The First 100 Days

Well I’m back to writing on this for the time being. I didn’t post for a few months because I swamped with reading and writing for my classes and then for the last month and half just need to take a break. But, last week one of my good friends bluntly said, “Kevin when you talk about politics or history I just zone out.” So, I decided I better find an outlet to talk about them so I don’t completely bore most of my friends.

That being said, the last time I wrote on this blog, the economy had not collapsed (at least anywhere near the extent to which it did a week later), McCain and Obama were still neck and neck and Sarah Palin was still being seen as a brilliant political move. Let just say since then, things have “changed.” Yes, I know that was corny but get over it.

Two weeks ago Barack Obama was sworn in as the 44th president of the United States. I don’t think that it is any shock from my past blog entries that I voted for him and was extremely proud to see him sworn in as president (both times). However the past two weeks have left me a little irked—and it’s not the problems with taxes or elusive answers that many of his cabinet and cabinet-level appointees are facing in the Senate or the GOP’s opposition to the stimulus package. Let be honest, the GOP, after getting absolutely obliterated in the election had to show some early opposition to Obama and couldn’t give him a string of huge bipartisan victories in the first few weeks he was in office. Rather it is the media, specifically the liberal media and even more specifically MSNBC that is bothering me.

Let me preface this by saying that I have always been a fan of MSNBC. The website is my homepage and when I get home from work (on nights I don’t have class) I usually like to watch or at least listen in the background to Hardball, Countdown or Rachel Maddow when I’m making or eating dinner. In the morning I usually watch the online clips of Morning Joe when I’m at work. The network was even pretty balanced until Barack Obama declared his candidacy in the winter of 2007. After that they began the fairly rapid transformation into the Fox News of the left. They even took it a step further than Fox has done in the past as Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews all but proposed marriage to Obama on air. Between Matthews’ comment about getting a “warm feeling go up his leg” when he hears Obama speak and Olbermann’s daily rants against the Clintons in the primaries even their NBC News colleagues like Tom Brokaw began appearing on their shows less. What’s more is that Chris Matthews seemed proud on election night and during the inauguration that the network had been so pro-Obama.

That being said you would think that MSNBC would be the network most beneficial to the new administration and while you can’t say that their coverage has been anything less than flattering, I would make the argument that the network as a whole is setting the bar too high. Every time I hear the networks flowery, orchestra music come on with an announcer talking about “the first 100 days” I want to scream. (And by the way, The Huffington Post, and Politico are just as bad.) Yes the first 100 of days of a presidency are important but in reality there is only one president who had an enormously successful first 100 days—Franklin Roosevelt. Think about some of the president’s we now consider great (or even mediocre) and their first 100 days—Lincoln had to deal with the Civil War, Kennedy botched the Bay of Pigs, Clinton couldn’t get a healthcare bill off the ground, and Reagan was shot.

The network that did its best to get President Obama elected is now, seemingly unintentionally, setting the bar too high. With expectations to win two wars (and get the troops home soon), save the middle class, end Washington corruption, and create a post-partisan, kumbaya atmosphere in Washington anyone, even FDR, would fail. If MSNBC and other overtly left-leaning media outlets like The Huffington Post truly want Obama to succeed they need to tone down the Messianic rhetoric. Yes, I believe Barack Obama will bring change that is needed to this country and I love the cabinet and administration he has put together (especially now that Bill Richardson is out of the picture), but if the bar is set too high, too soon he will appear to have failed which will then lead to the actual failure of his policies. If you want a sports analogy for this look at this year’s Dallas Cowboys: They were the prohibitive favorite to win the Super Bowl at the start of the season. But the bar was set too high—the team started to flounder and injuries caused this pattern to continue. The team couldn’t live up to its hype and fell apart from the inside out. If the media doesn’t tone down expectations for Obama, I fear the same will happen to his administration.

Catholics, Democrats, Abortion, and Communion

Many political analysts agree that one of the primary reasons George W. Bush won the 2004 presidential election was that he won the Catholic vote--in particular, he won the Catholic vote in Ohio and Florida.

