The H1B portion of the immigration bill is not part of the MSM's agenda--it doesn't sell newspapers, and hey--it's arcane. But the proposal of the US Senate (dead for now, thank God) had some serious flaws on the H1B side, even if you agree with those who think that there is no talent in the US which is employable:
(Sen. Sessions:) One of the most significant things that we have given very little thought to is it triples the number of employment-based green cards available each year. It triples the number.
Currently, there are 140,000 available. Currently, spouses and children, if they come in, they count against the 140,000 cap. Under the Kennedy bill that we voted down this morning they jumped that number to 400,000, and spouses and children didn't count against the cap. This bill raises it to 450,000 annually, and spouses and children — we estimate about 540,000 more, family members — can come with them, and they do not count against the cap. That is pushing a million a year. That is a huge change.
I, personally, am of the view that if we can make our system lawful and have it work correctly, we can and will want to increase the number. But triple the number, and then increase that number again, by allowing spouses and children to come and not count against the cap? That is a sixfold increase.
Under the current law, before new legislation passes, the United States issues 1.1 million green cards a year. That is what we do today, and 140,000 of those green cards are available to aliens who are sponsored by employers. That is the working group. Under the Hagel-Martinez compromise bill, the United States would now issue between 2.2 million and 2.5 million green cards each year, 450,000 of which will be employment-based green cards during the years 2007 and 2016. That is triple the number of employment-based green cards we currently issue on an annual basis, triple the number we currently issue. Although the number would be curtailed after a few years, it is still 150,000 more than currently issued. After 2016, the number of green cards for employer-sponsored aliens would go back to double the current level, at 290,000.
They have also increased the employment-based green card cap — that is the total limit, over and above the 450,000 that would now be available each year under the compromise — by exempting spouses and children from counting against the cap. Spouses and children count against the cap today. So we triple the number, and we don't count spouses and children. Because an average of 1.2 family members accompany employment-based green card holders, we estimate that about 540,000 family members will also get employment-based green cards without counting against this cap. That is contrary to what we do today. It is contrary to our policy.
That's just the principled discussion. Now for the typical Congressional lying, cheating, and underhanded crap:
This is the way the bill explains it. It doesn't say that plainly. It says:
In determining the alien's admissibility as an H-2C nonimmigrant. ..... paragraphs (5), (6)(A), (7), (9)(B) and (9)(C) of section 212(a) may be waived for conduct that occurred before the effective date.
As I noted, under the new H-2C program, 400,000 per year can get green cards as workers, and these people will qualify for that because those code sections refer to aliens who came here illegally and those who have been ordered removed but have come illegally will go back into the United States.
The last bunch, the 1.2 million that have been here less than 2 years, they are not going to leave this country.
First of all, nobody is going to come and get them. They are going to apply under the new visa program, the H-2C worker program that has these huge numbers that we have triple the numbers for. And it specifically says in the statute that they will qualify, even if they came here illegally or have been apprehended here illegally or removed — and removed from the United States — and they have come back illegally, they still get to qualify and stay here.
Another minor item that the MSM forgot to report, eh?
Once again, HT to Levin at NRO
Saturday, April 08, 2006
Another Minor "Legalization" Problem
We've said here that the "cost" issues should not be the principal consideration when assessing immigration policy. That is, this country has the capability to absorb numbers of people into its mainstream--people who will be productive, and who will assimilate, or 'inculturate,' if you like.
These premises mean that the immigrants are LEGALLY here; that they learn the language; and that their first loyalty is to the United States, allowing for a sentimental 'loyalty' to their homeland, whether Ireland, Russia, India, or Mexico.
But while cost issues should not be the principal consideration, they are in play, somewhere.
Here's a taste of the cost issues:
I will talk about the average salary of most of the workers who are here illegally today and those workers who will be regularized, placed on permanent resident status, given a green card, and placed on a pathway to citizenship. As you look at those salaries, you will see that they fall in the classic earned income tax credit range.
The Congressional Budget Office is saying they haven't considered those numbers yet in the cost of this bill, but they are real and significant, as I say they, indeed, are.
With those important caveats, estimated outlays are about $2 billion for the first 5 years — 2007-2011 — and $12 billion for the first 10 years — 2007-2016. The final figures will be bigger than those. Most of those costs are for Medicaid and Food Stamp programs.
They say those are not the final figures. The final figures will be bigger. It didn't include the earned income tax credit.
Outlays in the succeeding 10 years will be greater. The bill would impose mandates on State and local governments with costs that would exceed the threshold established in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act in at least 1 of the first 5 years after they would take effect.
$12Bn by 2016, without the cost of Earned Income Tax Credits (usually about $2,400./family.)
HT: Mark Levin, NRO
These premises mean that the immigrants are LEGALLY here; that they learn the language; and that their first loyalty is to the United States, allowing for a sentimental 'loyalty' to their homeland, whether Ireland, Russia, India, or Mexico.
But while cost issues should not be the principal consideration, they are in play, somewhere.
Here's a taste of the cost issues:
I will talk about the average salary of most of the workers who are here illegally today and those workers who will be regularized, placed on permanent resident status, given a green card, and placed on a pathway to citizenship. As you look at those salaries, you will see that they fall in the classic earned income tax credit range.
The Congressional Budget Office is saying they haven't considered those numbers yet in the cost of this bill, but they are real and significant, as I say they, indeed, are.
With those important caveats, estimated outlays are about $2 billion for the first 5 years — 2007-2011 — and $12 billion for the first 10 years — 2007-2016. The final figures will be bigger than those. Most of those costs are for Medicaid and Food Stamp programs.
They say those are not the final figures. The final figures will be bigger. It didn't include the earned income tax credit.
Outlays in the succeeding 10 years will be greater. The bill would impose mandates on State and local governments with costs that would exceed the threshold established in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act in at least 1 of the first 5 years after they would take effect.
$12Bn by 2016, without the cost of Earned Income Tax Credits (usually about $2,400./family.)
HT: Mark Levin, NRO
Friday, April 07, 2006
Are They Losing?
The New Liturgical Movement prints an essay which poses the question: are the LitWonkLefties losing?
It's their observation that the screech-level is getting high, and the arguments advanced by those folks are no longer "arguments" in the strict sense--rather, they are lies, or name-calling (usually the mark of the losing side.)
Regardless of what happens with the rumours we've been hearing these past few weeks, it seems to me that these sorts of comments are potentially the signs of increasing desperation on the part those who wish to see a further program of liberalization (ultimately de-Catholicization when taken in its more extreme forms) in Catholic doctrine and liturgy -- and who are recognizing the signs of the beginning of the end in this regard. One way or another, at one time or another, this will happen.
The dissenting program is ultmately not self-sustaining, it has no staying power -- it is akin to a cultural group which contracepts itself into non-existence. As this program effectively desacralizes and de-Catholicizes, its adherents fall away, or at very least do not multiply with new generations. By their very principles it creates a culture where new generations no longer see a need to stay within the Church and they leave it. There are some exceptions of course, but the statistics about practising Catholics within our Catholic schools bears witness to this trend, the dying of so many aging religious orders bear witness to this trend. It produces few vocations, gains few converts and keeps few individuals as the years tick on.
Perhaps the most glaring of them is mentioned:
Cardinal Mahony's recent comments which spoke of Latin in the Roman liturgy as not really "traditional" and only indicative of a "small slice" of our liturgical tradition is, perhaps, more self-revealing than usual -- and comes, let it be noted, in response to a question which highlighted to increasing popularity of our liturgical tradition. One would hope that such embarrassing inaccuracies and misinformation would help spur some people to distance themselves from the Cardinal, and hopefully spur the Cardinal to distance himself from his own comments. Again, their extreme nature smack of a kind of desperation because of how obviously inaccurate they are.
Rumor (and it IS rumor) has it that B-16 will soon sign and present a motu proprio which will "liberalize" the circumstances under which the Tridentine Rite Mass (Mass of 1962/Old Rite) can be celebrated. Practiced observers doubt that he will do so. At the same time, we know that B-16 has initiated talks with the SSPX about reconciliation.
The winds of change....
It's their observation that the screech-level is getting high, and the arguments advanced by those folks are no longer "arguments" in the strict sense--rather, they are lies, or name-calling (usually the mark of the losing side.)
Regardless of what happens with the rumours we've been hearing these past few weeks, it seems to me that these sorts of comments are potentially the signs of increasing desperation on the part those who wish to see a further program of liberalization (ultimately de-Catholicization when taken in its more extreme forms) in Catholic doctrine and liturgy -- and who are recognizing the signs of the beginning of the end in this regard. One way or another, at one time or another, this will happen.
The dissenting program is ultmately not self-sustaining, it has no staying power -- it is akin to a cultural group which contracepts itself into non-existence. As this program effectively desacralizes and de-Catholicizes, its adherents fall away, or at very least do not multiply with new generations. By their very principles it creates a culture where new generations no longer see a need to stay within the Church and they leave it. There are some exceptions of course, but the statistics about practising Catholics within our Catholic schools bears witness to this trend, the dying of so many aging religious orders bear witness to this trend. It produces few vocations, gains few converts and keeps few individuals as the years tick on.
Perhaps the most glaring of them is mentioned:
Cardinal Mahony's recent comments which spoke of Latin in the Roman liturgy as not really "traditional" and only indicative of a "small slice" of our liturgical tradition is, perhaps, more self-revealing than usual -- and comes, let it be noted, in response to a question which highlighted to increasing popularity of our liturgical tradition. One would hope that such embarrassing inaccuracies and misinformation would help spur some people to distance themselves from the Cardinal, and hopefully spur the Cardinal to distance himself from his own comments. Again, their extreme nature smack of a kind of desperation because of how obviously inaccurate they are.
Rumor (and it IS rumor) has it that B-16 will soon sign and present a motu proprio which will "liberalize" the circumstances under which the Tridentine Rite Mass (Mass of 1962/Old Rite) can be celebrated. Practiced observers doubt that he will do so. At the same time, we know that B-16 has initiated talks with the SSPX about reconciliation.
The winds of change....
More Liturgical Advice
...from Cdl. Arinze, while in merrie olde England:
The head of the Vatican's Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments urged Catholics to be reverent during Mass and to venerate the Eucharist properly. During a talk in Westminster Cathedral April 1, Nigerian Cardinal Francis Arinze called on priests to restore tabernacles to central positions in churches and for Catholics to rediscover the tradition of reverent genuflection in the presence of the Eucharist. He also called for an end to adding details to and subtracting them from the approved rites of the Mass and for an end to soft background music during Mass and other times when people were trying to pray in church. "This is doubtless well intentioned, but it is a mistake," said the cardinal. "People enter churches to pray, not to be entertained." The cardinal told about 400 audience members that Mass was the "supreme act of adoration, praise and thanksgiving which humanity can offer God."
"Background music?" Is this like, hey, a Target Store? Field's? an elevator?
More from the same appearance:
Quoting John Paul II, he said liturgy is not a "private property" and that priests and lay faithfuls are "not free to add or subtract any details" from the official liturgy. He said communities that are faithful to the Church's liturgical norms demonstrate their love for the Church."
A do-it-yourself mentality, an attitude of nobody-will-tell-me-what-to-do, or a defiant sting of if-you-do-not-like-my-Mass-you-can-go-to-another-parish, is not only against sound theology and ecclesiology, but also offends against common sense," the Cardinal said.
"Unfortunately, sometimes common sense is not very common, when we see a priest ignoring liturgical rules and installing creativity, in his case personal idiosyncrasy, as the guide to the celebration of Holy Mass."
The cardinal's comments come a week after proposals were announced by a Vatican commission to outlaw the use of drums and electric guitars from church services. The commission outlined 50 proposals on reforming the liturgy, with Vatican insiders saying that the commission also proposed to increase the use of Latin during mass.
"....the priest ignoring liturgical rules..."--maybe he's been to St. Sebastian's, or the western suburban parish where the Creed is NOT recited on Sundays in Lent (because we're, you know, "deprived" during Lent....)
HT: Christus Vincit
The head of the Vatican's Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments urged Catholics to be reverent during Mass and to venerate the Eucharist properly. During a talk in Westminster Cathedral April 1, Nigerian Cardinal Francis Arinze called on priests to restore tabernacles to central positions in churches and for Catholics to rediscover the tradition of reverent genuflection in the presence of the Eucharist. He also called for an end to adding details to and subtracting them from the approved rites of the Mass and for an end to soft background music during Mass and other times when people were trying to pray in church. "This is doubtless well intentioned, but it is a mistake," said the cardinal. "People enter churches to pray, not to be entertained." The cardinal told about 400 audience members that Mass was the "supreme act of adoration, praise and thanksgiving which humanity can offer God."
"Background music?" Is this like, hey, a Target Store? Field's? an elevator?
More from the same appearance:
Quoting John Paul II, he said liturgy is not a "private property" and that priests and lay faithfuls are "not free to add or subtract any details" from the official liturgy. He said communities that are faithful to the Church's liturgical norms demonstrate their love for the Church."
A do-it-yourself mentality, an attitude of nobody-will-tell-me-what-to-do, or a defiant sting of if-you-do-not-like-my-Mass-you-can-go-to-another-parish, is not only against sound theology and ecclesiology, but also offends against common sense," the Cardinal said.
"Unfortunately, sometimes common sense is not very common, when we see a priest ignoring liturgical rules and installing creativity, in his case personal idiosyncrasy, as the guide to the celebration of Holy Mass."
The cardinal's comments come a week after proposals were announced by a Vatican commission to outlaw the use of drums and electric guitars from church services. The commission outlined 50 proposals on reforming the liturgy, with Vatican insiders saying that the commission also proposed to increase the use of Latin during mass.
"....the priest ignoring liturgical rules..."--maybe he's been to St. Sebastian's, or the western suburban parish where the Creed is NOT recited on Sundays in Lent (because we're, you know, "deprived" during Lent....)
HT: Christus Vincit
Asian Badger Blogger Hits It Big!! UPDATED
Our man in Asia, chased there by the Doyle-a-Thugs, makes a VERY interesting discovery about the asshat principal:
There’s an asshat principal, Tom Stumpf, in Colorado who banned the American flag at his high school (Skyline High School in Longmont, Colorado) due to tensions between Americans and Hispanics.
Here’s the interesting thing about Mr. Stumpf. He’s on a pension from some school district he already fucked up in Wisconsin. You can read his bio here.
Now when you read the bio, you'll find:
Bachelor of Arts: Educational Philosophy, St. Francis College, Milwaukee WI, 1957
Master of Arts: Educational Administration, Catholic University, Washington, DC, 1963 Educational Specialist Degree: Administrative Leadership, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, 1983
"St Francis College" is the Milwaukee SEMINARY College. He was studying for the priesthood, and the C.U. MA tells me that he was involved with the Catholic Schools here, at least for a time. It is also interesting that he chose NOT to name the Wisconsin schools he "administered," eh?
UPDATE: We are told, reliably, that Tom Stumpf, (Asshat) was studying at St. Francis, but would have been ordained for the Madison (WI) Diocese in about 1961. 90% probability reliable info.
