bleechers's Blog

This one hits close to home. I have suffered my entire adult life from Mafia jokes. I've worked in education most of my professional career, mostly with avowed Leftists. When one colleague discovered the term "WOP" it was tossed out in my direction regularly.

Now, I'm not the sensitive type and I can take a joke... but it does get tiresome. In the political arena, however, it is serious business to mock the ethnicity of a candidate.

The Democratic Party in WA has attacked candidate Dino Rossi and threw in the suggestion that ALL Italians are mob connected. I would like to remind the Left that the "mob" was broken by mostly Italian DAs and cops. It was Mayor Giuliani who reduced the mob families to shells of their former selves.

In a year where Democrats see racist appeals everywhere, it’s stunning that they would introduce an ad that plays on ethnic stereotypes in such an obvious way. Can you imagine the reaction if Republicans produced an anti-Obama ad with rap music playing in the background? - The Weekly Standard [Excerpt]


LINK HERE

Below is a sampling of some of the issues on which Obama has changed positions since the primaries and some of the people he has discarded along the way. All but one of these (his poor grandmother) represent a move to the right (towards the center) to better position himself for the general election.

The question is, are these moves real or merely opportunistic? And if he’s moving to the right to appeal to voters, why should voters choose the “recent convert” with a track record that belies his moves?

Obviously (and sadly), I believe these are merely strategic, political calculations. No one changes his "core beliefs" (in this case, Marxist Idealism) in the space of a month.

The People

Rev. Wright (the “uncle” he could “never” disown)

Fr. Pfleger

His white grandmother (the “typical white person”)

Trinity Church

Muslim girls at a rally

Mike Klonsky (Stalinist blogger on his campaign web site)

The Issues (Reversed or Modified)

- NAFTA

- DC Gun Ban

- Pubic Campaign Financing (his “life’s work”)

- Death Penalty

- FISA

- Withdrawal from Iraq

- Funding the War

- Talks with Ahmadinejad

- A United Jerusalem as Israel’s Capital

- Fairness Doctrine

- Domestic Drilling

- Nuclear Power

FREE Health Care! FREE FREE FREE!

The man who designed the oft-cited Canadian health care system, Claude Castonguay, chimed in on its state after 40 years. As with ALL government-controlled entities, the system is down to rationing. Hand government energy, health care, pharmaceuticals, etc. and you will get slavery and rationing.

The father of Canadian health care advocates:

- Introducing Free Market solutions
- Legalizing Private Insurance

Back in the 1960s, Castonguay chaired a Canadian government committee studying health reform and recommended that his home province of Quebec — then the largest and most affluent in the country — adopt government-administered health care, covering all citizens through tax levies.

The government followed his advice, leading to his modern-day moniker: “the father of Quebec medicare.” Even this title seems modest; Castonguay’s work triggered a domino effect across the country, until eventually his ideas were implemented from coast to coast.

Four decades later, as the chairman of a government committee reviewing Quebec health care this year, Castonguay concluded that the system is in “crisis.”

“We thought we could resolve the system’s problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it,” says Castonguay. But now he prescribes a radical overhaul: “We are proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice."

What does Castonguay suggest for Canada? He wants the immediate legalization of private insurance. Since the government now owns all caregiving facilities, Castonguay recommends that they lease space to entrepeneurial physicians and care-giving companies to get more services available to Canadians. Right now, the Canadians actually pay Americans to see their citizens, those whose urgent needs cannot be addressed in a timely manner. Not only is that a gigantic hypocrisy — the state system paying private-sector providers in another country — but it also sends money outside of Canada that would remain in Canada if they had private sector health-care options.

Life lesson... nothing is "free."

Some Things Never Change, Or Do They?

Someone recently told a friend of mine concerning a certain issue that it was useless talking with me because my mind was already made up. He went on to add that it was better if I was avoided on the subject. I found that curious since these were my friends and we agree on many things. It was even more puzzling knowing my personal history.

This post is dripping with narcissism. I openly admit that... but, hey, that's why blogs were created in the first place, right?


POLITICS

I was born into a politically active family. My parents worked for local and national candidates. My father ran for office on two occasions. I wore political buttons to school and worked to gain support for candidates in our mock elections at school. I was a die-hard Democrat! The thought of an "R" next to my name made we quiver.