I and many others argue that since Catholics seem to split their allegiance somewhere within the 60-40 range there is no such thing as the Catholic vote yet somehow in recent elections the Catholic vote (or at least the voting patterns of American Catholics) have proved pivotal. This is evidenced by the fact that every candidate who has won the popular vote since 1960 has also won the Catholic vote. The 2004 election seems to be one the first times that the "Catholic vote" had a major impact on the electoral vote. Most commentators and several political scientists I have spoken to or have seen speak attribute Bush’s courting of socially conservative (though economically moderate or liberal) Catholics in Ohio as perhaps what put him over the top in the electoral vote. What makes Bush’s popularity amongst Catholics so shocking is that he was running against a Catholic.

Before John Kerry, the last Catholic to run for president not only won, but John F. Kennedy took 78% of the Catholic vote. (Annoyingly, something tells me that good portion of the 22% that didn’t vote for him lived in Orange County and San Diego and that all four of my grandparents fell into the latter category.) So what was it that caused so many Catholics to vote against another Catholic in a presidential election? The answer lies in the fact that more than in any other presidential election in US history several US bishops and archbishops, led by Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis (the neo-conservative, pre-Vatican II archbishop who excommunicated most of Polish Catholic population after they refused to conform to his conservative policies), publicly stated that John Kerry could not participate in Communion in their diocese, leading many Catholics to ponder if they could vote for him in good conscious. Following the 2004 election, many commentators stated that the Democrats had a Catholic problem.

Unlike the majority of Americans, the majority of Catholic Americans are pro-life. In addition, most Catholic Americans who are “pro-choice” have a “moral objection” to abortion but they feel either it is not the government’s place to legislate on abortion or that their moral standards should not be imposed on others. The latter view is the view of many “pro-choice” non-Catholics as well. However, the Church’s teaching is clear, a Catholic is to be pro-life in all circumstances (with the rare exception of an ectopic pregnancy in which neither the mother nor child has a chance of surviving if the pregnancy is carried to term). Catholic lobby groups lobby for pro-life judges and limits on abortion within the existing laws that allow for abortions. However, to be a Democrat you almost always have to be pro-choice. Certainly to win a democratic primary in a “blue-state” you have to be pro-choice. Granted there several prominent pro-life Democrats but they are the extreme minority (Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, for example).

On the other hand, the Democratic Party’s platform is far more inline with Catholic Social Teaching than the Republican Party’s platform on just about every issue besides abortion. The Democratic Party is far more likely to be against capital punishment and for just immigration reform that respects the human dignity of the undocumented immigrants already in this country. The welfare policies of the Democratic platform are much more in tune with the Catholic Social Teaching’s emphasis on the preferential option for the poor and vulnerable in society--a Judeo-Christian value with its roots not only in the teachings of Jesus but also in the teachings of the prophets of the Old Testament. The fact that the Democrats are more likely to support the major tenets of Catholic social teaching are evidenced just by the names of the other tenets so I won’t go into or explain them all: Call to Family, Community, and Participation; Dignity of Work and the Rights of Workers; Solidarity; Subsidiarity; and Care of God’s Creation.

That all being said, many good practicing Catholics are also Democrats and some of them are bound to run for office. Yet to win an election as Democrat in this country you almost certainly have to be pro-choice--at least publicly. Until about a month ago, abortion had managed to stay out of the major public debate in this election cycle. Since then, two very prominent Catholic Democrats have given answers on their publicly held pro-choice views. Nancy Pelosi gave a ridiculous answer saying that it is a topic still being debated in the Church and that the Church hasn’t been all that clear on its position until about 50 years ago. Her answer didn’t have an ounce of truth in it and was an embarrassment whether you were a Catholic or a Democrat but especially if you were Catholic Democrat. Joe Biden’s first answer, given to Tom Brokaw, was excellent until he tried to play the role of theologian much like Pelosi had. He explained that he personally opposed abortion and he had voted to limit abortions and to get rid of government funding for abortions. However, he said, he could not in good conscience impose his religious views on others. It was a great answer. Then his tendency to keep talking after he should stop got the better of him and he tried to bring up something about Thomas Aquinas. The next day he was questioned about his reference to Aquinas and gave an even worse explanation than the first time.