There’s an asshat principal, Tom Stumpf, in Colorado who banned the American flag at his high school (Skyline High School in Longmont, Colorado) due to tensions between Americans and Hispanics.
Here’s the interesting thing about Mr. Stumpf. He’s on a pension from some school district he already fucked up in Wisconsin. You can read his bio here.
Now when you read the bio, you'll find:
Bachelor of Arts: Educational Philosophy, St. Francis College, Milwaukee WI, 1957
Master of Arts: Educational Administration, Catholic University, Washington, DC, 1963 Educational Specialist Degree: Administrative Leadership, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, 1983
"St Francis College" is the Milwaukee SEMINARY College. He was studying for the priesthood, and the C.U. MA tells me that he was involved with the Catholic Schools here, at least for a time. It is also interesting that he chose NOT to name the Wisconsin schools he "administered," eh?
UPDATE: We are told, reliably, that Tom Stumpf, (Asshat) was studying at St. Francis, but would have been ordained for the Madison (WI) Diocese in about 1961. 90% probability reliable info.
Pig Book and Legal Reality
Da Godfoddah tells us about the "Pig Book:"
The 2006 Congressional Pig Book is the latest installment of Citizens Against Government Waste’s (CAGW) 16-year exposé of pork-barrel spending.
This year’s list includes: $13,500,000 for the International Fund for Ireland, which helped finance the World Toilet Summit; $6,435,000 for wood utilization research; $1,000,000 for the Waterfree Urinal Conservation Initiative; and $500,000 for the Sparta Teapot Museum in Sparta, N.C....
Congress porked out at record dollar levels with $29 billion in pork for 2006, or 6.2 percent more than last year’s total of $27.3 billion. In fact, the total cost of pork has increased by 29 percent since fiscal 2003. Total pork identified by CAGW since 1991 adds up to $241 billion. By passing pork-laden appropriations bills and by not vetoing a single spending bill, Congress and the President of the United States have respectively failed the American taxpayer. While the ramifications of these failures may not be completely visible today, they surely will be when future generations will be strangled with increasing debt.
Yeah, we know about that.
But did you know that our President has no legal obligation to SPEND the "earmarks?" His Departments can simply ignore the Congressional CrapOLa.
GWB is fully aware of this.
Here's Bob Novak's column from Human Events (excerpts)
...Sen. Jim DeMint, a freshman Republican from South Carolina, had a better idea for the president: Why not instruct your department heads to ignore the earmarks Congress adds to your budget?
DeMint was not encouraging Bush to take the law into his own hands and defy statutes passed by Congress. A March 6 report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) said more than 95 percent of all earmarks were not written into law but were merely contained in the reports of congressional committees and legislative managers. "Earmarks that appear in committee reports and the statements of managers do not legally bind agencies," said the report.
The president did not respond to DeMint at the meeting, and that signifies opposition to the idea. Administration officials have flinched from any such confrontation with Congress.
There's a reason: GWB knows that the "economic growth" of the US is influenced by profligate and dissolute Gummint Spending (see Keynes.)
Who says cynics aren't right?
The 2006 Congressional Pig Book is the latest installment of Citizens Against Government Waste’s (CAGW) 16-year exposé of pork-barrel spending.
This year’s list includes: $13,500,000 for the International Fund for Ireland, which helped finance the World Toilet Summit; $6,435,000 for wood utilization research; $1,000,000 for the Waterfree Urinal Conservation Initiative; and $500,000 for the Sparta Teapot Museum in Sparta, N.C....
Congress porked out at record dollar levels with $29 billion in pork for 2006, or 6.2 percent more than last year’s total of $27.3 billion. In fact, the total cost of pork has increased by 29 percent since fiscal 2003. Total pork identified by CAGW since 1991 adds up to $241 billion. By passing pork-laden appropriations bills and by not vetoing a single spending bill, Congress and the President of the United States have respectively failed the American taxpayer. While the ramifications of these failures may not be completely visible today, they surely will be when future generations will be strangled with increasing debt.
Yeah, we know about that.
But did you know that our President has no legal obligation to SPEND the "earmarks?" His Departments can simply ignore the Congressional CrapOLa.
GWB is fully aware of this.
Here's Bob Novak's column from Human Events (excerpts)
...Sen. Jim DeMint, a freshman Republican from South Carolina, had a better idea for the president: Why not instruct your department heads to ignore the earmarks Congress adds to your budget?
DeMint was not encouraging Bush to take the law into his own hands and defy statutes passed by Congress. A March 6 report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) said more than 95 percent of all earmarks were not written into law but were merely contained in the reports of congressional committees and legislative managers. "Earmarks that appear in committee reports and the statements of managers do not legally bind agencies," said the report.
The president did not respond to DeMint at the meeting, and that signifies opposition to the idea. Administration officials have flinched from any such confrontation with Congress.
There's a reason: GWB knows that the "economic growth" of the US is influenced by profligate and dissolute Gummint Spending (see Keynes.)
Who says cynics aren't right?
A Perspective on Muslims and Iraq
From Powerline:
This afternoon, I had the privilege of attending a talk by Sayyed Ayad Raouf Jamal al-Din at the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI). Jamal al-Din is an Iraqi – I think he would want me to state that first before listing all of the other attributes and qualifications, which include Shiite, religious scholar, Imam, and elected member of the Iraqi parliament. He is uncompromising in his insistence on separation of religion and state. As Jamal al-Din puts it, “my freedom as a Shi'ite and as a religious person will never be complete unless I preserve the freedom of the Sunni, the Christian, the Jew, the Sabai, or the Yazidi. We will not be able to preserve the freedom of the mosque unless we preserve the freedom of entertainment clubs.”
Indeed, the takeover of many mosques by the opponents of freedom is of grave concern to Jamal al-Din. He notes, for example, that Zarqawi did not “emerge from his mother’s womb as a terrorist.” Instead, he learned to be a terrorist in the mosques from the Imam. This occurred because “some people’s interpretation of Islam is murderous.” These interpretations flourish where there is tyranny, which, says Jamal al-Din, is the real mother of terrorism. Thus, the only answer to terrorism is to overthrow tyranny and then fight a “cultural war” to create a modern society in its place.
In Iraq, the U.S. and its allies overthrew the tyranny. Now it is up to the Iraqis to fight the cultural war. But centuries of tyranny make this an extraordinarily difficult struggle, and Jamal al-Din emphasizes that Iraqis still need America’s help. Though politicians like John Kerry call on the U.S. to withdraw from Iraq, Jamal al-Din warns that Kerry's approach would represent “a defeat for the modern and civilized world” and a “victory for bin Laden, Zarqawi, and terrorism all over the Middle East.” Terrorism would then once again “knock on the door” of the West.
Jamal al-Din ran for parliament on the slate headed by former prime minister Alawi. This was a national unity slate, and it fared poorly in the election. But Jamal al-Din remains as insistent about the need for a unified Iraq as he is about the related concept of separation of religion and state. He talked little about Sunni vs. Shiite vs. Kurd and much about truth vs. fear and democracy vs. tyranny. And when he spoke of terrorism, he spoke of Islamic terrorism, not terrorism by any particular faction.
During the question period, I asked Jamal al-Din to say who is winning in Iraq now, truth or fear; democracy or tyranny. He answered by saying that right now Iraq is “a kingdom of fear.” Diana West and I later agreed that this answer is more meaningful and perhpas more disheartening than Dr. Alawi’s claim (which has become a mantra of the left in this country) that Iraq is in the middle of a civil war. In a civil war, there's an enemy army; in a kingdom of fear there are ghosts. An army can be easier to fight than ghosts.
But Jamal al-Din does not seem inordinately disheartened. He believes that the creation of a military and a police force with a national identity would enable the truth-fear, democracy-tyranny struggle to be played out in a clash between sectarian militias and the national army and police force. Though he did not say so, I felt that Jamal al-Din believes this struggle could go either way, and he clearly believes that much depends on the willingness of the U.S. to remain engaged.
Jamal-al-Din is certain to be a very popular "circuit speaker" promoted by the Wilsonian bunch (Power Line is among them) who argue that the US has a 'burden' to bring democracy to the masses in order to Save the World from Evil.
Well, maybe.
It is worth reading the last line of the post again. To "remain engaged" means exactly what?
This afternoon, I had the privilege of attending a talk by Sayyed Ayad Raouf Jamal al-Din at the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI). Jamal al-Din is an Iraqi – I think he would want me to state that first before listing all of the other attributes and qualifications, which include Shiite, religious scholar, Imam, and elected member of the Iraqi parliament. He is uncompromising in his insistence on separation of religion and state. As Jamal al-Din puts it, “my freedom as a Shi'ite and as a religious person will never be complete unless I preserve the freedom of the Sunni, the Christian, the Jew, the Sabai, or the Yazidi. We will not be able to preserve the freedom of the mosque unless we preserve the freedom of entertainment clubs.”
Indeed, the takeover of many mosques by the opponents of freedom is of grave concern to Jamal al-Din. He notes, for example, that Zarqawi did not “emerge from his mother’s womb as a terrorist.” Instead, he learned to be a terrorist in the mosques from the Imam. This occurred because “some people’s interpretation of Islam is murderous.” These interpretations flourish where there is tyranny, which, says Jamal al-Din, is the real mother of terrorism. Thus, the only answer to terrorism is to overthrow tyranny and then fight a “cultural war” to create a modern society in its place.
In Iraq, the U.S. and its allies overthrew the tyranny. Now it is up to the Iraqis to fight the cultural war. But centuries of tyranny make this an extraordinarily difficult struggle, and Jamal al-Din emphasizes that Iraqis still need America’s help. Though politicians like John Kerry call on the U.S. to withdraw from Iraq, Jamal al-Din warns that Kerry's approach would represent “a defeat for the modern and civilized world” and a “victory for bin Laden, Zarqawi, and terrorism all over the Middle East.” Terrorism would then once again “knock on the door” of the West.
Jamal al-Din ran for parliament on the slate headed by former prime minister Alawi. This was a national unity slate, and it fared poorly in the election. But Jamal al-Din remains as insistent about the need for a unified Iraq as he is about the related concept of separation of religion and state. He talked little about Sunni vs. Shiite vs. Kurd and much about truth vs. fear and democracy vs. tyranny. And when he spoke of terrorism, he spoke of Islamic terrorism, not terrorism by any particular faction.
During the question period, I asked Jamal al-Din to say who is winning in Iraq now, truth or fear; democracy or tyranny. He answered by saying that right now Iraq is “a kingdom of fear.” Diana West and I later agreed that this answer is more meaningful and perhpas more disheartening than Dr. Alawi’s claim (which has become a mantra of the left in this country) that Iraq is in the middle of a civil war. In a civil war, there's an enemy army; in a kingdom of fear there are ghosts. An army can be easier to fight than ghosts.
But Jamal al-Din does not seem inordinately disheartened. He believes that the creation of a military and a police force with a national identity would enable the truth-fear, democracy-tyranny struggle to be played out in a clash between sectarian militias and the national army and police force. Though he did not say so, I felt that Jamal al-Din believes this struggle could go either way, and he clearly believes that much depends on the willingness of the U.S. to remain engaged.
Jamal-al-Din is certain to be a very popular "circuit speaker" promoted by the Wilsonian bunch (Power Line is among them) who argue that the US has a 'burden' to bring democracy to the masses in order to Save the World from Evil.
Well, maybe.
It is worth reading the last line of the post again. To "remain engaged" means exactly what?
Seminary Closing--More
A well-written report from the Milwaukee JSOnline: (excerpts)
The Archdiocese of Milwaukee is closing the academic training portion of the St. Francis de Sales Seminary due to fiscal problems and questions of how best to provide training for priests, deacons and lay people.
The seminary currently has a $5.3 million annual operating budget and is running a deficit, Hohl said. The deficit was $1.6 million in 2004-'05; $2 million in 2005-'06 and is projected to be $2.2 million next year.
Pre-theology and first-year theology students at St. Francis would begin taking classroom work at the Sacred Heart School of Theology, in Franklin, a school run by the U.S. Province of the Congregation of the Priests of the Sacred Heart, beginning this fall, said Father Thomas Cassidy, Sacred Heart's rector. He said other seminarians would transfer in the fall of 2007.
The priests [ordination-track students?] would continue living in 150-year-old Henni Hall on the St. Francis campus and receive their human, pastoral and spiritual development training there. Cassidy said plans for men training for the permanent diaconate program have not been finalized.
Here's the obligatory dissenting quote:
Father Carl Diederichs, pastor of All Saints Catholic Church in Milwaukee, who studied at St. Francis, said he hoped women would continue to study alongside seminarians.
"To be in an all-male, all-seminarian milieu, they would lose something," Diederichs said of candidates for the priesthood. "I also have concerns for the lay ministry program."
Diederichs' parish is hosting the gay-marriage crowd. He's a close friend of the Cathedral's rector, Fr. Last.
Rome has made it crystal clear that wimmin should NOT be included in Theologate classes. Diederichs seems to know better.
The Archdiocese of Milwaukee is closing the academic training portion of the St. Francis de Sales Seminary due to fiscal problems and questions of how best to provide training for priests, deacons and lay people.
The seminary currently has a $5.3 million annual operating budget and is running a deficit, Hohl said. The deficit was $1.6 million in 2004-'05; $2 million in 2005-'06 and is projected to be $2.2 million next year.
Pre-theology and first-year theology students at St. Francis would begin taking classroom work at the Sacred Heart School of Theology, in Franklin, a school run by the U.S. Province of the Congregation of the Priests of the Sacred Heart, beginning this fall, said Father Thomas Cassidy, Sacred Heart's rector. He said other seminarians would transfer in the fall of 2007.
The priests [ordination-track students?] would continue living in 150-year-old Henni Hall on the St. Francis campus and receive their human, pastoral and spiritual development training there. Cassidy said plans for men training for the permanent diaconate program have not been finalized.
Here's the obligatory dissenting quote:
Father Carl Diederichs, pastor of All Saints Catholic Church in Milwaukee, who studied at St. Francis, said he hoped women would continue to study alongside seminarians.
"To be in an all-male, all-seminarian milieu, they would lose something," Diederichs said of candidates for the priesthood. "I also have concerns for the lay ministry program."
Diederichs' parish is hosting the gay-marriage crowd. He's a close friend of the Cathedral's rector, Fr. Last.
Rome has made it crystal clear that wimmin should NOT be included in Theologate classes. Diederichs seems to know better.
Thursday, April 06, 2006
Immigration Bill: All Show, No Go?
Listening to the Sykes presentation of the "compromise" reached by whatever Senators reached the "compromise" was an exercise, to say the least.
Obviously, the "compromise" was written by two groups: immigration attorneys and/or IRS regulation-writers. No sane man, illegal or not, could possibly determine who's on first (or what's on second...) with the silliness expressed this morning.
Which brings us to a question: will ANY Immigration bill actually get through Congress?
And the more meaningful one: if ANY immigration bill requires actual border enforcement, will the GWB gang implement it?
To both questions, I think the answer is "Nope."