In the eighth grade I was required to write an essay on my "hero." I eventually chose FDR (Larry Bowa was not accepted by the teacher). I wrote glowingly about his leadership in WWII and his handling of the Depression economy. Like most essays from Junior High it was high on hyperbole and low on analytical content.

While in college two of my history professors were openly Marxist. One sang the glories of the Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua while the other spent his time cataloging US "atrocities" in Vietnam. One good thing came out of it, we really studied Marx.

Through an objective study of history (as objective as one can get) and with a fresh look at the real outcomes of political policy (free from the rhetoric) I moved away from the politics of my youth.


RELIGION

Similarly, I have been through a number of "religious systems."

I was devout. I served as a religious education teacher and lay apologist for my sect. Skipping ahead to save time, someone later remarked "You're the last person I'd expect to leave the church." I not only left that church, I trudged through numerous "systems" serving as a preacher and a teacher. Along the way I kept and solidified some beliefs and discarded others.

Engaging in debates revealed my weaknesses, the frailty of certain positions and the power of truth.

Today, my theology is my own. I speak for no one but for myself. I claim no sect and I posit no creed. Through a personal study of the evidence available to me and with the acceptance that I am limited in this flesh, I moved quite a ways from the religion of my youth.


ECONOMICS

This story is essentially parallel with my political journey. I studied business and economics under men and women who ranged from Keynesian to Socialist. It was those classes that introduced me to the "working parts" of economics. Combined with a personal study of the facts and patterns of history, my economic views moved away from the "utopian" visions of my youth.

Economic realities are not ruled by emotions, wishes, promises or dreams. There are historical patterns that can be studied. The emotion that moved me in my youth in regard to FDR melted away in view of the facts.


Just the Facts Ma'am

I certainly can be swayed. I have been swayed. I've been moved great philosophical distances in my life. What I believe today is built on much sturdier ground than the idealistic foundation I used to play on. Even in the areas in which I haven't moved much since my youth, my reasoning in holding to those positions is planted on firmer, less emotional ground.

Probably the best class I took in university was Philosophy. I was taught to use logic. I studied the flaws in my own reasoning. I do not claim to understand everything, I do not claim to have all the answers... but if I am going to be swayed, it will have to by facts and by reason.

I love a good exchange. I have no interest in bomb throwing, hyperbole or theory devoid of a sound grounding in reason and history. Sure, you might read this blog and conclude that I've been duped by this or that. You might think that I'm simply a product of my surroundings. Fair enough. I realize that our personal experiences jade our judgments, but as best as I can, I try to see past that.

One thing that I believe in is devoid of any historical or reasonable thinking... I believe in the Phillies! Sometimes it's best to ignore history and logic!

If you haven't read my entry on being the son of a local political writer (of a completely different political persuasion) I'd encourage you to do so. In civil dialog we can learn from each other... so long as we let facts rule over emotions.

As a full-blooded Italian-American (although I prefer just plain old “American”) I’ve become comfortable with being labeled “white.” Although, I’m not quite sure what that means. Where I grew up, we didn't consider anyone "white." You were Italian or Polish or German or Irish or Jewish. I still don't consider myself "white."

Right after graduating from UNCG I applied for a position with a bank. On the application I was asked to check a box for race. I asked the bank representative which box I should check.

She said “white.”

I asked her what that meant… “People of European descent,” she responded.

“What about Hispanics; they’re of European descent,” I noted.

“Well, Anglo-Saxons then,” she added.

“But I’m not Anglo-Saxon.”

“What are you then?”

“I was born just outside of Philadelphia. You can’t get much more ‘American’ than that.”

“I mean, if you’re not Anglo-Saxon, what are you?” she pressed.

“I dunno, my mother was born near Bari, Italy, and my father’s family is from Naples. We’re not Anglo-Saxons; neither are the Greeks; neither are the Slavs. Italians are actually genetically closer to the Greek and Lebanese people than to Anglo-Saxons. Over the last two thousand years, just about every ethnic group from Africa to the middle east to northern Europe has been through Italy. It's interesting that-”

“Well then I don’t know what box you should check.”

“Oh, OK. I’ll just check ‘Other’ and write in ‘Mediterranean’, does that work?”

“That will be fine, sir.”


Needless to say, I never received a call from that bank. I’m not sure if that was because they were “Anti-Mediterranean” or if they just weren’t interested in a smart-mouthed 22-year-old American from Philadelphia.

