I had to read this twice to make sure ...
A telephone survey of 1,201 American adults, conducted in April 2008, revealed that 48 percent of all Americans believe homosexual behavior is sinful, while 45 percent believe it is not sinful, almost a statistical tie when considering the margin of error.
The percentage is slightly different when the respondent indicates he or she knows someone with same-sex attraction; 49 percent indicating it is not sinful. Among those who have a religious affiliation, 55 percent of Catholics and 31 percent of Protestants said they do not believe homosexual behavior is sinful.
Yah, the operative term is "behavior," not "orientation."
Frankly, that's shocking, although it comports with other studies which show a similarly shocking ignorance of elementary Eucharistic theo and the reality of 25-30% weekly Mass attendance.
Look, folks, we're dealing with the salvation of souls. S'pose a series of homilies on the Big 10 might be in order?
HT: Ignatius
UPDATE 7/1: Apparently the "Catholics" are self-defined as such--therefore, the reliability of the readings is very suspect. HT: Chironomo
Monday, June 30, 2008
The Duty of Patriotism
Grim sums it nicely, I think.
If a nation sets aside the natural rights of mankind, it becomes a tyranny, and not patriotism but separation or destruction is the duty of its citizens. This view is the birthright of Americans, and it is a longstanding complaint of mine against our hard left that they will not accept it. If America is as bad as they so often claim, they have duties beyond mere complaint. If she is evil, fight her. If she is not, fight for her.
And quotes GKC while getting to that point!
If a nation sets aside the natural rights of mankind, it becomes a tyranny, and not patriotism but separation or destruction is the duty of its citizens. This view is the birthright of Americans, and it is a longstanding complaint of mine against our hard left that they will not accept it. If America is as bad as they so often claim, they have duties beyond mere complaint. If she is evil, fight her. If she is not, fight for her.
And quotes GKC while getting to that point!
Sunday, June 29, 2008
High Speed Rail? Not Here, Not Now
Headless, the investigative reporter (and full-time nuker) brings us a great little tidbit.
The Amtrak run through Waukesha County has been shut down for three weeks due to high water undermining rail lines through Brookfield.
No way around it for rail travel. No detours, just close up shop.
Well, not quite. Those enterprising managers at Amtrak did find a way to bypass their unusable train tracks. They are putting their customers from Madison on the bus. To Chicago. So they can ride the train to Milwaukee.
The shortest duration offered for that trip: 6 hours 44 minutes
Gee. What ECONOMY we have here!!
Of course, the KRM (and others) could be built on elevated tracks with 200' pilings-to-bedrock supporting them. That's a solution, eh?
The Amtrak run through Waukesha County has been shut down for three weeks due to high water undermining rail lines through Brookfield.
No way around it for rail travel. No detours, just close up shop.
Well, not quite. Those enterprising managers at Amtrak did find a way to bypass their unusable train tracks. They are putting their customers from Madison on the bus. To Chicago. So they can ride the train to Milwaukee.
The shortest duration offered for that trip: 6 hours 44 minutes
Gee. What ECONOMY we have here!!
Of course, the KRM (and others) could be built on elevated tracks with 200' pilings-to-bedrock supporting them. That's a solution, eh?
McCann, "Sr. Predator", and the Archdiocese
Jessica McBride wrote a lengthy article in the current edition of Milwaukee magazine about the abuse of boys by the Sister of Mercy, Norma Giannini. It is not very pretty. Link here, (HT: Terry Berres)
There's a sidebar of interest.
"When asked why the Archdiocese didn't refer the Giannini case for prosecution back in the 1990's, spokesperson ...Hohl did something local church officials have never done before: she blamed the ...DA's office.
"In Wisconsin, the 6-year [S.O.L. stops tolling] on crimes like sex abuse when a suspect leaves the state. [A practice about 100 years old.] But Hohl said the archdiocese concluded back in the 1990's that the DA's office wouldn't "apply" that provision to church sex abuse cases in which a suspect--like...Giannini--hadn't left the state specifically to flee prosecution."
IOW, Mike McCann was slicing and dicing the enforcement policy very thin, indeed. When a suspect leaves the State, their INTENT or reason for leaving determines whether the DA will prosecute. An interesting way to play prosecutor, no?
[Giannini was transferred, and the story does not indicate that she requested the transfer.]
Not to worry. There's plenty of blame to spread around:
"Since Giannini hadn't [fled to avoid prosecution] Hohl says, the Archdiocese believed the DA wouldn't prosecute and therefore didn't contact the office....The Church created its own secret investigative panel."
There is relevant nuance here. Sr. Giannini was a member of a religious Order--meaning that the Archdiocese did not direct her activities--unlike Diocesan priests (who are NOT members of religious orders.) Were the Archdiocese to "step up to the plate" on Giannini, it's likely they would be exposed to another damages lawsuit. The Archdiocese didn't report, leaving Sr. Giannini to possibly continue her abuses.
That makes an interesting moral question, no?
The article, by the way, is well-researched and documented although McBride encountered a lot of people who would not talk--on or off the record.
Among other oddities, the Milwaukee Police Department managed to "lose" a file on the case; the Archdiocese extracted a confession from the nun (followed by their non-contact of the DA); and Bishop Sklba plays dumb, even though he knew about it. Neither he nor Abp. Weakland could be reached for comment, either.
One minor complaint I have about the article: Jessica writes that 'St. Patrick's was founded to give the Irish a parish in which they could go to Mass in English.' Not true. They could hear the SERMON in English--the Mass was in Latin at that time. The German and Polish parishes also had Mass in Latin--but the sermons were in the language of the old countries.
Good work, Jessica!!
There's a sidebar of interest.
"When asked why the Archdiocese didn't refer the Giannini case for prosecution back in the 1990's, spokesperson ...Hohl did something local church officials have never done before: she blamed the ...DA's office.
"In Wisconsin, the 6-year [S.O.L. stops tolling] on crimes like sex abuse when a suspect leaves the state. [A practice about 100 years old.] But Hohl said the archdiocese concluded back in the 1990's that the DA's office wouldn't "apply" that provision to church sex abuse cases in which a suspect--like...Giannini--hadn't left the state specifically to flee prosecution."
IOW, Mike McCann was slicing and dicing the enforcement policy very thin, indeed. When a suspect leaves the State, their INTENT or reason for leaving determines whether the DA will prosecute. An interesting way to play prosecutor, no?
[Giannini was transferred, and the story does not indicate that she requested the transfer.]
Not to worry. There's plenty of blame to spread around:
"Since Giannini hadn't [fled to avoid prosecution] Hohl says, the Archdiocese believed the DA wouldn't prosecute and therefore didn't contact the office....The Church created its own secret investigative panel."
There is relevant nuance here. Sr. Giannini was a member of a religious Order--meaning that the Archdiocese did not direct her activities--unlike Diocesan priests (who are NOT members of religious orders.) Were the Archdiocese to "step up to the plate" on Giannini, it's likely they would be exposed to another damages lawsuit. The Archdiocese didn't report, leaving Sr. Giannini to possibly continue her abuses.
That makes an interesting moral question, no?
The article, by the way, is well-researched and documented although McBride encountered a lot of people who would not talk--on or off the record.
Among other oddities, the Milwaukee Police Department managed to "lose" a file on the case; the Archdiocese extracted a confession from the nun (followed by their non-contact of the DA); and Bishop Sklba plays dumb, even though he knew about it. Neither he nor Abp. Weakland could be reached for comment, either.
One minor complaint I have about the article: Jessica writes that 'St. Patrick's was founded to give the Irish a parish in which they could go to Mass in English.' Not true. They could hear the SERMON in English--the Mass was in Latin at that time. The German and Polish parishes also had Mass in Latin--but the sermons were in the language of the old countries.
Good work, Jessica!!
GOP "Fuel Solution:" Half A Loaf
McConnell is bragging about the recently-introduced GOP "Fuel Solution." But there's something missing from their plan, folks.
In an attempt at a bipartisan solution to high gas prices, Senate Republicans Thursday unveiled The Gas Price Reduction Act (GPRA) of 2008, which would simultaneously open the way for production of more domestic oil and reduce energy consumption overall.
As gas prices creep toward $5/gallon in most states, Democrats have nixed tapping into America’s domestic oil reserves via offshore drilling and other accessible methods.
The GPRA considers environmental concerns by excluding the option to drill in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) -- also opposed by Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain -- and instead proposes what Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) called a “narrowly targeted proposal…to reach out to our Democrat friends.”
The four-step plan to “find more, use less” includes the promotion of offshore drilling, oil shale exploration, utilizing plug-in electric vehicles and improving the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) with increased funding, staff and regulation.
Not a word about dropping the Corn-A-Hole mandate, arguably the single most significant driver of food-price inflation.
Therefore, under the Republican plan, you'll be able to drive to the grocery store--but only for window-shopping. Buying food? Out of the question.
No wonder they're called "The Stupid Party."
In an attempt at a bipartisan solution to high gas prices, Senate Republicans Thursday unveiled The Gas Price Reduction Act (GPRA) of 2008, which would simultaneously open the way for production of more domestic oil and reduce energy consumption overall.
As gas prices creep toward $5/gallon in most states, Democrats have nixed tapping into America’s domestic oil reserves via offshore drilling and other accessible methods.
The GPRA considers environmental concerns by excluding the option to drill in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) -- also opposed by Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain -- and instead proposes what Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) called a “narrowly targeted proposal…to reach out to our Democrat friends.”
The four-step plan to “find more, use less” includes the promotion of offshore drilling, oil shale exploration, utilizing plug-in electric vehicles and improving the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) with increased funding, staff and regulation.
Not a word about dropping the Corn-A-Hole mandate, arguably the single most significant driver of food-price inflation.
Therefore, under the Republican plan, you'll be able to drive to the grocery store--but only for window-shopping. Buying food? Out of the question.
No wonder they're called "The Stupid Party."
Wisconsin Refuses Federal Money
That's a surprise headline, eh?
Not if you know WHY.
Skeptical states are shoving aside millions of federal dollars for abstinence education, walking away from the program the Bush administration touts for slowing teen sexual activity. Barely half the states are still in, and two more say they are leaving.
Some $50 million has been budgeted for this year, and financially strapped states might be expected to want their share.
Some Federal money doesn't fit the Planned Barrenhood profile favored by WEAC and DarthDoyle.
Not if you know WHY.
Skeptical states are shoving aside millions of federal dollars for abstinence education, walking away from the program the Bush administration touts for slowing teen sexual activity. Barely half the states are still in, and two more say they are leaving.
Some $50 million has been budgeted for this year, and financially strapped states might be expected to want their share.
Some Federal money doesn't fit the Planned Barrenhood profile favored by WEAC and DarthDoyle.
Madison Sewer District: Forethought?
In a brief report the other night covering beach closings, Channel 12 mentioned that a beach on Monona Lake is closed due to a raw sewage spill.
Seems that an electrical power line feeding the pumps at the sewage processing plant was disabled, leaving the plant without power. As a consequence, there was an overflow of sewage directly into the lake.
Doesn't anyone in the Madison Sewer District know about "backup power" generators?
Seems that an electrical power line feeding the pumps at the sewage processing plant was disabled, leaving the plant without power. As a consequence, there was an overflow of sewage directly into the lake.
Doesn't anyone in the Madison Sewer District know about "backup power" generators?
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Sarcasm? Not Really
The OTHER McCain makes a good observation.
I'll remember to quote Tucker Bounds [a McCain adviser] next time one of my Republican friends complains that I dare even acknowledge the existence of such a thing as the Bob Barr campaign.
"Fear not: The McCain message will will carry through to November," I'll say.
And my Republican friends will say: "Message? McCain's got a message now? What is it?"
An RNC (and McCain campaign) with any gonads would hammer, hammer, hammer, every DAY, at the Congressionally-imposed ethanol mandate and the Democrat-imposed drilling restrictions.
But they'd rather see the citizens starve and/or walk.
I'll remember to quote Tucker Bounds [a McCain adviser] next time one of my Republican friends complains that I dare even acknowledge the existence of such a thing as the Bob Barr campaign.
"Fear not: The McCain message will will carry through to November," I'll say.
And my Republican friends will say: "Message? McCain's got a message now? What is it?"
An RNC (and McCain campaign) with any gonads would hammer, hammer, hammer, every DAY, at the Congressionally-imposed ethanol mandate and the Democrat-imposed drilling restrictions.
But they'd rather see the citizens starve and/or walk.
Some Ideas for Tom Barrett
Since he's the Mayorish of Milwaukee (and I don't live there) I'm happy to cite a few ideas for "Saint Willie" Hines and Mayor Milk-Carton for possible implementation in the near future.
These are taken from an essay by Radley Balko, published in the Chicago Trib.
At Reason Magazine, we recently took a look at how the 35 most-populous cities in the United States balance individual freedom with government paternalism. We ranked the cities on how much freedom they afford their residents to indulge in alcohol, tobacco, drugs, sex, gambling and food. And, for good measure, we also looked at the cities' gun laws, use of traffic and surveillance cameras, and tossed in an "other" category to catch weird laws such as New York's ban on unlicensed dancing, or Chicago's tax on bottled water.
The sad news, Chicagoans, is that your town came in dead last. And it wasn't even close.
A ban on "unlicensed dancing"!! A tax on bottled water!!
There's more:
Chicagoans pay the second-highest cigarette tax in the country, and the sixth-highest tax on alcohol. Chicago has more traffic-light cameras than any city in America (despite studies questioning their effectiveness), restricts cell phone use while driving,...
...city politicians can spend time and political capital on alleged "quality of life" issues, such as how much space there ought to be between strippers and strip-club patrons (good work, Seattle!); monitoring the blood sugar levels of their residents (snoop on, New York!); or drawing up building codes for doghouses (I'm looking at you, San Francisco!).
Milwaukee could have mandatory blood-sugar monitoring! And dog-house building codes!! (It goes without saying that the doghouses will be subject to property tax, of course.)
Balko provides a veiled warning, too:
Today's cities are large enough to afford most residents the anonymity to indulge forbidden pleasures in black and gray markets without much fear of getting caught. The information revolution has provided myriad ways for us to transcend old boundaries of home, family and neighborhood
Which 'black- and gray-markets' are burgeoning, by the way. There are a lot of Wisconsin people who purchase low/no tax cigarettes from friends who just happen to travel out-of-state (but not to Chicago, where ONE PACK will run you $9.35.)
And that sort of enterprise will continue to grow as the Government-mandated High Cost of Fuels and Foods continues to escalate.
One other thing, boys: you should remember what Chicago is also famous for: the violence engendered as Government-enforced bans created opportunities for 'alternative suppliers.'
These are taken from an essay by Radley Balko, published in the Chicago Trib.
At Reason Magazine, we recently took a look at how the 35 most-populous cities in the United States balance individual freedom with government paternalism. We ranked the cities on how much freedom they afford their residents to indulge in alcohol, tobacco, drugs, sex, gambling and food. And, for good measure, we also looked at the cities' gun laws, use of traffic and surveillance cameras, and tossed in an "other" category to catch weird laws such as New York's ban on unlicensed dancing, or Chicago's tax on bottled water.
The sad news, Chicagoans, is that your town came in dead last. And it wasn't even close.
A ban on "unlicensed dancing"!! A tax on bottled water!!
There's more:
Chicagoans pay the second-highest cigarette tax in the country, and the sixth-highest tax on alcohol. Chicago has more traffic-light cameras than any city in America (despite studies questioning their effectiveness), restricts cell phone use while driving,...
...city politicians can spend time and political capital on alleged "quality of life" issues, such as how much space there ought to be between strippers and strip-club patrons (good work, Seattle!); monitoring the blood sugar levels of their residents (snoop on, New York!); or drawing up building codes for doghouses (I'm looking at you, San Francisco!).
Milwaukee could have mandatory blood-sugar monitoring! And dog-house building codes!! (It goes without saying that the doghouses will be subject to property tax, of course.)
Balko provides a veiled warning, too:
Today's cities are large enough to afford most residents the anonymity to indulge forbidden pleasures in black and gray markets without much fear of getting caught. The information revolution has provided myriad ways for us to transcend old boundaries of home, family and neighborhood
Which 'black- and gray-markets' are burgeoning, by the way. There are a lot of Wisconsin people who purchase low/no tax cigarettes from friends who just happen to travel out-of-state (but not to Chicago, where ONE PACK will run you $9.35.)
And that sort of enterprise will continue to grow as the Government-mandated High Cost of Fuels and Foods continues to escalate.
One other thing, boys: you should remember what Chicago is also famous for: the violence engendered as Government-enforced bans created opportunities for 'alternative suppliers.'
Hines and McGee
One of the audiotapes of McGee's phone calls includes interesting language.
He told some mark or other that 'Hines...is trying to put me on the license committee,' after which he observed that '[it] will make me more powerful.'
Correct me if I'm wrong here.
Wasn't Hines running on a "St. Willie" platform, maintaining a circumspect distance from McGee, and talking tough on crime?
If so, then why would Hines "try" to put McGee on Licenses?
He told some mark or other that 'Hines...is trying to put me on the license committee,' after which he observed that '[it] will make me more powerful.'
Correct me if I'm wrong here.
Wasn't Hines running on a "St. Willie" platform, maintaining a circumspect distance from McGee, and talking tough on crime?
If so, then why would Hines "try" to put McGee on Licenses?
Con-Law "Prof" Turley--Ignoramus?
It went past pretty quickly, but I'm wondering if anyone else noticed.
Commenting on the Heller decision on FoxNews, ConLaw Prof Turley (I forget which school) stated that 'The Supreme Court discovered a NEW right in the Constitution....'
Almost dropped my coffee...
Commenting on the Heller decision on FoxNews, ConLaw Prof Turley (I forget which school) stated that 'The Supreme Court discovered a NEW right in the Constitution....'
Almost dropped my coffee...
"Healthy Wisconsin"'s Cost Increases
Let's not talk about the initial proposal--which only runs about $15 billion, delivered.
Let's talk about how that number grows.
It grows because there will be all sorts of pressure groups with all sorts of ideas about "health."
J.P. Wieske, director of public affairs at the Council for Affordable Health Insurance, helps compile an annual list of health insurance mandates imposed by the states. . . . Some of the benefits companies have been forced to cover include: in vitro fertilization, morbid obesity treatment, and lockjaw disorders. Some states require coverage of specialists including acupuncturists, pastoral counselors, marriage therapists, and massage therapists. Additionally, several states have imposed so-called "slacker mandates" allowing parents to keep grown children on their health-care policy until the age of 30. . . .
The report that Wieske co-authored estimated that such mandates can add anywhere from 20 percent to 50 percent to the price tag of a health insurance policy, depending on the state and the type of mandate
Think it can't happen here?
Well, in a State whose largest County employs UNION-ONLY grass-cutters, you think wrong.
Let's talk about how that number grows.
It grows because there will be all sorts of pressure groups with all sorts of ideas about "health."
J.P. Wieske, director of public affairs at the Council for Affordable Health Insurance, helps compile an annual list of health insurance mandates imposed by the states. . . . Some of the benefits companies have been forced to cover include: in vitro fertilization, morbid obesity treatment, and lockjaw disorders. Some states require coverage of specialists including acupuncturists, pastoral counselors, marriage therapists, and massage therapists. Additionally, several states have imposed so-called "slacker mandates" allowing parents to keep grown children on their health-care policy until the age of 30. . . .
The report that Wieske co-authored estimated that such mandates can add anywhere from 20 percent to 50 percent to the price tag of a health insurance policy, depending on the state and the type of mandate
Think it can't happen here?
Well, in a State whose largest County employs UNION-ONLY grass-cutters, you think wrong.
Conservative? Don't Bother Selling to Epic Systems
Interesting.
Epic Systems Corp., the Verona-based electronic medical records company, is threatening to pull its business from local vendors who support the state's largest business lobby over a political disagreement with the group.
In a statement to the State Journal, the company cited concern over Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce's spending this year on behalf of state Supreme Court candidate Michael Gableman, estimated at $1.8 million, as a reason for working only with vendors whose officials oppose WMC's agenda.
...Howard Schweber, a professor of law and political science at UW-Madison, said he's never heard of another situation in which a business threatens not to work with another company based on an election campaign.
The Epic statement was drafted by company founder and chief executive officer Judy Faulkner, executive vice president Carl Dvorak and chief administrative officer Steve Dickmann.
Each declined to be interviewed.
...Faulkner has contributed heavily to Democrats, including Gov. Jim Doyle and Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk, according to the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign's online campaign donor file. WMC funded ads opposing Falk in 2006 when she ran for attorney general.
Faulkner also donated $24,000 to One Wisconsin Now Action, a liberal political group that is now essentially defunct, according to its 2006 tax filing.
I'm with Prof. Schweber on this. I've never heard of this happening before (although it's enitrely possible that political connections have an impact on business which is un-reported.)
It appears that Epic's CEO is convinced that all her vendors are merely selling commodities--replicable in quality and quantity from almost anyone on the street--so Epic won't be harmed by purchasing inferior goods/services.
That, alone, should tell you something.
Apparently, $200 million of put-in-place construction is significant to general contractor JP Cullen.
Blaming WMC’s politicking for the “travesty of ethics” in this spring’s state Supreme Court race, Epic’s management announced that it would “try to work only with vendors that do not support WMC with its current management.”
That policy decision apparently prompted J.P. Cullen & Sons, the Janesville-based contractor of Epic’s ongoing campus expansion in Verona, to drop its membership in WMC and for its president and CEO David Cullen to resign from the WMC board of directors.
The massive Epic construction project -- the second phase exceeds $200 million -- has to be a major piece of business for Cullen, which finds itself caught in the middle of the Epic-WMC smackdown.
The dispute is so sensitive that none of the principals were willing to talk today to a reporter...
$200 million over 2 years is VERY large money for a general contractor.
Epic Systems Corp., the Verona-based electronic medical records company, is threatening to pull its business from local vendors who support the state's largest business lobby over a political disagreement with the group.
In a statement to the State Journal, the company cited concern over Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce's spending this year on behalf of state Supreme Court candidate Michael Gableman, estimated at $1.8 million, as a reason for working only with vendors whose officials oppose WMC's agenda.
...Howard Schweber, a professor of law and political science at UW-Madison, said he's never heard of another situation in which a business threatens not to work with another company based on an election campaign.
The Epic statement was drafted by company founder and chief executive officer Judy Faulkner, executive vice president Carl Dvorak and chief administrative officer Steve Dickmann.
Each declined to be interviewed.
...Faulkner has contributed heavily to Democrats, including Gov. Jim Doyle and Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk, according to the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign's online campaign donor file. WMC funded ads opposing Falk in 2006 when she ran for attorney general.
Faulkner also donated $24,000 to One Wisconsin Now Action, a liberal political group that is now essentially defunct, according to its 2006 tax filing.
I'm with Prof. Schweber on this. I've never heard of this happening before (although it's enitrely possible that political connections have an impact on business which is un-reported.)
It appears that Epic's CEO is convinced that all her vendors are merely selling commodities--replicable in quality and quantity from almost anyone on the street--so Epic won't be harmed by purchasing inferior goods/services.
That, alone, should tell you something.
Apparently, $200 million of put-in-place construction is significant to general contractor JP Cullen.
Blaming WMC’s politicking for the “travesty of ethics” in this spring’s state Supreme Court race, Epic’s management announced that it would “try to work only with vendors that do not support WMC with its current management.”
That policy decision apparently prompted J.P. Cullen & Sons, the Janesville-based contractor of Epic’s ongoing campus expansion in Verona, to drop its membership in WMC and for its president and CEO David Cullen to resign from the WMC board of directors.
The massive Epic construction project -- the second phase exceeds $200 million -- has to be a major piece of business for Cullen, which finds itself caught in the middle of the Epic-WMC smackdown.
The dispute is so sensitive that none of the principals were willing to talk today to a reporter...
$200 million over 2 years is VERY large money for a general contractor.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Eat Less or Grow Your Own
From a newsletter:
The Preliminary All Farm Products Index of Prices Received by Farmers increased 7.3% in June from May.
That's a ONE-MONTH pop, folks, not annual total.
The Preliminary All Farm Products Index of Prices Received by Farmers increased 7.3% in June from May.
That's a ONE-MONTH pop, folks, not annual total.
Abp. Burke Out of St Louis, to Rome
The announcement this morning:
Today, at noon in Rome (5 a.m. CDT), it was announced that His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI, has named me prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, effective immediately. With the announcement, I ceased to be the Archbishop of St. Louis
That makes Abp. Burke the top guy on Canon-law affairs in Rome, and makes St. Louis safe for aborto-Democrats (for the time being.)
HT Ed Peters
Today, at noon in Rome (5 a.m. CDT), it was announced that His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI, has named me prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, effective immediately. With the announcement, I ceased to be the Archbishop of St. Louis
That makes Abp. Burke the top guy on Canon-law affairs in Rome, and makes St. Louis safe for aborto-Democrats (for the time being.)
HT Ed Peters
Lefty Reaction to Heller: Kill Scalia
No, I'm not making this up.
That bit of advice came from a fellow who is famous for inventing the term "Barack, the Magic Negro" and is a well-known entertainment-industry type.
The comment was deleted by the blogsite...
HT: Confederate Yankee.
The Cynic's View of Heller
Vox Day pretty much nails down the "on the other hand...." viewpoint on the Heller decision.
Prior to the ruling, Day wrote:
...while it has the potential to be a landmark decision in defense of the Second Amendment, I fully expect the Supreme Court to pull one of their patented weasel jobs. The Court has a much greater tendency to get expansive in its interpretations when extending Federal power, not when limiting it
A truism.
Post-ruling, he notes, quoting Scalia:
“the most natural reading of ‘keep Arms’ in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.”
“The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity.”
“Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”
“Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.”
And comments:
I'm guessing that a confrontation with the government is not going to fall within the aegis of this protected right, despite the historical context of the Constitution's authors having very recently confronted their own lawful government with arms.
Scalia's opinion does allow two readings--both for AND against full-autos, for example. While he allows that the 2A was inserted partially to assuage the anti-Federalists (who were concerned about Big Gummint and thus would keep armaments sufficient to defeat a Gummint army used against the citizens), he also used language which seems to strip the RKBA of 'non-ordinary' weapons, such as machine guns.
Day is an anti-Federalist, and doesn't like Scalia's weaseling.
If nothing else, Scalia's ruling will make a lot of lawyers happy; there will be a LOT more litigation over his dicta on "regulation."
Belling, for example, sees Heller as obviating Wisconsin's ban on concealed-carry. I don't--at least, not by its plain language.
The Agitator also chimes in.
...Scalia also goes out of his way to note that the "individual right" the Court found today doesn’t undo onerous regulations on the sale of guns, leaves untouched bans on "unusual or dangerous" weapons, and doesn’t overturn existing bans on concealed carry...
• A future Congress is barred from passing a uniform federal ban on handguns or rifles in the home. Just about any other federal regulation would probably still be okay, provided it meets the minimal Commerce Clause test in U.S. v. Lopez.
• The 600,000 residents of Washington, D.C. and residents of other federal protectorates now have the constitutional right to own a handgun, provided they meet a set of conditions put forth by the city council—the limits of which will be litigated at a future date. Also, even this right for this small group of people extends only to handguns or rifles kept in the home.
We repeat: happy lawyers.
Prior to the ruling, Day wrote:
...while it has the potential to be a landmark decision in defense of the Second Amendment, I fully expect the Supreme Court to pull one of their patented weasel jobs. The Court has a much greater tendency to get expansive in its interpretations when extending Federal power, not when limiting it
A truism.
Post-ruling, he notes, quoting Scalia:
“the most natural reading of ‘keep Arms’ in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.”
“The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity.”
“Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”
“Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.”
And comments:
I'm guessing that a confrontation with the government is not going to fall within the aegis of this protected right, despite the historical context of the Constitution's authors having very recently confronted their own lawful government with arms.
Scalia's opinion does allow two readings--both for AND against full-autos, for example. While he allows that the 2A was inserted partially to assuage the anti-Federalists (who were concerned about Big Gummint and thus would keep armaments sufficient to defeat a Gummint army used against the citizens), he also used language which seems to strip the RKBA of 'non-ordinary' weapons, such as machine guns.
Day is an anti-Federalist, and doesn't like Scalia's weaseling.
If nothing else, Scalia's ruling will make a lot of lawyers happy; there will be a LOT more litigation over his dicta on "regulation."
Belling, for example, sees Heller as obviating Wisconsin's ban on concealed-carry. I don't--at least, not by its plain language.
The Agitator also chimes in.
...Scalia also goes out of his way to note that the "individual right" the Court found today doesn’t undo onerous regulations on the sale of guns, leaves untouched bans on "unusual or dangerous" weapons, and doesn’t overturn existing bans on concealed carry...
• A future Congress is barred from passing a uniform federal ban on handguns or rifles in the home. Just about any other federal regulation would probably still be okay, provided it meets the minimal Commerce Clause test in U.S. v. Lopez.
• The 600,000 residents of Washington, D.C. and residents of other federal protectorates now have the constitutional right to own a handgun, provided they meet a set of conditions put forth by the city council—the limits of which will be litigated at a future date. Also, even this right for this small group of people extends only to handguns or rifles kept in the home.
We repeat: happy lawyers.
Obama The Lying Sack (on Guns)
The Obama lying continues--
Yesterday, he disavowed "a staffer"'s statement that Obama concurred with DC in its ban of handguns, and went on to say that he's just all ducky with Heller.
This story belies that crap.
Demarr lived in the tony Chicago suburb of Wilmette, which banned ownership of handguns, even if kept in the home and used only for self defense. But in December 2003, when a man broke into his house, Demarr used a pistol to shoot him.
Even though the man was inside Demarr’s home and trying to rob him, Demarr was charged by local police with violating the handgun ban.
That, of course, produced much outrage. Within a few months, the Illinois state Senate took up a bill that would have granted an individual an “affirmative defense,” or a legal justification for violating local gun restrictions if they were acting in self-defense.
But when the legislation came up for a vote in the Senate, Obama was one of 20 who voted against it—and homeowners like Demarr who used guns in self defense. Thirty-eight state senators voted “aye,” and the bill passed the state senate.
Oh, yes, there's more:
By May, an amendment from the Illinois House added the right of an individual to violate local ordinances banning handguns “when on his or her land or in his or her abode or fixed place of business.” That version went back to the Senate, and Obama voted against the bill a second time in its amended form, though it passed the Senate again 41 to 16
Obama never showed up for the veto-override vote (which also succeeded.)
While I understand that Democrats are inclined to favor their candidate, it's more difficult to understand exactly WHY they do.
HT: RedState
Yesterday, he disavowed "a staffer"'s statement that Obama concurred with DC in its ban of handguns, and went on to say that he's just all ducky with Heller.
This story belies that crap.
Demarr lived in the tony Chicago suburb of Wilmette, which banned ownership of handguns, even if kept in the home and used only for self defense. But in December 2003, when a man broke into his house, Demarr used a pistol to shoot him.
Even though the man was inside Demarr’s home and trying to rob him, Demarr was charged by local police with violating the handgun ban.
That, of course, produced much outrage. Within a few months, the Illinois state Senate took up a bill that would have granted an individual an “affirmative defense,” or a legal justification for violating local gun restrictions if they were acting in self-defense.
But when the legislation came up for a vote in the Senate, Obama was one of 20 who voted against it—and homeowners like Demarr who used guns in self defense. Thirty-eight state senators voted “aye,” and the bill passed the state senate.
Oh, yes, there's more:
By May, an amendment from the Illinois House added the right of an individual to violate local ordinances banning handguns “when on his or her land or in his or her abode or fixed place of business.” That version went back to the Senate, and Obama voted against the bill a second time in its amended form, though it passed the Senate again 41 to 16
Obama never showed up for the veto-override vote (which also succeeded.)
While I understand that Democrats are inclined to favor their candidate, it's more difficult to understand exactly WHY they do.
HT: RedState
Canadian Healthcare Plan "In Crisis"
Yah, I guess.
And that headline-quote is from the AUTHOR of the Canadian socialist plan.
Back in the 1960s, [Claude] Castonguay chaired a Canadian government committee studying health reform and recommended that his home province of Quebec — then the largest and most affluent in the country — adopt government-administered health care, covering all citizens through tax levies
...Four decades later, as the chairman of a government committee reviewing Quebec health care this year, Castonguay concluded that the system is in "crisis."
"We thought we could resolve the system's problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it," says Castonguay. But now he prescribes a radical overhaul: "We are proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice."
Bookmark this and make certain that it is read into the record when the NurseRobson Rached forces assemble in Madistan next January.
HT: Van Helsing
And that headline-quote is from the AUTHOR of the Canadian socialist plan.
Back in the 1960s, [Claude] Castonguay chaired a Canadian government committee studying health reform and recommended that his home province of Quebec — then the largest and most affluent in the country — adopt government-administered health care, covering all citizens through tax levies
...Four decades later, as the chairman of a government committee reviewing Quebec health care this year, Castonguay concluded that the system is in "crisis."