With the exception of Jim Sensenbrenner, (and a few others,) most of the yappaflappa out there has been posturing. The Pubbies posture while knowing that their agricultural/building contractor benefactors must have illegals (they are remarkably cheap to employ.) The Dimowits posture in hopes of retaining the Hispanic vote (it could be American votes, but hey...)
And GWB postures all day long about "border enforcement"--as he has done for several years now--knowing that if the US doesn't wink and provide Mexico with an outlet, it's possible that there will be a Mexican Revolution--possibly leading to another Marxist Government.
One should not forget to mention Cdl. Mahoney of Los Angeles, who postures with as much elan as any of them. Some forget that Roger was also the chaplain for Cesar Chavez back in Roger's heydays (salad days?) in Stockton, CA. And Roger needs friendly press, because the LA District Attorney is getting very close to the bone in his queries about "who knew what, and when" on the homosexual-pedophilia problem in LA.
Ah, well. In 10 days, we send more money to these bozos.
Obviously, the "compromise" was written by two groups: immigration attorneys and/or IRS regulation-writers. No sane man, illegal or not, could possibly determine who's on first (or what's on second...) with the silliness expressed this morning.
Which brings us to a question: will ANY Immigration bill actually get through Congress?
And the more meaningful one: if ANY immigration bill requires actual border enforcement, will the GWB gang implement it?
To both questions, I think the answer is "Nope."
With the exception of Jim Sensenbrenner, (and a few others,) most of the yappaflappa out there has been posturing. The Pubbies posture while knowing that their agricultural/building contractor benefactors must have illegals (they are remarkably cheap to employ.) The Dimowits posture in hopes of retaining the Hispanic vote (it could be American votes, but hey...)
And GWB postures all day long about "border enforcement"--as he has done for several years now--knowing that if the US doesn't wink and provide Mexico with an outlet, it's possible that there will be a Mexican Revolution--possibly leading to another Marxist Government.
One should not forget to mention Cdl. Mahoney of Los Angeles, who postures with as much elan as any of them. Some forget that Roger was also the chaplain for Cesar Chavez back in Roger's heydays (salad days?) in Stockton, CA. And Roger needs friendly press, because the LA District Attorney is getting very close to the bone in his queries about "who knew what, and when" on the homosexual-pedophilia problem in LA.
Ah, well. In 10 days, we send more money to these bozos.
Sensenbrenner v. Gonzales
The AG is on thin ice:
Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., said Gonzales was frustrating his panel's oversight of the Justice Department and the controversial surveillance by declining to provide information about how the program is reviewed inside the administration and by whom.
"How can we discharge our oversight if, every time we ask a pointed question, we're told the program is classified?" Sensenbrenner asked Gonzales near the start of a lengthy hearing on the department's activities. "I think that ... is stonewalling."
Gonzales did not budge, defending the eavesdropping as lawful and telling Sensenbrenner and other lawmakers on the panel that he would not discuss classified matters.
Mr. Gonzales, Jim's one of OUR guys. If you don't like the questions, nor the healthy skepticism from the Committee, then maybe you'd best find another way to get Jim the info.
Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., said Gonzales was frustrating his panel's oversight of the Justice Department and the controversial surveillance by declining to provide information about how the program is reviewed inside the administration and by whom.
"How can we discharge our oversight if, every time we ask a pointed question, we're told the program is classified?" Sensenbrenner asked Gonzales near the start of a lengthy hearing on the department's activities. "I think that ... is stonewalling."
Gonzales did not budge, defending the eavesdropping as lawful and telling Sensenbrenner and other lawmakers on the panel that he would not discuss classified matters.
Mr. Gonzales, Jim's one of OUR guys. If you don't like the questions, nor the healthy skepticism from the Committee, then maybe you'd best find another way to get Jim the info.
Anti-Christian Libertine Union vs. Boy Scouts
It will be interesting to read Justice Sykes' opinion when it is issued:
A civil liberties group is going to court today to try to end the National Boy Scout Jamboree, held every four years at Fort A.P. Hill in Virginia, arguing that the Defense Department’s financial support of the event violates the separation of church and state.
American Civil Liberties Union attorneys will argue before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in Chicago that the government is violating the First Amendment by allowing the Pentagon to spend millions on the jamboree, the Boy Scouts’ largest traditional gathering.
The ACLU’s lawsuit against the Defense Department contends that the words “duty to God” in the Boy Scout Oath make the group a religious organization and that any government support gives the Boy Scouts special treatment.
Evidently some wacko-in-blacko District judge thinks ACLU has a case, which is why it's in appeals.
About 15 years ago, while painting the woodwork on my porch, Rush was commenting on some other ACLU vs. BSA action (there've been a zillion...) and his offhand reaction is one I will NEVER forget:
"Screw 'em!!!"
Thanks, Rush, for the memories, and mega-dittoes.
HT: Lakeshore
A civil liberties group is going to court today to try to end the National Boy Scout Jamboree, held every four years at Fort A.P. Hill in Virginia, arguing that the Defense Department’s financial support of the event violates the separation of church and state.
American Civil Liberties Union attorneys will argue before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in Chicago that the government is violating the First Amendment by allowing the Pentagon to spend millions on the jamboree, the Boy Scouts’ largest traditional gathering.
The ACLU’s lawsuit against the Defense Department contends that the words “duty to God” in the Boy Scout Oath make the group a religious organization and that any government support gives the Boy Scouts special treatment.
Evidently some wacko-in-blacko District judge thinks ACLU has a case, which is why it's in appeals.
About 15 years ago, while painting the woodwork on my porch, Rush was commenting on some other ACLU vs. BSA action (there've been a zillion...) and his offhand reaction is one I will NEVER forget:
"Screw 'em!!!"
Thanks, Rush, for the memories, and mega-dittoes.
HT: Lakeshore
"The Rug" Lott (R-Porky) Complains
Heh.
Trent Lott, fresh from a cheerleading seminar, on you pesky taxpayers:
"I'll just say this about the so-called porkbusters. I'm getting damn tired of hearing from them. They have been nothing but trouble ever since Katrina. We in Mississippi have not asked for more than we deserve. We've been very reasonable."
This has to do with a Trent Lott-supported highway building program (sounds vaguely familiar, eh, John Gard?)...
Former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, the Republican from Mississippi, has had it to here with Porkbusters and other critics of pork barrel spending like Sen. Tom Coburn, R-OK, who think the federal government has better things to do with $700 million of the taxpayers money than tear up a just-repaired coastal rail line and replace it with a new highway.
Nearly $300 million worth of repairs to the line were just completed in January, financed by CSX Railroad and its insurance company. No word yet on how CSX or its insurance company feel about the plan favored by Lott and his fellow Mississippi Republican Senator Thad Cochran to tear up the tracks and replace them with a highway to serve the heavily populated coastal region.
While a measly $700MM falls short of the "real money" threshold ($1BN) as defined by an Illinois Senator, it's still quite a piece of change.
HT: Captain's Quarters
Trent Lott, fresh from a cheerleading seminar, on you pesky taxpayers:
"I'll just say this about the so-called porkbusters. I'm getting damn tired of hearing from them. They have been nothing but trouble ever since Katrina. We in Mississippi have not asked for more than we deserve. We've been very reasonable."
This has to do with a Trent Lott-supported highway building program (sounds vaguely familiar, eh, John Gard?)...
Former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, the Republican from Mississippi, has had it to here with Porkbusters and other critics of pork barrel spending like Sen. Tom Coburn, R-OK, who think the federal government has better things to do with $700 million of the taxpayers money than tear up a just-repaired coastal rail line and replace it with a new highway.
Nearly $300 million worth of repairs to the line were just completed in January, financed by CSX Railroad and its insurance company. No word yet on how CSX or its insurance company feel about the plan favored by Lott and his fellow Mississippi Republican Senator Thad Cochran to tear up the tracks and replace them with a highway to serve the heavily populated coastal region.
While a measly $700MM falls short of the "real money" threshold ($1BN) as defined by an Illinois Senator, it's still quite a piece of change.
HT: Captain's Quarters
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
Bill Buckley on Iraq
Here, Bill makes it even clearer:
I have myself concluded that our Iraqi mission has failed. Missions have to be judged successes or failures with some reference to a time scale. If that scale is stretched forever, it is not authentically tested. If the mission is to liberate the Prisoner of Zenda and 10 years later he is still in jail, the mission can reasonably be classified as having failed, never mind that in the 15th year he is actually rescued.
The important qualifier is "time scale." What GWB and his coterie continue to state (a tactical error) is that "establishing democracy" constitutes success of the mission: "Democracy and the accompanying rise of political and civic institutions are the only route to a better world -- and because the work is difficult doesn't mean it can be ignored. The cycle has to be broken. The process of democratic reform has begun, and now would be precisely the wrong time to lose our nerve and turn our back on the freedom agenda." (P Wehner, WH Office of Strategic Initiatives.)
THAT leaves us at the mercy of the various insurgent parties including the Iranian 'bots, who can (and have, and will) play cat-and-mouse with bombings, asassinations, and other disturbances which tend to demonstrate that "democracy" has NOT been "established."
In other words, "we have ceded control of the pace and direction of the war to those who control the progress of creating democracy in Iraq. And that, unfortunately, means our principal enemies (Iran and Syria) and our faux ally, Saudi Arabia. This is a strategic plan that can only lead to defeat. We who support the president expect better." (Jed Babbin, AmSpec)
Clearly we have a case of politicians defining 'victory' in a way substantially different than the military might. We should have thunka that a long time ago.
I have myself concluded that our Iraqi mission has failed. Missions have to be judged successes or failures with some reference to a time scale. If that scale is stretched forever, it is not authentically tested. If the mission is to liberate the Prisoner of Zenda and 10 years later he is still in jail, the mission can reasonably be classified as having failed, never mind that in the 15th year he is actually rescued.
The important qualifier is "time scale." What GWB and his coterie continue to state (a tactical error) is that "establishing democracy" constitutes success of the mission: "Democracy and the accompanying rise of political and civic institutions are the only route to a better world -- and because the work is difficult doesn't mean it can be ignored. The cycle has to be broken. The process of democratic reform has begun, and now would be precisely the wrong time to lose our nerve and turn our back on the freedom agenda." (P Wehner, WH Office of Strategic Initiatives.)
THAT leaves us at the mercy of the various insurgent parties including the Iranian 'bots, who can (and have, and will) play cat-and-mouse with bombings, asassinations, and other disturbances which tend to demonstrate that "democracy" has NOT been "established."
In other words, "we have ceded control of the pace and direction of the war to those who control the progress of creating democracy in Iraq. And that, unfortunately, means our principal enemies (Iran and Syria) and our faux ally, Saudi Arabia. This is a strategic plan that can only lead to defeat. We who support the president expect better." (Jed Babbin, AmSpec)
Clearly we have a case of politicians defining 'victory' in a way substantially different than the military might. We should have thunka that a long time ago.
Poll Question
OK.
So is Cynthia (Exploding Hair) McKinney MORE embarassing to Georgia
than Russ Feingold (D-AlQuaeda) is to Wisconsin?
Or is Russ more embarassing than Cynthia?
Take your time. No essay responses allowed.
So is Cynthia (Exploding Hair) McKinney MORE embarassing to Georgia
than Russ Feingold (D-AlQuaeda) is to Wisconsin?
Or is Russ more embarassing than Cynthia?
Take your time. No essay responses allowed.
...and You-Know-Who Organized The Demonstrations
Yah--another big surprise upcoming for Xoff and his pals:
The Act Now to Stop War & End Racism (ANSWER) coalition, which organized the Los Angeles march to win "full rights for undocumented workers," is confident its new "national action" will prove successful.
ANSWER's steering committee includes the Free Palestine Alliance, the Partnership for Civil Justice, the Nicaragua Network, the Korea Truth Commission, the Muslim Student Association, the Mexico Solidarity Network and the Party for Socialism and Liberation. It denounces as racism attempts to criminalize illegal aliens.
So what?
Here's what:
We've written about International A.N.S.W.E.R. a number of times; for example, here. It is a Communist organization and a front for the Workers World Party. The Workers World Party has been around for quite a while. It is one of the last unapologetically Stalinist organizations in the world; it supported the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956. More recently, the WWP and ANSWER have supported dictators like Saddam Hussein and North Korea's Kim Il Jong.
We kinda figured that the Commies were involved here...
Where's Tailgunner Joe when you need him?
The Act Now to Stop War & End Racism (ANSWER) coalition, which organized the Los Angeles march to win "full rights for undocumented workers," is confident its new "national action" will prove successful.
ANSWER's steering committee includes the Free Palestine Alliance, the Partnership for Civil Justice, the Nicaragua Network, the Korea Truth Commission, the Muslim Student Association, the Mexico Solidarity Network and the Party for Socialism and Liberation. It denounces as racism attempts to criminalize illegal aliens.
So what?
Here's what:
We've written about International A.N.S.W.E.R. a number of times; for example, here. It is a Communist organization and a front for the Workers World Party. The Workers World Party has been around for quite a while. It is one of the last unapologetically Stalinist organizations in the world; it supported the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956. More recently, the WWP and ANSWER have supported dictators like Saddam Hussein and North Korea's Kim Il Jong.
We kinda figured that the Commies were involved here...
Where's Tailgunner Joe when you need him?
Milwaukee Seminary to Kind Of Close, Update 2
St Francis Major Seminary, while not exactly closing, will merge with Sacred Heart School of Theology. The college program wil no longer exist at the Sem, but the ordained Diaconate and "Priestly Formation" programs will be in the merged entity. Current faculty may or may not be hired by Sacred Heart. Lay formation programs will be migrated to other colleges (and perhaps Sacred Heart.)
The The Archdiocesan offices will relocate to the Seminary grounds/buildings, and the Minor Seminary will be sold or redeveloped.
This is eminently sensible.
As our Archbishop knows, the first and most important element in the Church is a holy priesthood, well-formed. For the last several years (and perhaps since 1960 or so) the Seminary has produced uneven results in formation and has had some well-documented failures of candidate-selection (diplomatic, eh?)
In addition, it is exceedingly difficult to find and assign professors to the Seminary; if they are priest-professors, they really can't have a full-time parish assignment; if they are laymen, it's likely that they will require more salary compensation than priests. In an Archdiocese which is not over-endowed with priests, this is a practical problem of some magnitude. Further, (and perhaps determinative) it has been more and more difficult to find thoroughly orthodox teachers of the Faith in the USA--and after all, there is competition for those individuals.
Related to this is the operating cost of the Seminary (outside of professorial compensation,) especially since it is not full-to-the-brim with men studying for the priesthood. One also must consider the amount of space devoted to Archdiocesan operations (the Puzzle Palace) next door; in reality, both complexes were under-occupied, but fully maintained.
Finally, the Archdiocese faces a continuing overall challenge on the financial front, and a looming, yet-to-be-determined settlement cost emanating from Los Angeles. Collections aren't great; the parochial schools and Archdiocesan high schools cost more every year--especially when the Archbishop seems determined to build a new HS in the West Bend/Kewaskum area.
Few seminarians, a difficulty in recruiting faculty, cost/pupil and overall Archdiocesan money-woes--it all added up.
