So, if you have any affiliation with Notre Dame, I am sure you have heard the news that President Obama will be delivering the commencement address for the graduating class of 2009.

My initial reaction was one of amazement. How cool must it be to have your last moments as a student at ND be with the President of the United States. And I thought, well, regardless of whether or not you agree with him or voted for him, this is quite a special moment. Seriously, how many Americans can say that they had the President send them off into the real world?

Now before I go on with the “outrage” (and I say that loosely because in my opinion it is bordering on flat-out irrational lunacy), I should at least say where I am coming from in this situation both religiously and politically.

Religiously, no, I am not Catholic, I am Methodist; however, I would be lying if I said that I am a huge fan of abortion. I can’t really align myself with what is currently defined as “pro-life” as I am a supporter of stem cell research and also do not believe the government has any right to deny funding towards something like Planned Parenthood. I am also a supporter of contraception as well. So, yes, my views don’t exactly align with the Catholic Church or most of ND for that matter and I do realize this.

Politically, I voted for Obama. I also voted for Bush. So as you may guess, I do not align myself to any political party. I vote based on who I feel is the best candidate is at the time (for the record, yes I did not think Kerry was a good pick for President over Bush). While I can’t subscribe to everything Obama ran for, I for the most part agreed with his plan for America over McCain’s. I feel he had a better long-term vision for our country regarding the current wars and conflicts we have in the Middle East, energy, and health care to name a few.

The point is, I didn’t dismiss him based on a single belief/political position and quite frankly, “pro-life” is far too narrowly defined. I find that too many politicians in the Republican party hide behind the hot topics of abortion and stem cell research and are able to far too easily secure the “pro-life” vote. All the while, these same politicians (and to be clear, yes, I know not all Republicans are like this) will do very little, if anything, to change the fact that there are millions upon millions of Americans with insufficient health care, including young children. How can allowing this status quo be pro-life? Are the deaths from inadequate care more acceptable? Could it not be possible that through new health care policy an unplanned pregnancy may actually go unterminated because the mother knows that both her and her child will be able to receive sufficient care?

I agree that abortion is an epidemic right now. The problem is that too many people use it as a last resort for birth control; however, trying to deny that issues like health care don’t also have a part in such decisions is quite narrow-minded. Fact is, there are many, many different things that come into play for such a hard decision and failing to address the other issues plaguing our society is not solving anything.

The health care issue is just one of many of such outstanding issues that needs to be addressed in our country and I don’t want to side track this post too far from its original intent. However, I want to make it very clear what my stance is on this and that I think people do not see the bigger picture when the term “pro-life” gets turned around before I go forward.

Now, back your regularly scheduled post.

So, Obama is giving a speech at ND. I expected the rather large “pro-life” contingent at ND to not be too happy with this decision. I get it, it doesn’t align with the Catholic faith, but we can all move on from that right? I mean, Obama isn’t going to go up there and talk about his pro-choice stance in front of the class of 2009. He’s a great speaker, this should all work out well and hey, maybe we even have a forum to possibly engage Obama in the Catholic perspective on such issues.

Not so much.

I figured flipping through today’s Observer Viewpoint would be interesting. I figured there would be some good debates on both sides. I thought back to the days of the Vaginia Monolauges and those debates. Good views for the most part on both sides, good debate, good reading, and in general good thought-provoking material.

I thought wrong.

I have gone back and forth on whether or not to link or quote the following text. I find it that disgusting. However, I feel very strongly that I need to comment on such a radical reaction. With that said, what follows is an excerpt from a letter from a 1988 alum:

I will be in attendance on commencement day with several thousand others to show my distaste for this decision. We will bring with us the graphic photos of what abortion does to its victims so there can be no doubt about the hatefulness of the man chosen to instruct Notre Dame graduates in how to be a success in life. I would suggest that if the administration does not want to suffer the embarrassment of pictures of dismembered children lining Notre Dame Ave. on what should be the happiest day of our newest graduates’ lives, they withdraw this invitation immediately.

I simply cannot believe this man graduated from the same school as I. In his letter he goes on and on about the “hateful” policies of Obama, yet his solution to this issue is to bring “graphic photos of what abortion does” to commencement which is nothing more than a shock tactic. How wonderfully hypocritical. Furthermore, he attempts to hold this over the administration’s head (and also the class of 2009) as if it were a terrorist threat or a ransom note. Never would I think a fellow member of the Notre Dame family would say such words and no less try to get them published.

