Cordoba - NO!

Once again I suspect Political Islam is using our Constitution as a shield to make a statement. In a highly inappropriate and controversial move, an Islamic group is attempting to build a mosque in the shadows of Ground Zero in New York.
Clearly, they have the legal right to do so. We do not distinguish between religions when granting private property rights. Imam Rauf, the leader of this project, describes himself as a “bridge builder.” However, Muslims all over the world howl when their “sensitivities” are offended. They rioted across Europe when a cartoonist portrayed Muhammed with a bomb in his turban. A bounty was put on the head of Salman Rushdie’s head for the unconscionable act of writing a book. Film director Theo Van Gogh was murdered for offending Islam after being condemned by a local imam. Offend the sensibilities of Islam and you will get a reaction.
But now, it seems the shoe is on the other foot. Many of us are now having our sensibilities offended by the audacity of this group to put a mosque in the shadow of the place where 3,000 of our fellow citizens were murdered by fundamentalism Muslims that did so while invoking Allah.
If Imam Rauf and his group are truly dedicated to interfaith harmony, I dare them to prove it. I would take their claims to be “bridge builders” more seriously if they said, “We understand the pain that was brought by this errant group of young men that murdered in the name of Islam. They were wrong and they did not in any way represent Islam. We understand the painful association of that day with Islam and we will do everything in our power to distance Islam from it. We will build our mosque in another place.”
But that is not their approach at all. The governor of New York has offered to find another, more suitable, location. But this group wants none of it. One can only conclude that they mean to put salt in the wound.
Symbolism is important. Flying a confederate flag on one’s car antenna on Martin Luther King Day would say something very bad about you even if you have every right to do it and even if you are claiming solely to be proud of your Southern Heritage. The symbolism of the name “Cordoba House” (commemorating Muslim conquest of Cordoba in a bloody battle) is not lost.
As a legal and Constitutional matter, there is not much that can be done if this group doesn’t voluntarily come to its senses. But I am in New York frequently and if they do built it (I still have my doubts), I plan to stop by. I will park in front of it, pop open a beer and flip through a Playboy magazine. Maybe I’ll even find a girl in a bikini to sit on my lap. It would also be great if I can find a couple of friends that are gay, so that I might have them join me while they hold hands in plain eyesight. I’m all for celebrating tolerance.

A Piece of Work

It sometimes pays to be open minded. You would have had a difficult time convincing me that one of the most inspirational life stories I’ve heard lately came from a whacky, 77 year old Jewish lady that has had way too much plastic surgery. But it’s true.

I grouped ­­­­­­­­Joan Rivers with entertainers like Dean Martin, Rowan & Martin, Don Rickles, and the Smothers Brothers. I remember watching them all as a child, mostly with my grandmother on our little black and white TV. They were irreverent and edgy for their time, and often used race, gender, sexual innuendo and other heretofore off-limits topics. They paved the way for folks like George Carlin and Richard Pryor in the following generation, but now I view them as at least two generations out of date.

But, intrigued by her interview with Terry Gross on Fresh Air, I went to see “Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work.” I was fascinated by mixture of the emotional reaction that the film evoked—admiration and sadness. The film gives us an inside and candid look at Joan Rivers’s life and history by following her around behind the scenes as she continues to rebuild and reinvent herself at age 77. You can’t help but be inspired by this woman’s tenacity, resilience, and drive and this late stage in her life. At an age when most people are long retired (or even gone), old Joan is still hustling for gigs, doing tours, producing a musical, writing a book---anything to keep her career going forward. And one is never sure if she is doing this because she needs to (she apparently was not a very good financial planner), or whether she continues to hustle because she is an irrepressible workaholic and cannot stop. She is horrified by the notion that she is a has- been, and there are times in her act when you see that time has passed her by. Yet there are times when she still truly is funny. Despite the constant rejection, the humiliation of having to perform in out of backwater places rather than New York or Vegas, she persists and you get a real feel for the tremendous and genuine internal strength of this woman.

There is also a thread of sadness that runs through the film. You know that time has, in fact, passed her by. Her best years are behind her and you also see that, as in most careers, one bad slip can have lasting and permanent consequences. After rising to stardom on the coattails of her mentor, Johnny Carson, she accepted an offer for her own show to compete with him. He never forgave her and never spoke to her after that. Her show was ultimately a flop and she ended up being blackballed by NBC as and as a result nearly went bankrupt. The career and financial reversals were too much for her husband, who took his own life. Her life was permanently changed in every way by the decision to leave Carson.