The The Archdiocesan offices will relocate to the Seminary grounds/buildings, and the Minor Seminary will be sold or redeveloped.
This is eminently sensible.
As our Archbishop knows, the first and most important element in the Church is a holy priesthood, well-formed. For the last several years (and perhaps since 1960 or so) the Seminary has produced uneven results in formation and has had some well-documented failures of candidate-selection (diplomatic, eh?)
In addition, it is exceedingly difficult to find and assign professors to the Seminary; if they are priest-professors, they really can't have a full-time parish assignment; if they are laymen, it's likely that they will require more salary compensation than priests. In an Archdiocese which is not over-endowed with priests, this is a practical problem of some magnitude. Further, (and perhaps determinative) it has been more and more difficult to find thoroughly orthodox teachers of the Faith in the USA--and after all, there is competition for those individuals.
Related to this is the operating cost of the Seminary (outside of professorial compensation,) especially since it is not full-to-the-brim with men studying for the priesthood. One also must consider the amount of space devoted to Archdiocesan operations (the Puzzle Palace) next door; in reality, both complexes were under-occupied, but fully maintained.
Finally, the Archdiocese faces a continuing overall challenge on the financial front, and a looming, yet-to-be-determined settlement cost emanating from Los Angeles. Collections aren't great; the parochial schools and Archdiocesan high schools cost more every year--especially when the Archbishop seems determined to build a new HS in the West Bend/Kewaskum area.
Few seminarians, a difficulty in recruiting faculty, cost/pupil and overall Archdiocesan money-woes--it all added up.
Feinie (D-AlQuaeda) Likes Gay Marriage
Feinie now has a triple play, voting for partial-birth abortion, against the Patriot Act, and (at least theoretically) for the fiction of gay marriage.
Consistently, reliably, wrong--that's our Feinie.
Consistently, reliably, wrong--that's our Feinie.
"Not Enough Americans for the Jobs"
An excerpt from a newsletter from Norm Matloff, UC-Davis:
The pattern is quite familiar by now, in the following steps:
1. Industry lobbyists send a lavish press kit, and/or meet with the editorial board, of a newspaper, urging an increase in the H-1B visa cap.
2. A reporter for the newspaper, needing a quote from an employer, interviews an employer suggested by the industry lobbyists.
3. The employer tells the reporter that he needs to hire H-1Bs because he cannot find qualified Americans for the job.
4. The reporter then dutifully puts that quote in the article.
5. Either Rob Sanchez in his e-newsletter, or I in mine, look up thatemployer in the Dept. of Labor H-1B database, and lo and behold, find that the employers is paying his H-1Bs below-market wages.
Sure enough, in the first article enclosed below, we again see an employer pulling the wool over the reporters' eyes.
Well, had if the reporters had checked on the DOL H-1B Web page(www.flcdatacenter.com/CaseH1B.aspx) they would have found that _____ is hiring H-1Bs as computer systems analysts in the $40K range.The highest rate they list is for a SENIOR systems analyst, at $58K.
Yet even a new graduate in computer science makes over $50K per year.
In other words, $40K is well below what experienced people make.
(I deleted the name of the computer consulting-firm above)
Just in case you read one of those stories--you know where to go and what to do. As Dr. Sowell stated in his column on a closely-related topic, "It's all about price."
The pattern is quite familiar by now, in the following steps:
1. Industry lobbyists send a lavish press kit, and/or meet with the editorial board, of a newspaper, urging an increase in the H-1B visa cap.
2. A reporter for the newspaper, needing a quote from an employer, interviews an employer suggested by the industry lobbyists.
3. The employer tells the reporter that he needs to hire H-1Bs because he cannot find qualified Americans for the job.
4. The reporter then dutifully puts that quote in the article.
5. Either Rob Sanchez in his e-newsletter, or I in mine, look up thatemployer in the Dept. of Labor H-1B database, and lo and behold, find that the employers is paying his H-1Bs below-market wages.
Sure enough, in the first article enclosed below, we again see an employer pulling the wool over the reporters' eyes.
Well, had if the reporters had checked on the DOL H-1B Web page(www.flcdatacenter.com/CaseH1B.aspx) they would have found that _____ is hiring H-1Bs as computer systems analysts in the $40K range.The highest rate they list is for a SENIOR systems analyst, at $58K.
Yet even a new graduate in computer science makes over $50K per year.
In other words, $40K is well below what experienced people make.
(I deleted the name of the computer consulting-firm above)
Just in case you read one of those stories--you know where to go and what to do. As Dr. Sowell stated in his column on a closely-related topic, "It's all about price."
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
Pre-K? Pre-Pre-K?
Milwaukee Idiot posts a story from California which should be remembered here, as the WEAC Jobs For Teachers Campaign gets off the ground in Wisconsin:
After four decades of research, we do know that young children from poor families benefit handsomely from attending preschool. But under Proposition 82, which will appear on the June ballot, lower-income children would get less than half of the estimated $2.4 billion in new annual pre-school funding that would be raised by taxing the wealthiest Californians.
That's partly because over half of these children already attend free preschool.
At least $1.4 billion would go to subsidize better-off parents who can already afford to pay for preschool.The irony is that the small benefit gained by sending middle-class kids to preschool disappears by third grade, according to a decade-long federal study released last fall.
And even MORE interesting:
Children's growth curves do rise when their teacher holds a two-year degree in child development and so is better able to organize stimulating activities and offer steady emotional support. No additional gains are detected when the preschool teacher has a four-year degree, although labor costs skyrocket, a finding newly replicated by UCLA and University of North Carolina researchers.
You'll hear more about the "virtues" of pre-K. In a few cases, the argument is valid. A FEW.
After four decades of research, we do know that young children from poor families benefit handsomely from attending preschool. But under Proposition 82, which will appear on the June ballot, lower-income children would get less than half of the estimated $2.4 billion in new annual pre-school funding that would be raised by taxing the wealthiest Californians.
That's partly because over half of these children already attend free preschool.
At least $1.4 billion would go to subsidize better-off parents who can already afford to pay for preschool.The irony is that the small benefit gained by sending middle-class kids to preschool disappears by third grade, according to a decade-long federal study released last fall.
And even MORE interesting:
Children's growth curves do rise when their teacher holds a two-year degree in child development and so is better able to organize stimulating activities and offer steady emotional support. No additional gains are detected when the preschool teacher has a four-year degree, although labor costs skyrocket, a finding newly replicated by UCLA and University of North Carolina researchers.
You'll hear more about the "virtues" of pre-K. In a few cases, the argument is valid. A FEW.
Hildebeeste's Real Colors
Fuggedabout all that "Moderate Me!" patina ol' Hil's been trying to emplace on her political persona lately--that's fo' suckers.
The REAL Hildebeeste burps another green gaseous gun-grabbing proposal:
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has quietly stepped up her fight for tighter gun control by signing on to a new push to make public a national database of weapons used in crimes and illegal sales.
Her résumé on gun control, a pet issue among the Democratic Party's liberal base, includes calls for a ban on assault weapons and so-called "cop killer" armor-piercing ammo - yet she hasn't personally taken a lead role in any gun legislation in this Congress.
... Clinton was so eager to have her name attached to the bill that she called Sen. Bob Menendez out of the blue to co-sponsor it, the rookie New Jersey Democrat told The Post.
The precis of this bill is hardly complete. More to follow.
The REAL Hildebeeste burps another green gaseous gun-grabbing proposal:
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has quietly stepped up her fight for tighter gun control by signing on to a new push to make public a national database of weapons used in crimes and illegal sales.
Her résumé on gun control, a pet issue among the Democratic Party's liberal base, includes calls for a ban on assault weapons and so-called "cop killer" armor-piercing ammo - yet she hasn't personally taken a lead role in any gun legislation in this Congress.
... Clinton was so eager to have her name attached to the bill that she called Sen. Bob Menendez out of the blue to co-sponsor it, the rookie New Jersey Democrat told The Post.
The precis of this bill is hardly complete. More to follow.
The Cost of Health Care--Aurora Style
More attorney's fees.
Does your health insurance have to pay for this, too?
In the latest action in the lawsuit against Oconomowoc, Circuit Judge James R. Kieffer said he would review and possibly overturn past decisions by previous judges in the case that had favored the city.
He is the third judge to preside in the long-running case, which also alleges that the city violated state laws governing open meetings and public records and violated its own ordinances by rezoning the proposed hospital site without a written petition asking it to do so.
Aurora also has an active lawsuit against the county. The lawsuit was filed jointly with Summit after the County Board blocked Aurora's construction plans in the town. Circuit Judge Mark Gempeler dismissed the lawsuit last month.
Squire said Monday that Aurora would appeal Gempeler's ruling and expect a decision by an appeals court on the matter by next year.
Does your health insurance have to pay for this, too?
In the latest action in the lawsuit against Oconomowoc, Circuit Judge James R. Kieffer said he would review and possibly overturn past decisions by previous judges in the case that had favored the city.
He is the third judge to preside in the long-running case, which also alleges that the city violated state laws governing open meetings and public records and violated its own ordinances by rezoning the proposed hospital site without a written petition asking it to do so.
Aurora also has an active lawsuit against the county. The lawsuit was filed jointly with Summit after the County Board blocked Aurora's construction plans in the town. Circuit Judge Mark Gempeler dismissed the lawsuit last month.
Squire said Monday that Aurora would appeal Gempeler's ruling and expect a decision by an appeals court on the matter by next year.
That Odor? It's YOUR FAULT!!
Just so you understand it correctly, you see, the $Zillion spent on MayorMaier'sRevenge--all that money, and more every year--it's irrelevant. It's YOUR damn downspouts!
Bill Graffin, a spokesman for MMSD, said the deep tunnel, the 405 million-gallon storage facility designed to hold waste during storms and avoid overflows, was less than half-filled at the time of the dumping. The overflows, he said, occurred before the waste reached the tunnel because there was so much rain in local sewers meant to only carry waste.
Bill Graffin, a spokesman for MMSD, said the deep tunnel, the 405 million-gallon storage facility designed to hold waste during storms and avoid overflows, was less than half-filled at the time of the dumping. The overflows, he said, occurred before the waste reached the tunnel because there was so much rain in local sewers meant to only carry waste.
Iraq and Illegals--A Perspective
Historians will one day marvel that, as their Southwest was slipping away from the United States – demographically, linguistically and culturally – Americans were fighting to keep Iraq together. Remarkable. Foreigners are invading and occupying Arizona, while Americans are fighting for Anbar province.
PJB
PJB
Monday, April 03, 2006
Kristol Doesn't Have a Vote--But He DOES Have a Mouth
Charlie points out Bill Kristol's editorial, in which the Great K mentions "yahoos."
Kristol seems to think that making illegals "legal" will win the Hispanic vote for the Republicans; unfortunately, K can't prove that. He very carefully selects a few races and attempts to show us that "yahoos can't win."
Actually, Bill (as you know full well) a Pubbie who runs on less taxes, RKBA, and an end to baby-killing wins almost every time (and yes, the exception is the State of California.) The "illegal" question is usually about 9th on a list of 7 concerns at election time.
Until this year...
K. seems to think that John McCain, Arlen Specter, and Lindsey Graham are "leading lights" of the Party--and that GWB's election was somehow dependent on immigration issues.
Wrong, K.
And by the way, Bill--show us the dramatic (R) Hispanic-vote gains in the last few elections. Some statisticians have been trying hard to do it, and haven't accomplished that trick.
NOBODY is calling for a halt to immigration from Mexico. NOBODY. But a LOT of Americans are calling for a halt to ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.
After all, Bill--if that law means nothing, what other laws mean something?
NeoCons who are Libertarians ought not be calling names in glass houses, K.
Kristol seems to think that making illegals "legal" will win the Hispanic vote for the Republicans; unfortunately, K can't prove that. He very carefully selects a few races and attempts to show us that "yahoos can't win."
Actually, Bill (as you know full well) a Pubbie who runs on less taxes, RKBA, and an end to baby-killing wins almost every time (and yes, the exception is the State of California.) The "illegal" question is usually about 9th on a list of 7 concerns at election time.
Until this year...
K. seems to think that John McCain, Arlen Specter, and Lindsey Graham are "leading lights" of the Party--and that GWB's election was somehow dependent on immigration issues.
Wrong, K.
And by the way, Bill--show us the dramatic (R) Hispanic-vote gains in the last few elections. Some statisticians have been trying hard to do it, and haven't accomplished that trick.
NOBODY is calling for a halt to immigration from Mexico. NOBODY. But a LOT of Americans are calling for a halt to ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.
After all, Bill--if that law means nothing, what other laws mean something?
NeoCons who are Libertarians ought not be calling names in glass houses, K.
Gielow's Going to Be Sec'y DIHLR? DHFS?
Right Off the Shore tells us all about AB 1140, introduced by Kurt Gielow (he's an HR consultant in real life.)
It's the Wisconsin Socialized Medicine plan, and fits right into a rumor that's been running around for a while: that Gielow will be made HHS Sec'y by the next Pubbie Governor. Evidently this is the reason--or is the payback, or whatever.
There is ONE good provision in this bill: "adopting federal law as it relates to health savings accounts for state income and franchise tax purposes." As we've mentioned before, Wisconsin's tax laws are not in sync with the Fed's on HSA's--nor on HRA's for that matter. Too bad Gielow didn't include the HRA portion.
Oh yeah: how to pay?
This is the really tricky part. AB 1140 reads, “Although the bill does not provide a funding source or mechanism, the accounts and HSAs are to be funded beginning in 2009, which is also when coverage under PHIPA begins.”
This bill ain’t gonna fund ‘em, but gosh darn it, they are going to be funded in 2009. According to a little birdie, the funds are going to come from a proposed tax ("fee") on businesses in Wisconsin. This tax/fee, according to the source, would range anywhere from 8%-15%. [of payroll, we assume.]
Kurt--when you find common cause with Jon Richards, you've been looking for love in all the wrong places.
MASSIVE Hat Tip to Jenna!
It's the Wisconsin Socialized Medicine plan, and fits right into a rumor that's been running around for a while: that Gielow will be made HHS Sec'y by the next Pubbie Governor. Evidently this is the reason--or is the payback, or whatever.
There is ONE good provision in this bill: "adopting federal law as it relates to health savings accounts for state income and franchise tax purposes." As we've mentioned before, Wisconsin's tax laws are not in sync with the Fed's on HSA's--nor on HRA's for that matter. Too bad Gielow didn't include the HRA portion.
Oh yeah: how to pay?
This is the really tricky part. AB 1140 reads, “Although the bill does not provide a funding source or mechanism, the accounts and HSAs are to be funded beginning in 2009, which is also when coverage under PHIPA begins.”
This bill ain’t gonna fund ‘em, but gosh darn it, they are going to be funded in 2009. According to a little birdie, the funds are going to come from a proposed tax ("fee") on businesses in Wisconsin. This tax/fee, according to the source, would range anywhere from 8%-15%. [of payroll, we assume.]
Kurt--when you find common cause with Jon Richards, you've been looking for love in all the wrong places.
