The American Spectator

Appleby| 5.4.09 @ 6:34AM

*HYPOCRITE!* is the scream of the teenager -- and increasingly of the Yners still at university -- who still believe that life is binary in nature. Oddly enough, these same kids find no problem in citing loopholes justifying the murder of babies -- no binary nature there! They also find plenty of loopholes in the Ten Commandments, and drag their lawyers to school with them to find loopholes in the regulation forbidding weapons and illegal drugs on campus, for just a few examples.

People with firm beliefs without loopholes frighten them. No cannot possibly mean No!

By the way, the defence of President Bush in this article is a sorry loophole-ridden screed, and I hope author never has to defend me in court.

Stuart Koehl| 5.4.09 @ 6:36AM

I have no problem with Mary Ann Glendon's decision to reject Notre Dame's invitation, but I do think it is a bit hyperbolic to describe her action as "heroic", as many cultural conservatives have done. Heroism implies a degree of risk and sacrifice; Ambassador Glendon is in no physical danger, has given up no material benefits, is not likely to harm her career (I doubt she is on Barack Obama's short list for any diplomatic posts). In fact, she is merely doing what she ought to be doing. Have we fallen so low that merely doing the right thing is now "heroic"? No wonder real heroism is a bit thin on the ground.

grampa guy| 5.4.09 @ 7:40AM

The operative phrase in this article is: "an award acceptance speech is not the proper forum for that."

The Left knows no "improper" forum. The personal IS the political, remember?

In a "proper" world, the press would not cover for a President. Ours does. His arguments would be gone over with diligence were the press not an accomplice. The "issue" of Notre Dame would be covered completely if the ideological red shoe were on the other foot. Therefore, Professor Glendon may have preached to the choir with her letter and refusal. If we don't play by the Left's rules, which is tantamount to no rules, we will end up fighting in the streets for our lives, rather than in debate. Rescind the refusal, and take him on. Pound it home on FOX and talk radio, and have Glendon take him down. It will be more of an education than these poor waifs will have received at a politically correct university anyway.

Time for the Pimpernel| 5.4.09 @ 7:43AM

If Obama had class (I'll wait) he would find a scheduling error. If Jenkins had class (again, I'll wait) he find a scheduling error and a resignation pen. That leaves us with the Lady, a classy, brilliant shining example of a lady.

Bill| 5.4.09 @ 7:49AM

Davey, we did not know you believed in God.. hmm seems that would change your attitude some...anyway thanks again for the good laugh.....:)

ds80| 5.4.09 @ 7:58AM

Copperhead David Matthews invoking God ... now that's rich - when everything he writes points to worship of self as God. David, you never answered my previous question: which babies are OK to kill?

ame| 5.4.09 @ 8:03AM

Mary Ann Glendon stood up for principle against Jenkins' and Obama's hollow and solipsistic expediency. Obama is a self-serving hypocrite who supports murdering infants born of botched abortions and Father Jenkins wants to honor him at Notre Dame? Jenkins and Catholics who support his invitation to Obama are as morally and ethically challenged as Obama. Where is the Vatican by the way? Babies murdered, Jews persecuted, Muslims beheading innocents and the Church is ...?
If it's not torture to crush the skulls of babies and suck them out of their mother's womb or to leave babies born of botched abortions to starve to death then it isn't torture to do exactly the same thing to terrorists - people who will kill Americans and destroy America. This is the argument Jenkins should be making - LOUD AND CLEAR! Instead, he honors the killing of innocents and in doing so joins Obama the coward, the barbarian coward who kills innocents but saves murderers. What the hell is wrong with voters who elected Obama the dissembling, arrogant, hateful, and cunning Chicago thug??? What the hell is wrong with Jenkins and what the hell is wrong with a hierarchy who would put such an unprincipled dolt in charge of Notre Dame?
Where are the leaders of our country who will expose corrupt dissembling cunning betrayers such as Obama who cares only for himself.
George Orwell reminds us that "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
Jenkins and Obama - that's a Kool-Aid mix to be spit out.