Later, she was let down by another man—her manager, who she was forced to fire because of his chronic undependability after years and years of service. So, here Joan continues to fight the fight on, largely alone in the world, except for her daughter. One senses the deep sadness and loneliness of it all as she nears the twilight of her life with few people to share it with. Yet, she soldiers on.

I truly enjoyed the film and enjoyed what it said about her and about life. It did drag in a few parts—the editing was quite poor. But it captured the essence of a driven woman, who, despite her flaws, was marvelously talented, energetic, and extremely hard working. Above all, I found her ability to deal with what life threw at her, and her ability to use humor to deflect some of life’s toughest stuff quite inspiring.

The final message in the film for all of us is that as a society, we will be required to work longer. Sixty five (an arbitrary age) can no longer be sustained as the “normal” retirement age by our entitlement programs, pension programs and, since the financial panic decimated our savings and the equity in our homes, our own savings. The reality is that most of us will need to work longer. And, while some may see the pathos in Joan Rivers still out hawking her schtick at her age, I also see someone who is very much alive, still productive, still taking on challenges, still doing the things she loves doing. And that is the upside for the bulk of us boomers that will be working into our late 60’s and 70’s.

We're No. 1 .....or 2 or 3?

Happy Birthday, America! For over 200 years, you have been a leader in progress, liberty, knowledge, and growth. You have provided millions and millions with a place to pursue their dreams, and crawl out of poverty and build fortunes. In America, people of all religions, all cultures are tolerated like nowhere else in the world. In times of crisis, when terrible tyrannical regimes threatened it, you pushed back, America, and shoved these dictators back into the dustbin of history.

You see, there is a peculiarly “American” character. It is self-reliant, resilient, entrepreneurial, competitive and willing to take risks. This character, I believe, arises out of being populated by people that were not satisfied with the status quo—people that escaped suffocating systems and instead bet on their own resourcefulness. Our people, and all our organizations strive to be number one. We want to be on top. It is in our DNA. And we admire people that get there. Witness the 2 million people that turned out to say congratulations to the Chicago Blackhawks last month for winning the Stanley Cup. This inner drive, this competitive nature is one of the things that sets us apart as a people. Our history is littered with examples of individuals overcoming odds, seizing the initiative and doing great things from Thomas Edison, Steve Jobs and Bill Gates to the soldiers at Point Du Hoc and Valley Forge. We like winners. Even when we don’t end up on top, we aspire to, always.

But listen carefully to Obama and his spokespeople. That’s not what they are saying, and the message from this administration has been consistent—we no longer seek leadership. To Team Obama, we are absolutely ok with being number 2 or 3 or 4. There is something wrong with being numero uno.

Obama himself said in his infamous quote, “"I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism, and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism." So, we’re exceptional, just like everyone else.

That’s thinking like a winner.

John Holdren, Obama’s science czar said a few weeks ago, “The U.S. can’t be expected to be number one in everything indefinitely.”

Gee, that’s inspiring.

Or how about Tim Geithner’s statement just last week, “America can no longer drive global growth."?

That's visionary.

This is all just appalling and at variance with what America is all about. In my way of thinking, if you aspire to be an also-ran, that’s where you end up. I can’t imagine any CEO of any company announcing in its annual report, “We’re in an environment with lots of able competitors. We can’t be expected to be number one in our market all the time. It’s just not realistic.” The board of directors would summarily show him the door. There wouldn’t be second thought about it. And a heave-ho would be well-deserved.

But this is the mindset of the current Democratic leadership in Washington, and is troubles me greatly. The message is consistent across all agencies—America can no longer be number one, not in business and the economy, not in science, not in promoting liberty.

We should not tolerate leaders that say such things. Sure, we have obstacles to overcome. But we have great strengths as a nation. We have an economic system that, at core, is vibrant and strong. We have by far the greatest university system in the world. We have the strongest and most professional military in the world. We have paved the way for millions to throw off the yoke of tyranny and lead a better life.