MASSIVE Hat Tip to Jenna!
John Jay's Priest-Abuse Figures--In Color!
Everything you've ever wanted to know (and more, most likely) in graphs, neatly prepared by Augustinus on his blog: (there are more over there--this is the quickie lesson.)
Let's start with ordination dates, which tells us a few things (like most of these guys are dead, or will be so VERY soon.)
Then we can go to the dates of abuse (as reported, not WHEN reported):
Let's start with ordination dates, which tells us a few things (like most of these guys are dead, or will be so VERY soon.)
Then we can go to the dates of abuse (as reported, not WHEN reported):
Now we show that this is NOT "Pedophilia," but rather "EPHEBOPHILA":
And finally, the 6:1 ratio of male to female victims:
Looks like a homosexual problem, eh?
Xoff Wants to Miss the Point. He Does.
X doesn't like McIlheran's reasonable approach.
X also doesn't bother with little things like "WHOSE flag?" and "Upside Down Flags," and the (ahhhh) "Highly Charged Language" common in these demonstrations, sometimes in English...
But hey! These are Democratic voters X wants to bless...and amnestize...
X also doesn't bother with little things like "WHOSE flag?" and "Upside Down Flags," and the (ahhhh) "Highly Charged Language" common in these demonstrations, sometimes in English...
But hey! These are Democratic voters X wants to bless...and amnestize...
As Long As Tex Brought It Up...
Tex tells us that the Lie-beral Left is displeased with GWB's ability to nominate to the SCOTUS.
Which reminds me: notice any activity lately on the 20+ vacancies to OTHER Federal Courts?
Nope.
Frist and Specter are going to ground, again...too busy playing politics with Illegals.
Which reminds me: notice any activity lately on the 20+ vacancies to OTHER Federal Courts?
Nope.
Frist and Specter are going to ground, again...too busy playing politics with Illegals.
This JSOnline Story is Not Quite Complete
This story ran yesterday in other places. Note the careful weaseling about 'who did what,' and what the alternatives were:
Emil Hidalgo-Solis couldn't stop throwing up. His diarrhea was bloody. His feet blistered. He had staggered through the desert, stumbled across the border, gulped contaminated water from a slimy cattle trough.
...Then, from nowhere, a truck appeared. On its side, in big letters, was the word "Samaritan." Inside were members of a faith-based group called No More Deaths, offering water, food and a ride to a doctor. They took the three to a makeshift camp, then set out for a church where a doctor and nurse would meet them.
...But then, Strauss [a civilian "rescuer"] looked back and saw that they were being followed by a Border Patrol vehicle. The officers trailed them for maybe 13 miles before pulling them over.
Interesting--the Border Patrol was onto this 'rescue wagon' real quick, eh?
"The officer turned to us and said, 'Those guys are illegal and you know it.' "
Two more Border Patrol vehicles arrived. They arrested Hidalgo-Solis and his companions. But they also arrested Strauss and Sellz [another civilian 'rescuer']
"Are you really arresting me?" Sellz recalls asking, in amazement.
"I know you guys are good people, but what you're doing is illegal," she was told.
Then, way, way down near the end:
OOOOOOPSSS! The JSonline edition forgot the rest of the story!
Here's more from an Arizona TV source:
The United States Border Patrol says no matter the cause for transporting illegal immigrants, the volunteers were breaking the law.
"There's so many emergency resources out there, no need for anybody to transport illegal aliens in their own vehicle. They need to find law enforcement personnel."
Yah, hey. Why do you think the Border Patrol's vehicle was so close?
"We've gone on record before saying do not do this. Do not transport illegal aliens in your car. We will arrest you and pursue prosecution. That's not a secret at all," said Andrea Zortman, Border Patrol Agent.
Border Patrol agents say the undocumented immigrants' condition is not as dire as volunteers suggest.
"Our Border Star agents checked those three individuals out and found they were not in medical distress. They just needed a little bit of water and they were good to go."
Just co-incidence that Jim Sensenbrenner is our Congressman, eh?
The "rescue" bunch knew that the BP was on to them; they knew that BP resources were always nearby; and the knew that transporting illegals in a private vehicle would likely get them arrested.
Pandering, anyone?
Emil Hidalgo-Solis couldn't stop throwing up. His diarrhea was bloody. His feet blistered. He had staggered through the desert, stumbled across the border, gulped contaminated water from a slimy cattle trough.
...Then, from nowhere, a truck appeared. On its side, in big letters, was the word "Samaritan." Inside were members of a faith-based group called No More Deaths, offering water, food and a ride to a doctor. They took the three to a makeshift camp, then set out for a church where a doctor and nurse would meet them.
...But then, Strauss [a civilian "rescuer"] looked back and saw that they were being followed by a Border Patrol vehicle. The officers trailed them for maybe 13 miles before pulling them over.
Interesting--the Border Patrol was onto this 'rescue wagon' real quick, eh?
"The officer turned to us and said, 'Those guys are illegal and you know it.' "
Two more Border Patrol vehicles arrived. They arrested Hidalgo-Solis and his companions. But they also arrested Strauss and Sellz [another civilian 'rescuer']
"Are you really arresting me?" Sellz recalls asking, in amazement.
"I know you guys are good people, but what you're doing is illegal," she was told.
Then, way, way down near the end:
OOOOOOPSSS! The JSonline edition forgot the rest of the story!
Here's more from an Arizona TV source:
The United States Border Patrol says no matter the cause for transporting illegal immigrants, the volunteers were breaking the law.
"There's so many emergency resources out there, no need for anybody to transport illegal aliens in their own vehicle. They need to find law enforcement personnel."
Yah, hey. Why do you think the Border Patrol's vehicle was so close?
"We've gone on record before saying do not do this. Do not transport illegal aliens in your car. We will arrest you and pursue prosecution. That's not a secret at all," said Andrea Zortman, Border Patrol Agent.
Border Patrol agents say the undocumented immigrants' condition is not as dire as volunteers suggest.
"Our Border Star agents checked those three individuals out and found they were not in medical distress. They just needed a little bit of water and they were good to go."
Just co-incidence that Jim Sensenbrenner is our Congressman, eh?
The "rescue" bunch knew that the BP was on to them; they knew that BP resources were always nearby; and the knew that transporting illegals in a private vehicle would likely get them arrested.
Pandering, anyone?
Predicate of Polygamy
Krauthammer has it cold:
As Newsweek notes, these stirrings for the mainstreaming of polygamy (or, more accurately, polyamory) have their roots in the increasing legitimization of gay marriage. In an essay 10 years ago, I pointed out that it is utterly logical for polygamy rights to follow gay rights. After all, if traditional marriage is defined as the union of (1) two people of (2) opposite gender, and if, as advocates of gay marriage insist, the gender requirement is nothing but prejudice, exclusion and an arbitrary denial of one's autonomous choices in love, then the first requirement — the number restriction (two and only two) — is a similarly arbitrary, discriminatory and indefensible denial of individual choice.
This line of argument makes gay activists furious. I can understand why they do not want to be in the same room as polygamists. But I'm not the one who put them there. Their argument does. Blogger and author Andrew Sullivan, who had the courage to advocate gay marriage at a time when it was considered pretty crazy, has called this the "polygamy diversion," arguing that homosexuality and polygamy are categorically different because polygamy is a mere "activity" while homosexuality is an intrinsic state that "occupies a deeper level of human consciousness."
But this distinction between higher and lower orders of love is precisely what gay rights activists so vigorously protest when the general culture "privileges" (as they say in the English departments) heterosexual unions over homosexual ones.
Once again, we are examining the limits of Positive Law--and it is found wanting.
Another commenter goes on to re-state the Maggie Gallagher thesis:
Legalizing gay marriage would be a life-threatening blow to traditional marriage because it would further dilute the value of traditional marriage in the eyes of the public. If there are additional alternatives to traditional marriage, there will be less emphasis on the importance of traditional marriage.
As Newsweek notes, these stirrings for the mainstreaming of polygamy (or, more accurately, polyamory) have their roots in the increasing legitimization of gay marriage. In an essay 10 years ago, I pointed out that it is utterly logical for polygamy rights to follow gay rights. After all, if traditional marriage is defined as the union of (1) two people of (2) opposite gender, and if, as advocates of gay marriage insist, the gender requirement is nothing but prejudice, exclusion and an arbitrary denial of one's autonomous choices in love, then the first requirement — the number restriction (two and only two) — is a similarly arbitrary, discriminatory and indefensible denial of individual choice.
This line of argument makes gay activists furious. I can understand why they do not want to be in the same room as polygamists. But I'm not the one who put them there. Their argument does. Blogger and author Andrew Sullivan, who had the courage to advocate gay marriage at a time when it was considered pretty crazy, has called this the "polygamy diversion," arguing that homosexuality and polygamy are categorically different because polygamy is a mere "activity" while homosexuality is an intrinsic state that "occupies a deeper level of human consciousness."
But this distinction between higher and lower orders of love is precisely what gay rights activists so vigorously protest when the general culture "privileges" (as they say in the English departments) heterosexual unions over homosexual ones.
Once again, we are examining the limits of Positive Law--and it is found wanting.
Another commenter goes on to re-state the Maggie Gallagher thesis:
Legalizing gay marriage would be a life-threatening blow to traditional marriage because it would further dilute the value of traditional marriage in the eyes of the public. If there are additional alternatives to traditional marriage, there will be less emphasis on the importance of traditional marriage.
Port Security? Fuggeddaboutit...
The Longshoremen's Union is not being helpful:
Lawrence I. Willis, general counsel for an AFL-CIO union representing longshoremen, said many harbor workers are concerned the rules for port IDs will be similar to those for credentials issued to truckers who haul hazardous materials. That program has been criticized as being too cumbersome, too expensive and too intrusive. It disqualifies drivers who've been convicted of certain felonies in the previous seven years.
"Our focus will be to make sure we have a program that roots out true security risks to the United States and doesn't unfairly and unjustly punish someone making a bad decision several years ago," Willis said.
But TSA is not exactly Mr Speed, either:
...the Department of Homeland Security has been thinking about the problem since Sept. 11, 2001 – but it still hasn't been able to implement federal identification cards mandated for all harbor workers in 2002.
The ID system is almost two years past its deadline, and, despite renewed pledges to bring the program operational, many of the same bureaucratic hurdles that have delayed its implementation still exist.
Chertoff's not taking phone calls:
A frustrated Rep. Frank A. LoBiondo (R-N.J.), chairman of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee, said he is unable to get answers from Chertoff for why the agency didn't settle policy issues long ago nor is he optimistic the latest round of public statements mean the program will begin soon.
But Hey!!!
The Chinese are our FRIENDS, you understand. So are the Arabs (unless they tell us in advance they believe in Sharia, or something.)
Lawrence I. Willis, general counsel for an AFL-CIO union representing longshoremen, said many harbor workers are concerned the rules for port IDs will be similar to those for credentials issued to truckers who haul hazardous materials. That program has been criticized as being too cumbersome, too expensive and too intrusive. It disqualifies drivers who've been convicted of certain felonies in the previous seven years.
"Our focus will be to make sure we have a program that roots out true security risks to the United States and doesn't unfairly and unjustly punish someone making a bad decision several years ago," Willis said.
But TSA is not exactly Mr Speed, either:
...the Department of Homeland Security has been thinking about the problem since Sept. 11, 2001 – but it still hasn't been able to implement federal identification cards mandated for all harbor workers in 2002.
The ID system is almost two years past its deadline, and, despite renewed pledges to bring the program operational, many of the same bureaucratic hurdles that have delayed its implementation still exist.
Chertoff's not taking phone calls:
A frustrated Rep. Frank A. LoBiondo (R-N.J.), chairman of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee, said he is unable to get answers from Chertoff for why the agency didn't settle policy issues long ago nor is he optimistic the latest round of public statements mean the program will begin soon.
But Hey!!!
The Chinese are our FRIENDS, you understand. So are the Arabs (unless they tell us in advance they believe in Sharia, or something.)
Sunday, April 02, 2006
Keynes Doesn't Buy "Globaloney" Either
HT to the Yooper, who actually reads this stuff:
A considerable degree of international specialisation is necessary in a rational world in all cases where it is dictated by wide differences of climate, natural resources, native aptitudes, level of culture and density of population. But over an increasingly wide range of industrial products, and perhaps of agricultural products also, I become doubtful whether the economic cost of national self-sufficiency is great enough to outweigh the other advantages of gradually bringing the producer and the consumer within the ambit of the same national, economic and financial organisation.
Experience accumulates to prove that most modern mass-production processes can be performed in most countries and climates with almost equal efficiency. Moreover, as wealth increases, both primary and manufactured products play a smaller relative part in the national economy compared with houses, personal services and local amenities which are not the subject of international exchange; with the result that a moderate increase in the real cost of the former consequent on greater national self-sufficiency may cease to be of serious consequence when weighed in the balance against advantages of a different kind. National self-sufficiency, in short, though it costs something, may be becoming a luxury which we can afford if we happen to want it.
... Thus for a complexity of reasons, which I cannot elaborate in this place, economic internationalism embracing the free movement of capital and of loanable funds as well as of traded goods may condemn this country for a generation to come to a much lower degree of material prosperity than could be attained under a different system.
Really?
A considerable degree of international specialisation is necessary in a rational world in all cases where it is dictated by wide differences of climate, natural resources, native aptitudes, level of culture and density of population. But over an increasingly wide range of industrial products, and perhaps of agricultural products also, I become doubtful whether the economic cost of national self-sufficiency is great enough to outweigh the other advantages of gradually bringing the producer and the consumer within the ambit of the same national, economic and financial organisation.
Experience accumulates to prove that most modern mass-production processes can be performed in most countries and climates with almost equal efficiency. Moreover, as wealth increases, both primary and manufactured products play a smaller relative part in the national economy compared with houses, personal services and local amenities which are not the subject of international exchange; with the result that a moderate increase in the real cost of the former consequent on greater national self-sufficiency may cease to be of serious consequence when weighed in the balance against advantages of a different kind. National self-sufficiency, in short, though it costs something, may be becoming a luxury which we can afford if we happen to want it.
... Thus for a complexity of reasons, which I cannot elaborate in this place, economic internationalism embracing the free movement of capital and of loanable funds as well as of traded goods may condemn this country for a generation to come to a much lower degree of material prosperity than could be attained under a different system.
Really?
In Our OWN Archdiocese, More Follies
The Provincial Emails keeps track of the peripatetic pro-homosex-marriage gang (and why they are being foisted on the good people near 27th/Capitol) AND the under-the-radar (lying) done to keep our Archbishop from knowing what's going on with General Absolutions these days.
Methinks Fr. Hartman ought to begin his own BlogWatch....
Methinks Fr. Hartman ought to begin his own BlogWatch....
More on Liturgy--the Right Way
From the estimable Bp. Slattery of Tulsa (ad multos annos!!)
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 cantor
consciously draws 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. In this case, the music becomes the center of the
experience, the sacramental transformation of the
worshipper is reduced to his or her mere inspiration and the
liturgical action of the Mass becomes itself a distraction.
