As mentioned earlier in this blog, the second sentence of The Amendment has some people concerned.
You can find the relevant post here.
Examples include:
In Ohio, judges have dismissed domestic violence cases brought against men who abused their girlfriends, simply because they were not married.
Perhaps. On the other hand, assault/battery charges could have been brought. This is not a "fact-laden" precis of the case(s) in question.
The Michigan attorney general has ruled that their ban overturns domestic partner policies for state and local government employees.
Yup. That's exactly one of the two reasons for the second sentence. The question here, however, is whether the taxpayer is required to provide "family coverage" for roommates of civil servants.
A Utah attorney is claiming the ban there invalidates a restraining order taken out against a man by his ex-girlfriend.
Attorneys claim a lot of things. That's what attorneys are paid to do. And the PR value for some practitioners is very high, too. Ask Sen. Feinie (D-Al Quaeda.)
A court in Ohio is being asked to void a child custody agreement between a same-sex couple.
Another case of "so what?" It ain't happened, yet. May never happen. And as usual, this precis is devoid of a lot of relevant facts.
A number of public employers in Wisconsin--from La Crosse to Milwaukee to Sun Prairie--currently offer domestic partner benefits, and those would undoubtedly be challenged in court. The City of Madison Attorney, the Dane County Corporation Counsel, the Madison Common Council, and the Milwaukee Common Council have all spoken out against the ban because they fear it would overturn existing domestic partner policies.
Yup. It might, indeed. Note well: these are PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, not private companies.
Generally, the "spread fear, doubt, and uncertainty" campaign is a good tactic, and some people will be swayed. But this laundry list of maybes and taxpayer-funded ripoffs is not substantial.
Thursday, March 16, 2006
The Snoozer Awakens--and Fabricates History
Ruth Ginsburg, awakened from her slumber, goes to South Africa (!!!) to reveal that she can lie about precedent as well as anyone... but is caught by Mark Levin of NRO.
Ginsburg’s history lesson on Dred Scott is fiction. Chief Justice Roger Taney, who she tries to paint as an originalist, was actually an activist. She ignored Justice Curtis’s dissent because it would have disproved her argument in support of using foreign law to interpret the Constitution.
Curtis wrote, in part:
When a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is according to their own views of what it ought to mean.
Tom Jefferson had his suspicions about the BlackRobes, as well:
To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privileged of their corps … and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whether hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.
Levin closes:
The Court’s repeated interposition into political and policy areas invites the kind of scrutiny and criticism received by politicians and policymakers. And the public is growing increasingly resentful of justices and judges who use their office to impose their personal preferences on society.
Does Massachusetts ring a bell?
Ginsburg’s history lesson on Dred Scott is fiction. Chief Justice Roger Taney, who she tries to paint as an originalist, was actually an activist. She ignored Justice Curtis’s dissent because it would have disproved her argument in support of using foreign law to interpret the Constitution.
Curtis wrote, in part:
When a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is according to their own views of what it ought to mean.
Tom Jefferson had his suspicions about the BlackRobes, as well:
To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privileged of their corps … and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whether hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.
Levin closes:
The Court’s repeated interposition into political and policy areas invites the kind of scrutiny and criticism received by politicians and policymakers. And the public is growing increasingly resentful of justices and judges who use their office to impose their personal preferences on society.
Does Massachusetts ring a bell?
Nobody's Senator's Ads
You've seen old Herb (and he DOES look old) yapping about 'negotiating drug prices' being the best way to buy. It's true that the new Medicare drug program makes the US Government the largest drug purchaser in the known universe.
But there's more to the story:
An AP story this week describes a memo describing how an organization called Americans United intends to use "polling, television advertisements, public events and more, hoping to serve as a sort of bearer of unwelcome news about the (Medicare) program."
According to the AP story, "...The objectives of the Americans United program, according to the memo, include: Drive down support ... to minuscule levels. Mobilize a popular insurrection ... that demands real change and threatens to exact a price on members of Congress who resist" fixing the program." Fixing the program, by the way, boils down to creating the sort of single payer system that Olympia Snowe proposes and some conservative Republicans, including those who might run for President, might vote for.
The kicker is that the "...organization draws heavy financial support from organized labor, and Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada and House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California have both met with prospective donors to demonstrate their personal interest in the group's efforts."
So Herbie's not necessarily speaking as a Concerned Senator; he's speaking as a front-man for "Americans United."
But there's even more:
“What troubles me about plans to deal with prescription drug costs that involve price controls, we will have massive cost-shifting. If we have Medicare acting as the buyer for all the medicine, it may be possible for the Government to negotiate a discount. I have always said that might be possible. What troubles me about that approach is we will have the cost passed on to someone else who might be 26 or 27 -- maybe a divorced mom who has a couple of kids -- working as hard as they can, and all of a sudden they find out their prescription drug bill shoots up because Congress adopted an approach in this area that doesn’t use marketplace forces.”
So said Sen. Wyden in 1999. It's still true. Forcing the price of Product A down will not change the profit-objectives of its manufacturer; but it will likely force the manufacturer to raise the price of its Product B.
But there's more to the story:
An AP story this week describes a memo describing how an organization called Americans United intends to use "polling, television advertisements, public events and more, hoping to serve as a sort of bearer of unwelcome news about the (Medicare) program."
According to the AP story, "...The objectives of the Americans United program, according to the memo, include: Drive down support ... to minuscule levels. Mobilize a popular insurrection ... that demands real change and threatens to exact a price on members of Congress who resist" fixing the program." Fixing the program, by the way, boils down to creating the sort of single payer system that Olympia Snowe proposes and some conservative Republicans, including those who might run for President, might vote for.
The kicker is that the "...organization draws heavy financial support from organized labor, and Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada and House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California have both met with prospective donors to demonstrate their personal interest in the group's efforts."
So Herbie's not necessarily speaking as a Concerned Senator; he's speaking as a front-man for "Americans United."
But there's even more:
“What troubles me about plans to deal with prescription drug costs that involve price controls, we will have massive cost-shifting. If we have Medicare acting as the buyer for all the medicine, it may be possible for the Government to negotiate a discount. I have always said that might be possible. What troubles me about that approach is we will have the cost passed on to someone else who might be 26 or 27 -- maybe a divorced mom who has a couple of kids -- working as hard as they can, and all of a sudden they find out their prescription drug bill shoots up because Congress adopted an approach in this area that doesn’t use marketplace forces.”
So said Sen. Wyden in 1999. It's still true. Forcing the price of Product A down will not change the profit-objectives of its manufacturer; but it will likely force the manufacturer to raise the price of its Product B.
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Ow Ow Owie!! My Wrist Hurts!!
A chapter from the Blogosphere. Seems that Xoff has a guest blogger or two. I drew Rowen in the "let's crank up the guest bloglodyte" contest held near Wigderson's place. Chris from Oconomowoc showed up, dripping orange juice all over the place, and Owen inaccurately threw his saber.
(The original post is at the bottom of this pile...)
Dad29 said...
(Ahem)Jim Sensenbrenner was onboard with Feinie about the first version of the PA--the Milwaukee JS printed a story saying that they were joined at the hip on the issue.Others joined, later. Much later. But principled Conservatives saw the problems early.
10:14 AM
Jim Rowen said...
I'd prefer you call him Feingold, or Senator Feingold, or Russ on this blog. Thanks.
10:16 AM
XOut said...
And I would prefer that the shameless junior senator from Wisconsin wasn't shameless, brainless or my senator. Alas, we all have our burdens to carry.While we are making requests… how about referring to Congressman Sensenbrenner as such rather than F.Jim?Anyone for World Peace?
12:13 PM
molliemous said...
A little decorum would be nice. Stop your hooting. I’m in no mood for any more of your jibber-jabber.
2:54 PM
XOut said...
Yeah, lets behave. We don't want Kane or Rowen calling for Dad29's censure or any other 'bold move' like that.
4:25 PM
Dad29 said...
I note the guest bloglodyte did not respond to the substance of my post.Is he indisposed? Or just running spin?Now we have Nobody's Senator and Nobody's Presidential Wannabee with ( -WI) after their names.Great Ceasar's Ghost!
7:22 PM
People bashing (the GOP) and/or ignoring (mainstream Dems) Russ Feingold over the maverick Democrat's proposal to censure President Bush should remember the last noteworthy time that Feingold took an isolated position: his vote against the so-called Patriot Act.It didn't take long for plenty of liberals and conservatives to realize that Feingold was right and they were wrong.As the consequences of Bush's arrogance on the Iraq war and domestic wiretapping become more costly, (and don't forget the administration's indifferent response to Katrina), the wisdom of Feingold's censure motion will become more apparent.The voters will censure Bush in 2008 by voting in an administration far different than what passed for leadership the previous eight years, and Feingold's effort to have started the censuring in 2006 will look prescient.
posted by Jim Rowen at 7:52 PM on Mar 14 2006
HT: Ask Me Later
(The original post is at the bottom of this pile...)
Dad29 said...
(Ahem)Jim Sensenbrenner was onboard with Feinie about the first version of the PA--the Milwaukee JS printed a story saying that they were joined at the hip on the issue.Others joined, later. Much later. But principled Conservatives saw the problems early.
10:14 AM
Jim Rowen said...
I'd prefer you call him Feingold, or Senator Feingold, or Russ on this blog. Thanks.
10:16 AM
XOut said...
And I would prefer that the shameless junior senator from Wisconsin wasn't shameless, brainless or my senator. Alas, we all have our burdens to carry.While we are making requests… how about referring to Congressman Sensenbrenner as such rather than F.Jim?Anyone for World Peace?
12:13 PM
molliemous said...
A little decorum would be nice. Stop your hooting. I’m in no mood for any more of your jibber-jabber.
2:54 PM
XOut said...
Yeah, lets behave. We don't want Kane or Rowen calling for Dad29's censure or any other 'bold move' like that.
4:25 PM
Dad29 said...
I note the guest bloglodyte did not respond to the substance of my post.Is he indisposed? Or just running spin?Now we have Nobody's Senator and Nobody's Presidential Wannabee with ( -WI) after their names.Great Ceasar's Ghost!
7:22 PM
People bashing (the GOP) and/or ignoring (mainstream Dems) Russ Feingold over the maverick Democrat's proposal to censure President Bush should remember the last noteworthy time that Feingold took an isolated position: his vote against the so-called Patriot Act.It didn't take long for plenty of liberals and conservatives to realize that Feingold was right and they were wrong.As the consequences of Bush's arrogance on the Iraq war and domestic wiretapping become more costly, (and don't forget the administration's indifferent response to Katrina), the wisdom of Feingold's censure motion will become more apparent.The voters will censure Bush in 2008 by voting in an administration far different than what passed for leadership the previous eight years, and Feingold's effort to have started the censuring in 2006 will look prescient.
posted by Jim Rowen at 7:52 PM on Mar 14 2006
HT: Ask Me Later
Liturgical Stuff to Recall
From the Bishop of Tulsa, OK., some wisdom and authoritative commentary on the Sacred Liturgy:
I do not consider fidelity to the General Instruction of the
Roman Missal as a legalistic imposition, nor as simply
“following the rubrics.”Rather, our obedience here is an open,
public profession that the Eucharist is something which we
have received and not something which we ourselves make. It
is something which we must hand on in its entirety to our
children and grandchildren.
This is the same over-riding concern which prompted St.
Paul to write to the Corinthians: “For I myself have received
from the Lord that which I in turn handed on to you, that the
Lord Jesus on the night when He was betrayed took bread and
giving thanks, broke it and said, ‘This is my body which is
given up for you.’”(1 Corinthians 11:23)
Our fidelity to the General Instruction is also a daily
reminder that the Eucharist is not a “thing” which can be
manipulated or played with. The Eucharist is not subject to
the whims of those who celebrate it nor those who derive
their life from it. The Eucharist is a Person, Jesus Christ, who
gives Himself to us that we might participate in His selfsurrender.
...
There are periods in the liturgy into which silence naturally
fits, periods in which silence allows the worshipper to dispose
himself or herself to participate in the saving action of the
Mass by listening for the voice of God Who speaks to the
heart in silence.
These periods are specified in the GIRM, and
I am asking our pastors and priests to respect the
congregation’s need for reflective space in the penitential rite,
in the Liturgy of the Word after the first reading and again
after the homily and, finally, after Communion.
At the same time, I am asking choir directors, musicians
and liturgy coordinators not to fill those open spaces with
music for music’s sake. Let there be silence so that God’s
creative and redeeming Word can be heard. Let the Word
penetrate the heart and the mind of the pray-er.
...
Since it is important to guard this sense of silence, this
sense of the sacred, even at times of great joy and after
celebrations involving the whole parish, I am asking that
pastors exercise reasonable caution after baptisms,
confirmations and weddings to ensure that a family’s desire
for keepsake photographs does not give way to an attitude
which disregards the sacredness of our churches and the
Presence - after Mass as well as during Communion - of Him
who is the Author of the Sacraments we celebrate.
...
I would like to ask all those concerned with
the music of our liturgical celebrations,
that is, priests, deacons, cantors, musicians, organists and
liturgical planners, to review the musical programs which
they present in the light of their careful and complete
rereading of the Vatican Council’s document on the liturgy
Sacrosanctum Concilium.
I ask them to pay special attention to the sections devoted
to Sacred Music (Chapter 6, ß112 - 121) that those who share
responsibility in a parish for the implementation of the
Council’s liturgical norms might reacquaint themselves with
what the Council Fathers actually wrote concerning the
requirements of proper liturgical music, and in particular the
principle which places the text in importance over the
melody, thus acknowledging the primacy
of Gregorian Chant among the Church’s
musical traditions, not merely from the
position of its great venerability and
beauty, but also because chant, having no
rhythm, never forces the text to be
rewritten to fit a specific meter. Chant
allows us a certain sacred space within
which that Word which God spoke in
ancient times can be heard today with
greater clarity and fidelity.
At this point, too, some mention must be
made of the great dis-ease I feel when I see
the celebrant at the altar while the cantor or
the choir stands arrayed either to his right
or to his left. I am uncomfortable when I
watch the congregation forced to shift their
focus from the celebrant to the singers, and
from the singers back to the celebrant, over
and over again during the course of the
liturgy. This greatly upsets the balance of
the Mass between proclamation and
response (when our song is our response to
what has been proclaimed) by making the
response itself something that we have to
respond to.
Our focus should always remain on
Christ, and it is the priest who celebrates
the Mass with the deacon who assists him
who are the living image, the true icons, of
Christ the High Priest and Christ the true
Servant.
This problem has been confounded in
some communities by a further
distraction. In my travels around the
Diocese, I have noted certain communities
where the music at Mass has tended more
toward entertainment than toward prayer.
The choir or cantors consciously draw the
attention of the congregation to their
performance and really stirring
performances are rewarded by the
congregation’s grateful applause. In this
case, the placement of the choir, cantor or
musicians in the most visible and
prominent part of the sanctuary not only
proves to be a distraction to the
congregation, but provides a kind of center
stage for a concert of religious music.
When this happens, the music becomes
the center of the experience, and the
sacramental transformation of the
worshipper is reduced to his or her being
merely inspired, the liturgical action of the
Mass becoming itself a distraction.
This Bishop, Edward Slattery, is very well-schooled on Liturgy and music; the excerpts presented here are packed full of theological verities in plain English. It is ironic in the extreme that Milwaukee, an Archdiocese known for the quality of its music and liturgy prior to 1975, would need to import its liturgical instruction from Tulsa.