Since Burke’s declaration that John Kerry could not receive communion in his archdiocese in 2004 many bishops see it as their role to get involved in presidential politics. This year, it is the Bishop of Denver who encouraged his diocese to pray that the Democrats would change their position on abortion while they held their convention in his diocese and the Bishop of Scranton who declared that Joe Biden could not receive communion in his diocese--odd since Biden made it clear he personally opposed abortion. Luckily, Burke has been transferred to Rome and no longer has a large public microphone at his disposal. But these two bishops I’m sure will do their best to get their brother bishops to be more vocal on the issue of abortion as the election nears.

In my opinion, the fact that bishops are getting involved in presidential politics is bad enough, but the fact that they are doing it by denying Communion to faithful and practicing Catholics is despicable. The celebration of the Eucharist is a celebration of community and communion with one another as the mystical body of Christ as we all receive and partake in the Body and Blood of Christ fully present in the transformed bread and wine. The Eucharist should never be used as a weapon to make political point and it should never be used to create divisions in the Church, the ever present mystical Body of Christ.

A Memo to Sens. Obama and Biden

NOTE TO READERS: This post is meant to be addressed to the Democratic Ticket, sort of as a means of catharsis for me after watching them flounder the past two weeks:

The time for a clean campaign has past. Sen. McCain threw his clean campaign pledge out the door the second he hired Steve Schmidt to take over the day to day operations of the campaign. Every gaffe Sen. McCain or Gov. Palin makes needs to be broadcast all over. You need to call them liars and then say what they are lying about. Explain that she completely supported the bridge to nowhere until Congress killed the idea. Only then was she against it—hell, supporting the damn bridge was one the major planks of her platform when she ran for governor. Ask how someone who was raised by his grandparents and a single mother on food stamps can be called an elitist by someone who has nine homes and his running mate who had a tanning bed installed in the governor’s mansion. Why are the words “Beltway Johnny” not being uttered every time you talk about “Change?” Why won’t you point out that Sarah Palin doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is instead of leaving it to the media to do your bidding? If I were you I would fire your entire campaign staff and beg on hand an knee that James Carville and Paul Begala run your campaign. Please, please, please, take Jon Stewart’s advice and simply, “SHIT ON THEM WITHOUT REGARD!!!!!” They don’t respect you, so don’t respect them. And by the way, for every campaign stop that Sarah Palin makes with John McCain, you need to make one with Hillary Clinton. And for every snide comment she makes about community organizing, Joe Biden needs to make a comment about Wasilla having the worst crystal meth problem per capita in the country or a crack that just about everyone in her administration graduated high school with her. Finally, call both of them liars about you’re tax plan and point out the fact that even Fox News and Karl Rove have admitted they are lying about this. Then tell the American people that you want to do to lower taxes for the lower, middle, and even upper-middle class. Also, will you PLEASE run footage or audio of the Kennedy’s saying that you are the closest thing to Jack (that’s JFK’s personal name for those who are confused) and Bobby Kennedy since they were assassinated—Ethel, Teddy, and Caroline (Matriarch, Patriarch, and Matriarch-in-waiting) have all said you are their natural political successor! Finally put the picture of John McCain awkwardly hugging George W. Bush in every damn add you run (print or tape). That thing needs to be as familiar to people as the picture of a young Bill Clinton shaking JFK’s hand was in 1992 and 1996.

