The blogger-and-Latin-flogger priest who is NOT Fr. Reggie Foster (Milwaukee native and raging Leftowacky) has managed to shove the nose of the Bark of Peter toward true north. (Or, if you prefer, to the East--ad Orientem.)
Lately here on the blog I wrote about the bad translations official English version of the Holy Father’s post-Synodal Exhortation Sacramentum caritatis. Some of you responded well and in a timely manner. You made a difference.One of the paragraphs I took special aim at was a par. 62, concerning Latin, which had some pretty bad errors, even when compared to the other vernacular versions. Among other things I wrote:
"Moreover, the texts they are working with were those released at the time of the presentation of the document, even though the LATIN is itself revised before publication in is final official form in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. But no one goes back to revise the vernacular versions in keeping with the changes in the Latin Lot’s of people are misquoting documents because the vernacular docs themselves were never updated."
Now it seems that the official English version has been revised and corrected, at least in respect to par. 62.
The Latin: exceptis lectionibus, homilia et oratione fidelium, aequum est ut huiusmodi celebrationes fiant lingua Latina.
In Latin, the phrase aequum est means "it is reasonable, proper, right". It can be rendered as "it is becoming", to use a somewhat archaic turn of phrase.
The OLD official English: with the exception of the readings, the homily and the prayer of the faithful, such liturgies could be celebrated in Latin.
The NEW official English: with the exception of the readings, the homily and the prayer of the faithful, it is fitting that such liturgies be celebrated in Latin.
This blog led the public charge in this matter of the accuracy of the translation into English, but I can assure you that the problems were not missed here in Rome. I had more than one conversation with "interested parties".
You will be astounded to learn that "it is fitting" was a translation that your humble servant proposed in a combox somewhere along the line.
The frustration, of course, is that the LiturgyWonkBedwetter crowd will cite only the "OLD" version, flounce off in their tutus, and declare the matter closed. (It's the technique of the entire Left--cf the GlobalWarming crowd.)
Regardless, congrats to Fr. Z!!!!
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Ancient Slang Definitions
Courtesy the Curt Jester:
VEGETARIAN
Ancient slang for village idiot who can't hunt or fish.
Suitable for t-shirt.
Lousy Grammar or Punctuation, and Paucity of Words
...all can lead to trouble.
Here are some signs spotted in Jolly Olde England (where you'd think they know better):
TOILET OUT OF ORDER. PLEASE USE FLOOR BELOW
In a Laundromat: AUTOMATIC WASHING MACHINES: PLEASE REMOVE ALL YOUR CLOTHES WHEN THE LIGHT GOES OUT
In a London department store: BARGAIN BASEMENT UPSTAIRS
In an office: WOULD THE PERSON WHO TOOK THE STEP LADDER YESTERDAY PLEASE BRING IT BACK OR FURTHER STEPS WILL BE TAKEN
In an office: AFTER TEA BREAK STAFF SHOULD EMPTY THE TEAPOT AND STAND UPSIDE DOWN ON THE DRAINING BOARD
Outside a secondhand shop: WE EXCHANGE ANYTHING - BICYCLES, WASHING MACHINES, ETC. WHY NOT BRING YOUR WIFE ALONG AND GET A WONDERFUL BARGAIN?
Notice in health food shop window: CLOSED DUE TO ILLNESS
Spotted in a safari park: ELEPHANTS PLEASE STAY IN YOUR CAR
Seen during a conference: FOR ANYONE WHO HAS CHILDREN AND DOESN'T KNOW IT, THERE IS DAY CARE ON THE 1st FLOOR
Notice in a farmer's field: THE FARMER ALLOWS WALKERS TO CROSS THE FIELD, FOR FREE, BUT THE BULL CHARGES.
Message on a leaflet: IF YOU CANNOT READ, THIS LEAFLET WILL TELL YOU HOW TO GET LESSONS
HT: Happy Catholic
Here are some signs spotted in Jolly Olde England (where you'd think they know better):
TOILET OUT OF ORDER. PLEASE USE FLOOR BELOW
In a Laundromat: AUTOMATIC WASHING MACHINES: PLEASE REMOVE ALL YOUR CLOTHES WHEN THE LIGHT GOES OUT
In a London department store: BARGAIN BASEMENT UPSTAIRS
In an office: WOULD THE PERSON WHO TOOK THE STEP LADDER YESTERDAY PLEASE BRING IT BACK OR FURTHER STEPS WILL BE TAKEN
In an office: AFTER TEA BREAK STAFF SHOULD EMPTY THE TEAPOT AND STAND UPSIDE DOWN ON THE DRAINING BOARD
Outside a secondhand shop: WE EXCHANGE ANYTHING - BICYCLES, WASHING MACHINES, ETC. WHY NOT BRING YOUR WIFE ALONG AND GET A WONDERFUL BARGAIN?
Notice in health food shop window: CLOSED DUE TO ILLNESS
Spotted in a safari park: ELEPHANTS PLEASE STAY IN YOUR CAR
Seen during a conference: FOR ANYONE WHO HAS CHILDREN AND DOESN'T KNOW IT, THERE IS DAY CARE ON THE 1st FLOOR
Notice in a farmer's field: THE FARMER ALLOWS WALKERS TO CROSS THE FIELD, FOR FREE, BUT THE BULL CHARGES.
Message on a leaflet: IF YOU CANNOT READ, THIS LEAFLET WILL TELL YOU HOW TO GET LESSONS
HT: Happy Catholic
(D)'s Are All The Same, Upside Down or Otherwise
Courtesy the Asian Badger, from Jim Sensenbrenner's website, on the Congressional Democrats' plans for stealing more of your money:
* 115 million taxpayers would see their taxes increase, on average, by $1,795 in 2011;
* 48 million married couples would incur average tax increases of $2,899;
* Taxes would increase, on average, by $2,181 for 42 million families with children;
* 12 million single women with children would see their taxes increase, on average, by $1,082;
* 17 million elderly individuals would incur average tax increases of $2,270;
* Taxes would rise, on average, by $3,960 for 26 million small business owners.
And let's not forget that DarthDoyle has his own plan, too--for ANOTHER $2,000/family (or so) in the next biennium.
Pitchforks at dawn, anyone??
* 115 million taxpayers would see their taxes increase, on average, by $1,795 in 2011;
* 48 million married couples would incur average tax increases of $2,899;
* Taxes would increase, on average, by $2,181 for 42 million families with children;
* 12 million single women with children would see their taxes increase, on average, by $1,082;
* 17 million elderly individuals would incur average tax increases of $2,270;
* Taxes would rise, on average, by $3,960 for 26 million small business owners.
And let's not forget that DarthDoyle has his own plan, too--for ANOTHER $2,000/family (or so) in the next biennium.
Pitchforks at dawn, anyone??
Folkbum's Been Traveling?
Maybe Jay's been out of the country?
Aside from the issues relating to workers, students and women, the most important issue last month has been the demonstrations staged by members of the Teachers’ Guild Association [Kanun-i senfi-yi moalleman] across the country. … Their foremost demand is that the teachers’ salaries must be adjusted to equal that of other public-sector employees, furthermore adding that if the government’s low budget is the reason behind this inequality then it should look into allocating what is expended in other fields to be granted for teachers’ necessities.
HT: Random10
In the Mullahcracy, teachers are considered to be 'prophets,' which apparently is supposed to get some respect (and big bucks.)
So for you folks who are teachers here (and dissatisfied with the health benefits and pay)--there's an alternative.
Required: Farsi.
Aside from the issues relating to workers, students and women, the most important issue last month has been the demonstrations staged by members of the Teachers’ Guild Association [Kanun-i senfi-yi moalleman] across the country. … Their foremost demand is that the teachers’ salaries must be adjusted to equal that of other public-sector employees, furthermore adding that if the government’s low budget is the reason behind this inequality then it should look into allocating what is expended in other fields to be granted for teachers’ necessities.
HT: Random10
In the Mullahcracy, teachers are considered to be 'prophets,' which apparently is supposed to get some respect (and big bucks.)
So for you folks who are teachers here (and dissatisfied with the health benefits and pay)--there's an alternative.
Required: Farsi.
Queen Nancy's Splendid Trip
Pelosi, (who actually thinks that she has become the Queen) is going on a splendid trip.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will visit Syria, a country President Bush has shunned as a sponsor of terrorism, despite being asked by the administration not to go.
And she's taking her courtiers:
Democratic Reps. Keith Ellison of Minnesota, Henry Waxman and Tom Lantos of California, Louise Slaughter of New York and Nick Rahall of West Virginia, and Ohio Republican David Hobson.
The article doesn't say if she's using a USAF Gulfstream or 757.
With any luck, the Syrians will take her hostage.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will visit Syria, a country President Bush has shunned as a sponsor of terrorism, despite being asked by the administration not to go.
And she's taking her courtiers:
Democratic Reps. Keith Ellison of Minnesota, Henry Waxman and Tom Lantos of California, Louise Slaughter of New York and Nick Rahall of West Virginia, and Ohio Republican David Hobson.
The article doesn't say if she's using a USAF Gulfstream or 757.
With any luck, the Syrians will take her hostage.
Friday, March 30, 2007
Senator Webb: Not Really an Officer
Perhaps the most caustic comment on Senator Webb:
I've been watching the saga of the James Webb aid caught with what seems to be Webb's gun. I find it very interesting that Webb, who has made a career out of being a Marine veteran and graduate of Canoe U, has forgotten "loyalty down". Of course that was one of my pet peeves when I wore Uncle's suit, half of all officers and senior NCOs expected my loyalty but had none for us peons.
Sooner or later the history of that gun will come out, it was either bought by Webb or by this Thompson fellow, then we will know. Either Thompson is a liar or Webb is a miserable scumbag who has lived a lie since swearing the oath. Given that Thompson would know he'd get caught if he had known he was carrying a gun I'm leaning toward Webb being wrong, knowing he's wrong and throwing a loyal aid to the wolves. Why? To save himself some trouble.
HT: Instapundit via Of Arms and the Law
I've been watching the saga of the James Webb aid caught with what seems to be Webb's gun. I find it very interesting that Webb, who has made a career out of being a Marine veteran and graduate of Canoe U, has forgotten "loyalty down". Of course that was one of my pet peeves when I wore Uncle's suit, half of all officers and senior NCOs expected my loyalty but had none for us peons.
Sooner or later the history of that gun will come out, it was either bought by Webb or by this Thompson fellow, then we will know. Either Thompson is a liar or Webb is a miserable scumbag who has lived a lie since swearing the oath. Given that Thompson would know he'd get caught if he had known he was carrying a gun I'm leaning toward Webb being wrong, knowing he's wrong and throwing a loyal aid to the wolves. Why? To save himself some trouble.
HT: Instapundit via Of Arms and the Law
Bush's Border Failures, Chapter 2365
Here we go again:
Jerry Seper at the WashTimes reports that two execs of the Golden State Fence Company--hired by the U.S. government to help build a fence along the Southwest border to curb the flow of illegal aliens into the United States--have been sentenced on charges of hiring illegals for the job.
...The execs received a slap on the wrist. Instead of the maximum five years in jail, each received six months' home detention. The company had been warned in 1999 that it had illegal aliens on the payroll. Five years later, it was still employing scores of illegal aliens.
There were a couple of large fines, too.
"This settlement and guilty plea clearly show that employers who knowingly and blatantly hire illegal workers will pay dearly for such transgressions," Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Julie L. Myers, who heads ICE, said at the time.
Yah, right. Julie Myers is the Bush-appointed twit with no experience and no qualifications, but with Pentagon connections. She's the equivalent of FEMA's "Brownie."
And the Bushbots wonder why they're losing audience? (See below)
HT: Malkin
Jerry Seper at the WashTimes reports that two execs of the Golden State Fence Company--hired by the U.S. government to help build a fence along the Southwest border to curb the flow of illegal aliens into the United States--have been sentenced on charges of hiring illegals for the job.
...The execs received a slap on the wrist. Instead of the maximum five years in jail, each received six months' home detention. The company had been warned in 1999 that it had illegal aliens on the payroll. Five years later, it was still employing scores of illegal aliens.
There were a couple of large fines, too.
"This settlement and guilty plea clearly show that employers who knowingly and blatantly hire illegal workers will pay dearly for such transgressions," Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Julie L. Myers, who heads ICE, said at the time.
Yah, right. Julie Myers is the Bush-appointed twit with no experience and no qualifications, but with Pentagon connections. She's the equivalent of FEMA's "Brownie."
And the Bushbots wonder why they're losing audience? (See below)
HT: Malkin
Bushbots Losing Audiences?
Belling went on at some length yesterday about an opinion piece written by a Righty radio-guy from the West Coast.
The radioguy was seeing falling ratings, and finding that 'backers of the Iraq War' are having problems keeping their audience.
(Not by coincidence, Savage reports that Hannity will be losing his SanFran radio outlet soon.)
The Righty Radioguy speculated a bit, spinning the article to make himself a victim--or at least, a True Blue Certified Good Guy who was being abused by the audience.
Maybe.
The problem that this fellow may be encountering is that talk-radio listeners actually think, generally independently. They listen to rightyradio because they can get the opposing view by absorbing MSM blather (which is impossible to avoid.)
So the Hannity-esque techniques of straw-man bashing, screaming, and not bothering to examine subtlety (etc.) are not going to entrance rightyradio listeners. Let's be frank: Hannity (and some others) simply don't allow an intelligent discussion of a question. (Some think that Hannity is not capable of intelligent discussion in the first place, but that's another matter. He's a pretty face, after all.)
Belling ought to know. He shuts off discussion all the time.
The radioguy was seeing falling ratings, and finding that 'backers of the Iraq War' are having problems keeping their audience.
(Not by coincidence, Savage reports that Hannity will be losing his SanFran radio outlet soon.)
The Righty Radioguy speculated a bit, spinning the article to make himself a victim--or at least, a True Blue Certified Good Guy who was being abused by the audience.
Maybe.
The problem that this fellow may be encountering is that talk-radio listeners actually think, generally independently. They listen to rightyradio because they can get the opposing view by absorbing MSM blather (which is impossible to avoid.)
So the Hannity-esque techniques of straw-man bashing, screaming, and not bothering to examine subtlety (etc.) are not going to entrance rightyradio listeners. Let's be frank: Hannity (and some others) simply don't allow an intelligent discussion of a question. (Some think that Hannity is not capable of intelligent discussion in the first place, but that's another matter. He's a pretty face, after all.)
Belling ought to know. He shuts off discussion all the time.
Tolerate "Diverse Behaviors", Says State DPI
This woman cannot mean what she said, can she?
"We happen to see, particularly for African-American males, the tolerance for diverse behaviors - especially in districts where all the staff are white - is very, very low," said Stephanie Petska, special education director for the DPI.
Behavior is "diverse"? Hmmmmmm. All "diversity" is good? Hmmmmm.
"We happen to see, particularly for African-American males, the tolerance for diverse behaviors - especially in districts where all the staff are white - is very, very low," said Stephanie Petska, special education director for the DPI.
Behavior is "diverse"? Hmmmmmm. All "diversity" is good? Hmmmmm.
Elmbrook's Gibson: It's a Beauty Contest
Matt Gibson, in a moment of candor:
"Parents shop test scores first, and they choose Elmbrook. They shop facilities, and they go elsewhere,"
....in a discussion of why Elmbrook put a $108 million renovation program up for referendum.
I guess he's telling us that the $108MM will NOT raise test scores.
"Parents shop test scores first, and they choose Elmbrook. They shop facilities, and they go elsewhere,"
....in a discussion of why Elmbrook put a $108 million renovation program up for referendum.
I guess he's telling us that the $108MM will NOT raise test scores.
JS Reporter: Do you REALLY Believe This?
Found in the midst of another story about 'subprime loans' written by J. Cleaver at JS:
...Brenda Muniz, national legislative director for ACORN, a national housing and social advocacy group.
ACORN a 'housing and social advocacy group'?
Sure. Stalin was a government reformer. Hitler was concerned with overcrowding in the ghettos. Bill Clinton was training and developing promising staffers like Monica.
And ACORN is a housing and social advocacy group.
...Brenda Muniz, national legislative director for ACORN, a national housing and social advocacy group.
ACORN a 'housing and social advocacy group'?
Sure. Stalin was a government reformer. Hitler was concerned with overcrowding in the ghettos. Bill Clinton was training and developing promising staffers like Monica.
And ACORN is a housing and social advocacy group.
Wis. Dept of Corrections: Major Piggies
We'd mentioned before that Wisconsin's Dept of Corrections is a drainpipe for state tax revenues, now getting FORTY PERCENT over the national average for prisoners.
Channel 4 added another piece of evidence last night.
Tracking sex offenders would be easier if they had to wear GPS monitors. But that can be expensive.
Wisconsin lawmakers have travelled to Kansas to find out about a GPS program there. The I-Team's John Mercure went with them. He found that Kansas monitors the same amount of offenders as in Wisconsin with a much smaller budget.
It costs Kansas $1.2 million annually to track 300 sex offenders by GPS. Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle's office claims it would cost the state $10 million to monitor 300 offenders here. Doyle signed a GPS bill to protect Wisconsin children. Now he's threatening to gut the bill by cutting the spending and limiting who gets monitored.
DarthDoyle claims he'd have to hire 120 DoC personnel. The State of Kansas outsourced the task and only hired 9 additional personnel.
Similar results were obtained in Colorado.
Someone needs to assist Darth in thinking.
Channel 4 added another piece of evidence last night.
Tracking sex offenders would be easier if they had to wear GPS monitors. But that can be expensive.
Wisconsin lawmakers have travelled to Kansas to find out about a GPS program there. The I-Team's John Mercure went with them. He found that Kansas monitors the same amount of offenders as in Wisconsin with a much smaller budget.
It costs Kansas $1.2 million annually to track 300 sex offenders by GPS. Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle's office claims it would cost the state $10 million to monitor 300 offenders here. Doyle signed a GPS bill to protect Wisconsin children. Now he's threatening to gut the bill by cutting the spending and limiting who gets monitored.
DarthDoyle claims he'd have to hire 120 DoC personnel. The State of Kansas outsourced the task and only hired 9 additional personnel.
Similar results were obtained in Colorado.
Someone needs to assist Darth in thinking.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Habemus Rector!
Abp. Dolan announced that Fr. Don Hying will be the Rector of the Milwaukee Seminary (St. Francis Major.)
Calling him “a splendid parish priest and a man of learning,” Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan announced that Fr. Donald J. Hying will become rector of Saint Francis Seminary July 1.
Fr. Hying, 43, will succeed Fr. Michael Witczak, who has been rector since December 2001. Fr. Witczak will return to teaching and/or research in liturgy and sacraments at a yet-to-be-determined school.
HT: Provincial Emails
I've heard nothing but good things about Fr. Hying. This assignment is a major challenge, and the long knives will be out. Pray for him.
Calling him “a splendid parish priest and a man of learning,” Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan announced that Fr. Donald J. Hying will become rector of Saint Francis Seminary July 1.
Fr. Hying, 43, will succeed Fr. Michael Witczak, who has been rector since December 2001. Fr. Witczak will return to teaching and/or research in liturgy and sacraments at a yet-to-be-determined school.
HT: Provincial Emails
I've heard nothing but good things about Fr. Hying. This assignment is a major challenge, and the long knives will be out. Pray for him.
Reality Check on Israel
Just so that people understand:
The first day we were in Jerusalem, some Evangelical Christians told us tales of the tension in the city that comes from the Muslim intolerance for anybody who is not one of them.
The next day, we met with an Armenian Catholic lady who explained that her life has been made hellish by the Jews building the security wall right near her mother's house. And also that life in the city is made crazy by the Greek Orthodox who are insisting that their patriarch gets to be the first and only prelate to emerge from the tomb of the holy sepulchre on Easter morning.
We heard from an Arab businessman that he can't get a visa from Israel to travel back to the States for his business because the Israelis are prejudiced against all Arabs.
Then, we met with a politician from the Knesset who explained that the problem is a combination of Muslim intolerance, and also American and European liberal elites who keep insisting on a failed policy of appeasement toward Islam.
Yesterday, an Arab Christian detailed the terrible persecution that his family and friends suffer at the hands of the ultra Orthodox Jews who even went so far recently as to burn and desecrate part of the Church of the Annunciation. He wanted to know why they would do that to a community which has long been supportive of Israel.
We have heard from another fellow that a great problem is the new Eastern European Jews who have been recently brought into Israel, because apparently they have imported the Eastern European mafia with them.
You see, it's all everybody's fault. And nobody's fault. And probably impossible to fix from a human perspective.
Nicolosi is a well-known blogger/commentator.
Those of us who are Catholic have known for quite some time that 'being Catholic' in Israel is not exactly a bed of roses--for openers, most Catholics in Israel are Arabic--or at least not Jewish.
Nicolosi is right--it may well be impossible to "fix" from a human perspective.
The first day we were in Jerusalem, some Evangelical Christians told us tales of the tension in the city that comes from the Muslim intolerance for anybody who is not one of them.
The next day, we met with an Armenian Catholic lady who explained that her life has been made hellish by the Jews building the security wall right near her mother's house. And also that life in the city is made crazy by the Greek Orthodox who are insisting that their patriarch gets to be the first and only prelate to emerge from the tomb of the holy sepulchre on Easter morning.
We heard from an Arab businessman that he can't get a visa from Israel to travel back to the States for his business because the Israelis are prejudiced against all Arabs.
Then, we met with a politician from the Knesset who explained that the problem is a combination of Muslim intolerance, and also American and European liberal elites who keep insisting on a failed policy of appeasement toward Islam.
Yesterday, an Arab Christian detailed the terrible persecution that his family and friends suffer at the hands of the ultra Orthodox Jews who even went so far recently as to burn and desecrate part of the Church of the Annunciation. He wanted to know why they would do that to a community which has long been supportive of Israel.
We have heard from another fellow that a great problem is the new Eastern European Jews who have been recently brought into Israel, because apparently they have imported the Eastern European mafia with them.
You see, it's all everybody's fault. And nobody's fault. And probably impossible to fix from a human perspective.
Nicolosi is a well-known blogger/commentator.
Those of us who are Catholic have known for quite some time that 'being Catholic' in Israel is not exactly a bed of roses--for openers, most Catholics in Israel are Arabic--or at least not Jewish.
Nicolosi is right--it may well be impossible to "fix" from a human perspective.
How to Win a Gunfight
Maybe, given the situation in "No-Crisis" Milwaukee, these should be posted around various gas stations:
1. Bring a gun. Preferably, bring at least two guns. Bring all of your friends who have guns.
2. Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammo is cheap. Your life is expensive.
3. Only hits count. The only thing worse than a miss is a slow miss.
4. If your shooting stance is good, you're probably not moving fast enough nor using cover correctly.
5. Move away from your attacker. Distance is your friend. (Lateral and diagonal movement are preferred.)
6. If you can choose what to bring to a gunfight, bring a long gun and a friend with a long gun.
7. In ten years nobody will remember the details of caliber, stance, or tactics. They will only remember who lived.
8. If you are not shooting, you should be communicating, reloading, and running.
9. Accuracy is relative: most combat shooting standards will be more dependent on "pucker factor" than the inherent accuracy of the gun.
9.5 Use a gun that works EVERY TIME.
10. Someday someone may kill you with your own gun, but they should have to beat you to death with it because it is empty.
11. Always cheat; always win. The only unfair fight is the one you lose.
12. Have a plan.
13. Have a back-up plan, because the first one won't work.
14. Use cover or concealment as much as possible.
15. Flank your adversary when possible. Protect yours.
16. Don't drop your guard.
17. Always tactical load and threat scan 360 degrees.
18. Watch their hands. Hands kill. (In God we trust. Everyone else, keep your hands where I can see them).
19. Decide to be aggressive ENOUGH, quickly ENOUGH.
20. The faster you finish the fight, the less shot you will get.
21. Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you meet.
22. Be courteous to everyone, friendly to no one.
23. Your number one Option for Personal Security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.
24. Do not attend a gunfight with a handgun, the caliber of which does not start with a ".4"
Personally, I think Rule 24 is OK, but 6 rounds of 9mm are just as good as 6 rounds of .45...
HT: Grim's Hall
USMC Rules for Gunfighting
1. Bring a gun. Preferably, bring at least two guns. Bring all of your friends who have guns.
2. Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammo is cheap. Your life is expensive.
3. Only hits count. The only thing worse than a miss is a slow miss.
4. If your shooting stance is good, you're probably not moving fast enough nor using cover correctly.
5. Move away from your attacker. Distance is your friend. (Lateral and diagonal movement are preferred.)
6. If you can choose what to bring to a gunfight, bring a long gun and a friend with a long gun.
7. In ten years nobody will remember the details of caliber, stance, or tactics. They will only remember who lived.
8. If you are not shooting, you should be communicating, reloading, and running.
9. Accuracy is relative: most combat shooting standards will be more dependent on "pucker factor" than the inherent accuracy of the gun.
9.5 Use a gun that works EVERY TIME.
10. Someday someone may kill you with your own gun, but they should have to beat you to death with it because it is empty.
11. Always cheat; always win. The only unfair fight is the one you lose.
12. Have a plan.
13. Have a back-up plan, because the first one won't work.
14. Use cover or concealment as much as possible.
15. Flank your adversary when possible. Protect yours.
16. Don't drop your guard.
17. Always tactical load and threat scan 360 degrees.
18. Watch their hands. Hands kill. (In God we trust. Everyone else, keep your hands where I can see them).
19. Decide to be aggressive ENOUGH, quickly ENOUGH.
20. The faster you finish the fight, the less shot you will get.
21. Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you meet.
22. Be courteous to everyone, friendly to no one.
23. Your number one Option for Personal Security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.
24. Do not attend a gunfight with a handgun, the caliber of which does not start with a ".4"
Personally, I think Rule 24 is OK, but 6 rounds of 9mm are just as good as 6 rounds of .45...
HT: Grim's Hall
What Does This Story NOT Tell You?
Here's a cut from the WTMJ story on the Bay View bandidos:
The five men and one woman facing charges of armed robbery with threat of force are Paul Asik Jr., 30; Xavier Perez, 18; Brendaly Gonzalez, 19; Angel DeJesus, 21; Carmelo Vaszquez Jr., 32 and Christian Colon, 19.
Repeat: What does the story NOT tell you?
Your guesses (I think it will take no more than two) can be filed in the combox.
HT: Freedom Eden
The five men and one woman facing charges of armed robbery with threat of force are Paul Asik Jr., 30; Xavier Perez, 18; Brendaly Gonzalez, 19; Angel DeJesus, 21; Carmelo Vaszquez Jr., 32 and Christian Colon, 19.
Repeat: What does the story NOT tell you?
Your guesses (I think it will take no more than two) can be filed in the combox.
HT: Freedom Eden
Time for a Pitchforks-and-Rudeness Demonstration?
As you might have expected:
...Following the example set by their Senate brethren last Friday, House Democrats will adopt a budget resolution containing the largest tax increase in U.S. history amid massive national inattention.
Nobody's tax payment will increase immediately, but the budget resolutions set a pattern for years ahead. The House version would increase non-defense, non-emergency spending by $22.5 billion for next fiscal year, with such spending to rise 2.4 percent in each of the next three years. To pay for these increases, the resolution would raise taxes by close to $400 billion over five years -- about $100 billion more than what was passed in the Senate.
It had been assumed that the new Democratic majority would end President Bush's relief in capital gains, dividend and estate taxation. The simultaneous rollback of Bush-sponsored income tax cuts was a surprise.
Robert Novak, quoted in Captain's Quarters.
The pitchfork-and-tar/feather assembly could start in Madison in June, and simply move on to Washington DC in July (assuming that the Madistan Democrats have been properly....ah....persuaded. That's it--persuaded!)
Why not? You've nothing to lose except for your disposable income for the foreseeable future.
Fraley's Daily has a challenge for Darth, Risser & Co. (and Obey, Feingold):
Back when the Sheriff of Nottingham personally went to the village and took a goat from the serf as tribute to the Throne, at least he had to dodge the occasional arrow from Robin Hood or risk being tarred and feathered. These days, tax increasers rely on an employer’s payroll department, or the store cashier, or assorted bureaucrats to do their bidding. Tax increases are cowardly.
And as we know, the King of Cowardly was FDR, who invented the withholding tax scheme. Somehow, I'd enjoy having Freddy Risser dodder around the neighborhood, attempting to grab assets. It'd be even more fun if he were joined by Dave Obey, who still has the capability to raise his voice, unlike Risser.
...Following the example set by their Senate brethren last Friday, House Democrats will adopt a budget resolution containing the largest tax increase in U.S. history amid massive national inattention.
Nobody's tax payment will increase immediately, but the budget resolutions set a pattern for years ahead. The House version would increase non-defense, non-emergency spending by $22.5 billion for next fiscal year, with such spending to rise 2.4 percent in each of the next three years. To pay for these increases, the resolution would raise taxes by close to $400 billion over five years -- about $100 billion more than what was passed in the Senate.
It had been assumed that the new Democratic majority would end President Bush's relief in capital gains, dividend and estate taxation. The simultaneous rollback of Bush-sponsored income tax cuts was a surprise.
Robert Novak, quoted in Captain's Quarters.
The pitchfork-and-tar/feather assembly could start in Madison in June, and simply move on to Washington DC in July (assuming that the Madistan Democrats have been properly....ah....persuaded. That's it--persuaded!)
Why not? You've nothing to lose except for your disposable income for the foreseeable future.
Fraley's Daily has a challenge for Darth, Risser & Co. (and Obey, Feingold):
Back when the Sheriff of Nottingham personally went to the village and took a goat from the serf as tribute to the Throne, at least he had to dodge the occasional arrow from Robin Hood or risk being tarred and feathered. These days, tax increasers rely on an employer’s payroll department, or the store cashier, or assorted bureaucrats to do their bidding. Tax increases are cowardly.
And as we know, the King of Cowardly was FDR, who invented the withholding tax scheme. Somehow, I'd enjoy having Freddy Risser dodder around the neighborhood, attempting to grab assets. It'd be even more fun if he were joined by Dave Obey, who still has the capability to raise his voice, unlike Risser.
Has Dr. Dobson Gone Off the Deep End?
Over the years, Focus on the Family and its head, Dr. Dobson, have provided a lot of positives for the country.
But one wonders what might have prompted the following statement:
"Everyone knows he's conservative and has come out strongly for the things that the pro-family movement stands for," Dobson said of Thompson. "[But] I don't think he's a Christian; at least that's my impression," Dobson added, saying that such an impression would make it difficult for Thompson to connect with the Republican Party's conservative Christian base and win the GOP nomination.
Compared to whom? Tommy Thompson? Mitt Romney? Ruuuuudeeeeee!!??? McPain?
Good heavens, Dr. D.!
But one wonders what might have prompted the following statement:
"Everyone knows he's conservative and has come out strongly for the things that the pro-family movement stands for," Dobson said of Thompson. "[But] I don't think he's a Christian; at least that's my impression," Dobson added, saying that such an impression would make it difficult for Thompson to connect with the Republican Party's conservative Christian base and win the GOP nomination.
Compared to whom? Tommy Thompson? Mitt Romney? Ruuuuudeeeeee!!??? McPain?
Good heavens, Dr. D.!
"No Crisis", and No Solution Except State Dollars?
Nothing Ald. Donovan suggests will be useful--unless someone else pays for it:
Mayor Tom Barrett said that many of Donovan's ideas are things already being done by the city, or for which he has already approached the state for help.
The City of Milwaukee's spending priorities are simple: 1) Get the money from the State or the Feds; 2) Spend it. 3) If we don't get money from the State or the Feds, BLAME THEM for the problems!!
Right.
Mayor Tom Barrett said that many of Donovan's ideas are things already being done by the city, or for which he has already approached the state for help.
The City of Milwaukee's spending priorities are simple: 1) Get the money from the State or the Feds; 2) Spend it. 3) If we don't get money from the State or the Feds, BLAME THEM for the problems!!
Right.
Sen. Feinstein Gets Rich
Seems that Sen. Feinstein (D-CA) had a nice little spot on the Senate Military Construction subcommittee.
And her husband owned a decent chunk of Perini Construction.
And Perini did a lot of DoD work (!!!!)
And she saw that it was good, and sold the stock in Perini:
Public records show Blum's [Feinstein's hubby] company paid $4 a share for controlling interest in Perini, and later sold about three million shares for $23.75 each.
The report also showed URS' military construction work in 2000 was only $24 million, but the next year, when Feinstein took over as MILCON chair, military construction earned URS $185 million. Additionally, its military construction architectural and engineering revenue rose from $108,000 in 2000 to $142 million in 2001, a thousand-fold increase.
In late 2005, Blum sold 5.5 million URS shares, worth $220 million, the report said.
All as a result of excellent management and a terrific sales effort?
Maybe. But then there's this:
...Michael R. Klein, an adviser to Feinstein and business partner with Blum, said that starting in 1997 he routinely told Feinstein about federal projects coming before her in which Perini had a stake, in order for her to avoid those votes and as such, a conflict of interest.
However, instead of withholding a vote, she did act on those pieces of legislation, Byrne reported. Ultimately, "the Congressional Record shows that as chairperson and ranking member of MILCON, Feinstein was often involved in supervising the legislative details of military construction projects that directly affected Blum's defense-contracting firms," Byrne's report said.
Just co-incidence. Sen. Feinstein is not the first US Senator whose net worth increased remarkably while 'serving' the country. And she won't be the last.
But it's all right, because "it's for the children." HER children.