But it would be entirely fitting were Bp. Slattery's letter to be circulated here by the Chancery.
I do not consider fidelity to the General Instruction of the
Roman Missal as a legalistic imposition, nor as simply
“following the rubrics.”Rather, our obedience here is an open,
public profession that the Eucharist is something which we
have received and not something which we ourselves make. It
is something which we must hand on in its entirety to our
children and grandchildren.
This is the same over-riding concern which prompted St.
Paul to write to the Corinthians: “For I myself have received
from the Lord that which I in turn handed on to you, that the
Lord Jesus on the night when He was betrayed took bread and
giving thanks, broke it and said, ‘This is my body which is
given up for you.’”(1 Corinthians 11:23)
Our fidelity to the General Instruction is also a daily
reminder that the Eucharist is not a “thing” which can be
manipulated or played with. The Eucharist is not subject to
the whims of those who celebrate it nor those who derive
their life from it. The Eucharist is a Person, Jesus Christ, who
gives Himself to us that we might participate in His selfsurrender.
...
There are periods in the liturgy into which silence naturally
fits, periods in which silence allows the worshipper to dispose
himself or herself to participate in the saving action of the
Mass by listening for the voice of God Who speaks to the
heart in silence.
These periods are specified in the GIRM, and
I am asking our pastors and priests to respect the
congregation’s need for reflective space in the penitential rite,
in the Liturgy of the Word after the first reading and again
after the homily and, finally, after Communion.
At the same time, I am asking choir directors, musicians
and liturgy coordinators not to fill those open spaces with
music for music’s sake. Let there be silence so that God’s
creative and redeeming Word can be heard. Let the Word
penetrate the heart and the mind of the pray-er.
...
Since it is important to guard this sense of silence, this
sense of the sacred, even at times of great joy and after
celebrations involving the whole parish, I am asking that
pastors exercise reasonable caution after baptisms,
confirmations and weddings to ensure that a family’s desire
for keepsake photographs does not give way to an attitude
which disregards the sacredness of our churches and the
Presence - after Mass as well as during Communion - of Him
who is the Author of the Sacraments we celebrate.
...
I would like to ask all those concerned with
the music of our liturgical celebrations,
that is, priests, deacons, cantors, musicians, organists and
liturgical planners, to review the musical programs which
they present in the light of their careful and complete
rereading of the Vatican Council’s document on the liturgy
Sacrosanctum Concilium.
I ask them to pay special attention to the sections devoted
to Sacred Music (Chapter 6, ß112 - 121) that those who share
responsibility in a parish for the implementation of the
Council’s liturgical norms might reacquaint themselves with
what the Council Fathers actually wrote concerning the
requirements of proper liturgical music, and in particular the
principle which places the text in importance over the
melody, thus acknowledging the primacy
of Gregorian Chant among the Church’s
musical traditions, not merely from the
position of its great venerability and
beauty, but also because chant, having no
rhythm, never forces the text to be
rewritten to fit a specific meter. Chant
allows us a certain sacred space within
which that Word which God spoke in
ancient times can be heard today with
greater clarity and fidelity.
At this point, too, some mention must be
made of the great dis-ease I feel when I see
the celebrant at the altar while the cantor or
the choir stands arrayed either to his right
or to his left. I am uncomfortable when I
watch the congregation forced to shift their
focus from the celebrant to the singers, and
from the singers back to the celebrant, over
and over again during the course of the
liturgy. This greatly upsets the balance of
the Mass between proclamation and
response (when our song is our response to
what has been proclaimed) by making the
response itself something that we have to
respond to.
Our focus should always remain on
Christ, and it is the priest who celebrates
the Mass with the deacon who assists him
who are the living image, the true icons, of
Christ the High Priest and Christ the true
Servant.
This problem has been confounded in
some communities by a further
distraction. In my travels around the
Diocese, I have noted certain communities
where the music at Mass has tended more
toward entertainment than toward prayer.
The choir or cantors consciously draw the
attention of the congregation to their
performance and really stirring
performances are rewarded by the
congregation’s grateful applause. In this
case, the placement of the choir, cantor or
musicians in the most visible and
prominent part of the sanctuary not only
proves to be a distraction to the
congregation, but provides a kind of center
stage for a concert of religious music.
When this happens, the music becomes
the center of the experience, and the
sacramental transformation of the
worshipper is reduced to his or her being
merely inspired, the liturgical action of the
Mass becoming itself a distraction.
This Bishop, Edward Slattery, is very well-schooled on Liturgy and music; the excerpts presented here are packed full of theological verities in plain English. It is ironic in the extreme that Milwaukee, an Archdiocese known for the quality of its music and liturgy prior to 1975, would need to import its liturgical instruction from Tulsa.
But it would be entirely fitting were Bp. Slattery's letter to be circulated here by the Chancery.
The Other Side of the Story
Haven't said much about the Milwaukee police-pay brouhaha; it's really not my business. Don't live in Milwaukee and the impact on my State taxes is de minimis at most.
But Jessica did a public service and found the other side of the story. It's worth reading.
The cynic might conclude that the JournalSentinel is finding another way to attack the Republicans...
Naaahhh.
But Jessica did a public service and found the other side of the story. It's worth reading.
The cynic might conclude that the JournalSentinel is finding another way to attack the Republicans...
Naaahhh.
The GOP "Suits" vs. K. Harris
From the Prowler/American Spectator blog:
National Review Online is reporting that they hear Rep. Katherine Harris does not intend to step out of the Florida Senate race, and to underscore that point, she will resign from the House.
They only have part of the story, according to Harris sources we speak to. Late last week, Harris was approached by both senior Senate Republicans and intermediaries from the White House about stepping out of the race for the good of party.
According to one Senate official we spoke to, Harris very bluntly told them to forget about it. When told they had strong interest from a well-known, respected former Florida elected official in jumping in, her response was that she welcomed the competition. When they responded that the GOP would begin to make fundraising more difficult, she revealed nary a frown.
To underscore that point, Harris told them that she would resign her House seat and privately finance her Senate campaign. If that "major announcement" is to come, we hear it is going to be that she is taking her campaign private, putting her money where her mouth is and focusing on the race full time.
That may not be the wisest investment, but then her spunk was never in doubt.
I just love that "let the best person win" philosophy in the GOP. Sorta reminds you of the Tim Michels race, eh? Remember, the "wise men" preferred Russ Darrow, or even Bob Welsh (R-Archer-Daniels-Midland.)
National Review Online is reporting that they hear Rep. Katherine Harris does not intend to step out of the Florida Senate race, and to underscore that point, she will resign from the House.
They only have part of the story, according to Harris sources we speak to. Late last week, Harris was approached by both senior Senate Republicans and intermediaries from the White House about stepping out of the race for the good of party.
According to one Senate official we spoke to, Harris very bluntly told them to forget about it. When told they had strong interest from a well-known, respected former Florida elected official in jumping in, her response was that she welcomed the competition. When they responded that the GOP would begin to make fundraising more difficult, she revealed nary a frown.
To underscore that point, Harris told them that she would resign her House seat and privately finance her Senate campaign. If that "major announcement" is to come, we hear it is going to be that she is taking her campaign private, putting her money where her mouth is and focusing on the race full time.
That may not be the wisest investment, but then her spunk was never in doubt.
I just love that "let the best person win" philosophy in the GOP. Sorta reminds you of the Tim Michels race, eh? Remember, the "wise men" preferred Russ Darrow, or even Bob Welsh (R-Archer-Daniels-Midland.)
No More Arguments About Jesus
From a friend:
My Cajun friend had 3 good arguments that Jesus was a Cajun:
1. He liked to serve fish to his friends.
2. He could make his own wine.
3. And he wasn't afraid of water.
My Black friend had 3 good arguments that Jesus was Black:
1. He called everyone "brother".
2. He liked Gospel.
3. He couldn't get a fair trial.
My Jewish friend had 3 equally good arguments that Jesus was Jewish:
1. He went into His Father's business.
2. He lived at home until he was 33.
3. He was sure his Mother was a virgin and his mother was sure he was God.
My Italian friend gave his 3 equally good arguments that Jesus was Italian:
1. He talked with his hands.
2. He had wine with every meal.
3. He used olive oil.
My California friend also had 3 equally good arguments that Jesus was a Californian:
1. He never cut his hair.
2. He walked around barefoot all the time.
3. He started a new religion.
My Irish friend then gave his 3 equally good arguments that Jesus was Irish:
1. He never got married.
2. He was always telling stories.
3. He loved green pastures.
But my women friends have the most compelling evidence of all that Jesus was a woman:
1. He fed a crowd at a moment's notice when there was no food.
2. He kept trying to get a message across to a bunch of men who just didn't get it.
3. And even when he was dead, he had to get up because there was more work to do.
My Cajun friend had 3 good arguments that Jesus was a Cajun:
1. He liked to serve fish to his friends.
2. He could make his own wine.
3. And he wasn't afraid of water.
My Black friend had 3 good arguments that Jesus was Black:
1. He called everyone "brother".
2. He liked Gospel.
3. He couldn't get a fair trial.
My Jewish friend had 3 equally good arguments that Jesus was Jewish:
1. He went into His Father's business.
2. He lived at home until he was 33.
3. He was sure his Mother was a virgin and his mother was sure he was God.
My Italian friend gave his 3 equally good arguments that Jesus was Italian:
1. He talked with his hands.
2. He had wine with every meal.
3. He used olive oil.
My California friend also had 3 equally good arguments that Jesus was a Californian:
1. He never cut his hair.
2. He walked around barefoot all the time.
3. He started a new religion.
My Irish friend then gave his 3 equally good arguments that Jesus was Irish:
1. He never got married.
2. He was always telling stories.
3. He loved green pastures.
But my women friends have the most compelling evidence of all that Jesus was a woman:
1. He fed a crowd at a moment's notice when there was no food.
2. He kept trying to get a message across to a bunch of men who just didn't get it.
3. And even when he was dead, he had to get up because there was more work to do.
Stadium Tax Reality Check
Buried (as usual) near the bottom of the article is the following nugget:
In order to retire the sales tax in 2014, the district needs sales tax growth to average 5.5% a year. In addition, district investments must grow 3.5% a year, according to Jay Williams, board chairman.
That's a LOT of growth. Essentially, they're hoping that the SE Wisconsin economy outgrows the national economy by a significant margin every year until 2014.
Yah, well. Another Tommy Thompson sales job gets its makeup removed...
In order to retire the sales tax in 2014, the district needs sales tax growth to average 5.5% a year. In addition, district investments must grow 3.5% a year, according to Jay Williams, board chairman.
That's a LOT of growth. Essentially, they're hoping that the SE Wisconsin economy outgrows the national economy by a significant margin every year until 2014.
Yah, well. Another Tommy Thompson sales job gets its makeup removed...
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Economics 101 for The Globaloney Crowd
So things are just peachy-dandy, eh?
McMahon, a gentle soul if there ever was one, posts a listing of the Fortune 10 (excluding oil companies) from 1959 against one from 2006.
If you can't discern the problems shouting at you from the table, there's little I can do to help you.
Hint: GM, USS, Bethlehem, Alcoa, and IBM are not on the 2006 list but were present in 1959. Another hint: 3 of the top 10 (2006) are finance outfits; NONE were in the 1959 list.
I only regret that I was unable to copy/paste the table. Thanks!!! Tom.
McMahon, a gentle soul if there ever was one, posts a listing of the Fortune 10 (excluding oil companies) from 1959 against one from 2006.
If you can't discern the problems shouting at you from the table, there's little I can do to help you.
Hint: GM, USS, Bethlehem, Alcoa, and IBM are not on the 2006 list but were present in 1959. Another hint: 3 of the top 10 (2006) are finance outfits; NONE were in the 1959 list.
I only regret that I was unable to copy/paste the table. Thanks!!! Tom.
Wag Their Fingers, Stamp Their Feet
Jessica sums it up pretty well, regarding the JS editorials:
Not that I am comparing the Journal Sentinel editorial board to an inmate or anything (they'd probably prefer that comparison over being compared to a cop anyway - just kidding), but flogging them is sort of like... beating a dead horse or getting upset about getting lectured by an inmate in the jail. I mean, what's the point? Everyone expects them to be whacky, mean-spirited toward Republicans, and out-of-touch at this point. Well, I guess there is a point somewhat. Because someone has to answer back, and they do have a pretty big audience
Well, sorta, Jess.
First of all, that Board is composed of inmates--but not of this Earth. Secondly, I'm not willing to agree with you that they have a "big audience." Even when I needed the birdcage liner, I never read their inane scrivening. Hell, the automobile ads were more stimulating (and factual.)
Not that I am comparing the Journal Sentinel editorial board to an inmate or anything (they'd probably prefer that comparison over being compared to a cop anyway - just kidding), but flogging them is sort of like... beating a dead horse or getting upset about getting lectured by an inmate in the jail. I mean, what's the point? Everyone expects them to be whacky, mean-spirited toward Republicans, and out-of-touch at this point. Well, I guess there is a point somewhat. Because someone has to answer back, and they do have a pretty big audience
Well, sorta, Jess.
First of all, that Board is composed of inmates--but not of this Earth. Secondly, I'm not willing to agree with you that they have a "big audience." Even when I needed the birdcage liner, I never read their inane scrivening. Hell, the automobile ads were more stimulating (and factual.)
Specter Assures Democrat Win
Arlen (Spectre) Specter, (Rino-Scotland) is among the Republican Senate leaders who will assure a Democratic majority in the House for next year.
Arlen just can't stop spending Other People's Money.
Senate Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) conceded yesterday that a coalition of moderate Republicans and Democrats may block the adoption of the spending limits in his budget plan. Facing an election-year revolt, Gregg has already dropped the centerpiece of Bush's budget-cutting efforts for 2007, a $37 billion reduction in the growth of Medicare. And he opted against using in the budget resolution parliamentary language that would have helped Bush extend his first-term tax cuts beyond their 2010 expiration date.
(snip)
In other words, we can thank the same "moderates" who helped bring us the Gang of 14 for this exercise in federal growth, as well as a few others. For instance, Arlen Specter apparently has been reading a little too much of Tom DeLay's press releases. He told the press that Congress is now "beyond cutting the fat and beyond the bone. We're down to the marrow." Specter wants to introduce more expansion in health care, education, and worker safety (by "billions of dollars above the president's request") along with the higher spending on security issues.
Here's the reality, for those who are not number-challenged (like Spectre):
The federal budget has escalated from $1.46T in 1994, when the GOP first came to power in the House, to an estimated $2.77T for this year, almost double in spending. Discretionary spending in that period has increased from $541B to $969B, and even in 2001 only came to $649B. That means that discretionary spending has increased almost 50% in the time when the GOP controlled both the House and the White House.
Did that spending go to defending the nation? Some of it did. Between 2001 and 2006, defense and security spending rose $231B, a 76% increase, but defense is hardly alone. One of Specter's priorities, education, increased a whopping 137% in the same period. Medicare rose 58% and Medicaid 49%. Health research went up 78%. Unemployment benefits increased 27% in a period where unemployment has actually dropped from 2001 levels.
HT: Captain's Quarters
Arlen just can't stop spending Other People's Money.