ame| 5.4.09 @ 8:04AM

Mary Ann Glendon stood up for principle against Jenkins' and Obama's hollow and solipsistic expediency. Obama is a self-serving hypocrite who supports murdering infants born of botched abortions and Father Jenkins wants to honor him at Notre Dame? Jenkins and Catholics who support his invitation to Obama are as morally and ethically challenged as Obama. Where is the Vatican by the way? Babies murdered, Jews persecuted, Muslims beheading innocents and the Church is ...?
If it's not torture to crush the skulls of babies and suck them out of their mother's womb or to leave babies born of botched abortions to starve to death then it isn't torture to do exactly the same thing to terrorists - people who will kill Americans and destroy America. This is the argument Jenkins should be making - LOUD AND CLEAR! Instead, he honors the killing of innocents and in doing so joins Obama the coward, the barbarian coward who kills innocents but saves murderers. What the hell is wrong with voters who elected Obama the dissembling, arrogant, hateful, and cunning Chicago thug??? What the hell is wrong with Jenkins and what the hell is wrong with a hierarchy who would put such an unprincipled dolt in charge of Notre Dame?
Where are the leaders of our country who will expose corrupt dissembling cunning betrayers such as Obama who cares only for himself.
George Orwell reminds us that "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
Jenkins and Obama - that's a Kool-Aid mix to be spit out before it poisons us all.

The Bishop| 5.4.09 @ 8:28AM

As a non-Catholic resident of South Bend, it's been very interesting to observe the controversy surrounding Notre Dame's invitation to President Obambi and the resulting fallout. Last week when news of Professor Glendon's refusal to attend came out, I thought it was very noteworthy that a Lataere Medal recipient would decline. And, at the same time we are hearing of those Catholics who have taken a principled stand regarding this controversy we are hearing that the demands tickets for faculty seating at this year's commencement are wildly exceeding this year's supply (even though it is almost double previous years). It seems to underscore how that the Catholic Church is also contending with cult issues - the cult of Obambi.

While I applaud Professor Glendon's principled stand and believe she has done the right thing, I have to agree with Mr. Koehl's comments above regarding the overuse of the term heroic to those who are simply doing the right thing. One of our difficulties is that there are fewer and fewer incubators of discerning the right thing to do (including venerated institutions of higher learning).

Lee Smith| 5.4.09 @ 10:02AM

I feel sad for my Catholic brothers and sisters to have this banner raised as an example of what Catholicism stands for. Unfortunately whatever principles people think are involved, in my opinion there is a larger principle of being an American, and I believe that it's an insult to the United States at large to say that Catholics cannot honor the elected president of the majority of their fellow citizens, and in so doing the principles that make our country strong.

JJ JR| 5.4.09 @ 10:56AM

Y'all,

Again, three cheers for Ame--you're on a roll girl!

For my money, here's where I find the irreducible distillation of this issue and a confounding irony as cited in the article:

"Fortunately, Cardinal George not only challenged President Obama's lies (some of which were recycled for a press conference last week); he also described similarities between abortion and slavery, suggesting that if abortion were viewed through the lens of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, Catholic bishops would be with Lincoln, and President Obama would be with Douglas."

So the nation's first black President, although not a decedent of American slaves, is more tightly aligned and the most pro-death President ever with the abortion industry and it's purveyors. The irony: its founder, the eugenicist Margaret Sanger! Moreover, his race undergoes several times more abortions than their portion of the general population. Here's to "hope and change."

JP| 5.4.09 @ 11:01AM

Lee,
You raise interesting points. But if I understand you, you believe that it is your Catholic Brothers and Sisters who have "raised the banner".

Actually it was the USCCB and the Code of Cannon Law. In 2004, the USCCB and all US Bishops approved a document that prohibited any Catholic institution from bestowing any honors upon Pro-Choice politicians or citizens. In any case, Fr Jenkins is obligated by Cannon Law of informing the local Bishop of his intentions to "honor" such a person. Bishop D'Arcy has emphatically said he didn't know of the invitation until he heard it on the news. Fr Jenkins, then in public lied about it.

Bishop D'Arcy is one of our nations finest Bishops, and in the past he has shown great patience in dealing with Notre Dame. He niether grand stands, nor seeks out publicity. However, Fr Jenkins crossed the line, and has virtually thumbed his nose at the Magestirium.