And her husband owned a decent chunk of Perini Construction.
And Perini did a lot of DoD work (!!!!)
And she saw that it was good, and sold the stock in Perini:
Public records show Blum's [Feinstein's hubby] company paid $4 a share for controlling interest in Perini, and later sold about three million shares for $23.75 each.
The report also showed URS' military construction work in 2000 was only $24 million, but the next year, when Feinstein took over as MILCON chair, military construction earned URS $185 million. Additionally, its military construction architectural and engineering revenue rose from $108,000 in 2000 to $142 million in 2001, a thousand-fold increase.
In late 2005, Blum sold 5.5 million URS shares, worth $220 million, the report said.
All as a result of excellent management and a terrific sales effort?
Maybe. But then there's this:
...Michael R. Klein, an adviser to Feinstein and business partner with Blum, said that starting in 1997 he routinely told Feinstein about federal projects coming before her in which Perini had a stake, in order for her to avoid those votes and as such, a conflict of interest.
However, instead of withholding a vote, she did act on those pieces of legislation, Byrne reported. Ultimately, "the Congressional Record shows that as chairperson and ranking member of MILCON, Feinstein was often involved in supervising the legislative details of military construction projects that directly affected Blum's defense-contracting firms," Byrne's report said.
Just co-incidence. Sen. Feinstein is not the first US Senator whose net worth increased remarkably while 'serving' the country. And she won't be the last.
But it's all right, because "it's for the children." HER children.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
DZ v. DePauw
I know. That headline could be French for something....
Delta Zeta is holding DePauw University responsible for its own student-handbook procedures:
...The heart of our lawsuit against DePauw involves three claims that should matter to all Greeks. First, the university withdrew recognition of our chapter in a manner that is completely inconsistent with the due process rights of students and organizations on campus. Simply put, the school acted as judge and jury in this case instead of following the disciplinary action processes outlined in their Student Handbook. Second, the university lacked valid grounds to take action against Delta Zeta since the student affairs staff at the school had been active participants in approving all aspects of the membership review process that is central to this dispute. Finally, the university and its officials have engaged in a deliberate campaign to defame Delta Zeta and inflicted significant harm to the student members of our organization by exposing them to national ridicule.
Too bad. Perhaps this will serve as a warning to those who would make PC a graven image for worship. It might cost you to do so...
Delta Zeta is holding DePauw University responsible for its own student-handbook procedures:
...The heart of our lawsuit against DePauw involves three claims that should matter to all Greeks. First, the university withdrew recognition of our chapter in a manner that is completely inconsistent with the due process rights of students and organizations on campus. Simply put, the school acted as judge and jury in this case instead of following the disciplinary action processes outlined in their Student Handbook. Second, the university lacked valid grounds to take action against Delta Zeta since the student affairs staff at the school had been active participants in approving all aspects of the membership review process that is central to this dispute. Finally, the university and its officials have engaged in a deliberate campaign to defame Delta Zeta and inflicted significant harm to the student members of our organization by exposing them to national ridicule.
Too bad. Perhaps this will serve as a warning to those who would make PC a graven image for worship. It might cost you to do so...
A Better Ground of Understanding--The National Conversation
Directed to this post by ol' Texas Hold'Em, we find this clarification in a discussion of the Shorewood and Pulaski fights:
This isn’t black culture. It’s hip-hop culture. Although many liberals equate one with the other, and they stand on the sidelines like docile dimwits because their worldview requires them to be “tolerant” of every culture. Even evil ones.
I beg to differ, with nuance.
These fights are a part of Young Male culture. Black, white, whatever...boys have been doing this since before my time, and will continue to do so long, long after.
It's happened before in schools, in homes, in alleys, in streets, in parks...and by-and-large in full view of girls, who just happen to be the intended audience.
It's not s'posed to be polite, and it's not s'posed to be really harmful.
When knives or guns are involved---that's a different thing altogether.
This isn’t black culture. It’s hip-hop culture. Although many liberals equate one with the other, and they stand on the sidelines like docile dimwits because their worldview requires them to be “tolerant” of every culture. Even evil ones.
I beg to differ, with nuance.
These fights are a part of Young Male culture. Black, white, whatever...boys have been doing this since before my time, and will continue to do so long, long after.
It's happened before in schools, in homes, in alleys, in streets, in parks...and by-and-large in full view of girls, who just happen to be the intended audience.
It's not s'posed to be polite, and it's not s'posed to be really harmful.
When knives or guns are involved---that's a different thing altogether.
Cheap Seats: Worth Repeating
Billiam gets this dead-on:
...We're becoming more divided now then at the time of Viet Nam. ...
I think I'll start looking at 3rd parties. They seem to think more of this country than do Dems and Repubs.
Those two have been in power so long, they've forgotten it's not about them.
And this cancerous/carniverous concept extends right down to Madison's Capitol Square.
BTW, Barak Obama gets this too. That's why he's running on a 'national reconciliation' (or some such) theme.
Hint to Fred Thompson: you can do the same thing...
...We're becoming more divided now then at the time of Viet Nam. ...
I think I'll start looking at 3rd parties. They seem to think more of this country than do Dems and Repubs.
Those two have been in power so long, they've forgotten it's not about them.
And this cancerous/carniverous concept extends right down to Madison's Capitol Square.
BTW, Barak Obama gets this too. That's why he's running on a 'national reconciliation' (or some such) theme.
Hint to Fred Thompson: you can do the same thing...
I, Too, am John Doe
Malkin wrote this, and I'll join in. How about you?
Dear Muslim Terrorist Plotter/Planner/Funder/Enabler/Apologist,
You do not know me. But I am on the lookout for you. You are my enemy. And I am yours.
I am John Doe.
I am traveling on your plane. I am riding on your train. I am at your bus stop. I am on your street. I am in your subway car. I am on your lift.
I am your neighbor. I am your customer. I am your classmate. I am your boss.
I am John Doe.
I will never forget the example of the passengers of United Airlines Flight 93 who refused to sit back on 9/11 and let themselves be murdered in the name of Islam without a fight.
I will never forget the passengers and crew members who tackled al Qaeda shoe-bomber Richard Reid on American Airlines Flight 63 before he had a chance to blow up the plane over the Atlantic Ocean.
I will never forget the alertness of actor James Woods, who notified a stewardess that several Arab men sitting in his first-class cabin on an August 2001 flight were behaving strangely. The men turned out to be 9/11 hijackers on a test run.
I will act when homeland security officials ask me to "report suspicious activity."
I will embrace my local police department's admonition: "If you see something, say something."
I am John Doe.
And screw the bastard who tries to sue me...
Dear Muslim Terrorist Plotter/Planner/Funder/Enabler/Apologist,
You do not know me. But I am on the lookout for you. You are my enemy. And I am yours.
I am John Doe.
I am traveling on your plane. I am riding on your train. I am at your bus stop. I am on your street. I am in your subway car. I am on your lift.
I am your neighbor. I am your customer. I am your classmate. I am your boss.
I am John Doe.
I will never forget the example of the passengers of United Airlines Flight 93 who refused to sit back on 9/11 and let themselves be murdered in the name of Islam without a fight.
I will never forget the passengers and crew members who tackled al Qaeda shoe-bomber Richard Reid on American Airlines Flight 63 before he had a chance to blow up the plane over the Atlantic Ocean.
I will never forget the alertness of actor James Woods, who notified a stewardess that several Arab men sitting in his first-class cabin on an August 2001 flight were behaving strangely. The men turned out to be 9/11 hijackers on a test run.
I will act when homeland security officials ask me to "report suspicious activity."
I will embrace my local police department's admonition: "If you see something, say something."
I am John Doe.
And screw the bastard who tries to sue me...
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
ITT: Treason?
Technically, it might not be treason, but read it and judge for yourselves:
ITT Corp. has agreed to pay a $100 million penalty for illegally sending classified night-vision technology used in military operations to China and other countries, U.S. Attorney John Brownlee announced Tuesday.
ITT, the leading manufacturer of night-vision equipment for U.S. armed forces, will plead guilty in U.S. District Court on Wednesday to two felony charges, Brownlee said at a news conference. One count is export of defense articles without a license and the other is omission of statements of material facts in arms exports reports.
...ITT defense-related technical data was given to China, Singapore and the United Kingdom in order to cut costs, government investigators said.
There's more fun to come, we hope:
No individuals have been charged, but Brownlee said the investigation was continuing.
"Stay tuned for the rest," he said.
That will be a perp-frog-march which will be a delight to watch.
ITT Corp. has agreed to pay a $100 million penalty for illegally sending classified night-vision technology used in military operations to China and other countries, U.S. Attorney John Brownlee announced Tuesday.
ITT, the leading manufacturer of night-vision equipment for U.S. armed forces, will plead guilty in U.S. District Court on Wednesday to two felony charges, Brownlee said at a news conference. One count is export of defense articles without a license and the other is omission of statements of material facts in arms exports reports.
...ITT defense-related technical data was given to China, Singapore and the United Kingdom in order to cut costs, government investigators said.
There's more fun to come, we hope:
No individuals have been charged, but Brownlee said the investigation was continuing.
"Stay tuned for the rest," he said.
That will be a perp-frog-march which will be a delight to watch.
Suggestions for Keeping Certain Relatives At a Distance
Heh.
Copied directly from Fr. R's excellent blog, headline: 16 Ways to Maintain Your Insanity. Obviously, this could have other effects (some salutary, some....well, )
1. At Lunch Time, Sit In Your Parked Car With Sunglasses on and Point A Hair Dryer At Passing Cars. See If They Slow Down.
2. Page Yourself Over The Intercom. Don't Disguise Your Voice.
3. Every Time Someone Asks You To Do Something, Ask If They Want Fries with That.
4. Put Your Garbage Can On Your Desk And Label It "IN."
5. Put Decaf In The Coffee Maker For 3 Weeks. Once Everyone Has Gotten Over Their Caffeine Addictions, Switch To Espresso.
6. In The Memo Field Of All Your Checks, Write "For Sexual Favors"
7. Finish all Your Sentences With "In Accordance With The Prophecy."
8. dont use any punctuation
9 . As Often As Possible, Skip Rather Than Walk.
10. Specify That Your Drive-through Order Is "To Go."
11. Sing Along At The Opera.
12. Go To A Poetry Recital And Ask Why The Poems Don't Rhyme?
13. Put Mosquito Netting Around Your Work Area And Play Tropical Sounds All Day.
14. When The Money Comes Out The ATM, Scream "I Won! I Won!"
15. When Leaving The Zoo, Start Running Towards The Parking Lot, Yelling "Run For Your Lives, They're Loose!!!"
16. Tell Your Children Over Dinner. "Due To The Economy, We Are Going To Have To Let One Of You Go. "
One might add #17: Use a Lot of Capital Letters...
Copied directly from Fr. R's excellent blog, headline: 16 Ways to Maintain Your Insanity. Obviously, this could have other effects (some salutary, some....well, )
1. At Lunch Time, Sit In Your Parked Car With Sunglasses on and Point A Hair Dryer At Passing Cars. See If They Slow Down.
2. Page Yourself Over The Intercom. Don't Disguise Your Voice.
3. Every Time Someone Asks You To Do Something, Ask If They Want Fries with That.
4. Put Your Garbage Can On Your Desk And Label It "IN."
5. Put Decaf In The Coffee Maker For 3 Weeks. Once Everyone Has Gotten Over Their Caffeine Addictions, Switch To Espresso.
6. In The Memo Field Of All Your Checks, Write "For Sexual Favors"
7. Finish all Your Sentences With "In Accordance With The Prophecy."
8. dont use any punctuation
9 . As Often As Possible, Skip Rather Than Walk.
10. Specify That Your Drive-through Order Is "To Go."
11. Sing Along At The Opera.
12. Go To A Poetry Recital And Ask Why The Poems Don't Rhyme?
13. Put Mosquito Netting Around Your Work Area And Play Tropical Sounds All Day.
14. When The Money Comes Out The ATM, Scream "I Won! I Won!"
15. When Leaving The Zoo, Start Running Towards The Parking Lot, Yelling "Run For Your Lives, They're Loose!!!"
16. Tell Your Children Over Dinner. "Due To The Economy, We Are Going To Have To Let One Of You Go. "
One might add #17: Use a Lot of Capital Letters...
"Return to the Church": Another View
The Archdiocese of Milwaukee is sponsoring a "Return to the Church" thing.
That's good.
Here's a little quote from Fr. Al Kimel, who recently became a Catholic (that's "poped" to you Prots) having been an Episcopalian priest:
First, the question, from a blog-reader:
If this is THE church, shouldn’t it do better at making Christians, out of both unchurched adults and little children?
Fr. K's answer (in part):
Yes, the Catholic Church should do better at making Christians, it should do better at evangelizing, it should do better at catechizing, it should do better at preaching the gospel, it should do better at worshipping God, it should do better in serving the poor and the oppressed, it should do better in every aspect of its life and ministry.
However, if the Church was doing better in all of these areas, or even just the one you have mentioned, would you be persuaded that the Catholic Church is the Church of Jesus Christ, as she claims to be? Of course not! Because performance neither proves nor disproves the claims of the Catholic Church. Ironically, your objection to the Catholic Church—viz., her poor, even sinful performance—is grounded in a works-righteousness understanding of the gospel. You are demanding that the Catholic Church justify herself as the Body of Christ by her works! But the Catholic Church is the Body of Christ only by grace and election!
Thought that was interesting--and may not be covered in the Archdiocesan talks.
HT: Amy
That's good.
Here's a little quote from Fr. Al Kimel, who recently became a Catholic (that's "poped" to you Prots) having been an Episcopalian priest:
First, the question, from a blog-reader:
If this is THE church, shouldn’t it do better at making Christians, out of both unchurched adults and little children?
Fr. K's answer (in part):
Yes, the Catholic Church should do better at making Christians, it should do better at evangelizing, it should do better at catechizing, it should do better at preaching the gospel, it should do better at worshipping God, it should do better in serving the poor and the oppressed, it should do better in every aspect of its life and ministry.
However, if the Church was doing better in all of these areas, or even just the one you have mentioned, would you be persuaded that the Catholic Church is the Church of Jesus Christ, as she claims to be? Of course not! Because performance neither proves nor disproves the claims of the Catholic Church. Ironically, your objection to the Catholic Church—viz., her poor, even sinful performance—is grounded in a works-righteousness understanding of the gospel. You are demanding that the Catholic Church justify herself as the Body of Christ by her works! But the Catholic Church is the Body of Christ only by grace and election!
Thought that was interesting--and may not be covered in the Archdiocesan talks.
HT: Amy
More Good News from Baghdad
...that you didn't read in the MSM.
Over the past five days, Iraqi and U.S. forces have put a big dent in the leadership of a suicide and car bomb cell in Adhamiyah, as well as an al Qaeda leader in Abu Ghraib.
...The Adhamiyah cell was particularly active and deadly in Baghdad. "It is estimated that since Nov. the car bombs from this cell have killed approximately 900 innocent Iraqi citizens; another 1,950 have been wounded," according Multinational Forces Iraq. The Adhamiyah cell is believed to be behind ""the majority of car bombs which have killed hundreds of Iraqi citizens in Sadr City."
HT: Roggio
Over the past five days, Iraqi and U.S. forces have put a big dent in the leadership of a suicide and car bomb cell in Adhamiyah, as well as an al Qaeda leader in Abu Ghraib.
...The Adhamiyah cell was particularly active and deadly in Baghdad. "It is estimated that since Nov. the car bombs from this cell have killed approximately 900 innocent Iraqi citizens; another 1,950 have been wounded," according Multinational Forces Iraq. The Adhamiyah cell is believed to be behind ""the majority of car bombs which have killed hundreds of Iraqi citizens in Sadr City."
HT: Roggio
Gummint Health Care Priorities
Oh, yeah.
One of the recurring concerns about having the government in charge of health care (so we can be more like Canada and Britain) is what happens when the government has to decide which health concerns are highest priority? This video shows what happened when two people in Ontario needed medical care. One of them was put on a waiting list for a procedure--and because the waiting list was so long, she had to have her bladder removed, and now has a charming little bag attached instead.
The other person has the good fortune to have a medical "problem" that Ontario's Health Minister thinks is really important: he was born the wrong sex.
Think of Jim Doyle being the 'authority' on health-care decisions.
HT: ClayCramer
One of the recurring concerns about having the government in charge of health care (so we can be more like Canada and Britain) is what happens when the government has to decide which health concerns are highest priority? This video shows what happened when two people in Ontario needed medical care. One of them was put on a waiting list for a procedure--and because the waiting list was so long, she had to have her bladder removed, and now has a charming little bag attached instead.
The other person has the good fortune to have a medical "problem" that Ontario's Health Minister thinks is really important: he was born the wrong sex.
Think of Jim Doyle being the 'authority' on health-care decisions.
HT: ClayCramer
Why Did "New" Home Sales Drop, and "Existing" Not?
Well, it's all in the fine print.
"A sale of the new house occurs with the signing of a sales contract or the acceptance of a deposit."
Signing the contract could occur as much as 10 months before occupancy.
As to 'existing' home sales:
"the majority of transactions are reported when the sales contract is closed."
Usually, that's 60 days before occupancy.
But what's important to know is this:
Given the difference in definition, new home sales usually lead existing home sales regarding changes in the residential sales market by a month or two.
So what you saw in "new home sales" a couple of days ago is likely to be echoed in "existing home sales" about 60 days from now.
That's not too pretty.
HT: Calculated Risk
"A sale of the new house occurs with the signing of a sales contract or the acceptance of a deposit."
Signing the contract could occur as much as 10 months before occupancy.
As to 'existing' home sales:
"the majority of transactions are reported when the sales contract is closed."
Usually, that's 60 days before occupancy.
But what's important to know is this:
Given the difference in definition, new home sales usually lead existing home sales regarding changes in the residential sales market by a month or two.
So what you saw in "new home sales" a couple of days ago is likely to be echoed in "existing home sales" about 60 days from now.
That's not too pretty.
HT: Calculated Risk
Monday, March 26, 2007
Succinct Speech on Shirley & Co. Plus: Ethics?
Rick Esenberg is also a good speaker.
In about 20 minutes (slightly more than 1 sermon,) he was able to deliver the short version of his thoughts about the Wisconsin Supreme Court. He was speaking to a gathering of the Milwaukee Federalist Society.
At the risk of mangling his significantly more-nuanced thoughts, I'll tell you what I took away from the event. (The link above takes you to his post on today's topic.)
The Wisconsin Supremes are 'making up the rules' as they go. They examine or analyze cases in a fashion different than the norm. Or they draw conclusions which contradict recent precedent. Or they place new evidentiary rules in a decision, rather than going through the normal process.
This should worry people who are not even remotely close to being eminento practitioners of law (that's most of us...) because when the rules of the game are changed while the game is being played, there are problems.
Practitioners don't know how to argue a case. This means (of course) that there is no probability of outcome. Should that continue for a lengthy period, it will lead to anarchy.
Not where the State should be heading.
As to the second headline item, "Ethics:"
Prior to the lecture by Esenberg, an older gentleman was conversing with another fellow near the back of the room, and their conversation was about legal ethics. It covered a fair amount of ground, but the older guy made an observation which was fascinating.
He said that the concept of lawyers' ethics was fraught with problems--and that originally, the canon was proposed as responsibilities rather than 'ethics.' (There's a reason for that link on "responsibilities," and it has to do with a discussion of "rights" begun with a post on Hauerwas. Scroll down to the comments, and read the question of T. Berres, another blogger. The point? "Responsibilities/duties" are placed before "rights" by English Lords in the 1200's. The lords didn't talk about "ethics.")
Ethics is defined as "A set of principles of right conduct." Responsibility, however, is defined as "Something for which one is responsible; a duty, obligation, or burden."
There's a difference.
That puts an interesting light on the current brouhaha regarding Judge Ziegler, no?
In about 20 minutes (slightly more than 1 sermon,) he was able to deliver the short version of his thoughts about the Wisconsin Supreme Court. He was speaking to a gathering of the Milwaukee Federalist Society.
At the risk of mangling his significantly more-nuanced thoughts, I'll tell you what I took away from the event. (The link above takes you to his post on today's topic.)
The Wisconsin Supremes are 'making up the rules' as they go. They examine or analyze cases in a fashion different than the norm. Or they draw conclusions which contradict recent precedent. Or they place new evidentiary rules in a decision, rather than going through the normal process.
This should worry people who are not even remotely close to being eminento practitioners of law (that's most of us...) because when the rules of the game are changed while the game is being played, there are problems.
Practitioners don't know how to argue a case. This means (of course) that there is no probability of outcome. Should that continue for a lengthy period, it will lead to anarchy.
Not where the State should be heading.
As to the second headline item, "Ethics:"
Prior to the lecture by Esenberg, an older gentleman was conversing with another fellow near the back of the room, and their conversation was about legal ethics. It covered a fair amount of ground, but the older guy made an observation which was fascinating.
He said that the concept of lawyers' ethics was fraught with problems--and that originally, the canon was proposed as responsibilities rather than 'ethics.' (There's a reason for that link on "responsibilities," and it has to do with a discussion of "rights" begun with a post on Hauerwas. Scroll down to the comments, and read the question of T. Berres, another blogger. The point? "Responsibilities/duties" are placed before "rights" by English Lords in the 1200's. The lords didn't talk about "ethics.")
Ethics is defined as "A set of principles of right conduct." Responsibility, however, is defined as "Something for which one is responsible; a duty, obligation, or burden."
There's a difference.
That puts an interesting light on the current brouhaha regarding Judge Ziegler, no?
Fred Thompson Update
Latest word is that he's tied w/HRC in some polls.
Better Fred than ......ahhh..... Oh, well. You get the idea.
P-Mac Finds a Good One
Patrick McIlheran discovers a study which questions the "common school" as a foundation for democracy.
Being a couple of decades older than Pat, I've known this for a while...but it's worth the read.
It was really an anti-Catholic thing at first...
Being a couple of decades older than Pat, I've known this for a while...but it's worth the read.
It was really an anti-Catholic thing at first...
Clifford Earns Gay Lobby Endorsement
The Warrior has it all; here's the short summary:
Unfortunately it is legislating from the bench when you believe “civil liberties, constitutional rights, or fundamental freedoms” can mean pretty much what you want them to mean.
Yes. That's called 'transvaluing values.'
Unfortunately it is legislating from the bench when you believe “civil liberties, constitutional rights, or fundamental freedoms” can mean pretty much what you want them to mean.
Yes. That's called 'transvaluing values.'
Biodiesel Brewer Gets Reality, UPDATED
This fellow sums it up:
“I guess that I’m opposed to it overall for a hobbyist to be charged,” he said. “It’s getting to the point in our culture that almost everything that we do is going to be illegal, or you need a fee or a license.”
--Paul Simon, a Manitowoc-area "home-brewer" of biodiesel fuel.
HT: The Alliance
And, in another instance of the same, an Illinois couple finds that "revenooers" are after their money, as well:
"They told me I am required to have a license and am obligated to pay a motor fuel tax," David Wetzel recalled. "Mr. May also told me the tax would be retroactive."
Since the initial visit by the agents on Jan. 4, the Wetzels have been involved in a struggle with the Illinois Department of Revenue. The couple, who live on a fixed budget, have been asked to post a $2,500 bond and threatened with felony charges.
Just coincidence that both States are run by Democrat governors who spend money like water, are in the Midwest, and are more concerned with what they think is "their" money.
HT: Wiggy
“I guess that I’m opposed to it overall for a hobbyist to be charged,” he said. “It’s getting to the point in our culture that almost everything that we do is going to be illegal, or you need a fee or a license.”
--Paul Simon, a Manitowoc-area "home-brewer" of biodiesel fuel.
HT: The Alliance
And, in another instance of the same, an Illinois couple finds that "revenooers" are after their money, as well:
"They told me I am required to have a license and am obligated to pay a motor fuel tax," David Wetzel recalled. "Mr. May also told me the tax would be retroactive."
Since the initial visit by the agents on Jan. 4, the Wetzels have been involved in a struggle with the Illinois Department of Revenue. The couple, who live on a fixed budget, have been asked to post a $2,500 bond and threatened with felony charges.
Just coincidence that both States are run by Democrat governors who spend money like water, are in the Midwest, and are more concerned with what they think is "their" money.
HT: Wiggy
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Milwaukee Tridentine Mass Update, II
The authorized Milwaukee Archdiocesan Tridentine Rite (Old Rite) Community will move to St. Stanislaus Church, corner 5th/Mitchell Streets, on Low (Quasimodo) Sunday, April 15th, 2007.
The Mass on THAT Sunday (only) will be at 9:00 AM, Confessions preceding.
After Low Sunday, the regular sung Mass will be held at 10:00 AM every week.
The Mass on THAT Sunday (only) will be at 9:00 AM, Confessions preceding.
After Low Sunday, the regular sung Mass will be held at 10:00 AM every week.
WFBuckley on Congressional Investigations
Food for thought, as might be expected from WFB:
It is obvious that there are Democrats in Congress who want an opportunity to forage for crimes in the matter of the discharged U.S. attorneys. Nobody has come up with a description of exactly what crime might have been committed and should be investigated. What is being conjectured is that an industrious investigating committee armed with subpoena powers could come up with malfeasance of some kind.
On the other hand, the investigative function of the legislative branch is of plenary importance, and should not be aborted by hypothetical immunities of the chief executive. Woodrow Wilson wrote in his classic book "Congressional Government" that Congress' investigative power was more important, even, than its legislative power. ...
Abuse of Executive powers seems to pop up every so often. FDR did it, as did JFK (through his brother, the AG), Nixon, and Clinton. All those are well-documented examples.
I don't think GWB is a bad guy, and neither does WFB (see the link.) But Gonzales, and perhaps some of his subordinates, are not clean as the driven snow.
HT: Captain's Quarters
It is obvious that there are Democrats in Congress who want an opportunity to forage for crimes in the matter of the discharged U.S. attorneys. Nobody has come up with a description of exactly what crime might have been committed and should be investigated. What is being conjectured is that an industrious investigating committee armed with subpoena powers could come up with malfeasance of some kind.
On the other hand, the investigative function of the legislative branch is of plenary importance, and should not be aborted by hypothetical immunities of the chief executive. Woodrow Wilson wrote in his classic book "Congressional Government" that Congress' investigative power was more important, even, than its legislative power. ...
Abuse of Executive powers seems to pop up every so often. FDR did it, as did JFK (through his brother, the AG), Nixon, and Clinton. All those are well-documented examples.
I don't think GWB is a bad guy, and neither does WFB (see the link.) But Gonzales, and perhaps some of his subordinates, are not clean as the driven snow.
HT: Captain's Quarters
Cong. Ryan: Does 2+2=4? Bice's Fantasy World
Bice (ex-Spice) writes, in an attempt to smear Cong. Ryan:
The elder Willems, as anybody in Kenosha can tell you, is the executive vice president and general counsel for trucking conglomerate JHT Holdings.
(The junior Willems was a high-ranking aide to Cong. Ryan.)
[The elder Willems] is the guy who signed, on behalf of the company, the secret deal to pay former JHT owner and now-indicted Kenosha powerbroker Dennis Troha on the side through 2010 if Congress passed legislation that benefited the firm by easing federal truck-hauling regulations.
...In 2005, Ryan had the lead signature on a letter urging two other congressmen to fight for the Troha provision in a conference committee. Last year, Ryan wrote then-Acting Transportation Secretary Maria Cino urging her agency to adopt rules based on the legislation that were favored by JHT.
So what?
JHT wants larger trailering capabilities. If that's allowed, JHT makes more money. If that happens, the owners of JHT should pay Troha more money, as the value of the Company rose.
That's what we call "the normal course of business." In other words, there's no "there" there. And yes, the deal was a confidential codicil--but there are LOTS of those floating around. Maybe Troha's a skunk--but even skunks get the benefit of normal business deals.
Ryan didn't know about the deal between JHT and Troha--so it can't be said that Ryan was pushing something for Troha's benefit. Ryan thought that the legislation made sense for a constituent--in this case, JHT.
The Teamsters' Union doesn't think so.
What the deal DID do was allow Bice to write articles which don't mean anything.
Fantasy.
The elder Willems, as anybody in Kenosha can tell you, is the executive vice president and general counsel for trucking conglomerate JHT Holdings.
(The junior Willems was a high-ranking aide to Cong. Ryan.)
[The elder Willems] is the guy who signed, on behalf of the company, the secret deal to pay former JHT owner and now-indicted Kenosha powerbroker Dennis Troha on the side through 2010 if Congress passed legislation that benefited the firm by easing federal truck-hauling regulations.
...In 2005, Ryan had the lead signature on a letter urging two other congressmen to fight for the Troha provision in a conference committee. Last year, Ryan wrote then-Acting Transportation Secretary Maria Cino urging her agency to adopt rules based on the legislation that were favored by JHT.
So what?
JHT wants larger trailering capabilities. If that's allowed, JHT makes more money. If that happens, the owners of JHT should pay Troha more money, as the value of the Company rose.
That's what we call "the normal course of business." In other words, there's no "there" there. And yes, the deal was a confidential codicil--but there are LOTS of those floating around. Maybe Troha's a skunk--but even skunks get the benefit of normal business deals.
Ryan didn't know about the deal between JHT and Troha--so it can't be said that Ryan was pushing something for Troha's benefit. Ryan thought that the legislation made sense for a constituent--in this case, JHT.
The Teamsters' Union doesn't think so.
What the deal DID do was allow Bice to write articles which don't mean anything.
Fantasy.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Dave Obey's "Screw the Troops" Vote
New configuration following the Dave Obey "Screw the Troops" vote to (in effect) de-fund the military in Iraq: (HT: Power Line)
Another perspective on Dave Obey's "yea" from Planet Moron:
Getting Democrats to support the bill required uniting the liberal wing of the party which believes we have already lost, with the moderate wing which believes it would be better to lose next year.
So really it was mostly just a scheduling conflict.
Republicans railed against either option taking the far more philosophical approach that failure is not so much a destination, as a journey…
Dave's famous for two things: defying the Bishop of LaCrosse on abortion voting, and for screaming at a war protester, immortalized on UTube.
Now he'll be famous for managing to combine Pork with Defeat. Helluva tombstone, Dave.
Getting Democrats to support the bill required uniting the liberal wing of the party which believes we have already lost, with the moderate wing which believes it would be better to lose next year.
So really it was mostly just a scheduling conflict.
Republicans railed against either option taking the far more philosophical approach that failure is not so much a destination, as a journey…
Dave's famous for two things: defying the Bishop of LaCrosse on abortion voting, and for screaming at a war protester, immortalized on UTube.
Now he'll be famous for managing to combine Pork with Defeat. Helluva tombstone, Dave.
Michelle McGrorty's New Job
Thanks to P-Mac McIlheran and Google, we find that Supreme Court candidate Linda ("The Cops Lied") Clifford keeps some interesting company--at arm's length, of course.
First, P-Mac:
As long as we're on the topic of donors, it's worth noting that many of the anti-Ziegler ads running on Clifford's behalf -- and being anti-Ziegler appears to be the chief substance of Clifford's campaign -- are paid for by the Greater Wisconsin Committee, or... by its political fund. It's a 527 group, which means that in exchange for spending as much as it wants, it has to be independent of Clifford's campaign.
It is independent, doubtless, just as it was independent of Gov. Doyle's campaign, which it helped out heavily, and independent of Kathleen Falk, whom it helped against Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen.It's independent, though the IRS will point out to you that the contact person for the Greater Wisconsin Committee [Michelle McGrorty] is employed by Clifford's longtime employer. She's even on the firm's board of directors.
So you go to the link, and find Michelle McGrorty.
THEN you Google, and voila!
Also given immunity was Michelle McGrorty, a worker in the former Senate Democratic caucus who was identified by a lobbyist last year as being a "full-time staff person for political fund raising."
...McGrorty was a part-time worker in the caucus, working 32 hours a week. She was mentioned in a memo that lobbyist Tony Driessen circulated among colleagues as being the contact for Senate Democratic fund raising.
Evidently Ms. McGrorty learned enough during the Chvala years to become an attorney. Or maybe this experience served as OJT-Law-School. Or maybe McGrorty is not an attorney, but slept at a Holiday Inn Express.
UPDATE: Xoff, always fastidiously concerned about details, advises that Ms McGrorty is no longer employed by the lawfirm. See combox
First, P-Mac:
As long as we're on the topic of donors, it's worth noting that many of the anti-Ziegler ads running on Clifford's behalf -- and being anti-Ziegler appears to be the chief substance of Clifford's campaign -- are paid for by the Greater Wisconsin Committee, or... by its political fund. It's a 527 group, which means that in exchange for spending as much as it wants, it has to be independent of Clifford's campaign.
It is independent, doubtless, just as it was independent of Gov. Doyle's campaign, which it helped out heavily, and independent of Kathleen Falk, whom it helped against Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen.It's independent, though the IRS will point out to you that the contact person for the Greater Wisconsin Committee [Michelle McGrorty] is employed by Clifford's longtime employer. She's even on the firm's board of directors.
So you go to the link, and find Michelle McGrorty.
THEN you Google, and voila!
Does the name Chuck Chvala ring a bell? The Caucus scandal?
The treasurer of an independent campaign group and a woman identified as a contact for campaign contributions to state Senate Democrats were given court-ordered immunity Thursday in a secret inquiry into possible illegal campaigningAlso given immunity was Michelle McGrorty, a worker in the former Senate Democratic caucus who was identified by a lobbyist last year as being a "full-time staff person for political fund raising."