Senate Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) conceded yesterday that a coalition of moderate Republicans and Democrats may block the adoption of the spending limits in his budget plan. Facing an election-year revolt, Gregg has already dropped the centerpiece of Bush's budget-cutting efforts for 2007, a $37 billion reduction in the growth of Medicare. And he opted against using in the budget resolution parliamentary language that would have helped Bush extend his first-term tax cuts beyond their 2010 expiration date.
(snip)
In other words, we can thank the same "moderates" who helped bring us the Gang of 14 for this exercise in federal growth, as well as a few others. For instance, Arlen Specter apparently has been reading a little too much of Tom DeLay's press releases. He told the press that Congress is now "beyond cutting the fat and beyond the bone. We're down to the marrow." Specter wants to introduce more expansion in health care, education, and worker safety (by "billions of dollars above the president's request") along with the higher spending on security issues.
Here's the reality, for those who are not number-challenged (like Spectre):
The federal budget has escalated from $1.46T in 1994, when the GOP first came to power in the House, to an estimated $2.77T for this year, almost double in spending. Discretionary spending in that period has increased from $541B to $969B, and even in 2001 only came to $649B. That means that discretionary spending has increased almost 50% in the time when the GOP controlled both the House and the White House.
Did that spending go to defending the nation? Some of it did. Between 2001 and 2006, defense and security spending rose $231B, a 76% increase, but defense is hardly alone. One of Specter's priorities, education, increased a whopping 137% in the same period. Medicare rose 58% and Medicaid 49%. Health research went up 78%. Unemployment benefits increased 27% in a period where unemployment has actually dropped from 2001 levels.
HT: Captain's Quarters
Nuclear Winter in Waukesha County
Jim Dwyer, Chairman of the Politburo, awoke in time for the County Board meeting to sketch a few scenarios after reduction of the Board to 11 members:
"Most likely," he said, "the County's bureaucracy will run wild. If it were not for County Board members keeping close watch on those folks now, they'd be spending hundreds of millions annually on, uh, .....whatever...." Mr. Dwyer then fell asleep and cancelled the next County Board meeting for lack of agenda.
Sandra Wolff took up the list. "Full-time Professional Politicians would be raising $25 million every year just to print black-and-white mailbox stuffers for re-election. They'd hire dozens of full-time staffers. Some of those staffers would do nothing but read Dr. Suess books to the members."
Other Board members were unavailable for comment as Naptime rules specify 'no reporters allowed.' Some reporters were seen munching Board cookies and slurping Board milk, thinking that this was a Jim Doyle event.
Board members' spouses were exceptionally agitated over the proposed reforms. "If you think I want that useless lout hanging around the house full-time, you're nuts," said a spouse who insisted on anonymity. "When he is there, all he does is carp and b*&^ch about hitching the horse to the buggy to get to meetings on time. Then he calls both of his friends. Then he goes back to carping. You think I want to listen to that crap full-time?"
The Board promised that they would have more examples of disaster at their next meeting, now scheduled for May, when the frost is out of the ground.
"Most likely," he said, "the County's bureaucracy will run wild. If it were not for County Board members keeping close watch on those folks now, they'd be spending hundreds of millions annually on, uh, .....whatever...." Mr. Dwyer then fell asleep and cancelled the next County Board meeting for lack of agenda.
Sandra Wolff took up the list. "Full-time Professional Politicians would be raising $25 million every year just to print black-and-white mailbox stuffers for re-election. They'd hire dozens of full-time staffers. Some of those staffers would do nothing but read Dr. Suess books to the members."
Other Board members were unavailable for comment as Naptime rules specify 'no reporters allowed.' Some reporters were seen munching Board cookies and slurping Board milk, thinking that this was a Jim Doyle event.
Board members' spouses were exceptionally agitated over the proposed reforms. "If you think I want that useless lout hanging around the house full-time, you're nuts," said a spouse who insisted on anonymity. "When he is there, all he does is carp and b*&^ch about hitching the horse to the buggy to get to meetings on time. Then he calls both of his friends. Then he goes back to carping. You think I want to listen to that crap full-time?"
The Board promised that they would have more examples of disaster at their next meeting, now scheduled for May, when the frost is out of the ground.
A Billion Here, A Billion There...
Yeah, that's Real Money:
An analysis by the non-partisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau released Monday says taxpayers could have saved up to $1.9 billion in state taxes over 20 years if revenue limits had been in place.
The Party of Government response:
"Clearly, the impact would be devastating on schools and on the affordability of University of Wisconsin students," said Schmiedicke, Gov. Jim Doyle's top budget official.
More of the same Party of Government:
Rich Eggleston, a spokesman for the Wisconsin Alliance of Cities, said the cuts to cities laid out in the bureau study "would have stopped economic development in its tracks," had they been forced by a constitutional amendment.
The embarrasing reality:
State Rep. Jon Richards (D-Milwaukee) [said] "The people that were pushing this are the people who have been in control (in the Legislature) for the last 10 years," Richards said, referring to Republicans. They had the power to force through spending cuts but failed to do so, he said.
Yup, Jon. Tommy Thompson and his boys in the band were good at handing out State candy. That's one of the reasons Conservatives spit on the floor when Thompson mentions his name as a candidate, which he does every 6 months or so.
An analysis by the non-partisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau released Monday says taxpayers could have saved up to $1.9 billion in state taxes over 20 years if revenue limits had been in place.
The Party of Government response:
"Clearly, the impact would be devastating on schools and on the affordability of University of Wisconsin students," said Schmiedicke, Gov. Jim Doyle's top budget official.
More of the same Party of Government:
Rich Eggleston, a spokesman for the Wisconsin Alliance of Cities, said the cuts to cities laid out in the bureau study "would have stopped economic development in its tracks," had they been forced by a constitutional amendment.
The embarrasing reality:
State Rep. Jon Richards (D-Milwaukee) [said] "The people that were pushing this are the people who have been in control (in the Legislature) for the last 10 years," Richards said, referring to Republicans. They had the power to force through spending cuts but failed to do so, he said.
Yup, Jon. Tommy Thompson and his boys in the band were good at handing out State candy. That's one of the reasons Conservatives spit on the floor when Thompson mentions his name as a candidate, which he does every 6 months or so.
Monday, March 13, 2006
ANOTHER Blog-Adder
Thanks to Grim's Hall, Texas Law-Dog is now on my blogroll.
One of the funniest writers alive, LawDog grew up in Africa but now works as an LEO in Texas; his stories about his duties down there are side-splitters.
One of the funniest writers alive, LawDog grew up in Africa but now works as an LEO in Texas; his stories about his duties down there are side-splitters.
Here's Where Action Wisconsin's Taking Us
Oh, yeah, in Spain (under the leftwing Gummint) they created the fiction of same-sex marriage.
Having allowed same-sex couples to enter legal marriages, and adopt children, the brave new government of Spain has taken another step, the London Telegraph reports. Birth certificates will no longer specify a "mother" and "father," since those terms presuppose distinctions which can no longer be assumed.
According to an announcement in the Official Bulletin of State "The expression "father" will be replaced with 'Progenitor A', and "mother" will be replaced with 'Progenitor B'."
But how do they know 'A' from 'B'?
There's more:
Newsweek answers that question with a story on the fast-growing movement for legal acceptance of polygamy. The argument, in a nutshell, is:
... if Heather can have two mommies, she should also be able to have two mommies and a daddy.
And you know what? That argument, as stated, is logically correct. As Leon Trotsky said, who says B must say B. If the state doesn't restrict the gender of marital partners, why restrict the number? Or for that matter the species?
HT: Catholic World News
Having allowed same-sex couples to enter legal marriages, and adopt children, the brave new government of Spain has taken another step, the London Telegraph reports. Birth certificates will no longer specify a "mother" and "father," since those terms presuppose distinctions which can no longer be assumed.
According to an announcement in the Official Bulletin of State "The expression "father" will be replaced with 'Progenitor A', and "mother" will be replaced with 'Progenitor B'."
But how do they know 'A' from 'B'?
There's more:
Newsweek answers that question with a story on the fast-growing movement for legal acceptance of polygamy. The argument, in a nutshell, is:
... if Heather can have two mommies, she should also be able to have two mommies and a daddy.
And you know what? That argument, as stated, is logically correct. As Leon Trotsky said, who says B must say B. If the state doesn't restrict the gender of marital partners, why restrict the number? Or for that matter the species?
HT: Catholic World News
Sunday, March 12, 2006
Shark Takes the Second Step
Regarding The Amendment.
He does make an interesting point:
One of the reasons that it is hard is that we often think that recognizing the moral equality of, or even "tolerating" a class of people means assuming that they are the "same." This was the mistake of early feminism.
Whether homosexual relationships are the same as heterosexual ones is an empirical question, not a moral proposition. Homosexual relationships can be significantly different from heterosexual ones and yet have the same moral standing, just as men and women can differ in fundamental ways and have the same moral worth.
But what's missing here is the rest of the answer: that is, that some "moral standings" are, frankly, immoral. Heterosexual relationships include one-night stands, 3- to 6- (or longer) month "relationships," and long-term sack arrangements, all without the benefit of marriage.
The fact that society tolerates these arrangements simply does not change the 'moral' aspect; it only means that society has decided to be 'tolerant.' This, as Esenberg alludes to later in the essay, can produce problems.
He references Gallagher: Maggie Gallagher says that if you change the public meaning of a social institution, you inevitably change the institution itself. One need look no further than Roe to see this. Now we have people who are creating all sorts of interesting speculations on the topic of "forced pregnancy" based on the fiction "defined" by Roe. It is a Positivist quicksand pit.
But the 30th anniversary of the ruling has passed, and South Dakota has decided to stick a thumb in the Supreme Court's eye. 250,000 people showed up in D.C. to protest the ruling, again. Pro-Life groups are active all over the country, and pro-life candidates generally win in otherwise competitive political districts (all other things being relatively equal). There's a reason for this: it's called the natural law. It is the instinctive understanding that something about the Positive Law is radically wrong.
He does make an interesting point:
One of the reasons that it is hard is that we often think that recognizing the moral equality of, or even "tolerating" a class of people means assuming that they are the "same." This was the mistake of early feminism.
Whether homosexual relationships are the same as heterosexual ones is an empirical question, not a moral proposition. Homosexual relationships can be significantly different from heterosexual ones and yet have the same moral standing, just as men and women can differ in fundamental ways and have the same moral worth.
But what's missing here is the rest of the answer: that is, that some "moral standings" are, frankly, immoral. Heterosexual relationships include one-night stands, 3- to 6- (or longer) month "relationships," and long-term sack arrangements, all without the benefit of marriage.
The fact that society tolerates these arrangements simply does not change the 'moral' aspect; it only means that society has decided to be 'tolerant.' This, as Esenberg alludes to later in the essay, can produce problems.
He references Gallagher: Maggie Gallagher says that if you change the public meaning of a social institution, you inevitably change the institution itself. One need look no further than Roe to see this. Now we have people who are creating all sorts of interesting speculations on the topic of "forced pregnancy" based on the fiction "defined" by Roe. It is a Positivist quicksand pit.
But the 30th anniversary of the ruling has passed, and South Dakota has decided to stick a thumb in the Supreme Court's eye. 250,000 people showed up in D.C. to protest the ruling, again. Pro-Life groups are active all over the country, and pro-life candidates generally win in otherwise competitive political districts (all other things being relatively equal). There's a reason for this: it's called the natural law. It is the instinctive understanding that something about the Positive Law is radically wrong.
Used your Debit Card Lately?
Seems like the Tangos have found the keys to the vault--almost literally.
Apparently up to 200,000 (maybe more) PIN numbers associated with debit cards have been stolen from a data repository of a major retailer. Office Max denies it is to blame.
But fraudulent debit card transactions are NOT like fraudulent credit card transactions:
For starters, different consumer protections apply. Account holders are liable for only up to $50 of credit card fraud — but consumers can be liable for the entire balance of their bank account after debit card fraud, according to federal banking regulations. Many banks voluntarily extend credit card-style protection to debit cards, but they are not required to do so.
Moreover, debit/check/ATM card fraud means money is instantly missing from the consumer's account. That can lead to bounced checks and other hassles. In credit card fraud, consumers generally never lose the money and simply don't pay the bill for the fraud.
Recently, there were rumors that the alternative to using PIN numbers (asking for a 'credit' transaction and signing a receipt) was going to be "officially discouraged" by either the banks or the retailers around the country. This may put a crimp in those plans.
Apparently up to 200,000 (maybe more) PIN numbers associated with debit cards have been stolen from a data repository of a major retailer. Office Max denies it is to blame.
But fraudulent debit card transactions are NOT like fraudulent credit card transactions:
For starters, different consumer protections apply. Account holders are liable for only up to $50 of credit card fraud — but consumers can be liable for the entire balance of their bank account after debit card fraud, according to federal banking regulations. Many banks voluntarily extend credit card-style protection to debit cards, but they are not required to do so.
Moreover, debit/check/ATM card fraud means money is instantly missing from the consumer's account. That can lead to bounced checks and other hassles. In credit card fraud, consumers generally never lose the money and simply don't pay the bill for the fraud.
Recently, there were rumors that the alternative to using PIN numbers (asking for a 'credit' transaction and signing a receipt) was going to be "officially discouraged" by either the banks or the retailers around the country. This may put a crimp in those plans.
The Supremes of Washington State
Rumor has it that the Supremes of Washington State will shortly impose the fiction of "gay marriage" on the population out there, following the Massachusetts Supremes.
Kinda makes me nostalgic about the days when 'the Supremes' were an outstanding R&B/rock singing group from Detroit.
Kinda makes me nostalgic about the days when 'the Supremes' were an outstanding R&B/rock singing group from Detroit.
Tom Clancy or Paolo Guzzanti?
About two weeks ago I began reading one of my Christmas gifts: Red Rabbit, by Tom Clancy.
About one week ago, the Italian commission studying the attempt on JPII's life concluded that Clancy was wrong; it was not the KGB, but the GRU which ordered the shooting.
One thing is certain: the Bulgarian who is in the picture near Ali Agca screwed up. He was supposed to execute Agca and failed his mission.
Clancy's books are sort of like Windswept House. They are a mixture of truth and fiction. The problem is that one can't really tell what the 'fiction' part is. My bet is that the fiction is only a very small portion of any of them.
About one week ago, the Italian commission studying the attempt on JPII's life concluded that Clancy was wrong; it was not the KGB, but the GRU which ordered the shooting.
One thing is certain: the Bulgarian who is in the picture near Ali Agca screwed up. He was supposed to execute Agca and failed his mission.
Clancy's books are sort of like Windswept House. They are a mixture of truth and fiction. The problem is that one can't really tell what the 'fiction' part is. My bet is that the fiction is only a very small portion of any of them.
Saturday, March 11, 2006
Texas Pete Chimes In
Pete's already figured out that the name-calling is getting a bit thick--and The Amendment's only been on the table for what, 5 days...
Only problem I have with Pete's post is this: he said that "society has defined" marriage...
Not quite.
It was defined long before "society" affirmed it. There's a big difference between writing the rules and copying the writings.
Having said that, Pete's right. Mentaire's already decided that Ovadahl and I are kindred spirits, which might make Ovadahl VERY angry, because I'm a Papist.
...and I am not the threat Mentaire has to worry about.
Only problem I have with Pete's post is this: he said that "society has defined" marriage...
Not quite.
