Late Tuesday night I left my desk for to join 10,000 people swarming around the ice rink at Rockefeller Center where NBC was doing its coverage with giant screens on the skyscraper walls and a map on the ice of the U.S. with the states marked red and blue as the votes came it. It was very cold and all, average age of 25, were bundled up against the elements, but having a good time, though at least 80 percent were texting their absent friends rather that looking up or around.
In our family we were trained to keep our enthusiasm in check concerning events we looked forward to but, for some reason, might not happen. I had read enough analyses to be rationally confident Obama would win; but, having lived through Nixon, Reagan, and two Bushes, I was emotionally primed to ride with it if we lost. So I bought a 2 dollar hot dog and went back to my 8th floor room on 56th St., made a cup of hot tea and turned on the tube. By 11:15 CNN declared Obama the winner. My emotion was not elation but relief.
For me the most important issue was the one Nobel laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz spelled out in Sunday’s New York Times Review section: “What’s at Stake in This Election.” American inequality had become so extreme that it was no longer just a moral issue but an economic threat with worldwide consequences. The Romney-Ryan budget would “slow growth and increase unemployment while decreasing the protection of government safety nets just as Americans would need them more.” American inequality, he said, at a historic high, “is greater here than in any other advanced country, and it is rising.” It has increased because of ineffective enforcement of business competition laws, inadequate financial regulation, deficiency in corporate governance laws and ‘corporate welfare,’ huge corporate subsidies that reached new heights in the Bush administration. Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan’s tax policies, he concluded, “would lead to more inequality . . . and would lead to a divided society, one that endangers our future — our economy, democracy and sense of national identity.”
There is no guarantee that President Obama can turn back this tide, but it is clear that his opponents would not want to. But Obama has renewed the hope he planted four years ago: maybe now, conscious of what history will say, he will risk his popularity and take on gun control and climate change.
Romney in his concession speech was excellent — calm, generous, dignified. The commentators on MSNBC were taken aback: this was a Romney they had not seen before. I turned in at 1:30 and listened to Obama’s speech as I approached the peace of sleep, then read the text this morning.
It is beautiful, the eloquent Obama who captured my idealism four years ago during the primaries as he addressed the crowd at St. Peter’s College in Jersey City, with hundreds outside who could not get in. Last night he began, the task of perfecting our union moves forward: “It moves because of you. It moves forward because you affirmed the spirit that has triumphed over war and depression, the spirit that has lifted this country from the depths of despair to the great heights of hope, the belief that while each of us will pursue our own individual dreams, we are an American family, and we rise or fall together as one nation and as one people.” That’s a good start. We should support him.
Raymond A. Schroth, S.J.
Father Schroth also says "We should support him."
No, I'm going to go "all Bartleby" to that suggestion - "I'd prefer not too."
Saying you're going to "fix" inequality is disingenuous. It's an attempt to suggest to the wealthy that you're only proposing to make other people wealthy too, while simultaneously hinting to the unwealthy you're in favor of giving them somebody else's wealth. It's just a way to pander for popularity without proposing anything concrete. That's how the Occupy movement managed to implode itself into its own vacuity.
Of course, some would say Occupy learned that trick from the Jesuits.
The Occupy movement is indeed a good example of class warfare. And yes many writers in America magazine romanticized the contrived 1% vs.99% conflict as some great moral insight on how the world could be politicaly prefected as Father Schroth would liketo do. The problem is the movement was intellectually vacuous as you mentioned. The people in the movement liked to be pandered to but were intellectually vacuous. They ere narrowly looking out for their own personal interests only. In 2011 the backgroud unionorganizer attempted to mobilized this group as class warfare political factor in hte election but most recognized the shallow self-serving nature of this movement.
In the end the Occupy movement has very little sympathy except by people who want to exploit it to promote class warfare. Unfortuantely Jesuits do tend to intellectualize fuzzy concepts such as "wealth inequality". As a thigh nit and imbreed group they are not readily able as a group to recognize the lack of intellectual merit in politcal concepts such as "wealth inequality" .