...McGrorty was a part-time worker in the caucus, working 32 hours a week. She was mentioned in a memo that lobbyist Tony Driessen circulated among colleagues as being the contact for Senate Democratic fund raising.
Evidently Ms. McGrorty learned enough during the Chvala years to become an attorney. Or maybe this experience served as OJT-Law-School. Or maybe McGrorty is not an attorney, but slept at a Holiday Inn Express.
UPDATE: Xoff, always fastidiously concerned about details, advises that Ms McGrorty is no longer employed by the lawfirm. See combox
Have a Hummer? Lock It Up
Personally, I've never had much use for the H2 (or H3). They've become toys, and are almost useless if you want HumVee abilities.
But they are now targets:
Residents of Denver's normally quiet Cherry Creek district were woken by an explosion early Wednesday morning to see flames rising 15 into the air from the remains of a Hummer H2 parked at the curb in front of its owner's house. The letters ELF were markered onto the ruined vehicle — a calling card from the environmentalist group Earth Liberation Front.
Two other vehicles were torched in Cherry Creek that same night, most likely by ELF terrorists. There have also been tire slashings in the neighborhood.
We haven't seen ELF wackos in SE Wisconsin, yet. But then, until last week we haven't seen significantly destructive anti-war protests, either.
HT: Moonbattery
But they are now targets:
Residents of Denver's normally quiet Cherry Creek district were woken by an explosion early Wednesday morning to see flames rising 15 into the air from the remains of a Hummer H2 parked at the curb in front of its owner's house. The letters ELF were markered onto the ruined vehicle — a calling card from the environmentalist group Earth Liberation Front.
Two other vehicles were torched in Cherry Creek that same night, most likely by ELF terrorists. There have also been tire slashings in the neighborhood.
We haven't seen ELF wackos in SE Wisconsin, yet. But then, until last week we haven't seen significantly destructive anti-war protests, either.
HT: Moonbattery
Al Gonzales: Resign!
Tom Roeser was right. Gonzales is a shifty-eyed lying sack of s*&^.
Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales met with senior aides on Nov. 27 to review a plan to fire a group of U.S. attorneys, according to documents released last night, a disclosure that contradicts Gonzales's previous statement that he was not involved in "any discussions" about the dismissals
OK, Al. You've managed to screw GWB with your game. Now pack up and leave.
HT: Captain's Quarters (who agrees that Al should just leave, preferably now.)
Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales met with senior aides on Nov. 27 to review a plan to fire a group of U.S. attorneys, according to documents released last night, a disclosure that contradicts Gonzales's previous statement that he was not involved in "any discussions" about the dismissals
OK, Al. You've managed to screw GWB with your game. Now pack up and leave.
HT: Captain's Quarters (who agrees that Al should just leave, preferably now.)
"Existing Home Sales Rise in February"--BUT...
The report says that existing home sales rose in February.
There's less to that than the headline suggests.
Inventory is at a record levels for February (30% above Feb 2006).
Existing home sales are reported at the close of escrow. This means these contracts were mostly signed in December and January. So these numbers are prior to the subprime implosion of mid-February.
That "inventory" situation is serious.
Total housing inventory levels rose 5.9 percent at the end of February to 3.75 million existing homes available for sale, which represents a 6.7-month supply at the current sales pace compared with a 6.6-month supply in January. Raw inventories peaked last July at 3.86 million, and supplies topped at 7.4 months in October.
And according to the Guru (Calculated Risk), inventory could hit 8 months in July/August.
There's less to that than the headline suggests.
Inventory is at a record levels for February (30% above Feb 2006).
Existing home sales are reported at the close of escrow. This means these contracts were mostly signed in December and January. So these numbers are prior to the subprime implosion of mid-February.
That "inventory" situation is serious.
Total housing inventory levels rose 5.9 percent at the end of February to 3.75 million existing homes available for sale, which represents a 6.7-month supply at the current sales pace compared with a 6.6-month supply in January. Raw inventories peaked last July at 3.86 million, and supplies topped at 7.4 months in October.
And according to the Guru (Calculated Risk), inventory could hit 8 months in July/August.
Hey! Owen! Steve!! Wiggy!! What's your Bet?
The callout is to the reigning non-Media political analysts...Wiggy, Boots and Eggs...
When Fred jumps in, a lot of water's going to leave the pool.
How about this:
McCain cannot attract the Conservatives and cannot be nominated. He knows it.
Fred, Ruuuuuudeeeee!!!!, and Mitt duke it out--but since Ruuuudeeee!! and Mitt attract a few (but not a lot of) Conservatives, they wind up in the scrap-heap.
Tommy!! gets a lot of voters in Iowa, but that's all.
The Hildebeeste soldiers on, but cannot KO Obama. Nor can Obama KO the Hildebeeste.
SO:
Democrats divide. McCain goes Indy.
Thompson gets the (R) nomination and takes the prize, with McCain and the (D-Whoever) splitting off a few States, evenly divided.
This could be fun.
When Fred jumps in, a lot of water's going to leave the pool.
How about this:
McCain cannot attract the Conservatives and cannot be nominated. He knows it.
Fred, Ruuuuuudeeeee!!!!, and Mitt duke it out--but since Ruuuudeeee!! and Mitt attract a few (but not a lot of) Conservatives, they wind up in the scrap-heap.
Tommy!! gets a lot of voters in Iowa, but that's all.
The Hildebeeste soldiers on, but cannot KO Obama. Nor can Obama KO the Hildebeeste.
SO:
Democrats divide. McCain goes Indy.
Thompson gets the (R) nomination and takes the prize, with McCain and the (D-Whoever) splitting off a few States, evenly divided.
This could be fun.
Fred Thompson: First Poll & UPDATE
All those NYC hot-rods are running for the Right Guard:
A new poll of New Hampshire voters suggests that Fred Thompson might undermine Republican front-runner Rudy Giuliani.
The American Research Group March 19 to 21 telephone poll of 800 likely GOP primary voters included several possible candidates who have not announced their plans.
In a February poll, Giuliani led the field with 27 percent, one point ahead of John McCain. In March, Giuliani slipped to 19 percent, four points behind McCain. Mitt Romney was supported by 17 percent.
Next in line were two unannounced candidates, Newt Gingrich at 11 percent and Thompson, who had not been part of earlier surveys, at 10 percent.
This will be fun.
Now the Iowa polls show Thompson popping upward. So far, he seems to be subtracting from Gingrich in that state.
The NYSun analyst cautions that the numbers are not very strong indicators this early. That said he also mentions that RUUUUUUUDEEEEEEE!'s numbers are troublesome for Rudy--they pop up and down too much.
A new poll of New Hampshire voters suggests that Fred Thompson might undermine Republican front-runner Rudy Giuliani.
The American Research Group March 19 to 21 telephone poll of 800 likely GOP primary voters included several possible candidates who have not announced their plans.
In a February poll, Giuliani led the field with 27 percent, one point ahead of John McCain. In March, Giuliani slipped to 19 percent, four points behind McCain. Mitt Romney was supported by 17 percent.
Next in line were two unannounced candidates, Newt Gingrich at 11 percent and Thompson, who had not been part of earlier surveys, at 10 percent.
This will be fun.
Now the Iowa polls show Thompson popping upward. So far, he seems to be subtracting from Gingrich in that state.
The NYSun analyst cautions that the numbers are not very strong indicators this early. That said he also mentions that RUUUUUUUDEEEEEEE!'s numbers are troublesome for Rudy--they pop up and down too much.
Screechin'Shirley's Next Case
Here's another interesting case that the Supremes will hear:
This case examines Scott M. Hambly’s conviction on one count of delivering cocaine based largely on statements he made to detectives, and whether he waived his right to a lawyer.
Two Washington County Sheriff’s Department detectives arrested Hambly on Sept. 22, 2003 after asking him to come to the police department to discuss “several drug transactions that he was involved in.” Hambly told the detectives he didn’t want to go, and he didn’t want to talk. But he argues that he was subjected to the functional equivalent of an interrogation and that his request for counsel was not honored.
The Court of Appeals concluded that Hambly’s self-incriminating statement did not stem from the functional equivalent of an interrogation and that it was not obtained in violation of his right to counsel.
This case originated in Washington County.
This one is all about whether the police elicited inculpatory statements, or whether the perp flapped his jaw voluntarily.
The Appeals Court thinks it was voluntary.
This case examines Scott M. Hambly’s conviction on one count of delivering cocaine based largely on statements he made to detectives, and whether he waived his right to a lawyer.
Two Washington County Sheriff’s Department detectives arrested Hambly on Sept. 22, 2003 after asking him to come to the police department to discuss “several drug transactions that he was involved in.” Hambly told the detectives he didn’t want to go, and he didn’t want to talk. But he argues that he was subjected to the functional equivalent of an interrogation and that his request for counsel was not honored.
The Court of Appeals concluded that Hambly’s self-incriminating statement did not stem from the functional equivalent of an interrogation and that it was not obtained in violation of his right to counsel.
This case originated in Washington County.
This one is all about whether the police elicited inculpatory statements, or whether the perp flapped his jaw voluntarily.
The Appeals Court thinks it was voluntary.
DMV Gets Rushed
Does your 16-year-old want a drivers' license?
Be prepared to wait.
In Milwaukee, as in other parts of the state, a stream of illegal immigrants is dashing to get Wisconsin identification cards and driver's licenses before April 1, when a new state law will require proof of legal residency in the United States to get them.
...Gary Guenther, director of the Bureau of Field Services for the DMV, said part of the recent backup in getting road tests could be attributed to more immigrants trying to get in under the April 1 deadline.
And there is the sniveling from the usual suspect:
Christine Neumann- Ortiz, director of Voces de la Frontera, an immigrant workers group, said her office has been flooded with calls in the last three months from people trying to beat the April 1 deadline.
"The tragedy is that many have to pick up their kids or go to work, and they will be driving without a license, which will put them at risk for further prosecution for having to do this," she said.
"This will further criminalize working people, hurt the local economy and create a divisive atmosphere and lead to more racial profiling," she said.
Yah. That's the ticket! It will create a "divisive" atmosphere.
Divided between those who actually follow some rules and those who don't.
Be prepared to wait.
In Milwaukee, as in other parts of the state, a stream of illegal immigrants is dashing to get Wisconsin identification cards and driver's licenses before April 1, when a new state law will require proof of legal residency in the United States to get them.
...Gary Guenther, director of the Bureau of Field Services for the DMV, said part of the recent backup in getting road tests could be attributed to more immigrants trying to get in under the April 1 deadline.
And there is the sniveling from the usual suspect:
Christine Neumann- Ortiz, director of Voces de la Frontera, an immigrant workers group, said her office has been flooded with calls in the last three months from people trying to beat the April 1 deadline.
"The tragedy is that many have to pick up their kids or go to work, and they will be driving without a license, which will put them at risk for further prosecution for having to do this," she said.
"This will further criminalize working people, hurt the local economy and create a divisive atmosphere and lead to more racial profiling," she said.
Yah. That's the ticket! It will create a "divisive" atmosphere.
Divided between those who actually follow some rules and those who don't.
Friday, March 23, 2007
Cute Blonde Barracuda
It's been reported that Channel 4's Courtney Gerrish was the very first person to contact the widow of the Sherman/Capitol victim. Not the cops, who are trained. No respect for form, nor sensitivity (to say the least.)
"Hi! I'm from Channel 4. I assume that the cops called you. What's it like?"
Congrats, Courtney.
You've earned the Asshole-of-the-Year award.
Don't you belong looking for rats in restaurants?
"Hi! I'm from Channel 4. I assume that the cops called you. What's it like?"
Congrats, Courtney.
You've earned the Asshole-of-the-Year award.
Don't you belong looking for rats in restaurants?
How Many US Troops Have You Killed Today?
Baldwin, Obey, "Kookie" Kagen, Moore
all voted to approve the Run Away!!! Bill--and endangered funding for US Troops overseas.
They've had their fun. Don't make another mistake like this, boys and girls.
all voted to approve the Run Away!!! Bill--and endangered funding for US Troops overseas.
They've had their fun. Don't make another mistake like this, boys and girls.
The "Relativism" that Mr. Miller Missed
A few days ago, I expressed unhappiness with the take of First Things' R. Miller, when he slapped Abp. Crepaldi around for "misunderstanding" relativism.
Dreher posts an interesting few graphs which may help Mr. Miller understand the nature of the beast to which Abp. C. refers:
[Ken Myers] talked last evening about how from the days of the founders, the American way of thinking about the role of religion in public life was not only to privatize it, but to individualize it. He explained how the inevitable result of this was to make Christian faith peripheral to the substantive questions in public life. Moreover, the principles behind this privatization of religion inevitably lead to the corruption of religion, because it becomes primarily a matter of expressing how individual men feel about God, rather than being an expression of how God feels about individual men, and what He calls us to do.
...Ken talked about an interview he did in 2005 with sociologist Christian Smith, who had just written a book on the religious and spiritual lives of American teenagers. What he found was a consistent set of religious beliefs across denominations, and even traditions (i.e., Muslim teenagers told him the same thing). But it wasn't the beliefs of the particular traditions the kids came out of; rather, it was what Smith calls "moralistic therapeutic deism." It's principles, as Ken listed them, were startlingly familiar: God exists, but you really shouldn't get overly involved with Him unless you get into real trouble or something; the point of life is to be happy; it's important to be nice; good people go to heaven, and most everybody is good; et cetera.
The 'relativism' here is dissociative; the faith is ir-relevant to positive law, and action.
Contrast that to the non-relativistic Catholicism espoused by Benedict XVI in his Deus Caritas Est, especially in Part Two.
Dreher posts an interesting few graphs which may help Mr. Miller understand the nature of the beast to which Abp. C. refers:
[Ken Myers] talked last evening about how from the days of the founders, the American way of thinking about the role of religion in public life was not only to privatize it, but to individualize it. He explained how the inevitable result of this was to make Christian faith peripheral to the substantive questions in public life. Moreover, the principles behind this privatization of religion inevitably lead to the corruption of religion, because it becomes primarily a matter of expressing how individual men feel about God, rather than being an expression of how God feels about individual men, and what He calls us to do.
...Ken talked about an interview he did in 2005 with sociologist Christian Smith, who had just written a book on the religious and spiritual lives of American teenagers. What he found was a consistent set of religious beliefs across denominations, and even traditions (i.e., Muslim teenagers told him the same thing). But it wasn't the beliefs of the particular traditions the kids came out of; rather, it was what Smith calls "moralistic therapeutic deism." It's principles, as Ken listed them, were startlingly familiar: God exists, but you really shouldn't get overly involved with Him unless you get into real trouble or something; the point of life is to be happy; it's important to be nice; good people go to heaven, and most everybody is good; et cetera.
The 'relativism' here is dissociative; the faith is ir-relevant to positive law, and action.
Contrast that to the non-relativistic Catholicism espoused by Benedict XVI in his Deus Caritas Est, especially in Part Two.
CS Lewis on Education
Something on which our school-systems (and colleges) should ponder:
"....the difference between the old and the new edcuation will be an important one. Where the old initiated, the new merely 'conditions'. The old dealt with its pupils as grown birds deal with young birds when they teach them to fly; the new deals with them more as the poultry-keeper deals with young birds- making them thus or thus for purposes of which the birds know nothing. In a word, the old was a kind of propagation - men transmitting manhood to men; the new is merely propaganda."
It's a bit too facile to state that 'the Old taught them HOW to think, where the New teaches them WHAT to think,' because there's a good deal more to it than that.
But educating-for-droneship is not "education." It's conditioning.
HT: Chesterton and Friends
"....the difference between the old and the new edcuation will be an important one. Where the old initiated, the new merely 'conditions'. The old dealt with its pupils as grown birds deal with young birds when they teach them to fly; the new deals with them more as the poultry-keeper deals with young birds- making them thus or thus for purposes of which the birds know nothing. In a word, the old was a kind of propagation - men transmitting manhood to men; the new is merely propaganda."
It's a bit too facile to state that 'the Old taught them HOW to think, where the New teaches them WHAT to think,' because there's a good deal more to it than that.
But educating-for-droneship is not "education." It's conditioning.
HT: Chesterton and Friends
Dan Maguire Slapdown from USCC(!!)
Heh.
Reported by Diogenes, here's the quote from USCC on Dan-o Maguire's mass-distributed heresies:
On June 19, 2006, Professor Daniel Maguire of Marquette University sent two pamphlets to all of the Catholic Bishops in the United States, one entitled The Moderate Roman Catholic Position on Contraception and Abortion and the other A Catholic Defense of Same-Sex Marriage. These pamphlets do not present Catholic teaching. His views about contraception, abortion, same sex "marriage", as well as the very nature of Church teaching and its authoritative character, cross the legitimate lines of theological reflection and simply enter into the area of false teaching. Such mistaken views should not be confused with the faith and moral teaching of the Catholic Church. Since it is apparent that considerable efforts have been made to give these views the widest possible distribution as if they were a valid alternative to the teaching of the Catholic Church, the Committee on Doctrine of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops considers it important to offer a public correction of the erroneous views proposed in these pamphlets. At the same time, the Committee on Doctrine calls attention to the Catechism of the Catholic Church where correct and authentic teaching can be found.
"Dr." Death Dan" also sent those pamphlets to members of Congress. We have a suspicion as to the funding for this mass-print/mail job, of course. No evidence, just suspicion.
This is not an accident. Since Abp. Dolan has slammed DeathDan on a few occasions (to no apparent avail,) the Archbishop obviously has raised the stakes a bit.
Even Marquette U. agreed with the USCC statement, which tells you something.
Dan, it's Lent. Repent and return.
Reported by Diogenes, here's the quote from USCC on Dan-o Maguire's mass-distributed heresies:
On June 19, 2006, Professor Daniel Maguire of Marquette University sent two pamphlets to all of the Catholic Bishops in the United States, one entitled The Moderate Roman Catholic Position on Contraception and Abortion and the other A Catholic Defense of Same-Sex Marriage. These pamphlets do not present Catholic teaching. His views about contraception, abortion, same sex "marriage", as well as the very nature of Church teaching and its authoritative character, cross the legitimate lines of theological reflection and simply enter into the area of false teaching. Such mistaken views should not be confused with the faith and moral teaching of the Catholic Church. Since it is apparent that considerable efforts have been made to give these views the widest possible distribution as if they were a valid alternative to the teaching of the Catholic Church, the Committee on Doctrine of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops considers it important to offer a public correction of the erroneous views proposed in these pamphlets. At the same time, the Committee on Doctrine calls attention to the Catechism of the Catholic Church where correct and authentic teaching can be found.
"Dr." Death Dan" also sent those pamphlets to members of Congress. We have a suspicion as to the funding for this mass-print/mail job, of course. No evidence, just suspicion.
This is not an accident. Since Abp. Dolan has slammed DeathDan on a few occasions (to no apparent avail,) the Archbishop obviously has raised the stakes a bit.
Even Marquette U. agreed with the USCC statement, which tells you something.
Dan, it's Lent. Repent and return.
UW's Reilly, Walsh Still in Outer Space
From the Budget Blog:
[During Joint Finance testimony from Reilly and Walsh] Suder, a Republican from Abbotsford, asked whether the officials had a cost estimate for Gov. Doyle's budget proposal to make in-state tuition available to undocumented individuals. Reilly and Walsh said they didn't have a figure, but after prompting from Suder said they approved of the policy.
"I'm glad UW administration is on record supporting that (tuition breaks for illegal immigrants)" Suder said. Reilly and Walsh argued that Suder was misrepresenting the policy, which requires students graduate from a state high school and are working toward citizenship, but Suder retorted, "You can spin it any way you want to."
Lemmeesee, heah. The question pertained to "UNDOCUMENTED" individuals (that's illegal aliens, folks.)
Is it true that "UNDOCUMENTED" individuals can be "working towards citizenship?"
News to me...
[During Joint Finance testimony from Reilly and Walsh] Suder, a Republican from Abbotsford, asked whether the officials had a cost estimate for Gov. Doyle's budget proposal to make in-state tuition available to undocumented individuals. Reilly and Walsh said they didn't have a figure, but after prompting from Suder said they approved of the policy.
"I'm glad UW administration is on record supporting that (tuition breaks for illegal immigrants)" Suder said. Reilly and Walsh argued that Suder was misrepresenting the policy, which requires students graduate from a state high school and are working toward citizenship, but Suder retorted, "You can spin it any way you want to."
Lemmeesee, heah. The question pertained to "UNDOCUMENTED" individuals (that's illegal aliens, folks.)
Is it true that "UNDOCUMENTED" individuals can be "working towards citizenship?"
News to me...
Same Old, Same Old, Pelosi's Name
It's not really a "withdrawal" resolution. It's a PIG*/POG* resolution.
TODAY THE House of Representatives is due to vote on a bill that would grant $25 million to spinach farmers in California. The legislation would also appropriate $75 million for peanut storage in Georgia and $15 million to protect Louisiana rice fields from saltwater. More substantially, there is $120 million for shrimp and menhaden fishermen, $250 million for milk subsidies, $500 million for wildfire suppression and $1.3 billion to build levees in New Orleans.
That's the "Withdrawal Resolution." Buried in the pork is something about leaving Iraq by August 2008.
*PIG: Party In Government
*POG: Party Of Government
HT: Captain's Quarters
TODAY THE House of Representatives is due to vote on a bill that would grant $25 million to spinach farmers in California. The legislation would also appropriate $75 million for peanut storage in Georgia and $15 million to protect Louisiana rice fields from saltwater. More substantially, there is $120 million for shrimp and menhaden fishermen, $250 million for milk subsidies, $500 million for wildfire suppression and $1.3 billion to build levees in New Orleans.
That's the "Withdrawal Resolution." Buried in the pork is something about leaving Iraq by August 2008.
*PIG: Party In Government
*POG: Party Of Government
HT: Captain's Quarters
AlGore's Speech, in Synopsis
From BlameBush!!:
The time has come to cleanse ourselves of our capitalistic sins and save the earth from total obliteration, - but it won’t be easy, Gore assures us. Preserving the future for our children will involve tough choices and personal sacrifice. Most importantly it will require tax increases, wealth restribution, government control of production, and the abandonment of the free market system – by sheer coincidence, the exact same things liberal democrats have been calling for since before global warming was ever an issue. It would be sheer madness, then, for Repugs to continue to stand against such bold initiatives now that the scientific consensus is that we're all going to die unless we do exactly as Al Gore says.
So there's really no point in debating it any further.
See? It's simple.
The time has come to cleanse ourselves of our capitalistic sins and save the earth from total obliteration, - but it won’t be easy, Gore assures us. Preserving the future for our children will involve tough choices and personal sacrifice. Most importantly it will require tax increases, wealth restribution, government control of production, and the abandonment of the free market system – by sheer coincidence, the exact same things liberal democrats have been calling for since before global warming was ever an issue. It would be sheer madness, then, for Repugs to continue to stand against such bold initiatives now that the scientific consensus is that we're all going to die unless we do exactly as Al Gore says.
So there's really no point in debating it any further.
See? It's simple.
"Keg" Lift-Und-Schlepp-Em Returns
In what can only be called another case of Dimowit Projection, the former Wisconsin Attorney General finds her way to a newspaper reporter, and drools forth:
Former Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager and other Democratic leaders warned that drug companies are part of an effort by so-called "independent" groups to influence the outcome of the Supreme Court race.
Lautenschlager questioned whether the drug companies - who have cases pending before the Supreme Court - are paying for so-called "issue ads" sponsored by business groups. The groups are not required to disclose the sources of their funding because their ads do not directly tell voters to elect or defeat a candidate.
Lautenschlager said Ziegler has a "personal financial stake" in the success of the drug companies because financial disclosure reports show she and her husband own at least $265,000 worth of stock in pharmaceutical companies.
Unmentioned is the possibility that Ziegler would recuse.
But I suppose that Ms. Clifford's entire investment portfolio will be published for examination by the voters, right?
Former Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager and other Democratic leaders warned that drug companies are part of an effort by so-called "independent" groups to influence the outcome of the Supreme Court race.
Lautenschlager questioned whether the drug companies - who have cases pending before the Supreme Court - are paying for so-called "issue ads" sponsored by business groups. The groups are not required to disclose the sources of their funding because their ads do not directly tell voters to elect or defeat a candidate.
Lautenschlager said Ziegler has a "personal financial stake" in the success of the drug companies because financial disclosure reports show she and her husband own at least $265,000 worth of stock in pharmaceutical companies.
Unmentioned is the possibility that Ziegler would recuse.
But I suppose that Ms. Clifford's entire investment portfolio will be published for examination by the voters, right?
Apropos
From the news release, printed in the Milwaukee JS:
Father Bryan Massingale, an author and Marquette University theology professor, will speak on "Why Be Catholic Today?"
"Why?" is a good question. Does Fr. M. have the answer?
Father Bryan Massingale, an author and Marquette University theology professor, will speak on "Why Be Catholic Today?"
"Why?" is a good question. Does Fr. M. have the answer?
ACLU: Friend of Porn
It was Friedrich Nietzsche's phrase, now obviously the ACLU's operating philosophy--"the transvaluation of all values."
And so wrote a Fed Circuit Court judge in Philadelphia (no surprise) in deciding that Internet porn directed at children is "protected" by the 1st Amendment.
Senior U.S. District Judge Lowell Reed Jr., who presided over the four-week trial last fall, ruled in favor of the American Civil Liberties Union that the 1998 Child Online Protection Act (COPA) violated a constitutional right to free speech.
..."Perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if First Amendment protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection," wrote Reed in his 84-page long decision.
...COPA would have criminalized US-based websites that allow children to access material deemed "harmful to minors" according to "contemporary community standards."
...however the ACLU representing a cadre of "sexual health" sites, Salon.com, obgyn.net, the Philadelphia Gay News, and others objected that more than just pornographers would be subject to the restrictions of COPA.
Well, well. Salon.com and the Philly Gay News. One wonders what interest THEY have in pushing porn to kids.
We already know about the ACLU's transvaluation of all values.
And so wrote a Fed Circuit Court judge in Philadelphia (no surprise) in deciding that Internet porn directed at children is "protected" by the 1st Amendment.
Senior U.S. District Judge Lowell Reed Jr., who presided over the four-week trial last fall, ruled in favor of the American Civil Liberties Union that the 1998 Child Online Protection Act (COPA) violated a constitutional right to free speech.
..."Perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if First Amendment protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection," wrote Reed in his 84-page long decision.
...COPA would have criminalized US-based websites that allow children to access material deemed "harmful to minors" according to "contemporary community standards."
...however the ACLU representing a cadre of "sexual health" sites, Salon.com, obgyn.net, the Philadelphia Gay News, and others objected that more than just pornographers would be subject to the restrictions of COPA.
Well, well. Salon.com and the Philly Gay News. One wonders what interest THEY have in pushing porn to kids.
We already know about the ACLU's transvaluation of all values.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Supplying the Big Three: Has the Worm Turned?
A number of years ago, GM hired a new purchasing executive who managed to get GM suppliers to sign agreements which actually reduced the suppliers' prices by 5%/year for multi-years. This became an industry trend, and although the GM exec left after only a few years, his legacy did not.
If you didn't notice, that caused a few problems. (Think AOSmith/Tower, Delco/Delphi, Collins & Aikman, Lear, Federal-Mogul, Dura, Dana, and hundreds of others, big and small.)
While the Big Three were putting their suppliers into bankruptcy courts, others were willing to fill the orders--until recently.
Now, with fewer suppliers out there, and with consolidation (and other marketing options), some are kicking back, hard.
Example: Navistar which told FoMoCo to stick their offer......(fill in the blank).
The Warrenville, Ill., engine and heavy-truck maker has been through extensive restructuring, going back decades to when it was formed out of the old International Harvester. Navistar has long provided diesel engines for Ford's Super Duty F-250 and F-350 pickups, which are among Ford's few profitable products. Navistar brought out a new 6.4-liter engine in January, asking $7,600 each.
Ford thought the price should be $6,100. Ford also claimed the previous model had such problems that Navistar ought to pay some $1 billion to help defray repair costs that Ford bore under warranties. In mid-January, Ford began debiting Navistar's account by tens of millions of dollars, and in January filed suit.
The result was a blunt letter from the parts supplier. Ford, the letter said, was demanding that Navistar sell engines at a loss "to accommodate Ford's desire for higher profits." The letter from Navistar's general counsel then effectively served notice that the supplier was prepared to fire its biggest customer. Alleging that "we were the victim of Ford's heavy hand," the letter said, "That is now over." Four days later, on Feb. 23, Navistar stopped shipping diesel engines to Ford.
This put a crimp in FoMoCo's plans, to say the least.
A temporary restraining order obtained by Ford got the engines coming a few days later. Ford then agreed on March 9 to reimburse Navistar for part of the debited funds and to pay Navistar's asking price - $1,500 more per engine than Ford wants to pay - until Michigan state-court litigation between the two is settled. The price setback for Ford helped prompt Bear Stearns to lower its earnings estimates for the company.
Navistar CEO Daniel Ustian declines to comment. But in a mid-January speech a few blocks from Ford headquarters in Dearborn, Mich., he told an industry audience that auto makers face "a new reality" in which "the math must benefit all of us."
There are a lot of Wisconsin businesses which supply (or COULD supply) the Big Three. In other words, this might be good news.
If you didn't notice, that caused a few problems. (Think AOSmith/Tower, Delco/Delphi, Collins & Aikman, Lear, Federal-Mogul, Dura, Dana, and hundreds of others, big and small.)
While the Big Three were putting their suppliers into bankruptcy courts, others were willing to fill the orders--until recently.
Now, with fewer suppliers out there, and with consolidation (and other marketing options), some are kicking back, hard.
Example: Navistar which told FoMoCo to stick their offer......(fill in the blank).
The Warrenville, Ill., engine and heavy-truck maker has been through extensive restructuring, going back decades to when it was formed out of the old International Harvester. Navistar has long provided diesel engines for Ford's Super Duty F-250 and F-350 pickups, which are among Ford's few profitable products. Navistar brought out a new 6.4-liter engine in January, asking $7,600 each.
Ford thought the price should be $6,100. Ford also claimed the previous model had such problems that Navistar ought to pay some $1 billion to help defray repair costs that Ford bore under warranties. In mid-January, Ford began debiting Navistar's account by tens of millions of dollars, and in January filed suit.
The result was a blunt letter from the parts supplier. Ford, the letter said, was demanding that Navistar sell engines at a loss "to accommodate Ford's desire for higher profits." The letter from Navistar's general counsel then effectively served notice that the supplier was prepared to fire its biggest customer. Alleging that "we were the victim of Ford's heavy hand," the letter said, "That is now over." Four days later, on Feb. 23, Navistar stopped shipping diesel engines to Ford.
This put a crimp in FoMoCo's plans, to say the least.
A temporary restraining order obtained by Ford got the engines coming a few days later. Ford then agreed on March 9 to reimburse Navistar for part of the debited funds and to pay Navistar's asking price - $1,500 more per engine than Ford wants to pay - until Michigan state-court litigation between the two is settled. The price setback for Ford helped prompt Bear Stearns to lower its earnings estimates for the company.
Navistar CEO Daniel Ustian declines to comment. But in a mid-January speech a few blocks from Ford headquarters in Dearborn, Mich., he told an industry audience that auto makers face "a new reality" in which "the math must benefit all of us."
There are a lot of Wisconsin businesses which supply (or COULD supply) the Big Three. In other words, this might be good news.
Fr Fessio OUT of Ave Maria--Updated
This is (Catholic) Inside Baseball:
Fessio’s dismissal came one day after recent statements he made were published in an article in the California Catholic Daily titled, “Hey, Hey, Baby Gay! What Do You Do? What Do You Say?”
His statements were also published on March 2 on the personal Web site of one of the country’s preeminent evangelist leaders, the Rev. R. Albert Mohler Jr.
In the article, Mohler suggested that there was a “possibility that a biological basis for homosexuality may be proven,” the Associated Press reported. Mohler’s argument was endorsed by Fessio.
According to the California Catholic Daily article, “research strongly suggests that sexual preference is biologically determined in animals, and possibly in humans.”
“Same-sex activity is considered disordered,” Fessio said. “If there are ways of detecting diseases or disorders of children in the womb, and a way of treating them that respected the dignity of the child and mother, it would be a wonderful advancement of science.”
I don't read the excerpted comments as "endorsement" of the theory--merely as a comment that 'IF such is true, that would be good.' Big difference.
Well, that's Theory One. Here's Theory Two:
A senior university official said that one crux of the "irreconcilable differences" cited as the reason for the requested resignation was a divergence on liturgical tastes; Healy and much of his leadership team take their cue from the evangelical Charismatic school of the Franciscan University of Steubenville (to which they maintain close ties), while Fessio's crowd gravitated toward a more solemn manner of ritual. The Jesuit's Latin Masses -- Novus Ordo, celebrated ad orientem -- were reported to have drawn large numbers, while similar crowds were had for monthly Healing Masses celebrated by priest-in-residence Fr Richard McAlear, a member of the Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate. [More on this guy's Masses below in the update].
It is true that Fr. Fessio promotes and uses a heavily-Latin reading of the Mass, and prefers ad orientem. It is problematic if Tom Monaghan views this as a cause for dismissal. So it shouldn't be the whole story. But Tom ain't universally loved; he's a bit quirky.
Only two nights ago, Hewitt interviewed Fr. Fessio regarding the "Communion for Pro-Abort Pols" controversy. At that time, Fr. F. was introduced as the President of Ave Maria U.