"We thought we could resolve the system's problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it," says Castonguay. But now he prescribes a radical overhaul: "We are proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice."
Bookmark this and make certain that it is read into the record when the Nurse
HT: Van Helsing
DC Mayor: Dense? or Stupid?
Some people just don't get it. Here are a couple of excerpts from a report of Mayor Fenty's reaction to Heller. (HT: John Lott)
Second, automatic and semiautomatic handguns generally remain illegal and may not be registered
...although the Court struck the safe storage provision on the ground that it was too broadly written, firearms at home should be kept either unloaded and disassembled or else locked except for use in self-defense in emergencies
Now Scalia's opinion:
We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.
By far, the most common self-defense weapon is the semi-automatic handgun. Even Hollywood gets it--the last appearance of a revolver was Clint Eastwood's/Dirty Harry's .44Mag.
And here, Scalia again:
we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.
So the Mayor is engaging in double-speak. He suggests that the guns be kept "locked" or "dis-assembled," except for use in self-defense. Unless the Mayor contemplates that each lawful gun-owner in DC will have a small armory available, (thus many could be kept locked/dis-assembled, but one could be ready for "immediate self-defense") his counsel is deficient.
And his statement on semi-automatics? That's another lawsuit unless he claims to have "mis-spoken."
Second, automatic and semiautomatic handguns generally remain illegal and may not be registered
...although the Court struck the safe storage provision on the ground that it was too broadly written, firearms at home should be kept either unloaded and disassembled or else locked except for use in self-defense in emergencies
Now Scalia's opinion:
We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.
By far, the most common self-defense weapon is the semi-automatic handgun. Even Hollywood gets it--the last appearance of a revolver was Clint Eastwood's/Dirty Harry's .44Mag.
And here, Scalia again:
we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.
So the Mayor is engaging in double-speak. He suggests that the guns be kept "locked" or "dis-assembled," except for use in self-defense. Unless the Mayor contemplates that each lawful gun-owner in DC will have a small armory available, (thus many could be kept locked/dis-assembled, but one could be ready for "immediate self-defense") his counsel is deficient.
And his statement on semi-automatics? That's another lawsuit unless he claims to have "mis-spoken."
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Live Worse, Rabble!
Owen caught this.
With three of 29 members voting no, the task force adopted a compromise that calls for the state to bring down emissions linked to global warming by 22% by 2022
Two of the three "no" votes came from small businesses (doing less than $500 million/year in sales.) The other "no" was from GM.
The "yes" votes came from Green-Profiteer Johnson Controls, SCJohnson (owned by eco-freaks) and the utilities--which don't give a rip how much YOU pay for electricity, despite the BS uttered by the spokescritter.
Drive less, eat uncooked food, turn the heat down to 45 degrees night/55 degrees day, and fuggedabout air conditioning.
That's the program from the Big Green, folks.
With three of 29 members voting no, the task force adopted a compromise that calls for the state to bring down emissions linked to global warming by 22% by 2022
Two of the three "no" votes came from small businesses (doing less than $500 million/year in sales.) The other "no" was from GM.
The "yes" votes came from Green-Profiteer Johnson Controls, SCJohnson (owned by eco-freaks) and the utilities--which don't give a rip how much YOU pay for electricity, despite the BS uttered by the spokescritter.
Drive less, eat uncooked food, turn the heat down to 45 degrees night/55 degrees day, and fuggedabout air conditioning.
That's the program from the Big Green, folks.
Stem-Cells Work
News not reported widely:
The pharmaceutical giant Pfizer has announced that it is funding a new adult stem-cell treatment that could treat diabetes-induced retinal damage, a leading cause of blindness.....
In animal experiments, adult stem-cells have shown a remarkable ability to target and repair damaged blood vessels in the eye, which are a key problem in diabetic eye disease and macular degeneration.
No babies were killed in this process.
HT: Papist
The pharmaceutical giant Pfizer has announced that it is funding a new adult stem-cell treatment that could treat diabetes-induced retinal damage, a leading cause of blindness.....
In animal experiments, adult stem-cells have shown a remarkable ability to target and repair damaged blood vessels in the eye, which are a key problem in diabetic eye disease and macular degeneration.
No babies were killed in this process.
HT: Papist
Chant Aeternum
From a NYTimes (!!!!!) article:
Bells peal and the chant begins — low at first, then swelling as all the monks join in. Their soft voices wash over the ancient stones, replacing the empty clatter of the day with something like the sound of eternity.
Given the aversion of the LiturgyWonks to Chant, the Times' characterization makes Chant seem to be like a silver cross.
HT: NLM
Bells peal and the chant begins — low at first, then swelling as all the monks join in. Their soft voices wash over the ancient stones, replacing the empty clatter of the day with something like the sound of eternity.
Given the aversion of the LiturgyWonks to Chant, the Times' characterization makes Chant seem to be like a silver cross.
HT: NLM
Communion in the Hand? Should Go Away
From an interview of Mgr. Guido Marini, Papal MC (current one, folks!)
Q) In the recent visit to Santa Maria di Leuca and to Brindisi, the Pope has distributed Communion to the faithful in the mouth while kneeling. Is this a practice destined to become habitual in the papal celebrations?
A) I really think so. In this regard it must not be forgotten that the distribution of Communion in the hand still remains, from a juridical point of view, an indult [i.e. an exception] to the universal law, granted by the Holy See to those bishops' conferences who have requested it. The manner adopted by Benedict XVI [on the tongue] aims to underline the validity of the norm valid for the whole Church. In addition one could perhaps even see a preference for using this manner of distribution which, without taking away anything from the other [manner], better highlights the truth of the Real Presence in the Eucharist, helps the devotion of the faithful, and introduces [them] more easily to the sense of the mystery. These are aspects which, in our time, pastorally speaking, it is urgent to stress and recover.
No surprise. It's even possible that each U S Bishop could adopt this example.
Q) In the recent visit to Santa Maria di Leuca and to Brindisi, the Pope has distributed Communion to the faithful in the mouth while kneeling. Is this a practice destined to become habitual in the papal celebrations?
A) I really think so. In this regard it must not be forgotten that the distribution of Communion in the hand still remains, from a juridical point of view, an indult [i.e. an exception] to the universal law, granted by the Holy See to those bishops' conferences who have requested it. The manner adopted by Benedict XVI [on the tongue] aims to underline the validity of the norm valid for the whole Church. In addition one could perhaps even see a preference for using this manner of distribution which, without taking away anything from the other [manner], better highlights the truth of the Real Presence in the Eucharist, helps the devotion of the faithful, and introduces [them] more easily to the sense of the mystery. These are aspects which, in our time, pastorally speaking, it is urgent to stress and recover.
No surprise. It's even possible that each U S Bishop could adopt this example.
Flim-Flammery at the 2 Vatican Council
This is "Catholic arcana" but resembles the politics of the USA. No surprise, that.
...One of the many difficulties in interpreting the Council’s Declaration on Religious Liberty, and reconciling it with traditional doctrine, lies in the fact that while the key article 2 of this document, Dignitatis Humanae (DH), begins by affirming that the right to religious liberty has to do with conscientiously held religious beliefs, it ends by affirming that the same right is enjoyed even by those who are not in good conscience (that is, those who “do not fulfill their obligation of seeking and adhering to the truth”). Curious...
...The above passage recognizing immunity from coercion for those whose religious propaganda is not in good conscience was absent from the first three drafts of DH. It finally appeared in the fourth (second-last) draft, presented on October 25, 1965, only a few weeks before the end of the Council (cf. AS IV, V, p. 79). Bishop Emil De Smedt, the Dutch relator (official spokesman for the drafting Commission), then gave his relatio (speech) to the assembled Fathers officially explaining this fourth draft and its changes to the previous draft. However, in doing so he did not even mention this important addition to the text! On the contrary, in commenting on the new version of article 2, De Smedt repeatedly stressed the importance of conscience, citing the (unchanged) words in the first paragraph of #2 which assert that the human person must not be forced to act against (or be prevented from acting in accordance with) “his conscience”
The good Father Harrison discovered another "burial" of text--this related to the conversion of the Jews. Follow the link.
HT: Phil Blosser
...One of the many difficulties in interpreting the Council’s Declaration on Religious Liberty, and reconciling it with traditional doctrine, lies in the fact that while the key article 2 of this document, Dignitatis Humanae (DH), begins by affirming that the right to religious liberty has to do with conscientiously held religious beliefs, it ends by affirming that the same right is enjoyed even by those who are not in good conscience (that is, those who “do not fulfill their obligation of seeking and adhering to the truth”). Curious...
...The above passage recognizing immunity from coercion for those whose religious propaganda is not in good conscience was absent from the first three drafts of DH. It finally appeared in the fourth (second-last) draft, presented on October 25, 1965, only a few weeks before the end of the Council (cf. AS IV, V, p. 79). Bishop Emil De Smedt, the Dutch relator (official spokesman for the drafting Commission), then gave his relatio (speech) to the assembled Fathers officially explaining this fourth draft and its changes to the previous draft. However, in doing so he did not even mention this important addition to the text! On the contrary, in commenting on the new version of article 2, De Smedt repeatedly stressed the importance of conscience, citing the (unchanged) words in the first paragraph of #2 which assert that the human person must not be forced to act against (or be prevented from acting in accordance with) “his conscience”
The good Father Harrison discovered another "burial" of text--this related to the conversion of the Jews. Follow the link.
HT: Phil Blosser
Are the Evangelicals "Cracking Up"?
Well, the NYTimes thinks so.
Others (who happen to BE evangelicals and scholars) are not so sure.
...Take, for example, the purported radical shift in alignment among religious conservatives that was reported as a cover story in the New York Times Magazine in October 2007. Under the definitive title “The Evangelical Crackup,” David D. Kirkpatrick announced that the “conservative Christian political movement” today shows signs of “coming apart beneath its leaders.”
...The story line, though it might vary in its details, proceeds on certain cherished assumptions that are intended to keep theological conservatives—be they Protestant or Catholic—culturally quarantined. Accordingly, the “religious right,” at least on the Protestant side, is a largely unthinking albeit well-organized and heavily financed movement. This “movement,” under the marching orders of the Pat Robertsons and James Dobsons, is in bed with the Republican party and is a largely two-issue political phenomenon (i.e., directed by its obsessive fear of abortion and homosexuality). Moreover, much of the religious right’s influence stems from the hegemony of the Southern Baptists, the largest denomination (demonization?) in the land, particularly since the “conservative takeover” of the 1980s, when “moderates” were “forced out” of the Southern Baptist Convention.
Of course, little of the 'story line' is true.
[Kirkpatrick likes Warren and Hybels, without realizing that they are anomalic--these folks are similar to the Elmbrook Church group here in Milwaukee.]
Kirkpatrick’s reporting does do us the service, however inadvertently, of exposing problems that are internal to wider evangelicalism itself and its relationship to the culture. That megachurch leaders are placed on a pedestal, whether by New York Times reporters or evangelicals themselves, is instructive. What needs emphasis is that megachurch entrepreneurs—with their large congregations, their larger constituencies, and their even larger book sales—may not be the best, or even the legitimate, measurements of Protestant evangelicalism’s health and vibrancy
...megachurches may well represent the most glaring deficiencies in evangelical thinking—for example, heavy dependence on marketing, large numbers as a measurement of “success,” congregations run as businesses, and a strongly anti-sacramental orientation to church life.
However:
Shortly after Kirkpatrick’s report of a “crackup” appeared, a writer by the name of David Sessions argued in the online journal Slate.com that the “evangelical right”—whatever the merits of such a moniker—is in truth undergoing no such thing. Rather, he pointed out, the role of evangelicals in the 2004 election itself had been wildly overstated and inflated by the media to mythical proportions. Similarly, on the eve of the 2008 election, he maintained, the fiction of a widespread evangelical “desertion” to the political left needed to be challenged
...[Kirkpatrick] ignores the remarkable—and seldom reported—diversity among evangelicals on matters social and political ...This development, it needs reiteration, has been measurable since the 1980s and is both heartening and to be encouraged. To describe this as a “recent” phenomenon or a “desertion” of traditional priorities or a major leftward political shift, as Kirkpatrick does, is pure fiction
Correlatively, Kirkpatrick propounds a view of evangelicals that is patently false when he writes: “The phenomenon of theologically conservative Christians plunging into political activism . . . is, historically speaking, something of an anomaly.” While Times reporters cannot be expected to be experts in American religious history, they cannot be excused for evading—or denying—the rich history of American evangelical Protestants in terms of social reform, health and medical reform, not to mention a fundamental concern for human life, dignity, and welfare. And in this regard, we evangelicals gratefully continue to learn from our Catholic brethren.
...important changes surely have been afoot throughout wider evangelicalism, but neither are the most significant of these developments “recent” nor do they spell a collapse of traditional evangelical commitments in the social-political arena that equate to an exodus to the Democratic party, Kirkpatrick’s own wishes notwithstanding
...and don't count any votes until they're actually voted, folks.
Others (who happen to BE evangelicals and scholars) are not so sure.
...Take, for example, the purported radical shift in alignment among religious conservatives that was reported as a cover story in the New York Times Magazine in October 2007. Under the definitive title “The Evangelical Crackup,” David D. Kirkpatrick announced that the “conservative Christian political movement” today shows signs of “coming apart beneath its leaders.”
...The story line, though it might vary in its details, proceeds on certain cherished assumptions that are intended to keep theological conservatives—be they Protestant or Catholic—culturally quarantined. Accordingly, the “religious right,” at least on the Protestant side, is a largely unthinking albeit well-organized and heavily financed movement. This “movement,” under the marching orders of the Pat Robertsons and James Dobsons, is in bed with the Republican party and is a largely two-issue political phenomenon (i.e., directed by its obsessive fear of abortion and homosexuality). Moreover, much of the religious right’s influence stems from the hegemony of the Southern Baptists, the largest denomination (demonization?) in the land, particularly since the “conservative takeover” of the 1980s, when “moderates” were “forced out” of the Southern Baptist Convention.
Of course, little of the 'story line' is true.
[Kirkpatrick likes Warren and Hybels, without realizing that they are anomalic--these folks are similar to the Elmbrook Church group here in Milwaukee.]
Kirkpatrick’s reporting does do us the service, however inadvertently, of exposing problems that are internal to wider evangelicalism itself and its relationship to the culture. That megachurch leaders are placed on a pedestal, whether by New York Times reporters or evangelicals themselves, is instructive. What needs emphasis is that megachurch entrepreneurs—with their large congregations, their larger constituencies, and their even larger book sales—may not be the best, or even the legitimate, measurements of Protestant evangelicalism’s health and vibrancy
...megachurches may well represent the most glaring deficiencies in evangelical thinking—for example, heavy dependence on marketing, large numbers as a measurement of “success,” congregations run as businesses, and a strongly anti-sacramental orientation to church life.
However:
Shortly after Kirkpatrick’s report of a “crackup” appeared, a writer by the name of David Sessions argued in the online journal Slate.com that the “evangelical right”—whatever the merits of such a moniker—is in truth undergoing no such thing. Rather, he pointed out, the role of evangelicals in the 2004 election itself had been wildly overstated and inflated by the media to mythical proportions. Similarly, on the eve of the 2008 election, he maintained, the fiction of a widespread evangelical “desertion” to the political left needed to be challenged
...[Kirkpatrick] ignores the remarkable—and seldom reported—diversity among evangelicals on matters social and political ...This development, it needs reiteration, has been measurable since the 1980s and is both heartening and to be encouraged. To describe this as a “recent” phenomenon or a “desertion” of traditional priorities or a major leftward political shift, as Kirkpatrick does, is pure fiction
Correlatively, Kirkpatrick propounds a view of evangelicals that is patently false when he writes: “The phenomenon of theologically conservative Christians plunging into political activism . . . is, historically speaking, something of an anomaly.” While Times reporters cannot be expected to be experts in American religious history, they cannot be excused for evading—or denying—the rich history of American evangelical Protestants in terms of social reform, health and medical reform, not to mention a fundamental concern for human life, dignity, and welfare. And in this regard, we evangelicals gratefully continue to learn from our Catholic brethren.
...important changes surely have been afoot throughout wider evangelicalism, but neither are the most significant of these developments “recent” nor do they spell a collapse of traditional evangelical commitments in the social-political arena that equate to an exodus to the Democratic party, Kirkpatrick’s own wishes notwithstanding
...and don't count any votes until they're actually voted, folks.
Wild Pigs, "Disaster Relief" and The Feds
Sent by a friend.
There was a Chemistry professor in a large college that had some exchange students in the class. One day while the class was in the lab the Professor noticed one young man (exchange student) who kept rubbing his back, and stretching as if his back hurt.
The professor asked the young man what was the matter. The student told him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He had been shot while fighting communists in his native country who were trying to overthrow his country's government and install a communist government.
In the midst of his story he looked at the professor and asked a strange question. He asked, 'Do you know how to catch wild pigs?'
The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line.
The young man said this was no joke.
'You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come everyday to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side. The pigs that are used to the free corn start to come through the gate to eat, and then you slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd.
Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity.
The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees happening to America . The government keeps pushing us toward socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine, drugs, etc, etc, etc.
While we continue to lose our freedoms - just a little at a time.
Sounds a lot like boiling frogs to me.
Buy more ammo, and thank Scalia & Co.
There was a Chemistry professor in a large college that had some exchange students in the class. One day while the class was in the lab the Professor noticed one young man (exchange student) who kept rubbing his back, and stretching as if his back hurt.
The professor asked the young man what was the matter. The student told him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He had been shot while fighting communists in his native country who were trying to overthrow his country's government and install a communist government.
In the midst of his story he looked at the professor and asked a strange question. He asked, 'Do you know how to catch wild pigs?'
The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line.
The young man said this was no joke.
'You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come everyday to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side. The pigs that are used to the free corn start to come through the gate to eat, and then you slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd.
Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity.
The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees happening to America . The government keeps pushing us toward socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine, drugs, etc, etc, etc.
While we continue to lose our freedoms - just a little at a time.
Sounds a lot like boiling frogs to me.
Buy more ammo, and thank Scalia & Co.
Heller Interesting Grafs
Some stuff grabbed from Scalia's opinion:
The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.”
The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some
corporate body.5
Three provisions of the Constitution refer to “the people” in a context other than “rights”—the famous preamble (“We the people”), §2 of Article I (providing that “the people” will choose members of the House), and the Tenth Amendment (providing that those powers not given the
Federal Government remain with “the States” or “the people”). Those provisions arguably refer to “the people” acting collectively—but they deal with the exercise or reservation of powers, not rights. Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right.6 What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset.
This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”— those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the
people.”
We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans
He then observes that "arms" means "arms," not some subset like "military arms;" that "keep" means "keep," not anything else, and that there are no restrictions 'for military usage only;' and that "bear" has a connotation of 'anticipating conflict,' which implies self-defense. This is distinguished from the military use of the term, which was always followed by the word "against."
He also points out that if the Framers wanted to limit "keep and bear" to military personnel, they could have WRITTEN the 2A in exactly that fashion.
Summarizing:
Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed . . . .”16
Hmmmmm.
(A side note: the real reason for including the 2A is here:)
The debate with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, as with other guarantees in the Bill of Rights, was not over whether it was desirable (all agreed that it was) but over whether it needed to be codified in the Constitution. During the 1788 ratification debates, the fear that
the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia was pervasive in Antifederalist rhetoric. See, e.g., Letters from The Federal Farmer III (Oct. 10, 1787), in 2 The Complete Anti-Federalist 234, 242 (H. Storing ed. 1981).
That is to say that the right was inserted BECAUSE of Government, not necessarily in favor of Government.
The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified in a written Constitution. JUSTICE BREYER’s assertion that individual self-defense is merely a “subsidiary interest” of the right to keep and bear arms, see post, at 36, is profoundly mistaken.
...
virtually all interpreters of the Second Amendment in the century after its enactment interpreted the amendment as we do
(e.g.):
Joseph Story published his famous Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States in 1833. JUSTICE STEVENS suggests that “[t]here is not so much as a whisper” in Story’s explanation of the Second Amendment that favors the individual-rights view. Post, at 34. That is
wrong. Story explained that the English Bill of Rights had also included a “right to bear arms,” a right that, as we have discussed, had nothing to do with militia service. 3 Story §1858. He then equated the English right with the Second Amendment:
“§1891. A similar provision [to the Second Amendment] in favour of protestants (for to them it is confined) is to be found in the bill of rights of 1688, it being declared, ‘that the subjects, which are protestants, may have arms for their defence suitable to their condition, and as allowed by law.’ But under various pretences the effect of this provision has been greatly narrowed; and it is at present in England more nominal than real, as a defensive privilege.” (Footnotes omitted.)
This comparison to the Declaration of Right would not make sense if the Second Amendment right was the right to use a gun in a militia, which was plainly not what the English right protected
Scalia notes that the Southern dis-arming of blacks was viewed as a crime against 'the natural right' enshrined in the 2A, as well.
He then discusses SCOTUS precedents. We especially note his discussion of Miller:
JUSTICE STEVENS places overwhelming reliance upon this Court’s decision in United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 (1939). “[H]undreds of judges,” we are told, “have relied on the view of the amendment we endorsed there,” post, at 2, and “[e]ven if the textual and historical arguments
on both side of the issue were evenly balanced, respect for the well-settled views of all of our predecessors on this Court, and for the rule of law itself . . . would prevent most jurists from endorsing such a dramatic upheaval in the law,” post, at 4. And what is, according to JUSTICE STEVENS, the holding of Miller that demands such obeisance? That the Second Amendment “protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but that it does not curtail the legislature’s power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons.”
Post, at 2.
Nothing so clearly demonstrates the weakness of JUSTICE STEVENS’ case. Miller did not hold that and cannot possibly be read to have held that. The judgment in the case upheld against a Second Amendment challenge two men’s federal convictions for transporting an unregistered
short-barreled shotgun in interstate commerce, in violation of the National Firearms Act, 48 Stat. 1236. It is entirely clear that the Court’s basis for saying that the Second Amendment did not apply was not that the defendants were “bear[ing] arms” not “for . . . military purposes”
but for “nonmilitary use,” post, at 2. Rather, it was that the type of weapon at issue was not eligible for Second Amendment protection: “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that the possession or use of a [shortbarreled shotgun] at this time has some reasonable relationship
to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” 307 U. S., at 178 (emphasis added). “Certainly,” the Court continued, “it is not within judicial notice that
this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”
This holding is not only consistent with, but positively suggests, that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms (though only arms that “have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”). Had the Court
believed that the Second Amendment protects only those serving in the militia, it would have been odd to examine the character of the weapon rather than simply note that the two crooks were not militiamen.
Then he goes a bit further.
We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.”
We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those
weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra.
Thus, the AR-15 (and perhaps its full-auto versions) are perfectly Constitutional. It would seem, however, that bazookas, rockets, tanks, and nukes are proscribed. Drat.
LIMITS:
...nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the
possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”
Specifically to the DC ban:
The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly
chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights,27 banning from
the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” 478 F. 3d, at 400, would fail constitutional muster
As to Breyer's plea to "trust the Justices,":
We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a
case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.
Perhaps Screechin'Shirley should read the above, several times, before she issues another "Mommy, May I" decision on Wisconsin's 25th Amendment...
The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.”
The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some
corporate body.5
Three provisions of the Constitution refer to “the people” in a context other than “rights”—the famous preamble (“We the people”), §2 of Article I (providing that “the people” will choose members of the House), and the Tenth Amendment (providing that those powers not given the
Federal Government remain with “the States” or “the people”). Those provisions arguably refer to “the people” acting collectively—but they deal with the exercise or reservation of powers, not rights. Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right.6 What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset.
This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”— those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the
people.”
We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans
He then observes that "arms" means "arms," not some subset like "military arms;" that "keep" means "keep," not anything else, and that there are no restrictions 'for military usage only;' and that "bear" has a connotation of 'anticipating conflict,' which implies self-defense. This is distinguished from the military use of the term, which was always followed by the word "against."
He also points out that if the Framers wanted to limit "keep and bear" to military personnel, they could have WRITTEN the 2A in exactly that fashion.
Summarizing:
Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed . . . .”16
Hmmmmm.
(A side note: the real reason for including the 2A is here:)
The debate with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, as with other guarantees in the Bill of Rights, was not over whether it was desirable (all agreed that it was) but over whether it needed to be codified in the Constitution. During the 1788 ratification debates, the fear that
the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia was pervasive in Antifederalist rhetoric. See, e.g., Letters from The Federal Farmer III (Oct. 10, 1787), in 2 The Complete Anti-Federalist 234, 242 (H. Storing ed. 1981).
That is to say that the right was inserted BECAUSE of Government, not necessarily in favor of Government.
The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified in a written Constitution. JUSTICE BREYER’s assertion that individual self-defense is merely a “subsidiary interest” of the right to keep and bear arms, see post, at 36, is profoundly mistaken.
...
virtually all interpreters of the Second Amendment in the century after its enactment interpreted the amendment as we do
(e.g.):
Joseph Story published his famous Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States in 1833. JUSTICE STEVENS suggests that “[t]here is not so much as a whisper” in Story’s explanation of the Second Amendment that favors the individual-rights view. Post, at 34. That is
wrong. Story explained that the English Bill of Rights had also included a “right to bear arms,” a right that, as we have discussed, had nothing to do with militia service. 3 Story §1858. He then equated the English right with the Second Amendment:
“§1891. A similar provision [to the Second Amendment] in favour of protestants (for to them it is confined) is to be found in the bill of rights of 1688, it being declared, ‘that the subjects, which are protestants, may have arms for their defence suitable to their condition, and as allowed by law.’ But under various pretences the effect of this provision has been greatly narrowed; and it is at present in England more nominal than real, as a defensive privilege.” (Footnotes omitted.)
This comparison to the Declaration of Right would not make sense if the Second Amendment right was the right to use a gun in a militia, which was plainly not what the English right protected
Scalia notes that the Southern dis-arming of blacks was viewed as a crime against 'the natural right' enshrined in the 2A, as well.
He then discusses SCOTUS precedents. We especially note his discussion of Miller:
JUSTICE STEVENS places overwhelming reliance upon this Court’s decision in United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 (1939). “[H]undreds of judges,” we are told, “have relied on the view of the amendment we endorsed there,” post, at 2, and “[e]ven if the textual and historical arguments
on both side of the issue were evenly balanced, respect for the well-settled views of all of our predecessors on this Court, and for the rule of law itself . . . would prevent most jurists from endorsing such a dramatic upheaval in the law,” post, at 4. And what is, according to JUSTICE STEVENS, the holding of Miller that demands such obeisance? That the Second Amendment “protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but that it does not curtail the legislature’s power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons.”
Post, at 2.
Nothing so clearly demonstrates the weakness of JUSTICE STEVENS’ case. Miller did not hold that and cannot possibly be read to have held that. The judgment in the case upheld against a Second Amendment challenge two men’s federal convictions for transporting an unregistered
short-barreled shotgun in interstate commerce, in violation of the National Firearms Act, 48 Stat. 1236. It is entirely clear that the Court’s basis for saying that the Second Amendment did not apply was not that the defendants were “bear[ing] arms” not “for . . . military purposes”
but for “nonmilitary use,” post, at 2. Rather, it was that the type of weapon at issue was not eligible for Second Amendment protection: “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that the possession or use of a [shortbarreled shotgun] at this time has some reasonable relationship
to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” 307 U. S., at 178 (emphasis added). “Certainly,” the Court continued, “it is not within judicial notice that
this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”
This holding is not only consistent with, but positively suggests, that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms (though only arms that “have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”). Had the Court
believed that the Second Amendment protects only those serving in the militia, it would have been odd to examine the character of the weapon rather than simply note that the two crooks were not militiamen.
Then he goes a bit further.
We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.”
We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those
weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra.
Thus, the AR-15 (and perhaps its full-auto versions) are perfectly Constitutional. It would seem, however, that bazookas, rockets, tanks, and nukes are proscribed. Drat.
LIMITS:
...nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the
possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”
Specifically to the DC ban:
The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly
chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights,27 banning from
the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” 478 F. 3d, at 400, would fail constitutional muster
As to Breyer's plea to "trust the Justices,":
We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a
case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.
Perhaps Screechin'Shirley should read the above, several times, before she issues another "Mommy, May I" decision on Wisconsin's 25th Amendment...
The Ego of Obama
If I were a DemoLefty, I would be very cautious about predicting victory for Obama.
The Other McCain quotes a story:
"A book proposal by Obama about his life was submitted to publishers and a deal was reached with Poseidon, a small imprint of Simon & Schuster, for what is known in the industry as 'six figures' (about $125,000, I am told). Several years passed and Obama was too busy finishing law school and embarking on his career to get the book done. Simon & Schuster canceled the contract, which probably meant that Obama had to pay back at least some of what he had received of the advance."
And goes on to note:
Whoa! A six-figure advance for a 27-year-old law student with no significant previous publishing experience? Who ever heard of such a thing?
What strikes me is not that he was a 27-yo-law student--but that he thought that HIS life story-to-date was of interest to a publisher.
The Other McCain quotes a story:
"A book proposal by Obama about his life was submitted to publishers and a deal was reached with Poseidon, a small imprint of Simon & Schuster, for what is known in the industry as 'six figures' (about $125,000, I am told). Several years passed and Obama was too busy finishing law school and embarking on his career to get the book done. Simon & Schuster canceled the contract, which probably meant that Obama had to pay back at least some of what he had received of the advance."
And goes on to note:
Whoa! A six-figure advance for a 27-year-old law student with no significant previous publishing experience? Who ever heard of such a thing?
What strikes me is not that he was a 27-yo-law student--but that he thought that HIS life story-to-date was of interest to a publisher.
HELLER AFFIRMED
Latest from SCOTUSBLOG.
The 2nd Circuit's ruling (in favor of Heller, against DC) is affirmed! Scalia wrote the opinion.
Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens, Souter disagree.
The 2nd Circuit's ruling (in favor of Heller, against DC) is affirmed! Scalia wrote the opinion.
Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens, Souter disagree.
Another Price Increase
Since we are paying more for food, fuel, ammo, and MATC, I thought you'd like to know that the price of iron will escalate signficantly, too.
Iron ore giants Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton announced that they had come to agreements with key Chinese steelmakers, agreements that hike the base price of iron ore by 86% over a year ago. The combination of ever increasing demand, especially from China and India, along with the power that the three-company iron oligopoly has over the much more competitive steel industry did the trick. Iron ore is a sellers market, and there are only a few sellers.
The price was the result of negotiations with Baosteel, China's #1 steelmaker, but will apparently apply to all other steel companies that buy from the two Australian iron giants. It will also apply retrospectively to all iron bought from those companies since April 1.
EIGHTY-SIX PERCENT!!!
Iron ore giants Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton announced that they had come to agreements with key Chinese steelmakers, agreements that hike the base price of iron ore by 86% over a year ago. The combination of ever increasing demand, especially from China and India, along with the power that the three-company iron oligopoly has over the much more competitive steel industry did the trick. Iron ore is a sellers market, and there are only a few sellers.
The price was the result of negotiations with Baosteel, China's #1 steelmaker, but will apparently apply to all other steel companies that buy from the two Australian iron giants. It will also apply retrospectively to all iron bought from those companies since April 1.
EIGHTY-SIX PERCENT!!!
Twenty Years Ago, James Hansen May Have Been Right
Headless does us all a favor, with a graph (!!) for science-knownothings like me.
First, at the time of Hansen’s testimony (the blue dot), his temperature data demonstrated an exceptionally strong correlation with atmospheric CO2. Based on this limited data, he had reason to be alarmed at that time. It should be noted that the superimposed actual CO2 plot tracks Hansen's projected 1988 to 2008 worst case plot fairly closely.
However, his projections of temperatures after 1988 show that his model broke down almost precisely when he testified. This could be due to a saturation effect for CO2 at that level or (more likely) shows Hansen got lucky with his early model and his CO2-temperature relation from 1964 through 1988. There may really be nothing there, except a coincidence.
I’ll add that there was indeed a modest amount of global warming from 1988 to 2001, with a plateau through 2006 that was about 0.2 degrees Celsius warmer than 1988. But global temperatures have since declined. Declined so much that the average global temperature is now 0.2 degrees Celsius less than 1988, not the 0.7 degrees higher that Hansen predicted. A difference of minus 9 tenths of a degree Celsius.
Which is why the mantra is now "climate change" rather than 'warming.' Hansen's acolytes can read, too.
Wanna see the graph? Go visit Headless' site.
First, at the time of Hansen’s testimony (the blue dot), his temperature data demonstrated an exceptionally strong correlation with atmospheric CO2. Based on this limited data, he had reason to be alarmed at that time. It should be noted that the superimposed actual CO2 plot tracks Hansen's projected 1988 to 2008 worst case plot fairly closely.
However, his projections of temperatures after 1988 show that his model broke down almost precisely when he testified. This could be due to a saturation effect for CO2 at that level or (more likely) shows Hansen got lucky with his early model and his CO2-temperature relation from 1964 through 1988. There may really be nothing there, except a coincidence.