As for "class warfare", I really don't understand how Christians can champion the preservation of the rich against the poor ... didn't all you conservatives read the pope's call for wealth reditribution? ;)
After thirty years in higher education-public & private-I can state that Jesuit colleges & universities are the most diverse, challenging and truly Catholic of all Catholic institutions of higher education.
When my kids apply to college in the next year or two I hope they put several Jesuit schools on their lists.
The students have formulated these ideas into what they call a manifesto, which has just been posted to their Facebook page, “Stop Ann Coulter from speaking at Fordham.”
The manifesto reads:
Joseph Stiglitz's politcal commentary on the 2012 Presdential campaign shamefully justifies the evil impulses of Cain and justifies the irrationality of class warfare., a marxist comcpt that justifies the elimiantion of inequality by violent means. Don't talk about American family love, unity, morality and peaace when you embrace the powerfully destructive ideas of class warefare which come from the basic human flaw of envy of others' wealth and good fortune.
By the way, what do you call Mitt Romney's "47%" comment if not class warfare?
Hey Ed you don't have to worry the Jesuits have a solution.
You got to read the article in Novemeber 10, 2012 Salon magazine about Fordham University in New York by Joan Walsh titled "Fordham head blasts Ann Coulter". It is a hoot. The Jesuit head of the Univesity after all these centuries has revived the Inquisition and is pasing judgement on who should be allowed to speak at Fordham. Isn't it grand? None of the 21th century crap about free speech or academic freedom. Bring back censorship and though control. You go tot read this. It is a relic.
Let's not muddle the issue of free speech. We are talking about what rules and centuries old expectations of free speech and especially political free speech in the United States of America. The First Amerndmenof the United States Consistution free speech as the central legal and political norm of American society. The First Amendment has been well tested is responsible for making the United State a hugely successful and stable functioning democracy by enabling to the maximum the free flow of ideas without censorship. The First Amendment is a huge legal, politcal, and cultural advance of human ciivlization. Americans that do not understand the cdntral importance of free speech are fundementally ill educated and several culturally deprived of the fundementals of how free speech works in American society.
One has to be carefully educated to what free speech is in America and its historic acultural background and hugh cultural and politcal advantage free speech ahas given America. It appears that Fordham University students are not adequatly aware of what free speech is all about in America. There is a extremely deep history and practice of free speech in Amereica that Fordham University has demosnstrated has no idea about. But it is central to understanding America society and how it operates that one understand the First Amendment of the United States Constistuion and how free speech and rleligious liberties wrok in America.
By the way free speech rights are radically different than in Canada where you live which actually criminalizes politcal speech based on supposed audience reaction. American free speech begins with the verbal attack by Patrick Henry's on King Geroge IIi that was denounced in pre-revolutionary days a treason to the Briitish crown. Expressing politcal polints of view were not allowed in colonial Amercia. So the only alternative was a violant and intense Amerian revolutioary was which the Patrick Henry's of the world won. The rule now is free speach is the highest and only American standard. If you son't undersatnd what free speech in America is all about you just do not know what your talking about and it shows.
The politcal censorship at Fordham University is a real scene from real life that happened right in Father Schroth own backyard and shows a fudematal intolerance of politcal ideas and a desire to supress poliitcal speech within Jesuit instiitutions. This is not supportive of Father Schrofts iideas of a America family. Intoleranceof political expression is a sign of a profoundly politcally divided nation. But this would not be the first time that visions of a workers paradise that turned into nighmare of politcal strife. What is unusual in modern times is this time politcal censorship comes from within a Jesuit institution of higher leasrning. one can not help but notice that is not a good sign at all.
This an amazing statement. If Obama fails and all economic wisdom says that his programs will be the cause of it, Fr. Schroth is already laying the foundation for laying the blame. Namely, his opponents don't want him to succeed so when the next four years do not work out, the rationale for failure is pre set.
I think the Republicans in Congress should give Obama his tax increases on the rich. They will not be the losers. The American people will be the losers but it will deny people like Fr. Schroth from making such nonsense claims. The increases in taxes are expected to collect about $95 billion a year. Let's see if they do and let's see what happens to investment.
And stop your carping about Jesuits.. nest foulers are detested by all classes.