Hmmmmm.
Far more serious that merely 'liturgical difference' are liturgical aberrations. Evidently the "healing Masses" (perhaps) favored by the AMU Prexy are, ah, illicitly said. See this link, go to the letter. HT here: Some Have Hats
Fessio’s dismissal came one day after recent statements he made were published in an article in the California Catholic Daily titled, “Hey, Hey, Baby Gay! What Do You Do? What Do You Say?”
His statements were also published on March 2 on the personal Web site of one of the country’s preeminent evangelist leaders, the Rev. R. Albert Mohler Jr.
In the article, Mohler suggested that there was a “possibility that a biological basis for homosexuality may be proven,” the Associated Press reported. Mohler’s argument was endorsed by Fessio.
According to the California Catholic Daily article, “research strongly suggests that sexual preference is biologically determined in animals, and possibly in humans.”
“Same-sex activity is considered disordered,” Fessio said. “If there are ways of detecting diseases or disorders of children in the womb, and a way of treating them that respected the dignity of the child and mother, it would be a wonderful advancement of science.”
I don't read the excerpted comments as "endorsement" of the theory--merely as a comment that 'IF such is true, that would be good.' Big difference.
Well, that's Theory One. Here's Theory Two:
A senior university official said that one crux of the "irreconcilable differences" cited as the reason for the requested resignation was a divergence on liturgical tastes; Healy and much of his leadership team take their cue from the evangelical Charismatic school of the Franciscan University of Steubenville (to which they maintain close ties), while Fessio's crowd gravitated toward a more solemn manner of ritual. The Jesuit's Latin Masses -- Novus Ordo, celebrated ad orientem -- were reported to have drawn large numbers, while similar crowds were had for monthly Healing Masses celebrated by priest-in-residence Fr Richard McAlear, a member of the Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate. [More on this guy's Masses below in the update].
It is true that Fr. Fessio promotes and uses a heavily-Latin reading of the Mass, and prefers ad orientem. It is problematic if Tom Monaghan views this as a cause for dismissal. So it shouldn't be the whole story. But Tom ain't universally loved; he's a bit quirky.
Only two nights ago, Hewitt interviewed Fr. Fessio regarding the "Communion for Pro-Abort Pols" controversy. At that time, Fr. F. was introduced as the President of Ave Maria U.
Hmmmmm.
Far more serious that merely 'liturgical difference' are liturgical aberrations. Evidently the "healing Masses" (perhaps) favored by the AMU Prexy are, ah, illicitly said. See this link, go to the letter. HT here: Some Have Hats
Sherman and Capitol
About 40 years ago, that corner was a regular stop for yours truly. Every weekday morning, around 7:30, I'd arrive and wait for the 30/Sherman bus to get me to my destination (if I tell you, I have to kill you...)
That gas station was there, but it was an ENCO franchise (IIRC,) and it did a lot of business. No coffee or doughnuts; just gas and light repairs, thanks. East of the corner by a few blocks was a very prosperous grocery store; the neighborhood was relatively quiet and very nice, but definitely "urban." Just north of the corner were some housing projects, which were quiet but just a little tacky.
South by a few blocks was WOKY/920 AM, the home of Bob Barry and The "Collegiate" Rock station (WRIT was R&B rock at the time.) The difference? WOKY played the Beach Boys; WRIT played the Stones.
A few more blocks south and the old-time prosperity of the Sherman Park neighborhood was evident: large 2-story all-brick homes, neatly manicured lawns, well-maintained yards. The somewhat noisy (and only occasionally rowdy) Washington High kids jumped off the 30/Sherman, leaving a lot of room for the downtown commuters.
Capitol Drive's eastbound traffic consisted largely of people going to work at AOSmith, Continental Can, Cutler-Hammer, Square "D," or (perhaps) downtown office types who didn't like the Lisbon Ave/Hy. 41/I-94 mess.
Closest thing to "an incident" in those days was the occasional traffic accident.
Drive down Capitol these days, and the scene is markedly different. It's not post-war Dresden (as is North Ave. east of 35th, or Burleigh)--but it's not really prosperous, nor is it "neighborly" until you get to the area between 20th and I-43, where it's obvious that some residents care--a LOT--about their neighborhood.
One wonders how long they'll be able to hold out.
That gas station was there, but it was an ENCO franchise (IIRC,) and it did a lot of business. No coffee or doughnuts; just gas and light repairs, thanks. East of the corner by a few blocks was a very prosperous grocery store; the neighborhood was relatively quiet and very nice, but definitely "urban." Just north of the corner were some housing projects, which were quiet but just a little tacky.
South by a few blocks was WOKY/920 AM, the home of Bob Barry and The "Collegiate" Rock station (WRIT was R&B rock at the time.) The difference? WOKY played the Beach Boys; WRIT played the Stones.
A few more blocks south and the old-time prosperity of the Sherman Park neighborhood was evident: large 2-story all-brick homes, neatly manicured lawns, well-maintained yards. The somewhat noisy (and only occasionally rowdy) Washington High kids jumped off the 30/Sherman, leaving a lot of room for the downtown commuters.
Capitol Drive's eastbound traffic consisted largely of people going to work at AOSmith, Continental Can, Cutler-Hammer, Square "D," or (perhaps) downtown office types who didn't like the Lisbon Ave/Hy. 41/I-94 mess.
Closest thing to "an incident" in those days was the occasional traffic accident.
Drive down Capitol these days, and the scene is markedly different. It's not post-war Dresden (as is North Ave. east of 35th, or Burleigh)--but it's not really prosperous, nor is it "neighborly" until you get to the area between 20th and I-43, where it's obvious that some residents care--a LOT--about their neighborhood.
One wonders how long they'll be able to hold out.
Clifford's Campaign Sinks Further Into the Abyss
What the Hell is Ms. Clifford trying to do, exactly?
According to the report filed in the matter, deputies were called to the Justice Center parking lot at around 8:45 a.m. on March 9, responding to a call from a Justice Center employee who saw the men snapping photos of the building.
When deputies arrived, the report stated, Moree repeatedly asked what the problem was and said it was legal to take pictures of a public building.
A sheriff’s supervisor who was called to the scene said the men were not breaking any laws, but asked if they were working for an architectural firm or some other like publication.
Either Moree or Fuld then allegedly identified themselves as a team working for the Wisconsin State Journal in Madison, according to the report. Moree identified himself with a driver’s license. The men were driving a rental vehicle that had been picked up in Madison, according to the report.
They were the allowed to take their pictures and leave, the report stated.
As a follow-up, sheriff’s investigators determined the car had been rented by Fuld and MSHC Partners, the report stated, at the Madison airport. MSCH was then identified as a political consulting firm. A call was also placed to the State Journal, and the editor there said the men were neither employees of the paper nor on a freelance assignment.
The Sheriff's office was on solid ground when questioning these two dirtballs, as public buildings are, ah, interesting to terrorists.
So why did they lie? And why didn't Ms. Clifford respond to phone calls on the matter?
According to the report filed in the matter, deputies were called to the Justice Center parking lot at around 8:45 a.m. on March 9, responding to a call from a Justice Center employee who saw the men snapping photos of the building.
When deputies arrived, the report stated, Moree repeatedly asked what the problem was and said it was legal to take pictures of a public building.
A sheriff’s supervisor who was called to the scene said the men were not breaking any laws, but asked if they were working for an architectural firm or some other like publication.
Either Moree or Fuld then allegedly identified themselves as a team working for the Wisconsin State Journal in Madison, according to the report. Moree identified himself with a driver’s license. The men were driving a rental vehicle that had been picked up in Madison, according to the report.
They were the allowed to take their pictures and leave, the report stated.
As a follow-up, sheriff’s investigators determined the car had been rented by Fuld and MSHC Partners, the report stated, at the Madison airport. MSCH was then identified as a political consulting firm. A call was also placed to the State Journal, and the editor there said the men were neither employees of the paper nor on a freelance assignment.
The Sheriff's office was on solid ground when questioning these two dirtballs, as public buildings are, ah, interesting to terrorists.
So why did they lie? And why didn't Ms. Clifford respond to phone calls on the matter?
Edwards, DarthDoyle, Minor, and Troha
Some interesting parallels here:
Democrats familiar with the investigation said that neither the current or past Edwards campaigns nor any of his staffers appear to be targets of the investigation, which is trying to determine whether Minor reimbursed his children for $8,000 in contributions to Edwards, an illegal practice known as "conduiting." ...
Birds, feathers, ....
Read the linked piece to find a really interesting acronym for trial lawyers!
HT: Overlawyered
Democrats familiar with the investigation said that neither the current or past Edwards campaigns nor any of his staffers appear to be targets of the investigation, which is trying to determine whether Minor reimbursed his children for $8,000 in contributions to Edwards, an illegal practice known as "conduiting." ...
Birds, feathers, ....
Read the linked piece to find a really interesting acronym for trial lawyers!
HT: Overlawyered
Louis Butler, Shirley's Court, and Consent
Jessica has pointed out a recent Screechin'Shirley decision.
This is a close call, and it seems to me that the real question was whether or not there was "consent" to search the vehicle:
Stillman [ Racine police officer] asked Johnson [the detainee] if there was anything illegal in the car. According to Dummer, "Stillman advised Mr. Johnson due to his movements that we were going to search the vehicle," and Johnson responded, "'I don't have a problem with that.'" Both officers indicated that they intended to search the vehicle with or without Johnson's assent.
...The [Racine Circuit] court did not address whether the officers were justified in conducting a protective search of Johnson's car and person, stating that Stillman had "obtained Johnson's consent to search the vehicle."
Here's the key:
On appeal, the State conceded that Johnson did not consent to the protective search of his vehicle.
[Supreme Court Justice Butler wrote:] The testimony of Officers Dummer and Stillman shows that Johnson merely acquiesced to the search. Johnson did not freely and voluntarily give his consent.
[In dissent, Justice Roggensack:] She also argued that Johnson gave consent. The United States Supreme Court has held that there is "no ready test for determining reasonableness [of a search] other than by balancing the need to search against the invasion which the search entails."
Hmmmmm.
No question that the suspect was a dirtbag--he was carrying crack and had a stash of marijuana under his seat. There were signs that he was hiding something in the car (or possibly arming himself.)
So what's a "reasonable search"? This decision will make it harder for police, no doubt. But either there was (or there was NOT) 'consent' to the search.
This is a close call, and it seems to me that the real question was whether or not there was "consent" to search the vehicle:
Stillman [ Racine police officer] asked Johnson [the detainee] if there was anything illegal in the car. According to Dummer, "Stillman advised Mr. Johnson due to his movements that we were going to search the vehicle," and Johnson responded, "'I don't have a problem with that.'" Both officers indicated that they intended to search the vehicle with or without Johnson's assent.
...The [Racine Circuit] court did not address whether the officers were justified in conducting a protective search of Johnson's car and person, stating that Stillman had "obtained Johnson's consent to search the vehicle."
Here's the key:
On appeal, the State conceded that Johnson did not consent to the protective search of his vehicle.
[Supreme Court Justice Butler wrote:] The testimony of Officers Dummer and Stillman shows that Johnson merely acquiesced to the search. Johnson did not freely and voluntarily give his consent.
[In dissent, Justice Roggensack:] She also argued that Johnson gave consent. The United States Supreme Court has held that there is "no ready test for determining reasonableness [of a search] other than by balancing the need to search against the invasion which the search entails."
Hmmmmm.
No question that the suspect was a dirtbag--he was carrying crack and had a stash of marijuana under his seat. There were signs that he was hiding something in the car (or possibly arming himself.)
So what's a "reasonable search"? This decision will make it harder for police, no doubt. But either there was (or there was NOT) 'consent' to the search.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
"Deleted Calendar"? Here's the Scoop
For those of you who are technical newbies, (and not-so-newbies) the discussion on Boots & Sabers about deleting calendars may be enlightening. (Read the combox items.)
Frank "The Fixer" Busalacchi is in a deep hole. And you know the old saying: ".....QUIT DIGGING!"
But maybe Frank doesn't like that advice.
Frank "The Fixer" Busalacchi is in a deep hole. And you know the old saying: ".....QUIT DIGGING!"
But maybe Frank doesn't like that advice.
On Gonzales
Despite the strained and silly yapping from the "right" radio folks, Tom Roeser also thinks that Gonzales should be cut loose:
To this old ex-federal bureaucrat who has just completed an inside look-see at the Justice Department through several past and present sources, there was something wrong with the appointment of Alberto Gonzales as AG in the first place. Close to George Bush he may be but the indistinct image coming through of a namby-pamby on abortion has bothered social conservatives from the outset. He doesn’t speak on the square; looks shifty-eyed; acts like a junior clerk. The frequent lying, misstatements and corrections shows an insecure man at the helm. My one fear was that Bush would name him to the Supreme Court for the next opening. This call for his resignation-which may very well happen-could be a godsend.
While GWB will not fire Gonzales (an honorable position to take,) Gonzales could still resign.
That would allow Bush to appoint an AG who actually has some curiosity about the dealings of Sandy "Hotpants" Burglar, the Border Patrol's supervisors, and like that, you know.
To this old ex-federal bureaucrat who has just completed an inside look-see at the Justice Department through several past and present sources, there was something wrong with the appointment of Alberto Gonzales as AG in the first place. Close to George Bush he may be but the indistinct image coming through of a namby-pamby on abortion has bothered social conservatives from the outset. He doesn’t speak on the square; looks shifty-eyed; acts like a junior clerk. The frequent lying, misstatements and corrections shows an insecure man at the helm. My one fear was that Bush would name him to the Supreme Court for the next opening. This call for his resignation-which may very well happen-could be a godsend.
While GWB will not fire Gonzales (an honorable position to take,) Gonzales could still resign.
That would allow Bush to appoint an AG who actually has some curiosity about the dealings of Sandy "Hotpants" Burglar, the Border Patrol's supervisors, and like that, you know.
Extraordinary Ministers to Disappear?
Well, it would be a good thing, considering the nature of the Sacrament (thus, its administration.) Benedict XVI understands that, and apparently is insisting on making EEMs (EHMCs) an extinct species, with very few exceptions.
Karl Keating's periodical has an article, here partially excerpted by Phil Blosser:
The discussion of EMHCs [Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion] in the Catholic Answers Report comes under the subtitle: "Role of Extraordinary Ministers Trimmed."
"Rome has been concerned about the widespread overuse of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion in many countries and particularly in the U.S., where extraordinary ministers are often treated as an ordinary part of Mass," states the article.
The ordinary ministers, of course, are "priests, deacons, and instituted acolytes." (What's the last time you've spotted an instituted acolyte around your suburban parish?) Canon law permits the use of EMHCs when there are too many communicants present to be served in a "reasonable period of time" by the ordinary ministers. To its credit, the Report is straight up about this:
But in recent years, many liturgists adopted an ideology that tries to blur the line between clergy and laity at Mass, and extraordinary ministers became one of the key ways used to advance their agenda. Large numbers of extraordinary ministers were used on a regular basis -- far more than were actually needed. In some places, extraordinary ministers were used to distribute Communion while a perfectly healthy priest simply sat down and waited out the Communion rite.
An attempt was also made to gloss over the extraordinary character of their service. In many places they came to be referred to as simply "special ministers" or even "eucharistic ministers" -- hiding the fact that they are to be used only in extraordinary circumstances.
The good news is that the Holy See appears to be reining in these abuses. In a series of recent documents, the Vatican has emphasized that EMHCs should be used only when there are too many communicants for the ordinary ministers to "reasonably serve." There is some evidence that the Vatican is going beyond repeating earlier instructions with their implicit escape clauses, however. In October 2006 it was announced that Pope Benedict had decided not to renew the United States indult that allowed EMHCs to purify the vessels after Mass. From now on, Americans will have the same rule that applies throughout the world, and vessels are to be purified only by ordinary ministers -- "priests, deacons, and instituted acolytes."
Going back to the 'alter Christi' nature of the ordained priest, this is not real difficult to place in context. Christ fed the 12 at the Last Supper; with his Apostles He fed the 5,000. This "feeding" was a corporeal symbol for spiritual nourishment. If the command "Feed my lambs..." has any meaning, it should be most evident at Communion.
And, as Blosser points out, if it is to be demeaned, this is the very best place to start.
Karl Keating's periodical has an article, here partially excerpted by Phil Blosser:
The discussion of EMHCs [Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion] in the Catholic Answers Report comes under the subtitle: "Role of Extraordinary Ministers Trimmed."
"Rome has been concerned about the widespread overuse of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion in many countries and particularly in the U.S., where extraordinary ministers are often treated as an ordinary part of Mass," states the article.
The ordinary ministers, of course, are "priests, deacons, and instituted acolytes." (What's the last time you've spotted an instituted acolyte around your suburban parish?) Canon law permits the use of EMHCs when there are too many communicants present to be served in a "reasonable period of time" by the ordinary ministers. To its credit, the Report is straight up about this:
But in recent years, many liturgists adopted an ideology that tries to blur the line between clergy and laity at Mass, and extraordinary ministers became one of the key ways used to advance their agenda. Large numbers of extraordinary ministers were used on a regular basis -- far more than were actually needed. In some places, extraordinary ministers were used to distribute Communion while a perfectly healthy priest simply sat down and waited out the Communion rite.
An attempt was also made to gloss over the extraordinary character of their service. In many places they came to be referred to as simply "special ministers" or even "eucharistic ministers" -- hiding the fact that they are to be used only in extraordinary circumstances.
The good news is that the Holy See appears to be reining in these abuses. In a series of recent documents, the Vatican has emphasized that EMHCs should be used only when there are too many communicants for the ordinary ministers to "reasonably serve." There is some evidence that the Vatican is going beyond repeating earlier instructions with their implicit escape clauses, however. In October 2006 it was announced that Pope Benedict had decided not to renew the United States indult that allowed EMHCs to purify the vessels after Mass. From now on, Americans will have the same rule that applies throughout the world, and vessels are to be purified only by ordinary ministers -- "priests, deacons, and instituted acolytes."
Going back to the 'alter Christi' nature of the ordained priest, this is not real difficult to place in context. Christ fed the 12 at the Last Supper; with his Apostles He fed the 5,000. This "feeding" was a corporeal symbol for spiritual nourishment. If the command "Feed my lambs..." has any meaning, it should be most evident at Communion.
And, as Blosser points out, if it is to be demeaned, this is the very best place to start.
Taxpayers' Bill of Rights
Short and sweet:
1. Taxpayers have a right to have a federal government that does not grow beyond their ability to pay for it.
2. Taxpayers have a right to receive back each dollar that they entrust to the government for their retirement.
3. Taxpayers have a right to expect the government to balance the budget without having their taxes raised.
4. Taxpayers have a right to a simple, fair tax code that they can understand.
Republican Study Committee put this out, with good reason.
Naturally, with the exception of #2, this applies perforce to Madistan. Of course, we'd have to get rid of a few "Republicans" before it could occur there, too.
Got that, Luther and Carol?
1. Taxpayers have a right to have a federal government that does not grow beyond their ability to pay for it.
2. Taxpayers have a right to receive back each dollar that they entrust to the government for their retirement.
3. Taxpayers have a right to expect the government to balance the budget without having their taxes raised.
4. Taxpayers have a right to a simple, fair tax code that they can understand.
Republican Study Committee put this out, with good reason.
Naturally, with the exception of #2, this applies perforce to Madistan. Of course, we'd have to get rid of a few "Republicans" before it could occur there, too.
Got that, Luther and Carol?
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Blogroll Addition
Atomic Trousers, who is the re-incarnation of York, has begun Blog #2. Link at the sidebar.
He's good. Really good.
He's good. Really good.
R. Miller (First Things) Takes on the Cardinal, Badly
Robert Miller, an attorney, thinks that Cdl. Crepaldi is ...inaccurate.
Crepaldi: “Public reason is not possible in a culture that is dominated by the ‘dictatorship of relativism’ [a phrase from Benedict XVI], for a very simple reason: Relativism is a dogma and therefore it a priori rejects rational argumentation, even toward itself. . . . Relativism [denies] a capability of reason to argue truth . . . [and so] prevents the use of public reason.”
Miller: Just as a sociological matter, this should give us pause. Generally speaking, our society is more concerned with producing and responding to arguments than probably any other in the history of the world. Whether the issue is abortion or gay rights, tax policy or the trade deficit, global warming or third-world debt, everyone seems ready to adduce arguments in support of some position or other.
We suppose that Mr. Miller, an eminento in the constellation of First Things, is attached to 'argumentation-American-style.' But he chooses to miss the point of the Cardinal's discussion.
Of course, that has to do with the Cardinal's ignorance and/or blindness: The answer is that Crepaldi is in the grip of a serious misconception about the modern world common among Catholic thinkers.
Actually, Mr. Miller, the Catholic weltaunschuung is more comprehensive than your Positivist/Calvinist one, but...
That is, Crepaldi thinks it’s a foundational (and mistaken) premise of modern culture that the province of reason comprises natural science and mathematics, with everything else—including normative disciplines like morals or politics—being the province of subjective opinion, a realm in which no statement is objectively true or false.
Unhhh....not really. The "dictatorship" to which the Cardinal refers is 'relativistic' insofar as it acknowledges no Authority--and certainly not an Authority who was crucified; rather, it worships (or at least give fealty) to Positivist make-do, not eternal realities. (Shall we discuss the Relativist Judiciary of Roe? Or the Relativist regency of Economics?)
You'll have to do better in your next, promised, installment.
Crepaldi: “Public reason is not possible in a culture that is dominated by the ‘dictatorship of relativism’ [a phrase from Benedict XVI], for a very simple reason: Relativism is a dogma and therefore it a priori rejects rational argumentation, even toward itself. . . . Relativism [denies] a capability of reason to argue truth . . . [and so] prevents the use of public reason.”
Miller: Just as a sociological matter, this should give us pause. Generally speaking, our society is more concerned with producing and responding to arguments than probably any other in the history of the world. Whether the issue is abortion or gay rights, tax policy or the trade deficit, global warming or third-world debt, everyone seems ready to adduce arguments in support of some position or other.
We suppose that Mr. Miller, an eminento in the constellation of First Things, is attached to 'argumentation-American-style.' But he chooses to miss the point of the Cardinal's discussion.
Of course, that has to do with the Cardinal's ignorance and/or blindness: The answer is that Crepaldi is in the grip of a serious misconception about the modern world common among Catholic thinkers.
Actually, Mr. Miller, the Catholic weltaunschuung is more comprehensive than your Positivist/Calvinist one, but...
That is, Crepaldi thinks it’s a foundational (and mistaken) premise of modern culture that the province of reason comprises natural science and mathematics, with everything else—including normative disciplines like morals or politics—being the province of subjective opinion, a realm in which no statement is objectively true or false.
Unhhh....not really. The "dictatorship" to which the Cardinal refers is 'relativistic' insofar as it acknowledges no Authority--and certainly not an Authority who was crucified; rather, it worships (or at least give fealty) to Positivist make-do, not eternal realities. (Shall we discuss the Relativist Judiciary of Roe? Or the Relativist regency of Economics?)
You'll have to do better in your next, promised, installment.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Spend More, Borrow More, Screw the Children!
That's the Doylie philosophy.
...officials with the state Department of Natural Resources as they push for reauthorization of the state's land- buying Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Fund and for a substantial increase in the amount of money the agency would be allowed to borrow to buy land under the program.
Scott Hassett, DNR secretary, argued before the state Legislature's Joint Finance Committee last week that an increase in borrowing authority from $60 million to $105 million a year is necessary because of soaring land prices.
Joint Finance Committee co-chair Kitty Rhoades, R-Hudson, said the DNR may be interested in protecting the land but that the committee has to consider the financial implications, especially when the state is spending more than it is taking in.
"We are also leaving our grandchildren a legacy of debt," said Rhoades of continued land purchases.
Joe Polasek, director of management and budget for the DNR, said that since the fund's inception in 1989, it has cost about $1.2 billion to repay, with interest, the $803 million that has been borrowed for land purchases.
Paying off loans of $105 million a year between 2010 and 2020 will cost about $1.6 billion, Polasek said. [In other words, the State will borrow $1.05 billion and pay $1.6 billion.]
Obviously, buying a bunch of land is really, really, really important, no matter WHAT the cost.
...officials with the state Department of Natural Resources as they push for reauthorization of the state's land- buying Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Fund and for a substantial increase in the amount of money the agency would be allowed to borrow to buy land under the program.
Scott Hassett, DNR secretary, argued before the state Legislature's Joint Finance Committee last week that an increase in borrowing authority from $60 million to $105 million a year is necessary because of soaring land prices.
Joint Finance Committee co-chair Kitty Rhoades, R-Hudson, said the DNR may be interested in protecting the land but that the committee has to consider the financial implications, especially when the state is spending more than it is taking in.
"We are also leaving our grandchildren a legacy of debt," said Rhoades of continued land purchases.
Joe Polasek, director of management and budget for the DNR, said that since the fund's inception in 1989, it has cost about $1.2 billion to repay, with interest, the $803 million that has been borrowed for land purchases.
Paying off loans of $105 million a year between 2010 and 2020 will cost about $1.6 billion, Polasek said. [In other words, the State will borrow $1.05 billion and pay $1.6 billion.]
Obviously, buying a bunch of land is really, really, really important, no matter WHAT the cost.
DNR Mandates Nuke Power for Wisconsin
Don't you wish?
Actually, that may be the result of their latest move:
Proposed regulations to reduce mercury emissions from electric generating plants by 90 percent by 2020 are stirring debate about pollution, utility costs and nuclear power.
On Thursday, the state Department of Natural Resources, responding to a request by Gov. Jim Doyle, proposed rules that would exceed those of the federal government and remove Wisconsin from a national program which would allow utilities to buy credits for out-of-compliance plants.
Lawniczak [Director, Enviro Services, Wisconsin Public Service] said no technology now exists to allow plants to achieve a 90 percent reduction.
Which leaves two options: 1) Simply shut down the coal plants. 2) Go Nuke!
Actually, that may be the result of their latest move:
Proposed regulations to reduce mercury emissions from electric generating plants by 90 percent by 2020 are stirring debate about pollution, utility costs and nuclear power.
On Thursday, the state Department of Natural Resources, responding to a request by Gov. Jim Doyle, proposed rules that would exceed those of the federal government and remove Wisconsin from a national program which would allow utilities to buy credits for out-of-compliance plants.
Lawniczak [Director, Enviro Services, Wisconsin Public Service] said no technology now exists to allow plants to achieve a 90 percent reduction.
Which leaves two options: 1) Simply shut down the coal plants. 2) Go Nuke!
Tool Dictionary
Stolen from Clay Cramer. Accurate, concise, comprehensive.
DRILL PRESS: A tall upright machine useful for suddenly snatching flat metal bar stock out of your hands so that it smacks you in the chest and flings your beer across the room, splattering it against that freshly-stained heirloom piece you were drying.
WIRE WHEEL: Cleans paint off bolts and then throws them somewhere under the workbench at the speed of light. Also removes fingerprints and hard-earned guitar calluses from fingers in about the time it takes you to say, "Son of aâ?¦.."
ELECTRIC HAND DRILL: Normally used for spinning pop rivets in their holes until you die of old age.
SKIL SAW: A portable cutting tool used to make studs too short.
PLIERS: Used to round off bolt heads. Sometimes used in the creation of blood-blisters. The most often used tool by all women.
BELT SANDER: An electric sanding tool commonly used to convert minor touch-up jobs into major refinishing jobs.
HACKSAW: One of a family of cutting tools built on the Ouija board principle. It transforms human energy into a crooked, unpredictable motion, and the more you attempt to influence its course, the more dismal your future becomes.
VISE-GRIPS: Generally used after pliers to completely round off bolt heads. If nothing else is available, they can also be used to transfer intense welding heat to the palm of your hand.
WELDING GLOVES: Heavy duty leather gloves used to prolong the conduction of intense welding heat to the palm of your hand.
OXYACETYLENE TORCH: Used almost entirely for lighting various flammable objects in your shop on fire. Also handy for igniting the grease inside the wheel hub you want the bearing race out of.
WHITWORTH SOCKETS: Once used for working on older British cars and motorcycles, they are now used mainly for impersonating that 9/16 or 1/2 inch socket you've been searching for the last 45 minutes.
TABLE SAW: A large stationary power tool commonly used to launch wood projectiles for testing wall integrity.
HYDRAULIC FLOOR JACK: Used for lowering an automobile to the ground after you have installed your new brake hose, trapping the jack handle firmly under the bumper.
EIGHT-FOOT LONG YELLOW PINE 2X4: Used for levering an automobile upward off of a trapped hydraulic jack handle.
TWEEZERS: A tool for removing wood splinters and wire wheel wires.
E-Z OUT BOLT AND STUD EXTRACTOR: A tool ten times harder than any known drill bit that snaps neatly off in bolt holes thereby ending any possible future use.
RADIAL ARM SAW: A large stationary power saw primarily used by most shops to scare neophytes into choosing another line of work.
TWO-TON ENGINE HOIST: A tool for testing the maximum tensile strength of everything you forgot to disconnect.
CRAFTSMAN 1/2 x 24-INCH SCREWDRIVER: A very large pry bar that inexplicably has an accurately machined screwdriver tip on the end opposite the handle.
AVIATION METAL SNIPS: See hacksaw.
TROUBLE LIGHT: The home mechanic's own tanning booth. Sometimes called a drop light, it is a good source of vitamin D, "the sunshine vitamin," which is not otherwise found under cars at night. Health benefits aside, its main purpose to consume 40-watt light bulbs at about thesame rate that 105mm howitzer shells might be used during, say, the first few hours of the Battle of the Bulge. More often dark than light, its name is somewhat misleading.
PHILLIPS SCREWDRIVER: Normally used to stab the vacuum seals under lids and for opening old-style paper-and-tin oil cans and splashing oil on your shirt; but can also be used, as the name implies, to strip out Phillips screw heads. Women excel at using this tool.
STRAIGHT SCREWDRIVER: A tool for opening paint cans. Sometimes used to convert common slotted screws into non-removable screws.
AIR COMPRESSOR: A machine that takes energy produced in a coal-burning power plant 200 miles away and ransforms it into compressed air that travels by hose to a Chicago Pneumatic impact wrench that grips rusty bolts which were last overtightened 30 years ago by someone at Ford, and instantly rounds off their heads. Also used to quickly snap off lug nuts.
PRY BAR: A tool used to crumple the metal surrounding that clip or bracket you needed to remove in order to replace a 50 cent part.
HOSE CUTTER: A tool used to make hoses too short.
HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Women primarily use it to make gaping holes in walls when hanging pictures.
MECHANIC'S KNIFE: Used to open and slice through the contents of cardboard cartons delivered to your front door; works particularly well on contents such as seats, vinyl records, liquids in plastic bottles, collector magazines, refund checks, and rubber or plastic parts. Especially useful for slicing work clothes, but only while in use.
DAMMIT TOOL: Any handy tool that you grab and throw across the garage while yelling "DAMMIT" at the top of your lungs. It is also, most often, the next tool that you will need.
CONSTRUCTION AND HOME WORKSHOP TOOL DEFINITIONS
DRILL PRESS: A tall upright machine useful for suddenly snatching flat metal bar stock out of your hands so that it smacks you in the chest and flings your beer across the room, splattering it against that freshly-stained heirloom piece you were drying.
WIRE WHEEL: Cleans paint off bolts and then throws them somewhere under the workbench at the speed of light. Also removes fingerprints and hard-earned guitar calluses from fingers in about the time it takes you to say, "Son of aâ?¦.."
ELECTRIC HAND DRILL: Normally used for spinning pop rivets in their holes until you die of old age.
SKIL SAW: A portable cutting tool used to make studs too short.
PLIERS: Used to round off bolt heads. Sometimes used in the creation of blood-blisters. The most often used tool by all women.
BELT SANDER: An electric sanding tool commonly used to convert minor touch-up jobs into major refinishing jobs.
HACKSAW: One of a family of cutting tools built on the Ouija board principle. It transforms human energy into a crooked, unpredictable motion, and the more you attempt to influence its course, the more dismal your future becomes.
VISE-GRIPS: Generally used after pliers to completely round off bolt heads. If nothing else is available, they can also be used to transfer intense welding heat to the palm of your hand.
WELDING GLOVES: Heavy duty leather gloves used to prolong the conduction of intense welding heat to the palm of your hand.
OXYACETYLENE TORCH: Used almost entirely for lighting various flammable objects in your shop on fire. Also handy for igniting the grease inside the wheel hub you want the bearing race out of.
WHITWORTH SOCKETS: Once used for working on older British cars and motorcycles, they are now used mainly for impersonating that 9/16 or 1/2 inch socket you've been searching for the last 45 minutes.
TABLE SAW: A large stationary power tool commonly used to launch wood projectiles for testing wall integrity.
HYDRAULIC FLOOR JACK: Used for lowering an automobile to the ground after you have installed your new brake hose, trapping the jack handle firmly under the bumper.
EIGHT-FOOT LONG YELLOW PINE 2X4: Used for levering an automobile upward off of a trapped hydraulic jack handle.
TWEEZERS: A tool for removing wood splinters and wire wheel wires.
E-Z OUT BOLT AND STUD EXTRACTOR: A tool ten times harder than any known drill bit that snaps neatly off in bolt holes thereby ending any possible future use.
RADIAL ARM SAW: A large stationary power saw primarily used by most shops to scare neophytes into choosing another line of work.
TWO-TON ENGINE HOIST: A tool for testing the maximum tensile strength of everything you forgot to disconnect.
