Man bites dog

OK, I’ll admit that the whole “OMG! Obama ate dog!” thing is pretty stupid, but then so is the “Seamus rode on the top of the car, as cold as a Bain Capital man’s heart” thing. But you know, we didn’t start the whole “Candidate hates animals” war. I deal with a person who is still convinced that Sarah Palin personally shot wolves from a helicopter, just because she could.  I could well see her believing “Obama ate dog!” without any of the qualifiers. Maybe this will lose him some of the orthodox Muslim vote, or confuse the “Obama is a Muslim” crowd. Not a bad thing. And interestingly, the passage from “Dreams” talks about the belief that one takes on the qualities of the animals one eats…which means that our President is, a ritual sense, a dog.

Is this manufactured outrage somehow wrong? I dunno; I’m just playing by the rules…you know, these rules?

RULE 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.
RULE 6: A good tactic is one your people enjoy.

UPDATE: more tasty Photoshops here.

Ay yi yi yislands

There’s a certain amount of chortling in the dextrosphere over Obama confusing the Malvinas with the Maldives. It’s kind of understandable; the Maldives are much close to Sweet Home Indonesia than the collection of rocks in the South Atlantic. And if one is going to object to the exploitation of the various gaffes of President Bush, it is only fair not to exploit the gaffes of President Fifty-seven States.  The real gaffe was in not saying “the so-called Islas Malvinas” or “as Argentina calls them, the Malvinas”.  But that would have implied a commitment to Do Something, when Britain no longer can and Obama never would. And it might have been confusing to the Argentines, who seem to have a problem of late with the concept that Words Have Meanings. Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, their Presidentess, said upon stealing her third private company, “I’m the head of state, not a thug”, which in the face of such evidence to the contrary is mightily redolent of Richard Nixon’s “I am not a crook”. (We will for the moment ignore the argument that “head of state” and “thug” are synonyms.). Sine $18B or so is worth more in the modern world than 3140 humans and some possible oil, I suspect we’ll be seeing a warmup act for the coming Reunion of China, at which point the President will affirm that the Island of Thailand must remain independent.

The inalienable right of Luigi Taparelli

When I read this, I wrote: “What the FUCK did His Holiness mean?” I’m sure that it’s a sin to have the f-bomb and “His Holiness” in the same sentence. And it’s definitely bad form to swear on somebody else’s Facebook page (sorry, James). But James is a confirmed Democrat and is perfectly comfortable with enforced-charity theocracy, but not enforced-chastity theocracy, and having gone around the barn there several times, I am not as patient as I should be to another Christian and human.

Quoting from a slightly less biased site, I see a less definitive pronouncement than at Think Progress, and I also notice that this is very old news. I haven’t yet found Benedict’s exact words, but it is by no means certain that he actually called health care “an inalienable right”.

But let’s pretend that he did, and that such a position is actual Church doctrine (remembering that not every word that falls from the Pope’s lips is infallible). Here are the problems. First, this “inalienable right” does not exist in a state of nature, so how can it be a natural and inalienable right?. Second, if the right exists, it has been violated through most of the world through most of history. Third, if it is a right which is an obligation of government, it is one that the Church has been silent on through most of its history. Was there ever a Church campaign to get the Holy Roman Emperors to provide free leeches and midwives for their subjects? Did anyone say of Diocletian, “He hates Christians, but at least he supports public nutrition programs”?

Now, this is not to say that medical care is no concern of the Church. Jesus healed people (go thou and do likewise). And the Church has provided medical care through history. It’s only now, in the face of the HHS mandate, that the Church has suggested that it will stop doing what it has done since the beginning. Either that’s a bluff, or the Church is abandoning a core historical practice in the face of politics…which is virtually unheard of. No right exists without a corresponding responsibility, and it can be argued that we are obligated to the corporal acts of mercy. But to make that obligation binding on the non-Christian through force of arms is a very Muslim thing to do. It also seems that the US pre-Obamacare was providing the sort of basic medical care under discussion.  Regardless, it’s very confusing to have to pick the social teaching of the Magisterium  from the social teaching of the Comintern.

Religious liberty rally post-mortem.

We were off Saturday in the pickemup truck, pickemupping a new used washer, and we had on a rebroadcast of Friday’s rally for religious freedom (Cleveland version), which I couldn’t go to without screwing Stephen. Most of what I heard was boilerplate, until I heard somebody talking about how the bishops had been working for “a fair and equitable health care system”, and I turned the radio off in disgust.

