Notes From D.R. | Random Thoughts on the Passing Scene

Lots of familiar faces leaving The Boston Globe.

Boston Mayor Tom Menino is once again doing what he does best: whining, moaning, and complaining.

This time, Menino is thowing a fit over efforts by a conservative Catholic group to have him removed as the keynote speaker at a December 9th dinner/fundraiser hosted by Catholic Charities of Boston. The group, which has successfully lobbied Archbishop Sean O’Malley to skip the fundraiser due to Menino’s planned participation, persuasively argues that Menino should not be honored by Catholic Charities when he blatantly disregards church teachings concerning same-sex marriage and abortion.

Menino claims that the group’s actions are mean-spirited, but what exactly is mean-spirited about their efforts? The group is merely pointing out that Menino’s fidelity to Catholicism is suspect as a result of his pro-choice, pro-gay marriage views, and as such, he should not be honored by a Catholic organization. Where’s the hate?

Menino is just positioning himself as a victim because he can. Boston, after all, is filled to the brim with blue-state Catholics–those who agree with the church’s teachings on "social justice" (because those teachings can be used to support big-government "anti-poverty" programs that actually have the effect of keeping people in poverty in perpetuity) but ignore all that pesky stuff about protecting the unborn and maintaining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Globe columnist Eileen McNamara is a perfect example of this sort of Catholic.

However, Menino’s claims to martyrdom do not hold up to strict scrutiny. There is nothing intrinsically hateful about wanting a Catholic organization to honor someone who doesn’t thumb his nose at the church’s teachings on critical social issues. To honor Menino, the group correctly argues, is to honor the sort of politically-correct Catholicism that has little to do with the actual religion.

Carol McKinley, a leader of the group that wants Menino removed as keynote speaker, notes that Menino is "trying to portray our efforts to preserve the tenets of our religion for our children as angry and hateful." Unfortunately, Menino may well succeed, because so many people in this city buy into the notion that holding fast to traditional Catholic teachings on such issues as abortion and gay marriage is retrograde, small-minded, and hateful. Menino has a receptive audience in Boston, which is why he will not be removed as the keynote speaker, even though by all rights he should.

It’s hard to understand why Catholic Charities would want to honor Menino in the first place. (We’ll leave aside for now the obvious question of why the organization would want someone of Menino’s negligible oratory skills as a keynote speaker.) The group claims that Menino "has been an advocate and an effective political leader, responding to the needs of the poor, immigrants, the elderly and children and families of all races, religions and ethnic communities in the city," which is an elaborate way of saying that Menino supports the current political definition of "social justice" (i.e., the embrace of left-wing social policy). However, Menino is not an advocate for the unborn, "the weakest among us," and he is not an advocate for those who believe that marriage should be preserved as the institution of one man and one woman. Because he rejects traditional Catholicism when it comes to these issues, the conservative group would like to see Menino dismissed as keynote speaker. Disagree with their position if you will, but in your dissent, please explain how it is "hateful," for I do not see where the hard-heartedness is in their stance.

Granted, the Catholic Church has been damaged by the recent sex-abuse scandal. However, contrary to popular belief, the damage has not been fatal, and the Catholic Church can still be a force for good in the world. However, in order to do so, it must hold fast to its central principles, and not glorify those who reject some of those principles for PC purposes. This is the view of the group that seeks Menino’s ouster, and it is a view rooted in a desire to preserve the faith. Contrast that with the moaning of Menino, which is rooted, as ever, in a desire to preserve himself.

We will not cut and run. More from the Washington Times and Weekly Standard.

UPDATE: Do the Democrats have a consistent message on Iraq?

SECOND UPDATE: Fred Barnes, Daniel Henninger, and Elisabeth Bumiller on the President’s strategy.

THIRD UPDATE: More on the Democrats’ Iraq inconsistency.

FOURTH UPDATE: To what extent will the number of troops change next year?

FIFTH UPDATE: Rumsfeld reacts to ridiculous reporters.

SIXTH UPDATE: Bush says Howard Dean is dizzy. More from Power Line and the Boston Herald.

SEVENTH UPDATE: Cheney says, "Stay the course."

EIGHTH UPDATE: Democratic disarray over Dean. More from the Washington Times and Captain’s Quarters (via the Weekly Standard).

NINTH UPDATE: Bush continues the counterattack.

TENTH UPDATE: A report from Rumsfeld.

Actor Jim Caviezel goes from playing Jesus to playing a terrorist?!

Boston City Councilor Chuck Turner just loves to scream racism, doesn’t he? I just hope his Million Moonbat March doesn’t tie up traffic in Boston tomorrow.

UPDATE: Low turnout for the march.

Will we stay or will we go?

Children’s author Stan Berenstain passes away at 82.

A congressman takes bribes? Wow, that’s a surprise. Next, you’ll tell me the sun is hot…

Damn it to hell, Boston needs a Giuliani.

UPDATE: While the schools are being shot up, a sports hero is robbed.

SECOND UPDATE: Just lovely, eh?

THIRD UPDATE: Will Menino crack down on the thugs?

FOURTH UPDATE: Does Boston need a dress code too?

FIFTH UPDATE: Menino talks tough.

SIXTH UPDATE: You know somebody is going to label Boston Globe columnist Brian McGrory a racist for this article.

SEVENTH UPDATE: Wow, Menino’s doing something!

EIGHTH UPDATE: A textbook example of the thuggish behavior that Menino must combat.

NINTH UPDATE: More on Menino’s efforts.

In today’s Boston Globe, columnist Adrian Walker asserts that Deval Patrick’s bid to become the state’s next Democratic governor isn’t over yet, despite recent reports of turmoil in his campaign. If Walker’s right, and Patrick does rally to receive the Democratic gubernatorial nomination, it could set off a major controversy in this state concerning two perpetually hot-button issues–race and gay marriage.