CRAFTSMAN 1/2 x 24-INCH SCREWDRIVER: A very large pry bar that inexplicably has an accurately machined screwdriver tip on the end opposite the handle.
AVIATION METAL SNIPS: See hacksaw.
TROUBLE LIGHT: The home mechanic's own tanning booth. Sometimes called a drop light, it is a good source of vitamin D, "the sunshine vitamin," which is not otherwise found under cars at night. Health benefits aside, its main purpose to consume 40-watt light bulbs at about thesame rate that 105mm howitzer shells might be used during, say, the first few hours of the Battle of the Bulge. More often dark than light, its name is somewhat misleading.
PHILLIPS SCREWDRIVER: Normally used to stab the vacuum seals under lids and for opening old-style paper-and-tin oil cans and splashing oil on your shirt; but can also be used, as the name implies, to strip out Phillips screw heads. Women excel at using this tool.
STRAIGHT SCREWDRIVER: A tool for opening paint cans. Sometimes used to convert common slotted screws into non-removable screws.
AIR COMPRESSOR: A machine that takes energy produced in a coal-burning power plant 200 miles away and ransforms it into compressed air that travels by hose to a Chicago Pneumatic impact wrench that grips rusty bolts which were last overtightened 30 years ago by someone at Ford, and instantly rounds off their heads. Also used to quickly snap off lug nuts.
PRY BAR: A tool used to crumple the metal surrounding that clip or bracket you needed to remove in order to replace a 50 cent part.
HOSE CUTTER: A tool used to make hoses too short.
HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Women primarily use it to make gaping holes in walls when hanging pictures.
MECHANIC'S KNIFE: Used to open and slice through the contents of cardboard cartons delivered to your front door; works particularly well on contents such as seats, vinyl records, liquids in plastic bottles, collector magazines, refund checks, and rubber or plastic parts. Especially useful for slicing work clothes, but only while in use.
DAMMIT TOOL: Any handy tool that you grab and throw across the garage while yelling "DAMMIT" at the top of your lungs. It is also, most often, the next tool that you will need.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Counter-Protest? WHAT Counter-Protest?
As usual, the MSM doesn't get it:
Yup, the journalistic standard-bearers of the NYTimes relied on "several veterans of the antiwar movement" to give them crowd estimates of the Gathering of Eagles. It's the domestic equivalent of MSMers relying on dubious Iraqi stringers to provide them with war coverage while they sit in their comfy Green Zone offices in D.C. and Manhattan.
...when stating that "several hundred" counter-protesters showed up in D.C.
In reality, (not where the MSM lives), the National Park Service estimated 30,000 "Gathering of Eagles" counter-protesters.
TWO local MSM outlets (Channels 6 & 4) mentioned "counter-protesters." Damn nice of them.
A pure, grass-roots effort, the Gathering of Eagles' volunteers matched the massive Soros-funded anti-war machine sign for sign, chant for chant, and marcher for marcher. The contrast was most stark right before the entrance to the Memorial Bridge, where Eagles gathered with a field of American flags--while anti-Bush, 9/11 conspiracy nuts wrapped themselves in a figurative blanket of yellow "Out of Iraq" placards.
Somehow the locals were not able to provide numbers for EITHER group, although Moonbattery suggests that the Eagles OUTNUMBERED the wackos 3 to 1.
HT: Malkin
Yup, the journalistic standard-bearers of the NYTimes relied on "several veterans of the antiwar movement" to give them crowd estimates of the Gathering of Eagles. It's the domestic equivalent of MSMers relying on dubious Iraqi stringers to provide them with war coverage while they sit in their comfy Green Zone offices in D.C. and Manhattan.
...when stating that "several hundred" counter-protesters showed up in D.C.
In reality, (not where the MSM lives), the National Park Service estimated 30,000 "Gathering of Eagles" counter-protesters.
TWO local MSM outlets (Channels 6 & 4) mentioned "counter-protesters." Damn nice of them.
A pure, grass-roots effort, the Gathering of Eagles' volunteers matched the massive Soros-funded anti-war machine sign for sign, chant for chant, and marcher for marcher. The contrast was most stark right before the entrance to the Memorial Bridge, where Eagles gathered with a field of American flags--while anti-Bush, 9/11 conspiracy nuts wrapped themselves in a figurative blanket of yellow "Out of Iraq" placards.
Somehow the locals were not able to provide numbers for EITHER group, although Moonbattery suggests that the Eagles OUTNUMBERED the wackos 3 to 1.
HT: Malkin
Angels--A Primer, Humorous
When this guy is 'on', he's really 'ON.'
So go here and learn a few facts, and get some farce, as well.
I'll just give you the last line, which is a touch sardonic:
I, for one, find it quite odd that the western world is fixated on little small floating half-naked little children. But what do I know?
So go here and learn a few facts, and get some farce, as well.
I'll just give you the last line, which is a touch sardonic:
I, for one, find it quite odd that the western world is fixated on little small floating half-naked little children. But what do I know?
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Who ARE These Jerks?
"One Wisconsin Now" seems to have a pathological problem with nosiness.
...One Wisconsin Now Action asked for a listing of all phone calls made from Ziegler's office phone in the Washington County courthouse from June 2005 through January 2007.
...Washington County Finance Director Susan Haag released 37 pages of records listing 1,184 phone calls, both incoming and outgoing, with all the phone numbers blacked out. Haag is the legal custodian of the records since her office pays the phone bills, she said.
"This delayed and incomplete response is unacceptable," One Wisconsin Now Action spokesman Cory Liebmann wrote in a news release Friday. "It raises serious questions about Annette Ziegler's respect for and commitment to our Wisconsin tradition of fair and open government."
Of course, Liebmann is lying. Ziegler had no input into the release (or non-release.) It was handled by Ms. Haag; the phone utilization and records are Washington County's, not Ziegler's.
Might be interesting to get the complete phone records (in- and out-bound) from "One Wisconsin Now," no?
Or would that be called chutzpah?
...One Wisconsin Now Action asked for a listing of all phone calls made from Ziegler's office phone in the Washington County courthouse from June 2005 through January 2007.
...Washington County Finance Director Susan Haag released 37 pages of records listing 1,184 phone calls, both incoming and outgoing, with all the phone numbers blacked out. Haag is the legal custodian of the records since her office pays the phone bills, she said.
"This delayed and incomplete response is unacceptable," One Wisconsin Now Action spokesman Cory Liebmann wrote in a news release Friday. "It raises serious questions about Annette Ziegler's respect for and commitment to our Wisconsin tradition of fair and open government."
Of course, Liebmann is lying. Ziegler had no input into the release (or non-release.) It was handled by Ms. Haag; the phone utilization and records are Washington County's, not Ziegler's.
Might be interesting to get the complete phone records (in- and out-bound) from "One Wisconsin Now," no?
Or would that be called chutzpah?
DarthDoyle Goes National
Heh.
Our Governor, Darth ("Killing Embryos Is a Cure") has a reputation which extends to the east. In the State of Virginia, one finds a gun shop, and in the gun shop:
Bloomberg's face graces a poster taped to a shotgun rack at Bob Moates, under the words "Here are our worst enemy." Sarah Brady, of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, and Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle are also pictured, though Bloomberg's face is circled in bright pink highlighter.
Those guys don't know the HALF of it...
Our Governor, Darth ("Killing Embryos Is a Cure") has a reputation which extends to the east. In the State of Virginia, one finds a gun shop, and in the gun shop:
Bloomberg's face graces a poster taped to a shotgun rack at Bob Moates, under the words "Here are our worst enemy." Sarah Brady, of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, and Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle are also pictured, though Bloomberg's face is circled in bright pink highlighter.
Those guys don't know the HALF of it...
Friday, March 16, 2007
Stanley Hauerwas on "Rights"
Here's something to think about. Hauerwas is a well-known and respected theologian, published frequently in First Things.
...Indeed I want to argue that America is the only country that has the misfortune of being founded on a philosophical mistake--namely, the notion of inalienable rights. We Christians do not believe that we have inalienable rights. That is the false presumption of Enlightenment individualism, and it opposes everything that Christians believe about what it means to be a creature. Notice that the issue is inalienable rights. Rights make a certain sense as correlative to duties and goods, but they are not inalienable. For example, when the lords protested against the king in the Magna Charta, they did so in the name of their duties to their underlings. Duties, not rights, were primary. The rights were simply ways of remembering what the duties were.
Christians, to be more specific, do not believe that we have a right to do with our bodies whatever we want. We do not believe that we have a right to our bodies because when we are baptized we become members of one another; then we can tell one another what it is that we should, and should not, do with our bodies. I had a colleague at the University of Notre Dame who taught Judaica. He was Jewish and always said that any religion that does not tell you what to do with your genitals and pots and pans cannot be interesting. That is exactly true. In the church we tell you what you can and cannot do with your genitals. They are not your own. They are not private. That means that you cannot commit adultery. If you do, you are no longer a member of "us."
Under the veil of American privatization, we are encouraging people to believe in the same way that Andrew Carnegie believed. He thought that he had a right to his steel mills. In the same sense, people think that they have a right to their bodies The body is then a piece of property in a capitalist sense. Unfortunately, that is antithetical to the way we Christians think that we have to share as members of the same body of Christ.
So, you cannot separate these issues. If you think that you can be very concerned about abortion and not concerned about the privatization of American life generally, you are making a mistake. So the problem is: how, as Christians, should we think about abortion without the rights rhetoric that we have been given--right to my body, right to life, pro-choice, pro-life, and so on? In this respect, we Christians must try to make the abortion issue our issue.
This is particularly clear when listening to Walter Williams' facile (and erroneous) Explanation of All Living in terms of Economics. It's a simple-minded (and wrong-headed) approach, which taken to its logical conclusion, would tell us that raising children is utterly devoid of value.
It also has an impact on the "right to privacy" debate. Not only is that phrase NOT found in the Constitution (and thus had to be put there, emanating-wise, by a creative group of Supremes in Griswold)--it is irreconcilable with a Christian notion of society, as Hauerwas shows above.
More curious: one wonders why the "right to privacy" was NOT present. Was this a case of the Homeric Nod by the authors of the Constitution and Bill of Rights?
HT: Dreher
...Indeed I want to argue that America is the only country that has the misfortune of being founded on a philosophical mistake--namely, the notion of inalienable rights. We Christians do not believe that we have inalienable rights. That is the false presumption of Enlightenment individualism, and it opposes everything that Christians believe about what it means to be a creature. Notice that the issue is inalienable rights. Rights make a certain sense as correlative to duties and goods, but they are not inalienable. For example, when the lords protested against the king in the Magna Charta, they did so in the name of their duties to their underlings. Duties, not rights, were primary. The rights were simply ways of remembering what the duties were.
Christians, to be more specific, do not believe that we have a right to do with our bodies whatever we want. We do not believe that we have a right to our bodies because when we are baptized we become members of one another; then we can tell one another what it is that we should, and should not, do with our bodies. I had a colleague at the University of Notre Dame who taught Judaica. He was Jewish and always said that any religion that does not tell you what to do with your genitals and pots and pans cannot be interesting. That is exactly true. In the church we tell you what you can and cannot do with your genitals. They are not your own. They are not private. That means that you cannot commit adultery. If you do, you are no longer a member of "us."
Under the veil of American privatization, we are encouraging people to believe in the same way that Andrew Carnegie believed. He thought that he had a right to his steel mills. In the same sense, people think that they have a right to their bodies The body is then a piece of property in a capitalist sense. Unfortunately, that is antithetical to the way we Christians think that we have to share as members of the same body of Christ.
So, you cannot separate these issues. If you think that you can be very concerned about abortion and not concerned about the privatization of American life generally, you are making a mistake. So the problem is: how, as Christians, should we think about abortion without the rights rhetoric that we have been given--right to my body, right to life, pro-choice, pro-life, and so on? In this respect, we Christians must try to make the abortion issue our issue.
This is particularly clear when listening to Walter Williams' facile (and erroneous) Explanation of All Living in terms of Economics. It's a simple-minded (and wrong-headed) approach, which taken to its logical conclusion, would tell us that raising children is utterly devoid of value.
It also has an impact on the "right to privacy" debate. Not only is that phrase NOT found in the Constitution (and thus had to be put there, emanating-wise, by a creative group of Supremes in Griswold)--it is irreconcilable with a Christian notion of society, as Hauerwas shows above.
More curious: one wonders why the "right to privacy" was NOT present. Was this a case of the Homeric Nod by the authors of the Constitution and Bill of Rights?
HT: Dreher
Corn-A-Hole's Chickens Are Expensive!
The Corn-Whores ("Inserting a Cob Up Your A** Since 2005, With Glee and Profits") should begin to fear; the price-chickens are coming home to roost.
Consider that February prices for "crude foodstuffs and feedstuffs" were up 18.8% above year-ago levels, its no surprise that food companies are passing those higher costs to consumers. Wholesale consumer food prices are 6.8% above year-ago levels.
It ain't just tortillas any more, folks.
Corn is the base feedstuff for cattle and chickens, and is found in most breakfast cereal products--and is a major-league sweetener-ingredient, too.
I'm sure that Farmer Hahn is a happy camper.
Consider that February prices for "crude foodstuffs and feedstuffs" were up 18.8% above year-ago levels, its no surprise that food companies are passing those higher costs to consumers. Wholesale consumer food prices are 6.8% above year-ago levels.
It ain't just tortillas any more, folks.
Corn is the base feedstuff for cattle and chickens, and is found in most breakfast cereal products--and is a major-league sweetener-ingredient, too.
I'm sure that Farmer Hahn is a happy camper.
"Judicial Activism" Unvarnished
Following the Shark's paper on the question of "judicial activism," (referenced and linked in the post beneath this one,) he posts today a clearly "activist" statement made by a "non-partisan" candidate for the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
"Three hundred and fifty thousand dollars is an insufficient amount in this day and age,”she said. “Whether the cap was categorically unconstitutional or arbitrarily too low, I think the result was correct.”,”she said.
What she said was that in her (not-so-humble) opinion, the caps, which were legislated by the Legislature, should have been re-legislated by....(ta-da) the Court.
Esenberg comments:
These malpractice caps were enacted by the people's democratically chosen representatives. Unless they are, for some reason, "categorically unconstitutional" then the court has no business setting them aside - whether or not Linda Clifford or a majority of justices think they are "too low." While our state's constitution does place certain limits on the legislature, the policy preferences of a majority of justices on the state's supreme court are not among them.
It so happens that I decried the stubborn and politicized refusal of the Assembly Majority Leader to accept a compromise cap-limit (IIRC, $750K). He's no longer in any public office, perhaps because of his stances...
But stubborn, politicized Legislators are not an excuse for abrogation of Legislative prerogative by a Court which "feels like it" one morning.
Now we have the possibility that Ms. Clifford will win a seat on the Court and take her electoral victory as a mandate to Legislate rather than Adjudicate.
Egads. Or, more elegantly:
Some of you might wonder why we should care. Isn't this just geeky lawyer stuff? If the result is right, why worry about whether it was legitimate? The answer goes to the very foundation of democracy. Judges get to set aside the actions of our elected officials only when those actions violate some constitutional limitation on what election officials are permitted to do - not because judicial officers believe that "in this day and age" the legislature has chosen poorly or society "needs" something else.
"Three hundred and fifty thousand dollars is an insufficient amount in this day and age,”she said. “Whether the cap was categorically unconstitutional or arbitrarily too low, I think the result was correct.”,”she said.
What she said was that in her (not-so-humble) opinion, the caps, which were legislated by the Legislature, should have been re-legislated by....(ta-da) the Court.
Esenberg comments:
These malpractice caps were enacted by the people's democratically chosen representatives. Unless they are, for some reason, "categorically unconstitutional" then the court has no business setting them aside - whether or not Linda Clifford or a majority of justices think they are "too low." While our state's constitution does place certain limits on the legislature, the policy preferences of a majority of justices on the state's supreme court are not among them.
It so happens that I decried the stubborn and politicized refusal of the Assembly Majority Leader to accept a compromise cap-limit (IIRC, $750K). He's no longer in any public office, perhaps because of his stances...
But stubborn, politicized Legislators are not an excuse for abrogation of Legislative prerogative by a Court which "feels like it" one morning.
Now we have the possibility that Ms. Clifford will win a seat on the Court and take her electoral victory as a mandate to Legislate rather than Adjudicate.
Egads. Or, more elegantly:
Some of you might wonder why we should care. Isn't this just geeky lawyer stuff? If the result is right, why worry about whether it was legitimate? The answer goes to the very foundation of democracy. Judges get to set aside the actions of our elected officials only when those actions violate some constitutional limitation on what election officials are permitted to do - not because judicial officers believe that "in this day and age" the legislature has chosen poorly or society "needs" something else.
The Nuggets of Esenberg: Shirley's Theme Song
The Shark wrote an essay on Judicial Restraint which is a delight to read.
But rather than excerpting long, I'll present a few aphorisms--nuggets--for future reference. They combine brevity with memorability, and get to the heart of the matter.
Re checks and balances (and setting the table for the rest of the paper):
We have given judges the final say on what the law means because they do not get to say what the law is.
While discussing the Ferdon decision:
The precise contours of this carnivorous form of review are not clear.
On the Dairyland decision (which reversed another decision which was only 2 years old):
Because the parties to the 1991-1992 compacts believed that they would be able to negotiate for new casino-type games in the future (the compacts provided for amendment), the court held that it would be an impairment of contractual obligation to construe the 1993 amendment to defeat that expectation.
...
It seems unlikely that the court really intends to find an unconstitutional impairment of contract whenever someone's hope for a favorable contractual amendment is frustrated by subsequent legislation.
...but they DID find so to accomodate Governor Doyle and the Tribes. Would the Court rule, then, that someone's belief that taxes will not rise should invalidate increased taxes?
In sum:
Having voted to restrict the expansion of gaming, the state's residents now find that they have conferred a monopoly on the tribes to engage in any type of gaming that the Governor might agree to and that is permitted by federal law.
Bet you didn't know that, eh?
In Jarrell, the Court mandated recording of police interrogations of juveniles.
...the court's concern went beyond problems of proof (that were themselves not present in the case before it) to substantive judgments about how interrogations should be conducted that were rooted in neither the constitution nor the statutes.
Justifying such regulation because it is implemented through a rule of admissibility (and is, therefore, a rule "governing the courts") establishes a principle with no obvious stopping point.
On the "lead paint" decision (Collins):
...its suggestion that the constitutional provision maintaining that Article I, section 9 "does allow for a remedy through the existing common law"61 suggests that it believes that Article I, section 9 imports into the common law a constitutional imperative for a "remedy" whenever there is a "wrong," whether or not recognized at common law. The court acknowledged amicus' argument that such a broad constitutional command cannot be "maintained in some principled way thereby creating uncertainty in a number of cases,"62 but pronounced itself untroubled ...
Which, I suppose, hints at the title of Screechin'Shirley's personal theme song:
Que Sera, Sera. Whatever will be, will be/the future's not yours to see/It depends on ME!
That is precisely the nature of Screechin'Shirley's decisions on carrying a concealed weapon for self-defense, which Esenberg also discusses (no excerpts here.)
***********
Ms. Abrahamson has attempted to baptize (thus sanctify) her majority's meandering opinions as "The New Federalism," which has some appeal to people who disagree with the state of jurisprudence at the Federal level. You know, the 9th and 10th Amendments, and all that stuff. But the direction The Screecher has taken with her "New Federalism" looks a bit more like "Old Anarchy,"--a logical outcome of Social Science-based decisions.
In DuBose:
The court in DuBose, like Jerrell C.J., reached out to create a broad rule regarding what law enforcement procedures should be permitted in response to concerns that were not presented by the case before it.
...
both cases represent a departure from the way in which the court had generally handled such questions reflecting, perhaps, a diminished weight placed upon precedent. And as we have seen, Ferdon and Dairyland reversed very recent decisions, calling into question the extent to which anything can be regarded as settled other than by the type of head counting normally associated with political prognostication.
Esenberg concludes:
We have seen that a number of the Wisconsin Supreme Court's recent decisions have involved an aggressive re-examination of legislative fact-finding (Ferdon) or the rooting of a decision in facts that are controverted (Thomas) or outside of the record (Jerrell C.J., DuBose). We have seen the court engage in a judicial reformulation of legislation (Fisher) and adopt doctrine that it is unlikely to follow in future cases (Ferdon, Dairyland). ...
It is the purpose of this white paper to facilitate a discussion about this important trend and to foster a dialogue about the proper role of the courts in our state. It is the hope of its author that it begins now—in earnest
It is also the hope of rational citizens of this State, as well, Rick. Let's Get It On!!
But rather than excerpting long, I'll present a few aphorisms--nuggets--for future reference. They combine brevity with memorability, and get to the heart of the matter.
Re checks and balances (and setting the table for the rest of the paper):
We have given judges the final say on what the law means because they do not get to say what the law is.
While discussing the Ferdon decision:
The precise contours of this carnivorous form of review are not clear.
On the Dairyland decision (which reversed another decision which was only 2 years old):
Because the parties to the 1991-1992 compacts believed that they would be able to negotiate for new casino-type games in the future (the compacts provided for amendment), the court held that it would be an impairment of contractual obligation to construe the 1993 amendment to defeat that expectation.
...
It seems unlikely that the court really intends to find an unconstitutional impairment of contract whenever someone's hope for a favorable contractual amendment is frustrated by subsequent legislation.
...but they DID find so to accomodate Governor Doyle and the Tribes. Would the Court rule, then, that someone's belief that taxes will not rise should invalidate increased taxes?
In sum:
Having voted to restrict the expansion of gaming, the state's residents now find that they have conferred a monopoly on the tribes to engage in any type of gaming that the Governor might agree to and that is permitted by federal law.
Bet you didn't know that, eh?
In Jarrell, the Court mandated recording of police interrogations of juveniles.
...the court's concern went beyond problems of proof (that were themselves not present in the case before it) to substantive judgments about how interrogations should be conducted that were rooted in neither the constitution nor the statutes.
Justifying such regulation because it is implemented through a rule of admissibility (and is, therefore, a rule "governing the courts") establishes a principle with no obvious stopping point.
On the "lead paint" decision (Collins):
...its suggestion that the constitutional provision maintaining that Article I, section 9 "does allow for a remedy through the existing common law"61 suggests that it believes that Article I, section 9 imports into the common law a constitutional imperative for a "remedy" whenever there is a "wrong," whether or not recognized at common law. The court acknowledged amicus' argument that such a broad constitutional command cannot be "maintained in some principled way thereby creating uncertainty in a number of cases,"62 but pronounced itself untroubled ...
Which, I suppose, hints at the title of Screechin'Shirley's personal theme song:
Que Sera, Sera. Whatever will be, will be/the future's not yours to see/It depends on ME!
That is precisely the nature of Screechin'Shirley's decisions on carrying a concealed weapon for self-defense, which Esenberg also discusses (no excerpts here.)
***********
Ms. Abrahamson has attempted to baptize (thus sanctify) her majority's meandering opinions as "The New Federalism," which has some appeal to people who disagree with the state of jurisprudence at the Federal level. You know, the 9th and 10th Amendments, and all that stuff. But the direction The Screecher has taken with her "New Federalism" looks a bit more like "Old Anarchy,"--a logical outcome of Social Science-based decisions.
In DuBose:
The court in DuBose, like Jerrell C.J., reached out to create a broad rule regarding what law enforcement procedures should be permitted in response to concerns that were not presented by the case before it.
...
both cases represent a departure from the way in which the court had generally handled such questions reflecting, perhaps, a diminished weight placed upon precedent. And as we have seen, Ferdon and Dairyland reversed very recent decisions, calling into question the extent to which anything can be regarded as settled other than by the type of head counting normally associated with political prognostication.
Esenberg concludes:
We have seen that a number of the Wisconsin Supreme Court's recent decisions have involved an aggressive re-examination of legislative fact-finding (Ferdon) or the rooting of a decision in facts that are controverted (Thomas) or outside of the record (Jerrell C.J., DuBose). We have seen the court engage in a judicial reformulation of legislation (Fisher) and adopt doctrine that it is unlikely to follow in future cases (Ferdon, Dairyland). ...
It is the purpose of this white paper to facilitate a discussion about this important trend and to foster a dialogue about the proper role of the courts in our state. It is the hope of its author that it begins now—in earnest
It is also the hope of rational citizens of this State, as well, Rick. Let's Get It On!!
Thursday, March 15, 2007
About the Gross Domestic Product
Next time some yapper tells you about the glorious growth of the GDP, remind them of this:
GDP purportedly is now growing at 3.5%, and everyone seems pleased. What we fail to understand is how much government entitlement spending contributes to the increase in the GDP. Rebuilding infrastructure destroyed by hurricanes, which simply gets us back to even, is considered part of GDP growth. Wall Street profits and salaries, pumped up by the Fed’s increase in money, also contribute to GDP statistical growth. Just buying military weapons that contribute nothing to the well being of our citizens, sending money down a rat hole, contributes to GDP growth! Simple price increases caused by Fed monetary inflation contribute to nominal GDP growth. None of these factors represent any kind of real increases in economic output. So we should not carelessly cite misleading GDP figures which don’t truly reflect what is happening in the economy.
Ron Paul, MC
In other words, a good deal of Federal spending is counted as GDP--meaning that the larger the Feds' budget, the larger the GDP. Hell--FDR increased the GDP significantly, but gasoline was rationed, as was copper, and some food. Great GDP--just no benefit to the citizens (aside from winning the war.)
So who wants to look at the GWB spend-a-thon and re-calc GDP for actual growth?
GDP purportedly is now growing at 3.5%, and everyone seems pleased. What we fail to understand is how much government entitlement spending contributes to the increase in the GDP. Rebuilding infrastructure destroyed by hurricanes, which simply gets us back to even, is considered part of GDP growth. Wall Street profits and salaries, pumped up by the Fed’s increase in money, also contribute to GDP statistical growth. Just buying military weapons that contribute nothing to the well being of our citizens, sending money down a rat hole, contributes to GDP growth! Simple price increases caused by Fed monetary inflation contribute to nominal GDP growth. None of these factors represent any kind of real increases in economic output. So we should not carelessly cite misleading GDP figures which don’t truly reflect what is happening in the economy.
Ron Paul, MC
In other words, a good deal of Federal spending is counted as GDP--meaning that the larger the Feds' budget, the larger the GDP. Hell--FDR increased the GDP significantly, but gasoline was rationed, as was copper, and some food. Great GDP--just no benefit to the citizens (aside from winning the war.)
So who wants to look at the GWB spend-a-thon and re-calc GDP for actual growth?
Task Force 145
When you want to know what's going on in the War on Terrorists, Google "Task Force 145."
Last week, western forces from Afghanistan were reported to have crossed the Pakistani border, and captured Mullah Hakimallah Mehsud, a clansman of Baitullah and Abdullah Mehsud, the two leading Taliban commanders in South Waziristan. Yesterday, NATO's International Security Assistance Force spokesman denied any involvement in operations inside Pakistan. "Contrary to recent press reports, the NATO International Security Assistance Force has not and is not involved in the conduct of any operations inside of Pakistan," noted an ISAF press release. "" 'These reports are simply false,' said Col Tom Collins, ISAF spokesman." Colonel Collins is technically correct, this wasn't a NATO led mission, but, as we noted the day the news broke, one conducted by Task Force 145, the hunter-killer Special Operations group created to pursue senior al-Qaeda leadership.
It's a lot easier than asking the Bush Administration what's going on. They won't tell you.
HT: Roggio/Fourth Rail
Last week, western forces from Afghanistan were reported to have crossed the Pakistani border, and captured Mullah Hakimallah Mehsud, a clansman of Baitullah and Abdullah Mehsud, the two leading Taliban commanders in South Waziristan. Yesterday, NATO's International Security Assistance Force spokesman denied any involvement in operations inside Pakistan. "Contrary to recent press reports, the NATO International Security Assistance Force has not and is not involved in the conduct of any operations inside of Pakistan," noted an ISAF press release. "" 'These reports are simply false,' said Col Tom Collins, ISAF spokesman." Colonel Collins is technically correct, this wasn't a NATO led mission, but, as we noted the day the news broke, one conducted by Task Force 145, the hunter-killer Special Operations group created to pursue senior al-Qaeda leadership.
It's a lot easier than asking the Bush Administration what's going on. They won't tell you.
HT: Roggio/Fourth Rail
Weenie Report: Republican Mommies
Sure enough, the "Republicans" who will introduce a State-wide smoking ban have familiar names:
Carol Roessler (R-Oshkosh) and state Representatives Mark Gottllieb (R-Port Washington), Steve Wieckert (R-Appleton)
Evidently Ms. Roessler's primordial urge to be a Mother was frustrated someplace along the line. I would prefer that she mother someone else--not the entire State.
As to Gottlieb and Wieckert: you, too, can be Mothers. You're working hard enough at it. Just buy a dress and wear it as a start.
HT: Kevin Fischer
Carol Roessler (R-Oshkosh) and state Representatives Mark Gottllieb (R-Port Washington), Steve Wieckert (R-Appleton)
Evidently Ms. Roessler's primordial urge to be a Mother was frustrated someplace along the line. I would prefer that she mother someone else--not the entire State.
As to Gottlieb and Wieckert: you, too, can be Mothers. You're working hard enough at it. Just buy a dress and wear it as a start.
HT: Kevin Fischer
Screw The "Minneapolis Imams"
The Imams who were tossed off the plane in Minneapolis are suing.
But they're not just suing the airline (U S Airways.)
These jackasses are also suing the people who REPORTED their suspicious behavior.
Paragraph 22 adds: "Plaintiffs will seek leave to amend this Complaint to allege true names, capacities, and circumstances supporting [these defendants'] liability ... at such time as Plaintiffs ascertain the same."
Who are these unnamed culprits? The complaint describes them as "an older couple who was sitting [near the imams] and purposely turn[ed] around to watch" as they prayed. "The gentleman ('John Doe') in the couple ... picked up his cellular phone and made a phone call while watching the Plaintiffs pray," then "moved to a corner" and "kept talking into his cellular phone."
In retribution for this action, the unnamed couple probably will be dragged into court soon and face the prospect of hiring a lawyer, enduring hostile questioning and paying huge legal bills. The same fate could await other as-yet-unnamed passengers on the US Airways flight who came forward as witnesses.
Perhaps it is un-civil to suggest that this lawsuit should be tossed at first sight and the jackass Imams required to leave the country immediately. OK. I'll be un-civil.
Do not pack your bags. Do not take a toothbrush. Just get the Hell outta here.
HT: Powerline
But they're not just suing the airline (U S Airways.)
These jackasses are also suing the people who REPORTED their suspicious behavior.
Paragraph 22 adds: "Plaintiffs will seek leave to amend this Complaint to allege true names, capacities, and circumstances supporting [these defendants'] liability ... at such time as Plaintiffs ascertain the same."
Who are these unnamed culprits? The complaint describes them as "an older couple who was sitting [near the imams] and purposely turn[ed] around to watch" as they prayed. "The gentleman ('John Doe') in the couple ... picked up his cellular phone and made a phone call while watching the Plaintiffs pray," then "moved to a corner" and "kept talking into his cellular phone."
In retribution for this action, the unnamed couple probably will be dragged into court soon and face the prospect of hiring a lawyer, enduring hostile questioning and paying huge legal bills. The same fate could await other as-yet-unnamed passengers on the US Airways flight who came forward as witnesses.
Perhaps it is un-civil to suggest that this lawsuit should be tossed at first sight and the jackass Imams required to leave the country immediately. OK. I'll be un-civil.
Do not pack your bags. Do not take a toothbrush. Just get the Hell outta here.
HT: Powerline
PJB and Relativity--the Chaos Machine
As we pointed out below, "relativism," the philosophical equivalent to "I'm OK, You're OK" is a certain path to chaos, as Benedict XVI tells us.
And that "relativism" showed its shapeless face in the Peter Pace brouhaha, on which PJBuchanan hits the nail on the head, again:
What this uproar tells us is that America is no longer a moral community. On the most fundamental issues – abortion, promiscuity, homosexuality, euthanasia, sterilization, cloning, and the creation of, and buying and selling of, fetuses for research – we are at war. What part of the nation sees as progress, the other sees as depravity.
And where there is no moral community, there will not long be one country. For in a religious or culture war, there is no peaceful coexistence.
One side wins, the other side loses.
"A house divided against itself...."
And that "relativism" showed its shapeless face in the Peter Pace brouhaha, on which PJBuchanan hits the nail on the head, again:
What this uproar tells us is that America is no longer a moral community. On the most fundamental issues – abortion, promiscuity, homosexuality, euthanasia, sterilization, cloning, and the creation of, and buying and selling of, fetuses for research – we are at war. What part of the nation sees as progress, the other sees as depravity.
And where there is no moral community, there will not long be one country. For in a religious or culture war, there is no peaceful coexistence.
One side wins, the other side loses.
"A house divided against itself...."
Lonesome George (Bush)
There's been some angst midst the Radio Snorters over the "Prosecutors Fired" thing.
Not because the Prosecutors were Fired. Not because the Dim(o)wits are making it into a propaganda campaign which would do Goebbels proud.
Not because NBCABCCBSCNN are repeating the propaganda like the monkey-brained twits they are.
But because the Conservative base doesn't seem to care.
