« Companies just don't get better at this, do they? | Main | Would you please, please, please, please, please, please, please stop tweeting? »

May 18, 2009

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00e55283a630883401157090fa83970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Forward, march:

Comments

"Inside the arena, I saw bellowing people stand and try to disrupt the speech. They were drowned out by most of the 1,200 graduates, shouting back, "We are ND," in defense of the president."

I applaud the students for acting like the adults, while the adults apparently acted like children.

In my opinion, this should have been about inspiring these graduates to go forth and make something of themselves versus it being turned into a political event.

I recognize free speech, so I'm not attacking that either.

If we want the country to grow and evolve and have our children innovate, create and succeed, let's encourage them, not ruin their moment in the sun.

Their moment wasn't ruined, Susan. Think of it this way: Their graduation ceremony was a major event in the history of the American Catholic church. How many of them would have wanted it any other way?

How was it a "major event" in the history of the Catholic Church? Will it start a debate over abortion? Will it change the views of the Church? Will it open any minds?

Of course not. It wasn't a major event in the Catholic Church . . . it was just another major embarrassment for the Catholic Church . . . an institution which seems to be getting better and better at embarrassing itself.

To have a chance to have one of the great speakers of our time, and a sitting president no less, address your graduates . . . and to have that tainted by an organization that is so ass backwards that they want to pull all of the condoms out of Africa and instead stop the spread of AIDS there through "abstaining from sex" is just shameful.

Church leaders should spend more time rooting out the pedophiles that still run rampant through their ranks, and less time trying to impose their morality on others.

Steve C.

"How was it a "major event" in the history of the Catholic Church? Will it start a debate over abortion? Will it change the views of the Church? Will it open any minds?"

The conversation showed that there already are lots of Catholics who have moderate views--like, all the ones who voted for a pro-choice candidate and raised the roof of the Joyce Center at his arrival on Sunday.

Oh . . . now I see your confusion, my friend. You're confusing "Catholics" with "The Catholic Church."

Most Catholics I know in this country at least are Cafeteria Catholics . . . they pick and choose what to believe in.

They'll take a little of that papal infallibility, but leave the pro-life stuff alone.

They widely ignore the rule against any kind of contraceptives (thank God), but still take communion and go to mass.

They think priests should be allowed to marry and women should be priests . . .but they don't raise a fuss when the Church refuses to allow that to happen.

Those are the folks who cheered for Obama. It may have been a major event for THEM . . . but there was nothing major about it for the Catholic Church, who will go on about its medieval way . . .

Steve C.

First, David I'm insanely jealous that you got to be there for this speech. I really hope someday to get to hear your President speak live. As a communicator, as a Liberal, and simply as a citizen of the world, I think he rocks.

But I couldn't help but smile when I read Susan's comment: "In my opinion, this should have been about inspiring these graduates to go forth and make something of themselves versus it being turned into a political event."

Is it truly possible for any event that includes the President of the United States to be anything BUT a political event, ever?

I'm not so sure that mother has been pushed aside by progress, David. That happens to some. But when she stepped outside she willingly stepped aside from progress - she wasn't pushed.

There are those who know full well the bus is leaving the station and yet they would still rather be left standing on the platform than share a seat. "He speaks no truth to me" - I guess that goes to show sometimes truth is just as dependent on the listening as it is on the speaking.

To be fair here, I can just as easily see someone at a graduation speech that George Bush gave saying "He speaks no truth to me" and would we be so hard on that person? In fact, we may nod in agreement. Just something to think about.

I think it's easy to see this is black and white, right and wrong, and it's not that easy. Never will be.

First, Eileen, I believe Barack Obama simply cares more about the truth and tries harder to speak it than did George Bush, so already I'm not quite on board with your idea.

Secondly, I'd be pretty hard on a prig who walked out and pouted in the lobby during a Bush speech because "he speaks no truth to me."

That's just not my style. Me, I liked to get high and laugh at Bush speeches, all the way through.

I'd like to weigh in on the "would we be so hard on someone who stepped outside during a Bush speech?" because, I, at least absolutely would.

Eileen is absolutely right - it will never be that simple. I have long believed it to be imperative that we listen to, and at least attempt to be clear on - if not agree with - the positions of those we are opposed to. In fact, it's more important to hear the opinions of those we don't agree with, than those we do.

So, yes, I'd be hard on that Mother either way. I fail to see what is accomplished by sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing even to hear a speech - particularly one directed to your graduating child - just because the speaker's politics differ from yours. It sounds like the Mother is the one who requires some educating to me.

Precisely, Kristen - to dismiss a voice once you've listened to what it has to say is one thing. But to decline to listen is something else - no matter whose voice it is.

And yes, I'd feel the same if it was Bush speaking.

"I believe Barack Obama simply cares more about the truth and tries harder to speak it than did George Bush."

Your comment is subjective, which is my point. It's all relative.

Yes, my comment is subjective. But how does that mean "it's all relative"?

Relative meaning nothing is black and white.

No, but some things are dark gray and some things are light gray.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment