Auld Lang Syne 2007

Should auld acquaintance be forgot
and never brought to mind?
Should auld acquaintance be forgot
and days of auld lang syne?
For auld lang syne, my dear,
for auld lang syne,
we'll take a cup of kindness yet,
for auld lang syne.

Should auld acquaintance be forgot
and never brought to mind?
Should auld acquaintance be forgot
and days of auld lang syne?
And here's a hand, my trusty friend
And gie's a hand o' thine
We'll tak' a cup o' kindness yet
For auld lang syne

Listen

Michael E. Leahy 1954 - 2007

Michael had four older brothers and I was the oldest of three and in those days our two families joined together for holidays and regular weekend get-togethers. It was great adventure when we went off to visit with our Leahy cousins in Neponset, not always pleasant but usually educational. Like the time I foolishly tried on a pair of boxing gloves and quickly found I had several eager volunteers to demonstrate their use. Like many fleeting aspects of life, I have come to realize the significance of these years and recognize what a precious time it was.

Michael was born on January 15, 1954 which would have made him six months old when my father Frank, brother to Michael’s mother, Bridie, passed away at 43. And while I didn’t realize it at the time, Frank’s death would also mark a fork in the road, after which, our gang of eight would cease to be. Oh, we would see each other at the requisite family affairs like weddings and funerals, but we all were busy getting on with our lives to worry about the days of May Processions and Easter dinners. Fortunately for all of us, the blood bond has managed to endure, even in the face of our demanding lives.

As the years continued to pass, my brothers and I moved around to places where a family get together involved one or more airline flights. Our address books were always kept in pencil to accommodate the frequent changes. Erase Atlanta and write in New York or San Diego or even Atlanta and New York, once again.

The brothers Leahy followed a different path. Except for Denis, who God called home at a much-too-young age, they settled in, and near, St. Ann’s parish and raised families according to the values they learned at their parent’s knees, each in his own way helping to make their home town a better place. I admire their demonstrated commitment to their roots. It was in this tradition that Michael, his wife Pat and their two sons, Denis and Conor, made their home in the house on Port Norfolk Street that had been originally purchased by his parents. This was the house where so many of our family get togethers took place and it fills a warm niche in my memories.

Yesterday, Father Tom Foley celebrated Mike’s funeral mass and spoke of Mike's large heart and solid family values. For those few who didn't know Mike, I invite you to read the article that appeared in yesterday's Boston Globe or the vivid remembrance in the Dorchester Reporter written by his niece, Ann Mc Gough. Father Tom also talked about the importance of families and all those who have gone before us. I found myself remembering those days when we all piled into my father's car for a Sunday excursion. I remember how good it felt, blessedly ignorant of knowing how brief that time would be.

Yesterday, St. Ann’s was packed with mourners and our collective hearts went out to Mike’s wife Patricia and his two son’s, Conor and Dennis. All of the brothers, Mike’s and mine, know the pain of losing one’s father. And while there is little that can be done to shield them from their grief, I pray that the love and solidity of their extended family will help them bear their tragic loss.

Michael Leahy, R.I.P.

Christmas 101

In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that the whole world should be enrolled. This was the first enrollment when Quirinius was governor of Syria. So all went to be enrolled, each to his own town. And Joseph too went up from Galilee from the town of Nazareth to Judea, to the City of David that is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David to be enrolled with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child. While they were there, the time came for her to have her first child and she gave birth to a son. She wrapped him in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

Now there were shepherds in that region living in the fields and keeping night watch over their flock. The angel of the Lord appeared to them and the glory of the Lord shone around them. and they were struck with great fear. The angel said to them "do not be afraid; for behold, I proclaim to you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. For today in the city of David a savior has been born for you who is Messiah and Lord. and this will be a sign for you; you will find an infant wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger. And suddenly there was a multitude of the heavenly host with the angel, praising God and saying:

"Glory to God in the highest
and on earth peace to those on
whom his favor rests."
Luke 2

Paygo Blinks on the AMT

Having just taken the US Congress to task for its lack of accomplishments this year, I was pleased to see that the House finally did pass another "patch" to help taxpayers stave off the AMT monster for another year. For a brief moment it was fun to dream of one's pen (or keyboard) having the power to sway governments and that my humble blog had prodded those rascally Dems into action. Don't worry, I know a dream when I see one.