Another point of contention is your belief that Catholics should check thier religion at the door in order to pay fealty not the The Office of the Presidency, but to a Man. This reeks of the kind of fascism that we thought died in the ashes of Berlin in 1945. Notre Dame cannot honor a man, who as a state senator, advocated both abortion on demand, but also infanticide.

The problem is not Catholic moral teaching, which BTW, has been consistent for over 2000 years, but with Catholics who believe a political agenda checks religion every time.

Fr Jenkins could have just invited the President to give the commencement address without the bestowal of an honorary degree. It is the President of Notre Dame who gives scandal, not orthodox Catholics.

ohiomom| 5.4.09 @ 11:31AM

Regarding David Mathews,
Aren't you borrowing a phrase from the
"politically irrelevant extremist minority"?

Tony in Central PA| 5.4.09 @ 11:43AM

As far as Jenkins, there are few things more absurd than the President of a " religious " university who doesn't believe in his own religion.

Senior Chief| 5.4.09 @ 12:28PM

David is funny. He makes me laugh.

Helen Donnelly| 5.4.09 @ 2:48PM

Mr. Mathews - I will pray for you.

Helen Donnelly| 5.4.09 @ 2:53PM

Also, Lee Smith: Please do not feel sorry for this poor catholic sister. I am proud that we are standing fast on our catholic faith and beliefs. I feel sorry for YOU, and will pray for you too.

EUGENE HAUBER| 5.4.09 @ 3:15PM

MY FATHER GRADUATED FROM NOTRE DAME , CLASS OF 1925. HE'S DECEASED NOW, BUT WOULD BE AGHAST AT THE PROSPECT OF THIS COMMIE WANNABE, OBAMA ADDRESSING THE SENIOR CLASS. HE LOVED NOTER DAME AND I KNOW HE WOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOU FOR HONORING THIS ENEMY OF LIFE, ENEMY OF OUR CONSTITUTION AND, IN GENERAL, ENEMY OF AMERICA THE WAY WE KNOW IT AS A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY. I HOLD ALL OF YOU , WHO SUPPORT THIS EVIL PRESIDENT IN CONTEMPT.
HAVING SUPPORTED THIS GUY OBAMA BE PREPARED TO KISS YOUR ACADEMIC FREEDOM GOODBUY, IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY DONE SO.

GENE HAUBER
BRICK, NJ

George True| 5.4.09 @ 4:25PM

David Matthews (If that's your real name) : You sir, are an idiot. For eight years, the mainstream leftist lapdog media relentlessly pushed the outlandish lie that Bush=Hitler. Mental midgets such as yourself bought it hook, line, and sinker. Leftist panderers such as Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry "this war is lost" Reid took up the hue and cry, even though they all privately signed off, that is to say, approved of the policies of the Bush Administration regarding things such as waterboarding.

Bush's main failing as president is that he caved in to the big-government leftists too much. But overall, he was and is a thoroughly decent guy. And just because foaming-at-the-mouth leftist media types say otherwise, doesn't make any of what they say actually true.

Big J| 5.4.09 @ 5:02PM

Professor Glendon did the right thing. "Heroic" describes her actions perfectly, by the way. We live in a brave new world that would be unrecognizable even 40 years ago. Merriam-Webster defines "heroic" as follows: heroic - conduct especially as exhibited in fulfilling a high purpose or attaining a noble end. Fits perfectly.

In today's world, you are radical if you believe an innocent unborn child deserves the right to life. If you dare to stand up for that belief, you will be besmirched and verbally slandered until the cows come home.

In today's world, you are radical if you believe in traditional family values (same sex marriage wouldn't even have been a viable topic of conversation 40 years ago). If you stand up for that belief (see above).

In today's world, setting Muslim terrorists free is o.k., but pouring water on them to obtain valuable information is not. Some sort of magical time warp has occurred, and they weren't terrorists until we locked them up at Guantanimo Bay. Haven't figured that one out yet.

In today's world, those of us that produce, employ, invent and enhance the lives of others are punished with higher taxes, more regulation and actual demonization.

In this brave new world, anyone who stands up for their core values is a hero. I applaud Professor Glendon for the heroism displayed.