And the faster we throw these guys out of office and replace them with leaders that expect great things from us and from themselves, the faster we will get back on track as a nation. That's leadership. We're the greatest nation on the planet. Don't let these guys tell you otherwise.

Healed

The years between the ages of 8 and about 13 or 14 are a magical time for a boy. Those are the years that are sandwiched between giving up your toys but before you have discovered girls and beer. For most of us, professional sports filled the gap. We followed our local teams in the standings, memorized statistics, read books about legends and lore, and debated who should be MVP. Almost all of our waking hours outside school and outside actually playing sports revolved around our local teams.

In Chicago during the late 60’s and early 70’s, the Blackhawks were the top ticket in town. The Bears were terrible. The Bulls had not yet gotten off the ground. The White Sox were generally mediocre. And the Cubs broke our hearts with their spectacular and legendary collapse in 1969. But in 1969, the Blackhawks had acquired a future hall of fame goaltender, Tony Esposito, and a fiery redheaded defenseman, Keith Magnuson, along with his college teammate Cliff Koroll, to complement the power of Bobby Hull and finesse of Stan Mikita. Although they were swept by Bobby Orr and the Bruins in the 1970 playoffs, by the 1970-71 season, the Hawks had arrived, winning 49 games and swept the first round of the playoffs. In the second round, it took them a full 7 games to defeat the New York Rangers, and they faced the Montreal Canadiens in the finals, who finished in 3rd place and did not make the playoffs the previous season. The Habs were also starting an untested rookie goalie, Ken Dryden. The Hawks looked poised to win their first Stanley Cup since 1961.

The Hawks had home ice advantage and took a 2-0 lead in the series, only to squander it in Montreal to bring it back to Chicago tied 2-2. Chicago went up again with a 2-0 victory in Chicago, and had the opportunity to win the cup in Montreal, but they faltered, losing narrowly 4-3. This set the stage for game 7 in Chicago. The city was all abuzz with the possibility of a Stanley Cup win at the Stadium. The Wirtz family steadfastly refused to televise home games, believing that if the game was on TV, people would not buy tickets. Nonetheless, rumors swirled that the Wirtz’s would relent and let us watch our beloved Blackhawks on TV in the crucial game 7. He did not, and we were consigned to listening to the game on a.m. radio. But the voice and timbre of play-by-play announcer Lloyd Pettit made the game come alive.

I remember that day like it was yesterday. We were pretty confident that the Blackhawks would prevail in the end. They had a tough defense buttressed by Tony Esposito, who had set the record for shutouts the year before, Tony Esposito and a dominating offensive player in Bobby Hull. My best buddy and I had already plotted to defy the nuns at our school, play hooky and attend the planned parade and rally downtown. It was a very warm night and I remember running back to my room after getting a soft serve ice cream from the ice cream truck to listen to Lloyd Pettit on my old wooden cased radio.

The Hawks went up 1-0 on a goal by Danny O’Shea, followed a bit later with a goal by Dennis Hull. While the Canadiens had successfully contained Bobby Hull, we were ecstatic as it would be difficult to crawl out from under a 2-0 hole. The Hawks had a chance to seal it when Bobby Hull had an open shot with Dryden going down. A 3-0 lead would have been almost impossible to overcome but Hull’s powerful shot clinked off the crossbar. A few inches lower, and the result would have been a fait accompli.

Then a freakish thing happened. Jacques Lemaire took a shot from center ice. The usually reliable Esposito seemed to lose the puck and it went in, giving the Canadiens life. Later the Canadiens tied it 2-2 and the persistent Rejean Houle, whose sole job was to shadow Hull, was able to frustrate him.

Eventually, the Canadiens’ speed prevailed. The image Henri Richard speeding past a sprawling Keith Magnuson is forever burned in my memory and he tucked it behind Esposito taking the lead 3-2. The Hawks had several opportunities to tie it, but Dryden came up with save after save. As the clock ran out, I was in utter disbelief, and I remember lying face down on my bed for a long time, sobbing. It’s probably hard to understand the depth of the disappointment but the closest thing would probably have been a Christmas where Santa just didn’t show up. My opportunity to play hooky would take decades to come again. I would have to find another way to defy Sister Lawrence.

