On (And Over) Wisconsin | National Catholic Reporter MSW. MGB: If Clinton had won, Sanders would have been done. She did not close the deal. He merely stays alive to fight another day. Now, if she loses New York, ties it or even wins by a small margin, there will be significant doubts on her ability to close the deal and Sanders can continue. If she wins big, its over. Sanders may go on a speaking tour of California, but the path to the nomination is closed. As for the General - any Democrat starts with 245 electoral votes in the bank, compared to the GOP sure bets of 145. Do the math. Winning Pennsylvania means its over on election night - and that will be called before 9 pm. The Democrats need to decide whether they want a democratic socialist, aka an FDR liberal (even with the non-sensicle red baiting - which did not work when Clinton's people were doing it) or whether they want a Clinton/GWB/Obama neo-conservative. Their decision will go for the nation. Are there enough people happy enough to stay the course? if so, Hillary wins. If not, Sanders should win - and I don't see Sanders voters crossing to Trump, but I do see Trump voters giving Sanders a try.
If Trump had won, Cruz would have been done. He did not close the deal, either. Of course, if Kasich suspends his campaign, and this is where he should, than this was a big win for Cruz. It would be even bigger if he were endorsed by Kasich and Rubio, who would then instruct their delegates to vote for him on the first ballot, as well as Romney (a lot of Trump delegates are really Rombots) and Paul, who would instruct their delegates to vote for him on the second and third ballot. That kind of keeps Ryan out of it and allows Cruz the possibility of winning fair and square. Anything less and Trump is the nominee or they go to a brokered nominee that cannot win.
Wednesday, April 6, 2016
Tuesday, April 5, 2016
Indiana's New Abortion Law | National Catholic Reporter
Indiana's New Abortion Law | National Catholic Reporter by MSW. MGB: The Indiana law is impermissible because a state government cannot make a fetus an object of law. That is solely federal. Such state laws are designed to bring this matter to the attention of the SCOTUS - with the intent of overturning Roe entirely. They think that Justice Kennedy, with Alito and Roberts joining Thomas, might be friendly to the fact that aborting Downs children is a form of discrimination. It might well be, but it does not give Indiana the power to make those calls. Remember that Kennedy voted against state partial birth abortion bans, even though he thought them infanticide, because of jurisdictional grounds. This law is toast, although it might lead to federal proposals. Whether these pass or not depend on how risk averse the pro-life movement is. A federal law might be so encompassing as to end the issue - and make further fundraising on the issue impossible. I doubt that the movement will burn its money tree.
As for punishing women - murder is murder and equal means what it says - which is why there will never be a first trimester abortion ban. Making an abortable embryo the object of law makes a miscarried one the same thing - and we don't need the police power treating every miscarriage as a homicide. The pro-life community needs to not only get over lying - it needs to get over sentimentality - at least until it provides respite care to parents of Downs children - as MSW suggests (which the Church should also do before it pokes its Crozier into the situation).
As for punishing women - murder is murder and equal means what it says - which is why there will never be a first trimester abortion ban. Making an abortable embryo the object of law makes a miscarried one the same thing - and we don't need the police power treating every miscarriage as a homicide. The pro-life community needs to not only get over lying - it needs to get over sentimentality - at least until it provides respite care to parents of Downs children - as MSW suggests (which the Church should also do before it pokes its Crozier into the situation).
Links for 04/05/16 | National Catholic Reporter
Links for 04/05/16 | National Catholic Reporter by MSW. MGB: Manners have been missing for a long time on the GOP side, starting in 2008, when some were gunning for Clinton and got Obama and really flew the coop. Of course, one can argue that 1992 and the election of Bill Clinton set the wheels in motion for really bad manners. People usually behave badly when they feel they have been slighted. Electing a philaderer President was such a slight. Electing a black President another. Trump's crowd has been chomping at the bit to severly disrespect the POTUS and Trump is letting them vent. Of course, Obama's roots go back to Plymouth and Jamestown (as do I). Most of those who hate him have not been in America so long.