Minimum Wage

I propose we raise the minimum wage to $15, no, $20 an hour. We can then lower the average work week to 32 hours. This way our lowest paid workers will make over $33,000 dollars per year. If companies want to lay off workers, they will be required to pay each worker 90% of its base salary for two years and continue to provide health, vision, dental and pet insurance benefits (note that the word "pet" is under review for any possible self-esteem-lowering effects). Future wage levels will be decided by a blue-ribbon panel appointed by me.

The Workplace

Employers will be required by law to provide six weeks of paid vacation to all workers. Executives will have their salaries reviewed by the blue-ribbon government panel.

Healthcare

Healthcare will be provided for all Americans. Doctors will be limited to a salary of $66000 per year (twice minimum wage!). Since these “winners of life’s lottery” will be making so much, they will be heavily taxed for gouging us. Pharmaceutical companies will be forced to provide needed medicines at cost (or below, if cost is considered too costly by the blue-ribbon government panel).

Gas Prices

I propose we punish any company making a profit; especially oil companies. Obviously, if a company is making money for itself, its employees and its investors, they must be up to no good. I will implement a massive tax increase on any profit the oil companies earn, er, not “earn,” um… “steal.” Of course, I will also be asking for an increase in the federal gas tax. This is America and success must be punished.

Trade Policy

I will punish any company for offering products at lower prices. All Chinese imports will be subject to heavy tariffs (to be determined by the blue-ribbon government panel). Some of the revenue from the tariffs will be sent back to the Chinese because I'm sure we've oppressed them at some point. With all that extra income from the increase in the minimum wage, I believe Americans will be willing to pay more for everything.

Defense

All issues dealing with foreign policy and defense will be determined by a special United Nations blue-ribbon panel. I will immediately apologize to everyone on the planet for the US being so successful and for damaging their self-esteem by forcing them to accept our billions in aid. Reparations will be paid to France for all the American blood we left on their shores.

Crime

Crime will no longer be a problem. With everyone making so much money, no one will commit any crimes. Billions will be saved as we empty our prisons which are currently filled with victims of a system that did not address their needs. In addition, all expressions of faith (except those which are overtly anti-American) will be reviewed by the blue-ribbon panel.

Gender Issues

Terms such as “man,” “woman,” “human,” and similar will not be used in my administration. I find a title such as “Chairperson” to be “specist.” I will use titles such as “Chairorganism” and my partner for at least the moment will be addressed as “First Carbon-Based Life Form” (unless we find life on other planets based on silicon, etc.). All other titles will be decided by a centralized blue-ribbon government panel.

Education

Access to an equal education is a basic human right. I propose we force schools such as Harvard, Stanford and Duke to stop charging such large sums for access to their professors. Similarly, I propose that the salaries of professors and administrators be reviewed by a blue-ribbon government panel. Hold on, my phone is ringing… OK, forget about the university stuff. We will preserve "Academic Freedom" in this area.

Food, Housing and Life Decisions

To relieve families of the stress of making life decisions, all decisions will slowly be moved to the centralized, blue-ribbon government panel. We have seen that Americans are incapable of following government food guidelines, so, just as we will do with the oil companies, we will be forced to monitor your life decisions for the greater good. We cannot risk anyone starting to succeed or anyone making a bad life decision. Therefore, all such decisions will be handled by the new position of “Secretary of Decision-Making for Carbon-Based Life Forms.”

Wealth Creation

I have no idea how this happens. The creation of wealth will be assigned to the blue ribbon panel.

My father has been writing to and for the News & Record for a number of years. In that time he has built up quite a reputation. This is of interest to me on several levels. Above everything else, I am proud of my father’s communications skills. My dad has always been an insightful writer and an excellent public speaker. He regularly brought home the “Toastmasters Club” trophy for being the best speaker when he was involved with that organization. I inherited, albeit imperfectly, his love for writing, his passion for political justice and his concern for people. I also inherited his name!  

Some day I’d like to write the story of my family; a fascinating group to say the least. Unfortunately on a blog, I’m limited to short topics. Today I’d like to quickly address the joys, sorrows, trials and tribulations of sharing a name with a local writer of some reputation.  

My father’s letters and columns are generally written from a more liberal perspective. I am very careful to leave room for interpretation because I do not pretend to speak for him. But I think he’d be comfortable with that assessment. Those who have read my work here or on other blogs would agree that my writings are generally from a more conservative/libertarian point of view. Sharing the same name makes the differences even more interesting and apparently more confusing.