And two more things, for Sen. Biden. One: Why did you fuck up your answer on abortion so badly? You gave the perfect answer: You are pro-life and as a Catholic that is your choice and your opinion but you do not think you should impose your belief on others. Likewise you don’t think others' beliefs should be imposed on you and so you don’t support legalized partial birth abortions or government funding for abortions. Why did you have to try and play theologian at the end of your answer. You’re a senator and law professor not a theologian. Secondly: Don’t worry about being called mean or sexist in your debate. Dick Cheney by all accounts won the VP debate in 2004 and he was the meanest son of a bitch he could be.

Democratic Convention Recap

Ted Kennedy: No one can argue that this was not the most emotional moment of the convention. When the Democratic icon, suffering from brain cancer, walked out onto the stage and gave his impassioned speech he set the tone for the convention. Plus, he and his niece Caroline were once again able to present Sen. Obama as the successor to his slain brothers’ message of hope, peace, and justice.

Michelle Obama: Mrs. Obama has not been the stereotypical candidate’s wife. Perhaps because her husband was running against a woman until three months ago, she was not a very visible presence on the campaign. For that reason, no one really knew much about her and Republicans were somehow able to float a rumor that she was unpatriotic. She masterfully portrayed her and Senator Obama a happily married couple and ‘true American’ family (whatever that is). With help of the video narrated by her mother and the introduction buy her NCAA basketball coach brother, she portrayed her story as a true American success story—the story of the ever elusive American Dream.

Bob Casey, Jr.: Not really a media highlight but it was a big deal for me to see the DNC let a fellow Pro-Life Democrat speak in primetime at the convention. It was a good speech too.

Brian Schweitzer: Gov. Schweitzer gave a great speech on the need for energy independence. His speech is seen as energizing (no pun intended) western, moderate Democrats like himself.

Mark Warner: This was not exactly a highlight of the convention. His story really didn’t have much credibility a night after Mrs. Obama told her story. People didn’t want to hear about how he got rich by investing in one of the first cell phones right after they hear about a woman from the South Side of Chicago who got through college and law school only to leave a high paying corporate law job to do community work. In short, the speech was missable.

Hillary Clinton: Senator Clinton took her message of party unity to the next level. She went from telling her supporters that she supports Sen. Obama and they should too, to telling them why she supports Sen. Obama. In addition, she explained why McCain cannot be the president. Furthermore, she came off as sincere. It was not the half-hearted speech we have come to expect from Sen. Clinton since her appearance with Sen. Obama in Unity, NH.

The Roll Call Vote: A great display of both democracy and party unity. Sen. Clinton followed her show-stealing speech up with an even more profound call for party unity by ending the roll call and calling for the nomination nominate Sen. Obama by acclamation.

Bill Clinton: President Clinton finally publicly endorsed Sen. Obama and made it clear that he feels Sen. Obama is ready to be the president. He effectively explained that Sen. Obama was qualified to be a world leader. It was good speech and he, like his wife the night before, did a good job of attacking John McCain’s record.

John Kerry: To be honest, I was surprised that the DNC gave him a primetime slot--especially between the two speakers that he was between. However, he did a great job of doing what the GOP did to him so masterfully four years ago—pointing out every time John McCain reversed his position on a major issue. He also told the story of Sen. Obama’s great uncle who helped to liberate a concentration camp in WWII. On this point, I just have to quote Jon Stewart: "Are you fucking kidding me?! Barack Obama has an adorable, white, war hero uncle. Why is this the first time we're seeing this?! If I'm Obama, every time I campaign down South, I'm having that guy strapped into a Baby Bjorn and walking around!"

Joe Biden: Joe Biden did his job and did it pretty well. First through the video and introduction by his son, Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden (who is shipping out to Iraq as a member of the JAG Corps in a few weeks) the DNC portrayed Joe Biden exactly as they want the public to perceive him. He was portrayed as blue collared man of faith who holds close to him traditional family values and has overcome incredible tragedy in his life. Second, he assured voters of his foreign policy experience and finally he masterfully tied Sen. McCain to President Bush (especially through his now famous ‘Freudian slip’). Bonus Points: In case they didn't pound the fact that Sen. Biden comes from a big, blue collar Catholic family down everyone's throats enough, his whole extended family (his mother, wife, children, in-laws, grandchildren, brothers' families, and his sisters' family) came out on stage to close the night reight before a Catholic Sister of St. Jospeh offered the Benediction.