Kent Lyon| 5.4.09 @ 5:10PM

One nit that I would pick with this commentary is the mention of the comparison of abortion to slavery. That is a poor comparison, since slavery was not specifically intended to deprive a human being of life (although of liberty and the pursuit of happiness). Abortion in it's finality and destruction of life of innocents is much more akin to the Aztec practice of human sacrifice, made much more convenient by depriving the involved human being of life pre-partum when most defenseless. The only other point is that slavery in America was practiced on a few million over a couple of hundred years (and human sacrifice by the Aztecs on tens of thousands over a similar time frame), but abortion has been practiced on tens of millions (a thousand times more so than Aztec human sacrifice) over a third of a century.

Rita| 5.4.09 @ 6:12PM

How sad that we do not have more Bishop's in the church that have the same core values that this woman has. Our leadership is weak and therefore, we have things like this at many Catholic Colleges. First ND, than Georgetown and how many others that we know nothing about. Our young people are being taught that if you don't believe in a core value of the church teaching, just pick and choose. How sad! Thanks goodness for people who have the backbone to stand for what they believe.

Appleby| 5.4.09 @ 7:35PM

It isnt Cannon law, guys. Nobody is going to be shooting at Obama (I will wait....)

What you are trying to say is Canon law. Look it up.

DaveS| 5.4.09 @ 8:20PM

Good comments by Kent and Bishop. Abortion is not the EQUAL to slavery - it, as an intrinsic evil, DWARFS slavery. However, insofar as comparisons go, it's useful.

My brother's in-laws went to ND in the 70s. It's certainly not the same school. And, as has been pointed out, bishops and college presidents both have spent too much time poring over the wrong things (menus, new limousine orders, etc.) and have been WAY too comfy these past several decades. At least Wotyla and a few others know evil first-hand and not as an abstract - thus, they could with few words comment on them and defend the Church's teaching authoritatively.

BJC| 5.4.09 @ 8:21PM

Mary Ann Glendon is choosing just precisely the right thing. She is navigating between the impossible forced-choice of the Scylla of being a disobedient apostate Catholic (like Mr. Jenkins) who bows to the prestige of Obama's high office, versus the Charybdis of being rude to degree-accepting students and their rightly proud family members celebrating their matriculation -- by in the latter instance speaking the uncomfortable truth that Obama is an anti-constitutionalist hypocrite who's supported legalized homicide of abortion-survivor human beings. So what can she legitimately do besides steer clear of either bad alternative?

My sincere hope is that everyone who's serious about the sanctity of the right to life, as well as everyone who's serious about equality of all U.S.-born human beings before the law, will shun and boycott the travesty of conveying an honor to a man who believes in neither.

Dr. Don Rhudy| 5.4.09 @ 8:28PM

Abortion is murder. Inviting Obama is hypocrisy. Shame on the President of Notre Dame. I am speaking as a Taoist, not a Catholic.

Walter Ralegh| 5.4.09 @ 8:55PM

A most excellent article about a principled educator. We need more citizens like Professor Glendon. I force myself to view the illiberal outlook on Huffington Post and I often find myself feeling physically ill.The hate and rage alleged by the Left is most often committed by it (the Left) instead. Again, excellent article about
a conscientious person. Let us hope people of this type prevail. Things definitely are not looking very good right now under the Obama administration. This weakening of the US from WITHIN and without bodes ill for our future as a country. The world is no utopia and to pretend we can be friends with everyone works not on an individual nor an international basis. It will not stand. Principled Americans like Professor Glendon do (stand).

stmichrick| 5.4.09 @ 9:54PM

Very gratifying to see the courage of an academic defying the Kulturesmog.

A truly rare event.

50GreenDodge| 5.5.09 @ 2:20AM

I attended Notre Dame in the 1960s, just as the ND we all idealize was beginning to change into just another expensive private college. The thought of a rabid proabortion politician like Obama receiving a degree from ND sickens me.

Hooray for Mary Ann Glendon! She and I are on the same page. I will be nowhere near South Bend when Obama receives his tribute. I will instead be boycotting Obama in Tempe, AZ where I'll be watching my son receive his well-deserved adulation (two degrees; Phi Beta Kappa & Magna Cum Laude). I'm proud of Arizona State University for possessing the good sense not to grant Obama an honorary degree. To honor this huckster would be too much.

Has anyone on the Left noticed the one thing Mary Ann Glendon enjoys that none of Obama's circle can? She is welcome at the Vatican!