I worked for Marion Barry during the control period. We did good work and the Board worked with us behind the scenes. The biggest person in the loop was our unelected Delegate to Congress. I suspect that the Puerto Rican control law will have significant input from their non-voting Delegate - and he will have lots of input in how the new board runs things. Of course, to get a board, often things must be worse before they can enact. A major default is still in order.
Weigel and the Council of Trent totally misunderstand worthiness to receive Communion, as Garry Wills pointed out in his book Why Priests? It is not a matter of inflexible doctrine as it is about flexible history (which Pius tried to settle in his condemnation of Modernism - Modernism won). Even granting the current thinking on what receiving in a state of sin, the Pope can still declare whether some actions are gravely sinful or not. For instance, scripturally, masturbation is probably equivalent to nocturnal emissions. In Torah, the penalty for that is staying away from people until the pool warms up enough to take a cleansing bath. Hardly damnation there. The same level of sin exists in gay marriage (or not at all) and finding love a second time (not sinful). Of course, when the divorce is for cause, like violence or alcoholism, I would give the aggrieved party full freedom and the offending party no freedom unless the aggrieved spouse grants it. This puts the power in the couple, not in the clergy. Sadly, the clergy are not mature enough to handle that.
I worked for Marion Barry during the control period. We did good work and the Board worked with us behind the scenes. The biggest person in the loop was our unelected Delegate to Congress. I suspect that the Puerto Rican control law will have significant input from their non-voting Delegate - and he will have lots of input in how the new board runs things. Of course, to get a board, often things must be worse before they can enact. A major default is still in order.
Weigel and the Council of Trent totally misunderstand worthiness to receive Communion, as Garry Wills pointed out in his book Why Priests? It is not a matter of inflexible doctrine as it is about flexible history (which Pius tried to settle in his condemnation of Modernism - Modernism won). Even granting the current thinking on what receiving in a state of sin, the Pope can still declare whether some actions are gravely sinful or not. For instance, scripturally, masturbation is probably equivalent to nocturnal emissions. In Torah, the penalty for that is staying away from people until the pool warms up enough to take a cleansing bath. Hardly damnation there. The same level of sin exists in gay marriage (or not at all) and finding love a second time (not sinful). Of course, when the divorce is for cause, like violence or alcoholism, I would give the aggrieved party full freedom and the offending party no freedom unless the aggrieved spouse grants it. This puts the power in the couple, not in the clergy. Sadly, the clergy are not mature enough to handle that.
Monday, April 4, 2016
Links for 04/04/16 | National Catholic Reporter
Links for 04/04/16 | National Catholic Reporter by MSW. MGB: John Allen hits the nail on the head in Crux. This exhortation is likely to affirm what is already the case among many Catholics, even when divorce is not the issue. There are a variety of former "mortal sins" that many Catholics are not bothered about - chief among them contraception - as well as missing Mass. They are things that don't get confessed because no one wants to go to confession and argue that they don't believe they have sinned seriously. Reforming reception of Communion rules will simply codify that. This will be a mercy in the pews, with the acknowledged noise in the left and right blogospheres.
The prevelance of "Nones" is related to age, especially for Democrats where the young are no longer forced to go to Church. It is surprising that more Catholics are not favoring Sanders, although I suspect Catholic women are striking a blow for gender - and this adds another argument for women priests. As for Trump, Pew does not model authoritarianism. Other surveys and commentators have noted that authoritarianism is the difference is supporting Trump.
Gans is right and Berkowitz is wrong. The old Zionism, which looks good, is in practice relient on the kind of group exclusion most accurately equated with Jim Crow.The democratic mantras may be in place, but they are largely ignored. Two things could happen. Either Israel can get rid of Zionism or make it egalitarian and create a secular Israeli state or it can yield to a muscular two-state solution which gives parts of the Arab dominated North to the Arab state - which should ideally be as protective of minority rights as Jewish Israel. Of course, the best of all solutions is an international government where such issues don't matter anymore. Until we get to a state of no more deportations or blowing up of homes, Israel probably is not worthy of participation is such a world state. Of course, this will all blow up when the Romany start asserting their right to return as heirs to the northern kingdom of Israel. Hopefully we will behave with more humanity than our brothers from the tribe of Judah.