While such a scenario is still quite rare in our Diocese, I
think we are in danger of moving in that direction and it
concerns me as your Bishop.
(We've seen this in Milwaukee. I might add that it is often the case that musicians seem to think that a "silent moment" is to be avoided at all costs. Sad...)
We must also be aware that musical entertainment is not
the only thing which can compromise the prayerful integrity
of the Mass. The Eucharist is just as compromised whenever
we use the liturgy to highlight an agenda or cause other than
the worship of the Father. This is true no matter how positive
or useful the other causes may seem.
For this reason, I want to remind the faithful of the Diocese
that the Mass stands alone as a complete action in itself.
It is that perfect sacrifice from which the Church derives
Her life; thus the liturgy must never be used as an
opportunity to teach, as the context for a history or an art
lesson, as the background for a concert of sacred music,
neither to build community nor to foster parish identity. All
these things are good, but all of them are either in support of
the Mass or are derived from the Mass, and to use the Mass to
foster something less is a serious abuse.
"Just shut up and celebrate the Mass..."
Distractions, the loss of silence and the various liturgical
imbalances of which I have spoken are all partly to blame for
a whole generation of Catholics who have gradually lost their
understanding that the Mass is the true Sacrifice of Christ.
But these problems are not the only reason why Catholics no
longer see that there is an intrinsic and necessary link
between the Mass and their salvation. As critical as these
problems are, even more critical to us as a diocese as we
respond to the Synod’s call for a restoration of the Lord’s Day
is recovering our sense of personal sin which many of us
seem to have lost.
The whole thing (PDF) can be found beginning on P. 3 with a jump to P. 12.
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 cantor
consciously draws 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. In this case, the music becomes the center of the
experience, the sacramental transformation of the
worshipper is reduced to his or her mere inspiration and the
liturgical action of the Mass becomes itself a distraction.
While such a scenario is still quite rare in our Diocese, I
think we are in danger of moving in that direction and it
concerns me as your Bishop.
(We've seen this in Milwaukee. I might add that it is often the case that musicians seem to think that a "silent moment" is to be avoided at all costs. Sad...)
We must also be aware that musical entertainment is not
the only thing which can compromise the prayerful integrity
of the Mass. The Eucharist is just as compromised whenever
we use the liturgy to highlight an agenda or cause other than
the worship of the Father. This is true no matter how positive
or useful the other causes may seem.
For this reason, I want to remind the faithful of the Diocese
that the Mass stands alone as a complete action in itself.
It is that perfect sacrifice from which the Church derives
Her life; thus the liturgy must never be used as an
opportunity to teach, as the context for a history or an art
lesson, as the background for a concert of sacred music,
neither to build community nor to foster parish identity. All
these things are good, but all of them are either in support of
the Mass or are derived from the Mass, and to use the Mass to
foster something less is a serious abuse.
"Just shut up and celebrate the Mass..."
Distractions, the loss of silence and the various liturgical
imbalances of which I have spoken are all partly to blame for
a whole generation of Catholics who have gradually lost their
understanding that the Mass is the true Sacrifice of Christ.
But these problems are not the only reason why Catholics no
longer see that there is an intrinsic and necessary link
between the Mass and their salvation. As critical as these
problems are, even more critical to us as a diocese as we
respond to the Synod’s call for a restoration of the Lord’s Day
is recovering our sense of personal sin which many of us
seem to have lost.
The whole thing (PDF) can be found beginning on P. 3 with a jump to P. 12.
More on Bp. Bruskewitz
Seems as though even the Canonist who disagrees (mildly) with the Bishop doesn't have a leg to stand on:
The 2002 Norms were approved by the USCCB and Rome. The revised 2005 Norms have been approved by the USCCB and (apparently) sent to Rome for approval. Both of those sets of norms contain a number of provisions that go beyond civil law and the 1983 Code. The USCCB has the right and duty to verify that bishops are complying with the particular law of the Norms. The National Review Board, [home of the Screeching Female] operating under the Charter, seems to be the way the USCCB wants to conduct that verification process. But the point is arguable.
...Bp. Bruskewitz takes the position that nothing in the Charter needs to be clarified because it is not particular law, and therefore anything or anyone associated with it is irrelevant. What is there to clarify about a non-entity?
But are the Charter and the National Review Board really non-entities, or are they the (perhaps inaqeduately defined) mechanisms by which the USCCB verifies complaince with the Norms of particular law? And in any case, what in Bp. Bruskewitz's statement above indicates how his compliance with the Norms is to be assessed--well, beyond accepting his word as a man of integrity? (Well, actually, Mr. Peters, some Bishops DO have integrity.)
In fact, Mr. Peters, the National Review Board IS a non-entity, established by a paste-up/made-up/feelgood document called a "Charter," which has zero, zip, nada, NO legal force (except to provide a nice side-income for a bunch of folks.) You will recall that Bp. Bruskewitz said so when this whole silly thing came out (in Dallas.) Governor Keating found out, too: the Board and the Charter are eyewash--or as they say in Iowa, untreated bovine excrement.
Need pertinent language? Here's the Charter:
Article 8
...The Committee is to advise the USCCB on all matters related to child and youth protection and is to oversee the development of the plans, programs, and budget of the Office of Child and Youth Protection. It is to provide the USCCB with comprehensive planning and recommendations concerning child and youth protection by coordinating the efforts of the Office and the National Review Board...
ARTICLE 9.
The Office for Child and Youth Protection, established by the Conference of Catholic Bishops, is to staff the Committee for the Protection of Children and Young People and be a resource for dioceses/eparchies for the implementation of “safe environment” programs and for suggested training and development of diocesan personnel responsible for child and youth protection programs, taking into account the financial and other resources, as well as the population, area, and demographics of the diocese/eparchy...
ARTICLE 10.
The Committee for the Protection of Children and Young People is to be assisted by the National Review Board, a consultative body established in 2002 by the USCCB...
The Board will also advise the Conference President on future members...
What you have here is exactly what the USCC is, itself: a resource and consultative body which was established (by none other than Joey Bernardin, ex-Cardinal of Chicago) to ASSIST the Bishops.
Neither USCC, nor its Committees, have ANY authority. Authority rests with an individual Diocesan Bishop and the Pope. Period.
(This is why the "sandbox/holy water fountains" and "clean-feet babes" are illicit. The people who are pushing this crap have no authority to do so.)
Says Vere:
While the Bishop may not be in compliance with the national review board, he is in compliance with canon law -- both universal and particular. He has heard the advice of the Review Board and its various derivatives, and he has chosen to reject it where he feels their advice conflicts with his obligation as a Bishop to uphold the natural principles of justice. He has also defended the proper role of the episcopacy against those who would attempt to usurp it.
Put another way, what is particular law is the implementation of the national review board as outlined in the charter. The charter clearly establishes the national review board as a consultative body with no actual coercive power [authority] over bishops.
As to the tone of the Bishop's statement--I think he was remarkably reserved and civil.
The 2002 Norms were approved by the USCCB and Rome. The revised 2005 Norms have been approved by the USCCB and (apparently) sent to Rome for approval. Both of those sets of norms contain a number of provisions that go beyond civil law and the 1983 Code. The USCCB has the right and duty to verify that bishops are complying with the particular law of the Norms. The National Review Board, [home of the Screeching Female] operating under the Charter, seems to be the way the USCCB wants to conduct that verification process. But the point is arguable.
...Bp. Bruskewitz takes the position that nothing in the Charter needs to be clarified because it is not particular law, and therefore anything or anyone associated with it is irrelevant. What is there to clarify about a non-entity?
But are the Charter and the National Review Board really non-entities, or are they the (perhaps inaqeduately defined) mechanisms by which the USCCB verifies complaince with the Norms of particular law? And in any case, what in Bp. Bruskewitz's statement above indicates how his compliance with the Norms is to be assessed--well, beyond accepting his word as a man of integrity? (Well, actually, Mr. Peters, some Bishops DO have integrity.)
In fact, Mr. Peters, the National Review Board IS a non-entity, established by a paste-up/made-up/feelgood document called a "Charter," which has zero, zip, nada, NO legal force (except to provide a nice side-income for a bunch of folks.) You will recall that Bp. Bruskewitz said so when this whole silly thing came out (in Dallas.) Governor Keating found out, too: the Board and the Charter are eyewash--or as they say in Iowa, untreated bovine excrement.
Need pertinent language? Here's the Charter:
Article 8
...The Committee is to advise the USCCB on all matters related to child and youth protection and is to oversee the development of the plans, programs, and budget of the Office of Child and Youth Protection. It is to provide the USCCB with comprehensive planning and recommendations concerning child and youth protection by coordinating the efforts of the Office and the National Review Board...
ARTICLE 9.
The Office for Child and Youth Protection, established by the Conference of Catholic Bishops, is to staff the Committee for the Protection of Children and Young People and be a resource for dioceses/eparchies for the implementation of “safe environment” programs and for suggested training and development of diocesan personnel responsible for child and youth protection programs, taking into account the financial and other resources, as well as the population, area, and demographics of the diocese/eparchy...
ARTICLE 10.
The Committee for the Protection of Children and Young People is to be assisted by the National Review Board, a consultative body established in 2002 by the USCCB...
The Board will also advise the Conference President on future members...
What you have here is exactly what the USCC is, itself: a resource and consultative body which was established (by none other than Joey Bernardin, ex-Cardinal of Chicago) to ASSIST the Bishops.
Neither USCC, nor its Committees, have ANY authority. Authority rests with an individual Diocesan Bishop and the Pope. Period.
(This is why the "sandbox/holy water fountains" and "clean-feet babes" are illicit. The people who are pushing this crap have no authority to do so.)
Says Vere:
While the Bishop may not be in compliance with the national review board, he is in compliance with canon law -- both universal and particular. He has heard the advice of the Review Board and its various derivatives, and he has chosen to reject it where he feels their advice conflicts with his obligation as a Bishop to uphold the natural principles of justice. He has also defended the proper role of the episcopacy against those who would attempt to usurp it.
Put another way, what is particular law is the implementation of the national review board as outlined in the charter. The charter clearly establishes the national review board as a consultative body with no actual coercive power [authority] over bishops.
As to the tone of the Bishop's statement--I think he was remarkably reserved and civil.
Bp Bruskewitz Gets It Right (Again...)
When assailed by some woman whose Self-Inflation Syndrome seems to be steroid-enhanced, the most excellent Excellency replied:
"Some woman named Patricia O'Donnell Ewers, who is the Chair of something called "A National Review Board for the Protection of Children and Young People", has said that her Board "calls for strong fraternal correction of the Diocese of Lincoln." The Diocese of Lincoln has nothing to be corrected for, since the Diocese of Lincoln is and has always been in full compliance with all laws of the Catholic Church and with all civil laws. Furthermore, Ewers and her Board have no authority in the Catholic Church and the Diocese of Lincoln does not recognize them as having any significance.
It is well known that some of the members of Ewers' Board are ardent advocates of partial birth abortion, other abortions, human cloning, and other moral errors. It is understandable then how such persons could dislike the Diocese of Lincoln, which upholds the moral teaching of the Catholic Church.
The words attributed to Ewers seem to confirm the suspicion that the members of her Board are unfamiliar with Catholic teachings, Catholic ecclesiology, and even the basic rudiments of the Catholic Catechism. Rather than concerning themselves with the Diocese of Lincoln about which they appear completely ignorant, Ewers and her colleagues would occupy themselves in a better way by learning something about the Catholic religion and the traditions and doctrines and laws of the Catholic Church.
The Diocese of Lincoln does not see any reason for the existence of Ewers and her organization.
Ms. Ewers is also quite unfamiliar with Canon Law, we should add. Notice that her screech did NOT include any reference to perps-in-collars in the Lincoln Diocese. There's a reason...
In just three years, dioceses/eparchies have worked extremely hard to address the issue of clergy sexual abuse. This conclusion is strongly supported by the audit results.
It disheartens the Board, however, that the bishop of the Diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska, and the eparch of the Eparchy of Newton for Melkite Catholics in Newton, Massachusetts, have refused to participate in the audit process, and the Board calls for strong fraternal correction in these refusals.
Though their governance authority is fully understood by the Board, nonetheless, these refusals go against all of the efforts of the Church to be open and transparent in addressing child protection and reaching out to victims to help with their healing.
Note that her hysteria (what a great word...) is adroitly mis-directing--to "reaching out..." and to "..healing..." Yah.
A California canonist comments:
Bp. Bruskewitz is plainly rejecting the legitimacy of the USCCB Review Board itself and the policies it is mandated to coordinate.
On the other hand, the "Charter" seems to have a major flaw:
The first is a very fundamental principle of natural justice: Every accused has the right to face his accuser. (Pete Vere, another Canonist)
The Bishop has repeated asserted that the audit, as it is currently structured, violates this fundamental principle of justice. Having read the text of the John Jay questionaire myself, it appears to me (and I'm a canonist too) that the Bishop is right. Simply put, beyond other weaknesses that call into question the audit's methodology, the questionaire does not allow for an accused priest to defend himself.
This flaw was well-known when the Charter in question was drawn.
It is clear that the Bishop of Lincoln is NOT suffering from wussification (see below.) More will follow on this; the Bishop is a graduate of our Seminary and was pastor of a local parish.
MORE: Go here for an example of the evanescence of the Commission's "thought" and here for an example of the brilliant thinking that Catholics are paying for.
"Some woman named Patricia O'Donnell Ewers, who is the Chair of something called "A National Review Board for the Protection of Children and Young People", has said that her Board "calls for strong fraternal correction of the Diocese of Lincoln." The Diocese of Lincoln has nothing to be corrected for, since the Diocese of Lincoln is and has always been in full compliance with all laws of the Catholic Church and with all civil laws. Furthermore, Ewers and her Board have no authority in the Catholic Church and the Diocese of Lincoln does not recognize them as having any significance.
It is well known that some of the members of Ewers' Board are ardent advocates of partial birth abortion, other abortions, human cloning, and other moral errors. It is understandable then how such persons could dislike the Diocese of Lincoln, which upholds the moral teaching of the Catholic Church.
The words attributed to Ewers seem to confirm the suspicion that the members of her Board are unfamiliar with Catholic teachings, Catholic ecclesiology, and even the basic rudiments of the Catholic Catechism. Rather than concerning themselves with the Diocese of Lincoln about which they appear completely ignorant, Ewers and her colleagues would occupy themselves in a better way by learning something about the Catholic religion and the traditions and doctrines and laws of the Catholic Church.
The Diocese of Lincoln does not see any reason for the existence of Ewers and her organization.
Ms. Ewers is also quite unfamiliar with Canon Law, we should add. Notice that her screech did NOT include any reference to perps-in-collars in the Lincoln Diocese. There's a reason...
In just three years, dioceses/eparchies have worked extremely hard to address the issue of clergy sexual abuse. This conclusion is strongly supported by the audit results.
It disheartens the Board, however, that the bishop of the Diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska, and the eparch of the Eparchy of Newton for Melkite Catholics in Newton, Massachusetts, have refused to participate in the audit process, and the Board calls for strong fraternal correction in these refusals.