The Hawks had one more chance at the finals in 1973 but the Canadiens again snuffed them out in six games. Another trip to the finals in the early 1990’s was dispatched quickly in 4 games. The franchise continued to sputter and a few years ago was voted the worst sports franchise by ESPN. I remember feeling very sad when I attended the game after Keith Magnuson was killed and the Blackhawks had a pregame tribute to him. His wife and children were there and it was shameful to see an attempt to honor a player that exemplified the franchise with pride, spirit and hustle with a United Center that was only about 1/3 full.

So it was more than just another Chicago championship when the Blackhawks won the Stanley Cup this week. Following the resurgence of the franchise over the past couple of years with these young stars has been a great deal of fun, and Rocky Wirtz has done a masterful job of reconnecting his fan base. Still, watching Philly tie the game Wednesday night to send it into overtime sent chills down my spine and nearly provoked flashbacks rivaling PTSD. But eventually, star Patrick Kane sealed it with his overtime goal (although it took us a few moments to figure out whether it was a good goal or not). For me, the victory was a reprise of real emotional significance, like the healing of a childhood trauma.

Despite a deskful of work and projects and deadlines, I decided to take the morning off and join my wife and my daughter at the parade. The weather was hot and sticky the Hawks were 30 minutes late. I almost gave up waiting. Finally, the buses rolled past and fittingly, atop one of the first buses were my old heroes that never got a chance to lift the Cup—Stan Mikita, Bobby Hull and Tony Esposito, and behind them the new generation of true champions. 39 years after that missed parade in 1971, I finally got to play a little hooky, and to see the Stanley Cup glinting in the sunlight in person. It was worth the wait.

Who's the Luddite?

Earlier this month at a commencement address at Hampton University earlier this month, President Obama astonished me by slamming new technology, “You're coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don't always rank that high on the truth meter," he told the students. "And with iPods and iPads, and Xboxes and PlayStations -- none of which I know how to work -- information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation. So all of this is not only putting pressure on you; it's putting new pressure on our country and on our democracy."

This is quite a statement from our post-racial, post-political, new age, tech savvy president. When he first came to office, there were stories about how difficult it might be to maintain cyber-security since Obama was hooked on his Blackberry. Another myth died before my very eyes.

President Obama’s quote is troubling for several reasons. First, Barack Obama sold us on a president that was more in tune with science, technology and progress than his predecessor was. People of science, rather than the proponents of creationism of the prior administration would hold sway in this administration. Between the killing of manned space flight at NASA and this whack at technology, I’m beginning to have some doubts about his commitment to American leadership in science and technology. These devices and advances are the result of cutting edge American creativity and technological progress. The hardware and software are largely products of American ingenuity (although Japan and India also have been major contributors). In addition, these are GREEN COMPANIES. They are not big smokestack entities belching out CO2 and dumping waste into our waterways. These products are the result of very smart, very nerdy people in clean little cubicles. These products represent the best of America’s transition from brawn to brains.

Most disturbing is Obama’s assertion that we need to be wary of unfiltered information, as if the 3 big networks and the New York Times should be our only fact-checked reliable source of news. Right. One only has to think back of the events of last summer in Iran to know that the uncontrolled Twitter was the only reliable source of information coming out of that country during the protests. The new technology IS a means of emancipation… from established media. Mr. President, we are perfectly capable of sorting out and distilling information. You are only partially correct that they are putting new pressures on our democracy. They are putting more pressure on our leaders to be more responsive. Even guys like me can have a blog with his own modest readership. We are no longer condemned to receiving information and viewpoints from a small cluster of media elite.

It is surprising that a conservative like me would actually embrace new communication and technology ahead of our new age president, but I have done so with some gusto. I wouldn’t exactly call myself an early adopter, but I have at least been in the second wave. I have not yet purchased an iPad, but I have had an iPod for several years and I bought a Kindle last year.

Here are my recommendations for information that is sometimes a distraction, but informative and entertaining nonetheless.

Best $100 I’ve spent this year.
Hands down it is my subscription to the Bloomberg podcasts. Tom Keene has wonderful guests. He has had Nuriel Roubini, Paul Volker, Gary Becker, Gary Schiller, and other top economists and analysts. Keene is extraordinarily well-prepared (I don’t know when he sleeps), analytical, and always very good humored. He is particularly skilled at getting technical analysts to frame up propositions so that less technical listeners can understand. Clearly, Keene makes his living discussing global markets but he stays far away from partisan politics. We can all agree that we are in a major era of economic disruption, and I feel I have a much keener (no pun intended) view of the economy as a result of regular listening.