Seeing Things From the Other Side

Having such a close relationship with someone from a different perspective allows us both the opportunity to look beyond stereotype. I’m a conservative, yet the image of an uneducated, book-burning racist just does not apply. Similarly, I know my father is a patriotic American who understands the place values have in a well-ordered society. We suffer the fools on our own side as we defend our respective viewpoints.

Obviously, we often confront the worst elements of the opposition. But when my father rails against elements on my side that need a good railing, I can't complain. After all, I have almost as much distaste for the "blue blood Republicans" on my side of the aisle as my father does. Conversely, I hope that when I confront certain America-hating elements on the left, patriotic Democrats can understand my disgust (even if they don't agree with every element of my analysis).

Country and Ideals Above Party

I find it interesting when we both see the inherent failures in systems or people; even if we see different solutions to those problems. I have learned from my father that ideals and values are greater than any man or movement. For example, I have never been a fan of George W. Bush. I don’t care how many “Rs” you put after his name, he has never struck me as a particularly bright or strong leader. John McCain is another man in whom I find little to get excited about.

John Adams had ideals. Despite the strong calls for war with France from the members of his party, Adams travelled a different path. He knew that such a war at that time would be disasterous for the young United States. He also knew that he was committing political suicide. But country came above party. Adams lost in 1800, but America won.

Answering the Phone

I have been amazed over the years at the varying responses to my dad’s writings. Since we have the same first and last name but different middle names, I try and use my middle initial when possible. Not because I am ashamed, but merely to make the distinction. Some people love what he writes, others are not so enthusiastic. And just as I wouldn’t expect him to have to answer for my opinions, I don’t think he expects (or wants) me to have to answer for his.

I’ve had people yell across parking lots or take the time to make a phone call to tell me how much they enjoyed “my” letters. I’ve also received nasty phone calls and one occasion a rather disturbing letter was sent to my house. A white supremacist group wrote to inform me that evolution “proved” that Africans were inferior to “whites” (on that measure they agree with Darwin). Well, they sent the letter to the wrong guy on two accounts: I didn’t write the editorial that offended them and I don’t believe in evolution!

In the last year or so I’ve turned my attention away from terribly specific political or theological battles to topics that cover a wider, more historical spectrum (even if the trigger is a specific news item or issue). However, I would find it fun to be regularly featured in the N&R next to my father’s work on certain issues. Should anyone at that paper be interested, you already know (most of) my name.

ADAMS IS RIGHT AGAIN

In very general, I agree with this assessment of the "Christian Nation" question.

It has long my contention that it is inaccurate to say that this nation was founded as a "Christian Nation" per se (although the Supreme Court actually used that language around 1876). It is simplistic to melt the argument down to "Secular" or "Christian." We must look at the Constitution itself and we must understand the thinking of 18th Century America.

John Adams had the best summation of the Constitutional perspective when he wrote that the Constitution was designed for "a moral and a religious people" and that the document is "wholly inadequate for any other kind." Now, in Adams' world "religious" would necessarily be a non-Papal, Enlightened Christian people. But that condition must exist among a people, it cannot be legislated.

The Constitution would be "inadequate" because it places limits on government, not on the populace. The people were granted unprecedented liberty. The document has nothing to say of religious tenets or of personal morality. Even if many of the Founders were Christians (and many were) their hope was the light that had enlightened them would prevail among the people, not that the Constitution would make anyone a "Christian" or that it could in any way make the government "Christian."


The Purpose of the Constitution

The Constitution was designed to guarantee basic rights and to limit government powers. But just as the glory of the free grace of God can be used for "licentiousness" so too can Constitutional freedoms be used by the "immoral" (to stay with Adams' terms) for wickedness, perversion and chaos. I can't imagine a scenario or an argument wherein any Founder, from Paine to Jefferson to Hamilton, would argue that ripping a child from its mother's womb was a "right" originated by "nature and by Nature's God." It is only an "immoral" people who could come to that conclusion.

Even the terms "wickedness" and "perversion" must be defined by the people. Among a "moral and religious people" the parameters of that debate are tight. Only in the last generation have we widened that seemingly narrow field. In many circles today, the terms have no meaning at all. As the people go, so will the Constitution. It does not define "perversion" it trusts us to do that.