Don L| 5.5.09 @ 6:41AM

I'll buy the heroic label for Beth. The fact that what she did is ordinary could also be said about Sir Thomas More. Doing ordinary things in times of great moral and political disorder is heroic. This entire issue is upon us as a scandal because few within the Church and the once Catholic University care to do the ordinary. Courage and heroics are very relative.

E. Patrick Mosman| 5.5.09 @ 7:51AM

Mary Ann Glendon understood perfectly that Father Jenkins is championing the ideas of 'moral relativism' and 'subjective conscience' by honoring President Obama with an honorary degree. Many liberal Catholics seek to reach some accommodation with Mr. Obama, a negotiated
truce based on promises of fewer abortions by more government good works, an approach that Jesus Christ rejected, negotiate with evil, when he rejected the devil's temptations three times. Like the devil, Mr. Obama wraps his abortion views in terms that are intended to lure Catholics into negotiations or acceptance of abortions for a promise of good faith efforts in other areas. Apparently some 'Catholics' with their subjective conscience have swallowed Mr. Obama's lure.
Both Popes John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have spoken and written on Conscience, Reason and Truth on more than one occasion. Since Vatican II the liberal wing of the Catholic Church has promulgated the superiority of one's own, or the subjective conscience, and in February 1991 then Cardinal Ratzinger delivered the Church's response in his presentation 'Conscience and Truth" delivered at the '10th Workshop for Bishops; in Dallas Texas. A brief summary of his conclusion is found in the following extract, "It is of course undisputed that one must follow a certain conscience or at least not act against it. But whether the judgment of conscience or what one takes to be such, is always right, indeed whether it is infallible, is another question. For if this were the case, it would mean that there is no truth - at least not in moral and religious matters, which is to say, in the areas which constitute the very pillars of our existence.For judgments of conscience can contradict each other. Thus there could be at best the subject's own truth, which would be reduced to the subject's sincerity." Cardinal Ratzinger's address should be required reading as he carefully constructs how following one's own subjective conscience can lead to self-justification for horrific acts. "Soon after John Paul II's passing, President George W. Bush spoke approvingly of the Pope reminding “us of our obligation to build a culture of life, in which the strong protect the weak.” But few have read the papal encyclical, Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life,1995), in which the “culture of life” is fully explained and defended. It is a remarkable document in which John Paul carefully offers a case for the sanctity of human life, the wrongness of certain practices including abortion and euthanasia, and the obligation of Christian citizens and public officials in advancing a culture of life. What will surprise many is John Paul’s impressive grasp and use of Scripture and how he weaves together an extended argument whose premises include passages and principles from the Word of God. But what John Paul teaches and what will appear novel to some of many, is the careful manner in which he shows that the moral principles found in Scripture are consistent with a reflective understanding of the order and nature of things that one can know apart from the biblical text. For example, John Paul points out that when proponents of liberal democracy embrace moral relativism (as they often do), they are in fact offering a self-defeating point of view that, ironically, is philosophically incapable of sustaining a political regime that claims that the purpose of its laws is to protect human equality and dignity." Writes John Paul: "It is true that history has known cases where crimes have been committed in the name of "truth". But equally grave crimes and radical denials of freedom have also been committed and are still being committed in the name of "ethical relativism". When a parliamentary or social majority decrees that it is legal, at least under certain conditions, to kill unborn human life, is it not really making a "tyrannical" decision with regard to the weakest and most defenceless of human beings? Everyone's conscience rightly rejects those crimes against humanity of which our century has had such sad experience. But would these crimes cease to be crimes if, instead of being committed by unscrupulous tyrants, they were legitimated by popular consensus?" According to John Paul, a democratic regime, whose purpose is to do justice by treating all human beings under its authority with equal regard, cannot do so without embracing certain fundamental moral truths as foundational to its institutions and laws: “the dignity of every human person, respect for inviolable and inalienable human rights, and the adoption of the `common good’ as the end and criterion regulating political life…” This means that governments that permit abortion-on-demand and suicide, and do not protect the institutions of marriage and the family, do not advance the cause of liberal democracy, because they are in fact violating the essential principles of liberal democracy. For abortion-on-demand and suicide are inconsistent with human rights and the dignity of the person, and marriage and the family are necessary for the common good.