Though their governance authority is fully understood by the Board, nonetheless, these refusals go against all of the efforts of the Church to be open and transparent in addressing child protection and reaching out to victims to help with their healing.
Note that her hysteria (what a great word...) is adroitly mis-directing--to "reaching out..." and to "..healing..." Yah.
A California canonist comments:
Bp. Bruskewitz is plainly rejecting the legitimacy of the USCCB Review Board itself and the policies it is mandated to coordinate.
On the other hand, the "Charter" seems to have a major flaw:
The first is a very fundamental principle of natural justice: Every accused has the right to face his accuser. (Pete Vere, another Canonist)
The Bishop has repeated asserted that the audit, as it is currently structured, violates this fundamental principle of justice. Having read the text of the John Jay questionaire myself, it appears to me (and I'm a canonist too) that the Bishop is right. Simply put, beyond other weaknesses that call into question the audit's methodology, the questionaire does not allow for an accused priest to defend himself.
This flaw was well-known when the Charter in question was drawn.
It is clear that the Bishop of Lincoln is NOT suffering from wussification (see below.) More will follow on this; the Bishop is a graduate of our Seminary and was pastor of a local parish.
MORE: Go here for an example of the evanescence of the Commission's "thought" and here for an example of the brilliant thinking that Catholics are paying for.
More Organized Illegals
From ol' Texas Hold 'Em---
A picture and sound story of the demonstrations by the illegals (and some of their pals in Palestine.)
CPUSA may be quiet, but it's not inactive.
Back to McMiller in Eagle, I guess...
A picture and sound story of the demonstrations by the illegals (and some of their pals in Palestine.)
CPUSA may be quiet, but it's not inactive.
Back to McMiller in Eagle, I guess...
This Is.....THEIR!!! Country
The Longmont (CO.) School District puts its foot down:
Dozens of high school students protested a temporary school policy forbidding students from displaying the U.S. flag - as well as flags from other countries - amid racial tensions following immigration rallies.
Skyline High School Principal Tom Stumpf said American flags were brazenly waved in the faces of Hispanic students and in one case a Mexican flag was thrown into the face of another student.
"When it involves the American flag and its abuse in vilifying other people, we simply will not tolerate it," Stumpf said. "They were using the symbol derisively as misguided patriotism."
Say what? Tom?? Can you define "misguided" patriotism for us?
Dozens of high school students protested a temporary school policy forbidding students from displaying the U.S. flag - as well as flags from other countries - amid racial tensions following immigration rallies.
Skyline High School Principal Tom Stumpf said American flags were brazenly waved in the faces of Hispanic students and in one case a Mexican flag was thrown into the face of another student.
"When it involves the American flag and its abuse in vilifying other people, we simply will not tolerate it," Stumpf said. "They were using the symbol derisively as misguided patriotism."
Say what? Tom?? Can you define "misguided" patriotism for us?
Dubai, Red China, the Elites: GOP Problems
This editorial begins in the usual fashion, regarding the idiocy surrounding the Dubai Decision:
For a political junkie, the Dubai ports debacle has been a bit like the movie “Pulp Fiction”—just one freaky story inside another, unfolding at a rapid pace and leading to an unexpected ending that made no darn sense and yet was really quite satisfying emotionally. I give it two thumbs way up.
But the author has something a bit larger in mind:
One was how eagerly the disciples of “free” trade took to attacking the conservative base as a bunch of xenophobic ignoramuses storming the harmless castle Globalstein with torches and pitchforks. That sort of animosity couldn’t be over just one relatively minor business deal for Dubai. I’m sensing that the Beltway Boys and the Wall Street Wonks have been entertaining some animosity against Main Street and the Heartland for some time.
That, Mr. Johnson, is because the animosity has been going both ways for quite some time.
...at the first sign of hesitation or reluctance to indulge further on mom and pop’s part, the free trade faithful turned on them with epithets and disdain. According to some pinstriped pundits, the most open nation on earth, at the most internationalist time in its history, is suddenly and dismissively labeled “xenophobic,” “isolationist,” “protectionist,” “nativist,” “racist” and “ignorant” of the fact that world is global, or some such insight.
And in the following 'graphs, Johnson pins the tail firmly on the donkeys:
This minor uprising was about a general feeling that, whatever merits free trade, open borders, and corporate globalism may have financially, they are often not good for the nation in many ways that fail to be accounted for in the theoretical models of economists. Free trade fails to take account of cultural consequences, and it places no value on concepts such as national loyalty. To the value-free traders, labor is simply a commodity, and people are interchangeable parts. And they are entirely correct—economically speaking. A widget is a widget, and the cheaper you can get them made, the better.
The emotion surrounding the ports deal, and illegal immigration, and outsourcing, and homeland security and a dozen other aspects of breakneck international economic integration is no longer simply a quiet misgiving. It is rapidly being formed into a single coherent message from average citizens to those in power—both on the right and on the left- that see it as their job to make sure the “inevitable” rise of a single world economic entity actually happens. People are saying, “Stop!
It is not Xenophobia. It is Xenonausea. People are sick of having the whole world shoved down their throats at once and being told it tastes like ice cream....They are sick of pressing “1” for English. They are sick of being at war with foreign terrorists and simultaneously being economically and demographically bound more tightly to the nations producing these terrorists. They are sick of being told that the world is global or flat or smaller or at their doorstep or all coming for dinner on Tuesday....They are sick of being told that human beings are interchangeable parts, that the nation-state is passé, that there are some jobs that Americans just won’t do, that there are some contracts that Americans just won’t bid, and that any cost that cannot be measured in money cannot be very important.
One could add that we are sick of buying home appliances that don't work after two years; sick of KNOWING that there are no options in most of these purchases; sick and tired of knowing that "outsourced goods" may be dangerously out-of-specification (see, for example, Delphi's Mexican auto brakes problem...)
And now, the Chinese are "monitoring" incoming shipments for nuclear emissions.
Right.
For a political junkie, the Dubai ports debacle has been a bit like the movie “Pulp Fiction”—just one freaky story inside another, unfolding at a rapid pace and leading to an unexpected ending that made no darn sense and yet was really quite satisfying emotionally. I give it two thumbs way up.
But the author has something a bit larger in mind:
One was how eagerly the disciples of “free” trade took to attacking the conservative base as a bunch of xenophobic ignoramuses storming the harmless castle Globalstein with torches and pitchforks. That sort of animosity couldn’t be over just one relatively minor business deal for Dubai. I’m sensing that the Beltway Boys and the Wall Street Wonks have been entertaining some animosity against Main Street and the Heartland for some time.
That, Mr. Johnson, is because the animosity has been going both ways for quite some time.
...at the first sign of hesitation or reluctance to indulge further on mom and pop’s part, the free trade faithful turned on them with epithets and disdain. According to some pinstriped pundits, the most open nation on earth, at the most internationalist time in its history, is suddenly and dismissively labeled “xenophobic,” “isolationist,” “protectionist,” “nativist,” “racist” and “ignorant” of the fact that world is global, or some such insight.
And in the following 'graphs, Johnson pins the tail firmly on the donkeys:
This minor uprising was about a general feeling that, whatever merits free trade, open borders, and corporate globalism may have financially, they are often not good for the nation in many ways that fail to be accounted for in the theoretical models of economists. Free trade fails to take account of cultural consequences, and it places no value on concepts such as national loyalty. To the value-free traders, labor is simply a commodity, and people are interchangeable parts. And they are entirely correct—economically speaking. A widget is a widget, and the cheaper you can get them made, the better.
The emotion surrounding the ports deal, and illegal immigration, and outsourcing, and homeland security and a dozen other aspects of breakneck international economic integration is no longer simply a quiet misgiving. It is rapidly being formed into a single coherent message from average citizens to those in power—both on the right and on the left- that see it as their job to make sure the “inevitable” rise of a single world economic entity actually happens. People are saying, “Stop!
It is not Xenophobia. It is Xenonausea. People are sick of having the whole world shoved down their throats at once and being told it tastes like ice cream....They are sick of pressing “1” for English. They are sick of being at war with foreign terrorists and simultaneously being economically and demographically bound more tightly to the nations producing these terrorists. They are sick of being told that the world is global or flat or smaller or at their doorstep or all coming for dinner on Tuesday....They are sick of being told that human beings are interchangeable parts, that the nation-state is passé, that there are some jobs that Americans just won’t do, that there are some contracts that Americans just won’t bid, and that any cost that cannot be measured in money cannot be very important.
One could add that we are sick of buying home appliances that don't work after two years; sick of KNOWING that there are no options in most of these purchases; sick and tired of knowing that "outsourced goods" may be dangerously out-of-specification (see, for example, Delphi's Mexican auto brakes problem...)
And now, the Chinese are "monitoring" incoming shipments for nuclear emissions.
Right.
More Smoke. There's a Fire Someplace
One of the state's largest insurers says Aurora Health Care Inc.'s longstanding dominance of the Milwaukee hospital market is driving up health-insurance premiums throughout eastern Wisconsin.
Wisconsin Physicians Service Insurance Corp. has filed a broad antitrust lawsuit challenging Aurora's hardball negotiating tactics that require health insurers to include all of its hospitals and doctors in every health plan they sell.
The tactics have prevented large insurers in eastern Wisconsin from offering less costly health plans, particularly those designed for small employers and individuals, the lawsuit contends. WPS also blames Aurora for the Milwaukee market having the highest hospital costs of any metro area its size in the country.
Little question that Aurora has muscled its way around before; and WPS has a point. Of course, when you drive throughout SE Wisconsin, you notice that Aurora is putting up (expensive) new facilities everywhere.
Unlike other health care systems, Aurora has 13 hospitals and more than 100 clinics stretching from Kenosha to Green Bay. It also has expanded aggressively, building hospitals in new markets such as Green Bay and Oshkosh.
There's a cost to that:
WPS' allegations also could undercut Aurora's contention that its expansion into new markets, such as its determined push to build a hospital in western Waukesha County, increases competition.
If health plans are automatically required to include every new Aurora hospital in their networks, Aurora presumably would have little incentive to offer lower prices in new markets such as Waukesha.
But there's ANOTHER cost:
The new hospitals come at a price, saddling Aurora with a heavy debt load and a lower bond rating. That in turn has required Aurora to pay higher interest rates.
"To service that debt, they've had to load their prices," Blomquist said.
Further, Aurora often incurs heavy losses when it opens a new hospital.Despite its size, Aurora is far less profitable than many of its competitors. In 2004, it posted a net profit of $31.8 million - 1.2% of its $2.6 billion in revenue.
Not to mention Aurora's willingness to spend beaucoup millions on lawyers, PR firms, Advertising, and the salary of their CEO...
Wisconsin Physicians Service Insurance Corp. has filed a broad antitrust lawsuit challenging Aurora's hardball negotiating tactics that require health insurers to include all of its hospitals and doctors in every health plan they sell.
The tactics have prevented large insurers in eastern Wisconsin from offering less costly health plans, particularly those designed for small employers and individuals, the lawsuit contends. WPS also blames Aurora for the Milwaukee market having the highest hospital costs of any metro area its size in the country.
Little question that Aurora has muscled its way around before; and WPS has a point. Of course, when you drive throughout SE Wisconsin, you notice that Aurora is putting up (expensive) new facilities everywhere.
Unlike other health care systems, Aurora has 13 hospitals and more than 100 clinics stretching from Kenosha to Green Bay. It also has expanded aggressively, building hospitals in new markets such as Green Bay and Oshkosh.
There's a cost to that:
WPS' allegations also could undercut Aurora's contention that its expansion into new markets, such as its determined push to build a hospital in western Waukesha County, increases competition.
If health plans are automatically required to include every new Aurora hospital in their networks, Aurora presumably would have little incentive to offer lower prices in new markets such as Waukesha.
But there's ANOTHER cost:
The new hospitals come at a price, saddling Aurora with a heavy debt load and a lower bond rating. That in turn has required Aurora to pay higher interest rates.
"To service that debt, they've had to load their prices," Blomquist said.
Further, Aurora often incurs heavy losses when it opens a new hospital.Despite its size, Aurora is far less profitable than many of its competitors. In 2004, it posted a net profit of $31.8 million - 1.2% of its $2.6 billion in revenue.
Not to mention Aurora's willingness to spend beaucoup millions on lawyers, PR firms, Advertising, and the salary of their CEO...
Saturday, April 01, 2006
The Pussification of The Western Male
...is the title of an essay which, although a bit old, OUGHT to be read.
Excerpt:
Out there, there is a huge number of men who are sick of it. We’re sick of being made figures of fun and ridicule; we’re sick of having girly-men like journalists, advertising agency execs and movie stars decide on “what is a man”; we’re sick of women treating us like children, and we’re really ####### sick of girly-men politicians who pander to women by passing an ever-increasing raft of Nanny laws and regulations (the legal equivalent of public-school Ritalin), which prevent us from hunting, racing our cars and motorcycles, smoking, flirting with women at the office, getting into fistfights over women, shooting criminals and doing all the fine things which being a man entails.
Good stuff, but hardly all that he has to say. Read the rest here.
HT: Grim's Hall
Excerpt:
Out there, there is a huge number of men who are sick of it. We’re sick of being made figures of fun and ridicule; we’re sick of having girly-men like journalists, advertising agency execs and movie stars decide on “what is a man”; we’re sick of women treating us like children, and we’re really ####### sick of girly-men politicians who pander to women by passing an ever-increasing raft of Nanny laws and regulations (the legal equivalent of public-school Ritalin), which prevent us from hunting, racing our cars and motorcycles, smoking, flirting with women at the office, getting into fistfights over women, shooting criminals and doing all the fine things which being a man entails.
Good stuff, but hardly all that he has to say. Read the rest here.
HT: Grim's Hall
John Dean: Ethics Expert
Following the "Company Line," the JSOnline gives us the benefit of John Dean's, ah, thought:
In his first appearance before Congress since the Watergate hearings of the 1970s, former White House Counsel John Dean drew a parallel between George W. Bush and the man Dean once worked for, Richard M. Nixon, saying, "We have entered a period where a president is pushing the envelope (and) is actually defying the Congress."
Unlike five Federal FISA judges, who unanimously agreed that Bush is utilizing powers granted under the Constitution as Commander-in-Chief during wartime.
Here's a more appropriate take:
[Senator] Graham said today's controversy over domestic surveillance involves an "honest, sincere debate" about "where (presidential) authority begins and ends."
As one might expect, it was Feinie (D-AlQuaeda) who requested the hearing.
In his first appearance before Congress since the Watergate hearings of the 1970s, former White House Counsel John Dean drew a parallel between George W. Bush and the man Dean once worked for, Richard M. Nixon, saying, "We have entered a period where a president is pushing the envelope (and) is actually defying the Congress."
Unlike five Federal FISA judges, who unanimously agreed that Bush is utilizing powers granted under the Constitution as Commander-in-Chief during wartime.
Here's a more appropriate take:
[Senator] Graham said today's controversy over domestic surveillance involves an "honest, sincere debate" about "where (presidential) authority begins and ends."