From a current senior:

In this era of moral relativism when so-called “Catholics” are openly supporting anti-life candidates, why is Notre Dame reinforcing these misguided beliefs. Notre Dame cannot seriously label itself as a Catholic institution any longer if Mr. Obama is allowed to speak at graduation. You cannot be a Catholic and pro-choice, nor can you be a Catholic institution and give honors and awards to pro-choice politicians. Lest you forget, Fr. Jenkins, the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops explicitly forbade such invitations in their 2004 document “Catholics in Political Life.” They write, “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.” It seems pretty clear that Notre Dame, having given Barack Obama 1) an award (an honorary degree), 2) an honor (an invitation to speak at Commencement) and 3) a platform (a captive audience of more than 10,000 people), finds itself turning its back on its Catholic identity. It appears, Fr. Jenkins, that three strikes and he’s out.

Once again, the narrow-minded views above enrage me. You can support a person and not agree 100% with him. As I said before, a candidate that says “Hey, I don’t like abortion or stem cell research, vote for me!” does not automatically deserve your vote or support. Conversely, just because a candidate has a pro-choice stance doesn’t mean you should immediately count him or her out. Furthermore, voting for such a person does not make you pro-choice automatically. Unfortunately, our voting system puts us at the mercy of two major candidates, and these days there will always be one that is pro-life and one that is pro-choice. There is no earthly way that your views, even Catholic views, will always match up with the pro-life candidate across the board.

As far as the Bishops’ edict, let’s apply this same standard in the above letter to another former speaker from ND: Geroge W. Bush. He was given the same three things as Obama and he supported the torture/continual holding of prisoners of war in Guantanamo Bay without giving them trail. That does not fall in line with Catholic faith, period. Therefore, ND should now go back and revoke his honorary degree and publicly apologize to the Catholic community for allowing such a man to have spoken at the University.

I sure hope you think that sounds ridiculous because I do too.

This standard from the Catholic Conference of Bishops is unrealistic. I am fairly positive I can find something quite against Catholic fundamental teachings from damn near any politician that has spoken at ND. The only reason this is being brought up for Obama is because of his pro-choice beliefs. Had McCain won the election and was invited to speak at ND, I guarantee this edict would not be brought up, even though he would have likely still allowed places like Gitmo to remain open. It is a horrible double standard that people are subscribing to.

If we extend this “logic” even further, I too also go against several fundamental moral principles of the Catholic faith as I defined earlier in this post. I too have been given an award by ND (my diploma) and an honor by being able to attend ND. Guess ND royally screwed up there!

And now, I’m going to do something really crazy right now and quote something else that I do believe the Catholics hold as a fundamental moral guideline: The Bible.

³The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group ⁴and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. ⁵In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” ⁶They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. ⁷When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” (John 8: 3-7)

¹Now the tax collectors and “sinners” were all gathering around to hear him. ²But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered, “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.”

³Then Jesus told them this parable: ⁴“Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Does he not leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? ⁵And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders ⁶and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.’ ⁷I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.” (Luke 15: 1-7)

Now, I do not believe ND would ever take the stance that they are above the teachings of Jesus and I fail to see how their current actions are not unlike that of Christ. Despite Obama flying in the face of Catholic teachings, he is being invited in just as Jesus did with the sinners of his time. Who are we to deny Obama the chance to speak to the class of 2009 simply because of his pro-choice stance? Would this not be a perfect opprotunity for influencial members of the ND family like Fr. Jenkins and Fr. Hesburgh to engage the President in pro-life issues?

Why are certain members of the Notre Dame family not taking a step back to realize these things? Can positives not come from this situation?

I hardly think any rational human being is looking at Obama’s speech as ND’s endorsement of his pro-choice beliefs. That is way at the very start, I called this an “outrage” because it really has no merit. This is a huge honor and a historical moment. Obama is speaking at only one other non-service academy school. This is nothing short of an absolutely amazing chance the class of 2009 has and people are choosing to see it as a tragedy.

As much as I strongly disagreed with Bush’s politics, especially at the end of his tenure, I was still insanely jealous of my friends in the class of 2008 at Texas A&M that were able to attend Bush’s commencement speech during their winter graduation ceremonies. Politics and my personal feelings aside, I know that things like that are once-in-a-lifetime opprotunities and would feel extremely fortunate to be a part of it.

To those “outraged” by this, I encourage you to take a step back. For those in the class of 2009, you are a part of history — you may not agree with the man, but this is a special moment that very few people will ever experience. To those outside the class of 2009, I implore you to continue fighting for your beliefs, but to respect this moment for the class of 2009. There are many that are extermely happy about this and to spit on their moment in the sun is simply not a very Christian action no matter how you slice it. You will have your forums to voice your opinions, commencement day should not be one of those times.