I’ll add that there was indeed a modest amount of global warming from 1988 to 2001, with a plateau through 2006 that was about 0.2 degrees Celsius warmer than 1988. But global temperatures have since declined. Declined so much that the average global temperature is now 0.2 degrees Celsius less than 1988, not the 0.7 degrees higher that Hansen predicted. A difference of minus 9 tenths of a degree Celsius.
Which is why the mantra is now "climate change" rather than 'warming.' Hansen's acolytes can read, too.
Wanna see the graph? Go visit Headless' site.
SCOTUS Places Itself in Jeopardy
While I don't always agree with Powerline's thoughts, these guys are fairly high-powered lawyers--thus, at least in appearance, they are supposed to be docile about SCOTUS' opinions.
Not this time.
Whence comes the Court's authority to render the judgment in cases such as Kennedy? It is entirely self-created, based on the Court's ipse dixit. This is not the way it's supposed to work. As Justice Alito writes in dissent, quoting from Justice Kennedy's opinion: "The Court is willing to block the potential emergence of a national consensus in favor of permitting the death penalty for child rape because, in the end, what matters is the Court’s 'own judgment' regarding 'the acceptability of the death penalty.'”
The Court's handiwork in Boumediene represents a more recent and more consequential appropriation of power whose limits have not yet even begun to be tested, and it is one that flies in the face of the Court's own previous jurisprudence. In Boumediene the Court follows along the path it began to blaze in Rasul in 2004.
Our acquiescence in the doctrine of judicial supremacy is of long standing, but it is time to revisit it in the spirit of Abraham Lincoln. In Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, Allen Guelzo reminds us that Lincoln "mistrusted the federal judiciary and expected that any emancipation initiatives which came directly from his hand would be struck down in the courts."
Such "acquiescence" is to be expected from attorneys. But the arrogance of the Lefties and Kennedy leaves the Court in a position where they are 'asking for it.'
The outcome has portent. When the citizens percieve that Courts are stuffed with jackasses, (see, e.g., Screechin'Shirley's SCOWI "Mommy, May I" drivel on Wisconsin's 25th Amendment), the citizens may choose to disregard the law.
Or see the prediction of more "multi-shot suicides" here:
We find before us—and perhaps a bit beneath us—a Supreme Court of the United States that in this session has found more sympathy and more previously unknown rights for suspected terrorists and child rapists than it has for the average American.
From Bagram to Baltimore, expect to hear some names and dates begin to be associated with this and similar urban legends.
It is a truism of the human experience that when a people sees their system of justice fail due to inequities in the judicial process, they will find justice on their own.
There are fools, and damn fools. But apparently, Black-Robed fools are the worst of the lot.
Not this time.
Whence comes the Court's authority to render the judgment in cases such as Kennedy? It is entirely self-created, based on the Court's ipse dixit. This is not the way it's supposed to work. As Justice Alito writes in dissent, quoting from Justice Kennedy's opinion: "The Court is willing to block the potential emergence of a national consensus in favor of permitting the death penalty for child rape because, in the end, what matters is the Court’s 'own judgment' regarding 'the acceptability of the death penalty.'”
The Court's handiwork in Boumediene represents a more recent and more consequential appropriation of power whose limits have not yet even begun to be tested, and it is one that flies in the face of the Court's own previous jurisprudence. In Boumediene the Court follows along the path it began to blaze in Rasul in 2004.
Our acquiescence in the doctrine of judicial supremacy is of long standing, but it is time to revisit it in the spirit of Abraham Lincoln. In Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, Allen Guelzo reminds us that Lincoln "mistrusted the federal judiciary and expected that any emancipation initiatives which came directly from his hand would be struck down in the courts."
Such "acquiescence" is to be expected from attorneys. But the arrogance of the Lefties and Kennedy leaves the Court in a position where they are 'asking for it.'
The outcome has portent. When the citizens percieve that Courts are stuffed with jackasses, (see, e.g., Screechin'Shirley's SCOWI "Mommy, May I" drivel on Wisconsin's 25th Amendment), the citizens may choose to disregard the law.
Or see the prediction of more "multi-shot suicides" here:
We find before us—and perhaps a bit beneath us—a Supreme Court of the United States that in this session has found more sympathy and more previously unknown rights for suspected terrorists and child rapists than it has for the average American.
From Bagram to Baltimore, expect to hear some names and dates begin to be associated with this and similar urban legends.
It is a truism of the human experience that when a people sees their system of justice fail due to inequities in the judicial process, they will find justice on their own.
There are fools, and damn fools. But apparently, Black-Robed fools are the worst of the lot.
Border Violence Getting Serious
While GWB's Administration is wishing on a star instead of building a fence as fast as possible, things in the border area are getting WAYYYY out of control.
Police reports show that three men arrested in a Phoenix home invasion and homicide Monday may have been active members of the Mexican Army.
While on the J.D. Hayworth show, Phoenix Law Enforcement Association President Mark Spencer said that the men involved were hired by drug cartels to perform home invasions and assassinations.
The Monday morning incident at 8329 W. Cypress St. resulted in the death of the homeowner. Between 50 and 100 rounds were fired at the house.
Spencer said a police officer told him that one of the men captured said they were completely prepared to ambush Phoenix police, but ran out of ammunition.
He added that all were all dressed in military tactical gear and were armed with AR-15 assault rifles. Three other men involved in the invasion escaped.
WTF?
HT: Moonbattery
Police reports show that three men arrested in a Phoenix home invasion and homicide Monday may have been active members of the Mexican Army.
While on the J.D. Hayworth show, Phoenix Law Enforcement Association President Mark Spencer said that the men involved were hired by drug cartels to perform home invasions and assassinations.
The Monday morning incident at 8329 W. Cypress St. resulted in the death of the homeowner. Between 50 and 100 rounds were fired at the house.
Spencer said a police officer told him that one of the men captured said they were completely prepared to ambush Phoenix police, but ran out of ammunition.
He added that all were all dressed in military tactical gear and were armed with AR-15 assault rifles. Three other men involved in the invasion escaped.
WTF?
HT: Moonbattery
Is Obama Nuts?
Clay Cramer tells us that the Canadians are not happy with US eco-freaks--and that Obama apparently is one of them.
Borrowing heavily from the rhetoric of the environmental movement, right down to using the pejorative "tar sands" to describe Canada's reserves, mayors from the United States' largest cities adopted a resolution at a meeting in Miami on Monday singling out Western Canada's oil-sands sector as part of a crackdown on fuels that cause global warming.
Yesterday, Mr. Obama vowed to break America's addiction to "dirty, dwindling and dangerously expensive" oil if elected U. S. president -- and he said one of his first targets may well be imports from Canada's oil sands. A senior advisor to Obama's campaign said it's an "open question" whether Alberta's oil sands fit with Obama's vision for shifting the U. S. dramatically away from carbon-intensive fuels.
Look, folks. Whether we are at "peak oil", or whether the hydrocarbon era is causing "global warming/cooling/change" is irrelevant.
The fact is that the US economy is now, and will be for the next 20 years, petroleum-dependent. You can, perhaps, eliminate gasoline-powered engines--but you cannot eliminate the need for lubrication, nor pavement, nor plastics (in all configurations).
If Obama is suggesting that he's willing to blow off ALL those uses for petroleum, he is absolutely crazy.
Borrowing heavily from the rhetoric of the environmental movement, right down to using the pejorative "tar sands" to describe Canada's reserves, mayors from the United States' largest cities adopted a resolution at a meeting in Miami on Monday singling out Western Canada's oil-sands sector as part of a crackdown on fuels that cause global warming.
Yesterday, Mr. Obama vowed to break America's addiction to "dirty, dwindling and dangerously expensive" oil if elected U. S. president -- and he said one of his first targets may well be imports from Canada's oil sands. A senior advisor to Obama's campaign said it's an "open question" whether Alberta's oil sands fit with Obama's vision for shifting the U. S. dramatically away from carbon-intensive fuels.
Look, folks. Whether we are at "peak oil", or whether the hydrocarbon era is causing "global warming/cooling/change" is irrelevant.
The fact is that the US economy is now, and will be for the next 20 years, petroleum-dependent. You can, perhaps, eliminate gasoline-powered engines--but you cannot eliminate the need for lubrication, nor pavement, nor plastics (in all configurations).
If Obama is suggesting that he's willing to blow off ALL those uses for petroleum, he is absolutely crazy.
Obama: "I Was For It Before I Was Against It"
School-choice vouchers, that is.
Here in Milwaukee Obama said it's fine.
In DC, (where his vote counts), he'll kill the voucher program.
Money talks.
Here in Milwaukee Obama said it's fine.
In DC, (where his vote counts), he'll kill the voucher program.
Money talks.
Forget About Christmas Presents: You're Paying MATC
If the rapidly rising costs of gasoline, electricity, natural gas, ammo, and food weren't enough to break your Christmas-club account, MATC will.
Milwaukee's second-most-greedy school-taxing organization will hit you for a 5% increase in taxes. And, of course, they will take your money at the point of a gun.
The Milwaukee Area Technical College Board on Tuesday night unanimously approved a 2009 budget that increases the property tax levy 4.9% — an increase that means the college has boosted the levy 31% in the last five years
...The overall budget increases spending 6.2% from what the college budgeted for 2008.
...Health care costs went up significantly despite the school’s efforts to suppress them...fewer employees opted for the preferred provider organization than expected.
As to the last item--read "DUH!"
Milwaukee's second-most-greedy school-taxing organization will hit you for a 5% increase in taxes. And, of course, they will take your money at the point of a gun.
The Milwaukee Area Technical College Board on Tuesday night unanimously approved a 2009 budget that increases the property tax levy 4.9% — an increase that means the college has boosted the levy 31% in the last five years
...The overall budget increases spending 6.2% from what the college budgeted for 2008.
...Health care costs went up significantly despite the school’s efforts to suppress them...fewer employees opted for the preferred provider organization than expected.
As to the last item--read "DUH!"
Van Hollen v. Warren
The actualities of the brouhaha between Van Hollen and the former CID chief, Jim Warren, are beginning to emerge.
In a nutshell, I suspect Warren was used to running his own show, using his own judgment, and not spending much time informing the Attorney General.
That may well have satisfied Peg "Lift-Und-Schlurp-'Em" Lautenschlager and her palace guard-dog, Dan Bach.
But it did not sit well with Van Hollen.
Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen said Wednesday he has ordered a review of how criminal investigations have been handled after he learned that a high-profile Milwaukee case was so poorly documented it appears no investigation was conducted at all.
Van Hollen told reporters that the investigation into whether politics played a role in awarding a contract to redevelop the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee’s Kenilworth building was “closed without my knowledge (and) without my consent” and he expected to get feedback before that decision was made.
Asked why he would not be told of decisions like that beforehand, Van Hollen said he relies on key assistants — including former Division of Criminal Investigation chief Jim Warren — to “honestly and forthrightly let me know what is going on.”
Referring to his first year in office, Van Hollen said: “I don’t believe . . . I was necessarily getting that sort of response or feedback” from Warren, who retired early this year rather than be reassigned
One does not have to be a genius to figure this out--although at least two RadioMouths refuse to get it.
Maybe the case in question simply had no "there" there. Obviously, Warren was used to running his own show--and it's likely that his conclusions were the right ones.
Warren just didn't like the idea that he would have to actually report to someone. Neither did two of his top assistants. Too bad that the new Attorney General (Warren's boss) didn't agree.
In a nutshell, I suspect Warren was used to running his own show, using his own judgment, and not spending much time informing the Attorney General.
That may well have satisfied Peg "Lift-Und-Schlurp-'Em" Lautenschlager and her palace guard-dog, Dan Bach.
But it did not sit well with Van Hollen.
Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen said Wednesday he has ordered a review of how criminal investigations have been handled after he learned that a high-profile Milwaukee case was so poorly documented it appears no investigation was conducted at all.
Van Hollen told reporters that the investigation into whether politics played a role in awarding a contract to redevelop the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee’s Kenilworth building was “closed without my knowledge (and) without my consent” and he expected to get feedback before that decision was made.
Asked why he would not be told of decisions like that beforehand, Van Hollen said he relies on key assistants — including former Division of Criminal Investigation chief Jim Warren — to “honestly and forthrightly let me know what is going on.”
Referring to his first year in office, Van Hollen said: “I don’t believe . . . I was necessarily getting that sort of response or feedback” from Warren, who retired early this year rather than be reassigned
One does not have to be a genius to figure this out--although at least two RadioMouths refuse to get it.
Maybe the case in question simply had no "there" there. Obviously, Warren was used to running his own show--and it's likely that his conclusions were the right ones.
Warren just didn't like the idea that he would have to actually report to someone. Neither did two of his top assistants. Too bad that the new Attorney General (Warren's boss) didn't agree.
Van Hollen's Lab Is Cooking
While a certain afternoon RadioMouth continues to disparage the Attorney General, the numbers point to some success for Van Hollen.
The budget passed in 2007 authorized the hiring of 30 more DNA analysts, and the 27 who completed training are now certified to process evidence.
The department said the Crime Lab completed 321 DNA cases in May, more than any other month in the history and more than three times what was being done during an average month in 2006.
The backlog is now nearly 1,640 cases, compared with 1,775 cases at the start of Van Hollen’s term, officials said.
Of course, anyone can cherry-pick numbers like the May performance above. And for CSI-addicts (and RadioMouths), reducing the backlog to Zero in 60-minutes-less-commercials is the only acceptable result.
Adults look at the longer-term results. If Van Hollen's re-working of the lab continues to produce valid results at 3X those of the previous AG, I'll be happy.
The budget passed in 2007 authorized the hiring of 30 more DNA analysts, and the 27 who completed training are now certified to process evidence.
The department said the Crime Lab completed 321 DNA cases in May, more than any other month in the history and more than three times what was being done during an average month in 2006.
The backlog is now nearly 1,640 cases, compared with 1,775 cases at the start of Van Hollen’s term, officials said.
Of course, anyone can cherry-pick numbers like the May performance above. And for CSI-addicts (and RadioMouths), reducing the backlog to Zero in 60-minutes-less-commercials is the only acceptable result.
Adults look at the longer-term results. If Van Hollen's re-working of the lab continues to produce valid results at 3X those of the previous AG, I'll be happy.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Kennedy Imposes His Morality
All you really need to read is this excerpt:
This could not be reconciled with our evolving standards of decency and the necessity to constrain the use of the death penalty
Umnnhh...in HIS humble opinion.
This could not be reconciled with our evolving standards of decency and the necessity to constrain the use of the death penalty
Umnnhh...in HIS humble opinion.
Newspaper Outsourcing
Yup--it's arrived in the MSM.
An Indian company will take over copy editing duties for some stories published in The Orange County Register and will handle page layout for a community newspaper at the company that owns the Pulitzer Prize-winning daily, the newspaper confirmed Tuesday.
HT: Dreher
An Indian company will take over copy editing duties for some stories published in The Orange County Register and will handle page layout for a community newspaper at the company that owns the Pulitzer Prize-winning daily, the newspaper confirmed Tuesday.
HT: Dreher
The Smart Guys
We'll quote a couple of Smart Guys.
...the fragile outlook for world prosperity will be improved... The uncertainty tax on world growth will be lowered too, as will the energy tax from temporarily spiking oil prices.
(The spike? To $37.++ The year? 2003. The Smart Guy? Larry Kudlow.)
“Under every plausible scenario, the negative effect will be quite small relative to the economic benefits... The key issue is oil, and a regime change in Iraq would facilitate an increase in world oil,” thereby driving down oil prices.
(The Smart Guy? Laurence Lindsey, Bush's Senior Economic Adviser)
Paul Wolfowitz, then Deputy Secretary of Defense, went on to reassure the nation that Iraqi oil revenues would pay all the costs of reconstructing the country.
All these Smart Guys should get full refunds on their college tuition.
Source: The Daily Reckoning
...the fragile outlook for world prosperity will be improved... The uncertainty tax on world growth will be lowered too, as will the energy tax from temporarily spiking oil prices.
(The spike? To $37.++ The year? 2003. The Smart Guy? Larry Kudlow.)
“Under every plausible scenario, the negative effect will be quite small relative to the economic benefits... The key issue is oil, and a regime change in Iraq would facilitate an increase in world oil,” thereby driving down oil prices.
(The Smart Guy? Laurence Lindsey, Bush's Senior Economic Adviser)
Paul Wolfowitz, then Deputy Secretary of Defense, went on to reassure the nation that Iraqi oil revenues would pay all the costs of reconstructing the country.
All these Smart Guys should get full refunds on their college tuition.
Source: The Daily Reckoning
The Second Amendment's Value--Part Two
Recall, please, that the 2A was written with Revolutions in mind--not duck-hunting.
Then read Headless' quick synopsis of Democrat energy "solutions," which begins thus:
I seriously believe that Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have entered into an energy suicide pact for America.
In (even more) short: no nukes, no coal, no petroleum.
Buy more ammo. It may come in useful soon.
Then read Headless' quick synopsis of Democrat energy "solutions," which begins thus:
I seriously believe that Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have entered into an energy suicide pact for America.
In (even more) short: no nukes, no coal, no petroleum.
Buy more ammo. It may come in useful soon.
Gummint: Incompetent and Stupid, Too
Wiggy points out Example # 2 of Gummint's inimitable stupidity.
The state and counties are supposed to require applicants to verify that they were uninsured for 12 months, however, nothing in their marketing of the plan informs potential enrollees of that requirement, and more egregious, is that this information isn’t even asked on the Badger care application form.. How can they enforce the requirement if they don't even ask applicants the question? For the insurers that have to process these applications, it doesn't appear they are able to determine if prior coverage existed. Is the State asking this question verbally? How can they possible verify that these 70,000 enrollees were uninsured for 12 months?
Most of us are already well-acquainted with Example # 1 of Gummint's imimitable stupidity.
Last week, Gov. Jim Doyle announced that seven Wisconsin counties, including Milwaukee, had become eligible for disaster FoodShare benefits, a federally funded program...Federal rules do not require applicants to provide proof of either flood damage or income, according to state Department of Health and Family Services Secretary Karen Timberlake.
"Inimitable" is, of course, the wrong word. Obviously, the Gummints imitate each other.
"Un-frickin-believable" might be a better adjective.
The state and counties are supposed to require applicants to verify that they were uninsured for 12 months, however, nothing in their marketing of the plan informs potential enrollees of that requirement, and more egregious, is that this information isn’t even asked on the Badger care application form.. How can they enforce the requirement if they don't even ask applicants the question? For the insurers that have to process these applications, it doesn't appear they are able to determine if prior coverage existed. Is the State asking this question verbally? How can they possible verify that these 70,000 enrollees were uninsured for 12 months?
Most of us are already well-acquainted with Example # 1 of Gummint's imimitable stupidity.
Last week, Gov. Jim Doyle announced that seven Wisconsin counties, including Milwaukee, had become eligible for disaster FoodShare benefits, a federally funded program...Federal rules do not require applicants to provide proof of either flood damage or income, according to state Department of Health and Family Services Secretary Karen Timberlake.
"Inimitable" is, of course, the wrong word. Obviously, the Gummints imitate each other.
"Un-frickin-believable" might be a better adjective.
The Common Sense of LawDog
LawDog is, perhaps, the best humorist since Mark Twain--or Will Rogers, who would be a closer match.
Perhaps that's because he also has a lot of Common Sense.
ICE [In Case of Emergency] numbers are great -- if you leave your phone unlocked.
If you leave your phone unlocked so as to allow access by strangers in the event of an emergency, all of your personal information is accessible to any critters with sticky fingers and a loose interpretation of property rights.
Personally, I find the best idea is to grab a blank business card, write the name and number of your emergency contact on it, laminate it, and put it in your wallet or purse behind your drivers license -- or just put it in a pocket. Those are the first places emergency types look for ID anyway.As always, your mileage may vary.
Of course, if you are disabled enough that you can't lock your phone-keyboard, ...
Perhaps that's because he also has a lot of Common Sense.
ICE [In Case of Emergency] numbers are great -- if you leave your phone unlocked.
If you leave your phone unlocked so as to allow access by strangers in the event of an emergency, all of your personal information is accessible to any critters with sticky fingers and a loose interpretation of property rights.
Personally, I find the best idea is to grab a blank business card, write the name and number of your emergency contact on it, laminate it, and put it in your wallet or purse behind your drivers license -- or just put it in a pocket. Those are the first places emergency types look for ID anyway.As always, your mileage may vary.
Of course, if you are disabled enough that you can't lock your phone-keyboard, ...
Why People Don't Like Lawyers
While debating "Jessica's Law" in Massachusetts, a lawyer-legislator (and Democrat) remarked that he'd:
“rip apart” 6-year-old victims on the witness stand and “make sure the rest of their life is ruined.”
In a fiery soliloquy on the House floor, Fagan said he’d grill victims so that, “when they’re 8 years old they throw up; when they’re 12 years old, they won’t sleep; when they’re 19 years old, they’ll have nightmares and they’ll never have a relationship with anybody.”
Nice of him to tell us about lawyering techniques, no?
“rip apart” 6-year-old victims on the witness stand and “make sure the rest of their life is ruined.”
In a fiery soliloquy on the House floor, Fagan said he’d grill victims so that, “when they’re 8 years old they throw up; when they’re 12 years old, they won’t sleep; when they’re 19 years old, they’ll have nightmares and they’ll never have a relationship with anybody.”
Nice of him to tell us about lawyering techniques, no?
Moderate Pubbie Bites the Dust
Chris Cannon (R-Utah) lost his primary to an actual Conservative.
A groundbreaking grassroots organization built by challenger Jason Chaffetz combined Tuesday with a growing storm of Republican discontent to sweep six-term Congressman Chris Cannon out of office.
Chaffetz handily defeated Cannon, earning 60 percent of the vote to land the Republican nomination for Utah's 3rd District seat in Congress, a seat held by Cannon since 1996.
"I got a nice call from Congressman Cannon wishing us all the best. That was a sweet call to take," Chaffetz said after 200 supporters greeted him at 11 p.m. with chants of "Jason, Jason, Jason."
Unhappy Republican voters stayed home Tuesday, and those who did vote expressed their frustration with $4 gas and other problems. Cannon termed it a revolution, a sign that the anger that swept Democrats to power in Congress had lapped up on Utah's borders
We have to get serious about $4 gasoline, fiscal discipline and the illegal immigration problem in America," [Chaffetz] said.
Cannon turned into a Demican about 1 year after taking office and has been a disappointment ever since.
Don't let the door hit you in the ass, Chris.
A groundbreaking grassroots organization built by challenger Jason Chaffetz combined Tuesday with a growing storm of Republican discontent to sweep six-term Congressman Chris Cannon out of office.
Chaffetz handily defeated Cannon, earning 60 percent of the vote to land the Republican nomination for Utah's 3rd District seat in Congress, a seat held by Cannon since 1996.
"I got a nice call from Congressman Cannon wishing us all the best. That was a sweet call to take," Chaffetz said after 200 supporters greeted him at 11 p.m. with chants of "Jason, Jason, Jason."
Unhappy Republican voters stayed home Tuesday, and those who did vote expressed their frustration with $4 gas and other problems. Cannon termed it a revolution, a sign that the anger that swept Democrats to power in Congress had lapped up on Utah's borders
We have to get serious about $4 gasoline, fiscal discipline and the illegal immigration problem in America," [Chaffetz] said.
Cannon turned into a Demican about 1 year after taking office and has been a disappointment ever since.
Don't let the door hit you in the ass, Chris.
"Im Here from the Government to Help You"
Here's the Obama version of parenthood in the USA.
Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, has proposed what he calls his "Zero to Five" plan. It is a collection of programs aimed at getting the government involved in the raising of your children from the moment they are born.
"The first part of my plan focuses on providing quality affordable early childhood education to every child in America," Obama said in a November speech. "As president, I will launch a Children's First Agenda that provides care, learning and support to families with children ages zero to five."
Sure hope you have the chance to say hello to your baby before the Gummint workers haul him or her out the door...
Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, has proposed what he calls his "Zero to Five" plan. It is a collection of programs aimed at getting the government involved in the raising of your children from the moment they are born.
"The first part of my plan focuses on providing quality affordable early childhood education to every child in America," Obama said in a November speech. "As president, I will launch a Children's First Agenda that provides care, learning and support to families with children ages zero to five."
Sure hope you have the chance to say hello to your baby before the Gummint workers haul him or her out the door...
The Cost of Non-Family Families
Good intentions, maybe a solution--but the premise is inaccurate.
The home environments of some youths make getting to college nearly impossible, a group called the Wisconsin Coalition for a Public Boarding School said Tuesday
The coalition of philanthropists, educators, politicians and business leaders announced its intention to raise more than $30 million in private funds to open a Milwaukee school for at-risk students in three years. The group also plans to persuade legislators to allocate state funding for the college-prep program...
That State taxpayer contribution would be $10 million or so. Cost will be about $30K/student, roughly 300% of the current MPS spending level. Reason for that cost?
This is a BOARDING SCHOOL.
The root-cause premise is wrong:
“What we have in our community right now is a crisis in education,” said Cory Nettles, former state secretary of commerce and a member of the coalition.
Mr. Nettles: you have a crisis in FAMILIES--or more accurately, in NON-families--which causes a "crisis in education."
As Mr. Harris is wont to say: "It's the Culture, Stupid!!"
A Milwaukee school would provide wraparound services such as intensive tutoring, lessons in conflict resolution and communication skills to young people who struggle in their current school placements. The combination has worked in Washington: 97% of that SEED school’s graduates have gone on to four-year colleges, according to the group’s literature.
The Milwaukee Boarding School Foundation was founded by local philanthropist Marty Stein prior to his death in 2006. Dan Bader, president of the Helen Bader Foundation, is now vice president of that group’s board.
“Marty saw a gap for those kids and those families who needed a really intensive experience in the form of an urban boarding school,” Bader said.
The coalition’s next steps will be to rally support among state lawmakers and to help raise money
Good intentions. Good people.
The home environments of some youths make getting to college nearly impossible, a group called the Wisconsin Coalition for a Public Boarding School said Tuesday
The coalition of philanthropists, educators, politicians and business leaders announced its intention to raise more than $30 million in private funds to open a Milwaukee school for at-risk students in three years. The group also plans to persuade legislators to allocate state funding for the college-prep program...
That State taxpayer contribution would be $10 million or so. Cost will be about $30K/student, roughly 300% of the current MPS spending level. Reason for that cost?
This is a BOARDING SCHOOL.
The root-cause premise is wrong:
“What we have in our community right now is a crisis in education,” said Cory Nettles, former state secretary of commerce and a member of the coalition.
Mr. Nettles: you have a crisis in FAMILIES--or more accurately, in NON-families--which causes a "crisis in education."
As Mr. Harris is wont to say: "It's the Culture, Stupid!!"
A Milwaukee school would provide wraparound services such as intensive tutoring, lessons in conflict resolution and communication skills to young people who struggle in their current school placements. The combination has worked in Washington: 97% of that SEED school’s graduates have gone on to four-year colleges, according to the group’s literature.
The Milwaukee Boarding School Foundation was founded by local philanthropist Marty Stein prior to his death in 2006. Dan Bader, president of the Helen Bader Foundation, is now vice president of that group’s board.
“Marty saw a gap for those kids and those families who needed a really intensive experience in the form of an urban boarding school,” Bader said.
The coalition’s next steps will be to rally support among state lawmakers and to help raise money
Good intentions. Good people.
More Taxes!! Just What Wisconsin Needs
Phil Evenson, who is about to retire, thinks SE Wisconsin drivers will be getting a free ride.
Actually, what Evenson demonstrates is the Party-In-Government (PIG) mentality--even though he is not formally a part of "government."
Gasoline tax revenue is declining, and the state needs to consider charging motorists a toll to drive in faster, less congested lanes as a way to raise money for much-needed highway improvements, the director of the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission said Tuesday.
“What’s wrong with a premium charge for a premium ride?” Phil Evenson said during a forum on transportation funding...
As the use of alternate-fuel and fuel-efficient vehicles increases, Evenson said, the amount of revenue the state collects in gasoline taxes will decline.
The gas tax is a major source of the funding the state designates for highway projects.
Yes--IF it's not being stolen by the Governor and Leggies to fund other failing State programs, like education, for example.
The Highway Lobby was present, and had something to add.
A wide gap already exists between the cost of state highway projects and the amount of money available to pay for them, said Pat Goss, executive director of the Wisconsin Transportation Builders Association...
The Wisconsin interstate system already is crumbling in many places and further deterioration would hinder the state’s economic growth and ill-serve state residents, Goss said
The Usual Lie: that only more roads (and more road-maintenance) will save the State from economic doom.
Gee. PRChina's road-system must REALLY be good, no? Same with India, no?
Evenson said the state needs an entirely new system for paying for highway construction, one that should include so-called “road pricing,” charging tolls for express lanes.
“The only real question is do we have the will in Wisconsin to do it,” said Evenson, who is set to retire at the end of the year
What we need around here are some PRO-Jec-Tions!!:
A study done by the [Reason] foundation predicts that motorists in the Milwaukee metro area will experience severe congestion on the highways by 2030 if nothing is done to increase highway capacity and efficiency, Staley said. [Staley is the Director of Urban/Land Use Policy for the Reason Foundation.]
Of course, "severe congestion" implies that there will be increasing economic activity--which is not likely if taxes and fees continue to rise to accomodate the PIG-spending schemes.
That's simply not reasonable, Mr. Staley.
Actually, what Evenson demonstrates is the Party-In-Government (PIG) mentality--even though he is not formally a part of "government."
Gasoline tax revenue is declining, and the state needs to consider charging motorists a toll to drive in faster, less congested lanes as a way to raise money for much-needed highway improvements, the director of the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission said Tuesday.
“What’s wrong with a premium charge for a premium ride?” Phil Evenson said during a forum on transportation funding...
As the use of alternate-fuel and fuel-efficient vehicles increases, Evenson said, the amount of revenue the state collects in gasoline taxes will decline.
The gas tax is a major source of the funding the state designates for highway projects.
Yes--IF it's not being stolen by the Governor and Leggies to fund other failing State programs, like education, for example.
The Highway Lobby was present, and had something to add.
A wide gap already exists between the cost of state highway projects and the amount of money available to pay for them, said Pat Goss, executive director of the Wisconsin Transportation Builders Association...
The Wisconsin interstate system already is crumbling in many places and further deterioration would hinder the state’s economic growth and ill-serve state residents, Goss said
The Usual Lie: that only more roads (and more road-maintenance) will save the State from economic doom.
Gee. PRChina's road-system must REALLY be good, no? Same with India, no?
Evenson said the state needs an entirely new system for paying for highway construction, one that should include so-called “road pricing,” charging tolls for express lanes.
“The only real question is do we have the will in Wisconsin to do it,” said Evenson, who is set to retire at the end of the year
What we need around here are some PRO-Jec-Tions!!:
A study done by the [Reason] foundation predicts that motorists in the Milwaukee metro area will experience severe congestion on the highways by 2030 if nothing is done to increase highway capacity and efficiency, Staley said. [Staley is the Director of Urban/Land Use Policy for the Reason Foundation.]
Of course, "severe congestion" implies that there will be increasing economic activity--which is not likely if taxes and fees continue to rise to accomodate the PIG-spending schemes.
That's simply not reasonable, Mr. Staley.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
The Reformers
This is good.
Boston’s colorful Mayor, James M. Curley, held a similar view: “Reform administrations suffer from a diarrhea of promises and a constipation of performance.”
Yup.
HT: The Catholic Thing
Boston’s colorful Mayor, James M. Curley, held a similar view: “Reform administrations suffer from a diarrhea of promises and a constipation of performance.”
Yup.
HT: The Catholic Thing
Personality-Adjusted Prayers
For those of you who've been through the Personnel Department's Shrink-O-Grams, and who pray, here are some suggestions through the Meyers-Briggs prism.
ISTJ: Lord, help me to relax about insignificant details beginning tomorrow at 11:41:23 a.m. E.S.T.
ISTP: God, help me to consider people’s feelings, even if most of them ARE hypersensitive.
ESTP: God, help me to take responsibility for my own actions, even though they’re usually NOT my fault.
ESTJ: God, help me to not try to RUN everything. But, if You need some help, just ask.
ISFJ: Lord, help me to be more laid back and help me to do it EXACTLY right.
ISFP: Lord, help me to stand up for my rights (if you don’t mind my asking).
ESFP: God, help me to take things more seriously, especially parties and dancing.
ESFJ: God, give me patience, and I mean right NOW.
INFJ: Lord, help me not to be a perfectionist. (Did I spell that correctly?)
INFP: God, help me to finish everything I sta
ENFP: God, help me to keep my mind on one th - Look a bird! - at a time.
ENFJ: God, help me to do only what I can and trust you for the rest. Do you mind putting that in writing?
INTJ: Lord, keep me open to other’s ideas, *wrong* though they may be.