It was defined long before "society" affirmed it. There's a big difference between writing the rules and copying the writings.
Having said that, Pete's right. Mentaire's already decided that Ovadahl and I are kindred spirits, which might make Ovadahl VERY angry, because I'm a Papist.
...and I am not the threat Mentaire has to worry about.
BlogRoll Adder
Easily one of the better gun-blogs, written by a fellow who has the privilege of hunting often, and with purpose: feeding the family.
FuggerNutter is also a conservative in a strange land--Washington State.
Latest addition to the BlogRoll, found in the right-hand column.
FuggerNutter is also a conservative in a strange land--Washington State.
Latest addition to the BlogRoll, found in the right-hand column.
Sen. Zien Likes Corncobs, eh?
The American Mind reports that Zien will not give up. While admirable in the case of CCW, the Senator's stubborn stance on cornholing Wisconsin residents is downright annoying.
Since his Capitol mailbox is stuffed full this AM, I'll simply post my email to him right here:
Dear Senator Zien,
You most likely don't recall this, but we met at the Deerfield gun shop a few weeks ago. You were kind enough to give us an autographed map of the State of Wisconsin at the time.
It seems that you are insistent on shoving corn products up the, ah, gas tanks of Wisconsin consumers, and on this issue we shall part company, abruptly.
However, we will happily use your autographed map. The first of my daughters to outline your signature with .22" holes will get a dinner on me at the Venice Club.
We will not eat corn there, either.
P.S. JB VanHollen's a great shot, eh?
Sincerely,
Since his Capitol mailbox is stuffed full this AM, I'll simply post my email to him right here:
Dear Senator Zien,
You most likely don't recall this, but we met at the Deerfield gun shop a few weeks ago. You were kind enough to give us an autographed map of the State of Wisconsin at the time.
It seems that you are insistent on shoving corn products up the, ah, gas tanks of Wisconsin consumers, and on this issue we shall part company, abruptly.
However, we will happily use your autographed map. The first of my daughters to outline your signature with .22" holes will get a dinner on me at the Venice Club.
We will not eat corn there, either.
P.S. JB VanHollen's a great shot, eh?
Sincerely,
Authority...
A number of Catholic churches have now dumped sand into their holy water fonts at the entrances to the nave--it's Lent, so the Intellectualoid Liturgeists have decided that Catholics should be deprived of sacramentals like holy water.
The people who made this decision have no authority to do so. If it was the parish pastor who did it, HE does not have the authority to do so. The long-standing custom of the Church is that holy water is not available only from the end of the Holy Thursday Mass until the end of the Easter Vigil.
That ruling was issued recently from Congregation for Divine Worship (Divini Cultus)
Priests or liturgeists who defy the authority of the Vatican and the custom of the Church can expect that their "authority" in other matters will be questioned.
The people who made this decision have no authority to do so. If it was the parish pastor who did it, HE does not have the authority to do so. The long-standing custom of the Church is that holy water is not available only from the end of the Holy Thursday Mass until the end of the Easter Vigil.
That ruling was issued recently from Congregation for Divine Worship (Divini Cultus)
Priests or liturgeists who defy the authority of the Vatican and the custom of the Church can expect that their "authority" in other matters will be questioned.
Sandra "Moonbat" O'Connor
Now that she's a pensioner, Sandra (I Love Abortion) O'Connor has also gone Moonbat.
Keith Olbermann highlighted recent comments by former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, delivered during a speech at Georgetown University, seemingly directed at such conservatives as Tom DeLay and President Bush for some of their criticisms of the judiciary, criticisms which O'Connor argued put America's government at risk of heading toward dictatorship.
...which, presumably, does NOT mean the dictatorship of the BlackRobe Jackasses.
Another blogsite reported the speech slightly differently. O'Connor also blamed the shooting of the Chicago Federal judge's family and the Atlanta courtroom shooting on DeLay.
It was Scalia (IIRC) who opined that SCOTUS' highly political rulings (e.g., Roe) would undermine the authority of the Court--and courts in general. Diane Sykes, a judicious jurist if there ever was one, pointed out our very own ShrillShirleyCourt's political rulings, but without appending the pertinent Scalia language.
A word to the wise: authority does NOT accrue to your person simply by putting on the black robe. Pilate got the same word, from the Word Himself.
Keith Olbermann highlighted recent comments by former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, delivered during a speech at Georgetown University, seemingly directed at such conservatives as Tom DeLay and President Bush for some of their criticisms of the judiciary, criticisms which O'Connor argued put America's government at risk of heading toward dictatorship.
...which, presumably, does NOT mean the dictatorship of the BlackRobe Jackasses.
Another blogsite reported the speech slightly differently. O'Connor also blamed the shooting of the Chicago Federal judge's family and the Atlanta courtroom shooting on DeLay.
It was Scalia (IIRC) who opined that SCOTUS' highly political rulings (e.g., Roe) would undermine the authority of the Court--and courts in general. Diane Sykes, a judicious jurist if there ever was one, pointed out our very own ShrillShirleyCourt's political rulings, but without appending the pertinent Scalia language.
A word to the wise: authority does NOT accrue to your person simply by putting on the black robe. Pilate got the same word, from the Word Himself.
GWBush, Patrolling the Border
Here's the Administration's idea of "Border Patrol."
Did you know that ten percent of Cochise County's (AZ) entire annual budget goes to Illegal Alien medical care?
Did you know that ten percent of Cochise County's (AZ) entire annual budget goes to Illegal Alien medical care?
Stuff It, Rush!
Yah, hey, those Emirates, why, they're just misunderstood and I'm just a racist Arab-hater, and what the Hell's the matter with "free commerce," yada, yada, yada, yada.
On paper the shipment was harmless enough. Sixty-six American-made spark gaps — high-speed electrical switches used in medical devices to break up kidney stones — traveled from the manufacturer in Salem, Massachusetts late last summer to a buyer in Secaucus, New Jersey. From there, according to the export declaration, they were to be shipped to their ultimate destination in Cape Town, South Africa. But these spark gaps can also be used to detonate nuclear bombs — and it turned out that the goods were aimed at an end user in Pakistan, with a stopover in Dubai. The commercial capital of the United Arab Emirates, where trading activity accounts for the biggest single chunk (16.5%) of a $20 billion economy, has become a favorite diversion point on the Persian Gulf for shady cargo. With no export controls and hardly any bureaucracy at ports, airports and free zones, this entrepôt provides stellar cover for smugglers hoping to bypass U.S. embargoes.
...
The alleged shipper, an Israeli national named Asher Karni, was arrested in December at Denver International Airport. He awaits trial in the U.S. for conspiring to export goods without a license, a crime that could result in a ten-year sentence and a $250,000 fine per count.
Neither Emirates Airlines nor the U.A.E. has been criticized publicly by U.S. officials.
That is particularly odd in light of the recent revelations of the region's pivotal role in the spread of weapons of mass destruction. A Dubai-based computer firm arranged for Malaysian- and European-made gas centrifuge components, used to enrich uranium, to be sent on to Libya. The firm was part of a vast network devised by Pakistan's Abdul Qadeer Khan.
Hardly a revelation to the U.S. government. "Dubai, as a major shipping hub with a large free-trade zone, is in close proximity to countries of concern, and that poses some challenges," says Kenneth Juster, an undersecretary at the U.S. Department of Commerce. Among the world's top five sea-air hubs, Dubai can accept cargo and send it off in less than four hours. It's only 100 miles to the southern Iranian port of Bandar Abbas…
Excerpted from Levin's blog, sourced from Forbes.
On paper the shipment was harmless enough. Sixty-six American-made spark gaps — high-speed electrical switches used in medical devices to break up kidney stones — traveled from the manufacturer in Salem, Massachusetts late last summer to a buyer in Secaucus, New Jersey. From there, according to the export declaration, they were to be shipped to their ultimate destination in Cape Town, South Africa. But these spark gaps can also be used to detonate nuclear bombs — and it turned out that the goods were aimed at an end user in Pakistan, with a stopover in Dubai. The commercial capital of the United Arab Emirates, where trading activity accounts for the biggest single chunk (16.5%) of a $20 billion economy, has become a favorite diversion point on the Persian Gulf for shady cargo. With no export controls and hardly any bureaucracy at ports, airports and free zones, this entrepôt provides stellar cover for smugglers hoping to bypass U.S. embargoes.
...
The alleged shipper, an Israeli national named Asher Karni, was arrested in December at Denver International Airport. He awaits trial in the U.S. for conspiring to export goods without a license, a crime that could result in a ten-year sentence and a $250,000 fine per count.
Neither Emirates Airlines nor the U.A.E. has been criticized publicly by U.S. officials.
That is particularly odd in light of the recent revelations of the region's pivotal role in the spread of weapons of mass destruction. A Dubai-based computer firm arranged for Malaysian- and European-made gas centrifuge components, used to enrich uranium, to be sent on to Libya. The firm was part of a vast network devised by Pakistan's Abdul Qadeer Khan.
Hardly a revelation to the U.S. government. "Dubai, as a major shipping hub with a large free-trade zone, is in close proximity to countries of concern, and that poses some challenges," says Kenneth Juster, an undersecretary at the U.S. Department of Commerce. Among the world's top five sea-air hubs, Dubai can accept cargo and send it off in less than four hours. It's only 100 miles to the southern Iranian port of Bandar Abbas…
Excerpted from Levin's blog, sourced from Forbes.
Ma Bell? Time Warner? Aaaarrrgggh!!
So you've seen the ads and heard the rumbles...the cable companies added a bazillion "shopping" channels and increased their monthly take by 5x*inflation, or whatever. Only a few years ago, cable was $25.00/month, seems to me.
Well, Ma Bell wants in on the game. Naturally, the phone companies are assaulting the cable companies for their, ah, larcenous charges, and they imply that when the phone companies get permission to compete, prices will drop like a rock.
Maybe so.
Since the cable companies have locked up the local Gummints (see your inflated cable bill,) the locals are not too enthusiastic about Ma Bell's entry into cable; the locals LIKE the money and Ma Bell isn't offering any. Therefore, the Phone Companies have gone to Congress to get authorization from the Feds.
So far, so good. But of course, the Feds have their own ideas about "what's good for you."
According to the Washington Prowler/American Spectator:
We're talking about the telecom reform bill that Rep. Joe Barton is pushing through the House Energy Committee. According to staff sources, the main goal here, apparently is to give the telephone companies like AT&T the ability to offer cable TV-like services over their broadband lines.
What should have every conservative nervous though, says an Energy staffer, is an issue that Barton, as well as Rep. Ed Markey, is pushing that would essentially impose a new layer of regulations on the Internet. "The language would eventually lead to the federal government having a say over what compaines might be able to do with their broadband networks, what services could be offered on the Internet, how people could charge or make money on the Internet," says a staffer we spoke to on Friday afternoon. "It would cede a lot more control over the Internet to the FCC. It's there in the bill, and people are missing it."
The legislation is expected to be made public sometime in the next two weeks, according to committee staff. We all know what happens when the government decides to get their regulatory mitts on anything. First it's regulation, then it's taxes. Conservatives - and Democrats during the Clinton administration - have done a good job of keeping the Internet free of both regulation and taxes. Why Joe Barton is pushing this is beyond us, but Republican leadership better start paying attention, and conservatives should let Republicans know that after months of bloated spending, regulating the Internet just won't wash.
We don't know whose "spin" the Prowler is reporting--but the cable interests come to mind. On the other hand, it's hard to imagine any legislation which actually does not have some "gimme" to the Gummint attached. It's the nature of the Party of Government.
Well, Ma Bell wants in on the game. Naturally, the phone companies are assaulting the cable companies for their, ah, larcenous charges, and they imply that when the phone companies get permission to compete, prices will drop like a rock.
Maybe so.
Since the cable companies have locked up the local Gummints (see your inflated cable bill,) the locals are not too enthusiastic about Ma Bell's entry into cable; the locals LIKE the money and Ma Bell isn't offering any. Therefore, the Phone Companies have gone to Congress to get authorization from the Feds.
So far, so good. But of course, the Feds have their own ideas about "what's good for you."
According to the Washington Prowler/American Spectator:
We're talking about the telecom reform bill that Rep. Joe Barton is pushing through the House Energy Committee. According to staff sources, the main goal here, apparently is to give the telephone companies like AT&T the ability to offer cable TV-like services over their broadband lines.
What should have every conservative nervous though, says an Energy staffer, is an issue that Barton, as well as Rep. Ed Markey, is pushing that would essentially impose a new layer of regulations on the Internet. "The language would eventually lead to the federal government having a say over what compaines might be able to do with their broadband networks, what services could be offered on the Internet, how people could charge or make money on the Internet," says a staffer we spoke to on Friday afternoon. "It would cede a lot more control over the Internet to the FCC. It's there in the bill, and people are missing it."
The legislation is expected to be made public sometime in the next two weeks, according to committee staff. We all know what happens when the government decides to get their regulatory mitts on anything. First it's regulation, then it's taxes. Conservatives - and Democrats during the Clinton administration - have done a good job of keeping the Internet free of both regulation and taxes. Why Joe Barton is pushing this is beyond us, but Republican leadership better start paying attention, and conservatives should let Republicans know that after months of bloated spending, regulating the Internet just won't wash.
We don't know whose "spin" the Prowler is reporting--but the cable interests come to mind. On the other hand, it's hard to imagine any legislation which actually does not have some "gimme" to the Gummint attached. It's the nature of the Party of Government.
Friday, March 10, 2006
More on The Amendment
Rick Esenberg points to an article which is (PDF) 39 pages and worth the read. It's the 'long-version' of the Natural Law argumentation.
Reading Gallagher's essay reinforces my thought that the conservatives who argue FOR 'gay marriage' are really Libertarians--or at least within an inch of becoming such.
As a reminder: Libertarians are NOT Conservatives, although many of their positions are congruent with those of Conservatives.
Reading Gallagher's essay reinforces my thought that the conservatives who argue FOR 'gay marriage' are really Libertarians--or at least within an inch of becoming such.
As a reminder: Libertarians are NOT Conservatives, although many of their positions are congruent with those of Conservatives.
Heros and Bums
With PARTICULAR gratitude to Sen. Kanavas (R-REAL Conservative,) we post the following. (In case you are from California, the "Bums" are those who voted Nay.)
Charlie's Undecided. He Shouldn't Be.
In Sykes' column, he states that he's "undecided" about The Amendment. He doesn't really like the "second sentence," and cites Althouse. We'll deal with that later.
His principal objection to The Amendment seems to be based on 'Conservative principle,' in this case, "Conservatives also believe that, as a rule, constitutions should limit the powers of government, not of individuals. "
But what Constitutions actually limit is not the "power of government" but "the power of Government to change (or abrogate, or derogate from) natural law". This is a big difference, and goes to the debate over the limits of "positive law."
In other words, while the (US) Constitution restricts the Feds from establishing a State religion, what it actually is doing is allowing "freedom" of religion--a principle of natural law. In a similar fashion, the US Constitution affirms the right to property by restricting "takings" of said property. The US Constitution also broadly affirms the rights of the several States to govern their own affairs--another feature of natural law usually called "subsidiarity." It is the affirmation of Natural Law that Conservatives support.
So perhaps the better way to phrase the "Conservative" belief is that Constitutions reinforce natural law by restricting positive law. Properly understood, Constitutions prevent positive laws from creating "legal fictions," at least at the most fundamental level.