To be fair, in their day, the "wickedness" of slavery was hotly debated. However, I think we'd all agree that the greater good prevailed. The "moral and religious" nature inherent in the first few generations concluded that slavery was not compatible with the Founders' idea of liberty. Jefferson and Washington were often tortured by the inner conflict between ideal and personal practice. I see little of that conflict in the hearts of many Americans in 2008.


The Threat from Religious and Political Elites

The opposite is also true. Some have tried to use the force of law to force "morality" upon the electorate. Adams was correct, the people who wish to be governed successfully and with peace and civility are those who have their "moral" compass guided by a force apart from law.

Some laws exist as guidelines (traffic laws, etc.), but most are created to punish evildoers. A Law against murder does not make non-murderers any better citizens than they are (the same can be said of "religious" laws). There are laws on the books in Raleigh stating that I must provide food and shelter for my children. I do not get up every day in light of those laws and feed my kids because the law says so. I feed them because I love them. I need no law.

In 1765 Adams wrote that the biggest threats to liberty come from "Canon Law" and from "Feudal Law." For neither the ruling classes nor the religious hierarchies of religion have any use for liberty (hence the persecution of the Baptists by the Anglicans, etc.). Pope Gregory XVI equated "liberty of conscience" with "madness." Pope Pius IX was so offended by freedom of religion that he declared that Catholics must believe that the Catholic Church should "the religion of the state, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship" (Syllabus of Errors - 1864). It was a sin for them to believe otherwise.

Even in our day, the absolute control found in Marxist ideology appeals to the enormously wealthy (along with those with similar power) and to religious elites. Marxism assumes that people are in classes and will remain in those classes. The system destroys the middle class (the only threat to the ruling classes) and forces the lower classes to become dependent (on either state or church).


The Limits of the US Constitution

So the debate is not whether the Founders created a "Christian Nation" or a "Secular Nation" (an idea even farther removed from reality), but for whom will the Constitution work. Would it work in Iran? Russia? The Vatican? Not as those cultures and value systems are currently constructed (we are finding out this truth the hard way in Iraq... although some of us already knew this would happen). The Constitution can only work for a "moral and religious people" heavily influenced by Enlightened Christianity; men and women guided by the grace of God who seek the welfare of others above benefits to themselves.

This idea is manifest in certain statements by the Founders, but those statements must be seen through the glasses of the late 18th Century. Their concept was a population dominated by the notion that seeking advantage for self was both anti-antithetical to Christianity and not worthy of a civilized people. A "doctrinal statement" was never part of the equation nor was "legislating morality." There is no hint of either in the Constitution.

America is neither "Christian" nor "Secular." No law can be passed that states "thou art now secular" or "thou art now Christian." The Constitution will reflect the values of its people. If the people lose their own personal convictions or become guided by forces other than the forces that guided the Founders, America will continue to become unrecognizable. The Constitution wouldn't work in Saudi Arabia, it won't survive in a Marxist America.

COPS is a Great Show

I really like the show COPS. I support the police and I greatly appreciate what they do. However, if you watch that show you'll notice a pattern, the Police tend to show up after the rape, robbery, murder, etc. They spend their time listening to stories and/or taking pictures of victims. The Police go after criminals, they don't stand in front of us like bodyguards.

The Police cannot possibly prevent all crimes. The crimes they usually prevent are the result of their diligent work in capturing a criminal after he has committed a crime against someone else. We encourage women to attend self defense classes as we demonize anyone desiring to defend himself with a legally purchased weapon. The idea in both cases is the disabling of the perpetrator and the preservation of the victim.

Surely we understand that not all weapons are necessary for self-defense, but that is not the equivalent of restricting any gun ownership or depending on the government for all protection. We must start the conversation from the position that law-abiding citizens have a right to defend their families and property and that such defense necessarily involves gun ownership to some degree. The benefit of the doubt must start with the citizens and with an understanding of the basic right of self -defense


Foolish Responses to Tragedy

I worked at an institution of higher education during the Virginia Tech crime spree. We were a small campus that was essentially open to the community around it. I happened to work with a man who was armed and well-trained in the use of his weapons. I knew that if anything would happen on our campus, I at least had someone there who had a means of defending me. He also told me about several other people who had legally concealed weapons.

After the VT crimes, in a move made purely for political reasons, the administration banned all guns from our campus. The few people who were trained and licensed to confront a madman with a gun were left impotent. The new rules made us all sitting ducks. The campus became a "defense free" zone.