What university President in the 21st century issues a public statement condeming in strogest terms without proof, or any specific example the speaker to be inviited to speak at the univeresiyt and express strong ressive disapproval of the students for inviting the speaker who grovel and apoligize for inviting a wrote a number of books, appears on televison including recently major Sunday news commetary and frequently speaks at numerous other univerisities? The answer is Jesuit President Mc Shane of Fordham University.
Here is is here intimidatiing statement that casued adult students to grovel and apoligize as if they had done something terribe or illicit by inviting Ann Coulter:
Here’s McShane’s whole statement, followed by the College Republicans’.
As I made clear in my above post Bronx students don't grovel. The GOPers 'grovelers' must have been from Westchester or Jersey
Different First Amemndment principles apply to the two cases you mentioned. Freedom of religion allows for the religion itself to define what a religion's doctrines, beleifs and practices are and who decided that the religous doctine is or is not. In the case of Tina Beattie she represents hereself as a Catholic theologian but blatantly writes tehology that contradict basdic Catholic such as what the sacrement of marriage is or is not. Beattie either radically revises or ignores basic well-established Catholic doctrine or practices on a regular basis. Her theology is not authentic Catholic theology and inherenetly can not be cosnidered Catholic theology. Freedom of Religion allows the University of San Deigo to not allow Beattie's theology to be promoted in any way as autherntic. As they say Abe her theology is just not kosher. There are definate satndards for Catholic theology which her theology does not meet. One can not call something kosher when it is not. Its a integrity thing that applies to all academic subjects including Catholic theology.
Free speech is free speech. Ann Coulter is a author of number of best seller politcal books and is a regular telivision, newspapaer and web politcal commentator. Her political views and analysis is accomplished and compelling and are widely regarded by a very significantly politicaly conservative but amin stream following. But even if she was not as well known and accomplished she should be allowed to speak to the students who were seeking to have her speak. The desire is by lift leaning students, faqculty and sadministration is to censor her speech and prevent students from assembling and hearing her and ssking her questions. (Freedom of assembly is another key freedom involved here.) Freedom of speech of course in a democracy such as the United States of course is most applicable when politcal speech is involved as it is her. Suppressing political speech is something Commuinsist China, Cuba or Iran and is not a part of the United Stares poltical or constitutional tradition. What is happening at Fordham University - censorship - is radically out of the mainstream of American political and academic discourse and a spectacle to behold of Jesuit education dysfuntion.
You also seem to be creating some weird dichotomy between the theological and the political in terms of privilige: religious speech can be censored, political speech should be open (not to mention that this simply discounts the fact that the two are hardly fixed as separate).
No, what you've done is found a way to justify shutting up some, while allowing others more freedom, which seems to be what you're heaping scorn of Fordham for doing in the first place.
I wonder if the debt will really be above $20 trillion when he retires. They say the difference between a politician and a statesman is that the former's focus is the next election and the latter's is the next generation. Well, the next generation will get the debt.
The greatest inequality in America is that the unborn are treated less than slaves, less than animals. Most remarkably, it is also the most sexist and the most anti-disability. Girls are killed much more than boys before birth and 90% of babies with Down syndrome are snuffed out before birth. So, that almost certainly will not improve in the next four years, barring a true conversion of the President. And his choice of Justices might cement this injustice for a generation.
I also worry about increasing intolerance of charitable religious organizations. Like the adoption agencies, and the public schools, the regime will further suck the Christianity out of it all. We are in for some sad times. But, I will pray for the President, and hope he changes.
as usual you try to pull a fast one by implying the Fordham President canceled Coulter. It was the Fordham Republicans, a small frightened minority, who now canceled her harangue. Here is what The Fordham President said.
"Still, to prohibit Ms. Coulter from speaking at Fordham would be to do greater violence to the academy, and to the Jesuit tradition of fearless and robust engagement. Preventing Ms. Coulter from speaking would counter one wrong with another. The old saw goes that the answer to bad speech is more speech.'
Having gone to Fordham Prep in the Bronx we Bronxites are never afraid of anything..... much less a shrieking witch.