The real intention of the first sentence of The Amendment comports precisely with this line of reasoning; it seeks to prevent Government from derogating from the natural law of marriage, which is a covenantal relationship between a man and a woman, usually producing offspring, which is in the interests of the State.
In his obiter dicta, Sykes mentions "stable relationships," arguing as though "stability" is a result of positive laws governing marriage. It is not. Similarly, a "loving relationship" is not a result of positive laws governing marriage. The phrase "[one] cannot legislate morality" exists precisely because of this. Only the Natural Law militates for "positives" such as charity, kindness, and forgiveness. (By the way, it is by no means an established case that homosexual 'marriages' are more stable than heterosexual marriage; quibbling over "quality of marriage" is not substantive and misses the point.)
Then Sykes makes a very curious assertion: "But there is another, somewhat more sutble, choice as well: marriage will be redefined either through evolutionary or revolutionary means. Society will either gradually change its attitiudes in response to the sorts of relationships that develop in its midst, or the change will be rammed down its throat by court order or government dictat."
Huh? Frankly, the only "redefinition" of marriage is the fiction imposed by the Massachusetts Supreme Court. While there is a vocal minority of people who are agitiating for "redefinition" of marriage, marriage is simply not "defined" by "society," strictly speaking; it is defined by natural law. We know it's 'natural law' because marriage between man and woman is "marriage" all over the Earth, regardless of "faith" tradition. Maybe I don't understand Charlie's point here--but what he's saying is akin to saying that 'there will be a redefinition of the Law of Gravity.' Not likely.
What Sykes apparently refers to is society's toleration of homosexual relationships, which is far different than a "definition of marriage." The decision to tolerate these (and a number of other non-marital uses of sexual relations) is not in any way, shape, or form a "licensing" nor "approval" of such arrangements. This decision is analogous to the decision made by the cops to "tolerate" exceeding the speed limit. They haven't changed the definition of speeding, Charlie...
Let's get on to the Second Sentence.
Pace Althouse, the Second Sentence prevents Wisconsin from being ruled by (e.g.) the Massachusetts Supreme Court under the "full faith and credit" clause of the US Constitution.
In addition, the Second Sentence restricts the State from derogation of the law of subsidiarity. Althouse makes the point that this sentence could lead to changes in benefits "enjoyed by real families here in the State." The response is "so what?"
The State could remove from its books all laws which 'privilege' marriage. That's not likely--but it is possible. More important, however, is that the Second Sentence ALSO prevents the State from imposing 'privilege' requirements onto third parties--that is, it recognizes the law of subsidiarity. Under this provision of the Amendment, the State will have no constitutionally-approved ability to force municipalities (e.g.) to provide health-benefits for unmarried couples of ANY persuasion. At the same time, the State will not have the ability to prevent such an arrangement, if it is made voluntarily.
Finally, Sykes calls for a civil discussion of The Amendment. The mutual respect which Sykes calls for rests on natural law mandates--not on positive law mandates. So before anyone decides to take potshots at Natural Law--remember what's protecting you.
His principal objection to The Amendment seems to be based on 'Conservative principle,' in this case, "Conservatives also believe that, as a rule, constitutions should limit the powers of government, not of individuals. "
But what Constitutions actually limit is not the "power of government" but "the power of Government to change (or abrogate, or derogate from) natural law". This is a big difference, and goes to the debate over the limits of "positive law."
In other words, while the (US) Constitution restricts the Feds from establishing a State religion, what it actually is doing is allowing "freedom" of religion--a principle of natural law. In a similar fashion, the US Constitution affirms the right to property by restricting "takings" of said property. The US Constitution also broadly affirms the rights of the several States to govern their own affairs--another feature of natural law usually called "subsidiarity." It is the affirmation of Natural Law that Conservatives support.
So perhaps the better way to phrase the "Conservative" belief is that Constitutions reinforce natural law by restricting positive law. Properly understood, Constitutions prevent positive laws from creating "legal fictions," at least at the most fundamental level.
The real intention of the first sentence of The Amendment comports precisely with this line of reasoning; it seeks to prevent Government from derogating from the natural law of marriage, which is a covenantal relationship between a man and a woman, usually producing offspring, which is in the interests of the State.
In his obiter dicta, Sykes mentions "stable relationships," arguing as though "stability" is a result of positive laws governing marriage. It is not. Similarly, a "loving relationship" is not a result of positive laws governing marriage. The phrase "[one] cannot legislate morality" exists precisely because of this. Only the Natural Law militates for "positives" such as charity, kindness, and forgiveness. (By the way, it is by no means an established case that homosexual 'marriages' are more stable than heterosexual marriage; quibbling over "quality of marriage" is not substantive and misses the point.)
Then Sykes makes a very curious assertion: "But there is another, somewhat more sutble, choice as well: marriage will be redefined either through evolutionary or revolutionary means. Society will either gradually change its attitiudes in response to the sorts of relationships that develop in its midst, or the change will be rammed down its throat by court order or government dictat."
Huh? Frankly, the only "redefinition" of marriage is the fiction imposed by the Massachusetts Supreme Court. While there is a vocal minority of people who are agitiating for "redefinition" of marriage, marriage is simply not "defined" by "society," strictly speaking; it is defined by natural law. We know it's 'natural law' because marriage between man and woman is "marriage" all over the Earth, regardless of "faith" tradition. Maybe I don't understand Charlie's point here--but what he's saying is akin to saying that 'there will be a redefinition of the Law of Gravity.' Not likely.
What Sykes apparently refers to is society's toleration of homosexual relationships, which is far different than a "definition of marriage." The decision to tolerate these (and a number of other non-marital uses of sexual relations) is not in any way, shape, or form a "licensing" nor "approval" of such arrangements. This decision is analogous to the decision made by the cops to "tolerate" exceeding the speed limit. They haven't changed the definition of speeding, Charlie...
Let's get on to the Second Sentence.
Pace Althouse, the Second Sentence prevents Wisconsin from being ruled by (e.g.) the Massachusetts Supreme Court under the "full faith and credit" clause of the US Constitution.
In addition, the Second Sentence restricts the State from derogation of the law of subsidiarity. Althouse makes the point that this sentence could lead to changes in benefits "enjoyed by real families here in the State." The response is "so what?"
The State could remove from its books all laws which 'privilege' marriage. That's not likely--but it is possible. More important, however, is that the Second Sentence ALSO prevents the State from imposing 'privilege' requirements onto third parties--that is, it recognizes the law of subsidiarity. Under this provision of the Amendment, the State will have no constitutionally-approved ability to force municipalities (e.g.) to provide health-benefits for unmarried couples of ANY persuasion. At the same time, the State will not have the ability to prevent such an arrangement, if it is made voluntarily.
Finally, Sykes calls for a civil discussion of The Amendment. The mutual respect which Sykes calls for rests on natural law mandates--not on positive law mandates. So before anyone decides to take potshots at Natural Law--remember what's protecting you.
Thursday, March 09, 2006
Abp. Dolan's Busy That Day...UPDATED!!! Sykes Joins the Homosex Activists?
UPDATE: Note Response from "Anonymous" who claims that Charlie Sykes disapproves of The Amendment!
Abp. Dolan can hardly be running around conferring with Marquette University about their homosexual-agenda Department of Weather Channel Jebbies...he has more important things going on at the Cathedral:
April 8: Call to Action Wisconsin annual meeting, [featuring (the forcibly-retired) Bp. Gumby (Gumbleton of Detroit)] and Freddy Kestler, notorious lefty-wacko, who will speak on "Gay Partners and State Law."
Also invited: Action Wisconsin, another notorious Lefty pressure group, now actively opposingthe Taxpayer Protection Amendment AND the Queer Marriage Prevention Amendment (see below.) There's an interesting co-incidence--Peter Bock, an alumnus of Marquette High and house-husband of Kate (see Wm Shakespeare and/or Paul Bucher) is a Member of the Board of Action Wisconsin. Action Wisconsin's website "mission?" "Advancing and Protecting the Civil Rights of Our State's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender [sic] Citizens and Their Families."
According to The Provincial Emails, our Archbishop is "Dreaming:"
...Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan announced a strategic study and plan for Catholic schools in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee and a capital campaign for Catholic education...
HT: Get Up, Get Moving
Abp. Dolan can hardly be running around conferring with Marquette University about their homosexual-agenda Department of Weather Channel Jebbies...he has more important things going on at the Cathedral:
April 8: Call to Action Wisconsin annual meeting, [featuring (the forcibly-retired) Bp. Gumby (Gumbleton of Detroit)] and Freddy Kestler, notorious lefty-wacko, who will speak on "Gay Partners and State Law."
Also invited: Action Wisconsin, another notorious Lefty pressure group, now actively opposing
According to The Provincial Emails, our Archbishop is "Dreaming:"
...Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan announced a strategic study and plan for Catholic schools in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee and a capital campaign for Catholic education...
More like sleeping, I'm afraid. John Allen's forthcoming book: "How to Ignore Heresy, Rebellion, Sexual Predators, Liturgical Massacre, and Natural Law and STILL Become Cardinal-Designate of New York."
HT: Get Up, Get Moving
Queer Advocacy from a Jesuit (Surprise!)
Yah hey!
Marquette University's bunch of homosex advocates dragged out a couple of confused fellows:
Rev. Grant S. Garinger , adjunct assistant professor of performing arts and assistant professor of broadcast and electronic communication, gave the second lecture of the series on Monday. Garinger's topic was homosexuality and scripture.
In his presentation, Garinger refuted three Old Testament excerpts that are commonly used to condemn homosexuality.
Garinger cited Leviticus 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination," and Leviticus 20:13, "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives," as misunderstood when taken out of context.
Garringer said these passages were really part of a larger advisory against idolatrous orgies at pagan temples.
"This is about strong family values and reminding the Hebrew people that they were God's chosen people, different from the rest," he said.
The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah in the book of Genesis, Ch. 19 were also addressed in the lecture.
"The story of Sodom and Gomorrah should be used to combat rape, domination and humiliation, not as a club against homosexuality," he said.
Twenty students attended Garinger's lecture.
"I feel like I could have a more knowledgeable discussion about the book of Leviticus and Sodom and Gomorrah now," said Nicolet Berkman, a freshman in the College of Business Administration.
The first lecture in the series was given by Daniel Maguire, a theology professor currently on sabbatical, on Feb. 20. Maguire said his topic was, "the last respectable prejudice, the prejudice against LGTB (Lesbian, Gay, Transgender, Bisexual)."
He said his position was that "same-sex sex, when marked by these three things — integrity, respect and justice — is as holy as heterosexual sex."
Maguire knows a LOT about heterosex, but it's been argued that he knows very little about "integrity" with respect to same.
This twerp Garinger (SJ) is mouthing heresy--nothing altogether new for Jesuits in the last 40 years or so, but he's arguably the first Jesuit heretic brought to you by the Weather Channel.
For a look at the history of Garinger's spew, we need go no further than Blosser, quoting a homosexual Catholic who writes in sorrowful retrospective:
No single book was as influential in my own coming out as the now ex-Father John McNeill's 1976 "classic" The Church and the Homosexual. That book is to Dignity what "The Communist Manifesto" was to Soviet Russia. Most of the book is devoted to offering alternative interpretations of the biblical passages condemning homosexuality, and to putting the anti-homosexual writings of the Church Fathers and scholastics into historical context in a way that renders them irrelevant and even offensive to modern readers. The first impression of a naive and sexually conflicted young reader such as myself was that McNeill had offered a plausible alternative to traditional teaching. It made me feel justified in deciding to come out of the closet. Were his arguments persuasive? Frankly, I didn't care, and I don't believe most of McNeill's readers do either. They were couched in the language of scholarship, and they sounded plausible. That was all that mattered.
McNeill, like most of the members of his camp, treated the debate over homosexuality as first and foremost a debate about the proper interpretation of texts, texts such as the Sodom story in the Bible and the relevant articles of the Summa. The implication was that once those were reinterpreted, or rendered irrelevant, the gay rights apologists had prevailed, and the door was open for practicing homosexuals to hold their heads up high in church. And there is a certain sense in which that has proved to be true. To the extent that the debate has focused on interpreting texts, the gay apologists have won for themselves a remarkable degree of legitimacy. But that is because, as anyone familiar with the history of Protestantism should be aware, the interpretation of texts is an interminable process. The efforts of people such as McNeill don't need to be persuasive. They only need to be useful.This is how it works. McNeill reinterprets the story of Sodom, claiming that it does not condemn homosexuality, but gang rape. Orthodox theologians respond, in a commendable but naive attempt to rebut him, naive because these theologians presume that McNeill believes his own arguments, and is writing as a scholar, not as a propagandist. McNeill ignores the arguments of his critics, dismissing their objections as based on homophobia, and repeats his original position. The orthodox respond again as if they were really dealing with a theologian. And back and forth for a few more rounds. Until finally McNeill or someone like him stands up and announces, "You know, this is getting us nowhere. We have our exegesis and our theology. You have yours. Why can't we just agree to disagree?" That sounds so reasonable, so ecumenical. And if the orthodox buy into it, they have lost, because the gay rights apologists have earned a place at the table from which they will never be dislodged. Getting at the truth about Sodom and Gomorrah, or correctly parsing the sexual ethics of St. Thomas, was never really the issue. Winning admittance to Holy Communion was the issue.
I smell smoke. Perhaps a couple of nice violins for them, eh?
HT: Triumvirate, again!
Marquette University's bunch of homosex advocates dragged out a couple of confused fellows:
Rev. Grant S. Garinger , adjunct assistant professor of performing arts and assistant professor of broadcast and electronic communication, gave the second lecture of the series on Monday. Garinger's topic was homosexuality and scripture.
In his presentation, Garinger refuted three Old Testament excerpts that are commonly used to condemn homosexuality.
Garinger cited Leviticus 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination," and Leviticus 20:13, "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives," as misunderstood when taken out of context.
Garringer said these passages were really part of a larger advisory against idolatrous orgies at pagan temples.
"This is about strong family values and reminding the Hebrew people that they were God's chosen people, different from the rest," he said.
The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah in the book of Genesis, Ch. 19 were also addressed in the lecture.
"The story of Sodom and Gomorrah should be used to combat rape, domination and humiliation, not as a club against homosexuality," he said.
Twenty students attended Garinger's lecture.
"I feel like I could have a more knowledgeable discussion about the book of Leviticus and Sodom and Gomorrah now," said Nicolet Berkman, a freshman in the College of Business Administration.
The first lecture in the series was given by Daniel Maguire, a theology professor currently on sabbatical, on Feb. 20. Maguire said his topic was, "the last respectable prejudice, the prejudice against LGTB (Lesbian, Gay, Transgender, Bisexual)."
He said his position was that "same-sex sex, when marked by these three things — integrity, respect and justice — is as holy as heterosexual sex."
Maguire knows a LOT about heterosex, but it's been argued that he knows very little about "integrity" with respect to same.
This twerp Garinger (SJ) is mouthing heresy--nothing altogether new for Jesuits in the last 40 years or so, but he's arguably the first Jesuit heretic brought to you by the Weather Channel.