Here are my observations:
1. You don’t get to cite natural rights in defense of religious freedom and at the same time advocate the violation of the natural right of man to retain the fruit of his labor. You don’t get to choose between natural rights; you’re all-in, or you’re out, or as Ken Kesey would have put it, you’re on the bus or off the bus. You may disagree whether something is in fact a natural right, but you’d best have a good argument. One that I’ve heard about material wealth is that everything comes from God anyway. True, but irrelevant; if it’s OK for the armed mob called the State to take God’s stuff, then it’s OK for me too, 7th Commandment be damned. I have to support the bishops’ position in this, not only in unity with the Church, but because some liberty is better than no liberty, but the fact remains that a lot of the bishops were in support of “health care reform”, and they really need to apologize publicly for the extent to which they supported socialized medicine and called the Obamacare abortion into being (an act I don’t expect to happen any time before their particular judgement). The simple fact is that one does not merely have a religious right not to pay for sin; one has a right to not pay for anything. There is no moral obligation to provide health insurance, or to buy anything else. there’s a moral obligation to treat your employees right, which in this society could be stretched to include health care, but that’s an obligation between you and God, and the state has no place in it, unless you’re really a theocrat.

2. There were too few people, and I do feel some guilt for not being there. 1000 or so is not peanuts; it’s enough to get you noticed by the press. But it’s not enough to induce fear, which is the only language the government knows. These are the folks who can shrug off hundreds of thousands of pro-life marchers in DC. If all the ambulatory Catholics of Cleveland and half the committed Protestants filled Public Square, and that was repeated at each rally, the powers that be would get nervous.

3. Kresta complained that the press was getting the message of the rally wrong, saying it was about the HHS mandate instead of religious freedom. Reporters report what they see, and based on the signs and the speeches, they were exactly right in what they reported. I’m not sure the message could have been controlled, even by the most organized movement, without draining the blood from it; it’s this specific act that makes folks angry. Yes, the bigger principle has to be articulated (though as I pointed out above, there are big principles that the Church just isn’t going to touch). But abstractions don’t fill the streets.

Somebody invited Barnhardt, and they got what they expected.

LDS or LSD?

Martin McPhillips is going all conspiratorial about Clear Channel’s conservative talkers and the Mormon Church, claiming that it’s because Bain Capital bought out Clear Channel.

I don’t so much know about all that. If Romney is the putative front runner, then it makes sense not to load the liberals guns for them. But the silence also makes that “front-runner” status possible. I have relatives who were RLDS (now Community of Christ) so yes, I may be prejudiced. They all seemed like God-fearing people, which is all I require of a politician. But yes, it’s dodgy, and if Martin wants to beat up on it, that’s his right. There are some distinct issue of doctrinal orthodoxy there; it’s not just the quaint Early American backstory. But I don’t care to have personal religious litmus tests for office, at least not ones that specific.

And in Laurens Co. SC…

…they’re getting serious about Republican orthodoxy and character issues.

This has freaked a lot of folks out. Even our own guys over at Ace of Spades are overreacting. MOst of this stuff I have no problem with: pledge to uphold the platform, or don’t run. The sexual stuff is a little silly, unenforceable, and even un-Christian; if Jesus can forgive your past infidelities, why can’t the Laurens Co. Republicans?

And since there’s no legal way to enforce any of it, one has to ask: WTF were they thinking in pushing this, given that it plays directly into the Progressive libel that Republicans are theocrats?

Lawrence O’Donnell’s war on Americans

I don’t usually care about what media hacks say about religion, but every once in awhile one finds a case that’s so egregious that it demands comment. I heard the audio here on Al Kresta’s program yesterday, and as far as I can see with a web search, Kresta is the only guy who has picked up on this. Lawrence O’Donnell, on his program The Last Word analyzed the question put to Ohio voters, “How much does it matter to you that a candidate share your religious beliefs?” (1. A great deal; 2. Somewhat; 3 Not much 4. Not at all) He claimed first that in Afghanistan, 100% of the population would have chosen “A great deal”, thus equating those who gave that answer with Islamism. He claimed that in a country which valued the separation of church and state, 100% would choose “not at all”, but in fact only 18% “got it right…THAT’s the American ideal…over 80% of Ohio Republicans registered varying degrees of agreement with the Taliban on this one.”  Then he demonstrated that those who answered “not much” “weren’t good enough”, by changing the question to “voting on racial identity.”  Then he piled on the media for not understanding that the results were “utterly scandalous”, that the media ignored the “religious bigotry” of Ohio voters, and criticized the religious pandering of candidates, implying through a clip from “The West Wing” that it’s “the easiest lie to tell.”

The thing that most shocked me was the utter contempt O’Donnell expressed for something like 40% of the electorate. Granted, virtually none of those people were watching his show; why should they, given that they would be insulted and belittled? MSNBC has become a boutique station for progressives, a bigger slicker Current TV, and they wonder why Fox gets the ratings. Do the media pander to viewers by asking candidates questions about their religion? Sure, if by “pander” you mean “tell viewers what they’re interested in”. TV is a business, not a government educational establishment.