INTP: Lord, help me to be less independent, but let me do it my way.
ENTP: Lord, help me follow established procedures today. On second thought, I’ll settle for a few minutes.
ENTJ: Lord, help me slow downandnotrushthroughwhatIdo.
HT: Happy Catholic
ISTJ: Lord, help me to relax about insignificant details beginning tomorrow at 11:41:23 a.m. E.S.T.
ISTP: God, help me to consider people’s feelings, even if most of them ARE hypersensitive.
ESTP: God, help me to take responsibility for my own actions, even though they’re usually NOT my fault.
ESTJ: God, help me to not try to RUN everything. But, if You need some help, just ask.
ISFJ: Lord, help me to be more laid back and help me to do it EXACTLY right.
ISFP: Lord, help me to stand up for my rights (if you don’t mind my asking).
ESFP: God, help me to take things more seriously, especially parties and dancing.
ESFJ: God, give me patience, and I mean right NOW.
INFJ: Lord, help me not to be a perfectionist. (Did I spell that correctly?)
INFP: God, help me to finish everything I sta
ENFP: God, help me to keep my mind on one th - Look a bird! - at a time.
ENFJ: God, help me to do only what I can and trust you for the rest. Do you mind putting that in writing?
INTJ: Lord, keep me open to other’s ideas, *wrong* though they may be.
INTP: Lord, help me to be less independent, but let me do it my way.
ENTP: Lord, help me follow established procedures today. On second thought, I’ll settle for a few minutes.
ENTJ: Lord, help me slow downandnotrushthroughwhatIdo.
HT: Happy Catholic
For Phelony
Ms. Jones has been discussing men a bit.
Perhaps she should know this.
"...two studies have confirmed it: bad boys get the most girls. The finding may help explain why a nasty suite of antisocial personality traits known as the 'dark triad' persists in the human population, despite their potentially grave cultural costs...
"The traits are the self-obsession of narcissism; the impulsive, thrill-seeking and callous behavior of psychopaths; and the deceitful and exploitative nature of Machiavellianism...
"...being just slightly evil could have an upside: a prolific sex life, says Peter Jonason at New Mexico State University in Las Cruces. 'We have some evidence that the three traits are really the same thing and may represent a successful evolutionary strategy.
Two out of three doesn't make it.
HT: WWWTW
Perhaps she should know this.
"...two studies have confirmed it: bad boys get the most girls. The finding may help explain why a nasty suite of antisocial personality traits known as the 'dark triad' persists in the human population, despite their potentially grave cultural costs...
"The traits are the self-obsession of narcissism; the impulsive, thrill-seeking and callous behavior of psychopaths; and the deceitful and exploitative nature of Machiavellianism...
"...being just slightly evil could have an upside: a prolific sex life, says Peter Jonason at New Mexico State University in Las Cruces. 'We have some evidence that the three traits are really the same thing and may represent a successful evolutionary strategy.
Two out of three doesn't make it.
HT: WWWTW
What Was Churchill Thinking?
Snippet:
Recent scholarship by German historian Gerd Überschär and the British writer Brian Martin suggest that Churchill had a hand not only in blackening the German resistance, which he did in a speech before Parliament on August 2, 1944, but also in contributing to the deaths of resistance leaders.
The success of an anti-Nazi coup would have damaged Churchill’s war aims, which included, beside the utter devastation of a defeated Germany, cashing in on the good will of Soviet Russia. Churchill went so far in his efforts to keep anti-Nazi German patriots, including moderate leftist like Julius Leber, from prevailing against Hitler that he leaked information about their identities and whereabouts to the Gestapo, with the help of the BBC and the Chief of Political Warfare John W. Wheeler-Bennett.
Apparently, Lord Winnie was trying to make up for his moronic command decisions in Turkey during WWI, or something.
Fits right in with his firebombing of Dresden, though.
Recent scholarship by German historian Gerd Überschär and the British writer Brian Martin suggest that Churchill had a hand not only in blackening the German resistance, which he did in a speech before Parliament on August 2, 1944, but also in contributing to the deaths of resistance leaders.
The success of an anti-Nazi coup would have damaged Churchill’s war aims, which included, beside the utter devastation of a defeated Germany, cashing in on the good will of Soviet Russia. Churchill went so far in his efforts to keep anti-Nazi German patriots, including moderate leftist like Julius Leber, from prevailing against Hitler that he leaked information about their identities and whereabouts to the Gestapo, with the help of the BBC and the Chief of Political Warfare John W. Wheeler-Bennett.
Apparently, Lord Winnie was trying to make up for his moronic command decisions in Turkey during WWI, or something.
Fits right in with his firebombing of Dresden, though.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Actual History (!!) on the Eucharist
Unlike the FabricatedFollies which the LiturgyWonks foisted on unsuspecting Catholics during the 1970's, the historical facts support traditional practices (surprise!!)
A couple of new examples:
[An] article by Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Karaganda, Kazakhstan, originally printed in L'Osservatore Romano, examines the historical record of Catholic practice, concluding that the early Church quickly developed the practice in which lay people Communion on the tongue while kneeling....
Kneeling to receive Communion was also a pattern established early in Church history, Bishop Schneider reports
Over the last several years, other FabricatedFollies had been exploded, such as the "ordained"-Deaconess Folly, and the "homosexual Marriage" Folly.
One might expect that before another 10 years passes, it will be determined that the Revolutionaries simply lied, wholesale, about everything.
Want a few more? Here's a portion of an essay by Fr. Stravinskas which should be enlightening:
One of the first myths foisted on the laity is that Vatican II taught that Christ is as present in the liturgical assembly as he is in the eucharistic species. Here’s what the Council Fathers really said:
"To accomplish so great a work, Christ is always present in his Church, especially in her liturgical celebrations. He is present in the sacrifice of the Mass, not only in the person of his minister, ‘the same now offering, through the ministry of priests, who formerly offered himself on the cross,’ but especially under the eucharistic species" (SC 7)
See anything about "the assembly" in there? I didn't think so.
And, of course, we all know that the reforms of Vatican II did away with the Latin Mass. Strangely enough, nobody informed the bishops: "The use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites" (36). And some priests will be amazed to learn that "in accordance with the centuries-old tradition of the Latin rite, the Latin language is to be retained by clerics in the divine office" (101).
From Avery Cardinal Dulles in 2003:
Vatican II is frequently praised or blamed for having authorized the translation of the Latin liturgy into the vernacular. But the matter is not so simple. In Sacrosactum Concilium, its “Constitution on the Liturgy” (1963), the council declared: “The use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rite, except where a particular law might indicate otherwise” (SC, No 36, Paragraph 1).
The following grafs from SC allow for somewhat limited translations to the vulgar--that's all. No wholesale dump of Latin is specified, nor authorized, by Vatican II.
HT: Leonardi
A couple of new examples:
[An] article by Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Karaganda, Kazakhstan, originally printed in L'Osservatore Romano, examines the historical record of Catholic practice, concluding that the early Church quickly developed the practice in which lay people Communion on the tongue while kneeling....
Kneeling to receive Communion was also a pattern established early in Church history, Bishop Schneider reports
Over the last several years, other FabricatedFollies had been exploded, such as the "ordained"-Deaconess Folly, and the "homosexual Marriage" Folly.
One might expect that before another 10 years passes, it will be determined that the Revolutionaries simply lied, wholesale, about everything.
Want a few more? Here's a portion of an essay by Fr. Stravinskas which should be enlightening:
One of the first myths foisted on the laity is that Vatican II taught that Christ is as present in the liturgical assembly as he is in the eucharistic species. Here’s what the Council Fathers really said:
"To accomplish so great a work, Christ is always present in his Church, especially in her liturgical celebrations. He is present in the sacrifice of the Mass, not only in the person of his minister, ‘the same now offering, through the ministry of priests, who formerly offered himself on the cross,’ but especially under the eucharistic species" (SC 7)
See anything about "the assembly" in there? I didn't think so.
And, of course, we all know that the reforms of Vatican II did away with the Latin Mass. Strangely enough, nobody informed the bishops: "The use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites" (36). And some priests will be amazed to learn that "in accordance with the centuries-old tradition of the Latin rite, the Latin language is to be retained by clerics in the divine office" (101).
From Avery Cardinal Dulles in 2003:
Vatican II is frequently praised or blamed for having authorized the translation of the Latin liturgy into the vernacular. But the matter is not so simple. In Sacrosactum Concilium, its “Constitution on the Liturgy” (1963), the council declared: “The use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rite, except where a particular law might indicate otherwise” (SC, No 36, Paragraph 1).
The following grafs from SC allow for somewhat limited translations to the vulgar--that's all. No wholesale dump of Latin is specified, nor authorized, by Vatican II.
HT: Leonardi
Obama's New Political Director: Type-Casting
HT: RedState
Obama's new political director Patrick Gaspard, while national field director for the group America Coming Together, used felons for GOTV canvassing functions in the 2004 national election. His organization also ended up having to pay three quarters of a million dollars in fines - excuse me: "civil penalties" - to get the FEC off of their back for election finance rules violations. And, very amusingly, up until he got hired he was a registered and current lobbyist for 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East
So?
Senator Barack Obama is consciously and deliberately portraying himself as the outsider, the reformer, the fellow with the message of Hope and Change that We've been Waiting For: take your pick. This is, of course, a lie: he's actually a politico from the Illinois Combine who hires NYC machine street monsters with flexible ethics to run his ground game. Here's the thing: he's allowed to do that. He's allowed to lie to his supporters. He's allowed to be a hypocrite.
Yup.
Obama's new political director Patrick Gaspard, while national field director for the group America Coming Together, used felons for GOTV canvassing functions in the 2004 national election. His organization also ended up having to pay three quarters of a million dollars in fines - excuse me: "civil penalties" - to get the FEC off of their back for election finance rules violations. And, very amusingly, up until he got hired he was a registered and current lobbyist for 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East
So?
Senator Barack Obama is consciously and deliberately portraying himself as the outsider, the reformer, the fellow with the message of Hope and Change that We've been Waiting For: take your pick. This is, of course, a lie: he's actually a politico from the Illinois Combine who hires NYC machine street monsters with flexible ethics to run his ground game. Here's the thing: he's allowed to do that. He's allowed to lie to his supporters. He's allowed to be a hypocrite.
Yup.
Don't Like the Law? Write Your Own Bill!!
Tim Carney is a fellow who likes to demonstrate that the US Government and Big Biz (Hudge and Gudge, for you Chestertonians) are very, very, very tight. It started with Alexander Hamilton, by the way, and continues today.
So this is no surprise, particularly if you've read this blog.
"We call it the 'Bank of America bill on steroids.'" A House staffer told me that, demanding anonymity, but speaking on behalf of aides to GOP members of the House Financial Services Committee.
He was talking about the bill whose Senate version has been brought to the floor this week by Sen. Chris Dodd, D-CN, and Sen. Richard Shelby, R-AL. Dodd-Shelby would let mortgage lenders off the hook for bad loans, shifting the burden ultimately to taxpayers. Dodd has received approximately $70,000 in campaign contributions from Bank of America in the last year-and-a-half.
...Some journalists and Republican lawmakers are asking if Countrywide bought a bailout bill with its VIP loans to Dodd, who is chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. But when asking cui bono? about Dodd's bill, we need to look to Bank of America.
Countrywide's VIP loan to Dodd, which saves the Banking Committee chairman $75,000 over 30 years, smells like a potential quid-pro-quo now that Dodd has pushed a bill that will save the company from itself, but what about Bank of America's behavior?
Bank of America's political action committee (PAC) has donated $20,000 to Dodd since he became chairman of the banking panel 17 months ago. From January 2007 to March 2008, Bank of America employees have donated at least $50,400 to Dodd's campaigns, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. So, while Dodd's sweetheart loan from Countrywide saves him personally $200 per month, his chairmanship earns him politically more than $1,000 per week.
It is good to be Chairman.
It's even better to have lobbyists who write legislation.
So this is no surprise, particularly if you've read this blog.
"We call it the 'Bank of America bill on steroids.'" A House staffer told me that, demanding anonymity, but speaking on behalf of aides to GOP members of the House Financial Services Committee.
He was talking about the bill whose Senate version has been brought to the floor this week by Sen. Chris Dodd, D-CN, and Sen. Richard Shelby, R-AL. Dodd-Shelby would let mortgage lenders off the hook for bad loans, shifting the burden ultimately to taxpayers. Dodd has received approximately $70,000 in campaign contributions from Bank of America in the last year-and-a-half.
...Some journalists and Republican lawmakers are asking if Countrywide bought a bailout bill with its VIP loans to Dodd, who is chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. But when asking cui bono? about Dodd's bill, we need to look to Bank of America.
Countrywide's VIP loan to Dodd, which saves the Banking Committee chairman $75,000 over 30 years, smells like a potential quid-pro-quo now that Dodd has pushed a bill that will save the company from itself, but what about Bank of America's behavior?
Bank of America's political action committee (PAC) has donated $20,000 to Dodd since he became chairman of the banking panel 17 months ago. From January 2007 to March 2008, Bank of America employees have donated at least $50,400 to Dodd's campaigns, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. So, while Dodd's sweetheart loan from Countrywide saves him personally $200 per month, his chairmanship earns him politically more than $1,000 per week.
It is good to be Chairman.
It's even better to have lobbyists who write legislation.
Milwaukee Mass Attendance 25%?
From the Milwaukee JS:
The average of Mass attendance counts on one weekend in October and one weekend in March have fallen from about 212,300 five years ago to about 165,100 for the fall 2007-winter 2008 counts, according to Jerry Topczewski, Dolan’s chief of staff. He stressed that some parishes do not always report. Compare that to the archdiocese’s estimate of at least 680,000 registered parishioners in a 10-county area and an unknown number of unregistered churchgoers.
So, assuming the denominator was constant, five years ago the attendance percentage was just over 31%--now it's just over 24%.
The numbers are shaky--that denominator of 680K includes a number of folks who are registered in Parish X but who have moved out of State; or who are registered but are in nursing homes--or who are registered but have died. (Record-purging is not necessarily a priority.)
BUT: to bring Mass attendance to (say) 50% (by assuming the numerator is correct) means that there are only 330,000 Catholics in the Archdiocese. That's not very likely.
What about Topczewski's "wiggle-room" statement, that "some parishes do not always report"?
Let's say that 20 parishes didn't report. Each of them has 1200 people attending Mass. That's 24K, and (let's be generous), round up the "total" number to 200K weekly attendance.
That makes 29.9%. Not too inspiring, folks.
The average of Mass attendance counts on one weekend in October and one weekend in March have fallen from about 212,300 five years ago to about 165,100 for the fall 2007-winter 2008 counts, according to Jerry Topczewski, Dolan’s chief of staff. He stressed that some parishes do not always report. Compare that to the archdiocese’s estimate of at least 680,000 registered parishioners in a 10-county area and an unknown number of unregistered churchgoers.
So, assuming the denominator was constant, five years ago the attendance percentage was just over 31%--now it's just over 24%.
The numbers are shaky--that denominator of 680K includes a number of folks who are registered in Parish X but who have moved out of State; or who are registered but are in nursing homes--or who are registered but have died. (Record-purging is not necessarily a priority.)
BUT: to bring Mass attendance to (say) 50% (by assuming the numerator is correct) means that there are only 330,000 Catholics in the Archdiocese. That's not very likely.
What about Topczewski's "wiggle-room" statement, that "some parishes do not always report"?
Let's say that 20 parishes didn't report. Each of them has 1200 people attending Mass. That's 24K, and (let's be generous), round up the "total" number to 200K weekly attendance.
That makes 29.9%. Not too inspiring, folks.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
A Story Which You Will Remember
Austin Ruse recounts this. It is a story which has a punchline, for sure.
I once heard the only possible hope for the future of Europe and it came from the mouth of an orthodox Jew. He was responding to the sophisticated and erudite proposal of the elegant Italian statesman Marcello Pera. Pera, who was then president of the Italian Senate and published a book last year with Pope Benedict, spoke at a conference in Vienna sponsored by Cristophe Cardinal Schoenborn.
A non-believer, Pera proposed what Europe needs is a civic religion that is not overtly Christian but that has Christian attributes with which everyone can agree: civility, tolerance, compassion, dialogue. You will recognize these as the attributes par excellence of the modern secularist. Professor Joseph Weiler was asked to respond.
Weiler is an orthodox Jew. He is the Joseph Straus Professor of Law and European Union Jean Monnet Chair at New York University. He used to be the Manly Hudson Professor of Law and European Union Jean Monnet Chair at Harvard University. He is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Weiler is not a Bible thumper of either Old or New Testament. Yet the orthodox Jew Weiler rose that day in Vienna and said: "What Europe needs are more Europeans proclaiming the Lordship of Jesus Christ."
That won't escape your mind for quite some time, folks.
I once heard the only possible hope for the future of Europe and it came from the mouth of an orthodox Jew. He was responding to the sophisticated and erudite proposal of the elegant Italian statesman Marcello Pera. Pera, who was then president of the Italian Senate and published a book last year with Pope Benedict, spoke at a conference in Vienna sponsored by Cristophe Cardinal Schoenborn.
A non-believer, Pera proposed what Europe needs is a civic religion that is not overtly Christian but that has Christian attributes with which everyone can agree: civility, tolerance, compassion, dialogue. You will recognize these as the attributes par excellence of the modern secularist. Professor Joseph Weiler was asked to respond.
Weiler is an orthodox Jew. He is the Joseph Straus Professor of Law and European Union Jean Monnet Chair at New York University. He used to be the Manly Hudson Professor of Law and European Union Jean Monnet Chair at Harvard University. He is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Weiler is not a Bible thumper of either Old or New Testament. Yet the orthodox Jew Weiler rose that day in Vienna and said: "What Europe needs are more Europeans proclaiming the Lordship of Jesus Christ."
That won't escape your mind for quite some time, folks.
Liturgical Translations
What with Bp. Traut-person objecting to the use of "ineffable" (oh, the humanity!) because after all, Catholics can't understand words with more than 2 syllables or something...
Along comes Bp. Seratelli of New Jersey, to set the record straight.
In Act III, Scene II of The Tragedy of Hamlet, the young prince gives this advice: “Suit the action to the word, the word to the action.”
...In his popular rhetorical guide, De duplici copia verborum ac rerum, Erasmus, the 16th century Dutch humanist and theologian, showed students 150 different styles they could use when phrasing the Latin sentence, Tuae literae me magnopere delectarunt (Your letter has delighted me very much). Clearly, no single translation of any sentence or work will ever completely satisfy everyone. Even the best of all possible translations of the new Missal will have its critics.
But there is something more at stake than pleasing individual tastes and preferences in the new liturgical translations. The new translations aim at a “language which is easily understandable, yet which at the same time preserves … dignity, beauty, and doctrinal precision” (Liturgiam Authenticam, 25). The new translations now being prepared are a marked improvement over the translations with which we have become familiar. They are densely theological. They respect the rich vocabulary of the Roman Rite. They carefully avoid the overuse of certain phrases and words.
...Liturgical language should border on the poetic. Prose bumps along the ground. Poetry soars to the heavens. And our Liturgy is already a sharing of the Liturgy in heaven.
...There is more to the Liturgy than the human language of any age or any one country. In the new translations of the Roman Missal, a conscious effort is being made to suit the human word to the divine action that the Liturgy truly is. As Pope Benedict XVI has said, the “central actio of the Mass is fundamentally neither that of the priest as such nor of the laity as such, but of Christ the High Priest: This action of God, which takes place through human speech, is the real "action" for which all creation is in expectation… This is what is new and distinctive about the Christian liturgy: God himself acts and does what is essential”
There's more at the link.
The Furies will screech, no doubt. Let 'em.
One other benefit of an elevation in the language: children will learn more and better English. In not a few cases, I suspect that they will become more literate than some of the Bishops.
Along comes Bp. Seratelli of New Jersey, to set the record straight.
In Act III, Scene II of The Tragedy of Hamlet, the young prince gives this advice: “Suit the action to the word, the word to the action.”
...In his popular rhetorical guide, De duplici copia verborum ac rerum, Erasmus, the 16th century Dutch humanist and theologian, showed students 150 different styles they could use when phrasing the Latin sentence, Tuae literae me magnopere delectarunt (Your letter has delighted me very much). Clearly, no single translation of any sentence or work will ever completely satisfy everyone. Even the best of all possible translations of the new Missal will have its critics.
But there is something more at stake than pleasing individual tastes and preferences in the new liturgical translations. The new translations aim at a “language which is easily understandable, yet which at the same time preserves … dignity, beauty, and doctrinal precision” (Liturgiam Authenticam, 25). The new translations now being prepared are a marked improvement over the translations with which we have become familiar. They are densely theological. They respect the rich vocabulary of the Roman Rite. They carefully avoid the overuse of certain phrases and words.
...Liturgical language should border on the poetic. Prose bumps along the ground. Poetry soars to the heavens. And our Liturgy is already a sharing of the Liturgy in heaven.
...There is more to the Liturgy than the human language of any age or any one country. In the new translations of the Roman Missal, a conscious effort is being made to suit the human word to the divine action that the Liturgy truly is. As Pope Benedict XVI has said, the “central actio of the Mass is fundamentally neither that of the priest as such nor of the laity as such, but of Christ the High Priest: This action of God, which takes place through human speech, is the real "action" for which all creation is in expectation… This is what is new and distinctive about the Christian liturgy: God himself acts and does what is essential”
There's more at the link.
The Furies will screech, no doubt. Let 'em.
One other benefit of an elevation in the language: children will learn more and better English. In not a few cases, I suspect that they will become more literate than some of the Bishops.
Patron Priest of Pellet-Gun Poppers?
Tom Roeser advises that there was a Benedictine priest at St John's College/Abbey who spent his evenings using a pellet gun to eradicate vermin from the Abbey's gardens.
...at the age of 82, no less!
...at the age of 82, no less!
Gay "Marriage:" Decision, Referendum, Litigation
You have to admit that chutzpah is un-bounded in some people.
Gay activists asked California's highest court Friday to keep off the November ballot a citizens' initiative that would again ban gay marriage.
Lawyers for Equality California filed a petition arguing that the proposed amendment to the California Constitution should be invalidated because its impact was not made clear to the millions of voters who signed petitions to qualify the measure before the state Supreme Court legalized same-sex unions.
"This court has recognized that gay and lesbian couples have a fundamental right to marry and, as of June 16, such couples have been getting married across the state," the petition states.
The petition also claims the so-called California Marriage Protection Act should be disqualified because it would revise, rather than amend, the state Constitution by altering its fundamental guarantee of equality for all - in essence writing a law the state high court has already found unconstitutional into the constitution.
"If enacted, it would alter the underlying principles on which the California Constitution is based and make far-reaching changes in the nature of our basic government plan, by severely compromising the core constitutional principle of equal citizenship (and) ... by destroying the courts' quintessential power and role of protecting minorities," it states.
The petition names Secretary of State Debra Bowen and the measure's sponsors, a coalition of religious and social conservative groups called ProtectMarriage.com, as defendants.
On the other hand, the REAL meaning of chutzpah would be exposed if SCOCA determined that this petition is sound and blocked the petition from the voters.
Wanna bet on the mind of that Court?
HT: The Hatted One
Gay activists asked California's highest court Friday to keep off the November ballot a citizens' initiative that would again ban gay marriage.
Lawyers for Equality California filed a petition arguing that the proposed amendment to the California Constitution should be invalidated because its impact was not made clear to the millions of voters who signed petitions to qualify the measure before the state Supreme Court legalized same-sex unions.
"This court has recognized that gay and lesbian couples have a fundamental right to marry and, as of June 16, such couples have been getting married across the state," the petition states.
The petition also claims the so-called California Marriage Protection Act should be disqualified because it would revise, rather than amend, the state Constitution by altering its fundamental guarantee of equality for all - in essence writing a law the state high court has already found unconstitutional into the constitution.
"If enacted, it would alter the underlying principles on which the California Constitution is based and make far-reaching changes in the nature of our basic government plan, by severely compromising the core constitutional principle of equal citizenship (and) ... by destroying the courts' quintessential power and role of protecting minorities," it states.
The petition names Secretary of State Debra Bowen and the measure's sponsors, a coalition of religious and social conservative groups called ProtectMarriage.com, as defendants.
On the other hand, the REAL meaning of chutzpah would be exposed if SCOCA determined that this petition is sound and blocked the petition from the voters.
Wanna bet on the mind of that Court?
HT: The Hatted One
About that Second Confiteor
The second Confiteor is, perhaps, the paradigm metaphor for 'tempest in a teapot.' A discussion on this topic went well over 200 combox responses when Fr. Z brought it up...and perhaps contributed to the early demise of a server or two.
Briefly, the Extraordinary Form of the Mass (Old Rite) has undergone changes since the Council of Trent. One change was the elimination of the little absolution before Communion, which consisted of a Confiteor, Miserere, and Absolutio said by the priest and altar boys.
I know very well that it was eliminated, because I was an altar boy at the time it happened.
But as it turns out, that's the case only because I was an altar boy in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee.
In a pleasant conversation with a Midwestern pastor whose parish uses both forms of the Liturgy, I discovered that he, too, uses the second Confiteor. I was a bit surprised and told him so. He advised me that in HIS Archdiocese, it was retained--and laughed a bit, remarking that only in Milwaukee, St. Louis, and St. Paul (MN) were the Roman regulations actually followed to a "T," which is why the disparity exists.
Therefore, some may legitimately claim that their 'tradition' is to use the second Confiteor, even though their 'tradition' is erroneous.
The good Father also mentioned that the SSPX uses it regularly, and there was some desire to accomodate SSPX attendees should they wish to regularize their church membership.
For some of us, 40 years of battling "adjustments" and "slight deviations" from regulations is quite enough. One wishes that the battle did not have to continue.......
Briefly, the Extraordinary Form of the Mass (Old Rite) has undergone changes since the Council of Trent. One change was the elimination of the little absolution before Communion, which consisted of a Confiteor, Miserere, and Absolutio said by the priest and altar boys.
I know very well that it was eliminated, because I was an altar boy at the time it happened.
But as it turns out, that's the case only because I was an altar boy in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee.
In a pleasant conversation with a Midwestern pastor whose parish uses both forms of the Liturgy, I discovered that he, too, uses the second Confiteor. I was a bit surprised and told him so. He advised me that in HIS Archdiocese, it was retained--and laughed a bit, remarking that only in Milwaukee, St. Louis, and St. Paul (MN) were the Roman regulations actually followed to a "T," which is why the disparity exists.
Therefore, some may legitimately claim that their 'tradition' is to use the second Confiteor, even though their 'tradition' is erroneous.
The good Father also mentioned that the SSPX uses it regularly, and there was some desire to accomodate SSPX attendees should they wish to regularize their church membership.
For some of us, 40 years of battling "adjustments" and "slight deviations" from regulations is quite enough. One wishes that the battle did not have to continue.......
Dumb Moves: Obama
It occurred to me that Obama's race-injection will hurt him. I wasn't the only one.
The MSM moves fast. Obama plays the race card Friday and by Sunday, the Washington Post has a 1,200-word feature to corroborate Obama's message: Anybody who doesn't support Obama is a neo-Nazi racist.
At some point -- probably Nov. 5 -- Democrats and their media pals are going to figure out what a politically disastrous tactic this is. Ordinary Americans who might be willing to vote for Obama, Crusader for Change, are likely to reject Obama, Victim of Racism.
The worst thing about the victim-of-racism message is the effect it will have in reinforcing the arrogant self-righteousness of liberals, like the blogger who put up a 1920s photo of a Klan rally in a post attacking conservative bloggers. Now that the candidate and the media have told liberals they're waging battle against racist troglodytes, you'll see a level of unhinged viciousness that makes Bush Derangement Syndrome seem like a mild neurosis.
As to "arrogance," the faux-Presidential seal now sported by Obamamamama's podium says it all.
The MSM moves fast. Obama plays the race card Friday and by Sunday, the Washington Post has a 1,200-word feature to corroborate Obama's message: Anybody who doesn't support Obama is a neo-Nazi racist.
At some point -- probably Nov. 5 -- Democrats and their media pals are going to figure out what a politically disastrous tactic this is. Ordinary Americans who might be willing to vote for Obama, Crusader for Change, are likely to reject Obama, Victim of Racism.
The worst thing about the victim-of-racism message is the effect it will have in reinforcing the arrogant self-righteousness of liberals, like the blogger who put up a 1920s photo of a Klan rally in a post attacking conservative bloggers. Now that the candidate and the media have told liberals they're waging battle against racist troglodytes, you'll see a level of unhinged viciousness that makes Bush Derangement Syndrome seem like a mild neurosis.
As to "arrogance," the faux-Presidential seal now sported by Obamamamama's podium says it all.
Victor Davis Hanson: Somewhat Accurate History
It's always fun to watch the ping-pong ball.
Victor Davis Hanson has taken umbrage at Pat Buchanan’s description of him as “the court historian of the neoconservatives,” and even more umbrage at Buchanan’s book. Unfortunately for Hanson, Buchanan’s description of Hanson is accurate, and Hanson’s review of Buchanan’s book shows all the care and intelligence we have come to expect from one of the biggest cheerleaders for Bush’s disastrous scheme to bring democracy to the Middle East by force of arms.
Well, yah, VDH actually IS a 'court historian', to some extent. I happened to run across a USMC officer (USNA grad)--a friend of the family--who is serving in Iraq. That fellow also questions the ability of the US to impose democracy by force of arms in that particular sandbox.
But VDH is not merely a propagandist. Occasionally he forgets inconvenient facts.
...in stereotypical neocon fashion, Hanson wrote that “if we wish to learn what was going on in Europe in 1938, just look around.” But the neocons do more than think every year is 1938; they also consistently reveal a leftist mindset reminiscent of the Popular Front, as Hanson did in this column. Hanson compared “the rise of fascism” in Spain to the rise of Hitler, ignoring the fact that Franco fought to save Catholic Spain from Communist butchery, kept Spain neutral in World War II, and was later an American ally in the Cold War, facts appreciated by such earlier National Review writers as Brian Crozier, James Burnham’s successor as NR’s foreign affairs columnist and a Franco biographer and admirer. Even more astonishingly, Hanson blasted the “fantasies” of “Pope Pius,” writing that “it is baffling to consider that such men ever had any influence.” (The great historian does not tell us which Pope Pius he is criticizing, Pius XI, who authored the anti-Nazi encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge and told Belgian pilgrims in 1938 that “it is impossible for a Christian to take part in anti-Semitism,” or Pius XII, who saved tens of thousands of Jews during the Holocaust and so enraged the Nazis there were plans to kidnap him).
Oh, well. Minor stuff, that.
It seems that Hanson also cannot read very well:
...Hanson’s sloppiness spills over into viciousness when Hanson claims that Buchanan in essence “empathize[s] with a psychopath” and charges that “British military weakness is blamed for Auschwitz.” Reading Hanson, one would never guess that Buchanan wrote this: “For what happened to the Jews of Europe, Hitler and his collaborators in the unspeakable crimes bear full moral responsibility. The just punishment for people who participate in mass murder is death, be it in a bunker or on a gallows. The Nazi murderers got what they deserved.” Or this: “For that war one man bears full moral responsibility: Hitler.” Hanson’s review overlooks Buchanan’s endorsement of the Stresa Front against Nazi Germany, his statement that the French should have invaded Germany in 1936 in response to the remilitarization of the Rhineland, and the course of action he says Chamberlain should have taken after Munich: “Tell Britons the truth: Hitler was not to be trusted and he was on the march. Chamberlain could have imposed conscription, stepped up production of aircraft, begun buying munitions from the United States, and waited. Rather than commit Britain to a war she could not win, he could have done what Truman did when another ruthless totaliarian seized an indefensible Prague. Adopt a policy of containment.” What Buchanan criticizes is the British war guarantee to Poland, not British action to contain Nazi aggression. Anyone misled by Hanson into thinking Buchanan “empathizes” with Hitler should consider Buchanan’s description of the Nazi-Soviet Pact: “Hitler won the competition for Stalin’s hand for a reason: They were brothers under the skin, amoral political animals with blood on their hands who would unhesitatingly betray nations or crush peoples to advance state or ideological interests.” Not even Hanson, I trust, would suggest that Buchanan “empathizes” with Hitler’s “brother under the skin,” Iosif Vissarionovich Stalin.
But, you know, Buchanan's book had so many words! Who could have possibly read ALL of them?
Next time you hear about the wonders of VDH, I suggest you take them with a large dose of Morton's finest.
Victor Davis Hanson has taken umbrage at Pat Buchanan’s description of him as “the court historian of the neoconservatives,” and even more umbrage at Buchanan’s book. Unfortunately for Hanson, Buchanan’s description of Hanson is accurate, and Hanson’s review of Buchanan’s book shows all the care and intelligence we have come to expect from one of the biggest cheerleaders for Bush’s disastrous scheme to bring democracy to the Middle East by force of arms.
