The Birth of the "Birthers:" Are They OED Worthy?

"A lot of people talk about Obama and his Messianic complex," joked Rush Limbaugh on his conservative talk show recently, "but he does have one thing in common with God. God doesn't have a birth certificate either" (Kleefeld 1).

Since words often have a funny etymology anyway, I figured a bit of humor was as good a way as any to introduce my new "candidate" for the OED. Besides, its inclusion on the nation's most listened to radio program shows not only how widespread this conservative "conspiracy theory" has become. And, since they have even made a splash across the pond, I thought this was further proof our OED brethren should give them a shot.

A birther is one who "rejects the legitimacy of the President of the United States citizenship and therefore his eligibility to be president." ("Barack") Although the Birther Movement was born in the blogosphere, the exact origin of the term remains somewhat murky. Most agree "the 'birther' nickname is half adapted from the 9/11 'truthers'" (Page 40) -- there is quite a difference of opinion, mainly along party lines, as to their importance or remaining relevance. Most of the birthers' claims against Obama's citizenship have something to do with his birth certificate (either due to the fact it was never seen publicly, or there is some flaw in the document that has been shown digitally) which led to speculation that Barack was born elsewhere -- most likely in Kenya, as was Obama's father. And so, while the birther's original goal was to prevent Obama from running, their current focus is to remove him from office.

O'Toole on O'Toole Part III: Renewing America while Saving Notre Dame

You start out by innocently musing with a fellow alum about your alma mater's ethical future. Next, you write a politically prophetic blog with a touch of dark humor, and forget about it. Nine months later the blog is re-born on a national Web site, and suddenly you are a leader in the conservative Catholic movement that for a couple of months (an eternity in the era of cyberspace) captures the imagination of the nation. Welcome to the brave new world of blogging, where your rhetoric can make you famous for a time-- and you still don't make a dime!

The event I eluded to, of course, is President Barack Obama's commencement speech at Notre Dame. The national online paper is Renew America, which as you can probably guess just from their header picture, is a leading right wing, conservative Christian site. Thus, writing for RA is a cross (pun intended!) between writing for Culture Wars and the Elmhurst Press: you needn't make your points subtlely, but you do have to make them relatively brief. So long drawn out historical examples are out, but quick, modern proofs and fables are in.

O'Toole on O'Toole Part II: Catholic Capitalism, Malloy's Employment and Novak's Nonsense

"Catholic Capitalism?: A View from behind the Counter," the cover article I wrote for the orthodox but feisty Catholic magazine Culture Wars over a decade ago, is an extended feature and will serve as the sole text of my second critique. Of course, at over 6,000 words, this article is as long as many pamphlets and thus should, if written with the right ethical, pathetic and extrinsic proof, be able to stand on its own with no problem. On the other hand, finding the right balance (ethos) between an academically acceptable article and a roller coaster of personal pathos is not easy, but I believe it's still possible to a loyal Catholic if you remember your faith and one important fact. In other words; pray and make sure the pope is on your side!

Unlike the Elmhurst Press (and almost any other publication), Culture War's editor, E. Michael Jones, lets you make your points about orthodox Catholicism boldly rather than subtlety, and gives you enough space to state your argument both openly and completely--so you'd better be ready to stand and deliver. Realizing it's better to start off a CW essay with a cannon than a cap gun, I open the article with two opposing quotes from "Catholic" authorities that couldn't be more contrasting if I had made the words and people up myself. While even the most ardent of agnostics can see these openings on the poor are polar opposites, these quotes (and authorities) were chosen precisely for this point; far from the liberal-pseudo Catholic talking heads who falsely claim their opinion is just as important as the pope's, the formerly left-leaning Michael Novak now claims to be a conservative Catholic, loyal to all the pope teaches. By juxtaposing the quotes, I am already insinuating that Novak's case for Catholic capitalism is ambiguous (Ancient Rhetoric, pgs.175-176) at best.

O'Toole on O'Toole: Inside "Inside Elmhurst"

While assessing one's own talents is a difficult task for any soul with a shred of humility, for a writer to comment on his own writing is a daunting duty indeed. Nevertheless, I hope that the perspective I've gained from the time that has passed between story and critique, coupled with the added insight attained from the classical orators and philosophers, is enough to render both my ethos desirable and my words worthwhile. And, since I've often found that reading the artist's personal take on a piece they've written to be a sort of literary icing on the cake, I guess it's only fitting I attempt to share some thoughts on my works too.

The first group of writings that I'd like to look at are three newspaper articles I wrote during my tenure as columnist for "Inside Elmhurst." Although this type of column, which is meant to drum up interest in the community, is common in many local papers, in the past I tended to find these features either boring, a sort of extended community calender that provided little insight (let alone excitement) about the event, or gossipy, whose alleged exclusive tips always bordered on baloney. Since this was not the ethos I wished to create between me and my community, I sought a different way, a trust based on the commonplaces I shared with the common man.