The prevelance of "Nones" is related to age, especially for Democrats where the young are no longer forced to go to Church. It is surprising that more Catholics are not favoring Sanders, although I suspect Catholic women are striking a blow for gender - and this adds another argument for women priests. As for Trump, Pew does not model authoritarianism. Other surveys and commentators have noted that authoritarianism is the difference is supporting Trump.
Gans is right and Berkowitz is wrong. The old Zionism, which looks good, is in practice relient on the kind of group exclusion most accurately equated with Jim Crow.The democratic mantras may be in place, but they are largely ignored. Two things could happen. Either Israel can get rid of Zionism or make it egalitarian and create a secular Israeli state or it can yield to a muscular two-state solution which gives parts of the Arab dominated North to the Arab state - which should ideally be as protective of minority rights as Jewish Israel. Of course, the best of all solutions is an international government where such issues don't matter anymore. Until we get to a state of no more deportations or blowing up of homes, Israel probably is not worthy of participation is such a world state. Of course, this will all blow up when the Romany start asserting their right to return as heirs to the northern kingdom of Israel. Hopefully we will behave with more humanity than our brothers from the tribe of Judah.
March Madness | National Catholic Reporter
March Madness | National Catholic Reporter by MSW. MGB: I am from Iowa, so this year I had a lot to watch (I did not do brackets, but they would have been busted with Michigan State's loss). The UNI squad was particularly entertaining to watch, but the defeat was heart wrenching and shows the impact of your chief inbounder getting injured. Oddly, I did not watch Semis, needing to get out of the house and see some of the movies last week's games had me miss (Batman v. Superman is definitely worth it, especially at senior citizen prices).
Competition, whether healthy or not, is a fact of life - which is why no one watches the women's show - first it was Tennessee dominating, now its UConn. Whatever gives the men parity is not there for the women - of course there are also no seven footers. In economics, rather than Hoops, there is no good real referee, given that the government in almost all economies is easily bought. With a good referee, competition is healthy.
In business, competition between product lines gives us improvement - at least as much as the capitalists are ready for (there are rumors of automobiles where mileage could be a lot better save for tacit agreement with oil companies and car companies to keep innovation an agreed upon factor. I was for UNI, so I am for the underdog - which means the workers v. the capitalists. I want the workers to win and win big so that there are cooperatives and no capitalists at all.
As for the tourney, I have not seen Villanova play, although I know they whooped University of Iowa. I have seen North Carolina and I don't see how they can be stoped (I may like the underdog and am crazy, but I'm not stupid).
Competition, whether healthy or not, is a fact of life - which is why no one watches the women's show - first it was Tennessee dominating, now its UConn. Whatever gives the men parity is not there for the women - of course there are also no seven footers. In economics, rather than Hoops, there is no good real referee, given that the government in almost all economies is easily bought. With a good referee, competition is healthy.
In business, competition between product lines gives us improvement - at least as much as the capitalists are ready for (there are rumors of automobiles where mileage could be a lot better save for tacit agreement with oil companies and car companies to keep innovation an agreed upon factor. I was for UNI, so I am for the underdog - which means the workers v. the capitalists. I want the workers to win and win big so that there are cooperatives and no capitalists at all.
As for the tourney, I have not seen Villanova play, although I know they whooped University of Iowa. I have seen North Carolina and I don't see how they can be stoped (I may like the underdog and am crazy, but I'm not stupid).
Friday, April 1, 2016
Links for 04/01/16 | National Catholic Reporter
Links for 04/01/16 | National Catholic Reporter by MSW. MGB: There is always the question of which Ratzinger one is reading or listening to, the theologian or the defender of the Magisterium and its power (which is actually relativism, Catholic style). Oddly, LuBac was one of those theologians whose books were banned, either before or during the time that Ratzinger read him.
The labor force participation part is interesting. That counts out people like me, who have disability and are not seeking work because the disability payment is at the top of the scale. As long as I can pay rent and order Chinese, I have enough money. We are too enamoured with work. I like retirement, thank you very much.