The Alternative Minimum Tax has been around since 1969 and was originally designed to go after a few very fat cats who managed to shield most, if not all, of their income from the tax man. Since it was never indexed to inflation, it has gradually expanded its impact to the point where it now is the effective tax system for millions of Americans, many of whom are a far cry from fat catdom. But rather than fix the ATM permanently, the Congress plays its annual game of passing a one-year fix, Sort of a fiscal stay of execution.

This year, the House Democrats threatened to adhere to their newly-adopted "Paygo" scheme which purports to tie a tax funding mechanism to every new program. You might recall that the SCHIP Bill, that was vetoed by the President, was going to be funded fully by American cigarette smokers. In the present case, they wanted to raise taxes to offset the loss of revenue that would result from fixing the highly unpopular AMT.

Let me get this straight. We have a tax, which everyone with any sense agrees has grown, through the long-term effects of inflation, to become something that it was never intended to be, but in order to fix it, we need an offsetting tax increase? This is what passes for logic in the vacuous world where Nancy Pelosi reigns and Charlie Rangell runs Ways and Means.

I suppose that we should be thankful to at least get the patch for a year, but I suspect it was passed only to get the President to sign the spending bill containing almost 9,000 earmarks at a cost estimated at $8 billion. Somehow I don't think that Paygo is part of the conversation among those pork aficionados as they line up at the trough. And this is with a veto-wielding president trying to hold against the tide.

Mitt Romney Meets the Press

Today, former Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney, went one-on-one with Tim Russert and emerged looking confident, articulate and, well…, in a word, presidential. Russert, who is well known for his even-handed administration of tough-love journalism, knows how to ask the tough questions and persists until he gets a cogent answer. But to his credit, Russert focuses primarily on those questions that are prominent in public discussions. He is very good at what he does and is head and shoulders above his journalistic peers.

One of the knocks on Romney, of course, is that his current positions on an assortment of issues have changed, especially since his days on Beacon Hill. Russert emphasized the point by waving a pair of colorful flip flops at Romney. I guess what goes around comes around. We still have our pair of John Kerry flip flops from 2004. God save us from cutesy slogans.

But Russert is a professional and, as usual, he was well-prepared with video clips to illustrate a position where Romney is thought to have lately changed his views. The issues included: abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage, gun control, and immigration. Romney readily admitted that some of his views have changes and painstakingly spelled out where appropriate how those changes evolved. Some of the answers were complicated, but then, these are complicated issues. I thought his response to the criticism he has received concerning the people who work on the landscaping of his Belmont home was particularly succinct. This is, by itself, is a silly “gotcha” flap, but it speaks to the larger issue of immigration which may end up being one of the most important issues of the presidential campaign. Some people demand simple declarative solutions to complicated questions, but simple answers aren’t always the best. By the time the interview concluded, I felt that he had fully addressed all the questions. More importantly, Tim Russert, who does not suffer weasel answers gladly, seemed satisfied.

I had only two criticisms of the program and they apply to the subjects of the questions asked. Entirely too much time was spent was spent discussing Romney’s faith. There are some people who, under the guise of enforcing the separation of church and state, would like to banish any trace of religion from our culture. But we remain a country built on a tradition of faith and I, for one, admire individuals possessing strong beliefs, but see no need to examine those beliefs, or the church from which they are espoused, to judge their merits. I would also have like to hear more of Romney’s views on international affairs. With the exception of one brief exchange dealing with Mike Huckabee’s criticism of President Bush for what he calls an “arrogant bunker mentality" in foreign affairs, there was little discussion of foreign relations. Romney, by the way, rejected Huckabee’s assertion and thought, rightfully so, that he owed the President an apology.

Well done, Mitt.

Animal House on Capitol Hill?

In addition to its listing in the VFPR's list of favorite films, Animal House was used today as an apt metaphor in a Wall Street Journal Article commenting on the inability of the US Congress to achieve closure on a long list of issues that seem to have fallen prey to internal squabbling.

The use of humor to make a political point is tricky business as many Op Ed cartoonists demonstrate regularly. There is a stinging reality attached when we realize that real issues are at stake. In a recent POST, I commented on the low ratings currently being enjoyed by the congress. The bad marks are more understandable when we note the list of important issues that the Congress just can't seem to resolve.