Well, yah, VDH actually IS a 'court historian', to some extent. I happened to run across a USMC officer (USNA grad)--a friend of the family--who is serving in Iraq. That fellow also questions the ability of the US to impose democracy by force of arms in that particular sandbox.
But VDH is not merely a propagandist. Occasionally he forgets inconvenient facts.
...in stereotypical neocon fashion, Hanson wrote that “if we wish to learn what was going on in Europe in 1938, just look around.” But the neocons do more than think every year is 1938; they also consistently reveal a leftist mindset reminiscent of the Popular Front, as Hanson did in this column. Hanson compared “the rise of fascism” in Spain to the rise of Hitler, ignoring the fact that Franco fought to save Catholic Spain from Communist butchery, kept Spain neutral in World War II, and was later an American ally in the Cold War, facts appreciated by such earlier National Review writers as Brian Crozier, James Burnham’s successor as NR’s foreign affairs columnist and a Franco biographer and admirer. Even more astonishingly, Hanson blasted the “fantasies” of “Pope Pius,” writing that “it is baffling to consider that such men ever had any influence.” (The great historian does not tell us which Pope Pius he is criticizing, Pius XI, who authored the anti-Nazi encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge and told Belgian pilgrims in 1938 that “it is impossible for a Christian to take part in anti-Semitism,” or Pius XII, who saved tens of thousands of Jews during the Holocaust and so enraged the Nazis there were plans to kidnap him).
Oh, well. Minor stuff, that.
It seems that Hanson also cannot read very well:
...Hanson’s sloppiness spills over into viciousness when Hanson claims that Buchanan in essence “empathize[s] with a psychopath” and charges that “British military weakness is blamed for Auschwitz.” Reading Hanson, one would never guess that Buchanan wrote this: “For what happened to the Jews of Europe, Hitler and his collaborators in the unspeakable crimes bear full moral responsibility. The just punishment for people who participate in mass murder is death, be it in a bunker or on a gallows. The Nazi murderers got what they deserved.” Or this: “For that war one man bears full moral responsibility: Hitler.” Hanson’s review overlooks Buchanan’s endorsement of the Stresa Front against Nazi Germany, his statement that the French should have invaded Germany in 1936 in response to the remilitarization of the Rhineland, and the course of action he says Chamberlain should have taken after Munich: “Tell Britons the truth: Hitler was not to be trusted and he was on the march. Chamberlain could have imposed conscription, stepped up production of aircraft, begun buying munitions from the United States, and waited. Rather than commit Britain to a war she could not win, he could have done what Truman did when another ruthless totaliarian seized an indefensible Prague. Adopt a policy of containment.” What Buchanan criticizes is the British war guarantee to Poland, not British action to contain Nazi aggression. Anyone misled by Hanson into thinking Buchanan “empathizes” with Hitler should consider Buchanan’s description of the Nazi-Soviet Pact: “Hitler won the competition for Stalin’s hand for a reason: They were brothers under the skin, amoral political animals with blood on their hands who would unhesitatingly betray nations or crush peoples to advance state or ideological interests.” Not even Hanson, I trust, would suggest that Buchanan “empathizes” with Hitler’s “brother under the skin,” Iosif Vissarionovich Stalin.
But, you know, Buchanan's book had so many words! Who could have possibly read ALL of them?
Next time you hear about the wonders of VDH, I suggest you take them with a large dose of Morton's finest.
Government Work v. Van Hollen
The pieces continue to fall into place.
Investigators mismanaged an inquiry into whether Gov. Jim Doyle's administration improperly influenced the award of a major building contract, said Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen's spokesman.
The Division of Criminal Investigation closed the review into the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee project without Van Hollen's knowledge or approval in October, said spokesman Kevin St. John.
He said the internal case report fails to document what investigators did during the 18-month review, if anything, and why they ultimately decided not to pursue the case.
The case report was approved by Joell Schigur, who was director of the agency's public integrity unit.
While a certain RadioMouth was flogging Van Hollen for his moves at DoJ, I was suspicious that 'Bureaucracy Syndrome' might have been in play.
Looks like that might have been the case.
Investigators mismanaged an inquiry into whether Gov. Jim Doyle's administration improperly influenced the award of a major building contract, said Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen's spokesman.
The Division of Criminal Investigation closed the review into the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee project without Van Hollen's knowledge or approval in October, said spokesman Kevin St. John.
He said the internal case report fails to document what investigators did during the 18-month review, if anything, and why they ultimately decided not to pursue the case.
The case report was approved by Joell Schigur, who was director of the agency's public integrity unit.
While a certain RadioMouth was flogging Van Hollen for his moves at DoJ, I was suspicious that 'Bureaucracy Syndrome' might have been in play.
Looks like that might have been the case.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
McCain: Still Shamnesty All These Years
Not that anyone's surprised.
The Republican candidate for the White House, Senator John McCain, promised that if he wins, a day after he is sworn in as a new president of the United States, he will pressure Congress to enact a law immediately in favor of immigration reform
"This reform will be a priority in my administration because it is a convincing federal responsibility”, added the contender of the Republican Party. “We will undertake immigration reform and on the day after my inauguration, I will ask Congress to reconsider it, although I believe that first we have to secure our borders, set in motion a plan for guest workers that works and to focus on the issue of the undocumented in a humane and compassionate way.”
Remind me again: is McCain running a little low on campaign funds?
The Republican candidate for the White House, Senator John McCain, promised that if he wins, a day after he is sworn in as a new president of the United States, he will pressure Congress to enact a law immediately in favor of immigration reform
"This reform will be a priority in my administration because it is a convincing federal responsibility”, added the contender of the Republican Party. “We will undertake immigration reform and on the day after my inauguration, I will ask Congress to reconsider it, although I believe that first we have to secure our borders, set in motion a plan for guest workers that works and to focus on the issue of the undocumented in a humane and compassionate way.”
Remind me again: is McCain running a little low on campaign funds?
An Era Passes in Church Music
In 1990, the first Colloquium on (Catholic) sacred music was organized by Fr. Robert Skeris. It was held at Christendom College of Virginia, where Fr. Skeris was Chairman of the Theology Department. It was loosely modeled on the Boys' Town conferences of the Church Music Ass'n of America, which provided master-class level seminars on choral conducting and organ performance for church musicians. It was also reminiscent of the Milwaukee Archdiocesan events held bi-enially on the Major Seminary grounds. It is no co-incidence that Fr. Skeris played a key role in each of those. But both Boys' Town and the Milwaukee events were only faint memories by 1975--the result of the Liturgical Revolution of 1965-70.
The event at Christendom was memorable. It was dedicated to the proposition that the Liturgy Document of the Second Vatican Council actually meant what it said about Chant, polyphony, and Latin--not to mention the concepts of sacred time, sacred space, and sacred languages (including music.)
The faculty consisted of Ted Marier and Paul Salamunovich, Fr. Richard Schuler of St Agnes parish in St. Paul, (all Knight Commanders of St. Gregory,) Cal Shenk, and Fr. Skeris. Sixty or so musicians from all around the country signed up with enthusiasm and left the event with far more knowledge than when they came.
The Christendom series was the US' seedbed of the music and liturgy counter-Revolution; it was a rear-guard activity at best, or perhaps a catacombs-type meeting; it would have been conspiratorial except for the knowledge that what was going on there was in real service to the Council's actual writings (not its "spirit.") But make no mistake: all the participants knew that they were a miniscule minority, almost invisible in the US church landscape. Few nurtured the hope that liturgical practice would return to the norm, let alone to a higher plane than (say) the late 1950's. Even the name "Ratzinger" was largely unknown, except to a very few participants.
Now, almost 20 years later, Marier, Shenk, and Schuler are dead; Salamunovich is very ill--and Fr. Skeris presented his last scholarly paper for the CMAA, at the XVIII Colloqium of CMAA, held at Loyola University of Chicago.
What was an underground resistance is now a remarkably blossoming flower, with over 250 attendees (most younger than 40 years of age), all enthusiastically heads-down poring over pages of Gregorian Chant and polyphony (some written in the last couple of years, by the way), and filling the marvelous Stella Maris chapel of Loyola U. with sung Propers, Ordinaries, and litanies in English and Latin.
Since the campus was not closed during the proceedings, campus policemen, area residents, and some students and faculty heard and saw the goings-on. Some did not glance-and-scoot; instead, they stayed, transfixed by the ceremony and the music. One engaged me, asking how an Extraordinary Form Mass could possibly be celebrated on the campus of a Jesuit university; as it turned out, he was an Adler-ite, completely sympathetic. Another observer came into the vestibule almost by accident during Benediction and immediately grabbed a program and fell to her knees; the campus guard stood, uncomfortably; (he knew he really should kneel)--but his eyes and ears never left the ceremony.
What he and the others were seeing and hearing was the splendor of worship, properly speaking; they understood that, if only by respectful attendance and attention, they were participating in something that is 'the foretaste of Heaven.'
The Old Guard has passed with Fr. Skeris' last presentation; the New Guard, their spiritual and intellectual children, are taking over; the evangelization, growing underground for so long, has broken through the surface with cultivation from Benedict XVI, to bear fruit as the Reform of the Reform begins.
Next year in Jerusalem!!
The event at Christendom was memorable. It was dedicated to the proposition that the Liturgy Document of the Second Vatican Council actually meant what it said about Chant, polyphony, and Latin--not to mention the concepts of sacred time, sacred space, and sacred languages (including music.)
The faculty consisted of Ted Marier and Paul Salamunovich, Fr. Richard Schuler of St Agnes parish in St. Paul, (all Knight Commanders of St. Gregory,) Cal Shenk, and Fr. Skeris. Sixty or so musicians from all around the country signed up with enthusiasm and left the event with far more knowledge than when they came.
The Christendom series was the US' seedbed of the music and liturgy counter-Revolution; it was a rear-guard activity at best, or perhaps a catacombs-type meeting; it would have been conspiratorial except for the knowledge that what was going on there was in real service to the Council's actual writings (not its "spirit.") But make no mistake: all the participants knew that they were a miniscule minority, almost invisible in the US church landscape. Few nurtured the hope that liturgical practice would return to the norm, let alone to a higher plane than (say) the late 1950's. Even the name "Ratzinger" was largely unknown, except to a very few participants.
Now, almost 20 years later, Marier, Shenk, and Schuler are dead; Salamunovich is very ill--and Fr. Skeris presented his last scholarly paper for the CMAA, at the XVIII Colloqium of CMAA, held at Loyola University of Chicago.
What was an underground resistance is now a remarkably blossoming flower, with over 250 attendees (most younger than 40 years of age), all enthusiastically heads-down poring over pages of Gregorian Chant and polyphony (some written in the last couple of years, by the way), and filling the marvelous Stella Maris chapel of Loyola U. with sung Propers, Ordinaries, and litanies in English and Latin.
Since the campus was not closed during the proceedings, campus policemen, area residents, and some students and faculty heard and saw the goings-on. Some did not glance-and-scoot; instead, they stayed, transfixed by the ceremony and the music. One engaged me, asking how an Extraordinary Form Mass could possibly be celebrated on the campus of a Jesuit university; as it turned out, he was an Adler-ite, completely sympathetic. Another observer came into the vestibule almost by accident during Benediction and immediately grabbed a program and fell to her knees; the campus guard stood, uncomfortably; (he knew he really should kneel)--but his eyes and ears never left the ceremony.
What he and the others were seeing and hearing was the splendor of worship, properly speaking; they understood that, if only by respectful attendance and attention, they were participating in something that is 'the foretaste of Heaven.'
The Old Guard has passed with Fr. Skeris' last presentation; the New Guard, their spiritual and intellectual children, are taking over; the evangelization, growing underground for so long, has broken through the surface with cultivation from Benedict XVI, to bear fruit as the Reform of the Reform begins.
Next year in Jerusalem!!
Weigel on The Latin Mass
An interesting column in Newsweek from Weigel.
Is Pope Benedict XVI determined to restore the Latin mass that many Roman Catholics thought had been consigned to the dustbin of history? The answer, in short, is both yes and no.
...the young Joseph Ratzinger was deeply influenced, both spiritually and intellectually, by the mid-20th-century movement to reform the Roman Catholic Church's public worship--a movement that helped pave the way for the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). Father Ratzinger was a peritus, a theological expert, at the council, and like many others, he welcomed the council's Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy: here was a ratification of the liturgical reform movement he had long supported and a blueprint for further organic development of the celebration of mass. In the immediate aftermath of Vatican II, however, Ratzinger became convinced that organic development had been jettisoned for revolution, the liturgical Jacobins being a cadre of academics determined to impose their view of a populist liturgy on the entire Catholic Church
The initial movement began in the early 1900's; it was, inter alia, the progenitor of the "Dialogue Mass," used in a few US Dioceses (including Milwaukee) and in parts of Europe. As to the Jacobins: we know who they are...
In the decades between Vatican II and his election as Benedict XVI, Ratzinger became a leader in what became known as "the reform of the reform": a loosely knit international network of laity, bishops, priests and scholars, committed to returning the process of liturgical development in the Catholic Church to what they understood to be the authentic blueprint of Vatican II
(That is to say, the plain meaning of the text of the Constitution on the Liturgy...)
...The overwhelming majority of Catholics throughout the world have welcomed the new form of the mass that became normative in 1970, a mass celebrated entirely in English (or Spanish or French or Polish, or whatever language the congregation speaks). Over time, the silly season in Catholic liturgy that peaked in the 1970s--"clown" masses (with the priest vested as Bozo or somesuch), free-for-all prayers that ignored the prescribed rite, dreadful pop music, inept "liturgical dance," a general lack of decorum--began to recede. A re-sacralization of Catholic worship became evident in many parishes.
(That may be true--but evidence for Weigel's claim is scarce. Such evidence DOES exist; I will post on that a bit later.)
...It was to accelerate that "reform of the reform" that Benedict XVI issued a decree last summer permitting the widespread use of the 1962 Roman rite, known technically as the Missal of John XXIII. Amidst the recent, fevered speculations that Latin days are here again, it's important to note what the Missal of John XXIII is not. It is not the "Tridentine Rite," because it includes modifications of the missal mandated by the Council of Trent in the 16th century; it is not the "mass of Pius V," ...
...the pope's point in making this form of liturgy more widely available is neither nostalgic nor retrogade. Rather, by encouraging the more widespread celebration of this classic form of the always-evolving Roman rite, Benedict XVI intends to create a kind of liturgical magnet, drawing the "reform of the reform" in the direction of greater reverence in the Catholic Church's public worship.
Finally,
Among scholars and parish clergy alike, the more widespread celebration of mass according to the Missal of John XXIII may prove to be the reformist magnet that Benedict XVI wants it to be, encouraging those who are already at work re-sacralizing the liturgy. ...And the net result, over time? Almost certainly not "Latin days are here again" in every Catholic parish but rather a more reverent, more prayerful celebration of mass according to a reformed missal of 1970--and according to what the Second Vatican Council actually prescribed
There are some semi-informed opinions which Weigel voices in the essay. This is not a surprise; Weigel made similarly un-informed comments when in Milwaukee a couple of years ago. But then, Weigel is not a liturgical scholar.
Regardless, the essay's conclusion is correct. B-16 has spun the wheel of the Bark and undertaken a course-correction which will be fruitful for all.
Is Pope Benedict XVI determined to restore the Latin mass that many Roman Catholics thought had been consigned to the dustbin of history? The answer, in short, is both yes and no.
...the young Joseph Ratzinger was deeply influenced, both spiritually and intellectually, by the mid-20th-century movement to reform the Roman Catholic Church's public worship--a movement that helped pave the way for the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). Father Ratzinger was a peritus, a theological expert, at the council, and like many others, he welcomed the council's Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy: here was a ratification of the liturgical reform movement he had long supported and a blueprint for further organic development of the celebration of mass. In the immediate aftermath of Vatican II, however, Ratzinger became convinced that organic development had been jettisoned for revolution, the liturgical Jacobins being a cadre of academics determined to impose their view of a populist liturgy on the entire Catholic Church
The initial movement began in the early 1900's; it was, inter alia, the progenitor of the "Dialogue Mass," used in a few US Dioceses (including Milwaukee) and in parts of Europe. As to the Jacobins: we know who they are...
In the decades between Vatican II and his election as Benedict XVI, Ratzinger became a leader in what became known as "the reform of the reform": a loosely knit international network of laity, bishops, priests and scholars, committed to returning the process of liturgical development in the Catholic Church to what they understood to be the authentic blueprint of Vatican II
(That is to say, the plain meaning of the text of the Constitution on the Liturgy...)
...The overwhelming majority of Catholics throughout the world have welcomed the new form of the mass that became normative in 1970, a mass celebrated entirely in English (or Spanish or French or Polish, or whatever language the congregation speaks). Over time, the silly season in Catholic liturgy that peaked in the 1970s--"clown" masses (with the priest vested as Bozo or somesuch), free-for-all prayers that ignored the prescribed rite, dreadful pop music, inept "liturgical dance," a general lack of decorum--began to recede. A re-sacralization of Catholic worship became evident in many parishes.
(That may be true--but evidence for Weigel's claim is scarce. Such evidence DOES exist; I will post on that a bit later.)
...It was to accelerate that "reform of the reform" that Benedict XVI issued a decree last summer permitting the widespread use of the 1962 Roman rite, known technically as the Missal of John XXIII. Amidst the recent, fevered speculations that Latin days are here again, it's important to note what the Missal of John XXIII is not. It is not the "Tridentine Rite," because it includes modifications of the missal mandated by the Council of Trent in the 16th century; it is not the "mass of Pius V," ...
...the pope's point in making this form of liturgy more widely available is neither nostalgic nor retrogade. Rather, by encouraging the more widespread celebration of this classic form of the always-evolving Roman rite, Benedict XVI intends to create a kind of liturgical magnet, drawing the "reform of the reform" in the direction of greater reverence in the Catholic Church's public worship.
Finally,
Among scholars and parish clergy alike, the more widespread celebration of mass according to the Missal of John XXIII may prove to be the reformist magnet that Benedict XVI wants it to be, encouraging those who are already at work re-sacralizing the liturgy. ...And the net result, over time? Almost certainly not "Latin days are here again" in every Catholic parish but rather a more reverent, more prayerful celebration of mass according to a reformed missal of 1970--and according to what the Second Vatican Council actually prescribed
There are some semi-informed opinions which Weigel voices in the essay. This is not a surprise; Weigel made similarly un-informed comments when in Milwaukee a couple of years ago. But then, Weigel is not a liturgical scholar.
Regardless, the essay's conclusion is correct. B-16 has spun the wheel of the Bark and undertaken a course-correction which will be fruitful for all.
The Argument FOR Clothing-Optional
Sadly, this is no longer a parody.
...the article mentions that the nudity has to be confined to the private property--people can't go to the parking lot without dressing, and so on, because there are laws against public nudity. But why should these laws exist at all? Does it hurt fully-dressed people for naked people to be walking around? If you don't like public nudity, after all, no one's forcing you to participate in it, and if it makes you uncomfortable you don't have to look. Sure, children may be affected, but that's less important than the rights of adults to be self-actualized and to pursue happiness however they define that concept. Some people are just happier without clothes, so shouldn't they have the right to go without them whenever they want?
Isn't it, really, bigoted to insist that clothes are the normative standard for society, and that people who prefer nakedness ought to cover up in public? Plenty of ancient cultures didn't have the same attitude toward clothing that we do now, and wore very little. If we insist that clothes must be worn in public places, aren't we just imposing our morality on people who disagree?
It doesn't harm any dressed people for naked people to be walking down the streets, going to work, going shopping, or doing anything else the rest of us do. There's really no reason at all aside from personal, religious beliefs to insist that everyone wear clothes in public--and it's unconstitutional to impose our religious or moral beliefs on the rest of the public.
In fact, if our only standard for changing laws is that the desired change doesn't immediately or demonstrably hurt anybody else, then there's no reason not to become a clothing-optional society....
But in our current social climate, I can't think of any compelling state interest, divorced from all religious, moral, cultural, or civilizational concerns, that would override the right of nudists to choose their own attire--or lack thereof.
Heh.
...the article mentions that the nudity has to be confined to the private property--people can't go to the parking lot without dressing, and so on, because there are laws against public nudity. But why should these laws exist at all? Does it hurt fully-dressed people for naked people to be walking around? If you don't like public nudity, after all, no one's forcing you to participate in it, and if it makes you uncomfortable you don't have to look. Sure, children may be affected, but that's less important than the rights of adults to be self-actualized and to pursue happiness however they define that concept. Some people are just happier without clothes, so shouldn't they have the right to go without them whenever they want?
Isn't it, really, bigoted to insist that clothes are the normative standard for society, and that people who prefer nakedness ought to cover up in public? Plenty of ancient cultures didn't have the same attitude toward clothing that we do now, and wore very little. If we insist that clothes must be worn in public places, aren't we just imposing our morality on people who disagree?
It doesn't harm any dressed people for naked people to be walking down the streets, going to work, going shopping, or doing anything else the rest of us do. There's really no reason at all aside from personal, religious beliefs to insist that everyone wear clothes in public--and it's unconstitutional to impose our religious or moral beliefs on the rest of the public.
In fact, if our only standard for changing laws is that the desired change doesn't immediately or demonstrably hurt anybody else, then there's no reason not to become a clothing-optional society....
But in our current social climate, I can't think of any compelling state interest, divorced from all religious, moral, cultural, or civilizational concerns, that would override the right of nudists to choose their own attire--or lack thereof.
Heh.
Utilitarianism: Mill and the Reductionists
A brief excerpt for thought:
Jaki confines his attention to unmasking the pretensions of proponents of artificial intelligence. They think only in terms of statistical significance. They have no other basis then statistical analysis to uphold or deny moral norms. But, going beyond Jaki’s analysis, it must be recognized that the philosophical position of these reductionists goes hand-in-glove with utilitarianism, which reduces the rational assessment of human action to a calculus of pleasure
The upshot of this type of moral reasoning is that there can be no standard of moral goodness that transcends comfort and demographic consensus. If a person’s behavior is thought to contribute to his comfort and pleasure then his behavior is acceptable, on the condition that the statistically-verified, consensus opinion of his society is amenable to his behavior
Do not forget that Mill was a leading Utilitarian, especially while contemplating the economic consequences of his work.
HT: CosmosLiturgy
Jaki confines his attention to unmasking the pretensions of proponents of artificial intelligence. They think only in terms of statistical significance. They have no other basis then statistical analysis to uphold or deny moral norms. But, going beyond Jaki’s analysis, it must be recognized that the philosophical position of these reductionists goes hand-in-glove with utilitarianism, which reduces the rational assessment of human action to a calculus of pleasure
The upshot of this type of moral reasoning is that there can be no standard of moral goodness that transcends comfort and demographic consensus. If a person’s behavior is thought to contribute to his comfort and pleasure then his behavior is acceptable, on the condition that the statistically-verified, consensus opinion of his society is amenable to his behavior
Do not forget that Mill was a leading Utilitarian, especially while contemplating the economic consequences of his work.
HT: CosmosLiturgy
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Dodd's $75K "Gift"
Yah, that's about what the "Friend of Angelo" discount was worth to Sen. Dodd.
So for you tax gurus out there:
Is the $75K reportable as a gift?
Or is the interest rate simply a matter between two consenting adults?
So for you tax gurus out there:
Is the $75K reportable as a gift?
Or is the interest rate simply a matter between two consenting adults?
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
The Bradley Foundation's New Director
We are advised that George Will has been elected to the Board of Directors of the Bradley Foundation.
Wonder what Old Man Brady (Brady Label) and other ex-Board members might think of Will, given this withering fisking of his asinine column praising Boumediene from Powerline.
...He [Will] also mocks John McCain for asserting the decision to be one of the Supreme Court's worst. Will disagrees, citing Dred Scott, Plesssy, and Korematsu (the internment case, with respect to which Will refers to "concentration camps"). Will omits Roe v. Wade from the list, but Boumediene is similar in quality to Roe. It is an act of usurpation and an exercise of raw judicial power that conflicts with constitutional tradition and history as well as the Court's own precedent.
Will assures us that that the five justices who joined in the Boumediene decision are not fools or knaves. Roe enlisted seven justices in the Court's majority opinion. The biblical precept that you shall know them by their fruit, however, applies to Supreme Court justices as much as it does ordinary mortals. By that standard, the five-member majority may not be evil or stupid, but it has committed an act of judicial imperialism with incalculable consequences for the conduct of the war in which are engaged.
And now for the cruelest blow:
He hypothesizes that some "clever ignoramus" persusaded McCain that he could make the Supreme Court a campaign issue. A "clever ignoramus" is one step up from a fool or a knave, but why is Will so sure that the putative McCain staffer is less learned than Ruth Bader Ginsburg?
We can always hope that Will's input at Bradley will not include legal issue-advocacy.
Wonder what Old Man Brady (Brady Label) and other ex-Board members might think of Will, given this withering fisking of his asinine column praising Boumediene from Powerline.
...He [Will] also mocks John McCain for asserting the decision to be one of the Supreme Court's worst. Will disagrees, citing Dred Scott, Plesssy, and Korematsu (the internment case, with respect to which Will refers to "concentration camps"). Will omits Roe v. Wade from the list, but Boumediene is similar in quality to Roe. It is an act of usurpation and an exercise of raw judicial power that conflicts with constitutional tradition and history as well as the Court's own precedent.
Will assures us that that the five justices who joined in the Boumediene decision are not fools or knaves. Roe enlisted seven justices in the Court's majority opinion. The biblical precept that you shall know them by their fruit, however, applies to Supreme Court justices as much as it does ordinary mortals. By that standard, the five-member majority may not be evil or stupid, but it has committed an act of judicial imperialism with incalculable consequences for the conduct of the war in which are engaged.
And now for the cruelest blow:
He hypothesizes that some "clever ignoramus" persusaded McCain that he could make the Supreme Court a campaign issue. A "clever ignoramus" is one step up from a fool or a knave, but why is Will so sure that the putative McCain staffer is less learned than Ruth Bader Ginsburg?
We can always hope that Will's input at Bradley will not include legal issue-advocacy.
Informed Comment on Obama's Election Spin
Grim notes that O thinks he can win without Ohio--and that he'll take some Red States to make up the deficiency.
Wrong-o, O.
Consider the conceit that Georgia is 'in play,' for example. I live in Georgia. I've spent most of my life in Georgia. The suggestion that Obama will win Georgia is just whistling past the graveyard. It's never going to happen.
The argument is that he will do it with "record turnout" among "unregistered black voters." Well, Georgia does have a lot of unregistered potential voters. Obama does have special appeal to black voters, and might energize them more than others have in the past. He also has a lot more money than McCain, some of which can be used for GOTV efforts in Georgia.
Furthermore, Georgia has gone to Democratic candidates more often than Southern states generally: Clinton in 1992, Carter in 1976. Nevertheless, Georgia isn't competitive this year. Carter was a former Georgia governor, and was a 'favorite son' who had been a fairly decent governor (and was therefore a deep disappointment as President). Clinton had the benefit of the Ross Perot candidacy, and the personal endorsement of Zell Miller, the current governor at the time, a hugely popular man whose opinion was widely trusted. There is no figure in Georgia politics as popular today, not even close.
Lacking that kind of personal appeal, Georgia voters have a very strong conservative preference. In 2004, Bush carried the state 58-41. In 2000, 55-43. In 1996, Dole beat Clinton 47-45 -- a year when Dole did horribly at the polls, in a state Clinton had won in 1992. Clinton won in 1992, by the way, 43-42, with Ross Perot carrying 13 percent of the vote. It's highly likely that almost all of Perot's vote came out of Bush's column. Meanwhile, the last governor's race had the Republican winning 58-38. That was in 2006, a wave Democratic year; and the Republican governor isn't even terribly popular.
So, Democrats in Georgia get between 38-45% of the vote. In a big year, with a popular Democratic candidate and an opposing candidate who doesn't really inspire, 45%. It's possible Senator Obama can top the high water mark. To win, however, he would have to improve his standing by six full points over the high water mark. Being black isn't enough to do that -- I say, "being black," because his campaign predicates its ability to make Georgia competitive on high black turnout and support, which is supposed to be possible among unregistered black voters because they are excited about Sen. Obama being black. Being a conservative Democrat might be enough -- I would say, this year, it would be enough -- but it's plain that he isn't any such thing.
Mind you, Grim is a fellow with Democrat proclivities.
Wrong-o, O.
Consider the conceit that Georgia is 'in play,' for example. I live in Georgia. I've spent most of my life in Georgia. The suggestion that Obama will win Georgia is just whistling past the graveyard. It's never going to happen.
The argument is that he will do it with "record turnout" among "unregistered black voters." Well, Georgia does have a lot of unregistered potential voters. Obama does have special appeal to black voters, and might energize them more than others have in the past. He also has a lot more money than McCain, some of which can be used for GOTV efforts in Georgia.
Furthermore, Georgia has gone to Democratic candidates more often than Southern states generally: Clinton in 1992, Carter in 1976. Nevertheless, Georgia isn't competitive this year. Carter was a former Georgia governor, and was a 'favorite son' who had been a fairly decent governor (and was therefore a deep disappointment as President). Clinton had the benefit of the Ross Perot candidacy, and the personal endorsement of Zell Miller, the current governor at the time, a hugely popular man whose opinion was widely trusted. There is no figure in Georgia politics as popular today, not even close.
Lacking that kind of personal appeal, Georgia voters have a very strong conservative preference. In 2004, Bush carried the state 58-41. In 2000, 55-43. In 1996, Dole beat Clinton 47-45 -- a year when Dole did horribly at the polls, in a state Clinton had won in 1992. Clinton won in 1992, by the way, 43-42, with Ross Perot carrying 13 percent of the vote. It's highly likely that almost all of Perot's vote came out of Bush's column. Meanwhile, the last governor's race had the Republican winning 58-38. That was in 2006, a wave Democratic year; and the Republican governor isn't even terribly popular.
So, Democrats in Georgia get between 38-45% of the vote. In a big year, with a popular Democratic candidate and an opposing candidate who doesn't really inspire, 45%. It's possible Senator Obama can top the high water mark. To win, however, he would have to improve his standing by six full points over the high water mark. Being black isn't enough to do that -- I say, "being black," because his campaign predicates its ability to make Georgia competitive on high black turnout and support, which is supposed to be possible among unregistered black voters because they are excited about Sen. Obama being black. Being a conservative Democrat might be enough -- I would say, this year, it would be enough -- but it's plain that he isn't any such thing.
Mind you, Grim is a fellow with Democrat proclivities.
Within One Block of Loyola/Chicago
Spending a bit of time in the 'burb to our south.
Gasoline prices are interesting: $4.05+ in Wisconsin, $3.91 in the northernmost areas of Illinois, $4.15++ in Chicago proper.
Spotted less than 1 block from Loyola/Chicago: a Planned Parenthood clinic. Right across from McDonald's.
Gasoline prices are interesting: $4.05+ in Wisconsin, $3.91 in the northernmost areas of Illinois, $4.15++ in Chicago proper.
Spotted less than 1 block from Loyola/Chicago: a Planned Parenthood clinic. Right across from McDonald's.
Test Case for Wisconsin Law?
This is interesting.
When DMC Pharmacy opens this summer on Route 50 in Chantilly, the shelves will be stocked with allergy remedies, pain relievers, antiseptic ointments and almost everything else sold in any drugstore. But anyone who wants condoms, birth control pills or the Plan B emergency contraceptive will be turned away.
That's because the drugstore, located in a typical shopping plaza featuring a Ruby Tuesday, a Papa John's and a Kmart, will be a "pro-life pharmacy" -- meaning, among other things, that it will eschew all contraceptives.
That sound you hear is the Harpies screeching.
"I'm very, very troubled by this," said Marcia Greenberger of the National Women's Law Center, a Washington advocacy group. "Contraception is essential for women's health. A pharmacy like this is walling off an essential part of health care. That could endanger women's health."
Yah, well, Marcia...I suspect that you can find a Walgreen's. They have big letters on their signs, so you can read them more easily.
California, New Jersey, Illinois and Washington state recently began requiring pharmacies to fill all prescriptions or help women fill them elsewhere, and at least another 10 states are considering such requirements. But some states exempt pharmacies that do not generally stock contraceptives, and it is unclear how other existing rules and laws and those being considered would apply to those pharmacies.
One wonders what DarthDoyle and NurseRached Robson might do. And whether Abp. Tim Dolan would step into the fray forcefully. (Fuggedabout the Huebscher-led "Catholic Conference" folks.)
(For an example of grotesque MSM spin, read THIS line:)
"These are uncharted waters, since the issue of so-called pro-life pharmacies are so new," said Elizabeth Nash, a public policy associate at the Guttmacher Institute, a private, nonprofit organization that researches reproductive issues.
Umnnnhh...do you suppose that the reporter-ette forgot that Guttmacher is a wholly-owned subsidiary (in fact or in practice) of PlannedBarrenhood Parenthood?