For a look at the history of Garinger's spew, we need go no further than Blosser, quoting a homosexual Catholic who writes in sorrowful retrospective:
No single book was as influential in my own coming out as the now ex-Father John McNeill's 1976 "classic" The Church and the Homosexual. That book is to Dignity what "The Communist Manifesto" was to Soviet Russia. Most of the book is devoted to offering alternative interpretations of the biblical passages condemning homosexuality, and to putting the anti-homosexual writings of the Church Fathers and scholastics into historical context in a way that renders them irrelevant and even offensive to modern readers. The first impression of a naive and sexually conflicted young reader such as myself was that McNeill had offered a plausible alternative to traditional teaching. It made me feel justified in deciding to come out of the closet. Were his arguments persuasive? Frankly, I didn't care, and I don't believe most of McNeill's readers do either. They were couched in the language of scholarship, and they sounded plausible. That was all that mattered.
McNeill, like most of the members of his camp, treated the debate over homosexuality as first and foremost a debate about the proper interpretation of texts, texts such as the Sodom story in the Bible and the relevant articles of the Summa. The implication was that once those were reinterpreted, or rendered irrelevant, the gay rights apologists had prevailed, and the door was open for practicing homosexuals to hold their heads up high in church. And there is a certain sense in which that has proved to be true. To the extent that the debate has focused on interpreting texts, the gay apologists have won for themselves a remarkable degree of legitimacy. But that is because, as anyone familiar with the history of Protestantism should be aware, the interpretation of texts is an interminable process. The efforts of people such as McNeill don't need to be persuasive. They only need to be useful.This is how it works. McNeill reinterprets the story of Sodom, claiming that it does not condemn homosexuality, but gang rape. Orthodox theologians respond, in a commendable but naive attempt to rebut him, naive because these theologians presume that McNeill believes his own arguments, and is writing as a scholar, not as a propagandist. McNeill ignores the arguments of his critics, dismissing their objections as based on homophobia, and repeats his original position. The orthodox respond again as if they were really dealing with a theologian. And back and forth for a few more rounds. Until finally McNeill or someone like him stands up and announces, "You know, this is getting us nowhere. We have our exegesis and our theology. You have yours. Why can't we just agree to disagree?" That sounds so reasonable, so ecumenical. And if the orthodox buy into it, they have lost, because the gay rights apologists have earned a place at the table from which they will never be dislodged. Getting at the truth about Sodom and Gomorrah, or correctly parsing the sexual ethics of St. Thomas, was never really the issue. Winning admittance to Holy Communion was the issue.
(The rest of the Blosser post is even more revealing of the true "ends" of the heretical and simply fatuous claims made by McNeill and his acolyte, Garinger.)
Meanwhile, Fr. Wild looks for another $90 bazillion in gifts and Abp. Dolan proclaims himself happy with the Catholic Herald.I smell smoke. Perhaps a couple of nice violins for them, eh?
HT: Triumvirate, again!
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
Bumper Sticker Consistency Test
So, not a week after Tom Reynolds brings up the death penalty, the bumper stickers are out:
The Death Penalty
We Can Live Without It
Unnnnhhhh..
How many of the people with that sticker would ALSO subscribe to this one:
Abortion: The Death Penalty
Babies Can Live Without
Wanna bet?
Positive Law and Muslim Societies
Thanks to Althouse, a very interesting comment on laws in Muslim society from a UW Law professor who also happens to be a Muslim:
What I was tackling in my presentation was the roadblock in this issue that I think is presented by the western tendency to think that the sovereign state should be the location of all law for all of society. Once we are able to re-think the location of legal authority in a society, that some can exist as valid and authoritative, yet outside the realm of public lawmaking mechanisms, then I think that we will have gotten much further to coming up with a system of government and lawmaking and adjudication for Muslim societies...
This "roadblock" is usually referred to as "positive law." See "The Amendment" below for another look at this "positive law" problem.
What I was tackling in my presentation was the roadblock in this issue that I think is presented by the western tendency to think that the sovereign state should be the location of all law for all of society. Once we are able to re-think the location of legal authority in a society, that some can exist as valid and authoritative, yet outside the realm of public lawmaking mechanisms, then I think that we will have gotten much further to coming up with a system of government and lawmaking and adjudication for Muslim societies...
This "roadblock" is usually referred to as "positive law." See "The Amendment" below for another look at this "positive law" problem.
Jimmy and Bobby
Waukesha County Board members display sophisticated intellectual capabilities:
Jim Dwyer said discontent with the size of the board is misguided.
"If the public outrage is because we have too large of a board, that's not following the same track as what the bond agencies think, because they think we're one of the best run governmental units in the nation," said Dwyer, of Menomonee Falls.
That means we should get Moody's to approve any Board changes?
Supervisor Robert Thelen of Oconomowoc warned that cutting the number of supervisors would draw politicians, rather than citizen legislators, to the board. With as few as 11 supervisors, he said, the job would have to be full time.
"Have they thrown a number out there of what (the fewer supervisors) are going to get paid?" Thelen said. "Where is this Waukesha Taxpayers League person? Why isn't she running for office instead of sitting in the background throwing cookies?"
No, Bobby. See your City? See it run? Part-time aldermen, Bobby. Look, Bobby, look!!
Jim Dwyer said discontent with the size of the board is misguided.
"If the public outrage is because we have too large of a board, that's not following the same track as what the bond agencies think, because they think we're one of the best run governmental units in the nation," said Dwyer, of Menomonee Falls.
That means we should get Moody's to approve any Board changes?
Supervisor Robert Thelen of Oconomowoc warned that cutting the number of supervisors would draw politicians, rather than citizen legislators, to the board. With as few as 11 supervisors, he said, the job would have to be full time.
"Have they thrown a number out there of what (the fewer supervisors) are going to get paid?" Thelen said. "Where is this Waukesha Taxpayers League person? Why isn't she running for office instead of sitting in the background throwing cookies?"
No, Bobby. See your City? See it run? Part-time aldermen, Bobby. Look, Bobby, look!!
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Justice Sykes Bitch-Slaps Shirley the Dictator-Wannabe
Charlie wasn't just a-kiddin' when he hinted at bombs and stuff. Justice Diane Sykes gave a speech this afternoon which is GOING to be controversial. Of course, the headline above is not quite accurate, but would YOU read a post entitled "Federal Jurist Discusses Recent Wisconsin Decisions at Legal Conference?"
Right.
So here's Indictment One, in regards the malpractice-caps case:
The Court's responsibility of Judicial Review is NOT a warrant to displace legislative judgments....Ferdon represents a major departure from long-accepted Constitutional principles that operate to maintain the balance of power between Legislative and Judicial branches.
This is not exactly "nuanced" language. This is more like "Hey, jerks!! Don'cha Know Your Place?"
Indictment Two, about the lead-paint case:
This, then, is a form of collective tort liability untethered to any actual responsibility for the specific harm asserted, imposed by the judiciary...(then citing Wilcox' dissent:) "...defendants can be held liable for a product they may or may not have produced, which may or may not have caused the...injuries, based on conduct that may have occurred over 100 years ago, when some of the defendants were not in business."
The Court, under Snarlin'Shirley, has declared open season on anybody who may or may not have done anything which may or may not have actually hurt somebody. If you think that's just too abstruse, think "Slavery Reparations..."
There's more: "If...the Court extends [this] to other industries, the case will have substantial implications for the stability and predictability of our liability system, AND THE STABILITY OF OUR STATE'S ECONOMY, AS WELL."
Yeah. Ask Mautz Paint. Oh--no--I forgot. They went out of business before this decision was actually rendered. Couldn't afford the defense any longer.
Indictment Three, regarding the Supremes' finding of a New Right in the Wisconsin Constitution:
The Court's decision rests not on the language or history of the State Constitution's self-incrimination clause but on the Court's own policy judgment flowing from an expansive view of the deterrence rationale of the exclusionary rule. (In this case, Justice Crooks joined the wackos-in-majority to "continue the Warren Court's "Rights Revolution.")
How very precious of Shirley and Patrick. In Wisconsin, criminals will have MORE rights than they do in most other States, and in Federal courts. Once again, the Supremes, drinking flagons of Self-Important Vitamin Mix, have placed themselves above the legitimate policymakers in the Legislature.
Indictment Four (more rights for criminals) involves "showups," a method of eliciting identification of perps from eyewitnesses:
The [Court] holds that the Due Process clause of the Wisconsin Constitution "necessitates" this new approach to eyewitness identification, but makes no effort to explain why. [Since the Court has arrogated the power of New Federalism to itself,] ...the existence of the power justifies its exercise.
The three Justices which still possessed the power to reason said (in dissent) that the Court's decision was based on "social science studies" produced by 'advocacy groups,' and that if every time a new "study" came out the law would change, it would make the Constitution useless.
They are right, of course.
Indictment Five, regarding the Court's imposition of rules requiring police to electronically record such interrogations in the cases of juveniles:
The majority articulated several policy justifications for the new rule...[which] are uncontroversial as matters of policy; that the Court resorted to its supervisory power for the authority to impose the new rule was extraordinary and unprecedented...in essence, to permit the Court to reach beyond its supervision of the Court system to regulate the practices and procedures of another Branch of Government....by this interpretation, the Court's superintending power is almost limitless.
"Shirley's Court" is having its very own Coronation Party.
Perhaps a few pitchforks should materialize outside the doors of the Supreme Court/Wisconsin, to remind these powermad jackasses just exactly WHO they are attempting to govern.
Right.
So here's Indictment One, in regards the malpractice-caps case:
The Court's responsibility of Judicial Review is NOT a warrant to displace legislative judgments....Ferdon represents a major departure from long-accepted Constitutional principles that operate to maintain the balance of power between Legislative and Judicial branches.
This is not exactly "nuanced" language. This is more like "Hey, jerks!! Don'cha Know Your Place?"
Indictment Two, about the lead-paint case:
This, then, is a form of collective tort liability untethered to any actual responsibility for the specific harm asserted, imposed by the judiciary...(then citing Wilcox' dissent:) "...defendants can be held liable for a product they may or may not have produced, which may or may not have caused the...injuries, based on conduct that may have occurred over 100 years ago, when some of the defendants were not in business."
The Court, under Snarlin'Shirley, has declared open season on anybody who may or may not have done anything which may or may not have actually hurt somebody. If you think that's just too abstruse, think "Slavery Reparations..."
There's more: "If...the Court extends [this] to other industries, the case will have substantial implications for the stability and predictability of our liability system, AND THE STABILITY OF OUR STATE'S ECONOMY, AS WELL."
Yeah. Ask Mautz Paint. Oh--no--I forgot. They went out of business before this decision was actually rendered. Couldn't afford the defense any longer.
Indictment Three, regarding the Supremes' finding of a New Right in the Wisconsin Constitution:
The Court's decision rests not on the language or history of the State Constitution's self-incrimination clause but on the Court's own policy judgment flowing from an expansive view of the deterrence rationale of the exclusionary rule. (In this case, Justice Crooks joined the wackos-in-majority to "continue the Warren Court's "Rights Revolution.")
How very precious of Shirley and Patrick. In Wisconsin, criminals will have MORE rights than they do in most other States, and in Federal courts. Once again, the Supremes, drinking flagons of Self-Important Vitamin Mix, have placed themselves above the legitimate policymakers in the Legislature.
Indictment Four (more rights for criminals) involves "showups," a method of eliciting identification of perps from eyewitnesses:
The [Court] holds that the Due Process clause of the Wisconsin Constitution "necessitates" this new approach to eyewitness identification, but makes no effort to explain why. [Since the Court has arrogated the power of New Federalism to itself,] ...the existence of the power justifies its exercise.
The three Justices which still possessed the power to reason said (in dissent) that the Court's decision was based on "social science studies" produced by 'advocacy groups,' and that if every time a new "study" came out the law would change, it would make the Constitution useless.
They are right, of course.
Indictment Five, regarding the Court's imposition of rules requiring police to electronically record such interrogations in the cases of juveniles:
The majority articulated several policy justifications for the new rule...[which] are uncontroversial as matters of policy; that the Court resorted to its supervisory power for the authority to impose the new rule was extraordinary and unprecedented...in essence, to permit the Court to reach beyond its supervision of the Court system to regulate the practices and procedures of another Branch of Government....by this interpretation, the Court's superintending power is almost limitless.
"Shirley's Court" is having its very own Coronation Party.
Perhaps a few pitchforks should materialize outside the doors of the Supreme Court/Wisconsin, to remind these powermad jackasses just exactly WHO they are attempting to govern.
The Catholic Herald and Accuracy
The Catholic Herald newspaper reports that 'a few' letters were received asking that the age of Confirmation in this Archdiocese be changed.
As many recall, the age of Confirmation was moved from (roughly) 12 years of age (6th/7th grade) to 16 years (10th/11th grade) during the reign of Rembert Weakland, OSB. This was justified on the basis that the Confirmands would be "more mature" in their Faith.
Well, then, out comes the Canon Law, which specifies "the age of discretion," certainly meaning chronologically less than 16 years (with a few exceptions, I suppose.)
So "a few" letters were sent.
Well, not exactly a "few." Actually, over 1200 (one thousand, two hundred) signatures were on petitions which were circulated and sent to the Puzzle Palace at 3501 S. Lake Drive.
As The Provincial Emails reports, (quoting a letter to the Herald):
We attended the "study day" on January 28 and were surprised to discover that most of the 230 participants were somehow involved in catechetics, either as parish catechists or directors of religious education. The majority appeared to be in favor of keeping the confirmation age at 16.
(snip)
Unfortunately, most families were not aware that these meetings were scheduled, as the only notice we saw in the Catholic Herald was a small article on page 15 of the Jan. 19 edition, and we are unaware of any parish bulletins that announced the meetings.
Guess what? The DRE's and parish bureaucrats "voted" to keep the current age requirement.
Well, we shall see. The Archbishop does not have to pay any attention at all to the nebbishes which attended the meeting. Nor does he have to pay any attention at all to the parents who signed the petitions.
It would be interesting, however, to learn how the Catholic Herald defines "few."
As many recall, the age of Confirmation was moved from (roughly) 12 years of age (6th/7th grade) to 16 years (10th/11th grade) during the reign of Rembert Weakland, OSB. This was justified on the basis that the Confirmands would be "more mature" in their Faith.
Well, then, out comes the Canon Law, which specifies "the age of discretion," certainly meaning chronologically less than 16 years (with a few exceptions, I suppose.)
So "a few" letters were sent.
Well, not exactly a "few." Actually, over 1200 (one thousand, two hundred) signatures were on petitions which were circulated and sent to the Puzzle Palace at 3501 S. Lake Drive.
As The Provincial Emails reports, (quoting a letter to the Herald):
We attended the "study day" on January 28 and were surprised to discover that most of the 230 participants were somehow involved in catechetics, either as parish catechists or directors of religious education. The majority appeared to be in favor of keeping the confirmation age at 16.
(snip)
Unfortunately, most families were not aware that these meetings were scheduled, as the only notice we saw in the Catholic Herald was a small article on page 15 of the Jan. 19 edition, and we are unaware of any parish bulletins that announced the meetings.
Guess what? The DRE's and parish bureaucrats "voted" to keep the current age requirement.
Well, we shall see. The Archbishop does not have to pay any attention at all to the nebbishes which attended the meeting. Nor does he have to pay any attention at all to the parents who signed the petitions.
It would be interesting, however, to learn how the Catholic Herald defines "few."
Lee Rino Dreyfus, Again
This morning Rep. Wasserman stated that the law requiring that Milwaukee police officers must be PAID despite the fact that they may have been fired for criminal activity was signed 26 years ago.