Why anyone would believe that a madman intent on destruction would be stopped by a "No Guns on Campus" sign is beyond reason. The only ones who have been stopped are the members of the community who love the students there and those who have been charged by their parents with their safety. The few unstable people out there who manage to arm themselves are far outnumbered by sensible and conscientious Americans intent on protecting themselves and those around them. Disarming the latter group makes no sense.


Ban All Fire Extinguishers!

I realize that the analogy is not perfect, but taking guns out the hands of the law-abiding citizenry is akin to taking fire extinguishers out of our hands so we can leave fire fighting "to the professionals." The best way to defend family and property against fire damage involves more than having a phone programmed to 911 nearby.

If we come to a place in which we accept the idea that the government has the ability to deny self-defense to its citizens, we will find ourselves calling the police to take pictures of our broken furniture, our dented cars and our deceased loved ones. I realize that not all crime problems are solved by armed citizens, but at least we won't have to sit around and wait for the local police photographer.

Note: In light of AMC's "Godfather" marathon yesterday, I am reposting this entry.

Remembering Joe Petrosino

Hating Parts of Your Own Culture Can Sometimes Be a Good Thing

My subheading is actually misleading. Joe Petrosino didn't hate the organized crime part of Italian-American culture, he simply didn't recognize it. To him, and to the vast majority of Italian immigrants around the turn of the last century, the "values" represented by the mob culture were foreign to the true values of most southern Italian immigrant families.

Joseph (Guiseppe) Petrosino arrived in America in 1874 at the age of 14. At the age of 23 he joined the NYPD and made it his life's work to showcase what was true of most Italian immigrants: they were good neighbors, honest workers and patriotic Americans. To Joe, organized crime brought shame to the Italian-American community. He "hated" that part of his culture. I imagine he would hate how it is glamorized today, by Italian-Americans no-less, in shows like The Sopranos and Growing Up Gotti.


Joe Petrosino was assassinated in Sicily in 1909 while on a mission to chase down mob criminals from the US. His death has inspired many who came after him to seek the high road of honor, justice and truth.

Thomas Sowell, in his book Ethnic America, describes the driving force of the southern Italian immigrant with the words "sanctity of the family." For many today they can only see The Sopranos version of what that phrase represents, but that show (and the countless shows and movies of the same theme) have given American audiences a grotesque vision of what "sanctity of the family" means in the Italian tradition.

Sowell notes that not only the family, but the village is also valued in southern Italian culture. Southern Italian immigrants had no historic hatred of other ethnic groups and generally got along well with Jewish, Irish and other immigrant groups. If you valued family, they valued you.


As with all cultures, not everyone took the high road. Some "families" took to crime. Others, however, from the same culture, risked all to clean up their communities.

I need not give a history of Italian-American organized crime. Turn on your TV and you're likely to find it represented in one way or another multiple times in multiple ways up and down the satellite dish. What I need to do, however, is to remind all of us who it was that brought down the mobs and mob bosses. Among those who brought down the dons you will repeatedly find the names of Americans of Italian descent, from cops to DAs to judges to juries.

Brave Italian-American men and women who hated a disease that had spread its stench to the whole community made it their life's work to bring criminals to justice. They did it because they were patriots, American patriots. Like Joe Petrosino they did it because they understood that all Italian-Americans carried a stigma because of the actions of a small group of thugs. Italian-Americans suffered at the hands of the mob as much as or more than any other group.


An attack on organized crime was an attack on organized crime; it was not an attack on "Italian culture". Patriotic and law-abiding Italian-Americans never saw it any other way.

In many ways it was important that the men who brought down the mob (from Petrosino to Guiliani) were of Italian descent. It demonstrated to the world that attacking a disease associated with a culture doesn't translate into an attack on the culture itself. It was important to honest Italians that the greater culture know that we shared their disgust and fears. This could only be accomplished if we first distanced ourselves from the disease and then led the charge against it, welcoming help from wherever it arrived.

I want to be very careful not to appear as though I am telling other cultures exactly how they should attack their own problems and image, but one thing I know (and this is what Joe Petrosino knew), the solution can only come when honorable and patriotic Americans decide that curing the diseases that infect their own culture is more important than defending the worst of the worst because of some skewed notion of "unity."


Each Community Must Find Its Own Answers

I don't have the particulars or all the answers for you. Some cultures have a much harsher history of oppression than the southern Italians had. My father used to tell me that a second generation Italian-American could get a haircut, buy a new suit, get an education and blend in with the rest of the greater society. But Americans of African descent couldn't use that strategy. A haircut, a new suit and a large vocabulary do not alter the color of your skin.