Farah has an opinion which has a bearing on this:
Now, again, I have to point out that Bush administration incompetence is indeed staggering to behold. Only the Bush White House and its Justice Department could manage to look so guilty when they have done nothing wrong. They are pathetic and deserve whatever fate befalls them in this make-believe crisis
...This whole drama is kind of a metaphor for the Bush administration. These guys, starting at the top, have been over their heads from day one. Bush tried so hard to get along with the Democrats. He cared so much about appearances and the way the New York Times, Washington Post and Associated Press covered his actions. He didn't care about his campaign promises to his base. He didn't even seem to care if he lost control of Congress – which he did.
GWB won't even defend his own AG (who should be fired for his incompetence on other grounds--like his failure to send Sandy Burglar to Club Fed, or his failure to ruthlessly prosecute the Corn-A-Hole crowd for insider-dealing, or for allowing his boyzzzz to jail Border Patrol personnel.)
Why the Hell should Conservatives defend him?
Not because the Prosecutors were Fired. Not because the Dim(o)wits are making it into a propaganda campaign which would do Goebbels proud.
Not because NBCABCCBSCNN are repeating the propaganda like the monkey-brained twits they are.
But because the Conservative base doesn't seem to care.
Farah has an opinion which has a bearing on this:
Now, again, I have to point out that Bush administration incompetence is indeed staggering to behold. Only the Bush White House and its Justice Department could manage to look so guilty when they have done nothing wrong. They are pathetic and deserve whatever fate befalls them in this make-believe crisis
...This whole drama is kind of a metaphor for the Bush administration. These guys, starting at the top, have been over their heads from day one. Bush tried so hard to get along with the Democrats. He cared so much about appearances and the way the New York Times, Washington Post and Associated Press covered his actions. He didn't care about his campaign promises to his base. He didn't even seem to care if he lost control of Congress – which he did.
GWB won't even defend his own AG (who should be fired for his incompetence on other grounds--like his failure to send Sandy Burglar to Club Fed, or his failure to ruthlessly prosecute the Corn-A-Hole crowd for insider-dealing, or for allowing his boyzzzz to jail Border Patrol personnel.)
Why the Hell should Conservatives defend him?
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
The Vote on Frank the Fixer
These are the State Senators who voted AGAINST confirming Frank the Fixer as Sec'y/DOT:
ELLIS
FITZGERALD
HARSDORF
KEDZIE
LAZICH
LEIBHAM
I suspect the rest of them are interested in watching the plot thicken.
ELLIS
FITZGERALD
HARSDORF
KEDZIE
LAZICH
LEIBHAM
I suspect the rest of them are interested in watching the plot thicken.
For Farmer Hahn, Sen. Grassley, and the Other Ladies of the Evening
Perhaps you recall some of this language:
...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it...
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
...He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
...For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent...
...A [Representative] whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Think positive. George III was not executed during the ensuing...ah....difficulties.
...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it...
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
...He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
...For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent...
...A [Representative] whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Think positive. George III was not executed during the ensuing...ah....difficulties.
More on The Papal Document
From Fr. Z.:
...Benedict is forcefully underscoring the importance of the liturgical action itself. The action is the rite. Thus the celebration of the Eucharist conforms Christian life. It conforms the Christian through participation in a mystery which is to be lived. So, there is a direct connection between the way the rite, the actio, is celebrated and living like a Christian.
This logically leads to the necessary of a reform of the way the Church is celebrating the actio. The idea is this: celebrate the liturgy well (I would add especially Holy Mass, the Eucharist) and it forms us to live better. The impact of good liturgical celebration on Christian living requires, therefore, great vigilance and fidelity. Thus, there is both a qualitative dimension to the effect of good liturgical celebration (actio) and even the quantitative dimension!
... Benedict argues for a direct dependence of actuosa participatio on the ars celebrandi. This is not so new, if you think about it with common sense. The Pope says that to go into the depths of the ars celebrandi (and thus create the proper impact on the Church through active "personal" participation, there must be close fidelity to the rite itself which is the the actio and which makes the actio happen.
Which also re-inforces the priest as the alter Christus. The 'good-time-Charlie' priest is not able to engender a well-formed actuosa participatio, thus his flock will be mis-formed, as well. But that is qualified:
"Any attempt to make themselves the centre of the liturgical action contradicts their very identity." Thus the priest must use "obedience to the rite, uniting himself to it in mind and heart and avoiding anything that might give the impression of an inordinate emphasis on his own personality."
Which is to say, "alter Christus but not The Christus"
And as to actuosa participatio, Benedict says:
"We must not overlook the fact that some misunderstanding has occasionally arisen concerning the precise meaning of [active] participation. It should be made clear that the word "participation" does not refer to mere external activity during the celebration… ... it must be understood in more substantial terms."
Like metanoia, for example.
...Benedict is forcefully underscoring the importance of the liturgical action itself. The action is the rite. Thus the celebration of the Eucharist conforms Christian life. It conforms the Christian through participation in a mystery which is to be lived. So, there is a direct connection between the way the rite, the actio, is celebrated and living like a Christian.
This logically leads to the necessary of a reform of the way the Church is celebrating the actio. The idea is this: celebrate the liturgy well (I would add especially Holy Mass, the Eucharist) and it forms us to live better. The impact of good liturgical celebration on Christian living requires, therefore, great vigilance and fidelity. Thus, there is both a qualitative dimension to the effect of good liturgical celebration (actio) and even the quantitative dimension!
... Benedict argues for a direct dependence of actuosa participatio on the ars celebrandi. This is not so new, if you think about it with common sense. The Pope says that to go into the depths of the ars celebrandi (and thus create the proper impact on the Church through active "personal" participation, there must be close fidelity to the rite itself which is the the actio and which makes the actio happen.
Which also re-inforces the priest as the alter Christus. The 'good-time-Charlie' priest is not able to engender a well-formed actuosa participatio, thus his flock will be mis-formed, as well. But that is qualified:
"Any attempt to make themselves the centre of the liturgical action contradicts their very identity." Thus the priest must use "obedience to the rite, uniting himself to it in mind and heart and avoiding anything that might give the impression of an inordinate emphasis on his own personality."
Which is to say, "alter Christus but not The Christus"
And as to actuosa participatio, Benedict says:
"We must not overlook the fact that some misunderstanding has occasionally arisen concerning the precise meaning of [active] participation. It should be made clear that the word "participation" does not refer to mere external activity during the celebration… ... it must be understood in more substantial terms."
Like metanoia, for example.
The Games Translators Play
As pointed out by the inestimable Fr. Z (and reported by CWN), the English-translation jiggerbugger/liturgeisters were working when translating B-16's recent document.
Yup. It changed the meaning. Not by 180 degrees (that sort of thing is reserved to retired Cardinals of Washington DC.) But just enough.
Here's the scoop:
In order to express more clearly the unity and universality of the Church, I wish to endorse the proposal made by the Synod of Bishops, in harmony with the directives of the Second Vatican Council, that, with the exception of the readings, the homily and the prayer of the faithful, such liturgies [i.e., large-scale or international liturgies] could be celebrated in Latin. [Para. 62]
But that's not what the Latin said:
Ad melius ostendendam unitatem et universalitatem Ecclesiae, cupimus commendare suasiones Synodi Episcoporum, consonantes cum normis Concilii Vaticani II: exceptis lectionibus, homilia et oratione fidelium, aequum est ut huiusmodi celebrationes fiant lingua Latina
And as we all know from the Preface' Dialogue, "Aequum est" is better translated "It is FITTING," (or "it is right.")
An erosion here, a corner de-burred there, and pretty soon you have Liturgeist-Approved Translations!
Yup. It changed the meaning. Not by 180 degrees (that sort of thing is reserved to retired Cardinals of Washington DC.) But just enough.
Here's the scoop:
In order to express more clearly the unity and universality of the Church, I wish to endorse the proposal made by the Synod of Bishops, in harmony with the directives of the Second Vatican Council, that, with the exception of the readings, the homily and the prayer of the faithful, such liturgies [i.e., large-scale or international liturgies] could be celebrated in Latin. [Para. 62]
But that's not what the Latin said:
Ad melius ostendendam unitatem et universalitatem Ecclesiae, cupimus commendare suasiones Synodi Episcoporum, consonantes cum normis Concilii Vaticani II: exceptis lectionibus, homilia et oratione fidelium, aequum est ut huiusmodi celebrationes fiant lingua Latina
And as we all know from the Preface' Dialogue, "Aequum est" is better translated "It is FITTING," (or "it is right.")
An erosion here, a corner de-burred there, and pretty soon you have Liturgeist-Approved Translations!
Self-Interest and Lies About Guns
Well, here we go again.
The owner of Badger Guns (who is under intense scrutiny) has endorsed a proposal which would significantly enhance Badger Guns' revenues. No surprise there. Hell, he could become a Legislator and vote self-interest, just like Farmer Hahn.
The proposal would ban private gun-sales in Milwaukee County, which has some "GooGoo" about it--but the propaganda support happens to consist of a lie from "Mothers Against Gun Violence."
MAGW claims that there is no legal barrier to selling a gun to a felon.
WRONG!! BZZZZZZT!!
In reality, committing such an act is a federal felony, as well as a crime as defined in Wisconsin code sections 941.29(4) and 939.05(2)(b).
If you're so motivated, advise your Leggie that LRB 0861/2 should be squashed.
The owner of Badger Guns (who is under intense scrutiny) has endorsed a proposal which would significantly enhance Badger Guns' revenues. No surprise there. Hell, he could become a Legislator and vote self-interest, just like Farmer Hahn.
The proposal would ban private gun-sales in Milwaukee County, which has some "GooGoo" about it--but the propaganda support happens to consist of a lie from "Mothers Against Gun Violence."
MAGW claims that there is no legal barrier to selling a gun to a felon.
WRONG!! BZZZZZZT!!
In reality, committing such an act is a federal felony, as well as a crime as defined in Wisconsin code sections 941.29(4) and 939.05(2)(b).
If you're so motivated, advise your Leggie that LRB 0861/2 should be squashed.
Brookfield vs. Brookfield: The Union Wants Jobs!
This doesn't surprise me at all, but Bob Flessas did the digging.
According to one local fire staffer on the condition of anonymity, the city may be intentionally making it hard on the Town because “[city fire staff] would be losing geographical area for their fire service. The IAFF union is lobbying hard against any services provided by the town’s fire department, even if they are equal or better.
By ‘equal’, I’m referring to City trained paramedics; by ‘better’ I mean response times to Weston Hills.”
“The thought is the city’s FD is justifying their firehouse staffing levels based on Weston Hills residency, that would in essence be gone if the town covers that area.”
“This matter goes well beyond the right thing to do for residents of the city.”
The City of Brookfield's Fire Department pisses away a lot of money...on firefighters, of course. The Union wants to keep it that way, and Jeff Speaker is (in effect) fronting for them.
So when the Town of Brookfield offered to "cover" the Weston Hills area for the City (a very logical and efficient offer,) the Fire Fighters' Union went ballistic, knowing that if the Town did the work, the Union Firefighters would lose jobs.
Speaker is playing toady for the Union here, and costing the City's taxpayers some money.
While all of us knew that Mayor Jeff was not particularly bright, none of us suspected that he was actually a Union front-man.
On the other hand, no City Alderman will ever question the Union-mandated (and Chief-supported) featherbedding--sending an engine to accompany ambo-runs. The Aldermen are aware of it, and simply have no interest.
According to one local fire staffer on the condition of anonymity, the city may be intentionally making it hard on the Town because “[city fire staff] would be losing geographical area for their fire service. The IAFF union is lobbying hard against any services provided by the town’s fire department, even if they are equal or better.
By ‘equal’, I’m referring to City trained paramedics; by ‘better’ I mean response times to Weston Hills.”
“The thought is the city’s FD is justifying their firehouse staffing levels based on Weston Hills residency, that would in essence be gone if the town covers that area.”
“This matter goes well beyond the right thing to do for residents of the city.”
The City of Brookfield's Fire Department pisses away a lot of money...on firefighters, of course. The Union wants to keep it that way, and Jeff Speaker is (in effect) fronting for them.
So when the Town of Brookfield offered to "cover" the Weston Hills area for the City (a very logical and efficient offer,) the Fire Fighters' Union went ballistic, knowing that if the Town did the work, the Union Firefighters would lose jobs.
Speaker is playing toady for the Union here, and costing the City's taxpayers some money.
While all of us knew that Mayor Jeff was not particularly bright, none of us suspected that he was actually a Union front-man.
On the other hand, no City Alderman will ever question the Union-mandated (and Chief-supported) featherbedding--sending an engine to accompany ambo-runs. The Aldermen are aware of it, and simply have no interest.
Dodd to "Rescue" Mortgage-Holders, $1.64BN
Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn) says he's going to "rescue" mortgage-holders.
Congress might step in to protect the country's 2.2 million subprime mortgage holders, said Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.), chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. He suggested laws might be needed to give them a chance to regain financial balance.
Peculiar way to phrase what he's really doing: the proposal is to shove $1.64 Billion in tax dollars into certain mortgage-banking firms.
This is not "to rescue" the home-buyers. It's "to rescue" the lender syndicates.
HT for Mish's column to Random10
Congress might step in to protect the country's 2.2 million subprime mortgage holders, said Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.), chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. He suggested laws might be needed to give them a chance to regain financial balance.
Peculiar way to phrase what he's really doing: the proposal is to shove $1.64 Billion in tax dollars into certain mortgage-banking firms.
This is not "to rescue" the home-buyers. It's "to rescue" the lender syndicates.
HT for Mish's column to Random10
Where's Your Money? Clinton. Both Bushes, Took It
The Feds are spending it. (You expected another answer?)
Heritage has put up a series of charts, and this is one. (Can't get it to upload to Blogger...)
Inflation-adjusted, your Congress is spending a LOT of your money:
For 2006, the average household will pay $20,664, down from $22,647 in 2000 but much higher than $13,017 in 1965.
They actually WERE "the Good Old Days."
But that's not all. (Those suffering from clinical depression should stop reading right now.)
Your Congress-Critters are spending a LOT.
Real annual federal spending more than tripled since 1965 and nearly doubled since 1980.
And they're spending your money to get re-elected (or to obtain more election funds):
Total nominal spending increased over 2,000 percent since 1965, while the Consumer Price Index increased a relatively modest 500 percent. Less than half of the increase in federal spending came from defense and homeland security spending.
And they spend regardless of the underlying ability-to-pay.
Federal spending increased 250 percent since 1965, five times faster than median income, which rose just over 40 percent.
The local angle? DarthDoyle is doing his damndest to emulate these bozos.
Heritage has put up a series of charts, and this is one. (Can't get it to upload to Blogger...)
Inflation-adjusted, your Congress is spending a LOT of your money:
For 2006, the average household will pay $20,664, down from $22,647 in 2000 but much higher than $13,017 in 1965.
They actually WERE "the Good Old Days."
But that's not all. (Those suffering from clinical depression should stop reading right now.)
Your Congress-Critters are spending a LOT.
Real annual federal spending more than tripled since 1965 and nearly doubled since 1980.
And they're spending your money to get re-elected (or to obtain more election funds):
Total nominal spending increased over 2,000 percent since 1965, while the Consumer Price Index increased a relatively modest 500 percent. Less than half of the increase in federal spending came from defense and homeland security spending.
And they spend regardless of the underlying ability-to-pay.
Federal spending increased 250 percent since 1965, five times faster than median income, which rose just over 40 percent.
The local angle? DarthDoyle is doing his damndest to emulate these bozos.
The Stadium Royal Flush
Do you suppose that the plumbing contractor's going to pay for the fix--or will it just be tacked on to the endless, priceless, Stadium Tax?
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Renovating a Church
Above are the "Before" and "After" pictures of the Cathedral in Philadelphia. Here's a bit of the story:In his first pastoral letter as Archbishop of Philadelphia, Cardinal Justin Rigali asked pastors to consider placing the tabernacle in the center of the church behind the main altar if it was not already there and if individual circumstances made such a move feasible.
On Sunday, March 4 at the Cathedral of S.S. Peter and Paul, the Cardinal led the way and made the mother church of the Archdiocese an example to all when he blessed a brand new tabernacle which has been relocated from a side altar to the center of the Cathedral’s sanctuary where it is visible by all.
The tabernacle has been placed on a ledge which is part of a luminous new reredos, a freestanding “screen” erected a few feet behind the main altar. Amazingly, it looks for all the world as if it has been there ever since the altar itself was installed 50 years ago.
A very significant concept follows:
“Cardinal Rigali has been telling everyone they should keep Christ in the center of their lives, and what better way to do that than to keep Him in the center of our churches also,” said Louis DiCocco, president of The St. Jude Shop, which was responsible for the new tabernacle, reredos and matching candlesticks.
Another project for Abp. Dolan.
HT: The New Liturgical MovementChant and Latin in B-16's Exhortation
Perhaps there will be a dozen parishes in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee which will take this seriously.
Then again, perhaps not.
42. In the ars celebrandi, liturgical song has a pre-eminent place. Saint Augustine rightly says in a famous sermon that “the new man sings a new song. Singing is an expression of joy and, if we consider the matter, an expression of love.”. The People of God assembled for the liturgy sings the praises of God. In the course of her two-thousand-year history, the Church has created, and still creates, music and songs which represent a rich patrimony of faith and love. This heritage must not be lost. Certainly as far as the liturgy is concerned, we cannot say that one song is as good as another. Generic improvisation or the introduction of musical genres which fail to respect the meaning of the liturgy should be avoided. As an element of the liturgy, song should be well integrated into the overall celebration. Consequently everything – texts, music, execution – ought to correspond to the meaning of the mystery being celebrated, the structure of the rite and the liturgical seasons. Finally, while respecting various styles and different and highly praiseworthy traditions, I desire, in accordance with the request advanced by the Synod Fathers, that Gregorian chant be suitably esteemed and employed as the chant proper to the Roman liturgy….
62. … I am thinking here particularly of celebrations at international gatherings, which nowadays are held with greater frequency. The most should be made of these occasions. In order to express more clearly the unity and universality of the Church, I wish to endorse the proposal made by the Synod of Bishops, in harmony with the directives of the Second Vatican Council, that, with the exception of the readings, the homily and the prayer of the faithful, such liturgies could be celebrated in Latin. Similarly, the better-known prayers of the Church’s tradition should be recited in Latin and, if possible, selections of Gregorian chant should be sung. Speaking more generally, I ask that future priests, from their time in the seminary, receive the preparation needed to understand and to celebrate Mass in Latin, and also to use Latin texts and execute Gregorian chant; nor should we forget that the faithful can be taught to recite the more common prayers in Latin, and also to sing parts of the liturgy to Gregorian chant.
I'm willing to bet that my older children know more Latin (and more about Latin) than priests who were ordained in Milwaukee between c. 1980-2000. And about Chant, too.
Abp. Dolan will certainly follow the wishes of the Pope in this matter, requiring Latin study for his seminarians, right?
About 4 years at 6 credits/year should be sufficient for starters.
Then again, perhaps not.
42. In the ars celebrandi, liturgical song has a pre-eminent place. Saint Augustine rightly says in a famous sermon that “the new man sings a new song. Singing is an expression of joy and, if we consider the matter, an expression of love.”. The People of God assembled for the liturgy sings the praises of God. In the course of her two-thousand-year history, the Church has created, and still creates, music and songs which represent a rich patrimony of faith and love. This heritage must not be lost. Certainly as far as the liturgy is concerned, we cannot say that one song is as good as another. Generic improvisation or the introduction of musical genres which fail to respect the meaning of the liturgy should be avoided. As an element of the liturgy, song should be well integrated into the overall celebration. Consequently everything – texts, music, execution – ought to correspond to the meaning of the mystery being celebrated, the structure of the rite and the liturgical seasons. Finally, while respecting various styles and different and highly praiseworthy traditions, I desire, in accordance with the request advanced by the Synod Fathers, that Gregorian chant be suitably esteemed and employed as the chant proper to the Roman liturgy….
62. … I am thinking here particularly of celebrations at international gatherings, which nowadays are held with greater frequency. The most should be made of these occasions. In order to express more clearly the unity and universality of the Church, I wish to endorse the proposal made by the Synod of Bishops, in harmony with the directives of the Second Vatican Council, that, with the exception of the readings, the homily and the prayer of the faithful, such liturgies could be celebrated in Latin. Similarly, the better-known prayers of the Church’s tradition should be recited in Latin and, if possible, selections of Gregorian chant should be sung. Speaking more generally, I ask that future priests, from their time in the seminary, receive the preparation needed to understand and to celebrate Mass in Latin, and also to use Latin texts and execute Gregorian chant; nor should we forget that the faithful can be taught to recite the more common prayers in Latin, and also to sing parts of the liturgy to Gregorian chant.
I'm willing to bet that my older children know more Latin (and more about Latin) than priests who were ordained in Milwaukee between c. 1980-2000. And about Chant, too.
Abp. Dolan will certainly follow the wishes of the Pope in this matter, requiring Latin study for his seminarians, right?
About 4 years at 6 credits/year should be sufficient for starters.
MATC: "Going Concern" Warning
Kevin brings us a most interesting choice of words from the Legislative Audit Bureau:
LAB notes that the magnitude of Milwaukee Area’s liability suggests the district could be challenged to meet its future financial obligations without significantly increasing revenues or significantly reducing its operating budget
Although the context is different, this is almost a "Paragraph of Death" wording--that is, the "going concern" warning which usually puts privately-held companies out of business when it comes from the CPA.
But what's $228 million to the Milwaukee taxpayers, anyway?
LAB notes that the magnitude of Milwaukee Area’s liability suggests the district could be challenged to meet its future financial obligations without significantly increasing revenues or significantly reducing its operating budget
Although the context is different, this is almost a "Paragraph of Death" wording--that is, the "going concern" warning which usually puts privately-held companies out of business when it comes from the CPA.
But what's $228 million to the Milwaukee taxpayers, anyway?
Fox Lake's Police Chief: Not Really Right
Last night, the TV news carried an excerpt of an interview with the Chief of Police of Fox Lake. He stated that '...the woman did the right thing' [by driving to the Fox Lake Police Department.]
What does THAT mean? The woman is dead--murdered in the lobby of the PD by her husband.
We have a better suggestion:
What does THAT mean? The woman is dead--murdered in the lobby of the PD by her husband.
We have a better suggestion:
Peter Pace: Right, But Not Fabulous
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Peter Pace, will have to survive a withering storm of cat-scratches, hissyfits, pink parasols, and nasty name-calling in the next few weeks. And the fashionability of his clothing will be subject to intense negative scrutiny.
That USMC training will come in handy, no?
To earn the utter disdain of the "Gay" community, Pace opined that 'homosexual activity is immoral' while testifying about the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy in the Armed Forces.
The General understated the case. He should have said what is really true: that homosexual activity is un-natural, and thus it is immoral.
Semper Fi, General!
That USMC training will come in handy, no?
To earn the utter disdain of the "Gay" community, Pace opined that 'homosexual activity is immoral' while testifying about the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy in the Armed Forces.
The General understated the case. He should have said what is really true: that homosexual activity is un-natural, and thus it is immoral.
Semper Fi, General!
Blame State Aid? Waukesha Schools Squeeze
In Waukesha, the folks turned out to try to get more State money for the school system.
About 500 parents, students and spectators packed a school auditorium Monday night, pleading for help from local legislators in dealing with a financial situation that some predicted would devastate the School District.
Administrators have recommended eliminating the equivalent of 62 full-time staff positions, which would raise class sizes, delay band and orchestra instruction and nearly eliminate elementary guidance, elementary library and gifted programs in the district.
Here's where the fun starts:
They blame the school system's financial woes on perennial discrepancies between what the state allows the district to raise under revenue caps and its actual expenses. A separate law, the qualified economic offer, virtually guarantees teachers annual compensation increases of 3.8% while revenue grows by about 2%.
Well--yeah. When most of the "expense" column is pay and bennies, and that column rises at 190% of your "income" column every year, there's going to be a problem.
The Lone Applauder had a worthwhile suggestion:
One solution each offered was a change in state law that would allow school districts to switch teachers' health care coverage. State Rep. Bill Kramer (R-Waukesha) estimated that if the School District adopted the health plan offered to state employees it could save $6 million annually.
Somehow, the Mayor of Waukesha didn't think that would be useful in the long-term:
But Waukesha Mayor Larry Nelson encouraged the crowd to find more permanent solutions.
"I think part of our jobs as citizens is to encourage our legislators to work with our governor, to work in a non-partisan way with their colleagues across the aisle and say 'This problem has reached a boiling point,' " said Nelson, a district middle school teacher who is on leave.
How about the possibility of Local Control and an end to binding arbitration, Larry?
About 500 parents, students and spectators packed a school auditorium Monday night, pleading for help from local legislators in dealing with a financial situation that some predicted would devastate the School District.
Administrators have recommended eliminating the equivalent of 62 full-time staff positions, which would raise class sizes, delay band and orchestra instruction and nearly eliminate elementary guidance, elementary library and gifted programs in the district.
Here's where the fun starts:
They blame the school system's financial woes on perennial discrepancies between what the state allows the district to raise under revenue caps and its actual expenses. A separate law, the qualified economic offer, virtually guarantees teachers annual compensation increases of 3.8% while revenue grows by about 2%.
Well--yeah. When most of the "expense" column is pay and bennies, and that column rises at 190% of your "income" column every year, there's going to be a problem.
The Lone Applauder had a worthwhile suggestion:
One solution each offered was a change in state law that would allow school districts to switch teachers' health care coverage. State Rep. Bill Kramer (R-Waukesha) estimated that if the School District adopted the health plan offered to state employees it could save $6 million annually.
Somehow, the Mayor of Waukesha didn't think that would be useful in the long-term:
But Waukesha Mayor Larry Nelson encouraged the crowd to find more permanent solutions.
"I think part of our jobs as citizens is to encourage our legislators to work with our governor, to work in a non-partisan way with their colleagues across the aisle and say 'This problem has reached a boiling point,' " said Nelson, a district middle school teacher who is on leave.
How about the possibility of Local Control and an end to binding arbitration, Larry?
More Stink from Ethanol
This line is high-test distilled manure:
Hahn, (R) who chairs the committee on biofuels and sustainable energy, said he has been promoting ethanol for years and was trying to help farmers when he invested in the Friesland plant.
"When they were looking for someone to invest, I said, 'Yes, I'll take a chance on losing my money,' " he said.
But just to bring the odds around to his favor:
Hahn introduced Assembly Bill 85, which would provide a $1,000 tax credit to Wisconsinites who buy or lease a new flex-fuel vehicle. ... But if passed, it would boost demand for ethanol, already in tight supply under President Bush's new alternative fuels initiatives.
Jackass scumbag.
Hahn, (R) who chairs the committee on biofuels and sustainable energy, said he has been promoting ethanol for years and was trying to help farmers when he invested in the Friesland plant.
"When they were looking for someone to invest, I said, 'Yes, I'll take a chance on losing my money,' " he said.
But just to bring the odds around to his favor:
Hahn introduced Assembly Bill 85, which would provide a $1,000 tax credit to Wisconsinites who buy or lease a new flex-fuel vehicle. ... But if passed, it would boost demand for ethanol, already in tight supply under President Bush's new alternative fuels initiatives.
Jackass scumbag.
Monday, March 12, 2007
The Legionnnaire Judges the Pro-Life Priest, UPDATED
There's a lot of chutzpah out there these days.
Amy reprints a short note from Fr. Johnathon Morris, a Legionary who (to put it mildly) disapproves of Fr. Euteneur's disapproval of Hannity's Brand of Catholicism:
As I watched a fellow Catholic priest spar with you on the March 9 edition of Hannity and Colmes, I hung my head in shame and sadness. My colleague in religion (whom I've never met) used the public airways and Internet to call you a heretic and hypocrite. Because he chose to do this in a public forum, I want you and your viewers to know, publicly, that as an analyst of this television network, I believe this good priest, who does great work, exercised, on this occasion, shockingly poor judgment. I consider his willingness to give his personal opinion about your status within the Church inappropriate and ill-considered, to say the least.
Amy relates that Fr. E's 'poor judgment' was to accept an invitation to the H&C shoutfest. But once he's there, he's in a bad box. Says Amy:
Another possibility, that I hear no one mention: that upon hearing about Fr. Euteneuer's original column, if Hannity was so concerned and really invested in being a faithful Catholic, he could have contact Father and asked, "I'm wondering about that column you wrote...could you enlighten me further? Because you're a priest, and I'm a Catholic in the punditocracy, and gosh, I want to make sure I get Catholic teaching right before I spout off about it to millions. That's a responsibility I take seriously."
But no, he invited him on his show, yelled at him, and allowed him very little time to speak without interruption.
But of course, taking religious instruction from Hannity (or several other self-identified Catholics-in-punditry) is not a reliable path to salvation.
Buy Bp. Sheen video copies instead, if you MUST have it in TV format.
UPDATE: There's a response-letter from Fr. Euteneur.
Your letter to Sean Hannity indicates that you did not know that I asked to speak to him in private about this matter in 2004 otherwise you may have tempered your remarks about my supposed lack of charity in dealing with a high profile Catholic who dissents from clearly-defined and reiterated Church teachings.
...The question that comes to mind is an obvious one: if you are a Fox analyst on Catholic matters, wouldn’t you have been the one to have had those “private conversations” on birth control with Mr. Hannity? How about discussions on his abortion exceptions? When you told Sean “in person” that you “disagreed with him,” was it on the issue of birth control? If you had done that, I applaud you, but your powers of persuasion may need a little honing—Sean has only gotten more vocal on this issue over time. If you did not speak to him about his public dissent, then I ask you, “Why?”
...I would sincerely hope that you are not teaching by word or example the young men in your charge to be politically correct sissies who are afraid to roll up their sleeves and defend the Church in private and in public. We have tons of those types in the clergy already. I would advise you to drink deeply of the wisdom of the Number Two man at our Headquarters who has in no uncertain terms told all of us that high profile dissenters are a scourge and a danger to souls. [See item: “Bertone: Dissident Catholics More Worrying Than Atheists.”
We'll expect a letter of apology from the LC shortly.
Right....
Amy reprints a short note from Fr. Johnathon Morris, a Legionary who (to put it mildly) disapproves of Fr. Euteneur's disapproval of Hannity's Brand of Catholicism:
As I watched a fellow Catholic priest spar with you on the March 9 edition of Hannity and Colmes, I hung my head in shame and sadness. My colleague in religion (whom I've never met) used the public airways and Internet to call you a heretic and hypocrite. Because he chose to do this in a public forum, I want you and your viewers to know, publicly, that as an analyst of this television network, I believe this good priest, who does great work, exercised, on this occasion, shockingly poor judgment. I consider his willingness to give his personal opinion about your status within the Church inappropriate and ill-considered, to say the least.
Amy relates that Fr. E's 'poor judgment' was to accept an invitation to the H&C shoutfest. But once he's there, he's in a bad box. Says Amy:
Another possibility, that I hear no one mention: that upon hearing about Fr. Euteneuer's original column, if Hannity was so concerned and really invested in being a faithful Catholic, he could have contact Father and asked, "I'm wondering about that column you wrote...could you enlighten me further? Because you're a priest, and I'm a Catholic in the punditocracy, and gosh, I want to make sure I get Catholic teaching right before I spout off about it to millions. That's a responsibility I take seriously."
But no, he invited him on his show, yelled at him, and allowed him very little time to speak without interruption.
But of course, taking religious instruction from Hannity (or several other self-identified Catholics-in-punditry) is not a reliable path to salvation.
Buy Bp. Sheen video copies instead, if you MUST have it in TV format.
UPDATE: There's a response-letter from Fr. Euteneur.
Your letter to Sean Hannity indicates that you did not know that I asked to speak to him in private about this matter in 2004 otherwise you may have tempered your remarks about my supposed lack of charity in dealing with a high profile Catholic who dissents from clearly-defined and reiterated Church teachings.
...The question that comes to mind is an obvious one: if you are a Fox analyst on Catholic matters, wouldn’t you have been the one to have had those “private conversations” on birth control with Mr. Hannity? How about discussions on his abortion exceptions? When you told Sean “in person” that you “disagreed with him,” was it on the issue of birth control? If you had done that, I applaud you, but your powers of persuasion may need a little honing—Sean has only gotten more vocal on this issue over time. If you did not speak to him about his public dissent, then I ask you, “Why?”
...I would sincerely hope that you are not teaching by word or example the young men in your charge to be politically correct sissies who are afraid to roll up their sleeves and defend the Church in private and in public. We have tons of those types in the clergy already. I would advise you to drink deeply of the wisdom of the Number Two man at our Headquarters who has in no uncertain terms told all of us that high profile dissenters are a scourge and a danger to souls. [See item: “Bertone: Dissident Catholics More Worrying Than Atheists.”
We'll expect a letter of apology from the LC shortly.
Right....
Relativism Gets Us Nowhere--or to Chaos
Here are a few excerpts from an essay on the topic of 'Relativism,' now the leading intellectual disease of the West. This was written for Zenit by Bishop Giampaolo Crepaldi, secretary of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace (and a very smart guy.) Update: At the very end of this will be a link to a First Things essay, in which Solzhenitsyn is quoted on the very same topic, (albeit using different names.) Funny thing, those great minds....no?
And, Rick, this is for you--the "breathing" Constitution is debunked herein--at least philosophically.
Public reason is human reason that believes it can attain, through dialogue and research, certain truths about man and, in particular, about man in society. Public reason is certainly a critical reason, but is also a constructive reason that is not only capable of achieving the "consensus" of opinions, but can also attain the truth and the good of man in society for which it has a cognitive and an arguing ability.