Silk hits the nail on the head. Of course, he spares people lilke Catholics for Life for whom the term Life is even more a bumper sticker. Until the movement gets really detailed on what it would do (and with the death of Scalia, overturning Roe and letting the states decide is off the table - not even Thomas believes that), the movement is a sham designed to make money for its organizers. NARAL thanks them for their jobs too. Its why they like the myth of the 4-4 Court, even though on abortion its 7-1.
The labor force participation part is interesting. That counts out people like me, who have disability and are not seeking work because the disability payment is at the top of the scale. As long as I can pay rent and order Chinese, I have enough money. We are too enamoured with work. I like retirement, thank you very much.
Silk hits the nail on the head. Of course, he spares people lilke Catholics for Life for whom the term Life is even more a bumper sticker. Until the movement gets really detailed on what it would do (and with the death of Scalia, overturning Roe and letting the states decide is off the table - not even Thomas believes that), the movement is a sham designed to make money for its organizers. NARAL thanks them for their jobs too. Its why they like the myth of the 4-4 Court, even though on abortion its 7-1.
Time for the Pro-Life Movement to Be Very Smart | National Catholic Reporter
Time for the Pro-Life Movement to Be Very Smart | National Catholic Reporter by MSW. MGB: The only problem Trump had in the Matthews interview was that he told the truth. Equal protection under the law demands that if you consider a fetus a human being when banning abortion that the statutes on murdering a human being would apply. Contracting to kill your child is generally punished if the child is considered a legal person and not chattel. That the pro-life movement soft pedals that (although in private many pro-lifers actually want such penalties) shows the extent that the movement is about electoral poltics, not banning abortion through personhood (under Roe there is no other way and Roe is going no where).
As for Trump, when interviewed previously, he said he was 100% pro-choice. The tape is out there and it will be used. This is more proof that being "pro-life" is being for baseball. Its something one must agree to, even if one really is not when running as a Republican. Trump got caught because he did not know the lingo He was actually trying to think on his feet, which is always tragic for a novice politician - especially when your interviewer is a pro-choice Catholic (whose wife is running as such for Congress) who has spent time shooting holes in the pro-life screed.
The pro-life movement is not a pro-woman movement under any view of that. It is ultimately about controlling female sexuality - prohibiting it outside of monogamous heterosexual marriage (as well as male sexuality, but not to the same extent - although they hate non-celibate gays). Why do I know this is true. Two reasons - first, when you suggest to them that the solution to abortion is paying a child tax credit large enough so that no one would not want their child, they counter that you are paying people not to sin - and to have sex - to which the correct response is that is exactly what social justice demands for every family, even if abortion is not an option. The second is that the movement is not demanding women priests and bishops. If the pro-life movement were at all feminist, that would be at the top of the list.
Attempts by Democrats who feel guilty on abortion politics to add the economics are good, but they often turn the cause of life into a bumper sticker - they must also come clean about whether an abortion ban is being sought through the criminal law - and that women who procure abortions would be considered murders (and even if they were not, they would be driven to the ugly days of self-induced and back alley abortions if the doctors were penalized - this time as murderers - you cannot go back to the days when abortion was a fining offense that led to the loss of a medical license. Not possible if the fetus (or first trimester embryo) is a legal person - Roe does not allow it and Roe is going nowhere. There are seven justices who say so and the eigth is the second oldest. Additionally, I have heard no sufficient answer to the fact that if first trimester abortions arae banned due to personhood, that a miscarriage does not become a public event demanding an inquest, if not a full investigation by the police.
The problem with Trump is that he thought things through on criminalization. The only way for the pro-life movement to be purified is to admit that first trimester bans are off the table forever and that Roe will never be overturned in our lifetime. While Congress could negotiate a legislative accord on abortion, it would not likely include first trimester embryoes for reasons given, so it would essentially do something for Downs babies and probably specifiy that after 20 weeks, all abortions must be by induction - and would have to give away the store on the child tax credit and aid to Downs families - especially including respite care for parents.