To close, I will quote current ND senior Mark Weber whom sums up my thoughts best I believe (I encourage you to read his whole letter in the Viewpoint — by far the best in today’s selection):

It is our responsibility, not our Commencement speaker’s, to continue to cultivate our Catholic identity and apply it beyond graduation. The role of a Commencement speaker is to welcome college graduates into the real world, arm them with knowledge of complex and evolving issues, and inspire them to be passionate and influential citizens of a global community. I simply cannot think of anyone more qualified to do these things than the leader of the free world, President Barack Obama.

Thus, to my fellow pro-lifers: let us battle the president on each and every issue pertinent to life, but let us not undermine our intelligence and our patriotism by forsaking other important issues in the reckless pursuit of one. The world will not stop turning for the abortion issue to be resolved. We as Catholics are therefore called to be dynamic citizens who take a multi-dimensional approach to making our world a better place; this means listening and learning from influential world leaders such as Barack Obama. To disinvite the President of the United States based on a single issue, even one as important as abortion, would be a disgrace both to our Catholic identity and to this great Catholic University.

Very well said Mr. Weber and I couldn’t agree more. I surely hope the rest of the Notre Dame family will heed your words.

Somebody pinch me, I must be dreaming. Brandon McCarthy, a near permanent fixture on our DL roster, has not only pitched two back-to-back starts without hurting himself (a small miracle in itself), but he has had back-to-back 4 inning shutout starts.

Now, I understand it is still Spring Training ball, but this does still excite me a bit. I don’t care what point of the season you are in, but when you face only one batter over the minimum as McCarthy did yesterday, that seems to signal something may have finally clicked. Maybe, just maybe, he can finally stay healthy and be a servicing #3 man in the Rangers rotation.

Still though, it is kind of hard to get over the fact that we have McCarthy instead of John Danks, whom is doing quite well thus far with the White Sox. Hopefully a decent 2009 campaign can take some of the sting out of that trade.

I haven’t said much about the Rangers or baseball for that matter since December. To be honest, I’m rather surprised I haven’t. This time of year is always exciting for me. Baseball has always been my favorite sport (and one that I personally played from T-Ball through High School) and despite being a fan of the Texas Rangers, I always watch/listen/attend the game no matter what. Even though I know the season will likely end in disaster.

This season, however, is different. For the first time in a long time, I’m actually positive about this season and expecting some great things. Y! Sports has a good article that sums it up and I figured some commentary on it would be a good kickoff to my baseball musings.

First off, you have to start with the pain…the absolute horrible pain that is being a Ranger fan:

To be a fan of the Texas Rangers is to live in your own peculiar sports hell.

It’s not just that the people in charge have made some horrible decisions over the years. It’s not just that they’ve made some bad trades or fired some good people. It’s not that the Rangers have had some really bad owners and general managers. Hey, every franchise has had its bad moments.

The thing that separates the Rangers from pretty much every other MLB franchise is that they keep making bad decisions. Year after year. Generation after generation.

Even the Pittsburgh Pirates, Kansas City Royals, Tampa Bay Rays and Florida Marlins have had their day in the sun. The Rangers never really have had one.

It is sports hell. The above is a reason I would always become furious at fans of the Cubs and previously the Red Sox that would always whine about their “curses”. You see, our franchise doesn’t have the luxury of falling back on a damn goat or Babe Ruth to blame our trouble on. We are just bad. Give me the “curse” of going to the playoffs with some form of regularity any day. Actually, let me put it this way — pop quiz: how many playoff games have the Rangers won?

One. That’s it. We won the first one and we have gotten our asses handed to us anytime we peeked our heads into the playoffs. If a Ranger fan talks about “the glory days”, this is all we get to remember:

In 37 years, the Rangers have won just one playoff game. That was their very first one—on Oct. 1, 1996. That was the beginning of a nice run. Under general manager Doug Melvin and manager Johnny Oates, the Rangers made the playoff three times in four years.

Those were the great years.

So to sum up, our playoff record is 1-9. We have played 10 playoff games total. Those were good times. Name me a franchise that has such a playoff record in the past 37 years, let alone are able to call such a record “the great years”. In the past 37 years, the Royals have won a series, the Cubs have actually won a playoff series, and the Marlins have won not one, but TWO world titles (the second coming after they blew their first team up). Hell, even the Montreal Expos have won a playoff series before they moved to Washington!

I even went through and checked the books on this one. Unless I am blind, I cannot find a franchise that has been worse off than us with postseason wins. As far as the Rangers franchise goes, you have to crawl back to the Washington Senator days to find any postseason success — World Champs in 1924 and a total of 4 playoff wins in the 1925 and 1933 World Series.