Bill Richardson: I just had to mention him because Gov. Richardson was the first one to use the term “Flip Flop” in reference to Sen. McCain reversing his views on several issue since declaring his candidacy.

Tim Kaine: Gov. Kaine’s role was similar to that of Gov. Schweitzer. Whereas Gov. Schweitzer energized moderate and conservative, western Democrats over Sen. Obama’s energy credentials, Gov. Kaine’s job was to energize moderate and conservative, southern Democrats over Sen. Obama’s work as a community organizer. Furthermore, he portrayed both Sens. Obama and Biden as men guided by their faith. He, like Sens. Casey and Biden, also made several references to his Catholic so as to help draw in undecided voters (who in this election, according to a NBC/WSJ poll are overwhelmingly Catholic women).

Al Gore: While the substance of his speech on the importance of this year’s election in light of Global Warming was good, his delivery left something to be desired. As Pat Buchanan said, “It seemed like he thought he was talking to a group of 20 people not a stadium of 80,000.” I can’t believe I’m agreeing with Pat Buchanan on anything but he really is right; Vice President Gore didn’t even pause to acknowledge the crowd’s applause most of the time. To be honest, I was disappointed.

Barack Obama: What can I say about the speech? I really think that the speech said it all. The video and introduction by Sen. Dick Durbin told his story and it worked perfectly as a bookend to Michelle Obama’s presentation of their story as the American story. His speech was specific about what he means by “change” and he finally took off the gloves and went after Sen. McCain’s record. What’s more is that he completed what Pres. Clinton, Sen. Kerry, and Sen. Biden has done the night before and tied Sen. McCain to Pres. Bush. The speech has been called one of the best convention speeches ever and I think that it was. Even Pat Buchanan was impressed. But what’s more, Sen. Obama was able to show that a McCain presidency would be disastrous not just for liberals or Democrats but for the whole country.

I think I've seen this one before

Many who know me know that I am a huge West Wing fan and have seen every episode of the show several times. That being said, it’s not surprising that I often see things in the actual news that remind me of a plotline from the show; and I’m sure I’m not the first person to make this observation, but this year’s election cycle is eerily similar to the election cycle that was portrayed in the last two seasons of the West Wing. So here is a list of similarities between the show’s election and this year’s real-life election:

Democratic Primary Candidates:
The West Wing: Party heavy weight and current Vice President Bob Russell had a huge lead going into the primaries; former Vice President John Hoynes was seen as a major contender early on; Junior Congressman Matt Santos is a young, minority candidate whose upstart campaign relied heavily on his message of Change and grassroots efforts amongst young voters
2008: Party elder Hillary Clinton was seen as the front runner going into the primaries; former Vice Presidential candidate John Edwards was seen as a major contender; Barack Obama is a young, minority candidate whose campaign is based on a message of change and whose lead in national polls is largely due to support amongst young voters

Republican Primary Candidates:
The West Wing: Longtime, western Senator Arnold Vinick campaigned on his moderate viewpoints and maverick tendencies; the last major candidate to withdraw was the darling of the evangelical right and minister
2008: Longtime, western Senator John McCain has campaigned on his moderate viewpoints and calls himself the original maverick; the last major candidate to withdraw was Gov. Mike Huckabee whose support came largely from evangelicals and

Democratic Primary Results:
The West Wing: Going into the primary there is no presumptive nominee however after a fourth candidate enters the race on the convention floor Santos delivers an electric speech that unites the party behind him as the nominee; Hoynes was practically a non player in the party by the time of the convention due to a sex scandal
2008: The primary fight lasted until the last primary though it was settled before the convention, some Clinton supporters were hoping she would not concede and would attempt a floor fight for the nomination; John Edwards was a non-player at the convention due to a sex scandal