Back to the Harpies:
"Rape victims could end up in a pharmacy not understanding this pharmacy will not meet their needs," Greenberger said. "We've seen an alarming development of pharmacists over the last several years refusing to fill prescriptions, and sometimes even taking the prescription from the woman and refusing to give it back to her so she can fill it in another pharmacy."
Oh, the humanity! Tell me that the extra 4 minutes required to get to Walgreen's.....ah, never mind.
Think it won't be an issue if one opens in Wisconsin? Think again:
Semler, at DMC Pharmacy, said he does not feel that will be an impediment.
"We just say there are other pharmacies in the area they can go to," he said, noting that the Kmart across the parking lot has a pharmacy and that there are several other national chains nearby. "We're not threatening anybody. We're just trying to serve a niche market of like-minded individuals."
But others worry about what will happen if such pharmacies proliferate, especially in rural areas.
"We may find ourselves with whole regions of the country where virtually every pharmacy follows these limiting, discriminatory policies and women are unable to access legal, physician-prescribed medications," said R. Alta Charo, a University of Wisconsin lawyer and bioethicist. "We're talking about creating a separate universe of pharmacies that puts women at a disadvantage."
Yah. Stick "-ethicist" into any title and voila!! that makes them morally superior, no?
When DMC Pharmacy opens this summer on Route 50 in Chantilly, the shelves will be stocked with allergy remedies, pain relievers, antiseptic ointments and almost everything else sold in any drugstore. But anyone who wants condoms, birth control pills or the Plan B emergency contraceptive will be turned away.
That's because the drugstore, located in a typical shopping plaza featuring a Ruby Tuesday, a Papa John's and a Kmart, will be a "pro-life pharmacy" -- meaning, among other things, that it will eschew all contraceptives.
That sound you hear is the Harpies screeching.
"I'm very, very troubled by this," said Marcia Greenberger of the National Women's Law Center, a Washington advocacy group. "Contraception is essential for women's health. A pharmacy like this is walling off an essential part of health care. That could endanger women's health."
Yah, well, Marcia...I suspect that you can find a Walgreen's. They have big letters on their signs, so you can read them more easily.
California, New Jersey, Illinois and Washington state recently began requiring pharmacies to fill all prescriptions or help women fill them elsewhere, and at least another 10 states are considering such requirements. But some states exempt pharmacies that do not generally stock contraceptives, and it is unclear how other existing rules and laws and those being considered would apply to those pharmacies.
One wonders what DarthDoyle and Nurse
(For an example of grotesque MSM spin, read THIS line:)
"These are uncharted waters, since the issue of so-called pro-life pharmacies are so new," said Elizabeth Nash, a public policy associate at the Guttmacher Institute, a private, nonprofit organization that researches reproductive issues.
Umnnnhh...do you suppose that the reporter-ette forgot that Guttmacher is a wholly-owned subsidiary (in fact or in practice) of Planned
Back to the Harpies:
"Rape victims could end up in a pharmacy not understanding this pharmacy will not meet their needs," Greenberger said. "We've seen an alarming development of pharmacists over the last several years refusing to fill prescriptions, and sometimes even taking the prescription from the woman and refusing to give it back to her so she can fill it in another pharmacy."
Oh, the humanity! Tell me that the extra 4 minutes required to get to Walgreen's.....ah, never mind.
Think it won't be an issue if one opens in Wisconsin? Think again:
Semler, at DMC Pharmacy, said he does not feel that will be an impediment.
"We just say there are other pharmacies in the area they can go to," he said, noting that the Kmart across the parking lot has a pharmacy and that there are several other national chains nearby. "We're not threatening anybody. We're just trying to serve a niche market of like-minded individuals."
But others worry about what will happen if such pharmacies proliferate, especially in rural areas.
"We may find ourselves with whole regions of the country where virtually every pharmacy follows these limiting, discriminatory policies and women are unable to access legal, physician-prescribed medications," said R. Alta Charo, a University of Wisconsin lawyer and bioethicist. "We're talking about creating a separate universe of pharmacies that puts women at a disadvantage."
Yah. Stick "-ethicist" into any title and voila!! that makes them morally superior, no?
Monday, June 16, 2008
A Poll You Didn't Read About
...until now, that is.
Just 17% of voters say that the federal government represents the will of the American people. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 68% disagree and 15% are not sure. These views are consistent across partisan and demographic lines. Men, women, young, old, Republican, Democrat, conservative, liberal, all offer a bleak assessment of what is supposed to be a “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”
Sixty-seven percent (67%) of voters say that the federal government has become a special interest group that looks out primarily for its own interest. Just 15% disagree with that assessment
I'm shocked. Shocked, I say.
HT: InsideCatholic
Just 17% of voters say that the federal government represents the will of the American people. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 68% disagree and 15% are not sure. These views are consistent across partisan and demographic lines. Men, women, young, old, Republican, Democrat, conservative, liberal, all offer a bleak assessment of what is supposed to be a “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”
Sixty-seven percent (67%) of voters say that the federal government has become a special interest group that looks out primarily for its own interest. Just 15% disagree with that assessment
I'm shocked. Shocked, I say.
HT: InsideCatholic
Nobody's Senator: "Not in MY Back Yard!"
Capt. Karl, a Wisconsin bloglodyte, asked Sen. Kohl about drilling for oil in the USA.
The answer, of course, was "Screw you, you proletarian schlepp!"
But the first graf (plus one sentence) of Kohl's letter was interesting:
Our national wildlife refuges were created in 1903 and later expanded by the Roosevelt administration. Today, our national refuges are threatened because of several laws passed in the 1960s that allowed “secondary activities” on refuges, including oil and gas drilling, timber harvesting, grazing, farming and commercial fishing.
I have been very active in protecting this pristine wilderness from drilling in the past
Perhaps the Senator's opposition to domestic energy-seeking is a case of NIMBY?
The senator also owns a multimillion-dollar horse-breeding ranch near Jackson, Wyo., and other real estate
In any case, Herbie's $164K/week income should carry him through the $4.++/gallon cost of gasoline.
Good for him--and screw you, you impertinent vermin.
HT: Egg
The answer, of course, was "Screw you, you proletarian schlepp!"
But the first graf (plus one sentence) of Kohl's letter was interesting:
Our national wildlife refuges were created in 1903 and later expanded by the Roosevelt administration. Today, our national refuges are threatened because of several laws passed in the 1960s that allowed “secondary activities” on refuges, including oil and gas drilling, timber harvesting, grazing, farming and commercial fishing.
I have been very active in protecting this pristine wilderness from drilling in the past
Perhaps the Senator's opposition to domestic energy-seeking is a case of NIMBY?
The senator also owns a multimillion-dollar horse-breeding ranch near Jackson, Wyo., and other real estate
In any case, Herbie's $164K/week income should carry him through the $4.++/gallon cost of gasoline.
Good for him--and screw you, you impertinent vermin.
HT: Egg
The Second Amendment's Value
Grim defends Jim Webb's stance on the issues of war and peace as a counter to Obama's apparent pacifism.
But the line which reminded me of the real reason for the 2nd Amendment is this:
A good liberal ought to know that, in fact: the US Army's principal business from the end of the Indian Wars to 1900 was breaking strikes by early unions. If it doesn't do that now, it is chiefly because citizens fought back both through politics and in fact. These violent citizens -- perhaps they would be more sympathetic to TNR if we called them "the workers" -- are owed something better from the modern liberal than a refusal to glorify them, or to scorn them as "violent," though they certainly were violent. Every political power the liberal has to exercise is founded on that resistance, the organizations and machines it built. Every subsequent success came from that, and rests on it.
That should certainly resonate with folks who live in Bay View.
But the line which reminded me of the real reason for the 2nd Amendment is this:
A good liberal ought to know that, in fact: the US Army's principal business from the end of the Indian Wars to 1900 was breaking strikes by early unions. If it doesn't do that now, it is chiefly because citizens fought back both through politics and in fact. These violent citizens -- perhaps they would be more sympathetic to TNR if we called them "the workers" -- are owed something better from the modern liberal than a refusal to glorify them, or to scorn them as "violent," though they certainly were violent. Every political power the liberal has to exercise is founded on that resistance, the organizations and machines it built. Every subsequent success came from that, and rests on it.
That should certainly resonate with folks who live in Bay View.
"Right Down to Right Down"...It's Abortion
The Left certainly has an attachment to abortion, which is the principal focus of this blog-entry.
Interesting that a male wrote the entry.
Interesting that a male wrote the entry.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Some Wildlife Is More Equal...
Here's how it breaks down, squirrels:
That is a decree from on high, not from me.
You'd be amazed how quickly that .17" pellet moves--yes, faster than Mach 1.
Don't try for the bird-food.
The feeders are for the birdies. Not for you.
That is a decree from on high, not from me.
You'd be amazed how quickly that .17" pellet moves--yes, faster than Mach 1.
Don't try for the bird-food.
The Gregorian Rite's Obstacles
From a correspondent, an article published in Oriens, February '08--the pertinent excerpt.
A few weeks before Christmas, a close observer of current Church affairs, and one well informed about the quality of ecclesiastical manpower, suggested to Oriens that, when it came to implementing a liturgical “reform of the reform,” bishops had to confront the fact that many, perhaps the majority, of their clergy were “ecclesiologically challenged.”
This was a kindly way of saying that much of present generation of clergy, for the most part trained in the period 1965 to 1995, is so compromised by contemporary styles of manhood and priesthood, that it lacks the cultural aptitude for a sympathetic response to Pope Benedict XVI and his call for teaching and worship to be anchored in the whole tradition of the Church. This analysis includes “papal liners” as it does “liberals”.
It is the “pope’s men” who interest us here. During the John Paul II years, it was easy to be a “papalist”. In those days one could declaim against the culture of death while liturgically celebrating the culture of banality. One could proclaim human rights, and bemoan the marginalised, while kicking traditional Catholics in the pants and banishing them to the outlands. One could condescend to Catholic pieties while paying reverence to the shaman’s humbug. One could kiss the papal hand and Mr Mahomet’s book with nearly equal respect. For a certain type, combining ornery attachment to some tough Catholic doctrines with obeisance to the most respectable fads was a cakewalk. But suddenly it is not so easy to juggle incompatibles.
A very perceptive observation.
And--if you think that this is far-fetched, then tell me: which Archbishop, Bishop, or priest have YOU heard preaching about the mortal sin of contraception in the last....oh......20 years?
A few weeks before Christmas, a close observer of current Church affairs, and one well informed about the quality of ecclesiastical manpower, suggested to Oriens that, when it came to implementing a liturgical “reform of the reform,” bishops had to confront the fact that many, perhaps the majority, of their clergy were “ecclesiologically challenged.”
This was a kindly way of saying that much of present generation of clergy, for the most part trained in the period 1965 to 1995, is so compromised by contemporary styles of manhood and priesthood, that it lacks the cultural aptitude for a sympathetic response to Pope Benedict XVI and his call for teaching and worship to be anchored in the whole tradition of the Church. This analysis includes “papal liners” as it does “liberals”.
It is the “pope’s men” who interest us here. During the John Paul II years, it was easy to be a “papalist”. In those days one could declaim against the culture of death while liturgically celebrating the culture of banality. One could proclaim human rights, and bemoan the marginalised, while kicking traditional Catholics in the pants and banishing them to the outlands. One could condescend to Catholic pieties while paying reverence to the shaman’s humbug. One could kiss the papal hand and Mr Mahomet’s book with nearly equal respect. For a certain type, combining ornery attachment to some tough Catholic doctrines with obeisance to the most respectable fads was a cakewalk. But suddenly it is not so easy to juggle incompatibles.
A very perceptive observation.
And--if you think that this is far-fetched, then tell me: which Archbishop, Bishop, or priest have YOU heard preaching about the mortal sin of contraception in the last....oh......20 years?
Saturday, June 14, 2008
B-16 Bombs English Bishops
Although we don't hear much about it in the USA, the English Bishops have been very firmly opposed to Mass in the Tridentine Rite (Extraordinary Use.)
Rome is not deterred.
In a stunning press conference given in England during his visit to that country, Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, said that, according to The Telegraph, all seminaries must teach priests to say the Mass according to the Extraordinary Form. Additionally, he said that this Mass will return to every parish.
...Pope Benedict now clearly intendeds to go much further in promoting the ancient liturgy. Asked whether the Latin Mass would be celebrated in many ordinary parishes in future, Cardinal Castrillon said: "Not many parishes – all parishes. The Holy Father is offering this not only for the few groups who demand it, but so that everybody knows this way of celebrating the Eucharist."
Evidently there will also be a re-branding:
Pope Benedict will reintroduce the old rite – which the Cardinal said should be known as the "Gregorian Rite" - even where the congregation has not asked for it.
Hmmmm.
It may take more than a few years for that to happen in Milwaukee.
Rome is not deterred.
In a stunning press conference given in England during his visit to that country, Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, said that, according to The Telegraph, all seminaries must teach priests to say the Mass according to the Extraordinary Form. Additionally, he said that this Mass will return to every parish.
...Pope Benedict now clearly intendeds to go much further in promoting the ancient liturgy. Asked whether the Latin Mass would be celebrated in many ordinary parishes in future, Cardinal Castrillon said: "Not many parishes – all parishes. The Holy Father is offering this not only for the few groups who demand it, but so that everybody knows this way of celebrating the Eucharist."
Evidently there will also be a re-branding:
Pope Benedict will reintroduce the old rite – which the Cardinal said should be known as the "Gregorian Rite" - even where the congregation has not asked for it.
Hmmmm.
It may take more than a few years for that to happen in Milwaukee.
The "DUH" Study for USCC--"Don't Blame Homosexuals"
From John Allen's reporting on the US Bishops' Conference proceedings this week:
Smith told the bishops that researchers are beginning a study of the clinical dimension of the crisis, looking at how treatment centers responded and what has been learned. Among other things, she said, they’re interested in knowing whether “risk factors” for sexual abuse can be identified with an eye towards developing a “screening instrument” can be developed to help flag potential abusers.
...[Archbishop Elden] Curtiss also expressed concern for how the results of the research will be presented to the public, in light of what he described as misleading impressions about the church’s response to the crisis. He specifically cited a belief that the bishops are “shifting the blame to homosexual priests.”
“That would be wrong, and we shouldn’t be doing that,” Curtiss said. “It would be unfair to homosexuals.”
Yah, right, Your Grace. Here's the John Jay summary:
Unlike in the general population, more males than females were allegedly. In fact, there was a significant difference between genders, with four out of five alleged victims being male
and:
The majority of victims are males between the ages of 11-17
We remind Your Eminence that priests are MALES, and EIGHTY PERCENT of the VICTIMS were MALE.
We sure can't blame homosexuals for that, can we, Your Grace?
So--how many dollars from the annual Catholic Charities appeal will pay for the new study which 1) will develop a "screening instrument to prevent future abuse" and that 2) will NOT find homosexuality as a problem?
You must be kidding.
By the way, Your Grace: the only OTHER people 'to blame' for this are the Seminary Rectors and Bishops who ordained homosexuals, contrary to the specific instructions of Rome.
It's not "either/or." It's both.
Smith told the bishops that researchers are beginning a study of the clinical dimension of the crisis, looking at how treatment centers responded and what has been learned. Among other things, she said, they’re interested in knowing whether “risk factors” for sexual abuse can be identified with an eye towards developing a “screening instrument” can be developed to help flag potential abusers.
...[Archbishop Elden] Curtiss also expressed concern for how the results of the research will be presented to the public, in light of what he described as misleading impressions about the church’s response to the crisis. He specifically cited a belief that the bishops are “shifting the blame to homosexual priests.”
“That would be wrong, and we shouldn’t be doing that,” Curtiss said. “It would be unfair to homosexuals.”
Yah, right, Your Grace. Here's the John Jay summary:
Unlike in the general population, more males than females were allegedly. In fact, there was a significant difference between genders, with four out of five alleged victims being male
and:
The majority of victims are males between the ages of 11-17
We remind Your Eminence that priests are MALES, and EIGHTY PERCENT of the VICTIMS were MALE.
We sure can't blame homosexuals for that, can we, Your Grace?
So--how many dollars from the annual Catholic Charities appeal will pay for the new study which 1) will develop a "screening instrument to prevent future abuse" and that 2) will NOT find homosexuality as a problem?
You must be kidding.
By the way, Your Grace: the only OTHER people 'to blame' for this are the Seminary Rectors and Bishops who ordained homosexuals, contrary to the specific instructions of Rome.
It's not "either/or." It's both.
Cheap Mortgages to Sen. Dodd
Not surprising at all.
Two influential US senators got "VIP" loans from a leading subprime mortgage lender that saved them tens of thousands of dollars, it was reported last night.
The Democratic pols, Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Kent Conrad of North Dakota, both received the highly favorable loans under the designation "Friend of Angelo," a reference to embattled Countrywide head Angelo Mozilo
...Others who received "FOA" loans include Alphonso Jackson, the secretary of Housing and Urban Development under President Bush who resigned in April, and Donna Shalala, who was secretary of Health and Human Services in the Clinton administration
....Dodd reportedly received two loans through the program in 2003 - $506,000 to refinance his Washington town house, and $275,042 to refinance a home in Connecticut. The more favorable terms saved him about $70,000, the report says
Some time back, when the sub-prime problem was breaking news, Sen. Dodd announced that he was writing "reform" legislation. At that time, I had my suspicions about the motives of Sen. Dodd.
So did Angelo Mozilo.
Two influential US senators got "VIP" loans from a leading subprime mortgage lender that saved them tens of thousands of dollars, it was reported last night.
The Democratic pols, Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Kent Conrad of North Dakota, both received the highly favorable loans under the designation "Friend of Angelo," a reference to embattled Countrywide head Angelo Mozilo
...Others who received "FOA" loans include Alphonso Jackson, the secretary of Housing and Urban Development under President Bush who resigned in April, and Donna Shalala, who was secretary of Health and Human Services in the Clinton administration
....Dodd reportedly received two loans through the program in 2003 - $506,000 to refinance his Washington town house, and $275,042 to refinance a home in Connecticut. The more favorable terms saved him about $70,000, the report says
Some time back, when the sub-prime problem was breaking news, Sen. Dodd announced that he was writing "reform" legislation. At that time, I had my suspicions about the motives of Sen. Dodd.
So did Angelo Mozilo.
Language-Challenged Bishops
John Allen relates the non-results.
Heading into the U.S. bishops’ spring meeting in Orlando, it didn’t seem likely that a proposed new translation of the Proper of Seasons, part of the prayers and other texts for the Catholic Mass, would stir up much dust
...All that changed this morning, however, when Bishop Victor Galeone of Saint Augustine, Florida, rose to oppose the proposed text
...Among other things, Galeone cited the text’s use of the phrase “the gibbet of the Cross.”
“The last time I heard that word was back in 1949, during Stations of the Cross in Lent,” Galeone said
Really, Excellency? That phrase happens to be the standard translation of a portion of the Lamentations used EVERY GOOD FRIDAY until the revolution of 1965.
Come, now, Excellency. Who are you trying to kid?
The Bishop then proclaimed his confusion:
“I challenge anyone to proclaim what’s given here at Mass,” he said. “It’s very difficult.”
All you are asked to do is pray the Mass. "Proclamations" are for other occasions.
But it turns out that this Bishop has other, more serious problems, too.
Galeone added that with “all due respect” to the recent ruling from Pope Benedict XVI authorizing wider celebration of the old Latin Mass, he hasn’t celebrated the old rite since 1970. If he were asked to do so today, he said, he would instead celebrate the new rite of the Mass in Latin.
So, Excellency: if you were asked for a loaf, would you hand over a stone? If you ask your laity for $500.00, would you be happy when they turned over a penny for you?
These are the guys who expect obedience?
Now comes Milwaukee's own cross-to-bear, Richard Sklba, who wants to be known for his Biblical scholarship (which would imply some ability with languages, no?)
Auxiliary Bishop Richard Sklba of Milwaukee, for example, said, “If I have trouble understanding the text when I read it, I wonder how it’s going to be possible to pray with it in the context of worship.”
Of course, Bp. Sklba is a Trautman-ite, as we explained below, in the combox. More from the Sage of Racine:
Sklba warned that if the proposed text were adopted, “our priests and our people” will press the bishops to come back to it “again and again” to remedy perceived defects. “This is not yet mature,” he said
That's not true, of course. Perhaps "our priests" would be "pressing." And likely only a few of them--we call them "the usual suspects."
No translation-reform discussion would be complete without Bp Traut-person's pettifoggery.
Bishop Donald Trautman of Erie, Pennsylvania, a longtime critic of the new translations, said the texts contain a number of “archaic and obscure” terms, pointing to words such as “wrought,” “ineffable,” and “gibbet.” He also said that the text’s preference for mimicking the sentence structure of Latin, featuring long sentences with a large number of dependent clauses, impedes understanding in English. Trautman cited one prayer in the new Proper of Seasons presented as a single 12-line sentence with three separate clauses
The Bishop favors newspaper-style sentences. You know--the ones which guarantee that a 6th-grader can understand them. The question is "cui bono"?--that is, is that for the sake of the Bishop, or of the laity? I have my answer.
One surprise from Allen's report was Bp Lipscomb's comment.
Archbishop Oscar Lipscomb, the retired archbishop of Mobile who sits on the Vox Clara Commission that advises the Vatican on liturgical translation, said that he doesn’t find the new texts “unacceptable or unproclaimable.” ...Further, he said, the average Catholic will receive the new texts “with the eyes of faith,” rather than focusing on its problems “like an English teacher or a Latin teacher.”
Yup. That's a remarkable insight, Excellency, insofar as you made it quite clear that...ahhhh...some non-laity may have a deficiency of Faith, something which we've observed more than a few times, ourselves.
They held a vote, and no one came:
The rules of the conference require that the text be approved by two-thirds of its members, not just those physically present. Since there are 250 Latin Rite bishops in the United States, 166 “yes” votes are required to approve it, while 83 “no” votes are necessary to reject it.
As it turns out, the Orlando meeting was sparsely attended – one headcount yesterday found just 178 voting members
Which is very interesting all by itself.
Then the foot-stamping and fist-waving began:
...if the text does have to go back to the drawing board, the bishops decided not to send it to the International Commission on English in the Liturgy, a translation agency which is a joint project of 11 English-speaking bishops’ conferences, for comment. Since ICEL was restructured under Vatican pressure several years ago, some bishops feel the agency has not been receptive to proposed changes to its texts.
Both ears plugged: "I can't hear you, I can't hear you, I can't hear you..."
Contrast that to the reaction of actual Apostles on Pentecost.
Heading into the U.S. bishops’ spring meeting in Orlando, it didn’t seem likely that a proposed new translation of the Proper of Seasons, part of the prayers and other texts for the Catholic Mass, would stir up much dust
...All that changed this morning, however, when Bishop Victor Galeone of Saint Augustine, Florida, rose to oppose the proposed text
...Among other things, Galeone cited the text’s use of the phrase “the gibbet of the Cross.”
“The last time I heard that word was back in 1949, during Stations of the Cross in Lent,” Galeone said
Really, Excellency? That phrase happens to be the standard translation of a portion of the Lamentations used EVERY GOOD FRIDAY until the revolution of 1965.
Come, now, Excellency. Who are you trying to kid?
The Bishop then proclaimed his confusion:
“I challenge anyone to proclaim what’s given here at Mass,” he said. “It’s very difficult.”
All you are asked to do is pray the Mass. "Proclamations" are for other occasions.
But it turns out that this Bishop has other, more serious problems, too.
Galeone added that with “all due respect” to the recent ruling from Pope Benedict XVI authorizing wider celebration of the old Latin Mass, he hasn’t celebrated the old rite since 1970. If he were asked to do so today, he said, he would instead celebrate the new rite of the Mass in Latin.
So, Excellency: if you were asked for a loaf, would you hand over a stone? If you ask your laity for $500.00, would you be happy when they turned over a penny for you?
These are the guys who expect obedience?
Now comes Milwaukee's own cross-to-bear, Richard Sklba, who wants to be known for his Biblical scholarship (which would imply some ability with languages, no?)
Auxiliary Bishop Richard Sklba of Milwaukee, for example, said, “If I have trouble understanding the text when I read it, I wonder how it’s going to be possible to pray with it in the context of worship.”
Of course, Bp. Sklba is a Trautman-ite, as we explained below, in the combox. More from the Sage of Racine:
Sklba warned that if the proposed text were adopted, “our priests and our people” will press the bishops to come back to it “again and again” to remedy perceived defects. “This is not yet mature,” he said
That's not true, of course. Perhaps "our priests" would be "pressing." And likely only a few of them--we call them "the usual suspects."
No translation-reform discussion would be complete without Bp Traut-person's pettifoggery.
Bishop Donald Trautman of Erie, Pennsylvania, a longtime critic of the new translations, said the texts contain a number of “archaic and obscure” terms, pointing to words such as “wrought,” “ineffable,” and “gibbet.” He also said that the text’s preference for mimicking the sentence structure of Latin, featuring long sentences with a large number of dependent clauses, impedes understanding in English. Trautman cited one prayer in the new Proper of Seasons presented as a single 12-line sentence with three separate clauses
The Bishop favors newspaper-style sentences. You know--the ones which guarantee that a 6th-grader can understand them. The question is "cui bono"?--that is, is that for the sake of the Bishop, or of the laity? I have my answer.
One surprise from Allen's report was Bp Lipscomb's comment.
Archbishop Oscar Lipscomb, the retired archbishop of Mobile who sits on the Vox Clara Commission that advises the Vatican on liturgical translation, said that he doesn’t find the new texts “unacceptable or unproclaimable.” ...Further, he said, the average Catholic will receive the new texts “with the eyes of faith,” rather than focusing on its problems “like an English teacher or a Latin teacher.”
Yup. That's a remarkable insight, Excellency, insofar as you made it quite clear that...ahhhh...some non-laity may have a deficiency of Faith, something which we've observed more than a few times, ourselves.
They held a vote, and no one came:
The rules of the conference require that the text be approved by two-thirds of its members, not just those physically present. Since there are 250 Latin Rite bishops in the United States, 166 “yes” votes are required to approve it, while 83 “no” votes are necessary to reject it.
As it turns out, the Orlando meeting was sparsely attended – one headcount yesterday found just 178 voting members
Which is very interesting all by itself.
Then the foot-stamping and fist-waving began:
...if the text does have to go back to the drawing board, the bishops decided not to send it to the International Commission on English in the Liturgy, a translation agency which is a joint project of 11 English-speaking bishops’ conferences, for comment. Since ICEL was restructured under Vatican pressure several years ago, some bishops feel the agency has not been receptive to proposed changes to its texts.
Both ears plugged: "I can't hear you, I can't hear you, I can't hear you..."
Contrast that to the reaction of actual Apostles on Pentecost.
Friday, June 13, 2008
W'r 2 Stooopid 2 No
The Bishop (known as Traut-person) belches more gaseous blobs:
Trautman said the draft includes words such as "ineffable" that would not be in the ordinary vocabulary of people
Even Jay, the Lefty, would tell his students "If you don't know the word, LOOK IT UP!"
At least I hope that's what Jay would do.
Trautman said the draft includes words such as "ineffable" that would not be in the ordinary vocabulary of people
Even Jay, the Lefty, would tell his students "If you don't know the word, LOOK IT UP!"
At least I hope that's what Jay would do.
Lead Us Not Into Temptation
Every time Bp. Sklba publishes a column, it is difficult to resist....
But this was pointed out by Diogenes, so it's just copying.
Our Bishop, today:
It remains open to the judgment of the authorities in the church in order to offer assurance that a translation remains truly faithful to the original inspired text of the Bible. To help guide the understanding of individual readers, the Catholic Church insists that some explanatory notes be provided with every published translation. That is yet another way in which the Bible remains the Book of the Church
Bp. Sklba, only 12 years ago:
Sklba said the Vatican's intervention to override lectionary translations developed by U.S. Catholic scripture scholars and adopted by U.S. bishops in 1991 represented "a serious affront to our Catholic scholarly community" and "a human relations problem ... of major proportions. Criteria were approved by this body, and suddenly the rules changed," he said
The Bishop has undergone metanoia, I'm sure. He now recognizes that Church authorities actually have....ahhhhh......authority!
What the Bishop REALLY objects to is this:
There are times when I receive local announcements of forthcoming conferences in the archdiocese, each listing the speakers invited to expound various biblical themes associated with the topic and directed to the targeted audience of that gathering
...A closer look at the bios reveals that the speakers may indeed be converts from some other Christian tradition. Subsequent reports after the conference suggest that the presenters haven't always fully absorbed the Catholic approach to the Scriptures at all. I even hear tell of speakers who exhort their (male) audience to reclaim headship of the house over their wives, and I am troubled by such messages because those interpretations often arise out of a literalistic approach to the New Testament and its teachings.
Let's have none of that St. Paul stuff around here! After all, men might actually be MEN, and that would put a lot of Milwaukee clerics to shame.
But this was pointed out by Diogenes, so it's just copying.
Our Bishop, today:
It remains open to the judgment of the authorities in the church in order to offer assurance that a translation remains truly faithful to the original inspired text of the Bible. To help guide the understanding of individual readers, the Catholic Church insists that some explanatory notes be provided with every published translation. That is yet another way in which the Bible remains the Book of the Church
Bp. Sklba, only 12 years ago:
Sklba said the Vatican's intervention to override lectionary translations developed by U.S. Catholic scripture scholars and adopted by U.S. bishops in 1991 represented "a serious affront to our Catholic scholarly community" and "a human relations problem ... of major proportions. Criteria were approved by this body, and suddenly the rules changed," he said
The Bishop has undergone metanoia, I'm sure. He now recognizes that Church authorities actually have....ahhhhh......authority!
What the Bishop REALLY objects to is this:
There are times when I receive local announcements of forthcoming conferences in the archdiocese, each listing the speakers invited to expound various biblical themes associated with the topic and directed to the targeted audience of that gathering
...A closer look at the bios reveals that the speakers may indeed be converts from some other Christian tradition. Subsequent reports after the conference suggest that the presenters haven't always fully absorbed the Catholic approach to the Scriptures at all. I even hear tell of speakers who exhort their (male) audience to reclaim headship of the house over their wives, and I am troubled by such messages because those interpretations often arise out of a literalistic approach to the New Testament and its teachings.
Let's have none of that St. Paul stuff around here! After all, men might actually be MEN, and that would put a lot of Milwaukee clerics to shame.
Propaganda Points from GITMO Trials
Following SCOTUS' decision, there will be some effects. CounterTerrorismBlog notes a few--one of which is this:
...the conglomeration of all anti-American political forces, including many radical circles within the United States, will unleash its attacks against Guantanamo and what it represents, meaning the existence of the "War on Terror". A significant ideological segment of the political establishment in America has been pushing the slogan of an "orchestrated war" which must be ended. To them, the trial of the terrorists in Guantanamo is an opportunity to bleed U.S. efforts in the confrontation, thereby enhancing their own domestic political fortunes and agendas.
The circus' outline:
...the "team" on the inside of the courtroom will unleash any and all statements needed to create the environment for a martyrdom case: istishaad. They will claim the tribunal is not legitimate, the Guantanamo process is not legal, the procedure is not acceptable and that they want to receive the death penalty so they may become shuhada, or martyrs
...the campaign will target American credibility and the concept of a war on terror. Some of the statements by the defendants will be stressed, such as "we do not recognize your laws, but only Sharia."
Most of the propaganda will be directed outside the USA--but not all. There are plenty of useful idiots inside the US.
Several of them are Wisconsin bloggers...
...the conglomeration of all anti-American political forces, including many radical circles within the United States, will unleash its attacks against Guantanamo and what it represents, meaning the existence of the "War on Terror". A significant ideological segment of the political establishment in America has been pushing the slogan of an "orchestrated war" which must be ended. To them, the trial of the terrorists in Guantanamo is an opportunity to bleed U.S. efforts in the confrontation, thereby enhancing their own domestic political fortunes and agendas.
The circus' outline:
...the "team" on the inside of the courtroom will unleash any and all statements needed to create the environment for a martyrdom case: istishaad. They will claim the tribunal is not legitimate, the Guantanamo process is not legal, the procedure is not acceptable and that they want to receive the death penalty so they may become shuhada, or martyrs
...the campaign will target American credibility and the concept of a war on terror. Some of the statements by the defendants will be stressed, such as "we do not recognize your laws, but only Sharia."
Most of the propaganda will be directed outside the USA--but not all. There are plenty of useful idiots inside the US.
Several of them are Wisconsin bloggers...
4.75" Here
At the junction of Pewaukee and Brookfield, about 4.75" of water fell between 12:00 noon yesterday and now--and the sky is still gray.
Time to look at the radar, eh?
Time to look at the radar, eh?
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Fun With Open Carry in Milwaukee
As an update to my entry below, here's an interesting little tale.
WARNING: THE FOLLOWING MAY BE FICTION. THEN AGAIN, IT MAY NOT BE FICTION.