I would have put myself in the “somewhat” category. It’s important to me that a politician fear God. because most don’t fear men too much, and somebody has to keep them in line.  Beyond that, I’m not too persnickety. All things being equal, I’d vote for one of the Catholic candidates…but all things are never equal. Both of those guys are way too eager to use the power of government. In addition, Mr. Gingrich has a history of generating ideas without the foresight to see where they will go (e.g., the individual mandate for healthcare). As for his love life, the only thing I have over Newt is that I never left somebody for somebody else, and I don’t think that cuts much ice with God.  He has presumably repented and been forgiven, and if God can do it, so can I. Mr. Paul received my vote, because I agree with his political philosophy, and he is a man of demonstrated (if imperfect) character, and his Protestantism is sufficient. Mr. Romney is of course a Damned Heretic, but his faith is also sufficient for me, and it’s probably a good thing for religious liberty to have a President whose spiritual ancestors were martyred for their beliefs. As for Mr. Obama, while he has done a minimal Christian public confession, I am not convinced that Jeremiah Wright’s church meets my criteria for religion, and his non-attendence as President leads me to wonder whether God is a factor in his life.

The race thing is even more of a hoot.  I will freely admit that, all things being equal, I am “somewhat” more likely to vote for the white guy.  But there’s that “all things” caveat again. I’d vote in a heartbeat for Walter Williams over Barack Obama, even though genetically the mulatto Obama “looks like me” more. I would have considered a vote for Herman Cain. The problem here is that O’Donnell thinks it’s a problem. Last time out, all things were not equal; many black people and not a few whites voted for Obama because he was black…yet somehow, that’s not racist.  And people vote for candidates for all kinds of stupid reasons, conscious and unconscious: physical looks, the sound of the voice, their spouse. But mostly, people do a pretty good job overall of prioritizing their responses to various aspects of the candidate. If I base .01% of a decision on a candidate on whether he looks like me, am I a racist? Apparently the hicks in Ohio think this is American Idol or something, that they’re going to vote based on what Jayzuss tells them while they’re handling snakes. That doesn’t describe any Republican I know, but then I doubt O’Donnell knows any Republicans. And after this, I doubt there are many Republicans who would want to know him.

Stupor Saturday

It’s been an interesting weekend of courtship. No, make that stalking. If I called a strange woman as many times as two of these candidates called me, I’d be looking at a restraining order, if not arrest. And they aren’t really courting either. Courtship is about revealing how wonderful you are while telling her how wonderful she is, so that she will conclude that we are even more wonderful. But these guys don’t talk about me. They barely talk about themselves. It’s Ricky and Willy fighting over the same girl. Only it’s not that either; it’s 2 cheerleaders stabbing each other in the back over the high school quarterback. “Muffy’s a stuck-up prep-school bitch!” “Yeah, well, that Catholic girl Ricki doesn’t put out, and if she did, she’d get an abortion.”

I note that my guy has not robocalled me ONCE (though all the girls are wearing his ring) nor has the captain of the high school debate team. My wife made it into a running joke. “Oh, I don’t know WHO to vote for! Won’t somebody please tell me!”, notwithstanding that she’s wearing Catholic Girl’s ring in the front yard. I guess robocalling is too pricey for lower offices, as we haven’t gotten any others. We have, however, gotten enough Andrew Manning for State Central Committee mailings to wallpaper the bathroom.

And speaking of rings: Is Willard too good for yard signs, or are all his supporters ashamed? I haven’t seen one. And it’s not like he can’t afford them. Not sure I’ve seen more than one Newt sign either. Ron Paul is definitely the winner of the yard sign war; too bad that doesn’t translate into votes.

Well, in 36 hours it will all be over except for the punditry, and we’ll be undisturbed except for the occasional inquiry about various stepchildrens’ debts.

Kresta v. Rahe, 2012

Al Kresta was fulminating about this article (and another similar one) on his show this afternoon, which suggested that the American bishops got what they deserved with the HHS mandate mess. He was carried away with it enough that I kept clicking the radio off and then back on. I’m going to take his points in no particular order.

1. Kresta says that government was not a result of the Fall. Huh? Yes, man had dominion over the animals, and God had a one-law government in Eden. But perfected man has no need of government, as he won’t violate his neighbor’s rights, and he will help his neighbor. Under King Jesus, our wills will be aligned with God’s; is it government when everyone is doing what the ruler wants anyway? Now, that the Fall made government necessary does not make government a bad thing; far from it. But governments are run by fallen people. So, for that matter, is the Church. But the State does not have the Magisterium.