...Public reason is not possible in a culture that is dominated by the "dictatorship of relativism,"[1] for a very simple reason: Relativism is a dogma and therefore it a priori rejects rational argumentation, even toward itself. Those with a taste for paradox could say that relativism is a fundamentalism.
The 'relativism' is the "I'm OK, You're OK" which shows up in discussions of theology.
The "dictatorial" character -- in the cultural sense -- of relativism, prevents the use of public reason because it prevents the public use of reason.
...For Kant, reason has a public use that serves a critical purpose. To illustrate this public use, Kant especially dwells on the rational critique of religion, i.e. the complete freedom of citizens, indeed even the calling, "to impart to the public all of his carefully considered and well-intentioned thoughts concerning mistaken aspects of that symbol, as well as his suggestions for the better arrangement of religious and church matters."[3]
Reason, with its own categories, claims to be the testing ground and the measure of faith and religion too. Why is a public reason to which Kant assigned such challenging tasks now reduced to relativism, which is incapable of critiquing not just religion, but even itself?
The reason lies in the "self-limitation" of reason, as Benedict XVI has suggested many times.[4] This self-limitation underpins the dogmatically blind assumption of relativism and its inability to play any kind of critical role. The faith in relativism can exist only when the scope of reason has been drastically limited.
...relativism can only either be "implicit" -- lived and not justified -- or dogmatically "assumed" -- accepted, for example, by an act of faith. In this sense then, the "dictatorship of relativism" is the necessary conclusion of the "self-limitation" of reason. However, with relativism, the public role of reason fails.
...In 2004, Cardinal Ratzinger participated in a debate with philosopher Jurgen Habermas in Munich that focused exactly on the public role of reason.[6] On that occasion, he argued that if terrorism that is fuelled by religious fundamentalism is the symptom of a pathology of religion that must be corrected by reason, then in the same way the technical-scientific capability of producing human beings is the symptom of a pathology of reason that needs to be corrected by religion.
This is his conclusion: "There are extremely dangerous pathologies in religion that require us to consider the divine light of reason as a control mechanism ... there are also pathologies of reason that are not less dangerous … therefore reason has to accept warning as to its limits and must be willing to listen to the great religious traditions of mankind."[7]
Relativism is a de facto attack on religion (and the religious, of course):
Relativism, unfoundedly dogmatic, views religions as unjustified beliefs. Because it does so in an unfounded manner, it cannot demonstrate it, hence it simply "believes it." Relativism "believes" that religions are unfounded, thus they cannot be compared. In other words, it believes that religions have nothing to do with reason and truth. Then all religions are dogmatic, in the trivial sense of the word, i.e. in the sense of "accepted without evidence" (just like relativism, but relativism does not seem to be aware of that).
Where does that lead?
In this way, all religions are reduced to myth, i.e. to a way of exorcizing mysterious, bizarre and irrational forces. If religions are unfounded, it means that the divine forces they refer to are irrational and that arbitrariness rules the word. If the primordial forces are arbitrary, religion is a form of insurance against the repercussions of this imponderableness. Therefore religious relativism regresses to a kind of religious primitivism: religion is a way of exorcizing irrational forces.
Jean-Paul Sartre, call home!
To consider religion as something irrational, according to Benedict XVI, is entirely inconsistent with our whole Western and Christian history. In fact, both Greek thought and the Jewish religion, as well as Christianity, of course, rejected the vision of religion as myth and conceived religion as knowledge and God as Logos.[8]
For the Greeks,
...the path had been opened by Socrates and will be ratified by Plato: "The gods are not magicians who transform themselves, neither do they deceive mankind in any way" ("The Republic," II, 376 c). Therefore Greek philosophy detaches itself from myth and definitely turns to God as Logos. For Aristotle, the supersensible Substance is Intelligence that eternally grasps itself. The world has an order that is transparent to reason and reason can know it because the gods are rational and act according to truth, as Plato's Demiurge, who does not mould and shape things at random, but drawing inspiration from the truth of eternal forms.
As for the Hebrews,
If we look at the Jewish religion, we find the same path.[10] The "God of the Fathers" Israel looks to is not a local or a political god, he is not Baal nor Moloch. He is "he who is," he who existed before all powers and will continue to exist even after them.
St. Paul's success with the Greeks did not happen because he was selling a bill of goods which was "New!" Christianity was compatible with Greek philosophy, and (obviously) with Hebrew thought and knowledge.
So we have synthesis:
We believe that at the beginning of everything is the eternal Word, with Reason and not Unreason.[13] Justin (second century) believed that the Word had sown its seeds in Greek philosophy because what is true for reason comes always from the Word. Clement of Alexandria even thought that Greek philosophy had been a natural revelation of the Christian God.
Ockham was wrong:
This is precisely what Ockham thought: To say that God cannot produce something that is intrinsically impossible would be to limit the divine freedom and omnipotence. Then came St. Thomas. His opinion is the following: "Whatever implies contradiction does not come within the scope of divine omnipotence, because it cannot have the aspect of possibility. Hence it is better to say that such things cannot be done, than that God cannot do them." Divine omnipotence is wise, not arbitrary and capricious.
But Ockham retains devotees--and he is the father of Western Relativism.
The "Regensburg Speech" is only part of the conversation.
Christian faith confirms and supports the rational search for truth and calls for a public role of reason that will also include the critique of religions. In fact, we cannot say that all religions relate to truth and reason in the same way as Christianity. They relate to truth and reason in a different manner, which is the same as saying that they are more or less rational and that they can more or less adequately support the public role of reason. This was the theme touched upon by the Holy Father at Regensburg.
And here's the exercise in logic which shows how the hand plays out:
If a religion teaches a way of life that is not righteous, it cannot be a true religion. Only when man has lost sight of the ability to know what is good and what is true, then all offers of salvation become the same. If we do not have any standards of right living, then all religions are the same. If the standards for right living are relativized, man remains trapped inside religions. Again, this demonstrates that religious relativism is founded on philosophical relativism. Cardinal Ratzinger points out that St. Paul (Romans 2:14ff) does not say that non-Christians will be saved by following their religion, but by following natural religion.
As for the democracies--there is a danger:
Of course, if the political power is based on the relativistic democracy, it will not feel any obligation in this regard. Relativism, in fact, can only express a procedural public reason. When the truth is replaced by the decision of the majority, culture is set against truth. The relativistic presumption leads to the tearing up of people's spiritual roots and the destruction of the network of social relationships.[17]
That "procedural reason" is precisely what is behind such concepts as "Gay Marriage."
The State which relies on relativism is on its way to internal turmoil (at best...):
All this happens when a society is no longer able to use public reason to criticize religions that proclaim polygamy, that incorporate the rite of physical mutilation, that do not respect the dignity of women, that preach violence or offer religious paths that depersonalize and hamper human reason and knowledge. How will our public reason be able to discern between religions if it loses sight of authentic humanity?
According to the declaration "Dignitatis humanae" of the Second Vatican Council, the right to religious freedom "leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ."[19]
The onus of the State lies in understanding the common good--which calls for the ability to use "public reason."
Now, from where does the state, which is secular, derive these obligations to the true religion? Not from being a "Christian" state, but from reason, that is from the natural ability to see truths about man in society, from the ability to understand the common good. This also founds the ability to see that one religion consolidates and helps pursue humanization objectives while another contributes to the degradation of man. Christian religion has this claim, the claim of preaching a "God with a human face."[20]
As a consequence, "relativism" cannot be tolerated (other than as a curiosity) if order is to prevail.
HT: Cosmos-Liturgy-Sex
Also see: First Things :
Solzhenitsyn reiterated a claim that was central to his controversial commencement address at Harvard University in 1978: “if there are neither true or false judgments, man is no longer held [accountable] for anything. Without universal foundations, morality is not possible.”
And, Rick, this is for you--the "breathing" Constitution is debunked herein--at least philosophically.
Public reason is human reason that believes it can attain, through dialogue and research, certain truths about man and, in particular, about man in society. Public reason is certainly a critical reason, but is also a constructive reason that is not only capable of achieving the "consensus" of opinions, but can also attain the truth and the good of man in society for which it has a cognitive and an arguing ability.
...Public reason is not possible in a culture that is dominated by the "dictatorship of relativism,"[1] for a very simple reason: Relativism is a dogma and therefore it a priori rejects rational argumentation, even toward itself. Those with a taste for paradox could say that relativism is a fundamentalism.
The 'relativism' is the "I'm OK, You're OK" which shows up in discussions of theology.
The "dictatorial" character -- in the cultural sense -- of relativism, prevents the use of public reason because it prevents the public use of reason.
...For Kant, reason has a public use that serves a critical purpose. To illustrate this public use, Kant especially dwells on the rational critique of religion, i.e. the complete freedom of citizens, indeed even the calling, "to impart to the public all of his carefully considered and well-intentioned thoughts concerning mistaken aspects of that symbol, as well as his suggestions for the better arrangement of religious and church matters."[3]
Reason, with its own categories, claims to be the testing ground and the measure of faith and religion too. Why is a public reason to which Kant assigned such challenging tasks now reduced to relativism, which is incapable of critiquing not just religion, but even itself?
The reason lies in the "self-limitation" of reason, as Benedict XVI has suggested many times.[4] This self-limitation underpins the dogmatically blind assumption of relativism and its inability to play any kind of critical role. The faith in relativism can exist only when the scope of reason has been drastically limited.
...relativism can only either be "implicit" -- lived and not justified -- or dogmatically "assumed" -- accepted, for example, by an act of faith. In this sense then, the "dictatorship of relativism" is the necessary conclusion of the "self-limitation" of reason. However, with relativism, the public role of reason fails.
...In 2004, Cardinal Ratzinger participated in a debate with philosopher Jurgen Habermas in Munich that focused exactly on the public role of reason.[6] On that occasion, he argued that if terrorism that is fuelled by religious fundamentalism is the symptom of a pathology of religion that must be corrected by reason, then in the same way the technical-scientific capability of producing human beings is the symptom of a pathology of reason that needs to be corrected by religion.
This is his conclusion: "There are extremely dangerous pathologies in religion that require us to consider the divine light of reason as a control mechanism ... there are also pathologies of reason that are not less dangerous … therefore reason has to accept warning as to its limits and must be willing to listen to the great religious traditions of mankind."[7]
Relativism is a de facto attack on religion (and the religious, of course):
Relativism, unfoundedly dogmatic, views religions as unjustified beliefs. Because it does so in an unfounded manner, it cannot demonstrate it, hence it simply "believes it." Relativism "believes" that religions are unfounded, thus they cannot be compared. In other words, it believes that religions have nothing to do with reason and truth. Then all religions are dogmatic, in the trivial sense of the word, i.e. in the sense of "accepted without evidence" (just like relativism, but relativism does not seem to be aware of that).
Where does that lead?
In this way, all religions are reduced to myth, i.e. to a way of exorcizing mysterious, bizarre and irrational forces. If religions are unfounded, it means that the divine forces they refer to are irrational and that arbitrariness rules the word. If the primordial forces are arbitrary, religion is a form of insurance against the repercussions of this imponderableness. Therefore religious relativism regresses to a kind of religious primitivism: religion is a way of exorcizing irrational forces.
Jean-Paul Sartre, call home!
To consider religion as something irrational, according to Benedict XVI, is entirely inconsistent with our whole Western and Christian history. In fact, both Greek thought and the Jewish religion, as well as Christianity, of course, rejected the vision of religion as myth and conceived religion as knowledge and God as Logos.[8]
For the Greeks,
...the path had been opened by Socrates and will be ratified by Plato: "The gods are not magicians who transform themselves, neither do they deceive mankind in any way" ("The Republic," II, 376 c). Therefore Greek philosophy detaches itself from myth and definitely turns to God as Logos. For Aristotle, the supersensible Substance is Intelligence that eternally grasps itself. The world has an order that is transparent to reason and reason can know it because the gods are rational and act according to truth, as Plato's Demiurge, who does not mould and shape things at random, but drawing inspiration from the truth of eternal forms.
As for the Hebrews,
If we look at the Jewish religion, we find the same path.[10] The "God of the Fathers" Israel looks to is not a local or a political god, he is not Baal nor Moloch. He is "he who is," he who existed before all powers and will continue to exist even after them.
St. Paul's success with the Greeks did not happen because he was selling a bill of goods which was "New!" Christianity was compatible with Greek philosophy, and (obviously) with Hebrew thought and knowledge.
So we have synthesis:
We believe that at the beginning of everything is the eternal Word, with Reason and not Unreason.[13] Justin (second century) believed that the Word had sown its seeds in Greek philosophy because what is true for reason comes always from the Word. Clement of Alexandria even thought that Greek philosophy had been a natural revelation of the Christian God.
Ockham was wrong:
This is precisely what Ockham thought: To say that God cannot produce something that is intrinsically impossible would be to limit the divine freedom and omnipotence. Then came St. Thomas. His opinion is the following: "Whatever implies contradiction does not come within the scope of divine omnipotence, because it cannot have the aspect of possibility. Hence it is better to say that such things cannot be done, than that God cannot do them." Divine omnipotence is wise, not arbitrary and capricious.
But Ockham retains devotees--and he is the father of Western Relativism.
The "Regensburg Speech" is only part of the conversation.
Christian faith confirms and supports the rational search for truth and calls for a public role of reason that will also include the critique of religions. In fact, we cannot say that all religions relate to truth and reason in the same way as Christianity. They relate to truth and reason in a different manner, which is the same as saying that they are more or less rational and that they can more or less adequately support the public role of reason. This was the theme touched upon by the Holy Father at Regensburg.
And here's the exercise in logic which shows how the hand plays out:
If a religion teaches a way of life that is not righteous, it cannot be a true religion. Only when man has lost sight of the ability to know what is good and what is true, then all offers of salvation become the same. If we do not have any standards of right living, then all religions are the same. If the standards for right living are relativized, man remains trapped inside religions. Again, this demonstrates that religious relativism is founded on philosophical relativism. Cardinal Ratzinger points out that St. Paul (Romans 2:14ff) does not say that non-Christians will be saved by following their religion, but by following natural religion.
As for the democracies--there is a danger:
Of course, if the political power is based on the relativistic democracy, it will not feel any obligation in this regard. Relativism, in fact, can only express a procedural public reason. When the truth is replaced by the decision of the majority, culture is set against truth. The relativistic presumption leads to the tearing up of people's spiritual roots and the destruction of the network of social relationships.[17]
That "procedural reason" is precisely what is behind such concepts as "Gay Marriage."
The State which relies on relativism is on its way to internal turmoil (at best...):
All this happens when a society is no longer able to use public reason to criticize religions that proclaim polygamy, that incorporate the rite of physical mutilation, that do not respect the dignity of women, that preach violence or offer religious paths that depersonalize and hamper human reason and knowledge. How will our public reason be able to discern between religions if it loses sight of authentic humanity?
According to the declaration "Dignitatis humanae" of the Second Vatican Council, the right to religious freedom "leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ."[19]
The onus of the State lies in understanding the common good--which calls for the ability to use "public reason."
Now, from where does the state, which is secular, derive these obligations to the true religion? Not from being a "Christian" state, but from reason, that is from the natural ability to see truths about man in society, from the ability to understand the common good. This also founds the ability to see that one religion consolidates and helps pursue humanization objectives while another contributes to the degradation of man. Christian religion has this claim, the claim of preaching a "God with a human face."[20]
As a consequence, "relativism" cannot be tolerated (other than as a curiosity) if order is to prevail.
HT: Cosmos-Liturgy-Sex
Also see: First Things :
Solzhenitsyn reiterated a claim that was central to his controversial commencement address at Harvard University in 1978: “if there are neither true or false judgments, man is no longer held [accountable] for anything. Without universal foundations, morality is not possible.”
Gonzales: Dead Man Walking
Chuckie Schumer, an enemy of civil rights (e.g., the RKBA) calls for Attorney General Gonzales' resignation. Ordinarily, a Conservative treats statements from Schumer as either Red Flag Warnings or background noise. Fortunately, "background noise" has predominated over the last few years.
In this case it may be different--because a lot of Conservatives happen to agree that Gonzales is a nincompoop.
The top Republican on the House's main investigative committee, Rep. Thomas Davis of Virginia, is charging the Justice Department with stonewalling his inquiries about the FBI's assertion that it closed several leak investigations because of a lack of cooperation on the part of other government officials.
In January, Mr. Davis asked the Justice Department about a report in The New York Sun that at least three leak inquiries were shut down after officials at the "victim agency" ignored phone calls and canceled meetings with FBI agents assigned to the probes. The agents said some requests for information were rebuffed for more than a year.
On Friday, the lawmaker, the ranking Republican member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, sent a sharply worded letter to Attorney General Gonzales, expressing "aggravation" at the Justice Department's handling of questions about the aborted investigations.
Another element is the recent canning of 8 US Attorneys. It's being played up as a "political" housecleaning, which may have traction.
But there's more:
On Friday, Mr. Gonzales came under fire on a second front, regarding alleged misuse of administrative subpoenas which do not require judicial approval and are known as national security letters. A report by the Justice Department's inspector general found that the FBI sometimes issued the letters without proper authority, obtained data beyond what the law permits, and failed to include more than 8,000 of the information demands in statistics provided to Congress.
And, of course, there is Justice's persecution of the two Border Patrol officers who have been sent to Club Fed for.....doing their job...after which a number of issues were raised which go to the question of "prosecutorial misconduct."
Rohrabacher is calling for a new trial, charging the new documents show Sutton "knowingly presented a false picture of the drug smuggler in order to justify his ruthless prosecution of Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean."
It gets worse.
Sandy "Burglar" Berger's case--which involved removing documents from the National Archives which could have had extremely grave national-security implications--was settled with a small fine ($50K) and some public-service crap.
On the other hand, the Libby case (which was an expensive farce) winds up differently.
One might ask "what the Hell's going on over there?" without any partisanship.
Gonzales' DoJ seems to be schizophrenic, or perhaps paranoid. Either way, it's not good for the Country.
HT: Powerline
In this case it may be different--because a lot of Conservatives happen to agree that Gonzales is a nincompoop.
The top Republican on the House's main investigative committee, Rep. Thomas Davis of Virginia, is charging the Justice Department with stonewalling his inquiries about the FBI's assertion that it closed several leak investigations because of a lack of cooperation on the part of other government officials.
In January, Mr. Davis asked the Justice Department about a report in The New York Sun that at least three leak inquiries were shut down after officials at the "victim agency" ignored phone calls and canceled meetings with FBI agents assigned to the probes. The agents said some requests for information were rebuffed for more than a year.
On Friday, the lawmaker, the ranking Republican member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, sent a sharply worded letter to Attorney General Gonzales, expressing "aggravation" at the Justice Department's handling of questions about the aborted investigations.
Another element is the recent canning of 8 US Attorneys. It's being played up as a "political" housecleaning, which may have traction.
But there's more:
On Friday, Mr. Gonzales came under fire on a second front, regarding alleged misuse of administrative subpoenas which do not require judicial approval and are known as national security letters. A report by the Justice Department's inspector general found that the FBI sometimes issued the letters without proper authority, obtained data beyond what the law permits, and failed to include more than 8,000 of the information demands in statistics provided to Congress.
And, of course, there is Justice's persecution of the two Border Patrol officers who have been sent to Club Fed for.....doing their job...after which a number of issues were raised which go to the question of "prosecutorial misconduct."
Rohrabacher is calling for a new trial, charging the new documents show Sutton "knowingly presented a false picture of the drug smuggler in order to justify his ruthless prosecution of Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean."
It gets worse.
Sandy "Burglar" Berger's case--which involved removing documents from the National Archives which could have had extremely grave national-security implications--was settled with a small fine ($50K) and some public-service crap.
On the other hand, the Libby case (which was an expensive farce) winds up differently.
One might ask "what the Hell's going on over there?" without any partisanship.
Gonzales' DoJ seems to be schizophrenic, or perhaps paranoid. Either way, it's not good for the Country.
HT: Powerline
Fred Thompson? Hot Damn!!
Not bad at all. Quick-witted, charming, immediate recognition, and a Conservative.
From GOP3, a bio:
Born in Sheffield, Alabama, Thompson grew up attending the public schools in Lawrenceburg, Tennessee. He first attended the University of North Alabama and then Memphis State University where he earned an undergraduate degree in philosophy and political science in 1964. He received a J.D. degree from Vanderbilt University Law School in 1967.
He was admitted to the Tennessee bar in 1967 and commenced the practice of law, serving as an assistant U.S. attorney from 1969–1972. He was the campaign manager for Senator Howard Baker’s successful re-election campaign in 1972, which led to a close personal friendship with Baker, and he served as co-chief counsel to the Senate Watergate Committee in its investigation of the Watergate scandal, (1973–1974).…
On November 8, 1994, Thompson was elected to the United States Senate to fill the unexpired portion of the term ending January 3, 1997, left vacant by the resignation of Al Gore, defeating six-term Democratic U.S. Representative Jim Cooper in a landslide which represented the most votes anyone had ever received for a statewide office in Tennessee history up to that point. Thompson took the oath of office on December 2, 1994.
Almost immediately upon his arrival in Washington, D.C. (”while I was still unpacking my boxes,” as he put it), Thompson was selected by the Republicans to give a reply to a nationally-televised address by President Bill Clinton. This was no doubt due to his acting background, but many pundits saw this as an attempt to groom him for an even larger political role. Thompson was easily re-elected in 1996 for the term ending January 3, 2003 over Democratic attorney Houston Gordon of Covington, Tennessee by an even larger margin than that by which he had defeated Cooper two years earlier.
His name was regularly mentioned in the year 2000 as a potential candidate for Vice President alongside the Republican Presidential nominee George W. Bush.…Thompson was not a candidate for re-election in 2002. He had never planned to make a lifetime career of the Senate, and had often publicly stated as much. Although he announced in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks his intention to seek re-election, upon further reflection, which seems to have been prompted in large part by the sudden death of his daughter from unrelated events, he decided not to pursue this course.
In the final months of his term, he joined the cast of the long-running NBC television series Law & Order, playing Arthur Branch. In doing so, he became the first serving U.S. Senator concurrently to hold a full-time television acting job; however, his first scenes as Branch were filmed during the Senate’s August 2002 recess, so he missed no legislative time in order to act on television.…After the retirement of Supreme Court Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in 2005, he was given an informal position by President George W. Bush to help guide the nominated John Roberts to the confirmation through the United States Senate.
Much as I like Brownback, Fred has a lot more cachet.
From GOP3, a bio:
Born in Sheffield, Alabama, Thompson grew up attending the public schools in Lawrenceburg, Tennessee. He first attended the University of North Alabama and then Memphis State University where he earned an undergraduate degree in philosophy and political science in 1964. He received a J.D. degree from Vanderbilt University Law School in 1967.
He was admitted to the Tennessee bar in 1967 and commenced the practice of law, serving as an assistant U.S. attorney from 1969–1972. He was the campaign manager for Senator Howard Baker’s successful re-election campaign in 1972, which led to a close personal friendship with Baker, and he served as co-chief counsel to the Senate Watergate Committee in its investigation of the Watergate scandal, (1973–1974).…
On November 8, 1994, Thompson was elected to the United States Senate to fill the unexpired portion of the term ending January 3, 1997, left vacant by the resignation of Al Gore, defeating six-term Democratic U.S. Representative Jim Cooper in a landslide which represented the most votes anyone had ever received for a statewide office in Tennessee history up to that point. Thompson took the oath of office on December 2, 1994.
Almost immediately upon his arrival in Washington, D.C. (”while I was still unpacking my boxes,” as he put it), Thompson was selected by the Republicans to give a reply to a nationally-televised address by President Bill Clinton. This was no doubt due to his acting background, but many pundits saw this as an attempt to groom him for an even larger political role. Thompson was easily re-elected in 1996 for the term ending January 3, 2003 over Democratic attorney Houston Gordon of Covington, Tennessee by an even larger margin than that by which he had defeated Cooper two years earlier.
His name was regularly mentioned in the year 2000 as a potential candidate for Vice President alongside the Republican Presidential nominee George W. Bush.…Thompson was not a candidate for re-election in 2002. He had never planned to make a lifetime career of the Senate, and had often publicly stated as much. Although he announced in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks his intention to seek re-election, upon further reflection, which seems to have been prompted in large part by the sudden death of his daughter from unrelated events, he decided not to pursue this course.
In the final months of his term, he joined the cast of the long-running NBC television series Law & Order, playing Arthur Branch. In doing so, he became the first serving U.S. Senator concurrently to hold a full-time television acting job; however, his first scenes as Branch were filmed during the Senate’s August 2002 recess, so he missed no legislative time in order to act on television.…After the retirement of Supreme Court Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in 2005, he was given an informal position by President George W. Bush to help guide the nominated John Roberts to the confirmation through the United States Senate.
Much as I like Brownback, Fred has a lot more cachet.
Jews in France and England Targets of Hizbollah
Since the Iranian spymaster's defection, there have been a few changes:
In fact, Kuwaiti daily Al Seyassah believes that Paris and London have reinforced security measures after the Israeli Mossad provided them with reliable information on the terrorist threat represented by Hezbollah cells helped by Iranian Services based in the Iranian embassies and consulates in Europe. The targets would be the Israeli diplomatic and consular representations as well as Israeli nationals and Israeli interests in Europe in general.
According to British sources quoted by the newspaper, “some Lebanese Shiites living legally in Great Britain, and other clandestine ones, are being monitored since last Tuesday, whereas other Arab nationals infiltrated clandestinely in the United Kingdom were stopped and expelled”. The daily newspaper adds that “hundreds of Lebanese Shiites who own small restaurants and taxis, use their businesses to to spy and smuggle goods. From now on, they are monitored by Scotland Yard and MI-5”.
France is more a concern since their internal security is very weak.
HT: Counterterrorism Blog
In fact, Kuwaiti daily Al Seyassah believes that Paris and London have reinforced security measures after the Israeli Mossad provided them with reliable information on the terrorist threat represented by Hezbollah cells helped by Iranian Services based in the Iranian embassies and consulates in Europe. The targets would be the Israeli diplomatic and consular representations as well as Israeli nationals and Israeli interests in Europe in general.
According to British sources quoted by the newspaper, “some Lebanese Shiites living legally in Great Britain, and other clandestine ones, are being monitored since last Tuesday, whereas other Arab nationals infiltrated clandestinely in the United Kingdom were stopped and expelled”. The daily newspaper adds that “hundreds of Lebanese Shiites who own small restaurants and taxis, use their businesses to to spy and smuggle goods. From now on, they are monitored by Scotland Yard and MI-5”.
France is more a concern since their internal security is very weak.
HT: Counterterrorism Blog
Madison's New Cathedral
A while back, St. Raphael's in Madison burned down. There will be a new building; the question is "what sort of building"?
Can Madison area Catholics build a cathedral from a fire's ruin downtown to rival the grandeur of the State Capitol?
That was the query laid out this week by Professor Duncan Stroik of the University of Notre Dame, a noted architect and proponent of "renaissance of sacred architecture."
Stroik, whom Bishop Robert Morlino introduced as a trusted friend and adviser, invited an audience Thursday to imagine the fire-gutted St. Raphael's Cathedral, a historic church off the Capitol Square, replaced by something more grand.
Sentient Catholics have already noted the key words in the above: Duncan Stroik.
Best wishes in your venture!
Can Madison area Catholics build a cathedral from a fire's ruin downtown to rival the grandeur of the State Capitol?
That was the query laid out this week by Professor Duncan Stroik of the University of Notre Dame, a noted architect and proponent of "renaissance of sacred architecture."
Stroik, whom Bishop Robert Morlino introduced as a trusted friend and adviser, invited an audience Thursday to imagine the fire-gutted St. Raphael's Cathedral, a historic church off the Capitol Square, replaced by something more grand.
Sentient Catholics have already noted the key words in the above: Duncan Stroik.
Best wishes in your venture!
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Milwaukee Tridentine Mass Update
The Old Rite (Tridentine) Community will move to St. Stanislaus parish, as was reported here a while back.
The first sung Mass will be celebrated on April 15th, offsetting the glum reality of Tax Day.
The time of the Mass' celebration has not yet been announced.
The first sung Mass will be celebrated on April 15th, offsetting the glum reality of Tax Day.
The time of the Mass' celebration has not yet been announced.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Endangered? Yah--If You're an Eskimo
Trenchant observations from Moonbattery:
Unaffected by the torrent of global warming lies that incessantly blasts out of the media with the force of water from a fire hose, polar bears have been thriving.
In the Davis Strait area, the population is up from 850 in the mid-1980s to 2,100.
Local Eskimos have been saying so for awhile. But global warming hoaxers won't listen to them because the locals have an interest in keeping the dangerous bears off the endangered species list. Liberals want polar bears on the list not because they are even remotely endangered, but because they hope to throw a monkey wrench into the economy by claiming that energy production must only be allowed if we can prove it doesn't inconvenience polar bears.
But there's even a BETTER reason to protect polar bears:
Polar bears are one of the few species on Earth that will hunt down humans and kill us for food, probably accounting for their immense popularity among environmentalists.
That's why you don't find too many Greenies camping out in AK. Too bad, eh?
Unaffected by the torrent of global warming lies that incessantly blasts out of the media with the force of water from a fire hose, polar bears have been thriving.
In the Davis Strait area, the population is up from 850 in the mid-1980s to 2,100.
Local Eskimos have been saying so for awhile. But global warming hoaxers won't listen to them because the locals have an interest in keeping the dangerous bears off the endangered species list. Liberals want polar bears on the list not because they are even remotely endangered, but because they hope to throw a monkey wrench into the economy by claiming that energy production must only be allowed if we can prove it doesn't inconvenience polar bears.
But there's even a BETTER reason to protect polar bears:
Polar bears are one of the few species on Earth that will hunt down humans and kill us for food, probably accounting for their immense popularity among environmentalists.
That's why you don't find too many Greenies camping out in AK. Too bad, eh?
2nd Circuit's RKBA: Bears, Beware!
Clay Cramer finds another positive in the 2nd Circuit's ruling:
2. Because the decision recognizes that the right is individual in nature, this isn't a technical win for us, but opens up the door to challenging other federal gun control laws to help determine what are the limits of Congressional and Executive branch authority. For example, if I'm camping in Yellowstone, does the Second Amendment protect my right to have an appropriate grizzly bear discouragement device in my tent? There's a plausible argument based on this decision that I do.
(When Cramer says 'it's not a technical win,' he simply means that the Court re-affirmed what was obviously the case--that the RKBA is individual, not corporate.)
There are lots of Federal restrictions on possession, (not to mention Dunderhead Doyle's obstinacy in Wisconsin and the supporting role played by ScreechinShirley here.)
It would now seem that many of those restrictions are in play.
2. Because the decision recognizes that the right is individual in nature, this isn't a technical win for us, but opens up the door to challenging other federal gun control laws to help determine what are the limits of Congressional and Executive branch authority. For example, if I'm camping in Yellowstone, does the Second Amendment protect my right to have an appropriate grizzly bear discouragement device in my tent? There's a plausible argument based on this decision that I do.
(When Cramer says 'it's not a technical win,' he simply means that the Court re-affirmed what was obviously the case--that the RKBA is individual, not corporate.)
There are lots of Federal restrictions on possession, (not to mention Dunderhead Doyle's obstinacy in Wisconsin and the supporting role played by ScreechinShirley here.)
It would now seem that many of those restrictions are in play.
UW System's Tuition to Exceed Inflation. Again.
No matter how DarthDoyle & Co. paint this pig, it still comes out....smelling.
Defending the indefensible Doyle "Tax-O-Rama" budget proposal, his mouthpiece:
State Budget Director Dave Schmiedicke said Doyle's budget would give the University of Wisconsin System $183 million more in state tax funds, which means that tuition should rise only about 4% a year for the next two years.
Inflation is generally predicted to be in the 3% area. So the System's increases will exceed inflation prima facie...BESIDES that, State taxpayers will kick in an additional $183 million.
Defending the indefensible Doyle "Tax-O-Rama" budget proposal, his mouthpiece:
State Budget Director Dave Schmiedicke said Doyle's budget would give the University of Wisconsin System $183 million more in state tax funds, which means that tuition should rise only about 4% a year for the next two years.
Inflation is generally predicted to be in the 3% area. So the System's increases will exceed inflation prima facie...BESIDES that, State taxpayers will kick in an additional $183 million.
Friday, March 09, 2007
2nd Circuit: "RKBA" MEANS RKBA
This will be appealed. Emerson is cited frequently; the 9th Circuit's opposite ruling is acknowledged.
Essentially, the appellants claim a right to possess what they describe as “functional firearms,” by which they mean ones that could be “readily accessible to be used effectively when
necessary” for self-defense in the home. They are not asserting a right to carry such weapons outside their homes. Nor are they challenging the District’s authority per se to require the
registration of firearms.
In any event, Heller has invoked his rights under the Second Amendment to challenge the statutory classifications used to bar his ownership of a handgun under D.C. law, and the formal
process of application and denial, however routine, makes the injury to Heller’s alleged constitutional interest concrete and particular.
(That clears up a procedural question which was asserted by DC.)
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the
security of a free State, the right of the people to keep
and bear Arms shall not be infringed
The provision’s second comma divides the Amendment into two clauses; the first is prefatory, and the second operative. Appellants’ argument is focused on their reading of the Second
Amendment’s operative clause. According to appellants, the Amendment’s language flat out guarantees an individual right “to keep and bear Arms.” Appellants concede that the prefatory
clause expresses a civic purpose, but argue that this purpose, while it may inform the meaning of an ambiguous term like “Arms,” does not qualify the right guaranteed by the operative
portion of the Amendment.