(May 4): I've noticed that there seems to be no one in Milwaukee willing to get the OC started, but I was never one to wait for others. So I am going to start open carrying around Milwaukee County in particular the City of Milwaukee. I am a 6'3 280lb Hispanic Male with very long hair and a big beard( almost no mustache,weird). i almost always wear black and i always without fail wear either a big black leather coat, black hooded sweater, or black wind breaker. I have a black thigh tactical holster for my Taurus PT92 pistol(only the thigh holster would be considered open carry with my attire). since there are so many schools in Milwaukee walking from place to place is out of the question. I've decided only to go to places that have an entrance from their parking lot as it is considered private property and is exempt from the school zone restriction. Please note that I have read a lot of your posts and understand that my attire and way of grooming are not what you would advise but I don't believe i should be dressed a certain way to exercise my right to bear arms.
The guy got his wish.
(May 14): Ive just been arrested for open carrying, then the charge was changed when they couldnt find that its illegal. (Later, same day): i was TOLD that i was being aressted because i couldnt have a weaponh then it was changed to disorderly conduct while armed, I am not IN JAIL, i was let go cause i wanted a lawyer so they gave me a piece of paper and sent me home and told me to meet the DA on tuesday
Now the comic riots start:
(May 22): to sum it up most DAs going thru the case decided it was not DC but none of them were willing to let it go because its a "weapons case". They kept on passing it over to other DAs until one finally said its DC but by that time there was a big stink around the DAs office and they had to have a meeting about a meeting that had not taken place. Ultimately nothing was decided except that I should either "choose to be charged" or "return on June 4th". So pretty much im waiting until June 4th to have the meeting I should already have had.
They still have his gun, magazines, etc. No further updates have been posted.
HT: Owen
WARNING: THE FOLLOWING MAY BE FICTION. THEN AGAIN, IT MAY NOT BE FICTION.
(May 4): I've noticed that there seems to be no one in Milwaukee willing to get the OC started, but I was never one to wait for others. So I am going to start open carrying around Milwaukee County in particular the City of Milwaukee. I am a 6'3 280lb Hispanic Male with very long hair and a big beard( almost no mustache,weird). i almost always wear black and i always without fail wear either a big black leather coat, black hooded sweater, or black wind breaker. I have a black thigh tactical holster for my Taurus PT92 pistol(only the thigh holster would be considered open carry with my attire). since there are so many schools in Milwaukee walking from place to place is out of the question. I've decided only to go to places that have an entrance from their parking lot as it is considered private property and is exempt from the school zone restriction. Please note that I have read a lot of your posts and understand that my attire and way of grooming are not what you would advise but I don't believe i should be dressed a certain way to exercise my right to bear arms.
The guy got his wish.
(May 14): Ive just been arrested for open carrying, then the charge was changed when they couldnt find that its illegal. (Later, same day): i was TOLD that i was being aressted because i couldnt have a weaponh then it was changed to disorderly conduct while armed, I am not IN JAIL, i was let go cause i wanted a lawyer so they gave me a piece of paper and sent me home and told me to meet the DA on tuesday
Now the comic riots start:
(May 22): to sum it up most DAs going thru the case decided it was not DC but none of them were willing to let it go because its a "weapons case". They kept on passing it over to other DAs until one finally said its DC but by that time there was a big stink around the DAs office and they had to have a meeting about a meeting that had not taken place. Ultimately nothing was decided except that I should either "choose to be charged" or "return on June 4th". So pretty much im waiting until June 4th to have the meeting I should already have had.
They still have his gun, magazines, etc. No further updates have been posted.
HT: Owen
Boumediene--and Andy Jackson
Volokh:
In Boumediene, the Court challenges congressional power as well as the executive. It strikes down as unconstitutional several provisions of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and the MCA. This is a nearly unprecedented situation where the Court rejected an important assertion of wartime power backed by both of the other branches of government. To my knowledge, virtually every previous case in which the Court ruled an important wartime policy unconstitutional was one where the policy in question was adopted by the executive acting alone.
In fact, the summary of the decision presents language which is almost combative in its slap at Congress' enactment of MCA. It was as though the Court had extended its middle finger, albeit in rather elegant language. A silk-gloved middle finger, so to speak.
The difficult question is whether habeas corpus applies to enemy combatants seized in operations abroad (I don't doubt that the Bush Administration was wrong to assert that it doesn't apply to US citizens accused of terrorist acts and captured in the US).
In another venue I had had some lengthy discussions with a friend who is an attorney. He adamantly defended the expansive 14th interpretation which allowed for "anchor babies." This decision also cites the 14th--I suspect in the same general vein.
But it is impossible to understand, except through the lens of mental disease or defect, how the Court arrives at the conclusion that habeas applies to enemy combatants who are NOT held in the US or its territories (or, for that matter, to unlawful combatants--that is, people who attack US troops, or the US, without a formal State sponsor; people who are NOT part of an organized army.) Kennedy admits as much:
...the lack of a precedent on point is no barrier to our holding
Uh-huh.
Roberts, in dissent:
One cannot help but think, after surveying the modest practical results of the majority’s ambitious opinion, that this decision is not really about the detainees at all, but about control of
federal policy regarding enemy combatants
...which, in the Court's exalted opinion, belongs to the Courts:
The Court does eventually get around to asking whether review under the DTA is, as the Court frames it, an “adequate substitute” for habeas, ante, at 42, but even then its opinion fails to determine what rights the detainees possess and whether the DTA system satisfies them. The
majority instead compares the undefined DTA process to an equally undefined habeas right—one that is to be given shape only in the future by district courts on a case-by-case basis.
The recipe used by Screechin'Shirley to determine rights to self-defense, by the way...
Scalia, to my point on 'who GETS Constitutional rights':
Today, for the first time in our Nation’s history, the Court confers a constitutional right to habeas corpus on alien enemies detained abroad by our military forces in the course of an ongoing war.
...
My problem with today’s opinion is more fundamental still: The writ of habeas corpus does not, and never has, run in favor of aliens abroad; the Suspension Clause thus has no application, and the Court’s intervention in this military matter is entirely ultra vires
And Scalia cites--guess who? SCOTUS, no less:
“We are cited to [sic] no instance where a court, in this or any other country where the writ is known, has issued it on behalf of an alien enemy who, at no relevant time and in no stage of his captivity, has been within its territorial jurisdiction. Nothing in the text of the Constitution extends such a right, nor does anything in our statutes.”
...
Eisentrager thus held—held beyond any doubt—that the Constitution does not ensure habeas for aliens held by the United States in areas over which our Government is not sovereign
Ah, well.
Were Bush equipped with the necessary cojones, he would quote Andy Jackson: "So the Court rules. Let the Court enforce it."
In Boumediene, the Court challenges congressional power as well as the executive. It strikes down as unconstitutional several provisions of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and the MCA. This is a nearly unprecedented situation where the Court rejected an important assertion of wartime power backed by both of the other branches of government. To my knowledge, virtually every previous case in which the Court ruled an important wartime policy unconstitutional was one where the policy in question was adopted by the executive acting alone.
In fact, the summary of the decision presents language which is almost combative in its slap at Congress' enactment of MCA. It was as though the Court had extended its middle finger, albeit in rather elegant language. A silk-gloved middle finger, so to speak.
The difficult question is whether habeas corpus applies to enemy combatants seized in operations abroad (I don't doubt that the Bush Administration was wrong to assert that it doesn't apply to US citizens accused of terrorist acts and captured in the US).
In another venue I had had some lengthy discussions with a friend who is an attorney. He adamantly defended the expansive 14th interpretation which allowed for "anchor babies." This decision also cites the 14th--I suspect in the same general vein.
But it is impossible to understand, except through the lens of mental disease or defect, how the Court arrives at the conclusion that habeas applies to enemy combatants who are NOT held in the US or its territories (or, for that matter, to unlawful combatants--that is, people who attack US troops, or the US, without a formal State sponsor; people who are NOT part of an organized army.) Kennedy admits as much:
...the lack of a precedent on point is no barrier to our holding
Uh-huh.
Roberts, in dissent:
One cannot help but think, after surveying the modest practical results of the majority’s ambitious opinion, that this decision is not really about the detainees at all, but about control of
federal policy regarding enemy combatants
...which, in the Court's exalted opinion, belongs to the Courts:
The Court does eventually get around to asking whether review under the DTA is, as the Court frames it, an “adequate substitute” for habeas, ante, at 42, but even then its opinion fails to determine what rights the detainees possess and whether the DTA system satisfies them. The
majority instead compares the undefined DTA process to an equally undefined habeas right—one that is to be given shape only in the future by district courts on a case-by-case basis.
The recipe used by Screechin'Shirley to determine rights to self-defense, by the way...
Scalia, to my point on 'who GETS Constitutional rights':
Today, for the first time in our Nation’s history, the Court confers a constitutional right to habeas corpus on alien enemies detained abroad by our military forces in the course of an ongoing war.
...
My problem with today’s opinion is more fundamental still: The writ of habeas corpus does not, and never has, run in favor of aliens abroad; the Suspension Clause thus has no application, and the Court’s intervention in this military matter is entirely ultra vires
And Scalia cites--guess who? SCOTUS, no less:
“We are cited to [sic] no instance where a court, in this or any other country where the writ is known, has issued it on behalf of an alien enemy who, at no relevant time and in no stage of his captivity, has been within its territorial jurisdiction. Nothing in the text of the Constitution extends such a right, nor does anything in our statutes.”
...
Eisentrager thus held—held beyond any doubt—that the Constitution does not ensure habeas for aliens held by the United States in areas over which our Government is not sovereign
Ah, well.
Were Bush equipped with the necessary cojones, he would quote Andy Jackson: "So the Court rules. Let the Court enforce it."
Gitmo Habeas: The Citizenship Question
The question is: how a non-citizen enjoys Constitutional rights.
The answer:
Because the Constitution’s separation-of-powers structure, like the substantive guarantees
of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, see Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356, 374 (1886), protects persons as well as citizens, foreign nationals who have the privilege of litigating in our courts can seek to enforce separation-of-powers principles, see, e.g., INS v. Chadha, 462
U. S. 919, 958–959 (1983).
This is (mutatis mutandis) the same rationale as the "anchor baby" answer. Somehow, the 14th Amendment now includes everyone on the face of the Earth.
Well, fine. If that's the case, then the 16th Amendment applies as well, right?
Tax the bastards. That's worse than jail-time, anyway.
The answer:
Because the Constitution’s separation-of-powers structure, like the substantive guarantees
of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, see Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356, 374 (1886), protects persons as well as citizens, foreign nationals who have the privilege of litigating in our courts can seek to enforce separation-of-powers principles, see, e.g., INS v. Chadha, 462
U. S. 919, 958–959 (1983).
This is (mutatis mutandis) the same rationale as the "anchor baby" answer. Somehow, the 14th Amendment now includes everyone on the face of the Earth.
Well, fine. If that's the case, then the 16th Amendment applies as well, right?
Tax the bastards. That's worse than jail-time, anyway.
GWB's Current Fatuous Move
Poor GWB. Now he's gone and honored a Certified Opponent of Free Speech.
According to a White House press release (Update II, below), President Bush has awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to a woman who did her best to stamp out freedom of speech while chancellor of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, Donna Shalala
...Shalala was architect of the infamous speech code at Wisconsin which, before it was declared unconstitutional in 1991, was among the most draconian in the nation. She also crafted the "Madison Plan" at UW, through which she mandated quotas for hiring minority professors, doubling the number of minority undergraduates, passed an ethnic studies requirement, and opened a multicultural center
The article then quotes Evans & Novak:
Shalala herself is the epitome of today's wholly politicized educator. In the 1988 presidential campaign, she signed a full-page New York Times advertisement assailing Ronald Reagan's record and affirming 'America's liberal tradition.' In 1991 she opposed the university regents' efforts to consider reinvestment in South Africa in view of racial progress there. In 1991 she personally lobbied the Pentagon to end the military ban on homosexuals, and joined a lawsuit for that purpose. In 1992 she commended gay and lesbian students for requesting their own university housing, while ruling it out as unconstitutional. In 1992 she helped found a new national abortion rights committee after the last Supreme Court decision
Shalala didn't change her spots at U of Miami, either.
At the University of Miami, where Shalala took the helm on June 1, 2001, her administration worked to clamp down on dissent--defined as conservative student groups. In April, 2003, FIRE wrote (PDF) to Shalala objecting to her administration's refusal to recognize a newly formed conservative group, the Advocates for Conservative Thought (ACT). The U's Committee on Student Organizations told the four students who sought to launch ACT that, given that Miami already hosted the College Republicans, a conservative group, and the Council for Democracy, which was politically oriented, that no other conservative or political groups were needed.
In the end, the group was approved, but only after repeated barrages by FIRE and the press. Shalala blamed underlings for not apprising her of the situation.
THIS is the sort of stuff about which McCallum should have complained.
According to a White House press release (Update II, below), President Bush has awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to a woman who did her best to stamp out freedom of speech while chancellor of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, Donna Shalala
...Shalala was architect of the infamous speech code at Wisconsin which, before it was declared unconstitutional in 1991, was among the most draconian in the nation. She also crafted the "Madison Plan" at UW, through which she mandated quotas for hiring minority professors, doubling the number of minority undergraduates, passed an ethnic studies requirement, and opened a multicultural center
The article then quotes Evans & Novak:
Shalala herself is the epitome of today's wholly politicized educator. In the 1988 presidential campaign, she signed a full-page New York Times advertisement assailing Ronald Reagan's record and affirming 'America's liberal tradition.' In 1991 she opposed the university regents' efforts to consider reinvestment in South Africa in view of racial progress there. In 1991 she personally lobbied the Pentagon to end the military ban on homosexuals, and joined a lawsuit for that purpose. In 1992 she commended gay and lesbian students for requesting their own university housing, while ruling it out as unconstitutional. In 1992 she helped found a new national abortion rights committee after the last Supreme Court decision
Shalala didn't change her spots at U of Miami, either.
At the University of Miami, where Shalala took the helm on June 1, 2001, her administration worked to clamp down on dissent--defined as conservative student groups. In April, 2003, FIRE wrote (PDF) to Shalala objecting to her administration's refusal to recognize a newly formed conservative group, the Advocates for Conservative Thought (ACT). The U's Committee on Student Organizations told the four students who sought to launch ACT that, given that Miami already hosted the College Republicans, a conservative group, and the Council for Democracy, which was politically oriented, that no other conservative or political groups were needed.
In the end, the group was approved, but only after repeated barrages by FIRE and the press. Shalala blamed underlings for not apprising her of the situation.
THIS is the sort of stuff about which McCallum should have complained.
Up for Some Fun?
In Pennsylvania, it is not illegal to carry a weapon openly. (Same here in Wisconsin, by the way.)
So a few folks in Pennsylvania took their families out to dinner at the Old Country Buffet. They were all carrying, openly.
And they all got arrested. The usual stuff: Disorderly Conduct, yada yada yada.
Now, they are all suing the authorities...
Sounds like fun.
So a few folks in Pennsylvania took their families out to dinner at the Old Country Buffet. They were all carrying, openly.
And they all got arrested. The usual stuff: Disorderly Conduct, yada yada yada.
Now, they are all suing the authorities...
Sounds like fun.
Land Price Down 30%
A few years ago, a new (and somewhat small) residential development became available in the Pewaukee area, a bit north of us.
The lots were not large, but the main drawback (to our mind) was that the development was extremely close to an active railroad right-of-way.
Lots were advertised for $90K+.
Went past the place the other night and noticed that the lots were now priced at $60K+.
S'pose something changed in the last three years?
The lots were not large, but the main drawback (to our mind) was that the development was extremely close to an active railroad right-of-way.
Lots were advertised for $90K+.
Went past the place the other night and noticed that the lots were now priced at $60K+.
S'pose something changed in the last three years?
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Another Reason for Firing USAF Commander?
The heat is on in DC--and maybe SecDef Gates has more than one reason to dump the USAF top commander. Recently, the Air Force decided to award a contract to Airbus.
As you know, U.S.-based Boeing has formally protested the decision with the General Accounting Office and the deadline for the GAO decision is rapidly approaching. As this deadline gets closer, even more information has come out about this alarming decision.
You already know many of the troubling aspects of this decision. But did you know that the Air Force actually admitted to the General Accounting Office that the winner of their aerial refueling tanker contract, a product based on the French Airbus, will actually cost American taxpayers more than the U.S.-based Boeing KC-767?
That's right!
Yesterday, a posting on the "Tanker War Blog" reported that redacted copies of documents, including the Air Force's response to Boeing's protest, have been released. Interestingly enough, in this document, the Air Force admits that the winning French Airbus tanker has a higher Most Probable Life Cycle Cost (it costs more to operate) than the Boeing KC-767.
I'm not a fan of Boeing, which has a reputation for sleaze of its own.
But when the long-run cost numbers demonstrate that Boeing's offering is better than that of Airbus (not to mention the national security implications) then something's rotten in Denmark.
And in DC.
As you know, U.S.-based Boeing has formally protested the decision with the General Accounting Office and the deadline for the GAO decision is rapidly approaching. As this deadline gets closer, even more information has come out about this alarming decision.
You already know many of the troubling aspects of this decision. But did you know that the Air Force actually admitted to the General Accounting Office that the winner of their aerial refueling tanker contract, a product based on the French Airbus, will actually cost American taxpayers more than the U.S.-based Boeing KC-767?
That's right!
Yesterday, a posting on the "Tanker War Blog" reported that redacted copies of documents, including the Air Force's response to Boeing's protest, have been released. Interestingly enough, in this document, the Air Force admits that the winning French Airbus tanker has a higher Most Probable Life Cycle Cost (it costs more to operate) than the Boeing KC-767.
I'm not a fan of Boeing, which has a reputation for sleaze of its own.
But when the long-run cost numbers demonstrate that Boeing's offering is better than that of Airbus (not to mention the national security implications) then something's rotten in Denmark.
And in DC.
China Is Our Friend, Part 74,559
Yup.
Two House members said Wednesday their Capitol Hill computers, containing information about political dissidents from around the world, have been hacked by sources apparently working out of China.
...The two lawmakers are longtime critics of China's record on human rights.
In an interview Wednesday, Wolf said the hacking of computers in his Capitol Hill office began in August 2006. He says a computer at a House committee office also was hacked, and he suggested others in the House and possibly the Senate could be involved.
The FBI declined to comment.
Wolf said that in his office, the hackers "got everything," including all the casework regarding political dissidents around the world.
In comments to The Associated Press earlier in the day, Wolf suggested the problem probably goes further. "If it's been done in the House, don't you think that they're doing the same thing in the Senate?"
Why not the Senate? Well--in Herb Kohl's case, the PRC would obtain a lot of info about.....
Hmmm.
Two House members said Wednesday their Capitol Hill computers, containing information about political dissidents from around the world, have been hacked by sources apparently working out of China.
...The two lawmakers are longtime critics of China's record on human rights.
In an interview Wednesday, Wolf said the hacking of computers in his Capitol Hill office began in August 2006. He says a computer at a House committee office also was hacked, and he suggested others in the House and possibly the Senate could be involved.
The FBI declined to comment.
Wolf said that in his office, the hackers "got everything," including all the casework regarding political dissidents around the world.
In comments to The Associated Press earlier in the day, Wolf suggested the problem probably goes further. "If it's been done in the House, don't you think that they're doing the same thing in the Senate?"
Why not the Senate? Well--in Herb Kohl's case, the PRC would obtain a lot of info about.....
Hmmm.
Coathangers and Cluster B Disorders
We all know that the coathanger is THE symbol of "bad-old-days" abortions. It is iconic--desperate women had to do something---anything---to become un-pregnant.
But the coathanger bespeaks a syndrome which may not be directly abortion-related.
Despite their being no rational medical reason to stick a metal hanger up a birth canal other than to self mutilate, there is minimal evidence (at best) to link the use of coat hangers ever being typically used as devices for “back alley” or do-it-yourself self abortions. There is, however, no shortage of evidence linking those with specific “cluster B” Personality Disorders with genital mutilation , some of which have been associated with the behaviors of sticking sharp objects such as coat hangers, pencils, and other sharp objects up into their genitalia. (Also, see Caenis syndrome).
Those who develop a Borderline Personality Disorder are predominately angry women (with histories of sexual abuse) who are consciously or subconsciously driven to deliver a hurtful revenge onto others. They typically have poor self images and are consequently highly sensitive to rejection and constantly haunted by the fear of being abandoned. As a result, they are willing to take drastic measures to avoid loneliness and solitude, which can often include self mutilation, suicide threats and attempts.
It's a grown-up version of the 2-year-old's temper tantrum (albeit for those who were abused, it is differently-caused.)
As a way to inflict pain unto those who have or may abandon them, self-mutilation somehow releases the rage by witnessing and showing her pain to those whom she feels, has disavowed the value of her own life. Consequently, among the more mentally healthy population, the coat hanger symbol used as an abortion device never quite made sense; while, those who may not be as mentally “healthy” would have no problem accepting this as unadulterated truth.
Well, if Whoopi Goldberg believes it, it MUST be true, right?
HT: CosmosLiturgy
But the coathanger bespeaks a syndrome which may not be directly abortion-related.
Despite their being no rational medical reason to stick a metal hanger up a birth canal other than to self mutilate, there is minimal evidence (at best) to link the use of coat hangers ever being typically used as devices for “back alley” or do-it-yourself self abortions. There is, however, no shortage of evidence linking those with specific “cluster B” Personality Disorders with genital mutilation , some of which have been associated with the behaviors of sticking sharp objects such as coat hangers, pencils, and other sharp objects up into their genitalia. (Also, see Caenis syndrome).
Those who develop a Borderline Personality Disorder are predominately angry women (with histories of sexual abuse) who are consciously or subconsciously driven to deliver a hurtful revenge onto others. They typically have poor self images and are consequently highly sensitive to rejection and constantly haunted by the fear of being abandoned. As a result, they are willing to take drastic measures to avoid loneliness and solitude, which can often include self mutilation, suicide threats and attempts.
It's a grown-up version of the 2-year-old's temper tantrum (albeit for those who were abused, it is differently-caused.)
As a way to inflict pain unto those who have or may abandon them, self-mutilation somehow releases the rage by witnessing and showing her pain to those whom she feels, has disavowed the value of her own life. Consequently, among the more mentally healthy population, the coat hanger symbol used as an abortion device never quite made sense; while, those who may not be as mentally “healthy” would have no problem accepting this as unadulterated truth.
Well, if Whoopi Goldberg believes it, it MUST be true, right?
HT: CosmosLiturgy
Next Time the Utility Goes Down...
We mentioned earlier that one major electrical blackout was likely a result of hacking.
There could be lots more. And they might be water- or sewer- or natural-gas failures.
Attackers could gain control of water treatment plants, natural gas pipelines and other critical utilities because of a vulnerability in the software that runs some of those facilities, security researchers reported Wednesday
...the vulnerability could have counterparts in other so-called supervisory control and data acquisition, or SCADA, systems.
The attack-method is simple: buffer-overflow.
There could be lots more. And they might be water- or sewer- or natural-gas failures.
Attackers could gain control of water treatment plants, natural gas pipelines and other critical utilities because of a vulnerability in the software that runs some of those facilities, security researchers reported Wednesday
...the vulnerability could have counterparts in other so-called supervisory control and data acquisition, or SCADA, systems.
The attack-method is simple: buffer-overflow.
Even HIGHER Cost of Ethanol
The Ethanol Oligopoly succeeds in sucking the life out of consumers.
The never-ending downpours and cool temperatures are likely to mean still higher prices for farmers and more pain at the supermarket for consumers
The U.S. Agriculture Department on Tuesday lowered its projections of this year's corn harvest and forecast that livestock producers will cut back on production because of the higher cost of grain to feed their animals
The department estimated that farmers will produce 11.7 billion bushels of corn this year, 390 million bushels less than the Agriculture Department expected a month ago.
The Agriculture Department lowered its projected national yield by five bushels to 148.9 bushels per acre.
The more pessimistic forecast "reflects slow planting progress, slow crop emergence and persistent, heavy rainfall across the Corn Belt," the department said in its weekly report on global commodity supplies and demand.
Corn prices reached a record high for the fourth day in a row on the Chicago Board of Trade. July corn futures rose 16 cents to more than $6.73 a bushel
If Chuck Grassley remains bought-and-paid-for, you will also pay these poor farmers several hundred million dollars in subsidies.
HT: FoxPolitics
The never-ending downpours and cool temperatures are likely to mean still higher prices for farmers and more pain at the supermarket for consumers
The U.S. Agriculture Department on Tuesday lowered its projections of this year's corn harvest and forecast that livestock producers will cut back on production because of the higher cost of grain to feed their animals
The department estimated that farmers will produce 11.7 billion bushels of corn this year, 390 million bushels less than the Agriculture Department expected a month ago.
The Agriculture Department lowered its projected national yield by five bushels to 148.9 bushels per acre.
The more pessimistic forecast "reflects slow planting progress, slow crop emergence and persistent, heavy rainfall across the Corn Belt," the department said in its weekly report on global commodity supplies and demand.
Corn prices reached a record high for the fourth day in a row on the Chicago Board of Trade. July corn futures rose 16 cents to more than $6.73 a bushel
If Chuck Grassley remains bought-and-paid-for, you will also pay these poor farmers several hundred million dollars in subsidies.
HT: FoxPolitics
It's About Time for Brookfield to Open North Ave.
A few days ago, the City of Brookfield closed North Avenue between Barker Road and Derrin Lane (meaning Brookfield Road for through-bound traffic.)
Made sense at the time; the road was under about 12" of water at the Fox River bridge; some morons would blow through the water hazard and drown their engines in the process, making a REAL mess out of an inconvenience.
But the Curious Blogger decided to take a look today, and discovered that one can see the road-stripes for the entire distance that the road is underwater.
Meaning that the water-depth is roughly 2"-4" or so--meaning that sensible drivers can go through without concern.
So OPEN THE ROAD, already!
Made sense at the time; the road was under about 12" of water at the Fox River bridge; some morons would blow through the water hazard and drown their engines in the process, making a REAL mess out of an inconvenience.
But the Curious Blogger decided to take a look today, and discovered that one can see the road-stripes for the entire distance that the road is underwater.
Meaning that the water-depth is roughly 2"-4" or so--meaning that sensible drivers can go through without concern.
So OPEN THE ROAD, already!
Jacking Profits by Fixing the Laws
Two widely disparate examples from today's batch of readings.
Mercedes [Clemens] has a thriving massage practice in Rockville that offers both human and animal massage. In addition to being a licensed massage therapist, Mercedes is certified in equine massage — a growing trade that calms horses, improving their temperament and making them easier to handle — and has even taught the practice to others.
In February, two politically connected groups decided to use their power to monopolize the practice of animal massage and shut down Mercedes’ business. The Maryland Board of Chiropractic Examiners, which licenses massage therapists who work on humans, joined forces with the Maryland State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners to threaten Mercedes with thousands of dollars in fines and criminal prosecution unless she spends four years in veterinary school — where massage is not even taught.
Can't say that I have a horse in that fight. But it's exactly what we see below, courtesy of P-Mac:
Congress is stirring against hospitals owned by doctors. St. Elsewhere preserve us, lawmakers beg, from doctors being in charge of doctoring.
This perennial rage about doctor-run specialty hospitals is practically the definition of special-interest legislation. It would use law on behalf of powerful incumbents to crush nimble competitors.
...Just after [Milwaukee Heart Hospital] opened, Congress temporarily banned any expansion, cutting off the hospital’s prospects. Wilson says Milwaukee-area hospital chains barred their physicians from referring any patients. Since hospitals here control most doctors by owning many group practices, this was fatal
There is no longer any question that the "hospital oligarchy/oligopoly" in SE Wisconsin is a leading cause of the highest health-care costs in the Known Universe.
The only remaining questions: 1) how much does it cost us, and 2) how many lives does it cost?
Mercedes [Clemens] has a thriving massage practice in Rockville that offers both human and animal massage. In addition to being a licensed massage therapist, Mercedes is certified in equine massage — a growing trade that calms horses, improving their temperament and making them easier to handle — and has even taught the practice to others.
In February, two politically connected groups decided to use their power to monopolize the practice of animal massage and shut down Mercedes’ business. The Maryland Board of Chiropractic Examiners, which licenses massage therapists who work on humans, joined forces with the Maryland State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners to threaten Mercedes with thousands of dollars in fines and criminal prosecution unless she spends four years in veterinary school — where massage is not even taught.
Can't say that I have a horse in that fight. But it's exactly what we see below, courtesy of P-Mac:
Congress is stirring against hospitals owned by doctors. St. Elsewhere preserve us, lawmakers beg, from doctors being in charge of doctoring.
This perennial rage about doctor-run specialty hospitals is practically the definition of special-interest legislation. It would use law on behalf of powerful incumbents to crush nimble competitors.
...Just after [Milwaukee Heart Hospital] opened, Congress temporarily banned any expansion, cutting off the hospital’s prospects. Wilson says Milwaukee-area hospital chains barred their physicians from referring any patients. Since hospitals here control most doctors by owning many group practices, this was fatal
There is no longer any question that the "hospital oligarchy/oligopoly" in SE Wisconsin is a leading cause of the highest health-care costs in the Known Universe.
The only remaining questions: 1) how much does it cost us, and 2) how many lives does it cost?
How To Reduce Gasoline Prices
The Democrat plan is to the left (of course.)
The Republican plan is not only to the right--it IS right.
Congressman Blunt provided the picture, and 'splains his methodology, which was based on the work of Speaker-Ette (and Queen) Pelosi:
Methodology: Retail gasoline prices are the result of literally hundreds of factors including crude oil supply, global demand, refinery capacity, regulation, taxes, weather, the value of the dollar, etc. Therefore it is impossible to say with certainty what one individual action will do to the overall price. However, based on what we know about the impact of crude oil supply and prices it is possible to develop some potential ranges of impact on gasoline prices for certain policy changes. For example, using the methodology employed by Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats that suspending shipments into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (between 40-77,000 barrels of oil a day) would reduce gas prices by at least 5 cents, bringing ANWR online (at least one million barrels of oil a day) could impact gasoline prices by between 70 cents and $1.60.
Hey--it was HER method.
HT: Powerline
Which College for Your Kids?
Here's a hint:
Hillsdale College students may soon have a place to store and shoot their firearms.
About 72 acres of land, roughly three miles south of campus on Bankers Road will open as a shooting range this fall, Hillsdale College officials said this week. The range will open initially without frills, though building storage areas for firearms is part of the long-term vision for the range.
...The first phase of the shooting range, anticipated to debut in September, will include temporary traps at the range site with 100-target capacity and the resources necessary for some physical education classes on target shooting. Péwé said the college also plans to purchase ammunition, targets, safety equipment and several shotguns to start Hillsdale College's shooting program.
So--an A.B. .22? How about a Masters' in Trap?
Hillsdale College students may soon have a place to store and shoot their firearms.
About 72 acres of land, roughly three miles south of campus on Bankers Road will open as a shooting range this fall, Hillsdale College officials said this week. The range will open initially without frills, though building storage areas for firearms is part of the long-term vision for the range.
...The first phase of the shooting range, anticipated to debut in September, will include temporary traps at the range site with 100-target capacity and the resources necessary for some physical education classes on target shooting. Péwé said the college also plans to purchase ammunition, targets, safety equipment and several shotguns to start Hillsdale College's shooting program.
So--an A.B. .22? How about a Masters' in Trap?
Van Hollen Was Right
As one would suspect, the more that one knows, the worse Ms. Kelly looks.
Agent Jim Sielehr told investigators that Kelly loudly discussed her displeasure with Van Hollen in a crowded Madison restaurant just after the attorney general announced the retirement of Jim Warren, former chief of the Justice Department’s Division of Criminal Investigation. Warren, who led the division for 10 years, was Kelly’s boss and friend.
“Kelly engaged in a loud rant against the attorney general over the Warren matter,” Sielehr told investigators. “People could hear. . . . She was using profanity and showing her disdain for the administration. She called the Van Hollen administration ‘(expletive) idiots,’ that they were a joke and said that everything J.B. had just told us was a complete lie.”
One could overlook a one-time rant; but it was not "one-time."
Records show Kelly became more openly critical of Van Hollen’s top aides after Warren chose to retire instead of accepting a transfer to run a different division — a move Warren considered a demotion.
The records also suggested there was a troubled culture in the Division of Criminal Investigation under Warren, who declined to comment Tuesday.
For example, Robbie Lowery, director of the division’s Gaming Bureau, told investigators: “Kelly did not work well with anybody, in my opinion, but she was in Warren’s ‘lunch crowd,’ and I was not. There were two camps in DCI — the people that Warren would speak to and everyone else."
What you had here was a cancer problem--not unlike what shows up in professional athletic teams now and then.
Best treatment: surgery. That's what Van Hollen did.
Agent Jim Sielehr told investigators that Kelly loudly discussed her displeasure with Van Hollen in a crowded Madison restaurant just after the attorney general announced the retirement of Jim Warren, former chief of the Justice Department’s Division of Criminal Investigation. Warren, who led the division for 10 years, was Kelly’s boss and friend.