Poe is Woe and Woe is Poe: The me I see in Annabel Lee

Back in high school, when my taste for horror and the related genres was much higher (as was I!) I loved to dig into the short stories of these masters of disaster, especially those of Kafka and Poe. To me, if Kafka spelled "catastrophe," then Poe surely meant "woe," and these twin towers of impending doom never failed to give me a good time, in a bad sort of way.  Then came college, and my sadness focus shifted to Edgar Allan, not only because he (too) wrote poetry, but also spoke of a real, really heavy relationship with a woman! And so, just as my fondness for Poe's prose goes way back, my admiration for "Annabel Lee" dates from "many and many a year ago" as well. And thus, when considering both my "old flames" and current love(s), this poem not only demonstrates Tyson's conjecture that "reader-response theorists believe that even the same reader reading the same text on two different occasions will probably produce different meanings ..." (pg.170) but in my case proves Donald W. Hall's point #8 that, "It is possible to [still] enjoy a work of literature and [now, at least to a large extent] disagree with the author!"

First, from a strictly structuralist standpoint, one is amazed that "Annabel" succeeds despite such a simplistic rhyme scheme. I can vouch from experience that for most budding poets, ending all six verses with virtually the same rhyme scheme ("me," "sea," and "Lee," with the exception of verse five, where "we" is substituted for "me") would be a recipe for disaster, as in a "D" or worse. How, then, does Poe pull this poem off? Certainly, the internal rhyme (especially in the last verse) helps, as does the heavy dose of alliteration. Yet even the internal rhyme is inconsistent, and much of the alliteration ("many and many," "But we loved with a love that was more than love") repeats the exact same words as well. I argue that the simple structure succeeds largely because it is built around a simple theme. Of course, "Annabel" is not written around just any simple theme, but the simple theme, that of a lost love. Furthermore, "Lee" is not just any lost lover, but a beautiful, tragic, young one drawn from the poet's deepest personal experience ...

"Shirley" She Must be a Prophet: My Jackson "Lottery" Reaction

Due to my CNN debut debacle, I sadly had to miss our last literary criticism class, along with the great "The Lottery" debate. Unable to join the discussion, I figured our final paper was my chance to "write now, or forever hold your peace." Of course, while "peace" is probably the last word most people would use to describe Shirley Jackson's short masterpiece, "prophecy" (of one of our society's greatest moral tragedies) may become one of "The Lottery's" greatest legacies, whether Jackson intended it to be or not.

Like war, the evil of human sacrifice has been with us since the beginning of time. However, unlike war, the destruction of innocent human beings, often performed for the purpose of appeasing the gods, has even from ancient times brought moral opposition, including when the Lord Himself stepped in to prevent Abraham from "offering up" his own son Issac (Genesis 22:1-18). Surely one might argue that in 1948, when Jackson published this disturbing short-story, human sacrifice (at least in civilized societies) was no longer taking place, so Shirley's tale must have been a metaphor for the shaft US women were getting in post-war America (especially in their loss of WWII jobs), or written to alert us to the fact that despite our defeat of Hitler, death was still the usual prospect for anyone in Russia or Yugoslavia who opposed the brutal dictatorships of Stalin or Tito. In other words, while Jackson's story no doubt made the short-story canon because it fulfilled all ten of Donald Hall's criteria for good literature, it would not have fulfilled "To Read Literature's" #2 statement of being "NOT predictable" if human sacrifice was still present in post-war America. But is it possible that Jackson foresaw a new "slaughter of the innocents" (Matt 2:16-18) whose seeds, while barely planted in 1948, took root in 1973, and came to fruition just this past weekend?

Focus on Francis: My Curious Conversation with Cardinal George

The following interview, deemed too controversial for several Catholic magazines, was conducted in October, 1998, shortly after George's arrival in Chicago. As I am going back to that fateful spot Friday, May 15th, this time to conduct a Notre Dame protest, I thought my "Focus on Francis" interview would be worth revisiting.

From everyone to whom much has been given, much will be required; and from the one to whom much has been entrusted, even more will be demanded (Luke 12:48).

The bishop is the steward of grace of the supreme priesthood especially in the Eucharist ... "sanctifying the Church by his example 'not as domineering over those in your charge but being examples to the flock' (1 Pet 5:3). He should not refuse to listen to his subjects whose welfare he promotes as his very own children ..." (Catechism of the Catholic Church #893, #896).

"Your interview with Cardinal George is set!" my wife exclaimed over the phone, her voice filled with emotion. It was seven months since we put in our magazine interview request with the Chicago Cardinal, and we were finally seeing the dream fulfilled—or so I thought. For as the interview unfolded, it became clear that the real dream was still a ways off, and it was up to his flock to fulfill it.

As we awaited our appointment with the successor of Cardinal Bernardin, I was surprised to find in George's waiting room only two magazines, both of dubious reputation. The coffee table contained a couple of issues of Commonweal, as well as the current issue of U.S. Catholic. Having had my fill of Commonweal for awhile (after reading the Aug. 14th issue's take on Truth entitled "Punishing Dissent," "The canons roar ... what John Paul II's Apostolic letters 'To Defend the Faith' and 'The Theological and Juridical Nature of Episcopal Conferences' mean and why they will be counterproductive ...") I instead picked up the U.S. Catholic to see if it had gotten any more orthodox since my last reading. A quick glance at the table of contents told me no, and after reading a U.S. Catholic article that contained a Protestant understanding of the Eucharist, I resolved to bring the issue up with George just as Mary McDonough, the Cardinal's communications director, ushered us in.