By the way, those wins occurred when the only playoffs were the world series…just ouch. [EDIT: and those Senators later became the Twins after the 1960.  The Senators had another franchise start up in 1961 that later became the Rangers after the 1971 season.  So really, you can’t even attribute this success to the Rangers, double ouch.]

Sure the Cubs may have the longest current drought in between World Series wins, but at least they have actually won playoff series and made several playoff appearances (and won a handful of games too) since their last title.

The ineptitude of the Rangers is simply one of a kind.

Next, you have the horrible, HORRIBLE trades and personnel decisions that we have suffered through:

That is, unless you count the time owner Brad Corbett mistakenly traded one of his best players, Oscar Gamble.

Corbett was a charming, aggressive owner. He fancied himself a George Steinbrenner. Problem is, he didn’t have Steinbrenner’s money or his judgment. So, he got confused on the waiver-wire rules and ended up being forced to trade Gamble.

In the 37-year history of the Texas Rangers, that mistake might not even rank in the top 10. Yes, it has been that bad.

There was a general manager named Eddie Robinson, who once traded for an aging outfielder named Lee Mazzilli. To get Lee Mazzilli, he traded away the organization’s best two young pitchers—Walt Terrell and Ron Darling. Robinson wanted Mazzilli to play left field. Mazzilli called left field “an idiot’s position.” Mazzilli played 58 games for Texas before Robinson was forced to unload him. Meanwhile, Darling and Terrell combined to win 247 major league games, none of them for the Rangers.

The Rangers have fired some managers over the years. Whitey Herzog once was fired by the Rangers. He went on to establish himself as one of the most respected baseball people ever. Herzog could have worked for almost any franchise. Except the Rangers.

Billy Martin once managed the Rangers. So did Eddie Stanky—for one game. Yes, he managed one game and then hit the ground running. Smart man, that Eddie Stanky.

…

Anyway, when Tom Hicks bought the club and decided he could do better than Oates and Melvin, the salad days were over. In the long, distinguished history of bad owners, Hicks might be at the top of the class.

The Rangers have had just one winning season since Hicks bought the club. He hired a general manager named John Hart. Bad move. He hired a manager named Buck Showalter. Worse move. Hicks bid $252 million for Alex Rodriguez when no one else was bidding more than $100 million. (Wouldn’t you like to play poker with Hicks?)

Agent Scott Boras convinced Hicks that Chan Ho Park would be a nice addition to the Rangers. He convinced him that $65 million over five years would be a good price. Hicks got himself a 22-game winner for that $65 million. Unfortunately, those 22 victories were spread over four years.

Someone hold me.

And those are just the “hi-lites” of our trading stupidity. For instance, San Diego Padre fans, you’re welcome. Glad you are enjoying Chris Young and Adrian Gonzalez — especially considering every last person we traded for now no longer plays for us or ever made any significant impact like those two.

We also signed Sammy Sosa…again…after he was on his last legs.

And even this year you could point to the minor league contract of Andruw Jones as a bad signing; however, despite that, there is actually room to be optimistic this year:

When Hicks realized he couldn’t buy a pennant, he tore down the franchise and started over.

The Rangers now have a bright young general manager in Jon Daniels and a farm system loaded with prospects. For the first time since the Rangers had Pudge Rodriguez and Juan Gonzalez in the pipeline, there is plenty of optimism that the bad times are over.

The Rangers have a great offensive player in Josh Hamilton and a rock-solid clubhouse guy in Michael Young. They have a 20-year-old shortstop named Elvis Andrus. They have got a healthy Kevin Millwood and Vicente Padilla at the front of the rotation.

There are also a slew of other young, talented players on the roster as well (Chris Davis, Marlon Byrd, C.J. Wilson, Neftali Feliz, etc). Our farm system is now rated as one of the best in baseball. And the best part about all this, is that the Rangers are actually sticking to the plan this time.

In 2007, everyone moaned and groaned when we heard, yet again, the plan was to rebuild from the ground up. The goal: Championship Competitive by 2010. Now we had all heard this before and watched the management screw it up royally by trading away young talent for aging “stars” and signing people way past their prime for obscene money. All of a sudden, competitive by 2010 seems more than possible.

The Rangers won’t win the West and they may not even be able to grab a Wild Card playoff spot, but there is no doubt this team will be fun to watch. Young minor league talent will start to surface this year and some will be on the roster opening day. The Rangers actually do have an overabundance of talent as some positions and could even become prime sellers come trade deadline. Even better, such trades for once won’t completely cripple our farm system depth as it had in the past.

Things, for once, are indeed finally looking up. Maybe just maybe, our “curse” will finally end.