States will never be a laboratory for banning abortion (the Scalia approach) and providing the SCOTUS with another test case. Messrs. Roberts and Alito vote too often with Mr. Justice Kennedy on baning abortion. Its time for both the pro-life and pro-choice movements to admit that George W. Bush put an abortion ban out of reach forever. That myth was only good for electoral politics. Of course, a legislative accord on this would end abortions, but it would also effectively end abortion as a political issue and cause advocates on both sides to lose their jobs. LIke poverty, abortion has always been and will always be with us, unless we wish a sexual police state. Most people draw that line at that and it is time to realize it.
Trump was speaking the truth all along. By the way, aside from one true-believing staffer who sees conspiracies everywhere, most pro-choicers thought the Dorritos add was very funny. It was actually the highest rated ad in the Big Game. (note that the NFL has more influence on the trademaried use of the term for its championship than either the pro-life or pro-choice movements)
As for Trump, when interviewed previously, he said he was 100% pro-choice. The tape is out there and it will be used. This is more proof that being "pro-life" is being for baseball. Its something one must agree to, even if one really is not when running as a Republican. Trump got caught because he did not know the lingo He was actually trying to think on his feet, which is always tragic for a novice politician - especially when your interviewer is a pro-choice Catholic (whose wife is running as such for Congress) who has spent time shooting holes in the pro-life screed.
The pro-life movement is not a pro-woman movement under any view of that. It is ultimately about controlling female sexuality - prohibiting it outside of monogamous heterosexual marriage (as well as male sexuality, but not to the same extent - although they hate non-celibate gays). Why do I know this is true. Two reasons - first, when you suggest to them that the solution to abortion is paying a child tax credit large enough so that no one would not want their child, they counter that you are paying people not to sin - and to have sex - to which the correct response is that is exactly what social justice demands for every family, even if abortion is not an option. The second is that the movement is not demanding women priests and bishops. If the pro-life movement were at all feminist, that would be at the top of the list.
Attempts by Democrats who feel guilty on abortion politics to add the economics are good, but they often turn the cause of life into a bumper sticker - they must also come clean about whether an abortion ban is being sought through the criminal law - and that women who procure abortions would be considered murders (and even if they were not, they would be driven to the ugly days of self-induced and back alley abortions if the doctors were penalized - this time as murderers - you cannot go back to the days when abortion was a fining offense that led to the loss of a medical license. Not possible if the fetus (or first trimester embryo) is a legal person - Roe does not allow it and Roe is going nowhere. There are seven justices who say so and the eigth is the second oldest. Additionally, I have heard no sufficient answer to the fact that if first trimester abortions arae banned due to personhood, that a miscarriage does not become a public event demanding an inquest, if not a full investigation by the police.
The problem with Trump is that he thought things through on criminalization. The only way for the pro-life movement to be purified is to admit that first trimester bans are off the table forever and that Roe will never be overturned in our lifetime. While Congress could negotiate a legislative accord on abortion, it would not likely include first trimester embryoes for reasons given, so it would essentially do something for Downs babies and probably specifiy that after 20 weeks, all abortions must be by induction - and would have to give away the store on the child tax credit and aid to Downs families - especially including respite care for parents.
States will never be a laboratory for banning abortion (the Scalia approach) and providing the SCOTUS with another test case. Messrs. Roberts and Alito vote too often with Mr. Justice Kennedy on baning abortion. Its time for both the pro-life and pro-choice movements to admit that George W. Bush put an abortion ban out of reach forever. That myth was only good for electoral politics. Of course, a legislative accord on this would end abortions, but it would also effectively end abortion as a political issue and cause advocates on both sides to lose their jobs. LIke poverty, abortion has always been and will always be with us, unless we wish a sexual police state. Most people draw that line at that and it is time to realize it.
Trump was speaking the truth all along. By the way, aside from one true-believing staffer who sees conspiracies everywhere, most pro-choicers thought the Dorritos add was very funny. It was actually the highest rated ad in the Big Game. (note that the NFL has more influence on the trademaried use of the term for its championship than either the pro-life or pro-choice movements)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)