L. Jackson for a sequel.

·      Obama Interior Department announces plan to re-populate the snake population as part of stimulus package.

·      John McCain denounces the plan via twitter as just more "Pork".  (He forgot what you call reptile meat.)

·      Rush Limbaugh says snakes were not driven out, but were just fleeing socialism.

·      On FOX News, Lannie Davis explains why we would still have our beloved snakes if only Hillary had been elected President.

·      From his ranch in Crawford, Dubya tries to achieve relevance by suggesting that all this was some big terrorist plot that succeeded only because America had let its guard down.

·      Jon Stewart creates special logo for his lampoon of the brouhaha, title "E-Reptile-Dysfunction".

·      Irish Prime Minister announces that his nation feels our pain.

Mark Twain reportedly said that "when the end of the world comes, I want to be in Cincinnati because its always twenty years behind the times".  Lets hope he's right when it comes to  our nation's economic meltdown.

This week's news was chock full of dark predictions about where we are heading:   foreclosure "ghost towns" with rising crime in "sun belt" states like  Arizona, Nevada or Florida; the prospects of a "lost decade" like Japan experienced in the 1990's, when consumers  stopped spending and wages and salaries began a 20 year decline; or an Oklahoma based relief agency  sending $1 million in food and household supplies to the families of laid off workers in Wilmington , Ohio rather than more typical Asian typhoon victims.

Despite the Hope of a new team in Washington, the world is scary out there.  Most of us know folks who have been laid off, furloughed or seen their pay or benefits go down over the last year. Many of us know that experience up close and personal.

If there is some silver lining to be found in sifting through all this discouraging news, it's the willingness of ordinary citizens to re-order their priorities and reach out to help friends, family, and even strangers who need a little help. For every angry CNBC talking head railing about the  bail out of home owners who found themselves in over their head, there are quieter Americans contributing   time or resources to change the trajectory of American life and the lives of individual Americans.

That's why the recent set of proposals from the City's Planning Department staff to place new restrictions on soup kitchens and religious groups  are incredibly tone deaf. Unless, of course, Mark Twain was right about when things happen here in the Queen City.

The City staff's proposals are confusing and complex, but can be summarized as follows:

-Churchs would no longer be "Churchs" for purposes of where they can be located in the City if they provide new social services. So a Church in Mt. Washington, the East End or Westwood that had never distributed food or clothing to needy parishioners or neighbors could not offer that service without risking a citation from a City Building inspector to put them out of business.

-New restrictions would be placed on where social service providers could locate in the City, even if the location was zoned to allow such a service, based on proximity to other social service providers, parks, schools or one another.

-Up until now a "Soup Kitchen" (commonly understood to be a place where free food is distributed to folks who have trouble putting food on their table) could be located anywhere the City allowed a restaurant.  Now more restrictive zoning status would apply.

-Any new social service provider would have to file (and presumably follow) a "good neighbor plan" covering hours of operation, safety, and a number of other operational details, something no other businesses, like bars, restaurants or sellers of sexually explicit materials, have to do.

Some of these proposals, taken individually, might make sense.  A handful of neighborhoods should  not absorb an excessive share of social service providers. But the cumulative effect and apparent intent is pretty clear: WE DON'T WANT YOU!  FEED THE POOR  and HOUSE THE HOMELESS SOMEWHERE ELSE, THANK YOU.

Formerly prosperous suburban communities around America are seeing exploding demand at food pantries and other  help for laid off workers and their families. Can Cincinnati really afford to crack down on  religious groups and other citizens who want to extend a helping hand?

I have been  a member of the City Planning Commission for more years than I can accurately count. In those years, I have seen some goofy proposals come before us.  Most, like these, come from our controlling desire to tell other folks what they can or can't do with their property. That's just Cincinnati, But the timing and complexity of this proposal has to be one of the goofiest.

Put aside for the moment the constitutional issues arising from any effort to restrict the rights of  churches, or to create a more rigorous standards for enterprises that tend to serve the disadvantaged or racial minorities.  Placing new and prohibitive restrictions on social service providers at a time of unusual social distress is senseless, even in a City where history unfolds at a more leisurely pace. At least according to Mark Twain.