The Dems have been in charge for almost a year and the results are substantially less than sterling. Perhaps if the members spent more time working on important issues over which they actually have some control instead of second guessing the State and Defense Departments, we might have seen more progress.

In the meantime, get that checkbook ready for tax time when the sneaky stealth AMT takes another bite out of your income. Resolving the AMT is one of the many items that the Congress didn't quite get around to fixing this year.

Sailor Joe

Maybe we are over analyzing the motives of those that sidle up to Hugo Chavez and his cheap oil. Maybe the lure might be as simple as a ride on an oil tanker. Joe Kennedy seems to really be enjoying himself at This week's reception for Venezuela's latest oil shipment.

Hat Tip to Harry at Squaring the Globe

As If on Cue

Just when I needed a follow up to yesterday's piece regarding the anger of Muslim societies to emissaries from the West telling them, in the name of "women's rights" that their centuries-old religious beliefs are doing it all wrong, along comes the Boston Globe with a report of Hillary Clinton's answer to the question: What difference would it make if a woman is president? I found the second part of her answer interesting in light of yesterday's article:

"You know, when I gave that speech in '95 in Beijing, it was meant to be a kind of call to action about women's rights. And we've made some progress in the last 12 years, but we haven't made enough, and we can see how suppression of women is directly tied to extremism, to anti-democratic forces. I think that having a woman president. . . you know, I'm not running as a woman. I'm running because I think I'm the best qualified and experienced person to do the job, but having a woman president is a tremendous statement to the rest of the world that I think would be to America's advantage, and would help us more than any policy would on a lot of the forward movement that we need to have within societies when it comes to women."

Clinton's assertion that suppression of women is directly tied to extremism is in direct conflict with the argument put forth by Dinesh D'Souza and others that it is rather the fear of attack by the West on Muslim values that pushes traditional Muslims toward more extreme positions.

The Enemy at Home

Several Months ago, I marked the sixth anniversary of 9/11 with an article recalling my experiences on that day as well as my continuing frustration at understanding the perpetrators’ motivations. In spite of all that has been written about 9/11, its causes have remained stubbornly elusive, for many of us.

Earlier this year, Dinesh D'Souza published a book called The Enemy at Home, which does an excellent job of connecting the dots as it comes to grips with some of the underlying causes and effects of that great tragedy. Mr. D'Souza is the Rishwain Research Scholar at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, an author of several well-known books, and a frequent contributor to National Review. He is considered by many to be one of the leading conservative thinkers of our time.

In the months since its publication, a firestorm of debate has erupted around the book as readers chime in on the issues raised. The Book department at Amazon.com currently shows 125 Customer Reviews, many of which have sparked lengthy chains of follow-on comments, all of which amounts to quite a robust debate.

Interestingly, one thread that seems to recur through all of it is a question as to how many of the commentators have actually read the book. This is not just a shallow put-down. Many, it seems, have reacted to reports of particular portions of the book without the benefit of a thorough reading. While it is very well-written and tightly reasoned, these qualities do not make it an easy book to read. The ideas are powerful and readers often find themselves stopping along the way to ponder the points it raises

The book’s subtitle, The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11, reflects the book’s premise that the dissemination of liberal values through the export of our popular culture elicits negative blowback from Islamic Traditionalists. While this might be a difficult premise, especially for those on the left, I would suggest that much can be learned from one’s critics. Moreover, regardless of ones political orientation, a careful reader is guranteed to come away from this book with a better understanding of the dynamics and underpinnings of the War on Terror.

Whether you agree or disagree with traditional Koran-inspired Muslim tenets, it is important to understand what values they provide to their believers. But before looking at specific values, it is important to note the key role that Muslim law, or Sharia, plays in Muslim life as devout Muslims look to the Koran for guidance in virtually every aspect of daily life. This is in sharp contrast with American culture which goes to great lengths to separate the religious from the secular, a trend which has accelerated in recent times as religious influences are increasingly removed from public institutions.