Guess who was Governor then?
Yup.
The Walrus/RINO
Guess who was Governor then?
Yup.
The Walrus/RINO
Monday, March 06, 2006
Wringing Hands over American Auto Quality
The latest "everybody knows this" (meaning that it's about to be contradicted) is that foreign-made automobiles are simply better than US-made autos. Consumer Reports confirms this, so it MUST be true.
Really?
In the last 15 months, I've purchased two Ford Taurus automobiles--a 1991 and a 2000. Both had in excess of 75K on the clock when I bought them; now they are each slightly over 100K.
Both run exceptionally well. The older one is showing a little rust on the door-bottom edges and the rocker panel, and I mean "a LITTLE." The newer one has zero rust visible. Zero.
There's an odd noise when closing the right-rear door on the older one, but the newer one is tight. All the appliances work just fine, including the power seats, windows, locks, lights, etc. There are no rattles at all. Runs out to 100 MPH quickly, as one would expect from a V-6. Gets over 25 MPG even using the stupid CornAHole required in this area.
Both of them stop when you hit the brake and go when you hit the gas.
Both show some wear in the interior--exactly what one would expect from 5+ and 15+ years' of work. The older one has had some 'wear part' problems; water pump blew, and the a/c will have to be re-fitted for the new joy-juice because the original Freon disappeared (after only 15 years...)
What the Hell is the matter with this? Why is a Japanese car "superior" to these machines? For that matter, what makes a Benz "superior?" When you get right down to it, all one reasonably expects is 150K on the engine and transmission before 'stuff' happens, and maybe 20 years (at best) on the body before cosmetic surgery is required...
So what's up with this gloom-and-doom?
Yeah--I had to put a '91 Buick out of its misery at 190K. (Same-o for a '91 Dodge van; same mileage.) Divide original purchase price by miles driven, and compare to any other vehicle on the planet...
Really?
In the last 15 months, I've purchased two Ford Taurus automobiles--a 1991 and a 2000. Both had in excess of 75K on the clock when I bought them; now they are each slightly over 100K.
Both run exceptionally well. The older one is showing a little rust on the door-bottom edges and the rocker panel, and I mean "a LITTLE." The newer one has zero rust visible. Zero.
There's an odd noise when closing the right-rear door on the older one, but the newer one is tight. All the appliances work just fine, including the power seats, windows, locks, lights, etc. There are no rattles at all. Runs out to 100 MPH quickly, as one would expect from a V-6. Gets over 25 MPG even using the stupid CornAHole required in this area.
Both of them stop when you hit the brake and go when you hit the gas.
Both show some wear in the interior--exactly what one would expect from 5+ and 15+ years' of work. The older one has had some 'wear part' problems; water pump blew, and the a/c will have to be re-fitted for the new joy-juice because the original Freon disappeared (after only 15 years...)
What the Hell is the matter with this? Why is a Japanese car "superior" to these machines? For that matter, what makes a Benz "superior?" When you get right down to it, all one reasonably expects is 150K on the engine and transmission before 'stuff' happens, and maybe 20 years (at best) on the body before cosmetic surgery is required...
So what's up with this gloom-and-doom?
Yeah--I had to put a '91 Buick out of its misery at 190K. (Same-o for a '91 Dodge van; same mileage.) Divide original purchase price by miles driven, and compare to any other vehicle on the planet...
Speaking of "Tolerance..."
A bit HT to the Triumvirate for this link...
We live in an age which places a very strong emphasis on tolerance, mutuality, and acceptance. I have heard repeatedly over the years that “Jesus never judged, condemned or excluded anyone.” I wonder if Peter would agree as the words of Jesus, “Get behind me you Satan,” rang in his ears. I wonder if the Scribes and the Pharisees would agree as they rankled at being called whitened sepulchers or broods of vipers. I wonder if those who heard Jesus say, “Whoever leads one of these little ones astray, it would be better if he had a millstone tied around his neck and be cast into the sea,” nodded approval and said, “He is so tolerant and accepting.” This verse is included, virtually verbatim, in each of the three Synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke. I certainly have no qualms about the image of Jesus as kind and gentle, or with Jesus’ own description of Himself as “meek and humble of heart.” I see and appreciate the great appeal of one of the most recent devotions fostered so powerfully by our late Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, that of Divine Mercy. Each of these attractive and reassuring aspects of Jesus needs to be remembered. These are aspects of Jesus that we cannot afford to forget and to which we can and must cling. At the same time we do well not to forget that the Lord is also a “God of power and might.” Jesus stood up to the guards who came to arrest him in the Garden of Gethsemane. He stood courageously before Pilate. He bore His cross with noble, unflinching determination. He is not a God of weakness. He is strong and He defends His people. This accounts for the strong language used when the “little ones” of His flock are put at risk.
In our “compromising age” we are loath to name something too strongly. If we do, we are accused of harshness, judgmentalism, perhaps arrogance, certainly intolerance and possibly pharisaism. While it is always necessary to speak the truth with love, the Church also believes and teaches that it is also necessary to speak the truth with strength. It is necessary to defend truth and not be too quick to rationalize, justify or excuse misleading teachings or teachers.
That would be from Bp. Vasa of Oregon.
We live in an age which places a very strong emphasis on tolerance, mutuality, and acceptance. I have heard repeatedly over the years that “Jesus never judged, condemned or excluded anyone.” I wonder if Peter would agree as the words of Jesus, “Get behind me you Satan,” rang in his ears. I wonder if the Scribes and the Pharisees would agree as they rankled at being called whitened sepulchers or broods of vipers. I wonder if those who heard Jesus say, “Whoever leads one of these little ones astray, it would be better if he had a millstone tied around his neck and be cast into the sea,” nodded approval and said, “He is so tolerant and accepting.” This verse is included, virtually verbatim, in each of the three Synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke. I certainly have no qualms about the image of Jesus as kind and gentle, or with Jesus’ own description of Himself as “meek and humble of heart.” I see and appreciate the great appeal of one of the most recent devotions fostered so powerfully by our late Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, that of Divine Mercy. Each of these attractive and reassuring aspects of Jesus needs to be remembered. These are aspects of Jesus that we cannot afford to forget and to which we can and must cling. At the same time we do well not to forget that the Lord is also a “God of power and might.” Jesus stood up to the guards who came to arrest him in the Garden of Gethsemane. He stood courageously before Pilate. He bore His cross with noble, unflinching determination. He is not a God of weakness. He is strong and He defends His people. This accounts for the strong language used when the “little ones” of His flock are put at risk.
In our “compromising age” we are loath to name something too strongly. If we do, we are accused of harshness, judgmentalism, perhaps arrogance, certainly intolerance and possibly pharisaism. While it is always necessary to speak the truth with love, the Church also believes and teaches that it is also necessary to speak the truth with strength. It is necessary to defend truth and not be too quick to rationalize, justify or excuse misleading teachings or teachers.
That would be from Bp. Vasa of Oregon.
Sunday, March 05, 2006
The Amendment
A number of bloggers have now chimed in on The Amendment--most of them ambivalent-to-negative on it.
One wonders if some of the Highly-Educated-and-Scrivening-Class is perhaps educated beyond their level of intelligence. They are certainly pumped full of their Elite-vitamins.
Some try to wiggle around with the "Second Sentence," ruminating about the meaning, purpose, yada yada. It's not that hard, boys and girls: it's a defense against the Even-More-Highly-Educated-Bunch in the State of Massachusetts, which would be happy under the 'full faith and credit' clause of the USConstitution to dump their brand of pointy-headed horseapples on the State of Wisconsin's residents. Lawyers are particularly prone to fret over the Second Sentence, which tends to prove the maxim that law is far too important to leave to lawyers.
But that's merely an indirect and Oh-So-Civilized method of attacking the First Sentence: only a man and a woman will be considered to be Spouse and Spouse-ette, husband and wife, man and wife...you get the idea.
It's precisely the well-deserved utter contempt for lawyers that brought about The Amendment in the first place. If you don't understand yet that the AntiChristianLibertineUnion considers it their mission to pervert language, you don't get the first maxim of war propaganda: "To Hell with Truth!!" Need we remind you that a fervent aspirant to the High-Priests-of-Decadence group has questioned ontology itself? Does "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is?" ring a bell with you?
So The Amendment made it even more a challenge to them.
As to the overall purpose--yes, it is to unabashedly proclaim that the privileges of marriage granted by the State shall remain reserved only to those marriages which have the actual, real, potential for offspring. That's because offspring are in the public interest. One could argue that the State should take away such privileges, which is fine. Argue THAT in an election campaign. Argue THAT at the Country Inn in Waukesha. In other words, tell married couples that the State will now proceed to take away the tax breaks associated with children and with being married. C'mon: tell us that only the State can make such rules, and only the State grants privileges to marriage. Let's make Positive Law the grounds for debate, to show that it is Lawyers and Legislators who are the real gods...just like in the self-defense argument, where the State of Wisconsin still affirms that the State alone allows or dis-allows self-defense. Yeah.
What? Don't have the nerve? Cat got your tongue?
Perhaps the most inane remark was made by some blogger who declared that 'homosexuality MUST be natural, because it occurs.' (He also used the inflated 10% figure, instead of the real <5% figure--which tells you something.) This is directly analogous to the statement 'Anger is natural so murder is OK.'
This is the deception-by-elision argument. Skip the important part of the equation so you don't have to defend, ah, buggery...or murder.
See, in between the condition of anger and the act of murder, there is a knowing, consenting, actor--just as in between the condition of homosexuality and the act of buggery there is a knowing, consenting, actor. We have all the sympathy in the world for people who are afflicted by a homosexual orientation, which is a grave disorder. We have much less sympathy for those who think that they are "entitled" to privileges of the married because they want to act on this condition. As a society, we have decided to tolerate homosexual activity (in most cases.) But toleration of such activity should not be mis-read as a sign of approval, nor of acceptance.
The Educated Elites would have us believe that it is "natural" to pack fudge. Wrong. Alternatively, they would have us believe that the Leviathan State is the sole grantor of natural rights, and the sole legislator of 'right and wrong.' Wrong again.
Every State which has acted to protect marriage through referendum has done so by an overwhelming margin. Wisconsin will be no different, with or without the Elites.
One wonders if some of the Highly-Educated-and-Scrivening-Class is perhaps educated beyond their level of intelligence. They are certainly pumped full of their Elite-vitamins.
Some try to wiggle around with the "Second Sentence," ruminating about the meaning, purpose, yada yada. It's not that hard, boys and girls: it's a defense against the Even-More-Highly-Educated-Bunch in the State of Massachusetts, which would be happy under the 'full faith and credit' clause of the USConstitution to dump their brand of pointy-headed horseapples on the State of Wisconsin's residents. Lawyers are particularly prone to fret over the Second Sentence, which tends to prove the maxim that law is far too important to leave to lawyers.
But that's merely an indirect and Oh-So-Civilized method of attacking the First Sentence: only a man and a woman will be considered to be Spouse and Spouse-ette, husband and wife, man and wife...you get the idea.
It's precisely the well-deserved utter contempt for lawyers that brought about The Amendment in the first place. If you don't understand yet that the AntiChristianLibertineUnion considers it their mission to pervert language, you don't get the first maxim of war propaganda: "To Hell with Truth!!" Need we remind you that a fervent aspirant to the High-Priests-of-Decadence group has questioned ontology itself? Does "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is?" ring a bell with you?
So The Amendment made it even more a challenge to them.
As to the overall purpose--yes, it is to unabashedly proclaim that the privileges of marriage granted by the State shall remain reserved only to those marriages which have the actual, real, potential for offspring. That's because offspring are in the public interest. One could argue that the State should take away such privileges, which is fine. Argue THAT in an election campaign. Argue THAT at the Country Inn in Waukesha. In other words, tell married couples that the State will now proceed to take away the tax breaks associated with children and with being married. C'mon: tell us that only the State can make such rules, and only the State grants privileges to marriage. Let's make Positive Law the grounds for debate, to show that it is Lawyers and Legislators who are the real gods...just like in the self-defense argument, where the State of Wisconsin still affirms that the State alone allows or dis-allows self-defense. Yeah.
What? Don't have the nerve? Cat got your tongue?
Perhaps the most inane remark was made by some blogger who declared that 'homosexuality MUST be natural, because it occurs.' (He also used the inflated 10% figure, instead of the real <5% figure--which tells you something.) This is directly analogous to the statement 'Anger is natural so murder is OK.'
This is the deception-by-elision argument. Skip the important part of the equation so you don't have to defend, ah, buggery...or murder.
See, in between the condition of anger and the act of murder, there is a knowing, consenting, actor--just as in between the condition of homosexuality and the act of buggery there is a knowing, consenting, actor. We have all the sympathy in the world for people who are afflicted by a homosexual orientation, which is a grave disorder. We have much less sympathy for those who think that they are "entitled" to privileges of the married because they want to act on this condition. As a society, we have decided to tolerate homosexual activity (in most cases.) But toleration of such activity should not be mis-read as a sign of approval, nor of acceptance.
The Educated Elites would have us believe that it is "natural" to pack fudge. Wrong. Alternatively, they would have us believe that the Leviathan State is the sole grantor of natural rights, and the sole legislator of 'right and wrong.' Wrong again.
Every State which has acted to protect marriage through referendum has done so by an overwhelming margin. Wisconsin will be no different, with or without the Elites.
The Return of Tommy...Let's Not
Tommy Thompson did some good things while Gubernatoring Wisconsin--school choice, for openers; the rebuilding of the Republican (but not Conservative) majority in the Legislature; and W-2, which seems to have largely accomplished its purpose.
Now he's being boomed (at least partially by himself) as A Candidate.
One possibility: Governor again. Thompson claims that he walks through malls, airports, (yada yada) and people just follow him around asking him to run for Governor again. Begging him.
Perhaps.
But there's the Dark Side of ThompsonPolitik; the HUGE number of State employees; the spend, spend, spend mentality of the Republican majority; and the monument to Thompson's mode of governance (described above in brief): "Stick-It-To-'Em!! Stadium," conveniently paid-for by some Wisconsin residents.
Tommy, I've never encountered you in a mall, airport, or bar. If I did, I certainly would NOT walk up to you and say "Don't Run." Not until today.
Don't run for Governor.
Now he's being boomed (at least partially by himself) as A Candidate.
One possibility: Governor again. Thompson claims that he walks through malls, airports, (yada yada) and people just follow him around asking him to run for Governor again. Begging him.
Perhaps.
But there's the Dark Side of ThompsonPolitik; the HUGE number of State employees; the spend, spend, spend mentality of the Republican majority; and the monument to Thompson's mode of governance (described above in brief): "Stick-It-To-'Em!! Stadium," conveniently paid-for by some Wisconsin residents.
Tommy, I've never encountered you in a mall, airport, or bar. If I did, I certainly would NOT walk up to you and say "Don't Run." Not until today.
Don't run for Governor.
WallyWorld--Huh???
WallyWorld has taken a beating lately, mostly from union-inspired hit-squads concentrating on working conditions and benefits. Not all of that is deserved, but it's clear that some WalMart managers are dolts.
But the stories have some traction, not in the least because WallyWorld was (and still is) a predatory purchaser, playing hardball (and worse) with its suppliers. This history goes back years: friends have told me stories about their shenanigans dating to the mid-1980's. These rumbles and rumors are significant because they come from white-collar business-types of the conservative bent--not from the UFCW.