As one might expect, it was Feinie (D-AlQuaeda) who requested the hearing.
Extremely Generous Highway Funding
Even our Governor (!!!) has questioned the sanity of Frank Busalacchi, the DOT Czar, for his unhinged comments allowing that The End Is Near for Wisconsin roadways.
Behold the chart:
The CPI Inflation Calculator tells us that $195MM in 1990 dollars is equal to $275MM in 2006 dollars--but the Starving Highway Fund is spending $407MM--about 48% beyond inflation.
The fact that UW-system expenditures in the same time period are less than inflation by approximately $120MM is interesting--perhaps this is why men no longer go to college. The money's in highway construction.
For that matter, State Parks were shorted $1.5MM, measured by inflation, during the same period...about time for the squirrels to have a protest march, or maybe a work-stoppage, eh?
Behold the chart:
The CPI Inflation Calculator tells us that $195MM in 1990 dollars is equal to $275MM in 2006 dollars--but the Starving Highway Fund is spending $407MM--about 48% beyond inflation.
The fact that UW-system expenditures in the same time period are less than inflation by approximately $120MM is interesting--perhaps this is why men no longer go to college. The money's in highway construction.
For that matter, State Parks were shorted $1.5MM, measured by inflation, during the same period...about time for the squirrels to have a protest march, or maybe a work-stoppage, eh?
Friday, March 31, 2006
OK--So What's Rome's View on Immigration?
Here it is, from the Catechism:
2241 The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.
Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.
This is prudential, not dogmatic--the Church doesn't deal with numbers, or specific conditions, for obvious reasons. But that second paragraph should be read, aloud, often, in the barrios.
HT: Ipsissima Verba
2241 The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.
Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.
This is prudential, not dogmatic--the Church doesn't deal with numbers, or specific conditions, for obvious reasons. But that second paragraph should be read, aloud, often, in the barrios.
HT: Ipsissima Verba
Massachusetts' Gay Marriage Decision
Some seem to think that a Mass Supreme Court decision means that Wisconsin (e.g.) will not have to accept fictional same-sex "marriages" of Massachusetts in the future.
Maybe so--and maybe not so.
The decision is far more limited, pertaining only to 'sham' residency in Massachusetts.
A Federal Court, however, could enforce the "full faith and credit" clause of the USConstitution, should Mass 'gay marriage' actually become law.
Maybe so--and maybe not so.
The decision is far more limited, pertaining only to 'sham' residency in Massachusetts.
A Federal Court, however, could enforce the "full faith and credit" clause of the USConstitution, should Mass 'gay marriage' actually become law.
Mexico NEEDS to Push Their People Here...
Here's a viewpoint which does Root Cause Analysis:
First of all, the Mexican socio-poli-economic system has failed.
Not "ill", not "ailing", FAILED.
The only reason that Mexico is still a country, is that the Mexican government has been using the United States as a safety valve.
You've all seen the reports about how illegal immigrants in this nation are in the tens of millions, if not hundred million.
It is a preferable state of affairs for the Mexican Government for those tens or hundreds of millions of Mexicans to be employed in the United States, rather than UN-employed in Mexico.
Tens of millions (or hundreds of millions) of your citizens sitting in your country starving tends to wind up with the Great Unwashed Masses grabbing torches, pitchforks, ropes and the occasional guillotine before storming the castles.
So what's GWB kissing Fox's butt for?
There are a couple of options.
The first is to put off the oncoming collapse of the Mexican government as long as possible. We keep safety-valving their workers, and we keep propping up their monetary system until it is Someone Elses Problem.
Perusing the border solutions proposed by Congress, this seems to be the route favored by the current U.S. government.
It is the cowards way out. It makes the false assertion that We Are Doing Something without actually doing anything -- except guaranteeing our children or grandchildren will have to deal with a WORSE mess.
In other words, like Clinton, Bush I, Carter, and Nixon, we'll just sorta quietly provide for the subsidization of the Mexican Ruling Class--because the alternative is likely another Mexican Revolution.
UPDATED:
From John Frum/NRO:
In 2005, Mexicans in the United States remitted some $20 billion home. That's 3% of Mexico's entire national income.
Remittances have surpassed tourism, oil, and the maquiladora assembly industry to emerge as the country's top single source of foreign exchange. For the 6% of Mexican households that receive remittances, these funds can mean the difference between extreme poverty and an income roughly in line with the Mexican average.
And as Mexico's economy has malperformed since 2000, remittances have become more essential than ever - not only economically, but politically.
...Mexico desperately needs foreign investment in its energy industry, a rationalization of its tax system, and free-market reform of its labor laws. Vicente Fox has done none of these things, and has in fact barely tried. He has instead pinned all his country's hopes on the export of its population to the United States.
Today, almost one-fifth of all living Mexican-born people now make their homes in the United States. You have to go back to the Irish potato famine to find a parallel. But Mexico is not suffering famine: It is suffering from a comprehensive failure of political and economic leadership.
...the US should of course help Mexico find substitutes for any reductions in remittance income. One good place to start would be the energy industry, which could contribute much more to Mexican wealth if Mexico abandoned its 75-year-old protectionist policies. Of course, Mexicans will say that such changes are politically impossible for them.
Then they turn around and ask George Bush to lay waste to Republican political prospects to save them from a fate from which they will not save themselves.
First of all, the Mexican socio-poli-economic system has failed.
Not "ill", not "ailing", FAILED.
The only reason that Mexico is still a country, is that the Mexican government has been using the United States as a safety valve.
You've all seen the reports about how illegal immigrants in this nation are in the tens of millions, if not hundred million.
It is a preferable state of affairs for the Mexican Government for those tens or hundreds of millions of Mexicans to be employed in the United States, rather than UN-employed in Mexico.
Tens of millions (or hundreds of millions) of your citizens sitting in your country starving tends to wind up with the Great Unwashed Masses grabbing torches, pitchforks, ropes and the occasional guillotine before storming the castles.
So what's GWB kissing Fox's butt for?
There are a couple of options.
The first is to put off the oncoming collapse of the Mexican government as long as possible. We keep safety-valving their workers, and we keep propping up their monetary system until it is Someone Elses Problem.
Perusing the border solutions proposed by Congress, this seems to be the route favored by the current U.S. government.
It is the cowards way out. It makes the false assertion that We Are Doing Something without actually doing anything -- except guaranteeing our children or grandchildren will have to deal with a WORSE mess.
In other words, like Clinton, Bush I, Carter, and Nixon, we'll just sorta quietly provide for the subsidization of the Mexican Ruling Class--because the alternative is likely another Mexican Revolution.
UPDATED:
From John Frum/NRO:
In 2005, Mexicans in the United States remitted some $20 billion home. That's 3% of Mexico's entire national income.
Remittances have surpassed tourism, oil, and the maquiladora assembly industry to emerge as the country's top single source of foreign exchange. For the 6% of Mexican households that receive remittances, these funds can mean the difference between extreme poverty and an income roughly in line with the Mexican average.
And as Mexico's economy has malperformed since 2000, remittances have become more essential than ever - not only economically, but politically.
...Mexico desperately needs foreign investment in its energy industry, a rationalization of its tax system, and free-market reform of its labor laws. Vicente Fox has done none of these things, and has in fact barely tried. He has instead pinned all his country's hopes on the export of its population to the United States.
Today, almost one-fifth of all living Mexican-born people now make their homes in the United States. You have to go back to the Irish potato famine to find a parallel. But Mexico is not suffering famine: It is suffering from a comprehensive failure of political and economic leadership.
...the US should of course help Mexico find substitutes for any reductions in remittance income. One good place to start would be the energy industry, which could contribute much more to Mexican wealth if Mexico abandoned its 75-year-old protectionist policies. Of course, Mexicans will say that such changes are politically impossible for them.
Then they turn around and ask George Bush to lay waste to Republican political prospects to save them from a fate from which they will not save themselves.
Trenchant Observation
Victor Davis Hanson on the marchers for Illegal Immigration Rights:
When schools were dismissed due to student walkouts and traffic disrupted, Americans began to see the wages of their own indifference to the problems of illegal immigration. Insidiously over the last 30 years we have allowed an entire apartheid community to grow up in enclaves in the American Southwest and occasionally beyond--one by language and psyche that may well feel more romantically attached to the Mexico it left and won't return to the United States it sought out and must stay in.
In an earlier post, I mentioned "inculturation," precisely what Hanson (much more elegantly) addresses here.
HT: PowerLine
When schools were dismissed due to student walkouts and traffic disrupted, Americans began to see the wages of their own indifference to the problems of illegal immigration. Insidiously over the last 30 years we have allowed an entire apartheid community to grow up in enclaves in the American Southwest and occasionally beyond--one by language and psyche that may well feel more romantically attached to the Mexico it left and won't return to the United States it sought out and must stay in.
In an earlier post, I mentioned "inculturation," precisely what Hanson (much more elegantly) addresses here.
HT: PowerLine
Pocan vs. Free Speech
A Madison-insider blogger advises that Mark Pocan (D-Fascism and ALSO a Madison-insider blogger) is making noises about finding ways to suppress 'anonymous' free speech (read: anonymous Madison-insider bloggers.)
Well, Ragnar, if Pocan finds a way to track your URL to your PC, and then finds a way to shut you down, this offer will stand: come on over here! Bring a wireless laptop and you can blog away to your heart's content.
However, I will not supply donuts and you WILL be subject to second-hand smoke. On the other hand, I'll also offer a couple of free lessons on How To Use A Handgun...
Well, Ragnar, if Pocan finds a way to track your URL to your PC, and then finds a way to shut you down, this offer will stand: come on over here! Bring a wireless laptop and you can blog away to your heart's content.
However, I will not supply donuts and you WILL be subject to second-hand smoke. On the other hand, I'll also offer a couple of free lessons on How To Use A Handgun...
Legislature Pumps Up The Gas Prices
Like gas prices? Notice all the shiny new gas stations?
It's easy to build new buildings and fix/paint/repair the old ones when you're guaranteed 12 to 15 cents pre-tax on every gallon of gas you pump.
And the distributors of that gasoline? They're guaranteed about half that profit. Nice racket.
So Tom Reynolds (R-West Allis) is trying to do something about it, but for some strange reason, is having a problem getting the attention of our Legislative leadership--think "Sergeant" Shultz and John (I'm Running For Congress) Gard...
The Bill is stuck in Committee. Members include: Senator Brown, chairperson, and
Senators Zien, Kanavas, Breske, and Wirch.
A little reminder will do fine.
It's easy to build new buildings and fix/paint/repair the old ones when you're guaranteed 12 to 15 cents pre-tax on every gallon of gas you pump.
And the distributors of that gasoline? They're guaranteed about half that profit. Nice racket.
So Tom Reynolds (R-West Allis) is trying to do something about it, but for some strange reason, is having a problem getting the attention of our Legislative leadership--think "Sergeant" Shultz and John (I'm Running For Congress) Gard...
The Bill is stuck in Committee. Members include: Senator Brown, chairperson, and
Senators Zien, Kanavas, Breske, and Wirch.
A little reminder will do fine.
Powershifting VS. Manufacturers: Another State Victory over Common Sense
Don't spend the money, boys:
In what is believed to be the largest damages award concerning a defective car in the history of the state's lemon law, a judge has ordered DaimlerChrysler Corp. to pay two business partners and their attorneys more than $385,000.
How did THAT happen?
On Aug. 1, 2003, according to court records, 71 miles after the 500-mile break-in period, the differential broke for the first time. It was repaired, but just 13 days later, with the odometer reading 686 miles, the differential broke again, court records say.
Over the next six months, the differential broke four more times, each time while being shifted from first to second gear at around 50 mph.
When the Viper was running like it was designed to, Mortle reached 122 mph in a quarter mile on a drag strip, he said. But after the differential broke for the sixth time, the manufacturer refused to cover any more repairs, records show.
Hmmmmmmm.....first-to-second, 'drag strip,' differential breakage, 6 times?
Mortle asked for a replacement Viper under the state's lemon law, according to the lawsuit, but the manufacturer refused, contending that he and Kiriaki abused the car.
Abuse? No problem. Wisconsin state law says that Daimler must pay!!
In a similar case, Mazda was forced to shell out beaucoup bucks because the car's owner violated the express provisions of the warranty--she was towing a trailer with the car. She claimed otherwise, of course...
In what is believed to be the largest damages award concerning a defective car in the history of the state's lemon law, a judge has ordered DaimlerChrysler Corp. to pay two business partners and their attorneys more than $385,000.
How did THAT happen?
On Aug. 1, 2003, according to court records, 71 miles after the 500-mile break-in period, the differential broke for the first time. It was repaired, but just 13 days later, with the odometer reading 686 miles, the differential broke again, court records say.
Over the next six months, the differential broke four more times, each time while being shifted from first to second gear at around 50 mph.
When the Viper was running like it was designed to, Mortle reached 122 mph in a quarter mile on a drag strip, he said. But after the differential broke for the sixth time, the manufacturer refused to cover any more repairs, records show.
Hmmmmmmm.....first-to-second, 'drag strip,' differential breakage, 6 times?
Mortle asked for a replacement Viper under the state's lemon law, according to the lawsuit, but the manufacturer refused, contending that he and Kiriaki abused the car.
Abuse? No problem. Wisconsin state law says that Daimler must pay!!
In a similar case, Mazda was forced to shell out beaucoup bucks because the car's owner violated the express provisions of the warranty--she was towing a trailer with the car. She claimed otherwise, of course...
More Money, Honey
Looks as though the estimate was short a few bucks:
The Bush administration said yesterday that the cost of rebuilding New Orleans's levees to federal standards has nearly tripled to $10 billion and that there may not be enough money to fully protect the entire region.
Donald E. Powell, the administration's rebuilding coordinator, said some areas may be left without the protection of levees strong enough to meet requirements of the national flood insurance program. Those areas probably would face enormous obstacles in attracting home buyers and investors willing to build there.
Some politicians are really, really, really unhappy:
"This monumental miscalculation is an outrage," said Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco (D).
"Every time we turn around, there's a new obstacle," said Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-La.)
Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) said the announcement confirmed his warnings since November that Washington is "stonewalling" and seeking "way too little money" for levee repairs.
Some US taxpayers who do NOT live in NOLA may be unhappy, too, if we ship another $10 billion or so to a city built below sea level.
The Bush administration said yesterday that the cost of rebuilding New Orleans's levees to federal standards has nearly tripled to $10 billion and that there may not be enough money to fully protect the entire region.
Donald E. Powell, the administration's rebuilding coordinator, said some areas may be left without the protection of levees strong enough to meet requirements of the national flood insurance program. Those areas probably would face enormous obstacles in attracting home buyers and investors willing to build there.
Some politicians are really, really, really unhappy:
"This monumental miscalculation is an outrage," said Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco (D).
"Every time we turn around, there's a new obstacle," said Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-La.)
Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) said the announcement confirmed his warnings since November that Washington is "stonewalling" and seeking "way too little money" for levee repairs.
Some US taxpayers who do NOT live in NOLA may be unhappy, too, if we ship another $10 billion or so to a city built below sea level.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
