The Real Message Behind the Obama Photo

Most of you have probably seen the photo of Barack Obama that staffers on the Clinton campaign have allegedly been circulating. If not, here’s a copy of it. Apparently Obama was on a tour of Kenya and at one point tried on the traditional clothing of one African tribe. Hillary claims to know nothing about the photo; still, the Obama campaign accused Clinton of “the most shameful, offensive fear-mongering we’ve seen from either party in this election.” Of course, strong rhetoric like that is expected from both sides during these campaigns, and as such things are hardly as bad or reprehensible as the opposition says they are, if you ask me. One thing worries me, though, about this whole situation, something that I haven’t seen any news story even touch up to this point.

If it’s true that Clinton staffers are circulating this Obama photo, what’s the point, what’s the implication? Obviously if an opposing party is circulating a photo of another candidate, the intent is to knock him down a few pegs and give him some bad publicity. So take the photo in that light. Is this supposed to somehow make me think less of Barack Obama? Is he supposed to come off as some sort of religious nut? Look, he’s wearing a turban! He must be some kind of jihad-crazy Muslim extremist! Is that what I’m supposed to think? I’m sure we can all agree that anybody who would assume something so ignorant from a simple photograph probably has more than one bigoted bone in his body.

This seems to be the implication though, judging where the picture allegedly comes from. But more importantly, if these allegations are true and the photo did indeed come from the Clinton camp, it’s a pathetic, reprehensible commentary on both the latent bigotry and intolerance of those who put the photo out for circulation in the first place as well as the unbased fear and ignorance that they assume exists within the public sentiment. If the facts indeed show that Clinton staffers were responsible for releasing this photo, the ought to be ashamed for reminding us that, despite our best efforts, racism, ignorance, and intolerance are more alive and well than most of us would like to admit.

"Look How Sensitive I Am!"

Think of something you love. Not so much a person, but a hobby or pastime that you really enjoy. For me, it's music. Singing and playing my guitar have become critical cathartic avenues since high school.
Now think of that thing you love and imagine somebody cheapening it. Say, for example, that you love football. The guy I'm refering to is the one who wears his letterman's jacket everywhere to pick up girls, even though he was a 3rd-string free safety whose most important function was to properly mix the gatorade before games.
Well, that guy for me is the putz who sits outside and plays his guitar for the express purpose of picking up women. People who care little or nothing for music itself, but who will use it shamelessly to play up their "sensitive" side for the ladies. Those people infuriate me to no end.
Leave it to Family Guy, however, to explain my sentiments exactly. Take a look.

Mukasey and the Jesuit Tradition

I really ought to be posting stuff on my blog rather than Facebook, since, well, I have a blog and all. I know this won't get more than the occassional reader, but, better to use it than let it sit here taking up space on the Web. So, I posted this last little rant in response to recent events at Boston College. I write for the law school's blog and I posted an op/ed on Attorney General Mike Mukasey, essentially saying "hey, let's cut the guy a break with the whole waterboarding thing, the guy's in an impossible situation, let's not hate on him for refusing to prosecute people ex-post facto."
That, of course, did not sit well with the bleeding-heart liberal faction (which is bigger than you'd expect at a Catholic institution). Don't get me wrong, I agree w/ them that torture of any kind is horrible and waterboarding ought to be included in that category. It scares me, though, when people let their blind passions completely overatke reasoned argument and discourse in these situations. There's room for both. Anyway, some of that blind passion led to one commenter implying that I was, in fact, a bigoted white supremacist because I somehow did not care about human rights. Because I wrote an article in the most neutral tone possible. I guess if I'm not on his side, I'm a tool.
It's things like that that make me fear for humanity. I wrote the following in response to that guy, who we shall hereafter refer to as simply "the douchebag."

I guess a bunch of people are pissed off that Mike Mukasey is coming as the BCLS commencement speaker, citing two main reasons:
1. His selection represents a departure from the Jesuit standards and tradition because waterboarding is evil and he won't just come out and say so.
2. Students don't have a say in picking the speaker.
I talked with a good friend of mine (a Catholic, mind you), and we came to a conclusion, so far as the first point is concerned. Apparently Mukasey is a "departure" from the "Jesuit tradition" because of his tacit acceptance (or non-rejection) of waterboarding, or something along those lines (a dubious assertion, at best).
Well what the hell, like torture isn't part of the Jesuit history? Can we say "Inquisition," anybody?

Anybody?

Buhler?

I'm pretty sure strapping an innocent peon to a rack because they won't confess to being a heretic counts as torture. At least the Marines waterboard suspected terrorists instead of drawing and quartering astronomers who say the world is round.

Oh and let's not forget those wonderful Crusades.

Yeah, waterboarding is wrong. Fine. It sucks, but let's not transfer our distaste for an act on to this Mukasey character and call it "fighting for justice."