JamesJ| 5.5.09 @ 7:59AM

35 years of dumbed-down education/indoctrination = Dave Mathews and millions gladly dependent on gubbermint and the hard work of others. So sad

Al| 5.5.09 @ 8:02AM

I do consider this lady heroic and I respect her for standing up for her principles against the popular culture. Especially in the current environment where any criticism of Obama is met with vicious attacks. I do fear for her professional and personal safety, but I applaud her guts for what she's done. She's a more honorable person than Obama, too, who if he had any respect for the Catholic Church, would have gracefully bowed out. But what can we expect from an opportunist. Bravo, Ms. Glendon!

Chris| 5.5.09 @ 1:11PM

Patrick,

Look, I am rarely a defender of Fr. McBrien, by any stretch, but I think you have BADLY misinterpreted what he was trying to say. What I found enlightening about what he had to say was that the "intrinsic v. non-intrinsic evil" distinction rapidly turns into a canard for those who oppose abortion, because they don't grasp what those terms really mean. The catechism's teaching on the death penalty is that it is not an intrinsic evil (there are times and places where it would not be), but that its use in the modern world almost certainly is. To do something that is not intrinsically evil in a place where it is evil is as bad as doing something that is intrinsically evil. That is the distinction that many pro-lifers fail to grasp. Again, Fr McBrien is someone with whom I very rarely agree or learn anything. Here, though, I am enlightened.

I would argue with you about Iraq, but arguing with a Bushie about Iraq is a futile gesture; most conservative support of Iraq is beyond reason, and, as a catholic, is also beyond the pale. Before praising Benedict's cordial meeting with Bush, you should wait to see how he acts around Obama.

Finally, your calling McBrien a hypocrite for citing JPII is no different from his calling Glendon a hypocrite for working for Bush. Both are ways of ignoring the important argument being made.

Patrick O'Hannigan| 5.5.09 @ 4:37PM

To allay any confusion, I should point out that the comments from Chris (5.5.09, 1:11 pm) do not apply to the "Defending Mary Ann Glendon" essay published by American Spectator for which these comments are a sort of postscript.

Fr. Richard McBrien of Notre Dame took "certain Catholics" to task for harping on abortion as an "intrinsic evil." Because McBrien asserted that many of us wrongly "give a pass" to lesser-but-still-serious evils like war and capital punishment, and because his essay touches this one at obvious points but was discussed elsewhere (at the Catholic law blog "Mirror of Justice"), I took issue with some of what he said over there.

For the record, I am not "a Bushie," and I left the Republican party in 1996. I do not think I misinterpreted Fr. McBrien, but this is not the place to explain why.

DaveS| 5.5.09 @ 8:03PM

Capital punishment is not an intrinsic evil - nor is it evil. Otherwise, the Church would have said so in its catechism (and undo 2000 years of tradition and scripture to the contrary.) You can be a catholic in excellent standing and be for the death penalty. As for myself, I also hold that the state has the right to proportional punishment, that death is the only possible fair penalty in some cases, and that expiation for sin can result from submitting to the death penalty. Any contrarians out there wish to discuss?

JR| 5.6.09 @ 3:23AM

We have certainly reached a sorry state when taking a principled stand is hailed as heroic.

Sad to say, that's the state of affairs these days.

Declining an opportunity to address a graduating class at Notre Dame, as well as declining one of the highest honors that can be awarded by that school, is certainly heroic in the face of so much demonization of anyone opposing Obama policy.

Professor Glendonal's refusal to appear and accept Notre Dame's award is a rare example of commitment to principle, far more impressive than any speech that could be or will be given at Notre Dame's commencement.

JR

Angel| 5.6.09 @ 3:28AM

Yes, it is great..!

I like...................

Bill Kurtz| 5.13.09 @ 5:25PM

I'm surprised nobody seems to have pointed out that the "courageous" Mary Ann Glendon was a last-ditch defender of Cardinal Law.

Wholesale Lingerie| 9.5.09 @ 9:58PM

sexy lingerie lingerie

Wedding Dresses| 9.10.09 @ 2:20AM

Nice articles, but I am not clearWedding Dresses
Designer Wedding Gowns
about the point you mentioned about how to distinguish fake and real handbags.