Thankfully, we live in a day where the content of one's character is more often than not trumping the color of one's skin. But the change in attitudes isn't universal yet and it hasn't helped everyone; the prison rates among young African-American males remains frightfully high. I don't pretend to have the answers, but Joe Petrosino taught me this much, whatever the answers may be, they must be found within each community.


The first step for any culture, stop glorifying your worst members.

I don't mind the mockery of the mob stereotype on shows like The Simpsons. I am a big fan of Chico Marx too. Just like any other aspect of US history and culture, some good-natured satire can be very funny. But the glorification of organized crime or any implication that all Italian-Americans are somehow potential mobsters should not be tolerated by Americans of Italian descent.

Hopefully other cultures will be smart enough to stop glorifying the worst members of their communities. Until then, I'll keep tallking about Joe Petrosino even as The Sopranos garners more Emmy nominations and spreads into syndication.

Hating elements of your own culture can sometimes be a marvelous thing.

True: Barack Obama's middle name is Hussein.

Question: Who cares?

Well, I would have to answer that I kinda care and I kinda don't care. Since most of us don't choose our own names we cannot possibly be held responsible for our middle names. My middle name has "religious significance"... but not for me. My youngest daughter's middle name has theological significance for me (as does my other daughter's first name), but it may mean nothing to her.

Barack may have been educated for a time in a madrassa. That may or may not be of relevance. If he says it means nothing and there is nothing in his life or in his rhetoric that points to madrassa-like positions then we must take him at his word. I was educated in a religious school, attended religion classes years after that and even taught such classes. However, no one would confuse my current beliefs for the doctrines of my former faith.

I hope this idiocy concerning Barack's name will end soon. If he starts quoting Muhammad then we should take a closer look at his affiliation, but until then the topic should be dropped.


It's a Choice

Is one's choice of religious affiliation relevant? Of course it is. Mitt Romney chooses to affiliate with the Latter Day Saints (Mormons). That's relevant. Whether you like the doctrines of the LDS or not, his choice is a legitimate issue.

Let's say I choose to affiliate with a group that teaches that God lives on Mercury and he has chosen the people born in 1966 to become gods. Further, our founder stated that all other religious beliefs are heresy and anyone not born in 1966 is the spawn of demons. We also hold that Estonia is the center of the universe. Does asking me about the beliefs of the church of my own choosing amount to bigotry or "religious hatred?"

What if our founder stated that our church is superior to the Constitution? Would my choice of affiliation not be relevant?

Please note, I am not saying that the LDS holds these beliefs or anything similar. I only use Romney as an example because he's current and anyone who questioned the doctrines of his choice of affiliation (or who dared to actually quote Brigham Young or Joseph Smith) was immediately labeled a "bigot" or worse. Hey Mitt, if you're a Mormon, be proud, be loud!


Good Americans

I have supported and voted for Presidential candidates that were affiliated with churches that I find theologically wholly unacceptable (and rejected candidates who hold views far closer to my own). However, I did so because I knew that they did not necessarily accept all the doctrines of their own churches. If I believed that the candidate was a patriotic American who honored the Constitution I felt comfortable with my support.

Many of my heroes held religious views contrary to my own. Washington, Adams, Jefferson all were affiliated with theological organizations or movements that I find objectionable. They understood the concept of a republic. They took their vow to uphold and defend the Constitution seriously. They were guided by religious and moral statutes yet they did not govern as adherents to sectarian distinctives.


Why Not Just Answer the Question?

All candidates should gladly answer questions about their choices of affiliation. Religion is not a race, it is not a gender, it is not an ethnicity, it is a choice. We should all be willing to answer for our choices. Romney's refusal to defend his own church was the reason I didn't support him... and my faith has little in common with the LDS.

As a candidate, I would happily answer for what I used to believe and what I currently believe. Hey if somebody wants to reject me because he is not comfortable with my answers, so be it.

The last thing I'd say as a candidate is "don't ask me about my faith," but once I've answered a question thoroughly, I would hope that whatever my answer does in terms of support of lack of support would suffice.

The last thing I'd want in a campaign is for someone to assume things about me because of my middle name. The candidates should welcome questions about their affiliations (sectarian and secular) and welcome whatever comes with their answers.