2. Kresta says “It’s the wrong time” to criticize the bishops. OK, let’s give credit where credit is due. The quality is risen in the past 10 years or so, and the response of the bishops to the HHS mandate has been nothing short of magnificent. I’ve got their backs on the battlefield. But… this is an act of repentance, and while they’re now on the straight and narrow, it is still legitimate to suggest that we got here through specific erroneous beliefs. That “we” applies to the laity as well as the bishops, but I would suggest that the reason the bishops are finding backbone is that the laity is learning the faith through lay evangelization, and are insisting they act like bishops and priests. EWTN and the blogosphere are doing the clergy’s job for them, and that’s not right, but better that than that the job not be done at all, or that “Catholicism” be defined by that well-known devout Catholic, Nancy Pelosi. Yes, the bishops opposed Obamacare as passed. But they supported healthcare overhaul, and did so in a way that led directly to this.

Here’s the problem: a good end can not be achieved by bad means. Per CCC 1903: “Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it.” How can governments be said to act for the common good when half of all citizens contribute nothing to that government? How can a state be morally licit when it takes wealth from some at gunpoint to give to others, whether they be crony capitalists or the voting poor? What empowers a government to perform acts which would be clearly sinful if performed by any other group of people? How is human dignity served by the financial enslavement of generations not yet born; where is the concern for the unborn at budget time?

The rot goes back to Luigi Tapanelli, who invented the nonsensical term “social justice”. (“Society” is not a moral actor, so how can it be just or injust?) The events of 1848 were much like the events of 1968, and in both cases, the Church tried to accomodate the Zeitgeist. Rahe calls out Cardinal Bernardin and his “seamless garment” (The body is a seamless garment too, but note Matt. 18:8.). I don’t see it at all as an attack on “the bishops” as “these guys sitting in the chairs right now.” but rather as a whole history of failure to act, with a few exceptions (like shutting up Fr. Coughlin?) Indeed, Rahe’s piece ends on a positive note; it’s very possible that bishops will soon “get” personal freedom again. But it won’t happen unless we talk about principles.

Komen-tary

To my lady friends who are having the vapors over the Komen decision:

1. I’m seeing a lot of “Punish Komen” thoughts, including going after their corporate sponsors. If breast cancer is your real concern, do you really want to do that? Is your real motivation in doing that to make sure that increased contributions by pro-lifers don’t have an effect?

2. Planned Parenthood claims to provide “lifesaving care for women where Planned Parenthood is their only source of health care.”. I doubt that. There are few if any places in the country without Medicaid or some other charity care. Besides, I thought Obama fixed that. And Planned Parenthood is not in the mammogram business — and rightly so, given that their name is not Women’s Health Services.  If PP is just serving as a pass-through point for Komen money, why can’t Komen designate a different pass-through point, one where there will be no danger of money being skimmed off to support a procedure the majority of Americans oppose? Kaiser, maybe?  Might it be because the breast cancer service is the fig leaf over PP’s bloody business? As for contraception, Barry Obama and Katie Sebelius have that covered, no matter what you or your employer thinks.

3. There is no reason this can’t be a win-win for breast cancer. Pro-lifers who had a conscience problem with Komen can now contribute. Pro-abortion folk who think it really important that PP do breast exams can donate directly to PP…and can use their money to make certain that the exams actually get done, instead of going to other procedures (though I note that PP’s online donation page has no way of earmarking a donation for non-abortion services). We could end up with MORE money to fight breast cancer…and how is that a bad thing?

But of course this isn’t about breast cancer. The reason you’re so upset is because it’s an instance of a private foundation caving to public pressure on the abortion issue. You don’t like that the culture is turning against you…. which is why the courtesan media have tried to make this about “a politically-motivated investigation by one crank in Congress”. Well, when Congress appropriates money for something and evidence surfaces that perhaps that money is not being used for intended purposes, and the folks you’re giving to may be involved in illegal activities, don’t you think the recipient should be investigated? At least if they aren’t America’s abortion monopoly?

Believe me, I’m sympathetic. You’ve been living under the protection of Roe…, er, Dred Scott, and here are these upstart abolitionists in Oberlin who won’t return your property, the body you have a right to. It’s enough to make you want to start your own country.

UPDATE 2/3: Contributions to Komen are up 100% over the past 2 days; I hope that’s not just a blip of feelgood. Meanwhile the drunken clown Cleveland councilman Zack Reed is talking about pulling their permit for the annual run. Like I said, these folks don’t really care about breast cancer.

UPDATE 2/3. The ball-less bastards caved. I wonder if Simcha Fisher misses her $10 yet? Consider spending your charity dollar at one of these organizations. And no more pink. It’s just a paler shade of red.

UPDATE 2/7 And Karen Handel is out.