D’Souza draws another distinction that is important to note and that is the difference between Traditional Muslims who seek nothing more than to be allowed to live according to their chosen rules, and the Radical Muslims who have twisted Muslim thinking to justify terrorist activities. In many ways, the key to winning the War on Terror depends upon our success in limiting support for the radicals among the Traditionalists. Put another way, what sort of pressures drive the Traditionalists toward the Radical camp?
Like many subjects, this answer to this question has many facets. One example, however, provides an interesting cause and effect. The Muslim faith, as most of us know, takes a very conservative stance on moral issues such as abortion, homosexuality, extra-marital sex, and modesty, to name a few. At the same time, the only image that millions of Muslims have of Western culture is that portrayed in our movies and TV shows, which typically contain themes and events that fly in the face of their beliefs.

In addition, they bristle at efforts made to introduce changes to their culture in the name of Women’s right, Gay Rights, Reproductive rights, etc. that are carried out through the aggressive programs of Western governments as well as Non Government Organizations. Here again, before debating these “causes” on their own merits, it is worthwhile to consider how the Muslims see such programs as a threat to their way of life. Also, this is but one example of the many causes of distrust between the Muslim and western worlds.

To this point, I have attempted to steer a neutral course in arguing that both ends of the political spectrum can learn something from D’Souza’s book. But as a concerned American, I need to take this discussion one step further. It is outrageous that my country is judged by others solely on the basis of the decadence spewed out by Hollywood and the values of the political left. I think we all have to ask ourselves if we are doing all we can to counter these trends.

I recommend that you get a copy of The Enemy at Home and spend the time to read it. I guarantee you will come away with a much better feel for the underpinnings of the War on Terror and the disturbing role of the cultural left..

The Oil Man Cometh

What is it about the US Congress? In spite of abysmally low ratings by the American People, they insist on an expansion of their role into areas where other parts of the government have prime responsibility.

Most recently, a press release from our own Bill Delahunt’s office announced that he is co-sponsoring House Resolution, H.J. Res. 53 which would modify the 1973 War Powers Resolution to provide for increased congressional approval for military action. Do we really need to have an additional 535 Commander-in-Chiefs?

Constitutional law is a murky subject and probably best left to experts, but it seems to me that some responsibilities are fairly clear, especially those vested in the Executive Branch. In addition to military leadership, the President also has full responsibility for our diplomatic efforts through the State Department. Why then would House Speaker Pelosi think it was a good idea to lead a congressional delegation to Syria? Her amateurish efforts, in April of this year, at "helping" the mid-east peace process ended up in muddled confusion and acted to undermine American diplomatic strategies.

Similarly, Bill Delahunt’s efforts at cultivating Venezuela strong man, Hugo Chavez have served to blunt the effectiveness of the Administration’s foreign policy. Having secured a supply of under-priced oil from Chavez to be distributed to low-income American citizens is, on-the-surface, a positive move. The specter of poor American’s shivering through a cold winter is sobering to be sure. At the same time, however, it is important to look behind the curtain at the source of this largess. The oil discount that Chavez is providing is being funded by a country with widespread poverty, much worse than anything in the Massachusetts Tenth Congressional District. Moreover, one does not have to be a diplomat to recognize that this gesture by Chavez is a blatant attempt to buy off American critics. If providing low-cost oil to Americans is a priority, then perhaps the Congress should develop a program that does not depend on the largess of a political thug.

Speaking at the United Nations in September, 2006, Chavez, in his abrasive manner, referred to President Bush as the devil, a widely held symbol of unmitigated evil, “Yesterday, the devil came here—right here, right here—and it still smells of sulfur today.” Where was the outrage that a head of state could come to our shores and insult our president? We certainly can debate the issues and we, as a country, are stronger for our consideration of differing opinions. But what kind of message are we sending to the world that we would tolerate this gibberish. In fairness to Delahunt, he did label Chavez’s comments, “silly” and “inappropriate.” I guess that told him.

Undeterred on the diplomatic front, Delahunt helped lead a congressional delegation to Cuba the very next month. Again, in contrast with the Bush administrations efforts at eliciting change in this Communist country, located 90 miles off our shores, Delahunt and his group proposed alleviation of the long-standing trade and travel sanctions against Cuba, which the American Government has used as a lever for social and political changes on the island. It’s not clear what Mr. Delahunt finds so inviting in these repressive regimes.

In the meantime, while congress is playing at diplomacy and defense management, a recent Gallup Poll shows that in response to the question: “Do you approve or disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job?” 69% of the respondents answered no. Go figure.