As I made clear in my above post Bronx students don't grovel. The GOPers 'grovelers' must have been from Westchester or Jersey
But the point is Ed this demostrates a Jesuit Higher Eduacation President treats his students and the people they invite to speak with great disrespect and contempt. This is a public warning to all students that for no apparent reason ceratain speakers and the students that invite them will be harshly and uncivily attacked. This says to students your choices will not be respected. Students have reason not to be confident that they are free to choose speakers whom they may be interested to hear and are heard at other insitutions of higher education. Not all ideas and speakers are welcome at Fordham Univeersity. Students will have to guess why that is and otherwise attempt to read the Presidents mind or know the Presdients preconceptions. Clearly not all ideas, free speech or speakers is welcomed or tolerated at Fordham University. This lack of civility and tolerance toward students and speakers and their ideas is appalling and not what is expected at all at a insitution of higher education.
However, the freedom to say what one believes does not come with some kind of "freedom" to collect money for it. So, while no one should object to Ann Coulter, for example, coming to Fordham to express her opinions, they are well within their rights to oppose paying for it.
As to a theologian coming to an institution of higher learning in order to be heard so that listeners have more information upon which to base an opinion of the theologian's work, it seems to me that this would be something an institution of higher learning considers to be its calling.
Well the attack on free speech at Fordham is just another example of how unrealistic Father Schroth's visions of one big happy American family are. The Fordham attack on free speech only demostrates a fundementally divided American society where even bsic free speech rights are no longer recognized as an Amreican standard as it is everywhere else in America. What kind of higher education experience is this where students are attacked by teh University President for their politcal interests? Don't tell me that one should expect this type of autocratic rule of the jungle at an American University This heavy-handed suppression of free speech is sub-standard and unacceptable in America.
And don't say the students were not heavily coerced and publicslly humiliated such that they grovel an apology like they were animals beaten with a stick. Adult students grovel aout an apology for making an independent choice to appease the fierce public ridicule of the Jesuit President. Theae studets were under extreme duress from public humilitation. What kind of educational insistution destroy students confidence and sense of well-being and legitimacy for their seletion of a speaker it turn out to their surprise the University Presdent disapproves. The students are intimidated into a grovelling apology for a perfectly legitimate selection suitable to their needs and interests.
The original smoking gun on November 9th on censorship of free speech at Fordham is the student Facebook page “Stop Ann Coulter from speaking at Fordham.”, The Facebook page says it all. The intent of the students is supress political speech.
And the Jesuit Presdient does not disapprove of these strudents attack on free speech but vigorously attacks the students who want to to hear Ann Coulter, The Jesuit President pulically redicules the student sayig he has great disgust for their choice of speakers and pulically calling the students immature for inviting Ann Culture as if there was some obvious problem in doing so . The Jesuit President public personal attacks on the students are profoundly disrepectful and humiliating. The Jesuit President by his attacks and comdemnation of students failed to encourage respect for the essential American value of politcal free speech in American society at Fordham University.
It turns out the students who where publically ridiculed and humiliated by Presdient McShane felt that President McShane had been unfair to them and said so publically. They however recived no apology from Presdient McShane for his fierce and uncivil public rididcule of the students. Instead McShane approved of the students conforming , under pain of further pulic humiliation, ridicule and excitation of politcal hositilty on campus to free speech, to submit Presdient McShane politcal preferences as follows:
November 10, 2012Late yesterday, Fordham received word that the College Republicans, a student club at the University, has rescinded its lecture invitation to Ann Coulter.
Allow me to give credit where it is due: the leadership of the College Republicans acted quickly, took responsibility for their decisions, and expressed their regretssincerely and eloquently. Most gratifying, I believe, is that they framed their decision in light of Fordham’s mission and values. There can be no finer testament to the value of a Fordham education and the caliber of our students.
Yesterday I wrote that the College Republicans provided Fordham with a test of its character. They, the University community, and our extended Fordham family passed the test with flying colors, engaging in impassioned but overwhelmingly civil debate on politics, academic freedom, and freedom of speech.
We can all be proud of Fordham today, and I am proud to serve you.
Joseph M. McShane, S.J., President