“Kelly engaged in a loud rant against the attorney general over the Warren matter,” Sielehr told investigators. “People could hear. . . . She was using profanity and showing her disdain for the administration. She called the Van Hollen administration ‘(expletive) idiots,’ that they were a joke and said that everything J.B. had just told us was a complete lie.”
One could overlook a one-time rant; but it was not "one-time."
Records show Kelly became more openly critical of Van Hollen’s top aides after Warren chose to retire instead of accepting a transfer to run a different division — a move Warren considered a demotion.
The records also suggested there was a troubled culture in the Division of Criminal Investigation under Warren, who declined to comment Tuesday.
For example, Robbie Lowery, director of the division’s Gaming Bureau, told investigators: “Kelly did not work well with anybody, in my opinion, but she was in Warren’s ‘lunch crowd,’ and I was not. There were two camps in DCI — the people that Warren would speak to and everyone else."
What you had here was a cancer problem--not unlike what shows up in professional athletic teams now and then.
Best treatment: surgery. That's what Van Hollen did.
DNR: Oopsie!
The Wisconsin DNR is a very well-funded outfit. It's also known for being high-handed, arrogant, and ......ahhh......aggressive in enforcing its rules.
And it makes mistakes. Big ones.
Last night, Channel 6 reported that the DNR's estimate of Wisconsin's black-bear population was erroneous. DNR reported 13,000 of the critters LAST year, but revised its figure THIS year.
Now the number is 26,000--a 100% increase.
Oh, well.
Obviously, DNR's officers were too busy invading homes and finding suburban deer-feeding stations.
And it makes mistakes. Big ones.
Last night, Channel 6 reported that the DNR's estimate of Wisconsin's black-bear population was erroneous. DNR reported 13,000 of the critters LAST year, but revised its figure THIS year.
Now the number is 26,000--a 100% increase.
Oh, well.
Obviously, DNR's officers were too busy invading homes and finding suburban deer-feeding stations.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Noonan to Go All Obama?
So opines Roeser:
Judging from her columns in the “Wall Street Journal,” get ready for Peggy Noonan to be the next to defect to Barack Obama. The White House, you see, didn’t make her director of communications despite her taking a leave to campaign for Bush in 2004…so the posy, highly artificial scribe who is a gifted wordsmith grew discontented and started kicking about the callousness and political obtuseness of the White House.
At the same time she has been very caustic about Hillary Clinton, almost to the point where her rants against the first woman to make a serious run for the White House seem like gender self-hatred. Her gushiness about Obama seems very like the early “thoughtful” parsing Doug Kmiec did for Obama before he defected.
Not a word from either on the great dichotomy between Obama and pro-life, an issue which both Kmiec and Noonan profess adherence to. The war…the economy…the need to ingratiate ourselves with foreign nations and not be hated…global warming-all seem of equal weight which means that if they are all equal, it’s easy to come down on the side of Obama on sheer numbers of equal issues alone.
Watch for Dear Peggy to follow the exit route and shake her golden tresses in the limelight as an Obama devotee.
Her unhappiness with GWB has been very obvious in the last few weeks; some of her criticisms have been over the top. It's one thing to say that GWB was incapable of assembling and articulating a coherent policy on X or Y (or Iraq.) It's another thing to buy, whole, the McCallum book.
However, she DID fairly criticize Bush for bringing McCallum to the White House. One expects that Bush agrees with her--now.
Judging from her columns in the “Wall Street Journal,” get ready for Peggy Noonan to be the next to defect to Barack Obama. The White House, you see, didn’t make her director of communications despite her taking a leave to campaign for Bush in 2004…so the posy, highly artificial scribe who is a gifted wordsmith grew discontented and started kicking about the callousness and political obtuseness of the White House.
At the same time she has been very caustic about Hillary Clinton, almost to the point where her rants against the first woman to make a serious run for the White House seem like gender self-hatred. Her gushiness about Obama seems very like the early “thoughtful” parsing Doug Kmiec did for Obama before he defected.
Not a word from either on the great dichotomy between Obama and pro-life, an issue which both Kmiec and Noonan profess adherence to. The war…the economy…the need to ingratiate ourselves with foreign nations and not be hated…global warming-all seem of equal weight which means that if they are all equal, it’s easy to come down on the side of Obama on sheer numbers of equal issues alone.
Watch for Dear Peggy to follow the exit route and shake her golden tresses in the limelight as an Obama devotee.
Her unhappiness with GWB has been very obvious in the last few weeks; some of her criticisms have been over the top. It's one thing to say that GWB was incapable of assembling and articulating a coherent policy on X or Y (or Iraq.) It's another thing to buy, whole, the McCallum book.
However, she DID fairly criticize Bush for bringing McCallum to the White House. One expects that Bush agrees with her--now.
McCain's REAL Challenge
His real challenge is NOT winning the election. It's more important.
...other run-ins with conservatives, some Republicans say, have revealed the depth of the challenge facing McCain: mollifying Republican constituencies that have distrusted many of his policy positions, in order to build the machinery needed to push voters to the polls in November.
If McCain tried to gather his volunteers in Ohio, "you could meet in a phone booth," said radio host Bill Cunningham, who attacks the Arizona senator regularly on his talk show. "There's no sense in this part of Ohio that John McCain is a conservative or that his election would have a material benefit to conservatism."
So reports the LATimes, in an article describing a dreadful meeting between an Ohio conservative and McCain's people.
HT: Rich Leonardi
...other run-ins with conservatives, some Republicans say, have revealed the depth of the challenge facing McCain: mollifying Republican constituencies that have distrusted many of his policy positions, in order to build the machinery needed to push voters to the polls in November.
If McCain tried to gather his volunteers in Ohio, "you could meet in a phone booth," said radio host Bill Cunningham, who attacks the Arizona senator regularly on his talk show. "There's no sense in this part of Ohio that John McCain is a conservative or that his election would have a material benefit to conservatism."
So reports the LATimes, in an article describing a dreadful meeting between an Ohio conservative and McCain's people.
HT: Rich Leonardi
Doyle Ditched From Obama Site
In news not reported by the MSM, we learn that the "Faux-Catholics Advising Obamamamama" have been dropped from the Obama website. Quoting Bill Donahue, K-Lo breaks the story:
“On May 2, I issued a news release calling on Sen. Obama to dissolve his Catholic National Advisory Council. My principal reason for doing so was his selection of dissident Catholics to advise him: for example, most of the public officials are so pro-abortion that they had a 100 percent NARAL record. On May 8, most members of the Advisory Council faxed me a letter defending themselves; I answered the same day taking them to task for their lame defense. But it now appears that my initial recommendation—to dissolve the group—may have been accepted.
“There is no mention anywhere on the Obama website of the Catholic National Advisory Council. On Friday, we placed three phone calls to his campaign: two to media relations and one to Mark Linton, Obama’s National Catholic Outreach Coordinator. We were told each time that someone would get back to us, but no one did. I then personally e-mailed Linton informing him of the three phone calls, requesting that he respond to my question: ‘I would like to know whether the Catholic National Advisory Council for Sen. Obama is still operative.’ He has not replied.
“It would appear, then, that the group no longer exists. It is not hard to understand why. After being criticized by the Catholic League, Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City rebuked one of Obama’s Catholic advisors, Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius: she was instructed not to present herself for Holy Communion (she is a rabid defender of abortion). At about the same time, radical Chicago priest Rev. Michael Pfleger bailed on Obama by withdrawing his name from the Advisory Council. Now we find that there is no listing for the group on the Obama website.
“Looks like the Obama campaign’s decision to quietly drop its Advisory Council didn’t work. We found out, and we’ve never been accused of being quiet.”
As noted in this blog (and others,) DarthDoyle, our abortion-loving Governor, was a member.
“On May 2, I issued a news release calling on Sen. Obama to dissolve his Catholic National Advisory Council. My principal reason for doing so was his selection of dissident Catholics to advise him: for example, most of the public officials are so pro-abortion that they had a 100 percent NARAL record. On May 8, most members of the Advisory Council faxed me a letter defending themselves; I answered the same day taking them to task for their lame defense. But it now appears that my initial recommendation—to dissolve the group—may have been accepted.
“There is no mention anywhere on the Obama website of the Catholic National Advisory Council. On Friday, we placed three phone calls to his campaign: two to media relations and one to Mark Linton, Obama’s National Catholic Outreach Coordinator. We were told each time that someone would get back to us, but no one did. I then personally e-mailed Linton informing him of the three phone calls, requesting that he respond to my question: ‘I would like to know whether the Catholic National Advisory Council for Sen. Obama is still operative.’ He has not replied.
“It would appear, then, that the group no longer exists. It is not hard to understand why. After being criticized by the Catholic League, Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City rebuked one of Obama’s Catholic advisors, Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius: she was instructed not to present herself for Holy Communion (she is a rabid defender of abortion). At about the same time, radical Chicago priest Rev. Michael Pfleger bailed on Obama by withdrawing his name from the Advisory Council. Now we find that there is no listing for the group on the Obama website.
“Looks like the Obama campaign’s decision to quietly drop its Advisory Council didn’t work. We found out, and we’ve never been accused of being quiet.”
As noted in this blog (and others,) DarthDoyle, our abortion-loving Governor, was a member.
Smarmy, Yes. We Pay For It!
The Waukesha County Tech College announcement:
On Thursday, June 26, discover what we can all do to reach across divides of privilege, power, and difference to ensure an inclusive campus climate. Author of the Gender Knot and Privilege, Power and Difference, Dr. Allan Johnson presents a guilt-free way of thinking about systems of privilege and oppression.
Frankly, I always liked privilege and power. Now I can be guilt-free, too!!
On Thursday, June 26, discover what we can all do to reach across divides of privilege, power, and difference to ensure an inclusive campus climate. Author of the Gender Knot and Privilege, Power and Difference, Dr. Allan Johnson presents a guilt-free way of thinking about systems of privilege and oppression.
Frankly, I always liked privilege and power. Now I can be guilt-free, too!!
Monday, June 09, 2008
No Wonder The French Just Give Up
Ahh....in France, such things as defense...there is no need, m'sieur
Most of France's tanks, helicopters and jet fighters are unusable and its defence apparatus is on the verge of "falling apart", it has emerged.
According to confidential defence documents leaked to the French press, less than half of France's Leclerc tanks – 142 out of 346 – are operational and even these regularly break down.
Less than half of its Puma helicopters, 37 per cent of its Lynx choppers and 33 per cent of its Super Frelon models – built 40 years ago – are in a fit state to fly, according to documents seen by Le Parisien newspaper.
Two thirds of France's Mirage F1 reconnaissance jets are unusable at present
Looks like their military strategy is a continuation of the Maginot Line, mutatis mutandis.
Most of France's tanks, helicopters and jet fighters are unusable and its defence apparatus is on the verge of "falling apart", it has emerged.
According to confidential defence documents leaked to the French press, less than half of France's Leclerc tanks – 142 out of 346 – are operational and even these regularly break down.
Less than half of its Puma helicopters, 37 per cent of its Lynx choppers and 33 per cent of its Super Frelon models – built 40 years ago – are in a fit state to fly, according to documents seen by Le Parisien newspaper.
Two thirds of France's Mirage F1 reconnaissance jets are unusable at present
Looks like their military strategy is a continuation of the Maginot Line, mutatis mutandis.
Neumayr Agrees
A few days ago, I mentioned that gay 'marriage' may become the law of the land--but that those who rejoice at that thought have no cause to rejoice, because what the State gives the State may also take away.
George Neumayr makes a more general point:
Speaking to the US bishops on April 16, Pope Benedict XVI made the arresting comment that an “almost complete eclipse of an eschatological sense” marks “many of our traditionally Christian societies.”
...The profound and the pastoral are intrinsically linked, and the Pope’s call for a renewal of an “intellectual culture” that rests on a sound and comprehensive account of nature, man, and God, an account in which revelation reinforces and purifies reason while building upon it, is central to “charity.” As the grim chapters of history illustrate, false philosophy and theology have real, not abstract, consequences; errors about man’s ultimate destiny, while they may at first seem like harmless differences of “opinion,” show up immediately and destructively in politics and culture.
Deliberating on the good of man without consulting the God who determined it—in other words, the mode of public life that has held sway for decades—produces not human utopias but civilizational chaos, spiritual torpor and poisonous conceits: a concept of “freedom” that enslaves, “rights” that devour each other, and a rhetoric of “human dignity” that degrades.
Worth thinking about, folks. That 'natural law' stuff is not disposable. You will also note that the Pope did not call for 'all men to become Catholic,' but rather that there is a grave deficiency in thinking about eschatology.
Which, my friends, results in attempting to create Heaven on Earth.
That ain't going to happen.
George Neumayr makes a more general point:
Speaking to the US bishops on April 16, Pope Benedict XVI made the arresting comment that an “almost complete eclipse of an eschatological sense” marks “many of our traditionally Christian societies.”
...The profound and the pastoral are intrinsically linked, and the Pope’s call for a renewal of an “intellectual culture” that rests on a sound and comprehensive account of nature, man, and God, an account in which revelation reinforces and purifies reason while building upon it, is central to “charity.” As the grim chapters of history illustrate, false philosophy and theology have real, not abstract, consequences; errors about man’s ultimate destiny, while they may at first seem like harmless differences of “opinion,” show up immediately and destructively in politics and culture.
Deliberating on the good of man without consulting the God who determined it—in other words, the mode of public life that has held sway for decades—produces not human utopias but civilizational chaos, spiritual torpor and poisonous conceits: a concept of “freedom” that enslaves, “rights” that devour each other, and a rhetoric of “human dignity” that degrades.
Worth thinking about, folks. That 'natural law' stuff is not disposable. You will also note that the Pope did not call for 'all men to become Catholic,' but rather that there is a grave deficiency in thinking about eschatology.
Which, my friends, results in attempting to create Heaven on Earth.
That ain't going to happen.
Gun Control By Other Means
Evidently the locals expect that the Wisconsin Supreme Court will soon overturn local concealed-carry restrictions, as the drumbeat of 'news' stories (and fables) is beginning.
Today the Milwaukee MSM presents a 'story' which is simply silly.
Gun suicide [which is much different from homicide] and homicide rates were about 25% lower when background checks on gun buyers were performed by local authorities as opposed to federal or state agencies, according to a study by the Medical College of Wisconsin
And it carries on in that fashion until someone points out the obvious:
However, the study looked only at who was doing the background checks, not other local or state laws that might affect how easy it is to buy a gun, said Daniel Webster, co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research.
It might be that when background checks are done locally, the community also has more restrictive laws and that the laws, not the background checks, are reducing the gun death rates, he said.
Uh-huh. Look at the map above (or the JS link.) Note that New York, New Jersey, and Washington State (among others) are "local-check" models. It is well-known that while CCW is legal in New York, obtaining a permit in NYCity is virtually impossible. Same can be said about some larger cities in New Jersey, as well as Seattle. And no, I am not mixing up the CCW vs. background-check issues.
What local authorities (especially in Milwaukee) would prefer to see is State legislation which permits gun purchases, but only if the local police chief authorizes them. Obviously, that will impact purchases for purpose of carrying concealed.
It's merely a different way to prevent CCW--as well as any other gun purchase.
In other words, they'd like the New York model: "Yes, we have CCW permits. But you'll be 165 years old before you obtain one."
By the way, suicides are irrelevant. Gun-suicide is merely easier than knife-suicide, car-suicide, or suicide-by-cop. Suicides will continue regardless of the method.
DC's "Papers, Please" Checkpoint: Unconstitutional
We mentioned the "Papers, please!" checkpoint a while back.
Volokh is on this, and concludes that it is un-constitutional.
However, a "drunk-driver" checkpoint IS constitutional. That was an idea that Paul Bucher advanced during his campaign for AG--and was the specific reason that I was distinctly un-enthused about him.
IOW, the Supremes were wrong in their conclusion.
Volokh is on this, and concludes that it is un-constitutional.
However, a "drunk-driver" checkpoint IS constitutional. That was an idea that Paul Bucher advanced during his campaign for AG--and was the specific reason that I was distinctly un-enthused about him.
IOW, the Supremes were wrong in their conclusion.
Chipmunk Dilemma
So on Sunday morning, there sat the neighborhood chipmunk, munching happily on dropped birdseed.
Until the deluge came along.
When it hit, the water flowed down the hill and effectively surrounded the chipmunk. He could get high enough to avoid the rushing groundwater, but then he was sitting in a forceful shower coming from the overflowing rain-gutter.
He couldn't leave, and he did NOT like the involuntary dousing.
Problems everywhere, for everyone.
Until the deluge came along.
When it hit, the water flowed down the hill and effectively surrounded the chipmunk. He could get high enough to avoid the rushing groundwater, but then he was sitting in a forceful shower coming from the overflowing rain-gutter.
He couldn't leave, and he did NOT like the involuntary dousing.
Problems everywhere, for everyone.
Open Carry in Wisconsin?
Apparently the 'open-carry' idea is gaining traction nationally.
For years, Kevin Jensen carried a pistol everywhere he went, tucked in a shoulder holster beneath his clothes.
In hot weather the holster was almost unbearable. Pressed against his skin, the firearm was heavy and uncomfortable. Hiding the weapon made Jensen feel like a criminal.
Then one evening he stumbled across a site that urged gun owners to do something revolutionary: Carry your gun openly for the world to see as you go about your business.
In most states there's no law against that.
As a matter of fact, there's no law against it in Wisconsin, either. And there IS a Constitutional Amendment (the 25th) which would seem to bless open carry.
But there IS a caveat--it is the practice of the Milwaukee police department to arrest folks who 'open-carry,' and the DA has charged such folks with Disorderly Conduct under an interpretation of the ordinance which is (to say the least) rather expansive.
See Patrick's blog for further discussion.
For years, Kevin Jensen carried a pistol everywhere he went, tucked in a shoulder holster beneath his clothes.
In hot weather the holster was almost unbearable. Pressed against his skin, the firearm was heavy and uncomfortable. Hiding the weapon made Jensen feel like a criminal.
Then one evening he stumbled across a site that urged gun owners to do something revolutionary: Carry your gun openly for the world to see as you go about your business.
In most states there's no law against that.
As a matter of fact, there's no law against it in Wisconsin, either. And there IS a Constitutional Amendment (the 25th) which would seem to bless open carry.
But there IS a caveat--it is the practice of the Milwaukee police department to arrest folks who 'open-carry,' and the DA has charged such folks with Disorderly Conduct under an interpretation of the ordinance which is (to say the least) rather expansive.
See Patrick's blog for further discussion.
City of Milwaukee Dumps into Lake. Again
You have to break the code to know whose poop is in Lake Michigan.
The tunnel system has a capacity to hold 494 million gallons of sewage and stormwater, and Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District Executive Director Kevin Shafer said it was "basically empty" at the time the storms hit.
Sounds good, eh? About 500 million gallons could have been stored.
He said district policy during storms is to keep 250 million gallons of that storage capacity set aside to deal with sanitary overflows.
That means combined sewer overflows can be authorized before the system fills to prevent overflows from the sanitary sewer lines that serve most of the district.
"Combined sewer" is Milwaukee poop-and-rain.
Recall that ONLY Milwaukee (and Shorewood) have "combined" sewers, and actually only a portion of Milwaukee has them. The reason MMSD was created was so that Milwaukee residents would not have to spend the money to separate poop from stormwater.
...because the rain fell so fast that the district's computers automatically closed gates to allow combined sewer overflows into area waterways. At the time, the tunnels held only 34 million gallons
Friggin' genius at work there, no?
So Milwaukee tossed another poop-bomb into Lake Michigan after several gazillion dollars were spent to prevent Milwaukee residents from doing what they should have done in the first damn place.
And 450++million gallons' storage space remained empty.
It goes without saying that the gurus who legislated this failure were Democrats...
The tunnel system has a capacity to hold 494 million gallons of sewage and stormwater, and Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District Executive Director Kevin Shafer said it was "basically empty" at the time the storms hit.
Sounds good, eh? About 500 million gallons could have been stored.
He said district policy during storms is to keep 250 million gallons of that storage capacity set aside to deal with sanitary overflows.
That means combined sewer overflows can be authorized before the system fills to prevent overflows from the sanitary sewer lines that serve most of the district.
"Combined sewer" is Milwaukee poop-and-rain.
Recall that ONLY Milwaukee (and Shorewood) have "combined" sewers, and actually only a portion of Milwaukee has them. The reason MMSD was created was so that Milwaukee residents would not have to spend the money to separate poop from stormwater.
...because the rain fell so fast that the district's computers automatically closed gates to allow combined sewer overflows into area waterways. At the time, the tunnels held only 34 million gallons
Friggin' genius at work there, no?
So Milwaukee tossed another poop-bomb into Lake Michigan after several gazillion dollars were spent to prevent Milwaukee residents from doing what they should have done in the first damn place.
And 450++million gallons' storage space remained empty.
It goes without saying that the gurus who legislated this failure were Democrats...
Oddities in Elm Grove
Interesting.
St. Mary's Catholic Church in Elm Grove and Unitarian Universalist Church West in Brookfield have established gender-neutral [restrooms].
The news-article discussion centers on transgender/bisexual needs, but there is mention of the "small-children" restroom need.
St. Mary's Catholic Church in Elm Grove and Unitarian Universalist Church West in Brookfield have established gender-neutral [restrooms].
The news-article discussion centers on transgender/bisexual needs, but there is mention of the "small-children" restroom need.
Rain Report
Here in the borderland between Brookfield and P-ville, we caught a minimum of five inches on Saturday afternoon/night, and topped off the tanks with another three inches on Sunday morning and evening.
The Fox River at Springdale Road has risen three feet since Friday.
The Fox River at Springdale Road has risen three feet since Friday.
Fed Grant Here, Fed Grant There...
Here a grant, there a grant, everywhere a grant-grant...
At the renovated train/bus station in Milwaukee:
Greyhound is now seeking a federal grant to lower the overhead costs. Greyhound spokesman Dustin Clark declined to provide details of the talks, but said federal aid would be helpful.
Uh huh. After all, it's for thechildren ......?
(Maybe you can fill in the blank. I can't.)
At the renovated train/bus station in Milwaukee:
Greyhound is now seeking a federal grant to lower the overhead costs. Greyhound spokesman Dustin Clark declined to provide details of the talks, but said federal aid would be helpful.
Uh huh. After all, it's for the
(Maybe you can fill in the blank. I can't.)
Friday, June 06, 2008
Madison Bishop Stays With the Pope
Bp. Morlino has taken a leadership position on a number of issues (think: opposition to the Legislature's mandate of "Plan B," inter alia.)
And he's done it again.
...At the Corpus Christi Mass in the Diocese of Madison, Wisconsin, the local Bishop, H. E. the Most Reverend Robert C. Morlino, in his homily made express reference to the pope's example of three days before and encouraged everyone present and physically able to receive the Blessed Sacrament on their tongues and on their knees out of reverence on this solemn occasion. For this purpose, there not being an altar rail, kneelers were put in front of the sanctuary for Communion.
...The Mass was followed by a Procession from the church (the Cathedral had burnt down three years ago) to the State Capitol and then to another church for Benediction. The whole procession was almost an hour an a half long
Kudos to the Bishop!
And he's done it again.
...At the Corpus Christi Mass in the Diocese of Madison, Wisconsin, the local Bishop, H. E. the Most Reverend Robert C. Morlino, in his homily made express reference to the pope's example of three days before and encouraged everyone present and physically able to receive the Blessed Sacrament on their tongues and on their knees out of reverence on this solemn occasion. For this purpose, there not being an altar rail, kneelers were put in front of the sanctuary for Communion.
...The Mass was followed by a Procession from the church (the Cathedral had burnt down three years ago) to the State Capitol and then to another church for Benediction. The whole procession was almost an hour an a half long
Kudos to the Bishop!
Tradition, Democracy, and Madmen
G K Chesterton sums it up for you.
I HAVE never been able to understand where people got the idea that democracy was in some way opposed to tradition. It is obvious that tradition is only democracy extended through time. It is trusting to a consensus of common human voices rather than to some isolated or arbitrary record.
The man who quotes some German historian against the tradition of the Catholic Church, for instance, is strictly appealing to aristocracy. He is appealing to the superiority of one expert against the awful authority of a mob.
It is quite easy to see why a legend is treated, and ought to be treated, more respectfully than a book of history. The legend is generally made by the majority of people in the village, who are sane. The book is generally written by the one man in the village, who is mad.
Those who urge against tradition -- that men in the past were ignorant -- may go and urge it at the Canton Club, along with the statement that voters in the slums are ignorant. It will not do for us. If we attach great importance to the opinion of ordinary men in great unanimity when we are dealing with daily matters, there is no reason why we should disregard it when we are dealing with history or fable.
Tradition may be defined as an extension of the franchise. Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes -- our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. [Hint: Legal Postivists such as those who occupy SCOCA or SCOUSA.]
All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth: tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man's opinion, even if he is our groom. Tradition asks us not to neglect a good man's opinion, even if he is our father.
So if there is a flaw in 'republican' government, it is the implicit aristocracy of the elected representatives--who, after all, are more dangerous when walking around than when at room temperature.
I HAVE never been able to understand where people got the idea that democracy was in some way opposed to tradition. It is obvious that tradition is only democracy extended through time. It is trusting to a consensus of common human voices rather than to some isolated or arbitrary record.
The man who quotes some German historian against the tradition of the Catholic Church, for instance, is strictly appealing to aristocracy. He is appealing to the superiority of one expert against the awful authority of a mob.
It is quite easy to see why a legend is treated, and ought to be treated, more respectfully than a book of history. The legend is generally made by the majority of people in the village, who are sane. The book is generally written by the one man in the village, who is mad.
Those who urge against tradition -- that men in the past were ignorant -- may go and urge it at the Canton Club, along with the statement that voters in the slums are ignorant. It will not do for us. If we attach great importance to the opinion of ordinary men in great unanimity when we are dealing with daily matters, there is no reason why we should disregard it when we are dealing with history or fable.
Tradition may be defined as an extension of the franchise. Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes -- our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. [Hint: Legal Postivists such as those who occupy SCOCA or SCOUSA.]
All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth: tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man's opinion, even if he is our groom. Tradition asks us not to neglect a good man's opinion, even if he is our father.
So if there is a flaw in 'republican' government, it is the implicit aristocracy of the elected representatives--who, after all, are more dangerous when walking around than when at room temperature.
Thursday, June 05, 2008
More Thought on Gay "Marriage"
From R R Reno at First Things.
...in the old system, the state presumed the existence of a substantive, natural reality that required legal adumbration: the union of a man and a woman, and the children resulting from their sexual relations. Now the Canadian government sees that it must intervene and redefine marriage and parenthood in order to give fixed legal standing to otherwise fluid and uncertain social relations. When the gay friend donates his sperm to the surrogate mother hired by a lesbian couple, the resulting “family” is a purely legal construct, one that requires the power of state to enforce contracts and attach children to adoptive parents.
The result is the opposite of the libertarian dream of freedom. As Farrow observes, with gay marriage we are giving over the family to the state to define according to the needs of the moment. The upshot, he worries, will be a dangerous increase in the power of the state to define our lives in other realms once thought sacrosanct. “Remove religiously motivated restrictions on marriage,” he writes, “and it is much easier to remove religiously motivated restrictions on human behavior in general, and on the state’s power to order human society as it sees fit.” The libertarian dream turns into the totalitarian nightmare. Who can or cannot be a spouse? That’s for the state to decide. To whom do children belong? It’s up to the state to assign parents as its social workers and judges think best.
That libertarianism leads to tyranny is not news. ANY system which sets out to re-fashion society according to "ends" which are either un-natural or in defiance of Creation (and the Creator) is dangerous--mostly because those who fashion such a system are substituting themselves for the Creator.
Reno re-states what's been said here before:
Much like the current abortion regime and the slavery jurisprudence of the antebellum era, proponents of gay marriage imagine that they can redefine inconvenient, permanent realities and remove traditional barriers to the relentless human desire to get what we want. The idea that “bride” and “groom” are not gender specific is a current sign of the absolute triumph of the political will. When we accept that judges and legislators possess the power to define the meaning of marriage, then it’s hard to imagine what would limit the state’s power to redefine social reality other than “personal autonomy,” which turns out to be no limit at all, since everything is desired by somebody somewhere. For all we know, Leona Helmsley wanted to marry her dog.
That 'personal autonomy' was enshrined by Kennedy in Casey, by the way...
As to the larger implications, Reno cites Burke.
Edmund Burke saw that revolution motivated by the unattainable ideal of equality would destroy the deep, pre-political social mores that restrain the will, including the political will; and this restraint is essential for the preservation of liberty. Our contemporary cult of tolerance differs from older fantasies of equality, but the notion that we can accommodate everybody’s desires is just as unrealistic...Human beings cannot live together without a felt force of restraint. What should worry us is the migration of that force outward and into the hands of political actors.
One can only hope that the libertarians and social reconstructionists pause to think. For if Positive Law (political law) becomes regnant, what the State gives the State may well take away, and the reactionary swing of the pendulum may not be to the liking of the libertarians.
...in the old system, the state presumed the existence of a substantive, natural reality that required legal adumbration: the union of a man and a woman, and the children resulting from their sexual relations. Now the Canadian government sees that it must intervene and redefine marriage and parenthood in order to give fixed legal standing to otherwise fluid and uncertain social relations. When the gay friend donates his sperm to the surrogate mother hired by a lesbian couple, the resulting “family” is a purely legal construct, one that requires the power of state to enforce contracts and attach children to adoptive parents.
The result is the opposite of the libertarian dream of freedom. As Farrow observes, with gay marriage we are giving over the family to the state to define according to the needs of the moment. The upshot, he worries, will be a dangerous increase in the power of the state to define our lives in other realms once thought sacrosanct. “Remove religiously motivated restrictions on marriage,” he writes, “and it is much easier to remove religiously motivated restrictions on human behavior in general, and on the state’s power to order human society as it sees fit.” The libertarian dream turns into the totalitarian nightmare. Who can or cannot be a spouse? That’s for the state to decide. To whom do children belong? It’s up to the state to assign parents as its social workers and judges think best.
That libertarianism leads to tyranny is not news. ANY system which sets out to re-fashion society according to "ends" which are either un-natural or in defiance of Creation (and the Creator) is dangerous--mostly because those who fashion such a system are substituting themselves for the Creator.
Reno re-states what's been said here before:
Much like the current abortion regime and the slavery jurisprudence of the antebellum era, proponents of gay marriage imagine that they can redefine inconvenient, permanent realities and remove traditional barriers to the relentless human desire to get what we want. The idea that “bride” and “groom” are not gender specific is a current sign of the absolute triumph of the political will. When we accept that judges and legislators possess the power to define the meaning of marriage, then it’s hard to imagine what would limit the state’s power to redefine social reality other than “personal autonomy,” which turns out to be no limit at all, since everything is desired by somebody somewhere. For all we know, Leona Helmsley wanted to marry her dog.
That 'personal autonomy' was enshrined by Kennedy in Casey, by the way...
As to the larger implications, Reno cites Burke.
Edmund Burke saw that revolution motivated by the unattainable ideal of equality would destroy the deep, pre-political social mores that restrain the will, including the political will; and this restraint is essential for the preservation of liberty. Our contemporary cult of tolerance differs from older fantasies of equality, but the notion that we can accommodate everybody’s desires is just as unrealistic...Human beings cannot live together without a felt force of restraint. What should worry us is the migration of that force outward and into the hands of political actors.
One can only hope that the libertarians and social reconstructionists pause to think. For if Positive Law (political law) becomes regnant, what the State gives the State may well take away, and the reactionary swing of the pendulum may not be to the liking of the libertarians.
What's the Matter With Kansas?
Well, for openers, Kansas' Supreme Court is infested with raving Lefties who will apparently do damn near ANYTHING to protect the nation's leading baby-butcher: Planned Parenthood.
In Kansas there has never been a conservative governor and most of the time the governor’s a Democrat anyway, so it’s not surprising that the Kansas court is as liberal and as activist as they come — the sixth-most-referenced court in the nation, according to one recent survey conducted by UC Davis.
But the moment Judge Anderson said the records looked fishy, the court went from activist to downright aggressive: It silenced the judge, conducted secret hearings with Planned Parenthood, put a gag on the health department and told Kline the department’s records have now been put off-limits. In at least once instance, the court apparently even violated its own seal order to give anti-Kline information to participants in a grand jury investigation.
It’s all “highly un
In Kansas there has never been a conservative governor and most of the time the governor’s a Democrat anyway, so it’s not surprising that the Kansas court is as liberal and as activist as they come — the sixth-most-referenced court in the nation, according to one recent survey conducted by UC Davis.
But the moment Judge Anderson said the records looked fishy, the court went from activist to downright aggressive: It silenced the judge, conducted secret hearings with Planned Parenthood, put a gag on the health department and told Kline the department’s records have now been put off-limits. In at least once instance, the court apparently even violated its own seal order to give anti-Kline information to participants in a grand jury investigation.
It’s all “highly un