The District of Columbia argues that the prefatory clause declares the Amendment’s only purpose—to shield the state militias from federal encroachment—and that the operative
clause, even when read in isolation, speaks solely to military affairs and guarantees a civic, rather than an individual, right. In other words, according to the District, the operative clause is
not just limited by the prefatory clause, but instead both clauses share an explicitly civic character
But because the District reads “a well regulated Militia” to signify only the organized militias of the founding era—institutions that the District implicitly argues are no longer in existence today—invocation of the Second Amendment right is conditioned upon service in
a defunct institution.
...In determining whether the Second Amendment’s guarantee is an individual one, or some sort of collective right, the most important word is the one the drafters chose to describe the
holders of the right—“the people.” That term is found in the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments. It has never been doubted that these provisions were designed to
protect the interests of individuals against government intrusion, interference, or usurpation.
The District’s argument, on the other hand, asks us to read “the people” to mean some subset of individuals such as “the organized militia” or “the people who are engaged in militia service,” or perhaps not any individuals at all—e.g., “the states.”
In United States v. Verdugo- Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990), the [Sureme] Court looked specifically at the Constitution and Bill of Rights’ use of “people” ...“the people” protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.
It seems unlikely that the Supreme Court would have lumped these provisions together without comment if it were of the view that the Second Amendment protects only a collective right.
In sum, the phrase “the right of the people,” when read intratextually and in light of Supreme Court precedent, leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual.
The wording of the operative clause also indicates that the right to keep and bear arms was not created by government, but rather preserved by it. Hence, the Amendment acknowledges “the right . . . to keep and bear Arms,” a right that pre-existed the Constitution like “the freedom of speech
When we look at the Bill of Rights as a whole, the setting of the Second Amendment reinforces its individual nature. The Bill of Rights was almost entirely a declaration of individual rights, and the Second Amendment’s inclusion therein strongly indicates that it, too, was intended to protect personal liberty.
In contrast to the collective right theorists’ extensive efforts to tease out the meaning of “bear,” the conjoined, preceding verb “keep” has been almost entirely neglected. In that tradition, the District offers a cursory and largely dismissive analysis of the verb. The District appears to claim that “keep and bear” is a unitary term and that the individual word “keep” should be given no independent significance. This suggestion is somewhat risible in light of the District’s admonishment, earlier in its brief, that when interpreting constitutional text
“every word must have its due force, and appropriate meaning; . . . no word was unnecessarily used or needlessly added.” Appellees’ Br. at 23 (quoting Holmes v. Jennison, 39 U.S. (14 Pet.) 540, 570-71 (1840)). Even if “keep” and “bear” are not read as a unitary term, we are told, the meaning of “keep” cannot be broader than “bear” because the Second Amendment only protects the use of arms in the course of militia service. Id. at 26-27. But this proposition assumes its conclusion, and we do not take it seriously.
Thus when read in light of the second Militia Act, Miller defines the militia as having only two primary characteristics: It was all free, white, able-bodied men of a certain age who had given
their names to the local militia officers as eligible for militia service. Contrary to the District’s view, there was no organizational condition precedent to the existence of the
“Militia.”
...The Amendment does not protect “the right of militiamen to keep and bear arms,” but rather “the right of the people.” The operative clause, properly read, protects the ownership and use of weaponry beyond that needed to preserve the state militias. Again, we point out that if the competent drafters of the Second Amendment had meant the right to be limited to the protection of state militias, it is hard to imagine that they would have chosen the language they did. We therefore take it as an expression of the drafters’ view that the people possessed a natural right to keep and bear arms, and that the preservation of the militia was the right’s most salient political benefit—and thus the most appropriate to express in a political document.
On the question whether the Second Amendment protects an individual or collective right, the Court’s opinion in Miller is most notable for what it omits. The government’s first argument
in its Miller brief was that “the right secured by [the Second Amendment] to the people to keep and bear arms is not one which may be utilized for private purposes but only one which
exists where the arms are borne in the militia or some other military organization provided for by law and intended for the protection of the state.” Appellant’s Br. at 15, 307 U.S. 704
(No. 696). This is a version of the collective right model.Like the Fifth Circuit, we think it is significant that the Court did not decide the case on this, the government’s primary argument.
Emerson, 270 F.3d at 222. Rather, the Court followed the logic of the government’s secondary position, which was that a shortbarreled shotgun was not within the scope of the term “Arms”
in the Second Amendment.
To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the
Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the
depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the
citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right
facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second
Amendment’s civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual’s enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or
intermittent enrollment in the militia.
Essentially, the appellants claim a right to possess what they describe as “functional firearms,” by which they mean ones that could be “readily accessible to be used effectively when
necessary” for self-defense in the home. They are not asserting a right to carry such weapons outside their homes. Nor are they challenging the District’s authority per se to require the
registration of firearms.
In any event, Heller has invoked his rights under the Second Amendment to challenge the statutory classifications used to bar his ownership of a handgun under D.C. law, and the formal
process of application and denial, however routine, makes the injury to Heller’s alleged constitutional interest concrete and particular.
(That clears up a procedural question which was asserted by DC.)
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the
security of a free State, the right of the people to keep
and bear Arms shall not be infringed
The provision’s second comma divides the Amendment into two clauses; the first is prefatory, and the second operative. Appellants’ argument is focused on their reading of the Second
Amendment’s operative clause. According to appellants, the Amendment’s language flat out guarantees an individual right “to keep and bear Arms.” Appellants concede that the prefatory
clause expresses a civic purpose, but argue that this purpose, while it may inform the meaning of an ambiguous term like “Arms,” does not qualify the right guaranteed by the operative
portion of the Amendment.
The District of Columbia argues that the prefatory clause declares the Amendment’s only purpose—to shield the state militias from federal encroachment—and that the operative
clause, even when read in isolation, speaks solely to military affairs and guarantees a civic, rather than an individual, right. In other words, according to the District, the operative clause is
not just limited by the prefatory clause, but instead both clauses share an explicitly civic character
But because the District reads “a well regulated Militia” to signify only the organized militias of the founding era—institutions that the District implicitly argues are no longer in existence today—invocation of the Second Amendment right is conditioned upon service in
a defunct institution.
...
today—in fact, at oral argument, appellees’ counsel asserted that it would be constitutional for the District to ban all firearms outright. In short, we take the District’s position to be
that the Second Amendment is a dead letter.
today—in fact, at oral argument, appellees’ counsel asserted that it would be constitutional for the District to ban all firearms outright. In short, we take the District’s position to be
that the Second Amendment is a dead letter.
...
(some) assert that the Second Amendment was written for the exclusive purpose of preserving
state militias, and both theories deny that individuals qua individuals can avail themselves of the Second Amendment today
(some) assert that the Second Amendment was written for the exclusive purpose of preserving
state militias, and both theories deny that individuals qua individuals can avail themselves of the Second Amendment today
...In determining whether the Second Amendment’s guarantee is an individual one, or some sort of collective right, the most important word is the one the drafters chose to describe the
holders of the right—“the people.” That term is found in the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments. It has never been doubted that these provisions were designed to
protect the interests of individuals against government intrusion, interference, or usurpation.
The District’s argument, on the other hand, asks us to read “the people” to mean some subset of individuals such as “the organized militia” or “the people who are engaged in militia service,” or perhaps not any individuals at all—e.g., “the states.”
In United States v. Verdugo- Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990), the [Sureme] Court looked specifically at the Constitution and Bill of Rights’ use of “people” ...“the people” protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.
It seems unlikely that the Supreme Court would have lumped these provisions together without comment if it were of the view that the Second Amendment protects only a collective right.
In sum, the phrase “the right of the people,” when read intratextually and in light of Supreme Court precedent, leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual.
The wording of the operative clause also indicates that the right to keep and bear arms was not created by government, but rather preserved by it. Hence, the Amendment acknowledges “the right . . . to keep and bear Arms,” a right that pre-existed the Constitution like “the freedom of speech
...
The pre-existing right to keep and bear arms was premised on the commonplace assumption that individuals would use them for these private purposes, in addition to whatever militia
service they would be obligated to perform for the state. The premise that private arms would be used for self-defense accords with Blackstone’s observation, which had influenced thinking
in the American colonies, that the people’s right to arms was auxiliary to the natural right of self-preservation. See WILLIAM BLACKSTONE, 1 COMMENTARIES *136, *139; see also Silveira, 328 F.3d at 583-85 (Kleinfeld, J.); Kasler v. Lockyer, 2 P.3d 581, 602 (Cal. 2000) (Brown, J., concurring). The right of self preservation, in turn, was understood as the right to defend oneself against attacks by lawless individuals, or, if absolutely necessary, to resist and throw off a tyrannical government.
The pre-existing right to keep and bear arms was premised on the commonplace assumption that individuals would use them for these private purposes, in addition to whatever militia
service they would be obligated to perform for the state. The premise that private arms would be used for self-defense accords with Blackstone’s observation, which had influenced thinking
in the American colonies, that the people’s right to arms was auxiliary to the natural right of self-preservation. See WILLIAM BLACKSTONE, 1 COMMENTARIES *136, *139; see also Silveira, 328 F.3d at 583-85 (Kleinfeld, J.); Kasler v. Lockyer, 2 P.3d 581, 602 (Cal. 2000) (Brown, J., concurring). The right of self preservation, in turn, was understood as the right to defend oneself against attacks by lawless individuals, or, if absolutely necessary, to resist and throw off a tyrannical government.
When we look at the Bill of Rights as a whole, the setting of the Second Amendment reinforces its individual nature. The Bill of Rights was almost entirely a declaration of individual rights, and the Second Amendment’s inclusion therein strongly indicates that it, too, was intended to protect personal liberty.
The following slaps the DC attorneys (and their Amicus pals) across the chops:
In contrast to the collective right theorists’ extensive efforts to tease out the meaning of “bear,” the conjoined, preceding verb “keep” has been almost entirely neglected. In that tradition, the District offers a cursory and largely dismissive analysis of the verb. The District appears to claim that “keep and bear” is a unitary term and that the individual word “keep” should be given no independent significance. This suggestion is somewhat risible in light of the District’s admonishment, earlier in its brief, that when interpreting constitutional text
“every word must have its due force, and appropriate meaning; . . . no word was unnecessarily used or needlessly added.” Appellees’ Br. at 23 (quoting Holmes v. Jennison, 39 U.S. (14 Pet.) 540, 570-71 (1840)). Even if “keep” and “bear” are not read as a unitary term, we are told, the meaning of “keep” cannot be broader than “bear” because the Second Amendment only protects the use of arms in the course of militia service. Id. at 26-27. But this proposition assumes its conclusion, and we do not take it seriously.
Rebutting DC's reading of Miller:
Thus when read in light of the second Militia Act, Miller defines the militia as having only two primary characteristics: It was all free, white, able-bodied men of a certain age who had given
their names to the local militia officers as eligible for militia service. Contrary to the District’s view, there was no organizational condition precedent to the existence of the
“Militia.”
...
The District argues that the modifier “well regulated” means that “[t]he militia was not individuals acting on their own; one cannot be a one-person militia.” We quite agree that
the militia was a collective body designed to act in concert. But we disagree with the District that the use of “well regulated” in the constitutional text somehow turns the popular militia
embodied in the 1792 Act into a “select” militia that consisted of semi-professional soldiers like our current National Guard.
The District argues that the modifier “well regulated” means that “[t]he militia was not individuals acting on their own; one cannot be a one-person militia.” We quite agree that
the militia was a collective body designed to act in concert. But we disagree with the District that the use of “well regulated” in the constitutional text somehow turns the popular militia
embodied in the 1792 Act into a “select” militia that consisted of semi-professional soldiers like our current National Guard.
...The Amendment does not protect “the right of militiamen to keep and bear arms,” but rather “the right of the people.” The operative clause, properly read, protects the ownership and use of weaponry beyond that needed to preserve the state militias. Again, we point out that if the competent drafters of the Second Amendment had meant the right to be limited to the protection of state militias, it is hard to imagine that they would have chosen the language they did. We therefore take it as an expression of the drafters’ view that the people possessed a natural right to keep and bear arms, and that the preservation of the militia was the right’s most salient political benefit—and thus the most appropriate to express in a political document.
More on Miller, which is significant:
On the question whether the Second Amendment protects an individual or collective right, the Court’s opinion in Miller is most notable for what it omits. The government’s first argument
in its Miller brief was that “the right secured by [the Second Amendment] to the people to keep and bear arms is not one which may be utilized for private purposes but only one which
exists where the arms are borne in the militia or some other military organization provided for by law and intended for the protection of the state.” Appellant’s Br. at 15, 307 U.S. 704
(No. 696). This is a version of the collective right model.
Emerson, 270 F.3d at 222. Rather, the Court followed the logic of the government’s secondary position, which was that a shortbarreled shotgun was not within the scope of the term “Arms”
in the Second Amendment.
To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the
Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the
depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the
citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right
facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second
Amendment’s civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual’s enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or
intermittent enrollment in the militia.
This is called a "grand slam." Not ONE of DC's arguments was upheld.
What Nigeria Taught GWB
S'pose that GWB's intel folks also told him about the situation and its resolution in Nigeria?
...serious Muslim/Christian difficulties broke out for the first time in 1978, when a local sheikh began preaching the need for an Islamic uprising. The pretext came with a Pentecostal revival in the northern city of Kafanchan in 1978, when a Muslim woman grabbed a microphone to shout anti-Christian slogans. Things got ugly, which triggered anti-Christian outbreaks by Muslims in Kaduna and elsewhere.
...Wuye said he watched as Christians were targeted by Muslim extremists, with no support from the local police or army forces.
...They picked their targets carefully, Wuye said, going after wealthy Muslim-owned businesses to make the point that it wouldn't only be Christian elites who suffered when violence broke out. It was when the reality that Muslim property-owners too had become vulnerable began to sink in, Wuye and others said, that interest in dialogue on the Muslim side began to stir.
...many locals say that dialogue may never have begun if Nigerian Christians hadn't learned to stand up for themselves. That is, they believe the Muslims might never have come to the table if they hadn't been forced to do so by a growing Christian capacity to answer Muslim-initiated violence blow-for-blow.
What's the upshot?
For three years in the mid-1990s, James Wuye, a Pentecostal preacher and former leader of an anti-Muslim Christian militia, worked tirelessly to launch a pioneering new effort in Christian/Muslim harmony in his blood-soaked region of northern Nigeria
...working side-by-side with an equally-well-known Muslim terrorist leader.
So far, so good, although there are occasional problems.
(Original article by John Allen, NcR)
...serious Muslim/Christian difficulties broke out for the first time in 1978, when a local sheikh began preaching the need for an Islamic uprising. The pretext came with a Pentecostal revival in the northern city of Kafanchan in 1978, when a Muslim woman grabbed a microphone to shout anti-Christian slogans. Things got ugly, which triggered anti-Christian outbreaks by Muslims in Kaduna and elsewhere.
...Wuye said he watched as Christians were targeted by Muslim extremists, with no support from the local police or army forces.
...They picked their targets carefully, Wuye said, going after wealthy Muslim-owned businesses to make the point that it wouldn't only be Christian elites who suffered when violence broke out. It was when the reality that Muslim property-owners too had become vulnerable began to sink in, Wuye and others said, that interest in dialogue on the Muslim side began to stir.
...many locals say that dialogue may never have begun if Nigerian Christians hadn't learned to stand up for themselves. That is, they believe the Muslims might never have come to the table if they hadn't been forced to do so by a growing Christian capacity to answer Muslim-initiated violence blow-for-blow.
What's the upshot?
For three years in the mid-1990s, James Wuye, a Pentecostal preacher and former leader of an anti-Muslim Christian militia, worked tirelessly to launch a pioneering new effort in Christian/Muslim harmony in his blood-soaked region of northern Nigeria
...working side-by-side with an equally-well-known Muslim terrorist leader.
So far, so good, although there are occasional problems.
(Original article by John Allen, NcR)
CPAC--Not Just Coulter
For those of you who are interested in the other events at CPAC, there were two noteworthy items.
1) John McPain did not bother to stop by and give a speech.
2) CPAC did not invite the current RNC Chairman, Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FLA.)
Interesting, no...?
1) John McPain did not bother to stop by and give a speech.
2) CPAC did not invite the current RNC Chairman, Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FLA.)
Interesting, no...?
Common Sense Amendments
Wisconsin has a history of passing common-sense Amendments to its Constitution (recently, anyway,) including the Right to Bear Arms, the banning of gay marriage, etc.
Here's another common-sense Amendment proposal:
“This proposed constitutional amendment, proposed to the 2007 legislature on first consideration, provides that a person who is present in the United States illegally and who is charged with a violent felony is not eligible for release before trial if the state presents clear and convincing evidence that the person committed the violent felony.”
Kevin (HT) gives us plenty of reasons for this, notably the Green Bay case in which the illegal skipped town on $5K bail after a vicious sexual assault.
We know why it must be an Amendment--DarthDoyle would veto it were it legislation.
Here's another common-sense Amendment proposal:
“This proposed constitutional amendment, proposed to the 2007 legislature on first consideration, provides that a person who is present in the United States illegally and who is charged with a violent felony is not eligible for release before trial if the state presents clear and convincing evidence that the person committed the violent felony.”
Kevin (HT) gives us plenty of reasons for this, notably the Green Bay case in which the illegal skipped town on $5K bail after a vicious sexual assault.
We know why it must be an Amendment--DarthDoyle would veto it were it legislation.
Retail Sales: Not Good News
The Big Picture reminds us of the Fables of Retail.
When December sales were announced, they were disappointing. "Do not worry!" we were told, for the holiday shopping season no longer ends on December 25th. Gift cards were to be the savior of retail, and all manner of data were trotted out to prove how they had been growing 25% year-over-year, were this many billions of dollars, were about to hit the malls and stores after New Year's Eve, you will see.
Alas, it was not to be. With December behind us, in January, we were told retail sales were bad because "It was too warm."
Why would Weather -- assuming it wasn't tornadoes or floods or locusts or slaying of the first born -- have prevented all those billions of dollars in gift cards from being redeemed? Memory fails to recall shoppers at Best Buy, Amazon, Circuit City, or Home Depot gift cards expressing issues with unseasonably nice weather as why they didn't exchange their gift cards for goods.
"If January was too warm for retailers, then surely the cold snap in February must have helped!" But it was no aid, as February sales fell below expectations, a disappointment, despite the respite from January's heat wave.
In the world of Retail, the Mad Hatter and the March Hare are at a never-ending tea party, concocting excuses and rationalizations, but refusing to admit whatever the Queen of Hearts can plainly see: a clear trend of slowing, disappointing sales.
In other words, the party is over, and we haven't yet seen the effects of the reduction in Mortgage-Equity-Withdrawal (MEW) resulting from the sub-prime fiasco which is beginning to emerge only now.
Despite that, the "conservatives" insist that the economy is just fine-and-dandy.
Maybe it is--in the Bahamas.
When December sales were announced, they were disappointing. "Do not worry!" we were told, for the holiday shopping season no longer ends on December 25th. Gift cards were to be the savior of retail, and all manner of data were trotted out to prove how they had been growing 25% year-over-year, were this many billions of dollars, were about to hit the malls and stores after New Year's Eve, you will see.
Alas, it was not to be. With December behind us, in January, we were told retail sales were bad because "It was too warm."
Why would Weather -- assuming it wasn't tornadoes or floods or locusts or slaying of the first born -- have prevented all those billions of dollars in gift cards from being redeemed? Memory fails to recall shoppers at Best Buy, Amazon, Circuit City, or Home Depot gift cards expressing issues with unseasonably nice weather as why they didn't exchange their gift cards for goods.
"If January was too warm for retailers, then surely the cold snap in February must have helped!" But it was no aid, as February sales fell below expectations, a disappointment, despite the respite from January's heat wave.
In the world of Retail, the Mad Hatter and the March Hare are at a never-ending tea party, concocting excuses and rationalizations, but refusing to admit whatever the Queen of Hearts can plainly see: a clear trend of slowing, disappointing sales.
In other words, the party is over, and we haven't yet seen the effects of the reduction in Mortgage-Equity-Withdrawal (MEW) resulting from the sub-prime fiasco which is beginning to emerge only now.
Despite that, the "conservatives" insist that the economy is just fine-and-dandy.
Maybe it is--in the Bahamas.
Paki/Afghan Border: It's Where the Action Is
The US has decided to become the Marshal in town:
The US has sent CIA special operations units into Pakistan to hunt down fresh leads on the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders, the London Telegraph reports. The action comes just a few weeks after American officials presented Pervez Musharraf with evidence of AQ's growing presence in Waziristan and demanded action to destroy them...
The US has tried to avoid trammeling Pakistani sovereignty in the past in order to keep from destabilizing Musharraf. The deal Musharraf signed with Waziri tribal leaders has changed the American perspective, it appears. If Musharraf will not fight for his sovereignty in Waziristan, then the US apparently has decided that we do not need to honor it, and will attack AQ assets ourselves. Admiral Mike McConnell signaled this last week in testimony to the Senate. The new Director of National Intelligence told the Senators that he would focus "with great intensity" on AQ's Pakistani outposts.
Expect a much greater latitude in American action across the Afghan/Pakistani border from this point forward -- a new policy that will cripple the Taliban's expected spring offensive, and perhaps force Osama and Ayman al-Zawahiri to flee their safety zone.
The War Against Terrorists is the one that the US must be fighting, and separating OBL from this Earthly vale is a good start. That could have a major, positive effect on things in Iraq, as well.
HT: Captain's Quarters
The US has sent CIA special operations units into Pakistan to hunt down fresh leads on the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders, the London Telegraph reports. The action comes just a few weeks after American officials presented Pervez Musharraf with evidence of AQ's growing presence in Waziristan and demanded action to destroy them...
The US has tried to avoid trammeling Pakistani sovereignty in the past in order to keep from destabilizing Musharraf. The deal Musharraf signed with Waziri tribal leaders has changed the American perspective, it appears. If Musharraf will not fight for his sovereignty in Waziristan, then the US apparently has decided that we do not need to honor it, and will attack AQ assets ourselves. Admiral Mike McConnell signaled this last week in testimony to the Senate. The new Director of National Intelligence told the Senators that he would focus "with great intensity" on AQ's Pakistani outposts.
Expect a much greater latitude in American action across the Afghan/Pakistani border from this point forward -- a new policy that will cripple the Taliban's expected spring offensive, and perhaps force Osama and Ayman al-Zawahiri to flee their safety zone.
The War Against Terrorists is the one that the US must be fighting, and separating OBL from this Earthly vale is a good start. That could have a major, positive effect on things in Iraq, as well.
HT: Captain's Quarters
ToothTax?
HT Owen, who found another RINO rooting around:
...the Wisconsin Dental Association was trying to push a new tax through the legislature and Republican Assemblywoman Judy Krawczyk’s staff was happily obliging. Their tax was cutely named “Two Cents for Tooth Sense.” It would have put a two cent tax on the sale of every soft drink in Wisconsin.
...Fortunately, in the climate of that last budget cycle, the proposed tax never even made it into a committee hearing - much less a vote.
But.... it’s back. This time, it has made it into a draft bill which will be introduced shortly. It is currently being circulated for support. It proposes to tax soft drinks at the wholesale level in order to hide the tax from consumers. But make no mistake, this is a $70 MILLION PER YEAR TAX. And again, the WDA has found an Assembly Republican to carry their water.
Who's the Tooth Fairy this time?
Rep. Garey Bies
What we have here is another sign of the decay of the Republican party. Or, if you like, another Pubbie whose wisdom teeth never showed up.
One could also speculate that Bies' largest cavity (above his neck) is empty. Perhaps Zipperer could...ahhh...fill it with spare gray matter?
...the Wisconsin Dental Association was trying to push a new tax through the legislature and Republican Assemblywoman Judy Krawczyk’s staff was happily obliging. Their tax was cutely named “Two Cents for Tooth Sense.” It would have put a two cent tax on the sale of every soft drink in Wisconsin.
...Fortunately, in the climate of that last budget cycle, the proposed tax never even made it into a committee hearing - much less a vote.
But.... it’s back. This time, it has made it into a draft bill which will be introduced shortly. It is currently being circulated for support. It proposes to tax soft drinks at the wholesale level in order to hide the tax from consumers. But make no mistake, this is a $70 MILLION PER YEAR TAX. And again, the WDA has found an Assembly Republican to carry their water.
Who's the Tooth Fairy this time?
Rep. Garey Bies
What we have here is another sign of the decay of the Republican party. Or, if you like, another Pubbie whose wisdom teeth never showed up.
One could also speculate that Bies' largest cavity (above his neck) is empty. Perhaps Zipperer could...ahhh...fill it with spare gray matter?
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Van Hollen: Right the First Time
When JB Van Hollen mentioned "terrorists in Wisconsin," he wasn't kidding.
And there are some "conservative" bloggers and law-enforcement types who should be sending their apologies to JB:
When the Toledo charity KindHearts was shut down this past February, for raising millions of dollars for Hamas, the group’s leaders got off scott free. One of those leaders was KindHearts’ President, Khaled Smaili. Another was KindHearts’ South Asia Director, Zulfiqar Ali Shah. Unlike Smaili, who has remained virtually silent since the closure, Shah has continued to bask in the spotlight. He now sits in his new digs in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, the Religious Director of a large Islamic institution and the toast of the media.
HT: Random10
Somehow this little fact has evaded the Journal-Sentinel's News Editor...
And there are some "conservative" bloggers and law-enforcement types who should be sending their apologies to JB:
When the Toledo charity KindHearts was shut down this past February, for raising millions of dollars for Hamas, the group’s leaders got off scott free. One of those leaders was KindHearts’ President, Khaled Smaili. Another was KindHearts’ South Asia Director, Zulfiqar Ali Shah. Unlike Smaili, who has remained virtually silent since the closure, Shah has continued to bask in the spotlight. He now sits in his new digs in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, the Religious Director of a large Islamic institution and the toast of the media.
HT: Random10
Somehow this little fact has evaded the Journal-Sentinel's News Editor...
Campaign Finance "Reform"--the History
George Will has an outstanding little item here:
The modern drive for campaign finance "reforms" is usually said to have been initiated by Democrats in response to Watergate. Democrats did start it, but before Watergate, in response to their traumas of 1968.
That year, Sen. Gene McCarthy's anti-Vietnam insurgency disturbed the Democratic Party's equilibrium by mounting a serious challenge to the renomination of President Lyndon Johnson. McCarthy was able to do that only because a few wealthy people gave him large contributions. Democrats also were alarmed by former Alabama governor George Wallace's success in 1968, and they mistakenly assumed that Wallace, too, was mostly funded by a few very large contributions.
According to John Samples of the Cato Institute (in his book " The Fallacy of Campaign Finance Reform"), congressional Democrats began the process that culminated in criminalizing large contributions -- the kind that can give long-shot candidates, such as Vilsack, a chance to become competitive. Yes, the initial aim of campaign "reforms" was less the proclaimed purpose of combating corruption or "the appearance" thereof than it was to impede the entry of inconvenient candidates into presidential campaigns. In that sense, campaign reform is a government program that has actually worked, unfortunately.
Same s*&^, different day--it was LBJ who imposed IRS controls on churches which overtly favor certain candidates. LBJ arranged that while he was a Senator--at that time, HE was the chief Slimebag. Never let it be said that Harry Reid (or Tommy Daschle) is 'original.'
HT: John Lott
The modern drive for campaign finance "reforms" is usually said to have been initiated by Democrats in response to Watergate. Democrats did start it, but before Watergate, in response to their traumas of 1968.
That year, Sen. Gene McCarthy's anti-Vietnam insurgency disturbed the Democratic Party's equilibrium by mounting a serious challenge to the renomination of President Lyndon Johnson. McCarthy was able to do that only because a few wealthy people gave him large contributions. Democrats also were alarmed by former Alabama governor George Wallace's success in 1968, and they mistakenly assumed that Wallace, too, was mostly funded by a few very large contributions.
According to John Samples of the Cato Institute (in his book " The Fallacy of Campaign Finance Reform"), congressional Democrats began the process that culminated in criminalizing large contributions -- the kind that can give long-shot candidates, such as Vilsack, a chance to become competitive. Yes, the initial aim of campaign "reforms" was less the proclaimed purpose of combating corruption or "the appearance" thereof than it was to impede the entry of inconvenient candidates into presidential campaigns. In that sense, campaign reform is a government program that has actually worked, unfortunately.
Same s*&^, different day--it was LBJ who imposed IRS controls on churches which overtly favor certain candidates. LBJ arranged that while he was a Senator--at that time, HE was the chief Slimebag. Never let it be said that Harry Reid (or Tommy Daschle) is 'original.'
HT: John Lott
Jambois, Troha, Gambling: Follow the Money
Fred points out an interesting factoid in reviewing the JS' article on "Frank the Fixer"'s assistance to Poor Dennis Troha:
Robert Jambois, the department's chief counsel, said staff attorney Paul Nilsen was sent to Illinois and Pennsylvania so he could have a better understanding ofthe issues at hand.
Jambois is not exactly 'clean-handed.'
Jambois' wife, Bev, is being paid $1,695 a week - or the equivalent of 88 grand annually - to run the campaign promoting a vote for the casino on Tuesday. So far, she's pulled down nearly $12,000 for 11/2 months of work.
Also on the pro-casino payroll is the couple's 30-year-old daughter, Stacey Jambois, who has collected $2,200 since September. (Spice Boyzz, 10/29/04)
Obviously a very talented family.
Robert Jambois, the department's chief counsel, said staff attorney Paul Nilsen was sent to Illinois and Pennsylvania so he could have a better understanding ofthe issues at hand.
Jambois is not exactly 'clean-handed.'
Jambois' wife, Bev, is being paid $1,695 a week - or the equivalent of 88 grand annually - to run the campaign promoting a vote for the casino on Tuesday. So far, she's pulled down nearly $12,000 for 11/2 months of work.
Also on the pro-casino payroll is the couple's 30-year-old daughter, Stacey Jambois, who has collected $2,200 since September. (Spice Boyzz, 10/29/04)
Obviously a very talented family.
It's the Culture, Stupid
Can't say that it's too shocking that the WaTimes runs the following lede:
Most Americans think culture is becoming more immoral, and they view the media -- both entertainment and news -- as prime culprits, according to a new survey.
...The survey of 2,000 American adults shows that the nation's culture war is grounded in disagreements over religious issues, such as God's role in life and whether religious belief is essential for a good and moral life, CMI Director Robert H. Knight said.
Progressives [17%], with their secular views and "situational ethics," collide with the orthodox [31%] over some of these issues, and both groups work to attract independents [46%] to their side, the report stated. This makes independents the main battlefield in the culture war, it added.
Might this decline in culture have international repercussions?
...Dinesh D'Souza argues in his new book, "The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11," that the "cultural left" in America is the primary cause of Islamic anger toward America.
The cultural left, which includes members of both major political parties and their allies in the press, academia and the nonprofit sector, has "fostered a decadent American culture that angers and repulses traditional societies, especially those in the Islamic world, that are being overwhelmed with this culture," Mr. D'Souza writes on his Web site.
(There are plenty of "conservatives" who have ripped D'Souza's book. No real surprise.)
D'Souza's thesis is in rough parallel to the line of thinking espoused by Benedict XVI, although B-16 phrases it in terms of "common human values," thereby steering the argument into the realm of Natural Law.
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Timing Is Everything
The State's budget will be debated throughout the next few months. There's the Doyle version, which increases taxes and spending, not to mention bonded debt.
Then there will be a Republican version, which will be modified a bit because it has to be approved by Democrats--but it will have different spending priorities, probably less spending, and certainly less taxes.
In fact, the Republican version may emerge almost intact, thanks to "Frankie the Fixer," Jim Doyle, and Dennis Troha (and there may be a few more as time goes on.)
At some point in time, it will become clear to Democrats in the Legislature that being too friendly to Jim Doyle is like being too friendly with a lady of the evening. There's a lot of glitz, and a nice smell. But then there's this...medical problem.
Joy turns to pain, and personal expense. People might find out about your dalliance and start asking questions.
Doyle is now on the downhill side of the power curve. Think his budget will be enacted?
Then there will be a Republican version, which will be modified a bit because it has to be approved by Democrats--but it will have different spending priorities, probably less spending, and certainly less taxes.
In fact, the Republican version may emerge almost intact, thanks to "Frankie the Fixer," Jim Doyle, and Dennis Troha (and there may be a few more as time goes on.)
At some point in time, it will become clear to Democrats in the Legislature that being too friendly to Jim Doyle is like being too friendly with a lady of the evening. There's a lot of glitz, and a nice smell. But then there's this...medical problem.
Joy turns to pain, and personal expense. People might find out about your dalliance and start asking questions.
Doyle is now on the downhill side of the power curve. Think his budget will be enacted?
The Agony of Los Angeles
Milwaukee is finally past this point, for the time being.
Here's a post with Cdl. Mahony's (LA) Q&A show from the LA Religious Ed Conference.
There are far too many lies, lies-by-omission, and mis-leading answers to contemplate.
Warning: if you are not sufficiently catechized in the Faith, the post may be a danger to your salvation!
Here's a post with Cdl. Mahony's (LA) Q&A show from the LA Religious Ed Conference.
There are far too many lies, lies-by-omission, and mis-leading answers to contemplate.
Warning: if you are not sufficiently catechized in the Faith, the post may be a danger to your salvation!