Favorite Lefty.
Terry Gross. I can’t help myself. I’ve been listening to Fresh Air for 25 years and I still like the guests she is able to attract, and she attracts a pretty wide swath of people. A high percentage of them are in the arts and music and many are on the leg of a book tour, but she is respectful and is able to get guests to open up to her on a very human level. Her interview with Tony Judt (a NYU professor and writer stricken with ALS) was so compelling that I wrote an email to Mr. Judt (from which I received a warm reply. Ms. Gross restrained herself magnificently when she interviewed Carl Rove, although I got the sense that she was squirming in her seat.

When I Need a Good Rant.
Mark Levin (www.marklevinshow.com). I have to be in the mood to listen to Levin. But when I’ve really had it with the Obama/Reid/Pelosi troika, a half an hour with Levin is cathartic. He keeps you focused on the frontal assault on individual liberty that Team Obama is attempting to implement. While I don’t much care for the call-in “man in the street” interchanges, his blunt commentary on individual liberty and American exceptionalism is refreshing.

Kindle.
I like my Kindle but don’t love it. Reading with a Kindle does not replicate reading a book. Reading a book is a sensual experience as well as an intellectual one. I love the feel and smell of a new book, and I like to flip back between pages of a text. I find the percentage of completion indicator (rather than page numbering) annoying. And the little square peg that you use to navigate is clunky.

Still, there are features of the Kindle that I like. It is easy to cart around, especially while travelling. It is perfect for purchasing books which are more contemporary and will likely not be read again. In that respect, it is much more economical than purchasing hard cover books. I like the fact that I can order and receive a book instantaneously. The economy has figured out how to extract money from me in smaller increments.


Social Media.
I don’t Twitter….yet. But I do have a rudimentary Facebook and LinkedIn profiles (which I need to upgrade). I’m still groping around for the proper amount of information to put out there in what is a public forum. Both are useful to connect with people, especially interesting long lost classmates that you were curious about. In some ways, it has made class reunions somewhat obsolete. You get to find out what happened to people and only need to correspond with those that you would like to correspond with. I’m still not sure of the value of LinkedIn. A large percentage of people that want to connect to my network are not people I particularly want to be connected to.

So there you have it. President Obama, you are dead wrong. These new devices and the new technology is tremendously empowering and liberating. See? I just posted it. Anyone around the world with access to the internet can read it. So there.

Suffer the Children

Our ultimate responsibility as a nation is to preserve the Constitution and the freedoms guaranteed by it to future generations. An important corollary is the responsibility to preserve the American Way of Life and economic opportunity for the generations that follow. Our children and their children are our most important priority.

Unfortunately, the Left doesn’t quite see it that way.

In February, President Obama dumped a $3.8 trillion budget on Congress with huge deficits that go on ad infinitum. Congress, in turn, won’t even pass a budget. It intends to tax, spend, and borrow without one. Under the cover of “stimulus,” these people are stealing from our children and grandchildren. My liberal friends blithely say, “Well, we’ll just have to raise taxes at some point.” On who? My children and grandchildren, stealing opportunity from them—money they could be using to save and invest, to feed the Left’s constituents today. No wonder the Tea Party is becoming a recognizable political force. We are clearly back to taxation without representation. But this is the most insidious kind. They are pillaging a generation that hasn’t been born yet and and therefore cannot resist or rebel.

Now it seems that the Left has stooped to a new low. A couple of educational bureaucrats in Highland Park are cynically using the Highland Park girls’ basketball team to advance their own wrongheaded political agenda. They have announced that the team will be cancelling their planned trip to Arizona citing “safety concerns” but really in protest of Arizona’s recently passed immigration law.

Now you’ve hit home, guys. Playing high school and college sports is one of the most gratifying, fun and important growing experiences a kid can have. Sportsteaches discipline, hard work, the importance of working together and getting along (even when there are teammates you don’t particularly like). It is important in building self-confidence and self-esteem. In a world of immediate gratification, sports teaches the importance to deferred reward. Further, it is only in the last 10-15 years that girls’ sports has really taken off. I have been impressed with the level of play and the skill level that girls programs have achieved. The memories of those experiences and the bonds that are created last a lifetime. I know. I’ve been there.