Democratic Vice-Presidential Selection:
The West Wing: Plagued by accusations of being inexperienced and having weak foreign policy credentials, Santos picked party elder, Leo McGarry, to be his running mate; McGarry came from blue-collar Catholic roots and made it as a major political player in Washington, his career almost ended when he suffered a near fatal heart attack earlier in the show
2008: Plagued by accusations of being inexperienced and having weak foreign policy credentials, Obama picked party elder, Joe Biden, to be his running mate; Biden came from blue-collar Catholic roots and made it as a major political player in Washington, his career almost ended when he suffered a near fatal brain aneurism in 1988

Republican Vice-Presidential Selection:
The West Wing: After he is unable to get the evangelical base of the party excited over his candidacy, Vinick chose a relatively unknown and inexperienced small state governor, Ray Sullivan of West Virginia.
2008: After he is unable to get the evangelical base of the party excited over his candidacy, Vinick chose a relatively unknown and inexperienced small state governor, Sarah Palin of Alaska.

Our Differences Make Us One

As weird as it sounds, I have been thinking about language and its relation to liturgy a lot over the past few months. While this coincides with the recent documents regarding a new translation of the English Mass, it’s not the cause of this musing but presents an interesting backdrop to the situation. About two weeks ago I attended a Mass back at my parent’s home parish, St. Edward. During the Mass, I was a little shocked to hear them sing several of the Mass parts in Latin. Anyone who knows me knows that I am not a fan of the Latin Mass and that I think a Latin form of the Mass should have died out long ago with you know the Latin language seeing as how no one has spoken it in everyday life for over a millennium. However it wasn’t the Latin that upset me the most it was the explanation given the priest (let me make it clear quickly that the priest presiding the Mass and offering the explanation was not Fr. Steve, Fr. Joe, or Fr. Avelino and Fr. Loc was not there yet so use the process of elimination to figure it out if you really want to know). He offered the explanation that Vatican II stated the faithful should have a working "Church" knowledge of Latin despite the fact that Mass is now celebrated primarily in the vernacular. He then went on to state something to the effect that with "all the different languages we have in the community" it’s important to have one that we can all have in common. Let me first refute his explanation then offer my own reflection on multicultural liturgy. The first part of his explanation may at first appear to be the more legitimate of the two as he cites Vatican II. However that is not what Vatican II said at all. The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, does state that "Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites." (36.1) However this statement was intended to mean that the official texts of the rites were to be kept in Latin and all translations into various other languages be done from the Latin. This prevents, for example, the texts from being translated into Spanish then into English from the Spanish translations. The text then goes on to state that using the mother tongue (or vernacular) is of great advantage as it allows the people to participate more actively and better understand the liturgy. (36.2-4) No where does it say that the people of the Church should retain a working "Church" knowledge of Latin, in fact it says quite the opposite: that the reason for the vernacular is so many people don’t understand Latin. It basically implies that using Latin discourages active participation as although the people may be able to memorize the Latin words, they may (and probably) don’t know what they mean. The second part of his explanation hardly needs much refutation after looking at why his first argument was ill-based. It’s not hard to recognize that using a language that no one understands is much worse than using a multilingual setting in which everyone offers some of her own culture and receives some of another’s culture. All this is especially interesting in light of the new English translation of the Mass sent down by Rome as it uses a more literal word-word translation of the Latin rather than an American-English translation. The reasoning is that Rome (really, Cardinal Arinze and Pope Benedict--neither of whom speak English as their primary language) feel that the new translation better reflects the theological and catechetical mysteries being communicated. However, to any English speaking American the syntax and diction of the new translations come off as awkward and overly-regal and seemingly does not necessarily promote better or fuller active participation on the part of the assembly or the presider. I feel that if the translation is to be kept in the Spirit of Vatican II they would have consulted the American Bishops more in the process (or at least not have disregarded their suggestions as they did throughout this process).