Thus, WallyWorld is not getting a spirited defense from what it thinks should be natural allies, and the American Spectator blogsite is trying to whip up some enthusiasm from its conservative-leaning reader base. We suspect that a WallyWorld flack is behind it.
Good luck.
In the very same post in which "Dave" tries to get sympathy, he also reveals that WallyWorld is now calling for Federal Health Insurance.
This puts the Libertarian ankle-biters in a bind, no? On the one hand, they proclaim with gusto that WallyWorld is "helping US consumers" by offering ultra-low prices on goods; they lionize Wal-Mart as a "competitor." On the other hand, WallyWorld has now announced that the US taxpayer should relieve WallyWorld of its costs of doing business.
Doesn't seem too "competitive" to me.
But the stories have some traction, not in the least because WallyWorld was (and still is) a predatory purchaser, playing hardball (and worse) with its suppliers. This history goes back years: friends have told me stories about their shenanigans dating to the mid-1980's. These rumbles and rumors are significant because they come from white-collar business-types of the conservative bent--not from the UFCW.
Thus, WallyWorld is not getting a spirited defense from what it thinks should be natural allies, and the American Spectator blogsite is trying to whip up some enthusiasm from its conservative-leaning reader base. We suspect that a WallyWorld flack is behind it.
Good luck.
In the very same post in which "Dave" tries to get sympathy, he also reveals that WallyWorld is now calling for Federal Health Insurance.
This puts the Libertarian ankle-biters in a bind, no? On the one hand, they proclaim with gusto that WallyWorld is "helping US consumers" by offering ultra-low prices on goods; they lionize Wal-Mart as a "competitor." On the other hand, WallyWorld has now announced that the US taxpayer should relieve WallyWorld of its costs of doing business.
Doesn't seem too "competitive" to me.
Vermont and Wisconsin--Similar Problems
Report has it that Vermont's younger folks are leaving at a rapid rate. Seems that 1) there are no jobs, and 2) there are few houses available.
Vermont's a "liberal Utopia," and has been for quite a while.
It appears that Vermont is going to be Exhibit "A" in the real world consequences of socialistic and granola-friendly laws and regulations. And they're going to wonder why it is young people don't want to stay in a state where their entire income is going to be confiscated by the state to pay for all the non-producing retirees, and what little they have left is going to have to pay the mortgage on their wildly overpriced house.
But the citizens of Vermont have democratically elected politicians that enacted statutes reflecting the will of the people. And now they're going to start seeing the consequences.
Wisconsin is also seeing an outflux of younger workers, partially due to the "no jobs here" hangover of the Manufacturing Evisceration, and partially due to the horrendous tax climate.
We don't share Vermont's "enviro-regs" which almost prevent housing starts--yet.
Vermont's a "liberal Utopia," and has been for quite a while.
It appears that Vermont is going to be Exhibit "A" in the real world consequences of socialistic and granola-friendly laws and regulations. And they're going to wonder why it is young people don't want to stay in a state where their entire income is going to be confiscated by the state to pay for all the non-producing retirees, and what little they have left is going to have to pay the mortgage on their wildly overpriced house.
But the citizens of Vermont have democratically elected politicians that enacted statutes reflecting the will of the people. And now they're going to start seeing the consequences.
Wisconsin is also seeing an outflux of younger workers, partially due to the "no jobs here" hangover of the Manufacturing Evisceration, and partially due to the horrendous tax climate.
We don't share Vermont's "enviro-regs" which almost prevent housing starts--yet.
Friday, March 03, 2006
The "Patriot's" Take
File under "Couldn't have said it better..." with one exception, noted below.
Alas, Republicans in the White House and Congress have so misspent their majority political capital that they may well lose their party's Beltway triad, and their majority of state executives.
How did the Republican party come to find itself in this sorry and shameful state? While there are many contributing factors, the short answer is this: President George Bush and his congressional majorities have squandered the opportunity to deliver on a conservative domestic agenda—and in the process, have all but completely alienated their conservative base.
Since the President's reelection in 2004, this column has noted that, in the absence of a robust conservative domestic agenda during his second term, the House would be at risk in the '06 midterm elections, and the presidency, likewise, in '08. Yes, President Bush got high marks as Commander in Chief in the Long War against terror. Domestically, with the help of Congress, he has made good on his commitments to nominate constitutional constructionists to the Supreme Court and pass modest tax cuts—but his performance, and that of the Republican Congress, declines precipitously from there.
Conservatives expected President Bush and his congressional majorities to lead the charge on behalf of individual liberty, the restoration of constitutionally-constrained limits on government, and the promotion of free enterprise and traditional American values, as outlined in The Patriot's Statement of Principles. But they have not.
Increasingly, Americans can't distinguish Republicans from Democrats, on key issues. One can still discern the principled ideological differences between the most conservative and liberal members of Congress, but when it comes to domestic policy, the "great middle" of the legislative branch falls into the "distinction without a difference" category.
Under Republican leadership, the size and regulatory role of the central government has grown largely unabated since President Bush took office, and his fiscal budget for 2007 reflects spending increases over his tenure of almost 50 percent more than Bill Clinton's last budget. This is disgraceful.
Republicans have so demoralized their conservative base that even the most staunchly ideological conservatives are suggesting that a Democrat-controlled House may be necessary to remind Republicans why, precisely, we voted them into office.
That is not to say that all Republicans have neglected their conservative base. Some Republicans are conservative, and chief among them is Rep. Mike Pence, who chairs a group of 100 House conservatives who, as "The Republican Study Committee," are charting a course to maintain their majority in '06—and beyond.
The RSC's legislative fiscal priorities are as follows: Make the Tax Cuts Permanent, including the repeal of the marriage-tax penalty and the death tax and pass fundamental tax reform; pass Budget Process Reform, which includes budgeting for emergencies with a rainy day fund, instituting a sunset commission for federal programs, instituting a constitutional line-item veto, and making the budget resolution carry the force of law; pass another Deficit Reduction Bill in the form of budget reconciliation, to rein in autopilot spending, which has risen from 25 percent of all federal spending in 1963 to 54 percent today, and is expected to reach nearly 60 percent in 2014; pass Ethics Reform that requires transparency and earmark reform that permits Members of Congress to strike earmarks on the House floor; pass legislation that stops the raid on the Social Security Trust Fund and allows Americans to own a Personal Social Security Account; pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to put our fiscal house in order; and offset all emergency supplemental spending with other spending reductions, and offset all new programs with simultaneous, equivalent reductions in, or eliminations of, existing programs.
The RSC's legislative social priorities are as follows: Pass the Marriage Protection Amendment, to ensure that marriage, the union of a man and a woman as husband and wife, is not redefined by activist judges; defend the Sanctity of Human Life, which includes banning all human cloning, passing the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act, promoting ethical adult-stem-cell research, and preventing federal funding for destructive embryonic-stem-cell research; and pass Protections for Religious Freedom, such as the Pledge of Allegiance, the Ten Commandments, and religious expression in the public square.
But all the King's Horses cannot make the Wish List happen unless the US regains control of its economic engine, which happens to be manufacturing. There is NO country in history which ceded its manufacturing sector and still maintained its economic power. Taxes are irrelevant if no one remains who can pay them, and a hard look at real earnings from 1970-present is scary.
After-tax/healthcare DISPOSABLE earnings are even worse. Only the massive inflation in real-estate values have allowed Americans to claim gains in "net worth." But in the last four years, the USDollar's "worth" against gold has dropped by almost half; against oil by more than the same.
Alas, Republicans in the White House and Congress have so misspent their majority political capital that they may well lose their party's Beltway triad, and their majority of state executives.
How did the Republican party come to find itself in this sorry and shameful state? While there are many contributing factors, the short answer is this: President George Bush and his congressional majorities have squandered the opportunity to deliver on a conservative domestic agenda—and in the process, have all but completely alienated their conservative base.
Since the President's reelection in 2004, this column has noted that, in the absence of a robust conservative domestic agenda during his second term, the House would be at risk in the '06 midterm elections, and the presidency, likewise, in '08. Yes, President Bush got high marks as Commander in Chief in the Long War against terror. Domestically, with the help of Congress, he has made good on his commitments to nominate constitutional constructionists to the Supreme Court and pass modest tax cuts—but his performance, and that of the Republican Congress, declines precipitously from there.
Conservatives expected President Bush and his congressional majorities to lead the charge on behalf of individual liberty, the restoration of constitutionally-constrained limits on government, and the promotion of free enterprise and traditional American values, as outlined in The Patriot's Statement of Principles. But they have not.
Increasingly, Americans can't distinguish Republicans from Democrats, on key issues. One can still discern the principled ideological differences between the most conservative and liberal members of Congress, but when it comes to domestic policy, the "great middle" of the legislative branch falls into the "distinction without a difference" category.
Under Republican leadership, the size and regulatory role of the central government has grown largely unabated since President Bush took office, and his fiscal budget for 2007 reflects spending increases over his tenure of almost 50 percent more than Bill Clinton's last budget. This is disgraceful.
Republicans have so demoralized their conservative base that even the most staunchly ideological conservatives are suggesting that a Democrat-controlled House may be necessary to remind Republicans why, precisely, we voted them into office.
That is not to say that all Republicans have neglected their conservative base. Some Republicans are conservative, and chief among them is Rep. Mike Pence, who chairs a group of 100 House conservatives who, as "The Republican Study Committee," are charting a course to maintain their majority in '06—and beyond.
The RSC's legislative fiscal priorities are as follows: Make the Tax Cuts Permanent, including the repeal of the marriage-tax penalty and the death tax and pass fundamental tax reform; pass Budget Process Reform, which includes budgeting for emergencies with a rainy day fund, instituting a sunset commission for federal programs, instituting a constitutional line-item veto, and making the budget resolution carry the force of law; pass another Deficit Reduction Bill in the form of budget reconciliation, to rein in autopilot spending, which has risen from 25 percent of all federal spending in 1963 to 54 percent today, and is expected to reach nearly 60 percent in 2014; pass Ethics Reform that requires transparency and earmark reform that permits Members of Congress to strike earmarks on the House floor; pass legislation that stops the raid on the Social Security Trust Fund and allows Americans to own a Personal Social Security Account; pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to put our fiscal house in order; and offset all emergency supplemental spending with other spending reductions, and offset all new programs with simultaneous, equivalent reductions in, or eliminations of, existing programs.
The RSC's legislative social priorities are as follows: Pass the Marriage Protection Amendment, to ensure that marriage, the union of a man and a woman as husband and wife, is not redefined by activist judges; defend the Sanctity of Human Life, which includes banning all human cloning, passing the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act, promoting ethical adult-stem-cell research, and preventing federal funding for destructive embryonic-stem-cell research; and pass Protections for Religious Freedom, such as the Pledge of Allegiance, the Ten Commandments, and religious expression in the public square.
But all the King's Horses cannot make the Wish List happen unless the US regains control of its economic engine, which happens to be manufacturing. There is NO country in history which ceded its manufacturing sector and still maintained its economic power. Taxes are irrelevant if no one remains who can pay them, and a hard look at real earnings from 1970-present is scary.
After-tax/healthcare DISPOSABLE earnings are even worse. Only the massive inflation in real-estate values have allowed Americans to claim gains in "net worth." But in the last four years, the USDollar's "worth" against gold has dropped by almost half; against oil by more than the same.
Thursday, March 02, 2006
Automatic Appeal Show Trial?
The same thought I have had comes from a "savvy listener" to Da Godfoddah's show:
Finally, I've been following this trial as best I can through the reports and blogs and I'm starting to have a serious question about Ebert: Is he intentionally tanking this thing to set it up for appeal? Some of his rulings have been so absurdly inconsistent and biased against the defense that I almost think he's trying to draw an appeal. From allowing the prosecution to introduce historical precedent but denying it to the defense, to prohibiting redirect and recross, to time and again sustaining prosecution objections when information the prosecution itself introduced starts o come back to bite them on cross; it's almost so blatantly unfair that it begs the question whether it is simple coincidence or bias. Could Ebert - an elected Dane Co. judge - just be a chicken who thinks this case is crap legally but doesn't have the guts to do the unpopular thing in lefty central and shut it down, so instead he's sabotaging his own case for appeal? Or is this really a sham of a kangaroo court and he's just already made up his mind and is trying to move things along to his predetermined conclusion?
It's possible that Ebert is dumber than a box of rocks, too. But I doubt it. My hunch: Ebert knows the score. Blanchard is an embarassment to the Court. Appeals will take until 2030, or sometime near then.
Finally, I've been following this trial as best I can through the reports and blogs and I'm starting to have a serious question about Ebert: Is he intentionally tanking this thing to set it up for appeal? Some of his rulings have been so absurdly inconsistent and biased against the defense that I almost think he's trying to draw an appeal. From allowing the prosecution to introduce historical precedent but denying it to the defense, to prohibiting redirect and recross, to time and again sustaining prosecution objections when information the prosecution itself introduced starts o come back to bite them on cross; it's almost so blatantly unfair that it begs the question whether it is simple coincidence or bias. Could Ebert - an elected Dane Co. judge - just be a chicken who thinks this case is crap legally but doesn't have the guts to do the unpopular thing in lefty central and shut it down, so instead he's sabotaging his own case for appeal? Or is this really a sham of a kangaroo court and he's just already made up his mind and is trying to move things along to his predetermined conclusion?
It's possible that Ebert is dumber than a box of rocks, too. But I doubt it. My hunch: Ebert knows the score. Blanchard is an embarassment to the Court. Appeals will take until 2030, or sometime near then.
The Next Tax Increase
Buried in the story about the Stadium's tax-receipts (not enough, according to the Stadium Board) is a clear early warning from Deputy Revenue Secretary Laura Engen:
Another possibility is that residents in the five-county region are doing more online shopping and paying little or no sales taxes on the transactions.
State figures suggest that Wisconsin loses about $150 million in year in sales tax collections because of online sales, Engan said.
Not to worry. Your State, ever on the watch for MORE OF YOUR MONEY, will find a way to fix that little problem.
Another possibility is that residents in the five-county region are doing more online shopping and paying little or no sales taxes on the transactions.
State figures suggest that Wisconsin loses about $150 million in year in sales tax collections because of online sales, Engan said.
Not to worry. Your State, ever on the watch for MORE OF YOUR MONEY, will find a way to fix that little problem.
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
Statistics
Nearly 100% of Wisconsin residents who die were seen by a doctor.
Nearly 100% of Wisconsin residents who die were in an automobile.
Nearly 100% of Wisconsin residents who die were affected by gravity.
Nearly 100% of Wisconsin residents who die inhaled Wisconsin air.
Nearly 100% of Wisconsin residents who die saw sunshine.
Well over 50% of Wisconsin residents who die met a member of the opposite sex.
The vast majority of Wisconsin residents who die paid Wisconsin state or local taxes.
Nearly 100% of Wisconsin residents who die were in an automobile.
Nearly 100% of Wisconsin residents who die were affected by gravity.
Nearly 100% of Wisconsin residents who die inhaled Wisconsin air.
Nearly 100% of Wisconsin residents who die saw sunshine.
Well over 50% of Wisconsin residents who die met a member of the opposite sex.
The vast majority of Wisconsin residents who die paid Wisconsin state or local taxes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