Patrick, who has established himself as a left-wing golden boy, has been a stalwart supporter of same-sex marriage, a stance that has earned him the ire of Bishop Gilbert A. Thompson, an influential African-American Boston minister; earlier this year, Thompson was accused of denouncing Patrick during a May 22 sermon. Thompson, who has been a vocal opponent of same-sex marriage since the November 2003 Goodridge decision legalizing it, will obviously not support Patrick’s bid to become the state’s first black governor–but his refusal to do so will make him a subject of tremendous liberal scorn, especially black liberal scorn.

Like most inner-city black churches, Thompson’s church is made up of those who value "racial solidarity" when it comes to politics; his parishioners are the type of people who rally around ethics-challenged State Senator Dianne Wilkerson because "she’s one of us." If the past is any indication, they will also rally around  Patrick; though blacks may be heavily against gay marriage, their disagreement with Patrick on the issue is unlikely to keep them from supporting a "brother’s" bid to become Governor.

Of course, this will set one "brother" against another. Thompson has made it clear: he stands for the principle that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, and that anything else that’s branded a "marriage" is an offense to God. Thus, he cannot possibly support someone who claims that there’s nothing wrong with same-sex marriage. Just because both men are black doesn’t mean that Thompson can–or should–ignore his policy differences with Patrick.

However, those who will inevitably attack Thompson for opposing Patrick will not understand this point. The above-linked Boston Phoenix article quotes African-American Boston political consultant Joyce Ferriabough as saying, "I’d be surprised and saddened if someone of Bishop Thompson’s caliber…publicly denigrated Patrick over an issue that isn’t a priority in the black community." By saying that the issue of same-sex marriage "isn’t a priority in the black community," Ferriabough exposes herself as being unable to comprehend Thompson’s reasoning. To Thompson, same-sex marriage, and the opposition to same, is in fact a priority to blacks; since it is incumbent upon black parents, like all parents, to seek a moral cultural environment in which to raise their kids, they are to be vigilant against that which conflicts with the establishment of such a moral cultural environment. In Thompson’s eyes, same-sex marriage–i.e., calling something a "marriage" when it doesn’t involve one man and one woman–is by definition in conflict with the establishment of a moral cultural environment in which to raise children, and as such must be opposed. To say that the issue of gay marriage "isn’t a priority" to blacks betrays a profound lack of understanding as to why blacks such as Thompson are so opposed to the concept.

If Thompson is very vocal next year in his opposition to Patrick’s nomination and potential election as governor, expect to see Ferriabough and others–some even within Thompson’s own church–rise up to denounce him, perhaps even going so far as to smear him as an "Uncle Tom." They will ignore the fact that Thompson has no choice in the matter–in the name of preserving his own credibility as a moral leader, he cannot possibly support someone who embraces a concept that Thompson has declared fundamentally immoral. To Thompson, certain things are more important than "racial solidarity"–certain things like morals and values. However, his inevitable bashers will never understand that.

President Bush reportedly plans a major anti-illegal immigration initiative. More from Captain’s Quarters.

UPDATE: From the Washington Post, Washington Times, and National Review.

No real surprises in this weekend’s results. Yours, Mine and Ours, a PG-rated family film, had the best debut. Rent’s less-than-impressive performance was expected: why would anyone think that a film that epitomized the Clinton ‘90s would be successful in the Bush ‘00s? (It would be like releasing The Birdcage today.) Just Friends, which looked like every teen movie that’s come down the pike in the last ten years, tanked, as did In the Mix (which looked like a Save the Last Dance ripoff) and The Ice Harvest (was America waiting for another heist movie?)

"Oh, it doesn’t mean anything."

That’s the instinctive reaction many Democrats will have to the news that two Florida NAACP officials have decided to join the Republican Party–and while it is instinctive, it is not necessarily accurate. Although the announcement may not mean anything right now in terms of a major shift in black political loyalty, this decision could have long-term implications with regard to how much black support the Democrats can maintain.

Darryl Rouson, the former head of the St. Petersburg, Florida NAACP, is telling the truth when he notes that "…if 50 percent of the black population was in each party we would be getting a whole lot more than we are getting now, but because we are 85 percent in one party, when Republicans are in power we are a beggar race…and when the Democrats are in power we are a beggar race, because they take us for granted."

The sad fact is, not since before the civil rights movement have blacks had so little access to national political power. This is, of course, the result of blacks supporting the Democratic Party in overwhelming numbers during a period in which the Democrats don’t control the House of Representatives, the Senate, or the White House.

If American political trends continue on the same course they’ve taken over the past twenty-five years–i.e., less and less blue, more and more red–at some point black voters will have to ask themselves if it’s wise to stay on board the political equivalent of the Titanic. As the Democratic Party continues to search for a solution to the problems that have caused them to lose an unusually high number of Congressional and Presidential elections over the last quarter-century, black voters will be faced with a question: is it smarter to wait for the Democratic Party to "shape up" or to start exploring alternatives in the name of maintaining access to political power?

I’ve always suspected that one of the reasons Colin Powell officially joined the GOP ten years ago was that even though he had major disagreements with the party on social issues, he recognized that if blacks were all affiliated with the Democratic party, there could easily be a scenario in which the GOP becomes the de facto "white" party and the Democrats become the de facto "black party" –a scenario that would not be good for blacks if the Democrats found themselves completely out of power (which is obviously the case today). It will be interesting indeed if black voters begin to conclude that maybe Powell was on to something–and if they do, what an "Advancement" that would be!

Karate Kid star Noriyuki (Pat) Morita passes away at 73.

A Vermont English teacher gets into trouble over dopey anti-Bush questions he wrote for a quiz.