Now that I have offered my rebuttal to Fr. (fill in the blank)'s comments about Latin in the liturgy, I have to praise him for his homily this past Saturday evening. Going into it I was not expecting much after being so put off by comments about Latin, he offered a beautiful reflection on who all are equal before God and even challenged those in the assembly on an issue that many would find "too sticky" to approach in Orange County. Several weeks after my first encounter with the Latin being sung at St. Edward’s I was forwarded an article in which my friend (and one of my mentors) John Flaherty quoted about the importance of multicultural liturgical music in today’s Church--particularly in the multicultural setting of Southern California. The article stated: "'By our very tradition,'" [Flaherty] said, 'liturgy is based on inculturation. We all surrender a little of what we hold onto so we can become a new creation. It especially applies to those in power. The only way the stranger (the disempowered) is welcomed in our midst is if we stand up and let them have a seat. It's up to the people in power to do the welcoming. When I have to do anything on an archdiocesan scale, I think of language and culture,’ said Flaherty, who believes everyone brings their cultural experiences to the Eucharistic table. Multilingual hymns and multicultural musical rhythms and instrumentation, he asserted, have the ultimate goal of creating a new culture where all ethnicities are woven together in one body of worship." I had this in the back of my mind as the priest eloquently preached on how all are foreigners in the Church, as there is not one chose people but that all were welcome in the Church. He went on to point out that throughout the Gospel, Jesus welcomed strangers, foreigners, and the disempowered to his table. It is in this spirit, he asserted (and I full heartedly agree), that all are welcome to the table at Mass--that all are invited to celebrate the Eucharist as One Body. He even went as far as to challenge the assembly that regardless of their political and legal views on immigration and undocumented immigrants, that they must welcome them into the community and at the Eucharistic table in order to call themselves Catholic. I don’t mean to pontificate on this subject by any means (no pun intended, honestly) but I found it odd extremely odd that such a homily would come from the same priest who just two months earlier had stated why the Latin rights were better than a multilingual setting. Perhaps he will reflect on his own words and realize that he was in many ways saying the same thing John was saying when he stated that what the makes us one is that we all offer a little bit of ourselves and accept the others at the Eucharistic table.

And the winner is.....

Like most people I am getting a little annoyed that neither candidate has selected a running-mate yet and I am getting a little tired of trying to guess who each will pick. (Although, I will let you know that as much as I would love to see Tim Kaine as Obama's running mate, it looks like he won't be the choice due to Mark Warner's speaking spot at the convention. In fact, its looking more and more like it will be Joe Biden, especially with his trip to Georgia--the country not the state--to evalutate the situation over the weekend.)

Candidate speculation aside, I've decided to play a new game and try to guess when the candidates will announce their running mates. According to an email sent from the Obama campaign to supporters, it is fair to assume that the selection will be made before the convention and not at the convention. With that in mind, Obama has to compete with the Olympics for press coverage, something that will be immensely easier this week now that Michael Phelps has finished his races and the gymnastics team and all-around competitions are done. That being said, based off of the Olympic TV schedule, my guess is that Obama's decision will come Tuesday. Yes, it is the same night as coverage of the last of the gymnastics individual apparatus finals but any other night and he would risk competing with coverage of any number of team finals that are likely to feature American teams (Beach Volleyball, Indoor Volleyball, Women's Soccer, Basketball, etc.) and several track and field events that highlight promising American talent. As far as McCain's pick goes, he has to navigate Olympic coverage as well as the Democratic convention. This makes guessing his time-frame a little more tricky. My guess is that it will come on one of three days. He will announce on Tuesday (which if Obama announces on that day as well could be disasterous for both camps as far as press coverage is concerned), on the first of the Democratic Convention to try and steal some of the press coverage away from the Democrats (Monday is really the only night that this could work as the other nights are too top heavy with significant Democratic speakers), or on the Friday after the Democratic convention in order to try and control press coverage after Obama's acceptance speech on Thursday night (that day will also be McCain's 72nd birthday and could help deflect attention from the fact that his turning 72).