And these despicable creatures in Highland Park want to ruin this experience for these girls to make a political statement. It’s fine if you want to protest. Write a letter. Call you Congressman. Boycott watching “los Suns” games on TV. But don’t ruin the trip of a lifetime for these kids. I find it particularly revolting that these girls have achieved near equality with boys in facilities, resources, play and coaching level—all the things that Title IX was all about. And now you want to take away a fun experience to satisfy your petty little grievance with a state that is not even yours (not to mention whether or not your position has any merit). This is outrageous.

The Left, through its propaganda arm, the New York Times, has been all over Pope Benedict and the Catholic Church for the child abuse scandals. Fair enough, and I joined in that criticism. But the Left is engaging in its own form of child abuse. By stealing from them to feed their own constituents (which happens to include the teachers’ unions, I might add) and by using them as political pawns and denying these girls in Highland Park the opportunity to compete, they are engaging in their own form of child abuse.

The Disconnected

The president’s approval ratings continue to drift downward. The approval ratings of Congress are scandalously low—I think Lawrence Taylor’s are actually better than Harry Reid’s and Nancy Pelosi’s. A recent Pew poll indicated that 80% of Americans distrust government. These are serious numbers. Two years after the worst financial crisis in three generations, and we still do not have a financial reform bill. Drugs and gangs are pouring into Mexico and we cannot protect our border. Oil is gushing into the Gulf of Mexico, ruining Southern economies and the ecosystem for a generation and our administration flips us off, saying “It’s not our job. It’s BP’s.” Terrorists have attacked us from inside our military (Administration immediate response: “Let’s not jump to conclusions”), a have attempted to blow up an airliner (Administration immediate response: “The system worked”) and slaughter people in Times Square (Administration immediate response: “This is a one-off”). Almost on cue, Robert Gates yesterday announced that we need to drastically reduce our military spending. No wonder Democrats like Bart Stupak and David Obey have bailed. The administration’s slavish devotion to liberal dogma – abundant social spending and reflexive softness on matters of security- is disconnected him from the polity.

But the Obama administration is not alone. The Catholic Church is also embroiled in the most serious crisis of confidence since Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door in Wittenburg. The child abuse scandals have roiled the church both in America and in Europe, and have implicated the Pontiff himself. In response, the Pope launched his own “apology tour” of sorts. But the magnitude and insidiousness of the crisis screams for fundamental reform. However, the elevation of Benedict to the papacy in 2005 signaled that the Church is headed in the other direction. Known as “God’s Rotweiller”, Ratzinger is a hard line Catholic fundamentalist; his position is and has been to dig a moat around the Vatican and not open the big issues of celibacy, birth control, and Catholic supremacy up for discussion. That the Vatican would even consider putting up Pius XII for sainthood tells me that there is something dreadfully wrong with the church hierarchy. Sainthood to me equals beyond reproach in any respect. It is the Catholic moral hall of fame. Given the time that Pius XII was at the helm of the church and Germany’s Catholic tradition, it is simply not possible for Pius XII to be considered for beatification.

As I thought about it more, Obama and Pope Benedict face parallel problems. In both cases, the governing hierarchy is utterly disconnected from the governed. They simply are not listening. Their views are rooted in their immutable fundamentalist beliefs that cannot be varied no matter what evidence is presented to them and what the people are saying.

In his recent book, “Practicing Catholic,” James Carroll (a former priest and self-described dissident Catholic) says:

“It seems harsh to say so, but cruelty underlies the shy pope’s evident goodwill. That is because the ideology he advances for Roman Catholicism cares less for actual people (men and women in the hopeless dead end of a failed marriage, say) than for esoteric abstractions (the absolute indissolubility of matrimony). It is this aspect of Pope Benedict’s mindset that qualifies him as the chief sponsor of the new Catholic fundamentalism, enforced with no regard for the real cost to human beings.”

The Catholic Church and the U.S. are each now governed by the most ideological leaders in a generation. Pope Benedict has been largely deaf to his constituents. But Obama cannot remain deaf forever. We have mid-term elections in six months.